There has been a large outcry at Jerry Falwell, Jr.’s decision to allow the controversial, Mormon Glenn Beck speak at Liberty University’s 2010 Commencement. What hasn’t gotten near as much publicity is the fact that Paige Patterson chose to speak on the same stage with Beck. I remember a major uproar over John Piper inviting Rick Warren to Desiring God 2010, but maybe that was a different situation in people’s eyes than the Liberty Commencement. I think this is possibly a bigger deal considering the major theological differences between Baptists and Mormons. By major I mean that Mormons are heretics, just to clear that up.
Anyway, what do we make of Dr. Patterson’s decision?
I, for one, think it was a great choice by Patterson. Honestly, I can’t think of any drawbacks to it. I highly doubt that anyone would assume that Patterson was endorsing or minimizing the error Beck’s faith, though I’m sure there were some crazies out there who believed that he was by even being in the same zip code.
Patterson would have been crazy to decline to speak at Liberty due to Beck’s presence. Any opportunity for him to have a chance to present the Gospel in the presence of a Mormon is almost obligatory for a Christian. And he did just that, saying:
“The little baby that Mary held in her arms was the eternal God in human flesh. He had no beginning, He has no ending and He became a man to die on the cross for us.”
This was great because Mormons do not believe in the Trinity or the eternal Godhood of Jesus. Patterson, probably purposely, made a simple statement of Scriptural truth with Beck in attendance. He didn’t let any of the minor comments about God that Beck made in his speech overshadow real, foundational theology.
I also like that Patterson represented Baptists at the Baptist school’s commencement, something Falwell, Jr. doesn’t always put forth a lot of effort to do. I am not in huge favor of Falwell, Jr. inviting Beck, but I love the opportunity that Patterson took to be there.
Dave Miller (87)
Debbie Kaufman (54)
Rick Patrick (49)
Bart Barber (30)
Chris Roberts (29)
Bob Hadley (28)
Christiane (28)
Frank (28)
Greg Harvey (26)
William Thornton (25)
Paige Patterson continues to be a leader in the Council for National Policy and Glenn Beck is one of the CNP’s useful tools; so Paige should have no problem appearing with him anywhere.
Brandon, I appreciate your hospitality at various instances in several threads here at the Voices; but that said I do wish you would broaden your framework for considerations of Beck and Patterson with a good reading of Garry Wills American Christianities.
I read it a few years ago, but had almost forgotten about what a grand job it does with the Age of Karl Rove and how Richard Land helped mobilize his wing, The SBC,for the cause with the Values Bus that in 2004 went straightaway to Ronnie Floyd’s church when it left the parking lot in Nashville.
Good news is Wills AC is selling for 6 bucks now at Barnes and Noble so you have no excuses for not putting it in your personal library.
Good chapter on Billy Sunday in this evangelical history intersecting with the Public Square; and several strong and insightful pages on SBC Prez Bobby Welch’s Great friend Jerry Boykin.
And great context for recent discussion here at the Voices on Millenial enthusiams.
Stephen:
Yes, both Patterson and Beck are politically conservative.
There is nothing suprising about that.
If I were important enough to be asked to speak at any commencement at any college, I would go and speak. If the other speakers shared some of my views, that would be a plus. If they did not, I would still go.
By the way, I have never heard that Patterson was a leader of the Council for National Policy. Is that on their website or something or Patterson’s resume or something?
At it’s founding Patterson was on the Board of Governors and as you see had continuing membership during the halcyon days of the socalled Resurgence.
http://www.seekgod.ca/cnp.n-pa.htm#patterson
For a larger framework of the religious political strategies in which Patterson operated, see Garry Wills remarkable history of religious politics in America, American Christianities. You can get a copy now at most Barnes and Noble for six bucks.
Explores the wider world of CNP, Marvin Olasky’s World Magazine and how they influenced and entertwined strategies and networks of the Southern Baptist Convention among others; James Dobson and what not.
Thanks. That looks like a research paper or something that someone did on the council. I can’t tell how accurate their info is, but have no reason to dispute it either.
I still don’t find anything wrong with the group. Even the author of that article says that left wing groups have similar groups that advance their agendas.
But thanks for sharing.
World magazine is the first good magazine you’ve ever mentioned Steve.
Fox,
I’ll take a look at it!
Brandon:
Thanks for this post. If I ran a college, Christian or not, I am not sure Beck would be on my short list for commencement speakers.
But if Patterson said, in Beck’s presence, what you have typed, I am thrilled to hear about it.
I have heard that there may be some movement among Mormons toward Christianity. Have you heard that?
The Church of God (Herbert Armstrong), I understand, has formally embraced Christian orthodoxy.
I am skeptical that Salt Lake City will ever turn around, but I do believe that there are numbers of Mormons who are reachable.
I am glad that Dr. Patterson had this opportunity.
Louis,
Thanks for the kind words.
I am not sure about Armstrong, but I do know that small sects of Mormonism are more orthodox as we would see it than others. That said, their foundation will never let them be, in my opinion.
The problem is that Mormons think they are Christians and see no need to believe in a Protestant or even Catholic view of orthodoxy. That’s why I posted a week or so ago about what is and isn’t primary for believers. Beck and other Mormons would attest to Christ being the only way to salvation, but the question is: Is that enough to lead to eternal life?
I believe that had Charles Manson been the commencement speaker with the whole remaining Manson Family singing a “special” that Paige Patterson would have, had his calendar allowed, spoken and would have shared the gospel story.
Paige Patterson is first and foremost a gospel preacher. He believes the entire Bible to be the Word of God. Therefore, I am sure he believes that 2 Timothy 4:2 is as applicable to him as it was to Timothy.
Evensong
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POm7_WBMJTI
CB,
Russell Dilday is the former president of the same seminary Paige Patterson is president of now. He also believes the entire Bible is the Word of God as well as II Tim. 2:4. What do you think the reaction of the CR leaders would have been if Russell had appeared on the stage with a Mormon while president or invited a Mormon to speak at SWBTS the way Falwell did to Liberty. There would have been claims of compromise of the Gospel and all sorts of other charges. Now we see these same people falling all over themselves trying to excuse Falwell Jr., Patterson and others for the Glenn Beck love fest. The thing that binds these people together is politics, not theology or truth.
You are right when you say “ had Charles Manson been the commencement speaker with the whole remaining Manson Family singing a “special” that Paige Patterson would have, had his calendar allowed, spoken.” It would not have been to share the gospel however. He would have cleared his calendar because he owes Liberty University and the Falwells to many political points to turn down any request they make much less hold them accountable for actions that cheapen their witness.
There is nothing to new to this. Patterson, Paul Pressler, Tim LaHaye, Falwell Sr. and others have long had close political connections to Sun Myung Moon, the Reconstructionist Movement and other heresies through the CNP.
I always found it humorous the way Roger Moran would go to extreme measures to find a connection no matter how casual to claim political opponents of the CR supported all kinds of sinful activities but would ignore the obvious connections of Patterson, Pressler, Falwell and other leaders of the CR to heretical activity.
Russell Dilday is the former president of the same seminary Paige Patterson is president of now. He also believes the entire Bible is the Word of God as well as II Tim. 2:4
No he doesn’t. He believes the bible has errors. Therefore, he does not believe the entire bible is the word of God. He believes it “contains” the word of God. He also believes that loophole that used to be in the BFM about Jesus Christ being the only way to interpret scripture or however it was worded which allowed moderates to say “Well, Paul said [whatever doctrine they don't like] but Jesus wouldn’t have ever been that judgmental so that CAN’T be what the passage means”.
I’d never get voted Paige Patterson’s biggest fan but to suggest that Dilday and Patterson view the Bible the same way is quite simply one of the stupidest things I have ever read.
Ron,
Joe makes a good point. It is extremely difficult for someone who doesn’t believe in inerrancy to make a claim on the Bible’s authoritative truth.
Ron,
Tell me exactly what Paige Patterson owes LU or the Falwells?
BTW, if Dr. Dilday had appeared and preached the gospel, no one would have said anything other than “way-to-go.” On the other hand, had he appeared and not mentioned the name of Jesus as the Sovereign Lord, some folks would have had plenty to say, maybe. Who knows?
But one thing is for sure, no one back then would have “trolled” the waters of minutia looking for every possible link to anything of a questionable nature as do so many of you guys. Ron, you may be able to finish well if you would lay down your sword and shield against all things CR. Face it, there were Liberals in every entity. They were destroying the SBC. They needed to go. We moved them. Did we make any errors? Yes. Nonetheless, the CR was necessary. End of story. Get over it.
Ron,
And what is wrong with that? People of like mind on certain issues speaking at a forum. I just don’t get the concern about this.
I wouldn’t have criticized Dilday for appearing with Beck.
Unfortunately, I would be concerned that Dilday would use such an opportunity to condemn Liberty.
Ron; Fantastic point and well said. I have been recommending to the brethren Garry Wills’ American Christianities. I hope you pick up a copy as it is one of the best documented examinations out there of how the SBC Takeover paved the way for the Age of Rove.
I keep telling Blackmon and others, as early as 87 Mark Noll and Clark Pinnock came to Ridgecrest and declared Pressler and Patterson were not only abusing the Bible for political ends, they were abusing the rubric of Inerrancy.
Fox,
Just because Noll and Pinnock said it, doesn’t make it true. Pinnock also now believes that God cannot tell the future so…
Brandon, you are right on.
Everyone has an opinion.
fOX,
You make us very glad that the CR took place. Every time you and Gene and Ron West comment, it thrills us more and more and more that God used Patterson and Pressler and Rogers and many, many others to bring about the CR.
David
So who gets to say what makes something true.
Adrian Rogers and Mohler and Paige Patterson are the only folks on the planet who get to say what is true about the Bible.
You don’t believe that do you?
What about Noll’s conclusions about the North and the South both literalists during the Civil War, and how it came down to Lincoln, Dickinson and Melville to use that experience to come to new truths about Scripture.
Noll rings pretty true for me there; as does Garry Wills in American Christianities and Helen Lee Turner about Criswell’s SBC pastor’s conferences in the 70′s.
So who gets to say what makes something true.
God does. And has in His inerrant, inspried word. You might try reading it and maybe believing it sometime.
What about Noll’s… Garry Wills…Helen Lee Turner…
Well, since they’re moderates what possible use could their opinions be to real Christians.
Noll a moderate? The same guy who helped draft the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy?
Fox,
For some reason, you think that everyone believes what they do because of someone else’s brainwashing. Let me point out that I do not refer to what other people say about Scripture hardly ever.
I do not believe in inerrancy because of Rogers, Criswell, or whoever and I have never cited them as authorities (as you often do).
I believe truth comes from Scripture. And when Pinnock says that God cannot tell time, I believe Scripture disagrees in its massive amount of reverence for His power and creation of ALL things, including time. When I say the Bible is inerrant, it’s because Scripture tells me that Jesus is the WORD and the WORD was God and that Scripture is HIS WORD.
AND that the WORD is the actual BREATH of God, for that matter.
Stephen,
God gets to decide what is true.
In the meantime, we all do the best we can.
Southern Baptists, based on their experience and desires for the future, decided that they believed Pressler and Patterson and Rogers et al. They did not want to follow the course suggested by Cecil Sherman, Bill Sherman, Ken Chaffin and others.
This is really not that hard.
Check that out against the Half of one percent vote in San Antonio Pressler made into a Mandate; and ask Richard Jackson if he buys your conclusion.
Stephen:
My conclusion of what? That the conservative position won? That is unassailable, unless someone is living in a parallel universe.
You really haven’t made a point here.
SA was close, but the Moderates had the opportunity to come back next year, and the year after, and the year after. They never won, even when they had all the denominational machinery at their disposal.
The last time the Moderates tried was the Vestal/Crumpler ticket. Vestal spent a year traveling around telling how bad the conservatives were etc. The Moderates put a big push on that year. John Baugh probably spent more money that year than any other. And the Moderates lost by bigger margins than previously.
I agree with you God decides what is true.
I have a deep and abiding conviction from experience and witness and whatever thinking capacity, faculty, I have; the greater Truth, the Higher Virtue, the STronger light from this episode in Baptist life is with the folks who broke away from Pressler and Patterson and the CR’s designs, is with those estranged by half of one percent of the Vote in San Antonio.
“In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days He has spoken to us by a Son.”
Hebrews 1:1-2
Christiane,
…..right. Where are you going with that?
I’m going to the Gospel of St. Luke 24:45
“. . . Then He opened their minds to understand the scriptures”
The Christian faith is NOT a “religion of the book.”
Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God,
a Word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living”.
If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter,
Christ, the Eternal Word of the living God,
must, through the Holy Spirit,
“open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.”
Christiane,
While I agree that the Spirit has to make the Bible effectual in a person’s life, I think you’re falling into the trap of making a distinction where one shouldn’t be made. The Christian faith is a religion of the book, and it is a religion of the Spirit. They’re not against one another, and it’s interesting to see the theological bent of all who try to put them against one another.
Consider your very argument. Jesus didn’t speak directly to the disciples some new revelation. He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures. He illuminated the Book. What good is Jesus opening the minds of disciples to understand a Scripture with errors?
Hi Darby. Long time no talk.
IF Christianity is Christo-centric, the Holy Scriptures become meaningful. If the focus is taken off of Christ, Who is the ‘fullness of revelation’, the One Who reveals God to us more completely than any other source;
if the focus is taken off of HIM, then the person attempting to interpret the Holy Scriptures may not find their way.
It is Christ’s Holy Spirit that illuminates that way. We can’t lean on our own understanding.
As to Joe’s argument about Christ and St. Paul, if we want to determine the lens that we need to understand Scripture, is it to be done by reading all Scripture through the lens of the Creator, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity? Or by using the words of a creature as the lens to interpret Scripture.
Keeping Our Lord at the center is a perspective that makes a huge difference when applying ‘doctrines’ in ways that honor the Royal Law of Christ, not violate it, as was done when Dr. Klouda and her family were made to suffer.
The inspired (God-breathed) Scriptures point always towards Christ, when read by the light of the Holy Spirit. Any interpretation that does not honor Him and His Commandments cannot be ‘of the Spirit’.
L’s,
Are you saying there is an open ended revelation from God? Is not the Scripture the complete revelation of God to man? Is there to be more?
Are you saying the Scripture is a dead book? Are you saying that Jesus would lead anyone contrary to the Scripture?
No, C.B.
Christ Himself IS the fullness of revelation.
We have seen many PEOPLE mis-use Scripture to lead others astray.
My goodness, have we ever seen that.
But, if the Holy Scriptures, are read, keeping the focus on Christ, then we do not get lost.
“But, if the Holy Scriptures, are read, keeping the focus on Christ, then we do not get lost.”
Well then L’s,
Keep the focus on Christ. Repent and believe the biblical gospel as Christ alone presented it and be saved. Quit leaning on the Sacraments and Canon Law for your salvation.
To quote cb scott
Amen!
L’s,
You are trying to slip the traces on that one. Are the Scriptures God’s final and complete revelation to man or not?
Christiane,
That is a common argument used to make the Scripture pliable to the whims and wiles of man. A Christ-centered interpretation is absolutely essential to proper interpretation of Scripture. I agree. However, it was not while Christ walked the earth, which is what the gospels point to, that is his fullest revelation of himself to man. God, in his sovereignty, chose the apostle Paul to reveal the mystery hidden for ages. You cannot come to a proper understanding of Scripture without the NT letters. Period. They are the fullness of Revelation. I wonder sometimes if folks who interpret Scripture the way you’re advocating realize that the gospels were written after Christ died by associates of the very apostles they want to belittle.
“God, in his sovereignty, chose the apostle Paul to reveal the mystery hidden for ages.”
I disagree.
The fullness of God’s revelation is the Person of Jesus Christ.
If you want to learn about the Father, you look at the Son. If you see Him, you see the Father.
I know you know this basic teaching of our Christian faith.
Please don’t ever lose sight of it, Darby, because Christ, from the first years of Christianity is represented as an ‘anchor’ of our faith. St. Paul never contradicted his Lord, although some men have chosen to interpret the words written by St. Paul in ways that have contradicted the teachings of Our Lord.
These men are wrong to do that.
from 2 Timothy 9,10 this:
“This grace was given to us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,
10 but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Saviour Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.”
St. Paul is the servant of Our Lord, and St. Paul could never ask of any Christian to apply a doctrine in a way that would violate the Commandments of Our Lord.
I do believe that men have chosen to ignore that fact, and have abused some of the teachings of St. Paul in ways that have caused harm to innocent people. I can see now, from your explanation, how it is that they might have gotten lost when they took their eyes off of Our Lord.
St. Paul never took his eyes off of Our Lord.
If you don’t want to interpret St. Paul in the light of the Words and Actions of Christ, then at least take a really good look at 1 Cor. 13. and see St. Paul’s teachings in the context of his own words there, which so beautifully point to Lord Christ.
In the light of that 13th Chapter, could any man ever interpret and apply Pauline teachings in ways that would dishonor Christ the Lord by bringing pain to innocent people? No way.
Not a chance.
And yet some people have hurt others, claiming to follow St. Paul’s teachings. They got lost, following their own understanding.
Christiane,
Paul was an “apostle” of Jesus Christ. Therefore, everything Paul wrote down has the “backing” and “authority” of the Person of Jesus behind it. When Paul speaks doctrine, Jesus speaks. When Paul speaks ethics, Jesus speaks. To disagree with Paul is not to go with Jesus, but to disagree with Jesus.
The problem comes when people try to “go around” God’s revelation of Jesus in the Bible in order to have direct experiential contact with the Person of Jesus and claim that that Person is a higher authority than written revelation itself. This is erroneous mysticism.
Yes, in these last days God has spoken to us in His Son [Hebrews 1:1-2]. This revelation is wonderful because it shows how Jesus fulfilled both the promises and the types of the Old Testament. However, where do we find that revelation? According to Jesus Himself, that revelation comes through His apostles [Jn. 16] .
If this objective revelation [called the New Testament] of Jesus in relation to His Person, work, and teaching is jettisoned, then everything in relation to Jesus becomes a nose of wax. His person can be shaped. His work can be shaped. His teaching can be shaped according to modern man or woman’s whims. That is the problem.
It’s called making Jesus into man’s image.
If a ‘doctrine’ of an Apostle is ever interpreted by MEN and applied by men in a way that offends the Royal Law of Christ,
then those men have made a mistake in their interpretation and possible a terrible mistake in their application of the doctrine, if it causes innocent people harm.
Christ has taught that, if we love Him, we will keep His Commandments. All interpretation of all Scripture must be in alignment with the Lord Jesus Christ’s teachings and with His Commandments, most especially The Royal Law of Christ.
When you see people getting seriously hurt, take another look. Has someone applied a ‘doctrine’ in a way that breaks Christ’s Commandments?
Jesus Christ is the ‘Holy’ in ‘Holy Scriptures’.
He cannot be ‘dismissed’ as He is the reason for the existence of the Holy Scriptures. They revolve around HIM. They find their meaning in HIM.
BTW, for any man to interpret and apply St. Paul’s teachings in any way that would break Lord Christ’s Commandments, would be to a sin against the Holy Spirit. That is a very serious sin.
Christiane,
Who wrote the “Royal Law of Christ”?
Who wrote the New Testament epistles?
If a MAN interprets any part of the NT in a way that violates Christ’s Commandments,
then that MAN has made an error.
Christiane,
If you believe your comment #40, then you would understand that Christ himself “hurts” those who rebel against his will and Word. I don’t understand how someone with such an apparent passion for Christ’s honor would allow him to be dishonored in order to clothe rebels in some sort of fake dignity.
James calls love “the royal law” (Jm 2:8); Jesus calls love of God and love of neighbor the most important commandment. (Mark 12: 28 – 34). And why is it most important – because love is the very essence and nature of God.
quote below is from the book ‘Surprised by Joy’:
“Love is not a duty; it is our destiny. It is the language that Jesus spoke and we are called to speak it so that we can converse with him. It is the food that they eat in God’s new world, and we must acquire a taste for it here and now. It is the music God has written for all his creatures to sing and we are called to learn it and practice it now.”
Anybody who knows Dr Dilday knows that he believes the entire bible is true without any mixture of error. He is one of the most gracious men I have ever had the privledge of sharing a coversation with. He led swbts to it’s greatest days. Swbts was the conservative seminary during his tenure. Anyone who trashes him is trash. Read his books, listen to his lectures, there is not even a hint of liberalism in him
Jim,
Anyone who trashes him is trash.
Easy, killer.
I know, I had to edit myself a couple times
Brandon, before you start agreeing w Joe, you need to read some of Dildays books and listen to his sermons, he is conservative and subscribes to the fundamentals of the faith.
Jim,
I’ve read a lot of Dilday. I don’t dislike him, but he was railing against all things CR and never affirmed inerrancy, I’ve only read the “contains the Word of God” from him. He is a moderate at best.
Especially back at the beginning innerranct was never more than a code word, I would agree with you that politically ( in SBC terms) that Dilday is moderate, but I have never heard a liberal word come out of his mouth, or read one in his writings
of course I still can’t get a great definition of innerrancy and continue to wonder if it was so important why that word itself does not appear in the bfm….
Jim,
I agree on the BFM2000 not putting “inerrancy” in there, wrote about it on here not long ago. That said, the liberal/moderates of the BGCT still wouldn’t sign it with the current wording. Telling.
By the way, I was loving the Rangers tonight, too!
When Dilday was president of SWBTS the entire seminary was a family from the students to the blue shirts to the faculty. You would nit have found Dilday building an ediface to himself while mismanaging the finances so badly that they had to terminate the retirees health insurance or suspend 401k matching
the cr folks had to find a morally challenged chair of the trustees (who was in the midst of an affair) to change the locks on his office
now the great Paige Patterson has cut the department that had 60% of the students in the EM school and lost two great proffs, will the entire EM school be next? Where are the trustees???
Jim:
Who brought up Russell Dilday in a negative way on this thread?
oy vay
Jim:
Sorry. I see where Joe did that.
Jim:
I did not agree with Russell Dilday’s prescription for the direction of the SBC. His personal beliefs were never an issue for me. I don’t think that is important.
Dilday presented a real problem for the cr, he was conservative, ran a conservative seminary, but wouldn’t go along with them. He became outspoken in his opposition to the cr. He did not deserve to be thrown out in the way that he was by the lapdogs ( or bootlickers is how I think CB describes them)
unfortunately there are too many cr types today that subscribe to the belief that Dilday was liberal, and it really gets under my skin
and I was having a great night watching the rangers take 2 out of 3 from the As to extend their lead to 8 1/2 games with a very tough road trip upcoming!
Jim,
Dilday wasn’t as liberal as some liberals… as I said, he’s probably closer to a moderate. It’s unfortunate and it is upsetting to see what happened to him at SWBTS, but that doesn’t make the CR wrong or a failure. Lord knows, and only He truly does, what the SBC would look like right now without it. We’d probably be somewhere in the realm of the PCUSA who just approved gay pastors.
Dilday went on to work at Baylor, showing how non-conservative he truly was. Great man of God, but not a man in step with what the SBC was doing. He strongly supported Dan Vestal for SBC President, a known moderate and attacked every conservative in the convention and said the cause for inerrancy would be devastating to the SBC.
How can you not see his moderate views? Do you gauge conservatism differently than I do?
Before dubbing Dilday a conservative or something else, shouldn’t you examine his beliefs? What did he believe about the Bible? My understanding has always been that Russell Dilday was an inerrantist who rejected the political agenda of the Patterson-Pressler coalition. He identified as part of the moderate coalition much like Richard Jackson and other theological conservatives. They were simply conservatives with much less narrow parameters for denominational cooperation. Same can be said about Baylor’s David Garland. Theologically, there is no real difference between folks like Russell Dilday, David Garland, Timothy George and David Dockery. Heck, look at George and Dockery: both have hired egalitarians to teach theology at their respective schools.
The whole Baylor = liberal and professor who teaches at Baylor = liberal thing is really bad logic. If I conceded the former, using your logic how is Dilday “sharing the gospel” in the classroom of Truett seminary any different than Paige Patterson sharing the stage with a Mormon heretic to share the gospel?
I think Dilday has been at B.H. Carroll for quite some time and makes 6-figures as some sort of communications person with Buckner.
I understand why folks like Brandon wish the word “inerrancy” had made it’s way into BFM2000. Southern Baptists have been obsessed with that word in ways that other equally conservative denominations have not. Nonetheless, why is the word needed when the concept of inerrancy is already contained within the document? The Constitution does not contain the phrase “separation of church and state” but only a fool would deny that the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment require some sort of functional separation between the institutions of church and state. That’s a point that even Paige Patterson can affirm!
All neo-orthodox language was removed when the BFM was updated. Jesus as criterion is gone. With the 1963 version, the Bible was the “record of God’s revelation.” Now the Bible has simply become “God’s revelation.” Some like Joe say that moderates used a loophole. There was no loophole. The BFM said what it said. It was drafted with the assistance of noted neoorthodox scholar Dale Moody.
Words have meaning. And any person who is familiar with the differences between neoorthodoxy and conservative evangelicalism/fundamentalism would readily recognize that the Bible as a “record of revelation” is distinctly different the Bible as “revelation.” Granted back then the document did not hold some creedal quality. Nonetheless, neoorthodoxy was popular in the 60s and well into the 80s. Barth, Niebuhr, etc. Actually, any freshmen or sophomore coming out of the required Christian Heritage course at Baylor should be able to distinguish between the different views of the Bible held by liberals, neorthodox, traditionalists (conservative evangelicals/fundamentalists). I spend one day each semester going over this topic with the students.
BDW,
I do agree that denominationalism inside and outside the SBC should be less narrow, especially when the Gospel is concerned though we’ve talked that I think internally the BFM2000 should be affirmed.
Whether or not Dilday is an inerrantist doesn’t make me dislike him or think he shouldn’t teach. Some say those who don’t hold to inerrancy are heretics, I wouldn’t go so far but it greatly concerns me. I even said earlier that I think Dilday is a great man, but there is a reason besdies the whack job conspiracy theorists’ version as to why he is at Baylor and not Southern or SWBTS any longer. Though I do agree that his disdain for the CR brought too harsh of punishment on him.
Brandon,
What is a “whack job conspiracy theory/theorists” in this particular context?
Big Daddy,
In the spirit of fair play, I don’t think Dilday was the “most” moderate theologian in the arena at the time. However, I remember (it has been some years now) him writing about how he chose to designate himself. He used the word, “moderate.”
He also chose to side with the moderates, and eventually join them. So, even if he was not the most “moderate” in his theology (and I’m willing to grant that was the case in the early years) he chose sides.
He also created a very clear “us” versus “them” at SWBTS. As a conservative (before I knew there was a movement and got involved) I learned what happened if you did not agree with a professors beatification of Dilday.
So, I partly agree with your assessment and partly disagree. I go out on the limb and say, “if Dilday was the worst theology” afoot in our seminaries, there never would have been a CR. He was more facilitator than foot soldier in the fight — in my opinion.
Just for the record, someone mentioned how the SWBTS was one happy family under Dilday. I didn’t see this as the case, but I did see a really significant move in that direction when Hemphill came.
As you can tell I was very upset at how Dilday was treated, but I will also say that I have alot if respect for Ken Hemphill and the job he did under very tough circumstances following Dilday
Hemphil’s treatment is another topic for good people being treated badly when Patterson wanted to come back to TX. And hemphill is a good CR boy.
Just for the record, Dilday has referred to himself as a “moderate” on several occasions. I was there. He was no saint in regard to how he conducted himself at SWBTS. It was “not” a conservative seminary by any stretch of the imagine during his latter years.
Agree or disagree as to whether being a moderate is good or bad — but don’t try to rewrite the history.
SSBN,
Right on.
As I said politically moderate theologically conservative. There are alot of us down here in the great state of TX. He got rid of liberal professors. Name a liberal proff at swbts, there were not any. As I said Swbts was where the conservatives sent their students in those days because swbts was THE conservative seminary
SWBTS is a shadow of the greatness that it once was in sbc life
Jim said of Dilday, “He got rid of liberal professors. Name a liberal proff at swbts, there were not any.”
Jim, I was a student at SWBTS in the early 90′s under Dilday. I am not slandering Dilday. I believe him to be an honest man. BUT, I had a professor who cursed in class, told off-color jokes, and told us a story of how he “flipped off” another driver. I had another professor who was a deconstructionist and told us about his sermon titled, “God, Our Mother.” There were others. If you look at where many of the professors ended up who left after Dilday was gone, you will see that many were at least moderates.
SSBN,
And don’t take everything Mark Noll says as absolute. In addition, Pinnock started well, but for some reason unknown to me at least, fell away from the truth. I have heard from those who had him in class in his early years that he was truly inspiring. But now, they scratch their heads in amazement at how far he has drifted from the Truth.
Jim:
I do not think that Dilday presented a real problem for the cr. He was like many other conservative baptists who did not see a need for the theological correction that the conservatives wanted. He was not unusual in that regard, in my opinion.
Jim and SSBN,
What do you guys think regarding the topic of the post?
Joe Blackmon,
I did not say that Dilday and Patterson view the Bible in the same way. I said they both believe the entire Bible is the Word of God. Your statement that Dilday believes the Bible has errors is wrong. Nor does he believe in any loopholes that allow the plain teaching of scripture to be ignored. He has always stated he believes the entire Bible is true, authoritative and infallible.
true, authoritative and infallible.
But not inerrant, which is the view that Christians have.
Joe, that word ‘inerrant’, do you define it to mean that, if you ‘isolate’ a part of Scripture out of the context of the totality of the whole of Scripture, that you can use interpret that part as a ‘separate’ entity?
If this is confusing, I can try to explain my question differently.
CB my friend,
I guess I could have written most of what I wrote without referring to the CR but the CR is a fact that cannot be ignored. I think I asked a legitimate question in wondering what the response would have been if Dilday had been on the same platform with a Mormon or had cooperated so often with a heretic like Moon as those I mentioned had. I disagree that if he had preached the gospel they would have said way to go. Anyone who watched his treatment by trustees like Owen Collins and others when they fired him, know that preaching the gospel or being a conservative was not protection against the wrath of the CR leaders.
If you think no one was trolling the waters of minutia looking for every possible link to anything of questionable nature, you have probably not had a chance to read Roger Moran’s many publications or Jerry Sutton’s book, or Hefley’s series of books or many others I could name.
I said that Patterson owed the Falwell’s too many political points. I was referring to their long time cooperation in political organizations such as the CNP and Falwell’s Moral Majority. Also, their swapping back and forth of associates to each other’s organization. Do you think Paige Patterson had any influence on Liberty hiring Ergun Caner? We could even go back to their mutual sponsorship of Darryl Gillyard.
As far as their being liberals in every entity, that was not true. I had no problem supporting the CR when it was truly attacking liberalism. I would support firing professors such as Paul Simmons at SBTS and a very few others. CB, here is my problem with the CR. Most of what they did had nothing to do with liberalism. There were no liberals in positions of leadership or authority at the FMB/IMB. I was employed by the FMB then and am still employed by the IMB. That did not keep the CR from using trustees such as Ron Wilson and Bill Hancock to attack our integrity, honesty and theology. The most disappointing thing for most of us was that CR supporters who talked big about truth and integrity stood and did nothing to defend us when this was going on. I can only guess they were too scared that they would lose their position of influence or their jobs or their chance to be a trustee if they spoke up. That was when the CR lost all credibility with me. You witnessed some of this when you were at SEBTS and Patterson and Eitel were attacking Rankin and the IMB. I think Ben Cole apologized for his part in that. I have always appreciated your willingness to admit mistakes were made and apologize for your part in that. I don’t hear that honesty from the top leaders of the CR.
The same thing happened in my state, Arkansas, when Ronnie Floyd and Joe Atchison started their decade long attack on the theological conservatives in our state. There were no liberals in positions of leadership. It was all about control and power. Again the CR supporters were mostly scared to stand up for the truth. Again at my seminary SWBTS, many solid conservatives lost their jobs because they would not bow their knees to Patterson and his entourage.
I will say that something had to be done to weed out the few liberals who were hurting our convention. The CR was not the group to do that as history has proven. If the CR had been about theology and purging liberals, it would have united us and been finished 25 years ago. Some CR supporters like to say mistakes were made and we need to move on. That is because they lack the courage to bring about the confession and repentance on a convention wide scale necessary to truly move our convention forward and “get over it”.
Ron,
To be honest, I think Hefley was pretty fair. Though I’m sure you or any liberal/moderate will never agree with that.
Ron,
Let me add, as I should have last night, another comment on the Dilday-Patterson comparison you made.
It is my opinion that had Dilday been given the opportunity to speak at the LU commencement he would have done so. I believe he would have also said things similar to that of which Patterson did as well. For after all, just like Patterson, he is first and foremost a gospel preacher.
Ron,
There were liberals at the FMB. They were in Richmond and on the field. You might not want to see that because some of them were your friends, but they were there nonetheless. There were liberals in every entity we have. There were not just a few, there were many.
As far as Sutton’s or Hefley’s books are concerned, they both interviewed me recorded part of my experience at the BSSB in their books. So, I have “probably” read them. As far as Moran is concerned, I wish the Judge had never invited that guy to anything. He was blood poison then. He is blood poison now.
Dr. Dilday was treated poorly by men who should not have been trustees. Nonetheless, he did take stands he should never have taken against the obvious removal of liberals in SBC enties. He also was directly responsible for Elder going to the BSSB. No greater “mistake” was made during the CR days.
Ron, your comment about Patterson owing LU or the Falwells does not hold water. To cooperate with someone in an organization or venture does not mean you “owe” them anything. Also, do you have any evidence that Paterson persuaded Falwell to hire Ergun. Nonetheless, you nor no one else can say Ergun did not help LU. What has happened in the aftermath is a story within itself and stands alone. It does not define the whole man Ergun Caner. Ron, would you like to be defined by a singular circumstance as was Ergun? I assure I would certainly not, which bring me to the following:
What Ben Cole and I instigated in January of ’06 was wrong. I pray my whole life is not defined by that foolish period in my personal history.
Lastly Ron, This is just a plain silly statement on your part:
“Some CR supporters like to say mistakes were made and we need to move on. That is because they lack the courage to bring about the confession and repentance on a convention wide scale necessary to truly move our convention forward and “get over it”.
CR supporters on a whole have nothing to confess or to repent of in what they did. They were right. Some people, like me, as I have stated before, did have things to repent of and I have. Ron, the CR was necessary. You say what you please.
Finally, for you to say, “you have probably not had a chance to read Roger Moran’s many publications or Jerry Sutton’s book, or Hefley’s series of books or many others I could name” is just an arrogant statement. And what I am about to say is even more arrogant. Ron, I do not “probably” need to read anything. I “have” read it all. In addition, I was there all the way through. And Ron, I never “bent a knee” to anybody. And neither did the great majority. We simply saw the problem and dealt with it. It was a theological problem. And I guess it still is.
CB: Have you or anyone on this board read the Unfetterred Word.
Again, Robert Marsh, ADrian Rogers classmate at NOBTS; Marsh’s 90 address to his deacons at 2nd Ponce is a strong antidote to your missleanings in your lengthy statement above, as is Susan Shaw’s book on the women of Jerry Vines West Rome Baptist.
The views of Mark Noll or Robert Tenery. I Have to go with Mark Noll everytime.
As Dilday was treated poorly my men who shuld not have been trustees, the entire SBC is now being treated poorly by the bootlicker trustees at swbts. Patterson continues to do irreparable damage to a oncegreat institution.
Do you remember a couple years ago when he held the newsconference stating the day of declining enrollments were over, not so much.
He has eliminated retiree health insurance, put the EM school in peril by terminating the counseling degree , has a bunch of VPs driving company cars !!! Is building a non needed “state of the art chapel, privately funded but the seminary will have to maintain it at no small cost. The working atmosphere is toxic, proffs are afraid of running afoul of the president.
Of course truett, logsden, bh Carroll and dbu are thanking their lucky stars that Patterson is there, and hoping he never retires.
Karen Bullock, one of Patterson’s dismissals, is now doing a grand work with Daniel Carro and the Baptist World Alliance.
In short time it looks like Ben Cole and Wade Burleson may write the final chapter on Criswell’s abysmal legacy for the Southern Baptist Convention through his Amnon, Paige Patterson.
Steve,
I have no idea what Wade may do. It is my opinion that no such book will be coming from Ben.
Steve,
In an effort to continue to be honest with you, I think the removal of Karen Bullock from her position at SWBTS was a mistake.
Jim,
You are making every statement with emotional bias and literally no inside knowledge of anything. Every liberal or moderate acts as if Patterson hates the Gospel and only cares about himself. Conflict brings anger, but it is required in order to have a victory and improve the situation. Seems like some guys named Jesus and Paul did those things. Many people of that day thought they were evil, too.
Be objective, like me, and realize that this is what schools do. DBU’s enrollment shot up crazy after building a state of the art chapel with private funding and school maintenance. Most schools who care about growing do things like that.
Again, why would Patterson (and he can’t make that decision alone) cut the counseling program (which is supposedly 60% of the school’s tuition income) if he wants to give company cars to VPs. Do you think he is trying to bankrupt the school and lose his job? Seriously? Put your bias aside, man.
DBUs enrollment shot up because Gary Cook drives his recruiters and professors alike in recruitment. He took a school on the verge of bankruptcy and turned it around, the man is a near genius and a workaholic. His buildings are multipurpose buildings that he built out of need. Word on the street is that he is working hard to get as many proffs ( and students) as he can out of the demise of the swbts counseling program – any bets against him?
Patterson can and does make unilateral decisions then demands fealty from ” his” trustees. My facts are true, do a bit of research. I still know people at swbts, and I do get emotional at what he is doing to this once great institution
“He took a school on the verge of bankruptcy and turned it around, the man is a near genius and a workaholic.”
Jim, I will not argue with you about the statement above. But I bet the farm that you will argue with me when I say:
In 1992 Paige Patterson “He took a school on the verge of bankruptcy and turned it around, the man is a near genius and a workaholic.”
“His buildings are multipurpose buildings that he built out of need.”
I wish Gary Cook well. Can you say you wish Patterson well in surviving the current national financial crisis? Or would you rather the institution fail so you can continue to address everything Patterson in a bad light?
Brandon, there is some truth to what you say; but again in the world of larger truths there is Garry Wills American Chrisitianities, and Mark Noll’s America’s God and Harold Bloom’s The American Religion to repetitively offer three examples.
BDiddDadWeaver has review Pam Curso’s husband’s book on George Truett.
Broaden your perspective under the leaderhip of the Holy Spirit and in about ten years with Ben Cole you will have pilgrimmed to a place near Big Daddy, Karen Bullock and myself.
In the meantime take a second look at the British Documentary of early 90′s on Patterson and Criswell, Thy Kingdom Come.
And this; I have to believe if the novel is ever written–it would kinda be like the Novel Modern Baptists the name of the author I used to be able to recall; when the Patterson novel is written, his ongoing intrigue with Criswell’s wife will be central to the development of his character; may even overhwelm wife Dot.
Criswell’s wife should be played by Judi Dench if it makes a movie; Betty was her name, Criswell, right?
I forgot to say OpenMind in my riff on the Holy Spirit as you grow in perspective, Brandon.
With an open mind under the leadership of the Holy Spirit.
And here is the linkto the Novel
http://www.lsu.edu/lsupress/bookPages/9780807131664.html
What was Criswell’s daughter’s name that sang The King is Coming in Dallas SBC ’74?
Jim,
My goodness.
I go to DBU. Yes, Dr. Cook is a great recruiter and leader, one of the best presidents in America. But, DBU has gone up massively over the past few years and one of, if not the biggest, reason why is the campus upgrades. A $24 milllion chapel, a beauitful new bookstore, new student townhomes, upgrades to the baseball fields all in the past 3 years and a goregeous new academic building going up as we speak. That’s recruitment at its finest.
Anyway, you won’t be objective and I don’t want this post to turn into another bickerfest that gets a comments section closed down like the 700-comment BFM2000 that is closed.
Hope you enjoyed the post even though it was about Patterson. Blessings, bro.
Jim,
It was Boot Strappin’-Baloney Eatin’ trustees not “bootlickers” that you referenced me calling them. And it is true, our boards are congregated with several these days, I will not argue against that nor will I back down from saying it. Its true.
But your comments about Patterson will not stand scrutiny. Are you going to tell me VPs did not drive company cars when Dilday or Hemphill served in the “Big Chair” at SWBTS?
Jim, in all truth the financial woes of SWBTS are the same woes as plague both religious and secular institutions right now. You cannot blame all of that on Paige Patterson. What you can blame on him at the present is making an effort to keep the institution afloat. Do you want him to sit and do nothing during a time of national financial crisis?
Ask Steve about the cuts at Birmingham Southern. Everybody is cutting something.
CB
pattersons moves defy logic. I will never understand hos decision to cut the counselling program, not only are 60% of the EM school students enrolled in that program, the need they fulfill in the world, solid Christian licensed professional counsellors of whom my own family used during a time of need – and according to Brandon I may need again soon
check to number of VPs in the Dilday or Hemphill years. If finances are tough why cut one of your most popular programs.
If Patterson were growing the seminary, I would give him grudging respect, however the enrollment continues to fall. What are the trustees doing? Anything?
Jim,
I have no idea why he is cutting the counseling program. He is the president. Presidents do those things as part of their job. Maybe he is going to revamp the counseling program after the one he revamped at SEBTS. I have no idea.
All I know is that he “raised SEBTS from the dead” and made it our best seminary and he was generally always good to me. I will probably never understand what happened in that last year. I don’t talk to him much any more. But that is water under the bridge. Life goes on and God has certainly blessed me in the meantime. I also know he is not Satan or even the Antichrist. Although he did write the NAC on The Revelation. I am sure it is from a premil position. For that I am thankful.
Hefley was fair – fair to one side. No doubt about that. For research purposes, Hefleys analysis is mostly useless. The best thing about his work – and the reason that I cite him some in my book that I’m finishing – is the direct quotes, the snarky and heated comments that he got from various leaders literally in the hallway.
BDidd: do you have near at hand the confrontation between Richard Jackson and Judge Pressler in the Hallway at Nashville Feb of 89 after the fellow from Georgia who went after Winfred Moore went after Jackson.
Maybe that would help Brandon understand the nature of the Takeover and it’s snarky ambience.
Fox,
Boy I’m glad you’re on the side of all the halo-wearing liberals! Those meanie-weenie conservatives!!!
Brandon: See my comment #144 roughly as the numbers change on a daily basis around her.
And in fairness you got to let everybody know where the emoticons are in the board. As it standsnow you administrators and fundy insiders have the advantage of us progressive light seekers here(insert some kind of emoticon with a winky smile; borderline Hallelujah wave or something; not charismatic but something that suggests I see that Hand back there)
I heard about that confrontation, but did not see it. I can be who got the most physically out of control and who remained in control, based on other performances I have seen from these two men.
BDW,
And your book will be balanced and fair? A 100% neutral book on those issues probably doesn’t exist. People bring their bias into everything. I think Hefley was more fair than most I’ve read on the issue from either side.
Big Daddy,
I look forward to reading your book. I am sure it will be much better reading than “Hardball Religion.” At least, I am sure it will be much more objective.
cb scott,
I read every word of “Hardball Religion”- was the subtitle- “Big Bad Bullies of the SBC?” I cant seem to remember, but I must say that it was the perfect example of objectivity!
In all honesty, I think that Wade actually did make some good points, but the lack of objectivity definitely undermined his points. I’ve never read a book in which the author assumes the motives of everyone around him more than Wade.
Matt,
Don’t you know Don Quixote can read you mind? He’s like the old Alan Parson’s Project song “Eye in the sky”
Wade is the Eye in the sky
Looking at you–oo–oo
He can read your mind
Matt,
He footnoted his own blog as a research source.
cb scott,
lol- that is hilarious. How did I miss that? Maybe it’s because I read it on pdf! I’m just glad I didn’t have to pay for it. I was asked to write a review for it, but I couldn’t bring myself to do it.
Did you read the Cole-Duren review? What about the Peter Lumpkins Review?
I missed those… Have the Cole-Duren links?
I bet BDW would write a fine book, but it will contain a bias, as any book that any of us would write would contain. Still, I would be inclined to read his book.
While you are waiting for BDW’s book, I hope you will take a close look at Garry Wills American Christianities; currently a steal at your local Barnes and Noble; 6 bucks.
Big Daddy,
You are a historian. You know full well that most of the history of the CR was made in the “hallways”, coffee shops, airports, motel rooms, lobbies and dinning tables.
Hefley’s analysis was anything but useless. In most cases it was highly factual as was Sutton’s.
Again, CB, as a matter of record, I want us all to be clear you have not read Robison James The Unfettered Word and you haven’t read Ammerman’s collection Southern Baptists Observed.
I think at one time you said you had read David Morgan’s Holy Crusaders.
Have you read any of the three books above?
As I have offerred in other conversations, here is a grand online reference point going forward in this conversation
http://www.sbctakeover.com/
LOL- you point people to a site called “sbc takeover.” That sure sounds like a fair and balanced place to start! lol
Stephen:
I checked out this website. It looks so corny and uses such inflammatory language that I immediately dismissed it. It also refers people to the CBF. The CBF has not set a course that very many churches have wanted to follow.
Anyone can put up a website, make outlandish claims etc. But getting people and churches to act usually takes much more than that.
Steve,
For the record, I have. I knew Robinson James when he taught at Richmond. I was also there on the sidewalk with Paige Patterson when Robinson James tried to debate him on Southern Baptist history and theology. He lost.
As for Nancy Ammerman’s writing, you miss again. I actually met her once when she was doing research, but I can’t remember where.
You met Rob James, but did you read the Unfetterred Word?
Have you read Morgan and Southern Baps Observed?
In the meantime here is some help from Mark Noll and Lincoln on how Fundamentalist readings of SCripture Fail:
Here, then, is the great theological puzzle of the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln, a layman with no standing in a church and no formal training as a theologian, propounded a thick, complex view of God’s rule over the world and a morally nuanced picture of America’s destiny. The country’s best theologians, by contrast, presented a thin, simple view of God’s providence and a morally juvenile view of the nation and its fate. [End Page 18] 36
The theologians talked as if God had accomplished all that had been done, yet assumed that humans could control their own destinies. Lincoln urged his fellow citizens to seize the opportunities of the moment but did not assume that they could control their own fate. 37
For the theologians there was little mystery in how God dealt with the world; for Lincoln there was awesome mystery. For the theologians, God’s power remained securely tethered to the interests of the United States, however differently that interest was perceived. But for Lincoln, God’s power was controlled by no one but God. 38
Many of the theologians found only the language of Christian salvation adequate for describing the rescue of the nation; for Lincoln the question of whether the nation could be rescued evoked the language of divine sovereignty. 39
For the theologians the end of the war only tightened the bond between God and his American chosen people; for Lincoln the course of the war injected a doubt about whether America was the people of God. 40
This is the theological puzzle of the Civil War. Niebuhr was right to claim that the second inaugural represented a moral theology superior to that which came from the nation’s most distinguished theologians.
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/18.1/noll.html
Steve,
Yes and Yes. I have also read McBeth’s unpublished history of the SBC.
Steve, why is it that you always and I mean always want to portray anyone who has the opposing view of SBC history from you as a goat herding idiot? Steve, I confess that I came from an uncivilized background from you and most other folks. But reading books was something I did both before and after Christ in my life.
BTW, I debated James a couple of times myself in VA. He lost then also.
BTW Steve,
For the record. Robinson James was a classic liberal. He was also, in my opinion, a theological dwarf.
So I guess Robert Tenery and Bill Powell are theological Giants; is that I am to assume?
I am glad you like Ron Rash. That gives me some hope.
RAsh, like me, is a fan of Cormac McCarthy; though Rash brings much more to the table than I do to consider such things.
So if not from me, on behalf of Rash and Preacher McIntyre in Serena; consider googling up and reading Tom Conoboy’s “Suttree as a Barefoot Jesus”. And when you take John Killian in a couple weeks to go see Robert Duvall in Get Low; and you must see the movie and et Killian to go whether you go duet or together or with your families or on the Church van; do go see the movie.
And when you do think about what a loss for American Cinema it will be that Duvall didn’t get to portray Suttree 15 years ago; not instead of The Apostle, but as a complement to his Body of work.
Get Low was written by a fellow from North Alabama, and my friend Lucas Black, of Speake, near Moulton or whatever the town is, costars with Bill Murray.
This thing hsa Killian written all over it; so go see it. Will help you reconcile the things you were reading before you met Jesus with the things after.
I do hope in time you will read Noll on Lincoln and help Volfan understand it. There is not much I can do for him.
Steve,
I said Robinson James was a theological dwarf. I did not hint or imply that every person who was/is not of my persuasion was/is so very theological deficient. That is just not the case.
As to thew two you mentioned; Yes, Tenery is a theological giant. Bill Powell would not be considered to be a theological giant, yet he was on the right side.
Steve,
I am pretty sure that my son interviewed Cormac McCarthy right after or before one of his movies came out. He sent me two of McCarthy’s books for my birthday a couple of years back. I started reading “The Road” but I got tired of it.
I did read “All the Pretty Horses” several years ago. That was about all of McCarthy I have really enjoyed. I think “No Country for Old Men” was a waste of ink and paper and the movie is not worth a repeat.
Stephen and CB:
I think that what plagues some books about the SBC is the fact that not many of the conservative leaders are willing to sit down with the people who are disposed to the moderate narrative. The conservatives don’t feel (and I think they are right) that they are going to get a fair shake from some of these writers.
The consequence of this is that some things that are said go unrebutted by primary sources.
The best histories are done by people who have equal access to both sides of the controversy.
I have a friend who is a seminary prof now. He got interviews with conservative and moderate leaders in the mid 90s. Pressler, Patterson, Cecil Sherman, John Baugh and others. They saw his as an honest person, and he is.
I am not sure that his interviews have ever been published. But the thing that struck me about what he found was Cecil Sherman’s insistence that Baptists ought not to have any theological confession that would apply to denomination posts other than “good faith and good sense”. He refused to define that any further for my friend.
Even the Shurden website that you referred me to suggested to those who have left the SBC that they should refuse to put down in writing what they believe because it would be divisive.
That issue in a nutshell is the whether the Baptist community should have a meaningful confession of faith and whether that confession should apply to denominational life. Conservatives believe that there should be. The Moderate position, generally, beyond the doctrines of priesthood of the believer and a couple other matters, is that if there is a confession, it should allow such wide latitude for those who interpret it differently.
I know that there are lots of details involved in that, but that is the basic issue as I see it.
I have read the Ammerman study and I have wondered how different Southern Baptist people reacted to it.
Actually, Nancy Ammerman’s book is rather famous among those on the outside, who wish to take an in-depth look at a denomination ‘in transition’, as it were.
She is often quoted in the writings others have done on the Southern Baptist denomination.
Has she fairly represented the denomination,
in the eyes of Southern Baptist people ?
L’s,
I am glad you read Ammerman. Now go and get Hefley’s little books and read them. But before you do, I would like to ask you to find about five or six of Paul David Washer’s sermons on the internet and listen intently to them.
L’s,
Ammerman was required reading at SEBTS in 1995. It was one book that we were required to read when we took a class on the SBC. Dr. Danny Akin taught that class and since he is the President of the seminary now, I would presume it is still required reading.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
You should not have revealed that. Now Tom Parker will begin to think that SEBTS promoted open dialogue during the Patterson administration. We don’t want to give him the wrong idea.
I read her book from its scholarly perspective as a sociological study. I was interested to know if Southern Baptists considered the book to have scholarly integrity. Thanks for sharing that it was ‘required reading’ at SEBTS. I think that answers my question about the perception of its fairness.
L’s:
Like most books, it has good stuff and some things that could have been written better.
I prefer Paul Pressler’s book because he was one of the architects of the CR. You can see what motivated him and why he acted as he did. It is one person’s perspective, however. Not a complete survey of the SBC.
I believe that Nancy Ammerman, as a professional, has some recognition for her scholarly work. Her book is an interesting study. It does not seem to me to be ‘slanted’ towards any particular point-of-view, but instead takes an impartial look at the goings-on of the SBC in transition.
I have my first degree in sociology, as an academic major, but did not pursue research as a research-fellow at UNC at Chapel Hill. Instead, I chose to work in my city as a case-worker and I married at that time also. I never did lose my interest in sociological research, though, and you have to admit, for someone like me, the SBC ‘in transition’ is fascinating as portrayed by Nancy Ammerman’s study. I have not read any of Paul Pressler’s work. Did he ever comment on the Ammerman study, as far as you know? Thanks, if you can help.
With your interest in Sociology, Chrisitiane, I think you will want to find Ellen Rosenberg’s Southern Baptists in Transition. As a secular Jew and teaching anthropologist, you can imagine how fascinated she became with Mississippi Baptists among others.
Do find her book; it’s invaluable.
I have never heard Pressler comment on Ammerman’s work.
Fox and Big Daddy,
Would you like to hear the account of how a liberal went after me in the convention center, after I didnt vote the way he wanted me to? Do you want to hear how mean and nasty he was? how angry he was? He was absolutley livid after I didnt vote for Winfred Moore to be VP, after he lost the bid to be the Pres. of the SBC.
I was a very young man then, and he was an older fella….in his late 40′s or early 50′s. He went after me like Lee taking on Grant. My Pastor saw what was happening, and came over, and took care of the situation.
David
Here is Mark Noll’s grand statement for you and Jim DeLoach to consider:
Certainly, the evangelical juggernaut was working too well for a few souls who, if they could not give up God or if God had not given them up, still wondered if the progressive, energetic, can-do God of the Protestant evangelicals was adequate for the complexities of the universe or the turmoils of their own souls. So Dickinson, Melville, and supremely Lincoln may have been pushed by the successes of “American Christianity” into post-Protestant, even post-Christian, theism. The tragedy of these individuals was that—to be faithful to the God they found in their own hearts, in the Bible, or in the sweep of events—they considered it necessary to hold themselves aloof from the organized Christianity of the United States.
David: ExCom Member Steve Pounds and I had a similar incident right after the SBC VP from Mobile attempted to witness to me after Jerry Vines first ExCom appearance in San Antonio right after he was elected President by half a percent of a vote and Pressler immediately went after Martin and Shackelford.
Richard Jackson was there and still angry. You know he was a college linebacker or something. Vines said something, I forgot and I went to see what Jackson thought about it. I went to get Jackson and he considered it, but was reluctant to go back in the room cause he was afraid he might lose his temper.
So there was a lot of near riotous occasions in this mess.
Baptists are human.
The greater harm was done my Criswell’s and his disciples demagoguery in the Pastor’s Conferences of the 70′s where theTruth was as absent as it was for the Theologians Mark Noll analyzes in theQuote above or near this post.
That is why you, DAvid Vol Fan, and Brandon and CB SCott, need to read Helen Lee Turner’s assessment in Ammerman’s Southern Baptists Observed.
Fox,
I dont need to read Helen Lee Turner’s assessment. I was in it to bring the SBC back to the Bible, and away from liberalism. I was there, and I’m glad that I was able to vote for the men, who led the charge to “kick” the liberals and those who allowed them to be in leadership positions in the SBC(moderates) out!
David
Fox,
I told you that I read Turner’s work and it was as propaganda as anything else she writes about conservatives.
“He went after me like Lee taking on Grant.”
That shouldn’t have worried you, knowing your history.
(written from NY)
Bill,
Now, you’ve done made me mad. If Lee had the guns and ammunition and food and medicine that the North had…everyone would’ve been whistling Dixie today. Lee was a great General, and defeated the Yankees often with less men, less supplies, less everything.
Dont come down here saying things like that. You’ll not be a happy camper after the words leave your mouth.
DAvid
I couldn’t resist.
Jim said of Dilday, “He got rid of liberal professors. Name a liberal proff at swbts, there were not any.”
Jim, I was a student at SWBTS in the early 90?s under Dilday. I am not slandering Dilday. I believe him to be an honest man. BUT, I had a professor who cursed in class, told off-color jokes, and told us a story of how he “flipped off” another driver. I had another professor who was a deconstructionist and told us about his sermon titled, “God, Our Mother.” There were others. If you look at where many of the professors ended up who left after Dilday was gone, you will see that many were at least moderates.
OK, David, I’ll speak as a Southerner whose Georgia ancestors fought in the Army of Northern Virginia, some in the 2nd Corps under one Stone W. Jackson. “Like Lee taking on Grant” is not the best of all possible metaphors, besides the fact that ultimately, he had to surrender. The “high water mark” of the Confederacy happened at Gettysburg, PA, but the Union Army there was led by George Mead, a career, professional soldier who was in command a relatively short period. Grant, at the time, was in “the western theatre,” Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi and such, where he completed the first prong of the Union strategy, to divide the Confederacy at the Mississippi River. By the time he got into direct opposition to Robert E. Lee, the ANV was largely waging a defensive war. Of course, that was the overall Southern strategy anyway, although tactically, there were offensive battles. (Plenty of times I have said the reason it took the Union four years to take Richmond was because they had to go over these two tremendous hills, down a long street, and finally over this impassable stone wall, referring to A.P. & D.H. Hill, James Longstreet, and of course, Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson.) Still Lee had successful campaigns against Grant, but as 1863 turned into 1864, it was largely a war of attrition, and you are right, the North’s superiority in men & material, as well as a commander with bulldog tenacity, won the day. Lee’s last strategy was to unite with Joe Johnston’s Army of Tennessee and try to have enough troops to accomplish something against the Union juggernaut. Of course, the AOT never made it out of Carolina, and the ANV got no further south than Appomatox Court House. All of which says the metaphor is less than appropriate. Maybe one involving agressive generals more involved with tactics than strategy, like Jackson, Jeb Stewart, NB Forest, the Hill’s, or John B. Hood would work.
But David, have you really considered the tragedy of the South winning the Civil War? There would be at least two, possibly three (why shouldn’t the west form its own?) weak countries where one strong one now is, lacking therefore the domestic, international and technological progress that has been made; the possibilities of slave rebellions in the South, which was always a concern; absent that, the racial attitudes of superiority/inferiority that are bad enough anyway; Russia might have retained possession of Alaska–and what we know as the “Cold War” might have heated up very fast; the possibility that, with the large German immigration of the late 19th Century, the US would have entered WWI on the side of the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, etc.) and the CS on that of England & France, potentially turning northern Virginia and Tennessee into a battleground of siege warfare like that of Europe; and I don’t even want to think about Hitler, Nazi racial attitudes, and WWII.
John
John Fariss,
You mentioned Longstreet in your comment. Have you ever thought that had Lee listened to Longstreet at Gettysburg the South may very well have won the war?
Yep, CB is right. Had Lee listened to Longstreet, the South might have won. Also, had Stonewall Jackson not been killed, things might have been different as well. Also, as a sidenote, my great-great grandfather rode with Forrest’s cavalry. He was a sargeant.
John, also, who knows what would’ve happened if the South had won??????? Who really knows????? That’s all pure speculation.
I do know how bad the carpetbaggers were that came down South and pillaged it. That was nice. Stealing land, money, and other valuables. Raping women. Bullying people, etc. It made Southern people really feel good about Yankees.
David
BTW,
Slavery would have ended without that bloody war. (And it was a bloody war. In three days at Gettysburg 58,000 Americans died. That is more than we lost in ten years in Southeast Asia.)
Technology would have made slavery unprofitable. Also, the thickheaded Southern Baptists would have finally realized the Bible did not condone slavery, but refuted it. The Spirit of God would have not allowed Christian men and women to stay silent once they knew the truth.
I can’t help but believe that greed deep in the hearts of men was far more the cause of that war than a desire to free the slaves.
In addition, Vol is right and history proves it. What happened in the Southland after the war was a hell on earth perpetrated by evil and greedy men.
My ancestors on my paternal side lived in Cassville, Georgia, about halfway between Atlanta and Chattanooga. It was the county seat for what was originally Cass County, renamed Bartow in 1861 since Cass for whom it was originally named was a yankee. But it ceased to exist after Sherman came through, so there is no need to tell me about the horrors of war in the South–especially as I come from a long line of storytellers, and many stories have been handed down. And yes, probably slavery was going to end even if the the CS had won–after all, I believe the date was either April 15 or April 30, 1865 that slaveholders were to bring a proportion of their able-bodied male slaves to a central location for induction into the Confederate Army, and the reward (anticipated if not guaranteed) was freedom. Because of Lee’s surrender, it never happened anywhere but around Richmond and on a very limited scale there (where several companies of slaves were formed, armed only with pikes; they never made it to the Petersburg trenches, and as far as I know, were left behind when Lee evacuated Petersburg). But the end of slavery would have been gradual at best, and I am not sure that the remaining slaves would have been content to wait years more for freedom. And yes, the possibilities I mentioned are speculation, but I think plausable speculation.
And as far (this to CB) as Baptist preachers eventually realizing that the Bible refuted slavery rather than condoning it and bringing pressure against the institution, I am not so sure. A hundred years later, the great majority of white Baptist preachers in the South were still on the side of segregation and attitudes of racial superiority–not slavery granted, but the attitudes behind it are the same, that some men are born to be leaders and others are born to chop wood and fetch water, in other words, that some are just better than others. I have seen it called (and there is a book with a very similar title) “the Cultural Captivity” of the church in the South. White Southern churches were, in some sense, too successful, and thus became too identified with the leading cultural beliefs of the white “ruling” South, and thus supported not only segregation, but such things as management over workers virtually every time there was a strike in some mill. And that cultural captivity is very, very difficult to escape from. It has finally happed, CB, during our lifetimes, but it took pressure from outside the typical Southern church for it to happen.
John
John Fariss,
You said: “And as far (this to CB) as Baptist preachers eventually realizing that the Bible refuted slavery rather than condoning it and bringing pressure against the institution, I am not so sure. A hundred years later, the great majority of white Baptist preachers in the South were still on the side of segregation and attitudes of racial superiority….”
Your statement gives credibility to my idea ranter than refuting it.
The war only served to harden the hearts of Southerners. It retarded progress rather than helped. Southern pastors focused on themselves and the hardships of the aftermath of the war rather than the truth of Scripture. The fallen nature of man got a great stronghold.
Even to this very day the Spirit is working to change hearts of the “Children of the Confederacy” and “Children of Slavery.” Had the greed and sinfulness of men’s hearts not have been hardened greater by the war, the opportunity for “Truth” to have been seen by the day-to-day vision of the horrors of slavery, maybe men’s hearts would have been opened to the reality of what was actually taking place. The war gave men looking of an excuse to be blinded to remain so.
John Fariss and CB Scott:
I think some of your concerns have been explored pretty definitively in Reagan Wilson’s Baptized in Blood about the Religion of the Lost Cause; which among other things founded Sewanee, the Epsiscopal School 40 miles West of Chattanooga on top of the MTn where Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham, Andrew Jackson’s biographer is a graduate.
He has recently written about the Honorary doctorates given to Mary Soames and Harper Lee there and Harper Lee’s Cogent Remarks.
As for Cassville and Kingston, Ga, there was the Great Train Chase. I used to ride my bicycle through there on 30 mile round trips to Rome; and I was able to entertain many grand and profound thoughts on those bike rides; and the world was mine and all that dwelled therein.
General Sherman held up in Rome for about 10 days and exitted best I can figure down what is now roughly the Kingston HWY.
Fariss, Must reading for you and CB Scott as well is EL Doctorow’s The March. Great Character in there, Pearl, a slave who has one of the most beautiful thoughts on Freedom I have ever seen in Fiction; comparable to what it means to be Free in Christ, invoking Exodus themes of the Old Testament.
With me, your time could be better spent reading Doctorow that chronicling much confusion here at The Voices.
And if it were a fair and just board, I would make much use of several emoticons here, but I do not have them at my disposal like Our Masters, Brandon, et. al. (LOL)
“It has finally happed, CB, during our lifetimes, but it took pressure from outside the typical Southern church for it to happen.”
John, now think about hat statement for a moment. The “pressure” that brought real change was not any pressure from outside such as government or education or court actions or bussing, etc, etc. It was the Holy Spirit of God working in the hearts of men and women just like us to make us see the. And the Spirit is still working in both Black and White hearts.
I really believe had the war not helped the cause of Satan in America, the end of slavery would have come sooner.
John, if I am correct, you are an old soldier and cop. You know as well as I do that when men start killing each other, Satan is just up the hill somewhere laughing in his rotten soul.
Fox,
Let me repeat… everybody on here can use emoticons. You simply use the : for eyes and the ) for a mouth and when you hit “submit” the website translates it to an emoticon.
Again, do you really not see how fair and balanced Matt is on here? If it were a bias board, we would never have comments because you and Gene typically take the thing up with disagreements!
Steve,
If you don’t finally agree to eat lunch with me, I am just going to come to your house (I know exactly where you live.) and beat you unmercifully with the butt of an old cap-n-ball pistol I have that was given to me which was actually used at Gettysburg. I am going to bring John Killian with me so he can be a witness that I was only defending myself when you attacked me with a tire iron. (This strategy has worked on many occasions in the past. I see no reason it will not work now. I won’t even be arrested.)
On the other hand, if you do eat lunch with me we will talk about the SBC, Rash, McCarthy, George Wallace, The War (any one you would like to talk about) and anything else you desire. I will pay the tab.
Now you think about it Steve. I don’t think you will ever get a better offer form any other conservative, card-carrin’ NRA member, Republican, Anti-Democratic-Administration, Southern Baptist than that.
CB,
You could be right; but frankly, I am just too cynical and I have seen too much (especially among those who have been evangelized but not converted) to believe it. And yes, when Southern white Christians changed their opinions and racial attitudes, it was the work of the Holy Spirit. But the Spirit did not work in or from a vacume, rather He worked through many African American Baptists such as Martin Luther King, and through many of our northern brethren, Baptist and otherwise.
John
Yes, I have. Tactically, the battle was very much closer than most realize. Not even Lee recognized the proportions of the defeat there, but the loss of men and material soon began to tell on the South. And the ironies there–a Pennsylvania officer from the area named Culp who died on Culp’s Hill, yet he was in the Confederate Army, the friendship between high ranking generals on opposite sides, the Maine regiment led by Joshua Chamberlain engeged in heavy fighting (at Litle Rountop? I forget) who were then transferred to the Union center for a rest, only to be the objective of Pickett’s charge. If we read about such things in a work of fiction, we’d laugh because it was too improbable.
John
You are right about Chamberlain being on Little Roundtop. BTW, Chamberlain was an honorable and strong Christian man to the day he died, teaching others the truth of the gospel as an educator. He was truly a Christ Follower and an American hero. I wish men like him were running this country today.
Here is some common ground among us, CB and JFariss. CB Scott with me is a big fan of the novelist Ron Rash. This takes you to the core of one of his novels from a Civil War tale in his family’s ancestry; The Shelton Laurel Massacre of 1863 in Marshall County, NC; about 30 miles above Asheville.
http://www.rusoffagency.com/authors/rash_r/theworld/behind_theworld_made.htm
John Fariss,
Are you saying that it took Black and Northern Christians to make the Southern Christian see the truth? Do you believe that no Southern white Christians came to the truth on their own through the power of the Spirit alone?
John, that is as bigoted a statement as I has heard lately.
CB,
You asked, “Do you believe that no Southern white Christians came to the truth on their own through the power of the Spirit alone?” My answer to that is no, I don’t believe that–not quite. But I know of too many preachers in too many Southern towns, a generation or two before me, who were told that if that they associated with or otherwise appeared to support any civil rights groups, they could expect an emergency deacon’s meeting, to be immediately followed by being fired or pressured to resign. In fact, my cousin JW Smith, toward the end of his career as DOM in the Bessemer Baptist Association (in the late 70s or early 80s), filled the pulpit at First Baptist, Birmingham. Afterward, he was asked if he would submit his resume to their pulpit committee. He told them that he didn’t think they would want him as pastor, because if he were their pastor, he would insist they minister to be accepting of the people around them in downtown Birmingham–the homeless, street people, prostitutes, African-Americans, etc. They told him not to bother with the resume. Uh. . . is First Baptist of Birmingham still in downtown Birmingham?
How many, what percentage, of white baptist Southern preachers do you think “came to the truth on their own through the power of the Spirit alone”?
John
Hi JOHN FARISS,
since you are sharing about your Civil War ancestors, you might be interested in two of mine:
this is from a report
“By D. H. HILL, Lieitenant-generai..
There were at least six instances in the siege of Petersburg in which shells, with burning fuse attached, were picked up and thrown over the breastworks. On inquiry, each of these brave men were from North Carolina and their names and commands were as follows:
1. Captain Stewart L. Johnston, Company H, Seventeenth North Carolina Regiment, says: “A shell from one of the enemy’s mortars fell in the midst of the comriany, and while it was spinning round like a top and the fuse still burning, Private William James Ausbon picked it up and cast it over the breastworks where it immediately exploded. General Beauregard in general orders directed his name to be placed on the Roll of Honor and that he be presented with a silver medal.”
William James Ausbon was the brother of my maternal ancestor, Joseph Gray Ausbon. Another brother, Mc Gilbray Ausbon also fought in the war. Our family has a letter written during the Civil War by McGilbray (‘Gib’), that is very moving, and asks that ‘a suit of clothes’ be made for him from a blanket. It is a family heirloom in the keeping of one of our cousins in North Carolina.
Christiane: I think it is the Battle of Petersburg, the Crater Battle, that opens Cold Mtn.
You can hear some of my acquaintances from the Sacred Harp tradition on the Soundtrack there, and the kid who gets blown up and later dies portrayed by Lucas Black. Black is currently in what appears to be a sleeper hit of the late summer, Get Low, With Robert Duvall and Bill Murray.
But here is a link to others at Petersburg best I understand it:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=Sam+Hodges%3A++Letters+to+Amanda&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=Sam+Hodges%3A++Letters+to+Amanda&gs_rfai=Cw21uciJUTL3WGYGOzQT2jtnPCgAAAKoEBU_QppRd&fp=96dc5b2f1b33f30a
The link as a matter of record and all this aside about the Civil War, please don’t overlook the Screaming Point from Mark Noll that came back to haunt the SBC among others in the 1960′s; a fundamentalist juggernaut was not adequate, a literal reading of the Bible as Criswell and Pressler were able to propaganda and administer on the SBC wasn’t up to the task of explaining and resolving the great cancers in the national body politic.
So like Lincoln and Dickinson and Melville in their day; it was Marney, Foy Valentine, the likes of Bill Moyers and a strain of Bonhoeffer and Niebuhr that came down through Jimmy Allen, Carter and TB Matson and Will Campbell that offered Divine Light to the SBC and Criswell and Pressler snuffed it out.
Steve,
What “Divine Light” did Foy Valentine, Jimmy Allen or Jimmy Carter ever offer to the SBC?
The Light that put Jimmy Carter on the cover of Time magazine in 1970; a light that MO Owens and Bill Powell and Robert Tenery and Pressler were not able to see, not to mention the Alabama SBTS Trustee who resigned or some such from the Trustee Board cause they extended an invitation to MLKing to speak.
So somehow or another the true believer Biblical literalists in the SBC were as inadequate in One of the Great Defining Chapters of the 20th Century as MarkNoll found them to be at the time of the Civil War.
And this same Mark Noll had some wise words for the “Resurgents” at Ridgecrest in 87 that fell on Deaf Ears; so the apologists for the Texas Regulars and Jesse Helms and soon GAry North of the CNP and the REcons went home and hardened their hearts and their Cause.
It is also the Light I linked in the Great Cloud of Witnesses thread, the Light that shone on about 410 pictures there.
And the Light coming out of the Baptist World Alliance these past few days meeting in Hawaii.
Is the “light” you speak of in Time Magazine the same light that got him an interview in PLayboy in 1976?
Yeah Steve, I think you are right. Owens, Powell, Bear Tenery and Pressler “were not able to see” that one. Their “eyes” and hearts were focused elsewhere; Saving the SBC.
Now tell me about the Divine Light of Valentine and Allen. I would like to know what I missed.
So by your Calculus CB Scott, David and all his Divine Utterances are not Fit for Holy Scripture.
Which leader of the Takeover never lusted after a woman in his heart?
Adrian Rogers?
Ed Young?
Tenery?
Criswell?
Vines?
Patterson?
Which ones and how do you know?
If the Bible is literally true then I imagine you woulda had a sightless Leadership in more ways than one on the CR side
Steve,
I didn’t say one word about “lust” and Carter. There was more to the interview than that. BTW, I have never asked any of those fellows about lust in their hearts. I never worked for Playboy. Asking about lust in the heart is their first line of questioning, not mine.
My question had to do with what Divine Light did Carter, Valentine and Allen shed on the SBC that we all need so badly. Tell me about that.
That would be the Divine Light in the new Book about Jimmy Allen, written by Larry McSwain.
I remember seeing McSwain on an elevator in New Orleans the day after the Chapman vote; Wednesday morning when the Truett remnant of Baptists met for Breakfast.
You know George Truett was a mentor of sorts to Jimmy Allen, would’ve performed Allen’s ordination. I think Jimmy Allen is the True Truett vine of Baptist work in America, not Truett’s successor at FBC Dallas, Wally Amos Criswell; but that is no surprise to you.
Allen stopped by Paige Patterson’s home the night his Father died to pay his Respects. I don’t know if you have heard that story before or not.
I linked a story in The Great Cloud of Witnesses with about 400 pictures that glows with the Light of the Baptist experience of Allen and Carter.
And you may find the comments with this story interesting as well:
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5369/53/
Steve,
Do you know how many folks Paige Patterson “stopped by” to see when they had sorrow in their lives? Many of them were and are on the other side of the isle. So what does Allen’s visit to Patterson during his grief have to do with Divine Light?
Do you think Patterson or Vines, etc. ever shed any “Divine Light” in their years on all of us SBC folks? Or was it all from the Dark Side from “Darth” Pressler?
Did he ever, in his great compassion, visit with Pinky Klouda, the husband of his employee at SWBTS, C.B.?
If he didn’t, that is sad.
It might have made a difference in that which ‘went terribly wrong’ in those days.
‘
Just a page from my pesonal experience. I was being destroyed a couple of years ago for standing up to a liberal DOM. He made my life a living hell.
Dr. Patterson heard about it from a friend and called to encourage me and offer any help I needed — he did not even know me.
He is an extremely gracious, good-hearted Christian man.
It is one thing to disagree with his conservative values, it is something else to attack his character.
Steve,
I have to go to Hoover for a while. Catch you later. If you talk to Killian today, tell him I said hello.
Christiane,
Did YOU ever visit Pinky Klouda with compassion? Did you even know who they were before Wade started screaming and hollering about it? Did you? Do you even really know anything about what went on in that whole scenario? Really? I doubt it.
David
L’s,
Did you actually write this?
“Did he ever, in his great compassion, visit with Pinky Klouda, the husband of his employee at SWBTS, C.B.?
If he didn’t, that is sad.
It might have made a difference in that which ‘went terribly wrong’ in those days.”
Here is my answer. I don’t know. he does not communicate those kind of things to me anymore. But I do know he visited a lot of other people who were probably in far worse condition. That is what I know.
Now, let’s talk about something else. Let’s talk about your hypocrisy. First, your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Let’s illustrate it, shall we?
Once before you asked a question similar to this one you just asked about the Klouda’s. I hit you pretty hard if you remember and rightly so.
It was similar to the following:
You asked about the welfare of the Kloudas and made a sick comment about how we all (conservative Christians) hurt them. On that I asked you how much money you sent the Kloudas through Wade’s church to help them out. The answer was $0.00.
I then asked another person the same question. The answer was $0.00.
I then told you to check in with Bob Cleveland to verify if I had sent financial help along with some other guys. Did you ever check that out? If I remember correctly, you and the other person became a little silent on that subject then.
Like I said before L’s. I will say again. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. And you hatred for conservative, biblical Christianity continues to smell up the room.
John:
Love the history. What a fascinating period.
We should all be very grateful that slavery ended. It would have been better had the South given it up voluntarily.
Our country still suffers greatly as a result of our embrace of slavery.
Brandon Smith,
Sorry to get off track on you Glenn Beck post. I will say that I think it is strange that a Christian University that affirms the Lordship of Jesus Christ would invite a Mormon and a political commentator of questionable ethics to speak at their university graduation. Shouldn’t that honor be reserved for those who would inspire the students to greater Christian service?
I have no problem with Patterson speaking since he was invited and not responsible for Glenn Beck being there. I do hope he did gave a sound Christian testimony. I wonder if it had any influence on Beck’s possible salvation?
Brandon, you said the following, “To be honest, I think Hefley was pretty fair. Though I’m sure you or any liberal/moderate will never agree with that.” Hefley is certainly no Roger Moran but I do believe he strained a little to try and justify some of the actions of the CR and to make those who oppose it look bad. Besides he grew up in Arkansas not far from where I grew up so he can’t be all bad. Are you calling me a liberal/moderate? If so you need to repent and ask for forgiveness now! I am a theological conservative and support inerrancy. It is because of my belief that the Bible is true that I cannot support the CR. I find too many contradictions between the clear Bible teachings and actions by CR leaders.
Ron:
How have you been?
I have always believed that you were a biblical conservative. But I also thought that you were a moderate during the CR. Did you support the conservative during the CR and have a change of heart later?
Take care.
Who were they, I hear stories but no names and I am don’t believe in very many stories.
Ron,
I never said that a conservative wouldn’t agree, I said no liberal/moderate would. Stretching my comment a bit, brother.
CB,
None of my friends were liberals. If I used the language you used against me, I would say it was arrogant of you to say that. But I will not do that. I will just say you are mistaken. The presidents I served under, Cauthon, Parks and Rankin were not liberal nor were their VPs. In fact they were some of the finest examples of Christians and theologically sound believers I have known. Among the thousands of people who have served with the FMB/IMB in the last 35 years you might find a few you would consider liberal depending on your definition of liberal but they were insignificant in numbers and influence.
I repeat, not all entities were influenced by liberals or had liberal leadership. If you want to say the Alabama State Convention was liberal in those days I won’t argue with you since you were there. I was at the IMB and know it was not liberal. In fact no part of the SBC I was associated with has experienced a conservative resurgence since they were all as conservative, if not more so, before the CR than they are now. That would include the Arkansas Baptist State Convention, SWBTS and the IMB.
I will concede the term “owe” and withdraw it if it bothers you. Maybe “their close political and friendship connections” would be a better way to describe why he was obligated to attend.
CB, I was also “there all the way through” just as much as you. Just in different locations. The things I saw against the CR were just as real as the things you saw for the CR. Glad to hear you didn’t bend a knee. I didn’t think you had. Not many would have the courage to stand up for truth at SEBTS like you did and you paid a price. Many others paid a similar price at the IMB, SWBTS and other places. Paige Patterson never offered me a job so I didn’t get to watch from the inside of the CR but I did get to watch from the vantage point of those receiving the brunt of CR attacks.
I passed through Birmingham back in November and wanted to call you and eat some of the BBQ you brag about. Unfortunately my wife and I were committed to eating with her sister and brother-in-law and then had to leave immediately without spending the night. I was not able to go the SBC convention this year because my mother was in the hospital and I couldn’t leave. One of these days I will get back and hope we can enjoy BBQ together and I can also visit my friend Andy W.
If not Dreamland BBQ in Bham, then the Downtown Fish Market.
Johnny Ray’s at one time was a decent alternative to Dreamland; They do have great chocolate pie.
I once saw Bellevue’s Steve Gaines at JRay’s out off 280. Maybe he was going to WMU hqrtrs; more likely his son’s football game.
Ron,
During the CR I was in VA, MS and KY. I only came home to Alabama one week before Katrina hit the coast. Most of my CR days were spent in VA. Think about that just for a moment–the BGAV. Remember? The most liberal state convention in SBC history.
Ron, I do not regret having known Paige Patterson. I was his next door neighbor for eight years. I knew him as an honorable man. He was good to me. He was good to my family. In all honesty Ron, I declare to you that I will probably never understand or know exactly what happened in late ’03 and early ’04. All I know is that something went terribly wrong. Maybe, it is God’s plan for me to never know what really happened. That is water under the bridge now. What I do know is that God has blessed me greatly here in Alabama far more than I deserve and surely beyond my greatest expectations.
In addition Ron, I hold no ill will toward anyone involved in the SEBTS thing any longer. Its over. I also wish I had not gotten into some of the stuff I got into in ’06. That was sin on my part. And I regret tearfully that I got Ben Cole involved. I was wrong. What was done to the Pattersons between ’06-’08 was wrong and I most sorrowfully regret my part in it. If I could rewrite my part in all of that I would.
But Ron, the CR was right. Yes, I admit we made mistakes and there was some sinful conduct. But the CR was right. I don’t know who your friends were at the FMB Ron. And I know that not everyone there was a liberal. But there were too many liberals there, both in Richmond and in the field.
That is all I can say Ron. I can only share my heart with you about what I know. Ron it is my goal to finish well for Jesus. That is all that matters anymore. It should have been the only thing that ever mattered. But like I said, that is water under the bridge.
Ron, if you ever get by this way, lunch is on me.
CB,
Comment of the decade.
Brandon since you said “you or any liberal/moderate” I guess some might think you were lumping me in with the liberal/moderates. I am glad to know that was not your intent. I do think you were not clear there.
I’m wondering if “both sides” might be able to agree with BDW’s assessment:
All neo-orthodox language was removed when the BFM was updated. Jesus as criterion is gone. With the 1963 version, the Bible was the “record of God’s revelation.” Now the Bible has simply become “God’s revelation.” Some like Joe say that moderates used a loophole. There was no loophole. The BFM said what it said…
Words have meaning. And any person who is familiar with the differences between neoorthodoxy and conservative evangelicalism/fundamentalism would readily recognize that the Bible as a “record of revelation” is distinctly different the Bible as “revelation.” Granted back then the document did not hold some creedal quality. Nonetheless, neoorthodoxy was popular in the 60s and well into the 80s. Barth, Niebuhr, etc.
One of the things that is good, I think, about what BDW says is that he and I would differ in theology and yet I think he is right in what he says. Perhaps the one place where I am not convinced of his assessment might be that I could see those who put together the 1963 BF&M language as not “intending” a neoorthodox meaning by the language that they used. However, I do not want to get hung up on that.
It seems to me that if both sides could basically agree with BDW, then that would cut down on much of the back and forth that goes on.
I think there was a strong disagreement between those who believed in a neoorthodox view of Scripture and those who believed in a traditional view of Scripture. And the disagreement was strong enough that there resulted a major war in the convention.
Is this too much for both sides to agree upon?
I applaud Benji trying to find some common ground.
Honestly I think Benji and others need to broaden their perspective when they approach this civil conversation with good look at Will’s American Christianities, Rob James Unfettered Word–UWord sets up nicely the history of BFM statements and how 2000 upped the ante considerably towards creedalism; and Helen Lee Turner’s Baptists Observed.
I am glad Benji and BDW are shedding some light and I am finding Ron West contributions more fascinating with every post.
On 2nd thought I’m not sure how much the following thoughts of the President of the Baptist Seminary at Richmond inflect this discussion but maybe BDW can help us work through it.
See the related link sidebarred in this article about Seminary in Crisis. To some extent for a good while, Boyce worked as a Safetly valve at Southern for the nuances of 63 BFM and the 2000 version.
But Pressler was bent on an explosion and he pretty much got it with half of one percent of a vote in San Antonio he was able to inveighle into a mandate:
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=16193
Stephen,
I actually do not think I disagree when you said the “2000 upped the ante considerably towards creedalism”.
However, I think my disagreement [along with others] with the neoorthodox view of Scripture is so “strong” that we are not interested in “working alongside of” those who want to promote that view on the national level.
I believe the neoorthodox view of Scripture undermines the foundation [i.e. the Bible] for how we know what we know about doctrine and practice. Therefore, the disagreement is too “foundational” in that sense for me to want that view espoused on the national level.
Bebji,
Upon reading your comment #111, it is my opinion that you could have lead the CR as well as anyone else. You have capsulized the “battle cry” of the CR in that statement. If people would catch on to what you have said, they would understand the motivation of the majority of conservative Southern Baptists “back in the day.”
I think there is a sense in which the President of BTSR roughly agrees with you, but I wouldn’t want to get lost in the semantic differential.
Even if that turns out to be the case, that doesn’t justify the modus operandi of what I call the Takeover. Ron West is closer to proper sentiment in that aspect of this discussion.
Nor does it–best words aren’t coming for me off the cuff here–get takeover apologists off the hook. They still need to read Morgan, Helen Lee, Noll, Unfetterred Word and Wills on the matter.
Lot was going on in addition to semantic comfort or lack of with higher criticism and post modernism.
Remember, Stanley Hauerwas rode to his HS commencement just outside Dallas with Bailey Smith.
Check it out.
Steve,
Hauerwas is another classic liberal. Ands it would not matter if he and Bailey Smith had ridden to the moon together. It changes nothing of his liberal theology.
C.B., what is it specifically about the writings of Hauerwas that you objected to?
L’s,
With what of his writing do you agree?
Many will claim the CR saved the SBC and many will say the damage done to Christian brothers and sisters in the name of the CR was very unChrist like. The debate will never end, neither will all the name calling on both sides. IMO the CR tactics ripped the heart out of the SBC and left a permanent stain on a once Great denomination.
These CR tactics have to be traced back to the two PP’s but those that strongly support the CR will rarely admit to this.
Stephen:
Sadly semantics was a great big part of the TAKEOVER.
QUOTE TAKEOVER END QUOTE
Don’t you mean: TAKEBACK?
Tom Parker,
You were not on either side of the isle during the CR. You are a Johnny-come-lately. Guys like Ron, Steve, and Jim were involved. Therefore, they do have some gripes because they did loose some things. I have respect for those guys. They were in the fray. You just stand on the side of the hill and throw rocks like Ernest T. Bass on Andy Griffith.
Let me go farther out on a limb here and say, you are actually incorrect about being able to “trace back” the CR to the two personalities you berate here. It did not begin with them. It probably began when pastors of Southern Baptist churches began to wonder what was happening to their sons and daughter when they came home for Christmas from Southern Baptist seminaries, colleges, universities, youth and children’s camps and especially when their children began to write home from the mission fields, both at home and abroad.
Those pastors, Sunday School teachers, deacons, etc, etc heard “strange fire” from their children and began to investigate. Thus the CR was born. The leaders you mention were willing to lead. Somebody had to do it. In truth, they were only two of many. But they could have lead nothing had there not been a heart felt need for change among grass root Southern Baptists. The CR was a grass roots movement. But of course, guys like you Tom Parker will never believe that. You have to have a Boogie Man to blame things on. Well, there was no Boogie Man. There was just a whole bunch of Southern Baptists who were tired of liberalism in their house and got brooms and swept it clean. Well, almost clean.
CB,
Great perspective, brother. Very good points.
CB nailed with his comment above. Patterson and Pressler may have gotten the ball rolling, but it was already ready to explode in small churches all over this country as they read the SS literature, and heard of the teachings in the seminaries, etc. Pastors and laymen in the churches of the SBC were already fired up and ready to get these liberals out…before Patterson and Pressler ever led the charge. And, that’s what they did…along with Adrian Rogers and others….they just led the charge.
David
Tom and Stephen,
If an erroneous medical doctor needs to be removed because of the temporal harm done to the body, then how much more does an erroneous professor need to be removed because of the eternal harm done to the body and soul?
I think this is where CB and others were coming from. I’m sure you disagree, but I think this disagreement is a symptom of the root disagreement you have with them over the Bible.
On the other hand my hero Will Campbell called the SBC Takeover artists, leaders: “Soul Molesters”.
That is strong language but Campbell was the only white minister I know on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel the night Martin King was assassinated.
Look at Will’s American Christianities to get some framework,some perspective on that.
Every matter of virtue among SBC White folk was not tied to race in the 50′s and 60′s; but don’t look back for inerrantists in those days to have any prophetic notion from the Literal reading of the Bible to have any pricks of their conscience.
That is where Wills does a grand job of explanation; and Noll if you read him with an open mind under the leadership of the Holy Spirit.
So where were all the great literal Criswellites during the biggest sin of America in the 20th Century? Out to lunch.
Read the Genaology of Dissent; that is where theBaptist heroes were on that matter.
Richard Land and Morris Chapman were Johnny Come Latelies.
So the proof is in the pudding.
I give you my grandfather with an 8th grade education,pretty much a Bible Literalists, lived a more pious and in most respects virtuous life than I have lived. But that is not the fault of higher critical looks at the Bible or the Enlightenment.
Put things in perspective over time. I don’t know you but I gather you are in your early 30′s. I hope you keep looking at these matters and keep Brandon in the conversation as you go along and check in with Ben Cole in five years or so to see what he is thinking.
Here is a link for Joe Blackmon and Volfan cause I know they love em:
http://streaksblog.blogspot.com/2005/12/bootlegger-points-out-grownup.html
Stephen,
You talk about “the biggest sin of America in the 20th Century?”
According to what standard?
If you say that it is according to some standard other than the Bible, then upon what basis is this nonBible standard authoritative?
If you say that it is according to the standard of the Bible, then it seems like you come out saying something like this:
Since inerrantists did not follow the Bible in the past, then the Bible is not inerrant
Am I wrong?
Benji:
Please tell me you did not just question my view of the Bible? If you did and only you know if you did, how CR tactical of you.
Where did I say to keep those professors that would do eternal harm to the body and soul?
Well, would you be amiable to keeping a professor who did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, the bodily resurrection of Christ, or the exlusivity of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone?
Serious question.
As the great Norm hitzges says (that reference is for Brandon) no no never no never no no. That is assuming Brandon tunes in the ticket from time to time
Jim,
Haha…. Norm’s voice keeps me away from the Ticket.
Baby arm
Wow!! The arguement begins. The one that no one wins. I know several here just think I’m plain wrong in my views and life is just too short to argue with you. Please have a nice day!
Wow!! The arguement begins. The one that no one wins. I know several here just think I’m plain wrong in my views and life is just too short to argue with you. Please have a nice day!
Hard to tell who you’re replying to, but do you mean you’re avoiding this question?
Well, would you be amiable to keeping a professor who did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, the bodily resurrection of Christ, or the exlusivity of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone?
Serious question.
Tom,
I think there are at least two different categories of folks who make up those who disagree with the CR folks.
1. Those who believe the neoorthodox view of Scripture and thus support professors teaching that view.
2. Those who believe the traditional view of Scripture, but want to at least “tolerate” professors teaching a neoorthodox view.
Either way, what both views share in common is allowing neoorthodox professors to promote their view.
I think CB and others saw that a consequence of allowing this would be the eternal harm done to the body and the soul of individuals because of what they believe concerning the Bible which is this:
The traditional view of the Bible is right and so important that to tolerate any other view being taught would result in the dishonoring of God and the eternal harm of others.
Unless you don’t believe that the neoorthodox view of the Bible was being taught, then I do not believe that you fully believe in what is in italics above.
2. Those who believe the traditional view of Scripture, but want to at least “tolerate” professors teaching a neoorthodox view.
In many ways, I think those folks are even worse than the liberals because they are willing to sacrifice their fidelity to scripture because they believe diversity is more important.
Talk about someone who doesn’t have their priorities straight.
Benji:
Great summary.
Of course, another sub issue is that it is a human tendency to look away from problems that are hard.
Cecil Sherman would tell you, point blank, that he would permit a professor to teach in an SBC seminary who would claim that “scripture” led him not to believe in the Virgin Birth. (That is an actual statement from Cecil Sherman, RIP).
Many folks who would permit neoorthodox teaching will spend hours, days, weeks and months denying that there ever was or is such a thing in SBC life.
It makes discussion very hard when human nature engages in that kind of denial.
CB,
Sorry, should’ve clarified. It’s two-fold. Those crazy conservatives who think Dilday is out of SWBTS because he is a raging liberal who hates the Bible and the crazy liberals who think that the CR was out to get him.
I think the truth and objective view, in my opinion, is that he was outspoken against the CR and I understand why they had him removed due to their goals and his opposition was major considering who he was, though I think he was hosed by coming to work one morning with the doors locked.
Well said.
Back up in this thread somewhere, I think I said basically the same thing.
I think he was hosed by coming to work one morning with the doors locked.
See, here’s my thing:
Were there liberal professors at SWBTS under Dilday’s presidency (folks who denied the miracles of Christ, the divinity of Christ, salvation exclusively through the gospel of Jesus Christ, etc)? Yes. Yes there were.
Did Dilday know what they believed? He most certainly did.
What did he do about it? He wasn’t willing to fire them and he wasn’t willing to suport those who were looking run the vermin out. In fact, he opposed them. So what he did was offer liberals sanctuary in my book.
Therefore, him showing up to work to find his door locked was WAY better than he deserved as far as I’m concerned. He had no right or business to support or be willing to work with liberals. When he did, he painted the proverbial target on his own back.
Joe,
You and I agree on most things, but I don’t agree with your hateful crucifixion of liberals… can’t go there with you. Dilday brought it upon himself by railing against the CR, but that doesn’t make the actions right. He was voted by his board and reaffirmed by them as a great leader like 48 hours before being locked out. I do agree that he should’ve gone on to Baylor, which is where he went but I don’t think he “deserved” anything.
The fact is there were NOT liberals as you describe at swbts No one has ever given a name if a swbts proff who believed or taught liberal theology. Hemphil did not fire any proffs for being liberal nor did Patterson upon his arrival
southern, sebts, Midwestern yes, Dilday gives an example in his book of one of his proffs that moved to the dark side – and he fired him
One last thing, Brandon I had to laugh at your lament that Dilday went to Baylor. He was still a relatively young man who as you point out was wrongfully terminated. Where was he supposed to go, it’s not like he was going to be hired by another SBC institution
Jim, I missed that court decision saying Dilday was wrongfully terminated. Could you please give me the reference.
I remember this coming up from moderate profs while a student in the Dilday incident era, but I don’t remember any court siding with Dilday.
Is it possible that this is just moderate hyperbole and propaganda?
Given a great job review one day, lock out of his office the next. I think that qualifies as wrongful termination
Fox,
You just use the “:”!”;” for eyes and the “)” for the mouth and it automatically does it haha… It’s not a secret for conservatives or administrators! Geez, bro. Matt does an excellent job of keeping everyone on a level playing field here, don’t jump into some weird conspiracies.
My emoticons aren’t backhands but trying to keep the mood light, nothing more.
Brandon,
As you can see from the comment above, it is time.
Release the KRAKEN!!
Jim,
Glad you could get a laugh there big guy
And I guess our definitions of liberal are different. But I digress.
Actually, I’m pretty sure on this post or one recently I said that Dilday had no choice, but my point is that theologically he fit better there.
The subject of this post was Paige Patterson and his speaking at LU on the same occasion as did Glenn Beck.
As is the nature of things, if the name of Paige Patterson is mentioned, it draws much attention and comment, some good, some bad, and some just plain crazy and then some actually correct.
Therefore, it was all but impossible to keep the scope of this thread aligned to center mass. It is like trying to shoot the wind.
I would like to address the subject of this post just for a moment. (I know I have added to the “drift” greatly.)
I for one am glad Paige Patterson spoke at LU on the same occasion as did Beck. If it did nothing else, it proved that after all these years, events, changes, and travels that Paige Patterson still knows the primary purpose of his existence is. He is a man called to tell the Good Story of Jesus Christ……and he did so. End of Story.
Jim,
Glad you could get a laugh, but not sure why you’re laughing. You’re probably being too emotional and not reading my statement.
I’ve said before and I think on this comment section, that I think Dilday needed to go to Baylor because it was more fitting for him and he eventually did after leaving SWBTS. I don’t think I ever said that he could have stayed in the SBC seminaries. And, again, your barometer may be different than mine on liberalism. I actually think, and I’ve said this also, that he is more moderate than the crazy conservatives who paint him poorly.
Jim,
Sorry, I thought my comment didn’t post. Just combine those two thoughts! Haha
Responding to comment 163:
“cb scott July 30, 2010 at 5:01 pm
L’s,
With what of his writing do you agree?”
I have read, with interest, his writing on the mentally-challenged, as my son has Down Syndrome. It has always been important to me to try to understand the effect of the mentally-challenged on plight of the whole Church; as well as the effect of the Church on the plight of the mentally-challenged. I don’t expect for that comment to be easily understood, but to me, it makes great sense.
My son is care for in a Christian facility in Wyckoff NJ, which is run under the auspices of the Dutch Reformed Church. Those people are ‘saints’ in the way that they have responded to the needs of those God has placed among us, in order to make us more compassionate.
Hauerwas’ writings came to my attention when he taught at Notre Dame University. Have you read any of his writings to do with the mentally-challenged? Especially as regards Christian ethics, on that subject?
L’s,
I have a mentally handicapped daughter. She is the light of my day on many occasions. And there are nights when I cry out to Jesus in despair about her future. But there is always joy in the morning when she says, “Pa, I love you” and then she smiles like a little “possum.
Tell me what I need to read that Hauerwas can tell me about just keepin’ on loving Carrie with all my heart knowing God created her and put her into my life to teach us both to love jesus and the biblical gospel more?
Here are the Christian ethics in relation to the mentally-handicapped: Know God created them in His image, just like any other person. Love them as you would love yourself. Protect them from evil people. Give them every possible opportunity you can. Pray for them. Pray for them. Pray for them. Did I mention, love them as you would love yourself?
Well L’s I guess that about covers it for Christian ethics relating to the mentally handicapped. So why do I need a flaming liberal like Hauerwas to tell me anything about ethics and the handicapped?
See L’s I am not mad at God about it. Are you?
C.B., there is no one who can teach you more about how to love your little one than Our Lord can. Go to meet with Him in prayer, and go to meet with Him in the Gospels. Ask Our Lord to help guide you to make plans for Carrie’s future. He will give you the strength and the wisdom to find Christian people who care for the mentally-challenged.
Keep the practice of evening prayer hour, and He will never leave you alone again at night in despair over Carrie’s future. You will see.
Hauerwas is an ethicist. His writings are for professionals and theologians, not geared for moms and dads, like ourselves.
Stay in the Lord’s peace, C.B. All will be well. God bless you and your little Carrie. I will keep her close in my prayers from now on, now that I know your need.
Love, L’s
L’s,
I guess it is time for me to be arrogant again. I am a dad, that is true. I am also a “professional theologian” if there is such a thing. And here is where the arrogance will really kick in. The professional theology of Hauwewas cannot carry cb’s professional theology’s water. That’s no brag, just fact.
And God does help me L’s. I am His child. He hears and answers my prayers. You on the other hand, are not HIs child.
But He is longsuffering with you even though He does not hear your prayers as He does for His children. He is longsuffering with you because it is not His will that you perish, but that you repent and believe the biblical gospel.
You did not answer my question L’s. I said I am not mad at God over my daughter. Are you mad at Him because of your son? Is that why you hate conservative, Bible believing Christians so much?
No, C.B., I’m not mad at God.
I think you are tired and need to go rest now.
BTW L’s,
Carrie’s future is good. She is in the hands of God and His good grace.
Your future, on the other hand is not so good. You see, you stand condemned to hell already. The wrath of God is awaiting you on the Day of Judgement.
But hopefully you will repent of your sinful blasphemous life before then and believe the gospel and be gloriously saved. Then you can be with me, Carrie and your son eternally with Jesus. Otherwise, at your death, you will neither see nor hear from any of us again.
Now that is theology that Hauerwas will not give you L’s. But if he does not repent and believe the biblical gospel he will accompany you in the Day of Judgement. But you guys won’t like each other much. Nobody will like anybody in hell.
L’s now you go ahead and get mad and stomp and cuss. But I am telling you the truth. You need to repent and be saved before it is too late. Your time is running out.
C.B., if I were there, I wouldn’t ‘get mad, stomp, and cuss’.
I would probably give you a hug, and order you to go and rest now. I think you are weary and need to rest.
No L’s,
You would not give me a “hug.” I don’t allow that. I intend to finish well with no rumor or slander attached to my moral character. If you want to hug somebody, it needs to be your own husband.
I just saw your Comment 229, as regards the ‘hug’ remark.
When you really ‘get going’, I think of you as having an alter-ego: a ‘dancing bear in a pink tutu’ who is getting tired
and that thought brings out the ‘mom’ in me.
Do you need a hug? No way.
But that poor bear sure does.
CB,
I totally agree. And I definitely helped lead the discussion astray as much as I try to keep it centered. The ol’ pride has a way of doing that!
What was so bad about people like Dilday and other “moderates” was that they were basically conservative in theology, but they thought it was okay for liberals to be in places of leadership in the SBC. That was the bad thing about a lot of these “moderates” who were constantly trying to walk the fence.
The liberals in the SBC had to go. There were liberals in the IMB, NAMB, all 6 Southern Baptist Seminaries, the SS board, CLC, etc. They had to be weeded out. Moderates did not have the heart for it. They didnt even see the need for it. They also fought against throwing them out…electing instead to be a part of the Good ole Boy system. I also saw this at work in the TN Bapt. Convention. Good ole Boys slapping each other on the back, and putting their buddies into places of authority and power…usually with very good pay. And, it didnt matter a lick if they were theologically in error, or not.
David
Christiane:
I’m sure you notice the compassionate response from 007. How typical of him.
lol
QUOTE they were basically conservative in theology END QUOTE
David, I’m not sure that statement tells the whole story. At first, Dilday and his crowd violently opposed the label “moderate,” but within a short while, they embraced the term — identifying themselves — as moderate. As I’ve said before, I was a student in the late 90′s at SWBTS. Dilday later embraced the moderate title.
I don’t think it is correct to call him a “conservative theologically” when his ideas are not always conservative, and he himself uses the title moderate.
I do agree that Dilday was definitely, “liberal-friendly.” Several of my professors openly made fun of conservatives in the classroom — I being one of them. To assert anything else simply is not accurate. I was in the middle of it.
PS — Again, I’m not judging anybody for claiming to be a moderate. But, we should accept what people say of themselves as having validity.
SSBN,
I agree with you. I guess I know of some people that are moderates, who are basically conservative in their theology. To me, a true moderate is basically conservative, who sees nothing wrong with liberals being in the SBC. I know some like this. But, you’re right that many of the so called “moderates” usually had many liberal leanings, and even some liberal beliefs about them.
David
And which one of those ” liberal” proffs were fired by Hemphill or Patterson? None? Why is that? How about because there were not any.
SSBN, were you one of the ones secretly recording lectures and giving them to your leaders, there was a good bit of that happening back in the day as well as some creative editing.
Doesn’t it stand to reason that with all the talk of liberalism Ken and Paige could have found at least one?
Now they may not have walked lockstep
007:
So you are laughing outloud that Dr. Klouda and her family where treated without little to no compassion by PP?
BTW you are an excellent representative of what the CR does to someone who buys it hook, line, and sinker.
Keep up your good work and the bigger boys may eventually promote you to a higher position in the SBC.
Tom,
The first “lol” was about your idiotic statement in #212. This “lol” is for the one you just made in #216. LOL
Also, Tom, maybe you’d be interested in knowing that I dont want to be in any leadership position in the SBC! I like being a Pastor. I’m a Pastor of a small Church. I really cant see myself being anything else.
Also, Tom, I bought the CR thing hook, line, and sinker; because I saw things myself, personally; and I heard things from those people, who saw and heard things first hand. The Boogie Man was real, Tom, and his name was Liberal/Moderate. He existed, and he was trying to destroy the faith of the SBC; tring to throw doubt on the Word of God; and was seeking to destroy the Gospel message. Thank God the Boogie Man was grabbed by the throat and strangled…
David
One more thing, Tom, about your insinuation that I was in this for the power I could get….since the CR days, I’ve been the Pastor of small churches in W. TN and N. MS. Where’s the power I got from my helping the CR? lol.
Boy, I really got promoted up the ranks…didnt I? LOL
David
Well Vol,
You do get those free tickets to SEC games.
CB,
Shhhhhhh…I dont want Tom and Fox to hear about that. If they do, Fox will find 100 and 1 links to show us.
David
SSBN:
When you were standing up to the “Liberal Dom”, what exactly were you doing?
You only give one side of the story, there is usually three sides.
Did PP get the Dom’s side of the story before helping you.
Just trying to be fair to all sides including the “Liberals.”
Tom Parker,
I am glad you asked SSBN that question.
I have one for you. Did you ever ask Paige Patterson his side of any story before you went through Blogtown bashing him every chance you got?
I was trying to defend a lawsuit he had a disgruntled church member file trying to get a judge to fire me from the church because the two previous attempts a church vote failed.
Failing to get a judge to do his work, he tried using two law firms to find a way to get title to our property.
He also was giving seminars promoting the CBF while an employee of the SBC, and disparaging the names of persons not in the seminar to defend themselves.
There’s more — much more — but I hope this at least gives you some of the information you seek.
By the way, history does not have three sides, only histrionics. If you share a personal story, I would not naturally assume you are lying. It would have been nice to have received the same consideration from you — but, I understand that any concession that a “moderate” might be a snake in the grass will never be forthcoming from a CR Hater.
Sorry. I cannot let this stand. I know who SSBN is and the reasons he left his last church. He is not telling the truth. I am not going to elaborate because this is not my blog. Suffice to say that when SSBN came to our church, it was a healthy church of about 120. (That is healthy is our neck of the woods.) When he left, there were fewer than 10. Why don’t you offer up the Hearing Board report to tell the actual story? Tell them what happened during the morning worship service of July 16, 2006.
The DOM was not liberal, nor were there any “seminars” promoting the CBF. If Dr. Patterson called you to offer support, he did not seek the opinion of any of the church members. The church almost died, and even now it is on life support. Is this what Dr. Patterson wants to defend and help? Dr. Patterson needs to call the church and offer his profound apologies for believing such nonsense.
And by the way, there was no lawsuit filed against the church in any way. Jack, you have made that up out of whole cloth.
Paige Patterson and the Metanarrative:
While this article focusses on SBTS proffs issues with Brian McClaren, it opens up a whole aspect of the legacy of Paige Patterson. Notice there are about 32 comments on this article so that should kickstart the discussion as it grafts here:
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/4983/104/
Steve,
McClaren is a heretic. What has he to do with Paige Patterson’s legacy other than the fact that Patterson would call him a heretic.
Steve, you would agree that McClaren is a heretic would you not?
And pages 333 and forward here on Paige Patterson and Nancy Ammerman:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Oy6fet52ELEC&pg=PA333&lpg=PA333&dq=Paige+Patterson+and+the+meta-narrative&source=bl&ots=QBkApW6_qW&sig=NBJvSq2CEhYE0f3N85JTaJgtUT8&hl=en&ei=hZlUTPybN4P68AbQ46SiBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Paige%20Patterson%20and%20the%20meta-narrative&f=false
Tom, I’m more concerned about one of the comments here by Darby:
““God, in his sovereignty, chose the apostle Paul to reveal the mystery hidden for ages.””
At this point, I am beginning to see how it was that when the BF&M 2K was written, the change in perspective allowed MEN to use the words of St. Paul out of the context of the teachings of Christ in the Gospels, and even outside of St. Paul’s full core of teachings, which include 1 Cor. 13.
Once this was done, a Pauline ‘doctrine’ as it was interpreted by MEN, could be applied and WAS applied in ways that hurt people.
For me, this has been quite a ‘revelation’ about the evil of extremist fundamentalism in the SBC and how it has affected the faith and practice of some, as the Gospel of Our Lord was laid to the side in favor of modern HUMAN interpretation of St. Paul’s writings.
I had no idea how serious this was before reading Darby’s comment.
What doctrine, Christiane? Which one in the BFM2K is applied to hurt people by the meany fundies in the SBC? Which doctrine of Paul do you find to be mean and nasty and hurtful?
David
Hi DAVID,
look below at my comment on #233 following Brandon’s question.
Perhaps it will explain some (not all) of my concerns.
And DAVID, also see my comment # 237
Have a wonderful Lord’s Day (is almost sundown here).
ERROR, David,
sorry, I meant #238
Christiane,
Are you talking about 1 Cor. 13 that says the gift of teaching doesn’t matter between gender?
I agree! But, who should they teach? I think women can and should teach. I think Beth Moore is fantastic, and I’d agree with John Piper who says that it isn’t wrong for a man to be taught by Beth Moore at a conference from stage. But, Paul’s statements refer to church authority, in my opinion, and that a man should not be shepherded pastorally by a woman.
Christiane, how does Paul justify this reason? By saying that there were heretical woman teachers in the church? That women weren’t smart enough? No! He obviously felt that Priscilla was an excellent missionary and teacher. But he says no authority because of GOD’S DESIGN, the way He created things to be. Unless you think that God is a sexist, you have no room to stand. HE decided it would be that way, according to Genesis and reaffirmed by Paul.
No, Brandon,
I was referring the 13th Chapter of First Corinthians.
” 1 If I speak in human and angelic tongues 2 but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.
2 And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.
3 If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated,
5 it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury,
6 it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth.
7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing.
9 For we know partially and we prophesy partially,
10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.
11 When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things.
12 At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known.
13 So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.”
Christiane,
Okay then I’m not sure what you’re talking about. It’s not unloving for men and women to have different roles… The Trinity is the prime example of love + +equality + roles.
If that’s not what you mean then I’m out haha…
You might say there is a connection, Brandon, if humans wanted to interpret a scripture in a way that restructured who could teach Biblical languages in a seminary.
If, however, at that moment of the ‘interpretation’, a woman was teaching Hebrew to seminary students, and she was removed in such a way as to cause her and her family extreme hardship;
then, one ‘doctrine’ interpretation has totally violated the spirit of a major doctrine of the Christian faith: we do not cause harm to innocent people, so that God may somehow be pleased.
That illogic would produce a situation that violates the Great Commandment of Our Lord: to love one another as He has loved us.
It isn’t a matter of a particular doctrine, so much as how it is ‘applied’. It must never be done in a way that harms innocent people. At that point, the ‘doctrine’ would become a tool of serious abuse. That is not acceptable among Christian people.
‘Let no harm be done that good may come of it’ is a good rule to follow. It totally controls all that nonsense of ‘the ends justify the means, when the means are deceptive, cruel, and unprincipled.
QUOTE her and her family extreme hardship; END QUOTE
You obviously do not have a clue as to what you are talking about. We could all wish to be let go by an employer in such a lavish way.
Why don’t you post the facts of the matter and then post your comment on “hardship.” I think you will embarrass yourself.
CB:
You said:
“Tom Parker,
I am glad you asked SSBN that question.
I have one for you. Did you ever ask Paige Patterson his side of any story before you went through Blogtown bashing him every chance you got?”
As one who has taught me well when one does not want to answer a question–as 007 often says to me–because he rarely answers questions–it must be a CR thing.
lol
Tom Parker,
I am glad you responded to the question.
it again confirms what I have noticed about you for two years. You have yet to say one true or positive thing about a conservative Southern Baptist in a comment thread.
BTW, I read your comments over at the Funhouse. So I have a question for you Tom Parker. How do you sleep at night?
What else is so funny is that I’ve answered many questions that Tom brings up…albeit many of them are extremely strange and would be hard for anyone to answer. But, Tom does not like my answers, so he just claims that I dont answer him. lol
David
Christiane,
All things can be applied badly. Doctrine led to the Crusades, doesn’t make the doctrine wrong.
But the application of that doctrine, using it as an excuse to do something that harms the innocent, that is a very serious abuse of Scripture that comes from the mistakes men make in their lack of understanding of the merciful sacred Heart of Jesus.
If men are not motivated to serve Our Lord in faithful obedience to ALL of the ways that He has commanded we are to treat one another,
then it is very possible for some people to lose sight of what is really important to Him. They may fixate on a doctrine and its application legalistically, in a way that ignores the plight of those innocent around them, who get hurt or neglected in the process.
That is why it is commanded for us to keep our faith centered in Christ the Lord. He is the model for how we are to be with one another;
as He has shown us ‘the Way’ in how He was with people, when He was among us. He keeps us anchored.
Christiane:
I enjoy reading your comments from time to time.
I have a question. You have a lot of thoughts about the interpretation and application of scripture.
I am not a Catholic, as you. Would you please tell me, as best you can (I know it will be a summary only) what role the Pope, the College of Cardinals, Bishops and other officials in the church play in the interpretation of scripture. Are Catholics free to disagree with the church’s official interpretation of doctrine without any consequence?
Our moderate Baptist friends, for example, believe that individual Baptists can decide whether they believe in the Virgin Birth, the bodily resurrection etc. Is it that way for Catholics? If not, who gets to decide doctrinal questions?
If the system is that the men who run the Catholic church have the responsibility for deciding doctrine for the church that is binding on all Catholics, how do you feel about that? Is that a good system, or do you think it infringes on the individual believer to believe what he/she believes the Holy Spirit is saying?
Also, as I understand things, an individual Catholic has no opportunity to remove those in authority in the church who might decide doctrinal matters incorrectly or might behave badly or make a bad decision.
For example, Dr. Patterson and the trustees at Southwestern did not grant tenure to Dr. Klouda. (BTW – Do Catholic seminaries have female language or theological professors? I really don’t know). At any rate, Baptists can petition the institution, and through elections, if there are enough Baptists who care, can replace the trustees and effect institutional policy.
Is there an equivalent process in the Catholic church. If policy decisions are made at a seminary, for example, can Catholics band together and change the administration at the seminary? Has that ever been done?
I look forward to your thoughts.
Thanks.
Hi LOUIS,
well, that’s a lot of questions
Let’s see if I can help a little bit. Our ‘Apostolic Tradition (oral and written) was ‘received’ and ‘handed on’ down through the centuries by ‘the servants of the Word’, our Church’s teaching authority.
I guess Baptists might be familiar with this teaching authority’s activities in the early days of the Church,
when the Councils met to address the controversial heresies that had ‘sprung up’ concerning ‘who Christ was’, and the concept of the ‘Holy Trinity’.
Christians today take a lot of these early Church councils for granted, and ‘accept’ much of the orthodox teachings that were confirmed at that time, including decisions on what Scriptures were to be accepted as ‘canonical’ from among all the hundreds of extant writings under examination.
It is thought that the choice was made in many cases based on what Scriptures had been incorporated into the ‘Liturgy of the Word’ (first part of our Church service), and had been in use by Christians from time immemorial. This, certainly, appears to have influenced the composition of the canon of Holy Scripture.
The teaching authority also developed ‘creeds’ in response to many of the ‘heresies’ that had sprung up. The ‘progression’ of the creeds follows historically as responses to the heresies of the times in which the creeds were developed.
I’m afraid I’ve only gotten you through the first four hundred years or so, and I’ve used up a lot of space. I can’t seem to summarize into ‘sound bites’ (its the teacher in me).
So, another time, we might continue. I hope this helped some.
Catholic schools are pretty diverse; depends on what institution you are talking about. Some schools are conservative; some are “liberal” by your SBC standards, pro-feminist, pro-liberation theology, and gay-friendly.
The SBC has more in common with the Catholic Church than it would be willing to admit….
Many of the depictions of Catholics, specifically in America, are way off base. I’ve not personally known a Catholic who took orders from the Pope and Bishops. Nancy Ammerman recently spoke about some of the similarities between local Catholic churches and local Baptist churches in how they approach issues pertaining to autonomy. A good talk, I’ll see if I can find a recap online to share.
Tom Parker,
I am glad you responded to the question.
it again confirms what I have noticed about you for two years. You have yet to say one true or positive thing about a conservative Southern Baptist in a comment thread.
BTW, I read your comments over at the Funhouse. So I have a question for you Tom Parker. How do you sleep at night?
I sleep the same way you do at night, but hopefully better, because I do not play vicious games with people like you do and attack people endlessly through the internet. I am not a foot soldier of the CR who has ruthlessly ruined other people’s lives in the ministry because they were “Liberal.” and continuously seeks to destroy others not of your ilk.
The CR offered you and others opportunites that you gladly took advantage of. What was it that someone asked me and “How do you sleep at night?”
I’m quite sure you do not see yourself the way you really are–anyone who dares take a different view than you is your enemy.
It has to be your way or the highway. I truly feel sorry for you.
As I have said before, I really do not desire conversation with you–”your a nasty one” and I really will not sink to your level.
Tom,
Come on, let’s be logical and not emotional (I apparently need to say this to SBCV readers a lot), men who supported the CR were surely doing it under Biblical conviction. Were there some who wanted power? Probably. Were there liberals who didn’t and still don’t believe the Bible? Probably. But, your blanket statement is offensive, to say the least. I am 25 and I get no “power” from agreeing with the CR. I agree with the principles of SBC conservatism because I believe them to be Biblical. There was sin on both sides, no one came out clean.
QUOTE The CR offered you and others opportunites END QUOTE
While were comparing “integrities,” I’m just wondering if you ever feel bad making completely false statements about a whole group of people?
In the name of truth, I took a conservative (CR) stance twice over the last 30 years or so and received a vicious attack including an attack from a law firm backed by a moderate that tried to eliminate my ministry. My family suffered terribly.
So, I hope you can sleep good at night with a lie on your tongue, because what you say “I’ve gained” for my stance, I have not.
And, just for the record: I’ve never tried to sue a moderate pastor to gain control over millions of dollars of church property.
PS — Though battered and bruised, the moderate never gained control of the property, even after engaging a “head-hunting law firm.” To God be the glory.
Tom Parker,
Do you know the theme song for the movie: The Grinch?
I bet you can really sing it well. “Your a nasty one, cb”
BTW Tom Parker, I was not a foot soldier during the CR. I was more like an anarchist/demolition expert/G. Gordon Liddy/ Soldier of Fortune type if you know what I mean.
BTW Tom Parker,
Since you brought Klouda up again as did L’s; Go back up to my comment #163 and read it. If I am not mistaken you were in the original conversation about a year ago also.
Did you help the Kloudas financially?
L’s,, what about you? I notice you ignored the question…..again.
from Gospel of St. Matthew
“‘Thus, when you do some act of charity, do not announce it . . . “
L’s,
Your hypocrisy does not hide well behind Scripture verses. Your use of Scripture only reveals how little you understand of the faith. And all you understand L’s, is that you despise biblical Christianity and those who espouse it.
It ain’t workin’ L’s.
CB: Problem is, she’s right.
No, she’s very “left” — as in “left behind.”
That too is ridiculous.
Debbie, shut your filthy mouth. When you’re willing to share the gospel with Mokahn, which you’re not, then you have the right to talk about what is biblical and what isn’t. However, since you believe his muslim faith is enough to save him you have no right to discuss anything since you don’t proclaim the gospel.
No Debbie,
She is not right and neither are you.
Debbie, you rode this Caner thing until you got a little recognition. Now you have the same problem some of the people you talk about so much have or had. You will do anything to hang on to your concept of self-importance. You have hungered after a little recognition all of your life. And you will do most anything or say most anything to hang on to it. That is why you came up with this last little series on your blog. Debbie, the truth is, you know about as much about child sexual abuse as you do brain surgery, the SBC, research…..or biblical theology.
CB Scott,
That’s not exactly right. Debbie hasn’t “rode this Caner thing” just to get a little recognition. That’s not the impression I get. It’s certainly not my motivation, and it doesn’t appear to be the motivation of anyone else I can think of, including James White. In the Caner case, it’s… oh, nevermind… it’s only been said about 9,000 times in every conceivable permutation of expression in vain attempts to simply get the point across. It might wind up the same way with the current series on Baptist preacher predators. Who knows? I personally am complementarian, CB, and to answer your question from before a little more thoroughly, I do disagree with Debbie in certain areas (such as that one), and if I think about it there are others as well. But that in and of itself does not form part of my criteria as to discerning whether Debbie’s blogging material is valid or not. I find the subject matter interesting, and so do others, and I think legitimate points have been made by Debbie and others.
And, seriously, how much do you have to know about child abuse to know it’s wrong and something should be done about it? What kind of a complaint is that? Does that truly even make sense to you?
Well, let me qualify that a little bit. I commented extensively on it, because I thought that we (in general) and perhaps I (specifically) had something worthwhile to say about it. I had the wrong attitude there for my part in much of it. I was mostly ignored and occasionally rebuked. I think I even deserved some of the rebukes I got. But my impression of Debbie has been one of someone’s who’s admittedly stubborn, but sincerely and only because of having a wrenching gut-level awareness that all is not right about a matter and the disappointing realization that some of the people involved are not going to right the wrongs voluntarily. Right or wrong, there is nothing in her words that I can see that qualifies as an appeal to recognition simply for self-serving sake. If there is an appeal to recognition in her words, to me it seems to be a call for understanding the serious fault in the matter involved, for wrongs to be righted, for sins to be confessed and repented, and for rebuke if that becomes necessary.
CB, you may or may not wish this to be a self-serving call for recognition on Debbie’s part, but I believe you to be mistaken.
Byron,
I said nothing about predators, preacher or otherwise. I said nothing about James White.
I said, “Debbie, you rode this Caner thing until you got a little recognition. Now you have the same problem some of the people you talk about so much have or had. You will do anything to hang on to your concept of self-importance. You have hungered after a little recognition all of your life.”
Byron, can you see one word about me saying her post on Caner being valid or invalid? No. I said she has ridden it to a point that she can’t let go. Valid or invalid is not the issue anymore. The issue is she is now chasing anything she can to get attention. You know that and so do I. It is sickening.
Also Byron, who said anything about knowing if child abuse is wrong? Even an idiot knows child abuse is wrong. Even the perps, most of the time, know its wrong. That is why they try to hide it.
That is not the point Byron. The point is that Debbie is taking something as serious and heinous as child sexual abuse and using it for a vehicle to justify her sick desires to bring reproach on conservative Southern Baptists. Go to her posts and comment threads on the subject Byron. Count the number of times she uses Patterson’s name. She and that band of misfits are not seeking justice for abused children. If they were, why are they not taking them into their homes and trying to help them? Why are they not spending their own money to get them good counseling? Why are they not protecting them in their own churches?
Byron, Debbie’s whole goal is to berate Baptist leaders. And she does it for no other reason that to feed her sick need for attention and recognition. Read the posts Byron. Take the blinders off and read the posts. Then read the comment threads.
Byron, the Caner issue is dead. For Debbie and some like her it was her fifteen minutes of glory. The glory is now over but the hunger remains. Now she is trying to tie Patterson, Vines, Falwell and others to every heinous, sick, perverted act some low-life piece of trash that ever said he was in ministry has done. She even brought Patterson’s name into the Matt Baker post. Bryon, how on earth can a rational person tie Matt Baker to Paige Patterson?
Byron, the stuff she is putting up over there is nothing but garbage and sinful slander now. No matter what it was in the beginning. That is all it is now. Tell me how it will help one kid who has been the victim of some piece of trash masquerading as a preacher? It is not going to. Why? Because that is not the goal. The goal is to gain recognition by trying to tear down people like Paige Patterson, Jerry Vines, Adrian Rogers and others who have stood for truth in hard places where others would have broke and run like rats.
Byron, get away from that garbage and do something better. Hey, why don’t you volunteer to help an abused kid? God knows there are plenty of them out there. And again Byron, she does not know one thing about how to deal with abused children or the perps who abuse them. All she knows how to do is repeat stories she heard of Southern Baptist leaders, because she does not know any one of the people she is talking about in her rants. Not one.
CB: That is utterly ridiculous. Not surprising coming from you but ridiculous none the less.
No Debbie,
It is right as the rain and in your heart you know it.
CB
Excellent analysis. Debbie is angry—angry at the world. But it grew out of the anger she felt for the people (men, I’m sure, since she hates men so much) who “abused her”. So she projects an image of them onto everybody and attempts to avenge herself.
Now Wade, her egalitarian hero, hates Patterson. Thereefore, since her hero hates Patterson she hates him as well. She now has a level of arrogance I’ve rarely seen. She fancies herself as an SBC Lois Lane. It’s really quire funny.
Joe: You are not even Southern Baptist, so other than enjoying foaming at the mouth, why would you even care?
CB: Yes, I know my heart, God knows my heart, and I feel no need to explain it to you since you chose to go this direction instead of once again dealing with the issues. Where is my heart? Tired of the hypocrisy. Tired of saying we need to give the gospel while sin abides deep in the Southern Baptist churches. Tired of innocent people(and believe me I am not talking about Paige Patterson or Morris Chapman or Ergun Caner) getting ran over while the above and others thrive on. That is where my heart is. You have just articulated in your rhetoric and Joe Blackmon as well, what I am tired of. You either need to get real here with what a Holy God requires that Christ died for and who we are in Christ, both of you, or you will answer for it when you reach heaven. That is the bottom line. I have no problem answering to God for what I have done here, but you are going to have to answer for your lies, your mowing down people, your bullying. Neither thing I will tolerate. Don’t talk to me and give words like you have here and say the word Gospel in the same breath. That to me is blasphemy.
Now the above will probably get deleted, but I certainly feel it needed to be said. In case you haven’t noticed, you are right Joe, I am angry, but not at the world, who seems to have a better sense of what integrity is than the people of God in the Southern Baptist realm. Gospel? No thanks. Not your brand. I don’t find it in the Bible anywhere.
QUOTE And which one of those ” liberal” proffs were fired by Hemphill or Patterson? None? Why is that? How about because there were not any END QUOTE
They didn’t have to be fired. When the writing was on the wall, they quit.
No, I did not secretly tape any classes: 1) the moderate professors searched our bags to make sure we did not have recorders 2) most of what the moderate professors taught was already well known.
Here’s something interesting: many moderates first fiercely denied what they taught, and then a few months later were bragging and pushing their theology at other schools. That didn’t get much press.
David, I think you are right that some early moderates were not necessarily moderate in most of their theology. However, compromise is a slippery slope and Dilday and many other quickly slid into the moderate pool.
Again, let me say that I defend a moderate’s right to his moderate beliefs, as long as my CP dollars don’t have to pay for it.
I thank God for the CBF — it gave some of the moderates a place to go. Unfortunately, some moderates just can’t seem to “cut the apron cords.” Again, thank God for the CBF–it allows for an honest contrast between how moderates live out theolgy and how conservatives live it out.
Good word, SSBN.
Amen, SSBN
To entertwine several themes in this discussion, Kevin Roose, the fellow who came from Brown to Falwell’s Liberty to do a book may be the person to bring Tony Blair to Liberty.
Blair, the former Prime Minister of Brittain, now has a foundation that among other things has sponsored some film testimonials from young folks of different faiths.
Could turn into a fiasco, but at a minimum would bring light to Ergun Caner’s views of other faiths if it didn’t turn into a tabloid discussion.
Actor and Preacher’s son Denzel Washington has taken interest in Robert Parham’s effort with differentbookscommonword dot com effort.
Now Tony Blair has joined the conversation. Why not invite Kevin Roose to be the catalyst to bring it all together to Liberty and shine light on Beck and Patterson and …..; Just let some light shine!!!!!!
http://www.tonyblairfaithfoundation.org/newsroom/entry/faith-shorts-announces-shortlist-of-films-from-young-people-across-fiv/
I doubt SBC Peace Committee Members Charles Pickering and Jim Henry would agree with SSBN’s assessment above or its endorsement by Brandon on Russell Dilday and other matters in regard how the Peace Committee report was implemented.
Bush 43 Judicial Nominee is now a trustee of the Alliance Defense Fund with Chuck Colson and others.
But I could be wrong.
It would be interesting for Pickering and Henry to address SSBN’s conclusions in panel with Henry’s daughter Kate Campbell and the son of Pickering’s former pastor Robert Marsh, his son Charles who will have a bio on Dietrich Bonhoeffer out fall of next year.
While SSBN may have some weak points, his overall sentiment on the whole lacks merit and distracts from greater truths.
That said here are some of the remarks Robert Marsh made to his deacon Board at 2nd Ponce in Atlanta where he followed Dilday; remarks of June 1990 from a history of the church by Doug Weaver whose son BDW sometimes posts on this board.
Robert Marsh was a classmate of Adrian Rogers at NOBTS:
From his address to his deacons
Item 3 The Political Agenda of SBC takeover fundamentalists:
I want to say this as objectively as possible and simply give the facts as they have been given to me, not from reading the AJC or the Christian Index; but these items on the agenda have been given to me eye to eye conversation with dear friends with whom I may disagree very thoroughly but who have been clear enough to state the political agenda of the conservative movement.
1)Since 79 The Conservative Resurgence among SBC has tried to move us to a righ wing political philosophy and insisted that a conservative believer would be a political conservative….
2)I have had it stated to me very clearly eye to eye; “If you don’t vote for Ronald Reagan or George Bush there is no way you can claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ.
3) A strong military build up is a very important item on the political agenda….You are going to be supportive of what we did in Granda and Panama. If not, then there is something wrong with your commitment to the Word of God
4)If you favored giving away the Panama Canal, there is no way you can call yourself a Bible Believer
5) Capitalism is the only economic system to be found in the Word of God
6)If you believe the Bible, you will oppose the Equal rights Amendment
7)If you are a Bible believer, you will be Pro NRA…
Question is should these positions become a litmus test for participation in the Kingdom of God
More frightening, Should this agenda be the basis which determines whether a person can teach or serve on a board of trustees for one of our Baptist Institutions?
For Brandon and his full 27 years here on the earth, again, Garry Wills concluding chapters in American Christianities may help him digest some of the above in context and aim him toward better Light.
1. He was wrong, but it would be a good thing for Believers to be politically conservative…IMHO.
2. He was definitely wrong about this one. It’s absolutely a stupid statement.
3. He was wrong again. This guy just made up things.
4. Again, he was wrong…not only wrong, but this is the most idiotic statement I’ve seen in a long, long time.
5. Wrong again. Although, capitalism is one of the best systems going today.
6. What?
7. What? again.
This is some of the most stupid stuff I’ve read in a long, long time. Completely idiotic.
David
99% of the time, the best thing to do is just to ignore this stuff.
Taking it to a wider jury. Will let you know if some Light shines through.
I am laughing out loud at this. I can’t believe people would say such things.
Of course, to be fair, I have heard people say that if one doesn’t accept the theory of AGW and the prescriptions offered by former V.P. Gore and others, that you are neglecitng the Bible required mandate of “Creation Care”. You know, it’s right there after “Go ye into all the world…”
Louis, or the verse that tells us to save the whales and protect the snail darters. lol. Which is next to the verse that teaches that wearing fur is a sin.
lol
David
I just saw Nancy Pelosi rockin to Hey Jude while Paul McCartney sang with Emmy Lou Harris and Stevie Wonder and Elvis Costello underneath the Portrait of George Washington at the White House on PBS.
Surely the work of the Lord:
http://www.pbs.org/inperformanceatthewhitehouse/
Amen
I would humbly ask the moderators if telling anyone “shut your filthy mouth” is even remotely close to the acceptable dialog they desire in this otherwise excellent forum.
I would humbly ask the moderators if telling anyone “I would humbly ask the moderators if telling anyone “shut your filthy mouth” is even remotely close to the acceptable dialog they desire in this otherwise excellent forum” is acceptable dialog?
David
Hi DAVID,
it might be better for you to encourage JOE to go to his pastor and tell his pastor about THE comment he made to Debbie.
.
I’m sure you realize that Joe’s comment was out of line, and also that it was a sign that he is ‘in over his head’ and needs to get some help.
There are times when pastoral intervention can make a difference. Think about it.
Joe very much needs his pastor’s guidance now.
Please encourage that, if you have any influence with him.
Again L’s, your hypocrisy knows no bounds.
I have no idea where that was stated (perhaps it has already been removed) but there are no “moderators” at SBC Voices. Matt and the rest of us who post regularly have jobs and don’t spend all our time on the blogs monitoring every one. We sort of expect that most of you can behave.
In certain situations, we have acted to block someone who is consistently abusive or ungodly in conversation.
But my personal opinion is that when someone says something ungodly it tends to make people take them less seriously. Matt is in charge here, but I only delete comments that are obscene, profane, or such. Telling someone to “shut your filthy mouth” is certainly not decent argument – whoever made that comment.
But it reflects worse on the person who made the comment than it does on the one who the comment is made about.
I just found the comment. Way to go, Joe. Here’s the thing – Joe kinda drives me crazy because I agree with a lot of what he says, and I think that he has sharp wit and good insight on some things. But when he says things like that, it costs him his credibility as a Christian blogger.
My point stands. By telling Debbie to “shut your filthy mouth” he probably undermines his own point and buttresses Debbie’s in the eyes of most people who blog.
In other words, Joe hurts himself more than he hurts others when he says things like that.
He PROBABLY undermines his own credibility?
She’s somebody’s mother, somebody’s wife and ole Joe – who “probably” undermines his own point from time to time – told a woman to “shut your filthy mouth”
Joe doesn’t simply undermine his own points when he talks to a woman like that. Pretty sure that “most” don’t read such language and come away with Debbie 1, Joe 0. People who so easily speak that way to women have issues to say the least. It’s not everyday that you find a pastor or former pastor talking that way to a woman. That’s the definition of abusive language. Things like debating whether Russell Dilday is a conservative is um, rather trivial when you have comments made like this one from a regular here @SBCVoices.
If a man spoke that way to your wife or mother or daughter in the workplace or wherever, how would you feel, how would you respond? I don’t think any of you would respond with a “Well I think that gentleman probably hurt his credibility with that comment. His argument is now weakened”
……
BDW: I hope you will address the exchange above by the VolFan dismissal of your Father, Doug WEaver’s history of 2nd Ponce, and Robert Marsh’s 1990 address to his Deacons; Marsh, Dilday’s successor
Gee, what a shock – I said something and BDW went on the attack. Who’d have thought it?
By the way, would you say the same thing if Joe had told a man to shut his filthy mouth?
I thought you guys were all about equality…
It’s too bad Dave that you dislike me so much that you choose to attack the messenger than address the substance of the message. That you choose to be “soft” on Joe when he does what he does certainly says nothing about me and at least something about you. There’s no value in being a “teddy bear” towards men who speak abusively to women.
And you clearly misunderstand my egalitarianism. Sexism? Ridiculous. That men shouldn’t use abusive language towards women should be a universal value that we all hold near and dear.
Playing the victim, BDW?
I am saying that Debbie has never asked for quarter on the basis of her sex. I’m guessing she’d be just about as upset at your condescension as she would at Joe’s insult.
Ask Joe if I’ve been “soft” on him. I’ve been pretty hard on him, if you took the time to get the facts before you go into attack-dog mode.
Whatever, Dave. Reread what you wrote, reread my response. Your concern was that Joe’s words “probably” hurt his credibility not that Joe’s words were abusive.
You may call that being “hard” – most would disagree, I think.
Interestingly, you’ve chosen to use stronger, more pointed language towards me than Joe. As an aside, I really don’t care what you say about me. No interest whatsoever in playing the victim or anything else. Hopefully next time, you’ll find that something inside of you to actually be “hard.”
BDW, I made a simple statement – that Joe’s words hurt his own credibility more than they hurt Debbie.
You came on parsing my words and acting like a prosecutor. I’ve come to expect that kind of attack from you, but you simply did not read what I wrote. You do not know what you are talking about.
It would be great to be able to have some reasoned dialog without the attack-dog mentality.
Honestly, you can do what you like with what I say. What you do not get to do is make up meanings for my words and put them in my mouth.
OK Dave. You wrote what you wrote. Others can read what you wrote and my response.
And those who think language like that is funny.
OK folks and Dave Miller,
Lets look at this with a little more objectivity.
Joe made this statement: “Debbie, shut your filthy mouth”
I admit I wish he had made his point a little differently. But maybe you guys don’t read the stuff Joe reads at Debbie’s place. Maybe you don’t read what she says right here.
She constantly attacks present or past SBC leaders with anything she can imagine. She ties Paige Patterson to perps like Matt Baker. She berates gusy like Rogers and Vines. And if that is not enough, she then blankets the whole SBC (male pastors in particular, other than her own) with statements like:
“I am angry, but not at the world, who seems to have a better sense of what integrity is than the people of God in the Southern Baptist realm. Gospel? No thanks. Not your brand. I don’t find it in the Bible anywhere.”
Then Big Daddy reminds me that she is someone’s mother. Well Big Daddy, we already know that. And that is what troubles me somewhat. Why in the world does someone’s mother say the things she does?
Then she gets mad when someone calls her hand and says things like:
“Yes, I know my heart, God knows my heart, and I feel no need to explain it to you since you chose to go this direction instead of once again dealing with the issues.”
OK that is true Debbie. God knows your heart. And you feel no need to explain it. That is fine.
So why is it you demand Caner, Patterson, Vines, Chapman, Rogers and all others to explain their heart to you?
Debbie, what is good for the gander is good for the goose. You post your rude accusations at any and everyone. You come here and do the same. But if anyone challenges you, you take offense. Then guys get all angry at Joe for becoming indignant and telling you to shut up. I wish he had not told you that because it does take something away. But it is really not Joe’s credibility. What it takes away is not Joe’s credibility, bit it takes away the spotlight on the reality of your wicked behavior toward men you know absolutely nothing of other than what you either from those with axes to grind or what you can conjure up on your own through your wicked imagination. (which seems to be growing by leaps and bounds)
Joe,
She is a woman, and as Big Daddy pointed out, she is someone’s mother and grandmother. Therefore, even when she is saying things that makes you question why someone’s mother and grandmother can say things like she does, you should not tell her to “shut her filthy mouth.”
On the other hand, folks, is what Joe said any worse than Debbie’s willful intent to tie Paige Patterson, Morris Chapman, Adrian Rogers and Jerry Vines to every sorry low-down pervert in SBC life?
In defense of Debbie, she’s not the one who has been advocating the “I’m a grandma, don’t attack me” argument that BDW has advanced.
That bit of sexism is BDW’s alone.
I disagree with Debbie often, but she has never asked for quarter because she is a woman.
sexism – or chivalry – whichever you choose.
Bill,
I was messing with you…laughing at you asking the moderators of SBC Voices to get onto Joe, or whatever. I wasnt laughing at Joe telling Debbie to shut her filthy mouth.
Wow.
David
Perhaps the moderators understand that Christ Himself is the One to whom Christians turn, when these attacks come ?
An old litany prayed with Christian humility before Our Lord contains these petitions:
“From the desire of being approved………….Deliver me Jesus
From the fear of being humiliated………Deliver me Jesus
From the fear of being despised…………Deliver me Jesus
From the fear of suffering rebukes…………..Deliver me Jesus
From the fear of being calumniated………..Deliver me Jesus
From the fear of being misunderstood………..Deliver me Jesus
From the fear of being ridiculed…………..Deliver me Jesus
From the fear of being wronged…………Deliver me Jesus
From the fear of being suspected………..Deliver me”
Being ‘attacked’ is not the problem for Christians.
The problem is failing to seek the Peace of the Lord,
in all things, at all times, in all circumstances.
He sends the Comforter to us.
Christ is our Peace, in the midst of all difficulties.
Hey, Stephen, you mentioned Kate Campbell, Jim Henry’s daughter.
How is she connected to all this?
I don’t want to say too much cause she is innocent to a certain degree, her music cuts across ideologies.
She is a good friend of Charles Marsh as studied with Wayne Flynt the progressive Baptist at FBC Auburn and Auburn proff whose history of Alabama Baptists was a Pulitzer nominee.
My understanding is Kate at one point was considering a Masters or Dotoracte in American Studies at Vanderbilt.
If and when she and Charles Marsh were to sit down with the group above, and maybe Harry Dent’s daughter Ginny Brant, an IMB trustee, Adrian Rogers son David; I think that civil conversation–from my knowledge they are all civil folks–would come to a much more substantive conclusion, maybe refine some of the edges of this discussion–would end in a much different place than SSBN’s and other’s dismissive remarks above about Robert Marsh’s concerns of June 1990.
I hope BDW will get out of the Volfan/Blackmon/DKauffmann circus that has sabotaged this thread for a moment and give us his take on the matter of his father’s 2nd Ponce church history.
Whether the above discussion happens or not; Louis, do keep an eye out for Marsh’s bio of DB next year, and the reviews and discussion that comes after.
o.k.
DB? Who?
I think that Marsh was the pastor at 2nd Ponce when my former colleague went there. I never attended 2nd Ponce when I was in Atlanta.
Nor am I defending Debbie because she is a woman. I’m not defending Debbie at all. I certainly am not interested in a childish tit for tat of “but he/she started it.” The comment was inexcusable, no matter the alleged provocation.
But it does provide a teachable moment. The SBC blogospere has a tendency to draw out the worst in people. I know myself that I have had to draw myself away from it when I have gotten so mad/frustrated/indignant/etc that it begins to bring out the worst of my own nature. Often I have not stepped away soon enough. Something to think about.
Joe probably spoke too harshly to Debbie. Okay? Joe is probably sick of hearing Debbie accuse SBC Pastors and leaders of everything but being good guys who love thier momma’s. I believe we all understand Joe’s aggravation. But, he probably did speak a little bit too harshly. Okay? Let’s move on.
David
No probably about it, David. Joe was wrong to speak to Debbie as he did – man or woman. Nothing Debbie said justifies what Joe said. He needs to control his words.
My point in all this has been that Joe costs himself the ability to influence others with his views when he speaks the way he does.
And yes, lets move on!!!
Dave Miller,
What about your influence? Get that silly Babe Ruth picture out of your office and put up one of Willie Mays. Then people will know you know something about baseball and you may be able to establish a little influence…….maybe.
Don’t make me come down there, sir!
“Joe probably spoke too harshly to Debbie. Okay? Joe is probably sick of hearing Debbie accuse SBC Pastors and leaders of everything but being good guys who love thier momma’s.”
Notice: “good guys who love thier momma’s.”
OK Vol,
Enough is enough. When are you going to give daddys equal standing. It is always “momma this” or “momma that” with you. You need to “shut your Tennessee mouth” with all this momma stuff and give “Papa” a little credit and adoration.
Well, shut my mouth. I do declare.
And let’s do move on.
Let’s all jump on Steve Fox. He mentioned “Auburn” twice in one comment. That is just over the edge. He needs to “shut his Auburn lovin’ mouth.”
If he starts talking smack about the Hawkeyes, I might have to find the delete button.
One way to deal with Debbie is don’t go to her site. When she posts here or anywhere ignore her. Her audience will be reduced to a few amen sisters. She feeds on others tangling with her, just ignore her and she will go away.
What would feed me is for the problems I bring up, which are real in the SBC and nothing to minimize or joke about, the victims are not laughing I assure you, to be solved. For a database to be passed, for Ergun Caner to no longer be invited to SB churches until he gets his story right and begins to tell the truth. Then we move on to other things that are sin in the SB and we start cleaning that up. The cleaning up of the membership rolls was a start. That is the only thing that will feed me.
I am not afraid to tangle, it’s not my favorite thing to do, but I shouldn’t have to with those who are supposed to be living integrity and living the Bible they believe in. I will be honest and say I am having a hard time finding that among men in this comment thread.
I didn’t make up the words Paige Patterson utters, I didn’t cause him to hide Darrel Gilyard and he can say he didn’t till the sun goes down but evidence says otherwise. Same with Ergun. I am not going to hide what we are which is anything but truth and light. And it is ironically the leaders of the CR who have done the most plotting, pulling of strings, and downright lying. I didn’t force them to do it, I just found the evidence of it and put it out there.
And until these things begin to happen, that is when I may go away. Jeff: You may think you know me, but you really need to know me better. I could have one reader and keep going. It’s one person who may just may do something.
Debbie,
Thank you for that commercial break introducing us all to the new SBC god, “Debbie the Great.” I will forthwith go and bring you the heads of Caner and Patterson and that “nasty mouthed” Joe Blackmon. Will that do for starters or do I need to get Land, Pressler and a couple of IMB trustees who were mean to you-know-who for good measure?
Richard Land. A man who will go on TV and talk about abortion and divorce or whatever hot topic comes his way, yet the man who when Christa Brown attempted to speak with him at the Convention turned away, not even extending his hand. Who turned his back literally on Christa Brown by turning his chair around until his back was toward her when she tried to speak of issues concerning children and clergy sex. Um yeah, you could bring him too.
And you know this to be true….how?
And by this statement: “Um yeah, you could bring him too.”
Do you mean you want Richard Land’s “head” on a platter along with the others I mentioned above?
Debbie, once you commented to me that you were against water boarding. Of course, I disagreed. It really works quite well.
Therefore, will you agree for me just to water board these fellows starting with Joe rather than to remove their heads. Because the more I have thought about it, I don’t think you will pay my usual fee, so I am willing to do the water boarding free. Will you agree to these terms? If so, we can certainly get the ball rolling. Or ‘heads” rolling if that is your desire and you can come up with the going rate for such things in the open market.
I would be interested in a discussion on clergy sex abuse in terms of how all Baptist groups can be forward-thinking on this problem. By forward-thinking, I mean acknowledging that their is a problem and not dealing with certain personalities and how past situations were handled or mishandled, etc.
In my neck of the woods – Central Texas – we’ve had a handful of instances of sex abuse just in the last few years – resulting in a couple of convictions and one instance in which an arrest was made but charges never filed.
Big Daddy,
Thus far you have made the most practical and rational comment in blog history as to the real problem of child sexual abuse in the SBC arena.
For any Southern Baptist leader to deny there is a problem is foolish.
To rant about it as has occurred around the blogosphere is little more than self-serving and will lead to nothing.
CB, We are just suppose to believe! Just take their word for it. If we ask for proof, we are called unchristian.
Debbie – your comment above does come across a little messianic, doesn’t it?
No more messianic than CB or Joe Blackmon.
Amen, Jeff. Debbie’s cesspool of inuendo is a place I don’t wish to “wade” into (pun intended).
But the rumor and inuendo you throw around about Dilday are ok?
At least I don’t go by a anonymous title and sign my full name to my “inuendos” backed with factual documented proofs I might add. I’m also not anonymously saying that the SBC is the healthiest in the world as you did later on down the comment thread, which if you check those documented facts I supply with my full name applied to them, with each and every post will tell any thinking, honest, reasonable, person that this is very far from the truth. In reality neither we nor the Roman Catholic church are “healthy”, and we are now second to the Catholic church. They are beginning to do something about it, and doing it not perfectly, but well. We however are doing nothing. So the one thing we are number one at in the world is in the area dysfunction. By the way, that is a documented fact too.
“…. we are now second to the Catholic church.”
Give those……….how do you describe it? Oh yeah, those “factual documented proofs”
Show me those factual documented proofs you have other than hearsay.
CB Scott, according to http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_sbc.html the SBC is the second largest religious body (in the U.S., at least) right behind the Catholic Church, and actually has more U.S. churches than the Catholic Church. People being what they are (we both believe in Total Depravity), and agreeing that a statement like that does need proof, I would say there is a much better than average chance of such a statement being correct. This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from Mark Twain, but I don’t think it’s an adequate defense here.
I was referring to the “Statistics” quote, but I am not sure who actually said it.
Here is the deal Byron,
One child abuser among Southern Baptist ministers is a tragedy and should not be. We both know there are more than one. There are probably more than have been reported, sadly.
That being said, it is poor of you, Debbie, or anyone else to use the fact that we are the largest non-Catholic organization of churches in America to report as “fact” that we have a greater problem with child abuse than any other similar entity. To present such accusations as “fact” is at best nothing more than reckless ranting based upon hearsay on the part of those who say such things. And be assured such will not help eliminate the problem no matter how large or small it is. (and I for one believe it to be too large to ignore)
Big Daddy made a very rational comment in #339 as to a good beginning for handling this problem. Take the time to read what he said.
Personally, I think local churches are going to have to begin to take a realistic accountability for the biblical freedom they practice as autonomous churches and do the right thing in these situations, obey the law in relation to reporting crimes against children and develop preventive polices and enforce them once they are developed. In addition, local Baptist associations are far better suited to be a “guardian entity” than would be the SBC about known abusers seeking to serve in local churches. DOMs could play a major role in stopping known abusers before they take ministry positions in local churches. Local Baptist Associations can also serve their member churches by coming along side as a resource when complaints are made, helping local churches to take the right and legal steps when such a tragedy does come to exposure. The overriding problem seems to be that most church folks do not think such a tragedy is possible in their fellowship in the norm until the tragedy has arisen. At that point, most of these ill-equipped churches go into a sort of “group shock” and make poor decisions or due to embarrassment, they go into a defense mode. And that always creates a secondary tragedy that can do more harm to the whole body than the initial crime itself.
CB: You have got to be kidding. No, you are not. I suggest you go to Christa Brown’s site and poke around. After she began telling her story, asking SB leaders to do something she had easily 100 more victims come forward in just a short amount of time, with more coming forward. Nothing was done, nothing is being done toward a database. What is irresponsible besides your comment, which is just ridiculous, it that no database is in place. That Christa was treated as she has been by leaders who are supposed to be Christians. Oh but wait it gets worse:
http://stopbaptistpredators.blogspot.com/2010/08/bolivar-baptist-baloney.html
This is irresponsible and just mind blowing in my opinion. So CB you just keep thinking what you wrote in your comment. But once again, as always, you would be dead wrong.
Debbie,
Exactly which comment are you now in reference? Just give the the comment number if you will.
QUOTE But the rumor and inuendo you throw around about Dilday are ok? END QUOTE
Don’t know what your talking about. I defended Dilday’s right to self-designate as a moderate, which he has put in print several times in newspapers and other places. That is not a rumor–that is his self-designation.
Everything else I mentioned about the “Dilday Days” at SWBTS in the waning moments, I experienced personally and have communicated accurately. So, again, I don’t know what you are talking about.
To Debbie, the reason I do not use my own name is that I have had a cyber-stalker for the last 8 or so years that tracks my name on the internet and then creates real danger and havoc for my family. I still have children at home to protect. So, please feel free to feel superior because you make your name known. I’m sure it has nothing to do with pride.
QUOTE we nor the Roman Catholic church are “healthy END QUOTE
I will not speak about the Catholic church because I only know what I read. Personally, I have never met a Catholic priest (and I’ve known a few personally) who deserve you character assassination. And, keep in mind, I am NOT a fan of the Catholic Church, but I am a fan of fairness.
In regard to the “we” used in painting the SBC as “unhealthy” across the board. I’ve been an insider for 32 of my 54 years. We simply DO NOT AGREE on the value of the SBC in regard to the cause of Christ. As a Wadeite, you should move over to the CBF. You talk like a CBF and everything you write is in line with what I’ve seen other CBF’ers write. So, go — and if you are a true believer — I say, God be with you. Your kind is never again going to be able to control the SBC like you did in the 70′S and early 80′s. I just ain’t gonna happen.
So, you can stay in the SBC and rage against the machine, but you have no credibility, and will only end up kicking against the goad.
I say that without making any moral judgment and taking your profession of faith in Christ at face value. But, a moderate Southern Baptist is an oxymoron in these present days and I don’t see that changing over the next years until Jesus Christ.
If I am wrong — I will pack up my SBC tent and move on. I hope I won’t feel the need to keep throwing stones over my shoulder.
When you use the word “we,” you are quite presumptuous.
I’ve tried that with certain Alabama folks, and it doesn’t seem to work.
Jeff T,
That is what they said about Polio, Cudzo and Auburn here in Alabama.
Oh well, you may be right. Two out of three ain’t bad. Polio and Auburn are gone.
ha
Kudzu aint going anywhere. It’s here to stay. That stuff is like something out of a horror movie…..creeping over everything… creeping….creeping..until it covers you!
David
Vol,
I once had an Angus steer that got caught in the cudzo. We looked for him for days. Finally, me and the boys just butchered and B-B-Qed the cudzo. We never did find that Angus steer.
Now, what was this post about? Oh yeah, why we all loved the CR.
No, wrong.
It was about why we loved the fact that Paige Patterson spoke at LU with the Mormon, Glenn Beck and if Glenn Beck had not been a Mormon back in the 70s-80s, but rather a Baptist, we could have used his talent with a chalkboard and his leadership qualities in the CR and won the war sooner.
Yeah, that’s it. I knew it had to have something to do with the CR.
By the way, I feel the same about Paige speaking at LU w Beck as I do churches having bible studies in Bars. 100% support, and I hope Paige wins Beck to Christ. Perhaps then he can move on to Romney so I’ll have someone to vote for in 2012
As a matter of prinicple, I really don’t like the mixed messge Patterson/Beck sends. If Paige would have asked my opinion, I’d say, “Don’t do it.”
However, there may be more to the event than I know, and besides: Paige didn’t ask my opinion
Lock and Load…….except for the vote for Romney part.
No, CB, its about the way the sneaky CR leaders done snuck up on those poor, pitiful, little liberals and snatched’em bald. They then went after the innocent, little ole moderates…who were just standin’ there mindin’ their own business…mind you. And, those mean, sneaky CR leaders done snuck up on them, too. And, you know what they did? Do you? Do you really want to know? Well, them sneaky CR leaders just snatched them bald, too.
That’s right. That’s what happened, or I aint sittin’ here typing this here blog thang.
David
I’ll cut David W. some slack if he tells me which makes better barbecue, beef or pork? Does Tennessee even know about BBQ? The only thing TN has going for it is Dale Hollow Lake, where the world record smallmouth bass was caught.
Only a little more seriously, I’d be happy if I never heard or read about the CR ever again, pro or con. Let’s move on.
People in Tennessee know little about beef, pork, or BBQ. Or football.
Or music.
Huggy Bear Dave,
And what conference are the BUZZARD-EYES part of???? And how could you folks in theBUZZARD NATION ever know anything about B-B-Q? There has never been a day warm enough there to fire up a grill long enough to get the meat cooked.
To say that Tennessee knows nothing about BBQ is like saying that hawgs know nothing about mud. BBQ was invented in W. TN. Have you ever heard of Memphis BBQ? We have the best, and I mean, the absolute best BBQ in the world right here in West Tennessee.
Also, to say that TN knows nothing about football….well, you obviously dont know anything about TN, nor football. We have a little stadium in Knoxville that gets full on Saturday’s in the fall.
And, everyone, and I mean, everyone…that knows anything about BBQ, at all, knows that BBQ is pork.
David
Evensong:
“Jesus hear us.
Jesus, graciously hear us.
By the hymn of the angels at Thy birth,
Grant us peace.
By Thy salutation to the Apostles,
Grant us peace.
By Thy Voice to the waves of Galilee,
Grant us peace.
By Thy Blessing to the sinner,
Grant us peace.
By the love that was to mark Thy followers,
Grant us peace.
From the ages to the ages, Amen
And L’s goes off again into the mystic hinterlands with another chant. That is how she avoids the reality that she is lost, not knowing the peace and assurance of the biblical gospel.
You read the evening prayer, C.B.
This is good.
I also read “Jonathan Livingston Seagull.” But that did not help me spiritually either L’s. It is the gospel L’s. The gospel. The biblical gospel worked for me….and it will create you new you also.
CB: I’ve read “Green Eggs and Ham,” but that doesn’t mean I’ll eat it
SSBN,
I found powdered eggs to be about the same as green ones.
Debbie Kaufman:
You are one brave woman to put up with all the abuse you get from “certain people” just because you present the truth and not some twist to support your case.
I think it is the old kill the messenger, but what makes it more difficult for them is that you are a woman.
I wonder out loud if “they” would abuse you this way if you were a man.
I stand and applaud you for simply trying to let truth rule the day.
Debbie,
I’ll make a deal with you. I will bring you all the heads you want for free if you will agree to give me Tom Parker’s. There is a wall in Fort Worth that has at least one bare spot for which I would like to donate it. I think it will go perfect along side the Wild Boar’s head.
QUOTE because you present the truth END QUOTE
This is sooooo lame. It has become a “mantra” chanted over and over by moderates and liberals. It goes something like this:
“If you are moderate or liberal you are presenting the truth, but if you are conservative your twisting it.”
It is a very thin armor to wear.
See how naive we Yankees are? I thought bringing up BBQ with a bunch of rednecks would divert the conversation.
Tom, CB Scott told me to take the blinders off and read the posts at Debbie’s blog for myself. Good advice, but that’s what I was already doing. I have already ordered Christa Brown’s book, and should get it any day now (I’m cheap on shipping charges so I tend to wait a lot). It almost seems to me that the same people who don’t see any problem with the “Caner thing” are trying to tell me that there’s no problem with the predator pastor thing either, or that it’s being taken care of, or will be. I hope so. It’s not too difficult to start making connections between the rise of Caner and the emerging problem of predator pastors. You simply follow the string all the way through the maze and find the conclusion difficult to escape that perhaps the system itself is in error and is in dire need of correction and realignment. I am not a true liberal, but as an outsider I can make an observation that the SBC needs to clean up its house. If the leaders aren’t willing, then perhaps some grassroots efforts are called for. In the end, it is in God’s hands. CB Scott is probably right about one thing: the Caner issue is dead. That is not even in the same zip code as being resolved in the eyes of believers and the outside world, much less God’s. Perhaps the same integrity and accountability that will fix the Caner issue once and for all will also fix these other issues which are indirectly related (at worst).
Let me add something. I don’t know the Baptist leadership, and I admit it. I don’t know what they did or did not do. All I know is that a problem exists, that it exists on their watch, and that some of these leaders have had harsh words for certain organizations like SNAP, for example. That does not exactly inspire confidence that the severity of the problem is recognized or is going to be fixed. And I mis-typed earlier: I meant to say that the Caner situation and that of the pastor predator situation are at least indirectly related, having for a common denominator an atmosphere of carefully orchestrated power and control (for good or for ill, I do not know, and I do not know all of the details). But I will be reading and observing.
QUOTE but as an outsider I can make an observation that the SBC needs to clean up its house. END QUOTE
I can’t think a of more ungracious statement than to suggest that you as an “outsider” know what the SBC needs to do. To even suggest there is something of a connection between Caner and the SBC, proves you are indeed an “outsider.”
You throw around the term “predator pastors” in the same post as your opinion of the SBC suggesting this is even remotely a problem in the SBC. Where’s the facts — not that a lack of facts seems to slow down a liberals opinion.
The SBC is perhaps one of the most healthy denominations on earth. We will make adjustments and continue to be a mouthpiece for conservative values through conservative theology.
As an “untrue liberal” (your designation) I’m thankful you are indeed an “outsider.”
Byron,
What do you mean by:
“It’s not too difficult to start making connections between the rise of Caner and the emerging problem of predator pastors.”??
And who are the “people” of whom you reference here?”….the same people who don’t see any problem with the “Caner thing” are trying to tell me that there’s no problem with the predator pastor thing….”
SSBN,
What if I, as an outsider, might have a kernel of truth in what I’m saying? That’s part of the problem with the SBC. Unless you’re part of the solution (the club), you’re part of the problem. With an attitude like that, no thanks. What if I, as a simple Christian brother, might be telling the truth? What if I am simply offering constructive criticism, at least in my own mind I would hope?
BTW, If Caner belongs to Thomas Road Baptist church, according to Wikipedia they are SBC so therefore he is as well. Isn’t that right? And I did not call myself “untrue Liberal” (that is your designation, not mine). I simply denied being a liberal. But then again, I am not using the same definition probably as some use and attempt to impose.
CB Scott,
When SBC leaders ignore the Caner situation, and seem to also ignore the problem with predator pastors, that seems more than a little problematic to me. If people refuse to address something after having ample opportunity and even good reasons for doing so, I guess technically that isn’t the same thing as saying there isn’t a problem to worry about. But it translates to the same thing practically, with any common sense involved.
QUOTE What if I END QUOTE
But, your not.
I responded to what YOU said about YOURSELF being an “untrue liberal” and being an “outsider.” Come to find out, you lied and you are saying you are, indeed in the SBC.
By the way you did indeed say, “I am not (un) a true liberal.”
I guess it is hard to take you seriously when you deliberately try to mislead people in your posts.
In answer to your question, based only upon what you write, I don’t think you have anything of value to contribute. How would we know when you are being truthful or you are being deceitful?
You make me laugh when you suggest that if Caner is a S. Baptist then all his faults are faults of the SBC by default. That is some crazy linquistical gymnastics!
In regard to your question, QUOTE What if I, as a simple Christian brother, might be telling the truth? END QUOTE, you have already established by your own words that you don’t always tell the truth.
I cannot make any judgment on whether you are a “simple Christian brother.” I do not possess any such facts.
Finally, suggesting that (or even implying) all or many SBC pastors are predators pretty much pretty much belies that any of your criticism is “constructive.”
And, just my opinion: but I do believe if you are not part of the solution you “are part of the problem.” In my experience this idea is axiomatic.
SSBN,
I said specifically, “I am not a true liberal” not I am an “untrue liberal” which is your designation, and not equivalent. I guess I opened myself to attack there, simply by using a popular red-flag word and trying to explain myself. I really shouldn’t try to explain myself, as this conversation is helping me realize.
Oh, and believe me, belonging to the SBC by technical way of church membership does not preclude me from being an outsider, unless that magical piece of paper called the “membership roll” can actually manifest an alternate reality than the one I happen to live in. I know what it’s like to be an outsider by not being well versed in the charitable giving/offering programs (mostly my fault, if not entirely), and SBC politics, which at first I had no interest in (now, my interest in it keeps me emotionally and theologically involved, out of curiosity if nothing else). But again, I forget, that piece of paper is magical and if it includes your name, then that is all that matters in the end.
I didn’t say all of Caner’s faults are the faults of the SBC (Does Caner actually have faults or is this rhetorical?). But if he truly belongs to the SBC, then he is a part of it, and by virtue of that his faults are as well. That is not to say everyone at the SBC is at fault, far from it. But he is a religious leader, well-liked in the SBC, so to say he is responsible within the SBC (which I am saying right now) is no leap of linguistic gymnastics. No, it is simply another observation which you may very well reject.
Ah yes, it always gets down to this idea of not being a “True Christian” (TM) brother. It’s rather early for you to bring this up in the conversation. For the record, this is the shortest conversation I ever remember having with someone where the suggestion came up so quickly (which you are not making explicitly, but implicitly posit as a possibility). Thanks for that. I think.
I didn’t even say that many SBC pastors are predators, much less all. Some are. The problem exists, and it needs fixing. Pretending the problem isn’t there, and carrying on the Good Ole Boys club as some seem to do isn’t going to fix it either. Again, that sounds more cultish to me than genuine.
And last but not least, can someone who is not a member of the Club (TM) be part of the solution?
QUOTE out of curiosity if nothing else). END QUOTE
So, satisfying your curiosity justifies your assasination of people’s character by inuendo and implication? Certainly sounds Christ-like to me.
QUOTE It’s rather early for you to bring this up in the conversation. END QUOTE
You really do have a problem with adhering to the truth. You brought up the issue of your relationship to Christ, not me.
QUOTE Pretending the problem isn’t there END QUOTE
Please list the names of ten significant SBC leaders who are pretending that this is never an issue. Just ten. Then we will contact them and ask them if your facts are accurate.
Here’s my suspicion: not one of the names you give will agree with your assessment of their views. Prove me wrong.
QUOTE And last but not least, can someone who is not a member of the Club (TM) be part of the solution? END QUOTE
I think your question contains the answer.
It is so sad that you satiate your lustful curiosity by continuing the Caner witch hunt long after all the coals of the fagots have grown cold. Even though you and the Wadeites were successful and bringing this man to his knees, it is not enough to satisfy your lusts. And your lust is only “curiosity?”
SSBN,
Wow, you are talented at spinning the wrong interpretation on just about everything. Figures. But anyways, here goes…
Umm, no, I assassinated no one’s character. When a problem exists such as the Caner issue, and people go OUT OF THEIR WAY to justify and defend the indefensible, while simultaneously casting negative judgments on the characters of the witnesses (first and foremost), whistleblowers and messengers, that proves quite successful at damaging one’s own reputation and character without any outside help. But like Towns said, it’s nothing theologically inappropriate, and didn’t seem particularly important until the secular media got involved.
And, I was just remarking it was rather early to receive an enlightened response such as yours so early in the conversational stream. I expected at least 2 or 3 more comments before you dropped the possibility into the equation. So, a rather dubious honor is yours.
I would like to have just a list of ten SBC leaders who really care and are willing to sign their names to it and be out in the open about it. This kind of list would supersede the one requested of me in importance. So, I would prefer you produce the list I request first.
What is your evidence that Ergun Caner was ever brought to his knees? Do you have any objective proof of this? If not, I will discard this assertion as irrelevant.
Wow, who would have thought that we would go from a day where the truth is respected, honored, and sought after, to another day where messengers are shot, wagons are circled, and the Spin Machine goes on the Heavy Duty cycle? Wow. Just wow.
Wow! You cannot even come up with a list of ten pro-predator pastors out of the tens of thousands in the SBC.
I didn’t think you could.
I’ll start the list of my ten who condemn any and all such predatory pastors and would be willing to pull the switch on any convicted predator that commits a capital crime. Here’s my list. Let’s see if I can get 10 when you can’t:
1. SSBN
SSBN,
I don’t have to. If I really wanted to play your game, I would simply list the first 10 convictions of pastors who obviously, were pro-predator in their actions. I didn’t care to produce such a list, because I had a sneaking suspicion you didn’t actually care about it. Guess this confirms it. However, again for the record, I am not saying all or even many pastors. There is a problem, CB Scott and others have acknowledged it, maybe you have too and I have missed it. But the list of ten… sorry… I should have just said your requirement was pointless and proves little if anything and been done with it.
If you are a Baptist pastor, then I am completely unimpressed.
See, just like you introduced the idea of “who is saved and who is not,” you have to slander me. I, too acknowledged, that predators are a problem in our society — but of course you missed it. I just don’t think they are a significantly disproportionate problem in SBC life as has been suggested by you and others.
By the way, I never once tried to impress you anyway. I know that had I taken that route, we could have been great friends. But, since I chose to have my own opinion and not accept your gratuitous assertions as fact you: 1) say you have the facts but it would be a “game” to produce them, 2) you seek a backhanded attack that because I don’t accept your slanderous, baseless opinions, I am not fit to be a pastor.
Fortunately, I am a very happy pastor with a very happy congregation that serves sacrificially in one of the toughest , non-believing areas in the country.
For the record, I never once attacked you faith or person. I truly do not have any malice for you in my heart at all. How foolish it is to try to insult or belittle one on a blog. It is sort of like beating up on a cartoon character (I know that cartoon reference has already been used).
I’ll be gracious and not respond to your posts any more. It leads nowhere (which happens on blogs). If you wish feel free to have the last word in the matter. I truly will not think ill of you, wish you harm, think you less than worthy of the Lord’s love and grace. You were first to post in our exchange so you deserve the last word.
Bryon:
These guys just want to ignore the truth and believe that the CR saved the SBC and will protect those in leadership positions using whatever tactics it takes, just like the CR did. The old ends justifies the means.
The SBC is not a healthy denomination. Just ask Tim G, I believe he and others will deny that the SBC is a denomination.
“These guys.” That near demonstrative implies the far demonstrative, “Those guys.”
Youse guys (as we would say down home) make “gratuitous assertions” like that above all the time. When asked to produce evidence, you make accusations.
I, on the other hand, do not “accuse you of anything.” I accept and embrace what you say of your self: I am not conservative and I don’t believe any good has ever come from anyone associated with the CR.” Those aren’t your exact words but I think it reflects your position.
Here’s my point: when you have already decided that nothing good can ever come or become of someone like me, why would I listen to anything that you say?
Blogs such as this are all about speaking to the base as you so clearly point out. When someone like myself simply says, give me “this or that” to prove your case — because I am truly willing to listen to evidence — youse guys just accuse us guys and demonstrate youse are no better than us.
In my case: I agree with you on that point wholeheartedly. The difference is: when I make a gratuitous statement I don’t do so unless I have personal knowledge or a fairly reliable fact source. That’s why if you read my posts, the only name I mentioned was Dilday because I have personal knowledge he was (is not) the saint you make him out to be.
When I defend Dr. Patterson it is because I have personal knowledge he is not the evil man youse guys make him out to be.
I fully own up to being a conservative Baptist pastor who still believes God has his hand on the SBC, even with the many faults we know it has. Unlike some “former IMB” trustees, if I develop the contempt like this trustee I heard of has, I will simply walk away. That’s a matter of integrity.
So, to sum it up — your opinion really does carry a lot of weight with me. But, I fully support your right to your opinion.
Byron, this is by Caitlin Kelly, from an article on bullies and their toadies. It will give you a good laugh. Enjoy!
“Becoming a bully of superior rank and reputation gains respect and admiration amongst some kids. Kids who would normally want to be bullies–but who just aren’t quite brave enough to pull off such actions on their own–will seek out established bullies and cling to them like a remora to a tiger shark. These kids are called toadies or lackeys.
They form a gang of support around a bully, and they do the bully’s dirty work. Having toadies is like having a small horde or army at your command. They help come up with insults, they hold kids down while you beat them up, and they enforce your decisions. “
Tom, I partially understand the distinction some make between a denomination and a convention of churches. The thought goes that each SBC church is an independent, autonomous entity that does not answer to a denominational headquarters. But the About Us page at SBC.net says otherwise, calling the SBC a denomination. And Princeton’s online Wordnet defines a denomination to be (one of the definitions), “a group of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith.” That sure sounds like the SBC to me. The SBC faith as it were seems to get more and more distinctive all the time, and not in a good way.
I have a hard time understanding why I would not have a voice in the SBC as an outsider (truth be told I am SBC by official church membership currently). Especially if what some have said are actually right, that the SBC is a Convention and not a Denomination. If the SBC is simply a convention (according to its annual gathering as referred to on the SBC.net About Us page), then the SBC is simply an artificial construct of Christians, being extra-biblical and existing really on paper (like ordination and church membership, but I digress). Some will tell you that those outside the SBC can still be Christians, just that the SBC is most accurate in Christian theology, and I can respect that. I don’t agree with the second half of that, but I can still respect the fact that that belief exists and some find it to be persuasive. That is why I am puzzled, even if I do have a faulty theology according to them, that I should not be able to make an observation as a Christian brother and offer constructive criticism. That starts to sound way too much like a cult to me, and not genuine Christian fellowship.
Christiane, that is funny! I shouldn’t laugh, but I needed that. This latest Caner episode will probably join the infamous 2006 non-debate as being someone else’s problem (instead of those who actually ARE guilty) and never fixed (because it doesn’t need to be; it’s not a real problem, morally or theologically or ethically). You know, after awhile, you get tired of the alarm on the Bogus-o-meter and simply have to turn it off (to save the batteries, you know?).
I enjoy going through the ‘comments’ and deciding
whose a ‘B’
and who is a ‘T’
and who is a ‘T’ that is really a ‘B wannabe’.
It gets complicated, sometimes, when the ‘kids’ get carried away and start their ‘atta boys’ at each other, but it is fun to observe, as long as you don’t EVER take them too seriously, when they are in ‘B-mode’ or ‘T-mode’.
May as well enjoy them . (sigh)
In short, it’s good to remember this ‘fundamental’ truth to which so many have given witness on this comment stream:
‘kids’ will be ‘kids’.
You take quite a tone of superiority and condescension in this comment, Christiane. Its hard to walk the low road and claim the high ground.
Amen, brother. Typical of the “moderate way.” Expressed in an aphorism Shakespeare would be proud of — or did you steal that from William
sorry for laughing,
will try to be more impressed in future by antics
Dave Miller:
You said:”You take quite a tone of superiority and condescension in this comment, Christiane. Its hard to walk the low road and claim the high ground.”
Where do you see this, Dave?
Are you accusing her of walking the low road?
What is the low road?
Who is being condescending? Your comment to her sure sounds consescending to me.
Tom Parker,
Have you ever been to Fort Worth?
If Debbie takes the deal offered in comment #372 you will get to “see” a more lasting view of it and “hang” out there among some of whom, in my opinion, will become your dearest friends.
Some of us a waiting with bated breath for her answer.
I’m in the town of the cow a couple times a week, meet me at j gilligans? I’ve got a couple heads I would like to add
Jim,
Can you coordinate that with Debbie? I have found that working for multiple employers on such matters brings about complications in such ventures, if you know what I mean.
Of course, the whole deal depends on what Debbie decides about Tom Parker’s head.
And yet no one will answer: Beef or pork?
BTW Tom Parker,
I trust you realize this is nothing personal. Its just business. Debbie has made some very strong demands in her new position as Debbie the Great, the first SBC god.
Therefore, it is necessary for those of us who have the specific abilities to fulfill her demands to do so in the best interest of all the affiliated membership.
I trust that you are in full agreement that we should obey Debbie in all things SBC. I realize there will be a slight inconvenience to you, but I know your absolute and unquestioning loyalty to Debbie will bring about you willing and complete cooperation in this matter when the time comes.
So, let me say a(head) of time Tom; Thank you for being a good sport.
CB: You just keep digging and trolling it seems. I have tried not to answer you but you continue. To say that I am Debbie the great or an SBC god is blasphemy against Jesus Christ, and certainly not anything I have spread or believe.. I am a concerned no slash that, fed up, Southern Baptist Christian woman who is tired of the lies, the hypocrisy, the hiding of lies, the hiding of hypocrisy and silly me, would like to call the denomination I love and have been a part of for 20 years to repentance and integrity for once in twenty years. Longer actually since we were formed due to being on the side of slavery.
I am not doing anything that someone who can type, form sentences, and research, could do. I think that is obvious. I am however doing it. I wish more would, but most can’t handle people like yourself who try and stop this with ridiculous rhetoric and damage to their reputations. Me? I have dealt with people like you and some of our leaders who are bullies for most of my life. Both in the secular field and in church, so it’s nothing new to me. Others can’t deal with people lying about them. You are a wonderful example of why I do what I do. Your defense of the undefensable is ridiculous. You try and change the topic to overlook the issues and I don’t let you do that. What are just some of the issues? The Caner scandal and more that we probably don’t know yet. The topic of a database to keep our children and grandchildren safe from clergy sexual abuse and clergy sexual predators. There are many more, but let’s start there. We need a solution. We need this to stop. I put the facts out there. Deal with them. If you can’t just keep going down this road that you are cause you stopped making sense to me many years ago.
Debbie,
Type? Yes you can. There is ample evidence. Form sentences? There is proof of that most certainly.
Research? Sorry Debbie. The overwhelming majority of the evidence thus far is beyond any argument that you have no concept of what constitutes legitimate research, academic or otherwise. You do have an able and willing appetite and ability for the spreading of hearsay. I will give you that.
Debbie,
Think for just a moment about how many SB pastors and seminary profs and missionaries, etc there are. Now, think with me just a moment at how few…a very small, small percentage… of SB pastors, missionaries, etc that have ever done anything that would cause you and Christa Brown to go on your rants and rampages. I mean, the percentage of SB pastors, missionaries, etc that have ever molested a child is probably miniscule. Although, I admit that one is one too many. BUt, still, yall act like the SBC is full of molesters and mean, hateful fundies that are treating women bad, etc. C’mon back to reality for just a minute…would you?
David
I believe I have given links to my sources quite well. I would consider Christa Brown to be an expert who is keeping track of what we don’t. She also links to sources. Credible sources CB, but you keep telling yourself that it is just hearsay.
David: Darrel Gilyard just by himself molested 47 women that is known of, could be more. From Christa Brown’s Website:
An Emory University study concluded that the average male who sexually abuses minor girls has 52 victims, and that the average male who sexually abuses minor boys has 150 victims. These are averages, and other studies reflect different numbers — for example, this report says the average perpetrator molests between 12 and 77 children. However, what ALL studies show is that, far too often, child molesters have numerous victims. Therefore, the best way to protect kids is to treat every allegation seriously and to remove a perpetrator from trust whenever there is substantial evidence of even a single incident. If Baptist leaders choose blindness – and do nothing – even when they receive a substantiated report about a minister molesting a kid, then many more kids are likely to be horribly wounded while the man continues in ministry.An estimated 1 in 3 girls and 1 in 6 boys are sexually abused before their 18th birthday. Most are abused by people they know and trust, and most never talk about until much later in life, if ever.
The Journal of Pastoral Care reported on a survey in which 1000 senior Southern Baptist pastors were randomly selected from 15,000 churches in 6 states. The number of pastors who anonymously reported that they had engaged in “inappropriate sexual behavior” was 14.1 percent. And 70.4 percent had knowledge about other ministers who had engaged in “inappropriate sexual contact” with church members.
Dee Miller, an author and former Southern Baptist missionary, has been ministering to sex abuse survivors for the past 15 years. She reports that, from Christian faiths, about 2500 clergy abuse survivors have contacted her during that time, and that at least 300 of those were people abused by Southern Baptist clergy.
http://www.stopbaptistpredators.org/alarmingnumbers.html
Now there are the facts. Documented. Not hearsay. Facts. Now if you are saying the hearsay is from the victims. You guys had better start listening to the victims. Now we have the police, so no one has to second guess a victim. The police are equipped to handle the investigation and that is why they are called without going to anyone in the church first. But those molested prior to this being law had no recourse. They couldn’t call the police. It’s not your job to determine whether someone is guilty or not, and that is why the police should have been called on Matt Baker, Darrel Gilyard etc.
DEbbie,
Only 14% admitted to “inappropriate sexual conduct?” Only 14%! And, just what did they mean by “inappropriate sexual conduct?” Does that mean having an affair with a grown woman? I bet that most of it was. It was probably not child molestation.
Also, Debbie, Darrel Gilyard was one man in the SBC. One man. And, yes, there’s no telling how many women he was with. But, he was still one man. Yall act like he’s representative of the majority of the SB pastors…to hear yall talk.
C’mon back to reality.
David
David: This is not 14% out of 1,000 surveyed randomly. Read what I wrote. Good grief David, that is a substantial number we are talking about.
Debbie,
I don’t want to bust your bubble, but many of us already knew all of the information you give here. And some of us have been working against child sexual abuse for years.
Your problem is that its not about the abuse. For you it is about using abuse as a vehicle to berate the names of Baptist leaders to draw attention to yourself.
CB: The only thing that you can support is a database. I have not heard you do so. You can tell me till the day is long what my problem is, but the problem is a database. You can say anything you want about me, but as usual you will just be spouting and doing nothing. Again.
I don’t think you did and if you did then why hasn’t something been done by now? You say you know the numbers, nothing has been done. Pastors who have clergy abuse get counseling while the victims do not. That is a travesty. So if you knew and did nothing to change this, then wow. You say you have been working against it, why don’t I believe that. If that were the case, something would be happening now, but the problem has not gone away and it is just as bad now. So please don’t tell me that. I haven’t heard you speak up about it nor have I heard you do anything in the Convention. CB, the numbers speak for themselves. Don’t sit there, defend Paige Patterson and tell me you are doing something. I am giving the facts. If it is berating then so be it. They need to be berated. Paige Patterson has done more to harm others than any other person I know. To deny that is to hide him as well for your own gain.
“Paige Patterson has done more to harm others than any other person I know.”
That is a ridiculous statement, Debbie. I’m no huge PP fan, but to say something like this just makes you look ridiculous, Debbie.
Do you know Paige Patterson?
You know of no one in the whole world who has done more harm that PP?
Really?
QUOTE we were formed due to being on the side of slavery. END QUOTE
Obviously, you only represent part of the story — the part that justifies your point of view and hatred of anything SBC.
Just like the “predator epidemic” rampant in the SBC. That is just nutty nonsense. I’ve been on the inside for over 32 years and I know personally of only one such case.
Your support, Big Daddy, knows of a handful. That’s a handful out of probably nearly 100,000 plus full time SBC pastors. While each isolated event is tragic, it is hardly epidemic.
But, then again, I don’t suspect a Wadeite to deterred in your crusade by a few facts.
Your blindness is very sad.
PS — If the problem is so epidemic then I’d start worrying about the church you attending before you start complaining about mine.
Debbie,
Do you actually “know” the man you are talking about in your rants? We both are aware that the answer is, no. You don’t know him. Yet you make statements like:
“Paige Patterson has done more to harm others than any other person I know.”
How is it that you can just throw that statement out there knowing full well that it is not true for more than one reason? The first being; You don’t even know him.
SSBN,
By the way, I just love how when someone shows up trumpeting the officially approved SBC party line, all the person has to do is claim Christianity and it’s a done deal, whereas the same grace (courtesy? adoption?) is almost never extended to one who is critical. Keep up the good work, there. Let me know how it turns out.
Thanks, Byroniac for the encouraging words. I will continue to trumpet the truth of God evey chance I get.
It’s nice to know that someone appreciates my effort.
SSBN, I actually agree with you on the truth of God part. But the majority of your words to me have been unacceptable. I responded in like manner, and probably I should not have. Look, I have my own personal issues with the SBC that I need to work out (and speak out less until I do) but I do want to say one thing. Beware of pride in a denomination that takes you away from Christ! (Not saying you’re guilty, just watch out for it).
I love moderate double-speak. You guys are so consistent.
You tell me to “beware of pride,” but you are not saying “I’m guilty of it.”
It just pains moderates to speak straight.
You have not yet even acknowledge the several time you said one thing in one post and the exact opposite in another — and you find MY responses “unacceptable.”
The odd thing (funny really) is that if you knew how I really think about the “SBC party line” you would probably send me a gift-card for Starbucks as a symbol of your deep apology.
I am probably the least likely to be named, “best trumpet player of the part line” in my graduating class.
I just resist strongly the personal attacks by moderates making accusations about men they don’t know and assassinating their character for things they have never done, and belittling them for saying things they have never said.
I just don’t think that is right. And, just for the record, I believe I am the only self-identifying conservative that publicly stated I believe Dilday had every right to self-designate himself as a moderate and to seek refuge under the banner of the CBF.
I also, believe I’m the only CR type person that actually said I believe the formation of the CBF was a great benefit for the SBC and wished more CBF-thinking baptist would find peace by joining fully with that camp.
So, in the final analysis, I really don’t seek your acceptance, nor does your lack of the same cause me to lose sleep.
Get real, this is blogland.
SSBN,
Now that you’ve painted me every with every color you desired with that brush of yours, I will simply acknowledge that you are a good bit older than I am, and entitled to your opinions, however divorced from reality or relevance they might happen to be. I’m not sure why you bring up the CR or Dilday in conversing with me, as I never brought them up, so perhaps it is for your own benefit and/or the benefit of others. Who knows? In any case, your rebuke means little to me. I desired a conversation, and have foolishly tried to explain myself, and now no longer care.
I’m glad I’m not involved in the SBC, and conversations like this only serve to reinforce that conclusion.
Debbie K:
I would go as far as saying it is people like CB who have contributed to the downfall of a once great Convention.
Tom Parker,
It is a hard thing to be used for someone else’s entertainment with what seems to be their absolute obliviousness to your dignity, humanity or general welfare, is it not?
You feel somewhat abused, do you?
Well Tom Parker, that is exactly what you, Debbie, L’s and a host of others have been doing to Patterson, Caner, Vines, Chapman, and a good number of others for a good while now.
The difference is, what I said about you is absurd and no one in his or her right mind could take it seriously in the least.
On the other hand, the ill-informed, the vindictive, the malcontents, the simple-minded and the just plain ignorant among readers of these blogs take what you, Debbie and others say as truth and add to the ill-bred perception of these men to the point that it stains the reputations of these people in a fashion that can be impossible to get beyond in some cases.
To tie Paige Patterson to child abuse is so far beyond the edge as to be unthinkable. But you people do it with ease and then eat dinner and sleep like babies in a crib.
If you and Debbie want to know my position on this child abuse problem go back up and read my comment #350 or read Big Daddy’s above mine in the thread.
Also, go volunteer to help some abused child or take one into your home. If you can’t do any thing else, send some Baptist Children’s Home some money to help abused children. They need every dime they can get right now.
And if you really want to know what I am doing about child abuse, come follow me around for a week. Or call Bob Cleveland. He has firsthand knowledge of my work against child abuse. But of course, if he told you, he would then be considered a liar also, right?
But one thing you people do need to do is to stop posting this trash about people you have never met and know nothing about.
“To tie Paige Patterson to child abuse is so far beyond the edge as to be unthinkable.”
The following quote is from Christa Brown’s blog:
http://stopbaptistpredators.blogspot.com/2009/09/not-as-bad-as-paige-patterson.html
“But the more I looked at the photo, the more I stopped laughing. I couldn’t stop thinking about all those college girls and young women who tried to tell Paige Patterson about sexual abuse and assaults by Baptist pastor Darrell Gilyard.
The women and girls got no help from Patterson.
So pastor Gilyard went on to reportedly abuse many, many more women and girls — at least 46 that we now know about — and probably many more.
At that time, Patterson was the president of Criswell College, a school connected to First Baptist of Dallas, and so the female college girls were students under Patterson’s charge.
But Patterson turned a blind eye to Gilyard’s reported abuses and a deaf ear to the young women who tried to get some help.
Finally, after two decades of do-nothingness from Patterson and other Baptist leaders, the law put a stop to Gilyard when it convicted him of molesting a 15-year-old in Florida.”
C.B. Do you honestly think that Gilyard was convicted unfairly concerning the fifteen-year old?
And, C.B.,
Man, for the love of Christ, get your head out of the sand, and take a look at this, for once.
http://www.stopbaptistpredators.org/collusion_individuals.html
and you will see WHY Christa and Debbie are trying to do for the innocent, what the male leadership of the SBC will not bring themselves to deal with responsibly.
If you really care about the children, C.B., as you say, you are way off-base attacking these good women for their efforts.
You ask how can people sleep at night? Debbie and Christa CAN, because they have survived much and work now to help others.
There is NOTHING YOU CAN DO OR SAY to Debbie or to Christa to change their Christian commitment to the innocent.
I think you know that, C.B.
I thank God for Christa, and for Debbie.
They are trying to protect the innocent from wolves, when the leadership of the SBC will not take a stand for the protection of the lambs.
My own Church took way too long to act responsibly.
Dave: Then I suggest you follow the conversation closely.
L’s,
You are as guilty as are Debbie, Tom Parker and several others in peddling hearsay about Patterson and others except more so.
L’s, although you are lost without Christ, you are much more intelligent than are Debbie, Tom and some of the others. Therefore, you have been able to use Debbie, Tom and others to promote your hatred for conservative Christianity.
As for Gilyard being guilty. He was found guilty in court. In my book, he got off light. But, that does not prove that Paige Patterson protected him in any way. The truth is that Paige Patterson did everything he could with the exception of shooting the man to keep him from going to another church once he had credible evidence that Gilyard was a low-life.
L’s you have no idea what you are talking about relating to the relationship between Gilyard and Paige Patterson. Of course, it seems you are in plentiful company on that regard.
“The truth is that Paige Patterson did everything he could with the exception of shooting the man to keep him from going to another church once he had credible evidence that Gilyard was a low-life.”
‘credible evidence’
please
Christa writes this: ” I couldn’t stop thinking about all those college girls and young women who tried to tell Paige Patterson about sexual abuse and assaults by Baptist pastor Darrell Gilyard.
The women and girls got no help from Patterson.”
I believe Christa. She has credibility with me.
A STORY: Our neighborhood twenty years ago had many young children. One summer day, my husband YELLED (military voice) at a man speeding in an SUV on our street.
The man stopped his car and YELLED BACK: ‘you can’t yell at me, I LIVE in this neighborhood, too.”
My husband said, ‘you have children too. You should thank me for trying to get you to slow down. ”
The man’s wife said to her husband, “he’s right”.
A small story about responsibility.
I believe you are smart enough to ‘get it’.
And L’s, that has thus far been your one and only source.
L’s what does “she has credibility with me” prove as credible evidence in this at all?
It proves nothing more than you have a desire to berate Patterson anyway and this statement by another person you don’t know gives you all the license you need to do it.
That is really credible of you there L’s, really credible.
CB: Again I am going by documented facts. Silly person that I am. I am going by Paige’s own words. I am going by what he has written in emails answering questions asked of him about Darrel Gilyard. No one has to make up stuff, do a search and stuff just pops up all over the place.
Debbie, facts are incontrovertible. Your interpretation of those facts is subject to change. I’ve not followed this discussion very closely. But I did go back and read through some of the links.
Certainly, as everyone has agreed, there is a problem. If one person is molested in a church, that is a problem. If anyone helps to cover it up, that is a problem. No question.
But I think you have jumped the shark a little trying to a) make it sound like this is a systemic problem in the SBC and b) pinning the blame on leaders of the SBC/Conservative movement.
I question your objectivity. Your disdain for Paige Patterson and the leaders of the SBC has not been a secret for a long time.
It seems to me that you are taking a real problem and interpreting it in such a way as to lay the blame for the problem at the feet of people you disdain. Seems a little too convenient for me.
Also, it is grossly unfair to act as if those who do not agree with you laying this at the feet of certain people you do not like do not care about this problem.
FYI, anyone who has read what I have written will tell you that I have not been a big fan of Paige Patterson in recent years. I am not trying to defend him personally.
I just think that your own biases have colored your analysis.
CB, I just have to say it amazes me how someone constantly blogs, “I have the facts,” but never produces anything but second, or third hand anecdotes.
Instead of facts, she picks a person (or persons) who have her point of view and declares them ispso facto: credible.
Paige Patterson tied himself by his words and deeds CB. No one did it for him.
I took Debbie’s advice (silly me) and did the web search. I don’t remember exactly how many articles a “waded” through (Pun?).
I must confess, I could not find one article in which Dr. Patterson admitted to covering up the crime, or one article in which Dr. Patterson condoned the behavior of the predator, once it was substantiated.
Dr. Patterson had no crystal ball and predators are masters of deceit. So, it seems Debbie has some other agenda in regard to her insinuations that Dr. Patterson condones predators.
Anybody have any idea what that might be?
CB, I don’t know you but with a little effort I think I could get to like you.
Thanks for telling it like it is. I’ve got your back. I’m not that tough but I’ll bring my son who is training to be a professional MMA fighter with some of the toughest men in the business.
Keep swinging away, brother. You said it better than I’ve heard it said before.
Tom, exactly how do you define “downfall of the SBC?” My typical SBC church is experiencing a wave of revival. Lives are being changed, more people are becoming involved in the mission of our church, and we are having a great time.
I know several other SBC churches (conservative ones) experiencing the same thing.
Could it be that the pronouncement of the death of the SBC is a bit premature. Remember, wishing something so will not make it happen.
CB:
There was a time that I might have listened to what you have to say, but those days are over. Your constant attacking of those that do not take your viewpoint of the item being considered is old and tired.
Actually Tom Parker,
Blog history will confirm that you have never “listened” to me or any other conservative about anything. The evidence is of such that it can be said that you have done two things rather consistently:
1. Blindly followed the liberal bent in all things.
2. Ignorantly echoed the hearsay of those who have berated conservative Christians, biblical theology and anything and everything even remotely related to the CR.
And I am most positive that you will continue to do so.
But that’s OK Tom Parker. You just keep your “head” straight and your “chin up” and everything will “fall in place” at the proper time.
And more for C.B. :
http://stopbaptistpredators.blogspot.com/2007/12/two-sbc-presidents-knew-lot-but-what.html
L’s,
What is it about your life that makes you hate conservative, biblical Christians? L’s we both know that you really do not adhere all that much to Roman Catholicism.
For some reason, you hate biblical Christianity. You quote Scripture, but you do not believe it to be fully authoritative. Frankly, you are in rebellion against that which constitutes the Roman Catholicism you say you embrace so lovingly. Your true and foundational theological base is a hybrid, liberal Catholicism saturated with Liberation Theology and Mysticism with a great big dose of Humanism thrown in for good measure.
You try to come off as a caring person, but you are not. You are a bitter individual. I think some of it has to do with your family situation, but I am not sure. The truth is we do not even know who you really are. But, I assure you that what you write reveals enough for some of us to see behind the “curtain” and know you are not the all knowing “Wizard of Oz” of faith that you like to portray.
Lydia and Paula have seen through you as have I and a few others.
(There are some who see through you also, but are too tied up in the desire to be politically correct to challenge you. So they bite their tongue and tell you how sweet you are and how much they appreciate your heart. I must admit that I take some of the things you say as helpful. But in reality, I know it is all a facade.)
You travel through these Baptist blogs and fuel your venomous hatred of biblical Christianity on the unsuspecting hearts and minds of the biblically deprived, emotionally destitute and theologically deficient.
You make comments about biblical Christians, calling them Islamophobes, blind-eyed protectors of perverts, and various other names you have in your arsenal of hate weapons.
You are a miserable and lost person L’s. But it does not have to be so. If you realize you are a lost sinner before a just and righteous God, you have opportunity to repent and believe the biblical gospel.
I realize the weak kneed, seekers of political correctness among us will now challenge me and say I am too harsh with you. Well, I don’t really care what they say or think. I know I have told you the truth. Repent and believe the gospel whoever you actually are before it is too late.
L’s,
Maybe you need to clean up your Roman Catholic denomination before coming to the SBC! Many stories have gone out on the news about Catholic Priests and little boys.
David
DAVID,
We have got a program in place, at least.
The SBC is needing to begin.
My Church waited too long. Much suffering has occurred because of that waiting.
I don’t want that for the SBC, David.
Not when I know that Christa and Debbie can help educate people about what is an appropriate response, since the male leadership will not act.
I think you can understand that.
Maybe not.
Were I a Southern Baptist pastor, I’d be very afraid of the day that our media stops being enamored with persecuting the Catholic Church or when the Catholic Church institutes some sort of a monitoring program of it’s clergy.
Because then it’s game on against the SBC since everyone loves a good scandal with our convention…
I’m still trying to figure out the harm of a database cataloging our own scum. Then again, you’d probably wake up to find that some of your friends are on the list. Yeah, we can’t have the good ole boys getting held accountable.
Since the SBC is not a government agency, I would think that keeping such a list would present some serious legal issues.
Bill,
Anyone who abuses children is not my friend. And I have never said we should not hold people accountable. The guilty should be prosecuted. But the innocent should not be used to advance the personal desires of those who dispise them just for who they are.
C.B.
quit playing around, and read these:
http://stopbaptistpredators.blogspot.com/2007/12/two-sbc-presidents-knew-lot-but-what.html
http://www.stopbaptistpredators.org/collusion_individuals.html
C.B.
quit playing around, and read Christa’s blogs
L’s,
I am quite sure I read Christa’s material and about SNAP for that matter before you or Debbie. You see, child sexual abuse in the SBC was on my radar long before it became a recreational or social venture for either of you.
Christiane,
Read my comments about the percentage of SB pastors, missionaries, etc being very, very small concerning molestation of children. I mean, I agree that one is one too many…but, Christa and Debbie act like it’s happening all over the SBC. I just cannot believe that that’s true. I know a lot of Pastors and a lot of churches, and I dont see that being true, at all.
It’s not an epidemic, nor a huge problem in the SBC. Does it happen? Sure. But, to hear some people talk you’d think it’s happening at a huge percentage of churches. I really do not believe that is true, nor is it fair to portray it that way.
David
David:You make me want to cuss! It is happening all over the SB. Dang!
Debbie,
Child sexual abuse is epidemic in this country. It is not epidemic in the SBC to the proportion you advocate. But nonetheless, even if one child is molested in a Baptist church context, that is too many. Do we need to deal with the problem? Yes. But is it right for you to falsely accuse good men? No.
And Debbie, you will never get anywhere with the methods you have employed. You only hurt the cause.
QUOTE Debbie act like it’s happening all over the SBC. END QUOTE
These are Debbie’s exact words.
CB:
If had just a fraction of the concern you do for the guilt of others for your own guilt, you just might begin to see the blindness you seem to have been struck with when it comes to certain issues or certain people.
You just can’t see how PP is tied to many issues in the SBC can you?
Why not take a deep breath and examine your own heart before you try to judge others.
BTW you should no to do already this given your position.
“You just can’t see how PP is tied to many issues in the SBC can you?”
Tom Parker, I was with him and I saw pretty well.
CB:
You just have a blindness to PP that sadly nothing on this earth is going to change.
You will be held responsible for supporting those that harm others in the name of the Lord.
Tom Parker,
Be assured I am responsible for many harmful things to others before the Lord and I have repented of much through the years and will continue to do so.
But also be assured, I have nothing to be held responsible for before the Lord in supporting Paige Patterson against the charges that he protected child abusers. He is innocent of those charges. On the other hand I would be extremely guilty before the Lord if I did not speak up to defend him against such, knowing he is innocent.
But Tom Parker, you are certainly guilty for making charges against Paige Patterson, knowing absolutely nothing about that of which you speak.
CB: The facts say differently. The victims say differently.
Debbie,
You don’t know the facts. You don’t want to know the facts. You and sharks have a commonality in the fact that if a shark smells blood or you see the name Patterson, you both go on a feeding frenzy. The difference is, sharks do so for survival. You do it for……. Oh well, maybe you do it for survival also. Who knows.
She does it because
(a) Don Quixote has a grudge against Patterson. Debbie thinks what Don Quixote tells her to think. Therefore, she has a grudge against Patterson, too.
(b) Debbie has an insane, beyond psychotic hatred of complimentarians and theological conservatives to the point that she didn’t even bother to share the gospel with MoKahn when she contacted him because he had information she thought she could twist to take down a theological enemy. This is because she takes the faces of the men who abused her and superimposes them over the face of any theologically conservative complimentarian. See, it’s not really about Patterson, it’s about “them”. The people who hurt her are the ones she’s really trying to get back at.
QUOTE You just have a blindness to PP END QUOTE
Somehow, I think this quote should be marked: RETURN TO SENDER.
Just saying . . .
For what it’s worth, CB has no blindness as respects Dr. Patterson. He knows the man better than any of you do.
Thank you Bob. Glad to see you in the neighborhood.
To say that Tennessee knows nothing about BBQ is like saying that hawgs know nothing about mud. BBQ was invented in W. TN. Have you ever heard of Memphis BBQ? We have the best, and I mean, the absolute best BBQ in the world right here in West Tennessee.
Also, to say that TN knows nothing about football….well, you obviously dont know anything about TN, nor football. We have a little stadium in Knoxville that gets full on Saturday’s in the fall.
And, everyone, and I mean, everyone…that knows anything about BBQ, at all, knows that BBQ is pork.
David
Pork? That truly is sad. Pork is for bacon and sausage. Hickory or apple smoked beef brisket is BBQ.
I won’t get into football. Not a fan myself.
Bob: That is where you and I completely disagree.
Debbie,
GASP…we’re so shocked by this comment of yours. lol
David
Debbie,
Other than by email, have you ever met Paige Patterson, talked to Paige Patterson, or dealt with Paige Patterson in anyway other than through blog posts.
Debbie, you CAN take Bob’s comment two different ways.
See the Scripture that Bob referenced:
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-19.htm
Debbie said, “David:You make me want to cuss! It is happening all over the SB. Dang!”
Debbie, sometimes hatred and anger make people see things thru rose colored glasses. Also, people, who were victims of some crime, have trouble sometimes seeing things clearly afterwards. They become very biased in how they look at everything. Many times, it causes them to not be able to see beyond it. Kind of like some of the people I’ve heard talk, who were mugged, or burglarized by a black man, or who knew of a family that was murdered by black men robbing their home, claiming that most black men are criminals. I’ve heard people like this actually say that they’re scared of black men. I’ve heard them make comments that all black men are this way. And, that’s foolish and sad for them to think that way. But, after they were robbed by a black man, their vision was blurred. Their sense of reality was knocked for a loop. They turned into racists, due to their experience, and due to thier inability to see beyond what happened to them.
I see the same thing happening in the blogs and in the comments of these blogs. Due to a few…a very few…SB ministers doing things that they absolutely should not have done; they see a majority of SB ministers…especially conservative SB ministers…as being child molestors. Now, again, let me say, that one SB minister molesting a child, or taking advantage of a woman in his church, is terrible. It’s bad. It should not happen…ever. But, to suggest that this is an epidemic problem in the SBC is absolutely insane and irresponsible.
David
Vol,
Well said.
That is bologna and another excuse Dave and David. Another excuse not to see clearly and to do nothing. Again.
That is the kind of argument that costs you credibility, Debbie.
QUOTE “David:You make me want to cuss! END QUOTE
I have a sneaking suspicion you’d be good at!
1 Corinthians 11:19.
Joe:
Who are you referring to when you speak of Don Quiote?
Maybe I have missed it but have you apologized to Debbie K yet?
Wade Burleson, I believe.
I’m sure you knew that.
Joe B:
You said about Debbie:”She does it because
(a) Don Quixote has a grudge against Patterson. Debbie thinks what Don Quixote tells her to think. Therefore, she has a grudge against Patterson, too.
(b) Debbie has an insane, beyond psychotic hatred of complimentarians and theological conservatives to the point that she didn’t even bother to share the gospel with MoKahn when she contacted him because he had information she thought she could twist to take down a theological enemy. This is because she takes the faces of the men who abused her and superimposes them over the face of any theologically conservative complimentarian. See, it’s not really about Patterson, it’s about “them”. The people who hurt her are the ones she’s really trying to get back at.”
Joe, this is pure hooey. Where is your proof of all this vitrol you spout off about Debbie K, or do you have magical or supernatural powers that allow you to know the intent of someone elses heart. BTW, the way you talk to Debbie shows just how little of true Christianity you really understand and practice.
You show yourself to be a disgrace when you talk to a fellow believer this way. You should be ashamed of yourself, but I don’t think your capable of feeling that emotion.
I’m very thankful that you are not a member of the SBC. We’ve got enough problems without adding you into the mix.
Remind me–the SBC is not conservative enough for you?
Ug.
Now that is rich…you’re going to fill blog threads decrying the moral failings of people simple because they’re conservative but no one else is supposed to question the motives of people, huh Tom? That’s how it works?
Your side lost. Suck it up and deal with it. The REASON your side lost is that it stood opposed to biblical pricipals and doctrine. It’s just too bad that the CR didn’t finish the job because, based on the fact that you’re still whining like a 4 year old girl about it, it didn’t go NEARLY far enough.
The problem is clearly more than just a “few” pastors. Like I said earlier, I can name a handful of Baptist ministers here in Central Texas who have been arrested/convicted on sex abuse charges. The First Baptist Church of Bellmead (few miles North of Waco on I-35 and home to a fine Cracker Barrel) is no more after sex abuse charges. The church eventually disbanded and after their pastor was arrested. This study done by Diana Garland shows that the problem is real as well: http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/4386/53/
No first-step solution is ever going to come from dealing with personalities. At this point, discussing what Paige Patterson or Steve Gaines did or didn’t do, what they knew or what they didn’t know isn’t going to help keep predator pastors from moving from one church to another.
Any first-step solution will come from concerned Baptists. It will be a Baptist solution. There is a Third Way, a middle ground to be found within any Baptist group that avoids the extreme that says that polity is a barrier to any action and the other extreme which flippantly dismisses any questions raised concerning polity.
Again Big Daddy makes a most valid observation.
Well said, Aaron.
CB,
As we both share the same surname, I hesitate to get involved in this debate. I did want to point out that your use of the word “hearsay” ( comments #409 and #415) may or may not apply to what Debbie and others have written. When they used a direct quote attributed to an individual (i.e., Paige Patterson), that is not hearsay. When they quote a third party who says, “Dr. Patterson said such and such,” then that would be hearsay.
As a former attorney and current Southern Baptist pastor, I am both sensitive to those who can be wrongly accused of sexual abuse, but also vigilant to guard against even the appearance of impropriety when it comes to these issues. I believe that the SBC could, with proper safeguards, set up a sexual abuse database that would include, at a minimum, those who have been convicted (or pled guilty) of a sexually-related crime. If we can include those who have been arrested, without running afoul of legalities, then those could be included as well.
I believe where we would have the most trouble would be in the “credibly accused” category. Who determines that? How would that process work? Those are open questions, but should not prevent us taking initial steps to create a convention-wide database. If it would prevent one person, particularly a child, from being abused, then wouldn’t it be worth investing in?
Anyone’s credibilty, including Debbie’s, Tom’s, Joe’s, yours, and mine will be judged by what we say and do. If you judge someone as exhibiting credibility and/or authority in what they say and write (even if you don’t know them personally), then they become a credible witness for their cause. We are certainly free to come to the conclusion that someone does not have credibility (either generally or in a specific case), but that is an individual judgment that we must all come to. Hopefully, we are all writing, saying, and doing those things that will enhance our credibility and not detract from it. You never know how your words today will affect your credibility tomorrow. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell,
I have been reading your comments and knew that eventually we would meet in an exchange.
I realize you are somewhat new to both ministry and definitely to Baptist blogs. First, let me give you some good advice. Stop throwing the “former attorney” thing around. Some of us have had much experience with attorneys, both good and bad, and it does not make a very big impression. There are about as many out-of-work attorneys as there are preachers and mostly for the same reason. But, on the other hand, since you are an attorney, give a little more attention to this comment thread in an analytical manner and then come back and let’s have a dialogue. Also take a special note of my comment #350. Because, frankly “cousin” your comment directed to me at the moment is a little bit toward left field. It may be bold of me and arrogant to boot, but I really doubt that anyone in this comment thread has been directly involved in the “fight” against sexual child abuse any more than I have and that includes the scott family lawyers.
I thought his comment made a lot of sense, CB, and I think that his reference to his former career was helpful because it gave him credibility about the registry thing. I would expect a lawyer to have some insight that the rest of us might not have in this.
I hope cousin CB didn’t stop you from coming on the blogs, Howell.
Dave,
Then maybe you need to read the whole thread also. And I am right about the “former lawyer thing.” BTW, Dave, have you ever read one comment from me that stated a registry of some kind was a bad idea?
No, I have not seen such a comment.
Sadly, I think Debbie is driven most strongly by a desire to tar and feather Paige Patterson.
Let’s you and me just go way out on a limb here Dave and see how many Geese come with saws to cut it out from under us.
Do you really know why the registry motion got little-to-nothing in support at the SBC?
Dave: Well I think that you think that because of your intense dislike for Wade so we are both even and possibly both wrong.
Am I mad at Paige Patterson? You bet. None of this with the Darrel Gilyard case should have happened. And we know this is just the tip of the iceberg on the control that Paige Patterson has had for twenty years. None of it has been good.
I also know what I am talking about as far as victims going through a life of hell, not being able to articulate it until they are adults. Not knowing what happened to them until they are adults. I know and don’t ask me how I know because I will not tell you. It is a hell that I don’t think any child should be sentenced to. Our churches, camps, Bible schools, youth groups should be safe. The SBC and the church a safe place. Not for the perpetrator but for the congregation. It isn’t. That is a fact.
Now you guys have two choices, despite what you think my motive is, I am not going to try and correct you,it’s futile to do so and I don’t have the time, nor do I care, but you have two choices, continue to do nothing under the guise that I am out to get Paige Patterson and more children will be at risk, more dysfunctional adults, more leaving the church, more not able to hear how God loves them, more who will not be able to hear certain Bible verses that were used in their abuse, or you can look at the facts, the statistics with open eyes and heart, quit saying it’s not that bad, because it is, and do something. Start working to get a national database set up with the names of ministers who have been found to be sexually abusive and make it up to date, easily accessible. Those are the two choices, which will it be? A database is doable that is all Christa Brown is proposing, it’s all Wade proposed in his resolution. Aaron has some good questions, let’s start there.
That is where you are wrong, Debbie. Just because someone4 does not agree with your vendetta against Paige Patterson does not make us supportive of Baptist molesters.
There are more choices than the two you are trying to force us into.
Here’s my choice – I will do whatever I can do to stop any pastor I ever know about who is sexually or in any other way abusive.
I will also reject your sad attempt to use this issus to smear leaders of the SBC.
Wow Huggy Bear Dave,
Sometimes I could be no more proud of you if you were my own son.
Is it because of the typos?
QUOTE That is a fact END QUOTE
Give me the names of ten court cases decided in just your state in the last year out of the tens of thousands of SBC pastors. Just ten.
Or, refer to your comments as “opinion, not fact.”
And, you are not the only “victim” who has an ugly story to tell. Do you hate Paige because of transference? Sounds like it to me.
Until you finish your database which will only prove my point I will continue to say, “As bad as abuse is, and as terrible as predators are, it isn’t as widespread in the SBC as you want people to believe.” I’m willing to be proven wrong: just ten cases in the last year in your state.
On a positive note let me encourage you to give up your victim status. You CAN overcome through Jesus Christ.
And, if it is so “doable” as you say, why is your famous leader doing it? He certainly has the resources at his disposal. My suspicion is: he really knows in his heart that it is not as widespread as he insists and he doesn’t want to prove himself wrong and give up a great rumor club he can use to beat up on conservatives.
Dave: It is simply being blind to not recognize by Christa’s account alone that the leaders failed miserably. Failed in their reaction to this problem. Failed in their reaction to other problems. To say that is smearing is ignorance. They failed miserably more than once. I did not make up what they said, it is documented what they said, their reactions. The fault is theirs not mine. You can continue to say I am smearing, but I would say you are ignoring the truth. Paige Patterson, Jerry Vines, many more failed. The victims were victimized all over again. Yet you fault me for bringing that out. For what? image? I should respect them? Dave, I cannot nor will not respect men who do what these men have done to the victims. Call it what you like, but wrong is wrong. I’m saying it out loud.
When the numbers of the statistics I have given go down, when we get a database, when we seriously look at this I will believe you Dave, but as of now it’s difficult to do. You call it a vendetta. When its simply wanting our leaders to look at this as more than just a pesky problem, dismissing those who report this. It’s justice I am looking for. Vendetta, I’m not out to get rid of these people, I am out to get church people and others to see we are not the image we portray ourselves to be and behind closed doors it is a whole different story. The facts I have given speak for themselves.
CB,
Thanks for reading my comments, I think. I’m glad God gave you the gift of foreknowledge (which I don’t have) to be able to know we would eventually meet in an exchange. You are one for two when it comes to your knowledge of my ministry and blog experience. You are quite correct that I am relatively new (about 1 month) to blogging. However, I have been in Southern Baptist ministry for 14 years.
As for “throwing around” the fact that I was an attorney, I have commented exactly one time (#468) on this site in which I simply stated my background. Why would I presume that anyone knows who I am or that I used to be an attorney? I think mentioning it (not throwing it around), especially when new to a site like this, gives perspective. But, I’ll be sure to take your advice into consideration in future posts and comments.
Sorry I missed your earlier comment (#350). I agree that this issue must first be addressed at the local church level and include perhaps the association as you suggest. A national database can never replace the vigilance of the people at each individual church. That being said, I still believe that an SBC database can be a viable and valuable option.
Lastly, we will have to agree to disagree regarding my analysis of your previous comments regarding hearsay. If you thought that my comment to you was out of left field, as you say, then perhaps your reading of other comments I have made elsewhere gave you a certain impression of me, even though we have never dialogued before. Through your comment to me, I most certainly have a clearer impression of you, whether or not that is what you wished to convey. Thank you, Cuz! God bless,
Howell
Howell,
You are right that you have only used the attorney comment once here. I have read your comments in other places including your own blog. That is where I first found out you were a former practicing attorney. Therefore, I apologize for being too quick on the firing line with the advice. And it was somewhat condescending.
Also, I am used to having guys come in blasting me for challenging Debbie and others over their efforts to tie Patterson to all things unholy in the SBC. So I was again somewhat over defensive. For that I apologize also.
Howell, I had no “foreknowledge” in the manner you reference such, but as I stated, I read your comments at Debbie’s place and knew that eventually we would have an exchange because I could tell you had a degree of boldness. In addition, I could see from your comments that you did not really have a running background with various posts and comments made over a period of time from Debbie and others relating to Paige Patterson and other known SBC leaders. Therefore, it was just a matter of deduction that led me to see that in your boldness you would send a comment my way at some point.
Don’t get me wrong Howell. I do admire boldness in a man even if it is sometimes misplaced.
In conclusion, you have every right to your impression of me good or bad. Nonetheless, I have passed being very concerned what another person’s impression of me might or might not be. I am now more interested in being honest and truthful about that of which I do know and of which I do not know. For in the end, truth will stand when impressions are of little importance.
So Howell, I will say to you, Paige Patterson did not cover for Darrell Gilyard. And he has certainly not said or done many of the things he has been accused of here in Blogtown.
CB,
Thank you for your clarification. Apologies accepted! Unlike some, I do not have a “dog in this fight” when it comes to personalities like Paige Patterson (who I did not mention).
There are many voices in the SBC, both within the blogosphere and church-life in general. Each of us, in some sense, has a certain credibility in our spheres of influence. What we say or write, whether at the local church level or on a blog, can either enhance or diminish our credibility.
In my boldness, I may not always get it right (not sure anyone does), but if we center our arguments on facts and evidence, and not on personalities, then our cases will be that much stronger. Thanks again for the exchange. God bless,
Howell
Joe B:
My side lost–no I just looked at my body and I have still have two sides.
You would really make a good comedian, if you could just control that nasty side of yours.
Your theological side, the moderates, lost.
Joe:
If your side won, why are you not still in the SBC helping your side?
When I led my family to leave the church we were at, we visited a non denominational Bible church. Their statement of faith has nothing in it that any SBC member would object to. Several of the elders are gradutes of Master’s Seminary. They’re complimentarian (that was a non-negotiable) and they happen to be Calvinist. Another plus, this church would not tolerate anyone teaching or leading who was not an inerrantist. Another plus, because they are complimentarian, there would never be a hint of a suggestion of a woman serving as a pastorette or teaching men.
So it wasn’t so much “I left the SBC” as it was “We joined this church that happens to not be SBC”.
Double knot seven:
You said:”But, to suggest that this is an epidemic problem in the SBC is absolutely insane and irresponsible.”
I really do not believe anyone has said there was an epidemic of a problem.
Please provide us with a quote of who said this fantastic piece of evidence you now have.
Are you just making this up to try and change the subject as you and the other deniers often do?
When did you become qualified to determine the sanity of another human being?.
I often wonder about your sanity but I am not qualified to diagnose you as insane, so I do not.
One thing I will say is that when you and others support people you just do not let the facts get in the way.
Ever thought of becoming an attorney–so as CB says so you can sleep at night?
Tom Parker,
If Joe ever does give up accounting and become a lawyer, I sure hope he become a prosecutor, specializing in the prosecution of child abusers. We will see a lot more of them get jail time than we presently do, don’t you think?
QUOTE I often wonder about your sanity but I am not qualified to diagnose you as insane, so I do not END QUOTE
This is exactly the fundamental modus of the moderate: double-speak. You imply he is insane, but then you deny you are making that assertion. Defense attorneys do this all the time (as well as prosecutors): get something said in the courtroom so the judge will tell the jury to “disregard it.” The damage is already done. An effective ploy but in my opinion morally objectionable.
Just like all the “implications and innuendo” that there is a “predator epidemic,” but then deny the very implications. That is double-speak. Effective, yes. Moral, not so much. Proves you are on the “high road,” not at all.
I much prefer some straight talk even if I don’t agree — at least the argument is honest.
I know I’m wasting my breath (again) in asking, but you guys are being ridiculous and the administrators and contributors to this site would love for you all to quit bickering and name-calling.
Maybe you all should read the new interview with Trevin Wax about the SBC and share some constructive thoughts about it.
And SSBN could care less.
I apologize about the dancing bear remark, if that was the problem.
My bad.
Christiane,
Thanks, and it’s much more comments and much more people than this. The BFM2000 comment section got closed because of garbage like what is happening here, hampering anyone who comes across it with a genuine opinion from sharing their thoughts.
Only at SBC Voices can we get from PP’s commencement at LU and sharing the Gospel to him supposedly supporting child abuse.
Sorry for my part in that. That’s the problem about reacting to comments rather than to the post.
Dave Miller,
Why do you apologize? You were not one of those who made these outlandish accusations. You did what a Christian should do.
Therein lies the problem. People tell things that are outlandish or untrue and then those who know better let it go because they don’t want to offend the perpetrator or they don’t want to give others a bad impression.
You did the right thing Dave. And if Brandon does not believe you did the right thing, then he has the problem and not you. Don’t let anyone put you on a guilt trip for being a stand up guy when the need arose.
SSBN,
I apologize for the bit about being unimpressed with you being a pastor. It was wrong, and it was uncalled for. As an SBC pastor, you are in ministry, and deserve my respect which I wrongly did not give. I was angry, but I am still wrong.
I believe you are still wrong concerning both of your points, however. 1) It is beside the point to me that many pastors are upright and anti-predator, the fact remains that if a list of pro-predator pastors could very easily start with the predator pastors themselves (in fact, it must start there) and there are easily more than ten, just according to the convictions. 2.) No, I was angry when I implied you were not fit to be a pastor, because I interpreted your words to be personal insults and condescension. However, you say you have not attacked my faith or my person, so my interpretation of your words was wrong, and I accept your word on the matter. I am sorry for assuming the worst and implying what I did. It was flat out wrong.
CB:
I notice you replied to my comment to Double Knot Seven. Are you really him? as 007 is prone to say–lol.
Tom Parker,
Let’s revisit the plan to hang your head on a trophy wall. What do you say?
And as Vol is prone to say–LOL
lol
Tom,
When only 14% of SB ministers…out of 100,000 are said to have had “inappropriate sexual conduct” then I dont call that an epidemic in the SBC. And, when you think that most of that 14% were affairs…sex with a grown woman…adultery…and most of it was probably not child abuse; then, again, I say that it’s insane and unfair to make the statements that Debbie and Christa Brown are saying about child abuse being an epidemic problem thru out the SBC. I mean, 2 or 3%….let’s even go up to 5%…of that 14% being child abuse. Okay, Tom, what’s 5% of 100,000? Listen, we’re talking about 4 or 5 thousand SB ministers out 100,000, which is probably too high of a figure…but, we’ll go with the high figure. Now, I absolutely agree that that number is waaaaaay too high. That nuimber should not be. 1 is too high and should not be. But, that also means that there’s nearly 100,000 SB ministers, who do not abuse children. Nearly 100,000!
But, to say that there’s an epidemic problem of child abuse thru out the SB ministers, and that our leadership is overlooking it and doing nothing about it is irresponsible and unfair, and it’s just plain ole agenda driven. Anytime you have people that are driven by hatred and revenge and are on some vendetta witchhunt to get rid of all the sexual abusers that are out there….there’ll be extremism and innocent people being accused of things that they have not done.
We’re seeing that.
David
David, here’s the deal as you well know. They, especially Cough-man, don’t care about FACTS. This is about getting back at the leaders of the Conservative Resurrgence NOt about preventing child abuse.
No one with sense would say that child sexual abuse is a epidemic in the SBC. To see an epidemic regarding child sexual abuse, we’d need to look at the Catholic church.
Now, should more be done to make sure that offenders are never able to work in a church again? Yes. Do I know how to combat the problem? No. Might a list work? Well, maybe and it also might not. Again, the Catholic church has a list. Didn’t seem to help there, huh?
The problem is not that folks are takling about sexual abuse it’s that they are accusing people of having done something that they haven’t done. I am by no means a fan of Patterson but I don’t think for an instant that he has molested any children or aided someone who did. There are no facts to support such a conclusion.
But then again when have facts ever mattered to anyone from Emmauel Baptist Church in Enid, OK?
I haven’t had time to follow the discussions here for the last few days but after a quick scan of the last hundred of so posts I would like to ask a few questions for clarity.
David Miller in post #436 you said, “Debbie, facts are incontrovertible.” Synonyms of incontrovertible in my thesaurus are irrefutable, undeniable, unarguable. The leaders of Liberty University have said that facts can be self-contradictory. How can facts be self-contradictory or contradictory if they are incontrovertible, irrefutable, undeniable and unargruable. I do not want to make this a discussion of the Caner affair. I am just trying to understand the logic used here. Volfan said I was crazy because I challenged the logic of Liberty’s statement. David you seem to be agreeing with me that Liberty’s statement makes no sense.
Volfan in #234 you said, “The liberals in the SBC had to go. There were liberals in the IMB.” Could you name these liberals in the IMB? I was with the IMB during that time and do not know of any liberals. If some missionary was found to have beliefs incompatible with conservative Biblical doctrine, he would be dismissed. I am asking for the names of liberals in leadership positions or positions of authority. Could you help by giving me those names and what their liberal beliefs were?
Joe Blackmon, in #211 you said, “Were there liberal professors at SWBTS under Dilday’s presidency (folks who denied the miracles of Christ, the divinity of Christ, salvation exclusively through the gospel of Jesus Christ, etc)? Yes. Yes there were.”
Could you give me the names of those professors who denied the divinity of Christ or salvation exclusively through the gospel of Jesus Christ? I attended SWBTS and never heard a professor remotely imply beliefs such as you mention. I need the names and proof they believe what you say they believed. Surely you would not make such a claim without irrefutable proof. You should also never make such a claim without giving the names since you place all professors under suspicion of such beliefs.
Wow, Ron, you had classes with EVERY professor at SWBTS? Really? Dang, dude, how many classes did you take? Must have taken you a decade to finish a degree.
Fact, there were liberal professors at SBTS.
Fact, there were liberal professors at SEBTS.
Fact, there were liberal professors at SWBTS.
Suck it up and deal with it.
Don’t forget Golden Gate. I was there in the 80′s (SWBTS in the 90′s). My ethics teacher was liberal all the way. He was actually a nice guy to me (a lot more gracious than the moderates I had at SWBTS) but it was like having class in cafe in the 60′s.
Ron West,
Facts, it seems, are pesky things to the ad hominem crowd. Peter Lumpkins, Joe Blackman, David Volfan, and the rest are reasons people like you and me are so frustrated with the SBC. Ideologues who call other people names are not only unpleasant to be around, they are impossible to cooperate with in missions and evangelism.
You ask:
Can you name the professors who denied the miracles of Christ? Can you name for me the professors who denied the divinity of Christ? Can you name for me the profressors who denied salvation is exclusively through the gospel of Jesus Christ? Could you give me the names of those professors who denied the divinity of Christ or salvation exclusively through the gospel of Jesus Christ?
Joe Blacken Them says they were most definitely teaching such heresy at SWBTS. No facts. No names. Just outrageous claims.
I will await specific answers to your questions, but I shall not hold my breath. I will also continue enjoying not being a part of such ungodly dialogue.
Two comments here.
1) How do you define idealogue? How do you distinguish your constant harangue against the leaders of the SBC from the constant defense of those SBC leaders by those you mentioned?
Many of us agreed with (and still do) the critique of the actions of Paige and the IMB Trustees, and the firing of Dr. Klouda and many of those things. But many of us also broke company with you when you jumped the shark in your relentless and unbalanced criticism of Dr. Patterson and others.
I see you and the people you criticize as cut from the same cloth – just different ends of the fabric.
Wade, you certainly have the right to criticize the CR, the SBC, its leaders or anyone else. I have consistently defended the right of dissent within the SBC.
But you do not have the right to champion dissent and then insult those who disagree with you. If you have the right to dissent, then we have the right to dissent from you. As one who has read much of what you have written, I can say I have seen you as much better at dissenting than at receiving dissent.
2) I graduated from SWBTS. I know of at least two men who were my professors whom I would call liberal (or at least who held positions that should have eliminated them from teaching at an SBC seminary). I would be reluctant to name them publicly. Neither were prominent big-name professors.
On the other hand, the CR would never have needed to happen if the other schools were like SWBTS. The CR happened because of Southern, Southeastern and Midwestern. I thank God that these are solid, conservative schools now.
One more thing – do you not see the irony of claiming the high road in your last paragraph while calling Joe Blackman a name in the paragraph immediately preceding it?
Well, since you’re such a spelling dive, Don, you might want to check out how to spell my name.
Further, while I don’t have the names there are folks that obviously do and on a first hand basis. In the commet above mine David says he went to SWBTS and knew of at least two. Therefore, there were men teaching liberal doctrine and Russel Dilday knew about it but did nothing.
Oh, btw, someone is going to roll your house tomorrow with cheap toilet paper–the kind that hard to clean up because it tears so easily. Now, if it doesn’t happe it’s because I foiled the plot by exposing it here. If it does happen, you heard it hear first.
Once again, Joe, they were not “liberal” as that is commonly defined. They held doctrines that I believe were incompatible with SBC doctrine and practice. Neither, as I understood them, would deny the deity of Christ, the exclusivity of Christ, the Trinity, etc. But they held to positions that were not compatible with teaching in the SBC, as I understand it. Just want to be clear.
Noted.
Well, while Dave is right that they were called liberals in the SBC sense, but there were some that went even further.
David
So, Wade, are you saying that there were NO liberals in the SBC prior to the CR?
David
Ron West:
You said to Joe B:”Joe Blackmon, in #211 you said, “Were there liberal professors at SWBTS under Dilday’s presidency (folks who denied the miracles of Christ, the divinity of Christ, salvation exclusively through the gospel of Jesus Christ, etc)? Yes. Yes there were.”
Could you give me the names of those professors who denied the divinity of Christ or salvation exclusively through the gospel of Jesus Christ? I attended SWBTS and never heard a professor remotely imply beliefs such as you mention. I need the names and proof they believe what you say they believed. Surely you would not make such a claim without irrefutable proof. You should also never make such a claim without giving the names since you place all professors under suspicion of such beliefs.”
Ron, I’m sure he and others of his mindset can never prove these charges against these unknown people.
They should know better than doing this to other people but since they are doing this to other people and are not the recipient of these baseless charges they do not care about the damage they are inflicting on these people.
Where is the love of God for all people in these peoples mindset?
It appears to me instead of love for all it is love for some and absolute hatred for the others.
How can this be?
CB:
It would really be nice to see an apology from you because you have a choice in what you respond to and the attack mode you use in most of your comments to those who you disagree with.
I know I am a guilty party as it is really hard for me to see the things that you and 007 and JB, etc. post especially in regard to Debbie, without responding, and yes I know better.
What you say CB? any chances of an apology for your bad behavior and your contributing to the drift of this 500 and some comment blog.
And you question Dave Miller’s apology–incredible!
I did not apologize for what I wrote here, Tom. I stand behind the things I said – except perhaps some of my exchange with Aaron Weaver in which I got a little snippy.
I think Debbie’s judgment is clouded by a visceral hatred for Paige Patterson and I think her attempt to use the tragedy of clergy sexual abuse to smear him is shameful. Criticize his policies (Klouda, etc) or his interference in other SBC entities (IMB policies, etc) and I will join in.
Try to pin clergy sex scandals on him and other CR leaders? Shameful and self-serving. I have been both direct and critical, but I have tried to stay away from invective and insult – to deal with that which Debbie and others have said.
My apology was for contributing to the hijacking of the thread by responding to Debbie’s outrageous charges.
OK Dave,
That is fair. I will affirm every word except the last sentence. I can’t in good conscience do so. I cannot apologize for confronting the people who chose to bring their hatred of all things Patterson to this comment thread. I would far rather hijack a comment thread than stand and watch a good man be ran over by a runaway scandal train with angry, blind people at the throttle.
Ron,
I do not have the time to do the research to tell you names and places of the liberals that were missionaries and Seminary profs 30 years ago. Besides, I believe this discussion has been had before, and you were told the names of some of them over at SBC Impact, or at my blog, or somewhere. I believe you just shrugged them off at that time.
Ron, there were seminary profs praying to Mother god, who believed in universalism, who denied the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus, who did not believe the Bible to be accurate, or inerrant, who believed there were 2 Devils; who doubted the miracles of the Bible; who believed evolution over creation; who believed that women could be Pastors; and the list goes on and on and on and on. You know this. I know this. CB knows this. Dave Miller knows this. Everyone who lived in SBC land back in the day knows this. So, why are you trying to rewrite history now?
DAvid
Volfie
if someone would have made the statement a out caner that u just made about unnamed seminary proffs, and I am speaking to swbts proffs, you would have had a fit.
I don’t care about the whole caner mess, but why is it that you can trash unnamed good men and women but be offended when caner is trashed, with considerable evidence.
Where is the consistency.
This whole trashing of swbts is so roger moranish it makes me crazy, Also similar to democrats charge of racism whenever they start getting beat up by republicans, just yell liberal as loudly and often as u can, especially without evidence
In fairness, Vol, I’m not sure those folks were at SWBTS. SBTS, SEBTS and MWBTS were the real culprits, and the reason the CR was needed.
DAve,
But, you know, and I know that liberals were tolerated and allowed to teach in some of these seminaries, as well. I agree that Southern, Southeastern, and Midwestern were the main culprits…no doubt about it. But, there were liberals in all aspects of SBC life leadership back then, and in the seminaries that you mention above. I believe that you said that you had at least 2 liberal profs at Southwestern.
DAvid
Volfie
as the great Ronald Reagan said, there you go again. Relying on rumor and innunendo when u have no facts. Go back and read DM’s comment, the were not really liberal, their tent was too big for his taste. Notice Dave is putting his own subjective spin in here…
Tom Parker,
I do apologize when I need to, which is often. If you will remember, I have apologized to you in the past.
But I will not apologize for refuting the willful intent of you and others who, without any credible knowledge or valid purpose, have made statements about Paige Patterson, Morris Chapman and others in some twisted desire to link them to child abusers.
That is just crazy and of poor character on your parts. And I don’t care what you or any other person thinks of me for taking a strong stand against you. My concern is not about making a good impression. It is about defending good men against that which is untrue.
I know these men have made serious mistakes as leaders. What leader, great or small has not? But what they are being accused of here is just not true.
Tom, I would far rather talk to you guys about the merits of having Beck speak at LU or the positive or negative results that could come from Patterson’s speaking there at the same time. But you guys came here and started bashing the guy and connecting him to the trashy conduct of all the perps in the SBC. That was wrong. I knew it was wrong. And I would be wrong not to say so.
And my question of Dave was just that, a question. And, under the circumstances, in my opinion, I think it to be a fair one.
You know Tom, some of you people talk as if Paige Patterson and Morris Chapman are not a real and living human beings. Maybe that is because you have never met them or know them personally. And maybe I defend Patterson and Chapman so strongly because I do know them and have for a long time. But nonetheless, they are not guilty of all that is said of them here. I know that to be true. So here I stand…..without apology for doing so.
David Miller:
You said:”I think Debbie’s judgment is clouded by a visceral hatred for Paige Patterson and I think her attempt to use the tragedy of clergy sexual abuse to smear him is shameful. ”
You also said-”Try to pin clergy sex scandals on him and other CR leaders? Shameful and self-serving.”
Since when did you and others develop the ability to know someone elses intentions from what they type?
Self-serving–how, when whe has had to put up with the attacks from you and others?
Personally, I think you and others owe Debbie K a great big apology for the way you have attacked her knowing full well you can not prove the intent of her heart.
I know for you and others PP is your hero, but to ignore the wrongs that this man has done since around 1977 is just to be blind to reality.
And I know you will tell me I have a problem with the CR, it was not the CR it was with the tactics of the CR just like the ones you and others are using against Debbie K.
BTW, where did I say what you apologized for?
I was just trying to point out that CB appears to have a problem with your apologizing at all.
Since when did you and others develop the ability to know someone elses intentions from what they type?
Um, since they write what they write in public, thereby revealing their intentions by what they say. It’s called “reading”. Say it with me slowly. “Rea-ding”.
Tom, I seldom agree with Debbie, but one thing I appreciate about her is that she neither shies from debate nor wilts under it. I have told her that I consider her positions wrong, and that I believe she is not objective. She’s told me I’m an idiot (well, severely lacking in knowledge and insight anyway).
But, at least from my perspective, neither of us needs to apologize for expressing our dissent and disagreement. If she is offended with me, she can say so. I am not offended at her for writing what she has.
QUOTE Since when did you and others develop the ability to know someone elses intentions from what they type? END QUOTE
“When?” Since words have meaning. Tom, I don’t know you, but my understanding from what you have written is that you are not a fan of the CR, and you have major differences of opinion with Dave and others.
Now, how did I come to that conclusion? By what you typed. How is that possible? Because words connote intention. And, depending on how words are strung together, the intention can run from subtle to explicit.
It is true, perhaps I’ve misunderstood your intention (and others from what they typed). That’s a possibility. So, now you can clarify your remarks (like the one where you referred to “these guys” as closed-minded whatevers.
It would be dishonest however to use words that intentionally connoted disagreement when you actually were agreeing. It would also be improper to blame anyone for getting the wrong intention if you are being intentionally misleading.
So, please clarify your position which would give you justification for taking up the offense of someone else because we have misunderstood (particularly Dave) Debbie’s “intentions.”
In conclusion: many of us have drawn conclusions from what Debbie types because words communicate meaning and intention. I’d venture to say, you and Debbie have done the same thing. So, I see nothing to apologize for. Your request seems to be an attempt at gaining moral superiority. Not convincingly I might add.
In the movie Mrs. Doubtfire, Robin Williams throws a piece of fruit at his ex-wife’s boyfriend. He called it a “Drive-by Fruiting.”
This blog reminds me of that movie (which I loved). So many “drive-by fruitings” (on both sides). A moderate (liberal, and even one obvious non-believer) comes in and throws some fruit at one of the conservatives. The conservative says, “show me the facts.” The moderate (liberal, non-believer) just throws more fruit.
The moderate (liberal, non-believer) says, “name one liberal professor,” and the conservative just throws fruit. The term “liberal professor,” like the term “nasty conservative” are meaningless terms.
And then, when Dr. Patterson (or Pressler, or Caner) is hit with fruit (the names that liberals and non-believers and moderates) throw around all the time, and we say: “show us the facts,” we just get more fruit.
Or, Stephen Fox goes one step further, and sends us to the “Farmer’s Market” with a link to more fruit.
I mentioned only two people, Dr. Dilday, whom I experienced first-hand and who has himself identified with the moderates. I did not say anything ugly about him other than he was not very kind or gracious in my opinion and interaction. Let me rephrase that, he was no saint in the matter as some suggest.
I also mentioned a truly liberal ethics professor at Golden Gate. He believed in Women pastors and that homosexuality was an acceptable life-style. I’d give his name, but I’d have to do a google search because I can’t remember.
So, I tried to at least wash my fruit with facts before I threw it.
Moral of the story: when someone throws fruit at you . . . duck.
Tom Parker,
You never read all the comments in a dialogue do you? I have already apologized twice in the comment thread and refused to do so twice.
You say that the intent of Debbie’s heart cannot be proven. That is not true of Debbie or anyone else when they take the intent of their heart and pour in out by the buckets full in print.
One example:
“I am giving the facts. If it is berating then so be it. They need to be berated. Paige Patterson has done more to harm others than any other person I know.”
Tom, do you really believe Paige Patterson has done more harm than anyone else Debbie has ever known? And remember, she does not really even know the man at all. it is doubtful if she has ever spoken to him in person. I do think she sent him an email, but I am not sure about that.
Tom, sometimes a guy has to be rational. Its your turn.
SSBN:
When you say:”The moderate (liberal, non-believer)”–you put yourself in the place of God.
You do not even define liberal. How do you know these people’s hearts.
Do you not see the evil of spewing such vitrol for all the world to see.
I’m beginning to think that there’s no way to really dialogue with Tom. How can you dialogue with someone who’s response seems to always center around “You do not even define liberal. How do you know these people’s hearts. Do you not see the evil of spewing such vitrol for all the world to see.” ???
David
Not easy with u either volfie, u seem to have had run ins with every mean liberal proff, chaismatic, Calvinist, Methodist and Mormon which seems to have colored your thinking on everyone except your own small subset of TN leaning landmarkers.
Jim,
Do you believe the inerrancy of the Bible?
Do you believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven? that the Jewish religion will not get a person to Heaven? that the Islam religion will not get a man into Heaven?
Do you believe that the Bible teaches clear, absolute, commands and teachings that a Christian must follow in order to be right with God? to really live for God?
Answer me these, Jim.
David
Your fallback stance to question the salvation of someone who disagrees with you, I love it!
Sorry to dissapoint you, I was saved as a teenager and subscribe to the fundamentals of the faith. I am a born again believer and a deacon in a church that actually subscribes to the bfm 2000 ( I don’t always or often get my way but am a team player). I believe the whole bible, even the parts u have a hard time with…literalvirgin birth, literal death and ressurection, literal Adam and eve, however give me the old earth for $100 Alex.
What I really love is getting your goat from time to time, on your blog you could shut down the topic or move on, not so much here.
On that whole innerrancy thing, I might be, let’s take a look at those origional autographs
it is such a political word withno real meaning. I actually think I am more of a literalist than u, as I am not afraid of giving Phoebe her correct title, nor junia for that matter. There are several more that I won’t get into
We don’t have to have the autographs to prove inerrancy, Jim.
“Do you believe that the Bible teaches clear, absolute, commands and teachings that a Christian must follow in order to be right with God?”
Faith in Christ makes one right with God. Not following commands. That doesn’t mean commands aren’t important. They are commands after all. But our obedience to commands will always be imperfect. If we rely upon them to be right with God, we’re in trouble.
“We don’t have to have the autographs to prove inerrancy, Jim.”
I don’t think we could prove inerrancy, even with the autographs. Inerrancy is a doctrine of faith, not proof. That isn’t to say there aren’t rational reasons for believing in inerrancy. Just that it can’t be proven.
My objection is not to the word inerrancy, but to the word “prove.”
Bill and Jim,
I know that you guys have great disagreement regarding the CR and see no value at all in the doctrine of inerrancy. I don’t assess any personal judgment on your views, though I obviously disagree.
However, your posts suggest a caricature of the doctrine to set up a straw man argument — the weakest of all logical arguments.
Of course we do not have the “autographs,” but you suggest that even if we did, they would not support the doctrine of inerrancy. You also talk as if they “did not exist.”
Now, I may be reading more into your posts — or maybe I’m not — but the fact is the doctrine of inerrancy deserves much deeper thought than the straw men that so often come up in this blog.
I’m not suggesting that such a discussion would (or could) ever take place on a personality driven blog, but I simply want those who might read your posts to understand they are not a scholarly critique of the doctrine and should be given only the weight they deserved.
My problem with those who feel the Bible we read is somehow “errant” (in any way you want to define that term) begs the question as we philosophers say, “How can something errant be trusted for something as important as eternal salvation?” If there is doubt in regard to “woman pastors,” that is one degree of consequence, but if there is doubt in regard to eternal salvation, that is a whole other degree of consequence.
My basic contention as one who leans very heavily on the doctrine of inerrancy (just short of punching you in the nose for not supporting it) is that if the Bible was “supernaturally given by God,” it is supernaturally preserved by God, according to how I see the Scripture talk about itself.
I really do not put a lot of trust in what man says the Bible says. It is its best interpreter.
So, I hope those reading the attacks on inerrancy and those who hold to the doctrine realize these are straw men arguments and ad hominem attacks, not a scholarly discussion of such an important doctrine.
David, see below. I clearly defined why I felt my ethics professor was liberal — as did in my previous post, but Tom disregarded or missed it.
Here’s a factual basis for why the CR was needed. Let’s see if Tom responds, or just throws some more fruit.
Tom,
Earlier you asked if there was another side to the story SSBN told about a “liberal DOM.” I was at his (SSBN) church at the time, and yes, indeed, there is a whole different story. I tried to explain, but it did not make it out of moderation.
Let’s see if this post will.
Tom, of course you are wrong. I clearly identified why I felt my ethics professor was liberal: 1) He did not believe the Bible was infallible in its regard to Women Pastors. I believed the Bible was in error because of Paul’s contempt for women. 2) He believed that homosexuality could be justified by the “ethic of love” (a major, classical, liberal approach.
I also said he was a rather gracious guy (where’s the vitrol [sic] in that?)
And, where have I once said anything about anybody’s heart or relationship with God? I do not believe that being liberal necessitates a person is lost — it may, but it is not necessitated.
And, have you forgotten the number of times you have “judged someone by what they wrote?” You do it frequently (as I suspect we all do).
I choose to look at the “beam in my own eye” in regard to my relationship with the Lord, not the speck that might be in yours. You seem to have very clearly placed judgment on me and others.
So, I have defined — contrary to your accusation — the liberal theology of my ethics professor. That is first hand knowledge. I’m am telling you what was a part of the syllabus for the class.
I accept your apology for mischaracterizing me and missing completely my explicit statements. Perhaps you confused me with someone else, or perhaps you suffer from “presuppositionalitis.” We all suffer from that more than we will admit.
Now, you can give your disagreement with the two points I mentioned that led me to believe my ethics professor was liberal.
In regard to the CR — these type of professors were scattered throughout our seminary classrooms in the 70′s and 80′s until the CR righted the seminary ships.
I’ll wait for your response to the ethics professor regarding Paul’s contempt for women that erroneously made it into the Biblical text, and his assertion that the “higher ethic of love” trumps the Biblical text in regard to homosexual behavior.
This is what the CR was all about: not all the straw men you, Debbie and others keep putting together. Please, please show me where I am wrong in evaluating the professors theology.
Again, remember, I’m not evaluating his personal relationship with God. I have not knowledge of that.
PS–FIRST WORD, PT 1 “HE, NOT I”
David Miller:
You said:”She’s told me I’m an idiot (well, severely lacking in knowledge and insight anyway).”
David, if she did not call you an idiot, why say that she did.
That word means much than someone saying you are severly lacking in knowledge and insight.
Jim Champion:
I think that for Double Knot 7 the majority of the world is a liberal and lost by his standards. I’m sure he is very thankful that he is not lost and going to Hell like the majority of the world. He’s one of the fortunate ones by his standards.
Above you asked me “Who is Don Quixote?” as if you didn’t know. Now, instead of Volfan or Double-0-7 you refer to David as Double Knot Seven. So, it’s ok when you do it but if someone else does that it’s some sort of federal case?
You know he is one of the fortunate ones as are you and I, I think we will all be suprised by who is ( and is not) in heaven with us
Matthew 7:13-14 (English Standard Version)
“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”
I guess there will be few people who get to Heaven.
David
Double Knot 7:
I notice on SBC Today–The Voice of the CR that you are thanking God for the CR. Talk about a self-serving blog. Do I even begin to think that you and the others at this sight would allow a dissenting view.
Please hear me and the others that do not hold your view:
Was the CR necessary? Yes
Was the way it was and is being conducted bringing glory to God?
No
Wade B:
You said:”Facts, it seems, are pesky things to the ad hominem crowd.”
Wade, I rarely if ever see them use facts, just fantasy.
It must be a very interesting world that they live in, but they are very good at driving others away.
I would given them a grade of A+.
Tom,
It really doesnt matter what you, or Jim, or anyone else thinks. The CR happened. The liberals were run out of town.
Thank God.
Too bad the moderates like those in Enid weren’t run out with them.
I gave concrete facts. I gave facts about a moderate DOM (in our modern era) who uses a Law Firm to gain control of church properties. This is a matter of public record. Facts.
Not one moderate commented upon those facts to denounce such an assault upon Baptist life, not to mention the unbiblical and immoral aspects of it. Facts. Given. Ignored by those who attack the CR. I purposely did not use names to avoid any ad hominem charge. The name is easily optained to verify the facts.
I’d like to here your comment.
Fact. I mentioned, by name Russell Dilday, as self-designating himself as a moderate and being contentious and intentionally hard to deal with leading to his proper, though contentious, dismissal. Fact. I intentionally defended his right to designate for himself his theological leanings, again to avoid the charge of ad hominem. Facts. Given. No moderate bothered to answer the charges.
Fact. I imply by the use of the term Wadeite, that there are a group of posters that follow his leading in eccessiastical matters, including a contempt for the CR. I do not imply by that term that Wade B. is an evil monster far from God. I mean he is an ideologue with significant influence that shows up i the blogosphere. I believe this to be a fact. I’m open to someone disputing it, without claiming it is ad hominem.
So, when I have given facts, they have never been challenged accept by the “drive-by fruitings” I’ve mentioned above.
Here’s a couple facts. Let’s discuss them. Perhaps you see nothing wrong with using a law firm to take over property allowing an increase from a self-appointed committee to raise your salary in one year from about $85,000 or so to $165,000 — not including what is paid to your wife and friends from the same funds.
Fact. Russell Dilday did in fact act in a contentious manner and has in fact subsequently identified himself as a CBF-style moderate (again, which is perfectly within his right to do so).
Fact. At least one ethics professor (and we all know there were many more) was a classic, liberal well outside of the mainstream of God who believed — and taught — that Paul’s teaching on women was disqualified by his personal bias that tainted the Biblical text; and that homosexual relationships could be justified by the classic liberal doctrine of higher ethic of love.
I also have the liberal first edition of volume one of the Broadman Commentary. So, let’s not act like liberalism has never been alive and well in our seminaries.
There’s some facts, boys. Stop saying we (CR types) don’t have or give facts. Try to dispute them. . . . with — here’s a novel approach for anti-CR types — facts.
I also gave a first-hand factual account of a liberal professor that was one of many that necessitated and gave rise to the CR.
Double Knot 7:
Correct me if I am wrong but have you not posted blogs before thanking God for the CR?
What inspires you to post them, I think I know the answer to that question and it has to do with self-serving.
At what point does it get to be redundant?
FYI, I shut down comments because we seemed to be devolving into insults and personal comments. We’ve all had our say.
I notified Matt that I did this and he may decide to reopen the comments later, when he is available. But it seemed to me that the glory of God required us to leave this comment stream behind. Perhaps we all ought to examine our hearts ask ourselves why we who serve Jesus Christ as Lord cannot hold conversations at a higher level than this one has become.
Good article, Brandon. Sorry we took it where we did.
Your call, Matt.
Comments on this entry are closed.