New Voice Media | Associated Baptist Press
     
 
Monday, September 06, 2010
 
Opinion: Church-autonomy inquiries from a naïve Baptist Print E-mail
By Cody Sanders   
Thursday, March 18, 2010

(ABP) -- I grew up Baptist through and through -- but when I got to seminary, I had a denominational identity crisis. As my theology grew and expanded, I questioned whether I might find a more suitable home in another denomination. But studying my own Baptist heritage convinced me to stay in the tradition -- and that is why I’m confused about the way some Baptist groups are currently behaving.

Finding the rare gems of Baptist identity called soul competency and local-church autonomy -- what Walter Shurden names as “fragile freedoms” of our Baptist style of faith. These -- along with belief in the common people’s ability to discover Christ through Scripture and a firm commitment to the separation of church and state -- are what convinced me to remain Baptist.

But sometimes I can’t help but feel duped. Not maliciously or intentionally, but duped nonetheless. Looking around, I wonder: Do Baptists still believe in these “fragile freedoms” and hold them as essential elements of our Baptist identity?

Examples of what trouble me are not difficult to find: the Georgia Baptist Convention’s expulsion last year of the First Baptist Church of Decatur for having a female pastor -- and now news that it is similarly targeting the historic Druid Hills Baptist Church in Atlanta; the Southern Baptist Convention’s dismissal of Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas, for its welcome of gay members (and lingering questions surrounding its relationship to the Baptist General Convention of Texas); and now the limbo in which Royal Lane Baptist Church in Dallas finds its affiliation with the BGCT. All of these churches were put in precarious positions with their Baptist siblings due to decisions arrived upon by each local congregation seeking to carry forth its mission in its particular locale. These are merely recent examples of a disturbing contraction of the wide circumference that once encompassed a diversity of Baptist expressions.

There is certainly historical precedent for Baptist churches dividing over theological issues and congregations leaving or being expelled from associational bodies. Nonetheless, it causes me to question what we lose when we put extreme limits on how far we are willing to take our commitments to soul competency and local-church autonomy.

Moreover, when we hastily decide that a certain person or a certain church has stepped too far beyond the boundaries of friendly cooperation, do we risk expelling the prophets from among us? If so, I suppose this action should come as no surprise. For just as a prophet is without honor in her or his own hometown, so too a prophetic congregation may find no welcome within its historic denominational home.

But this isn’t what I hoped I was getting when I avowed my commitment to a distinctly Baptist identity. What I expected -- perhaps naïvely -- was a style of faith that allowed for extraordinary ranges of diversity to exist within the unity of voluntary associations. I had hoped to join my life to a body committed to making a witness to the beauty and even necessity of diversity. I found meaning in a way of being Baptist in which progressive and conservative churches needed one another and found more reasons to remain in conversation and cooperation than to sever ties and go their separate ways. I discovered freedom in each person’s ability to make her or his own religious and spiritual decisions and discoveries, yet remain within community humbled by the knowledge that any of us (or all of us) may just be wrong.

Perhaps these questions display my own naïveté. After all, does it really matter? In our supposed “post-denominational” world, why concern ourselves with being Baptist anymore?

Our ever-narrowing confessions of faith, enforcement of theological homogeneity and proliferation of churches expelled from denominational and associational bodies seem to suggest that the commitments that have historically set us apart as Baptists don’t really matter to us anyway.

Yet I wonder if Baptists might still have an important witness to offer to the world? For those who are still naïve enough to hope for this kind of Baptist family, perhaps there are other lessons to learn from our history. We might learn that many people feel threatened by those who seek to create a community where diversity is not merely tolerated, but celebrated. And when threatened, it is far easier to foreclose on our commitment to life together than it is to engage in the hard work of unity. Let us hope that there are still some Baptists interested in the hard work of unity and a commitment to honoring diversity.

-30-

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it , a graduate of Mercer University’s McAfee School of Theology, is a doctoral student in pastoral theology and counseling at Texas Christian University’s Brite Divinity School in Fort Worth.

EDITORIAL DISCLAIMER: As part of our mission to provide credible and compelling information about matters of faith, Associated Baptist Press actively seeks a diversity of viewpoints in its columns, commentaries and other opinion-based content. Opinions expressed in these articles are not intended to represent ABP editorial policy and do not necessarily reflect the views of ABP's staff, board of directors or supporters.





Reddit!Del.icio.us!Google!Live!Facebook!Slashdot!Technorati!StumbleUpon!Spurl!Newsvine!Blinklist!Furl!Fark!Yahoo!Ma.gnolia!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites!
Comments (57)Add Comment
...
written by KT2005, March 18, 2010
Hmmmmm. I am equally confused. Why would this author want unity with "homosexual haters" and "sexist" people? Why tolerate the intolerant? At least conservatives stand upon their principles. This young man is not even following his own leaders, which left the SBC for the CBF. In the end he has answered his own question: he's naive. Someone very wise once asked "Can two walk together, unless they are agreed?" (Amos 3:3)
...
written by Nathan Barnes, March 18, 2010
I too find it odd that the BGCT - particularly - is so eager to forgo church autonomy.
...
written by gs12, March 18, 2010
Cody, your comments are thoughtful and articulate. This article reminds me that loving our neighbor was central to Jesus' teaching and ministry, and that unity amid diversity is what Paul commended to the early churches. Cooperation without coercion was a historical strength of Baptists. The principles you claim here are still welcome among many Baptists. Thanks for writing - I encourage you to write often. I look forward to your first book!!
...
written by marshton, March 18, 2010
What I find odd is that anyone would think that the BGCT is "eager to forgo church autonomy" in this case. How so? I don't believe that anyone from the BGCT has tried to take any steps to exercise some sort of rule over Royal Lane. It is an autonomous Baptist church that is exercising its autonomy. However, in doing so it has taken a public stance that is at odds the with the position of the BGCT. Would anyone claim that the BGCT was "eager to forgo church autonomy" if a convention church were to take a public stance that rejected and denied membership to a particular ethnic group, and the BGCT withdrew affiliation from that church?
...
written by JR77, March 18, 2010
The commitments that have historically set us apart as Baptists don’t really matter to us anyway? If being "Baptist" means that one can believe and practice whatever he or she wishes, the term will become utterly meaningless.

Every church is entirely autonomous. Every association and convention is also autonomous. If a body of churches believe that a member congregation should be disfellowshipped, that is their perogative as an autonous body, right or wrong. The autonomy of a disfellowsihpped congregation has not been violated in any way. They are free to continue on as they wish, just as they were free to join themselves with the body in the first place.

I respect the right of the above named congregations to believe and practice as they please. But I tire of hearing those who oppose disfellowshipping imply that their autonomy is being infringed upon. It is indeed quite the opposite.
Keep searching
written by Dr. J, March 18, 2010
Hi Cody:
I really appreciate your questions. Probably, most Baptists have entertained similar questions. Although it is like studying the nose on your face. I was in the SBC for 40 years. Finally, the answers to questions similar to yours forced me out. The Gospel doesn't need conventions to spread. Baptist Christians do not need a convention to live for the Lord. In fact, to many people the fractious nature of conventions has become a hurdle to the Gospel. I do not condemn or even criticize Christians for remaining in the SBC. I simply have no use for expending energy debating convention actions and reactions.
Look beyond the south
written by javadave61, March 18, 2010
Cody probably knows this, but all he has to do is look beyond the American south. Baptists world-wide value these principles strongly and richly embrace cooperation because most still feel the oppression of their minority status and couldn't dare afford to fragment over the relatively minor controversies that we've turn into life or death issues. Southern Baptists in the South are punch drunk over their near majority status and their ability to be isolationist and exclusionary without it hurting their overall numbers. As a Baptist living in the North, it's a completely different view from up here. The Christian culture is about gone here, and it's quite sobering. But don't worry. The south will one day look like the north while the SBC is turned in on itself, but one day, the SBC will awaken and rediscover the urgency of cooperating in the spread of the gospel.
Typical liberal melodrama.
written by Ken, March 19, 2010
How has any church's autonomy been hurt by the actions of the SBC or state conventions? Every church mentioned in this article is as autonomous as it's ever been. In case you've forgotten, the SBC has some rights, too. Among other things, the SBC has the right to decide who will and will not be allowed as member churches. Baptist associations and conventions have always reserved that right, and any honest student of Baptist history knows it. This is just more melodrama from a disgruntled liberal.
javadave61
written by Ken, March 19, 2010
You obviously haven't kept up with the SBC in many years. You should check your facts before you post such drivel.
...
written by singer2, March 19, 2010
Ken: Your dismissal of Java's points without justification implies you have no verification of your opinion. Do you? Have you lived up north, and long enough to give us another view?
singer2
written by Ken, March 19, 2010
"Have you lived up north, and long enough to give us another view?"

What does that have to do with anything? I was dismissing Java's slander of the SBC, not his appraisal of conditions up north.
Life is messy
written by dlhunt, March 19, 2010
There IS diversity among Baptists. But, like a family where there are squabbles, people in that family cannot be "unborn". To expect uniformity of thought when God has given us brains to contain mind and imagination borders on totalitarian governance. Each of us as individuals and each of the church bodies in Baptist life will never hold the same views on everything.

Life is messy even among Baptists. Get over it and deal with the stack of lumber in your own eyes.
dlhunt
written by Ken, March 19, 2010
Your comment about "totalitarian government" is a straw man. No one is trying to enforce "uniformity of thought" in the SBC. We disagree on a number of issues. However, Baptists have always understood that there are limits beyond which one cannot go and still call himself or herself a Baptist. The SBC respects local church autonomy, but it still reserves the right to define doctrinal boundaries.

In short, how can we "cooperate in the spread of the gospel" if we can't even agree on what the gospel is?
The fact is that Baptists have never co-operated
written by dlhunt, March 19, 2010
I lived in a town of 5,000 where there was one of each of the mainline denominations. There were three Baptist churches each of different denominations. Two of them (ours and another) co-operated fairly well, sharing youth activities and Sunday school. The third didn't want to have anything to do with any of the other churches, including ours, on anything. I'm afraid it was their loss and not a good witness to the community.

As for "limits," who has the right to decide what those limits are? What does it mean to "spread the gospel?" Why should a congregation be judged because of who they welcome and who they employ?

...
written by singer2, March 19, 2010
Ken: You seem to have missed my last point: Java referred to how Christianity is losing ground up north where he lives---I was making reference to that point, and I support his concern. If we don't get some kind of cooperative strategy moving, we may see the same disrespect for the Christian culture in the south as well. With all of the infighting, disfellowishipping of churches, and open and public disgreements about our theology, our witness is dealt devastating blows. We argue over things that our polity grants us freedom to believe, and our Christ weeps.
...
written by Nathan Barnes, March 19, 2010
Cody - had you written this article only on church autonomy, there would be no fuss.

Mention something sexy, and it attracts flies.
Still some pockets of authenticity
written by NewtExec, March 19, 2010
There are some pockets within the US Baptist family where autonomy is held as a cherished value. The rub of automony is that associations, state conventions and denominations are also autonomous and therefore have the right to choose with whom they will associate (or disassociate).

In the region where I serve we often openly discuss our differences (distinctives perhaps) and yet always find we hold more beliefs and values in common.

It's just so heartbreaking
written by Nathan Barnes, March 19, 2010
The one thing singled out in the BGCT "what we believe" targets homosexuality.

There's nothing in the confession about clergy responsibility (even though we have more and more Texas Baptists accused and convicted of a host of crimes), social justice, racism, and ethics.

Everything else looks like a normal Christian confession.

The BGCT's willingness to disassociate a church over a "pet sin" is an open display of the worst kind of hypocrisy: trading some sins for others that are easier to hide (like passing on a pedophile pastor to another congregation).

Freedom?
written by Mark Osgatharp, March 19, 2010
Mr. Sanders,

Well did Peter prophesy of you when he said,

"For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage."

And Jude when he said,

"For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ."

Repent, Mr. Sanders, lest the awful fate pronounced on your sort befall you!

Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
The Interesting Comments of Ken
written by DiverBW, March 19, 2010
I cannot resist commenting on two of Kens' comments on this thread, which I quote here:

"You obviously haven't kept up with the SBC in many years. You should check your facts before you post such drivel."

and

"No one is trying to enforce "uniformity of thought" in the SBC."

My comment to Ken is that he should "check his facts before you post such drivel". Those familiar with the turn the SBC took in the late 70's, early 80's will know that the SBC did in fact start trying to enforce "uniformity of thought" in the SBC. In those days the rallying cry was "inerrancy of the scripture", and the result was the wholesale slaughter of the careers of a great many of clear thinking seminary professors.

I have long since left the SBC and mourn for what was once a great convention that did awesome missions work all over the USA and all over the world regardless of whether the pastor wore a robe when he preached or washed feet and handled snakes. I am sad to say that in many cases today, I fear Ken's statement "No one is trying to enforce "uniformity of thought" in the SBC." is now true. They may not be anymore. Could this be because they do not have to any more?

I am now very fortunate to be a member of a wonderful Baptist church (one that still uses the word "Baptist" in its name BTW) that welcomes people that have been beaten up by life. So for example, a 40 something that has just gotten out of a bad marriage can join our efforts and through active participation in things like mission trips, teaching, and leading people to know Jesus Christ as their Savior. When I compare this to the actions of another Baptist church I was once a member of that as a matter of policy denies anyone that is divorced from going on a mission trip, the question "What would Jesus do?" definitely jumps out at me!

Now to Cody, let me say "kudo's to you". It is encouraging that there are dedicated young men like you still committing their vocational lives to the service of Christ. I wish you the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job as you live out God's calling in your life.
Whack!
written by DiverBW, March 19, 2010
Mr Sanders, I think you have just been whacked on the head with a very big Bible by Mr. Osgatharp!
singer2
written by Ken, March 20, 2010
"You seem to have missed my last point: Java referred to how Christianity is losing ground up north where he lives---I was making reference to that point, and I support his concern."

I got your point perfectly. I was addressing Java's unjustified attacks on the SBC, not his concerns about the situation up north. You accused me of saying something I did not say.

"If we don't get some kind of cooperative strategy moving, we may see the same disrespect for the Christian culture in the south as well."

There have always been limits to cooperation. Our Baptist forefathers understood that. If doctrine doesn't matter, then why did we separate from the Catholic church? How can we cooperate in the spread of the gospel if we can't even agree on what the gospel is?
DiverBW
written by Ken, March 20, 2010
"Those familiar with the turn the SBC took in the late 70's, early 80's will know that the SBC did in fact start trying to enforce 'uniformity of thought' in the SBC."

I am familiar with those days, and you know good and well nobody tried to "enforce uniformity of thought." The fact is, professors in our seminaries were teaching things that were out of line with the beliefs of most Baptist and getting paid for it with Cooperative Program money. Rank-and-file Southern Baptists rose up and put a stop to it.

Thee professors you mentioned, to the best of my knowledge, have not changed their beliefs one iota. They still have the right to believe whatever they choose. However, teaching in a Southern Baptist seminary and getting paid with Southern Baptist money is a privilege, not a right. Those professors, in my opinion, abused that privilege.

Speaking of "enforcing uniformity", I recall moderate and liberal leaders in the eighties raking churches over the coals for using non-Southern Baptist literature and giving to non-Southern Baptist causes. They insisted we should support our denominational leaders regardless of whether we agree with them. I wonder how many of them feel that way now.
One final question...
written by Ken, March 20, 2010
I've raised this question previously, and no one has yet answered it. How can we "cooperate in the spread of the gospel" if we can't even agree on what the gospel is?
P.S. to DiverBW
written by Ken, March 20, 2010
"So for example, a 40 something that has just gotten out of a bad marriage can join our efforts and through active participation in things like mission trips, teaching, and leading people to know Jesus Christ as their Savior."

Are you implying that such members would not be allowed in conservative Southern Baptist churches? If so, then you are only revealing your own ignorance of the facts.
...
written by singer2, March 20, 2010
Most SBC churches would welcome divorced people into leadership positions, but there remain many that would question ordaining that person as a deacon. And, if that person were a woman....it would be anathema. Thankfully, many local churches have gotten over this issue. As to agreeing about the gospel, Ken, you have nailed the issue. Most of us regard the gospel as the truth of the saving power of Jesus for all peoples. Historically, however Baptists have reserved how that word is spread and administered for the local church's autonomous determination. For me, that is something the SBC and other bodies should leave alone. When they don't, controversy results and our witness is harmed. Now, I think I've said enough, and we will not agree on details, so, blessings to all---have a great day of encounter in worship tomorrow, and a meaningful lenten journey toward the cross and the resurrection.
singer2
written by Ken, March 20, 2010
"Most of us regard the gospel as the truth of the saving power of Jesus for all peoples. Historically, however Baptists have reserved how that word is spread and administered for the local church's autonomous determination."

No, I'm afraid the issue goes deeper than that. What about churches who believe that a person can be saved regardless of whether they believe on Jesus Christ? What about churches who deny the existence of hell? What about churches who deny that Jesus rose from the dead? What about churches who deny the sinfulness of homosexuality, and who wish to ordain homosexuals? Some people seem to think Southern Baptists should be big enough and broad enough to include such churches. But this begs the question: how can we cooperate in spreading the gospel if we can't agree on what the gospel is?

With all due respect to JavaDave, I daresay that the decline of Christianity in the North has been caused not by lack of cooperation among the churches, but by theological liberalism within the churches.
...
written by John Bunyan, March 20, 2010
Does anyone know what non-Catholic denomination has the most racial/ethnic diversity in the United States?
...
written by John Bunyan, March 20, 2010
I'll give you a hint. Its name includes the letters SBC.
Define Most Racial/ethnic diversity
written by brotherroy, March 20, 2010
The SBC does claim to be the most racially/ethnically diverse denomination, but is that true? Many traditionally African American churches have joined the SBC for a variety of reasons, so in terms of the denominational level there is diversity. In terms of actual integration within individual churches, I think the American Baptist Churches are the most diverse. I don't bring this up as any kind of attack on the SBC, they are increasingly diverse, but far too many churches of all denominations are still very racially segregated, often for complicated reasons.
this blog enforces my point
written by Dr. J, March 21, 2010
By reading this blog, I broke a promise to myself and I have put in more time on conventions matters. So, I broke my own promise. Unfortunately, the responses to this blog enforce my point that much energy is expended on items that seem peripheral to the Gospel.
dlhunt
written by Ken, March 22, 2010
"As for 'limits,' who has the right to decide what those limits are?"

The member churches of an association, state convention, and the SBC have the right to decide what is acceptable and what is not. Churches who disagree have the right to go somewhere else.

"What does it mean to 'spread the gospel?'"

Precisely my point. People say we should put aside differences for the sake of the gospel. How can we do that if we can't even agree on what the gospel is?

"Why should a congregation be judged because of who they welcome and who they employ?"

I don't think you realize what you're saying. If anything goes, what's the point of calling ourselves Baptist? For that matter, why even call ourselves Christians? If all beliefs should be respected as equally valid, then why do we want to win anyone to Christ at all?
...
written by singer2, March 22, 2010
Anything doesn't go, Ken, but it's up to the congregation to make those decisions. Baptists have argued for years about beliefs and processes that are peripheral, and core doctrines that hold us together, but we have always tried to leave the peripheral areas up to the local church. For that reason, we are known as a "Convention" or a "Fellowship" of churches. Now, if you want something stronger, you can always join a denomination that calls itself a Church, like the Presbyterian Church, USA, or even the Roman Catholic Church. They do great work as well, but something tells me you would be sniping at them as well.
singer2
written by Ken, March 22, 2010
"Anything doesn't go, Ken, but it's up to the congregation to make those decisions."

But if a congregation makes a decision that the SBC or a state convention believes is unscriptural, they are perfectly within their rights to deny membership to said congregation.

"Baptists have argued for years about beliefs and processes that are peripheral, and core doctrines that hold us together, but we have always tried to leave the peripheral areas up to the local church."

You didn't answer my question. What about churches who believe that a person can be saved regardless of whether they believe on Jesus Christ? What about churches who deny the existence of hell? What about churches who deny that Jesus rose from the dead? What about churches who deny the sinfulness of homosexuality, and who wish to ordain homosexuals? Should such churches be admitted membership in the SBC even though they deny core beliefs? Some moderates and liberals seem to think so. Do you?

I repeat, Baptists associations and conventions have always reserved the right to decide who can and cannot be members of said associations and conventions. This does not interfere with a church's autonomy in any form or fashion. If a church doesn't believe as the SBC does, that church has every right to join another denomination or remain unaffiliated.

"Now, if you want something stronger, you can always join a denomination that calls itself a Church, like the Presbyterian Church, USA, or even the Roman Catholic Church."

Once again, you've raise a completely irrelevant point.
...
written by singer2, March 22, 2010
Frankly, I don't know of any Baptist churches that deny most of your questions. Re. homosexuals, recent articles in ABP should remind you that moderate Baptist struggle with this as well. You are wanting a large association of Baptists to dictate how we should minister to the gay community, rather than simply condemning. I would also remind you that Southern Baptists have attempted such outreach as well. It's simply a matter of how much power and governance you want the convention to have---re. my last point: a convention is not a church--it is a loose association of like-minded believers. Moderates leave more to the local church, while Southern Baptists have stuggled with their definition of "core-beliefs" during the Baptist Identity issues of the last ten years. I'm not sure they are there yet. Moderates would prefer to center on the reality of Christ's call, and that's where I'm going as well---we've talked too much already. Bye Ken, and God bless you!
singer2
written by Ken, March 22, 2010
"Frankly, I don't know of any Baptist churches that deny most of your questions."

You should do a little research. I can list quotes from CBF leaders who deny that Jesus is the only way to God. If I searched hard enough, I could also find those who deny the resurrection and the deity of Christ. Not long ago, CBF had a speaker at its General Assembly who openly denied the deity of Christ.

"You are wanting a large association of Baptists to dictate how we should minister to the gay community, rather than simply condemning."

No, those are your words, not mine. I want the SBC to minister to homosexuals while upholding the biblical teaching on homosexuality. In my opinion, CBF is doing neither, unless you equate "ministry" with affirmation. That is CBF's prerogative, of course, but the SBC has just as much right to refuse admission to such churches.

"Moderates leave more to the local church, while Southern Baptists have stuggled with their definition of 'core-beliefs' during the Baptist Identity issues of the last ten years."

This business of "leaving more to the local church" is a cop-out. The fact is, CBF doesn't want to take a stand on tough issues for fear that they might alienate some of their member churches. This proves that the whole struggle in the SBC in the eighties was really about theology, not about politics.

"Moderates would prefer to center on the reality of Christ's call"

But what does that mean? Moderates and liberals constantly use these buzz words like "the centrality of Christ" and "the reality of Christ's call", but they never explain what these terms mean.
singer2
written by Ken, March 22, 2010
"For that reason, we are known as a 'Convention' or a 'Fellowship' of churches."

Yes, and I've been arguing all along that such conventions or fellowships have the right to define who they will accept as member churches. Your point is...?

"Now, if you want something stronger, you can always join a denomination that calls itself a Church, like the Presbyterian Church, USA, or even the Roman Catholic Church."

I'm at least a fifth-generation Southern Baptist, so I don't think I need you to instruct me on how Baptist polity works. This is just another one of your red herring.

"They do great work as well, but something tells me you would be sniping at them as well."

I beg your pardon, but you and your liberal friends are doing the sniping. If you do not like the fact that I defend the SBC against unfair criticism, that is your problem.
...
written by Capp, March 22, 2010
How old are you people?
...
written by singer2, March 22, 2010
Bye, Ken---I have better things to do with my time, and I find my life within CBF structures of worship and service very fulfilling, as you apparently do within the SBC. Capp is right...It is silly for us to go at each other constantly. Drop it, my friend.
Capp & Singer
written by Slick, March 23, 2010
There are three or four fundamentalists who show up here to do little but criticize anyone who holds any position even slightly to the left of theirs. They even attack the positions of strong conservatives who post here. They seem to be more interested in arguing doctrine than exhibiting a genuine Christian spirit and I doubt they’ve ever really led anyone to the Lord. They may have threatened hell to scare some into walking the isle but is that genuine salvation? Some of them claim to be or have been pastors but I can’t imagine a church of any size with thinking members who would want to keep them if they are a rancorous in the pulpit as they are here. Their version of the scriptures cannot possible contain 1 Cor 13 because they have never shown anything but the opposite of love in their posts here. Frankly, any exchange with them is useless.
Slick
written by Ken, March 23, 2010
"They seem to be more interested in arguing doctrine than exhibiting a genuine Christian spirit"

If the Bible is not true, then who's to define what constitutes a "genuine Christian spirit"?

"and I doubt they’ve ever really led anyone to the Lord."

Ah, I see you're being your usual "non-judgmental" self. I've led many people to the Lord. Have you?

"Their version of the scriptures cannot possible contain 1 Cor 13 because they have never shown anything but the opposite of love in their posts here."

I've read some of the ugly things you've posted on this site, so I hardly think you have any room to talk. Maybe your Bible doesn't contain Matthew 7:3-5?
singer2
written by Ken, March 23, 2010
"Capp is right...It is silly for us to go at each other constantly. Drop it, my friend."

I might point out that you fired the first shot in this exchange. If you do not want to discuss these matters, then why do you keep coming back? I suspect you are backing out because I have raised questions that you are unable to answer.
...
written by singer2, March 23, 2010
Ken, I answered your questions...I now have better things to do. you believe your way and I'll believe mine. Go camp on a conservative site for a change.
singer2
written by Ken, March 23, 2010
"Ken, I answered your questions..."

No, you merely dodged them.

"I now have better things to do."

That's what you said last time, and the time before that, and the time before that.

"you believe your way and I'll believe mine."

Unfortunately, many people in the CBF seem to have that exact same idea when it comes to the gospel. Perhaps they should read John 14:6 or Acts 4:12.

"Go camp on a conservative site for a change."

As Ronald Reagan used to say, "Liberals will defend to the death your right to agree with them."
...
written by Capp, March 23, 2010
My guess is 12...maybe 13.
...
written by Natalie215, March 23, 2010
Cody - I'm frustrated with this, too. I'm a pastor's daughter and have felt called to pastoral ministry since I was 15. My dad is a fierce Texas Baptist, one of the many who fought hard against the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC. I am proud of his generation for standing up for a convention that doesn't make teachers or missionaries sign a creed to be hired, that doesn't disassociate with churches because of their position on women in ministry.

I learned from him that baptists are at their best when we work together in our diversity. I ought to be able to be the pastor of a church and work with a church that doesn't allow women to be ordained. I've been taught, and believe, that genuine Christians who seek God's often end up with different beliefs.

So yes, it seems more than a bit hypocritical for the BGCT to pick an issue and draw a line in the sand. Regardless of what each of us believes - regardless of where our church stands - we have to admit that there are genuine Christians who study scripture, pray, and end up in 15 different places on this issue. This is the beauty of the priesthood of believers! This is what makes baptists baptist! :)

Anyway, thanks for writing. Well done.


...
written by singer2, March 23, 2010
Natalie: Please know that this Baptist believes in and affirms your right to the pulpit, as well as your call. Our church has two women associates, both fine preachers and fine worship leaders. It is a large, vibrant congregation, grounded in the priesthood of all believers. There are others like us. Bless you as God helps you define that call.
Interesting quote from E.Y. Mullins...
written by Ken, March 23, 2010
"Our traditional championship of liberty and individualism is constantly cited against new declarations of faith. How exactly the opposite is true. The publication of confessions of faith has been a constant expression of our ideal of liberty. Repression at this point is exactly what Baptists do not want. Repression covers up, hides belief, and under the cover all kinds of errors breed and flourish" ("Baptists and Creed", reprinted in The Axioms of Religion, Baptist Classics series, Broadman Press, 1997, p. 187).



Appeals to "diversity" aren't entirely sincere...
written by Ken, March 23, 2010
Churches who support the ordination of women often talk about "diversity". Yet these same people are quick to label those who disagree with them as "backward", "misogynist", "out of step with the times", "trying to repress women", and a whole host of other things. Don't tell me it doesnt happen. As one who opposes the ordination of women, I've been on the receiving end of these comments many times.

Evidently, "diversity" is a one-way street.
response to Natalie215
written by Dr. J, March 23, 2010
Hi Natalie:
If you are called by the Lord to preach- no matter your gender, then you can do nothing less. I pray for your ministry as I write this note.
...
written by m4gsus, March 24, 2010
Paul(a man) writing to Timothy(a man) from the Holy Bible in 1 Timothy 2 verses 11-14..."A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."

Women need to know their place within the family of God, the church. When we do, God will bless. When we don't, then diversity happens and the enemy tries (I said tries) to gain victory. From reading the Old Testament, God means business. He disciplines His people, the one whom He loves and gave His Son to die for. Seeing Him be our loving Father, let's just be obedient to Him and His Word.

It is possible to apply God's Word to our lives daily. It is possible to be obedient to Him every moment He has given us to live. It is possible to repent of our sin and receive His Grace to move on to lifting up His Son's name, Jesus, instead of remain in conflict where the enemy desires us to be! Because we know that we all will bow on our knees to Him, our Master, one day and on That Day....What He did through us will matter! Acts 4:12, Matthew 6:33, Proverbs 3:5-6, & Revelation 22:7,12-13
...
written by Natalie215, March 25, 2010
thanks, some of you, for your encouragement! ha! and those of you with other views, i respect you and your right to interpret scripture for yourself. i would love for my church to work together with your churches even if we disagree. and i know many churches that do!

my point was, that if the BGCT thinks churches can work together even if they disagree about the role of women in ministry, why can't we work together even if we disagree about homosexuality or some other issue?

the Gospel of Jesus Christ doesn't stand or fall on either of these issues.
natalie
written by Ken, March 25, 2010
"the Gospel of Jesus Christ doesn't stand or fall on either of these issues."

I disagree. Was Paul just reflecting the chauvinism of his day when he spoke of the man's role as the head of the family? Were his teachings on homosexuality just a reflection of his own personal homophobia? What about his understanding of the resurrection? Since he was so unenlightened about women and homosexuals, maybe the resurrection of Jesus was just his personal superstition. Maybe his desire to convert people to Christianity stemmed from his own religious bigotry.

In other words, when you start denying one part of the New Testament, where do you stop?
...
written by Natalie215, March 25, 2010
I'm not denying any part of the New Testament. I do acknowledge that there are different ways to interpret it.
We need to hold on to our convictions, but we need a healthy dose of humility to recognize that we don't always get it right.
natalie
written by Ken, March 25, 2010
So what is your interpretation of passages that assign spiritual leadership to men?
I think we should all stop denying
written by Capp, March 25, 2010
1 Timothy 2:8.

Yep.
written by Nathan Barnes, March 25, 2010
You sure kicked a hornet's nest, Cody.

Next up: Obamacare.

Readers alone are responsible for the content of the comments they post here. The comments are subject to the site’s terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the ABP News. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.
Write comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
busy
 
< Prev   Next >
Copyright © 2007-2010 Associated Baptist Press, All Rights Reserved.