Common ground for Baptists?

[dorkelf]

http://wsbradio.com/news/020208baptists.html

The above very short article (1 page) made my eyes pop out. I had no idea anything like this was going on. And to be honest, I really have some very mixed feelings about it. What do you guys (and gals) think about the idea of liberal and conservative varieties of Baptists (and other Christian denominations) putting aside some VERY IMPORTANT issues to find some common ground?

It's a real struggle for me to seperate the 'message' of this story from the messenger...I absolutely LOATHE Jimmy Carter.

Paul

 

[Hescominsoon]

I'm glad the southern baptists are holding the line. The Bible is the Bible and compromising for political correctness is..wrong.

"Many of the participants belong to churches that distanced themselves or split from the Southern Baptist Convention after conservatives consolidated control in the 1970s and 1980s. With 16.3 million members, the SBC is not only the largest Baptist denomination in the U.S., but is also the biggest Protestant group in the country."

Conservatives did not consolidate control actual biblical teachings and doctrine did. The rest split off and have remained their fragmented selves. Look what is happening to the Episcopalians and Methodists since they starting "compromising". If the SBC ever does that then I'll watch my church very closely. The instant i see that kind of garbage I'll first talk to the pastor and if it continues we'll find another church that truly believes in the Bible.

 

[CGamer]

I'm a Southern Baptist church member by choice, a Christian by new birth. I'd like to say this and some may not agree with my statements. This article here just goes to show ME that as individual's who claim the name of Christ and call themselves "Christians" that are so liberal in their beliefs that they are willing to accept anything and anyone. They just want to "love" everybody and everything will be okay, well I say hogwash.

Granted as Christians we are to love and accept everyone which I have no issue with, the problem is that when people begin to condone sin, sexual immorality, lying, stealing...whatever it may be as being okay you have a BIG problem. I fear as time progresses which God Word says so more and more people claiming to be Christians will push for a "One-world church" where whatever you believe is fine and as long as you do the best you can by what you know, you'll be okay.

Common ground is fine but if I have to compromise God's Word to get along with you then I'm sorry to say I won't do that.

The real truth boils down this; Saved and Lost..

You are on one side or another, you have either accepted Christ's sacrifice in faith for your sins and received His gracious gift of Salvation or you have rejected that gift and our lost in your sins on your way to Hell, and if you die in that lost state there is no second chance, you don't pass Go you don't collect $200.

If people would quit preaching, teaching and living a watered down version of Christianity, I truly believe you would see a much different Christian populace as a whole.

 

[ishylynn]

Honestly Ichthus, your post comes across to me as being somewhat sarcastic as well.

One comment I want to make is how despite the message of "end divisions over religion and politics", the issue of politics was still brought up and it was noted that one of the aims was to develop projects for "..the environment, immigration and religious freedom or other issues". I think it was still about politics whether or not they claimed it wasn't. It's also interesting that it happened the week before the major primaries.

BTW, Bill Clinton was also one of the organizers of it.

 

[Durruck]

I've thought for quite a long time while trying to figure out exactly what I feel about this, and why. I'm sure parts of it will seem like a ramble, so please forgive me on this. I don't like the fact that the lineup was all Democrats - including Clinton and Gore. But it seems that the article points out that Republicans were invited and declined to attend. It seems that it wasn't the fault of the people running the show (could be biased media, but hard to tell).

I like the idea of what they're trying to do - bring Christians together. We all have messed up ideas, and I'm guessing that none of us have everything exactly as God intends it to be. We're broken individuals without the ability to see things the way God does. Whether it be your stance on the death penalty ("Life is sacred" vs "fulfilling earthly punishment") ... regardless of where you stand on homosexuals serving as ministers; should minsters/priests marry? Should women be allowed to serve? Should we drink/smoke? Should we pay taxes? Should we spend our money feeding the hungry or enabling them to work? Should we be buried or cremated when we die? Abortion? Divorce? Eat meat on Tuesday while throwing paper airplanes? Should we(pick a topic), and somewhere you're probably wrong. Granted, we all have to decide what we believe (based on Scripture) and pick a church system that follows that belief-pattern. If after reading The Bible I still think it's okay to eat meat on Tuesdays while throwing paper airplanes, I'm not going to stick with a church that says I'm wrong and can't back it up with scripture)

I think it's awesome that any particular group is willing to look past differences in interpretation and get back to the heart of what God commands us to do. Fellowship with other Christians, hold each other accountable, go out and serve.... all in love. When we get hung up in the "rules," we become like the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Even while standing with Jesus, the apostles couldn't get the rules figured out. They eventually split up and the first 12 even fractioned and became separate "denominations". But Paul addresses this in 1Cor chapters 1-4.

10I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ".

13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel - not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

2I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? 4For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?

5What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe - as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.

Paul is saying that he and Apollos came and taught different messages. Why? Because that's what God told them to do so that the Corinthians could grow at the right time. I think that God is showing us how we should spread the word - to the audience. If you are telling me about Christ's love and sacrifice... I already believe and understand the implication. Giving me milk again doesn't feed me - I need solid food; I need to go deeper into The Word to be fed. But to someone that doesn't know Jesus, milk is the perfect choice.

My point? Just that even as Paul fought against divisions in his day - differences in teaching approaches, styles... why are we fighting about those same things yet today? We're not meant to be divided - we're meant to be together with other Christians fighting the worldliness around us.

So if the Southern Baptists and the Northern Baptists want to get together with the Methodists, Episcopalians, Pentecosts, or any other Christian group for the sake of working together for God, I'm okay with it. Just don't bring in the Buddhists, Muslim, Taoists, or other non-Christian groups to harmonize in the name of "whichever god you want to pick".

Anyway, just my rambles.

 

[moxie]

I don't see this article as pushing a one-world-church or accepting sin... but rather just trying to reconcile churches that have been split so long over fringe issues and racial boundaries. How can we ever show the world the love of Christ if we are not able to love (or at least have civil conversations with) our brothers and sisters in Christ?

 

[CGamer]

Don't misunderstand my post by any means even though I attend a Southern Baptist church there are many things within the organization itself that I disagree with however I believe as on a whole the SBC adheres to Biblical doctrine more closely then any other denomination if I didn't I wouldn't attend a Southern Baptist church.

Many people oftentimes look at an organization rather then the individual and you will find faults in either instance, personal or corporate.

Yes, I beleive the SBC while not meaning to do it, actual placed the Bible over Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

I have to disagree upon this point at least in my neck of the woods. While I hold fast that the Bible is the infallible, inerrhent Word of God without a personal relationship with Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit the Bible is no more effective or efficient then sitting down and reading a Harry Potter book.


I have no problem with people coming together for the betterment of society or community, what I do have a problem with is people who slap "Christian" on an organization or event because it draws a crowd and this "organization" is the farthest thing from being Christian it's like the difference between an apple and an orange. An apple will never be an orange no matter how long you call it an orange.

BTW, Bill Clinton was also one of the organizers of it.

That just proves my point, Bill Clinton is one of the most ungodly political figures I know. This isn't based upon political party or whatever but upon the life he has shown to people.

I don't see this article as pushing a one-world-church or accepting sin... but rather just trying to reconcile churches that have been split so long over fringe issues and racial boundaries. How can we ever show the world the love of Christ if we are not able to love (or at least have civil conversations with) our brothers and sisters in Christ?

I'll sit down with anyone and discuss Christ as a matter of fact I spent an hour last night discussing Christ with a guy on World of Warcraft who firmly denies the existence of God. We had a very good conversation and we stopped on good terms, no anger, no harsh words or anything as a matter of fact he's in my current guild.

The problem is that as stated previously is sticking "Christian" label on whatever and not adhering to a Christian basis.

Al Gore is a professed Buddhist and he was one of the speakers for the event. It reminds me of another group "The Promise Keepers" which wanted to bring all faiths together to help and strengthen the goal of men and fathers in the family. Call it whatever you wish but don't call it Christian because it's fails to meet that criteria.

I think so many Christians are almost scared to raise their voices and call things for what it is, that we would rather sugar coat everything so it slides down sweet.

 

[Amicus Dei of [FoG]]

Baptist = a division of Protestant = product of a schizm of Christians about the Catholic church...

If Baptists split from a group of Protestants who split from the Catholic church, we're bound to divide even further...

Although "A house divided cannot stand" and I think we're stretching ourselves thin... (it would be so much easier if we were all able to agree on things xD )

In any case, I don't really care; I think people should be able to decide on division for themselves (I just follow what I can read from the Bible, and get some ideas and boosted worship time by going to church)

 

[CGamer]

Where's the fun in everyone agreeing? LOL

 

[TheChad1215]

It would be impossible for Chirstians to agree on EVERYTHING. And, in fact, I don't really think it's a BAD thing that the Church has split because of it. At least to a certain extent... Christians' general inability to coexist with other denominations without having a fit over who's the better Christian is why C.S. Lewis says that Christianity (even after 2000 years) is still in its infancy.

I really wish more Christians (and maybe ones less likely to put on a show for political gain) would get together and have a nice little time concentrating on what makes Christians Christians--what all true Christians have in common which is a deep love for God and Christ and a longing to do His will.

Entire Church's have split on issues as big as how old the earth is and a little as whether drums should be used in worship! And I know I've said this before, but I still believe it: At the end of the day (that is to say, at the end of the world), it DOES NOT MATTER. Personal beliefs regarding creation, the Bible, even Predestination should have no effect on our personal walk and mission as followers of God. It's fine to want to gather weekly with people who agree on specific beliefs (I wouldn't want my pastor to talk about how God started the Big Bang every week), but it should never hinder us from coming together as one unified and catholic (<- note the lower case "c") Church.

-Chadley

PS- @ CGamer: Don't diss Promise Keepers. I got saved at that rally in Kansas City in 1996. The only complaints I've ever heard was that it was too commercial (and possibly sexist??) for some people, but the fact that they're trying to gather men from different Christian denominations to devote themselves to God and their family and living the life of a true Christian man is a great mission in my mind. Sure, it's somewhat watered down and, like I said, I need more than that on a Sunday service, but it was an incredibly moving experience for me. Obviously, I came out of it a different person...

 

[Odale]

I am a Christian by birth, a Presbyterian by choice and a Southerner by the Grace of God.

I really have nothing against Southern Baptists (Baptists in the South), I find what the SBC has done in the past, quite deplorable. I find that when you force a belief on a population, it does not work. Telling "person Y" that they are going to Hell because the way they live their life differs from the way "person Z" lives his life is quite un-Christian and quite frankly, is not your job - but Gods. The best way to witness is passively and non-violently.

CGamer, can you elaborate what you mean by the following quote? I don't know what Christian organization that condones sin, maybe tolerate is the word you were looking for?

Granted as Christians we are to love and accept everyone which I have no issue with, the problem is that when people begin to condone sin, sexual immorality, lying, stealing...whatever it may be as being okay you have a BIG problem.

Also, can you elaborate on:

I fear as time progresses which God Word says so more and more people claiming to be Christians will push for a "One-world church" where whatever you believe is fine and as long as you do the best you can by what you know, you'll be okay.

Are you saying that people will all push to be Catholic or Baptist or Presbyterian, or just a Christian?

I see what you mean by saying:

Al Gore is a professed Buddhist and he was one of the speakers for the event. It reminds me of another group "The Promise Keepers" which wanted to bring all faiths together to help and strengthen the goal of men and fathers in the family. Call it whatever you wish but don't call it Christian because it's fails to meet that criteria.

I believe that Christians can support organizations that are designed to better humanity, as well as other religions that profess peace and wellbeing to your brothers and sisters, no matter the faith.

As far as the Bible being infallible... I believe that you should seek God in your heart, before you should ever go looking for him in some book (including the Bible).

God >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bible.
​

However, I am not saying "Don't read it." People wrote the Bible thousands of years ago, and in many language stages over the years. The old testament was written over many many years in the Hebrew language. Look at the English language, a few hundred years ago it was spoken in what we know as "Olde English". Old English as we know it is so totally different from modern day English that only a select population of people can read it today. When the Bible was being written, the Hebrew language went through the same changes, and on top of that, it was translated into "Olde English" then into modern day English.

My point is, is that through the years the Bible has been translated so many times, through so many languages that the probability that it is mis-translated is quite high.

I believe that the Bible is a good guide to how you should live your life, but also that some of the stories read to us from it can be read in multiple ways, therefore leading to different views all from one source, and thus, making all view points correct.

Thats my spiel.

 

[CGamer]

I am a Christian by birth, a Presbyterian by choice and a Southerner by the Grace of God.

Love That btw...

I really have nothing against Southern Baptists (Baptists in the South), I find what the SBC has done in the past, quite deplorable. I find that when you force a belief on a population, it does not work. Telling "person Y" that they are going to Hell because the way they live their life differs from the way "person Z" lives his life is quite un-Christian and quite frankly, is not your job - but Gods. The best way to witness is passively and non-violently.

I honestly don't believe the SBC has does this in anyway or form. What they have done is state that there is Salvation by no other means except Christ which is absolutely 100% true.

Would I go up to someone and tell them "You're going to die and go to Hell if you don't get saved". No I wouldn't there is a such thing as tact.

CGamer, can you elaborate what you mean by the following quote? I don't know what Christian organization that condones sin, maybe tolerate is the word you were looking for?

Tolerate may have been more appropriate word however, any church Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Presbytrian, or whatever denomination that says it's okay for a person to live in a homosexual relationship(used for example), or any such on-going sinful practice and allows that person to Pastor a church is condoning sin.


Time for church will finish later...

 

[Odale]

Thanks for the elaboration!

 

[Whon]

I'm interested in knowing how many here have actually taken religious classes and I mean high levels not sunday school... I took a simple "Intro to the Old Testament" at ISU taught by one Dr. Avalos. may sound strange but he was an atheist and I learned more about my own beliefs from an atheist then any pastor or minister. I learned that there is a line between Protestant and Catholic. A little background and Avalos, he have a photographic memory (really made it hard when you missed class lol) and was the first hispanic to study under FM Cross and John Strugnel at Harvard (two of the most well known textual critics of the Hebrew Bible and Dead Sea Scroll) I quickly learned and understand that the bible we read today is very muddy. The interpretations of the Dead Sea Scroll and done very well and as accurate as possible, but they are still interpretations, subject to question and aren't really Gods spoken words to the authors. We get and idea of the stories, but in my opinion no religious denomination has it perfect. It's impossible. So why does everyone fight and argue over text the no one can be 100% sure in it's meaning. In my humble opinion is that we have faith that God loves us, sent His son Jesus Christ to die for our sins and is returning again someday. Why do they argue over the little things and not find common ground to focus on the one most important things, getting people saved and into Heaven. These are my belief, they may not be your's and I respect that.

 

[dorkelf]

Christians' general inability to coexist with other denominations without having a fit over who's the better Christian is why C.S. Lewis says that Christianity (even after 2000 years) is still in its infancy.

That's fascinating Chadley, though I think it's us as an overall race, culture and society that are still in our infancy. The Church can't be any more than its people, and we haven't come as far as a people as our technology would make it seem. I think an advanced alien culture looking at us now would see a bunch of immature children with a lot of very big, very powerful, very dangerous toys. We've had such an explosion of science and technology over the past 200 years or so that has propelled us very suddenly and drastically into a lifestyle that requires so much more of us in so many ways. How hard was it for the person of 1850 to avoid pornography? Dirty jokes? Associations with immoral people? How much schooling and knowledge did that person need to survive and provide well for his family? The skills and knowledge which that person needed to exist back then were essentially the same that people needed 1000 or 2000 years in the past. So for that person to follow right along in the footsteps of tradition and do all things (school, church, etc) like they had always been done was actually not such a bad idea. But the person of today who does things essentially the same way as that person of 1850 is only going to be able to exist among others like himself or herself. He or she will struggle just to communicate with the young person of today...and will be entirely unable to communicate at all with the young person of the next generation, or have any impact in the society of the next generation.

Paul

 

[Odale]

I'm interested in knowing how many here have actually taken religious classes and I mean high levels not sunday school... I took a simple "Intro to the Old Testament" at ISU taught by one Dr. Avalos. may sound strange but he was an atheist and I learned more about my own beliefs from an atheist then any pastor or minister. I learned that there is a line between Protestant and Catholic. A little background and Avalos, he have a photographic memory (really made it hard when you missed class lol) and was the first hispanic to study under FM Cross and John Strugnel at Harvard (two of the most well known textual critics of the Hebrew Bible and Dead Sea Scroll) I quickly learned and understand that the bible we read today is very muddy. The interpretations of the Dead Sea Scroll and done very well and as accurate as possible, but they are still interpretations, subject to question and aren't really Gods spoken words to the authors. We get and idea of the stories, but in my opinion no religious denomination has it perfect. It's impossible. So why does everyone fight and argue over text the no one can be 100% sure in it's meaning. In my humble opinion is that we have faith that God loves us, sent His son Jesus Christ to die for our sins and is returning again someday. Why do they argue over the little things and not find common ground to focus on the one most important things, getting people saved and into Heaven. These are my belief, they may not be your's and I respect that.

This was the subject in my Humanities class which is now studying the worlds largest religions; which is why I wrote this paragraph:

However, I am not saying "Don't read it." People wrote the Bible thousands of years ago, and in many language stages over the years. The old testament was written over many many years in the Hebrew language. Look at the English language, a few hundred years ago it was spoken in what we know as "Olde English". Old English as we know it is so totally different from modern day English that only a select population of people can read it today. When the Bible was being written, the Hebrew language went through the same changes, and on top of that, it was translated into "Olde English" then into modern day English.

After what my teacher showed us, I must agree with you.

Very nice post Whon.

 

[Icthus]

I'm interested in knowing how many here have actually taken religious classes and I mean high levels not sunday school....

Raises Hand...

And I take exception to this statement...

I quickly learned and understand that the bible we read today is very muddy. The interpretations of the Dead Sea Scroll and done very well and as accurate as possible, but they are still interpretations, subject to question and aren't really Gods spoken words to the authors.

The Bible we have today, in all its many forms (IE english, spanish, french, vietnamese, chinese or whatever) that are based on the UBS Greek Text is the most accurate document from ancient history we have today.

If you beleive the writings of shakesphere, plato, or any of the others are accurate then the Bible is accurate. Actual far more accurate.

It is safe to assume that the Bible we have today is precisely what God wants us to have. <This quote is from my Greek professor at the Univerity of Texas in Austin, two actually, who were not Christians>

 

[Odale]

Whoa there... <re-re-re-reads Icthus' post.>

If you beleive the writings of shakesphere, plato, or any of the others are accurate then the Bible is accurate. Actual far more accurate.

??? Sorry, I don't understand.

The fact still remains that the Bible, including some of the books, were written over several hundred years; therefore, whatever is written is probably different than what was originally written down.

I am not claiming to know more than anyone here, I know it is probably one of the most accurate texts from the Ancient World (probably because it is one of the only texts that still survives after the fire of the Library of Alexandria). However, when you look at the facts, who wrote the Bible, when it was written, what has happened since then, and probably most importantly the languages and how they have changed, you must admit that the chances of the stories and accounts of what happened at that time could be inaccurate.

 

[Odale]

Back to the Baptists!

 

[Hescominsoon]

Whoa there... <re-re-re-reads Icthus' post.>
??? Sorry, I don't understand.

The fact still remains that the Bible, including some of the books, were written over several hundred years; therefore, whatever is written is probably different than what was originally written down.

I am not claiming to know more than anyone here, I know it is probably one of the most accurate texts from the Ancient World (probably because it is one of the only texts that still survives after the fire of the Library of Alexandria). However, when you look at the facts, who wrote the Bible, when it was written, what has happened since then, and probably most importantly the languages and how they have changed, you must admit that the chances of the stories and accounts of what happened at that time could be inaccurate.

no actually we don't. If you want to question the accuracy of the Bible then you are questioning the accuracy of the word of God and therefore God himself. That's not a leap I am willing to take..but it's a leap out of faith in God waaaaay too many are willing to take to try to conform to this world or somehow make Christianity more palatable to this world. nOt going to happen..we are warned against this line of thinking over and over again.