;)
So….You Want A New Name!
Posted by Chris Johnson in Baptist Life, Bible & Theology, Church & Missions
Let’s take a dramatically different approach……If there is a clear and affirming reason to change a name, what would it be? Should a convention of sinners insist on a view to the future by defending a Triennial division of yesteryear, or once again relive before the public a varying prejudice of a known contrition? As I had written in an earlier post… “The most effective way to change the name (of the convention) is to live up to the doctrine it espouses. That way you don’t have to even spell the name differently when that type of change is made.” Certainly that is true….yet if you still have a passion for a name change (where the spelling does change),… any real change should deliver substance, without doubt, to satisfy a worthy call. There will be a tad more than 300 delegates listening.
Surely a convention of cooperating spirits should do much more than inventively look behind, that is… if they intend to lay hold of what lies ahead. I would contend that there is essentially only one reason to embark upon a new name for a people guilty of cooperation, and that reason is bound up in an inclusive mission to deliver the message of Jerusalem to encompass the world. Our convention does a remarkable job now, but can she look forward and do better? Sure she can…. And a convention insistent on a new name must include a reason forward without insisting on an escape from imagined chains.
Can you convince most of the delegates to think like Paul?
“Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. (13) Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, (14) I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. (15) Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you; (16) however, let us keep living by that same standard to which we have attained.” Philippians 3:12-16
And will most of the messengers agree with John?
“We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. (17) By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world.” 1 John 4:16-17
To energize a new name, it must be met with an attitude and trajectory of this conventions unyielding biblical doctrine. And it should reverberate strategically throughout the world from the lips of these messengers claiming roots in Baptist tradition. Can it be that our beloved convention of messengers are called to uphold the pure doctrine of the Holy Scriptures, above all, encouraging all that claim a Baptist heritage to unashamedly move past any new hermeneutic or the sultry allure of a culture clamoring for a neo-equality in the life of Christ’s church. Baptists are historically a people that depend on Christ and His Word, not mankind’s systems of reform or fanciful marketing schemes. Baptists are followers of Christ, patterned in common beliefs, ready to carry the cross of Christ to a neighbor and to the ends of the earth.
So, if you insist in a name that is worthy of change, then sharpen the pencil and list out for all to see,…and live out a genuine motive of cooperation… list out any and all “affirming reasons” worthy of the “upward call” and be convinced to leave the prejudice behind. A new name that yearns for Christ will never survive a convention without reaching aggressively forward and building a lasting strategy for missions. To invent a Baptist Convention for Christ Worldwide, an overwhelming movement of messengers must insist on an effort of like-mindedness, not an effort weighed down by the “necessity to change a name”, but a lasting pursuit toward the “goal” that is “reflective of a name.”
The challenge is to list out reasons for change without looking back? If you can muster that, then this messenger will be persuaded. Would your reasons be able to convince the bulk of statistically enlisted Baptist’s, who are in some way wedded to this convention, a desire to enthusiastically reach into their pocket and pull out just one dollar toward that change? $16,000,000 might begin to cover the administrative costs.
Show me the way forward,….and a new name becomes much less complicated. But don’t bore me by looking behind in disgust and then pretend to be a leader. Cherish the biblical foundation and press on!
Blessings,
Chris
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
“The Organization for Facilitating the Strategic Cooperation of A Group of Bible-Believing Evangelical Churches in the United States of America which Follow a Baptistic Interpretation of Scripture with a view toward the Fulfillment of the Great Commission,” or just simply TOFFTSCOAGOBBECITUSOAWFABIOSWAVTTFOTGC, for short.
Or possibly, La Cosa Nostra.
David,
The mafia does not qualify for what I was thinking as “affirming”.
In your jesting (I think) you have listed the United States as a focal point. One thing I was thinking through in many of articles that have hit recently is how the covention could benefit by situating the thrust of mission closer to the continent in need, ….in other words developing the sustaining work from a convention standpoint closer to the mission on the continent. This would help overcome prejudice in many of the situations. I know the IMB does these types of things, but can it be expanded and more robust?
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
Yes, the Cosa Nostra allusion was made in jest, mostly playing off of the term, which literally means “our thing,” as a way to refer to something for which we can’t come up with a better name.
I am not exactly sure what you mean by “developing the sustaining work from a convention standpoint closer to the mission on the continent.” Are you suggesting that the scope of our cooperation, reflected in the name, should be the continent of North America, as opposed to the United States of America? If so, I’ve got some thoughts about that, but want to make sure I’m understanding you correctly first.
As to, “TOFFTSCOAGOBBECITUSOAWFABIOSWAVTTFOTGC,” I do think it accurately describes what we are all about. However, as a name, it is a bit unwieldy.
In that part, I was half serious, and half facetious.
The challenge before us, as I understand it, is to get what is communicated in that long, unwieldy phrase down to a pithy 3 or 4 words that capture the essence of it.
Very well written, Chris. I enjoyed reading this.
I think that one of the important concepts bound up in all of this is the difference between the convention approach to missions and the societal approach to missions.
According to the societal approach to missions, churches and believers from wherever they may be will come together by contributing to a single uniting cause. For however many causes a number of churches or believers find worthy, there is the creation of a separate society for that pursuit.
According to the convention approach to missions, churches from within a manageable parcel of geography unite with one another simply because they are sister churches who are theologically compatible with one another. Once united on this basis, the churches employ the convention to pursue lots of different cooperative endeavors.
In particular, I’m highlighting the “manageable parcel of geography” aspect of the convention approach. Frankly, sometimes I wonder whether the geography of the SBC is too large to facilitate manageable cooperation. The travel costs to attend meetings and the differences that sometimes appear in regional priorities pose a challenge. A worldwide convention of Baptists would, IMHO, pose more difficulties than it would provide advantages.
David,
I am always one to push for more function, regardless of name. Hence, I believe there are some positive ways to move to a more efficient mission mobilization strategy as individuals in sister nations embark upon making disciples. I think one of the strengths of the last few decades for Baptists has been the ability to understand movement within nations and their laws. If a convention name reflects its mission, the change in functional strategy yields and supports the change.
So yes, if our convention stands to benefit from how each of its members see the world (some may think that is just outside the county line, while others may see it as on another continent). Maybe we are looking at geography a bit myopically and should realize the expectation of our Lord when he uttered Acts 1:8 “but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”
One strategy could be synchronous conventions more in tune with the activities maintained on continents, established on likeminded biblical (Baptist, as some like to say) doctrine. The Apostle Paul demonstrated this throughout his regions of the world in his day.
-Chris
Bart,
You are touching here on our on-going (or, at least, on again, off again) discussion on the difference between unity and cooperation. As I see it, the purpose of the SBC is cooperation. Unity is a category that applies more accurately to the Body of Christ at large. There is a secondary sense, in which, as a subgroup of the Body of Christ, we should be united among ourselves, just as the Body is united. But, I see a real problem with treating the SBC as if it were a microcosm of the Body of Christ. It is, as I allude to in the facetious name TOFFTSCOAGOBBECITUSOAWFABIOSWAVTTFOTGC, merely A GROUP OF Bible-Believing Evangelical Churches in the United States of America which Follow a Baptistic Interpretation of Scripture. And, that which joins us together, in this particular case, are the specific ministry projects in which we voluntarily cooperate with one another.
Brother Bart,
For lack of a better term… “bingo” (I know that is Catholic in foundation, but forgive me.)
I like this…”manageable parcel of geography” …there is a lot of wisdom and practical advantages to that type of thinking without losing any cooperative momentum worldwide.
Blessings,
Chris
Well, as long as the name change isn’t due to a incoming leader who fancies himself the next John MacArthur and wants to ramrod the name change of the organization (Chris, you KNOW who I’m talking about haa), I don’t see how too many people could really get upset about a name change.
In all seriousness, there are some good reasons to at least consider changing the name I suppose but there seems to be a contingent that want to change the name for more “fashionable” reasons (i.e. too regional, outdated). I’m not sure that I think that would be such a good idea, particularly since the approach seems rooted in more of a marketing concept than anything else.
Chris,
We already have the BWA, of which we, as the SBC, no longer form a part. There are also organizations such as the European Baptist Federation, The All-Africa Baptist Fellowship, the Asian Baptist Federation, the Caribbean Baptist Fellowship, the Union of Baptists in Latin America, and yes, the North American Baptist Fellowship.
I believe it would be unfortunate to set up competing or alternative organizations at these different levels. If we, as Southern Baptists, cannot cooperate with these organizations, for valid convictional reasons, that is one thing. But, to set up alternative structures around the world, or throughout the continent, in my opinion, would be exporting our local internecine disagreements around the world, and would not be positive.
I also think it is good to think about cooperating with fellow brothers and sisters in Christ around the world, in the ways in which it makes most sense (perhaps more informally than in a formal organization), whether they use the name “Baptist” to describe themselves or not. The truth is, in many places, there are groups with whom we, as Southern Baptists, share more of a common vision and doctrinal stance that do not use the name “Baptist” than other groups in the same places that do use the name “Baptist.”
In general, I think the WCC type of ecumenism and cooperation has proven to be more harmful for the advance of the Kingdom than helpful. But, this is no excuse for sweeping the biblical mandate for authentic Christian unity under the carpet, as it were. I personally believe this can be pursued more effectively at a grassroots informal level.
To some extent, as I understand it, this is the approach the Executive Committee, through the present ministry of Bobby Welch, is taking. However, it seems to me to have one small office, concentrated in the personal ministry of one individual, in charge of representing us in our relating to fellow believers around the world, is a little ingenuous. In my opinion, the best people to do this, for the most part, are IMB field workers, who come to know and interact with national and local Christian leaders and believers in a more personal, intimate manner. Unfortunately, the IMB went through a phase, a few years back in which, in many places, we distanced ourselves from previous relationships with national Baptist unions. I believe we should do everything possible to encourage more cooperation with national Baptist unions, and with other GCCs (as we have dubbed them).
Brother David,
Your response to Bart is interesting. Unity and Cooperation.
In light of this post…. Unity is not an option. If we are speaking of the same context of Unity (i.e. maintaining Unity of the Spirit), then the convention has no other option than to maintain the already existing Spiritual foundation.
So if I’m reading you correctly, our convention of Baptist’s should be taught to recognize what the Spirit has provided as an opportunity for cooperation. In other words, if I have a dollar in my pocket, how best can I maintain this Unity (demonstrated in the worth of that money) if I walk it over to a friend in another town or country to meet their need.
The distribution and maintenance of funds should be examined carefully. The efficiency of such is typically a local and/or geographical matter. For instance, the value of the dollar has fallen dramatically in the middle east…..so an efficient cooperation is to work with the best, legal and most prosperous conversion of resources in that geographic cooperation.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
If I am following you correctly, I believe I am in agreement with your assessment. In addition to your examples of “walking to another town or country” and the value of the dollar in the Middle East, the following link on “How do we best help Haiti recover?” gives some good food for thought:
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/4769/9/
In other words, our unity is a biblically-mandated concern, and is, at the core, a spiritual unity.
Our cooperation, in many instances, though, is guided by more pragmatic concerns regarding how to be the best stewards of the resources God commends into our hands. However, it is also a matter of obedience to be the best stewards we possibly can. And, questions of efficiency do play into all of this.
David,
I realize that there are a lot of Baptist facing efforts, some become ineffective or even the good ones discarded. That kind of goes to the heart of the post. The convention needs leadership that points the members to cooperation. Surely there are over arching principles that can be assailed in order to better describe this cooperation. To put it even more simply. Is the convention’s “ways and means” to which we belong more apt to remain a regional entity (i.e. United States) as she is systematically designed or is she ready to encompass the world. My point, is that if the vision is the world and a cohesive doctrinal message explains that message….then it is incumbent on the members to define a strategy of affirmation.
We know what has not worked…. A new vision and strategy rarely is successful by using prechewed “bubblegum” to bridge the gaps (i.e. the plethora of agencies and organizations). I’m fishing for a more inclusive schema where solid agencies and organization will thrive, and not soon become realized as competition for the same good mission. In other words, recognize who is planting, watering, and tilling, without digging a grave at the same time.
Blessings,
Chris
What an encouraging post! Thank you.
Brother Joe,
No doubt my friend….. There should be no tolerance for “ramrodding” in the convention.
I do think you are right as well….in that it is really difficult to come up with forward thinking ideals. But if you do…. Sharpen the ole pencil. I know you know what that is…in your line of work.
Blessings,
Chris
David,
Certainly cooperation ought to arise out of unity. At least, I would say that one can have unity without cooperation (I might be unified with you but have pragmatic reasons for which cooperation on a particular project is more effective without you than it is with you), but cannot have cooperation without unity.
So, when I say that the convention approach arises out of our unity, I do not, by saying so, mean to suggest that the SBC fully exhausts the extent of our unity. Rather, I am saying that the rationale of the convention approach to missions is that churches who enjoy both unity and proximity join in cooperation.
Brother Malcolm,
Pressing forward with you my friend! I liked your October piece reflecting on Karl Barth….interesting.
Blessings,
Chris
At the risk of thread-hijacking, I post the following. To prevent thread-hijacking, I promise to let this be my final word in this thread on the matter:
Any church that will not freely exchange members, elders, and other church workers with another church is not in unity with that other church.
Bart,
As far as I am able to tell, on your #15 we are in total agreement!
Bart,
Uh oh. Maybe I hit that enter key a little too quickly. If that is how you define unity, I am not sure that we are in total agreement. That seems to come a little closer to uniformity, as I see it.
(I posted #18 before I saw #17)
Bart,
Are you saying that, if FBC Farmersville were not willing to call Tom Ascol, or Al Mohler, as elder/overseer/pastor, because of their Calvinistic views, then their respective churches are not in unity one with another?
In light of Bart’s reluctance to highjack the thread, and to return to the main premise of the post (at least, as I understand it), I would not be opposed to changing the name of the SBC if it means fulfilling the task that brings us together in cooperation in a more effective and efficient manner, and if it does not, at the same time, miscommunicate what we are really all about.
And, I am in agreement that the “attitude and trajectory” behind the name is much more important than the name itself. However, as I have argued on another comment stream recently, I believe that names can be rather powerful symbols, and that symbols do indeed affect the way we do things.
Bart,
Let’s turn your comment in view of a convention attitude. Will a messenger understand cooperation in that manner. For instance,….if I walk down the street to some another church that supposedly supports the CP and they will not exchange members, et.al. then does that define the need for a convention. I would say… not necessarily.
A convention or conference remains likeminded in the ultimate pursuit, not in the detail of exchange so much. The philosophy of biblical autonomy works much in the same fashion. The necessity for autonomy “is” the pursuit of the gospel, …autonomy is not supported in the want for conformity to ritual which is easily beholden to the desires of the flesh which so easily besets us.
So conventions should look long and hard at the attitude that points to cooperation, not ritual.
Blessings,
Chris
David,
Your comments in #21 is the reason this post’s assignment is so difficult. It is much easier to groan and moan, than it is to work diligently toward a platform for cooperation and maintaining unity.
Like the word “blood” is a symbol,…. it must be explained, so that the substance is clearly seen. Then the name has a valuable meaning. When blood was first mentioned in the scriptures…. we didn’t realize its value until it was explained by the Prophets and the Apostles.
Our conventions “ways and means” need some explaining if we are to ever understand the essence of real cooperation. The point of this post is to begin the process to explain the better ways and means. Messengers will affirm something they understand.
Blessings,
Chris
Why is everyone making this so hard?
If the word “Southern” in our name is causing so much confusion and erecting artificial barriers to our national and world wide mission, then simply leave the word “Southern” our of our Name. It’s really that simple…
Instead of “The Southern Baptist Convention” we could simply call ourselves “The Baptist Convention”. This really should not cause too much confusion… as everyone here already knows; those outside of the SBC are not really true Baptist anyway. (Heck, some of those inside the SBC are not even true Baptist, but I digress)
Actually, we might as well take it a step farther and just call ourselves “The Convention”… I mean, why even bother throwing in the name “Baptist”? … … … You have to admit, “The Convention” does have a certain sound of authority to it does it not? Kind of like “The Family”, or “The Cosa Nostra”, carries a certain sound of authority and aaaaaahhh (RESPECT!)
That settles it… from now own I shall refer to the old SBC simply as “The Convention”.
Grace Always,
Greg
David,
Am I reneging on my promise if I make sure that I was understood in #17?
Of course, there may always be individual members, elders, missionaries, etc., whom we would presume to be people whom we would received as far as their church membership goes, but whom we would then decline to receive on account of their individual attributes. However, the very best man in the world, if he is a priest in the Roman Catholic Church, is going to meet obstacles to becoming the pastor of FBC Farmersville, entirely apart from who he is as an individual, simply because he is a Roman Catholic. Why? Because we do not have unity with the Roman Catholic Church. The same would be true for FBC Farmersville of any Episcopalian, any pastor with the United Church of Christ…even with my college buddy who is presently a Presbyterian pastor. He has a degree from a Baptist University, he has a great personality, he’s a passionate student of the Bible, and I’ll be that he can preach. His being a Presbyterian and not a Baptist would pose an obstacle to his being called as the pastor of this church.
On the other hand, I do not know that FBC Farmersville would refuse to call Dr. Mohler as pastor. I do not believe that our congregation is anti-Calvinistic. Certainly I am not. It is precisely for this reason that I would say thankfully that I enjoy unity with my Calvinistic Baptist brethren. If it should be the case that any of these gentlemen would refuse to serve at a church like this one—a church that, while it is not anti-Calvinistic is also not identifiably pro-Calvinisitic—then it may very well be that we do not enjoy such unity, albeit on their part rather than on our part.
So, to sum up with a clear reply to your question, I am indeed saying that the church which would declare ipso facto that it would never receive a Calvinistic Baptist into membership and that it would never call any Calvinistic Baptist into its presbytery is indeed not in unity with Calvinistic Baptists.
Brother Greg,
I feel a hint of sarcasm in the suggestion
… but some may agree with what you have said, since for many the word “southern” has become pejorative for one reason or another. Since this post is about an “affirming position” though, a simple omission may not be enough to get folks to dig for a dollar to cover administrative costs. An omission theory may only be valuable enough to retrieve a nickel.
I take from your comment that your just fine with the word “southern”. btw…you have some good stuff on your blog about the pastor turnover dilemma seen in small churches.
Blessings,
Chris
Bart,
I (for one) am not going to hold you accountable for reneging on your promise. Actually, I am glad that you have, since I think the points we are discussing here have potential for a constructive conversation. I don’t think Chris will either, since he himself has “bitten the bait” of pursuing some of the issues you bring up further.
As I mentioned earlier, it seems to me you are defining “unity” a bit differently than I would, perhaps applying to it a meaning closer to the one I would give to the word “uniformity.” I would be interested to hear how you would define spiritual “unity” and how you would distinguish it from “uniformity.” Where would you draw the line, if there is indeed a line to be drawn between the two?
A well defined clarion definition of “Unity” is a foundational plank should any change be pursued. Is it already in place?
By all means ….lets consider how all should affirm Unity in light of a convention.
I just hope the “bait” is not “stink bait”
-Chris
Brother Chris,
As I read the post, I thought, Yes, something I can agree with. However, as the comments have advanced and we have definitions of “unity” and “cooperation” being defined, I am not sure. However, based on the article, I can say; “great job”.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Tim,
I guess we may see some attempted definitions of unity and cooperation in the future….whether here or other posts. But all in all, I believe that our convention has much to be thankful for as God allows us to serve Him in our neighborhoods and in the world. It is well worth the effort to cooperate.
Good leadership looks for the way forward with patience while maintaining unity of the Spirit.
Thanks for dropping a note here.
Blessings,
Chris
David,
Lexically, uniformity refers to high degrees of similarity in the nature of two things, while unity refers to multiple things being joined as one. Your computer display and its keyboard, for example, are not uniform (each looks different, serves a different purpose, etc.) but are united (are joined together as a single unit serving a single purpose).
To put it another way, uniformity describes the comparative nature of two things; unity describes the circumstance and behavior of two things.
In relationships between people, unity never can require absolute uniformity, nor can it ever occur in an absolute absence of uniformity. This is also true for churches. Unity is not desirable apart from some measure of uniformity, nor are there any two churches anywhere that are entirely uniform.
Maybe if we simply incorporate under a unified banner. Not the SBC alone, but many of the other Baptist under a single name; information central, so to speak. Let’s say that some organize an “interdenominational Baptist” entity that functioned as a cap to all Baptist who would align themselves under fundamental truths that we all can agree with. Then, each present Baptist organization would maintain their particular and specific Baptistic standard of faith. It would allow an expansion of other Baptist to create, separate or gravitate into the area they wish to support. It would be one banner over many individual statements of faith that support our fundamental Baptist beliefs. By the way, it is that way now within the SBC and it has created political machines within the body of Christ to lean toward conservative, moderate or liberal which has produced much carnality. Changing the name of the SBC would not stop the political carnality that exists. Simply create a cap that deals with all Baptist under one banner and name it something like “The Baptist”, then, allow the adjustments to take place. The SBC would not have to be in charge of this if all of the existing Baptist were to provide delegates and meet for the creation of this entity.
Bart,
Thanks for your thoughts on this. As I understand it, as Christians, our unity one with another is based, first and foremost, on our common relationship with a common Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. We enter into this relationship, and as a consequence, into this unity with our brothers and sisters in Christ, by grace through faith alone. The gateway is narrow, but the fellowship, once within the fold, is wide.
Now, it is also true that, once we are inside the fold, by means of the grace of our common Lord and Savior, and the relationship we have with Him through faith in His finished work on the cross, we, as a natural result, will want to know, understand, and obey His will for our lives. And, we know and understand that will primarily through His Word, the Bible. Thus, we will share with all those who are in essential unity with us a predisposition to honestly seeking out God’s truth in the Bible, and a desire to be obedient to what it teaches us. Thus, if I meet someone who claims to be a Christian, but does not evidence in their life this predisposition and desire, I have good reason to call into question their essential unity with me.
Experience teaches us, however, that there are some, indeed many, who meet perfectly well all the above qualifications, yet, when they study the Bible, with a true desire to understand and obey it, come to different conclusions than we do regarding some of the things it teaches.
There is a bit of tension here. Jesus Himself, in His Word, instructed His disciples (and by extension, us, if I understand this correctly) that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth. And yet, among those who show evidence of having the Holy Spirit, there are certain discrepancies in their understanding of certain aspects of the truth.
This brings us closer to the question at hand: Do I share unity with those who share with me a common relationship with a common Lord and Savior, and who, like me, have the Holy Spirit, even though I may be in disagreement with them on certain aspects of their understanding of His will and of Scripture? Is there such a thing as partial unity? Does our unity become more perfect as we come into closer agreement on our understanding of these particular aspects of doctrine?
My answer would be that there are certain aspects of doctrine that are essential, upon which our common relationship with our common Lord and Savior hinges: if you truly believe with your heart x, y, and z, then you are “within the fold,” so to speak; and if you don’t, you are not. However, it is possible to believe x, y, and z, and be within the fold, and yet be wrong on p and q. As I see it, in such a case, you are still in unity with me (if I also believe x, y, and z), even though I believe something different than you about p and q. If, however, in addition to believing x, y, and z, and having a common relationship with a common Lord and Savior, we also dot all of our i’s and cross all of our t’s the same way, and mind our p’s and q’s, I would say we have not only unity, but uniformity.
Some might say, in such a case, we have a more perfect unity. And, perhaps this is a matter of semantics. Indeed, as we each seek to grow closer to our Lord and Savior, and understand and obey His will and His Word, it is natural to expect that the Holy Spirit will lead us each into a better understanding of His will and His Word, and that that understanding will lead us into a closer mutual understanding of doctrine. But, as I see it, that closer mutual understanding does not make either one of us anymore of a true child of God than we were before we had such an understanding. We were just as much “within the fold” before having that understanding, as we are after having that understanding. It’s just now, perhaps, we are standing closer together in our relative position within the fold.
Now, to get more specific, there are certain members of the Body of Christ whom I believe both of us would accept as being “within the fold,” who, for one reason or another, would not be welcomed as either members, elders, or workers at many, if not most, Baptist churches. Although there are other possible motives for this, an obvious one would be a different understanding and practice of baptism. I would say that we share Christian unity with these individuals, though not uniformity. It seems to me as if you are saying that we do not share unity with them.
Am I understanding you correctly?
The WMU staff in Bham will not sign the BFM 2000 is my clear reading of things at this point.
So if you name a New Convention based on the narrow doctrines and implementation of the old; then seemd to me your Missions Agency collapses or you carry on the facade you got going now; Cause Lottie Moon finally leaves and all you have to ralley around is Focus on the Family.
At that point you see mass exodus of churches and dollars to the CBF a lot of us have been praying for.
Stephen,
I’m going to have to call your bluff on this one. I don’t see what in the world a potential name change has to do with the WMU and the BFM 2000. Totally unrelated issues, in my book. The BFM 2000 is already on the books with our present name, and, in all likelihood would maintain its same status with a new name. And though there are some points of common intersection (overlapping Venn diagrams, if you will) between the agendas of the SBC and FotF, there are also points of divergence, or at least, liberty to differ. And, once again, this has nothing to do one way or another with a possible name change, as I see it.
Brother Bruce,
You are to be commended, as you are the first to attempt a strategy in the post so far. I think you bring up an interesting fact….in that as you state “It would be one banner over many individual statements of faith that support our fundamental Baptist beliefs. By the way, it is that way now within the SBC”. I think part of the solution you pose is expressed in the definitions that David has brought forward with respect to Unity and Uniformity where Cooperation is the final judgment.
The convention sort of works the way you have presented at present. The convention as an entity is established for a limited, very short period of time (when the messengers meet) in order to direct funds into agencies of cooperation. The misunderstanding comes when it is not clear to the individual autonomous church with respect to the dollar that comes out of the giver that is ministering in that congregation.
I believe that each individual autonomous congregation is free to cooperate as they view, inspect, and ultimately bring life to the “subject” on a daily basis. The “subject” is all of agencies that are funded by this one autonomous congregation. As Bart is implying, I believe, is that the “subject” must have a level of uniformity in order to survive. I believe we can all agree that there must be clear, unambiguous doctrine to carry forward this uniformity and thus create a platform for cooperation. I contend, as does David after reading his post at #33, is that Unity is already established, …not by us, but by the Holy Spirit… We simply maintain that Unity. On the other hand, Like-mindedness comes as we learn and mature at the autonomous level of cooperation, not so much at a national or world level of cooperation, simply because of the sheer number of adherents. This has become and remains to be a problem for any convention or denomination of substantial volume and size. Thus the reason that Stephen just wants the money, so that another convention can appear to be in cooperation.
So a new name must incorporate a clear and substantive doctrinal message that has biblical foundation. Although Stephen seems to support, without many facts in his last statement, an agreement with the CBF’s hermeneutic of female overseers in the church. That is no different than a paedobaptist’s hermeneutic defending babies being baptized into the church. Although some folks (and in growing numbers) clearly follow a new hermeneutic (as does CBF), that is not really “pressing on” to the “goal” of ministering the gospel of God,…nor is it a reason to change a name. In other words, the CBF has made the choice to not cooperate with many other conventions by changing the hermeneutic, thus requiring a name change to substantiate the new way of translating the scriptures. That does not mean that anyone cooperating with the CBF is evil by any means,…it simply means that they chose not to cooperate since each of their autonomous churches have been convinced to follow a new hermeneutic.
So the banner you speak of must have a clear doctrinal view, that is based in sound hermeneutics. And those sound principles must be maintained and brought forward so the church may be edified.
I think your right…. In that autonomous congregations will operate to what they know. A convention can be very helpful in announcing clear and unambiguous doctrine as a means to cooperation.
Blessings,
Chris
Dave Miller,
I apologize profusely for continuing. Tell me to stop and I will immediately.
David,
1. I agree that there are different degrees of progress toward unity. We are united with the Moslems in our belief that there is a God, over and against, for example, Richard Dawkins.
2. I agree that the brightest line separates those who agree with regard to the gospel of Jesus Christ and those who do not. For those who share unity with regard to the gospel will eventually know unity with one another over all that God teaches us. There is indeed a degree to which all the redeemed are unified proleptically.
3. I agree that congregations need not be identical in order to be united. I further agree that congregations determine whether they are in unity with other congregations based not only upon whether they differ with one another over anything but also upon their respective estimates of the importance of each of their differences.
4. I nevertheless stick by what I have said about members, elders, and other workers. I do so not to articulate a proposed BASIS for disunity, but rather to describe the IDENTIFYING MARKS of disunity. Churches are not in unity who would not freely exchange members, elders, and workers among themselves (i.e., for whom the fact that members, elders, and workers were associated with Church A would necessarily raise potential objections to their serving with Church B). It is not that this is the condition upon which we should inaugurate disunity; it is that this is something of the essence of what a breach in Christian unity is.
5. So, to sum up, churches that are not in unity may be in varying states of being closer to achieving unity. This does not, however, alter the fact of disunity even in the case of some churches that are not too terribly far from achieving unity.
Bart, I say so many stupid things I often forget where I said them. Did I tell you to stop? I’m trying to figure out the antecedent to your comment above?
I’m enjoying reading this stream, though I have had little to add.
Bart,
Not quite sure why you are apologizing to Dave. This is Chris’s post. Maybe you were getting this post mixed up with Dave’s.
I think your answer here bears further witness to our different perspectives. Semantics is really a tricky endeavor at times, and many times is at the root of our misunderstandings.
Although there is a sense in which we are indeed “united with the Moslems in our belief that there is a God,” this is not, in any way, the same type of unity to which I am referring when I talk about unity in this context. As I see it, spiritual unity is more of an either-or category. Either you are within the fold, or you are not. There is no one with one foot in and one foot out. And Muslims are most certainly not within, no matter what particular beliefs they may happen to share with those who are within.
Now, the idea of “proleptic unity” is something we may need to probe into a bit further. To be honest, I had to look up that word. And, I am still not exactly sure of the point you are making. Are you saying that our present unity, in whatever way we may experience it, is merely a precursor and sign pointing to the ultimate unity we will share in the eschaton? If so, I sense a parallel to the idea that the Universal Church is strictly only an eschatological concept, since we will only all be “gathered together” in the same place, after the final resurrection. Is this what you are getting at? Or are you referring to something else?
I could comment on your other points, but feel it might not be helpful until we get cleared up this understanding about the essence of spiritual unity, first. Otherwise, we might end up comparing apples and oranges, and talking past each other.
What say ye?
Bruce,
I basically agree with Chris’s reply to you. But, let me add this:
It seems to me that you are advocating a sort of “Baptist ecumenism.” The Baptist World Alliance fulfilled some of the functions you are talking about. However, when all is done and told, I believe the things that draw us together with other Evangelicals (understood as “gospel-believing and preaching Christians”) are more important than those that draw us together with other Baptists. Admittedly, there is a big crossover between the two. But, there are some true Evangelicals who are not Baptists, and some Baptists who are not true Evangelicals. And, I can work better with born-again Bible-believing Presbyterians, Charismatics, etc. than I can with liberal Baptists, who do not really believe the same gospel I do.
There are some organisms that seek to facilitate the cooperation in ministry of Evangelicals, such as the World Evangelical Alliance, and the Lausanne Movement. And, for the most part, I think these initiatives are helpful. But, I would not put all my eggs in the basket of any particular organization. Practical cooperation is, first and foremost, an organic effort, and is practiced best at a grassroots level, in the trenches, locally, in personal relationships.
Thanks Chris and David,
I’m not as well versed as many of you who work within the organization are about how things are already set-up, on the other hand, it may be a blessing. My thoughts are simplistic and do not have much to substantiate a better direction. However, I am learning from some of the greats about the Baptist life and structure that I wouldn’t normally be privy to in my position. Some things I do know are that we function more carnally within our structured organization even though many desire to be spiritual. We are yoked together with liberal thinkers and have many other hindrances to God’s sanctified living within our organization and choose to maintain cooperation with them to a degree. I do not know how to fix that from my position other than prayer; which really is more effective than being Vice President, isn’t it? I will continue to hear your comments and insert my comment here and there to see how or if it fits. I encourage you to help me understand.
In a way, I think the idea of creating a “cap” and then aliening with those who accept the statement of faith could work to a degree. I know there would be a great amount of detail and work in order to do this, but, it may be easier than simply changing a name and maintaining spiritual unity without carnal fighting’s that some Baptist cherish. Some name changes are simply that and have no affect on anything else except the cost of replacing the letter head, street signs and bulletins. Setting up a banner and having those of like-mind move that direction may make us smaller, then, who said fewer had less power. I can think of how God did greater things with less and few.
Bruce
I thought that I had submitted a reply to this thread. Maybe I messed up somehow.
I did warn you earlier not to rile CB Scott, but that was on another post.
David,
I’ll retry on the comment that was apparently lost in the ether. Here goes…
First, with regard to the Moslems, I listed our situation with them as an (admittedly small) degree of progress toward unity. I did then say that, with regard to the Moslems, we are united IN something—essentially, monotheism. And perhaps what leads to our breakdown of communication there is that I see the words “united” and “unity” not as bits of specialized jargon but as mere English words that belong to the larger English-speaking population. For I do not see them redefined or invested with special code-language meaning in the New Testament (as, for example, “ekklesia” is). Rather, the New Testament simply uses the garden-variety words (all derivative in some manner from ἑν). Therefore, when I state first that we have with Moslem’s a degree of progress toward unity, then I necessarily mean that we do not have unity with them, for a degree of progress toward something necessarily means that you have not arrived. And then when, in the same sentence, I say that we, along with the Moslems, are “united in” something, then I am employing the word “united” not as a theological code-word, but simply as the English word that it is. We are united with the Moslems in monotheism. We are united with the Roman Catholics in pro-life causes. We are united with the Mormons in opposition to same-sex marriage. None of these things mean that we enjoy unity (in an unqualified sense) with any of these groups.
By referring to proleptic unity with those who are genuinely believers, I did indeed intend to indicate something akin to the status of the universal church. I know for certain that the blessed day will come when I will indeed be united with all who are redeemed, and because of that, there exists today both a sense of anticipation for that reality and a status by which I presently recognize those with whom I have reasonable hope to share that unity on that day.
I think this concept brings us to the central point of difference between the two of us (and it may be nothing more than semantics)—specifically, the relationship between regeneration and Christian unity. It seems to me that our situation is best summarized in these statements that I think we might make differently (correct me if I am wrong…do not let me put words into your mouth that do not belong there):
David Rogers: Because they have been regenerated in Christ and are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, all the redeemed have unity in Christ.
Bart Barber: Because they have been regenerated in Christ and are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, all the redeemed ought to have unity in Christ.
So, I’m taking our being “within the fold” with other believers and our common partaking of the grace of God and the indwelling of the Spirit not as the essence or the present guarantee of unity, but as the basis of the obligation and the final guarantee of unity.
Unity with other believers is Christ’s to pray and ours to accomplish (as far as the duty goes, although we may never actually accomplish it until He accomplishes it for us).
The fact that there are churches with which my church will not freely exchange members, elders, and other workers is simply evidence that we have not accomplished it. That’s all that I’m saying.
Whew! It finally went through.
Is this site hosted on a Commodore 64?
Brother Bruce,
“Setting up a banner and having those of like-mind move that direction”…..
That is actually a good strategy. Some in the convention would argue that it is setup already though. But, how the setup is explained tends to be where the irritation develops.
I believe for any large convention to survive and continue to thrive, one of the primary goals is to be vigilant to simplify and have a consistent and focused message. What I mean by simplification is that the message of the convention must be clearly articulated doctrine, so that the autonomous churches are not confused and exhausted, but simply encouraged to cooperate.
The current convention has become too complex in its attempt to convey a message to the world. Not the message itself is wrong or misguided for the most part,…but for a host of reasons complexity seems to have won the day. With that complexity, the sheer volume of adherents exacerbates the confusion, resulting in a sense of despair which leads to apathy, need for name changing, or the “anything different will do” approach.
For instance, I have an employee that belongs to a large SBC church in Tennessee and their membership is about 3200 folks. About 10 minutes ago, I asked her a series of questions.
1. Why do you support the SBC? She was not sure….She actually didn’t know why we need cooperative program, even though she did remember is was a budget item. She was aware that the church gave something to the CP, but not why.
2. What do you think of when you hear SBC? She went straight to the perception of others…. Like, Baptists are judgmental and hypocrites, Baptist only want your money, Baptist only want you to come and get baptized so they can count you on their roles.
3. Do you have a need to give to the CP? She said not really. She didn’t really know if there was a need.
This is pretty typical responses born out of a lack of simple communication and a plethora of complex ministry options caste sporatically by its agencies. A convention that is crystal clear concerning its mission, will again gain attention and momentum from its messengers. Bringing the SBC to like-mindedness will be to “simplify and focus” the message of the gospel to the world, so that the person coming into church is aware of the reason to cooperate.
Blessings,
Chris
Bart,
Thank you very much. That was very helpful, and does indeed help me to understand where our differences of perspective lie on this.
For one, though I would not choose the language “specialized jargon” or even “code-language,” I do regard Christian unity to have a special meaning from a New Testament perspective. As I understand it, the unity we share as brothers and sisters in Christ is qualitatively different from the type of unity members of other diverse categories might share with each other.
Also, as I understand it, this unity is not only potential, or prospective, but actual, and present. Some theologians have used the terms “positional” vis-a-vis “practical” truth. From this perspective, as I understand it, our positional unity with our brothers and sisters in Christ is already perfect and complete. However, the practical implications of this unity depend, to some degree, on our maintaining this unity (Eph. 4:3), and living in a manner in accord with this unity.
Perhaps this explanation will clear up our differences of perspective here. Indeed, I would not be surprised if, when we look at it from this angle, you are in agreement with me. Is that indeed the case?
If so, perhaps our real differences on this matter lie in what our approach should be to seek to put into practice in our daily lives the positional unity we already share with all of our true brothers and sisters in Christ.
If not, then we probably need to backtrack again, and figure out exactly where we part ways and why.
Chris,
I’m in agreement. Our autonomy is necessary and, at times, can hurt us, too. I do not think I have been in an SBC church that educates it’s people about the entities and their function within the SBC. We have to basically educated ourselves.
One thing I see in most denominations, including ours, is that the more educated we get the more we think we need to shallow out the doctrinal statements for some reason. Any time that occurs I don’t know of any time we ever returned to the basic truth. Maintaining what you said, “to be vigilant to simplify and have a consistent and focused message” would be straining if we were influenced by a growing majority who thought differently. Sometimes it may require a group to get together and move back to the right again under a different banner and grow from there.
Bart,
As I was mulling over this, an illustration just came to me that may shed some more light on all of this.
I see this as somewhat similar to a lot of the discussions over inerrancy. We believe that the Bible in the original manuscripts was inerrant. Yet, we don’t have a copy of the original manuscripts. This doesn’t mean, however, that we throw up our hands, and give up on the whole concept of inerrancy, as if it were meaningless or useless. Indeed, our belief in the inerrancy of the original manuscripts affects in some very practical ways our entire approach to the Scripture texts and translations we do have and to hermeneutics.
By the same token, while I may not know precisely who is “within the fold” and who is not, and while we may not be physically joined together, enjoying perfectly all of the benefits of Christian unity, until the final day when we are gathered together around the throne, the category of Christian unity is still, in the present, a very meaningful and important category, with some very practical implications. And, just like inerrancy, it is very important that we hold to it, and seek to live in accordance to it, to the degree we are able. In some ways, this involves a step of faith. But it is not a leap of blind faith, in a Kierkegaardian sense.
David,
Again, I’m not talking about how to recognize those with whom we ought to have Christian unity. I’m talking about the evidences that there is not Christian unity. The failure to exchange elders, members, and other workers between churches is ipso facto a breach of unity. Call it a wrongful, sinful breach of unity (for surely it is), but it is a breach nonetheless.
Bart,
Sorry, but it still seems to me that we are talking past each other. I was hopeful my last comments (#47 and #49) would help to clear this up.
Do you find my distinction between positional unity and practical unity helpful? Do you find it to be biblical?
By the way, cbsnews.com has given us a new name: U.S. Baptist
Brother Bruce,
It sounds like CBS actually is reporting this correctly. Since the church took these actions not under the wing of any SBC agency, they were working alone in the effort.
The church did the wrong thing by taking the children without following the law. I hope this gets worked out for the sake of the folks from the church. Its sounds like they got caught up in the moment and made some poor decisions.
We should continue to pray for those in Haiti and those working to rescue and bring aid to that region.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
I will continue to follow this and pray for them. The present article has changed from this morning and left out the association within Haiti that has made some of the serious charges and comments against them. The comments came from some kind of Voodoo Counsel. These people will need our prayers.
With regard to the name change issue, it is interesting that the secular press (at least, everywhere I have seen this story so far) has called these folks U.S. Baptists, although the churches are SBC churches. What I think this demonstrates is the instinctive recognition on the part of the secular press of the incongruity of calling people and churches from Idaho “Southern Baptists.”
And, we do indeed need to pray for everyone involved in this situation. Satan would really love to take what these good people were intending out of love and concern as egg on the face of Baptists and Evangelicals in general. Some are saying the ultimate effect could be a general slowdown on all future adoptions from Haiti, or even perhaps international adoptions from other countries as well.
I have been doing something informally recently, ever since this thing came up. It is really hard to find out denominational affiliation on SBC church websites anymore. Almost no churches put “affiliated with SBC” or something similar on their websites.
I checked the websites of these two churches, and one of them kept their SBC affiliation a state secret.
Maybe we have already effectively dropped Southern, and Baptist (and convention) from our church names.
Dave,
Do you think it is a silent exodus? We are getting smaller, so I hear.
Bruce
I don’t really know what to think, Bruce. I just know that SBC affiliation is guarded like a state secret on many church websites.
David,
My apologies. I did not (and still do not) recognize in #47 and in #49 a resolution to my assertion that there was a difference between owing unity to some people on the one hand and actually achieving unity with those people on the other hand. What I read in #47 and #49 is the idea that we can have imperfect unity and still call it unity. When a church refuses to exchange (as needed) the elders, members, and workers in another congregation, I find that to be indicative neither of “positional unity” nor of “practical unity.” Rather, I find it to be an entirely disunifying thing and reflective of no sort of unity whatsoever.
I would regard a scheme of “positional unity” versus “practical unity” as a phenomenological matrix and not a conclusion derived from sound exegesis. I do not believe that Christ prayed in the hope of mere “positional unity.” Christian unity is not, in my reading of scripture, a fait accomplit, but is instead a prayed-for hope and expectation as well as a duty.
If I am missing you here, it is due not to my intransigence but to my incompetence.
Bart,
Okay, it does indeed appear we have a different take on the question of “positional unity.”
I agree with you there are practical implications of our unity that are not yet fully realized, some of which will not be until we are all together gathered around the throne of the Lamb. However, it leaves me wondering what terminology you would use to describe the state referred to in 1 Cor. 12:12-13, and Eph. 4:3-6, where it says, “There is one body.” Perhaps it all depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is?
Also, how would you explain the difference between the injunction, in Eph. 4:3, to “keep the unity of the Spirit” (which we apparently already have), and what it says in Eph. 4:13 about “until we all reach unity” (which we apparently do not yet have)?
David: “Perhaps it all depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is?”
Well, David, I AM from Arkansas, after all.
I would point out that, in the New Testament period, the Bible gives no indication (to my knowledge) of Christians who did not freely exchange elders, members, and other workers with one another. Thus, it is my position that, at the time of the writing of the New Testament, Christians did indeed enjoy with one another an unbroken Christian unity.
Which leaves Ephesians 4:13, but I think it is important not to latch onto ἑνότητα and find in its every appearance a statement on ecumenism. Verses 3 and 13 explicitly refer to unity in two different things (just as I suggested that unity could mean a wide variety of things in my earlier comments about Moslems and Mormons). In Ephesians 4:3 the reference is to the unity of the Spirit—the Christian unity which was entirely unbroken at the time. In Ephesians 4:13 the reference is to τὴν ἑνότητα τῆς πίστεως καὶ τῆς ἐπιγνώσεως τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ, εἰς ἄωδρα τέλειον (“the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, into a perfect man”). This verse refers to our arrival together (in the eschaton) to the point of perfection in faith and the knowledge of Christ.
So, when I say that I do not adhere to a framework of “positional unity” and “practical unity” it is not because I hold to less than these two meanings of the various words translated “unity” in the New Testament, but because I hold to more than two uses of the words. Just as there are many contexts and significances of the words “tent” and “stone” in the New Testament (some of which are theologically significant), but none of these uses captures the words into the category of jargon for the Christian faith (as does, for example, the New Testament use of the word for “church”), likewise I believe that the various Greek words translated “unity” in the New Testament are simply common lexical terms that are employed in different phrases with different contexts to refer to a great many kinds of unity.
And with all of these senses of unity and with all that it means in the New Testament, the refusal to exchange elders, members, and other workers among churches is, it seems to me, indicative of none of them. Rather, it is a quite jarring contrast to them. Here are churches that ought to be united (since Christ is not divided, is He?) but they quite clearly are not. Their lack of unity is a sin impervious to any amount of whitewash.
And yet, obviously, they are united in some things. They are united in not being united with one another, for starters! Yet essentially they behave schismatically.
Bart,
Let’s try coming at this from a different angle.
Would you agree that it is possible for individuals to share a common relationship of saving grace with a common Lord, and yet not necessarily be members of congregations that “freely exchange elders, members, and other workers with one another”?
If so, what term would you use to describe this mutual condition? Inasmuch as we are part of ONE body, are indwelled by ONE Spirit, submit to and serve ONE Lord, and have ONE God and Father of all (for the sake of discussion, I will leave up in the air, for now, the question of whether we really share ONE faith and ONE baptism with all of these or not), I have no problem calling this condition UNITY. It doesn’t hurt that v. 3 in the same context (Eph. 4) also uses this term. But, if you want to call it something else, fine. For the sake of discussion, let’s use the term you give for this condition.
Now, I would agree that, in a “perfect world,” an implication of this condition ought to be that the congregations of those who share it “freely exchange elders, members, and other workers with one another.” However, in the world in which we live, there are other conditions that impede that from happening. But, that doesn’t mean that this condition (whatever we choose to call it) no longer exists, nor that it is a meaningless category for the way in which we relate to one another.
Now, as far as ecumenism is concerned, that is another problematic term, because we often mean and understand different things by it as well. However, if by “ecumenism” we mean trying to identify those who truly belong to “the household of faith”–τους οικειους της πιστεως–(Gal. 6:10), and seeking to live, to the best of our ability, like we really are members of the same family, I have no problem with this. We both know, though, there are those who attach meanings to the term “ecumenism” beyond this.
David,
I would agree that it is not only possible but is a circumstance attained in reality that individuals share all that you mentioned above and yet are divided from one another schismatically. What would I call this?
I would call it not an unqualified unity but a unity IN [fill in the blanks of unifying ties among them] and I would call it some degree of progress toward an unqualified unity. The greater the degree of progress, the better. There are, for example, Baptist groups with whom the only impediment to unity between myself and them is their insistence upon a lack of unity. We are not unified, but we’re really close! And then there’s Francis Beckwith—unified in what you mentioned above, but much further away from unqualified unity.
I would note that the “unity” in verse 3 is obviously not a unity exclusive of unity in faith and baptism, which you have left aside for good reason. This is a degree of unity enjoyed by the early church that is absent today, and toward which I hope to strive.
It seems to me that we merely have a difference in semantics, but in semantics that are not entirely meaningless.
Honestly, the two of you ought to set up a site where you just debate things – a sort of Christian “Crossfire.” It has been an interesting and informative (and well-mannered) discussion.
Bart,
Thanks for the interesting conversation.
I suppose, for the time being, we may have exhausted all of the talking points on this particular excursion.
My main point, related to Chris’s main premise on his post, is that we, as Southern Baptists, are a subset of the Body of Christ who cooperate with each other for pragmatic reasons, rather than a microcosm of the Body. And, as such, we should not conflate our cooperation on a denominational level with our unity on a broader level.
We may, however, pick up the discussion (if you are interested) in my upcoming post (to be published on Monday) in which I pose some additional questions tangentially related to the issues raised here.
David and Bart,
That was an interesting interchange. It does help to get the understanding of unity out on the table since there are many aspects and motives to defining the term.
This specific post was aimed at discovering the leadership qualities that make for a well defined convention. I believe that the churches that make up the convention have a well formed doctrinal platform that has proven to be valuable in the body of Christ with respect to cooperation. This cooperation in my opinion is not so much bound up in unity, since I believe that unity is already defined biblically and is something we maintain. Unity is not something to be formed by the body of Christ, it is more appropriately maintained.
Cooperation, on the other hand, is an opportunity to lead and teach the biblical doctrine. There will always be local assemblies that do not want to cooperate in the manner that the Southern Baptist Convention cooperates. This lack of cooperation by others should not be sought as a separatist movement on the part of the SBC, but moreover an opportunity to lead out and clarify the doctrine that was set delivered by Christ and the Apostles for the church. In other words, our convention should not retreat into a separatist methodology, …our convention should lead out and challenge others to cooperate in the doctrines set forth by Christ and the Apostles, which is set in a trajectory to maintain the unity of the Spirit.
Separation will occur, yet is should not be one of retreat, ….but such a separation, if one does occur,… should be in the spirit of John’s teaching….. “1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.” Baptist’s of late have yielded to the wrong kind of separation (one of retreat) and must begin to lead once again, and invite others to know the true doctrines of the church. This is the thrust of Ephesians 4, which is intended for the now by all those that confess Christ as Lord. I’m not convinced that means that a new name is eminent, but I’m sure that will remain a buzz of some sort along the way.
I look forward to David’s next post and additional interaction on this subject. It is an important subject which will set the trajectory or cooperation or separation. Unity is another matter altogether.
Blessings,
Chris
[...] unity. On Jan. 28, in comment #33 of the comment stream of Chris Johnson’s post entitled So….You Want A New Name! I made some comments and posed some questions to Bart Barber related to the difference between [...]
[...] several related publicity pieces, including a recent article published by Baptist Press. However, as I have recently argued on a comment stream here on sbcIMPACT, although there are various types and varieties of unity in the world in which we live, “the [...]