With Friends like the S. Baptists, Gays Need No Enemies

The BBQ Pit
241

Except that the standards aren’t quite equal. The Pope can, with some degree of reason, claim to be speaking that which all good Catholics must believe, in that by the laws of Catholicism, they have consented to his adopting that role, and if they remain good Catholics, they will agree to what it is that he teaches. Similar statements with appropriate variations and a bit less force can be asserted of a Methodist General Conference, a Presbyterian General Assembly, Gordon Hinckley for the Mormons (I forget his exact title, but he’s considered to have a prophetic voice for our days by good LDS), and so on.

Note that the Baptist Faith and Message places the onus for belief squarely on the individual believer, and the congregational polity places the formulation of doctrine in the hands of the local church. The SBC and its parallels are not denominations in any real sense; they’re like a Council of Churches for Baptist churches.

Or that was the theory before about 1985. Under Paige Patterson and his successors, the SBC abnegated its role as a common voice and conduit for missions money for its members, and amended the BF&M to teach a strict fundamentalism. As Sauron and others have noted, the resulting exodus of moderate people and local churches from the SBC was partially by compulsion and partly by “voting with their feet.” (I’d note the church a few miles west of Charlotte NC which was expelled from the state Baptist Convention (and presumably from the SBC in consequence) for baptizing two gay men, a couple, who attended there and presented themselves for baptism.)

So it is to some extent correct but to a greater extent incorrect to presume that the SBC leadership speaks for its 16,500,000 alleged members; it speaks for itself, and presumes to speak for them, but without any authority or consent to do so. Sauron or other Southern Baptists, please correct this if there is any error in it.

242

Polycarp that is exactly right.

There are also MANY Southern Baptists who do not agree with the missionaries and others who have lost their jobs and benefits all because they would not sign the BF & M. And some of these people who think this way are long time SB that are extremely conservative. One specific example that comes to my mind is my 78 year old mother-in-law. She told us last weekend that she thought it was just awful that these people dedicated their lives to serving and now as they approach the time when they should be able to retire they have nothing monetary to support them.

The SBC take on it is that every organization has a creed that members should uphold. The individual churches argument on it is that we have never been asked to do this and don’t understand why it is an all or nothing type thing now.

Very interesting that we got our Alabama Baptist newsletter in the mail yesterday. (Guilty admission—I usually toss it in the trash after I just scan the headlines) But after all of this discussion I actually opened it up and read it and was rather surprised at one particular statement I read. Basically it was saying that churches or members that did not agree to uphold ALL of the BF &M didn’t need to call themselves Southern Baptists.

Definitely made me think.

243

Esprix, presidebt and others:

To further expand on what Polycarp said earlier, see the following excerpt from a news story on the CNN Web site regarding SBC’s meeting. Bolding represents my emphasis:

"The denomination made a special plea to its more than 42,000 churches to befriend gays and help “liberate” them from homosexuality …

Their other resolutions denounced anti-Semitism and affirmed support for the U.S.-led war on Iraq. The resolutions are not binding on churches but are meant to express the denomination’s views."

The SBC can pass a resolution saying the moon is made of green cheese if it wants. That doesn’t mean that all Southern Baptists will automatically believe such.

As noted earlier, more than anything the SBC has become a political force, rather than a religious one. (That’s my personal opinion, but I think enough proof is there to avoid any argument.) As such, what the SBC does matters not one whit to my personal religious views.

The SBC wants to speak for all of Southern Baptism. I seriously doubt many Southern Baptists believe it actually does. I hope what Aries28 and I have been saying in this thread makes folks realize that.

Organizations like the SBC are helping to foster the backwoods stereotype of the Deep South, in my opinion.

244

Wow. Maybe you should skip Sunday School this week and hie thee to a remedial reading class instead because I didn’t say anything remotely like this. What I said was that the attitude I’ve perceived from your previous posts in this thread is one of a complete lack of responsibility on your part for addressing the shitty policies of the SBC because the particular church of which you’re a member does other unrelated good works. That attitude is complete bullshit.

Good on ya for working through your local church, if you’re in fact doing so. I certainly didn’t get that impression from your posts. Quite the opposite in fact.

I believe I said that the language was different while the attitude was the same. “Love the sinner, hate the sin” differes from “God hates fags” only in intensity of sentiment.

And they have become a political force largely through numbers. Imagine how much less political power if every church which disagreed with SBC withdrew from it.

245

Aries, I think that newsletter piece is indicative of what Homebrew is talking about: the SBC has effectively ceased, IMHO, to be the non-credal organization that it was when my Southern Baptist wife was growing up; the fundies that are now in charge are increasingly able to say, “my way or the highway,” to the churches and their members.

I would disagree with Polycarp on the question of authority and consent. The lack of substantive opposition to the change in the character of the SBC effectively amounts to the consent of the majority. And that effectively translates into authority.

This makes me think back to 1990 when the then-president of the SBC, a fellow named Morris Chapman, said that as far as they were concerned, to disbelieve in inerrancy was to disbelieve in God. No creed? That was saying the entire Bible was the SBC creed. This isn’t a sneak attack that happened just last month. This has been happening for a long time now, and at this point it’s effectively a done deal.

246

[quote]
Can I not disagree with an issue as a whole but still think the people who believe in that issue deserve every right I am entitled to even if I disagree with them?

[quote]
Of course. That’s not even a question.

247

Otto,

I give up. You win. I do nothing good. I am singlehandedly responsible for every bad thing that ever happened to any gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered person, because I have not gone as an uninvited delegate to the SBC and denounced their policies. I have intentionally trampled on the rights of any and all GLBT individuals because I have not trumpeted to the heavens my efforts on their behalf each and every single time I did something for them.

It’s a wonder I’m able to show my face in public.

248

And they say gay men are histronic Drama Queens. :rolleyes:

249

I don’t know what it is that you want us to do?

We said we think the OP about liberating gays was ridiculous.

We denouce the majority of the SBC policies. We try to explain that one can be a Southern Baptist and still HATE their policies and how they are trying to control members of our faith with the our way or the highway mentality.

We say that we feel gays should have every right that we are entitled to and that we support you loving whoever you want to love.

We say that we DO discuss things at our church we disagree with and are very vocal. I make a committment that I intend to bring up the OP issue at church this Sunday to find out what their take on it is and if they tell me they support it that I can’t be a member there.

We both put our personal beliefs out on the line for you to rip to shreds in an effort to understand you and where you are coming from.

I spend the last 2 days evaluating everything I’ve ever been taught about religion for the last 28 years as a result of things brought up in this thread and yet it still doesn’t seem to appease you.

250

I can only support Aries and Sauron doing what they feel right, which is, evidently, to remain a part of a church which in turn remains part of the SBC, and working for change from within. I’m not prepared to argue with RTF – especially as I regularly get exposed to arguments based on roughly the SBC stance, as to why it’s “showing Christian love” to oppose gay rights and to place legal and verbal demands on them to stop having gay sex.

FWIW, since it was brought up earlier, here is a story dating from Jimmy and Roslyn Carter’s withdrawal from the SBC. Here’s the website for the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, the moderate group formed as an alternative for ex-SBC members and churches. According to this page on that site, they have about 1,700 member churches and a budget of $19.3 million, with about 60% going to missions.

251

Aries28, I appreciate the thought and compassion youhave put into your posts. You and your husband are on the right side, and I don’t thinkit’s fair for anyone to ask more of you than you have already done.

Rome was not built in a day, and lifechanging decisions are not made in the snap of a finger.

Otto, this is what you were asking of Aries28. Don’t you think you owe her an apology?

252

A couple of three or four years ago, us Freemasons were in the sights of the Baptists.

We went to the gas chambers with the Jews and Gays in Germany. I am proud to be in good company and pleased to annoy the Baptists.

253

Thanks Gobear but I don’t need an apology from anybody.

I put my beliefs out there and was ready for the backlash…I just don’t understand how I can say I 100% agree with what we have talked about and still seem like the bad guy for not wanting to leave my church and denounce being a Southern Baptist.

I am quickly learning that not everybody that says that they just want to be understood truly cares whether or not they are. Some people just want to stick with the “us against them” kind of world. They want the controversy.

Regardless, Sauron and I do try to make a difference in our church and will continue to do so. And I do plan on digging deeper into what my specific church feels in relation to the SBC. If it is true that they support all their policies and stand by their hatred then I will leave and find someone else to worship and raise my children.

254

somewhere else to worship…

255

Hey, you are already married to one of the mightiest of the Maiar and the Dark Lord of Mordor.

I’m just sayin’ …

256

Aries28, I have no beef with you at this point. I’m sorry if I didn’t make that clear.

257

So when will the Southern Baptists either split into two denominations, or oust the SBC, as it seems they don’t actually speak for the denomination?

Seems the only logical two choices at this point, other than individuals leaving the denomination.

Esprix

258

When will all those American Catholics who don’t buy the Vatican line on contraceptives and so forth split from the Church? In my opinion, half past Armaggedon.

259

Well, here’s a little bit of background on the whole history of the SBC situation. In the 1960s and '70s, the SBC was controlled by a group that gets known as the “moderates”. Doctrinally, they believed that the bible is the sole source of religious truth, but that it’s not neccesarily the source of scientific or historical truth. They also believed that marriage was more or less an equal partnership and that women should have the same right as men to be pastors. On issues like the ERA, homosexuality, etc., the moderate leadership was split and didn’t take any position, basically saying, “It’s up to the individual Baptist to have his own view on the matter.” Among the Southern Baptists as a whole, though, there was also a fundimentalist movement, that said that the bible is the source of both religious and historical truth, that men should head the household and women shouldn’t be pastors, and that the ERA and homosexuality were wrong and couldn’t be supported by any good Baptist.

So in the late 70’s, the fundimentalists started organizing. The president of the SBC is elected by the attendees at the annual convention. So, in 1979, the fundimentalists swamped the convention with their people, and elected a fundimentalist, Adrian Rogers, president.

Rogers then appointed fundimentalists to the various nominating and selecting committees, so that when a vacancy in the SBC would open up, fundimentalists would get appointed.

The moderates didn’t take this seriously at first. They were never really as organized or regimented as the fundimentalists were, and they never really took the SBC seriously, because the SBC, historically, didn’t do that much.

By the time the moderates did take it seriously, the fundimentalists were entrenched, and when they realized that, a number of moderates did organize. In 1987, some of them formed the Southern Baptist Alliance, with the goal, so far unsuccessful, of retaking the convention.

In 1997, the Baptist General Convention of Texas split from the SBC, and that was the largest split so far.

But probably what’s going to happen is that the moderate churches are just going to ignore the SBC. They like being Southern Baptist, and don’t see why they should have to leave just because the SBC is being jerky.

260

While that’s true, I think a church’s position on contraceptives is a little different from its position on how people should be treated.

If I go along with the Catholic line on contraceptives, I’m only hurting myself.

If I went along with a SBC line on homosexuality, I’m hurting other people.
To go back to a different subject that was being argued between Sauron and (I think) presidebt: The difference between being a citizen of a country and being a member of a church is that one has to take action to be a member of a church. If you are simply born in the US and take no other action, you’re an American citizen. Someone can complain about the US, but you don’t have to be taking an active role in the US to be a “member.”

With a church, though, you have to actively participate in order to be a member. That participation implies, at least to me, an acceptance of what the organization stands for.

Another difference: You can choose not to attend any church at all. You can’t choose not to live in any country.

Julie