kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) (05/19/91)
Discussing something else, Chris Redmond writes: >I expect the ACLU people are as human (therefore fallible) as anybody else, >and don't always live up to their principles. Still I am glad they're there >preventing (for example) the Southern Baptists from imposing their religion >on me (if I lived where there are Southern Baptists -- you know what I mean, >I hope). I'm a Southern Baptist, and I have no interest in imposing my religion on you; please be a bit more careful how wide your paintbrushes are. That said, I concede your point: I seem to be spending WAY TOO MUCH of my time preventing my fellow Southern Baptists from getting conservative Christianity legislated. Having given this some thought, I've started to wonder if maybe the real problem doesn't stretch far beyond the limits of the current battle in the SBC -- as far back as the first century, and off into secular life. I think the real problem is that humans like things to be stable; they like to to protect the status quo (provided it benefits them). Someone's current way of life, unless it is unpleasant, will be defended at almost any cost. The standard example of this comes from US history in the 1950s: US Senator Joseph R McCarthy attempted to locate members of subversive organisations who might attempt to sabotage the US. His hunt for suspected communists, however, subverted the US Constitution; he was so busy defending the nation against those who might damage it that he didn't notice the damage he was doing. (In particular, he violated numerous people's Fifth Amendment rights: the Senate subcommittee he was in charge of imprisoned people for contempt because they refused to answer questions. However, the US Appeals Court in Washington ruled that the Senate subcommittee "failed to establish the subject matter of inquiry" -- thus depriving citizens of liberty without due process of law.) The currently situation in the SBC seems to be a similar one. The `Baptist Faith and Message' (the closest to a creed that the SBC gets) states quite clearly: Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. [...] The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. But there are Southern Baptists who want to do both of the following: 1) Make the `Baptist Faith and Message' binding on seminary professors. and 2) Outlaw purchasing alcohol on Sunday because that's "the Lord's Day". This contradiction baffles me: people want to make binding a statement which requires separation of church & state, but they also want the state to make laws based on religious practices. My only guess is that these people have not fully considered their positions (perhaps they haven't even read the BF&M); they want to preserve the status quo, whether it is self-consistent or not. In Revelation 2:4, Jesus tells the church in Ephesus that they have forsaken their first love; I have heard numerous explanations for this, but the only sensible one is that the Ephesians were so busy hunting heretics they lost sight of the Great Commission. In verses 2 & 6, Jesus approves the testing of those who claim to be Apostles, throwing out wicked men, and disapproving of the Nicolaitans. Such activities might occupy a lot of time. So ease off a little on the SBs; we advertise ourselves as trying to be like a New Testament church, so at least we're honest. 8-) Anyway, assuming I understand the problem (maintaining the status quo at almost any cost), does anybody have any ideas about a solution? kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu Darren F. Provine ...njin!gboro!kilroy o o ()o()