WAPO editorial--Southern Baptists

C

Chuckt

Guest
That article doesn't really touch on the real reason although part of it might be true.
 

b23hqb

Well-Known Member
Straight forward article. There have always been issues and differences in denominations and religions, and there always will be. Just hold to the core tenets of Jesus, and things will work out.
 
C

Chuckt

Guest
Straight forward article. There have always been issues and differences in denominations and religions, and there always will be. Just hold to the core tenets of Jesus, and things will work out.

But does the writer of that article attend a Baptist church? How much time did he spend writing the article? How long has he been following the Baptist Church? What other factions or factors are in the Baptist Church? Does the article answer any of this?
Thought so.
 
C

Chuckt

Guest
Explains in part why our Druid recruitment numbers keep climbing.

I don't know what druids are because I don't think you can prove that Druids today hold the same beliefs that Druids held thousands of years ago.

Very little is known about the ancient druids. They left no written accounts of themselves, and the only evidence is a few descriptions left by Greek, Roman, and various scattered authors and artists, as well as stories created by later medieval Irish writers.[2] While archaeological evidence has been uncovered pertaining to the religious practices of the Iron Age people, "not one single artefact or image has been unearthed that can undoubtedly be connected with the ancient Druids."[3] Various recurring themes emerge in a number of the Greco-Roman accounts of the druids, including that they performed animal and even human sacrifice, believed in a form of reincarnation, and held a high position in Gaulish society. Next to nothing is known for certain about their cultic practice, except for the ritual of oak and mistletoe as described by Pliny the Elder.

According to historian Ronald Hutton, "we can know virtually nothing of certainty about the ancient Druids, so that—although they certainly existed—they function more or less as legendary figures."[19]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druid
 

b23hqb

Well-Known Member
But does the writer of that article attend a Baptist church? How much time did he spend writing the article? How long has he been following the Baptist Church? What other factions or factors are in the Baptist Church? Does the article answer any of this?
Thought so.

Baylor is the largest Baptist university in the world, so at the very least the two writers are quite familiar with the school as history professors. Here's a good article from a few years back that may shed some light on the topic:

http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/03/02/will-the-last-baptist-at-baylor-please-turn-out-the-lights/

The writers are probably Baptists, but don't know for sure.
 
C

Chuckt

Guest
Or the editor said to the writer, "Here are some statistics... go write a story."
 

Zguy28

New Member
I skimmed the original article. From what I read, I don't disagree. Exalting Jesus Christ, Equipping each other for ministry, Evangelizing sinners, that's the calling of the church.

I read an article recently that talked about how numbers of Christians are falling, but numbers of evangelicals are not. The Protestant church is becoming more evangelical and shedding the nominal church-goers who only pay lip-service to Christ.
 

b23hqb

Well-Known Member
Or the editor said to the writer, "Here are some statistics... go write a story."

The two authors are history professors at Baylor. That's what history professors do besides just teach - write articles, and most of them get the facts right.

I really don't see your angle on this.

Example: Southern Methodist University (SMU) has about 12,000 students. About 16% are Methodists, 26% Catholic, 40% other Protestant, and the remaining 18% all other religions or none. Maybe the two writers on the Baylor article were just objectively pointing out facts, regardless of spinning numbers to reflect their personal biases?

The writers properly pointed out what Christians have to do to grow any school or church or denomination - Follow the script laid out in the Christian bible, and follow the tenets of Jesus.

I have no problem about the article or why it ended in the WaPo, and probably many other papers.
 
Last edited:
C

Chuckt

Guest
The two authors are history professors at Baylor. That's what history professors do besides just teach - write articles, and most of them get the facts right.

I really don't see your angle on this.

Example: Southern Methodist University (SMU) has about 12,000 students. About 16% are Methodists, 26% Catholic, 40% other Protestant, and the remaining 18% all other religions or none. Maybe the two writers on the Baylor article were just objectively pointing out facts, regardless of spinning numbers to reflect their personal biases?

The writers properly pointed out what Christians have to do to grow any school or church or denomination - Follow the script laid out in the Christian bible, and follow the tenets of Jesus.

I have no problem about the article or why it ended in the WaPo, and probably many other papers.

Because if they don't address what is going on, they don't know what is going on.

What Is the Emerging Church?|Claims to Be Christian|Broad ...

The Emerging Church is a movement that claims to be Christian. The term 'Emerging Church' is used to describe a broad, controversial movement that seeks to use culturally sensitive approaches to reach the postmodern, un-churched population with the Christian message.

https://carm.org/what-emerging-church

Some churches went "Emergent" and we can't agree on a definition because they are still reinventing what Church is. The Church is the Ekklesia. "Ek" means "out" or "out from":

http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1537&t=KJV

And the other word is a derivative of "to call":

http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2564&t=KJV

We're called out of the word or out of the darkness that we were living in into God's kingdom so to speak.

The Emergent Church has reversed that definition and they are now the "called in" ones. They are calling the world into the Church, they take the names down like "Baptist" and they dumb down church and get rid of the old people because the old people remind people what a Church is. So then Church becomes no different than a 4H Club, you don't learn anything, etc.

Why is this book being taught in Churches and why is it underlined 22,000 + times in my Kindle? It is because you either change, put up with it or you leave Church because some of them have lost faith in being able to do church themselves and they've gone emergent.

Who Stole My Church: What to Do When the Church You Love Tries to Enter the 21st Century
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Stole-My-...434572506&sr=8-1&keywords=who+stole+my+church

None of the authors have addressed this and there are over 5,000 churches that have done something like this but everyone doesn't know what is going on, they don't want to address it and people who speak out can get sued.

So unless we start a new post on the emergent Church, don't expect people to be experts at it. I have at least three books on the Emergent Church. Most people can't give me a bibliography let alone tell me what is going on because they are clueless.
 
Top