Here are some of the big events coming up.
2nd VP Elections – done
Nomination Committee report ~2:43
This is usually perfunctory but a nomination challenge may take place. Those almost always fail but it would be the first contentious moment. We’ll know soon.
NAMB Report. The Q&A session can go unplanned places.
Committee on order of business ~4:03. We will find the disposition of various motions.
New Motions (if any) ~4:17
Resolution Committee report -~4:27
Frank Page did a great job with the EC report.
CP promo
Nomination challenge did not take place. A name was replaced by the committee.
What happened to Tim…in being replaced…just shows me that a lot of Calvinists are not for peace and harmony in the SBC….especially when Calvinists high fived each other about it and tweets of victory and celebration were written about Tim being replaced. That was just low down, immature, and disgraceful. It makes me wonder about the direction the SBC is going.
David
Could someone, volfan or other, please explain what he is talking about? Who is Tim?
Could someone, volfan or other, please explain what he is talking about? Who is Tim?
Tim Rogers mocked a sexual abuse victim when he wrote on twitter “Hey, Jimmy in what room did your dad molest your sister?” while trying to attack James White and defend Ergun Canor who has been caught up in lies. So I am downright happy that Tim was replaced. And I think the “Calvinists” are happy because Tim should have never been nominated. This idea that us Calvinists are not for peace and harmony is ridiculous. I have seen more vitriol from Peter Lumpkins, Tim Rogers, Hankins and the rest of the “Traditionalist” crowd than any Calvinist. I think the fact that the calvinist Al Mohler nominated a non-calvinist for presidency shows that most Calvinists are for peace.
“Spurgeon”….what do you think White was saying to Tim to make him so angry to make a comment like that? I mean, we all know how nice White is…don’t we? And, I know for a fact that Tim asked White to forgive him for saying something like that out of anger…
I have never seen White say anything out of line to Tim. He has only called out all the junk going on with Caner and those who are defending solely because he is anti-calvinist. Tim has gone around insulting anyone who holds to all the points of calvinism as Hyper Calvinists. He and Peter Lumpkins are extremely divisive. I am relieved he was not nominated. If he did truly apologize for that particular comment then grace and forgiveness should follow.
Tim did sincerely apologize. I saw the letter. Part of that was the admission that nothing justifies a comment like that.
Where sin has abounded may grace now much more abound.
Volfan,
I saw no high fives and would not have participated had there been any around me.
I’m not sure it’s fair to ascribe all concern over that nomination exclusively to Calvinists and certainly not to the “conspiracy” that so many love to exclaim.
It is important to distinguish between the legitimate concern regarding Rogers’ nomination and the extreme hatred that some who are outside the SBC have for him.
I am hesitant to wade in on this because I don’t want to start a food fight. Also, to the dismay of some friends i also number Tim among my good friends. We often disagree and are honest to express those.
But Adam has a good point.
There are some obsessive, bloggers who think that trying to destroy Tim is a service to God.
There are a lot of other more sober-minded folks with godly spirits who think Tim’s words online have disqualified him from service as a trustee.
It is wrong to lump the two groups together. The hate-bloggers are concerned with destroying Tim, but others are not driven by that animus but by a sense of what is right – in their conscience.
I have no idea what happened in the inner workings of the committee. I do not know why they replaced Tim. Committee members are probably not allowed to say. I will probably never know and if I did find out I couldn’t publish it.
But I believe two things are wrong:
1. To gloat over Tim’s pain is ungodly. If people were high-fiving over this they were working in the flesh, not in the Spirit.
2. To blame all of this on the extreme, obsessive voices of destruction is also wrong.
Though some angry bloggers raised a stink about this, there were sober voices who felt that Tim’s nomination was not a good thing. That is a judgment we are called as messengers to discuss and decide. If someone believes a candidate is unqualified it us their duty to raise that issue.
I will continue to disagree with Tim often, both in tone and in content, as he will with me. I hope we can continue to converse in public and private to forge a relationship beyond blogging. It is on the context of relationship that we can improve the tone of SBC blogging.
I am in an odd position here. Friends of mine were at the root of the move to defeat the nomination of a friend of mine. I’m not sure how to respond.
I’m not opining on the nomination. My point is that this was not just a battle of the hateful extremes. Reasonable and spiritual Southern Baptists had disagreement on whether the nomination should go forward.
And if you rejoiced at Tim’s dilemma here, you should examine your heart
Amen Miller!
“And if you rejoiced at Tim’s dilemma here, you should examine your heart.”
Amen. I feel bad that this happened at all. There’s hurt and embarrassment all around – it’s nothing to rejoice over.
I was relieved that an amendment/public replacement and discussion did not ensue – the committee I think foresaw that and rendered it unnecessary…such a thing would have made a sad matter worse and more hurtful, IMO.
Oh good grief. If you don’t stand for something you will fall for anything.
Dave
Thank you for your comment. I do not know Tim Rogers and am only vaguely familiar (the operative word here is ‘vaguely’) with the situation. So I speak not to that issue.
The issue I want to address is your words “reasonable and Spiritual SB”. It is my observation that most of the time the “reasonable and Spiritual” voices will prevail. I suppose one could point to exceptions and that perhaps would reveal a persons particular bias. While there are extremes in most every debate, SB will ultimately seek to be honest and Godly.
Most of our pastors do not seek fame or recognition. They are hard working Godly men who love the Lord and are faithful to His Word. these are the men who are the heart and soul of the SBC.
If revival and restoration is to come to our churches and convention it will be because these men are on their knees in their homes and studys in average churches across our nation asking God to do that which is beyond their/our power; that is send a great revival.
I praise God for Pastor Joe, Pastor Ed, Deacon Charlie, etc., men I will never meet this side of heaven. They are the true movers and shakers.
Debbie, I’m not sure what you mean?
I did not rejoice at the dilemma caused it but I am happy that it was resolved without much division and with Tim not being nominated as a trustee.
Debbie–standing for something hardly means rubbing salt in the wound and grinning while you do it. That’s exactly what some of Tim’s detractors are doing. Tim and I are not friends. I don’t know him. I’ve interacted with him here only briefly, and it was in disagreement with one another. I don’t follow him on twitter. But nothing is gained by any attempt to publicly humiliate another. And it certainly isn’t Christlike.
Dale: That’s not fair to say that it is smiling and rubbing salt in the wound. No one has done that. What Tim said was beyond wrong and he has had some views that are so separatist while not basing it on truth. There is nothing wrong with being relieved he was not put on any committee. As for Christlike. That term is thrown around much too often without merit. It is Christlike to not want corruption in the Convention and speaking out against it. It is Biblical. To not say anything is a travesty and that is what is being done more than not. Peace at any price is a false peace, I am tired of warring and it should stop, but I’m also tired of things not being dealt with. That too should stop.
Debbie–I wasn’t referring to you specifically, but there are some who have indeed added insult to injury towards Tim. As far as Christlike, I don’t think I misused the term. I’m not excusing Tim, nor am I condoning what he said. Your relief is probably widely held. It certainly doesn’t bother me that he was replaced. But those who would now use this as a club in the very personal attacks against him are no more justified in what they are doing than was he in what he said. I probably agree with you on more than either of us recognize, but the “brethren bludgeoning” that takes place from every side also needs to stop.
For what trustee board had Tim been nominated?
IMB
Thanks Adam! If it had just been a campaign by “angry Calvinists”, it would have never gained the kind of traction it did and the committee would not have voluntold Tim to withdraw his name.
The fact is that Tim has repeated shown throughout years of online activity and particularly in the last year that he does not have the judgment, temperament, and other character traits that ought to be present in someone taking that kind of leadership role in SBC life.
This has nothing to do with “forgiving” Tim’s past mistakes. I’m glad he apologized for some of the things he said and I do forgive him. But that doesn’t change the fact he lacked the character to avoid saying them in the first place.
My hope is that this will be a real wake up call to Tim Rogers that this had nothing to do with his theology. I would not have opposed you, David, or a list of others with whom I disagree theologically. I opposed him based on his demonstrated and well-known character and that alone.
I would be glad for Tim to demonstrate over a period of several years a change of heart and attitude that could make him fit for service in these kinds of roles in the future. However, from what people have told me, he’s instead choosing to play victim instead of realizing it’s his own ungodly behavior that brought this scenario about. The only people to blame are Tim Rogers and whoever it was that pushed his name in the nominating committee. He should have never been nominated and I should have never had to have been standing at a mic with a motion in my hand to replace him. I’m just thankful things were straightened out behind the scenes so it didn’t have to come to the floor.
Well, Brent, I really don’t want to discuss this anymore, but it was only Calvinists…as far as I know….who were tweeting against Tim and threatening to bring up the tweet he made to White. It was only Calvinists, who were at the mics, to speak against Tim serving for 1 year on a board. And, it was Calvinists, who were high fiving and writing celebratory tweets after his name was replaced. Tim, who has faithfully served Southern Baptist Churches for years…small churches….and has never served on an SBC committee or board. So……what does that tell us? Who was it that opposed Tim? And, I know that it wasn’t all Calvinists, but….
David
David, I understand this is an issue that has a lot of personal ramifications and in many ways I would like to leave it alone as well. I do want to correct some misperceptions about how the whole situation developed and went down — mainly because I hope it will become a case study in the future for how out-of-bounds online behavior can disqualify someone to serve in denominational leadership (and I don’t just mean the tweet to White, I mean Tim’s whole developed, well-documented online and sometimes off-line persona.)
That’s a clear message that needs to be heeded by Lumpkins, JD Hall, Wade Burleson, and likely some others that I’m unaware of because I just don’t keep up with blogging like I used to. (I when I say heeded I mean they ought to heed it just for grace an civility purposes, but specifically if they ever want to gain a more widespread hearing for their concerns.)
It may have been mostly Calvinists who were raising awareness on twitter, but to assume from that the problem was theological is an unwarranted jump in logic. Weren’t there other IMB trustee nominees who had signed the Trad. document? None of them did or would have received opposition.
There were plenty of angry Calvinists doing work on twitter to oppose Tim, but there were also plenty of cooperating Calvinists on twitter as well. And I know there were plenty of cooperating non-Calvinists who were shocked and opposed Tim after they found out a little about him, even if they weren’t the ones on twitter.
I even said on twitter I didn’t want to have to bring it up, but felt like I was forced to by the actions of the committee to make people aware of his online behavior. No one wanted to deal with it because it obviously did embarrass Tim and coming out on the floor would have been edifying to no one, but it would have been the right thing to do. The nominating committee needs to do their homework better and not allow a situation like this to come up again.
And BTW, I decry and condemn any high-fiving (not sure who that was but it was wrong) and mocking tweets sent to Rogers and Lumpkins. The only joy I get out of this whole situation was that the committee corrected its mistake without it becoming a big issue on the floor.
If you, Tim, or any of your friends want to talk about the situation privately, you can feel free to give me a call, (757) 618-4648 is my cell.
David,
Are you saying Calvinists were the only ones capable of seeing the problems with having Tim on the IMB committee?
Chris
Volfan….understand I’m not calling you a liar if insinuating such…..
But if you KNOW cals were “high fiving” then I assume you saw it, and knew who these messengers were – else how else would you be so sure it happened?
Is that what you’re saying?
*or insinuating such
In a situation like this there are no winners. We all lost something. I see no cause for rejoicing by anyone.
Resolutions discussion was interesting. Expected to see an attempt to revive the resolution on lawsuits. Surprised that didn’t happen.
Afternoon motions: (with commentary and opinion)
1. On SWBTS reporting on ‘non-Christian’ students: will be out of order because SWBTS hasn’t reported yet and you can ask that question when they do–and leans into the telling them what to do territory
2. On music: refer to program committee next year. Was mainly a jab at the Penny Loafers, if you want my opinion based on twitter stream.
3. On allowing q/a time before vote–will refer to EC or Program Committee, but won’t go anywhere. That’s why we get announced candidates–the logistics of setting that up will be chaotic. I do think a standard question set from BP would be great, though. Real questions, not softballs.
4. Motion related to church revitalization that was similar to same messenger’s resolution on the issue–probably just referred out or ruled out due to similarity. Not much need to move to revitalize when NAMB uses that term a lot already.
5. Motion on CP Funding applied to online/distance costs for SBC seminary students. Probably referred to budget sub-committee/EC to look at the seminary formula. As it is, I don’t think distance students count for headcount for CP distribution, so they don’t get the funding. Be interesting to see what happens–that’s one reason used to get students physically present.
6. Motion to move 1% from seminaries to IMB–either out of order or referred to EC/Budget. Won’t happen, as IMB and NAMB have said they don’t want the money.
7. Motion to be challenged to pray for the persecuted church. Good idea and right proper resolution masquerading as a motion, so it will be “out of order” but expect a moment of prayer added in on the persecuted church
8. Motion to endorse American Heritage Girls and Trail Life USA. Probably a no-go, not sure there’s a grounds to do this. I like AHG–daughters and wife are involved. But, overall, I don’t think we have an “approved programs” list. It’s more a subject for either resolution respecting their work or something else.
9. Motion to require nominators give percentage given to CP, not just amounts. I think we’ve been down that road. As a high CP% pastor (30%), I recognize that big churches with their low percents are still giving a ton more in dollars. I doubt this motion goes anywhere, and I think we need it to not go anywhere. There’s more to it than “Cross Church gives less than 5% (and don’t expect it go up anymore) and Almyra Baptist gives 30%, so Doug’s a better Southern Baptist than Dr. Floyd.” There are other factors–but I do think we need to encourage CP giving. Just acknowledge that one number metric isn’t the whole story.
10. Motion to encourage involvement with My Hope/Billy Graham–either out of order or referred to NAMB. It’s a specific event endorsement and won’t get a vote.
11. Motion to tell Lifeway to not sell Heaven is for Real. Did we not learn back when someone wanted us to tell Lifeway not to sell The Shack? Lifeway does not listen and does not have to listen, unless the trustees speak to it. If it sells and is marginally Christian, they’ll sell it. So, that’s a motion that’s dead in the water.
Again, that’s my mingling of notes and thoughts. And I’m not a better Southern Baptist than anybody.
Except for Yankees fans.
So what was the music resolution?
Music motion, pardon me… 🙂
The music motion was that we have musical guests/performers/worship leaders at the SBC that reflected the diversity of the SBC.
In other words–how many people that lead in worship at the SBC are from white/pop contemporary or Southern Gospel settings? Is that really all we are?
Seeing the twitter chatter about musical group this morning, it struck me as a shot at bringing in an accapella group rather than having any kind of edgy music like rap or rock.
It also doesn’t consider this question: What does it take to get someone to perform at the SBC? Are we willing to pay or do we just get whoever comes free-to-cheap? And if we want to pay–do we really want to spend CP money on that?
I’m not sure that it will make it because it was badly worded but the motion on music was good I think folks will pay attention.
I’m the guy who proposed the music resolution. I keep up with this blog though I seldom comment. I actually thought of the resolution before the Penny Loafers came on, though that certainly didn’t hurt my resolve for it (side note- I found them entertaining). I go to a multiethnic church that is mindful of including music that is representative of other ethnicities, etc. I thought it might be a helpful proposal for the EC to consider. If nothing comes of it, then that’s not the end of the world. They clearly invite church ministries to help lead, maybe they’ve made moves that I’m unaware to move toward this, maybe they haven’t.
Kris, let me clarify what I meant by badly worded. There is a certain form these motions have to use if they are going through. You didn’t really follow the form of a motion, so it will likely get ruled out of order or maybe referred.
But the concept in the motion was good, and I think it was heard. People will likely hear what you requested.
Good idea. You got your idea across even if the motion doesn’t make it through.
It’s a good idea, and it will be either out of order or referred to program committee.
It will be interesting to see if anything changes. I saw some Twitter chatter about getting LeCrae or another big name. I think those thoughts don’t consider that LeCrae and other big folks may not *want* to be seen at the SBC 😉
Kris
What other types of music would you like to see?
Kris wants a polka band next year.
Let’s make that happen, and form it from SBC Voices commenters.
Dave, get a tuba. Rick, accordion. What else do we need?
Kris,
I gave the loudest second to your motion. Your’s and Alam’s were the two most important motions of the day from my vantage point.
Almost all of those are inherently out of order.
Kris, I thought you had a great idea and I was thinking the same thing and talking with others about it earlier. When you made your motion, the guy next to me nodded and said that would be great.
We should have a greater diversity of music. We have had it before and that should be a regular occurrence. Thanks!
Resolutions passed/handled as stated in the program.
Discussion:
Resolution 1 on appreciation noted to not mention Duff and Charm City Cakes (just kidding, but it should have)
Resolution 3 had discussion re public schools–the intent was to point out positives for private schools/homeschools but not be negative about public schools. Every time we’ve tried to speak to education, there is always the “there’s good Christian public school teachers and this isn’t nice to them” statement. Same here–the point was that some forms of schooling more naturally enable discipleship than others. Passed anyway–
Resolution 6 about Heaven is for Real-type books was asked if they should have named books (like Heaven is for Real) committee left titles out intentionally to keep application broad. And to keep from having another resolution that people thought told Lifeway to not sell something but Lifeway sold it anyway (see: The Shack, NIV2011) The obvious reason is first, but I think the second had an impact.
Resolution 8 had discussion about broad statement re: payday lenders. Worth noting that resolution was explicit about “predatory payday lenders,” which I would suggest is something no “Good Christian church members” should have as the business they own. Resolution falls under the “if the shoe fits, wear it” principle: if your business is charging ridiculous rates, then you’re targeted. If you’re actually helpful and not charging people 30-50% to borrow $300, then you’re not in view here.
Also valuable in that resolution was the idea of pursuing better solutions–that churches and businesses should look for those. Worth considering.
Declined resolutions that attempted revisit were one of Dwight McKissic’s on the Redskins name–not reconsidered, remained denied.
And the one honoring a church pastor for 50 years in the same church. I understand the principle–not using an SBC Resolution to honor a single local church issue, but we have resolved for individuals before. Maybe for a 50-year pastoral tenure it would be worth doing. Could even resolve that every year, honoring any pastor (even by name) with that tenure. The list wouldn’t be long and would more likely be small church folks who keep saying we’re ignored by the big convention. Just a thought.
Overall, not as much discussion on some as I expected.
(opinion mixed with facts here)
Wasn’t the 50-yr tenure for an African-American custodian at a mostly (or all?) white church?
Ok, that didn’t come through the stream well. Thought the man said minister.
I’m going to start a support group for church custodians. I’m going to call it PREMISE KEEPERS.
Bawahaha….good one Dean!
Honoring men with 50 year tenures at the SBV is a good idea
Dave, thank you so much for all the updates.
Just for the record I could not stand the Penny loafers but I understand others liked them and they can worship using that style of music.
Given that the resolutions express the sense of the messengers on the floor at a single Annual Meeting (roughly 0.05% of the membership of all churches if all 5,001 voted on a resolution and there really were 10 million SBs…in other words…bad assumptions but still just for the sake of argument), one wonders what the point is.
Some–like Dwight’s–rise to a different level an attempt to address behavior that is arguably egregious (if well entrenched and therefore now historic). I think we should address the concept of that kind of continuing racism and the essential denial that goes with it. But the commenters on this site helped make the point of how difficult it is to be both specific and broad and prophetic all at the same time. I thought Dwight’s resolution worked better as a sermon that is repeated in the presence of native Americans/aboriginal people. The contemporary “sermon” by the very small tribe in California that gets 1 minute of playtime during the NBA finals (afforded by owning a casino that they’re essentially marketing for with the sermon) seems less effective once you realize where the money came from to pay for it.
Which is to say: I trust Dwight’s heart and passion and understanding of the essential problem more than I do the NFL or that particular tribe. It just wasn’t something workable (or in my business it often is called “actionable”) because we know we’re bad at speaking on racism and we therefore cringe at doing it. Or, at least, that’s my read on why we wouldn’t pass the resolution. (Yes, I read the comments. Yes, the points were “ok”. No, I’m not convinced the resolution didn’t deserve more consideration on that basis alone. It’s kind of like straining gnats and swallowing camels in my opinion.)
Thanks for the updates and for Doug’s analysis, too. I won’t say I know what’s going on because of it, but I at least feel like I no longer can claim to be entirely clueless, either. Is that a happy medium or is that the kind of medium that is more like a sorcerer and therefore deserving of stoning? (No one should ever let PKs who read the Bible make pithy comments…they really shouldn’t…I’m pretty sure there should be a resolution presented to that effect immediately.)
No stoned mediums here.
🙂
To degrade one’s preference in music in order to promote diversity does not create diversity, but animosity.
I was not able to attend the convention tho year. I watched live stream almost all of it and will continue until 9it concludes.
Guys, your comments and updates have been very helpful. Thanks much
1. Tim wrote an unwise tweet and apologized for it both publicly and privately. Anyone else ever said or written something they would take back if they could? At some point, one must ask if the greater sin might not be found among those who refuse to forgive an otherwise godly man who has apologized and is serving in God’s Kingdom. Tim is a friend, so I may be biased, but I found his apology heartfelt and sincere. (Ironically, the real target all along was Ergun Caner, for whose benefit Tim’s counter-charge was designed to defend. So I guess I am defending a friend who was defending a friend. Maybe with all this defending going on, we should ask who is doing all this attacking?
Anyway, the committee was ready to defend the nomination. Tim did not want to put Gail and Rebekah through the ugliness of a public challenge to his service from the floor. Who would want to put their family through that? Thus, he withdrew.
2. Tarheel, this convention is almost over. So when is the big reveal?
Already took place.
Tarheel is actually CB Scott
Lol!
Do you swear by Ed Stetzer’s Middle Earth dwarf beard?
Rick, come to the back row on the right hand side when facing the stage if you want to meet Tarheel.
So he’s not going to announce it in this forum? (I’m presently watching by remote back at the hotel while my better half catches a nap.)
It’s already been done at the “bluster of bloggers meeting” at the Cheesecake Factory on Monday and discussed in another comment stream….I’ll be here till the end of the convention.
My name is Dave Cline.
Rick, Tarheel is a really nice guy….so is Adam Blosser.
Awwww…..
Thanks Volfan. 🙂
Rick …. You’re late to the game! There’s a whole conversation on another thread! Happy searching.
“So I guess I am defending a friend who was defending a friend. Maybe with all this defending going on, we should ask who is doing all this attacking?”
Should we defend our friends when they refuse to repent for telling lies in the pulpit? Not attacking you but I think this whole Ergun Caner mess has been because he was so anti-calvinist that people like Tim think they have to defend him or the calvinists will win. I don’t know Tim but I have read his writings and they are not very charitable as he accuses all of us who hold to the five points of Calvinism of being hyper-calvinists. However if he withdrew because he did want to have a big floor flight then I give him props for that. Honestly I hate the whole situation. I just wish however that instead of protecting friends and doing the good ol boy system that we would call people to repentance and get to the heart of the issues.
Amen Joseph!
Rick: This isn’t about just the tweet, although we again (as we do on Caner) have differing views on apologies. This is about all things written by Tim, including the latest post which was just not factual.
I really don’t think we need to discuss why I think Tim needs to do some rethinking. It’s pretty obvious. I really don’t want to rehash the obvious. I won’t be responding further as I think the conversation on this has gone far enough and I really don’t want to rub salt in wounds.
I agree the matter should be dropped. I see it as over. All the people who did things wrong have apologized. It’s time for the offended to forgive and move on and stop trying to embarrass.
Rick, Like you said in a later comment, the issue is over and need not be rehearsed. But it will continue to be addressed if you try and spread misinformation. The committee was not “ready to defend the nomination” by the time the report was going to be presented.
Tim may have come to the same conclusion at the same time and did voluntarily withdraw his name, but don’t act like the committee was behind him.
Sorry for the misinformation. At least one member of the committee was indeed ready to defend, but he was overruled by the majority of the committee. Is the part true that you were going to make public, on the convention floor, the text of his admittedly foolish and offensive tweet, for which he has both repented and apologized both publicly and privately? That would have embarrassed Tim, certainly, but also the whole convention. To put it another way, what more do you need from Tim to bury this hatchet and never, ever, bring the matter up again?
I think Tim could go a long way to burying the hatchet if he would stop calling calvinists names like hyper-calvinists. It would also go a long way to burying the hatchet if he would say that he is ready to put differences behind and to work together with us 5 pt calvinists that he thinks are hyper-calvinists because we hold to the same theology as the founders of the SBC. I know there will always be some people he will have a hard time getting along with. Its just a fact of life. But Tim could go a long way if he and lumpkins would quit going on about a Calvinist conspiracy. If he would apology for all of that and then just get to the work of the convention then I could get behind him and support him even being a 5 pt calvinist myself.
Joseph
This is between you and Rick but I do have a question. Do I hear you saying that unless Tim stops talking about “hyper Calvinist” that you intend to keep bring up this tweet?
D. L., please see my comment below. You guys will not back me or anyone else into a corner about when or where the tweet may be mentioned. It’s up to Tim to repent and change his behavior over time so that the tweet is no longer indicative of his character.
Brent,
Tim has repented and apologized. A letter has been mailed to James White. Maybe Tim needs to send you a personal copy as well. What if we published it? Who else do you want it sent to? I have personally counseled with Tim and spent time with him in prayer over this. I have heard his repentant heart. I am satisfied he is sorry and there will be no further episodes of Tweet-gate. This is why I’m asking, “What is needed to satisfy and make things right?” No one is backing you in a corner, just holding you yourself to the biblical standard of forgiving others just as God in Christ forgave you. So what will it take for you to forgive Tim?
Rick, I feel like I answered that pretty thoroughly below (6-12 at 12:23pm). Let me know if you still have questions after reading that reply.
I hate that this a limit to the level of comments that it will allow us to reply to but anyways this is a reply to D.L. Payton below me who asked “Do I hear you saying that unless Tim stops talking about “hyper Calvinist” that you intend to keep bring up this tweet?”
I am not sure that you are understanding what I am getting at. The tweet as bad as it was is forgivable and is not the entire reason that I think Tim should not be a trustee. I think the tweet seems to be indicative of Tim’s divisiveness over calvinism. So until Tim stops insulting and talking about “hyper calvinism” as if anyone who holds to limited atonement is against evangelism then he is not fit to be a trustee of the IMB. As I said above if Tim would repent of his anti-calvinist work (I mean not that he must become a calvinist but that he needs to realize that we can work together and there is no need to take such a divisive tone with his writing on it) then I would be glad to support him. But everything I have read seems that Tim wants to call names and accuse people of a calvinist conspiracy when some people are truly concerned with some unethical issues going on in baptist life.
Brent
I am not trying to back you into a corner. As far as i am concerned you can tweet on this till the cows come home. I do not know Tim and am not trying to defend him. I am just trying to understand why you are so obsessed with this.
As I understand the situation the man made a big mistake, apologized, and has paid a price. What is the purpose of the continual conversation?
Joseph
My Brother, you have gotten your way. He is not a trustee. Anything he says at this point he is speaking for himself. If you don’t like the way he talks to you then don’t talk to him. Shake the dust from your feet and preach the gospel.
My point: I do not know Tim or Rick. I am defending no one. I have had a nice life without knowing either and I am content to go to heaven without meeting them on this side. But the continual wrangling over this situation is harmful to MY SBC. Hence I have a stake in this.
D. L., I’ve said multiple times I’m happy to lay this issue to rest. I do feel there’s a need to get some facts out about how and why the opposition took place for those interested enough to drill down into this comments section. I have no doubt people’s motives will be questioned and I want to be as open as I can about what happened and why because I hope some redemptive & restorative events unfold in the aftermath. There was/is no conspiracy and the situation never stemmed from a theological disagreement. It’s about character & behavior and that alone.
If I may defend Brent just a little bit here. Hope I’m not speaking out of turn.
Brent and I spoke in the hallway prior to the session in which the nominations report was going to come up – we had met the night before the cheesecake factory recognized each other so we spoke to one another and shared an iPhone charger for a brief time. Since I had seen the tweets I knew what was coming and so I asked him about it.
It’s true He was in fact ready to offer an amendment to amend the nominations report HOWEVER he promised me that had no intention of speaking anything negative about Tim Rogers he only intended to speak positively of the new nominee. That was actually important to me as I did not want it to be overly and needlessly negative.
The only “sense of relief” during this whole little saga was that the nomination didn’t have to be challenged at all.
In fact Brent’s amendment would not have garnered my support had he spoken negative about Tim. You are correct – Rick – that would have been counterproductive and it would’ve been embarrassing not just for Tim and his family but for the entire convention and more importantly been displeasing to God.
From the beginning I was torn about whether or not to bring up the tweet itself on the convention floor. On one hand I did not want to because it would have been uncomfortable and embarrassing for everyone present, the SBC as a whole, and yes, Tim and his friends and family. So I very much did not want to bring up his egregious tweet in public.
On the other hand, a motion like that is nearly impossible to pass because people who are not aware of the issue are going to assume (wrongly in this case) that the committee has done their homework and is only nominating qualified, reputable candidates. So I did feel like there was a need to get information out publicly (twitter only reaches a handful) about Tim’s behavior and reputation. You have extremely limited time to get that across in that setting and the tweet is the most appalling and egregious EXAMPLE of a whole history of embarrassing online behavior. So yes, in the scramble to figure out how best to inform the messengers that Tim didn’t belong anywhere near a trustee board, I did consider either alluding to the tweet or vaguely describing it – don’t think I would have read it but hadn’t ruled it out.
So I had not made a decision about what to say or not to say regarding the tweet. Early on during the afternoon session I was informed that any negative statements about a nominee would cause my motion to be ruled out of order (I’ve heard people disagree about whether that’s true or not, but I began working under that assumption to be on the safe side). So that basically made the decision for me – I was not going to mention the tweet. I even offered to let David Worley read my comments in support of the motion Tuesday evening (he didn’t take me up on it, but I would still let anyone see them, with name & church of person who had offered to serve as Tim’s replacement redacted to keep that info private).
I hope that answers your first question, now to the second about “burying the hatchet”…
I’m glad Tim apologized and realized he was wrong. I forgive him. But I deny that forgiveness means forgetting in all situations. As an example, someone steals money from a church, goes to jail, the church forgives them, but when the person gets out of jail and asks to be treasurer again, the answer is no, and rightly so. They have shown they don’t have the character, judgment, resolve against temptation to be trusted with that responsibility.
So if Tim continues his outrageous behavior, the tweet may continue to be used as quick, egregious example of his faulty judgment, bad temper, etc…
When talking to people who have never heard of Tim, when I say he’s bitter and divisive, they think maybe I just have something personally against him. The tweet shows objectively that he is unable to be trusted.
However, I could imagine, and hope for a time over months and years where Tim repents and is restored, not of one tweet, but of an entire persona that’s contrarian, negative, bitter, divisive, etc… If we were to see that over enough time, I and I think others would be willing to leave his history alone and welcome his participation in SBC life.
Again I want to emphasize the reason “the tweet” continues to be brought up is because it is a symptom of a much deeper problem with Tim — and until the deeper problem is dealt with, we can’t know if next week there will be more tweets he needs to apologize for.
I understand you guys are probably going to take what I’ve said and claim I’m unwilling to forgive. I think that’s unfair, but I can’t control what you do. If someone’s a reckless driver and totals your car, you should forgive them. But that doesn’t mean you should throw them the keys to your new car.
I pray for healing and a restoration of trust. Thank you for explaining what was going through your mind as you acted. It helps put things in perspective when you can sort of replay a person’s thought process. By the way, I was born in Norfolk and lived my first two years in Virginia Beach. Take care.
Brent
I like your heart my brother. I appreciate what you said june 12 @ 12:23. It shows a true Christian character. As I said several times I do not know Tim so I have no reason to disbelieve any characterization you have made.
My point is singular. It is time for healing.
Rick , I’m here and waiting as adam just posted….
I tried to respond earlier with a “new” posting name but miller has yet to let it out of moderation….guess it thinks I’m a new poster.
I think Dave probably can’t do that until he gets back to the PC.
I just released yours–anybody else waiting will wait for Dave’s return to power.
I know!
Since since you’re watching from the hotel room I will storm the stage when Paige Patterson speaks like a freaky “cousin” with a “truncated” amount of clothing on and you’ll know it’s me.
(June 11, 2014 at 3:35 pm). Was a JOKE. 😉
Nice to meet you, Dave. (Great! Just what we need around here…another “Dave!”)
Just keep calling me Tarheel (or other nice names) and it’ll be good. 😉
Who said “Tarheel” is a nice name???? 🙂
Easy there….duck. 😉
Doug I am the person who spoke out against the resolution on Christian schools. I think you missed the points of my objection. Let me first say that I am not opposed to Christian schools. I have taught in public and Christian schools. I have two grandchildren in a Christian school right now. I do object to the direction of this resolution on several points.
First to your point about recognizing public school teachers also. One point of the resolution stated, “Whereas, teachers, administrator and staff in Christian schools are empowered to win students to salvation though evangelism, make disciples, and foster spiritual development.” I did make the point that this seems to imply that public school teachers are not empowered to do these things. They are empowered by the Holy Spirit to do these things and are doing these things all across our nation. This was only a minor issue that I mentioned but was the only one you mentioned.
The resolution also stated they encourage churches to promote the establishment of K-12 Christian schools. Churches that do not start K-12 Christian schools should not be made to feel they are not meeting some goal set by the convention of what a good church should be doing.
My main issue and the one I talked about the most was, “Resolved, That we encourage lawmakers to enact policies and legislation that maximize parental choice and best serve the needs and desires of families. I asked the representative of the resolution committee if this meant they were asking lawmakers to approve vouchers and tax support for Christian schools. He said YES!
As I stated, I am of an age that I remember when almost the only Christian schools around were Catholic. We Southern Baptists were strongly against any form of government aid or tax support for Christian schools and we stated it emphatically. I am sure if I looked back I could find SBC resolutions opposing tax support for Christian schools. I feel it is hypocritical for us to say no to vouchers and tax support when we do not have schools and then do a 180 degree turn when we have Christian schools. There were good reason for us to oppose tax aid then and now. When the government puts their money in to something they acquire the right to say what you can do and teach with that money. Federal judges have and will restrict the ability of those Christian schools to be what they should be. We have seen examples of this happening in Arkansas if you keep up with the news here.
Baptist interest in Christian schools started to grow in the 60s and 70s when schools started to integrate and white Baptist academies sprung up all across the south. This is when we started to try and reach into the public trough for money. I know there are many fine Christian school around accomplishing great things but if they cannot do it without public money they should close.
By the way, Doug, congratulations on finishing your M.Div. at the B.H. Carroll Theological Institute. You probably had the opportunity to study under some of my old Southwestern professors.
I share your concern of having the government get a say in our christian schools and I am not old enough to know how the convention addressed helping catholic schools however I think vouchers go to parents themselves and not to the schools directly. This allows the tax money that parents pay to be used where they deem. I went to public school and yet wish my parents could have afforded a private school instead. I have recently come to the conviction as a parent myself that no matter the cost, I will not send my children to the enemy to be trained for 8 to 10 hours a day. I kind of wish the convention went further in declaring that parents should not send their children to public schools but I realize that this conviction is not shared by everyone so I found this resolution to be worded probably the best way. I appreciated your clarifying and reminding that those who are public school teachers still have the call from God to witness.
I am not aware of any private schools being told what to do in Arkansas. Can you give evidence of this?
For decades I’ve seen motions and resolutions on vouchers, against public schools and related issues. Those who wish to demonize public schools as being of the devil, spew that venom as you see fit. Those enemy institutions are part of what gives you the right to make those statements. There is no good reason for the SBC to formally join in that. We will always have the anti-public school faction in the SBC. I’m only anti-BAD public, private, Christian, or home schools.
That said, choice is a good thing for parents and vouchers or tax credits are a good method to give parents choices. The devil is in the details of this and I doubt we will ever see this implemented.
I suspect that the more pastor’s wives are public school teachers than any other single occupation. The worst school my kids attended was a Christian school. BTW.
William I could not possibly agree more.
I’m often asked which I support; Christian school, public school, private school, or homeschool and you know what my answer is?
YES.
I support parental responsibility the racing of their children that is first and foremost in the nurture the admonition of the Lord and secondly that is educationally. Whatever option works best within the context of your family having decided that no matter which option one chooses it is ALWAYS the parents responsiblity to see to the spiritual and educational wellness of their children.
Those responsibilities can be shared with the public school system, with secular private school, or with a Christian school but those responsibilities cannot be replaced by those modalities.
I normally would agree but I think one of the major reasons we are seeing this generation leave the church is because of the public school system. I think a point is fast approaching and may already be here that if a Christian sends their children to public school they are being negligent and irresponsible as a parent. When children as young as kindergarten are being taught that homosexuality is ok, it will be really difficult for any parent to counteract that. When we send our children to the school and expect them to learn we are in effect saying that these teachers and administrative are trustworthy and that there words and teaching are trustworthy. I realize that there are still good christian public school teachers but the vast majority of new public school teachers I know and have met are liberal progressives with agendas.
You haven’t met all that many, have you? Most teachers do have an agenda: teaching the next generation the three R’s.
Joe Spurgeon announces to Christendom how all parents they should educate their kids. If this is ex cathedra, I’d better make a note.
I started my undergrad in education and dated a teacher for a while. I am also friends with quite a lot through social media and for the most part they all are politically and socially liberal with no regard to a biblical worldview. This was not meant to bash all school teachers but you don’t have to be paying very much attention to the news to see a new example everyday of how the public school system has become a place to brainwash our children. I am not condemning anyone who sends their kids to public school but I would strongly warn against it. But instead of me going on and on about how bad the public school system is why not some of you enlighten me on some of its positive elements for training and nurturing our children. Please don’t use the children as missionaries bit either.
Joseph,
Whether or not they are liberal is irrelevant. Whether or not they have Christian worldviews is irrelevant. Your insinuation was that they have specific agendas to push a liberal worldview onto children – that’s not the same as being liberal or being conservative or being anything else.
Besides which, there is a peculiar double standard of sorts among Christians. While I do not object to people seeking the education they think most fitting for their children, keep in mind what you’re saying here: you seem to object to the idea of people promoting a worldview other than Christianity even as resolutions such as that at the SBC advocate the Christian worldview being promoted in schools. The SBC has gone on record proclaiming an agenda to indoctrinate children in school with a Christian worldview – going beyond a school’s purpose of teaching the three R’s. So it’s okay if some people do it, but not okay if others do it?
JS knows a few of the 3+ mil public school teachers in the US…has been in a few of the tens of thousands of PS districts…is linked in social media with…hundreds…even dated a teacher no less…and authoritatively pronounces “most” to be lib-er-uhl and the schools brainwashing factories…all while smugly disclaiming any intent to bash all teachers.
Quite breathtaking, even for a Baptist seminary student which species we take for granted are just brimming with authoritative pronouncements out of their vast reservoir of experiences.
Here’s a tip: you introduced the concept of PS being the ‘enemy’, brainwashing and all that. Maybe you need to offer compelling evidence, something beyond the latest anecdotal outrage du jour, before you demand others enlighten you.
…but if you are just doing some old fashioned chest-thumping bluff and bluster, we can consider your stuff just a rant and ignore it. You make the call.
…or maybe find another school teacher more to your liking to date. That sounds like a better alternative for you.
William Thornton instead of trying to berate me and making assumptions about me, why not actually engage my argument? The fact that I am a seminary student does not therefore mean that I am as young as you think I am or that I have not had experience in the real world. However, you asked for evidence so I will indulge you a little. The following is just a tad bit of research on the state of our public school system.
Here is but just a small sample of teachers sleeping with their students:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/atlanta-teachers-caught-video-beating-non-verbal-special-students-article-1.1765551
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/california-teacher-arrested-multiple-sex-encounters-female-student-article-1.1827070
http://www.zimbio.com/The+50+Most+Infamous+Female+Teacher+Sex+Scandals
Here is some of the ten dumbest problems with common core:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/373840/ten-dumbest-common-core-problems-alec-torres
Here is a some info on the homosexual agenda being taught in the public schools:
http://www.wnd.com/2007/02/40339/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/07/06/california-bill-that-mandates-public-schools-teach-gay-history-goes-to-governor/
http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/education/education/2014/05/13/transgender-controversy-prompts-atherton-rethink-policy/9040585/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/15/ky-school-transgender-controversy-discrimination-policy/9158619/
Here are a few stories on how the zero tolerance policy of public schools are ruining boy’s education:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/boy-suspended-gun-shaped-pop-tart-lifetime-nra-membership-article-1.1359918
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/18064-zero-tolerance-policy-causing-schools-to-resemble-prisons
http://ideas.time.com/2013/08/19/school-has-become-too-hostile-to-boys/
US public school system is ranking lower and lower in the world:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/12/03/248329823/u-s-high-school-students-slide-in-math-reading-science
http://www.cnycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=978874#.U5rvLiXLA0U
Anti-Christian Bias in school literature:
http://americanheritageresearch.com/19/
The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZJoCfgAEuE
http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/
And finally here is a link to our school children being taught to sing praises to Barack Obama:http://thetruthwins.com/archives/6-videos-of-school-children-singing-songs-that-praise-barack-obama
Now the above was just a scratch of the surface. Our public school system is not doing a good job of educating our children in the three R’s but is doing a bang up job of teaching our children a non-christian worldview.
Chris Roberts said: “you seem to object to the idea of people promoting a worldview other than Christianity even as resolutions such as that at the SBC advocate the Christian worldview being promoted in schools. The SBC has gone on record proclaiming an agenda to indoctrinate children in school with a Christian worldview – going beyond a school’s purpose of teaching the three R’s. So it’s okay if some people do it, but not okay if others do it?”
I do object to anything other than a Christian worldview being taught. There is no neutral ground. There is not some kind of place where no worldview will be taught. Our children will either be taught the true biblical worldview or they will be taught an unchristian worldview. You act as if there is some kind of neutral ground in the world. C.S. Lewis said this ” There is no neutral ground in the universe; every square inch, every split second, is claimed by God and counter-claimed by Satan.”
Here is the issue the Bible is full of commands that we are to train and educate our children in the admonishment of the Lord. It talks about doing this all day every day. Yet somehow we have been led to believe that we can send our children to public school for 8-10 hours a day where they will be trained with a anti-biblical worldview and then expect to counter all of that training with just 3 hours a week in church. Even if a parent is diligent of the time that the kids are home from school, the plain fact is that the children will still spend far more time at school than they will with their parents being trained in godliness. I think our society is bearing the fruit of this now everywhere we look. Public schools cannot shoulder all of the blame but they do share some of it.
And alas that someone would say that I want us to abandon the public schools completely to the enemy, that is not what I am saying. I want Christian adults to become teachers and work within and without the system to be a light into it. However I would never encourage anyone to send their children into the system to do the work that Christian adults should be doing.
“I think a point is fast approaching and may already be here that if a Christian sends their children to public school they are being negligent and irresponsible as a parent.”
Really? REALLY? And the “vast majority” are liberal progressives with agendas? My daughters attend public school – one going into 7th grade next year, the other entering 2nd. EVERY teacher they have had, from my oldest daughter’s time in Kentucky to their time now in a west suburb of Phoenix has been Christian. I was invited to host a weekly devotional/prayer time in their school (our church plant meets in their school). I have been asked on numerous occasions to speak at events, and told by the principal to speak “however I see fit”. She asked us to make a banner with our church name on it so she could hang it in the gym so all could see the partnership we had with them. As to my daughters, they have both shared their faith repeatedly – they have invited kids to church events – they have excelled. My 7th grader is next year’s student council president. I could go on and on, but lunch is ready and I’m hungry. However, let me end with this – I noticed in the comment thread below you state, “I am not condemning anyone who sends their kids to public school but I would strongly warn against it.” Believe me sir, stating that the point may already be here that we are negligent and irresponsible as parents is condemnation, whether you thought it was or not…for the record, I am not against homeschooling or private Christian school settings, but this attack against God-fearing, Christ-abiding parents who choose another way has to stop within SBC circles. It’s just not right.
“I have been asked on numerous occasions to speak at events, and told by the principal to speak “however I see fit”. She asked us to make a banner with our church name on it so she could hang it in the gym so all could see the partnership we had with them.”
That’s as disturbing as his claim that all teachers are liberal progressives with an agenda to indoctrinate and goes back to my point that Christians are perfectly fine with agendas beyond the three R’s being promoted – provided it’s their agenda.
Well Chris, allow me to further the discussion so that you don’t believe me to be some sort of indoctrinating monster – A) at the events I spoke at I kept it low-key, spoke in generic terms of love, compassion, etc…(the events were in conjunction with Rachel’s Challenge, a public school program organized by Rachel Scott’s father in honor of his daughter who was a victim at Columbine), and did not use the platform to push an agenda. B) when the principal asked me to have a banner made with our name huge on it, I politely and kindly let her know that we instead would make a large banner with the school logo, and school name, and put our name in small letters in the corner. I told her I was going to do it that way instead, so she would not get into trouble with the district, with parents who might construe the banner as some type of agenda announcement, etc…so thank you for pointing out that I had an agenda. It gave me an opportunity to explain that I did not use those situations as a platform for an agenda, merely as an opportunity love on my community.
Steve,
Clarification is always helpful. Your earlier comments painted a different picture. Even so, it does lead one to wonder whether the school would be open to people of other religions, or no religion, speaking at the same event. Perhaps they did have some?
Well, I know they have had different people speak at different events. I can’t say what their religious preference was, as they did not vocalize those, nor did I.
All I know is this – our church and my family personally is highly invested in this school. From monthly blessings for the faculty ranging from muffins to $5 Starbucks cards for their birthdays, to Keurigs for the teachers lounge, to making meals 3 times a week for 6 months for a faculty family whose 16 year old son was going through cancer surgery and chemo treatments, we have had multiple opportunities to be salt and light in this setting. My oldest daughter has seen 5 classmates since her 1st grade year in KY to now profess a faith in Christ that she has shared with them. A male homosexual teacher in the school told another teacher that “No pastor has ever treated him with respect and courtesy” like I have. I believe the public schools hear the Christian’s rallying cries like the one mentioned earlier that called the public school system the “enemy” and called it the “place to brainwash our children” and like most situations that are similar, it makes it incredibly difficult for people who are trying to live out their faith in those settings. We are often our biggest hurdle, not the world itself.
Steve,
Two additional items.
Whether or not you took the school up to the full extent of their offer, the fact remains that you chose to present their offer as an example of why schools should be seen as good rather than bad. You countered Joseph’s indoctrination claim with one of your one, even if it was one that was not fully carried out.
Also, whether or not you did what the school offered, they still offered to do it. I remember similar programs from my own time in public school, even participated in them back in my days as a youth minister and have heard other pastors speak of taking part in them. That principle was willing to present explicitly Christian teachings at the school. Whether or not any parents complained is irrelevant; such is not a school’s purpose, and it is a demonstration of hypocrisy if people will decry schools for liberal indoctrination while praising schools for Christian indoctrination.
Schools are praised for permitting Christians teaching explicitly Christian things yet they are demonized if there is the slightest whiff of anyone else doing it.
Well, Joseph, haven’t we been busy rounding up links for various outrages? Here’s your problem: you made a blanket indictment of public schools, public school teachers, and parents who send their kids to public schools, identifying these with the “enemy” i.e., the devil and jammed it all under the meaningless “world view” rubric. Not impressive, my friend.
For evidence you first offered your social life (you once dated a teacher) your academic life (you once were in a school of education) and then you got busy and rounded up various links some of which are anecdotes (teacher sex scandals), others goofball actions by some of the MILLIONS of teachers and administrators in the country (kid has pop tart gun), and some data driven worthy of consideration (were behind in math).
I made no assumptions about you but fully engaged what you wrote. It was the kind of mindless claptrap, broad generalization, and tendentious nonsense offered by someone who probably (and I’ll point out for you what an assumption is, here’s a couple) has not had the experience or responsibility of educating his own children nor of pastoring a church with a sprinkling of highly dedicated Christian teachers.
All that leaves you in the role of someone who has a conclusion that lacks any reasonable and supported antecedents.
A suggestion. Get you a church somewhere nearby where you can preach to 75 or so people every Sunday, including teachers, parents, administrators, school board members, and students. Try out your a acerbic preaching points on brainwashing, the devil, the enemy, and non-Christian world views and see how that flies in the real world.
No one here argues that PSs are without issues and I recognize that there has been for years a segment of SBC life who calls for a complete PS exodus. This is misguided, unrealistic, and self serving in my view. Fact is, most Americans might decry the state of PSs but they actually like their own PS and think it does a good job…and they work to help it be better.
An alternative for you find a worldview acceptable teacher to date. Get married. Have kids. Educate them as God leads you. And save the ex-cathedra pronouncements to the Pope.
In reading these exchanges I’ve seen where some have constructively (while strongly) taken Joseph’s opines (he has in fact prefaced them as opinions) and ideas to task. That is what blogs are about – the free exchange of ideas and the tossing back and forth of points and counterpoints. IMO, This is a good thing.
Personal attacks, dismissing tones, demeaning assumptions and berating lectures are also taking place. IMO, those approaches are not a good thing.
Well, Dave Cline, thanks for the lecture, bro. As a no longer anonymous poster who refuses to affix his identity to his words I am happy to have a dialogue with you on these things. If you aren’t referring to me, say so and I’ll apologize, but I think I read the tea leaves here.
I’m sure Joseph Spurgeon is a great guy and a dedicated servant of Christ but he set the table here first by repeating Tim Roger’s inappropriate tweet (the one Tim apologized profusely for) and then by expressing his giddiness over Tim Rogers losing his IMB nomination.
JS followed that with a broad generalization and rash authoritative pronouncements that slammed all public schools, all public school teachers and thereby set another table, fair game for lectures, questions, and pointed statements.
You decry demeaning assumptions. Perhaps you can find one I made to add to the several JS made.
I agree that there is value in serious exchanges on important subjects. JS raised one and I hope he learns a few things from this.
Hit dog always barks.
William, my name was always attached to my posts as my email addy contains it. There was never any attempt to “refuse to stand behind my posts”. I was simply, till last week, selective as to I shared that info with.
Dave Miller (and every other person with admin access knew my name all along). William again, I (and everyone else) knows you feel agreived because you weren’t acceptably, in your mind, “read in” to that information. But since “my offense” is a thing of the past and in no way sinful perhaps you might move along, sir.
I also see that your arrogant and condescending attitude toward me hasn’t changed though since you now know my name….I didn’t expect it to by the way.
Guess I’ll have to share your disdainful attitude and posts with Joseph…..
Well, the more, the merrier I guess.
Dave, you are missing something here.
I made a light reference to your coming out. I commend you for it. While Dave Miller et al may have known you, you were anon to me. I think you made the right move.
On Joseph, either he is a grow-up and can handle his own stuff or not. He (a) took the gratuitous shot at Rogers, then (b) foolishly asserted that PS teachers were part of the “enemy” with kids “brainwashed” etc. if you discern a bit of contempt and disdain in my responses to his nonsense, good for you. It was well deserved and sprang came directly out of what he wrote. What should have your attention is his disdain and contempt for people in your church who are involved in public education.
Sometimes attitude is not conveyed in these exchanges. While I criticized you for hiding your identity when criticizing others, I appreciate your reconsidering that practice. Had I been in Baltimore I would have loved to meet you and would have gladly bought you a milkshake, although I would not have disclosed what flavor, since you like to keep others guessing.
Have a nice Lords Day.
William,
Think this is going to appear in the right place…lol
It’s very possible that I misunderstood you as we both know blogging doesn’t always lend itself to proper understanding and will just go from there.
First, Ron, my apologies for summarizing and leaving that point aside. I do think that’s a valid concern, and had the resolution called for vouchers or tax support, it would certainly have been out of order.
Government money does not go where government control will not follow. Any Christian organization that does not see that danger and prepare itself runs risks they ought not take. (Note, for example, the issue at Kentucky Baptist Children’s Homes last year.) Also, Tim Yarbrough sent me a copy of an advertisement for the Arkansas Baptist News from 188-something the other day. It listed the concerns of the day, and included Catholic Schools…and Nunneries! (Yep, that’s how it was put.)
I’m assuming that, since you’re at Immanuel, LR, that your years in teaching were somewhere in LRSD, NLRSD, or PCSSD. My high school diploma reads from PCSSD, and my memories of government schooling are strange and mixed. I had great teachers on subject matter in almost all subjects. Yet I remember an English who was a committed Christian and a literature curriculum that consistently attacked and belittled Christianity. Math and band folks who were Christians and under pressure from administration to keep more quiet about their faith, and a history teacher who was openly hostile to Christianity and being honored by the district.
I know that the most common objection that has been raised to any resolution or effort to speak positively of not using public schools is the “There are great Christians in public schools.” About this I have no doubt–I knew some, and know some in the church I pastor. Yet every year I hear them raise growing issues about the pressure from the system to keep their faith out of the building.
I saw the wording of “empowered” as reflecting school purpose, and I think we’re all in agreement about a couple things. First, every Believer in Christ is empowered by the Spirit to spread the Gospel and commanded to do so–regardless of cost or pressure. There is simply a question of effectiveness and opportunity. Second, I think we can all agree (or at least should) that no government run school should teach *any* religion. It’s never gone well–not with Christians in power, and it’s not going well with non-Christians in power, and it will go even worse with anti-Christians (not “The Antichrist” just people who are anti-Christianity)–faith should be taught at home, in church, and allowed to be expressed, for all, in the public square.
I would suggest another reason we should consider schools started by church, especially here in Arkansas. While the big cities haven’t quite been hit by this, many of the rural parts of Arkansas are losing their local schools in the name of efficiency through consolidation. While I admit that tax dollars should be saved and the old system where we had 300+ school districts in our state was wasteful, there’s a tremendous damage to the community when the local school is lost. It shrinks a portion of community identity, and it draws people to the area where the school is. The result? Dying towns.
Establishing a church-operated school that runs as a mission/ministry that is freely available to all who would take part, that teaches Scripture (and is upfront that this is part of what we do), that strives for academic excellence and not head-in-the-sand fakery; this would be a helpful thing out here in the flatlands. It would enable a church to connect with the community that is, right now, always on the road elsewhere because the jobs, the schools, the grocery stores are all “not here.”
And you’re right–a church that chooses not to do that shouldn’t be made to feel ostracized or bad by the convention. I think my assumption is that most folks don’t count resolutions as binding anyway, so there’s not really a reason to feel that way. I doubt your church will give two hoots, and they shouldn’t 🙂 Y’all are busy enough out there, and doing good stuff.
So, yes, my synopsis left off part of what you said. I took your opening argument and didn’t include some of the following statements. I appreciate your willingness to set that straight here, and agree with your expanded additional points–I just don’t see that resolution as really cutting against them. I’m beginning to agree with Dave Miller that resolutions are inherently dangerous, because we can never get the wording right. I’m for laws/policies that encourage school choice, but I would not want a tax-funded school in my church. There was an idea that floated in the AR legislature last year that would have allowed a state income tax credit for school supplies/costs that would have benefited public schools, homeschools, and private schools by allowing parents a bit back on the costs of any of these–that’s a good policy and one I would see this resolution encouraging. I can see, though, how it could be stretched the wrong way.
Thank you for noticing by graduation!
Now, on to the school question:
I’m a public school graduate who homeschools my children.
And I am tired of pro-homeschool or pro-private school arguments that use the “Sending children to the enemy.”
I am also tired of the pro-public school argument of “Our kids are missionaries.” (for example, we don’t send full-year missionaries as Baptists that haven’t had some college/seminary training or significant life experience; I find few elementary kids that have.) Want a missionary on your public school campus? Every state has a non-traditional license program. Go teach.
Here’s the deal: kids are not abandoning the faith because their school system teaches against it. Merciful heavens–how many of high school graduates remember the 50 states? Or basic math like counting money?
Kids abandon their faith because they are not taught and equipped by their homes and churches to deal with life. They are either quite adept at picking up our hypocrisies and lies at church, or they see us blatantly refuse to deal with sin, and so they are smart enough to think through what we are. They have parents who prioritize everything above faith, and then they follow in the actions they see.
The public schools are not stronger than Almighty God and the power of the Holy Spirit working through the Word of God. The students in our churches who attend those schools, though, are not learning at home and in church how to truly walk with God and listen to the Word.
We homeschool because we believe that is what God has directed. In our situation, it is the wise choice: scheduling, curriculum challenges, and stupidly long bus routes; all these go together to support the idea. Add in the benefit of studying science from a perspective of exploring the wonders of God’s creation (like Newton and Galileo did, for example), being free to chase electives that the local school will never offer, and being more readily able to fold learning into life, and I don’t understand why more people don’t even consider taking full responsibility for their children’s education.
I do believe that we as parents are responsible for our children’s education and growth–even had to sign an affidavit for the State Education Department asserting that I wouldn’t sue them if my kids turned out dumb for me homeschooling them–but a parent who willfully chooses to engage with the public school system is not siding with the enemy. They are making a different choice. Theirs has one set of pitfalls, my choice has a different set. Private schools also have pitfalls, as do charters, public-directed homeschools, and distance homeschools (my wife did her homeschool high school through a public university distance high school program. I daresay it was more anti-Christianity than my public school high school.)
We do great harm to each other and the cause of the church working together with us all to raise the next generation following Christ when we lob rocks at each other over school choice. I do advocate that parents *actually think about it* rather than default to any option: just because there’s a government school doesn’t mean you should automatically use it. Just because you can homeschool or private school doesn’t mean you should.
The end-goal is a generation that follows Christ in the world in which we live.
And just to finish my statement, I’ll say what I have said since I was in public junior high and heard laments about the end of prayer in schools (I’m young enough that my 1st grade teacher prayed before lunch, but not any afterwards. We were in Alabama, so we were a few decades behind O’Hair’s court case): The lack of prayer in schools would be no problem if not for the lack of prayer in homes and churches.
Amen, and amen again – Doug.
Doug,
While i agree with much you are saying, I don’t think that teens going to college are abandoning THEIR faith. They may be discarding their parents faith, or the beliefs of their church, pastor, and youth group.
Faith isn’t passed down to children by association. Faith comes to a person through God, in His time, and in the place of His desire. And though any one of us may stumble in our walk of faith, those with true faith will never abandon it.
Maybe what is happening is that churches are so eager to affirm their children and teens as saved, that they put the emphasis and pressure on the individual to make the ‘right choice’; and that those young ones then make a choice, not from a heart turned toward God, but from a heart wanting to please their parents, their youth pastor, their fellow congregants, and their peers.
Then away at college or away from the home and church, where the old pressures are gone, and new different pressures arise, they make another choice, one that ‘abandons’ their previous choice.
mike
I think Parson and Doug are saying the essentially the same thing in regard to why teens (people in general – abandon). Namely the gospel has externally impacted the behavior/choices of those who abandon – but it has not internally changed the heart for if it had they’d not have abandoned.
I’ll say it this way; All Those who are in Christ will never abandon the faith but will be brought through to the end by God and obtain in that end the salvation of their souls.
I also think you’re right about churches and youth groups tending toward “fostering”, if you will, lifestyles and behavior choices over the gospel. To be honest I’m not sure how to “fix” that other than, of course, faithfully teaching and preaching sound doctrine in the context of youth groups and strive as best we can not to fall prey to the bigger is better mentality.
Deeper focus over wider focus is best in my view. Although I’ll point out that deep and wide are not necesarily mutually exclusive either.
There’s so much pressure on pastors to cultivate the big and bigger numbers (both in attendance and baptisms) and that pressure comes from many corners, even internally as we struggle not to compare ourselves and our ministries to those of others.
Add to those pressures of a culture of teens/adults demanding to be entertained above all else, and the expectations of legalistic church members, parents and sometimes fellow pastors who insist on imparting moral codes over sound and deep theology in youth groups and you have a recepie for disaster. (True evangelism and discipleship are the causalities of moralism and ‘numberism’.)
I hope this all makes sense. Lol
Valid way to rephrase it–I think we all tend to agree that the problem is it’s never really “their” faith.
Jeff,
I was referring to state Rep. Justin Harris, the West Fork Republican who operates what he has called a “church preschool,” Growing God’s Kingdom. Harris was getting almost $900,000 a year in state and federal money at one point to operate the daycare even though he opposes in public tax support for anything else. I don’t remember the final outcome but he was investigated and I think he moved in religious instruction to after school hours. This took place a year or two ago. There have been other cases similar to this across our nation in years past.
There’s been a few other issues, and I have seen some cases where the tax implications got ugly, even without taking anything in from the state.
Especially when a church runs a for-profit preschool in a non-profit building.
If I may offer a bit of a different take, here’s 2 things I think of as a young man whose kids will start school in 1-2 years:
1. I don’t know what we will choose yet, but I’m open to different possibilities. For those who are considering public school, I’ve heard the book “GOING PUBLIC” is really good…but haven’t read it yet.
2. As is the case with nearly all resolutions the SBC makes, This one has ZERO effect on my decision, and seems like a waste of time.
Andy–
I’d suggest this: talk to several people who use the different options where you are. Consider schedule, cost, involvement, and soak the whole thing in prayer.
I find that many folks who jump into homeschooling, for example since I know it better, strictly out of fear of public schools get burned up real quick. Find positive reasons for what you choose.
My first reason to accept my wife’s suggestion for homeschooling was safety, (in homeschooling, I know where all the guns are. When I was in public school, I only knew where some were–which of my friends carried guns at school), but schedule and curriculum have followed.
Also keep in mind that you can (and should) revisit the decision from time-to-time. You may find that early learning options at home work well, but then want to look at other choices later (or vice-versa).
Andy,
We homeschool because of the positive reasons FOR it – not because of “enemy” argument, or because being AGAINST other options.
Reevaluating every year is absolutely the right thing to do. These decisions are not a one and done proposition, IMO.
And, homeschooling can be more expensive than many realize, so Doug’s advice to consult others doing it regarding finances is wise.
Homeschooling can also be done pretty cheap. Ask me how! 🙂
What has astounded me is that we’ve compared costs with public school folks–and we have church members spending almost as much on mandatory/near-mandatory stuff at school as we spend on teaching our kids.
If you can, because it won’t hurt you anyway, start squirreling away education funds. Even $10 a paycheck. You then have a start point (if you can do it ) and you’ll use it, one way or another.
And our money is going to books. Lots of books–which is not a bad thing at all.
I’m pretty pro-homeschool, but I understand why folks choose other options. But I’ll say this: my kids are playing outside in pretty weather while the public school kids are still sitting in class. 😉 it takes a lot longer to teach a classroom than it does to teach a small number, so you have more free time every day.
Now, some homeschool folks go nuts and take that extra time to fully nerd-up their kids and have 14 year old doctors. We’re not that type–but Cub Scouts, piano, and church stuff fills in a few of those hours.
Thanks for the replies, nothing I don’t already know, but thanks for the concern and interest. We have good friends in our church in nearly every possible situation, so we know to ask for input:
-Public school only
-homeschool only
-Christian School only
-homeschooled younger, then public older
-public younger, then homeschool older
-some families with one kid in public, one in Christian school, one homeschooled, for various reasons.
–> I would ask any of these families for input before going to see what Resolution the SBC put out on the issue. 🙂
I should also add that although I have high views of homeschool, It would be my wife who would be doing most of the work, So I as a good believer in headship will allow her to decide whether she wants to do it or not. 🙂
Lol…oh yeah – you’ve got a good grip on the situation indeed.
😉
I’m very pro homeschool too…
But I’m not pro homeschool “nerding up” as you put it – and I’m certainly not pro homeschool snobbery. That is annoying and gives us all a bad wrap.
Sadly I know more than a few homeschooling snobs. “I love my kids more than you do because I homeschool”, “I take my parental responsibility more seriously than you do.” ” My kids are too food to be around THOSE kids.” etc….
*bad rep….not bad wrap.
*Too good….not too food.
Lol.
I am pleased that the Southern Baptist Convention has adopted the Resolution on the Importance of Christ-Centered Education. Our convention understands that parents deserve choices when it comes to their children’s education. This is especially true as some of our public schools embrace secular agendas that are hostile to the Christian faith. In my opinion, education is missing something when Christ, the true “key of knowledge” (Luke 11:52), is not at the center of all learning.
I would also add that public funding may be necessary because the church is highly taxed in order to support secular schools. If these taxes were not taken from God’s people, we would have more resources to start our own Christian schools. If tax money is truly our/public money, then allowing citizens to freely choose to enroll their children in religious schools is appropriate. Thankfully, the Supreme Court agrees in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. That said, there is always a danger in taking public money because strings can quickly be attached. Christian schools must never compromise their calling, but accepting money without strings is a net positive. In fact, it helps us fulfill our Gospel mission.
My prayer is that vouchers/scholarships will become one of the greatest evangelistic tools of our time. I could even see potential parallels with the Sunday School movement in the 1800s. So. . . let’s start evangelistic schools that teach the three Rs as well as the Gospel of Jesus Christ. After all, children need the Lord.
I would also like to give a word to you entrepreneurial types. Vouchers are available in Indiana, Florida, Louisiana, Arizona, etc., and very few individuals, churches, and state conventions are taking advantage of this huge opportunity. These are truly grand opportunities. In Indiana, vouchers provide most of the population with $4,800 a child. Do the math. . . a class of 25 students/souls equals $120,000! I’m worried that men after profit will beat God’s saints to this once in a lifetime opportunity. Research the topic, there is a world of good to be done.
Doug,
Thanks for your reply. I have been busy and not had a chance to read the blog today. l was not bothered by your comment on the resolution. I just wanted to clarify my intent. I think you and I agree on 99% of our opinions of Christian schools, public schools and home schooling. They all have their place. I am an old time conservative Southern Baptist who was raised to believe that public funds should not be used by Christian schools. George Truett and R.G. Lee would be amazed that our convention would pass a resolution advocating tax vouchers and tax aid for Baptist schools.
I have been a member of Immanuel for one year. One reason I belong to Immanuel is that they have a Chinese church and let me preach every once in a while. I am not a Little Rockian. My public school teaching took place back in the 70s at Booneville Arkansas high school where I taught math, coached football, basketball, and track, helped lead FCA and taught a youth Bible study in our local church because we didn’t have a youth minister. My Christian school teaching took place in Taiwan at Morrison Academy which our indomitable leader Dave Miller also attended. I have also taught in two Christian Universities, Tunghai University in Taiwan and our own Ouachita Baptist University. So you can so from my background I am not one side or the other.
I spent 30 something years outside of Arkansas with the IMB and one of the questions I am asked is what has changed in America since you left. This is one area. The others is how popular it has become for Southern Baptist to use the most inflammatory language possible to attach anyone they disagree with.
I live about 5 minutes from the Baptist building. Sometime when you are in town let me know and you, Tim and I should have lunch together or visit over a cup of coffee.