Are the Southern Baptist Convention members Heroes, or Bigots?

[Brandus]

Not knowing much about Baptists, the Southern Baptist Convention, or the Baptist World Alliance, it seems there are both good and bad reasons that the Southern Baptist Convention left the Baptist World Alliance recently.

They could be Heroes for standing up for what the believe in, and countering some serious doctrinal issues that the World Alliance endorsed.

"The December report complained that some in the alliance had questioned “the truthfulness of Holy Scripture,” refused to affirm the necessity of conscious faith in Jesus Christ for salvation, promoted women preachers

Now these could be pretty serious issues. Obviously one of the tenet’s of a church should be that the Bible is the Word of God, or else the whole thing is kind of pointless. If you can doubt parts of it are true, how can the rest of it be true? In this instance, they would be standing up for what’s right.

Second, affirming the necessity of concious faith in Jesus for salvation seems like common-sense christianity to me. If you dont need the Christ to be saved, what other way is there for a christian? This seems like grave theology here. In these case, they would definately be standing up for whats right.

Third, although there is scriptural evidence against promoting women preachers, this just seems like a matter of preference, really. There is also evidence that men with long hair are enemies of the church, though. I’ve heard women preachers who had a great message before.

quit the Baptist World Alliance following complaints that some members of the loose, global association had adopted liberal theology…

Prior to Tuesday’s vote, Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, said the SBC should not give money or endorsement to an organization that includes liberals.

He also complained that the American Baptist Churches, a U.S. denomination, includes “gay-friendly congregations,”

On the other hand, these reasons stink of incompassion and intolerance. First, I hate how some people just throw around the world “liberal” as a curse word. I can see how two groups could have a scriptural dialogue and choose not to cooperate anymore because they could not agree on the correct way to interpret the scriptures. It does not appear that way here, though. This seems like someone high up in the organization is getting all uppity because those darn liberals and their darn liberal thinkin’. And Gay-friendly congregations… abomination of abominations! Heaven forbid that gay people hear your “truth”, too! :rolleyes:
So, I think they could be commended for being firm to their faith, and they could be derided for being intolerant bigots.

So, if not both, which?

[Zagadka]

Why would you automatically be a hero for standing up for what you believe in? Hate groups from the Nazis to the KKK “stand up for what they believe in.” In general, most people stand up for what they believe in, or you just don’t hear from them.

[rjung]

What Zagadka said. Taking a stand by itself is hardly heroism – most parents can tell you stories about toddlers who took a defiant stand on such firm issues like Staying Up Past Bedtime and Don’t Want to Eat Vegetables. :rolleyes:

It’s what you stand for, and when you stand for it, that matters. And being resolute against the spectres of tolerance and love doesn’t sound like virtuous Christianity to me.

[Brandus]

@Zagadka

Why would you automatically be a hero for standing up for what you believe in? Hate groups from the Nazis to the KKK “stand up for what they believe in.” In general, most people stand up for what they believe in, or you just don’t hear from them.

I don’t think comparing the Southern Baptist convention to the Nazis is valid or helps answer my question, in fact it is a tad cursory.

The SBC was part of a larger collection or congregations. This larger group went in a direction they did not agree with. They chose to seperate from this group. Was this decision based on well founded scriptural discernments, or petty cultural conflicts? Or both?

For more information, please consult.

[Zagadka]

@Brandus

I don’t think comparing the Southern Baptist convention to the Nazis is valid or helps answer my question, in fact it is a tad cursory.

I didn’t compare them to Nazis. I said that your definition of them possibly being heroes based on standing up for what they believed is not the most clear cut thing in the world, because other groups who stand up for what they believe are most certainly not heroes (unless you happen to be a Nazi, then I guess they are. But lets not make this too complex).

[Atticus_Finch]

@Brandus

I don’t think comparing the Southern Baptist convention to the Nazis is valid or helps answer my question, in fact it is a tad cursory.

Well, on the question of whether they are heroes or bigots, it’s decidedly on point. If you’re a neo-Nazi, the Nazis are heroes because they champion your beliefs. If you’re most other people, the Nazis are the worst bigots imaginable. Note that we’re not calling you or them Nazis, just using the phrase to make a point.

Put it another way: some radical animal-rights group believes in freeing all battery chickens and fire-bombing the homes of industry big-shots. If you agree that battery chickens are enslaved, maybe they’re heroes to you. To the majority of people, they’re not.

So to me, the SBC look like rednecked bigots. If you believe in their brand of Christianity and are worried about homosexuals taking over, or whatever they’re worried about, they’re heroes.

The SBC was part of a larger collection or congregations. This larger group went in a direction they did not agree with. They chose to seperate from this group. Was this decision based on well founded scriptural discernments, or petty cultural conflicts? Or both?

This is a different debate topic to the one you first posited - whether their beliefs are based on an accurate version of Christianity. Which do you want to discuss? They’re both pretty subjective. In response to your three points, many people do not agree with these:

Obviously one of the tenet’s of a church should be that the Bible is the Word of God, or else the whole thing is kind of pointless. If you can doubt parts of it are true, how can the rest of it be true? In this instance, they would be standing up for what’s right.

Lots of churches don’t have the concept that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Most think it’s the work of holy men, probably inspired by God, but not God-given. An Eastern Orthodox poster, whose name I can’t remember, had an interesting take on this recently.

If one believes it’s the Word of God, which language do you read it in? Which source materials do you rely on?

Second, affirming the necessity of concious faith in Jesus for salvation seems like common-sense christianity to me. If you dont need the Christ to be saved, what other way is there for a christian? This seems like grave theology here. In these case, they would definately be standing up for whats right.

Well, there’s two debatable parts there. The first is the faith vs works question - some Christians think that good works will get you more celestial brownie points than just faith. The idea that faith is all that is necessary only really came into the mainstream with the Protestant revolution of 500-ish years ago.

The other question is why this faith has to be in Jesus per se. Why not in God in general, as Jesus is only a part of God? Why not in God-as-the-father, or in the Holy Spirit?

Third, although there is scriptural evidence against promoting women preachers, this just seems like a matter of preference, really. There is also evidence that men with long hair are enemies of the church, though. I’ve heard women preachers who had a great message before.

There’s a lot of evidence that eating shellfish is sinful too. I’m not sure what these biblical prohibitions have to do with your concept of the SBC as a common-sense-driven group…

[Reeder]

To the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention…if you aren’t a dyed in the wool, believe every word in the bible is literal and don’t you be the least bit moderate…you ain’t ca ca.

Yes they are bigoted.

There is no room for any other opinion but theirs.

Just as an aside…

Am I the only one amazed that the Southern Baptist Convention held their yearly gathering in Indianapolis??

[furt]

Got to be one or the other, eh? No middle ground?

I strongly suspect that if I asked the two Southern Baptist ministers in my immediate family about this, they wouldn’t have a clue what I was talking about.

[An_Arky]

Well, at the risk of taking Godwin’s Law to a new extreme, I have to say that the SBC is beginning to appear to me to be akin to the Taliban or some other fundamentalist theocratic hardliners. I noticed that Bush gave them encouragement via video…

I feel like I’m trapped in The Handmaid’s Tale. :eek:

[Zagadka]

@Reeder

Am I the only one amazed that the Southern Baptist Convention held their yearly gathering in Indianapolis??

Har-har.

I had a friend who was a Southern Baptist. Went to some of their services. If he is any indication, then yes, they are bigots, as well as pretty slow on the uptake.

[An_Arky]

Sorry, hit submit too soon. As for the debate part, I would venture that history will tell the difference between the heroes and bigots. If historical trends hold true, I would predict that these folks will be regarded as bigots who refused to acknowledge a changing world. History is littered with those that embrace change for the betterment of the world, and those that deny it. The SBC are clearly deniers in this instance.

Oh, I could be wrong, though, maybe these folks are the ones who will save us all from the evils of questioning faith, women preachers, and ::shudder:: them homo-sexuals.

[Zagadka]

[QUOTE=An Arkysave us all from the evils of … ::shudder:: them homo-sexuals.[/QUOTE]

Dahling, if this is Damned, I don’t want to be Saved!

[Squink]

Dear Lord,
Please grant someone the willingness to start a thread on the import of this Baptist schism, and the ability to do so without provoking an instant train-wreck.
-Thanx
Squink.

[Reeder]

The keyword to all this is “The Leadership”. They are the ones who control what goes on at these conventions. There is a silver lining though.

Each SBC Church is individual. That means once they get back, they can do just about what they wish. I doubt they could hire an openly gay preacher though. And remain affiliated with the SBC.

But other things they can pretty much do as they please regardless of what the leadership says.

[Padeye]

They were discussing this on NPR today and I think Terry Gross or her guest mentioned the firece independance of Southern Baptists. They quoted Jimmy Carter who said something to the effect that they will vote one way on an issue at the convention then go right back to their congregations and overturn it.

[Reeder]

Exactly.

[Paladud]

By what logic are heroism and bigotry mutually exclusive? Undoubtedly, the group in question has strong biases against particular groups and acts on them, and thus can be accurately described as a bunch of bigots. They can vehemently deny it but that won’t change the fact.

Heroism is pretty subjective, though. I’m sure they’re heroes (or at least positive role models) to quite a few people out there.

[Zagadka]

@Paladud

By what logic are heroism and bigotry mutually exclusive?

Hero:
A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life

Bigot:
One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Hm.

Do “nobility of purpose” and “strongly partial to one’s own religion and intolerant of those who differ” go hand in hand in your world? They don’t in mine!

[Zoe]

Some of you seem like you might be somewhat judgmental and intolerant of Southern Baptists. I grew up in the South. Lots of friends and relatives were Southern Baptists. Some were bigots; some weren’t. Some had prejudices but were otherwise kind and giving. Some talked a good line but were bigots in their hearts.

Like any large group, they are a mixed lot.

[Paladud]

@Zagadka

Hero:
A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life

Bigot:
One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Hm.

Do “nobility of purpose” and “strongly partial to one’s own religion and intolerant of those who differ” go hand in hand in your world? They don’t in mine!

“Nobility of purpose” is perfectly subjective; bin Laden has no shortage thereof in the eyes of some, doesn’t he?