Recently Baptists held a convention in Georgia to affirm their heritage, express their unity and be a public counter voice to an appendage of the Republican Party, The Southern Baptist Convention. The SBC, which receives a lot of media attention in the US was invited to the celebration; as an organization they declined. SBC individuals were free to attend.
Canadians also participated in The New Baptist Covenant. Gary Nelson, General Secretary of Canadian Baptist Ministries says about 20 went to the conference, and says it was a joining together and affirmation of what is already taking place. Canadian Baptist Ministries represents about 1000 congregations in Canada under four conventions.
Different Atlanta attendees are looking at ways to to move forward together.
From the first exploratory meeting at the Carter Center, it was my feeling that the agenda was shaded from an American perspective. With loyalty toward the North American Baptist Fellowship and encouragement of colleagues in American denominational bodies, Canadian Baptists participated willingly and as best we could, even with the deep concerns that our differences culturally and politically might create some dissonance. Never once did we feel unwanted, and for this we are grateful.
Diversity is much more nuanced than the neat little categories of liberal/conservative or progressive/moderate. For example, of the 20 Canadians at the Atlanta meeting, it was clear that while politically and socially most of us would have been left of center in region U.S. comparisons, for many of us our theological frames are more evangelical. What does progressive mean to us? I attended these meetings as a Canadian in whose society it is a considered detriment for a politician to portray their faith publically. I am evangelical in my theology–deeply committed to engaging the culture evangelistically. I lean to the left politically and am committed to the medical social net created by the federal Canadian government which allows for medical needs for all Canadian citizens. I am however, postmodernly aware that my construct is only one of many.
The rest at Ethics Daily
Published 6 months, 1 week ago
Search
Subscribe 
You are currently browsing the Bene Diction Blogs On weblog archives.
Related Entries
For blog design, Wordpress or MovableType coding or blog consulting, see cre8d design.
If I recall correctly, Tommy Douglass, NDP founder and “father” of nationalized medicine in Canada (and winner of a Greatest Canadian CBC contest a few years back) was a Baptist pastor before getting into politics. We had quite a few evangelical prairie populists on the left south of the border as well in the early 20th century (William Jennings Bryant was a populist economic lefty, the Scopes trial notwithstanding), but such critters are far less common these days, as our political dynamics lead evangelical populists to the right (like Huckabee).
However, you haven’t seen that list to the right up north yet, as there are plenty of faithful in the Liberal and NDP camp. Canadian Baptists haven’t been major parts of either the left or right as Baptists, as far as I can tell, so a lot of the conversation that we’ve had south of the border falls on tin ears.
Being against a certain breed of conservatism isn’t enough, especially when it’s not all that prevalent in Canada. You report on folks like FotF trying to make footholds in Canada, but it seem that the conservative US paradigm will fall flat in a more apolitical Canadian environment.
Not everything translates across the border.
The New Covenent meeting in Atlanta wasn’t a political get together but I think I understand why it was perceived as socially left and Democratic.
The Washington Post coverage was factually incorrect on so many levels it would have been funny if it wasn’t sad.
Nelson was writing for a religious site, a wider audience that who he is probably used to and he used the sub-language.
I don’t see complaining, I see healthy pondering.
Being against a certain breed of conservatism isn’t enough.
Agreed, and well said Mark.
The money.
Follow the money.
The US conservative paradigm is pouring all it can into the Canadian religious environment.
Do I hope and pray they fall flat?
Hell yes, I’ve never been shy about saying so - we can learn from each other - the seduction is stunning.
I’m glad ‘the other Baptists’ held a celebration.
I’m glad interested Canadians ( and other countries) were welcome on their terms.
One of the things that just struck me is that ministries will often use a marketing paradigm borrowed from business. Businesses that have maxed out their opportunities in their home country will look to expand internationally. Canada would be the first logical place to “export” a big ministry.
One problem is that Canada’s broadcasters generally need to be broadcasters serving a broad community; the powers that be frown upon purely religious channels, IIRC. The buy-airtime-from-a-Christian-station model that broadcast ministries use stateside doesn’t work in Canada.
I just feel the need to say that the Southern Baptist Convention is not an appendge of the Republican Party. My Grandmother and a number of other relatives are committed Democrats and, although we do not agree on policy, they are also very committed SOuthern Baptists.
What is true is that the Republican party’s traditional stance on issues of family, abortion, economics, and application of the Constitution are more in line with what the bulk of Southern Baptists believe than the Democrat’s.
Yes, SB’s are often very vocal in their support of the Republican party, but were the party to change it’s values (see the case of Guliani) the bulk of SB’s would not continue to follow them.
I don’t know that members of the SBC would be as a whole Shadrach Shadrach, I’m referring to leadership.
Out of 6 million people and 44 thousand churches there would be attendees that would hold different political views.
I meant leadership. Key people, head of state conventions, the executive, SBC celebrities, Land, Mohler, Patterson, Page etc.
If the Republican Party changed (as you say Guliani) then what, go third party or go back to being isolationist?
Well, you have Dobson saying that he will just not vote and most of the guys you just mentioned ‘in theory’ back Huckabee who doesn’t really have a chance. So I say that they would go for the ‘values’ candidate even if he were a very long shot.
They would not back away from politics (especially guys like Mohler and Land), but would seek a revisionist political stance and try to bring as many SB’s along with them as possible.
Again, it is linked to the Bible, not to one particualr party.
“If the Republican Party changed (as you say Giuliani) then what, go third party or go back to being isolationist?”
It’s probably not going to happen, but I could see a populist-evangelical fusion party that could emerge if the Republicans became overly libertarian and told off the social conservative wing of the party. If the Huckabee voting block hooked up with black evangelicals and culture-of-life center-left Catholics and worked together a coalition that was economically centrist and culturally conservative, they would be within hailing distance of a 40% plurality in a three way race between garden-variety Democrats and a libertarian-oriented Republican party.
Such a critter is unlikely to happen, since the planets would have to align just right for a cultural liberal to win the GOP nomination; it was only plausible for Giuliani when the field was divided and 35% primary pluralities were available for a hawkish libertarian. The nominee has to throw a bone or two to the theocons to be palatable to the party as a whole.