Talk:Triennial Convention/Archive 1

''Archived discussions from 2008 through 2010. Note: discusssions may be refactored.''

Non-NPOV text
The sentence "After 1907, like other mainline Protestant churches, Northern Baptists moved to the Left, pushing away conservative churches, shrinking and changing the denomination" was clearly written from a conservative POV. Northern Baptists (American Baptists) and other mainline Protestants would say it was the conservatives who moved to the right, pushing away mainline churches, and shrinking and changing the denomination. We need to find a more neutral wording, or leave this politically charged sentence out altogether. —Angr 09:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I eliminated the phrase "pushing away conservative churches" to make the sentence more neutral. I agree, the leftward shift of mainline denominations in the 20th century was both the result of liberals taking over the denominations and the insistance of conservatives for denominational identity. -Listener300 23:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not even neutral to say there was a leftward shift of mainline denominations or that liberals "took over" the denominations. I'd say the right-wing/conservatives split off from the politically neutral people in most denominations, leaving the politically neutral (or "centrist") in the mainline denominations. There's nothing particularly left-wing about the ABC-USA, or the ELCA, or the Episcopal Church, or the other mainline denominations, but there is something decidedly right-wing about the Southern Baptists, the Missouri Synod, the Continuing Anglicans, and so forth. —Angr 00:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a leftward shift in mainline denominations. I have updated my citations. This is important to note because religions are never static. Please note, when I say "liberal" in this article I'm refering to theological liberalism, not political. When I use liberal, I make a link to Liberal Christianity (an article on theologically liberal Christianity) as opposed to the Christian left (a title for an article on politically liberal Christianity) or Liberlism. Schisms are almost always the result of what I would call takeovers. Different groups leave because a rival group wins a controversy or because they are unable to bring about the reform they want in the original group. There are certain beliefs held by mainline churches that could be described as theologically liberal. - Listener300talk 07:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm confused now. Liberal Christianity says in its lead, "The word 'liberal' in liberal Christianity does not refer to a leftist political agenda or set of beliefs, but rather to the manner of thought and belief associated with the philosophical and religious paradigms developed during the Age of Enlightenment", but you have added links like &#91;[Liberal Christianity|radical]&#93; and &#91;[Liberal Christianity|left]&#93; suggesting you do think Liberal Christianity is equatable with left-wing politics. (The link in "The Convention took no official position on Evolution, allowing &#91;[Liberal Christianity|liberals]&#93; to remain in the denomination" makes sense, though, because believing in evolution has more to do with Enlightenment-influenced thinking than it does with left-wing politics.) On another point, do you think it would be appropriate to add Adoniram Judson to the list of famous Triennial Baptists? I'm not sure how closely affiliated he was with the Triennial Convention, though. —Angr 10:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I eliminated "radical" because I no longer needed that sentence. I changed "left" to "theological left" to be more specific. The article on Adoniram Judson says he was a missionary for the American or Triennial Baptists in Burma in 1815 and he didn't change his affiliation. He was a Congregationalist, and then became a Baptist in 1812. - Listener300talk 17:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, but wouldn't Christian Left be a better link for "theological left" since Liberal Christianity is not about being left-wing? Also, the sentence is sourced to Diamond, Mickey and Bodenhamer, but AFAICT that article is discussing the period from 1970 to 1990, much later than the 1907 date mentioned in the sentence. Thanks for adding Judson; I'm interested in him because my grandparents were also Baptist missionaries in Burma, where my father and one of his sisters were born. —Angr 22:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Changing the current system of referencing
Hey. Would any of the editors to this page be against changing the current system of referencing sources? To me an easier way would be using the footnotes that you could click on and it would take you directly to the reference. You could use the format to cite page numbers. Ltwin (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * They definitely need to be changed; the preferred style is inline citations, using a "Reflist" template under references to list them below.Parkwells (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The citations need page numbers; it is not enough to refer to an entire book. Parkwells (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sub sections for History
Also, adding some sub headings might make it more manageable to read this article. Ltwin (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Biased political discussion
This is one of the strangest articles which I've read on Wikipedia, as it presents a biased account of the Triennial Convention, and some editor seems to be trying to score big political points. The emphasis on how the Triennial Convention supported particular candidates through the nineteenth century, and picking out certain wealthy northern Baptists to show how they were involved in national politics and issues, do not seem accurate accounts of the times. Northern congregations wanted looser associations and more independence than those in the South. I doubt if the Triennial Convention took such political positions as a body as presented; it was not typical of the time. Independent Baptists who were members of the Triennial Convention in the North indeed supported particular candidates, but it's a misrepresentation to say "the Convention did this or that". The lack of references with page numbers make it nearly impossible to review, and all such assertions could rightfully be deleted by other editors for lack of sources. There is no reflection of the equal or greater hold which the elite planter class of the South had on politics; for one thing, they effectively controlled most of the Congressional seats which their large slave populations brought the region.Parkwells (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)