Separation of church and culture

Is Ken, essentially, an "evangelical" or a serious Reformed Protestant, i.e. a Calvinist?

Rod, I want to extend my sympathy if nearly every Protestant and Catholic congregation you've ever joined was oriented toward therapy instead of discipleship. Surely that was a run of misfortune and I hope you don't mean to imply that such is normative. Since our exchanges have been more civil and productive lately, I'll do my best to try to continue that, but since I am a committed Southern Baptist, I wish to address your unspoken question. If I understand this aspect of your life history, you've been a Methodist, a Catholic, and an Eastern Orthodox: not a Baptist. Respectfully, I don't believe you understand the concept of soul competency. (Don't feel bad; many Baptists don't know their own principles, either.) Allow me to quote the SBC on the matter:
"We affirm soul competency, the accountability of each person before God. Your family cannot save you. Neither can your church. It comes down to you and God. Authorities can't force belief or unbelief. They shouldn't try." (The Wikipedia presents an accurate summary, as well.) Soul competency means that each person is individually ACCOUNTABLE to God, not that each person is individually AUTHORITATIVE. Soul competency does not imply that religion is privatized, or we Baptists would have abandoned corporate worship and Bible study long ago. Nor does it mean that religion is individualized, or we would have abandoned the idea that the Bible is uniquely authoritative. All it means is that the relationship between God and an individual -- the relationship, not the religion -- is the responsiblity of God and the individual: neither one's family or a church can force the individual acceptance of salvation or impose membership of a church or denomination. "Hey Baptists in the audience, everything Ken Myers has said tonight implicitly indicts the core Baptist doctrine of soul competency. How do you respond?" I respond -- as respectfully as possible -- by saying that he offers no such implicit indictment. The confusion lies in your misunderstanding the doctrine.

Please don't take this the wrong way. What I'm about to ask is probably the most serious question I've ever asked on this or any website, and I truly seek an answer, not a flamewar or a fight: Regarding this passage: Moreover, the principles behind this privatization of religion inevitably lead to the corruption of religion, because it becomes primarily a matter of expressing how individual men feel about God, rather than being an expression of how God feels about individual men, and what He calls us to do. My question: How is anyone supposed to knwo how God feels about individual men or what He calls us to do when the only reference we have about it is either the word of individual men (even if they concur with each other, they are still, after all, individual men and are therefore as flawed and agenda-laden as anyone else) or the word of long-dead individual men (the Bible - same problems apply.)? My own problem with "Faith" as an answer is that by extension, whatever "faith" we have in God is, when broken down to the base, merely faith that what those men said about God is true. So how do I do it?

This article raises a very important point: If you've ever wondered how it is possible that (according to opinion polls): (1) 85+% of Americans claim to be Christians, but (2) 95% of all Americans have had sex outside of marriage, and (3) half of all marriages end in divorce, the answer is that most self-proclaimed American Christians are not really Christians at all, but are rather "Moralistic Therapeutic Deists." I recently joined a Greek Orthodox Church, which is the center of a large and prosperous Greek immigrant community in my city. My impression is that the non-Greek members (mostly being converts) take the faith very seriously. I'm still trying to figure out the extent to which the Greeks (having been born into the Church) have been infected with MTD. It does seem like many parishioners attend the Divine Liturgy only sporadically or, when they do attend, show up late.

tv has asked the question. To wit: My question: How is anyone supposed to knwo how God feels about individual men or what He calls us to do when the only reference we have about it is either the word of individual men (even if they concur with each other, they are still, after all, individual men and are therefore as flawed and agenda-laden as anyone else) or the word of long-dead individual men (the Bible - same problems apply.)? My own problem with "Faith" as an answer is that by extension, whatever "faith" we have in God is, when broken down to the base, merely faith that what those men said about God is true. (I will ignore the obvious fact, apparently however unknown to many here, that women are involved in this business as well as men. Oh well.) But moving right along, tv is right but only partly. I would agree that if all we have is other peoples' word for God, either individually or collectively, we are in trouble.
If that's all you have. I don't honestly see how anyone can adhere to any faith under those circumstances. After all, individual human beings are fallible; there is no reason I can think of that when a whole bunch of them get together they suddenly become infallible. (Indeed, the crowd mind is almost always stupider than the individual mind.)
In the gospels the persistent answer to questions is not "Accept it because I (and a whole lot of other people) say so," but "Come and see." Someone who has no independent personal experience of God is in something of a corner here. How can you believe what other people say, especially since "other people" means a whole range of opinions. Who's right? Are any of them right? All I can say about that situation is, keep looking. Don't ask anyone else what they think, and for the love of God don't take what anyone else says whole-cloth.
If God is real (and I obviously think he is) he will reach out to you. Hold out for that.

"If God is real (and I obviously think he is) he will reach out to you."
Well said Susan, but I would add that God cannot reveal himself to our meaning-making minds apart from the meaning laden culture and language we have to work with.
We don't have to ask anyone else what they think in order to be borrowing someone else's conception of God. Faith is trust placed in something, whether that object is acknowledged or not. In this way, we must identify with our meaning-laden minds whether our trust is well-placed (i.e. that object, person, religion, etc. that we are putting our faith in is trustworthy) or whether it it ill-placed. All of us must do this, even if the faith we proclaim is the pluralism of an American Republic.

Adana, the answer is, yes, we'd like to convert Muslims and Jews to Christianity. But we don't do that by hating them or thinking them morons. As Ghandi said, "I like their Christ but not so much their Christians." You can only reach them with love - slowly, and step by step. I long ago lost my copy, but there was a great book by a Jewish doctor entitled "Faith Without Prejudice". It talks extensively about talking to, working with, respecting, andcaring for others of different beliefs. tmatt, if you're looking for theologically certain answers, why are you asking bubba? No offense bubba, but I sent his "inquiry" on to the SBC. Will post the result - maybe they will directly.
Also sent it on to the RC Archbishop of my diocese - although I'm not a RC, he and I have been friends for 12 years. I'll be interested in his opinion of Rod's post and this qestion.

Coming from a distinctly Christian perspective, I think the answer to tv's question is found in terms of the Holy Spirit. Christians (to varying degrees, depending upon denomination) ascribe the Holy Spirit a role in the creation of the written Word. If one accepts the traditional understanding of the Spirit as both divine and capable of individual interaction with believers, it is easier to accept that God was at work in providing written revelation, and is also at work making the word alive in individual hearts and circumstances.

Jaybird: Isn't that the problem with theological/religious debates though? That there are vanishingly few "clear facts" that everyone agrees on when it comes to such things? Yes, but I wasn't really thinking about religious debate. I had in mind a few political conversations I've had that left me troubled, not because the people with whom I was talking disagreed with me, but because they didn't think it was important that they refute my facts or my logic; they thought, "I'm entitled to my own opinion" settled the case. They were indifferent to getting to the truth of the matter, or as close as we could manage. That's what bothered me. On "soul competency," Bubba, I'm not a Baptist, so I'll defer to you. But this is what I found when I looked up "soul competency" on Wikipedia (I know, I know, consider the source): Soul competency is a Christian theological perspective on the accountability of each person before God. According to this view, neither one's family relationships, church membership, or ecclesiastical or religious authorities can affect salvation of one's soul from damnation. Instead, under this view, each person is responsible to God for his or her own personal faith in Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection. The basic concept of individual soul liberty, as Baptists refer to soul competency, is that, in matters of religion, each person has the liberty to choose what his/her conscience or soul dictates is right, and is responsible to no one but God for the decision that is made. A person may then choose to be a Baptist, a member of another Christian denomination, an adherent to another world religion, or to choose no religious belief system, and neither the church, nor the government, nor family or friends may either make the decision or compel the person to choose otherwise. And, a person may change his/her mind over time. Is this accurate, Baptists? TV: My question: How is anyone supposed to knwo how God feels about individual men or what He calls us to do when the only reference we have about it is either the word of individual men (even if they concur with each other, they are still, after all, individual men and are therefore as flawed and agenda-laden as anyone else) or the word of long-dead individual men (the Bible - same problems apply.)? For Christians, we do have a source of revealed authority, roughly as follows: the Bible (for Protestants), or the Bible and Sacred Tradition, as defined by the Church (Catholics and Orthodox). We accept on faith that the testimony recorded by fallible men in the Bible is true (though we dispute among ourselves how to regard the truths therein), and that they constitute an authoritative record of God's communication with His creatures, and document the story of His creatures' struggle to live out holiness in history. The point is, your question -- which is a sensible one to ask from the outside -- doesn't make sense from within. If the Bible isn't authoritative -- if you can't trust the testimony recorded there -- there's no real point to being a Christian. I would suggest instead some mix of Stoicism and Epicureanism instead.
Adana: But more importantly, don't we WANT that to happen? Don't we want muslims to abandon the belief that God demands that we should all live under shariah law? How can Christians and Jews live and work together if Christians truly believe that Jews are willfully and stubbornly denying the true faith and going to hell and Jews in turn believe that Christians are pagans who worship a man?
In order to respect each other, don't we have to soften those beliefs that tend to cause contempt and strife? This is a good point to make. Certainly pluralism requires reinterpreting beliefs, but if by "soften" you mean to step away from truth itself, there's a problem. I mean, Jesus either was the Son of God, or he wasn't. Muhammad either was God's prophet, or he wasn't. And so forth. That religiously exclusive claims offend some makes them no less true, if indeed they are true.
I believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and that no man comes to the Father except through Jesus. I take that to mean something different from what a fundamentalist Protestant would mean, but in the end, we'd both agree that if anybody is to be saved, it will have been through the death and resurrection of the man-god Jesus of Nazareth. That implies that those who don't share this belief are to some degree in error -- or, to be diplomatic (as well as precise), are in an imperfect relationship with the fullness of truth. But the real question is, what do we do with that in a pluralistic society? The Catholic Church came up with a sensible answer, in revising its own teaching. Formerly the Church taught that "error has no rights," a teaching used to suppress competing religious belief. The Church later taught that "error has no rights, but human beings do" -- and among those rights is freedom of religion. You might call that a semantical dodge, but it's a very important principle the Catholic Church embraced. It allows us to live together in a pluralistic society, holding on to the integrity of our beliefs while recognizing that our neighbors, however mistaken they are about religion (from our point of view), have the right to be wrong.

'My own problem with "Faith" as an answer is that by extension, whatever "faith" we have in God is, when broken down to the base, merely faith that what those men said about God is true. So how do I do it?' TV -- your issue here seems to be one of authority, i.e, who speaks for God? I can't speak for the other Christian groups represented here, but for the Orthodox, God has spoken ultimately and finally through his son Jesus; the Church is the witness to God's speaking thus, and as a body constituted by Christ himself, is more than a group of like-minded people. Paul calls the Church the pillar and foundation of the truth; it is far more than the sum of its parts in other words. Now obviously, such a belief requires faith, but when examined it's discovered to have a lot more to it than just "what certain men said about God." There are articles & books you could look at on the subject, as it is more complex an issue than can be adequately explained on a blog, due to time and space constraints.

"l'esprit d'escalier question" Nice touch. I thought it meant directing things a notch higher. Conversation needs so often needs elavation in the direction.
But as a quick riposte, around our house we call it "shooting from the hip." Great crimes are not solved on the scene.

Rob G. ...God has spoken ultimately and finally through his son Jesus... as reported by various and sundry; who are then justified by a belief in the Holy Spirit watching over the accuracy and veracity of their writings, which... I know you acknowledge the complexity, Rob, but that's not the point. The point is in how that complexity is translated to the contributions to culture and society that we make as individuals and as members of groups.

Since there's a debate going on over soul competency, it's worth noting that on of the Mars Hill interviews addresses this topic directly, in an interview with Russell Moore, v. 74. As one that would, as tmatt puts it above, rather be called a serious Reformed Protestant than an evangelical, I don't think the original formulation is very helpful either, but it's worth noting that it is different than the way it has been twisted by Baptist "moderates" (as the liberals preferred to be termed). BTW, there's a collection of text articles at Mars Hill, many of which give a clearer indication of Myers's perspective, available at: http://www.marshillaudio.org/pdf/default.asp

Starrs, thank you. You just covered the rest of what I wanted to write, but didn't quite know how.

Franklin, Thanks for the clarification on your background and perspective. Patriotism and pluralism seen from one coming to this country is a good reminder to one like myself whose folks go back to the 1680's. I get caught up America (and her founders) essential flaws and miss her beauty. Its easy for me to slide into MTD (or a harsh stand against it) if your hold on the liberty this country affords is so tenuously linked with a more oppressive cultural ideal. Starrs, The point I was tring to make at the end of my last post was to say how deeply the "image culture" of modern America (to use Postman's terms) has been imprinted upon those of us who grew up within it. Very few Americans apart from the Amish and, perhaps (thinking of Franklin), some of our immigrant communities, need organized training in the pluralistic and therapeutic ethos of our culture because we've been inundated with it from birth.
I happen to agree with you whole-heartedly about the positive effects of the Reformation on Western Culture but also recognize the chaos of individulaism that was let loose with it. Chaos that led in positive advances in science, philosophy, and Art but also carried with it the DNA for the eventual dissolution of public life (that we are wittnessing today).
Hope that clarifies matters a bit.

(And is there evidence that the American Baptists have a different definition of 'soul competency', or are we just talking hypothetically?)

This passage: The basic concept of individual soul liberty, as Baptists refer to soul competency, is that, in matters of religion, each person has the liberty to choose what his/her conscience or soul dictates is right, and is responsible to no one but God for the decision that is made. If each individual is at liberty determine right and wrong for himself, how is this not the doctrinal cornerstone for privatized religion? I agree with the Baptist belief that no state or institution should compel belief. What I don't understand is how, having determined that each soul is competent to decide religious truth for itself, one finds the objective authority to which appeal can be made in case of dispute or confusion? Thank you for being polite about this Bubba. I encourage you not to assume hostility on my part. I have no hostility to Baptists; one could hardly live in Dallas if one didn't like Baptists. As a practical matter, I agree with Baptists on most things, and in any case esteem them as one of the few Christian churches holding the traditional moral line on important questions. That said, the liberal Bill Moyers Baptist view makes more logical sense to me under the doctrine of soul competency, as I understand it. If every Baptist is at liberty to decide religious truth for himself, on what solid grounds do conservative Baptists criticize liberal Baptists for their more progressive reading of Scripture?
In the Catholic Church, the liberals simply ignore Church authority to argue for their innovations. But the authoritative Church tradition is there, and cannot be repudiated, only ignored. I don't see that Baptist doctrine and ecclesiology has such a mechanism, given the apparent radical subjectivity inherent in the doctrine of soul competency. I welcome correction if I'm wrong.

Well, I did not hear from the SBC, but got this from the pastor of a friend's church, an SBC congregation in Lancaster Co., PA: "As an SBC congregation, we do affirm soul competency, which we define as the accountability of each person before God. Your family cannot save you; neither can your church. It comes down to you and God, and your relationship with Jesus Christ as Savior. In all matters of what most churches refer to as doctrine, we believe that the Bible is the final word, and all of our statements of faith are revisable in light of Scripture. We do believe in the priesthood of all believers, but this is not an open invitation for members to re-interpret the Bible according to their own hypnotic vision." He promised to write moe once he's over the flu. It all comes down to the Bible. Many "liberal" Protestants *like Bill Moyers) simply gloss over Scripture when it does not meet their needs. In talking about homosexual members of the church, my brother's Presbyterian pastor said "Well, in terms of homosexuality and gay marriage, I think we can just set the Bible aside." But that doesn't mean he's right, or that he has any authority to stand on. But that plays in the People's Republic where he lives. After all, Rod, how many Catholic priests/bishops have strayed and been tossed out? It's a common problem in most religions - they're like unionized hacks you can't get rid of.

I'm going to quote a bit from Hershel H. Hobbs' commentary on the Baptist Faith and Message. He was the chairman of the committee that drafted the 1963 revision of the statement of general beliefs that tend to unite members and member churches of the Southern Baptist Convention. His commentary was originally published in 1971, but I'll quote from the 1996 revised edition. Leading up to the excerpt from which I'll be quoting, Hobbs mentions E.Y. Mullins and his book The Axioms of Religion, in which he discusses the Baptists' distinctive contribution. He concluded that many of the other key doctrines of the Baptists were not uniquely held by the Baptists. [All emphasis is mine.] ************************* What then is this distinctive belief? It is "the competency of the soul in religion." Mullins hastened to point out that "this means a competency under God, not a competency in the sense of human self-sufficiency. There is no reference here to the question of sin and human ability in the moral and theological sense, nor in the sense of independence of the Scriptures...." Because of their insistence upon the competency of the soul in religion, the charge of narrow-mindedness in religion is a strange sound to Baptist ears. It is true they hold to certain specific beliefs. They insist upon the lordship of Jesus Christ and the authority of the Scriptures. But they also insist that every man shall be free to decide for himself in matters of religion. Baptists have ever been the champions of soul freedom, not for themselves alone but for all men. Thus it is that Baptists believe that a person has the right to be a Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Jew, infidel, atheist, or whatever he chooses to be. Baptists believe that they are under divine compulsion to preach the gospel as they understand it. But they endeavor to win men by persuasion through the power of the Holy Spirit, not through coercion of any kind.... This does not mean that Baptists believe that one can believe just anything and be a Christian or a Baptist. The competency of the soul in religion entails the authority of the Scriptures and the lordship of Jesus Christ. The priesthood of believers grants to every Christian the right to read and interpret the Scriptures as led by the Holy Spirit. But said interpretation must be in harmony with the overall teachings of the Bible. And it must adhere to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, for the Holy Spirit neither contradicts Himself nor denies God's revelation in His Son. ************************* Or, to quote from the preamble to the 1963 BF&M... "Baptists emphasize the soul's competency before God, freedom in religion, and the priesthood of the believer. However, this emphasis should not be interpreted to mean that there is an absence of certain definite doctrines that Baptists believe, cherish, and with which they have been and are now closely identified." [emphasis mine] For Southern Baptists in particular, the idea that we've let the idea of soul competency be freed from its constraints of Christ's lordship and the Bible's authority seems off-base because the "Conservative Resurgence" was a theological victory for reasserting those two bedrock beliefs when other denominations were leaping headfirst into theological liberalism. If anything, the risk today is that the SBC leadership puts too little emphasis on soul competency, as a likely overreaction the leftward drift they countered: there's a strong desire to make the BF&M more detailed than I think it needs to be, and to make affirmation of the BF&M mandatory for more roles within the convention -- and even to require missionaries to pledge not to engage in even private glossolalia. Regardless, I believe there's a stronger case for a drift towards a private, individualized, therapeutic faith being caused, not by soul competency -- since the doctrine's been around awhile and has been taken seriously by its adherents -- but by the unmooring of that doctrine from the firm beliefs that Jesus is lord and the Bible is authoritative. In other words, radical subjectivism creeps in, not when you affirm the individual's responsibility for seeking the truth and honoring what he finds, but when you remove all external authorities from which truth can be ascertained. Theologically conservative Baptists affirm fewer sources of absolutely reliable authority: just the Bible, rather than the Bible and tradition and an apostolic succession. But -- especially because it is perspicuous -- the Bible, taken as a complete work, is enough to be a strong bulwark against such subjectivism. It is only when the Bible is removed as a reliable authority, such that it can either be ignored or picked apart, does the problem of radical subjectivism become eminent. At best, Myers as you describe him implicitly indicts soul competency unmoored from other core Baptist doctrines. To that indictment I simply resond by saying that the theologically conservative Baptists have never supported and in fact reject such an unmooring: our beliefs are a package deal of sorts for a reason.

Thank you, Franklin. Looks like I'm about to get busy whelping a litter of puppies, so have a great day, and please pray for me and the mother!

Satan was listening when Jesus said that a house divided cannot stand. Jesus also said to watch for these kinds of people (those knowingly that preach lies) within the Church body. It's getting easier to see them now that the Progressives are making their move. Like Jesus said, what is done in darkness will be proclaimed from the rooftops. That is a perfect description of Liberal-Progressives and what they boldly declare is "Christian truth." Now we can at least avoid them and teach about them. It is time to shed the fear of them as well.

You say that the illiteracy of the pre-reformation Catholic made him/her dependant on his/her priest. History does not bear you out. Rather, an entire culture was formed to communicate the tenets of the Catholic faith in a way that an illiterate person could understand. The shape of church, the stained glass windows, murals, forms, traditions, even the shape of church within the city, communicated aspects of church doctrine. The Protestants, of course, ruined all that, but not because they toaught people to be literate, but because they focused public attention upon an undervalued church text; they highlighted a new form of literacy. The city, church structure, liturgy, etc. are, after all, a text in their own right. Hi, Garden Life - very thought-provoking statement. To me, teaching through the "adaptive unconscious" (the rational but non-verbal, non-conscious aspect of the mind) is an incredibly effective way to communicate religion. However, I have to disagree with the point about Protestantism. I would say that in England this was true, that Protestantism "killed" the old vernacular of art and architectural Catholicism both literally and figuratively. However, that wasn't generally true on much of the Continent, where beautiful churches and cathedrals remained in Italy, Bavaria, France, etc. Catholicism, however, has destroyed more of its *own* beautiful buildings, art, and in a sense its entire culture, than Protestantism ever did. In America, especially, beautiful traditionally-styled parishes have been closed by the thousands; their structures either demolished or converted to condominiums. The most Baroque structures in most cities are the ones deep in the decaying urban heart, with fifty or so aging parishioners. Ironically, only Caesar keeps them from the wrecking ball (by the power of National Historic Place designation.) It's not clear (given our current economics and labor rates) that "sermons in stone" can be constructed any longer. But I think it's worth mentioning that the whole iconic "education" started when the person was very small and impressionable - and saw the smoky, cluttered, fantastic insides of the "navel of the world," the church. No longer, though.

In the end, all religion is nothing more than opinion and argument by authority only works on those who accept the authority. Perhaps it would wise to consider that people are "theologically illiterate" for the simple reason that, in the final analysis, they can conceive of no rational reason why they should be theologically literate.

"I know you acknowledge the complexity, Rob, but that's not the point. The point is in how that complexity is translated to the contributions to culture and society that we make as individuals and as members of groups." True Franklin, but that's not what GIITV asked, or perhaps I misunderstood the question? But on re-reading it it seems that what's being asked is how the individual comes to have faith in Christian truth and to view it as not simply the words of certain human beings.

Rob G., I don't think you misunderstood Giittv, and I apologize for not being clear: I was using his question as a jumping off point, and making personal statements that he may or may not agree with.

Bubba: Theologically conservative Baptists affirm fewer sources of absolutely reliable authority: just the Bible, rather than the Bible and tradition and an apostolic succession. But -- especially because it is perspicuous -- the Bible, taken as a complete work, is enough to be a strong bulwark against such subjectivism. It is only when the Bible is removed as a reliable authority, such that it can either be ignored or picked apart, does the problem of radical subjectivism become eminent. At best, Myers as you describe him implicitly indicts soul competency unmoored from other core Baptist doctrines. To that indictment I simply resond by saying that the theologically conservative Baptists have never supported and in fact reject such an unmooring: our beliefs are a package deal of sorts for a reason. Before I start, Bubba, let me ask you to read this not as any sort of attack on Baptist doctrine, but as a criticism from someone who respects Baptists and counts them not only as brothers and sisters in Christ, but as allies in the cultural struggle. That said, I'm not persuaded that the Bible itself is a sufficiently strong bulwark to keep soul competency from taking the faith off the tracks, so to speak. The simple reason is this: the Bible's meaning is not always plain, and the Bible doesn't interpret itself. Catholics and Orthodox claim that when the Gospel relates the story of the Last Supper, Jesus was speaking literally when he said, "Take, eat, this is my body... ." Protestants believe Jesus was speaking metaphorically. Which is correct? A Baptist would presumably say Christ was speaking in metaphor, but by what authority does he say that? What privileges his interpretation? And if the freedom of conscience upheld by soul competency is our standard, on what grounds does a Baptist who disagrees with his fellow Baptist's interpretation of Scripture dispute him? Or take homosexuality. Christians who wish to make homosexuality acceptable radically reinterpret Scripture to suit that end. Catholics have a firm bulwark against that sort of thing: the binding interpretation of Scripture by legitimate authority located within the Catholic hierarchy. Of course many American Catholics in practice refuse that authority on homosexuality or on any issue that it suits them, but the point is, there is that authority. The Catholic cannot maintain that the individual has the right to interpret the Bible as his conscience leads. As I understand it, the Baptist does. How would a conservative Baptist convincingly stand against a revisionist interpretation of Scripture that would normalize homosexual relations? What if the pro-gay Baptist, in complete honesty, maintained that his conscience and his understanding of Scripture led him to that conclusion? A Catholic who said that would be a bad Catholic; but would a Baptist who said that be a bad Baptist? I guess my point is that even if the Bible is considered to be the authority, that doesn't solve the problem of subjectivism intrinsic to the doctrine of soul competency -- a subjectivism that must, in the end, lead to the kind of privatization of religion that Ken Myers (who said noting about Baptist faith and doctrine in his talk, let's be clear) finds so harmful to the church in America.

[continued from above] Let me digress for a moment to illustrate what ought to occur in the midst of a serious theological dispute on which hinges the spiritual growth of a fellow Christian. Suppose one of the members of a local church absolutely refused to help strangers in need when he clearly had the opportunity: he took a "God helps those who help themselves" mentality. Matthew 18 outlines how to deal with this situation. A fellow Christian should approach him in private, then with two or three friends, and then bring the matter before the church which has the authority to -- for lack of a better term -- exile him from the congregation. Let's suppose that the hard-hearted man is confronted and exiled in precisely this way; the church points to the parable of the Good Samaritan, and the man responds: "Well, the next time I see a Jew in trouble on the road to Jericho, I'll be sure to help him out. Otherwise, God helps those who help themselves." (Note that the "God helps those" is not scriptural but is rather a proverb quoted by -- if not originating from -- Ben Franklin.) You see what's going on here? The man is defending his sin with an, um, unorthodox interpretation of that parable, arguing that its application is extraordinarily limited. I happen to believe that most people are many things -- selfish and proud primarily -- but not stupid. The man knows better; in his heart of hearts he knows he should help his fellow man. But we cannot compel him to change his mind and must, instead, let God sort this out with him, in this life or the next. (Note here that Christ -- who most certainly had the authority to compel more than any of us, even the pope -- didn't compel but rather asked, urged, and advised. Those like the rich man who turned away from Him were free to do so: those who betrayed Him, abandoned Him, mocked Him, and even conspired against Him were all free to do so: God Incarnate did not compel them to do the right thing.)
It is on the matter of compulsion where we get to the heart of soul competency. Let's for a moment toss sola scriptura to the wind: what would stop radical revisionists from starting their own church with their own pope? What would stop *a* revisionist from declaring himself his own pope? The only thing that could stop that is state compulsion: there being one state church and all other churches being prohibited or given second-class status by the government. I don't think soul competency leads inevitably to a privatization of faith: again, the doctrine is not considered in a vaccuum but alongside the external authority of Scripture and the belief that Christians should worship corporately. (One might as well argue that Christ's teaching and example of praying in private leads to a privatization of faith: if it did, it would only be because the person ignored His other commands to let his light shine and to preach the Gospel to all nations.) But I will grant that soul competency, taken by itself, at least presents a risk of the privatization of religion. But here's the thing: any arrangement and doctrine that excludes state compulsion has that very same risk. I believe Scripture and corporate worship mitigates against the privatization of religion pretty well, but it won't eliminate it: there will always be cranks who worship by themselves and indulge all sorts of heresies.
Will anything eliminate it? Nothing short of compulsion: I believe a genuine elimination of the privatization of religion is impossible without the simultaneous elimination of religious freedom.

Thanks for your long reply. I have only a few things to say: 1. I agree with you that there should be no compulsion in religion, and certainly not state compulsion. I believe in the civil right of all believers to their own faith, or no faith at all. My concern is not with what the state can and can't say, but with what is true. I don't want to get into a big discussion about church authority (mostly because it's 5:30 here, and I'm still at the office with stuff to do), but like you, I am concerned with how we can know as Christians what is true, and what is false. I am persuaded by Acts 15 (the Council of Jerusalem) and by the history of the church for roughly its first 1,500 years that Christ gave to the Apostles and their successors, the bishops, the right and the responsibility for setting doctrine and, when the time came, canonizing Scripture, and then interpreting it. I don't think we at all disagree that there is such a thing as objective truth in matters of faith and morals, nor do I think we disagree over the fact that it's rooted in Holy Scripture. Nor do we disagree that the state should have no role in compelling belief (if that were possible, which it isn't). What we disagree on is how Christians can reliably arrive at truth. 2. On the chocolate Jesus thing, I think you misunderstand: again, I grant you the civil right to interpret Scripture for yourself. What I don't grant is that you (or I, standing alone) can reliably arrive at the true interpretation of Scripture. That can only come through the church, and then only under the right conditions.

On that note, I might have said all I needed to on this subject. Rod, feel free to have the last word.