Are there sharp differences between Southern Baptists and Evangelicals?

[The Backlash Cometh]

In personality? In commitment to mission? In the way they interact with people who are different than they are? What is the pecking order between the two?

Is one or the other more behind the political dirty tricks that have been played out in the last ten years?

[YOY]

1. Good question

They seem to act the same. I've always seen Evangelitcals as as the "accept Christ and be saved" BS crowd, but I know the S. Baptists do it too.

I've seen more "born again f***-ups" (aka people who did drugs, slept with everything they could, partied hard, hit rock bottom, found Jesus, and now expect everyone who didn't f*** up like they did to do the same) in the evangelist crowd.

They both suck really, but I do wonder what are the fine differences.

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. I came across an interesting quote from a Southern Baptist:

"We are no longer a regional influence. We are a network of churches which circle the planet."

You know, extraordinary because in that one statement they reveal that they know the earth is round.

[Bill McBlueState]

23. well, they could be saying it's a circle

rather than a sphere.

Wouldn't surprise me.

[Dhalgren]

2. I believe that most Southern Baptists consider themselves to be

"Evangelicals". At least they used to, back when I was forced to attend SB services...

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. a good friend's sister

was a party animal from beyond the blue lagoon, with freddy krueger at the Animal House on elm street. In a nice sort of way. Her idea of partying was to try everything. then do it again. And again, until she remembered what she had just done.
Sometimes, it took more than a few repetitions.

She was also friendly, warm, helpful, polite, funny.

Then she found someone who got her born again. Spiteful, mean, nasty-tempered, always preaching to everyone, unfriendly, unhappy, and seemingly driven by fear and loathing, not interaction between humans.

How much of her previous good cheer and goodwill was artificially induced, I will never know. But everyone in her family agrees that the old version was far better than the new.

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. The problem with being liberal,

is that everybody gets lost eventually, if they don't have roots, or don't have a direct goal they're driving to. So people do eventually tend to be attracted to someone who will keep them grounded. Unfortunately, if someone really had some bad experiences in their liberal days, I imagine that they might go too far to the right to over-compensate.

[Greyhound]

59. As a liberal, I have to say that I am not, and never have been "lost".

I have no roots to speak of since I've lived in every region in this country and my goal has always been to enjoy my life as much and for as long as I can.

So I'm not really sure just what you meant to imply.

[Dhalgren]

67. I agree with you. I was forced, as a child, to attend what amounted

to cult services at the rural SB church that my parents "belonged" to. Since I refused to continue, at age 16, I have never felt "lost", at all, but...well...free. I think that most people who were spared the oppressiveness of a required church attendance are much better off than those of us who suffered through the shackles of superstition.

[The Backlash Cometh]

69. You're a real freebird. Count your blessings.

Unfortunately, I've met very few people who were truly rolling stones. Many who tried to be, but eventually, they'd hit a brick wall and had to appraise their situation.

Why do you think that the kids of the 60s are said to be such sell outs? Not all, but many. They settled on the same traditional lives that their parents lived, and they despised.

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. How long ago was that?

[Dhalgren]

36. A long, long time ago.

40 years or so. The Southern baptists used to be huge on "evangelists", which is where "evangelical" comes from. But all of these punishment/reward religions tend toward the same postures, eventually...

[PDenton]

57. "Evangelical" is usually a conservative Protestant....

... who stresses the importance of a personal relationship wiht God, salvation, and believes the Bible is primary/sole source of their religious faith. That's what it usually means. Southern Baptists are almost all evangelicals. The term evangelical started to be used over "Fundamentalist" because Fundamentalist implied a person was retreating from the world rather than being engaged in it (the high water mark for Fundamentalism was probably the Scopes Monkey Trial). Also, Fundamentalist were usually hostile to Pentecostals and later Charismatic Christians (due to theological differences... Pentecostals do not believe the Bible to be the sole source of revelation), whereas the term Evangelical may also include Pentecostals and Charismatics depending on the context.

Billy Graham is arguably one of the first modern evangelical leaders since he tried to take his message to the wider society.

Evangelicals are not necessarily permanently aligned with rightwing politics, though almost always they hold conservative social positions so they tend to be more comfortable voting Republican.

[Blackhatjack]

62. You have to take the RW definition of "Evangelical' for that to be accurate...

There are many 'Evangelicals' who are not conservative in their political beliefs that would make your use of the word 'usually' inaccurate.

[PDenton]

66. True politically...

... but even somebody like Rev. Tony Campollo (a friend of Bill Clinton) would be considered somewhat conservative by DU standards, especially on social issues. But alot of evangelicals are taking more liberal stands on things like global warming, AIDS, and poverty. Don't count on their support for things like gay marriage or abortion rights, though.

[IdaBriggs]

3. On a positive Southern Baptist note, they have one of the BEST

emergency response teams in the country (if not the world). During Hurricane Katrina their "Emergency Meal People" were there before the Red Cross in towns all over the area, and when we (meaning Red Cross) would get there, they would pack up and go to the next one that needed help. It was pretty impressive. I've been told that the Mormons also have a large charitable outreach that is available in times of crisis.

I realize that this is supposed to be a "bashing" thread, but I have great respect for people who put the POSITIVE values of their faith ("helping others" and "doing unto others") into concrete action.

Just saying. :)

[Bluebear]

6. 'I realize that this is supposed to be a "bashing" thread'

Maybe you know something about the OP that I don't, it seemed like a reasonable request for information?

[IdaBriggs]

56. I made an assumption based on the "dirty tricks" comment.

If I was wrong, then my apologies all around.

:hi:

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. This is good.

I wouldn't have a problem accepting their charitable natures, if only I got to see more evidence of it.

[Blackhatjack]

17. The level of charitable work done is largely undocumented. Here are a few...

They collect food for food banks
They have clothing drives.
They contribute to local relief organizations to provide housing, food, etc.
They send out teams of volunteers to work on Habitat for Humanity homes.
They send out teams of volunteers overseas to do humanitarian work(like helping to dig wells for fresh water, rebuilding schools, etc.)
They help provide school supplies to children and in many cases provide free after school tutoring.
They finance and support doctors, dentists, healthcare workers, to go overseas and treat people who have no access to healthcare.

These are just a few of the activities I know about personally.

My son throughout his middle school and high school years gave a week of his summer to work on homes of elderly and disabled or other charitable work through his local youth group.

It helped each of the kids to understand the needs of others who are disadvantaged, and it helped shape their view toward volunteering to help others because it is the right thing to do.

I personally travelled outside the US with high school kids to do relief work, and I saw the impact that the trip had on those kids. You cannot appreciate what we have in our country until you see how little others have outside the US.

Hope this helps.

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. Very much so.

I just can't understand the incongruity, because this group very much was part of the Republican surge that wanted to destroy social programs by disavowing themselves of the poor, both politically and religiously.

Something is just not adding up. I do know that the "Southern" part of the Southern Baptist came up in the mid 1800s over the slavery issue. They split off because there was a question whether they had a right to do mission work, if they also owned slaves or supported slavery. Perhaps it's this group which is causing the incongruity today?

[Blackhatjack]

24. The Karl Rove brand of Republican Conservatism worked like this..

Republican strategists met with present day leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention and assured them that issues they cared about(ie. abortion, gay rights and marriage,etc) would be supported and decided in their favor if the Southern Baptists supported their candidates.

The Repubs used these 'wedge' issues to 'control' fundamentalist members of the SBC through their own leaders.

Keep in mind, it was the 'elevation' of the importance of these issues over the needs of the poor that occurred, not that the needs of the poor did not matter anymore. THere is a backlash even within the fundamentalists community over making every decision turn on these devisive 'wedge issues.'

The churches never stopped doing the charitable work I mentioned, but that work got little press. This was especially true given the fact that the national leaders wished to use their exposure to support the Repubs on the issues they thought Repubs could help them on.

Historically, Southern Baptists were 'split off' from northern Baptists over the issue of 'slavery' but that came about as Baptists in the south attempted to engage in outreach and humanitarian work and they were told they could not as long as the system of slavery was in place in the south.

However, there are many churches which have multicultural memberships today, and a couple of years ago a resolution was forced through apologizing for the stand on 'slavery' in the early years.

[The Backlash Cometh]

33. "'control' fundamentalist members of the SBC through their own leaders."

This I understand too well, being a recovering Catholic. Also, about four years ago, a Southern Baptist friend, in a mild way, tried to turn me. I can't remember his exact words, but he tried to imply that our lives would become easier if we surrendered ourselves to our church leaders. He said we were like children in need of a good parent and I nearly jumped off the bleacher I was sitting on when I shouted, "No one comes between me and my God!"

This is a problem. They are very big on yielding their own thinking to their church leaders who are leading them astray.

[Bluebear]

14. "Southern Baptists refuse Katrina water donation from beer company"

CLEWISTON — Hurricane victims who wanted water had some difficulty finding it at a relief station in Clewiston Friday. The volunteer group running a supply center doesn't like the company that donated the water, so they decided not to give it to those in line for help.

Twenty-two pallets of the canned water, distributed free by beer company Anheuser-Busch, bears the company's label – and members of the Southern Baptist Convention refused to hand it out to those in need...

"The pastor didn't want to hand out the Budweiser cans to people and that's his prerogative and I back him 100-percent," said SBC volunteer John Cook.


The SBC felt it was inappropriate to give the donation out, and they weren't happy when NBC2 wanted to know why.

http://www.nbc-2.com/articles/readarticle.asp?articleid=4747&z=3&p

====

So, there's that.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

30. and now for something completely different,

Man:
Is this the right room for an argument?

Other Man:(John Cleese)
I've told you once.

Man:
No you haven't!

Other Man:
Yes I have.

Man:
When?

Other Man:
Just now.

Man:
No you didn't!

Other Man: Yes I did!

Man:
You didn't!

Other Man:
I did!

Man:
You didn't!

Other Man:
I'm telling you, I did!

Man:
You did not!

Other Man:
Oh I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?

[IdaBriggs]

58. The story doesn't say whether there was no other water available

from the Southern Baptists, but I find it difficult to believe that they were "out of water" from other sources. The water was still distributed by the Red Cross, so the donation was used. Personally, I don't have a problem with them saying to the beer company that its up to them to get it to people using the beer companies own resources. (That is not to say that I don't appreciate the good will displayed by the beer company -- just that I can understand the discomfort the pastor must have felt by helping to ADVERTISE the beer company which having their logo on the water was, in effect, doing. "Remember our beer company -- we gave you water in a time of need." The beer company is perfectly within its rights to want its charitable work recognized, and again, I can empathize with the discomfort the church group must have felt since they don't approve of alcoholic beverages -- think how a Moslem group might have felt distributing Pork Rinds, and you might have a little more empathy....)

You don't have to appreciate what the Southern Baptist volunteers, or the Red Cross volunteers, or anybody else does or do during a disaster. I hope one "bad" story does not undo the good all the people who try to help out do, but if you want to find fault, that is your prerogative. All I was trying to get across is that there are people who go out of their way to help their "neighbors" at great sacrifice to themselves with no thought of public recognition or reward, and for this, I applaud that particular group.

Frankly, I intend to send my donation dollars to the SBC disaster relief group instead of the Red Cross the next time "something big" happens based on my personal experiences during Hurricane Katrina.

[Greyhound]

61. Not that I agree with them on much, if anything, but the Mormon emergency response

organization should be the model for the new FEMA. After the drowning of NO they were "the first with the most" by a long shot, with warehouses full of everything from food & water to medical supplies to sat-phones. They were in there before FEMA had time to start driving other assistance away.

[IdaBriggs]

68. Agreed! Props to those who care about the less fortunate! nt

[Tanuki]

5. This seems a reasonably fair account of what has happened with the Southern Baptis

http://www.yellowstone.net/baptist/history.htm

"The Southern Baptist Controversy and Beyond

Finally, the 1980s to the present have witnessed a new fundamentalist controversy (also often referred to as a "political" and / or "biblical" controversy) within the largest Baptist denomination, which has altered the course of Southern Baptist history, and Baptist history in general. The minority fundamentalists, now firmly in charge of the national Southern Baptist Convention, have changed the direction and nature of the Convention, resulting in the first statistical decline of the denomination in some 75 years. They have sought to re-fashion Baptist history to validate their theology and their insurgency, and as a result have caused much confusion about Baptist history among Baptist laity and the general populace.

Whereas Baptists have historically been non-creedal, the fundamentalist leadership of the SBC is forcing creedalism upon Southern Baptists through the forced implementation of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Whereas Southern Baptists have traditionally believed in the Priesthood of all Believers, the fundamentalist leadership positions pastoral authority above the Priesthood of Believers. Whereas Baptists have historically held to the authority of Scripture and looked to Jesus and the Holy Spirit as the criterion for interpreting the Bible, the fundamentalist leadership claims that looking to Jesus and the Holy Spirit as the authority for faith is a liberal position. Instead, they have positioned the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, and/or a modern interpretation of Biblical authority known as "inerrancy," as the only valid way in which to approach Scripture.

As such, the fundamentalist leadership of the SBC is bent upon refashioning Southern Baptist doctrine and polity into the historical Roman Catholic model of creedalism and religious hierarchy. This agenda continues to cause much division among Baptists, including splits on the state level of Baptist life. Currently, Texas, Virginia and Missouri each have two competing Baptist conventions, with one convention in each state pledging loyalty to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, and the other convention in each state contending that the Bible supercedes any human creeds. A number of other states conventions, as well as Baptist associations, are witnessing a prolonged struggle over the issue of the BF&M 2000, with many denominational entities refusing the dictates of the SBC to accept the BF&M 2000 as their sole statement of belief. In general, many state Baptist conventions are asserting their autonomous rights in distancing themselves from the creedalistic, fundamentalist SBC.

The year 2004 witnessed a significant new development within the Southern Baptist Convention. The SBC leadership defunded the Baptist World Alliance, charging, falsely, that the BWA is a liberal, un-American institution. In response, many state Baptist conventions and local Southern Baptist churches have increased their support of the BWA.

This year, 2006, a rupture within the Southern Baptist Convention occurred, as some younger trustees of SBC agencies are accusing the older leadership of being too narrow-minded; the older leadership, in turn, views the younger leadership as being too liberal (in reality, both parties are fundamentalists; this latest skirmish demonstrates the extreme nature of fundamentalists' quest for purity).

During the course of the Southern Baptist controversy, a number of new entities have come into existence to champion the very historic principles and cooperative spirit that the SBC leaders have long since abandoned. These include the denomination-like Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, the Baptist Center for Ethics, Baptist Women in Ministry, the national news journal Baptists Today, the Associated Baptist Press, Smyth & Helwys Publishers, some fourteen new Baptist seminaries / divinity schools, and other entities. As the Southern Baptist Convention continues its exit from traditional Baptist life and deeper into non-denominational, evangelical, political fundamentalism, these new entities will play a significant role in maintaining a Baptist witness in America and the world.

For more information on current events in this ongoing struggle from a traditional Baptist perspective, visit BaptistLife.Com, Mainstream Baptists, The Baptist Standard or Baptists Today. To view the fundamentalist perspective, go to Baptist Press, SBC Life, or Baptist2Baptist."



(edited for typo in subject line)

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. This is kind of what I was concerned about.

See, if they're boasting that they are "a network of churches which circle the planet," the thought that comes to mind is, what exactly is their goal with that kind of outreach? What kind of impact are they expecting to have on cultures that they don't seem to have any signs of respecting?

[rateyes]

44. That's a very good question...

the main question, IMO. Fundy Christian groups in America send missionaries out to, IMO, not only "evangelize" but to "westernize" people in other cultures around the globe. In their mind, though it's subconcious for many of them, only "Western Christianity" is authentic.

That, IMO, causes more conflict in the Middle East, for example. Muslims are being told by these missionaries that their faith is "wrong" and "inferior"---which ticks off fundamentalist Muslims---and, people who may not even practice a religion are being told that their "culture" is wrong, because it does not comport with their idea of "Christianity" which is a "western" idea.

IOW, you not only have to convert to Christianity, you culture has to convert to a western style culture, and your government has to be a "democracy" which practices "capitalism."

For a fundy Christian in America.... American equals (or should equal) Christian.

For fundies, the war in Iraq, is a war between "God" and "Allah." (They don't know that "Allah" is simply the Arabic word for "God" and that Arabic CHRISTIANS pray to "Allah.") It's a religious war, not a political one, and Dubya has tapped into that to try and keep fundy support for this war.

God, in fundies minds, blesses this war. It's sick. And, it's dangerous.

[Blackhatjack]

10. Keep in mind that all Southern Baptists do not believe as their 'Leaders' do, no moreso than....

...all Americans believe as the Bush Administration does.

Member churches of the Southern Baptist Convention are autonomous. That means that the National Leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention cannot make them do anything. The battle that has been going on in that Denomination is whether the national leadership can 'kick out' churches that do not agree with their beliefs(or as they put it 'are not in friendly cooperation' with them).

Hundreds of churches refuse to address the policies of the National Leadership and continue to contribute to outreach and charitable foundations which do a lot of good around the world. BTW the Southern Baptist Convention Disaster Relief organization is made up of volunteers, and they are so efficient and professional that they were first on the scene in NYC during 9/11 and they served tens of thousands of meals for the Red Cross but got little credit. They saw Katrina coming and had a fully stocked and staffed airlift mobile kitchen on the outskirts of NO ready to be dropped after the hurricane passed --but they were prohibited from acting by local authorities who were worried that they might encourage people to stay.

Hundreds of churches with long histories of cooperation with the Southern Baptist Convention have 'left'(or to be more accurate 'no longer identify with') the SBC. Others remain contributors to the above programs and have formed their own policy branch within the denomination(Cooperative Baptist Fellowship).

And you would be surprised to know how many Southern Baptists do not agree with the policies espoused by the National Leadership, but there is no way to boot them from power because of the way the voting is constructed at the annual convention.

As to other 'evangelicals' there are hundreds of different denominations which use the word 'baptist' in their name and have nothing to do with the Southern Baptist Convention, and there are thousands of different Protestant churches which consider themselves to be evangelicals that do not use 'baptist' in any way.

Evangelicals get their name from the command Jesus gave to go out into all the world and spread the 'good news.'

[rateyes]

12. Southern Baptists claim the title "evangelical" proudly...

It's too bad that the word "evangelical" has been redefined by the Religous Right to mean: "mean-spirited, shove religion down your throat, dogmatic, homophobic Republican." Because, that's what most Southern Baptists have become.

It used to be that Southern Baptists celebrated "unity in diversity." Not everyone had to agree on doctrine. Each individual was given the freedom to work out their own faith/or lack thereof. They revered the first amendment's guarantee of religious liberty and separation of church and state. And, despite their differences worked together to do things like provide medical care to people without it, teach people in other parts of the world how to irrigate their land and help their crops to grow, help the homeless, etc.

With the fundy takeover of the convention however, these "evangelicals" (as they redefined the term) are about trying to privatize public schools, in order to teach their religion to all children and "Christianize" the nation, telling women what they can and cannot do for a living, or with their own bodies, keep women "barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen"---etc. etc. etc.

To answer your question. Southern Baptists are "evangelicals" in the worst definition of that term. I'm glad, however, that there are those who have pulled away from the Southern Baptist Convention (like Jimmy Carter, who calls himself an evangelical) who are trying to get "Baptists"--(not Southern Baptists--that's a lost cause) to come together across political, racial, socio-economic, gender, etc. divides to do some good for the world again.

Go to this site: http://www.newbaptistcelebration.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=58

and see what authentic Baptists, rather than what neo-Baptists (like the new SBC) are all about.

I'm going to that meeting in January...not because I agree with all the doctrine, because I don't...but, because these groups are coming together to do some good in the world.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

15. I'm not a baptist, but am surrounded by them

I'd say that's a pretty good assessment.

There's still quite a few churches who are very independent minded, and very much into social justice for the poor and not just their charity handouts. Charity is good, but it's definitely not enough, and many independent minded baptists vote that way.

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. Thank you. Lots of great information.

So, are Evangelicals, actually Southern Baptist? Still confused over that because I don't see Jimmy Carter being an evangelical.

[B3Nut]

18. Historically, the term "evangelical"

was more or less a synonym for "Protestant", often with an emphasis on proselytizing (evangelism). Most self-proclaimed evangelicals label themselves such to differentiate themselves from Catholics, who they oftener than not consider sub-orthodox or heterodox. The label in its broad sense can be applied to virtually all Protestant denominations and variants.

Fundamentalism is a subset of evangelicalism, and is its most visible, obnoxious, and noisy subspecies.

Todd in Cheesecurdistan, recovering fundamentalist (talk about a hangover...)

[The Backlash Cometh]

21. It's confusing.

I have a relative who is an Evangelical so I have a very vivid picture in my mind of the incredible arroganct, critical of others, mean-spirited person they can be. So when someone tells me that Jimmy Carter is calling himself an evangelical, I'm realllly confused.

[Blackhatjack]

19. Southern Baptists are 'evangelicals', Not all 'evangelicals' are Southern Baptists...

Southern Baptists happen to be the largest 'denomination' of Christians who fall under the Protestant label. However, as I pointed out above, there are thousands of other churches that do not identify themselves in any way with 'Southern Baptists' which are 'evangelicals.'

To evangelize simply means to 'preach the gospel to' --which the Southern Baptist Convention has no monopoly on that.

[The Backlash Cometh]

22. Wish I had read this first.

Apparently, there are fundamental evangelicals too? Are they worse than the fundie SBs?

[Blackhatjack]

25. For all intents and purposes fundamentalists are the same inside or outside the SBC...

[The Backlash Cometh]

31. Okay. Thank you.

That clarifies a great deal. The two fundies are probably uniting through political ideology then. T'would be my conclusion

[rateyes]

35. T'would be a good conclusion. nt

[rateyes]

32. Evangelical, used correctly, is an adjective

rather than a noun. Therefore, someone who is "evangelical" in their faith, believes in "evangelism." This means that an "evangelical" Christian believes in sharing his/her faith with others in an attempt to persuade them to join that faith.

However, in Jimmy Carter's faith, as I understand it, he does want others to be "Christian" in the more liberal definition of "Christianity." For Carter, "evangelism" is more a "living of one's faith" through acting as Christ did...feeding the hungry, providing shelter for the homeless, taking care of the sick, etc." and he hopes that others will join him in that way of life.

For fundy Christians, evangelism, is trying to get a "sinner" to "pray the sinner's prayer" and be "saved" from eternity in what they believe is a very real hell...eternity of suffering in a fiery place ruled by the devil. As long as you pray such a prayer...in the fundy's mind, you are "saved" for eternity, and therefore, your temporary condition of hunger, homelessness, addiction, or whatever really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

In fact, many fundies would go the length to say that if you are homeless, it's a sign that you're not "obeying God" and you, therefore, deserve to suffer. If you are a teenager, pregnant out of wedlock...abortion is nothing more than helping a "sinner" escape her "punishment." AIDS is God's judgment on the "sin of homosexuality," etc. Therefore, to spend government money helping someone with AIDS, or trying to eradicate AIDS, is a waste of money...for God WANTS those with AIDS to suffer divine wrath.

So, the difference in how Jimmy Carter, for instance, views "evangelism" and how a fundy Christian like Ralph Reed views "evangelism" is the difference between viewing God as a loving parent (Carter) who loves unconditionally, despite one's shortcomings, and a strict father who stands ready to "punish" every mistake (sin) a person makes....a God whose love is doled out when a person is "good."

[The Backlash Cometh]

38. Funny you should mention Ralph Reed.

Especially when you used him as an example of someone who feels that human misfortunes are a sign of punishment from God. Because there's whispers that he's tied with the Republicans-in-the-closet brigade.

[rateyes]

45. If that is true, then Ralph Reed...

by preaching what he does, is probably trying to "atone for his sin" by being a fundy Christian. Sick, how these minds work.

[napi21]

26. I don't think you ca answer that question, because even Evangelicals

are not all the same. Neither are all So. Baptists. The extremists in both sects are VERY SIMILAR though.

[Blackhatjack]

28. That is very true --not even all fundamentalists agree with one another.

[The Backlash Cometh]

40. I'm beginning to see that now. Thank you.

The question to see in the future is, once they realize that the Republican party can no longer serve their purpose to do away with the liberal issues, gay marriage, abortion, etc., will they resign themselves to their previous life of charitable work? Or now that they have let the genie out of the bottle and tasted power, are they now going to be a political factor that we'll have to deal with forever? Possibly creating more wedges in our country?

[napi21]

60. I don't think they will EVER resign themselves to ignoring the

wedge issues. I do think the extremists have lost a lot of the others who joined them in getting Shrub elected though. The "normal" pubs have been VERY disappointed with the damage Shrub Co has done to everything he touched. The really radical extremists are not that big of a group, and if they lose the cre Pub support, they'll be back to being a noisy radical fringe.

[Blackhatjack]

27. Keep in mind that Jesus was the example and he gave clear directives...

Jesus always met the physical needs of the people he spoke with(the hungry, the lame, etc) usually before he spoke to them about their spiritual welfare.

Jesus also commanded (Matthew 25:44) believers to feed the hungry and thirsty, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, heal the sick, and visit those in prison.

IMHO fundamentalists both inside and outside the SBC have decided to elevate 'wedge issues' by pursuing political solutions to these problems rather than following their biblical beliefs.

[The Backlash Cometh]

41. Love Matthew.

I'm repeating a post I made just above this one, that asks the same question you do:

The question to see in the future is, once they realize that the Republican party can no longer serve their purpose to do away with the liberal issues, gay marriage, abortion, etc., will they resign themselves to their previous life of charitable work? Or now that they have let the genie out of the bottle and tasted power, are they now going to be a political factor that we'll have to deal with forever? Possibly creating more wedges in our country?

[Blackhatjack]

48. There are signs of major disillusionment among fundamentalists with Repubs...

As word leaks out that the Office for Faith Based Ministries was just a sham, many are beginning to understand how they were 'used' by Karl Rove and his ilk.

The individual who wrote a book about his time as the Head of the Office of Faith Based Ministries has advocated to his fellow Christians that they take a 'time out' from engaging in political campaigns as Christians rediscover what their role is and how the objectives differ from those of individuals in control of government.

It is very unlikely that Republicans will be able to 'control' fundamentalists and get them to get out and vote Republican in the 2008 election as in the past.

There is not one Repub candidate that has their 'unofficial endorsement' like Bush obtained.

[Didereaux]

29. to answer that find an old Emo Philips routine...

To discover, and I really mean this, how Baptists think dig hard and locate a copy of Emo Philips' old routing about the guy on the Golden Gate Bridge who was going to commit suicide. I gair-own-tee you will learn something about Baptists while dying of laughter.

...as for Baptists and ANY other flavor of religion? Not a chance, most other heathen beliefs allow dancing!
;)

[rateyes]

51. Here it is:

http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/57863/detail/

Thanks for that. That was great!!

[The Backlash Cometh]

55. LOL!

There's no end to it, is there?

[rateyes]

63. Nope. No end.

:hi:

[walldude]

34. I know the difference!

The Evangelicals use TASERS!!!

[NaturalHigh]

37. I'm a Southern Baptist...

which means I hear and read a lot of crap directed toward my faith. For those who might be genuinely interested, most Southern Baptists would be considered evangelical in the literal sense of that word (spreading the message of Christianity).

[rateyes]

39. Being a part of a Baptist church that left the Southern Baptist

Convention, I would be interested to hear from you why you think it is that you hear and read a lot of crap directed toward your faith.

I left the SBC years ago, when the fundamentalists took over and, IMO, destroyed it.

[NaturalHigh]

42. To be honest, I can't tell that anything has changed about the SBC...

since I was a kid. Of course, I still go to the same church that I went to back then. I don't see our congregation as any more or less fundamentalist than it was.

[rateyes]

47. Do you mind me asking you

your age, and whether or not yours is an urban or rural congregation. The demographics of this controversy are fascinating. My bet is that, you are either retired/close to retirement, or 35 yrs old, or less----OR, yours is a smaller, more rural congregation.

And, again, I'd be interested to know why you think you hear and read a lot of crap about your faith. Why do you think those who are very critical of it, are so critical? Because, having attended a SBC seminary (before the fundy takeover...the same seminary that Bill Moyers attended), things have changed dramatically in the SBC since 1979.

[NaturalHigh]

50. I'll be 37 next month, and yes, it's a rural congregation.

I don't know what you consider to be small. We usually have around 140 for Sunday school.

My grandfather (who passed away last year) was a long-time deacon and Sunday school superintendent. He was also a lifelong Democrat, as are many (probably most) of our members. Of course, he was very conservative about social issues (again, so are most of our members). I consider myself to be a very conservative Democrat, and I'm probably close to being a liberal in my congregation.

As for why others are so critical, part of it, I believe, is that Southern Baptist views (as a rule) are definitely more conservative than the views here on DU. I don't apologize in any way for those views, but I do understand that this message board is mostly for liberals. However, I think that a lot of the criticism I read is hostility toward religion in general, especially Christianity. When a Christian does something wrong, it seems that all Christians are slandered.

I wish that people who don't agree with our social views would take a look at all the good things done by Southern Baptist congregations around the country. Maybe one of the problems is that (in our congregation, at least) most of those things aren't publicized.

-------

I'm on my way to work shortly. If you reply and I don't respond immediately, please don't think I'm blowing you off.

[rateyes]

52. 37, from a rural congregation....

that, by SBC terms, is a small church...I was pretty close in my guess.

I grew up in a large (1000+) Southern Baptist Congregation that was rural and small in the beginning, but which became part of urban life as the city expanded and annexed the area. Mega church, which ended up being split between the many "newcomers" who were more fundamentalist, and the oldtimers who were more liberal.

It used to be that in the SBC, there were basically four kinds of Baptist churches that came together around the issue of slavery (the SBC being on the wrong side of the issue). There were churches like the First Baptist Church of Savannah or Augusta Georgia, where the style of worship is very "high-church" (liturgical--ministers in Robes--wealthier), and other churches where farmers, etc. came in from milking the cows, etc....wearing overalls to church....worshipping with a lot of "southern gospel" kind of music, and more emotional displays from the congregation....and, everything in between.

Those four branches, theologically speaking, could be described as "fundamentalist," "conservative," "moderate," and "liberal" (in my understanding of those terms). But, they joined together, around the issue of slavery...then remained together long after that issue was settled. The agreement was that, each church was autonomous, and though they often disagreed about theology, they would work together to do good things upon which they agreed.

In 1979, the fundamentalists, convincing the conservatives to join them, changed all of that. They used politics to takeover all of the leadership (which was once shared), and told all the rest that, if they did not agree to do everything the way they wanted to do it, and didn't believe the fundamentalist doctrines...that they were no longer welcomed.

This issue split the denomination, and a lot of individual churches. However, in churches like yours, the pastors usually decided not to get involved in the controversy, for the sake of keeping the church unified (what the congregation didn't know, didn't hurt them)...or by their silence acquiesced to the fundamentalists, because they agreed with them (the pastors, that is).

I imagine your church is pretty much a "family church" in that the families who attend are the children/grandchildren, etc. of the founders of the church, and that "family" is more important than "denomination" or "doctrine."

Also, being rural, it's more likely that--while conservative in theology---the congregation is more "blue-collar" union friendly folk---which tends toward voting Democratic.

Just an observation. How close am I?

[NaturalHigh]

70. You're pretty close...

although in recent years, I suspect that a lot of the members have started to trend away from voting for Democrats because of the abortion and gay marriage issues.

[rateyes]

71. Yeah, Republicans have been very good

at framing the debate to get people to vote against their own self-interests.

[Blackhatjack]

49. There are many, many churches that refuse to get involved in the debate within the SBC...

They know what they believe, they have always been an SBC church, and they have little to do with the national leadership except to send in contributions to the cooperative program for outreach.

I know many churches that fit this description.

I also know many churches that have 'pulled out' of cooperation with the national leadership.

[The Backlash Cometh]

43. Thanks. I appreciate your input.

[Blackhatjack]

46. IMHO here is a big unspoken difference between fundamentalists and other Christians...

Fundamentalists look for the bright bold lines within which they can live their lives knowing that they are 'good Christians' as a result of their actions. This is a form of legalism. It depends on personal effort to conform one's actions in order to remain in good standing. And it also depends on Church leaders to clearly set out those bright bold lines for them.

A basic tenet of Christianity is that 'no one is good enough' to earn their salvation and that it can only be received as a free gift by 'grace.' We all fail as is our nature, and we all are in need of forgiveness.

Churches are for sinners, like hospitals are for the sick. To turn people away because they are too sinful or not good enough frustrates the purpose of the Church.

So as I see it there is a battle being fought over whether Christians should insist on legalistic application of fundamentalist standards or whether Christians should accept sinners simply upon their affirmation of faith. IT drives the divisions that exist among Evangelicals as a group. And it opened the door to political manipulation of the fundamentalists for political purposes by the Republican Party in the past.

[The Backlash Cometh]

53. "legalistic application of fundamentalist standards"

You mean, whether they should work to change our laws and shove their anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion standards, over just playing a more passive role and just welcoming sinners into their fold when they're ready to commit?

[Blackhatjack]

64. The Old Testament of the Bible involved Living Under The Law ....

When God established his covenant with the Jews and gave Moses the Ten Commandments they were to live by. This was a legalistic standard, and religious officials added their own 'laws, rules and regulations' to enforce compliance.

In the New Testament Jesus came to fulfill the law given in the Old Testament, but established a new covenant with man by grace, faith not works.

"Fundamentalists" tend to revert to the legalistic tradition, hard and fast rules for everything, and religious leaders to tell them exactly what the parameters are so they can judge how well they and others are doing. These are the people who have been 'used' by their religious leaders for political purposes, based upon elevating 'wedge issues' like abortion and gay marriage. It becomes a black/white issue for them, and as long as a Repub candidate uttered the magic words they often voted for them based on those issues alone.

"Moderate" and "Liberal" Christians tend to be New Testament Christians who take the words of Jesus to heart to hate the sin and love the sinner. It is not necessary for all Moderate and Liberal Christians to agree on every social issue, and they certainly don't look for any one leader to issue an edict telling them exactly what they have to believe in regard to social issues. They believe in the concept of grace, because none of us is without sin. So you may encounter a Moderate or Liberal Christian who does not agree with you on a social issue, but it is unlikely you will be condemned because of it.

Understand that I have used broad stereotypes to advance these arguments. It all depends upon who's definition you are using to determine who is a Fundamentalist, Moderate or Liberal. In some environments, like the SBC Leadership orbit, there are no such things as Moderates.

[The Backlash Cometh]

65. Okay, thanks! eom

[Lydia Leftcoast]

54. Southern Baptists are a subset of evangelicals

Any Christian of any denomination can have evangelical leanings.