Josh wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 9:27 am
Liberals are attempting to capture the SBC just like they have captured thousands of other American institutions.
The proper thing to do when liberals show up is:
- Kick them out
- If you can’t, leave with as many people and resources as possible
The alternative is to end up kind the “Boy Scouts”, who are now a homosexuality-promotion organisation.
In the start of his 18min video, VB spells out how [Putin in Ukraine is archaic/primitive, violence is primitive].
He diesn’t mention Ukraine. His video is about SBC. As Josh points out, it’s a structured battle plan, effective+determined.
Today’s ferocious battles are fought “without firing a shot.” Mind control.
Ken wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 3:35 pm
The are actually doing the opposite. And purging those like Russell Moore who are not conservative enough for their tastes.
Moving towards having women pastors is not becoming more conservative.
Right. It is becoming more Holy Spirit guided.
In the churches where I have circulated my whole life, there are various renditions of a quote like this. "The Holy Spirit will never tell someone to do something that is forbidden in the New Testament, or that people can stop doing something that the New Testament teaches."
Did you hear anything like this in your churches over the years or what would your churches have said about a statement like this?
As an outsider I suppose that the development can be described as a conflict of two tendencies, both nearly inevitable:
1. Southern Baptists became the brand name for a "Protestant conservative counterculture" - which brought the denomination a lot of new adherents, above all in the North.
2. Shortly afterwards there rose a countermovement out of "leaders" who were informed by American College culture and hoped and tried to remove the denomination into the direction of their college values, i.e. to mainstream Protestantism.
"Both at the same time" doesn't work. The SBC must lose part of its adherents, either the countercultural type or the college-cultural type. (Due to indecision they tend to lose at both sides!)
Now I see that if you are a liberal individual within a conservative counterculture, this is uncomfortable. But there are a lot of alternatives where you can find equals. On the other hand, if you are a conservative individual within a liberal surrounding, alternatives are harder to find. That's why I hope that the conservative brand of Southern Baptists survives.
As you see, my reflections are rather mundane. I look at Christian churches as providers for emotional needs.
I would argue that the commandment to love implies that we develop multiple institutions so that everyone is effectively provided according to his gut feelings and isms.
PetrChelcicky wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 6:34 am
As an outsider I suppose that the development can be described as a conflict of two tendencies, both nearly inevitable:
1. Southern Baptists became the brand name for a "Protestant conservative counterculture" - which brought the denomination a lot of new adherents, above all in the North.
2. Shortly afterwards there rose a countermovement out of "leaders" who were informed by American College culture and hoped and tried to remove the denomination into the direction of their college values, i.e. to mainstream Protestantism.
"Both at the same time" doesn't work. The SBC must lose part of its adherents, either the countercultural type or the college-cultural type. (Due to indecision they tend to lose at both sides!)
Now I see that if you are a liberal individual within a conservative counterculture, this is uncomfortable.
But there are a lot of alternatives where you can find equals. On the other hand, if you are a conservative individual within a liberal surrounding, alternatives are harder to find. That's why I hope that the conservative brand of Southern Baptists survives.
As you see, my reflections are rather mundane. I look at Christian churches as providers for emotional needs.
I would argue that the commandment to love implies that we develop multiple institutions so that everyone is effectively provided according to his gut feelings and isms.
temporal1 wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 10:39 am
“The Coverup You Never Heard About” | Voddie Baucham / 18min
2019 Vote: SBC Resolution 9 (CRT and intersectionality)
2019 to 2022 = 3 years (old math)
temporal1 wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 11:19 am
[Refer to above Voddie Baucham 18min video.] ^^^
Josh wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 9:27 am
Liberals are attempting to capture the SBC just like they have captured thousands of other American institutions.
The proper thing to do when liberals show up is:
- Kick them out
- If you can’t, leave with as many people and resources as possible
The alternative is to end up kind the “Boy Scouts”, who are now a homosexuality-promotion organisation.
PetrC,
Did you view the VB video?
(i’m no expert on VB.)
(i’ve never been part of SBC or any Baptist group.)
One of the biggest challenges VB (and Josh) described is how effective patterns of “infiltrate, divide+conquer,”
are promoted with public funds, and protected by law. This, by design, makes it insidious, difficult to remove. No accident.
This topic is about SBC.
As Josh points out, the problem is found in all churches+institutions, faith based or secular, political.
It’s not new, not unique to SBC.
SBC makes a good example.
Esp in view of VB’s observation of what has unfolded, 2019-2022, and HOW it unfolded. 3 years.
Like sheep to the slaughter.
VB’s video has a few annoying distractions. Be patient. His observations about strategies+patterns are important.
Strategies+patterns are not of Jesus Christ.
Strategies+patterns appeal to seductive human intellect. “We” love believing we are smarter than God. LOVE IT.
Illiterates can be faithful believers. That’s how God works. The sublime mystery of faith.
Last edited by temporal1 on Sun May 22, 2022 8:32 am, edited 2 times in total.
The Southern Baptists started because they supported slavery while the northern baptists didn't. They continue, and have even increased their association, with right-wing politics. Those who want to follow Jesus care for the poor and immigrants, so the Southern Baptists don't feel much like Jesus followers to many.
JimFoxvog wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 8:20 am
The Southern Baptists started because they supported slavery while the northern baptists didn't. They continue, and have even increased their association, with right-wing politics. Those who want to follow Jesus care for the poor and immigrants, so the Southern Baptists don't feel much like Jesus followers to many.
If you listen to VB to the end of the 18 min, which i understand might be specially painful to you, i believe he briefly addresses a pitfall of harboring too much “inherited” guilt, how that, in itself, creates a sad+opposite pitfall. Not confined to SBC, or even to the U.S.
And, no, i still do not believe Jesus suggested organizing politically to care for the poor+immigrants. Altho He certainly could have.
Jesus was not about appropriation of taxes/public treasuries.
Interesting how you describe yourself as an intentional avoider of paying taxes, yet you are keenly interested in distribution/redistribution of taxes. (Not that you are alone.) i’m no longer much of a tax payer, not since my husband died.
Josh wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 4:51 pm
Moving towards having women pastors is not becoming more conservative.
Right. It is becoming more Holy Spirit guided.
In the churches where I have circulated my whole life, there are various renditions of a quote like this. "The Holy Spirit will never tell someone to do something that is forbidden in the New Testament, or that people can stop doing something that the New Testament teaches."
Did you hear anything like this in your churches over the years or what would your churches have said about a statement like this?
I don't recall anything worded like that but I have often heard to 'rightly divide the word of truth' we need to seek the Holy Spirit's guidance in understanding what is in the New Testament that is literally applicable in practise today and what the intention was when things were written in the situation of that time and place and seek the Holy Spirit's guidance to how to live out the principle involved in our current setting.
For example, those who do not believe the gifts of the Spirit as described in 1 Cor 12 have determined that 1 Cor 13 indicates these have ceased and that our bibles now are the completed direction we have to live by. In 1 Cor 13 it does indicate that tongues and prophecy will cease but it also includes knowledge. So, then this needs to be rightly understood. And when is it that we quit 'knowing in part' as this chapter says ? Is it when everyone finally got a chance to have their own personal bibles ? Or will it be in the future when we see Jesus ? In 1 Cor 14 Paul continues to write that they should eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit. Are all Anabaptists and others eagerly desiring the Holy Spirit to give them these supernatural gifts today ? In my observations, no. Although some will not agree they have ceased, they also are being disobedient to not eagerly desire them. Can we just stop doing what this text says to do in 1 Cor 14:1 ?
2 Corinthians 3:6 states “He has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit produces life.” So, does this mean we don't need our bibles (if we interpret 'the letter' as our bibles) ? How might a literalist take this text ? Is our understanding producing life in the Spirit ?
Jesus told His disciples to in Mark 3:12 - 'But he gave them strict orders not to tell others about him.' So, Jesus doesn't want us to tell others about Him ? No, this was to be taken literally by them at that time and place only.
Anyway, I believe there are many truths to be lived out in the NT writings but not all as literally expressed to that immediate audience. We need the Spirit to guide us and still we now 'see through a glass darkly ' and only 'know in part'. And that too is a text supporting a view.
Regarding women as teachers and leaders I personally do not view this being a male only role but believe it was one that was correct for the church at that time and necessary to best avoid disruptions and avoiding being side-tracked in furthering the Kingdom. There is no doubt in my mind that God has and continues to use believers today, regardless of being male or female to further His Kingdom. Being raised in a church with a woman pastor and seeing God working in her to teach and bring many to the Lord is assurance enough that God is not making this the big issue that some do. The way some men use scriptures to 'keep women in their place' is sad, imo, and is an obstacle to furthering the Kingdom. Thank God, He isn't stymied by some of the way scriptures are used.
Josh wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 8:20 am
The SBC is transitioning to becoming a mainline denomination. (Examples are women pastors and adopting a more affirming lgbt stance.)
I wouldn’t call the subsequent shrinkage a matter of God’s blessing or cursing, but simple sociology. For whatever reason, mainline style denominations shrink.
The command in our scripture was clear for women to be silent in church.
Then it is pushed - "No they should be able to teach Sunday School".
Then it is pushed - "No they should be able to speak in adult Sunday School".
Then it is pushed - "They have a right to speak over their husbands".
Then it is pushed - "They have the right to tell their pastor husband what to preach".
Then it is pushed - "They have the right to push, persuade, and create agendas for the bros in the church".
Then it is pushed - "They have a place in a vote with the brothers meeting".
Then it is pushed - "They can become pastors."
SO apparently, somewhere along the line the Bible was compromised.
Also, the teachings of the earliest Christians.
It's very clear their role. People just don't like to admit the Bible doesn't yield to their "modern feminism".
Correction & Reproof.
