Southern Baptist president calls for members to declare: ‘Black lives matter’

Athanasius

Pelican
The most "sexist, homophobic" church I ever went to was a Pentecostal one. Woman were strongly encouraged to wear skirts/dresses and cover their heads. Homosexuals were encouraged to be excorcised or leave. It was mostly black people which probably kept the church from being scrutinized in a big city in Massachusetts.

I had to leave because as I got deeper I found they harbored some significant heresies in doctrine.

It's relatively little known that perhaps 1/4 of Pentecostals, like the United Pentecostal Church, are "Oneness Pentecostals." Basically it's a form of the ancient modalist (Sabellian) heresy. They can be fiercely anti-Trinitarian.
 

godfather dust

Hummingbird
Gold Member
It's relatively little known that perhaps 1/4 of Pentecostals, like the United Pentecostal Church, are "Oneness Pentecostals." Basically it's a form of the ancient modalist (Sabellian) heresy. They can be fiercely anti-Trinitarian.
Yes that is why I left as well as a strange focus on "speaking in tongues."

After a couple months I felt it was basically a cult.
 
The most "sexist, homophobic" church I ever went to was a Pentecostal one. Woman were strongly encouraged to wear skirts/dresses and cover their heads. Homosexuals were encouraged to be excorcised or leave. It was mostly black people which probably kept the church from being scrutinized in a big city in Massachusetts.

I had to leave because as I got deeper I found they harbored some significant heresies in doctrine.
Pentecostals were often at the forefront anti-racist activities historically. They are the real deal in believing that all races are equal, unlike other evangelical Protestant groups who I think are mostly virtue signaling something they don't really believe.
 

bmw633

Woodpecker
Yes that is why I left as well as a strange focus on "speaking in tongues."

After a couple months I felt it was basically a cult.
It is a form of mass hysteria, the folks carrying on at these Holy Roller Churches. I had a sister get married at one, and the damn wedding lasted almost 2 hours, with the bridesmaids and usher standing the whole time. My younger brother wasn't shifting his legs, and eventually passed out, and everyone thought he was having some religious experience!!!

Many of these nondenominational churches have the Pastor and his wife is a Co-Pastor, which is an automatic no go.

I would be interested in hearing of experiences with Amish or Mennonite Churches. I have not been around Amish, but Mennonites are an offshoot of them, and the ones I have met were really wonderful, Godly folks. They drive, have electricity in their homes, but not sure of what else.
 
I noticed that there were many traditions imported to the Baptist Church that alarmed me, such as Hanging Of The Greens, Advent, Lent, and The Living Christmas Tree, to name a few. None of these things are scriptural or were observed in the church I attended growing up.

I joined the Baptist Church in the small town I had moved to, and quickly, I was sought after to become a deacon, Sunday School teacher to kids, PA system operator, and named to a bunch of committees, all within a couple of years of joining the church. With a young family, it was overwhelming. And, I HATE church politics!!!

I finally dropped everything when the deacons turned down another Baptist Church down the road that requested the use of our church's baptismal pool. The beef was that that church didn't allow women deacons.

Ah! So you noticed this too. I have been to many churches and have seen their services. I dated a Catholic woman for about a year and she took me to mass every Sunday. Afterwards when we were no longer dating I attended a SBC church and noticed that they were incorporating Catholic stuff in their service. They didn't bother with preaching the Gospel, just a bunch of acting and such. I guess it made everyone feel "safe" and "loved."
 

bmw633

Woodpecker
Ah! So you noticed this too. I have been to many churches and have seen their services. I dated a Catholic woman for about a year and she took me to mass every Sunday. Afterwards when we were no longer dating I attended a SBC church and noticed that they were incorporating Catholic stuff in their service. They didn't bother with preaching the Gospel, just a bunch of acting and such. I guess it made everyone feel "safe" and "loved."
It is like different the Baptists have adopted traditions from other sources for entertainment purposes. Things have gotten watered down, for sure.

I have visited a nearby United Methodist Church, which now has a Black woman as pastor. I was at a Wednesday night supper last time I went there, and she talked about the Charlottesville Riots, and about racism, as if Antifa was some righteous group. I was tempted to leave in the middle of it, but bit my lip and held out until the end of it. I almost went to Charlottesville myself, bothered by the rewriting of history and the erasure of my heritage.

I live in the Philippines with my wife, and CV19 has prevented her family from attending Mass. Before the lockdown, we attended a cousin's wedding, and the wedding organizers and photographers were all obviously homosexuals, some even dressed in drag, and the priest seemed OK with all 5 or 6 of them hovering around the couple at the altar during the ceremony. I found it pretty disgusting, and was shocked the priest allowed such flagrant disregard of doctrine.

After witnessing that, I decided to have a Civil wedding. None of the Gays to deal with. Wife was a little disappointed about not having a church wedding, but I can only tolerate so much. Wife can tolerate it better than me, but they feature crossdressers and ladyboys on TV shows.
 
I would be interested in hearing of experiences with Amish or Mennonite Churches. I have not been around Amish, but Mennonites are an offshoot of them, and the ones I have met were really wonderful, Godly folks. They drive, have electricity in their homes, but not sure of what else.
I went to high school in an area of Indiana that's majority Amish. The group where I lived was among the most hardcore. They aren't even allowed to have tops on their buggies. In the winter they ride around huddled together with only umbrellas to keep the snow storms at bay. My parents still live there. It's more of a lifestyle or culture than a real religion at this point. Your average Amish isn't someone who reads the Bible or prays a lot. Serious sexual misconduct is rampant and swept under the rug. When people do come out of the Amish religion and join a mainstream church, which is rare, you hear two reasons. They started reading the Bible and were shocked at what they read, or they were disgusted by the family sex abuse swept under the rug with small punishments by Bishops.

Mennonites run the full spectrum from veiled up women to gay loving churches. The largest Mennonite group in the US just had a split over gay marriage. The largest non-Amish church in my parents town is a Mennonite church. These were the majority of kids I went to high school with. They are your standard Midwestern evangelical church.
 
The time has passed for mainstream Christianity to be taken seriously. No single person or organization speaks for God so for the SBC to be telling Christians that they should denounce "all lives matter" is not something to even flinch at. The organizations held sway over Christian thinking for many years but they are hardly relevant anymore. Think for yourself.
 

N°6

Hummingbird
A problem that Christianity has got itself into is from its social justice departure from the New Testament’s neutral position on slavery. Paul called himself a slave of Christ and told slaves to obey their masters. I vaguely recall him telling a runaway slave in the NT to return to his master.

It has allowed critical theory into its theology regarding slavery and the logical conclusion of this is Abraham - whose human and animal property and wealth helped him defeat the coalition of kings and to be considered an equal by the king of Egypt.

This is why modern people cannot grasp how a slave holder could be a pious Christian as long as he didn‘t abuse his slaves.

The only preacher I’ve heard mention this is an ex-SBC member and current Pentecostal one. He is also the only preacher I’ve heard say from the pulpit that black families were better off during segregation than they are now (i.e. the 1990s when he said it).

What good is it to gain the whole world yet lose one‘s soul?

Didn’t Lazarus end up better off than the Rich Man in the end?

Despite having written the above, one reason why Marx-Engels’ materialism didn’t spread in the Protestant Anglosphere is because of the social work of the Methodists, Baptists, Pentecostals, Quakers and other non-Conformists during the social chaos after the Industrial Revolution. This was Charles Dickens’ readership. This not only countered Communism but the libertine debauchery of the aristocracy.
 
Last edited:
A problem that Christianity has got itself into is from its social justice departure from the New Testament’s neutral position on slavery. Paul called himself a slave of Christ and told slaves to obey their masters. I vaguely recall him telling a runaway slave in the NT to return to his master.

It has allowed critical theory into its theology regarding slavery and the logical conclusion of this is Abraham - whose human and animal property and wealth helped him defeat the coalition of kings and to be considered an equal by the king of Egypt.

This is why modern people cannot grasp how a slave holder could be a pious Christian as long as he didn‘t abuse his slaves.

The only preacher I’ve heard mention this is an ex-SBC member and current Pentecostal one. He is also the only preacher I’ve heard say from the pulpit that black families were better off during segregation than they are now (i.e. the 1990s when he said it).

What good is it to gain the whole world yet lose one‘s soul?

Didn’t Lazarus end up better off than the Rich Man in the end?

Despite having written the above, one reason why Marx-Engels’ materialism didn’t spread in the Protestant Anglosphere is because of the social work of the Methodists, Baptists, Pentecostals, Quakers and other non-Conformists during the social chaos after the Industrial Revolution. This was Charles Dickens’ readership. This not only countered Communism but the libertine debauchery of the aristocracy.

I have found myself evolving on this issue. The Bible does not say that slavery is a sin. In the USA it probably would have been better to reform slavery than to abolish it. The Southerners in the old South abused slaves and their loss in the Civil War was basically a punishment for their abuses. I think it's wrong to have laws against slave literacy, break up slave marriages, or go out and arrest slaves for running away. I'm not convinced that having slaves in itself is wrong. Today we have large masses of black people who are basically slaves to the welfare state. I don't see how returning to the antebellum form is slavery is worse than that.
 

Hermetic Seal

Kingfisher
Orthodox
Gold Member
The overwhelming impression I'm left with, reading the New Testament in light of current events, is that Jesus (and later, his followers) are anti-revolutionaries, and their worldview and actions reflects that.

In Jesus' time, the Romans were oppressing the poor, beat-down Israelites. The Messiah was a big deal because everyone figured that he'd be the one to defeat the Romans and free Israel. But Jesus wasn't having any of that. He did scandalous stuff like tell his disciples to pay their taxes, performed miracles like healing the Roman centurion's kid, and reached out to tax collectors, the most immediate apparatus of Roman oppression. Overthrowing the social order was not his objective.

We see this reflected in Paul's letters. If the institution of slavery was to end, Paul would see it as a good thing if it was done voluntarily and organically. If it meant violence and revolts, then no, hence his treatment of the Philemon/Onesimus situation. Paul cares more about having right, Godly relationships within whatever the social framework is, in which case the problem almost solves itself. When properly obeyed and lived out, the Christian worldview naturally reforms relationships without violence (although those who feel their power threatened often react violently to it, as persecution of Christians frequently makes evident. You'll notice woke Christians face no persecution, which illuminates the fact their cause is largely bogus and out of sync with true gospel values.)

The current wokeness zeitgeist is just typical (((Tractor Trailer))) revolutionary activity based around seizing power and destroying enemies, and it's downright shameful that so many Christians have fallen for it. The key to racial reconciliation is for blacks to forgive whites for stuff done by the 1% over 150 years ago. The insane contortions Goodwhites are going through to abase themselves before their black cultural overlords really illustrates the fact that reconciliation takes two to tango, and no amount of overcompensation by one party can accomplish it.
 
Besides the congregational structure, and para-church orgs like Conservative Baptist Network and Founders pushing back, there's also the fact that the longest an SBC president is in office is about 2 years on average. God willing, after JD Greer steps down, the next president will be a non-Woke reaction produced by the backlash that is rising.
 

get2choppaaa

Pelican
Anyone who grew up around Baptists will note the fervent emotional appeal of that sect of Christianity. I experienced about 100 alter calls for conversion at the various churches I visited while spending time with family friends at their churches in my youth... many times it was a repeat of last week's dancers/drinkers/proverbial sinners only to be re-dedicated toward absolution until next friday/saturday night for a repeat on sunday.

but here's tom with the weather.....
 
A problem that Christianity has got itself into is from its social justice departure from the New Testament’s neutral position on slavery. Paul called himself a slave of Christ and told slaves to obey their masters. I vaguely recall him telling a runaway slave in the NT to return to his master.

It has allowed critical theory into its theology regarding slavery and the logical conclusion of this is Abraham - whose human and animal property and wealth helped him defeat the coalition of kings and to be considered an equal by the king of Egypt.

This is why modern people cannot grasp how a slave holder could be a pious Christian as long as he didn‘t abuse his slaves.

The only preacher I’ve heard mention this is an ex-SBC member and current Pentecostal one. He is also the only preacher I’ve heard say from the pulpit that black families were better off during segregation than they are now (i.e. the 1990s when he said it).

What good is it to gain the whole world yet lose one‘s soul?

Didn’t Lazarus end up better off than the Rich Man in the end?

Despite having written the above, one reason why Marx-Engels’ materialism didn’t spread in the Protestant Anglosphere is because of the social work of the Methodists, Baptists, Pentecostals, Quakers and other non-Conformists during the social chaos after the Industrial Revolution. This was Charles Dickens’ readership. This not only countered Communism but the libertine debauchery of the aristocracy.

That leads to the uncomfortable revelation that perhaps William Wilberforce in fact a heretic.
 

Hermetic Seal

Kingfisher
Orthodox
Gold Member
It's worth pointing out that the institution from New Testament times translated as "slavery" is vastly different from 19th century chattel slavery, which was far more brutal and oppressive. This tremendously complicates efforts using Scripture either to support or oppose the latter institution.

Basically, the institution for which Paul showed some support bore little resemblance to slavery as we know it and is a great example of why it's so important to have at least some understanding of the Bible's socio-cultural context.
 
It's worth pointing out that the institution from New Testament times translated as "slavery" is vastly different from 19th century chattel slavery, which was far more brutal and oppressive. This tremendously complicates efforts using Scripture either to support or oppose the latter institution.

Basically, the institution for which Paul showed some support bore little resemblance to slavery as we know it and is a great example of why it's so important to have at least some understanding of the Bible's socio-cultural context.

Also, in the epistle referenced, Philemon, while Paul encouraged the runaway slave to return home, he also strongly encouraged the slave owner to seriously consider freeing his slave as a fellow brother in Christ. Not to mention in his exhortations for slaves to obey their masters, he also mentions that if they can become free, they should, but not to worry too much if they can't (more than likely a reference to the possibility of buying/earning their freedom.)
 

Wutang

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Why are we allowed to have 50 different views on all sorts of minutia about our faith in all the various denominations, but they all must in unison agree that gay sex is good?
I find this to be bizarre as well. I wouldn't consider LGBT issues to be a foundational aspect of the faith in the way the divinity of Christ is but these issues end up becoming more important than core tenants of the faith do. If you look at secular media and the way they'll write about a specific church, the most important factor on whether they are written about as "ultra-conservative" is their stances on LGBT issues. I've seen multiple media outlets refer to Hillsong as a super conservative church solely because they've stated that anyone who ends up in a leadership position in one of their churches must not actively engage in homosexuality activity. If you know anything about Hillsong, you'll know it's laughable that they could be referred to as a conservative church.

In my view, the reason for the overemphasis on LGBT issues all over the other ones is simply because it's so huge in the wider culture. Even though the church is supposed to be set apart of the world, the reality is that the surrounding culture around the church ends up effecting what goes on inside the church. The LGBT agenda is the most culturally dominant agenda in our culture and it infects every single part of our culture, even children's cartoons. I would say it's even more influential then BLM, which peaked during the summer of 2020. The most powerful cultural influencers in our society whether it be actors, musicians, or social media personalities are 100% behind the agenda. Both the legacy media and the new media constantly promote it. Despite being so powerful, they still get to play at being the oppressed underdog so they are getting the best of both worlds: they get the pity parties for being "oppressed" while at the same time being able to oppress any sort of dissenting voice. That's why a lot of times to campaigns to get churches to accept homosexuality and transgenderism is done with 1) an appeal to Christian love for the downtrodden and if that doesn't work, then they proceed to 2) which is to apply overwhelming social pressure and shaming until the church falls into line.

You don't see polygamists getting the same sort of cultural influence that LGBT does - hence why there isn't an attempt to force churches to accept polygamy but yet theses constant pressure to get churches to affirm homosexuality and trannies.
 

bmw633

Woodpecker
It's worth pointing out that the institution from New Testament times translated as "slavery" is vastly different from 19th century chattel slavery, which was far more brutal and oppressive. This tremendously complicates efforts using Scripture either to support or oppose the latter institution.

Basically, the institution for which Paul showed some support bore little resemblance to slavery as we know it and is a great example of why it's so important to have at least some understanding of the Bible's socio-cultural context.
Just how do you know that? Probably you learned this from some African Studies Communist textbook author.

Some slaves were treated very humanely, some savagely, from the beginning of time. Making generalities about individual experiences is not being very open minded.
 
Last edited:

bmw633

Woodpecker
I have found myself evolving on this issue. The Bible does not say that slavery is a sin. In the USA it probably would have been better to reform slavery than to abolish it. The Southerners in the old South abused slaves and their loss in the Civil War was basically a punishment for their abuses. I think it's wrong to have laws against slave literacy, break up slave marriages, or go out and arrest slaves for running away. I'm not convinced that having slaves in itself is wrong. Today we have large masses of black people who are basically slaves to the welfare state. I don't see how returning to the antebellum form is slavery is worse than that.
I take issue with Southerners abusing slaves, as if all of them did. My ancestor wrote an autobiography where after Lincoln's Emancipation proclamation, he gathered his slaves and told them they were free, and could leave, or stay and he would continue to provide for them. Only one of 17 left. I think if they were badly treated, they all would have left.

What was taught in public schools on this subject and the actual truth are often two very different things.
 
Top