I am thrilled that the GCR report passed at the SBC Annual Meeting by a very strong majority. I guessed the vote to be about 75%-25%. Another blogger I ran into estimated things at 70%-30%. Someone else said it was 85%-15%. Hard to count. I could have wished that the vote was 95%-5% like the authorization vote last year, but the vote we had was a clear and convincing vote. The majority of the SBC was behind the GCR Report.
But there were many bizarre things that happened today in Orlando – some personal and some political. On the positive side, almost every one of these trips into Bizarro-land also carried with them a blessing. Let me tell you what I found bizarre today.
1) Don’t let anyone tell you that Baptists engage in group-think or refuse dissent. I cannot remember a convention where the elected leaders and the entity heads were in such sharp and clear disagreement. Morris Chapman came out with both guns blazing against the GCR in his report and the Task Force did not back down. It reminded me of the late 70’s and early 80’s when the elected leadership was moving the denomination in the Conservative Resurgence and the entity heads stood in opposition.
But do not mistake me. I thought the dissent was healthy, principled, even godly. Morris Chapman aimed his comments at the recommendations of the GCR, not the people who made the recommendations. Johnny Hunt referenced Morris Chapman’s principled dissent in a prayer and commended him for speaking his mind.
Those who say that the SBC squelches dissent need to deal with reality. I thought today’s GCR debate was a great example of how to argue the right way.
My perspective may be colored by the fact that I voted in the majority every time. But I thought the discussion was lively, reasoned, passionate and positive.
2) Barry McCarty, who is known as a great parliamentary expert, messed up the GCR debate royally. A motion was offered to do away with the Great Commission Giving system and the vote was too close to call. Ronnie Floyd offered a compromise which included some of the substitute motion’s language. We voted on it and it passed overwhelmingly. But no motion was made or seconded. They just made a suggestion and we voted. Has Barry McCarty ever messed up that badly in a parliamentary situation?
On the other hand, I greatly appreciated Ronnie Floyd (and the task force) and the conciliatory spirit he showed. I was critical of him yesterday but I thought he demonstrated a great, godly spirit.
Johnny, Ronnie, Barry, and the man who made the motion conferred for a long time and came up with a new compromise that satisfied nearly everyone. It was a godly resolution to an unseemly situation created by a incredible gaffe by Barry McCarty.
The Task Force did not set themselves in opposition to the man who made the motion. They demonstrated humility and a conciliatory spirit as they worked together to come up with a solution to the parliamentary gaffe.
3) The presidential election was a shocker. I sat with Leo Endel and none of us were shocked that he only garnered around 600 votes. The big shocker was that Jimmy Jackson did not make the run-off. Most bloggers in our little community endorsed him, including the so-called SBC Majority. Yet he finished third. And I was shocked that Bryant Wright outpolled Ted Traylor in the run-off. I thought most of the Jackson vote would go to Traylor. Shows what I know.
I did not vote for Bryant Wright – not in the original vote or in the run-off. But I probably wouldn’t have voted for Johnny Hunt two years ago and he has been a transformational leader for our denomination. Maybe Bryant Wright will be the same.
4) On a personal level. I had an extremely bizarre moment as I left the meeting tonight. Two men were standing about 3 feet apart (I don’t think either knew the other was there). I ended up having conversations with both at different times. Both of them were men I had viewed as villains in my early blogging days.
First, I was introduced to Jerry Corbaley whom I viewed negatively primarily because of how Wade Burleson represented him. I had a very pleasant conversation with him. We discussed our differing views on those IMB policies, but again, it was a cordial, reasonable discussion. I came away thinking that he seemed like a very nice man. I felt bad that I had judged him so harshly in days gone by. Who knows, folks? Maybe I should not have been so quick to fit him with a black hat based on someone else’s view of him. Know what I mean?
The other man I met was a luminary from the early days of Baptist blogging – Mr. Ben Cole! I had criticized him pretty harshly in the past as well. I stood in the hallway and talked to him for a couple of minutes. He’s an interesting man! Fascinating. I found myself thinking he would be a fun guy to hang out with, and to argue with. I also realized that some of the things I perceived about him, and some of the things others have said about him may not ring true.
It was surreal, but quite a privilege to meet and talk to two men I once had viewed so negatively. Think there might be a sermon illustration in there somewhere?
5) The funniest moment of the night came from a poor soul who was trying to speak against the GCR recommendations. He made a statement pretty much like this:
“I know that there are people who are dying and going to hell, and I am going to do everything I can to see that more people go there.”
I don’t think he heard the titters that ran throughout the convention center. Then, he ended his statement by saying,
“For this reason I am not going to be able to vote against this report.”
We knew what he meant, but it was a funny moment.
I will not be writing much more on the convention, since I will be leaving to drive back to Iowa mid-day tomorrow.
But in spite of everything, it has been a great week in Orlando. Especially fun was getting to meet so many of you in the blogging world – including one of our favorite commenters here – Rick. I met Todd Benkert, most of the SBC Today guys, Tim Guthrie, the inimitable CB Scott and so many more. Good times in the hot town of Orlando.
I wish this fat boy could tell you I sweated off a few pounds. Unfortunately, whatever I sweated off I put back on by frequent trips to visit my new best friend – Tony Roma.
Dave,
You mean you went back without to Romas without me? Man, and I was starting to think you were an ok guy!
Be safe traveling. I agree with your statements above. Maybe we are learning that the world of the blogs leaves much out and yet adds much exaggerations by some 🙂 !!!
I actually ate there three times. With you guys, then with David Rogers, Benji Ramsaur and Chris Johnson, then tonight by myself. I’m too tired to walk and its right by my hotel!
I got that shrimp scampi thing that Tim Rogers got the other night (though no one stole my shrimp).
The most bizarre moment was a motion made by some young whippersnapper about the Acts 29 network. He rapped the whole thing.
It was ruled out of order. But it was a highlight.
“teamwork will make the dream work.” lol. i just watched the vid on youtube.
Sure Jerry Corbalay was nice. 1. He was not against you in the IMB trustee meetings. 2. Hawaii tends to mellow. Heck, I would be mellow living in Hawaii.
The lesson for me was judging one man on the basis of another man’s harsh words about him.
Anyone who stood against Don Quixote did a good thing for the SBC as his recent extreme leftward drift has proven.
Dave: I read Jerry’s blog for 2 years. It was not an understatement. But if he has mellowed now good for him.
Dave,
I have not heard—what came of the motion against sealing the debate/discussion of the GCRTF for 15 years? Did that get voted on?
the records of the motion against sealing the discussions have also been sealed. 🙂
“No motion records for you. Come back in 15 years”
The convention just defeated that motion since GCR task force members had promised confidentiality to certain individuals related to sensitive personnel matters. The records will remain sealed.
Of course, this raises the question: “Who asked them to talk about personnel?” I thought they were supposed to be talking about the Great Commission.
See, them wanting to keep anything secret is a red flag in my book.
Joe, you are absolutely right. We all no that “secrecy” and the gospel are oxymoronic. We have a whole book in the Bible titled: The Unveiling.
It has been my experience over 31 years of ministry that something said about someone else in secret, almost never glorified God — in fact, I’ll say never.
And, what good will it be to find out 15 years from now that the whole thing was a sham. A little late don’t you thing?
I’m disgusted with the whole denominational thing. I’m a small church pastor in a big church field. Overwhelmingly I think Johnny Hunt and the other Celebrities clearly indicated a small time pastor like myself is neither wanted or needed in the SBC. I heard the cry, “just let us do it. We don’t need you.”
And, before anyone accuses me of sour grapes let me say, “I don’t think Johnny Hunt or any of the other celebrities would last a month in a church like mine in California.” When I get to heaven I will bow my head low because I know I disappointed my Lord so much in this life — but, one thing I hope I can say, “I didn’t give up.”
I was disgusted, too. Which is why I got out of the cult of personality “religion”. Too much talk about men and programs and not enough about Jesus Christ. And where is the Holy Spirit? Seems we do not need Him anymore since man has all the answers, programs and money.
I do not think you are sour grapes. I think you have an “Awakening” going on..
I thought the GCR vote was closer to 60-40, 55-45. I’m still shocked that Johnny Hunt read from Joshua and called everyone “infidels” whose “carcasses” will litter the desert who don’t vote for GCR. The manipulative spirit that pushed this through leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth. I pray good will come from it but I fear we drove many away today.
Bill Pfister
Taylors, SC
Notice the TF boys all push the 80% number. Imagine that.
Bill, I think you are reading something in to what he said.
I was there and am quite sure it was at least 70-30, probably more.
Baptist Press said 75-25. So it was probably 130 to -30 in favor. 🙂
I seem to remember Ben Cole making a very intentional and public exit from the SBC. Did he say why he was there?
To meet me, I’m sure!
Daniel,
I do not know why Ben was there but I did hear repeatedly that contrary to a rumor put out by a certain individual that Ben did not become Catholic. I found that extremely interesting.
Seems some who claim perfection are being found to be non perfect! 🙂
(Name corrected per Wade’s apology.)
Dear Tim,
I think your search for any claim of perfection will prove as fruitless as attempting to follow your logic.
Contrary to what you might think, attending a Roman Catholic chruch is neither a curse leading to hell nor something for which people should be ashamed. Ask Chuck Colson’s wife. Or, ask Ben’s mentor at Baylor, Frank Beckwith, former President of the Evangelical Theological Society.
Whether someone has changed from where he or she was attending church in the past, is between them and the Lord. Some people might attend a Roman Catholic church, or participate in mass, and not consider themselves Roman Catholic, and others might see it as a change of faith. What Ben considers is something only he can answer.
In His Grace,
Wade
Wade is right . . . and wrong. Changing churches tells nothing in regard to true faith. Wade’s right about that. Nothing we do in the commerce of culture is ever: “Just between them and the Lord.” Wade is wrong about that.
Following Wade’s logic: someone can attend a Wiccan Coven and not consider themselves a Wiccan. I suppose that is possible in theory. But, with something as intimate as religion, one would at least seem to be in harmony with those they choose to worship with.
In regard to Roman Catholicism. I think the Bible is pretty clear that they are mighty close to that which Paul calls, “anathema,” in Galatians 1, and following throughout the Book.
Plus, I’m not sure appealing to any authority and using Baylor in the same sentence is any kind of compliment in regard to conservative Baptist faith.
I guess this falls under the category of: “If you stand for nothing you can fall for anything.”
Despite your ridiculous protestations that “Faith trumps belief”, Catholics have a counterfeit Jesus (His death on the cross was not suffiicient to save and you have to get the grace needed for salvation by the sacraments) and a different gospel (you are not saved by faith but you are saved by faith plus sacraments). Further, they consider Mary a co-redemtrix with Jesus. Also, their doctrine of purgatory is interesting I guess but it doesn’t have something to do with anything revealed in scripture. Therefore, going to a Catholic church is most certainly something to be ashamed of since their doctrine isn’t biblical doctrine. There is biblical doctrine and there is Catholic doctrine–one is true and the other one isn’t.
To whomever is using my name as an identifier – it is wrong to assume an identity that is NOT yours. But maybe that is telling of where some in the blog world are taking blogging.
It is not funny – it is sad. I would hope those who control this site will address this!???
Tim G.,
My apologies. In my previous comment I accidentally typed my salutation to you (Tim G.) in the name box under “Leave a Comment” instead of my own name.
I don’t know why you imply that Ben’s attendance at a Roman Catholic church in D.C. is a rumor or that somehow he should somehow be embarrassed about it. The following was written by Ben to a handful of people and forwarded to me.
“My reception into the Catholic Church last Spring was the culmination of years of reflection and the Lord has opened doors for me that would have never been possible if I’d stayed shackled in Southern Baptist hell, fighting foolish battles to accomplish silly victories for the Lilliutians who thrive on such pettiness.”
Whether “reception into the Catholic Church last Spring” is attendance or membership is something I don’t know.
What about the question today to Dr. Iorg on James White? Or maybe it’s just me…. 🙂
Dear Tim,
You wrote: “I did hear repeatedly that contrary to a rumor put out by a certain individual that Ben did not become Catholic. I found that extremely interesting. Seems some who claim perfection are being found to be non perfect!”
It seems you either owe someone an apology or should stop listening to people who are apparantly lying to you. Or, it is possible you need to do both.
I was watching via life stream and I think the CGR vote sounded more like 77.634 to 22.366. But I might not have heard too clearly.
🙂
David, I just want to say a word about your encounter with Jerry Corbaley. I began debating Jerry over 30 years ago when we attended California Baptist College (now University) together. We have stayed in touch throughout the years.
He has a sharp mind and a dogged-determination to be Biblical in his world-view. He believes that principles matter and there are no “small doctrines.”
I forget now the running score of our debates, but I’m sure I’m ahead on points 🙂 I count it a great privilege to have begun ministry with Jerry 30 plus years ago and to still be an SBC partner pastor all these years after.
I know he’s been slammed by the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship crowd and the crowd that would be CBF but don’t have the guts to leave, but I know him to be a loving, genuine Christian brother. I’m happy to call him my friend.
the crowd that would be CBF but don’t have the guts to leave
AMEN!!! I still have the hardest time understanding why folks like Don Quixote and those folks identified as SBC over at the Bpatistlife fourms won’t leave. The only possible reasons I can come up with are:
*they have no convictions. They don’t care about staying true to what they believe becaus to do that you would need integrity. This also explains why there is no one, not one single faith group whatsoever, that they would not cooperate with.
*they really believe that, like the Sith, if they hang around and hide in plain sight, they’ll be able to say “At last, we shall have our revenge”. Hence the reason that with moderates you really have to “smoke ’em out” so to speak to get them to admit where they stand on issues. At least liberals will come out and openly deny the faith. Moderates like Don Quixote do the same thing they just want to be hush-hush about it.
Tim Guthrie,
Where are you? Do you always go quiet when clearly refuted? I, like Steve, believe you owe someone an apology.
Tim does not owe anyone an apology, as far as I am concerned. He came on and saw someone posting in his name and that upset him. It would upset me. Wade apologized, clarified and that was that. And, I can tell you that Tim is exactly right about what was being said at the convention.
And of course we all know that gossip at the Convention is always right. 🙂
I watched SBC on internet. I had a great view of the vote. I thought it was very interesting, on such a major vote, the convention DID NOT ballot vote. They scanned the entire crowd on this vote. From my view, it was 52%-48%. If any of you pastor’s had your church vote like that, on a major issue, I do not see in the name of integrity how one can call that a unifying vote to move your church forward. I hope none of you are treated like that in your church. It remains to be seen if the SBC will move forward. My first pulse take, is in 2 (two) years it will be so dismantled, most SBC churches will be just like a non-denominational indep. church. Perhaps small pockets of a group fellowship. But no convention. I sense, we witnessed the last well attended convention in SBC history. The Phyx. convention(2011) will have less than 5000 attending.
I lost my internet connection just as they were going to the vote. I cannot believe that they did not use a ballot on what all the Stage Celebrities called “the most important vote in recent years.”
I think that tells more than all the discussions in the blog. This is the same, “win-at-any-cost” attitude we see in our government.
Here’s two lessons I’ve learned from 17 years in the Conservative Resurgence: 1) What you gain by a vote, you can lose by a vote; 2) “winning at any cost” is never worth the cost when you are talking about a “body” such as the Convention, an Association, or a church.
Matt: You are wise to have such insight!
Carl, I was alluding to Morris Chapman’s take on the issue. As a disclaimer, I’m not a strong supporter of Morris Chapman in regard to his tenure at the EC. Not personal, just not a fan.
However, what he proposed did not require a “vote” (which by definition always divides) but something much richer and more effective — volition.
We need a willful (volitional) surrender to the Lord to more aggressively pursue the Great Commission. Now, if changes need to be made in our structure to accomplish this, than so be it. But, we have put the proverbial cart before the horse and it will no doubt become like the dozens of other “slogans” we have come up with as S. Baptists.
We have got to find a way to unite around the “Great Commission” and “voting” is a sure way to divide.
Matt: I would love to see SBC united. However, the SBC is so very divided, not in a mean spirit or stewing hate, but just can’t seem to clear the the clouds of ego, pride, and and control to see the playing field. Connect the dots, there have been three generations come and go, and SBC has failed to educate churches on who we are as Southern Baptist and the powerful way that, when supported by unity, the cooperative program covers many bases, without bias selected giving. SBC will hear very clearly in the months ahead of it’s decision made in Orlando.
Carl, I sat in the middle of the auditorium and I can tell you that 52-48 is absolute fantasy. I sat with a group of friends who were ALL opposed to the GCR. While they might not have liked the vote, they did not try to argue that the vote was not absolutely clear.
You do not get to rewrite the facts.
We shall see about fantasy or fiction! For the record, I don’t argue. Just like the vote, you don’t get it! But I love you in Christ. You hang in there Mr. Miller.
David Miller,
I think what Art is saying is that Tim Guthrie has had his rumor mongering accusation refuted by facts. Rather than acknowledging Guthrie’s error, you simply say you “heard” the same thing Tim heard at the Southern Baptist Convention. Yet you both have been given the written statement by Ben Cole that he was received into the Catholic Church. Maybe you should join Tim Guthrie in issuing an apology as well, unless of course, your agenda is the same as Tim’s.
Steve
Lets take Carl Meinetta’s hypothesis another step. Remember “What If”. What if for lack of interest the SBC and entities was liquidated. Where would the billions & billions of dollars go? To the Officers of SBC ? To church members who at some point provided money to acquire these properties & bank accounts? That might be priviledged information but I am free to state the question not in the interest of starting trouble but only so thousands of people understand. You are free to ignore. State Conventions would be very important. Indivigual well run churchs would be a safe place to be. Is some of the handwriting on the wall? I’m done.
Would someone enlighten me as to why we would suggest that someone who becomes a Catholic from Baptist life is some example to follow.
Or, how that person is defended after saying that being a Southern Baptist is “being shackled in hell.” Wow! And someone owes this man an apology! I mean, at least he could have said we are in “purgatory,” and at least given us a chance to be prayed out, paid out, and candle-lit out 🙂
Jack, you ask very important questions
Mr. Miller wrote: “I am thrilled that the GCR report passed at the SBC Annual Meeting by a very strong majority. I guessed the vote to be about 75%-25%. Another blogger I ran into estimated things at 70%-30%. Someone else said it was 85%-15%. Hard to count. I could have wished that the vote was 95%-5% like the authorization vote last year, but the vote we had was a clear and convincing vote. The majority of the SBC was behind the GCR Report.”
Personally, I do not know Mr. Miller, he seems to a major blogger on
this site. But on his observation on the vote (GCR) at Orlando, he must have blinked. Granted the majority voted for GCR, but I observed with both eyes, and it was close. Clearly, a divided house on that item. But then, lot of folks, are wired to see what they want to see.
Carl,
I will say that I heard several people say that the GCR passed by a 60-40 vote. From where I was sitting, it looked like a 70-30, but of course I was in the front and on the left side of the building, and I couldnt see much of the convention hall. But, I can guarantee you that if component number 3 had not been changed, then the GCR would’ve stood a very good chance of failing. I was voting against it, until they changed it.
I voted for it…not in an excited way. But, I do like a lot of what it says. Of course, all this does is suggest, recommend, ask the different entities of the SBC to do these changes. It does not “make them” do these things. So, now, it will be up to the different boards of trustees to either do these things that the GCR recommends, or not do them.
And, only time will tell if this report will really make any difference , or not. I sincerely hope that it will.
David
Carl, I don’t know you and I don’t mean this to be as confrontational as it seems. But if you thought that vote was “close” you were looking through the eyes of hope.
There is no way it was less than about 3-1, the official record reported by the “powers-that-be.”
Why no ballot? It seems to me “reported by the powers to be” indicates that it was actually really closer. Even the way you phrased your post indicates the deep division this has caused.
My suspicion is that the divide will get worse not better. I can see no way that you can leave 1 our of 3 baptists behind (and that’s the best the number might be) and simply move forward gloating in victory. I don’t see any hope in that.
Now, if it had lost the vote, then there would have been the opportunity to bring a compromise plan back to the body and avoid the collateral damage. I suspect from watching the Stage Celebrities react to this proposal quite negatively at the Convention, they realized it was “now or never.”
Nothing in the fiasco would cause me to be “hopeful.”
Matt, there was no fiasco. It is clear you have a bitter spirit about something. But the GCR debate was actually a calm, spirited debate and your characterizations of it are simply wrong.
As to the ballot vote, none was necessary. The vote was so clearly overwhelming. Look at SBC Today. David Worley was no GCR fan and he reported the vote at 70-30.
There will, of course, be deep divisions in the SBC if they kind of angry spirit you display in all your comments here spreads. I pray that it does not.
I made a commitment to be a more positive and less confrontational blogger, but since I have read your constant comments berating everyone in the SBC, I figured you would not mind if I told you directly and honestly that I think your attitude stinks.
Dave, I respect your right to speak your mind even if you feel the need to attack me. Let’s use your facts. You say the vote was 70/30. Do you call that “unity?” I don’t know any pastor that would take a church on a 70% vote. In fact, most by-laws would not allow it. I don’t know a pastor that would take a 70/30 vote on something purportedly as important as the GCR. So, I think you are mistaken in accusing me of being the reason for all the divisiveness. I’m flattered, however, you would think I am that important.
Now, let’s examine your claim there was “no fiasco.” Never before (in the last 30 years I’m aware of) has the parlimentary procedure been so — for lack of a better word — screwed up. That’s just one example leading to my “fiasco” comment. And, you gave that word a connotation I did not intend. I didn’t mean the convention was a “brawl or street-fight.” I meant it had an unusual drama about it that indicated there were many agendas posturing for control. I can’t remember a time when they “stood easy” while the had compromise meetings on stage. That’s what I meant by fiasco.
And, what you call “spirited” is an echo of something you heard from the Stage Celebrities, not the floor. Clearly, this was a “divisive” issue, not a “spirited” issue–but of course, each of us are entitled to put our own spin on the matter.
And, your ad hominem attack calling me bitter would lose you points in any debate. I’m not bitter and I’ve gone out of my way to only address the personalities that put their names in the limelight.
Now, what you are perhaps assuming is that you know more about the issues than I do. That might be the case. I have no way to prove otherwise. I have “personally” been involved in some issues that predate the last two years of Johnny’s presidency and bear upon the operations of NAMB. So, your assumption of what I might or might not know are without any basis.
I would love to name names and give dates and ask some very pointed questions, but I don’t think it is appropriate so I am trying to be very guarded about what I say without letting you or others force your opinions and analysis upon me. I was not at the Convention, but I watched very closely. I have gone back and watched again a few parts. So, I feel I can have an opinion as to whether this was the most unified (your word, “spirited”) convention in recent years, or whether there may be a huge rift in SBC life that may be getting bigger by the day.
I’ve taken quite a bit of your time to respond to your personal attack because I am not bitter about anything (that I am aware of), I’m just “spirited” 🙂
Sorry, Matt.
I assumed someone who “dishes it out” as you do might appreciate an honest opinion.
For the record, I do not believe I attacked you. I told you that I believe your demonstrate a spirit that I do not think is appropriate to redeemed conversation. I speak of your attitude, not your positions.
We can express our opinions without vitriol, without assigning motives to those with whom we disagree, without anger and bitterness.
Considering Baptist Press reported the numbers at 75-25 (and they certainly aren’t part of any “Pro-GCR conspiracy”), I can’t see it being as close as some are claiming.
Josh, I’m not debating the numbers. Nobody knows what they are. So, I don’t know how the numbers can ever find agreement. Please see my note to David above. I’ll even concede the 75/25 vote. To me, that is not a Convention in harmony. I certainly would not consider that a harmonous vote in my church — on an issue as big as this is purported to be.
The vote was probably a 70-30 vote on the GCR. BUT, I want to make it perfectly clear that the amendment to component #3 was as split as it possibly could be. It was gonna have to go to a ballot vote it was so close. Johnny Hunt and the fellas on the platform saw that it was way to close to call. And, if taken to a vote, Great Commission Giving probably would’ve failed…the amendment very possibly would’ve passed. And, if they had not changed #3, then the GCR very possibly would not have passed.
But, they did change #3 some…made the CP language stronger…and it the GCR passed.
Matt, the SBC entities and state conventions, and others DO NOT have to implement this report. This was just a suggestion…recommendation…to them from the convention to do these things. So, we’ll see how it plays out. And, we’ll see if it really does any good, or not in the near future.
I sincerely hope that the GCR will help us start more good, sound, Baptist churches. I really do hope that it will result in more CP dollars getting to the mission field. I reallly hope it does all the good that some people think it will. I’m just not really sure that it will.
DAvid
I don’t know that I agree that the GCR wouldn’t have passed without the language change. It would have been closer, but other votes had gone more narrowly in the favor of the GCR.
I guess we’ll never know for sure.
So, let me get this straight, Ben left the SBC because “if I’d stayed shackled in Southern Baptist hell, fighting foolish battles to accomplish silly victories for the Lilliutians who thrive on such pettiness.” And, according to Wade, he went to the Roman Catholic Church to accomplish this escape? Now, that is funny. lol
David
Friends,
With a few days to reflect, some of my own conclusions:
1. We need a new parliamentarian, preferably non-Baptist. Poor Barry is like the referee in the US – Slovenia soccer match. When it takes a woman to stand up and declare what everybody is thinking, namely that we are being bullied and are screwing up parliamentary procedure, things have gotten wildly out of hand.
2. In the vote that was close, which would have removed “GC giving” language, when the request was made from the platform “in the interest of unity and togetherness” to work out a substitute motion in order to avoid 35 minutes of ballot counting, if it had been me, in hindsight, I would have replied, “Brother moderator, in the interest of unity and togetherness, I would be happy to buy your dinner tonight while the tellers count those ballots!”
3. Many, many people were still at the microphones when time ran out. We barely discussed the other components. Somebody surely would have moved to divide the question. 90 minutes is plenty of time to debate one major issue, but not nearly enough time to debate all seven.
4. The Pastor’s Conference was seriously politicized. Not sure I’ll go next year if they’re just going to tell me how to vote.
5. Sealing the records for 15 years was a mistake. Some Baptist journalist or blogger with a source is going to break a story.
Rick has some strong points and I have no credentialed dawg in this hunt but a couple points about McCarty.
He is a professional parliamentarian and I think since the early conventions at 15,000 a pop he has worked for free.
There is only an allotted time set for discussion and I’m not sure it is his call to maneuver how that time goes; it just goes how it goes.
McCarty on the other hand was very suspect in the early days when Helms forces were quite a part of the defunding of the Baptist Joint Committee, McCarty at the time Helms Choice to head the NC GOP.
VS Naipaul in his book that toured American about 15 years ago has 3-5 fascinating pages about McCarty and his Brand of Eastern North Carolina culture politics.
But as far as brass tacks of parliamentary procedure, I may be surprised but I doubt any body could make a case he played the angles to benefit a prearranged agenda.
Maybe Barry Hankins knows of some study that looks at McCarty
All that said, I agree with Rick, woulda been interesting to have had full time to discuss the GCR points that most troubled Morris Chapman
“When it takes a woman to stand up and declare what everybody is thinking, namely that we are being bullied and are screwing up parliamentary procedure, things have gotten wildly out of hand.”
Why? Is there something wrong with women?
Please replace “woman” with person. The emphasis I intended was not really on gender. It was the idea that a “regular messenger” had to sort it out rather than the professional parliamentarian. In this case, it happened to be a woman, but it could have just as easily been a man.
Rick, think we are starting a dangerous trend of agreeing.
1) The parliamentary gaffe was brutal.
On the other hand – I do not think Barry McCarty is Baptist. He is still an expert on this.
While I thought the pastor’s conference was way too politicized, I thought that the debate and discussion itself flowed pretty smoothly – right up until the amendment.
I did not think anyone was being bullied – thought that was unfair. I think they messed up, but I think they were genuinely trying to manage things well and find a compromise, but they just did not dot the i’s and cross the t’s.
All that to say that the parliamentarian was hired to manage stuff like this and he did not do his job.
2) You are looking at this with the eyes of hindsight, aren’t you? Knowing the parliamentary fiasco that followed, it would not have slowed us down much to take a ballot vote. But they did not know about that at the time.
I think that Ronnie Floyd and the Task Force thought they had found a way forward and took it. Had they handled the substitute motion correctly at the start, it would have been a much better decision. The compromise motion passed overwhelmingly – so it was expressing the will of the majority.
One more thing on that – GC Giving should not have passed or been defeated by a 50.1 to 49.9 percent vote, however it turned out. Wasn’t it better to find a solution that a vast majority could support?
3) That happens all the time. In a room of 10,000, we cannot let everyone have their say, or we’d still be there now.
4) I agree with you about the Pastor’s conference. Having met you, I assume you are a little younger than me (just well preserved?). It was the same way in 1979. The Pastor’s Conference was a conservative pep-rally for electing Adrian and dealing with liberalism in the denomination.
I thought Ronnie Floyd went way too far. Frankly, I was out in the hall talking to people during much of it. Thought David Platt was a home run. He gave a biblical defense of the concept of sacrifice.
I thought the pressure was unseemly.
5) Agreed. Perhaps there is nothing there – more than just the employment issue. But they left us with the idea that there is some deep, dark secret they are hiding.
Dave,
It was good to meet you..in person. You’re a big fella like myself. I enjoyed meeting you.
I agree about the statement about “personnel discussions” that needed to be kept quiet for 15 years. What in the world was that all about? Why would they be discussing personnel issues?
That was not their job. And, what were these discussions about? Who gets to be the next Pres. of whatever? Who needs to be the next Exec. Dir. of whatever? What in the world did that statement mean? I guess…unless a journalist with an inside source leaks the info….I’ll be 63 years old before I’ll be able to have that question answered. But, I thought that was a little bizarre and troublesome. I mean, were they talking about getting someone fired, who’s in the way of some agenda? Were they talking about getting someone on..in a place of leadership? Or, what? And, that’s the problem, aint it? There will now be speculation and skepticism in the future over that statement… especially if some of the people start getting positions in SBC leadership places…or if their good buddies get placed in places of authority in the SBC. Why have all the SBC wondering and speculating and being skeptical and such?
I really see that statement and the “keep it quiet for 15 years” thing to cause a lot of trouble in the future. Or, it could.
David
Isn’t Barry the same parlimentarian that facilitated the pedophile meeting at Bellevue for Steve Gaines? Where they cut the mic off so the victim of the pedophile minister, his own son, could not speak?
Let me try to clarify one point, Rick. Barry McCarty is not a Baptist. In fact, I believe he is a Church of Christ pastor, who also serves as a professional parliamentarian.
Unless he has changed denominations in the last couple of years, Micah is correct.
Micah,
You are right. Thanks for the correction. I checked and he is indeed not a Baptist. He is the Pastor of Peachtree Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Atlanta, Georgia. He is also entitled to a bad day at the office from time to time. I certainly have them. I don’t believe he intentionally did anything to create the chaos. But it did seem messy.
Try to understand this year’s convention from the perspective of those who came to Orlando with principled opposition to some of the components. After enduring a Pastor’s Conference in which we were told exactly how to vote by several of the speakers, after being called names and accused of being against the Great Commission, after a debate in which only a few microphones were ever recognized (how strange!) and several of the components were never even discussed (Seven, anyone?), there was finally a moment of genuine relief when the amendment to remove GC language was made and the vote appeared close to 50-50. Isn’t this why God made ballots? Isn’t this why we elect tellers? After all, Baptists are famous for counting things.
So I’ll leave with you with one last bit of irony: in the most important vote concerning the most controversial issue related to how we “count” missions support, after debating at length the issue of how we should count and what we should count, we didn’t even count the ballots.
I don’t think you had 90 minutes for debate, maybe 45 at most. Lot of the time was taken by Floyd and the committee in Presentation.
As for Pastor’s Conference beingPoliticized, strong case there woulda been know CR in 79 and onward without the Pastor’s Conference to get the juices rollin for Patterson and Pressler’s cause.
So the gander is goosed or some such version
I have been attending SBCs since 1979 — when I was nine years old — first w/ my dad, and now as a pastor myself. The older I get the more I don’t like them. I don’t know — maybe too much celebrity, top-down thinking (like mega-church pastors and convention heads telling the rest of us how to vote and what to support).
To me, the best parts of the convention was the NAMB report of all things. Seeing the great commission fleshed out, not talked about, was fantastic.
BTW, I thought it sadly ironic that after all afternoon (and months prior) of arguing about the Great Commission, the Tuesday night session in which the IMB presented, the Hall was nearly empty.
BTW, I thought it sadly ironic that after all afternoon (and months prior) of arguing about the Great Commission, the Tuesday night session in which the IMB presented, the Hall was nearly empty.
——–
Heath, this is a troubling insight that points out part of the hypocrisy that troubles us all. I’m hoping that the empty room was not a result of apathy, but something else.
Over the last 32 plus years, I’ve watched a “top down” mentality creep in (on all sides and both sides). Some denominations are geared that way, but the SBC is not. If we count the “mega-church as the ultimate expression of success,” then I’m afraid that our success will kill our Convention.
Believe me, there are some folks out there (and I won’t mention the three letters that describe their fellowship) that would love to see the SBC die. But, they are really not the ones that will gloat the most if the SBC diminishes in any way. I think this would be quite pleasing to the Devil.
Why Matt? God would just use people. It says in scripture that His Word will never pass away. He certainly doesn’t need the SBC to fulfill the Great Commission. If the SBC dies, it will be his will for it to die, not Satan’s.
Debbie, it is no secret you have a love affair with Wade and mutual hatred for the SBC. It is clear from other blogs you write on which I only recently discovered.
True, God does not need the SBC. But, how do you know God did not “choose” the SBC. I know the very thought that God would choose a group of people that honor his Word and do not permit women pastors really gets your goat as Momma would say.
To say that it is “God’s will for the SBC” to die would be the same as saying it was “God’s will for Irael to sin and fall away.” I suppose in some hyper-Calvinist, reform out of control theology, you can feel comfortable with that.
I’m pretty sure from reading Paul’s letter to the Romans, that God is not the “author of sin,” or the champion of death. I believe if the SBC dies because it loses a love for His Word and a commitment to His cause, it was our fault, not His.
I also stumbled over Wade’s Blog. To make fun of people who are earnestly and faithfully trying to reach people for Christ, in the name of “debate” or defense of some misguided understanding of God’s Sovereignty, is perhaps the saddest thing I can think of. I noticed your name in several of the bandwagon posts.
So, your snide remarks and vitriol against anything SBC, under the guise of Reformation Theology, would break the heart of Martin Luther and Calvin — both of whom, by the way, were not “needed” by God either.
Matt,
Amem, Brother. I like your style.
David
Debbie, It is already dead. The proof is in the need for “recommendations” for a Great Commission. So many are so caught up in the institution and cult of personality, they cannot see the big picture.
Believers cannot help but to carry out the Great Commission. They do not need recommendations. They have the Word and they know that God provides. We could take a lesson from Hudson Taylor and George Mueller.
“Cult of personality?” Debbie and Wade.
No, I was thinking of those with power who are on stages. Few are listening to Debbie or Wade.
Too many Matts – its confusing!
I disagree with the assumption that the need to remind us of the importance of the Great Commission implies that the SBC is dead.
Jesus reminded the Ephesian church to return to its first love, but that did not mean that they were dead. They just needed a warning.
To say that the SBC needs a reminder of its true priorities is one thing. I think it is remarkable and unfair to say that the necessity of this reminder implies that it is already too late for our convention.
Dave, I totally agree with your analysis — so I must be the other Matt 🙂 Now, I’m confused.
What’s this SBC I keep hearing you talk about?
I want my Hawkeye sweatshirt back.
You liberals are all alike.
Matt 2239,
Thirty Years? Thirty Years?
Email me at jerrycorbaley@gmail.com
Dave Miller,
Next time we do lunch, okay?
Jerry
I’ll buy. You pick the restaurant.
I have a better idea. Why don’t I come to Hawaii to visit?
Dave,
Done!
Matt 2239!
I am picking my memory apart to figure out who you are. From the clues above, I’m thinking we share the same initials.
Eh?
Jerry
Jerry, I told them you had a very sharp mind. I don’t use my name because I have had problems with an email stalker over the last five years. He takes my identity and I get some unusual emails from some very angry people.
I praying God is blessing you and your wife is getting healthier with each coconut 🙂
Dave,
Come on ahead. I could meet you at the airport.
Jerry
It’s my prayer, despite the 70-30, 60-40, 75-25 (vote as we all guess), there will be not be sharp division among us. God’s power will be more available to us, as we walk in obedience and unity.
I saw the convention close on the internet. Sadly, it looked like 75-80% of the messengers had left the hall, when Tony Nolan got up to speak. However, Tony Nolan’s message was the “Highlight” of the convention. The NAMB report was a close second, fresh 1st person testimonies were powerful visuals of really doing the Great Commission. Sadly, it appeared many many messengers missed it. I hope we didn’t tell the world we were more passionate about positions and reports, than see a dying world redeemed by the power of Jesus. I’ll keep praying John 17. Peace to all of you.
I had left to head home by them. I would guess that many folks were worn out by that time and headed back either home, to to hotels (or theme parks).
Unfortunate, but when the Convention is in Orlando, that stuff happens.
Matt: To compare the SBC with Israel is ridiculous.
Debbie, I’ve disagreed with Matt quite a bit, but your analysis of his statement is faulty. He is not comparing the SBC with Israel. He is using Israel as an illustration.
Debbie, for the sake of clarity and at the risk of seeming very unloving, let me say: “You and I are never gonna agree on anything and I don’t intend to pretend you and I have the same agenda.”
You are a Wadite and nothing is going to change that. The CBF was conceived in deep-seated hatred for the SBC (I have personal knowledge of that hatred in personal interaction with the “Top Dog”). That animosity prevents you from seeing anything good in the SBC at all.
When I criticize the SBC, I do it as an insider. It is where — for good or ill — I feel God has placed me. You interact in regard to the SBC like the leader of the pack — attack dogs. I only say this based upon your comments and Wade’s comments on his blog. He has an ax to grind, and the SBC is the chicken for whom he is grinding it. I hope you understand the barnyard metaphor.
Now, I don’t even disagree that Wadites might have legitimate grievances. But, he has clearly removed himself (if I understand what he has written) from SBC life. So, why continue to toss rocks back at the SBC. Just move on.
I may one day “move on” myself. But, I hope I do so without constantly feeling the need to “throw stones” back at those I’ve chosen to walk away from.
Again, please do not add any personal element to this. I would not choose to attack you or disparage your relaitonship with God since I do not know you.
But, it is obvious anything I say, you are going to take the opposite side. Israel as you know is an archetypical nation, so the lessons that apply to her can broadly be applied to any religious group, or nation for that matter. This is not to say the SBC is “chosen” in the since that Israel was God’s “chosen” people. However, I believe there is clear, historical evidence that God has blessed the SBC, and my prayer is He will continue to do so. Of course, I don’t expect a Wadite to agree with that statement.
Again, I only know you and Wade by what you write. This is also true on you part in regard to me. However, let’s not kid ourselves about how each of us feels about the SBC. I’m a supporter and I have the diplomas on my wall to prove it.
It’s interesting that you call me who disagrees with you and agrees with Wade a “Wadite” instead of dealing with the facts. I do agree with Wade because I have also seen it myself from the inside. I have been doing this for 4 years, but it’s not any different than I have seen in Fundamentalist camps. Same MO. I do think for myself, but that is too hard for some to deal with. Deal with the facts Matt. Leave the trite name calling alone. To be honest nothing frustrates me more than instead of conversing, name calling(which if you notice I do not use) takes away from the issues not being confronted. Nice ruse, but it doesn’t work with me.
That’s right, you spend your time going on other blogs and telling people to “Shut up” and threatening that you would punch them in the nose.
I’m dying for a link on that one, Joe.
The “punch you in the nose” was on her blog…it may take more than a minute to find it. The “Shut up” was on Peter’s blog about a week or two before the convention. Again, it may take more than a minute to find the link.
Dave: Joe’s telling the truth(for once) I most certainly did. 🙂 I even posted one of Joe’s fine comments as a main post.
<a href="http://debbiekaufman.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/joe-black-wants-his-comment-posted-he-wants-to-be-heard-so-i-will-post-it-as-a-post/"Joe Wants To Be Heard"
Just so you can see the guy you are giving encouragement too. By your giving encouragement Dave, this is why the SBC is in the state it is in. It’s why we need a change of the heart, not talking about it, not committees but a moving of the Spirit. That is what is going to change the SBC from what Wade, I, and many others see to a thriving denomination. There are some Joe’s in our midst although thankfully Joe himself is not currently SBC. If God would do a work in his heart, I would embrace him. Until then, yes I want to punch him in the nose. 🙂
http://debbiekaufman.wordpress.com/2010/04/08/oh-good-grief-a-response-to-jason-smathers-on-sbcvoices/#comment-4189
2nd paragraph, 1st sentance
http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2010/06/alexander-the-coppersmith-strikes-again-a-rejoinder-to-james-white-part-iia-by-peter-lumpkins.html?cid=6a00d83451a37369e20134836a95dc970c#comment-6a00d83451a37369e20134836a95dc970c
Two comments where Cough-man tells people to shut up.
That was either disturbing – or refreshingly honest. Not sure. But kinda funny.
See, here’s the thing–the reason she was going to punch me in the nose (and you have NO idea how bad I wish she had the opportunity to try, seriously) is because I had, once again, pointed out the real reasons she is on like her Uncle Donkey Kong about the Caner issue. She doesn’t CARE about integrity or the gospel. Proof- she and Don Quixote contacted MoKahn for information and never ONCE did either of them share the gospel with him. So getting Caner is more of a priority than sharing the gospel with someone who is going to hell? Seriously, THAT is more important. Further proof–she and Don Quixote are the two biggest supporters/apologists I have ever seen for Wm Paul and The Shack. Where was their righteous indignation when the man wrote a book filled with heresy and made numoerous hiertical claims on mulitiple radio interviews? There was none. Therefore, they don’t care about the gospel or defending it.
Now, just to point out, I’m not saying Caner is innocent or that no one should be asking these questions. People with integrity who love Christ are asking questions that deserve to be answered. Then there’s Coughman and Don Quixote, neither of whom fall in those catagories.
I know this post wasn’t about Caner but I thought some context to Coughman’s threat (which, again, I really REALY wish she had the opportunity to try) would make it even funnier.
Debs can’t handle the truth.
The whole Caner debate has been the ugliest and perhaps silliest thing I have seen on blogs.
1) None of us really has the facts.
2) Many people on both sides believe they have the facts and believe they are on the side of righteousness.
3) Both sides paint the other as evil.
I’m glad I’ve pretty much stayed out of this one.
Were you the one about to get punched in the nose?
Yep. Links are in moderations, btw. Debbie just can’t handle the truth.
Debbie, Wade has a point of view – as we all do. But he is a crusader, and anti-SBC leadership idealogue. Crusaders tend to marshal facts which support their point of view, interpret events in such a way as to support their crusade, and ignore or deny those which don’t. I’ve been in this thing a long time – since the early days of the IMB controversy. I’ve observed Wade.
I’m not saying that he is evil, or that he is always wrong. But neither is he a dispassionate observer. He is a relentless (and I think unbalanced) critic of SBC leadership. He will turn almost any event into a reason to criticize current SBC leadership.
He makes some good points from time to time, but I also think his disdain for the SBC often clouds his judgment and perspective.
The facts speak for themselves. To be labeled the ugliest. I agree. To be labeled the silliest we would most certainly disagree Dave. That may be our biggest problem. There are too many Caners in the Southern Baptist realm. Darrel Gilyards. Mike Warnke. The truth in Christianity is anything but silly. Just ask the lost. It is what they are seeking is Truth. Yet we give them fantasy stories. And we wonder why we need a Great Commission Resurgence. We need more than that. We need the Holy Spirit to move because otherwise we are nothing but liars to the world and rightfully so. We are liars.
I have read Peter’s site and he is absolutely sure that truth leads to the defense of Ergun Caner. Wade has convicted and condemned Caner, as have you. James White, well, he’s James White.
That’s the silliness I’m talking about. People with some of the facts making absolute judgments as if they have all the facts.
Yes I have seen where Ergun is guilty of dishonesty. I am not the only one, but yes you are correct. Based on the many documented facts I have seen and heard I believe Ergun Caner to be dishonest in the telling of his past and I believe that is a sin. It took me about 4 months to definitely come to that conclusion. Government documents, videos, audio, all of which he tried to have pulled down.
I’ve followed all this on the blogs here and there, and all of this stuff leaves me shaking my head. From both sides this has gone beyond a search for the truth and has turned into a bitter brawl…Caner, White, Burleson, Lumpkins, et al. they’re all in the same boat (and w/ Caner and White it goes back further…to their exchanges about debates and non-debates over the c-word), they just don’t realize it.
It’s a boat that long ago left behind the world of 1 Tim 5:1-2, John 13:34-35, and Eph 4:15-16.
The ugliness in the blogs about it seem to be less concerned about truth and love and more concerned about trying to bring others down.
Certainly, accuasations have been made and the truth should be sought, and the situation dealt with in the right manner. But in the way the blog-o-sphere is dealing with it, people on both sides need to repent and ask forgiveness.
What Michael said!
Debbie, you post proves my point. I did deal with the facts. It is a fact that on Wade’s blog he regularly disparages anything SBC, just as you do. I’m sorry you are not willing to admit that you are a Wadite and sound like a parrot on his shoulder. That’s a fact.
I, by the way, proudly accept the title, “Fundamentalist.” I have a four volume set of “The Fundamentals,” I I read them regularly. They are full of godly instruction and conservative (not moderate) Christian theology. So, painting me with brush does not offend me as I’m sure you intended it would.
Here’s another fact, Wade and his followers (see Grace and Truth Blog) consistently and regularly bash the SBC, but Wade very publicly exited mainstream SBC life, but like a “hangover” still lingers on the fringe. I find that irritating. Just like the editor of Baptists Today–never misses an editorial to bash the SBC. He’s a proud, card carrying CBF’er. So the fact is this: if you are no longer in fellowship with heart and mind in the SBC–please go away.
Another fact we can deal with is your “death wish” for the SBC. As much as you would like it to be so, the SBC is still being used of God in the US and around the world to bring people to faith. And, many of us are still using Christ’s example of an “invitation” as a tool to build this work. You can reference Wade’s blog for the nasty caricature of anyone who would choose to use such worldly means to bring people to a face-to-face encounter for Christ.
I will agree with you about the “Cult of Personality” in the SBC. It is more show than substance in regard to SBC Life. I don’t particularly care for it, myself. What is ironic is that you don’t see that “Cult of Personality” in other Baptist groups, or with followers of Wade. Is not Wade a “personality?” Such a cult is always a part of any large organization.
Are there any other “facts,” you’d like to discuss?
Matt,
You’re waisting your time. Debbie doesn’t deal in facts. Further, Debbie doesn’t do “thinking”. She “feels” and responds–completely bypassing whatever gray matter she might have in her airhead. You and I can go from point a to point b to point c. She on the other hand goes from point a to poi….oh look, a squirrel.
Inside the old hag is a little girl who didn’t get her way screaming at the people (all of whom are men, no doubt) who “abused” her in those “fundementalist” churches she blathers about. It must be a pretty pathetic existance to realize that your whole life is reduced to a need to get back at everybody for what someone did to you in your past.
Guys (and Debbie if you respond) – Feel free to discuss the issues. But name-calling and personal insults are beyond what is appropriate.
Joe, I can’t say I agree with your post. You are a little harsh in my opinion, however correct you may or may not be.
You may have a history with Debbie I’m unaware of, but I’m uncomfortable with using the strong language you do to describe her.
I don’t want to get a whippin’ for being naughty 🙂
I’ve had to dole out plenty of whoopin’s to Joe. He usually takes them pretty good-naturedly.
It’s not a death wish Matt. It’s a life wish. But we cannot live until we see where we have sinned. And that has been the case through out our history, since the beginning. Until recently I do not see where we ever had anything but numbers and self interest in the SBC. Christ was never the center. We had everything but Christ at the center. That is what I see. Death wish? Oh no. Living for Christ alone wish.
Well Biblically that is where we would disagree. If we can lie, cheat, steal, molest(see Christa Brown’s blog) then I would see Dave, Matt, and you as see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. I will tell you as a human being it is indeed very hard to love those who do the above. For me it is nigh to impossible, and yet I believe God understands. Would you like a fake “love”? And Dave is it in love that you say what you do about Wade? Is it love that pushed Dwight McKissic, Sherri Klouda, etc out? Love? That is something I can be honest about and say it is very hard to see these despicable things that in my opinion take the name of Christ and tromp on it, make him and us a laughing stock and love these people. It is even harder that good, thinking men left their brains at the door and are follow the status quo by saying we don’t know if this is true or not. Give me a break.
I might also point out that Wade also has seen this from the inside. Longer than all of you have. Much longer. He knows more of the inter-workings of the SBC than many of you. He has received emails and letters from those on the inside who concur with what he has said. It may be too late before anyone realizes that although hopefully we see a tide changing. Time will tell.
Debbie, you assume too much. My involvement includes an about 16 years of intimate knowledge of both the IMB and the NAMB.
Wade is anything but an “insider.” He was always and “outsider” even when he was on the inside — in my humble opinion.
I’ve received emails from “insiders” who have an entirely different take than Wadeism. But truth is not weighed by the pound. My seminary professors used to say, “10,000 copies of an error is still and error.”
So, assuming that Wade is “more of an insider than I am” and his opinion is somehow more blessed than opposing opinions proves that he is as much a “cult of personality” as the other Big Boys. I’ve already agreed with you that any “cult of personality” lacks the touch of grace in any group.
I am glad you have softened your “death wish” for the SBC and see the possibility of the “tide changing.” However, I doubt that what you would see as a good tide is the same I would see as a good tide.
What I would see as a good tide is simple. Christ being the only thing we lift up. Christ being the only person we follow. Seeking wisdom through prayer and putting Christ as the only thing we see and look at.
That would mean speaking out against liars, those who would seek to devour good people who are true Christ followers. There are only two denominations that have the most scandals involving lying, stealing, and sex. Roman Catholic Church and us Southern Baptists. That should frigging tell us something. But alas it does not.
Oh and murder. We have also had ministers who murder. This should be seriously looked at as to why. We are not as spiritual as a denomination as we pretend. Matt Chandler said it well at the Pastor’s conference. Yet it is the one sermon no one has spoken about.
Debbie, you said, “here are only two denominations that have the most scandals involving lying, stealing, and sex. Roman Catholic Church and us Southern Baptists.”
Really? I think maybe you’ve bought into some of the SBC-bashing blogs.
The SBC has had (unfortunately) its share of bad apples. But I think that the Word of Faith movement and perrhaps Assemblies have had a pretty unfortunate track record as well.
Debbie, with a brush as wide as you use, you could be very useful on the annual painting of the Golden Gate Bridge. You are so blinded by the aura you see around Wade each week that you stumble through your statements like a drunk in a cobblestone alley.
And why do you use the word “we” when talking about the SBC. I haven’t read one positive word about the SBC on any blog you written on — which is more than a few.
I’ll bet you don’t even have any thing good to say about our Disaster Relief Mission, which is the envy of rescue operations world-wide.
Also, tell me one other denomination that even comes close to the mission dollars sent directly to the mission field through Lottie Moon.
I could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about the good done by the SBC. All you can do is suggest we are full of liars, thieves, and perverts.
It appears we have a different perspective.
True. Good point Dave. Christianity as a whole has taken some bad hits.
All you can do is suggest we are full of liars, thieves, and perverts.
Having seen a lot of this side of us, I am doing more than suggesting, I am saying that is was we are full of. And news stories have proven this to be true.
My reply is to Debbie in particular and all who may want to explore.
Many of you remember the differences Ronnie Floyd had at one time with Mike Huckabee; Floyd’s ego convincing him he was better for Arkansas Baptists than Huckabee.
Now here is this latest fascinating profile of Huckabee. Putting it out here hoping one of you may do a feature blog on it as you explore the Influence of Floyd in the SBC and now Huckabee nationally:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/28/100628fa_fact_levy?currentPage=all
“bad apples”? How about the SBC has its share of sin. Deep embedded, ugly, we need to repent of, ask God to move in our hearts(notice I include myself), God can’t look at…sin.
Wade and Denzel Washington and the Book of Eli.
Robert Parham best I remember had some conciliatory words about Wade and his, to use Andy Stanley’s words, “take away” from the Baptist Covenant gathering in Oklahoma last year.
Parham has this up this morning about the Book of Eli
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=16251
Would like to see Wade blog on Denzel, Robert and the Book of Eli; and would welcome some of you here to join that discussion as well.
Another interesting discussion this summer is the differing church state views of Randall Balmer at Religion Dispatches offering on Friday, and Laurel, Mississippi Judge Charles Pickering who was on the SBC Peace Committee with Dan Vestal, Adrian Rogers and Ed Young and Cecil Sherman and Kate Campbell’s father, Jim Henry
On Matt and the SBC; I hope he would read Stricklin’s Genealogy of Dissent. Yes and No on the SBC; It’s a thicket.
Stephen, I would agree we are definitely in a thicket, or fog, at this point in SBC life. We are definitely at a crossroads.
For clarity, I’ve said for over 32 years that anytime participation in the SBC conflicts with my loyalty and service to Christ, I’ll drop out. At this point, I don’t feel it does conflict, though there are some things that cause a bit of chafing these days.
I’d disagree with your contention that a “majority” of the SBC is behind the GCRTF report. A majority of the messengers at the 2010 convention, perhaps, but a majority of the SBC, not even close, and in the coming days, weeks, months and years, the leadership is going to learn, once again, that denominational initiatives do not work, and they don’t float in most churches and associations.
When the number of messengers at the convention hovers at or around 12,000 or less, the body itself tends to be overly influenced by the large number of denominational entity employees and trustees in attendance. Most of them vote as they are instructed by their leadership. Watching the debate on the task force report on line, I noted that half of those who spoke at microphones, and a substantial and clear majority of those who were favorable, were employed by a denominational entity. The vast majority of those who spoke against the report were pastors and laypeople.
Ronnie Floyd’s words and body language did not indicate a “conciliatory” spirit, quite the contrary, he and Mohler appeared to be doing their very best to talk messengers out of making any amendments or changes at all, and they only “conceded” the point on Great Commission giving when they realized that a majority of the messengers would approve the proposed amendment if it went to a ballot vote. Even then, they tried to get away from making any real change by coming up with what you call a parliamentary mistake on Barry McCarty’s part. That messenger from Ohio who perceived “bullying” was right on target, and exactly correct in holding their feet to the fire to take the ballot vote. That’s when they conceded, fearing that would give ammunition to the opponents who wanted to table the motion indefinitely.
I just totally disagree with your perception. I thought there was some manipulation and high-pressure at the pastor’s conference, and perhaps even in Johnny Hunts message (and Morris Chapman’s counter-message).
But the debate itself was carried off with the highest of standards, as I saw it. I think you are absolutely wrong in the way you cast aspersions on the behavior of Ronnie Floyd. To accuse them of bullying was wrong as well.
They made a mistake, but I do not believe that the spirit was evil.
Your key phrase is “watching the debate…online.” I think your perception was wrong. Had you been there, I think you might feel differently. Most of those I’ve talked to, even those opposed to the GCR felt that the debate was carried on in an exemplary way.
Your perspective was false, in my opinion.
Stephen, I forgot to mention anything about your reference to Stricklin’s Geneaology of Dissent and your assumption I’ve never read it.
You probably assume I do not know that Stricklin hated “southern baptist triumphalism” and anything SBC. You probably assume that I do not know anything about one of yours (assuming you are an advocate of Stricklin’s work) and Stricklin’ heroes: Sara Lowery. Lowery like so many liberal and moderate “so-called baptists” believe that Jesus’ death was a political event, not a spiritual offering for the sin of mankind (p. 85).
I must further assume, that you are implying I should feel bad because some early Southern Baptists supported slavery. If that’s your implication by mentioning this work, then I certainly do feel bad about that. However, I bear no guilt over that and my ancestors actually fought with the North. I grew up 22 miles NORTH of the Mason-Dixon Line.
Liberals and moderates have always leaned toward Christianity being a primarily soci0-political movement with Jesus leading the charge. The CBF is very much this way, as you know. While I do feel that justice is part of the Christian message, I’m not rushing to join the CBF, because I don’t believe that is the “primary” focus of the gospel.
I, personally, feel there are many inuendos and false assumptions sprinkled throughout Stricklin’s work that reduce the effectiveness of what he was trying to accomplish. That is “my personal opinion.” My degrees are not in Baptist history, so I don’t feel I can critique Stricklin’s work as well as others might be able to do.
Matt: I’m glad you read Stricklin. I’m sorry you missed the point.
There is a thread at baptistlife.com about the differences between Randall Balmer and the SBC Peace Committee’s Charles Pickering. I hope you will have to investigate that, as well as the take of Charles Marsh on the pastor of the FBC Jackson, Mississippi during the 60’s. It is an interesting story.
Also Chuck Warnock’s amicus dei blog you may want to look at.
Stephen, I don’t think I missed the point at all. I do think you and I disagree on whether the point is valid or not. I do not lean toward the social gospel as moderates do. That does not mean I do not understand, “the point.” It means I do not agree with the point. There is a difference.
By the way, “Stricklin” makes several points I do agree with, just for the record.
Please do not waste your time trying to tag labels from ancient history to me. I try to live by “daily bread” instead of yesterday’s manna. I know the quote: “He who ignores the past is doomed to repeat it” (as one version goes). I don’t ignore Baptist history — even the seemier parts — I just don’t choose to bear the guilt of people I never met or behavior I have never condoned.
Matt and the two Davids – After reading the comments from you guys, we all feel like we need a shower. Early in the comment stream Tim Guthrie, claimed that “someone” -we all know who he means – was lying about Ben Cole becoming attached to the Roman Catholic Church. Tim “heard” differently at the SBC and took what he heard as enough fact to call someone a liar. Then when Ben’s own words confirmed he joined the Catholic Church last spring, rather than apologizing for Tim’s false claim, you dog pile on anyone associated with WB. It’s obvious to every reader that you guys have an agenda but are too self-righteous to admit it. That’s the kind of character that harms the SBC, and it’s prevalent in this comment stream for all to see.
Jordan just to set the facts straight — though I don’t think it will change your impression of me — I’ve made it clear I have an agenda, and what that agenda is. I consider myself an “insider” fully in support of the SBC but not everything “jot and tittle” if you will. I also have been on the “blunt end of the CBF beating stick” beginning in 1995, so I know there is “ugly” in both groups. I am against the basic beliefs and foundations for the CBF — I always have been and nothing in Baptists Today convinces me otherwise. If you would have read my posts you would have known my agenda. I hope this helps spell it out.
Wade’s words (never met the man; don’t wish to) are the only criteria by which I evaluate Wadeism. Wadeism may be defined as “a deep-seated animosity toward anything SBC.” His agenda (and that of CBF’ers, and Wadeites) seems clear to me — but obviously not to you. I guess the last person you want to ask for information about water would be a fish.
About Ben Cole (never met him; don’t wish to): I only commented on the “catholic” issue when someone suggested they are in line with Biblical theology. I thought that was fair since it was brought up by Wade and others.
I hope I cleared up my bias and my agenda. Please feel free to probe further if you’d like to know more about my presuppositions and suspicions.
Well, it’s time to say goodbye to Debbie. I guess Joe was right: she has some deep-seated bitterness in her soul that just will not allow her to see any good in anybody or anything associated with the SBC — yet, she parks on blog after blog to tear the denomination down. I guess when your spiritual leader promotes this kind of attitude, it should not be surprising.
I’m going to take the advice of Titus and move on. I think I have pretty much demonstrated for all that I still have great love and hope for the SBC, though there are issues that both baffle and bother me at times. For now, I’m going to pray that when implementation part of the GCR happens, it will push us further into an all-emcompassing, all-consuming passion for soul-winning at home and abroad.
That can happen.
Matt: I won’t let you mischaracterize me. There is no bitterness. I have a deep passionate burden for our denomination. It has been there since all this began 4 years ago. We are corrupt. A lot. Just read the scandals in the past 4 years alone! And that grieves me, it doesn’t make me bitter. If anger and sadness = bitterness, then Christ was bitter. Paul was bitter. And we know that is not true.
Love for our people, sadness that I think we have forgotten Christ, and instead opted for politics, theology that isn’t even in scripture, fighting for scripture that too many do not even know what it says. A seeing that we need a relationship with Christ as a denomination but that begins individually. But bitterness, not so much.
There is nothing BUT bitterness. Bitterness over people teaching correct doctrine (complimentarianism). Bitterness over having been mistreated and abused (again, by men no doubt) all those years. Bitterness that moderates like you have been properly relegated to the kids table while the adult, mature, real Christians do the work of the SBC.
I would say I feel sorry for you but that would be disingenuous. What I’d love to do is to have been one of the ones in your past who gave you reason to be bitter.
I wonder how long our gracious Blog Administrator is going to let this kind of behavior continue?
You’re so right, Greg. Debbie’s protestations that she cares about integrity or the gospel when anyone who knows her or Don Quixote know that neither one of them care about the gospel or integrity.
I’ve asked Joe to tone down his rhetoric a time or two, but we do not do a lot of deleting of comments here.
Here’s the thing, Joe. I think I agree with your arguments, to a certain extent. But when you make the kind of unkind, cutting and, yes, I would say unchristian remarks that you make, it costs you credibility.
Say that Debbie and Wade are wrong in their anti-SBC crusade? I agree with some of that and it is a legitimate point. Debbie can argue with that. It is a point-of-view we can debate.
But when you level personal insults, it certainly (in my mind at least) costs you credibility in your point, in addition to being, frankly, sinful.
I blog to discuss issues and to influence people toward what I believe. Joe, you are entertaining, but when you say things like you said here, you lose my respect. If that matters.
I do not plan to delete comments. Matt Svoboda can svoop in and do that if he so desires. But I will tell you, Joe, that when you say things like that, you not only displease the Savior (as I see it) but you most certainly lose influence on others.
One more thing, Greg. I have disagreed with Debbie a lot and even gotten into it with a couple of times. But I think that she will survive Joe’s insults. She may be wrong a lot (sorry, Debbie, couldn’t resist) but she is not a shrinking violet who is easily put off by a few harsh words.
Frankly, when you and I are arguing, and you resort to personal attacks and insults, it may hurt my feelings but it actually makes me look better.
Every time Joe goes into the gutter, Debbie looks a step higher on the pedestal in comparison. I think it is to her advantage not to delete the comments.
Does that make sense?
Thanks for the consideration Dave,
“Frankly, when you and I are arguing, and you resort to personal attacks and insults,” ???
Dave, did you once blog under a different name or something? I am quite sure I have disagreed with you in the past, and I am sure we will not always agree in the future, but I do not recall ever “resorting to personal attacks and insults”. At least not with you anyway… Of course my memory is not what it once was, and I am desperately trying to clean up my act and rehabilitate my reputation, so please forgive any past offensives and you have my permission to call me on it if I get offensive in the future.
[Faithful are the wounds of a friend…]
Grace Always,
No, no shrinking violet Dave. And when we get to heaven, you will see I was right and you were the one wrong on many things.(That’s a joke btw, I could very well be wrong, but I somehow doubt it) It is comments such as Joe made here that actually caused me to say I wanted to punch him in the nose. Not ladylike I know, but it is what it is. 🙂
Greg, I was speaking theoretically there. To my knowledge, you have never done any of that with me.
It was a rhetorical argument – directed at Joe’s comments, nothing you have said.
I realize as I re-read that, I did not word that well. You have never offended me in blogging at all.
Well I just heard that Health Insurance Companies are going to have to spend a certain percentage of their income where? On Healthcare !! That means that Guidestone will spend some of their Billions in the bank to help cover pastors they have turned down for Health coverage. That’s not a bad thing. And it will be easy to discriminate between Life and Health receipts. This system is coming apart and will be the better for it. What System? Later. And for some that say they don’t want to pay because their Not sick and Don’t need Healthcare – that’s stupid. When it’s all said and done maybe those people can be given a grace perion of one ( 1 ) year to either get it or forever keep their peace regardless of whether they or their family get hit with any one of a million things including traffic accidents that can bite you.
An SBC mega church pastor gives the REAL reason the GCR passed:
http://sbcwatchdog.multiply.com/video/item/100
This link requires a quarter to read 🙂
Matt2239,
If Joe is right in one of his comments it will be a momentous occasion. It is difficult to see how you can not see that striving for excellence requires the exposure of its opposite. Debbie is an idealist in the best sense. She expects good and right from spiritual leaders. She is appalled when she finds less. She is outraged when she finds that others are willing to cover up that sin. She is willing to say “the emperor has no clothes” and for that she is repeatedly blasphemed. You and Joe both presume to judge her soul in direct contradiction to Scripture and yet completely miss the irony of your sinning.
Scitty: are you blind? Hard of hearing? I’ve gone out of my way to only address what Debbie has said and what her spiritual counselor “has said” (as in words, as in blogs, as in posts). I do not know if she is “old,” nor would I consider her a “hag.” An “idealist” she is not. She has said that the SBC is “full of theives, liars and perverts.” That is as bad as anything I’ve seen Joe say. I have NEVER — and I stress NEVER — indicated she was not saved. Unfortunately I have accused her of being a moderate CBF’er (which is how Danny Vestal described the CBF in a recent speech). Unfortunately, she must consider being a “moderate” as a perjorative term. I would not argue that point but I did not use it as anything more than describing a particular theological point of view. If that offended her, then it tells you what she feels about what she believes.
So, Mr. Scitty, if you are going to ride your high horse, make sure you tighten your seat belt (to mix a metaphor).
If calling everyone in the SBC a “liar, thief, and pervert” (or even many or most) is considered “striving for excellence” in your view, then perhaps you might want to check to see if you are “wearing any clothes.”
I even decided to never engage Debbie because it is pointless — we are oil and water theologically. There is no “iron sharpening iron.” It is unproductive. Blogging should be productive.
So, let me say explicitly, I do not have any opinion as to Debbie’s lostness or savedness. I don’t remember any post where this was the theme. I also do not wish her any ill-will. I just wish she settle into her home at the CBF and enjoy life.
Matt: That is exactly what we have along with good men. I dare you to read the stories. The Baptists in jail at this time. The multiple times it wasn’t us who exposed them but outside sources. We do not expose them for many reasons but the it isn’t me who did it excuse comes to mind as well as the world is watching excuse. I am not at all hyperboling the corruption. Not only have I been knee deep in it for four years. Dwight McKissic and Wade Burleson I do consider personal friends and I have seen what they went through close up and personal. That changes a person’s view. I see the good but to me it is obscured by the bad. Kind of like those who lie about their past, molest women, the message of those who introduced those men to us falls on my deaf ears. We need to clean up before we can go forward and that is just not happening. Those are the facts Matt whether you want to face them or not. Not facing them is why we continually keep seeing ministers, leaders, who end up in jail.
So I ask you Matt, are you blind, deaf? It appears to me so but you are not the only one. The leaders are certainly leading the way and it’s making us look like the hypocrites that we are. For crying out loud, not even Dwight McKissic’s resolution on racism in the churches could pass. That was definitely a defining moment for me.
Debbie, you should probably do a little research on convention protocol. Dwight’s motion was referred to the EC, which was the proper thing for them to do.
You are reading way more into that than is warranted. It would have been a violation of our bylaws and procedures for that motion to be voted on and passed.
Stephen Fox on post 132 offers an email address to read whatanother “mega-church” pastor has to say. I clicked on it and you have to “take a tour” etc. I’ve tried twice.
Debbie, Surely you know why it couldn’t pass!!!! Are you misleading people on purpose or do you not know why Dwight’s resolution couldn’t pass? It was never voted on—because it requires more than just a vote—procedures must be followed.
I’d love to stay and chat with all you idiots and try to straighten out you sorry lives, and pound your spirit until there nothing but a sorry pulp left, but . . .
I have to go teach the youth that “Blessed are the meek for they will inherit the earth” 🙂
Actually, that’s kinda funny.
Can we let this thread die?
Seriously, I’m all about being snarky and spirited, but this has even passed me by…
I second the motion.
Now, I’m back in a new spirit of meekness. Great lesson with our youth. Meekness (praeis) = “power under control; a calming influence; gentle strength.
I just might try this in blogging.
Make my day.
Matt2239 and Dave Miller,
I agree with Scott. Comments #160 and #161 show you guys to be incredibly snarky and passive aggressive. Your schtick is getting tiresome.
I used to enjoy reading SBC Voices. Not any more.
I’m certainly sorry that you were offended, but I think that Matt was making a joke.
He purposely made an arrogant comment, then said he was going to teach on meekness.
It was a joke, and I thought it was witty.
I don’t run this site, I just write here some. But if you lack a sense of humor, you probably shouldn’t interact on posts which I write. I like to joke around. Since you find that “snarky” or whatever, I think your choice not to read what I write might be wisest for you.
I don’t plan to stop laughing when something is funny.
Never mind, George. A little research tells me that you lack integrity. You also posted a comment under the name Jordan – also criticizing Matt and Me.
s
The only difference, Dave, is I probably deserved the criticism 🙂
Maybe, but when someone logs on deceptively under a false name and flames people like that, I stop listening to what they say. If you pay attention to cowards, you’ll become one yourself.
By the way, you are famous now.
http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2010/06/wade-burleson-family-and-my-views-on.html
Dave, I was not so impressed by what Wade wrote as by what he left out. He acted as if he has never caricatured or demeaned anybody. I find that ironic after reading the flaming vitriol spewed out on his blog (called, Grace and Truth) about evangelists who use an invitation as a tool for reaching souls for Christ. It was an interesting, but troubling read, and what I find typical of persons like the one who shall not be named out of respect for his very wonderful, and dear family. I too have a lovely wife and children, but I don’t put them in the blogosphere because of former threats by a crazy church member.
The way Wadeism works (and I can separate a person from the following they develop) is to throw out a blog and let others do the dirty work. As a former elected official, I know this tactic well. Therefore, your hands are clean—at least in your own eyes.
I do want to say, I was genuinely touched by the one who shall not be named’s blog. However, I don’t think he is as innocent as he let’s on. I don’t think his troubles were all the result of “the faults and failings of others.” In the comments to his blogs he allows my friend, Jerry Corbaley, to be personally attacked. I know Jerry to be every bit as wonderful as the one who shall remain unnamed says he himself is. I know Jerry’s not perfect, but I don’t think the one who shall remain unnamed is perfect either.
My point is this: a person can start something that will accomplish his mission without ever getting his hands dirty. Even this man’s supporters call him a “rabble rouser.” That is a perjorative term, but the use it as a badge of honor.
I will confess, however, that I may have used some hyperbole in my interactions with the lady who shall remain unnamed in reference to her seemingly fawning over the man who shall remain unnamed. My issue is with the “rabble” the man “roused” rather than anything personal about the man. I think I mentioned that a dozen or so times.
Here’s what I suspect: 1) I suspect that the man does have some bitterness he has not fully resolved between him and others; 2) I suspect that his version of the SBC would look more like the CBF than what I’ve known the SBC to be for the last 32 years; 3) I suspect in his real life as a pastor, he is a wonderful father, a wonderful friend, and a wonderful minister. And, should our paths ever cross, I will treat him with the utmost respect.
The meanness on the comment stream of that blog is amazing. Lydia compared Jerry Corbaley to Hitler! I was Hitler’s secretary or something – but I don’t look good in a dress.
Dave, that’s what I was referring to when someone uses that tactic of getting something started, but then acting as if they had nothing to do with it.
By the way . . . I have taken your lead and my desire is to be a “kinder, gentler blogger.”
Dave: Read those comments again. Lydia was not comparing anyone to Hitler. It was an example of perspective. I think your reading comprehension could use some work.
Debbie, on this site, when you were personally attacked, I stepped in and asked people to raise the level of conversation.
When Lydia made outrageous and unchristian comments on Wade’s site, Wade stepped in and encouraged her.
The fact is, Wade wants everyone to have the right to dissent, except from him. I disagree with him on many issues and he attacks not my views, but my character.
Grace and Truth lacks both, unless you agree with Wade.
Matt, group hug!
One more thing, Debbie.
While I disagree with Wade’s anti-SBC crusade, and I disagree with your support of it, I appreciate that you will engage in conversation even those who disagree with you.
In spite of the fact that I disagree with much of what you say, I feel as though I can generally engage you. I tell you how wrong you are and then you do the same with me.
I appreciate that.
For what its worth.
I look forward to heaven when you will realize I was right! (I ruined the moment, didn’t I?)
Dave, isn’t it interesting that someone uses an illustration of Hitler (can’t be slammed much harder than that) and then they act as if: “what, Hitler? Who said anything about someone being like Hitler?” Nnotice the subtlety: a person uses Hitler as an example and someone says, “nobody compared anybody to Hitler” (a lose translation from a failing memory). That’s the kind of double-think I call Wadeism–any reference to persons living or dead is strictly consequential.
Here’s another subtle tactic of such groups: asking people to just stick to the facts while they avoid all the facts and try to stick pejorative labels to the blogger. It’s slick, as in “Slick Willy.”
The funny thing about this is that while I have been openly critical of Wade’s crusading nature, I have also been one who defended him against charges by others.
Wade hates me because I don’t bow down. I’ve had others mad at me because I refuse to call him the anti-Christ. I’ve tried to strike a little more balanced position in all this. It doesn’t seem to have worked.
Well. this time tomorrow I’ll be over the Pacific Ocean on my way to a two week mission trip to Taiwan. Perhaps, by the time I get back, the guns will be aimed at someone else…
Dave, I can appreciate your dilemma. In philosophy the type of person you are referring to is called a “true believer.” Another term you have used is an “ideologue.” Such a person’s presuppositions are so strong, that it is literally impossible for any compromise (not as in compromising doctrine) position to be attained. It cannot be stressed more explicitly: the kind of SBC that Wadeism envisions is like that you find in the moderate to liberal CBF — homosexual lite, women pastors, an unbalanced view of the church’s social role, right down the CBF line.
I don’t for a minute believe that every pastor who is now in the SBC organizationally, is an SBC’er by heart. I cannot, of course, prove this in any way, but I have a strong suspicion.
And, I think I know why such types linger on: 1) some people are just “rabble rousers” by nature; 2) When they do leave, then they have to take responsibility for their effectiveness and can no longer blame “someone else.” The CBF is having this very difficulty as we speak; and, some people are just stubborn. They believe if they beat on the SBC long enough, we will all just give up and give in.
I don’t see this issue ever going away. I do believe that if the attendance at Phoenix is significantly lower (allowing of course for the fact the West is not the South, if you know what I mean), I believe that the pendulum has begun to swing back to a more moderate position. If the swing is identifiable enough, many like myself, will have to ask the hard question.
George, just a thought . . . I didn’t have anything to do with those two posts, but thanks for thinking about me.
Dave: Wade hates no one. That is just ridiculous to even say. As for bowing down. I don’t bow down, and he doesn’t expect anyone too. He does expect some sort of civility in disagreement. Something that is obvious that you don’t have. It chaps my hide to hear you speak such untrue things about someone you do not know, and someone I have known for almost 20 years. He pastors a church of over 2,000 people that would speak very highly of him. You are hurting a body when you speak such ridiculous statements as you do. What has gotten into you lately?
Dave: You say this junk then say you are going on a mission trip? Kind of an oxymoron.
You most certainly do bow down because Wade represents the opposite of everything the people who abused you (men, I’m sure) stood for–he’s wishy-washy on doctrine and willing to put his stamp of approval on any doctrine no matter how unbiblical it is.
Jeff T on post 159. I would like to know how dwights motion that was introduced was taken by the President and then given to the Convention to vote on whether or not to send it to the Executive Comm. Somthing I don’t have and if you know please tell me and others. I’ll add that if a motion Fails there is no reason to send it anywhere for any purpose – this I believe. Any body can answer who knows what went on.
Dave Miller, On post 159 What does the procedure say? What does the By-law say or at least what section. If a motion is voted up then it can go to the proper committee for refinement by a vote. Was the original motion withdrawn? if you know?
All motions, with very few exceptions, are referred to a committee. This motion would involve a bylaws change and therefore was referred.
This was proper procedure.
I told Dwight that I would do all I can to keep this motion in the SBC eye. I plan to lobby for it as much as I can.
If the EC refuses to consider it or denies it, then we will see a problem.
Dave,
I, too, will vote wholeheartedly for Dwight McKissic’s motion. I enjoyed some fellowship with Dwight at the convention. One time, Dwight, CB Scott, and I were talking over things. Dont you wish you’d been in that conversation! lol
David
Yeah, I’d like a tape of that one.
Good to know. We will see if this resolution sees the light of day.
Volfan007 Under what circumstances do you see yourself and others getting a chance to vote on McKissic’s motion that was referred to EC? How would that work?
Not Volfan007, but here’s what happens:
The EC will bring a recommendation on that motion next SBC. It will either be a major highlight, separated from their report, or it will be a part of the EC’s report to the SBC. Messengers assembled will then vote whether or not to accept their recommendation. If the EC recommends approving the Constitution change, you’ll see a separate motion requiring a 2/3 vote 2 years in a row. If they want to let it slide by and not do it, you’ll just need 50% approving the EC report recommending against the motion.
And realize next year’s in Phoenix, so it will most likely be lower attended. That will weigh on how it votes out. My prediction is below, but it’s that we’ll see a resolution condemning racism instead of the amended Constitution, due to issues of enforcement: how do you determine a church is racist? If you had overt behavior, but you’re talking attitude. Sinful attitude that has no place in a church, but how do you determine a church has too many sinfully minded people to be in the SBC?
007, could you post the wording of McKissic’s motion. I remember part of it but I might have been distracted because I don’t remember exactly what the wording was.
Here’s the Summary of it: that Article III of the SBC Constitution be amended to say that “among churches not in cooperation with the Convention are churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse … racial discrimination,” submitted by Dwight McKissic, pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas.
Essentially, Article III has the limitations of what churches are and are not in cooperation. Right now the only “not” is “affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior.” This would add “or racism” (or maybe read “racism or homosexual behavior.”
Constitution and By-laws changes are automatically referred to the EC, then a recommendation will come at the next SBC. Must be affirmed 2/3rds at 2 consecutive SBCs.
My guess is, it won’t be recommended out of the EC. The spirit and intent is right, but it’s barely measurable. True, if you had a church that deliberately voted to withhold membership from someone of a different race, you’d have a case. But who would overtly do it? Anything else would fall on a sliding scale that would hardly be satisfactory to anyone.
You’ll most likely, instead of this motion and amendment, a further resolution about racism and its current implications in the SBC. That’s just a guess.
Doug
Doug, I think your analysis is very good. The problem such a motion sets up is it is like phrasing the question: “Have you stop beating your wife.” The only difference is the later statement is at least measurable by a close examination of the wife.
And, by racist, do we mean all “racism?” We’ve already had this resolution at least once before leading to a major apology. Voting against this motion would be a little like the way the GCR was presented: a vote against this particular motion makes you a racist just like a vote against the GCR made you a cowardly Christian whose carcass should rot in the widlerness.
I just don’t know how you legislate, or measure, a person’s heart — or the heart of the church.
And, in anticipation of the labels of “racism” I’m sure to see flying my way: my first church in California was 60% non-white and my wife graduate from an all black school (and she is white by the way). Just to expand the tent further. My daughter is married to a fine gentleman who is Mexican (everywhere but in the 2010 Census Report). I have two dogs, one is purebred and the other is a mixed breed 🙂
PS — the best man in my wedding was Chinese and a Bridesmaid was black. For the Young Pastors group I might add, the flower girl and ring bearer were both under 30.
Error on my part: actual wording is this: “act to affirm, approve or endorse … racial discrimination and bigotry in any form.”
Which is better, because it’s more like something you could act on, than what I had first read and written here.
My mistake.
Dwight’s motion will come back to the SBC and it will be well received.
I think CB is correct
Grace and Truth lacks both, unless you agree with Wade.
Best.Comment.EVER!!
Wade Burleson and Robert Parham; I hope Debbie will bring Parham’s take on the SBC to SBC Impact and to Wade’s Blog. Will be interesting to see how some of the more serious and civil folks at this blog respond to Parham’s take here on the evolution of Frank Page as a bellwether of the mellowing or not mellowing of the SBC:
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=16269
I have been saying since 2008 when I copyrighted* the phrase “Mainstream Resurgence” [(c) 2008 Joe Blackmon] that this was coming and that the moderate filth in the SBC were hanging around to try to make a comeback. Further, I said that they saw the GCR as their best chance in 30 years to take back the SBC from “them dang fundementalists, by gawd”. In 10 years, people will look back at this past convention as the beginning of the Mainstream Resurgence. This should be surprising…after all it [the end] will not come unless the apostasy comes first.
*I took out a copyright on the phrase because the moderate filth that is still infesting the SBC is, of course, going to try to hurt the Christians that they claim hurt them in the same they claim they hurt them. Well, shoot, if there are going to be families torn apart, people losing jobs, and churches divided against one another, I want to make money off of it. I’m gonna print t-shirts, bumper stickers, and I’m gong to come out with a line of dinner plates. Also, I want a quarter everytime someone says “Mainstream Resurgence” and a nickle everytime someone uses it on a blog.
This should be NOTsurprising…after all it [the end] will not come unless the apostasy comes first.
Correcting a typo
Does anybody associate racism whichever side a person’s on to being or not being a “moderate”?
I associate racism, whether it’s a white person, black person, or any other race, not as being “moderate” but as someone who is afraid–in my mind that’s what it’s really about.
Off topic and I’m not sure where else to put this so this seems to be as good a place as any–
I’d like to apologize for the manner in which I’ve said things. I don’t apologize for any of my conclusions because I think I’m 100% right in those. However, the way I went about stating those was wrong. I made it personal and harsh. That was wrong.
Joe in post 208. I asked a question and it seems you are assumeing I’m “afraid” that’s what it is about. I asked the question because there are people when they disagree with a conservative throw the accusation of “moderate” as a cou-te- grace. A conversation stopper. I wanted to see who would bite as some believe in racism and want to “win” the conversation even with flawed reasoning. It has happened to me already after my son was married to a white girl in a SBC Baptist Church by a black Baptist pastor ( well educated) and a white Baptist pastor ( also well educated ). There ‘s only one person I’ve heard about who was 100% correct all the time and they nailed Him to a cross. I don’t want any problems with anybody whether in writing or in person. Been there – done that. I’ve grown up.
Dave Miller,
I’ve been gone so I apologize for my tardiness in answering a comment made by you a few days ago. You wrote: “Wade hates me because I don’t bow down.”
?
I appreciate Debbie’s response asserting your comment was ridiculous.
Dave, I not only don’t hate you, I don’t know you. Further, were I to ever meet you, I can assure you I would not hate you.
You do have a pattern in your writing to put words in peoples’ mouths, ascribe motives (see above), and jump to wild conclusions, but I don’t hate you for that at all.
The person I love the most in this world, my wife, not only does not bow down to me, she would kick me if I ever displayed the attitude you ascribe to me. So, feel free to continuing not bowing and I’ll continue to love those who don’t!
🙂