Associated Press Reports on General Board Action

I was wondering when the media would get around to this. This AP report is a pretty fair statement of where things are. So here it appears on Thanksgiving Day. The action taken by the General Board last week should be understood in light of the blog entry Renewal Leaders Express Concern Over Deceptive "Third Way" Tactic on Sexuality from Nov. 22.

Religion news in brief
Associated Press

GREEN LAKE, Wis. - The governing board of the 1.4 million-member American Baptist Churches in the USA added a stand against gay sex to the denomination's self-definition, but it's unclear whether that will heal a growing split over homosexuality.

The new wording says American Baptists are believers "who submit to the teaching of Scripture that God's design for sexual intimacy places it within the context of marriage between one man and one woman, and acknowledge that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with biblical teaching."
The General Board approved the wording by a 59-45 vote (with five abstentions) as an addition to the "We Are American Baptists" statement.
The denomination has taken previous stands against gay sex. But it has not disciplined congregations with liberal gay policies, say complaints from the Pacific Southwest region, whose board will decide in December whether to have 300 member congregations vote on ending support for the denomination.

Last month, the West Virginia association, the largest regional group with 465 congregations, defeated by 391-325 a proposal to break with the national denomination.

Liberal policies among some American Baptists were cited as one reason the Southern Baptist Convention voted to quit the Baptist World Alliance, to which both denominations had belonged.

The vote was 59-45 vote, with 5 abstaining. That 54% aye, 41% nay and 5% abstaining. (Why on earth would anyone abstain on such an important issue? It's mind-boggling.) That would be a landslide in an election. However, in the real world, if 7 GB members had switched, it would have been a tie and died. That's how narrow the pro-family, pro-historic faith vote was in the GB. I ask my readers: does this narrow victory give you any more than a passing moment of confidence in the ABC-USA? Should the clear teaching of Scripture win by the skin of its teeth among people of faith?

Source: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/religion/13251153.htm

PSW Answers Questions about West Virginia and the Future of PSW

Q: Is it true that the West Virginia Baptist Convention voted to remain in the ABCUSA?

A: This is a great illustration of the maxim, "Half the story is the wrong story." Dr. David Carrico, Executive Minister of the West Virginia Baptist Convention, reports that two resolutions regarding the Region's relationship with the ABCUSA were voted on at their convention. A motion to leave the ABCUSA immediately was defeated by 75 votes with over 700 votes cast. A second motion to reaffirm the Region's relationship with the ABCUSA was defeated by over 200 votes.In Dr. Carrico's words, "So the message was, we are still ABC BUT we are very unhappy !"

Q: After the PSW spins-off the ABC, what will it look like? Will it be a new denomination?
A: There is no indication from the Lord of the Church that our vision to strengthen churches through mentoring, leader training, and coaching has been recalled! The priority of the PSW remains. We will serve all our churches as they change their worlds for Christ.Some things will change if we spin-off, and the PSW Board has formed 2 task forces to begin to anticipate those changes. One task force is in the process of field testing several names for the PSW across a broad cross section of our churches. The second task force is anticipating future possibilities in terms of budget, relationships, staffing, missions, and the needs of our diverse churches. We will share results as soon as we have them.We are blazing a trail and have few models to follow; so, we are moving ahead with prayer and caution. We are confident God will continue to blow away the fog and reveal the new land He is leading us to.

Source: an email sent out by PSW today.

After Thanksgiving, Fast for Renewal

Pacific Southwest Region Board Names Last Friday of Each Month as Day of Prayer & Fasting

The PSW Region Board believes that any change we seek as a Region, any movement to transform our worlds for Christ must be bathed in prayer. Fasting helps center the mind by depriving the body of nourishment and directing the spirit in nourishing relationships with our Lord and Savior.

Therefore, we call on every pastor, church and American Baptist Christian throughout our PSW region to set aside the last Friday of the month as a time to devote to prayer. We will do this every month as we seek to determine God's leading for the future.

For those who have demanding work schedules you still have time set aside to have meals. We hope that you will use the time set for meals to instead pray for discernment and clarity.

What is fasting? Throughout Scripture fasting refers to abstaining from food for the spiritual purpose of submitting to God. It is not a hunger strike, nor is to gain political power, or attract attention for a good cause. It is not a diet for physical purposes. (Luke 4:2ff; Daniel 10:3; Esther 4:16; Acts 9:9; Deut. 9:9; 2 Chron. 20:1-4; 2 Cor. 11:27)

How to Pray and Fast (from Richard Foster, Celebration of Discipline)
"While it is the spirit of the rule and not the letter of it that is important, consider avoiding food for 24 hours (this includes snacks as much as meals). Replace a meal with water and fruit juices.

"Outwardly perform the duties of your day, but inwardly you will be in prayer and adoration, song and worship. Consider some worship music on your CD player for some of this. In a new way, cause every task of the day to be a sacred ministry to the Lord. Break your fast with a light meal of fresh fruits and vegetables and a good deal of inner rejoicing. Consider writing down what you experienced. Obviously care needs to be taken if you have diabetes, or are pregnant, or have heart problems."

During times you would normally eat, avoid normal activities and conversations and be in a place or spirit of concentration to pray on all the issues that our pastors, churches and Region face. This time of prayer might include the ideas of ACTS (Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving, and Supplication for others)

What to Pray About:

Pray that our Region listen to the Lord's leading and avoid anything that does not Honor Him.

Pray for our Executive Minister, Dr. Dale Salico and our Region Board - that the leadership decisions they make will glorify Christ.

Pray for the upcoming meeting of the Regional Executive Ministers (REMC)
and the General Board that will face many of the same issues that we are facing here in PSW.

Pray for a renewal of ABCUSA across the country

Pray that our churches make the right decision regarding withdrawal from the Covenant of Relationships with ABCUSA.

Pray for our churches to be transformed by a new vision for reaching their world's for Christ, and pray for the raising up of empowered leaders in all our churches to strengthen our churches.

"Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger ?. Do not pray for tasks equal to your powers. Pray for powers equal to your tasks." - Phillips Brooks, Minister 1835-1893

Source: http://www.abcpsw.com/fasting.html

Linclon's Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1863

By the President of the United States of America.
A Proclamation.

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consiousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the Unites States the Eighty-eighth.

By the President: Abraham Lincoln
William H. Seward, Secretary of State

"Third Way" Warning Reported in E-Media

The news release I blogged earlier today (see text in the entry below this one) has been picked up nationally; here's some reporting and analysis.

From The Christian Post:

WASHINGTON – Conservative leaders from across denominational and geographic borders issued a joint letter warning against “third way” proposals that may change mainline church teachings on sexuality.

“This letter is a shot across the bow of those who, having failed in a frontal assault on biblical standards barring sex outside the marriage of man and woman, are now trying to subvert the standards indirectly,” said the Rev. James V. Heidinger, chair of the Association of Church Renewal that sent out the letter. According to a Nov. 21 press release from ACR, the letter is meant to inform U.S. mainline Christians of the “new strategy” used by gay-rights advocates in changing current standards on ordination and marriage. Traditionally, Christians either believed homosexuality is a sin or believed homosexuality – if examined closely in today’s context – is not a sin. This new strategy introduces a “third way” viewpoint on the sexuality debate, where churches agree that homosexuality is a sin but gives room for individuals, churches, and bodies room to dissent. “This new strategy is less direct." The letter stated. “Yet the effect would be the same: to undermine and ultimately to set aside the historic Christian teaching that affirms God's good gift of sexual intimacy solely within the marriage of man and woman.” Such a strategy has already been adopted in several denominations, including the Episcopal Church U.S.A. and the American Baptist Church. The ECUSA, which is currently embroiled in an international brawl over ordination standards, in 1996 adopted a decision that said that Christian teachings against homosexuality were not “core doctrine.” In the ABC, the denominational policies say the practice of homosexuality is incompatible to Christian teaching, but the church allows some congregations to dissent. Similar strategies have also been introduced in the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America – the largest Methodist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran denomination in the United States, respectively.Each of those denominations has dedicated several years to study the thorny issue of homosexuality and has affirmed that it will remain united in spite of obvious differences. Reformed leaders have long complained about such an approach with some suggesting the denominations split into dissenting factions. In the United Methodist Church, for example, Heidinger was involved with the circulation of a letter that called for an “amicable separation” over the differences in understanding homosexuality, during the denomination’s 2004 General Assembly.While the UMC never adopted the informal proposal – delegates to the Assembly instead adopted a statement affirming their unity – the thought of separating continued to surface periodically among conservative circles.The ACR reiterated such concerns. “No promise of ecclesiastical peace and unity can justify these distortions of the church’s theology and polity,” the letter stated.

The letter also suggested that the “third way” approach signifies a “retreat” by advocates of gay rights.

“Tacitly, they are conceding that the weight of biblical and traditional Christian teaching is against them,” the letter stated. However, the statement continued, “it would set a terrible precedent of a church openly acknowledging a biblical command and then treating obedience to that command as optional.” “We stand opposed to this false ‘third way,’ with the same firmness with which we opposed the earlier attempts to re-interpret the Bible,” the letter stated. “We warn you to beware such ‘compromises’ that give away too much.”The Association for Church Renewal is a roundtable of leaders of renewal groups, mostly within the North American mainline Protestant churches. The ACR letter was signed by 29 individuals from 21 organizations. Among the denominations represented were: the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the United Church of Canada, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal Church, the American Baptist Churches, the Church of the Brethren, and the United Church of Christ.The text of the ACR letter, the list of signatories, and other information on the Association for Church Renewal is available its website at ird-renew.org/acr.

Elaine Spencerelaine@christianpost.com

Copyright © 2004 The Christian Post.

Source: http://www.christianpost.com/article/church/2399/section/
conservatives.warn.of.third.way.approach.to.sexuality.debate/1.htm

From Agape Press:

'Compromises' on Human Sexuality Undercut Biblical Standards, Say Renewal Leaders

By Jody BrownNovember 22, 2005

(AgapePress) - A coalition of denominational renewal groups is warning Christians in America that an "assault" on biblical standards regarding sexuality -- in the guise of supposed "compromises" -- is in reality subverting those standards so that church bodies and officials can disregard them whenever they wish.

For decades, it seems, several mainline Protestant denominations have wrestled with the issue of homosexuality among their clergy, their laity, and society at large -- and how to deal with it in their official denominational procedures and doctrine. Seemingly unwilling to simply declare the lifestyle as sinful, instead they have taken to adopting different strategies toward homosexuality. The Episcopal Church USA, for example, concluded in 1996 that traditional Christian teachings opposing homosexuality were not "core doctrine." Eventually ECUSA consecrated the first openly homosexual bishop, V. Gene Robinson, who now oversees the Diocese of New Hampshire.

Other examples include the United Methodist Church, which last year almost approved a resolution that would have added to the Book of Discipline a phrase "recogniz[ing] that Christians disagree" on the question of whether the practice of homosexuality is or is not compatible with Christian teaching. In a similar vein, the Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America this year turned away a proposal that would have permitted exceptions to be granted even though ELCA ministers would be expected to "abstain from homosexual sexual relationships."

And next year, the Presbyterian Church (USA) is expected to consider a resolution that would permit local churches to deem as "non-essential" the constitutional requirement of "fidelity in the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness."

While those who hold a liberal theology might consider such strategies as progressive, the Association for Church Renewal (ACR) -- a roundtable of conservative leaders from these denominations and others such as the American Baptist Churches, the United Church of Christ, the Church of the Brethren, and the United Church of Canada -- sees the moves as a "compromise" intended to win the Church's affirmation of homosexual acts. That, says the ACR, is an attempt to indirectly "subvert the [biblical] standards" and to invent "procedural devices permitting church bodies and officials to disregard the standards at will."

In an open letter to Christians in the United States, the ACR warns that this compromise evident in several Protestant denominations "would sever the church's practice from its doctrine," essentially setting a "terrible precedent" in which a church openly acknowledges a biblical command -- and then treats obedience to that command as "optional."

"If denominations start granting exemptions from church discipline in one area," states the letter, "it will be very difficult to maintain any kind of covenant of mutual accountability within the church."

According to the ACR, advocates of compromise -- or the "third way," as the ACR labels it -- claim their proposed solution would strike a balance between different interpretations of Bible passages and allow the church to "get beyond yes/no polarities" that force it to make painful choices. Such an approach, says the ACR letter, "is utter nonsense."

"The Bible is filled with unavoidable yes/no choices," the letter points out, citing Deuteronomy 30:19, Joshua 24:15, Matthew 25:33, and Revelation 3:20. "A church that systematically refuses to choose between truth and error has no place left to stand.

"To the extent that any church declines to distinguish the better from the worse biblical interpretations, it undercuts its own ability to teach clear doctrine from the scriptures," add the signers of the ACR letter.

The letter concludes with the ACR's reaffirmation that the standard of fidelity in marriage -- and abstinence in singleness -- remains "the most faithful interpretation of God's will for human sexuality" and an essential component in the Holy Spirit presenting sanctified believers as "holy and blameless" before God.

"We ask you [brothers and sisters in the Lord] to stand steadfast with us in rejecting any compromise that would shift Christ's church away from that godly endeavor," says the letter, which is signed by more than two dozen individuals from 21 different organizations.

Source: http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/11/222005b.asp

Renewal Leaders Express Concern Over Deceptive "Third Way" Tactic on Sexuality

I have taken the liberty to bold key passages. Note the American Baptist signatories; it's also good to see my old friend David Runnion-Bareford from the UCC in this company. The open letter says it well, and accurately diagnoses exactly the bill of goods the theo-left in the ABC is trying to sell.

An Open Letter from Association for Church Renewal Leaders

And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he [Christ] has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister. (Colossians 1:21-23, RSV)

Sisters and Brothers in the Lord:

We, renewal leaders in various North American Protestant denominations, write you with thanksgiving for Christ's great work of reconciliation and sanctification. It is our only hope in life and death.

We encourage you to remain steadfast in your faith in Christ's work, looking to him as the sole source of unity and purity within his church. There are constantly shifting alternatives that offer a false, cheap peace. But we urge you not to let go of the true and costly peace won by Jesus Christ.

As many of us gathered October 17-18 in Arlington, Virginia, we noted a shifting situation in several denominations. This letter is our attempt to alert you to these new developments.

The debate within our churches over biblical standards for human sexuality may be entering a new phase. For decades, revisionists have argued that the Scriptures, properly understood, do not prohibit homosexuality as it is practiced today. Indeed, they have insisted that biblical values of "justice" require the acceptance of homosexual relationships.

Increasingly, however, the arguments have shifted. We now see, in several denominations, a new strategy to win the church's affirmation of homosexual acts. This new strategy is less direct. It is offered as a "compromise," a "third way." Yet the effect would be the same: to undermine and ultimately to set aside the historic Christian teaching that affirms God's good gift of sexual intimacy solely within the marriage of man and woman.

We stand opposed to this false "third way," with the same firmness with which we opposed the earlier attempts to re-interpret the Bible. We warn you to beware such "compromises" that give away too much.

The essence of the new strategy is this: to leave in church law books the orthodox standards calling Christians to fidelity in marriage and sexual abstinence in singleness, while inventing procedural devices permitting church bodies and officials to disregard the standards at will. This strategy has been proposed-and, in some cases, functionally adopted-in the Episcopal Church, the American Baptist Churches, the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Insofar as it succeeds in some of those denominations, the strategy will likely be replicated elsewhere.

This strategy marks, in some ways, a retreat by the pro-homosexuality advocates. Tacitly, they are conceding that the weight of biblical and traditional Christian teaching is against them. They have not been able adequately to answer the powerful exegesis buttressing that teaching, represented especially by Robert Gagnon's masterwork The Bible and Homosexual Practice. The pro-homosexuality advocates have not persuaded most church members to abandon the historic teaching. For this indirect vindication of the truth, we must all be grateful to God.

Yet we cannot be content with standards that remain on paper while being emptied of all force. This false "compromise" would be, in some respects, more damaging than a straightforward blessing of homosexual relations. Not only would it convey tolerance of sin in the important area of sexuality, but it would also set the church adrift more generally.

This "third way" would sever the church's practice from its doctrine. It would set a terrible precedent of a church openly acknowledging a biblical command and then treating obedience to that command as optional. If denominations start granting exemptions from church discipline in one area, it will be very difficult to maintain any kind of covenant of mutual accountability within the church. No promise of ecclesiastical peace and unity can justify these distortions of the church's theology and polity.

Advocates for this "third way" make arguments that strain credibility to the breaking point. They claim that they are "proposing no changes" to the church's standards. But in fact they are seeking a radical change-to demote the standards to "non-essential" status. They claim that their "compromise" would split the difference between traditionalist and revisionist views on sexuality. But in fact it would yield exactly the result desired by the revisionists-moral approbation of non-marital sex-on a slightly longer timeline.

"Third way" proponents also claim that their solution would strike a balance between different interpretations of the Scriptures. When two interpretations are mutually contradictory, these proponents want to accept both the one and the other as equally valid. They urge the church to "get beyond yes/no polarities" that force it to make painful choices. Their "third way" would avoid such choices by affirming all individuals interpreting the Bible as sincere and faithful Christians.

This approach is utter nonsense. The Bible is filled with unavoidable yes/no choices: "I set before you life and death, blessing and curse" (Deuteronomy 30:19); "Choose this day whom you will serve" (Joshua 24:15); "He will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left" (Matthew 25:33); "Listen! I am standing at the door, knocking; if you hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to you and eat with you" (Revelation 3:20).

A church that systematically refuses to choose between truth and error has no place left to stand. To the extent that any church declines to distinguish the better from the worse biblical interpretations, it undercuts its own ability to teach clear doctrine from the Scriptures.

The existence of different interpretations does not imply that all those interpretations are equally valid. Nor does it imply that all interpreters are equally faithful. On the contrary, it is more likely that every interpreter falls short of complete faithfulness-to a greater or lesser degree. The church cannot give unconditional affirmation to all its members' personal views of Scripture. It always has the responsibility to seek the most faithful interpretation and to act upon it.

We are convinced-by the consistent testimony of the Scriptures and the Church Universal, through the ages and around the world-that the fidelity in marriage and abstinence in singleness standard remains the most faithful interpretation of God's will for human sexuality. This is an essential component of our calling in the Lord Jesus and our sanctification through the Holy Spirit, who purposes to "present [us] holy and blameless and irreproachable before him." We ask you to stand steadfast with us in rejecting any compromise that would shift Christ's church away from that godly endeavor.

• Sara L. Anderson, Executive Vice President, Bristol House, Ltd. (United Methodist)
  
• The Rev. James D. Berkley, Interim Director, Presbyterian Action for Faith & Freedom
  
• Verna M. and Dr. Robert H. Blackburn, National Alliance of Covenanting Congregations (United Church of Canada)
  
• The Rev. Karen Booth, Executive Director, Transforming Congregations (United Methodist)
  
• Pastor Mark C. Chavez, Director, WordAlone Network (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America)
  
• The Rev. Susan Cyre, Executive Director, Presbyterians for Faith, Family, and Ministry
  
• The Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, Episcopal Bishop of Pittsburgh, Moderator of the Anglican Communion Network
  
• The Rev. Thomas J. Edwards, Executive Director, New Wineskins Initiative (Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.))
  
• The Rev. Dr. Ira Gallaway, Confessing Movement (United Methodist)
  
• Dr. Scott M. Gibson, President, American Baptist Evangelicals
  
• The Rev. Dr. Donna Hailson, pastor, author, former professor (American Baptist)
  
• The Rev. James V. Heidinger, President, Good News (United Methodist)
  
• The Rev. Arthur Hiley, Vice President, National Alliance of Covenanting Congregations (United Church of Canada)
  
• The Rev. Harold S. Martin, Editor, Brethren Revival Fellowship (Church of the Brethren)
  
• Craig Alan Myers, Chairman, Brethren Revival Fellowship (Church of the Brethren)
  
• The Rev. Bill Nicoson, Executive Director, American Baptist Evangelicals
  
• Dr. Thomas C. Oden, board member, Confessing Movement (United Methodist)
  
• The Rev. David Runnion-Bareford, Executive Director, Biblical Witness Fellowship (United Church of Christ)
  
• Terry Schlossberg, Executive Director, Presbyterian Coalition
  
• Faye Short, President, RENEW Network (United Methodist)
  
• David and Jean Leu Stanley, Chairman and Steering Committee member, UMAction (United Methodist)
  
• The Rev. Vernon Stoop, Executive Director, Focus Renewal Ministries in the United Church of Christ
  
• The Rev. Michael Walker, Executive Director, Presbyterians for Renewal
  
• The Rev. Roland J. Wells, Jr., Vice President, Great Commission Network (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America)
• The Rev. Todd H. Wetzel, Executive Director, Anglicans United
  
• The Rev. Parker T. Williamson, Editor and Chief Executive Officer, Presbyterian Lay Committee
  
• Alan Wisdom, Interim President, Institute on Religion and Democracy, elder in Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

Source: http://www.ird-renew.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=fvKVLfMVIsG&b=470197&ct=1619441

Dale Salico's Address to the General Board: Speaking the Truth in Love

A Time to Speak the Truth in Love
Dr. Dale V. Salico

Address to the General Board, ABCUSA, November 17, 2005

For months the ABCPSW Board had struggled with the contrasting injunctions found in Scripture to:

· stand for the truth of God resisting error within the Church to the point of separation if necessary; and
· maintain and strengthen unity within the Church, which is the body of Christ.
·
Consider the following Scriptures:

Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to one hope when you were called--one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. Ephesians 4:3-6

Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Mathew 5:19

Despite first appearance, these are not competing imperatives. The Church is not to choose between unity and truth. The Church is to be unified in and by the truth. And the truth that is embraced by the Church includes its unity. It is through “speaking the truth in love” that the church “grows up into Him who is its head, even Christ.” (Ephesians 4:15)

For twenty years American Baptists have discussed, with greater and lesser levels of contentiousness, the issue of homosexuality. The General Board Resolution on Homosexuality, far from ending the conflict, merely changed the level of discussion because it lacked statements of implementation. Today, with a growing percentage of Americans questioning or openly rejecting the 2000 year-old understanding of the Christian Church that homosexual behavior is sinful, the need for the Church to speak clearly has become inescapable.

Yet American Baptists have been unable to speak with clarity. Despite good faith efforts by American Baptists of all persuasions to reach consensus, the best the ABC has been able to do is write a deliberately ambiguous one-sentence Resolution that set precedent in the denomination by its lack of implementation points. That Resolution states, The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.

It is the conviction of the American Baptist Churches of the Pacific Southwest that this Resolution represents the clear and unambiguous teaching of the Bible, and that it should govern in a visible way our life together as a denomination of covenanting partners. For the past eight years I, as well as delegates from the ABCPSW have said stated this conviction in the General Board as well as other ABC arenas. While we have worked for unity in our body, we have also made it clear that our churches were increasingly dissatisfied with what they see as a contradiction between this American Baptist Resolution and the American Baptist reality.

What action did the ABCPSW Board of Directors take?

It is important to understand the sequence of events that pertained to Board decisions. On May 12, 2005 the Board of Directors of the ABCPSW approved the following resolution.

Be it resolved that if the issues regarding homosexuality are not biblically dealt with by the end of the Biennial Meetings of the ABCUSA July 1-4, 2005, we as a Region will move forward with [following] process. . .with the understanding that we are remaining a covenanting partner in the ABCUSA.

1. Remain a full covenanting partner, but reduce participation in ABCUSA-generated meetings. . .
2. Remain a full covenanting partner in the ABCUSA but establish parallel relationships with other bodies that will help us advance our vision and mission priorities. . .
3. Withdraw from the ABCUSA Budget Covenant, but continue as a Covenanting Partner in the ABCUSA.

Four times in this resolution the Board affirmed its desire to remain within the Covenant of Relationships. In specifying its intent to withdraw from the Budget Covenant, the Board was attempting to call attention to the fact that it was in very serious conflict with directions set by the ABCUSA and that much work was needed to prevent a possible separation.

In response, Dr. Medley expressed regret that the Board felt such measures were necessary. Then he stated that it was not possible with withdraw from the Budget Covenant and remain a member of the Covenant of Relationships. “To break the budget Covenant will be to break the whole Covenant of Relationships and be out of Covenant as a Region.”

Our Region Board was now faced with a situation in which all its previous attempts to communicate serious dissatisfaction with the treatment the ABCUSA was giving to its Resolution on homosexuality had been disregarded. All recommendations for implementation by this Region and other Regions in recent years, most recently at the very important General Executive Council meetings in April, 2005, had been rejected. The Regional Executive Ministers had gone to the April meeting in San Antonio, Texas committed to approve recommendations to the General Board to implement the Resolution on Homosexuality. At the end of those meetings, despite the clear communication from several Executive Ministers including myself that there would be very negative repercussions in our Regions if we reported to our Boards that the GEC would not recommend any implementation of this important policy to the General Board last June.

At the meeting in San Antonio I stated that I was not certain I could hold the ABCPSW in Covenant if I took home such a report, and recommended we appoint a task force of GEC members to study possible minimal implementation steps and report back to the GEC in six months. This recommendation was also rejected.

On September 8, 2005, following months of discussion and prayer, the following resolution was approved:

Because the deep differences of theological convictions and values between the American Baptist Churches of the Pacific Southwest (ABCPSW) and the American Baptist Churches in the USA (ABCUSA) are understood by the Board of Directors of the ABCPSW as irreconcilable, the Board of Directors of the ABCPSW takes the following action effective September 9, 2005:

1. Initiate the process to withdraw from the Covenant of Relationships of the ABCUSA. The Executive Committee of the ABCPSW will report to the ABCPSW Board of Directors regarding issues related to this action by December 8, 2005. Upon approval by the Board of Directors of the ABCPSW recommendations will be sent to the churches for a vote at a specially called meeting of the Region.
2. Authorize the Executive Committee of the ABCPSW to consult with necessary professionals regarding issues related to this action.
3. Withdraw from the Budget Covenant of the ABCUSA effective 12/31/05.

Recognizing that part three of the Resolution, withdrawing from the Budget Covenant, had led to confusion regarding the date of the Region’s withdrawal from the Covenant of Relationships, on October 13, 2005, the ABCPSW Board of Directors changed part three of the resolution to read, The ABCPSW will remain in the Budget Covenant until such time as the churches vote the Region out of the Covenant of Relationships.

The following is the sequence of actions projected over the next six months for the ABCPSW:

1) The Executive Committee of the ABCPSW is studying the implications of withdrawing from the Covenant of Relationships;
2) On December 8, the Executive Committee will report to the Board of Directors. The Board will have the following options for action:
i. Recommend further study.
ii. Approve the study and recommend that the churches endorse the proposed withdrawal from the Covenant of Relationships, calling for a special meeting of the ABCPSW, providing the churches with not less than 90 days notice of this meeting and its agenda.
iii. Approve the study and rescind its recommendation to withdraw from the Covenant of Relationships.
3) If the Board of Director approves of the study and recommends that the churches endorse the proposal to withdraw from the Covenant of Relationships, complete information will be sent to the churches regarding the meeting and the number of delegates assigned to each church according to the Bylaws of the ABCPSW. The Region’s Bylaws do not require a vote by the churches to approve the action by the Board. The Board of Directors feels that in such a weighty matter, an expression of the will of the delegates will provide the Board with the input it needs to make a responsible and informed decision.

The ABCPSW remains at the present time and will remain at least through the first quarter of 2006 a full covenanting partner with the ABCUSA. We therefore view the action of the General Board Executive Committee in September 2005 to ask ABCPSW delegate Manuel Luquin to leave the meeting of the GBEC when it discussed the actions of the ABCPSW as both inappropriate and unwise. It was inappropriate because the action had no basis in the ABCUSA Bylaws, Standing Rules, the Covenant of Relationships or in law. It was unwise because the only person in the room who could give insight regarding the reasoning and heart of the ABCPSW Board was asked to leave after sharing in five minutes the state of the Region.

It was likewise inappropriate and unwise for the GBEC to ask our delegates not to come to the November meeting in Green Lake. This request was withdrawn by President Johnson in her letter of October 2005. However, the President continued to request ABCPSW delegates to recuse themselves during discussion of our region’s action. This repeated insistence that ABCPSW delegates not participate in discussion left us with the impression that our covenant partners do not desire to hear what has caused the Region Board to take the action it did nor for us to hear discussion that concerns this Region directly.

What feelings accompanied the action of the Region Board?

Brian Scivens, President of the ABCPSW Board of Directors, in his letter to the churches stated:

The Board of Directors of the ABCPSW is deeply grieved over this decision. We continue to recognize our brothers and sisters in Christ in the ABCUSA as beloved friends and co-workers in the Body of Christ. Because of our long history and many common concerns in gospel ministry, we will have opportunities for continued fellowship and partnership. Our decision to withdraw from the Covenant of Relationship is made without animosity or malice. We will continue to pray for God’s blessing on the ABCUSA, its leadership, agencies and congregations.

If the ABCPSW withdraws from the Covenant of Relationships, in what ways would it desire to continue to partner together for mission?

In voting to begin a process to withdraw from the Covenant of Relationships the Board stated that it desired to create distance between the ABCPSW and the ABCUSA so that both may move ahead in the mission God has given them without continual conflict. The creation of distance does not mean the ending of all partnership. American Baptists partnered together in mission for over 60 years before the Covenant of Relationships. It stands to reason that we can partner together in mission where there is agreement to do so after a party withdraws from the Covenant of Relationships. Think of the desire of the ABCPSW as “three d’s”-- distance and distinctiveness with the least amount of damage possible.

I have presented to the General Board Executive Committee a list of twelve talking points concerning areas for possible future cooperation if the ABCPSW does pull out of the Covenant of Relationships. These are ways the ABCPSW can continue to partner with our brothers and sisters in Christ in the ABCUSA in areas of agreement, despite our serious disagreement.

It is not, as some have suggested, the intent of this Region to retain the benefits of being American Baptist while avoiding the responsibilities of being American Baptists. Our desire is to work together for the advancement of God’s kingdom where there is agreement and where it is to the benefit of the ABCPSW, the ABCUSA and our other mission partners to do so.

The issues we have raised are not directed equally toward all covenanting partners. We are in agreement in conviction and core values with many Regions as well as other American Baptist agencies. It is our intention to work together with these partners wherever possible. It is also our intention to avoid speaking disparagingly of any American Baptists. We will continue to value American Baptists, including those with whom we have serious differences as brothers and sisters in Christ’s kingdom.

What would it take on the part of the ABCUSA to cause the ABCPSW Board of Directors to reconsider its action?

We have discussed in our Executive Committee and Board what it would take on the part of the ABCUSA to cause the ABCPSW Board of Directors to reconsider its recommendation to withdraw from the Covenant of relationships. The following three points summarize the Board’s discernment at this time.

1. The ABCUSA must treat seriously its Resolution on Homosexuality dated 1992. The General Secretary should demonstrate that this resolution expresses the clear teaching of the Bible and encourage congregations to be welcoming and transforming agents for persons struggling with this sinful behavior. We urge the ABCUSA to reestablish accountability for accepting the authority of the Bible as the Word of God. The ABCPSW is deeply troubled about being part of a denomination whose commitment to theological inclusiveness has displaced its commitment to Biblical discipline.

2. At the Common Table (the General Board with its commissions and committees, the Office of the General Secretary, the program Boards related to the ABCUSA) policies should be implemented to ensure that membership of Boards, Committees and Commissions, as well as platform leadership are consistent with the ABCUSA Resolution on Homosexuality.

, 3. We urge the General Board to appoint a commission authorized to implement what is needed to achieve the above items. This is not a study commission or discussion commission. We have been grieved by 20 years of inaction. The most recent ABCUSA consultant has told us that in addition to dealing with issues of structure and communication, action needs to be taken to get the ABCUSA off the fence regarding the issue of homosexuality which is immobilizing us in pursuit of God’s mission. We have heard and we agree with the consultant that it is time for change.

As American Baptists we have been at the forefront in discerning God’s message for His people. Through all the struggles of cultures and societies, historically American Baptists have looked not to the opinions of people but to the authority of God and His Word. We believe God is calling us as a denomination back to His supreme authority. We call on American Baptists not to be swayed by our wayward society, but to look to God’s profound, unequivocal Word and stand steadfastly on that Word.

Regardless of what the future holds, we commit to you before our Lord to continue to hold you in high esteem and in love as brothers and sisters in Christ and to refuse to speak disparagingly of the ABCUSA. If we cannot work together in covenant, we can still be workers in the same field of the Lord in spite of their deep differences. And we will leave the final judgment of all our actions, convictions and attitudes to the Lord, to whom judgment rightly belongs.

Source: http://www.webmedleysb.com/media/media-119757.doc

Baptists: the Philadelphia Mentality vs. the Providence Mentality

I recently read, to my amusment and horror, a Baptist of the left who called Roger Williams "the founder of Baptists in America." So he didn't do so well in church history. That's forgivable. Not telling the whole story isn't.

Let's be honest about Roger Williams. He was a flake. He was pathetically paranoid about persecution. He saw a mortal threat to religious liberty behind every rock and tree. And he was a Baptist for about a year. His Baptist "cred" is minimal.

But for many on the theo-left, Williams is a hero. Why? He is the champion of uncertainty. He is the nemesis of those who dare write a creed (oh, horrors, that creed offends me! How can you bind my conscience with a piece of paper? Next you'll make me join the NRA and drink Jonestown kool-aid!). He is the embodiement of the whirlwind of righteous indignation against the Pharisees of the right threatening the souls of the Born Free Baptists.

The reality is that Baptists in America didn't start with Williams. The roots of organized Baptists are in the Philadelphia Baptist Association. (Admittedly, this was many years after Williams, but the sporadic present of many disparate groups in New England claiming the name "Baptist" is a a bit like Norse explorers; they may have been the first Europeans in America, but it was Columbus who made it stick.) And these guys didn't think like Roger Williams. They were clear, Biblical and, well, tough. They wrote a Confession of Faith that was considered binding on churches in their asssociation. Churches were disciplined and even expelled based on the Philadelphia Confession. (Hmm...sounds like you can't slip a piece of paper between this idea of a confession and some others idea of a creed. It also sounds like the General Board could learn something from those Philadelphia Baptists about the creedal core of our faith.)

Today, there is a Providence Wing in the ABC and a Philadelphia wing. There is the "Don't Tread on Me" wing and the "Faith Once for All Delivered" wing.

The idea that "all true Baptists are anti-creedal" is historical nonsense. This is 2oth century historical revisionism. We are people of the book. We have expressed that faith in short summaries of Biblical faith for centuries.

When I do a Membership Seminar at our church, one of the things I do is present and take questions on our church's statement of faith. I make it clear that adherance to to its statements are required of new members. I do so without apology.

A few years ago, I posted the Philadelphia Baptist Cathecism (which is based on the Confession) on our church's website. Yes, only Scripture is our authority, but that's what Jehovah's Witnesses say too. You need to spell it out, folks. And the authority of God expressed in His word is the standard.

The Providence Wing can spin all the nonsense they want about the power of a Roger Williams-style of the exaltation of restless uncertainty. Who needs Providence? I take my stand with Philadelphia. As W.C. Fields, said, "All in all, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."

Bonney of the Left Weighs in: General Board Vote Was a "Waste of Time"

Timothy Bonney is a leftward ABC pastor from Des Moines and blogger. His take on the General Board vote merits a reading. See my comments below.

General Board Adopts Non-Binding ABC/INKY Resolution - Why Bother?

With a close vote of 59 to 45, (only passing by about 7 votes) the ABC General Board adopted the first section of the ABC/INKY resolution. This vote adds the phrase “who submit to the teaching of Scripture that God’s design for sexual intimacy places it within the context of marriage between one man and one woman, and acknowledge that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Biblical teaching.” to the description statement of the denomination "We Are American Baptists."

The other two sections of the resolution where withdrawn by ABC/INKY because they would require huge ABC Bylaw changed. They were advised that the changes they wanted to make (including not allowing churches removed from one region to join another) would require a change in our "free church polity" since it would limit the autonomy of local churches.

The Common Criteria for cooperating Churches (the rules for ABC membership) require that churches acknowledge that the "We are American Baptists" statement represent the general views of the ABC. But, the criteria only requires that acknowledgment of the statement as it was adopted at the time the common criteria was last updated.

The confusing long and short of it is that this new addition to the "We Are American Baptists" statement will not become part of the Common Criteria and is therefore not binding on ABC churches or regions.

Since this is the case, all that seems to have happened is that the ABC got in a huge uproar again about differences of views on homosexuality and, yet again, the ABC General Board has adopted a non-binding statement about homosexuality.

This brings me to conclude that our continued fighting over these issues is a waste of time. Adopting a statement in 1992 didn't solve our difference, neither will a similar statement adopted in 2005. All we have succeeded in doing is to ignore the important needs of mission and ministry of the ABC wasting countless hours by denominational Executives, national and region staff, and the General Board to continue to perpetuate this argument.

I believe it is high time that American Baptists recognize that autonomy of the local church and regional autonomy mean that we will never agree 100% on areas of theology on this or any other issue. The reasons for the formation of the ABC was not to create a group of churches who walk in theological lock-step but, to create an organization and structure for free Baptist churches to cooperate together in mission and ministry.

Now that we've barely adopted another non-binding resolution on an issue that American Baptists still don't agree on, can we get back to mission and ministry?

Comment: a lot of what Bonney says is the same old claptrap about automomy (i.e., that it, along with it's brother Soul Liberty, is our North Star as Baptists). What's new here is the observation that any new affirmation in "We are America Baptists" isn't binding on existing ABC entities. Therefore, the whole thing is a waste of time.

What Bonney (and Medley) says about "Can we get back to mission and ministry?" shows just how naive they are and how foolish they think the evangelical majority is. If Bonney's view is that of the "trustees" of the covenants" (to use Medley's phrase), then we are back to the status quo ante bellum: you conservatives got your bone; now shut up, give us the money and we'll get back to business the Valley Forge/Roger Williams Fellowship/ AWAB- sympathetic way.

We must have some very clear words from Dr. Medley et al. regarding their view of the import of the GB vote. Else, back to square one.

Source: http://tbonney.squarespace.com/home/2005/11/19/general-board-
adopts-non-binding-abcinky-resolution-why-bother.html

Both Ends of the Spectrum Debate the Meaning of the General Board Vote

BOTH ENDS of the theological spectrum of the ABCUSA are today mulling over the meaning of yesterday's General Board vote approving the key provison of the Indiana-Kentucky Initiative.

IT IN LEFT CORNER, we have Roy Donkin:

Well... the general board of ABC was meeting this past week and continues to struggle with questions about polity and homosexuality. This time they caved.

It is official policy of ABC going all the way back to 1907 that any statements or stands taken by the general board are not binding on local churches. Still, statements that come from the gb are important as they shape the perception of what we are and what we believe.

"A few years ago a document was produced called We Are American Baptists in large degree as a response to those who were complaining that we didn't have a clear faith statement (well duh... we are/were real baptists and creedal statements are anathema). Well, an amendment was made to that document...The amendment adds the following statement to the section A Biblical People: 'Who submit to the teaching of Scripture that God's design for sexual intimacy places it within the context of marriage between one man and one woman, and acknowledge that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Biblical teaching.'

"...I am deeply saddened by this move. My guess is that it won't be enough to placate the conservatives/revisionists. The conservatives will want to go the next step and remove congregational autonomy to choose who the churches believe God has called as their leaders, to interpret scripture as they hear it, and in the end the conservatives will want to stamp out any dissent that remains. And it will serve to be used as a club that will hurt GLBT folk and drive them further from the experience of the love of God... one more body has condemned them."

As a corrective, please stop repeating the nonsense that "creedal statements are anathema" to Baptists. (The very concept--rooted in Paul's letter to the Galatians--that something can be declared anathema is based on a robust creedal core to our faith).

Also note the paranoia about "remov[ing] congregational automomy," which is theo-left speak for doing what is right in our own eyes (see the book of Judges). In reality, I have heard no one who wants to "uncongregationalize" the ABC. It is not "uncongregational" to have a robust standard of faith and to insist that we live by it.

IN THE RIGHT CORNER, we have those who view the Indiana-Kentucky vote as a mere last-ditch effort to keep dissident regions, especially the PSW, in the ABC without a genuine commitment to implement its import.

An anonymous poster on the ABE website wrote:

The 1992 Resolution is portrayed as having little effect on the denomination because it had no mechanism for implimentation. The only implimentation in the resolution that was just passed is to insert the text into a denominational document. Beyond that, there is no pragmatic implimentation so it is just as impotent as the previous resolution. The actual effect of the resolution is to make the denominational statement a lie:

quote:

---

We are American Baptists, a people "who submit to the teaching of Scripture that God’s design for sexual intimacy places it within the context of marriage between one man and one woman, and acknowledge that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Biblical teaching."

---

The truth is, American Baptists as a denomination DO NOT submit to or acknowledge the stated teaching of Scripture. For this to be true, it must be reworded to say:

quote:

---

We are American Baptists, a people "some of whom submit to and others of whom ignore the teaching of Scripture that God’s design for sexual intimacy places it within the context of marriage between one man and one woman, some of whom acknowledge and others of whom deny that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Biblical teaching."

From the same source, Mike Edwards of Everett, Washington writes:

"...the fact is the vote count was only a simple majority in favor. Legal counsel has declared numerous times it would require a three-quarter count in favor to enable amending the "Criteria for Cooperating Churches" in the "Standing Rules" to reflect any changes in the "We Are..." statement, thereby giving it some teeth.

"I am guessing that this is NOT a done deal."

The problem of "unenforceability" in the Indiana-Kentucky Initiative is being cited by both the left and the right. Dennis McFadden of www.hisbarkingdog.blogspot.com notes:

"Imagine Dr. Medley now: 'We are a biblical people, an evangelical people, we have a clear identity statement upholding heterosexual marriage as biblical and saying the homosexual practice is incompatible with biblical teaching. BUT I don't want to let go of my sisters and brothers who for reasons of conscience disagree with that statement. We are BAPTISTS after all.'"

This is why stripping the second and third articles of the IN-KY initiative was so important. It took the teeth from the bite. While a hopeful and helpful sign, it does not change the fundamental underlying issues. One has to wonder how many yea votes were cast on Friday with fingers crossed and more of an eye on the denominational implosion than on sound Biblical theology.

A Stunner from Green Lake: Indiana-Kentucky Initiative is Adopted!

AMERICAN BAPTISTS ADOPT INDIANA-KENTUCKY RESOLUTION

GREEN LAKE, WI (ABNS)—The General Board of the American Baptist Churches USA on Friday voted in favor of a region-sponsored petition from cooperating churches asking the denomination to take a stronger stand against homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

The vote was 59-45, with five abstentions.

Passage of the petition, from the denomination’s Indiana-Kentucky region, changes a descriptive document titled “We Are American Baptists” by adding to the document a phrase reading “who submit to the teaching of Scripture that God’s design for sexual intimacy places it within the context of marriage between one man and one woman, and acknowledge that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Biblical teaching.”

Larry Mason, executive minister of the Indiana-Kentucky region, said after the meeting that “we don’t see it as a victory so much as a statement by our constituency that the Bible is our authority.”

The vote on the petition was preceded by spirited discussion on both sides of the issue, and a motion to table was defeated, 66-30.

A resolution from the Mid-America region (Iowa and Minnesota), “of concern for the family and our American Baptist family of churches,” was defeated by a vote of 58-49 with three abstentions. The resolution had been criticized from the floor as saying “too much about too many subjects.”

Since 1992, the denomination has had a national resolution that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.” However, under American Baptist polity this resolution contained no implementing provisions and has not been binding on local churches or on area or regional associations. Supporters of the Indiana-Kentucky resolution had criticized the national denomination for not taking further steps to implement the 1992 resolution. In recent months, the debate has been especially sharp, and one of the church’s 35 regions, the Pacific Southwest, has begun the process of separating from the ABCUSA.

Pacific Southwest Regional Minister Dale Salico addressed the General Board Friday morning and laid out three actions the ABC-USA could take to persuade PSW to halt its move to leave the denomination. These have been received by the General Board’s executive committee.

The Indiana-Kentucky Resolution originally called for allowing regions to consider affiliation requests only from churches within their own or contiguous regions, and stating that a church dismissed by a region could gain re-entry into the ABCUSA only through the region from which it was dismissed. These provisions were dropped from the final resolution after questions were raised about whether their wording was specific enough to satisfy denominational bylaws or allow informed debate.

The debate on homosexuality and same-sex marriage has proceeded in several forums within the denomination. In August, 2005, the Senate of the denomination’s Ministers Council voted 32-30 to reject a requirement that would have barred practicing homosexuals from Senate membership. In a November, 2004, meeting, the Regional Executive Ministers Council voted by 20 to 3 with three abstentions to refrain from recommending practicing homosexuals for positions and ministries at the regional and national levels, and not to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies.

In June, 2005, a national “consultation statement on mission and ministry” reviewed the history of the debate, noting the original 1992 national resolution and one by the General Board in 1993, calling for continuing dialogue on issues of human sexuality and recognizing “that there is an ongoing difference of opinion among American Baptists on the issue of homosexuality.”

The 2005 statement added, “Today we have deep divisions around our understanding of Biblical interpretation, human sinfulness, and the potential of ministering together. We further acknowledge that not all churches consider this issue to be central to mission and ministry.”

For presentation to the General Board, the Indiana-Kentucky Resolution had obtained the required support of at least 200 churches in five regions.

http://www.abc-usa.org/news/20051118b.htm

This reminds me of the old saying, "Maybe the only way he's see the light is to first feel the fire."

This story developing...

The Abortion of the Indiana-Kentucky Initiative

I have receieved reports from from both ends of the spectrum that yesterday's report that the Exec Committee of the General Board disqualifying two of three points of the Indiana Initiative was inaccurate. It is appears that paragraphs two and three were withdrawn by Indiana (the ones regarding non-geographic regions) after legal councel.

What I am not clear on--and would appreciate reader's help regarding--is whose legal counsel? If it was from Valley Forge, then it may be the best self-defensive legal counsel your mission money can buy.

Do I trust these guys? After again hearing their prattle during the Southern California Horse and Pony Show--the answer is NO. In particular, the evidence that Wright-Riggins simply lied to us on some matters regarding Native American ministries is overwhelming.

Keep posted, especially on the outcome of the key vote on the first paragraph. If it is defeated, it is the end of the ABC as we know it:

"We submit to the teaching of Scripture that God’s intended design for sexual intimacy places it within the context of marriage between one man and one woman, and acknowledge that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching."

INDIANA-KENTUCKY INITITIVE NIXED BY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE; PSW REPRESENTATIVES STAND FIRM

My sources indicate that two of the three sections of the Indiana-Kentucky inititative have been deep-sixed by the Executive Committee of the General Board of the ABCUSA now meeting in Green Lake, Wisconsin. They were rejected as not being properly written. This is a transperant attempt to stave off the last great hope (or last straw, depending on where you stand) to bring sanity and Biblical authority back to the ABC.

As a reminder, here are the three sections of the IND/KY initiative:

"We submit to the teaching of Scripture that God’s intended design for sexual intimacy places it within the context of marriage between one man and one woman, and acknowledge that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching."

"To amend the standing rules so that regions would be allowed to receive as ABC/USA cooperating churches only those churches within their geographical boundaries or with approval of contiguous regions, receive churches located within those contiguous regions."

"To amend the standing rules so that a church dismissed by a region could only gain re-entry in the ABC/USA through the region from which it was dismissed."

My source does not know which two sections were rejected. But it is not possible to take seriously that the reason was that they were improperly written. Yes, I just said that the Exec Committee is lying--else they are so self-deceived to be pathological.

My source also indicates that all PSW General Board members are present and ready to stand firm, even if they are asked to excuse themselves while others discuss matters vital to the PSW.

Pray well and stand tall.

More General Board news as it develops...

Would Like Like Whine With That?

Here's how the AWAB website reported on the recent Mid-American churches conference. Notice how painful it is when commoners rise up like Baptists to express themselves. Doesn't the underclass know its place? Particularly whiney sections are bolded.

Difficult and Painful Experience at Mid-American Baptist Churches Regional Meeting

Reported by Doug Donley, Pastor – University Baptist Church (AWAB), Minneapolis, MN

The Annual Gathering of the Mid-American Baptist Churches in Harlan, Iowa was a difficult and painful experience. The events of the weekend did not live up to the title of the program "Building up the Body of Christ". There were fine workshops led by our own Don Dresser on the situation in Nicaragua. I attended a workshop on the concerted efforts we do on behalf of those displaced and traumatized by Hurricane Katrina. But by far, the focal point was the votes on who would lead our region in the future and how we would deal with gay men and lesbians in our midst (bisexual and transgender folk aren't even on the radar screen).

The Board of Region Ministries proposed a resolution to continue dialogue on issues of human sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular. Included in this resolution was a recommendation to not recognize the ordinations of openly gay and lesbian people at this time. At most Regional meetings there are maybe 100 voting delegates. This time, there were over 200, most of whom had never attended any regional function. The resolution was amended to add the sentence, "We affirm the 1992 American Baptist Resolution which states, "The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching." They also amended the resolution to take out the words "at this time" regarding the denial of recognition of gay and lesbian pastors. This amendment was passed by a vote of 151-51-2. Another amendment was offered to recognize Lynn Welton’s and Ross Aalgaard’s ordinations, since they had followed all of the rules in place at the time. This amendment was defeated 37-159-7. The final resolution was passed by a vote of 143-53-2 (the text is reprinted below).

Jean Lubke, Jim Moravek, Don Dresser and others made articulate, impassioned pleas. Jean Lubke's powerful statement equating gay and lesbian folk to previous discrimination against African Americans and women was shouted down repeatedly before the President of the Region intervened. The exclusionist group also presented their own slate of officers who were easily voted into office, above those selected by the Nominating Committee who worked heard to get a balance of gender, experience, location, clergy/lay, rural/urban, even theological perspective. The urban folk were voted out in favor of rural folk. All of the women were voted out of office except one, including Nadean Bishop. The moderates to progressives were voted out in favor of largely white male pastors. It was a sad day. As I left the church, one person said to me, "Shame on you for bringing this in to my church."

It felt abusive. I feel angry, sad, frustrated and ashamed of the ways my sisters and brothers acted on Saturday. I felt shunned and I felt that our church's ministry was marginalized in the minds of many. I had the opportunity to speak with one of the pastors who led the rally against the GLBT community after the vote. I told him that he now has a responsibility to set the tone as one of inclusion and respect going forward. I told him the ball is in his court to make this organization truly Christian and just. More than one of us wondered what would happen if we got this many delegates to address issues of poverty. We now need to decide what we will do in the aftermath of these decisions. We need to never forsake our GLBT sisters and brothers. We need to always look to Jesus for inspiration for our ministry. We need to continue the long-term hard work of reconciliation. We need to make sure that all of this does not become our only focus. There is so much ministry to do. Please pray for our region and for all of those bruised and bleeding as a result of the actions by the majority of the delegates at the meeting in Harlan.

Here's the text of the amended resolution passed by the Region in Harlan, Iowa, on October 22:

Whereas the 1992 resolution on homosexuality is held in tension with the 1993 American Baptist Resolution Calling for Dialogue on Human Sexuality.

Whereas we as Mid-American Baptist Church's recognize that we are not of one mind in matters pertaining to human sexuality.

Whereas there is a wide spectrum of Biblical and theological views represented within our region and within our churches.

Whereas many churches may want the opportunity to continue to dialogue as called for in the 1993 American Baptist Resolution calling for Dialogue on Human Sexuality.Therefore we as Mid-American Baptist Churches affirm the 1992 Resolution on homosexuality, "Homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching" call upon individuals and churches to stay open to dialogue and to continue to implement the 1993 American Baptist Resolution Calling for Dialogue on Human Sexuality. Therefore we will not recognize the ordinations of openly gay and lesbian persons.

Lombard Movement Architects Announce Results of their First Gathering

Bill Nicoson of ABE released this email today; it can also be found at www.abeonline.org.

Vision Architects Gather at Northern Seminary

With the purpose of framing a new structure for the organization or network that will replace American Baptist Evangelicals, pastors and professional lay persons from across the country gathered at Northern Seminary on November 11. Bill Hoyt, NexStep Consulting and Coaching, facilitated the meeting.
Hoyt recounted an incident in which he was being recruited to return to New England, where he had grown up. He stated that he had no desire to return to New England, but didn’t know why. As he and his host, a local pastor, were driving past the charred remains of an old burned-down strip mall, his host remarked that the mall was being torn down and one “exactly like the original was being built in its place.” Suddenly it dawned on Hoyt: He didn’t want to return to New England because the culture there is to keep things exactly the same. When Hoyt looked at that empty lot, he saw all the potential for something new and different.

He then delivered that challenge to the vision architects: We have a “blank slate” and it’s time to create something entirely new. Rather than replicating the past, we can develop a new cutting-edge organization that will serve as a model for others to follow. Rather than maintaining an institution, we can spring forward with a network or a movement that’s lean and effective.
Hoyt also discussed organizations that are future-minded – organizations that value churches planting churches, and where missions is now referred to as “globalocal.” That means the missions focus on a particular people group encompasses not only that group in a foreign country, but also right here at home. In other words, it’s about people, not geography.

The current pathway to effective cross-cultural mission is:
· 2-5 years to raise support
· 1-2 years to learn the language
· 2-5 years to learn the culture

The common annual cost of a missionary today is $120,000. Factoring in one-term missionaries (those who last only for one term), the cost for one thirty-year missionary is $3.6 million. Hoyt’s point is that investing in foreign nationals is not only a less expensive, but also faster, way of leading people to Jesus Christ. He warned that denominations will either embrace the coming missiology and allocate resources for the new day, or their missionary force will shrivel to a handful until they have no effective missions program

Breakout groups discussed four areas:

· Church health
· Church planting
· Missions
· Care of pastors and leaders

The group then agreed upon the following two sets of core values to be applied to the new network or movement. The following values emerged and are shown here in draft form:

Missional Core Values

We will be a movement of churches that values:

· Spirit-infused Biblical Orthodoxy
· Obedience to the Great Commandment and Great Commission
· Congregational health and growth

Operational Core Values

· We will serve churches.- We will be additive to and distinctive from churches.
· We will partner with ministries, ministers, missionaries, individuals, business people, and seminaries.
· We will leverage wisdom and experience for greater effectiveness.- Networking- Brokering
· We will empower leaders for success.- Coaching and mentoring
· We will maintain an effective structure.- Flat- Lean- Primacy of practitioner leadership- Virtual- Maximize technology
· We will measure success in terms of practical, real-world effectiveness-outcomes.- Forward thinking, innovative, proactive partnerships

At the end of the day, participants realized that while much was accomplished, much work remains. Bill Hoyt and Bill Nicoson, Executive Director of ABE, will schedule two to three additional meetings to complete the vision architecting. In the meantime, Bill Nicoson will also assemble a team to develop a new identity, including a new name for the organization or movement.

As a resource for future work, Hoyt recommended that participants read Shaped by God’s Heart: The Passion and Practices of Missional Churches, by Milfred Minatrea.

Comment: the bus has pulled up. It's here to pick up the people stranded on the railroad tracks. While the name of the bus isn't painted on the side yet, I'm ready to get on board. These are the values that lean forward for churches to be effective in the 21st century. Not only will the new organization be more Biblically faithful, it will also be cutting edge in its effectiveness. This is a good day.

Now compare this with the glum proceedings now about to unfold in Philadelphia. That bus is having a Stranded Passangers Board meeting this week. They will look backwards. They will be confused. They will sputter. Why stick with that broken down hunk of junk? It's time to get on board, people. God is doing a new thing.

General Board Meets this Week; Crucial Vote on IN/KY Petition Closely Watched

We are days away from the most important vote ever taken by the General Board of the ABCUSA--on a petition that comes to it from the Indiana-Kentucky region of the ABC.

The petition, which can be found on the IN/KY region’s website at www.abc-indiana.org, was received by the ABCUSA’s General Board in June, 2005. The petition is requesting three changes to the ABCUSA Standing Rules and bylaws.

It reads:"To amend the document entitled "We are American Baptists" by adding the following statement to the section: "We are a Biblical people."

The addition would read, "We submit to the teaching of Scripture that God’s intended design for sexual intimacy places it within the context of marriage between one man and one woman, and acknowledge that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching."

"To amend the standing rules so that regions would be allowed to receive as ABC/USA cooperating churches only those churches within their geographical boundaries or with approval of contiguous regions, receive churches located within those contiguous regions."

"To amend the standing rules so that a church dismissed by a region could only gain re-entry in the ABC/USA through the region from which it was dismissed."

The petition will be received for a second reading at the ABCUSA General Board meeting November 17-20, 2005, and a vote will be taken at that time. A copy of that letter can be found on the region’s website at www.abc-indiana.org.

This blogger enthusiastically supports all three items. Now, the General Board could have voted on this item in June, but declined to do so by about a 2-to-1 margin. Most GB supporters of the IN/KY initiative saw that vote as a harbinger of the November vote. We'll see.

But let me say, just for myself:

I would not want to continue to "fellowship" with an organization that could not affirm that first key paragraph. Lack of such an affirmation belies a rebellion against the creation pattern of God as recorded in the Scriptures.

No doubt that statement will regarded as inflamatory and radical by the theo-left. But it is the sentiment not of a right-wing 20% of the current ABC. I am convinced that is the sentiment of a solid majority of ABC church members.

Yet I would rather have the GB vote by their convictions than to try to "throw a bone" at the evangelical majority churches. It's time to take a stand--with Biblical authority or human "soul liberty." This is the time to be true to your convictions, and to stand up and be counted.

The Amicable Divorce Option

Increasing numbers of American Baptists, both conservatives and progressives, have come to the conclusion that we are already two denominations and that the separation of the PSW region is the first in an inevitable meltdown. Both sides are entrentched in their position and unwilling to compromise on what they see as matters of principle. Conservatives will not compromise on what they see as an authority of Scripture issue and progressives will not compromise on what they see as a soul liberty and justice issue.

Therefore, the idea of the so-called Amicable Divorce option keeps coming up from both the theological right and left. How would that work? Could it really happen?

Here's my suggestion--one of the few possible paths to avoid a messy divorce. Let's designate the ABC as it now is as American Baptists Alpha, and the new movement as American Baptists Beta. ABA and ABB would put forth their pitch to regions and churches over the next two years. All regions and churches would be requested to vote on whether they wish to be part of Alpha or Beta or be dually aligned with both. No vote would be interpreted as remaining with Alpha.

The program boards (NM, BIM and MMBB) would fully service both Alpha and Beta during the two year window. At the end of that period, the program boards would revert to an independant status, that is, they would generate their own boards (as MMBB does now) as opposed to the GB system--a system that was always deeply flawed, in my opinion--and I did serve on the General Board in the 80s, so I had a taste of it.

MMBB would serve both Alpha and Beta for the indefinite future--both contractual and non-contractual benefits. BIM and NM would function as free-standing domestic and international missions agencies. Alpha and Beta could do mission through them as their see fit.

This approach would recognize, for legal purposes, both Alpha and Beta as sucessor coroportaions of ABCUSA.

The Office of the General Secretary would of course remain a part of Alpha. Beta would shape their leadership structure as they see fit.

Frankly, I doubt Valley Forge would ever assent to anything so cordial and rational. But this is one way to take the Amicable Divorce option.

In Memory of A. Earl Dale

My father-in-law, Rev. A. Earl Dale, passed away Thursday evening after a brief illness. He was 93. He will be remembered as a wonderful husband to his late wife Delphine, a great father to his children, Larry Dale of Norwalk, Ohio, Linda Stauffer of London, OH and Lynann Layne of Temple City, California.

Earl served many churches in his long career despite having limited eyesite. Born in North Dakota and raised in Iowa, he attended Oklahoma Baptist College (now University). A graduate of Central Seminary, he served for a time as director of the Christian Center in Kansas City, MO.

Most of his pastoral career was spent in Ohio, where he served churches in Middletown, Troy, Sandusky, Loudenville, Ironton and Colton. He also served in a number of interim roles during his many years of retirement.

He was a great influence in my life. He even led the membership class I attended before being baptized August 8, 1971 at the First Baptist Church of Ironton, Ohio.

Go now, Christian soul to your rest, in the presence of the Lord whom you have served.

A CALL TO PRAY

A reminder to all:

A group of pastors and professional lay leaders will meet on Friday, November 11, 2005, to continue casting vision and strategy for the new movement that will replace American Baptist Evangelicals. These "Vision Architects" represent churches, regions and professional organizations throughout the U.S. Please pray, particularly on the 11th, that God will work through this team to meet these objectives.

Participating in the architect team are:• Jim Amend, Sr. Pastor, United Baptist Church, Richland, Wash.• Terry Deaver, Sr. Pastor, FBC, Augusta, Kan.• Patty Duckworth, Assoc. Exec. Minister, ABCNW, Great Falls, Mont.• Scott Gibson, Professor, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, S. Hamilton, Mass.• Vic Gordon, Sr. Pastor FBC, Huntington Beach, Calif.• Bill Hoyt, NexStep Coaching and Consulting, Diamond Bar, Calif.• Conley Hughes, Sr. Pastor, Concord Baptist Church, Boston, Mass.• Scott Jones, Sr. Pastor, FBC, Webster City, Iowa• John Kaiser, Resource Minister, ABCW, Roseville, Calif.• Brenda Madsen, Huntington Beach, Calif.• Dennis Metzger, Sr. Pastor, FBC, Hamilton, Ohio• Roberto Miranda, Sr. Pastor, Leon de Juda Congregation, Boston, Mass.• Bill Nicoson, Fountain Valley, Calif.• Chuck Peckham, Exec. Pastor, Montgomery Community Baptist Church, Montgomery, Ohio• Jossimar Salum, Sr. Pastor, Church Planter, Exec. Dir., Great Revival Ministries, Worcester, Mass.• Kevin Siscoe, Pastor, FBC, Kewanee, Ill.• Dick Sipe, Sr. Pastor, FBC, Marshaltown, Iowa• Kevin Slyh, Sr. Pastor, FBC, Canton, Ohio• Cindy White, Assoc. Pastor, Ashland Baptist Church, Ashland, Ohio