Talk:Southern Baptist Convention/Archive 2

message: Hi All,
Can John McCain be inlcuded in the list of famous southern baptists? As John McCain and his wife are members of the North Phoenix Baptist Church affliated to SBC. Source is his wikipedia page, pls verify and add his name if its completely true as Mike Huckabee is also in the list in this article. Bdebbarma (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Prominent Southern Baptists - John McCain?

message: I wondered if there is some Church to go, and as much as I believe in Creation.... I believe Adam and Eve were first ppl on this Earth. Therefor I wonder what is official position of SBC on this subject?
Do they like Catholics and Anglicans believe in evolution or creationism? (that humans were created as humans, or that they have evolved to human form?) [Unsigned comment by User:193.198.138.107 15:14, 4 April 2008]
:Southern Baptists are non-creedal. That said: there are very few people left in the SBC who will openly admit to any belief in evolution. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 15:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what "non-creedal" means: there are no "official teachings" on most subjects! Traditionally, Baptists have been free to believe what they choose on the overwhelming majority of topics. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 13:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

text: But the BF&M is not binding the way creeds are for creedal faiths. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 00:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does Southern Baptist Convention teach on evolution/creation 

message: (I'm brand new here, and think this is an appropriate comment ... if I'm wrong, I apologize)
In the Prominent Former Members section, the group of members who left after conservative leadership took power are listed. First of all, is it appropriate for an anonymous group such as this to be listed as a Prominent Former Member? And if so, to be neutral, shouldn't the large number of members who stayed within the SBC be listed as a Prominent Continuing Member? I am not currently a Southern Baptist, although I was raised one. However, when reading this article, more for "old times sake" than anything else, this section just struck me as not being very neutral. Wwgtsc (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is exactly the right place to raise such issues! As a former S.B. myself, I looked at the items in question, and don't know how to state it more clearly and neutrally. It says what the departing brethren and sistren said were their reasons, and says what happened to them. By definition, those who remained as continuing members are just that; it seems rather silly to put in a separate paragraph saying, "Those who didn't leave are still there" or something. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 21:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My two cents; I don't' think it is appropriate listing former members; that type of information would be better for their individual articles. This seems like an attempt to demean Southern Baptists; particularly with the types of reasons provided for "leaving". As often as Americans change churches (we moved and the church just down the street has a great choir and it is two minutes from the house), I would not trust a politician's publicized reason for leaving a church than I would trust the devil to tell the truth (can you tell I am just a bit jaded when it comes to politics in the election year?).  I suggest deleting the section entirely and renaming the following individuals notable SB's. Thoughts? --Storm Rider (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Hi, Orange Mike - I guess my take is that the fact that many left the SBC, and their reasons for doing so, is already amply discussed elsewhere in the article. An anonymous group is not really a 'prominent former member', and listing the group there appears, in my opinion at least, to be less than neutral, as if it's trying to say that the minority who left are somehow more important than the majority who stayed. Wwgtsc (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. That last item, while it's important for those who feel the SBC was the victim of a coup d'etat, is really undue emphasis in that location. Leaving in mention of prominent laymen like Carter who reasoned for reasons of principle, on the other hand, is appropriate. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 00:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would still disagree; in particular on the "decisions" of politicians. Why are they so important that they are actually cited. What made them more important than any other member who left. I have no problem talking about it in the article, but doing more than that is POV and meeting a separate agenda than the one for the topic. On other church articles do we list prominent people who have left? No; no one does. Why is it being done here? This is just strange. --Storm Rider (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point ... for example, if other church articles followed the same convention, I would expect to see Thomas Merton listed as a Prominent Former Member on the Church of England article.  Wwgtsc (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Carter, in particular, was by far the most famous and powerful Southern Baptist in the world, one both praised and reviled for his strong Southern Baptist faith and heritage. It is disingenuous to dismiss him as a mere "politician" or to pretend that his departure from the SBC is not highly noteworthy. By comparison to Presidents of the United States (past or present), the rest of the "prominent" persons on this list are obscure non-entities. I am no idolator of these folks, and in fact opposed Carter for re-election in 1980; but that's beside the point. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 16:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are getting caught up in my editorializing and ignoring the main point. It does not matter who left the SBC; nor does it matter who they were. If you have a reference that discusses the greatest SBC member in the world (Carter), then cite it and put it in the article. My only issue is having a section devoted to famous people who have left the SBC. No one else does it. I am not contest narrative, I am contesting a whole section highlighting their departures. No other church has anything similar that I have read. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Can I jump in to ask, can we at least move the Former Members section below the Continuing Members section? Why are former members being listed above current members anyway? Tsm1128 (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prominent Former and Continuing Members question 

message: I read on many internet sites, the support(on past) of SBC to things such as racism and eugenics.The article has nothing about the support or link between SBC, slavery, racism and eugenics on past.About abortion today, SBC gives support to legal abortion.  Agre22 (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: SBC, racism and eugenics

message: Someone had inserted a paragraph into the statistics section that the Southern Baptist membership was overstated "2 to 3 times" because of duplication of membership records. The statement was not sourced.  While I am certain there is some membership duplication, an assertion that it represents such a massive overstatement of membership is contrary to the evidence.
I removed this paragraph.
What I did NOT do, but thought about doing (and I would ask for some discussion on this thought) was adjust the sentence concerning the decline in membership of the SBC in relation to the entire population.  I believe that this statement is true of all Protestant groups in the USA, due to large scale non-Protestant largely Latin American Catholic) immigration, but misleadingly indicates that the SBC is uniquely effected. I think that the sentence might be rewritten in a more neutral manner, but am not 100% sure how would be the best way to do that.
Bonbga (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Edited the Statistics Section 

message: The following passage occurs in the introductory material to this article, as of August 13:
The SBC is the largest Baptist association in the world and the largest [new world[Protestant]] denomination in the United States. Protestant churches broke away from the Roman Catholic Church. Anabaptist churches [new world[protestant]] broke away from the protestant churches over the continued use of infant baptism. It is the second largest grouping of Christians in the United States, after the Roman Catholic Church.
The middle section of this paragraph troubles me.  "Protestant churches broke away from the Roman Catholic Church" - true, but I am not sure of the relevance in this context.   "Anabaptist churches [new world[protestant] broke away . . . " is a significant mistatement in regards to Southern Baptists.  The Anabaptists represent a pacifist, Continental European branch of Christianity.  While Anabaptists do not baptize infants, they are not really the direct ancestors of the Southern Baptists.  The modern Anabaptist groups are Amish, Mennonite, Hutterite, etc.  Southern Baptists can trace a theological ancestral lineage back to the radical wing of the Protestant Reformation in England, and possibly back to the Lollards, but not back to the continental Anabaptists.   Therefore, I propose that the middle two sentences of that paragraph be removed.
Thoughts? Bonbga (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory Material 

message: I was curious if any here could fill in (and perhaps add a section eventually in the actual article) on the SBC's official position (or lack thereof) on Baptism.  I learned about the position of my family's Baptist church in an interesting way.  The former pastor of our church explained that in order to become a member of the church, one must undergo "believer's baptism" as we called it, which involved being baptized by immersion following a profession of faith/salvation experience.  I was baptized as a born-again Christian at the age of 14 or 15 in a Presbyterian church, but not by immersion.  Thus, to become a member of that congregation, I would have needed to be "rebaptized" by immersion despite having been baptized as a believer.  (Ultimately, I was unwilling to do so, since my "first" baptism had occurred only a year or two prior to that and it felt like an empty act of ritual to be baptized again!  But my parents were baptized and I was somehow made a member anyway)
Anyhow, clarification of the Southern Baptist official position on baptism might be helpful. I'd also be curious for personal reasons and also whether anyone can weigh in on what their church would do under circumstances such as mine: a person baptized as a believer but not by immersion.  Personally, I agree that only believers should be baptized; and while I lean towards baptism by immersion, I disagree with requiring Christians who were "sprinkled" to be baptized for a second time.  This, however, may be my only disagreement with Baptist doctrine...  the_paccagnellan (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Baptism means full immersion, by SBC tradition; sprinkling is not baptism. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 20:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I also recommend you read Landmarkism. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 20:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Believer's Baptism--importance of immersion? 

message: I deleted a sentence that linked the decline in membership since 2007 with the conservative/liberal controversy of the late 1970s. (A) There was no authority cited; (B) It is illogical that an event that occurred almost 30 years ago would not impact growth during the 1980's, 1990's, or the early years of the 21st Century, but would be responsible for a decline in membership beginning in the year 2007; and (C) I submit it is not NPOV.
What I did NOT add in (because I have no authority to cite - I hope some reader can find something) is that at least some of the decline in membership since 2007 can be attributed to churches leaving the SBC and becoming independent non-denominational congregations, and (here is the kicker that really needs a citation) that at least some congregations leaving the SBC are doing so because negative stereotypes were discouraging people from joining these congregations.  I understand this is true, but have not added it to the article because I have no source to cite.  Can anybody provide one?
Bonbga (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics Section Again 

message: This section read "SBC Clergy Sex Abuse Scandals which some reports allege to be more widespread than the infamous Roman Catholic Clergy Sex Abuse Scandals" and cited as its' source http://stopbaptistpredators.org/article07/three_insurers_shed_light.html.  The article made no such claim. Though the article did mention some sporadic cases of reported sex abuse, considering the size of the denomination, this hardly rises to the level of a scandal.  Furthermore, since many extremely large organizations have reports of sex abuse this isn't even a controversy (at least not in regards to the SBC).  Such a claim should have a substantially stronger source to cite (a source that actually makes the claim and/or has facts to back up such a claim). --68.217.154.39 (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SBC Clergy Sex Abuse Scandals 

message: One of the Baptist distinctives is seemingly the Convention's opposition to abortion, and this should maybe noted at some point if the SBC and Baptist-related articles become more detailed. In many ways, this opposition to abortion has allowed co-operation and interfaith work with other pro-life Christians, including Roman Catholics. Another interesting point would be to try and find out whether any leading Southern Baptists have ever expressed the minority view of opposition to contraception.  ADM (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Views on abortion

message: I see no sources cited anywhere stating in any way that Spencer and Heidi (Montag) Pratt are members of a Southern Baptist church.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.120.88 (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spencer and Heidi are Baptists? 

message: The claim that Southern Baptist Convention is America's Largest Protestant Body is contradicted by the recent Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life study, which puts their level at less than 2% of the total Christian population of the U.S. See http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations Kayodh (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you drill down on that site you gave, they are 6.7% of the population -- and that is a larger figure than any other Protestant denomination.  One thing that's not addressed, however, is how membership is counted.  For all I know, I'm listed in multiple groups from my childhood through the present.  But if each group purges their numbers differently, my "membership" status will be uneven. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership statistics 

message: Deleted this from article: "When the American Revolution began, most Baptists became active patriots in the cause of independence." -- As it stood, this was an un-cited "peacock" sentence (WP:PEACOCK). It is presumably the case that many people of various denominations "became active patriots in the cause of independence". Are the Baptists especially worthy of mention here? If so, please furnish a good cite for this before returning to the article. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite, please