Southern Baptists Say Yes To Parental Responsibility
If one is born and raised in the state of Alabama, one will surely, at one time or another, feel some influence in life and culture from the Southern Baptist church. It is simply the dominant religious sect in this state, the margin of victory isn't even close. I was raised, and remain, a non-Baptist churchgoer; however, having attended Baptist services at times throughout by life I have noted the influence this denomination has had on the ideas and beliefs not only of its members, but of members of other Protestant denominations as well. They've influenced our state politics...not always, in my opinion, for the best. They've influenced our sense of morality...again, not always for the best. Yet along with these shortcomings they've also contributed positive attributes to our state personality. If you have ever wanted to know more about the Baptist phenomenon of Alabama, I highly recommend what is the definitive work on the subject by Auburn professor (bless him, Father, for he knows not what he does) Wayne Flynt (well, it's by the University of Alabama press...so maybe he does know better). I believe Baptists and non-Baptists alike will find it meticulously researched and extraordinarily fair.
With this sure influence in mind, I always perk an ear towards the Southern Baptist Convention when they meet to determine what position the church will officially take on their current matters of interest. At this year's meeting in Greenesboro, North Carolina, the SBC pondered an initative from Roger Moran (of Missouri) and author Bruce Shortt (of Texas... best known for his book, The Harsh Truth About Public Schools) that proposed a mass exodous of Southern Baptist children from public schools. Their destination? Homeschooling or private Christian schools.
Why the qualms with public schools? Among other things, Moran and Shortt are concerned with the lack of science curriculums that include intelligent design components and the alleged entry of "teaching the homosexual lifestyle is acceptable" into the young ones' studies.
My personal feelings on the intelligent design discussion are, I have been told, a cop out. I feel that science books should have no obligation to teach intelligent design for the simple reason that intelligent design isn't scientific; it is simply a matter of faith. In my opinion, science and religion are not battling one another constantly. They are, instead, two completely separate sets of constructs that operate independent of one another. If you will indulge me one more book recommendation, this argument is exquisitely laid out in Stephen Jay Gould's Rocks of Ages (surely a must-read for anyone troubled by the notion of combining scientific truths in a worldview that also includes religious beliefs). As science and religion is separate, it is folly to force one upon the other. We cannot, and I dare say will not ever be able to prove intelligent design in a laboratory. Isn't this why we are told, "Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed," (John 20:19)? Is this a cop out? That is for you to decide, but I will rest my case with Dr. Gould and stick with it.
As for the notion that the homosexual lifestyle is being taught as acceptable, I have my doubts. I do have strong suspicions that many children are taught that some people do live such lifestyles, and doing so does not condemn them to be scorned. If this optimistic guess is correct, may it long continue, and extend to other groups so that children are taught understanding over condemnation. It is not the place for the schools to teach a child right from wrong. It is not for for the school to teach the child what lifestyle is or is not acceptable. That responsibility falls upon one's parents...and this point is exactly what the SBC wisely concluded.
Mr. Moran said at the convention, ""We are commanded biblically to train our children in the nurture of the Lord." I couldn't agree more, Mr. Moran. You have received that command. It has fallen upon you, not the teachers, to instruct your children on subjects of morality. The rights granted to you by our Constitution shall protect you in your attempt to raise your children according to the religious beliefs that you see fit.
In Moran's defense, he is not arguing for the schools to change. Instead, he is proposing that Southern Baptist families cut bait and flee from the public schools that don't teach what they want to be taught. Although I find this (and I can't believe I'm saying this) more intellectually honest than demanding public schools to teach theistically biased curricula, the SBC setting such a mandate would be a burden on many Baptist families that cannot afford to privately educate their children. The families would be forced with a burdensome choice: place their families in dire financial straits, or face the stigma of ignoring the request of the church. Thankfully, the SBC deemed it unnecessary to impose such a choice, and instead encouraged families to get more involved with their childrens' educations in other ways.
I must admit some bias on this issue: I have never cracked a book in an institution of learning that was not publically funded. I feel that the plethora of personalities, opinions, and worldviews that I encountered during my personal public school experiences have helped to shape me into a more understanding (yet still glaringly impefect) individual. Yet I readily admit that many acquaintances of completely private educational backgrounds have proved, in my eyes, greater in such areas as I. The common thread in those, public or private school alumni either, which possess qualities of morality and understanding was not woven in the classroom; rather, it was delicately threaded in day to day living by family, mentors, and friends. I again applaud the SBC for not setting a mandate for how each of these threads must be strictly created.
I apologize for the length of this piece, and therefore will cut myself short in discussion of another issue on the SBC's plate at this year's meeting...a piece which I find substantially less enlightened than the aforementioend issue:
Also Wednesday, the SBC unofficially barred members who drink alcohol from serving as trustees or members of any SBC entity.
Abuse alcohol? No. Use alcohol. Period. With my promise to be brief in mind, I ask only two questions of this decision...please comment with your answers:
1) Could Jesus be a Baptist trustee? Wine at the Last Supper, the miracle at Cana, etc.
2) Does this exclude the use of whiskey and honey as a cough suppressant? This is surely the greatest of all Southern remedies.
With this sure influence in mind, I always perk an ear towards the Southern Baptist Convention when they meet to determine what position the church will officially take on their current matters of interest. At this year's meeting in Greenesboro, North Carolina, the SBC pondered an initative from Roger Moran (of Missouri) and author Bruce Shortt (of Texas... best known for his book, The Harsh Truth About Public Schools) that proposed a mass exodous of Southern Baptist children from public schools. Their destination? Homeschooling or private Christian schools.
Why the qualms with public schools? Among other things, Moran and Shortt are concerned with the lack of science curriculums that include intelligent design components and the alleged entry of "teaching the homosexual lifestyle is acceptable" into the young ones' studies.
My personal feelings on the intelligent design discussion are, I have been told, a cop out. I feel that science books should have no obligation to teach intelligent design for the simple reason that intelligent design isn't scientific; it is simply a matter of faith. In my opinion, science and religion are not battling one another constantly. They are, instead, two completely separate sets of constructs that operate independent of one another. If you will indulge me one more book recommendation, this argument is exquisitely laid out in Stephen Jay Gould's Rocks of Ages (surely a must-read for anyone troubled by the notion of combining scientific truths in a worldview that also includes religious beliefs). As science and religion is separate, it is folly to force one upon the other. We cannot, and I dare say will not ever be able to prove intelligent design in a laboratory. Isn't this why we are told, "Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed," (John 20:19)? Is this a cop out? That is for you to decide, but I will rest my case with Dr. Gould and stick with it.
As for the notion that the homosexual lifestyle is being taught as acceptable, I have my doubts. I do have strong suspicions that many children are taught that some people do live such lifestyles, and doing so does not condemn them to be scorned. If this optimistic guess is correct, may it long continue, and extend to other groups so that children are taught understanding over condemnation. It is not the place for the schools to teach a child right from wrong. It is not for for the school to teach the child what lifestyle is or is not acceptable. That responsibility falls upon one's parents...and this point is exactly what the SBC wisely concluded.
Mr. Moran said at the convention, ""We are commanded biblically to train our children in the nurture of the Lord." I couldn't agree more, Mr. Moran. You have received that command. It has fallen upon you, not the teachers, to instruct your children on subjects of morality. The rights granted to you by our Constitution shall protect you in your attempt to raise your children according to the religious beliefs that you see fit.
In Moran's defense, he is not arguing for the schools to change. Instead, he is proposing that Southern Baptist families cut bait and flee from the public schools that don't teach what they want to be taught. Although I find this (and I can't believe I'm saying this) more intellectually honest than demanding public schools to teach theistically biased curricula, the SBC setting such a mandate would be a burden on many Baptist families that cannot afford to privately educate their children. The families would be forced with a burdensome choice: place their families in dire financial straits, or face the stigma of ignoring the request of the church. Thankfully, the SBC deemed it unnecessary to impose such a choice, and instead encouraged families to get more involved with their childrens' educations in other ways.
I must admit some bias on this issue: I have never cracked a book in an institution of learning that was not publically funded. I feel that the plethora of personalities, opinions, and worldviews that I encountered during my personal public school experiences have helped to shape me into a more understanding (yet still glaringly impefect) individual. Yet I readily admit that many acquaintances of completely private educational backgrounds have proved, in my eyes, greater in such areas as I. The common thread in those, public or private school alumni either, which possess qualities of morality and understanding was not woven in the classroom; rather, it was delicately threaded in day to day living by family, mentors, and friends. I again applaud the SBC for not setting a mandate for how each of these threads must be strictly created.
I apologize for the length of this piece, and therefore will cut myself short in discussion of another issue on the SBC's plate at this year's meeting...a piece which I find substantially less enlightened than the aforementioend issue:
Also Wednesday, the SBC unofficially barred members who drink alcohol from serving as trustees or members of any SBC entity.
Abuse alcohol? No. Use alcohol. Period. With my promise to be brief in mind, I ask only two questions of this decision...please comment with your answers:
1) Could Jesus be a Baptist trustee? Wine at the Last Supper, the miracle at Cana, etc.
2) Does this exclude the use of whiskey and honey as a cough suppressant? This is surely the greatest of all Southern remedies.
posted by HP at 10:33 PM
1 Comments:
It is true that intelligent design cannot be proven in the labratory. It is a matter of faith in the one true God to believe that he simply spoke the universe into existence. No "Big Bang", no evolving from sea life. Simply, God speaking and the stars, sun and moon were in place. But it is also true that evolution is outside the realm of science. It cannot be proved in a labratory. Any honest scientist will tell you so. The evolution theory is simply that, a theory. The orgins of the universe, no matter how think it happened, is a matter of faith. There just isn't anyone around who can tell us how it happened. To quote Jerry Vines, "we have two choices: We can believe in human speculation or we can believe in divine revelation."
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home