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

[Basil the Great]

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?

 

[Hammster]

All I know right now is that the least desirable got in. This will change the face of the SBC. There’s a good chance that a split will now come of this.

 

[Basil the Great]

Hammster - Can you explain this controversy over the race issue in the SBC?

 

[Hammster]

Hammster - Can you explain this controversy over the race issue in the SBC?

The short answer is that some want Critical Race Theory to used in an official way, and others don’t.

 

[Clare73]

The short answer is that some want Critical Race Theory to used in an official way, and others don’t.

That will definitely split it. . .conservatives vs. moderates (liberals).

 

[Aabbie James]

The decision draws a line that separates those who concede to post-modern pressures that promote viewing God's Holy Word through the lens of Critical Race Theory, verses those who believe in the principle that Scripture is the True Word of God, can stand alone, and can inform itself.

 

[9Rock9]

They are all more or less conservative. The problem is that what does "conservative" mean?

Are they theological conservatives, cultural or political conservatives? That would determine what someone means by moderate vs conservative.

Some are concerned with what the see as a right wing populist takeover of the denomination and tying itself too closely to politics, while others are worried about the SBC kowtowing to what they see as post-modernism and that the people demanding the SBC to change will never be satisfied.

 

[Padres1969]

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?

As an outsider I have to say I'm frankly baffled by the near split here. The new president and his positions are accused of being too "liberal". But he and his supporters are for biblical inerrancy and infallibility, are staunchly anti-abortion, are only for marriage between men and women, are pro-women submission to their husbands and staying out of preaching... the only thing I see they disagree on is the church staying out of politics. And frankly, having that position isn't "liberal". That and when did Critical Race theory become a "liberal" point. Many accuse CRT of being anti-liberal.

 

[Hammster]

As an outsider I have to say I'm frankly baffled by the near split here. The new president and his positions are accused of being too "liberal". But he and his supporters are for biblical inerrancy and infallibility, are staunchly anti-abortion, are only for marriage between men and women, are pro-women submission to their husbands and staying out of preaching... the only thing I see they disagree on is the church staying out of politics. And frankly, having that position isn't "liberal". That and when did Critical Race theory become a "liberal" point. Many accuse CRT of being anti-liberal.

The new president did preach some sermons with his wife.

 

[Sophrosyne]

As an outsider I have to say I'm frankly baffled by the near split here. The new president and his positions are accused of being too "liberal". But he and his supporters are for biblical inerrancy and infallibility, are staunchly anti-abortion, are only for marriage between men and women, are pro-women submission to their husbands and staying out of preaching... the only thing I see they disagree on is the church staying out of politics. And frankly, having that position isn't "liberal".

It is very liberal when you change the identity of God. If you get God wrong then everything that depends on him is up for grabs as your opinions can easily be wrong.... often. If someone convinces you of a "wrong" god then they can further convince you of other wrongness. Satan himself likes to offer fake gods to counter who God is as optional choices to lead people astray. Islam has a lot in common who God is but a lot that is wrong also who God is and there is no salvation in Islam through Christ. If Christ is not Christ (a part of God, not a person) then can we be saved by God sacrificing a part of him or God himself going to the cross to save us? I say that if Jesus isn't fully God then we aren't fully saved and doomed to hell forever.

 

[Padres1969]

The new president did preach some sermons with his wife.

I mean he was doing the preaching so... failing to see the problem even on the SBC's conservative standard. I mean unless the ultra-conservatives don't even want women talking in a church.

 

[Padres1969]

It is very liberal when you change the identity of God. If you get God wrong then everything that depends on him is up for grabs as your opinions can easily be wrong.... often. If someone convinces you of a "wrong" god then they can further convince you of other wrongness. Satan himself likes to offer fake gods to counter who God is as optional choices to lead people astray. Islam has a lot in common who God is but a lot that is wrong also who God is and there is no salvation in Islam through Christ. If Christ is not Christ (a part of God, not a person) then can we be saved by God sacrificing a part of him or God himself going to the cross to save us? I say that if Jesus isn't fully God then we aren't fully saved and doomed to hell forever.

But again, how are they attempting to change the identity of God?

 

[Hammster]

I mean he was doing the preaching so... failing to see the problem even on the SBC's conservative standard. I mean unless the ultra-conservatives don't even want women talking in a church.

When his wife is up with him and speaking as part of the sermon, that is preaching.

 

[Albion]

They are all more or less conservative. The problem is that what does "conservative" mean?

Are they theological conservatives, cultural or political conservatives? That would determine what someone means by moderate vs conservative.

Generally speaking, though, the two usually go together. That's the way it is whatever the denomination.

Theological conservatives are most often social and political conservatives while theological liberals approach established truths in more or less the same way regardless of whether the issue is religious or political.

 

[hedrick]

The press coverage seems to say that this is no change. Rather, they rejected an attempt to move any further to the right. Is that accurate?

 

[Sophrosyne]

But again, how are they attempting to change the identity of God?

If I said you were an android instead of a person and based all the way I took what you said and the way I treated you based upon that knowledge would you treat me differently?

 

[Padres1969]

When his wife is up with him and speaking as part of the sermon, that is preaching.

Possibly. Context is king however. There may have been good reasons to have had her speaking as part of his sermon. And it doesn't sound like it's a regular thing.

I guess for me coming from what you would definitely term as a "liberal" church, the idea that the SBC, which just reaffirmed or even moved further right its positions on abortion, sexuality, marriage, women, the bible, etc... is somehow drifting toward liberalism and wokeness just seems so... odd? Because as someone who is liberal in a "liberal" denomination, I don't see how a denomination that just moved from a staggered approach toward banning abortion to full on, ban it all in all cases at all time and held steady on everything else as moving toward me. In fact the SBC seems to still be drifting further into conservativism as it's been doing for 40 years.

 

[Padres1969]

If I said you were an android instead of a person and based all the way I took what you said and the way I treated you based upon that knowledge would you treat me differently?

I'm not following the analogy here. What have they said specifically that makes you think they're changing the nature of God. Do you have any examples of their actual words or actions that are the basis of what you're trying to convey?

And no I wouldn't treat you differently, might try to correct your error so you don't live in ignorance, but I wouldn't treat you any different.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I'm not following the analogy here. What have they said specifically that makes you think they're changing the nature of God. Do you have any examples of their actual words or actions that are the basis of what you're trying to convey?

And no I wouldn't treat you differently, might try to correct your error so you don't live in ignorance, but I wouldn't treat you any different.

I can chop an android into parts and then is it still an android or a pile of junk? At what point can we separate the parts and it still be an android? Can we chop out the computer of it and it still be an android? How about an arm or a leg? If the greatest love is to sacrifice your life for another and Jesus was only a part of God.... then did only a part of God die on the cross? It is greater for God himself to die for us than his arm or leg to die?
This idea of his basically makes a mess of salvation and who God is to the point that God himself is diminished. Cults and Islam and other religions reject the deity of Jesus, as it is IMO the ultimate sacrifice never to be beaten in its power and glory as God himself gave his life on the cross.... not a part of God but fully God and fully man.

 

[Hammster]

Possibly. Context is king however. There may have been good reasons to have had her speaking as part of his sermon.

Nope. Not at all.