In a recent article by former president Jimmy Carter, he tells about it being "painful" but "unavoidable" to leave the Southern Baptist Convention because of its direction; e.g, particularly its resolutions about women in leadership. Losing my religion for equality
This thread and poll is not especially about the 'women being ordained' issue, but about Carter's expressed reasoning. In particular, he says, "It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin..." The term, "select Bible verses," is obviously intended to be derogatory. But it's hardly limited to a "liberal" position on scripture.
Many cults have gotten their successful beginning by emphasizing a certain understanding of 'select' scriptures which appealed to enough people to make them significant movements. Although the reader here probably knows the outstanding examples, for the benefit of one who may not, some are: the 7th day sabbath, as proclaimed by the Adventists, whose predictions of the end of the age twice were incorrect, so the conclusion was promulgated that their days were correct, but God 'changed his mind' since Christians have historically failed to observe the 7th day. This was stressed further by Herbert Armstrong and his Radio Church of God. And the, Jehovah's Witnesses take the verse "Abstain from blood" in Acts 15 and declare a Witness for God would die rather than accept a blood transfusion. Long before this, Quakerism was a social movement disguised as a religious movement, which stressed equality and elimination of social classes and the behaviors associated with them (i.e., tipping one's hat to a gentleman or nobleman).
The above examples are one aspect of emphasizing a "few select verses," with the clear motives of pulling people into a movement by creating a wedge issue to make their group different, knowing some on the outside who are discontent will be favorably affected when they subject themselves to such influence. But what about churches or groups not generally considered "cults" or just strange to be different? Have Presbyterians always chosen to emphasize "elder" over "bishop," even though the scriptures they read contain both terms? And Episcopalians the opposite? Do Catholics take the passage, "My body is real meat and my blood is real drink," literally, but not "...abstain from blood?" Do Methodists 'nullify' the verses which condemn homosexuality but push such ideas as "in Christ there is neither Jew or Greek...nor even male or female?"
And what about Baptists? We are long past the era(s) in which immersing professing believers made them/us a ridiculed and persecuted minority. And it seems we are on the brink of being past the D & D controversy. But there seems to be no arguing that we, as other groups, do choose to stress certain scriptures and principles and have a relaxed view of certain others. We condemned drinking, but tolerated smoking and overeating. And in our view of salvation, we want evangelistic sermons which threaten damnation if one does not respond to the 'invitation,' and bless them all over the altar and tell them they're eternally saved... and then may follow harsh sermons which compel many to question their salvation experience. And I've seen many who have gone forward a second time to be 'saved' because they "didn't really understand" the first time.
So the poll is just some sample issues that Baptists-- especially traditional Baptist tenets and the present Southern Baptist Convention and its leadership-- may be right about, even though there are a "few, select" verses of scripture which urge that particular direction.
Another poll may follow about what "a carefully selected few verses" means-- the number of passages, who it was that said them, whether they are repeated by other writers,...
This thread and poll is not especially about the 'women being ordained' issue, but about Carter's expressed reasoning. In particular, he says, "It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin..." The term, "select Bible verses," is obviously intended to be derogatory. But it's hardly limited to a "liberal" position on scripture.
Many cults have gotten their successful beginning by emphasizing a certain understanding of 'select' scriptures which appealed to enough people to make them significant movements. Although the reader here probably knows the outstanding examples, for the benefit of one who may not, some are: the 7th day sabbath, as proclaimed by the Adventists, whose predictions of the end of the age twice were incorrect, so the conclusion was promulgated that their days were correct, but God 'changed his mind' since Christians have historically failed to observe the 7th day. This was stressed further by Herbert Armstrong and his Radio Church of God. And the, Jehovah's Witnesses take the verse "Abstain from blood" in Acts 15 and declare a Witness for God would die rather than accept a blood transfusion. Long before this, Quakerism was a social movement disguised as a religious movement, which stressed equality and elimination of social classes and the behaviors associated with them (i.e., tipping one's hat to a gentleman or nobleman).
The above examples are one aspect of emphasizing a "few select verses," with the clear motives of pulling people into a movement by creating a wedge issue to make their group different, knowing some on the outside who are discontent will be favorably affected when they subject themselves to such influence. But what about churches or groups not generally considered "cults" or just strange to be different? Have Presbyterians always chosen to emphasize "elder" over "bishop," even though the scriptures they read contain both terms? And Episcopalians the opposite? Do Catholics take the passage, "My body is real meat and my blood is real drink," literally, but not "...abstain from blood?" Do Methodists 'nullify' the verses which condemn homosexuality but push such ideas as "in Christ there is neither Jew or Greek...nor even male or female?"
And what about Baptists? We are long past the era(s) in which immersing professing believers made them/us a ridiculed and persecuted minority. And it seems we are on the brink of being past the D & D controversy. But there seems to be no arguing that we, as other groups, do choose to stress certain scriptures and principles and have a relaxed view of certain others. We condemned drinking, but tolerated smoking and overeating. And in our view of salvation, we want evangelistic sermons which threaten damnation if one does not respond to the 'invitation,' and bless them all over the altar and tell them they're eternally saved... and then may follow harsh sermons which compel many to question their salvation experience. And I've seen many who have gone forward a second time to be 'saved' because they "didn't really understand" the first time.
So the poll is just some sample issues that Baptists-- especially traditional Baptist tenets and the present Southern Baptist Convention and its leadership-- may be right about, even though there are a "few, select" verses of scripture which urge that particular direction.
Another poll may follow about what "a carefully selected few verses" means-- the number of passages, who it was that said them, whether they are repeated by other writers,...
Last edited:
