'Goodwill Baptists' in the White House on Tuesday

[Stephen Fox]

With two board membes of Ed.com among others.

Check the twitter list. Maybe we can name all 60 here with Aaron's Help

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/baptists-whi ... -cms-19360

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Nope, I was here in Waco finishing up my first column for the Baptist Studies Bulletin. Be sure to check it out, Foxy.

I did, however, follow the WH gathering and retweeted a bunch of tweets throughout the day.

[Stephen Fox]

Can you navigate the tweeting for us and separate the lambs from the wolves, the onsiters and the offsiters. Looks like Parham and Cliff Vaughn were there and I guess since you were in Waco it's anybody's guess after that

[Haruo]

What are "goodwill Baptists"?

[Cathy]

[William Thornton]

Apparently, "goodwill Baptists" are Democratic Baptists who drool over a chance to tweet from the White House and have fawning faux-news articles written about it all.

This thing with all the tweets reported has an air of burlesque about it.

Stephen you might edit your title since BDW wasn't there.

[Dave Roberts]

I feel disappointed. No one invited me to come tweet from the WH. Personnaly, I think that is discriminadtion .

[Ed Pettibone]

[Big Daddy Weaver]

I'm 99% sure that "Goodwill Baptists" was coined by Robert Parham, maybe in 2005-2006

I know that he's written more than a few articles defining that term, etc. over at EthicsDaily.com

I don't have time to compile a list of who attended from the tweets. While many in attendance did likely vote for Obama in 2008 (a majority of voters did if I remember correctly William ), I'm not convinced that all were Democrats.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Also, William, if Fox isn't going to do it, can you edit the title.

[Stephen Fox]

Sun was shining bright on these good Baptists

http://www.facebook.com/EthicsDaily

[Stephen Fox]

1. Here is the latest testimony at Ed.com about last the WH meeting

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/white-house- ... -cms-19384
2. I woulda maybe changed the title of the thread but have been away from computer since Monday

3. good part of the morning I was on phone trying to see if leadership of the SBC would address the report poll shows only 14 % of evangelicals in the state think Obama is a Christian. Had a contentious phone conversation with Bama Baptist editor Bob Terry over the matter and left word with Rick Lance to see if he had a comment on it.
One friend, a progressive Rhodes Scholar nominee pastor said it was not unfair of me to pose the question to Terry, but unrealistic to expect an answer.
I may pursue the matter at SBC Trends.

Hoping my letter to Bham News will be published Sunday

Still waiting on somebody at ed.com to identify the folks in the ed.com facebook site pic of the gathering. Maybe Aaron Weaver can make serious inroads for us in the identification. Looks like strong resemblances to Jim Evans of FBC Auburn, Sarah Shelton of www.bcoc.net ; Amy Butler of Calvary, D.C.; and CBF elected leader Burroughs of Passport camps there

[William Thornton]

[Dave Roberts]

I've found very few pure politicians in either party. Except that some of them are "pure politicians."

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Bush's Faith-Based Office was hyper-political in an explicit way. Kuo documented that in his book. If you remember, Karl Rove sought church membership rolls during the election cycle.

On the flip-side, the Obama Administration ain't pure.

I'll concede that the Obama Administration may very well have the exact same motives as the Bush Administration on this point. The difference is that the Obama Administration has not yet executed like the Bush Administration.

That probably says something about the difference between religious folks on the left and right. The right is much more mobilized and has been for many years now. The left hasn't done a good job at promoting a faith-based moral narrative. And, of course, an influential grassroots contingent on the left is completely hostile to any faith-based moral message and screams bloody murder anytime God and Bible-talk makes its way into the political arena.

[Stephen Fox]

Thornton did a decent job at his blog last year unpacking the Biography of Lottie Moon.

Here is some deep water for Thornton to swim in in the coming months.
Conservative Ross Douthat is coming out with a book that I think fair to say will shine light on the hypocrisy of Karl Rove and Richard Land's politics.

There is a demonstrable difference between the ethic of Jim Evans and Parham on one hand; and Karl Rove and Richard Land on the other.

Thornton can also read the current religiondispatches.org piece by Giberson and Stephens, as he should already have had his hands on their Book The Anointed.

3. Charles Marsh's bio on Bonhoeffer comes out soon. Thornton is bright enough he will not much longer have any excuse to let the least common denominator be his comfort zone when dismissing and failing to distinguish between Evans and Richard Land; President Obama and George W. Bush when it comes to the justice issues of the New Testament and the promise of our Country to do better for the Common Good.

[William Thornton]

Evans is a pastor. Land is a lobbyist. That's distinguishing between them, Stephen.

[Sandy]

[Stephen Fox]

And they haven't written and said as much, but best I understand Mark Noll of Notre Dame, and Randall Balmer of BArnard, they see a distinction in ethic and virtue apparently Sandy and Thornton do not see.
That is where enlightened discussion like this may on occasion be worthwhile.
Hope you fellows will make time to look at STephens and Giberson's current piece at www.religiondispatches.org. There is a distinction and a difference. Sad Martin King and Charles Marsh can see the difference, even Pulitzer's Marilynne Robinson and you two fellows stay in the fog. I say that as a friend, sincerely

Stephen Fox

[Stephen Fox]

For sure there is a different nuance, a distinct difference of inflection here.

I made my comment at this piece. Wondering what the Baylor view is on this one; and BTW the kid from Canada is exciting to watch on the Court; good luck to yall

http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/7234/9/

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Griner of the Lady Bears got that one-handed dunk on a Florida Gator tonight. It was nice.

Tomorrow is ProDay here at Baylor. Saw Coach Lovie Smith at Rudy's BBQ. Supposed to be reps from every NFL team to see RG3, Kendall Wright, Terrence Ganaway and about a dozen other places. I hear there are even some D3 players from nearby University of Mary-Hardin Baylor working out tomorrow.

Should be a grand event, being broadcast live on the NFL Network.

As to Gushee - I'm not sure why he felt the need to use the Goodwill delegation as an example. Seemed a little cheap on his part. I mean, Gushee has been to more than a few meetings with White House officials over the years.

If a person is seduced on a handful of different occasions, what does it say about that person?

I know politicians use clergy. Duh. But Gushee has a really jaded view. Kinda surprising coming from him - wonder what that means for his future endeavors? Is he going apolitical?

But yes, politicians use clergy. However, but that can go the other way. I've seen some aggressive ministers use politicians especially at the more local and state levels. Gushee claims that politicians care about one thing and one thing only - winning votes. While WINNING is important and there are certainly quite a few politicians with completely selfish motives, I've had the good fortune of getting to spend some time with some politicians who are great human beings. Politicians with convictions that want to see changes made.

There's politicians like that on both the right and left. Gushee paints a picture that such politicians don't exist.

Gushee sounds like he's been burned or something. Kinda sounds like someone who took Obama's "Hope and Change" message a bit too literally. Only the ideologue is naive enough to believe that a politician can transform and transcend. The realist tempers the optimism for progress with a bit of pessimism and understands that we live in a sinful world and we can't characterize any group of people with a broad brush. There's the good and bad in any profession.

In painting this inaccurate position, Gushee doesn't come off looking good.

I suspect Gushee might be under some stress; I'm hearing lots of sniping related to the upcoming sexuality conference. It's all being hurled in his direction. I think it's completely unfair and I'll defend Gushee on this point. His critics continue to publicly and privately misrepresent his goals for the conference. I really hope he gets a fair shake. The prospectus for the conference is well-balanced and thought-provoking. Be nice if people will back-off a bit and see what happens first.

That said, Gushee's column just comes across as antagonistic towards Parham. Not sure what that's all about.

[William Thornton]

Parham doesn't look good in this whole thing. Gushee captures some of that without naming him.

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

Keith, I would amend my words on this to say that Jim Evans (and, uh, I did read his piece in its entirety) was a better target for Gushee than Parham.

I'm not concerned at my age at looking good, just looking candidly. On this, Gushee and I see the same things.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

The difference here is that William - to my knowledge - has never been "seduced" by White House officials (to use Gushee's language).

Gushee - by his own admission- apparently has been "seduced" on more than a few occasions and in more than a few ways!!

There are words out there in the internets for people who get "seduced" multiple times.