We Know What He Means

When we read the indictment of sin that Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote in Romans 1:26-31 (26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:) we know what he means. We have no debate regarding the meaning of murder or covenant breaking. Backbiting and hating God are not in need of 21st century revisionism. Neither are the other sins listed there. Our individual responsibility is to believe what he has written and with care to avoid those sins in our lives or repent of them if they are a part of our lives already. Denominationally our responsibility is to declare that the scriptures are true, the activities listed here are sins, and to call to repentance those within (and without) our organizational fellowship to turn from those sins to live as God calls them to live.

You know what he means, don't you?

Real Radical Discipleship

Radical discipleship, to use a current ABCUSA term, begins with faith in the one way of salvation God has offered to the world. One cannot be a radical disciple if he/she doesn't become a believer in and a follower of Jesus Christ. Radical discipleship includes the radical acceptance of the Christian doctrine that God has revealed His plan for humanity in an objective revelation we call the Bible. It gives the radical disciple a place to go to hear what God says to him about life and living. To be a radical disciple means that the individual, and corporately the local congregation and associated bodies of the denomination, will radically believe what God has revealed. Then in radical obedience to that word the Christian will, with amazing fortitude, love the world's unlovable, but will refrain from committing adultery. If the Christian does fall into sexual sin, of any sort condemned by the Bible, she will not attempt to justify it - "Oh, the Bible was talking about something else!" "Well, the Bible's mores are ancient and times have changed so we don't have to obey them anymore." - he will, at the very least, admit that his actions are sin according to the Bible, and that his lifestyle is not really radical Christian discipleship. That is if the Bible is any guide.

Specific to our case, she ought to admit that he is no longer a traditional Baptist. If she gets to the place where she admits that she is sinning, but plans to continue in that sin, then shouldn't she voluntarily stop making the false claim that she is a traditional, Bible believing, radical disciple American Baptist? And if he/she doesn't shouldn't our General Secretary tell him so?

Make A Choice

The vote of the United Church of Christ to officially approve same sex marriage hurts the American Baptist churches in the USA in a significant way. While ABCUSA debates and flounders in a battle for the soul of our denomination over the issue of scriptural authority, the United Church of Christ delegates gave public and official notice that they do not believe the revelation of God in the Bible to be authoritative for Christian living. As one commentator put it, the United Church of Christ’s Independence Day vote “declared its independence from biblical morality and natural law.” This action would be of little consequence to ABCUSA except that a number of our churches have previously identified with the United Church of Christ by dual alignment, and some have probably already declared themselves as part of the Welcoming and Affirming movement. Intended or not, the United Church of Christ has intruded upon our debate. It would have been better for us if the United Church of Christ had called upon dually aligned churches to make a choice. Either throw in your lot with ABCUSA which has not yet “officially” repudiated the Bible’s teaching on same sex sexual behavior, or come with us (the United Church of Christ) and blaze new trails in the rejection of traditional Christian Bible religion. The lack of an invitation not withstanding the dually aligned churches should take such a choice seriously and act according to conscience.

Soul Liberty vs. the Bible? I don't think so.

"Soul Liberty" was never intended to be used to deny the very words of scripture. Baptists have historically believed that all people are free to "interpret" the scriptures for themselves. As example note that while all Christians recognize the need for baptism as an expression of faith some use immersion, others sprinkling, others affusion (pouring). Each group recognizes the command of scripture to baptize, they do not reject those words of scripture, but do interpret the form (mode) of baptism in differing ways. When those calling themselves Baptist look at the text of the Bible and say, "The words do not mean what they say." or "We have the liberty to do the opposite." they have perverted the concept of "Soul Liberty," and are no longer following historic Baptist tradition. (July 7, 2005)