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 Medley delivered this sermon at the biennial, PSW might not have withdrawn (a point I also made in earlier postings).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.]