so, um, yeah, about the membership thing...

[pastormikejordan]

OK, Tim et al. I watched with amusement (bemusement?) all the thread drift in the last thread about the membership losses.

Noticed in the original article I posted that one of the commentors has clarified: the 2007 book used 2004 statistics, while the 2008 book used 2006 statistics. Thus, it seems impossible that the decrease reflects any PSW pullout, as that was more recent than that.

I'm not necessarily siding with Ed, here, Tim, but I'm not sure why his posting about the GB causing a "national quagmire" is so offensive as to be off-limits. You may understand the current situation one way, and I may understand it quite another, and even Ed in a third way. While Ed's idea is not convincing to me, it is not any more simplistic an idea than insisting that the other side insisted on creedalism and then stomped out when they didn't get their way. Could it be there's more to the story than simply one side or the other causing the mayhem?

Ed's suggestion that the ABC has not done a good job creating an identity also merits closer attention than you're giving it, methinks. I am paraphrasing here, but one of Ed's ideas essentially was when people move out of small towns, as they do these days, they don't necessarily seek out another ABC church. That is at least interesting, isn't it? Just hypothesizing here, but if people are indeed moving from rural to suburban/exurban areas, then perhaps the suburban/exurban ABC churches differ enough from rural churches to not be attractive to those moving in. If ABC identity means one thing in one place, and quite another in another, people can be forgiven for not forming a life-long relationship with the ABC when they move around.

Further, I'm not sure the "small-town" explanation is the best one. The denominations in steepest decline: ECUSA, PCUSA, ABCUSA, ELCA, UMC (in that order, percentage-wise). They would seem to me to have more in common than being located in shrinking small towns. They may be the churches that keep the best or most honest records, or it may be a recognition of the failure of mainline Christianity to develop compelling ministries and mission as they liberalize.

I'm sure you know my general opinion on this--if the ABC is in general about rejecting all theological boundaries as creedalism, it's going to be difficult going to maintain any interest in the ABC as people become more transient.

I pastor in an extremely transient area--people move in and out all the time, and there are many apartment complexes, etc. in town. There are probably 20 or so people who came into the church in the last five years who have already moved on. No matter where they're moving--Texas, West Virginia, Massachusetts, NY, Indiana--I never recommend they look for another ABC church. Why would I? I tell them to find a church where the Bible is honored above all books but not interpreted in a fundamentalist way, to find a place where tradition is honored but is not a cage, to find a place where they can serve God and others. To put it bluntly, if we are all about autonomy and not mutual submission, I have no assurances those things will happen in an ABC church, and neither do my people. They may happen in an ABC church, they may not, but there's no way I could tell them in good conscience simply to check the website, find a local ABC church and get there.

Please understand I raise this criticism in order to be constructive. I actually would like to be wrong on this. I would like to hear a convincing argument that this is not the case, that it really is due to shrinking small towns or irreligiosity on the part of thirtysomethings these days. But my gut--and the fact it is a "mainline malady"--tells me that it has more to do with the need to be comprehensive, "inclusive" enough that eventually it doesn't mean anything to belong. Please tell me if it's something different--please, please raise a compelling case, or at least points to discuss. My view--because I love the ABC, not because I am a fundamentalist hell-bent on destroying it--is that some minimal theological boundaries are necessary to lend some shape to our identity as a people.

Tim if you feel there is no good conversation to be had here, then you certainly can feel free to lock this. Please know I'm not trying to be destructive but constructive by raising these issues. I will try to be a more active part in the discussion, and I didn't mean to "hit and run" last time. In the last thread, I just wanted to hear from a few folks to gauge what they thought were reasons. But I will be glad to be more involved in a discussion about this. I as always try to be open to all evidence, not just that which supports my theory, so fire away...

Mike

[pastormikejordan]

Tim, I appreciate your willingness to dialogue. I hope others will join in.

I of course have not been privy to many denominational things. I cannot say who's really causing the problems, though I have heard everybody tell me it's everybody else's fault.

I think you are correct, that VF could have solved a lot of problems by being more closed to the right. The only problem, of course, was that they would have lost the lion's share of the people, who are after all evangelical, and money in the denomination. But you are correct that in a sense VF could come out and clearly articulate their sense of American Baptist identity, consequences be darned, financial and people-losses be darned. That would have at least resolved conflict, although it could be argued both sides would have been left with smoldering ruins.

I must say, it sounds as if as far as you are concerned, AB identity is a settled issue. You say that pastors from the outside come in and fail to understand the ABC, which sounds like anyone who believes in any sort of theological boundary cannot argue for that without changing the essential quality of the ABC. I do not mean to make you sound rude, because you are not, but it sounds like you are saying that I am not truly AB, and that any attempt to argue this point from my perspective is an assault on true AB identity.

I do not see it this way; I see the denomination in an identity crisis, between total autonomy and minimal theological boundaries; you see the identity as essentially settled for total autonomy, although many ordinary people still have to be caught up on this. I have to say, I think it's odd that you would see the identity as settled when so many people don't see it that way in a denomination where the people are ostensibly in charge.

In other words, who gets to decide whether there are boundaries or not? Is it logical for a group of Baptists to have no boundaries if the majority of the people want some boundary? I'm speaking hypothetically, of course, I haven't studied this, but I'd betcha dollars to doughnuts that most would see it this way.

Thanks for your willingness to dialogue...and I do hope others will join in...

MJ

[Haruo]

Okay, Timothy, but please let those of us who want to continue to spin our wheels to do so rather than LOCKING us [Ed, Mike, me, whoever] down. Okay? Give us at least as much room to VF-bash here as William gives us to Nashville-bash in the SBC forum. Thanks!

Not that I want to VF-bash or anything, but the LOCK chills me.

Haruo

PS Not a bad Lenten resolution, though! Good luck with it.

[Ed Pettibone]

[pastormikejordan]

OK, thanks for this Tim.

I must say I don't know whether to be happy or not with your Lenten fast from going around these issues. I'm of course inspired any time anyone wants to get on with the work of the Kingdom. Unfortunately, I also feel rather strongly that our ecclesiology has a major impact on how we do the work of the Kingdom--how we perceive what exactly the work of the Kingdom is, and how we best accomplish it together. And so for me it is not as simple as putting aside divisive issues and doing God's work, because how we wrestle with those divisive issues impacts how we view and act out God's work in the world.

Perhaps I also feel sort of bad about this because I feel like I'm raising the issue from a different perspective and trying to do so constructively. I'm not simply saying, "Why don't you liberals kneel at the foot of the cross and just do what the Bible says?" I know these are more complex issues of Scriptural interpretation; I know these are deeply theological issues about what it means to be a Baptist. Still, I'm raising what I think are cogent arguments in my favor:

--that being too inclusive results in little identity;
--that having no theological boundaries opens us up to potentially damaging ministries under our roof;
--that having no theological boundaries excludes no one except for people who feel that theological boundaries are important;
--that shared "mission and ministry" among people who have no core agreement at all is bound to be banal when it could be so much more.
--that individual churches are hampered by our thin ecclesiology.

I'm not trying to destroy anything, I'm not reacting from a place of anger in my heart, and I'm open to evidence and dialogue. Yet until I am convinced otherwise, I will argue for minimal theological boundaries, because it is the only strong support for prophetic and visionary leadership. If I sense the ABC is simply never going to do this, I will have to choose between "hanging in there" and associating myself with another group that I think more faithfully reflects the Gospel to the world.

I guess I am disappointed that you would "lay down the gloves," because I think it's the privilege of those who are benefitting from the status quo. This is one thing (of many) W&A folks and I share in common--neither feel like the status quo is a good way to stand for justice and Gospel issues in the world.

Gotta run now--thanks for opening up the thread.

Mike

[pastormikejordan]

Tim, thanks for your kind affirmation. And I certainly respect your decision to opt out of the discussion for now. We all need seasons away.

I do hope those of your persuasion who have the spiritual stamina for discussion will join in on it, as I still think it's vital for Baptists to think about this stuff. I really would be interested for input from those who disagree...

Mike

[Ed Pettibone]

[Ed Pettibone]

[pastormikejordan]

[pastormikejordan]

[Haruo]

[Haruo]

I'm not sure how a statement of faith based in systematic theological assertions like the Trinity will exclude potentially damaging ministries.

Haruo

[pastormikejordan]

Haruo--thank you for this insight. Unfortunately, I'm heading out the door now and won't be able to respond until tomorrow. Briefly, though, let me say that I didn't mean that the Trinity, etc. were necessarily the pieces to the statement of faith I think ought to be put together. What I meant was that a basic creed (You got me ) was necessary, and here were examples of what might be in there. But you're right, the Trinity is never a doctrine we should throw around indiscriminately.

[pastormikejordan]

[pastormikejordan]

[pastormikejordan]

Incidentally, I wanted to say this in the last post but it was growing hideously long...

I'm sure I irritate many liberals on this board, and also many who would identify as moderates (though I identify that way too). I'm sure I'm seen as introducing a creed, which is an awfully slippery slope to some. I hope you realize that what I'm really trying to do is to give the ABC something to point to if a group from the right accuses us of not being Biblical, or a group from the left of not standing for justice. Such a confession would help us to say that we do have Biblical accountability, that our polity has checks on the slippery slope into secular humanism or fundamentalism. Right now, we have checks on neither, and precious little theological defense ready should we come under attack from either the left or the right...

MJ

[Ed Pettibone]

[pastormikejordan]

[Haruo]

I'll try to get back to you soon, Mike. Thanks for the detailed response. But the next few days will be rather hectic here, so I'm making no timeline promises.

[pastormikejordan]