Today, I had a rare opportunity to have lunch with my wonderful wife. It is rare more due to my schedule than hers. Since my morning appointments all canceled and/or rescheduled, it freed me up to do something I love to do.
On the way to her school, I was listening to Paul Harvey deliver the news. A mixture of emotions ranging from frustration, sadness, and disbelief manifested themselves as sarcastic laughter as I heard his proclamation that LifeWay Christian Bookstores has hidden the most recent issue of "Gospel Today" Magazine. To purchase this month's issue you must REQUEST it. Why? Why is a Christian magazine censored as if it were a pornographic publication? Because, the cover displayed WOMEN! Not women who are scantily clad or of questionable reputation. Women who dare to serve in the role of Pastor.
You see LifeWay Christian Bookstores is owned by the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC)and the ordination of women as pastor or chaplain is viewed as unbiblical and therefore doctrinally unsound. Therefore, the magazine cover and subsequent story of women who love God, love people, and spend time in prayerful biblical study and preparation before being God's mouth-piece is somehow offensive. Oh, Please!
A quick Google of the issue brought me to a pastor's blog who stated that he supported the SBC in this stance adding that "scripture is clear [about this issue]." Oh, Please! I'm sorry, but to believe that scripture is "clear" on this issue and on the side of the SBC's most recent revision of the Baptist Faith and Message is utterly ridiculous and it is a narrow interpretation of passages detailing the people to serve as overseers as "husband of one wife" and completely ignores the role of people like Deborah and Phoebe.
It embarrasses me as a Christian and as a Baptist to hear a story like this broadcast.
Let me be clear... LifeWay has the right to censor what resources they offer and where they place products based on their doctrinal stances. On some level, I respect the fact that they have guts enough to allow their convictions to determine their course (such is the life of faith). According to a loose and abridged take on the "priesthood of the believer" doctrine we have the ability to disagree on interpretations. There are more important issues about which we as Christians and Baptists should be proactive. Issues about which we agree. Issues that can lead to more healing and restoration rather than more division. Maybe, this posting does the same thing -- further widens the gap of division.
I should've just told you how awesome it was to have lunch with my wife on a Tuesday.
5 comments:
"I should've just told you how awesome it was to have lunch with my wife on a Tuesday."
Yeah. Like you could've let this one go.
I'm just picturing the protesters outside of Lifeway, yelling at the men who are leaving with their magazines in brown paper sacks - "Does your wife know what you're reading???"
I had not heard this but oh how this irrrrrrritates!!!! Erica is considering the ministry and with many of her abilities I cringe to think that the Southern Baptist Convention's lock on Biblical Interpretation could potentially dictate her future ministry apart from what God may desire for her.
oh Paul how you have widened the gap... This is silly the whole thought of this is silly.... Why do we seem to steer our focus from the love of God and the plans he has for us to the right of a womens place in a church. You would think that some people from the sbc need to get of the building and start breathing some fresh air instead of the office air they continue to create problems from.... Too much crap in the world for us to worry about a woman, better yet a christian sister, helping spread the beautiful message to anyone and everyone. frustration abounds in my heart and mind for the silly thoughts of some people.
Well, this is why the word doctrine was always spoken with such distaste throughout the 80s and 90s (at least in my experience.) "Why can't we all just love Jesus and work together and forget about doctrine?"
But where does that get us? Well, it gets us off the mark entirely. If we can't teach (and discuss) doctrine, then what distinguishes us from those whose doctrines are heretical? We can agree to ignore one doctrine, then another, then another. Before long we are holding hands and singing "Climb Every Mountain", then having coffee and going home.
I'm being facetious, but doctrine is all that separates Baptists from, for example, Catholics. Is that an unimportant separation? The Catholic church holds forth on doctrines that are damaging to the ideas of sanctification by grace through faith alone, the nature of the Godhead, and the priesthood of the believer, which you yourself have cited here. Should we ignore those differences so we can work together?
If we ignore these, why not ignore the differences we have with the Mormons? After all, we agree with them about a lot of stuff, including politics on the sanctity of life and marriage. We shouldn't ignore them, of course. We should be civil to our Mormon friends and be open to discussion with them, but we cannot work together as a church with them. Similarly, I have Catholic friends, and I'm sure most of them have a genuine, saving faith in Christ. But I cannot, in good faith, take my family to a Catholic church and be one with them.
Let's say you attend a "nondenominational church" because you grow weary of being a Baptist. Fine. In one year or two or ten, when the preacher is preaching about a "created Jesus" or a "perfected Jesus" or a "janitor named Jesus", what will you do? On what basis will you bare indignation? On doctrine. This is why we are Baptists and why I refuse to join any church which doesn't proudly display the Baptist label.
So, I guess what I'm saying is:
1) We don't want to all be together, we want to work separately and be civil.
2) Doctrine may be annoying, difficult, or intellectually challenging, but it is important, good, and right for us to teach it.
3) I believe that the SBC has the right to specify that women can't be SBC pastors. However, I also believe that churches are sovereign, so that's why I'm no longer in the SBC. We're American Baptists. Our convention only exists while it's in session. Nobody to tell us what to do but us and Jesus.
Gee, Bucky, I miss going to school with you. - Bruce
Bruce!
I must agree that I miss going to school with you, too. I did not remember being so far reaching in your assumptions.
Let me go on record as a huge fan of doctrine! I love doctrine and believe as you do that it is what defines us. If you go back and read the posting you will see that I never claim or infer that doctrine is a bad thing and "we should all hold hands and sing Pass It On.". In fact, I say quite the opposite with regard to Lifeway's ability to believe and act in accordance with their doctrine. My critique is not about their freedom to believe and act, but with the shakey biblical basis for this particular doctrine. Because as you noted with regard to Mormons and Catholicism, Christian doctrine should be biblical.
Also, my frustration with Lifeway is their roots and affiliation with the Baptist church and it was my assertion that as Baptists we should place our energy and time into areas where we agree and help the world rather than offer unbelievers further ammunition to find fault and paint me with that same broad brush. My point is this doctonal stand is stupid (in my humble opinion) and gives attention to ridiculous and divisive aspects of our faith. FYI: I attend First Baptist Church that still has Baptist in it's name.
One area that you are right in your comment is that you and I disagree with regard to coexistence. You mentioned living separately and being civil to those of other faiths. I believe Christians can and should work along side and in conjunction with other religions when it comes to moral and social issues. If you study other religions you will find moral correlations with Christian and Baptist doctrine. The difference (and it is a big one) is in theology (who we say God is). This does not mean we should flippantly and irresponsibly involve ourselves in these eforts. Would I attend a mission trip sponsored by a Mormon church? No, probably not. Would I work in a community-based soup kitchen along side a Muslim and even go out for coffee with him afterward? Yes, you bet!
Well, I am sure there is more I can clarify, but that's all I can think about right now. I really do miss these conversationsof ours (believe it or not). :)
Paul
Post a Comment