A Waco Farmer has responded with two questions to my post on Uniting Baptists?. Each question is worthy of its own posted reply. Here is one of the questions.

1. I appreciate your recognition that the new Baptist coalition is not based on consumerism. I am convinced that Baptists united for the Democratic Party agenda is not going to be a hot commodity. In my experience, mega-churches with a conservative political bent do much better. Would you agree with that?

First, yes, in general "mega-churches with a conservative political bent" are doing better numerically than churches with a liberal political bent. Although there are some large flourishing congregations with liberal politics, and many large flourishing congregations that are apolitical.

Second, I do not want to cede these social issues to "the Democratic Party agenda." I understand your point, you are speaking of congruity of goals, I t hink. But, . . . (cont. below)

Striving to change social situations seen to be evil is a task that should not be left to the Federal Government alone (which seems to be the mindset of the Democrats). As I've said before, our society has been healthy, in part, because of the plethora of voluntary associations in American society--churches, civic organizations, fraternal orders, etc. When an association such as the proposed coalition of churches tackles social situations, it is running counter to the trend of the modern Democrats to make every issue a matter for the Federal Government alone, choking by taxes the flourishing of voluntary associations. Of course, if the new coalition does nothing except lobby the Federal government to take charge of solving all social ills, then I will agree that the new grouping simply is "Baptists united for the Democratic Party agenda." In other words, essential to the Democrat agenda is the Federalization of all aspects of American society.

And, working for social change is not necessarily a new, or Democrat, activity. Social activism for change and reform was an integral part of the flourishing evangelicalism of the early 19th century. Most of these reformers became active in the Whig party because the Democrat party of the time was the small-government, conservative party. Of course, you do refer to the contemporary situation, but I don't want to imply that only Democrats want society changed for the better.