We are either slow learners or gluttons for punishment (or both, as I suppose they’re not mutually exclusive), but we’ve decided to have another go at producing a weekly podcast. We’ve had good intentions in the past, but I think we’ve set too high a bar in terms of content and production quality, with the result that we were never able to keep up with regular episodes due to our schedules.
So we’re trying out a new and much more informal format. As you’ll hear, there’s less structure to our discussion. It’s basically just us gathered around to discuss issues, and that’s what we wanted. We hope you’ll enjoy listening to our ramblings, and we plan on producing a new episode each week containing discussions about what’s happening in SBC life.
In this episode, you’ll hear us discuss everything from Clark Logan to Jimmy Carter to Christmas in August. You can listen using the player below, or you can click our podcast logo (or the iTunes link in the sidebar) to be taken to iTunes, where you can subscribe and have each episode delivered to you fresh from the oven.
If you have suggestions for things you’d like to hear us discuss on the podcast, or just ideas for how we can improve, leave a comment here, or click “About” in the header for email links for each of us.
Below are some links to articles & resources we mention during the episode. Thanks for listening, and for reading SBC Today.
So is it, basically, just as long without me as they were with my participation? For the record?
Robin took up the slack…
:-)
Bart,
Be sure this makes it onto your iPhone so we can entertain you while you’re over the Atlantic…
Enjoyed the discussion.
Question: why did one of your panelists refer to Wade Burleson as “our favorite pastor in northern Oklahoma” when referencing his quotes in the WSJ? I find that very odd, when you’re dropping names left and right in the discussion, but you don’t dare utter the name “Wade Burleson”.
Brother Tom,
I cannot answer for Brother Scott. However, his term described accurately who we were speaking of and he also never used a derogatory tone is speaking of Brother Wade. He merely stated “our favorite pastor”. Should he had used Brother Wade’s name? Probably should have. Were we trying to slam Brother Wade? I know on my part there was no ill intent. Brother Scott was dealing with a very contentious article where our former President has once again quit the SBC. This is the third time, I can recall, that he has done this and he keeps doing it over women in ministry. However, this time he has maligned Bible believing Christians as needing to be as feared as a fundamentalist Muslim terrorist. Why? Because we take the scriptures seriously and believe the Bible teaches that women are not to be ordained as pastors and deacons. Brother Wade seems to advocate that he believes the Bible teaches that women can be ordained as pastors and deacons. That is what Brother Scott was referencing when he referenced “our favorite pastor in northern Oklahoma”.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim
What!!??@@?? You mean Scott wasn’t talking about me as “our favorite pastor from Northern Oklahoma?”
:-)
Tim,
Thanks for speaking for me! ;-)
The fact was that I wanted the spotlight to remain on the former President and not on Wade when referencing the NPR article.
Robin,
I think you are in a completely other category! Being so close to the hallowed ground of Stillwater, you could qualify as my ‘favorite pastor in the Holy Land of Oklahoma!’ :-D
Sola Gratia.
Right. And if you believe that I’ve got some land…well you know the saying.
He leadeth me beside “Stillwaters”
Yes, indeed!
:-)
Tim – is this a true statement?
“However, this time he [Carter] has maligned Bible believing Christians as needing to be as feared as a fundamentalist Muslim terrorist.”
Is that really what Carter was saying? Or was he comparing Muslim’s view of the role of women with that of some Christian’s biblical view of women? Did he really say you, as a Christian preacher, should be feared as much as we fear a terrorist?
Brother Tom,
Here is what he said; “So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention’s leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be “subservient” to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service.
He then relates his interpretation of the BF&M 2K to: “The male interpretations of religious texts and the way they interact with, and reinforce, traditional practices justify some of the most pervasive, persistent, flagrant and damaging examples of human rights abuses.
At their most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.
The impact of these religious beliefs touches every aspect of our lives. They help explain why in many countries boys are educated before girls; why girls are told when and whom they must marry; and why many face enormous and unacceptable risks in pregnancy and childbirth because their basic health needs are not met.
In some Islamic nations, women are restricted in their movements, punished for permitting the exposure of an arm or ankle, deprived of education, prohibited from driving a car or competing with men for a job. If a woman is raped, she is often most severely punished as the guilty party in the crime.
So you tell me. Did I misinterpret his statement? I believe not.
Blessings,
Tim
Thanks, Tim, for providing the exact quote. I hadn’t read it before and couldn’t find it on NPR.
While I don’t agree with Carter’s extreme view, I don’t see that Carter is saying that you, because you believe the Bible and a pastor, are therefore to be feared as much as a Muslim terrorist.
So YOU tell me. How are you interpreting Carter’s statement that you are to be feared as much as a Muslim terrorist?
Carter is saying that the same fundamentalist view of the role of women that prevails in the SBC, based on an honest interpretation of the Bible, is similar to other religious views that have suppressed women’s rights. I don’t agree with Carter’s views, but I don’t see him equating you, a bible-believing preacher, with a terrorist! He is saying your interpretation of the bible with regard to women’s roles in the church, can be compared with the Muslim’s interpretation of their “scriptures” in also suppressing women’s rights.
Carter says your views “excuse” the poor treatment of women in other countries, and certainly I don’t agree with that at all! But he is not equating you with a terrorist. I think he has some valid views that should cause us to consider if OUR interpretation of women’s roles as described in the Bible is the correct one – and that really has nothing to do with what Muslims believe or how they treat women since in no way do your views “excuse” poor treatment of women in other religions as Carter claims.
Brother Tom,
You say; “Carter says your views “excuse” the poor treatment of women in other countries, and certainly I don’t agree with that at all! But he is not equating you with a terrorist.”
What countries does he speak when he speaks excusing “slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime.“? I believe you will find that those countries are run by radical fundamentalist Muslim who condone terrorist actions.
Blessings,
Tim
Which by extension of your logic, makes YOU a far-left wing Democrat socialist, as your country is run by Obama and Pelosi and Reid.
Brother Tom,
Your last statement would be true if the US were a theocracy.
Blessings,
Tim