Here a Cult, There a Cult, Everywhere a Cult, Cult

Did the liberal radio show tonight. It went well. Only had two callers who suggested America had a Christian foundation. We spent a good bit of time talking about separation of church and state. I'm amazed at the level of animosity that idea raises in conservatives. It was a Baptist idea to begin with, or probably more accurately, early Baptists like Smyth, Helwys, Bunyan, and Williams lobbied for the idea. We also talked about the 10 Commandments in court rooms and other public or governmental places. I'm a bit weary of that particular conversation. Suffice it to say that two of ten commandments do not make a "foundation for our nation's laws."

After the show I joined our small gathering of friends who were putting together Easter baskets for a battered women's shelter. We drank beer and wine, smoked the hookah, and talked about a variety of subjects. We've taken to calling it a cult. Two ideas we're thinking about for names: nude, lesbian sex or lepers and whores.

The benefits of the first name should be obvious: immediate recognition on Internet search engines. In fact, I'll probably get a few hits on this entry. I don't think the rest of the group is seriously considering it though. It sort of fails to express who we are, if not one of the things we like. Lepers and whores is more interesting, and more Biblical. I'm not sure we could get anyone to sign up for a group called lepers and whores though. It would pique some interest, I'm sure, but in our marketing driven age, it lacks saleability.

Comments

[brooke]

can we be long-distance members of the cult?? we used to be in it!!

[cheek]

Of course early Baptists were for the separation of Church and state. I'd like to think it was because of some fundamental goodness in the church of my up-bringing, but more likely it was due to the fact that they were then a pretty small minority.

[Janet]

We're all lepers and whores at some level, ain't we? It's a great name.

[Ambrose]

This is one of those times when it is just too, too bad you don't have banner ads. When blogspot had them, and one of the Christian bloggers would make a joke about porn, they were really fun to watch. First would be "St. Somebody's Devotional," then "Hot and Heavy Nude Butches," then "Are you being called to God's ministries?" to "Toys Discreetly mailed to you." Very entertaining to watch them flip back and forth.

[eddie]

I think "whores and lepers" is a little mis-leading for you guys. It sounds to important, like people would pay to have sex with you or something. I think a better more honest name would be "sluts with a rash", or the "He-Man church haters club".

PEACE EDd

[jvpastor]

According to my fundamentalist ed at SWBTS SB's did lobby for seperation of church and state, through Madison directly. I think I remember Dr. Bullock, who has since been let go from the university because she is a woman, that SB's in virginia got him sent to the continental congress for that reason.

I'm glad they got rid of her though my learning was seriously impaired by the fact that she had boobs.

[greg]

JV,

I assume you mean James Madison? The SBC was founded in 1845. I don't know what your professor was thinking, but there were no SB's during the Continental Congress. Are they really teaching that?

[bobstevens]

Well here's my rambling:

The evangelical opposition to separation of church and state as it is currently interpreted (noting that the framer's intentions are mostly irrelevant these days) is generally amusing. I think it stems from a couple of things... first that the majority of the North American wing of the Church has absolutely no clue how to live like Christ. Second, that we've got this notion that we're supposed to be persecuted, so when the Church isn't being persecuted, some of us feel the need to pretend we are.

The annoying thing about the first amendment for evangelicals is that it kind of gets in the way of our cheesy replacement for Christian living. We want to force our religion on others... and some of us feel it's or prerogative to be able to since David Barton has done such a wonderful job convincing all of us that the founding fathers were the Neo-Apostles and that everything they touched turned holy. But I don't think force is conducive to the spread of Christianity.

The unfair focus on times when the first amendment "hurts" the church rather than the times it protects can be attributed by the eveangelical persecution complex. It's really quite disrespectful to those in the Church who actually *are* being persecuted. I can microwave myself some storebought lasagna for dinner and watch TV for 3 hours a night without someone threatening to bury me waste deep in the ground and run me over with a combine unless I deny Christ. But shucks... they won't let us hang the Ten Commandments in a courtroom??! Persecution!

Lo... I, my microwave dinner, and my television are all holy, because we've been tried by the fire of persecution. Does not the Bible warn us of the days when evil judges would try to remove a symbol that only partially represents my beliefs from a building that has nothing to do with them ?

Expect the Rapture. Soon.

[bobstevens]

I also wanted to apologize for the grammar/spelling errors in my previous post (hey, it's 1:30am), and throw my support behind "Lepers and Whores" as an excellent name for a Christian organization. However, I think "Whores and Lepers" is catchier.

[jvpastor]

Sorry, Greg, I misspoke, Baptists of some nature located in Virginia (or the south) worked to get him sent, who were I'm sure radically different from those who would later form the SB convention 54 years later. I guess I was speaking too generally. I assumed that everyone knew the convention actually formed later. No they were not teaching that the convention formed before the continental congress they may be fundamentalist, but that doesn't mean they are ignorant (I guess I should say that doesn't mean they are ignorant of simple dates and basic math).

Thanks for the history lesson. The Baptists in the south in 1791 were definitely not the same Baptists in the south that in 1845 formed the Southern Baptist Convention.

[greg]

JV,

So they teach that the early Baptists were in favor of separation of church and state? I'm guessing they mean that the church should be free of the state's intervention rather than it being a two-way relationship. Is that accurate?

[jvpastor]

I think that the nuance is in religious liberty, freedom to think and practice what you want concerning God, god, gods, in general.