I know that many of you have been following the latest, greatest controversy in the SBC and the infamous anonymous letter. I have not and will not be addressing that here on P&P. However, I do appreciate the fortitude and forthrightness of Tom Ascol as he has promptly addressed this issue. Below is an excerpt from Ascol that is very true and applicable today. What the SBC needs today is men who are both courageous and humble, forsaking self-preservation and pride.
My concern is that, as God’s people, we agree that compromising biblical principle for the sake of self-preservation is unacceptable.
Any attitude that suggests otherwise is foreign to biblical Christianity. It is unworthy of the followers of our crucified Savior. Had it prevailed in the first century the church would never have suffered and, therefore, never have spread. Had it prevailed in the sixteenth century there would have been no reformation. If it had been universal in seventeenth century England there would have been no Puritan movement (and no Pilgrim’s Progress!). Had it characterized Whitefield, Wesley and Edwards in the eighteenth century there would have been no Great Awakening. If it prevails today, there will be no lasting movement of God’s Spirit which we absolutely must have if our churches and communities and nations in the west are to survive.
This atmosphere goes well beyond the SBC. Just this past week, my article about James Dobson / Focus on the Family and their programming this week made the Religion Section of Free Republic.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1895341/posts?page=51,1
Some got it; many didn’t, and if you notice the ones who said I was disparaging Dobson (because I gather they believe his is above criticism) were the ones freely disparaging me, to the point I had to talk about unbiblical speech codes and legalism.
This is the same sort of thing that goes on in the SBC and on the blogs. For example, we all know those occasional comments we get that we shouldn’t be blogging and criticizing others – from bloggers who are criticizing us.
We also know those who invade the combox to talk about our “tone” while all the while the conversation was fine until they themselves entered and lowered it all by their lonesome.
IMO, the culture of celebrity in organiations like the SBC and the one created by Christian radio and TV (and politics) has led the leaders of the Protestant churches in some, but not all, cases to think they are as impervious to criticism as Rome and its bishops. To speak out against them – and name them in the process – is to dare to touch the anoited priesthood.
As I said elsewhere in an article this past week, the really bad part is that we were told to do this by these same leaders, but when they find we name them, they get offended and tell us we are going to far, etc., but if we don’t name names, they tell us we are cowardly, regardless of whether we name ourselves or not, which most of us do anyway. So what, exactly, would they have us do? Answer: Shut up and keep our place.
Gene,
You know, and I know that there are some serious problems with the SBC, not the least which you have mentioned in the last paragraph. There have been names of men which I have personally told are “untouchables” and basically above accountability. I believe that the implicit hierarchy of the SBC has produced an atmosphere of fear and intimidation which is very tragic. I have also seen (and experienced) this in the local church.
The issue Tom brought up in his post has been on more than one occasion something that I have wrestled with, decisions which carried significant consequences. While it has not always been the case, I hope that there will be in me (by God’s Spirit) a courage to meet the challenge, a courage to accept the consequences, a courage that will bind my conscience to God’s Word and be content with where that leads.