Pandagon

Over the next few years, the SBC itself will begin to fragment--especially if Bush is defeated. The deep wingnut factions will repudiate those who are not complete Christian Reconstructionist nutjobs like themselves. There will then commence lots of infighting among the deep wingnut factions over who is "most Christian."

Meanwhile, the average Joe Baptist will wander off into the wilderness as he watches his church devolve into some bizarre political machine run solely to prop up and expand the power of those in charge of his local faction.

in an NPR interview yesterday, the head of the SBC was giving his reasons for splitting (Splitters!) and he included in his list the increasing "leftist" movement of the church. thankfully, the interviewer noticed and asked him what he meant by "leftist". he said something about how the rest of the baptists were liberally interpreting the bible (and then listed a few points like gay marriage, women priests, etc.).

but, does anyone, ever, use "leftist" in any context besides the political ? methinks Mr Splitter inadvertantly let a little truth slip out.

I have to note that the Baptist Alliance also traditonally supported strong seperation of Church and State. This is what they SBA sees as "Anti American".

What's unshakeable in this entire controversy/split is the fact that the Baptists are trending towards being an overtly political organization.

Trending? The SBC itself was founded 150 or so years ago due to their overtly political disagreements with the American Baptist Home Mission Society. The SBC did not think the ABHMS's nuetral stand on the issue in question truly represented their biblical right to hold other men in bondage and servitude for their own personal gain.

I could care less what a bunch of idiot racist slave-mongers consider to be unamerican.

cleek... I noticed the same thing, though I figured he could just as easily be using "leftist" metaphorically, applying a political term to the theological sphere.

"...some in the alliance had questioned inerrancy of the Bible..."

And? Given that the Bible indisputably contains errors, this is hardly a wild position. Patterson is correct, however, that the New Testament explicitly forbids female ministers.

Over the next few years, the SBC itself will begin to fragment

This has been well underway for over a decade now. Moderate congregations having been leaving the SBC at a steady clip ever since the wackos seized control of the convention and began jettisoning basic Baptist principles like the priesthood of the believer.

I have to admit that I know little about how Baptists are organized internationally, but I believe that they follow are largely congregational model. SBC's complaint that they haven't opened enough discussion (which I suspect means that they haven't agreed 100% with SBC's positions) would be keeping with congregationalism, i.e. it's up to individual believers and their congregations to interpret Scripture.
SBC is rapidly becoming more like the Vatican in terms of organization, but without the critical thinking and education.

Grumpy: To anyone who approaches the Bible in a holistic way or who reads it critically (in the literary sense of that word), there can be no question that it is not inerrant. But for a lot of the fundagelical cadre, the inerrancy of the Bible is assumed as a given: if it's in Scripture, it can't be wrong. That the BWA isn't 100% on board with that view would thus be a serious doctrinal difference. That the BWA is 100% right not to be 100% on board with biblical inerrancy is beside the point.

Do think it will get as exciting as the Sunni v Shi`ite deal? Maybe all the religions can kill each other off in Baby Bush' great crusade to insure global ignorance. If no one is smart, we are all equal.

Grumpy: Patterson is correct, however, that the New Testament explicitly forbids female ministers.

Can you give me a citation on that? I've heard NT-based arguments for an all-male priesthood before, but not a flat statement that it's clearly forbidden. I'm not a christian, and I'm not looking for an argument, I'd just like to know what you're referring to.

Can you give me a citation on that? I've heard NT-based arguments for an all-male priesthood before, but not a flat statement that it's clearly forbidden.

They use two references to justify it: 1 Cor 14 33-35, where women are told to shut up in church (and not even ask questions: if they want clarification, hubby can do it at home). Paul says again in 1 Tim 2 11-12 also says they should just keep their mouths shut, that he wouldn't allow them to teach "or have dominion over a man".

However, Paul in other places mentions Euodia and Syntyche, women who helped him spread the word, Phoebe was a minister in one church (although some translations try to diminish it to "helper"). The silliest example is Junia. Paul mentions her as an apostle and every text refers to her as a woman until about 1000, when all of a sudden she gets called a man, and some later versions of the Bible literally make stuff up my adding an "s" to her name, changing the female "Junia" to the male "Junias".

So basically the Paul, like many things in the Bible, was contradictory.

Note that I said the NT "explicitly" forbids female priests. Elsewhere, it is implied to be okay.

Michael... please excuse my faux incredulity.

I thought I remembered correctly, then googled it to make sure I wasn't going senile at 35, but...

On Oct 21, 2000 (my birthday, btw), President Carter quit the SBC, claiming their swing towards more rigid conservative teachings were counter to his Baptist upbringing/faith.

Hey, if the human-hating elements in the Baptist Church want to paint themselves into a corner and die there, who are we to stop them? Didn't God give them the free will to do so?

I'm only asking...

In my tradition (which faught a hellacious battle over ordination of women), it is now thought that the first reference to Paul is simply an admonition for women to leave their domestic (not necessarily theological) disputes at home as they are disruptive to the whole group. Don't know much about the Timothy reference, will have to read up on that one.

P.S. Yeah Pistons

This whole deal is pretty symbolic anyhow.
The news stories say that the 16 million-member SBC will pull its $300,000/year contribution from the Alliance. So at 2 cents per member per year it wasn't much of an investment to begin with.

I have to note that the Baptist Alliance also traditonally supported strong seperation of Church and State. This is what they SBA sees as "Anti American".

I remember being amazed to learn that many Evangelicals, in the late 1700s when this was initially being debated, were on Jefferson's side, feeling that it was an insult to God to suggest that he needed federal government muscle to get his word across and keep him from becoming obsolete. Oh, how I'd love to see a resurgence in that kind of thinking...

This whole deal is pretty symbolic anyhow.
The news stories say that the 16 million-member SBC will pull its $300,000/year contribution from the Alliance. So at 2 cents per member per year it wasn't much of an investment to begin with.

From the SBC perspective, it may be small, but it's huge from the BWA perspective. The total BWA budget is ~$1.8 million. Also, the SBC had cut the contribution from $450K to $300K last year, so two years ago, the SBC provided 25% of the annual budget. The BWA's primary work is in providing resources for third-world national associations to do work in their own countries.

You've got it all wrong. The "ant-American" stance is based on the growing coziness of BWA for people whose ideas align with those of Baptist World Congress keynote speakers Desmond Tutu and H. Beecher Hicks, who lean heavily toward the Socialist/Communist paradigm. I addition is BWA President Denton Lotz' sympathetic leanings toward Fidel Castro which are well-documented. Further, the reason that it seems the SBC is becoming more political has more to do with those against whom they are having to battle: the World Council of Churches, the National Council of Churches, the BWA and so many other "Christian" organizations are becoming nothing more than PACs (political action committees) issueing statment-after-statement condemning President Bush for the issue of the day. As far as further fragmentation of the SBC: not gonna happen. What is actually happening is that clear lines are being drawn on both sides and the primary issue is the authority of the Bible: either you believe the Bible is the Word of God in the sense that it is inerrant and infallable or you don't. If you don't, then it follows that you believe there is no controlling factor for the interpretation of Scripture apart from the personal interpretation, thus there is no such thing as objective biblical truth. It has been explicitly recognized by SBC leaders that everyone is free to choose to believe whatever he or she wishes, they will never try to take that away from anyone, however, they reserve the right to say they disagree and not to be financially or socially tied to groups or individuals which hold what they believe to be abberrant or heretical theology. By the way, I am the pastor of an American Baptist Church and I agree with what SBC leaders have said and written about my own denomination -- it's irrefutable.