Jokes are funnier when they depict some subtle truth. Sarcasm too stings a little more when it is on point. So, here's the joke/sarcasm/truth for the day: Baptist's national insect must be the gnat. It's because we spend inordinate time straining at them, if you know what I mean.
Here's an example. The other day someone posted this sage advice:
in necessariis unitas, in non necessariis libertas et in omnibus charitas
Roughly translated, in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.
The truth of such wisdom has often been lost in our obsession to trace the origin of the statement. It has been attributed to Solomon, Jesus, Augustine, Philip Melanchthon, John Wesley, a number of lesser known reformers, popes, Ben Franklin, Will Rogers, and Curly Joe Howard. If you like to run down these kinds of historical tid-bits go here for some additional information. Of course, it's like running in circles. Personally, I think that's why Baptists are such great NASCAR fans: we love to see people running in circles at high speeds, about the crash. Then again...
Agreement may not the hair-ball. Jesus said, "...if two of you agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven" (Matthew 18:19). Agree here is sumphone, you know, symphony, the one voice thing that keeps us humming the same tune. It connotes harmony, beautiful music. We all like to strike resonate chords and make beautiful music together.
The straining at gnats part moves in two directions. One, we're so manic about identifying who actually said the statement in necessariis unitas, we've all but ignored the implementation of such advice, like we can't do this until we know who said it. Just maybe this is another of those orthodoxy dilemmas, our need to background check things to insure their credentials to speak such wisdom. So, it will be discounted and then thrown under the bus if someone not on the approved list uttered such a profound statement. If the author was Catholic or a heretic, or didn't give enough to the CP, then we're off the hook as to applying the truth.
At the same time, we love to quibble about the meaning of "essentials". In Scripture, the debate is about what Jesus really meant when he said "...agree about anything...". We usually annotate the text with an asterisk beside "anything". This is really where Baptists specialize in the gnat straining thing, the rare spiritual gift of shaping words to mean what we want them to mean and staking out positions that exclude others. Usually we can agree that we need to agree on the things in which we can agree. Defining those things is often the train-wreck.
So, what are the"essentials"? How do we define them? Are they points of doctrine, mission commitments, structural or hierarchical leanings, personal preferences, methodology, regional distinctives, monetary considerations? This seems to be an issue as we face disrupting the calm waters of the status quo in search of mission connections for the twenty-first century. We'd better get busy defining the "essentials" if we're going to connect to this lost and dying world.
We'll miss the mark if we keep playing footsie with the gnats!
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.