Nothing Resolved
Jun. 14, 2006 at 11:07 PM
Homeschooling
GREENSBORO, N.C. -- Leaders of the nation's largest Protestant denomination declined Wednesday to forward to the full Southern Baptist Convention a resolution urging the creation of a strategy for removing Southern Baptist children from public schools in favor of home schooling or education at private schools.
The "exit strategy" proposal, offered by Roger Moran of Troy, Mo., and Texas author Bruce Shortt, came as many Southern Baptists are concerned about how classrooms are handling subjects such as homosexuality and "intelligent design."
But the SBC's resolution's committee instead decided to urge members to "engage the culture of our public school systems" by exterting "godly influence," declining to put Moran and Shortt's proposal before delegates to the SBC's annual meeting.
Im curious, why do the Baptists need these resolutions anyway? If a pastor thinks there should be an "exit strategy" is he prohibited from saying so until a resoluton passes? Do Baptist parents make their decisions based on the SBC? The politics of religion is an interesting study. By the way, I'm not the only blogger who's wondering about this.
In other SBC news
Bloggers are credited with electing the new SBC President, Dr. Frank Page.
For those who follow the internal politics of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) somewhat less avidly than the NBA playoffs or even the World Cup, perhaps the most interesting news out of their annual meeting, held this week in Greensboro, N.C., is that bloggers elected a president.
Blogging is truly changing the way we do business and run churches isn't it? Hopefully, we'll help change the way we educate in this country too.
Related Tags: Bruce Shortt, Exodus Mandate, Exit strategy, public schools, Southern Baptist Convention, homeschooling, religion, culture, Christianity, Baptist
4 Comments and Trackbacks
posted by Brian on Jun. 15, 2006 at 5:48 PM
I am not a baptist nor do I follow SBC politics, but from the several articles on Ethicsdaily.com regarding the recent conference, the SBC seems to be out of touch with reality:
"The Southern Baptist Convention on Wednesday adopted a resolution decrying ills in public education but urging engagement by running for school boards instead of withdrawal."
I would like to know how many school board members are effective in "engagement"! If "engagement" is so effective, then why is secular humanism being taught and the Bible being thrown out? I believe school board members are being indoctrinated just as much as the kids are. They are completely ineffective in "engagement" and have made little or no difference in the public school system.
Also,
"The Southern Baptist Convention on Wednesday passed a resolution declaring "total opposition" to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing and drinking of alcoholic beverages."
And,
"Jim Richards, executive director of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention, countered: "We need to be as a denomination standing on holiness. The use of alcohol as a beverage can and does impede our testimony for Jesus Christ."
But Paul clearly says:
Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;
I would argue that the ABUSE of alcohol as a beverage can and does impede our testimony for Jesus Christ...not the USE.
There just seems to be a legalistic hypocricy here influenced by secular indoctrination. It is unfortunate for a "Christian" organization to demonstrate such lack of discipline to God's word.
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
posted by blestwithsons on Jun. 15, 2006 at 7:20 PM
Ohhhh nice use of the quotes on Christan there. Do you really think it's appropriate to snidely impugn the salvation of an entire denomination just because you don't like some of their policies? Wouldn't you be offended if I called you a "Christian" because you don't have a problem with alcohol consumption? (which I wouldn't do, by the way)
posted by Brian on Jun. 15, 2006 at 11:13 PM
Ahh..you're right...bad use of quotes on my part. Never intended to inpugn the salvation of the entire SBC, but rather question their position for Christ. Their actions do not seem consistent with God's word and therefore potentially dangereous for the Christian community who may look to them for leadership.
Just another case of how men and organizations will fail, where God never will. We need to contend for the truth, but you are right, I should have not have questioned salvation (unintentional as it was).
posted by blestwithsons on Jun. 20, 2006 at 1:44 PM
I don't know if you'll check back... but if you do, Thank you Brian!
For the record, although I am relatively apathetic to others' occasionally drinking a glass of wine or a beer, I do think that a case can be made biblically for abstention. It's not a critical doctrinal issue of course - so it's not worth fighting about. But the main points as I have always understood it were a)understanding that there hard liquor didn't even exist then - so when the Bible refers to avoiding strong drink it means wine and beer. b)that priests in the OT were not supposed to drink - and under the new covenant we are all priests, so to speak. And c)as you cited from a different angle- be not drunk with wine.
Although I think there is a little wiggle room provided by saying - "Well so I can drink as long as I don't get drunk" and bringing in the wedding at Cana - it's a very tight space.
I think there are many things that used to be neutral which are not so neutral anymore. Alcoholism is rampant. You don't know if you're susceptible to addiction to alcohol until you try it. There are MANY alcoholics in my family. I have drunk alcohol and was blessed enough not to get addicted, but I feel it is better to teach my children to abstain. Why gamble on it? Also, if you look at the advertising of the alcohol industry - it is completely against Christian morality. We should not be giving them our money... y'know? Plus there is that whole "do nothing that would lead your brother to stumble" side of the argument.
Anyway - I don't spend time worrying about whether my brother or sister has the occasional beer. But I can see why the SBC took the step of making that resolution. If you look at the wording of it - I think they were coming from the lines I just sketched out...