I am one of the prodigal’s that has left the SBC and decided to come back to it. But I didn’t come back with loving arms, and I didn’t come back because I found nothing outside the SBC doctrinal viewpoint. I simply was not willing to give up a few key SBC doctrinal viewpoinst, mainly the authority of the local church and the high level of missions emphasis.

While I could have been identified as “Emergent” several years ago (and still am an active member in my local Emergent co-hort in lexington), I know identify myself as more ecumenical minded Christian that agrees with the Radical Orthodoxy project. The things that I found interesting in more “emergent” (and I use that term sparingly, since there are no major points to acutually identify on) views, I now understand that alot of what I vibed with was just classical, consensual christianity. I am a student at Asbury Theological Seminary right now and I plan to stay SBC through my tenure here and in my ministry after seminary.

My main point of contention with this message was how the phrase ‘traditional” was simply speaking of something that was common 50 years ago. No Baptist worth their sweet tea and choir robe would say that the Christian Church began in the mid-1840′s or reached it’s climax in the 1950′s. If this is true, how can we cling to what has been a short lived viewpoint that is only held to be consensual by a small minority in the history of the Christian Church. This is just one of my beliefs that will make me staying in the SBC hard, but it is not enough to make me want to leave the heritage that I grew up in. Maybe this is just the difference between a Baptist raised in the coservative vs. the moderate Baptist Church.

But I do agree that Dr. Shaddix touched on many of the reason why people and even minsters my age have left the convention (I am 27). These were good thoughts, but I am scared that it just segmented the views of the SBC facing the idea of postmodernity even more.