A couple of weeks ago, I got a chance to participate in the CBF General Assembly.
Now, this was not, as some of our objectors have supposed, a political move on the part of Save OBU. I went to the assembly because I am in seminary, I am a member of a CBF church, and, because it was in Ft. Worth, my seminary paid the fees for a few of the events for Baptist Brite students. (There aren't a lot of us, but we are there!) Getting to talk with like minds about Save OBU was merely icing on the cake.
With that said, I'd like to take a post to briefly share some of my thoughts on the experience. Later this week, Jacob will share some of his thoughts on the SBC assembly.
At Save OBU, we are pushing for a split from the BGCO. We have cited many reasons why we believe the split would be beneficial for both organizations and you can click on pretty much any post in this blog to find them. But some have seen this as an argument that OBU should quit being Baptist. This is not the case at all.
Rather, we believe (and we are not alone) that the mission of the SBC and the mission of Higher Education are no longer in line. But that does not mean that OBU should not be Baptist or that we don't think Baptists care about higher education. I count myself as one such Baptist.
Being at the CBF assembly reminded me of something I have sought to say over and over on this blog. Splitting with the BGCO is not a refusal to be Baptist. It is a refusal to accept the SBC's increasingly narrow definition of what it means to be a Baptist.
I'm not arguing that OBU should join up with the CBF instead-- although I do think that OBU could benefit from partnering with organizations like the CBFO and already does many things with the two substantial CBF (I think they are both dually aligned with the SBC as well) churches in Shawnee.
No, I stand by my claim that OBU can only protect its academic inheritance if it is a free-standing body with a board of trustees, administration, faculty and staff which are loyal only to OBU and its mission. However, the existence of organizations like the CBF which has refused to allow the SBC to define what it means to be a Baptist gives me hope for OBU to stand up and do likewise.
All of this is to reiterate the point we have made all along. In order for OBU to remain both truly Baptist and an excellent institution of higher education, it must part ways with the BGCO.
For anyone who still does not see the incompatibility of the SBC and higher ed, please see Clayton's excellent post on the matter.
Showing posts with label OBU; BGCO; SBC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OBU; BGCO; SBC. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Friday, April 20, 2012
Bible Freedom
Baptists did not write the bible.
No, indeed, we did not. We inherited it from the larger church and we still share it with them. And as such as the story goes, it would be irresponsible to claim we are the only ones who know what to do with it or what truth comes out of it.
As Shurden breaks it down, Bible freedom means a few things:
Bible freedom means freedom under the Lordship of Christ.
Historically, Baptists have also affirmed the preeminence of Christ over the words on the page. However, in 2000 (post-takeover) the Baptist Faith and Message was changed from saying Jesus is the "criterion by which the bible is to be interpreted" to "all scripture is a testimony to Christ." This is a small change, except that many of the most political stances which come from the bible have been fought against with the claim-- well, Jesus never said anything about that. But, no longer! For Jesus is no longer the rule, but only the message. Now, we can remake Jesus into whatever message we find in the bible.
The 2000 BF&M also removed the clause on the authority of Jesus, "The sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is Jesus Christ"which is found in the 1963 version.
So there have been some interesting changes to make the current interpretation of the words of the Bible lord, instead of making Jesus lord. This was not the spirit of Bible freedom.
So now, the static words of the page have been exalted over the dynamic presence of Christ, restricting freedom of interpretation. That's why so many institutions which stay affiliated with their convention are going through a sort of doctrinal purging. No longer are we free to interpret, we are stuck in our old understandings and knowing exactly what the bible means already.
Bible freedom means freedom to obey the word.
Something we seem to have forgotten: the word of God is not the Bible. The Word of God is Jesus Christ. But God has certainly promised to speak through the Bible, and through the words on the page, the living and active Word of God may be heard.
That is not to say the Bible is unimportant. By no means. The scriptures testify to Christ, and as such, they are the sole authority for Baptists. (Although, for this idea we probably need to thank Luther more than any of our specific founding forerunners.)
But listen to what Shurden says about the founding Baptists and their understanding of the truth gleaned from the Bible:
Yes! That is what Baptists were saying about themselves in 1963! Of course, that statement has been revised in the 2000 BF&M to say, "Our living faith is established on eternal truths," which sounds similar, but is just different enough to sound a lot more like, "We aren't wrong... for eternity."
Remaining true to Bible freedom not only allows, but encourages diversity. Yes, this is dangerous, but the alternative is to become stagnant and irrelevant unto death "resulting from unbending dogmatism." As Shurden says, "Built into [this approach] is the idea that our understandings of the Bible change... with this birthright of freedom and faithfulness... no Christian communion should be better able to meet the changing challenges of the contemporary world than Baptists."
Although recently Bible freedom has been hidden away under disguised creedalism, it is one of our most precious gifts and should be celebrated-- especially for those looking to prepare the leaders of tomorrow in a Liberal Arts University.
To be a people free to change and respond to the changes of life is to be the exact people of faith who can take seriously both faith and education. I do not need to fear the coming together of my faith and learning because my faith is flexible and will not break. I am free to respond to everything I learn, trusting that God is faithful. Perhaps this is what our founding Baptists had in mind in 1910 when they chose a University over a seminary for their little state.
Bible freedom means freedom from all other authorities.
Believe it or not, Baptists are non-creedal people. That does not mean they reject the ancient creeds of faith, but rather that no document (even the BF&M) is the norm for Baptist beliefs. Only the Bible can be that.
To be sure, Baptists have confessions. But those are expressions of what certain Baptists believed at a certain time. They are in no way normative for the whole of the Baptist church. Even the BF&M is actually titled, "A statement of the Baptist Faith and Message." It is only a statement-- not a creed. Even the 2000 BF&M says that it is not complete or infallible and Baptists should be free to revise it whenever it seems wise or expedient to do so. Further, the BF&M should not "hamper freedom of thought or investigation."
But what has happened? As Shurden puts it, the story usually goes like this. 1) Strong statement of aversion to any creed in favor of freedom. 2) A group arises which calls for strict orthodoxy. 3) This group issues a call for a statement to safeguard orthodoxy. 4) They call for the imposition of such a statement to guarantee orthodoxy. -- Now we are creedal.
This is exactly what happened at the SBC seminaries, post-takeover. Suddenly professors were required to sign documents detailing specific beliefs about gender and other peripheral matters. This is what is happening at Shorter with the lifestyle statement. This is what's happening at OBU with Dr. Norman's crazy ideological barrage of interview questions. It is NOT Baptist, it is fundamentalist.
Thus, if professors at any Baptist institution are asked to sign anything which is not the Bible itself, the institution is no longer acting Baptist.
Finally, Bible freedom means freedom of interpretation.
It is the right and responsibility of each individual to seek and find their own understanding of the Bible.
It does not mean anything goes. Rather it means that the Bible should be taken seriously and our best scholarship should be used to understand it.
It seems to me that a Baptist University is the best place to do that. There, we may seek to learn in order that we may better understand our Holy Book. We may disagree and discuss and come to varying conclusions, but that is the only way to take this most important document seriously.
So letting Dr. Norman, or Anthony Jordan, or the BGCO, or the BF&M, or any other authority interpret the Bible for us is not only against what it means to be educated, it is against what it means to be Baptist. The two ideals go hand in hand. Because we take seriously the rights and freedoms of each individual to come to this book with their own mind and conscience, we must educate them.
If we decide we already knows what it means, we are not only being bad students, we are being bad Baptists.
Sources: Shurden, Walter B. The Baptist Identity: Four Fragile Freedoms. Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys Pub, 1993.
No, indeed, we did not. We inherited it from the larger church and we still share it with them. And as such as the story goes, it would be irresponsible to claim we are the only ones who know what to do with it or what truth comes out of it.
As Shurden breaks it down, Bible freedom means a few things:
Bible freedom means freedom under the Lordship of Christ.
Historically, Baptists have also affirmed the preeminence of Christ over the words on the page. However, in 2000 (post-takeover) the Baptist Faith and Message was changed from saying Jesus is the "criterion by which the bible is to be interpreted" to "all scripture is a testimony to Christ." This is a small change, except that many of the most political stances which come from the bible have been fought against with the claim-- well, Jesus never said anything about that. But, no longer! For Jesus is no longer the rule, but only the message. Now, we can remake Jesus into whatever message we find in the bible.
The 2000 BF&M also removed the clause on the authority of Jesus, "The sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is Jesus Christ"which is found in the 1963 version.
So there have been some interesting changes to make the current interpretation of the words of the Bible lord, instead of making Jesus lord. This was not the spirit of Bible freedom.
So now, the static words of the page have been exalted over the dynamic presence of Christ, restricting freedom of interpretation. That's why so many institutions which stay affiliated with their convention are going through a sort of doctrinal purging. No longer are we free to interpret, we are stuck in our old understandings and knowing exactly what the bible means already.
Bible freedom means freedom to obey the word.
Something we seem to have forgotten: the word of God is not the Bible. The Word of God is Jesus Christ. But God has certainly promised to speak through the Bible, and through the words on the page, the living and active Word of God may be heard.
That is not to say the Bible is unimportant. By no means. The scriptures testify to Christ, and as such, they are the sole authority for Baptists. (Although, for this idea we probably need to thank Luther more than any of our specific founding forerunners.)
But listen to what Shurden says about the founding Baptists and their understanding of the truth gleaned from the Bible:
"For Baptists, the Bible is and always has been the final authority... the Bible is final, but human understanding of the Bible is never final or complete or finished... Baptists did not begin and apparently did not intend to live out their faith as a static, rigidly fixed, inflexible group of disciples. They did not arrive at The truth in every area of life and then determine to pass it on to succeeding generations. What they arrived at was an attitude of openness to the ongoing study of the Bible..."He goes on to quote from the 1963 BF&M which discusses a living faith rooted in Jesus who is ever the same. Thus, the authority is Jesus. "A living faith must experience a growing understanding of truth and must be continually interpreted and related to the needs of each new generation."
Yes! That is what Baptists were saying about themselves in 1963! Of course, that statement has been revised in the 2000 BF&M to say, "Our living faith is established on eternal truths," which sounds similar, but is just different enough to sound a lot more like, "We aren't wrong... for eternity."
Remaining true to Bible freedom not only allows, but encourages diversity. Yes, this is dangerous, but the alternative is to become stagnant and irrelevant unto death "resulting from unbending dogmatism." As Shurden says, "Built into [this approach] is the idea that our understandings of the Bible change... with this birthright of freedom and faithfulness... no Christian communion should be better able to meet the changing challenges of the contemporary world than Baptists."
Although recently Bible freedom has been hidden away under disguised creedalism, it is one of our most precious gifts and should be celebrated-- especially for those looking to prepare the leaders of tomorrow in a Liberal Arts University.
To be a people free to change and respond to the changes of life is to be the exact people of faith who can take seriously both faith and education. I do not need to fear the coming together of my faith and learning because my faith is flexible and will not break. I am free to respond to everything I learn, trusting that God is faithful. Perhaps this is what our founding Baptists had in mind in 1910 when they chose a University over a seminary for their little state.
Bible freedom means freedom from all other authorities.
Believe it or not, Baptists are non-creedal people. That does not mean they reject the ancient creeds of faith, but rather that no document (even the BF&M) is the norm for Baptist beliefs. Only the Bible can be that.
To be sure, Baptists have confessions. But those are expressions of what certain Baptists believed at a certain time. They are in no way normative for the whole of the Baptist church. Even the BF&M is actually titled, "A statement of the Baptist Faith and Message." It is only a statement-- not a creed. Even the 2000 BF&M says that it is not complete or infallible and Baptists should be free to revise it whenever it seems wise or expedient to do so. Further, the BF&M should not "hamper freedom of thought or investigation."
But what has happened? As Shurden puts it, the story usually goes like this. 1) Strong statement of aversion to any creed in favor of freedom. 2) A group arises which calls for strict orthodoxy. 3) This group issues a call for a statement to safeguard orthodoxy. 4) They call for the imposition of such a statement to guarantee orthodoxy. -- Now we are creedal.
This is exactly what happened at the SBC seminaries, post-takeover. Suddenly professors were required to sign documents detailing specific beliefs about gender and other peripheral matters. This is what is happening at Shorter with the lifestyle statement. This is what's happening at OBU with Dr. Norman's crazy ideological barrage of interview questions. It is NOT Baptist, it is fundamentalist.
Thus, if professors at any Baptist institution are asked to sign anything which is not the Bible itself, the institution is no longer acting Baptist.
Finally, Bible freedom means freedom of interpretation.
It is the right and responsibility of each individual to seek and find their own understanding of the Bible.
It does not mean anything goes. Rather it means that the Bible should be taken seriously and our best scholarship should be used to understand it.
It seems to me that a Baptist University is the best place to do that. There, we may seek to learn in order that we may better understand our Holy Book. We may disagree and discuss and come to varying conclusions, but that is the only way to take this most important document seriously.
So letting Dr. Norman, or Anthony Jordan, or the BGCO, or the BF&M, or any other authority interpret the Bible for us is not only against what it means to be educated, it is against what it means to be Baptist. The two ideals go hand in hand. Because we take seriously the rights and freedoms of each individual to come to this book with their own mind and conscience, we must educate them.
If we decide we already knows what it means, we are not only being bad students, we are being bad Baptists.
Sources: Shurden, Walter B. The Baptist Identity: Four Fragile Freedoms. Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys Pub, 1993.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Diversity at OBU: Chapel
When I started creating this post, I was surprised to learn that OBU was not as white as I thought it was. According to the OBU website, OBU is actually only 70% white-- a number much lower than probably most of us expected.
Actually, it turns out that student-wise, OBU is doing pretty well. The US is about 64% white and Oklahoma is at about 66%. So, good job, OBU. I am pleasantly surprised.
But, perhaps that makes even more tragic my original reason for writing this post. As I have mentioned before, I spent two of my years at OBU serving on Chapel CREW-- the group of students who plans and executes chapel. And the truth is, students do actually have a lot of sway over what happens there-- so that is good.
But students do not have the final say (which is probably also good), and there are other political factors at play in who comes to speak at chapel at OBU.
One of the most interesting are three themed days which were there all four of my years at OBU and remain on the OBU chapel calendar. One of them I have already mentioned: women in missions and ministry day. The other two are like it African American heritage day and Native American heritage day.
What are the implications of the existence of these days?
First, we had already wondered on this blog why someone like Voddie Baucham was possibly asked to preach at chapel this year. Well, the OBU press release does not say that it is African American Heritage day-- but everyone knows that that day falls on the first chapel of the spring semester. So I guess it doesn't matter that Baucham is well known throughout America for being sexist-- we'll still ask him to preach at OBU because he's black and, well, it's that time of year again.
Or what about the time that a pretty well known man from the area was asked to preach on Native American Heritage day? He made an interesting statement to the tune of, "I don't preach because I'm Native American, I preach because you want me to come." Luckily, he was given a different day to come preach.
All of that to say, it may seem like these measures strengthen diversity. But to me it really seems to highlight something I said in another post: if chapel is supposed to be a place where we are all led into worship, it looks to me like the only people being asked to lead are white men in suits.
It seems like the only reason we can affirm ministers of a different color is because we give them their own day-- but otherwise it's assumed that the best preachers are white. How is 30% of OBU's student population supposed to feel about that?
And if you happen to be neither white nor male, forget it. There's no day for you.
What does all of this have to do with OBU leaving the BGCO?
One of the things I have stressed from the beginning is that BGCO politics are negatively affecting OBU. We all know that the SBC has a pretty terrible history with regards to race. The denomination was founded upon the refusal to reject slavery-- something they later apologized for, in 1995. It seems a little late to me, but maybe I'm just a cynic.
Of course, it's not that surprising from a convention whose seminary president Al Mohler once said about the split between northern and southern baptists, "What Northerners were saying is that ending slavery was more important than spreading the gospel." And that was last December. The original article has since been removed, but in the world of the internet, nothing cam be unsaid.
So with cries of "Don't let culture change the gospel" the convention that currently owns OBU has set up three days a year to make up for past mistakes against minorities. Maybe it's just me but that sounds a lot like saying, "We're not very good at seeing when we are wrong." I can only hope that in 150 years my daughter will be alive to see the SBC apology to women.
Until then, these are the kinds of politics I am tired of seeing dominating my alma mater.
Actually, it turns out that student-wise, OBU is doing pretty well. The US is about 64% white and Oklahoma is at about 66%. So, good job, OBU. I am pleasantly surprised.
But, perhaps that makes even more tragic my original reason for writing this post. As I have mentioned before, I spent two of my years at OBU serving on Chapel CREW-- the group of students who plans and executes chapel. And the truth is, students do actually have a lot of sway over what happens there-- so that is good.
But students do not have the final say (which is probably also good), and there are other political factors at play in who comes to speak at chapel at OBU.
One of the most interesting are three themed days which were there all four of my years at OBU and remain on the OBU chapel calendar. One of them I have already mentioned: women in missions and ministry day. The other two are like it African American heritage day and Native American heritage day.
What are the implications of the existence of these days?
First, we had already wondered on this blog why someone like Voddie Baucham was possibly asked to preach at chapel this year. Well, the OBU press release does not say that it is African American Heritage day-- but everyone knows that that day falls on the first chapel of the spring semester. So I guess it doesn't matter that Baucham is well known throughout America for being sexist-- we'll still ask him to preach at OBU because he's black and, well, it's that time of year again.
Or what about the time that a pretty well known man from the area was asked to preach on Native American Heritage day? He made an interesting statement to the tune of, "I don't preach because I'm Native American, I preach because you want me to come." Luckily, he was given a different day to come preach.
All of that to say, it may seem like these measures strengthen diversity. But to me it really seems to highlight something I said in another post: if chapel is supposed to be a place where we are all led into worship, it looks to me like the only people being asked to lead are white men in suits.
It seems like the only reason we can affirm ministers of a different color is because we give them their own day-- but otherwise it's assumed that the best preachers are white. How is 30% of OBU's student population supposed to feel about that?
And if you happen to be neither white nor male, forget it. There's no day for you.
What does all of this have to do with OBU leaving the BGCO?
One of the things I have stressed from the beginning is that BGCO politics are negatively affecting OBU. We all know that the SBC has a pretty terrible history with regards to race. The denomination was founded upon the refusal to reject slavery-- something they later apologized for, in 1995. It seems a little late to me, but maybe I'm just a cynic.
Of course, it's not that surprising from a convention whose seminary president Al Mohler once said about the split between northern and southern baptists, "What Northerners were saying is that ending slavery was more important than spreading the gospel." And that was last December. The original article has since been removed, but in the world of the internet, nothing cam be unsaid.
So with cries of "Don't let culture change the gospel" the convention that currently owns OBU has set up three days a year to make up for past mistakes against minorities. Maybe it's just me but that sounds a lot like saying, "We're not very good at seeing when we are wrong." I can only hope that in 150 years my daughter will be alive to see the SBC apology to women.
Until then, these are the kinds of politics I am tired of seeing dominating my alma mater.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Women in Baptist Life
This has been a hard week for me.
I have been reminded as I have researched and written that the situation for women is a bleak one, both in the CCCU and at OBU.
And so sometimes I wonder, is there any hope for my people? Is it time to give up and join a mainline protestant church? Is it time to leave Baptist-land forever and go hang out with the people who seem to like me a lot better?
Let me share a bit more of my story.
Yesterday, I said that I was one of the lucky ones because I had found a community which had encouraged me and brought me back to life. Many may have assumed that the community to which I referred is the Disciples of Christ seminary which I now attend. And it is true that I have found such community there.
But I found it first at a Baptist church.
Immediately upon leaving OBU, I packed up my bags and moved my life to a church internship which I had landed for the summer. Granted, it was an internship in children's ministry-- which, if you know me at all, is hilarious. But in addition to playing with preschoolers and telling them that Jesus loves them, I was also there to continue to refine my calling to ministry. And there I served alongside women who are affirmed and ordained.
This particular church even has a well-regarded pastoral residency program which trains seminary graduates to be head pastors-- and specifically accepts both women and men.
I'm not saying that everyone needs to go to a church like that. Actually, as a Baptist I'm saying that's totally between you and God-- and however your church wants to run itself is completely up to that church. That's what freedom of conscience and priesthood of the believer is all about. Save OBU is not looking to crusade for women's right to be pastors.
But this story serves to illustrate what I am trying to say. The point is this: there is much diversity in Baptist life-- although you might not know it if you only look at the BGCO.
Our Baptist heritage is much more promising for women and for all who do not fit the skinny mold which characterizes the post-takeover SBC. In fact, it was not until the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message that a clause was specifically added qualifying the position of pastor to men only. Before the year 2000, the Baptist Faith and Message said zero things about gender differences. ZERO.
There is indeed hope for my people. These oppressive ideas which have become policies (albeit, often unspoken ones) are not faithful to our past, but relatively recent innovations.
There are certain things evangelicals bring to the table, specific ideals which I cannot give up, certain reasons I have not been able to jump ship and leave. Evangelicals take scripture more seriously than most. Evangelicals believe that the individual is of infinite value to God. As a Baptist university, OBU should highlight and embrace these parts of its identity-- as well as the distinctive, historic Baptist freedoms. At Save OBU we have tried to highlight over and over again the great heritage which is belongs to our Baptist alma mater.
But these are not the things which have characterized the SBC since the 1980's. Suddenly, to be a Baptist did not mean to stand for freedom, but to stand against women, to boycott disney, and to define more and more narrowly what it means to be a Christian.
And suddenly at OBU, it means to ask invasive questions when hiring professors. It means to fire those who deviate from the narrow road. It means to demand of mainline brothers and sisters an explanation for why they have not become just exactly like us. It means to hide away the powerful women and keep them quiet and out of the boy's club. It means that it doesn't matter how students are treated, just so long as OBU is becoming a place of doctrinal purity.
So is the new OBU Baptist? Or is it catering to BGCO politics? Is the new administration looking to make a great school greater? Or are they playing to the preferences of the big boys in the Baptist building?
For OBU to remain true to its heritage, it must break ties with the BGCO.
I have been reminded as I have researched and written that the situation for women is a bleak one, both in the CCCU and at OBU.
And so sometimes I wonder, is there any hope for my people? Is it time to give up and join a mainline protestant church? Is it time to leave Baptist-land forever and go hang out with the people who seem to like me a lot better?
Let me share a bit more of my story.
Yesterday, I said that I was one of the lucky ones because I had found a community which had encouraged me and brought me back to life. Many may have assumed that the community to which I referred is the Disciples of Christ seminary which I now attend. And it is true that I have found such community there.
But I found it first at a Baptist church.
Immediately upon leaving OBU, I packed up my bags and moved my life to a church internship which I had landed for the summer. Granted, it was an internship in children's ministry-- which, if you know me at all, is hilarious. But in addition to playing with preschoolers and telling them that Jesus loves them, I was also there to continue to refine my calling to ministry. And there I served alongside women who are affirmed and ordained.
This particular church even has a well-regarded pastoral residency program which trains seminary graduates to be head pastors-- and specifically accepts both women and men.
I'm not saying that everyone needs to go to a church like that. Actually, as a Baptist I'm saying that's totally between you and God-- and however your church wants to run itself is completely up to that church. That's what freedom of conscience and priesthood of the believer is all about. Save OBU is not looking to crusade for women's right to be pastors.
But this story serves to illustrate what I am trying to say. The point is this: there is much diversity in Baptist life-- although you might not know it if you only look at the BGCO.
Our Baptist heritage is much more promising for women and for all who do not fit the skinny mold which characterizes the post-takeover SBC. In fact, it was not until the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message that a clause was specifically added qualifying the position of pastor to men only. Before the year 2000, the Baptist Faith and Message said zero things about gender differences. ZERO.
There is indeed hope for my people. These oppressive ideas which have become policies (albeit, often unspoken ones) are not faithful to our past, but relatively recent innovations.
There are certain things evangelicals bring to the table, specific ideals which I cannot give up, certain reasons I have not been able to jump ship and leave. Evangelicals take scripture more seriously than most. Evangelicals believe that the individual is of infinite value to God. As a Baptist university, OBU should highlight and embrace these parts of its identity-- as well as the distinctive, historic Baptist freedoms. At Save OBU we have tried to highlight over and over again the great heritage which is belongs to our Baptist alma mater.
But these are not the things which have characterized the SBC since the 1980's. Suddenly, to be a Baptist did not mean to stand for freedom, but to stand against women, to boycott disney, and to define more and more narrowly what it means to be a Christian.
And suddenly at OBU, it means to ask invasive questions when hiring professors. It means to fire those who deviate from the narrow road. It means to demand of mainline brothers and sisters an explanation for why they have not become just exactly like us. It means to hide away the powerful women and keep them quiet and out of the boy's club. It means that it doesn't matter how students are treated, just so long as OBU is becoming a place of doctrinal purity.
So is the new OBU Baptist? Or is it catering to BGCO politics? Is the new administration looking to make a great school greater? Or are they playing to the preferences of the big boys in the Baptist building?
For OBU to remain true to its heritage, it must break ties with the BGCO.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
What's in a Name (Change)?
It's come close to happening a few times over the years, but we may have reached a tipping point. Last year, messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention gave denominational leaders approval to begin considering a name change for the convention. Emotions on both sides run high, but a lot of people are open to the idea. The issue is certain to come up at the SBC's Executive Committee meetings this week:
Southern Baptist Convention
There are apparently two main arguments for changing the name of the SBC. The first has to do with the role of slavery in the convention's formation in 1845 and the notion that "Southern" somehow brings to mind an association with a racist past. Along these lines, proponents of a name change point to statistics showing that 44% of people have a negative view of Southern Baptists (according to a LifeWay study quoted in the linked article above). The second reason for a change has less to do with public relations and more to do with the reality that Southern Baptists are increasing their presence in areas outside the Old Confederacy. If you are planting churches in the West and Northeast, the reasoning goes, why call them "Southern" Baptist? (Though Baptists' foothold in the South is obviously the only region where they are dominant, as the figure shows.)
Another story, though one less talked about in the media and discourse I've read, is the decline of denominationalism overall and particularly the decline of denominational loyalties among the young. Overwhelmingly, people are not nearly as likely to identify with a denomination than their parents were. Anecdotally, when you see churches being built in the middle class white exurbs, they are almost never have denominational identifiers on their signs and buildings, even if they are affiliated with a denomination. Instead, you see "The Rock Church," "Living Vine Church," "River of Life Community," etc.
If I had to bet, I think I'd bet on a name change. To what, though? From my perspective, I wish they would choose a name that helps distinguish who the convention is now that it has taken over every institution, board, and agency and purged/marginalized all moderates and what few liberals there ever were. Probably the "Conservative Baptist Convention" would be the most accurate. Such a name would help imply their victory in the Fundamentalist Takeover as well as their new place as the religious wing of the Republican Party. If you read what Baptist leaders taught and believed about the separation of church and state 30 or 40 years ago, you would not believe that today's leaders are in the same denomination.
I'm just sad that, whatever the SBC does, the Nashville boys will get to claim the name "Baptist" -- a label they have dragged through the mud of fundamentalism and secular politics for a generation to the point that nearly a majority of Americans have an unfavorable view of a word that used to be synonymous with soul freedom, liberty of the conscience, and separation of church and state.
Oklahoma Baptist University
One of the tricky things about the Save OBU effort is that our mission is a little more difficult because OBU has "Oklahoma" and "Baptist" in its name. For one thing, unlike Furman, Stetson, and Jewell, we can't start with a discussion about academic freedom or whether the school and the convention can even be partners in the same mission. Before we even get to that point, we have to deal with the objection, "It's Oklahoma Baptist University," by which our critics mean to imply that the BGCO should be able to do whatever it wants, no matter how perilously its vision for OBU encroaches on academic freedom.
So, for better or worse, before we can even have a substantive debate about the merits of disaffiliation, we have to have a debate about what it means to be Baptist. When you are eager to argue for disaffiliation, that discussion can feel like a distraction. But the truth is, we welcome that debate. We welcome the opportunity to discuss all the Baptist distinctives we stand for. Because whenever we have that discussion, it becomes easier, not harder, for us to show that it is the SBC and the BGCO that moved away from those distinctives. We have remained true to them all along.
While they are glad to have OBU in their portfolio because it represents and reinforces that they own us, we are proud to be OBU because we have been living by and fighting for the best of the Baptist tradition all along. We are the descendants of a great generation of OBU administrators, teachers, and students who built a proud name in Christian higher education. They are the descendants of a Takeover faction that booed Herschel Hobbs at the SBC, purged and marginalized anyone who dared to disagree with them, sold out for a pittance to the religious right, ran our agencies and institutions into the ground, and created a P.R. emergency for a denomination that nearly half of Americans view unfavorably.
The BGCO may own the buildings and grounds. But it absolutely does not own what it means to be Baptist. It turned away from that legacy years ago. And that is why we will win.
On Monday (Feb. 20), Southern Baptist Convention President Bryant Wright is expected to give his recommendation on a possible name change to the denomination's top leaders. That recommendation is likely to be debated at the Southern Baptists' annual convention in June in New Orleans.Like many issues that are peripheral or unrelated to academic freedom at OBU, Save OBU has no compelling reason to take a position on this matter. But it is worth pausing for a moment to consider what an institution's name means and what associations it carries.
Southern Baptist Convention
There are apparently two main arguments for changing the name of the SBC. The first has to do with the role of slavery in the convention's formation in 1845 and the notion that "Southern" somehow brings to mind an association with a racist past. Along these lines, proponents of a name change point to statistics showing that 44% of people have a negative view of Southern Baptists (according to a LifeWay study quoted in the linked article above). The second reason for a change has less to do with public relations and more to do with the reality that Southern Baptists are increasing their presence in areas outside the Old Confederacy. If you are planting churches in the West and Northeast, the reasoning goes, why call them "Southern" Baptist? (Though Baptists' foothold in the South is obviously the only region where they are dominant, as the figure shows.)
Another story, though one less talked about in the media and discourse I've read, is the decline of denominationalism overall and particularly the decline of denominational loyalties among the young. Overwhelmingly, people are not nearly as likely to identify with a denomination than their parents were. Anecdotally, when you see churches being built in the middle class white exurbs, they are almost never have denominational identifiers on their signs and buildings, even if they are affiliated with a denomination. Instead, you see "The Rock Church," "Living Vine Church," "River of Life Community," etc.
If I had to bet, I think I'd bet on a name change. To what, though? From my perspective, I wish they would choose a name that helps distinguish who the convention is now that it has taken over every institution, board, and agency and purged/marginalized all moderates and what few liberals there ever were. Probably the "Conservative Baptist Convention" would be the most accurate. Such a name would help imply their victory in the Fundamentalist Takeover as well as their new place as the religious wing of the Republican Party. If you read what Baptist leaders taught and believed about the separation of church and state 30 or 40 years ago, you would not believe that today's leaders are in the same denomination.
I'm just sad that, whatever the SBC does, the Nashville boys will get to claim the name "Baptist" -- a label they have dragged through the mud of fundamentalism and secular politics for a generation to the point that nearly a majority of Americans have an unfavorable view of a word that used to be synonymous with soul freedom, liberty of the conscience, and separation of church and state.
Oklahoma Baptist University
One of the tricky things about the Save OBU effort is that our mission is a little more difficult because OBU has "Oklahoma" and "Baptist" in its name. For one thing, unlike Furman, Stetson, and Jewell, we can't start with a discussion about academic freedom or whether the school and the convention can even be partners in the same mission. Before we even get to that point, we have to deal with the objection, "It's Oklahoma Baptist University," by which our critics mean to imply that the BGCO should be able to do whatever it wants, no matter how perilously its vision for OBU encroaches on academic freedom.
So, for better or worse, before we can even have a substantive debate about the merits of disaffiliation, we have to have a debate about what it means to be Baptist. When you are eager to argue for disaffiliation, that discussion can feel like a distraction. But the truth is, we welcome that debate. We welcome the opportunity to discuss all the Baptist distinctives we stand for. Because whenever we have that discussion, it becomes easier, not harder, for us to show that it is the SBC and the BGCO that moved away from those distinctives. We have remained true to them all along.
While they are glad to have OBU in their portfolio because it represents and reinforces that they own us, we are proud to be OBU because we have been living by and fighting for the best of the Baptist tradition all along. We are the descendants of a great generation of OBU administrators, teachers, and students who built a proud name in Christian higher education. They are the descendants of a Takeover faction that booed Herschel Hobbs at the SBC, purged and marginalized anyone who dared to disagree with them, sold out for a pittance to the religious right, ran our agencies and institutions into the ground, and created a P.R. emergency for a denomination that nearly half of Americans view unfavorably.
The BGCO may own the buildings and grounds. But it absolutely does not own what it means to be Baptist. It turned away from that legacy years ago. And that is why we will win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)