My previous post observed that many in ther Dean campaign are not there becuase they agree most of what Dean says, but are “in the community because it is a conversation”, where they are enabled to enter the political debate.

This is to be the theological legacy of the Southern Baptist failure to be Baptist, and beyond that, to be the Church in a global sense. Indeed, much of the problem is that the SBC opposes participation in such a diverse theological lot. It is, for many of the leadership, a sign of the times (perhaps drawing upon the end-times novels such as Left Behind and its covert suggestion that “World Peace” and “religious diversity” are signs of the devil).

The idea that theological conversation is somehow dangerous when it “causes” new “variations” to emerge is abhorrent to me. This is why I believe the SBC should change it’s name to something other than Baptist, as long as it maintains the “offical” stance that certain Baptists are not worthy associates. If they prefer to “withdraw” support from the Baptist World Alliance, let THEM withdraw from being Baptist, and recognize the fact that Baptists do not plege allegiance to a partiular theological camp other than to proclaim Jesus as Lord and support missions to that end. But the problem with the present SBC leadership is that they can only see that Jesus is proclaimed as Lord when it “ascribes to particular and narrow notions of what that means….and to them, it is creedal. Missionaries are judged not on their work as bringing Jesus incarnate to other cultures, but on their “worthiness” based on adherence to a theologixcal system whose “parameters” are drawn increasingly tight.