SBC pulling plug on BWA

Believe it or not, I was asking sincere questions.

Actually, I don’t know exactly what you mean by modernism. You seem to associate modernism with anti-supernaturalism and liberalism, but I tend to associate modernism with an emphasis on rationalism and issues of “certainty”.

Hence, in my understanding, post-modernism is essentially a rejection of rigid modernism’s obsession with reason and certainty. To further clarify, late 19th century modernistic liberalism attempted to undermine the historical and theological framework of Christianity through an overemphasis on logic and scientism (the belief that the scientific method is the only appropriate way to evaluate the world). Therefore since fundamentalism started as a necessarily biblical reaction to modernism, early fundamentalist leaders used the same philosophical framework and methods to speak in defense of the gospel. Unfortunately, the philosophical framework is faulty, but fundamentalists have tended to cling to it because of tradition. Therefore, I believe that most fundamentalist groups are modernist because of their emphasis on rational proofs and absolute certainty regarding doctrine, practice and morality.

From what I can tell, you are associating modernism exclusively with rationalism, scientism and liberalism – but I’m not sure. That’s why I wanted to get an idea of what groups and theologies/philosophies you believe were “modernist”. I did not intend to play any sort of “game” with you – only understand what you are driving at.

According to the way you have described modernism, I am against it too.

Okay, that’s a straight answer to a straight question. I can understand that.

Again I can’t figure out which groups you are referring to… (Obviously CBF is not one of those groups.) Are you talking about American Baptists for instance?

I didn’t realize you were a Landmarker… That explains a lot of your perspective. As for me, I won’t be a member of a congregation that violates the fundamentals of faith and practice (for instance, I won’t be a member of a congregation that affirms homosexual activity/relationships or has a pastor who believes he/she is a mediator between me and God). But I am willing to work with persons and organizations of the Christian faith (not Mormons for instance) in matters of common concern such as abortion alternatives, lobbying for religious liberty, and local religious charities such as homeless shelters and a children’s home sponsored by local Fort Worth churches.

Besides cooperating together with other Christians to do good works, it is an opportunity for me to share a Baptist perspective on faith to people in other churches.

Seriously, thanks for your response. I am truly interested in your concerns about BWA.

 

Since one of my recent posts probably prompted yours, I’ll answer…

When I was growing up I had a Sunday School teacher who told us that we were not supposed to associate with the Roman Catholic children at school or in our neighborhoods. She condemned Roman Catholicism as a false religion and said the Bible teaches us to stay away from false teachers (she made a logic/theological leap here) and not have them in your house, bless them or even give them a drink of water. We were not even to talk to Roman Catholics!

Of course, I don’t think she knew that my grandmother and grandfather were Roman Catholic and that I had other Roman Catholic family members. (My grandparents were actually more Baptist in theology and practice than many Baptists I know – they rejected the authority of the Pope and knew that salvation was by faith in Christ, not the sacraments of the church. They remained with the Roman Catholics for cultural reasons – they were European immigrants.)

I wanted to know if Mark was taking this kind of extreme position or if his unwillingness to fellowship with other Baptist groups had to do with a specific doctrine or practice.

My former Sunday School teacher would be appalled by the very thought of BaptistBoard. (For what it’s worth, she said that the former location for the Garden of Eden is now on the moon! The way she believed, when Adam and Eve sinned, God kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden but has to keep angels on guard duty (with a flaming sword) for years and years. When it was time for the flood, God removed material from the earth and formed it into the moon – the resulting damaged to the earth caused the flood – water sloshing out of the earth from the hole and the sloshing of the oceans while the earth was pressed into a smaller shape as God repaired the damage. Since the Garden of Eden is now on the moon, it has been destroyed and man cannot enter it again (but those darn astronauts tried!! ) and God doesn’t have to keep angels busy with guard duty. (It’s obvious she was not much of a scholar or theologian. ))

 

BaptistBeliever,

I'm not impressed by the fine spun distinctions between modernism and post-modernism and neo-orthodoxy and such. Suffice it to say that any theological approach which allows that some assertions of Scripture may not be true is an anti-Christ theology, and the BWA is full of such churches - such as many within the American Baptist Churches, the Alliance of Baptists, the British, Canadian, and Austrailian Baptists, and, for that matter, many within the SBC.

Mark Osgatharp

 

So if I am understanding you correctly, you were attempting to draw out a clarification from Mark. You do not actually think there is a contradiction between posting on the Baptist Board and separating from those one may think of as modernists, liberals, or unbelievers??? I have noticed that type of argument on several occasions on the Board (by several different people), and was beginning to wonder.

 

I see. Thank you for your response.

 

So if I am understanding you correctly, you were attempting to draw out a clarification from Mark. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, that is correct.

…or fundamentalists.

I do not think there is necessarily a contradiction. To be blunt, God would have to forcefully and explicitly tell me to join a fundamentalist church before I would ever do it again. I do not want to ever again be publicly associated with the types of fundamentalism I have known in my life. Yet, I enjoy fellowship and dialogue with people who are fundamentalists even though we will likely have significant disagreement in some portions of theology and practice. Therefore, I enjoy BaptistBoard because of the people here even though there is a very strong fundamental majority. This board is full of fine people who show genuine concern and compassion for others.

You won’t get that from me Brother Vaughn.

 

1.) Churches are autonomous, so the CBF has every right to ask for funds (like any other group) from individual churches.

2.) Can you give me an example of this? </font>[/QUOTE]1) They have the "right" to request funds. However, by coming out of the SBC and then requesting funds from SBC churches, they are attempting to compete from a position of confict.

2) Any SBC church that now diverts some of its mission funds from SBC work to CBF work.

The reason that the SBC has a problem with the BWA on this is that the BWA sees that the CBF is is such a position of conflict with the SBC, yet still favors CBF membership in the BWA.

The SBC is being gracious by not immediately eliminating all BWA funding.

 

BaptistBeliever,

I know this is getting away from the subject of th BWA, but let me say that I do not believe that modernists are the only heretics in the world. There are fundamentalist churches which are as despicable as modernist ones. As a matter of fact, I suspect some people have been driven into modernism by the hypocricy and anti-Christian attitudes, if not doctrines, they have encountered in "fundamentalist" churches.

I met a man years ago who went so far as to convert to Judaism. He claimed the Baptist church in which he was raised taught that black people evolved and white people were created. I can fully understand how such a raising could leave a man spiritually confused.

And yet I also understand that people who stand for the truth are hated by those who hate the truth and that much of the modernist despite for "fundamentalism" is nothing more than a hatred for the truth itself. I also understand that when people hate the truth, they will magnify every fault of the person or church preaching the truth to the 1000th degree which they would overlook in others.

The bottom line is, while there are fundamentalist heretics as well as modernist heretics, there is still a fundamental (pun intended) difference in philosophy between fundamentalism and modernism (or any of it's variations).

Fundamentalism starts with the assumption that the Bible is absolutely true. Granted, there are many fundamentalists who minsinterpret, misuse, and abuse the Scriptures - but that does not negate the validity of the Scriptures themselves. As Paul said:

"What if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true but every man a liar."

By contrast, modernism, neo-orthodoxy, post-modernism - all of which are nothing other than variations of old infidelity - starts with the assumption that the Scriptures are not necessarily true and leaves man to judge which assertions of the Scriptures he will accept or reject. This leaves man with no authoritative word from God and results in moral and doctrinal chaos with no standard by which to restore order.

Mark Osgatharp