You’ve probably read it in the news already. The Southern Baptist leadership has decided on scriptural grounds not to allow women to be pastors, and is in the process of alienating even more of their flock. First it was their hard-line stance on gays, and that whole Disneyland thing, now this. This concerted effort to steer the church to the right seems to be losing them the support of all but the most fundamentalist. I’m not at all familiar with the inner workings of the Baptist church, so I don’t know how these guys came to power in the first place, and I am aware of the church’s bible-thumping reputation (my father, for one, refers to his Southern Baptist upbringing as “my time in the cult”), but I wonder how it is that one of our nation’s largest denominations could come to represent such a seemingly small segment of the population. There are certainly lots of moderate Baptists, politically and religiously. Al Gore is a Baptist, if I remember correctly. Do they really want to lose them all? Are these the acts of a self-righteous but politically naïve group, or is this part of a plan to separate the sheep from the goats? How far do you think they can take this before they cease to carry any political weight at all? And now that the reverse has been debated endlessly, what should be the role of politics in religion, anyhow?
The less political weight the better to me. Especially since REpublicans count on conservative Christian groups. 
I can only guess what is on the minds of the SB leaders. Denying female pastors was about as good a move as Hitler invading the Soviet Union. I guess I could kinda understand how they could think homosexuality might be a sin (though of course I seriously disagree), but what is up with this latest female ruling. I suppose they feel the Bible dictates a woman’s “place” which likely is in a submissive role. I wonder if they would have us riding camels too.
Well, holding hands is fine, kissing is probably OK, but I really doubt they can go any further than that.
Seriously, as I’ve mentioned before, I am a recovering Southern Baptist. None of these belief statements are anything new–they’re mostly just re-assertions of what the SBC has always believed. More correctly, the SBC is stating that they’re not changing their stance on these issues. They like to think that their interpretation of the Bible is the obvious and correct one, and that other denominations who ordain women or allow homosexuals as members or other such things are “selling out”, so to speak.
This is especially ironic since, IIRC, the Southern Baptists formed largely over the issue of slavery–that is, the SB’s were among those who thought that slavery was Biblically mandated. (I may be wrong about this–please correct me if I am.)
The thing to remember is that Southern Baptist churches are independent entities–they’re not bound by the beliefs of the SBC. I think the relationship is akin to that between doctors and the AMA–the AMA speaks for them and sets guidelines, but the doctors aren’t obligated to follow them. I don’t know how far that goes–it might be possible for a Southern Baptist church to ordain a woman or a homosexual if it wanted to. (I’m not overly familiar with the structure–this is how I understand it.)
In short, I don’t think the SBC is concerned with “losing people”. As you see with FriendOfGod on the other threads, they don’t consider their beliefs to be beliefs, but simply the way it is. If all but six people quit the SBC because they reject those ideas, to those six people it doesn’t make them any less valid. You have to admire their integrity, if little else.
Dr. J
One thing to note, what the SBC say and does is one thing. Whether or not any of the State Conventions or even individual churches follow it is another thing. Both of the latter groups aren’t obliged to follow any dictates of the SBC.
This has been going on for years, ever since a guy named Paul Pressler (I think, it’s been 15 years since this started, I think) got himself elected President. He ran on a platform of “reform” and “getting back to the bible”. This ended up meaning what Pop Culture calls fundamentalism. Seminary Presidents who didn’t agree with the party line were dismissed, leaders of various orginaztions in the SBC were dismissed if they wern’t “Loyal” and toed the party line. If this sounds like Naziism, you’re thinking what i was thinking.
(side joke: at Mississippi College, a Baptist college, the common joke was ‘I was a Baptist for X number of years, then I got saved.’)
What the SBC makes big stands against, like the Disney thing, are at the root based in the bible. Homosexuality is a sin in Christian eyes, Disney has “Gay Days”, therefore a boycott is needed against them. (Note: One Editor of a Baptist Newspaper wrote an article blasting them on that very stance, saying if you boycott them, you have to stand against Busch Gardens, which is owned by the Beer Company, the theme park owned by Segrams, et al. The fact that conventions were organising trips to those places was hypocritial if you were going to be serious about boycotting. The general gist of the article was the whole business was silly.)
The Woman problem (vain attempt to end this sooner or later :)). 1 Timothy 2:12 is where the problem comes up. “Let not a woman teach.” Fine, Paul didn’t want women usurping the place of men in the church. This is where I start using my brain. Paul was a former Pharasee himself, and famous for stoning every Christian he could. I’d be willing to bet Paul’s admontion against women came from his Jewish side, not direct influence from God. (I’m not Jewish, so I don’t know how strict they are on this.)
In essence, the SBC is dominated by people who believe the bible literally, wholeheartedly, and without reservation. Since it says in there what I mentioned, that’s why it came up. If they hadn’t limited the power structure to people who worship a book rather than God, we’d be better off, IMO.
I’ve lost track of the OP. :eek: I’ll post later if I feel inspired.
Boy, would I be in trouble then. MC was a great place to meet women. 
And I believe you’re right on the Slavery thing. Course they have apologised since then for the position. Nice to see that at least.
Hope no one minds my dropping in on this…
avalongod, were you asleep last summer? That was decided at last year’s convention!!!
Hey, these folks debated over which sexual positions were acceptable (it was over a decade ago, and no, I don’t have a link or other cite.) Just laugh. If you need to, hope that they’ll go away. They won’t, but neither will we.
By the way, this year’s convention was in Orlando. Disney World, anyone?
quote:
You mean to tell me they were arguing over whether DAvid might have done Bathsheba doggy-style? I'm glad to see that the SBC is in tune with the moral pulse of the nation.Hang on. From what little I know of Baptists it seems this thread is mixing Southern Baptists with Primitive Baptists with Independant Baptists.
Amazing what can get started if you just opposed infant baptism.
I wonder what they’d think if they found out Daisy Duck was a lesbian.
lol
I am always amused at these “boycotts”.
A while back, Donald Wildmon decided pepsi was sponsoring too many “bad” programs.
So my friend refused to buy any pepsi products.
As if that would take smut off the air!
Women can’t be pastors? This is new?
I live in St. Petersburg. I’ve been a member of First Baptist Church since I accepted Christ when I was six. I am both apalled and ashamed by the actions and political stances taken by the Southern Baptist Convention in recent years.
I have carefully studied and interpreted the Bible on my own for years, which is what true Baptist doctrine is all about. The whole idea of Baptism, nay, the whole idea of Protestantism is that everyone has the right to a personal relationship with God, to pray on their own, and to interpret the scriptures in their own way.
Every time I hear on the TV news that Southern Baptists have condemned this or boycotted that, I wonder just what is going through the minds of the convention leaders. What are they doing? The role of the SBC is not to decide religious Dogma. It’s not the Vatican. The role of the SBC is to pool missions money, to act as a central tie for communication between churches, and to help churches spread the Gospel. It offends me to hear many of the flat out hateful things that are produced by the SBC, especially because those things are then reflected on me as a Baptist.
The church I attend has several male pastors, but we have had a female pastor on the staff as well for the past several years. Many in my church are outspoken opponents of the SBC, and we are now given the choice between giving the missions portion of our tithes and offerings (which is what goes to the SBC) to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, a distinctly non-political entity which exist solely for missions purposes. While my church has not severed it’s ties with the SBC, we do not participate in its boycotts, nor do we adopt any of its political leanings. It sickens me that pseudo-politicians like Pat Robertson can masquerade as clergymen in order to further their agendas. My nausea is only compounded by the fact that the questionable actions of the SBC, and small group of overly powerful individuals run amok, reflect on me as a Baptist and as a Christian in general.
I should be noted that I haven’t been going to church as much as I like to these days.
Well, that brings up an interesting question for QG- how FAR is Hell, anyway?
As DoctorJ already mentioned, the SBC does not have any particular authority over the individual churches. They can make suggestions and such but it is up to each individual church to make their own decisions.
If a church is removed from the fellowship of the SBC all it really means is they cannot give money to the SBC anymore (does not help the SBC) and they cannot vote on matters at the convention. So if a church wants to have a Lesbian Pastor there ain’t nothing the SBC can do about it.
The individual churches are completely free to do what they want.
Another verse that is often used is from I Timothy 3:2 where the “qualifications” for being a pastor are given. Part of it states that the pastor must be the husband of one wife. Now, this would seem to preclude all females due to the fact that they cannot be a husband (since lesbian marriages are not legal). However, how many churches require that their pastors be married? It states that the pastor must be the husband of one wife not that the pastor can have no more than one wife.
That is where the problem with interpretation and belief and keeping in mind the times the bible was set comes into play. Our church has had a female youth pastor and does have a female children’s pastor. I am not sure I would be comfortable with the “head” pastor being female, but that is likely due to upbringing.
All this to say, I do disagree with some of what the SBC says and I may agree with some things, but I choose to live my life as I believe the bible and more importantly Jesus Christ teach me to live.
Jeffery
Saint Zero: Judiaism in general are more egalitarian in regard to having women leaders, in temple and in the secular world. There have been judges and rabbis who were and are women, and powerful Israeli queens. Also, the new Israel had Golda Meir as prime minister. You do not get the theory of subjugation of women from the Jews.
Misogyny that is inherent in Christianity, as well as baptism, came from the Essenes.
quote:
Although I am sure you can find misogynic quotes in the Bible, I am not sure it is INHERENT to Christianity. In fact if I remember my history, for the first few centuries, many Christian priests were in fact women. I believe it was the RCC that got their hands on things and put that down, particularly in the later Medieval ages. Then they published that Malleus Maleficarum thing, and things just went downhill from there.Hm. I don’t know then. God doesn’t seem to work that way though. I dunno; I don’t see why.
It’s all this questioning of the word of God that keeps me from being a good little drone… Southern Baptist, I mean. I’ll read again and see.
the thing is, really, that the Baptist church is not concerned with the trends of the population of the US. they’re not swayed by what is p.c. or popular.
I’d venture to say that the Baptist church is in fact inordinately concerned with the trends of the population of the U.S., to the extent that they and their Fundamentalist brethren try to control those trends through legislation and lobbying to conform to their idea of “Biblical standards.”
I must disagree with Doctor J, who wrote:
They go all the way. Where do you think little Southern Baptists come from, anyway? Of course, this is within a proper covenant marriage, and always in the missionary position…
To summarize some stuff I’ve gotten over the past year or so from various Baptist acquaintances, IRL and online:
Baptists traditionally focus on individual commitment and personal responsibility for one’s life.
Each Baptist church is its own entity, an independent congregation not answerable to anybody. Baptist churches bond in “conventions” of which the individual churches are members, largely for seminary support, mission work, and the like. So the “Southern Baptist Convention” as a denominational authority akin to the United Methodists, the Catholic Church, or whatever, is reminiscent of a sasquatch.
The Southern Baptist Convention, as a grouping, some years ago took on a very conservative stance, literalist in Biblical interpretation, hardline on morality, etc. However, its only power over its members is to refuse them membership in itself, which doesn’t seem to have bothered the moderate Baptist churches that have been thrown out (technically, I believe, totally by the individual state conventions which are an in-between unit between the national SBC and the member churches; the SBC as a body has not disfellowshiped any churches).
As Phil notes, as “the largest single protestant denomination,” it is seeking to influence Americans “back to a more godly way of life.” And there are a lot of other groups working toward this same general end. They are meeting a lot of resistance, even from within, when their attempts take on the form of coercion rather than guidance and pressure. But “you can’t go wrong advocating motherhood and apple pie” and there are a lot of people firmly convinced that all homosexuals are child molesters, all atheists worship Satan (in my experience, most of them just exchange e-mail and posts with him:)), etc.
neuro-trash grrrl wrote:
True, but I don’t believe he’s a Southern Baptist.
Baptist churches other than the Southern Baptist church are not obliged to, and oftern do not, follow the edicts of the Southern Baptist church.