Lethal Religion and SBC

[Stephen Fox]

http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/6403/53/

I hope Kimball will do a column soon on current state of the SBC in framework of his template of Lethal Religion. I think there is a great difference between Salafism and the SBC, but would be interesting if Kimball does a compare and contrast.

And the salafist movement in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Hope Kimball explores that more as he rolls out his latest book.

[William Thornton]

Yeah, yeah. This is the guy whom the mod/libs love. He relegates John 14:6 to within the Christian faith alone.

They are welcome to him. I grant that he makes some good points along the way, a la blind hog and acorns etc.

[Jim]

One supposes that Kimball, in his superior erudition, fears that this nation will become so Christian that it will be a danger to itself and the rest of the world. If that be the case, he need not worry since this nation slides farther from its spiritual roots every day. His case is automatically made in the simple notice of what Islam has done throughout the world to reduce whole populations to a collective trembling, the infidel (you and me) wondering if the guy or gal coming down the street intends to take a one-way trip to paradise while at the same time blowing the infidel (you and me) right straight into hell.

From the article: Kimball said those in the majority “should be the first ones out there in insisting the Muslims have a right to build a mosque.” The government has already started the mosque-shutdown in Germany and the other European nations are learning what it means to slowly be going under the gun. The lessons have been graphic in both England and Spain, with much blood in the streets and on railroad tracks. Actually, those in the majority should be the first ones out there in insisting the Muslims have NO right to build a mosque. Unthinkable? Of course not! Even the Muslims believe this among themselves, as seen in Bahrain, where the Sunni rulers are destroying the Shiite mosques as we write, even though the Shiites are in the majority. The Sunnis can do this because the fat Saudi princes sent 2,000 troops to Bahrain to “maintain order.” The term “Akbar Allah” (or whatever it is) represents the quintessential curse on the world today. Kimball’s skull entertains a vacuum.

[Sandy]

I've read Kimball's book "When Religion Becomes Evil." In that work, his theorizing is based on a lot of presumption and assumption. I know most of what he presents relates to Islam and the direction some of its militant groups have taken, but he applies some of this theory to any religious belief that holds to some kind of belief that there is but one way to God. It is almost as if he is trying to intellectually justify a denial of his own Christian roots. I've also heard him speak on two different occasions. After reading one book and hearing him speak, I got a pretty good perspective of what a lot of Baptists mean when they call someone a "liberal." What they mean is someone who has more or less founded their Christian faith on reason and intellect, and the few references they make to scripture, if any at all, are taken out of context. That's Kimball in a nutshell.

[Tim Bonney]

Sandy I get dizzy watching you move from left to right! When you are talking politics you are as liberal as almost anyone on this forum, maybe with me as an exception. Then when you talk about faith you swing to the right. Do you ever feel a conflict between your political ideology and your theology?

[Tim Dahl]

At times I still can't believe that the Lee I met is the same "Sandy" on the boards of BL.com.

He seems liberal in politics and conservative in theology...and that is unusual? I don't find it so unusual. I am surrounded by "moderate" baptists that fit the bill as described. They are very conservative (as defined by the truly liberal denominations out there), some are 3-5 point calvinists, they tow the line on almost every evangelical issue we see (with the exception of women in ministry) tossed out there. But when it comes to politics, they are all democrats. Granted, a TX democrat is probably more conservative than a NY republican; but I don't know many NY republicans (meaning I could be horribly wrong on that point).

More to the point, I know quite a few pastors here in Fort Worth that could be labeled as theologically conservative and politically liberal. At least by the current standards (which seem to be a moving target).

Tim

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Yea, but Sandy is theologically to-the-right of those "moderate" Baptists you just described.

He's an anti-CBF, anti-women pastors, Southern Baptist inerrantist (at least SB up until recently).

His politics alone are interesting. If I recall correctly, Sandy at one point was a Mike Huckabee supporter or at least considered supporting Mike Huckabee.

[Neil Heath]

I read Kimbell's book "When Religion Becomes Evil" too, and thought he did a good analysis and made his case very well. He has strong credentials in terms of actual experience with the groups he talked about, and is a recognized expert on Islam, if I remember correctly.

I didn't read him as criticizing his Christian faith, just the extreme expressions of it, along with similar expressions in other faiths. They do have a lot in common, and that extreme mindset definitely corrupts the true faith it claims to uphold by such extreme measures. In short, I thought he was on target and ought to be heard.

[William Thornton]

The problem I had with Kimball, and I read his earlier book, is that he relegated the exclusivity claims of Christ to an in-house matter. I didn't buy the book, but he quoted another liberal author whose position was that it's fine to use John 14:6 among ourselves (Christians) but not beyond. Perhaps he has modified those views.

A broader objection is the overall sense of equivalency in the matter of extreme religion. There are Christian extremists, abortionist killers and the like; however, this is a very narrow strain of world Christianity. Compare that with militant Islam where the language, beliefs, and acts are widely held and acted upon.

To the mod/libs, 'extremist' Southern Baptists gained control of our common institutions and implemented their view of what the SBC ought to be. The did not execute the mod/libs, fly airplanes into their buildings, or deny their right to exist on the planet.

But, I can see why Kimball is still a darling of the Baptist left. Were they in charge, I'm sure he would be on the payroll somewhere.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Sandy]

[Stephen Fox]

I've sent Dr. Kimball an email with link to this exchange, hoping he may respond to Sandy and Dr. Thornton in particular; not as an adventure in one upsmanship but to maybe clarify some misunderstandings and miscalculations.

So far in this discussion, I think Neal Heath gets the point.

Kimball had some grand paragraphs about misappropriating texts. I was reading those passages yesterday but don't have it in front of me at the moment.

At another place he testifies to his loyalty to the best of the Baptist tradition and its angle on the Christian Faith; saying he has more than a lifetime's full of challenge to do his best to perfect his own tradition, to understand it best he can instead of pointing out the flaws of other venues.
My poor paraphrase of his thought.

I have lived long enough to concede I have not perfected insight into all the riches of Christianity, and know Paige Patterson hasn't perfected it either, needless to say where W.A. Criswell missed the mark.

As Jesus himself said, In my Father's House are many Mansions, and if it were not so I would have told you.

Maybe Michael Stipe and Bertis Downs will bring Dr. Kimball to UGA in Athens. If they do, I hope Dr. Thornton will go over and sit in on the deliberations.

Dr. Kimball doesn't need my justification, but from what I know of him by sight and reputation his walk with Jesus is not an intellectual exercise only, though he makes no apology for using his god given talent and intelligence. If you read him at all, his Baptist Christian Faith, is a devout matter Heart as well, part of the very fiber of his being.

[Stephen Fox]

http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/6408/53/

I think this is a grand example of the kind of implementation in real politik of Kimball's efforts.

I am convinced were the great Bama Baptist influenced Jurists Hugo Black and Judge Frank Johnson still breathing the air of the state that has been my home since Dec 16, 86 they woulda signed on the thinking of the judge in Oklahoma and been proud of the advocacy of the BJC.

[Sandy]

Are you saying that Kimball's perspective applies to those who want to pass legislation to forbid Sharia law, or are you saying it applies to Sharia law itself? Actually, I think Kimball, at least in his latest pontifications, would point to Sharia law as an example of "religion turned evil."

[Gene Scarborough]

This entire stream of discussion bespeaks a strong lack of appreciation for "Congress shall make no laws concerning religion."

We live in a free society whose ideal is separation of church and state. That ideal has been seriously eroded in the last 20+ years. If we are true to our Constitution, then we are obligated to allow for differences in religious outlook.

Let time and participation be the decider of what is wise and real. If we want to delete Eastern religion from the scene, then we must be willing for them to delete us. The wiser approach would be to try and understand AND allow others to express themselves religiously.

I don't see how anyone has a special handle on God. The CR folks were convinced they were that group, but their actions were cruel and judgemental to the max. It has killed the mission cooperation within the SBC and it is not getting a dab better with the GCR report and actions coming from it.

[Sandy]

[Gene Scarborough]

Sandy---

It sounds like you need a law degree to argue the case before the Supreme Court!

I think we all have a pretty good notion that "Separation of Church and State" works both ways. Churches get tax exemption, but what would you do with those advocating for a "certain Conservative Republican candidate?"

[Stephen Fox]

I have rereading portions of Kimball lately. Many of the reservations expressed in this thread are answered, examined thoughtfully in his book. I was hoping the portions where he quotes Peter Gomes would show up in the google online free version but I could not find them.
Even so several pages in the 50's segment of his book are here for any of you who may be unitiated to his 2002 highly acclaimed book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=6U_3pp ... c_r&cad=3#

[Gene Scarborough]

Scarborough has read the Constitution and noted how our great NC Senator, Sam Erwin, took Nixon to task with only a copy of it in his coat pocket for reference.

If we know the history of England and Europe / note the way church and state were in each other's pockets, we then know what a travesty that was to be avoided in the New Nation of the Founding Fathers.

[Sandy]

[Big Daddy Weaver]

The constitution "simply states" many things. I doubt any here would deny that there exists a constitutional right to privacy (at least to some extent). You're not going to find that right explicitly stated anywhere in the Constitution. We, of course, have to interpret the text.

There are quite a few constitutional scholars - with differing views about modern church-state debates - who disagree with the reasoning and decision in the Mormon decision (Reynolds). I don't think religious liberty was maximized with that ruling.

As to the use of peyote for religious purposes by Native Americans, that was Scalia's handiwork in Oregon v. Smith. Everyone from the Catholic Bishops to Americans United to Richard Land's CLC came out in opposition to that ruling. Fortunately, many states have taken steps to reverse the harmful effects of that ruling and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (passed in response to Scalia's Smith decision) is still applicable at the federal level.

No law declaring Sharia law illegal is going to pass constitutional muster. A law can't single out a religion. Killing someone, assaulting someone, that is and has always been illegal. A federal judge prevented the Oklahoma law from being implemented. That's a symbolic law and blatantly unconstitutional. Are there even any conservative Christian groups defending it in court?

Every major Jewish group has come out against the OK law for obvious reasons.

To respond to your last comment about moderate Baptist hypocrisy.

There's no hypocrisy just misunderstanding. Moderate Baptists (and American Baptists) have always called for Christians to be "lobbyists" to be advocates. The concept of Christian Citizenship has always been popular among moderates.

Dunn liked to say that the issue was not that the fundys were wrongly involved but that they were involved wrongly. In other words, the issue was not their participation in the political process but their tactics and approach which equated being a good Christian with supporting the Republican Party, with supporting certain public policies, etc.

I think though, Sandy, that you have a point about the voucher issue. I wrote about this recently in a Baptists Today blog post in response to Marv Knox's blog advocating on behalf of the Tuition Equalization Grant program (which is or was on the chopping block, not sure what happened? all the Baptist college presidents have been lobbying the legislature to not cut the program)

I basically argued that I see no real difference between providing a voucher to a 16-18 year old high schooler and providing aid via TEG to a 17-19. Some will try to draw a distinction between a high schooler and a freshmen or sophomore in college. I'm around freshmen and sophomores each semester - hundreds of them - more often than not, I don't see that difference in terms of maturity level.

But, it should be said, that Texas Baptists were many decades ago vehemently opposed to programs like TEG. When these laws were passed and implemented - despite Baptist opposition - Baptist separationists slowly became supporters of the policies they once opposed. So the line of church-state separation moved, generally, from opposing indirect aid to direct aid with K-12 treated differently than colleges and universities.

[Dave Roberts]

BDW, I think you pointed to something that has long been true. The meaning of the establishment and free expression clauses of the First Amendment are always a moving target. Each generation has to find how they apply to new situations, and it's not always simple and clear cut. There are those who would like to get back to the intent of the framers of the US Constitution, but to do so is to demand that we also go back to the assumptions that governed life in the 18th century. The beauty of the Constitution is that it does not interpret the specifics of its words.

This thread began with Kimball, and he is one who needs to be heard carefully. At the same time, his understandings are an interpretation of both scripture and culture as well as of religion. Religion is both good and evil, and it can become lethal. That is true whether we are speaking of Muslims, moderate Baptists, the SBC, or any other grouping. We dare not allow ourselves to become so smug in our own assumptions that we see ourselves as righteous and every other expression of religion as evil. Yet, vigilance is always appropriate. Kimball perhaps needs to be read also as a refutation of the David Bartons of the world who rewrite history to suit their presuppositions.

[Gene Scarborough]

The best guiding documents express a basic concept with enough room for people to debate among themselves what it means in our day and time.

Just like the Canon (Scriptures decided by vote as to what would be included) that has many things included, then the reader has to decide which to accept and follow. The is a work of the Holy Spirit being with us to try and guide in the present day that which was established in a previous time. Most really import things have those who are "for" / those who are "against" / those still trying to make up their minds.

Social Psychology says that in any given group there are 20% for / 20% against / 60% holding their fingers up to the breeze to see which way it is blowing! It has more to do with decision-making and popularity than something which is imperically "right" or "wrong." That is why every culture has rules which guide. Eskimos share their wife with a visitor as a sign of friendship. Us Puritans declare "sex is evil"---and sharing your wife's sexual favors is more than evil.

So who is "right" / who is "wrong" / who is "going to hell for doing wrong or heaven for doing right? That is the point at which religion starts using power and influence to make people do what they are not certain is required to be done.

When a certain group profits from the behaviour I see it as "using people to make a few powerful or rich."

Now, let's apply this to the American Revolution as an example. Many didn't want to challenge the British / others were tired of paying taxes without representation / the majority just wanted to get rich quick in the New World. So what was the best way: lean on Britian (and the troops among us) / kick them out and do our own thing / solicit help and funds from the French and Spanish who were involved as well in the New World??? Everyone had a stake in the match since trade and money were involved in international commerce. It wasn't just politics and ideals. Money was involved at the core. The Founding Fathers were all astute businessmen as well as thinkers influenced by the Enlightenment ideas of democracy as opposed to dictatorship.

A "perfect society" established under a "perfect morality" is a dream rather than reality. Most colonies or settlements were based on some religious ideal: Puritan / Quaker / Baptist / Methodist / Presbyterian / Episcopalian (Church of England) / etc., etc., etc. The observers who founded the Constitution saw clearly the danger of religious tyrany and did not want it to pervade a multi-faceted new society. SO, they made a decision after much debate with the majority ruling: Congress shall make no laws concerning religion.

Tax money is that which is demanded of us. Legislatures decide how to spend it. All the groups wanting a cut of the pie contend for their share. When I got a Federal Loan to attend Emory, it mattered not so much about the Methodist connection. What mattered was a good education. Emory, unlike LIberty University, was not forcing students into a religious mold. It was teaching us "how to think" rather than "what to think." Therein, lies the difference in whether tax money should support a religiously connected institution.

I think this applies to wise decision-making under the Constitution. What is the main focus of institutions and students who get the tax-funded grants / loans? It is neither simple nor a given as to what decisions are made guided by the Constitutional ideals.

Apply this to Baptists and Autonomy. When the CR group took over, Autonomy went out the window and force was applied for the last 50 years to make a certain segment rule---and others had no option but to leave. Autonomy allowed for diversity under the umbrella of "sending missionaries." We were diverse and grew to large numbers of participants. Now that it is narrow and super-conservative, the numbers are diminishing. Reality is that most small towns have a social connection in any given church. Same is true in megas: if you belong to a certain social strata, you are sought and welcomed. The Preacher is paid well and "you get what you pay for."

A Democracy or "free society" allows for diversity. Somewhere, if the line gets crossed (it is a vague line) hostilities rise / killing of people or influence takes place / turmoil replaces cooperation and wider acceptance of various outlooks.

[T. D. Webb]

[Gene Scarborough]

John 14:6 is a classic "proof text" statement. It appears nowhere else in the Gospels. It is a typical verse used in a "jerk um to Jesus" sales track witness.

I rely more on Paul's advice in Romans 10:9 which is far more open and inviting to salvation.

What does John 14:6 say to the multitudes who have never, in the past, heard of Jesus and those who will not have a chance through no fault of their own????