I have been intrigued by this season's presidential race, especially among the Republicans. Frankly if I allowed myself to be, I would be quite disturbed by the prospects of this presidential election. I do not see a viable outcome from any party that looks like it will lift our country from its moral quagmire. As a nation, we are sinking fast into the quicksand of depravity.
I am nonetheless interested in the current shape of things in the race for the Republican nomination. There are, at this moment, three candidates still in the running:
Until recently there was a fourth, Marco Rubio, who I will mention because he has a bearing on my observations. Each of these men claim to be Republicans but the problem is, almost anyone can claim to be a Republican. The requirements to have the label are fairly broad. But because the Republican party is a movement, a team, a cooperation among members, those who the party claims can be different than those who claim the party.
Kasich bills himself as the true Republican in the field.
He makes no bones about it. He is a team player, part of the establishment Republicans. He follows the party lines, does what the party says is best for the party.
Rubio and Cruz would like people to see them as outside the establishment
Both of them are historically team players, but not so deeply as Kasich. Each of them find their disassociation with the establishment in a different area, but each of them would like the general population to see them as enough in the party to work with it, but out of the party far enough to those of us, who are fed up with politics in general, to see them as capable of shaking things up a bit. (I doubt that either would hike up much at all.)
Trump is the true disestablished Republican
Trump is so not Republican that the Republicans are threatening they won't vote for him if he gets their party's nomination. The Republican establishment appears to be doing everything in their power to derail any hope of Trump being their party's candidate. He is simply unacceptable to the Republican party because they know he will not play well with them.
I see in this a parallel with modern Independent Baptists.
There are those preachers who are unquestionably teams players, part of the bigger Baptist "party".
They do not attempt to hide it, whether their favorite movement among the Independent Baptists is among the Southside Baptist Fellowship, the Global Independent Baptist Fellowship or the now decaying Baptist Bible Fellowship, these are men who see the Fellowship as the bigger and grander cause than even the church they pastor. Most of them would refuse to call their Fellowship a denomination, but they would argue the importance of loyalty to the Fellowship and its leaders at all costs.
There are those who associate with some Fellowship, but they would not want to be viewed as insiders in the Fellowship, part of the "establishment".
Years ago, when the Baptist Bible Fellowship was still thought by many to be a fellowship fundamental, Bible believing Baptist preachers, I had connections with the Oregon State Baptist Bible Fellowship. I was an avid attender of the monthly meetings, I even held offices in that Fellowship. But I was careful to claim that my association was only with the State Fellowship and not with the BBFI nationally.
A preacher friend of mine and I travelled together to an OSBBF meeting and, on the way home, were discussing our connections with the Fellowship. My friend agreed that both of us had one foot outside the BBF. The difference, he said, was that his feet were pointed outside the door and mine were pointed in.
Today I would disavow any association other than a casual one with any Fellowship.
There are those that are radicals.
Like the Republican party, anyone can claim to be a Baptist and the terms which define a Baptist can be very broad. That means that there are so-called Baptists that true Baptists take great measures to distance themselves from. Westboro Baptist Church would be one example. I can think of some that are not so well known but that I still would not want to be identified with. There are even some movements of independent Baptists that I prefer to have no connection with.
I am nonetheless interested in the current shape of things in the race for the Republican nomination. There are, at this moment, three candidates still in the running:
- Kasich
- Cruz
- Trump
Until recently there was a fourth, Marco Rubio, who I will mention because he has a bearing on my observations. Each of these men claim to be Republicans but the problem is, almost anyone can claim to be a Republican. The requirements to have the label are fairly broad. But because the Republican party is a movement, a team, a cooperation among members, those who the party claims can be different than those who claim the party.
Kasich bills himself as the true Republican in the field.
He makes no bones about it. He is a team player, part of the establishment Republicans. He follows the party lines, does what the party says is best for the party.
Rubio and Cruz would like people to see them as outside the establishment
Both of them are historically team players, but not so deeply as Kasich. Each of them find their disassociation with the establishment in a different area, but each of them would like the general population to see them as enough in the party to work with it, but out of the party far enough to those of us, who are fed up with politics in general, to see them as capable of shaking things up a bit. (I doubt that either would hike up much at all.)
Trump is the true disestablished Republican
Trump is so not Republican that the Republicans are threatening they won't vote for him if he gets their party's nomination. The Republican establishment appears to be doing everything in their power to derail any hope of Trump being their party's candidate. He is simply unacceptable to the Republican party because they know he will not play well with them.
I see in this a parallel with modern Independent Baptists.
There are those preachers who are unquestionably teams players, part of the bigger Baptist "party".
They do not attempt to hide it, whether their favorite movement among the Independent Baptists is among the Southside Baptist Fellowship, the Global Independent Baptist Fellowship or the now decaying Baptist Bible Fellowship, these are men who see the Fellowship as the bigger and grander cause than even the church they pastor. Most of them would refuse to call their Fellowship a denomination, but they would argue the importance of loyalty to the Fellowship and its leaders at all costs.
There are those who associate with some Fellowship, but they would not want to be viewed as insiders in the Fellowship, part of the "establishment".
Years ago, when the Baptist Bible Fellowship was still thought by many to be a fellowship fundamental, Bible believing Baptist preachers, I had connections with the Oregon State Baptist Bible Fellowship. I was an avid attender of the monthly meetings, I even held offices in that Fellowship. But I was careful to claim that my association was only with the State Fellowship and not with the BBFI nationally.
A preacher friend of mine and I travelled together to an OSBBF meeting and, on the way home, were discussing our connections with the Fellowship. My friend agreed that both of us had one foot outside the BBF. The difference, he said, was that his feet were pointed outside the door and mine were pointed in.
Today I would disavow any association other than a casual one with any Fellowship.
There are those that are radicals.
Like the Republican party, anyone can claim to be a Baptist and the terms which define a Baptist can be very broad. That means that there are so-called Baptists that true Baptists take great measures to distance themselves from. Westboro Baptist Church would be one example. I can think of some that are not so well known but that I still would not want to be identified with. There are even some movements of independent Baptists that I prefer to have no connection with.
Marvin McKenzie
In the Fields
