Baptist Historians

Back in the early spring of 2002, I received an email from Buddy Shurden asking if I'd like to participate in a seminar with approximately 15-20 other "younger" Baptist historians. If I said "yes," I committed myself to read several hundred pages of primary source documents from the Baptist tradition in preparation for the seminar which would convene at Mercer University in September of that year.

Although I was busy with many things at the time, I agreed to participate. We just completed our 9th seminar last weekend in Atlanta. Buddy is now retired and no longer meets with us. Our group still meets though. We have added a few other names as some of the original members have had to drop out. But, in all honesty, this has been and continues to be one of the most helpful continuing education experiences of my professional life. We have read and discussed literally thousands of pages of primary source materials from 400 years of the Baptist tradition from both England and America.

We just completed our 9th seminar last weekend in Atlanta. This year we decided as a group to release a document which we hope will inform the public about some of the things we have learned through our reading of these primary sources. Here is the link to the document:

http://www.baptisthistory.org/bhhs/affirmationbaptisttheme.html

I am so proud to be associated with these historians. They are professional colleagues and I value their individual as well as collective expertise as historians. But the best thing that has happened through these 8 years of working together in this seminar is that we have all become close friends. A sense of community has developed between us. That has made this experience even more beneficial.

CBFNC and Priesthood of the Believer

I have been away from blogging for a while due to being consumed with a long-term writing project. However, I want to return to blogging momentarily to comment on the proposed efforts of CBFNC to revise its foundational statement. In 2007, CBFNC appointed a committee to start the process of revision. The current statement is included here:

http://www.cbfnc.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=1sFC6ojb-Ss%3d&tabid=254

The committee has been at work for a several years now and has produced this revision:

http://www.cbfnc.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=8yecCUNauRk%3d&tabid=254

Two other Baptist bloggers, Aaron Weaver and Tony Cartledge have each written blogs about this effort and their posts are very insightful and detailed as to the differences, etc. Those blogs can be found here:

http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/

http://www.tonycartledge.com/

I share two concerns about this proposed document. First, I have some questions about including the Apostles Creed (although, curiously, it is not named). While I don't have any difficulty with the Apostles Creed personally, I find it interesting that a group of Baptists who consider themselves to be non-creedal would include a creed in their foundational document. I wonder if the text could be referenced, as the document does with the Baptist confessions that it mentions. But, I question whether the text of the Creed ought to be included and it is unusual for a Baptist confession to include the text of an ancient creed (The Orthodox Creed of 1678 notwithstanding).

Second, and more troubling, I have big problems with leaving out all references to priesthood of the believer, liberty of conscience, etc. This concept is at the very center of the Baptist tradition from my understanding of the primary sources which I have read. It is not some invented concept that Enlightenment-era American Baptists developed. It is the very heart of the tradition from John Smyth to the present. It is clear. Sometimes it is stated more blatantly than at other times. But, it is a thread that runs through all types of Baptists for 4 centuries of our history. It is seen in confessions of faith, writings of Baptist theologians and preachers, documents produced by local churches, and most importantly, the actions of Baptists as they have sought to live and give expression to their faith. How can you talk about salvation in the Baptist experience without starting with a sinner standing alone in fear and trembling before a holy God? What use is it to discuss religious liberty without first starting with an individual conscience opposed to the majority? How can you think of a democratically-run congregation without first starting with an individual conscience? And why encourage discussion in a Sunday School class unless we trust every individual to read the Bible privately and to interpret it as they see fit under the leadership of the Holy Spirit? These are not trivial matters. This is the very core of our tradition as Baptists.

The proposed CBFNC foundational statement needs a robust statement of this concept included. At the very least, they should bring the statement on priesthood of the believer which is in the current foundational statement into the revised version. Perhaps a good compromise would be to bring from the former document the entire section titled, “Our Principles,” which contains statements on the “Centrality and Authority of Scripture,” “Priesthood of All Believers,” “Autonomy of the Local Church,” and “Freedom of Religion.” The document is terribly lacking if something resembling this is not included somewhere. Without it, CBFNC will be saying to the world that we are something very different than what we have been.

The first Southern Baptist Convention meeting I attended as a pastor was in 1988 in San Antonio. I was also a Ph.D student at Baylor and had an interest in Baptist history. I recall the feeling of shock that I and thousands of other Moderates felt as we heard read and then saw passed the infamous resolution on the priesthood of the believer. I remember Randall Lolley’s protest as he led several others to the Alamo where they ceremonially burned their voting ballots in response to this egregiously terrible resolution. The ironic thing now 22 years later is that CBFNC is in danger of doing the same thing that the Fundamentalists did in 1988 to this cherished doctrine. The only difference is that at least the Fundamentalists left the terminology. The committee which has produced this revised document has not even done that!

"This is What a Preacher Looks Like"

Baptist Women in Ministry, an organization for which I have a tremendous amount of respect, sells a T-Shirt with the phrase, "This is What a Preacher Looks Like." I love that slogan. And, it has been promoted by BWIM very well via Facebook.
I teach Religion majors at Campbell University. Many of the students that I teach are female and most of them have a sense that God has called them to ministry. As 18 year olds, they do not know exactly what direction in ministry their calling will take. But, they have a deep sense that God has done something in their lives and following the call to ministry is their way of responding. I am supportive of women who have been called to ministry, whether it be to serve as a parish pastor, a chaplain, youth minister, missionary, or whatever form that call may take.
For the last two years almost, I have been engaged in a project to write the bi-centennial history of First Baptist Church in Raleigh. I am currently working through the period from 1911-1938. Today, I was reading old WMU minutes and came across an amazing entry from October 2nd, 1916. During the meeting on that day, Sallie Bailie Jones, one of the most important WMU leaders in the South in the early 20th century, spoke on the subject of "Women in Christianity." Listen to these words:
“Woman was created man’s equal and a high standard for womanhood was given in the Old Testament. Miriam, the sister of Moses, who led her people was as divinely appointed as Moses, and Deborah, the prophetess was the first woman to rule a nation by divine appointment. With the coming of Christ there came a higher life for women and the gospel of a risen Christ was first heard by the disciples from Mary Magdalene."
Now, this is not from the mouth of some wild-eyed radical feminist. This is from the Woman's Missionary Union that was part of one of the most prominent churches in the Southern Baptist Convention at the time. So, when some conservatives today say that it is God's intention that the woman should be "submissive" to the man, I think they would have a hard time convincing Sallie Bailie Jones of that!
"This is What a Preacher looks like!!"

Paige Patterson's Crusade

I haven't blogged in a while. I've just been so busy with other matters that I didn't have time to keep up with my blog. However, this event covered by Tony Cartledge is just too good to ignore. The title is "Warriors for Jesus." See Tony's blog here:

http://www.tonycartledge.com/

This speaks for itself. I'll just add this: (1) Dr. Patterson is probably in need of a good retirement plan. (2) Dr. Patterson could probably use some therapy. (3) I have never been so embarrassed to be a graduate of Southwestern Baptist Theology Seminary. I may just take my diploma off my wall!

Laptop Use in the College Classroom

There are some courses in the university where laptops are essential items for students in the class. My class is not one of them. Generally, my classes are lecture-oriented with a measure of discussion. If I need to refer to something on the internet, I use my laptop to connect and then flash the material on the screen at the front of the room with the boxlight projector.

I never really cared about laptop use until about 3 years ago. I started noticing that my students were not paying attention as well with their laptops open and that I was having to compete with Instant Messenger, Facebook, email, and a host of other distractions. One of our other religion classes also had a minor incident of a student visiting a website that was a bit offensive to his fellow students.

At this point I decided to implement a policy (stated in my syllabus) that forbids use of electronic devices in my classes. This includes cell phones, mp3 players, iPods (amazing that I had a student once listening to her iPod while I was lecturing!). Of course, I do allow for laptops and recording devices if a student has a special need for its use.

This article in the Chronicle of Higher Education caught my attention today. It seems to confirm what I have suspected for some time now; that students make better grades if they leave the laptops closed and pay attention to the lecture.

http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/3662/when-shown-how-in-class-laptop-use-lowers-test-scores-students-stop-surfing

Students Stop Surfing After Being Shown How In-Class Laptop Use Lowers Test Scores
Professors increasingly frustrated by students who use laptops for non-class activities—like updating their Facebook pages—may be heartened by news from the University of Colorado at Boulder. A professor there has found that educating students about the negative effect that frivolous laptop use has on their performance reduces class time spent going walkabout on the Web.

Diane Sieber, an associate professor, teaches writing and ethics to engineering undergraduates. She told the Boulder Daily Camera newspaper that last semester, she identified 17 students in one of her classes who were using laptops most frequently. After the first test, she told them that they did 11 percent worse, on average, than their peers who did not have their faces in their computers as much.

Lo and behold, the number of laptop-nosed students dropped to a half dozen, and the test scores of those who stopped using their computers during class went up.
Ms. Sieber says she also tries to tell students about the effects their behavior has on others in the class. Students “ask their classmates, ‘Please don’t watch movies on your computer, because if I’m behind you I can’t focus,’” she told the newspaper.

As the number of wireless-enabled classrooms increases—at Boulder it has gone from about 15 percent to about 85 percent in the last several years, according to the report—the laptop-related challenges facing the people up at the front of the room has gone up as well. Several law-school professors, The Chronicle has reported, have banned laptops from their classrooms. Laptop-free zones have been ordered by law-school instructors at Florida International, Georgetown, and Harvard Universities, and the Universities of Michigan and Wisconsin.

But other instructors find bans hard to enforce, and also find that Web access can enrich classroom discussions. A recent survey of 29,000 students at 85 law schools supports this notion. It may be that treating students as grown-ups and letting them see for themselves what helps and what hurts them in class, as Ms. Sieber has done, results in students who make smart decisions. —Josh Fischman


-->

What is Their "Fair Share?"

The Republicans (the party of choice for rich C.E.O.s) has been complaining about President Obama's plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to the levels that they were during the Clinton administration. This will be a change of 35% to 39.5%. Some wackos have even being calling President Obama a "Socialist."

Oh really?

Get this. At the end of Ronald Reagan's first term in office do you know what the tax rate was for the wealthiest Americans? 50%

Do you know that under Richard Nixon the tax rate for wealthy America was 70%?

Under Dwight D. Eisenhower the rate was 91%.

Above is a chart prepared by Moveon.org to show a comparison between what President Obama is trying to do and the tax rates that existed since the Great Depression.

With the latest news of AIG bonuses being paid out with taxpayer money, it is time for all Americans to stand up and say "enough!"

It is time for the wealthiest 1% of American society, as well as the large corporations to pay their fair share back to society.

Oh, and by the way, the Obama budget cuts taxes for 95% of all Americans. That's how it should be. The wealthy ought to pay more than the middle class. It's not socialism. It's common sense!

Rush Limbaugh and the Religious Right

Robert Parham, Executive Director of the Baptist Center for Ethics has an excellent editorial on Rush Limbaugh and the Religious Right that appeared in the "Washington Post" today. I wanted to promote it through my blog today as well. He raises a good question: Why does the Religious Right embrace Rush Limbaugh so heartily when Limbaugh's life and thought are so obvioulsy contrary to basic Christian morality?

Here's the link:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2009/03/limbaughs_unrighteous_hold_on.html

Here's the article:

Robert Parham
Limbaugh's Unrighteous Hold on Christian Right

Rush Limbaugh told what he thought was a joke to a cheering crowd at the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference, an annual gathering of conservative activists and politicians. In his rambling remarks televised on FOX News, Limbaugh said that when Larry King died, he went to heaven and was met at the gates by Saint Peter. King's one question was: "Is Rush Limbaugh here?"

"'No, he's got a lot of time yet, Mr. King,'" said Limbaugh, pretending to be Peter.

"So Saint Peter begins the tour," said Limbaugh. "Larry King sees the various places and it's beyond anything we can imagine in terms of beauty. Finally, he gets to the biggest room of all, with this giant throne. And over the throne is a flashing beautiful angelic neon sign that says, 'Rush Limbaugh.'"

The audience laughed.

Limbaugh said, "And Larry King looks at Saint Peter and says, 'I thought you said he wasn't here.' He said, 'He's not, he's not. This is God's room. He just thinks he's Rush Limbaugh,'" said Limbaugh.

The crowd erupted with laughter, applause and hoots. Conservatives thought it was hilarious that God would envy the rival deity named Rush Limbaugh. Not a boo, not a hiss, not a grumble was heard from the crowd.

While CPAC was a secular event, it was an event sponsored, supported and attended by Christian Right organizations and leaders. The CPAC program listed as co-sponsors: Concerned Women for America, Family Research Council and Liberty University's law school. Exhibitors included the Alliance Defense Fund, Liberty Council and Regent University's Robertson School of Government. Focus on the Family held a reception for former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum.

No doubt, a lot of conservative Christians were in the room. Days later, no Christian Right leader has objected to Limbaugh's claim to be bigger than God, a claim similar to what John Lennon said in 1966.

When Lennon said, "We're more popular than Jesus," Bible-belt Christians roared with anger. They burned Beatles records, banned Beatles songs on the radio and boycotted Beatles concerts. They tolerated no rival claims to the messiah. When Limbaugh uttered a parallel claim, those who see Christianity under attack offered no response. No cry of cultural hostility toward religion was heard. No demand for an apology boomed from pulpits. No boycott was launched.

Why is that?

Why is it that the Christian Right reacted with such reverence to a man who, through thinly disguised humor, disclosed his prideful self-perception and espoused a worldview that counters the biblical witness? Are they afraid of Limbaugh? Are they afraid of his followers who pack their pews?

What explains the fact that Limbaugh can speak untruthfully, and yet he goes unchallenged by conservative Christians? He certainly spoke untruthfully at CPAC when he said that conservatives did not see other people with contempt. Yet he exhibited contempt in his comments about Senators Harry Reid and John Kerry.

When Limbaugh asserted that President Obama "portrays America as a soup kitchen in some dark night," that he wants to destroy the United States and that he was fueling "class envy," his untruthfulness went unchallenged. Limbaugh claimed, "We don't hate anybody." Yet he proceeded to speak hatefully about Obama, defending his statement that he hoped Obama failed, which was hardly endearing speech.

If truth telling isn't a conservative value, what about unbridled greed? Is greed a Christian concern? Limbaugh defended greed. He defended the conspicuous consumption and the corporate mismanagement of Merrill Lynch's former CEO John Thain as a way to defend capitalism.

Limbaugh asserted the primacy of excessive individualism. Again and again, he preached a radical individualism--the rights of the individual are transcendent. Never did he advocate sacrifice for another or urge his audience to avoid the pursuit of one's rights for the well-being of others.

Limbaugh's agenda had no room for the parable of the Good Samaritan, perhaps no longer a valued Christian narrative. Is Rush Limbaugh's agenda in sync with the moral values and vision of conservative Christians?

Given the thunderous silence of Christian Right leaders about Limbaugh's worldview, one wonders if talk radio's man of excessive individualism and political extremism has replaced the biblical witness as a moral compass.

Robert Parham is executive editor of EthicsDaily.com and executive director of its parent organization, the Baptist Center for Ethics.