I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?
When I look at this passage I can't help but wonder what we're doing. Maybe I'm an idealistic dreamer, but I greatly desire for the Church to work together and to be of one mind. Obviously, we're going to disagree on doctrinal issues and things of the like, but why can't we work together for the cause of the gospel?
Recently, I read an article in the Baptist Standard discussing a movement led by Jimmy Carter that would unite 40 Baptist denominations in the U.S. and Canada "behind an agenda of compassionate ministry." But, the article reads, "Southern Baptist officials harshly rejected Jimmy Carter’s effort to unite all Baptists in North America under a compassion agenda, calling the ambitious plan “voodoo ecumenism” and a thinly veiled Democratic strategy to woo values voters (if you click on the link, you can read the article)."
I look at Baptisdom in the U.S. today, and I wonder what Paul would have said. At the very least, he wouldn't be happy with us. If you ask me, he may have said something like this:
I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.... I have been informed that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: some of you say, "I will not tolerate anything but a belief in inerrancy of scripture!" others say, "We must have women in ministry!" others say, "I cannot work with you fundamentalists!" and others say, "I cannot work with you liberals!"
But is Christ divided? Were you baptized into name of the SBC? What about the CBF? OF COURSE NOT!! You were baptized into the name of Christ! For goodness sake - stop badmouthing each other and work together! Stop labeling each other and become united in the love of Christ!...
Am I totally off base here? Am I dreaming? It seems to me that the one movement that could become a uniting effort (the one spoken of in the article) may actually further the divide. I'm not going to say who's fault it is on this issue; one, because it doesn't matter, and two, because fault lies on both sides of the fence.
One last beef: why in the world would someone call a uniting effort of baptists 'voodoo ecumenism?' What does that even mean? How could you so blatantly question another Christian's motives - especially when they are trying to unite people? For heaven's sake, they're not even trying to unite baptists with other denominations. This is hardly true ecumenism. They're just trying to get baptists to work together, a task that is becoming more and more difficult by the year because of statements like 'voodoo ecumenism.'
and i struggle...
why, oh, why am I a baptist?
3 comments:
Come on man, when the other guy trying the make this happen is Bill Clinton... you have to be a little concerned... there is judgement and then there is discernment and the words "ministry" and "Bill Clinton" together have to rate pretty high on the scary scale when discerning whether something is worth being involved in. And if "voodoo Ecumenism" is hard or put your mind around, what exactly is an "agenda of compassionate ministry" from what I understand of this effort at least at this point, it's just a "summit" where Carter and Clinton are going to speak. What exactly is the compassionate ministry we are talking about. If we are going to work on a Habitat for Humanity House together count we in, if you want me to sit and listen to people who clearly don't believe the same things I do, (even if they are non-essentials), tell me that I am wrong and imply they are right, then I'll politely pass. I wish we could find more common ground, I do. I wish we could stop bickering and work togther, but I want the empasis to be on work. I don't think it's wrong to say no to an opportunity such as this any more than it is wrong to choose a camp over another, (couldn't we all just go to the same one) or a conference to attend over another (wouldn't it be great if we all came together)- some things fit better into our ministries than other, some things offer us what we need where we are, others might still be good, but just not what we need at the time... right now I'm not bothered by turning down this event. It doesn't seem to me to be the right time.
I know, I'm becoming conservative voice here, some might even say fundamentalist voice, but I hope it's just food for thought and continues the conversation. Hicks...
I agree with Marc on this one. Maybe it's just because I am not well informed, or maybe it's because I am somewhat of an idealistic, pie-in-the-sky dreamer as well...or maybe I tend to want radical change that unites like the change proposed in this post. Is uniting all Baptists really that difficult? What if we just simply focused on getting along and being united for Christ and not ourselves. i find myself being caught up in this problem as well, with the disagreements I have with the SBC. Maybe I should become more worried about being united with other Baptists for the cause of Christ than arguing over different practices and doctorines.
I probably didn't communicate my thoughts on this as well as I could have, and I'll be the first to admit that I don't know much about this particular movement. And I'm not necessarily saying that this is THE movement that we should put all the marbles on. My understanding of Bill Clinton's involvement on this is that he's basically a cheerleader for the effort, and I can see how a conservative would be hesitant in jumping on board because of its 'liberal' leadership. I guess my real beef with what's going on here is the fact that among many of those who disagree with this particular effort, too many are completely bashing it. It's unnecessary and uncalled for. If you don't want to be involved that's one thing (and not even a bad thing). But it's another thing to use words and phrases like 'voodoo ecumenism.' It's ridiculous.
But I do agree with you (Hicks) that it's probably not the right time for a massive coming together movement. There's too much bad blood right now, and the baptist split is too fresh in people's minds. On an idealistic level, I want us as baptists (and this is so cliche) to work together. But on a more practical level, I just wish we didn't have to bash each other over every little thing because it's getting to the point where the Church as a whole - especially the baptist church - is suffering greatly.
Post a Comment