VISION .. WHO NEEDS IT?
The word "vision" there means to see, as in a dream or revelation. It is derived (thank you, Mr. Strong) from a word that means to see by gazing at something.
Good verse, but I think it applies to more than just seeing down the road for some unattained goal (that's apt to stay that way, anyway). I think it may well also apply to the ability to see what's going on around us.
Over at Wade Burleson's Blog, there's been a brouhaha going on about the narrowing of parameters, and inversely how the differences "they" seem to be trying to eliminate don't seem to make any difference.
One of the regular commenters said the following:
"These phenomena have become a major issue in Southern Baptist life, and a clear statement needs to be made by those representing the majority of Southern Baptists. "
To which I must ask "Why?" I don't recall any continualists, or folks with the gift of speaking in tongues (I refuse to call it what the Bible doesn't...) trying to assert their will over others, that we ought to become charismatic. Quite the contrary, they'd just leave and go over to "the dark side" if that were the case. If I wanted to be in a charismatic denomination, that's what I'd do!
Neither do they insist that everyone adopt a continualist view. They simply want to read the BF&M, and in accordance with the priesthood of the believer, interpret scripture according to the light of the Holy Ghost, and stay right here as Southern Baptists.
And do missions and teach in seminaries, etc.
For some reason, that does not seem to have been good enough for various folks in SBC life. Sadly, some of them are in positions of power and influence.
Let me go back a couple paragraphs. The BF&M 1963 said:
"Baptists emphasize the soul’s competency before God, freedom in religion, and the priesthood of the believer." Clear enough. But the BF&M 2000 says:
"We honor the principles of soul competency and the priesthood of believers ..."
Both versions go on to reiterate responsibility to the local body.
I must ask why the change? Why now "believers" instead of "the believer"? Am I no longer imputed "priesthood" as an individual within the Body. Is my priesthood now defined by the local Body?
Is it an attempt to move the "priesthood" FROM me, as a Spirit-filled believer with direct access to the High Priest, TO the "body"? If it isn't, why change it?
And don't go yelling "Lone wolf wannabe". I want no such thing.
When I read what the New Testament said, I didn't have any trouble understanding the 1963 version. Now, I do. At least understanding the change.
Unless I DO understand it, and that's a scary thought.
So there we have it. A major issue, blamed on the people who object to changes that go beyond the BF&M. Some of the "blamers" even want, perish the thought, to CHANGE the BF&M to take a stand on the issues raised primarily by the change in IMB rules.
Normally, higher education clears some things up. In this case, it seems that a lot of highly educated folks can't see what's going on, and the fact that, by their actions, they are chipping away at what it means to be a Baptist.
Either they cannot see that, or there are alternate explanations I don't really want to think about.
I do know this, though: Wade Burleson, Art Rogers, Marty Duren, Benjamin Cole, and the other bloggers who refuse to sit down and shut up are NOT the cause of the "problems". They are there BECAUSE of the problems.
Thanks, God. You done good. Send some more like'em.