You probably read these on Jim West’s blog, but I hate “wasting” long comments, so, another double post.
Inviting “regenerate” event speakers: Hmm. You think the unregenerate are going to think “Why go to an SBC church? They don’t care for me anyway. Or for how I part my hair. It’s all a bunch of regenerates.”
Christian Flag as symbol or whatever: Ummm. Do these guys know their Baptist history? Probably not before 1845. All too many not before the 1950s, the Golden Age. (Yes, it says a lot about the SBC that the 50s are the Golden Age.)
KJV is 400: You know, SBCers look backwards enough already, I’d say. Besides, who isn’t going to note the KJV birthday? Do we need to jump on that bandwagon?
Exclude any bible which“Questions the validity of any Scripture”: Have these guys studied textual criticism? They still teach it in seminaries, don’t they? Actually, with the de-emphasis in original languages, maybe not. Do I need add, “Whose Scripture”? I didn’t think so, so I did anyway.
“Remove Mark Driscoll from Lifeway”: I dunno. You start this trend it’s going to be a very bare bunch of stores. Not only because there is a lot of junk in Lifeways, but also because SBCers are so picky (see, hair, the parting of).
Obama and Israel: Uhm. Guys? He’s not an SBCer. Further, the SBC is probably as far from his core constituency as a politican as you can get. Sure SBCers voted for him, but do you think as a group they have any interest to him? (I wanted to vote for that heretic, Mitt Romney, truthfully. But then I also believe in separation of church and state, and that the church and the world will never meet, so to speak.In fact, the more they approach meeting, the more worried about the church I get.)
Refute World ending in 2011 (or is it 2012? Or next Thursday?): Do we want to encourage these people by paying attention to them?
Ranks, the shrinking of: Actually, we SBCers played numbers games with the “non-resident” and “Inactive” membership categories. If you’re not attending regularly, you shouldn’t be counted. Period. And anyway, isn’t it traditional and logical, given our notions of the world, that the non-member attendees of a church should be a large percentage of the attendees? In olden days, you had the Interested, the Catechecists, and the Faithful. I think you still should, so to speak. Of course, in olden days, there weren’t churches on every street corner, and every non-member didn’t presume to know more about the church than the members, either. “Familiarity” breeds indifference.
I don’t attend the SBC meeting because no church in their right mind would send me, and I have a job, for bills, the paying of. My store doesn’t send me to shareholders’ meetings for the same “right minded” reason.