They are still DBA as Southern Baptists, but just like the Mormons, they want to run away from their past without actually doing it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2020/09/15/southern-baptist-name-great-commission-baptist/

"Leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention are increasingly dropping the “Southern” part of their Baptist name, calling it a potentially painful reminder of the convention’s historic role in support of slavery.

The 50,000 Baptist churches in the convention are autonomous and can still choose to refer to themselves as “Southern Baptist” or “SBC.” But in his first interview on the topic, convention president J.D. Greear said momentum has been building to adopt the name “Great Commission Baptists,” both because of the racial reckoning underway in the United States and because many have long seen the “Southern Baptist” name as too regional for a global group of believers.

“Our Lord Jesus was not a White Southerner but a brown-skinned Middle Eastern refugee,” said Greear, who this summer used the phrase “Black lives matter” in a presidential address and announced that he would retire a historic gavel named for an enslaver. “Every week we gather to worship a savior who died for the whole world, not one part of it. What we call ourselves should make that clear."

How come they don't merge with the baptists that they broke away from ?

They are not fooling anyone. Even Jimmy Carter caught on about how crazy they can be long ago.

Where else are so many racists going to go? (I've come to the sad conclusion that racism is always with us.)

They are often the the antithesis of whatever Jesus supposedly taught, IMO. They have a long way to go to prove otherwise. It sounds like their leadership recognizes it.

I remain of the opinion that racism is an acquired trait and that the trait can and will infect fewer and fewer humans.

But still too many appreciate how useful it is as a crutch.

Who decided that they have a special connection with God any more than you or I?

The historical Baptist position is that the relationship is individual, between God and the believer. The intercession of a priest or church is extra-Biblical and called "sacredotalism."

Having the word Southern in its title does not in and of itself make the SBC racist, especially since there are SBC churches in every state and in numerous countries around the world. Some years ago I attended a SB church and back then there was talk of a name change to reflect the world wide nature of the convention rather than tying it to a few southern states. That said the SBC spilt from Northern Baptists over the issue of slavery and there is no doubt that the SBs condoned, justified and encouraged slavery and racism in years past.

Are there racists who claim to be SBs. Probably so since racism still runs through all segments of society and there is no doubt the SBC was on the wrong side of history to their shame. In 1995 the SBC made an impassioned and unqualified apology for their racist past and pleaded for forgiveness. It was met with a similarly unqualified statement of forgiveness from black church leaders.

And yet the stigma of racism still exists and it is not helped by the Southern designation. I see the desire to drop the term as a natural evolution away from the past and not some sinister desire to continue racism in disguise.

After living in the South a decade, I have to say the most dogmatic types were Southern Baptists. IMO, it doesn't help to use the word "Commission" in their new name, which gives off a vibe of dogmatic official duty for Jesus stuff.

In my acquaintances there, the more tolerable (for me anyway) were the Methodists and not the "Are you saved" Bible thumping Baptists. I'm sure that is not true everywhere as you demonstrate. It was just my experience there.

I don't see the racist conservative types there going to any other religion.

Like Mormons trying to change their name and adapt, it will take some time to rehabilitate their reputation to modern times.

Sweet Jesus, Man!

The Southern Baptists taught, "Be a good little slave now, and you'll receive your reward in heaven."

Northern Baptists, now the American Baptist Convention, broke away from the other Baptists around the time of the Civil War. I don't know the circumstances, or when, the "Southern Baptists" adopted that name. Billy Graham was Southern Baptist, and connected with the SPC leadership to support the Civil Rights movement with mixed results. Whereas the SBC did not come out in full support, they did remain neutral, dis-empowering the segregationists. Most of the religious opposition came from smaller or unaffiliated church groups.

Christ was not "a brown-skinned Middle Eastern refugee;" he was probably an olive-skinned village artisan in Galilee, in that most sons followed in the trade of their fathers (in this case, Joseph). Although He was born in Bethlehem, and His family fled Herod into Egypt for a few years, they did have a home to return to.

The issue is, are they preaching the gospel to all peoples? (Emphasis on "all"), advancing "a great multitude, which no man [can] number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues,.." (Revelation 7:9).

You know quite a bit about make-believe characters.

Not even the most secular of scholars hold that Jesus was not a real person. They may argue against his theological divinity or the reliability of the canonical writings, but very few hold that Jesus was purely non-existent myth or legend.

fake news

> His family
> fled Herod into Egypt for a few years, they did
> have a home to return to.

If Jesus's family was "fleeing" government persecution, they were by definition political refugees. If they lived in Latin America or the Middle East five years ago they have been allowed into the United States and given a hearing that--assuming the Lord wasn't lying--resulted in the family's being given US citizenship. If the family arrived today, however, they would be barred from both entry and access to a statutorily-mandated hearing in a court.

I'm not sure politically conservative Christians should bring up Jesus's immigration status.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2020 01:11AM by Lot's Wife.

In that the records deem Joseph a righteous man, we can assume that in taking his family to Egypt no laws were broken, nor was Egyptian territory improperly transgressed. Of course, concepts of national sovereignty and borders were not strictly defined then, compared to present day. Passports and visas were unheard of. He would have been considered a legal sojourner or immigrant.

So yes, Joseph and family could be considered "political refugees," but there are qualitative and quantitative differences between swarms of self-proclaimed "refugees," most of whom are economic, not political, migrants. And we have laws to screen and regulate immigration, which are routinely flouted and, until recently, rarely enforced.

Nor were there masses of migrants fleeing Judah into Egypt. Had there been, Egypt might have acted, but did not, according to any records. Joseph & family were just one small, inconsequential party of sojourners. There is some overlap of similarities between Joseph and mass illegal immigration as we have experienced it in the 21st Century, but they are far from equivalent. This is the fallacy of "presentism," judging an historic person or situation according to present-day criteria.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/18/2020 07:27PM by caffiend.

> In that the records deem Joseph a righteous man,
> we can assume that in taking his family to Egypt
> no laws were broken, nor was Egyptian territory
> improperly transgressed.

Really? Where in the Bible does it say that Joseph obeyed Jewish, Roman, and Egyptian law? Why do you assume that he was legally scrupulous when Jesus himself broke Jewish and Roman law? Was it "legal" to whip people in the temple?


---------------
> Of course, concepts of
> national sovereignty and borders were not strictly
> defined then, compared to present day. Passports
> and visas were unheard of. He would have been
> considered a legal sojourner or immigrant.

So if Joseph lived today and Herod announced he was going to kill all the male boys in Bethlehem, Joseph, Mary and Jesus would have refrained from fleeing to Egypt to save Jesus? That doesn't sound like a wise thing to do, nor one that God would have willed.


-----------------
> So yes, Joseph and family could be considered
> "political refugees," but there are qualitative
> and quantitative differences between swarms of
> self-proclaimed "refugees," most of whom are
> economic, not political, migrants. And we have
> laws to screen and regulate immigration, which are
> routinely flouted and, until recently, rarely
> enforced.

Give me a break. The Trump administration does NOT enforce the immigration laws. It has been defeated in the courts many times for violating those laws. Surely even you can acknowledge that rather than parroting the talking points.


-----------------
> Nor were there masses of migrants fleeing Judah
> into Egypt. Had there been, Egypt might have
> acted, but did not, according to any records.
> Joseph & family were just one small,
> inconsequential party of sojourners.

Irrelevant. If the issue is, as you make it, obedience to law, the number of people fleeing Judah into Egypt does not matter.


-------------------
> There is some
> overlap of similarities between Joseph and mass
> illegal immigration as we have experienced it in
> the 21st Century, but they are far from
> equivalent. This is the fallacy of "presentism,"
> judging an historic person or situation according
> to present-day criteria.

YOU are the one guilty of presentism. You assume that Joseph obeyed Roman and Egyptian law when he almost certainly knew little about them and cared less. And the law cared just as much for peasants. You ascribe to Joseph notions of civic duty that simply did not exist 2,000 years ago.

Matthew 28:19-20: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. (KJV)

That's the Great Commission, as I learned it.

It's a better name, action-oriented and descriptive of their stated purpose.

Being an ignorant Canuck (not in the pejorative sense) I didn't know about the racism. No wonder they want to change things up.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2020 05:45PM by Nightingale.

Their public admission and apology for their racism was 25 years ago but it is difficult to shake the stereotype that is still connected to the word southern. It also no longer effectively describes a "denomination" that is active world wide. The SBC operates one of the top five relief organizations in the United States with help that includes cleanup crews and feeding trucks. After 9/11 they were responsible for the cleanup in more than 2000 apartments and other living quarters in and around the twin towers. Even in Utah, when a heavily Mormon neighborhood was inundated by a mudslide, SB cleaning crews and feeding trucks were there among the first to help. My point is, how long do they get before people move on from the past.

"What we call ourselves should make that clear."

It's not what a group of people call themselves, it's what they call others...

Amen.

The southern baptist church I remember was where the middle class (yeomen) went to church, the ones trying to conform to society who had a little wealth. It was to distinguish it from the the more primitive believing baptists who lived up in the hills. They have a distrust to the establishment, to book learnin' to the big bad city folk. Yee Haa!