What's the difference between a Georgia baptist and a republican congressman?

Answer-

Nothing-neither of them has a clue.

Republicans in congress want to continue the totally failed policies of the totally failed presidency of gw and the Georgia baptists want to continue the totally failed policy of discriminating against those who refuse to discriminate.  I won't say much more about the repubs in this post. That will come later as the story plays out.  The short-sighted mysogyny of Georgia baptists (who are generally representative of southern baptists as a whole, but sometimes slightly less regressive than their Alabama neighbors) have waged a full-scale battle against First Baptist Church-Decatur for the last two years.  The church's sin was to call a woman as pastor.  They called Julie Pennington-Russell in 2007.   That, of course, is a clear violation of the Baptist Faith & Message (2000 perversion) which states: “the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” Do the Bible study. How many times does the NT talk about the “office of pastor?” How many times does the word "pastor" even show up in the NT?The modern model of pastor as CEO is not biblical.  Look at the older versions of the BF&M. They are much more true to scripture than the modern perversion.

 

Ms. Pennington-Russell had been serving at a baptist church in that hot-bed of denominational rebellion known as "Jerusalem on the Brazos." For the uninitiated, that's Waco, TX. I have commented on the lack of biblical support for the sbc's position in other posts and on other blogs and will not repeat it here unless someone is interested. 

The sbc elite pride themselves on taking a stand against the demands of culture. One pastor, Bobby Braswell Jr. of Guyton, Ga., wrote that the convention's action is "not a popular position in today's cultural climate, but we are following the dictates of Scripture, not culture." What is abundantly clear is that rather than taking a stand against culture in their objection to women in church leadership positions, the sbc is actually supporting the same culture that brought us racism and slavery.  

If you have not followed this story, I have provided a series of links to Associated Baptist Press stories.

18 June 2007

Pennington-Russell set to make history as pastor of large Decatur church 

2 February 2008

Regain respect by rejecting exclusion, author Grisham urges fellow Baptists

13 November 2008

Opinion: Georgia Baptists isolate themselves 

14 November 2008

Georgia Baptists reject church with woman pastor 

27 January 2009

Church with woman pastor expects further rebuke from Georgia Baptists 

Baptists Put An End To Tolerance

The fundanazis in charge of various southern baptist organizations continue to demonstrate that lack of concern for historic baptist distinctives. Among the things that baptists of the sbc type have claimed as deeply held spiritucal convictions is the idea of the autonomy of the local church. The moderates who were run out of the sbc over the past few years were always strong supporters of this doctrine even when it led to them being verbally abused by those who felt called to judge the behavior and belief of some congregation other than their own. Among the big issues back in the 70s that got the moderates in trouble, was allowing churches that practiced the more controversial spiritual gifts, like speaking in tongues, to remain members in good standing. But the current leadership has consistently just given lip service to this historic baptist doctrine. This is nowhere more apparent than in today's press release from the Associated Baptist Press, an alternative to the sbc's official mouth organ, the baptist press. The first article which demonstrated this lack of concern for local church autonomy was about NC baptists who will no longer allow cooperating churches to funnel their gifts through the convention to anyone but "approved" baptist concerns. Particularly targeted with the gifts to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, a splinter group formed by some of the aforementioned moderates. The statement which reveals the somewhat lack of Christ-like spirit from those opposed to the open giving plan came from Eric Page, pastor of Victory Baptist Church in Columbus, who said "that refusing
to take a strong stand would promote "tolerance" of a group with which most North Carolina Baptists disagree. (We certainly wouldn't want any church to promote tolerance now would we?)
Page illustrated his point by saying the cartoon character Popeye took abuse only so long before he "popped out" a can of spinach and put an end to it."

Are you ready for this line?!?!

"It's time for us to pop out a can of spinach and put an end to tolerance," he said.

Farther down in the same ABP release we find baptists isolating themselves even more.

"On Nov. 12, in a front-page story, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution broke the news that the Georgia Baptist Convention has approved a new policy giving GBC executives the freedom to refuse donations from churches it finds to be out of step with Southern Baptist beliefs. The policy move is aimed (for now) at First Baptist Church Decatur, because it called a woman, Julie Pennington-Russell, to serve as pastor."

So now Georgia baptists don't even have to vote on it. Their executives can decide for them which churches are "out of step." This is even more tragic when you consider the number of times Georgia baptists and other "good" southerners refused to censure churches for blatant racism because of local church autonomy. If you want a a good example of this just google "racism beyond the grave."

You people out there who have remained in your southern baptist church with its connection to the sbc better be aware. It is only a matter of time before "they" find some reason to come after you.

Sadly, it is the right decision

I just saw the headline on ABP that "Judge dismisses Klouda lawsuit against Patterson, Southwestern." Sadly, in light of the obvious unjust way Dr. Klouda was treated, I believe the judge's decision is correct, that "the decision made by defendants concerning plaintiff was ecclesiastical in nature. The testimony on both sides was filled with theological and biblical arguments. Based on the first amendment the judge had no choice but to rule that the court could not "entangle" itself in this issue.

However, that should not be the end of this issue. Whether Dr. Klouda wants to pursue it or not, there should be those who still have standing and influence in the SBC that would be willing to right this wrong. Unfortunately, I have not the slightest hope that this will happen. If current southern baptists would not stand up for missionaries I seriously doubt that they will stand up for a Hebrew professor.

It saddens me, but this is the new SBC that you wanted.

SBC=GOP As If There Was Really Any Doubt

It has been obvious for some time now that the southern baptist convention (sbc) has sold-out to the conservation/reactionary wing of the republican party. This was never more apparent than yesterday (March 3, 2008) when I received the following erlc (ethics & religious liberty commission) action alert.

America's National Security At Risk

Dear Friends:
Americans are less safe today from terrorists than two weeks ago.

On Feb. 16, a critical law authorizing our intelligence community to monitor foreign terrorists’ communications expired.

That’s why the modernized Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA—which amends the 1978 law—is urgently needed. Since the horrific 9/11 attacks, many telecommunications companies have helped keep us safe from another attack on U.S. soil by cooperating with our intelligence agencies to intercept phone conversations of foreign terrorists placed into our country.

Now, without an amended FISA, our intelligence agencies are hamstrung from intercepting foreign communications unless they have a warrant, and phone carriers lack retroactive immunity from lawsuits leveled against them at the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars for admirably protecting you and me. Meanwhile, our national security is continually placed at greater risk as our foreign enemies can easily pass information into our country without us knowing it.

Liberals in Congress appear more interested in empowering the lawyers to sue the telecommunications companies than they are in providing for the security of United States citizens.

The Senate passed an update to FISA last month with strong bipartisan support, 68-29. But the House leadership has failed to give it a vote, despite its broad support in the House.

If this is a concern to you, please tell House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to schedule a vote on the Senate-passed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and urge your representative to support the bill.

You can call them by dialing the Capitol switchboard at 202/224-3121. Or click here to e-mail them a suggested letter or one entirely your own.

Thank you for your doing your part to help keep America safe from those who wish us harm.

In His Service,

Dr. Richard Land
President
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
Southern Baptist Convention

One of our privileges at the ERLC is to help you take a stand for Biblical values in your community, in the marketplace of ideas, and in the public policy arena. This Action Alert is one tool we use to keep you informed and call you to action on the important issues of the day.

Many people in both political parties will have different opinions about this action. What troubles me, is just what "biblical value" is Richard Land taking a stand for her. He obviously thinks doing his part to "keep America safe" is somehow connected with being "in his service." I think this ought to trouble anyone who gives any part of their offering to the cooperative program of the SBC. It is a very clear case of using funds given for relgious purposes to further a specific political cause. Since I quit giving any of my offerings to the SBC a couple of years ago, that is not my problem. But it ought to be a big problem for any of you who still think giving to the SBC is somehow helping to spread the kingdom of god. Some of you need to start holding Richard Land's feet to the fire on this.

ABP compares faith-based positions of top-tier presidential hopefuls

Associated Baptist Press (ABP), which is an alternative news source to be distinguished from the Baptist Press (BP), the mouth-organ of the SBC, has published a summary of the basic faith position of the currently front-running candidates from both parties. The summary includes: Faith background, Relationship with Religious Right, On abortion, On gay rights, On Iraq, and On the relationship between church and state. If you are looking for a good summary, this is the place for it. You can find the article at ABP compares faith-based positions of top-tier presidential hopefuls

Did the SBC end the boycott too soon?

Remember the SBC boycott of Disney that only the diehard SBs payed any attention to. For those who don't remember, it was because Disney allowed Gay/Lesbian Days in Disney World/Land etc. The SBC called it off in 2005 figuring that they had punished Disney enough. Well it looks like they ended it too soon. Accord an AP report, "Same-sex couples who want to exchange vows in front of Cinderella's Castle now have the chance." The article, Disney Opens Weddings to Gay Couples.

A Disney spokesperson said, "We believe this change is consistent with Disney's long-standing policy of welcoming every guest in an inclusive environment. "We want everyone who comes to celebrate a special occasion at Disney to feel welcome and respected."

"Welcome," "inclusive," "respected." That sounds almost Christian. But take heart SBCers, it's not too late to get resolution submitted in time for the annual convention in SA.

Are You Going To Be Next?

First, they went after the moderates. Then they went after the non-signers of BFM2000. Then they went after the tongue-speakers. Then they went after the scripturally baptized. Then they went after the women. Now they are going after the Blacks (see the Dallas Morning News article). Are you going to be next?