Revisionists and Baptist Dissent

Interestingly, my last comment in the previous thread relating to Ronnie Rogers never received a response. It’s worth a read, I believe.

When the three top-tier Democratic Presidential candidates have been flooding the airwaves with references to God – you can’t (with a straight face) argue that “references to God are politically incorrect in the public domain.”

We don’t have a naked public square, Joe. Far far from it.

What I find most interesting is that your highly revered Baptist Faith & Message 2000 endorses explicitly the concept of separation of church and state. It reads:

“Church and state should be separate.”

If you wish to convince your readers that Hugo Black (the absolutist-literalist) Supreme Court Justice created the doctrine of incorporation out of thin air – you might need to enlist a handful of constitutional scholars not an Oklahoma pastor. At least give us a little Richard Land…

But I must admit, I’ve never heard a pastor reference fellow SBCer Hugo Black or the 14th amendment in a sermon. Perhaps this site needs a discussion on what would happen to the interests of Baptists and their children if the First Amendment applied only to Congress and not to the states through the 14th? We would have 50 religion laboratories. Each state could establish her own religion. I suspect Baptists outside of the South wouldn’t fare too well under this system. Don’t you agree? Richard Land’s form of accommodationism is definitely not this extreme.

Joe,

All you guys need to be more concerned with us loosing the God given rights the Second Amendment gives us. If we lose our right to carry a firearm we can forget about free speech.

I have been thinking about buying an old Sherman tank that is still operational. The permits in this country to buy a working tank would cost me more that to build a wall around my house comparable to the one around Babylon in the days of Daniel. (the real Daniel, not the late date one the liberals promoted in the old days when seminaries were rotten)

What’s an old guy like me to do? I am not as fast as I used to be with my riot shotgun and Colt 1911 semi-autos. I could probably not get 12 maybe 14 terrorists before they overtook me and blowed me up on their way up to Allah to live with all them young girls them perverts dream of all the time.

Of course, if I had a working Sherman tank parked in the drive way I could handle all their business. Just think.

If a bunch of them terrorist devils come running up my street yelling “Death to all y’all Christians, especially you Southern Baptist, fully baptized all the way under the water, mandated by Jesus, under the authority of your local church, type of Christians.”

Why, I could zero a round on them boys and blow them into Allah’s lap before they could say “suicide bomber.” They would be thankin’ about any young girls neither. You can bet you 30.06 on that.

Now, you boys blog about the Second Amendment ;cause its the one that gives power to the First one and don’t y’all forget it.

OK, Joe, Tim, and Wes how are you going to treat me this time? If you delete my comment you will be in violation of my rights as an American. Also due to the serious content of my comment if you do delete me you will be unAmerican and possibly traitors to the Homeland and aiding the enemy in a time of war.

Now, you boys think about it real hard before you delete me here. I am on topic..First Amendment supported by Second Amendment. Protecting the faith (and my skin) Being against infidels. (y’all should certainly be for that) Religious liberty and all of that stuff we are all willing to die or kill for.

I have finally got you boys this time. You can’t delete me in good conscience without being guilty of rude behavior. Y’all do your phone conference and do the right thing.

I bet Peter Lumpkin and all those other hardline, Bible believing guys will back me on this one. Take a poll or something. Yeah, take a poll. You will see the light if you take a poll.Even hard nosed Wes will see it. Maybe even Robin Foster will get right on this one.

cb and the Sherman Tank

Interestingly, my last comment in the previous thread relating to Ronnie Rogers never received a response. Oh well.

When the three top-tier Democratic Presidential candidates have been flooding the airwaves with references to God – you can’t (with a straight face) argue that “references to God are politically incorrect in the public domain.”

We don’t have a naked public square, Joe. Far far from it.

What I find most interesting is that your highly revered Baptist Faith & Message 2000 endorses explicitly the concept of separation of church and state. It reads:

“Church and state should be separate.”

If you wish to convince your readers that Hugo Black (the absolutist-literalist) created the doctrine of incoporation out of thin air – you might need to enlist a handful of constitutional scholars not an Oklahoma pastor. At least give us a little Richard Land…

But I must admit, I’ve never heard a pastor reference fellow SBCer Hugo Black or the 14th amendment in a sermon. Perhaps this site needs a discussion on what would happen to the interests of Baptists and their children if the First Amendment applied only to Congress and not to the states through the 14th? We would have 50 religion laboratories. Each state could establish her own religion. I suspect Baptists outside of the South wouldn’t fare too well under this system. Don’t you agree? Richard Land’s form of accommodationism is definitely not this extreme

“each state could establish her own religion”

For whatever kind of hybred moderate B. Diddy calls himself he often hits on very real “all cylinders firing” conclusions.

cb

Brother B Diddy,

Dr. Ronnie Rogers is not advocating that we join church and state, he is advocating that while we do have a church we do not have a state church. The environment today is a knee-jerk reaction. While it seems okay and is even televised and promoted, that Democratic candidates speak in churches but Republican candidates are never invited. Then when a church speaks out about issues or the pastor presents his personal beliefs and convictions about a candidate without endorsing him/her, the church’s tax exempt status is placed in jeopardy. I believe that is what Dr. Rogers is trying to point out.

Blessings,
Tim

B Diddy:
The point is that loose constructionism unleashed a revised format of the interpretation of the 1st Amendment. Surely with this point you must agree. The original focus was to prevent a state-run demonmination. I wish we could do a time warp and bring forth the patriots that formed the Bill of Rights. Do you think they would want to chisel the Ten Commandments from our courtroom walls? It appears the attempts to “adjust” the Establishment cause have come from a revisionist view of history that desires to eliminate the basic context that produced it.

Chris,

You make some very valid points. The church of the Living God will stand. All else will fall.

I would like to ask you a question relating to government and your preaching through Romans if I may?

How shall you approach the text of Romans 13:1-7?

cb

cb,

I went ahead and condensed a few ideas over lunch….

Paul is in the midst of teaching us how to love one another because of the Gospel and its benefits, not for the sake of our country or ourselves. He begins the argument back in Romans 12,

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.
(Romans 12:1-3)

And now we find ourselves in the middle of Paul’s argument, standing on the front lawn of the Capital building in Washington D.C. getting ready to advance. But why?

It just so happens that life is the greatest proving ground,….and not life in general, but life in specific. It includes everything that we find ourselves up against. And Christ has now breathed out words through the pen of Paul,… and He leaves no wiggle room for imposters traversing from Romans 12 until now…Romans 13: 1-7 and further on until Romans 15 so “that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
(Rom 15:4-6)

So why do we stand on the lawn in D.C.? That’s easy ….to proclaim the winners message, the Gospel of God. We cooperate with the authorities, in order to supply the Gospel. God controls the authorities…we obey the authorities as God works….it may not be pretty at times for us….but Jude has said it wonderfully….

They said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.” It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. And have mercy on those who doubt; save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh. Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.
(Jude 1:18-25)

Unfortunately many Pastors run from the Gospel,
May God help us all!

In Christ Alone,
-Chris

BDW:
I beg to differ than I don’t understand I just refuse to accept your interpretation of the events. If you have 150 years of a particular interpretation on the First Amendment and it is “revised” what would you call that? The reinterpretation since Emerson has turned the original intent and emphasis of the First Amendment on its ear. Let’s go down the road of the original intent of the First amendment – Was it not to prevent a state-run denomination? I agree the First Amendment underwent a dozen changes in its formation, but the accompanying records of the period leave not doubt that the intent was that one denomination should not gain ascendancy in the country. This was a state issue. I tend to pragamatically concur with Dr. Land that the approach to take is concession to accomodation, but that does not lessen the argument of Ronnie Rogers in the least.
Blessings,
Joe

Joe,

As I put my legal hat on, you are absolutely correct concerning the intent of the founding fathers with respect to the first amendment.

Now as I turn my brim to the back, I still live in the country where my legal hat belongs, but my allegience is to the God that allows it to exist. Your right, I should not neglect the opportunities that God puts before me, yet my main focus is always on the Gospel, which has no legal requirements. Because the Gospel is free of legal contraints, the law of any land brings its enemies, but it wields no power, even in appearances of revisionism.

I simply can’t see how men can impact the plan and advance of God. I can see how we are to declare it though.

I may be missing the point, which is easy for me…

Definitely something to ponder,
Chris

You seem to believe that Hugo Black waved his magic fairy wand and poof the First Amendment gets applied to the states without any rhyme or reason.

“If you have 150 years of a particular interpretation on the First Amendment and it is “revised” what would you call that? ”

First, we don’t have 150 years of a particular interpretation on the First Amendment (pre Everson). The Supreme Court never ruled one way or the other on the Free Exercise clause until 1879 in Reynolds v. United States. Reynolds (the polygamy case) was the first time judicial review was exercised in regards to First Amendment. The Establishment Clause wasn’t scrutinized until 1947 with Everson not Emerson.

Prior to the enactment of the 14th Amendment in 1868 our Supreme Court held that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments. And yes, beginning in the 20th century, SCOTUS, utilizing the 14th amendment through the Due Process Clause began to view the Bill of Rights as a limitation on state and local government as well as the federal government.

Why? After that war of Northern Aggression, it was the states and local government not the feds who sought to deny African Americans equal protection of the law. Thus, through a series of 20th century SCOTUS decisions, limitations on the federal government in the BoR became applicable to the state and local governments. This is the doctrine of incorporation. And by expanding the powers of the federal government, Hugo Black was merely following a precedent that ‘strict constructionists” or “literalists” before him had created.

Those are facts. That’s not my interpretation. That’s what happened.

Original intent?

What original intent?

Read Madison, Jefferson and George Mason. Then read Patrick Henry.

There is no original intent. You can’t read Jefferson & Company and determine that his ONLY purpose was to prevent a state-run denomination. They wanted neutrality. Freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Original intent? I bet all the founder’s were God-fearing conservative evangelicals as well, right?

Revisionism is also code for judicial activism. If we’re going to talk about “legislating form the bench” (which everyone does and nobody admits to) – let’s revisit Brown v. Board of Education. Now that case is a doozy. Talk about activism!

BDW:
I appreciate your response and apologize for my own revision of Everson into to Emerson – it was a mental lapse which comes more frequently with . . . I forget. Anyhow, I do not concur with the common judicial notion that the 14th amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights. I know that is what Black and his ilk wanted to do. Black didn’t want it done incrementally. Instead he desired to wave his wand and have it apply all at once. Now here is the question: Do you think those that framed the 14th amendment believe it would be used in such a manner? Careful since all but one succintly stated that their intent was never to do anything that wasn’t already in the Constitution.

B.Diddy,

How well you speak in establishing a good foundation for original intent. Then you back flip, head first, into the cave interpretative necessity to say “the original intent approach does not work.”

All progressives use that argument to say original intent is not important. That is the argument the “Brady Bunch” wants to use in saying the Second Amendment does not protect my present day right to carry weapons for personal protection of myself and others such as you if we were together when terrorists devils attack.

That is also the same tactic Liberals and Progressives use to interpret Scripture. Original intent is important in both governmental documents and interpreting Scripture.

You cannot have it both ways with the Amendments. I realize we are not interpreting Scripture so I will not address that with you.

I will address it with Chris Johnson.

Chris, I think you need to consider the context of the Scripture passages you used above. In using Scripture to validate a point one must remember context is King. The use of a Text out of context is simply out of context.

Original intent is very important.

cb

cb, here is the more defined context of the passage you inquired / Romans 13:1-7

The gospel church is to be characterized by its obedience to civil government and by its submission to its authority as God-ordained.

The Jews historically rebelled against foreign rule. Rome was beginning to lose its patience with the Jews. They had already been forced to leave Rome at least once (Acts 18:2). Rome would soon attack and destroy Jerusalem, and they would also soon be feeding Christians to the lions in their coliseums. If it were at one time to the advantage of the church to be associated with Judaism (see Acts 18:12-17), this day would soon be over. While Christians should never set themselves out to overthrow government, they should be especially diligent to show their submission to Rome. The church would face enough trouble without having some of its members acting as revolutionaries. Paul taught that government is God-ordained. Any government which exists is ordained of God. To resist any government is to resist God. Government is to be obeyed (unless it commands us to do that which God has clearly commanded otherwise), and the price of government—taxes—is to be paid.

I would really like to see your view…. if not here email to chris.johnson@fmc-na.com

Thanks,
Chris

B. Diddy,

As you can see Wes has brought us back to original intent. I was counting on his entry into this little debate.

B. Diddy, you are correct when you say “original intent does not eliminate the need for interpretative discretion.”

That is so true. Therefore, how can you say you “do not care about original intent”? Surely to be as correct as possible in interpretative discretion one would have to give due diligence to seeking an understanding of the original intent of any historic document if one seeks to apply its principles or even its spirit to a contemporary action.

I feel you are too hasty in saying you do not care about original intent. Surely you did not mean to say you ignore historical data that would give you insight as to the intent of those who autographed the original document.

If you do how is interpretative discretion possible? In no way am I accusing you of this, but it would sem that if one does not investigate original intent one may as well flip a coin for an interpretation of any historical document. For that matter one should flip a coin to understand any document written by another person no matter its age if original intent is relevant only to the person or persons writing the document.

cb

Brother Joe,

This post has caused me to lose a little sleep and I think I have finally realized why. (I am a little slow you know). So, I am glad you posted it….it did hit a nerve and re-kindled the flame a bit, but probably not for the reason Ronnie would have liked.

I think I understand what Ronnie is trying to put forth, (I do not doubt his passion for the Lord one bit) and even why he might want someone to be concerned about his passion on this issue, but after finally listening to the entire sermon, it dawned on me that this is really no sermon at all.

I could almost see Joel Olsteen raise his bible to the sky and shout “this is my bible…..and I will never, never, never…..” you get the picture. Then Joel, puts the bible down on the podium never to be addressed again….but instead of giving us a history lesson on revisionists, the constitution, Danberry, Mayberry, and Aunt Bee….he gives us ten ways to trim the hair on your dog so everyone will be happy and healthy. The saddest part….is that there are literally thousands of upon thousands of people nodding their heads in agreement. How bizarre!

Frankly, I can’t imagine, in my wildest bad dreams,… getting in front of my small congregation and spending an hour on a topic like “beware of the revisionists”. I would have at least three men,….Lee, Terry and Bill promptly approaching me after the discourse and say “what were you thinking man,…have you gone nuts”. They would say,… “where was the Gospel in all of that minutia”. They would go on to say… “please show me Jesus, show me the power of God unto salvation, show me the Gospel, show me the beauty of Christ in his appearing, that is what we need….but, please, please, please don’t bore us with all those other things”.

Pastors are called to declare the Word of God, not to tickle the ears of their congregation to think less about their government. Quite the opposite! Be like Paul….teach them to be in submission, to render to Caesar, for the sake of the Gospel. So whether you are sitting in a jail cell or on your front porch, you know the freedom afforded by the Gospel.

My fear is that Pastors and Congregations alike, do not know the Gospel. We must preach and hear it everyday, lest we quickly forget!

Respectfully,
-Chris

I for one am glad that Romans 13:4 applies to governments and not to C.B. personally. I’d hate to see the result of him believing that he personally was “an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.”

Having said that, I agree with this comment by him. I’ve heard many people warn of the danger of being “so heavenly-minded that you’re of no earthly good.” Ignoring our responsibility before the earthly authorities “instituted by God” is a step down that road.

Brother CB,

You know that you lost B Diddy with your clear, concise, and correct exposition of Romans, don’t you? :>)

Brother Chris,

You have just witnessed a master at his trade.

Blessings,
Tim

Oh, ….yes Tim….

“you darn baptists”

Boy, I messed that last phrase up! I meant to say that the first ammendment insures freedom for religion and freedom from religion.

Well, CB I’m not really sure how to reply to this assertion. Do you really want government meddling in religion? We can’t really have freedom for religion if we don’t have freedom from religion.

The government relies on force and coercion to ensure that people do what is right does it not? If you do what the government deems is not right you will be forced to conform.

George Truett said, in his sermon Baptists and religious Liberty “Christ’s religion needs no prop of any kind from any worldly source, and to the degree it is thus supported is a milstone hanged about its neck.”

John Leland and Isaac Backus worked long and hard to secure the fact that there would not only be no national church, but that there would be no state churches of any kind.

The strict separationist position never means that Christians don’t influence government, it means that they don’t institutionalize religion and have the government give it aid. As Truett said “religion needs no prop of any kind.”

We do not need the government to help us we just need it to stay out of our way and let us do what Christ calls us to do.

Micheal Dain,

Did you read my comment? My statement was: “The First Amendment insures freedom for religion and freedom from a state “chosen and mandated” religion.

Notice the words: “chosen and mandated”

You said: the “first amendment insures freedom for religion and freedom from religion.”

There is a difference. Actually there is a great difference.

The First Amendment provides freedom for the citizens of this nation to practice religion or not to practice religion. It also provides a provision that the state cannot chose a religion for its citizens to practice. It cannot mandate citizens of this nation to practice or not practice religion.

That is the provision of the First Amendment. Frankly, I cannot understand how you intrpreted my comment to suggest, in any way, that I would want the government “meddling in religion.”

That is not what I said. Thus far in our nation’s history our government has not mandated any chosen religion upon its citizens. It has, in some cases, seemimgly, made efforts to direct its citizens not to practice religion. The First Amendment does not forbid religious people from influencing government. It does not forbid pagans from influencing government.

Even if and when the state meddles in religion as you put it that should not stop a Christian from carrying out the will of God even to the point of death. Jesus said: “If you love me, keep my commandments.” If I were to allow the state to stop me from following Christ it may be that I am not a follower of Christ in the first place.

The authority of Christ is superior to the authority of the state. A Believer must, by nature of his faith, follow Christ first and foremost. We are admonished to obey the state only wherein it does not conflict with the commandments of Christ even if it costs us our lives.

It is by the authority of Christ we should and are accountable to challenge Kings, Queens, Dukes, Princes, and Presidents to bow before the true King of Kings for the glory of God. If we are slain in the process, so be it.

As did Paul say, we must say: “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”

We are to follow Christ no matter the cost and say to the state, may the Devil take the hindmost parts with you, as for me and my house we will serve the Lord.

Chris,

I do hope you are not in reference to me when you say “I think a lot of times we just don’t like what is being dealt out by the government (the people) and spend a lot of time “not preaching the gospel” but instesad we find a way to make it practical and sometimes get a lot fo enjoyment planning pragmatic lessons.”

For if you are it is falsehood (lie) you are promoting. I, for one among many, have preached the gospel in the face of the gun. I shared with you as I did yesterday because you used Text out of context. If you did nto take it well I can be no more concerned with that than I would be alolowed to if you were the King of the United States and I was a mere surf. Truth is truth and it will stand when the world is on fire and the United States (the people) , in general, are burning in Hell.

cb

CB,

I think that we are talking past one another.

You said “The First Amendment provides freedom for the citizens of this nation to practice religion or not to practice religion”

This is certainly what I meant when I said freedom for religion and freedom from religion. I might disagree that the government encourages us not to practice our religion. A secular state does not take a stand one way or another over whether its citizens practice a religion or not. In this country I am free to practice my own religion and follow my own conscience. My neighbor is free to practice religion or not to practice any religion at all if he so chooses. I should not use the government to coerce my understanding of religion on my neighbor. The so-called “blue laws” are an example. When a state tells a business that it cannot open on Sunday then it is forcing religion on that person because not everyone follows the proscriptions about not working on the Sabbath.

My statement that we should not want the government anywhere near religion is my understanding of the free exercise clause of the first ammendment. “The government shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

I really don’ t see a difference between my statement about freedom from religion and your statement that the government should not “mandate” as state religion.

Perhaps I have been more clear this time. I really don’t think that we disagree, but we are not on the same wavelenght here.

Michael

Micheal Dain,

Would you agree this nation was founded upon the Judeo-Christian ethic?

Are you aware of the various and, in fact, several occurences of state, and a few times federal, government infringing upon the civil rights of a citizen or citizens relating to the First Amendment as it relates to religious practice?

Such violations of religious liberty have been validated even on county and city government levels.

Do you believe we are accountable as men of God to educate our congregations as to their civic duties as the people of God in relation to civil government?

Do you believe Christians have an accountability to influence government and the leaders of government as to the gospel and the gospel’s call upon rulers to rule fairly and just?

Are we are also responsible before God to hold our nation’s government accountable as an agent of God in seeking the highest of morality in all decisions affecting all people?

Please remember there is no such thing as an amoral law or legislative action. Any action a nation’s government enacts is either of a rightly moral nature or of a wrongful moral nature. No decision is neutral in its moral substance.

Government either takes the “high road” or the “low road.” We as believer are to make every effort to influence government to always take the highest course of morality possible in any action affecting the welfare of all citizens. The highest course for any government is always in accord with the Judeo-Christian ethic. For such is founded on the very Word of God itself.

Would you agree with the afore stated concepts?

BTW, we are not, or at least I am not, talking about preaching the gospel versus preaching civil religion or social reformation.

Men of God are to always promote the gospel above all things. That should be a given.

Preaching civil religion or social reformation is for Liberation Theologians,communists, anarchists, terrorists, Hippies, Tree-huggers, socialists, godless liberals and neo-orthodox nuts and heretics

Men of God are to preach the gospel first and foremost or die in the process.

cb

cb,

I may give you a run for your money in a game of golf, but I think both our goals are to preach the precious “good news” to the Glory of God with the faith He has allotted each of us.

I also agree with you in that we can and should influence government.

A case in point: One of our Pastors happens to work full-time for the State of Tennessee, Attorney General’s Office,… where he spends his time defending “us” the tax payers. He has been in a fight for the last two months to keep taxes off the backs of individuals in the state …where the rate inducer (Energy Company) is taking advantage of the law. He was successful and “us” the people get to keep more of the money that is earned and the church is better off in that regard as they are more able to support the work of the gospel ministry with money.

Just one small example from the hills of Tennessee,
Thanks for all your clarifications,
-Chris

Micheal Dain,

Remember I said our nation’s Founding Fathers based the foundations of this nation on the Judeo-Christian ethic. I did not say we are or ever have been a Christian nation.

That would be no more true than to say our Founding Fathers were all Christians. They were not. Some were. Some were not. Yet, in their culture, education, and moral compass they all spoke, wrote and no doubt thought in terms of a Judeo-Christian ethic.

Their actions and life-style presented that some did not know Christ or that they were not living for Christ in their daily lives.

As I said, the United States has never been a Christian nation. It is in God’s wonderful grace He has blessed us so very much. It is not upon our merit, for we are now a neo-pagan nation if ever such a nation existed.

You did not interact with all the questions I have ask of you. Naturally, you are free not to do so. You are an American.

You did mention the BJC. Therefore, I would like to ask you to answer one question if you will? Were you supportive of the work of the BJC during the time James Dunn was at its helm?

I am very familiar with Felix Mantz. A man could not have attended the institutions I did and not be familiar with such unless he slept almost every day in class.

In no way did I advocate making the United States a Christian Empire. That was not my point. My point was we are to challenge King and surf alike to bow before Jesus. We are to influence government. We are not to be influenced by government. We have the higher calling.

You did mention the German National Church. The German National Church as other denominations in Germany failed not basically due to governmental entanglement, but due to not being properly “entangled” with God and His Word long before the “little artist” rose to power. Had they been as they should have been with God far more would have stood than the comparatively few that did. When Hitler took control of Germany thre was a church on every corner. That sounds much like the country I live in does it not?

cb

Micheal Dain,

Thank you for an honest answer. I greatly respect you for it. I am sure we do not share the same political or theological views, but let it be known I thank you for stating openly who you are. We are in a time when many SBC folk speak out both sides of their mouths usually depending on the way the wind is blowing. You do not seem to be one of them.

You have presented the reason we are probably on different wavelengths.

I, too, engaged James Dunn many times when I was in Virginia. He was fearless. I admit I wrote and spoke to every person I could to see him go. I do think the SBC is better for him leaving to a point. The trade for Richard Land was a bad one. Wherein James seemed to advocate everything I could not stand, Richard seem only to continually blow smoke.

Fighting with James Dunn was very educational. Reading what he wrote made one search for truth. Richard ‘s writing makes one yawn.

Dunn was wrong most of the time. I still have not determined what Richard Land is.

cb

Wayne,

Please interpret your last comment for me. I am from the Deep South and we have few penquins here.

The only one I ever watched much was the one that used to fight with Batman on TV when I was a kid.

cb