Talk:Southern Baptist Convention/Archive 1

Conservative Resurgence
The whole section on the "Conservative Resurgence" completely violates the neutral viewpoint principle. The title itself suggests the writer's bias. Those on the moderate side of the convention would refer to it as the "Conservative Takeover" - just as biased, but a valid viewpoint. Reverting the section back to the previous "Factions" text, would be closer to the neutral view. [Unsigned comment by User:Chfowler 04:28, 27 March 2005]

I would also like to correct what I perceive as an error. The article states that the BGCT was the first State convention to remove itself from the SBC (1998) and that this did not cause a schism in the SBC. That is not entirely true. The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship was created in 1991 by moderate voices in the Southern Baptist Convention, as a reaction to the "Conservative Takeover." Many felt that the SBC was moving away from traditional Baptist distinctives and attempting to create a hierarchical, creedal denomination. For further information about the CBF and its work, please see: http://www.thefellowship.info. [Unsigned comment by User:217.40.39.249 13:57, 26 May 2005]

Paul Pressler
The Paul Pressler article that "The Controversy" section links to is the wrong Paul Pressler. Information about the SBC-related Judge Paul Pressler can be found on sourcewatch.org, on amazon.com, in the About The Author section, and The Council for National Policy: Selected Member Biographies. Also, his first book, A Hill On Which To Die, contains significant biographical information. [Unsigned comment by User:128.205.145.4 22:31, 31 July 2005]

help!!!!
I need more SBC people listed at conservative Christianity. [Unsigned comment by User:Kdbuffalo 20:35, 29 August 2005]

Removed from article
I found the following contribution (in context, actual edit in italics):


 * It has 1,200 local associations, 41 state conventions and fellowships, and supports thousands of missionaries worldwide (over NOT TEN THOUSAND SOME IDIOT LIED SOMEBODY NEEDS TO FIX THIS AIM FOR LESS THAN TEN THOUSAND in 2003).

I reverted the article to its prior version, but would someone (who can type in both upper & lower case) research this & make the necessary changes -- with the necessary citations? -- llywrch 23:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * User:Llywrch, I found the following at http://www.sbc.net/missionswork.asp
 * Through the International Mission Board, Southern Baptists support 4,946 international missionaries in 153 different countries. Southern Baptist's North American Mission Board helped to send out 5,081 missionaries in North America last year and help start over 1,700 new churches.


 * I'm not a Southern Baptist and not a particular fan of their way of doing missions. BUT if I can add correctly the Southern Baptists support 10027 missionaries in some fashion - which is over 10,000 (assuming that none of the missionaries supported by the International & North American Boards are the same). In case the 2003 date is incorrect, I am changing it to 2005 (assuming that the site is current). - Rlvaughn 20:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Liturgical??
Usually in the social sciences (especially Political Science) the term “mainline denominations” refers to liturgical churches, e.g. Methodist, Episcopalian, Lutheran, and the like. xx [Unsigned comment by User:70.241.39.226 19:36, 3 November 2005]


 * The mainline churches include both liturgical and pietistic. The SBC started out as mostly pietistic but I think it has become increasingly liturgical (with emphasis on powerful ministers, role of Baptism, separate communion, anti-heresy etc). Rjensen 10:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Anti-heresy does not relate to whether the church is liturgical or not. Liturgy has to do with the ritual of sacraments.--Parkwells (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad Link to Jack Graham
The link to Jack Graham in the Prominent Southern Baptists Section (Jack Graham, pastor of the 25,000 member Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, Texas.) links to a biography of another person, not Pastor Graham. I just thought the article creator or someone otherwise might want to fix it. [Unsigned comment by User:67.173.221.96 04:55, 25 December 2005]

Partisan books?
Someone added -- Jerry Sutton, The Baptist Reformation: The Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention -- under the heading partisan books. Are we to assume that there is no bias in any of the other secondary sources listed in the article? [Unsigned comment by User:216.62.168.234 17:38, 21 February 2006]


 * Partisan means the goal of a book is to argue for one side or the other. Sutton's publisher claims the book is "a testimony and an expression of gratitude to those who worked to bring about the Baptist Reformation" [Amazon.com]. That is it clearly takes sides, arguing one side is right and the other side is wrong. That makes it "partisan". The category says nothing about "bias" -- Wiki is NOT supposed to tell the reader which side is right or wrong.  Rjensen 03:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia stays NPOV by presenting multiple views of an issue. The book reference is fine and should not be separated. Other view points can be added to balance out the article if needed. Separating out the book is pov. --FloNight 19:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Header
I'm removing the NPOV header, as no discussion was added to this talk page by the person who added it. I personally think the article is pretty even-handed. Chfowler 19:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Misleading Date
From the "Controversies in SBC history" section, next to last paragraph, "This change in control, termed the "Conservative Resurgence" by supporters and the "Fundamentalist Takeover" by detractors, culminated in the adoption of significant changes to the Baptist Faith and Message at the 2000 SBC Annual Meeting. At this point, the moderates then formed the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF)," -This implies that the CBF began in 2000 when it actually began in 1991. [Unsigned comment by User:84.191.210.75 20:03, 4 May 2006]

Southern Baptism Founded on Slavery
Why no mention of slavery except for one sentence? Slavery was the PRIMARY reason Southern baptists split with Northern baptists. The issue of slavery needs to be expanded greatly since it was a major part of Southern baptist history. You cannot escape history. Here are sources to get you started.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NXG/is_1_37/ai_94160891

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n21_v112/ai_17332136

http://www.highbeam.com/library/docfree.asp?DOCID=1G1:17094060&ctrlInfo=Round19%3AMode19b%3ADocG%3AResult&ao=

http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/sbc.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_United_States

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/043.html

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/bible_slavery.html

[Unsigned comment by User:66.212.41.199 21:11, 6 May 2006]


 * Agreed. The history section should cover the reasons to why there is a branch of Soutern Baptism— the most obvious reason was the congregations of the North and South's differing beliefs on slavery under Christianity.  As an African American historian and somewhat of a Southern Baptist, I would like to see these history issues covered in detail.  — №tǒŖïøŭş  4lĭfė   ♫   ♪


 * I agree and have added some material and a cite. Before the Revolution and even in the early 19th c., Baptists recommended manumission of slaves and were against the hierarchy of class. They changed and accommodated themselves to the southern environment.--Parkwells (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The term "slave" or "slavery" now appears fifteen (15) times in the article. It has gone from inadequate to an overkill. I completely support reporting this embarrassing history, but the redundancy detracts from objectivity. Afaprof01 (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Dakota Fanning
Dakota Fanning is a Southern Baptist? Does anybody know where this information came from? Is it true? A hoax? This is the first time I've ever seen this mentioned and I couldn't find any verification of it. Tsm1128 21:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Footwashing?
Do the Southern Baptists practice footwashing? [Unsigned comment by User:198.236.216.252 16:43, 29 June 2006]

Not as a standard practice. [Unsigned comment by User:84.191.206.99 08:31, 30 June 2006]


 * Okay. [Unsigned comment by User:198.236.216.252 19:03, 3 July 2006]


 * But some Baptists groups do so--General Association of General Baptists for example [Randall Balmer, Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism 2004 p 285] and the Original Free-Will Baptists and esp the United Baptists in Kentucky. [New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia p 477] Rjensen 19:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks again. I believe Primitive Baptists do too. [Unsigned comment by User:198.236.216.252 19:25, 11 July 2006]


 * Feet washing is not a widespread practice of churches within the Southern Baptist Convention, but some churches do practice it. The most notable areas would be in north Alabama, north Georgia, and on up into the Appalachias. Even in these places, though, it is a minority practice. - Rlvaughn 03:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend it. Especially after a long hot day's work:) Plantalion 17:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Who removed the statement on eternal hellfire?
That is absolutely true, even more so today. A baptist minister should be ashamed to remove such information since it is true. 213.96.18.235 23:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the reference to eternal hellfire. I have been a member of four SBC churches and I currently am the pastor at a fifth and I cannot recall a single time that a preacher made mention of "eternal hellfire" in the invitation. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen (I may be forgetting the few times it occured) but it does mean that it is not common enough to be a part of the "Practices" section of the SBC encyclopedic article. Eugeneacurry 04:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - I was raised in and have been a member of Southern Baptist churches my entire (39 year) life, all of them in Texas, and I can't recall any time this was mentioned in an invitation. Maybe I was lucky to be in the "right" kind (read moderate) churches. Chfowler 15:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe not those exact words, but my pastor has used the term "spending an enterity in Hell, seperated from God." [Unsigned comment by User:Gcal1971 14:21, 13 April 2007]

Reformed?
Anyone know the history of the convention and reformed theology? Akubhai 15:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Most SBC church (if they have actually sat down and thought about it) would likely stake out some sort of theological position with a significant Reformed flavor (Perseverance of the Saints is even enshrined in the Baptist Faith and Message). But even so thoroughgoing Reformed theology has been and continues to be a source of controversy within the convention.  Some (like Albert Mohler) consider themselves Reformed, others (like the late Adrian Rogers) not only eschew such an identity but vigorously oppose such ideas. Eugeneacurry 18:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Reformed theology often goes by the name Calvinism, though that is part of the debate. If you haven't seen it, I recommend an excellent article in Christianity Today, September, 2006, entitled "Young, Restless, Reformed—Calvinism is making a comeback—and shaking up the church." It is accessible online: (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/september/42.32.html). Somewhat related is a sacramentalism resurgence described in what today is footnote 15 in Baptist. Afaprof01 23:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just pointing out the recent Building Bridges Conference on Calvinism hosted by Founders Ministries that discussed this issue. Nhoj (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Moderate vs Liberal and "from their perspective"
Everything in this article is "from the perspective" of the convention. However, a certain user deems it necessary to put this phrase only after the place where Southern Baptists "are historically strong on shunning theological error". Of course it is from their perspective, but adding the phrase, basically, being redundant, is a NPOV implying that Southern Baptists are wrong.

Regarding moderate vs liberal. The conservatives, as the article notes, threw out the liberals from within. This same user continues to say "moderates", which is not NPOV, and not factual. As many links as could be provided for moderate could be provided for liberal. Please refrain from "rewriting history" from your perspective. 65.213.184.1 18:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have been watching this little disagreement for the past few days. Please understand that the terms "moderate" and "liberal" are sort of synonymous. There's also the problem that the word "Liberal" can be used perjoratively (as in Liberal elite). On the other hand, there is an article on Liberal Christianity. In the Roman Catholic Church it is known as Modernism.


 * Those within the SBC who are familiar with the "conservative resurgence" would use the term "Liberal" to describe those who were not conservative. I would suggest, however, that it is likely that these people do not class themselves as "Liberal" but "Modernist" or "Progressive". May I suggest the use of the word "Progressive"?


 * --One Salient Oversight 23:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Those within the present SBC who engineered the takeover like the polite term, "conservative." I've read articles where they are described as "red-necked fundamentalists." As always with labels, one has to ask, "compared to what?" In any case, "Liberal" is not going to fly! Conservative-moderate is politely favorable to the majority of both groups. CME GBM 17:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Seriously, if one side is conservative, the other side is liberal. I don't really see the controversry here, and particularly within the context of this argument. "Conservatives" can be seen just as "liberals" within negative connotations, but in this case, it is accurate per the terms of this discussion with regards to each side. The POV of the article would remain neutral if the opposing sides were "conservative" and "liberal". "Progressive" is a political term which isn't even completely defined, but within the context of Christianity, conservative and liberal are fairly well known. Just wanted to keep things within NPOV. Where is that user who kept reverting without discussion? hmm. 65.34.106.27 21:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please Afapro1, refrain from changing from "liberal" to "moderate" without discussion. 65.34.106.27 05:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we are having that discussion here. First, I respectfully disagree that "'moderate' and 'liberal' are sort of synonymous," as suggested in an earlier comment. Second, I similarly disagree that "if one side is conservative, the other side is liberal." That is to ignore the fact that we are talking about a continuum, not two discrete points. Therefore, individuals and groups who band together because they are like-minded to some degree can "fall" anywhere on the continuum. As pointed out by the dictionary people, there is a "progression of values varying by minute degrees." Just as "good" and "bad" stand at opposite ends of a continuum instead of describing the two halves of a line (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/continuum), so do "liberal" and "conservative" stand at opposite ends of a progression of ethical and theological values. "Moderate" implies "avoiding extremes" and "tending toward the mean or average." That well describes those you wish to brand as liberal. I completely agree that "Progressive" and "Modernist" are completely inappropriate here. Thanks. Afaprof01 23:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

State Conventions List
I've begun a list of the state conventions within the SBC within the section on, what else, "State Convention". Please contribute to this list so that it will become comprehensive over time. Eugeneacurry 16:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversy Split
As all good Baptists know, the way to multiply is sometimes to divide. And as all good Wikipedians know, the way to write good articles is sometimes to split articles. I think we should split the takeover section to a new article. It was a significant enough upheaval in Baptist life to warrant its own section. Sighter Goliant 15:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Women's Role
It seems to me that the information in this section, while worth including in the article in some fashion, does not deserve its own separate section on par with "Theology" and "Practice". Does anyone object to simply inserting the information (in condensed form) in to the "Practice" section? Eugeneacurry 16:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. It is a huge issue that affects more than half of the people in the Convention. It is both theologically-based and a practice. Afaprof01 07:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think calling the official pronouncements on the role of women in SBC churches a "huge issue" is a bit of an over-statement considering that less than .1% of SBC churches are pastored by women. Furthermore the WELS, LCMS, PCA, RCC and many others do not allow women to be pastors/rectors/priests and yet none of their Wikipedia articles give equal time to such stances as to their whole theology. How about including a number of subsections in either the "theology" or "practice" sections and including the role of women among the salient points? Eugeneacurry 16:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless someone has a good reason why the "women's role" section needs to be a seperate section on par with "theology" and "practice" in light of the above information I'll integrate the information into the "practice" section. Eugeneacurry 16:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "More than half" refers to the fact that more than half of the SBC's membership are women. BF&M2000 formalized it as a theological issue. It was one of the issues considered by present SBC leadership to be "liberal" and therefore became a significant part of the schism. It now is an SBC distinctive, as it also is with the denominations/churches you listed, plus others. Informal non-liturgical worship would be a "practice" without theological significance. The Lord's Supper, Baptism, and Women's legislated role are based on SBC interpretation of scripture, therefore theological. Afaprof01 01:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not a big enough topic for a whole new section. Think if this were a print encyclopedia. This is not the things people think when they think Southern Baptist. [Unsigned comment by User:69.138.111.246 04:42, 10 July 2007]]


 * This is the first time for the SBC to take a theological position that limits women in ministry and in marriage. These BF&M statement completely ignore all of Christ's examples of how he dignified, respected, and enabled women. Afaprof01 23:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Here we go, now afaprof01 is beginning to expose her feminist agenda. Keep an eye on this one...CLICK --A B Pepper 16:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this statement reveals just how trivial the "Women's Role" section really is. It hasn't been included by some disinterested individual seeking to bring comprehensiveness to the article; it was included and defended by people motivated by a theological agenda and, apparently, a significant antipathy to the recent changes in the SBC.  The anonymous contributor is correct, a print encyclopedia would not give nearly this much attention to the SBC's stance on women.  Special interest edits are out of place here. A discussion of this matter, if it need appear anywhere, should be in the BF&M article-- which it is.Eugeneacurry 16:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree. How can this be a "special interest" edit when the SBC now has a theological position on women in ministry and in marriage? The deletion gives the impression that the editor prefers to sweep the issue under the proverbial rug. It is the first time ever that Baptists have restricted women's role/position in ministry and in marriage. Trivial? Not to a Baptist woman who grew up in the church and now finds that her church requires her theologically to graciously submit herself to husband headship--whereas that has never been an SBC official position before. And not to a Baptist woman who has felt and surrendered to the call of Christ to minister in His name within the church, perhaps has spent years and financial investment preparing herself in a seminary--only to have it shoved in her face that she's now unqualified, solely on the basis that she was not born male, to serve the Lord in her church in a pastoral or other ministerial staff position. Jesus certainly didn't understand this to be the case when He commissioned the women, especially Mary of Magdala, to proclaim the most essential fact of the Christian faith: that He is risen! Apostle Paul didn't tell Priscilla that she was out of place when she and Aquila taught the powerful preacher, Apollos, "the word of God more effectively." The complainant has already successfully moved the controversy section, although other denominational articles properly include their major controversies in their main article. "Women's Role" must not fall victim to the same deflection via displacement. And you're right, I'm not disinterested. But as an SBC Baptist pastor, neither is Eugeneacurry. Truth be told! If it's truth, Someone said it would set us free. Reverting removal. Afaprof01 02:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is absolutely not the first time that Baptists have restricted women's role's in both ministry and marriage. The National Baptist Convention has a long tradition of disallowing women from holding pastoral positions .  Likewise, the Baptist General Conference has adopted resolutions on the family explicitly calling on wives to submit to the leadership of their husbands .  Dozens of similar examples could be drawn from smaller separatist groups in the US and groups in foreign countries.  This blatant untruth only further reveals the emotional and theological agenda behind the continued inclusion of the "Women's Role" section. I'm not altogether familiar with Wikipedia so I don't know how to access all it's features.  Would someone, please, put in a request for arbitration on this matter?  I think Afaprof01 is pushing an agenda and Afaprof01 feels the same way about me.  Let's have a third party come in and settle the matter: "Is the "Women's Role" section an appropriate thing to include as a separate section and, if so, is it the appropriate length?" Eugeneacurry 17:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)  I'll keep trying to work it out for now.Eugeneacurry 17:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Fellow Christians, come and let us reason together. I have watched the frustration growing between two apparently excellent, intelligent, and conscientious editors. It looks like a very honest struggle on a very important issue. There already has been genuine give-and-take which appears to have been successful in honing these sections more and more toward accuracy. I'm sorry for you editors' frustrations, but then it's a lot more polite and respectful than I'm accustomed to in our Wed. night business meetings.


 * My 3rd party opinion, for what it's worth, is that the women's issue definitely has become a very major issue for the SBC, both in pastoral ministry limitations and the domestic issue. By putting these planks in the BFM2k platform, we went over the edge and aligned ourselves 100% with the (real) fundamentalists on those matters. Historically speaking, these planks redefined us in ways that violate historical Baptist distinctives like no others.


 * The article doesn't say it's the first time Baptists have restricted roles; it says it's first time it has become "the official theological position of the denomination." And that's what the BFM does.


 * The husband-wife statement similarly reads "the first time in any Baptist confession of faith." From my historian perspective, the statements both are accurate. From my inside observation of the development of the BF&M (2000), I do believe that the intent was to put a nail in the old coffin of the so-called women's issues. My hunch is that editor AFA knows that, and is trying to avoid saying that in more volatile terms. My hunch also is that editor Eugene would like to be as protective of the convention as possible, and to cast it in the most positive light possible for the world to see in this article. Not at all an unworthy goal, Sir, except that is not the purpose of this particular forum.


 * Closing advice: Be good trustworthy reporters of the facts; don't be interpretive; pray for wisdom the speak the truth in love; love one another, pray for one another, sense each other's "heart" in the matter, negotiate phraseology, but always remember: it's the Truth of the author and finisher of our faith that will ultimately set us free. Besides WWJD, don't neglect to look at what He actually DID. In true Christian love, Oberlin 16:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If this is how most people feel I'll shut up and get on with my life. Oberlin feels this way, Afaprof01 feels this way; anyone else? Eugeneacurry 18:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the form of the presentation of the information regarding the SBC's stance towards women is biased, even if the content is accurate. The editors who added it clearly did so with a agendum other than merely "inform". And that agendum is out in the open on this talk page. Sad. Srnec 23:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If oberlin and afaprof01 is advice you are considering i would suggest you look at "christian views about women" They have a strong feminist agenda and I have made over 100 corrections to factual errors. afaprof01 uses the gender neutral TNIV and or NLT to exegete scripture. oberlin uses greek words to exegete hebrew text. Currently the pages is "locked" per the request of afaprof01. On my personal page I have saved the entire text of the article just prior to my beginning to edit. I recommend anyone to take a look and come to your own conclusion......regards --A B Pepper 16:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is also worthwhile to present this in this form, as it is another way in which the Southern Baptist Convention is separated from some African American practice, in which women pastors have played an important part. --Parkwells (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Statistics
I am something of a newbie, so I hesitated to make any changes without running them past the folks on the discussion page! Two comments about the statistical section of the article:

(A) It comments that there are three times as many Roman Catholics as Southern Baptists. This is technically correct, but not completely correct, since Southern Baptists only count baptized adult members, and Catholics count all members (including children). As far as I know, the cited figures for Southern Baptists only include "members" in the sense of baptized persons. Could this be clarified in some way?

(B) There is a remark that Southern Baptists have been losing ground in proportion to the overall population of the US since 1990. Technically, this is, again, true. What is also true is that Baptist (Southern or otherwise) numbers have gone up during the period. The source of the loss has been large scale immigration, which has been largely Catholic. Again, I suggest a clarification.

Thoughts? Bonbga 21:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

An historically male dominated ministry
An historically male dominated ministry in the church has always been the cutting of the church lawn and very few women have ever been able to gain a foot hold in this ministry. It is time sisters to demand the keys to the lawn tractor and show the men how good a job you could do if they would only allow it. Your God given rights and gifts according to the scriptures where there is neither male or female has been denied long enough !....--A B Pepper 03:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that is funny ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.86.220 (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Headcoverings for the sisters?
Do Southern Baptists ever practice the headcovering like Mennonites? Thank you. 66.191.19.254 20:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not that it's relevant to the article, but... no. -- Orange Mike 14:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Though the practice of women wearing hats in church is not unheard of, especially in predominantly Black churches.

Eugeneacurry 17:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the replies. If it was practiced, it would be very relevant as it's an important doctrine to some Christian denominations.  Since it appears that it is not a doctrine, but perhaps only a localized practice, no reference is likely needed. 68.116.99.140 20:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It was a fashion in the last century, but it was only really a fashion. There are no particular rules on the matter. Plantalion 17:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Prominent Southern Baptists - John McCain?
Hi All,

Can John McCain be inlcuded in the list of famous southern baptists? As John McCain and his wife are members of the North Phoenix Baptist Church affliated to SBC. Source is his wikipedia page, pls verify and add his name if its completely true as Mike Huckabee is also in the list in this article. Bdebbarma (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Baptist Press, the SBC's news reporting service, McCain is not a Southern Baptist as he is not a member. He just attends with his wife. Baptist Press says "The U.S. senator from Arizona was raised Episcopalian but has been attending North Phoenix Baptist Church for approximately the past 15 years when in Arizona. He's not a member, although his wife is." This quote was taken from http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=27825. - Signed Justin G. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.131.243 (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What does Southern Baptist Convention teach on evolution/creation
I wondered if there is some Church to go, and as much as I believe in Creation.... I believe Adam and Eve were first ppl on this Earth. Therefor I wonder what is official position of SBC on this subject?

Do they like Catholics and Anglicans believe in evolution or creationism? (that humans were created as humans, or that they have evolved to human form?) [Unsigned comment by User:193.198.138.107 15:14, 4 April 2008]


 * Southern Baptists are non-creedal. That said: there are very few people left in the SBC who will openly admit to any belief in evolution. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are people believing in evolution in every church, but I wonder what is official belief? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.128.53 (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's what "non-creedal" means: there are no "official teachings" on most subjects! Traditionally, Baptists have been free to believe what they choose on the overwhelming majority of topics. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It is true that Southern Baptists (like me) are non-creedal. We do have a confession of faith though in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 which states under the section on Man: "Man is the special creation of God, made in His own image. He created them male and female as the crowning work of His creation. The gift of gender is thus part of the goodness of God's creation..." Signed - Justin G. [Unsigned comment by User:76.123.131.243 06:13, 14 April 2008]


 * But the BF&M is not binding the way creeds are for creedal faiths. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  00:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Prominent Former and Continuing Members question
(I'm brand new here, and think this is an appropriate comment ... if I'm wrong, I apologize)

In the Prominent Former Members section, the group of members who left after conservative leadership took power are listed. First of all, is it appropriate for an anonymous group such as this to be listed as a Prominent Former Member? And if so, to be neutral, shouldn't the large number of members who stayed within the SBC be listed as a Prominent Continuing Member? I am not currently a Southern Baptist, although I was raised one. However, when reading this article, more for "old times sake" than anything else, this section just struck me as not being very neutral. Wwgtsc (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is exactly the right place to raise such issues! As a former S.B. myself, I looked at the items in question, and don't know how to state it more clearly and neutrally. It says what the departing brethren and sistren said were their reasons, and says what happened to them. By definition, those who remained as continuing members are just that; it seems rather silly to put in a separate paragraph saying, "Those who didn't leave are still there" or something. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My two cents; I don't' think it is appropriate listing former members; that type of information would be better for their individual articles. This seems like an attempt to demean Southern Baptists; particularly with the types of reasons provided for "leaving". As often as Americans change churches (we moved and the church just down the street has a great choir and it is two minutes from the house), I would not trust a politician's publicized reason for leaving a church than I would trust the devil to tell the truth (can you tell I am just a bit jaded when it comes to politics in the election year?). I suggest deleting the section entirely and renaming the following individuals notable SB's. Thoughts? --Storm Rider (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Orange Mike - I guess my take is that the fact that many left the SBC, and their reasons for doing so, is already amply discussed elsewhere in the article. An anonymous group is not really a 'prominent former member', and listing the group there appears, in my opinion at least, to be less than neutral, as if it's trying to say that the minority who left are somehow more important than the majority who stayed. Wwgtsc (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I see your point. That last item, while it's important for those who feel the SBC was the victim of a coup d'etat, is really undue emphasis in that location. Leaving in mention of prominent laymen like Carter who reasoned for reasons of principle, on the other hand, is appropriate. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  00:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would still disagree; in particular on the "decisions" of politicians. Why are they so important that they are actually cited. What made them more important than any other member who left. I have no problem talking about it in the article, but doing more than that is POV and meeting a separate agenda than the one for the topic. On other church articles do we list prominent people who have left? No; no one does. Why is it being done here? This is just strange. --Storm Rider (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a good point ... for example, if other church articles followed the same convention, I would expect to see Thomas Merton listed as a Prominent Former Member on the Church of England article. Wwgtsc (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Carter, in particular, was by far the most famous and powerful Southern Baptist in the world, one both praised and reviled for his strong Southern Baptist faith and heritage. It is disingenuous to dismiss him as a mere "politician" or to pretend that his departure from the SBC is not highly noteworthy. By comparison to Presidents of the United States (past or present), the rest of the "prominent" persons on this list are obscure non-entities. I am no idolator of these folks, and in fact opposed Carter for re-election in 1980; but that's beside the point. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You are getting caught up in my editorializing and ignoring the main point. It does not matter who left the SBC; nor does it matter who they were. If you have a reference that discusses the greatest SBC member in the world (Carter), then cite it and put it in the article. My only issue is having a section devoted to famous people who have left the SBC. No one else does it. I am not contest narrative, I am contesting a whole section highlighting their departures. No other church has anything similar that I have read. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Can I jump in to ask, can we at least move the Former Members section below the Continuing Members section? Why are former members being listed above current members anyway? Tsm1128 (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

SBC, racism and eugenics
I read on many internet sites, the support(on past) of SBC to things such as racism and eugenics.The article has nothing about the support or link between SBC, slavery, racism and eugenics on past.About abortion today, SBC gives support to legal abortion. Agre22 (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)agre22

This article: [SBC renounces racist past] talks about the end of support of SBC to racism.Agre22 (talk) 03:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)agre22

I Edited the Statistics Section
Someone had inserted a paragraph into the statistics section that the Southern Baptist membership was overstated "2 to 3 times" because of duplication of membership records. The statement was not sourced. While I am certain there is some membership duplication, an assertion that it represents such a massive overstatement of membership is contrary to the evidence.

I removed this paragraph.

What I did NOT do, but thought about doing (and I would ask for some discussion on this thought) was adjust the sentence concerning the decline in membership of the SBC in relation to the entire population. I believe that this statement is true of all Protestant groups in the USA, due to large scale non-Protestant largely Latin American Catholic) immigration, but misleadingly indicates that the SBC is uniquely effected. I think that the sentence might be rewritten in a more neutral manner, but am not 100% sure how would be the best way to do that. Bonbga (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I placed that information on the article but when i went to give the source for it, i couldn't find it again. I got it from the 2008 General Convention and it was major news. They had 2 news articles about it but then they dissapeared or something. So someone with more knowledge would have to look into it. Unless they post those articles again from the convention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.35.67 (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Introductory Material
The following passage occurs in the introductory material to this article, as of August 13:

The SBC is the largest Baptist association in the world and the largest [new world[Protestant]] denomination in the United States. Protestant churches broke away from the Roman Catholic Church. Anabaptist churches [new world[protestant]] broke away from the protestant churches over the continued use of infant baptism. It is the second largest grouping of Christians in the United States, after the Roman Catholic Church.

The middle section of this paragraph troubles me. "Protestant churches broke away from the Roman Catholic Church" - true, but I am not sure of the relevance in this context. "Anabaptist churches [new world[protestant] broke away . . . " is a significant mistatement in regards to Southern Baptists. The Anabaptists represent a pacifist, Continental European branch of Christianity. While Anabaptists do not baptize infants, they are not really the direct ancestors of the Southern Baptists. The modern Anabaptist groups are Amish, Mennonite, Hutterite, etc. Southern Baptists can trace a theological ancestral lineage back to the radical wing of the Protestant Reformation in England, and possibly back to the Lollards, but not back to the continental Anabaptists. Therefore, I propose that the middle two sentences of that paragraph be removed.

Thoughts? Bonbga (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Believer's Baptism--importance of immersion?
I was curious if any here could fill in (and perhaps add a section eventually in the actual article) on the SBC's official position (or lack thereof) on Baptism. I learned about the position of my family's Baptist church in an interesting way. The former pastor of our church explained that in order to become a member of the church, one must undergo "believer's baptism" as we called it, which involved being baptized by immersion following a profession of faith/salvation experience. I was baptized as a born-again Christian at the age of 14 or 15 in a Presbyterian church, but not by immersion. Thus, to become a member of that congregation, I would have needed to be "rebaptized" by immersion despite having been baptized as a believer. (Ultimately, I was unwilling to do so, since my "first" baptism had occurred only a year or two prior to that and it felt like an empty act of ritual to be baptized again! But my parents were baptized and I was somehow made a member anyway)

Anyhow, clarification of the Southern Baptist official position on baptism might be helpful. I'd also be curious for personal reasons and also whether anyone can weigh in on what their church would do under circumstances such as mine: a person baptized as a believer but not by immersion. Personally, I agree that only believers should be baptized; and while I lean towards baptism by immersion, I disagree with requiring Christians who were "sprinkled" to be baptized for a second time. This, however, may be my only disagreement with Baptist doctrine... the_paccagnellan (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Baptism means full immersion, by SBC tradition; sprinkling is not baptism. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I also recommend you read Landmarkism. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Statistics Section Again
I deleted a sentence that linked the decline in membership since 2007 with the conservative/liberal controversy of the late 1970s. (A) There was no authority cited; (B) It is illogical that an event that occurred almost 30 years ago would not impact growth during the 1980's, 1990's, or the early years of the 21st Century, but would be responsible for a decline in membership beginning in the year 2007; and (C) I submit it is not NPOV.

What I did NOT add in (because I have no authority to cite - I hope some reader can find something) is that at least some of the decline in membership since 2007 can be attributed to churches leaving the SBC and becoming independent non-denominational congregations, and (here is the kicker that really needs a citation) that at least some congregations leaving the SBC are doing so because negative stereotypes were discouraging people from joining these congregations. I understand this is true, but have not added it to the article because I have no source to cite. Can anybody provide one?

Bonbga (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

SBC Clergy Sex Abuse Scandals
This section read "SBC Clergy Sex Abuse Scandals which some reports allege to be more widespread than the infamous Roman Catholic Clergy Sex Abuse Scandals" and cited as its' source http://stopbaptistpredators.org/article07/three_insurers_shed_light.html. The article made no such claim. Though the article did mention some sporadic cases of reported sex abuse, considering the size of the denomination, this hardly rises to the level of a scandal. Furthermore, since many extremely large organizations have reports of sex abuse this isn't even a controversy (at least not in regards to the SBC). Such a claim should have a substantially stronger source to cite (a source that actually makes the claim and/or has facts to back up such a claim). --68.217.154.39 (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Views on abortion
One of the Baptist distinctives is seemingly the Convention's opposition to abortion, and this should maybe noted at some point if the SBC and Baptist-related articles become more detailed. In many ways, this opposition to abortion has allowed co-operation and interfaith work with other pro-life Christians, including Roman Catholics. Another interesting point would be to try and find out whether any leading Southern Baptists have ever expressed the minority view of opposition to contraception. ADM (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Spencer and Heidi are Baptists?
I see no sources cited anywhere stating in any way that Spencer and Heidi (Montag) Pratt are members of a Southern Baptist church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.120.88 (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Membership statistics
The claim that Southern Baptist Convention is America's Largest Protestant Body is contradicted by the recent Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life study, which puts their level at less than 2% of the total Christian population of the U.S. See http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations Kayodh (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If you drill down on that site you gave, they are 6.7% of the population -- and that is a larger figure than any other Protestant denomination. One thing that's not addressed, however, is how membership is counted.  For all I know, I'm listed in multiple groups from my childhood through the present.  But if each group purges their numbers differently, my "membership" status will be uneven. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Cite, please
Deleted this from article: "When the American Revolution began, most Baptists became active patriots in the cause of independence." -- As it stood, this was an un-cited "peacock" sentence (WP:PEACOCK). It is presumably the case that many people of various denominations "became active patriots in the cause of independence". Are the Baptists especially worthy of mention here? If so, please furnish a good cite for this before returning to the article. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)