The Southern Baptists are in the middle of a crisis that began nearly 20 years ago. Like other denominations, these people are now sharply divided. The issue: inerrancy. That is, is the Bible without any errors, including historical or scientific? Or is it to be read for its theology with the understanding that people recorded a portrait of the love and grace of God?
Traditional Bible scholars would tend to agree with the second statement. So they were accused of not believing the Bible and driven out of the SBC seminaries. The people on the other side of the fence admit to doing this but say they were saving the SBC from the liberalism of Biblical scholarship.
Here are two articles, both reflect on the same events, but put rather different spins on what happened.
FROM MAINSTREAM BAPTISTS
FROM CURRENT LEADERSHIP IN THE SBC
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
*sigh* I'm never quite sure what to do with this stuff. For instance: "I immediately said denominations were necessary to do the things that a local church cannot do," Pressler said. "And then I have been thinking of it a whole lot more. There is a second reason ... Every brand has a label so that you know what ingredients are in the brand that you are considering. ... So, I am a Southern Baptist for two reasons: Southern Baptists are doctrinally biblical and correct, and Southern Baptists have a methodology that no other group has that can be utilized for winning this world for Jesus Christ."
As if??? The larger church body is to do what the local church cannot, not the denominations (which Paul argues against). And then there's the issue that they seem to think that they've got it all right instead of humbly accepting the fact that they're human and DO make mistakes. I guess I just get so frustrated with the whole lot - a big reason that I often feel like leaving the institutional church altogether (the Wesleyans and Presbyterians aren't much better).
The whole mission philosophy isn't much help either, if they feel that ignoring the culture of a region is an acceptable thing to do in missions. One SBC missionary pair I read about had their local natives (in central america somewhere) build a runway and a clapboard house (complete with picket fence) for them, paid for with a metal pot for the tribe.
Cruz, you know I love you brother, but why? Why do you need to muttle what is otherwise a great blog with references to petty church politics? Is this your attempt at showing both sides of this issue? And may I remind you that it is a southern baptist church that has taken you in, given you a job, and let you get invaluable ministry experience? Oh, and said baptist church is also one of the more free thinking churches in the sbc and we all know that that hasn't made them more effective in their mission... I'm not saying the other side of this issue is right either, in fact the truth is that most churches, and church members had no idea said "revolution" took place and frankly don't care. They aren't or weren't on one "side" or the "other". I'm just confused why this is important... anyways...
Post a Comment