BaptistLife.Com Forums.

I may blog on this and email link to Adrian Rogers son David, and Harry Dent's daughter, Ginny. Interestint commentary by Wilkerson Jr. on NPR over the weekend on this matter with some reverberations for the SBC. But we shall see how the analogy evolves.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/b ... zes-391977

Stephen Fox wrote:http://www.npr.org/2012/11/25/165854627/hollywood-paper-apologizes-for-47-blacklist-support?ft=1&f=10

Ed: Steve, I believe my sons have a right to disagree with public stances that I have taken, however they have no right to apologize for my stance on any issue.

Ed I think in effect what the apology is for is for the magazine's involvement. The son is the responsible for the magazine so I think an apology on behalf of the magazine is appropriate. It is similar to the SBCs apology for supporting slavery. It is an apology for the institution and not for the individuals.

I slightly disagree with you there, Ed. I think the son does have a "right" to apologize for the father, though such an apology has much less meaning. It usually comes when the son feels guilty over the acts of the father, which in Wilkerson's case, shines through. In this case, I suspect the explanation (biased as it may be) probably has more meaning than the "apology" itself. I see Foxy's analogy to the SBC situation--though I won't hold my breath for it to happen.

John Fariss

John:

Are you thinking that the major players in the takeover of the SBC will one day apologize or repent for blacklisting folks while they were orchestrating the Takeover?

Tom Parker wrote:John:

Are you thinking that the major players in the takeover of the SBC will one day apologize or repent for blacklisting folks while they were orchestrating the Takeover?

Sounds more like, no, their kids will one day apologize on their behalf, adding that "if dad had only lived longer maybe he'd be apologizing to you (or your parents) himself."

Haruo:

I often wonder if the major players even consider what they did to other Christians during the takeover? Probably not. When they deemed these other people--liberals, I guess they felt they deserved no compassion or concern.

Ah yes, Liberals. People who think Jesus Christ is a forerunner of Robin Hood, and who probably mostly believe in sacrificing virgins and their children to the gods of Hollywood.

Haruo wrote:Ah yes, Liberals. People who think Jesus Christ is a forerunner of Robin Hood, and who probably mostly believe in sacrificing virgins and their children to the gods of Hollywood.

Haruo:

Using your description of liberals, I can see why the Southern Baptist Convention had to remove these human forms from the pastorates of churches, seminaries, libraries, etc.

Yes, depriving such folks of their livelihoods is clearly the moral alternative.

The least we can do for Jesus.

Tom Parker wrote:John:

Are you thinking that the major players in the takeover of the SBC will one day apologize or repent for blacklisting folks while they were orchestrating the Takeover?

Yeah. And by the way, I have some oceanview property in Arizona I can sell at a bargain price, or perhaps a big bridge in Brooklyn.

Now: some of the "soldiers" in that, or the children/grandchildren of the takeover, . . . maybe. Actually, some of the soldiers have at least said their tactics were brutal, even though while defending the "goals." But again, I won't hold my breath.

John

I'd certainly not hold my breath for an apology from any of the SBC Takeover crowd. But then also, who cares? If we hope for a change we are simply giving those people some power aren't we?

I remember when I was pastoring in the ABC in Indiana I got invited back to an SBC church I had been Associate Pastor in to preach a set of revival services. It wasn't something I commonly did but the people there were warm and gracious and so I agreed to come and preach the week.

One night after church I was eating dinner with some persons in the church including one seminarian. We got to talking about SBC politics and I expressed my viewpoints critical of certain of the leading takeover leadership. He became very nervous and suggested that I could some how get in trouble for criticizing this powerful SBC leader. I then pointed out to him that as an American Baptist I had nothing to fear from any SBC leader. But even after my explanation his response was something to the effect "Oh, you never know what could happen criticizing this powerful person." I could understand why he would be concerned for himself but why for me?

What I realized is that he was so trapped in the SBC ghetto that he didn't realize that outside of SBC circles most people have no idea who the leaders are of the SBC and that those people have little influence on the lives of persons not in their religious circle. It would be akin to you and I being afraid of criticizing the Pope because he is so powerful in Roman Catholic circles.

Actually maybe the PCUSA, ABC/USA, UMC, DOC, and TEC at least should send a thank you note to the SBC leadership for helping send so many fine clergy, including a lot of fine women, to our denominations.

Tim:

You said:"Actually maybe the PCUSA, ABC/USA, UMC, DOC, and TEC at least should send a thank you note to the SBC leadership for helping send so many fine clergy, including a lot of fine women, to our denominations.

There still is a great Paranoia in the SBC about getting in trouble with the powers?

The only hope for the individual is if he or she can reach the point where there is no fear of the powers.

Only then is the individual Free!!

Timothy Bonney wrote:Actually maybe the PCUSA, ABC/USA, UMC, DOC, and TEC at least should send a thank you note to the SBC leadership for helping send so many fine clergy, including a lot of fine women, to our denominations.

I had to smile when I saw your use of the term "fine women." No further comment forthcoming on that.

SBC churches have gotten the better end of the deal, in terms of receiving many fine church members from those denominations, alienated by policies handed down by unbending, agenda driven denominational leadership over the years. I think they've gotten the better end of the deal.

Sandy wrote:SBC churches have gotten the better end of the deal, in terms of receiving many fine church members from those denominations, alienated by policies handed down by unbending, agenda driven denominational leadership over the years. I think they've gotten the better end of the deal.

I don't think it is to the SBC that mainliners are running. The stories and information I've seen is that mainliners who no longer go to mainline churches are mostly just dropping out of church. More are going to independent/Community Churches. I don't know what happens in the south. But if there was some influx of mainliners into the SBC up here there would be a lot more SBC churches around here than I can find.

Tim Bonney wrote:

Sandy wrote:SBC churches have gotten the better end of the deal, in terms of receiving many fine church members from those denominations, alienated by policies handed down by unbending, agenda driven denominational leadership over the years. I think they've gotten the better end of the deal.

I don't think it is to the SBC that mainliners are running. The stories and information I've seen is that mainliners who no longer go to mainline churches are mostly just dropping out of church. More are going to independent/Community Churches. I don't know what happens in the south. But if there was some influx of mainliners into the SBC up here there would be a lot more SBC churches around here than I can find.

The last SBC annual that I have is from 2007, and I don't know if the annual church letter tracks the data any more, but there is a line on the annual church profile where congregations enter the number of members received from churches of other denominations. In many SBC churches, that figure would be included in their additions by baptism, since most require people coming from other denominations to be baptized by immersion. However, the 2007 figure is close to half a million. I suspect that number has grown in recent years because of the development and growth of mega churches in the SBC, but the last SBC church I belonged to, in Houston, added a sizeable number of individuals from surrounding "mainline" churches, three in particular, mostly over adding female clergy. About half the people in our contemporary worship congregation,mostly median aged adults and their families, over 100 people total, came from one of those three churches, shortly after they were assigned a female pastor.

Up north, where the SBC churches are small, and scattered around, it is the non-denominational churches that pick up the transfer membership.

Sandy wrote:
....In many SBC churches, that figure would be included in their additions by baptism, since most require people coming from other denominations to be baptized by immersion. However, the 2007 figure is close to half a million.

Does the book break it up by denomination? If it doesn't it is pretty hard to tell how many came from what kind of church.

I suspect that number has grown in recent years because of the development and growth of mega churches in the SBC, but the last SBC church I belonged to, in Houston, added a sizeable number of individuals from surrounding "mainline" churches, three in particular, mostly over adding female clergy. About half the people in our contemporary worship congregation,mostly median aged adults and their families, over 100 people total, came from one of those three churches, shortly after they were assigned a female pastor.

Your situation in your part of the country must be different from Iowa and much of the upper midwest. I never hear any complaints about women pastors here. Almost half of the UMC churches in Sioux City are pastored by women including one of the larger congregations in town. I believe more than 25% of the UMC pastors in Iowa are women. Here, as far as I can tell, women in ministry is a non-issue for the UMC and the ELCA, the two biggest non-RCC denominations in Iowa.

Up north, where the SBC churches are small, and scattered around, it is the non-denominational churches that pick up the transfer membership.

Yes, we do have some non-denominational mega-churches that pick up members from all over the place. But it isn't just from mainline churches. Almost any church in the area that isn't a "mega-church" loses members to these churches including other conservative churches.

Again, most of the literature I'm seeing suggests that we are losing our children to the "nones" or "spiritual but not religious" categories rather rather than conservative groups. Also we have lost some of our young people because we haven't been progressive enough on issues of sexuality and marriage. Many of those college students who voted for Obama this time around are also the same people who won't consider attending a church that isn't "Reconciling" (Welcoming and Affirming in Baptist speak).

Sandy:

You said to Tim:"SBC churches have gotten the better end of the deal, in terms of receiving many fine church members from those denominations, alienated by policies handed down by unbending, agenda driven denominational leadership over the years. I think they've gotten the better end of the deal."

IMO, there is and will never be anything worse than the "unbending, agenda driven denominational leadership over the years" of the takeover. Sorry to use your own words but they are most appropriate.

Timothy Bonney wrote:Does the book break it up by denomination? If it doesn't it is pretty hard to tell how many came from what kind of church.

No, it is just a total figure. In most SBC churches, if you came from a denomination that sprinkled, you'd have to be baptized by immersion to join, and I don't know if churches would simply include those folks in the additions by baptism category, or actually separate them out.

Timothy Bonney wrote:Your situation in your part of the country must be different from Iowa and much of the upper midwest. I never hear any complaints about women pastors here. Almost half of the UMC churches in Sioux City are pastored by women including one of the larger congregations in town. I believe more than 25% of the UMC pastors in Iowa are women. Here, as far as I can tell, women in ministry is a non-issue for the UMC and the ELCA, the two biggest non-RCC denominations in Iowa.

Statistically, the ELCA is losing members at a pretty steep rate. So while it may not seem to be a big deal on the surface, it may be hard to catch the people gliding out the back door, even in Iowa. The UMC is still losing members too, at a percentage that is still a good bit higher than the SBC is losing them.

Timothy Bonney wrote:Again, most of the literature I'm seeing suggests that we are losing our children to the "nones" or "spiritual but not religious" categories rather rather than conservative groups. Also we have lost some of our young people because we haven't been progressive enough on issues of sexuality and marriage. Many of those college students who voted for Obama this time around are also the same people who won't consider attending a church that isn't "Reconciling" (Welcoming and Affirming in Baptist speak).

Ed Stetzer says about 80% of those active in church in high school are dropping out at some point around college graduation. A couple of hours a week at church cannot compete with a constant barrage of cultural explosion taking place on the computer, internet, I-phone, music, and in the public education system. If it's not really being lived at home, it's not going to get caught.

But, there is a movement of members from mainline denominations, especially the progressive ones who ordain gay and lesbian clergy, into more conservative churches and denominations, and a lot of the movement is younger, more conservative members. The big attraction at our church in Houston was the contemporary worship service, but there were people who came from the nearby mainline churches who were looking for conservative, and knew they'd find it with Southern Baptists.

Sandy wrote:Ed Stetzer says about 80% of those active in church in high school are dropping out at some point around college graduation. A couple of hours a week at church cannot compete with a constant barrage of cultural explosion taking place on the computer, internet, I-phone, music, and in the public education system. If it's not really being lived at home, it's not going to get caught.

I agree with the above. I also see young people dropping out for the church failing to be the church. That is we fail to love them, love each other, and love the world. Many churches are too much social club and too much private club to really share the grace of God as any of the founders of any our our denominations wanted them to.

But, there is a movement of members from mainline denominations, especially the progressive ones who ordain gay and lesbian clergy, into more conservative churches and denominations, and a lot of the movement is younger, more conservative members.

I agree with this with the caveat that the movement does happen in both directions. I can name, without even thinking hard, many people I know personally who used to be in the SBC or other conservative church that are now in the ABC/USA, PCUSA, UMC etc.

I also agree that the UMC and ELCA are losing members faster than the SBC is currently. But only a small percentage has to do with people leaving for another church. In most churches I know of it is aging congregations who have both not brought in new people and have not been able to keep their own children in church, any church.

I personally don't think the decline of any of our denominations is about liberalism or conservatism but rather a refusal on the part of most churches to change and meet the needs of the community around them.

We are way off topic so maybe this should move to another thread.