Thanks, and I appreciate your concerns. Going back to Moody, one of the serious failures of his leadership style is that he glossed over the issues of his day and adopted the retreat-oriented approach. I think Dockery differs very much on this matter.

If the issues have not been addressed, I believe they will be in the future. It is important to note just when and how they are addressed. Furthermore, as Dr. Dockery told me, Paul was all about fighting the good fight, and part of that involves know when, where, and how to fight.

Overall, I think the tone and rhetoric is changing in the SBC. With a more positive, optimistic, and constructive tone, I think the issues can be fairly and adequately addressed. We cannot afford, however, to have a rosy-eyed optimism that is naive to our current situation. In the same sense, we also cannot afford to have an unprincipled dissention or carry a disposition where one is unnecessary pessimistic. It remains to be seen what the SBC will do with the private prayer languages (PPL), the emerging church movement, and even Calvinism. From many of the higher-ups, there seems to be a conspiracy of silence while with some bloggers, more has been said than needs to be said. In any case, I hope this interview would serve to remind us that the fight we have before us (as was before Paul) was over the gospel of Jesus Christ and the essentials of our faith.

The interview was great! and your reflections were convicting, considering that I have often been frustrated by some SBC leaders’ dancing around questions–a topic one of my friends and I return to often. And for the most part, we (frustrated as we might be) come to the same conclusion as you have, namely that men in positions such as Dr. Dockery’s have to focus on the essentials so as not to bring disdain on their positions.

Although I have a question i would like to hear your opinion on. Do you think the various divisions in the SBC are being rightly addressed when the non-essentials are not confronted head on by the Southern Baptist higher-ups? It seems like in not directly addressing the issues that unity is neither encouraged nor discouraged. But should we as Christians not always labor to unabashedly encourage unity? And if we are going to do so, should not the various issues be directly addressed?

It just seems to me that if we say “in the non-essentials liberty,” and then gloss over the actual issues, then whatever the issues is will continue to cause division with in the convention–and on a greater scale within the universal body of Christ. In other words, should we not only say “in essentials Unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity,” but also follow that statement up by dealing with the particular issue at hand—whether it be an issue of legalism (such as the alcohol resolution etc…), or and issue of antinomianism?

(Don’t get me wrong, I am a huge Augustine and Dockery fan, and think that if the Church would apply that quote She would save herself allot of hurt. I only think that in order for the quote to be applied, then the issues have to be addressed. And if there is anyone qualified to address the issue, it is men such as Dr. Dockery who are spiritual giants and heroes to all of us.

I also do not want to come across as though I am seeking to undermine Dr. Dockery or his position as President at Union. I have a deep respect for his work, and know that he is much wiser than I.)

Soli Deo Gloria
Mark

Yeah, a lot of people want him to be president, but as Dr. Dockery said, his heart is at UU, and I don’t blame him for that. God is doing some great things there, and I don’t see him running any time in the near future.

BTW, glad you’re back in the blogosphere. Thanks for stopping by.

Regards,

Les