What think ye of the SBC convention, moderates vs conservatives?

[Basil the Great]

I must be missing something here. I do not see how this Critical Race Theory has anything to do with Scriptural interpretation. As far as his wife standing up and speaking, I suppose that if you insist on taking Paul's words about a woman being silent in church as the word of God and not just his own recommendation, then I guess you would have an issue with the new President.

 

[Hammster]

I must be missing something here. I do not see how this Critical Race Theory has anything to do with Scriptural interpretation. As far as his wife standing up and speaking, I suppose that if you insist on taking Paul's words about a woman being silent in church as the word of God and not just his own recommendation, then I guess you would have an issue with the new President.

Yep.

 

[Points To Ponder]

I've tried to follow the issues within the SBC, seen all the interviews with the leadership. From the outside it looks as if leadership is trying to ride the fence somewhat on CRT. Vague language that can calm some of the more conservative members while not directly rebuking CRT appeasing the liberal minded members. Some may find my next point offensive but it seems that the SBC many years ago embraced inclusion above sound and validated theology in regards to members and appointments to committee leadership positions including seminary. I think it's important to remember that we as Christians are not subject to worldly views and we are no longer part of this world and it's social construct. Our focus is on the Kingdom. Love leads us but not at the expense of embracing and including bolt on doctrine contrary to the scripture. We should not use the worlds measuring stick and score cards to define or divert from the mission.

 

[Points To Ponder]

I must be missing something here. I do not see how this Critical Race Theory has anything to do with Scriptural interpretation. As far as his wife standing up and speaking, I suppose that if you insist on taking Paul's words about a woman being silent in church as the word of God and not just his own recommendation, then I guess you would have an issue with the new President.

Colossians 2:8 warns us of things like CRT or other "solutions" that clearly promote things contrary to the scriptures. Basically it is saying that the scriptures are not sufficient.

Ibram X. Kendi, one of the prominent critical race theorists and author of How To Be An Antiracist, wrote, “The only remedy to racist discrimination is anti-racist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” Kendi is bold in his assertions.

How do you love your neighbor but discriminate against them? CRT is rejecting the very words of Jesus Christ.

As far as Paul's instructions in 1 Timothy 2 are concerned context matters. Pauls epistle to the Church at Ephesus in chapter 2 are his instructions on roles in the Church. If you wish to lean on our modern view you can assume Paul is instructing the Church of Ephesus about rules and roles that he does not expect other Church to follow. This makes little sense. One might choose to argue that it was important for that culture only. If you adopt that view then all scriptures can be manipulated to fit in modern culture. Adultery, divorce, homosexuality and so forth. We know that there were women teachers, prophets and a 2nd generation Apostle (Junia). Scripture gymnastics can help you land wherever you desire on this issue. Many have determined that women can do anything but have ultimate authority over the Church. Read the scriptures, understand the context, pray and let the Holy Spirit tell you how you should understand.

 

[Basil the Great]

Look, I know very little about the CRT and only heard of it within the past week. Hence, I have not spent any real time pondering the subject. I also understand what you are saying in your above paragraph. However, I would like to make a point about one statement. "How do you love your neighbor, but discriminate against them?" That is indeed a very good question..... Yet, if we look more closely at the question, we might find that we would be better off not to ask the question. After all, virtually all of those who supported slavery in the 1600's - 1860's were supposedly dedicated Christians and the vast majority were Evangelical Christians or Roman Catholics, the latter mostly in Louisiana. The same can be said for those who were members of the Klu Klux Klan and those who supported Jim Crow laws after the end of official slavery. Hence, how do we explain that tens of millions of Christians in the American South from the 1600's up to the 1960's and the passing of the civil rights legislation, eagerly supported discrimination against fellow Christians on the basis of their race?

Yes, it would be wonderful to say that Scripture is sufficient and on one level that is true. However, we can clearly see that Scripture was not sufficient for tens of millions of Christians in the American South for about 350 years, in terms of getting them to love their fellow Christians of a different race, without discriminating against them. Now I make this statement without taking a stand one way or another on the Critical Race Theory. Truth be told, I probably lean against the pushing of CRT, though there may well be truth behind what it stands for. I also lean against the Black Lives Matter movement, even though I am sympathetic toward their goals. I prefer to say that all lives matter. I also lean against the issue of reparations for the descendants of slavery, even though one can make a case for it. I fear that such would divide this country even further than it is already.

Nevertheless, I keep reflecting on your profound statement that Scripture is sufficient and I really do not know how to respond. Perhaps I have said enough on the subject? How about the rest of you speaking to the sufficiency of Scripture, in terms of making Christians show true love and not discriminating?

 

[Points To Ponder]

Look, I know very little about the CRT and only heard of it within the past week. Hence, I have not spent any real time pondering the subject. I also understand what you are saying in your above paragraph. However, I would like to make a point about one statement. "How do you love your neighbor, but discriminate against them?" That is indeed a very good question..... Yet, if we look more closely at the question, we might find that we would be better off not to ask the question. After all, virtually all of those who supported slavery in the 1600's - 1860's were supposedly dedicated Christians and the vast majority were Evangelical Christians or Roman Catholics, the latter mostly in Louisiana. The same can be said for those who were members of the Klu Klux Klan and those who supported Jim Crow laws after the end of official slavery. Hence, how do we explain that tens of millions of Christians in the American South from the 1600's up to the 1960's and the passing of the civil rights legislation, eagerly supported discrimination against fellow Christians on the basis of their race?

Yes, it would be wonderful to say that Scripture is sufficient and on one level that is true. However, we can clearly see that Scripture was not sufficient for tens of millions of Christians in the American South for about 350 years, in terms of getting them to love their fellow Christians of a different race, without discriminating against them. Now I make this statement without taking a stand one way or another on the Critical Race Theory. Truth be told, I probably lean against the pushing of CRT, though there may well be truth behind what it stands for. I also lean against the Black Lives Matter movement, even though I am sympathetic toward their goals. I prefer to say that all lives matter. I also lean against the issue of reparations for the descendants of slavery, even though one can make a case for it. I fear that such would divide this country even further than it is already.

Nevertheless, I keep reflecting on your profound statement that Scripture is sufficient and I really do not know how to respond. Perhaps I have said enough on the subject? How about the rest of you speaking to the sufficiency of Scripture, in terms of making Christians show true love and not discriminating?

Since Adam History has recorded many sins of mankind. The sins you mentioned are just a speck on the timeline of history. Man's sinful nature, actions today and 4000 years ago in no way delegitimize the sufficiency of the scriptures. Man can choose to ignore the scriptures and many will as the path to Heaven is clearly defined as narrow. I see a lot of attention paid to slavery in the USA as if we invented it. Slavery was an issue since the beginning of time. Some even argue that it was condoned and perfectly accepted in the O.T. and N.T. (early Church period) era. Instructions are given on how to treat slaves but are we to assume that slaves of those cultures were like the slaves in the 1800's in America?

I think it's unfair to saddle those in our history with cultural values and understanding developed today. That does not translate into the acceptable practice of oppressive authority over another people and it not being a sin. I'm sure some slaves purchased in the slave trade period were much better off in the old south and well taken care of and others were abused and torn away from family. How will God judge the two different slave owners. We will see one day. We can look at the world history of slave ownership but we cannot only see it in that very narrow window in US history. I think God provides his instructions for us in the scriptures and mankind mostly ignores it. Slavery is just one of many sins of mankind.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I have not followed this closely. Most of the dispute seems to concern the issue of race. It appears that the vote for a new President was quite close. Is there a chance that the SBC could split within a few years, like the United Methodist Church may well do?

I think there could be a split in the SBC, which I belonged to until about the mid 90s. It is right wing and there is an ultra right wing group within it.
They barely passed a resolution condemning racism in 2019. Baptisms of teens are down, and membership is decreasing. The church's political involvement might be to blame.

One of the issues is the sex abuse issue. Here is a good article:

20 years, 700 victims: Southern Baptist sexual abuse spreads as leaders resist reforms

In the decade since Vasquez's appeal for help, more than 250 people who worked or volunteered in Southern Baptist churches have been charged with sex crimes, an investigation by the Houston Chronicle and the San Antonio Express-News reveals.

It's not just a recent problem: In all, since 1998, roughly 380 Southern Baptist church leaders and volunteers have faced allegations of sexual misconduct, the newspapers found. That includes those who were convicted, credibly accused and successfully sued, and those who confessed or resigned. More of them worked in Texas than in any other state.


They left behind more than 700 victims, many of them shunned by their churches, left to themselves to rebuild their lives. Some were urged to forgive their abusers or to get abortions.....


• At least 35 church pastors, employees and volunteers who exhibited predatory behavior were still able to find jobs at churches during the past two decades. In some cases, church leaders apparently failed to alert law enforcement about complaints or to warn other congregations about allegations of misconduct.
​

In 2008, they were asked to adopt policies and practices like other churches to fight the issue of sex abuse which includes pedophilia. They did not, relying on the argument that each church is autonomous. They could have developed a database that other Southern Baptist churches could have used to research prospective staff. For example, Youth ministers who preyed on children at one church, and were found out, would then be unable to get another position in a SBC church working with kids.
They also failed to contact the police per the law.

I used to criticize the LDS churches in the area where I worked because they had this idea that they could counsel members out of sexual abuse and failed to contact the police. As a result, the abuse continued. I had one student who told her bishop that her father was raping her, and that bishop failed to contact the police and the abuse continued for a year until she told us at school about it. We contacted the cops. That bishop was charged for failing to contact the police. This is what could happen with the SBC churches and probably has. There is no excuse to failing to contact the cops. That bishop failed that girl and SBC churches could be failing the abused as well.

 

[hedrick]

I accept what FreeinChrist says, but as far as I can see decreases in numbers for the SBC aren’t worse than other churches. While young people probably do disagree with its political and moral stands, I am not convinced that the general decline in membership in churches is for that reason. I think Christians in general are not convincing their kids that there is actually a God or that it matters. The groups that have done best emphasize religious experience, whether signs snd miracles or worship. But those experiences are not necessarily evidence, and skepticism about them is easy.

I think our culture has experienced a state change. Where before God was a general assumption and people needed a reason to be an atheist, now it’s not. Increasingly you need a reason to be a Christian. We haven’t done a good job providing that. Historically, apologetics has been about supplying ground for Christians to believe that faith is rational, not reasons (intellectual or otherwise) that would convince someone from a skeptical background. Most apologetics isn’t up to the challenge, and I don’t think the situation is getting better.

 

[Hammster]

They barely passed a resolution condemning racism in 2019.

There was no such resolution. I’m not sure where you got that from.

 

[hedrick]

There was no such resolution. I’m not sure where you got that from.

Perhaps this SBC messengers vote to expel churches over racial discrimination, mishandling sexual abuse

 

[Hammster]

Perhaps this SBC messengers vote to expel churches over racial discrimination, mishandling sexual abuse

Passed overwhelmingly.

 

[FreeinChrist]

There was no such resolution. I’m not sure where you got that from.

Sorry, I remembered it wrong.

Actually there was this in 2019
On Critical Race Theory And Intersectionality - SBC.net

That particular statement, while still a right wing view, imho, upset members of the Conservative Baptist Network which is a ultra-right wing group (imho) in the SBC. They were upset about the statement saying CRT and intersectionality could be used as analytical tools ("WHEREAS, Critical race theory is a set of analytical tools that explain how race has and continues to function in society, and intersectionality is the study of how different personal characteristics overlap and inform one’s experience; " even though the statement clearly states that CRT and intersectionality are subordinate to scripture. ("RESOLVED, That critical race theory and intersectionality should only be employed as analytical tools subordinate to Scripture—not as transcendent ideological frameworks; ").

It also upset the Black pastors in the SBC for different reasons.

I read something last week about it in the New York Times and would link the article but it also discusses the problem with Q theories in churches and negative comments about it by current pastors.

 

[Hammster]

That particular statement, while still a right wing view, imho, upset members of the Conservative Baptist Network which is a ultra-right wing group (imho) in the SBC.

So that we are on the same page, what makes them ultra-right wing?

 

[FreeinChrist]

I see them as more right wing than others.

 

[Hammster]

I see them as more right wing than others.

What doesn’t that mean, though? What do you consider right wing, and why is that wrong?

 

[FreeinChrist]

I am encouraged that this happened:

Southern Baptist Convention votes to create sex abuse investigation task force

Delegates at the Southern Baptist Convention’s annual meeting voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to create a task force to oversee an independent investigation into the denomination’s handling of sexual abuse.


The resolution calls for the newly elected SBC president, Alabama pastor Ed Litton, to appoint the task force, which will head up a review of allegations that the denomination’s Executive Committee mishandled abuse cases, intimidated victims and advocates and resisted reforms.
​

 

[FreeinChrist]

What doesn’t that mean, though? What do you consider right wing, and why is that wrong?

Both Litton and Stone are conservatives, but Stone seems more political that Litton, more resistent to addressing racial issues and sexual abuse issues. The WSJ stated best:

‘Our Lord Isn’t Woke.’ Southern Baptists Clash Over Their Future.

One faction argues the SBC should step back from its role in electoral politics in order to broaden its reach and reverse a 15-year decline in membership. Another faction says the denomination has been drifting to the left, and the way to retain and attract members is to recommit to its conservative roots and stay politically engaged. Each side accuses the other of straying from the SBC’s core mission.
​

Under Rev. Stone ("Our Lord isn't woke!" ), I would suspect that the SBC stay too involved in US politics. The more politically active they are, the more will leave the denomination.

As to the sexual abuse issue, see :
Secret recordings show Southern Baptist dispute on sex abuse

Stone added that the SBC can’t dictate policies to its self-governing churches the way a hierarchical denomination can, and said a “heavy-handed” approach could prompt churches to leave the convention, with no improvement in children’s safety....​

The problem that I see is that the SBC has already had a policy of not dictating policies to self-governing churches, though they sure do strongly encourage churches theologically (Baptist Faith and Message ). Nothing would change in that regard with Stone. The SBC could at least insist that local churches follow the laws in their state, county, city which require police are notified, and they could set up a data-base about the issues they have had with staff in regards to sexual abuse.

 

[Hammster]

Both Litton and Stone are conservatives, but Stone seems more political that Litton, more resistent to addressing racial issues and sexual abuse issues. The WSJ stated best:

‘Our Lord Isn’t Woke.’ Southern Baptists Clash Over Their Future.

One faction argues the SBC should step back from its role in electoral politics in order to broaden its reach and reverse a 15-year decline in membership. Another faction says the denomination has been drifting to the left, and the way to retain and attract members is to recommit to its conservative roots and stay politically engaged. Each side accuses the other of straying from the SBC’s core mission.
​

Under Rev. Stone ("Our Lord isn't woke!" ), I would suspect that the SBC stay too involved in US politics. The more politically active they are, the more will leave the denomination.

As to the sexual abuse issue, see :
Secret recordings show Southern Baptist dispute on sex abuse

Stone added that the SBC can’t dictate policies to its self-governing churches the way a hierarchical denomination can, and said a “heavy-handed” approach could prompt churches to leave the convention, with no improvement in children’s safety....​

The problem that I see is that the SBC has already had a policy of not dictating policies to self-governing churches, though they sure do strongly encourage churches theologically (Baptist Faith and Message ). Nothing would change in that regard with Stone. The SBC could at least insist that local churches follow the laws in their state, county, city which require police are notified, and they could set up a data-base about the issues they have had with staff in regards to sexual abuse.

The SBC doesn’t dictate to churches. The agreement to be part of the SBC is to subscribe to the Baptist Faith and Message.

But that doesn’t answer the question of what right wing is, and why it’s wrong.

 

[Points To Ponder]

I have a difficult time understanding exactly what the SBC could actually do in regard to a sexual abuse claim in a church that is a member other than kicking them out. Seems to me it's a criminal issue. I can see the reluctance in kicking out a church because of what one person in the congregation allegedly did. A criminal investigation proving guilt would be necessary. I'm not sure the SBC has the hammer some think.

 

[FreeinChrist]

The SBC doesn’t dictate to churches. The agreement to be part of the SBC is to subscribe to the Baptist Faith and Message.

But that doesn’t answer the question of what right wing is, and why it’s wrong.

I didn't say "right wing is wrong". I said Stone and the Conservative Baptist Network is more right wing than the faction Littel is in. A number of sources refer to the Conservative Baptist Network as ultraright.


IMHO, making a statement that the churches need to follow local laws and establishing a database is not dictating to churches. It is odd that Stone, who says he is a sexual abuse survivor himself, is not more vocal about it.