The Doctrine of Denominational Unity
The Doctrine of Denominational Unity
“Adrian Rogers was a gracious man who worked for unity in the body of Christ. He believed with all his heart that inerrancy was a hill to die on. But he still sought unity in the body of Christ”
-Joyce Rogers (widow of Adrian Rogers)
The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) recently concluded its national convention in North Carolina. A major point of contention in the SBC has been for many years now the argument over the doctrine of bible inerrancy. How this core issue of the faith even rises to the level of a discussion is beyond my ability to understand.
How could an issue deemed worthy to die for be relegated to a position not worth separating over? No, you don’t have to be cruel. No, you don’t have to be mean. But you do have to draw a line. “I’d die for it… I just won’t separate over it” is a silly place to be.
What other causes are worth dying for but are not worth being inconvenienced for? Silly.
Great Christians in history and the “great cloud of witnesses” in the scriptures are not measured by their willingness to compromise, but by their willingness to suffer for the truth.
Boy, that Elijah was sooooo mean-spirited! And don’t get me started on Peter and Paul. Calling men “dogs” and telling false teachers to leave believers alone! These guys need a Rick Warren seminar on group hugs and on “How to Pretend Doctrine Is Important While Crying and Not Do Anything About It.”
One of the church’s favorite pastimes is crying crocodile tears because of the ever-present fear that someone might call us “mean-spirited.” A more insidious practice is the “getting angry at the church for not loving enough” shtick. Without this theme CCM (Contemporary Christian Music) would have very little to write about.
You’ve seen it, some musician or pastor gets angry at “the church” for not loving enough, he/she yells at a nameless “church,” the listeners applaud uncontrollably and then there’s a lot of self-flagellation. You can even deny the faith like Rich Mullins did, but no matter, it's the anger at the church that counts. Of course, very little is accomplished for the Lord, but a lot of people feel better because they feel worse and the delusion that the world will somehow like us better is strengthened (see: fantasy).
I can picture the fantasy, I get to speak at a national conference somewhere and I build up to a screeching “We’re just a bunch of unloving bastards! Is that what Jesus would want us to be?” Then I follow up with a weepy plea for “unity” so “we can be the loving hands of Jesus.” My star would rise and the offers to speak would pour in. But just sticking up for Bible inerrancy (no matter how saccharine sweet one tries to be) will only get you invitations to small conferences and even smaller churches until the invitations dry up.
Why? Because beating up on the church sounds “brave,” but it’s really only a coward’s guarantee of adulation. Another reason is more symptomatic of the modern church: the doctrine of denominational unity is more important than core doctrines like THE BIBLE. Of course, they’d never say that, but to turn the tables a little bit on them… their actions are drowning out their “statement of faith” pamphlets.
“[W]e’ve got to have a supernatural healing in the SBC, a healing of relationships.”
-Ed Young (former President of the SBC)
What is the source of conflict in these relationships, Ed? If someone keeps coming to my house and telling my kids the Bible is full of allegory and error, there’s going to be a severed relationship. Sure, I can do it amicably. I can be nice about it. But I’ll never apologize for limiting the relationship (no matter how many tears are shed at a convention of self-flagellists).
“I’m an inerrantist. I believe in the Word of God. I’m just not mad about it.”
– Frank Page (newly elected President of the SBC)
Why get upset over a little question such as “hath God said”? There are so many other things to get angry about like “why don’t we love enough!!”
If you can call Genesis 1:1 into question, you can do the same with John 1:1… and John 5:24… and Rom 6:23… and Eph 2:8-9… and Titus 3:5… and 1 Timothy 2:12… oh wait, they do question that last one.
Well, Frank, I’m mad about it (although I prefer the word “angry,” I’m not as well-versed in the English language as you ThDs). In fact, I’m seething. Might I quote another mean-spirited person for a second? Somebody somewhere said “You make the Word of God of none effect by your tradition,” then this man had the nerve to call those who didn’t honor the Bible “snakes” and a “viper’s brood.”
Whoever that guy was, he needs to understand that the SBC has a big budget. It has offices and staff. If some of those snakes leave how are we going to pay the bills?
“It is written… or is it?” isn’t a very effective strategy against the wiles of the devil.
“Hath God said?” The answer is “yes.” I can tell you this, if you have people in your church who are immovably entrenched in either the “maybe” or the “no” camps, no amount of love is going to get them to tell Eve she was wrong in her assessment of the Word of God.
One last note: the requisite “people don’t come to Christ because we don’t love enough” accusation was trotted out on schedule at the convention. Again, I agree that we must “speak the truth in love.” The problem is that while many like the “in love” part, precious few care for the “speak the truth” part because even fewer believe that “the truth” is worth separating over.
“In love” will never get you the persecution that “the truth” will. This is why a gospel-denier like Mother Teresa is glorified in every corner of an unbelieving globe and from Evangelical pulpits across America while gospel preachers like Oliver B. Greene are footnotes. Did Oliver Greene preach in love? Sure. He just made the mistake of being “dogmatic” when it came to silly little doctrines like grace, faith, salvation, the inerrancy of scripture, the finished work of Christ and other things that we need supernatural help to “heal” over.
Here’s a shocking new theory: faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
How about this: people don’t come to Christ because they don’t see themselves as totally incapable of pleasing a thrice holy God or because they think God is somehow appeased by their “religion” or they just don’t care to consider anything that would require them to face rejection.
Well, I guess if you join the self-flagellists you might not face rejection… well, you might not face rejection this day… however, I’m none too sure about a rejection you may face on another far more important day in the future by a far less fickle judge.
=
“Adrian Rogers was a gracious man who worked for unity in the body of Christ. He believed with all his heart that inerrancy was a hill to die on. But he still sought unity in the body of Christ”
-Joyce Rogers (widow of Adrian Rogers)
The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) recently concluded its national convention in North Carolina. A major point of contention in the SBC has been for many years now the argument over the doctrine of bible inerrancy. How this core issue of the faith even rises to the level of a discussion is beyond my ability to understand.
How could an issue deemed worthy to die for be relegated to a position not worth separating over? No, you don’t have to be cruel. No, you don’t have to be mean. But you do have to draw a line. “I’d die for it… I just won’t separate over it” is a silly place to be.
What other causes are worth dying for but are not worth being inconvenienced for? Silly.
Great Christians in history and the “great cloud of witnesses” in the scriptures are not measured by their willingness to compromise, but by their willingness to suffer for the truth.
Boy, that Elijah was sooooo mean-spirited! And don’t get me started on Peter and Paul. Calling men “dogs” and telling false teachers to leave believers alone! These guys need a Rick Warren seminar on group hugs and on “How to Pretend Doctrine Is Important While Crying and Not Do Anything About It.”
One of the church’s favorite pastimes is crying crocodile tears because of the ever-present fear that someone might call us “mean-spirited.” A more insidious practice is the “getting angry at the church for not loving enough” shtick. Without this theme CCM (Contemporary Christian Music) would have very little to write about.
You’ve seen it, some musician or pastor gets angry at “the church” for not loving enough, he/she yells at a nameless “church,” the listeners applaud uncontrollably and then there’s a lot of self-flagellation. You can even deny the faith like Rich Mullins did, but no matter, it's the anger at the church that counts. Of course, very little is accomplished for the Lord, but a lot of people feel better because they feel worse and the delusion that the world will somehow like us better is strengthened (see: fantasy).
I can picture the fantasy, I get to speak at a national conference somewhere and I build up to a screeching “We’re just a bunch of unloving bastards! Is that what Jesus would want us to be?” Then I follow up with a weepy plea for “unity” so “we can be the loving hands of Jesus.” My star would rise and the offers to speak would pour in. But just sticking up for Bible inerrancy (no matter how saccharine sweet one tries to be) will only get you invitations to small conferences and even smaller churches until the invitations dry up.
Why? Because beating up on the church sounds “brave,” but it’s really only a coward’s guarantee of adulation. Another reason is more symptomatic of the modern church: the doctrine of denominational unity is more important than core doctrines like THE BIBLE. Of course, they’d never say that, but to turn the tables a little bit on them… their actions are drowning out their “statement of faith” pamphlets.
“[W]e’ve got to have a supernatural healing in the SBC, a healing of relationships.”
-Ed Young (former President of the SBC)
What is the source of conflict in these relationships, Ed? If someone keeps coming to my house and telling my kids the Bible is full of allegory and error, there’s going to be a severed relationship. Sure, I can do it amicably. I can be nice about it. But I’ll never apologize for limiting the relationship (no matter how many tears are shed at a convention of self-flagellists).
“I’m an inerrantist. I believe in the Word of God. I’m just not mad about it.”
– Frank Page (newly elected President of the SBC)
Why get upset over a little question such as “hath God said”? There are so many other things to get angry about like “why don’t we love enough!!”
If you can call Genesis 1:1 into question, you can do the same with John 1:1… and John 5:24… and Rom 6:23… and Eph 2:8-9… and Titus 3:5… and 1 Timothy 2:12… oh wait, they do question that last one.
Well, Frank, I’m mad about it (although I prefer the word “angry,” I’m not as well-versed in the English language as you ThDs). In fact, I’m seething. Might I quote another mean-spirited person for a second? Somebody somewhere said “You make the Word of God of none effect by your tradition,” then this man had the nerve to call those who didn’t honor the Bible “snakes” and a “viper’s brood.”
Whoever that guy was, he needs to understand that the SBC has a big budget. It has offices and staff. If some of those snakes leave how are we going to pay the bills?
“It is written… or is it?” isn’t a very effective strategy against the wiles of the devil.
“Hath God said?” The answer is “yes.” I can tell you this, if you have people in your church who are immovably entrenched in either the “maybe” or the “no” camps, no amount of love is going to get them to tell Eve she was wrong in her assessment of the Word of God.
One last note: the requisite “people don’t come to Christ because we don’t love enough” accusation was trotted out on schedule at the convention. Again, I agree that we must “speak the truth in love.” The problem is that while many like the “in love” part, precious few care for the “speak the truth” part because even fewer believe that “the truth” is worth separating over.
“In love” will never get you the persecution that “the truth” will. This is why a gospel-denier like Mother Teresa is glorified in every corner of an unbelieving globe and from Evangelical pulpits across America while gospel preachers like Oliver B. Greene are footnotes. Did Oliver Greene preach in love? Sure. He just made the mistake of being “dogmatic” when it came to silly little doctrines like grace, faith, salvation, the inerrancy of scripture, the finished work of Christ and other things that we need supernatural help to “heal” over.
Here’s a shocking new theory: faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
How about this: people don’t come to Christ because they don’t see themselves as totally incapable of pleasing a thrice holy God or because they think God is somehow appeased by their “religion” or they just don’t care to consider anything that would require them to face rejection.
Well, I guess if you join the self-flagellists you might not face rejection… well, you might not face rejection this day… however, I’m none too sure about a rejection you may face on another far more important day in the future by a far less fickle judge.
=
PS: I would like to commend Don Wilton’s call to stand up for the truth of the Bible at the convention. He stated there “The SBC is no longer built on absolute truth. It is built on personal preference and we’re in trouble.” You all know the name of Rick Warren, but how many know the name of Don Wilton? Of course, Don will never be featured in Ladies’ Home Journal or appear on Oprah; but somehow I don’t think he cares.
posted by bleechers at
1:52 PM
<< Home