Another new Baptist network has formed, purporting to represent the grassroots majority of Baptists who have been disenfranchised somehow (since all our meetings allow open voting) that is going to lead us away from a drift into “woke” theology and liberalism. The networks have formed – some made a big splash and others barely a ripple – and generally faded away. What will happen to the “Conservative Baptist Network” announced today is yet to be seen.
The network is a little nebulous at this point, still revealing itself, its structure and leadership, its purposes and tactics. Who knows whether they will be a positive influence or another bomb-throwing splinter group? We can hope for the former but history tells us the latter is all too likely. Their stated concerns are:
- Dr. Kelly mentioned his concern about Calvinism, but we do not know if anti-Calvinism will drive this group as it did C316. Some anti-Cals and Calvinists have coalesced on other issues and laid down their hostilities against each other. They claim this will not be a soteriology-driven group, but Dr. Kelly brought it up.
- Their chief concern is their perception of a drift toward liberalism in the SBC. They see current trends as a threat to inerrancy and to our commitment to the Bible.
- They have concerns about political issues – the question of Mike Pence’s speech is mentioned but politics seems to be a driving force. Many have questioned the SBC’s identification with the GOP and others are concerned by that.
- They are upset about so-called “woke theology.” That is a broad and ill-defined term. It seems to mean someone who is pressing an issue I don’t care as much about. No one is called “woke” for fighting abortion, but those who put too high a priority on racism, or sexual abuse, or other social issues, are labeled as “woke” and it is assumed that they have taken a step away from inerrancy and the sufficiency of Scripture.
I would make the following observations about the Conservative Baptist Network. If anyone had any doubts – no, I will not be joining!
1. Organizing a network is a valid Baptist activity.
There’s nothing wrong with like-minded people banding together with other like-minded people. You Baptist history buffs can correct me, but I believe that associations with strict geographic boundaries is a later innovation. Earlier associations were formed on theological grounds. I am not a fan of the splintering in the SBC, of all of these conferences with defined points of view that meet to celebrate themselves and cast aspersions on other points of view. I am not sure the conference circuit is a healthy thing in the American church. But church networks (though they weren’t always called that) are not inappropriate in any way.
There are always dangers in these networks. They can become inward and exclusive, and come to believe that they are sole protectors of the gospel. We have seen that all too often. But a group forming to promote their views in a democratic SBC is fully appropriate.
2. Traditionalist-types have needed an organized voice for a while.
Everyone I have seen publicly identified with the CBN so far was part of the Traditionalist group of the past. For a number of reasons I see no need to enumerate, they imploded. It is my impression that this is a reformulation of that group.
I believe that a positively-stated non-Calvinist voice in the SBC is needed. I hope that this network, if they represent the Traditionalist wing of the SBC, will do so with kindness, honesty, and incisive theological depth. If the Conservative Network represents that wing of the SBC well, it is a productive thing. Their homepage denies they represent any particular soteriology, but everyone who has been identified so far seems to share that position. Time will tell.
3. Grassroots? Really?
It is de rigueur to call any Baptist group or network that is organized “grassroots” – just as it is in American politics. The elite are bad and the grassroots are good. But this is a group of powerful (so far) Traditionalists who don’t like the direction of the SBC. Brad Jerkovich. Chuck Kelly. Mike Spradlin. These are men of power and influence.
Any Baptist has the right to organize and seek to influence the convention, but calling this group “grassroots” strains credulity. They are a group of powerful SBC leaders trying to reassert power, having seen the SBC shift away from their views.
4. A Rose by Any Other Name!
I have had this argument often over the years, disliking many of the names groups have taken. Some non-Calvinist groups and conferences put John 3:16 in their name as if Calvinists didn’t believe that “God so loved the world.” I think the “Founders” is an inaccurate name because it implies that all the Founders of the SBC were Calvinist. Some were, but many weren’t. It is my impression that the SBC was more Calvinist then than it is now, but it has never been ALL Calvinist. To lay claim to all the Founders is just not accurate. It was the same reason I always resisted the name “Traditionalist.” Our traditions are so varied no single soteriological view can lay claim to it.
I do not like names that are:
- pejorative – if your name implies something negative and ungodly about those not in your group, get a better name.
- exclusionary – if your name somehow implies that your group is the only true Christian group or only true Baptist group – do better. We have always been diverse in many ways.
- make false claims – if your name implies things that simply are not true, get a true name.
This is certainly a Conservative Baptist Network, but it is pejorative – implying that others are not conservative. It is exclusionary, and I believe it makes false claims. I don’t like the name.
5. The Empire Strikes Back
Here is where I stray into well-grounded conjecture. I always get in trouble doing this, because my opinions are based on conversations I’ve had that I cannot share. So, when you tell me I’m wrong, I cannot tell you why I believe this is true. I can only state what I believe to be the case.
The SBC has been a stronghold of GOP sentiment for decades, and then the Trump phenomenon happened in 2016. Many of us said we did not think his character warranted a Christian’s vote. The rhetoric got heated on all sides (I would like to reword some of my posts and comments, in hindsight, not for content, but for tone). The SBC was divided.
After the election, another sea-change took place, when JD Greear was elected as SBC President. He is an inerrantist whose church sends more missionaries to the field than any other church. He is a great example of a young Southern Baptist, but he takes a different approach to a number of issues. He did a number of things that offended the powerful elite in the SBC. He did not support Trump and the GOP. He stood up for victims of sexual predation and named names of churches that did not handle that well, offending the “good old boy” network. There is nothing liberal about JD, but he is a big change CULTURALLY from the old-school Baptists that have run the convention for decades.
They are striking back. They aimed heavy artillery at Dr. Moore who had opposed Donald Trump when he was a candidate. They have labeled JD a liberal – a false accusation. They have resisted many of his efforts at fighting sexual abuse because of the risk of exposure and bad press. His noble attempts at presenting a diverse slate of trustee nominations has been questioned and criticized.
We are seeing what I call “The Empire Strikes Back.” In a number of ways (I may say more about this later), the old-school power elite is upset that their hegemony is being eroded and they are seeking to restore that power.
This is my view of the SBC right now. JD and other young leaders began to change the culture and that made the old-school culture warrior-types very nervous. Much of what is going on today isn’t about inerrancy or theology, but about politics and about protecting a culture and a way of life.
6. Falsehoods never honor Christ.
We tend to “fight fire with fire” and adopt our methods from the political world. We must not. Spreading lies is never a means to serve God. In the last couple of days, SEBTS has had to defend itself from false stories spread by Todd Starnes on his radio show. It served his agenda, but it did not honor the Savior to spread a false story.
The CBN is off to a bad start on this. They are insinuating that those who differ from them politically also differ theologically. They are demanding cultural acquiescence in addition to theological uniformity. I hope we never depart from the basic principles of the BF&M – I am committed to them. But when we make support of the GOP a theological imperative and call people who question that “liberal” we have jumped the shark.
The biggest mistake of the CR (I lived through it – my first convention was 1979) was painting conservatives who did not bow to the political movement of the CR as liberals. There were many conservative men who were ostracized and treated badly because they didn’t like the tactics of the CR (which were often excessive). I believed in the CR and remained committed even when words or actions made me uncomfortable, but we lost good men and women who were with us theologically because they would not kowtow politically.
It seems to me some are doing the same now with Trumpism. If you are not part of the Trump train, you are a liberal. That isn’t right.
Here is my plea: STOP calling people who love Jesus, honor the word of God, and preach the gospel, liberal. STOP insinuating that they don’t preach the gospel. Accept one another as brothers and sisters in Christ with different approaches and stop acting as if these differences were fundamental. They are not.
7. Politics are NOT fundamental
I expressed my views forcefully in 2015-2016. I do not regret what I said, but I sometimes regret how I stated it – more in comments and discussions than in my articles. If I ever made it seem that someone who disagreed with me politically was theologically suspect or outside the gates of the kingdom, I erred. I believe there is a danger when we become too loyal to a political party, but there are reasonable positions on various sides of most political issues.
No one should have their loyalty to Christ questioned because of political choices. I can say that your choice isn’t one I would make, but to say that you are unfaithful to Christ because you voted differently than I did is not biblical.
Do we really want to define our convention by its loyalty to the GOP?
My Hope
If the Conservative Baptist Network simply advocates for a certain wing of the convention, and does so with Godly honesty and integrity, it will be a positive influence on the SBC. I hope that is what happens.
Permit me to close with a very direct statement. Many of us are suspicious of this network because of its rhetoric. But the fact that a group of Baptists mobilized to influence the convention is good and right. That is how it works – even if we disagree with them. But we can hope they will seek to influence the convention while walking in the fruit of the Spirit not the works of the flesh.
Same for you and me!
I was at Dr. James Leo Garrett’s funeral yesterday. He desired unity and reunification and that was the focus of the funeral. One of the behind leaders of this movement was there. She heard of Dr. Garrett’s hope and dream. She obviously didn’t listen or doesn’t care.
This is serious! It is obvious that the Social Justice agenda has taken over the SBC! This is more of a social issues reformation vs. the Theological battle of the previous generation!
It’s easy to throw a word around like “Social Justice” as a bogeyman. What specific social issues are you concerned about? Look at the ERLC legislative agenda and I see nothing there that should concern you. This is a red herring.
I shouldn’t, but I’ve started ignoring such comments. I would love someone to explain exactly what the problem is.
I assumed he was being satirical.
The core problem is that “Social Justice” is an umbrella term that is used to advocate a host of unbiblical agendas including the agendas of third-wave feminism, LGBTQ, socialism, communism, Critical Race Theory, and Intersectionality. All of these agendas find their source in an unbiblical, atheistic worldview and one need only visit one of the country’s ivy league educational institutions to see the havoc these agendas can cause an institution. Networks like the newly formed CBN appear to recognize that it is illogical to assume that one can drink from the same polluted stream and not contract the same illness.
Dave can answer better than I but you have a boatload of assumptions you float in before you get to anything that involves the sBC.
I respectfully disagree. I think the SBC has been struggling to deal with each and every one of the aspects of “social justice” that I listed. If we don’t have a uniquely biblical way to address these problems we are likely to mimic the way the world handles these questions. The result will be another protestant denomination that takes it’s marching orders from the cultural zeitgeist. If we are going to be people of the Book, we need to answer these questions from the Book. If CBN can lend a voice to the discussion, I’m all for hearing what they have to say.
The Southern Baptist Convention is a structure in which positions that are designed to serve the denomination turn into positions of prestige, power and influence and the temptation to act like an authority figure, be a big shot and a “powerful” influencer has caused a lot of covetousness over the denominational positions into which the secular principles of power and influence have been built. Hypocrisy abounds.
In the article about this network published in the Christian Post, there’s a lot of talk about drifting into “liberalism” and away from the position of inerrancy and infallibility. But the examples that are given have nothing to do with a drift away from inerrancy or infallibility or the BFM 2000. What it looks like is yet another fight over who gets to run the show. Controversy doesn’t achieve its goals. The baptism and evangelism, and missions, peaks for the SBC all occurred before the conservative resurgence came along in 1979.
There is more blog with the sbc on social justice, and politics than street preaching. I guess that’s almost a mythological creature within the sbc.
Please, Tim. Either comment on the topic or your comments will be deleted.
If you want to talk about your own topic, start your own blog.
Dave,
First, I find a lot about the Conservative Baptist Network that I have an affinity with. Having said that, I also find a lot within your post that I like and agree with. I would question one thing about your post though. You have said that the (I hate to use the term “founders”) creators of the CBN are Traditionalists and that this Network will be a new forum from which anti-Calvinist Traditionalists can pick up where the John 3:16 group left off. Yet, the CBN site twice mentions that they are not tied to a “single soteriological viewpoint.” I am happy to hear this from them. I have been a Calvinist for most of my adult life. I am not sure I have it in me to think in non-Calvinist paradigms. So, in this one respect, I think your analysis is off. Yet, as I said, the rest of your post is full of good stuff.
Whether Vice President Pence speaks at the Convention or not, does not move me one way or the other.
I think the true origins of this Network is Amendment 9. I think the creators of this Network feel their concerns are not being taken seriously. I am in the realm of conjecture. I do not know these folks and have not spoken to them. CRT/I has nothing good for Southern Baptists. I know what I am speaking of. I am taking my comprehensive exams right now. I will soon be a doctoral candidate (as opposed to a doctoral student). My dissertation is not about Critical Theory, yet, CT is so tightly would up with my primary research question that my dissertation committee chairperson THINKS my dissertation is about Critical Theory. Those who say you cannot separate the ideology of CT from the usages of it’s conclusions, are right. But, this reply is about your most recent post. Let me not diverge away and rehash other posts here.
I was saying, I believe some folks believe they are not being heard, or not being taken seriously. So, they have taken the step of creating the CBN as a way to increase the volume of their objections. It is an interesting development. It will be fascinating to see how it all plays out. May the hopes you expressed in your post come to fruition.
I mentioned that their site said they weren’t representing one group, but Dr. Kelly mentioned the rift and they all seem to be from that tradition.
As I said,time will tell.
I somehow missed your statement that they did not represent one group, or if I saw it, did not connect it with the Calvinist – non-Calvinist divide. I am sorry for the confusion.
John, I believe you have hit the nail on the head. The CBN is about making the voice of those who feel disenfranchised by the SBC a little louder. It is not pro or anti anything, except the long-standing preference of SBC entities to listen and respond to the concerns of mega-churches. Churches who cannot personally participate in the SBC by sending their allowed number of delegates to our annual meeting are dying for a way to be heard. This is just another attempt to make the SBC more responsive.
Allen, it would be great if this were so. I am afraid it may not be.
Thanks for this article. Let’s unify around the Gospel and leave all the other stuff alone. Gospel Above All!
I’m trying to figure out how someone is disenfranchised in the current SBC, even if you don’t agree with some of the directions it is going. I wonder if they mean disgruntled?
Disenfranchised generally means “we lost the vote but we are convinced we should have won.”
Dave, I appreciate your post. I can understand the feelings of disenfranchisement even though I do not share them. Having served as Director of Missions for two different Associations with a combined total of approximately 240 churches. More than 65 percent of those churches are pastored by bivocational pastors who work at least one other job. Their wives work too. They cannot be involved in denominational politics or travel to conventions. Yet, they are a majority in our convention. Many of these pastors did not attend seminary. Their views, in some ways, have been programmed out of SBC Life—I believe—unintentionally. The SBC leaders and Executives aren’t finding ways to hear from and connect with the silent majority of SBC pastors. Let’s pray for our bivocational pastors and find the time to listen to them. It is hard work—ask any Associational Missionary.
Chris. I couldnt agree more. Bi-Vos need prayer and support
Thank you Dave. I was trying to tjink of a gracious way to say that exact thing
It is childish and silly IMO to think that “my needs are not being met so ….”
Hint hint hint. None of all of our needs are truly met EXCEPT in Christ
Any group trying to recreate an idealized past will fail in the end. Whether that past is Calvin’s Geneva, Puritan New England, 1950’s suburbia, 1990’s SBC or another personal favorite, you will not see it again. .
I couldn’t agree more. When the definition of conservatism is cultural not biblical, you have erred.
Bingo!
The fact that we agree demonstrates your mental acumen.
Hi Folks, I’m just a plain 79 year old Southern Baptist who has tried to serve my Lord the best I can since I was 16 years old. Gotta tell you I’m absolutely disgusted with the infighting in the SBC. Going back to the un-Godly fundamentalist juggernaut and now the reformed Baptist (Calvinist) evolution. I grew up in the Hershel Hobbs era and saw absolutely no need to mess around with the 1953? Baptist Faith and Message! I could write much more on that topic. To my main point Calvinism in any form is and will destroy Southern Baptist Churches and the SBC. Here is why. Many young ministers coming out of Southern and Southeastern Seminaries some how think there teachings justify what ever means necessary to achieve their objectives in the pastoriate. I experienced that first hand as chairman of the pastor search committee of a 2200 member vibrant traditional Baptist Church. The young Southern Seminary graduate came to us after serving two smaller churches. Great credentials including a father who had been a Southern Baptist pastor for 50 years. Young preacher expoused all the right things. Traditional Southern Baptist to the core, church autonomy, cooperative program, deacons roll no elder leadership or rule. We took him at his word. It was the biggest mistake a church could ever make. He misled us lied and proceeded to destroy a very healthy church. I will forever feel the guilt of misleading my brothers and sisters in Christ by endorsing him. He was and is a reformed Baptist or more bluntly a Calvinist who believes in Pastor rule. It took him 6 years to totally eliminate all remnants of the original church leadership. It was systematic and ruthless. My point when Danny Akin and Al Mohler say Calvinism and Baptist traditions can coexist that simply is not true. I could say it more bluntly but I won’t. As an aged Southern Baptist my feeling is the SBC will cease to exist within 10 years. It’s sad because many like me have poured our lives into the Lord’s work only to have our convention leadership betray us with constant brawling. Not only are you destroying the SBC, you’re destroying churches and wreaking havoc on church members lives. Enough of my way or your out at the SBC leadership level. What happened to God’s way? Now I’ve said my piece!
You’ll find that this blog has historically called for unity. When we fight, it’s usually responding to divisiveness and in defense of others not offense. When groups stop trying to divide us or vie for power, we’ll lay down our arms. Unity can happen, we just all have to want it and be willing to pursue it.
Amen! Well said Sir. I am quite excited about The Conservative Bapt Network! Can’t wait to join!
Bill Janning:
It’s refreshing to see a member of the younger generation so eloquently addressing the real problem in the SBC (I’m 88+ years old and had been an SBC supporter for about 68 years until renouncing that affiliation about three years ago based on several but one very main problem plaguing the Convention).
I could point out many things, but, in order to avoid suffering my usual fate of being “moderated out” I’ll just say AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! and PRAISE GOD! to what you have written.
I hope that is what the CBN is going to be all about, but, I will obviously need to wait until its agenda is fully explained before getting too excited.
In the meantime I would urge you to continue your courageous “speaking out” about the main problem which has led to the precipitous decline in SBC statistics for which you so clearly provided an example.
Our church of approximately 250 members has had a senior pastor for 20 years who is a Calvinist, although a closeted one, and recently added an assistant pastor who is an outspoken Calvinist, and over the last 12-15 months the pews which were normally fully occupied on Sunday mornings are now less than one-half occupied. There seems to be fewer and fewer in attendance with each passing week. SO SAD!
It looks to me like that old proverb, “you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time,” holds true. That’s why, as the current SBC president is quoted a saying, “on any given week only about 5,000 SBs (about 30% of the members) are attending a weekly worship service.” That statistic alone should be cause for major alarm, but, it appears that a word to the wise is NOT sufficient among certain SBs.
Just as the old saying, “a rose is a rose is a rose” will always be true, “God’s Word is God’s Word is God’s word” will eternally be true.
Thanks.
Ken Miller
Dave: I enjoy reading your articles. You articulate your views well. I do not believe that any one issue is driving the current debate. It is the collective toll of the issues that cause many to worry about our future. Personally, I know many conservative pastors who will not join the network. This does not lead me to beleive they are more liberal than those in this new network. Every church or organization has undercurrents present at various times. These are natural in a fallen world. However, the current toll of these issues feels more like a dangerous rip current than normal undercurrents. Hard to see a bright future unless something changes. BTW….where are our leaders?
Even if you share some of the same concerns, I wouldn’t be quick to join this network without knowing more about their real aims. What I’ve seen so far indicates a preparation for battle. I hope I’m wrong.
Todd, it does seem like the leaders of this new group have prepared for battle. I even starting looking over some old resources on the life cycle of conflict. I pray that if a fire storm erupts both sides will stay godly and respectfull of each other.
I went to a page on the internet and what looks like a statement of purposes.
They are:
1. Affirming the BFM 2000
2. Inerrancy, supremacy, and sufficiency of scripture.
3. Religious liberty, and individuals influencing policy through the political process and patriotism.
4. Rejecting unbiblical ideologies and they mention CRT/I, and social justice.
5. The SBC functioning biblically, with the churches holding the SBC and its agencies accountable.
These are pretty short statements. There’s not much there.
Dave, did you compile your descriptors from other stories or websites, interviews?
I did see a video of Chuck Kelly talking about evangelism.
“During a radio interview Friday on The Todd Starnes Show, Jurkovich was asked if it is time for a second Conservative Resurgence.
“Absolutely,” he told Starnes.” http://bpnews.net/54335/grassroots-network-launched-to-address-concerns-about-direction-of-sbc
I think there is room for a like minded network or movement but this concerns me a lot.
I would join just to see what goes on and such but you have to give assent to these five items. No one’s against patriotism but I’m guessing this one is loaded and CRI/I, SJ is red meat for some. I wouuldn’t sign on to blanked, undefined opposition to #4. It presumes definitions of broad concepts.
My brief exploration of the CBN yesterday in the FB forum where I saw it being promoted suggested several interesting viewpoints:
1) It will be a “line-in-the-sand” sort of group… those who refuse to join it will eventually be known as those who are not conservative.
2) It would probably (by and large) be comprised of the Baptist voters who are President Trump supporters.
3) “Most of the Founders folks will likely join.”
4) Al Mohler and Russell Moore fans will likely be in this group.
Today, in Voices, I learn that it is basically a replacement for the Traditionalist group. At this point, I’m so confused, I wouldn’t touch it with a ten foot pole.
There is a lot we don’t know at this time.
I will not be joining the CBN or any other Network. Too many networks have underlying currents running through them. If my life and ministry does not speak for itself, then identifying with a label is not going to make me more authentic.
I will be going to the SBC Convention for the first time since it was held in Salt Lake City. It is not because I have an axe to grind or my voice to be heard. It is because my church has read and heard bits and pieces of what is taking place in the SBC, primarily through our state Baptist paper of which we are still an all church subscriber. That is about to change with the recent demise of the printed edition.
I am going to the convention in order to be “first-person informed” in order that I can give our church a “first-person account” rather than having “I have read and I have heard” reports that tend to full conclusions based upon partial information.
With that said, my heart is heavy – but not nearly as heavy as that of our Lord.
This is a question and not a statement. It appears to me that the launch of the CBN is in the same evening time slot as the Pastor’s Conference. Is this a correct assumption?
A lot of stuff takes place at the same time as the PC.
I have long suspected that support for DJT would become a kind of purity test within the SBC.
Me too.
The whole sentence on patriotism seemed a clear inference to me.
I have long suspected that ERLC Exec. R. Moore set the tone for the dialogue on President Trump on 9/17/2015 with his opinion piece in the New York Times. Dr. Moore’s opinion piece put SBC members on notice where SBC leadership stood and questioned the values of Trump voters. I think the record is pretty clear on events of that period but to suggest the Trump voters within the SBC set up a purity test in 2016 is not factual. Being neutral and restrained in politics was called for at that time. Dr. Moore in his capacity as a spokesman and SBC leader brought the SBC members into a political discussion on faith values that they did not expect or want. When the NYT and mass media welcome the comments and laud the wisdom of a prominent evangelical leader beware. Going to sound childish but truth is truth, who started the litmus test if there is one. If Dr. Moore and other leaders felt so compelled to be Never Trump in 2016 than they should state their moral and faith based objections clearly without reservations and hold to their core values they have if they feel so strongly about the morality and character of President Trump. I hear on TV and in media that speaking truth to power is the most noble of all actions.
Steve,
In 2016 Trump supporters in the SBC were characterized as conflicted but conscientious in their reluctant support for him. But now there’s no reason to pretend. Trump support is full-on pedal to the metal enthusiasm and (in some cases) adoration. He is lauded as a “good and moral man”, and “the most godly, biblical president”. The president himself called Republicans who didn’t support him “human scum” without a single word of dissent from his evangelical followers. He can say the most despicable, hateful and incendiary things about other people, but as long as it is directed at Democrats, never Trumpers, and the media, it’s perfectly fine. No, not just fine, but praiseworthy. So I fear the SBC will soon be known as majority MAGA-ites with a minority of human scum.
I know few people who are Trumpsters. If he rest of us vote for him it will be because of the alternative, not because of our full throated support for the President. I find your suggestion about “pretending” to be both ignorant and offensive. I might suggest that your assault on evangelicals who are conflicted by Trump is belied by your own attack on the character of people you don’t know.
Actually Bill Mac’s opinion is backed up by countless conversations. Every time I go back to the US I walk on egg shells never knowing when I am going to get waylaid by very passionate Trump supporters. Many begin the conversation by saying, ‘I held my nose and voted….’ but as soon as you point out something that you disagree with the President about you are attacked viciously. I am not exaggerating. I have yet to meet the Trump supporter who will publicly state anything that he disagrees with the President on. I would be very grateful for you to prove me wrong.
John,
Your experience is different than mine. I see high profile evangelicals (two of whom I quoted) on TV all the time who are practically giddy in their support of Trump. I see it practically every week in person as well. Hilarious recountings of something vile Trump said against his enemies. With very few exceptions, I see no concern at all over Trump’s language, actions, or character.
You are of course right about high profile evangelicals fawning over the president. That does not mean that you are also right abut everyone else. I have grave concerns about Trump’s character. And I have grave concerns about the people who are likely to be on the other ticket. That does not deserve your dismissive “pretending” for those of us who are conflicted about Trump. No one is going to persuade anyone by attacking their motives in ignorance. It might make you feel better but moves us apart.
John: Fair enough. I can only go by what I see. If there are a lot of people like you I wish they were more visible than our so-called “leaders”.
The Democrat Party has declared open war on Christianity. The only choice Christians have (that truly have a chance) are Republicans.
Not voting or voting 3rd party means a resounding win for Democrats
Thanks for putting that bogeyman litmus test of vote Trump or your not conservative to rest Bill!
My choice is to follow my conscience and not yours. Hope that’s okay with you.
Regarding #6: Falsehoods Never Honor Christ. I have been grieved and angered by attacks made against people I know personally. The sites that made these accusations seem to have only negative things to post, many of them exaggerated or blatantly false. I very much appreciate the tone of the articles on this site. We should seek unity in every instance we can, without compromising on the essentials. Thank you for the positive tone of your article.
Here are my issues
a move toward women pastors
Helping to build a mosque
A softening stance toward homosexuality
The ELRC strong arming SWBSt o fire a professor who was teaching homosexuality is not genetic but a choice
The North American mission boards effort to turn the tables of authority on some states by threatening to withhold funds unless the state’s bend to their will
Critical race theory is an issue but most importantly the motion that was made on the floor was against it and the motion that came from the committee that was actually voted on was deceptively for it
The convention is filled with a large overwhelming majority of pastor a like me who pastor small churches with less than a hundred members who tithe to the cooperative program faithfully but can’t afford to send delegates to the convention
Every time I have asked about these issues I have been met with patronizing ignorance no one has disputed the facts I have presented in fact they were not aware or in some cases downplayed their significance if the stories were true. I have been told to stop being chicken little shut up go back to sleep and keep sending the checks every month the big dogs are handling it
I am glad to know there is a group of people like me who are voicing concerns and seeking answers
I am going to the convention this year I hope to find all is well and my concerns are answered however there is way too much smoke for there not to be a fire somewhere
I just found out about the CNN they may not be the prettiest horse ever but right now they are the only one in the show
Carl, I suspect that you aren’t interested in answers but, here goes:
1. Not one entity leader, elected leader, or even trustee to my knowledge favors a “move toward women pastors.”
2. Nonsense. A zoning and religious liberty issue, but drag this old canard out and spin it if it makes you feel good.
3. …so the disgruntled, fired prof says. SWBTS calls it “defamatory”.
4. NAMB should absolutely fund what they believe Southern Baptists want funded. If you don’t like it, replace trustees.
5. CRT is the outrage du jour. Means nothing about anything our seminaries are doing that is amiss.
6. We are indeed a small church convention. I pastored churches <100 on Sundays and went to most conventions. You can too. Same rules for everyone.
7. I have disputed your facts and tried to do so without patronizing you.
CNN is not a pretty horse. CBN is, thus far, a very dark horse. It would be good to know more about the animal. There's a reason you aren't being told, I suppose.
Hope you had a good Sunday yesterday.
With respect to brother Plodder’s answer below to your concerns, I absolutely agree with your concerns on the issues enumerated, and though I wasn’t going to the convention due to the nature of my bi-vocational work, I will be going as well. From those whom I have spoken with, and from what I have read publically, I think your speculation that there is fire is 100% correct.
Here’s the problem. So many of the people lodging bombs at the SBC are not limiting themselves to the truth. They tell LIES and those lies get believed and sincere people, such as Carl here, spout nonsense.
The ERLC never helped build a mosque. They defended the principle of religious freedom.
There was nothing deceptive about the CRT/I resolution. The Res Committee routinely changes resolutions. They perhaps should have just rejected the one that was given, but they submitted something different. It passed.
Almost every complaint Carl has is based on lies being circulated in the SBC.
How can we ask God’s blessings when Southern Baptists continue to spread lies?
It’s been said here on Voices that if one is a Democrat that individual supports abortion. I say, if one is a Republican and supports an adulterer for President, that person supports adultery. Remember what James said about keeping the whole law and offending in one point that individual is guilty of all. Remember the Republicans are the ones who gave us abortion. We cannot go running to mommy complaining about dirty hands when we have been playing in a mud hole.
The problem I have with the term “Conservative Christian” Is that Christians relate the word conservative to the Republican party and not conservative in God’s word. There is a vast difference between the two. For example: The divorce issue. Many believe here on Voices that a Christian can get married and divorced remarried and all is well. Friend, adultery has to be the reason for the divorce if divorce happens. Many here say all you have to do is repent and all is well. Friend, there is no repentance for a Christian who puts away their spouse for any reason. It has to be adultery, not financial stress, falling out of love and etc. The bible tells us clearly if you put away a spouse for any reason other than adultery and marry another that person is living in adultery. You were suppose to be reunited with your ex-spouse and “not” marry another. If one cannot be re-united with their ex-spouse you are to remain unmarried. Paul does indicate another way one is free to marry another, and if the unbelieving depart, let them depart. The death of a spouse is another way.
I think today we have turned God’s word into what we want it to be and not what God intended. Trump=Jesus is no where in the bible, neither is Jesus=Trump. We have to be conservative in the word of God.
I welcome any new web site that promotes God’s word and nothing else. Friend it’s Jesus plus nothing.
Weren’t you a big Trump supporter in 2016? When did you change?
I voted for Trump in the primary because I’m a registered Republican. I voted for Trump because I thought there was no chance for him to win. I voted for Hillary Clinton in the in the election. I didn’t know Trump would make a play on people’s prejudices and hatred in such a way that he would become the President.
Hey, its cool.
Are we seriously going to begin to accuse Christians of confusing Trump and Jesus? Seriously?
John: I don’t think there’s any confusion, but who would they choose as president? At least one high profile evangelical indicated that he supported Trump precisely because he wasn’t remotely Christlike.