Social Southern Baptists: "We Have Been Guilty of a Sinful Absence of Historical Curiosity."

[Ripskater]

It's not just that church it is the overall internal conflict of the church denouncing the alt-right and white supremacists. Also, as I noted, many in the SBC feel that confederate flag and other historical figures who promoted slavery should not be denounced. Sounds like the split in the church will be down racial lines sadly

There are people that want to denounce Gen. Stonewall Jackson. He was a Christian man who fought for the South. He owned slaves and treated them well. In fact other slaves begged for him to buy them. That was the best option they had back then.

 

[Fugazy]

I like how the feedback was that the church shouldn't support conservatives or has to do something about monuments. Lol.

"Thanks for taking a painful, honest look at your past. Now let's destroy the past and make sure you vote Democrat".

 

[cooks1]

Yes they did have racist SBC members who treated their slaves brutally. The SBC has been acknowledging and apologizing for this for decades.

With the social justice movement recently, these apologies from the SBC are coming out again.

I don't think they have to keep apologizing over and over again. But what we are seeing is all political. Democrats and PC Social Justice Warriors have infiltrated the SBC to change it. There is a movement to liberalize the Southern Baptist Church and some of them are trying to change what is preached from the Bible.

-Issues about adding social justice to the Gospel. Galatians warns about adding to the Gospel. Adding more requirements to be saved. Let the man who does that be cursed. Galatians 1:8

-Some libs wanted the SBC to add women into leadership ranks and eventually women pastors and elders which is not allowed by the Bible

-eventually this is going to the homosexuality issue as well.


I look for the SBC to split. There are thousands of small SBC churches that will not go along with the changing the Gospel and adding liberal politics to be included as part of the Gospel message.

I like Al Mohler on many things, but he has become politically compromised. I don't know if someone is paying him off to do some of this.

RIP, surely even you must acknowledge that there is a great deal that is preached from the Bible that should be changed. A truly pragmatic person of faith would admit this. And the churches failure to do so is gong to continue to be their undoing.

The Bible calls for engaged virgin women to be stoned to death for fucking another dude.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24

“If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.”

Do you actually believe that?

My strong guess is that you are also menstruating quite heavily about the fact that women will be entering the clergy in increasing numbers, which is another big no-no in your dogma.

 

[Ripskater]

I like how the feedback was that the church shouldn't support conservatives or has to do something about monuments. Lol.

"Thanks for taking a painful, honest look at your past. Now let's destroy the past and make sure you vote Democrat".

I'm telling you, that is exactly what this is all about.

 

[Ripskater]

RIP, surely even you must acknowledge that there is a great deal that is preached from the Bible that should be changed. A truly pragmatic person of faith would admit this. And the churches failure to do so is gong to continue to be their undoing.

The Bible calls for engaged virgin women to be stoned to death for fucking another dude.

Do you actually believe that?

My strong guess is that you are also menstruating quite heavily about the fact that women will be entering the clergy in increasing numbers, which is another big no-no in your dogma.

We should preach the Bible. However, we do not have those laws today. Those were the civil laws given by God to the Israelites during Old Testament times.

 

[D 1 Wrestler]

There are people that want to denounce Gen. Stonewall Jackson. He was a Christian man who fought for the South. He owned slaves and treated them well. In fact other slaves begged for him to buy them. That was the best option they had back then.

I bet there were some concentration camp captains for the Nazis who treated some of their slaves better too

 

[WhiteMousse]

You can certainly acknowledge and own up to the role your church played in slavery and racism. Which is what these folks did. Granted, it is merely a drop in the proverbial bucket in terms of addressing religious hypocrisy, but every little bit counts.

Church history is freckled and asymmetrical as anything can be.

"Own up" to the role your church played assumes two unfounded and false notions:
1) That the fault is in any way yours. It's not. As stated by some other posters here as well as God on a few occasions, the sins of the father are precisely that- the father's, not the son's.

2) That the church is not constantly changing, usually to a point of being unrecognizable from what it once was even 50-100 years ago, Baptists included. Catholicism prides itself on being as faithful as possible to what it has always been throughout the generations and it isn't- it is very different from what it was 100 years ago, which was very different from what it was 100 years before that.

You don't "own up" to your church doing things from over a hundred years ago any more than I would "own up" any injustices, perceived or otherwise, committed during the Irish Civil War of the 1920's. I'm Irish, but it has nothing to do with me. My sole responsibility is in simply affirming that it happened, which I should, because it did. But I don't owe anyone an apology.

These people in the Baptist church owe no apologies except ones to the people that they've wronged or exploited, and I somehow doubt that includes any kind of slavery because they weren't the ones who enslaved anyone, and neither did their churches. They shouldn't be sorry and by the way, they're not- they're just trying to score some PR points because they're too timid to just say what everyone already knows and is also afraid to say:

That you're responsible for your own actions, and that when you try to link blame by linking someone to a group, especially in an inter-era context, everyone is fucked. My family tree is traced back hundreds upon hundreds of years. No slavery but I get lumped in with nazis and white nationalists because I'm white and I'm not foaming at the mouth about racism on social media. And here's the thing that will make people REALLY mad:

Even if I did have ancestors that took slaves, I still wouldn't owe anyone an apology for it. The people to whom I owe apologies are the people I've wronged.

 

[Fugazy]

I think this is another case of church leaders being a lot more intelligent and introspective than their constituents. Southern Baptists are still, by and large, a bunch of unrepentant, bigoted, Trump-supporting morons.

Wow.

How about all those non-white Southern Baptists? I think about 25-30% of that org is not white. That a few million folks there. And I'd imagine not quite all of their white members are backwards rednecks....

Or, do you only employ one size brush?

 

[Ripskater]

Church history is freckled and asymmetrical as anything can be.

"Own up" to the role your church played assumes two unfounded and false notions:
1) That the fault is in any way yours. It's not. As stated by some other posters here as well as God on a few occasions, the sins of the father are precisely that- the father's, not the son's.

2) That the church is not constantly changing, usually to a point of being unrecognizable from what it once was even 50-100 years ago, Baptists included. Catholicism prides itself on being as faithful as possible to what it has always been throughout the generations and it isn't- it is very different from what it was 100 years ago, which was very different from what it was 100 years before that.

You don't "own up" to your church doing things from over a hundred years ago any more than I would "own up" any injustices, perceived or otherwise, committed during the Irish Civil War of the 1920's. I'm Irish, but it has nothing to do with me. My sole responsibility is in simply affirming that it happened, which I should, because it did. But I don't owe anyone an apology.

These people in the Baptist church owe no apologies except ones to the people that they've wronged or exploited, and I somehow doubt that includes any kind of slavery because they weren't the ones who enslaved anyone, and neither did their churches. They shouldn't be sorry and by the way, they're not- they're just trying to score some PR points because they're too timid to just say what everyone already knows and is also afraid to say:

That you're responsible for your own actions, and that when you try to link blame by linking someone to a group, especially in an inter-era context, everyone is fucked. My family tree is traced back hundreds upon hundreds of years. No slavery but I get lumped in with nazis and white nationalists because I'm white and I'm not foaming at the mouth about racism on social media. And here's the thing that will make people REALLY mad:

Even if I did have ancestors that took slaves, I still wouldn't owe anyone an apology for it. The people to whom I owe apologies are the people I've wronged.

 

[cooks1]

They've been saying this for decades. Every so many years, they do this again. It's coming up again due to the social justice political movement. How many times does the SBC need to ask for forgiveness? When is it enough?

How long will they have to apologize? I don't know. That depends a lot on their actions moving forward.

The problem they have now is they want to move from being a Racist, Misogynist, Homophobic organization to merely a Misogynist, Homophobic organization. And people are not having it.

You never get to fully separate yourself from your past. Not a person. Not a Company. And not a church.

 

[Ripskater]

How long will they have to apologize? I don't know. That depends a lot on their actions moving forward.

The problem they have now is they want to move from being a Racist, Misogynist, Homophobic organization to merely a Misogynist, Homophobic organization. And people are not having it.

You never get to fully separate yourself from your past. Not a person. Not a Company. And not a church.

I'm glad you said this. Because it highlights leftist thought today.

That white people need to apologize for being white cause maybe some ancestors were racists.

And now the SBC under liberal leadership believes that they need to keep apologizing every year because of what happened in the SBC 170 years ago.

And this apology won't be enough. They will call another conference again soon, draft another statement, and do it all over again.

Like I said, with the left, you need a continual apology for the sins of ancestors.

 

[Fugazy]

I'm telling you, that is exactly what this is all about.

There was a time where I liked NPR and they weren't so heavily slanted. I miss those times once in a while.

At least Car Talk is still available.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Even if I did have ancestors that took slaves, I still wouldn't owe anyone an apology for it. The people to whom I owe apologies are the people I've wronged.

"The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation." (Numbers 14:18)

You know jack about the God of the bible. Stay in your lane.

 

[cooks1]

Church history is freckled and asymmetrical as anything can be.

"Own up" to the role your church played assumes two unfounded and false notions:
1) That the fault is in any way yours. It's not. As stated by some other posters here as well as God on a few occasions, the sins of the father are precisely that- the father's, not the son's.

2) That the church is not constantly changing, usually to a point of being unrecognizable from what it once was even 50-100 years ago, Baptists included. Catholicism prides itself on being as faithful as possible to what it has always been throughout the generations and it isn't- it is very different from what it was 100 years ago, which was very different from what it was 100 years before that.

You don't "own up" to your church doing things from over a hundred years ago any more than I would "own up" any injustices, perceived or otherwise, committed during the Irish Civil War of the 1920's. I'm Irish, but it has nothing to do with me. My sole responsibility is in simply affirming that it happened, which I should, because it did. But I don't owe anyone an apology.

These people in the Baptist church owe no apologies except ones to the people that they've wronged or exploited, and I somehow doubt that includes any kind of slavery because they weren't the ones who enslaved anyone, and neither did their churches. They shouldn't be sorry and by the way, they're not- they're just trying to score some PR points because they're too timid to just say what everyone already knows and is also afraid to say:

That you're responsible for your own actions, and that when you try to link blame by linking someone to a group, especially in an inter-era context, everyone is fucked. My family tree is traced back hundreds upon hundreds of years. No slavery but I get lumped in with nazis and white nationalists because I'm white and I'm not foaming at the mouth about racism on social media. And here's the thing that will make people REALLY mad:

Even if I did have ancestors that took slaves, I still wouldn't owe anyone an apology for it. The people to whom I owe apologies are the people I've wronged.

You seem to have quite a preoccupation with blame and apology. I said nothing about either. Acknowledging and owning up to something means nothing more or less than those 2 words. Acknowledging the fact that something happened in the past and owning up to the fact that it was wrong.

I agree that if your ancestors had slaves, you should not feel compelled to apologize for them. That's on them. But that is completely different than simply acknowledging the fact that it happened and admitting that it was wrong.

If your grandfather got drunk on Thanksgiving and took a shit on the coffee table in front of everyone, it's not on you to apologize for him. Unless you brought him. But saying 'Yeah, my grandfather got drunk and took a shit on the coffee table, that was some #1 bullshit' is not only appropriate but necessary.

 

[WhiteMousse]

"The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation." (Numbers 14:18)

You know jack about the God of the bible. Stay in your lane.

You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

You realize the Bible contradicts itself, right?

I was a pastor for seven years. I majored in NT Crit.

 

[WhiteMousse]

You seem to have quite a preoccupation with blame and apology. I said nothing about either. Acknowledging and owning up to something means nothing more or less than those 2 words. Acknowledging the fact that something happened in the past and owning up to the fact that it was wrong.

I agree that if your ancestors had slaves, you should not feel compelled to apologize for them. That's on them. But that is completely different than simply acknowledging the fact that it happened and admitting that it was wrong.

If your grandfather got drunk on Thanksgiving and took a shit on the coffee table in front of everyone, it's not on you to apologize for him. Unless you brought him. But saying 'Yeah, my grandfather got drunk and took a shit on the coffee table, that was some #1 bullshit' is not only appropriate but necessary.

"Owning Up" is a misnomer. I'm not preoccupied with blame or apologies. I'm preoccupied with precision in words and you're not being precise. This is demonstrated when you conflate "Owning Up" with "Acknowledge". You know the difference, don't be coy.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Southern Baptist Seminary Confronts History Of Slaveholding And 'Deep Racism'

"The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, came into being in 1845 as the church of southern slaveholders.

Now, 173 years later, Southern Baptist leaders are not just acknowledging their dark history; they are documenting it, as if by telling the story in wrenching detail, they may finally be freed of its taint.

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the denomination's flagship institution, this week released a 71-page report on the role racism and support for slavery played in its origin and growth.

"The founding fathers of this school—all four of them—were deeply involved in slavery and deeply complicit in the defense of slavery," writes SBTS president R. Albert Mohler, Jr., in a letter accompanying the report. "Many of their successors on this faculty, throughout the period of Reconstruction and well into the 20th century, advocated the inferiority of African-Americans and openly embraced the ideology of the Lost Cause of southern slavery."

"We have been guilty of a sinful absence of historical curiosity," Mohler, 59, wrote in the introductory letter. "We knew, and we could not fail to know, that slavery and deep racism were in the story. We comforted ourselves that we could know this, but since these events were so far behind us, we could move on without awkward and embarrassing investigations and conversations."

That story is now told, in a way only Southern Baptists themselves could tell it. The report draws heavily on seminary archives, including correspondence among the four founders. Between them, they held more than 50 enslaved persons.

The report acknowledges that the only reason a separate southern Baptist denomination was formed was because northern Baptists refused to appoint slaveholders as missionaries."

I think this is a good start, and Mohler seems like a sincere and devout man. I think the phrase, "Sinful absence of historical curiosity." Is the whole story in a line; and makes it relevant to so much more than just the origins of a particular religious sect.

"Sinful absence of historical curiosity." Let that line sink in for a moment. Not wanting to know the historical roots of oppression-- wanting to live in comfortable and easy ignorance-- is described as a sin.

Kudos.

Still, some feel that this report stops short of the full reckoning that the Southern Baptist Church needs to bring it into genuine Christian social justice:

"Making a statement about Confederate monuments might be a next step," says Alison Greene, a historian of U.S. religion at Emory University in Atlanta, "or taking a stand on questions of voting rights in the 21st century. That would be really significant."

Greene, who was herself raised as a Southern Baptist, found the seminary report lacking in its failure to acknowledge any consequence of the denomination's recent association with conservative politicians and the policies they have promoted.

"It papers over a generation of hand-in-glove cooperation with efforts to roll back every single social program that served African-Americans or promised to rectify, even in the smallest ways, the gross economic and social effects of enslavement and segregation and inequality on black communities," Greene says.

Not sure it's fair to judge members of a religion in terms of their historical relationship to slavery when the New Testament they read every week in church - to this very day - contains passages like these:

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." (Ephesians 6:5)

"Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven." (Colossians 4:1)

 

[ultramanhyata]

You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

You realize the Bible contradicts itself, right?

I was a pastor for seven years. I majored in NT Crit.

Then you should be ashamed of your biblical illiteracy. (I also don't think Jesus would approve of your tone here.)

 

[WhiteMousse]

Then you should be ashamed of your biblical illiteracy. (I also don't think Jesus would approve of your tone here.)

I'm perfectly biblically literate. Certainly enough to recognize when you cherry-pick scripture to support whatever bullshit notions you want to propogate. I did that for a long time, I should know.

Jesus doesn't approve or disapprove of anything. He hasn't in about 2000 years.

 

[Ripskater]

"The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation." (Numbers 14:18)

You know jack about the God of the bible. Stay in your lane.

Children do suffer from their fathers sins, but the Bible does not say they need to repent for their father’s sins. They cannot do that.

Maybe it’s you that needs to stay in yo lane?