First many thanks for your steady courage and candor. Second: I'll just throw in a point of view that perhaps is not often considered from where you stand.
It concerns the deplorable endorsement that the Presbyterians gave to BDS, which is the main practical instrument for delegitimizing the State of Israel. (Of course, once it’s agreed that one state on the planet lacks even the bare right to exist, then the steps needed to obliterate it acquire legitimacy. The BDS-ers will shake their heads as the ashes cool and say, “It’s too bad, but of course they had it coming!”)
A philosopher/theologian friend of mine, the late Michael Wyschogrod, was involved in the negotiations that led to the Presbyterians renouncing their doctrine of Deicide. That’s the doctrine that assigned perpetual, collective responsibility to the Jewish people for the death of Jesus. I suppose, in the aftermath of the Shoah, it became easier to notice how false and deadly that doctrine had been. Happily, Michael Wyschogrod did not live to see the doctrine's revival in the guise of Presbyterians' endorsement of BDS.
In general, of late, the Baptists have been better about this. They don’t seem to feel diminished by saying to the Jewish people, the only thing that needs saying: “thanks, guys.” Thanks for living out the pathbreaking relation with God in real time -- and for remembering and recording that history, with all its warts and transcendent accomplishments. Thanks for staying the course, and remaining the empirical warrant for the historicity of the Bible. Thanks for taking the brief post-World War II lull in the world's seemingly irrepressible Jew-hatred -- not to whine and get embittered but to restore the nation of Israel. It was restored in the land it had made holy to the whole world, speaking the very language it had spoken anciently, and becoming a font of agricultural, medical, and other kinds of creativity with the potential to transform the region.
Just "thanks, guys." No need to writhe around in remorse or moral agony. Just please say “thanks” and (the real sign of remorse) just don’t do it again!
All the best to you,
Abigail L. Rosenthal
Professor of Philosophy Emerita, Brooklyn College of The City University of New York
Erick: as you know, I'm Southern Baptist. I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your insight to this and your assessment. We both understand Mohler the same way and for the same reasons--as you know, there are always detractors. Throughout this, you made me laugh! Two highlights:
"Now, the politicians are more civil in their discourse than the pastors." Unfortunately, you are painfully correct. Because I am a pastor, I am more critical of pastors. Yet it is refreshing to see someone else verify this with clarity!
Oh yes, and this regarding those who choose to swim in the cesspool of Twitter:
Godly men might should spend less energy debating pastoral and church affairs on a platform created by the demons bored and in need of a hobby after leaving the drowned pigs."
All this talk of Southern Baptists reminds me of those folks denouncing Mitt Romney, calling The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) a cult. Definitions of cults center on unusual beliefs and the size of the group. Unusual beliefs are in the eye of the beholder and in a democracy we tend to believe the majority establishes what is "normal" and "abnormal". When I checked on the sizes of different religions, the Southern Baptist Convention was about one-fifth the size of the Mormon church. Which made me wonder, which is actually a cult.
First thing we need to decide is whether an earthly leader's religious belief is a requirement for an earthly citizen's vote. Romans 15 doesn't make any distinction about the goodness or badness of a gov't leader, God put them there, pray for them. If Romney were the right leader for our country, I would vote for him ... in fact, I did. Do I agree with his theology? No. Is that a litmus test for a political leader? Not according to the Constitution.
WRT LDS as "cult" or "orthodox" in its theology, first question one must ask is whose "eye of the beholder" matters? Is it ours? If so, pick a position/belief system and go. If, OTOH, it is God's eye that matters, then our "eye of the beholder" opinions don't really solve the bigger problem of "Who is really in charge and should I follow Him?" in the eternal sense.
Question then becomes, "what does God say about Himself, where is that found, is it consistent, what does He say about our relationship to Him and what has He done to remedy the rift we created back in Genesis 3?"
After that, it becomes, "What is my response to these questions?" As we all know, most of "the world" chooses to reject God and usually refuse to consider the questions outright. We live in a world that refuses to be anchored at this point. Explaining the concept of an absolute or anchor I do not control isn't very popular for most Americans.
You will note I am avoiding labels at this point. Due diligence on the part of any person is required. The Bible is kinda tough on the mind in many ways. I find the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Abraham, et al lack an alignment with what is found in what we describe as God's Word. That causes irreconcilable challenges for me and for many that exit the LDS. 'Nuff said.
As for "size" being any kind of a measure of "correct", you may recall that out of all the people populating the earth at the time, God chose Abraham, which eventually gave birth to Israel. Israel was still a LOT smaller than the rest of the known world, so did that make them the cult rather than the pagan and secular peoples surrounding them? Similarly, Christianity has always been a minority in the global population. "Size" is not a good measure of science (read: "settled science" etc.) nor is "right" determined by "might" or "size".
I agree with what you say, albeit I don't have as much cognitive dissonance over the Book of Mormon, et al. The difficulty I had was one group of people calling another group of people a "cult" when there seemed to be little objective evidence either way. I'm reasonably sure that the Egyptians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and the rest of the Canaanites considered the worship of Yahweh to be a cult when Abraham lived. The same was true of early Christians in the regard of Romans, Greeks, and Persians. That is what I mean by in the eye of the beholder.
Thanks for the reasoned response, Goetz. Will leave due diligence and conclusions thereof to you regarding traditional orthodox Christianity and LDS.
Responding to your original comment:
"Unusual beliefs are in the eye of the beholder and in a democracy we tend to believe the majority establishes what is "normal" and "abnormal"
I think we both agree, Democracy has no real impact on theology, orthodoxy, heresy, et al. Christianity was formed during Roman tyranny and Paul called folks to pray for the emperor regardless of his beliefs. To your point, yes, Rome considered Christianity to be a cult because prevailing beliefs of the Empire over-shadowed Christianity.
That said, there is an external measure of "orthodoxy" and "cult" beyond our human logic and reasoning. Due diligence is required to ferret that out.
Well, I know some denominations think women can be pastors. I am not in one of those denominations and would not join one. But my wife is more adamantly against it than me. She also opposes women as deacons.
I get the doctrinal differences. What concerns me more is the response of some SBC leaders to charges of sexual assault and abuse. That is a line that cannot be crossed if you call yourself by the name of Christ.
This bandies about close to the line the Progressives use to stifle things they do not like in the church, imo. I see a strawman coming together simply so that it can be conveniently knocked down all the while hoping some of the flailing straw will stick to the original idea. I'm open to a discussion based in scripture about why women should or should not serve. I won't dig into my opinion on the matter simply that if you want to have a discussion based in God's Word on that subject then we have something tangible. Otherwise, it is based in feelings and secular ideas I have no interest in discussing. Sexual assault and abuse weren't the original question posed above nor were they part of any answer given in response so let's stick to the original point of whether or not women pastoring is heresy and whether someone who doesn't see skin color is woke.
You asked the question about women pastoring equaling heresy and asked if not being racist was equal to being woke on an article that discusses doctrine at the heart of the SBC. You then obfuscate from that original point to something else, and do not want to discuss scripture that supports your position. That's fine, but in both cases your attempts to move from the original discussion question that appears to be a weak position to one you feel more confident discussing demonstrates you aren't interested in actually discussing the original point. That seems to be the pattern with comments you've made elsewhere on this thread as well. I'll take that as a demonstration that there is no real discussion to be had here and move on. Good day.
My question was to Erick and he replied to me. Paul instructed us to avoid arguments over doctrine. We can differ over interpretation of scripture and that is ok. If you believe in the divinity of Christ and salvation through His death and resurrection, you are my brother.
He was talking about some inside baseball he knows of in the SBC and wasn’t staking out any of his own theological beliefs, although, most of his readers/listeners know he holds to the fundamental tenants of the Christian faith. I’m certain he is not saying that not being a racist makes you woke or he would be woke. And, not certain, but likely he doesn’t believe a woman pastor equals heresy, though, woman as leaders in the church is not supported in the apostle Paul’s letters.
Amen! That’s one of many reasons why real Christians not living in error cannot be racist. Racism is a sin, and God hates sin. Once Christ resides in your heart, your on a path to sanctification - becoming more like Christ. Racism, idol - worship (money, worldly approval), vindictiveness, pride, etc. all should be on the wane, if you have been visited by God’s grace.
Nineteen years ago I entered a PCUSA seminary (one of the more conservative PCUSA seminaries before the PCUSA went completely off the rails). I completed a summer course and the following semester before I withdrew, never to look back. Pastoral ministry wasn’t for me. Erick’s examples are a case in points.
Like Teresa Parham Lane, I am a Catholic convert. The Catholic Church is not without its issues either, but just as Teresa said, we have the Eucharist. Something seemingly ordinary that is wonderfully extraordinary.
Through all the reading, praying, conversing, contemplating I did/continue to do, here is where I stand: Luther had some very valid criticisms. But the baby was thrown out with the bath water.
My faith influenced politics does not like either party. I definitely lean conservative, but I try to be objective. It is hard to take anyone seriously who claims injustice while holding a $6 cup of coffee. The world has far more egregious issues about which we should channel our indignant ethos and pathos.
And I do think Mark Malcolm is right about destroying Christianity.
I have to agree . A friend i went to High School with is a Baptist Preacher. He is a fine man . His FB page is now full of some of the most hateful commentary by other Baptists I have ever seen. It is sad.
Erick, I am a Methodist. The Methodists are a little further down the path on this one. Let me give you some hindsight based on what I have seen in our denomination over the last twenty years.
This is not about the Gospel for the Left. It is about destroying Christianity. As examples I give you how they moved forward with gay marriage, and how the Methodist leadership (all left-leaning) moved forward once the Traditionalists within the denomination had had enough.
Gay marriage was never about "same protections under the law" as touted by the Left. After they got that, they began forcing churches to hold their services. In the Methodist denomination our Book of Discipline was routinely reinforced by the majority of the world-wide church membership at general conference, which is the only place where decisions for the denomination are made that are SUPPOSED TO BE binding. The Progressive wing of the Methodists never once adhered to the decisions made by vote at general conference. Not once.
Three plans were ultimately proposed to reconcile and resolve these issues within the denomination. The Progressives put forth the One Church plan while the Traditionalists put together an alternative. All of the church leadership backed the One Church plan, and it failed. Twice. And, when it failed the last time the Traditionalists put forth an ultimatum: Follow the rules or leave the denomination to retain your integrity. The Progressives refused to do either.
When the Traditionalists finally came up with a plan to leave the church, take all their assets and liabilities split equitably the Progressives began to remove pastors from heavy voting-block churches likely to support the Separation Through Grace so that it wouldn't gain support. When they saw this wouldn't succeed, they used the pandemic to delay the vote not once, but twice now. The Weslyan Covenant Association is standing up the Global Methodist Church now because everyone has had enough. The events at Mt. Bethel UMC and other Methodist churches in the US and abroad have gone through similar situations.
All that is to say that the SBC is going to go down this same road because it isn't about the Gospel for the Left. It is about you telling them they are right, or you being forced to follow their ways, which they see as the same thing. As you would put it, you will be forced to care. God bless you Erick. Keep doing what you're doing, and don't ever change.
Mark, it strikes me that the Progressives in the UMC have adopted the same tactics that their political kin in the Democrat Party. I sometimes describe this approach as their saying to their opponents, “Your ‘yes’ means ‘yes’, and your ‘no’ means ’maybe’ “. Such a gradually subversive approach may be fine for Congress, but I can’t see how it has any place in the community of Christian believers. I have to admit that it has accomplished its purpose, as the UMC has gone quite far down the road to theological wokeness. That is exactly what many of us in the Presbyterian Church (USA) are trying to prevent our denomination from becoming, with to date only mixed results. Our General Assembly has tried to make it impossibly difficult for a dissenting congregation to leave the denomination without surrendering most of its financial resources. Those of us who continue to view the Bible as God’s authentic and definitive Word will continue our fight, as we are unwilling to accept defeat and start over somewhere else.
Paul, I agree. But, what the UMC has going for it is the Book of Discipline. With that in hand our general conferences and annual conferences have consistently voted to uphold God's word and His ways as paramount. The Progressives have chosen to ignore votes and rules because they hold the leadership positions. That, however, does not give them THE power in the denomination, just SOME power.
Because the Progressives refuse to follow the rules and have repeatedly lost votes on matters the Traditionalists have drafted a plan to separate...which the Progressives oppose because all the tithes go with the Traditionalists leaving them virtually empty handed to pus their agenda.
In your situation the PCA will ultimately die off as a denomination under that name precisely because the leadership isn't willing to let dissenting congregations depart. As with the UMC people just leave and go looking for another church that does what they want it to do. I'm sure you've already seen that reflected in declining finances, services, and staff. We have.
The good news on all fronts is that the Wesleyan Covenant Association will be standing up the Global Methodist Church soon. That organization is where Traditionalist Methodists, and anyone else interested in being about the Gospel rather than secular woke-o-haram will gather. I invite you to investigate the WCA and see if that doesn't appeal to you. They have a good online outlet of articles and thought in Firebrand Magazine. Good luck, and Godspeed.
I must agree. As a lifelong Southern Baptist, going back generations, working on staff at one of its largest churches, and now as a writer/editor for the international broadcast ministry of one of its most respected pastors (who also served 2 terms as SBC President), I think I can speak as an insider.
What's going on is just as you describe. Many of us are on our knees daily praying for God to intervene and spare this denomination the fate of those like the UMC and PCUSA. He saw fit to do it once before in the mid-70s, and we're humbly asking Him to do it again.
Satan is never more gleeful than when he can undermine the Gospel by creating a church split--and many in this current battle are his willing tools, unaware or not.
On Saturday, one of Russell Moore's targets released on Twitter a short video calmly defending himself against a highly disputed claim. Moore had gone public, so he responded publicly. I do not know whether the target was justly or unjustly accused. But the Twitter responses from Moore supporters were horrifying.
And we wonder why in a recent survey, 43% of millennials said they no long believe God exists--and if He does, they don't care.
Only our omniscient, omnipotent God can save the SBC from itself. His church will go on, for He promised that. I wonder, though, how many of those stirring the pot of dissension will be able to stand before Him and say, "I have run the race; I have finished my course, I have kept the faith" ??
This is precisely why I am pleased with the Separation Through Grace solution the UMC has created. It gives both sides a way to, as gently as possible go our separate ways. This assumes both sides are acting in good faith. The North Georgia Conference leadership has revealed their hand showing us they never were interested in clearing the dispute so we could get back to sharing the gospel. It is about power, secular approval, and destroying Christians who believe in God's Word.
I wish you all the luck I can possibly give you in staying unified. However, if that unification is on paper only with in-fighting that removes the focus from the Good News, then perhaps you should enter into a time of discernment and seek a better path? Good luck and godspeed.
Thank you. We'll need an outpouring of God's grace to avoid an irreparable schism. Something you said: "Christians who believe in God's Word. Who could imagine it would come to this--where a Christian must either apologize to others for what the Bible clearly teaches, or abandon it, or b ostracized. But here we are.
Erick mentioned a time in the 1980s when the SBC went through a turbulent time. I think he meant the 1070s, because that's the time when the SBC's battle for the authority of the Word took place. The Convention formed a "Peace Committee," they called it, to avoid a spilt. The split was indeed avoided, but only because of the leadership of the late Dr. Adrian Rogers, pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church, one of its megachurches. Th next paragraph is one lifted straight of of the transcript when Dr. Rogers reported back to his congregation after the Convention.
Dr. Adrian Rogers
"One man said to me in that Peace Committee, he said, “Adrian, if you don’t compromise, we’ll never get together.” And I said to that dear friend, “We don’t have to get together. The Southern Baptist Convention doesn’t have to survive. I don’t have to be the Pastor of Bellevue. I don’t have to live. But I’m not going to compromise the Word of God.” [audience applause]
It takes leadership like that to bring the Church back from the brink.
I was brought up in the Southern Baptist Church. Non-denominational now. To me it's pretty simple. If you believe that Christ died for your sins, if you have acknowledged Jesus Christ as your Savior, if you have asked for forgiveness of your sins and believe in the Holy Trinity - then you are a Christian and provided you live a life of where you do your best to be a good Christian, then your making it into Heaven. Which 'branch' of the Christian faith you happen to be part of should help make you and your family stronger in the faith.
One other quick thought. I have found that if both sides with different goals/opinions of a group that you are part of are angry with you - then you are usually doing something right. :)
I grew up Southern Baptist. My grandfather was a Southern Baptist preacher for 50 years and way ahead of his time. He was awake before there was woke. I converted to Catholicism in 2012. No regrets. Catholics have Central Command in the Pope. The Church of Peter. I have the Eucharist. I always come back to the Eucharist. When all else fails, it’s the Eucharist, stupid.
I love ‘He was awake before there was woke’. I believe that’s true of many, many people in general as well as those now being told they are racist based on their skin color.
Wow - I sure appreciated your article. No need to vilify each other as we sort this thing out!
First many thanks for your steady courage and candor. Second: I'll just throw in a point of view that perhaps is not often considered from where you stand.
It concerns the deplorable endorsement that the Presbyterians gave to BDS, which is the main practical instrument for delegitimizing the State of Israel. (Of course, once it’s agreed that one state on the planet lacks even the bare right to exist, then the steps needed to obliterate it acquire legitimacy. The BDS-ers will shake their heads as the ashes cool and say, “It’s too bad, but of course they had it coming!”)
A philosopher/theologian friend of mine, the late Michael Wyschogrod, was involved in the negotiations that led to the Presbyterians renouncing their doctrine of Deicide. That’s the doctrine that assigned perpetual, collective responsibility to the Jewish people for the death of Jesus. I suppose, in the aftermath of the Shoah, it became easier to notice how false and deadly that doctrine had been. Happily, Michael Wyschogrod did not live to see the doctrine's revival in the guise of Presbyterians' endorsement of BDS.
In general, of late, the Baptists have been better about this. They don’t seem to feel diminished by saying to the Jewish people, the only thing that needs saying: “thanks, guys.” Thanks for living out the pathbreaking relation with God in real time -- and for remembering and recording that history, with all its warts and transcendent accomplishments. Thanks for staying the course, and remaining the empirical warrant for the historicity of the Bible. Thanks for taking the brief post-World War II lull in the world's seemingly irrepressible Jew-hatred -- not to whine and get embittered but to restore the nation of Israel. It was restored in the land it had made holy to the whole world, speaking the very language it had spoken anciently, and becoming a font of agricultural, medical, and other kinds of creativity with the potential to transform the region.
Just "thanks, guys." No need to writhe around in remorse or moral agony. Just please say “thanks” and (the real sign of remorse) just don’t do it again!
All the best to you,
Abigail L. Rosenthal
Professor of Philosophy Emerita, Brooklyn College of The City University of New York
Erick: as you know, I'm Southern Baptist. I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your insight to this and your assessment. We both understand Mohler the same way and for the same reasons--as you know, there are always detractors. Throughout this, you made me laugh! Two highlights:
"Now, the politicians are more civil in their discourse than the pastors." Unfortunately, you are painfully correct. Because I am a pastor, I am more critical of pastors. Yet it is refreshing to see someone else verify this with clarity!
Oh yes, and this regarding those who choose to swim in the cesspool of Twitter:
Godly men might should spend less energy debating pastoral and church affairs on a platform created by the demons bored and in need of a hobby after leaving the drowned pigs."
Just.....thank you brother!
I try to adhere to this statement: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity."
Unfortunately this is the kind of thing that turns church goers into non-church goers, along with the deification of a sleazebag like Donald Trump.
All this talk of Southern Baptists reminds me of those folks denouncing Mitt Romney, calling The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) a cult. Definitions of cults center on unusual beliefs and the size of the group. Unusual beliefs are in the eye of the beholder and in a democracy we tend to believe the majority establishes what is "normal" and "abnormal". When I checked on the sizes of different religions, the Southern Baptist Convention was about one-fifth the size of the Mormon church. Which made me wonder, which is actually a cult.
First thing we need to decide is whether an earthly leader's religious belief is a requirement for an earthly citizen's vote. Romans 15 doesn't make any distinction about the goodness or badness of a gov't leader, God put them there, pray for them. If Romney were the right leader for our country, I would vote for him ... in fact, I did. Do I agree with his theology? No. Is that a litmus test for a political leader? Not according to the Constitution.
WRT LDS as "cult" or "orthodox" in its theology, first question one must ask is whose "eye of the beholder" matters? Is it ours? If so, pick a position/belief system and go. If, OTOH, it is God's eye that matters, then our "eye of the beholder" opinions don't really solve the bigger problem of "Who is really in charge and should I follow Him?" in the eternal sense.
Question then becomes, "what does God say about Himself, where is that found, is it consistent, what does He say about our relationship to Him and what has He done to remedy the rift we created back in Genesis 3?"
After that, it becomes, "What is my response to these questions?" As we all know, most of "the world" chooses to reject God and usually refuse to consider the questions outright. We live in a world that refuses to be anchored at this point. Explaining the concept of an absolute or anchor I do not control isn't very popular for most Americans.
You will note I am avoiding labels at this point. Due diligence on the part of any person is required. The Bible is kinda tough on the mind in many ways. I find the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Abraham, et al lack an alignment with what is found in what we describe as God's Word. That causes irreconcilable challenges for me and for many that exit the LDS. 'Nuff said.
As for "size" being any kind of a measure of "correct", you may recall that out of all the people populating the earth at the time, God chose Abraham, which eventually gave birth to Israel. Israel was still a LOT smaller than the rest of the known world, so did that make them the cult rather than the pagan and secular peoples surrounding them? Similarly, Christianity has always been a minority in the global population. "Size" is not a good measure of science (read: "settled science" etc.) nor is "right" determined by "might" or "size".
I agree with what you say, albeit I don't have as much cognitive dissonance over the Book of Mormon, et al. The difficulty I had was one group of people calling another group of people a "cult" when there seemed to be little objective evidence either way. I'm reasonably sure that the Egyptians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and the rest of the Canaanites considered the worship of Yahweh to be a cult when Abraham lived. The same was true of early Christians in the regard of Romans, Greeks, and Persians. That is what I mean by in the eye of the beholder.
Thanks for the reasoned response, Goetz. Will leave due diligence and conclusions thereof to you regarding traditional orthodox Christianity and LDS.
Responding to your original comment:
"Unusual beliefs are in the eye of the beholder and in a democracy we tend to believe the majority establishes what is "normal" and "abnormal"
I think we both agree, Democracy has no real impact on theology, orthodoxy, heresy, et al. Christianity was formed during Roman tyranny and Paul called folks to pray for the emperor regardless of his beliefs. To your point, yes, Rome considered Christianity to be a cult because prevailing beliefs of the Empire over-shadowed Christianity.
That said, there is an external measure of "orthodoxy" and "cult" beyond our human logic and reasoning. Due diligence is required to ferret that out.
I hope you aren't saying that not being racist equals woke, or that women pastoring equals heresy. There is a path in the middle.
Well, I know some denominations think women can be pastors. I am not in one of those denominations and would not join one. But my wife is more adamantly against it than me. She also opposes women as deacons.
I get the doctrinal differences. What concerns me more is the response of some SBC leaders to charges of sexual assault and abuse. That is a line that cannot be crossed if you call yourself by the name of Christ.
This bandies about close to the line the Progressives use to stifle things they do not like in the church, imo. I see a strawman coming together simply so that it can be conveniently knocked down all the while hoping some of the flailing straw will stick to the original idea. I'm open to a discussion based in scripture about why women should or should not serve. I won't dig into my opinion on the matter simply that if you want to have a discussion based in God's Word on that subject then we have something tangible. Otherwise, it is based in feelings and secular ideas I have no interest in discussing. Sexual assault and abuse weren't the original question posed above nor were they part of any answer given in response so let's stick to the original point of whether or not women pastoring is heresy and whether someone who doesn't see skin color is woke.
I have no desire to debate denominational doctrine. The SBC is free to interpret scripture as they see fit and make their rules accordingly.
The controversy surrounding Dr Moore is not about women in the pulpit or critical race theory.
You asked the question about women pastoring equaling heresy and asked if not being racist was equal to being woke on an article that discusses doctrine at the heart of the SBC. You then obfuscate from that original point to something else, and do not want to discuss scripture that supports your position. That's fine, but in both cases your attempts to move from the original discussion question that appears to be a weak position to one you feel more confident discussing demonstrates you aren't interested in actually discussing the original point. That seems to be the pattern with comments you've made elsewhere on this thread as well. I'll take that as a demonstration that there is no real discussion to be had here and move on. Good day.
My question was to Erick and he replied to me. Paul instructed us to avoid arguments over doctrine. We can differ over interpretation of scripture and that is ok. If you believe in the divinity of Christ and salvation through His death and resurrection, you are my brother.
He was talking about some inside baseball he knows of in the SBC and wasn’t staking out any of his own theological beliefs, although, most of his readers/listeners know he holds to the fundamental tenants of the Christian faith. I’m certain he is not saying that not being a racist makes you woke or he would be woke. And, not certain, but likely he doesn’t believe a woman pastor equals heresy, though, woman as leaders in the church is not supported in the apostle Paul’s letters.
It's very interesting to me that Paul also said there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, but we are all one in Christ Jesus.
Amen! That’s one of many reasons why real Christians not living in error cannot be racist. Racism is a sin, and God hates sin. Once Christ resides in your heart, your on a path to sanctification - becoming more like Christ. Racism, idol - worship (money, worldly approval), vindictiveness, pride, etc. all should be on the wane, if you have been visited by God’s grace.
‘you’re’ - I should proof before posting. 😣
👍
Nineteen years ago I entered a PCUSA seminary (one of the more conservative PCUSA seminaries before the PCUSA went completely off the rails). I completed a summer course and the following semester before I withdrew, never to look back. Pastoral ministry wasn’t for me. Erick’s examples are a case in points.
Like Teresa Parham Lane, I am a Catholic convert. The Catholic Church is not without its issues either, but just as Teresa said, we have the Eucharist. Something seemingly ordinary that is wonderfully extraordinary.
Through all the reading, praying, conversing, contemplating I did/continue to do, here is where I stand: Luther had some very valid criticisms. But the baby was thrown out with the bath water.
My faith influenced politics does not like either party. I definitely lean conservative, but I try to be objective. It is hard to take anyone seriously who claims injustice while holding a $6 cup of coffee. The world has far more egregious issues about which we should channel our indignant ethos and pathos.
And I do think Mark Malcolm is right about destroying Christianity.
I have to agree . A friend i went to High School with is a Baptist Preacher. He is a fine man . His FB page is now full of some of the most hateful commentary by other Baptists I have ever seen. It is sad.
Erick, I am a Methodist. The Methodists are a little further down the path on this one. Let me give you some hindsight based on what I have seen in our denomination over the last twenty years.
This is not about the Gospel for the Left. It is about destroying Christianity. As examples I give you how they moved forward with gay marriage, and how the Methodist leadership (all left-leaning) moved forward once the Traditionalists within the denomination had had enough.
Gay marriage was never about "same protections under the law" as touted by the Left. After they got that, they began forcing churches to hold their services. In the Methodist denomination our Book of Discipline was routinely reinforced by the majority of the world-wide church membership at general conference, which is the only place where decisions for the denomination are made that are SUPPOSED TO BE binding. The Progressive wing of the Methodists never once adhered to the decisions made by vote at general conference. Not once.
Three plans were ultimately proposed to reconcile and resolve these issues within the denomination. The Progressives put forth the One Church plan while the Traditionalists put together an alternative. All of the church leadership backed the One Church plan, and it failed. Twice. And, when it failed the last time the Traditionalists put forth an ultimatum: Follow the rules or leave the denomination to retain your integrity. The Progressives refused to do either.
When the Traditionalists finally came up with a plan to leave the church, take all their assets and liabilities split equitably the Progressives began to remove pastors from heavy voting-block churches likely to support the Separation Through Grace so that it wouldn't gain support. When they saw this wouldn't succeed, they used the pandemic to delay the vote not once, but twice now. The Weslyan Covenant Association is standing up the Global Methodist Church now because everyone has had enough. The events at Mt. Bethel UMC and other Methodist churches in the US and abroad have gone through similar situations.
All that is to say that the SBC is going to go down this same road because it isn't about the Gospel for the Left. It is about you telling them they are right, or you being forced to follow their ways, which they see as the same thing. As you would put it, you will be forced to care. God bless you Erick. Keep doing what you're doing, and don't ever change.
Mark, it strikes me that the Progressives in the UMC have adopted the same tactics that their political kin in the Democrat Party. I sometimes describe this approach as their saying to their opponents, “Your ‘yes’ means ‘yes’, and your ‘no’ means ’maybe’ “. Such a gradually subversive approach may be fine for Congress, but I can’t see how it has any place in the community of Christian believers. I have to admit that it has accomplished its purpose, as the UMC has gone quite far down the road to theological wokeness. That is exactly what many of us in the Presbyterian Church (USA) are trying to prevent our denomination from becoming, with to date only mixed results. Our General Assembly has tried to make it impossibly difficult for a dissenting congregation to leave the denomination without surrendering most of its financial resources. Those of us who continue to view the Bible as God’s authentic and definitive Word will continue our fight, as we are unwilling to accept defeat and start over somewhere else.
Paul, I agree. But, what the UMC has going for it is the Book of Discipline. With that in hand our general conferences and annual conferences have consistently voted to uphold God's word and His ways as paramount. The Progressives have chosen to ignore votes and rules because they hold the leadership positions. That, however, does not give them THE power in the denomination, just SOME power.
Because the Progressives refuse to follow the rules and have repeatedly lost votes on matters the Traditionalists have drafted a plan to separate...which the Progressives oppose because all the tithes go with the Traditionalists leaving them virtually empty handed to pus their agenda.
In your situation the PCA will ultimately die off as a denomination under that name precisely because the leadership isn't willing to let dissenting congregations depart. As with the UMC people just leave and go looking for another church that does what they want it to do. I'm sure you've already seen that reflected in declining finances, services, and staff. We have.
The good news on all fronts is that the Wesleyan Covenant Association will be standing up the Global Methodist Church soon. That organization is where Traditionalist Methodists, and anyone else interested in being about the Gospel rather than secular woke-o-haram will gather. I invite you to investigate the WCA and see if that doesn't appeal to you. They have a good online outlet of articles and thought in Firebrand Magazine. Good luck, and Godspeed.
I must agree. As a lifelong Southern Baptist, going back generations, working on staff at one of its largest churches, and now as a writer/editor for the international broadcast ministry of one of its most respected pastors (who also served 2 terms as SBC President), I think I can speak as an insider.
What's going on is just as you describe. Many of us are on our knees daily praying for God to intervene and spare this denomination the fate of those like the UMC and PCUSA. He saw fit to do it once before in the mid-70s, and we're humbly asking Him to do it again.
Satan is never more gleeful than when he can undermine the Gospel by creating a church split--and many in this current battle are his willing tools, unaware or not.
On Saturday, one of Russell Moore's targets released on Twitter a short video calmly defending himself against a highly disputed claim. Moore had gone public, so he responded publicly. I do not know whether the target was justly or unjustly accused. But the Twitter responses from Moore supporters were horrifying.
And we wonder why in a recent survey, 43% of millennials said they no long believe God exists--and if He does, they don't care.
Only our omniscient, omnipotent God can save the SBC from itself. His church will go on, for He promised that. I wonder, though, how many of those stirring the pot of dissension will be able to stand before Him and say, "I have run the race; I have finished my course, I have kept the faith" ??
This is precisely why I am pleased with the Separation Through Grace solution the UMC has created. It gives both sides a way to, as gently as possible go our separate ways. This assumes both sides are acting in good faith. The North Georgia Conference leadership has revealed their hand showing us they never were interested in clearing the dispute so we could get back to sharing the gospel. It is about power, secular approval, and destroying Christians who believe in God's Word.
I wish you all the luck I can possibly give you in staying unified. However, if that unification is on paper only with in-fighting that removes the focus from the Good News, then perhaps you should enter into a time of discernment and seek a better path? Good luck and godspeed.
Thank you. We'll need an outpouring of God's grace to avoid an irreparable schism. Something you said: "Christians who believe in God's Word. Who could imagine it would come to this--where a Christian must either apologize to others for what the Bible clearly teaches, or abandon it, or b ostracized. But here we are.
Erick mentioned a time in the 1980s when the SBC went through a turbulent time. I think he meant the 1070s, because that's the time when the SBC's battle for the authority of the Word took place. The Convention formed a "Peace Committee," they called it, to avoid a spilt. The split was indeed avoided, but only because of the leadership of the late Dr. Adrian Rogers, pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church, one of its megachurches. Th next paragraph is one lifted straight of of the transcript when Dr. Rogers reported back to his congregation after the Convention.
Dr. Adrian Rogers
"One man said to me in that Peace Committee, he said, “Adrian, if you don’t compromise, we’ll never get together.” And I said to that dear friend, “We don’t have to get together. The Southern Baptist Convention doesn’t have to survive. I don’t have to be the Pastor of Bellevue. I don’t have to live. But I’m not going to compromise the Word of God.” [audience applause]
It takes leadership like that to bring the Church back from the brink.
Thank you for your well-wishes, and God bless!
I was brought up in the Southern Baptist Church. Non-denominational now. To me it's pretty simple. If you believe that Christ died for your sins, if you have acknowledged Jesus Christ as your Savior, if you have asked for forgiveness of your sins and believe in the Holy Trinity - then you are a Christian and provided you live a life of where you do your best to be a good Christian, then your making it into Heaven. Which 'branch' of the Christian faith you happen to be part of should help make you and your family stronger in the faith.
One other quick thought. I have found that if both sides with different goals/opinions of a group that you are part of are angry with you - then you are usually doing something right. :)
I grew up Southern Baptist. My grandfather was a Southern Baptist preacher for 50 years and way ahead of his time. He was awake before there was woke. I converted to Catholicism in 2012. No regrets. Catholics have Central Command in the Pope. The Church of Peter. I have the Eucharist. I always come back to the Eucharist. When all else fails, it’s the Eucharist, stupid.
I love ‘He was awake before there was woke’. I believe that’s true of many, many people in general as well as those now being told they are racist based on their skin color.