The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share (MPSIMS)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-05-2006, 12:47 PM
Homebrew Homebrew is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Soutern Baptist executive caught in gay sex scandal

from the Washington Blade

Quote:
An executive committee member of the Southern Baptist Convention was arrested on a lewdness charge for propositioning a plainclothes policeman outside a hotel, police said.

Lonnie Latham, senior pastor at South Tulsa Baptist Church, was booked into Oklahoma County Jail Tuesday night on a misdemeanor charge of offering to engage in an act of lewdness, police Capt. Jeffrey Becker said. Latham was released on $500 bail Wednesday afternoon.

...

After posting bond, Latham told KFOR-TV in Oklahoma City that he was set up, and was in the area ministering to people.
How many must fall before the idea catches on that those that protest the loudest ...
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 01-05-2006, 12:55 PM
Sampiro Sampiro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
This type of news story fills me with indignation two ways.

The first is, obviously, for the hypocrisy of these people- Lonnie Latham, Paul Crouch, Jim Bakker, Gary Paulk and all the other anti-gay Fundamentalists who have been accused with some reliability of being actively gay or bi.

The other is that as much as I loathe people like Latham, it majorly irritates me that people's names should be broadcast in media for what is ultimately a victimless misdemeanor. Hypocritical as it is, this shouldn't necessarily destroy his career and marriage- it's not a felony or anything, and they don't do it for people who are caught speeding or failing to signal or even in most places people who are busted for possession of a joint.

One of my college professors was married to a man whose name was published after being busted in a gay sex rest-stop bust. Most of the gossip at the time was about the minister who was arrested in the same raid (he was Pentecostal, white and about 80 and was caught paying for black male hustlers- throw in waving a Communist flag and that's the ultimate Southern Trifecta of Unpardonable Sins) but the professor became a laughing stock, her husband lost his job and was basically completely humiliated in front of everybody he knew and suicidal, and all for something that while illegal and wrong was still nobody's business- give him his fine and send him on his way. (Last I heard the professor and her husband are still married and now living in Texas.)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-05-2006, 12:58 PM
UrbanChic UrbanChic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
The plain clothes officer misunderstood Latham when he told him the Lord would come to him if he would just get down on his knees, close his eyes and open his mouth. See, Latham was just trying to offer communion and wine. It was all on the up and up, really!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-05-2006, 01:01 PM
Sampiro Sampiro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanChic
The plain clothes officer misunderstood Latham when he told him the Lord would come to him if he would just get down on his knees, close his eyes and open his mouth. See, Latham was just trying to offer communion and wine. It was all on the up and up, really!
Unfortunately a Southern Baptist minister offering wine would be almost as big a sin in the eyes of his Congregation.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-05-2006, 01:14 PM
Homebrew Homebrew is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
There's a big difference in some random professor's wife and an executive committee member of a major religious organization that actively condemns gay people.

If you want to know who else is arrested in your hometown, you can head to the police station and ask to see the blotter. It's public record. What makes an arrest newsworthy involves not only the crime itself, but the public stances and standing of the arrestee. If a NORML executive is arrested for pot, it's no suprise. If the director of the DEA is, then it's newsworthy.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-05-2006, 03:58 PM
Mahaloth Mahaloth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 地球
Posts: 22,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Homebrew
How many must fall before the idea catches on that those that protest the loudest ...
I really think you are ignoring the majority of Souther Baptist people that are not hypocrites and are very nice.

And I think it's "protest too much".
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-05-2006, 04:52 PM
Homebrew Homebrew is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahaloth
I really think you are ignoring the majority of Souther Baptist people that are not hypocrites and are very nice.
What does that have to do with anything I've posted in this thread?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-05-2006, 05:09 PM
Polycarp Polycarp is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: A better place to be
Posts: 26,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahaloth
I really think you are ignoring the majority of Souther Baptist people that are not hypocrites and are very nice.

And I think it's "protest too much".
Thanks to a very nice Southern Baptist couple who used to post here ( ::: waves hi to Sauron and Aries28 if they're still viewing the Dope ::: ) we're mostly well aware of how the SBC is set up, independent local congregations supporting state and a national body for "connectional" and mission work. And that the Executive Committee are a self-perpetuating board of literalist homophobes who effectively hijacked the largest denomination of American Protestantism and effectively forced a confession on it.

This isn't the preacher at West Podunk Baptist, it's one of the guys who decided that the SBC would join the forefront of anti-gay rhetoric with its member parishes breaking away or tagging along willy-nilly. And he deserves whatever humiliation he gets from his hypocrisy.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-05-2006, 05:24 PM
ShibbOleth ShibbOleth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Homebrew

How many must fall before the idea catches on that those that protest the loudest ...
Only the Good Lord knows what secret desires Fred Phelps and Jack Chick must harbor.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-05-2006, 05:33 PM
CynicalGabe CynicalGabe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
If only this could happen to Sean Hannity and Pat Robertson.

I would never ever stop laughing.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-05-2006, 06:25 PM
swampbear swampbear is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Leesburg, GA
Posts: 23,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShibbOleth
Only the Good Lord knows what secret desires Fred Phelps and Jack Chick must harbor.
Now I have a mental image of Phred and Chickie makin' hot monkey homo sex together. It's your fault Shibb. Therefore, I must condemn you here and now.

DARN YOU SHIBB! DARN YOU TO HECK!

Now excuse me while I go buy a fifty gallon drum of brain bleach and a sledge hammer so I can get this image out of my head.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-05-2006, 06:44 PM
Sampiro Sampiro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by swampbear
Now I have a mental image of Phred and Chickie makin' hot monkey homo sex together. It's your fault Shibb. Therefore, I must condemn you here and now.
Chick to Phred: CALL ME LITTLE SUZIE, BITCH!
Phred to Chick: Oh my god, are you drawing this?



Latham was very outspoken against Indian gaming. In Franken's The Truth (With Jokes) he goes into the very sick history of the religious right being used by Abramoff to defeat Indian reservation gaming initiatives, a motion based 100% in big money rather than morality. (Abramoff got millions from some reservations to lobby for the closing of casinoes belonging to other reservations, some of whom he was also in the pay of, and filtered millions to Christian Reich organizations to get their support with the voters.)
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-05-2006, 06:46 PM
Sampiro Sampiro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
PS- Can you believe the Wikipedia article is already inclusive of this and a big picture of Latham?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-05-2006, 10:51 PM
Mahaloth Mahaloth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 地球
Posts: 22,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Homebrew
from the Washington Blade



How many must fall before the idea catches on that those that protest the loudest ...
Well, I'll admit that I might be mistaken. I though the "many" referred to Southern Baptist(I'm not one). Most(I'd wager ove r90%) of Southern Baptists are very clean and nice. In fact, I'd wager that 99% of Southern Baptist ministers are very good people.

What was the motivation for your original post?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-05-2006, 11:04 PM
Cerowyn Cerowyn is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
I think it's pretty clear that the OP was about the enormous hypocrisy of Latham, not about Southern Baptists in general. That someone who does his best to spread evil in the world would be "guilty" of that which he condemns is pretty amusing. And, unfortunately, experience has shown us that many of the people who preach the loudest are in fact often guilty of actual, real crimes (rather than the imagined crimes that they accuse others of).
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-06-2006, 01:14 AM
Sampiro Sampiro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahaloth
In fact, I'd wager that 99% of Southern Baptist ministers are very good people.
That is a wager I would definitely take if there were any way of quantifying the answer. (Of course the SoBaps take a dim view of wagering, so it'd be kind of ironic if you won.)
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-06-2006, 01:30 AM
mojave66 mojave66 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
May I add that the average Southern Baptist probably isn't that much of a homophobe? Most of them have queer relatives (like me), have queer friends or have ministered to queer folks. In fact, my cousin's husband, a SoBaptist minister, shocked *me* by quoting Harvey Milk in a conversation about his work. I should also add that if you mention the SBC, all my relatives roll their eyes in frustration.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-06-2006, 03:51 AM
Mangetout Mangetout is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 51,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahaloth
I really think you are ignoring the majority of Souther Baptist people that are not hypocrites and are very nice.
So that'd be the ones that don't protest loudly? Like Homebrew actually implied.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-06-2006, 07:17 AM
ShibbOleth ShibbOleth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by swampbear
Now I have a mental image of Phred and Chickie makin' hot monkey homo sex together. It's your fault Shibb. Therefore, I must condemn you here and now.

DARN YOU SHIBB! DARN YOU TO HECK!

Now excuse me while I go buy a fifty gallon drum of brain bleach and a sledge hammer so I can get this image out of my head.
My work here is done.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-06-2006, 07:46 AM
Kalhoun Kalhoun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahaloth
I really think you are ignoring the majority of Souther Baptist people that are not hypocrites and are very nice.

And I think it's "protest too much".
Actually, if they choose to identify with a religion whose Big Voices condemn homosexuality, they either have to develop a Bigger Voice and change the public perception or weather the humiliation of being associated with those hypocritial Southern Baptists. You can't have it both ways.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-06-2006, 08:43 AM
Sampiro Sampiro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalhoun
Actually, if they choose to identify with a religion whose Big Voices condemn homosexuality, they either have to develop a Bigger Voice and change the public perception or weather the humiliation of being associated with those hypocritial Southern Baptists. You can't have it both ways.
That's one thing I admire about Jimmy Carter. He was born and reared Southern Baptist and as a born again Christian his faith was extremely important to him, but he had the courage of his convictions and left the SB when he could no longer tolerate their increasing conservatism and politicism. The whole "most ______ aren't (adjective), only the current leadership" thing just doesn't wash whether it's Baptist, Catholic, branches of Islam or anything else. It's the same as saying "I'm not a racist, the organization that I belong to voluntarily and support with my presence and my money is".
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-06-2006, 08:48 AM
Homebrew Homebrew is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by swampbear
Now I have a mental image of Phred and Chickie makin' hot monkey homo sex together.
Since I've never seen a photo of Jack T. Chick, I would have to use the John Watersesque Bob of Tract fame. Could it get any more disturbing?

Quote:
It's your fault Shibb. Therefore, I must condemn you here and now.

DARN YOU SHIBB! DARN YOU TO HECK!
But you chose to share that image with the rest of us. So we must condemn you.
Quote:
Now excuse me while I go buy a fifty gallon drum of brain bleach and a sledge hammer so I can get this image out of my head.
Send me the leftovers, if there are any.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-06-2006, 08:51 AM
Kalhoun Kalhoun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sampiro
That's one thing I admire about Jimmy Carter. He was born and reared Southern Baptist and as a born again Christian his faith was extremely important to him, but he had the courage of his convictions and left the SB when he could no longer tolerate their increasing conservatism and politicism. The whole "most ______ aren't (adjective), only the current leadership" thing just doesn't wash whether it's Baptist, Catholic, branches of Islam or anything else. It's the same as saying "I'm not a racist, the organization that I belong to voluntarily and support with my presence and my money is".
This is my major bitch with anything you have to "join" to be a part of. Which is why I'm not a joiner. If you're a joiner, by association you adopt the thoughts and ways of the spokespersons for that group as your own. You wanna have faith? Have at it. But don't come crying to me trying to separate yourself from those you willingly choose to identify with. If you wear the label, you have to wear the whole label...not just the parts you find palatable.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-06-2006, 09:03 AM
FriarTed FriarTed is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: IN USA
Posts: 12,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Homebrew
Since I've never seen a photo of Jack T. Chick, I would have to use the John Watersesque Bob of Tract fame. Could it get any more disturbing?
I don't have links handy, but there are first-hand reports & drawings of JTC being a tall, stocky, white-haired man, very friendly, and one which said the closest celebrity he could describe JTC as resembling was Slim Pickens.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-06-2006, 02:32 PM
Doctor Jackson Doctor Jackson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalhoun
If you're a joiner, by association you adopt the thoughts and ways of the spokespersons for that group as your own.
No, I don't. I look at the organization as a whole and see if it still accomplishes the purposes for which I joined. If so, then I can remain in the organization and work for change from within while at the same time working on the good I saw there in the first place. I firmly believe that a group of people can accomplish much, much more than an individual. With that advantage, however, comes the reallity that not everyone in any group seees things exactly the same. IMHO, the advantage of getting more done often (not always) outweighs the disadvantage of dealing with a few dipsticks. Even vocal dipsticks.

I'm not a sheep. I don't have to "adopt the thoughts and ways" of anyone else, yet still be an efective team member. Organizations that don't allow differences of opinion among their members are the ones that scare me. As do people who assume that because a spokesman vomits, the whole group is sick.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-06-2006, 02:49 PM
Kalhoun Kalhoun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Jackson
No, I don't. I look at the organization as a whole and see if it still accomplishes the purposes for which I joined. If so, then I can remain in the organization and work for change from within while at the same time working on the good I saw there in the first place. I firmly believe that a group of people can accomplish much, much more than an individual. With that advantage, however, comes the reallity that not everyone in any group seees things exactly the same. IMHO, the advantage of getting more done often (not always) outweighs the disadvantage of dealing with a few dipsticks. Even vocal dipsticks.

I'm not a sheep. I don't have to "adopt the thoughts and ways" of anyone else, yet still be an efective team member. Organizations that don't allow differences of opinion among their members are the ones that scare me. As do people who assume that because a spokesman vomits, the whole group is sick.
Let me re-phrase...you don't have to adopt the thoughts and behaviors. But you do get labeled as though you have. You don't have control over perceptions other people have of the group. You either have to speak loud enough to drown out the Bad Guys and change that perception, or you will be labeled the same as those Bad Guys, because that's the representation the group has to wear...like it or not.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-06-2006, 03:48 PM
DeVena DeVena is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
If all people who attend Southern Baptist Churches are going to be painted with the same brush, don't you think this thread should be moved to Great Debates?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-06-2006, 04:28 PM
Kalhoun Kalhoun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeVena
If all people who attend Southern Baptist Churches are going to be painted with the same brush, don't you think this thread should be moved to Great Debates?
They're choosing to be painted with the same brush by calling themselves the same thing. I'm certainly not going to assume a Southern Baptist shares the same religious beliefs a Muslim does. Of course they're not all alike. But how do you know until you get to know a given SB that he doesn't ascribe to the same "christian" doctrine that a gay-bashing SB does, if the only public personna they ever show is gay-bashing? GET LOUD AND PROUD, PEOPLE! Don't let the assholes represent you to the rest of the world. Kick the bad guys out of the club! Get some air time of your own! Take their SB cards away!!Don't let them speak louder for you than you do. Otherwise, you get the label.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-06-2006, 04:39 PM
Regallag_The_Axe Regallag_The_Axe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sampiro
Unfortunately a Southern Baptist minister offering wine would be almost as big a sin in the eyes of his Congregation.
[Joke Hijack]
Jews don't don't recognize Jesus as the messiah. Protestant don't recognize the Pope as head of the Christian faith. Baptists don't recognize each other in the liquor store.
[/Joke Hijack]
__________________
I am deadly serious when I say: Don't fight the funny.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-06-2006, 04:56 PM
Shirley Ujest Shirley Ujest is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regallag_The_Axe
[Joke Hijack]
Jews don't don't recognize Jesus as the messiah. Protestant don't recognize the Pope as head of the Christian faith. Baptists don't recognize each other in the liquor store.
[/Joke Hijack]

Regallag wins!
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 01-06-2006, 05:06 PM
Doctor Jackson Doctor Jackson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalhoun
They're choosing to be painted with the same brush by calling themselves the same thing.
No, in all cases the "painter" does the choosing. Will you chose to paint with a wide brush today, or a smaller one so you can get the details right?

Quote:
I'm certainly not going to assume a Southern Baptist shares the same religious beliefs a Muslim does.
How enlightened! I'll take it a step farther - I don't believe that all Muslims are suicide bombers, even though some of their spokesmen loudly say that type of martyrdom is an instant ticket to paradise. Wow, vocal fringe elements in a group! In "leadership" even! Who'da thunk it?

Quote:
But how do you know until you get to know a given SB that he doesn't ascribe to the same "christian" doctrine that a gay-bashing SB does, if the only public personna they ever show is gay-bashing?
If you're really interested, do some research. Read the source documents in full. Put quoted material into context. Otherwise, keep getting all your info from narrow, what's-gonna-sell-advertising media soundbites.

Quote:
GET LOUD AND PROUD, PEOPLE! Don't let the assholes represent you to the rest of the world. Kick the bad guys out of the club! Get some air time of your own! Take their SB cards away!!Don't let them speak louder for you than you do. Otherwise, you get the label.
Some of us are more interested in helping others than fighting your perceptions. Although I'll grant that we will have to focus more energy on perceptions if it begins to impede the mission.

I'll also grant that using the phrase "get loud and proud" in that context is quite humorous!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-06-2006, 05:30 PM
Kolak of Twilo Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Paris on the Prairie
Posts: 2,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sampiro
PS- Can you believe the Wikipedia article is already inclusive of this and a big picture of Latham?
Not only that Sampiro; if you look at the history of the article it appears that there wasn't even an article on Latham in Wikipedia before his arrest.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-06-2006, 06:16 PM
Kalhoun Kalhoun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Jackson
No, in all cases the "painter" does the choosing. Will you chose to paint with a wide brush today, or a smaller one so you can get the details right?


How enlightened! I'll take it a step farther - I don't believe that all Muslims are suicide bombers, even though some of their spokesmen loudly say that type of martyrdom is an instant ticket to paradise. Wow, vocal fringe elements in a group! In "leadership" even! Who'da thunk it?


If you're really interested, do some research. Read the source documents in full. Put quoted material into context. Otherwise, keep getting all your info from narrow, what's-gonna-sell-advertising media soundbites.


Some of us are more interested in helping others than fighting your perceptions. Although I'll grant that we will have to focus more energy on perceptions if it begins to impede the mission.

I'll also grant that using the phrase "get loud and proud" in that context is quite humorous!
From the official website of the Southern Baptist Convention:

Quote:
XV. The Christian and the Social Order

All Christians are under obligation to seek to make the will of Christ supreme in our own lives and in human society. Means and methods used for the improvement of society and the establishment of righteousness among men can be truly and permanently helpful only when they are rooted in the regeneration of the individual by the saving grace of God in Jesus Christ. In the spirit of Christ, Christians should oppose racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography. We should work to provide for the orphaned, the needy, the abused, the aged, the helpless, and the sick. We should speak on behalf of the unborn and contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death. Every Christian should seek to bring industry, government, and society as a whole under the sway of the principles of righteousness, truth, and brotherly love. In order to promote these ends Christians should be ready to work with all men of good will in any good cause, always being careful to act in the spirit of love without compromising their loyalty to Christ and His truth.
(bolding mine)

Okay...since this is the official stand of Southern Baptists, I have to assume you are a homophobe. If you're not, then you aren't really a Southern Baptist. You may embrace some of the qualities (the ones that aren't in direct conflict with the spirit of love, mind you), but if you don't oppose homosexuality, you should not wear the SB label. To claim to be an SB is to oppose homosexuality. I don't see anything here that says you can cherry pick what doctrine you will embrace. If there is a clause in there that says you can, I'd like to see it.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-06-2006, 06:42 PM
Kolak of Twilo Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Paris on the Prairie
Posts: 2,404
Ok Kalhoun, I don't know how much I want to get into this because I agree with the basic point you are making. However, I think it is important to point out that the quote you have included above is from the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message statement. It isn't really accurate to call this the official stand of Southern Baptists since they historically reject the idea of a creed. There are some churches that still prefer the 1963 BF&M which makes no mention of homosexuality. Baptists have also always subscribed to the idea of sola sciptura which basically says that the individuals understanding of scripture is paramount.

Having said that, the Southern Baptists have in recent years seemingly gotten further away from the historic ideals of what it means to be Baptist. Or at least they have in the opinion of this gay man who was raised in the church.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-06-2006, 07:01 PM
Kalhoun Kalhoun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo
Ok Kalhoun, I don't know how much I want to get into this because I agree with the basic point you are making. However, I think it is important to point out that the quote you have included above is from the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message statement. It isn't really accurate to call this the official stand of Southern Baptists since they historically reject the idea of a creed. There are some churches that still prefer the 1963 BF&M which makes no mention of homosexuality. Baptists have also always subscribed to the idea of sola sciptura which basically says that the individuals understanding of scripture is paramount.

Having said that, the Southern Baptists have in recent years seemingly gotten further away from the historic ideals of what it means to be Baptist. Or at least they have in the opinion of this gay man who was raised in the church.
Well, if this isn't the SBC's official stand, they ought to take the creator of the site to court, because they claim it IS the official stand of the SBC.

The site also mentioned that they really didn't have these issues back in the 1925(?) and 1963 versions. It's become an issue because homosexuality is out of the closet and the conversation is on the table.

From the published positions:
Quote:
We affirm God's plan for marriage and sexual intimacy one man, and one woman, for life. Homosexuality is not a "valid alternative lifestyle." The Bible condemns it as sin. It is not, however, unforgivable sin. The same redemption available to all sinners is available to homosexuals. They, too, may become new creations in Christ.
This is their published position. It basically invalidates gays perpetuates the silly notion that it's a lifestyle as opposed to something their god created. Sorry...the fact that they'll "forgive" the "sin" of homosexuality (hey...thanks for the bone!) is insulting. Anyone who aligns with this way of thinking is not only wrong, but dangerous.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-06-2006, 07:09 PM
Polycarp Polycarp is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: A better place to be
Posts: 26,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalhoun
From the official website of the Southern Baptist Convention:


(bolding mine)

Okay...since this is the official stand of Southern Baptists, I have to assume you are a homophobe. If you're not, then you aren't really a Southern Baptist. You may embrace some of the qualities (the ones that aren't in direct conflict with the spirit of love, mind you), but if you don't oppose homosexuality, you should not wear the SB label. To claim to be an SB is to oppose homosexuality. I don't see anything here that says you can cherry pick what doctrine you will embrace. If there is a clause in there that says you can, I'd like to see it.
Kal, in case you didn't get it before, the Southern Baptist Convention isn't a denomination in the sense that the United Methodist Church or the United Church of Christ is. And that's more than a nitpick.

If you're a baptist, you're a member of a local church. Period. The individual churches join together in state conventions for things like supporting missions, charitable aid, and so on. And the state conventions in turn belong to the SBC, which has a rather arcane cursus honorum for its leading offices.

But there are less than 500 people in the U.S. who "belong to the SBC," and most of them only because they're delegates or officials.

There are 13,000,000 people who belong to local churches affiliated with the SBC. And that's what the membership claim is based on.

But the point is that the SBC has historically been a very conservative church in terms of theology and moral teaching, but with this important point: it was the individual's moral responsibility to make his own moral choices.

That changed in the '80s when Paige Patterson and a few others engineered a coup by slowly maneuvering themselves and their own supporters into the top, policy-making offices. Then they in 2000 revised the Baptist Faith and Message, the closest thing the SBC has to a doctrinal statement, to incorporate inerrantism, homophobia, etc. into what had been a statement of doctrine and individual moral responsibility.

Some churches and individuals withdrew from the SBC and their state conventions. Most of them stayed in, some because they supported Patterson et al., some because they frankly didn't care, and some because they wanted to reclaim the SBC to what it had been when it was growing to be the largest Protestant denomination in the country.

Now the point to this all is: your quote is flat-out the product of the Patterson faction that has control of the central operation. It's no more binding on the individual Baptist in the local church than what the Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria has to say matters to me as an Episcopalian. He may be dead-set opposed to the Patterson clique, and determined to reclaim the church he's belonged to all his life from them.

As usual, an excrescence of the Moral Majority proves to be neither.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-06-2006, 07:36 PM
Kalhoun Kalhoun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polycarp
Kal, in case you didn't get it before, the Southern Baptist Convention isn't a denomination in the sense that the United Methodist Church or the United Church of Christ is. And that's more than a nitpick.

If you're a baptist, you're a member of a local church. Period. The individual churches join together in state conventions for things like supporting missions, charitable aid, and so on. And the state conventions in turn belong to the SBC, which has a rather arcane cursus honorum for its leading offices.

But there are less than 500 people in the U.S. who "belong to the SBC," and most of them only because they're delegates or officials.

There are 13,000,000 people who belong to local churches affiliated with the SBC. And that's what the membership claim is based on.

But the point is that the SBC has historically been a very conservative church in terms of theology and moral teaching, but with this important point: it was the individual's moral responsibility to make his own moral choices.

That changed in the '80s when Paige Patterson and a few others engineered a coup by slowly maneuvering themselves and their own supporters into the top, policy-making offices. Then they in 2000 revised the Baptist Faith and Message, the closest thing the SBC has to a doctrinal statement, to incorporate inerrantism, homophobia, etc. into what had been a statement of doctrine and individual moral responsibility.

Some churches and individuals withdrew from the SBC and their state conventions. Most of them stayed in, some because they supported Patterson et al., some because they frankly didn't care, and some because they wanted to reclaim the SBC to what it had been when it was growing to be the largest Protestant denomination in the country.

Now the point to this all is: your quote is flat-out the product of the Patterson faction that has control of the central operation. It's no more binding on the individual Baptist in the local church than what the Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria has to say matters to me as an Episcopalian. He may be dead-set opposed to the Patterson clique, and determined to reclaim the church he's belonged to all his life from them.

As usual, an excrescence of the Moral Majority proves to be neither.
I get what you're saying. I understand that not everyone who claims to be a southern baptist embraces this crap. My point is that these are the most vocal SBs, and therefore, the ones who set the tone that outsiders hear. If the majority of baptist churches don't believe this position, why don't they reclaim their faith?

It sounds as though you're telling me that most baptists now support total equality for homosexuals, both here on earth (marriage, adoption, etc.) and in their hereafter. You said yourself that Patterson has control of the central operation. To me, that means it is at best an official stand that is ignored much the way catholics ignore birth control. But it's still an official stand, i.e., gays cannot marry in the baptist church, for instance. At worst, it's exclusive, contradictory to christ's teachings, and an organization I'd do my damnedest to distance myself from.

I'm not going to pretend I keep abreast of the inside workings of various churches the way you do. I don't think I have to in order to know that most SBs are against homosexuality. If that's not how they feel, they're not speaking loudly enough against those ideas. If they "own" the church (as they should), we wouldn't be having this conversation. If the church is too strong to break, then they should break from it.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-06-2006, 07:47 PM
Kalhoun Kalhoun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Incidently, this is also from the site (bolding mine):

Quote:
About Us - Meet Southern Baptists
Since its organization in 1845 in Augusta, Georgia, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) has grown to over 16 million members who worship in more than 42,000 churches in the United States. Southern Baptists sponsor about 5,000 home missionaries serving the United States, Canada, Guam and the Caribbean, as well as sponsoring more than 5,000 foreign missionaries in 153 nations of the world.

The term "Southern Baptist Convention" refers to both the denomination and its annual meeting. Working through 1,200 local associations and 41 state conventions and fellowships, Southern Baptists share a common bond of basic Biblical beliefs and a commitment to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the entire world.
Is there a site that supports your statement that there are only 500 people truly affiliated with the SBC? How would a person who wants to learn about the true numbers 1) find that information, and 2) determine which statement was true? Again, this public picture may not reflect the inner feelings of SBs, but this is the site that's getting the attention. If it is erroneous, The Other Baptists (TM) need to make that known.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-06-2006, 08:01 PM
Kalhoun Kalhoun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Also, of the few local churches I looked at on the Google list, nearly every one of them linked directly to the SBC Official site with respect to homosexuality.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-06-2006, 09:51 PM
jackelope jackelope is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
This seems like a good time to mention the Onion's news brief from a few months ago:

Anti-Homosexuality Sermon Suspiciously Well-Informed
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 01-07-2006, 12:21 PM
Kalhoun Kalhoun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackelope
This seems like a good time to mention the Onion's news brief from a few months ago:

Anti-Homosexuality Sermon Suspiciously Well-Informed
<snort!>
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-07-2006, 09:58 PM
Zoe Zoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
kalhoun, I just love your devotion.

The SBC is about five miles down the road from me. You are female, aren't you? Let's get manicures and pedicures across the street, picket the SBC for a couple of hours and then have lunch.

I think Polycarp is right about the organization of the church and there seems to be a sort of wrestling for control. There is also a liberal faction that is working very hard. I have bought some thinner brushes lately myself.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-08-2006, 05:14 AM
Bricker Bricker is online now
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 45,094
Rev. Latham was arrested for "Offering To Engage In An Act of Lewdness." The evidence in support of this charge was the allegation that he he asked the undercover officer to join him in his hotel room for oral sex.

In light of Lawrence v. Texas, is that a crime?

Should that be a crime?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-08-2006, 06:19 AM
Kalhoun Kalhoun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoe
kalhoun, I just love your devotion.

The SBC is about five miles down the road from me. You are female, aren't you? Let's get manicures and pedicures across the street, picket the SBC for a couple of hours and then have lunch.

I think Polycarp is right about the organization of the church and there seems to be a sort of wrestling for control. There is also a liberal faction that is working very hard. I have bought some thinner brushes lately myself.
You're on, sistah! Though I'd hate to mess up a new manicure marching around with a picket sign. We'll need to find a Manicure Cafe and kill two birds with one stone!

I'm sure they're wrangling for control. But from everything I've been able to scrape up (other than that which is on the bottom of my shoe with regard to SBs), it appears the VAST majority of the individual churches embrace the "homosexuality as a lifestyle" and "people who engage in homosexual sex are bad" mindset. All I'm saying is that if I were trying to change public perception, I'd be doing something the public could actually see to change that perception. Their numbers are either much too small (in which case they should break from the SBC) or they're not trying hard enough.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-08-2006, 06:23 AM
Kalhoun Kalhoun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker
Rev. Latham was arrested for "Offering To Engage In An Act of Lewdness." The evidence in support of this charge was the allegation that he he asked the undercover officer to join him in his hotel room for oral sex.

In light of Lawrence v. Texas, is that a crime?

Should that be a crime?
I have no idea what Lawrence v. Texas is, but the act of soliciting sex should not be a crime. This guy's crime is hypocrisy and hate mongering. Far worse, considering his position.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-08-2006, 06:54 AM
AHunter3 AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 16,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalhoun
From the official website of the Southern Baptist Convention:


(bolding mine)

Okay...since this is the official stand of Southern Baptists, I have to assume you are a homophobe. If you're not, then you aren't really a Southern Baptist. You may embrace some of the qualities (the ones that aren't in direct conflict with the spirit of love, mind you), but if you don't oppose homosexuality, you should not wear the SB label. To claim to be an SB is to oppose homosexuality. I don't see anything here that says you can cherry pick what doctrine you will embrace. If there is a clause in there that says you can, I'd like to see it.
My parents are Baptists. There is a schism among Baptists between the followers of the Southern Baptist Convention and those who have broken allegiance to it.

Historically, I think they were decentralized, with local authority to pick their own pastors, etc; the SBC has been trying, with fair success, to impose a top-down structure with litmus tests and kicking clergy out of the system if they don't sign on for "official Baptist beliefs", including the homophobia and the literal verbatim Bible as Word of God stuff and the anti-evolution stuff and so on.

I think the schismatic rebel group is called Southern Baptist Fellowship. At any rate, apparently individual congregations are breaking loose and telling the SBC (in Baptist-appropriate language, I assume) to fuck off. It's most likely going to result in a formal split as the SBC continues to coalesce centralized authority.

I must say I enjoy seeing my stodgy Dad, who embraced the likes of Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, siding with the rebels and doing rolleyes at the SBC.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-08-2006, 07:03 AM
Kalhoun Kalhoun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHunter3
My parents are Baptists. There is a schism among Baptists between the followers of the Southern Baptist Convention and those who have broken allegiance to it.

Historically, I think they were decentralized, with local authority to pick their own pastors, etc; the SBC has been trying, with fair success, to impose a top-down structure with litmus tests and kicking clergy out of the system if they don't sign on for "official Baptist beliefs", including the homophobia and the literal verbatim Bible as Word of God stuff and the anti-evolution stuff and so on.

I think the schismatic rebel group is called Southern Baptist Fellowship. At any rate, apparently individual congregations are breaking loose and telling the SBC (in Baptist-appropriate language, I assume) to fuck off. It's most likely going to result in a formal split as the SBC continues to coalesce centralized authority.

I must say I enjoy seeing my stodgy Dad, who embraced the likes of Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, siding with the rebels and doing rolleyes at the SBC.
I'm clear on the difference between Baptist and Southern Baptist. But everything I've Googled on Southern Baptist Fellowship appears to be as hard-core as the SBC. Some sites actually link to the original SBC website I spoke of earlier. They don't sound like a toned-down version of SB to me. The VAST majority is unwaveringly against homosexuality.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-08-2006, 09:42 AM
Kalhoun Kalhoun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Oh. And by the way...the Regular Ol' Baptist Church (official site) also states that homosexuality is incompatible with christian teaching. That's all they say. No caveats, no contingencies. Sorry...they're as anti-gay as the Southern Baptists, just not as vocal about it.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-08-2006, 12:48 PM
AHunter3 AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 16,302
Agreed. The most liberal of Baptist groups is still frighteningly conservative. The difference appears to lie more with the right (or lack thereof) to continue to be a Baptist preacher if you don't hold and teach these opinions. The SBF preacher might preach a sermon contradicting Baptist condemnation of homosexuality. The SBC preacher deciding to do so could get defrocked. Or whatever they call it. Booted for heresy is what it amounts to.

In practice, it apepars there are far more Baptist congregations & preachers that do not wish to take the Bible as the literal Word of God (4000-some-odd years since creation, literal giants in dem days, and all that) and/or don't see a conflict between religion and evolution and don't want to be told they must preach otherwise, than there are defenders of the non-wrongness of being gay, which doesn't seem to be much of a celebrated cause on the rebellious side of this schism.

There are also flavors of Baptists who aren't Southern Baptist of either variety I think one such denomination is called "Primitive Baptist", no kiddin'. Somehow I don't expect they'd be in the forefront of social permissiveness either (I'm not sure but I think they disapprove of the playing of musical instruments in church, make of that what you will).

But it's the SBC that is overtly political, nationally organized, trying to divest the church of infidels and miscreants, and responsible for heavy involvement in elections and endorsements.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-08-2006, 01:31 PM
yBeayf yBeayf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Quote:
I think one such denomination is called "Primitive Baptist", no kiddin'. Somehow I don't expect they'd be in the forefront of social permissiveness either (I'm not sure but I think they disapprove of the playing of musical instruments in church, make of that what you will).
Primitive Baptists and Old Regular Baptists are a bit of a different breed than mainstream Baptists -- they split off from the mainstream Baptists in the early 19th century, and are primarily a rural Appalachian phenomenon. They've changed little since then; most of the changes in American Protestantism -- abandoning of belief in predestination, instrumental and harmonized music, the temperance movement, professional clergy -- never occurred in these Baptists groups. The Old Regular Baptists are most notable for preserving lined-out monophonic hymnody, which was once common to most Anglo- and Scots-descended Protestant churches but has since died out everywhere else (though I believe a very few Primitive Baptists congregations still hold on to the tradition).
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.