This is a phrase that reminds me of Dr. King. It also carries with it the basis for my “oppostion” and my attempts to articulate that oppostion, to voices which attempt to dilute the truths which I feel called. But along with the “apologetic” I seek to confront whatI see as distortion and “blasphemous” (giving God a bad name), there is the task of articulating those truths which I feel compelled to defend. So it’s not a matter of constantly fighting and pointing out wrong, but seeking to describe what I feel is the truth I protect.
Sometimes, over a period of time, there seems to be more reaction than pro-action. I’ve heard people say, regarding the frequent stories about SBC vs CBF that the CBF folks should “move on”; that theyhave “lost” and should suck it up and move on. There is something out of place in thatkind of suggestion. Move on to WHAT? This is the nature of Church we are talking about. We’re not talking about a SPORTS team having lost, or a lost job, or even the death of a loved one. If the nature of the fellowship to which we are called , in which we should “live and move and have our being” is being attacked, at what point do we “surrender” and say “OK, you have YOUR group here, and you OWN the denomination and do not accept us as a part of it unless we “keep quiet” and accept your authority, then we’ll just START again.
There are some things worth standing up for. Is “Southern Baptist Church” worth the effort? Many have said no. Jimmy Carter publicly expressed his disgust a couple years ago with the Southern Baptist Church ( to which Al Mohler replied with his usual expose on how this represents some kind of commentary on how “liberal Christians” are the reason for the decline of mainline denominations).
I find myself compelled to “defend” the notion and past realities (and implicitily, the hope of a renewal of such in the future) in the SBC as a place where a diversity of theological views could exist and engage in dialogue. It was very much a “catholic” (little C) feeling within the confines of Baptist life. The American Baptists and Southern Baptists, 100-years-plus removed from the North-South cultural divides, were in a position to talk collaoration and coopration and maybe even, someday, merger, but the 1970’s and 80’s and a band of conservatives decided that the time was ripe for a crusade and a theocracy, and wrested control of the denomination. Almost immediately, the tone of once-great and servant structures within the SBC became self-righteous, “doctrinally-indisputable” structures answerable to noone except the self -appointed saviours of the denomination. (here I go again…….so,…….back to my original point : What is worth protecting?)
The notion that God has given us a structure , the Church, to which we are called to live out our “place” in the Kingdom of God. A community in which we can discern our calling. Many of these “CALLINGS” will lead us into conflict and confrontation withpower structures which want to keep things as they are. If the Church becomes a place that places these “Proclamations of the power structures” above the discernment of call, then the Church breaks down; it abdicates its role as a change agent.
The Church needs to let go of its power to the extent that it can “let go” of its people enough to allow them to experience discernment; in fact, it must not only let go, but then follow that with ENCOURAGEMENT and ENABLING and RESOURCING of CALL. When a Church seeks to “protect” against “infractions” which often amount to “questioning of thrological assumptions” and therefore rejects the CALL given to a person or small group in community, then it is abandoning its purpose. The SBC has done explicit and egregious damage to the mission field in its “clearing out” of the missionaries who dare to “say things differently” and therefore threaten some kind of “trouble in River City” that would result if their “theology” isn’t brought into line. The actual WORK and CALL of these missionaries, unquesrtioned by their own “mision field subjects” , is relegated to a secondary place under the unquestioned allegiance to a select group of theological know-it-alls. These theological police dare to suggest that the work of these “rebel misisonaries” is secondary to the “belief system” they espouse. Funny, I always thought Jesus “lived through us and in us” and resulted in good works. It is usually the theological police types who emphasize “faith over works” in their effort to “control”.
You see what happens? I return again and again to how such a theological police state works against the movement of the Spirit rather than “enabling” and “channeling” it.
In my CALLING, I find this “open-ness” absolutely essential. To be ” a people of God on the Web” requires not only authenticity but a willingness to allow “bottom-up” , emergent conversations to flow and allow the stories and the callings of God’s people to “intersect” and “match up” so that new MISSION can be formed that collaborates in ways not previously known. We must see past the theological differences that divide people who would be CALLED together to tasks that CHANNEL God’s message and hand to a particular work, but are separated by clusters of like-minded , theologically-compatible pockets who seek partners in mission from a limited group.