Recently in Baptist Category

Welcome to Ethics Daily.com!

"Just about everybody in the world knows what we're against," SBC president Bobby Welch has said. "The overriding thing that has to happen now is the world needs to be reminded in no uncertain terms of what we're for."

It's going to take another 25 years to undo what 25 years of virulent , smug hate and hostility has reaped. And that's if they change their direction NOW.

The BCE's Parham said while the ad portrays "a denomination with a central focus of caring for those who suffer," that image "has no substance" in a Cooperative Program budget that allocates about five cents of every dollar for human needs.

"The ad masks the real nature of the SBC and misdirects viewers about the denomination's priorities," Parham said.

Kind of like "Compassionate Conservatism" eh?

via EthicsDaily
Nashville Scene - Nothing Sacred

Author, civil rights activist and Baptist minister Will Campbell is friend to Klansmen, whores and the hopeless —but he rejects the “soul molesters” of the Southern Baptist Convention

My Church History prof was always recommending Campbell's Brother to a DragonFly. This article in the Nashville Scene is a good read about one of the most colorful and unique Southern Baptist characters to come down the pike. (He is also among the most strident critics of the present SBC leadership)

Southern Baptist bigwigs, for their part, seem to be afraid of Campbell. Richard Land, who often comes across like a George W. Bush groupie rather than the president of the Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, recently issued a press release gushing about the president keeping his campaign word on Supreme Court nominees. The press release invited requests for a Land interview. But don’t try that if the subject is Will Campbell. Through a spokesman, Land replied that he had “nothing to say about Campbell.”

Jerry Sutton, pastor of Nashville’s politically active Two Rivers Baptist Church, never responded to an offer to comment on Campbell or about the involvement of the Baptist Church in politics. Bobby Patray, who lobbies for the ultra-conservative Eagle Forum and has been prominent in the political activities of Two Rivers, also declined requests for comment.

So who is this 81-year-old bootleg preacher who makes the Baptist elites clam up? This man who has no faculty seat at any divinity school, no church building—and certainly no television pulpit—yet challenges one of the most powerful religious bodies in the country and has written books and essays that make renowned theologians sit up and take notice? Who is this redneck farmer with no organization who became a major figure in the civil rights struggle? This integrationist who reaches out to Klansmen? This Christian cleric who marries, baptizes and buries Catholics, Jews, heathens and the unchurched alike? This hillbilly guitar strummer with no press agent who becomes friends with some of the most famous—and infamous—country music stars of all time?

This post by Al Mohler is yet another in a long line of posts about "Sanctity of Life" in which Mohler simply refuses to even address how war doesn't fall into every argument he makes. It's as if he doesn't even recognize its existence. But that would be to question his demonination's triumphant and almost joyful acceptance and support of the "Christian America" led by their heroes, the Bush administration. It has become a denomination seemingly perfectly willing to live with this glaring hypocrisy as they talk about their upholding the sanctity of life. They're no better than the "woman's right to choose" people who justify such "rights" on the basis of convenience and "larger picture", but refuse to notice how this is the exact argument they use for war.

Crosswalk.com - Albert Mohler's Weblog

On this new ">blog companion (ThinkTank) to the generousorthodoxy.net website, I found this , which will definitely interest me, since I am a "Southern Baptist refugee" (which usually these days means either another kind of Baptist, like CBF or the ABC, or else something entirely different--- like, another denomination)

Some have asked for a copy of my comparison research on the Baptist Press and Associated Baptist Press, so I've uploaded it to the weblog here.

I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw this at rhe foot of a "Blog" post on Al Mohler's "Blog". I say "Blog" in quotes becuase your blog, Al, is ANYTHING but. Re-runs?

Crosswalk.com - Albert Mohler's Weblog

This article was originally published on November 16, 2004. New daily columns will resume on August 1, 2005.

That's great. I guess he had started to repeat himself anyway, so what the heck?

Another in a long line of self-decpetion amongst Southern Baptists. Richard land says this in the context of Bush's Supreme Court nominee:

Bush nominates John G. Roberts to fill court vacancy; social conservatives applaud pick - (BP)

I have found the president in the 17 years I have known him personally to be a man of integrity and a man of his word. I will trust the president until I have compelling evidence to the contrary

Which means, in spite of all evidence, since he has apparently made a command decision to overlook, deny, or dismiss all that could be constued as evidence to the contrary.

Self-deception in the service of power, and the thrill of "being in control" (or at least having the illusion of control, which is yet another instance of self-deception)

via Jesus Politics

Robert Parham reports and comments on the conspicuous silence of the Southern Baptists concerning their

Welcome to Ethics Daily.com!

Moral relativism and indifference surface with a pointed clarity in Southern Baptist life in the case of Bernie Ebbers, a member of Easthaven Baptist Church, outside of Jackson, Miss.

Parham closes with some questions that hit the nail on the head:

Did Baptist leaders fail Ebbers with their failure to teach ethics in church and critique corporate America in their sermons?

Does the lack of critical commentary from Baptist leaders about Ebbers now, and their willingness to be character witnesses, suggest that money from wealthy members buys moral relativism and indifference from religious leaders?

It sure looks that way.

Lack of critique of coroporate America from Southern Baptist leaders? Almost assuredly so. (and Parham would most probably agree). Sad state of affairs. Accomodating. A pretty sad image of "success" is being passed over and often even praised as a sign of a "Purpose-Filled" Life (not by Warren, but by many who combine success in our culture with "God's blessing", and the insinutations that are left dangling without clarification that God rewqards those who "know how to play the system".

Related articles on BCE:
Where Do Worldcom Execs Go to Church?

What Responsibility Do Churches Have for Worldcom?

via Jesus Politics, this post points to another about theology promoting violence. But rather than it being a matter of "Baptist beliefs", it is a more "ecumenical" problem. "Ecumenical" in the sense that this is a problem of Constantinianism; adopting the "worldly wisdom" against that of the gospel which is "foolishness to the world". Many fundamentalists apply this to "the world's persecution of them", as they are met with eithger dismissal or blank stares or ridicule for what is actually indeed somewhat theologically suspect, but they leap to the conclusion that their own intolerance and easy adoption of the values of empire are being opposed because these are "Christian" ways to be.

Howie Luvzus

Under patriarchy, men are shamed and considered weak if they exhibit qualities associated with women. Politicians win elections by being tough on terror, tough on crime, tough on drugs, tough on welfare mothers. Calls for cooperation, negotiation, compassion or recognition of our mutual interdependence are equated with womanly weakness. In the name of 'toughness', the power holders deprive the poor of the means of life, the troubled and the ill of treatment and care, the ordinary citizen of our privacy and civil rights. Force, punishment, and violence are patriarchy's answer to conflicts and social problems.

Howie Luvzus takes the article about Feminist values and applies them to some Baptists (specifically Southern Baptists, and more specifically our old friend Al Mohler). The following quote from Mohler is amazingly inane.

Where are today's barbarians? Moore locates them at the local shopping mall, wandering about in packs, recognizable by their sloppy dress, their lack of linguistic ability, their crudeness of manners, and their treatment of women. Barbarians do not need words nor use them, they communicate to each other through guttural grunts, shrugs, and various noises. When barbarians actually use words, their speech is most likely to be laced with profanity.

At the other extreme, the wimps lack all manly conviction and character. Robbed of ambition, moral formation, and courage, wimps "make worthless watchdogs." The wimp is incapable of living up to his responsibilities as a man, and shows no valor in his public or private life. "Many of today's young men seem to have no fight in them at all. Not for them to rescue damsels in distress from the barbarians," Moore sadly reflects. The wimp is always looking for the easiest way out of a problem.

With respect to women, barbarians demonstrate a crudeness, profanity, and violence that treats women merely as sex objects for male pleasure. Barbarians show women no respect, and are completely lacking in the manly virtues of protection and respect for the well being of women. Wimps, on the other hand, look to women for emotional support, consider girlfriends to be conversation partners, and look to women for pity. They are shameless.

"consider girlfriends to be conversation partners" is a bad thing? I finds that utterly unbeliveable.

Also the association of "barbarians" with the inability to use intellectual terminology (another sign of Mohler's extreme arrogance and self-righteousness and EMPHASIS upon "intellectual" categories of theological concepts as the real sign of salvation.

Moore goes right to the heart of the problem in raising boys. A regime of permissive parenting has led to soft discipline that produces soft boys who grow to become soft men. Parents are now afraid to discipline, and seem to be more concerned with the development of an artificial "self-esteem" in their boys.

Come on Al, say it. REAL men love war. REAL men adopt the defintion of "manlihood" from our culture rather than Jesus. Of course, Al belives in a "Real Man Jesus" that is "a man" according to the ways of the world, which of course, is part of what Jesus' life and ministry dispels and exposes as false. I am again reminded of a conversation with a pro-war, pro-Bush, conservative who added in one of our debates about Iraq that "Jesus is not some momma's boy patting people on the head and telling them everything's going to be OK, but he's leading us to protect lives", meaning we'd better adopt the world's approach to "security" and eschew the inbreaking of God's Kingdom that Jesus announced and fulfilled with the resurrection.

Al Mohler:

United Church of Christ on Verge of Embracing Same-Sex Marriage

Those watching the United Church of Christ [UCC] know that the denomination has been moving steadily leftward for decades. Nevertheless, the official endorsement of same-sex marriage represents something genuinely historic and genuinely tragic.

Mohler uses the word "tragic" to describe the UCC's "endorsement" of same-sex marriage. While I seriously doubt that, I am even more apalled at the omission in Mohler's theology of the true tragdey of Christians who think it is fine to kill for whatever reason their country's leaders say are "justified". That the virtually OPPOSITE was rather clearly spelled out by Christ (as in "Christ-ian"), to so totally subsume one's theology under and beneath that of "the world" and of "nations" is such a tragedy, not only in terms of theology and the representation of Christ, but also a tragedy in the level of evil this allows to happen. It would be one thing if EVERY Christian spoke out and truly asked "What would Jesus do?", and the government still did the same (which it may well have found a way to do---- I can't help but think that it would have been much more difficult politically)....even then, the blood would not be on the hands of "Christians". Thus the tragedy. Thus my absolute disgust at the lack of Christ-liuke-ness of the American Church.

Crosswalk.com - Albert Mohler's Weblog

Emerging Church leaders, influenced by postmodern theory, rightly understand that every individual is deeply embedded in a social location. They are certainly correct in accusing much of mainstream evangelicalism from missing this point entirely--blissfully unaware of how the ambient culture has influenced our own ways of thinking. But does an acknowledgement of the role of social location relativize the meaning of a text?

Al has an ongoing problem that continues to blind him to the way in which he is ultimately seduced by modernist thinking: Bibliolatry. Text as truth. Worship of the Bible as the premier locus of revelation. When fundamentalists hear "revelation", they think "Bible" rather than "Christ". When they hear "the Word", they think "the Word of God" as synonomous with "Bible", and what's worse, they think "Bible" in terms of an "obvious" meaning of text (of course, it's obvious in the way that fits their modernist, authoritarian worldview). They (the Southern Baptist demoninational leadership) have already demonstrated that they are unwilling to tolerate what others might see as the "clear meaning", or those who question whether something Mohler might see as "clear" as actually "Biblical".

Where does all this lead us? As Carson understands, a necessary and appropriate critique of evangelical habits of thinking--including unhealthy influences from modernist thinking--should be welcomed by serious-minded evangelicals. Yet, "Once we have acknowledged the unavoidable finiteness of all human knowers, the cultural diversity of the human race, the diversity of factors that go into human knowing, and even the evil that lurks in the human breast and easily perverts claims of knowledge into totalitarian control and lust for power--once we have acknowledged these things, is there any way left for us to talk about knowing what is true or objectively real? Hard postmodernists insist there is not. And that's the problem."

The last half of the above quote was from Carson, whom Mohler is using here to drive home his point.

But here's the problem, Al. When what is "objectively real" is specified by a group with a particular telos, in order to further those goals, this is what is being questioned. The manner in which the Southern Baptists in power now achieved that power was with an aim in mind that consisted of "a network" of "good ol' boys" intent on "acquisition of power", and brought into the fold scores of others who they were able to convince that "the liberals" were going to destroy the denomination. Even those who were likely to agree with their "fundamentals" but who were not willing to engage in the "witch hunt" to take away jobs and pastorates and missionary assignments and professorships, were "unacceptable" as leaders in this "conservative backlash". It reminds me a lot of the Republican modus operandi. It makes me suspicious of whether or not Paul Pressler (one of the master minds behind the "SBC Takeover") and Karl Rove have had contact along the way, so similar are the slanderous whispering campaigns.

"Once we have acknowledged the unavoidable finiteness of all human knowers"
Given, then retracted when it comes to their own knowledge; in that case, it HAS to absolute. And "it's in the Bible, plain as day". Of course, Al. They cloak their own sense of infallibility in the "truth of the Bible" (that is, their "selected canon" , properly interpreted).

and then this:
"[Once we have acknowledged] the evil that lurks in the human breast and easily perverts claims of knowledge into totalitarian control and lust for power"
VERY Easily. I have a suspicion that this present SBC leadership has succumbed to this danger.

"easily perverts claims of knowledge into totalitarian control". Also very similar to the Bush administration, with whom the SBC Leadership is tightly aligned, and amomng its most avid, rabid supporters and defenders. It often seems indistinguishable from the "tenets of the faith" for them (support for Bush, the Iraq war, and the integrity of Fox News).

via Jesus Politics

GW, speaking to the Southern Baptist Convention via satellite, praises a church that was given a "faith-based intitiative" grant. Unfortunately, the recipients of that message were saying to themselves, uh...George....they're one of those "other" Baptists. We don't do that sort of thing...uh.....I mean...uhhhh..... that wasn't us (they are CBF, and give no money to the SBC). George can't seem to help himself, stickin' his foot in his mouth on a regular basis

Welcome to Ethics Daily.com!

Speaking live via satellite at the SBC annual meeting in Nashville, Tenn., Bush repeated themes of three previous appearances at the convention, including thanking Southern Baptists for their prayers, support of troops and opposition to gay marriage, abortion and cloning.

He also defended his “faith-based initiative” to make it easier for religious organizations to qualify for government grants to provide social services.

“America’s faith-based institutions change hearts every day,” Bush said. “And we depend on the work of these organizations to bring hope to harsh places. Yet for too long, governments have discriminated against faith-based programs--just because they have a cross or a Star of David or a crescent on the wall.”

Bush said that is why he signed an executive order that faith-based groups providing social services are entitled to the same access to federal money as other groups.

“I am proud that we have now opened billions of dollars in grant money to competition that includes our faith-based charities,” the president said. “For example, my administration awarded College Park Baptist Church in Orlando, Florida, $5.8 million to build 68 homes for low-income seniors.”

Pastor Ron Crawford told EthicsDaily.com the church was recently awarded a contract through HUD to build a second facility for persons who are disabled or near the end of life. The first, also built with HUD money, is 22 years old.

The church Web site describes College Park Baptist Church as “a Cooperative Baptist Fellowship church” located in the Orlando suburb of College Park. The site links to CBF and other moderate Baptist entities but not to the SBC.

via Jesus Politics (Buy a flag and declare war on Satan and his lies of liberalism and secularism)

Welcome to Ethics Daily.com!

The site also carries a pledge to the new flag: “I pledge allegiance, to the Christian Flag of the United States of America, and to the Lord, who made us great and free. I purpose, to band together, with all believers, to protect the truth and liberty of God.”

The traditional Christian flag was conceived in 1897 at Brighton Chapel in Coney Island, N.Y. Today is one of the oldest unchanged flags in the world and is displayed in sanctuaries and classrooms in an estimated 244,000 churches.

The first pledge to the Christian flag was written by Methodist pastor Lynn Harold Hough in 1908: “I pledge allegiance to the Christian Flag and to the Savior for whose kingdom it stands. One brotherhood, uniting all mankind, in service and love.”

Unlike the Christian flag, which belongs to all Christians regardless of nationality or denomination, Eldreth’s National Christian Flag is unapologetically American.

emphasis mine, and lots of other Christians who serve first not the kingdoms of this world, but THE KINGDOM. Leave it to a Southern Baptist. Sheesh.

Crosswalk.com - Albert Mohler's Weblog

To know Paige Patterson is to know that there is no way he could remain silent in the face of heterodoxy. Indeed, when Houston attorney Paul Pressler visited the campus of New Orleans Seminary in order to meet conservative students who could be supported through a new scholarship funded by Houston business leaders, he was directed to Paige Patterson. Their meeting would change history.

You got that right, Al. You and your fellow witch hunters of supreme arrogance literally destroyed the fabric of the Southern Baptist Convention in the cause of intolerant theological bigotry, on the basis of your own hbris; a hubris that can only assume that you have it all down pat; and that you KNOW scripture and its meaning. I seem to recall another religious body who were encouraging and lobbying for the execution of Jesus for the same reasons.

MOhler's obvious admiration for these two theological thugs, Pressler and Patterson, who ruthlessly sought and got the removal of thousands of denominational workers, and hastened the exodus of tens of thousands more, betrays his absolute lack of credentials for writing an article like his In Defense of History post. Of course, here MOhler sings the praises of a "historian" who shares his disdain of anybody who would question the "objectivity" of historians who suggest that America has not always had the best of records in upholding human rights when it meant gain of some sort, and to "suggest" (the nerve!) that historians who whitewash American history are something other than truthful, well, that is tantamount to blasphemy in their theology that seems increasingly unable to distinguish faith from nationalism.

Those of us who now hold positions of leadership and influence in this denomination owe this opportunity to Paige Patterson and those who with him stepped out in faith for the cause of truth. Now, Paige Patterson can look across a denomination and see a generation of young pastors, missionaries, and leaders who are mobilized for the cause of the Gospel and who are driven by the very convictions Patterson sought to defend. Not a bad legacy for a man who didn't think the plan would work.

I'll have to agree Al, that you owe your appointment to Patterson and Pressler. Let me say, however, "You're no Duke McCall". Not by a long shot. In every way. I suppose you'd be proud of that fact. A generation of Southern Baptist Theological School graduates wince with embarassment just about every time you open your mouth.

Al....Al, ... leave it to Al. Al here summarizes an article by some critic who outlines the favorite story of Al's, the move of American culture away from the kinds of values he espouses, and that "culture war". As a big proponent and "encourager" of exactly that, and with the intellectual hubris that he lays on thick in nearly every article he writes, Al also summons a blogger I expected him to quote: Hugh Hewitt, a proponent of blogging seemingly for the sole purpose of grinding the far right axe.

Here, though, the irony is thick (not from Al, but who he uses to make a particular point):

Crosswalk.com - Albert Mohler's Weblog

Rupert Murdoch, the founder and chairman of News Corporation (and thus of Fox News), tried to explain this to the American Society of Newspaper Editors. "What is happening right before us is, in short, a revolution in the way young people are accessing news. They don't want to rely on the morning paper for their up-to-date information. They don't want to rely on a godlike figure from above to tell them what's important. And to carry the religion analogy a bit further, they certainly don't want news presented as gospel," Murdoch argued. "Instead, they want their news on demand, when it works for them. They want control over their media, instead of being controlled by it. They want to question, to probe, to offer a different angle."

Al quotes Murdoch saying of young people "they certainly don't want news presented as gospel". Oh, really? Coming from the owner and manipulator extrordinaire, this is the ultimate in pretending to be against a force that you yourself have helped to create and sustain. Fox News is the ultimate of all partisan sources, and bloggers like Drudge and Hewitt are the prototypes of the kind of media manipulation that fits in so well with the Southern Baptist leadership's modus operandi (and now, politically mirrored in groups like the college Republicans like Rove and Norquist).

But wait, there's more.

Al then proceeds to sound the rally cry for bloggers to "stand up for the good old days" when we all knew what was truth (????) and things were not so ....uhhh. diverse, confusing, and dangerous.

Terry Teachout's analysis, published in the respected pages of Commentary, signals a growing awareness of the blogging revolution and what it means for America. In a strange twist of irony, the culture of Western civilization may survive through the efforts of a core of dedicated bloggers who are unwilling to see it die. The media elite will simply have to watch from a distance, scratching their heads as they watch their audience disappear and their influence dissipate. The long-term impact of the blogging revolution is yet to be seen. Nevertheless, the toppling of the mainstream media's monopoly is a cultural achievement in itself. May the revolution continue.

And Al's answer to that is obviously to swallow Fox News whole, for there is where the "Un-spun" News is; the representative of the rebellion against the favorite whipping boy of the Religious and Secular Right: that "Liberal Media".

Now I am certainly no fan of the big mainstream media. They have , like most other media outlets, appealed to the least common denominators and corporate interests of their advertisers. But Al's own "movement" is about as mainstream as it gets in the religious world, and mainstream in American Religion means sellouts to culture; and a preaching of Christ without the teachings of Christ. The fact that Mohler can quote Murdoch with a straight face (in illustration of a point about "telling it straight" and "without presenting it as gospel" reveals how sadly blind these Religious Right pundits are about their own succumbing to the "Manufacturing of Consent". They have given it gladly, and are now rallying their troops to fill the blogosphere with their online tracts to their Nationalistic gospel from which they have cut out the very words of the proclaimer of THE gospel.

In my prevous post, I pointed out how Mohler misses entirely the ethical questionability of the Bush administration's deceit of the American public, and worse, their resulting justification of murder of thousands of Iraqi civilians. For a "moralist" such as Mohler, this is despicable. But then again, he is, like the rest of the Religious Right, living in La-La land on this matter. Time after time, evidence after evidence surfaces (as in recent revelations about the Britsih memo) that the Bush administration intended to "do Iraq" all along. It was in their "Rebuilding America's Defenses" manifesto, and it was dominating their talking as they took office, especially after 9/11, when there was not any evidence at all (and still has never been) that Iraq had ANYTHING to do with 9/11. Indeed, all the evidence shows that Hessein and Bin Laden were enemies (to Bin Laden, Huseein was an infidel secularist, and offered Kuwait their "Al Quieda" fighters to help fight back Iraq.

But no amount of evidence seems to dissuade this group that they have made an idolatrous, blasphemous error in backing a deceitful, unethical empire. They deny any and a;l evidence that any such evidence exists, or points to what seems obvious to everyone not "pre-emptively persuaded" that their "cause is just" and "sanctioned by God". This, in fact, was the language of Hitler. It is the deceit of the Iraq debacle that harkens to the "religious justifications" of Hitler himself. Mohler wants to have us be prepared to being applying this charge to the Democrats, but the death and destruction based on public propaganda and corporate profits filtering to several "inside" folks in the Bush administration make this a scandalous mockery of the Religious Right's backing of Bush as the "moral choice", but of the very bases of plain old secular democracy itself.

Crosswalk.com - Albert Mohler's Weblog

We must hasten to make clear that our political context is not that of Germany in the 1930s. The Democratic Party cannot fairly be compared with National Socialism, Maoism, or analogous evils.

So actually, Al, you not only miss the entire freakin' point, you point at the wrong culprits, and deny any wrongdoing of on the part of an evil empire who increasingly shows its disregard for the ways of peace, cooperation, and a living out of the sanctity of LIFE. LIFE, Al. Not doctrine. You, sir, blaspheme in your seeming inability to see the world in any color other than red, white and Blue. YOur smug talk of a "Culture of Life" while you let human disaster and oppresion go scot free is a final grade of F for your "pure doctrine" that means ZILCH. You miss what is obvious to any reading of the Jesus of the Gospels. LOVE for enemy is pretty important to Jesus.

On his post about the Waynesville Church pastor who basically kicked out Kerry voters, Mohler draws on the Church in Nazi Germany as an example of allowing nationalistic persuasions to align themselves "theologically" with the Nazis. Of course, Mohler is clueless about how that seems to better fit the Religious Right's enthusuiastic support of Bush's Iraq debacle. I'll ahve more to say on this later, but I wanted to point it out:

Crosswalk.com - Albert Mohler's Weblog

Honesty compels me to state that I could foresee a political context in which such a decision, made in extremis, could well be both justifiable and necessary. The church has faced this before. In the context of Nazi Germany, it was an unavoidable issue. Writing to Christians in France, Karl Barth lamented the sin of the German Christians who allowed the Nazi Party to assume power (through democratic elections, we should be reminded). Looking back to the political passivity of the German church, Barth reflected: "At the time and in Germany it implied a retreat of Christianity from responsibility in ecclesiastical and political spheres to the inner sphere of a religious attitude which, in order to maintain itself, no longer concerned itself with, or at least was not willing to fight and suffer for, the right form of the Church, let alone that of the State."

The utter blindness required to call upon this example and "omit" the issue of war in our country, is amazingly clueless.

Mohler shows where his loyalties lie; it's in "correct doctrine" (most of which, is very much NOT inerrant, and not willing or maybe even capable of seeing past his fundamentalist blinders.)

Crosswalk.com - Albert Mohler's Weblog

Evangelicals in the United States should watch this controversy with both interest and concern. Attacks upon the penal substitutionary understanding of the atonement are hardly new--in fact they are to be found among some who would claim to be evangelicals in the United States. Evangelical identity is at stake in this controversy. But, far beyond that, the Gospel is at stake.

Jesus Politics (Dr. Land is the New Dr. King) posts this Baptist Press article where Land is still quoting MLK...(or is it the same quote being recycled? I dunno)

Richard Land is talking about the "breadth" of issues they are concerned about. The amazement we now have about how bigoted the Conservatives were in the 60's is going to be the same kind of disgust with which millions will view the neoconservatives (and their best Church allies, the Southern Baptists) some day when all their skullduggery and their outlandish support for coprporate advanatage over the bulk of the American citizenry is exposed as the dterimental, sickeningly selfish , cynical politics that it is.

The Old Testament prophets and Jesus are watching, and remembering, and still speaking us to us today.

IN addition, King had a "poor people's campaign" and spoke clearly against Vietname. The do the same with King as they do with the Pope. They squelch the clear messages of king and John Paul to cast themselves in postive light. Land's Southern Baptist Convention fundamentalist ancestors were the most vociforous and racist opponents of Dr. King's movement WHEN IT WAS HAAPENING. They were certainly also strongly in support of slavery , and among the last to let go of that, and kept segregation rolling for the next 100+ years. So what will humanity discover about itself over the next 100 years? And how far behind will the Southern Baptists lag before they join up with what the rest who live in reality land?

Land at Harvard: Religious right concerned about many issues - (BP)

the quote from Land:

“Dr. King took his profoundly Christian beliefs about what was right and what was wrong into the public arena to condemn and to seek to transform a great social evil in our culture,” Land said. “Segregationists were trying to impose their immorality on Dr. King and were doing a fairly successful job of it, by the way. Dr. King, based on his convictions as a Baptist minister like the abolitionists before him, used his religiously informed moral values to challenge that immorality, and when he convinced enough Americans that he was right, it changed. And by the way, they did change the law.”

Associated Baptist Press - News

for all their embracing of John Paul II's rhetoric on life ethics regarding abortion and euthanasia, the pope had a more strenuous standard in mind when he first penned the phrase.

"I think Bush and others in some ways tried to position themselves as friends of the pope or sympathetic to the pope by pushing these buttons, but John Paul's vision of the 'culture of life' extended beyond abortion to capital punishment, and from individual morality to corporate morality," he said. He noted that John Paul II, in his most recent visit with Bush, strongly criticized the war in Iraq. Bush and others have differed with the pope's teachings on capital punishment, contraception and economic issues.

Many evangelical and other conservative commentators have also praised John Paul II for his role in helping bring an end to communist rule in Eastern Europe. In particular, they credit the pontiff for providing momentum to the "Solidarity" movement that ultimately brought an end to Soviet domination over his native Poland in the early 1980s.

"Evangelical Christians should honor the courage of this man and his historic role in bringing communist tyranny to an end -- at least within the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe," wrote Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in an April 4 column published by the Southern Baptist Convention's news service.

However, as Favazza and other observers of his papacy have pointed out, John Paul II in later years also strongly criticized the excesses of unrestrained capitalism.

Bruce Prescott on why what I call the "Bibliolatry" folks would NEVER accept the canonical authority if that process were in today's climate.

Mainstream Baptist

Anyone who knows the details about how and when the scriptures were written, collected and canonized cannot plausibly deny that tradition is also a source of authority for Christians and the churches.

Amen. And further, those who yell the loudest about how the failure to adopt a certain Biblical approach are therefore not honoring it (and nothing short of worshipping it as part of the Godhead) are the very same folks who rail against any form of ecumenicity, which , in the end, is what the worldwide body of Christ MUST be if it speaks with a common voice at all. But it is just this common voice, especially when there is talk of what the good news means in varying cultures, that is rejected because of a restricted, ethocentricic view of the Bible. Such ideas as those of Robert McAfee Brown's "Reading the Bible Through Third World Eyes" are considered dangerous because they are assumed to be outside the realm of the "acceptable American Jesus".

In the days prior to the printing press, and after Pentecost, the Christian community had not yet learned to so identify a channel for God's word to become synonomous with the Logos.

Get a load of this one from Richard Land:

MSNBC - Transcript for March 27

And, by the way, Judge Greer has resigned his membership in the Southern Baptist Church. He was a member of a Southern Baptist Church in Clearwater, and he--they've come to a mutual agreement that he resign his membership.

So.....uh....WHY was that Mr Land? Mutual??? Are we all IDIOTS? I quickly lose my patience with people who think this BS actually works on intelligent people. WHY does one Volutarily resign CHURCH membership? Well, it's one of two ways: The sense of betrayal from the view of the resign-er, or under pressure/suggestion/judgement from the "resign-ee". The CHURCH is not a "party" to an agreement; but in this case, it has been made so by the authoritarians who have appointed themselves members of the purity police; which is par for the course in the leadership attitudes and modus operandii of the Southern Baptist Convention. To Judge Greer, I say, "knock the dust of your feet and find a real Church"; one that worships God and not Mammon/Nation/Dogma/Self.

I often take time out from my disgust and dismay at what the Southern Baptists are doing lately, and affirm that despite all this, there remain Southern Baptists who can stand up for what is right, or refuse to be sucked in by the political maneuverings and cynical use of "family values" to keep the Religious Right placated (or in some cases, euphoric)

This Florida judge has even been asked by his Southern Baptist Church congregation to leave. Of all the most despicable, POLITICAL, callous, close-minded, arrogant, idiotic things to do. It is a CHURCH. This judge has real comapssion, and he apparently knows grandstanding when he sees it. But this Church apparently cares more for "their culture, THEIR dogma, and their relationship with the right wing than they do their people. It's a church truly in step with the Southern Baptist Convention leadership.

Yahoo! News - Schiavo Judge Attains New Fame, Infamy

Amid the pitched legal battle over Terri Schiavo that has been fought through his court, Pinellas County Circuit Judge George Greer has been under the protection of armed guards, and friends say his family also is protected.

Death threats have been made against him for allowing Michael Schiavo to remove the feeding tube that has kept his 41-year-old wife alive for the past 15 years, and the Southern Baptist church that Greer belonged to for years has asked him to leave the congregation.

Greer — a conservative Christian and longtime Republican known for an easy manner — has become the public face of the judiciary in this internationally watched fight. But despite the mounting pressure, he has been steadfast in his rulings that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state and did not want to be kept alive artificially.

"There are very few people who have shown the will to stand up to raw power," said Stetson University Law Professor Michael Allen, who has studied the Schiavo case. "He's one."

Pure hypocriasy. Very little real community. A religious country club. They ought to be ashamed, and I hope they see nothing but shame until they repent. Disgusting. Pray for these leaders of this Church, and their members who they have persuaded that this is right; for they apparently "know not what they are doing".

This story from Bruce Precott at Mainstream Baptist reminds me of the unease I felt (and that I wan't more outspoken, although I had always advocated staying) when the downtown Cincinnati Church I served as a seminarian in youth ministry began to look at what to do about their building and their location. I'll always remember how an American Baptist Urban Ministry professor (Raymond Bakke) implored us to seriously explore how we could be a Church in the city (but there was very little real consideration of it done; the only focus seemed to be , after a while, how to get out of there and move to some safer place and somewhere where growth was possible. This was to be a major turn toward decline, as it turned out.)

OBU fires PR Director

OBU's former PR Director seems to have suffered from an attack of truth-telling. He asked whether it was healthy for the community-at-large for an established, influential church to abandon an inner city. He questioned the value of spending more than ten million dollars to build new facilities in an affluent neighborhood and wondered whether it would drain scarce resources that might best be used improving the spiritual atmosphere of an impoverished neighborhood.

All of this (the previous posts about Peace, Jesus, and eventually the Scriptures) is form the pen (er...., the keyboard) of a graduate of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. But as you may know, I was there in the latter years before the unholy heathen secular humanists were cleansed with one stroke of the mighty SBC police-state pen (I was there 1978-81, got my MDiv in June 1981).

But what I brought into Seminary, and took with me strengthened ten or a hundred-fold, was a reverence and a dependence upon Scripture. But also an ever deepening reverence and seeking after Revelation (not as in "The Book of Revelation", but the reality of Revelation; the belief in a God who continues to and always will Reveal to humanity what is expected, what they are called to do, and how they are to achive this in communities called Church.)

When we ask the questions and pay attention to "what the Spitit is saying to the Churches" (that quote, IS from The Book Of Revelation), there is always conflict with the status quo; even the "religious status quo". The idea of Canon seems to me to be antithetical to the larger idea of Revelation. The idea that there is nothing more to be said to the Churches than has already been collected and canonized by official decree, seems to contradict the whole revelation reality. God does not have "dispensations" (but this seems to be exactly what has happened with the Scriptures. They canon is closed, and the whole process is deemed "case closed" , even though those who accept this fact most absolutely are often the very same ones who would, if this canonization process were done today, would reject the idea of an ecumenical council of ANY kind, much less a "Catholic" one. But this seems entirely lost upon the most Bible-worshipping crowd.

I feel that prophets continue to speak. I have no idea how, in today's world, where the idea of "Church" is so anti-ecumenical, anti-world, and anti-global, and no concept of anybody speaking for anybody, we could re-open the canon. So the Bible will remain "intact". I guess we are to be satisifed with "in the tradition of Scripture" to make the connection from contemporary revelation and "Biblical revelation". I'm not at all sure that one is greater than the other. I don't think it is blasphemy to suggest that God's Revelation continues.

These days, espeically in Southern Baptist Churches(though in no way exclusively), this idea of Church and Revelation has become an endangered species becuase the nature of that Revelation has become subsumed UNDER the illegitmate throne of Empire. The Messiah has been replaced with "The Book" which has become "prooftext" for the interests of empire expansion and worldwide domination, arrogance, and violence to the opponents. A living and Revealing God is a threat; an appropriated "Book" divorced from the salvation history to which it testifies, is but fodder for fueling greed-driven interests, and the details of justice and freedom to the captives is removed from the emphasis of the new "American Gospel". The Old Testamtent and the accompanying imposition of ideas foreign to those people of God, but music to the ears of those who see "Religion on a Roll" in the direction of becming partner to the Powerful; a far cry from the Prophetic Voice which Jesus recognized in these prophets of old. His first public speech called for the "acceptable year of the Lord" and that he was the fulfillment of that. Somethin quite different is happening in America, except where the "alternate reality" to which Revelation points is being recognized.

I suppose there is always EMPIRE, and always Church; at certain points in history, the way these two come together and how they contrast remains fairly consistent. Power and violence and greed vs the Kingdom that Jesus announced and into which Jesus continues to invite us.

This article from Baptist Press highlights Mohler's arguments against A Generous Orthodoxy.

Leaders call 'Emerging Church Movement' a threat to Gospel - (BP)

Mohler charges McLaren with speaking about clear-cut issues in an unbiblical and ambiguous manner.

"A responsible theological argument must acknowledge that difficult questions demand to be answered. We are not faced with an endless array of doctrinal variants from which we can pick and choose.

Yeah, "difficult" questions that are "clear" (meaning homeosexuality as sin) and none of these difficult questions include: "How can you speak of Pro-life" and be so unashamedly pro-war, and ignore what is actually crystal clear: that Jesus told us to love our enemies.

How about that question Al? Blind leading the blind.

Of course not. That would be too , well....generous. After all, orthodoxy is something one uses to narrow their brain activity and accept "the truth" as delievered to them by the theology packagers. That's not what I think of orthodoxy. I flee from orthodoxy that is neither generous nor compassionate. Mohler's work in the SDouthern Baptist Convention is a "chief mug/mouth/pen for the cleansing mentality". He took over at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary after the Right Wing Tide of the denomination installed him as their theological executioner, with the aim of installing a "theological police state" regime in the place of theological education. For me, I am so thankful that I got the chance to listen at the feet of some great teachers before they all scattered to the various insititutions who stil value LEARNING.

ICTHUS: The problem of postmodernism

Do people often protest just to have something to write? So, last week Al Mohler spent the better part of the week protesting postmodernism on his (non-)blog (here, here, & here). Is this guy tired? Its not as if "postmodernism" is something that has just recently happened upon us nor is it something that really matters all that much.

This is one of the most damaging, blinding forces at work in the Church, and it has also infected the Right Wing Politics in this country (it is , to a frightening degree, a much more common occurrence among the "fundamentalist"; either of theological or political variety; that a finite set of "truths" are correct, must always be correct, and be correct in the exact sense that whoever is in authority says that it is. Liberals and Moderates, and indeed all of humanity does this; it is called pride, and the need to feel like our view of life as at least accurate. The problem is, the entire structure and content of TRUTH seems to be frantically sought and , then, when affirmed, staunchly protected, to the extent that those who question the system of logic and motivation upon which this is based, these questions are attacked as disloyal, an attack upon the revered ideas, and an indicator of disbelief.

Greater Democracy: They can NEVER be wrong

Their fear of being wrong, and thus that their tautological world view will collapse, manifests itself as extreme hubris and arrogance -- as utter certainty. They can not afford to doubt. In fact, they are terrified of doubt, complexity, contradiction, ambiguity and uncertainty, ie the modern world in all of its multi-dimensional guises.

This , at once, makes a lot of sense and then , again, none at all.

Welcome to Ethics Daily.com!

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, told Agape Press in November that it would be unwise for Southern Baptists to join a new ecumenical group, Christian Churches Together in the USA, being spearheaded by the National Council of Churches.

“The reason we have different denominations is we have different understandings of what our faith is,” Land said, “And if you’re involved in these kinds of things organizationally, you can end up giving people a false impression that you have the same faith.”

While Southern Baptists work with others on social issues like abortion, pornography and gay marriage, Land said, “When it comes to faith issues, when it comes to theology and doctrine, we feel it’s best to make it very clear where we stand--and to not stand in organic relationship with others that would give people the idea that we have similar or the same faith.”

This link to a letter from the SBC's International Mission Board, informing those who had refused to sign of their impending termination. This is old news (2002), but continues to be the operating procedure and attitude of those in power at the Southern Baptist Convention. These are not "servant" leaders, but dictators of the religious sort; the Pharisees from whom Jesus got so much flack and supicion about his "qualifications" to be saying he was "from God". Jesus is still being questioned and opposed today byu the descendants of these legalists. Add to that the spiritual scourge of nationalistic militarism run amuck, and you have a deadly force of religious fundamentalism even more deadly than the Muslim fundamentalistic theocratic zealots. But here in this country, the percentage of our population complicit in this heresy outnumbers tyhe support for Islamic fundamentalistic violence in the Muslim world. "With great power comes great responsibility"
(that's from "Spiderman", but nonetheless profoundly true).

Related to that, with great influence and power, comes the danger that the consequences are far more wide-reacfhing, and far more igniting of far greater consequences. The power and wealth and reach of the United State's actions make this "complicity of the Churches" (and the Southern Baptists lead the way as the largest Protestant body in the United States)all the more dangerous, damaging, and destructive of Christian mission and witness across the world. Shame on you , Southern Baptist Convention! Repent and hear the gospel. And I'm serious about that. You need to receive Christ, and not the cultural counterfeit you have constructed in his stead.

Rankin Letter

Dear ___,

You are among a small handful of missionary personnel who are continuing to struggle with my request earlier this year to affirm the current Baptist Faith and Message. Or perhaps you are among those who have already decided not to respond to this request to assure the Southern Baptist Convention of our continuing doctrinal accountability. .....

(read on at the above link)

Today, as I expressed above, that authoritarian doctrinal arrogance has become aligned with the very real evils engulfing our nation at this time. NOt only are American Southern Baptists now being held accountable to the theological whims of narrow minded fundamentalists, but also expected to the tow the line in nationalistic idolatry, and to blend that with their "faith" which is quickly losing its "Christ" and becming an arm of the principalities; of EMPIRE. The empire is doing its job on the American Church, and they have succumbed to an a alarming extent.

This makes it very lonely. Oh yes, there are the fellow Progressive Christian bloggers, Sojourners, and friends , now dispersed across the country; but I need a local fellowship. To found/start such as thing myself makes me tired just thinking about it. Perhaps such fatigue can be overcome. Perhaps if I saw some glimpse that someting new could arise; or some possibilities could be "started". More later....

Stand with Christ

"Stand With Christ explores and explains the history, problems and biblical judgment of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message revision and its uses as a force of control, internal purification, and conformity."

In his foreword, Walter Shurden has this to say:

"This is a book by Baptists. Most Baptists, especially Baptists of the South, will readily recognize the writers -- Russell Dilday, Keith Parks, James Dunn, Catherine Allen, Charles Wade, David Currie, Charles Deweese, John Pierce, Kenneth Massey, Bruce Prescott, Earl Martin, and editor Robert O'Brien.

Marinated in the Baptist tradition of a free and responsible conscience, each of these writers carries a sterling Baptist portfolio. They deserve to be heard. They should be heeded.

"This is also a book about Baptists. Specifically, it is a book about the Southern Baptist Convention and its deliberate, but unbaptistic, move toward creedalism."