First Things First
The tagline for 28 Days Later is “the days are numbered.” Twenty-eight days remain until the Midwinter Ministerial Conference, which is plenty of time to articulate what we think about church polity in the New Testament (I’m sold on congregationalism and I’ll be making a case for it), the millennium (I’ll be taking historic pre-mill to the bank – many thanks to Doug Moo), and the other issues brought up in the Revision, but I for one think that there are still issues that need to be addressed regarding the “Preamble” to the Revision. So if everyone can just hold on for another day or two, let’s talk some more about the goals and ideas of the Committee on Safeguarding the Spiritual Heritage (you’ll note that I said “the Spiritual Heritage” not “our Spiritual Heritage” that’s because the By-Laws use the definite article).
First, I stand by what I said earlier: it is the responsibility of the church, not an office or committee, to frame the debate, but since we know what is on their minds we might as well let them know what is on our minds. It is easy to agree with the Committee on a number of issues:
1. Evangelical bodies “without a written creed are experiencing difficulty establishing and enforcing appropriate boundaries for belief and behavior.”
2. Periodic review of the Statement of Faith is important because “Scripture alone is our final authority” and if the Statement of Faith is to be a guiding document then its language should be updated to reflect contemporary vocabulary.
3. Times are changing and there are new issues that need to be addressed. Certainly “the reality of the spiritual battle, open theology, postmodernism, and even our mission to all people” are significant issues.
A quick reading of the Preamble will reveal that I don’t agree with the Committee on all of their reasons (hint: they listed five). Before I jump into how I disagree and why, I want to know what you think. Do you agree with all of their reasons? Do you agree with the reasons that I listed above? And here’s the part of every exam that I always hated: why or why not?
2 Comments:
I hope and pray your graphic (28 Days) is all in good humor & not indicative of spoiling for a fight...
Yes Kerry, it's supposed to be in good humor, and was only put there as a reference to the fact that the meeting is in 28 days (I guess I could have used that really lame movie by Sandra Bullock). In light of a possible misinterpretation, I will take the picture down.
Post a Comment
<< Home