bob1, they’ll have to come up with a better candidate’n what they got now 🙂
stopped by here to urge folks to check their budgets and see if there aren’t some $$s to send Michael’s way… there is so much benefit to the Faith of us all from what gets posted here IMHO
Michael.
It doesn’t come across to me as a split of substance. But, one side seems incredibly sensitive to any mention of racism. Not an accusation, but just the mention of the topic alone is enough to cause an uproar.
Beyond that, both sides appear unchanged in pursuit of historical Conservative objectives.
I spent five years telling people Calvary Chapel was going to split before it happened.
I’ve been watching these people interact with other members of the SBC…and a real split is a possibility.
There’s huge money to be made…
One of the discussions that I’m frequently involved in privately is how to secure an income through the use of media in the church…something I’ve failed miserably at.
You have to pick a side and ride it hard…you have to create enemies and stoke the emotional fires of your fellow Christians until they’re foaming at the mouth.
If you’re smart, you’ll pick the “right” side of the political and religious spectrum because those are ones who will put their money where their passions are.
Mix God and country together…wrap your inerrant Bible in the flag and howl that the enemy is at the door.
You won’t be able to count the cash fast enough.
This will work for about five more years…the damage will go on for generations.
As a Lutheran, I look at the Purpose Statement of this new network and the first thing I notice is that Jesus Christ is no where mentioned. That speaks volumes to me.
Anyone know or can speculate on how the neo-Calvinist movement within the SBC
intersects with this? My uneducated hunch would be that they’re leading the parade of the breakaway group…
It’s interesting to compare this statement of conservative SBC, hoping to work together to move the whole denom in their preferred direction, to the large evangelical part on the Uniting Church in Australia (which is a similar to UMC, but with maybe a different mix and a different outcome so far).
In the UCA the presenting issue was a departure from traditional sexual ethics, along with the liberalism that had been there along (I’m simplfying and I’m a non-expert observer). The various statements about “this is where we stand, as a movement with the larger denom” said what they meant.
But the complaint here seems to be anything that smells like it comes from the other side politically. Are they put off by action against racism, abuse etc? Or are ok with those, but afraid action against those things is a Trojan horse for further steps to the left?
Whether evangelism is being neglected is a worthy question, but to tie that in with these other things is disingenous. The conservatives probably stand for many other things that could be equally argued to be distracting from gospel work.
I read an interesting observation from John E. Goldingay in his Word Biblical Commentary on Daniel:
“I have hinted already that the trouble with Antiochus was that he treated religious questions as subordinate to political ones. Nationhood and kingship are not wholly evil, but they do have an irresistible tendency to self-idolatry.”
It’s all yours today…
Good article about why prolifers can (and should )vote Democratic in the coming election.
The author, Michael Gerson, is a well-respected conservative. I think he was an aide to Bush, Jr. and
he’s an evangelical.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-christians-can-be-both-anti-abortion-and-anti-trump/2020/02/13/9afd9654-4e97-11ea-9b5c-eac5b16dafaa_story.html
bob1, they’ll have to come up with a better candidate’n what they got now 🙂
stopped by here to urge folks to check their budgets and see if there aren’t some $$s to send Michael’s way… there is so much benefit to the Faith of us all from what gets posted here IMHO
Em
Second paragraph… agreed!
Looks like the SBC just had the first step toward a split…
http://conservativebaptistnetwork.com
There’s some big money on the table there…
Michael.
It doesn’t come across to me as a split of substance. But, one side seems incredibly sensitive to any mention of racism. Not an accusation, but just the mention of the topic alone is enough to cause an uproar.
Beyond that, both sides appear unchanged in pursuit of historical Conservative objectives.
I think this may turn into a knife fight.
..and I should add, #metoo seems very upsetting and threatening as well.
Nathan,
I spent five years telling people Calvary Chapel was going to split before it happened.
I’ve been watching these people interact with other members of the SBC…and a real split is a possibility.
There’s huge money to be made…
I would agree there is a lot of money at stake. And political influence. I think that is the behind the scenes motivating factors.
Also possibly relavent, is Billy Graham never publicly designated a successor, like as W.B Riley did.
Nathan,
One of the discussions that I’m frequently involved in privately is how to secure an income through the use of media in the church…something I’ve failed miserably at.
You have to pick a side and ride it hard…you have to create enemies and stoke the emotional fires of your fellow Christians until they’re foaming at the mouth.
If you’re smart, you’ll pick the “right” side of the political and religious spectrum because those are ones who will put their money where their passions are.
Mix God and country together…wrap your inerrant Bible in the flag and howl that the enemy is at the door.
You won’t be able to count the cash fast enough.
This will work for about five more years…the damage will go on for generations.
As a Lutheran, I look at the Purpose Statement of this new network and the first thing I notice is that Jesus Christ is no where mentioned. That speaks volumes to me.
https://www.christianpost.com/news/conservative-baptist-network-launched-amid-woke-trend-in-sbc-emphasizing-scripture-evangelism.html
It’s all about politics…and incredibly divisive.
Just what the church needs…not…
Anyone know or can speculate on how the neo-Calvinist movement within the SBC
intersects with this? My uneducated hunch would be that they’re leading the parade of the breakaway group…
There are some Calvinists involved, but this a really a Trump support production.
SBC split? Again?
Woke Up America!
Progressivism is a deadly snake in the garden currently but there are many.
Define “progressivism”…
It’s interesting to compare this statement of conservative SBC, hoping to work together to move the whole denom in their preferred direction, to the large evangelical part on the Uniting Church in Australia (which is a similar to UMC, but with maybe a different mix and a different outcome so far).
In the UCA the presenting issue was a departure from traditional sexual ethics, along with the liberalism that had been there along (I’m simplfying and I’m a non-expert observer). The various statements about “this is where we stand, as a movement with the larger denom” said what they meant.
But the complaint here seems to be anything that smells like it comes from the other side politically. Are they put off by action against racism, abuse etc? Or are ok with those, but afraid action against those things is a Trojan horse for further steps to the left?
Whether evangelism is being neglected is a worthy question, but to tie that in with these other things is disingenous. The conservatives probably stand for many other things that could be equally argued to be distracting from gospel work.
Define “progressivism”…
The current democratic party. JFK would be an unwelcome conservative.
I’m not a partisan, so I’ll define populism/neo-con as the current GOP.
Liberalism and conservatism are dead.
Jim,
I heartily concur…
I read an interesting observation from John E. Goldingay in his Word Biblical Commentary on Daniel:
“I have hinted already that the trouble with Antiochus was that he treated religious questions as subordinate to political ones. Nationhood and kingship are not wholly evil, but they do have an irresistible tendency to self-idolatry.”
Good point by a good Anglican…😀