Arkansas Blog

The Msgr. Malones of the Catholic Church are being ignored by the folks in the pew. Good for them.

This election represents a referendum on the role of the religious right in American politics.

We've long known this was coming. The surprise to me this election is that those who have no strategy left except to fire up the religious right base seem to have thought they could do so again and win. Ultimately, if Palin-McCain do lose, their loss lies at the feet of the religious right.

It was they who put McCain over a barrel and mandated, in a secret D.C. meeting, that he choose Palin. Since they have been overtly calling the shots for McCain, his campaign has gone way, way south--except in the heartland of the religious right, the American South.

People are sick and tired of this group of mean, blustering, posturing hypocrites who claim that they alone represent Christianity trying to control the nation. Many of us who are believers are extremely tired of the attempt of the hate mongers to define Christianity and Christian values as their exclusive possession.

Many of us are tired, most of all, of the hatred. It's all McCain's base has left. It reveals the intellectual impoverishment of a political movement that has been energized less by a concern for the common good than by hatred.

When people are intellectually bankrupt, all they can do is parrot what they have always said before, and hope we'll hear the ideas as newly minted ones. Thankfully, many Americans now realize they're hearing the same old, same old, from the same old haters, and are saying no thanks to the hatred.

Except in Arkansas, to our shame. But what's new about our choosing tired, hateful "ideas" that keep us mired in the past?

Max, et al, yes, "do remember this number." Also, all the bloggers here should remember these numbers when they throw all Christians under the bus with the Evangelicals. Being a Christian does not make you an extreme right winger (thank you Muddling). I pulled into church this Sunday and passed TONS of Obama stickers in the parking lot. I, then, parked behind a car that had a sticker that read, "I can see the ocean from my house, let me run the NAVY." Too funny. The Dems have friends who go to church....

I would be interested to know how the pollsters--or those polled--distinguished between "mainline Protestants" and "evangelicals."

I belong to a church group which is as "mainline" as you can get in the United States, and at the same time it is about as evangelistic--"evangelical"--as you can get.

How would the pollsters split my responses between these two groups?

SkyPilot, I'm neither a pollster or one of those polled, but your question does interest me. And I'd like to take the liberty of offering some reflections.

First, it seems important to me that you yourself define your group as either mainline or evangelical. These are labels that your church community should choose, it seems to me, rather than having them imposed on you.

As you know, there's a debate among evangelicals about what that term means, precisely. Since it can comprise people from Pat Robertson to Jim Wallis, it surely has some elasticity.

It also seems to have a political application now. In my mind, when it is used to define the political stance of a group of Christians, it connotes this group's stand against predominant values of the mainstream. I see mainline denominations and evangelicals diverging around issues of how they fit into mainstream society, and the extent to which they oppose the mainstream.

The Wikipedia article on mainline Protestants adds another defining characteristic: it states that mainline Protestants accept historical-critical scholarship about the bible, whereas evangelicals tend to resist that scholarship. It also adds, interestingly enough, "Some denominations with similar names, and historical ties to mainline groups are not considered mainline. For example, while the American Baptist Churches, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Presbyterian Church (USA) are mainline, the Southern Baptist Convention, Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, and the Presbyterian Church in America are Evangelical."

>>Being a Christian does not make you an extreme right winger (thank you Muddling).<<

Indeed not.
But for any person born since 1973 that's mostly what they have seen and heard from religions.

Back in the 50s and 60s ministers lead the struggle of liberalism and I'm sure Max, Goof, durango, and several others recall it. It was two Catholic priests who vehemently sought to end the draft and slaughter of thousands of American boys in the Killing Fields of Viet Nam.
It was the Southern and Northern churches who led the nation in opposing the racism that dominated the South.

And more recently it took Arkansas church leaders to do the human thing of raising Ark's pathetic minimum wage against the unholy and morally bankrupt Ark legislatures, with a few notable exceptions.

But in any of the noble and inspired works above there was no Ark Family Council. None. Notta. Nor did you find the talking snake literalist Southern Baptists who 24 years ago endorsed the most Rwing, extremist economic agenda in the history of the U.S.A.

What has emerged as loud, mainstream religions in the South and Midwest today are nothing more than depositories for racial hatred, bigotry, greed and homophobia.

I agree with your analysis, eLwood. What you describe is precisely what many people today hear, when they hear the word Christian.

Well, Muddling and Elwood, you've identified my point(s) of concern:

1. Wikipedia is a fair starting place but does not provide completely documented, authenticated, or authoritative information. I wouldn't accept it's explanations as the last word.

2. "mainline Protestants accept historical-critical scholarship about the bible, whereas evangelicals tend to resist that scholarship." At least until the fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention, Southern Baptists accepted historical-critical scholarship about the Bible and were simultaneously one of the strongest denominations in the United States practicing iindividual evangelism.

So we were "mainstream," but now we're listed as "evangelical." And that's my question about the validity of this kind of two-valued-orientation (false dichotomy) classification.

3. The "Southern Baptist Convention" is NOT the churches. The Southern Baptist Convention is not composed of churches; it is composed of messengers. Yet pollsters seem to consider it a monolithic entity. I dare say that the 16,000 churches who send messengers to the convention are about as diverse as you can get among mainline/evangelical churches, and even those churches are not monolithic, because "liberals," "moderates," and "conservatives" worship side-by-side, serve on committees together, and volunteer their time and abilities in community endeavors.

The majority of members of some individual churches which affiliate with the Southern Baptist Convention will vote Republican, whereas some others will vote Democratic. You can't put us all into one pot.

SkyPilot's comments are correct to a point. While SBC churches are truly made up of a diverse group of people, they are certainly less heterogeneous than they were a generation past. Many of the faithful who chafed at the ultra-conservative, Bible-abusing ways of SBC leadership during the last 28 years and have left for other pastures. Some have simply stayed and chafed.

Why don't we just call the "white evangelicals" for what most of them really are:

racists claiming to be Christians

P.S.: I stopped out to start lunch. Should have added this to previous post.

I do not accept Wikipedia's "definition" of "evangelical."

In my day, "evangelical" denoted church groups which insisted upon an individual, personal confession of faith in Jesus Christ for admission to membershp as opposed to those who sprinkled infants and accepted them into membershp. It had nothing to do with the "historical-critical" method of theological studies.

Even this is not necesarily an exhaustive definition/distinction, but it is the one at the root.

I think you've put your finger on precisely why Southern Baptists are showing up in that Wikipedia article as evangelicals and not mainline Protestants.

You say, "At least until the fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention, Southern Baptists accepted historical-critical scholarship about the Bible and were simultaneously one of the strongest denominations in the United States practicing iindividual evangelism."

When I hear that, I hear a conscious decision of a religious group to align itself with the "over-against" groups in American Christianity, and a conscious decision to suppress those in its midst who call for dialogue between faith and reason. You can't be fundamentalist, and have such dialogue.

I know the dynamics you're describing very well, since I had an uncle who helped "open" Arkansas Southern Baptists to the mainstream, while two of his sons, who became Baptist ministers, went the opposite direction and are now part of the fundamentalist group that dominates the convention. By the way, they will not communicate with me because I am unapologetically gay, nor with my brother, who told them, after getting Focus on the Family emails from them, that he and his family support gay marriage.

The dynamics you're describing have caused my only remaining aunt and uncle, a sister of my mother and a brother-in-law of my father, to choose the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. In the case of my uncle, that's quite a choice, since his father was once head of the SBC in Arkansas, and his uncle was a well-known SBC minister. His family came to AR as missionaries to the native Americans in northwest AR, whom they followed her from GA rather than leave them when the government took their lands. They were instrumental in founding what became Ouachita University.

My uncle and aunt are appalled at what has happened to the SBC. Though they know that each church has autonomy, they've seen the attempt to force ALL Southern Baptists to think, believe, and act alike, and they find it repulsive, in light of Baptist history. Don't know about my uncle, who is very frail and lives at a distance, but my aunt is an ardent Obama supporter (and a disappointed Hilary fan). And her political choices have a lot to do with her religious outlook.

SkyPilot, you say, "he majority of members of some individual churches which affiliate with the Southern Baptist Convention will vote Republican, whereas some others will vote Democratic. You can't put us all into one pot."

I'd be very surprised, frankly, if the VAST majority of Southern Baptists don't vote Republican in this election, as they have in all past elections from Nixon's Southern strategy forward.

eark: Because that kind of name-calling is no more justified nor defensible than any other kind.

But if you're a mind to be a name-caller who is content to categorize a huge number of people of diverse positions with one smearing label, that is your right under the U.S. Constitution.

But just don't expect to get any respect for it.

I think that the determination 'evangelical' or 'mainline' are determined on a very individual basis considering the individual pastor and congregation. I think two churches of the same affiliation in the same town might be designated differently, based pretty much on the acceptance/non-acceptance of science and history as it relates to biblical teaching. I personally believe that the truly 'evangelical' church is a dying breed and younger pastors and congregations will muddy the water until there will be touches of evangelicalism here and there, but also an acceptance of science and history which will allow the same growth or changes we saw when fundamental churches moved away from footwashing, not cutting hair, and not allowing makeup, etc.

Perplexed: And you are correct, to a point.

Many have sought less-restrictive congregations.

But many churches which affiliate with the Southern Baptist Convention ALSO affiliate with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. And many members of churches affiliated with the SBC also affiliate with Mainstream Baptists and Texas Baptists Committed and their counterparts in other states.

Also, many of us continue as members of local congregations which affiliate with the SBC primarily because "that's what's available," but we have nothing to do with the district associations, the state conventions, or the SBC.

Muddling: "I'd be very surprised, frankly, if the VAST majority of Southern Baptists don't vote Republican in this election, as they have in all past elections from Nixon's Southern strategy forward."

This is one we could probably choose up sides and fight over, although it's not worth it. But I just don't think you can provide documented evidence to support your claim about Southern Baptists voting Republican in all those elections.

I just don't believe you can produce the voting records of Southern Baptists in those elections.

Muddling: "When I hear that, I hear a conscious decision of a religious group to align itself with the "over-against" groups in American Christianity, and a conscious decision to suppress those in its midst who call for dialogue between faith and reason. You can't be fundamentalist, and have such dialogue."

On this one I think there's room for discussion.

It depends upon what you mean by "a religious group."

There's more than one religious group among Southern Baptists. There is "the group" that took over the Convention. And the Convention owns the seminaries. And the presidents (along with the boards of trustees) decide who teaches in the seminaries, and to some extent what they teach. A good deal of academic freedom has be lost in the six SBC seminaries since the fundy takeover.

But the minority in control of the Convention do not speak for the majority in the churches. The majority in the churches have NEVER made a conscious decision to align themselves as you suggest.

Please remember this:

1. The fundamentalist takeover was accomplished by slim majority votes of messengers. There were huge minorities which voted against. Ultimately majorities became larger as the moderates were squeezed out and stopped going to the conventions.

2. The relatively few messengers involved in the early voting--in comparison to the total number of members of affiliated churches--in no way constituted a majority of the church members, nor were they authorized to vote in behalf of those members. Some influential people found ways to pack the conventions with fundamentalist voters.

3. The reason there is still dialogue in the churches, and that there are CBF, MB, TBC, and other groups composed of members of churches which still affiliate with the SBC is that we have never allowed those others to speak for us or supress our call for continued dialogue.

4. I thoroughly agree that fundamentalists are not interested in dialogue. And that is the primary distinction between fundamentalist and liberal in Baptist churches. Because I'm interested in dialogue and willing to give everyone else the same right of holding and expressing views as I insist for myself, I'm considered a "liberal." It doesn't have anything to do with my theological views (which, by the way, are quite moderate, or even conservative--at least in my own eyes); it has to do with my views of rights such as those expressed in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

I find far too many people far too ready to paint all members of churches affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention with the same brush.

And I wish more people were aware that technically there is no such thing as "a Southern Baptist Church"; that is merely a term of convenience which denotes a church which affiliates with the Southern Baptist Convention.

And in a similar vein, technically there is no such thing as "a Southern Baptist"; that is simply a term of convenience which denotes someone who is a member of a church which affiliates with the Southern Baptist Convention.

Every individual church is an independent, autonomous congregation. "Southern Baptist" is the name of the Convention, not the churches nor their members.

But I understand that most people are not aware of these finer points of distinction. Still, I'd like for more to be.

I didn't say ALL were racists so why are you being so defensive? Are you honestly going to try to tell me that many of them are not racist? Well, I grew up around too many and know too many. I know better. Most of the ones I know (few exceptions) are racist to some degree). Of the people I know who are racist, ALL are so-called "evangelicals."

PS. Stating the fact that many people are racists is not "name calling."

eark: You wiggle in strange ways:

"Why don't we just call the "white evangelicals" for what most of them really are:"

Why don't we call "THE" white evangelicals . . . . ? Isn't "the" white evangelicals "all" white evangelicals? Isn't that what "the" means in this context?

Then you propose to call "the white evangelicals" for what MOST of them really are.

So you propose to call ALL of them by the name applicable to MOST of them.

The reason I'm being defensive is that you're trying to lump me in there with all those others, in a group in which I don't belong. And you're doing so on the basis of hasty generalizations. So please don't go all "innocent" on me here.

You haven't polled or surveyed all Christians on their racial views. I doubt if you've polled "many" of them; maybe not "any" of them. You don't have any evidence to support this kind of broad-stroke painting. You have no grounds for labeling "most" of them.

"PS. Stating the fact that many people are racists is not "name calling.""

It's NOT?

Isn't "racist" a name? It is a judgmental term applied to people in a pejorative manner without any qualifiers or evidence to support its application.

In this context, I claim that your use of "racist" is name-calling. What would you call it?

Am I going to try to tell you than many of them do not hold views that might fairly be labeled "racist," if criteria and definitions were applied? Certainly not.

But how you've wiggled from "THE white evangelicals," through "MOST of them," to "MANY of them."

You have my sympathy that most of the ones you know are "racist to some degree." It would be interesting to know just exactly what you mean by "to some degree."

So you've wiggled your way from "the" and "most" to "many" and "to some degree."

I think perhaps that had you STARTED there rather than winding up there, you might have made a more reasoned and reasonable statement.

I'm reminded of what an old Kentucky mountaineer told me once: "All Indians walk in single file. At least the only one I ever saw did."

SkyPilot, I'm surprised that you would say, "But I just don't think you can provide documented evidence to support your claim about Southern Baptists voting Republican in all those elections."

The data to show this are abundant, and easily found. For documentation up to 1977, check out Oran Smith's exhaustively researched Smith, "The Rise of Baptist Republicanism" (NY: NY University Press,1997), which states, on the basis of the data he presents, "The Republican party and the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) are not only in firm alliance, they are sometimes indistinguishable from each other" (p. 2).

For this particular election, check the results of this study done by the SBC itself at www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=28134&ref=BPNews-RSSFeed0528. It shows 80% of Southern Baptist pastors planning to vote for McCain, 1% for Obama. 4% say they'll vote for a third-party candidate, 15% are undecided.

Those data speak volumes about the certainty that only a tiny handful of Southern Baptist denominations will lean Democratic in this election. They're supported by all the other data I know of, whether from Glenmary, Pew Forum, or Gallup.

I'll grant that there are individual Southern Baptists who swim against the current, and I surely do admire them. These include Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton. I am not sure where Bill Moyers has ended up in terms of affiliation, but if he's still Southern Baptist, he'd be at the top of my own personal list of Southern Baptists I admire for resisting the fundamentalist takeover.

When you overlap states (and counties) that have voted Republican in election after election for years now with maps of religious affiliation and find the same states and counties that have the highest proportion of Southern Baptists voting most heavily Republican, what can you conclude except that Southern Baptists did vote overwhelmingly Republican in the elections in question?

Rant on

To an outsider.. Todays Christians are bigots. haters, anti thought, anti community, anti education, pro myth, anti Democracy, anti constitution, pro torture, pro oppression. pro greed, pro covet.... and about as dismissive of the likes of Jesus teachings as one could possibly imagine outside of the most extreme Islamic types.

I've never met an Atheist who shows the contempt for the best of what Christianity has to offer as what everyday Christians do to their religion.... Even though Atheists refuse to accept myth as fact.... they are (in general) far more accepting and far more Christ like

Who needs movies like Friday the 13th or Texas Chainsaw Massacre...when we have real life American Evangelicals who would rather torture and murder millions upon millions of innocents on a global scale than admit they are dangerous fools who have made serious mistakes in America and the rest of the blood stained world?

I may be a Southerner to my core, but you will never see me sit quietly by while someone utters the "N" word, for example, or sit through a church service where a pastor discusses politics in any manner. For that matter.. if a pastor discussed abortion, science, race or sex from a pulpit in church... i would gladly find another place to do my tithing... and I would most assuredly make sure my church was not affiliated with those who conduct themselves in such a manner.

It's not a question of definitions, but whether or not you all have any spine, any basic human decency..and have you any possibility of humility or feeling shame at all? Individually, patriotically, and certainly as a "spiritual" person or group?

You either stand up and denounce the endless drivel from your evangelical camps... or be stereotyped right in with the rest of them... So play dodge the definition and clutch your pearls... but know you are one of them unless you denounce them at every turn. It's your religion, your church.... like your country, you own it.

/Rant off

Having grown up Southern Baptist, I am aware of the distinctions you're making in your response to me about fundamentalism, SkyPilot.

And I surely support you and wish you well in trying to inject some alternative ways of thinking into your church. I have to say that it strikes me as an uphill battle, but it's a fight worth fighting, too. A religious group whose historic roots lie in struggling tooth and nail against theocracy should never have ended up so committed to theocracy, it seems to me. Those who are trying to move the SBC back to its historic roots are doing a great thing, if a difficult one.

I'd also say, as an aside that's not an aside, that anyone committed to that project would also probably hesitate to try to impose religion-specific views on society at large, when it comes to the gay issue. As my Baptist aunt (who has given up on the SBC) says, "I have enough business of my own to mind, rather than mind other folks' business when it comes to that issue."

Muddling: Thanks for the citations. I'll check them out.

And I'm obliged to confess immediately and openly that I was not aware of them.

I'll be interested to see what data he's gathered, how, and how analyzed.

"Often wrong but never in doubt."

Muddling:

1. I find a lot of references, but haven't been able to lay my hands on Smith's book itself, so I have to take your assessment at face value. I can't contest your conclusion.

But this does raise at least one yellow flag: "Because there is no worst nightmare for typical South Carolinians than Hillary Clinton in the White House," said Oran Smith, executive director of the Palmetto Family Council, a non profit group focused on family and conservative values in South Carolina. "

It COULD be that Oran Smith had a vested interest in the outcome of his findings. But maybe not.

2. I'll grant you everything the survey of Southern Baptist Pastors shows--so far as last spring is concerned. But 80% of "pastors" doesn't necessarily translate to 80% of "church members." It could well translate to a majority; I can't dispute that. But that's still conjecture.

However, you have enough evidence for me to retire from this part of the discussion; I may not buy the whole argument, but I certainly can't refute it. So I'm ethically bound to say, "You could be right.

And it could well be that conditions are even worse than I had assumed/imagined.

But I still don't like being lumped into the same pot!!!

Take a look at the evidence and see what you think, SkyPilot. I don't want you to take my word for it, since I myself have had the experience of being wrong a time or two in life.

I went through Catholic school in the Dallas diocese. I remember one of my teachers in high school, a devout Catholic and pro-lifer, telling us she always votes for the Democrats because she also cares about what happens to the kids after they're born. I don't want to speak for Catholics because I never was one, but I got the sense that a lot of them don't really feel their priests have enough life experience to lecture them on certain issues.

George Barna is perhaps one of the top Christian public researchers, and here's how he defines "evangelical" for his research. (I say that with the caveat that ALL Christians are called to be evangelical, but how the public sees the term is what matters.)

Definition

"Evangelicals" meet the born again criteria plus seven other conditions. Those include
- saying their faith is very important in their life today;
- believing they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians;
- believing that Satan exists;
- believing that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works;
- believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth;
- asserting that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches;
- and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today.

Being classified as an evangelical is not dependent upon church attendance or the denominational affiliation of the church they attend. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as "evangelical."

How Many

* 8% of the population are evangelicals (2007)
* There are approximately 18 million evangelical adults (2007)

Profile (2007)

* 26% of evangelicals are college graduates (2007)
* 74% are married (2007)
* 44% have children under 18 living in their household (2007)
* More than four out of five (81%) are white (2007)
* 60% are affiliated with the Republican Party (2007)
* 90% are registered to vote (2007)
* 39% of all evangelicals live in the South, compared to 33% living in the Midwest, 19% in the West and 9% in the Northeast (2007)
* 43% are Baby Boomers (2007)
* 74% of evangelicals are married (2007)

Who?

* 4% of registered Democrats and 5% of registered Independents are evangelical Christians compared to 19% of registered Republicans. (2007)

Self-Descriptions

* 93% define themselves as "deeply spiritual" compared with the national average of 62% (2006)
* 78% of evangelicals describe themselves as "mostly conservative" when it comes to political and social issues (compared to 31% of adults nationwide), 16% describe themselves as somewhere in between (compared to 48% of adults nationwide), and just one percent call themselves liberal (compared to 14% of adults nationwide). (2007)

Lifestyles (2004)

* Of the five faith segments (evangelicals, non-evangelical born again Christians, notional Christians, adherents of non-Christian faiths, and atheists/agnostics), evangelicals were the most likely to do each of the following:

* discuss spiritual matters with other people.
* volunteer at a church or non-profit organization.
* discuss political matters with other people.
* discuss moral issues and conditions with others.
* stop watching a television program because of its values or viewpoints.
* go out of their way to encourage or compliment someone.

Muddling: I may or may not be able to get my hands on a copy of the book.

It's not a case of feeling obliged to "take your word for it," any more than it is "doubting your word."

It's just that you've seen it and I haven't, so there is no justification for my questioning it, challenging you, or continuing the discussion at this time. We'll just to have to put the discussion on hold.

As in all cases, you could be right; and it is only ethical and responsible of me to acknowledge that.

I certainly don't want to appear as if "my mind is made up; don't confuse me with facts."

And should I ever be able to see the book, by that time the discussion is likely to be badly out of date, so this probably is the last we'll hear of it.

I do have to observe this--which is just a reflection of my own feelings: If it's true that the masses of people who hold membership in churches affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention have moved into the Righteous Right's corner of the Republican camp, I'm deeply disappointed, and embarrassed. I wish it were not so. But then, probably they would say the same about me.

But you can readily see the reason that Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and I are no longer "Southern Baptists." We didn't leave them. They left us.

A footnote in response to Elwood's post of 11:52 this morning: "It was the Southern and Northern churches who led the nation in opposing the racism that dominated the South. "

Elwood, I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind, but I was pretty thoroughly involved in church life in the period 1955-on. I didn't see the churches leading in that effort. I saw some of them not only dragging their feet and vehemently resisting it, but even openly opposing it.

I was fired from a church-related position for not supporting the effort to retain segregation. There were white churches who voted not to allow blacks to attend worship services. The deacons of a pastor friend of mine were told, "If you want to get rid of your pastor, we'll help you find a good segregationist."

It's true that eventually the churches began to come on board but, much to my sorrow and shame, we were not in the vanguard of that effort.

I don't think the churches began to come on board very much until after the schools had been integrated for a number of years. When we moved to the Louisville area in 1975, bussing was the burning issue and many of the churches lined up on the side of the segregationists. It was a troubled time and churches were not leading the march for stability and peace.

*********************************************************************************************

*********************************************************************************************

*********************************************************************************************
Dumbpilot (that's name calling so you'll know), the word THE does not mean ALL. Where did you go to school? If I had meant ALL, I would have said ALL and not MOST.
*********************************************************************************************

*********************************************************************************************

*********************************************************************************************

SkyPilot, I appreciate what you have to say, and what you stand for--even when you and I have identified some religious and political issues about which we agree to disagree.

What gives me heart is that we are able to talk together like human beings trying to find a civilized path. In my view, that's what blogworld should be about, but rarely is.

I also appreciate your sharing some of your own experiences in the churches. They parallel mine. One of the biggest precipitating factors in my choice to leave the Southern Baptist church was that we (my own church here in Arkansas, that is) split over accepting black members.

I was fifteen at the time. I could not get my head around why there would ever be a question about whether anyone--black, white, green, yellow, male, female, gay, straight, Martian or Gaian--would be welcome in church.

I well remember the fractious debate about this in the church, with tears and hate that I would rather not have known some people in the church held in their hearts. I also remember going to my pastor and asking how the church could be questioning what long ago had come to be right in society at large--why were we dragging up the rear?

He replied that change takes time. And I left.

Years later, when I read Martin Luther King's statement that the church should be the headlight of society, but is all too often the taillight, I understood.

Well, eark: If you didn't mean "all," then why did you say "the"?

Would you kindly explain precsiely what "the" DOES mean in this sentence, "Why don't we just call the "white evangelicals" for what most of them really are:"

If "the" doesn't mean "all white evangelicals," why didn't you ask, "Why don't we just call the rest of the white evangelicals," or "Why don't we call some of the white evangelicals," or "Why don't we call the majority of white evangelicals,"?

I can clearly see your use of "most" at the end of the sentence; I'm questioning your use of "the" at the beginning of the sentence.

At the end, you said "most," and I can see that you said most.

At the beginning you said "the." What did you mean there?

How does "the Christians" avoid making that an all-inclusive noun? Doesn't that put all Christians into one group?

I'd be interested to know just exactly how you DO define "the" in that sentence.

And I congratulate you upon recognicing yourself as a name-caller.

"Name-calling: the lowest form of argument."

When you have nothing constructive to say on the issue, attack your opponent. _ad hominem_.

And where did YOU go to school? As if that had anything to do with anything.

Our church, FBC of Hot Springs, voted to drop out of the SBC, several years ago when they

started becoming so rwing and political.

We have a young pastor, 50, who, I believe, is a closet liberal.

Muddling: I was blessed, in 1965, to be a member of a church where some of the deacons wanted the church to vote to admit black people to the worship services.

The pastor told them that he applauded their spirit and was in favor of the practice, but called to their attention that such a vote was absolutely unnecessary. The church had never voted to PREVENT black people from attending worship services, or from becoming members.

As he understood the situation, there was no reason that black people could not worship there anytime they wished, and present themselves for membership if they desired.

The church was open for attendance and membership without regard to race. The issue quietly became a non-issue.

And that was the end of that.

Incidentally, I don't know about all six of the Southern Baptist seminaries, but it was true of one. When some local black university graduates inquired whether the seminary had decided to admit black students, they were told that the seminary had never prevented any black student from being admitted and that no special decision was necessary. Applications from black students would be received just as applications would from anyone else. That seminary had five or six black students that fall.

I had been in the Air Force, serving with black enlisted men and officers. The military was WAY ahead of the churches in that endeavor. As was Major League Baseball.

It was to our shame that for years "the most segregated hour in American culture is 11:00 o'clock on Sunday morning."

Granted, attitudes began to change in the churches, and that was a help. Although probably some people with very prejudiced attitudes can still be found in churches, even--if not especially--Baptist churches.

Still, I wince at "Baptists . . . ." or "Christians . . . ." as if whatever is being stated applies equally to all.

Jazzy: When you say FBC "voted to drop out of the SBC," does that mean that they no longer send gifts through the Cooperative Program, and that they no longer send messengers to Central Baptist Association, the Arkansas Baptist State Convention, or the Southern Baptist Convention?

I'm interested in the specific action of "drop out."

I am not asking in order to dispute or argue. I'm interested in the technicalities, since technically a church doesn't "belong to" the convention. It affiliates with, cooperates with, and relates in various ways. I'm just curious about what it did, and how it worded its action.

And it certainly can affiliate with one of those levels of affiliation/cooperation without doing so with others. So my question is curious, not argumentative.

Muddlling: Late-breaking blinding flash of the obvious!

It just dawned upon me that in recent elections there has been a heavy "single-issue" element, or perhaps "two-issue" element: abortion and gays.

Yes, I'm afraid that I can recognize, and have to admit, that either of those two issues by itself would have driven masses of Southern Baptists (I use the term as a convenient label) into the right-wing Republican camp.

If either, or both, of those issues was involved, I can understand that Smith found a lot of corroborating evidence. I wouldn't even have to see his book to accept that.

So that probably can lay my qestions, and hesitancy, to rest.

Admittedly, in my opinion, many anti-choice Southern Baptists would vote for (or against, if you view it that way) a candidate because of that issue alone.

And, I must admit, that many Southern Baptists would have voted against Bill Clinton because of the sexual accusations. Many Southern Baptists are willing to put everything on one single issue, view, or attitude.

You may remember that Brooks Hays lost his congressional seat in 1958 after trying to mediate the conflict between Eisenhower and Faubus. He wasn't an "integrationist," but he enflamed the segregationists by being too soft on integration.

And remember that Brooks Hays was a dedicated Southern Baptist layman who served as the President of the Southern Baptist Convention during 1957-1958.

Even so, had the Baptists rallied around him, he would not have lost to write-in candidate Dale Alford.

He was at least one Baptist who tried to do the right thing! And it cost him dearly.

Sky...this was a few years ago and I've slept since then but, as I recall it was only to withhold

gifts/ messengers from SBC, not CBA or Ar Bap State .....but, our pastor had always had a

problem with SBC, more so after Land became prez.....I was never into the business/ inner

workings of the church, too busy with the music side of things, so much of that just flew

right over my head.

Wish I could post pastor's email address, he would love to chat with you and explain all this,

but, I don't dare. I could send it to Max if you are interested.

Jazzy: Thanks. No need to post. I know him personally. Have his email address. Phone number. The whole schmear. No need to pursue it or stir things up.

I was just curious about the technicalities.

I may ask him about it directly sometime when our paths cross--without making a big issue of it.

I think this entire argument, as it applies to elections, is: when you walk into the voting booth, are you focused on politics, public policy and the Constitution, or on someone's interpretation of the Bible? Single/double-issue voters are shallow. MOST voters in Arkansas fall into this category, evangelical or not; D or R. In my county in ('90 or '92?) the vote was 2:1 to KEEP the AR Constitutional amendment mandating the "resistance to racial integration!" 1990/92...not 1962...

It will be an AR sea change if O'Bama wins OR Cocks is defeated!
|

Republicans for Obama, thanks for the stats. One stat that it seems would help this group is: What percent of Christians are Evangelicals? When Eureka "rants" and calls Christians "bigots, haters," and anti everything, I would think he is really talking about Evangelicals. I don't have the stats handy, but I bet most African Americans are Christians. I am a Christian, and those at my church have discussed our belief that (some) Evangelicals are far too extreme (perhaps not as extreme as Eureka claims, but still too extreme). If Eureka had made his claim against Evangelicals, I would have understood his stance, but against Christians, in general. I think he is mislead.

Sky, I'm standing in the corner with my dunce hat on, should be able to explain all this much

better, 'specially as my hubby is a deacon.....like I said my nose was always pressed in a new

musical score, giving a voice lesson, etc.

Think I'll dash off a note to John tomorrow to have him refresh my memory.

Have a good evening

SkyPilot, you say, "It just dawned upon me that in recent elections there has been a heavy 'single-issue' element, or perhaps 'two-issue' element: abortion and gays."

Yes, exactly. And it's not confined to Southern Baptists. I was with an African-American friend of mine, one of the handful of black students to integrate my high school in 1967, last weekend. She tells me she hears a number of her black co-workers, church members, and friends saying they would vote for Obama except for those two issues.

And the American Catholic bishops have done everything but stand on their head in recent years (as a collective group) to get Catholic voters to vote on the basis of those issues (and stem-cell research) exclusively. A Republican-funded "Catholic Answers" voters' guide in the last election tried to get Catholics to view these as "non-negotiable" issues on the basis of which "good" Catholics would automatically vote Republican.

And just today, news is breaking that Randall Terry's Operation Rescue will blanket Catholic parishes in swing states with brochures telling Catholics they have to vote on the basis of those "non-negotiables."

In the face of all that pressure, it's interesting that such a significant proportion of American Catholics are saying no thanks to the bishops' strong-arm tactics. Not to mention that some significant Catholic conservatives who formerly supported the Republicans, like Douglas Kmiec and Nicholas Cafardi, have now come out for Obama.

Why the Catholic bishops think they have a moral leg to stand on after their behavior about clerical sexual abuse has been made public is an intriguing question to me as a Catholic (and a theologian). But that's a subject for another thread.

Dowhat: You're raising the issue(s) that got some of us started way back toward the first of this thread: Just how do you define "evangelical"? Just how do you distinguish between "mainline" and "evangelical"? Some churches are BOTH mainline AND evangelical.

Wikipedia is far too limited and not authoritative.

R for O's 2:53 p.m. post gave us Barna's criteria, which is reputable and probably would be fairly widely accepted. I'm certainly comfortable with it, whereas the Wikipedia criterion of "historical-critical interpretation" is completely useless because it says nothing about "evangelism" or the views of the church members, only the academic approach of theologians, (read "college and seminary professors").

Most of the people in the pew haven't the foggiest notion of what theological scholarship is all about. And most don't even know anything about the academic or theological value of a doctorate. Most couldn't distinguish among a D.D., a D.Min., a Th.D., an Ed.D., and a Ph.D.; and most wouldn't care.

Many want their pastor to "have a doctorate," but haven't the foggiest notion precisely what that entails--or represents.

And most of them couldn't distinguish among doctorates from accredited seminaries, Bible schools, and diploma mills, or even those bought online.

jazzy,

I grew up in Hot Springs Second Baptist. Through the 1970s at least it was (in my limited perspective) a caring group of people who collectively supported social progress and religious enlightenment, in spite of many individuals who were certainly racist, misogynist and downright backward. No one had yet told them that abortion and homosexuality were the only issues God cares about. I returned home one year to find that Second Baptist had been taken over by Luddites and fundamentalists. Knowing many of those involved, I can say race hatred was a predominant character trait of those who took the church away from its foundations. As the ex-wife of a former Southern Baptist preacher, I can tell you that during the 1970s-80s many SBC state level professionals and lay people were trying to end segregation in the churches and in society, but gave up when Falwell and Co. took over the brains and hearts of the church leadership and body. I am no longer a part of an organization that promotes attitudes of hatred toward those who are different from them.

Rocker, and Jazzy, and others: Until the mid-1950s there were no divisive or polarizing issues among Southern Baptist churches. O maybe some were opposed to Sunday Picture Shows while others were silent on the issue, or maybe Mixed Bathing (that's "swimming" to you outsiders). But those things didn't divide churches.

Civil Rights and race were the first explosive things. And in many churches, people attempted simply to keep quiet about it so as not to disrupt the fellowship.

So people who grew up in churches, at least the ones in the South that I knew and knew about, until the mid-1950s, grew up in a relatively tranquil period.

We were also all pretty well brought together by The Great Depression and World War II.

Today's church atmosphere is quite different from those tranquil and halcyon days.

Rocker, FBC has many, many folks who left 2nd church after they fell off the deep end.

I think they, 2nd, moved east of town and changed their name.

Second Baptist split: Hot Springs Baptist and the Church at Crossgate.

Crossgate is the remains of Second Baptist which moved east of town.

Let us not blame church's in the south for all the ills.....I attended high school in

Pennsylvania and went to a church that could give lessons to southern churches.

I never moved my membership from my home church in Camden, Ar., where I was baptized,

but they were gonna throw me out for.....guess?????......buying a newspaper on sunday after

church.....a deacon saw me buying a paper and you would think I had been caught selling my

body.

I never figured out how I could get tossed out of a church I didn't even belong to. LOL

Thanks Sky...Crossgate is what I was thinking of. Last time I drove past the old 2nd

property there was some kind of college/school there.

Jazzy: For my part, it wasn't so much blaming the churches of the South as accepting the blame.

Almost all of my life was lived in the South, so those are the churches and towns with which I was/am acquainted and in which I was involved.

I know there was a lot of less-than-desirable stuff elsewhere, but I have to admit the truth about the places I know--and bear my share of responsibilities.

Even after being fired for not being a segregationist, I didn't become a flaming advocate. In fact, for the most part, I just kept quiet about it, because there would have been so many people in the places we lived after that who would have genuinely approved--if not started a movement to get me removed again. Furthermore, I didn't want any flack to fall out on our children. It was more or less the coward's way out.

Jazzy: If I'm not mistaken, a large black congregation now owns the old Second Baptist property and is operating a wide-ranging ministry of church and school there. Can't think of the name of it at the moment. Probably could spot it in a phone book.

My membership, such as it is, is at 2nd Baptist or Crossgate. I don't go anymore at all. I grew up in a church I still love but I remain ashamed also - it is a fundamental Baptist Church in Texas that thinks Southern Baptists are idol worshippers and don't believe the Bible because they use literature. The church I grew up in apparently got involved in politics for the first time during the campaign of JFK. They believed he would mandate Catholicism which they considered devil worship. As young people we could not go to movies any day of the week and swimming in a mixed situation was taboo. We didn't have a church kitchen because it wasn't permitted along with parties, etc. The church has changed little, is very large and is very evangelical. They are the most loving people I've ever known -- unless you are gay, black, or unmarried and pregnant. They are extremely racist but in a gentle way - no KKK stuff or hateful remarks - just a simple belief that God intended the races not to mix.

I get lots of emails from friends there at the church of my youth (I don't know anyone at Crossgate) about the coming election. They believe Obama is a threat, some think he is a Muslim and they consider all Democrats to be tools of Satan. I argue, refute, and they call me and beg me to reconsider my 'waywardness', and I know they pray that God will 'open my eyes'. It breaks my heart because I've known most of those people since I was 5 yrs old, but they are nuts - just as crazy as the old woman who told McCain recently that Obama was an Arab.

It's sad when you know how people you love are being used and abused and you can do nothing about it because it comes from their heart, willingly. They would sacrifice much to see the candidate that they believe more closely fits their agenda elected and they truly believe that's God's will. Republicans are despicable and they willfully use these innocent people in the worst way. I think of George W Bush and believe there is a special place for his ass in hell.

Evangelical and mainline is like pornography - you know it when you see it, but it isn't easy to define.

Sky,
I don't disagree with you.
Perhaps the third definition that should be added is "fundamentalist".
These folks may fit some of the conversations in the thread better than the titles used thus far.

Plenty blame to go around......if I knew then what I know now.

Never dreamed I'd live to see a woman or a tan man run for prez...........

Now the tan man is looking closer and closer to the prize........

I, for one, will be laughing/crying if he pulls it off on Nov. 4.

SkyPilot, I think the old 2nd B.C. property is used by a church called something like "Gospel LIghthouse."

Dowhat is, in my opinion, correct. Fundamentalist is a better term here than Evangelical. The problem is that words mean only what those who use and hear them think they mean. My loose definition, well, VERY loose is: An evangelical wants to be sure that you know how to get to heaven. A fundamentalist wants to be sure you know you're going to hell. Sometimes fundamentalists are called "angry evangelicals." You could do a historical study and go back to the early 20th century and the publication of the tracts called "The Fundamentals" whose publication was, ironically, paid for by some rich California Presbyterians. It was a reaction to historical criticism and the social gospel which was popular in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, out of which sprang ministries like the Salvation Army, etc. The fundamentalists reached their first zenith with the Scopes trial and faded into the background during the Great Depression and WWII. They began to get traction again in the late 40's and early 50's and have been around ever since. It is my hope that they have reached their second and last zenith with the SBC takeover and the election of George W. Bush. They've always had to have an "evil" to combat and with which to inflame their minions. They had Communism and the Cold War for a long time, then came civil rights, abortion, homosexuality, and gay marriage. They will inevitably fall from influence when younger generations come of age who grew up in diverse schools and actually knew people who were different from them. It's isolation that keeps this monster running, i.e. home schooling, charter schools, "Christian" private schools. Those will be the only places that will remain for this myopia (read: hate) to continue to live.

I wandered, didn't I? All that to say, not many are aware of any of the above, but there is a history to Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism that is unknown to the average voter. Unfortunately, all they see is someone who is fearful, angry, insecure, and often loud. Those of us who live within the boundaries of the labels are often painted with the wide brush - and I don't really like it, either, SkyPilot.

Naw Perplexed, Gospel Lighthouse is south of Hobson Ave.------2nd church was a block off

west Grand on 3rd st, I think.

Thanks, Jazzy. I guess it was their busses that had me confused. Here's who's there now:

http://gospellight.org/

The website shows the old 2nd B. C. plant.

Perplexed: I think you nailed it square and laid out the story very clearly.

I stuck with mainstream and evangelical because that's what the thread started with. But I think Dowhat has a good point about adding fundamentalists--as came into the thread when I began to talk about the fundamentalists who took over the SBC.

For what it's worth, if anything: Gospel Light Baptist Church is addressed at 600 Garland, which puts it between 6th and 7th, two blocks NORTH of Garland.

Must admit I'm not in that part of town much but Sky is correct.......there is a large

school/complex there on old 2nd baptist property.....Sky said its a Black school some such..........

something for me to check out. I drove by some time ago and was shocked to see that 3--4

story building, had no idea.

As an aside, Hot Springs is exploding in growth......every time I drive around I see new

construction........I hear money is pouring in from the west coast......who knows??????????

These are the guys that are in the old 2nd B. C. buildings. I put their URL on "the clicky."

Ironically, they are exactly the kind of folks we're discussing here. I checked their website and found stuff like King James Bible only, etc. Check out their school. That's where the really scary stuff is. If you're a woman wanting to study church music, you'll take "Christian Womanhood" instead of "Congregational Song Leading." We wouldn't want any women leading men in song, would we? What think ye of that, Sister Jazzy? :-)

Looked at the Web site. Looks as if I was really under the wrong impression about the race of the congregation. Don't know where I got that idea. Well, I think I may know the source of my confusion, but it's irrelevant to this discussion.

You can sign up to get a blessing via email every Monday at www.qqumc.org (left hand column).

Perplexed.......don't think I would last long in such a sexist enviorment but my music

was by no means limited to church, altho I love music from the Black gospels to modern

scores.

Viva la music

Amen! my sister!

Oops! This is REALLY late, but back up there at 8:33 when I said between 6th and 7th, two blocks NORTH of Garland--that should have been two blocks north of HOBSON!

It is ON Garland.

That's what I get for trying to post during a TV commercial. Maybe I'm not built for multi-tasking.

But, I guess it's never too late to correct an error.

Sorry for the confusion. If anyone noticed. Or cared.

ENJOY

goodnight

clicky

Gospel Light does own the old 2nd Baptist property and they use all the buildings that were once ours. They have a school on the premises as did 2nd but it goes thru college. When 2nd moved out of town and changed its name to Crossgate, we were told that renovations were absolutely necessary to the old sanctuary and were hugely expensive - so new building and property. Gospel Light found the building just fine and use it with no problems. I think the leadership at 2nd just wanted new digs. Gospel Light is thriving tho a bit strange, and 2nd, (Crossgate), seems to be sinking in debt... Such is the path of those who lose sight of the goal........

Jazzy, great clip! I like getting my theology from music best of all.

CiCi, I've heard the same. Churches are ok, except they are infested with people. :-) They have a tendency to make the same mistakes that people do, especially when they become obsessed with growth and power. I can't say that that is necessarily true for the Crossgate folks, but I can say that it's true for other churches I've been around. It's the problem of using the business model for making church decisions. Churches are simply not businesses.

It looks as if Crossgate's pastor's reach may have exceeded his grasp.

Don't know anything about details; have no connection with the church or anyone in it. So my information is just from newspapers.

They closed their school this year.

I understand it's a beautiful church/school campus. But private schools are EXPENSIVE!

And I'm sure that the loss of about half of the congregation to the new Hot Springs Baptist as well as to other local churches didn't help.

Interesting that HSB is doing OK and Gospel Light is thriving in the old "unsuitable" facility.