Mayor Pete Attacks Trump's Faith...

[seer]

Personally, I think Jesus (as portrayed in the NT) was hypocritical on this point. On one hand he is reported to have said "love your enemy" and "pray for those that persecute you" and on the other he is reported to have acted in ways that are hardly "loving." That disconnect has left a huge hole through which anyone looking to justify unloving behavior can pass. So parents can hit their children "out of love." People can respond to name calling with more name calling "out of love." People can adopt the MM/JPH/Pix/Sparko philosophy of "ridicule your foes" and claim they are acting "out of love" and "in keeping with Jesus' teaching." One of the dangers of hero worship is there is a risk you will adopt the heroes bad examples along with their good ones.

But you can and do discipline your children out love.

[Cow Poke]

Alas, my tendency to edit my posts has hosed things up again. I added this as you were responding:

If I may offer an analogy, if the Catholic Pope makes a comment in a speech that runs counter to normal Catholic theology, one can safely say, "that was never the official position of the church." It does not change the fact that the leader of that church just made that statement, which has profound impact on both members and nonmembers. Likewise, if the teachers and leaders of a seminary are publicly putting forward such positions, then I think we can safely assume that they are repeating those things in the classroom, and they are finding their way to the pulpit. It may not be the "official" position of the church, but if it is being taught by the leaders of that church to the membership, and there is widespread acceptance, aren't we splitting hairs just a tad?

Can you demonstrate where it's actually being taught as a doctrine? Just because somebody expresses their personal opinion does not a teaching or doctrine make.

The list of "whereas" speaks to the racism that occurred within the SBC over the years. It does not speak to the issue of "using the scripture to justify." I find no place where scriptural defenses were made in any official SBC document.

My point, exactly!

However, I find significant evidence of leaders, including within seminaries, doing exactly that (using scripture to defend slavery).

They are entitled to their personal opinions, yes, however wrong those may be.

I have not located any class lectures or sermons, but it does not seem to me unreasonable to assume that, if the seminary leaders were speaking this way publicly, then they were likely teaching this way as well, and that ministers were preaching this way from at least some pulpits. So "official" - you are correct.

Of course I am!

But these scriptural defenses were offered by many, many SBC leaders over the years - a fact which "never official SBC position" more or less ignores.

Then Tassman should have said that, rather than imply that it's an official SBC position, like he did in the quote I showed from 2014. You realize that's what this is all about, yes?

Given the significant issue racism continues to be, I find this an...well...odd response.

Of course you do! You seem hypersensitive to racism across the board. I'm not. It's wrong, inexcusable... the "Racism is wrong regardless of party, religion, blah blah blah...." is simply my way of... it's WRONG. Period. But that never seems to be enough. It was wrong then, it's wrong now, it's wrong if either political OR independent party does it...... but there's always some goofus who, no matter how much you say it, will still find a reason to get their panties in a twist.

[Cow Poke]

I'm not sure that the problem would be so easily assessed when it comes to them there Baptists - they seem to be very jealous of their autonomy. Congregations pretty much have final authority - and if the teachers don't teach what the congregation finds acceptable, the pastors won't get away with spouting it from the pulpit. (but maybe I have a somewhat starry eyed view of the Baptist system - except that I can't handle leavened bread and grape juice at communion). For example the SBC decided against women pastors not too long ago, and the Japanese Baptists told them that if they wanted a continuing association, they could shove their no women in church authority edict where it fits (which is not in Japan).

You bring up an important point of which most non-Southern Baptists (or maybe Baptists in general) are ignorant. The SBC, in particular, is a "bottom up" organization. We have no pope to issue marching orders or tell us what to preach or believe. As I mentioned before, we have the Baptist Faith & Message which is, in essence, a creed - but it was actually fought against because of the notion of the autonomy of the local church - that there is not some "official position" of the Church. When we attend our annual meetings, we don't go as 'delegates', we go as "messengers", because we vote to tell the SBC what we want done -- like we did with the 1995 statement on racism.

Local SBC Churches are free to accept as much or as little of the BF&M as they want, but it's a tool for prospective members to see what we believe, then they can always ask the pastor "are you in agreement with the BF&M 2000"?

The analogy runs into a major problem with regard to the Baptist Churches ... there is very little by way of hierarchy beyond the local congregation. No decisions by anything that looks like a higher authority are binding on individual congregations. Being a loose knit federation has its upside (no rogue Pope to make pronouncements or take action that contaminates the entire group) and its downside (no real way to deal with rogue congregations like Westboro).

I shoulda read that before I typed my response. Yes, you pretty much get it.

ETA: CP would be more aware of the actual workings than I am - all I have is a small bit of research last year (and more the JBC at that) and two hours/week contact as a TESOL teacher.

Yup! The SBC exists to serve the local churches. As I have stated, a MAIN reason that we have a national and international organization is because we can COLLECTIVELY field far more missionaries as "the SBC" than we ever could as "local churches". And that gets right back to the heart of the controversy --- the northern baptists decided to use, as a criteria for missionary appointments, whether that missionary candidate owned, or ever owned, slaves.

What should be becoming even more evident than ever is that Tassman is incredibly ignorant when it comes to the SBC, how we're organized, what we believe, etc... (which has been my point all along )

[Cow Poke]

...Being a loose knit federation has its upside (no rogue Pope to make pronouncements or take action that contaminates the entire group) and its downside (no real way to deal with rogue congregations like Westboro)...

Lemme deal with that one separately, because the last part is actually incorrect. In order to be a Southern Baptist Church, you have to belong to an "association" - a group of churches usually defined by geographic area like county or several counties, or region, or whatever. If a church wants to be part of the SBC, they seek affiliation with the local ASSOCIATION of SBC churches. Usually, that church would be under "watchcare" for a year, where the association has an opportunity to get to know them, their teachings, etc. At the end of that year, the local ASSOCIATION votes whether to admit them or not.

Conversely, if a church 'goes rogue', the ASSOCIATION can begin proceedings to "withdraw fellowship" from them, and de-list them as a cooperating SBC Church. I was actually part of an Association at one time where it became necessary to "de-list" or "withdraw fellowship" from a church that got way off into the "Holy Laughter" and "Lion of Judah" extreme charismatic emotionalism, and began teaching that speaking in tongues was necessary for salvation.

And, for the record, Westboro was and is not Southern Baptist.

We have local churches, belonging to "associations" (usually 20-100 local churches), "areas" (sometimes containing as many as 4 associations), state conventions, and "the SBC", in that order.

[tabibito]

Lemme deal with that one separately, because the last part is actually incorrect. In order to be a Southern Baptist Church, you have to belong to an "association" - a group of churches usually defined by geographic area like county or several counties, or region, or whatever. If a church wants to be part of the SBC, they seek affiliation with the local ASSOCIATION of SBC churches. Usually, that church would be under "watchcare" for a year, where the association has an opportunity to get to know them, their teachings, etc. At the end of that year, the local ASSOCIATION votes whether to admit them or not.

Caution in such circumstances would seem appropriate. Just by way of presenting a minor issue: Would such an association accept a church that doesn't prohibit consuming alcohol?

Conversely, if a church 'goes rogue', the ASSOCIATION can begin proceedings to "withdraw fellowship" from them, and de-list them as a cooperating SBC Church. I was actually part of an Association at one time where it became necessary to "de-list" or "withdraw fellowship" from a church that got way off into the "Holy Laughter" and "Lion of Judah" extreme charismatic emotionalism, and began teaching that speaking in tongues was necessary for salvation.

Nice.

And, for the record, Westboro was and is not Southern Baptist.

Never have I been so glad to be wrong (well - insofar as far as I can remember, anyway)

We have local churches, belonging to "associations" (usually 20-100 local churches), "areas" (sometimes containing as many as 4 associations), state conventions, and "the SBC", in that order.

Inverse pyramid? The higher in the chain, the less say you get?

[Cow Poke]

Caution in such circumstances would seem appropriate. Just by way of presenting a minor issue: Would such an association accept a church that doesn't prohibit consuming alcohol?

I don't think that would come up, because that's a "priesthood of the believer" issue. It's not even addressed in the Baptist Faith & Message, found here. And they don't even necessarily have to be in "full compliance" with the BF&M - just not opposed to it.

Nice.

There was also another "excommunication" of a church more recently that involved the church proudly boasting on their website that their STAFF (pastors, leaders) were "homosexual, lesbian, transgender....".

Never have I been so glad to be wrong (well - insofar as far as I can remember, anyway)

It's a common misconception. Westboro was an Independent Baptist Church, and they, in my experience, tend to be... um.... rather... judgmental?

Inverse pyramid? The higher in the chain, the less say you get?

Hadn't thought about it that way, but that's pretty much what the SBC Conservative Resurgence was all about. The "biggies" "at the top" got too big for their britches.

[rogue06]

Conversely, if a church 'goes rogue'

Et tu brudder. Et tu.

[Cow Poke]

Et tu brudder. Et tu.

[Celebrian]

You bring up an important point of which most non-Southern Baptists (or maybe Baptists in general) are ignorant. The SBC, in particular, is a "bottom up" organization.

I don't know about all Baptists, but Conservative Baptists have a very similar organization (churches have become even more independent at this point).

[Tassman]

I love you just enough to get to heaven.

There wasn't one. That's why you can't find one.


No, the Southern Baptist Convention was founded as a pro-MISSIONS organization, having been denied the appointment of missionaries who were, or had been, slave owners.

Indeed. The Northern Baptists seemed to think slavery was immoral. But, keeping slaves was sufficiently important for the SBC to secede and create a new Baptist denomination where owning slaves was permitted. It would be extraordinary for a Christian community to secede without some sort of biblical basis to justify such a split. So, what was the biblical justification for keeping slaves?

[Cow Poke]

This is the kind of crap for which you have earned the name "Drama Queen".

[Cow Poke]

I don't know about all Baptists, but Conservative Baptists have a very similar organization (churches have become even more independent at this point).

I grew up in an "Independent Baptist Church" and was always a bit puzzled about how they tended to huddle with like-minded IBC's. But, they were, in fact, quite independent of outside control.

[Cow Poke]

Indeed. The Northern Baptists seemed to think slavery was immoral. But, keeping slaves was sufficiently important for the SBC to secede and create a new Baptist denomination where owning slaves was permitted. It would be extraordinary for a Christian community to secede without some sort of biblical basis to justify such a split. So, what was the biblical justification for keeping slaves?

It was the economy, stupid.

[JimL]

This is the kind of crap for which you have earned the name "Drama Queen".

This is the kind of crap for which you earned the name "fraud!"

[rogue06]

This is the kind of crap for which you earned the name "fraud!"

But in this case the concept of "consider the source" comes into play