What Is the SBC?

I guess I should add Baptist to my "Bs." If Paul was "a Hebrew of the Hebrews," (and he demonstrated to the Philippian church that he was), then I was a Southern Baptist of Southern Baptists. Before I was born, Grandma Roark was a member of the Fair Baptist Church in western Stephens county, Oklahoma. Ever since I became an adult, I’ve known that Grandma was "churched." They voted her out. My dad was about seventeen at the time, and when he heard about it, he went in the house, got someone’s pistol, and started down the road to the church. Walking. Uncle Charley saw his younger brother walking down the red clay road with a pistol in his hand. He caught up, and asked, "Harry, what are you going to do with that pistol?" Daddy’s instantaneous response was, "I’m going over to the church and shoot that preacher that kicked Mom out of the church." (At the time, this young man was a self-declared atheist, little knowing that within three years he would be at Oklahoma Baptist University, and pastor of a quarter-time church, the beginning of a ministry of more than fifty years.) Uncle Charley talked him out of killing the preacher. I was over sixty-years-old when I learned "the rest of the story." The pastor was carrying on a sexual affair, inappropriate to a minister, and Grandma was one of the first to learn of it. The pastor learned that Grandma was going to raise the issue at church business meeting, so he beat her to the punch and talked the church into voting her out. I never learned the nature of his case against Grandma, but he apparently was a persuasive speaker. A short time later, he was "called" to another church. I’ve told this story to indicate that my Baptist roots go back a ways. Daddy wound up, as I noted earlier, being a Baptist pastor from the mid-thirties until up into the eighties of the last century. He became a trustee of Oklahoma Baptist University. My younger brother has been in the Baptist ministry for more than fifty years. He and I both received our doctorates at what used to be the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Daddy earned a doctorate from the Central Baptist Theological Seminary. I was born on a farm, but was raised in a Baptist parsonage. I grew up in Baptist churches, and not only knew most of the hymns in the Broadman Hymnal, but knew the page number of those most often sung by Baptists. I got a major part of my education in the B.Y.P.U., later to become B.T.U., and then, simply, T.U. In those days it was alive and well, in very good health. Those programs are gone with the wind. I taught in two Baptist universities for a total of almost thirty-five years. The reason I spoke of "what used to be S.W.B.T.S., is that across the past three decades, a group who call themselves the leaders of a conservative resurgence among Baptists in the South, have taken over the SBC. In this post I’ll not go into the nature of this "takeover group," as they have been called. I just want to add my voice to the many who strongly affirm that these people are not actually Baptists, if you know Baptist history polity, and doctrine. I have written to announce the designation that I have given to the Southern Baptist Convention–the SBC. I’ve heard this from no one else but myself. Please understand that the language I am about to use is not intended the way it is used in foul speech, the way it is ordinarily used. Rather, I am using it in the primary dictionary definition. SBC no longer designated the Southern Baptist Convention. In recent decades, SBC has changed meaning. Now it denominates, as an accurate description, the Southern Bastard Convention. The new SBC is the child of illegitimate parentage: Southern Baptists and the whole sweep of right-wing Evangelicals. Some elements of Roman Catholicism have gotten in, making one wonder is there was another illicit affair involved. They have bulldozed the old SBC and replaced it with a misbegotten institution as a substitute. I repeat, I am not speaking pejoratively, rather, I speak descriptively when say: They are not Baptists; they are Bastards, pseudo-Baptists. They will go their way, and I, mine, but they are not part of my family, I am not part a part of theirs. I’m not kin to the SBC (except, perhaps, as second-cousins, thrice removed). Perhaps later, I will revisit, briefly, the reasons for this shift from the SBC to the SBC.

Buzzards (not as in, The Old Buzzard)

Buzzards? In a blog that covers a listing of "B"s, from bamboo through Bible, biodiversity, books, Broadman Hymnal, Bruce, and business, how did Buteo buteo earn a line on this list? Beauty or biodiversity, they could get in by either of these doors. Close up, they are the ugliest, most repulsive, abhorrent, obscene, and detestable of birds. In flight they are living beauty, grace in motion, a wonder to watch as they ride the air currents, the highs and the lows, majesty gently floating without apparent support as they survey their vast domain. The essence of graceful motion, they are despicably offensive when seen closeup, sharing stinking their feast with the entire family. They are on the list because they frequently bring majestic, awesome, and almost reverent serenity to my soul. Biodiversity and the Bible are part of the rest of this vulture story. Buteo has a peculiar and essential niche in the biosphere. Somewhat surprisingly, in the Bible, God is found to speak of the buzzard. However, the rest of this story must be told on a later occasion. Buzzards? In a blog that covers a listing of "B"s, from bamboo through Bible, biodiversity, books, Broadman Hymnal, Bruce, and business, how did Buteo buteo earn a line on this list? Beauty or biodiversity, they could get in by either of these doors. Close up, they are the ugliest, most repulsive, abhorrent, obscene, and detestable of birds. In flight they are living beauty, grace in motion, a wonder to watch as they ride the air currents, the highs and the lows, majesty gently floating without apparent support as they survey their vast domain. The essence of graceful motion, they are despicably offensive when seen closeup, sharing stinking their feast with the entire family. They are on the list because they frequently bring majestic, awesome, and almost reverent serenity to my soul. Biodiversity and the Bible are part of the rest of this vulture story. Buteo has a peculiar and essential niche in the biosphere. Somewhat surprisingly, in the Bible, God is found to speak of the buzzard. However, the rest of this story waits to be told on a later occasion.

2 Corinthians 5:17, a Challenging Biblical Dilemma

"Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold new things have come." NASB 2 Corinthians 5:17 is one of the most widely quoted verses in the New Testament. On a first reading, it no problem to understand. If anyone has given their life to Christ (is a Christian, a believer in Christ), God fashions them into a completely new person (born anew, re-generated). The person they were no longer exists. See (examine with your own eyes, observe, it is obvious), a new person has appeared. But this poses a logical dilemma: Either this is absolute literal truth or it is relative truth If absolute literal truth, then for anyone who is a Christian, their old ways of life are no longer a part of them; the life they are now living is a new way of life, different from the old. If relative truth, then for anyone who is a Christian, their old ways are relatively gone; the life they now live is relatively new. Therefore, either they are complete converted, or they are not completely converted. This verse is in the form of a conditional (if, then) statement. Logically, when the if part of the statement is true, the then part of the statement must be true. To state it a different way, when the then part of the statement not true, the if part of the statement cannot be true. If an individual is completely converted, their old life is completely gone The old life is not completely gone; elements of the old life remain Therefore, they are not completely converted. To restate: If an individual is "in Christ," then it is a certainty that their old attitudes, values, and way of life have disappeared. If we find that the life of a person who claims to be "in Christ" retains any of the same old attitudes, values, and ways of life, then we must conclude they are not truly "in Christ." Long-term observation indicates that some old attitudes, values, and ways of life continue in the lives of all professing Christians. If this is true (and I think it can be demonstrated), then no professing Christian is "in Christ." In fact, there are none "in Christ." Can one be a Christian, but not "in Christ?" If so, then what does "in Christ" mean? On the other hand, if we understand this verse to be relatively true, then it is possible that an individual might have a definitely positive relation to Christ--relatively in Christ--but not completely. They could be a relatively new creation with their old life relatively gone. The new is in the formative process, and the old in the process of being eradicated. Of course, this raises a question about the nature of the entire Bible. If the Bible is absolutely true, then 2 Corinthians 5:17 must be absolutely true 2 Corinthians is not absolutely true (so it seems from the preceding) So, the Bible cannot be absolutely true If 2 Corinthians 5:17 is relatively true, then the Bible is relatively true 2 Corinthians 5:17 is relatively true (so it seems from the preceding) Thus, the Bible must be relatively true. This necessitates a complete re-viewing of the Bible, a re-vision of our understanding of the Holy Scriptures. Now, it must be looked at from a new perspective, a perspective that differs from the consensus of Christian tradition. [See my blog, God Is Relative]