SBC Executive Committee Creates Two Panels to Investigate SBC Entities

Here is an SBC Voices take on the EC study:
http://sbcvoices.com/prestonwood-and-the-erlc-the-ec-responds/

 

I can see why there would be the need for committees though.

My gut reaction as a Southern Baptist to the religious liberty resolutions put out by the SBC is:

We are not as Believers to support the religion or theological beliefs of those going to hell in anyway. It sends mixed signals and in that way tempts them to believe we are saying their beliefs are OK before God. This seems easy from biblical grounds. We are called to be separate and holy (2 Corinthians 6:14-18) and to have no union at all between the church of God and idols.

That would be the gut reaction. I know we have to love others as ourselves though. To me that would include making sure other faiths are treated like we are, as led by our pastors, so that they live up to the scripture (1 Timothy 3:7).

However, if I as a Southern Baptist am having a major bible-based internal argument that gets me no where for now and message boards are lighting up, then we definitely need a public debate to figure out the best course of action using the bible as our foundation. The last thing we need is for this to divide or alienate even more churches.

 

Salty - that one got a real bunch of laughs out of me.

-EDIT-

I guess on point, and I hate to say this given committees, other than a committee what other alternatives in the SBC are there to a serious theological divide that has people voting with their feet?

 

Salty I think the problem has to be more personal. To me it would more apt to say - would you stand next to an atheist at a pro-life rally. I used to be an atheist years ago. Wow no smiley expresses this one, moderators you might want to fix that, *ponders deeply*. I'll have to get back to you on that, I have some serious thinking to do. One thing I know I would never want in a million years is for Believers to stand next to me and call me moral back then. Then again maybe I don't understand that I needed to be loved out of my atheism with regular interaction.

 

That is true, abortion is murder and therefore is a legal matter in this county instead of a "religious" one. I use the quotations because legal morality is derived from some higher moral code. In this case we know it is murder from the Law.

I might have to start another thread on this because we could go on for a while. I don't want to hijack this one.

I'll just get to the point: How is our God, Who commands us to kill the priests of Baal and cut down and burn the Asherah polls, one that is OK with allowing paganism or even worse secularism to flourish when Christians have a legal say in the matter? Were the Byzantines right to outlaw paganism if Christians hold full governmental authority? I mean, in these situations I want to ask what would Hezekiah do? How do we jive the concept of liberty for pagans and even seculars (which I had to do given the Word's stance on them as a group) to go about their business? Is it just letting the world be the world and the church be the church when we don't hold full governmental authority? And if this was a vast majority evangelical Christian nation, Father we pray earnestly in Jesus name!, then do we have a biblical obligation to rein in paganism and secularism because they are simply put wrong and unholy and will spread a law that goes against His Law and the New Testament's commands?

I do believe this argumentation conforms to the original post, as I had to burrow down to my heart and what's in it on the original topic. In all honesty I want to flip to Nehemiah and his wall and Ezra and the breakup of the marriages to foreign wives to understand what holiness for the church requires.

Then again I may be getting something horribly wrong, as I would undoubtedly seem oppressive to outsiders which seems to violate 1 Timothy 3:7 and the command to love our neighbors as ourselves. I must admit that I do not see the line needed between tolerance and holiness, and as such I have erred on the side of complete holiness.

 

I understand now that I delved into tyranny in my last post, but I guess my open question is: Is what seems like tyranny for holy aims what God requires, especially given the Old Testament? Of course, I must be enormously careful given church history, especially the Reformation. Our forbears in the Radical Reformation who argued for believer's baptism were murdered in terrible ways and persecuted for their belief that our baptism is one of repentance from sin. Those who thought that they were serving God with this severe persecution were in fact serving the Enemy. I'll leave it there though and talk about the theology of this with my pastor since we have a monthly theological sit down anyway.

That said, this issue of holiness vs tolerance is very troubling to me, and seems to be at the core of the debate going on in the SBC. It also seems that what is really needed is a better understanding of how to be holy and understanding when tolerance is simply loving our neighbor as ourselves for Southern Baptists. To me this rests on understanding how to be a stranger in this world and understanding how to be a traveler passing through this world for Southern Baptists as well.