May
07
A Report Worthy of our Attention
Posted by
My good friend C.B. Scott
has been on the opposite side of the fence in various debates. Each time he has truly been one that openly looks at the issues and then makes his assessments based on the facts before him. We may not agree with him on everything that comes to light, but we confess that he has wisdom that should warrant our attention.
Brother C.B. has posted his thoughts on Dr. Patterson’s latest article over at Baptist Press. We encourage you to read both the article and Brother C.B.’s thoughts entitled Patterson Speaking Wisely. You can find the article and C.B’s thoughts at the link provided. We must say that we agree with our Brother’s assessment of the article. They are spot on, or as C.B. says, a ten ring at 1000 yards.
81 Comments
May 7th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Which picture is Patterson? (couldn’t resist)
-Chris
May 7th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Chris,
I think the pictures speak for themselves.
Back in the days of the CR, Dr. Patterson preached the “BOOK” to the SBC while guys like me took care of its children (the entities: boards, agencies and institutions).
(Also could not resist)
cb
May 7th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
CB,
I try to not deal with Paige Patterson because I don’t know anything about him except for what I have heard from others. I know that the stories that I have heard from others that have affected my view are always just that one person’s perspective, so I have tried to withhold judgment on the man and only deal with his statements like I would everyone else.
I am saying that so that you know that I have no anger or frustration toward Dr. Patterson. I do not think about him and I don’t concern myself with what he has or has not done. That is for God to decide. I only concern myself with what is put directly in front of me.
This article is directly in front of me. I can deal with it and judge it. It is wrong in so many ways. I will just deal with your #4:
4. In our hot pursuit of cultural adaptability we look more and more like the culture and the world.
When have we not adapted to culture, especially Southern culture? The entire history of the SBC contains cultural acquiesance. I really do not know how blessed we ever were when we claimed to love God, yet we fell in line with a culture that hated or oppressed black people. 1 John says that you cannot claim to love God and hate your brother. That is a HUGE deal and whitewashing (no pun intended) our past to create the myth of some type of glory days when Southern Baptists were pure does no one any good. It only causes us to curse the present and long for a time that never actually existed – accept in our own experience or memory. But, what about the experiences of others? What about the evils that we tolerated, supported, or did not oppose? I believe that we are answering for that cultural accomodation right now. Payday is someday.
I don’t care to pick apart the rest of Dr. Patterson’s paper. He is entitled to his opinions. But, point #4 is definitely one that needs to be expanded upon. We should oppose aligning with culture now – I agree. But, to act like we have just started doing this is just historically wrong.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Alan
I agree that throughout the history of the church, there have been times when the culture did have some influence on the church, but up until 50 years ago, the balance of influence was definitely on the church influencing the culture. Whether the influence was right or wrong, the church did have her influence.
But, whether your version of history or my version is correct, the main point is that we are to be light in a dark world. I believe Dr. Patterson is correct in pointing out that our light does not shine brighter when we adopt the world as the blueprint of how God’s people should be.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Robin,
I have heard this a number of times,
our light does not shine brighter when we adopt the world as the blueprint of how God’s people should be
Now, exactly where can we read a person who says the world offers the blueprint of “how God’s people should be.” The question is one of ethics. Now Barna and others have noted the lack of a distinct ethic for Christians – we divorce at higher rates, we lie, we give lip service to reading the Scripture, etc. But, is it really the case those Dr. Patterson questions are going to the world for a blueprint of how God’s people should be?
I may be completely missing the intent of your words. You may mean something entirely different than I am reading, but after reading Alan’s comment I was wondering just what did you mean?
May 7th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Alan,
He did not say we have “just started doing this.”
He has been saying stuff like this from the first time I ever heard him. (1980)
Alan, in the last two months I have read authors of theological leanings, in depth, of whom I have never read before this time. I have read everything I can find from some of them and there is more I have not read. (Some of these guys are nuts)
Some of these guys are called “leaders.” If that is the case we are in serious trouble. These guys would lead us into a quagmire of theological quicksand.
As I read these guys, I realize that Dr. Patterson was in many ways ahead of his time years ago in things I personally heard him say relating to possible situations if such theological “mush peddlers” developed a following. They have developed a following. Some who follow them are Southern Baptists. (A fearful thing, indeed)
Now, don’t misunderstand me. I still disagree with some things of the recent past relating to Dr. Patterson.
Yet, if I do not admit he is right when he is such and that he is right in his article as I reflect on times past when I have heard the man both formally and very informally; couching what he is saying right now about our present situation in that of which he has spoken in the past, I will be, of all men a great, hypocrite and coward.
I have made criticisms of him based upon the same criteria mentioned above.
Therefore, I am compelled by any honesty I can muster to affirm him when I understand him to be as right as the rain in his commentary of the present crisis of the SBC.
Alan, Paige Patterson is right here and there is just no getting around it. Frankly, he is sounding more and more like the Dr. Patterson of old, and I, for one, am very glad to see it.
cb
May 7th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Todd
What is not to understand? The world is not our blueprint, Jesus, as revealed in the entirety of Holy Scripture, is our blueprint.
To give a perfect example of what I mean, Alan linked to an article yesterday, http://www.slate.com/id/2190482/ that I believe revealed the state of the majority of evangelical Christianity:
“At this point in history, American evangelicals resemble the Israelites at various dangerous moments in the Old Testament: They are blending into the surrounding heathen culture, and having ever more trouble figuring out where it ends and they begin.”
The above reference is indictive of what is not only happening in the evangelical world, but also in SBC life.
In other areas of the Southern Baptist experience, some are desiring to become more like the evangelical world when it comes to our ecclesiology. IOWs they see the church as having no authority when it comes to administering Baptism or the Lord’s Supper.
All of this comes back to Genesis 3 and the questioning of God’s Word.
Does God’s Word really say that Baptism is only to be administered to believers by immersion? Absolutely.
Does God’s Word really say that one must be baptized to partake of the Lord’s supper? Absolutely.
Did God give the local New Testament church the responsibility to administer those ordinances? Absolutely.
The world’s blueprint is to consider those doctrines as divisive and to downplay, even eradicate them from importance to the life of the church. If it causes division, then ignore it. That is not a blueprint for Southern Baptist churches.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Robin,
I will try again.
You noted the consequences. I asked who is telling people to look at the world for the blueprint for how God’s people should be. I am not suggesting anything different regarding evidence our ethic is pitiful. I do not think the answer lies in proper baptism and the Lord’s Supper. I believe in the church.
My question, “Who is telling people to look to the world for the blueprint of how to be God’s people?”
I get the Identity stuff.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
CB:
If PP is able to identify the problems, what does he suggest as solutions to these problems?
May 7th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Todd
I will try again also. My point is that whether it is intentional or not, it is that the church has adopted the world’s practices in order to get results.
I am sure you would agree that things like nepotism is worldly and should not be used by Christians to advance their agenda?
May 7th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Robin,
Are you talking about Russell Kammerling serving on the trustee board of the IMB or me serving on the BGCO Board of Directors? Or something else?
May 7th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Robin,
Don’t fall down. I agree with you. Our measures of success sorely miss the mark. For instance in a small community dying form a loss of commerce and population may not experience conversion growth if the town has been evangelized. That does not mean all are Christians? But instead the Gospel has been preached to everyone in some form in the given community. To make the pastor feel inadequate for not leading his association in any category is abusive.
Now as to your second remark. I am not sure why you reference nepotism. I can only assume you are making a reference to my brother Paul being elected to the BOT of the BGCO. Yes, Robin, since I have an agenda to take over the world, which would include the BGCO, I figured if I planted Paul as a mole he could orchestrate a coup and I would be named King.
You must do better research before succumbing to the temptation to break the ninth commandment and bear false witness to make a minor point. I did not nominate Paul nor did I speak to his nomination while serving on the Nominating Committee of the BGCO.
I expect a person with your high sense of moral integrity will issue a retraction on your unintended gaff in an attempt to put me in my place for daring to engage a conversation here at Today. Now, Robin, should I click the mouse this way again, I will avoid interactions wherein for some odd reason you feel it necessary to scrap. It seems that either to write for the Outpost or have the last name Littleton brings out the best in you.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Todd
My only inference was that we are using the blueprint of the world. Nepotism is one of those schemes. Since you took it personally, I obviously struck a chord. I did not infer your name, or your brother’s name. Nor did I state that you got Paul’s name on the board. Therefore, I would ask that you not accuse me of bearing false witness.
BTW, I voted to approve the names for the board this year. That means I voted to approve Paul.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Robin,
Please indulge my question. I am not trying to be contentious. I simply don’t believe that you pulled the example of nepotism out of thin air. Can you tell us what situation you specifically had in mind? Even if you do not want to do so publicly would you e-mail your response?
It simply appears that there is some thinly veiled reference and it seems to be the honest thing to be up front with your references rather than throw implications around and leave them to whatever conclusions others might wish to make.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Robin,
Forgive me. You ask me to swallow to great a concoction. You woke up today disturbed by the nepotism in the world and it just flowed into the comment to me. There are far greater influences on the church by the world than nepotism. If you really believe what you noted then you would have listed those much more prevalent. As it is, you continue embarrassing yourself. Sleep well.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Robin, Paul and Todd,
Let’s not take this to who neps’ and who don’t. We all know a whole lot of nepin’ has gone on for years and years.
Robin, Todd has asked you a question. If you do not want to answer it, just say so.
I mentioned guys like McLaren and Pagitt. Is that to whom you are in reference?
Paul, Robin has stated he was not in reference to you when he brought up nepotism. He also said he voted the slate you were on. He is either telling you the truth or he is a lying dog. Why don’t you take the high road today and just believe him. Take him at his word on this fine May day.
I realize I am maybe the “pot and the kettle’ as far as calling people liars. I confess.
I just know when Okies fight it is much like when Sabanites fight. There is usually lots of blood with little resolution.
So, if you are going to cross swords tonight let’s all stick to the specific topic of the post. Or not. I know I ain’t your boss.
I just thought I would try out some new tricks I learned at a church conflict resolution seminar.
How am I doing so far?
cb
P.S. My anti spam word is LOVE, no joke
May 7th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
CB,
How are you doing? Pitiful. Let’s fight.
Robin, are you seriously telling us that you were not referring to the situation with Todd and Paul when you referred to nepotism as an example of worldliness? You are either telling the truth and that was an amazing coincidence in that you used that example with Todd who was part of the nominating committee that referred his brother, or you are lying. I’ll choose to believe the best and leave the rest up to the Lord.
As far as our versions of history, the truth is that Southern Baptists did influence culture in some ways 50 years ago. You are right. What if we had influenced culture the right way during the Civil Rights era? Would we have the problems that we have today? It seems that we accomodated just so we would not lose our standing in a culture opposed to God, or maybe because there was no difference between us and the culture on that issue.
Do you know that Southern Baptists advocated public schools in the 1950’s and were against anything resembling vouchers for private schools because they didn’t want the Catholics to get any federal funds? Things changed when the culture changed.
Do you know that most Baptists advocated staying out of politics and the justice issues of integration in the 1950’s and 60’s saying that we should just preach the gospel to individuals? That changed when we perceived that the culture had turned against us and we started trying to reclaim America in the 1970’s through political means.
My point is that Dr. Patterson’s views on why the SBC is now in decline do not bear the weight of history, because many of those issues were in place when we were supposedly in our ascendancy. But, since those things are wrong, maybe there were other reasons for our ascendancy than the hand of God – like, maybe accomodating culture or weak, unbiblical preaching?
May 7th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
CB,
Kum by ya. I’ll choose to sing a happy song, hold hands and get along.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Just who is PP referring to when he speaks of analysts who are “usually less than stellar soul-winners, Bible teachers or pastors. “? This is ad hominem at its finest.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Alan
In an effort to respect my elders, I will listen to CB
and not respond to the first part of your comment.
On your political analysis, if you go back to the late 1700’s to the early 1900’s, Baptists were very active in politics. Our freedom of religion as stated in the Bill of Rights is largely do to Baptist being involved in the political process. Freedom of religion as stated in the Bill of Rights has greatly influenced our culture in America and around the world. Again, I will agree, we have not always been on the right side of the issues, but the influence, whether good or bad, has mainly been more towards the church influencing culture than the other way around. I see what you are saying, I hope you can see me part of the way.
Do you think we are still accommodating culture today, if so, then how?
May 7th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Robin,
I read the Slate article, and I think your use and interpretation of the quote are a bit out of context. The gist of the article is that Christian individuals are engaged in (and sometimes enamored by) pop culture, even to the point of having a marketing “sub culture” of its own (Christian t-shirts, gimmicks, etc…) It most definitely did not speak to the practices or expression of the church itself.
But what, exactly, is a “heathen culture,” anyway? Are not all cultures “heathen” in one way or another?
Culture, from a missiological perspective, is neither positive or negative. It is neutral. “Culture” is merely … “the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group.” (Merriam Webster’s Dictionary). Culture is simply the sociological expression through which we must build bridges to reach people with the Gospel.
For instance … my church is working to minister and train church planters in the highlands of Peru. Part of our preparation for that mission is to study and understand their culture in order to reach them more effectively. We cannot simply declare their society “heathen” and “worldly.” To do so would mean that we will not “stoop to their level” in order to share the Gospel.
And that is exactly what so many of our churches in the United States seem to be doing today. Rather than seeking to understand the culture (or subcultures) around them, they have merely declared their Southern, historical church culture as “holy” and everything else as “heathen.” Then when other (mostly newer) churches intentionally seek to adapt to the true culture around them and have an irresistible influence within that culture, they are promptly declared “worldly” and distinctly “non-Baptist.”
It is not enough for us to stand on our Gospel islands and shout at the world, “Come over here with us … we love you.” We must engage the culture, as it is. The church must reflect the culture in which it exists, lest it become isolated and detached. (Which, it seems, the statistical data is reflecting in SBC life).
Anyhow … I know I’m probably rambling. So I’ll close with this. I agree with what Alan said earlier – the SBC is all about cultural adaptation. It just seems that we can’t adapt unless the culture around us is Southern … and Baptist.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
There are times when we have influenced culture poorly. Let us never forget our dark day of June in 1971 relating to abortion while we were meeting in St Louis.
Yet, is it not a positive influence on culture every time a Southern Baptist shares the biblical gospel to a lost woman, boy, man or girl?
There are many ways we influence culture, no doubt. But the high road of influence to this culture or at the next cultural, if Jesus tarries, is to share the gospel with all who God places before us and moves us to share the story of salvation.
I also believe He would bring many more before us if we say humbly and prayerfully. Lord here am I, send me.
We are going to have to get back to not only knowing it is all about the gospel, but practicing it is all about the gospel.
I cannot put words in Dr. Patterson’s mouth, but I think that is where he was pointing.
Guys, it is about the biblical gospel.
cb
May 7th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Geoff,
You will agree, though, that the biblical gospel is and was sufficient any time in history and any time in the future and most definitely in this present cultural shift we are experiencing, right?
cb
May 7th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
CB,
Absolutely! The Gospel is transcendent above any culture and relevant within any culture.
But I’m not sure what “culture shift” you are referring to. Culture is constantly shifting and constantly in motion. I think the reason we church folk discern and point to what we perceive as a “culture shift” today is because we have become so isolated within the social structures of our churches. We have, in effect, our distinctly Baptist version of “monasticism” … an attempt to actually withdraw from the uncomfortable world around us.
And that is the problem with our Christian “culture,” especially in Southern Baptist life. It has evolved into such a distinct culture of its own (customs, language,expectations), so enormously different from the overall culture of the U.S (and the innumerable sub-cultures that exist within it), that it has become functionally disengaged. And that’s why the “I” word that so many Baptist folk seem to despise (irrelevance) comes up so often. It is not the irrelevance of the Gospel, but the cultural irrelevance of some expressions of the local church.
Indeed, rather than following the example of Paul to become “all things to all people,” we seem to be saying, “all people need to become just like us.”
And THAT, in my humble opinion, is not the biblical Gospel.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Since Robin is clearly not talking about anything to do with me serving on the BGCO Board of Directors let me state my agreement with him that nepotism is wrong, should not be practiced in SBC appointments and may quite possibly be sinful. And while Robin didn’t name anyone specifically I will still take his comments as a clear denunciation of instances where that has taken place, even by the subject of this post.
See, Robin, we can agree after all.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
By “the subject of this post” I’m not talking about CB. I’m talking about the other subject (just in case there was any confusion).
May 7th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Robin,
Since CB came to the rescue, I suspect your lack of answering the question I asked to be what CB asked of you to “saying so.”
In one last attempt to clear this up. Your sniping that you struck a chord is partly correct. The chord you struck my dear friend is this unhealthy ethic that allows veiled comments to pass without accountability to them – and come off as though you intended nothing.
You voted on the slate of Nominees like everyone else. Tell me one meeting in which you have seen the slate of nominees challenged? Not a meeting you heard of one you have been on. That you voted to approve the NomComm report does not carry the weight you suppose – not in our day.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Geoff
I guess my take on the article related some things I have witnessed. I don’t see a dichotomy between individual actions and their reflection on the church. I saw the actions of the individuals as a direct reflection on the church.
For example, I can’t remember who lead me to the web site, A Little Leaven, but that gives some stellar examples how the church is becoming more like the culture. A church site I went to had a person playing guitar during a worship service while wearing a Jimmy Hendrix T-shirt. While I am not against the T-shirt or the jeans, who should receive the focus of the worship service? Hendrix or Jesus. It seems that if I look cool enough then you will listen to me. God doesn’t demand us to look cool. He desires us to be conformed to the image of his son.
Yes, if I was going to Peru, I would do all I can to fit in the culture, but I would not promote those aspects of that culture that glorifies the sin for which Jesus died.
Sorry about the choppiness of my comments. I am working on my phone an my thumbs can’t keep up with my thoughts.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Todd
I am glad to see you consider me your “dear friend.”
May 7th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Geoff,
The statements Dr. Patterson makes are true in any culture.
If the church in Jerusalem had ceased to witness and preach the gospel it would have declined also.
I think the point is to do what we were commissioned to do as followers of Christ.
cb
May 7th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Robin wrote: “I agree that throughout the history of the church, there have been times when the culture did have some influence on the church, but up until 50 years ago, the balance of influence was definitely on the church influencing the culture.”
Robin’s thesis doesn’t hold water unless he is equating the “Church” with the “South.” Or if by church, he means exclusively the Black Church.
Prominent historians such as Samuel Hill and John Lee Eighmy (a Southern Baptist) have long argued the thesis of “churches caught in cultural captivity.” What historians of southern Religion actually argue to the contrary? Anyone? David Stricklin put it best when he said,
Undoubtedly Baptists were archetypal southerners: “racially and sexually hierarchical, suspicious of modern viewpoints, complacent about the exploitation of the economically disadvantaged, militaristic, nationalistic, and generally hostile toward the reformist (and northern) social gospel.”
May 7th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Alan, you wrote:
“Do you know that Southern Baptists advocated public schools in the 1950’s and were against anything resembling vouchers for private schools because they didn’t want the Catholics to get any federal funds? Things changed when the culture changed.”
I don’t deny the anti-Catholic sentiment that existed mostly in the pre-Vatican II years. But I do reject arguments that Baptist separationism was based on that anti-Catholic sentiment. Southern Baptist leaders from G.W. Truett to J.M. Dawson to James Dunn consistently opposed government funding of religious education for reasons that have nothing to do with Catholics. After all, there weren’t many Catholics in the South back when John Leland was opposing government funding of religion back in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
Actually, Baptists first started clamoring for government funds (along with member bodies of the NAE) in the years after Brown v. Board of Education in order to fund their “Christian Academies.”
I must point out that there was a genealogy of Baptists who were on the “right” side of the race issue. These Baptists who challenged the cultural status-quo during the 50s and 60s were dubbed moderates and liberals back in the 80s – (see. T.B. Maston [smeared as a liberal by PP and pretty much only PP], Henlee Barnette, James Dunn, Jimmy Allen, etc.)
Robin,
You are correct. Baptists were very active in the fight for religious liberty and democracy in the late 1700s. But there was no widespread Baptist involvement in politics in the early 1900s. You had a handful of guys like J.M. Dawson involved in multilple political issues. And when groups of Baptists did participate in politics during that period, they were involved with only one issue: alcohol. It was through Baptist involvement in the dry crusades that hooked up Southern Baptists with the Social Gospel. These early Baptist activists were the founders and early leaders of organizations like the Texas CLC, SBC CLC and BJC – organizations that were always run by theological conservatives who were socially progressive – not exactly the average 21st century Southern Baptist.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Speaking of CB’s anti-spam word being Love. Mine was Temperance as I was writing about the dry crusades!
May 7th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
BDW
I’ll catch up with you in the morning. I am glad to see we partially agree.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:21 am
Big Daddy,
I do not deny that there were some Southern Baptists with a conscience back then. We can surely name quite a few. But, the sad reality is that if the SBC had had an even remotely biblical view on this issue, America would be a very different place today. I am talking about Southern Baptists at large.
And, as far as Southern Baptists and public schools go, Leon Macon, the editor of the Alabama Baptist in the 1950’s regularly wrote articles against government funding of parochial schools, primarily because of a an anti-Catholic bias. Again, that does not mean that it was the motivation of all Southern Baptists, but it definitely existed.
As for your statements on baptists asking for public funding for their “academies” in the 1960’s, you are right about that.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Robin,
I definitely agree that Christians should be involved in politics. No doubt. I just think that we should also stand for justice in all levels of society. We have struggled with that throughout our history. Hopefully, we are improving.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Big Daddy,
Nobody had to “smear” liberal on Barnette, Dunn and Allen. They wore that “makeup” very voluntarily. They liked it. It was their choice. Nobody twisted their arms and made them liberals. They volunteered and became officers in the ranks of the liberal army which invaded the SBC before you were born.
cb
May 8th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Robin,
In comment #28 you mentioned Jimmy Hendrix. He really was a great guitar player, one of the best.
He once played the STAR SPANGLED BANNER on his guitar with his teeth.
A dear friend of mine (A great patriot of this nation, who defended it at all cost) upon seeing it said;
“I don’t know if we should applaud him or shoot him.”
cb
May 8th, 2008 at 8:52 am
B. Diddy, Robin, Alan, CB, etc.,
Have you guys gotten a chance to read the Evangelical Manifesto yet? In my opinion, it has some very good things to say about how we as Evangelicals should be involved in politics and culture, on which we might all actually be able to agree. At least, I would hope that would be the case.
http://www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com/
May 8th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Is anyone else bothered by Mr. Patterson’s dismissal of people whom he deems to be usually less than stellar soul-winners, Bible teachers or pastors? Who is he talking about? That taints his whole article.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Nobody should be able to deny the influence that the Church had on the South. While the South was far from perfect….granted, and the Church was far from perfect…granted, just look at the laws and the social mores and traditions of the South. I mean, nobody worked or played ball on Sunday back in the day. There was a time in the South…which CB and I can remember well…that nobody locked their doors…ever. We kept our windows open all night long…wide open…to catch a breeze, and we didnt fear being broken into. Women dressed modestly, and men were taught to respect women and treat them like ladies. Divorce was practically unheard of, and everyone loved Mom. Church doors were left open for those who wanted to come by and pray in the Church. You never heard of someone vandalizing a Church. Why, back in my wild, lost days…when us boys were riding around doing things we were not supposed to do….we would never, ever do anything to a Church.
Now, in other areas, like race and hypocrisy and some other areas…yes, the Church and the South didnt do so well. And, sadly, yes, the culture influenced the Church in some of these areas. But, i dont think that anyone can deny the effect the Church had on the South. The problems we’ve been having since the 60’s was not due to the Church, but to the people not listening to the Church anymore due to their rebellion against God and the Church and anything that had to do with tradition.
Also, all of those yankees moving in didnt help, either.
David
May 8th, 2008 at 9:51 am
With all the Irresistability at the start of this comment thread I was beginning to wonder if the CR (Calvinistic Resurgence) had reached new heights…thanks Chris & CB!
…Well, Dr. Patterson stands up to effectively and forcefully discuss the troublesome issues evidenced in our convention today, and we find the usual distracted commentary I have grown to ‘love.’
You know, Dr. Patterson sounds a clarion call to return to biblical leadership in our churches. Obviously that takes a humble and penitent heart.
Sola Gratia!
May 8th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Vol,
You have just said things that will make some of the “brethern and the sisteren” hate you and call you names.
But,….Let it be known to one and all you have told the truth this fine May day. Furthermore, let it be established before witnesses that I shall throw my lot with yours and be hated with you for you have spoken truth. And with courage which “rageth against the tide” of our changing times presented fact as it is.
And you are right about them yankees.
cb
May 8th, 2008 at 10:45 am
CB,
It’s always a good day when you and I are standing on the same side of things.
David
May 8th, 2008 at 10:49 am
PP smeared the 80-something year old Maston a few years before his death with a letter which listed Maston as a liberal. Maston was very conservative.
As to Dunn and Allen (two men I’ve studied, the former more than anyone), they took political positions that were not in line with Paige Patterson’s political philosophy. If that made them “liberal” – I guess they were liberals. But then again – anyone who was a critic of Ronald Reagan would have been a “liberal” under those standards. Theologically, Dunn was a Texas conservative. Theologically, Allen was more moderate. But neo-orthodoxy and liberalism aren’t the same thing – and PP has even admitted that before…
CB,
Let me ask: What’s the deal with this talk of a “Conservative Renaissance” instead of a Conservative Resurgence? What does PP mean by that term exactly? And is he the only person who talks of a Renaissance or is this a new phrase that is being used by others?
May 8th, 2008 at 11:08 am
David Rogers,
I thought the Manifesto had some good things to say. The definition of an “Evangelical” was especially broad – probably too broad for some. But I appreciated the large tent created by the document’s authors – one of which is Ergun Caner. Also, it’s extremely important that evangelicalism is defined theologically and not politically. Hope the media gets that message. In that regard, I thought this was an important passage from the manifesto:
“We urge those who report and analyze public affairs, such as scholars, journalists, and public policy makers, to abandon stereotypes and adopt definitions and categories in describing us and other believers in terms that are both accurate and fair, and with a tone that you in turn would like to be applied to yourselves.”
Like I said, the document definitely had good things to say. I did think it could have more clearly apologized for the past relationship between many evangelical leaders and the GOP.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Brother David,
Thanks for the link to the “Manifesto”,….
The last fifteen years have began to produce a healthy debate on what is a real evangelical, where is the church, etc. ….
These are exciting times…..and I believe Patterson’s article is in some extent a plea to be included in the conversation.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention cb.
Blessings,
Chris
May 8th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
“The problems we’ve been having since the 60’s was not due to the Church, but to the people not listening to the Church anymore due to their rebellion against God and the Church and anything that had to do with tradition.”
In 1959, a lynch mob in my home county formed to go and pull a black man out of the county jail and hang him from a bridge over a nearby river because he was accused of raping a white woman. The mob was led by a Baptist preacher who was a distant relative of mine and had some members of my home church involved in it. No one was ever brought to trial over the murder. The whole thing was swept under the rug and some of the people involved in it are still alive today. Some might even be in that church.
I’m a child of the South too and there are many wonderful things about it. But, the fact that you couldn’t play ball on Sundays does not counteract the despicable evil that took place all around us. We did not have the eyes to see what was happening – or, we didn’t want to see it. Either way, it is hard for me to see how the church influenced culture on many of the issues that really mattered. Or, if you listen to some of the Baptist preachers back in the day, maybe the church influenced culture too much. I know that my distant relative did. He led the mob.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
007:
You said–”The problems we’ve been having since the 60’s was not due to the Church, but to the people not listening to the Church anymore due to their rebellion against .”
What a simplistic, broad brush comment that just aint so.
I think the Church needs to take its fair share of the blame also.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Big Daddy,
You are a smart guy. You really are. But, please understand the following about Dunn, Allen and Barnette.
If Paige Patterson had joined the French Foreign Legion on his sixteenth birthday and never came back to the United States, Dunn, Allen and Barnette would still have been known as liberals. They were liberals because they wanted to be liberals, not because anyone called them liberals. They said and did that of which liberals do. It was a no brainer to call them liberals.
The Use of: Renaissance, Resurgence and Reformation is not new relating the conservative movement within the SBC of the past.
Bob Tenery used all three terms. If I am not mistaken he is the person who coined the phrase Conservative Resurgence.
cb
May 8th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Alan,
You have proven Vol’s point.
The men who hanged the man in question, including the preacher were not being attentive to the doctrines of faith, now were they?
One more thing, Alan,
Many people in the South hung many other people: Black and White, Red and Yellow for a lot of reasons. It has also happened North, East and West.
Killing and murder has always been with us all over the world.
That fact has does not dampen the truth of what Vol is saying.
Murder has to do with the fact men are born depraved and prone to sin by their very nature.
The church of the living Lord has always stood against such things of which your relative was involved, through all time, and among all people.
What is your point?
cb
May 8th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Tom,
The blame the church needs to take is exactly what Dr. Patterson has pointed out in this post.
That would be true of the 60s and right now.
cb
May 8th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Aw yes, the good old days when women were not paid equal to men, had no rights and could vote but most did not know the issues. Aw yes, when things such as Civil rights were not an issue, things such as Alan Cross has recounted actually happened. Segregation was in full force and children were to be seen and not heard. When those things you mentioned about not playing ball, mowing the lawn etc. were the law of the church on Sunday. Fellas, they were not the good ole days.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
And I should add, but the white churches were not touched except for the Black Baptist church that was bombed with black children in the basement in the 60’s.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
I pastored for 4 years in a small Southern, Baptist-dominated town. On the surface, it appeared to be Mayberry – a throwback to better days.
Scratch the surface just a little and every evil humanity had to offer came to the fore. Gossip, backbiting, hypocrisy were not just present, they were elevated to art forms. It was a town dominated by racism and immorality.
The town had 600 people. 60% were white. Blacks weren’t welcome in white churches. We had 400 members. What does that say? Almost everyone in town was Baptist.
I couldn’t wait to get out of the “Bible Belt” to minister among the pagan “yankees.”
I hope no one, even David W, would want to credit Baptists for the spiritual morass of my little Southern town.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Debbie,
No one has said those things did not happen. Do you feel things would have been better if a “White” church had been bombed?
Well I guess you would have liked to have been down here last year when college students were burning both Black and White Baptist churches to the ground.
Are you happier now that we have “equal opportunity” devils destroying churches and murdering people?
Was Oklahoma immune to such things?
Frankly, some of us down here are working to stop churches from being Black or White. Some of us would like for churches to just be churches of all Believers of all ethnic backgrounds glorifying God by carrying out the Great Commission and proclaiming the biblical gospel.
I know that is what I want. I know that is what Vol, Alan and Paige wants also. Now, what do you want us to want as an authority on the Southern culture?
The South has advanced more in the area of civil rights than any other part of this country. And it has been Southern Baptist churches and pastors who have lead the way.
It certainly was not the Kennedys flying over in a plane saying; “MY, MY” who did anything. It has not been Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton who worked to change anything while down here for photo-ops.
It has been Baptist churches and pastors, both Black and White, preaching against sin, calling for repentance and faith in Jesus that has brought change.
Oh, yeah, It has also been some real men, both Black and White who stood up in many places and said; “enough is enough” and were wiling to back it up when necessary.
One more thing, Had every church in the South, North, West and East followed what Patterson is saying here much more would have happened much sooner.
True progress is always going to the Bible and doing what it says.
cb
May 8th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Dave,
I guess you are in heavenly bliss now, right?
I guess there is not one whoremonger anywhere around you now; No whores, no liars, no thieves, no bigots, no Sodomites, no wife beaters, no baby rapers, no man burners, no murderers, no gangs, no organized criminals, no crypts, no bloods, no skinheads.
Obviously they don’t need you. Come on back down here, we have plenty of the above to go around and then some.
cb
May 8th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
CB: How many of those responsible for the things you mentioned were secretly in an organization with said perpetrators. I would hope none. Such was not the case in the good ole days.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
That should read, how many Southern Baptist ministers and laymen were in a secret organization with said perpetrators? I hope none. I would bet none. Such was not the case in the good ole days.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Oklahoma included.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
CB:
In reponse to comment #51–let’s just blame the church for the following;
oo’s 60’s
10’s 70’s
20’s 80’s
30’s 90’s
40’s
50’s
Then I will agree with you.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Dr. Patterson wrote, “Style, culture, dress, drink, etc. have almost nothing to do with how churches perform.”
I disagree with that. The statement can be partly true if “truth” is ignored in the promotion of those things. Yet when I go to SWBTS, it’s like going back in time. Chapel is often looks like the past. So, “style” is important. Culture too! No so sure about dress, but hey maybe.
I agree with Dr. Patterson’s article. But I have wondered about leaders his age being able to lead us into the future. Can the style of the past reach younger people today?
May 8th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Debbie,
There are several “secret” organizations I know of in this country and world. Which of those are you speaking? I will answer if I know what you are talking about here.
cb
May 8th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
CB,
Whew….when you said that they would come out of the woodwork and hate on me and call me names, you sure were right! Goodness gracious alive!
I really wonder sometimes if people read what you truly wrote in a comment. Because many seem to look over….entirely look over….that I said that the South and the Church in the South didnt do real good on some things like race and hypocrisy, etc.
Did yall read that? Did it register in your brain?
All I was trying to say was that the Church most certainly did influence culture down here in the South. Now, sure, there were still a lot of heathens down here. Many of my ancestors were some of the worst. But, sleep with our windows wide open we did….without fear. Never locked our doors we did, and never worried a bit about it. A lot of the sins that took place took place in secret…as Dave pointed out….because it was just a plumb shame to do those things in public….of course now, people not only do them in public, but they also brag about it. And, people not working on Sunday and not scheduling baseball games on Sunday and Wednesday nights were due to the influence of the Church.
And, the 60’s and the 70’s have changed the South. I have seen the change with my own eyes. Now, some of the change has been good. As CB pointed out….great strides have been made concerning race relations. We aint there, yet. But, great strides have been made. And, it’s the influence of the Church in a large part that’s brought about the change.
BtW, Alan, I have a Pastor friend who pastored a Church in Philadelphia, MS in 1964. His next door neighbor was one of the men who killed those civil rights workers. My Pastor friend made a stand about race….and his life was threatened by some white, good ole boys. He stood his ground. They didnt kill him. But, he is one that tried to influence his culture.
Now, I never said that the South was perfect…not by a long shot. But, it was influenced greatly by the Church…no doubt about it. There was a day in the South when everybody was in church, or else you hid out in the house til church was over. If that’s not influence, I dont know what is.
Dave, I have to go along with CB here….when you got out there to Yankee land…were there no drug addicts, nor gossippers, nor drunks, nor sodomites, nor whore chasers, nor whores, nor liars? Dave, if you found a place where there were no sinners, please tell us where this place is. I’d like to at least see it.
David
May 8th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
My point is this:
I have lived in Texas, Iowa, Georgia, Taiwan, Florida, Texas, Florida again, Virginia, and Iowa for the last 17 years.
The most “Baptist” place I ever lived was Virginia.
It was also the most corrupt, most racist, and most immoral culture I have lived in.
I was challenging David’s point that Baptists could boast about our impact and effect on the South. I can only say that in the Baptist community I lived in, there was very little to be proud of.
May 8th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Dave,
Virginia is a Commonwealth wherein several cultures coexist.
Much of it is not a Southern culture whatsoever.
cb
May 8th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
david: Where have you been called any names. I simply point out that if going by history it was not the good ole days. Others have given stories to the contrary that was personal to them.
CB: I am speaking of the KKK and I’m sorry I did not clarify that. For one example of many I could give, in Colorado 1920’s, First Baptist minister, the Klan’s leader was a First Baptist Minister who eventually became Grand Dragon. To verify this here is the link.
http://www.ccpl.lib.co.us/History_Old/KKK/KKK%20Essay.html
May 8th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Debbie,
The largest concentration of the Klan in the United States was in Indiana.
Have there been Baptist preachers in the Klan? Of course, going all the way back to its beginning.
Is the Klan a bad thing? Of course it is.
Did Southern Baptist preachers in the South stand up to it? Of course they did.
Is it doing very well here now? No.
Why not? Many reasons, but for sure Baptists sharing and preaching the gospel helped.
cb
May 8th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Debbie:
007 is really paranoid and thinks everyone will attack anything he posts.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:04 am
And then, Tom contributes to Volfan007’s paranoia by calling him “paranoid.” How do any of you expect Volfan007 to overcome his paranoia if you insist on calling him things like “paranoid?”
Is someone out there about to say something else about me? Are any of you about to call me another name? I’m just so scared that you are.
David
May 9th, 2008 at 8:16 am
007:
You will never get it. You just love any and all attention you get and here i am giving you some attention.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Since this issue of “race” tends to surface quickly….. I would recommend listening to a message delivered by Thabiti Anyabwile – “Bearing the Image: Identity, the Work of Christ, and the Church”, which he delivered at “Together for the Gospel”. He identifies the fallacies of what humans contrive as racism when compared to a biblical world view of ethnicity. You can hear the message or download it at http://www.t4g.org.
He has also written an excellent book entitled “The Decline of African American Theology: From Biblical Faith to Cultural Captivity”….a good read for the entire church family.
I like the way he addresses the reality of the gospel with God’s design of mankind.
Blessings,
Chris
May 9th, 2008 at 8:59 am
CB,
My point is just that in any current discussion about chasing after culture, we need to have humility about our own past to adequately address the issue today. I do not blame the church for all of the problems of the past or present. But on the issue of race, we advocated a false position. When evil happened, we did not stand up against it the way we could have. There are many wonderful things about the South and many Baptists, including yourself are doing great work in this area. I am just responding to Dr. Patterson’s point #4 from a historical perspective.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Brother Alan,
I am just entering this comment stream again after some time away. It does seem that many have expressed some various viewpoints and I believe they are helpful.
As to Dr. Patterson’s #4 point I believe if you would approach him, he would tell you that the church of the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s were allowing the culture to dictate the way they viewed theology. Such as the church today is doing. The reason we had these racist pastors, as you have described, is they allowed the culture of their area to dictate their theology. I have personally heard Dr. Patterson say the biggest miss that we had during the 70’s was the Jesus movement. We missed that revival all together. But many men of God that are leaders today were influenced and shaped by that movement. One example is Dr. Alvin Reid. No, he was not a hippie that came out of that movement. But he will readily tell you that seeing those guys coming into their church with a passion for God certainly impacted him.
So, I am just trying to say that while we certainly understand the sins of the past, we must not allow that to bog us down as we honestly evaluate the issues before us.
Blessings,
Tim
May 9th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Hey everyone….I’m still here. Can anyone give me some love? I need the attention very badly, because I just dont “get it.”
David
May 9th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Brother David,
My anti-spam word was ‘Love’. I tell you what. Go to Dr. Patterson’s interview that I did with him back in February. You will hear an Elton John song playing in the background. I dedicate it to you.
Blessings,
Tim
May 9th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
“Can you feel the love tonight…”
…Everybody sing along for David…
SG!
May 9th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
David
May 9th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
I hate to take a perfectly good derailed thread and put it back on topic, but I don’t really have anything to add about Sunday blue laws. (Though I do admit I once wanted to do a paper on the theology of Charlie Daniels’ songs. )
I would like, though, for someone to define the “hot pursuit of cultural adaptability” with some examples. Is it a theology pub? Is it a loosened dress code? Is it a style of music? Or is there a more missiological meaning at work? The majority of this thread has been consumed by arguing about this idea, but I’ve yet to see it well-defined.
To my thinking, the church wouldn’t have enjoyed the place that it did at the “center” of the culture in the past (where are most 1st churhces…right in the center of the old downtown), if it hadn’t “adpated” itself to the culture around it in some fashion, back when.
The fact is, indigenous church planting is nothing if not about adapting to a particular culture, whether a small tribal church in the Amazon basin or a Cowboy church in East Texas. We (at least most of us) laud those efforts because we know that attempting to plant a carbon copy of 1st Baptist County Seat, USA in rural Texas or northern Brazil isn’t going to have much Kingdom impact.
So let’s at least admit that we enjoyed as much influence as we did between the 2nd Great Awakening and the 1960s (and why many of our larger churches still do), at least partially, because “we” so closely resembled the culture in which “we” were planted and ministering.
The facts as I see them is that in most places outside of the rural and suburban south, the church isn’t any longer at the center of the culture, even if some of our buildings remain in the center of town. It seems that we, by and large, have indeed NOT adapted (in “hot pursuit” or otherwise) to a culture that is constantly changing at a faster pace than at any time in world history.
I suppose that’s why, in the absence of examples, I find “hot pursuit of cultural adaptability” a not very helpful diagnosis. If it is a reference to syncretism or libertinism, I would agree that’s a problem, and would again ask for examples. If it is a reference to bringing cross-cultural missiology home to the States, I would not only disagree that it’s a bad thing, but would contend, otherwise, that it represents our best shot at reaching our nation for Christ.
May 10th, 2008 at 7:51 am
I am off dueling with liberals of another sort today, so I just want to say the thread has taken some funny turns.
The fact remains. Dr. Patterson has spoken truth which transcends any culture. He has spoken truth.
cb
May 10th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
CB, I too think Dr. Patterson has spoken truth. And I will one day be the one who is his age and will have his view. While I personally cannot figure out where SBs are with style and culture, the truth remains. Our churches are in trouble and he nailed it.
I have been fascinated by the culture and race angles lately in the media and social media.
You said, “Frankly, some of us down here are working to stop churches from being Black or White. Some of us would like for churches to just be churches of all Believers of all ethnic backgrounds glorifying God by carrying out the Great Commission and proclaiming the biblical gospel.’
Question: What is it that is actually being done?
Also you said, “The South has advanced more in the area of civil rights than any other part of this country. And it has been Southern Baptist churches and pastors who have lead the way.”
I wonder about that. The South is the battleground where racism has been since the 1800s. I am not sure how much advancement Anglos or African-Americans have really made or want to make.
Question: Can you give me a couple of examples?
I’m in Arlington, Texas, which is not exactly the South. As far as I’m concerned, the South still has serious issues and I am not sure if the church is willing to deal with them regarding race and culture.
Are you sure we have made as much progress as insinuated?
I’m not trying to be funny or confrontational. I am really interested in the dialog.