 |
|
|
|||||||
|
More Baptist ConflictMontesquieu wrote, "Every religion which is persecuted becomes itself persecuting; for as soon as by some accidental turn it arises from persecution, it attacks the religion which persecuted it" (479). I understand this trend in the Southern Baptist Convention as it makes common sense: 'if someone strikes you on the cheek, beat the crap out of them when you get a chance.' In a recent Associate Baptist Press release, I have come to learn that Richard Land, the president of the SBC Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, told reporters that the Southern Baptist Convention is now going to develop a competing international Baptist organization. The first meeting of this group will coincide with the Baptist World Alliance's (from whom the SBC split last year) July meeting. This is a blatant statement from the SBC that it aims to extend its schismatic practices throughout the world.Frankly, this does not surprise me. Paul Pressler, one of the major players responsible for the fundamentalist takeover/conservative resurgence describes the reason for the takeover of the SBC in his book. He links the major reason for this action to the feeling among conservatives that their concerns were not being heard by the moderate controlled convention. Sacks writes, "The pages of history are littered with the debris of empires that seemed impregnable in their day but soon thereafter fell into decay and oblivion" (192). On the one hand, I am frustrated about this SBC push towards further division among Baptists. On the other hand, I understand their actions as clearly exemplifying Montesquieu's apropos sentiment. I'd be interested to learn what my Baptist friends think about this? posted by Jake at 1/19/2005 11:17:00 AM  
6 Comments: |
Friends w/ Blogs
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 My Reading Queue 
 
 
 
 Just Finished 
 
 
 The Looooong List 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Previous Posts Not a good sign ------------ Ruth 1: Reflections (1:1-5) ------------ Ruth 2: Reflections (1:6-22) ------------ Ruth 3: Reflections (2:1-23) ------------ Ruth 4: Reflections (3:1-18) ------------ Ruth 5: Reflections (4:1-12) ------------ Blogger anonymity ------------ The Barreto Admiration Society ------------ Can't we all just [not] get along? ------------ The Myth of a 'Pure Gospel' ------------ Archives November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007
|
This move should surprise no one. The political ideology of American conservatism has embraced a strictly isolationist policy perhaps best categorized by Bush's famously self-centered dictum, "You are either with us or with the terrorists." In the case of the SBC, "terrorists" are replaced with any of a number of spriitual threats, whether homosexuals, feminists, liberals, moderates, etc. Self-righteousness prevails over unity, a stark dogmatism over intellectual humility. I also see further links between political and religious conservatism in this country in that inflammatory issues of relatively marginal importance are placed at the center of a core of basic beliefs. Ultimately, such an appeal to controversial issues manipulates the emotions and fears of individuals instead of asking them to think through the vital issues of the day.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
good thoughts jake..
tough stuff here. its really easy to attack the SBC for what they're doing and there's probably a lot they deserve some harsh critique for. I found your quote very interesting. Before the late 1970's, it would be interesting to study how much voice the "conservatives" had in the decision making process of the SBC. That is, did the liberals try and push the conservatives out in the same way the conservatives are now trying to do with the liberals? Is the current move a natural instinct of survival? That is, do the conservatives want to ensure that the liberals can regain power and repeat the pre-1979 era?
It is sad, however, that such questions have to be asked in a denomination founded on the principle of freedom. I have major issues with the current conservative theology. But what I have more passion about is the way in which current SBC leadership is betraying the very essence of what it means to be Baptist. Signing creedal documents to keep jobs and kicking churches out of associations because of minor doctrinal differences is quite un-Baptist. Of course, this problem probably stems from a revisionist Baptist history being taught at conservative dominated schools...
Now..we as the current ones being oppressed. What will we do when the tables turn? That is the real question. Will the CBF turn into a moderate SBC? Will we have enough room at the table for those who may abuse us now? I think this is where we are challenged...
mark
I appreciate how Mark provides a very sharp focus to this question. I too am intrigued as to whether conservatives in the 1970s really struggled that much to be heard within the convention; is this historically verifiable or a retrofit ideological justification? Although the details of my baptist history course are rather fuzzy, I do remember one interesting trend. Interestingly, our textbook was written in the post-takeover era by a devout SBC advocate, and its loyalties are clear. Nevertheless, I noticed a historical cycle in southern baptist life. Long years of relative peace would be punctuated cyclically with conventions in which the issue of non-orthodox teaching in the seminaries emerged. Whether creationism or, later, women in ministry, objections would be introduced at the convention calling for accountability. Thereafter, a slew of firings would seek to purge the seminaries and then things would settle down. What is intrinsically different about the current swing in the SBC is that the possiblity of a course correction towards the center seems untenable any longer. Moderates have fled in mass to the CBF and the entrenched power of the conservative wing is firmly in place across SBC institutions. Perhaps here we see what a historical movement the last twenty years have been. The SBC as it was is no more, for the freedom (as Mark pointed out) to dwell under one large tent has been eradicated.
At this point, it might be helpful to assess the history of the SBC at its beginning and end. Its sordid roots are well-known and were marked by an unwillingness to discern and embrace the movement of God in people's lives towards a more equitable and just society. Has anything really changed since then? Are we seeing a meta-cycle now creating a historical bookend with the convention's inception?
Great comments from my two Atlanta friends. I have based the historicity of this Baptist shift of power on conservative writings that suggest an impetus for the fundamentalist takeover. Naturally, one would want to utter a curt, "Well, he started it" when one is accused of McCarthyism and politically Draconian practices. So the need of SBC writers to justify such a harsh course of action is certainly understandable, though the degree to which it is historical is debatable. The basic argument is that when the moderates controlled the SBC they simply blew-off the deeply felt convictions of the conservative perspective. Mark poses the 10 million dollar question. Will we extend grace when we have received none? Will we reach out in love and fellowship and acknowledge the freedom of our conservative Baptist friends to preach and teach in ways that are commensurate with their convictions? I hope so, no matter how vehemently I disagree.
i guess the traditional baptist answer is that baptists believe in free association and autonomy, which allows for the creation and disollution of associations with other churches. therefore, it's logical that if you want a different international group, you can make one. if the express goal of the new one is to eliminate the BWA, then that's pretty evil. i don't think that's the explicit goal, however, instead to simply to join together more conservative baptists.
i'm all for the BWA, having given up on the SBC a long time ago, and given up on ever belonging to a church that wasn't baptist. however, there's always hope for baptists so long as we're working with other churches, recognizing that we're a part of the same body ALREADY, that it does us no good to erect facades that will keep apart what God is already bringing together.