When did the SBC begin?

I have heard it was with Miriam and Aaron while Moses was up on Mt. Sinai, just to jest a little, but I understand this may be a Baptist history topic, but is there any debate on it?

 

There is plenty of debate on it, lol. Just say the word "slavery", lol

 

Would i be right if i said the SBC is relatively acting in a fashion that resembles making "slaves" of it's, um, cohorts?

 

naw

 

1845 Augusta Georgia

 

It started over the issue of slavery.

 

In addition, the feeling was that the Northern Baptists were dominanting the combined convention.

 

It seems to often be said that the SBC began because Baptists split over the issue of slaver; against it in the north, for it in the south. But it was about whether slaveholders could be appointed as missionaries, and the northern Bapstists' contention tha they could not. Is having no slaves a requirement for being a missionary? Scripturally, no.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read somewhere that despite the separation over the slaveholder issue, the new SBC never sent one to the mission field.

Tom B

 

In my opinion, this is an excellent argument for the need to interpret the Bible in light of its cultural context. In effect, you're saying that anyone should be allowed to own slaves. I don't believe that fits in with Chist's command to love our neighbors, do you?

 

Stealing people and buying and selling them against their will is wrong.

 

The question of the thread was "when" did the SBC begin...not how or why...

 

You got it correct!

 

yep

 

Well, that sure makes this a short thread!

 

Since the slavery issue came up, I believe there is room for discussion on why the SBC began, is it because the SBC believes or believed that the ownership of slaves did, or did, not qualify a missionary?

What was Lincoln? Baptist? It seems Licoln believed that the black man would always be a slave of sorts: i.e., either owned by southerners, or worked to death by the industrial revolutionaries in the north.

I know the Civil War wasn't really about slavery, but about States Rights to govern themselves.

I also know many blacks that have made very good in today's economy.

So did the SBC begin by those interested in owning slaves verses those who believed it is wrong to own slaves?

I'm not asking about the slavery issue, but asking specifically about the beginning of the SBC.

I'm a slave of the Lord, but I sure am glad His burden is light!

 

I may be wrong (and I have no doubt that someone will correct me), but I believe that those who started the SBC objected to a mandatory rejection of slavery.

He was raised Baptist, but claimed no specific denominational affiliation as an adult. His copious writings demonstrate a clear and consistent reverence in Almighty God. He was known to have read and studied Scripture with regularity and faithfulness his entire adult life.

That was a common opinion at the time, reflecting more of a societal concern of the day, and not an inhierent condition of slaves or former slaves.

Yes and no. Jefferson Davis said that he would call for secession if an abolitionist was elected POTUS, and immediately lived up to his word when Lincoln was elected. The funny thing was that Lincoln technically wasn't abolitionist.

That's neither here nor there. It is an unfortunate fact that there is a much higher rate of poverty in the black community than in the national average. Not making a judgement on anyone, just pointing out the observation.

 

As for Lincoln, it is true that he did not formally affiliate with a church (although there are some unverified stories around about his seeking baptism). But New York Avenue Presbyterian Church, here in Washington, loves to speak of his participation there. In their sanctuary there are loads of modern pews, but one old-style pew that was used by the Lincolns when they attended worship.