The online article revealed that LifeWay Christian Bookstores, bookstores overseen by trustees of the Southern Baptist Convention's publishing agency (LifeWay), pulled this month's Gospel Today magazine from its shelves. Gospel Today, published for nearly twenty years, is a conservative, evangelical magazine devoted to discussing current events and issues within evangelical Christianity. The magazine is the most widely distributed urban Christian publication in the country, with a circulation of 240,000. What would cause LifeWay to pull the magazine from its shelves and treat it, according to Gospel Today's editor Teresa Haiston, "like it was pornography"?It seems this month's cover featured five women, dressed in black and smiling, whom the magazine's editors profiled as the most influential women pastors in America. A spokesman for Lifeway Resources, said the cover was not the reason the magazine was pulled from Lifeway's shelves. He gave the rationale for pulling it from Lifeway's shelves:
"The buyers said the statements that were in it took positions that were contrary to what we would say," Turner said. "It wasn't so much that there were women on the cover."
I don't know the spokesperson for LifeWay, and I'm sure he is a fine Christian gentleman. But his statement should send a chill up the spine of every Christian in the Southern Baptist Convention who loves our Convention and desires us to not act as if we are a cult. Now before my Baptist Identity friends burst a blood vessel, let me remind you that there is a difference between being a cult, and acting like we are a cult. We are not a cult, but sometimes we act like one. Let me show you what I mean.
(1). A cult has 'leaders' who determine what everybody else in the group can, and cannot read; what they can, and cannot do; what they can, and cannot think.
Our SBC LifeWay spokesperson said, "The buyers (of the magazine) said the statements that were in (the magazine) took positions that were contrary to what we would say" What? Surely, he can't be serious? Does he (or anybody who told him to say this) really believe that Southern Baptists are incapable of determining for ourselves what is truth? Do we need guardians of truth to protect our senstitive eyes and ears from possibly viewing things contrary to the truth? Who are these "buyers"? Who are these people concerned that Southern Baptists might "read" something that contradicts what we believe? Is it possible that the word "buyers" is in fact code for certain SBC leaders who called and complained? If so, just tell us. Then, we can make clear to those who desire to control what we read that Southern Baptists are mature, adult evangelicals who can think for themselves. We do not need leaders who act like cult leaders in an attempt to protect us.
(2). A cult is a place of pecular standards of "morality," where leaders are afraid that members will be "corrupted" by simply being "exposed" to the "immoral" through reading about them, or having unintentional contact with them, or heaven forbid, actually associating with them.
Our SBC LifeWay spokesperson said, "The buyers said the statements that were in (the magazine) took positions that were contrary to what we would say."
Good night. Does anyone else so the absurdity of this statement? I take Newsweek, Time, USA Today, and other liberal weekly magazines and read them all from cover to cover. I remain a conservative, both political and religiously, not because I "shield" my eyes, but because of my convictions. Further, the idea that a conservative, evangelical magazine might actually say something about women pastors that will cause Southern Baptists to stumble morally if we were to read it is actually laughable. I personally AGREE with the BFM prohibition regarding women pastors, but we are acting like a "cult" if we think we need to shield ourselves (and others) from this "immorality." I am not even going to talk about the incredible illogic required to treat a gospel magazine as if it "were pornography."
Frankly, I wonder if those who made the decision to pull the magazine may somehow be related to those Southern Baptist IMB trustees who told me that blogging was like internet pornography. One of these days some of our well intentioned Southern Baptist leaders might actually understand the definition of pornography. The stupidity of comparing women who preach the gospel to those women who expose their bodies to the world (by hiding the magazine) will one day dawn upon us who are Southern Baptists.
(3). A cult takes an "us vs. them" mentality, and views everyone who is "not one of us" as the enemy.
Our SBC LifeWay spokesperson said, "The buyers (of the magazine) said the statements that were in (the magazine) took positions that were contrary to what we would say"
"They" say - "we" say. "They" believe - "we" believe. "They" - "we."
Sigh.
Come on folks. We who are Southern Baptists need to say "enough is enough."
We are not a cult, and we should not silently stand by while some SBC leaders give others in the Christian kingdom the impression that we are.
In His Grace,
Wade
215 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 215 of 215Ditto to the couple of comments that followed ml's response. I wrote my own immediately afterward without reading these other responses. My comments now seem redundant.
Cindy, I logged on to take another crack at it. Now I see you have already covered the issue that was bothering me. Spot on. Good comment. Thanks
John,
Thanks. And sorry I got back so late.
First, I did not suggest the voting bloc of the RR + RP or "power brokerage" was your term. It is mine. Thus, you are correct.
Yet, my point was and still is that to characterize a religious group--in this case, the SBC--as overlapping with a *political party* seems to necessarily involve a voting bloc. As for me making a "leap" as you suggest, I do not think at all that is accurate.
Secondly, in your response to me, you softened what you originally said. The statement to which I responded was this: "...the two [SBs + RP] came (and are) very, very close, to the point that each largely sees the other as its natural counterpart."
However, in your follow up to me you wrote: "I said nothing about "power brokerage" in my assertation [sic] that there is social conservatism shared by many in the SBC and the Republican Party...If you are suggesting that there is no shared social conservatism between the GOP and the SBC..."
Possessing a "social conservatism" which is "shared by many" in the SBC is a Georgia mile from your original assertion--the assertion to which I responded--that "each [that is, the RP and SBs] largely sees the other as its natural counterpart." The original is clearly an overstatement, the latter much more palatable.
As for the studies, I suggest you check out the volume by Andrew Greeley and Michael Hout entitled "The Truth About Conservative Christians" (University of Chicago Press, 2006). Greeley is with the National Opinion Research Center at the Univ. of Chicago and Hout is professor of sociology at UC-Berkeley.
Their opening statement steers what you might expect from a volume I would cite as evidence here:
"Conservative Christianity, as a major movement, could hardly be more straight forward...Insiders and outsiders alike misperceive, misrepresent, and stereotype this large and diverse segment of American culture...For example, we replace the absolute statement that Conservative Christians are the Republican base with the observation that 7% more of them vote Republican than Mainline Protestants" (pp.1-3).
This study is a fascinating read and largely debunks the conventional interpretation placed on "Conservative Christians", "fundamentalists", "evangelicals" or whatever you'd like to dub them, the interpretation of which can be summed up nicely in your original statement, John:
"...the two [SBs + RP] came (and are) very, very close, to the point that each largely sees the other as its natural counterpart."
According to Greeley and Hout's research, this is simply not the case at all...Not even close.
With that, I am...
Peter
Peter:
You can say what you want but the GOP has used many in the SBC to get elected.
Tom,
You write: "You can say what you want but the GOP has used many in the SBC to get elected."
Two quickies: first, you are confusing me and my view with what I reported were the findings of reputable scientists. If you would like to debunk their research, be my guest.
Secondly, I haven't a clue how you measure your absolute assertion that the "GOP has *used many in the SBC* to get elected" (asterisks mine). Nor even if one could make sense of it, how it's supposed to negate anything I have claimed.
With that, I am...
Peter
Wade
Sometimes I think you are reading my mind when you post. I couldn't have written this article "in my own words" any better myself.
Dear Peter,
I don't think I "softened" what I originally said at all; I think you are interpreting what I said, which is a very human thing to do, but you seem to be taking that interpretation to a place I did not go. Is that valid? I'll have to think on that. But let me ask: if there is nothing more than accidential correlation between voting patterns of SBs and the GOP, then why do Republican candidates often see SB churches as their natural allies (and many do, as some candidates have told)? Why do SB pastors (as one said to me in 2004), "I told my people who to vote for using everything except George Bush's name"? Why did one woman leave the church I pastor, complaining that her Sunday School teacher transformed the class into a hostile enmvironment for her, as a Democrat? Why do some of our senior citizens (led by the same man who told a greeter it was his job to turn away anyone coming to worship wearing jeans and to "snatch" any earrings out that a man was wearing) want to turn every Lifeway Sunday School lesson into an advertisement for the Republican Party? I think the statistics show that Southern Baptists, as a whole, tend to vote con servatively, and that usually means the Republican Party. I will look up your references as soon as I have time, but until then, if you can direct me to where evidence shows that Southern Baptists support the Democratic Party/candidates, I'd appreciate it.
And by the way: I don't think your response to me has been as snarky as most of your comments seem to be. I am trying to respond to what you said rather than what I have grown to expect from you, so I would ask for patience. Blessings!
Because He lives,
John
John Farris wrote:
Your perspective--and please corect me if I am wrong--seems to be a denomination-first, top-down view. I am not saying that you think the churches are there to serve the SBC, but rather that the SBC sets the boundaries within a hierachial system, making churches in effect "franchises" of the SBC. Therefore the SBC as a denomination has the responsibility to establish theological paramenters which local churches must then fall into line with, or loose their "franchise." This would seem to me very consistent with the "Federal headship" model of Jesus Christ and the Trinity, and the subservience model for male headship in the home and church, and for some (but not all), in the nation as well. I do not claim to understand which came first, these models as applied theologically to the Trinity, home, and church, or pragmatically to churches within the SBC.
I've waited to see whether someone would comment on this point, and I would LOVE for PASTOR WADE to explain his understanding of "federal representation."
This comment sounds a little too much like something out of Federal Vision which contends that, in addition to hierarchy in the Trinity (limited only to economy or that which is necessary for order as we understand it -- something not ontological or related to authority per traditional understanding), that there is a covenant among the Divine Three. So I have problems with the clarity and perspicacity of this language used here as well. I think this is another example of how doctrine has been subject to cultic manipulation so that when the legitimate term is used, it creates confusion for different groups who hold to different definitions of the term.
John:
I think the SBC and the Republican party have been intertwined for a long period of time. Republicans have been elected because of the support. Pastors and others have abused their offices by using the church to promote their political viewpoint. I do not see this as their job "to tell people who to vote for." Church can become a very divisive place when politics is involved. We do not need more division among our people.
John,
You deny you "softened" what you originally stated and subsequently assert that I am "interpreting what [you] said, which is a very human thing to do, but [I] seem to be taking that interpretation to a place [you] did not go."
Well, my brother, how you fail to see the gaping difference between your first comment which specifically said "the two came (and are) very, very close, to the point that *each largely sees the other as its natural counterpart*" (asterisks mine) and your later rendition that there was a "social conservatism shared by many in the SBC and the Republican Party" I have no answer.
As for answers more questions, I am uninterested in pursuing this further. I gave the sources as requested.
With that, I am...
Peter
Amen, Tom.
Cindy, I agree. I'm sure you understand that is not my perspective, but that I am attempting to summarize what I understand others to say. I guess I'm just too old-fashioned to fall in line with this "new" stuff--and it is new, relatively speaking, especially next to what I hear God through His Holy Word saying.
Peter--so be it. I'm always willing to dialogue.
John Fariss
John Farris,
You wrote Cindy, I agree. I'm sure you understand that is not my perspective, but that I am attempting to summarize what I understand others to say.
THANK GOD and Hallelujah!
I think that people have colluded "federal representation and headship" with "male headship" that is described in 1 Corinthians, making it into some kind of weird string of authority that blends the two ideas. I read on Vision Forum's blog where some guy said Sarah Palin would be our "government covenant head." (I guess that would, by all this weirdness, make her our "federal federal head"????)
I think it partially stems from the failure to define and understand terminology. Foedus in Latin translates "covenant" but is sometimes called "federal." People then think our federal government is the same thing as God's covenant. And then we have this doctrine of the "federal husband" which implies a weird flavour of pagan ancestor worship and male headship where woman is man's reabsorbed rib. From there, people think "representation" and "headship" mean intercession. And it all seems to emerge like something very Roman Catholic.
I'm glad you responded! I was getting worried -- more than necessary perhaps. Though all this stuff seems to trouble me. I never heard weird stuff like this until the late '90s. I can't figure out why so few people say anything about it.
John:
Not sure if you are still there or not. I have been off this post for some time.
I agree with you that the SBC is definitely bottom up. The SBC serves the churches and what they want and need, and only collects money for missions.
I would not go so far as to say that doctrinal matters are handled at the church and associational level (only). Not sure you said or meant only, but that's what I am perceiving.
I would not want to cooperate in missions with people who send folks to the mission field that believe there are many ways to salvation, or that don't believe in the Trinity, or the Virgin Birth or the Bodily Resurrection, or that have a low view of inspiration. These are just a few examples.
I believe that the churches that are going to do missions on a cooperative level need to come together and develop a common confession so that they can represent to all of the churches in the convention that the missionaries that will be sent out will be doctrinally orthodox.
I know of some churches in my town right now that would send out missionaries that believe completley differently than I do on some of the very issues I listed above. I would not want to send our church's money to a fund that would send out missionaries from that church. For example, there is one Baptist church here in town that has a lesbian pastor. Many of the university profs attend there. I would not feel comfortable joining a cooperative effort and sending missionaries from that church.
So, I really do agree with you, but not to the extent (and I really can't tell if you are saying this or not), that the churches that come together would not have a common confession that would serve as a standard for cooperative efforts.
Rex Ray is right. The convention from about 1930 to 1979 did focus on program ("missions") and did not coalesce around doctrine. That was the fatal error, in my opinion. What one is on mission to do will depend on one's doctrine.
Rex is also right about Dr. Parks. He is conservative personally. But I do not know that the missions organization that the CBF founded that he directs (or directed) has a doctrinal standard for the missionaries they send out. If they do, I would be interested in seeing it.
Again, I am not mad at the CBF. I think that its existence is a very healthy thing for people who agree with their vision. I am not angry that they take or took money away from the SBC. It would be much better for such disparate visions of the relationship between doctrine and missions (such as the SBC and CBF have) to have separate organizations, rather than trying to cram them together.
That just seems like a receipe for war, anger and dysfunction. The creation of the CBF has helped reduce that.
I just want the CBF and those in it to continue to follow their vision and go where they believe the Lord is leading them. I hate to see CBF people hanging around the fringes of the SBC. That is not emotionally healthy, and it just keeps things stirred up.
There is no way in the world I would want to become part of the CBF or get involved with them. I don't get on their blogs, go to their meetings, try to influence the debate within the CBF. I do see their literature from time to time. It would be a complete waste of my time to get involved with an organization whose vision is something that I don't agree with. It would be unproductive and emotionally unhealthy.
I just can't see why so many CBF people can figure that out with respect to the SBC.
I hope that you can understand where I am coming from. I feel very comfortable communicating with you because I think that you are fair minded and really do want to understand other's perspectives.
Take care.
Louis
Hi Louis,
Yes, I had left, and happened back and saw your comment.
Without taking the time to review the exact wording of my comment, I think the SBC was created to be bottom-up; I am not sure it still is. And is there some theological review at the convention level? Yes; I think the original intent was for the convention to follow local and state "review," which was to have precidence. However, the 2000 BF&M seems to at least open the door to the Convention having preeminance here with the use of the phrase "instrument of doctrinal accountability," and I believe any convention action should follow "lower" actions rather than to initiate such actions--because I believe the SBC should be bottom-up, not top-down.
FYI, here is the CBF's comments re: homosexuality and mission, from their website at www. thefellowship.info/AboutUs/FAQ. Note please the third paragraph, which states the organization's position on personnel and administrative funding, and the third which affirms marriage as being bewteen a man and a woman, and refuses to fund homosexuals or organizations which affirm that lifestyle.
"CBF does not issue 'official' positions on homosexuality or other social issues because it violates the Fellowship’s mission as a network of individuals and churches. CBF values and respects the autonomy of each individual and local church to evaluate and make their own decision regarding social issues like homosexuality.
"In 2000, the Fellowship’s national coordinating council did pass a personnel and administrative funding policy, which applies only to the CBF organization – not partnering churches. It states:
"As Baptist Christians, we believe that the foundation of a Christian sexual ethic is faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman and celibacy in singleness. We also believe in the love and grace of God for all people, both for those who live by this understanding of the biblical standard and those who do not. We treasure the freedom of individual conscience and the autonomy of the local church, and we also believe that congregational leaders should be persons of moral integrity whose lives exemplify the highest standards of Christian conduct and character.
"Because of this organizational value, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship does not allow for the expenditure of funds for organizations or causes that condone, advocate or affirm homosexual practice. Neither does this CBF organizational value allow for the purposeful hiring of a staff person or the sending of a missionary who is a practicing homosexual."
Blessings!
John
John:
Thanks for the info. I believe it to be an accurate reflection of current CBF leadershp and the people who voted in 2000 (or whatever) on the homosexual policy (as much as they can have one). The future, in my opinion, is another question.
2 things of note that are important to me.
First, I do believe the BFM as a confession should be used as a standard for doctrinal accountability. I think that is a significant point that we would probably disagree on. I hear you clearly saying that there should be 'some' doctrinal oversight (too strong a word, perhaps) by the national folks, but that the state and local should be supreme. You are right that, historically, is where we were, in a sense. I believe that historically there was much more agreement among the common people in the average church because of the rural nature of the SBC, the Sunday School Board etc. I don't believe it is where we should be, and that is why I supported the CR.
Second, you are correct in the offical policy of the CBF today. I remember the 2000 vote on the employment policy. Bill Sherman, whom I know, spoke in favor of not adopting an open position on homosexuality by arguing "you can't raise missions money and be seen as in favor of gay rights." I appreciate Dr. S, but that is classic. He did not argue from the position of biblical morality, but from a position of pragmatic, missions building.
The CBF will certainly chart its own course, and I wish them well for all of the reasons I have stated. I do believe, however, that the majority of churches in the CBF will eventually (if they do not already) adopt positions that are contrary to the biblical position on this issue.
I hope that does not happen, especially for guys like you. But I suspect that it will.
Thanks, again, for an interesting dialogue.
Louis
Post a Comment