I have never met Ashley Unzicker, but she impresses me as intelligent, enthusiastic, and really funny. When her pastor’s candidacy for SBC president was announced, she put together the “It’s tricky” rap that was something of a viral sensation throughout social media. At the time most of us had a good laugh – most of us.
But then other candidates began to come forward to be nominated. At this point, there are three candidates – JD Greear, Steve Gaines, and David Crosby.
I have not decided for whom I will vote. This post is not about the election, but the process.
As the race turned to two candidates, then three, some began to raise objections to Ashley’s seemingly innocent video, because “that kind of campaigning is just not appropriate” in the SBC and because some entity heads, friends of JD’s, were asked to intone the words, “it’s tricky.” I’m guessing at this point, after some of the attacks, Ashley likely regrets her humor. She’s been caught in the crossfire as some heavy guns have been aimed at her pastor.
And I think it is silly.
Unwritten Rules
When I arrived at my current church it was trying to recover from a devastating split. I had people in my office complaining about this violation or that. We had a discussion in deacons meeting about the horror that some were not wearing a coat and tie to serve the Lord’s Supper. One man asked a visitor to leave because he was wearing a hat in church. Finally, I made a pronouncement.
There is no such thing anymore in this church as an “unwritten rule.” If it is not in Bible or in our bylaws, don’t ask me to enforce it. If you want a rule to be universally adhered to, demonstrate that it is a biblical mandate or get it codified in our governing documents. NO UNWRITTEN RULES!
It caused a few problems and it solved more.
The election process in the SBC is governed by all sorts of unwritten rules that are old-fashioned, outdated, just plain silly, universally ignored except in public, and badly in need of change. Permit me to give two glaring, blaring examples.
First, the idea that “campaigning” is unseemly. There is a whole set of unwritten rules you have to follow about campaigning. Oh, you can campaign, you just can’t call it campaigning. The irony is that the candidate generally championed by the people who squawked loudest about Ashley’s video is the one who is campaigning the hardest. I hear on Facebook of regular “meet and greets” and “prayer meetings” and other engagements raising his profile since he announced as a candidate. He is campaigning hard for the presidency, but nothing is called campaigning. It’s all called something else.
Who are we kidding?
Let me be perfectly clear. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what this candidate is doing. The SBC is a political body and part of politics is seeking office and stating your case for one candidate over another. Each candidate should be free to make a reasonable case as to why he should be elected. But we need to stop the hypocrisy as well. Let’s not force candidates that campaigning isn’t campaigning. Let’s just be honest.
And that brings me to my second example. The whole mythology of the “I had no desire to be president, but my friends talked me into it.” I’m sure it happens, but there ought to be no reason every single candidate for president ought to feel the need to tell the same story. “I did not want to be president and I resisted faithfully, but finally gave in and have agreed to allow my name to be placed in nomination.”
The funny thing is, that’s exactly what happened to me when I ran for the meaningless office of 2nd VP. I was doing a garage sale to raise money for an upcoming mission trip when I got a call. It took me a couple of weeks to agree because I knew how politically charged that election would be and didn’t want to get involved. Eventually, I agreed to run.
But I know that story is not the normal story.
Contrary to the imaginings of the conspiracy theorists, there is no power elite in the SBC, but there are groups of powerful people who meet in small groups and plan strategy. And some of those groups discuss and decide whose turn it is to run for president. They don’t have dictatorial powers and sometimes people stray from the plan, but the mythology people are forced to present is not real – the decision to run for president seldom comes out of the blue.
Why do we have to do this tap dance? Is it required that the office of SBC president be occupied by someone who doesn’t want the job, who was forced into it? Is that what we want? Surely we do not want the kind of unchecked ambition and pride that is ruining our nation to find its way into our denomination. But can we not find a way to balance humility with a burden to do the job?
Let me try, before I get back to real life, to spell out clearly what I’m saying.
1. There is an unhealthy ambition, a pride and self-centeredness that is dangerous. But we do not combat that by forcing our candidates to pretend that they don’t want the job, didn’t seek the job, and tried hard to refuse nomination (unless that is the truth).
2. None of us wants to bring the campaigning we’ve seen in the national elections into the SBC presidential election, but there is a level of campaigning that is acceptable. Finding that level may be “tricky” (sorry) but we need to try.
3. We need to abandon these old-fashioned rules that force candidates to campaign without calling their campaigning campaigning. If the SBC wants to adopt some written rules about campaigning, then fine (I’m 99% sure it doesn’t). But if we don’t have rules then we cannot issue citations against violations of those rules. We cannot enforce rules that exist neither in the Bible or in the bylaws!
I think we benefit from knowing more and more about our candidates. That’s the best kind of campaigning – the kind that lets us know more about who someone is and what he’s all about. The right kind of campaigning for office is a GOOD thing. It puts the focus more on a candidates’ agenda and less on his celebrity and personality.
We need to change. The unwritten rules need to go.
And Ashley, I thought your video was brilliant. But when you enter into the world of Baptist politics, it’s…well…tricky.
It’s about time we get to talk about Calvinism and arguing about election again…
What a tricky topic.
Small correction:
It is actually “It’s tricky” not “He’s tricky.” It is a song by Run-DMC from thirty years ago. I agree about the backlash, it is silly.
I know nothing about rap.
That ambition to the office thing, I think it’s similar to 1 Tim 3:1–yes SBCprez isn’t a “biblical office”, but still for pastor/overseer Paul wrote: It’s good that a man desire to be in this office, now check his character–that is where you’re going to see true humility vs. the creepings of pride.
If someone wants to be SBCprez, great. Now lets look at their character.
So yeah, the “I didn’t want this” seems a bit forced over and over and over and…
I’ve been hearing it for 35 years.
“I was out on a walk with my wife and this gang of ruffians kidnapped me, held a gun to my head and said run for president or your family gets it!”
The criticism of the video I have heard most has not been about the candidate campaigning but rather an entity head being in the video. Was this an endorsement? That was answered clearly by Dr. platt, “No.”
I support an unwritten or a written rule that says entity heads should not endorse a candidate for SBC president.
That’s never even been an unwritten rule actually, Dean. During the CR, entity heads openly campaigned for candidates (moderates) and against the CR candidate.
And, if you track it back, the criticism of the video evolved over time.
At first, it was comments saying, “Shocking, he’s campaigning.”
By the time it was in public articles, the criticism was against Platt and others for appearing.
But early on, there were most certainly expressions of dismay that such a crass campaign tool would used. Eventually, the opposition refined its attack and focused on the participation of Platt and others.
Dave, I readily admit I usually run about a news cycle behind everyone else. The internet is slow in Mississippi. Maybe my coming late to the video kept me from reading the first comments on it. I do not question your conclusions on the criticisms of the video.
As to entity leaders endorsing candidates for SBC presidency, it was during the CR that it became an unwritten rule. Dr. Dilday’s “On Higher Ground” convention sermon and Dr. Honeycutt’s “Holy War” Convocation address, both in 1984, provided the impetus for this rule.
Conservatives and many moderates alike did not like Southwestern and Southern Seminaries being brought into a fight. Once the boards of trustees swung to a conservative majority it was clearly communicated such actions would not be tolerated.
Even in “peace times” I do not care for entity heads endorsing one candidate over another. All three of the announced candidates pastor churches that give to the CP. I do not believe it is wise to have entity presidents endorse one over the other two, especially when the president is the one who in an indirect way that will name trustees to the agencies.
Anyway, I am not opposed to changing the SBC election culture.
You have the Internet there?
what about Directors of State conventions? Heard one recently oppose one candidate and mention he called the other…then quickly add that he had no issues with the one from his own state, whom he called a “good friend”…how far up the chain is endorsing allowed?
And I want to be completely clear – one more time. I’ve seen NOTHING this year that I would consider inappropriate by any candidate. I’m not arguing for one side against another. I’m saying, let’s stop the charade and let’s realize that campaigning HELPS us if it is done well.
I see a lot of difference between Southern and Border States culture. Southerners are genteel in a way that Oklahomans, rural Texans, Iowans, Kansas, Missourians, etc. are not. And in a room of real SOUTHERN baptists, you feel it.
Midwesterners will tell you, quite openly, where you are wrong, but still work with you as much as possible. Southerners will smile and bless your heart all day long; but you might notice later that you were never invited back.
Some have called it “ask” versus “guess” culture. Askers think manners are expressed by accommodating the expressed wishes of others; guessers think true manners are knowing what to do without anyone saying it.
My impression is that most SBC leaders lean toward Southern, genteel, guess culture. I’m not, but to be fair, it might lead to a more stable convention life. The ‘job’ of SBC president is not really to make and deliver on too many political promises — and it shouldn’t be. The job is to run a meeting and name the right people to boards.
Now, maybe we SHOULD have people openly campaigning to be on agency boards, but that’s whole other post.
My limited experience with Southern hospitality came through my dad. He was raised in Georgia and Florida. I miss his “Thank you very kindly maam. I’ve spent some time there, and the thing that has always stuck with me is that people are pretty much the same no matter where they live. In the south however, they’ll gossip about you behind your bank, and at the end of the rant, they’ll say “Bless his/her heart”.
Go Ashley!
Article related to this subject.
http://baptistmessage.com/imbs-platt-denies-endorsing-greear-for-sbc-president/
David R. Brumbelow
Here’s an accurate article related to this subject as opposed to the the Baptist Message article which was composed mostly of lies.
http://www.brnow.org/News/April-2016/Parody-video-about-Greear-to-poke-fun-says-Unzi
Enjoyed your article Dave Miller!
I was unaware of the Biblical Recorder article and have no problem with both being available.
I would not, however, characterize either article as “composed mostly of lies.”
David R. Brumbelow
No one, not with a single syllable, has characterized the Biblical Recorder online article as not being completely factual.
When I see Will Hall’s name at the top of an article, what I expect is “…hit piece, a bit of agenda-driven, tendentious pseudo journalism…”
From providing cover for Joe Agullard at LC, to hit pieces on entity heads, to several other examples I don’t have at the front of my brain ready to fire off right now, I don’t trust what the guy writes.
Ditto with Todd Starnes or if Todd Starnes sides with anyone or any cause as he seems to have done with the video “controversy”.
I have to agree with Brent Hobbs about “hit pieces.” It seems that some of the guys who adhere to the same soteriological position as I tend to use the weapon of the “hit piece” article quite often to cast stones at other SBC folks with whom they differ.
Naturally, they deny doing so when confronted. They sound like Hillary Clinton telling a West Virginia coal miner that she really didn’t intend to say she was going to shut down coal mining in America when it would be obvious to any first grader that that is exactly what she did say.
Some of my non-Calvinist brothers can do “spin” on subject matter better than a Maytag washing machine can on High school football uniforms.
Of course, they will deny having done so until their dying breath, but that does not change the fact that they did so, and sadly, still do when it fulfills their goal to bash all things Calvinist or those of their own ranks who stand up against other non-Calvinist who have committed gross immorality.
As to the candidates being considered for president of the SBC:
I believe that we have fine candidates this year. I know Steve Gaines and I know JD Greear. They are both devoted followers of Jesus.
From my point of view, either would be a great choice. I do not know David Crosby, but from what I have read I think he is probably a grand candidate also.
Guys, one thing is for sure. We have far better candidates to consider for president of the SBC than we do for president of the USA. . . . and for that, we should be thankful to King Jesus.
Yes, unfortunate journalism.
+1. NC’s paper sets the standard, in my view.
All the candidates would do a great job! So whoever wins, I think the SBC wins (wish I could say that about the US presidential election…). I have no problem with entity heads sharing their opinions about candidates. I’d actually like to know. I think each candidate should post a rather detailed paper about their agenda for the SBC should they be elected. This should be more than a popularity contest or simply voting for the person someone likes best theologically. I’d like someone who’s a bridge-builder between us rather than a wedge-driver. I want someone who is aware of how dramatically denominational life is changing and how we need to reduce expenses, reallocate resources and stream-line the SBC for the future. I want someone who will help us honor the best of our heritage without limited to it. And above all, I want someone with integrity and compassion as they lift up Christ to the world. I have no problem with someone wanting to be the SBC president. The question is “why do they want to be the SBC president?” What’s their agenda? Who would reflect our witness best for Jesus at this time? We don’t need someone who comes across angry, divisive and prone to careless statements that unnecessarily cause controversy. We need someone who is winsome and wise.
I agree that any one of the three would be good as SBC prez. Each of the three has already answered the questions you raised, here on SBCV, on BP and their personal sites. If you don’t know this then it is easily found.
I don’t have a problem with entity heads openly supporting someone as long as they aren’t anti someone else in the process. The problem with Dilday and the others in the 80’s was they came across as more anti-Charles Stanley or anti-Adrian Rogers than that they were just supporting a friend or leader they thought would be a good president.
Scott, that is a reasonable position.
It would be my personal preference that entity leaders stay completely out of the politics of the convention. Were I writing policies, I’d proscribe political involvement by entity employees, as I would their candidacy for SBC office.
My point was that it has not been a policy.
Because I’m a scoundrel:
http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/commentary-sbc-presidency-too-tricky-for-greear/50586.htm
(I bow to Moderators or Rick if either desires to remove for any reason without prior notification.)
The Summit Church’s missions giving record in 2014 shows 1.6% for Lottie Moon, 1% for the Cooperative Program, and 0% for Annie Armstrong, information not included for some reason in the rap music parody.
http://bit.ly/1NVOmSZ
Honesty would likely compel my outstanding colleague Rick to tell all the facts. Ending your facts in 2014 is an incomplete. I’ll be happy to assist here:
Summit church is giving $390,000 in CP gifts this year. Allowing for the fact that they do not know what their total undesignated giving will be at this point, the estimate is 2.4% of undesignated gifts.
Summit’s giving to Southern Baptist Causes (CP + IMB + NAMB + anything else SBC) has been 10-15% for several years. That’s $1.5 million, estimated, annually.
Summit has a direct relationship with both NAMB and IMB that isn’t reflected in AA or LMCO totals. IMB has a formal pathway for this and NAMB as well (though I am less informed on the latter).
I judge Rick Patrick to partake of a cheap shot on this by using selective data. No big deal. Let’s lay it all out.
I recognize that the primary measure for some in an SBC president is CP giving. In this, two of the three candidates are sub-average. One is above average. Pick your guy, just don’t trash the others in doing so.
I agree that Summit Church is “doing their own thing” here, William, and when you look at their own thing, the info they shared in the press release and rap video was fine.
I was only looking here at the Southern Baptist ACP report—CP, Lottie, and especially, Annie. This is the information that was not previously reported.
Personally, I don’t recognize Great Commission Giving. I think it was a huge mistake for the SBC to adopt it.
You gave half the facts and painted half a picture. You can easily reach the conclusion you prefer (that a pastor of a high CP, traditional LM and AA offering church is the better choice for president) without attempting it this way. But if you leave out considerable giving that is CP giving and that goes to IMB and NAMB you are guilty of telling part of the truth. You know better. No need to slink around with this kind of stuff. I respect you personally and your conclusion, not your methodology in promoting it before others here and elsewhere.
If you want to lead the charge that churches that give to the seminaries, mission boards, SBC state conventions, SBC associations, Baptist children’s homes, Baptist state convention colleges are doing something you are unwilling to recognize…have at it.
Is it a Traditional Baptist “thing” to have four times as many reported members as actually attend a weekly worship service? I noticed Bellevue claims about 30K members with attendance of under 7K. Is that how Traditionalists roll?
William, to say Rick takes a “cheap shot” is stooping very low. Rick stated documented facts including the year they were reported and provides the SBC data to back it up.
Mr. Sims,
I don’t think Williams issue was that Rick lied about the facts or skewed the facts, his issue is that Rick did not present ALL of the facts. ALL of the facts are necessary. We wouldn’t interpret Scripture with just part of the context of the passage. The same principle applies.
Now, I don’t think we should assume it was intentional on Ricks part leave some of the facts out…we should assume good motives. But hopefully his narrative will change a little based on ALL of the facts.
I like Rick. This was not his best effort and I am perfectly comfortable blowing the whistle on a cheap shot. Rick is as well informed as I. He knows full well the complete story of summit’s record. He chose to use the metrics that best fit his aim and narrative.
No big deal. I supplemented his stuff. Let folks decide as they wish with all the facts.
I have stated it before but will do again: we as Southern Baptists need to be focused on sharing the gospel, baptizing new believers, making disciples and sending them out to do the same. To equate a certain percentage given to the CP, Lottie or Annie is putting a legalistic forest in front of our job, which is to sow the gospel and reap the harvest.
Too many churches and members equate evangelism with the size of check donated. Brothers we all know that this is dead wrong. What goes unmentioned in both the Hall and Patrick articles are the churches planted with large dedicated teams from The Summit being sent out to do the work. Imagine if this biblical desire to focus on sending capacity and not seating capacity caught fire in the SBC. It would be wonderful.
Also unmentioned is the outsized IMB workers that The Summit has sent out to the world. Brother in the end if your church is not sending people out and multiplying disciples then what good is a fat check?
Have I as a church member followed Jesus command in the Great Commission if all I do is write a nice check? The same question must be answered by every church.
I read Brother Patrick’s article and others on that site and it started to crush my spirit with all the name calling and negativity towards our Baptist brothers in Christ. DO any of us think there is a crown of glory to be won for battling fellow Baptists? Is there an anti-Calvinist or Reformed merit badge to be earned that I have missed?
I think we all know of or belong to churches focused primarily on us: our building, our programs, our comfort. We know it is wrong and not biblical but have allowed it to rule the day at perhaps a majority of our churches. Thus it makes sense that baptisms are down and a supposedly 10 million plus convention has a paltry 400 Journeyman in the field. I bet the Mormons have 400 or more in just SC & NC. We have and are doing a poor job of training our members in fulfilling the Great Commission. When a church that certainly looks to take the GC seriously puts forth their pastor for President some choose to snipe at him.
There are churches, pastors, church members, seminaries and SBC entities that take the GC as a command to be followed and not a suggestion and I praise the Lord for them. If we were all together in this effort then the Lord would greatly bless it.
“I read Brother Patrick’s article and others on that site and it started to crush my spirit with all the name calling and negativity towards our Baptist brothers in Christ.”
It’s best to stay off that site. The slander in comment section and even in some of its articles is astounding. It’s discouraging but thankfully only a small handful.
Tyler,
So, let me get this straight. SBC Today is full of slander and is bad for the soul, but SBC Voices is not?
OOOOkay.
I don’t have to read a comment section too far to hear people slamming Bellevue Baptist Church, Steve Gaines, Will Hall, Rick Patrick, etc. Nope, don’t have to read too far, at all.
David
Volfan, did I say SBC Voices is not? There definitely is. I’ve seen. Heck, I’m ashamed to say I’ve probably done it. The difference is the contributors of SBC-Voices such as David Miller puts a stop to the slandering when it happens. Likewise, some of the articles at SBC-Today have slander, misrepresentation, and hasty generalizations and wrong assumptions without clear evidence. I have not seen that in SBC-Voices. The comment section in SBC-Voices for sure, but their articles. But like I said, David rightly puts a stop to it, whether Calvinist or not. I cannot say that about SBC-Today
Tyler,
There’s no rebukes of the slams against Bellevue, Gaines, Rick, or Hall. Just look above. No rebukes.
Also, I enjoy reading most of the posts at Today. There’s been a few that I thought would’ve been better left I posted. But, I could say the same thing about Voices. So, let’s keep it real, Bro, and be fair.
C’mon, David. Show me one specific comment that is a “slam” against Bellevue.
You just leveled an attack. Now you need to back it up. This is free discussion site and unless people go with extreme personal attacks, they are free to express opinions. You never seem to care when people slam those you disagree with, but only when your friends are disagreed with.
So, I challenge you – back up your angry accusation or apologize for it, David.
That should read “better left unposted “. Autocorrect strikes again!!!
Louis Cook was saying some pretty harsh things about Bellevue, in my opinion. He said, “Is it a Traditional Baptist “thing” to have four times as many reported members as actually attend a weekly worship service? I noticed Bellevue claims about 30K members with attendance of under 7K. Is that how Traditionalists roll?”
That doesn’t sound real nice to me.
Tyler said this about SBC Today, “It’s best to stay off that site. The slander in comment section and even in some of its articles is astounding. It’s discouraging but thankfully only a small handful.”
That doesn’t sound very congenial about SBC Today; now, does it?
When I saw Brent Hobbs quote this, and say he agreed with it, “When I see Will Hall’s name at the top of an article, what I expect is “…hit piece, a bit of agenda-driven, tendentious pseudo journalism…”
That sounds a lot like an attack on Will Hall; does it not? No rebuke.
When Louis said, “The one “Calvinist”(Greear) seems to take the Great Commission seriously and has led his church to embrace it by sending memebrs out yearly in North America and the rest of the world to share the gospel and be soul winners.
Also one(Gaines) has only 1/4 of its actual members regularly attend a worship service.”
So, Bellevue doesn’t take the Great Commission seriously????? And< it's implied that there's something evil about Bellevue and Gaines, because only 1/4 of their members show up on Sunday morning. Whooooooooooow.
No rebukes on any of these insulting comments.
Also, Louis said, "I think what is probably most common are churches like Bellevue that have 4 times as many members as attenders. That seems to be the way of the old school traditional SBC." Well, Dave, that's just about as insulting as it gets.
So, do you want me to continue? I can go back to old posts and comments, and show a lot more.
God bless you, Dave.
David
I’ve allowed you guys to slander Platt pretty hard, and we answer it. That’s the basis of discussion.
I have been away all day, haven’t read comments – except yours slandering me, which I let stand.
That’s what we do. Different opinions. But you should try to back them up factually.
If any church reports four times as many members as actual attenders then should we not question them? Is it not a problem when so many baptized believers are not involved in their local church? I think it is.
The one continual criticism of Greear is that he is a Calvinist or Reformed. Well the BF&M 2000 was written by and approved by both Adrian Rogers and Al Mohler. Those two Southern Baptists could work together then we should be able to do the same.
The never-ending C obsession is unproductive and divisive. Yet like a dog with a bone there are some who will not let it go.
David,
I actually remember in the very first article posted about Gaines running for President people irresponsibly bringing up things from Gaines’s past. Dave immediately shut it down.
Also, don’t worry. Autocorrect will be the death of us all.
David calls attention to Louis writing: I think what is probably most common are churches like Bellevue that have 4 times as many members as attenders. That seems to be the way of the old school traditional SBC.” Well, Dave, that’s just about as insulting as it gets.
Not particularly related to whether this is intended as an insult, or whether this is “traditional”. But my experiential observation is that this is common for “old” Baptist churches in our area — that is, if they have been around a 100 years or so — they have gradually (since pretty much the phasing out of church discipline through the 1920s to 1940s) built up church membership rolls that express 2 or 3 or 4 times their attendance figures. I think a lot of it has to do with the age of the church and gradual lack of diligence with the church roll. This does not speak to anything about Bellevue, since I have no personal knowledge of its practices.
I did not intend it as an insult of Bellevue. I think it is a problem and is an issue for many SBC churches and those of other denominations too. I think it indicates a lack of discipleship, accountability and understanding of the responsibilities of both church membership and being a follower of Christ.
Dave,
Brother, I love you in the Lord. I really don’t want to fight over this. But, I gave DIRECT quotes from people, who were saying mean, insulting remarks, who were not rebuked. That’s what I told Tyler. I backed up what I said with FACTS. I was simply telling Tyler that it cuts both ways. That’s all. And, it does. The quotes above are examples of that. I’ve seen a lot more from past posts and comments. So, when a lot of commenters start wailing on Today, Rick, Will Hall, Gaines, and Bellevue, and then someone says that those people at Today are meanies, and people are better off not going to that sight, while extolling the virtues of Voices, as if Voices is never that way. Well, let’s keep it real. Let’s be fair.
And, I like to read Today and Voices, both, most of the time. But, there are things that some people say that just stir up strife, and it causes me to want to throw my two cents in. Other times, it’s just spirited discussion, and differences of opinion, which is fine. But, let’s not play like there’s one bad, mean, negative blog over there, and there’s the squeaky clean, nice, always right one over here. C’mon.
Louis, it really looks like the bone you want to pick is about Gaines…maybe because he’s not a Calvinist? You sure are coming down hard on him and Bellevue. And, it appears that some other Calvinists have “problems” with Gaines, as well. Interesting.
David
I am not a Calvinist so that dog won’t hunt.
Here’s my problem, David. We need to be upset about slander and abusive speech, not just slander and abusive speech against our buddies.
I’ve been slandered regularly in the comments at SBC Today. It’s why I stopped visiting the site. This site was called SBC Pravda by some. Never, to my knowledge was a word of rebuke or correction spoken. Scott, Lydia, and others spoke freely. Fine. You know what, it doesn’t bother me. Pulpit &Pen regularly lied about me, twisted my views, plagiarized articles. It’s part of the blogging world. I stayed away from that site and let them slander me ar will (I knew about it because my “friends” would link me to the latest lie).
I just stopped going to those sites. That’s my choice.
Now, I’ve been a bad monitor/moderator here recently because of things happening in my life and church. Yesterday, when you were lodging accusations against my integrity as a moderator, I didn’t look at the site much till late evening, when I answered your accusations. I’ve considered giving it up, and I may still, because of time. I am too busy to moderate. I want to write, not ride herd over Christians who don’t know how to converse. So, I spent NO time on the site and opened up to find my integrity being questioned because I don’t side with the anti-Calvinists.
Fact is, I stay out of convos like this because I HATE THEM. I hate talking about Calvinism issues because it accomplishes nothing. I try to avoid certain comments because I don’t want the backlash. These guys are right. I called some guys down on the original Gaines post. No commendation for fairness? Nope! Because you aren’t a good guy if you aren’t in the club and I’m not.
But you need to put on your big boy pants and make your points without playing the victim. I’ve not read all the comments, but I’ve not seen any worthy if deletion. You’ve attacked me, but I don’t think your club has really been attacked.
Answer the challenges. Don’t act mortally wounded because someone dared to raise a question or a challenge.
All if that is to say this: I am less moved by the pleas of “slander” if someone only cares when those in his little club are being spoken against. We ought to care as much when someone on our own side unfairly speaks against another. That’s integrity.
David: I read the articles at SBCToday because although they tend to be rather one-note, some of them are good and discussion worthy. But you have to admit that discussion on those articles is all but impossible on SBCToday. Say what you like about the comments or moderation at Voices, it is a much free-er place to discuss than Today. Every single discussion over there becomes a diatribe against the CR, or hatred towards any or all of a handful of prominent Calvinists. Calvinists who comment over there are treated shamefully. If anyone over here called Traditionalism satanic or suggested that Traditionalists don’t preach the true Gospel, you better believe they would be shut down, and rebuked by the Calvinists here.
Well, I’ve said what I needed to say. I stand by those comments. As I said, I’ve got better things to do….much more things to do….than to continue this arguement, and try to answer the name calling and accusations against me. BTW, I always wear big boy pants. They’re the only ones that fit me.
God bless all of you. I love yall in the Lord. I look forward to seeing you all in St. Louis; Lord willing. I truly hope we will see the day when the fellowship of the SBC is not being divided by Calvinism, or by people who are trying to make the SBC more ecumenical and trying to promote doctrines that aren’t Scriptural nor Bapists(Elder Ruled Churches; baptism by sprinkling, and infant baptism, etc).
Louis, there are a couple of dogs in this pack that won’t hunt. You claim you didn’t mean to insult Bellevue. That won’t hunt. You wrote in a particular way to convey a particular message. It was clear. You singled out Summit Church for praise and then singled out Bellevue for ridicule.
Summit gives 1.5 million estimated annually to GCR. That is awesome. Bellevue gives 1.6 million estimated annually to GCR. In your research of Bellevue’s attendance figures did you not see that information or did you just not care to share it?
Here is a quote on Bellevue’s local mission focus from the Courier (I will let smarter people than me determine the value of each state convention paper, Johnny Hunt and the Courier may not be a good source to some), “Through Bellevue Loves Memphis, Hunt wrote, “the church has demonstrated love for their city through meeting practical needs as a platform from which to share the Gospel. Thus far, they have held 33 workdays. Their volunteers numbering 30,000 have served 106,505 ‘man hours’ on 945 projects resulting in 510 professions of faith.”
A local church has dedicated over one hundred thousand man hours to local missions and you snipe at Bellevue for having bloated rolls. You write a discourse at 10:34 about getting along to do the work of the Lord and then at 10:46 you poke Bellevue in the eye rather than praise their mission efforts. Hello pot let me introduce you to Mr. Kettle.
Finally, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Will you share where JD Greear has been maligned on this thread for being a Calvinist. Identifying someone as Reformed is not maligning them.
The research consisted of the numbers quoted by Rick Patrick in his article. Strange that no one seems to want to address the 4 members for every faithful attender statistic from Rick’s article. Rick and others want to constantly divide us into “Traditional” versus Calvinist camps. I wish we would just live out the Great Commission.
Clearly the C/R issue is a hot button to some over in TN, LA, MS, AL and perhaps other places. I find it tiring and unproductive. Continue to divide and you end with little left.
I think some of what we are having here is bleed thru from other discussions that took place on other sites.
“If anyone over here called Traditionalism satanic or suggested that Traditionalists don’t preach the true Gospel, you better believe they would be shut down, and rebuked by the Calvinists here.”
Bingo.
One reason I’m thankful for SBC Today is that people who want all-Calvinism, all the time, ad nauseum, can go there and talk Calvinism or anti-Calvinism to their hearts content.
Someone read my article. I can’t remember it being about Calvinism. Yet somehow here we are, once again, obsessed about Calvinism because that’s all some people want to talk about.
They see people not as people, not as part if the Body, but as us vs them, Traditionalists against the evil Calvinist takeover. And EVERYTHING is about that. And I hate it. I hate it.
I get aggravated every time Calvinism comes up because I know sensible discussion is over. Now it’s another quota, conspiracy, us vs them, hate fest.
And I’ve been blogging for over a decade and I’ve yet to see anything good come from Calvinism discussions. Other discussions have produced fruit but these have been wholly unproductive in my view. Wood, hay, and stubble.
So, I wish you’d take it over there where it’s valued and spend all day every day talking about Geneva’s evil over there.
I’m sicker of it than of being told that I’m actually voting for Hillary because I won’t vote for Trump.
Louis, Bellevue’s attendance percentage is easy to fix, purge the rolls and then you have a church running 7,000 and gives 1.6 million to GCR and has 100% of its members active. However, even that would not be enough to stay your criticism of BBC.
What did strike a nerve with me is your selective, petty criticism of Bellevue, one of the great churches in America. Why not celebrate Summit’s mission work at the same time celebrating Bellevue’s and 1st New Orleans’? Your words were intentional and critical and then you lecture people on working together while saying you meant no harm. Again that dog won’t hunt.
My sole criticism of Bellevue is one that I stated more than once is a problem for most if not all SBC churches and that is baptized believers who are members but are not involved in the church. Perhaps Pastor Gaines and BBC are addressing that issue. I understand from one of Pastor Greear’s books that it was an issue that they realized had to be fixed. Purging the roles is not really a fix. It is just cosmetics. When someone is accepted into membership into a local church they should not be a name on a page that is easily erased. It spruces up the active numbers but a person is forgotten.
I did not write an article on any site or in any paper on the video, Pastor Greear or Gaines. I have responded to comments on this site.
Dollars given to CP, Lottie and Annie are great. High percentage given is great. They are not everything. Preaching the gospel, baptizing believers, training them and sending them to do the same is everything in my book. I am sure that all three pastors and churches work hard at our shared commission.
The C police and the CP percentage patrol miss the bigger picture.
I apologize if I offended you in anyway. We are in the same tribe.
Where in MS are you? I have family in Lafayette and Yalobusha Counties and way back they were up in Tishomingo. Take care.
Louis, offence forgiven and forgotten. I agree that purging the church roll is not productive at all.
I pastor in Carroll County, MS. The most rural county in the state of MS. I pastor a little country church, Vaiden Baptist Church.
You can get mail or email to me by addressing anything “Dean – Mississippi.” They will get it to me for there is only one.
Thanks. Is Vaiden a suburb of Possumneck or vice versa?
Possumneck is a suburb of Kilmichael, just down the road from Vaiden. I am impressed you know Possumneck.
We showed this video a couple weeks before Easter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDud9-gSoTc
That is a good one. Thanks again.
I have a friend from Canton. I know nearby Yazoo City via Jerry Clower and Willie Morris. Then Robert Johnson is from Greenwood. B.B. King is from Indianola and Matt “Guitar” Murphy is from Sunflower. After SC & CA, TN and MS are my two favorite states.
When you say things like this, Dean, you make it almost impossible for me NOT to ridicule you.
I thought Dean was typing in tongues at first.
Bring on the ridicule. I have the ultimate answer – the Yankees stink.
Really, some one from Drake’s Branch chimes in.
Hey Dean and Louis,
I lived in Arkabutla for 7 years. I served as Pastor of a Church, there. It was really inbetween Strayhorn and Arkabutla, near Senatobia and Coldwater. Tunica wasn’t that far from me, either.
David
Dean, ask him if they still call Drakes Branch “Ducks Puddle?”
Lol.
The Christian Examiner piece is by Rick Patrick, a repeat of his article on his blog, SBC Today. Fine. Just note that Rick ignores the article by the NC Baptist paper, Biblical Recorder, in which Ashley Unzicker is actually contacted by the BR content editor and asked about the rap. Not Rick’s best work, I’m afraid. Facts are our friends, unless they don’t fit the narrative you are trying to foist on others.
http://www.brnow.org/News/April-2016/Parody-video-about-Greear-to-poke-fun-says-Unzi
My article simply asserts that Greear was unwise, in my opinion, to allow the rap music parody of a song about fornication and promiscuity to be produced on his behalf, and that Platt (and possibly others) were not informed as to the purpose of the video. Also, I challenge the notion that it is only for entertainment, since he is running for office and the parody lyrics seek to establish his qualifications for that office. I just find it hard to believe that this was not an attempt to gain votes.
In the article you linked, I found this quote by Unzicker: “It never crossed my mind that people would look at this and think this was a serious ‘campaign’ video. It was meant to be silly and fun.”
Reflecting upon that statement, I would have to ask: “If it *never crossed your mind that people would…think this was a serious campaign video* then why include all the written disclaimers at the beginning and the end of the video insisting that this was harmless fun and not an attempt to advance Greear’s candidacy?” It seems obvious to me that it DID cross their minds, and that even after Gaines announced, they decided to publish it anyway.
Thankfully, the news cycle has moved far beyond this unfortunate rap video incident. It’s yesterday’s news and is probably not worth rehashing.
The disclaimers are for those without a sense of humor. It is like a disclaimer on a coffee cup that inform you that the beverage is hot. Some people are slow, some have no sense of humor and some will argue over anything.
But the existence of these disclaimers disaffirms the specific notion that “it never crossed our minds that…” since if it had never crossed their minds, they would not have written, “I was only joking.”
“So is the man who deceives his neighbor, And says, ‘Was I not joking?'” (Proverbs 26:19)
This video was for MORE than entertainment purposes. It was to advance Greear’s candidacy.
I guess McDonald’s and Starbucks need to look out for you.
So now you’re pronouncing the parody rap to be sinful?
I am saying the statement that it never crossed their minds that such entertainment would be viewed as politicking is disproven by the existence of the disclaimers.
So that statement was deceptive, and to claim one is only joking is a form of cover.
I believe the word I used for the parody itself was unwise, not sinful, but perhaps one might make the case that to parody a “Raising Hell” album song about fornication and promiscuity could be viewed as sinful.
But I think it was merely unwise.
The disclaimers were added after the response by those looking to make mountains out of molehills.
Dave Miller beat me to that…the disclaimers you refer to came later, Rick.
I choose to see this as folk who love and appreciate JD (his staff and friends) wanted to poke at him a little and just totally did this out of good natured ribbing?
I honestly think that whomever of the three candidates who ends up being elected will be a good one – therefore, I strongly oppose or support none of them over the others.
I love Weird Al. To my knowledge, his parodies really are for entertainment purposes, rather than supporting any political candidates.
If I saw some of AU’s other parodies, I would probably like them a lot. This was the first one I had ever seen, and it came across as a candidate commercial denying that it was a candidate commercial.
Did you not know that every Weird Al parody has been made with the unacknowledged purpose of one day having him elected to the Rock ‘n Roll Hall of Fame?
They are all campaign videos and he complies with all RnR HoF election laws. Some find his three decades of campaigning distasteful but
Bob Marley said you have to “Stir It Up.”
Good grief Rick. It was funny(the rap video) and pretty genius. I would say that if the other two had made a video that was around the internet. Have a sense of humor for cryin’ out loud.
We are in full agreement.
I don’t know Rick, the article you wrote is not only void of facts, but has some (parody) unfacts as well.
It seems your aim was to destroy…..again……and why I think you were unwise to make an issue of it.
You did not support your claim of the alleged “void” in facts or the alleged “unfacts” with any, you know, facts.
My aim was not, as you suppose, to destroy anyone, but only to express my opinion that I hope people will think twice (and three times and four times) before making such a video in the future, claiming it is only for entertainment and not informing all participants of how their footage will be used.
In all the talk about openly campaigning for SBC president and the three SBC presidential candidates,
I find it odd we can talk freely about all that,
yet cannot speak of the fact that one of the three candidates is a Calvinist (Greear), and the other two are not (Gaines, Crosby).
Whatever your view, perhaps Southern Baptists at least need to know these facts as well.
If I have them listed wrong, please correct me.
David R. Brumbelow
Also, one(Greear) was a Journeyman and the other two were not(correct me if I am wrong.)
One(Greear) has a church with more current IMB workers than the other two combined.
One(Greear) has sent out more members to plant more churches than the other two.
The one “Calvinist”(Greear) seems to take the Great Commission seriously and has led his church to embrace it by sending memebrs out yearly in North America and the rest of the world to share the gospel and be soul winners.
Also one(Gaines) has only 1/4 of its actual members regularly attend a worship service.
Finally, only one(Greear) seems to have an extra vowel in their name.
Many current IMB missionaries have joined The Summit. They usually do that while they are attending and taking extensions at Southeastern. I have a young man in from my congregation who just got commissioned to the IMB who joined the Summit church with his wife, “to further his commitment to the IMB” whatever that means – most probably it is the “in” thing to do seeing that Pastor Greear is who he is in mission circles. So I would say cob-bash on this notion that all by themselves The Summit is seeing a work of God in sending missionaries from that specific church. The Summit just is in the right place and moving with the right people.
Rob
So is Crosby’s church doing similar things since they are so close to NOBTS? Is there a church in Louisville, Kansas City, Fort Worth or Mill Valley with a similar record?
Perhaps The Summit keeps missionaries at the forefront of everything they do with the expectation that members will be missionaries and not seat warmers that fade away over time.
I think what is probably most common are churches like Bellevue that have 4 times as many members as attenders. That seems to be the way of the old school traditional SBC.
I don’t know what those others are doing – I have no first hand experience of them – The Summit I do. You can interpret the data any way you wish. All I observed is that for the vast majority of IMB missionaries from the Summit, their missionary yearnings occurred somewhere else besides The Summit.
As to what churches do with their attendance numbers and weather that is old school or new school or not – my answer is a)I have always advocated honest answers and have that policy at my church and b)your bringing it up is a non-sequitur.
Rob
You have observed the vast majority of missionaries from The Summit? Were you a member? Your first post mentioned one person but now you have the scoop on the vast majority. That seems like quite a leap.
You do not have a direct relationship with the church but you can “cob-bash” their focus on sending people out to fulfill the Great Commission locally, nationally and to the ends of the earth. What amazing long-distance discernment you seem to possess. You believe that this surge of missionaries is just due to location and being an “in” church. If true it should be happening in at least five other seminary locations.
The Summit is based in Durham which is over twenty miles from Wake Forest, home of SEBTS, so it is hardly the local church for the seminary. They do have multiple sites but none are in Wake Forest. The closest one is in North Raleigh which is twelve miles away.
The membership versus attendance numbers speak to a lack of discipleship and accountability in the local church, wherever it might be. If you have baptized believers who have joined the church and dropped out of sight then something is wrong and should be addressed. I think every church has to address this and not allow it to continue. Walking the aisle and being baptized is the start and not the whole thing. I hope we can agree on that point.
I only commented on what I know Louis and what I have been told by credible sources, i.e. the folks who go there. And they are quite a few more than just one. From those same sources I know that The Summit attracts many Southeastern students, specifically those who aspire to Missionary service. Nothing wrong with that, and I never said otherwise. In context my “cob-bash” was to the notion that “a majority” (a fact that I still hold to based upon my knowledge and sources) did not receive their callings at Summit = God used other congregations of churches as a vehicle to lead them to seek missionary service. As to distance be it twelve, twenty, or forty measly miles are nothing nowadays – we no longer go about with horse and buggies. “The church alive is worth the drive” right Louis?
So…you know nothing about me or my connections so spare me your lack of knowledge ok? I don’t have to pull out my bona fides for your inspection – this is a discussion board.
Rob
Who can’t speak freely about Calvinism? Miller asked and got great answers from Greear: https://sbcvoices.com/an-interview-with-jd-greear/
I’m not seeing where the issue has any relevance in this topic. I’m open to someone showing me how it relates.
Alan Cross asked those questions, but they were great and JD answered them well.
Did that article mention he was a Calvinist or a part of Acts 29?
Notice I did not run down any of the SBC presidential candidates.
I believe any of the three will do a good job.
But just like a Pastor Search Committee (Pulpit Committee) should know if a pastoral candidate is or is not a Calvinist,
the SBC should know that about a presidential candidate as well.
Whether his being a Calvinist hurts or helps him is not my point, just that people ought to be transparent and know one way or the other.
Frankly, him being a Calvinist will probably help his chances. Mainly depends on who and how many show up at the SBC.
David R. Brumbelow
I mean….it’s on their church website..soooooo
You can talk about it, but when all certain groups want to talk about and focus on is “He’s a Calvinist” it makes it hard for the rest of us to believe them when they say, “We don’t hate Calvinists” and “We want to co-exist with Calvinists.”
After the vote is taken at the SBC in June, it would be interesting to see how many Calvinists voted gor Greear, and how many Non Calvinists voted for Gaines and Crosby. Do y’all think the voting will be along those lines?
I could go Greear or Crosby. Not Gaines, though.
Why not Gaines?
B/c I think he’s too much of the good ol’ boy network and status quo. If he wins, he could surprise me in that as Floyd has some.
But I think with the other two we’ll see stronger attempts to diversify nominations across ethnic and small/big/mega church lines. Gaines strikes me more as one who will keep looking to the megas more than anything.
Mike,
Gaines is big on prayer, revival, evangelism, and stewardship. He is a small town boy, who came out of a Non Mega Church. In fact, where he grew up is not too far from where I live, right now. He also has a great relationship with the Black Pastors in the Memphis area. Bellevue has members from all kinds of racial and ethnic backgrounds. So, I’m not sure why you believe what you do about Steve Gaines?
David
I agree with you Mike.
Wow, I’m shocked. Debbie disagrees with me, and agrees with Mike!!!
Well, I’m over the shock now. Whew.
David 🙂
“After the vote is taken at the SBC in June, it would be interesting to see how many Calvinists voted gor Greear, and how many Non Calvinists voted for Gaines and Crosby. Do y’all think the voting will be along those lines?”
David: Again read Dave Miller’s answer.
Where is it? Debbie, I don’t see his answer.
This answer from Dave further up in this post. It reads:
“You can talk about it, but when all certain groups want to talk about and focus on is “He’s a Calvinist” it makes it hard for the rest of us to believe them when they say, “We don’t hate Calvinists” and “We want to co-exist with Calvinists.”
Debbie,
I was asking a question to everyone. I was wondering what THEY thought about the upcoming vote.
David
Honestly, David I think the lines are drawn just a bit differently. I think most Calvinists will likely vote for GGrreeaarr but not because of how many petals he likes in his tulips. I think it has more to do with cultural things and mission methods/strategy.
I think some (on both sides) measure things by if someone is or is not a Calvinist but for the most part what I see are two competing visions for the direction of the SBC and I don’t think it has to do as much with soteriology as some would like to believe.
I don’t know, Mike. I see it coming down to soteriological lines. I figure some of the younger Non Calvinists will probably vote for Greear, due to his popularity amongst the younger crowd. Some of the younger ones, who don’t know about the Calvinist things going on, in the SBC, is who I’m talking about. They just know that Greear is a popular author and Prof.
But anyway, I see it coming down, like that.
Mike,
You make an interesting point;
you may be right.
David R. Brumbelow
Furthermore, I would bet that most people reading this already have their minds made up. Y’all know who you’re voting for right now.
I don’t.
I said most. Lol
I don’t.
Like Greear’s missions emphasis and Crosby’s smaller church outlook. Still weighing things.
I really think Greear has a great chance to win. The Non Calvinist vote will be split between Cosby and Gaines. Also, St. Louis is right in between Louisville and Kansas City. Thus, more Calvinists will be able to show up to vote for Greear. So, I really think Greear has a great chance to win it.
David
Here’s the thing, David. The majority of the convention doesn’t think in Rick’s structure – Calvinist/non-Calvinist(Trad).
For most if us, it’s about more than that.
David: Do you think SBCers are really that shallow to divide along party lines that many of them don’t even know exist? Are people really so committed to Calvinism or non-Calvinism that we can talk about splitting the non-calvinist vote? Do you think they are so committed to their Calvinism or non-Calvinism such that they ignore the other qualifications of each candidate? I think you sell your fellow convention attendees short. Things in the real world don’t always reflect what happens in the blogosphere.
I guess it’s just the circles I run with guys, but the SBC definitely is divided along those lines. I agree with you that it is silly. I consider myself to be in neither camp, and I have friends among both Calvinists and Trads.
Poor girl. I really feel bad for her. But I’m really encouraged how enthusiastic she is about her pastor!
I apologize for not being available to participate in the thread I opened. I felt Rick’s piece provided a perspective that was a counterpoint to Dave’s piece and are helpful to read next to each other. I wasn’t focused on specifically criticizing either author. I want to be clear that I knew the thread could become animated and I wasn’t specifically trying to cause that. I take personal responsibility for any distraction caused by posting Rick’s piece.
But I again encourage readers to consider both literally side by side. We owe ourselves listening to each other carefully and with the view that we extend graciousness that reflects our shared proclamation of faith in Jesus.
This is NOT a call to overlook shortcomings. It is a request for grace. Or perhaps imagining what it would be like if we truly saw things the other way around. I think both pieces articulate honest positions that are essentially diametrically opposed without either being either malicious or disingenuous.
We have to be able to talk to each other.
I’d vote for Greear because of the generational change his election would represent. It would also put the reality that non-traditional giving and funding methodologies are the ones generating much of the energy and results in the SBC. I don’t see that Calvinism per se has much to do with this election. Plus, I’d like to see our creaky denomination stirred up.
I’d vote for Crosby next. I like that he recognizes that the old schemes aren’t working that well.
Gaines last. I just don’t see anything other than a megapastor celebrity candidate. He would do fine, I think, but does anyone think that any wealthy, affluent, megachurch pastor is the one to call the SBC to revival? Let these celebrities resign their churches, forego their several hundred thousand dollar annual incomes, dropout of the celebrity speaking circuit, sell all they have and give to the poor, move to some humble hovel and then issue a call for revival. That would show the world something. Here’s a Babylon Bee working title: “God says that if it is OK with Ronnie Floyd and Steve Gaines, He will issue any call to renewal Himself.”
Wow. Just wow.
William, I’m curious whether you do not consider J. D. Greear a wealthy, affluent, megachurch pastor?
I see one third of that – he’s a megapastor. We are all affluent. He hasn’t tried to build a platform of calling the denomination to revival and renewal.
I take David worley’s word that SG is a super guy.
William,
So, Greear is Pastor of a very large Church, and also is a Prof at Southeastern. He has written some books that sold, very well. You really don’t think that he’s wealthy?
Also, it is the heart of Gaines for revival in the churches of the SBC. He does know a lot about prayer, and is a prayer warrior. And, he is a super guy.
I’ll take CB’s word that Greear is a super guy, too. I’ve never met the man.
I’ll take Luter’s word that Cosby is a super guy, as well.
So, let’s see, we’ve got 2 super guys running for SBC President. 2 of them are from extremely large Churches, and are probably wealthy. I really don’t know anything about Crosby’s church, at all.
David
Who cares if any of them are wealthy…why should that matter as to which should be the SBC Prez?
…what are we class warfare progressives around here? 😉
I’m thinking mainly about the idea of any wealthy American mega-CEO calling his denomination to renewal. This doesn’t look odd to you? It’s the ultimate in the celebrity system the SBC operates under.
I trust DW on his estimation of SG. I’m not anti-any of these guys but I’m not looking for the SBC prez to bring in the kingdom…more like make some appointments that aren’t the same old oligarchy saturated (plus spouses)crowd.
Oh, gotcha now.
C B Scott said, “Guys, one thing is for sure. We have far better candidates to consider for president of the SBC than we do for president of the USA. . . . and for that, we should be thankful to King Jesus.”
…and a big, bad, loud SEC AMEN to that.
Any of the three SBC candidates will do fine. The won’t do much, but they will do fine.
CB,
I will agree with you. We have 3 fine, Christian men to choose from. There’s no doubt about that.
David
“Is it a Traditional Baptist “thing” to have four times as many reported members as actually attend a weekly worship service? I noticed Bellevue claims about 30K members with attendance of under 7K. Is that how Traditionalists roll?”
Louis, when you capitalized “Traditionalists” where you talking about me and others, who are Non Calvinists in the SBC? I didn’t take that to mean traditional, old Churches in the SBC. I took that to mean a certain group of people, in the SBC. And, if so, that’s a slam against us. A slam which got no rebuke. It really looks insulting.
David
Your partner in the unending assault on Reformed/Calvinist Southern Baptist brothers in Christ, Rick Patrick, uses that term to try to divide the flock who all agree to our common confession, which is the BF&M 2000. I take it that his intent is to define his inner camp or tribe as the only true Baptists and thus the “Traditional” ones when we both know that we have existed and cooperated together since 1845.
So I will point out if “Traditional” means a bloated membership roll of people not involved in the work of the local church then I will gladly choose to live outside of that camp. That does not make me Reformed or Calvinist anymore that not being R or C makes me Arminian.
I see a pastor and current candidate for the job of SBC President being maligned because he is R or C. So what? His church is focused on training its members and sending out more and more missionaries. I would think that this would be greatly celebrated but not so by some. Why? Well he is a Calvinist so he must be…
I think people who think this way should get over it. They are not focused on the Great Commission. God is glorified in local churches taking his word seriously and living it out. How is God glorified by the seemingly eternal attempts to subdivide us as Southern Baptists?
This is what “Traditional” Southern Baptist means, and it is NOT what you suppose. It is also not my term, but comes from two SBC professors in a book written in 2001.
http://connect316.net/about-us/why-traditionalism/
Traditionalist remains an inaccurate term with pejorative intent.
I only use it to refer to the document and its signers. It is better used to describe cultural traditionalism – a real issue in the SBC.
Good stuff, Louis.
Please note the time stamp here. Calvinism-themed comments are subject to summary execution from this point on.
Let us stick to the topic. As the author, I KNOW it had nothing to do with Calvinism.