a ridiculous scandal: here
It seems like that's what it takes to generate discussion on any given subject matter these days. I for one am glad that we aren't there. I've enjoyed hearing that there were more discussions and questions than there were rants at the Mid-Winter Ministerial. Look here and here to see what some who were there saw, heard, and said. I also am pleased to hear (and hear of) pastors discuss the proposed revisions with their congregrants. If Apple Valley was too far of a drive or too costly to fly to, try your best to make it to your up-coming district conference (go here to get info about your district and when it is meeting to discuss the proposal and other issues). It's my understanding that the writers of the proposed revision are making an effort to go out to these gatherings, so don't miss out on this opportunity (and make it worth their efforts by going yourself).
posted by Sean Dennis at 5:31 PM
5 Comments:
I didn't mention the "political" side of things on my blog. How unfiying can it be to propose changes to the SOF that already have entire districts in an uproar? One or two of our anti-premillennial colleagues copped a superior attitude toward me, and I'm suspicious that some of what's driving this is an attitude of "I'm an enlightened Neo-Puritan now, I've grown beyond that childish, absurd, simple-minded dispensationalism I was raised in, it's time to throw aside pre-millennialism as a ridiculous remnant of our contemptible Chaferian past." I made a comment at the mic about amillennialism presupposing a doctrinal stand ("All of Israel's old promises are now exclusively fulfilled in and by the Church") and then making the texts say whatever they need to say in order to conform. As I sat down, a fellow behind me leaned forward and hissed, "Dispensationalists do that, too!" I replied, "Then they're both wrong, aren't they??"
"How unifying can it be to propose changes to the SOF that already has entire districts in an uproar?"
Jack, that's a pretty serious statement. When you say "entire districts" a couple of questions come to mind:
1. what districts?
2. what aspect of the districts are in an uproar (pastors, elders, laymen, all of the above)?
3. is there a specific issue (such as premillennialism) that is causing the uproar or is it a number of issues?
4. what's being done about this uproar?
I think all I should say is that, as a result of attending the conference, I learned more about how the revised SOF is playing across in other parts of the EFCA country.
Certainly there is a group that is moderately-to-strongly approving of it, so it wasn't like there was universal disapproval.
But one brother's complaints to the Committee about their dropping Premillennialism actually set off a loud, substantial round of applause at one point. That surprised me.
I was told that there is a district in which an extremely high percentage of the pastors have expressed disapproval of the current revision -- though of course that doesn't mean they couldn't change their minds over the next two years, in response to a re-re-revised version. I'm aware of a few DSes who strongly dislike the new SOF (either because they said so at the mics, or because the DSes themselves told me so).
I think the only reason I heard these various factoids was because I spoke at the mic several times, and ended up becoming known to the group as a result; my debut moment with the national EFCA, I suppose. Men started to excitedly talk to me in the aisles, or between sessions, and tell me their thoughts and feelings, because I had inadvertantly expressed their own thoughts, feelings, questions, or whatever, thru the things I said at the mic. Again, I was surprised by the large number of guys who came up and shook my hand. I also appreciated the earnest brother who sought me out to talk about something with which he disagreed.
I also know that some of the stuff I was told could just wishful thinking by the person talking to me, or just be rumors that I knew I should listen to with a grain of salt. I also know that people who love the revised SOF probably weren't likely to come rushing up to me, since I was moderately critical of it.
Believe or not, I really was moderate in my tone, and made a point of praising it at certain points!
You're welcome to give me a ring.
In any event, I should underscore that almost anything I heard, or was told by others whether pro or con, all happened in the context of public meetings or public fellowship (like lunchtime fellowship), in front of others. I figure it's OK to say I heard that a district super is upset, or that certain districts are roiled, if I heard it from the DS say it at a mic, or someone credible said it in front of a crowd of people as we all ate lunch together in the big room.
Jack,
Thank you for your last comment. This is a very public forum and in order to maintain our own integrity and to preserve the integrity of others, it's important that we don't operate on the basis of hearsay.
In my own experience I have seen a mixed bag of reactions. Almost all who disagree with the revision on substantial matters concede that there are things that they like about it. On the other hand, those who want to adopt it seem to concede that there are points that could be stronger (or even less wordy) but like it and want it.
Post a Comment
<< Home