From the Alliance of Baptists website:
History“Out of the Southern Baptist “Holy Wars” that were fought during the 1980s emerged an organization which was committed to preserving historic Baptist principles of freedom such as religious freedom, local church freedom and academic freedom in theological education. This organization, now known as the Alliance of Baptists, quickly found a small niche in Baptist life as the most progressive or liberal Baptist body in the United States. From its opposition to the death penalty to its support of a Palestinian state, the Alliance has taken numerous controversial positions since its founding in 1987. Due to their role as radical dissenters that constantly challenge that Baptist status-quo, the Alliance of Baptists has continued the “genealogy of dissent” started by progressive Baptist advocates of racial integration in the 1940s. Thus, this paper examines several of the Alliance’s dissenting viewpoints such as its welcoming and affirming stance towards homosexuals in both the life of the church and in the political arena. Other areas explored include the Alliance’s emphasis on ecumenical cooperation, interfaith dialogue and missions partnerships.”
So begins a history of the Alliance of Baptists written by Baylor University Ph.D. student, Aaron Douglas Weaver. Read the full history in his paper entitled: Progressive Baptist Dissenters: A Hisory of the Alliance of Bapitsts.
Thanks for the post on my denomination, Aaron. I hope you emailed the folks at the Alliance so they could call attention to this on their website.
Also, the Baptist Peace Fellowship has just started a blog, Baptist Voices for Peace and Justice @ http://bpfna.blogspot.com/
Worth checking out. I may contribute from time to time.
I was a founding member of the SBTS student chapter of the SBA in 1987 and was at many of the events you describe. I had a sense, from the beginning, that the “moderates” (always disliked that word since it sounds like “lukewarm”) were going to lose and the SBC was going to be purged. The SBA seemed, from the beginning, to me to be forming BY DEFAULT the structures of a new denomination.
But the loose network has been helpful. Many of our congregations have, as you point out, also got ties to the CBF or the American Baptists or the PNBC–and some have several such “dual-alignments” to use a term from an earlier era in Baptist life.
The big surprise I had was at the 2004 Convocation that supported same-sex civil marriage. I expected the resolution to pass, but I was floored when it passed without debate or discussion–in a year when anti-gay amendments in state constitutions were being used as a strategy to re-elect George W. Bush as president and to keep the GOP majority in Congress.
Considering the generational differences on this topic in national polling, I wonder if our welcoming and affirming stance will always be a limiting factor to numerical growth. It could be that we start attracting young people that are leaving SBC and CBF circles over this issue–although without a church-planting effort, they may simply drift to non-Baptist churches or even to non-church life. We won’t get them by default. We have to be more evangelistic, more enthusiastic about spreading our progressive form of Baptist Christianity–and I have argued this at length with the Alliance leaders–but so many members of our churches still suffer like victims of domestic abuse from “hellfire and damnation” brands of evangelism that it’s difficult.
[...] in the United States, has posted a history and evaluation of my small, progressive denomination, The Alliance of Baptists. Aaron identifies more with the Baptist General Convention of Texas and the Cooperative Baptist [...]
Good to meet ya Aaron at the wedding!
So, you are pro-homosexual.
I read your apology for the Alliance.
Boring!
Glad you enjoy Baptist history so much. It’s unfortunate that you don’t understand the role of the historian…
As someone who IS “pro-homosexual,” that is, an ally of GLBT people in their struggle for fairness in society and church, I didn’t detect any such advocacy on Aaron’s part. I found him to be historically accurate in his report on the Alliance–with both the amount of sympathy and objectivity that a historian needs.
To my knowledge, Aaron has never been either an individual or congregational member of the Alliance. Nor have I ever seen him advocate for such GLBT causes as same-sex marriage–in fact, he constantly brings up difficulties from the perspective of protecting the religious liberties of those who do not agree.
What his personal feelings are, I cannot tell.
I would welcome Marconi to this blog. However, I’m pretty sure that Marconi (Waco IP address) is not a first-time commenter – just a first-time commenter under this particular alias. I do admit to growing increasingly tired of “anonymous” bloggers and commenters.
I have on a handful of occasions brought up religious liberty concerns relating to same-sex marriage. I’ve also voiced my support for the legal recognition of same-sex marriage and did so in this EthicsDaily.com column back in 2008:
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=13887
I’m not an individual member of the Alliance. We have attended an Alliance-affiliated church (actually the first church to affiliate with the Alliance in Texas) for more than a few months now and plan to join this month.
I am personally welcoming & affirming. Actually, one of my bestfriends is a gay minister. I have not been outspoken on this issue in the way that Michael has with his most excellent blog series on homosexuality which I often refer back to in addition to many other posts and comments. I have argued that “moderate” Baptists need to stop avoiding this topic. The apparent unwillingness to even discuss homosexuality is one reason that some are becoming increasingly frustrated with the CBF and concerned about the future of our corner of Baptist life.
I’m for a big tent where folks have the freedom to agree to disagree. But it’s hard to truly have a big tent when a few folks calling shots have declared that certain subjects are off limits – likely for fear that dealing with pressing moral issues will hurt the pocketbook….