At the annual meeting of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship in June, a workshop addressed how churches can be "'the presence of Christ' among persons of same-sex orientation." From the reports I've read, this workshop could well be a good starting point for a frank and constructive discussion of what is really the critical question that these issues pose to the BGCT: What are the fundamentals of our faith?
What are the convictions that we hold, as Baptists, to be critical to calling yourself a Christian and, ultimately, a Baptist? That is, those essentials over which a church cannot disagree and continue to be in "fellowship" with the larger body. Or, in today's vernacular, "dealbreakers."
For some, calling a woman as pastor is a dealbreaker. When I was growing up, "use of intoxicating beverages" was a dealbreaker, prominently featured as such in the Church Covenant at the back of the Baptist Hymnal. Now? Not so much.
But back to Broadway and Royal Lane. Even those who agree that homosexual behavior is sinful disagree over whether practicing homosexuals should be permitted to serve in leadership positions. Is our position on these issues a fundamental of our faith, a dividing line that should break our fellowship, a dealbreaker?
Broadway's decision to leave simply tables the issue until it arises in the next church, and the BGCT will again have to deal with it. Whether you agree or disagree with Broadway's position, the BGCT needs churches like Broadway and Royal Lane to challenge us to discuss the hard issues . . . instead of sweeping them and their issues under the rug, we need to sweep them into a conversation that will challenge us to grapple with scripture passages whose meaning and intent depend on historical context, the audience at which they were aimed, nuances of language, and numerous other factors.
There are a few "dealbreakers" on which I suspect there would be little, if any, disagreement among Baptists: the sinfulness of humankind; the divinity of Christ; salvation by grace through faith in Christ; and believer's baptism, to name a few. But just how long is this list? And where do the treasured Baptist principles of priesthood of the believer, soul competency, and local church autonomy take over? For that matter, as Texas Baptists, don't we consider these Baptist distinctives themselves as fundamental to the integrity of our faith . . . dealbreakers, if you will?
This conversation needs to take place beyond the few who populate the BGCT Executive Board. It needs to take place among our churches and among those of us who fill Texas Baptist pews each Sunday. So I'll put this question to you:
What are – and aren't – Baptist "dealbreakers"? (and why?)
instead of sweeping them and their issues under the rug, we need to sweep them into a conversation that will challenge us to grapple with scripture passages whose meaning and intent depend on historical context, the audience at which they were aimed, nuances of language, and numerous other factors. When does the Word of God cease to being the Word of God? This article in its conclusion is VERY disturbing!
ReplyDeleteZchryct,
ReplyDeleteIn my post, I made no such “conclusion” – only asked a question. The point of my question is that we in the BGCT need to be clear and definitive about what the dealbreakers are in BGCT life. Churches are entitled to know, upfront, that certain decisions and actions will alter their relationship with the BGCT. In other words, what things are open to disagreement, and what things aren’t? After all, none of us in this conversation claims to know the mind of God perfectly. That’s what I said, and that’s all I said.
Great post. Well said.
ReplyDeleteRex Ray said…
ReplyDeleteBill Jones,
It’s true you only asked a question, and “God says you mustn’t eat any of it?” was only a question, but look at the result.
I believe Zchryct said it quite well.
Bill Jones,
ReplyDeleteI believe in your eyes, you have done nothing to hurt the BGCT, but on Wade Burleson’s blog:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19615457&postID=1046284434361054311
This was written:
“The SBTC clearly opposes homosexuality as sinful. The BGCT is controlled by Texas Baptists Committed, which is already starting to waver on the issue: http://texasbaptistscommitted.blogspot.com/2010/09/which-beliefs-are-baptist-dealbreakers.html”
Since Baptists are using your article to ridicule the BGCT maybe you should take a closer look at your article from their viewpoint.
Rex Ray,
ReplyDeleteYou failed to note that Wade Burleson did not write that post; rather, it was written by a commenter.
Your comment implies that we should shrink from encouraging dialogue if Baptists are going to use our words, in your words, "to ridicule the BGCT." So I point you to Phil Strickland's words that I published in a post a few days ago:
"Ah, but what about one more—denominations. Should they take risks and speak prophetically? Or should they declare that the only real role of the denomination is meeting the needs of the churches who are members of the BGCT? To me, the answer is easy. Meeting the will of churches, vital as it is, comes in behind one other: listening for and meeting the will of God.
"What trumps the prophetic role in denominations is fear of financial loss, and the lack of understanding what crosses they are willing to die on, if any. What is so compelling that a denomination will stand there and ignore the consequences? Do we know the answer to that question? The question must be asked of laypeople and pastors and churches."
Yes, people fear any questioning of their closely-held doctrines. And yes, people are going to misuse our words to hurt us and to hurt others. As Michael Bell recently wrote in a post on this blog, "If you want to make a redemptive difference, prepare yourself for criticism. Naysayers, critics, negaholics, and detractors, you will have with you always."
The words of this commenter to Wade's blog - and I knew that Wade would never write such a thing, although you left that implication - simply demonstrate the tendency of some to misunderstand and distort. (1) TBC has never "controlled" the BGCT; (2) my post represented my thoughts and NOT any official TBC position; and (3) my post could not be HONESTLY construed as promoting any particular doctrinal position, only as asking for honesty and clarification.
But the commenter inadvertently proved my point - that SERIOUS dialogue and discussion are desperately lacking in Baptist life. Pushing for serious dialogue and discussion may well be a lost cause. But, to quote Jefferson Smith in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, "lost causes are the only causes worth fighting for." So my resolve to push for serious dialogue is strengthened. Timidity must never win the day.
Bill Jones,
ReplyDeleteWe’re on the same side of trying to portray truth. I’m sorry if I gave the impression that Wade Burleson wrote the comment I referred to.
I should have referenced the time of the anonymous comment. You must have spent a lot of time looking for it. What gave his comment credibility was his first six points were pretty much on target, but the last one upset me so I checked his link which led me to you.
I’m glad we met even if we got off to a rocky start. I believe Burleson put the monkey on the back of SBTC to have peace with the BGCT. Sort of like the prodigal son had to come home before there could be a reunion.
I’ve written as a fan on Burleson’s blog four years. Haven’t always agreed with him to the point he said he was glad I wasn’t a member of his church.
I agree with your three points:
“(1) TBC has never "controlled" the BGCT; (2) my post represented my thoughts and NOT any official TBC position; and (3) my post could not be HONESTLY construed as promoting any particular doctrinal position, only as asking for honesty and clarification.”
I wish you would reply these points to Anonymous Wed Oct 13, 07:12 PM 2010
I know your point, but when you wrote: “Whether you agree or disagree with Broadway's position, the BGCT needs churches like Broadway and Royal Lane to challenge us to discuss the hard issues…”; I believe you may get your fingers broke in the boxing ring by the referee stepping on them. (Bob Hope)
That’s like saying ‘We need pedophiles so we will teach our children to be on guard.’
Sure “Timidity must never win the day”, but neither should fools rush in where wise men tremble.
Thanks for the reply, and again, I wish you’d comment on Burleson’s blog.
Rex Ray,
ReplyDeleteAs you say, we agree on some points and not on others, and we'll probably have to leave it at that.
I appreciate your comments, though, and the spirit in which you share them. And I welcome you to continue commenting on our posts here when you feel led - whether you agree or disagree with us. We need constructive conversation like yours.
As for Wade Burleson, I don't read his blog very often (truth be told, I don't spend much time reading blogs), but I have a lot of respect for him. I met him last year at the New Baptist Covenant in Norman, and he impresses me as a man of courage, integrity, and grace. In fact, with Wade's cooperation, we published his New Baptist Covenant speech on our TBC Web site last year.
Whether I'll reply to Anonymous on Wade's blog - I haven't decided yet. But thanks for the suggestion.
Bill,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the kind words. I know that reading/commenting on blogs can consume a person’s life if not careful. On the other hand good relationships can grow with the exchange of ideas, and I believe people do change for the better. Just from letters printed in the Baptist Standard, Marv Knox and I became friends and have exchanged emails sharing our thoughts.
The first blog I’ve read/commented was Burleson’s. I believe I’ve seen him change his mind from thinking it was justified in firing missionaries to being outrageous. I think he has become a strong influence for truth partly from being fooled.
I was just a happy-go-lucky Baptists with my head in the sand until 1997. I’ve worked on churches all my life including 18 volunteer trips overseas. I woke up in 1997 when my missionary son sent Rankin’s email asking missionaries to have the confidence to follow their God-appointed leaders whether they understood or agreed.
Like most Baptists, I missed the Conservative Resurgence takeover or the ‘Baptist War’ because I didn’t know there had been one. The ‘Battle for the Bible’ was just a smokescreen to gain power and control.
From the latest comments by ‘Anonymous’ on Burleson’s blog, I thought it might have been you since there was a lot of ‘facts’ presented. Do you mind if I quote you?
Thanks again.
PS,
You might get more comments if it was ‘easier’ to make them. I don’t know how I made my first ones as I ‘stumbled’ around so much. I’ve tried three times on this one so far and still haven’t succeeded. After I put in my email nothing happens. Hmmm - of course I’m not much on computers.
Rex,
ReplyDeleteI don't mind your quoting me, but I ask that you be careful to make sure that my words are quoted verbatim and aren't used out of context.
As for making it easier to make comments, the technology is handled by "Blogger" (blogspot.com), so it's standard across all blogs provided by them. But in response to your concern, I've added the words "Click here to comment" to clarify the process. I hope that helps.
Thanks again for the conversation.