The Executive Committee has given into pressure and is threatening David Uth with banishment from the Convention facilities unless he kowtows to their demands and rearranges his speaking schedule at the PC. This is unprecedented and an unfair last-minute change. Uth could probably sue if he were of a mind to do so.
I am guessing he will simply move the PC to First Baptist, Orlando and the building will sit empty for 2 days.
The EC has also taken some other troubling actions today.
I am grateful for Ronnie Floyd’s leadership and for JD Greear, but the EC under Mike Stone has been an unmitigated disaster. They went into executive session to avoid accountability for their actions, and I am hoping they will at least have the courage to publish a roll call of who voted to take over the PC.
I will admit that I wrote this post in haste and in an emotional state. I am horrified at this unprecedented act of interference by the EC in the PC. I think this EC has shown itself incompetent in dealing with abuse issues and other key aspects.
There are great trustees on the committee and if we move to replace the whole team, good men will get caught in the crossfire. i wish they would not have hidden this behind a cloak of secrecy. That leaves us unable to know who the problem is.
But I need to calm down and th8nk this through. I believe a real issue is at stake here and I am willing to take a stand here.
This EC hindered good work done by JD though he would never say so. They have overstepped here. They are preparing attacks on the ERLC.
The EC is the problem and we need a solution. A Baptist solution.
To clarify. You are now willing to take a stand, against others who are also willing to take a stand? If I am being honest, it sounds as if you are only in support of Baptists taking stands when they are standing for things you agree with them on. Men have come together with what they believe to be a “Baptist solution” and you appear to be outraged. Now, you propose a “Baptist solution” of your own. Would it be fair to assume you will welcome similar outrage from those with a different solution?
Dave, what can you flesh out on the ERLC front?
They organized a group today to go after Dr. Moore.
I’m putting the pieces together. This is absolutely ridiculous.
The executive committee doesn’t have the power to do anything to the ERLC except make a budget recommendation. They could attempt to undercut the executive director by cutting the budget but that would have to be approved by the convention, something that doesn’t appear likely given the way recent conventions have handled critics of the ERLC, including churches threatening to restructure their CP giving. And if a church wants to use money to get its way by designating around various SBC entities they don’t like, they are probably better off being independent anyway.
If the EC suddenly decided it wanted to get rid of the ERLC as a result of its “investigation,” it would have to present the findings at two successive conventions and get a majority vote at two successive conventions in order to take any action. That’s a pretty high threshold. Seems like an awful lot of fuss going on that will be unproductive and divisive, especially when it is clear the ERLC isn’t violating anything, from its designated purpose to the BFM 2000.
I deleted any and all of my social media accounts for about a year and a half. In hindsight, ignorance was bliss. In this season, bliss is not a luxury I can afford. The question I am now faced with is, “what do I tell my church of any or all that is taking place SBC-wise?” So far. I have left my church in bliss.
Wise or unwise?
I hardly ever tell my church about this. I tell them about our missions work.
Mitchel, Dave, Do you not think it is a problem that the vast majority of the SBC membership have no idea of the leadership and directional issues that are on the front burner of the leadership and the small minority of SBC members who closely follow events? I think there should be a monthly newsletter sent to every SBC church with the relevant information on issues surrounding the SBC. How important is the PC to the average SBC members , not very important. Vast distance growing between the average member, the leadership and the organization heads. Luckily for the SBC leadership the members are frogs in slowing boiling water, it will too late to turn back the clock as there will be a time when it is too late. There was no need to invite the guest speakers to an SBC event who create a division even among the Pastors, much less the general membership who would not support these speakers coming to their church.
Have you heard of Baptist Press?
Todd, What percent of average SBC read or even know about the Baptist Press? Dave and Mitchel above post seem to indicate that there membership is not too aware of critical SBC issues . I believe this is due to their trust of the leadership. How many SBC members are aware of this issue about the PC or the concern of the ERLC. Even more basic very few members are aware of the financial crisis the IMB went though and how the trustee system failed there. So I have heard of the Baptist Press and most who come to this site. In my church 97 percent do not get their Baptist info from Baptist Press but from their Pastor. Many Pastors do not follow the issues that close either. To close, most SBC would not be supportive of the non SBC speakers invited to the PC and would not want them to give them a platform at their church. I think if the Conservative Baptist Network finds a method to get their concerns directly to the members they will find a ground swell of support once the members are aware of the issues. The lack of transparency of the SBC will become a major issue.
My point is, we don’t need a new newsletter. This information is readily available to anyone who seeks it.
As for lack of transparency. When will the CBN be transparent about Paige Patterson’s involvement?
Wise.
We talk about missions a lot.
The other stuff not at all.
If it weren’t for our cooperative program -primarily the IMB -not so much NAMB -and our seminaries like GBTS & NOBTS -I would likely only give to IMB-which I am considering-but my church a) didn’t follow Baptist Press and b) care more about allowing Hesus to transform us an our community
Wise
Besides the interference with the PC, I am most concerned by this “ERLC Task Force.” It appears at first glance that we are pandering to more divisive elements within our convention who will not be satisfied until they have obtained Russell Moore’s scalp.
It may be time to start over with a whole new EC that is in line with the SBC’s voting majority. Not fighting against it.
I don’t know when Mike Stone’s term is up.
It may be necessary to completely start over.
I could not agree with this more. The endless attacks on the ERLC must be put down publicly. I will be onboard to support any such motion.
Dave,
According to the EC’s website, Mike Stone’s current term runs from 2018-22.
If nothing else, we need to move to replace him.
I don’t think that can be done under the Bylaws.
The membership of the EC changes like the Trustee Boards I think.
And the chairmanship of the EC is decided by the EC.
Is there some nuclear option?
Yes there is a way to do it under the bylaws. It would require a parliamentary move. A motion would have to be made during the designated business session to remove a sitting member of the EC. A lot would depend on the chair’s ruling. They could simply receive the motion and set a time for a vote in the subsequent business session. More than likely, they would refer the motion to the appropriate committee which in this case would be the EC. A point of order would be necessary to point out that this would be a conflict of interest and that a vote should be taken. The convention would have to vote first on accepting the motion instead of referring it and then, if it passes, scheduling it for the next business session.
The convention body does have the authority to remove an entire board, via this same parliamentary pathway but it would be much less likely to get a majority vote on throwing out a whole board than it would on throwing out one or two members.
Isn’t that exactly what is at issue here from the other perspective though? Why is it ok for you to believe the EC should be wiped clean, but it is not ok for other Baptists to believe the ERLC should be wiped clean?
My problem is with the lies and false accusations that have come against the ERLC and Dr. Moore.
Oppose them? Disagree with them? Fine. Lie? No.
Would you be willing to list all of the claims against these entities that you can prove to be examples of sins such as lying or slander? And at the same time, what of the lies, slanders, and sweeping assumptions made against those who happen to disagree with the very clear and public statements made by members of these entities?
Are you claiming that Mike Stone is a liar?
???????
Maybe the best question is this: Exactly who is / has been lying and what exactly is the lie and what os the evidence they are guilty of the sin of lying?
Anyone who says the SBC is filled with liberals.
Anyone who says JD Greear or Dr. Moore are liberals.
Those who claim people who oppose racism and sexual abuse are Marxists of any sort.
Most discernment bloggers all the time.
For clarification, in your comment, were you referring to the EC as liars, or bloggers as liars? If bloggers, I thought the post was about the EC?
Calling someone ‘liberal’ expresses an opinion, it is not strictly a matter of fact. Besides it is relative; it means ‘more liberal than I.’ Respond by saying, ‘He is to the right of Attila the Hun.’ An adversary is not lying in expressing a sincerely held opinion.
That’s not an answer Dave, that is a dodge. Are you specifically stating the Mike a Stone is a liar? Simple question… don’t make it hard.
No.
Thank you sir.
Mike is done this year as Chairman!!
His term is not done, but he will be replaced as Chair?
How may we go about finding out who is on this 6 member Task force that Mike Stone gets to appoint? The motion did give him the authority to select 6 people, so will that be public? I’d like to contact this task force , but I’m not sure it’ll be public. Maybe it will maybe it won’t.
They kept most of this secret.
Surely that information can be requested, right? Is that outside the bounds of our convention?
You could request it. I suspect that it will be made public, else we would have “Mike Stone’s secret committee to investigate ERLC.”
I have already submitted that request William. I agree with you, I’m sure it’ll be public.
I know this situation is disheartening to you, but I am one Baptist who, without reservation, is glad that the EC has stepped up to the plate to address this unmitigated fiasco of a problem with the PC, church of the Glades affiliation, word speaking/preaching female pastor from another denomination, etc. Whether this is without precedent is of little concern to me…it is the right thing to do for Baptists. May God bless the tribe of Mike Stone for his willingness to do the difficult, but absolutely correct thing, in my opinion.
The EC overstepped and I am considering options.
The EC has overstepped in this situation and I agree…something must be done. This pandering to a small amount of people who want to regain power is sickening.
Respectfully, I ask how do you know it is a small number of people and how do you know their motive is to regain power. Can you quantify your numbers? How do you know their motives? Again, I am not picking a fuss. 🙂 I am seeking information. I do not have my finger on the national pulse of the SBC. However, I can tell you with a great deal of certainty that the majority of pastors in our church’s association have been greatly concerned about ERLC for a few years, recent social issues in the SBC, and most recently the PC. Also, I know some churches have reduced their CP giving because of the ERLC. A few have completely stopped giving to the CP. Some are considering what they will do for the next budget year. I know a number of associations close to ours are very similar to ours, as are some in my home state that I know something about. I think it is a good move for the EC to have this study committee take a look at the ERLC. If all is well, they can bring a favorable report. I am pondering the EC’s action on the PC. I have mixed feelings about that. I know it is unprecedented. But I also know many, many, many pastors have serious concern about it. Personally, I think many of their concerns are valid. This is just me, but I am deeply troubled about the state of and the direction of our convention. I am a Southern Baptist by conviction and choice. However, for the first time in over 40 years, I have seriously considered stepping away. But I am not there… yet. I believe we are better together, if we can find a place where we can walk together in truth and unity.
BJ McCurdy I have yet to talk to one person in my association that is happy with who is speaking at the Pastors Conference. I have contacted several of my seminary friends and nobody is happy. I don’t think this is pandering to a small group of people instead I have a feeling the members of the EC were getting a lot of calls about this situation and they felt as though they needed to act. I am not saying I agree with there action but I am very unhappy with the PC speakers lineup and have considered not even attending for the first time in 10 years. I can ussually look past most of my disagreements with other pastors in the SBC but this is one I am having trouble looking past. But as Dave Miller said I am unsure if this was necessarily the best way to handle it.
Kevin, the Church of the Glades is an SBC church. The EC should not step in to disinvite an SBC pastor from preaching at the SBC pastor’s conference.
The issue I see with most pastors who are in disagreement is they are believing the lies Dave is speaking of. The ERLC has done much good in the last few years. Many can’t stand Russ Moore because he stood up, and rightfully so, to the Trump political machine.
I’m old enough to remember attending the Pastor’s Conference when a diversity of speakers was welcomed and applauded and this was after the conservative resurgence. Believe it or not, John MacArthur was at one such conference. He was considered the “outsider.” How times have changed. In my opinion, we as Southern Baptists are a greatly diminished body of believers because of our insulation from the larger Christian world. When will we learn that “we have much more in common than what divides us”?
Insulation and isolation are not helpful.
I’m not sure but I think John MacArthur has been cancelled.
RC Sproul would have been too.
Wait, since when is John MacArthur controversial to a conservative crowd? I read his books and commentaries all the time, listen to Grace to You, and listen to his sermons.
Are you comparing that to a a woman pastor who is a “word artist” and a four-square gospel preacher?
Since he started rudely telling women to “Go home” and such.
The Statement on Social Justice was his end.
You’ll never see him at the SBC, T4G, TGC sponsored events.
He’s been cancelled.
You all may be right that the SBC may have canceled MacArthur, but I haven’t. I still listen to his sermons, read his books, and respect him greatly.
Used to. I completely stopped because of his attitudes which I consider inappropriate for a man of God.
The point I was making was that we regularly had non SBC persons speak at the conference and others who were Southern Baptists but who were not always in the mainstream. And “traditionally” we as Southern Baptists have had been a “large tent” group willing to accommodate various traditions (although that is passing and may already be history). For instance, I’m not Charismatic but we’ve always had a few churches and pastors that have leaned in that direction (even some of our recent SBC leaders). The same goes with the other minority traditions including Calvinists, “Landmarkers,” Fundamentalists, and Progressives. It’s only in the last decade or so that we’ve increasingly become uncomfortable with other views and have been busy circling the wagons around a unified doctrinal view.
Why can’t we do things in the open? Not a great moment for Mike Stone, Ronnie Floyd, the EC, or the SBC.
It’s all in the perspective here, because thousands of your Baptist brothers would strongly disagree with you and consider this to be one of their greatest moments.
“one of their greatest moments”…wow
Wow, is EXACTLY what many of us have been saying for years….
The sad fact is, many will cheer the EC for their coup d’etat against the PC.
Mark, name *one time* when William did not use this site to promote transparency in the SBC, regardless of what he thought of individual leaders. He is being consistent.
Said nothing about whether or not the commenter was being consistent. Said something about the comment relative to the men involved in making the decision he and many here seem to disagree with. If you read it carefully, I didn’t condemn anyone, just made an observation from outside the echo chamber.
There’s that darn “thousands” which is used with the word “many” with no way of knowing. I would say a small group who uses falsehoods and misinformation to get what they want. Power and money doesn’t hurt either. I would also bet there is a behind the scenes leadership that is guiding all of this. So I wouldn’t be crowing too loudly, the methods being used are sinister in nature and this is just the beginning. It’s going to get even more sinister in the months ahead to the Annual Convention. This has been a long time planning. 2 years at least.
If they gain victory, the only reason they will is that no one who opposes their views can stoop to the level they are going to stoop. It’s going to get bloody and I for one cannot fight that way. Not many who oppose them can. I’m still suffering from battle fatigue from the last big battle the past 12 years. So their victory will be hollow.
Sorry, I was making a direct reference to the thousands who immediately joined the Conservative network. I know it is inconvenient, but it is true.
Honest question… asking respectfully… why was it ok for SWBTS to meet in Executive Session, but not the EC?
Swbts was considering a personnel matter. I’ve since said, more than once, that swbts has not been transparent and has not given a full report on matters there.
The More obvious question would be why did the EC not investigate swbts, or mbts, or namb back when those entities were in train wreck mode?
The fear of Twitter mobs?
Personnel decisions are done in executive session.
Wiliam, I agree with you. Doesn’t our “inerrant” Bible tell us that the only acceptable secrets are associated with prayer and giving?
The most troubling thing to me about the decisions made today is that it was done in executive session.
Assuming all the rumors that are swirling around are correct, I too am quite perplexed and more than a little concerned and would like to know what has actually happened and why….
I will though, as I duck, point out that there are over 80 Southern Baptist Brothers and sisters on the EC….and it takes, at least a majority of them to enter executive session, and to approve motions….therefore, whatever ire might be truly due over the alleged actions we are hearing about ought be directed at at least 40 folks.
Most, if not all of our SBC institutions and agencies, have executive sessions in their meetings. They are operating according to their documents. I have no issue with being totally out in the open when conducting business. It doesn’t bother me at all, even knowing my salary. If we desire to do away with executive sessions in SBC meetings, let’s change the Constitution and By-Laws of all of our boards and agencies.
People are hired, fired, and most issues are decided at SBC institutions in closed meetings.
Is there an article or link to an article that discusses this move by the EC? I cannot find one. Thanks
I think they have tried to hide the action. They reported it in barest terms.
I finally found the Twitter post. I don’t do twitter so it took awhile.
I read about it on Capstone.
That’s never a good thing
I know – I do not follow Capstone. Someone posted the link on FB and it was the first I heard about today’s events.
What exactly has to change for the EC to be satisfied concerning the Pastors Conference?
They never said.
I’m hoping that Buttigieg, Sanders and Bloomberg will speak to the SBC.
If that doesn’t happen, I am looking forward to those hard hitting articles in the NYT and WAPO against those guys and telling Christians if they vote for them they are violating their Christian convictions.
You are aware of the background of those Uth has “invited” to the SOUTHREN BAPTIST CONVENTION, right?
1. Wayne Cordeiro, pastor of New Hope Christian Fellowship in Honolulu and is NOT a Southern Baptist. He’ is a pastor in a Foursquare Church, a Pentecostal denomination founded by heretic Aimee Semple McPherson
2. Hosanna Wong. Female “pastor”
3. Jim Cymbala, pastor of the Brooklyn Tabernacle – heretical teachings and NOT southern Baptist
4.Phil Wickman, Bethel Church, Redding, PA – all you have to do is Google it!
It’s not PC, it BC for Biblical Correctness! read your BF&M 2000 and your Bible!
They are not leading the convention, but the pastors Conference.
Have you ever read a Wayne Cordeiro book? Hardly a heretic from all I can tell.
Calling Cymbala heretical is slander. He has some views that differ from ours but calling him a heretic is wrong.
Hosanna Wong is doing poetry.
Google says wickham is from San Diego.
C’mon man. I mean, c’mon.
Slow down and do your research. I did.
If we invite them, we are agreeing with them. It will take years to undo the effects, especially to our youth!
I don’t need the SBC, they need me for my CP dollars. Money speaks.
Does FBC Orlando know who these people are, or are they allowing themselves to be blindly led?
#Surely I come quickly, Jesus
Hi Keith. I’ve asked this question of a few people and have gotten zero responses, so maybe you can offer some clarity. It seems to me that over the years we have invited plenty of people to address not only the PC, but also the annual meeting, whom we do not agree with. Most recently I’m thinking about Mike Pence and Greg Abbott (Catholics) at the annual meeting in 2018, and a few years before that Condoleeza Rice. There are quite a few other examples as well. Are you saying that we should not have invited them? And that every person who stands up to a microphone at the PC or annual meeting be able to fully endorse the BFM?
I thought they spoke to the Convention?
Brother Rob,
I actually agree that anyone not in line with historical, traditional baptist beliefs should not be invited to speak as representing the denomination.
That said, those you mentioned were not representing their denomination or ours, but what the SBC promoted and believes (I.e. pro-life, pro traditional marriage, abstinence, etc.).
Those pastors invited to speak do not represent (in a wide variety of aspects) our faith or denomination. By giving those of “another gospel” a platform (wether they espouse their differences doctrinally or not) we are saying with one voice that we agree and are walking together in a way the Bible says is sinful.
A politician speaking in support of what we believe and represent is far different that a pastor who preaches a different gospel being given the green light. We are responsible to watch over the flock and keep them from being deceive This by by God’s Grace and by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Bottom line in my view is that sometimes politics and faith do mix when we are working toward the same biblical change for our nation. However, there is far too much at stake theologically when considering “cooperating” with those who truly preach another gospel. Nearly every letter Paul wrote speaks about keeping the truth once delivered. Read Galatians
Can you find a “youth” in the SBC that would be traumatized by any speaker at the PC? Do any of them care?
Mr. Miller, anyone connected with Bethel should be deeply troubling. I am not sure how much you know about Bethel. In recent months, I have been doing a great deal of research on Bethel because of a friend whose son was pulled into Bethel by a Youth Pastor who had connections with Bethel that the former pastor chose to ignore. I am not into grave sucking, and I seriously doubt that you are either. 🙂 I hope you don’t mind the humor.
A ton of SBC churches sing Bethel Music songs, and Jesus Culture which is an extension of Bethel Music. I’ve even heard them sung at the convention. Apparently few care enough to complain. I’ve tried to raise the alarm to no avail.
I don’t really care where a biblically sound, Christ-glorifying song comes from.
Be careful.
Trump might actually compose one.
Did you know that Billy Sunday’s song leader, Homer Rodeheaver, who later lead the music department at Bob Jones University, proposed to Aimee Semple McPherson? She turned him down. He never married.
That’s interesting. Mexicali Rose should have abducted him, they might have found romance together.
If you want to see how political Christians in the US have always been, listen to Rodeheaver’s song “For Molly and the Baby”. It’s a prohibition song.
An interesting window into the mindset of many Christians in 1910 or thereabouts.
10. Baptism with the Holy Spirit We believe that the baptism with the Holy Spirit empowers believers and that the Holy Spirit’s incoming follows the same pattern that is described in the New Testament (Acts 2:4).
This is from the What We Believe section from the foursquare page. The group believes that Christians will have the Holy Spirit and according to this section, they believe that if you have the Holy Spirit you will speak in tongues. This then is a requirement to speak in tongues to be saved. Rank heresy. This adds a work to salvation.
Cymbala believes that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is an event separate from salvation. He also places more importance on a Tuesday night prayer meeting than he does in the preaching of the word.
Hosanna Wong’s poetry is nothing more than preaching without a Bible, much like a Joel Osteen sermon.
You think they are going to promote those doctrines?
You are so weak in your faith that if they do, your grasp on truth will crumble?
Listening to opposing views can be strengthening, sharpening.
If Cordeiro follows his denominational teaching on tongues being a requirement for salvation, he is not a Christian. We should not be in the habit of inviting unbelievers to speak. If Cymbala is going to place experience over Scripture as the highest authority then he should come listen to sound preaching and not be the one preaching. Dave, I understand you feeling like the EC overstepped it’s authority, but theologically you are on the wrong side of this one. Part of the SBC’s problem is that often we seem to be missing a theological backbone. There are times when we need to take a theological stand and hold fast to the truth of Scripture. A conference is not the place to be strengthened by opposing views. There is no place for response. If you want to be challenged on tongues for salvation find your local UPC, also a cult, and talk to him. The pastors conference ought to be about baptist theology and strengthening the clergy with sound teaching.
“If Cordeiro follows his denominational teaching on tongues being a requirement for salvation, he is not a Christian.”
Document for me that his denomination believes that. It doesn’t. That is a false statement and a red herring.
https://foursquare-org.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/Print_Brochure_What_Foursquare_Believes_English.pdf
They either believe tongues is required for salvation or that you can be saved without the Holy Spirit. Which heresy do you want to believe. You’ve read the same doctrinal positions that I have. You included them in your post. Read #10 again. They believe that the “incoming of the Holy Spirit” follows Acts 2:4 = tongues. Therefore, if you have the Holy Spirit you will speak in tongues. If you receive the Holy Spirit at salvation then you will speak in tongues at salvation. Or, a person can be saved without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Both positions are heresy. Again, which do you support?
Todd, I just wanted to see if you had any more questions. I’m not being snarky. I really want you to see the theological significance of my point. It’s ok to condemn the actions of the EC but don’t support bad theology in the process.
If I’m not mistaken, hasn’t Jim Cymbala preached at PC before, maybe when Ronnie Floyd was president of the PC? I’m almost certain his wife and choir led worship for a session. I could be wrong, but can someone verify?
Yes, Cymbala preached at the PC in 1998 in Salt Lake City.
http://www.bpnews.net/4331/bevy-of–pastors-conference-speakers-urge-integrity-passion-perseverance
He has also spoken at other SBC conferences and state conventions.
Unless it’s some other people.
The level of opposition to some non-SBC speakers at one event is interesting. LifeWay’s Centrifuge camps have used non-SBC camp pastors and music leaders for years. One summer in California, only 1 week (out of about 5 or 6) had an SBC preacher. All of the musicians were non-SBC and the rest of the preachers were non-SBC. A staffer at Nashville assured me they all agreed to the BF&M. Of course they did (sarcasm). I know Centrifuge is attended by youth from many denominations, but I prefer my students to be taught by Southern Baptists at a Baptist owned camp. Non-SBC speakers at the PC? Shouldn’t be that big of problem.