June 22, 2004
Bible Study
People tend to get hung up on how to study the Bible. Authors have made tons of money writing on the subject. College courses have been taught on it. But it isn't that hard to do.
- Step 1: Pray
- Step 2: Read the Bible
- Step 3: Think about what you've read. Ask questions.
- Step 4: Pray again
- Step 5: Repeat for each passage of Scripture you are studying
Obviously, you will have to do something a little more in-depth if you are teaching an adult Bible study, or if you're researching a sermon topic, or studying for a class. But for the kind of Bible study that 99.44% of Christians do, or want to do, or should be doing, those five simple steps will do it.
Resources? Other than a Bible (duh!), I'd go along with Jollyblogger, and recommend a Bible dictionary, maybe a commentary (somethng in one volume, probably). Check out e-Sword -- it's free, and has a ton of resources available for it.
The important thing about Bible study is to do it. But be careful -- God may work in your life in ways you don't expect. Five years ago, I was an insurance agent -- in two weeks, I start seminary.
Posted by: Warren Kelly at 09:49 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
June 21, 2004
I LOVE This Site!!
Ok, I WAS going to take tonight off -- especially after playing as well as I did. But then, I was innocently surfing around and found this.
Here is a man after my own heart. Let's beat the big air bag at his own game -- documentary film. Hear what he has to say about having his own views distorted, his own facts thrown back at him -- see how much freedom of speech and freedom of the press he wants then!
I really wish I had some cash to send this guy, because I think this film is worthwhile. Instead, I'll tell everyone I know, and some people I don't know, to make sure they watch this movie. This is a movie that needs to be distributed as widely as possible, as soon as possible.
Maybe we can send a copy of the PR sheet for the movie to every theater that shows Farenheit 911 -- see if we can appeal to their sense of equality, tolerance, and all that good stuff. If not, we can always threaten to hol our breath until they show the movie.
Naw -- that didn't work for Mom and Dad, so it probably won't work for theater owners, either. But tell them they need the movie anyway.
Posted by: Warren Kelly at 10:30 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Just Getting My Feet Wet
Hi! I'm Thanea Kelly, Warren's wife. He told me that he warned you I was coming, so please don't be too disappointed. He'll be back tomorrow with his usual great insight into all things theological.
In his introduction I'm sure he was kind. I'm sure he didn't tell you that I believe shows and books about ghosts are great. He might of mentioned my obsession with college football and basketball. (Go BUCKEYES!!) He probably didn't tell you that my idea of a great day involves sneakers and a battlefield. And I'm sure he didn't tell you that I'm a Trekkie. (Please don't hold any of this against him. I was like this long before he met me.)
Now, about the Trekkie thing... I don't go to StarCon dressed like a Klingon or anything like that. I would attend if I had the chance. Meeting Patrick Stewart would be really cool. But I've watched the original series since I was a kid. My dad watched it in college (at Ohio State) and watched the reruns after the news when I was four or five years old. I did whatever Dad did, so there we go.
By now, you're wondering where I'm going with all of this.
Yesterday, over lunch, Warren had one of those interesting conversation most people would think was strange. See, I'm a history teacher, so I do think differently than most. We were talking about the sermon which touched on the armor of God. We talked about the gladius, the short sword Roman soldiers carried for close combat. Warren mentioned that it had been adapted from the Iberian short sword Romans encountered in Spain. That's when I made the connection.
The Borg in Star Trek: The Next Generation (STTNG) were the Romans. They meet an alien race and "assimilate" them. The Romans offered most conquered people Roman citizenship. They took any technology they could use and adapted it to their own purpose. The Romans rolled over anything in their way. Except for one thing. In STTNG the Borg eventually run into the Federation. Sometimes it appears that the Borg will win, but the Federation stands firm and eventually finds a way to defeat the Borg. That is exactly what happened to the Roman Empire with the introduction of Christianity.
As long as Christians appeared to be a sect of Judaism, they didn't seem to be a problem. After all, the Jews had been relatively docile. Once the Roman authorities began to realize that Christians would be different, they tried to "assimilate" them. As long as they also bowed to Caesar, Rome didn't care who they worshipped. But the Christians wouldn't bow to Caesar. So Caesar tried to destroy them. That didn't work either. In fact, eventually Christianity would assimilate Rome. It became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Some believe that was Rome's final victory, because it became easy to be a Christian.
My question for you is this: Are you being assimilated by this world?
I pray you are not.
Posted by: Warren Kelly at 08:32 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
June 19, 2004
Introducing .....
DashHouse. A family site that include two blogs. Darryl is a pastor and the chief blogger. His wife Charlene has a blog as well on the site. I especially like the Reading List.
The Revealer. Nothing like a professional journalist to keep the blogosphere up to date! I like this quote from their "About Us" page:
"We begin with three basic premises: 1. Belief matters, whether or not you believe. Politics, pop culture, high art, NASCAR -- everything in this world is infused with concerns about the next. As journalists, as scholars, and as ordinary folks, we cannot afford to ignore the role of religious belief in shaping our lives. 2. The press all too frequently fails to acknowledge religion, categorizing it as either innocuous spirituality or dangerous fanaticism, when more often it's both and inbetween and just plain other. 3. We deserve and need better coverage of religion. Sharper thinking. Deeper history. Thicker description. Basic theology. Real storytelling.
Bene Diction is an outstanding blog. I've checked in there before, but I figure if it's on the 'roll, I'll remember to check it more often. Great information, and well-written.
Vigilance Matters. You have to read this. He and I discussed the whole 'leaving public schools' thing, and I enjoyed the feedback.
News From the Great Beyond. A great blog, and a finalist for King of the Blogs. Humor, personal posts, all mixed together with words of wisdom. This is a good blog.
That's it for now. I'll do this again in a few months or so. If you know of any that I should blogroll, leave me a message!
Posted by: Warren Kelly at 11:16 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Cleaning Out the Blogroll
I'm getting ready to lose a few links, and gain a few. There are a few on the blogroll that I barely read anymore, and I've found a few that I think are worth linking to.
Some blogs have a link policy. My link policy is: 1). If I like it, I'll link to it. I don't always have to agree with it, but I have to want to read it. 2). If you link to me, I'll link to you -- as long as you fit into rule #1.
Once the dust settles, I'll introduce you to the new guys (and gals).
Posted by: Warren Kelly at 11:10 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Heads Up!
Jut a warning -- my lovely wife will be blogging Monday night in my place. I will be off golfing.
I have no idea what she'll have to say. As I mentioned before, she's a bit more politically savvy than I am. On the down side, she watches CNN. On the up side, she argues with them most of the time.
The Mark study will be up on Tuesday.
Posted by: Warren Kelly at 09:55 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Constitution Party -- Explicitly Christian?
It is our duty to raise up Christian candidates who can then use their power to influence a return to the Biblical principles upon which our country was founded. A very good beginning to this process is to check out the only explicitly Christian platform of any political party: www.constitutionparty.org and visit Michael Peroutka's website.
This quote from Buddy Hanson appears on Michael Peroutka's website. I started to wonder if the party's platform actually was explicitly Christian. When you read pary materials, it sounds great -- no abortion at all, no gay marriage, strong defense but otherwise small government, reform of every governmental entity including the Department of Education, the House of Representatives, and the US Senate.
And they have attracted a lot of conservative Christians. Christians have grown disillusioned with the Republican Party, and it's catering to Christian ideas and issues only twice every four years. So I'm going to take some time and look at the platform of the Constitution Party, to see if it's really explicitly Christian. You can find their platform right here
- The Sanctity of Life plank is every pro-lifer's dream, Christian or not. No abortion under any circumstances (even rape or incest). No euthanasia, infanticide, or suicide, either (though how do you enforce a law making suicide illegal?). So this plank passes the test, although it's adoption ensures that no candidate who campaigns on it will ever be elected.
- The AIDS plank is interesting.
Under no circumstances should the federal government continue to subsidize activities which have the effect of encouraging perverted or promiscuous sexual conduct. Criminal penalties should apply to those whose willful acts of omission or commission place members of the public at risk of contracting AIDS or HIV.
In other words, homosexual practices involving an HIV individual would be illegal. I can easilly see this turning into a Sodomy law similar to the one that was overturned in Texas.
Jewish law loves this plank. This follows the injunction in the Old Testament against the practice of homosexuality. The New Testament talks about the punishment of God being heaped on those who practice homosexuality, but doesn't say anything about civil government legislating against it. Have to give this one a no, if we're talking about Biblically-based Christianity. If we're just talking about what Christians would like to happen, though, it gets a yes. There's a distinction here.
- Bringing Government Back Home. This one doesn't mention God or Christians in the plank. The Bible doesn't say anything about the size of civil government, so this one gets a no.
- Character of public officials. Nothing in the Bible about how to select elected officials, either. This I'm giving a maybe, though, since it stands to reason that Christians should expect their elected officials to behave themselves.
- The next several planks deal with governmental issues -- size of government, defense, etc. I'm skipping over them, although the Bible says little about these subjects. One thing I'd like to point out, though:
we should immediately give notice of our withdrawal from the Nixon-Brezhnev Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
The Bible does teach us not to lie, and to be people of our word. As a nation, we have signed these treaties, pledging our national honor to keeping them. Whether we agree with them or not, it is not a Christian characteristic to go back on our word. So we've got a bunch of 'no's here.
Under no circumstances should we unilaterally surrender our military base rights in Panama.
{continued in the next post}
Posted by: Warren Kelly at 08:48 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Constitution Party part 2
{continued from previous post}
- Education: The Bible teaches that parents are ultimately responsible for the education of their kids. I support school choice. I don't support ending compulsary education, which is what the platform says. I don't think the Bible has a lot to say on this, either.
- Electoral College, Election Reform -- not a lot in the Bible about this stuff either. I'd bet a lot of good Christians would disagree with the proposals in the platform.
- Energy: I agree with them, but I don't see a lot in the Bible about energy policy.
- Environment: The Bible has a lot to say about the environment. It's God's creation, and we are to use it wisely. Stewardship is important, especially in the case of resources that are not renewable, or are very slow in replenishing themselves. SOme people would say that it is the duty of a Christian government to make sure that the environment is protected. Not the Constitution Party. Hands off is their policy.
- Executive Orders -- nothing in the Bible about that.
- Family -- I can give this one a check mark. That makes two planks that are distinctly, explicitly Christian.
- Federal Aid and Foreign Policy bring some questions to mind. Shouldn't Christians be concerned about the welfare of people in impoverished countries? Shouldn't we be concerned with helping people overthrow tyrany? Shouldn't we be doing for the least of these? Not according to the Constitution Party. No more foreign aid, no entangling alliances, no nothing.
The party's foreign policy would have worked a hundred years ago. Now, America is a dominant nation on the earth, and we are often called on by other countries for help. The Christian thing to do is not to turn our back on these people.
I'd go on, but I think it's clear that, while very conservative, the Constitution Party is not explicitly Christian. They are very strict interpreters of the Constitution (which explains the name...). Pat Buchannan would be right at home with these folks. Many Christians would not be.
The real question is -- should Christians be trying to use the civil government to bring the Kingdom of God into existance? I've talked about that one before.
Posted by: Warren Kelly at 08:25 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
June 18, 2004
'Saved!' Review On the Mark
The Wall Street Journal has a great review of the new movie 'Saved!'. My favorite part, though, is the subtitle: 'A Movie Makes Fun of Evangelical Christians. This Took Courage?'
Posted by: Warren Kelly at 09:12 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
This is an ALLY??
This article tells me that we need to keep a close eye on our Saudi "allies".
We jumped all over China about human rights violations and religious freedom, yet we spend a TON of money every year on Saudi oil, and don't even give things like this a second look. I haven't seen much mention of the story in any major media outlets -- maybe I haven't been paying attention, but I doubt it.
"What's happening to Mr. O'Connor is by no means unusual in Saudi Arabia, where respect for human rights is as rare as shade trees."
Mexico is fixed pretty good for oil, as I recall. AND they're a NAFTA member, so no big ole tarriffs importing from them. And I have a feeling that the Mexican economy could use a boost -- maybe cut down on the illegal immigration. They might apprciate American dollars more than the Saudis. And US oil companies wouldn't have to pay near as much in travel expenses.
And they don't kill Christians for their faith in Mexico. Someone needs to play some hardball with the Saudis.
Posted by: Warren Kelly at 09:01 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
The Doubting Bishop
Is it just me, or is this really stupid. . .
Danish bishop states that he doesn't believe in God. Or heaven. Or eternal life. WAAAY back in 2003. The church does the logical thing and suspended him. He retracts his statement, and is reinstated. Then he says it again, and they suspend him again. Now he's shocked by the decision. He's fighting to keep his job -- and his parishoners are behind him, saying we have to respect differences of opinion.
Ah -- tolerance. Let's keep a bishop who doesn't even believe what he's supposed to be representing, because we have to tolerate different points of view about God, especially in church. He won't resign -- I guess working for a boss you don't believe in has some advantages:
Me: I'm not coming in to work today, boss. I'm going golfing.
Boss: No, I need you to . . .
Me: Great! Thanks! See ya' later!
Boss: Hey! I was talking there!
Me: Huh? Did you hear something? Must have been the wind. See, I don't believe in you anymore. You don't exist.
Boss: Then you're fired.
Me: See, that's the best part. I don't believe in you, so I can't hear you firing me. See you on Monday!
That's even better than working for yourself. I've worked for myself before, but I quit -- worst boss I ever had. Never gave me a day off or anything.
I seriously don't understand why the guy wants to keep working for a cause he has no faith in -- what's the point? The point is this: job security. In Denmark, Lutheran bishops are employed by the government, not the church. Think the government is going to fire a bishop? Doubt it, especially with his parishoners behind him. He's not going anywhere. And he doesn't need to put a lot of thought into his sermons -- or does he think that his non-existant god is actually going to speak through him? It doesn't matter much what he says -- no eternal life on the line for himself OR his parishoners. ANd the parishoners have to love having a bishop who doesn't keep bugging you about what God thinks about things, or what you should do to serve God, or things like that. Win-win situation short term.
Lose-lose situation for eternity. If man wasn't so short-sighted, the people in Denmark would realize this.
{edit} I forgot to link to the article. BBC News has it here. Christianity Today has had a few things about it, if memory serves me correctly.
Posted by: Warren Kelly at 08:42 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
June 17, 2004
A Baptist by Any Other Name ...
This will probably be my last Convention-related post, but I wanted to adress a subject that has been getting surprisingly little coverage in the blogosphere -- at least the part of it that I've been reading.
The SBC had proposed a study to determine whether or not it should change it's name to reflect it's international diversity.
Baptist Press has a pretty good summary of the issues, along with quotes from just about everyone who spoke up, either for or against.
It's not a new issue. The Convention has looked at a name change before, and has decided not to do it. The main contention is from churches that are not in the South. There is some concern that evangelistic efforts are hindered because of the name of the denomination.
I tend to agree with the messenger who said, "... when I go and witness, I don't ask if they want to be a Southern Baptist. I ask if they want to know Christ."
The major problem with the discussion was that people thought the proposal was to change the name. It wasn't -- it was to study the possibility of maybe changing the name. The only person to address this issue was a sweet lady from Dayton, Ohio, who called the President to task for not having any idea of the cost of the study. Of course, she was ruled out of order.
I had a major problem with not knowing the cost of the study. A budget should have been available for the messengers to look at. Writing a blank check to a Southern Baptist committee is probably the dumbest thing you can ever do, financially. But I want to address the idea of a name change.
Southern Baptist has nothing to do with location. Most everyone knows that by now. Southern Baptist is a brand name, just as Western Union and Southwestern Airlines are brand names. These latter two organizations are no longer regional, as they were when they were named -- and they haven't changed their names. Nobody thinks you can only send money through Western Union to Texas. Nobody thinks that Southwestern Air only flies west of the Mississippi. And people realize that there are Southern Baptists in every corner of the nation, if not the globe.
As far as connotations go, how long do you think it will take for the word to get out that the Southern Baptists have changed their name? Within a week, everyone who used to hate the SBC will now know that they need to hate the new name just as much.
A few years ago, the SBC decided to change the names of the Home Missions Board and the Foreign Missions Board to North American Mission Board and International Missions Board, respectively. They did this when I was a brand new Southern Baptist, so I figured that I would have no problems with the new names. Not so -- in fact, I still call them by their old names, and I had to think before typing the new names just now. Changing the name of the organization would do absolutely nothing but cost a LOT of money to change signs, letterhead, websites, legal documents, etc. It's a bad idea, and I'm glad it was defeated.
Posted by: Warren Kelly at 10:50 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Building Walls
We've come to believe that walls are not good things. We talk about tearing down walls between people, nations, etc. We talk about people who have built walls around themselves to shut out the world, and it's a bad thing. So this article in Baptist Press goes against the grain for most of us.
I was expecting a reaction to the decision to leave the BWA when I started reading it -- building walls between groups. But the walls that Pastor Steve Gains was taling about are the spiritual equivalent of the walls of Jerusalem that Nehemiah was sent back to build.
The walls of a city in ancient times were important to the survival of the city. They established where the city was, it's boundaries. We don't have many boundaries any more. The few that still exist do so only so that people have something to push -- we are a nation that loves to push boundaries, trying to find out exactly how far they go, and what the consequences are of crossing them.
In the name of tolerance, we are expected to condone every deviant behavior on the planet. But Christians are ridiculed, stereotyped, and marginalized in ways that would bring lawsuits from anyone else. We sit and do nothing. Our boundaries have been demolished.
We need to rebuild some of our walls. We need to establish lines that we will not cross, beliefs that we will not compromise. Maybe, indirectly, the message that Pastor Gaines delivered was about the split with the BWA. Because the Southern Baptists decided that there was a wall that they could not, in good conscience, tear down. The BWA was headed in a direction that the SBC didn't want to go, so they got off the ride. They attempted to change the course, with no success. The wall was not torn down.
There are walls that need to be demolished. Walls separating races, sexes, economic situations -- these are all walls that are not needed. But walls of doctrine, of statements of faith, of fundamentals -- these walls should remain. Too many people are willing to sacrifice these walls in the name of unity. Is there unity when basic principles of Christianity are rejected, or ignored? Perhaps there is unity there, but it is a unity that is not of Christ.
Posted by: Warren Kelly at 10:21 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
We should pay attention to this one ...
Ok, I know that Holy Observer is satire. That doesn't mean that this article doesn't have an unfortunate ring of truth about it.
I've seen it happen WAY too many times. A tract for a tip. And I know too many people who actually are waitresses and waiters to believe it's not common.
This weekend, when you go out to eat for Father's Day, drop a 20%-er on the table. THEN, if you leave a tract, it might actually get read. And if you don't, maybe you'll make up for all the $1 tips that our brothers and sisters are leaving.
Posted by: Warren Kelly at 08:45 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
June 16, 2004
This Week in Church History
June 13, 1757.
Pope Benedict XIV granted people throughout the world official permission to have the Bible in their own language.
Granted, the early church had Scripture in whatever tongue that was spoken. Syriac, Coptic, and Greek translations have been found dating very early in the history of the church. And vernacular Bibles had been around in "modern" times since before 1525, when such translations became ammunition for the Protestant Reformation.
Such "modern" translations were, however, condemned (sound familiar?). In 1408 the Council of Oxford condemned Wycliffe's efforts at spreading a vernacular English Bible. A hundred years later, William Tyndale had to flee England to make his own English translation.
Vernacular Bibles had the stigma of being associated with the growing Protestant "heresy". By 1528, the Bible could no longer be translated into French. Bible burnings were common events throughout Europe in the early 1500s. In much of the continent, posession of a Bible in your own language was illegal, usually punishable by death at the stake.
By about 1550, the Catholic Church began to turn around, thanks in large part to the Counter-Reformation. Vernacular Bibles were allowed, but only if they carried official Catholic annotations and explanations of the texts. It took until 1713 for the Pope to recognize that the Bible was, in fact, for everyone -- not just priests and scholars.
The Bible is for all of us. It's message can change lives. And it doesn't take a degree in theology to recognize the basic truths of God's Word.
Posted by: Warren Kelly at 11:50 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Award for "Most Unexpected Link on Christianity Today"
And the award goes to ...........
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition.
And I smile, because Monty Python has always been one of my guilty pleasures.
Posted by: Warren Kelly at 11:45 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Christian Carnival is Up!
Actually, it's probably been up a little while. I've been so wrapped up in my own blogging, and commenting on the ongoing controversy at this years SBC Convention, that I forgot to check my email and most of my blogroll!
He's done it in two parts, but the poor guy got 20 posts his first time hosting!! Head over to Belief Seeking Understanding and read some of these posts!
Maybe next week, I'll actually have something in it! If you're thinking about doing it, but haven't, I have noticed a big jump in hits when I have something in the Carnival -- and more than a couple new subscribers to my feed! I'm not running Jollyblogger numbers yet, but I'm working on it!
Posted by: Warren Kelly at 11:39 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
An Actual NON SBC Post
I know everyone's happy!
Actually, I just wanted to link to this over at Jollyblogger. He hits on a lot of things that I've mentioned briefly before, and does it better than I do.
I also wanted to admit that I missed the Christian Carnival deadline yet again. This time, though, I'm not sure I had anything that I'd consider good enough to include. I've been slacking off a bit lately.
Finally, I'd ask everyone's prayers for me this evening as I preach at the Wednesday evening service at my church. If you're close to Greenup, KY tonight, stop on by Greenup First Baptist. Service starts at 7pm.
Posted by: Warren Kelly at 01:48 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
SBC, Christians, and Public Schools
The resolution is being debated right now.
88% of young people raised in the church leave and never come back. Aparantly, that is totally the fault of public schools. Christian parents can aparantly only have anything to do with their kids' education if their kids are in private schools or homeschools. Funny -- my parents were very involved throughout my public education.
The law cannot keep Christian teachers from answering questions about their faith in school. The law cannot keep kids from praying in school. The law should not prevent kids from sharing their faith in the school -- when it does, we need to fight it. The law can only prevent forced participation in religious activities.
Parents are responsible for teaching their children. Parents need to be involved -- wherever their kids go to school. Many parents do not have the background, the time, or the ability to teach their kids themselves, and many more lack the resources to place their kids in private schools. Parents -- teach your kids. Teach them to share Christ in their schools. Teach them their rights as Christians in public schools. Fight for their rights in public schools. Teach them morality at home.
We talk about kids in high school not understanding or believing the fundamentals of the faith. Whose responsibility is that? The church and the parents. If kids don't understand the basics of Christianity, then I want to know what the youth leader is doing. I want to know what the parents are doing.
Disciple your kids. Train them. But if you want to make a difference in the lives of kids, Christian and non, get involved in public education. Make a difference.
If you are lead to homeschool your kids, I support you -- in fact, I am seriously thinking about doing the same. If you have your kids in private school, I commend you. If your kids are in public schools, I pray for you. I pary that you will have the strength to do as God would have you do, and that you will be involved in your child's education. Actually, I pray that reguardless of where you send your kids -- be involved in their education.
(BTW -- to one of the messengers who spoke: acid does not neutralize salt. Salt neutralizes acid.)
{Update}
The ammendment failed. The resolution concerning the secularization of our culture passed, but without the 'pull out of public schools' ammendment.
Posted by: Warren Kelly at 09:48 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
June 15, 2004
Why Did The SBC Leave the BWA?
Nicene Theology, Neo Theo(b)log, and MSNBC have commented on this so far -- I'll link to others as I find them, and edit this post.
I never thought I'd end up an SBC apologist. Even after I joind a Southern Baptist church, I didn't think I'd ever end up defending them. But I do. I'm one of the "resident SBC experts" on the Fundamentalist Forums. And I'm getting ready to jump into the fray again over the SBC vote to leave the Baptist World Alliance.
The BWA has, the SBC alleges, theological differences which make it necessary for the convention to withdraw fellowship. I have talked about separation before -- this is not the second, third, and fourth degree separation practiced by modern fundamentalists. This is Scriptural separation from organizations or individuals who differ on theological basics. Among the differences are:
- Questioning the truthfulness of Scripture
- Not affirming the necessity of a conscious faith in Christ for salvation
Other issues, such as promoting women preachers and the criticism of the SBC's foreign missions board, are minor things for me. The BWA has issued a statement affirming the necessity for Christ alone in salvation, but that is not binding on member groups. Nothing that I was able to find on the BWA web site addressed the concerns about Scripture at all. There is also concern about the membership of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) -- an offshoot of the SBC, made up of former SBC members who are upset with the conservative direction that the convention is taking.
After the SBC has fought for decades to eliminate theological liberals and moderates from the convention, it seems silly to me to expect the Southern Baptists to suddenly embrace fellowship with these same people. The vote to leave the BWA is a signal that the fight is over, and that there is no interest in the leadership of the convention to re-fight these battles in another forum. There is considerable ammounts of ill-will between the SBC and the CBF -- should we expect these two groups to work together?
Neo Theo(b)log quotes Alistair McGrath that "One of the purposes of doctrine is to divide." We need to make sure that the doctrine that we divide over is important. Faith in Christ as the sole means of salvation is such a doctrine. The infalibility of Scripture is such a doctrine. I would argue if ordination of women is sufficient for division, although I do not believe that it is biblical. I know that criticism of missions boards isn't grounds for separation -- it's not a doctrinal difference. But if someone was openly deriding the ministry that you were involved in, one of the most distinctive ministries that you offer, would you want to support them financially? Would you want to be associated with them?
Neither would the Southern Baptist Convention.
{edit} Take a look here for the Baptist Press story about the vote. The convention has been discussing it's differences with the BWA for a year, and hasn't been able to resolve things. This isn't a spur of the moment decision, folks. This is a 100 year association that has ended. That doesn't happen overnight.
For a non-American view of the subject, click here.
Posted by: Warren Kelly at 08:52 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0187 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.0144 seconds, 25 records returned.
Page size 45 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.