At Between the Times, Nathan Finn has just posted a powerful call to civility during the discussion of the name-change. It is called, “The Southern Baptist Convention: Name that Denomination.” If I say “pretty please” will you promise to go read it?
He explains his ambivalence toward the name change, and then issues a call for civil debate of the topic.
I’m urging my fellow Southern Baptists (even those who don’t want to be called that anymore) to be as civil and Christ-like as possible. I seriously doubt that the overwhelming majority of those who want to change the name are closet Presbyterians who are embarrassed of our Convention’s southern roots. I also seriously doubt that the overwhelming majority of those who want to keep the name are redneck racists who don’t care about reaching all of America with the good news.
He calls on both sides to tone down the accusations and assumptions. Then, he issues this plea:
I want to plead with you, whatever your opinion might be on a name change, to call down the strident and unhelpful voices that share your perspective. Don’t let the mean or arrogant or irascible or elitist or ignorant tones dominate this conversation. For the sake of our collective witness, let’s mortify the name-calling, motives-judging, power-grabbing tendencies that appear almost every time we engage in some sort of public debate. Let’s agree to act like Christian grownups and love one another on the other side of this debate, whatever our name may be. And let’s agree to continue to cooperate together for the sake of the gospel, even if we don’t get our way when it comes to our denomination’s name.
I like what he says first there – let’s all police our own side. If you are against the name-change, call those who share your opinion on the carpet if they go over the top with their rhetoric. If you are for it, point out inflated rhetoric by those who share your opinion.
And, let us “mortify the name-calling, motives-judging, power-grabbing tendencies” that often appear in these debates.
Thank you Dr. Finn for this powerful call for civil debate on this difficult topic.
I’m certain there is more at stake here than regional identity. The name change must signal a different position on things. I can’t comprehend why so much time is spent arguing it, and arguing the process involved in it. It definately sounds like the stakes are high. I just wonder what is involved.
One would have to wonder, Sal, why so much time and energy is being spent on this subject? And, why would our leaders want to spend so much money and effort on something like this? Especially at a time when they seem to be so focused on planting new churches, and reaching unreached people groups? It does make one wonder.
I do like the name that Dr. Lemke has suggested, if the name is changed….the Fellowship of Baptist Christians.
David
All I will say is that SB sure seem bound and determined to fragment into so many splinter groups little will ever get accomplished again.
It kind of reminds me of how the Democrats and Republicans have created gridlock in Washington D.C.
Is that what Baptists are headed for?
your title idea is a little bit too generic, David
there are certainly other ‘Baptist Christians’ out there, some who used to be connected to the SBC, and your title would appear to ’embrace’ those who are now outside your fold
I don’t think that is what you want to do quite, (although I wish it could be like that someday) . . .
That name would be appropro in my book since it would be yet another way to state that we stand exactly opposite of what the CBF stands for. 🙂
Dave,
You did not need to say “pretty please.” I read Dr. Finn’s article in its entirety. With all due respect to Dr. Finn, his advice seems somewhat familiar, perhaps like we heard during the lead-up to the GCR. Who gets to determine who is one of those “strident” or “unhelpful” voices that need to be called down? Will we be called down because we didn’t call down those who others believe are strident or unhelpful? Likewise, who decides what is a “mean or arrogant or irascible or elitist or ignorant” tone that should not dominate the converstation? And, who gets to set the standard for what is “over-the-top” rhetoric? If a person doesn’t like how someone else writes or the arguments he presents, then change the channel. No one forces anyone to click on a particular post.
Whether on our individual blogs or on a group blog like Voices, we each write from our own perspectives. When I write, I don’t necessarily write with the hope of changing the minds of those who disagree with me. I have quickly learned through blogging in the GCR era that hope of that kind is easily dashed. I write to inform and encourage those who share my perspective or are at least open to what I write. I may get comments (particularly on Voices) which vehemently disagree with what I have written, but I suspect that I (and everyone who writes) have many more readers who tend to agree with what is written, but simply choose not to publicly comment. Therefore, unless something is so egregious that someone must be “called down,” don’t look for me to call anybody down anytime soon. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
One of the things I like is that he advises each “side” in the debate to police itself. I think that is a good idea in every debate. For instance, Calvinists ought to hold one another accountable for extreme words and non-Calvinists likewise.
In this debate, the rhetoric in some circles has gone way out of what I believe is helpful and good. To disagree over a name change is one thing. To disagree over the process is also fine. We can argue that all day.
But some of the accusations of “abuse of power” and insinuations about the intent and purposes of the leaders of our denomination just go beyond what is helpful and need to be toned down. On the other hand, there has been rhetoric accusing people who oppose the name-change of unseemly attitudes.
We should be able to debate issues like this without going there.
“One of the things I like is that he advises each “side” in the debate to police itself. I think that is a good idea in every debate.”
Does this mean “police” words but not actions?
If the “other side” had “policed” it’s actions, we would not have an unofficial committee doing an end run around the messengers. I thought that was “uncivil” according to what the SBC stands for as a group. It is obviously convenient to now call for civility in discussion but,I ask, who is the arbiter of civility now that an uncivil “action” has occurred? Those who agree with the uncivil actions?
I must now be concerned that asking such things is considered “uncivil” because I am confused as to what is considered ‘civil’! :o)
I must also ask if the “actions” were “civil” when they decided to seal the GCR task force records for 15 years after promising transparency?
If that not an abuse of power? I think that and this latest action of an unofficial committee that looks very official and an end run around the messengers is exactly that: An abuse of power.
We do not like it when Obama does it, we should not like it when George Bush does it, either. Even if we agree with the direction. Same principle applies here. We have specific processes for a reason.
Lydia: It is an unofficial fact finding committee who isn’t costing us a dime. They pay their own way. And it has been pointed out that those asked to be on the committee is quite balanced, those from both sides of this question. Paige Patterson and Al Mohler are names that have stood out at the beginning yet, you, Bart, Howell, etc. are not addressing this list. Why is that? Is this not a balanced list? I believe it is.
Debbie, My comment has nothing to do with whose names are on the list. You are simply appealing to celebrity. I am on the “side” of process. Just as I sided with openess and transparency with the GCR task force when they sealed the records.
It has everything to do with HOW we do things. We have specific processes for a reason.
Why not go for an “official” committee? Is it because they thought it would be voted down?
As for it not costing anything, are you willing to ask if the people employed by the SBC entities on the committee are taking vacation time and paying for travel out of their salary? Or, would that be considered uncivil to ask such a thing as one of the peasants who are expected to support these sorts of end runs?
You guys can spin it any way you want but it looks like a duck and it is obvious they wanted to go around the messengers on this one. It was an abuse of power. Now a precedent has been set. And it be normal SOP.
Personally, I don’t care about the name (Except I am Baptist for a reason) but I DO care “how” we do things. The ends do not justify the means. Even if it is a great idea.
Lydia,
With all due respect, even if the convention employees on the committee were taking vacation time to go to these meetings it would not mean that it is costing the convention anything. That vacation time was earned by the employee just like in any other job and they can choose to use it in any way they wish. We can assume that they are going to use that time on something right? Their SBC salaries would also be theirs to spend how they wish. We have no right at all to regulate how they use their vacations or salaries, we don’t own them.
My comment has nothing to do with whose names are on the list. You are simply appealing to celebrity.
No I am not appealing to celebrity. It could be a name no one has heard of and I know their views. My point is that Paige Pattreson is not a pro-GCR kind of guy. Neither are men who follow. They lead.
IOW Lydia I see on that list a diversity of views among these guys. They are not all pro-Ezell or pro-GCR. That is a good thing I think. Both need to be involved.
That should be not all are pro-Wright.
Howell,
You have a great point about how we characterize others’ words and especially who gets to decide what is “over-the-top” and “uncivil.”
The truth is, some rhetoric stands clearly out-of-bounds, out-of-bounds universally. Surely, not a single person among us would dispute whether the assertion “Wright demonstrated by his appointing a “task force” that he is definitively unsaved” is out-of-bounds. No dispute. Another of like kind–“Wright showed himself to be a buffoon.” Universally out-of-bounds.
On the other hand, “Wright did a stupid thing” lines up more as an arguable point whether it is in or out-of-bounds (the kind I think to which you reference when you ask, “who decides?”). But, even though all of us—even the best of us–do, at times, stupid things, the truth is, perhaps since he is SBC president, has a respectable ministry in Georgia, etc etc, it could be definitively established that, at minimum, assertions like this are completely disrespectful even if not out-of-bounds (again, we all do, in our lesser moments, stupid things). So, we rightly criticize it.
But what if one says, “Wright did an unwise thing by appointing a ‘task force’? Is this unacceptable, over-the-top, and/or uncivil? Not in my view. What about an “unbaptistic thing” or a “rogue” thing or a “unilateral” thing or even an “abusive” thing? This is where this really gets frustrating, at least to me.
Let me show you what I mean.
For example, Dave Miller makes a big deal of some of us allegedly using both “over-the-top” and presumably “uncivil” language concerning Bryant Wright’s action on Monday night. The problem Dave faces, however, is his lapse of memory concerning his own personal rhetoric about what some of the leaders do which does not suit him. Without the least hesitation, Miller cites as “over the top” and presumably “uncivil” my phrase describing President Wright’s unfortunate rogue action as “abuse of presidential powers” (to my knowledge no one else has employed this phrase about Wright’s action, so I’m assuming our Dave was speaking of my criminal, carnal behavior. BTW, Bart Barber’s more expressive moniker—”tyranny”—to describe President Wright’s decision barely got honorable—i.e. dishonorable–mention from our otherwise unbiased editor)
Nonetheless, note carefully what our friendly neighborhood editor who’s so concerned about civility and “over-the-top” language in the name-change discussion had to say about an action from Kevin Ezell he hardly appreciated:
At least on the face of it, my description of President Wright’s unprecedented move to form a “task force” as an “abuse of presidential powers” is no more “over-the-top” and (presumably) “uncivil” than Dave’s language. Moreover, in the comment thread, Dave offers his defense: “I don’t care if you agree with me or disagree. Have at it… Lets discuss the leadership of NAMB and whether Ezell’s comments were appropriate.” To my knowledge not a single person characterized Dave’s words as “over-the-top” and certainly not “uncivil.” And surely Dave did not think so from any indication I got in the comments.
Later in the thread, Miller says, “I thought his [Ezell’s’] comments were arrogant and evidenced a lack of understanding of the right of Baptists to ask tough questions of their leaders.” Bravo! Well, said, my brother Dave! But, if Miller can characterize Ezell’s comments as “arrogant” and evidencing a lack of “Baptists’ rights to ask tough questions of their leaders,” why is it such “over-the-top” and “uncivil” rhetoric for some of us to suggest President Wright “abused Presidential powers” by appointing a special “task force”? Should Wright somehow squeeze by the “tough” questions other of we Baptists have a right to raise? I do not get it, I suppose.
Oh well, let’s look at another.
When NAMB official, Mike Ebert, logged on SBC Voices and challenged Miller’s characterization of Kevin Ezell, Miller responded, in part,
Really? But that is precisely the point some of us are making about the rogue actions of President Wright in appointing a “task force.” The difference is, I dubbed it as an “abuse of presidential powers” while Bart Barber called it a form of “tyranny.” Yet we (correction! Peter Lumpkins since Bart Barber was more or less exonerated by the editor) are indirectly cited as “over-the-top” and presumably “uncivil” but Dave’s almost identical suggestion about “unaccountable leadership” not being able to be questioned is, shall we say, forgotten…or ignored…
Let’s go for a triple and I’m done.
More recently, Dave raked Baptist Press over the Voices’ coals in a post on Jan 19 of this year entitled “Inform the People: An Open Letter to Baptist Press”. In essence, the Voices editor made BP out to be a fundamentally biased news service which colored most (perhaps all) news Baptist as good news Baptist. He further indicated BP had a definitive slant against GCR, etc., a slant apparently employed because Nashville was anti-GCR (the issue now is not whether Dave’s conclusion was correct about BP’s bias any more than my conclusion about Wright’s action is correct i.e. debatable). That’s a fairly significant charge were one to ask me—openly charging our news wire service with failing at the only job concerning its assignment, not to mention suggesting a possible cover-up on positive GCR stories. How my “abuse of presidential powers” phrase and Barber’s “tyranny” caption (if Barber is allowed to be placed in the same category as mine) are “over-the-top” and presumably “uncivil” while Dave’s indictment of BP is supposed to be considered acceptable language of dissent hardly registers with me.
Complicating matters more, Miller said in the “open letter” these words, words which we should all consider (as above, embolden added):
The truth is, I could go on. However, there is no need. What we have, it seems to me, is a blog editor who personally enjoys Baptist liberty to question SBC actions and leadership to his heart’s content. He routinely defends his right to do so, and has, more than once, charged our SBC leadership with blatant arrogance, citing his right—duty even—to ask hard questions of their actions. However, when others do it—especially on issues about which he finds himself on the opposite end–he strangely morphs into a cyber-cop, whipping out his trusty can of mace and spraying people dead in the face, charging them with words horribly “over-the-top” and “uncivil” because they express their Baptist right to question the actions and/or words of visible leaders—whether voluntary or paid staff.
Yes, one wonders precisely who does get to decide what is definitively “over-the-top” and “uncivil” in our discussions on issues Baptists face. The problem is, some of us perhaps think a bit too narrowly about the words of others and a bit too forgivingly about the words we pen.
With that, I am…
Peter
Oops! A correction must be noted else I’ll get my hands spanked. In the final block of quotes above from the “open letter,” only the first of the three are from the body of the letter. The other two are within the comment thread.
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
I had forgotten about this little kerfuffle that Dave had with Dr. Ezell and, subsequently with Mike Ebert. This illustrates the problem with these periodic calls for “civility.” Personally, I didn’t find anything Dave wrote offensive or over-the-top. I am sure others did find Dave’s language uncivil. Did Dave use strong language to describe the actions of Dr. Ezell? Absolutely. Some of those actions Dave said could even be described as “arrogant.” Are we no longer able to describe actions as arrogant or unwise or what have you?
When leaders, be they in the SBC or in government, take actions or make public pronouncements, then those actions and words become subject to question and challenge. This is exactly the situation that we find ourselves in today with the name change task force. Dave and others do not believe that what Wright did was an abuse of power or violated the ByLaws of the Convention. You, I and others believe that it was. This is only one part of what looks to be a very spirited debate within the SBC leading up to New Orleans. Let’s have the debate, but let’s not allow those who are on the opposite side of the debate to make up rules which only help them win the debate before it ever gets started. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell,
Thanks for your reply. I substantially agree: while Dave’s language was incisive, it’s certainly not clear his rhetoric was uncivil. Nor will I allow others–including Finn and Miller–to frame the discussion by limiting what is “over-the-top” and “uncivil” to their own personal opinions. As I stated above, some things are universally out-of-bounds and therefore we are right to judge such rhetoric as so. But just because undesirable descriptions are employed by others–i.e. personally undesirable to my way of thinking–cannot be used as a joust to knock people out of the discussion.
As a side note, I liked Finn’s piece and linked it in the special page I put up for resources as we think through this issue. Nevertheless, similar to your judgment, Dr. Finn’s caution can be taken as fairly premature since no one, so far as I can tell, is going nutts with this thing (sure there may be a comment here and there but no amount of precaution is going to do away with those altogether). Furthermore, the same could be said about President Patterson’s precaution he offered in his public statement for that matter.
Thanks again.
With that, I am…
Peter
Dave,
Perhaps your newest post is, in some way, your response to the comment I left for Howell. Perhaps not. Even so, I agree we should all strive to be a part of the solution. But being part of the solution cannot mean—at least to me—forfeiting my own voice in a matter even if all motives on the other side are angelic to a tee. Any one of us may be sincerely wrong.
Hence, left dangling in mid-air is your continued charge of “over-the-top” and “uncivil” rhetoric coming from those of us who’ve questioned the unbaptistic polity—in our view at least–displayed by our president at the last EC meeting. Here is the point, plain and simple: if you disagree with us, be our guest. But do not strap on our back the uncomely charge of incivility when there is no substantial reason to do so. Our dissent is out Baptist right. And we will continue in it when we think we possess good and sufficient reason to do so, and that even if you and every other Baptist do not. Finally, albeit your apparent regret for positions you’ve taken, I have no similar regret for my own personal positions.
With that, I am…
Peter
My post was written yesterday and is not in response to anything you have written.
Howell raises a significant point. It’s virtually impossible to distance yourself enough to make a completely fair judgement. Something will always seem more offensive if it represents the other side. Especially when both sides are convinced much is at stake. I thought about this. I didn’t want to say anything. Howell did.
Yes, Dave. I find that much more realistic. I don’t think I’ve ever used rhetoric like that. Admittedly, I’ve spoken of what I would call a ‘platonic-republic’ approach I see with Calvinism: an attempt to impose something because you know it’s good and because you figure others may not see the “vision in the cave” and come out. Of course this doesn’t apply to all Calvinists and it could be practiced among Arminians too! As an historian, I do know of an overall trend–and it’s the impressionist pictures that emerge which you remember–is that Calvinism usually seems to want to go in that direction at some point because of a kind of internal drive or dynamic. It eventually gets to where people enthusiastically embrace ‘every aspect for the kingdom’ (and this we know more concretely by the books on the shelves) and its a vision that often isn’t one that all Christians consider authentically kingdom-inspired. It may be total in a certain sense, but not genuine in the sense one understands our predicament as Christians in the world. I hope you understand my thoughts on this. I think of Schaeffer (the father) who was a kind enough gentleman but who I think made some philosophic and epistomologic errors. His son reacted vitriolically for that among other things. And I won’t name other names that get closer to home. Then there are those who’ve gone further than Schaeffer in its application. I won’t mention those names eihter.
When we walk to the podium to speak we may have asked God ” to Guide and Direct Us ” but to no other individual do we ask for permission or grant control over what experiences we’ve had or of what part of them we speak. Common decency aside, we owe others who are listening to speak without hesitation or any mental reservation our inner most thoughts without being asked for a video or some other form of “proof” . Grin & Bare it – take it to heart or excuse us if we don’t have the mannerisms you would prefer , but don’t attempt to control or manipulate what someone says or by what you want to hear. You don’t have that right and I don’t want you to have it. It’s called Freedom of Speech and everyone sick or mentally ill, red ,yellow , black or white or straight or gay has that right in an honorable forum. No big words – it’s just common sense.
“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”
–The Wizard of Oz (1939)
“The largest Protestant denomination in the United States says it will explore a possible name change.”
–www.onenewsnow.com (2011)
The largest Protestant denomination in the United States said no such thing, but since the world thinks we did, who is it that gave them that false impression? Should they not be held accountable?
Instead, the headline should read: “Largest Protestant Denomination’s Moderating Officer Assumes Unprecedented Authority to Proceed on Initiative Unilaterally Without Denomination’s Prior Approval.”
“The largest Protestant denomination in the United States said no such thing, but since the world thinks we did, who is it that gave them that false impression? Should they not be held accountable?”
I noticed this too. Is it considered uncivil to allow this false impression to stand?
I am seeing an end run using the media?
Howell is right. Sometimes, when someone just disagrees…then, they are being mean, and ugly, and uncooperative. Seen it many times.
David
David,
I’m sure you’re right. But, David Miller has a good point in comment #7. In a debate like this, both sides should be willing to call out their own when the tone/rhetoric/etc goes overboard. Excuses for ugliness et al should have no place among us. Yet, I’ve seen it many times.
Kevin
Kevin,
Jack gave a clear explanation above about why Dr. Finn’s and Dave’s suggestions, while well-intended no doubt, are not viable options in the real world, including the SBC. Dave wrote a post several months back laying out principles for blogging. I had the same response then as I do now. No one would disagree with your points that when someone’s tone/rhetoric/etc. goes overboard, they should be called out or that there is no excuse for ugliness. The problem lies in who gets to determine what is and what is not a tone or rhetoric that has gone overboard or words that are ugly. In the political realm (which, unfortunately we are in as well within the SBC), your opponents will always be quick to judge your rhetoric as harsh and your words ugly. Your allies will always give you more leeway in what you say and how you say it. That’s the reality. Are there times when the rhetoric or tone of your ally is so beyond the pale that he or she needs to be called out for it? Yes. But, I’m generally not going to be stiffling someone else’s speech through calls to “tone down the rhetoric.” Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Posts like Howell’s or Peter Lumpkins are not ugly David? Really?
While I expressed disagreements with Howell’s post, I would not have published it here if I thought it were beyond proper debate. I strongly disagreed with Howell’s perspective on this one (as he did mine). But that does not make his opinions inappropriate (obviously, in a perfect world disagreeing with me would be considered a serious offense, but it is not).
I do agree that we should be civil and nice and kind when dealing with issues. We should be able to speak our minds and our opinions, but we should act right while sharing.
BUT, I have seen people being called mean, nasty, uncooperative, etc. all because they did not agree. Also, it’s really hard to speak against someone after they say, “I’ve prayed about this, and God told me…..” How can you disagree with God????????????
David
David, whenever you don’t agree with me, it is sin. You should know that by now.
volfan007 comment #23 ” “Somebody says , ” I’ve prayed about this and God told me…..” How can you disagree with God ?????????? ” “. I’ve lived in some of New England and they are blunt. Not insulting especially but it is their type of humor. In the winter when the snow is deep and the temps in the minus degrees is when the entertainment at their “Town Meetings” (with heat) is at its best. I once heard at a talent show that if someone has the nerve to stand up there and sing for three minutes, then I have the nerve to sit and listen. If this person would have said that up there someone would have asked for an intermission so this man could reconnect with God for the benefit of al and many would have laughedl. Not being mean but if he has the nerve to expect us to take him at his word then we have the nerve to ask for another consultation. There’s a mean, degrading way way to respond when he speaks which no one would do and a way to give him his say and give him another assignment. I wouldn’t put it beyond someone to ask if he remembers what he was drinking or smoking before his conversation so they could buy some themselves . He’d have to take it. I remember when my Grandfather died up there and he was friends with everyone, I sent a huge thing of flowers , maybe 4′ x 4′ with a huge masonic symbol on it. This is in a town of mostly Catholics including relatives none of which knew he joined the masons in the Navy as an officer. Well, while I was up there for the funeral, I was driving my Mother and Grandma to the apothecary and low and behold someone had placed an old, well worn outhouse right next to the road with a sign that said , ” Towns Name – Masonic Lodge “. It took some effort to do that and we all thought it was hilarious – not insulting. When I walked in for coffee and was asked if I knew how to get to the new Lodge it was a time to laugh. These people if you broke down on the road in the weather wouldn’t pass you by and put your occupants in a warm car. So, down South because they have a different sense of humor I would probably bite my tongue or respond in another way but he wouldn’t rule. My other Grandfather lived in Texas , was a mason, deacon , Baptist and judge and also had a sense of humor – that’s another story.
The commenter on Peter’s site such as Mary are not ugly? Really?
I think this site is a better site in general when we do not discuss the tone of Peter’s site, nor his commenters.
Debbie,
Lord bless you, girl.
With that, I am…
Peter
Name recognition is an important factor, and the SBC has it, nationally and internationally. The leading evangelist for the 20th century was and is a Southern Baptist member and minister. Three presidents were Southern Baptists. The fussin’ is like that which some Anglican scornful indited Baptists for here in North Carolina back in the 1700s. While he did that, they were just being alive, securing religious liberty, uniting Separate and Regular Baptists, persuading General Baptists who were neither very evangelistic nor missionary minded to become Regular (read Particular Redemptionists) Baptists who were both, and getting ready to launch the Great Century of Missions. Leave well enough alone. After all, the Northern Baptist Convention changed their name to the American Baptist Convention and then to the American Baptist Churches, Inc., and the changes did nothing to halt their miserable decline. I’m not hung up on the name Southern Baptist, but I am aware of the powerful recognition factor. And remember the leading Evangelist did his part to end segregation in his crusades by demanding that seating be available to everyone, regardless of race. The best is yet to come. That Third Great Awakening for which I have been praying for 38 years…and others have been praying for even longer. That awakening we pray will reach every soul on earth with gentle persuasion and continuing for a 1000 generations and reach thousands and thousands of worlds so the Lord can make plain his effort at humor in Rev.7:9. No one? Even God Himself? Surely, that is funny!
Hi Howell,
I wish you would. We can do better. Politicians in Washington may not call out their supporters when they step over the line. But we should. Our political debates over issues should look different than what we see on TV. I wonder, how often do we pray before we reply to those on the other side of the debate? I would truly admire some of our SBC politico-writers (on the other side of my opinion) if they would (ever) call out some of their supporters for unchristlike online behavior. That’s just me. And I am just a young SBC-er. But it disheartens me to see what is so often said.
Praise the Lord for the Cooperative Program, because if we didn’t have it, it would be hard to tell that Southern Baptists love each other and want to cooperate together for the sake of the gospel. What I want is family among Southern Baptists. Family who may disagree at times, but who nonetheless are truly family. I often don’t feel that way when I read Southern Baptist blogs.
Maybe I need thicker skin. Or maybe we should be more civil?
Kevin
Kevin,
Thanks for the reply. I assume (please correct me if I am wrong) that you opening sentence, “I wish you would,” was in response to my closing sentence above, “But, I’m generally not going to be stiffling someone else’s speech through calls to ‘tone down the rhetoric.'” Since my comment to you, we have had at least one commenter, probably unwittingly, support the point I was making. This commenter has already tried to get others to deem my post and a post by Peter Lumpkins (I’m not sure which post) as “ugly.” I am not going to play that game. If a person thinks that what someone writes is “ugly,” then by all means, don’t read it.
As Sal noted in his opening comment, the stakes are high. Those in power know it. The grassroots should at least be informed of it. And, David (Volfan007) hits the nail on the head by acknowledging the spiritual language that so many use as a weapon to stiffle debate. It may have worked during the GCR debate and it might work again during the name change “study.” But, the grassroots will at least know that we are in a game of hardball politics. It is not a game that we started, but it is a game that we have been forced to play, and that without much healing having taken place since the GCR (which remains widely unpopular in many quarters of the SBC, despite what some might think). Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Hi Howell,
You’re correct in your question about my comment. Sorry about the confusion.
As for the rest of your comment, I would only respond this way. We are personally responsible for how we participate in a debate, especially when it’s a conflict with our fellow Southern Baptists. In other words, I cannot control what someone else says or what hardball politics they employ. But I can control whether or not Jesus would be pleased with my engagement of the issues. And, I have no problem calling out a like-minded brother when he steps over the line. It’s up to him whether he listens, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t confront him.
In the same way, I hope I am open to the same. It means a lot when those who you know are for you tell you when you are wrong. Like when a close friend asks you about your walk with Christ because he is concerned. When that happens to me, I know my friend did it because he cares about me, and he cares about Christ.
To me, that is the heart of the civility issue Dr. Finn has called for. Whether it is easy (or realistic) or not. Or whether the other side plays by the same rules or not. For our personal sanctification, and for Christ, we should rise above nasty politics. We should stop the bitterness, wild accusations, distrust on our own end. Whether the other side does so or not is not in my control. The means matter as well as the end.
Thanks for your interaction,
Kevin
Howell,
I’m glad you place “study” in quotation marks, brother. Setting up a website soliciting names for the new convention we’re heading toward, coupled with round table discussions on how best to get the vote through in 2012NOSBC can hardly qualify as a real study, now can it?
With that, I am…
Peter
Several have commented on the “enormous” name recognition factor of being the Southern Baptist Convention, and how it does not limit us to a region of the country. I agree it was powerful, in the South, but I see much less of that in southern Maryland, even though there are no ABC churches here–especially since few people who now live in southern Maryland are from southern Maryland. It is especially a hinderance in reaching the African American population here. How about some of you who live north of the Mason-Dixon line, or so far west of it, it has no meaning (Dave) commenting on that. I’d like to hear your perspectives.
John
John,
And yet, is not the SBC gaining more and more Black churches? Are we not having a lot of Black churches coming into the SBC? being started by the SBC?
In fact, we’re probably gonna have a black man as our next SBC President…Fred Luter.
David
I don’t know how much of a problem the term Southern is here among black churches. I know that the general perception of southerners is not positive in culture. Much of it is unfair, sort of prejudicial.
Baptists are viewed somewhat askew in this Catholic/Lutheran dominated area. Southern Baptists tend to have a slightly harder time.
Actually, in the evangelical culture, the SBC is well-viewed by many because of our uncompromising stands on certain cultural/moral issues. But outside of evangelicalism and I think many expect us to be picking up snakes and rolling in the aisles.
The most important things I’ve observed for SBC churches in Iowa (guessing its true elsewhere) is to make yourself a part of the community, to demonstrate stability in leadership and, for the love of all that is holy, NOT to fight and split all the time.
Does the name ‘Southern Baptist Convention’ not today evoke great recognition nationally for its open stand for the subordinate place of women in marriage ?
I think that it does.
So if people in other parts of the nation, or the world who follow that teaching see the ‘SBC’ affiliation, they are drawn to it.
It’s not just about a ‘region’;
‘SBC’ is a name that evokes wide recognition on important teachings still strongly promoted among Southern Baptist people to do with the place of women not only in the Church, but also in the institution of marriage within the denomination.
Name-recognition?
yes, SBC evokes much more than a ‘region’ geographically . . .
QUESTION: the ‘sides’ in this debate . . .
how do they line up over ALL the issues that are ‘controversial’ in the SBC Churches today ?
are some trying to ‘distance’ the SBC Churches from certain issues by walking away from the name that strongly evokes these issues in the eyes of the general public?
if so, it’s much more than a name-change issue, isn’t it ?
With all due respect, even if the convention employees on the committee were taking vacation time to go to these meetings it would not mean that it is costing the convention anything. That vacation time was earned by the employee just like in any other job and they can choose to use it in any way they wish. We can assume that they are going to use that time on something right? Their SBC salaries would also be theirs to spend how they wish. We have no right at all to regulate how they use their vacations or salaries, we don’t own them.”
John, You misunderstood me or I did not communicate well. I am asking IF they will take vacation time and not travel on their entity dime. And how will we know? Is it our business if they do or not? I think it is since we are expected to support them as employees.
I am hoping they will do the right thing and make sure it is documented properly. I know how the lines can be blurred at that level on such things.
I see Lydia, sorry for my misunderstanding. I do think that there should be total transparency in this process.
“IOW Lydia I see on that list a diversity of views among these guys. They are not all pro-Ezell or pro-GCR. That is a good thing I think. Both need to be involved.”
Debbie, I have tried to make my point but you don’t seem to get it and I am sure it is because I am not communicating it well. I will try one last time.
My point has nothing to do with who is on the committee. In fact, I am sad that anyone agreed to be on an “unofficial” committee that did an “end run” around the messenger vote process. It is the fact they worked around the process we have in place for such a thing that really concerns me. Why? Because they did not think they would get the votes? I know this makes it ok for some. But not for me. We do vote on things for a reason. Even on committees before we get to the larger vote.
I think you are missing the larger point and not seeing the forest for the trees when you focus on the make up of the unofficial committee. There should not be one to begin with. Especially since the messengers voted against such a thing before. Who knows, they might have voted for an official committee. But they did not get the chance, did they?
When people will seal records after promising transparency, we need to start asking more questions and demanding the rules be followed in all things.
I think the unofficial committee message will be very controlled and spun with the media and by that time few will dare vote against the unofficial committee’s recommendations. People have been taught well to follow their leaders.
Just a prediction based on watching how they operate.
No fussin’, no disagreements. The place where all are in agreement and silence reigns supreme is in the graveyard. Sooner or later, everyone gets carried away with one form of argument or another. Generally, the meanest expressions come from those with psychological problems, and most people are at least somewhat aware of this issue.
“The place where all are in agreement and silence reigns supreme is in the graveyard.”
I was thinking about that, but I am aware that there exists communities of faith with the capacity to reach amicable consensus. It is possible. But it requires an ordered commitment to another ‘way’ of working ‘within community’.
If having respect for others is a part of the order of a faith community, it is very possible for people to communicate with one another in a manner where it is as important to listen and try to understand the other person, as it is to want to be heard and to try to get one’s own way.
In such a community, a person who presents with the ‘meanest expressions and who may have psychological problems’,
that person would be listened to, and people would make an effort to understand him, and to incorporate him into the community in a way that is beneficial to him.
Such communities are strong in faith and in the fruits of the Spirit, and are able to help troubled people to find a calmer voice.
Well, Dave, if you didn’t post the last piece on “your journey” in response–at least in part–to my tome above (#16), then you must be a mind-reader! As we say in Georgia, I think that’s just peachy ;^)
With that, I am…
Peter