rlvaughn
01-02-2002, 10:42 PM
HERE IT IS. FINALLY, I have gotten back to the The Baptist Identity project. Hope someone still cares :( .
CHAPTER THREE - CHURCH FREEDOM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Church Freedom is the historic Baptist affirmation that local churches are free, under the Lordship of Christ, to determine their membership and leadership, to order their worship and work, to ordain whom they perceive as gifted for ministry, male or female, and to participate in the larger Body of Christ, of whose unity and mission Baptists are proudly a part.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
After an introduction, Shurden addresses "church freedom" in four divisions - The Church: Free to Follow Voluntarily; The Church: Free to Govern Obediently; The Church: Free to Worship Creatively; and The Church: Free to Minister Responsibly.
The author maintains his use of 20th century bibliography. Of the four freedoms, Dr. Shurden's presentation of number three is probably the most controversial, and confirms this book is definitely a polemic for the "liberal" Southern Baptist viewpoint. In light of the fact the Shurden purports to define "that essence...that constitutes being Baptist", it seems unusual that he tries to fill this "freedom" with ideas that are at the least questionable as what degree they are held by Baptists.
First, he includes that ambiguous phrase "under the Lordship of Christ." As far as Baptist confessions go, this phrase seems to mean all things to all people. The controversy over the deletion of this from the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message seems to indicate that conservatives see it as a dodge of Biblical inerrancy and that moderates hold it as a necessary element of their "orthodoxy". Most Baptists would agree that the church answers to no higher authority - to Christ alone. But is this what the professor means by the phrase? Or does it have some hidden agenda; is it a 'code word' to the enlightened? It is hard to tell, since he does not seem to develop the phrase in the chapter. Second, he serves us three tiny words - male or female. The church is free to ordain "male or female". The author doesn't follow up too much on this, but he does say, "A congregation may call whomever it wishes, women or men, to serve as ministers or deacons (p.38)." Whatever Shurden may believe about women in the ministry, surely he doesn't think holding that women may be ordained defines the essence of what it means to be Baptist! Does He? Though one can select historical passages to imply that ordaining women has long been held by Baptists, the total historical record shows that this has been at best a vagary among Baptists. Third, Dr. Shurden once again makes his plea for ecumenism. Baptists are free "to participate in the larger Body of Christ, of whose unity and mission Baptists are proudly a part." But he overstates the case. Sure, some Baptists are ecumenical. More are not. Does this freedom to be ecumenical define the essence of what it means to be Baptist? The author takes several opportunities to praise the ecumenism he so sincerely wishes upon Baptists. Among the adorations of Penrose St. Amant is that he was "an ecumenical churchman and a thoroughgoing Baptist (p. 33)." And, "Baptists have a theology of the church that encourages relationships with non-Baptist Christians (p. 36)." Striking again, he says "...the Baptist notion of ecclesiology {the study of the church}, does not by any means preclude interdenominational or ecumenical activities by Baptists" and "All Baptist groups, therefore, would be wise to break out of their self-imposed isolation from other Christian groups and enter into ecumenical dialogue and action (p. 39)."
Why didn’t Shurden leave out these details and let us be free to decide what it means to be free. Surely we all agree that an individual Baptist church is an autonomous body and may decide to do any of these things and many more. But, please, don't suggest that holding these things to be scriptural somehow defines the essence of what it means to be Baptist. The all-inclusive Baptist only wants to include others who are all-inclusive!!
In my opinion, the real purpose of Shurden's work is not so much to historically or doctrinally identify Baptists, but rather to present these four freedoms as what he thinks SHOULD identify Baptists.
[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]
CHAPTER THREE - CHURCH FREEDOM
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Church Freedom is the historic Baptist affirmation that local churches are free, under the Lordship of Christ, to determine their membership and leadership, to order their worship and work, to ordain whom they perceive as gifted for ministry, male or female, and to participate in the larger Body of Christ, of whose unity and mission Baptists are proudly a part.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
After an introduction, Shurden addresses "church freedom" in four divisions - The Church: Free to Follow Voluntarily; The Church: Free to Govern Obediently; The Church: Free to Worship Creatively; and The Church: Free to Minister Responsibly.
The author maintains his use of 20th century bibliography. Of the four freedoms, Dr. Shurden's presentation of number three is probably the most controversial, and confirms this book is definitely a polemic for the "liberal" Southern Baptist viewpoint. In light of the fact the Shurden purports to define "that essence...that constitutes being Baptist", it seems unusual that he tries to fill this "freedom" with ideas that are at the least questionable as what degree they are held by Baptists.
First, he includes that ambiguous phrase "under the Lordship of Christ." As far as Baptist confessions go, this phrase seems to mean all things to all people. The controversy over the deletion of this from the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message seems to indicate that conservatives see it as a dodge of Biblical inerrancy and that moderates hold it as a necessary element of their "orthodoxy". Most Baptists would agree that the church answers to no higher authority - to Christ alone. But is this what the professor means by the phrase? Or does it have some hidden agenda; is it a 'code word' to the enlightened? It is hard to tell, since he does not seem to develop the phrase in the chapter. Second, he serves us three tiny words - male or female. The church is free to ordain "male or female". The author doesn't follow up too much on this, but he does say, "A congregation may call whomever it wishes, women or men, to serve as ministers or deacons (p.38)." Whatever Shurden may believe about women in the ministry, surely he doesn't think holding that women may be ordained defines the essence of what it means to be Baptist! Does He? Though one can select historical passages to imply that ordaining women has long been held by Baptists, the total historical record shows that this has been at best a vagary among Baptists. Third, Dr. Shurden once again makes his plea for ecumenism. Baptists are free "to participate in the larger Body of Christ, of whose unity and mission Baptists are proudly a part." But he overstates the case. Sure, some Baptists are ecumenical. More are not. Does this freedom to be ecumenical define the essence of what it means to be Baptist? The author takes several opportunities to praise the ecumenism he so sincerely wishes upon Baptists. Among the adorations of Penrose St. Amant is that he was "an ecumenical churchman and a thoroughgoing Baptist (p. 33)." And, "Baptists have a theology of the church that encourages relationships with non-Baptist Christians (p. 36)." Striking again, he says "...the Baptist notion of ecclesiology {the study of the church}, does not by any means preclude interdenominational or ecumenical activities by Baptists" and "All Baptist groups, therefore, would be wise to break out of their self-imposed isolation from other Christian groups and enter into ecumenical dialogue and action (p. 39)."
Why didn’t Shurden leave out these details and let us be free to decide what it means to be free. Surely we all agree that an individual Baptist church is an autonomous body and may decide to do any of these things and many more. But, please, don't suggest that holding these things to be scriptural somehow defines the essence of what it means to be Baptist. The all-inclusive Baptist only wants to include others who are all-inclusive!!
In my opinion, the real purpose of Shurden's work is not so much to historically or doctrinally identify Baptists, but rather to present these four freedoms as what he thinks SHOULD identify Baptists.
[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]