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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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