SBC to Praise Obama (title edited - LE)

The Resolution passed - the SBC was held last week:

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=30777

 

Unfortunately, this request comes a bit late, as the National SBC Convention was last Tuesday and Wednesday, so it is now past.

(FTR, I was a messenger to the Convention from my church, although our church messengers, apart from me, were all only able to attend most of the Tuesday sessions, and I was physically unable to attend the Wednesday sessions, as well.)

The 'SBC' will not meet again until it meets in Orlando, FL on June 15 & 16, 2010.

Ed

 

Sorry, LadyEagle.

Our posts 'crossed' it seems.

Ed

 

If you know anything about Southern Baptist ecclesiology, you'd see the flaws in this. Pastors are not automatically messengers to the convention. And not all pastors go. So that would be a wasted phone call. Second, since Southern Baptists churches are independant, if you tell a SB Pastor to do something, he'll likely tell you to do something else - butt out.

We do need to pray for our president while speaking out on the issues that need a voice. More than anything, we need to pray for the purity of our churches and the spread of the gospel.

It's not telling the truth to say this resolution praised Obama. It praised racial progress in our country.

Those who love Biblical truth will not lie while defending it.

 

Hi Tom,

Thanks for pointing that fact out. The resolution that passed is clearly aimed at "the election of President Obama" as being "a step toward nationwide racial reconciliation". However, it also "heavily criticizes him for some of his policies". The notion that this resolution is a sign the SBC is moving towards liberalism is on its very face a silly one.

The problem here is that some "conservatives" have become so radical that even the smallest "nod" towards anyone who disagrees with them becomes compromise.


The Original Post incorrectly states that:

That is a very misleading statement. As stated the resolution did not honor President Obama's policies (etc). It was only a statement about the historic nature of his election. Of course this will be obvious to anyone who reads the resolution for what it actually is.

The Original Post also incorrectly states that:

Again, that is a very misleading statement. The resolution honors the historic nature of Obama's election then it blasts many of Obama's policies.

"At the same time, Baptists voiced strong opposition to his expansion of federal funding "for destructive human embryo research," increased "funding for pro-abortion groups" and a reduction of abstinence-education funding. The resolution also opposed Obama's declaration of June as "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month." (SOURCE also see SUMMARY)

Maybe the author of the article, and/or the original post, should do some research before making alarmist and misleading statements about the activities of the Southern Baptist Convention.

The Original Post said:

Again, that is a somewhat misleading statement since the resolution clearly attacks President Obama's liberal, pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, policies.

The Original Post said:

This was dealt with by Tom, so I will not say much more. However this kind of misinformed statement shows how important it is for Baptists to be better educated on how the Convention actually works. I know several seminaries are now requiring students to take a 1 credit course on the workings of the convention (not a denomination). Maybe new members at our churches should either (a) be provided with information on the Convention or (b) required to go through new members classes in which the Convention is one of many topics covered.

 

old news, yet treated as if it's current this week, right now, not happened yet. The SBC convention ws last week.
Title of the op is misleading as thats not what the articel says

 

I take anything that 'Pilgrim' writes with a grain of salt.

 

Doublespeak.

 

How is that double speak? Obama was not praised. Pilgrim is disseminating propaganda designed and twisted to fit an anti-sbc point of view.

With that said, I would have voted "no" to the resolution. In my opinion all it did was to perpetuate race problems rather than help to remedy them. Plus, it is a no win resolution. Either way the vote goes it is equally open to criticism.

 

Our church broke off from a Southern Baptist church about three years ago and since then, we've gone back and forth about hitching our wagon to the SBC.

This doesn't exactly encourage me to want to do so.

 

Yeah, I was kind of confused when he said this, too.

 

Resolutions are stupid. SBC and state conventions should do away with them...

I'm OK with a resolution thanking the hosts. Anything more than that is wasting time, and causing fights...neither of which need to be happening.

 

Seems to me the title of this thread is misleading. It was/is not Obama who is being praised:

Rather it is the idea that the USA is making progress toward racial reconciliation that is being praised or approved of ... that is not the same as Obama being praised. I do not know what the title was on the article referenced as when I followed the link it simply took me to their home page and that article was no longer shown.

 

If we want to end racism, or at least stop it from rising, we're going to have to stop calling attention to and doing things because of a persons race, such as congratulating someone for something based on their race, celebrating first anyting by a race is racism. (first half black president, firt hispanic woman anything else) both of which are racism, even to talk about them. It's the people who claim not to be racist who I keep seeing prepetuating racism.

 

FTR, there are a fairly large number of 'non-white' (whatever that means), 'racial minorities' ( again, whatever that means) who are Southern Baptists and/or Southern Baptist churches that are member/participants of the Southern Baptist convention, including numbers that surpass some other 'traditional minority' churches or groups, simply due to the large size of the SBC.

While the 'percentages' may remain small, by comparison, the actual numbers are far larger than some may actually suspect.

I have met and spoken with some of these attendees, at the three Conventions which I was able to attend, the first being 34 years ago in Miami, when I lived there, and the last two Conventions in Indianapolis and Louisville.

Ed

 

But it sure is funny to see the right twist one of their own stories...

I thought they only twisted what the liberal media wrote...

 

Acknowledging the passing of a milestone is not racism.

However, not finding in your heart a place to celebrate the success of others might be considered racist. To include calling him half black when he referes to himself as black.

 

I agree with you...that is, your first statement.

I disagree with your second.

Part of the problem we have with regards to race relations is our expansion of the term "racism." The definition is "the belief in one race's inherent superiority over another.

Now...is bigotry a problem? With some, you bet.

But we must be careful to throw out the "racism" charge only when it applies.

 

I kind of agree, however, if a white person ever became president of the NAACP, I would expect their to be a lot of press and mention of how far we've come as a nation. You would have to admit, that would be some great milestone.

I can see your point as valid IF minorities of had equal chance at the positions they are making since the inception of the nation. Then it would be just another American who so happen to be black made president. But because of all the years that a black person wasn't allowed to vote much like entering the front door to the WH, weeing one making the WH his home is a major milestone.

Hey, to be fair, it would be getting equal scrutiny if Hillary of Palin of made office. There is always news in first...