New incarnations of what used to be...

[Zach Roberts]

Let's tackle some questions together:

1. What does soul-competency look like in a post-individualist America?
2. What does local autonomy look like when embodied with a deep ecumenical posture and global relatedness?
3. What does biblical authority sound like in culture suspicious of power?
4. What happens to our original separatist notion of "a community of regenerate believers" when confronted with the emergent values of the sacredness of all things, and open-source community?

Feel free to take on one, or as many as you like.

[Beverly Hatcher]

I am emerging on all of the above....

Soul competency as I understand it means our ability to choose God or not in whatever way we choose. But there is more which we often neglect. Yes, God has given us the gift of choice. The part I believe we often miss is that with choice comes responsibility for our choices. I believe individualist America loved choice but missed the responsibility part. Perhaps in a post-individualist America soul-competency will be understood more as responsible choice. I believe soul-competency in a post-individualist American will mean acknowledging that we do not have all the answers. If we can move from a place of power and violence to a spirit of humility we will be able to listen to "the other" in community and be accountable before God and others. I believe it is this fuller understanding of soul competency that can lead to more informed and responsible choices before God and others in our local and even our global community.

[Wes Hunter]

As I understand it, Soul Competency is intended to be a name for the idea of "if you, your individual self, decides to believe xyx ( what exact beliefs xyz represent depend on which branch of Baptist life in which you move around) then that means that you, as in your individual self, has made the necessary decision to enable you to receive the salvation of Jesus Christ's substitutionary atonement, which means that you won't go to hell when you die."

We are definitely not in a "post-individualist" America, we are in the midst of a hyper-individualist America. But, if we ever move in that direction like the rest of the Western world seems to have moved, then I think it's safe to say that the notion of "i make a decision and it keeps me out of eternal damnation" will have to be acknowledged as wrong and completely archaic for the church to survive in the post-modern world. A look at the decline of the traditional church in Europe and the recent advent of the kinds of churches and theology that are working in the post- Christian culture there should provide an example of this.

So I guess that is a long way of saying, if Baptists are to be effective ambassadors of Christ in the postmodern culture, we have to stop worrying about whether or not we're Baptist enough, be willing to let go of archaic terms like "Soul Competency", and start worrying about things like feeding poor people.

[Wes Hunter]

It seems to me that local autonomy works better in a paradigm that stresses ecumenical relationships in a global network of churches, because each congregation should be able to choose which other congregations with which to associate. Conservative congregations shouldn't have to align themselves with congregations who espouse positions they consider un-biblical. Likewise, progressive congregations shouldn't be subject to the limitations of governing mission boards and statements of of faith.

It probably used to be the truth that churches couldn't network themselves without large denominational infrastructures, but that is no longer true. With the advent of the internet, the autonomous local congregation, networked with other like-minded congregations (hopefully, regardless of denomination) will probably be the most efficient way to do church in the future. It should free up individual congregations to thrive on their own and increase the responsibility of those congregations to figure out what they actually believe instead of just accepting a pre-conceived set of beliefs.

[Beverly Hatcher]

I agree with Wes....we are not post-individualist America.

[Zach Roberts]

I believe we are in the labor pains of what will be a post-individualist America. The Millennials may have more to do with actualizing that than Boomers and my beloved Xers. For all our angst in the 90's, most Xers are settling in nicely to suburban life.

Anywho...since the first two on the list have been spoken to already, I'll take on the Bible. The way I see it, the Bible must return to being a multi-vocal witness to life with God, as opposed to the univocal apparatus of experts it became following the 16th century Reformation.

Approached in a multi-vocal manner, the Scripture is thus a dialog partner wherein those of us who follow today are allowed to enter into discourse with those who followed then. The Bible is then a venue for interacting with its writers, the characters in its stories, and most of all, the Spirit of God.

[Wes Hunter]

I definitely agree with Zach about the change in the Bible's role. It makes more sense anyway. After all, the Bible really tells the stories of the community of faith, was developed and redacted by the community of faith, and gets its authority from the community of faith in the first place. It's much more useful as a tool for both communal and individual spiritual formation than as a book of guidelines and dogmas.

In a lot of the discussion about post-modernism and its effect on Christianity, it feels like some of the differences are just differences, natural progressions where the new way isn't necessarily better than the old way, it's just more relevant to the emerging culture. But, this understanding of the Bible isn't just different, I think it's better; or at least closer to how I think God intends scripture to be useful.

[Liz Dyer]

Hi - I just joined yesterday and see that this was a discussion that was started over a week ago and thought I would respond. These are some big questions to think about and discuss. In fact I think that each question could be a discussion within itself. There were a few responses but not a lot of discussion. I am going to give question number one another try:

Soul-competency in a post-individualist America? - I agree with some of the others who commented that we are not in a post-individualist America - but I would add that I think that there is a growing self awareness about how turned in on ourselves we (Christ followers in America) have been and a growing desire among some to change this dynamic. Soul-competency? I hope that soul-competency would come to mean that we really do respect each person's right to search and discover God in their own way, that we really would believe that each person has the ability to read and understand the bible for themselves without someone else telling them what it means and that we really would be non-hierarchical in our attitudes towards others so that we can learn how to have unity without conformity, so that we can learn to be humble in our knowledge and have a proper confidence in our beliefs, so that our faith can stop being a barrier built up around us that keeps us seperated from the world that God has created and loves; and can start being a bridge that connects us to the work that God is doing in the world that he created and is creating.

What are some practical things we could do to make these things happen in the churches we attend, the communities we are a part of, and the world that we live in?

[David]

in regards to #4, i'm not sure that being a people set apart to live the kingdom means that you have gathered around yourself all that is sacred and left the rest outside the door. honestly, i think the what we would formerly have called the secular realm is actively involved in this sort of separation of acceptable and unacceptable much moreso than we are, or much moreso than we should be.

my fear is that often being a set apart community doesn't mean much more than a community with stricter or better morals. our setapartness is supposed to include love for our enemy and a refusal to quit on the world. I would argue that a true set-apart-ness entails a more full engagement with the spirituality in all things. does that make any sense?

[Beverly Hatcher]

David, I agree with your thoughts on #4.......and I am glad that for some (myself included) the sacred/secular dichotomy is falling away. I have seen and been apart of the "community of regenerate believers" and there is alot that troubles me about this separatist notion. However, I am still struggling with how to serve, worship etc. in an open-source community which values the sacredness of all things? I have some ideas but I would like to hear what others think.....what does it look, smell, taste, sound like?

David said:

in regards to #4, i'm not sure that being a people set apart to live the kingdom means that you have gathered around yourself all that is sacred and left the rest outside the door. honestly, i think the what we would formerly have called the secular realm is actively involved in this sort of separation of acceptable and unacceptable much moreso than we are, or much moreso than we should be.

my fear is that often being a set apart community doesn't mean much more than a community with stricter or better morals. our setapartness is supposed to include love for our enemy and a refusal to quit on the world. I would argue that a true set-apart-ness entails a more full engagement with the spirituality in all things. does that make any sense?

[Mike Morrell]

These are great questions - just discovering them. Will come back to them - especially number 4!

[Zach Roberts]

I posted these question a good while ago, but I am finding it important to consider them again, especially now that I am in a full-time staff position at a church that's at a critical point of transition and identity struggle.

[Tripp Hudgins]

I'm pastoring full time and these questions are not the core questions being asked. I'll think on these and get into this conversation soon. Thanks!