Al Mohler: God's judgement is upon the Southern Baptist Convention

[Obsidian]

I cannot fathom why it would be his duty to report something to the police that he did not witness, especially if he didn't even believe the accusation was true. Are we to baby our women so much that we assume their rape accusations are true when they themselves aren't even brave enough to make them? Let the girl go to the police.

[Cow Poke]

I have absolutely no idea what this is about.

This part, in particular, baffles me...


Each SBC Church is autonomous, and does not take marching orders from the SBC.

So, what "reports have come out in the last month?"

The Southern Baptist Convention, the country's largest evangelical denomination, is headed for a showdown over its treatment of women that could not only have far-reaching ramifications for the church but also influence the broader secular #MeToo movement.

At its annual meeting next week in Dallas, delegates called "messengers" will decide whether to approve a resolution acknowledging that, throughout the church's history, male leaders and members of the church "wronged women, abused women, silenced women, objectified women."

"The #MeToo moment has come to American evangelicals," Albert Mohler, president of the flagship Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote last month. "And I am called to deal with it as a Christian, as a minister of the Gospel, as a seminary and college president, and as a public leader."

It will be interesting to see how the media covers this, as, in the past, I've attended the meetings, then watched the news that night, and wondered "where in the world did they get THAT?!?!?!" Being in the meeting, and hearing about on TV can be two really different experiences.

It will be interesting.

[One Bad Pig]

The Southern Baptist Convention, the country's largest evangelical denomination, is headed for a showdown over its treatment of women that could not only have far-reaching ramifications for the church but also influence the broader secular #MeToo movement.

At its annual meeting next week in Dallas, delegates called "messengers" will decide whether to approve a resolution acknowledging that, throughout the church's history, male leaders and members of the church "wronged women, abused women, silenced women, objectified women."

"The #MeToo moment has come to American evangelicals," Albert Mohler, president of the flagship Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote last month. "And I am called to deal with it as a Christian, as a minister of the Gospel, as a seminary and college president, and as a public leader."

It will be interesting to see how the media covers this, as, in the past, I've attended the meetings, then watched the news that night, and wondered "where in the world did they get THAT?!?!?!" Being in the meeting, and hearing about on TV can be two really different experiences.

It will be interesting.

I'm more than a little uncomfortable with the wording in your quote regarding the resolution. It makes the abuse sound typical/systematic.

[Cow Poke]

I'm more than a little uncomfortable with the wording in your quote regarding the resolution. It makes the abuse sound typical/systematic.

That struck me, too - it's almost like a poison pill thing --- people would have to vote no on account of that very thing, then it would hit the fan "Southern Baptists refuse to acknowledge....." or whatever.

I kinda sounds like a setup.

[KingsGambit]

Does the phrase "the church's history" refer specifically to the SBC or to Christianity as a whole? If the latter, I think it would be difficult to deny it's true. If the former, I'm not in position to say.

[Cow Poke]

Does the phrase "the church's history" refer specifically to the SBC or to Christianity as a whole? If the latter, I think it would be difficult to deny it's true. If the former, I'm not in position to say.

I haven't actually seen the proposed resolution.

The way this NORMALLY works is that people (messengers) will give their proposed resolutions in writing to the Resolutions Committee, and the Resolutions Committee will work with the author on the wording, make sure it's compliant with Rules of Order, etc.....

Last year, the media reported that the Convention failed to pass a resolution condemning the Alt-Right - what they failed to explain was that the resolution itself was a bit 'over the top' in language - and there were some parliamentary problems, as well. I was there - everybody in the hall wanted to support the resolution, but not as it was written. There were several unofficial voice votes, and it was unanimous that we wanted to condemn the alt-right, but wanted to do it without the unnecessarily provocative language in the proposed resolution. After the Resolution Committee convinced the author to revise his resolution, it passed unanimously.

I'm concerned a similar thing will happen here. There needs to be at least a reasonable hope that a proposed resolution would pass, or anybody could make any kind of nutball resolution and we'd be all night rejecting them.

Still looking into this.

[One Bad Pig]

Does the phrase "the church's history" refer specifically to the SBC or to Christianity as a whole? If the latter, I think it would be difficult to deny it's true. If the former, I'm not in position to say.

I'm fairly certain that they're referring specifically to the SBC. Historically, the SBC has not presumed to speak for all of Christianity.

[Cow Poke]

I'm fairly certain that they're referring specifically to the SBC. Historically, the SBC has not presumed to speak for all of Christianity.

Yeah, agreed - it's just odd that it refers to "the Church" rather than "the Convention". Since we're pretty stubborn that each Church is autonomous....

[KingsGambit]

I'm more than a little uncomfortable with the wording in your quote regarding the resolution. It makes the abuse sound typical/systematic.

I'm not sure it concedes that much. The way I read it is just an acknowledgement that of the multitude of SBC churches over the years, there have been some bad apples. The SBC conceded a lot about its past in the 1995 statement about racism (not to mention its more recent statement condemning the alt-right), but I don't see anybody holding that statement against them.

[Cow Poke]

I wasn't there, for the first time in ages, but it sounds like the Annual Meeting of the SBC was amazingly calm.

SBC resolutions affirm women, denounce abuse

DALLAS (BP) -- Messengers to the 2018 Southern Baptist Convention affirmed the dignity and worth of women, denounced all forms of abuse and called for sexual purity among Christian leaders in adopting 16 resolutions Tuesday (June 12).

Passage of the resolutions on women, abuse and pastoral purity by nearly unanimous votes late in the afternoon session came after months of disclosures of sexual abuse and misconduct by male leaders had rocked Southern Baptist and other evangelical churches and institutions.

The full "Resolution 2" can be found here - http://www.sbcannualmeeting.net/sbc18/resolutions

[KingsGambit]

The other day, I was thinking about how often people still accuse the SBC of racism. The SBC actually has higher numbers of black congregants than most other Protestant congregations that aren't specifically black. However, historically speaking, it is accurate... but is this any different from how people (yes, including here) still bring up the past in tying the Democratic Party to racism? If any racial issue comes up, inevitably somebody will post a long list of racist actions from Jim Crow era Democrats. Just yesterday, somebody invoked the 1800s to "prove" this point. In both cases, it's not the same group of people.

[rogue06]

The other day, I was thinking about how often people still accuse the SBC of racism. The SBC actually has higher numbers of black congregants than most other Protestant congregations that aren't specifically black. However, historically speaking, it is accurate... but is this any different from how people (yes, including here) still bring up the past in tying the Democratic Party to racism? If any racial issue comes up, inevitably somebody will post a long list of racist actions from Jim Crow era Democrats. Just yesterday, somebody invoked the 1800s to "prove" this point. In both cases, it's not the same group of people.

Linking Democrats to historic racism is hard to avoid when you consider that they had a former KKK kleagle and Exalted Cyclops in the U.S. Senate until his death in 2010 (a bit past the 1800s). A man who was still using the n-word in public interviews in the 1990s after which his party reacted a couple months later by honoring him by making him President pro tempore^[1]. And was praised by Hillary Clinton as "her mentor" and by Senator Chris Dodd^[2] who proclaimed that this member of the KKK would have been a great leader during the Civil War. He didn't say for which side









1. the second-highest-ranking official of the United States Senate who is third in the line of succession to the presidency, after the vice president and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and who presides over Senate sessions

2. who lost by just one vote to Tom Daschle for the position of Senate Majority Leader, became General Chairman of the Democratic National Committee and also ran for president in 2008

[KingsGambit]

Linking Democrats to historic racism is hard to avoid when you consider that they had a former KKK kleagle and Exalted Cyclops in the U.S. Senate until his death in 2010 (a bit past the 1800s). A man who was still using the n-word in public interviews in the 1990s after which his party reacted a couple months later by honoring him by making him President pro tempore^[1]. And was praised by Hillary Clinton as "her mentor" and by Senator Chris Dodd^[2] who proclaimed that this member of the KKK would have been a great leader during the Civil War. He didn't say for which side









1. the second-highest-ranking official of the United States Senate who is third in the line of succession to the presidency, after the vice president and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and who presides over Senate sessions

2. who lost by just one vote to Tom Daschle for the position of Senate Majority Leader, became General Chairman of the Democratic National Committee and also ran for president in 2008

But you could say the same for the SBC. Some of the "offenders" are still around there as well. But neither organization is parading racially offensive views at this point in time (maybe except for affirmative action). It strikes me as a tendentious line of argumentation. You can certainly find many old politicians who have some clunkers in their past (Joe Arpaio claimed the KKK's support was a "badge of honor" fairly recently even) but are they truly representative of the party as a whole at this point?

[Cow Poke]

The other day, I was thinking about how often people still accuse the SBC of racism. The SBC actually has higher numbers of black congregants than most other Protestant congregations that aren't specifically black. However, historically speaking, it is accurate... but is this any different from how people (yes, including here) still bring up the past in tying the Democratic Party to racism? If any racial issue comes up, inevitably somebody will post a long list of racist actions from Jim Crow era Democrats. Just yesterday, somebody invoked the 1800s to "prove" this point. In both cases, it's not the same group of people.

When we elected Fred Luter as our President, we caught all kinds of flak about him being a "token black" or a publicity stunt, or he was an Uncle Tom.... He was elected unopposed, which doesn't often happen except in the second term of a President. And, at the risk of being accused of "I have some black friends", I've actually had two associate pastors who were black, and my current primary "fill in" is black.

[KingsGambit]

When we elected Fred Luter as our President, we caught all kinds of flak about him being a "token black" or a publicity stunt, or he was an Uncle Tom.... He was elected unopposed, which doesn't often happen except in the second term of a President. And, at the risk of being accused of "I have some black friends", I've actually had two associate pastors who were black, and my current primary "fill in" is black.

That's interesting. What gave me this thought was when the incoming SBC president claimed that they have higher numbers of black membership than all the mainline denominations (which tend to make a bigger deal about racial issues). I come from a mainline background, and I think the only black pastor at the several such churches I remember was an existing pastor who moved here from Africa. It bothers me since I think churches should look like a cross section of society. In his Bible book, James assumes that a church will have both rich and poor members worshipping side by side, for example.