Rumblings from the New Baptist Covenant (by Tony Campolo)
They came to the Georgia World Congress Center by the thousands. They represented thirty different Baptist groups from across the nation, along with an array of representatives from Baptist groups from abroad. This gathering, held January 30 to February 1, 2008, marked the historic beginning of what is being called The New Baptist Covenant. This is not a new "super" denomination, but rather, is an association of separate Baptist denominations that are committing to work together to further ministries that will serve Christ and His Kingdom.
The one single cause around which all of these Baptist groups could rally without debate was the call of Christ to address the needs of the poor. There was recognition of the fact that there were differences among those who were signing on to this New Baptist Covenant, but the participants all recognized a basic principle of the Baptist tradition, which is the autonomy of the local church. True Baptists, from the time of Roger Williams, the initiator of the Baptist movement here in America, down to the present, have always held that local congregations should develop their own rules and regulations for faith and practice. Following that lead meant that there were some Baptists present, for instance, who did not support the ordination of women to the preaching ministry, even though most of those who were present were champions of the claim that women should have the right to hold any and every role in church leadership. There were those present who affirmed gay marriage, while most of the others were opposed to it. Some held pro-war positions, but there were many who were pacifists. Nevertheless, all who were in attendance were united in affirming the call to address the needs of the poor.
If ever Jim Wallis and the Call to Renewal Movement, which he was instrumental in starting, needed assurances that what they were doing was producing results, the New Baptist Covenant provided it. This new association, representing more than 20 million Baptists, made addressing the problems of poverty their basic cause, and this is the kind of thing that the Call to Renewal people have hoped would happen to church groups everywhere. The politics of the Call to Renewal have been the politics of poverty, and it obviously was the politics of the New Baptist Covenant.
The gathering had a list of star-studded platform speakers that included former Vice President Al Gore, John Grisham, the best selling author, former presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, and Marian Wright Edelman of the Children's Defense League. There also were seminars that included some of the premier prophetic voices of our day. For example, James Forbes and Wil Campbell taught eager listeners what they had learned about preaching sermons with a prophetic edge. But in the midst of all the sermons and seminars promoting social justice for the poor, those in the New Baptist Covenant never lost sight of the need to win the lost to the salvation of the cross.
The Southern Baptist Convention was not represented at this gathering by their own choice. They were invited, but several of their leaders took exception to the speakers who were listed on the program for the Atlanta meeting. Several of the SBC's most prominent spokesmen condemned the meetings for what they perceived to their liberal tendencies. The net result is that the New Baptist Covenant may end up being a counter-Baptist group to the theological fundamentalism of the Southern Baptist Convention and its espousal of Religious Right politics. This, in the long run, may prove advantageous to the other Baptist groups in the New Baptist Covenant, whose members are often upset when they are lumped together with Southern Baptists, and have to put up with being labeled with that convention's overt support of the war in Iraq and President Bush's policies.
Already, the leadership of the New Baptist Covenant is planning the next steps that must be taken if this new "association" is to be more than just a one-time gathering with some inspiring talk. Many are waiting to see if "the talk" is translated into action and concrete efforts to end poverty, both in America and in the Third World. Given who the leaders are, I believe it would be surprising if the hopes generated at the Atlanta gathering were not actualized.
Tony Campolo is founder of the Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education (EAPE) and professor emeritus of sociology at Eastern University.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
It is plane to see that the train is leaving the station and the SBCs missed the boat.
Posted by: canucklehead | March 4, 2008 3:04 PM
canucklehead,
I thought you were taking a break from God's Politics
Welcome back
Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 4, 2008 3:27 PM
Neuro, I did. I was gone for two full weeks - thanks for missing me. But God has gifted me w/ an addiction that I cannot overcome, so I'm back to once again answer your questions, you papist, and dispel all uncertainties regarding the unequivocal accuracy of militant Protestantism.
Crankier than ever.
Waitin' to slap some RC noggins and pass on the truth as God gives it to me, word by Ian Paisley-infused enthusiastic word.
Posted by: canucklehead | March 4, 2008 3:37 PM
So what did this big bunch of baptists actually DO?
I mean, did you raise money? Did you all just agree to hate the SBC? Did you identify policies to advocate? Did you talk about political candidates to support? I've tried to find out more about the substance of these meetings but not much has been available.
Give me something to disagree with already!
Nathanael Snow
ndsnow@gmail.com
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | March 4, 2008 3:53 PM
Two whole weeks, huh? I was gone for an entire semester! It must be that discipline I learned in Catholic school.
This post will be removed by BeliefNet.
PX
Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 4, 2008 3:53 PM
There is one thing of which I am certain.
God's loves for EVERYONE.While it is unconditional love, God often hates our behavior, especially when we judge others and their beliefs, but he still loves us!
Posted by: CA | March 4, 2008 4:26 PM
"This, in the long run, may prove advantageous to the other Baptist groups in the New Baptist Covenant, whose members are often upset when they are lumped together with Southern Baptists, and have to put up with being labeled with that convention's overt support of the war in Iraq and President Bush's policies." Campolo
I believe this event opened doors. It also illustrate division. But head of SBC and Conveners of event seemed to keep an open door to each other.
So from a distance it seems now is the "make or break point". Will there be some mutual humility and submission or playing off of each other for some kind of political or "I'm more right than you" gain?
And just as I believe Campolo legitimately argues this as an example of the renewal Wallis has advocated; this is also an example of why it may go nowhere. If the New Covenant crowd believes they have more power by saying "We are not SBC and Bush and Religious Right", than by saying "We and the SBC will move in unity to alleviate poverty;" then it is not renewal but just the flipside of the old reality. And to the extent Wallis builds power on an "We are not the Religious Right narrative"--it will be the flipside of the old reality.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 4, 2008 6:20 PM
My own preference is a denomination that invites all to worship Christ , to promote all his teachings .
The conservative baptist church speaking to issues in a political way undermined those with a shared theological belief but drew different political conclussions . Therefore the work of Christ appears to be undermined by politics here .
Posted by: Mick | March 4, 2008 6:30 PM
Sounds to me like it was the SBC that didn't want to play in the same sandbox as those who might be perceived as less conservative than they. It's too bad we Christians can't just agree on what we agree on (alleviating poverty), do something about it and leave the disagreements alone.
Of course, that would leave us without much to argue about here.
Posted by: Cat | March 4, 2008 7:44 PM
The conservative baptist church speaking to issues in a political way undermined those with a shared theological belief but drew different political conclussions. Therefore the work of Christ appears to be undermined by politics here.
well ... if they agreed to disagree but worked together anyway it might show off Christian unity in a way we never dreamed of. One of my closest friends is nothing like me -- she's a conservative Republican who lives in the country -- but we share the same faith and commitment plus we like each other.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 4, 2008 10:20 PM
"There were those present who affirmed gay marriage, while most of the others were opposed to it." So, they were those present that actually hold to marriage as Jesus defined it, and those that hold to the way the signers of the Humanist Manifesto and Sojouners present it. There are always weeds within the wheat. Jesus indicated to let the weeds exist and that His angels would take care of them on judgement day. There is no such thing as same-gender marriage in the Gospel or in any writings of the Apostles (they all hold firmly onto the truth of marriage as a man and a woman). Tax collectors were called to repent. And abortion for the cover-up of immorality isn't a Christian idea either.
Posted by: Wake up! | March 4, 2008 10:37 PM
Marriage as Jesus defined it. Whatever, most of the ancient Israelite kings and patriarchs did not live marriage as God described it. Moses married outside of his race twice, Abraham married his half sister and had multiple wives, David and Solomon well what excuse do they have? Multiple wives, concubines... were all there for the richest and most powerful of ancient Israel.
I am glad we live in a secular land where two loving, committed people don't have to be subject to the bible if they choose not to be. I just wish conservatives would spend more time on their homes than an other peoples but then people like Wake up need to be right over being loving.
p
Posted by: Payshun | March 4, 2008 11:37 PM
I was raised and have been Southern Baptist my entire life. And I just have to say that as an insider, this denomination is continually losing ground with the culture around us. It's as if time stood still during the 1950's for them and they are still living there.
I am continually being tired of the notion that in order to be Southern Baptist, you also have to agree with everything Bush says and you have to be Republican. Grrrrrr. We will see the demise of this denomination in the next 10 years if they don't get on the bandwagon.
All they seem to care about is making sure people are converted to their way of thinking. Now, I am exaggerating a bit, there are some SB churches that are doing some great things (like Rick Warren's Saddleback Church). But those are very few and far between.
I tried talking to some SB people about getting involved with the ONE campaign, and you would have thought I asked them to have dinner with Satan! They were saying something about a ungodly Irish rock star.... Pretty sad, huh?
Posted by: Matt G. | March 5, 2008 12:23 AM
They were saying something about a ungodly Irish rock star.... Pretty sad, huh?
Posted by: Matt G.
I am with you Matt , leave us Irish out of it thank you very much .
Posted by: Mick | March 5, 2008 1:21 AM
As a simple layperson who attended the New Baptist Covenant celebration and appreciated the diversity of speeches (including Campolo's own stirring address) and program participants, I am amazed at the irrelevance of some of the comments above by people who were not there. I for one was disappointed that the Southern Baptist leadership chose to deny their denomination a role in the venture, and I was pleased that precious little criticism of the SBC was heard at the meeting, although, Lord knows, it surely deserved it. They would have profited enormously from the exposure to the overriding emphasis on the poor and from rubbing elbows with Baptists who did not hold the same political and social views as they. The meeting brought home to me that those evangelicals who continue to promote the social agenda of the religious right and Bush Republicanism are going to be left standing in the station as the train of justice and peace pulls away. It's time to get on board.
Posted by: Richard Pierard | March 5, 2008 4:16 AM
"I just wish conservatives would spend more time on their homes than an other peoples but then people like Wake up need to be right over being loving."
Posted by: Payshun
Payshun, why can't homosexuals keep their sexual tastes private? Christians that hold to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles are just as important as the people that do not. In fact: "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector."
Posted by: Wake up! | March 5, 2008 7:41 AM
So what did this big bunch of baptists actually DO?
I mean, did you raise money? Did you all just agree to hate the SBC? Did you identify policies to advocate? Did you talk about political candidates to support?
-jurisnaturalist
How do you post this here and then praise the practicality of theoraticians in another?
One group that was uninvited was the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America, probably as to not offend "moderates" (ironic unwelcoming of "welcoming and affirming" people).
Wake Up: Have you actually done what you quoted and sat to personally hear the side of an individual homosexual persons "sin" and then appealed in the "Spirit of Reconciliation" "taking heed to yourself" before bringing that person to the whole church? We easily are corrupted by the spirit of jurisprudence. The purpose of the process is not punitive but redemptive. I sympathize with your perspective of Scripture regarding "homosexuality" but I also sympathize with their human rights, especially their right to not be singled out as if their sin was any greater than pride, arrogance and the rest on the list in Proverbs 6:16 (incuding "he that soweth discord among the brethren")
Pastor Jeff (ABC-USA)
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 5, 2008 9:41 AM
Is this just the postmodern/emergent version of baptists? Is that an oxymoron?
Posted by: Steve S | March 5, 2008 11:04 AM
Pastor Jeff,
You are spot-on.
What theories did the Baptists discuss at this meeting?
NS
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | March 5, 2008 11:12 AM
Wake-up,
Those verses you quoted refer to the church, not to secular homosexuals. Not only that but they are keeping it mainly private. There are pride parades and I can totally see how immoral some of that really is but by and large the LGBTQ community doesn't seek to force it's values on you. The seek to live at peace and live their lives just like you or me. Why can't you see that?
p
Posted by: Payshun | March 5, 2008 11:44 AM
"One group that was uninvited was the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America, probably as to not offend "moderates" (ironic unwelcoming of "welcoming and affirming" people)."
This just proves that this group of Baptists are homophobic and prejudiced against truly progressive Baptists. Why would they not invite this group which is for peace and against discrimination against homosexuals. This "disinvition" is digusting and Tony Campolo ought to be ashamed of himself
Posted by: randy P | March 5, 2008 12:13 PM
"Those verses you quoted refer to the church, not to secular homosexuals." P
Thanks Payshun, that was a point I would have made if you hadn't
In an almost tangential way, this brings up a thought I had the day before yesterday when I looked up the abortion surveillance data from the MMWR.
238 of every 1000 pregnancies in the U.S. were aborted in 2004. In New York State, 770 of every 1000 pregnancies ended in abortion.
Yes, I find that number appalling, but it brings up a practical question; if more than a quarter of all pregnant women in the U.S. accept abortion as way to end an unwanted pregnancy, how realistic is the notion of outlawing abortion in the U.S? I realize that pregnant women are a relatively small segment of the population of the U.S., but I think we can consider them as fairly representative of the U.S. population on the issue of abortion, especially since pregnant women are much closer to that issue than the rest of us.
Are Christians focusing too much effort on an unachievable goal?
Turning that question to homosexuality; many, if not most Christians consider homosexual acts to be sinful (as per the CCC), but Christians are only a segment – a substantial segment - of the population, but our values are not necessarily representative of the rest of the population of the U.S.
Which leads me to this question: we know that it’s not right to force our religious beliefs on others. People must come to Christ voluntarily. Is it justifiable to attempt to force our values on a population that does not necessarily accept our beliefs, especially by political means? That certainly wasn’t the intention of the framers of the Constitution, and I don’t believe that’s what Christ had in mind either.
The question becomes not how do we change the laws, but how do we change peoples’ hearts, and more to the point, how effective have we been in doing that by focusing our energy on changing the laws?
Kicking and screaming is not the way to bring people to Christ.
PX
Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 5, 2008 12:19 PM
Whatever the many mistakes, the "Religious Right" isn't totally wrong in all its values and beliefs.
Mostly, the mistake was in getting co-opted into the non-Christian agenda that motivates the various strains of secular conservatism.
If an "emergent movement" just turns into bashing every single one of the values and theology animating conservative Christians, then I think it's valueless and will hold no appeal. It could just be a focus group trick to appeal to a voting demographic by those who worship power instead of God, but need the electoral support of the latter.
I for one would only experience distaste for the same old failed liberal or leftist agenda but with a patina of "Jesus" words varnished onto it.
I thoroughly reject conservative or liberal ideologies as being in any way adequate to build a theology upon, or even useful to a practical politics that serves both peoples' responsibilities to one another and freedoms.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 5, 2008 12:21 PM
"Yes, I find that number appalling, but it brings up a practical question; if more than a quarter of all pregnant women in the U.S. accept abortion as way to end an unwanted pregnancy, how realistic is the notion of outlawing abortion in the U.S?"
Is this a question you would ask about any other crime? Banning the practice is part and parcel of changing the attitude. In biblical times, people had no qualms about fornicating, but that did not stop God from forbidding the practice. The law enforces where principles are broken.
"Kicking and screaming is not the way to bring people to Christ."
I am not interested in using American law to lead people to Christ. I am interested in protecting babies from atrocity. After Roe v. Wade, abortion rates doubled. So we can discuss all the other policiess that will result in fewer abortions, but it is clear to me which one would have the greatest effect.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 5, 2008 12:32 PM
"Thanks Payshun, that was a point I would have made if you hadn't"
U-r welcome. Wake up lacks compassion or grace for the LGBTQ community. It's sad really. Scapegoating doesn't work as you and I both know.
"Yes, I find that number appalling, but it brings up a practical question; if more than a quarter of all pregnant women in the U.S. accept abortion as way to end an unwanted pregnancy, how realistic is the notion of outlawing abortion in the U.S?"
It's not. It was not outlawed before either which is something conservatives seem to ignore. It depended on each state. Rates did go up once it became permissible but it has been a part of our country for a very long time. But you know that already. I think the goal should be to minimize them. That should be the goal.
I used to counsel men and women that had abortions. This issue and tragedy is not something that has easy solutions. It's hard. I think we really need to look at healing those that have had them (if they so desire it) and empower others to either practice safer sex or abstain.
"Which leads me to this question: we know that it’s not right to force our religious beliefs on others. People must come to Christ voluntarily. Is it justifiable to attempt to force our values on a population that does not necessarily accept our beliefs, especially by political means? That certainly wasn’t the intention of the framers of the Constitution, and I don’t believe that’s what Christ had in mind either."
I agree with that completely. We can't enforce our sexual standards on a society that doesn't share them (unless we are talking about consent.) Everything else is seemingly permissible even if it is taboo (think incest.)
p
Posted by: Payshun | March 5, 2008 1:14 PM
I was raised by a father who, until his death, was a true believer that local congregations should develop their own rules and regulations for faith and practice. I do believe that he is turning over in his grave over what the SBC has become. I really believe that he would fault the SBC's political stand. As he saw in the old SBC, there was the fight against ignorance and poverty every where. He truly understood poverty by living through the Great Depression. He understood that the poor need a lift to make it to the top. I want to thank Tony for making me aware of this meeting. I am also planning to see him at a Presbyterian Men's meeting in July.
Posted by: Brooks | March 5, 2008 1:42 PM
I like my denominations stance, "all people are of sacred worth..." In that, I find I am able to love anyone because what I see when I look at them is a person who Jesus loves, who God created just the way that they are. I am so thankful that God loves me the way that I am, otherwise there would be no hope for me at all. I am glad that I serve a Savior who believed in eating with prostitutes and tax collectors, who hung out with the socially unacceptable, and condemened the "religious right" of his own time.
J
Posted by: Jim | March 5, 2008 5:54 PM
“Is this a question you would ask about any other crime?”
A crime is defined by the law, not the morality of the action. Fornication is, for the most part, not a crime either, and although it is morally wrong, I don’t see a lot of Christians rushing out to make adultery a crime again (Too close to home?).
If I’m not mistaken, in previous threads you have compared the abolition of slavery to outlawing abortion. The difference is that the Christians who were behind abolition movement did so by convincing people that slavery was morally wrong, not by trying to change the laws through strictly political means, but that really wasn’t the point of my post.
“I think the goal should be to minimize them.” P
That is absolutely my belief. I know Kevin and I have been down this road before regarding sex education and access to contraception (What do you expect? I’m 2/3 through my MPH, so I’m going to advocate those things - and vaccinations - until I turn blue in the face). I know you (Kevin) don’t agree with me, so I’m not going to try to change your mind. Besides, I need to spend more time studying malaria and less time searching the medical and public health literature to prove you wrong (insert emoticon here).
Again, I find the data on abortion in the U.S. very disturbing – regardless of my political persuasion – both as a Christian and a health care provider/public health professional (I’ll go ahead and say it; contraception is one of the few areas of Catholic doctrine with which I have trouble).
We can, and by a number of means for which both conservatives and liberals can take credit, we have significantly decreased the number of abortions performed in the U.S. Consider that a success. The laws have not changed significantly in that time.
PX
Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 5, 2008 7:25 PM
Wait a minute - how did we get on this subject again? Did I do that?
Slap me!
Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 5, 2008 7:27 PM
but I also sympathize with their human rights, especially their right to not be singled out as if their sin was any greater than pride, arrogance and the rest on the list in Proverbs 6:16 (incuding "he that soweth discord among the brethren")
Pastor Jeff (ABC-USA)
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples
http://www.massresistance.org/
media/video/brainwashing.html
Posted by: Steve | March 5, 2008 8:19 PM
Neuro,
That took a lot of guts. I respect you more and I really respect the fact that you are openly criticizing the Catholic church on something. I agree w/ you when it comes to contraception especially when it comes to this country and sex. We could be here all night going off on this administration's poor understanding of public health issues but I will spare the other readers.
Steve,
Mass Resistance is a horrible website, filled w/ hate, fear and judgment. Stop posting it, it won't help your argument. If you have something substantive to say feel free. But that site is filled w/ lies and no links to half it's sources. I wish they would sit back and understand one simple thing. The gay agenda doesn't really exist in the way that you think.
It's simply about equal rights and being treated w/ dignity. it's really not that hard to understand.
p
Posted by: Payshun | March 5, 2008 9:04 PM
Consider your papist noggin slapped, Neuro!
Posted by: Canucklehead | March 5, 2008 9:38 PM
Jurisnaturalist:
I did not attend the conference but I refer you to www.newbaptistcelebration.org for details.
Thank you, P. The capacity of some on the right (a drum which I marched to not long ago) to misquote and accuse by extrapolation and misrepresentation surprises me. Where did I say/imply, let alone "promote acceptance of, sin"? My point is that lies and arrogance make the list in Proverbs while "homosexuality" doesn't make that abomination list. Maybe "the wisest man that ever lived" slipped up on that one. Maybe some of the posts here are more abominable to God than any "gay agenda" you could reveal to me. "Let him who thinks he stands take heed."
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 5, 2008 9:53 PM
kevin s: "Is this a question you would ask about any other crime?"
Yes, I ask it about most drug laws, in fact. I also ask it about laws against prostitution.
For the record, I am not advocating drug use or prostitution.
Posted by: carl copas | March 5, 2008 10:17 PM
Where did I say/imply, let alone "promote acceptance of, sin"? My point is that lies and arrogance make the list in Proverbs while "homosexuality" doesn't make that abomination list
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples
Billy Graham called it an overrated sin.
What ever that means ?
That is absolutely my belief. I know Kevin and I have been down this road before regarding sex education and access to contraception
Posted by: neuro_nurse
I have always advocated sex education and contraception . Even taught a Sunday school Class on it to young boys . But have a disagreement in many public schools in the whe context they teach it . Its not the subject material , its the context , you can teach comprehensive sex education in the context of marriage without leaving out any information . anyone can use that information in the manner they need , but to put a 14 year old in the position that says sex in or out of marriage is equal , well obviously knowing that is "truth" how can any one be surprised of increased sexual activity .I often do not understand the fleeing from this issue , is the covenant of marriage and basic comonsense of sticking with one partner , choosing a partner correctly , not using another person for just sexual gratification just something only a Christian understands or should ? Or is it basically common sense and common decency to teach all our youth in this matter so to increase the possibility of a better , healthier life .
Just because Marriage is a religious Institution , does not make it something that can not universally advocated for . Such as peace , helping the poor , and of course , people who are married statistically are less poor . Even Envirnomentalist now promote marriage as preserving resources . I knew they come around .
Thanks for the video . The web site was from a Massachusets anti gay site , but the film itself is from a pro gay organization that is promoting it through out the country . It has circulated in this state by the pride foundation, a satte wide gay organization that promotes curricullum for public schools , and the local state teachers union . I think if this was done from the right , most here would call that an agenda.
Posted by: Mick | March 5, 2008 10:54 PM
Mick,
What happens when people have sex w/o marriage and don't know the information to protect themselves? I know condoms are not perfect. I realize you would call my agenda humanistic but I find your agenda for marriage unrealistic. Many people have sex outside of marriage. I think we should give information that way they have real options. Most kids don't have sex outside of marriage when we as adults stop making it a taboo.
I can see why you would call that an agenda but it's not like the film is asking for everyone to go to gay pride parade and wear feather boas. I have yet to see it but judging from what little there is it doesn't seem that bad. Besides parents can opt out of having their kids watch that.
p
Posted by: Payshun | March 6, 2008 12:03 AM
Besides parents can opt out of having their kids watch that.
p
Besides parents can opt out of having their kids watch that.
p
Huh ? Have you watched it ? An African American is RIDICULED for stating that parents may object , the film promotes a belief if you object to a belief of homosexual sex being anything less then equal with sex in the confines of marriage you are as guilty as a KKK member .
To defend the film , is to defend intolerance and lack of respect for all of us , including those memebrs of the homosexuual community that might belive sex in the confines in marriage is a standard that deserves at least to be respected .
You have called me a bigot before for saying less , but anyone who supports this film I have no probelm with saying the same .
Posted by: Mick | March 6, 2008 3:49 AM
randy p;
In response to your comment below, the BPFNA had an exhibit at this Covenant gathering and were represented. Their booth sat beside all the others in the GWCC. They are also listed as an "Exhibitor" along with the other organizations represented.
Sam G
"One group that was uninvited was the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America, probably as to not offend "moderates" (ironic unwelcoming of "welcoming and affirming" people)."
This just proves that this group of Baptists are homophobic and prejudiced against truly progressive Baptists. Why would they not invite this group which is for peace and against discrimination against homosexuals. This "disinvition" is digusting and Tony Campolo ought to be ashamed of himself
Posted by: Sam G | March 6, 2008 5:14 AM
Sam G
Thanks for the clarification. I was basing my statement on a pre-conference BPFNA newsletter. I'm glad to see that they worked things out in some sort of compromise (an essential, lost art in Baptist circles). I'm glad you went. First hand info is always best.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 6, 2008 7:51 AM
"A crime is defined by the law, not the morality of the action. "
Sorry, let me clarify. Is this a question you would ask about any other existing crime, were the crime legal?
Carl mentions the obvious, though not illegitimate examples of drugs and prostitution. I think they make an ideal point of contrast. We question laws against drug use and prostitution not because of the inevitability of their practice, but because of questions pertaining to whether they have a sufficient impact on those not involved in the acts themselves.
That is a civil liberties argument. It is improper to argue for legalized prostitution on the basis that it will happen anyway. That is not the basis for laws within our constitution.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 6, 2008 11:02 AM
kevin s: "We question laws against drug use and prostitution not because of the inevitability of their practice, but because of questions pertaining to whether they have a sufficient impact on those not involved in the acts themselves."
No, I question those laws BOTH "because of questions pertaining to whether they have a sufficient impact on those not involved in the acts themselves" AND because it will happen anyway.
Prohibition of alcohol in this country 1919-1933 would be another example. Indeed, this created more crime in the form of bootlegging, speakeasies, build-up of organized crime syndicates such as the Mafia, Joe Kennedy, etc.
Posted by: carl copas | March 6, 2008 11:59 AM
“Its not the subject material , its the context , you can teach comprehensive sex education in the context of marriage without leaving out any information .”
I’m sure there are bad sex ed programs out there, but ‘data’ is not the plural form of ‘anecdote.’ People throw this straw man argument out there too often with nothing more than anecdotal examples of bad programs.
“…well obviously knowing that is "truth" how can any one be surprised of increased sexual activity “
Where is your evidence? I can go to the literature and find several studies that conclude that that is absolutely untrue. Can you do the same? Remember, anecdotes, case studies, or case series are usually only a basis for further investigation; you cannot draw solid conclusions from them.
“I often do not understand the fleeing from this issue , is the covenant of marriage and basic comonsense of sticking with one partner , choosing a partner correctly , not using another person for just sexual gratification just something only a Christian understands or should ?”
Absolutely not, and I challenge you to find evidence (there’s that word again) that there are a significant number of sex ed programs that are teaching otherwise.
Mick, I’m not attacking you or your ideas. I’ve read your posts and you seem to me to be thoughtful and open minded, so this next statement is not directed at you: sexual promiscuity and adolescent sexual activity are serious public health issues. I don’t think you can find anyone in public health or politics who advocates anything other than stable monogamous relationships. IF there are sex ed classes teaching otherwise, then I would say that by definition that those programs are bad.
“Or is it basically common sense and common decency to teach all our youth in this matter so to increase the possibility of a better , healthier life .”
It’s better than common sense – it is scientifically supported by public health, medical, and psychosocial research.
“Thanks for the video .”
I’m sure you didn’t intend to thank ME for that video (which BTW, I have not watched nor intend to watch), but I just want to make it clear to everyone else that I had nothing to do with posting that link.
“What happens when people have sex w/o marriage and don't know the information to protect themselves?” P
Payshun brings up the heart of the matter, no matter what you teach, people are going to have sex outside of marriage. Married people have sex outside of marriage. Christians who should know better have sex outside of marriage. There have been studies (plural) that demonstrate that adolescents who receive abstinence-only education are at higher risk for sexually transmitted infections than those who do not – they are not prepared for what happens in the real world.
“That is a civil liberties argument.” kevin s.
I think abortion is a civil liberties issue, and one that has been skewed in the wrong direction. Joseph Fletcher wrote a book called “Situation Ethics” in which he argued from a theological and scriptural basis in favor of doing the wrong thing for the right reasons – doing the most beneficial thing for all involved parties. Fletcher and situation ethics have pretty much been condemned by most Christians. One example Fletcher used was arguing that abortion could be justified as the best thing for say, a minor who gets pregnant. This is where I believe the argument falls apart; Fletcher and those who argue in favor of abortion as a civil liberties issue fail to consider the rights and well-being of the fetus – but that’s just my opinion.
“Is this a question you would ask about any other existing crime, were the crime legal?”
In general, I think that law - that is, the law with a small ‘l’ and not the Law with a capital ‘L’ - is based on opinions and the norms of a society. You and I, although we agree on the immorality of abortion, disagree about other things that one or the other of us considers to be crimes, or what should be crimes (example: tax cuts to the wealthy). It is unfortunate (granted, unfortunate is not a strong enough word) that a large segment of our society considers abortion to be justifiable and not a crime, and until that changes, the abortion laws in this country are not likely to change either. That is really the point of my argument.
PX
Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 6, 2008 1:58 PM
"...so this next statement is not directed at you..."
I was going to go off on another tangent, but changed my thought in midstream.
Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 6, 2008 2:00 PM
"I was going to go off on another tangent, but changed my thought in midstream."
Did you say something?
Posted by: lloyd crump | March 6, 2008 3:02 PM
good thing they met together
too bad it's baptist
and not just Christian
or Christ follower
denomination = divisions
but steps in the right direction
Posted by: Adam Lehman | March 9, 2008 7:22 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?