Talk:Southern Baptist Convention/Archive 1

Archived June 20, 2009

Conservative Resurgence

The whole section on the "Conservative Resurgence" completely violates the neutral viewpoint principle. The title itself suggests the writer's bias. Those on the moderate side of the convention would refer to it as the "Conservative Takeover" - just as biased, but a valid viewpoint. Reverting the section back to the previous "Factions" text, would be closer to the neutral view. [Unsigned comment by User:Chfowler 04:28, 27 March 2005]

I would also like to correct what I perceive as an error. The article states that the BGCT was the first State convention to remove itself from the SBC (1998) and that this did not cause a schism in the SBC. That is not entirely true. The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship was created in 1991 by moderate voices in the Southern Baptist Convention, as a reaction to the "Conservative Takeover." Many felt that the SBC was moving away from traditional Baptist distinctives and attempting to create a hierarchical, creedal denomination. For further information about the CBF and its work, please see: http://www.thefellowship.info. [Unsigned comment by User:217.40.39.249 13:57, 26 May 2005]

Paul Pressler

The Paul Pressler article that "The Controversy" section links to is the wrong Paul Pressler. Information about the SBC-related Judge Paul Pressler can be found on sourcewatch.org, on amazon.com, in the About The Author section, and The Council for National Policy: Selected Member Biographies. Also, his first book, A Hill On Which To Die, contains significant biographical information. [Unsigned comment by User:128.205.145.4 22:31, 31 July 2005]

help!!!!

I need more SBC people listed at conservative Christianity. [Unsigned comment by User:Kdbuffalo 20:35, 29 August 2005]

Removed from article

I found the following contribution (in context, actual edit in italics):

It has 1,200 local associations, 41 state conventions and fellowships, and supports thousands of missionaries worldwide (over NOT TEN THOUSAND SOME IDIOT LIED SOMEBODY NEEDS TO FIX THIS AIM FOR LESS THAN TEN THOUSAND in 2003).

I reverted the article to its prior version, but would someone (who can type in both upper & lower case) research this & make the necessary changes -- with the necessary citations? -- llywrch 23:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Llywrch, I found the following at http://www.sbc.net/missionswork.asp

• Through the International Mission Board, Southern Baptists support 4,946 international missionaries in 153 different countries. Southern Baptist's North American Mission Board helped to send out 5,081 missionaries in North America last year and help start over 1,700 new churches.

I'm not a Southern Baptist and not a particular fan of their way of doing missions. BUT if I can add correctly the Southern Baptists support 10027 missionaries in some fashion - which is over 10,000 (assuming that none of the missionaries supported by the International & North American Boards are the same). In case the 2003 date is incorrect, I am changing it to 2005 (assuming that the site is current). - Rlvaughn 20:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Liturgical??

Usually in the social sciences (especially Political Science) the term “mainline denominations” refers to liturgical churches, e.g. Methodist, Episcopalian, Lutheran, and the like. xx [Unsigned comment by User:70.241.39.226 19:36, 3 November 2005]

The mainline churches include both liturgical and pietistic. The SBC started out as mostly pietistic but I think it has become increasingly liturgical (with emphasis on powerful ministers, role of Baptism, separate communion, anti-heresy etc). Rjensen 10:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Anti-heresy does not relate to whether the church is liturgical or not. Liturgy has to do with the ritual of sacraments.--Parkwells (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad Link to Jack Graham

The link to Jack Graham in the Prominent Southern Baptists Section (Jack Graham, pastor of the 25,000 member Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, Texas.) links to a biography of another person, not Pastor Graham. I just thought the article creator or someone otherwise might want to fix it. [Unsigned comment by User:67.173.221.96 04:55, 25 December 2005]

Partisan books?

Someone added -- Jerry Sutton, The Baptist Reformation: The Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention -- under the heading partisan books. Are we to assume that there is no bias in any of the other secondary sources listed in the article? [Unsigned comment by User:216.62.168.234 17:38, 21 February 2006]

Partisan means the goal of a book is to argue for one side or the other. Sutton's publisher claims the book is "a testimony and an expression of gratitude to those who worked to bring about the Baptist Reformation" [Amazon.com]. That is it clearly takes sides, arguing one side is right and the other side is wrong. That makes it "partisan". The category says nothing about "bias" -- Wiki is NOT supposed to tell the reader which side is right or wrong. Rjensen 03:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia stays NPOV by presenting multiple views of an issue. The book reference is fine and should not be separated. Other view points can be added to balance out the article if needed. Separating out the book is pov. --FloNight 19:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Header

I'm removing the NPOV header, as no discussion was added to this talk page by the person who added it. I personally think the article is pretty even-handed. Chfowler 19:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Misleading Date

From the "Controversies in SBC history" section, next to last paragraph, "This change in control, termed the "Conservative Resurgence" by supporters and the "Fundamentalist Takeover" by detractors, culminated in the adoption of significant changes to the Baptist Faith and Message at the 2000 SBC Annual Meeting. At this point, the moderates then formed the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF)," -This implies that the CBF began in 2000 when it actually began in 1991. [Unsigned comment by User:84.191.210.75 20:03, 4 May 2006]

Southern Baptism Founded on Slavery

Why no mention of slavery except for one sentence? Slavery was the PRIMARY reason Southern baptists split with Northern baptists. The issue of slavery needs to be expanded greatly since it was a major part of Southern baptist history. You cannot escape history. Here are sources to get you started.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NXG/is_1_37/ai_94160891

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n21_v112/ai_17332136

http://www.highbeam.com/library/docfree.asp?DOCID=1G1:17094060&ctrlInfo=Round19%3AMode19b%3ADocG%3AResult&ao=

http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/sbc.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_United_States

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/043.html

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/bible_slavery.html

[Unsigned comment by User:66.212.41.199 21:11, 6 May 2006]

Agreed. The history section should cover the reasons to why there is a branch of Soutern Baptism— the most obvious reason was the congregations of the North and South's differing beliefs on slavery under Christianity. As an African American historian and somewhat of a Southern Baptist, I would like to see these history issues covered in detail. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪

I agree and have added some material and a cite. Before the Revolution and even in the early 19th c., Baptists recommended manumission of slaves and were against the hierarchy of class. They changed and accommodated themselves to the southern environment.--Parkwells (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The term "slave" or "slavery" now appears fifteen (15) times in the article. It has gone from inadequate to an overkill. I completely support reporting this embarrassing history, but the redundancy detracts from objectivity. Afaprof01 (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Dakota Fanning

Dakota Fanning is a Southern Baptist? Does anybody know where this information came from? Is it true? A hoax? This is the first time I've ever seen this mentioned and I couldn't find any verification of it. Tsm1128 21:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Footwashing?

Do the Southern Baptists practice footwashing? [Unsigned comment by User:198.236.216.252 16:43, 29 June 2006]

Not as a standard practice. [Unsigned comment by User:84.191.206.99 08:31, 30 June 2006]

Okay. [Unsigned comment by User:198.236.216.252 19:03, 3 July 2006]

But some Baptists groups do so--General Association of General Baptists for example [Randall Balmer, Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism 2004 p 285] and the Original Free-Will Baptists and esp the United Baptists in Kentucky. [New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia p 477] Rjensen 19:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks again. I believe Primitive Baptists do too. [Unsigned comment by User:198.236.216.252 19:25, 11 July 2006]

Feet washing is not a widespread practice of churches within the Southern Baptist Convention, but some churches do practice it. The most notable areas would be in north Alabama, north Georgia, and on up into the Appalachias. Even in these places, though, it is a minority practice. - Rlvaughn 03:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend it. Especially after a long hot day's work:) Plantalion 17:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Who removed the statement on eternal hellfire?

That is absolutely true, even more so today. A baptist minister should be ashamed to remove such information since it is true. 213.96.18.235 23:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the reference to eternal hellfire. I have been a member of four SBC churches and I currently am the pastor at a fifth and I cannot recall a single time that a preacher made mention of "eternal hellfire" in the invitation. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen (I may be forgetting the few times it occured) but it does mean that it is not common enough to be a part of the "Practices" section of the SBC encyclopedic article. Eugeneacurry 04:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - I was raised in and have been a member of Southern Baptist churches my entire (39 year) life, all of them in Texas, and I can't recall any time this was mentioned in an invitation. Maybe I was lucky to be in the "right" kind (read moderate) churches. Chfowler 15:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe not those exact words, but my pastor has used the term "spending an enterity in Hell, seperated from God." [Unsigned comment by User:Gcal1971 14:21, 13 April 2007]

Reformed?

Anyone know the history of the convention and reformed theology? Akubhai 15:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Most SBC church (if they have actually sat down and thought about it) would likely stake out some sort of theological position with a significant Reformed flavor (Perseverance of the Saints is even enshrined in the Baptist Faith and Message). But even so thoroughgoing Reformed theology has been and continues to be a source of controversy within the convention. Some (like Albert Mohler) consider themselves Reformed, others (like the late Adrian Rogers) not only eschew such an identity but vigorously oppose such ideas. Eugeneacurry 18:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Reformed theology often goes by the name Calvinism, though that is part of the debate. If you haven't seen it, I recommend an excellent article in Christianity Today, September, 2006, entitled "Young, Restless, Reformed—Calvinism is making a comeback—and shaking up the church." It is accessible online: (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/september/42.32.html). Somewhat related is a sacramentalism resurgence described in what today is footnote 15 in Baptist. Afaprof01 23:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Just pointing out the recent Building Bridges Conference on Calvinism hosted by Founders Ministries that discussed this issue. Nhoj (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Moderate vs Liberal and "from their perspective"

Everything in this article is "from the perspective" of the convention. However, a certain user deems it necessary to put this phrase only after the place where Southern Baptists "are historically strong on shunning theological error". Of course it is from their perspective, but adding the phrase, basically, being redundant, is a NPOV implying that Southern Baptists are wrong.

Regarding moderate vs liberal. The conservatives, as the article notes, threw out the liberals from within. This same user continues to say "moderates", which is not NPOV, and not factual. As many links as could be provided for moderate could be provided for liberal. Please refrain from "rewriting history" from your perspective. 65.213.184.1 18:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been watching this little disagreement for the past few days. Please understand that the terms "moderate" and "liberal" are sort of synonymous. There's also the problem that the word "Liberal" can be used perjoratively (as in Liberal elite). On the other hand, there is an article on Liberal Christianity. In the Roman Catholic Church it is known as Modernism.

Those within the SBC who are familiar with the "conservative resurgence" would use the term "Liberal" to describe those who were not conservative. I would suggest, however, that it is likely that these people do not class themselves as "Liberal" but "Modernist" or "Progressive". May I suggest the use of the word "Progressive"?

--One Salient Oversight 23:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Those within the present SBC who engineered the takeover like the polite term, "conservative." I've read articles where they are described as "red-necked fundamentalists." As always with labels, one has to ask, "compared to what?" In any case, "Liberal" is not going to fly! Conservative-moderate is politely favorable to the majority of both groups. CME GBM 17:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, if one side is conservative, the other side is liberal. I don't really see the controversry here, and particularly within the context of this argument. "Conservatives" can be seen just as "liberals" within negative connotations, but in this case, it is accurate per the terms of this discussion with regards to each side. The POV of the article would remain neutral if the opposing sides were "conservative" and "liberal". "Progressive" is a political term which isn't even completely defined, but within the context of Christianity, conservative and liberal are fairly well known. Just wanted to keep things within NPOV. Where is that user who kept reverting without discussion? hmm. 65.34.106.27 21:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please Afapro1, refrain from changing from "liberal" to "moderate" without discussion. 65.34.106.27 05:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we are having that discussion here. First, I respectfully disagree that "'moderate' and 'liberal' are sort of synonymous," as suggested in an earlier comment. Second, I similarly disagree that "if one side is conservative, the other side is liberal." That is to ignore the fact that we are talking about a continuum, not two discrete points. Therefore, individuals and groups who band together because they are like-minded to some degree can "fall" anywhere on the continuum. As pointed out by the dictionary people, there is a "progression of values varying by minute degrees." Just as "good" and "bad" stand at opposite ends of a continuum instead of describing the two halves of a line (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/continuum), so do "liberal" and "conservative" stand at opposite ends of a progression of ethical and theological values. "Moderate" implies "avoiding extremes" and "tending toward the mean or average." That well describes those you wish to brand as liberal. I completely agree that "Progressive" and "Modernist" are completely inappropriate here. Thanks. Afaprof01 23:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

State Conventions List

I've begun a list of the state conventions within the SBC within the section on, what else, "State Convention". Please contribute to this list so that it will become comprehensive over time. Eugeneacurry 16:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversy Split

As all good Baptists know, the way to multiply is sometimes to divide. And as all good Wikipedians know, the way to write good articles is sometimes to split articles. I think we should split the takeover section to a new article. It was a significant enough upheaval in Baptist life to warrant its own section. Sighter Goliant 15:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Women's Role

It seems to me that the information in this section, while worth including in the article in some fashion, does not deserve its own separate section on par with "Theology" and "Practice". Does anyone object to simply inserting the information (in condensed form) in to the "Practice" section? Eugeneacurry 16:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. It is a huge issue that affects more than half of the people in the Convention. It is both theologically-based and a practice. Afaprof01 07:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think calling the official pronouncements on the role of women in SBC churches a "huge issue" is a bit of an over-statement considering that less than .1% of SBC churches are pastored by women.[1] Furthermore the WELS, LCMS, PCA, RCC and many others do not allow women to be pastors/rectors/priests and yet none of their Wikipedia articles give equal time to such stances as to their whole theology. How about including a number of subsections in either the "theology" or "practice" sections and including the role of women among the salient points? Eugeneacurry 16:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone has a good reason why the "women's role" section needs to be a seperate section on par with "theology" and "practice" in light of the above information I'll integrate the information into the "practice" section. Eugeneacurry 16:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"More than half" refers to the fact that more than half of the SBC's membership are women. BF&M2000 formalized it as a theological issue. It was one of the issues considered by present SBC leadership to be "liberal" and therefore became a significant part of the schism. It now is an SBC distinctive, as it also is with the denominations/churches you listed, plus others. Informal non-liturgical worship would be a "practice" without theological significance. The Lord's Supper, Baptism, and Women's legislated role are based on SBC interpretation of scripture, therefore theological. Afaprof01 01:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a big enough topic for a whole new section. Think if this were a print encyclopedia. This is not the things people think when they think Southern Baptist. [Unsigned comment by User:69.138.111.246 04:42, 10 July 2007]]

This is the first time for the SBC to take a theological position that limits women in ministry and in marriage. These BF&M statement completely ignore all of Christ's examples of how he dignified, respected, and enabled women. Afaprof01 23:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Here we go, now afaprof01 is beginning to expose her feminist agenda. Keep an eye on this one...CLICK --A B Pepper 16:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this statement reveals just how trivial the "Women's Role" section really is. It hasn't been included by some disinterested individual seeking to bring comprehensiveness to the article; it was included and defended by people motivated by a theological agenda and, apparently, a significant antipathy to the recent changes in the SBC. The anonymous contributor is correct, a print encyclopedia would not give nearly this much attention to the SBC's stance on women. Special interest edits are out of place here. A discussion of this matter, if it need appear anywhere, should be in the BF&M article-- which it is.Eugeneacurry 16:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. How can this be a "special interest" edit when the SBC now has a theological position on women in ministry and in marriage? The deletion gives the impression that the editor prefers to sweep the issue under the proverbial rug. It is the first time ever that Baptists have restricted women's role/position in ministry and in marriage. Trivial? Not to a Baptist woman who grew up in the church and now finds that her church requires her theologically to graciously submit herself to husband headship--whereas that has never been an SBC official position before. And not to a Baptist woman who has felt and surrendered to the call of Christ to minister in His name within the church, perhaps has spent years and financial investment preparing herself in a seminary--only to have it shoved in her face that she's now unqualified, solely on the basis that she was not born male, to serve the Lord in her church in a pastoral or other ministerial staff position. Jesus certainly didn't understand this to be the case when He commissioned the women, especially Mary of Magdala, to proclaim the most essential fact of the Christian faith: that He is risen! Apostle Paul didn't tell Priscilla that she was out of place when she and Aquila taught the powerful preacher, Apollos, "the word of God more effectively." The complainant has already successfully moved the controversy section, although other denominational articles properly include their major controversies in their main article. "Women's Role" must not fall victim to the same deflection via displacement. And you're right, I'm not disinterested. But as an SBC Baptist pastor, neither is Eugeneacurry. Truth be told! If it's truth, Someone said it would set us free. Reverting removal. Afaprof01 02:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is absolutely not the first time that Baptists have restricted women's role's in both ministry and marriage. The National Baptist Convention has a long tradition of disallowing women from holding pastoral positions [2]. Likewise, the Baptist General Conference has adopted resolutions on the family explicitly calling on wives to submit to the leadership of their husbands [3]. Dozens of similar examples could be drawn from smaller separatist groups in the US and groups in foreign countries. This blatant untruth only further reveals the emotional and theological agenda behind the continued inclusion of the "Women's Role" section. I'm not altogether familiar with Wikipedia so I don't know how to access all it's features. Would someone, please, put in a request for arbitration on this matter? I think Afaprof01 is pushing an agenda and Afaprof01 feels the same way about me. Let's have a third party come in and settle the matter: "Is the "Women's Role" section an appropriate thing to include as a separate section and, if so, is it the appropriate length?" Eugeneacurry 17:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC) I'll keep trying to work it out for now.Eugeneacurry 17:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Fellow Christians, come and let us reason together. I have watched the frustration growing between two apparently excellent, intelligent, and conscientious editors. It looks like a very honest struggle on a very important issue. There already has been genuine give-and-take which appears to have been successful in honing these sections more and more toward accuracy. I'm sorry for you editors' frustrations, but then it's a lot more polite and respectful than I'm accustomed to in our Wed. night business meetings.

My 3rd party opinion, for what it's worth, is that the women's issue definitely has become a very major issue for the SBC, both in pastoral ministry limitations and the domestic issue. By putting these planks in the BFM2k platform, we went over the edge and aligned ourselves 100% with the (real) fundamentalists on those matters. Historically speaking, these planks redefined us in ways that violate historical Baptist distinctives like no others.

The article doesn't say it's the first time Baptists have restricted roles; it says it's first time it has become "the official theological position of the denomination." And that's what the BFM does.

The husband-wife statement similarly reads "the first time in any Baptist confession of faith." From my historian perspective, the statements both are accurate. From my inside observation of the development of the BF&M (2000), I do believe that the intent was to put a nail in the old coffin of the so-called women's issues. My hunch is that editor AFA knows that, and is trying to avoid saying that in more volatile terms. My hunch also is that editor Eugene would like to be as protective of the convention as possible, and to cast it in the most positive light possible for the world to see in this article. Not at all an unworthy goal, Sir, except that is not the purpose of this particular forum.

Closing advice: Be good trustworthy reporters of the facts; don't be interpretive; pray for wisdom the speak the truth in love; love one another, pray for one another, sense each other's "heart" in the matter, negotiate phraseology, but always remember: it's the Truth of the author and finisher of our faith that will ultimately set us free. Besides WWJD, don't neglect to look at what He actually DID. In true Christian love, Oberlin 16:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is how most people feel I'll shut up and get on with my life. Oberlin feels this way, Afaprof01 feels this way; anyone else? Eugeneacurry 18:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the form of the presentation of the information regarding the SBC's stance towards women is biased, even if the content is accurate. The editors who added it clearly did so with a agendum other than merely "inform". And that agendum is out in the open on this talk page. Sad. Srnec 23:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If oberlin and afaprof01 is advice you are considering i would suggest you look at "christian views about women" They have a strong feminist agenda and I have made over 100 corrections to factual errors. afaprof01 uses the gender neutral TNIV and or NLT to exegete scripture. oberlin uses greek words to exegete hebrew text. Currently the pages is "locked" per the request of afaprof01. On my personal page I have saved the entire text of the article just prior to my beginning to edit. I recommend anyone to take a look and come to your own conclusion......regards --A B Pepper 16:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It is also worthwhile to present this in this form, as it is another way in which the Southern Baptist Convention is separated from some African American practice, in which women pastors have played an important part. --Parkwells (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Statistics

I am something of a newbie, so I hesitated to make any changes without running them past the folks on the discussion page! Two comments about the statistical section of the article:

(A) It comments that there are three times as many Roman Catholics as Southern Baptists. This is technically correct, but not completely correct, since Southern Baptists only count baptized adult members, and Catholics count all members (including children). As far as I know, the cited figures for Southern Baptists only include "members" in the sense of baptized persons. Could this be clarified in some way?

(B) There is a remark that Southern Baptists have been losing ground in proportion to the overall population of the US since 1990. Technically, this is, again, true. What is also true is that Baptist (Southern or otherwise) numbers have gone up during the period. The source of the loss has been large scale immigration, which has been largely Catholic. Again, I suggest a clarification.

Thoughts? Bonbga 21:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

An historically male dominated ministry

An historically male dominated ministry in the church has always been the cutting of the church lawn and very few women have ever been able to gain a foot hold in this ministry. It is time sisters to demand the keys to the lawn tractor and show the men how good a job you could do if they would only allow it. Your God given rights and gifts according to the scriptures where there is neither male or female has been denied long enough !....--A B Pepper 03:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that is funny ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.86.220 (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Headcoverings for the sisters?

Do Southern Baptists ever practice the headcovering like Mennonites? Thank you. 66.191.19.254 20:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Not that it's relevant to the article, but... no. --Orange Mike 14:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Though the practice of women wearing hats in church is not unheard of, especially in predominantly Black churches.

Eugeneacurry 17:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. If it was practiced, it would be very relevant as it's an important doctrine to some Christian denominations. Since it appears that it is not a doctrine, but perhaps only a localized practice, no reference is likely needed. 68.116.99.140 20:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a fashion in the last century, but it was only really a fashion. There are no particular rules on the matter. Plantalion 17:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)