If you want to be a positive agent in the furtherance of the SBC, I hope you will decide to leave slander and false innuendo behind.

Deal with truth, with issues, and not with character assassination.

Dave,
You are trying to wrap up something simply because I took a stand about what was indeed liberal and what was being labeled as “the reform” movement. Sure there may be others. You may be in that group. No problem here.

“Nothing more” implies that the entire reform movement is devoted to liberal ideas.

I did not confront this out of ignorance, but because you said something false that slandered many people, myself included.

Are you now changing what you said?

As to this series, the vocal “reformers” are pushing a liberal agenda. I cannot apologize for what is obvious.

As to this series, my comment related to “reformers” is going to stand from the simple fact that the reform they advocate is all liberal theology.

It was not a blatant broad brush. There are those, and Dave you may be one, who do desire change. No problem. Never has been.

I have repeatedly asked him to clarify, retract and apologize or defend his blanket slander of all who want reform.

He refuses to respond.

I am disappointed in him. I interacted with him enough that he should know I am not liberal. Yet, he publicly accused us ALL of liberalism and has refused to clarify or retract.

Yes, I am upset with him. Does it show?

He wrote a blog on “whatever happened to the truth?” Then he writes a blanket accusation (which I think he KNEW was not true) against everyone involved in reform.

Now, he refuses to defend his accusation.

So, yes, I have lost respect for Tim.

I really don’t think Tim G labels everyone who does not agree with him as a liberal. I really don’t think he would label you as a liberal. He did paint with a broad brush. I think we all do from time to time.

I think that is one of the ways we have gotten in trouble in the past and are possibly doing so even now.

In spite of that I do think Tim G is trying to do a good thing here. He is bold enough to set this series afloat and I respect him for it. He knew there would be some conflict before
hand and did it any way. I take that to mean he does care and is willing to listen.

Let’s wait and see how he answers our questions in the end. If he does not we can safely take the position you have laid out as correct. If he does answer we will all be better off and better informed for it.

cb

I, as have you, questioned him on some things.

Tim labels everyone as liberal who doesn’t agree with his agenda. He has still neither apologized or defended himself for calling all of us who want to reform the SBC as liberal.

I think he resorts to name-calling to avoid logic.

I think you are correct,….reform is an overworked term. Returning to Christ would bring wisdom and understanding. The local church needs the return more than it realizes at the present. My prayer is that the shepherds do begin to look to the chief shepherd before they do any distribution of funds. We are stewards of more than we typically understand.

Thanks for the good word…

Blessings,
Chris

I had hoped it would be someone other than me who pointed out the things in comment #41. I waited for someone to state the obvious.

I did not want to be called part of a “reform” group and be labeled as a liberal. I am not part of any reform group, but I do think the SBC could use a good dose of repentance and stop playing “follow-the-leader” and begin to follow The Leader without checking the way the “theo-political” wind is blowing.

The SBC does not need reform. We need repentance and a return to our first love. Now, that would really bring change, would it not?

cb

Obviously, when you said you did “not care about the percentages” given you were in reference to local churches only.

Yet, you are very concerned with the percentages given by state conventions.

Maybe you should be concerned with the percentages given by churches. After all, it is a simple fact that if churches gave more of a percentage of their undesignated receipts through the CP there would be more “real” money to use in fulfilling the Great Commission.

Also if churches gave a greater percentage maybe state conventions could get closer to 50-50 in their giving because they would have more “real” money to use.

Real money is realized when churches give a larger percentage. That cannot be denied. So for you to say you are not concerned with the percentage a local church gives, but you are concerned with the percentage a state gives is somewhat inconsistent, is it not?

In saying you are not concerned with the percentage is giving some large churches a pass. (right now, in the present “climate” of the SBC that is a very politically-correct position)

You are critical of state conventions for doing exactly what so many churches are doing. Tim, that is inconsistent. Please rethink this.

If churches gave a larger percentage then yours, Don’s and Ron’s concerns might be remedied in short order. After all messengers from local churches vote at state conventions just like they do at the SBC.

Our money problems (real or perceived) are local church problems. Local churches are the ultimate authority in our governance and polity as Southern Baptists in local associations, state conventions, and the SBC.

Messengers from local churches vote on budgets and elect trustees. Our money problems rest with local churches not with associations, state conventions, or the SBC.

You want more money to go to foreign missions? Then you fellows need to point your fingers in the right direction. Point them at local churches (of all sizes).

You need to be concerned with the percentages, Tim, because that is the visible sign of the systemic problem within the SBC, which is apathy among local churches and the desire of so many pastors to feather their own nests.

Of course, the feather their own nests thing goes hand-in-hand with some of the poor trustee leadership we have, but that is for another post, right?