Comments on Baptists Today Blogs: Major disrespect for Baptists

And Jamie: Here is a challenge to you. Go to the...

2008-02-19T11:39:00.000-05:00

And Jamie:
Here is a challenge to you.
Go to the Baptist History and Heritage Society and get a copy of Bill Hull's pamphlet that was given to every participant at the Covenant.
Get copies spread in your church, and have a discussion about Hull's take on what it means to be a Baptist in our time.
Engage the substance, don't lower yourself to cheap drive by's.

Jamie,I can't help but follow up on your post with...

2008-02-15T16:24:00.000-05:00

Jamie,
I can't help but follow up on your post with a question - was it that Clinton, Gore and Carter were highlighted or that there were African American's present that led to your observation? Or both?

From the pictures the New Baptist Covenant looked ...

2008-02-15T14:00:00.000-05:00

From the pictures the New Baptist Covenant looked more like the Democratic National Convention, to me.

In no way to I want to have the appearance of a sm...

2008-02-15T13:13:00.000-05:00

In no way to I want to have the appearance of a smart rear end here, but Marilynne Robinson's The Tyranny of Petty Coercion is genius on this topic, and as I said at the Pierce blog, I heartily recommend it to you and your wider Mercer and Campbell communities.
Would love to see you both blog soon as you can make time to read it in her collection The Death of Adam
Sfox

On one level it is a bit surprising that so much i...

2008-02-13T11:33:00.000-05:00

On one level it is a bit surprising that so much ignorance exists among journalists, politicians, and cultural commentators concerning the complexities of American religious groups and their practices. But no one should be surprised that a Wall Street Journal reporter would approach the gathering in Atlanta with anything other than suspicion when Carter, Clinton and Gore are major speakers. The WSJ's editorial page has sold many papers by criticizing these three on issues of policy and so-called personal motives behind the policies.

I do think, however, that the political nature of the meeting cannot be pushed aside simply because we claim the gathering is non-partisan. While the primary goals of the New Baptist Covenant are not political, there are political implications of adopting theological affirmations that value unity in diversity over doctrinal purity and exclusivist theologies. Carter and others labored to convince the public that the event was not a partisan political gathering, and inviting Grassley, Graham, and others attempted to demonstrate that end. However, just because the meeting was not partisan does not mean that the meeting was not political. To care for the earth, to fight poverty, and to create a more just world may be ideas that many on all sides of the partisan divide can affirm, but eventually ideas must be implemented through political decision making. Martin King may have been stired by a deeply religious vision, but his call for justice had political, indeed partisan, implications. One need only to look at his sermon at the Riverside Church on the American war in Vietnam to see the limits of "apolitical" approaches.

This is a real quandry for moderate Cooperative Baptists Fellowship members who are trying to avoid the partisan politics that have ravaged Baptist life over the last 30 years. The gathering in Atlanta was a real start at building bridges. But as an African American friend who attend the meeting remarked, many African American churches are skeptical of the "apolitical" tone and wonder if it doesn't disarm those groups who have been on the underside of history from the weapons they need to fight racism and injustice.

It does seem odd that the WSJ would send someone f...

2008-02-12T23:00:00.000-05:00

It does seem odd that the WSJ would send someone from the "Taste section" to cover something like the New Baptist Covenant. Perhaps that's just illustrative of how little people outside the Baptist world know about Baptists and how we operate. I would imagine that it's also hard to conceptualize an "apolitical" meeting of Baptists, too.

Be that as it may, I did agree with her on one point. The preponderance of participants did seem to be above the age of 40. I'm not so sure I agree that with her reasons for that phenomenon, though.

My personal feeling is that gatherings like that often undervalue or underappreciate the presence or input of younger participants, which I think might reflect a larger dynamic in society in general. Other dynamics might have been at work as well, but I disagree with her assessment of younger people being more conservative and more drawn to nondenominational churches.

All in all, if we walk away from the New Baptist Covenant and do nothing about the issues with which we were brought face to face, then we'll simply justify the WSJ's decision to send their "deputy Taste editor." It's up to us to prove them wrong in that decision and I hope we do.