Yesterday a dear brother wrote to me a very polite response to my last RADEN report. His comments graciously assuring me that the brothers who serve on the RCC/SBC dialogue are committed Baptists who are "eager" to continue this dialogue in an effort to contend for evangelical truth and the Gospel. As I responded to him, I considered that some of you might wish to be in on the conversation, so I am copying my response to you.

Dear brother, thank you for your gracious response to my recent RADEN SBC extra!

Yes, I am aware that those who serve on the continuing RCC/SBC dialogue are committed Baptists. I am sure that these brothers' motives are sincere and that they desire to glorify God. Over the past few years I have personally spoken or otherwise communicated with each of our SBC dialogue team members and they are aware of my concerns. I think you might find that not every member of the team is particularly "eager" to continue this particular "official" dialogue as it is.

"Dialogue" in the definition of "conversations" is all good and fine if it is not being misused and misrepresented by either of the parties involved. Certainly each of us should "dialogue" with others for the sake of presenting a bonifide witness and to contend for the Gospel.

In the case of the "official RCC/SBC dialogue" there has been a consistent pattern of misrepresentation on the part of Catholic participants, and how the dialogue has been reported in Catholic news services has been used to bolster the false impression that Southern Baptists' beliefs and Roman Catholic beliefs are simply two variations of true Christianity. This should be of grave concern to us. Of course, we can not control what others print, but we should be careful that we ourselves do not continue to give them undue opportunity to distort the Gospel or misrepresent the beliefs of Southern Baptists.

Two things that I have suggested are that (1) these good brothers may have all the conversation they want and certainly should, but it is not correct according to our historic Baptist belief and practice for them to allow for the appearance that they are able to "officially" speak for the SBC, and (2) if we are going to continue this "conversation," it would benefit others greatly if it were held in public so that it could not be misreported and misused by either side in these theological debates.

Actually, some of our good brothers involved in this are concerned about these same things. I don't think anyone wants to shut down communication with Roman Catholic leaders, but neither do we want to give them or anyone else a false impression. For myself, I have been a missionary to Roman Catholics for the past 16 years here in RCC dominated South Louisiana... I look for opportunities to witness and debate doctrine with members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

Please do not misinterpret my criticism of the RCC/SBC dialogue as criticism of our good brothers involved. Such men as Dr. Mohler and Dr. Patterson, I count as honored contenders for the Faith. These, in particular, have stood for God's Word with integrity and great bravery.

Nevertheless, we are all human and need to consider the biblical concerns of the brethren, even brethren who may be considered of a low estate (if God can speak through a donkey, then, no doubt, He can also speak through any of us). Having spoken with these brothers about this, and seeing no change, I am voicing my concern in a little wider circle. Maybe the added council of other good brethren will bring some modification or change that will insure we are not only using this as an opportunity to contend for the Gospel but also that we are not being taken advantage of and misrepresented in RCC press releases.

On another line of thought... The RCC hierarchy has declared their "faith," and it is decidedly not biblical Christianity but rather a sacramental works religion much like the Judiazer's heresy. I can not conceive of the apostle Paul having an "official dialogue" with leaders of the Judiazers in closed-door sessions over a period of thirty or forty years and allowing the misconception to grow within the Church that there is a common Christian faith between genuine Christians and the Judiazers. Can you?

Personal conversation is one thing; public debate is another thing; and "official dialogue" between representative religious "officials" is quite another. Don't you agree?

But if we don't see eye-to-eye on this, then let us pray that God will show us the truth and give us understanding... for it is always possible that one or both of us may be wrong. True enough?

Thank you for writing.
Your servant for Christ's sake,
Jerry Moser, RADEN editor