Orthodoxy: Definitions and Exclusionary Clauses. Oh, and gra

[Haruo]

This is a thread to continue and develop a discussion between me and Tim Bonney (mainly) that has most recently been cropping up as a weed along the roadways of a couple of other threads:

http://forums.baptistlife.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9857 (Esperanto rising...)
http://forums.baptistlife.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9825#p132816 (Christ born at pentecost)

[Timothy Bonney]

This is a thread to continue and develop a discussion between me and Tim Bonney (mainly) that has most recently been cropping up as a weed along the roadways of a couple of other threads:

Hauro I wish Joshua Villines still post on Baptistlife.com. The first time I had these discussions here on this very forum about issues of authority, freedom, orthodoxy, the canon and the creeds it was between Joshua and I. And largely, at that time, I took the side you are taking. I grew up in moderate Baptist country and believed for many years fairly recent Baptist take on Baptist faith (I'd content not the original Baptist view) that everything is about freedom and that the only authority is scripture without thinking too hard about its historic origins in the Church, how the canon was selected, and the place of the ecumenical creeds in the formation of the canon.

Joshua tarred and feathered me with strong historical arguments several times but I stuck to my guns on the idea of "scripture freedom" and "church freedom" (to paraphrase Walter Shurden) and finally shut down talking with him about it because, frankly, his arguments were getting to me and at the time I couldn't figure out why.

Since then I've come to believe the "why" was that my previous view of the Bible standing as an authority outside of the guidance of the historic church wasn't tenable. And that such views, coupled with a polity that gives way too much power to the SBC Prez, are part of what unwitting lead to the takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention by fundamentalists, the fracturing of the Baptist family over and over again, and mistaken idea that "I can interpret the Bible any way I want to" mantra that seems to pervade a lot of the faith.

I'd be happy flesh any or all of this out because I've done a lot of thinking about this for several years now. But I'll end this rather long post by saying that I believe that having a set of foundational beliefs allows for much more theological freedom and diversity than non-creedalism or anti-creedalism because then the foundation gets remade over and over again and in Baptist/Conservative Evangelical Christian life over and over again in more and more conservative/fundamentalist ways.

[Dave Roberts]

I would be interested in participating in these discussions. I hope I have matured over the years in some of these. I wold recommend trying to deal with one issue at a time. Frankly, it would be good to have some substantive concerns voiced.

[Timothy Bonney]

I would be interested in participating in these discussions. I hope I have matured over the years in some of these. I wold recommend trying to deal with one issue at a time. Frankly, it would be good to have some substantive concerns voiced.

Dave I'd love for you to enter into the discussion here. I'm not sure we'll "solve" any of these issues. But I think we can have a good talk about it. Also I think that there are Baptists that are asking the same questions I'm asking or questions in a similar vein. If you look at the writings of Steve Harmon, a Baptists working in ecumanism who is teaching at Lutheran Theological Seminary, you will find that he and I share many of the same concerns. He has managed to stay Baptist while I felt let to move in another direction to address my concerns.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

I do have respect for folks such as yourself Timothy who leave the Baptist fold, following your individual convictions!, to join another tradition more in line with their sincerely held beliefs.

I'm not a fan of folks who try to radically change a tradition to make that tradition something it has historically never been.

I think its a positive when Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, etc. attempt to stay true to the best of our respective histories.

[Haruo]

I would be interested in participating in these discussions. I hope I have matured over the years in some of these. I wold recommend trying to deal with one issue at a time. Frankly, it would be good to have some substantive concerns voiced.

I hope you will join in, Dave. Good to see Aaron contributing, too.

[KeithE]

I’ll join the discussion.

My view is that somehow people have gotten the idea that they can meaningfully define (set boundaries) who are true Christians and who aren’t. I leave that declaration to God. As far as our human understanding, being a Christian is a fuzzy class whose boundary cannot be perfectly set in a binary (in or out) mode. And there is no necessity to make the classification (Christian or Non-Christian, saved or not saved). We are playing God if we do so, be the boundaries theological beliefs or more behavioral.

Now as to the matter of church/denominational membership. Whether or not someone should be in or out, is much more related to their cooperation with said body than a set of beliefs/behaviors. If they are always causing dissension even after warnings, it may became a necessity to declare him or her as out of the fellowship and not welcome. This should be an exceedingly rare circumstance and always caused by belligerence by the ex-communicated person and not by the fully committed's desire for purity of thought/actions within the church/denomination. As such, the drawing of church/denominational theological creeds is not necessary, while guidelines of cooperation could profit-fully be worked on (but that is seldom done).

[James]

Keith,

I like what you have to say on this subject about defining who is in and who is out. This is one of the main reasons I like my church situation. We do not worry too much about non-essential beliefs , but we do spend a lot of, perhaps too much, time examining our "core" beliefs. So maybe people like us have a little to contribute to such a discussion and much to learn from it.

Having said this, I might comment from time to time.

[Haruo]

Well certainly as Tim has couched the issue, the question is largely, what are your "core values", and are they the same as those of the Church Universal (or at least the historic, orthodox Church)?

[Bruce Gourley]

Good discussion. I would add that:

* Creeds are by nature imperfect and have too frequently been used by (almost always) men with their own personal agendas to kill, maim, exclude, banish, etc. those who are deemed unorthodox (of course, many Baptists of the 17th and 18th centuries were thus treated by orthodox authorities). Not to mention that orthodoxy is continuously changing, and that even in the early church, many Christians never agreed with the major creeds.

* Keith is on to something about cooperation, although I would frame it slightly different: Baptists from the beginning focused on both freedom of individual conscience and voluntary community as the only genuine expression of Christian community (and the relationship between the two thereof), both of which orthodoxy is opposed to. That is, orthodoxy exercised obliterates freedom of individual conscience and makes community coercive. (Not to deny that a given community can pay lip service only to orthodoxy - however that community may define the term - but choose not to enforce orthodoxy. It is quite likely that many mainstream Christian congregations are doing just this, making orthodoxy little more than a feel-good slogan that has little meaning. I suspect that most members within many such congregations would have a blank stare on their face if asked to define orthodoxy.) Hence, historic Baptist opposition to creeds and openness to a variety of theological beliefs, resulting in their harsh persecution by those of orthodox certainty.

I've just finished reading what may be the best book yet on the life and impact of Roger Williams: John Barry's Roger Williams and the Creation of the American Soul. It is a story of the fickle yet deadly nature of orthodoxy, the scandal of free conscience in a world of orthodoxy, and the daring search for community without orthodoxy.

[Dave Roberts]

I wish I had an answer precisely to "who is in and who is out." The old joke was that God had to reserve a special section of heaven for the Baptists because we didn't believe anyone else would be there. The longer I live and the more I encounter folks from other denominations, I am fairly certain that most denominations will be represented as will Baptists. It's where to draw the edges that exclude that leaves me baffled. I am not one who has a problem with the scripture declaring "there is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved." Having said that, then I wrestle with what that means. For example, does God exclude all Jews who are not overtly committed to the Christian way? What about all Mormons who obviously have a corruption of Christianity as do the Jehovah's Witnesses? What about the folks who are "spiritual but not religious?" What do others of you think?

[Haruo]

I've put a hold on the Roger Williams book. Our county library has 13 copies, but 44 people ahead of me in line, so it'll be a bit.

One of my problems with the historic orthodox creeds, and especially the Nicene and Chalcedonian ones, is that they were from the very start at least as much bound up (as far as I can see) with both ecclesiastic and imperial politics in the period when it was an open question which, church or state, was acquiring whom. The basic questions addressed (Trinity vs. Unity; Incarnation vs. Gnosis; etc.) -- not to mention the trivia involved (issues of "substances" and other Greek imports) -- seem to me to have been placed in play in service to secular power plays at least as much as to a devotion to Truth or Christ. It's not that I have anything against the doctrines; but the creeds themselves seem sinful to me. And they were indeed used from the get go at least as much to exclude heretics (read "fundies" or "liberals" as you will) as to bring true Christian unity.

[Dave Roberts]

I finished a course from the Teaching Company (audio) done by Bart Ehrman at UNC Chapel Hill, "From Constantine to Christ," and I have started a second on "The History of Christian Theology." These are my entertainment when traveling almost 400 miles each week. They provide an interesting set of information. Haruo, you are correct that there was great variety in early Christianity (Ehrman wants to say, "Christianities.") That variety and sometimes diametrically opposed positions usually provoked the early councils which usually ended by declaring the losing position in the debates to be heresy and defining some group to be outside the ecumenical group recognized by the bishops. At other times they represented compromises between parties, and doctines were still in definition as late as the scholasticism on Thomas Aquinas after the rediscovery of Aristotle. I personally accept most of the creeds, though at times Nicene and Chalcedonian Creeds get so esoteric as to presume that one first must accept NeoPlatonism as a basis to understand some of the wordings that presume a divine essence and an earthly revelation. Theology has some beautiful arguments and some fascinating presuppositions behind it.

[Timothy Bonney]

I’ll join the discussion.

My view is that somehow people have gotten the idea that they can meaningfully define (set boundaries) who are true Christians and who aren’t. I leave that declaration to God. As far as our human understanding, being a Christian is a fuzzy class whose boundary cannot be perfectly set in a binary (in or out) mode. And there is no necessity to make the classification (Christian or Non-Christian, saved or not saved). We are playing God if we do so, be the boundaries theological beliefs or more behavioral.

I was fine with what you said here Keith until moved from boundaries being fuzzy and hard to define to creating no boundaries at all. If Christianity has no boundaries for doctrine then basically anything goes. So a guy who starts a "church" who declares that car hub caps are God and that you should worship cars could be classified as a "Christian" and his doctrine as "Christian" under you refusal to draw any lines at all. Somethings are hard to define but some things are clearly not Christian. And I don't have to speak for God to say that because God has said so.

[Timothy Bonney]

Well certainly as Tim has couched the issue, the question is largely, what are your "core values", and are they the same as those of the Church Universal (or at least the historic, orthodox Church)?

Hauro, yes "care values" might be another way of saying it. What I am saying is that there are some foundational doctrines which even free minded Baptists all belief. For example "Jesus is savior and Lord." Surely no one here disagrees with that? So if someone says that Jesus doesn't offer salvation or Jesus can't save than surely that isn't Christian.

I understand the desire for Baptists not to have a rigid orthodoxy. But Baptist seminaries do offer Christian theology, they do have classes in doctrine. I know better than to think that those classes don't teach some definitive theologies.

[Timothy Bonney]

Good discussion. I would add that:

* Creeds are by nature imperfect and have too frequently been used by (almost always) men with their own personal agendas to kill, maim, exclude, banish, etc. those who are deemed unorthodox (of course, many Baptists of the 17th and 18th centuries were thus treated by orthodox authorities). Not to mention that orthodoxy is continuously changing, and that even in the early church, many Christians never agreed with the major creeds.

Hence, historic Baptist opposition to creeds and openness to a variety of theological beliefs, resulting in their harsh persecution by those of orthodox certainty.

Bruce I always hesitate to disagree with you because you are such a consumate historian. But surely there is a center, a foundation, a seed of Christian doctrine that is essential? Are you saying there are no doctrinal essentials at all? There are no Christian beliefs that are essential to be a Christian? If that is the case what indeed is Christianity?

By the way most of the mainline denominations (UMC, PCUSA, ECUSA, ELCA, and UCC) have statements of faith which represent the official position of the denomination. Can you tell me that any of these denominations have problems with oppressing people based on doctrine? I've certainly not seen it. In fact I see a lot more theological freedom in the above denominations than I do in many Baptist churches.

[Timothy Bonney]

I do have respect for folks such as yourself Timothy who leave the Baptist fold, following your individual convictions!, to join another tradition more in line with their sincerely held beliefs.

I'm not a fan of folks who try to radically change a tradition to make that tradition something it has historically never been.

I think its a positive when Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, etc. attempt to stay true to the best of our respective histories.

I almost missed this post BDW. Sorry! It has been a crazy day.

Are you suggesting (without mentioning his name) that Steve Harmon is seeking to change Baptist tradition? Or are you just speaking generically?

I would argue that Baptist tradition has shifted from being comfortable with faith statements such as the London Confession, the New Hampshire Confession etc. and now in recent history Baptists (particularly moderate Baptists) want to consistently and carefully proclaim that Freedom is the number one doctrine. Yet I'd say that declaring freedom as the number one doctrine isn't historically Baptist. It is a recent development in reaction to fundamentalism and the SBC takeover.

My opinion is that moderate Baptists have more strongly have emphasized freedom in the last 30 years because fundamentalists came at them with a narrow doctrinaire sectarian theology which they have sought to codify in the BFM2000+. So Moderate Baptists emphasized the strain of Baptist theology that focuses on freedom from creedalism since they disagreed with the doctrines that the fundamentalists were pushing. It was/is a natural reaction.

However leaving beliefs wide open, deciding that there are no boundaries and that there is nothing that is beyond the pale actually plays into the hands of fundamentalism. Because if anything goes than far right fundamentalism goes too and is acceptable too.

What might have happened if it had been taught in Baptist churches further back in Baptist history that far right fundamentalism wasn't acceptable Christian doctrine? Well, you can't do that because of local church autonomy. Or at least the current idea that local church autonomy is absolute.

I would say that I have more freedom of theological exploration in a mainline denomination with official statements of faith than I ever did as a Baptist. Why? Because it lays a foundation. When you know where the foundation is you have the freedom to build on it. When no one agrees on what the foundation is it is pretty hard to build anything because you spend your time arguing about the foundational doctrines over and over and over again or continually deal with lesser theological issues because someone wants the issue to be foundational when it shouldn't be.

[Bruce Gourley]

Are you suggesting (without mentioning his name) that Steve Harmon is seeking to change Baptist tradition? Or are you just speaking generically?

I would argue that Baptist tradition has shifted from being comfortable with faith statements such as the London Confession, the New Hampshire Confession etc. and now in recent history Baptists (particularly moderate Baptists) want to consistently and carefully proclaim that Freedom is the number one doctrine. Yet I'd say that declaring freedom as the number one doctrine isn't historically Baptist. It is a recent development in reaction to fundamentalism and the SBC takeover.

The self-declared enemies of Baptists in 17th century England and 17th-18th century colonial America pointed to freedom as the very foundation of Baptist belief - and accused them of heresy accordingly.

Were their opponents correct? Was freedom the foundation of early Baptist thought and faith? The early Baptists themselves expressed such sentiment. Thomas Helwys and Roger Williams and John Clarke and Obadiah Holmes and many others were sure of their own individual faith ... but just as certain that creeds were ungodly and unscriptural, and willing to die not for orthodoxy ... but only for freedom, for themselves and others. Only from within freedom could any faith be genuine. Baptists were so elastic in their faith, as the centuries played out, that even when a congregation excommunicated a member, no one dared tell the excommunicate that he was not or could no longer be a Baptist. He or she was free to join with another Baptist fellowship that would have him or her, if he or she so desired. That Baptists clung fiercely to freedom was scandalous in the early history of Baptists when concern for orthodoxy consumed most of the Western world, and I wonder if it is again becoming scandalous, as concern for orthodoxy has descended upon much of America, from both the right and the left.

As to Steve Harmon, from my conversations with him, I would say he and his fellow Bapto-Catholics would argue that yes, they are changing Baptist tradition, but change is endemic to Baptist tradition.

[Timothy Bonney]

OK, so even if my contention that Baptist have more recently emphasized freedom now more than before isn't true, you still haven't answered my question about foundational Christian doctrine. Are all Christian doctrine negotiable? Can any doctrine of the faith be tossed out? And if so what is the difference between that and Unitarian Universalism or something similar?

[Bruce Gourley]

Good discussion. I would add that:

* Creeds are by nature imperfect and have too frequently been used by (almost always) men with their own personal agendas to kill, maim, exclude, banish, etc. those who are deemed unorthodox (of course, many Baptists of the 17th and 18th centuries were thus treated by orthodox authorities). Not to mention that orthodoxy is continuously changing, and that even in the early church, many Christians never agreed with the major creeds.

Hence, historic Baptist opposition to creeds and openness to a variety of theological beliefs, resulting in their harsh persecution by those of orthodox certainty.

Bruce I always hesitate to disagree with you because you are such a consumate historian. But surely there is a center, a foundation, a seed of Christian doctrine that is essential? Are you saying there are no doctrinal essentials at all? There are no Christian beliefs that are essential to be a Christian? If that is the case what indeed is Christianity?

By the way most of the mainline denominations (UMC, PCUSA, ECUSA, ELCA, and UCC) have statements of faith which represent the official position of the denomination. Can you tell me that any of these denominations have problems with oppressing people based on doctrine? I've certainly not seen it. In fact I see a lot more theological freedom in the above denominations than I do in many Baptist churches.

No human-penned Christian creeds or statements are essential to being a Christian; scripture alone - in and of itself, not interpretations of scripture - is a written authority, while Christ is the center of Christianity and following Christ the living of Christianity. Freedom of conscience (Williams called it "soul liberty"), necessary for voluntary (uncoerced) faith, is the prerequisite for genuine faith. These were the core convictions of early Baptists.

Beyond this, things got messy: the theological landscape of early Baptists ranged from Arminian to Calvinist and a variety of points in between. Freedom they could agree upon; theology they could not. Then again, the latter followed naturally from the former.

Freedom was scandalous back then. It did not make sense to most outside the Baptist world, and infuriated the powers that were. And it was messy within the Baptist world. Baptists spent much time disputing with one another over theology, debating one another, striving to win over Baptists of differing persuasions. Yet they clung to freedom and flung open the gates ever further to diversity. With breath and blood, through seemingly never-ending persecution, they clung to freedom.

As to today's mainline denominations, take a video recorder into any given congregation and ask the question among laity, "what is orthodoxy?", and see what kind of answers you would get. The problem is not that such denominations oppress people with orthodoxy. If there is a problem, most likely it is that official positions of denominations mean nothing of substance to most of the folks sitting in church pews. It is, in effect, a hollow orthodoxy, and thus means little. Even outside mainstream Protestantism, this is true: surveys have shown that 90%+ of Roman Catholic laity disagree with many of (what RC bishops and the pope consider) essential doctrines of the RCC.

[Timothy Bonney]

No human-penned Christian creeds or statements are essential to being a Christian; scripture alone - in and of itself, not interpretations of scripture - is a written authority, while Christ is the center of Christianity and following Christ the living of Christianity. Freedom of conscience (Williams called it "soul liberty"), necessary for voluntary (uncoerced) faith, is the prerequisite for genuine faith. These were the core convictions of early Baptists.

Bruce you know as well as I do that scripture didn't drop out of the sky already written but that the early church decided what books would be in the canon. How do you factor this into the "scripture alone" ideal? Doesn't the work of the creation of the canon factor into what is Christian doctrine since the people who decide what ended up in thy canon obviously effected the canon itself?

Also I've noticed that basically you've still not answered my question about any essential doctrines. Are there no areas of required agreement for the faith beyond "Christ is the center of Christianity" and "scripture is a written authority?" Are there valid guides for interpretation? Or do you just hand someone a Bible and say "good luck, I can't tell you what any of this means because I might be stepping on your 'soul freedom' you are all on your own."

[James]

From the HBC web site

Hampton Baptist Church
Our Vision, Core Values, and Strategic Goal


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our Vision

From generation to generation, we will seek to proclaim the good news of
God’s grace by following the example of Jesus Christ who ministered to the
needs of others through teaching, serving, and loving God and neighbors.

Our Core Values

To worship God in a reverent and dignified manner utilizing scripture,
music, prayer, and the ordinances of communion and baptism;

To participate in hands-on mission activities both locally and globally,
and to support mission endeavors through the
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship;

To fellowship as a community of faith through prayer support, care and
compassion, as well as laughter and recreation;

To live out a theology that recognizes the priesthood of all believers,
the autonomy of the local church, open inquiry of scripture,
the leadership of men and women in ministry,
and grace-filled acceptance of persons of all walks of life;

To encourage spiritual growth through meaningful Bible study,
Sunday School classes, prayer meetings, and special studies;

To minister to the unique needs of a multi-generational congregation by
providing ministry to children, youth, adults, and senior adults with a
commitment to reach out to our community and seek to bring
others into our fellowship;

To be good and faithful stewards of all our resources including our time,
talents, finances, staff, facilities, and our rich history and heritage.

Adopted January 31, 2007




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our Strategic Goal

To maintain our Vision and Core Values, within the next five years we will increase the active membership in our church to 500 people participating in one or more church activities monthly (10% net growth per year)

Missions

To Conduct three major local outreach missions, two mission trips each year, three major year-round mission projects, fifty other mission projects, and participate in CBF Global Mission projects.

Education

To provide for Adult, Youth, and Children’s Sunday School classes to meet the attendance goal, in adequately-sized classrooms with appropriate technology, storage, and teaching resources

To provide facilities for a Library, Wednesday night activities, Vacation Bible School and other education opportunities

Worship & Music

To maintain the formal warmth and dignity of the traditional service in our historic sanctuary, while increasing comfort, accessibility, and energy efficiency.

To expand the choral and instrumental music programs, and provide performance, rehearsal, and storage facilities

To provide for alternative worship and ministries

Administration & Fellowship

Have one pastoral/program staff member for every 150 people and one support staff person for every two pastoral/program staff members.

Have facilities that allow the congregation to meet, eat, and entertain together in safe, secure, and comfortable surroundings

April 15, 2007
Affirmed May 2, 2007

There is not much of theology in the above statement. There is more emphasis on living out the New Testament in missions, ministry, service and worship.

[Bruce Gourley]

No human-penned Christian creeds or statements are essential to being a Christian; scripture alone - in and of itself, not interpretations of scripture - is a written authority, while Christ is the center of Christianity and following Christ the living of Christianity. Freedom of conscience (Williams called it "soul liberty"), necessary for voluntary (uncoerced) faith, is the prerequisite for genuine faith. These were the core convictions of early Baptists.

Bruce you know as well as I do that scripture didn't drop out of the sky already written but that the early church decided what books would be in the canon. How do you factor this into the "scripture alone" ideal? Doesn't the work of the creation of the canon factor into what is Christian doctrine since the people who decide what ended up in thy canon obviously effected the canon itself?

Also I've noticed that basically you've still not answered my question about any essential doctrines. Are there no areas of required agreement for the faith beyond "Christ is the center of Christianity" and "scripture is a written authority?" Are there valid guides for interpretation? Or do you just hand someone a Bible and say "good luck, I can't tell you what any of this means because I might be stepping on your 'soul freedom' you are all on your own."

Of course scripture did not arrive in a vacuum. And of course early learned Baptists were versed in Christian tradition, and learned from it. Yet they chose not to place their faith in such tradition. Again, it was a scandalous proposition at the time. When early Baptists interpreted scripture, they (generally speaking) made no pretense of interpreting it authoritatively for all. Indeed, (self-proclaimed) authoritative interpretations of scripture (by those in power) had led to Baptists being killed, beaten, whipped, jailed, etc. Instead, learned Baptists argued (in writing, sermons, lectures, debates) among themselves for their various interpretations of scripture, depending on persuasion alone (not orthodoxy) to win the day.

So, among early Baptists and today, yes ... there are valid guides for interpreting scripture ... but no one authoritative guide. Baptists (individually) have traditionally shared with one another (and others) what they personally believe, but have not insisted that others must believe accordingly to be a Christian. Again, persuasion, not doctrinal insistence. (This breaks down by the late 19th century, as Landmark Baptists lay claim to being the only true believers, and as fundamentalism arises in the 20th century.)

Now, I am curious why you would (if you do) place your faith in a fourth-century politicized and politically-policed religious statement that was largely penned by two brothers and a friend and designed to flush out theological opponents and persecute them as heretics? (I am speaking, of course, of the Nicene Creed.)

[Big Daddy Weaver]

I was speaking generically. But, no, I'm no fan of Harmon's project. And throughout debates in recent years, I think it's been demonstrated that theologians such as Harmon do not have history on their side for their theological proposals/projects.

I don't think you can back up your opinion, Timothy. George Truett and E.Y. Mullins had a great deal to say about freedom. Mullins is, after all, who we moderate Baptists cite. Their generation of Baptists was obsessed with freedom.

Of course, as Bruce noted, Roger Williams and his predecessor Thomas Helwys had a significant focus on freedom, specifically freedom of the individual conscience. Over the course of Baptist history, there has been a sustained freedom focus - a sustained focus on an uncoerced faith and an unfettered conscience.

The Virginia Baptists of the Colonial Era were especially freedom focused. I was reading some great quotes recently from the Separate Baptists in Virginia in the founding era who were demanding freedom and equality under Anglican dominance.

Black Baptists have a strong freedom focus. Freedom and justice. Those are the main emphases of Black Baptists as many historians have noted.

Frankly, Texas Baptists of the 1960s and 1970s were much more concerned with freedom than today's moderate Baptists. All of these examples that I've offered preceded The Baptist Battles of the 80s.

Just to add, I don't accept your characterization. Baptists don't view their anti-creedal focus on an uncoerced faith as a faith without boundaries. James Dunn often said if had a creed, it was "Ain't Nobody But Jesus Gonna Tell Me What to Believe."

Practically speaking, there have always been boundaries. Different churches have different boundaries. That's the beauty of what Shurden called "church freedom."

You clearly need creeds. Maybe you like the ecclesial structure that the Methodist denomination provides. That's fine. We all have different needs and different understandings.

Back to my original point, I'm just saying that I think it's better when folks with those needs decide to go where they are most comfortable rather than trying to reform a tradition, a convention, an association, a church, etc. into something that it isn't and has never been.

[Timothy Bonney]

Of course scripture did not arrive in a vacuum. And of course early learned Baptists were versed in Christian tradition, and learned from it. Yet they chose not to place their faith in such tradition. Again, it was a scandalous proposition at the time.

You've mentioned a couple of times that the position of Baptists "scandalous." I get that. But that is a badge of courage carried by everyone who ever started a new movement in the church. Being "scandalous" doesn't mean being right (or wrong.) John Wesley took a lot of heat for his views as did Luther, Calvin, and all the reformers. Many reformers lives were endangered by those who disagreed with them. But Baptists ended up being non-creedal and most of the other reformers didn't. I'm not trying to get Baptists to change their history or views. But I do challenge the idea that freedom can only be preserved by tossing all doctrine. And, I don't believe Baptists do that, even freedom proclaiming Baptists.

So, among early Baptists and today, yes ... there are valid guides for interpreting scripture ... but no one authoritative guide.

But all I keep asking for is "I believe...." How do you believe in Jesus as the Christ without believing some things about Jesus? I've seen this dance before and I used to participate in it and what frustrates me is the idea that "freedom" is so important that it verges on trumping the expression of truth and belief. How can we talk about God's grace if we can decide that God's grace isn't necessary to the faith? How can we talk about the incarnation on one hand and then on other hand deny that the incarnation is essential doctrine? To be clear, I'm not saying you are denying any of those doctrines. But how can we possibly teach the faith to Christians while also preaching "hey, you are free to not believe any of this stuff and still be a Christian." ??

The truth is Baptists don't do that. Baptist preach about grace, salvation, the uniqueness Jesus, the incarnation, etc. as if those are definite Christian ideas. They preach that you can be saved by grace through faith in Christ. Baptist believe that. So why can't we be honest and say that this is an essential doctrine? My moderate Baptist professors certainly didn't teach the incarnation as an optional doctrine!

Now, I am curious why you would (if you do) place your faith in a fourth-century politicized and politically-policed religious statement that was largely penned by two brothers and a friend and designed to flush out theological opponents and persecute them as heretics? (I am speaking, of course, of the Nicene Creed.)

I don't "place my faith" in the Nicene Creed. (Also it isn't one of the four doctrinal standards of the UMC either. ) I think it is a good exposition of incarnational theology adopted by the church. The imperfections of the authors aren't a hang up for me. My views of inspiration of scripture don't require a perfect Bible or perfect Biblical authors either. My faith is in Jesus Christ and the grace that Christ offers. And yes, I think that the grace of Jesus Christ is an essential doctrine. Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of the Father, another essential doctrine. Jesus savior of the world, essential doctrine.

Sorry Bruce, I can't figure out a way to believe in Jesus without having specific beliefs about Jesus. And I can't figure out how the Good News can be preached without the Good News actually having factual content.

Again, I believe the faith has a foundation. The list of essentials isn't large. The Apostle's Creed isn't a long statement. But it encapsulates a lot of the doctrines of the church.

I understand the fear of having the whole structure handed to you, the whole building and being expected to accept it. I don't understand the resistance to "core values" as Hauro calls them.