Fr. Richard John Neuhaus points to this amusing goof in historian Alan Brinkley’s review of Kevin Phillips’ new book American Theocracy in the New York Times Book Review:
“[Phillips] points in particular to the Southern Baptist Convention, once a scorned seceding minority of the American Baptist Church but now so large that it dominates not just Baptism itself but American Protestantism generally.”
Wow, the Southern Baptists are now in charge of baptism itself! Truly they have grown powerful!
When I left you, I was but the learner…now I am the master.
Darth Mohler!!
Hmm. As much as I should nod enthusiastically with Fr. Neuhaus, I’m afraid that he’s not exactly correct. For all the imprecision of the authors’ language, they have a point.
I refer to a part that you didn’t quote. There is, in fact, a group called the American Baptist Churches, with their own silly logo no less (why do churches feel the need to adopt logos?!?). It is not at all inaccurate to assert that the Southern Baptists “seceded” from “them” in the 1800s, as you can tell from reading that webage.
I was a Southern Baptists once. When I was Youth Pastor during Youth Ministry Week, my pastor gave some history of the Southern Baptist Church, explaining how it seceded for two reasons: (a) different views on slavery, and (b) different notions of independence of churches, akin to the States’ Rights argument. While he was proud of the greater independence of the SBC (at the time; it has since become more centrally-organized due to, ah, “fundamentalist” activity, and he seems to have abandoned the SBC), he admitted that he wasn’t very proud of the slavery bit.
So, whereas I can nod to Fr. Neuhaus’ criticism of the Times’s use of incorrect terminology, he appears to be mistaken, or (worse) misleading, on the history.
The America Baptist Church is not just “some group” with a silly logo, it is one of the largest baptist denominations in the country and is the largest white Northern Baptist denomination with 1.5 million members. In fact, it began as the Northern Baptist Convention in 1907. As for the silliness of the logo, that’s in the eye of the beholder.
I actually think the UMC has a pretty cool logo. When I was driving to Western Penna. to see my parents a couple of weeks ago I saw a really big version painted on the side of a white wooden church in rolling farmland. Nice.
I guess I deserved that for being unclear, but: I didn’t mean that the American Baptists’ logo was particularly silly, but that I find the entire notion of churches’ having recognizable logos to be silly. I stand by that; I don’t see churches as businesses, and I find the use of logos to be just a little too… businesslike.
My point in using the word “group” was not meant as a denigration of the American Baptists, but was a quote from Wikipedia.
Let me also note that, had anyone bothered to follow the link I provided, they would have learned that my old SBC pastor was wrong: the Southern Baptist Convention was more organized than their northern counterparts from the beginning.
On the other hand, Wikipedia indicates that the ABC-USA originated at the same time as the SBC — not with the Northern Baptist Convention of the early 1900s, but in the Triennial Convention of the early 1800s. The American Baptist Historical Society also seem to think this. I’m pretty sure they’re the same American Baptists; they have the same logo.
The denomination in its current form dates from 1907, whatever wikkipedia might say. I commend you on your use of search engines, however.
Where do you get this nonsense? I didn’t look at search engines. I looked at Wikipedia, a natural place to look; and at the American Bapist Churches’ own website, whose link you provided. The “Who we are” link at their website takes one to a link on “History”, which leads to the historical society I cited.
If you can come up with a more impeccable authority than the American Baptists’ own Historical Society, I’m open to correction. Until then, I’m going with their opinion. Feel free to use search engines; I have no objection.
Is there an actual beef you have with my claim, or are you engaged in self-gratification? As far as I can tell, you are contradicting nothing I have written.
You called what I wrote nonesense and claimed that I was wrong in what I said about the ABC. I was just using one of the sources you yourself quoted from to demonstrate that what I wrote was correct. That’s all. Sorry it hurt your feelings.
What you wrote was nonsense, but you seem to have misunderstood what was nonsense. I have not once stated that the ABC-USA did not form as a denomination in the early 1900s. You will have trouble finding any such statement in my comments.
I was referring instead to your remark, I commend you on your use of search engines, however. I would have thought that was apparent from my explanation immediately afterwards: I didn’t look at search engines.
There’s nothing incorrect in my assertion that the origin of the ABC-USA is in the same Triennial Convention that birthed the SBC, just as there is nothing incorrect with your claim that the denomination itself formed in the early 1900s. I wasn’t arguing that claim; I was merely supporting my own.
My feelings aren’t at all hurt; I’m irritated. We’re straining at gnats here, and for no apparent reason.
A Thinking Reed 
Leave a comment