Moderator: Neil Heath
Stephen Fox wrote:Between the speculations of Sandy, and Rice 's Chandler Davidson, I'll go with the true scholar on Pressler's agenda.
ET wrote:-- There is no such thing as the "wrong side of history".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------You nailed it, ET. History, by its very definition, means:
the study of past events;
It's impossible to be literally on the "wrong side of history" because there's only one side to history, i.e. the past. Events of the past cannot exist in either the present or the future. The so-called "Conservative Resurgence" is a myth, pure and simple. Such a resurgence never existed. The piece of history which the fundamentalists tout as being the "Conservative Resurgence" was, in fact, a hostile takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention.- events of the past;
- past events that relate to a particular subject, place, organization, etc.
ET occasionally comes up with some good quotes, but this one is really good. Congratulations, EdT. Couldn't resist...
David Flick wrote:.
.
Temporary Resurrection of the Golden Spur
ET wrote:-- There is no such thing as the "wrong side of history".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------You nailed it, ET. History, by its very definition, means:
the study of past events;
It's impossible to be literally on the "wrong side of history" because there's only one side to history, i.e. the past. Events of the past cannot exist in either the present or the future. The so-called "Conservative Resurgence" is a myth, pure and simple. Such a resurgence never existed.The piece of history which the fundamentalists tout as being the "Conservative Resurgence" was, in fact, a hostile takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention.- events of the past;
- past events that relate to a particular subject, place, organization, etc.
ET occasionally comes up with some good quotes, but this one is really good. Congratulations, EdT. Couldn't resist...
William Thornton wrote:Yet another occasion where Fox sees Molly Worthen walking on water. Maybe Fox can get it on vimeo so the rest of us can see the miracle.
ET wrote:Well, thanks Flick.
KeithE wrote:William Thornton wrote:Yet another occasion where Fox sees Molly Worthen walking on water. Maybe Fox can get it on vimeo so the rest of us can see the miracle.
Have you read Worthen William? I have (actually I listened to it on Audible). It was like a walk down memory lane with the hubbub at Fuller Seminary (while I was taking extension classes there), the so-called Moral Majority hype, and the SBC Takeover. It’s scope is far beyond just the Baptist battles.
Walking on water it is not (nor does anyone including Fox say so); but good historical comment it is.
William- you can buy it in Kindle format ($9.99) or as a special on Audible ($3.99) if you really what to make an informed comment.
Apostles of Reason
4.4 out of 5.0 ratings.
Sandy wrote:KeithE wrote:William Thornton wrote:Yet another occasion where Fox sees Molly Worthen walking on water. Maybe Fox can get it on vimeo so the rest of us can see the miracle.
Have you read Worthen William? I have (actually I listened to it on Audible). It was like a walk down memory lane with the hubbub at Fuller Seminary (while I was taking extension classes there), the so-called Moral Majority hype, and the SBC Takeover. It’s scope is far beyond just the Baptist battles.
Walking on water it is not (nor does anyone including Fox say so); but good historical comment it is.
William- you can buy it in Kindle format ($9.99) or as a special on Audible ($3.99) if you really what to make an informed comment.
Apostles of Reason
4.4 out of 5.0 ratings.
I did read it, and still have the copy I paid for. I don't share your evaluation of it as "good" historical comment. An academic, historical work, to be evaluated as "good" (a "B+ paper in school terms), should be objective in its analysis. It's hard to read Worthen's work, and not experience her bias, which is clearly set against a broader definition of Evangelical, conservative Christians of any brand. It is a particular problem for authors who come from a background outside of an evangelical perspective to understand it and treat it fairly. The leftward turn of many Christian denominations in America post WW2 led to a massive decline in church membership as people left churches they considered to be too liberal, and either joined conservative churches and denominations, or split or splintered off their denominations and formed new, more conservative ones. That's a pattern that continues as new issues come to the forefront. Authors like Worthen couch their theories in the cloak of academia to claim legitimacy for what amounts to nothing more than an apologetic for liberal, humanist religion. It's hypocritical, really, to be intolerant of conservative Christians who don't think like you do, and at the same time, blast them for being intolerant because they don't accept Christians who don't think like they do.
Perhaps the single most comprehensive and definitive term characterizing the arrogance, elitism and exclusivism of those who were opposed to the SBC's conservative resurgence is their use of the term "takeover," and the adjective "hostile" to define it. The implication there is that those who were opposed to the conservatives had some kind of entitlement, or right, to hold leadership and grant favors with denominational jobs, while conservatives did not smacks of arrogance. You cannot "take over" something to which you already belong, and in which you are entitled to participate by virtue of meeting the membership qualifications stated in the constitution and bylaws of the organization. Implying that some individuals were more suited to leading the SBC than others, because they weren't conservatives, is a ridiculous assertion. There's been absolutely nothing preventing those who think "fundamentalists took over" their denomination from getting it back, except, perhaps, the fact that you probably can't find one in a thousand Southern Baptists who would agree with their agenda, theology and perspective. The conservative resurgence would have evaporated at the point where it ran out of enough support to sustain it over a long period of time, but it never did, largely because, as it progressed, it defined itself and more and more churches found themselves sympathetic to it.
I do agree, somewhat, with Worthen's general assessment of the SBC conservative resurgence, which she doesn't characterize as a takeover, but as a movement within the denomination that came to the surface, inevitably, because of the influence of conservative evangelicalism on the churches of the denomination. I gather that, like most Christians from a more liberal background, she doesn't like the idea of "grass roots" movements in denominations, preferring a hierarchical system where the educated elite enlighten the fools in the pew and hold leadership by virtue of their superior intellect. I can see why Stephen likes her perspective, and hangs his hat there.
Ed Pettibone wrote: Sandy, I would give you a B+ maybe even an A- on the 1st Paragaph and a D on the 2nd. and a C on the 3rd.
Sandy wrote:Ed Pettibone wrote: Sandy, I would give you a B+ maybe even an A- on the 1st Paragaph and a D on the 2nd. and a C on the 3rd.
Did you read Worthen's book, Ed? Paragraphs 1 and 3 are more or less reviews of it from my perspective. Writers like Worthen, attempting to analyze a denomination or Christian group outside of their own experience, tend to evaluate and draw conclusions based on their own experience. And the people they use as sources from "inside" are usually those who have been alienated or disgruntled in some way, and have made an exit themselves. They view conservative evangelicals as being on the verge of a cult, when, in fact, they represent a much larger and broader segment of the American church than the mainline Protestant denominations do. And while Worthen conveys her perspective as one that lacks a complete understanding of the dynamics that drive Evangelical conservatives, she correctly analyzes what happened in the SBC as a realignment of denominational leadership that came up from the conservative, evangelical perspective which existed in the pews of the churches.
I get that you disagree with my perspective of the conservative resurgence. But that, too, is a result of your own perspective and personal opinion. The fact is that there was not a single "outsider" involved in the conservative resurgence. No one had an exclusive right or entitlement to an elected or appointed office in the SBC. And in spite of all of the unofficial protocols that moderates claimed were violated, the SBC's conservative leadership was elected by Southern Baptists who held membership in churches defined as being in "full cooperation" with the convention, and came from such churches. Most of them had as long of a pedigree and as much prominence as any of those in leadership before them. And it's pretty clear, from what they've sustained, and what has transpired across the board since, that the resurgence successfully discerned both the mood, and the perspective of Southern Baptists. You cannot "take over" something that you are legitimately entitled, by virtue of your association and cooperation, to seek leadership, and to think of the conservative resurgence as a "takeover" and particularly a hostile one, evidences an attitude of exclusivism, entitlement, and exclusion.
Sandy wrote:KeithE wrote:William Thornton wrote:Yet another occasion where Fox sees Molly Worthen walking on water. Maybe Fox can get it on vimeo so the rest of us can see the miracle.
Have you read Worthen William? I have (actually I listened to it on Audible). It was like a walk down memory lane with the hubbub at Fuller Seminary (while I was taking extension classes there), the so-called Moral Majority hype, and the SBC Takeover. It’s scope is far beyond just the Baptist battles.
Walking on water it is not (nor does anyone including Fox say so); but good historical comment it is.
William- you can buy it in Kindle format ($9.99) or as a special on Audible ($3.99) if you really what to make an informed comment.
Apostles of Reason
4.4 out of 5.0 ratings.
I did read it, and still have the copy I paid for. I don't share your evaluation of it as "good" historical comment. An academic, historical work, to be evaluated as "good" (a "B+ paper in school terms), should be objective in its analysis. It's hard to read Worthen's work, and not experience her bias, which is clearly set against a broader definition of Evangelical, conservative Christians of any brand. It is a particular problem for authors who come from a background outside of an evangelical perspective to understand it and treat it fairly. The leftward turn of many Christian denominations in America post WW2 led to a massive decline in church membership as people left churches they considered to be too liberal, and either joined conservative churches and denominations, or split or splintered off their denominations and formed new, more conservative ones. That's a pattern that continues as new issues come to the forefront. Authors like Worthen couch their theories in the cloak of academia to claim legitimacy for what amounts to nothing more than an apologetic for liberal, humanist religion. It's hypocritical, really, to be intolerant of conservative Christians who don't think like you do, and at the same time, blast them for being intolerant because they don't accept Christians who don't think like they do.
Perhaps the single most comprehensive and definitive term characterizing the arrogance, elitism and exclusivism of those who were opposed to the SBC's conservative resurgence is their use of the term "takeover," and the adjective "hostile" to define it. The implication there is that those who were opposed to the conservatives had some kind of entitlement, or right, to hold leadership and grant favors with denominational jobs, while conservatives did not smacks of arrogance. You cannot "take over" something to which you already belong, and in which you are entitled to participate by virtue of meeting the membership qualifications stated in the constitution and bylaws of the organization. Implying that some individuals were more suited to leading the SBC than others, because they weren't conservatives, is a ridiculous assertion. There's been absolutely nothing preventing those who think "fundamentalists took over" their denomination from getting it back, except, perhaps, the fact that you probably can't find one in a thousand Southern Baptists who would agree with their agenda, theology and perspective. The conservative resurgence would have evaporated at the point where it ran out of enough support to sustain it over a long period of time, but it never did, largely because, as it progressed, it defined itself and more and more churches found themselves sympathetic to it.
I do agree, somewhat, with Worthen's general assessment of the SBC conservative resurgence, which she doesn't characterize as a takeover, but as a movement within the denomination that came to the surface, inevitably, because of the influence of conservative evangelicalism on the churches of the denomination. I gather that, like most Christians from a more liberal background, she doesn't like the idea of "grass roots" movements in denominations, preferring a hierarchical system where the educated elite enlighten the fools in the pew and hold leadership by virtue of their superior intellect. I can see why Stephen likes her perspective, and hangs his hat there.
Sandy wrote:"There's been absolutely nothing preventing those who think "fundamentalists took over" their denomination from getting it back, except, perhaps, the fact that you probably can't find one in a thousand Southern Baptists who would agree with their agenda, theology and perspective”
KeithE wrote:How is one to do history without “bias” as you say? Must one accept all of your bias to be bejudged unbiased? To claim legitimacy, a movement must be rational - conservative evangelicals who believe in inerrancy are not credible, imo. Worthen’s book is far more unbiased on that ground. Worthen is just pointing out the irrationality of inerrancy and she has every right to do so. If that ruffles your feathers, so be it.
Sandy wrote:Starting with the last SBC congregation I attended (and technically where I am still on the membership roll
Haruo wrote:Sandy wrote:Starting with the last SBC congregation I attended (and technically where I am still on the membership roll
So are you not a member of the CMA church you're (last I heard) active in, or are you holding dual membership, perhaps because the SB congregation is reluctant to let you go until you unite with a more identical church elsewhere?
Sandy wrote: I'm just pointing out that his source is biased, and therefore flawed and lacking an authoritative perspective from which to make an argument. Worthen's bias is the same as yours, that those who believe in inerrancy are not credible. That is opinion, not fact, and it skews both her perspective on the issue, and yours.
B/c that's where Fox started it.Ed Pettibone wrote:BTW, why is this thread on the CBF Forum?
Return to CBF Missions and Ministry Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest