PSW Update; Valley Forge Delegation to Meet PSW Reps Wednesday to Urge Return to Dialog

His Barking Dog has learned that a delegation from the General Executive Council will meet with Pacific Southwest representatives tomorrow. This comes one day prior to the PSW board meeting on December 8 where the board will decide whether to call for a regional meeting of congregatons to decide whether or not to withdraw from the Covenant of Relationships (i.e., to separate from the ABCUSA).

During the round of meetings last month at Green Lake, the General Executive Council took three actions. First, they voted to express in writing a desire for PSW to remain in the Covenant of Relationships (i.e., stay in the denomination). Second, they appointed a group of people to craft and implement an intervention strategy to implore PSW to reconsider and then to report back to the GEC in April of 2006. Third, they admitted that the “confluence of events” is “symptomatic of a need for a comprehensive reevaluation of the very character of what it means to be a denomination in this day.”

Tomorrow's meeting will provide an opportunity for the GEC designees to entreat their PSW colleagues to remain within the Covenant of Relationships. This will be in fulfillment of the first two items decided by the GEC last month. His Barking Dog speculates that they will also make their case based upon the "encouraging" signs represented by the third vote: to call for a systematic "reevaluation of the very character of what it means to be a denominaton in this day."

His Barking Dog implores PSW representatives to reject calls for continuing dialog if they appear to constitute more delaying tactics. Unless the GEC comes with concrete assurances of actual willingness to enforce common sense biblical standards, the agreement to delay a vote will represent an unconscionable accommodation. All such irrational pleas should be treated as what they are; based upon emotion, sentimentality, and false notions of unity.

Dennis E. McFadden

[As always, my comments are the opinions of this gadfly only. They have no more authority or standing than Eutyches' Monophysitism at the Council of Chalcedon.]

No Room at the Inn, Even in the Church! "Evangelical" Mega Churches Closed on Christmas?

One of my favorite biblical writers, academic Ben Witherington III, a Jesus scholar of some note, has weighed in on an issue that should provoke outrage by all believers. Taking the idea of "seeker sensitivity" to the level of an art form, some mega churches are planning to be closed on Christmas. Now holidays crowd out a genuine Holy Day. Wiherington captures exactly the right tone in his reaction. Read it and weap . . . really weap.

Churches Closed on Christmas?
Ben Witherington III
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2005/12/churches-closed-on-christmas.html

Well I suppose it had to happen. The mega-church in Lexington (Southland Christian) consulted with other mega-churches like Willow Creek and decided that they would close on Dec. 25th, even though its a Sunday and even though its Christmas Day! The rationale given in our local newspaper The Lexington-Herald Leader was--- people are so busy and Christmas is supposed to be a family day, so this decision was made as a family friendly gesture. But wait a minute--- whose birthday is it anyway? And which family is supposed to be serving which--- the family of faith or the physical family? Talking about putting the EM-Phasis on the wrong syl-LABLE.

Our culture does not need any encouragement to be more self-centered and narcissistic or to stay at home on Sunday. It is already that way. Christmas above all else should be a day when we come together as the body of Christ to worship and adore the Lord Jesus. Christmas should be the day above all days where we don't stay home and open all those things we bought for ourselves INSTEAD of going to church. Christmas should be the day when we forget about ourselves for a few hours and go and honor the birthday of the great King, our Savior.

What we are dealing with here are churches whose priorities are so askew that they somehow think it is more important for the church to serve the wants of the physical family than the other way around. This is a far cry from the pattern of the original disciples of Jesus who were seen leaving homes, relatives, jobs to come and follow Jesus. What kind of message does it send to our culture when churches close on one of its highest holy days? That it is o.k. to stay home and do one's own thing even on Jesus' birthday?

It is past time that these sorts of churches be called to account. It is time for them to realize that they have simply capitulated to the larger culture's agenda on issue after issue, in this case in supporting the worship of the idol called family in place of the worship of Jesus. The church does not exist to serve the world, but rather to save the world. The church does not exist to serve the physical family but rather to redeem it and make clear that if it is a Christian family it has a larger and more primary obligation to the family of faith and to its Lord. Christmas is one of two days in the year when we should especially make that clear to our culture and our country.

Shame on you mega-churches--- repent and believe the Gospel, starting with the birth stories of Jesus

Dialogue with an Executive Minister in the ABCUSA (Part 2)

Here are some reactions to the most recent response posted on the ABE Message Board by an ABC executive minister taking time to interact in that forum.


Jim,

Thanks for your thorough and thoughtful responses. As they say, though, the devil is in the details.

The San Antonio meetings were determinative and decisive. To say that you were not there but that things look encouraging now would be like asking Mrs. Lincoln: "Other than 'that,' how did you like the play?" Dr. Salico made a VERY thorough case to the covenant partners in the GEC. It has been widely distributed and studied. He could not summon support for ANY of the proposals for which he advocated, even though he was clear regarding the consequences for continued PSW participation in the Covenant of Relationships if something meaningful did not flow from the meeting.

The events in the Biennial struck most of us on the right as a declaration of war on evangelicals. Tell me honestly that the Bill Herzog address to the Roger Williams Fellowship (and cheered by numerous VF leaders) was not an abusive attack on all evangelicals by implication and some by actual name.

It seems to me that when it is convenient, VF is quite capable of declaring in absolutist terms what is "Biblical," "moral," "right," and "consistent with the Gospel" even when large numbers of actual American Baptists disagree with the point. However, on an issue where we have supposedly voted and decided (overwhelmingly I might add), Dr. Medley continues to couch, accommodate, explain away, relativize, and temporize his words. Show me even one instance where he has boldly declared the traditional view to be biblical WITHOUT in the same speech, editorial, or article going out of his way to affirm the other side as well. He doesn't do that on other controversial issues where American Baptists are divided.

Calls to continue "dialog" would have been appropriate and sounded legitimate had they not been prefaced with decades of stonewalling on this subject and persistent rejection of the efforts of our representatives to mediate a compromise.

No, I do not believe that the motivations are fiscal -- by any of the parties. VF has always (at least during my 52 years) adopted a remnant theology that finds honor in upholding unpopular causes as ethically and theologically superior regardless of the consequences. Losing the PSW does more to offend the honor of VF than its pocketbook.

BTW - I was a "stay and fixit" guy until this year. But, the repeated rejection of even the most tepid of measures left me despairing that ANY hope remains. Jim, my opinions may be strong, but my credentials for working WITHIN the system are equally serious. A lifelong American Baptist, ten years on the MC Senate; almost a half dozen years on the Ministerial Leadership Commission (including nearly a half dozen on the executive committee), a quarter century on the standing regional ordination committee for PSW (including a dozen years as chair), a 500+ dissertation on ABC leadership with an enormous statistical study of the largest sample of ABC pastors ever conducted, and now serving as CEO of an ABC related institution with a nearly $13 million budget. These are not the hallmarks of a flake. My blood flows in institutional veins. But, sadly, enough is enough!

You are correct that the track record for splits has not been encouraging. I have kept pointing people to Joel Carpenter's "Revive Us Again" (Oxford, 1997) for a serious look at what separations have done among evangelicals during the 20th century. My only hope is that a "bless each other and move on" approach holds forth promise as against a "curse each other and tear the organization up" style of past separations.

Jim, I resonate with your pleas and your arguments. They echo my own words of past years. But, having seen the response the GEC made in San Antonio, "continuing dialog" is irrational.
We have two mindsets of what a real Baptist is all about: one group holding to sola scriptura as the organizing distinctive, the other clinging to a view of Christian experience (dating from 1905 and E.Y. Mullins) as the ultimate value.

Unless Roy has a major change of heart, he will not be able to lead us through this thicket. His own wife rendered testimony before her denomination's equivalent of the GB five years ago. She argued strongly for a view quite similar to our own AWAB positions. I would not expect any man to repudiate the position of the mother of his children in order to make a few conservatives happy. Roy is a kind and gentle man. He does not deserve to be slandered. But, neither can I support him in good conscience.

Thanks again for caring enough to interact with this message board.

Dennis E. McFadden

[Just my own opinions, not representing any PSW entity - about as out of place and power as a supralapsarian hyper-Calvinist at a Benny Hinn crusade.]

Anthem for the ABC Crisis

On the ABE Message Board, one of the frequent posters, Biblechick45, suggested the following old Chicago song as the appropriate message for the day . . .

If you leave me now,
you'll take away the biggest part of me
Ooo, ooo, ooo, ooo, no baby please don't go
If you leave me now, you'll take away the very heart of me
Ooo, ooo, ooo, ooo, no baby please don't go

A love like ours is love that's hard to find
How could we let it slip away
We've come too far to leave it all behind
How could we end it all this way
When tomorrow comes we'll both regret
Things we said today

"The Origin of Schism" - A 'Durable Data" Evaluation

Dr. Glenn Layne posted a thought provoking piece today on the nature of schism. His Barking Dog includes it for the edification of our readers.

THE ORIGIN OF SCHISM
By Dr. Glenn Layne

ONE POWERFUL ARGUEMENT against the separation of the PSW from the ABCUSA (and by extension, the regions and churches that would follow over the next few years) is that such an action is schismatic and unnecessary. It is schismatic in that it breaks the unity fellowship we have in Christ; it is deemed unnecessary because either the ABC is indeed reforming (as seen in the passage of the Indiana Inititive--at least in its skeletal form) or because the issue of homosexuality is such a peripheral issue that breaking fellowship over it seems peevish and well, homophopbic.

THE PROBLEM WITH THAT ANALYSIS is that it misses two critical points. The first is, as we have always said, the real issue isn't homosexuality. It's Biblical authority. Does Scripture speak to us even when it runs up against our current cultural preferences, or must it yield to the Zeitgeist of the moment?

THE SECOND PROBLEM is that this view fundamentally misunderstands the nature of schism. I am currently working through 1 John in my preaching (I write my sermons about two months ahead). The ecclesiastical situation that John writes to is that a section of the church has asserted that they are more advanced than "common" believers. (What we have here is Gnosticism in its earliest forms.) The holders of false doctrine (and false practice) are the schismatics. As a matter of fact, the fact that they have perverted the apostolic teaching makes them schismatics.

SCHISM DOES NOT ORIGINATE in an action to separate. Was Luther a schismatic? No, the Roman church was the schismatic; Luther was the one groping his way back to Biblical orthodoxy. The same could be said for generations of believers sincerely making their way, as best they know, to the robust soul-satisfying richness of the testimony of Scripture.

SO, SHOULD PSW separate, are they--are we, since in am in the PSW--schismatics? I say no; schism in the ABC goes back generations to the embrace of false unbiblical and sub-biblical beliefs, values and practices. In manifold ways, none perhaps as bold or current as the address William Herzog gave to the Roger Williams Fellowship this past summer at the Denver Biennial. The theological perspective of Mr. Herzog--its arrogance, condesending attitude, its bold break with clear Biblical teaching disguised as "deeper knowledge" is remarkably similiar to the schismatics John grapples with in 1 John. We are not the schismatics: those at war with the manifest teaching of Scipture are.

[His Barking Dog offers commentary, both original and featuring other voices, without any representation to be speaking for any entity or person in the PSW]

Dialogue with an Executive Minister in the ABCUSA

The following reply comes from an interaction in print between me and one of the Executive Ministers of the ABCUSA. In his extensive argument, posted in the American Baptist Evangelicals message board (http://www.abeonline.org/Members/forums/), Rev. Jim Oldham raised a number of important issues regarding the impending Pacific Southwest board meeting to be held on December 8. His tone was serious, unctious, and eloquent. Nevertheless, it contained some points worthy of dispute. What follows are my responses to some of his arguments.

Jim,

Thank you for taking the time to interact in this forum. Very few of your colleagues accord us the dignity of this kind of personal attention. It is appreciated. However, your comments raise a number of reactions in me. Let me point to a few issues of disagreement.

You write:
"Contrary to some suggestions, these proposals were not advanced to buy more time to "pick off" individual ABCPSW churches, caucuses, or leaders. Those who put forward these proposals, and the majority of those who supported them, want the ABCPSW in its entirety, and all its affiliated congregations, to remain part of ABC/USA, and are sincere in wanting to address ABCPSW concerns as fully as possible."

Jim, I did not mean to imply that this was the “purpose” behind the action, only that it would be the consequence. The patriarchal relationship National Ministries has had with ethnic churches has been used to the full in recent months in the PSW. Note the words from my original blog:

"Since the PSW rules call for a 90 day notice for a meeting of the region, this would inevitably buy time for the ABCUSA to continue using their influence on congregations to induce them to pull away from the PSW plan. We have already seen much evidence that this is exactly what is happening."

My point was that a delay at this time will be used to full effect by Valley Forge. This is not a matter of “suggestions,” it has been happening already and will doubtless continue happening. Would you like to see documentation? Valley Forge leaders, particularly those in National Ministries have been telephoning, e-mailing, and making cross-country trips to PSW to meet with several of the ethnic caucuses. My sources tell me that both the African-American and Hispanic churches are receiving enormous pressure from National Ministries to stay with the “family,” rejecting the anticipated PSW separation. John Sundquist has been on a tour of the top giving churches in the country to sound them out on the issue of withdrawal and to shore up support for denominational unity.

You opine:
"It is my hope that those who seem so "hell bent" on pushing this separation of ABCPSW to finality can slow down long enough to consider the potential long-term negative consequences of this action."

But, some of us have struggled with this issue (and the underlying causes) for three decades. I really don’t see how you can characterize it as a “hell bent” pace. Fortunately for your position, I have no official role in the PSW structure. So my opinion matters little at all.

You sgguest that PSW is needed when you write:
"The ABC/USA needs the gifts, talents, experiences, and perspectives of the leaders, people, churches, and institutions of ABCPSW. "

Perhaps this is so. However, the treatment of our Executive Minister, Dr. Dale Salico, has been shameful and disgusting. He has returned from the past several national meetings shell shocked by the ordeal. Reports by General Board representatives (such as the one by a clergy rep I blogged last week on my "His Barking Dog" site which demeaned Dr. Salico personally), rejection of every initiative he brought to the table in San Antonio, and continuing failure to speak with moral clarity by members of the leadership of ABCUSA and the General Secretary himself show that the ABCUSA has evidenced little interest in the “gifts, talents, experiences, and perspective” of PSW.

There is probably a higher percentage of American Baptists who still have a mixed or negative view of the ordination of women than those endorsing the ordination of practicing homosexuals. Nobody in VF is afraid to proclaim with bold confidence what the majority of us believe to be biblical on the subject of women despite the numbers of American Baptists who do not see it that way.

Indeed, Dr. Medley makes no provision for conditioning his statements with provisos for the minority who continue to dissent. He does not make declarations that he approves the ordination of women "AND will not be separated from his sisters and brothers who, for reasons of sincere conscience, differ on the matter." He simply declares what he believes to be the biblical teaching and which has been affirmed by a majority of American Baptists.

The assumption is that if you are to the right or left on the issue, you must simply accept the fact that you are in a minority on this subject. Your conscientous objections will not be recorded, accounted for, or even mentioned in public proclamations and written statements.

Yet, when it comes to homosexuality, Dr. Medley cannot bring himself to utter what the majority of us believe and have affirmed about human sexuality without constantly catering to, accommodating, or making room for the small percentage of those who disagree. He claims that he repeats the '92 resolution often. Yes, but when he mentions it he almost always gives "equal time" to the opposing view as if the two have identical moral weight and exegetical merit. This vitiates the moral force of the affirmation, turning it instead into a tepid "on the one hand BUT on the other hand" type of equivocation.

You ask:
"How do these words of scripture "The eye cannot say to the hand, 'I don't need you!' And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!'" concerning the Body of Christ apply to this situation?"

Frankly, Jim, they have little applicability to this situation. Again, efforts to use the unity of the body (whether the High Priestly prayer of Jesus or the Pauline admonitions) as applying to the current ABC crisis proves too much. If the proponents of unity at any price really mean what they say, then why are we Baptists in the first place? If the calls to unity in Scripture imply an organizational and administrative oneness, then why not disband our denominations, take down our Baptist shingles, and merge with the Roman Catholic communion as one body in Christ?

Once you allow that doctrinal differences and distinctives, a variety of niche ministries, and other even less significant factors offer legitimate reasons to exist as separate ministries, it destroys much of the force of your argument.

In my last six college degree and certificate programs, none of them was completed in a “Baptist” institution. There was no problem affirming unity in Christ with my Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregational, Assemblies of God, etc. sisters and brothers. Yet, I have not felt compelled to join with them in their denominations.

And, if structural unity is REALLY as important to GEC members as you say, then why did the GEC fail to affirm the clear biblical admonitions brought to them in San Antonio by Dr. Salico? Hiding behind an ultra individualistic view of Baptist polity, exalting “soul competency” as the organizing rubric for Baptist identity, and failing to give more than lip service to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the authority of Scripture are what have brought us to the brink of possible separation.

I am sure that the PSW does not want to leave. So, if you are still passionate about retaining the PSW, why not redouble your efforts to persuade your General Executive Council colleagues to treat the Bible as more than a wax nose, speak with a univocal moral voice, and mean what they say and say what they mean? As Rodney King used to say: “Can’t we all just get along?”

You raise an important point when you plead:
"Don't turn your back on a sincere offer from your covenant partners to listen to your concerns and seek to determine how we can address them together."

But, Jim, this is utterly disingenuous! I believe you are sincere in your words. However, as wonderful as your rhetoric sounds in print, it loses much when it is subjected to analytical scrutiny and compared with the reality of the past few years. Dr. Salico presented a very clear and persuasive case in San Antonio (including dire warnings of what would happen if such pleas were ignored), only to have our “covenant partners” dismiss his concerns entirely. The VERY articulate and clear presentation he made at the GB last month was also treated as of little consequence. How can you say that a “too little too late” action represents anything either “sincere” or serious?

Let the PSW board vote to RECOMMEND withdrawal to the churches and schedule a vote of the congregations 90 days hence. During the next three months the GEC can do all of the soul searching, repenting, rethinking, and re-imagining they want to do. Three months is plenty of time to change one's mind if that is what the GEC "sincerely" wants to do. We will see who is sincere and who is not.

I am convinced Dr. Salico would be happy to cancel a scheduled meeting of congregations if the problem is resolved.

Dennis E. McFadden

[Just my own opinions, not part of any official entity. I won't be part of the group that is voting on December 8, just praying that they make the right decision. And, as a Christmas present to my friend Dr. Medley, I promise NOT to apply for ANY Executive Minister posts EVER]

Is Jesus the ONLY Way?

Dr. Glenn Layne raised the issue today of the uniqueness of Jesus (durabledata.blogspot.com). He offered a web site where readers can pursue the subject at greater length. I want to add my own word of advice to this subject by proffering the new book by Dr. James R. Edwards, Is Jesus the Only Savior?

Several conservative voices have been raised to object that the ABC crisis does not really involve conflicts over human sexuality. In an important sense, this contentious flashpoint represents merely a symptom of a deeper theological divide. Biblical authority and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ constitute the real issues animating the debate.

Here are some early summary comments about Edwards' book penned by the press office at his educational institution, Whitworth College (http://www.whitworth.edu/News/2004_2005/Spring/EdwardsSaviorBook.htm)

For Whitworth Professor of Theology James Edwards, a historically accurate understanding of who Jesus Christ is hinges on one tiny word.

"I think many people would like to say that Jesus is a savior -- that would allow them to breathe more easily," Edwards says. "It's that definite article, the, that makes people nervous."

In his new book, Is Jesus the Only Savior? (Eerdmans, 2005), Edwards faces head-on the question of whether Jesus is the savior of the world. Edwards, an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA) and a contributing editor of Christianity Today magazine, says that a revisionist view of Jesus is evident in some theology that in essence argues that the Jesus who is presented in the New Testament is a non-historical Jesus, a wish fulfillment of the early church."

These ideas have been in the bloodstream of the Western academy for two centuries and have now moved into mainstream culture," he says.

Due to groups such as the Jesus Seminar (a think-tank of scholars that has met since 1985 to attempt to determine the authenticity of the words and deeds attributed to Jesus in the Gospels), revisionist views of Jesus are being marketed to a broad audience, Edwards says.

"Society at large, as well as many people in the church who see specials on TV or read books by authors who dismantle the historic understanding of Jesus, are asking if there is a response from the church," Edwards says.

Edwards wrote Is Jesus the Only Savior? with two audiences in mind: the first is skeptics who think there is nothing credible to be said for the historical veracity of the Christian faith; the second audience is Christians who are unsettled by popular books, such as those written by Bishop John Spong, Marcus Borg, Robert Funk and Elaine Pagels, and wonder if the church has anything credible to say in response.

Edwards’ book approaches the question of whether Jesus is the only savior through a two-part thesis. In the first half of the book the author examines the evidence of the New Testament to see how well it stands up against rigorous historical questions.

"I conclude that it is as historically supportable -- indeed more historically supportable -- than the evidence for the skeptics' position," he says.

In the second half of the book Edwards examines the relationship between Christianity and contemporary historical currents such as religious pluralism, moral relativism, postmodernism, the quest for world peace, and the relationship of Christianity to other religions, particularly Judaism.

"I ask the question, 'Does belief that Jesus is the savior of the world lead to arrogance and elitism, as is often charged?' " Edwards says. "I don't think it does. The peace announced in the gospel is not achieved by an imposition of power on others, but by the self-sacrifice of Jesus. There is no passage in the New Testament that justifies doing ill or evil to others in the name of Christ, or for the purpose of converting them. The will of God in Christ for humanity is not separation or superiority, not arrogance or judgment, not fear, violence or death."

Edwards writes in the book's introduction that he hopes to show that his belief in Jesus as the savior of the world isn't arbitrary, but is instead a well-informed belief for which there is considerable evidence.

"I do not imagine, of course, that I can prove that Jesus is the savior of the world, or that the evidence I supply would supplant the need for faith," Edwards says. "I argue, in fact, that all final judgments of Jesus are faith judgments. I have tried to show, however, that there is a good deal more evidence for faith in Jesus as the savior of the world than most people realize."

Is Jesus the Only Savior? has been described by I. Howard Marshall, Honorary Research Professor of New Testament at the University of Aberdeen, in Aberdeen, Scotland, as a "...valuable contribution from the pen of a New Testament scholar that will assist readers looking for a defense of the historical Christian understanding of the person and place of Jesus." Stephen T. Davis, the Russell K. Pitzer Professor of Philosophy at Claremont McKenna College, says of the book, "This is Christian apologetics at its very best."

A Jesus so compassionate that "in Christ, there is neither straight nor gay"?

My friend, Roy Donkin, published an interesting post today. Building on the work of Jesus scholar Marcus Borg, we are introduced to the idea that Jesus' words "Be compassionate as God is compassionate" were a deliberate subversion of the injunction in the Holiness Code, "Be holy as God is holy" (Lv 11:44). Borg's textual basis for seeing this change from the Levitical code depends upon the Lucan version over the Matthean with its retaining of the word "holy" (Mt 5:48). The implication fits within the larger scheme Borg advocates, namely that compassion describes the ministry of Jesus to such an extent that calls to holiness pale in comparison. Indeed, it would be impossible to conceive of Borg's Jesus as requiring any kind of moral purity at all.

Ben Witherington III observes that "Borg sees Jesus as advocating the practice and politics of mercy as the true form of holiness, in contrast with establishing holiness by ritual cleansing and drawing lines between clean and unclean people." It would seem that Borg has missed the point. Jesus set aside (or at least radically relativized the laws of ritual cleanness). However, he did so to introduce an even more strenuous system of moral holiness. Since neither Jesus nor Paul come even remotely close to Borg's idea of "compassion" as a basis for the irradication of the ethical distinction between gay and straight, one wonders if the good scholar of Jesus Seminar fame has lifted several things out of context to make them say what he wants them to teach rather than what Jesus (or the Evangelist) intended.

I really like Jesus
By Roy Donkin

I really, really do. In an earlier blog I mentioned Marcus Borg's book Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time. It is a short book but I'm working through it slowly...

Anyway, chapter 3 really got me thinking. In it, Borg places Jesus in the context of a culture that was shaped by its understandings of purity - what is clean and what is not. He portrays Jesus as a subversive who replaces a system of purity with one of compassion. Key to his argument is a quote from Jesus in Luke 6:36 - "Be compassionate as God is compassionate." Borg sees this quote as a deliberate subversion of the Old Testament text - "Be holy as God is holy," Leviticus 11:44. In both his words and his actions, Jesus throws out all of the purity requirements. In Jesus' view, the primary characteristic of God is not holiness... it is compassion.

The implications for us are amazing. Following Jesus means always openning our hearts to the other. It means always standing in solidarity with those who are at the margins. It means discarding any silly ideas regarding holiness and realizing that not only is it not a central requirement for the Christian, it isn't a requirement at all.

Borg touches homosexuality and says that "the shattering of purity boundaries by both Jesus and Paul should also apply to the purity code's perception of homosexuality" and that "In Christ, there is neither straight nor gay." (p59)Yeah... I really like Jesus.

Will the Captain Be Going Down with the Ship?

A Short Opinion Note
By Dennis E. McFadden

An indication of the diversity of viewpoints found in the GEC can be seen in the differences of evaluations given to the recent round of ABC meetings held in Green Lake. The attitudes range from being offended because the verbiage was adopted adding support for heterosexuality to the identity piece, to cautious optimism (Susan Gillies), to moderate wariness (Dwight Stinnett), to abject negativity (cf. the quotes in my recent post). That Roy has done damage to his reputation among the leadership of the ABC can be proven by the following quote from a GEC member:

"My disgust with [Roy's] actions (not his person) started when he requested the resignation of Vic Gordon and Betty Berger a year ago over the Hector Cortez mess, and has only gone downhill since."

Prior to the Green Lake meetings, I predicted that there were only two viable ways to neutralize the PSW revolt:

1. For Roy to give a LBJ-esque "I will not run for re-election" speech and thus throw us into a prolonged interim period with calls for unity and peace OR

2. For Roy to encourage members of the left to give a positive vote for the IN/KY petition, even it it requires holding their noses, in order to "show" PSW that working within the system "works."

Passing a stripped down version of IN/KY falls between the cracks of my predictions. Will the GB action effectively co-opt the PSW or like-minded regions? As one clergy GB member mused:

"Will this be enough to keep the Pacific Southwest from breaking with the ABCUSA? I do not know. It appears that they want much more than this but it might be enough of a morsel to tease them to reconsider. I must admit that I had the feeling while listening to their executive minister speak that I was back in my childhood and someone was telling me that if I didn’t agree to play by their rules that they were going to take their ball and go home."

The quote from the GEC member registering "disgust" at Dr. Medley's leadership (not his person) suggests that regardless of the reaction of the PSW board next week (and of other regions to it), Dr. Medley's deep and genuine piety and affability may not be sufficient to rescue his second term from disaster.

The question remains: Can anything short of repentance and re-direction prevent the sinking of the good ship ABCUSA?

Dennis E. McFadden

[I'm about as far from speaking for the PSW as I am competent to explain the intricacies of the extra Calvinisticum vs. the communicatio idiomatum. These thoughts are merely my own musings, missing any authority within the PSW.]

More on the Christmas Debate - You Win Some; You Lose Some

His Barking Dog has been following the war on Christmas through several posts on this blog site. Readers may be interested in receiving an update of the progress and lack thereof on this issue to date.

Restoring 'Christmas' -- Walgreen's, Kroger Respond-- But Target's Silence Results in Announcement of Boycott
By Jody BrownDecember 1, 2005

(AgapePress) - You win some -- and you lose some. That adage seems to apply appropriately to one group's ongoing efforts to keep "Christ" in Christmas, at least on the retail front.

According to the founder of Mississippi-based American Family Association (AFA), it is apparent that at least one retailer -- Walgreen's -- has gotten the message that it is not in their best interest to continue avoiding use of the phrase "Merry Christmas" in its advertising campaigns and in-store promotions. Speaking earlier today (Dec. 1) on American Family Radio, Donald E. Wildmon said an AFA supporter had heard from Walgreen's, indicating that although it is too late to change this season's advertising materials, next year "things will be different."

He says a consumer response representative with Walgreen's is distributing a letter stating that "Next year, you can be assured our advertising will better incorporate 'Christmas' -- and our holiday trees will be called Christmas trees."

According to Wildmon, supporters of his organization continue to be effective in delivering the message that they are offended when retailers choose to promote the Christmas season without acknowledging it as such, choosing instead to remain "politically correct" by marketing such things as "holiday trees" and to be "inclusive" by prohibiting employees from issuing a traditional "Merry Christmas" greeting. Lowe's, a national home improvement outlet, recently got that message and announced it was going to "avoid confusion" and sell "Christmas trees" instead of "holiday trees" (See related story).

But all is not well on AFA's score sheet. Another major retailer that has been the focus of the group's efforts on this topic -- Target -- has now been selected as the object of a boycott. Wildmon says his group had asked Target to make Christmas an "integral part" of its promotions and advertising in next year's Christmas season.

"Knowing that is was too late to make changes this season," he explains, "we told Target that if they would make that change in 2006 we would encourage our supporters to shop at Target. But we also said if Target refused, or did not respond, AFA would call for a boycott."

The retailer did not respond to the offer, says AFA -- and therefore the group has called upon its 2.8-million online supporters and listeners of its nearly 200 radio stations nationwide to avoid shopping at Target stores for the remainder of the Christmas shopping season.

"Target doesn't want to offend a small minority who oppose Christmas," Wildmon adds. "But they don't mind offending Christians who celebrate the birth of Christ, the Reason for the season."

AFA says via an online petition it has gathered nearly 600,000 signatures from individuals who have pledged to boycott Target. The goal, says AFA, is to get upwards of a million signatures.

Meanwhile, in a letter to AFA president Tim Wildmon, the Kroger Company has explained its company policy regarding use of the holiday greeting "Merry Christmas." The letter, signed by group vice president Lynn Marmer, says the stores wish to "reflect the diversity" of customers, employees, and society and to make sure every customer and employee feels "welcomed and appreciated."

For that reason, writes Marmer, Kroger uses a variety of greetings and advertising materials during December -- including Merry Christmas, Feliz Navidad, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanzaa, Season's Greetings, and Happy Holidays.

"We have not and do not intend to ban any of these greetings, including Merry Christmas," the letter concludes.

A Conservative Description of the Recent ABC Meetings

Given the secrecy of many ABC deliberations, it is often difficult to know what is going on within the various national meetings. Insider information from within the General Executive Council--made up of all of the executive ministers, several national program board persons, and certain reprresentatives from auxiliary organizations--is not always easy to come by. So, when some of those in the room describe the experience, you tend to listen. Earlier this week, His Barking Dog reprinted the full text of a centrist's interpretation (Dr. Dwight Stinnett). Today we turn to the comments by those on the right. The following direct quotes were culled from eyewitness testimony.

· There was almost wholesale acknowledgement that “the Roy and Peggy show” received a two thumbs down review when they visited PSW . . . Yes, he's an affable guy with a warm heart, but he's been a terrible General Secretary in the midst of this mess.

· It was interesting to me that a number of the members did say, "Let PSW do their thing. If they need to go, let them go. We need to move on." Of course, that attitude was counterbalanced by many critics who said that OGS fumbled the ball as they tried to represent the Covenanting Partners in their visit to PSW.

· The GEC votes forced people to speak their minds before the group. What the discussion proved in GEC is how broken the Covenant of Relationships truly is. It was a very somber time. If they take motion number three seriously, and bring in a mediator to work with GEC, that action will surface the depths of the divides that separate the principal parties.

· There was an admission, and an apology . . . at GEC that the "Circle" letter from OGS went out in violation of the Budget Covenant, and there was also an admission . . . that the language . . . "was over the top."

· Charles Jones [stood] before General Board and [clarified] that BIM is in compliance with the 1992 resolution on homosexuality, and will continue in compliance in all hiring practices. Amazing! He did this in spite of counsel from a very high up person on the BIM Executive Committee not to do it. Why couldn’t Roy do the same? We would be in a far better place if Roy would be the voice for the majority, and leave it at that.

The fact that the quotes given come from written sources from within the GB/REMC/GEC meetings should give Dr. Medley pause. The party line presented to the churches does not correspond to the reality within the denomination, even at its highest levels.

As to the meeting next week of the PSW board, my great hope is that the leadership will move forward with their announced plans. IFF Valley Forge recants their long stated commitment to mindlessly latitudinarian pluralism, there will always be time to cancel an announced meeting. That makes more sense than a delay of the decision which will also push back a meeting of the congregations.

[It didn't require an Abrahamic teleological suspension of the ethical to get me to admit that this blog has absolutely no connection to official policy of the PSW or any other entity within the region]

"It's Time to Go, Fellow Radicals" (Guest Editorial by Rev. John Eby)

The following piece was penned by John Eby, former Executive Director of the American Baptist Evangelicals, and posted on the ABE web site more than a month ago. In it he reflects upon the vote by the West Virginia Baptists where they turned down a motion for immediate departure from the ABCUSA but also (and by a larger margin) rejected a reaffirmation of support for the ABCUSA.

In light of the impending PSW board meeting next week, John resurrected his posting yesterday, suggesting that it has currency for the present. He comments: "Notice how VF is setting church against church by marginalizing the non-ethnic churches so they seem radical and unconcerned with reconciliation. The churches listening to VF and wanting to consider that the leopard will change its spots are being enchanted by the Siren song of moderation and reasonableness. It is more and more time to move on."

It's Time to Go, Fellow Radicals
Guest Editorial
By John Eby

Brothers and Sisters, in Christ,

I think it's time for everyone to face the reality of being a part of this denomination's future. Only the Moderates and Liberals will be left.

WVBBT was marginalized as a deliberate strategy because it works, and ABE has been marginalized since its inception the same way. And the truth is, ABE's successor movement will also be marginalized as a radical organization.

Moderates are suckers for the "radical" marginalization strategy, because they are Moderates and they love being seen as moderates. Moderates don't get involved because they are "Moderates." By our own admission, this denomination is predominantly composed of moderates and thus, the denomination will continue to succumb to the "radicalization" of the conservatives strategy.

The vote in WVa, in my opinion, is symbolic of every other region: there is no concerted regional will to undertake leaving the ABCUSA because the regions are, (just like WVa), moderate. There will always be a logical reason presenting not to leave ("I really don't agree with what VF is doing, but the "X" group's tactics are mean spirited or radical," and "just look at what the SBC did and how they treated all those gentle people like Molly Marshall") and this old dependable story will provide a basis for the majority of churches to stay and to maintain the status quo. It is much easier, as a moderate, to express disagreement (to maintain a semblance of orthodoxy) and then go with the flow of collegiality and "reasonableness," being seen and feeling (or being made to feel) personally superior, morally and intellectually to the "radicals."

Other than California, I think there is the chance that maybe only one other region (two at the most- Indiana and/or Pac. NW) will have the will to leave the ABCUSA. Have you wondered why nothing has been heard from the ABCWest? When are they going to follow their neighbor, PSW? I hope they will, but their silence is deafening.

The Executive Ministers are not going to lead their regions out of the denomination (Refer to Parchment valley agreement as exhibit No.1.). Dale Salico did not lead his region out: strong pastors provided the leadership and the dynamics along the trajectory making withdrawal a possibility. In my estimation, Dale has exemplified the role an Executive should shoulder in carrying out the desires of the region. And he has done it admirably! How much success do you think would have been accomplished if Dale had been against the move? I don't think much if any. An exec can't do it himself but he can support or derail what the churches want to do. Remember, the status quo is always the easy position to maintain.

ABE has been marginalized and I have been marginalized for the past 14 years as a leader in ABE (and I am one whose wife considers me to be a Liberal). ABE worked hard to provide the evidence, in our behavior, to allow persons to counter the "radical" stigma being attached to us. But the other side won't give up the fight and strategy because they know it will always work with the moderates.

I don't see a mass migration of churches or regions leaving the ABCUSA. I do see a slow, but steady, stream of churches who have finally come to their senses and hold biblical faithfulness above collegiality and reasonableness.

The seeds of radical branding are being sown on this discussion forum right now in the discussion of biblical interpretation concerning women in ministry or womens' ordination. I would not be surprised if all those posting are being accumulated as evidence to prove the claim (by a prominent ABC leader) that after we get rid of the homosexuals we will then go afer the women in ministry.

Individual churches, make your own moves and don't wait for the region for direction. You can be assured that watching grass grow will be much more rewarding and faster than waiting for your region to act. WVBBT, take heart and come on out. Indiana churches, you who are going to be rejected, come on out. No need to put up the whole list or regions, each of you know what I mean and you know what you need to do.

Being radical means getting back to the root. What better word (than radical) to describe a person or a church who is wanting to get back to the root of our existence, Jesus Christ.

I don't think regions will leave en bloc. For the most part, individual churches will have to take their own stands to escape the continuing corruption of the unholy alliance with VF.

John Eby

John ends his posting with a McFaddenesque disclaimer: (Everything I write here are my own thoughts and opinions and do not represent any official postion or opinion of ABE and/or its representatives.)

PSW and the Politics of Delay

PSW and the Politics of Delay
An Opinion Piece by Dennis E. McFadden

Most people realize by now that the vote this past September was not for the PSW to “withdraw” from the ABCUSA, but to initiate the process of withdrawal. On Thursday, December 8, the Board of the ABCPSW will meet to decide whether or not to recommend separation from the ABCUSA and if so to schedule a vote of the churches on the matter. Right? Well, not exactly.

During the round of meetings earlier this month in Green Lake, the General Executive Council took three actions. First, they voted to express in writing a desire for PSW to remain in the Covenant of Relationships (i.e., stay in the denomination). Second, they appointed a group of people to craft and implement an intervention strategy to implore PSW to reconsider and then to report back to the GEC in April of 2006. Third, they admitted that the “confluence of events” is “symptomatic of a need for a comprehensive reevaluation of the very character of what it means to be a denomination in this day.”

What does that mean? Well, for one, it could cause PSW to decide to delay their decision. After all, who would be so churlish and mean-spirited as to reject a sister or brother’s heart-felt plea for reconciliation and for more time to consider if a way can be found leading to peace and unity? Since it would be almost impossible for the newly tasked group to organize, “craft and implement an intervention strategy” and schedule flights to PSW before next Thursday, should the board accede to this request, it will doubtless push back the timetable.

Since the PSW rules call for a 90 day notice for a meeting of the region, this would inevitably buy time for the ABCUSA to continue using their influence on congregations to induce them to pull away from the PSW plan. We have already seen much evidence that this is exactly what is happening.

Valley Forge leaders, particularly those in National Ministries have been telephoning, e-mailing, and making cross-country trips to PSW to meet with several of the ethnic caucuses. My sources tell me that both the African-American and Hispanic churches are receiving enormous pressure from National Ministries to stay with the “family,” rejecting the anticipated PSW separation. John Sundquist has been on a tour of the top giving churches in the country to sound them out on the issue of withdrawal and to shore up support for denominational unity.

Hispanic representatives report that they feel a need for more time to process the issue and to consider the “other side” and its arguments. They have put pressure on Dr. Salico to do everything in his power to delay a vote until the Hispanic congregations feel better about the timing of a decision.

Meanwhile pastors from several of the larger, predominately white churches, report rising frustration on the part of their lay leadership. Having heard of the board’s initial action in September, many do not understand “what is taking so long.” A delay at this point will look more like weakness and indecision on the part of PSW than a courteous nod to the request of fellow believers or as an opportunity to gather information necessary before a recommendation may be made.

An additional side effect is the stultifying impact it will likely have on moving forward with the implementation of the long awaited new vision for the region. Plans had been announced to roll out the “transformation” vision during the summer and fall of 2005 and to follow up with mentoring, coaching, and teaching components.

Conventional wisdom among most church consultants says that a deep organizational crisis trumps everything else you may want to initiate or accomplish. It would be foolish to begin the vision implementation in earnest until after the denominational relationship issue has been determined. Delays in the final meeting of congregations will produce a cascading effect upon other vital regional programs, further reinforcing what will then appear to be an image of indecision and ineptitude.

Ironically, a refusal on December 8 to give a clear and decisive recommendation to the churches will frustrate a number of the congregations and result in sending a signal to other regions that PSW does not have the will to follow through on its bold words of September. Rather than leading the evangelical wing of the discontented American Baptists, PSW may actually contribute to a strengthening, albeit temporarily, of Valley Forge’s hand.

Clearly the person with the most difficult position in all of this is the ever-faithful soldier, Dr. Salico. After getting “beaten up” in the last round of denominational meetings in Green Lake, he has a number of critical choices to make. He is being squeezed by proponents of separation, including some of his own staff, to "shake the dust off his sandals and get it all over with" at the same time that some of his ethnic pastors are pleading for more time for processing the decision. Based upon my experience with Dale, I predict he will acquit himself splendidly. If John Kennedy were around today, I know who I would nominate for a new chapter in his book, Profiles in Courage: Dr. Dale Salico.

[No one should misconstrue this posting as in any way connected to any entity or person in the PSW. Like Demosthenes of old, I'm just mumbling away with a handful of marbles in my mouth.]

No more 'holiday' trees at Capitol; Grinches lose as Chrsitmas Tree returns

Score one for the good guys. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, a Wheaton College graduate and practicing evangelical, rescued the "Capitol Christmas Tree" from "generification." In the history of the culture wars, this will not even qualify as a minor skirmish. However, one cannot help but be grateful for every victory, no matter how small and symbolic.

By Gary Emerling
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 29, 2005

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert has told federal officials that the lighted, decorated tree on the West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol -- known in recent years as the "Holiday Tree" -- should be renamed the "Capitol Christmas Tree," as it was called until the late 1990s.

The Capitol's senior landscape architect confirmed the name switch yesterday for The Washington Times.

"It was known as the 'Holiday Tree' for several years and just recently was changed back to the 'Capitol Christmas Tree.' This was a directive from the speaker," said Capitol architect Matthew Evans.

"The speaker believes a Christmas tree is a Christmas tree, and it is as simple as that," said Ron Bonjean, spokesman for the Illinois Republican.

The Capitol tree, traditionally overshadowed by the White House's "National Christmas Tree," was renamed a "holiday tree" several years ago, according to the Capitol Architect's offices, in an effort to acknowledge the other holidays of Kwanzaa and Hanukkah -- although no one seemed to know exactly when the name was changed or by whom.

Calling a Christmas tree a Christmas tree has become a politically charged prospect in jurisdictions across the country -- from Boston to Sacramento and in dozens of communities in between.

Yes, Virginia, there is a war on Christmas

A "war on Christmas"??? John Gibson, popular Fox News anchor, has authored a counterattack on the secular Grinches' systematic efforts to eliminate Christmas (or Christ?) from the public square. As the editors of WorldNetDaily tell it:

In The War On Christmas: How the Conspiracy to Subvert Our Most Sacred Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought, ... Gibson reveals that this is not happening because of some cultural consensus. On the contrary, he explains that a thorough and virulent anti-Christmas campaign is being waged today by liberal activists, ACLU fanatics, craven politicians, sinister agenda-driven educators, and witless media mavens. But for all their efforts, the Grinches have not won: plucky Christians are already fighting to retake their place in the public square.
http://www.wndbookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6824#continue

If you take the time to read his book, you will discover that the "War on Christmas" reveals:

Proof: Christmas is under attack in such a sustained and strategized manner that there is without any doubt a war on Christmas.

How the Constitutional concept of non-establishment of a religion has been twisted into a hostility to Christianity that is itself quite obviously unconstitutional common sight in American public schools every December: Hanukkah and Kwanza decorations proliferating everywhere, but nary a mention of Christmas.

How the war on Christmas is not just being fought in loony-left blue state strongholds, but in the American heartland.

The ACLU, ADL, and Americans for the Separation of Church and State: how they provide the legal muscle and contorted logic to anti-Christmas warriors while looking approvingly on public expressions of Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism.

The ridiculous lengths to which the ACLU has gone in its war against Christmas and its quest to remove all vestiges of Christianity from public life -- including its argument that a rural Georgia school calendar that contained the word "Christmas" represented state endorsement of Christianity and was thus unconstitutional.

Amateur constitutionalists who occupy positions of power in America, and are making up the law as they go along (often after being intimidated by the ACLU).

The ACLU lawyer who, on his lunch break, inspected a Christmas tree that had been set up in the Pennsylvania state capitol and found, among its thousand ornaments, three that were cross-shaped -- and promptly filed suit.

How liberals stir up fears of aggressive Christians' turning public schools into religious organizations and America into a theocracy to gain support for their war on Christmas
How officials forbade a Texas schoolgirl to give other students goodie bags inscribed "Jesus is the reason for the season."

Roger Ailes: how he put identification breaks that wished viewers "Merry Christmas" on the air on Fox News stations -- to the shock and horror of the politically correct establishment
The throngs of lawyers who are now willing to take on the ACLU and defend Christmas.

How Christmas has become the new litmus test of our nation's willingness to abide by its own Constitution, to make certain that people are free to express their religion without being told that they must keep their beliefs private and tucked out of sight.

Not only have ACLC types been toiling away like elves at the North Pole to eliminate Christmas from the public square, many retailers are listening to the advice of HR diversity specialists who have advised them to banish the word “Christmas” from their vocabularies. Despite the fact that more than 85% of Americans profess some Christian affiliation, management has been running scared of offending any segment of their demographic. Surprisingly, some of the most vocal critics of banishing Christmas have been Jewish and Islamic leaders who recognize in this campaign an attack on the very idea of faith itself.

So far, many of the chains have opted for the intentionally generic "Happy Holidays." Some of the major retailers which have refused to mention Christmas so far this season include Target, Kroger, Office Max, Walgreens, Sears, Staples, Lowe's, J.C. Penney, Dell and Best Buy.

Bah Humbug! Where is Jay Sekulow when we need him?

"The War on Christmas," by John Gibson
Hardcover: 256 pages
Publisher: Sentinel HC (October 20, 2005)
Language: English
ISBN: 1595230165