Tuesday, January 28, 2003

Some Southern Baptists Aren't Spoken For By Chosen Reps Robert Parham points out in this article that there ARE Southern Baptists that ARE AGAINST war with Iraq. Jim Wallis' recent article mentioned that "with the exception of Southern Baptists", "virtually every church body in the that has spoken on the war question has concluded this would not be a ‘just war'  ".  Parham's note is important to those of us who still hold some loyalty to the "Southern Baptist" notion that has prevailed throughout the larger part of its history,  that there is a diversity of theological opinion but that the only true test of legitimacy is allegiance to Christ,  and that pronouncements of selected "denominational reps" do not "Speak for God" or to what our hearts tell us that God would have us say;  at least not all of us.  IN recent years,  there is increased pressure on denominational employees and now missionaries, to subscribe to the most recent "Baptist Faith and Message",  and to do so with the "correct manner" of interpreting it,  which happens to be the interpretation chosen by whoever is using it to challenge the veracity of the theology of the person under question. Wallis wrote a book a few years ago entitled "Who Speaks For God?"  At that time,  Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition was the focus since the media often portrayed him as voicing the opinion of the Christians in America.  Southern Baptists have to "endure" the same exposure of spokespersons today,  and to me,  it is particularly troublesome to hear the all-too predictable "towing of the line" toward any and all Republican politics (as if Either,  Republican OR Democrat,  are up to the task of speaking for us).  My point is,  that when Clinton was in office,  all of Washington was evil and opposition filled the rhetoric;  now Washington is on a righeous crusade and the Churches are called to support --- that is,  the majority of Southern Baptist Churches seem to feel obligated to parrot the "assumed" postures,  and its assumed that this is the "Christian stance".  Once again,  it's encouraging to see in the voices of ethicsDaily.com a separation between denominational spokesmanship and the call to discernment that is at the heart of any Christian ethical stance. comment [] 10:32:41 AM

When Blogger's Words Fail Them The Weblog phenomenon is like the Church in the following ways:  To "describe it" to someone not doing it is like trying to describe the Church to someone who isn't involved.  It's possible to articulate "something" ,  but it always comes down to "step inside" and "try us".  It was like that with me.  I read of it,  read a few stories about how people were captured by it,  and so I set out to try it.  As I began to write and to link and to "subscribe",  the whole schema strated to click for me.  Then I began to meet some of the people who were thinking about things like I had been;  about what all this could mean for the Church.  Some of those in my "some favorites" list to the right.  NOw I 'm working on about 3 separate "proposals" to Church related organizations,  one a grant group,  one a Christian-based Social Ministry,  and another an unnamed,  and as of yet unnamed "Community of Churches" who want to take our community out on the Web in order to convince people that theological communities need the involvement of people who feel called to something that makes a difference,  and that there are "desires and gifts and passions" that together awaken us to a sense of call,  and that this call is best nurtured and lived out in community both offline (face to face) and online (what some call "Virtual Community") comment [] 10:08:34 AM

© Copyright 2003 Dale Lature. Last update: 9/23/2003; 2:07:04 PM.