SBC Reformission? Tired but Trying.

What have I gotten myself into? Do you guys realize that I have a wife, two kids and a full time job teaching theology at MBTS? Do you realize that I am bi-vocational pastor of an urban core church which I am trying to find an ACTS 29 person to re-plant? Do you realize I am much older than you all and my body hurts? And now, thanks to you guys, apparently I must work to see change in the SBC--AGAIN!

I cannot help it though. I really believe that you missional Baptists types bring something vital and right to the SBC.

I am working hard on both fronts--trying to learn about you and trying to educate SBC institutional people as I have opportunity. Who knows, maybe God will help us and once again the SBC will take a turn for the better. And I do believe that the conservative resurgence did involve a huge turn for the better. I was up to my neck in the SBC BEFORE the resurgence!! One thing is clear. Without the conservative resurgence, I would not be employable by an SBC institution.

Pray for me. I am trying to do my part on the inside.

Emergent Enemies of Doctrine Affirmed--Sort Of . . .

Don’t deny the dangers of doctrine. They are deadly, and chief among them is that they divide. Doctrine divides otherwise happy communities of believers by exposing and then exacerbating contrary convictions about everything from baptism to birth control; from the way we worship to whether we welcome wine.

The danger of doctrine is not lost on emergent believers who relish relationship and emphasize belonging before believing. And they have support from no less authoritative a voice than the Apostle Paul himself. Paul took something of a Rodney King (can’t we all just get along) approach to the nasty “herbivore versus carnivore” and “one day is holier than another” debacle in Romans 14 and 15. On these disputed questions at least, love and unity trump and indeed displace any fierce hankering after some supposedly discoverable and essential “will of God.” Instead, Paul’s command is—don’t go against conscience and don’t look down on your brother whose conscious is contrary to yours!

Can this be the same Paul who gets his back up in Galatians over a little thing like the gospel? He encourages anyone who dares to preach a gospel other than the one he preaches not to stop at circumcision, but to just go ahead and castrate themselves and when they are done with that, well, just go to hell. I am not making this up. Paul says, “let them be anathema.” I am afraid that emergent believers will need to accommodate some of this castration and anathema stuff if they truly mean to plant and nurture “biblical communities of faith.”

Some emergent communities, while adamantly not abstaining from alcohol (thank you very much) are going off doctrine cold turkey. They’re loving each other, telling they’re stories and sipping Ripple—no doctrine allowed. Those who weaken and allow a little doctrine to squeeze in tend to stick with the Apostles’ Creed—which is great but then the Apostles’ Creed lacks any straight gospel/atonement talk, which is just what the Apostle himself got his back up about. [When someone seems permanently settled into ambiguity on the atonement and homosexual behavior but picks fights over their right to imbibe, one wonders about the exegetical priorities at work]

The reason the doctrine of the atonement tends to force itself down the throats of Bible-loving, Jesus-honoring folk is because the Bible itself is fixated on the matter and Christians, across time and geography, recognize that the atonement is the heart of the faith (See Mark Dever’s fine article in Christianity Today.)

The atonement has defined and will continue to define the scandal of Christianity and render biblically faithful ministers of the word odious to the practitioners and purveyors of politically correct, pluralistic, group-hug spirituality.

Doctrine does damage to our fellowship when it displaces the Bible as our authority or displaces exegesis and so determines beforehand what passages might mean. Doctrine does damage when it becomes a fig leaf for deluded brothers who imagine that true believing can coincide with disobedience. But doctrine defends our communities against the deniers of the Savior when it declares the meaning of his death as vicarious, substitutionary atonement. The Apostles’ Creed is a good thing, but it has proven insufficient as a doctrinal basis for enduring communities of faith where believers are encouraged to read, believe and obey the teachings of Holy Scripture.

More about the necessity, dangers, and benefits of doctrine in future posts.

Reconstruction Underway

Sorry for the debris. The "comments" have disappeared but will reappear soon.