« Guest Author: Rev. John Mann | Main | Pray For Alan Cross’ Son Caelan »
Interview with Dr. Frank Cox
Posted by Scott Gordon | February 21, 2008
As has already been reported by Baptist Press, Dr. Frank Cox has announced his willingness to be nominated for consideration as President of the Southern Baptist Convention. Peter Lumpkins had the privilege of interviewing Dr. Cox recently, and it is our privilege to share the audio with you. We here at SBC Today hope that this interview will allow many within our convention who may not know much about Dr. Cox to have the opportunity to get to know him a little better.
Dr. Frank Cox has been the Pastor of North Metro First Baptist Church in Lawrenceville, Georgia, since 1980. A native of Tallahassee, Florida, Dr. Cox is a graduate of Mercer University in Atlanta, earned his Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and received his Doctor of Ministry from Luther Rice Seminary in Atlanta. Pastor Cox has had the unique privilege of pastoring North Metro First Baptist Church for 27 years.
Pastor Cox has held many positions of leadership including President of the Georgia Baptist Convention and 1st Vice President of the Southern Baptist Convention. He is much sought out speaker who has preached at many Conferences and Universities including the SBC Pastors Conference and Liberty University. In addition to speaking Dr. Cox is a published author of Trusting God’s Heart, the story of sickness and death of his first wife, Debbie, and what God taught him through grief, and how God restored his joy.
Pastor Cox is married to Mary. They have three children: daughter Kristen; sons Stephen (wife, Brooke) and Jonathan. Dr. Cox’s hobbies include reading and travel.
We hope you will be encouraged by what you hear from the heart of this gracious man of God.
Frank Cox Interview: Topics: Audio, Interviews, SBC Issues |
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:04 am
Way to go ‘Southern Baptist Minister Peter Lumpkins’!
Great interview bringing great insight into the heart of this man.
I agree with Junior Hill (won’t that shock some)…Dr. Cox is a man after God’s own heart…and ‘a Southern Baptist’s Southern Baptist.’
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:13 am
Brother Peter Lumpkins,
Thank you for your pinch hit for the SBC Today team. You have knocked one out of the park with this interview. :>)
Dr. Cox certainly laid out how the BF&M should be viewed, even in light of the Garner Motion. He does a great job dealing with Calvinism as well.
Blessings,
Tim
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:48 am
Great interview. It gives great insight into what Dr. Cox is all about.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:52 am
Brothers,
You are much too kind. Dr. Cox is one of the most genuine guys with whom I’ve conversed. He’s the kind of guy that you’d just want to go down to the creek, stick a pole in the water, sit back and talk.
Surely, if one knows this man, I cannot fathom why anyone else would even consider allowing their name to be entered for President of the SBC.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Peter,
Well, for one, because a democracy almost necessitates choices when elections are concerned. If not, what is the point in voting? Second, since the word on the street is that Dr. (is that a Ph.D. or a D.Min.?) Cox was said to have been ‘anointed’ this week at the ExComm/Great Commission Council meeting(s), maybe many within the SBC just flat out reject being ‘told’ who is the best candidate and look forward to another choice (regardless of who the establishment candidate might be, this or any other year).
Bill
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
I guess I didn’t read the article with as much clarity as I should. Dr. Cox earned a D.Min from Luther Rice. That speaks for itself in the academic world. That is no assault on his character, but simply an observation the quality of his education. I have no problem with those earning D.Mins (and have some as friends), but they are no Dr.’s, for sure.
Bill
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Concerning the Garner motion, Frank Cox seems to have done a Al Mohler or a Paige Patterson. Instead of taking the document for what it says, he is going to choose to ignore it. The messengers voted it in and once again with much political talk, he dismissed it. Smooth, but obvious.
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Peter,
When are you ever going to learn?
You said; “He is the kind of a guy that you’d would just want to go down to the creek, stick a pole in the water, sit back and talk.”
Are you going to say right before the whole world Frank Cox is a “Redneck” and would probably be a cornbread eater also?
cb
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Bill Kiffin,
That was a pretty arrogant post (#6). I have seen the work D. Mins have to do and i think they have earned Dr.
By the way there are more than one candidates running, no one is telling you who to vote for.
Bill
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:25 pm
I found Dr. (oops, sorry is that just Mr., Brother or what - anyway) I found Dr. Cox’s statements concerning the CP and the Garner Motion both refreshing and encouraging. What an example to all of us concerning our support for Southern Baptist work.
So far as the Garner motion - our agencies have all worked with the BFM as a minimal statement for years (for example, the IMB not appointing those who have been divorced). This has never been a problem in the past and shouldn’t be one today. After all, the BFM is a statement of faith - not a creed. I wasn’t in San Antonio but I watched online and I applaud men like Drs. Mohler and Patterson.
My only concerns are his statements concerning those of us who are reformed. Does he believe that those of us you are reformed are not biblicists? That’s what it sounds like when he and others make that statement. I am just as much a biblicist as he is and in some cases I believe even more so.
Also, I have never had a church express a problem with my theology - even when I didn’t fully understand that my theology was “calvinistic.” The church I pastor now doesn’t have a problem with my theology. Some of them do have a problem with the fact that I am such a biblicist (would you ordain a man as a deacon whose wife is a Church of Christ or allow an open homosexual to sing a special?). We need to face the fact that a lot of people are just having trouble with good biblical theology today - and then just blaming it on those flaming calvinists (btw - I don’t know of any hyper-calvanists in the SBC).
To Bill Kiffin - friend, what degree do YOU hold?
WesInTex (just a simple little D.Min.)
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:31 pm
CB
I think Peter is going to stay away from food statements.
Robin
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:35 pm
To all -
The second sentence of the third paragraph should read, “Does he believe that those of us who (not “you”) are reformed are not biblicists? Sorry, must have been that poor education I received!
Brother Peter
Wonderful job on the interview btw. I wonder though - you wrote: “Surely, if one knows this man, I cannot fathom why anyone else would even consider allowing their name to be entered for President of the SBC.” Would you not have also said the same thing concerning Dr. Mohler? I certainly would, and not just because of his position on reformed theology. Talk about a great spokesman for Southern Baptists. Maybe in a couple of years …
Bless ya brother.
February 22nd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Bill Kraft,
I didn’t mean to be arrogant. I’m sorry if it came across that way. I too have seen the work D.Min’s do, and it is not doctoral work. On top of that, Luther Rice is not so much a bastion of academic excellence. I’ve known D.Min. students from Luther Rice so my criticism isn’t just hearsay.
And I am aware that there are more than one candidate that will be nominated this summer. My statement was a direct response to Peter Lumpkin’s question of why would anyone want to run against such a man as Frank Cox.
Bill
February 22nd, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Wes,
Please don’t read my words as a slap against those who have earned D.Min.s. Many work very hard for such a degree. However, there is a vast difference between a professional degree and an academic degree. One is practical but with (usually) little research while the other is predicated on substantial research. In such a regard, the former (in my opinion and that of John Piper) should not be conferred the title Dr. while the latter should.
And to answer your question, I hold multiple academic degrees that are both higher than an M.Div. or a D.Min.
Bill
February 22nd, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Men,
Degrees are good, wisdom is better…
Proverbs 2:6 For the LORD gives wisdom; From His mouth come knowledge and understanding.
Study hard!
Blessings,
Chris
February 22nd, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Wes in Texas,
(With tongue firmly in cheek.) If you really want to earn respect, you have to move back to campus and live off your wife for 5 years.
February 22nd, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Chris,
Good word.
February 22nd, 2008 at 6:33 pm
WesInTex,
I would tend to agree. Too many people use the term biblicist to eschew any part of the controversy. If being biblicist solved the matter then we should all come to the same conclusions…we should all be one even as Christ and the Father are one. Yet, we live in a fallen world and work with fallen though regnerate minds. Calvinism and Arminianism are two clearly staked positions from a biblicist framework.
It’s when someone claims to be a biblicist but frames one’s convictions, especially for ministry practice, based on personal preferences that I would have a definite problem.
If this is the only point of differentiation I have with DR. Cox, then I am quite well. After all that I have heard from DR. Cox, I feel he is the right man for the right time.
Sola Gratia!
February 22nd, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Bill Kiffin
I am sorry to go CB Scott on you here friend, but you come across like a pompous well…let’s just say pompous preacher. Your obvious dislike for Dr. Cox is very transparent and again in the words of C.B. Scott
I’ll be your huckleberry
Jack Maddox
February 22nd, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Jack,
There is no reason to apologize for ‘going CB Scott’ on me. I find him to be a very godly man and loving husband. I’m sorry to disappoint you, but i have nodisdain for Frank Cox. What I do have a problem with is a select few anointing a candidate, a blogger insinuating that anyone would be foolish to run against him because he’s such a fine candidate, and people believing that a D.Min. is a degree worth conferring the title “Dr.”
I’m grateful for Cox’s ministry. He is an example to many preachers within our convention, who claim 20 years of experience but, in actuality, have 3 years of ministry at 6 or 7 different places. I applaud his 27 years of contiguous ministry at the same church.
He appears to be too much of an insider for me to give him my vote, but that doesn’t mean i’m spiteful towards him. You have misjudged me tremendously.
And you can be my huckleberry anytime you want
February 22nd, 2008 at 8:59 pm
It is neither the degree, nor the school that confers the degree, that truly defines a “doctor.” Rather, “doctor” means “teacher,” and if a man faithfully proclaims God’s Word, he deserves to be lauded by his fellow Christians. Thank you, Dr. Cox, for staking your ministry and your leadership upon the sufficient Word of God.
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Dr. Yarnell,
Do you believe a D.Min from Luther Rice deserves the same title as a D.Phil. from Oxford?
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Dr. Yarnell,
Good statement given with understanding…..and in full agreement with Paul.
2 Corinthians 2:17; 3:1-3 “For we are not like many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God. 3:1 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some, letters of commendation to you or from you? (2) You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; (3) being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.”
There will always be titles conferred by competing agencies, but none of the titles will ever translate into the wisdom necessary for loving one another.
Blessings,
Chris
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Bill
I have not misjudged you for I have not judged you at all…I have simply commented on your obvious arrogance and disdain towards those you seemingly deem inferior. It is you sir who are misjudging. It is obvious that your political leanings sway your thoughts and attitudes towards Bro. Cox. Not only do you insult men and women who have gleaned from the ministry Of LRS, but now you insult men who following God’s call have found their ministry more itinerant than what they themselves would have preferred, however answering the call of God they have gone where He bids.
jrm
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Jack,
You did judge me. You claimed that i had a dislike for Frank Cox. You had no idea what i thought/think of him. And, whether you believe me or not, I have no disdain for him. And, again, you are wrong in assuming that I think he (or anyone else) is inferior to me. As i stated earlier, i am grateful for his example in ministry. No disdain in that statement (but i’m sure you’ll try to find some, since you know me better than myself).
And yes, i was making a stab towards those who move from church to church without making a substantial investment of time. Does God call some to move from church to church more quickly than I prefer? Certainly. Do many pastors move from church to church more often than they should because it’s a bigger church/paycheck/promotion? Definitely. There is no insult in speaking truthfully.
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Chris,
No argument from me on the last sentence of your most recent post.
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Gentlemen, remarkable cutting edge reporting from this site. These interviews are phenomenal. I am pleased that Peter’s boldness has survived his many years in ministry.
There is something so wonderful about listening to the spontaneity of an interview. Very telling are Dr. Cox’s candid, open and immediate answers to the hardball questions posed to him. That is one quality necessary in a man who will be a spokesman for the convention should he be elected president. selahV
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:02 pm
This is the first fight I have seen that takes place by “degrees.”
Usually all one has to do is call someone a name and it all breaks out at once.
How my name got caught up in the “degree” fight is a mystery to me.
I just wanted to fight over “rednecks” and “cornbread” fed Southern boys who fish with “cane poles” down by the “creek” being interviewers and being interviewed.
I was just waiting on one of them to say; “hold on a minute, while I spit this wad of “backker” away from so close to the porch so Momma won’t fuss at me when she sweeps the yard later today.”
And here you guys are fighting about Luther Rice and Oxford.
Not one of you ever even met Luther Rice and Oxford, North Carolina ain’t big enough to fight over anyway. Besides they only have three doctors in the whole town. Let’s fight over cornbread again. That was really fun and we could all get into it even if we ain’t been to the doctor lately.
cb
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Leave it to CB to infuse the discussion with his type of humor
Thanks
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:07 pm
SelahV,
Can you cook cornbread and clean the fish Peter and Frank are going to catch and then cook them up with some onions and ‘taters.
If you can, good, you know your place. If you can’t you have no business in a fight such as one over who is the best doctor; the three in Oxford, NC or Luther Rice.
cb
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Dr. Yarnell,
If I read what you are saying correctly we will never call Joel Olsteen or Paul Crouch Dr. no matter if they went to Oxford or Luther Rice or anyone of the six “real good seminaries” for that matter, right?
cb
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:15 pm
I pastored Tabbs Creek Baptist Church in Oxford, North Carolina. What a great place to raise a family among a great people.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Brother CB,
Remember that Dr. Yarnell pastored over in Oxford, NC. Isn’t that something? He pastors in Oxford and gets hi Doctorate from a university in Oxford.
:>)
Blessings,
Tim
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Great day in the mornin’, cb! I weren’t in the least concerned with the banter over who is or is not a bonafide doctor. I have no puppy to pet in that battle. I’ve known some extremely well-educated doctors, CEO’s and political figures who didn’t have the common sense to swat a fly. While on the other hand, I have known some millionaires who look like and act like those two fellas you want to talk about going fishing. And to hear them talk you’d know right quick that they hadn’t even finished the 9th grade.
That said, YES sirree, I can clean fish and make cornbread. I like my cornbread cooked with bacon grease and a hint of sugar. I like my fish bathed in egg and dredged through cornmeal. selahV
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Sorry boys and SelahV,
I have been in Prattville, Alabama working with and doing crisis counseling to people who lost most everything in a tornado this week.
I just wanted to rag a little and try to forget it.
Also, I got home last night and read about Alan Cross and his little boy Caelan who is possibly fighting cancer for the second time in his young life.
I ask you all to continue to pray for that little boy and his daddy and momma and brothers and sister.
I have read a few books myself and this is still something of the nature of things I have never understood. But, I do understand that God has given us the privilege to pray for one another and I will and I know you folks will, because in the end we all know God listens to His children when they pray earnestly.
cb
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:34 pm
cb ~~ Rag on, my brother. I rather enjoy it when you lighten up the streams. selahV
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:56 pm
selah and cb,
count me in on the cornbread and catfish thing. just tell me where to show up.
bill k,
even if i had a d. phil., i’d still just wanna be called “david.”
and, anyone who has earned a dr. degree can be called dr. we’ll all just be sure to call fellas like you….”high dr.” would that be distinguishing you from the normal dr.’s enough? or, maybe we could call fellas like you…”the right reverend dr.?” maybe that’d be better?
david
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Volfie, You’re in charge of the sweet tea. I’m not cooking unless Peter persuades the good Dr. Cox to join us all, though.
selahV
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:02 pm
David,
No need to differentiate between ‘high’ dr. and regular dr. Simply give the title only to those who have demonstrated academic research, instead of conferring such a degree upon those who write ministry projects titled “Towards the Selection of a Specific Group of Men at First Baptist Church, Anytown USA to Develop Better Tithing Habits.”
There is a difference between practical research and academic research. Hence, there should be a differentiation among titles conferred.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:19 pm
high reverend dr. bill k.,
i believe that a differentiation already exists. one is called a d. min. the other is called a d. phil. also, another is called a m.d.
right?
david
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Brother Dr. Bill Kiffin,
I pray that you take this in the spirit of love that I say it.
Blow it out your ear. Much learning has made you mad!
:>)
Seriously, let’s not focus on the difference in academic PhD. and DMin. I do not believe anyone with DMin is trying to persuade differently. This post is not about the “degrees”, it is about the statments that Dr. Cox made. It does appear by your reaction that Dr. Cox has made some statements that you cannot counter, thus you take this direction in your argument.
As for the difference in LRS and DPhil from Oxford, I believe one that has such a degree from Oxford has spoken well in this thread. As one with a LRS DMin. he may not weigh in on the subject, but I believe a man by the name of Charles Stanley possess one of those LRS DMin. degrees.
As to Dr. Cox’s degree being from LRS, I can only say one thing. He took a church with 100 people and God used him to grow it to over 1700 in Worship. It does seem that LRS did a good job training Dr. Cox.
Blessings,
Tim
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:37 pm
David,
The difference you notice is one in degrees. I am arguing for a difference in titles. You seem to miss the distinction between the two.
Tim,
I’m not really sure how “blow it out your ear” can be said in a tone of love, but i’ll take your word for it. And, to be honest with you, i never got around to listening to the interview. I made a remark to Peter Lumpkins (who never responded to my criticism of his statement) and asked a question in my post #5. I followed up with an answer to my own question in my post #6. My desire to take the conversation in this direction has nothing to do with Cox’s statements. If i get around to listening to it, there may be some things with which i would disagree with. at that point, i’d make a critical analysis. Until then, i’m just reflecting what others (Piper) has already put into print.
And no one said LRS doesn’t produce good pastors, but maybe that kind of training came from his time at NOBTS, or even his study of the Scripture and his obedience to the Spirit. No need to give credit to LRS if it’s not due.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:46 pm
high reverend superior dr. bill k.,
did you not hear me call you….high reverend dr.? maybe thats the distinction we should have? we could call the no dr. degree ministers “non dr. bro. insertname.” then, we could call the d. min. guys… “low dr. insername.” then, we could call you really smart fellers…..”most high dr. insertname?” how’s that?
david
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:49 pm
btw, everyone….from now on i wanna be called “graduated by the skin of his teeth from lowly ut…then graduated by the skin of his teeth from mid america baptist seminary david.” or, yall can just call me, “david,” for short.
david
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:49 pm
David,
One of the differences between us is that i am trying to have a serious conversation and you are simply speaking nonsense.
How’s that?
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:54 pm
d.phil. bill,
that’s fine! but, there’s some truth in the nonsense. a wise man will see it.
david
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:56 pm
“David” for short,
I’ll look for truthful nonsense each time i read your comments.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:00 am
One degree right or one degree left can alter M.O.A. at 500 yards far too often and cause a miss which can get one killed by that which he missed.
One thing is a fact though. If a guy works hard enough and really knows his rifle and scope well he can hit the target center mass most every time and live a long and healthy life.
The rifle don’t care if the guy is a M.D., Ph.D., D.Min. L.L.D. or D.D. or M.S. (Mule Skinner) If the guy knows that rifle well enough it will do the job for him every time.
I think that is what Dr. Yarnell was saying in his own particular way a moment ago.
If a guy knows the Word and preaches the Word, the Word will do what it is intended to do no matter the degree of the man.
The Word does not do well if it is “preached Off a degree to the left or right.” It must be cared for and preached by someone who knows it and has worked with it and spent time alone with it.
It matters little in the end about the degree or where one got the degree if it is legitimate.
Can the guy shoot straight enough to save lives is all I want to know if I am in a war and he is on my side.
We are in a war. The biggest of all wars. All I want to know is can the guy preach the Word in truth, filled with the Spirit. If he can, I want him with me in this war. If he can’t or won’t ’cause he don’t know the Word or because he is a coward or a liberal who has abandoned the Word for some “new weapon” I don’t want him with me and I don’t care how many degrees he has or where he got them. He will get me hurt and cause many to go to Hell.
Did we not already fight a war about that anyway?
Take this as a lesson from the book entitled: THE RIFLE MADE EASY FOR PREACHERS.
cb
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:06 am
Bill,
Just because another chooses not to run does not lessen democracy. Nor did I “insinuate another would be foolish to do so.’ If I implied that, please produce the language. I was expressing my view. If you do not agree, I think that’s just peachy.
As for your strange rejection of the title of “Dr” for those who pursue the doctor of ministry degree, please take that up with the academic accrediting agencies who approve such doctoral degrees. Until that’s addressed, your point is simply absurd.
Dr. Cox offered substance about some significant issues Southern Baptists face. And, instead of discussing those, you fill up the thread with what you believe to be significant and pertinent to what we face today–whether or not it’s meaningful to call a D.Min recipient “Dr” or not. Perhaps someone should consider writing a resolution about that.
With that, I am…
Peter
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:17 am
Peter,
You wrote “I cannot fathom why anyone else would even consider allowing their name to be entered for President of the SBC.” According to your statement, it seems you find it ill-advised to oppose him. You said you can’t fathom it. What else does that mean?
I’m not sure why you find my rejection of D.Min’s as being Dr’s as ’strange’. But (using your words), that’s just your opinion. And, according to you, until accrediting agencies and schools change the nomenclature, then my point is absurd. I was unaware that absurdity always rested with the minority (of course, don’t tell Luther or John Smyth that).
And I was not the one ‘filling up’ this thread. I made two statements (comments #5 and #6). All other comments were (to my memory) responses to posts that questioned my thoughts. When you stop answering those who question you, then I’ll do the same. And, if you feel writing a resolution will address this issue, then be my guest and compose one for us all to vote on. If you were to write such a resolution, “I cannot fathom why anyone else would even consider allowing their [resolution] to be entered for [consideration at] the SBC.”
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:25 am
If Bill is consistent, then he will call his Dentist “Mr.” and his Optometrist “Mr.” because neither went to medical school and neither engaged in “academic” research. I guess that Ed.D. highschool guidance counselor will have to be “Ms.” from here on out.
Good grief.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:30 am
Stuart (or Charlie Brown?),
I don’t recall saying only those persons earning a Ph.D. should be called Dr. I simply said persons earning a D.Min. should not. It is not inconsistent (but actually precision) that allows me to make a distinction between academic Dr.’s and medical Dr.’s. As far as Ed.D.’s are concerned, I believe they are (like Ph.D.’s) required to do original, academic research (something not required by D.Min.s).
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:32 am
WesInTex
Actually, I possess little but respect for Dr. Mohler. No public figure among Southern Baptists stands taller than Dr. Mohler as able cultural critic of secularism today.
When he was trampled under foot by the Enid/SBCOutpost squad, I hope, under God, it evident I sided with the voice of reason there.
Also, when Dr. Mohler’s name was first released as a candidate, I made it as clear as I knew how that not only was he a worthy man of God, his pronounced Calvinism could not be used “against” him.
Hope that helps, my brother. Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:37 am
d.phil. bill,
are you kin to william kiffin, a 16th century particular baptist? and, if so, was he a ph.d.? or, ahem, one of those d.min.’s?
anyway, any relation?
david
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:45 am
“David” for short,
Unless you are following Patterson’s “Baptists descended from Anabaptists”, there were no Baptists in the 16th century. I believe you are referencing William Kiffin, the 17th century British Baptist. And I don’t think he earned either a Ph.D. or a D.Min. (but thanks for asking). As to any relationship to him, i’m not sure. i’m not one for tracing my family tree. If i followed some former SWBTS leaders, i could trace my Baptist roots back to Jesus, John, and the Jordan River. But that’s just boring Baptist history.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:50 am
I think William Kiffin would puke to witness Baptists arguing the credential value of various degrees. How Anglican of you.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:53 am
Point, Set, Match for Dr. Barber!
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:54 am
heavens to betsy, i got the century wrong. please forgive my ignorance.
david
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:56 am
Gentlemen (& others…you decide [see even a Calvinist can affirm choice]),
What the uptight degree counter has done by his own admission is to hijack this thread. I am going to respectfully ask that he get back to the topic, actually listen to the interview and respond to the material presented, or else he will be left to talk about his doctoral musings all by himself. Apparently my brother, Tim, was right (mark one down for a NC boy, too!)…when you don’t like the issues make it personal.
That being said…thank you DR. Yarnell for your clarity…thank you right reverend MABTS Brother (your ‘kind’ are definitely welcome here!)…and thank you DR. Cox for graciously consenting to speak with ‘Southern Baptist Pastor’ Peter Lumpkins. I simply hope those who visit here to listen to what DR. Cox has to say and wish to engage in intelligent conversation about the issues at hand for our next SBC President are not distracted by the divergent musings which have transpired.
Sola Gratia!
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:57 am
AND…thank you DR. Barber for weighing in, too. Knew we could count on you!
BY GRACE ALONE!
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:01 am
Bart,
Maybe, but he’d also puke to hear Jerry Vines preach against Calvinism.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:04 am
Dear Bro. Bill Kiffin, Is there anything Pastor Cox said in his interview that you found noteworthy? selahV
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:06 am
Scott,
I think you are confusing my statements with accusations from Peter. I never admitted to ‘hijacking’ the thread. I only posted comments #5 and #6 unprovoked. All other comments were answers/responses to those who questioned what i was saying. Sorry you have misunderstood this, as well as the accusation that i was making things personal about Frank Cox. You must have forgotten or carelessly overlooked the many comments i made in this thread affirming many quality aspects of Frank Cox.
And thanks for noting that i’m uptight. I hadn’t noticed myself, but maybe i’m missing some fiber in my diet. I’ll take your diagnosis to heart.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:06 am
uh….Bill…thats Dr. Jerry Vines….another LRS Grad
(sorry Scott, I could not resist)
jrm
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:09 am
SelahV,
That’s a good question. Unfortunately, as i said earlier, i’ve not had the opportunity to listen to the interview. i made two comments earlier today and have spent the rest of the day defending my comments. I might have a chance to listen tomorrow. if so, i would be more than happy to report back on any (and all) thing(s) he said that i could agree with.
But again, i reiterate (as i said in my latest comment), these baseless accusations that i’m making personal attacks towards Frank Cox are ridiculous. I’ve said as many positive things about him as anyone has.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:10 am
Scott,
I’m waiting for you to chastise Jack for hijacking this thread. It’s an outrage. Let him muse by himself as we discuss the real issues.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:11 am
Bill,
First, you said my words were “insinuating that anyone would be foolish to run against him”. I did not write that.
Then, you changed it to “you find it ill-advised to oppose him.” I did not write that either.
Then after twice placing wrong words in my mouth, you finally ask what I meant. What a weird way of conversing.
Secondly, you write “And, according to you, until accrediting agencies and schools change the nomenclature, then my point is absurd. I was unaware that absurdity always rested with the minority…”
Bill, again, that is not what I wrote. I wrote: “As for your strange rejection of the title of “Dr”… please take that up with the academic accrediting agencies who approve such doctoral degrees.” Where in this statement is there a faint hint about “accrediting agencies and schools chang[ing] the nomenclature”?
My point was decidedly not the change of “nomenclature.” Rather, it was the conferring of doctor of ministry degrees. Indeed nomenclature is your gripe–calling someone “Dr.” who, in your personal opinion, do not deserve the title.
The absurdity would be the academic accrediting agencies & schools conferring a doctoral degree–albeit a doctor of ministry but a doctor nonetheless–possessing all the “rights and privileges thereof” but refusing to acknowledge the recipient as “Dr.”
Similarly, when the academic community–including the accrediting agencies and the conferring schools–acknowledges a doctor of ministry recipient as “Dr” but some such as yourself, because of some personal aversion to it, questions such, in my view, not only is strange but resembles the same type of absurdity above.
Nor is it just my opinion. I am stating the view of the academic community. If I’m not, then produce my error. You, on the other hand, are stating your personal opinion contra the accrediting agencies and academic community. I think it’s great you can do so though it does not make your assertion any less absurd.
Given that, Bill, it would be nice if you would deal with either the words I actually wrote or with the interview and what Dr. Cox actually said.
I do not desire to question your purpose here, but as I read back through the thread, have you even seriously conversed about anything in the actual interview?
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:13 am
“David” for short,
I found the truth in your nonsense (#59). I must be getting wiser.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:14 am
Bro. Kiffin, Well, after a good night’s rest and a big breakfast (add a bit of fiber if you feel it is necessary), you sit down with a big old mug of coffee and listen to that interview. I found Pastor Cox very engaging and look forward to hearing what you have to say once the titles are in the back of the stream. selahV
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:18 am
SelahV,
Thanks. I suspect you’re the first person to neither accuse me of personally attacking Frank Cox or being malcontent. I do look forward to listening to the interview and I will report back (though i suspect you might be the only one who would care to read any thoughts i might have on it).
Blessings to you
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:20 am
Hey Bill
Let me share with you why your getting so much grief brother. Your mean…at least your statements here are. You come across as an arrogant man who enjoys insulting others and their accomplishments. Your last shot at David makes my point. Perhaps the problem dear brother is that you think a little highly of yourself? Forgive me if I seem ‘rude’…but I never did care for mean people.
jrm
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:25 am
Peter,
I interpreted your statement at first as “foolish”. After your response, I believed you to be saying one would be ill-advised. Then, believing that even that interpretation might be incorrect, i proceeded to ask you meant by not being able to fathom that someone else would wish to oppose his nomination. I apologize for misunderstanding your intent. it was not my desire.
second, i understood your statement about schools and accrediting agencies to mean you found my opinion absurd unless they changed their policies. Again, if i misunderstood you, my apologies.
I’d carry on, but my wife just arrived from work and i’d like to spend the rest of the evening with her. She’s prettier than all of you
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:28 am
Bill
You just redeemed yourself with me by choosing your wife over us! I take it all back!!! Your ok and seemingly extremely wise : )
jrm
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:28 am
Scott Gordon,
Are you going to thank me. I asked Peter the only question from the actual interview.
Also, I said what Malcolm said far better than he said it and with far more flair any far more words.
All Bart did was talk about “pukin’.” He made no mention of cornbread whatsoever.
I bet you don’t even eat cornbread. You eat tarts. You are just a bigot against me because I do not eat tarts and am not afraid to eat cornbread in public.
I knew something was wrong with you when they brought you in so sneaky like they did. Your last name is Gordon. You probably wear a jacket with Jeff Gordon’s car on it.
What one can learn just by listening to an interview and reading things into what other people say.
I have you number, Scott Gordon and I ain’t gonna let you forget it.
BTW, You call yourself Scott. Like Alexander said to the guy a few years back when he was taking over the known world.
“You straighten up or change your tart eatin’, cornbread hatin’ name.”
cb
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:28 am
TO ALL..
It’s way past my bedtime (I’m getting old..like Tim & Wes). Let’s put this to bed, give BK a chance to actually follow through with his expressed desire to be on topic and then let the discussion proceed from that point.
Thanks to all for an interesting…albeit digressionary…discussion thus far. I look forward to hearing more about everyone’s thoughts on the actual interview.
Sola Gratia!
…& Good Night.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:30 am
(one more and i\’m done)
Jack,
Did you notice that I had no beef with David until he started \’swinging\’ at me.
I never insulted Frank Cox. As I\’ve said before, i have said as many kind things about him as anyone on this thread has said. I never diminished his accomplishments (it is certainly an accomplishment to graduate, from whatever school or whatever degree). My point was that the title \”Dr.\” loses it\’s value when it can be given to anyone who can write a \’ministry project\’ that was shorter than my Master\’s Thesis. I don\’t find you rude. I\’m grateful for rebuke, when appropriate. However, making difficult statements that aren\’t agreed upon at this blog does not a \’mean\’ person make.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:31 am
Bill,
You come back when you can fight more. It was sure fun.
My anti-spam word is peace. Can I change it?
cb
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:37 am
SORRY.
I posted before CB ‘jumped me’…I mean ‘jumped in.’
I don’t have a Jeff Gordon jacket…it’s a Jeff Gordon hat!
Gordon is a great Scottish name…of a clan (boy that’s dangerous) known for our fightin’! BYDAND & FECHT!…and for those with seeming educational short-comings who may not be conversant with the Scotch…I mean Scottish dialect…”STAND & FIGHT”.
My number is 24…& 12…& 7 (Gordon, Staubach, & Mantle)…I’m not sure which one you have CB.
Cornbread…I can take it. Tarts…never mind.
I prefer a good slab of KC barbeque ribs from Gates, thank you very much!
OH…”Thank You.”
By Grace Alone (to keep it English…& simple)!
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:42 am
Bill,
For my part, I’m through with this ridiculous exchange. Your point is absurd, shown to be absurd and you still keep making it.
And even worse, you make it sound as though it is a “difficult” thing, almost as if you hold a controversial, yet significant position contra those on this blog. “Making difficult statements”? Oh my. ..
SBCToday,
I do trust, guys, we will experience some formidable conversation on the issues Dr. Cox clearly raised without being clogged with such meaningless blather in the future. My deepest apologies for my own contributions to it.
Grace for this night. With that, I am…
Peter
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:44 am
Is it over? Have all the Doctors of various degrees gone to bed?
Did Peter go home? Did the big one get away while he and Frank were fishing in the creek?
Oh, well. Here I am am again.
I will sing; ALL BY MYSELF, DON’T WANNA BE, ALL BY MYSELF ANYMORE.
ALL BY MYSELF, DON’T WANNA LIVE, ALL BY MYSELF ANYMORE…….
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:46 am
CB…go to bed
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:47 am
Meanwhile, while Bill shoots us his drivel about doctorate degrees or the lack thereof, we know absolutely nothing of his own education.
That is, if he even has any.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:55 am
One last thing before I go to bed.
Tone, you may be on to something.
Actually Bill Kiffin may not even be his name.
cb
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:10 am
“Actually Bill Kiffin may not even be his name.”
Imagine that!
LOL
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:11 am
Is the IP address from Louisville, KY?
February 23rd, 2008 at 7:07 am
I think the question on LRS and Oxford is Accreditation. LRS and all the other mail order degrees is not Acc. to offer Dr. Oxford is. My question why would one take a short cut. Cox, Stanley, or whoever, why would you get a degree from a non-acc degree granting institution. Of all the schools I will say this LRS is the better of the mail orders. I even had a Pastor get a degree from Southern Baptist Center for Biblical Studies. In one year he enrolled, wrote a paper over deacons in the church, and walk the stage in a Hotel ROOM in New Orleans during the convention there in the late or mid 90’s. Yea you have earned my respect to call be called dr.
that being said. Frank Cox is an excellent choice. He is one of he finest in the world. I look forward to seeing what happens in convention.
February 23rd, 2008 at 8:54 am
to all,
i got my dr. degree from a school over in possum lick, tn. i believe the name of the school was dr. degrees for those who aint really doctorin’. it took me two months. it costs me two weeks pay that i borrowed from a deacon. i had to study for two tests. i wrote three papers…single spaced….three pages each. then, i had to appear before the headmaster, dr. bubba crenshaw. he asked me a hunnert questions if he asked one. but, i passed the exam. we then went down to mama pearl’s cafe and enjoyed an all you can eat fried baloney sandwich and fried taters lunch. best sweet tea in town.
now, yall can call me, Dr. Worley.
d.phil. bill,
seriously, dr. cox earned his doctorate thru hard work as well as his d. min. studies. what degrees do you have? and where did you get them, btw?
also, is bill kiffin your real name? i’m beginning to smell a rat.
cb, do you smell the rat?
david
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:15 am
Accreditation only matters if you are trying to transfer or get another degree after the degree you got from non-accredited school. If a D. Min is the last degree you are going to pursue there is nothing wrong in getting it at LRS.
Second, a degree isn’t worth the paper it is printed on if you don’t do anything in the real world after you graduate. There are a lot of Dr.s’ & Masters graduates who haven’t amounted to anything.
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:24 am
Gentlemen,
Frank Cox is a grassroots Southern Baptist, a man in touch with the common Baptist. At the same time, we will never have anyone with more experience across the board for Convention leadership as we will with Frank Cox. Great man! Vote Frank Cox!
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:26 am
I am not sure if anyone is on to this yet or not, but William Kiffin was actually a 17th century Brit who was held some governmental positions. He was also quite active in helping Baptists gain some sense of credibility. My guess, he was much more credible than the young Southern Seminary student who is perpetrating this act of cowardice against Dr. Cox.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:13 am
Peter,
Your “accrediting agencies sign off on the DMin, therefore those holding the degree can legitimately use the title” argument breaks down when it comes to Luther Rice. LR is accredited by neither SACS nor ATS.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:19 am
Good morning to all,
I think I’ll pass on responding to recent comments attacking me and make due on my promise to selahV. With coffee cup in hand (but no breakfast), i sat down this morning and listened to his interview. I gave great attention to all that he said and took notes, so that my critique would not just be from a (somewhat) faulty memory.
Here are my thoughts (in somewhat of a chronological order as the interview progressed):
1. I am grateful for the technology that allows such interviews to take place and then be broadcast for all of us to hear. Such an interview is quite helpful in helping messengers decide who to vote for. While I felt a few of the questions did not necessarily pertain to the purpose of the interview, overall I thought they were good questions asked by Peter.
2. Concerning the Garner Motion (GM), I was disappointed at many points on what Frank Cox said. First, he seemed a bit at a loss for precision when he said the debate from the floor (as he listened to it later because he didn’t attend the convention) was either a “highlight or a lowlight”. I’m not sure why he would describe it in such a way. The debate was mostly healthy and the only time it got heated was when the question was called and many booed the chair for not allowing more debate. I don’t see what is wrong with debate on the convention floor. Second, he mentioned that the vote was not a “great mandate” (since it passed by 58%). He didn’t come out and say as much, but I took him to be insinuating that the GM lacked authority because it didn’t pass by a super-majority (just my interpretation of his words; maybe that’s not what he was saying). I have already commented on Tim Rogers’ personal blog, but I find this argument to be faulty, since rarely did any of the CR presidential nominees get more than 55% of the vote from 1979-1990 (see Tim Rogers’s blog where I make a longer argument about this and another commenter gives actual percentages). If Cox’s logic is consistent, then we shouldn’t have ever enacted a resurgence because presidential elections were not obtained by a ‘great mandate’ (note to readers: I am not saying I disagree with the CR, but only that you can’t pick and choose when it’s right/good to respect the vote of the majority). More could be said, but I think this suffices to demonstrate that I was disappointed that he did not defend the motion that was a clear majority of the convention.
3. I thought he had great things to say about churches adopting unreached people groups. I agree. I’m not sure what to think, however, about his critique of the IMB’s lack of resources/personnel to get the job done to the exclusion of a similar critique of NAMB. I’m not hinting at anything at this point, but merely offering an observation.
4. I think he said that CP% giving is down among SBC churches. However, I don’t remember reading where the overall SBC budget has been reduced in recent years. I was under the impression (i.e., just my thoughts; I didn’t look them up this morning) that CP giving is either up or at least somewhat steady. I felt he was making the correlation that since % is down, then overall giving would follow. I didn’t make the same correlation.
5. Peter’s question about the Lifeway survey on Calvinism was not as precise as it could have been (no criticism against you, Peter; I’m just making a point here). He mentioned that it was 5-10% of SBC. In fact, it was 10% of SBC pastors. Surveying pastors is much different than surveying church members. This is only my thought, but I would suspect that a similar survey of church members would yield a lower percentage of Calvinists. I found Frank Cox’s answer to Peter’s question not very helpful. Two examples will suffice. First, his term ‘Biblicist’ really doesn’t help the conversation. I suspect Tom Ascol or Al Mohler would also be delighted to describe themselves as Biblicists. Second, if he does define himself as a Biblicist, it would have been nice to hear his thoughts on the very biblical term “election”. Since it occurs frequently, in both the OT and the NT, he should be able to discuss how that term fits his Soteriology (I’m not saying he’s unable to do this; I just wish he would have). I am grateful that he says he’s not on a crusade to rid the SBC of Calvinism (I believe his words were “I’m no anti-Calvinist). At least he’s no Jerry Vines or Ergun Caner at this point. For that, I can applaud him. However, I found his use of the term hyper-Calvinism to be lacking in historical precision. It seems he fails to understand that men such as John Gill and John Ryland, Sr. were hyper-Calvinists. He makes it seem like the evangelical Calvinism of today’s SBC is tantamount to 18th century British Baptist Calvinism, which is decidedly not the case.
6. I’m not sure why Peter asked Frank Cox about Wade Burleson and the IMB Trustees (what does that have to do with being SBC president?), but I did listen closely to his answer. He linked the BoT with a church body. If his church called for a vote, and it passed, it would cause dissention for a person to ‘beat a dead horse’ after the church had spoken and that person (if he persisted), would be subject to church discipline. However, I don’t think a BoT functions in the same was as a church. A church is a covenanted group of persons while a BoT is an appointed/elected group of persons. There is no expectation of unity within a BoT. His thoughts on this question, however, did seem to contradict something he said earlier in the interview. In responding to the IMB situation, he said “Once the body speaks, at that point, it is time for all of us to walk in unity together.” However, that is precisely not what he indicated about the Garner Motion. Since it wasn’t a “great mandate”, he seemed to leave open the idea that the convention entities were not obliged to follow the voice of the people. He can’t have it both ways. Either the issue is settled and we walk in unity, or we allow the dissident group to ‘keep beating a dead horse.’
7. On the whole, I found it very enjoyable to listen to the interview. I am grateful for the time both men invested in order to provide this resource. I came away rejoicing to God for a man who has been faithful to his congregation for such a long period (I was confused if it was 27 or 28 years; the post gave one number and the interview gave another). I am grateful for his comments about small churches. He has every appearance of a Godly shepherd and I am thankful that he serves within our convention.
All things under consideration, I don’t think he would ‘garner’ my vote, however. If what I heard out of Nashville this last week is remotely true (and I have little reason to believe otherwise), Frank Cox is the anointed choice of the insiders. For that reason alone, I would not vote for him. This has nothing to do with him as a person, a pastor, or a leader. I have already made ample statements of affirmation towards him. I simply choose to stand on the principle that the convention should be open to greater transparency rather than less transparency (and that is what we have had for the better part of the last twenty-five years).
I apologize for the lack of brevity in my post. I was asked to listen to the interview and provide my thoughts. I took the request seriously and this is the shortest answer I felt I could provide that conveyed my thoughts.
Bill
P.S. And you can put the rumors to rest. I do not, nor have I ever, lived in or near Louisville. I’m no Mohlerite myself and would not have voted for him had he remained in the presidential race. Sorry to spoil your speculation.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:32 am
John Mann,
Your ‘guess’ is nowhere near the truth. I am neither young nor a student at Southern. And I would respectfully ask that you provide your definition of an ‘act of cowardice’ as I cannot refute your claim unless I know precisely what you mean. I didn’t realize I was ‘perpetrating’ anything, but I am more than willing to be educated by your thoughts on the matter.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:36 am
Walt,
I would very much like to respond to your inquiry as to why Dr. Vines and Dr. Stanley decided to get their doctorates from LRS.
It is actually very simple and it is the reason many did not use a SBC seminary (or others at the time) during that same time.
The reasons:
Charles and Jerry, along with a great host of others, believed the Bible was, in fact, the Word of the Living God from the Beginning to the Everlasting.
SBC seminaries had faculty (in droves or “herds” being a better word maybe) who did not share that position and were sadly proud of it.
Jerry and Charles did not want to waste their time and money seeking light from “flashlights” with dead batteries. It just did not make sense at the time to be a preacher of the Light and seek education from darkness.
How is that for reasons as to why so many of us went elsewhere?
Now the good news of history:
We all declared a war on darkness, won the war, got all new “flashlights” with permanent Blood bought, gospel proclaiming, Bible believing “batteries” in their energy source cylinders and now a person can go to any one of our six seminaries and not hear foolishness and sissy-boy liberalism.
Now, Walt, I ask you; Is that an answer or is that an answer? What do you think?
cb
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:43 am
CB,
Just a question for you. If biblical fidelity was the reason for going to Luther Rice (and I’m not disagreeing with you at this point) and not ease of the program, then why not obtain a D.Min. from an accredited institute of higher learning such as Mid-America?
And second, what does that say about people like Frank Cox who got his M.Div. from NOBTS just as the CR was beginning (or Mohler or Frank Page or Paige Patterson)? Did he waste his time and money? Did he come out a sissy-boy liberal?
No attack here by me, honestly. I just think these are valid questions as well.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:08 am
Bill Kiffin,
Is that you real name?
John
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:11 am
‘BK’,
Thanks for your follow through. Much appreciated.
I haven’t the time to respond to the thoroughness of your comment at present. Telling though is your comment on the one for whom you would vote. You are planted squarely in the ecumenist reform movement of our convention and therefore are predisposed to vote against the ‘establishment.’ Therefore…your previous line of thinking within this stream may well be a diversionary tactic (’again, I’m not saying that it is, it’s just what I observe from reading your comments’).
So, if John’s hypothesis is “not even close” would you then say that you are using re-routing software to disguise your actual IP? (’again, I’m not saying that you are, it’s just what I observe from reading your comments’).
I appreciate discussion along these lines(’don’t get me wrong here’). I don’t appreciate your previous tone and pointless antagonism. That is to what I responded previously.
Sola Gratia!
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:16 am
Dear Bro. Kiffin, Glad you got a good night’s rest and have your coffee in hand. You really should eat your breakfast though. It’s the most important meal of the day, I’m told. (Plus, it keeps ya from getting edgy from all the caffeine.)
On your point regarding the Garner Motion (GM) and Pastor Cox’s contradictory statement you wrote: “Either the issue is settled and we walk in unity, or we allow the dissident group to ‘keep beating a dead horse’.”
Would that we could walk in unity. The problem as I see it from this conclusion, Bro. Bill, is that the issue is not settled. Many people who voted for it didn’t understand it or interpret it to mean what some are saying it means. It is a confusing motion on which some within our convention (and I’d say many) couldn’t adhere to for the sheer ambiguity of its wording. Now, had the author’s intent been attached to the motion and read before the convention and the debate been able to continue on the motion, I would venture a guess that the motion would have failed. (I could be wrong) I’m a pew-sitting grama and while I hold no degrees or diplomas other than a high school diploma earned in night-classes in Hartford, Connecticut, I have read a few things in my time on how to confound, confuse and produce writing that would imply one thing and mean another and visa versa. To me the GM needs to be rewritten for the sake of clarity. As it stands, it can mean just about anything anyone wants it to mean. That’s just my opinion, and my opinion is only mine. I own it and have arrived at it by trying to figure out that darn motion ever since it was placed before the convention.
On your point number six, you pondered “I’m not sure why Peter asked Frank Cox about Wade Burleson and the IMB Trustees (what does that have to do with being SBC president?), but I did listen closely to his answer.” I’m sure Peter will speak for himself, I still want to say a word about that, if you don’t mind.
I don’t know a whole lot about how the convention operates, Bro Kiffin. But from what I’ve been reading, the entities within the Convention are part of the convention as well as all the churches. And should this controversial situation be exploited in the secular news media (as it has), I think it is imperative that we know how articulate a future president might address it should he be asked. I will have to go back and listen to the interview again, but I don’t recall Peter mentioning any names. (correct me if I’m wrong). He was using it as an example of a situation he wanted Pastor Cox to address.
And for the record, I think Pastor Cox’s analogy was as good one could get, considering how analogies and statements seem to be ripped apart worse than the parables of Jesus (and I’m not comparing Pastor Cox to Jesus, nor his analogy to a parable) within the scheme of things. (Just look how your opinion on titles has been yanked about.)
That said, I think from what I’m hearing on that interview that Dr. Cox does have all the fruit of the Spirit one might inspect if one were a mind to. selahV.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:19 am
Bill,
If we are going to debate this, I need to know a few things. OK?
Do you live in Louisville, KY?
Is your first name Andrew?
If not, where are you from and what is your real name?
You see, Bill, many of us have read church history and we know your last name is not Kiffin and you did not have a role in the movie; KILL BILL.
cb
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:21 am
Scott,
Thanks for your kind words. I look forward to reading any response you might have. No offense taken concerning your observations. I hope you will believe me when i say my previous comments were not intended to be diversionary. I made a comment (#5), responded to my own comment with a follow up (#6), and then went on the defensive about those thoughts for most of the rest of the post.
We all have presuppositions. The question is whether we can be objective with regards to our presuppositions. My presupposition isn’t with Frank Cox, but with the establishment. I do not wish to go back to the days where the people are ‘encouraged’ to vote for the ‘party’ candidate. That’s no knock against Cox, though. I hope you believe me.
In addition, i have no idea how to route or re-route my IP. I’m not computer genius. I simply get online and begin typing. John’s comment was that i was perpetuating an act of cowardice towards Cox. I’m not sure how your comment about my IP address addresses his baseless (and slanderous) accusation.
I can appreciate your last paragraph. However, if you are going to rebuke me along such lines, then be consistent by also calling out David and John (and maybe even others) who made statements towards me that were unChristlike in tone, not to mention filled with antagonism.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:24 am
Bill Kiffin,
Is that your real name?
John
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:29 am
Hey fellas, my anti-spam word is PEACE.
CB…you aren’t gonna let go of this bone till you know our Bill Kiffin’s place of origin, are you?
I went for over a year without sharing my identity other than selahV. I was afraid of internet predators. Still am. Then Geoff Baggett asked me to be part of his collaborative blog, sbcIMPACT, and I had to reveal the awful truth that I’m nobody important or significant in the scheme of things. You would not believe who many people thought I was before I shared my given name (which I abhor) but will answer to if forced. Maybe if Bill Kiffin isn’t Bill Kiffin, he doesn’t like his real name.
Of course, I know that doesn’t make any difference to you, CB. You’ll beat and gnaw and twist till you either get him to tell us or chase him off in the woods somewhere, huh?
selahV
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:31 am
This little bit of information is to stop any speculation as to Bill really being Benjamin S. Cole.
He is not. Ben is somewhere else today. He is not using a computer.
cb
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:37 am
SelahV,
Actually, I will not continue to chase Bill. If he does not give his real name I will simply ignore him.
I am going to weigh in on the interview when such debate “cranks” up. This may turn into the longest comment thread in the history of Blog Town.
The interview was a good one. There are some issues. My army is now amassed and ready.
cb
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:41 am
SelahV,
You are right. Peter did not use names, but no one mistook the situation (or the person) to which he was referencing. I merely filled in the blank that Peter left void.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:43 am
CB,
I recall you went quite a while in Blog Town under a pseudonym. Should people have ignored you?
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:44 am
CB…Ben Cole?
Bill Kiffin has none of the writing attributes of BC. Unless of course, BC is a bonafide split-personality. Study of the written words will give us much in determining the authorship of words. Similar phraseology, word choices, logical reasoning, (or illogical) etc. Just ask Dr. Allen. He’s the sleuth on Hebrews and I’m excited about knowing more about him and his position there.
Hey, Bro. Kiffin, now Dr. Allen is a bonafide doctor in your estimation, isn’t he?
BTW, you wrote regarding your reasoning for not voting for Pastor Cox for president as: “My presupposition isn’t with Frank Cox, but with the establishment. I do not wish to go back to the days where the people are ‘encouraged’ to vote for the ‘party’ candidate.”
Isn’t this a presumptive position to take? Just because people (who you know in Nashville, and revere because of their anti-establishment stance) have put Pastor Cox in a box labeled establishment, doesn’t make it so, does it? selahV
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:46 am
“Bill Kiffin”
Before you attempt to contribute anything further to this discussion, please answer John Mann’s question (97, 102).
Thanks.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:51 am
selahV,
I have some difficulties with Dr. Allen, but his education is not one of them.
We often act