# Are the Southern Baptist Convention members Heroes, or Bigots? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 15, 2004, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-southern-baptist-convention-members-heroes-or-bigots/250556 "2004-06-15T22:35:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-southern-baptist-convention-members-heroes-or-bigots/250556/21 "2004-06-23T14:38:49Z")
> [@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. No argument here. I’ve known a number of perfectly wonderful Southern Baptists, as well as other varietys of convervative/Evangelical Protestants; the ones who are my friends have no problem tolerating my gay, agnostic self, which means they’re probably not bigots. However, the Southern Baptist Convention as an organization, and the specific beliefs it espouses, have grown far more conservative over the years. The official theology of the group is no reason to indict its members, but by the same token, the fact that its members are almost all perfectly decent human beings doesn’t mean that the organization as a whole is working for good. I find the church’s strict definition of the word “Christian” (defined to exclude anyone who’s not a conservative Protestant) pretty revolting; the claims that Catholics are going to Hell disgust me, since only the most tortured interpretation of Scriptures could imply that. (The claims that non-Christians are bound for Hell make me sad, but at least they seem to me to be clearly upheld by the Bible.) I also live in fear of the growing role that the Evangelical crowd holds over our government, but that’s a different matter entirely . . . ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-southern-baptist-convention-members-heroes-or-bigots/250556/22 "2004-06-23T15:19:23Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > No argument here. I’ve known a number of perfectly wonderful Southern Baptists, as well as other varietys of convervative/Evangelical Protestants; the ones who are my friends have no problem tolerating my gay, agnostic self, which means they’re probably not bigots. > > However, the Southern Baptist Convention as an organization, and the specific beliefs it espouses, have grown far more conservative over the years. The official theology of the group is no reason to indict its members, but by the same token, the fact that its members are almost all perfectly decent human beings doesn’t mean that the organization as a whole is working for good. I find the church’s strict definition of the word “Christian” (defined to exclude anyone who’s not a conservative Protestant) pretty revolting; the claims that Catholics are going to Hell disgust me, since only the most tortured interpretation of Scriptures could imply that. (The claims that non-Christians are bound for Hell make me sad, but at least they seem to me to be clearly upheld by the Bible.) > > I also live in fear of the growing role that the Evangelical crowd holds over our government, but that’s a different matter entirely . . . I agree with you that many Southern Baptists are pefectly decent people, but there’s a little somethin somethin here that bothers me. You make it sound like the Southern Baptist Convention is composed almost entirely of really nice people whose leadership has gone completely away from who their members are and are coming up with all sort of positions these VERY NICE people would never support if they thought about them for even a moment. Is that your position? Because I think it’s more likely that the reason the Southern Baptist Convention leadership is coming up with all this bigoted shit is because that’s what the vast majority of it’s oh-so-nice members want and approve of. I’ll grant you that leadership sometimes gets away from the wishes of its constituency but I’ve heard and read very little to indicate that this is the case with the SBC. I take exception to the defense of the SBC. A few good apples don’t mean the barrel isn’t full of rotten ones. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-southern-baptist-convention-members-heroes-or-bigots/250556/23 "2004-06-23T18:59:12Z")
> [@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. First, disabuse yourself of the idea that the Southern Baptist Convention is a denomination in the sense that the Catholic Church, the United Methodist Church, or the Church of God (Anderson, Ind.) is. They’re a gathering of several thousand congregational churches who subscribe to a particular set of beliefs, not necessarily including those of the mouthy, err, outspoken SBC leadership. **Sauron** or **Aries28** can speak more fully to that issue. So suggesting that the SBC leadership is speaking for 15 million Southern Baptist Americans is flat out wrong. > [@](#): > > 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. A Christian is someone who believes in Jesus Christ – not necessarily in a set of tenets about the Bible. I get very irked at the arrogation of authority to Scripture by one particular group of self-proclaimed Christians who then set out to judge others by whether they agree with their reading of the issues. > [@](#): > > 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. **Triskadecamus** could do a better job on this, but let me try: there are profoundly retarded people who consider themselves to be good Christians and who love God and Jesus and try to do what is right. I’m not prepared to draw lines and demand that God toe the mark on whom _I_ think He ought to grant His grace to and who is not worthy – because the first person He’ll consider unworthy, by His very own statement, would be **me**. > [@](#): > > 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. Bleeah! > [@](#): > > 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: Heh. Be crystal clear on this – as a Christian treats a gay person, so will the Lord treat him or her. That’s made clear in the parable of the sheep and goats. And if I were part of almost any other denomination than the one I’m glad to be in, I’d be shaking in my shoes at what my church is doing in His name. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-southern-baptist-convention-members-heroes-or-bigots/250556/24 "2004-06-23T20:56:45Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > First, disabuse yourself of the idea that the Southern Baptist Convention is a denomination in the sense that the Catholic Church, the United Methodist Church, or the Church of God (Anderson, Ind.) is. They’re a gathering of several thousand congregational churches who subscribe to a particular set of beliefs, not necessarily including those of the mouthy, err, outspoken SBC leadership. **Sauron** or **Aries28** can speak more fully to that issue. So suggesting that the SBC leadership is speaking for 15 million Southern Baptist Americans is flat out wrong. They’re not yet a denomination in the classic sense, **Poly** , but they’re certainly headed in that direction. I can’t recall details right now, but I know they’ve instituted a few ‘do as we tell you or we kick you out’ rules for local congregations in recent years. Can’t remember whether they’ve been about gays or wimmin preachers or what, but Paige Patterson’s group is definitely about control, and now that the local congregations’ independence is the last refuge of Southern Baptists who disagree with his group, they’re going to be chiseling away at that independence. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-southern-baptist-convention-members-heroes-or-bigots/250556.md?page=1)