Second Open Letter To Frank Page And Kent Shirley

All three of you that follow this blog know that I have contacted the President of the Southern Baptist Convention, Frank Page. I have also contacted Kent Shirley in Colorado. He is in missions for the SBC in Colorado. Only Dr. Page has responded.
Read that first open letter here.

Here is my second open letter to Frank Page and Kent Shirley:

Open Letter To Frank Page And Kent Shirley II

Dr. Page,

Thank you for your response to my open letter. In it you have stated that you know of Emergent churches that are biblical. I'm curious.

Could you please provide for our readers and me the names of three Emergent SBC pastors so I may contact them? I want to ask them what Emergent leaders and doctrines they follow that are biblical?

Could you also list for us what Emergent leaders you think are orthodox so we may read them as well? Most of us would like to judge for ourselves.

Also, you stated that the leaders and groups I mentioned were not among the ones to whom you referred, but some of them are on Kent Shirley's list of recommended reading for pastors under his authority.

What, if anything, are you going to do about that?

Awaiting your answer,
Phil Perkins.

Response By Frank Page To Open Letter

I recently sent an open letter to Frank Page and Kent Shirley. Page is the President of my denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention. Shirley is head of missions for the SBC in Colorado Springs, Colorado. You can read that open letter here.

Response by Frank Page

Phil, Let me be as clear as I can. People love to take what I have said and apply it in broad brush application. When I encouraged the involvement of emerging churches and leaders, I was referring only to those whose message and methodologies which are biblically based. When I made that statement, I was referring to the emerging churches of which I had at that time become aware. I was referring to a group of young leaders in churches who were reaching the lost with the clear message of Christ. They are biblically sound in both message and methodology. The groups, pastors, and churches to which you refer are obviously not among the group to which I refer. I do believe that there are ways to be relevant in today’s culture without sacrificing the very clear commands of Christ.

I do not know if this helps. I hope that it does. I do not normally respond to open letters. However, in this instance, I hope that my response will make this issue very clear. I also know that I have listened to your side and that is one side of the argument. However, my statements in the above paragraph are as clear as I can make them. I stand by them. I encourage young and nontraditional leadership which is Biblically based.

In Christ,

Frank Page

The Reason Apostacy Comes In

Do you remember the popular bromide, "Evil prevails when good men do nothing?" Well, I'm here to tell you that is twaddle. Men that do nothing aren't good. They're cowards. Evil prevails when there are not enough good men.

The following is from a comment I posted on a believer's blog. He is typical of so many in the evangelical church. He poses as a loving and scholarly believer. As such, he is unable to pronounce aginst any false teacher, even the Emergents. However, his reaction to those that do is strong. He condemned Calvary Chapel's Chuck Smith for banning a number of heresies, including the Emergent.

I think he illustrates the problem. The problem is not the Emergent coming in. It is the cowardice and lack of biblical zeal for God's word in the pew and in the pulpits. Here is how I answered his response to one of my comments. Look for what he says and contrast that to the biblical condemnation of allowing apostates into our circles. His comments are in italics for your ease.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike,

In all honesty, the attitude that we should be tolerant to everyone is an error. Tolerant of saints that need teaching and correction. Tolerant of unbelievers, not matter their lifestyle. Even tolerant of false-teachers in that we do them no harm. But to give place and approval to false teachers is simply against the stipulations of both new and old covenants.

You said,"when you show up and tell me I\’m in \”error,\” \”not biblical,\”..."

ANSWER: Well, I just quoted the Scripture for you. Do you have an answer? Is my logic wrong, or did God say we should let false teachers in? If I am wrong I will take correction. I am committed to that principle and follow it rigidly, to the point that if I have taught something wrong publicly, I retract it publicly. I am a teacher and had occassion to do just that in class last week.

You said, "...and that I claim to be \”more loving, open minded, or kind than God Himself,\” I don\’t appreciate it."

ANSWER: The logic is simple. Smith has obeyed God's command for separation from apostates. You have criticized him for being too harsh. Therefore, you have criticized God, whether you intended to or not.

You said, "You don\’t know squat about me, my background or my theology."

ANSWER: These things are of no weight in a discussion of this sort, except your theology. And your theology should be made biblical. It is deficient in the separation-unto-holiness department, as is true with most of the Evangelical church. (I don't know if you call yourself Evangelical or not, so I'm just guessing here.) That is, most of us have lived wrongly. Chuck Smith seems odd, but the fact is that most of us Evangelicals have been sinning for a very long time. Smith simply has righted a wrong and so he looks funny to us. Your Chesterton quote goes to this point. He said, "The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice."

You said, "You may be a brother, but if you expect a different response, then ratchet down your rhetoric."

ANSWER: You mean like "demonize?" Or "...Calvary has erred in making blanket condemnations...?" Oh wait, you said that, huh? I don't think I was outside the parameters evident set in the examples of Paul, Jesus, and the prophets and apostles. They spoke frankly without perjoratives to believers in error, and spoke with perjoratives grounded in fact to and about unbelieving false teachers.

You said, "Your entire arguement hinges on the assumption that ALL Emergents are \”false teachers.\” Because there is no \”official\” Emergent Church, headquarters, leader or creed, this CANNOT be substantiated."

ANSWER: Did Hymenaeus and Philetus have a building and a doctrinal statement? Non-sequitor.

You said, "The truth is, as I said in Part Five of my series, some adherents are dangerously close to false doctrine."

ANSWER: (How does he know since they have no headquarters, leader, and creed?--added)I don't know who you have in mind, but they are much more than close. Donald Miller has called anyone who takes a creed a heretic. Brian McLaren has denied both hell and the substitutionary atonement. John O'Keefe is a potty mouth that pushes Communists, sexual perversion, and the drug culture. Mike Morrell came up with what he calls "biblical" panentheism. A local Emergent apostate here in Billings, MT is teaching that Jesus is the TAO. Rob Bell and Tony Jones are active in pushing contemplative prayer on the youth in churches under the nose of uninformed parents. McLaren, David Sherwood, and O'Keefe have all actively worked to normalize sodomy in the church. I could go on. I have read a lot of their own writings.

You said, "However, others (some Emergents) are not (close to false doctrine.)"

ANSWER: How many Emergent types do you know that don't read, take seriously, and spread the teachings of Spencer Burke, McLaren, Bell, Jones, and that whole apostate bunch?

You said, "If you\’re comfortable with generalizing the entire movement and everyone in it (whatever it means to be \”in it\”), that\’s your prerogative. I, however, believe that kind of whitewashing is unwise and unbiblical."

ANSWER: Paul said something about lumps and yeast didn't he? I'm not comfortable with being lukewarm to truth.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you imagine Paul or Jesus making arguments like that?

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Open Letter to Frank Page and Kent Shirley

I've been Southern Baptist for about ten years. Not by my design, but by God's. It was the closest church in our neighborhood that had acceptable doctrine. Unfortunately, starting in the southeast, the SBC has been infected with young Emergent pastors passing themselves off as orthodox. And now the president of the Southern Baptist Convention and the missions director in the Grand Junction, CO area have embraced the Emergent, as well.

Over the last weeks I have contacted them by email. Kent Shirley from Colorado has not answered. Dr. Frank Page, the president of the SBC has answered, but his answers seemed evasive. And he has not answered my last email. I have tried to give the president the benefit of the doubt. But I think it is obvious from his emails that he is not interested in seriously considering a change. So I have composed an open letter for the both of them.

Open Letter to Frank Page and Kent Shirley

As a Southern Baptist, active in preparing the next generation of youth to hold fast that which was once delivered to the Saints, I am dismayed to learn that you have actually embraced the Emergent/ing. They actively seek to replace that clear message once delivered with postmodern deconstruction. I beg you to reconsider.

The end result for the SBC will be like the liberal Protestant denominations. There will be no next generation, a fact I think is self-evident.

Dr. Page, you have said that you welcome Emergents and their influence into the SBC. You appreciate their "contributions."

Which ones exactly? Their derision of doctrine? Their licentious approval of sexual perversion? The introduction of Eastern Mysticism by Rob Bell to the youth? Brian McLaren’s well-known denial of the substitutionary atonement? The work of Tony Jones to introduce Contemplative Prayer to young people? Shall I continue? This is only the tip of the tip of the iceberg. We can take up the "biblical" panentheism of Mike Morrell, or the profanity of Mark Driscoll and David Sherwood, who also glorifies sodomy.

It is said that to "reach" the postmodern unbeliever, we must take on his language and way of thinking. Not being a young man, I have befriended or known drunks, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, pimps, prostitutes, and atheists. Would you apply that logic to these groups? Should I get a harem so I may effectively witness to a pimp? Get drunk for a drunk? Deny the Lord to win an atheist?

Emergents either deny the truth, deny its importance, or deny its knowability in order to communicate it well to those that think the same. You don’t see a logical (never mind biblical) problem with that?

It is further said that the Emergent/ing pronounce against many of the evils in the modern Evangelical church. So do atheists, Mormons, JW’s, and Jay Leno. Shall we welcome Kingdom Halls into the SBC as long as they "support the Cooperative Program" and have "biblical methodologies" as you say? I have Mormon neighbors. Shall I give them your number?

It is also said that a new strain has emerged from the Emergent called the Emerging and they are much better. Emergent Lite. They believe in truth, they just do not know much about it or are not willing to say it much because that is offensive to postmoderns. Paul, on the other hand, counted on the power of a set of propositions he called the gospel to save. And he didn’t seem to avoid the offense of the cross. He was beaten most places he went. Remember that from the book of Acts? Are the Emergent/ing folks smarter than Paul? They’re certainly not braver. Not saying the gospel is a better way to convert others than saying it? Can potential converts simply surmise it from our pasted-on, ultra-loving smarmy face? Perhaps we can be "missional" and hint at it while we smile a lot, do good works, and read a short article by an Emergent author glorifying the latest doctrinal or behavioral aberration from Spencer Burke.

Paul demanded that believers confess Christ. Out loud. In public.

As much as possible in light of these things, I want to show deference to you, Dr. Page, for two reasons. First, we are to be submissive to those in spiritual authority. Second, perhaps you were not as aware of the poisonous nature of the Emergent as I.

In reference to your authority it is obligatory for an overseer to uphold the standard of truth. You have not.

Is it of no concern to you that you share in their evil work simply by letting them in? Perhaps you remember II John 10-11. "If any man comes to you, not bearing this doctrine, do not receive him into the house and do not speak to greet him. For the man speaking to greet him has fellowship in his evil works."

Apparently it is just fine with you that John O’Keefe openly glorifies the drug culture, Communism, and homosexuality and has been able to remain an SBC pastor for some time now.* Brian McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy entreats us to stop telling folks about Jesus as personal savior and to stop worrying about saving folks from hell. Instead, we are to be "missional," a term currently in vogue with mollifiers in our SBC colleges and seminaries.

In regard to the possibility of ignorance, you could be excused for not knowing of the Emergent. However, being in your position it is your business to know these things. Of all SBC-ers, you are to be the most diligent watchman on our SBC wall. You are not.

Doctrinal compromise to show exaggerated numbers may boost our reputation in many quarters, but it damns the next generation.

What do you think will come of any church or movement that takes on the doctrine of those who deny doctrine? Do you really expect that the children of those who deny that we can know truth will be able to enunciate the doctrines of their parents or even ascertain that which cannot be spoken? On what basis do you think they will build their churches in their generation? Have you forgotten that Christianity is a confessional religion? That means doctrine taken as absolute truth expressed propositionally. Am I right to assume (by outward appearance) that this problem matters little or not at all to you as long as the numbers reflect well on you during your watch? After all, your picture will remain up at SBC headquarters along with a shining record of growth, right?

Don’t be foolish. God will not allow any church to long linger while ashamed of "Me and My words." He will be ashamed of us! Wood, hay, and stubble stack high, but burn hot. We will join the Laodiceans in God’s spittoon, later to be thrown before the stench of our disobedience becomes too vile for God to stomach. God will call real saints who will obediently bring every thought captive to His lordship. They will tread upon our dust, evangelize those whom we ignored for lack of a message, shame our cowardice with the suffering we refused to endure, and teach the doctrines we trivialized while we await our certain, final, and dreadful judgment.

Praying for your repentance,
Phil Perkins.

*Recently I learned that O’Keefe is making a move. So perhaps that problem has been addressed. If so, I thank you.