The SBC and "the Journey"

If you are in the St. Louis area, you probably know about a current controversy between the Southern Baptist leadership and “the Journey,” a church they helped fund. The point of contention is an innovative program they came up with to have theology discussions at Schlafly Bottleworks, a brewery. That doesn't jive well with the SBC position on alcohol, but the Journey sees this as an important outreach opportunity.

In context of this, one of my professors, Dr. Lucas makes some interesting remarks on his blog:

For example, if the church (or a particular denomination) is meant to stand for “conservative evangelicalism” and that means standing for certain political or cultural positions, or standing for those positions in a harsh or insensitive manner, then the “emerging” generation will have none of it. As Darrin Patrick, the pastor of The Journey, put it in the article, “When you're stricter than God about what he commands and permits, younger pastors are not going to play ball. They're not going to take one for the denomination” (emphasis mine). I actually think this stance of “not taking one for the denomination” could be a good thing—if it forces church leaders to reorient themselves to Gospel priorities and attitudes.

This, of course, impacts not only the SBC but other evangelical denominations. Moreover, it intersects with an issue that I find especially interesting and actually wrote about for another class's weekly reading response: adiaphora, or things indifferent. To what extent is this an issue of refusing to permit people to have a “nonchalance of faith”? As Evangelicals, as Reformed, as Christians in general, how do we deal with things not specifically prohibited or encouraged in the Bible or which are up to different interpretations? How do we hold onto the particular interpretations we value without “essentializing” non-essentials?