Biennial Statements of Concern

[pastormikejordan]

[Joshua Villines]

Mike,

Certainly when I was in seminary I was taught that "baptist" as an adjective is about polity rather than theology. This is a descriptive reality (no matter how much people in every camp might with otherwise) and will be for as long as anyone can hang a "baptist" shingle on their door and believe whatever they like.

Baptist groups, like the ABC, have the option of voluntarily becoming confessional (something I have no problem with, but many of my liberal colleagues would disagree), but the confessions would need consensus for them to carry any weight. I doubt that any such consensus exits, as the document you linked seems to imply.

I don't know that there's a solution, other than perhaps to establish subordinate groups within the communion or organization (much like the rites of the Roman Catholic Church) that are more homogeneous or confessional among their members. For instance, it might be possible to form a group of ABC churches that recognize the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds as the foundational documents for their theological identity [the sad reality that this would distinguish some Christian churches from others saddens me greatly] and identify themselves as "ABC (Creedal)" churches. I don't think there will ever be that kind of specificity in the "ABC" or "SBC" monikers alone.

Joshua

[jerryl]

[pastormikejordan]

[jerryl]

[Ed Pettibone]

[pastormikejordan]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Joshua Villines]

[Ed Pettibone]

[pastormikejordan]

[Ed Pettibone]

[pastormikejordan]

[Joshua Villines]

[Joshua Villines]

[pastormikejordan]

[Ed Pettibone]

[jerryl]

[Joshua Villines]

[pastormikejordan]

Hi all--took a few days off to think about this some more.

Tim/Ed/Jerry, et.al., I appreciate your feedback. I have to confess that I'm having a hard time believing what I think is the result of what you're saying.

It seems to me, based on what I'm reading from you, that when your church gives money to the worthy projects Joshua describes (education/publishing/missions, etc.), you truly and honestly don't have any care whether or not it goes toward cooperative projects that are actually Christian? So if missionaries go around the world and talk incoherently about Jesus, and model nothing like a Christian lifestyle, we support them anyway? Or if national ministers consistently were to put out curriculum or set examples for the culture that were inconsistent with core Christian beliefs and practice, we should continue to pay their salaries and grant them the privilege of their position? (NOTE: this is not a veiled potshot at the people in charge now. Again, all I know of them is that they are good and godly folks.)

All I'm trying to say is that for you to assert that the absolute absence of theological boundaries is the essence of ABC identity can very easily lead to situations like that ones above, where someone with a non-Christian agenda could manipulate a political system to gain support, power and legitimacy in ministry; and then, perhaps, exert their will over a whole body of people. Those of you who have SBC roots might recognize that story.

It seems to me to be a very non-Baptistic idea that the core of ABC identity is always supporting a body of leaders that may or may not share your values or beliefs. Doesn't soul freedom dictate that we--no one else--are responsible for how we use all the gifts God has given us? Aren't we the champions of soul freedom? Don't we have the right and the obligation to draw some sort of boundary, outside of which we cannot in good conscience support a ministry or mission? My more conservative colleagues would draw that circle pretty small, much too small by my estimation; we don't need a small circle, but we need a circle. Even a big tent can fall down.

It's hard for me to believe that's what Baptist non-creedalism means: a willingness to spiritually and financially support all ABC ministers and missions without requiring that they believe in even the most basic foundational Christian doctrine. Hard to see Roger Williams signing off on that one.

You can insist that is the core of American Baptist identity if you want. But you may find it's a Pyrrhic victory. Because if the 85% of American Baptists who are more conservative than me read this document the way I read it (and I almost pray they don't), you may find that people want to leave and give their support to causes that are willing to go on record as actually being Christian and being accountable to Christian basics.

That would be a shame, because I think some of the more conservative members of our denomination benefit from being in a mainline denomination and constantly confronting people who think differently than them (that's true of liberal ABCers, too, actually). It builds critical thinking skills essential to surviving in modern culture, and it has that wonderful tension that happens when Christians from different cultures meet and stretch each other to think differently. But I can't fault anyone for refusing to support and be counted among a denomination that won't go on record as having some minimal expected beliefs.

[Ed Pettibone]

[pastormikejordan]

[Ed Pettibone]

[pastormikejordan]