Moving on from the Patterson Debacle

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

A couple of weeks ago I announced on this blog that I was returning to the religious tradition that was responsible for my discipling – the Southern Baptists. I went into some of my personal reasons for coming back as well as the circumstances that led me there. I also stated that I plan on being a voice in that denomination as I believe it needs to make a transition from an old guard to a modern expression of what the Southern Baptists have to offer.
At this time there is a controversial issue troubling this denomination. Of course I am talking about the comments and advice of Paige Patterson particularly as it pertains to women.....

But this issue was never about Patterson alone. It is about a culture among some Southern Baptists that has been too dismissive of the concerns of women.

To read more:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/shatteringparadigms/2018/05/moving-on-from-the-patterson-debacle/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Evangelical&utm_content=46

[bobbieinok]

1. I read/skimmed the whole essay. I found it pretty weak on ideas for SBC changing its views on women.

I was in the SBC in Ok and TX in the 40s and 50s. When I left for grad school in CA in 61, the forces that led to Paige's and Pressler's RW takeover of the SBC had begun to dig in.

[guillaumeb]

2. What did you think of the author's analysis of the problem?

And as a (presumably former) long time SBC member, what would you suggest if you were to be asked?

[bobbieinok]

5. I left SBC in 61 and gladly. The leaders as a whole are pretty messed up. Calvinists in control.

Albert Mohler, president of SBC's Southern Seminary in Louisville is pretty much the 'pope' of the SBC.

He's pushed the teaching of Calvinist theology in all the seminaries and apparently thinks you have to believe in Young Earth Creationism (that earth was created 6000 yrs ago) to be a Christian.

He supports CJ Mahaney (sp?) of Sovreign Grace Ministries, which is believably accused of covering up multiple cases of child abuse within their institutions.

From reading comments at the blog thewartburgwatch.com (run by 2 women in NC, one a former SBC member and one still a member), most feel the SBC is a lost cause.

Their primary complaint seems to be the SBC theology that claims men are the head of the family and church and women are eternally relegated to a submissive, subordinate role. Convention seems locked into this. I don't see much hope of it changing.

[guillaumeb]

6. Thank you for the information.

I must admit to not understanding the difference between the various types or groups of Baptists.

[bobbieinok]

7. There are several Bapt denominations. SBC is largest.

Then there's the group that goes back to the ones that split with the SBC over slavery at the time of the Civil War.

A group I've just recently learned about is the Independent Fundamentalist Baptists. They run Bob Jones University. Bruce Gerencser was a pastor for 20 plus yrs but is no longer a Christian. He has lots of info about that group and his experiences growing up in it at his blog.

For 15 or so yrs the Calvinists have been working to take over the SBC. Some think the Paige situation is very convenient for them. After all, the comments that a woman should stay in an abusive marriage were recorded nearly 20 yrs ago but only now have been given wide publicity. Paige was the last non-Calvinist leader in a SBC board or seminary. And the probable new SBC president is a committed Calvinist. (The president appoints the committees that choose the leaders.)

The Calvinists taking over the SBC believe in something called Limited Atonement. They believe that Jesus didn't die for all the world; he died only for those whom God chose to be saved before the world was created (predestination). That would seem to mean that there's no point in misionaries and evangelization, right? Kinda blows up the whole SBC history and purpose.

[marylandblue]

8. They still believe in evangelizing because God said so, but

they are just transmitting the message for God, they aren't saving anyone themselves.

[Bretton Garcia]

12. Didn't Calvin say everyone is '"hopelessly depraved"?

Couldn't we tell the Baptist leadership they are hopelessly depraved?

Likely they believe their "election" removed that depravity. But suppose we invite Baptists to look closer into themselves.

And into the Bible. Which told us that just when you think you've chased out one devil in yourself, five worse devils show up in its place. That "all have sinned." That many believers may be deceived by a false idea of Christ. And that therefore, no one can really be sure who was really following God.

Against the Elect? Only God himself can judge, and tell us, who was really good, and who was deceived, in the End. On Judgment Day.

So the Bible says.

[bobbieinok]

14. Many in SBC churches state that preachers constantly denounce congregagtion for depravity

Many commenting at blog thewartburgwatch are former or present members of SBC churches. They have many stories about this. Supposedly SBC theology is that once you accept Jesus as 'Lord and Savior', 'your sins are washed away and you are a new creature.'

The new young preachers, indoctrinated in the 'New Calvinist' theology now taught in SBC seminaries and trained to conceal their Calvinism from church search committees, teach that those in the congregation nevertheless are still depraved and must sign contracts that they will submit to the discipline of the preacher and the elders he personally has chosen.

The whole New Calvinist takeover of the SBC has completely changed the churches. Once the congregation ran the church and there was a bold belief in 'the priesthood of all believers', 'no creed but the Bible', and 'I don't need a priest to tell me what to believe- there's just me, God, and the Bible'. (Still remember the SBC Sunday School teachings of 60 yrs ago!) Now the preacher and the elders run the church, and those who question them - be it about finances or doctrine - are 'disciplined'. If they don't 'confess and repent', they are 'disfellowshipped', ie basically kicked out.

The SBC churches are becoming rigidly controlled. A side effect (conciously planned?) is that this training has created 'pew sitters' who follow the ministers or other authorities when the tell them how to vote or what political views to hold.

The SBC has become a real mess. It has nothing in common with the SBC of the 40s and 50s - and into the 60s. I left in 61 when I went to CA for grad school.

[guillaumeb]

16. I understand the argument for predestination,

but it negates the concept of free will. I believe that the Creator intended that sentient beings would have free will.

[bobbieinok]

20. 'Free will' has been the dominant SBC theology until the New Calvinist takeover

The name of this free will theology is Arminianism. Roger E Olson holds to this theology. He's discussed the 2 theologies at his blog at patheos and has written a book about his disagreements with Calvinism. There may still be a youtube of him lecturing on the topic.

A few years ago Rachel Held Evans had a few essays about her belief in the free will theology at her blog. John Piper may be today's most widely known New Calvinist theologian. Every disaster, every murder, every rape is fore-ordained by God. The belief in Limited Atonement means that he thinks God has personally decided whom he will consign to etenal torture in hell before they've even been born.

Shortly after I discovered that such a belief was being taught at SBC seminaries, I read a statement by a man who had believed this concept. Then he looked at his 3 year old daughter and realized that to believe this meant thinking that God had already destined her for hell and he could not know if she was doomed. He just couldn't believe God would do that!

[guillaumeb]

24. And to follow this concept to what I see as its logical conclusion,

there is no guilt because all is pre-ordained.

[bobbieinok]

29. That does appear to follow. God sets you up to fail and then punishes you for it!!

[guillaumeb]

36. And yet Jesus speaks of redemption.

But the predestination position might appeal to those, like Trump and Roy Moore, who repeatedly commit the same crimes. They must assume that they are predestined for reward.


I could see followers of the prosperity Gospel linking to this concept.

Thank you for the information.

[bobbieinok]

42. God sets you up to fail and then tortures you when you do. No sane person worships this god

[guillaumeb]

51. I would say that the Creator believes in free will.

What each person does with that freedom is an individual choice.

[Voltaire2]

21. I thought you said your old sparky god just lit off the big bang.

Now you seem to be claiming a designed universe where sparky had intentions.

[guillaumeb]

25. No, you are confused.

I am arguing for free will.

[Voltaire2]

31. I agree your many pronouncements about the nature

of old sparky are confusing.

“I believe that the Creator intended that sentient beings would have free will.”

Your argument includes an assertion of a designed intention. That appears to contradict other claims you have made about sparky.

[guillaumeb]

38. I think that the confusion is yours. eom

[Voltaire2]

47. Of course. Once again you've tripped over your own

feet.

[LuvNewcastle]

49. I've watched the Calvinists take over the SBC throughout my life.

I was raised Southern Baptist, and a little more than 30 years ago, I went off to study at a Southern Baptists liberal arts college. I saw the moderates and conservatives fighting for control at the time, and it was pretty clear then that the conservatives were going to win, even though there were quite a few moderates among the faculty and the student body. The conservatives were hounding the moderate churches out of the denomination.

Baptists in general believed in a concept called the "Priesthood of the Believer." It was taught that each Christian should read the Bible for himself and discover his/her own revelation from the scriptures. I think the Quakers have a similar belief. The Quakers have roots in the Baptist tradition, as do Mennonites and some others who are called German Baptists. They all claim to be descended from the Anabaptists, who were a Protestant sect in central Europe. Anyway, these groups did not quibble with each other so much on matters of doctrine. If one is to let each believer see what is revealed to him/her from the Bible, then one is going to see a greater variety of beliefs among the members of the church, and some of those beliefs are bound to contradict one another. That's okay, though, if each person is allowed his/her own interpretation.

As we see today, many Baptists wanted more uniformity in their churches. The Southern Baptists, in particular, had a large number of people who held Calvinist beliefs, even though they might not admit they were Calvinist. Some others just didn't like what others gleaned from their Bible readings and thought that churches needed to weed out the heretics in their midst.

The Calvinists and the conservative Evangelicals became allied in order to drive out the moderates, whether they were teaching in the seminaries or if they were leading congregations. The conservatives especially didn't like the concept of women ministers. A minority of churches were leaving the SBC at the time I was in school because the conservatives were asserting their dominance more at each convention every year, and they were electing conservative officials and passing conservative doctrinal statements. It was all tied into American politics, too, and many of these conservatives were joining the Moral Majority and other groups like it. The conservatives had become the majority in the SBC and they were going to run off the ones who thought differently.

So now it looks like the Calvinists are about to take over the SBC and assert their dominance over the more evangelical members. It seems to me that the SBC shouldn't call themselves Baptist anymore. Maybe they need to join with one of the more conservative Presbyterian denominations. Today's SBC doesn't believe in the Priesthood of the Believer unless that believer is in agreement with everyone else, which defeats the purpose of the concept. The SBC simply doesn't have the amount of tolerance necessary to allow each person to study the Bible and take from it what he/she will. The SBC has really become as much a political party as a religious denomination, with no room for decided heretics and schismatics.

[Mariana]

3. Check this out:

He says, "As I listen to the sisters who have brought up these issues, I do not see them advocating radical egalitarianism or anything like that."

Definitions of egalitarianism, from Merriam-Webster:
1 : a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs
2 : a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people

This creep thinks equality for women is a radical idea.

[guillaumeb]

4. This is your interpretation,

but nowhere in the article does the author actually say this. To make such an assumption one would need to ask the author to define what was meant by the term.

[marylandblue]

10. Well at the risk of interpreting a bit, the author actually suggests something quite radical

He thinks (perhaps) the male leaders can try to listen to women (their wives apparently being silent as God commanded), at the next convention. And, if the male leaders so deem, it may even be possible to develop a plan to form a committee to develop materials that may inform them about how much of problem they have in listening to women.

As proof of the effectiveness of this radical approach, he points to how he has always said that perhaps they should do something similar regarding race relations, and what do you know, he apparently was merely ignored instead of burnt at the stake as Calvin might have done.

[guillaumeb]

17. I thought that his remarks were excessively diplomatic.

As if he is so afraid of provoking discussion and possible division that he was too weak in what he said.


Like Jesus in the Temple, sometimes it is necessary to overturn the tables and drive out the moneylenders.

[marylandblue]

19. That's the problem with conservative religion

Change scares them, so even obvious problems can't be addressed.

[guillaumeb]

23. That can be the problem with "politicians"

in every field. Too afraid of taking an actual position.

[marylandblue]

30. It's a particular problem in conservative religion

Where they are still demanding women submit to men long after the rest of the world has moved on from that idea.

[Major Nikon]

32. Moving on means admitting the bible is wrong

Hard to do that when your faith relies on its infallibility.

[marylandblue]

33. They change all the time

They just change the interpretation and say that's what it meant all along. They just don't like it, so they only do it when they have to. Maybe 50 years from now they will catch up to the previous century.

[Major Nikon]

39. There's no shortage of Southern Baptists who are no-shit flat earthers

Change ain’t gonna come.

[marylandblue]

43. Part of being a conservative is not to know the difference

between driving a car and riding a horse and buggy, or even a chariot. Nope, no difference at all, so they think they are still living that old time religion, "It was good enough for David, so it's good enough for me."

[Mariana]

46. Yeah, but they no longer insist that it's God's will for them to own slaves.

Well, they don't do it publicly, at any rate.

[Major Nikon]

48. They do, it's just different today

Now they just pay the lower classes barely enough to exist and they even get the government to finance a large part of that. So the end result is they actually get labor cheaper, with the trade off of not getting to beat the help into submission.

[guillaumeb]

37. Agreed. eom

[Major Nikon]

9. In the SBC, it is a radical idea

Patterson’s comments might have been shocking to people outside the SBC, but they are no-shit biblical literalists and these are some of their favorite verses...

1 Timothy 2:13–15
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+2%3A13-15&version=NIV

1 Corinthians 14:34–35
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+14%3A34-35&version=NIV

1 Corinthians 11:3
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11%3A3&version=NIV

That’s just a sample of their bigotry towards women. They are also rabidly homophobic. So anyone who knows the SBC knows exactly what he is talking about. Very telling how anyone can be an apologist for this kind of garbage.
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/03/25/southern-baptist-convention-claims-harbor-no-ill-will-toward-lgbt-people-its-actions

[Mariana]

11. Yes, I know. I was pointing this out to Gil

who says he "must admit to not understanding the difference between the various types or groups of Baptists".

Isn't it interesting that Gil quibbled with my "interpretation" of the author's plain, simple, clearly defined words? Furthermore, the author just couldn't stop himself from lecturing women about their lack of righteousness. His contempt for women is obvious throughout the entire piece.

I'm convinced that the only reason the SBC has ditched Patterson is because the bad publicity is causing the collection plates to be lighter than usual. That's also the reason for these vague hints about how maybe, sometimes, they should listen to women.

[Major Nikon]

13. Patterson isn't a problem for the SBC, he is a symptom

The problem with the SBC is they teach a doctrine that is decidedly bigoted, especially but not exclusively towards women and LGBT. Patterson was doing nothing more than embracing the official policy of the SBC.

This really should be a surprise to anyone coming from an organization that broke off from the rest of the Baptist convention specifically because they wanted a pro-slavery platform. They are also largely to blame for Jim Crow and anti-miscegenation. Whatever bigotries are still in vogue, you can bet the SBC is on the forefront. Predictably when you point these kinds of things out, you can expect to get half-fast allegations of intolerance, because as some like to claim one must not be intolerant of intolerance.

[MineralMan]

15. The SBC will just take a small step to the right.

A more conservative, fundamentalist denomination would be difficult to imagine. There won't be any material change in it. They'll still dismiss the concerns of women, and tell them to listen to their husbands and STFU. That's their doctrine.

[guillaumeb]

18. As the article shows, it is not a monolith.

But even necessary change is difficult, especially for a large institution.

[Voltaire2]

22. There is no indication that they are changing anything other than tossing some people out.

The SBC is one totally fucked up radical right wing religious organization, and there is almost zero chance of that changing any time soon.

There is no reason at all to give this group any support here.

[guillaumeb]

26. There is a difference between supporting any group,

and discussing the problems in a particular group.

If you do not understand that difference, please let me know.

[Major Nikon]

28. There's also a difference between pointing out problems and excusing them

You certainly should know the difference, especially when the apologia is for the worst sort of behavior.

So posting this kind of garbage is rather revealing.

[guillaumeb]

34. Can I assume that you did not read my reply?

Speaking of revealing that is.

[Major Nikon]

40. No

[guillaumeb]

41. Sorry, but I must.

Your response demands that assumption.

[Major Nikon]

44. Horseshit

[guillaumeb]

52. It makes an excellent fertilizer, if allowed to ferment.

[Major Nikon]

27. I'm sure there must be some reason why someone is an apologist for this kind of shit

The possible reasons kinda make you go, hmmm.

The OP is saying Patterson is really a great guy that just happened to get caught doing bad things like trying to cover up rape and telling women to STFU and remain with abusive husbands. It really does make you wonder why someone would post this kind of far right wing apologia on DU.

[guillaumeb]

35. I would suggest rereading the article.

Really.

[Major Nikon]

45. I would suggest self-deleting the far right wing garbage you posted which I sure as hell did read

Really.

Here's the garbage I read and I can now safely assume you did as well

The author of your OP has not one word of criticism to offer for Patterson, and plenty of praise, and I quote:

"But I wish no ill will on him and I hope others don’t either. Engaging in vindictive thinking about his shortcomings does no one any good. I think we conservative Christians should acknowledge the good he has done through the years."

Yeah, good as in being completely faithful to the SBC written policy of treating women as subservient door mats, and "shortcomings" as in covering up rape and telling women to submit to abusive husbands.

This is in addition to the other misogynistic shit the author of you OP wrote that was also brought to your attention, and you quickly mansplained away just as I'm sure you will this other garbage he wrote as well.

So yeah really Gil, once again you are carrying the water for a far right wing piece of shit and the train wreck of a thread you created speaks for itself. I get that you feel obligated to run to the defense of religionists regardless of how utterly despicable they are, but this one really takes the cake.

[struggle4progress]

50. Hmmm: "I am not arguing for acceptance of radical feminist theology. And although I personally

do not have problems with women pastors I am not arguing for that either ... I am not looking for a situation where men merely take notes and obey women ... Perhaps .. the new President can convene a select committee .. to improve our gender relations"

Watching other people stumble around, within the confines of their social groups, is often less-than-inspiring. It's like listening to an NRA diehard discuss school shootings: "I am not arguing for acceptance of radical gun-grabbers. And although I personally do not have problems with restricting gun ownership by psychotic sociopaths, I am not arguing for that either. I am not looking for a situation where we merely allow Mexican criminals and Islamic terrorists to rampage through our houses as we meekly look on unarmed. But perhaps an NRA committee will discuss school shootings someday"

[guillaumeb]

53. I see someone who is searching fro a better way,

while acknowledging that a change is needed. But it is framed in classic bureaucratic speak.

[struggle4progress]

54. It's not "bureaucratic speak" but an inability to escape from a certain web of pre-conceived notions

And it's completely ineffective at changing anyone's mind. Here the writer thinks SBC should probably listen to women more -- but cannot escape from disclaimers that he doesn't think men should allow women to dictate to men and is careful to distance himself from the question of women as pastors. As a result, more energy is expended explaining what is NOT being said than arguing for the actual intended message; and the only net effect is to re-broadcast status quo messages repeatedly

It reminds me of the well-meaning but entirely gutless on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand "defense" of Jews by various sincere nitwits in the early Third Reich ("Although everyone knows the Jews have brought this on themselves, perhaps we shouldn't act this way") -- or of the completely predictable "centrist" Afrikaner approaches to criticizing apartheid in the seventies and eighties ("Of course, I am not saying that South Africa's white population must allow the Bantu to drive them out of our country and into the sea"): it reflects a certain lack of self-critical thought and a political immaturity that usually is not easily overcome

Long-standing debates often resemble the trench-warfare-deadlock of WWI, and sometimes it is important to seek different angles, rather than continuing to look across No Man's Land

[guillaumeb]

55. I agree that it is not an effective way to change minds. eom