Is There a Middle Ground?

May 31st, 2007 | Posted in » Baptist Issues

I haven’t written much on the issues swirling amongst Baptists recently… primarily because life is just busy, but also because I really haven’t known what to say. I’m immensely frustrated with things both on a national and state level, and I’m not one to just rant and rave on the blog, even when I sometimes need to vent. I guess I tend to buy into the adage that if you don’t have something nice (or maybe more specifically, productive) to say, not to say it at all.

With the frustration I’ve had in mind, I write this post, and ask the question… is there a middle ground?

The background that drives my frustration? In a nutshell… it’s the lack of unity and prevalence of discord.

On the national level, there’s the large-scale debate regarding private prayer language / tongues, and to a lesser extent, baptismal requirements. IMB / NAMB guidelines essentially recommend that if you practice tongues of any sort… you can’t serve. A proposed resolution by Robin Foster, while well intended in its desire to settle the matter by determining the “will of the convention” through its messengers, seems to widen the divide more… if it passes, the convention has essentially provided direction that it doesn’t want SBC employees who practice private prayer language / tongues. Similar issues surround the baptismal requirements issue… with the IMB guidelines, even if your baptism has been accepted by the SBC church in which you’re a member, if it doesn’t meet the “proper” standards and you refuse to be re-baptized… you’re not qualified to serve. I’m sure there are other matters of conflict I haven’t touched upon.

On the state level, at least here in Missouri… we’ve got a mess. There’s the huge blow-up about a community connection ministry of the Journey church in regard to alcohol… there’s the aftermath of the Project 1000 movement… we’ve kicked out churches due to single-alignment… we’ve got a new “Save Our Convention” movement which some see as a threat to fracture the convention irrepairably (note, I’m not sure what to think it at this point, except to say that we’re already pretty messed up)… there’s a flap over the role of our state Baptist newspaper, the Pathway.

You get the picture? In general, there’s just a lot of tension between Baptists with conflicting ideas about our direction.

So here’s what I see happening behind all this. To me, there appears to be two general “sides” involved in these disputes… conservative Baptists who see very few doctrinal matters as tertiary… and conservative Baptists who see several doctrinal matters as tertiary. At root is the question, “what are tertiary doctrinal matters… and can we cooperate on those?” Both sides answer yes to the latter question… but the former is where disagreement begins (and seemingly never ends). The end result? We’ve got both sides desiring doctrinal purity… but strong tension over what matters we can agree to disagree on. Hence, conflict over private prayer language / tongues… conflict over alcohol, moderation vs. abstinence… conflict over baptismal requirements… the list goes on and on.

So I ask… is there a middle ground? Do we have irreconcilable differences?

To make it clear what I’m getting at, I’ll provide an example… prayer language / tongues. In that debate, one side holds to the belief that the modern practice of tongues / prayer language is not Biblical. The other side holds to the viewpoint that there is not enough clear Biblical evidence to support a complete cessationist position. The “cessationist” side (I use the term loosely, because I realize not everyone on that side holds to a complete cessationist position) refuses to endorse those who, in their viewpoint, participate in an unbiblical practice, in positions of leadership or service in the convention. The “continuationalist” side (again, the term is used loosely) are frustrated because the “cessationist” side seems to desire to exclude people for (what “continuationalists” see as) baseless reasons.

How do we overcome this stalemate? Is there middle ground, or will it be necessary for one side (or both) to give a bit? What will it take to see unity?

I certainly don’t have all the answers, but I’m thinking a big part involves Baptists putting to death pride.