What About the Board of International Ministries in the ABC?

Someone recently asked me to comment on the short-term prospects for International Ministries in the ABC in light of declining dollars and the departure of the Pacific Southwest Baptists. The issue is complex, to be sure. However, PART of the problem relates to the continued uncertainty due to Rev. Jones' extended interim status. The aftermath of Hector's departure left some angry people on the left. Accusations of racism were rife. The IM search committee took a very long time before even beginning their search process to let things "cool off." This took its toll on forward momentum and single-minded pursuit of the goal. Now they are evidently prepared to put forth a name (although some have suggested political pressure to delay any naming of a replacement until early next year).

Of the four persons reportedly in the final consideration, all of them are capable and faithful leaders, several with IM experience. However, this represents a signal opportunity for Dr. Medley to make one more try at keeping the remaining conservative regions in the fold. And, on that score, none of the names (IMHO) promise a skill set up to the task. While their experience (regional EM, IM insiders, charismatic missionary) all reflect a partial package, NONE of them has the complete bag of tricks necessary for this crucial time in ABC history.

And, more importantly, I cannot imagine ANY of them being able to reassure conservatives thinking of bolting. At best, it may delay a wider schism. However, this would miss Dr. Medley's possibly LAST chance to put his right foot forward and to select an outspoken conservative to provide some semblance of "balance" to the very unbalanced tilt of very good (but predominately left leaning) folks at the top of ABC leadership.

For those of us in Transformational Ministries (aka APCPSW), it will probably not matter. Judging by my time with Dr. Salico last weekend in Hawaii, there will be no turning back for the southwest. Regardless of how many congregations Valley Forge can coax into remaining with them (and some of the political machinations by national folks have been enough to make an old fashioned Taminy Hall pol blush), Salico is set to move forward with a positive agenda for Gospel ministry in a new century.

Frankly (editor's note: this is my way of saying to readers that this is MY opinion and analysis unencumbered by ANYone official or authorized to speak in TM, Southern CA, or anywhere where the Bible is read and believed), selecting from the names surfacing so far will likely complete the move of TM away from ABC. Salico had negotiated a "partnership" agreement with IM to continue funding IM missionaries after the Nov 1 final date for withdrawal. However, IM will not be the only avenue of international partnership for TM. If BIM selects someone who represents "same old same old" in ABC politics (i.e., pretty much anyone on the list I heard), it may merely facilitate a quicker redirection of TM dollars to other mission endeavors.

So, bottom line: even though I no longer have a dog in this fight, with more than a half century in the ABC, I plead with Dr. Medley to make a savvy choice for the long term good of the denomination, even if it means asking the search committee to dig a little deeper in their bag of candidates.

Dennis

[DISCLAIMER: my ONLY area of influence relates to the fact that I chair the mission board of my congregation which has been a "top 50" missions giving congregation. If the search committee proposes and Roy OKs a "same old business" style leader, my personal vote would be in the direction of examining our missions commitments more closely. However, this is just ONE person and ONE opinion in a very large denomination, not to be confused with any Dr. So-and-So of importance or entity in the southwest.]

A New Day for Baptists in the Southwest? YES!!!

Sitting at Gate 24 in the Honolulu airport waiting for a red eye flight back to Los Angeles and a round of management meetings tomorrow morning offers a bit of leisure to reflect on the fascinating and blessed weekend now just concluding in Hawaii.

The reason for my three day marathon was to chair an ordination council meeting in Hawaii and to attend an installation of a pastor at one of the most vigorous African American congregations in Transformation Ministries (aka ABCPSW). In order to save TM some money, I elected to skip a car rental and stay in an economy B&B. This meant lots of schlepping around with Dr. and Mrs. Salico.

During the past year, maintaining the integrity of my disclaimers, contacts with Salico have been kept to a bare minimum. I did not want him to be tarred unjustly with an excessively wide brush by those who believed (erroneously) His Barking Dog got its information from him. The necessities of transportation also put me in a lunch setting with the leaders of one of our Hawaii congregations, where it was my privilege to listen to Dale explain his vision for Transformation Ministries.

Oh my, what a difference a year makes! Dale has always been quite positive in his discussions regarding the denomination. But conversations with pastors are not always so upbeat. Yet, on Saturday not ONE word of criticism of ABC was uttered by Dr. Salico or others at the table. Such talk seemed as irrelevant as it was passe. His entire pitch for nearly an hour consisted in unfolding a bold and forward looking strategy for creating 21st Century ministries worthy of the Gospel. For the first time in my Baptist life, I found myself truly excited about the prospects of ministry in our Baptist fellowship and eager to be part of the action in some personal way.

In place of the painful wrangling of the past decades, the new word is one of joyful affirmation: YES!

Yes, we will create only such structures as are necessary for facilitating ministry in our new century. Gone will be meetings for the sake of meetings, and outworn modalities of managing ministries and running things through a cumbersome bureaucracy.

Yes, anyone in TM ordained by the ABC now will be automatically recognized by TM if their church affiliates with it. And, for those keeping a dual alignment with ABC, they have the option of considering themselves as holding an ABC recognized ordination or a TM recognized ordination.

Yes, we will receive four offerings each year. One will go to world relief (possibly through the NAE partnership recently entered into), one will focus on resourcing congregations and work in Transformation Ministries, one will deal with foreign missions, and one will create a ministers relief fund to replace the promised loss of non-contractual benefits by MMBB.

Yes, we are already providing for the endorsement of military chaplains, again through the NAE.

Yes, we are looking at ways to support Asian, African, Hispanic, and Native American ministries at home and abroad. Multi-ethnic works thrive in the southwest. If anything, TM will be able to be even more intentional in its support of these efforts following withdrawal from ABC.

Yes, we will continue to partner with the Board of International Ministries of the ABC. But, our foreign efforts will include sponsorship and partnerships in parts of the world now unserved by BIM. Congregations will have even more options and encouragement to act in ways consistent with their own values and priorities.

Yes, we will provide services to congregations in leadership development (e.g., L3 program), professional congregational assessment at a fraction of the cost of outside consultants, and not one but two tracks in stewardship education.

Yes, we will take our stand for the Gospel in the broad tradition of Protestant orthodoxy and Baptist distinctives. We will not be as narrow as the stereotype of cultural fundamentalists or as broad as the “anything goes” latitudinarianism of the mainline churches.

Frankly, the analyst in me had feared that southwest conservatives would find little ground for agreement once the identified “issue” of Valley Forge was gone. But, being part of an ordination council for a good and Godly young man on Saturday, participating in an installation with a vital congregation this afternoon where nearly 800 folks had heard the Gospel proclaimed this morning, and hearing Dr. Salico’s passion for new structures worthy of the Gospel left me excited and optimistic about the future of Transformation Ministries.

There will be many obstacles in the path of Transformation Ministries as it carves out its unique niche in the southwest. But, one thing is for sure: nobody cares about the fight with the ABC any longer. That is past history. Our corporate energies are focused on the future of God’s tomorrow and his provision for dynamic new opportunities today. If I were to sum up this weekend in one word, it would be “YES!” Soli deo Gloria!

[His Barking Dog did follow Dr. Salico around this weekend, catching a few crumbs from his table. However, the opinions contained herein were not cleared, vetted, or approved by him or ANYone in Transformation Ministries. Like some of the other dogs running in the rain along the windward side beach this morning, I’m simply yipping and yapping with delight at what God has done while playing in the surf.]

ABC Progressive Reacts to Dr. Medley's "Call" Saying it Would Require Turning "My Back on Christ"

This month's Associational, the e-newsletter from the Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists, departed from the usual format of that communication piece. This time, fifteen letters of response to Dr. Medley's "A Call for American Baptists to Live Lives of High Moral and Ethical Responsibility," dated July 17, were reprinted. Most of them were respectfully worded, logically argued, and passionate appeals to Dr. Medley to clarify or retract his perplexing (to them anyhow) statement on sexual integrity and denominational diversity.

Perhaps none of the responses, however, carry as much internal institutional weight as that penned by Dr. Allan Newton, ABC executive minister and host of the Rochester Summit process. Answering the question poised by many in the blogosphere, "Why now?," he surmises as follows:

My sense is that this is a response to pressure from the more conservative elements of our ABCUSA family. This letter came without any forewarning to Regional Executives which has been the established pattern of recent years. It is as much a surprise for me as it is for most of you. My intuition about the reason is confirmed by the quick and vocal delight being expressed by my more conservative brothers.

Dr. Newton leads one of the most progressive regions in the ABC. His efforts to advocate for the AWAB cause, shelter AWAB churches from less hospitable regions (e.g., Granville, Ohio, a congregation that recently called a lesbian pastor, Rev. Dr. Kathy Fuson Hurt who comes to Ohio with her partner Jean) and shepherd the Rochester Summit have been notable for their courage and staunch advocacy.

Dr. Newton fully identifies with the cause to such an extent as to personalize it: "This is the first time I find the line in the sand drawn in such a way that there is no room for me and so many like me. There have been many other pastors and denominational leaders who have been drawing lines of exclusion but this is the first time such words have come from the mouth of the General Secretary."

Lest anyone doubt the theological and ethical resolve by those on the left, hear carefully the words of Dr. Newton when he equates disaffirming the GLBT cause with turning his back on Christ!

"I have shared with Roy that I cannot honor his call. To honor this call would be to turn my back on Christ which is something I will not do for any person. In my early years of youth I experienced such a profound affirmation of me, "just as I am" with all my faults and sins, that I cannot be anything but affirming of my GLBT brothers and sisters; to all my sisters and brothers. Jesus convinced me at an early age that my charge and mission was to love and not judge. It became clear to me that it was not up to me to determine who is inside or outside of the family of God. That was God's work. My response to that is THANK GOD! God put me in charge of my life and not that of my sisters and brothers. It has been my understanding that as a Christian I am to follow Jesus and the example he has set for me has been one of radical love and radical inclusion. I confess, I did not come to this place I stand easily without strain and struggle. Nor did I join this path toward affirmation of my own volition. I had to be convinced and God has been very convincing."

Clearly the notion of "radical discipleship" articulated by Dr. Medley more than a year ago at the Denver biennial has been fused with notions of "radical love and radical inclusion" for the cause of GLBT persons. And, as AWAB continues reporting increases in their ranks as additional congregations affiliate with them, Dr. Medley will face enormous pressure from both the left and the right to clarify exactly what he meant by his July 17 "Call."

Is this what Medley means when he says, "radical discipleship"? And, if not, what does he intend to do about it?

[His Barking Dog finds plenty of raw meat in the trashcans out back of the ABC. However, please do not conclude that it was given to me by anyone official or that it reflects any kind of official position by anyone in Southern California.]

On Not Becoming Custodians of the Status Quo

Reactions to my last post have been predicable. Much of what follows comes from one of my comments appended to that posting, now pushed forward as a separate contribution. Last week a friend of mine "tipped" me off to a discussion about His Barking Dog and your blogger being pilloried in another forum. This surprised me, since the people on that forum have always prided themselves as a point of netiquette and ethics not to discuss people by name that are not part of their conversation. And, some of the writers on that forum have bragged in the past about not reading this blog. The controversial nature of the column, however, drew their ire as well as their evident misunderstanding. Since this issue touches on so many points of Baptist life, a wider discussion may be warranted.

First, confidentiality remains an important value. However, the people bound to observe it strictly would be those who freely give their word to do so explicitly or implicitly (e.g., members of a search committee, a clergy member hearing a penitent, counseling, etc.). In the social compact that exists between the secret teller and the secret hearer, one’s word and personal integrity do matter. Members of a search committee have every right to bind themselves to secrecy and to require it of their members. A breach of that confidentiality certainly applies to the committee member and sometimes to the one who receives an intentioned “leak” of information from that person bound by their word. It is only with great difficulty that I can see how it applies to second and third tellings of information, particularly when the recipient of the information freely informs his source of just how it will end up in a blog after receiving such information in an unsolicited telephone call.

But, secondly, and more importantly for the point of my post, the “who” of the finalists matters very little to me. That is why names were not mentioned. I fully realize how easily a third hand piece of information may stand at variance with the truth. Furthermore, it would complicate the work of the search committee to have its candidates discussed openly. My intention was not to "out" the names but to offer observations on the dangers inherent in the field.

My point was to suggest that merely selecting a “good” candidate will not be “good enough” this time for the Board of International Ministries. Obviously an appropriate choice should have a rapport with our missionary force, possess the sound management and administrative skills needed to run a several million dollar enterprise, be blessed with visionary leadership gifts, and possess an ability to communicate easily and effectively with the congregations.

At this time in American Baptist history, however, more will be required and should be expected. In order to avoid the debacle of another conservative region withdrawing from the Covenant of Relationships, the person selected MUST be able to reassure the evangelical wing of the denomination. Indeed, if the new BIM executive is to be more than a placeholder in the denominational calculations, he/she should be able to handle the political world of Valley Forge and its corporate culture.

Despite the hand wringing by some of our Baptist brethren, my purpose in the blog was to give ADVANCE WARNING to leadership that this represents a signal opportunity to do better than merely filling a post with a qualified candidate for BIM. In the words of my prior blog, failure to heed this warning may have disastrous effects. Respecting my own evaluations of the names surfacing so far:

"They will be, at best, custodians of the status quo and hapless bystanders to further denominational decline. All of them are fine Christian servants with great track records of ministry; nevertheless, I fear that none of them should be selected to lead BIM at this critical juncture."

The key words were "at this critical juncture." The crisis of the moment calls for more than a typical, average, or even better than average choice. The job entails more than leading a program board. Any of the people being considered could probably complete that task honorably. Rather, the critical responsibility will be to reassure restless evangelicals to remain in the denomination. And, judged by that exigent need, none of the names leaked so far meet the stringency of that standard.

[His Barking Dog always barks, but seldom bites, but engages in both behaviors without any connection to official persons, places, powers, or potentates. In this case, my information did NOT come from a member of the search committee directly. And, curiously, all the names except one were on my own list of likely finalists for the post.]

An Invitation from the Middle for the Right and Left to Leave and What Will Be Left?

In the continuing reactions to Dr. Medley’s recent "A Call for American Baptists to Live Lives of High Moral and Ethical Responsibility," opinions have settled into the predictable range of reactions, as one blogger put it, “cool suspicion, even dismissal, from the right and near hysteria from the left.” I am interested in the response by those in the center, specifically Executive Minister Dr. Dwight Stinnett of the Great Rivers Region and co-blogger of ABC Views from the Middle (http://abcviewsfrommiddle.blogspot.com/).

Stinnett writes one of the more thoughtful blogs dealing with ABC life and tends to be exceptionally candid and straight forward for someone in his position. Additionally, he can be counted upon to reflect rather than react, to reason rather than rant, to analyze rather than antagonize. In this sense, Dr. Stinnett’s blog offers helpful windows into ABC life for those of us not in the Regional Executive Ministers Council or General Executive Council.

Stinnett observes that Medley has been tagged as a flip-flop artist by some because of the perceived dissonance between his biennial sermon of last summer and his “call” of this summer. As Dwight puts it, “One side doesn’t trust him because of it. The other side is scandalized by it and persuaded that it can only be explained by some dark, smoky room conversion (if not coercion) of Roy Medley.”

Contrariwise, Stinnett opines that the “call” is “fully consistent with what Dr. Medley said at the Biennial.” For those on the far right who he believes would like a denomination purged not only of homosexuals but “of their supporters” and those on the far left who seek a “universal affirmation of homosexual intimacy,” Stinnett predicts equal disappointment.

More to the point for those in the “middle,” he reminds his readers that “this denomination is disintegrating. It would be irresponsible for a leader not to address one of the leading causes of that disintegration, even if its very mention is offensive to some.”

The heart of his concern can be summarized by his own portentous words, carrying the power not of mere eloquence, but of solemn resolution:

“But I am persuaded that for some among us the differences are irreconcilable. Many of us have believed for some time that the only way forward would involve losing some from both extremes. I lament that. I lament the dozen churches that have already left my region, the thirty others that have threatened, and the even larger number that has disengaged. I lament 80 churches that left as reported at the last General Board meeting. I lament all the churches of the Pacific Southwest. I lament those departures even when I have not agreed with them.But it is time. It is time for those of us who are trying to define and claim a middle (if there is such a thing) to stand up and say ‘Enough is enough!’”

Dr. Stinnett may be correct. Perhaps shorn of a few nuts on the left and a few more on the right, the fruitful ABC tree will blossom forth into a virtual tree of life. Several concerns still bring me pause before embracing his dream of a down-sized Baptist utopia, however.

First, the organization is in continuing financial crisis. Declining receipts WILL drive the GEC to propose some kind of restructuring following their meeting with Dr. Trish Jones next month just as it has already produced a shift to once a year meetings of the General Board. Least likely would be Dr. Bob Roberts single board proposal. More likely would be something less daring than the radical Michigan recommendation of last spring to dismantle the Office of the General Secretary and General Board so that we could return to a pre-1907 polity model. Perhaps the Lancaster agreement (aka "National Table" or "Common Table") will form the basis for the new structure, or at least a beginning point for on-going negotiations.

Second, Rev. Charles Jones removed his name from consideration for the permanent post as head as the Board of International Ministries some months ago. Rumors leaking out of the search committee have suggested four names, most of them BIM insiders, one of them an Executive Minister. Each one of these candidates, if the reported names are accurate, brings impressive credentials and gifts to the table.

In my opinion, NONE of them, however, possess the skill-set needed to staunch the declining flow of red ink for the ABCUSA. One of them carries academic qualifications to be envied, but lacks the charisma to motivate church support. Another has great qualities of administration, albeit somewhat colorless leadership skills. Still another has a very high profile and plenty of personality, but seemingly lacks the corporate skills to lead such an organization or manage a budget of this size.

More importantly, if Dr. Medley wants to salvage what will be left of the ABC in this newly "right sized" medium-sized tent, he should have a partner in BIM who can reassure the evangelicals, handle the political in-fighting, and effectively manage the enterprise in a visionary manner. The names surfacing so far (and I pray that my sources here are in error) are simply not the kinds of people likely to make the transition successfully. They will be, at best, custodians of the status quo and hapless bystanders to further denominational decline. All of them are fine Christian servants with great track records of ministry; nevertheless, I fear that none of them should be selected to lead BIM at this critical juncture.

[His Barking Dog only knows enough missiology to remember the word "contextualize." So, please do not take my barking as anything official, unofficial, or back channel. These are merely my rabid mutterings.]

AWAB's Rev. Pennings Offers Response to Dr. Medley's "Call" to American Baptists: Predicts "Extreme Moral Outrage" by AWAB Members

In a message addressed to the "Members of the Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists," Rev. Ken Pennings, Executive Director of the association responded to Dr. Medley's July 17, 2006, "A Call for American Baptists to Live Lives of High Moral and Ethical Responsibility" posted at www.abc-usa.org.

He speaks of his pain, the "same pain" he experienced when a pastor who found out that Rev. Pennings was gay asked him not to come back to the church "ever" again. He predicts unanimous "extreme moral outrage" by all 65 AWAB congregations at Roy's letter.

Rev. Pennings raises several good questions, prompted by the letter. "What are those of us in the ABC who are so deeply hurt by your letter to make of it? Is your letter an invitation for us to leave the ABC? Or we reading something into it we shouldn't?" Characterizing the letter as a "call" not to ministry, but to "acts of exclusion," he reacts against the "exclusionism, elitism, and judgmentalism" he finds filling the missive.

In response, Rev. Pennings issues a "call" of his own:
"I urge Roy and all American Baptists to repent of this kind of exclusion of God's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Allied people, and 1) to welcome the Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists as an official exhibitor at the 2007 ABCUSA Biennial; 2) to endorse qualified LGBT-Allied chaplains; and 3) to joyfully hire qualified LGBT-Allied people on his immediate staff. Also, I urge Roy to retract his letter and to confess his lapse in judgment in posting it."

[His Barking Dog lives in his own cyber doghouse and when barking does not wear the tags of any official persons or organizations]

Rejecting the Rapture: Reasons for a More Mainstream Eschatology or More Conservative Bashing? (Revised)

Thanks to another Baptist blogger, I was tipped off to the recent publication of Left Behind? The Facts Behind the Fiction, published by American Baptist Judson Press and penned by American Baptist Seminary of the West Old Testament scholar, LeAnn Snow Flesher (2006).

In little more than 150 pages, Flesher succeeds in reviewing the storyline behind the publishing phenomenon by authors Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, describes premillennial dispensationalism clearly, cuts to the subtext of a “war” against secular humanism she sees animating the series, ventures into the realm of hermeneutics, applies her principles to an analysis of Left-Behind’s approach to Daniel and Revelation (along with her own corrective interpretations), and extrapolates implications for the church.

In Flesher’s view most “real” scholars do not read the books, nor do pastors take the time to explore either the novels or the dispensational ideas behind them. But, with more than 60 million copies in circulation she concludes that “prophecy belief is far more central in American thought than previously recognized” and the “explosion of interest in the series can be directly connected to the catastrophic events of 9/11” (pg. 7). Furthermore, she argues that seminary professors and pastors “can no longer afford to ignore the phenomenon the premillennial dispensational prophecy teachers are sustaining" (pg. 13).

Clearly Flesher has been shocked and appalled by the popularity of the books. After all, they “perpetuate a massive misunderstanding of the nature of Scripture,” “create and support a separatist worldview,” and the admixture of good theology (seminary taught pastors) and bad theology (dispensational notions drawn from the “self-designated prophecy teachers” held by lay people)may “thwart . . . healthy forward movement in local congregations” (pg. 13).

Flesher should be lauded for her clarity, succinct and precise exposition, and relative restraint. Yes, she trots out the stories of early dispensationalism’s pioneers, replete with their lack of formal theological training, jail time for forgery (prior to Scofield’s conversion he was implicated in accusations of stolen political contributions while serving as an U.S. attorney in President Grant’s administration), and that their view represents a “minority of a minority” position. Still, her chapter reads like a dictionary article on the subject. She rightly locates the central issues in dispensationalism as a literal hermeneutic and a distinction between Israel and the Church.

Clearly Dr. Flesher does not appreciate the Left Behind series very much. In her mind, the books are based upon bad hermeneutics and lead to worse ecclesiastical, theological, and social consequences. Her chapter on hermeneutics opines that interpretation is as much art as science (pg. 58). And, her clear and helpful delineation of basic principles of context and sensitive handling of language would hardly be objected to by anyone.

For this scholar, Daniel (given a dating between 167 and 164 BCE) and Revelation were never intended to be interpreted futuristically. Practically anything but an idealist or preterist handling of Revelation receives swift dismissal. Obviously the point of Revelation has to do with a “call to nonviolent resistance” by Christian disciples she suggests (pg. 99).

More controversial will be the lumping together of a philosophical war against “secular humanism” with opposition to the “social gospel” (pg. 37). Throughout her discussion, she critiques Left Behind theology as a “gross oversimplification” and misreading of the Bible and church history. A claim to “literal” interpretative principles can only be called “unrealistic” or even “deceptive” (pg. 58).

Add to this her complaint that some of LaHaye and Jenkins’ assertions are “absurd” (pg. 43), they come from “ultraconservative . . . fundamentalists” (pg. 44), are filled with anti-Catholic propaganda (pgs. 45-55), reinforce stereotypes that prostitutes and drug addicts are “salvageable but lesbians are not” (pg. 54), engage in howlers of ethnocentrism, particularly against Asians (pgs. 54-56), and that a martyr’s death in the series seems reminiscent of Palestinian suicide missions” (pg. 53).

At root, Dr. Flesher says LaHaye and Jenkins pit the apostate mainline denominations and their apostate ministers “who had been indoctrinated in apostate seminaries” against God’s gift of “twentieth century people like D.L. Moody (sic) and the establishment of Bible institutes, Christian colleges, and training centers” (pg. 104). Her fear is that in the lexicon of premillennialists (at least those of a dispensational stripe), “churches that retain an ethic of social justice – that is, believe the Bible teaches Christians to strive for justice and equity for all people—are apostate because they do not hold to the ‘moral absolutes’ promoted by those who share the view of LaHaye and Jenkins” (pg. 104).

While most evangelicals accept what Luther called the sensus literalis (i.e., “literal”) approach to biblical interpretation, not all evangelicals are dispensational or pretribulational (as Flesher herself acknowledges). In that sense, much of what Flesher castigates as unrealistic and even deceptive derives from her critique of the LaHaye/Jenkins version of premillennialism, although a fair reading of her book would lead you to believe that anyone holding to a claim of a “literal” hermeneutic must necessarily be guilty of the errors she ascribes to LaHaye and Jenkins. Indeed, many practioners of a “literal” interpretative method would hail from the amillennial and preterist side of the aisle (cf. R.C. Sproul), not dispensational premillennialism.

Flesher reports that when someone accuses her of abandoning the authority of Scripture, she replies: “‘Right back at you.’ We are all guilty of this because we each read from our own location, because we cannot know for sure that we have comprehended the intended meaning of the author and, because as human beings, we all see in the mirror dimly” (pg. 65).

I cannot help but get the feeling that professor Flesher takes special delight in disabusing young seminarians of their naïve views of biblical authority (cf. pgs. 64-66; pg. 151). Certainly the number of times she complains against the terms “Bible believing,” “literal interpretation,” “authority of Scripture,” and the like reveal this as the most persistent theme in the book. Others will judge whether the analysis of dispensationalism fairly represents that system. However, the dismissive and adversarial tone of the criticism speaks more than merely to the idiosyncrasies of “Darbyite” theology. Flesher grinds her ax against premillennialism generally and, by implications, against all conservatives of whatever eschatological persuasion who operate from traditional Reformational hermeneutics.

Judson Press has made a small group study resource available as a companion to the book. Designed to "help readers explore alternative understandings of Scripture passages that have been linked to the end times . . . it will provide specific perspectives that challenge the end times views promoted by the best-selling series."

As a seminary educated evangelical, much of Flesher's critique makes sense to me. However, her dismissal of LaHaye and Jenkins engaged in reductionistic analysis and broad brush claims that seem overreaching. No pretribulationalist I know, at least those receiving their educations in the Christian colleges and Bible institutes she pits against seminary educated pastors, was taught the kind of ignorant literalism she alleges. From my own personal knowledge of reading lists currently in use at Christian colleges and Bible institutes, the hermeneutics texts required in courses teach a sophisticated, albeit conservative, Reformational approach to interpretation. Gordon Fee, Moises Silva, Walter Kaiser, and Craig Blomberg hardly represent the ranks of ignorant literalists.

Frankly, given the choice between a Left Behinder who loves the Lord and trusts his word and a sophisticated seminary graduate who spends most of his or her time proclaiming ambiguity and explaining what the Bible does not "really" mean, I would rather fellowship or do ministry together with the Left Behinder.

[His Barking Dog does not even pretend to understand the grammar of the two aorist active indicatives, ezēsan in each case, in Rev. 20:4 and 5 or other eschatalogical arcana. So, obviously these opinions are solely my own and should not be imputed to anyone, anything, or any authority anywhere outside my cyber doghouse]

Take Out the Left, the Right, and the Post-Moderns and What Do You Have Left? (Revised)

Today, one of the Baptist bloggers, identified by BaptistLife.com as a "liberal" ABC blogger (and a trusted friend of mine, by the way), responded to Dr. Medley's call as follows:

"Sadly, the short-sighted stands taken by those in Valley Forge seem to be pushing us towards extinction. The conservatives will not be placated. The liberals will be hurt. The post-moderns will pack their bags and walk because they have more important issues to discuss. Very little will be left."

In the midst of his analysis leading to that pessimistic conclusion, he observed that the '92 resolution was a "mail in" ballot, without philosophical, biblical, or sociological groundings or implementation measures. He cites the '93 resolution which invited ongoing dialogue on issues of human sexuality as a "correction" to the earlier statement. Not only does the '93 effort contain nuanced language inviting "dialogue," but it contains "all of the background materials and steps for implementation."

"Read together one can only conclude that the second resolution is a corrective to the first. "We" don't affirm anything in common regarding homosexuality. Indeed, there are a variety of understandings held by American Baptists ranging from the idea that no homosexual relationship is ever anything except sinful and that homosexual people should never be allowed in leadership roles all of the way to the belief that homosexual relationships are just a reflection of the diversity of God's beautiful creation. If a resolution needs to be implemented, it is the second which, again, presumably corrects the mistakes of the first one."

"Baptist Blogger" ponders why did Roy say this NOW? Last biennial Medley's sermon seemed predicated on the '93 resolution, including his profession to be willing to defend those who disagree with him. His recent letter reads (even to those on the left) as an endorsement of the '92 decision with its definitive and declarative language straight out of the black-and-white lexicon of moral absolutes. "Baptist Blogger" muses that had Dr. Medley delivered this sermon at the biennial, PSW might not have withdrawn (a point I also made in earlier postings).

Here are a few reactions . . .

1. Roy is sincerely a peacemaker by temperament. His message last summer was intended to purchase peace with all sides by affirming what the conservatives believe ("personally traditional"), protecting the AWAB folks (sisters and brothers who "sincerely disagree"), and shoring up the middle (see how we can all get along). An examination of his entire sermon will reveal the various pieces of raw meat thrown to the right (e.g., missionary stories, invocation of the name of Billy Graham, etc.), to the left ("Baptist principles are biblical"), and to the center. I do not believe he had any idea that his words (with the help reportedly of Bob Roberts) would so infuriate the right, representing virtually a challenge for regions to withdraw.

2. Whatever he meant then or means now, there is a conflict at the level of surface meaning between the biennial sermon and the declaration this month. Unless he chooses to function in good post-modern equivocation over the signification of language, he will need to clarify which Roy is the "real" one.

3. Several of my Baptist friends have alluded to the CYA character of the document. Some on both the left and the right have interpreted this as a piece of shameless butt covering. I have always seen Roy as a man of integrity and tend not to construe his comments so cynically. However, that lays the responsibility on Dr. Medley to clarify exactly what he does mean: was the biennial message the real Roy Medley or was it the pastoral letter?

4. Regardless of what he meant, means, or wishes he would have meant . . . Roy has another problem on his hands. Those on his left interpret the letter as cowardly and shameful. And, if he does not follow it up with actions, those on the right will interpret it as nothing more than a political G string. Either way, while he may have reassured the middle by his moderation, his seeming flip-flop will not likely endear him to either the left or the right.

So, where does that leave us? I return to the same words with which this posting began:

"Sadly, the short-sighted stands taken by those in Valley Forge seem to be pushing us towards extinction. The conservatives will not be placated. The liberals will be hurt. The post-moderns will pack their bags and walk because they have more important issues to discuss. Very little will be left."

Now that Dr. Medley has made a seemingly definitive statement, albeit at odds with his sermon last summer, it remains to be seen what actions will follow.

[His Barking Dog has had all his shots and only sounds wild and rabid. But, affected, infected, or defected, I do not profess to be confected with persons, authorities, entities, or organizations outside my own doghouse here in cyberspace.]

A Quick Organizational Behavior Audit of Reactions to Dr. Medley's Statement

In the immediate aftermath of Dr. Medley's recent courageous statement on ethics and morality, reactions were swift and predicable.

A couple of early statements from AWAB voices summed it up well:

"This is indeed a disturbing message and offers, I think, a rather important clue to where things are headed for the ABCUSA. or where a significant faction would like to see them headed . . . I think all of us on all sides of the issue, will find that the denomination will take on less and less meaning for us. There are other formal and informal alliances, associations, and fellowships that will take on larger meaning for us. In fact, this is already a reality for many of us, no matter where we are on the theological spectrum of American Baptist life . . . So as distressing as the General Secretary's message is, and its implications, all of our eggs don't any longer need to be in that one basket. We need to help shape life in that basket the best we can, but it is also time to weave another basket or two. Any Baptist basket makers out there?"

"I, too, am extremely disturbed by it, on several levels . . . I find it offensive that the tone of the letter speaks from an assumed authority to make his pronouncements--something quite contrary to the Baptist principles I adhere to . . . I am most troubled, though, by the third paragraph, where the following "issues" are lumped into one . . . There is no acceptable or understandable reason why a Christian leader, especially of the ABC, would link the concepts of sexual obsession, sexual abuse, and sexual impropriety with homosexuality. Whether intentional or not, I find this nearly unforgivable . . . I am disturbed and ashamed by this letter. I am attempting at this point to discern a more rational response than I feel right now."

Comments from the right were mixed. Some, like His Barking Dog applauded the statement as courageous and welcomed it. Others, such as Durable Data, opined that "the theo-left has nothing to fear from the Medley letter." He reasoned that "the idea is to have a letter on hand to use to shut up conservatives. Expect no implementation." The general tone of most conservatives was a very cautious "wait and see."

Those in the middle, particularly officialdom, gave strong support to the statement, citing Dr. Medley's proven record of personal probity, high level of integrity, and genuine spirituality. Dwight Stinnett, of "ABC Views from the Middle," typified this response, hailing it as "important . . . and unprecedented." He reasoned that no General Secretary has ever taken the risk to be so forthright and candid in such a way during recent memory.

The most likely immediate fallout will be the use of the statement by moderate Executive Ministers anxious to staunch the hemorrhaging in their regions. In the near term they will answer any negative questions with reference to the "clear and unambiguous" statement by the General Secretary. It would probably be a "smart" idea for EMs to feature Medley's statement in their montly/periodic newsletters going to pastors and lay leaders. In this way they could purchase the near-term quiescence of some of the pastors wondering what all of the hubbub in PSW was about and rally a cadre of lay leaders against future suggestions of withdrawal at the same time.

Mid-term, however, actions speak louder than words. The GS will need to follow up his statement in some demonstrable way lest he have wasted his efforts only to antagonize the left and further alienate the right.

[His Barking Dog disclaims any position of authority or special insider knowledge. Nearly 50 years ago my box of frosted flakes lacked the promised secret universal decoder ring. I have been paradigmatically clueless ever since.]

Pray for Missionaries in Lebanon!!!

VALLEY FORGE, PA (ABNS)—One week after violence erupted in the Middle East nation of Lebanon, International Ministries says missionaries Dan and Sarah Chetti and volunteer Jennifer Wallace are still safe. The Chettis serve at the Arab Baptist Theological Seminary in Beirut. Jennifer Wallace, from the First Baptist Church in Hamilton, Ohio, is currently a volunteer at the seminary. At this time, the Chettis have chosen to remain and minister with our partner in Lebanon.

IM’s area director for Europe and the Middle East, Rev. Reid Trulson, is urging American Baptists to be in prayer for our personnel, the students, and staff of the seminary as well as the people of Lebanon and Israel. Since the conflict broke out a week ago, over 300 persons have been killed, the vast majority in Lebanon, as well as an estimated 500,000 persons displaced. Trulson is in regular contact with IM's missionaries in the region by email, the most effective means of communication presently.

According to media reports, fighters from Hezbollah, an Islamicist militia, launched a morning assault into Israel, Wednesday, July 12, killing six Israeli soldiers, and kidnapping several others. At the time, Hezbollah hoped to swap the Israeli soldiers for the several hundred Hezbollah fighters now in Israeli prisons. In response, Israel sent armored forces into southern Lebanon for the first time in six years, and it bombed the runways at Rafik Hariri International Airport in Beirut, shutting down the facility. Israeli naval ships have been blockading Lebanon's ports, to prevent Hezbollah from receiving weapons shipments, and bombing of sites in Southern Beirut, Southern Lebanon and other parts of the country

In a public statement, Rev. Nabil Costa said more than 700 displaced Lebanese are staying at the Beirut Baptist School, while others have taken refuge at the seminary. Costa is a Baptist leader, and he is head of the Lebanese Society for Educational and Social Development.

After Dr. Medley's Statement Is It Time to "Talk Turkey" with Our Siblings on the Left?

Yesterday Dr. Medley issued a courageous and controversial statement endorsing the ’92 ABC resolution on human sexuality and affirming that marriage is rightly between only a man and a woman. This was met with astonishment and concurrence by many on the right and by no small measure of dismay by the left.

The fallout from the left was swift and severe. While some maintained a posture of polite disagreement, others registered shock and anger. One person reacted to Dr. Medley's letter by saying she was "extremely disturbed by it, on several levels . . . I find it offensive." The same person concluded: "There is no acceptable or understandable reason why a Christian leader, especially of the ABC, would link the concepts of sexual obsession, sexual abuse, and sexual impropriety with homosexuality. Whether intentional or not, I find this nearly unforgivable."

The statement by the General Secretary signals a critical point in the life of the denomination practically begging for analysis. What should we say in response to Dr. Medley’s letter?

First, charges that the battle within the denomination pits the “liberals” vs. the “fundamentalists” casts the dispute in perversely ahistorical ways. Where are the “fundamentalists” in the ABC? Point to a Fred Phelps or a Bob Jones in our ranks! One of the marks of 20th century fundamentalism most odious to mainline (and evangelical) sensibilities was the doctrine of separation, particularly secondary and tertiary separation. Not only must Christians separate from direct fellowship with those believed to hold to heresies (often little more than minor differences in eschatological schema, subtle distinctions in one’s view of Bible translation, petty variations in social mores), but even from contact with those in fellowship with people holding such views. By this understanding, Billy Graham was often stigmatized by fundamentalists as an unworthy compromiser. Almost by definition, anyone still in the ABC would be a very bad example of a fundamentalist.

Second, Dr. Medley has often said that we have very few “liberals” in the ABC. We are a very centrist denomination, he opines. A chorus of critics of my recent blogs have argued that the actual number of truly “liberal” people in the ABC is really quite small. In fact, one author accused me of cherry picking possibly the most liberal pastor in the entire denomination (and then a pastor ordained by the UCC and leading a federated ABC/UCC congregation at that) for a couple of my recent blogs of last week.

So, where does that leave us? If there are by now no (or few) true fundamentalists left in the ABC, how do the conservatives respond to Dr. Medley’s statement? With enthusiasm and support, naturally. What about the response of those in the "center"? They approve of it as well. So, who is there left to object to it? Those remaining would be the ones who by the estimation of most Valley Forge staff, bloggers, and “loyal American Baptists” are a VERY small number of fringe persons.

Well then, why should the ABC fracture and split into 5,800 pieces over the actions of so few a number? If the conservatives are content with Roy’s statement and the moderates support it, who is left? Yesterday some of the chatter on the AWAB site spoke of not putting all of our “eggs in one basket” in terms of affiliation. The context raised the specter of the denomination becoming less and less significant while other affiliations (e.g., Alliance of Baptists, Baptists without Borders, etc.???) become correspondingly more meaningful.

If the far left represents such a small number of persons who are already considering alternative alliances, might this piece of information be crucial at this difficult time? Would it not be an appropriate time for some high level delegation to sit down with leaders of these supposedly very small groups on the left in order to negotiate an amicable separation from the ABC for the “good of the family”? Or, one might simply wait for September and follow the basic contours of the “Lancaster” proposal (aka “Common Table”)?

These are propitious moments that may be claimed by leadership to avoid further fracturing and splintering of the "family."

[His Barking Dog professes no connection to any person, authority, or organization other than me and my own opinions.]

ABC General Secretary Issues Strong Statement on Moral Integrity and Sexual Ethics

The following statement, dated July 17, was issued by the Office of the General Secretary of the ABCUSA. It is worthy of note by all ABC members and watchers:

Dear American Baptist:

The following call is being issued as a continuing part of our implementation of policies adopted by the General Board. I call it to your prayerful attention.

A Call for American Baptists to Live Lives of High Moral and Ethical Responsibility

I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called… (Ephesians 4:1)

A life centered in Christ makes Christ the model and is worthy of replication (Philippians 3:10). There are many dimensions to the Christ-centered life including—but not limited to—integrity, stewardship, compassion, spiritual practices, and sexual discipline (Ephesians 6:13). In various times and ways American Baptists have spoken to these aspects of the life of discipleship.

While not the most important discipleship issue in the New Testament, nor our highest priority of ministry lest we focus on one set of sins above others that afflict us such as racism, greed, sexism and gluttony, nonetheless, sexual concerns increasingly dominate our attention (Romans 1:28). We live in a culture obsessed with sex. We see evidence of sexual abuse every day. We are stunned at the reports of sexual impropriety by persons in caring professions (1 Corinthians 6:18). Many persons have been victims of these abuses. The result is an environment of deep suspicion regarding the sexual integrity of persons in authority. In this context, the matter of homosexual practices continues to divide American Baptists.

The official position of American Baptist Churches USA is that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching” and that marriage is intended to be “between a woman and a man” (Ephesians 5:31).

This is my personal belief, as the General Secretary of ABCUSA, but more so, it is my responsibility to uphold this as the official position of the General Board of ABCUSA. This has been implemented in the admission of official exhibitors at the ABCUSA Biennial, chaplain endorsements, and in the staffing practices of the staff accountable to me.

Not only do I strive to live a life centered in Christ with moral integrity, I expect the same from my staff, and I call upon all American Baptists to live exemplary lives of the highest ethical responsibility in all matters, including matters of sexuality.

Further, I call upon all American Baptists to practice Christ-like compassion (Colossians 3:12) and care for all of God’s people in our families, our communities, and our churches. The redeeming love of Jesus Christ must be extended to all persons, and there is no place for hate, violence, or injustice (Philippians 4:8).

Finally, I call upon all American Baptists to practice a life of prayer, purpose (Philippians 1:21) and passion (Philippians 3:13) in our lives together. We must pray with and for one another, share our purpose in Christ, and practice passionate care and regard for one another. In this way we bear witness to Jesus Christ (Philippians 2:1-11).

Yours in Christ,
Rev. Dr. A. Roy Medley
General Secretary

WOW! Well said, Dr. Medley, well said!

Lingering Fears, Questions, and Doubts in the Middle of the Night

OK, so I'm a recovering fretter and worrier. I'll cop to my tendency to do better with analysis than constructive action. So it should not be a surprise that my region's transition from ABCPSW to Transformation Ministries leaves me with more than a few unanswered questions and anxious moments. Yes, my pen spilled more than its share of ink arguing against the revisionist view of soul liberty within the denominational leadership (especially as evident in the REMC, OGS, and--therefore in the--GEC). My congregation sent me as a delegate to Pomona to cast a vote for withdrawal from the ABCUSA. Still, questions and concerns abound.

* Why has the flow of information been so slow to get to the grassroots? It is almost as if Covina operated on a need-to-know basis rather than flooding the churches with information. I must say that Dr. Salico did an excellent job of providing quick FAQ's responses and posting them on the regional web site. And, his regional tour was amazing in terms of the numbers of venues where he appeared to present the region’s position and to field questions. Getting the information to the congregations, however, proceeded at a much slower pace.

* Despite the role of the vision team in developing a regional vision, the actions of the board in affirming it, and the indefatigable efforts of the good and Godly Dr. Salico in interpreting it, where is the role of the "folks" in this "Baptist" movement? Sometimes it feels as if the model of self-perpetuating boards of mega-churches has been adopted uncritically as the controlling one for our region's latest movements. Yes, the board did take the unprecedented step of holding a plebiscite in Pomona with several more in remote locations. Still, the "feel" is more top-down than representative.

* Do the pastors who were so quick to condemn heresy within the ABCUSA have an equal commitment to promoting a positive vision for ministry in the new Transformation Ministries? For decades we have been focused on what is "wrong" with the ABCUSA. Now we are soon to be free of “them” (as of November 1, anyhow). But, do we have a similar degree of energy for the arduous task of building a new and effective network, one that will meet the organizational needs of the 21st century? Or, as some of our critics have predicted, will we simply fly off in as many directions as there are people? Or, even more frightening, will we merely fall into internal fights and feuds among ourselves?

Conservatives have the reputation for being fractious beyond all reason. Will we find that sans the common enemy of "Valley Forge," we have little in common to bind us together? This becomes more worrisome given the post-denominational nature of our present church experience. Some of our larger churches boycotted the Pomona plebiscite, not out of disagreement with the regional direction, but more due to a casual indifference to finding relevance in anything “denominational.” It may be that some of the churches were willing to continue a tenuous and largely symbolic connection to the ABC rather than expend the energy to pull away from it. But will congregations bother to go out of their way to create new ties with the Transformation Ministries, particularly if it involves the expenditure of precious time and energy? Or, will a significant number of them just drift away from both the ABCUSA and the region?

I have great faith in the character and ability of Dr. Dale Salico and his staff. My questions and doubts can be explained in part by my fretting personality. But, beyond this, my fears are directed toward the post-denominational nature of our current church reality. George Barna has been predicting the end of many institutional churches, to be replaced with house churches. Will we see a new region emerge with vigor and vitality out of the old PSW or merely a passing away of a structure now deemed strangely out of touch with the times? Dr. Salico and his team of vision architects (to use a term from Bill Nicoson’s endeavors), have worked on these questions for a good bit of time. My prayer is that by the grace of God they will succeed and that we will experience an unusual season of blessing from our sovereign Lord. Certainly the needs are great. May God bless his harvesters in their efforts.

[His Barking Dog chases all cars, regardless of whether they bear Valley Forge or Covina plates. My quixotic runs are entirely on my own and without official sanction from any power, authority, or organization. IMHO, despite my genuine questions about some things in Transformation Ministries, this seasoned car chaser still thinks that the people driving the cars with PSW plates seem to follow their biblical roadmaps better than those with the VF ones.]

The Scope of Our Diversity: An Example from a Recent Gay Pride Sermon

One of the prevailing mythologies controlling ABC life has to do with the belief, firmly entrenched, that we are truly a rather middle-of-the-road denomination. Surely only about 10% can be counted on the lunatic left fringe with another 10% inhabiting the reactionary right fringe we are told. The majority of us are happy to be in the middle of the muddle. I have argued against this thesis for years, utilizing both anecdotal observations and quantitative data from scientific surveys of ABC leadership.

The uniquely bold defense of abotion, posted earlier this week, was intended to demonstrate that our diversity was more significant than some will allow. The example taken was of a pastor in an historically favored and denominationally exalted congregation. That they live on the left side of the street cannot be denied; that national leadership has been quite attentive to this congregation similarly cannot be refuted. Membership on important boards, invitations to speak to the entire denomination, and participation, both regular and occasional, by national leaders betrays any attempt to relegate this church to the fringes.

Granted the pastor is new and has not had an opportunity to be invited to participate in the fuller life of the denomination . . . yet. However, the history of the congregation's relationship with officialdom, her own record of 28 published books, and her self-identification as one of the most renowned communicators of her generation of Protestant clergy militate in favor of her future acclaim in ABC circles.

Some have argued that my illustration was flawed in that the newly installed pastor holds credentials in the UCC and that the church remains aligned with both the ABC and the UCC. However, the flashpoint a few years back over a senator in the Ministers Council involved a UCC ordained clergyperson serving a federated ABC/UCC congregation. Then, that minister had risen to become the chair of the ABC regional ministers council.

Now, my example shifts to the issue so often dividing American Baptists, human sexuality. While I maintain that the deeper cause of our conflict relates to divergent visions for Christianity, not merely on the hot button of homosexuality, the words of this same pastor will prove illuminating. Honestly, folks, even after including the excerpts from the unusually candid defense of abortion at the beginning of my last posting, I was unprepared for the statements made by the same preacher in the Gay Pride Sunday Sermon on June 25, 2006, "Love and Marriage Go Together Like a Horse and Carriage"
(http://www.judson.org/sermons/schaper/06-25-06_schaper.htm).

I would encourage EVERY His Barking Dog reader to study the entire text. A more revealing statement of what "diversity" really means in the ABC could not be found. In order not to take the preacher out of context, PLEASE read the entire piece and evaluate for yourself.

When interviewing a possible candidate for a church office position, the pastor ended the interview when the gentleman said that he "had no problem" working with gays because his son was gay. The reason?

. . . We are not people who "have no trouble with that." We are people who REJOICE in "that." We are not open and accepting. Or open and tolerant. We are open and affirming. Open and rejoicing. We like GAY and queer and all the initials that describe all "that." There is a big difference in these attitudes.

How does a truly Welcoming AND Affirming congregation differ from one merely tolerating diversity? By the way, who do you think she means when she speaks of "punishmentalists"??? And, exactly how does she propose to get them out of the way?

. . . On this Gay Pride Sunday, it is important to say out loud what that difference is. We rejoice in each other. We rejoice in human sexuality that is many faceted, beyond old male and old female and old ways. We are alive in the century that is going to break open all the old stuff about sex and marriage and horse and carriage. It is going to be mostly fun - especially when we get the punishmentalists out of our way. Right now we are in a nearly ridiculous struggle as the President pushes an amendment to the US constitution to prohibit gay people from being married.

At the root of it, the issue deals with structural evil and the stupidity of the American public:

. . . While the rich get richer, the very people whose pensions are being taken away to help the rich get richer are out in the street yelling ridiculous things about one man and one woman. The success of this substitution of cultural issues for political and economic issues is frightening. It says some very disturbing things about the American people. We prefer the false issues to the real issues. We are easily duped. We do bread and circus and watch our civil liberties go down the drain and our economic security follow it - and then we rant about so-called morality.

In fact, our pastor (new to the ABC after a long ministry in the UCC), sees the deeper issue as one of misunderstood "hyper=masculinity."

. . . What is the real issue, the issue behind the screen and the feints and the fakes and the spins? I believe the sexual issues matter because we are seeing the last gasps of hyper-masculinity. We are seeing the last hacking coughs of excessive masculinity, the kind that can't be penetrated. It can only penetrate. Only be on top. The kind that needs to be in charge. The kind that needs to control. The kind that is afraid of the power of its own strength. What we are seeing is the end of an old absurd kind of masculinity - and a new one breaking in. We see the new in lesbian couples who enjoy all kinds of gender roles from tender to tough. We see the new in men who are as female as they are male, as male as they are female, in outdated terms that can only be said in the past tense.

The comparisons between power politics and sexual behavior give rise to some interesting observations on things like capitalism and racism and human sexuality.

. . . Imagine what capitalism would be without its armies and its violence. It would be like racism without the KKK. Imagine if we begin in our own bedrooms with an exchange of penetrations. You do me, I'll do you. Imagine gender equality. Imagine just how far that would take us. We go straight to Romans: the whole creation has been groaning in travail, waiting for the day when nothing can separate us from the love of God or the love we have for each other.

The pastor's position on gay relationships leads her to shock at the behavior of the conservatives:

. . . The Bible loves good sex and good love. It has absolutely no stake in hyper-masculinity . . . The Bible is a book about love and it is simply astonishing that people would DARE to use it in such balderdash, bigotry, and bamboozlement as opposing marriage because it was not between one man and one woman.

But, like any good theologian, the pastor grounds her theology of sexuality in even more basic constructs like Christology:

. . . The second you really look at Jesus you see that he is gay, at least at the level of gender roles, if not behavior. No, I am not saying Jesus is Gay. But today, if he walked our streets, you bet we would wonder. He had no interest in masculine violence or aggressiveness. He is downright "girly." He used non-violence in a non-masculine way. He was beyond open to affirming of another way of being a man.

Taking a radical "Jesus view" will allow us to avoid the pitfall of making more of marriage than we ought to do:

. . . Let us please not make marriage more than it needs to be. Remember just how ridiculous an institution it has almost always been, what Amelia Earhart called an attractive cage, what Charlotte Perkins Gilman called a high priced insurance policy for women.

The trajectory of our reformation in social views will move to a whole new image of human sexuality.

. . . What this whole gay thing is about is, finally, gayness. The old kind. It is about restoring joy to love. It is about restoring marriage to love. It is also about an end to violence and its props and the beginning of an interpenetration and communion of men and men, women and women, women and men. It is about truly understanding the scriptures when they say, "the whole creation has been groaning until now." Waiting for the time when NOTHING can separate us from the love of God or from each other. Instead of responding, "I have no trouble with that, " the proper response is WOW.

For years the badge of identity in the ABC has been "diversity." Worn proudly in the biennials where one could always find those with rainbow colored ribbons and a few with American Baptist Evangelicals shirts, we have exalted in our commonality as the people who were proud that they could believe just about anything and still call themselves "Baptist."

But does this kind of "diversity" speak well of the organization? When the Apostle Paul rebuked the Corinthian church, you can be sure that party spirit and divisiveness was at the top of his list. And, those of us on the right must read carefully the Pauline dicta regarding destroying God's temple, the Church.

But, we must also remember his stinging condemnation of the spirit of those, so proud of their open-mindedness that they could not see moral issues clearly enough to speak definitively about them. Against those proud of themselves for tolerating an immoral sexual lifestyle, he railed: "And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you" (1 Cor 5:2).

When we ask churches for money for our national and international ministries, we sound like the denomination of "We Are American Baptists," a rather Christ-centered, Bible-centered denomination. That is the denomination Dr. Medley proclaims us to be. However, when we assemble in committees, boards, and upper echelon gatherings at the national level, sometimes we more resemble some of the more extreme views of the preacher cited in this post.

[His Barking Dog should not be confused with an official voice, person, or organization. My barks are strictly personal, in between gnawing at my own fleas.]

It is NOT About How Many Mommies Sally Has!

When those of us on the right complain about the problems we have with the Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists, response from denominational leadership is often swift and loud. “You are making a mountain out of a mole-hill” would be about the mildest rebuke directed at us. “Surely the Christian faith is about more than homosexuality,” we are told.

Throughout the debates raging within ABC circles, many of us have protested that human sexuality stands as a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. Our view of biblical authority and of Christology come closer to the nub of the matter than questions about whether Sally has “two mommies.”

Now a friend has forwarded to me an article written by the pastor of an American Baptist Church that makes my point for me. Although the congregation proudly identifies itself with the Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists, one should note that this is no marginal church out on the fringes. For decades, the congregation has been favored by ABC leadership, often being the place of worship by some of our top denominational officials. For years it has had the kind of leadership that gets honored by the ABC, chosen to serve on the most prestigious boards and committees of the denomination, and invited to speak at special events.

The current pastor identifies her ministry as being “in an epic life-long battle with the ordinary church. We are a religious alternative in a world where most religious institutions have debased themselves by ignoring the erotic, the intoxicating, the profane, and the muddy . . . The battle is epic. We are both winners and losers. We play the game in a situation of constant epic rivalry with organized religion. http://www.judson.org/sermons/schaper/04-30-06_schaper.htm

What caught my attention, however, was an unusual defense of abortion written by the senior pastor, a “58-year-old white woman.” She reveals that after giving birth to three children she “had an abortion nineteen years ago.” This she describes as “not bragging nor . . . apologizing . . . I am a mother of three children in their twenties and I am an ordained Christian minister.”

As she recounts her own pilgrimage and process of decision making, she says: “When I got pregnant with the child I call ‘Alma,’ which means soul, I did not feel prepared or ready for a fourth child. I chose, with some searching, to exercise my constitutional right to choose to end her birth.

"Why do I tell my story now? Because I fear that abortion rights may become even more restricted than they already are. I also find the very intimidation that I experience in telling my story to be the reason I must speak. Why would I be afraid? Because pro-life people like to punish others. Plus my editor warned me to expect a lot of heat. Should that fear replace free speech? I think not.”

One would not be surprised to find a baby boomer reporting on a past abortion. What causes the raised eyebrow, however, is her explanation of it.

“I did what was right for me, for my family, for my work, for my husband, and for my three children. I happen to agree that abortion is a form of murder. I think the quarrel about when life begins is disrespectful to the fetus. I know I murdered the life within me. I could have loved that life but chose not to. I did what I think men do all the time when they take us to war: they choose violence because, while they believe it is bad, it is still better than the alternatives. The Just War theory assumes that human beings get caught in terrible choices all the time. This freedom is not just for men; it is for women also.”

Admitting that the “decision” was not an easy one, indeed it was fraught with prayer, self-examination, and no small measure of anguish; she nonetheless concludes so matter of factly: “I made a choice. Adults make choices.”

You see, in the mind of this senior minister of one of our premiere ABC congregations (albeit a federated ABC/UCC one where the current clergyperson was originally ordained UCC), the abortion battle does not revolve around unborn babies at all. “Instead, it is about women and sex and about women and maturity. We are considered babies, sub-adults, in need of supervision over our sexuality. Otherwise we are dangerous. We are the virgin or the whore.”

Rather, regarding an act seemingly affirming her existential reality, she opines that, “When I made my choice to end Alma's life, I was behaving as an adult. I did not shrink from the responsibility of making a choice. I did not ask someone else to make it for me. And I certainly did not request the government's help in my bedroom. Instead I behaved as an adult who is also a sexual being. Things happen sexually between people that are not always controllable.”

While she admits to having named and wept for the life taken, she allows that while she “wanted her” she knew she “did not want her enough.”

The Rev. Dr. will concede that her choice to have unprotected sex was “adolescent, immature," and even “stupid.” But she hears in the debates over “killing our babies . . . the echo of people wanting to kill women's maturity and sexuality. I don't like it. That's why I am breaking my silence about who I am. I am a 58-year-old, sexual, mature woman. That's who I am. I had an abortion. I am not bragging and I am not apologizing.”
http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/tik0607/schaper/base_view

How does one respond to an argument like that? Coming from “one of the most widely published women ministers in the country, especially within the mainline church” (her bio on her web site), and the senior minister of one of our leading AWAB congregations in the ABC, it raises more than eyebrows.

Those of us who have been saying that our battle is not really about Sally’s two mommies but about biblical authority, may want to point to the theological trajectory, logic, and line of argument crafted by this “author of twenty-eight” published books.

The affirmation of homosexuality, while an important issue for most traditional Christians, does not come close to being the basic cause of our discomfort with the left. Our fussing and feuding over this one controversy has made it appear that evangelicals have no compassion for hurting gay people or that we are only too happy to talk about them rather than to them.

At the root of it, however, traditionalists hold to a two thousand year Christian tradition and the embrace of a number of key doctrinal verities. We confess that the fulfillment of our humanity comes in yielding our selves up to God, in recognizing that our lives are not our own. Indeed, we have been bought with a price. We are called to honor God with our bodies, not to declare ourselves autonomous lord’s over “our” choices.

The issue dividing us in the ABC cannot be reduced to “soul liberty” or explained as a simple tolerance for diversity of interpretation. We are proclaiming fundamentally different visions of Christianity.

The sincerity of the differences between the left and the right can hardly be doubted. Some of my favorite American Baptists disagree with me on any host of issues like these. My genuine affection for them is real. My conviction remains that they are acting in accord with what they believe to be the highest standards of Christian teaching as they see it. They deserve to be treated with respect. However, these are not insignificant differences!!! Again, what is at stake has to do with an entirely different vision of the essence and meaning of the Christian faith and cannot be easily accommodated within one big tent.

[His Barking Dog isn't smart enough to comprehend the finer points of theological discourse; that's why I choose to stand with teachings held for two millennia rather than make it up as we go along. My observations, however, reflect my own opinions and do not necessarily belong to any persons, authorities, entities, or organizations. My lone barkings are simply solo.]