;){kind=logo}
tagged: Executive Committee, GCR Task Force, Great Commission Resurgence, Guest Authors, Marty Duren, Morris Chapman, Southern Baptist, Southern Baptist ConventionMarty Duren on The Search for the Executive Committee President
Posted by Dave Miller in Baptist Life, IMPACT Features
It is strange that some folks may not know Marty Duren. He was one of the pioneers of the Baptist blogging movement, and one of the leading voices of change in the early days. He stills blogs at martyduren.com and at Missioscapes, and still has important insights about the SBC. Recently, at Missioscapes, Marty posted an article about the search for the President of the Executive Committee and how we may be ignoring how crucial this selection will be. His insights there on that search are worth reading and for that reason we are re-posting them here at sbcIMPACT. Hope they will spur your thinking.
A Forgotten Component Needs Remembering by Marty Duren
Overshadowed by the GCRTF report and progress, perhaps deservedly so, has been the search for the President of the Executive Committee of the SBC. The position held by Dr. Morris Chapman for as long as most of us remember will be vacated soon.
With the resignation of Jerry Rankin from the IMB and the opening of the presidency at NAMB, the trifecta of opportunities has been acknowledged as a defining moment for the future of the SBC. I’m thinking recently that, while the two mission agency positions are viewed as extremely important, the lynch-pin may well be the X-Comm position.
Consider a person who gets to give a lengthy address to the X-Comm each time they gather, a lengthy message to the convention every single year, participates in the budget planning for the entire convention and, essentially, leads the committee charged with running the convention 362 days a year. Arguably that person would be the most influential or powerful person in the convention. The president of the IMB might be, to quote Paige Patterson, “the most important person in the world,” but I’m not sure he’s the most important person in the SBC on a day-to-day basis.
If the most important position being filled is the X-Comm president, for what type of person should the search team be searching? A few thoughts:
1. Someone not antagonistic toward any part of the convention’s disparate parts. We have had a few years worth of younger leaders, emergent churches, Acts 29 and Calvinism. If there is one thing true about the convention it is this: there are different groups many of whom are on opposite ends of varied spectrums. The next president of the X-Comm must be one who is able to bridge gaps, not expand them or create them. The polarizing effects of those friendly with the Baptist Identity group need to be kept from this office.
We have had a pretty consistent firing of salvos across the convention toward any who are self-identified as (or suspected by others of being) Calvinistic in their theology. Most recently a paper has been circulated through some southern states detailing how to tell if your pastor is a Calvinist. One or two pastors have even lost jobs as a result. This type of antagonism toward any convention sub-set simply cannot be a part of the leadership motif of the X-Comm president.
2. Someone who is above board and not a subversive. To be in a key part of convention budget planning is to be charged with a huge responsibility, one that requires an ability and willingness to remain free of leadership slight of hand.
People who are involved in manipulative, behind the scenes scheming don’t have the kind of character needed to lead. This position requires engagement with the other members of the Great Commission Council, the convening of SBC entity heads which as been as historically dysfunctional as an episode of Wife Swap. All of the new voices must be able to work as part of a team for the good of the SBC. The X-Comm president needs to be a proven voice of honesty, integrity and openness.
3. Someone with experience. This one might sound odd coming from a person who railed against recycling trustees and for creating opening new opportunities for new people to be involved in convention activities. This particular position needs some amount of convention experience and, I think, more than either of the other two entity openings.
The question is, “How much convention experience is necessary?” Must a person have served at every single level from associational moderator through state opportunities to the SBC Executive Committee? Must he/she have lived and breathed the convention for most or through his/her adult life? Been born with the CP spoon in their mouth? Surely not. Though familiarity should be expected, a DNA strand encoded with the letters “SBC” should not be required.
Rather than simple convention experience, I think the more apt question is, “What did the person do with the opportunities he/she had?” Was it a simple “keep on keeping on” or was vision part of the equation? Were new ideas and strategies introduced to demonstrate real leadership?
It also might be worthwhile to consider what type of outside experience or influence the person has had. Do those outside the SBC recognize his/her influence and value?Is the right person one who has been living in an SBC box? Doubtful.
4. Someone who is more inclusive than exclusive. Related to number 1, but, even more than not being antagonistic, this person must have a record of being welcoming to the widely differing range of styles now represented across the convention. Back in the day we would have said, “Not a person for narrowing the parameters of cooperation.”
I don’t know Troy Gramling. A week or so ago when Nathan Finn tweeted
“I hesitate to be so pointed, but I do not think Troy Gramling should be president of the SBC Pastors Conference. We need another candidate”
Gramling’s name crossed my plate for the first time ever.
Apparently I’m alone in my ignorance.
Former president of the Georgia Baptist Convention and former SBC presidential candidate, Frank Cox, also had something to say. It was similar to Finn, but I think much more telling. Emphasis is mine:
“I think it is time we Southern Baptist [sic] stand up. We are about to lose the whole thing. We need another candidate for SBC Pastors Conf.”
What “whole thing” is who about to lose? Surely the Pastors’ Conference is not the “whole thing”? If not, what is? What should Southern Baptists be standing against? A pastor who is too innovative? Any kind of progress?
Perhaps it was simply because Gramling’s church gives a paltry amount to the SBC and is barely considered cooperative, but, honestly, it sounds like the same kind of chicken little “the sky is falling” rhetoric that we heard way back when the Younger Leaders movement started gaining traction in the SBC, for which Jimmy Draper was often castigated by some in convention leadership while the younger leaders themselves were ridiculed as power hungry, impatient, unappreciative or liberal.
5. Should be someone who is known for leading change or leading in a time of change. The X-Comm presidency will set the tone for how and if many recommendations from the GCTRF are implemented with enthusiasm and kept a part of X-Comm’s agenda (as far as that goes). This is a strategic time in the SBC. The nominee cannot be “star-struck” by the opportunity, but needs to be effective in a time of constant change and shifting landscape.
In this writer’s opinion anyone who is thought of as “Mr. Convention” probably is not the person. The last thing the convention needs right now is conventional. I’m not necessarily advocating someone who will push every single boundary–even though that type of person might be my personal choice–but a person who knows which boundaries to push and when as he or she reaches out to build and sustain relationships across the convention while, perhaps, creating a few outside it. May the search team have wisdom in this process.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Perhaps it was simply because Gramling’s church gives a paltry amount to the SBC and is barely considered cooperative,
I suspect that it has more to do with him being an e-gal and therefore at odds with the BFM2K. I mean, he has a woman on his staff as pastor. Why don’t they just ahead and mark this as the beginning of the Mainstream Resurrgence [(c) 2008 Joe Blackmon].
(Edited by Dave Miller)
Joe, I hope you won’t be too mad that I removed that last comment. You make a valid point about the women-in-ministry issue, but I don’t want to go where the other part of that comment would go.
I would broaden your comment a little. I think that in general there are the younger, “cooler” pastors and there are a lot of people amongst the older fogeys like me who feel uncomfortable about that.
I have seen conflicting information on Troy Gramling’s views on WIM, so I’m not sure where he stands. It is a concern to me. I have stated that I would not vote for anyone who gives .18% to CP missions. He may be a good person and good pastor, but he does qualify as an SBC leader if he does not invest in the SBC.
Could we try to avoid making this a “Troy Gramling” review, though? What do you think about the kind of person Marty describes?
Dave
Your blog=your rules. You don’t have to apologize to me.
I would say for the most part I agree. However, when I hear things about being a uniter and not an excluder or one who makes things more narrow I have to ask for clarification. For instance, if the point was that you shouldn’t refuse to cooperate with someone who is on the different side of the reformed debate than you, I would agree. That is not an issue to exclude someone. If you mean you shouldn’t refuse to cooperate with a church that has women pastoral staff, that’s a whole ‘nother ball game.
However, on the whole, his proposal is sound.
Brother Dave,
Most assuredly this is an important political office and an office that will set the tone for the convention.
Although the political is important for the sake of communication. We (SBC types) need to have someone that is less enamored with the position and more tuned in to the work of the churches. If this person can somehow lead the convention toward unity, then some progress might get made.
I agree with Marty, a polarizing figure, is about the last thing the SBC will ever need. The SBC simply needs a solid servant that is willing to engage in the mess of politics, so that the churches can trust the distribution of funds by the agencies.
Blessings,
Chris
Paraphrase: It must be someone who can get along with all groups in Southern Baptist life, except for that group I don’t like much. -Marty Duren
Names; wonder if Duren or Bart Barber, Miller or Rasberry or Chris Johnson would want to proffer their list of five names of folks who they think can take SBC to its next level
Bart-
it is quite erroneous to call your statement a “paraphrase.”
More appropriately you could write, “Here are a few thoughts
I’d like to create out of thin air and attribute to Marty Duren.”
Bart, I think what Marty said was not that the new Exec couldn’t be BI, but that he couldn’t be an aggressive proponent of BI that would exclude other groups.
That’s how I read him.
Stephen, I’m going to delete your comments here. If you want to repost them over at the Inerrancy post, feel free.
Isn’t the whole point of BI excluding other groups?
I’m sorry but what is Bl?
Baptist Identity
Don’t know what happened to my last post, but I’ll try again.
I think we need new blood in the system. Three names:
Jim Shaddix former professor of preaching at NOBTS now pastoring in Denver area. Innovative, yet Biblicist.
Rick Byargeon former professor of OT at NOBTS now pastoring Temple Baptist Church, Ruston, LA. Solid man able to lead and appeal to all groups.
Mike Cramer, Pastor of New Life, Osceola, In. A suburb of South Bend. Mike is creative and able to deal effectively with divergent groups.
None of these men are very political and while conservative theologically, not liable to alienate those with whom they might disagree.
I do believe we need someone who is unashamedly Baptist and thankful for the distinctive Baptist Witness.
David, I wish some of the BI guys would respond to that. But I think there is something to what you are saying. By definition, it would seem to me, if you are BI, you are saying that those who disagree on those issues are compromising what it means to be Baptist.
Can someone be a “big tent BI?”
I hope if Bart or some of the SBC Today guys wander by, they might weigh in. I don’t mean this pejoratively, but it would seem that David’s comment has some merit – BI by definition is exclusivistic, isn’t it?
I guess I don’t understand what you mean. BI is definitely exclusivistic. Why would we even consider someone who is not considered uniquely Baptist.
Kenneth Starr is not my type of Baptist. I want someone heading up the executive board who understands where we’ve been, what we’ve gone through, and believes our best days are ahead.
People often say about Peyton Manning, “He has such respect for the historical significance of the game.” I want someone who understands the unique nature of Baptist churches and respects the historical significance of everything we’ve gone through.
Someone who believes the Baptist witness and message are unique and worth preserving. I do not want some ecumenical namby pamby who agrees with every wind of doctrine which comes along.
He needs to understand that all Southern Baptist are Calvinistic, very few are Arminian. The vast majority are between 3 & 4.5 pointers, based upon the definition of the terms. 5-pointers make up a significant minority. They are not to be denigrated, but rather encouraged. Those of us who believe they are misled on a couple points must never make it a matter of fellowship, nor should they.
He needs to believe in the principle of equi-distance which seems to have become outmoded during these years of centralization.
He must believe the co-operative program is still a viable tool for sharing resources.
To widen and broaden Duren’s Search and this discussion I have linked it at SBC Forum of http://www.baptistlife.com/forums
Some of you may want to bifurcate/Monitor the discussion there as it has become Wade Burleson’s choice site since he cut comments off his blog a few weeks ago.
Not a bad move on his part, as some of you here who referee know how time consuming it can be.
I have a name which bespeaks “Baptist.” You might call me “Baptist to the bone,” thanks to my dad being from Moon’s Grove Baptist Church outside Athens, GA, a Mercer graduate, and pioneer of the HMB Juvenile Rehabilitation program. Why, they even asked me to play the part of the juvenile offender who found Christ through my dad’s ministry and I was on the front cover of “Home Missions” magazine as well as in the filmstrip circulated to promote mission giving!
What Dave says above merits careful consideration because:
(1) We are having great trouble with new membership / mission giving
(2) We have never had 3 simultaneous vacancies in such important Boards and Agencies
(3) We are having trouble opening the doors of leadership to anyone outside the 1979 CR prime movers
(4) We have moved from fighting over Inerrancy to Calvinism and, in my opinion, “God doesn’t bless a mess”
(5) Some months ago a blog clearly showed that despite BF&M 2000 our seminaries are teaching that which was taught pre-1979 with regard to scripture transmission and textual differences (see Nestle Text)
(6) Whatever leadership decisions are made, we better get with it or we will join other major denominations worshiping the past while continuing to decline
Here are some important considerations:
Will we select people like those of old–whose churches gave 50% to missions with no strings attached?
Will we continue to use the mega church as a model or will we return to our roots in many small and growing churches which, large or small, make Missions a priority over Theological debate?
Will we keep making all the decisions in Executive Committees so our national convention meeting is only a “rubber stamp” of decisions already made by a few?
I think we need to return to Christ as our model and example.
Will any one of the new Executives lead by example of washing the feet of those who are inspired rather than driven by the “Leaders at the Temple (mega church of Jesus’ day)” to obey more and more laws and commands which make them rich and fat?
Will we pay them CEO salaries with multiple fringe benefits, yet hide it all in general budget categories no one can penetrate?
Will we return to our Missionary Sending reason for being Cooperative, or will we keep demanding Theological and “good old boy” alliances which effectively shut out all but a few holding the reigns of money dispursion?
Will we be accountable to God for primarily sharing the Gospel with the whole world as we were about to do with Bold Mission Thrust. Its impetus was lost to Inerrancy. The theme has not been heard since 1979 and I think God is giving us our reward for worshiping man and power over following his Son’s words:
“Since you are going, go bearing witness and baptizing those who believe Jesus is the Christ. Make disciples.”
I’m sorry, Mike, but “principle of equi-distance”? What does that mean? What scripture speaks to that?
Also, might you give an example of a specific “ecumenical namby pamby” in Southern Baptist life that should not be considered for such a convention role? It should really be a high profile person; Gramling isn’t in the running.
Dave Miller for X-Comm President!
I’m not sure, Dan, that there could ever be a greater mismatch in terms of calling, gifting and skills than that.
Mike, when we talk about “Baptist Identity” (BI) it is always a minefield. The term has been used in some ways as an insult and so there is a lot of emotion attached to the term.
But when I say BI, I do not refer to someone who is convictionally Baptist. BI has to do with weight and importance one puts on their Baptist identity.
If you believe that baptism is by immersion of believers, you are Baptist. If you believe that a baptism is made invalid if the person that performs the baptism (or the church that oversees it) believes that someone can lose their salvation, you are probably BI.
Being Baptist requires that you be convinced of basic Baptist doctrine. BI adherents often use the phrase “Baptist is biblical” which insinuates, in my understanding, that those who are not Baptist are in disobedience and are unbiblical.
BI adherents tend to discount the process of “theological triage” (as Malcolm Yarnell has done somewhat forcefully). Those who practice pedobaptism are “disobedient” to God’s Word, not just in disagreement over its teachings.
BI adherents are generally suspicious of working with those of other denominations and viewpoints. Since those other denominations are “unbiblical” in their views, we should not attempt to partner with them in evangelistic enterprises. Dr. Yarnell posited that the only point of cooperation with non-Baptists would be “co-belligerency” – basically, political action and such.
BI adherents did not like that Jerry Rankin tried to work in Great Commission partnerships with non-Baptist missions organizations.
In other words, you can be Baptist and not be BI. I am convictionally Baptist but have disagreed with the emphases of the BI movement pretty often and forcefully.
I have a lot of respect for some BI guys (others, frankly, well…). I would be more than willing to be instructed about how I got it wrong in my description here.
But, I think we all agree that the ExCom president should be Baptist, of course. But that does not mean he should be BI. But the BI movement is more exclusive and, in general, does not believe in cooperation with others who disagree.
I think that is the point that both Marty and David made above (and I echoed). A BI president would be a problem because he would not want to work with other groups that did not share the BI convictions.
That is the nature of the movement.
Again, BI guys, if you are reading insult or anger into my words, I apologize. That’s not my intention. I’m trying to be descriptive not pejorative.
Principle of “Equi-distance” means that the local church relates to entities equally. Churches do not have to go through a hierarchy and are equally distanced from each entity they choose to affiliate with.
I have no “Namby-pamby” example, but it is one who tries to straddle the fence, and ends up making every body mad. We need a man who is principled, and one we can respect whether or not we agree with him.
Dave, you said, “BI adherents tend to discount the process of “theological triage” (as Malcolm Yarnell has done somewhat forcefully). Those who practice pedobaptism are “disobedient” to God’s Word, not just in disagreement over its teachings.”
Are you saying that only BI people believe paedobaptism is disobedience and not just disagreement? What is the difference in this case?
Mike, I think you are getting at the heart of the different visions that are out there about Baptist work.
We all believe that we should do the work of the gospel. What I think that Baptists disagree on is how much we should work in cooperation with other groups, non-Baptist groups, to accomplish that work.
The lines are not clearly marked. Some want to be more ecumenical than I do. Others (BI, primarily) want to be much less so than I do.
I’m going to keep advocating for what I might call a “convictional ecumenism” in the SBC.
I don’t want to give up my convictions or see the SBC do so. But I want us to participate broadly in the wider Christian world within the limits of our convictions.
Andrew,
I’m not Dave Miller, but here’s my take on your question:
If someone has studied the Bible and come to the conclusion in their heart (as I have) that only believers baptism by immersion is true baptism, yet refuses to be biblically baptized, then, yes, that person is disobedient.
If, however, someone has studied the Bible, and is sincerely seeking to understand and submit to what it teaches, and yet, due to a different hermeneutical process, comes to a different conclusion than I do regarding only believers baptism by immersion as biblical baptism, I, though in disagreement with that person, do not believe they are necessarily disobedient. I pray God will help them to “see the light,” and, when given the chance, will seek to reason with them to show them why I believe that only believers baptism by immersion is biblical baptism. But, in the end, I believe that each of us, as servants, answers to our own Master. Only God knows if, in our heart of hearts, we are actually disobedient, or, perhaps, only mistaken.
I am Dave Miller, and I say read what David said!!
David Rogers,
I would agree with your assessment with a caveat, Such person should not attempt to become a part of a Baptist church. I’m weary of those who, in the past suggested and now openly advocate, that we accept something less than “Believers Baptism by Immersion” for those who have not yet come to agree on the matter, and that is the only appreciable difference.
Believers Baptism by Immersion should be an “ABSOLUTE” requirement for membership in a Baptist Church, and we ought not have to examine the mode of baptism for those transferring membership from other churches affiliated with the SBC.
Mike,
I agree, as long as we do not treat those whom we would not admit into membership of Baptist churches (because of their convictions on baptism), as if they were not members of the Body of Christ in our locality.
Did you fellows a big favor here, advancing this conversation exponentially with insight, clarity while being pretty straightforward.
Check this link; no liberal here, Fellow who is part of the SBC.
http://forums.baptistlife.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=8237#p110466
David, would this also be true of you?
If someone has studied the Bible and come to the conclusion in their heart (as I have) that only men may serve as elders in the church, yet attends a church with female elders, then, yes, that person is disobedient.
If, however, someone has studied the Bible, and is sincerely seeking to understand and submit to what it teaches, and yet, due to a different hermeneutical process, comes to a different conclusion than I do regarding female elders in the church, I, though in disagreement with that person, do not believe they are necessarily disobedient. I pray God will help them to “see the light,” and, when given the chance, will seek to reason with them to show them why I believe that only men may be elders. But, in the end, I believe that each of us, as servants, answers to our own Master. Only God knows if, in our heart of hearts, we are actually disobedient, or, perhaps, only mistaken.
Andrew,
Not exactly.
I can envision a situation in which someone who is convinced the Bible teaches that only men may be elders, and yet, for some reason or another, ends up attending a church with female elders, without necessarily being disobedient.
I don’t think that attending a church that interprets the Bible just like I do on every minor detail is necessarily a matter of obedience or disobedience. If I did, it would be very hard for me to find the right church.
Okay, maybe a poor example, but I thought putting in a reference to homosexual marriage would be over the top.
I’m still thinking, but I’m not convinced. I mean, I’m not expecting to get to heaven and receive a pat on the back from Jesus for promoting believer’s baptism by immersion, standing in judgment over the Presbyterians for practicing infant baptism. If anything, I’ll probably learn just how far off I really was in my theology and how God’s grace carried me through.
But I don’t know how comfortable I am relegating baptism, female eldership, or homosexuality (which is an obvious, external sin) to matters of one’s personal convictions and conscience. I don’t want to confuse matters grace with matters of liberty.
David Rogers,
I’m just not sure I can agree with you here. If one is convinced in his heart that a matter is wrong. He is wrong to give his assent to the matter.
Now, if it is a matter of preference rather than conviction, then I can understand your position.
However to submit to the spiritual leadership of those one feels are disqualified from that position by a doctrinal premise is, in my opinion, just wrong.
A conviction is generally defined as something which is unchanging, no matter the circumstances. “Give me liberty or give me death,” is a conviction.
A preference is something which one believes and supports, but there are limits to that support. “I’m going to stand with you on this matter until the cost becomes too great,” is a preference.
Wandering by. Weighing in. Responding to the question. Anger? No. Insult? Yes. This article identifies one and only one component of Southern Baptist life that is entirely ineligible for leadership in the Southern Baptist Convention. That’s not insulting?
Now, maybe I need to be insulted. Maybe I’m dead wrong and need to be shoved deep into God-ordained conviction over the error of my ways. The post and the ensuing comments are indeed demeaning and insulting toward “Baptist Identity” Southern Baptists, and yet if we are in error it is your duty as our brethren to be open to the Holy Spirit’s using your testimony to call us to repentance.
Which, indeed, we ought to consider, since it seems that we are the solitary mole on the otherwise pristine face of the convention.
BTW, I find delicious the irony of a post calling for the exclusion of any “Baptist Identity” Southern Baptist (let me know who’s making the list and checking it twice, will you?) from a leadership position in the SBC then turning around and becoming an ongoing discussion about how uniquely exclusive are the group being excluded!
Bart,
I, for the most part, try my best to avoid being insulting in my treatment of others, no matter who they may be, in the blogosphere. I can’t claim perfection in this regard, though. Wherever I have slipped up, I ask for forgiveness. If I knew of particular instances for which I have not already asked for forgiveness, I would name them specifically. If you, or someone else, can point me to them, I will be happy to take them into consideration.
However, I indeed do believe that those of what has been described here as the “BI position” are generally in error. In my insistence in arguing these points on various blogs, I have been attempting to do just what you suggest:
“use my testimony to call them to repentance.”
At the same time, in line with my answers to Andrew and Mike on this comment stream in regard to disobedience and view on baptism, I do not necessarily equate error with unrepentant sin. Thus, it may not be technically correct to say I am calling you “to repentance.” I am, however, giving a serious and concerted effort towards calling you to examine the error of your ways, and to change them.
Andrew & Mike,
I think this is where “theological triage” comes into play. There are certain damnable heresies, with which we cannot, in good conscience, maintain any fellowship whatsoever. And, in such a case, I agree that God will hold us accountable for doing so.
However, there are other theological errors that do not fall into the category of “damnable heresies.” Whereas it might be preferable and propitious to fellowship together in a local congregation with those who do not hold to error, I don’t believe it is always a matter of obedience or disobedience.
There is a sense in which, in each decision we make, we must follow the inner voice of the Holy Spirit, and to go against that voice is disobedience.
However, I can envision a situation in which, for instance, the only Christian congregation in the locality in which I live, teaches and practices something I clearly consider to be error, on one issue or another. I then face a dilemma. Is it necessary, in order to be obedient, to separate from them, and form my own congregation, or is it permissible to congregate, and share fellowship with them, while agreeing to disagree on that particular issue?
Personally, I think that the answer to that question depends upon where along the scale of “theological triage” that particular issue falls.
I should probably also make clear here that I don’t think the person, in the situation I describe above, is necessarily sinning, or being disobedient, by “separating,” and forming another congregation, provided they continue to recognize the other congregation (if they are truly born again, and evangelical in their general approach) as a legitimate part of the Body of Christ in their locality.
Mike,
RE: comment #34
I assume you are familiar with the “theological triage” model. If not, then we will need to back up a bit and talk about that.
If you are, though, it seems to me that what you are proposing here is a model of “theological triage” that only includes two levels: 1. Error (which amounts to the same thing as damnable heresy); and 2. Preferences.
However, I think we must include at least one middle level in between these two.
Bart,
In my comments, I tried to explain my understanding of BI. If I erred in stating that, and you are insulted, please let me know where I erred. My intent was not to give offense.
But I think the issue here that was raised is something unique to the BI viewpoint, as I understand it at least. If one holds to the tenets of BI, by definition they are saying that those who disagree on those issues are not faithful to the biblical, Baptist view.
Therefore, by definition, they would be exclusivistic. Marty’s point was that we should get someone at the ExCom who would not exclude disparate points of view. The point was made that by definition, BI is inherently exclusive.
Do you understand the point I’m trying to make?
I honestly am not trying to give insult, but I understand how it can be seen that way.
Would you not, Bart, agree that BI dogma is exclusive by nature?
You may not agree with the sentiment, but if, as Marty believes, we need someone at the ExCom who will work with the disparate SBC groups and types, does that not by definition exclude a strict BI-type person?
Honestly, I know this comes across way more confrontational than I mean it. I may try to get your address off the internet and send you a dozen red roses – if I can find a sale.
Gentlemen–
You are the classic example of “majoring on theology and minoring on missions.”
Everything said since my post deals with CR theology and nit-picking over considering the importance of the next leaders setting examples in their local church with mission giving–no strings attached.
Unless we, once again, become Baptists who cooperate–and major on missions and new church starts–we will go into the oblivion into which we are already almost disappeared.
Do you realize how irrelevent most of what you say above is?
People who are seeking a relationship to Christ want to see we are Christians by our love! Theological debate on irrelevent issues such as “once saved always saved” or “who runs the Baptist show” fail to capture anyone’s imagination in this hurting world!
If we want to discuss real issue as I cited, I’m glad to do so. To continue this charade, frankly, is a waste of my time and that of many others who would gladly participate in a discussion of substance!
As for a substantive discussion, Gene you may want to click on comment 30 and engage away till you attract an audience here.
Sandy has some strong points that go to the heart of the matter.
Bart-
If you willingly align yourself with a group, Baptist Identity for instance, who is actively exclusionary of those holding differing views, how can you cry “fowl” or “insulted” when it is pointed out the group is exclusionary? I mean, if someone says, “Marty Duren loves culture,” I’m not going to deny it. If they then say, “Marty Duren is a liberal and loves sin,” I’ll disagree because those terms are not congruent under any biblical or linguistic standard. “Baptist Identity” and “exclusionary” are synonymous under any reasonable understanding.
If you can show me where the BI group has actively sought to hold hands across the aisle, so to speak, with Calvinists or Southern Baptists who are part of the Acts 29 movement, to give two examples, I’ll gladly offer an apology. The evidence, though, points in the opposite direction. You think the Joshua Convergence was designed to expand the tent? Heck, Bart, it was the BI guys who most loudly supported the Landmarkist IMB baptism policies which were exclusive on their face.
If I cared to do so I could give you the name of a prominent SBC professor who was uninvited from speaking at a state college because he wasn’t Baptist enough. The uninviting college faculty member is identified with the BI group. When a flaming conservative, inerrantist, soul-winning, Jesus preaching professor at a conservative, inerrantist Southern Baptist school isn’t Baptist enough, then one associated with that group is not qualified, in my opinion, to hold the X-Comm presidency.
I think that I can respond to everyone in a single comment.
Every position represented by the participants in this thread is exclusionary. Each and every one. I think we all know bloggers from various avenues of Baptist life who would gladly come here to testify to that fact. Don’t break your arms patting yourselves on the back for how tolerant you are, boys.
I grieve over the absolute unwillingness to see nuance among “Baptist Identity” brethren, as well as the inability to perceive the difference between passionate advocacy of doctrinal principles as correct on the one hand and exclusion of all who differ on the other hand. I further grieve over the presumption that your points of exclusion are acceptable while mine are unacceptable. By whose standards? Your own? How convenient.
On a scale of 1 to 100 of exclusivity, I’m a 73 and you guys are 68s. And yes, that’s a difference, but the other difference is that I don’t stroll into the synagogue in prayer and thank God that I’m not exclusivistic like those other guys over there.
Marty asked: “If you can show me where the BI group has actively sought to hold hands across the aisle, so to speak, with Calvinists or Southern Baptists who are part of the Acts 29 movement, to give two examples, I’ll gladly offer an apology.”
OK, EVERY Baptist Identity blogger, to my knowledge, supported Al Mohler for President of the Southern Baptist Convention until the moment that illness removed him from contention. He, rumor has it, might be a Calvinist.
I blogged in hearty approval of Mark Dever some time ago, and was castigated by some of you guys over it at the time. Mark Dever is reputed to be a Calvinist. I once entitled a blog post entitled, ‘Thank God for Calvinists.”
You can just put the apology into the thread here, if you like.
OK, I’ve gone and gotten all contentious over here, but I really don’t want any more blog fights like the bad old days in which we all say things that we’re going to regret in the morning. I’m passionate about this, yes. I don’t begrudge you guys your viewpoint. I pointed out my reaction to it. I’m willing to disagree agreeably if that suits everyone else.
And now I’ve proven beyond all doubt that, contrary to what I thought, I was NOT able to respond to everyone in a single comment.
And I’m the ONLY “Baptist Identity” blogger who would have missed that call from the outset.
Marty and David can obviously answer for themselves, but as for me, I do not think your comments are entirely fair.
I would agree, perhaps, with your 73 to 68 continuum. As far as that goes, we are all somewhat exclusive.
But that 5 points on the scale is significant. I think more people should be fully included in Baptist life than BI adherents do. I think people with a PPL should be fully included in Baptist life. I think people baptized by immersion after conversion as a symbol of salvation in churches that have some theology I disagree with should be fully included in Baptist life.
BI guys exclude them from service in certain areas.
Sorry for going back to the old, tired IMB policies, but they show the reality. To my knowledge, Calvinists do not want to kick non-Calvinists out of the denomination and non-calvinists (well, most of them) do not want to kick Calvinists out.
But the Baptist Identity group has been active in trying to exclude certain people and groups from leadership and service in the SBC.
I don’t think I’m patting myself on the back. I think I am recognizing that you and I draw the lines of fellowship in different places. You are one of the bloggers I respect the most, but I disagree with you on where the lines of fellowship should be drawn.
Is my logic flawed? (More than usual?)
Dave Miller,
Do you recall that I did not agree entirely with the IMB policies? Do you recall that I rejected one of the proposals at that time as being worded very poorly? Do you recall that I stated that PPL should only be addressed by the board if it were a matter causing actual problems on the field (which the trustees claimed that it was)?
Saying so again probably won’t matter, because the narrative has already been written, and no matter what I say here today, in 6 months the script once again will return to the default. Or maybe those facts don’t seem material to you in the whole discussion.
“Blah / blah / blah—nobody seems to get my point!!!!!!
Bart and Marty:
I do wish you both would check out the link in 30 or 33 above. A Houston SBC church Staffer makes some strong points. Like the two of you he is very concerned about Orlando, and you two may be proving his concerns are quite valid indeed.
Would like both of you to take a look at his articulate position inside the SBC ranks and speak to them for the sake of this discussion which I thought was the point to begin with.
Bart, I’m an older fella and my memory is bad. No, actually, I did not remember that. What I have said here has been directed at BI as a movement. Of course, no one is ever completely encapsulated by the labels we give.
Honestly, Bart, when all that was going on, I mostly commented at Wade’s site and had little idea there were other blogs out there.
My point remains the same and I wonder if you disagree. I am willing to include a significant number of people in Baptist life that the Malcolm Yarnell wing of Baptist life is not willing to include. Am I wrong on that?
We can (and have) argued whether that is a good idea or not. But it seems like a simple fact that I have a wider tent than BI adherents would want to help me pitch and stake.
Gene, you are welcome to join the discussion. You do not get to set the agenda and decide what everyone else will discuss.
Just because you do not think theology is important does not mean that it is not important.
Dave Miller,
You asserted: “I am willing to include a significant number of people in Baptist life that the Malcolm Yarnell wing of Baptist life is not willing to include.”
I might have said so once upon a time. But this post has me wondering. I’ve found that (to give an example) people in favor of becoming more tolerant to the left are also the people in favor of becoming more exclusive on the right. Their window is no larger in size; it is merely relocated in position. Here’s a post excluding an entire wing of the Southern Baptist Convention from consideration for an important assignment in our convention.
So, I don’t know how to answer your question, Dave. I guess time will tell.
Okay, here’s my problem.
I would be more than willing for some nameless BI adherent to be ExComm President. But, if he is truly BI as I understand it, he would want me excluded from all service in the SBC because I believe differently on what I consider to be secondary or tertiary issues related to baptism and that I practice a form of communion that he would find offensive.
So, by voting for a BI guy, I would be voting for someone who would exclude me.
I don’t have a problem with BI or those that promote it. But it is my impression that they would have a big problem with me and I guess, since my dog thinks I’m okay, I don’t particularly like that.
And, further, I would take some small issue with casting this as a left-right issue.
I have no desire to open the doors of the SBC to those who do not hold to inerrancy. I think I have written extensively on the issue and the link at the bottom of the page will take you to a lengthy article I have written detailing my commitment to inerrancy and to maintaining the doctrine as a standard for SBC fellowship.
So, I don’t know if that comment was directed at me or not. But I do not consider you more “right” and myself more “left.” I believe every fundamental doctrine of the faith and I believe in baptism by immersion and am in essential agreement with the BF&M.
So, I would reject any description of myself as representing the left.
The question is not “who believes the Bible” but “what makes a person a true Baptist.”
So, I don’t think the left/right thing is apt.
Well, Dave, I don’t know who’s whispering in your ear that I’m on some sort of a campaign to exclude you from the SBC.
We disagree on some things. I’m going to campaign for what I believe in. In an election between someone who affirms what I believe to be important more and someone who affirms what I believe to be important less, I’m going to vote for the person who affirms what I believe to be important more. I’ll gladly have a good ole rip-roaring debate with you about this sentiment or that one of doctrine…
…OK, I find that I have a lot less time for that than I once had, so maybe I don’t gladly do that as much as I once did…
…Yes, I want you all to come to agree with me. BUT, if our candidates for SBC President this year were Dave Miller and Daniel Vestal, I’d be wearing a Dave Miller button and popping the corresponding chad out of ballot #3. And if the two candidates for SBC President were Malcolm Yarnell and Dave Miller, yes, I’d vote for Malcolm Yarnell, but if Dave Miller were elected, I’d be praying for Dave Miller, supporting him wherever I could, cooperating everywhere that we agree, and standing right back in my place the very next year of the convention to hear him bang the gavel.
Furthermore, if I were elected to the same office, the only thing that would keep Dave Miller from being right back in his spot the next year would have to come from Dave Miller.
Dave, there was a reason why I put the phrase “to give an example” between those parentheses up there. And the reason for those words was to indicate clearly (I thought) that the whole “left-right” schema was given not as a DESCRIPTION of THIS situation, but rather as an EXAMPLE of ANOTHER situation that could illustrate the idea that sometimes those tolerant in one direction are precisely those who exclude in the other direction.
I guess I got that from something I read a while back when you said that if you were a trustee, you would vote against David being approved for service. I don’t find many areas of disagreement with David, so I sort of assumed that what applied to him applied to me.
I’m really not trying to make this personal or anything like that. Since I don’t intend to get on the denominational payroll at any point in my future, its unlikely to be a big issue.
Dave,
If you disagree with the Baptist Faith & Message, then you ought not to be serving in a position that requires affirmation of the Baptist Faith & Message. I would affirm that principle if I knew nothing of the contents of the Baptist Faith & Message. David pushed and pushed on the whole thing about his service at the board, satisfied with nothing else but that I render some judgment on his service there. It was not my agenda that brought that exchange to pass.
My opinion:
I don’t think every group within the SBC wants to exclude every other group.
I don’t think Akin style noncalvinism is trying to exclude Mohler style Calvinism and vice versa for example.
I think there is one group that stands out as being the most exclusive–B.I.
I am not denying that there can be individuals associated with that group who may have different nuances when it comes to their beliefs. I’m not saying they are absolutely uniform on everything. I’m not even saying that everyone of the individuals in that group wants to exclude every other group.
However, I think the basic point still stands–they are the most exclusive group. And I think Bart Barber’s 73 to 68 example is representative of that.
Therefore, I think it is upon this basis that some other group might want to exclude someone that comes from their group.
So yes, I think both B.I. and a nonB.I. [group] can be exclusive, but the basis for why each can be exclusive is different IMO.
Benji,
I am not asserting that every group within the SBC wants to exclude every other group. That’s not my point in saying that every group in the thread is exclusive. Rather, I merely wished to point out that every position represented in the thread, if it would not exclude anyone presently within the SBC, is delighted that some people are already excluded from the SBC. And, were those folks to attempt to join the SBC (a congregation of Ba’hai folks, for an extreme example), all here would exclude them, and would consider our exclusiveness as a virtue rather than a vice.
I’ll go so far as to say that I’m entirely in favor of excluding entirely one of the SBC’s largest constituent portions: Lost people.
Do I have to agree with every word of the document to be approved?
The BF&M says that the Spirit baptizes us in the body of Christ. the Bible tells us that Jesus would baptize us in the Spirit into the Body.
I’ve not heard anyone explain the significance of that difference. I think it is just inexact (and incorrect) wording of a biblical doctrine. But I do not agree with the BF&M statement.
I believe in the DOCTRINE of baptism in the Spirit at conversion, but not the way it is worded in the document.
Would disagreeing with the WORDING of a statement while being in general agreement with the doctrine be disqualifying?
QUESTION: I’ve always assumed that alcohol was somewhere in the document. couldn’t find it after reading through a couple of times. Is the abstentionist position in the BF&M?
I would only exclude one segment of Baptists – Red Sox fans. Of course, that may be synonymous with Bart’s group – lost people.
Bart-
Well done and fair enough. I apologize for stating that BI folks have never been willing to hold hands across the aisle to a Calvinist.
Dave-
Thanks for running my article. It is greatly appreciated.
Perhaps it would be better to discuss paedobaptism in another venue or post. I’m not as BI as you might think, but I think there needs to be some kind of line drawn at the practice of paedobaptism, since that has been one of the defining differences between baptists and other groups. I think there is room to debate whether a Southern Baptist church should accept into its membership someone who was “baptized” by pouring or sprinkling, but I never thought there was debate over whether a person had to be a believer when they were baptized.
I don’t have a problem fellowshipping with believers who are of the paedobaptismal persuasion, but to join their church? I’m not sure I would do that even if it were the only church in a given area, though I believe much cooperation and fellowship would be necessary and beneficial to all. Since I know Dave is a pastor, do (would) you accept into your membership those who were baptized as infants but are believers now?
I simply encourage this “strain at a gnat & swollow a camel” session to pay some attention to Jesus’ words!
Paraphrase of Matthew 23:1-36
The Pattersonites and Presslerites control the SBC so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. They make many rules and narrow theologies, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not live personal lives under them.
They do all their deeds to be seen by men; for they make their designer ties bright and their expensive tailored suits sharp, and they love the place of honor at all Pastor’s Conferences. They love being recognized and called “Dr.” by their subservient masses. But you are all the same as Baptists: you have one master, Jesus, and one Father who is God in heaven. Neither be called President or Vice-President, for you have one master, the Christ… But woe to you, dictators to Baptists, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who follow you to go in.
You go on glorious and expensive overseas mission trips to make a single proselyte and then corrupt him. You make all kinds of Resolutions and use Robert’s Rules of Order in any way to get your way. You don’t care what promises you make or public statements as long as you sound politically correct. Your sermons are slick and designed to please men. You neglect the Gospels and the ideas of God’s love and forgiveness, replacing them with legalisms and judgmentalism to make sinful men feel worse.
You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! Woe to you dictator pastors! You are like dishes and cups cleaned only on the outside while the inside is full of rotting food and disease. First cleanse the inside and the outside will clean itself. You take statements out of context from Baptist forefathers and act as if they applaud your mindless theology. You say you would love what the forefathers died for, but you take away the freedoms for which they would give their life. They went to jail and endured punishment so we could live in a land of freedom of religion and conscience. You would have been in the mobs which booed them and threw them in prison. You would have shot them rather than listen to their cries for freedom of individual churches and believers.
Many Baptists are saying we have deserted our heritage of freedom in recent years, but you call them “skunks” and “liberals” to anyone who doesn’t know what being free and Baptist means. The hottest fires of Hell wait for those who do not live in love and allow their brothers in the faith to be free. Anyone who claims to serve a God of love, but cannot love his brother who is different or uses different words, is a liar and a hypocrite destined for God’s harshest judgment.
Gene, the self-righteousness of that is simply amazing. To put yourself in the place of Christ and to pour out harsh judgment on others who disagree with you – wow.
What amazes me is the vitriol, anger and harsh judgment you pour out – all the while criticizing those who do not love their brothers.
If you words are true (and I think they are a twisting of scripture that is close to blasphemy) then you are condemned by your own words:
“Anyone who claims to serve a God of love, but cannot love his brother who is different or uses different words, is a liar and a hypocrite destined for God’s harshest judgment.”
Dave,
Not only that but he has written the same diatribe on multiple blogs and claimed it was INSPIRED!!! Yes, folks, Gene is claiming for himself inspiration from God in the same way the writers of the Bible were inspired.
Yeah, that’s blasphemy.
The irony here is this………….
Dave Miller: Because BI guys are exclusionary, they should be excluded from high denominational office.
Wow, I can see how Bart Barber came to his conclusion in Comment #46
Then to top it off……
Dave Miller: (further down the thread * paraphrase) inerrancy should be used as a standard for SBC fellowship.
Incredible
inerrancy should be used as a standard for SBC fellowship.
I’m sorry. I fail to see where there is a problem with that. In fact, inerrancy should be used as a standard test for Christian fellowship.
Brother Bart,
As you can see Gene Scarborough is not going to exclude anyone. It seems that you may need to re-state your comment #64. I believe Gene Scarborough would include a congregation of Ba’hai folks.
Blessings,
Tim
Joe,
I agree……….
I was trying to point out the irony that in a post that is critical of BI people for being exclusionary that we all have our lines in the sand from which we exclude.
Marty,
Thanks.
John Young,
That’s precisely my point.
Bart, you wrote: “I grieve over the absolute unwillingness to see nuance among “Baptist Identity” brethren, as well as the inability to perceive the difference between passionate advocacy of doctrinal principles as correct on the one hand and exclusion of all who differ on the other hand.”
Could you explain the first part. Do you mean, “Some observers are consciously and completely unwilling to see nuance within the BI brethren”? Or, “Some BI brethren are consciously and completely unwilling to discuss theology in a nuanced manner”? It strikes me, that dependig on who you have in mind, either could be equally accurate.
Bart, as usual, has said it straight, and has said it well. Thanks, Bart, for explaining things so well…as you always seem to do.
One question for Dave Miller and others…do you honestly think that a Founders type Calvinist would be inclusive of people who were non-Calvinist? If a Founders type Calvinist was Pres. of the SBC, would he appoint non-Calvinists to positions? If Founders type Calvinists were on the boards and committees of the SBC, does anyone in here honestly think that anyone that wasnt a 5 point Calvinist would be allowed to serve in the SBC in any kind of leadership position? Honestly, folks, what I’ve seen from the Founders type Calvinists is that anyone that’s not at least a 5 point Calvinist is not only not fit for leadership, but they’re also preaching a false Gospel…in their view. So, do you…any of you…honestly think that a Founders type Calvinist controlled SBC would include people outside of the 5 point realm in SBC life?
I dont.
Also, this same thing could be said of Wade and Debbie and Marty and Ben’ kind of crowd. Do any of you think that a complementarian, non-alcohol kind of person would be asked to serve? Would a BI guy be placed in positions of leadership in the SBC? I doubt it….very seriously.
So, as Bart has pointed out….this post is laughable, and the comments of “let’s pat ourselves on the back for being the tolerant, nice guys” is hypocritical. The whole thing is definitely insulting to a huge group of SB’s, who believe that the BFM2K is clearly what the Bible teaches on things…and who want people in leadership positions in the SBC to adhere to these basic beliefs.
David
David
John Young, you seemed to come here pretty hostile, and I do not think you accurately read or interpreted my point. Not sure Bart did either, so let me try to clarify.
Here’s what I would say:
1) The fact that inerrancy is a standard for SBC participation should not surprise anyone. Heard of the Conservative Resurgence? I only brought that up because I perceived Bart casting the BI issue as a left/right issue. My point was in agreement with Bart.
Though I support it, it was not my decision to exclude non-inerrantists. We did that as a denomination.
2) It is not my desire to exclude BI guys from the SBC. But, my point has been that it seems to me that they are, by definition, exclusive. They
It was Marty, not me, who made the point that a BI adherent should not be ExComm president because of exclusionary attitudes. I just agreed that the exclusionary impulse seem part and parcel of the BI position.
If I were a trustee, I would vote to approve BI guys as missionaries and such. I would have no objection to hiring BI adherents to positions within the convention. I do not believe that a lot of BI folks would extend the same courtesy to me. Since I disagree with them, they would question whether I am a true Baptist.
But in a national election, I will always vote against someone aligned with the BI movement. I think it elevates extrabiblical values to biblical status and creates division.
John, it would help you to try to understand what someone says, rather than just ridicule and insult.
Yes, David W, I honestly think there are people who care more about genuine Christian fellowship and unity than you do, who are less exclusivistic than you are.
Look how the Calvinists have embraced Johnny Hunt.
Not everyone looks to draw lines of division as easily as you do.
Dave,
I’ve had a friend not be called to be a DOM, all because a Founders type Calvinist was on the Search Committee. He asked a question…are you a 5 point Calvinist? My friend answered “No.” The Founders type Calvinist was the only vote against my friend. The Committee had already agreed that one vote ended it. The others on the committee were very much for my friend, from what I hear. But, this man black balled him….for not being a 5 point Calvinist. What do you call that?
Dave, have you heard of political enemies getting into bed with each other in order to gain a foothold, or to get what they want? they see it as a solution to getting to where they wanna be, so they put up with things…for a while…until they can gain control? Have you ever dealt with this, or heard of this before?
All I can tell you is that almost every Founders type Calvinist that I’ve encountered in my life has been very exclusive. They were very strong in their opinion that people, who were not 5 pointers, were in error in the least, and were false teachers at the worst. I’ve been called everything from a false teacher to a proclaimer of a false Gospel to a pelagian by this crowd….and why? Anyone who knows me,or who has heard me preach can tell you that I preach and teach the Bible….beleive that salvation is by grace thru faith…believe in the preservation of the Saints….and all the other major doctrines of the Bible; I hold to them….I can amen Dr. Adrian Rogers and Dr. WA Criswell and Johnny Hunt all day long. Yet, I’ve been called a pelagian? a false teacher? someone who preaches a false Gospel? You know why….because I’m not a 5 point Calvinist. And, this crowd thinks that anyone that’s not a 5 point Calvinist is in deep error….maybe even a heretic…and probably preaching a false Gospel of works….etc.
Do you deny this?
David
Dave,
I’m not being hostile……….. Its Friday……Catch me on a Monday it might be different
I was just trying to point out (maybe not very well) that this discussion is rich with irony.
If that insults you………. Then please forgive my offense.
And yes; I stand corrected; it was Marty Duren that stated that the Executive Committee Presidency was no place for a BI guy. But you obviously agree as you stated in comment #79.
John,
Which makes Marty and Dave Miller very, very exclusivistic…while patting themselves on the back for being so tolerant and widening the tent kind of guys…unlike those mean, narrow BI guys, who want people in SBC leadership positions to be…uh…well…gulp…Baptist! As Bart said….
David
There it is, David – your tendency to define only those who agree with the extreme BI position as “Baptist.” I believe that the distinctive “BI” positions go beyond both the scripture and the sine-qua-non of being Baptist.
David, I have met people from all points of the Baptist compass who are exclusivistic. You and Peter seem to have a real distaste for Calvinists, while some of them are, as you said, exclusive as you are.
that is true of people of all groups.
Here is my position, which you and John can continue to ridicule as you please:
1) We need to be Christian. Inerrancy and fundamental doctrines (trinity, substitutionary atonement, etc).
2) We need to be Baptist. Our churches need to practice baptism by immersion of believers as a symbol of salvation. We should practice some form of Baptist polity.
3) Freedom on all other issues.
I actively and passionates advocate for a denomination that is neither Calvinist nor anti-Calvinist. You can hear a sermon I preached recently to my own church in which I challenged this very tendency. You can listen, if you choose.
It is the sermon called “Identifying Church Schism”on February 7.
I think the BI movement is not the best way for our convention to proceed. I will continue to argue against it on blogs and will vote to elect people who will not be under its sway. That’s my conviction.
But I do not believe in excluding you from Baptist life or service. I just don’t think I will vote for someone who wants to exclude ME from Baptist life and service because of my convictions.
DAve,
Would it surprise you to know that I’m probably very, very close to being in the Reformed camp…concerning my theology? I’m not a 5 point Calvinist, but if you looked over my theology…what I preach… you’d probably say that I’m as close to being a Calvinist as you can get without being one. I use John MacArthur’s study Bible when preparing sermons. I like the ESV…for goodness sake! lol. But, I’m not a 5 point Calvinist.
But, to the Founders type Calvinists that I’ve encountered…probably 95-98% of them would consider me, and anyone like me, to be preaching at least a semi-Pelagian Gospel at best… and a full fledged Pelagian, false Gospel at worst; after all, I give invitations at the end of the service, and I believe that the death of Jesus is sufficient for the entire world, and I believe that every person on this planet can get saved…that a person is not regenerated before being born again….but that regeneration happens at the same time that a sinner surrenders in faith to the Gospel.
Now, I have a very hard time thinking that people, who think this way about me, and about 89% of the SBC, would actually appoint us to leadership positions in the SBC. I really dont think that they’d want us to serve as missionaries, either. Do you?
So, I dont hate Founders type Calvinists. I honestly love them as Brothers in Christ. I appreciate their walk with the Lord. And, I dont think that Peter hates them, either. But, maybe we’ve dealt with this type of Calvinist more than you have, and we see the destructiveness of it, and where it would lead the SBC. And, we most certainly do not want the SBC to go in that direction.
David
I doubt you have dealt with Calvinists any more than I have. I am one, though like you, not really a 5-pointer. I have known some who had a schismatic spirit. Others do not.
David Worley,
Would it help if we said we don’t think it would be a good thing if the next Ex. Comm. President was “BI” to the point he would exclude otherwise sound Baptists just for not being “BI” enough. And, we also think it would be a good thing if he was not “Calvinist” to the point he would exclude otherwise sound Baptists just for not being “Calvinist” enough?
I, for one, am willing to go along with this. I agree it cuts both ways.
I also agree that we are all exclusivistic to one degree or another. Where each one of chooses to draw the parameters of cooperation is somewhat arbitrary. My preference is to cooperate in a convention that draws the lines at the point of inerrancy, and the main points of the BF&M. In fact, in general, I am comfortable with the BF&M as a whole as a guideline for where we draw the parameters of denominational cooperation. The one big exception I have, as you already know, is with a requirement for close/closed communion. If everyone in the SBC agreed with close/closed communion, and I don’t, my best option would be to find another group of churches with which to cooperate. But, since it appears that the majority likely agrees with me, and not with the BF&M in their actual day-to-day belief and practice on this point, I am not so quick to jump to the conclusion that the SBC is not the best group for me. It just seems that there is an anomaly in our present statement of faith (BF&M 2000).
Summary: My point of view, as I understand it, is compatible with and inclusive of the majority of the churches and members of the SBC. The “BI” point of view, as I understand it, is not. That is the difference.
i think that is the point Marty was originally making. Whatever branch of the Baptist Tree the next President falls out of, he should not be someone who looks to exclude those who are from other branches.
Brother Dave,
When the author of the particular paper we are discussing says;
you cannot rewrite his thoughts by saying;
Your statement does not come close to what he said. He has clearly stated that anyone who is BI, or even has BI associates, should not be the President of the ExCom.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim Rogers,
Conservatives are always “polarizing” by the very nature of their positions. The more staunch the conservative, the more polarizing the individual. It is true in religion as well as politics.
I know that as a staunch conservative, I rub people the wrong way because I do not want to “broaden” the tent of those who are called Baptist. However, I can work with an Assembly of God person because both of us understand that we’re approaching matters from our own unique theological perspective.
My problem is those who would be called “Baptist” who really do not reflect “Baptist” uniqueness. “Wolves” in “sheep” clothing who are dishonest because they really want to believe something different without admitting they do indeed have a different belief set. They’d rather change “Baptist” to reflect their belief set than affiliate with those who believe as they do.
I could respect those in the CBF if they would simply say we are a different denomination and offer a refuge for those Southern Baptists for whom the SBC does not reflect their position. I could work together with them under that premise. I cannot work with them, as long as they maintain this pseudo relationship with the SBC simply to undermine it.
I “DO NOT” think moderates should be placed in positions of leadership within the SBC because they tend to facilitate error by their very willingness to accommodate everyone. However, “5-pointers,” are usually staunchly conservative. Yes, they tend toward more exclusivity, but people from Tennessee, Ohio, Missouri, and Texas are exclusive as they extoll the virtues of their chosen domicile and support their favorite sports teams. “Exclusivity” is not necessarily bad. Where is it written that any of us “deserve” a seat at the table.
We tend to believe we have much to offer, but in reality we should be so grateful for the opportunity to serve Christ in whatever capacity He chooses that we humble ourselves and become servants.
Far too many seemingly long for a seat at the “head table,” and when it is not forthcoming, they react with scarcely concealed bitterness toward those they perceive as the enemy, all the while giving lip service to God’s sovereignty.
I think we need fewer “prophets” and more “pastors,” in this age.
Dave, et al–
In #69 I simply took Jesus’ words one-by-one and inserted those things which pertain to the SBC in very clear-cut terms. There is no “self-righteousness” here nor isogesis! It is exegesis of the clearest kind as the Holy Spirit directed me when I did it at the turn of the Century–1999.
I was pastor of the Turkey Branch Baptist Church with about 40 active members who are representative of the true vision of a Baptist church: Autonomous, mission giving, caring for one another, baptising by immersion in a Tractor Supply cattle watering trough supported by a wooden platform so old folks could get in and out! They lived out the description of “blessed are the humble” in the Beatitudes.
In that era the Mega Church had become the SBC model–and its pastors were the only ones elected as President or Head of a Board or Agency–which 3 are now being replaced. This blog begins by talking about the ones who might be the replacements.
My analysis of what is happening now vs. what has happened in the past days of tremendous growth and missionary zeal is based on Scripture as well. The Synegogue or “group meeting in a home” version of Judaism was simple / cheap / not austentatious / humble.
In the centuries since Davidic rule and Soloman building the Temple at Jerusalem, the Jewish worship of God had slowly but surely become distorted and egocentric. They had even turned it into a big business with money changers on the steps–and opulent / corpulent men in robes / carrying chairs / philacteries hanging ostentatiously from their necks. They had all the social things described by Jesus in Matthew 23.
Jesus, the Christ, was not pleased nor was he fooled by their pretenses. He said it clearly in Matthew 23. I said it clearly for our day. You now have the choice of working for changes back to the humble and growing days of 1950-1970. The ball is in your court as you are assessing the nature of future leadership!
Your immediate reaction was to try and kill the messenger rather than listen to the message put in as clear terms as I can manage. For a few responses I saw authentic responses. Then you return to BI / Calvinism / and other coded things which have special meaning in your Gnostic world.
For a time I could have cared less what happened to the SBC. It had deserted Bold Mission Thrust. It’s elected leaders no longer came from humble churches whose goal was to give 50% of total income to the Cooperative Program. In fact, “Cooperative,” had been deleted from the program and Autonomy no longer existed. BF&M reigned / Inerrancy was the distorted reason for exclusion / the HMB no longer existed and the NAMB was full of scandal and misuse of funds to have a private corporate aircraft along with programs rather than ministry.
Now, with numbers showing decline rather than growth / with giving so low 600 needed missionaries can’t be sent / with Seminary professors signing BF&M 2000 admitting the things Inerrancy crushed are still true, I was in hopes a prophetic word might find its place. The history since 1979 should start to give you some humility because the “Temple at Jerusalem” and the “Davidic Kingdom” is falling apart with scandal and no relationship to the hurting people in our society suffering from a Depression/Recession.
QUESTION: Will you look again at Matthew 23 and change, or will you continue the silly minutia arguments ad nauseum?
Mike R:
You said to TR:”Conservatives are always “polarizing” by the very nature of their positions”
I agree with you on that statement.
I would only add that Conservatives tend to attack each other often and polarize each other about who is not conservative enough.
Mike Rasberry,
Back a few years ago before the term “Baptist Idenity” really took off, I wrote a post on my own blog titled “The ‘Conservative Resurgence’ and the ‘Baptist Renaissance.’” The “Baptist Renaissance” was the term used by Malcolm Yarnell to refer to the same thing we are calling here the BI Movement.
In any case, I think it is important to distinguish between the two. Being a biblically conservative Southern Baptist does not necessarily make you, at the same time, an advocate of the BI Movement.
Here is some blinding light for you I first tried to share in comment 33. Sandy, from April 8 is about as articulate a statement of where you fellows find yourself I have seen to date. Frames it much better than anything I have seen here so far 100 odd comments and counting:
Re: Marty Duren’s Presidential Search
by Sandy » Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:21 pm
Marty Duren wrote:
1. Someone not antagonistic toward any part of the convention’s disparate parts. 2. Someone who is above board and not a subversive. 3. Someone with experience. 4. Someone who is more inclusive than exclusive. 5. Should be someone who is known for leading change or leading in a time of change.
Those are Duren’s five guidelines for finding Chapman’s replacement. In a denomination with an average weekly worship attendance of almost 6 million, and a membership of 16 million, surely the odds are that there is someone in leadership who would fit these parameters. But among those who are in any kind of position to land this job, or the other two mission board heads, I wouldn’t count on it.
The “disparate parts” Duren mentions includes young leaders, Acts 29 and Calvinists. And he suggests that would eliminate anyone from the Baptist Identity group. And he would be right. But the Baptist Identity group counts, among its number, those who have their hands on all the right strings to pull, and who have the prominence and pedigree to buy and sell the kind of influence necessary to be considered for this position. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Identity group land “their guy” in this job and then use it to drive the young leaders, Acts 29′ers and Calvinists out of the SBC.
Marty Duren wrote:
People who are involved in manipulative, behind the scenes scheming don’t have the kind of character needed to lead.
This is one of the clarifying remarks from point #2. Although I agree, I think it is going to be monumentally difficult, if not altogether impossible, to put someone in this position who isn’t like this. It is impossible to get into a name-recognized, influential, power-consolidated position anywhere in the SBC without influence peddling, manipulation, string pulling, favor calling game playing. It’s the combination of the Southern cultural caste system with the good-ole-boy Baptist way of doing things. It is never about your ability to do the job, it is always about who you know and what weight they can swing for you.
With regard to experience, I would ask, “What kind, and from where?” Anyone who has served as a pastor of a church has the kind of public relations spin experience necessary to do this job. How complicated can it be, dealing with an executive board that’s not a whole lot larger than one of our smaller churches? Actually, it is probably not unlike dealing with a large deacon board, with each member dead set on using their influence and position to carry out their own agenda. How much fun would that be?
I also sincerely doubt that there is anyone among the tight, small little circle of people who would have this particular annointing upon their heads who has either led, or has the kind of character to lead the denomination through major change. The control group in the SBC is all about either keeping the status quo in power, or forcing everyone to go along with whatever megachurch proclamation is handed down. It is anti-change.
Want to take bets on who the next exec director might be? Which megachurch pastor with string-pulling ability, and a public relations machine is in trouble and needs an out? Mac Brunson? Jerry Sutton?Sandy
Mike–
Tom Rogers and I represent people with great personal knowledge of the SBC as it was and we continue to analyse “what it has become.”
What is has become is sick with internal bickering which has not stopped. The folks who formed the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship did so because they no longer had any input nor place in the SBC. They had built the SBC with sacrificial giving between 10-50%, but every Seminary / Agency / Board was clearly excluding them. Within 3 years of Adrian Rogers’ appointment of the Committee on Committees moderate leaders of the SBC were clearly and completely ostracized! Each President of the SBC has consistently followed this route since 1979.
I totally agree that the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship should declare its independence. Strangely, you express one of the mantras of the CBF = work cooperatively with anyone wanting to spread the Gospel without making them become members of the SBC!
The reason CBF has yet to declare its independence is that still many average church members don’t see the magnitude of the changes. Rather than destroy our reason for existing–Cooperative Mission Giving–most CBF churches have let their members decide which mission offering they want their money to support: Global Mission Offering (CBF) or Lottie Moon (SBC). Us Baptists seem to consider things of the past as “golden calves” even when they no longer have Autonomy attached to them.
In NC we have, within the last 10 years, turned our NC Baptist State Convention into an “Autonomy By-law hidden” organization exclusive of mainline churches. In our case a new Financial Policy precludes any giving or participation by a church recognizing the need to minister to homosexuals. We choose to ignore the many latent homosexuals among ordained clergy and some clearly homosexual men who play the organ, etc. Us Southerners can be more pretentious than anyone anywhere in another region of the country!
Now, in the last 5 years CBF is growing by leaps and bounds in NC. Many churches have a Denomination Relations Committee leading them to sever all ties with the SBC and NCBSC. Every college and Agency has begun to elect their own Trustees. There is no longer any control by the NCBSC of its former “children.” We have almost all of the Baptist Colleges with a Religion Department related to the CBF. Many rural churches which used to find student pastors at SEBTS go to the Colleges for candidates.
The reason for this is the large number of small churches which found themselves in a dilemma as their SEBTS new student pastor told them things which were not true of his ministerial leadership outlook. They came to the church with a new Constitution and By-laws making the Pastor the King of the church rather than the Servant. Small and conservative rural churches in a conservative state don’t like anyone dictating to them what they must do to be “truely SBC.”
What these students are being taught is “the end justifies the means.” Tell the Pastor Search Committee what they want to hear and go in to “make the church evengelistic again.” These “Knights in Shining Armor” viewed themselves as “Saviours” when, in fact, they were destroyers. Their problem was that so few came out of traditional SBC churches they would believe anything the Bob Jones / Liberty University / whatever super-conservative degreed Professors taught! Thay had no real basis of judgment because they were convinced Paige Patterson and Danny Aiken were such “specially chosen men of God.”
Some of us disagree with such–with all due respect.
Gene,
Oh no, another Rogers in Baptist blogtown to have to deal with? Who is this Tom Rogers you refer to?
Gene,
I, too, have a very long history. I’ve been friends with many in leadership in the CR for many years. I was also friends with some who became “moderates.”
I have seen first hand the attitudes and theology of pre “CR” SBC life compared with post “CR.” I have not always been a “country preacher.”
I do not believe the things the CBF supports are being clearly articulated.
Please do not think I believe, as does CBF, that we should co-operate with all groups. I can work with the AOG, the Conservative Presbyterians, some of the Bible Churches, and even some Trinitarian Pentecostal groups, but I could never support the BWA, and their heretical positions. Nor, could I work with the United Methodists, even though I can work with individual Methodist churches. Church of Christ are not even Christian from my perspective and belong in the same category with Mormons, JWs, Moslems, Hindus, and Catholics as groups needing evangelized rather than groups with whom we join forces.
Please DO NOT misunderstand my position. Since 1970, I’ve been a strong advocate for, and participate in the successful restoration of our convention to her historical roots of theological biblicism.
I’ve preached and taught, while serving on both the home and foreign fields, and I truly believe God’s hand in on Southern Baptists and will continue to use us to reach the world for Christ as long as we remain people of “The Book.” Every great movement of God has begun with a small dedicated and disciplined group who were willing to be used for His glory in whatever way necessary. I don’t think we need to broaden the tent, I think we need to contract it.
It is not our size, finances, nor influence which God uses. It is our willingness to serve Him. Gideon’s 300 did much more, in God’s hand, than the careless and fearful thousands could ever accomplish in their own strength.
We are strong enough, big enough, wealthy enough, and influential enough to do what God wants us to do today. He will widen the tent His way when we need more. Let us use effectively under His leadership the resources He has provided at this time, rather than lament what we perceive as lost potential.
Guys, the “inerrancy” discussion is open if you want to keep on venting about the CR.
The discussion here, if there is any left, is about what kind of man should become the next president of the Executive Committee.
Mike–
You are making a clear case for a non-autonomous SBC!
In the past, as long as fellow believers of a baptist background were willing to cooperate on mission, they were welcome. We have always, from the beginning, been an ecumenical movement under a uniting banner of sending missionaries. From shouting holy rollers handling snakes to robed clercy with split chancel and luturgy, we cooperated without undue judgementalism on missions.
In recent years the concepts of Autonomy have been replaced with lock-step obedience under a false banner of Inerrency! Along with this is a hierarchy of leaders who must be stroked and obeyed in order to have a place of any significance.
Admittedly, the old SBC had its hierarchy and “good old boy” systems which, I think, were somewhat exclusionary of Conservatives. The last major problem with Conservative triumphalism was in the Norris Controversy. In that debate era, my distant cousin ancestor, L.R. Scarborough stood tall alongside George W. Truett. They happened to belive in world wide Baptist cooperation and helped found the Baptist World Alliance.
The magic uniting factor was Autonomy = no one can tell any other Baptist exactly what to believe or do! It was a world devoid of “any creed save the Bible itself.” It was a joy to meet for friendship sake and celebrate our missionary victories as well a growing in every corner of our SBC world.
We have never left our Bible-honoring position from day 1. We have left our Autonomy position and this is the core of our current problems. No one can claim we are growing or increasing in missionary sending these days. Until someone gets a grip on reality, I predict future demise–and this leadership decision making is a last opportunity to find our true Baptist Heritage once again, in my opinion.
I just hope someone will rediscover Autonomy again. I also would love it if we could, once again, major on missions and minor on theology even through God knowledge has its importance.
When ego and nit-picking replace sharing the gospel in love, we got in trouble. We are still in trouble. Will anyone heed what Jesus said in Matthew 23??????
Sorry Dave, I really wasn’t speaking to inerrancy. I was speaking to the nature of the type of person who ought to lead as Exec. Comm. Pres., however as is my wont, I digressed.
I’ll try to remain more focused in the future. But I must admit, the temptation to rebut what I consider erroneous statements is a powerful one for me. The apple appears shinier, more tasteful, and ultimately more theologically appealing as I try to turn my head from the ubiquitous topic.
Gene, I’ll respond to your missive on the Inerrancy topic.
Dave,
Although this comment is a bit off-topic from that of the post itself, I am posting it here as a response to Mike’s comment, so I don’t know where else to post it.
Mike,
I sympathize with much of what you say in comment #97. Like you, there are many non-SBC groups I can work with, with a good conscience, on various levels, and some I cannot.
I am wondering about your comment on the BWA, though. I know it is sort of a hodge-podge of various Baptist groups, representing various perspectives, some of them quite liberal, but others, quite evangelical and conservative. Are there any definite “heretical positions” you can point me to in the official documentation of the BWA beyond just the openness to including certain liberal Baptists within their ranks?
To fast forward this aside on the BWA Want to ask David Rogers if he differs from the official line of the SBC and is open to fellowship with the BWA, kind of an Anne Graham Lotz stance.
With Rogers accomodation to women in the diaconate and now open conversation on the BWA matter; seems he is in a place DAvid Miller and Mike Rasberry just can’t find themselves.
Stephen,
The BWA question is one I am still officially undecided on. Mike’s answer to my question to him here might help me to decide, though.
David,
I know many good people associated with the BWA. People I could work with them, just like I know many good people in the Washington DC area I can work with.
The problem is that the BWA has become so inclusive as to allow heretical groups to operate under their umbrella. My primary concern is the financial support of the umbrella which implies agreement with those disparate groups.
I feel the same way about the National Baptist Convention and the monies funneled to Washington DC churches which subsidized their radical political/theological agenda.
BTW/ That is why I don’t give to the United Way. I give to many groups, but I don’t want what God has made me steward over to be spent in support of some of their projects/organizations. I fully understand the designation process. It allows funds to be committed to the organization of your choice leaving additional funds to be shared with those you don’t agree with, so in essence you are subsidizing those you don’t agree with, whether or not you designate your funds.
The same principle is true of the BWA. If I want to work with an organization, I want to make sure it is one which I believe reflects Christ’s approach to evangelism.
This is NOT a “throw the baby out with the bath water” situation. The BWA has lost its way. Its individual members may or may not have lost their way. For many it is simply that “professional leaders” are severely out of touch with the rank and file.
Gene, I will always listen to what Jesus said in Matthew 23. However, what you say about Matthew 23 is not the same as what Jesus said. He is God you are not. His judgment is true, yours is subjective and imbalanced.
So, please understand that there is a difference between heeding THE word and heeding YOUR words.
DMiller:
That is where Charles Kimball has your number as well as many others who do not buy, embrace Inerrancy as an adequate rubric to allign with the Historic TExas Regulars/Birch Society/Jesse Helms Far Right and appoint themselves in judgment of what the SBC had become in the 60′s; Flawwed but virtuous engaged struggle with a culture that stood in room of vast improvements.
I can’t quite digest all the notions of Kimball’s When Religion becomes evil; neither do I think that your ministry is without its strong moments of grace and righteousness; as I am convinced DavidRogers is at a better place now than his Father was in 79.
Still in this notion of the CR you are mistaken; and the rubric of inerrancy you espouse will forever thwart whatever growth you are capable of.
Pages 57-61 is the heart of the matter in Kimball’s book; where he corrects your effort at remonstrance toward Scarborough; twists your thinking to a better way for a better application; in effect the difference on the whole between where Criswell and his School of the Prophets were in the 60′s with Harold Lindsell and flirting with Tim LaHaye; that, versus what SEBTS and SWBTS andSouthern were struggling to become to prophetically engage a warped and struggling American South.
The Baby was not being thrown out with the Bathwater in those institutions; AND the CR made the Bathwater much dirtier than it woulda been otherwise.
If inerrancy is what will “thwart whatever growth (I) am capable of”, then I will just have to have my growth thwarted.
I want nothing to do with growth that requires me to reject the authority and truthfulness of scripture. I will continue to uphold scripture and not be its skeptic.
So, thanks, but no thanks.
Keeping things in perspective within the proper framework I have a deep and abiding conviction Dilday, Lolley, Honeycutt, Jimmy Allen, John Baugh, Carolyn Crumpler and Delannna Obrien hold the authority and truthfulness of Scripture in as much esteem; and More insight than Criswell, Pressler, Curtis Caine, Sam Currin, AlbertLee Smith, Ronnie Floyd, Jerry Vines and the endless list.
They were much more capable of applying the the prophetic truths of Scripture and being proper stewards of the Institutions in their watchcare; much more incrementally virtuous vessels for the 60′s and 70′s South that God placed them in; much more virtue than those who displaced them.
So as Scarborough, John Fariss, Tom and the others on this board have presented to you; It WAs Not About Scripture.
Dave–
I fail to see how you can deny the words of Jesus applying to our current mega church mentality which has pervaded the SBC in recent years. It is “church as big business and big show” in the same way the Temple at Jerusalem and the Pharisees were in Jesus’ day.
If you can defend the mega church approach as it compares with the Temple / Pharisees, I welcome it. In comment #99, I did my best to state it clearly.
Our mega church lust which is taught as the model in most seminaries these days began with the School of the Prophets under Criswell and extended to Jacksonville First / Orlando / and many other conferences of their ilk. It was a way of encouraging aspiring pastors to follow this model for true success.
Our main question is who will lead in the future and what outlook will he (we cannot possible consider a woman) have. Is it not clear that, with flat growth and flat giving to missions, something is not badly wrong with the SBC these days?
I have seen quite a few articles on religion in USA Today relating to Saddleback’s request for funds at the end of last year and some of the requests for Haiti by large churches of all kinds. The responses have been about 90% so negative and skeptical that it indicates many in the general public are tired of churches which are self-centered and full of entertainment over ministry.
Autonomy and missions guided us in the 50-70′s. We initially rejected any guide but the Bible and any creed but Jesus! Now we have BF&M 2000 / strict guidelines and social connections / failure to grow or give.
What is wrong in your opinion?????
Stephen,
My gut reaction is to just let your comment in #107 slide. But, I think I would be remiss if I did not reply that, if, for some reason, you see me as being more latitudinarian, or less convictional, in my approach to Scripture than my father, I do not take being “at a better place now than [my] father was in 79″ as a compliment. To the contrary, I am painfully aware that I don’t hold a candle to my father in terms of personal dedication and love of God, others, and the ministry in general. Though I know each of us has his own unique gifting and calling in this life, would to God that I could be more like my father than I am.
Stephen:
You said to DM–”So as Scarborough, John Fariss, Tom and the others on this board have presented to you; It WAs Not About Scripture.”
This is the part about the CR that troubles me greatly. That the word “inerrancy” was used by the CR crusaders to divide the SBC for their purposes. How selfish is that?
Of course you knew your father better than I did. But from what I knew of your father, I cannot see him being open to ordination of women for the diaconate, nor entertaining notions of fellowship with the BWA.
An Oscar nominated documentarian once told me if it comes to legend or fact, go with the legend, but because more often than not that is where the truth is.
While I am being frank here, and do not mean this in a meanspirit, the legend of your Father, and I think there is enormous truth here; in time should be open to civil and straightforward conversation and estimation by the likes of Robert Marsh’s son Charles; Jim Henry’s daughter, Kate, even the students of Charles Kimball.
I don’t speak for any of them; but would be surprised if my notions are far off the mark.
Even so the grace and indulgence you have shown me so far in these exchanges I must say has been a little bit of a surprise and to that extent I obviously have nuances and tweaks yet to codify in my estimation of things.
I do think there are a couple of dissertations to yet be done on the Peace Committee; but then again the audience for such an investigation is growing smaller everyday.
I hope things otherwise are well.
The Jesse James Movie is strong. If you don’t catch it tonight, I hope sometime in the future; and with RickPresley do see White Ribbon on DVD when it comes out this summer.
Stephen,
I wish you could have known my father the way I knew him. I think you would appreciate him a lot more. Here are some thoughts I have written on him that might give some insight:
http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2006/03/what-my-daddy-has-given-me.html
http://www.sbcimpact.net/2008/03/20/like-father-like-son/
David Rogers: I commend you for both efforts. For some strange reason I found the 2008 piece as honest and strong, virtuously transparent as a couple chapters of Randy Owens of the group Alabama, couple years ago.
I’m not comparing their value for the Kingdom of God; just saying surprised by the integrity and honesty of both works.
At same time makes my hopes you and Charles Marsh, maybe Kate Campbell can talk on some occasion; and if it doesn’t cheapen the conversation in some way have a mutual sharing with the rest of us.
My Father’s platform was no where near that of your Dad; fair to say he was a foot soldier in the resistance to the CR, though that was not his obsession. He was heartbroken for what it did to the work of folks he loved like Stewart Newman and Randall Lolley, classmates with Bill Self at SEBTS.
AT his funeral in my eulogy I quoted William Blake:
What E’er is born of mortal birth
Must be Consumed with the Earth
To Rise From Generation Free
Then What Have I to do With Thee
The Sexxes Sprung from Shame and Pride
Blow’d in the Morn, in Evening Died
But Mercy changed Death into Sleep
The Sexxes Rose to Work and Weep
Thou Mother of my Mortal part
In Cruelty dids’t mould my heart
And with false self deceiving tears
Didst bind my nostrils, eyes and ears
Didst close my tongue to Senseless Clay
And me to Mortal Life Betray
The Death of Jesus Set me Free
Then What Have I, To Do,With Thee?
G’day,
David R, I enjoyed meeting Neville Callam (BWA Gen. Sec.) and believe him to be a godly evangelical. However, I have known other more liberal members of the BWA exec, and would have trouble recognising them as evangelicals by SBC standards (much further to the left than the worste of the SBC pre 1990).
David M. I can certainly testify that the BI movement, although rightly concerned for the exclusivism of the Founders Movement, and defending a non calvinist position, have always been gracious to me a double predestinarian (after the order of Bunyan).
I have always found Malcolm Yarnell and Bart Barber as good and cherished friends. Bart has even contributed financially to our evangelistic work here in Australia. To say that the BI guys are exclusivist of their position is untrue as has been evidenced to me in their loving acts of friendship and fellowship in the gospel.
Blessings
Steve
Dave,
Great thoughts here. Who do you think should be the person to lead the Pastor’s Conference?
How will Les Puryear and his http://www.sbcmajority.com initiative inflect this discussion.
Seems like you have unwieldy formula for reformation when you find out how many so called SBC BFM 2000 churches actually have bright kids who will pursue thought outside BFM 2000 boundaries; BWA friendly congregations; it runs the gamut.
Who does Puryear want to elect; and will Ronnie Floyd and Bobby Welch allow it?
Chuck, I have no idea.
But my own vote, if I bother to cast it, will go for someone who is committed to the SBC and has demonstrated that by CP giving in a significant way.
I have no problem with Troy Gramling except for his .18% CP giving. That is just not enough, in my mind, to qualify someone for inclusion in the leadership.
Frankly, I’m not sure just how much the Pastor’s Conference President matters.
I certainly agree with Marty that those who said that the SBC would be “over” if we elected this man were engaging in hyperbole.
Frank Page is taking Chapman’s place. Announcement is Imminent is what I’m hearing at bl.com as they understand Peter Lumpkins.
Frank was a good shepherd at Taylors where Ed Young once was.
But the SBC has become the Land of Nod; where the Children of Israel wandered around in circles.
CBF is not the promised Land, but it is more in that Direction than SBC and Nod.
What are yall hearing about Frank Page replacing Chapman.
I understand it is pretty much a done deal, but cannot understand how some of you insiders haven’t gotten the news yet.
Peter Lumpkins reported it. That does not make it either true or false. Frankly, I voted for him for Pres; I think I’d like him as Exec pres.
David Rogers:
In further oblique response to your noble remembrances of your father.
Here is a sermon for you.
May say more about the circumstances later.
Let me know if you listen to it all the way throw.
I think it is pretty strong
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMrGK1JG4GA