posted by kennyo at 4:28 PM
Gee, I really wish I could laugh at this.... It's too accurate.Randy
Yes, this is what happens according to John 15. For Jesus is the vine and believers are the branches. When you branch off from sound doctrine, you simply get cut off, to fall farther from the truth. Some denominations like the Presbyterians have split over the issues on this Website, or even less. The Southern Baptist Convention could also split over the divide of liberal versus conservative. So for me, a Baptist by upbringing, this image is not humorous at all. I wish the SBC would split and get the liberals out, even if 30% leave (liberals) and 70% stay, us conservatives. Many Baptists estimate those as the percentages if we split like did the PCA and PCUS. This I will not joke about like I joked about Richard Gere and Hollywood last week. Ciao!
Dpazos,The SBC has already split once over a conservative and liberal battle back in the early 90s. The liberal arm of the SBC left and formed the CBF. There are many connections between the CBF and emergent stuff. Daniel Vestal (coordinator of the national level CBF) is close friends with the McLaren family. However, the concern now is that the SBC is beginning to have significant liberal leanings again. The young leaders within the SBC are now dabbling in things emergent.
Fine, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) can be viewed as a liberal convention which began in the early 90s. However, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) still allows membership in both. Because dual membership is allowed, the liberal and conservative conventions are not mutually exclusive. If they were, that is if there were a split between conservative and liberal where each congregation could only belong to one of the conventions, the percentages would be about 70% conservative and 30% liberal. Us Baptists have been more conciliatory and tolerant than the Presbyterians by allowing dual membership, those preventing a total split like that between PCA and PCUS, which use theological insults against each other, like an all-out battle.The above comment is true, that SBC has those leaning toward liberal or Emergent things. Interesting to note that many of those have dual membership in CBF, or have left SBC, with sole membership now in CBF. Perhaps the SBC attempt at keeping everybody happy is not good. Simply assert a conservative position and let the liberals break off again! I am not sure it is worthy to keep such liberal leanings within the fold, like the SBC, always trying to keep everybody happy, whatever that means in terms of credal or philosophical assertions (or lack thereof)! Emergent influences have been around the Baptist community for some time, with limited effect, because most of us dismiss such as stupid. Perhaps the stupidity of that stuff makes it easy to see through for Baptist members. Some Youth Pastors appear to be the exception.
I hear what you are saying dpazos. Officially, CBF is only a "fellowship" and not a convention; thereby allowing some churches (such as mine) to have dual-alignment with both the SBC and CBF. I'm not sure that true dual-alignment can exist, considering the significant theological differences between the two organizations. It is also difficult when your church leadership is heavily biased toward one organization, yet professes dual-alignment. It might be true that churches with strong SBC conservative ties might be able to fend off the Emergent advances, I'm not so sure the same could be said about the "dually-aligned" churches, and especially the churches that have disassociated themselves with the SBC and are fellowshipping with the CBF. I'm very disenchanted with my church because I see the Emergent theology taking root within the leadership, and the congregation appears to be non the wiser.
Apparently we agree on this matter.You said it well. Liberal churches lean toward the CBF, conservative churches lean toward the SBC. I doubt it would be possible to be neutral on this matter, although many churches know how to play PC, possible still since there was not a formal split in the Baptist church, as was the case with Presbyterians. The congregation is not always informed about the political agendas of the leaders, if they are leaning left or right. Perhaps the leaders intentionally hide their bent.
bpazosI am one of those who split off from the UP Church in the 70's We left largely because they kicked us out. In 1975 there was a young seminarian who was before presbytery for ordination. It was known he had conservative leanings and was asked if he would participate in the ordination of women to the judicatory leadership in the church and his answer taken from I Timothy 2, stated he would not because he was an inerrantist and believed he would be sinning against his conscience. They refused him ordination on the grounds he was too restrictive and that they would not have that type of bigotry in their denomination. They went on as a church body to decree that any men with such a view would not only be denied ordination but could not even, if already ordained be reinstalled at a new church either as a teaching elder, or as in the Baptist Church Pastor or a ruling elder, in the Baptist nomenclature deacon. (To be sure a rough correlation.) I can not speak for anyone but myself but the error of the PCUS is their view of Scripture that went back to the confession of 1967 where the UP Church, (Northern church later merging with the southern church to form the PCUS,) stated in their new confession that the Bible 'contains the word of God.' I would like to quote Peter from his letter II Peter 15 'and consider that the long suffering of our Lord is salvation-as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.' It would seem Peter had a non PCUS acceptable perspective of not only Paul's letters but the rest of Scripture as well. After all if the Bible contains the Word of God then it must also contain that which is not. (is this faulty logic?) Is the battle for the truth of the Bible? If we are so small that we can not allow women to occupy our judicatory offices we may be incorrect also in denying adulterers of thieves or murderers or, I hope I make a point.Hank
Hank:Your response to me, Daniel Pazos, has been interesting. For this reason I address you in person, rather than Kenny or the Anonymous guy above. I am aware of Presbyterian history, since I studied theology at Westminster. Your splits are a valid example of what may happen in the Baptist church as well. I understand your inerrant Scripture position. I understand your views on church administration based consistently on Paul the Apostle. Your positions are both valid, and I share these positions with you. Perhaps your sarcasm at the end goes overboard. You Presbyterians are not as conciliatory as us Baptists, maybe that causes more friction. We apparently clash less, even when we hold different views. Interestingly, though, your liberals are more extreme than ours. You must be frustrated about getting ´kicked out´ of that PCUS church. Anyway, your knowledge of the New Testament seems excellent to me!
Post a Comment