Table of Contents | If you have been utterly scandalized across the years by the absolutely incredible nonsense that has been expressed by some Baptists trying to speak for all Baptists then you just may want to dialogue about how to let the public know that Baptists are a diverse people, with a particular history and a rich variety of views. In fact, when two Baptists get together, there are usually, at least, three opinions! I don't know about you but Jerry Falwell, the pastor of the Thomas Road Baptist Church, Lynchburg, Virginia, Pat Robertson, host of the 700 Club and owner of many other enterprises, and the televangelists who insisted that people should pray for God to eliminate some members of the Supreme Court didn't represent me then and don't now in any conceivable way! They wanted God to shorten the life span of some of the justices. That's not prayer. That is pure and unadulterated arrogance and incredible "religion" posturing in the garb of piety. I sure couldn't even agree with them about which ones I would prefer to replace on the bench. Robertson even had the gall to claim that God picked George Bush for a second term. Here is what he said on the 700 Club, "I think George Bush is going to win in a walk. I really believe I'm hearing from the Lord. It's going to be like a blowout election...." Although I am committed to a vision of God as accessible, I wonder if God ever gets disgusted with such blatant partisanship and self-righteousness. Genesis 6:5-7 suggests that God does! I am pleased, yes, even delighted, that the court recognized that the right to privacy is rooted in the Constitution and, therefore, a right of all citizens.That's what Robertson wants to change. Yet, God loves Falwell and Robertson but I am not God! The truth is that this isn't the first time that someone has tried to co-opt the Baptist name for some self-serving ends. On one occasion, Falwell's colleague, Pat Robertson, wanted to direct a hurricane to a specific location as judgment. The hurricane was already headed to land. He just wanted to make sure God knew where the sinners who deserved judgment were hanging out. My memory is that it was related to his absolute intolerance of homosexual persons. Lo and behold, it did happen! And the hurricane hit Virginia, the home territory of both Falwell and Robertson. Not quite what he had in mind! Again, he and Pat Robertson dared to blame 9/11 on the alleged diminishment of morality in this country. Recognizing that women and homosexual people have rights rooted in the Constitution was, for them, a major lapse of morality and they noted that this lapse was a contributing factor to that tragic event. I am quite willing to grant Falwell the right to make any pronouncements that he wishes. Why not? He has a unique knack for keeping a foot in his mouth! But I am unwilling to let others think that his voice and the historic Baptist voice are synonymous. Moreover, Southern Baptist leaders don't speak for every Baptist when they insist that women must be "graciously submissive" to their husbands and aren't eligible to serve as pastors. What nonsense! They don't even speak for all Southern Baptists. In today's world wherein relationships are surely rooted in mutuality and equality, submission is something required by power, not love. Too, some of the best pastors and preachers I know are women. In fact, because the traditional role of women is still relational and nurturing, they make uniquely gifted pastors. They begin ministry possessing relational skills that men must learn through study and ministerial practice. Moreover, as preachers, women offer a perspective and style that is more closely oriented to modern communication theory than the traditional style of men. During the years when some clergy were dubbed as "princes of the pulpit," preaching was understood as "the final answer," offered as an extended theological or ecclesiastical "lecture" and viewed as the primary focus of worship. Even church architecture (the Akron plan with its central pulpit comes to mind) reflected this default position. Kierkegaard's observation that God is the audience for worship has a chance to prevail when the authoritarian role of preaching becomes an option out of history that isn't always appropriate. Women are already offering a style rooted in their relational orientation. In keeping with twenty-first century educational and communication theory, worship is improved when congregations consist of more than simply auditors. Beginning with these observations as challenges to what some Baptists are claiming, I am writing to reclaim the name that I have treasured across many years. The place to begin in "reclaiming this name" is with a word to interpret our Baptist heritage and those qualities that make up our historical distinctiveness. You see, Baptists were born as part of a profound upheaval that shook Europe in the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries. This was the period in which a significant category began to surface on a widespread scale. I am referring to individuality and the various incidences that gave rise to it. In the early centuries of history the individual was embedded in a corporate or collective sort of way in the family and clan and village. In order to get along, the individual would go along with these dominant structures. With the period we now call "the Enlightenment," this understanding began to change. In the religious realm Martin Luther is the most notable example. He found that his own religious experience was at odds with the dominant structure of that time. Luther was a priest who never expected to challenge or oppose the hierarchy of his church, the Roman Catholic Church. However, an intensive examination of the scriptures and the tradition of his faith led him to conclusions other than those of the church. When he sought help from his superiors, he was told to reject his conclusions and to accept the official party line. Threats and coercion were used against him. But this served only to make him more defensive and defiant. Finally, he nailed his famous Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the cathedral in Wittenburg and said, in effect, "Here I stand! I can do no other," notions he did express later. Yet, Luther wasn't the only voice of the day. The Baptist movement grew out of precisely this sort of understanding. In theological terms, their perspective was called "the priesthood of the believer." It is the conviction that every human being has the capacity and responsibility to relate directly to God. Theologians describe this capacity as the "imago dei."" A priest or religious authority isn't needed to mediate between the individual and God. This is called "soul competency" and it is the religious counterpart to the emergence of the individual. A signifant implication of this perspective is how human beings are to relate to each other. There is a sense of equality and mutuality, not "gracious submission," that emerges from this notion of "the priesthood of the believer." In personal relationships there is no "over and under" where a few are granted the power to order the common life of everyone. The stance of relationships becomes that of "alongside" rather than "over" or "under" or "submissive." People are responsible to each other. I am to make available to you my view of life and you are to do the same with me. When I tell you as clearly as I can how I understand life and relationships and you reflect back to me your perceptions, the interaction between us is enriched and sharpened. This is an utterly different way of doing life than that of the time when the individual didn't have such significance and conclusions about life were handed down by authority, particularly ecclesiastical authority. This way of doing life is the genius of our Baptist heritage. Too, the perspective of "the priesthood of the believer" has significant implications for the church. Granting that there is no one model for doing church in the New Testament or in history, the received notion is some kind of "pyramid" arrangement of power. An authority is "over" and you are "under." The religious authority (and this takes many forms) decides and you accept. But "alongsideness," in its most pristine form, doesn't leave room for bishops and popes as infallible ecclesiastical authorities and interpreters of inerrant scriptures. Power, in the free church tradition of Baptists, is rooted in the individual congregation. Therefore, decisions are reached as honest seekers and askers and shapers engage in an open process and dialogue to reach conclusions. This perspective of freedom is the minimum bedrock upon which I live my life as a follower of Jesus and those who insist on the absolute validity of their dogma aren't acting much like authentic Baptists. Of course, the Baptist way is a difficult stance to assume and to maintain. The stark truth is that it is much easier and far simpler to let someone else do your looking and hearing and deciding for you. You see, life begins with one embedded in someone who "makes" decisions for you. And that which begins as essential for a child to survive can continue to shape human beings far into adulthood if they don't claim their autonomy. Because this is the case then it is easy to understand the growth of the kind of congregation where the agony of decision-making is delegated to some authoritative and charismatic leader who claims to speak and act for God, a claim that is grasped, not delegated. These congregations accept the notion that "the pastor is the master." Because of the complexity of modern life and the unrelenting demands people face, many congregants are glad to give up freedom to think and decide in favor of the promise of security. It's far easier and gives a person time to spend energy on other concerns. Moreover, being that authority figure and dominating the lives of other people is satisfsying for the ego needs of the person who is vested with such power in decision-making. When I first wrote this, I wondered whether I was being accurate and fair. So I tuned in on some of the local "television religion" and my perspective stands! Yet, I don't desire to be one who decides for others. And I am not willing for people like Falwell and the televangelists to dictate to me! Falwell may claim he is a Baptist. But he sure doesn't speak for me! He doesn't even act like a Baptist! The goal of our human striving, according to biblical religion, is a quality of life that is rooted in responsibility and maturity. To be a child is to be in a state where everything has to be done for you and to you. You don't have the power to act responsibly on your own. The biblical vision means that a person is to grow until he or she becomes "perfect" or mature. Baptists, at their best, are committed to this vision. I am always delighted when I can pitch my tent among those Baptists who are faithfullly committed to this vision.
|