Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Southern Baptists denounce racism and the Alt-Right
Southern Baptists denounce racism and the Alt-Right
#1
Something I never really thought I'd see, given that the Southern Baptist Convention was founded by churches who didn't want to give up racism and slavery: Yesterday, the Southern Baptists officially adopted a resolution rejecting racism in general and the alt-right in particular. The story is kind of amazing -- it went from a rejected resolution to sort of this tsunami which took over the Convention's annual meeting. While amazing and gratifying, it's still a bit disturbing that it took multiple drafts and votes until they got the necessary two-thirds majority to pass it.

-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.
Reply
 
#2
I'd rather take this as a step in the right direction than be disturbed by the number of drafts it took.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
Reply
 
#3
While it was unanimous, what you should be disturbed by is what it took for them to go back to it: the Alt-Right Blogosphere throwing their arms up in praise when they first heard that the initial resolution was rejected and all but swept under the rug.

Once the people at the Baptist conference heard about that, they backpedalled so hard that it left skid marks. Almost literally. There were groups fixing to leave and they had to call them all back so they could get this resolution pushed out.

So yeah, there you go.
Reply
 
#4
Well, first I'm reminded of "Religious Right" types like Rod Dreher who years ago made warnings to the effect of "if you don't like the 'Religious Right', just wait until you see the post-religious Right."

Secondly, Wikipedia's page on the SBC has a section noting their decline:
Quote:Data from church sources and independent surveys indicate that since 1990 membership of SBC churches has declined as a proportion of the American population. Historically, the convention grew throughout its history until 2007, when membership decreased by a net figure of nearly 40,000 members. The total membership, of about 16.2 million, was flat over the same period, falling by 38,482, or 0.2 percent. An important indicator for the health of the denomination is new baptisms, which have decreased every year for seven of the last eight years. As of 2008, they had reached their lowest levels since 1987. Membership continued to decline from 2008 to 2012. SBC's statistical summary of 2014 recorded a loss of 236,467 members, their biggest one-year decline since 1881.

This decline in membership and baptisms has prompted some SBC researchers to describe the convention as a "denomination in decline". Former SBC president Frank Page suggested that if current conditions continue, half of all SBC churches will close their doors permanently by the year 2030. This assessment is supported by a recent survey of SBC churches which indicated that 70 percent of all SBC churches are declining or are plateaued with regards to their membership.

So this looks to me like an attempt to try to address this — particularly their poor performance at converting non-whites (who are a growing fraction of the population), and their lousy youth retention rates. But, I'm reminded of the historical examples of more "mainstream" Protestant denominations who have similarly signalled "being down" with "Progress" and the cultural mainstream in hopes of dealing with flagging membership numbers. And from what I've read and heard, it didn't work. They increasingly slid into what I've seen referred to as "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism", then, with further youth losses, into what's known in my circles as "roll hard left and die".

I will point out here that a number of social scientists, such as David Voas and Mark Chaves have presented evidence that America is showing the same "secularization" trends and decline of (traditional) religiosity as other "modern" societies like Europe, merely lagging behind. And as per above, signalling compliance with the cultural mainstream looks more like a way to be part of this decline than to fight it. Here I point to the likes of Rod Dreher's "Benedict Option" and similar arguments that if more traditional Christians want to maintain the Church against dissolution into the secular mainstream, they will need to be deliberately "counter-cultural". While Dreher, for one, repeatedly insists that "going Amish" is not his model, I'd point out that the Amish do in fact have a massive growth rate, estimated as doubling in population every 18-20 years by one source, and by another using 2010 census data as doubling every 14 years. And the Orthodox Jews (who are perhaps closer to Dreher's vague outlines of what he has in mind), have themselves at least doubled in population in America since 1990 (even while the overal American Jewish population has declined slightly).

So, in short, I don't think this is the right move with regards to their long-term survival as a religious denomination. Better to emulate the Hasidim, the Amish, or perhaps some Islamic communities, emphasizing one's "separateness" from the mainstream American culture. (I'd also point to blogger "Fifth Political Theory" and his "Western Diaspora" model.)

--The Twisted One
"If you
wish to converse with me, define your
terms."

--Voltaire
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)