Are You Still SBC? If So, Go Fuck Yourself.

So, segregation then. Segregation in a voluntry activity is still segregation. There's probably a policy they can trot out to prove they don't actually enforce it either. Nonetheless it happens.

Interesting how other denominations seem to manage just fine with multi racial congregations without resorting to hyperbole about forced bussing. It's almost as though de segregation was a positive move.

Let's get together and wish people were different, bound to achieve a different result this time.

The same faith would be just as misplaced in trusting government to help, given its abysmal track record at 'fixing' the problems it identifies, at identifying the right source of those problems in the first place, at the general of absence of any evidentiary support for the solutions it would impose, and at assessment of success of whichever solutions are tried (which nobody assesses it after the fact anyway).

So, I would truly wish the social engineers and the enlightened the best of luck at forcing the integration of people who feel more comfortable with their own - this is not a case of Jim Crow 'separate but equal' garbage that the vast majority of society agreed made perfect sense to them at the time, and it's not an expression of any existing government policy. It's also not a reflection of church policy, according to what Elwood expressed.

"Interesting how other denominations seem to manage just fine with multi racial congregations" - spot 261

maybe in your location this is the case. Regardless of the denomination there's a saying in the US: "Eleven O'clock on Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in America" and dude truer words were never spoken. Worship styles in general tend to vary greatly from a predominantly black church to a predominantly white church. The actual message might be the same but how it's presented is a whole different thing entirely. Unless you've seen televised (or in person) black churches when they get rolling in high gear they tend to "bring it" with mind, body & soul!

^By now even the English have seen Blues Brothers, dude.

yes that is a funny scene! When I lived in the Chicago area as a kid occasionally I'd be flipping channels (all three of them!) and they would have a Chicago "black" church service on and wow.....quite a cultural difference from the white churches!

James Brown baby.

When I was a kid we attended greek orthodox churches where I could barely understand what the dudes in front were saying. All the congregation were greek orthodox of varied backgrounds, guess spot would have a fix in mind for that too. Friggin social engineer know it alls make me puke.

Which I'm pretty sure you'll agree doesn't really help SBCs' case here. That congregations elsewhere can be mixed race indicates it's not inherent to the idea of religion per se but the culture of that church as currently operating. When a particular section of society is so singularly backward it deserves criticism and it deserves to be labelled racist.

You'll notice I'm not like many here on the left, I don't use that word on a daily basis. I do, however, use it where it is appropriate and such an instance is exactly that.

Except as I've pointed out this isn't a universal constant and such a clear divide between black congregations and white ones suggests strongly that some level of social manipulation is already in place. It may not be written policy (in fact I suspect written policy would be exactly the opposite for fear of ramifications) but nonetheless any such clear divide says a great deal about the culture in place within the organisation. People do tend to congregate (no pun intended) with those they find similar, it's a natural sense of tribalism, but that the intensity of that instinct is correlated to the perception of the "other" as a threat, something to be feared or abhorred, which is the very definition of bigotry.

Or so you think. I disagree. With something like militant Muslims vs West, you might have a point. Blacks that grew up in 'white' culture would almost certainly feel more comfortable in a "white" church. It's not a skin color issue, it's a difference in culture. For the same reason the South had a stereotype of being backward - irrespective of color - it's a cultural not a race thing, and the progressive intellectuals have sold you all a false bill of goods.

Government intrusion is bad. It was bad with that separate but equal theory, and it will be bad when government tries to fix people. Government should first fix itself, by abolishing unnecessary government.

Why did Baptists separate from Anglicanism? There are ritual differences but I can't see much in their beliefs that differs from low church Anglicanism. Is it just a geography thing?

Um, no, I know. It's part of my job to know.

This might help as a quick insight into the psychology of intergroup dynamics, it's basic and gives only the barest overview but it does identify key points and give some references in a field of research which has produced massive amounts of scientific literature.

Crucially it highlights how studies have shown common cause can reduce intergroup prejudice and in group chauvinism, which is precisely the opposite of what we see happening here.

They probably disagreed over the best choice of biscuits to have with their post service tea and coffee.

I'm sure spot261 could answer that better than any of us Americans. His theories are way better than any of our actual experiences.

What makes you think I lack experience or you have any more than I do? Were you there when they split?

I meant in general. It seems you know more about our culture than we do - it's amazing really.

The truth is I just don't much believe in received wisdom or accepting that being immersed in a situation necessarily equips a person to assess its' place in the wider world. Often the best way to understand a thing is to be as objective as possible, which means to view it from a neutral standpoint and where it comes to another culture that typically offers a very different perspective from that of someone currently living in it.

I know that sounds arrogant but consider this, a Brit 150 years ago would view the empire as the pinnacle of civilisation. They'd view colonialism as civilising the world, they'd view industrialisation and mass agriculture to be part of our divine place as stewards of nature, they'd see slavery as the natural order of things. Such a person would be very resistant to you or I suggesting otherwise. We'd doubtless either be faced with outrage or derision, despite all the lessons we've learnt from having the benefit of being at a remove. In point of fact they'd likely react much as you are doing right now.

It took an outside perspective to burst that bubble and bursting it was in fact part of the genesis of the US which has in many ways become the inheritor of that mantle of biggest and baddest on the block. I don't pretend to be such a major influence but I am an outside perspective and frankly am notable not for my views but for my willingness to voice what are actually quite common opinions and observations so openly. It might well be worth hearing those opinions if I am voicing things others are thinking but not saying. These are the things people don't say when Americans are in the room.

Most people are more circumspect and wary of causing offence, I'd rather have the self respect that goes with blunt honesty.

I don't apologise for that, I've a whole lifetime of being the focus of controversy in the real world and I'm not about to start going out of my way to make friends and influence people now, you might have noticed. I alluded recently to having walked away from a major promotion last year, that was precisely because I couldn't make the sorts of compromises I believe were necessary to succeed in the role I had been asked to perform. I've been a union rep and made a whole lot of enemies, I've then sat at tables alongside those enemies and refused to compromise when we had common interest in being disingenuous.

Upsetting people in an internet forum (even people I quite like) is not something I set out to do, but it's small change by comparison.

Volumes upon volumes of work have been written about this and similar topics. Needless to say, there are no "short" answers. But, I'll start the conversation by saying that there are a few major points, one of which is right there in the name. Baptists believe in credobaptism rather than the paedobaptism that my Anglican and Presbyterian brothers and sisters believe in. Another, that pops off the top of my head, is the congregational nature of the local autonomous church. Voluntary association and cooperation is quite different than belonging to a presbytery body. Another is the issue of covenant children. Another is the issue of the eucharist.

you're not bursting any bubbles. There's nothing wrong with offering your opinion (an outside perspective) on things but bear in mind it's not gospel and it's often not accurate. It may be accurate according to what you assume or have read about or been taught (or what the rest of the world has been taught) but that doesn't mean you have a complete grip on something or even close to it.

Nor does not being American make it any less valid, especially where exactly the same comments apply to your own education and experience. Often the least accurate education about a country is that which is taught to its' own citizens. North Koreans would view themselves as being the victims of Western oppression and see KJU as their protector against imperialist aggression because that's what their schools, media and cultural norms tell them. Would you be arrogant or inaccurate telling them he's a dictator and the only aggression they face is in response to his isolationism and belligerence, that their very beliefs are part of that very strategy he employs to control them by provoking external ire?

A lot of the things I've been commenting on haven't been my opinion, they've been empirically verifiable and universal. The nature and psychology of prejudice for instance aren't inherently cultural, they are based in our evolutionary history and are expressed (or not) according to contextual or cultural factors. We can learn to be racist and tribal, it's in our nature to have that capacity and have ready access to it under certain conditions, but we can also unlearn and the ways to achieve that are well documented. What's difficult is putting them into practise. That holds true in Europe, in America, in Australia, in Antarctica. If we ever colonise Mars it'll apply there too.

Likewise (taking some recent examples from around the board) it isn't my opinion when an American is operating under the belief the FA offers unfettered FoS and I show them the actual clauses which specify otherwise.

It's not my opinion when an American doesn't know that the US already has a nuclear policy which implicitly precludes no first fire and I show them that policy.

It's not my opinion when people keep referring to socialism having a legacy of failure and I point them to examples of perfectly successful socialist leaning economies and utterly decrepit capitalist ones.

That's not about being American or not being American, it's about employing factual accuracy.

Basically the took over a hundred years after the end of Reconstruction to officially say, as a Convention, about their origin story history (and subsequent blatant support of Jim Crow) "Yeah, okay, maybe we were KIIIIINDA wrong with all the bigotry . . . but let us tell you about this new bigotry that is totally cool with Jesus!"

there are doctrinal differences but the BIG thing - ironically given the current situation - is that the Baptists in those days passionately despised ANY entanglement between the church and government. The idea of such a thing as "The Church of England" as a literal instrument of the government of England was intolerable. The SBC of the last 40 years is so far from what the basic roots of "Baptists" were that they ought to be ashamed to use the name.

Okay.

Okay. Probably overlaps with @Nova's point about established churches

That seems really creepy, but okay.

What issue is there with that?

You'll have to elaborate. I, nor any Baptist I'm aware of, agree with the concept of covenant children.

Lets start by saying that there is a "new" (came about in the 1950's) acrostic for B.A.P.T.I.S.T.S.

• Biblical Authority
• Autonomy of the Local Church
• Priesthood of the Believer
• Two Ordinances
• Individual Soul Liberty
• Saved Church Membership
• Two Officers
• Separation of Church and State

Since some of those may require an explanation, I'll attempt to do so and I'll endeavor to be brief. Thus, be warned that some of the language may be imprecise.

• Biblical Authority - That the 66-book closed canon of Holy Scripture is the inspired, innerant Word of God. While catechisms, creeds, and confessions are useful and beneficial, they are only truthful insofar as they accurately reflect the Holy Scriptures.
• Autonomy of the Local Church - While association and cooperation are good and beneficial, at the end of the day the local church is congregational in nature meaning that the local body has final say in the leadership, doctrine, policies, and procedures within that local body.
• Priesthood of the Believer - One of the ministries of the Spirit is the illumination of the believer where he (or she) doesn't require the help of clergy to understand the meaning and intent of Holy Scripture.
• Two Ordinances - Believer's Baptism and The Lord's Supper. Both are wholly symbolic in nature and signs of obedience to Scripture. Baptism has absolutely nothing to do with regeneration and the Lord's Supper is most certainly not the literal flesh and blood of Christ. Christ's atoning work on the cross was completed, once and for all, on the day of the crucifixion.
• Individual Soul Liberty - God is a God of conscience. We, as believers, are free to follow our conscience and must not try to exert influence or control another believer's conscience. For instance, many Baptists believe that consuming alcohol in any amount is a sin. I do not hold to that stance. The Holy Scriptures are quite clear on drunkenness, but having an occasional drink is a matter of conscience. Let me give you a practical example. Lets say you and I went out for pizza. It would be fine for me to have a pint or two with you. But, if you're a recovering alcoholic, your conscience would tell you that consuming alcohol is wrong. It would be wrong of me to have a pint or two in front of you as that may be a temptation for you. Now, I do have to provide a caveat. Conscience is not an excuse for sin. Liberty is not an excuse for vice. Nor is conscience an excuse for disrupting the local assembly. If your conscience no longer allows you to sit under the leadership in your local church, the onus is on you to follow the steps laid down in Scripture and, if need be, trust the Spirit to guide you to another church that fits your conscience.
• Saved Church Membership - Pretty straight forward. Everyone, literally everyone, is invited to attend so long as you don't engage in disruptive behavior like heckling during the sermon. But, membership within the local assembly carries various responsibilities and is only open to those who have professed faith in our Lord and Savior.
• Two Officers - Only two offices of leadership are described in the local New Testament Church. These are usually transliterated as Elder and Deacon. To put it plainly, Elders (Pastors) serve the church by leading and Deacons lead the church by serving. The first seven deacons were called in the books of Acts because the widows and orphans weren't being treated properly and the Apostles, due to their limited numbers and other duties, didn't have time to see that this responsibility was given the time and consideration is deserved. The Deacon ministry is also open to women (Romans 16:1-2). However, the office and qualifications of Elders (Pastors) are described in 1 Timothy and Titus. A plurality of Elders is the preferred, and I think biblical, way to govern a church with the congregation calling and dismissing Elders as appropriate.
• Separation of Church and State - This is certainly a Baptist distinctive even though, as Nova rightly pointed out, it has been down-played in recent memory. One need not look any further than the persecution of early Baptists in Western Europe to see why they flocked to the North American colonies.

Personally, I prefer a slightly more modern, if less precise, term for Reformed Baptist distinctives. The "Four C's."

• Confessional
• Congregational
• Cooperative
• Covenental

Again, I'll try to be brief.

• Confessional - In 1845, at the Triennial Convention, is when you have the split between Northern and Southern Baptists. At the time of the split, approximately 95% of the Northern and Southern Baptist Churches held to Reformed Baptist Theology including our great historic confessions of faith. Over time, the Northern Baptists continued their great tradition of scholastic theology rooted in their confessional heritage while the Southern Baptists became embroiled in the liberalization of theology that started in Western Europe and spread to the Americas and is one of the direct causes of the modern evangelical movement. However, since the mid-to-late 1980's there has been a groundswell of support for the SBC to return to its confessional reformed roots. Today, the gospel is spreading across the earth like wildfire in every area except Western Europe and North America. Orthodox Reformed Theology is the fastest growing school of christian theology world wide.
• Congregational and Cooperative - I've already covered the basics under "Autonomy of the Local Church." If you have any questions, please ask.
• Covenental - How do I condense the whole of redemptive history into a few sentences? Just roll with it. It's basically the exact opposite of modern dispensationalism.

Edit: Great, I've turned into @Asyncritus. Why use 10 words when 100 will suffice?

Thanks for that. Certainly informative. I suppose I assumed your reference to covenant children was to something Baptists did do, rather than something they don't.

You guys get going on that stuff and it's like reading The Silmarillion.

While I salute Elwood for his through and correct (insofar as I've ever been taught) reporting of professed belief, LGBT folks who continue to profess Evangelical Christian beliefs would tell you that in practice they do not actually honor A, P, or I

As I'm sure you're aware, you have to understand the past and the people involved to understand how the modern Evangelical and Fundamentalist movements came into being and what they represent. There are Baptists that embrace Evangelical theology, but they are not synonymous. Don't get me wrong, I see a great deal of Evangelical theology within several local Baptist churches. But, it's not their foundational theology like it is with many Pentecostal and Holiness movements/denominations.

For those playing the home game, please note that I'm capitalizing Evangelical when talking about modern "Evangelical" theology and the movement around it. Every Christian is called to evangelize the lost in Matthew 28. I'll paraphrase Spurgeon when he said, "If God had painted yellow stripes on the backs of the elect, I'd go around London lifting coats, and only preaching to those with the stripe. But, to date He has not done so, so I will preach the gospel to all men and God will bring His sheep."

But, to steer us back to the topic at hand, I have to say that the most distressing thing, personally, about the Chronicle article are those 30 men who still maintain a pulpit ministry within a local church after being convicted of a sex crime in another jurisdiction. That's reprehensible.

I have an idea for cutting down on it if not stopping it, but I'll share it later. I have to get in the shower before work.

Here's part 2 of the piece. And here's part 3. The church has pledged to do a better job, we've heard this kind of thing before, with no action being taken.

Federal level background checking would probably help.

Baptist pastor charged with grooming 15-year-old after frantically deleting Snapchat messages