Feb 02 2008
New Baptists?
[Baptist Press]
To restore their prophetic voice in the culture, Baptists must reject “narrow” interpretations of Scripture and oppose both the Iraq war and President Bush’s tax cuts, plenary session speakers said Jan. 31 at the Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant in Atlanta.
The auditorium, which holds 15,000 people, was approximately half full for Thursday’s sessions after an estimated attendance of 9,000 for Wednesday night’s address by former President Jimmy Carter. Some attendees of the combined winter meeting of the National Baptist Convention of America, the National Baptist Convention USA, the National Missionary Baptist Convention of America and the Progressive National Baptist Convention appeared to have gone home.
Novelist John Grisham said it is time for Baptists to stop reading the Bible with so-called narrow literalness and celebrate diversity.
He criticized the Baptist church he attended during his youth for taking what he said was an inconsistent and intolerant approach to Scripture.
“In the Baptist church of my youth we were taught that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God — every word is divinely inspired and it is to be read literally,” Grisham said. “It just dropped out of heaven. Five thousand years ago God made the earth in six days, 144 hours. Then He rested on the Sabbath, which is really on Saturday but we’re not going to start that debate. Methuselah lived to be a [thousand], and when Paul wrote that women should be submissive, that was the literal interpretation. It was the law.
Read about it here.
[From me]
The church isn’t the place to talk about “Tax cuts.” I go to church to worship God. John Grisham needs to stick to writing because he sure isn’t a theologian. Is there any place for guys like me who aren’t rigid, but full of grace and believe the Bible is Inerrant? Politics abound on all sides. It makes me sick. If this is where Baptists are headed, then count me out!
What do you think?
[UPDATE]
Thanks to Marty Duren for explaining about authors selling the rights for their movies. I’m sorry if I mischaracterized Mr. Grisham.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you.
Mike Harmon
I always love it when the call for people to be more tolerant of other beliefs and perspectives comes in the context of non-toleration of other perspectives.
“You need to be more like us because what you believe is stupid. Oh, and we’re less judgmental than you!”
Consistent isn’t it?
Kelly Reed stole my thunder. I was just about to say the same thing.
I don’t know… I read the whole article and there is much that he says that rings true, and this is so even though it is covered by the BP. I wonder if one can find the whole text of the speech.
Now, as commenters above say, we all need to reject judgment because taking on the role of judge takes on the role of God, but when Grisham says this:
“The church was proudly intolerant of other people, other denominations, other religions,” he said. “Sadly, in many ways and in many places, that church still exists today. Many of you know it because you’re products of those churches.”
It describes what I was taught growing up. He also talks well of picking and choosing what is literal and normative and what is cultural and only for a limited audience. Those are real problems within a more fundamentalist approach to scripture and Christianity.
I do agree that his call to churches to talk about tax cuts seems ridiculous. I don’t know that there is a biblical position on tax cuts. But helping the poor clearly should be of primary importance to all of us. Brother Grisham would just do well to remember that there are many ways to skin a cat.
I would recommend you watch Grisham’s full speech (http://http1.deliveredvideo.com/dv/brainstormlab/thurs_grisham2.wmv) instead of just relying on the Baptist Press, which has been biased against this gathering. You will find it to be different in context and that he strongly argued that we must keep politics out of the churches.
Kaylor,
That may be but where does all of this leave people like me who believe in Inerrancy, are pro-life, want to be in good Bible believing chuches that display Grace & aren’t rigid Fundamentalists?
I have a hard time listening to morality from John G. & his sex & profanity filled works.
I appreciate Kaylor pointing out that Baptist Press is not the greatest source for information. They are not a news organization, but propoganda. Not that its wrong to be so, as long as you know what you’re getting.
Still, I’m glad you pointed out the highlights of this meeting.
Jason,
Very well. I imagine the quote is accurate.
Here is what I have a problem with.
President Carter is a politician. He was trained to be a Governor and President. He is an expert in that area.
John Grisham was trained to be an author.
I have an M.Div with Biblical languages. I was trained to study the Bible. I don’t mean this arrogantly but I don’t want a bunch of untrained Biblical scholars telling me about Inerrancy. How would they know. Do they have a D.Min or M.Div or MA or BS in Bible?
Kevin,
When you say “people like me who believe in Inerrancy… and aren’t rigid Fundamentalists,” how do you define “fundamentalism?”
My understanding is that the Fundamentalist movement, which arose in response to what was viewed as “modernism” or “naturalism”, is defined by what Fundamentalists believed were traditional doctrine: inerrancy of scripture, the virgin birth, the deity of Chris, the substitutionary atonement, Christ’s bodily resurrection, and the historicity of miracles. Are there parts of this doctrine that you don’t buy into? Or if you do buy into it, then why would you not want to view yourself as a Fundamentalist? Just curious.
A3,
The “Fundamentalism” I’m talking about is the ugly mean spirited, “I’m right-you are wrong” people. Those who tie politics to their faith. I’m just a follower of Jesus who takes the Bible at what it says.
Kevin-
I’ve read almost all of John Grisham’s books. Your statement “his sex & profanity filled works” is not just off, it’s wrong.
Some of his books have no sexual relationships at all and several thoroughly explore issues of race and justice, which is why he was probably invited to this meeting to begin with.
“The Chamber”? This vivid novel of a former Klansman on death row ends with a conversion scene that Frank Peretti could not top.
“The Street Lawyer”? A Dickens-like story of the travails of the homeless and those who represent them.
“The Testament”? Drop the 10 swear words and you’ve got actual Christian fiction featuring a conversion and a missionary who turns down a multi-billion dollar inheritance to stay in the jungle with her people.
Your characterization is just inaccurate.
Marty,
Then how do the movies get filled with sex and profanity?
Thanks for correcting me on his books.
I thought that’s where the hangup might be. The author sells the rights to a production company who hires a screenwriter to adapt it (sometimes including the original author, but most of the time not). It is out of the author’s hands.
Marty,
Thanks for setting me straight. I will correct my post.
I agree with Marty, I think Grisham does a good job of writing without the gratuitous stuff. I enjoy Jimmy Carter’s perspective. Will have to read more about the conference to comment other than that.
Kevin, Brian Kaylor is right; you really need to watch the whole speech. Baptist Press did not give a fair account of Grisham’s speech, or of the meeting as a whole.
That quote was an explanation of the context in which he grew up (a church that took a very literalist reading of scripture, which I don’t believe is the same as an inerrantist reading – the theologians can correct me if I’m wrong here
, and he went on to say that although they insisted that women be silent in church, they didn’t pick up serpants and drink poison as the Bible also instructs. “There was wiggle room after all,” Grisham said.
I was there and appreciated Grisham’s call to moderate Baptists to stop living on the defensive and defining ourselves by what we are not. His three points were that Baptists need to: 1) Truly respect diversity; 2) Stay out of politics, in part because it drives people away from the church; and 3) to spend as much time out on the streets loving our neighbors as we do in church with people who are just like us.
And I really do believe that there’s a place for every Baptist in the NBC movement. Certainly there were Baptists there who thought it was wrong for a woman to preach on Thursday night. The beauty of this meeting was that, for just a couple of days, we managed to set aside most of our differences and worship together. It was not political, it was not one big anti-SBC party, and it was not marked with arrogance, but rather with a call to say a resounding Yes to God’s call in our lives.
Kevin,
That doesn’t really describe Fundamentalism per se, though certainly many Fundamentalists have those attitudes.
Fundamentalism, I think, is often used as a pejorative term for the wrong reasons. On the other hand, so is the term “liberal” as in “liberal scholars” or “liberal press.” As one who considers himself a liberal, I am not scandalized by the term and I use it to describe myself in certain contexts. I think that the term “Fundamentalist” should be seen in the same light – fundamentalists, that is – those who espouse fundamentalist doctrine, should not permit the incorrect usage of the term to go unchallenged.
Fundamentalists should not be embarrassed by the terms simply because some fundamentalists are “mean-spirited” any more than Christians should be embarrassed by the term “Christian” simply because some Christians, like Westboro Baptist Church for example, act inappropriately.
What diversity are we going to celebrate? Are we to be open to abortion on demand? Are we to have openly homosexual pastors? Why bash President Bush? What is wrong with tax cuts? It is my money-no its GOD’s money. I guess I have too much para-church/non-denom. in me.
My comment was based more on the Associated Baptist Press article. In it, yes, he certainly had some good points that are worth gleaning for me as a minister and the church as a whole. I’ll need to see the text or video of his message.
However, lines like this (from ABPNews):
“First, he said, Baptists should truly respect diversity. “God made all of us, loves us equally and expects us to love each other equally without respect to gender, race, sexual orientation or other religions,” he said”
certainly suggested to me that there was more of a lecture to those with conservative interpretations of Scripture. I lean more complimentarian in my understanding of women’s roles in the church (though egalitarian enough to make me distasteful in many eyes)–does that mean I don’t respect diversity? I believe in the Bible’s standards for sexuality–both heterosexual and homosexual and that the church should be the prophetic voice to the culture upholding those. Does that mean I don’t respect diversity? I would love to see more diversity in my own church and in the SBC and am working in my community to welcome and affirm a culturally rich congregation. Does not having it mean I/we don’t respect diversity?
None of those things mean that. To assume it does is wrong and just as intolerant.
Can we as a church and Baptists in general improve the way and manner and tone in which we hold those convictions–absolutely (and if that is his message–then I’m for it) however–the love of diversity does not mean we abandon our convictions.
Kevin–as for the tax cuts discussion–I love the fact that in the current discussion of the “stimulus package” returning a small portion of citizen’s taxes is a great and immediate boost to an economy, but as a policy–across the board tax reduction will allegedly destroy the free world as we know it. I’m just glad Jesus was willing to save & use the Tax Collector too…of course, he gave it back!
Kelly,
Good points.
Here is my point for people on all sides. What is the “STANDARD?” For me it is the Bible. Everything I do must line up to what God says. When are we going to call “sin” a sin? Or in the name of diversity do we just let it slide? Not me.
The main point of Julie Pennington-Russell’s sermon (before Grisham spoke on the “Unity in Respecting Diversity” theme night) was that the message of the Bible is not really about respect; it’s about love. We get so tied up in deciding who is “in” and who is “out” that we forget to love. The Biblical standard is the standard of love, no matter who you are or what you’re doing or where you’re from or what you look like or, dare I say it, who you love.
tia,
You mean the New Testament (vs. the Old Testament), right?
The usually sarcastic term “Fundamentalist” has been so abused and distorted by outsiders and the press, that I don’t claim the term for myself, although I personally believe all the fundamental doctrines in the Bible.
In the 20’s, a set of colportage pamphlet-books was published, called the “Fundamentals”. These books attempted to answer attacks outside liberal groups were making against the Bible and Christianity. I think this is where the term came from. (I used to have an old set of these.)
Today I think the term implies narrow minded, uneducated, unloving, judgmental, unreasonable, racially biased, women dominating, etc Bible believers. (Usually Bob Jones oriented Baptists, etc)
Hopefully, this does not describe me and most of the Christian friends I know. This is why many Bible believers are reluctant to claim the title as many Liberals are reluctant to claim that title.
Frank
I’m sorry, Kevin, but I am a follower of Jesus, filled with the Holy Spirit, and as such am one of all who are in the same stead who can be conformed more and more into His image without any M.Div’s and the like. I don’t think having a degree in bible study helps one study the bible or discuss inerrancy or any other doctrine; in fact, I hear many seminarians talk about how their faith was shattered in seminary. I am much more interested in knowing about people’s faith and relationship with God than I am in knowing how much they know factually about the bible or any doctrine. And, God can and does use the foolish to shame the wise. I also think it is important to read books before you comment on them. I am surprised at your string of comments here, frankly. What’s between the lines here that has you so out on a fragile limb?
AAA, almost every atheist I know, particularly those who come from religious upbringings, cannot see the OT and the NT in the same light. I believe they both show a God of love and that there really is no difference. Call me crazy.
Kevin,
So, the church is the appropriate place to preach against gay marriage and Roe v. Wade but not the appropriate place to denounce economic policies that keep the poor poorer and the hungry hungrier? Either pastors should be able to speak out (and affirmed when doing so) on all social issues or no social issues.
During the first night, William Shaw (a powering African-American pastor) said this:
“”If it is right that children who are conceived should be brought to birth (and it is); then it is also right that children born should have the right to life, and if there is no right to life and if there is no right to live and the right to be born becomes a tool of injustice.”
I affirm every last word of that. And I believe that children born should have the right to life. So does Marian Wright Edelman. And that’s why she railed against the Bush tax cuts – because it is her belief that such policies hinder a child’s right to life.
Frank,
I agree. Many terms like Fundamentalist and liberal are misused. I could call myself a “Bright,” (see http://www.the-brights.net/) but a “Bright” is just a new name for an atheist. When people level charges against atheists, I admit the charges when they apply and I refute them when they don’t.
I think the term, Fundamentalism, is like that. Fundamentalism outlines a particular ideology (as you know – and by the way, I’m jealous of your original copies of The Fundamentals!! Are they a family heirloom?). Some charges like the ones Kevin mentioned, may apply to many Fundamentalists, but I wouldn’t automatically fault the ideology for those shortcomings, nor would I try to disassociate myself from the term, “Fundamentalist” if I actually espoused Fundamentalist ideologies.
I recall not too long ago on this blog that we had a discussion about whether Christianity was a “religion.” Christians may feel that they shed the baggage that the term carries when they deny that their religion is really a religion. Personally, I think it only serves to erode a person’s credibility when he denies what seem obvious, without adequate rationale – it shows that he is willing to deny a fact simply because he doesn’t fancy it. I think this is true of Brights as well.
Bryan,
Well, then! Let me be one of the few atheists you’ve met who actually can see the two in the same light!
For me to see the OT and NT in the same light, the way some people do, I have to either indulge in the same tortured logic as they do, or I have to ignore some of the uglier parts of the OT as they must. But if I allow myself the prerogative of using the same, clear thinking that I would use in any other area of life, then I find, just like anyone would, that the OT and NT are substantially different in their portrayal of God’s love.
BDW,
I believe the Bible makes it clear that we should not kill. It is clear about many other sins such as gluttony, adultery,lying, gossiping & homosexual acts.
No where have I read “thou shall not give tax cuts,” The government is not the answer to the worlds problems, Jesus living through Christians is.
Kevin,
You’ll find the verse in Appropriations 10:4: “Thou shalt not cut taxes, neither shalt thou reduce spending.” It’s there…
The more of these quotes that I read and are shared here, the more partisan/political the event sounds. Doesn’t seem to be accomplishing what it claims it wants to except covenanting a moderate to liberal leaning theology (which usually reflects politically). There are plenty of others that do that already. I hope they feel better about themselves.
Kelly, unless you’ve watched all of the sermons and messages, I don’t think it’s fair to judge the meeting as partisan and political. Speakers were under strict instructions not to talk about politics, and by and large they didn’t. The meeting was not about promoting a political ideology; it was about following Jesus’ commands to serve the weak and defenseless. I don’t know why you would suggest that attendees felt any need to “feel better about themselves,” but I can assure you that I left Atlanta having felt God’s movement in a powerful way.
Kelly: TIA is correct that you need to listen to the messages (which you can do at http://www.newbaptistcelebration.org). The only presidential candidate praised during any plenary speaker was when Bill Clinton praised … Mike Huckabee! So much for this being a partisan Democratic event. And his point was about how we need to come and work together on what we agree on even if we disagree on a lot of other issues. Surely you cannot be against such a biblical message.
TIA and Kaylor,
I’m glad there was such a love fest. I’m all for working together. But how do we deal with sin? It is hard to find something common between people who hold the Bible to be totally trust worthy and those who pick and chose.
Where do people like me who trust the Bible is truly “THE WORD OF GOD” but don’t want politics on the right or left. I go to worship at church, not to talk about tax cuts, war, etc…
This thread is masterfully illustrating chapter 2 of The Divine Conspiracy.
The new Baptist crowd wants to act against systemic social evils. (a worthwhile subject for sure and well worth discussing)
The inerrant crowd wants to talk about inerrancy and personal sin.
OLM,
I’m not part of any crowd. There is enough politics on all sides. I don’t want to talk about politics at church ever. I agree that social evils must be dealt with. I believe they should be dealt with through the church not the government.
I also wonder if there were any Conservative Republicans in that meeting this weekend?
I agree that I need to see & hear the full messages. My point was that even with the few quotes from various articles, some of them pointed out here–there was religiously polarizing & not so subtle political ideology present in the messages–maybe not the dominant point–but still present. Several of the speakers and prominent participants raised red flags for me–enough to create skepticism.
While I believe that I would likewise have been refreshed during worship with other believers, such points as I have seen would have soured my enthusiasm and potentially alienated me from being a full participant in the movement. I have quite a range of perspectives in my own church–and I worship wholeheartedly with them.
Social evils need to be combated–especially by the church. One of our nation’s biggest problems is when the church abrogated such responsibilities to the government. And many in the church–right and left–want and expect the political process to provide the answers. The Gospel is the answer–the Church living out the ministry and love of Jesus is the answer.
Much of which, I’m sure was present at the meeting. Again, my point was that by even the small amounts that I’ve seen (from mostly favorable sources) there were shots taken–so the idea that it was a “welcoming and inclusive Baptist gathering” is not all it’s cracked up to be.
I’m glad that the movement of God was there. I hope it moves you to greater and greater service of Christ–in all of that–the Kingdom shining forth–I will rejoice. In the next few months, I would love to hear what comes of it in your life and in your church. That’s not said in a skeptical or a negative “show me” attitude… I genuinely want to know what impact the conference has had on you and your ministry.
Pursuing Him Together,
Kevin: Remember that this was not a church service, but a religious meeting. I think there is an important difference. I see meetings like this as a chance to discuss important topics that would not always be appropriate from the pulpit. This is about working on the streets and not just in the church.
As for your concern about the tax cuts line, it is important to remember that the Bible speaks much more about issues of poverty and economic justice than about other issues that evangelicals are often focused on. In that context, a critique of a tax cut that helped rich people and not the poor could (this is a matter of interpretation, of course) fit with the biblical agenda. Although the Baptist Press highlighted it, the talk about tax cuts was extremely minor over the course of three days.
Kaylor,
I’m glad you found something for you there. Every year I feel more & more isolated. I don’t agree with the New Baptists who are really the “old” Baptists. I’m not a “Pattersonite” or “Falwellite” either. I believe the conservative resurgence was needed but it went too far.
I’m probably a minority but I don’t fit in anywhere. I take the Bible as God’s word & it guides my life. But politics is destroying the church I once loved.