Thoughts on Theological Disagreement from a "Young Leader"
In the book Why I Am A Baptist, coeditor Russell D. Moore contributed the concluding essay entitled "Baptist After All: Resergent Conservatives Face the Future". Moore writes:
Baptist confessionalism is not a political movement. Still, if we bear the responsibility for carrying Baptist identity into a new century, we must recognize that we face a similar quandary. During the inerrancy controversy, conservatives could see easily how necessary it was for us to coalesce common commitment to biblical authority and confessional fidelity. As the Baptist left isolates itself further from denominational life, conservatives must avoid organizing ourselves into narrowly defined special interest groups of competing theological emphases.
There will be complete doctrinal unanimity among Baptist conservatives, but it will not be achieved until the millennial reign of Christ. Until then, we may never even agree on where it there will be such a millennial reign. On the foundational doctrines we must stand united and constantly work for even greater doctrinal consensus. But, contrary to the spin control of our critics, confessionalism does not mean lockstep groupthink. My coeditor and I understand differently what the Bible teaches about the relationship between Israel and the church, about the appropriate method of public invitation, and about various other second-order issues. We differ on these things, however, in the unity of a common submission to a larger framework of biblical truth.The statements that seem most apropos at this juncture are Moore's comments about avoiding narrow factious groups and how confessionalism does not mean lockstep groupthink. His writing/editing relationship with the coeditor, Tom Nettles, demonstrates that cooperation can occur among Baptists of differing beliefs.
Not so, though, among the IMB trustees.
posted by Jason Sampler at 10:13 PM