One of the reasons that the CR was needed is illustrated by the recent string of articles in the Associated Baptist Press on women pastors. There are some people in our SBC sphere of existence who wish to rewrite history, and who like to think that the CR was not really needed. They think that it was all purely political, and it was an evil grab for power and control. But, the issue was definitely theological. The leaders of the CR just represented what thousands and thousands of Pastors and people in the pews were wanting to happen; praying for; and longing for someone to lead the charge. Thank God for Dr. Page Patterson and Paul Pressler and Dr. Adrian Rogers and all the others, who had the guts and the faith to lead out in this incredible endeavor. God used it and blessed it greatly.
But, what I really want you to see in this post is some of the reasons that the CR had to be, and where the SBC would be today if it had not happened. The ABP is a good place to look when trying to see what the SBC would’ve been. Look at this article: http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5411/53/ and this one: http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5410/9/ So, clearly going against the teaching of the Bible does not seem to matter to these people. They could care less that the Bible clearly teaches that only men should be Pastors/Elders in a church. This just shows their total disregard for what the Bible teaches. They’d rather fit in with society. And, this is where the SBC was going before the CR.
Also, I’ve always thought that winning souls and worshipping Jesus was at the heart of Christian ministry? I always thought that fulfilling the Great Commission was at the heart of what a Christian should be about? I’ve always thought that people knowing God and loving Him would answer the problem of man. Is that not what the Bible teaches? But, according to the ABP, the heart of Christian ministry should be something else. Now, please, dont come in here telling me that I dont believe in helping the sick and the poor. Of course, Christian compassion should lead us to help people in need, and we’re commanded to do that in the Bible. But, is this the “heart” of Christian ministry? Is this the core of what we should be about? Look at this article: http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5410/9/ Also, notice that it’s a woman that’s “preaching” it! lol. And again, this is where the SBC was going before the CR.
Also, the ABP has shown how the liberal/moderate crowd of the former SBC’ers disregard the clear teachings of the Scripture concerning homosexuality. Look at this: http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3469&Itemid=9 and this one: http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5001/9/ And then, look at this one: http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5281/53/ This is where the SBC would be today had not the CR taken place. This is the way we were going before the CR.
Folks, we need to thank the Lord that the leaders of the CR had the courage and the faith to lead our SBC back to the Bible. We need to thank God most of all for doing this great work in the SBC. God has blessed us in the SBC in great ways. God is using the SBC in tremendous ways to carry out His work on this Earth. And, we need to realize that being a people of the BOOK is the reason that God uses us and blesses us so greatly. The fact that we preach the Gospel and teach His Word is why He continues to choose to bless us and use us. And, if we ever drift away from a true faith….based on the Bible….then we’ll go the way of the other denominations and churches that left the faith. You dont have to look far to see how dead and dying these churches and denominations are.
Great points! If there are no fences around Christianity, then there is no Christianity. Why does David Gushee’s name appear so often in just about every aberrant interpretation of Scripture? His fingerprints are all over the articles you cite. Some lament his feeling forced out of Southern. I wouldn’t be one of them.
Darby and David,
When I was at Southern in the mid-90s, Dr. Gushee was my Chrisian Ethics professor. At least the semester that I sat under his teaching, there was nothing aberrant about his interpretations of Scripure. In recent years, his writings (and I assume his teachings) have departed significantly from what he taught me at Southern. That is sad.
David, I agree that there was a need for the CR, although I think most people would look back and see that some things could have been handled differently. Of course, that goes with all of us in any situation. There are always things that we could have done better, but then again, hindsight is always 20-20.
You did miss a prime example of what the SBC would look like, had we not had the CR. In the recent BWA Convocation in Honolulu, Dr. Robert Sellers, a MISSIONS professor at Hardin-Simmons’ Logsdon School of Theology (a BGCT affiliated school)stated that Christians and Muslims not only share a common belief in the “God of Abraham,” but that we worship the same God. You can read my take at http://www.fromlaw2grace.com.
Needless to say, if a former missionary and current missions professor at a Baptist theology school is teaching future pastors and missionaries that the God of Christianity and the god of Islam are the same, then we have an even more serious problem than just women pastors! Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Darby,
How did you get your comment to be tall and thin? I’m puzzled.
And, you’re right, Gushee does not need to be teaching in any Southern Baptist Seminary believing as he does about many, many things.
Howell,
I’m very grateful that the SBC no longer participates in the BWA. Thank you for pointing out how far from the Bible and from the Gospel they’ve gone. You’re right, to say that the God of the Bible, and the god of the Muslims is the very same God….is unbelievably bad and critically wrong. And, you’re right, that is exactly the way the SBC was going until the CR took place. In fact, we already had universalists in places of leadership and teaching in SBC seminaries back in the day. Thank God that that wont happen now.
David
Howell,
What would you expect from Hardin Simmons? Everyone knows Howard Payne is the real Baptist school in Central Texas. :-)
David,
I echo yor thankfulness for the Conservative Resurgence and for those who sacrificed much to make it happen.
Did u happen to notice a few things.
1 randel Everett the xdir of the bgct said Texas baptists have not changed views on gays in ministry in 150 years
2 those articles were opinion pieced, you did not happen to run the counter point arguments by
Marty duren or the union university proff
classic case of taking one side and labellimg all. The bgct is not welcoming and affirming
Nevermind, indulge yourselves in your little liberal boogie man fantasy, and keep telling yourselves how happy you are that you are not sinners like them
Jim,
I may have mssied something,but did David even mention the BGCT? The only link that mentions the BGCT and homosexuality indeed starts with the very quote you mention. David was certainly not trying to hide it.
The post is not focussed on the BGCT. It is simply an affirmation of the conservative resurgence in the SBC. To do so, David pointed out the ideologies of the authors of those articles which are certainly incorrect. Those ideologies needed to be dealt with when they crept into our cooperative efforts. I thank God for the men who stepped up and dealt with them.
If you want to change the topic to deal with the BGCT, perhaps you should interact with Howell’s comment above.
The problem with ethics professors was certainly not limited to Southern. Golden Gate had a doozy.
There was definitely a definable shift in theology necessitating and justifying the CR. Though my ethics professor was a genuinely pleasant man, his theology was absolutely that of a classical liberal.
Interestingly, sitting beside me was a hyphenated woman (popular in those days) who would go on to be a leader in the CBF.
The CR was all about the Bible: either it is the inerrant, unqualified, unchallengeable, uncompromising Word from God, or it is not. The SBC has spoken. We believe it is.
Contrary to what many detractors try to show, the CR was “truth driven,” not “personality driven.” The CR, for the reasons you outline, was absolutely critical to the continued mission thrust of the SBC.
As your article also points out, those whose teaching raised suspicion of being moderate or liberal, clearly evolved over time to be exactly what was suspected.
To God Be the Glory.
VolFan,
Why did you send your daughter to a Baptist university whose President knowingly and willingly hired an egalitarian? David Gushee was shown the door at Southern because of his egalitarianism, his support for women pastors. His views were certainly inconsistent with the complementarian vision of Albert Mohler.
Yet, David Dockery of Union University hired Gushee to be Professor of Moral Philosophy/Ethics.
So – with the hire of Gushee – did Dockery prove that he “cares less that the Bible clearly teaches that only men should be Pastors/Elders in a church” Did Dockery show “total disregard for what the Bible teaches” when he hired an egalitarian professor whose egalitarianism undoubtedly spilled over into his ethics courses?
Timothy George of Beeson has also hired egalitarians.
I guess it’s just interesting to hear you sing praises for the Conservative Resurgence yet know that you spent $$$ sending your kid to a Baptist university – which you have previously praised – whose President is a compromiser on what you consider to be an essential theological issue. To refer to the recent conversation over at SBCVoices: it would seem that Dockery and Dilday share much more in common than perhaps you are willing to admit….
David,
Thanks.
The overused political correctness bunch vs. biblical doctrine.
One can lose this battle but the losers, CBF, can really feel good about themselves.
Fletcher
Pingback: Moderate Baptists: The Road Less Traveled | From Law to Grace
Big Daddy,
Before Dockery came to Union U., Union was liberal. Dockery came in and turned the school back to sound theology. Why he hired Gushee? I dont know. But, I can tell you that Union U. is waaaaaay more conservative than most schools out there today. It’s a good school. Not perfect, but good. It’s better than going to a public school, which I went to.
Big Daddy, my Dad is an alumnus of Union U. I didnt go there due to the influence of my Pastor, and because I didnt think my Dad would want to pay that high of a tuition, and because I wanted to be a witness on a secular campus. But, my daughter got scholarships due to her good grades, and Union U. had improved drastically under Dockery’s leadership. Now, is Dockery doing everything that I would like for him to do? No. But, he’s a good leader, and the school is very conservative now. My youngest son wants to go there as well. I dont know yet, because Union U. costs $23,000 per year for tuition and room and such. That’s a little too pricey for a Pastor’s salary. But, we shall see.
Anyway, from what I understand, Gushee was asked to move along by the leadership of Union U. That’s why he went elsewhere.
David
The proof is in the pudding concerning the need for the CR. The liberals of those days were real. They were no imaginary, boogie man. They were real, and they were amongst us. Thank God that He led some men to lead the charge to rid the SBC of these liberals. And, I do believe that the articles that I linked to, and many others that I could’ve linked to, show very clearly what we would’ve been dealing with had the CR not have happened. Well, let me say this, if the CR had not happened, then there may have been a USA Baptist Convention, or a Gospel Baptist Convention, or a something else; because the conservative Pastors and churches were ready to do something…either change the SBC, or get out of it.
I’m glad that it got changed.
David
For what it’s worth- My perspective.
I would be considered a moderate by most on this blog- not because I am, but because I am not off the charts to the right as they are. Since birth I have been a member of 10 churches. I have served on staff at 4. I attended SWBTS(and graduated). I am close personal friend with 5 Senior pastors, acquaintances with at least triple that number. I have taught state convention workshops in Florida, Arkansas, and Texas. In all my years of theological training, denominational work, church service, continuing education,etc.. I have never met, seen, heard of any liberals teaching or serving in our convention, past present or future. If you add up all the church members at the churches I have attended or served the number would probably be well over 10,000. No lay person that I have ever met has had any knowledge of liberal leanings in the convention or any real idea what the CR even was.
Both sides argue. We obviously come at it from different perspectives. There is a group that is so far right it is not surprising that they cry liberal at the drop of a hat. There is another group that abhores the political nature of the CR and has a hard time seeing past it because they have had no encounters with the “liberals” that were being hunted. There is truth in both sides. There is clouded perspective in both sides. I know from experience that no truth or fact will change the mind of either side unless God himself came down and got involved in the discussion Himself. Even then we would probably argue over where to have the meeting or where we went for lunch afterward.
I am done with the arguement.
Robert,
How can you read the links that I provided and say that you have no knowledge of liberals amongst us?
If you were a SB back in the CR days, how can you say that there were no liberals back then, or that you never saw one, or that the people in the churches had no idea what the CR was? In the churches that I was in, and that my Pastor friends were in, knew very well that there was a big, huge problem in the SBC. I heard many people complaining about literature coming from the SS board. I heard many people in the pews talking about how seminary ruined young preachers. I’m scratching my head.
David
Hi DAVID,
about your youngest son attending Union U.,
if you contact them, perhaps they will have an advisor who counsels students regarding how to apply for scholarships and loans.
Also, your son’s present guidance counselor may be helpful, as most guidance counselors in high school or prep school settings are trained to help young people with applications, and where to seek financial aid. It’s a part of their job.
The loans ARE out there for students, although not as plentiful as in times gone-by.
Give it a try, David. Don’t let the ‘pricey’ tuition discourage you. It’s a challenge, yes. But not necessarily a road-block.
Christiane, true. And, we’ll probably give it a good try. But, unless they’re able to give us a lot of grants and scholarships, we’ll probably have to go elsewhere. Union U. is pretty good about trying to get students a lot of financial help, though. They did for my daughter. But, of course, my daughter had a 4.0 GPA in high school and made a high score on her ACT test. So, she was able to get a LOT of help.
David
David,
The world is a big place. The circles I traveled in and people I knew at the time are as I described. Just like you discount the political power hungry slant to the CR that the people that I know found so prevelant. A matter of perspective.
I hope the best for your son.
These days are very, very difficult for most parents who are trying to find ways to help their children. I think these days, that overcoming the financial challenges is just a part of the education process. Don’t be discouraged, David.
Thanks, Christiane.
Robert, did you read the links? I mean, forget everything else. Did you click on the links in the post and read them?
David
David,
Yes I read the links.
So, Robert, you read the links and still cant see that there was a problem in the SBC that needed fixing?
DAvid
David,
As far as I can tell those articles were written pretty recently. If I had knowledge of a large number of people holding similar beliefs in the past, then yes I would agree the CR was needed.
Robert,
This was reported on ABP…Associated Baptist Press. These folks have a lot of connections to the SBC. I’d bet’cha a Krispy Kreme doughnut that they either used to be SB’s, or they would’ve been SB’s, if the CR had not taken place.
The CR was very much needed.
David
David,
I have a question. Thought provoking, maybe. What percentage of people in an organization have to be liberal to warrant a takeover such as the CR? Let’s say out of 100.
In order to stage and sustain a political coup or takeover, one must maintain a majority or at least a large amount of support from people that don’t know any better. (ex.Obama winning the presidency) If one group is so much bigger, or in so much more control, why must political manuevering be used to gain the desired outcome? If it is what most people want and it is so needed, then why the behind closed doors strategy meetings and busloads of noninformed voters? Just curious.
Robert & David:
The situation with the CR was that there were profs in seminaries that denied the innerancy of scripture. People running the seminaries either agreed with these profs or at least did not think that these profs needed to be removed for whatever reason — such as “academic freedom”. I don’t think the average dumb guy in the pew (like me) agrees that the scripture has errors in it.
Here is an exact quote from a news story regarding Robert Bratcher that ran a couple of weeks ago in Associated Baptist Press. The story is “A man who told the truth” by Tony Cartledge. It is dated July 15, 2010. The occasion of the story is to reflect on the life of Bob Bratcher who died on July 11, 2010.
—–
An Associated Baptist Press article recalls that, during a seminar in Dallas sponsored hy the SBC’s Christian Life Comission, Bratcher said, “Only willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty can account for the claim that the Bible is inerrant and infallible”
He [Bratcher] continued, “No truth-loving, God-respecting, Christ-honoring believer should be guilty of such heresy. To invest the Bible with the qualities on inerrancy and infallibility is to idolatrize it, to transform it to a falso god.”
—————————
Quate a few ‘guys in the pew’ didn’t want guys like Bratcher on the SBC payroll in some agency or seminary. And if the trustees wouldn’t fire them then it was time to take matters in their own hands.
A debate regarding “innerracy” is one thing. But calling conservatives, who hold to inerrancy, guilty of “willfull ignorance and intellectual dishonesty” is over the top.
Roger Simpson — Oklahoma City OK
Robert,
It’s not the percentage that you should be looking at. It’s the fact that these liberals were in leadership positions in the SBC. And, 1 or 2 of them teaching in the seminaries is 1 or 2 too many.
But, the fact is that many of these liberals/moderates had moved into leadership positions, and were leading the SBC to become more liberal. That’s why it had to be done. They had to be taken out of leadership positions. And, the only way to do that was to elect conservatives as SBC Presidents…which we did…legally, BTW.
Roger, not believing in inerrancy was enough for me…without the statements they made about people, who do believe in inerrancy.
DAvid
David: In an earlier comment you noted that it was your understanding that the ethics professor you were discussing was asked to move on by Union’s administration. A gentle word of advice, my young friend: If you don’t know for sure, don’t repeat it. I retired from Union, and these people are friends and respected colleagues. I believe you are wrong. The professor was admired by the university community. Students loved him and were challenged by him. His match with Mercer is probably a good one for him, but he is more conservative than you think. On one comment thread on ABP, another commenter who knows him felt that he is part of the Anabaptist tradition, and closer to a Mennonite. So, two lessons here: Putting people in general categories of liberal or conservative is dangerous, and, repeating a rumor is equivalent to one of your church members calling another to say, “Guess what I heard about the pastor today?”
Singer 2,
I’ve been reading the stuff that Gushee has been writing on ABP. He’s a liberal…no doubt about it. I cant imagine anyone reading the stuff that he’s been publishing on ABP and saying that he’s not a liberal.
Also, so you’re saying that what I heard was wrong? about Gushee being asked to move on? How do you know that he wasn’t? I heard this from people that I’d expect to know.
David
David: Surely you know that “liberal” and “conservative” are subjective terms, qualified by the assessor’s own position or bias. I also think they are dangerous terms. Now, if you want to continue with a rumor like that about a Christian brother in print, go right ahead, but I think it is poor judgement, and it may even be an “ethical” issue! Since you don’t know and weren’t there, I can provide my take, because I was there, and all I saw was the best of collegial relationships between all parties, and pride that he was a part of that faculty. It is a fine school, and you may learn someday that a Christian ethicist has much to challenge us with. We ought to at least listen to them.
Careful there Singer, Volfie is never one to let facts get in the way of a good rumor or two, if you press him too hard he will be questioning your salvation. I should feel honored, I have had Tim Rogers and Volfie question mine!
Singer2,
Terms such as “liberal” and “conservative” are both subjective and objective. There are certain theological (or political) positions that most reasonable people would define as either liberal or conservative on a spectrum, especially within Baptist life. Surely a belief in universalism or a figurative resurrection of Christ (as opposed to a literal, bodily one) would be considered “liberal” by most definitions.
Also, you must not think that using such terms is that dangerous, as you yourself used the word “conservative” in an earlier comment when describing Dr. Gushee and his fit at Mercer. You must have come to your conclusion somehow.
Even if David is wrong regarding Dr. Gushee’s departure from Union, one can read his current writings and come to their own conclusions regarding his theology. When I sat under his teaching at Southern, I did not hear anything that Dr. Gushee taught that I thought was not “conservative.” From reading his most recent opinion piece in ABP on his church’s ordination service, I believe his theology, at least within Southern Baptist life, would place him outside the mainstream of conservative thought.
Can the terms “liberal,” “moderate,” and “conservative” be misused? Yes. However, there is a reason in theology and in politics that descriptive labels are used. Because they are effective. Usually, though, no one minds being labeled a “conservative.” But, if you call me a “fundamentalist,” we might have words. God bless,
Howell
QUOTE Putting people in general categories of liberal or conservative is dangerous, and, repeating a rumor is equivalent to one of your church members calling another to say, “Guess what I heard about the pastor today?” END QUOTE
I basically agree this is very good advice, but there is a slight difference. This is a blog and the purpose is to help people refine, redirect, and restate their opinions based upon the comments received.
In this case, there is a professor (I don’t know him) who publicly had a “situation” that many heard about. That is a little different from a “rumor” which may have no basis at all in fact.
Your reaction to a “suggestion” seems to have added more light to the issue, which is different from a “vicious rumor” intentionally started to bring harm.
Thanks for adding your insight to the comment thread.
QUOTE It’s a good school END QUOTE
I’d like to put in a plug for another great school: California Baptist University. This is a school that resides in the land of fruits and nuts, but still has a very conservative approach to higher education.
It’s worth looking into and it only costs half an arm, a leg, and organ of your choice :)
Howell: I agree with you…they are handy terms, but they can be relative terms, and, yes, I should have known someone would remember that I used “conservative” earlier. As for me, you can call me a moderate, but to call me a liberal is another matter.. (grin) To SSBN, with both CBU and Union, I would urge parents and prospective students to look beyond the cost and investigate the admissions process. Those schools offer numerous scholarship opportunities. I’ve counseled (and “won) many students to attend the three Baptist colleges where I taught before retirement. I wouldn’t trade those memories for anything. Best wishes, and blessings.
Singer, I think you are absolutely right. Smaller Baptist schools can sometimes assist students others schools will not or cannot.
And, for some a “moderate” is just a liberal in adolescence :)
Any talk of the CR causes me to ask: why are moderates complaining? We (conservatives) have helped them define who they are and helped spark an entire new denomination for them to be a part of.
I just don’t get why persons who consider themselves moderate don’t fully embrace the CBF. It’s not like in the beginning where moderates and liberals did become somewhat homeless. Now, there’s a whole new denomination with moderate leadership, women pastors everywhere, conventions discussing the merits of homosexual relationships, etc., etc. Why are they (moderates) still not happy?
I’m beginning to think that being “moderate” cannot generate enough passion to drive a new denomination. Moderates will continue to harangue the CR, but they cannot deny that the CR exhibited both principle and passion. That’s how it succeeded.
I hope that those who identify with the CR will never lose the passion for God’s Word that fueled a multiple decade battle that turned us back toward home.
My second stint at seminary (after a brief firestorm) was thoroughly conservative, fully enjoyable, and has provided a great foundation for ministry. I thank God for the CR.
Thank you for this post. I couldn’t agree more about the need for the CR. I ran by my former philosophy professor yesterday morning on my regular run. He taught me in my sophomore year. He is a member of a “Baptist” church here in town. He and most of his colleagues in the religion department would disagree with large chunks of the BFM. He is emblematic of what was once a large, if not controlling, presence in too many quarters of SBC life. Too many people had been to Southern Baptist colleges and seminaries not to have experienced sitting under such a man.
That’s why when Pressler and others stepped up to lead the movement so many people followed.
Another article that you could have cited has to do with the BWA. The SBC recently left that organization. At its last meeting, a woman spoke in some session and said that the Lord’s Supper teaches us about environmentalism (a/k/a “creation care”) because the elements of wine and bread are used. I kept thinking, “Do this in remembrance of…”
But those are the type of issues and direction that the former leaders of the SBC would have taken us. All one has to do is read the CBF material, look at the schools it supports. look at its steadfast refusal to have any doctrinal confession (as a matter of pride, mind you), look at the agencies it supports (e.g. The Baptist Center for Ethics) and you see immediately a group of people with a different theology in many cases (at least in what they are willing to tolerate) which results in a different emphasis and practice.
The SBC and the CBF could not exist in one body any more than Tories and Labour. So it is good that they can pursue their respective beliefs and agendas. I do not wish anyone ill. But to play like there’s no difference is willful blindness. And that is not a healthy state of being.
P.S. I don’t know David Gushee, but I did read his recent opinion on Which Kind of Baptist Are You? or something. It celebrated women’s ordination. I know that there are Christians who believe in that. The SBC has gone on record saying it does not. What bothered me most about Gushee’s article was not what he believed, but the put down on anyone who believed differently. Some like, “I am glad I am the kind of Baptist that doesn’t believe in denying a chance to serve to half the human species..” or something like that. I thought his attitude was a bit smug toward those who might have a different view, which includes about 2000 years of Christian practice and tradition, and 2000 years before that of Jewish law and tradition when it came to priestly service. And come to think of it – Jesus, himself, who chose 12 men to be his disciples.
SSBN: The compliment is deeply appreciated…to imply that, at 67, I may be entering adolescence—you’ve made my day! Actually I have been associated with both CBF and SBC churches for a long time. Those relationships have given me the real essence of how they think, and why certain principles are important. The passion for the Word that seems to drive the CR also results in some pretty fiery disagreements, prompting our calls for real identity and “essentials” for our faith statements. The passion for the moderates , of course, is “freedom”. Time will tell how long it will take for a real denomination to come out of it. My prayer is similar to yours, that moderates will forget the wounds of the CR and forge ahead, becoming uniquely their own. One other thought: we should be careful with generalizations re. growth. There are some very strong CBF churches in our nation (I am now a part of one), and they grow, I think, because there is a contingent of Baptist believers out there who identify far more with CBF principles. Their needs are being met. We can all be thankful for that, cease the criticism on both sides, and go forward with the mission we find in Christ for us.
Singer 2:
Good words.
God bless you.
Hi LOUIS,
I read with interest your comment, ” Another article that you could have cited has to do with the BWA. The SBC recently left that organization. At its last meeting, a woman spoke in some session and said that the Lord’s Supper teaches us about environmentalism (a/k/a “creation care”) because the elements of wine and bread are used. I kept thinking, “Do this in remembrance of…”
For some reason, it brought to mind a teaching of my Church on the connection of Creation and the Creator:
“There is not a single aspect of the Christian message that is not in part an answer to the question of evil.”
I wondered why I had come up with that thought, and after a while, I realized it had to do with how wide or narrow a lens people apply to Christian teachings. I suppose that lady saw a connection that you did not see, and I am guessing that is why you included that comment as an example of two different emphases that have led to a chasm between the BWA and the SBC.
Did I understand your example in the light in which you expressed it?
Christiane:
Yes, you understood me.
My understanding of and purposes for the Lord’s Supper was to commemorate the death of Christ on the Cross, as He gave his body and blood so that we might be forgiven. You know, pretty basic stuff. “Do this in remembrance of me (Jesus).”
I never would have thought that was connected to environmentalism. But this other Baptist person did think that.
I cited that story not for the purpose of arguing her point, but to show how different her understanding is from the common Baptist emphasis.
Some groups are so different, they just need to pursue their stuff separately.
Hope you are well.
Take care.
And yet, they also follow Our Lord, and are a part of the diversity to be found in the Body of Christ.
‘Big tent’/'little tent’ considered, I suppose people end up in the tent that is in their own personal ‘comfort zone’. But I sometimes wonder at the wisdom of ‘comfort zones’ in Christianity.
Have a great weekend, Louis.
Singer stated:
” As for me, you can call me a moderate, but to call me a liberal is another matter..
The video link below deals with this claim from 0:27-0:37
Also, the moderate battle cry of “freedom” you mention is summed up well from 5:50 – 6:10.
http://www.wacriswell.org/Search/VideoTrans.cfm/sermon/1222.cfm
Singer,
Chriswell sounds a lot like a Dominionist in some parts of his (was this a ‘sermon?’ ) talk.
Singer,
Well, well, well…CBF, huh? Figures. Doesnt shock me at all. I dont know why it doesnt? wink wink
Christiane, the Lord’s Supper is clearly for remembering the death of Jesus for our sins. It’s not for “creation care.” It has absolutely nothing to do with environmentalism, at all. And, what in the world is a “Dominionist?”
David
Yes, Christiane, I always enjoy your posts, even when i don’t agree, and your patience, but I’m not sure what you mean by “donionist”??
Oops, typo…I meant “Dominionist”?
Brother Singer,
I agree with your sentiment in #40. My comment on the growth of the CBF came from an article in Baptist Today, so it was not intended to be perjorative.
I do think you are right, there are some baptists that do identify strongly with the CBF, and that’s where they should be. I’m happy in my conservative circles as you are in your moderate circles.
Just because you are wrong, does not mean we can’t be friends :) I have brothers and sisters I love dearly, but we don’t always get along when we are together.
At 67, you should be just getting started in your ministry. I wish you well.
QUOTE And yet, they also follow Our Lord, and are a part of the diversity to be found in the Body of Christ. END QUOTE
Just following Christ (using Christian terms, participating in Christian cultic practices, etc.) does not directly equate to be a true believer.
Is it not true that Judas also followed Jesus? Is it not true that Peter followed Jesus and yet was strongly rebuked several times. Following Jesus and walking in the Truth (capital “t”) are not necessarily the same thing.
People can be very sincere in their religious practices and still be very wrong. That’s why there needs to be a debate when falsehood invades the church.
Being a follower and being a believer are not the same things.
In a recent article one of Dockery’s recent students at Union testifies. The comment stream there is pretty interesting.
This morning before I came across this discussion I was wondering if Dockery,like Manhattan Declaration signer Timothy George continues to endorse the Baptist World Alliance. That could be a faultline some of you will want to explore.
And BDW can weigh in telling us how far Dockery got in the Baylor Presidential search. I am pretty sure he was an applicant, maybe in the top five, but BDW can tell us about that.
In the meantime here is a comment from the ABP story on the Union grad:
Thoughts
written by tmarsh0307, August 07, 2010
While I know that the last 30 or so years in SBC/CBF life has been difficult, your average Baptist does not really know anything happened. Laura is right in that we younger “moderates” owe a lot to our home churches, even if they are SBC only affiliates. Most of our people listen to Charles Stanley and Adrian Rogers, having no idea about their role and tactics in the “takeover.”
Bottom line, most people do not know anything significant happened. I did not, and was raised through that time.
Furthermore, the laity really do not have an idea about all that has contributed to the conflict in Baptist life. Too, many do not have any idea about the CBF and SBC, their differences and emphases.
When I listen to CBF and SBC folk talk back and forth, I think that both “sides” could have done much more to resolve their conflict, or at least separate in a peaceful way. When I heard Cecil Sherman about a month before he passed away, he said, “We told the truth about the Bible.” What does he mean by that? A phrase like that needs unpacking.
I hope to continue to grow and get involved with CBF. But please, let’s not demonize those who are different. The Bible tells us that how we relate to those with whom we differ is just as, if not more important, than standing up for what we believe.
End Quote
From this article if you want to copy and paste the url:
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5423/9/
1) Cecil Sherman was a liberal. For someone to suggest that he told “the truth about the Bible” is pure hogwash. He denied inerrancy. Duh!!
2) Men like Charles Stanley and Adrian Rodgers were by no means sinless of course. However, any “tactics” they used were necessary to rid the SBC of the liberal filth it was reeking with. It’s too bad that the CR didn’t go far enough. If people like Steven had gotten what they really deserved they would have slunk off to their holes and stayed in them years ago. There would be no arguing about the CR on blogs because they wouldn’t dare show their faces around anything SBC.
If ignorance is Bliss then Joe must be the happiest person in the world.
Robert,
Please name one person who was hurt in the Conservative Resurrgence who:
*affirmed the verbal, plenary inspiration of scripture and the inerrancy of scripture.
*affirmed the historicity of the miracles of Jesus (i.e. virgin birth, resurrection).
*affirmed the historicity of Adam and Eve (that they were literal people and the only two people that God directly created).
*affirmed that the bible teaches sexual activity outside of one man/one woman in the bonds of matrimony is always sinful.
*affirmed the vicarious blood atonement as payment for our sins.
*affirmed that salvation can be found only by repentance from sin and faith in Christ.
Just one name will do, Robert.
Richard Jackson as he told Judge Pressler in the Halls of the SBC ExCom winter 89
Joe,
Well me for one. Give me a few months and I could scrap up a few thousand. See it’s not the professors, leaders, and big whigs that were hurt the most. It was regular people. People that were harassed and attacked for no reason. People that believed all the things you have listed, like me. What a joke this whole mess was. I can admit that there were some people in leadership positions that needed to be removed or asked to move on. No one in your group will ever admit that the Fundamentalist Takeover of the SBC was even the slightest bit politically motivated when it is obvious to any impartial observer it was.
Go ahead. Ask one person that was not part of the convention to view all the evidence and history from both sides. You would be surprised by what you find. But I know you’ll never do it. A fundamentalist is never wrong.
QUOTE People that were harassed and attacked for no reason END QUOTE
I really do not like to comment on this topic, but as long as moderate monkeys keep throwing “poop” at conservatives from their cages, I feel obligated.
Before I even knew there was a CR, I was harassed by a man who came to be the “top gun” in the CBF. My only crime: I admitted that I was conservative in my theology as most people of the time defined that term.
The man jumped on me with both feet. I was too naive to know what was happening at the time and just moved on.
So, this is just a note that conservatives have not cornered the market on sin and bad behavior.
SSBN,
I have no problem believing anyone attacked you verbally or otherwise. You have shown yourself on this blog to be arragant, ignorant, and pompous. You have a big target regardless of your theology. I doubt the man that verbally abused you met with any judges and determined what was the best way to attack and silence you and thousands of others for political glory. I am sure it was an isolated incident based on the fact that you are a jerk.
Robert:
I have shared the following quote of Harold Bloom from the American Religion before with BBSN and JoeB, but it is most appropo here as well.
Quote:
The background of the Know-Nothing coup at the Southern Baptist Convention of 1979 goes back a very long way, but I will pick it up, in Marsden’s wake, with arguments conducted in America a century before that, between premillennialists and postmillennialists. Postmillennialism had dominated the country until the end of the Civil War, and was particularly identified with our major theologian, Jonathan Edwards. Our age was fulfilling the prophecies of the Revelation of John the Divine, and at the end of our time would come the thousand years pervaded by the Holy Spirit, after which Jesus would return. But in the 1870s, a premillennialist drive began, with the growing sense of a new dispensationalism, which deprecated our era, denounced supposed progress, and reaffirmed ultrasupernaturalism. The dispensationalists, who became authentic Fundamentalists, first circulated the term “inerrancy” in regard to the Bible. The Know-Nothings of Nashville and Dallas have taken over the term, but originally it had a factual, indeed an empirical meaning. God had created both the cosmos and Scripture, so each would manifest a freedom from any error in design. The Bible, like the universe, would yield everything to a Baconian search of the facts. Gresham Machen inherited this argument, which he developed with great force. His dispensationalist or premillenarian condemnation of American culture as a Babylonish liberalism had a strong factual basis in the United States of the 1920s. Whatever we think of this today, we ought never to confuse it with the Know-Nothings who assert they are its heirs but are nothing of the kind. Marsden rightly insists that Fundamentalism was primarily a religious movement and only peripherally a social and political matter. But, as he added, that was Fundamentalism up to 1925, and not the movement of 1980, when his book was published. The tragedy of the Southern Baptist Convention is the result of a purely political and social conspiracy that still masquerades as a religious movement. Its reductive anti-intellectualism reminds one of the Spanish Fascism of Franco; the Know-Nothing Baptists are the heirs of Franco’s crusade against the mind, and not the legatees of Gresham Machen. But Fascist has never domesticated itself as an American term, so I will continue to employ Know-Nothing as the accurate counter here.
End Quote:
The third from the last sentence–The Tragedy of the SBC…==sums it up better than anything I have ever seen.
SSBN, if you are hinting Dan Vestal is anything less than one of the most gracious folks in Baptist life, then you are mistaken or provoked him beyond belief.
Wish you coulda asked Jim Lacy, strong Republican and one of George W. Bush’s strongest supporters in Midland Texas about Vestal. If that is indeed who you are talking about, he would find you laughable on the face of it.
Robert tells a strong truth. I hope you and Joe B will listen to him
It is amazing to me that some moderates just will not accept that other moderates, including Vestal, did not and do not always act as saints. It is amazing to me that moderates on this thread and every other thread I’ve witnessed use the harshest language of any people in the blogosphere, but consider they are actually on the “high road.”
This is exactly how the atmosphere was with the moderates at SWBTS when they were tossed out. There simply is no reasoning with people who are so biased as to believe that any disagreement could have only one side.
I tell you what I know by experience — first hand, no hearsay — and that is being “pompous and arrogant.” Moderates constantly attack men they have never met and have zero contact with, and that is presented as the unbiased history.
Thank God truth triumphs over error even if it took a couple decades.
Just look at Robert’s language. I’ve never used that kind of language to him or to Fox, but they use it all the time. I really do not understand their frustration. If the CBF is so great, then I deserve at least a little credit for helping it get its start.
Robert’s post has the exact same tenor as SWBTS and Texas did in general when it looked like the moderates would carry the day. They were not altogether gracious and they did meet to strategize how to continue in power. At the time, a moderate view of the authority of the Bible just could not carry the day. Now that the moderates have ceased to control the convention, they attack, attack, attack.
And, Fox, I never said an ill word to or about Mr. Vestal. Everything that happened to me happened as a result of closed room meetings and phone calls — the sort of thing you accuse conservatives of doing — which we by the way admit to doing. You are so blinded by your hatred of anything conservative that you would never believe a moderate could act in an ungracious manner. I’ve seen it more than once.
That being said, I do not believe all moderate, CBF types are evil people. Some just have a strong difference of opinion.
QUOTE One of the reasons that the CR was needed END QUOTE
A couple weeks ago I talked with one of the major organizers during the CR. He is a most gracious man and yet has been attacked fiercely many times.
David, I must take issue with one word in the above quote, “was.” I’m not so sure after reading a couple of blogs of late that we can consider that the CR is a done deal.
I don’t think the desire to water down God’s word and play patty-cake with every brand of doctrine imaginable has or will ever go away. To paraphrase a great man, “The price of conservatism is eternal vigilence.”
Thank you for this thread which points to the need to always keep “contending for a faith once for all delivered to the saints.”
Again, SSBN, we get a little ill with each other on occasion; that’s human nature.
My point with you is I see no evidence or inclination on your part to explore the overwhelming consensus of material on the takeover in the BX 6400′s that disagree with your conclusions on the fundamentalist takeover.
I know there are anecdotal stories here and there where folks got their feelings hurt.
But in the big issue of the day; mainly how SBC leadership was trying to bring rank and file out of their culture captivity and navigate with Christian good will the pitfalls of the Civil Rights movement and other questions like Watergate etc of the 60′s; against that backdrop SBC leadership like Jimmy Allen and Grady Cothen and Foy Valentine and Dilday and Robert Marsh and others were trying to make a way and engage the ecumenical conversations of the day.
You dismiss all that cause somebody grated on your Sunday School lesson when you were twelve years old or something.
I don’t know. Spend less time arguing with me, and half that time exploring the plethora of material that makes strong and convincing cases you are misguided in this matter.
It’s there in a decent library within your reach, the shelf BX 6400.
If you find somebody like Aaron Weaver less grating on your sensiblities, then take his word. The BX 6400 is the challenge to your mistaken notions. I’m just a bit player you came across in the blogosphere. Something as important as this is to you, something that have spent a good part of the last 14 days arguing about; then do yourself a favor and find out what it is you think you are discussing.
Stephen, what notion am I mistaken about? That the conservative won after a long battle in which we were bitterly and strategically opposed by moderates? That seems to me a clear fact of the matter.
If you think I have a notion that all conservatives act perfectly and all moderates don’t, then you are mistaken about my notion.
By the way, I don’t spend as much time arguing about this as you think. I only waste time I’ve planned on wasting. It’s sort of a “time out” for me.
And, contrary to your notion, I read at least three of the references that you posted. Not one of them appeared to be an unbiased treatise of the matter, and so were of little use to me.
For the record, I’ve never been to a National Convention in 32 years and quite going to the State Conventions about 3 years ago. My only dog in the CR hunt is in regard to: does the Bible contain errors of substance or does it not. That’s the watershed issue for me. That’s worth discussing and — to me — that’s worth breaking fellowship (graciously) over.
And, all the XBox 6400 books you can list will never give me a different opinion of Dr. Patterson than I have from direct contact with him over the last 10 years or so. All your accusations and books cannot get me to know something differently than from what I know by experience.
I’d think that would make sense to you, but somehow it doesn’t. Even at that, I don’t hold any ill will toward you. I just don’t often find any common ground with you — maybe I should try harder.
Look bro SSBN:
It’s seminary we’re talking about; not Sunday School. And I don’t think you can make the case SEBTS and SWBTS in the 60′s and 70′s were like the Jesus Seminar. That’s laughable on the face of it.
Did they hold their breath and write some papers on occasion that explored some new theological currents. I would hope so.
But the things that Pressler and Patterson and his band of McCarthyites with Lee Roberts and Tenery accused them of; laughable and Pathetic.
Risk reading the sermons of Fleming Rutledge, You may like em; everyone grounded in a Biblical text.
HOpe things otherwise are well. For whatever it’s good for I’m glad none of them copperheads got you up in WVa in your formative years. If not my advice take CB Scott’s and read Ron RAsh’s Serena. Lot of good copperhaed and Satinback Rattler talk in there.
SSBN
My language became harsh after I was called a monkey throwing poop from my cage. “Jerk”, in my opinion is an appropriate response to such a demeaning comment. And our comments are EXTREMELY tame when placed beside comments made by Vol, Joe, and others.
QUOTE And I don’t think you can make the case SEBTS and SWBTS in the 60?s and 70?s were like the Jesus Seminar. END QUOTE
I never said anything about the Jesus seminar, but now that you brought it up, the Jesus Seminar was not much different from my ethics professors approach to the Bible. So, I think there is a connection that could be made.
I know some “self-declared” moderates that are not falling off the theological map. However, it seems to me that theological discourse is never static and “moderate” is a stopping off place on the way to something else.
It’s like a ship: I’ve never seen a ship (being a Navy vet) loose its moorings and drift to shore. They always drift away. I think that is why some seemingly innocuous “moderates” were let go at some of the seminaries. The handwriting was on the wall so to speak.
And, I don’t think error is anymore innocuous (sp) in seminary as it is in Sunday School. Poison kills regardless of where the person is when they drink it — in my opinion.
Joe
I named two for you on the voices thread, did you forget? Karen Bullock and Sheri Klouda. Both signed and taught in accordance w the BFM 2000
that’s not one bit two. I will also throw in one Russell Dilday, a conservative who was and is wrongly labeled liberal who was thrown out of office by a trustee chairman who was in the midst of an extramarital affair
But as you know Joe situational ethics became the new norm in the sbc. CB says all the time that the end, supposed theological purity justified the tactics used to accomplish that goal. What other religion do you know that thinks along those lines, kind of makes you go hmmmmmmm
I named two for you on the voices thread, did you forget? Karen Bullock and Sheri Klouda. Both signed and taught in accordance w the BFM 2000
Jim
Put a sock in it. Just because YOU say they were fired as a result of the CR does not MEAN they were fired as a result of the CR. There are plenty of conservatives (and by conservatives I mean conservatives not moderates who want to co-opt the name to make themselves feel like real Christians) who did not and do not agree with how the Klouda situation was handled.
And I don’t think you can make the case SEBTS and SWBTS in the 60?s and 70?s were like the Jesus Seminar
Steven
Shut your mouth. For you to continue to claim that there were no liberals in the SBC Serminaries prior to the CR is pathetic. You must have forgotten about someone like Professor John Durham. You see, in the Summer 1984 copy of The Review and Expositor (Vol. LXXXI, No. 3) published by the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville there was an article written by John I. Durham who was, at that time, Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament at the Southeastern Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina titled “The King as ‘Messiah’ in the Psalms.”.
In the article, the oh so well educated Dr. Durham said “Few biblical concepts have fallen prey to this tendency [the tendency of ‘discrediting of an ancient idea by imputing to it a meaning it did not have in its own plane of existence any more frequently than has the Old Testament concept of messiah, particularly in its occurrences in the Psalms…To deal with the most frequent misunderstanding first, the one connected with the ‘width’ of the concept of messiah in the Psalms, we must first note that messiah in the Psalms refers always and only to the ruling king, the ‘Davidic’ king who was Yahweh’s appointed and so anointed messiah representative. These references are not intended as predictions of Jesus who is the Christ (Cristos, which also means anointed), though they have very often been taken as such, beginning as early as the New Testament period.” In other words, Mr. Durham says that when the New Testament writers say that the Psalms are referring to Jesus they are WRONG.
Further, he says that any such intepretations are based on “ignorance, prejudice, eisegesis, undisciplined piety, and over-used imagination, and so are wrong and unjustifiable reasons.” In other words, if you believe that the Psalms are talking about Jesus when they mention the Messiah, you’re stupid.
Now, he had the right to believe that if he wanted. He just didn’t have the right to believe that and call himself a Christian. He had the right to teach that. He just didn’t have the right to teach that in a seminary where he was being paid by people who actually believed the Bible.
Again, the CR was a good thing, a God thing, and didn’t go NEARLY far enough. If it had, filth like you would have crawled back in the toilet you came out of and never showed your face around decent, Christian people again.
joe,
I said nothing about how Klouda was treated – and it was deplorable, I am talking about her being fired solely because of the CR – she was one herself – a huge CR supporter who thought she was safe because of her Criswell college pedigree and support of all things Patterson.
She was fired over a misapplication of the no women pastors statement in the BFM 2000 – which was a direct result of the CR.
When bullock was fired Klouda thought she was safe because she was one of them – a fundamentalist, but when you all start eating your own your hunger shows no bounds.
You asked for one name – I game you three, be careful what you ask for and dont get all huffy and puffed up because I nailed you
Hey Joe:
You shut your Mouth.
Champion Nailed You as has a good bit of the rest of Christendom. Read the Scripture; You are Lost and on the Road to a fundamentalist Ditch; a Deep and cavernous place, full of shadows and boogeymen from which you may not be able to escape if you can’t find a road to grace and conversation.
You say the same damnable thing everytime. You have no new answers and you don’t read anybooks that Paul Pressler didn’t give you permission to read.
This remonstrance of you is having a bad effect on My Spirit.
You go on your way now. I have other folks to converse with on this board and don’t need you to start one of your lynchin parties.
There are other folks to talk to. You find em and maybe we can read each other in passing in conversation with other people.
Jim Champion nailed you. Take it up with him for a while.
Joe seems really “blissful” doesn’t he.
Joe is Exhibit A of why everybody is rushing to the Southern Baptist Covention these days for a Fresh Wind of the Holy Spirit.
Ole Shut Up Joe, me and My Shibboleths Joe; in my King James Version of the Bible I don’t see his and Volfan’s face anywhere near the fruits of the Spirit: Peace,Love, Joy etc.
I just vision this angry nameless bloodthirsty deranged zealot out in some lynching party, a godawful mockery of What Christ tried to bring about in the Kingdom of God.
Debbie Kauffman and Christiane are right; if anybody needs Jesus in their heart it is Joe Blackmon.
Why don’t you do it Joe, open your Heart and let Jesus in.
While you are under conviction, and you should be and the world will be a better place when you confess your Sin here is something for you to consider when you come back around to your senses and can converse without telling everybody who disagrees with you to Go to Hell:
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5434/9/
You most certainly did NOT nail anything, Jim. Klouda was not fired because of the CR she was fired by Patterson. There are numerous CR supports who did not agree with her being fired.
Deal with it.
Dear Joe,
Why are you so angry with people who do not conform to your notions? And I hope don’t deny that you are angry, because to call someone a thinly veiled euphemisn for s___ must belie either deep anger or something much worse, and I’d rather believe you are angry than anything worse. May I remind you of something the Bible, which you claim to revere, says? “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you” (Luke 6: 37-38). What measure do you want used in your life Joe?
By the way, I knew John I. Durham fairly well. Did he make mistakes? Certainly; he was human, the same as you and I. Was he to your left and even mine? Yes, undoubtedly. But he also had a grasp of the Hebrew language at which I could and can only marvel. He also had a passion: he was passionate about understanding what the text of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, was understood to mean to its original audience. There is a principle of Bible interpretation that to understand the text today, we must first understand what it originally meant, as well as what it has meant since then. The underlying presupposition is that the Holy Spirit may use the written Word in different way to people with different needs and facing different problems. John I. could make the Old Testament come alive in his lectures, and to hear him left no doubt in the listener’s mind of his saving relationship with Jesus Christ. Now his final exams were universally dreaded. They usually consisted of two or three questions (occasionally just one), and to answer them took two hours of furious writing. I recall one: take an Old Testament text (restricted to whatever book or books we were on at the time, I do not remember which they were), and develop it into a distinctively Christian sermon.
Finaly, a question to the SBC Today editors: if I, Gene Scarborough, Aaron Weaver, or any number of others who are identified as moderates or liberals, said to a conservative on this blog, “filth like you would have crawled back in the toilet you came out of,” what would your response be?
John
Way to completely ignore the point, Steven. Of course, since you don’t believe the gospel and you don’t believe that Jesus is the only way to heaven then of course you’re not going to have a problem with what Durham taught and believed. In contrast, Christians do have a problem with it and that is why the CR was necessary.
There is a principle of Bible interpretation that to understand the text today, we must first understand what it originally meant, as well as what it has meant since then.
John,
True. But see, here’s the thing, when Peter took the psalms that talked about the Messiah and said they refered to Jesus, he was 100% right. He was not giving a new application, he was interpreting the psalm. When the writer of Hebrews said that Pslam 110 was talking about Christ being of the order of Melchizidek, that writer was not offering a new application, he was giving the correct interpretation.
When Jesus said that when David wrote “The Lord said to my Lord…” he was writing about Jesus that was the interpretation of the passage.
What Durham was saying is that “No, they’re wrong. That is not what that passage means”. He is saying the writer of Hebrews, Peter, and Jesus were wrong. Now, he can say that. He can. He has the right to say that all day long. He just doesn’t have the right to say it and call himself a Chritian because when the New Testament gives the interpretation of an Old Testament passage the NT is ALWAYS right REGARDLESS of what anyone thought before the NT because the NT writers were inspired to write exactly what God wanted written.
There is no defense of what he wrote.
Interesting, Joe. You focus completely on an explanatory point I made halfway ot more through my comment (adding to it your own criteria for Christianity), and completely ignore my question to you. Why is that?
John
John raises a good question.
Will be interesting to see in what kind of spirit JoeB responds.
Steve and John
You ever argued with a wall. You will not convince it of anything. Providing irrefutable evidence doesn’t work. The wall doesn’t understand simple logic. It has not intellectual abilities. It can not process information and retort with a well thought out agrument with any theological substance.
Meet Joe- the wall
John FAriss: Thank you for your great testimony, your witness and remembrance of John I Durham. My Dad on many occasions had similar defense of SEBTS when it was under fire in the Lolley era and hordes had been demagogued against it.
You are getting at the guts of what was so ungodly about the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC; what it took Carey Newman and DAvid Gushee only a year to sense when they came to SBTS under Mohler’s Covenant in 94.
As an aside is anybody else having a disconnect when they come here to help show Taliban Joe some light the Anti-Spam required words are The Fruits of the Spirt:
Love, Joy, Peace, Gentleness, etc.
I’m wondering if Joe is getting a free pass or somehow another not seeing those signposts on the way to his remarks?
Steven
Since you’re not a Christian your call on anyone to repent or believe anything is laughable at best.
I really dont care if the leaders of the CR had to play politics to get done what needed to get done. I am very thankful that they were willing to lay their reputations and their ministries on the line, and do this great task that had to be done.
The problem with some of the moderates, who were basically conservative in their theology, was that they didnt want to get the liberals out of leadership and teaching positions in the SBC. That’s why they’re called moderates, instead of liberals. They were basically conservative in their theology…with some minor points of error in doctrine…perhaps…here and there….BUT they saw nothing wrong with liberals teaching in the seminaries, leading SBC entities, going to the foreign and home mission field, etc. That was the real shame of the moderate crowd.
But, anyway, I’m very thankful to God for bringing about the CR. Otherwise, the SBC would absolutely have been a dwindling, declining, dying SBC….because thousands of churches….the majority of SBC churches…would have left it long ago…including me. The ONLY reason they stayed in was to change it. If it did not get changed, then they would’ve left it and formed a new Baptist convention.
David
We see proof of their willingness to tolerate anti-biblical doctrine right here in this thread. I provide PROOF of someone teaching that when Jesus, Peter, and the writer of Hebrews interpret the messianic references in the psalms as referring to Christ that they were WRONG and not ONE of the moderates is willing to address that. They’re not angered by such a suggestion. They’re not offended that he taught in an SBC seminary. No, they’re DEFENDING him. How do you defend someone who says that Jesus, Peter, and the writer of Hebrews were WRONG?
I will join in briefly here to say that it does get really tiresome to hear moderates constantly accuse conservatives of taking over the SBC for bad motives. I see, for example, Judge Pressler, attacked over and over again. Judge Pressler wrote a book about what he did, why he did it etc. No one ever points to specific “lies” Judge Pressler told etc. It is usually an attack on motives.
I am sure that both sides in this controversy can find some examples where some conservatives treated moderates badly and where moderates treated conservatives badly.
Also, there seems to be in some of the statements some admission that there were some professors in seminaries who should not have been there etc. Even Dr. Dilday himself said to Bill Moyers that there were some (maybe he said 6 or 8, or something, not sure where he got that number).
Many Baptists who attended the conventions from 1979 to 1992 did so out of a concern about the theological direction of the SBC. Most of them did so because of experiences they had in Baptist colleges and seminaries. The SBC was overwhelmingly conservative, and wanted to remain that way.
There is no denying that many seminaries in the U.S., especially those run by large denominations, have changed in their orientation toward the Bible and Christian truth. They have moved in the “liberal” direction. I don’t believe that is really debatable. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Andover, Crozier… This list is too long to repeat. Baptists were concerned that their seminaries were headed in that way. The recent History of Southern Seminary, for example, documents that fairly well, despite the efforts of successive administrations to deal with it. The Hollyfield thesis at Southern (which was approved by the faculty that oversaw the thesis)showed the problems that the Southern was experiencing regarding the orthodoxy of its students as they progressed through Southern.
The fact that some quarters of SBC life were thoroughly conservative, and that some seminaries were better than others, that many moderates were personally conservative, really just begs the question. What to do about the problems?
Judge Pressler and Paige Patterson offered a simple, ethical, and democratic plan to address that problem. Concerned Southern Baptists could attend conventions and vote for Presidents who would address the problems by appointing committees who wanted to address the problem by eventually nominating trustees who wanted to address the theological issues in the SBC. That is very simple. That is ethical. The last time I read the SBC governing documents, the people in the SBC are permitted to cast their votes as they see fit. That is the way the SBC is set up. The goal was announced publicly. And people voted for the direction that the SBC has taken theologically.
Moderates tried mightily to derail this process. Some efforts were legitimate. Some were not (e.g. saying that Judge Pressler was a Presbyterian – that was pretty moderate stock in trade in the first year or 2 of the controversy. I heard Bill Sherman preach that from his pulpit. Saying that Judge Pressler controlled a Houston Convention from the Sky Boxes at the Summitt was also rather silly. But it’s still told today in some quarters).
I really do not mind either side pointing out from time to time the wrongs that might have been done by either side in this controversy. That’s fair game. But it does exist on both sides.
I also don’t mind getting to the merits of the real issue – How broad theologically should the SBC schools be? Should we allow professors or other SBC employees to be employed regardless of their beliefs? If their beliefs are important, where are the parameters? Who sets them? These are all good questions for debated.
But the broad brush and irresponsible name calling and questionning of motives is neither productive nor inspiring. It doesn’t convert anyone. And it doesn’t advance the proponents cause, except in their own mind and among their friends who already agree with them.
The CBF now exists. It stands for the moderate understanding that doctrine (aside from the priesthood of the believer and the separation of church and state) is really a personal matter. The CBF has no confession or doctrinal statement. Their leaders have said that’s the way it should be. That is consistent with the Moderate vision. All who believe in that now have a place to go and labor for the Lord.
But the SBC has always had a different tack. We have a confession of faith, and we have insitutions where the beliefs of the employees will be scrutinized to see that what they believe and what they teach advance the doctrinal confession and goals of the denomination.
That’s what the CR was about. It ended in 1992. I hope these 2 groups can move forward with their respective visions. To the extent there are discussions about the past, I hope they can be respectful and focus on the issue that Baptist struggle with, and not a lot of periphery or lore.
JoeB:
My anti-spam word to gain entrance just now was Faithfulness.
What was yours.
Go back and read what John Fariss said about John I Durham and his Romance with the Gospel.
I think he answered you pretty well.
John Fariss is a Southern Baptist Christian in class firsthand with the man you castigated and he said your version of the matter is Wrong.
John Fariss is right and you are wrong.
Carey Newman and DAvid Gushee are right and Al Mohler is wrong.
Cecil Sherman was right and Adrian Rogers Was Wrong.
Robert Marsh was right and Adrian Rogers was wrong.
LBJ was right and CokeStevenson was wrong.
Jimmy Allen is right and Judge Pressler is Wrong.
Joel Gregory is right and WA Criswell was wrong.
Sherri Klouda and Karen Bullock is right and Paige Patterson is Wrong.
Harvey Gannt was right and Jesse Helms was wrong.
Oscar Romero was assassinated and Jesse Helms is wrong.
Dan Martin was right and Robert Tenery was Wrong.
The Bible is True and You, JoeB are mistaken.
Steven
Can a person go to heaven apart from repentance from sin and faith in Jesus Christ alone? In other words, is a Muslim going to be able to go to heaven on the basis of their Islamic faith?
Louis:
I read your note after I responded to JoeB in the right and wrong reply.
BEfore I get going I want to set a new routine here, and name the Anti-spam word for entry. For this note mine is Kindness.
Louis, seems like I rememer a Louis from one of the major Texas dailies during the heyday of the Takeover. Was by chance that you; and were you at anytime an employee of an SBC agency with Judge Pressler as a reference. Seems like one of the reporters who seemed to always support the CR was helped by Judge Pressler to get a scholarship to journalism school or some such.
I am not accusing you; just curious or do you remember something to that effect?
Here is one part of your interesting explanation of how things happenned that I think is still a matter of serious debate. Was it a grassroots movement, or did the likes of the Southern Baptist Advocate mobilize the unwitting into something like a mob; and how much truth was there to what Pressler himself said were as many as 50
Meetings a day in small groups on the edges of Baptist life to mobilize preachers into a crusade; playing on their resentments.
Is there any sense in your mind which it is fair to say Pressler’s presentations in those meetings were similar to McCarthyism?
This is what you said:
Many Baptists who attended the conventions from 1979 to 1992 did so out of a concern about the theological direction of the SBC. Most of them did so because of experiences they had in Baptist colleges and seminaries. The SBC was overwhelmingly conservative, and wanted to remain that way.
End Quote.
A Host of dispassionate folks, credible people who reek of integrity, I have found beg to differ with your conviction on the matter.
Like You, I do wish Moyers had found a way to confront Judge Pressler in Las Vegas in 89; or may come back to it now.
Till then we have his marvelous lecture at the LBJ library about ten years ago.
As you can imagine I will go to my grave convinced Moyers Baptist witness and his American Citizenship–I know Moyers has joined the UCC–was much grander, more in the spirit of George Truett and ABraham Lincoln, than Paul Pressler.
Steven,
Every time I think about the people that got hurt like you in the CR I get a big smile on my face. The good guys won. Your side lost. And nothing–NOTHING–you ever say or do will change that.
My Spam entry for this Post is PEACE
Here is a link to Bill Moyers’ remarks at James Dunn’s retirment
http://tinyurl.com/9andm
Should be enough here for us to discuss till Monday of next week, or maybe on through Labor Day to the belly of September.
Steven
Can a person go to heaven apart from repentance from sin and faith in Jesus Christ alone? In other words, is a Muslim going to be able to go to heaven on the basis of their Islamic faith?
STephen,
The simple fact of the matter is that the conservatives did take back the SBC. The SBC is now a conservative convention of churches. And, really, nothing that you say, or link to, or quote is gonna change that fact. So, why do you incessantly keep ranting and raving and accusing? Why do you constantly ride your tired, dying horse into the ground?
I mean, really, Fox, think about it. What good are you doing in these blogs? Do you really think that you’re doing any good, at all?
David
JoeB:
Thanks for your reply. Seems like I have seen it somewhere else.
I am waiting on Louis response to greater and more pressing issues at the moment.
Hope you enjoy the MOyers lecture I gathered for you. Most of it is straight from my Heart to yours.
My spam word for this post is gentleness; I did not see above where you shared your fruit of the spirit word for the Day
And you misspelled my name, and I think you did it on purpose, an affront to my spirit,not to mention my Mother who named me and spelled it correctly.
Steven
You can type any word you want to in your comment. You still didn’t answer the question with a “Yes” or “No”. I mean, I already know what your answer is, but I’m going to make sure everyone knows that you won’t answer it. It won’t take much for them to figure out why.
Can a person go to heaven apart from repentance from sin and faith in Jesus Christ alone? In other words, is a Muslim going to be able to go to heaven on the basis of their Islamic faith?
David said,
“But, anyway, I’m very thankful to God for bringing about the CR. Otherwise, the SBC would absolutely have been a dwindling, declining, dying SBC….”. You mean like it is today.
David, I do appreciate your posts. Some effort given to intellectual process.
Joe, I love to read your stuff. Much like people slow down by the side of the road to see the traffic accident. And the more you talk, the funnier it gets. I do sometimes feel that we all loose brain cells when we read your ignorance. Thank you Stephen for working them back into shape.
Taliban Joe, my name is Stephen, not with a V as you persist in doing.
Worley, maybe someone will see the Moyers lecture for the first time and read it. Have by chance you ever read it before and considered what Moyers is saying.
A lot of folks come by these blogs and if I can offer them some light they would not have found somewhere else; surely I have done the Lord’s work in some small way.
So, Joe, you have been quick to focus on my personal recollection of a professor, but slow to answer my questions to you (anger and the measure with with you wish your life measured). What about those questions?
And David and the others who administer this website: what about Joe’s comparison that Stephen is “filth” and should “have crawled back in the toilet you came out of”? Can this mean anything other than that Joe thinks (and says) Stephen is s—? Is this the sort of language which is appropriate for this website, and of which–even implicitly, assenting through silence–you approve of for those whose positions you disagree with?
My anti-spam word is “kindness” too.
John
Robert,
The SBC baptizes more than any other Baptist organization out there today. The SBC has more members than most denominations. The SBC has more missionaries than most denominations. The SBC is not a dying denomination. We may not be growing at a great rate, and we have areas that could be done better. The SBC is focused on fulfilling the Great Commission, and it’s committed to the Bible. Overall, things are going really good.
And, Robert, even if the SBC was declining big time because people were not going to church….even if people were not getting saved due to people not wanting to be saved….even if people didnt want to hear sound, good, Bible preaching and teaching due to their desire to have their ears tickled; then I’d still be talking about how good it was to be in the SBC. Why? because we’re committed to the Lord and to His Word. It’s not about how big we are, nor about numbers, nor about declining or growing, to me. It’s about being faithful to God and to His Word. Growth, or lack of growth, is up to God.
David
Matthew 23:27 (English Standard Version)
27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness.”
Wow, Jesus called these people names.
Joe, dont do that again…play nice. Be a good boy.
David
Coming back to the Bible for a moment, whether the god of Islam and the God of Judeao-Christianity are one and the same is not as simple as, David, you appear to believe.
When the great Apostle addressed the Athenians he stated, ‘for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you.’
He could have chosen to say ‘You worship every god but the true one.’ You may not agree that this means that another monotheist is worshiping the true God in a manner of unknowing. But you do great discredit to this Scripture to imply that your particular interpretation is a certain test of orthodoxy.
If, as you contend, an advantage of separating from other Baptists is purity, a disadvantage is the inability to genuinely explore Scripture rather than settle on an assumed orthodoxy and start proudly shouting.
David
I try to be good. I really do. But it’s so hard. I’ll try, though.
Stephen:
You have me confused with someone else. That’s not my background.
I read the Moyers’ tribute. Moyers’ thinking is exactly the problem here.
Here are the words he uses to describe SBC conservatives – “coup”, “cabal”, “heretical” (only in a non-theological context, however). He claims there was a “purge” of denominational employees. No such purge ever occurred. In fact, it is amazing how few firings there were.
He calls Judge Pressler “Lenin” and “Stalin”, not only ignoring the fact that those people were of the Left (like Moyers, not like Pressler), but with a complete abandonment of Christian ethics. I cannot imagine that you would ever find Judge Pressler saying in public that some Moderate leader was the equivalent of “Lenin” or “Stalin” or Hitler or whomever. I think that Moyers is given to extreme comparisons. Pressler had the EC “under his thumb.” (Well, at least he didn’t say “boot.”) But that’s an incorrect statement if I ever heard one. If you would just peruse the list of EC members during Pressler’s time there, you will see that these men and women were not under anyone’s thumb. They were very independent, strong people. Fact was, they just agreed with Pressler, as so many Baptists did in that day.
Perhaps the biggest, most glaring aspect of what Moyers has to say, however, is consistent with the Moderate vision – that is, there is no conception that the Christian church (SBC in this case) should govern itself and its institutions by any doctrinal confession. He even dismisses the concept.
Moyers only talks about 2 things – the priesthood of the believer and the separation of church and state (his view of it, at least). That is exactly what I said in the comment above.
When Moyers brings up the concept of doctrine it’s only for the purpose of talking about the priesthood of the believer. There is no celebration of the great truths of the faith, or even a reference to show that he is familiar with them.
The thing that absolutely drives Moyers is politics. That’s what he really likes to talk about. That’s what he has spent his life doing. So, when he sees an opponent, he sees the political angle. Perhaps he assumes that’s what drives his opponent, as well.
But he completely dismisses (or doesn’t want to discuss) the theology that motivates people. He quotes a theologian, but only for the purpose of exalting personal experience against any theological confession – again, the priesthood of the believer.
I actually believe strongly in that concept. But I do not believe, as Cecil Sherman said, that if the scripture led someone to NOT believe in the virgin birth, then that person would be an orthodox Christian who could teach in an SBC seminary.
Finally, I cannot see how anyone would hold Bill Moyers up as what a Baptist should be. He LEFT the Baptist church. He is NOT a Baptist. He once said that he “had come to a different way of seeing and believing.” It is certainly his privilege to do that, but that does not make him a good example for Baptists.
I agree with much of the colonial history that he cites. I am sure that he, James Dunn and I would agree on some things in that regard. But what all those Baptists had, including George Truett, that Moyers and others like him ignore is this – theological orthodoxy.
I agree with Truett on Church/State relations, as he spoke in his time. But it’s important to note the full story of Truett and why he was a hero to Southern Baptists. He was also theologically orthodox. I cannot even imagine suggesting to George Truett that the professors in SBC seminaries should not agree with and teach in accordance with the denomination’s confession of faith. If you can ever find such a statement, I would like to read it.
So, again, we are really back to the same issue. The one that Baptists cherish, but that Moderate Baptists (and former Baptists, like Moyers) ignore. And that is – Should a religious denomination have a confession of faith, and should that confession of faith be believed and practiced by the employees of the denomination.
It’s really that simple. And all the efforts to avoid dealing with and answering that question do not get us anywhere toward understanding.
I know that you do not believe in having a confessional statement by your referral to Walter Shurden’s recommendations to the CBF. That’s o.k. for you to believe that.
But when discussing the CR, it is more helpful for understanding to lay that card on the table because for Baptists in the SBC, that is THE thing. That is what motivated them to bring about the CR.
David,
So then it’s OK to call people names like “filth” and tell them to return to the toilet from whence they came, at least as long as you can also call them hypocrites, or Pharisees, or scribes, or find something to disagree with them, and then glibly say, “dont do that again…play nice. Be a good boy.” That’s good to know.
John
My spam for this entry is self-control
Louis:
Presheate your reply.
It is interesting it is the politics of the Texas Regulars and Council For National Policy Moyers brought up when Pressler walked off the set in the PBS documentary Christmas 87; and the subject of the 11am press conference in San Antonio Weds of that convention with James Dunn and Neal Rodgers looking at some political activity of Pressler and Patterson that are key to the SBC takeover story.
I hope BDW comes across your statement here and brings it to the attention of folks at Baylor, even Ken Starr himself. Maybe this fall or next spring they can take it up yet again.
As you can imagine I am in the column of the CET periodical, and their board of directors on matters of truth of this level of gravity.
And with Robert Marsh, whose son, Charles has a bio of Dietrich Bonhoeffer coming out fall 2011. Maybe the discussion in wake of that publication will shed new light on these matters. Hope we for sure can re engage then as I’m sure we will have more episodes in the interim.
I have a prayer request I am working on the rest of the afternoon; but will check in again shortly thereafter.
John
situational ethics, as long as they agree with you everything they say or do is fine. The BI boys agree with evey statement and insult Joe Bob Blackie throws out there, why would they edit or ban him.
It shows where their hearts are
Yeah, Jim, and the fact that you stand with people who deny inerrancy, question the veracity of the miracles of Jesus, or call Jesus, Peter, and the writer of Hebrews wrong (John Durham) pretty well tells where you are. The fact that Steven believes that you can go to heaven apart from repentance and faith in Jesus Christ pretty well tells where he is, too.
Stephen:
Thanks for your reply. Again, all the council for national policy stuff may be an interesting side line for people who are interested in that. That Judge Pressler’s family has a long history of conservative Democratic politics in Texas (though I believe Judge Pressler is a Repbulican) and that Judge Pressler would be involved in conservative politics is no surprise. I can see how Moyers would dislike that, and that you would, too.
But the goals of the council for national policy, unless they involve the Bible and the doctrines of the Christian faith (and I don’t think they do, to my limited knowledge), were not at issue in the CR. I went to several conventions. I was not motivated by the council or its agenda. I was motivated by theological concerns, as were most of the people I knew. What a professor at Southern wants to believe about U.S. policy in the war in Iraq or the economic stimulus package or any host of political issues is not important to me. What that professor believes about the nature of scripture, the Doctrine of God, the nature of Christ, His work and atonement etc. are VERY important to me.
You are obviously interested in all the political angles here, and it’s fine for you to be that way. But if you keep looking at it through that lense, you will never really understand what motivated thousands of people to mobilze for the CR.
The fact that Judge Pressler may have certain political convictions is irrelevant. I think that’s what he told Moyers when Moyers brought it up. And by the way, I have seen that show. It was not a “set”, it was an office. And Judge Pressler told Bill Moyers point blank that Moyers was confusing two separate things. Pressler had an interest in policital matters, but those issues were not the issues in the SBC. Pressler simply refused to answer questions about groups he belonged to that were not related to the SBC, and he said it was inappropriate and confusing for Moyers to bring it up. Pressler did not walk off the set. He just refused to answer a liberal Democrat’s questions about his political affiliations that were not part of the SBC issues about the Bible.
I believe Pressler was right to answer the way that he did. Moyer’s attempt to make the SBC issues a partisan political issue was natural for Moyers (looking through is political lense), but most Baptists didn’t buy it because it was a blatant attempt to create an association that was not warranted. So the issue never got any traction – appropriately.
So, again, the question is not what Bill Moyers’ or others think about Judge Pressler’s political believes, as much as Moyers would like to make it about that.
The issue that drove Southern Baptists to take action was whether a relgious denomination should have a theological confession how that should be applied to employees in the denomination.
I respectfully say that until you come to terms with that and are able to discuss it without jumping back to politics, you will never really understand the CR.
Good luck on your prayer request. I am sure we’ll talk in the future.
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness”
Interesting that David would choose a scripture that so acurately sums up the Fundamentalist takeover.
Jim,
You said, “situational ethics, as long as they agree with you everything they say or do is fine. The BI boys agree with evey statement and insult Joe Bob Blackie throws out there, why would they edit or ban him. It shows where their hearts are.”
Reminds me of a story I heard out of Germany, when it was still divided into east and west, during the Cold War, supposedly when Willy Brandt was mayor of West Berlin. One night, people in West Berlin heard the sound of heavy machinery, construction equipment sort-of noises, working very, very close to the Wall. When dawn came, they saw that the communist East Berlin authorities had dumped a gigantic pile of garbage from their side onto the west side, obviously as a comment on what their thought of free West Berlin. Tensions ran high (as they were throughout most of Brandt’s tenure), with people suggesting all sorts of retaliation, up to and including an armed invasion. But Brandt had an idea of his own. . . .
A few nights later, the people on the East Berlin side heard the sound of heavy machinery moving and working very near to the wall. And when dawn came, they saw that the West Berliners had dumped truckload after truckload of fresh-cut flowers onto the communist side. But it didn’t end there; there was also a banner hanging which said something to the effect, “Each, out of the abundance of his heart, gives the very best he has to offer.”
Joe, David, and some others have offered the best they have out of the abundance of their hearts, and it is to call Stephen “filth,” and to tell him to return to the toilet. I pray to God that what I have given is at least closer to what the West Berliners gave that night.
John
No Joe I do not stand with people that do not believe the Bible to be God’s word. As I have told Volfie on many occassions I believe the whole Bible, even the hard parts about alcohol and give the Bible more than one verse to base my entire theology of Women.
I even believe Jesus when he told us to LOVE our enemies in the sermon on the mount. Don’t know if u have made it that far in your studies, I tend to think not…
In honor of Joe, let’s all hold haands and sing” they’ll know we are Christians by our Love”. Or we could sing you’r so vain by Carley simon
QUOTE I even believe Jesus when he told us to LOVE our enemies in the sermon on the mount. Don’t know if u have made it that far in your studies, I tend to think not… END QUOTE
So, this is what it means to “love our enemies?”
QUOTE and some others have offered the best they have out of the abundance of their hearts, and it is to call Stephen “filth,” END QUOTE
That’s a great story with a clear messge. I just like to add that before you hitch your wagon to Stephen in order to run over the carcasses of those you dislike, you might want to go back and read some of the comments Stephen has made.
I for one have gone out of my way to try to have a civil conversation with Stephen — and at times I think we almost did. I don’t think the lack of civility can be limited to only the CR Types, “and others,” you paint with your broad brush.
I really do not see the value in name-calling from either side. We can strongly disagree without slinging mud and other substances all over the place.
And strongly disagree we do.
It was a simple question with a short statement at the end as Joe does not seem to have much in the way of Love for those he seems to see as his enemies
Post #109
Great insight Louis. Thanks for the facts.
Jim, you mentioned in the post above (and other posts I remember) the matter of “women,” and I suppose you mean also “women as pastors.” You feel your study of the Word supports women as pastors. I from my study of the Word feel that the Word does not support this practice.
You disparage greatly my ability to interpret God’s Word by claiming it is based upon only one verse (which is not true). But, even if there were only one verse and it said, “only husbands can be pastors,” that would seem definitive, in my view. I understand it is not definitive for you.
But, how are you taking the “high ground” and speaking for “moderation and toleration” if you use such language? I’m not defending the same practice from our side which is easy to get swept up in.
My point is: you and I hold mutually exclusive views upon something to do with the “preaching ministry of the church.” That seems like a pretty primary issue to me. So, I don’t see how it would be possible for us to serve together in the same circles. That does not mean I do not believe we serve the same Lord.
One side had to go in this battle (and people from both sides made it a battle). There was a divorce. Both sides have gone their separate ways. What is wrong with that?
When I say, “I am thankful for the CR” I see it as a win-win situation. Too often it is seen as a “us-them” game (and I acknowledge persons on both sides played that card heavily). So, why not just move on and work in our own fields?
The only think I can think of that keeps fueling this fight is that some “moderates” want to return to control the institution that consistently voted not to go that direction over many years. I don’t see that happening and I would resist that effort. So, if the fight is continuing, it has to be continuing (in my analysis) because some moderates hold out hope of regaining control.
And, as for Stephen — well — I give him a lot of grace because he grew up in a Pastor’s home :) Look I tied in two threads in one post.
SS
the fact is I actually believe the role of a senior pastor should be filled by a man. I am conflicted when I read about Junia and when I read rthe verses that say that WHEN a woman preaches she should have her head covered. From what I read of early church history, first 200 years or so, it seems that women preachers were not uncommon. I therefore chose not to be dogmatic on that issue, or I am just plain inconsistent as the case may be
I am a deacon in a very conservative sbc church, bfm2000 and all. We are not a political church and my pastor leads us into more mission endavors than I can keep up with. I love the politics.
My issue with the fundies is the continual narrowing of parameters and what I see as personal bias that are used to set those parameters.
I agree that the fundies won, however the use of any means justifying the end should never happen when. Christians are dealing with each other. This is the reason I get ticked off when people misrepresent individuals like Dilday etc
I have a very hard time celebrating anything not accomplished with integrity – firing of dilday bullock klouda and others I know to be good conservative people doing what the Lord called them to do
Jim,
I don’t like the shrinking perameters, either, but that is another matter.
Why wouldn’t it be right to fire Dilday. He decided he would not follow the wishes of the trustees, he was obstinate and contributed to his firing. Being fired is not “ill treatment” in all cases, in and of itself.
If you look at the bullock, klouda issue: may I wish to be fired as graciously as they were. I’ve owned two large businesses and managed a couple more — no one I ever fired got the gracious treatment and windfall severance at they did. We might disagree on whether they should or should not have been let go, but I can’t see how one can say it was done maliciously and with contempt. I don’t think the facts support that.
I just don’t see firing people as “evil.” It happens all the time for many reasons and no reasons.
About the “fundies winning.” I think that’s the kind of language that incites and enflames. The unfortunate thing is: it just isn’t true. The SBC is definitely conservative as every vote for our leadership in the last two decades proves — but to call millions of people “fundies,” is derogatory and hurtful and unnecessary.
Plus, I don’t know of any place in the BF&M that says women cannot preach. Could you point out what area you are referring to?
I am on board with you that any trend toward a further narrowing of our confessional statements could be quite problematic. But, we should not fight a battle that has not yet presented itself.
Thanks for a civil discourse. God bless.
I started using fundie as a response to the use of liberal every time moderate is used- example on sbc voices in the last thread it was always moderate/ liberal. I would hope that most know that just because one is moderate politically (sbc version) does not make one theo liberal although it is an easy and lazy label
I know that Bullock and I’m pretty sure Klouda would take strong issue with how they were treated finacially and otherwise , both as a misapplication of bfm 2000. Dilday is a matter of public record and I have both read and discussed his book on the subject with him
SSBN,
The last time you and I interacted we had some sparks; I did not entirely understand why, and at the least, I regret it. Maybe we can try again, and get better results. There are very few folks with whom I have both disagreed and been unable to be civil, and/or them with me. Joe is one of the few; his potty mouth and tendency to condemn anyone with whom he disagrees as though he were God Almighty, combined with the tendancy for the editors on this board not to scold him in other than joking terms (see #101) speak to me of an attitude unworthy of those who claim to follow Jesus. The only time I remember seeing Stephen use language anywhere close to Joe’s was in his #73 here, which I gave him a pass on–it was in rsponse to Joe’s potty mouth language, and as an ex-police officer from Montgomery (Ala), I would have been tempted to say much worse. Anyway, I don’t claim to be Stephen’s keeper, so I may have missed something, but if I do hear him use such language, I will not hesitate to call him out on it. In the meantime–I have a problem with any Christian on this board or other Baptist boards using such language of another person, much less a Christian, and thinking they are justified with Christ in using it. By the way, when I referred to “others,” I did not mean it as a reference to the CR; rather it was a reference to those who habitually give Joe a pass regardless of how foul his mouth is, or in his propensity to condemn anyone with whom he disagrees, as though he is God’s senior advisor.
Hope this clarifies what I meant and my process, and can help us to engage with each other honestly and in a civil way.
John
Joy is my spam word this time
Here is a link to the video in question in my discussion with Louis above.
http://vimeo.com/12469789
Louis, spent the good part of the afternoon reading the last 30 pages of MacCulloch’s Christianity, the last 3,000 years.
One very provocative sentence in there as well as some perspective and fascinating anecdotes I had not considered before; as well as a zinger of a quote in regard to Calvin and Women in Ministry.
Kinda intersects the discussion about the meta-narrative.
I am looking forward to the brainstrust at Christian Ethics Today navigating the piece in the near future.
I am convinced Rice University’s Chandler Davidson for starters would take issue with your relative dismissal of politics as strong motivation for Judge Pressler. It is naive given what is known about the TExas Regulars. We’re not talking conservatism of Everrett Dirksen and the Mainstrem of the Republican Party when it comes to Pressler; it’s more McCarthyism and the Dixiecrats.
I know McCarthyism is a flash word for you; maybe BDW can get Barry Hankins and the folks at Baylor to explore that for us; Texas Observer and Texas Monthly.
George HW Bush faced down a crowd of right wingers in Houston in 66 Congressional term. I am proud of him for it. Those folks Ithink an exploration will show is the heart of what Pressler was about.
Still Bush41 nominated Pressler for head of US office of EThics; even so will be interesting for someone, some Baylor student or strong Mercer or Emory student of American Religion to put the spotlight on matters we are discussing here.
Like him or not, Bruce Prescott, who had an interesting stay in Houston himself, is pretty knowledgable about these matters.
I’ll pass this exchange on to Pat Anderson, new chair and editor of CET. Anderson was a contemporary of Marshall Frady in the early 60′s at Furman. Maybe Anderson and Prescott can turn up an updated definitive piece for us.
Pingback: Is Civil Discourse Dead In America? | From Law to Grace
Scott Howell:
I think you will want to get to good bookstore this weekend and read the Perdum story in Vanity Fair, Lady Gaga cover story issue, that frames your concerns almost as magisterium, to coopt how I imagine Pope John Paul II would frame it were he still with us.
And I would encourage, as you continue to engage the big thoughts to read the last thirty pages of Diarmand MacCulloch’s Christianity.
In so doing you can join Strobe Talbott, Southern Baptist Bill Clinton’s roommate at Oxford as fellow Rhodes Scholar, Talbot who testified to his reading choice last week on http://www.booktv.org.
You can find a clip there of Strobe’s recommendation.
That said, I still think JOe Blackmon should consider himself in light of what I consider divine Revelations in George Singleton’s collection of thinking man’s humor: Half-Mammals of Dixie.
I wish WA Criswell, an outside the box humorist himself, coulda lived long enough and coulda sat down with Singleton and me to discuss it.
My apologies. My Inversion of your name was inadvertent and unintended.
My kudos to you for naming your firstborn greatly and spelling it right; and my best wishes to the other two as well.
Who is your brother in law, and where does he preach/live?
Maybe Jon Stewart can help here in dialogue with Newt Gingrich.
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=16521
And Scott, you’re a good fellow,but I would hope you could find time soon to place in historical context and blog on Charles Kell’s book which I will link the successive post since two links in one post often jeopardizes the posting.
The point is while I standby your tack toward virtue in this discussion and applaud you for it, it is a little unwitting and disingenuous in the larger scheme of things given you now benefit from your standing in the SBC, a station you hold largely because of rhetoric you now deplore.
I do not buy into the notion of Louis for instance, that because the Jimmy Allen and Russell Dilday wing of the SBC in the 70′s made some statements in their defense that everything can be forgiven and whitewashed as business as usual in the face of the avalanche of demagoguery and McCarthyism coming from the Pressler Camp and the Southern Baptist Advocate of Bill Powell and Tenery.
That is why, Howell, as you carry the banner high for civility, I think incumbent on you to do another blog soon unflinchingly navigating the sentiment expressed here.
Used books or little juicing of your local interlibrary loan service should have a copy of Kell’s book on rhetoric at your front door by Thursday of next week.
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/rhetoric_and_public_affairs/v005/5.3casey.pdf
Well, the CR did happen….thankfully…and it reminds us to be ever vigilante and watchful…because the Devil always tries to sneak false teachers into the fellowships of Believers. But, it needed to happen, and it did.
I have chosen to not delete, or block any of the people in here, who have done nothing but accuse, call names, question motives, and attack me and all the other Bible believing, conservative people in the SBC. I have chosen to allow your comments to stand. I did get onto Joe for calling people names, but I didnt choose to scold the rest of you. But, it has been very interesting watching people attack and insult and call people names…while all the time scolding others for doing the same! lol. Wow.
Thank God for the CR.
David
And the award for the most obtuse comment of the week goes to Volfie, a multiple time winner of this not so coveted award!
Jim,
If you have something constructive to add to the comment thread, then please do. But, please quit coming in here for the sole purpose of insulting and saying mean, ugly things to others. Thanks.
David
PS. If you choose to not adhere to my request above, I’ll start deleting your comments that are not on topic, or just hurling insults.
Stephen:
I simply do not understand your unwillingness to engage at all on the theological questions at issue in the cr. Your beliefs about peoples’ political beliefs and desires are fully represented on this and other blogs.
But in a religous denomination people are energized and motivated by questions of religion.
I hope that one day you will venture out into the waters of religious discussion. I look forward to that because I think it would be an interesting and lively discussion.
Take care.
Louis:
Chapter 13 http://www.sbctakeover.com
lol
Stephen,
No problem on the name inversion. I’ve been called worse! I figure if we were going to name a son Stephen, we might as well use the Biblical spelling. As to past rhetoric used by others presently giving me the standing I enjoy within the SBC, I’m not quite sure what standing that is, other than as the pastor of SB church in New Mexico.
I think we often confuse what happens at the national level with what actually is happening on a grass-roots level. I believe that the overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists have a desire to fulfill the Great Commission and are not overly concerned with what happens — including the rhetoric — in the halls of Nashville or Alpharetta or at the annual convention.
David,
I think allowing comments to stand, including our comments on our own blog, can sometimes be helpful, not only for others to see, but more importantly for us to see and have conviction by the Holy Spirit that what we wrote was not appropriate. I know that I have later viewed something that I had written or was reminded of something I said and, in hindsight, I regret what I wrote or said because it was not honoring to God. Regardless of what the other fella writes or says, we are all responsible for our own words. God bless,
Howell
Jim,
I warned you. When you’re ready to comment on the topic, instead of giving backhanded insults, then your comments will remain for all to read. If you dont, then they will be deleted.
David
Maybe for future reference in regard the wider world of the CR
My Question to President Carter 93
http://tinyurl.com/3758gf4
in Press conference at the Bham CBF took the above link as its text.
Once again I wasted time clicking on a hot link by Fox. Why do I do it? Fox, that was the biggest waste of my time to click on that bunch of nothing.
David
David Worley; the fault was not in my link but in your failure to follow the discussion. In context of my offering in comment 122, the Edsall link is a rich vein indeed.
Think about it a little. It is not rocket science. See things in historical context.
Okay here is Pressler conversation with Moyers:
http://vimeo.com/12469789
Then you have Edsall in large discussion of Oil and Politics of which Pressler is son of a VP of Exxon. Follow how the money that finances GOP in the stages where Pressler was putting together the takeover of the SBC to his resentment of Jimmy Allan and Carter in Texas Primary of 76.
Which raises the question of the Integrity of the Hill he said he was prepared to die on; maybe it wasn’t God’s Holy Word after all, Maybe it was his back pockets and the power of his friends in the suburbs of Houston.
David W.
As I follow some of this exchange, I am amazed at the use of the word “history,” that comes up all the time — usually, as in this case, by a self-declared moderate and person spiteful of the CR.
In this present exchange, it is all about “oil money.” That should be outrageous on the face of it, but some actually believe it was “oil money” that brought about the CR.
What about the thousands of people that had to get to 20 years of annual conventions and vote in person. The only way to keep focusing on “oil” and Pressler and other red herrings is to suggest that over a period of 20 plus years ALL these people who consistently voiced a conservative view, were duped. All these people who paid their way and took time to express their views were just blind “idiots” in the eyes of those who know the “real” history of the CR.
For a conspiracy such as some moderates propose to have taken place over a twenty-year period would have been a miracle of “loaves and fishes” proportions.
The real history is clear: thousands of “real” conservatives voiced their opinions consistently over a 20 years plus period. If you listen do some moderates you’d have to believe that a small contingent of fundamentalists took over a convention in which the majority of church folk were moderate.
That’s not history, the fiction of the highest order.
Volfie
I’ll make a deal with you. Have CB read my comments, even the one you deleted if you can. If CB thinks that I have been mean/ hateful or overly sarcastic I will make a genuine apology to you.
CB is a mean old cuss, but I think a very fair individual who has defended you on many occassions I would trust him to read my comments fairly.
Deal?
SSBN: Why don’t you invite BDW and Barry Hankins, or Bill Leonard in for a weekend retreat to your church to discuss with all the doctors and lawyers you have there and see if they buy your alternative history that half of one percent of a vote in San Antonio where Lee Roberts and others maligned Richard Jackson.
The good Baptists and other folks on the boards of Trustees of
Wake Forest
Furman
Samford
Baylor
Carson Newman
Mars Hill
Stetson
Mercer
Ouachita
Looked at your fundamentalist takeover of the SBC and SAid, no thank you not for us.
Like I have said before I’ll stay with
Mark Noll
Russell Dilday
Grady Cothen
Clark Pinnock
Randall Balmer
Chandler Davidson
Billy Graham biographer William Martin
UNC Chancellor Bill Friday
NT Wright
George Truett
Judge FRank Johnson
And countless others over your porridge of
Texas Regulars
Residues of the White Citizen Council from the Helms organization
Robert Tenery
Caner Brothers
Ronnie Floyd
Francis Schaeffer
Council for National Policy
Judge Roy Moore
Or to say it much better than I just did here is better.
Maybe I have brought this to your attention before, SSBN, but I want to be sure you look at it square in the face, Unflinching.
Before this magnificent address I am about to link; another way of answering your question is tell me how all those good Bible Believing Baptist Deacons in Alabama were 60-80 percent foursquare in George Wallace’s column throughout the decade of the 60′s when he was most outrageous. How do you explain Sunday School teachers in Baptist Churches voting for Jesse Helms.
Same way you explain the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC is the short answer and if you are proud of the TExas Regulars, the politics of resentment and demagoguery, then be very proud of it.
Tell it to all those Doctors and Lawyers in your Congregation and let them be Proud too.
Here is Buddy Shurden at his finest on the matter:
http://www.centerforbaptiststudies.org/shurden/A%20Decade%20of%20Promise%20Speech.htm
Steve,
How many time did Richard Jackson run for pres. of the SBC?
How many of your “no thanks” list are not actually Southern Baptists?
Tell the rest of Governor Wallace’s story.
BTW,
You left out Richmond on you institutional list.
Jim,
Vol has not contacted me, but I read your comments last evening. I think I even read the one that got deleted late in the thread. Naturally I don’t know that for sure, because you may have had more than one deleted.
Honestly, Jim I may not be the best guy to ask about getting comments deleted. I don’t know for sure, but I may be the leader among Baptist bloggers in getting his comments deleted. SBC TODAY has deleted many of my comments, with my friend, Tim Rogers being the lead “deleter.” SBC IMPACT! has deleted several and more than one has been deleted at Wade’s Goose Farm and Debbie’s Funhouse.
I was deleted last night at SBC Voices for whacking a bad outlaw. So, I may not be the best person to ask Jim. But nonetheless, here is my opinion:
I would not have deleted any of your comments. They seemed to me to all be opinions and not out-and-out lies like Gene Scarborough and others trot out at will.
Honestly, I will have to say that I agree with some of what you said. Of course, I also have to say I believe you to be dead wrong in some of what you have said.
In the end, it is always up to the blog owner/owners as to what they delete and they are thus far free to make that choice. That will be true at least until the Obama administration takes over Baptist blogs and deletes all the conservatives.
I’m pretty confident that if Stephen posted something and nobody disagreed with him, he’d post again disagreeing with himself :)
I’ve already said I did not support Jesse Helms.
But, would someone please tell me what year he was an elected official of the SBC and spoke for the National Convention? Otherwise, you should be posting on sbcfiction.com.
And, isn’t it nice that Stephen gets to pick his team and my team. I’ll just LOL because the team he chose for me only contain one name of a man whose work I’ve studied at length.
I wonder if when Stephen played sandlot baseball if he got to pick both sides so he could have an edge toward winning?
PS — I don’t hold weekend retreats to discuss Baptist politics. I can’t afford to waste the time. Second, none of the persons you mentioned have enough credentials to speak in my pulpit ;)
SSBN: Then who is on your team>
Look I give you stuff and you say you read it but most likely you don’t. Just because ignorance is bliss for you when it comes to the takeover doesn’t make you right about the matter. In fact it makes your position laughable.
Your doctors and lawyers will not buy it.
I link these beautiful references about the abysmal ignorance in your position and you come back with the same rhetoric about how your people in your church are content, and you mention similar like minded folks who came in mobs to vote on things they had no idea about in the sbc over a series of years cause…..I don’t know, your stuff doesn’t add up.
CB: REst of Wallace story is he got shot; black people got to vote,and he continued to deceive himself.
Dan Carter of Emory wrote a bio of him. You ought to read it.
Judge Frank Johnson who was in Wallace’s wedding party Said Jehovah would have to forgive Wallace; he could not.
Steve,
Much of what SSBN says, I know to be true. You talk about “ignorance being bliss” but you ignore knowledgeable questions constantly.
You know Steve, I don’t really mind your constant links or your referrals to books. One reason is because I can make referrals to books probably three to one on you. Another reason is because I think people ought to read books that differ with their perspective on various issues. And frankly, many of your links are to people’s opinions who were not even present when the event they speak of occurred. And that is what makes some of those links “laughable” to me. Because, Steve, the truth is, for some of those people you link to, when I read them I think, “ignorance is bliss” because they have no idea what really happened or why.
What I mind is the fact that you evade honest dialogue. I have read many comments by SSBN and can tell he had a pretty good deal of personal involvement in some of the events that occurred in the last 30 years of SBC life in what Bob Tenery would give the name “Conservative Resurgence.”
Steve,
Wallace did get shot. He did go on in his sin for a while. Finally, he was gloriously saved and went to speak at several Black churches confessing his sin, asking forgiveness and was elected his last time on the Black vote.
That is the rest oft he story Steve.
BTW Steve,
Frank Johnson and his wife both had unforgiving hearts toward a repentant Wallace.
I ask you, with whose heart would your rather stand before God, the unforgiving hearts of Frank and Ruth Johnson or that of repentant sinner George Wallace?
I will give you a “link” where can find an answer from a biblical perspective: Luke 18:9-14, Jesus speaking to the issue of Wallace and the Johnsons.
I don’t feellike playing this game today CB.
Dan Carter bio is a matter of record. John Siegenthaler is on the record about Wallace.
He was a little man for small minded people and Alabama’s contentment with the lowest common denominator is…….
Or another way; when we are talking about Wallace it is not the same as discussing Preacher MacIntyre in Serena.
Maybe the link I had for you at Voices on Cormac McCarthy’s The Gardener’s Son can help.
George Wallace has few redeeming qualities other than the Daughter who came out for Obama
One more time CB, since you seem to have a Dawg in this hunt this evening; list me the books that in your mind give credibility and legitimacy to the fundamentalist takeover of the SouthernBaptist Convention.
Oh, curious, did by chance you and SSBN read the Esquire Mag story December 81 by Richard Marius.
I have a great letter from RM deteriorating on my wall at home. I shoulda framed it.
Steve,
I did not open the Wallace issue. You did.
I am not saying he was a good man. On the contrary, he did a lot of wrongful things. I am saying he repented. The record seems to be as clear on that as was the record of his sinfulness while in office.
Now answer the question: Would you rather face God with the hearts of Frank and Ruth or with the repentant heart of George?
Can you not give George what you were willing to give Jeff T and yourself when you quoted the song by Kyle Matthews, “….’Cause we fall down, we get up….”??
Steve,
One book that I believe to be factual is: Me. I was there. I was on the inside. You were only a distant observer.
the books that in your mind give credibility and legitimacy to the fundamentalist takeover of the SouthernBaptist Convention.
That’s simple. The Bible. The moderates lost because they were unwilling to be ovbediant to scripture. Thinking about the hurt they went through as a result of the CR brings a smile to my face.
As I have quoted before Ken Chafin said in his debate with Paige Patterson at Samford April 7 87: “A Bible in the hands of a believer who will not submit it to rational means of investigation is a dangerous thing and has often been used to buttress up injustice.”
Your appeals about forgiveness and Wallace beg the question; are simple minded given the great harm he did to the state and our Country. The Great Baptist Preacher’s son Marshall Frady had Wallaces number; the basis for the GAry Sinise film about him.
As for you having some special knowledge about the takeover because you were a fly on the wall; even if you were in the room in some places I’m not buying your “wisdom” on the matter. Vestal,Lolley, Cecil Sherman and Bill Friday and countless others for me carry the water on the matter.
I liked your use of the word “wrongful”. Rash woulda been proud of you. Find the link to Luce on the Gardener’s Son. Will be better use of your time for the rest of the weekend when you are tempted to respond once again to my prevailing view here.
As a “fly on the wall” I was in a pretty good position to know come to think of it. Objectivity was rather easy from the wall position. But of course, that is not what you meant was it Steve?
But then of course, I was not a fly on the wall and if you had any knowlwdge at all you would know that also.
Go ahead and start your book right here on SBCtoday dot com tonight if you like, CB Scott
SSBN and I will be more than happy to make suggestions and add insight as you go along.
Did you start with Montoya at Criswell College or come inlater as a bodyguard or something with Patterson at SEBTS.
When did you come on the scene.
Did you work with Robert Tenery; did you get in inHouston in 79
When and under what circumstances did you first meet Judge Pressler.
Steve,
Answer the question I asked you about the Johnsons and Wallace. You are avoiding the question again. And you are doing so, again, for you realize you have, again, put you foot in your mouth.
I answered the question. I said it was simpleminded and not adequate to the weight of Wallace’s harm.
The answer to the question is to read the Dan Carter Biography.
I can’t come up with a perfect analogy to get across to you how inadequate your demand is. It’s something letting the whole OTestament come down to is it significant; Yes or No?
Read the Carter bio and then maybe we will talk. Until then I guess we have to move on to the next topic.
When and under what circumstances did you first meet Judge Pressler?
When do you think you will have time for the Gardener’s Son?
One afterthought. The Federer/Djokovic match is on and I am a fool for wasting my time on this right now.
I think Kyle Matthews on this matter and his Pastor Jeff Rogers would lead you to an interdisciplinary course on Wallace, it is such a freighted matter; a Simple Fall Down and get up like Frank Johnson implied is a little gutless when the man, like Hitler, was part of forces that bombed your Mother’s House attempting to Kill her.
Bonhoeffer conspired to assassinate Hitler. It’s not to less a matter of degree to have acquitted Frank Johnson had he considered similar action toward Wallace. In Historical time, Wallace fueled the malice that bombed Johnson’s Mother house.
Your Question is suspect.
CB
Thank you. I didn’t think you would agree with me, although I think it would be fun to serve with you. Perhaps at some point we will.
I would be facinated by a book coauthored by you and foxy. It seems that he covered much as a journalist, although I don’t really know his history. I point counterpoint discussion of the CR buy two combatents from opposite sides would be very interesting. If not you two, Mohler or Patterson or even Land v Dilday or Vestal. But, I would want both sides to air out all the laundry both good and bad. A boy can dream….
That is I didn’t think you would agree with me on all my point, bit I did think you would be fair and tell me if you thought I had stepped over the line
Steve,
You gambled and lost….again. You were banking on me not knowing about the Johnsons. I did and trumped your scant knowledge of all things Alabama or George Wallace. You ignore the fact that I said he did many wrongful things in office.
I reference you to Wallace’s coming to know Christ and going to Black churches and the Johnsons asking for forgiveness and you said “….. I said it was simpleminded and not adequate to the weight of Wallace’s harm.” So, Steve, you call the response of a man to the call of Christ to repentance and faith “simpleminded and not adequate”?? That borders on blasphemy Steve.
As for when did I meet Pressler? 1979 in Houston. But that meeting was not my introduction to the problems in the SBC. That goes back a good while before that meeting. You may intimidate others with your links and books, but it does not work with me.
I have made you an offer before Steve. I will make it again.
How many boards and committees did you serve on Steve? What motions did you write Steve? I have asked you this before Steve, but I will ask again. Who were the three people who wrote the Memphis Declaration and where was it written? What do you actually know of the SBC and its history in the last 35 years Steve?
You bring your pen and paper to my home and count my “read through, dog-eared and marked up books and then we will travel to various libraries in this country and a couple of foreign countries, check their archives for the volumes I have checked out and we will count them. Afterwards, we will travel to your home, count your read, dog-eared and marked up books and then we will go to the Samford library and check their archives to see how many books you have checked out there. Then we will count your list.
But we will not be finished then Steve.
After all of that we will begin to conference call each person you have named in various comment threads and any others you might like to add. Then we can call all the people I will put on a list. When finished we will compare both lists and see which of us have actually known, or know and have a valid relationship with on both lists.
Still, we will not be finished Steve.
Finally we will both write our personal histories. We will then compare educations, general life experiences and our personal involvements with the SBC over the last 35 or so years. Afterward, you may call on any ten witnesses and I will do the same. These witnesses will be assigned to validate the data from each of us as to the truthfulness fo their findings.
Afterwards, you can come back here and tell me what I need to read and who I need to meet and I will do the same for you.
Jim,
If you will remember, I have always maintained that Bullock and Klouda received poor treatment by being removed from their positions at South Western.
And thank you for saying I am fair. I seek to be. It has cost me much. Again, thank you for your kind words.
One last thing tonight Steve,
You mentioned an effort to bomb Johnson’s Mother’s house. That is something I know a little bit about, having someone try to kill one’s family. They were not successful. They never tried again.
Going toward a tiebreaker in the Third
Federer trumps CB Scott and Pressler everytime.
Just ask RicknBubba who brought the Davis Cup to Bham
If you were standing before God Steve;
Would you want to be as the unforgiving Frank and Ruth?
Would you want to be the repentant sinner George?
Which one Steve?
Did you read the link I gave you: Jesus’ commentary on George and Frank, Luke 18:9-14?
This article is best I could find. It’s good but is not as eloquent about the gray area of Wallace’s alleged REdemption in conclusion as the Carter biography is.
Still there is this nugget that I think shows Wallace to be much more a mediocre conscience than the sinner of the Old Testament who was truly redeemed in his Psalms, DAvid, of the lineage of Jesus.
I can’t see where George Wallace is like David and Abraham as CB Scott would imply with his sophomoric whitewash of a beaten Wallace who expediently goes to the kindness of Alabama Blacks to maintain status with his people, white people of Alabama; not all of them bad; not all the white people in Alabama are bad, but the ones who stuck with WAllace through thick and thin like the rest of us have redeeming incidental characteristics, are not in the aggregate the great common man that elects the best the founding fathers hoped for.
It’s the same jury that will convict the black man in To Kill a Mockingbird everytime.
Here is an inkling of the ambition Carter detects that in the end describes; is a truer estimate of Wallace than CB Scott’s dilletantish one size fits all Junior Bible lesson sentimentalizes.
Quoting:
But Wallace’s rhetoric fueled racist fire, with violent and deadly consequences. Three months after his University of Alabama stance, four children were killed by a bomb planted by Klansmen at Birmingham’s 16th Street Baptist Church. Civil rights leader Martin Luther King stated, “The murders of yesterday stand as blood on the hands of Governor Wallace.”
“When four little girls are killed, of course, he didn’t want that to happen,” says Carter in the film, “but you can’t get away from the consequences of your action. It’s not what he intended that, in the last analysis, is important. It’s that reckless disregard he showed that led to these events.”
Link
http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/2000-03/wallace.html
Steve,
Show me one statement wherein I stated George Wallace was not guilty before God and man of great wrong. You can’t and you know it. And for you to say otherwise is nothing less than a lie.
I did say that after all was said and done, the record states, the man did repent and believe the biblical gospel. Upon his conversion to the way of Christ, the record states he did go and seek forgiveness of his sins against Blacks in Alabama. The record states that he was well received by many Black Christians in Alabama.
The record also states that the Johnsons refused to forgive him in any way. Obviously, they felt that his sins were greater than their Christianity could handle. Maybe it was.
Now Steve, if the work of Christ on the cross to save hopeless sinners like George Wallace and an even worse one, cb scott, is no more to you than a “Junior Bible lesson” as you called it, then maybe your Christianity is comparable to that of Judge Frank Johnson and far less that the multitude of Black Christians in Alabama who did, as the record states, forgive George Wallace for his heinous lifestyle of hatred and bigotry before he became a follower of Christ.
If we are going to reach back in history to grab a sinner or two, why not just go back to Adam and Eve? If it had not been for them, the CR would have been unnecessary ;)
Steve, #148,
I know you think I’m an intellectual light-weight, and depending upon who you compare me to and what area you are talking about, I’ll plead guilty.
My area of expertise is in regard to cosmology and quantum physics. Not much talk of that on this blog. I’ll be happy to discuss the existence of God in light of new developments in quantum physics, if you’d like to set up a debate in your town. We’ll do “pink slips” and winner takes all.
But, there are some historical situations over the CR years, I am not as up with. However, insulting me because people of great intellect appreciate my ministry to them, is — well, doesn’t really make me want to engage you very much.
And, to call me a liar — well, that seems a little less than brotherly. If I said I read something, I read it. That doesn’t mean I will necessarily fall under the same spell from it that you did.
I agree Christ Salvation is sufficient even for a vile sinner like you.
It is the conclusions you draw about Wallace and the Johnsons that trouble me. The fact that I have not been able on the fly to perfectly articulate the matter, to have the wisdom of Solomon and the eloquence of Abraham Lincoln, Ron Rash or Tom Corts does not reify your take; does not mean you have a satisfactory take on George Wallace.
For me that is Marshall Frady, Dan Carter and possibly Howell Raines. I have read all three; it appears you have not.
Your sin here may be the sin of stubborness in refusal to look at Raines, or the sin of hubris thinking you have the final say on the matter just so in your mind you “win” a debating point over me, a Pyrrhic victory indeed if one at all.
Carter beckons you when you can make the time for it.
I am not arguing the adequacy of Christ to redeem the sinful soul, nor the witness of black Christendom in Alabama; I am arguing that Wallace even saved–it’s not my call, he stands ultimately before the judgment seat of Christ, not me–even saved George Wallace does not come close to the virtue of Judge Frank Johnson and his legacy; and I am also asserting Carter navigates the gray areas of the matter much better than you do; no brainer has much more informed, eloquent and wiser estimation of the matter.
Paul Hemphill’s Leaving Birmingham adds stout insight as well.
I hope we didn’t get too personal in this exchange; meant no pejoratives, I guess we can write it off as the risk of the exercise.
I think SSBN and Jim Champion both should send us a check for entertaining them this evening.
While you boys were entertaining, my money tonight went to the John Lester v Cobra Lewis matchup in the great game at the Temple in Arlington, TX, alas the bosox prevailed however big Josh Hamilton hit another home run and had a couple hits on the night. Cobra Lewis was greatness again, but he keeps getting paired up against great pitching and a disturbing lack of run support.
Tomorrow it’s CJ in the 104 degree heat in an afternoon game, I’ll be on the couch
If we are going to reach back in history to grab a sinner or two, why not just go back to Adam and Eve?
(sarcasm) Silly fundy…they weren’t real people. That’s just a fairy tale like Noah’s ark, the Exodus, and Christ’s resurrection. Thankfully, the moderates have helped us see the error of holding to such un-intellectual beliefs. (/ssrcasm)
Sorry to disapointt you again Joe, the moderates I know, and there are quite a few, believe that a literal Adam and Eve walked the earth as well as the othher miracles you mentioned.
As for me it’s off to church for a great day of worship and to teach a Sunday school class about a literal David being told by God that he was not going to be able to build the temple
Steve,
I do not hold you in disfavor. I do not do that even if our dialogue becomes “personal in this exchange” as you say. My point has not been that George Wallace was in any way innocent of heinous sin. My point is that Jesus saves even the most vile of sinners such as George Wallace and, thankfully, cb.
You say, “Your sin here may be the sin of stubborness in refusal to look at Raines, or the sin of hubris thinking you have the final say on the matter….”
Steve, my “stubbornness” in this case, is not a stubbornness related to sin. My stubbornness in this case is to cling tenaciously to the truth of the gospel being sufficient to save sinful men and change their wicked hearts.
I also do not commit the “sin of hubris thinking you have the final say on the matter” as you say. The “final say on the matter” was spoken by Jesus on the cross when He said, “It is finished.” And Steve, it is finished. Therefore vile sinners like George Wallace, cb and….Steve, upon repenting of sin and believing the biblical gospel can be gloriously saved and completely forgiven.
Black Christians in Alabama knew the truth of the gospel and forgave George Wallace. Frank Johnson, who had once been a dear friend to Wallace refused to forgive him. In that day, who understood the gospel to the greater degree Steve; Frank Johnson or Black Christians in Alabama?
Finally Steve, If George Wallace is unforgivable in the power of the gospel, who is forgivable? Certainly it is not cb? Is it you?
CB I think we are talking past each other.
I am not contending the power of the Gospel with you to save George Wallace or any of us.
I am saying Dan Carter and others, Wayne Flynt who I have not mentioned before; have a sense of the legacies of Johnson and Wallace that is different from yours, and my digesting of the material convinces me there is wiser and true, as in the lessons of the Old Testament, rightly understood are true.
If you want to make a statement AFTER you read Dan Carter, I would be interested in seeing what you say.
Howell Raines on Judge Frank Johnson, about whom Bill Moyers said if Johnson had lived in Lincoln’s time he woulda been Abraham Lincoln, and had Lincoln lived in Alabama in Judge Franklin Johnson’s time, he woulda been Judge Frank Johnson:
Quoting:
For a generation, the novelistic saga of George Wallace and Frank Johnson has been everyone’s favorite chapter in the Alabama political catechism.
They had been law school buddies, and Johnson’s wife, Ruth, had befriended the brash and unfashionable Wallace. Decades later, alone and crippled, Wallace told the Johnsons that for old times’ sake he wanted to be forgiven for stirring up public hatred against them to the point that their lives were in danger. Johnson sent back word that “if he wanted forgiveness, he’d have to get it from the Lord.”
The split had been probably unmendable since 1959. First, Wallace defied one of Johnson’s court orders as a way of promoting his gubernatorial hopes, then came skulking into the judge’s kitchen under cover of night to beg to stay out of jail. The heart of Wallace’s problem, really, was that he always looked like a skulker when measured against Johnson, and the governor died in 1998 knowing that was exactly how history would measure him.
The judgment of history on Frank Johnson will, I think, be straightforward.
He stands with Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black as one of the two most important Alabamians of the century in national affairs. As for courage, Johnson stands alone, for he remained in the violent heartland of segregation even as he was outlawing it.
He had a stainless-steel core….
From:
http://pages.ripco.net/~jums/johnson.htm
Here’s a good link…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX_7j32zgNw
Steve,
We may be talking past each other. I am majoring on spiritual absolutes. You seem to be majoring on the subjectiveness of the secular.
Again, let me say, I am not defending George Wallace while he was in his lost condition. I am not defending him after he became a Believer either.
I am simply stating the record as it is and nothing more. The record states that he repented of sin and believed the gospel. The record states he then went to Black churches and asked to be forgiven for his past actions against the Black race in Alabama. The record states that Black Christians in Alabama forgave the man.
The record also states that the Johnson family refused to forgive him.
The spiritual absolute is that the Johnson family refused to be obedient to the biblical mandate to forgive George Wallace.
I am in no way saying Judge Frank Johnson was not a good and honest Judge ahead of his time in Alabama. The record states plainly that he was a tremendous Judge and was far beyond his peers in seeing the truth of human justice and equity for all men.
Nonetheless, he did refuse to forgive George Wallace. That was an absolute spiritual failure on his part. The reading of Scripture makes that very plain.
I do not need to read any other source to understand that reality. The Bible is sufficient to relate spiritual absolutes. The books you recommend in this case may be right about who and what George Wallace was before he became a Believer. But they are insufficient to describe who and what he “is” in Christ now.
George Wallace is now a saint of God having been made such by the atonement of Christ. His story is a story of grace reaching and saving a vile sinner. It is nothing more. It is nothing less.
Let me do it another way.
You stated that Johnson would have been Lincoln were he to have lived in his day. That fine with me.
I will say that George Wallace would have been Rube Burrows were he to have lived in his day. (Rube Burrows was know as the Alabama Wolf in his time if you are not acquainted with him.)
Nonetheless, all of the above is none consequential relating to the spiritual absolute that George Wallace, according to the record, was once blind, but now he can see.
Steve, I really think that you thought you would introduce me to a story of Wallace and Johnson of which I knew nothing. You were wrong. I think the fact that I can trade facts of Alabama history with you “blow-for-blow” bothers you because you are not used to such being the case. Therefore, you try to belittle me by endeavoring to present to me individuals or books that you feel can intimidate me. By this time you should have realized that does not work.
The truth is Steve, I often let you off easy because for some strange reason I like you. I think it because you remind me of a kid I kinda took in several years ago. His family name is Cole.
Spiritual absolutes applied correctly to the legacy of Judge Frank Johnson in your mind only.
Back to The CR and Inerrancy, from page 51 of the best history of Christianity in the 21st Century says Strobe Talbot and Jon Meacham and I am becoming inclined to concur.
Here is a wrinkle for Mohler and Patterson, adds to NT Wright:
Quoting:
“Altogether the chronology of the Book of Genesis does not add up as a historical narrative when it is placed in a reliably historical context.”
Fine Steve.
But would you agree that the same record that states that George Wallace was a vile sinner equally reveals that he came to know Christ in the free pardon of sin and gave evidence of that fact by his apology for his wrongful acts to the very people he harmed?
My anti-spam word is peace.
Steve,
relating to Wright’s comment:
What document in human existence is reveals a more “reliably historical context” than the creation narrative in the Book of Genesis?
In your mind anything that came out of the mouth of Adrian Rogers, whose son David, BTW, I count as a friend.
I am glad you count David as a friend. I have no reason to count him otherwise myself.
BTW, it was his father, Adrian, who appointed me as a trustee the first time I became a trustee of an SBC entity. I had no reason to count him anything other than a friend also.
Yet, I must tell you that my belief that Genesis is an accurate and reliable document in all of its narrative accounts was well fixed before I met Adrian Rogers.
Have you given any consideration to my question in #185? I would kinda like to know what your answer is to the question.
What SBC Entity did Adrian Rogers nominate you to, and what years did you serve.
I think David Montoya was nominated to the Commnittee on Nominations in 88 and appeared with Judge Pressler at SAmford and Wilmer Fields son Randy, October 15, 1990.
I do not claim to be a close friend of David. So far through our differences we have maintained a hospitable give and take through occasional exchanges at SBCimpact and various other online venues.
Steve,
He appointed me to the BSSB. I began as a trustee there in 1987.
I would still like for you to answer the question I asked you in #185.
I have answered your question; same answer Johnson gave to Howell Raines; Jesus knows Wallace heart and the forgiveness comes from him.
As for Inerrancy and the CR; I guess you have seen the Commercial, I think it’s a Geico commercial, where the Fellow says: I Jump in It.
Here is Al Mohler from a blog up today on Fifty years of Inerrancy:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/08/16/the-inerrancy-of-scripture-the-fifty-years-war-and-counting/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AlbertMohlersBlog+%28Albert+Mohler%27s+Blog%29
Would be interesting to see him engage the paragraph on page 51 I referenced above with strobe talbot and Jon Meacham and NT Wright.
Steve,
I know you have excellent reading comprehension. I also know you know you did not really answer the question. But maybe you were in a hurry and did not read it well because you were putting butter in your grits, so would you mind taking another look at the question and giving me an honest answer from your heart?
I have given you several honest answers from my heart.
Carl Elliot is in Profiles in Courage.
Howell Raines has spoken on the matter.
DAn Carter has spoken.
I have spoken.
Email FBC Church Auburn and ask Wayne Flynt and Jim Evans to speak.
Mark Baggett, Hudson’s son, I imagine comes down about where Flynt and Raines are on the matter.
Let me ask you this question and maybe or maybe not it will help us resolve it.
Who lived their life in such a way that what good there is in Alabama is a better place cause the person toiled there? George Wallace or Judge Frank Johnson?
Steve,
If I answer your question personally and honestly will you then do the same with mine?
How would Mike Shaw answer the question, Rick Lance?
Paige Patterson has a document I was not aware of till few minutes ago.
Maybe BDW can have Paige at Baylor soon to discuss it in light of the MaCcolluch page 51 above; Paige talk it over with Strobe Talbot, Nt Wright and Jon Meacham.
Paige’s Door:
http://www.paigepatterson.info/documents/anatomy_of_a_reformation.pdf
Do I take that as a No?
You take that as a declaration that Judge Frank Johnson lived his life, made the right decisions when it mattered; was a living Atticus Finch and as Howell Raines said One of the greatest men to breathe the air of Alabama in the 20th Century.
George Wallace’s Salvation, like all of ours, is in the Hands of the Lord.
You know Steve, it really was a simple question. And the answer is just as simple. Yet, you try to make a complex thing of it. That is sad on your part.
Your hatred of the man is no more justifiable from a faith perspective that was Frank Johnson’s.
Such hatred is a blemish on Johnson’s otherwise sterling record as it will be on yours.
Your hatred of Wallace is nothing less that was his former hatred of Blacks in Alabama before his conversion. In your case and that of the Frank Johnson, you have no excuse, for you both are Believers. Johnson knew better and acted otherwise. You know better, yet you follow the same path. Hatred is a cancer Steve. Rid yourself of it. I had failed to realize you actually hated specific people as you do until just now.
CB: I thought you were becoming a little more of a reasonable person. But come on how do you get from a statement leaving Wallace’s salvation in the Hands of the Lord,with consensus statements by a host of the best folks the state of Alabama has ever produced; how do you get from that to naming me a Hater.
That’s ridiculous.
You have been quite active on this blog and The Voices for the past several days, as have I.
But I really do think you ought to step back a little, for sanity’s sake.
I think John Killian and Mike Shaw would agree with me on that.
Actually Steve,
I know Killian and Shaw far better than you do in any arena of life and I am beyond any doubt that they both agree with me.
Just lay down the sword and shield for a moment and read my question again in comment 185 and leave off the political predispositions and answer the question, yes or no.
Killian is my friend and I respect Shaw. While they may come down on your side of this matter, at this moment is beside the point.
It has become unseemly.
I think Baggett and Paul Hemphill, Tom Corts, Flynt and Jim Evans not to mention Brent McDougal would see it my way, though they may express it differently.
Some deficiency has inveighled itself into our discourse on this matter, and so let me have the last word here, and maybe we can move on to something interesting like Al Mohler’s statement on Inerrancy on his blog this very morning.
With that maybe we could bring John Fariss, Ron West into the discussion as there is a mirror chat now at bl.com
THE LEGACY OF JAMES DELOACH AND THE CORDOVA MOSQUE
See the intense discussion this morning and the round condemnation of Newt Gingrich at http://www.baptistlife.com/forums faith and practice.
New Mexico SBC pastor and former attorney who posts here and SBC Voices on occasion is part of the discussion there; having blogged a dissent on NC Bib Recorder’s Norman Jameson on the matter.
CB Scott I imagine knows James Deloach well, as Deloach was a VP of SEBTS in 87 during the Lolley ouster; as well as a classmate of Lolley in the mid 50′s.
Steve:
I understood that Lolley resigned. Surely you are not claiming he was fired?
Would you agree that Lolley left under duress, and that Jim Deloach a former classmate of Lolley, was VP of the Trustees.
And have you read this?
http://www.rense.com/general43/amra.htm
And would you agree Deloach was Ed Young’s long time Associate pastor?
Yes, I thought I was right.
Lolley resigned.
http://www.biblicalrecorder.org/news/12_30_99/wrandall.html
The website that I posted (which appears to be moderate friendly) said that Lolley resigned when he refused to follow the direction the trustees set for the school.
That’s not duress. That’s just a disagreement about direction.
“Liberal Rattlesnakes and termites”
Which one was Lolley in Adrian Rogers template, rattlesnake or termite?
Page 20 in this link and other interesting pages about the SBC pastors conference.
Kell’s coverage of Vine 87 sermon is not available, but I imagine you are proud of it as well.
http://tinyurl.com/247vs8a
Vines will sell you a DVD for 12 dollars.
Russell Dilday has a great answer to his first question in press conference in San Antonio on how the CR won the vote that day
Page 66
http://tinyurl.com/29l7qfa
Disagreement over direction; not exactly but I’ll never convince you.
What about the matter of this statement on what appears to be the definitive History of Christianity here at the outset:
of the 21st Century:
Page 51:
“Altogether the chronology of the Book of Genesis does not add up as a historical narrative when it is placed in a reliably historical context.”
The discussion now brewing,kicking off in earnest today the 17 at http://www.baptistlife.com/forums faith and practice taking Mohler’s blog of yesterday, the Update on Inerrancy; is kicking the backbone of the CR, namely Inerrancy, kicking in the rear end of the pants pretty good to mix a metaphor.
Stephen:
It has been a long time since I read Hefley’s books. Thanks for posting that on line. I had forgotten what an angry person Lolly was.
My in laws were on the mission fied from 1965 through the early 90s. When the CR first started, they had been told what a mean person Judge Pressler was, that he was a Presbyterian who was trying to destroy the Convention. The FMB leadership reported most of their news to them overseas during that time.
They met me, knew that I was involved in the CR, and were really shocked. They attended the St. Louis convention and began to see what was happening. They voted for the Peace Committee Report.
They retired in the early 90s due to my mother in law’s failing health. They settled in Memphis. They did not attend Bellevue, but saw Dr. Rogers on TV, and followed Baptist politics state side. Even though they had and still have several moderate friends, they both told me (my mother in law before she passed) that they did not get the true story when they were overseas. They felt that the conservatives had been misrpresented to them. They were disappointed that Keith Parks, who once brayed about how loyal he was to SBC missions and such and how the CR was destroying that, would so quickly jump ship to start a rival missions program for the CBF. Years earlier they were told that conservatives did not truly love SBC missions, but what they actually saw was that the moderates, not the conservatives, were actually jumping ship and harming SBC missions.
I did not see the Russell Dilday quote. The portion that you posted ended before the Presidential vote was taken.
I was in San Antonio. I was a messenger from my church, and convinced 2 guys who had never been to a convention to become messengers and go with me. We had very little money. Couldn’t afford to fly. We drove all the way from Atlanta, GA to San Antonio (that was a long drive). Stayed long enough for the Presdiential vote and some matters after that, and then had to get back home.
I did not do any “quacking” at the San Antonio Convention. I did hear Criswell preach “The Curse of Liberalism.” I did not like that sermon. The one from the Dallas Convention, “whether We Live or Die” is a great sermon. I have played it for people who are not Baptists, but are in more liberal Christian denominations. Every one of them has been stirred when the hear it.
I read the other article you posted, as well. That author identified the same problem that Baptist moderates and liberals had in that day, and have to this day – the steadfast unwillingness to discuss doctrinal parameters and to discuss the CR only in terms of politics. I think that when the CR was still going, that tack is what doomed their cause. They were never willing to really set forth a comprehensive discussion of doctrinal parameters and what that meant for denominational employees. They had all the votes they were going to get with the “this is only about politics” line. It almost worked. But to get more traction which they needed to get with conservative baptists they needed to explain which doctrines were important and what would be done to see that denominational employees would follow those.
That is an interesting reply
To get to the Dilday quote you have to scroll down to page 66 or go to the Table of Contents and click on chapter 4 and it’s just a few pages from there.
We have different estimations of Lolley as we do of a lot of folks. I Just looked an email Randall sent me when my Father past away in 99.
They were classmates at SEBTS and lifelong friends after that. Both held Stewart Newman in highest esteem as do I.
I remember my Dad watching Lolley’s address to the SBC Convention at an Associational office in Georgia coming out of his seat and preaching back to the Screen saying Randall’s right, Randall’s right; you tell em Randall.
He was in Atlanta the day before at the Convention as was I.
So lot of families had a lot of gut stock in the deliberation of the SBC in those days.
I appreciate your lengthy reply.
Maybe you will want to engage the discussion on Inerrancy at baptistlife.com in the wake of Mohler’s blog yesterday.
May come back to your remarks later. Hope you looked at the Charles Kell piece as well. It’s a shame his Chapter on Vines 87 St. Louis Address a Baptist and His Bible.
Stephen:
It is possible that you could convince me that Dr. Lolley was under duress. But you need to present me with facts.
I did not ever hear Lolley say he was under duress.
Lolley, in his own words, said he did not want to do what the trustees told him to do. That’s conviction, not duress. Lolley was, as Cecil Sherman, a man of conviction.
Here is a High View of Scripture that Resonates with Me.
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=16543
A much better template, or woulda been much better template than the code Pressler applied after the Peace Committee Report, that caused a Crisis at SEBTS and much duress that resulted in Lolley’s ouster.
Russell Dilday did some truth telling in response to his first question in the Press Room in San Antonio you can see in previous post through the link, page 66
Bur Ircel does a great job on his Pligrimage with Scripture.
Stephen:
Thanks for the reference to the Ethics Daily piece on the Bible. The guy made some good points, and some I can do without.
1. I agree that the Bible both comforts and makes us uncomfortable toward change.
2. I don’t understand what he means by the Bible being “dynamic”, especially when he says the canon of scripture “may” have been closed.
3. I agree that context is important.
4. I don’t necessarily agree that we need a community to help us understand the Bible. I believe that understanding and devotion are very much individual. He seems to agree at the end of the article because he mentions reading the Bible alone and letting God speak to him. I do agree that many of the insights and study of the Scriptures from the current and past are very helpful in understanding. So, I guess there is balance here.
5. The idea that the Bible must be read “through the lens of Christ” is not well thought out and confusing. The only Christ we have is the one presented in the Bible. And the Christ of the Bible completely affirmed what had been written (law, prophets and the writings) and foretold the authoritative writing of the NT. Christ said that the Scriptures are true, that they speak of Him, that not one jot or tittle will pass away. I think that we can use the actual statements that Jesus made about the Scriptures in helping us understand them. But we should not put words in Jesus’ mouth that he did not speak. And we should make sure we are sticking with the Jesus of the Bible, which is the only Jesus.
Despite my agreement with much of what the writer says, however, these devotional oriented thoughts about the Bible are sufficient guides for a common confession or understanding. They are not meant for that, in my opinion, but were more devotional in nature.
By the way, the book that you posted does not go to page 66. It only goes to p. 49, so I can’t read the Dilday quote you are thinking about.
And – there you go again. Lolley was not “ousted.” He was not “fired.” Lolley resigned because the disagreed with the direction that the trustees wanted the seminary to go. I don’t know why you can’t bring yourself to use “resigned” or “resignation”, but have to use “fire” or “oust.” Lolley resigned.
You can still say Lolley resigned because he could not in good conscience do what the trustees were asking him to do. But that does not change the fact that he resigned.
Russell Dilday was terminated – fired.
Dr. Honeycutt was not fired. Neither were Dr. Levell at NOBTS or Dr. Ferguson at MBTS.
From my observations, those who were a less combative in the personalities tended to remain on even when they disagreed with the tradjectory of the schools. Dr. Dilday could not get along with his trustees. Lolley saw the handwriting on the wall and made the move to leave.
Lolley might have been fired if he had stayed on and refused to administrate the school in accordance with the trustee leadership. But I think he took a more mature step and left early. Again, I do not hold that against him. It actually was convictional.
But that doesn’t turn it into a firing or an ouster.
The word ouster is used in the following link. You may want to scrool around there.
It’s funny the tinyurl link to Volume 4 takes me places it won’t allow you. Again try clicking on Press Room in Chapter 4 of Volume 4 and see if you can’t get to page 66 that way for Dilday’s sterling quote.
As I say at The Voices, found your 11 point plan there intriguing.
If BDW is able to put together a panel of Gus Niebuhr and Randall Balmer in the next ten years or so at Baylor, or Mercer comes up with something noteworthy hope you can make it.
Farnsworth is worth youfinding in a decent library at some point as much as you seemed to be taken by the subject.
http://books.google.com/books?id=mSqt40uivdIC&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=Lolley's+ouster+at+SEBTS&source=bl&ots=h_EDbIROYT&sig=77SqiRm4eHvS63hO1rMntXkYPGY&hl=en&ei=kBFsTJCrCcTflgezhvy3AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
lOUIS:
We’re having this ongoing conversations here and the Voices. I did want to go on the record with this anecdote about Judge Presser.
Former Associate Editor of the Alabama Baptist Mark Baggett; now law and English proff at Samford Feb 24, 2002 shared with me and a church congregation his idea of Judge Pressler’s working application of cooperation.
Baggett said Pressler’s idea of Cooperation is I’ll Operate and you Cope.
I share that take on the Judge’s legacy.
I remember learning about propaganda while studying the rise of Nazism. State something loud enough and often enough and people will begin to accept it as true.
All the belittling talk and propaganda about Judge Pressler has been effective in swaying most moderates and liberals into actually believing a lie.
But as one of my post-Dilday professors told us in class: “Guys, 10,000 copies of an error is still an error.”
Blog example of aforementioned principle. Lolley was ousted, which is a lie. Lolley resigned, which is the truth.
I did not know Lolley, but I’ll bet he would resent being referred to as someone who “quit under pressure or duress.” There’s only two alternatives for a true man of principle: make them fire you (as with Dilday), or “resign on one’s own terms,” as with Lolley and others.
I differ with the views of both men, but I applaud the principled stances.
SSBN, I really do wish you and Louis would learn more about Harry Dent who begat, Lee Atwater who begat Karl Rove who worked closely with Richard Land.
It’s important.
Here is a little something to center our Thinking for a few rounds:
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=16555
And Again, Garry Wills on American Christianities sure couldn’t hurt if the two of you are serious about this aspect of the Takeover.
Stephen:
I have read just about everything you have posted on the theory that the CR was a takeover to impose a political agenda that goes back to some group that Judge Pressler’s grandfather was a member of. Big oil money also appears to play a role in some people’s minds.
The only thing that appears (because I can’t check all the sources) to be accurate in these articles may be the names and groups that these people were affiliated with at one time or another, maybe as far back as 1948.
But the central premise remains unproven because it’s speculation. The idea that some political interests (in some cases 60 year old interests that are no longer on the political scene) were “what really motivated the CR” as opposed to what people said motivated the CR.
It is patently false in the case of the rank and file of the CR. I was not motivated by those things. Nor were any of the people I knew or any of the people who participate in these blogs.
And in the case of the leaders of the CR, again, it’s just speculation based on a type of “guilt by association” type of thinking. Foy Valentine was a member of the ACLU. But I would not attribute whatever Dr. Valentine believed about the Bible to be a ruse, just so he could promote ACLU propaganda through the SBC. But that is the very argument that you adopt, uncritically, because people like Bill Moyers propose it.
And finally, the preoccupation with secular politics keeps you from discussions of theology and the content of doctrinal confessions, their content etc. You seem to be incapable of discussion a doctrine (just to pick one) like the resurrection of Christ, why that is central to Christianity, and whether it is appropriate for a group of Christians in a denomination to agree on that and insist that the denomination’s employees agree on that.
I may get around to reading the article, but I suspect it will be more of the same – politics crammed into a church setting.
Maybe if you could get Lost Traditions of Fisher Humphreys to come up we could talk about it. It appears that a decent library is not far from you; and with your concern for Baptists and Theology Fisher shouldn’t be hard for you to get hold of.
Again, Robert Marsh was a classmate of Adrian Rogers. Marsh son Charles is doing a biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Marsh the Dad held out as long as he could but in 1990 had to face his deacons at 2nd Ponce in Atlanta and say his friend and NOBTS classmate and the CR Movement was weighed in the balance and found wanting.
Page 51, again of MacCulloch’s, 1,000 page work on first 3,000 years of Christianity; on page 51 it looks at the same thing Judge Pressler went to Jack Flanders about in 60′s at Baylor; and find same thing Randall Balmer and Mark Noll and NT Wright find: Judge Pressler and by default the Conservative Resurgence is out to Lunch on their foundational doctrine of Inerrancy and its Application.
Marilynne Robinson comes to the same conclusion.
I read these folks; I think about them.
If it comes to them and that driving theologian for the SBC, Karl Rove; I’m gonna lean toward Bonhoeffer, the Marshes, Mark Noll and Fisher Humphreys over the Ed McAteer and the Texas Regulars every time when it comes to ultimate concerns.
In the meantime here is a great lens to the Scripture for me:
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=365
What happened to Marsh at Second Ponce? One of my colleagues in Atlanta in the late 90s went to that church. She and her husband were pretty moderate, but not sure they knew that much. Marsh was the pastor then.
I left Atlanta in 1989. What happened to Marsh? What did he say about Rogers, in brief summary?
Well, the Texas Regulars and Ed McAteer were not theologians, so that’s not a fair comparison. But there are theologians who are within the conservative evangelical tradition.
What about Carl Henry, A.T. Robertson, D.A. Carson, Robert Stein, Daniel Bloch (sp?), Bruce Metzger, just to name a few. The world is full of biblical scholars.
Pardonthelink, but I can’t tellthe story any better than this.
Current pastor is on the board of the progressive Monthly founded by Foy Valentine, Christian Ethics Today, as is Marsh’s bro in law Fisher Humphreys.
Doug Weaver, who wrote this church history is the Father of BDW Aaron Weaver who blogs and makes posts occasionally at SBC Voices and more routinely at Baptistlife.com You ought to register there Louis with Howell Scott.
Weaver Scott and I are having a good discussion there about Ken Starr joining an SBC church in Waco In absentia. It was young Weaver who asked if you were Louis Moore; so you have a connection already to this history of 2nd Ponce.
Be sure you scroll down a little on this one; And do get your hankds on Fisher’s chapter on the Lost Tradition.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/%22I+don't+let+nobody+blow+smoke+on+my+blue+skies%22%3A+a+study+of+the+%22SBC…-a0162618835
Here; try this tiny url.
Oh the trouble I go to to educate you fellows (sol)
http://tinyurl.com/26nqqh2
Wow, SBC/CBF life is sure incestuous! BDW’s dad writes the church history. Now I know why BDW is so connected. And Fisher Humphreys is Marsh’s son in law. And the Second Ponce pastor is on the board of a “Progressive” journal founded by Valentine. I suspect John Baugh paid for that, too. Well, there you go.
I met Louis Moore in 1985 when he was the Religion Editor for the Houston Chronicle. I think he was a member of Ken Chaffin’s church, South Main, at the time. I had another conversation with him around 1995 or so. In the later conversation he told me that when he was at the Chronicle some of the moderate pastoral and lay leadership used to try and get him to run stories that were the worst kind of rumor mongering against Pressler and other conservative leadership. He told me he was ask them for proof for their stories, but they never seemed able to back up their stories.
I have followed some of the moderate stories on Ken Starr. First, they are concerned about his lack of Baptist credentials whether he will join a Baptist church. Then he joins a Baptist church, but doesn’t “walk the aisle” on the Sunday he joins or something. Their interest borders on legalistic hectoring.
Who cares if Starr transfers his letter and is not there on the day it takes effect or is announced? I mean, really. Is that a story to you guys?
Louis Not Moore:
You had asked for more on Robert Marsh’s time at 2nd Ponce and I provided a link. Thought you might have some reply about Marsh’s time at Ponce, and how he came to differ from his NOBTS classmate Adrian Rogers on the Takeover.
Starr will be interesting at Baylor. Maybe they can have Wills out to Baylor to Talk about the Rove Era, and or Bush 43 speechwriter Gerson to talk about the Cordova Mosque; Both Wills and Gerson I imagined are appalled by Gingrich remarks, though I don’t claim to have the wisdom of Solomon on the matter.
Marsh at Ponce, and the legacy of Clark Pinnock through the lens of Russell Moore and his recent blog.
Maybe we can navigate that a little.
Stephen:
Read the article about Second Ponce. Thanks. Very interesting.
Other than having a colleague who attended there when I lived in Atlanta from 1986-1989, I knew very little about the church.
The story of this church is similar to several older, historic Baptist congregations. From what I can gather, the direction a church tends to follow depends a lot on whom they call as pastor.
Jesus teaches that your care and compassion for the sick, imprisoned, and needy is what will determine whether you are saved or burned. What’s more telling than your spiritual ignorance of scripture is your preoccupation with the predominance of your denomination and your sect within that denomination. If you truly wish to spread the good news of Jesus to the world, you really should make his acquaintance.
Jody,
Who are you talking to? Who was this comment meant for? And, could you explain a little more about your comment?
David
Hi David,
My comments were directed to you. I appreciate your interest; what specifically would you like me to explain more?
Jody,
Okay, when you said, “Jesus teaches that your care and compassion for the sick, imprisoned, and needy is what will determine whether you are saved or burned.” Are you saying that a person is saved by their works? Exactly what are you trying to say here?
Then, when you said that I was ignorant of Scripture, that put a little chuckle in stomach. I’ve never claimed to be a great theologian, but I have studied the Bible a whole, whole lot. From the time that I was a little, bitty boy to this day, being 48 years old; I’ve studied the Bible for countless of hours. I’ve read straight thru it at least 12 times. Read books, chapters, and verses for thousands of hours more. I’ve studied the Bible in seminary. I have studied the Bible for Sunday School lessons, youth events, revival meetings, and as a Pastor preparing 3 messages per week for 21 years. I preach and teach verse by verse straight thru books by the way. So, please tell me what you found so ignorant of the Scriptures. Pretty please?
Then, when you said, ” If you truly wish to spread the good news of Jesus to the world, you really should make his acquaintance.” Were you saying that I’m not saved? And, how do you know that I’m not saved?
David
David,
I’m sorry it’s taken a while for me to get back to you–extraordinarily busy day. Here, briefly, are my answers to your three questions.
1. In communicating to you that your treatment of the poor, sick, and imprisoned is what determines whether you will be saved or burned, I’m simply relaying to you the clear, unequivocal, categorical words of the one you have the audacity to claim as your savior. If you can’t find a way to fit his commandments into your doctrines, that’s your problem.
Let me be clear: I have no doubt but that you are lost; that there is no Jesus in you. Nor do I have any wish, if I am to be honest, that you should be saved. Having seen that you deserve the fires of hell, and having seen firsthand, on many occasions, the spiritual damage you and those like you have caused, vipers and liars that you are, I have to say that part of me is rooting for you to go straight to hell, where you belong.
I here exercise the prerogative of Jonah: Having done my bit of preaching the word of repentance to you, I hope to climb the hill, sit in the shade of my gourd vine, and pray for your destruction. Yet the Lord has made it plain to me that no one has greater need of salvation than you, who use the right words, and speak the right name, and yet have no idea who Jesus is. So here I am, giving it this try. But–just being honest here–without enthusiasm.
2. I did not say that you were ignorant of scripture; I said that you were spiritually ignorant of scripture, for so you are. To paraphrase Paul, you have wrongly divided the word of truth. You embrace the letter, and deny the spirit. You are worse than a spiritual child; you are a spiritual bureaucrat. You are a company man.
3. I am saying that you are not saved, absolutely. How do I know this? Because although you claim the name of Jesus, there is no Jesus in you. Of all those who are in danger of damnation, your danger is the greatest, because you are convinced you know Jesus, and yet have never met him. You have read many scriptures about yourself concerning your peril, and don’t recognize yourself in them.
You’ve mouthed your “sinner’s prayer,” but in your case it’s an empty incantation to a tribal god. You have failed to see Jesus in the places he has told you he would be, and you have seen him where you and your people find it convenient to do so. He is not there. You do not know him. Repent.
For Louis in particular here is a post I have made this morning at bl.com, SBCvoices and SBCImpact.
The Prescott link this morning at ethicsdaily.com is pretty strong.
Adrian Rogers, Ed McAteer and Billy Graham:
Hariette, Coincidentally I came across this item this morning I wouldhope you would look at.
David Rogers, Adrian’s son, and I have developped an online friendship of sorts at various blogs, mostly SBCImpact. I posted a few items at his blog LoveEachStone three years ago.
I wouldn’t say he would call me his best friend, but I think our online conversations are cordial, bordering on frank and straightforward on occasion, especially recently on the death of Cecil Sherman where David drifted over to baptistlife.com for a few posts.
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=16574
This morning Bruce Prescott in the link above raises some question about Adrian Rogers role with Ed McAteer in the creation of the Religious Right and its key positioning in the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC. At a minimum it would raise questions about David’s contention his Father was virginal in these matters, in re a recent declaration, about a month ago atSBCImpact where David said in 99 Adrian Rogers washed his hands of the Moral Majority and told Falwell that was not where his emphasis was.
This essay by Bruce Prescott shades it all a little differently, to say the least.
If I’m not saved, then either the Bible is not true, or else God is a liar. And, the Bible is true; God is no liar; and I am saved. In fact, I’m absolutely sure of my salvation. I repented of my sins, and I put my faith in Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior. Romans 10:9-13 Acts 20:20-21 John 3:16
Also, you dont know my personal life; do you? So, how do you know what works I’m doing? How can you make such a statement to me, and yet not have the facts? Do you see me ministering the sick and needy? Do you see me helping the poor? Do you know how many times I’ve been to the jails and prisons to preach the Gospel? Do you know how many doors I’ve knocked on to preach the Gospel and minister to people? Do you? Of course you dont. So, how can you judge me the way you have? that is…misjudged me? badly.
Also, please tell me where I’m wrong in my interpretation of Scripture. Dont just come in here making these bold, unsubstantiated statements. Show me where I dont preach and teach the truth of the Bible. Show me. I dont believe you can, because I base my beliefs and my life on the teachings of the Bible. So, put your money where your mouth is.
Also, I can tell you beyond the shadow of any doubt that I have called on Jesus of the Bible. I have called on the God of the Scriptures. So, you are a liar, and you have no idea, whatsoever, of what you’re talking about.
Jody, BTW, please tell me how YOU know that YOU are saved?
David
BTW, Jody, let me tell you to read my testimony in an older post. Short version…I was a hedonist. I was living for pleasure. I drank liquor; smoked dope; was involved in sexual sins; etc. I had been raised in church, and knew about the Gospel and the Lord; but I didnt know Him. One night, when I was drunk on Jack Daniels; I surrended my heart to the Lord in repentance and faith. And, that night, the Lord gave me life. He absolutely changed my life. And, I know Him.
DAvid
David,
The Bible teaches that there will be a group of people at the end of time who believe that Jesus is their savior and yet who will be consigned to eternal fire. Their single sin, according to scripture, will be that although they professed Jesus, and believed in him for their salvation, they did not know who he was, because they did not identify him with the poor and the imprisoned. The professions and expectations of those lost “Christians” are no different from yours. Their ignorance of the importance of their treatment of the poor for their salvation is in line with your utterances.
These are the explicit and unequivocal teachings of the one you profess as your savior, from the book you profess as your guide, and you persist in defying them, in doctrine and deed, and especially in spirit. How these truths do or don’t fit with your understanding of scripture, or of Jesus, and how they work with your doctrine, are matters of absolutely no consequence.
Your dismissal of the treatment of the poor as “not central” to your understanding of Jesus is thus the main thing that demonstrates to me that you don’t know him.
Serving the poor is not “works.” It is the sole acceptable piece of evidence, from Jesus’ point of view, that you know him. I have no doubt that you have preached to the poor, that you have “witnessed” to them. The Bible teaches that at the end of time, Jesus will not ask you if you preached to the least of these, or invited them to church, or explained to them the incomplete vision of salvation by which you will one day perish. He will ask you if you fed, clothed, and comforted them. Yet not them: him. What will you say?
By culture, predilection, and explicit teaching, many among your people this very day have seen Jesus hungry and muttered to themselves that he should get a job. They have expressed the opinion that he has brought his suffering upon himself. They have learned of his being in prison and grumbled that he is receiving better treatment than he deserves. In short, they have lived out judgment rather than love, and unless they repent, they have shown that they do not know who Jesus is, and they are bound for hell.
Your denial that the treatment of the poor is “central” to your faith is a denial of the savior. If you continue to demonstrate that you do not know him, he will have no choice but to remind you that he never knew you when you come before the throne of judgment.
You’ve trusted someone you call Jesus as your savior. You believe that he forgives sins and will give you eternal life. But these beliefs of yours cover only what Jesus does, specifically what he does for you, and leave aside the question of his nature and identity. In short, your plan of salvation ignores the fact that you are saved to love. Jesus teaches that the pivotal sign of truly knowing him is to feel the sufferings of others and be moved to address them. You can preach, teach, execute the Great Commission, give to the Cooperative Program, expand your membership to encompass the entire world, and never love a soul.
You are correct that the path down which you and those like you have brought your denomination has nothing to do with politics. It is precisely spiritual. This spiritual failure has borne its fruit. Now, most of the people of the world, especially in this nation, don’t know Southern Baptists as a people who love; they know them as a people who love power. They are acquainted with your efforts to expand your membership and consolidate your hold on its control. Most of all, they are familiar with your passion to address the sins of others; which is to say, your sin of judgment, which they often take for “hate.” I imagine they are amused, if anything, at the semantic gymnastics by which you represent your judgment as “love” in your proclamations.
Based on your not knowing Christ, you have a broken view of scripture. There are many examples of your denomination’s self-serving parsing of the Bible. For instance, you preach and give a great place of honor to the ten commandments of Moses, and extend no similar honor to the two commandments of Christ, though he identified them as the greatest, and they are not among the Ten. In general, you have narrowed your vision of scripture so as to give you comfort concerning your errors, and indeed your very capacity for error, and to accommodate your extravagant pride. In many ways, you have marginalized Jesus. Your pride, together with your desire for power and control, have made the person and teachings of Christ inconvenient to you to such an extent that now you no longer know him, though persist in invoking him for your own selfish purposes. You and other leaders of your frame of mind are now on the verge of defining Jesus out of your denomination. These are the spiritual shortcomings for which you and those whose hearts are like yours will be sent to the fire. Repent.
Jody Bilyeu,
Look, I am not exactly a friend of David Worley’s. I am at best an acquaintance, and I only know what I have read online (such as here). I have some strong disagreement with him on some theological issues, so I do not just rubber stamp whatever he says. There are two things, however, I do not doubt. I do not doubt the genuineness of his profession of faith in Christ, and I do not doubt his sincerity in calling it like he sees it, without hiding anything. David is one of those people that you may not like what he says, but you can trust to tell you exactly what he thinks and why and lay it all out on the table. I like that about him, though most often I wind up disagreeing with what he has to say.
That said, I think you have the wrong idea about what it means to be saved in Christ and how helping the poor and the down and out of society fits in with Christian salvation. Now, I might be misunderstanding you here, so I want to admit that and give you my take on what you are saying. And I am not an expert or a theologian (except the amateur armchair kind), to be upfront and honest.
Your words seem to indicate a tension between good works being an evidence for salvation and a requirement for salvation. But, in the first place, it is not that they do not know Christ, but Christ specifically states He does not know them (Matt 7:23) and that they, for all the good works they do, work iniquity instead of righteousness. Without faith, it is impossible to please Him (Heb 11:26). Also, a high look, a proud heart, and even the plowing of the wicked is sin (Pro 21:4). Salvation is by faith that it might be by grace, making God’s promise sure, and not law (Heb 4:16, paraphrase).
Stating it like you do can too easily boil down to works-based salvation, as if following the Law or some laws you have invented for charity. How much charitable work is required for salvation? Does it mean you can never miss an opportunity? What if you already have (come on, be honest). Will God grade on a curve?
The teaching at the end of Matthew 25 I have not fully exegeted to my own satisfaction. But my reading of it is that Christ rewards those who really had the right heart attitude and did not even consider what they were doing a good work, or ministering to Christ or in Christ’s name. These “good works” came out of a soul changed by Christ as a natural (or better a supernatural) outflow of who they now are in Christ. By contrast, exactly the wrong mental attitude is held by the goats as contrasted with the sheep: when did we ever fail to minister to you? It’s the same heart attitude of keeping the rules, abiding by Law, not faith, not depending on God’s grace alone through faith alone, but keeping rules, requirements, and impossible standards of obedience. It also cheapens salvation because the expectation is to earn full salvation without full obedience to God or fully keeping all of God’s requirements. This is why Christ and Christ alone is our hope.
Our faith must first and foremost be in Christ. It is not in doing all we can to help the poor so we can claim we ministered to x people in the name of Christ. But if we belong to Christ, I believe we will be gracious and merciful exactly as He has been to us in saving us. We will have different heart attitudes. It will be not at all like serving a harsh and exacting master, but trusting a loving Father who sent His Son to die on our behalf. Otherwise, we can be like the Pharisees who did their public prayers and other good deeds just to be seen of men (and probably felt they impressed God as well). It reminds me of the prayer from the one who thanked God that he was not like the tax collector right beside him, but went home without God’s justification which instead came to the truly repentant and believing tax collector.
I am not willing to argue this with you, but please read what I have written and think about it. I could be wrong. But, what you are expressing seems too dry, performance-based, and too much like earning salvation. If you truly believe salvation has to be earned, then as gently as I can say it, you do not understand Christ’s work on the cross to save sinners. You do not understand God’s grace, and what it truly means for God to have mercy on undeserving sinners who cannot earn justification or even turn away God’s wrath. God only saves sinners, and every single one of them found out that he or she could save his or her own self, but had to trust Christ alone for all of it, by faith, by grace, for God’s glory alone.
I meant, “God only saves sinners, and every single one of them found out that he or she could NOT save his or her own self, but had to trust Christ alone for all of it, by faith, by grace, for God’s glory alone.”
Byroniac,
Thanks for your kind words.
Jody,
It really sounds to me like you’re depending on good works for salvation. Listen to what the Apostle Paul said in the book of Acts 13:38-39, “Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses.” Did you see that? Forgiveness of sins is through Jesus…everyone who BELIEVES is freed….
Also, Ephesians 2:8-10 says, “8For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”
So, we’re saved by grace thru faith…not by works. So, you can feed the hungry, and do as many good deeds as Mother Theresa did, and still go to Hell forever. You will die in your sins, even though you fed 1 million hungry people.
Christianity is not all about feeding the hungry and clothing people. Christianity is about Jesus Christ. It’s about the Gospel. It’s about the kingdom of God being set up one day, where all needs are met. It’s not about benevolent works. Now, while that being said…when we’re truly saved, then we will want to do good works…if you’re truly born again.
I hate to say this, Jody, because it sounds like bragging. But, I feel I must due to all the things you’ve said to me. Do you know how many times the churches I’ve been a Pastor of have paid people’s electric bills? bought hungry people food? bought clothes for the poor of my community? bought Christmas toys for children, who would not have a Christmas otherwise? Listen, I have personally spent my own money more times than I can count buying food, clothes, electric bills, and even providing housing for those in need. And yet, you misjudge me in your self righteousness?
Jody, how many times have you gone to the jails and prisons to preach the Gospel, and visit the prisoners, and maybe give them some little something like gum, candy, etc? How many? I cant count the number of times that I’ve done that very thing.
After Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, I was down there with a team of men from my church shortly afterwards. We spent a week getting all of their ruined furniture and carpet and such out of the house for them…shoveling mud out of the houses…and spraying them down to kill mold. Did you go down there?
I have gone on at least 10 mission trips…2 to Honduras on medical-dental mission trips. We saw hundreds of people both times…giving them medical treatments…pulling teeth…giving them clothes, etc.
There’s much, much more that I could tell you about…of all the “good works” I’ve done since getting saved…which I would not have done before I was saved, I’ll guarantee you that. But, I really want to quit talking about all of this. I know there are some people, who will think I’m bragging. But, I’m not. I give all the glory to God, because it’s only due to Him, and the love He put in my heart that I’ve done any of this. As I said, before I got saved, all I was interested in was pleasure and thrilling times…feeding my flesh.
So, Jody, you believe what you want to about me. God knows better. I know better. So, it really doesnt amount to a hill of beans what YOU think about me. I care about what you’re saying to me about as much as I care about a grasshopper dying down in Georgia.
Check out your own heart and soul, Jody. Because if you think that you’re a good person, who’s gonna get to Heaven based on any good works that you’ve done; then you’ve missed the boat. You’ve missed what Christianity really is. You’ve missed what the Gospel teaches.
Acts 20:20-21, “how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” The APOSTLE PAUL preached the Gospel of grace.
David
Byroniac, I appreciate your humility and openness, and the compassion underlying your support of David. I can’t find a word of your interpretation of Matthew 25, as you laid it out in paragraphs 5 and 6, that I disagree with.
I’m not saying that salvation can be earned. I think you said it quite well: Seeing Jesus in the poor and imprisoned, and serving them, is the natural activity of a heart that has been changed by Christ.
David, where do you hide the Jesus in you when you talk about church?
Given your own service to the poor, and for all I can tell, your heart for the poor, which is to say, your heart for Christ, how can you continue to teach that our service to the poor is anything but immensely important to Jesus? That while it may not be the means of our salvation, that for Jesus, it’s the most important symptom?
The most important thing…according to the Bible….according to Jesus…is the Gospel. The most important thing is that Jesus died for our sins on the cross. That’s the very reason that Jesus came to this Earth, born of a virgin…to DIE for our sins. It was not to ease the suffering of the poor and needy. His mission was the cross; to die an atoning death for the sins of people.
Jesus told us that the poor we have with us always. There’ll always be poor and needy people on this Earth, until the Lord Jesus comes back and sets up His kingdom. He told the Disciples that He was born for the very reason of dying for the sins of the world. That’s why He came to this Earth. So, what’s THE most important thing? Salvation. The Gospel. Listen, feeding the hungry, etc. should just be something that Christ Followers do out of compassion for the lost, and hopefully be a means to leading them to the Savior; so that they can be eternally saved.
Jody, what kind of church do you belong to?
David
Joey Bilyeu,
I have read your comments here. So let’s just cut to the chase.
If in fact, you believe the gospel is as you say, then you are:
Anathema.
You are preaching a gospel that is absolutely contrary to the plain and simple teachings of the Scripture.
The Apostle Paul described you well in his Letter to the Churches in Galatia. “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel….But even if we or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so say I again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you have received, he is to be accursed!
Joey Bilyeu, you are a man who is preaching a gospel of works which is contrary to the biblical gospel received by the saints of God in the past, the present and if the Lord tarries, the future.
Therefore, you, Joey Bilyeu, are Anathema!. May God have mercy on your wretched soul.
BTW, Jody, I noticed that you didnt answer my questions about how many times you’ve been to the prisons? to the Gulf Coast to help the hurricane victims? actually bought food for the hungry? paid electric bills? bought clothes for the poor, etc?
You know what I’ve found from most liberals? They like to talk a lot about benevolent ministry, but that’s all it is…basically…talk. What I’ve found from my years and years of experience, is that it’s the big, bad, mean fundies, who emphasize the Gospel and Jesus…who actually DO most of the benevolent ministry.
David
David,
The gospel isn’t what you say it is, or what you believe it is; it’s what Jesus says it is. It is certainly about more than saving your eternal stiff neck.
As you know from seeing the desires of the followers of other religions you have rightly rejected, a person can be very religious, intensely interested in living forever, and in being justified with God, call the person they’re trusting “Jesus,” and still not know who Jesus is, and that’s precisely what you’re doing, as a person (when you talk about church), and as a denomination.
The bible teaches that there will be a group of people at the end of time who have followed Jesus by name, believe they are to be saved, and because they did not recognize him in the poor, they will be cast into eternal fire. There’s nothing unclear about it. I didn’t make it up, and it’s not my problem that you don’t know what to do with it. I believe many Southern Baptists, especially its leaders, will be among those burned people.
But David, it’s not just that passage that you ignore: the teachings of Jesus in general, including almost all of his explicit and clear commandments to his people, have disappeared from your pulpits and your mouths. If you discuss them at all, it’s to explain why he didn’t mean them, or why they don’t apply anymore, even as you condemn people for doing the same things with other parts of the Bible that happen to fit into your gospel according to Albert E. Brumley. There’s no excuse for your failure to come to the simple truths of Christ yourself, or for your rejection of them, which is why you are in eternal peril.
Of course Jesus is the heart of the gospel. Why do you reject him? You hope to accept his salvation, but you reject his commandments.
Because the gospel of Jesus has become an embarrassment to you, you’ve retreated, each day more and more, to teaching from elsewhere in the Bible, and your vision of the Bible, of the gospel, has now come to exclude the person and teachings of Jesus, apart, of course, from his ability to save your sorry soul. This is a very self-invested vision of Christ, which is why it’s wrong. You are saved to love, or you are not saved. Your retreat from Christ is symbolized by the trivial matter of the disappearance of red ink from your Bibles. You now teach the commandments of Moses and deny the commandments of Jesus.
This is your final warning: in denying his words, and in denying the poor, you deny him. He teaches you that he is the poor, and to not know this is to be thrown into the fire forever. There is nothing unclear about this teaching, the consequences for rejecting it are eternal, and yet you persist in your error.
In fact, you appear to have no capacity to admit spiritual error. The consequence of your pride is that you now value your certainty above your desire to know him, and you’d clearly rather shore up your certainty than open yourself to knowing him. Again there is a spiritual obsession with self.
The fact that your doctrine is insufficient to help you find the real Jesus is told out by the history of your denomination’s failures of love, by your demeanor, by your inability to admit spiritual error, and by the slow, angry death of your sect. Your denomination no longer presents the face of Christ to the world. It’s time to stop having to apologize for the lovelessness of the generation before you, even as you abide in it yourself. Repent.
cb scott, I’m teaching a gospel that comes straight from the mouth of the Savior you’ve rejected. Ignore it at your eternal peril.
David, I’m a sinner who fails his savior in many ways, every day, even having amply received his many gifts. I’m ungrateful, dishonest, selfish, pig-headed, and as you rightly pointed out, self-righteous. That’s all you’re getting from me unless we someday come to be friends.
Jody:
You are quoting some of the Bible, true.
But you are not God.
Jody,
I noticed that in your long, condemning, self righteous diatribe that you still did not answer my questions. I guess I can take that to mean that you’re all talk and no action. You like to talk about helping the poor and needy, and you want to condemn SB leaders and SB churches; yet, you must not do anything yourself. Is that not the definition of a hypocrite?
Also, you failed to answer my question about what Church you belong to? What church do you belong to? what denomination?
David
Louis, Good one!
David, As I said, I’m not sharing anything personal with you, except that yes, of course, you can add “hypocrite” to the list of adjectives I already applied to myself. I’d just add that my long, condemning, self-righteous diatribe was in response to yours, and indeed to a series, and perhaps a career, of such.
You obviously don’t need my help: put me in whatever hole you need to that helps you ignore what I’ve said. As I told you at the outset, I’m pulling a Jonah here. I don’t particularly care whether you repent or not.
I don’t know why God sent me, some jerkwad on the internet, to reacquaint you with the Jesus you’ve deserted. I don’t know why he picked someone who doesn’t care whether his mission succeeds, and who in fact sort of hopes it doesn’t. But there it is.
Jody,
church you belong to?
have you done anything to help the poor and needy? those in prison?
David
Jody:
I am sure that you are not a jerkwad. I am sure that I am a hypocrite, too, as you describe yourself. So we are in good company.
And if you really didn’t care if your mission succeeded, you would not post anymore. Right?
But I suspect that you do care, deeply. Accordingly, I am sure that we will see more from you.
Some of it will be good stuff, and some will be bad. As is the case with most commenters on blogs.
See or hear from you – soon, and often, I suspect.
Louis,
I think everyone knows there’s no hope in this particular mission, and I’m not someone who enjoys self-expression for its own sake. I just had to try once, for reasons I won’t go into here.
However, I certainly don’t want to close off dialogue. If anyone has anything else to say to me which he or she might have been uncomfortable saying in this perilous forum, or if anyone has any questions, I’m very reachable (but very busy, so I’ll be grateful for your patience in awaiting a response). My email address is my full name, as above, without the space, at gmail.com.
You’re welcome to write me in order to educate me about Southern Baptist doctrine, but you should know that I probably know it as well as anyone here — better, in one sense, because I can approach it with an openness to the Spirit and scripture your denomination doesn’t permit.
Finally, in the very unlikely event that someone addresses me elsewhere in this forum, it will be outside my hearing, and I’d appreciate someone letting me know.
I told you guys he cared.