This week I have been captivated by the various ways in which English translators have interpreted the Greek word logos. From the beginning, translators have been prone to exercise very little imagination when translating the same Greek word in very different contexts. Using a standard translation of a word has been far more important than context and story line.
Logos is a good example of this lack of flexibility. The Greek-English lexicon of Arndt and Gingrich (1956) lists these possible English ideas to translate logos: word, saying, statement, message, and speech, among others. The very fact that Greek speaking peoples used logos in many differing ways should cause translators to consider more than one option when they do their translations.
One of the most obvious problems is related to its connections to Jesus. Translators are very hesitant to use any English idea except “word” when it concerns Jesus. But this causes awkward English renderings. The most common is when the logos of Jesus is translated the “word of Jesus.” This rendering is very poor English because Jesus would seldom have a single word. If “word” is used in these cases, it should at least be translated as “words.”
The use of “word” when referring to the sayings of Jesus occurs sixty times in the New Testament. The context of each of these translations is referencing what Jesus taught and revealed about God and his will and ways. One or two cases may refer to the Bible, but that is questionable.
A much more accurate translation of logos in this case would be to use the word “message.” Jesus came to reveal the Father and to teach us the will and ways of the Father. In that sense, he is a messenger with a message. Jesus said,
And you do not have his message (word) living in you: for he whom he sent with a message (apostello), him you do not believe. (John 5:38)
Jesus answered and said to them, This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent with a message (apostello). (John 6:29)
I know him; because I am from him, and he sent me with a message (apostello). (John 7:29)
Translators did a double whammy to us in these passages. They translated “word” so that its meaning is obscure, and they mistranslated “sent” so that it is not completely accurate. An apostle (from apostello) is one sent with a message. The disciples of Jesus became apostles. They were sent out to share the message of Jesus. In these verses Jesus is describing himself as one sent from God with a message.
Translators either help us to understand what the Bible is saying, or they obscure our understanding. In these cases, they have not helped us understand.
When logos is understood to mean “message” rather than “word,” we are forced to search for the content of that particular message rather than to simply think of the Bible as a whole.
John 6.29 also gives richness to our understanding of belief. It indicates that we are to believe in Jesus, and by inference, his message. The content of his message becomes an object of belief. If one does not believe what Jesus is teaching and revealing, he cannot enjoy the benefits of his message. The power of his message is indicated in this saying,
Truly, I say to you, he who hears my message, and believes that [God] sent me, has eternal life, and comes not into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. (John 5.24)
The content of the message of Jesus has the power to give life to persons who believe it. The word “hears” in the verse obviously carries the meaning of hearing, understanding, and believing. One translation of the Greek word “to hear,” is “to understand.” When one hears the message with understanding, the message can have its saving power in that life.
Translating logos as “word” usually deprives the reader of a fullness of understanding that the New Testament contains. Translators must escape from the straightjacket of only one English meaning of the word if the message is to be heard, understood, and believed.
June 27, 2008
June 8, 2008
Grace and Legalism: The Samaritan Woman
The story of the Samaritan woman is a story about the abuses of legalism in the Jewish religious lifestyle. Jesus knew about this woman before his encounter with her. How he knew is too easily answered by saying that he had divine knowledge. That caveat is always too easy of a cop out. Exploring answers from the human side of Jesus is far more interesting.
Jesus may have spent time in Sychar at some earlier time in his young manhood. While there he could have become acquainted with this woman’s plight. He could have known of her at some other place where she lived in another marriage. He could have known one or more of her husbands. The possibilities are numerous. But, he did know who she was and where she had been in life.
The woman was obviously not considered an adulterer because she was still alive. The Samaritans believed in the Law of Moses too. They could have been a little more lenient than those leaders in Jerusalem, but not likely where adultery is concerned.
The best possibility is that she was a victim of the legalism practiced by Jewish men of righteousness who had a legal right to put away a wife for very trivial reasons. (Deut. 24:1-2) " When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife." (NASB)
Years before, two famous rabbis had debated the application of this scripture and came to different conclusions about how it should be implemented. Hillel believed that the wife must do something serious like unfaithfulness in order for a bill of divorcement to be issued. Shammai, on the other hand, taught that a wife could be divorced for anything that displeased her husband.
Evidently, the opinions of Shammai were popular in Jesus’ day. Some Jewish men routinely put wives away, and they were picked up by others. This behavior could be repeated as often as a man chose to exercise this legalism.
Jesus encountered this practice in Matthew 19:3-9 when he was challenged to take sides in the debate. He answered that God never intended for wives to be treated in this way and that putting them away for no reason made adulterers of both the husband and the wife. This assessment was a simple truth. Men were passing women around like prostitutes. They were using interpretations of the Law to abuse the institution of marriage and the lives of countless women.
The woman at the well was probably one of those women who had been passed around. She was not anathema to the men of Sychar as indicated by the fact that they listened to her report about Jesus, and believed it.
The Samaritan woman knew about legalism. She was a living example of one who had been abused by it’s misuse.
Jesus knew of her thirst for righteousness when he saw her coming to the well. Or was it a thirst for a life of peace, or a thirst for meaning for herself in all of the degradation and disrespect that she had known?
Jesus told her that he had living water to give that would quench her thirst. He could take her beyond legalism to grace. She had not seen too much of grace, just the wrong end of legalism. Jesus treated her with grace and no doubt shared his message of grace with the whole town during the next two days.
Jesus may have spent time in Sychar at some earlier time in his young manhood. While there he could have become acquainted with this woman’s plight. He could have known of her at some other place where she lived in another marriage. He could have known one or more of her husbands. The possibilities are numerous. But, he did know who she was and where she had been in life.
The woman was obviously not considered an adulterer because she was still alive. The Samaritans believed in the Law of Moses too. They could have been a little more lenient than those leaders in Jerusalem, but not likely where adultery is concerned.
The best possibility is that she was a victim of the legalism practiced by Jewish men of righteousness who had a legal right to put away a wife for very trivial reasons. (Deut. 24:1-2) " When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife." (NASB)
Years before, two famous rabbis had debated the application of this scripture and came to different conclusions about how it should be implemented. Hillel believed that the wife must do something serious like unfaithfulness in order for a bill of divorcement to be issued. Shammai, on the other hand, taught that a wife could be divorced for anything that displeased her husband.
Evidently, the opinions of Shammai were popular in Jesus’ day. Some Jewish men routinely put wives away, and they were picked up by others. This behavior could be repeated as often as a man chose to exercise this legalism.
Jesus encountered this practice in Matthew 19:3-9 when he was challenged to take sides in the debate. He answered that God never intended for wives to be treated in this way and that putting them away for no reason made adulterers of both the husband and the wife. This assessment was a simple truth. Men were passing women around like prostitutes. They were using interpretations of the Law to abuse the institution of marriage and the lives of countless women.
The woman at the well was probably one of those women who had been passed around. She was not anathema to the men of Sychar as indicated by the fact that they listened to her report about Jesus, and believed it.
The Samaritan woman knew about legalism. She was a living example of one who had been abused by it’s misuse.
Jesus knew of her thirst for righteousness when he saw her coming to the well. Or was it a thirst for a life of peace, or a thirst for meaning for herself in all of the degradation and disrespect that she had known?
Jesus told her that he had living water to give that would quench her thirst. He could take her beyond legalism to grace. She had not seen too much of grace, just the wrong end of legalism. Jesus treated her with grace and no doubt shared his message of grace with the whole town during the next two days.
June 2, 2008
The Leadership of the SBC Has Always Been Moderate
The last thirty years of activity in the Southern Baptist Convention has provided many a revelation about its historic makeup and administration. We have been bombarded with theological debate, criticism, and condemnation. We have been introduced to new words that seem very important to a segment of the churches. Many Baptists cooperating with the SBC did not know the meaning of inerrant, Dispensational, Fundamentalist, Calvinist, cessationist, liberal, and numerous other designations preferred by some other Baptists.
We have become acquainted with two schools of conservative Christian thought and operation: conservative and moderate. Although, the lines of demarcation between the two are often blurry, the differences in political approach have become increasingly obvious. Bloggers have recently identified conservatives that are theologically conservative but political moderates. That opens the door for us to examine the differences between political conservatives and political moderates.
Until 1985, politically moderate conservatives had been in the leadership of the Convention for as long as anyone can remember. They have been very successful in building a great Convention, and are characterized by several approaches to leadership.
1. Moderates keep the main thing the main thing. The SBC is a cooperative effort to reach the world for Jesus Christ. Foreign missions is primary, with national missions and church staff training coming behind. The objective has been to get as many like-minded churches as possible to participate in giving, praying, and becoming involved in Convention causes. The missions objective has caused all other concerns to become secondary. The Convention wants as many missionaries as possible sharing the Good News with every people group in the world. That goal requires lots of churches and lots of contributions if it is to be accomplished.
2. Moderates have been positive about differences among Baptists, and have stressed those convictions which are held in common by all. They have emphasized what we have in common, and downplayed our differences. Attention has not been called to the various identifying words that some Baptist groups use to distinguish themselves from other Baptists who are seen to be less biblical.
3. Moderates respected the differences among the churches which cooperate in Convention activity. They accepted the fact that many different kinds of Baptists are working together to reach the world. The SBC has grown to include over 40,000 churches in its cooperative efforts. No two of those churches are exactly alike. They share some common convictions which the Convention has attempted to define in its occasional publication of a statement of commonly held beliefs.
All of those in leadership positions were very aware of the diversity among cooperating churches, and they were respectful of the fact. One must look no farther than his local Baptist association of churches to see this diversity in microcosm. Most associations encompass a broad variety of Baptist congregations, each with its own personality and emphases. Moderate conservatives have not considered differences in biblical interpretation to be detrimental to the overall mission of the Convention.
4. Moderates were committed to the health and success of the Convention. When they accepted voluntary or paid positions with the SBC, they accepted the responsibility to assist it to succeed in its mission. They understood that they had been elected to carry on the business of the cooperating churches. They understood the mission and were committed to it. It is not easy to please 40,000 pastors and congregations. Leaders have been diligent to solve problems as they have arisen. Although solutions never happen overnight, leaders have been committed to pursue them. All for the health and success of the work of the Convention.
5. Moderates have not taken leadership positions in order to radically change the goals, makeup, and administration of the Convention. They were persons already in sympathy with the mission and the processes by which the Convention and its leadership serve the churches. Historically, pastors from many different conservative positions have served as president of the Convention. They have served well, and have led the Convention to larger and larger efforts in world evangelism. They have not let their particular Baptist understandings of Scripture overshadow their leadership in world missions. They may have been extremely conservative in interpretation, but wonderfully moderate in denominational politics. (W. A. Criswell is a good example of this kind of Convention leadership. He was extremely conservative, but loved the SBC and led it well and moderately as president.) World missions have come first in their Convention leadership roles.
These politically moderate conservatives have built a great missions enterprise with the help and leadership of the Father, Son and Spirit. It has been the finest missions sending organization among free churches that the world has ever known.
They have also built the largest and strongest schools of theological education in the world. Southwestern Seminary and Southern Seminary turned out more trained ministers than any other existing seminaries. They had succeeded in giving Baptist ministers a basic education in Bible, doctrine, and church work. They have been nothing less than phenomenal in size, influence and accomplishment.
For decades we observed the successes of the SBC with moderates in leadership. Only in the last twenty years have we been able to observe the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of the SBC while being led by those who are conservative both biblically and politically.
Our observations have resulted in the identification of several characteristics of these more conservative leaders.
1. Doctrinal correctness is more important than the SBC missions enterprise. From the very beginning of the Conservative Resurgence, biblical interpretation and application were the paramount concerns of those seeking leadership of the Convention.
2. They have been highly critical and condemning of those who interpret the Bible differently than they. They have emphasized the differences among Baptists more than they have emphasized what they hold in common. They have stated that those who differ have no place in the leadership of the Convention. They may contribute and attend, but they may not lead.
3. They do not respect the differing kinds of Baptist pastors and churches cooperating with the Convention. They have made it clear that disagreement with conservative leadership biblically or politically makes a pastor or church a second-class citizen in the SBC. They have also communicated repeatedly that those with “disagreeable” positions are welcome to go elsewhere to do their missions work.
4. The health and wealth of the SBC is understood in doctrinal terms rather than world impact terms. No matter how productive and prolific the missions and educational enterprises may be, if they are off track doctrinally, they are expendable. To have 40,000 churches cooperating in missions is only good if the missionaries are establishing the right kind of missions and teaching the right doctrine to new converts. Losing churches which no longer wish to participate is not seen as bad. It is seen as a necessary cleansing of “liberals.” Evidently, this happens with the idea that God will bless the work more, and it will be more successful.
5. Leadership positions in the Convention have been sought in order to change the doctrine and practices of the Convention, or to maintain what has already been changed. The candidates for president in 1979 and forward put forth by the CR were done so in order to change the Convention. These candidates were not active in SBC activities at the time. Their contributions and participation were minimal or non-existent. They were outsiders taking over an enterprise with which they did not agree, and mostly did not understand. In their minds, everyone in decision making positions in the SBC and its agencies had to go. They were all guilty of false Christianity, even though no one knew who they were or what they believed.
It does not take a prophet or the son of a prophet to see the handwriting on the Convention wall. The leadership ideals and processes of the leaders now leading the SBC do not contribute to a great organization of diverse pastors and churches.
Disrespect, suspicion, and fear of those who are different than the leadership will eventually cause those pastors and churches to withdraw from those who do not accept them. Active participation in annual meetings has already decreased. Evidently, Cooperative Program giving is slowly following that downward trend.
A strange phenomenon related to this rejection of those who are diverse is the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. About two thousand pastors and their churches were told that they would not have a place in the new SBC because they did not support the CR. They naturally formed a fellowship among themselves and went on with the business of cooperatively serving God. But Convention leadership treats them as the worst of enemies. Somehow they are a continuing threat to CR leaders even though those leaders deliberately gave them their walking papers. Two thousand out of forty thousand churches sounds like a drop in the bucket, but evidently SBC leadership sees the situation much differently than that. There is a strange and hateful mindset active toward those few who were disenfranchised and have moved on.
The emphasis on the differences among Baptists in the SBC has also produced a strange situation with the seminaries. Southern Seminary has become a Calvinist seminary with connections to groups outside of the SBC as much as inside. Most of its faculty members are from non-SBC educational institutions. They are not really Southern Baptists. And this happens in spite of the Lifeway research which shows only 10%-15% of Southern Baptist pastors and churches identify themselves as Calvinist or Reformed. How can a small minority of Calvinists take over one of the premier seminaries of Southern Baptists? It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the future.
Baptists who place an emphasis on labels like liberal, inerrantist, Dispensationalist, Calvinist, and Fundamentalist are quick to attach those labels to themselves and others. This practice insures that the differences among Baptists will be highlighted and underscored. The differences become more important than those beliefs held in common by all. It also leads to continuing splintering off of groups for whom a label is significant for themselves or the larger group.
This emphasis on differences probably explains why more conservative Baptists are usually found in a multitude of smaller fellowships. But none compare to the SBC in size and influence. Political conservatives will cause the same thing to happen with the SBC. It will continue to splinter around labels and become smaller and smaller. Cessationists and continualists are experiencing this at present. Calvinists and non-Calvinists are just beginning to separate. It will continue.
The SBC was built by conservative moderates. They have had a vision for missions and have welcomed all Baptists who wanted to participate. They have not seen the SBC as a church or the Kingdom. It is simply a cooperating group of like-minded pastors and churches who are spreading the Kingdom through the Good News of faith and personal rebirth. And for them, that is enough.
During the last twenty years it has become increasingly obvious that CR leaders are out of their element in trying to lead so large and diverse a Convention. Their personal convictions will not let them lead forty thousand pastors and churches. They are only at home with a small percentage of SBC pastors and churches, those who think like they think, and act like they act. If the Convention is to remain in anyway similar to what it has been historically, moderate leadership must return.
An enterprise like the Southern Baptist Convention requires leadership by political moderates to be successful and thriving. Moderates are not overly critical and condemning of those with whom they disagree. They can include then in the work and respect them. Political conservatives cannot be that inclusive. They are obviously more at home with smaller more exclusive groups. If they had been able to build great missions organizations, they would have done so long ago. More conservative fellowships have not been able to do so.
If conservative moderates do not regain leadership of the SBC, its days of past glory are just that, past glory. Such a large and diverse cooperative effort requires leaders with a moderate spirit and cooperative convictions. The SBC needs a Cooperative Resurgence.
We have become acquainted with two schools of conservative Christian thought and operation: conservative and moderate. Although, the lines of demarcation between the two are often blurry, the differences in political approach have become increasingly obvious. Bloggers have recently identified conservatives that are theologically conservative but political moderates. That opens the door for us to examine the differences between political conservatives and political moderates.
Until 1985, politically moderate conservatives had been in the leadership of the Convention for as long as anyone can remember. They have been very successful in building a great Convention, and are characterized by several approaches to leadership.
1. Moderates keep the main thing the main thing. The SBC is a cooperative effort to reach the world for Jesus Christ. Foreign missions is primary, with national missions and church staff training coming behind. The objective has been to get as many like-minded churches as possible to participate in giving, praying, and becoming involved in Convention causes. The missions objective has caused all other concerns to become secondary. The Convention wants as many missionaries as possible sharing the Good News with every people group in the world. That goal requires lots of churches and lots of contributions if it is to be accomplished.
2. Moderates have been positive about differences among Baptists, and have stressed those convictions which are held in common by all. They have emphasized what we have in common, and downplayed our differences. Attention has not been called to the various identifying words that some Baptist groups use to distinguish themselves from other Baptists who are seen to be less biblical.
3. Moderates respected the differences among the churches which cooperate in Convention activity. They accepted the fact that many different kinds of Baptists are working together to reach the world. The SBC has grown to include over 40,000 churches in its cooperative efforts. No two of those churches are exactly alike. They share some common convictions which the Convention has attempted to define in its occasional publication of a statement of commonly held beliefs.
All of those in leadership positions were very aware of the diversity among cooperating churches, and they were respectful of the fact. One must look no farther than his local Baptist association of churches to see this diversity in microcosm. Most associations encompass a broad variety of Baptist congregations, each with its own personality and emphases. Moderate conservatives have not considered differences in biblical interpretation to be detrimental to the overall mission of the Convention.
4. Moderates were committed to the health and success of the Convention. When they accepted voluntary or paid positions with the SBC, they accepted the responsibility to assist it to succeed in its mission. They understood that they had been elected to carry on the business of the cooperating churches. They understood the mission and were committed to it. It is not easy to please 40,000 pastors and congregations. Leaders have been diligent to solve problems as they have arisen. Although solutions never happen overnight, leaders have been committed to pursue them. All for the health and success of the work of the Convention.
5. Moderates have not taken leadership positions in order to radically change the goals, makeup, and administration of the Convention. They were persons already in sympathy with the mission and the processes by which the Convention and its leadership serve the churches. Historically, pastors from many different conservative positions have served as president of the Convention. They have served well, and have led the Convention to larger and larger efforts in world evangelism. They have not let their particular Baptist understandings of Scripture overshadow their leadership in world missions. They may have been extremely conservative in interpretation, but wonderfully moderate in denominational politics. (W. A. Criswell is a good example of this kind of Convention leadership. He was extremely conservative, but loved the SBC and led it well and moderately as president.) World missions have come first in their Convention leadership roles.
These politically moderate conservatives have built a great missions enterprise with the help and leadership of the Father, Son and Spirit. It has been the finest missions sending organization among free churches that the world has ever known.
They have also built the largest and strongest schools of theological education in the world. Southwestern Seminary and Southern Seminary turned out more trained ministers than any other existing seminaries. They had succeeded in giving Baptist ministers a basic education in Bible, doctrine, and church work. They have been nothing less than phenomenal in size, influence and accomplishment.
For decades we observed the successes of the SBC with moderates in leadership. Only in the last twenty years have we been able to observe the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of the SBC while being led by those who are conservative both biblically and politically.
Our observations have resulted in the identification of several characteristics of these more conservative leaders.
1. Doctrinal correctness is more important than the SBC missions enterprise. From the very beginning of the Conservative Resurgence, biblical interpretation and application were the paramount concerns of those seeking leadership of the Convention.
2. They have been highly critical and condemning of those who interpret the Bible differently than they. They have emphasized the differences among Baptists more than they have emphasized what they hold in common. They have stated that those who differ have no place in the leadership of the Convention. They may contribute and attend, but they may not lead.
3. They do not respect the differing kinds of Baptist pastors and churches cooperating with the Convention. They have made it clear that disagreement with conservative leadership biblically or politically makes a pastor or church a second-class citizen in the SBC. They have also communicated repeatedly that those with “disagreeable” positions are welcome to go elsewhere to do their missions work.
4. The health and wealth of the SBC is understood in doctrinal terms rather than world impact terms. No matter how productive and prolific the missions and educational enterprises may be, if they are off track doctrinally, they are expendable. To have 40,000 churches cooperating in missions is only good if the missionaries are establishing the right kind of missions and teaching the right doctrine to new converts. Losing churches which no longer wish to participate is not seen as bad. It is seen as a necessary cleansing of “liberals.” Evidently, this happens with the idea that God will bless the work more, and it will be more successful.
5. Leadership positions in the Convention have been sought in order to change the doctrine and practices of the Convention, or to maintain what has already been changed. The candidates for president in 1979 and forward put forth by the CR were done so in order to change the Convention. These candidates were not active in SBC activities at the time. Their contributions and participation were minimal or non-existent. They were outsiders taking over an enterprise with which they did not agree, and mostly did not understand. In their minds, everyone in decision making positions in the SBC and its agencies had to go. They were all guilty of false Christianity, even though no one knew who they were or what they believed.
It does not take a prophet or the son of a prophet to see the handwriting on the Convention wall. The leadership ideals and processes of the leaders now leading the SBC do not contribute to a great organization of diverse pastors and churches.
Disrespect, suspicion, and fear of those who are different than the leadership will eventually cause those pastors and churches to withdraw from those who do not accept them. Active participation in annual meetings has already decreased. Evidently, Cooperative Program giving is slowly following that downward trend.
A strange phenomenon related to this rejection of those who are diverse is the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. About two thousand pastors and their churches were told that they would not have a place in the new SBC because they did not support the CR. They naturally formed a fellowship among themselves and went on with the business of cooperatively serving God. But Convention leadership treats them as the worst of enemies. Somehow they are a continuing threat to CR leaders even though those leaders deliberately gave them their walking papers. Two thousand out of forty thousand churches sounds like a drop in the bucket, but evidently SBC leadership sees the situation much differently than that. There is a strange and hateful mindset active toward those few who were disenfranchised and have moved on.
The emphasis on the differences among Baptists in the SBC has also produced a strange situation with the seminaries. Southern Seminary has become a Calvinist seminary with connections to groups outside of the SBC as much as inside. Most of its faculty members are from non-SBC educational institutions. They are not really Southern Baptists. And this happens in spite of the Lifeway research which shows only 10%-15% of Southern Baptist pastors and churches identify themselves as Calvinist or Reformed. How can a small minority of Calvinists take over one of the premier seminaries of Southern Baptists? It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the future.
Baptists who place an emphasis on labels like liberal, inerrantist, Dispensationalist, Calvinist, and Fundamentalist are quick to attach those labels to themselves and others. This practice insures that the differences among Baptists will be highlighted and underscored. The differences become more important than those beliefs held in common by all. It also leads to continuing splintering off of groups for whom a label is significant for themselves or the larger group.
This emphasis on differences probably explains why more conservative Baptists are usually found in a multitude of smaller fellowships. But none compare to the SBC in size and influence. Political conservatives will cause the same thing to happen with the SBC. It will continue to splinter around labels and become smaller and smaller. Cessationists and continualists are experiencing this at present. Calvinists and non-Calvinists are just beginning to separate. It will continue.
The SBC was built by conservative moderates. They have had a vision for missions and have welcomed all Baptists who wanted to participate. They have not seen the SBC as a church or the Kingdom. It is simply a cooperating group of like-minded pastors and churches who are spreading the Kingdom through the Good News of faith and personal rebirth. And for them, that is enough.
During the last twenty years it has become increasingly obvious that CR leaders are out of their element in trying to lead so large and diverse a Convention. Their personal convictions will not let them lead forty thousand pastors and churches. They are only at home with a small percentage of SBC pastors and churches, those who think like they think, and act like they act. If the Convention is to remain in anyway similar to what it has been historically, moderate leadership must return.
An enterprise like the Southern Baptist Convention requires leadership by political moderates to be successful and thriving. Moderates are not overly critical and condemning of those with whom they disagree. They can include then in the work and respect them. Political conservatives cannot be that inclusive. They are obviously more at home with smaller more exclusive groups. If they had been able to build great missions organizations, they would have done so long ago. More conservative fellowships have not been able to do so.
If conservative moderates do not regain leadership of the SBC, its days of past glory are just that, past glory. Such a large and diverse cooperative effort requires leaders with a moderate spirit and cooperative convictions. The SBC needs a Cooperative Resurgence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
