Twelve Perspectives for Coming Generations
1. Talking about the Gospel is as removed from evangelism as talking about driving is from racing in the Indy 500.
We like to talk about the gospel but we are unwilling often to do the grinding work of telling the lost about Christ. A witnessing church is the product of much intercessions, a pastor who demonstrates this by his own action and which makes this a high priority.
How many of you have shared Christ this month? Led someone to Christ this year?
Ezekiel and the watchman scripture was read. “I’m not sure what that means, but I am sure that I don’t want to find out.”
Elton Trueblood – if I do not open the door for another, it may never be opened. I may be the only one who holds this key. (I type too slow to get the whole quote).
2. The culture is your friend in the same way that a brown bear is your buddy.
Black bears will maul you but a brown bear will stay with you until your theory of the creator is confirmed!
Not all of culture is wicked, but it is given over to evil.
Enjoy culture, but a life of holiness is rule by Christ, not culture.
3. Being saved means something quite different than being picked up as a hitchhiker on a hot day.
Much more happens to us at salvation than simply being rescued from hardship.
4. A Christian who has not seriously suffered is like a Rolls Royce with no engine.
While beautiful, it has no use. The godly in Christ Jesus WILL suffer.
Future leaders need seminary, partly because of the crucible. But the ripening of the soul through injustice is essential.
5. Most people who say they believe the Bible do so in the same way they believe in Bhutan. They visit seldomly and have no idea what it contains.
We must proclaim the full counsel of God.
6. Mature elephants have less energy, but they can find water when they need it and they never fight or kill needlessly.
In which he trains his guns on bloggers!
I understand why, but it irritates me.
7) Ecumenism at its finest form is like using a lion in the breeding of monkeys.
It ends up killing both of them!
We need to seek doctrinal purity. Believers church. Immersion.
8) A preacher’s ability to deliver a sermon is admirable, but it is like a pilot who can fly, but cannot take off or land on the aircraft carrier.
One can do so much good for God that we do no good for God’s people.
The care of the flock is crucial to the pastoral role.
9) Arrogance is as charming to God and God’s people as a wounded bull is to a cowboy at a rodeo.
A man cannot be haughty when he has been walking with God. It is our diminution of self that demonstrates spiritual growth.
Pride is the chief enemy in scripture. A recovery of humility and integrity in Christian social media is essential.
10) I didn’t get this one – I was thinking through his last statement.
In addressing Corinthian believers – “I determnined to know nothing but Christ, and Christ crucified” Faith needs to rest on power of God not wisdom of men.
11) When it comes to a fence, a wise traveler will seek to understand why it was built before he tears it down.
Alcohol. Dancing, etc. We were, at times, legalistic. But there were reasons.
Two most devastating industries – beverage alcohol and porn. How can we not build a fence?
We are responsible not only for the commandments but also for the wisdom of God’s Word.
12) When you get into a Texas Shootout, when you draw your pistol, it is too late to call timeout.
Think things through – consider the law of unintended consequences.
I get weary of shots taken at bloggers. I realize that some bloggers are WAY out of line, and every shot he has taken is well deserved – sometimes by me.
But don’t just focus onthe bloggers and social media. The problems exist in pulpits and in classrooms, not just on social media.
It’s too easy to act like its just bloggers who are the problem
David, I agree that the real issue is not problems with bloggers, or Calvinists, or Traditionalists, or Denominationalists, or any number of “ists.”
The real problem is the “man in the mirror.” Too many of these aphorisms could have my name attached to them. I try to remember that when I ask my congregation to speak to others about Christ, they will give me a better hearing if they see me doing it myself.
These are difficult days for evangelism. Things have changed greatly over the last 40 years of ministry. One thing has not changed (maybe two): lost people need to hear the gospel, and saved people need to share it.
Evangelism is the “great cure.” Whatever “hot issue problem” is on the theological plate of the moment, evangelism is the solution.
I need to ponder personally the powerful propositions put forth in this post.
I am all for gaining insight and wisdom from previous generations. I have much to learn and I want to exhibit humility in learning from those with much more experience.
But I also think that insight needs to be communicated in humility and not with condescension and arrogance. I think too often the “what you young guys need to know” type messages and posts don’t come off or get received as intending to be helpful but as telling “those guys” all the ways they are wrong and don’t get it. Which means all the ways they might be right and helpful gets lost in the condescending tone.
I have benefitted greatly from wise older pastors around me who have helped me by telling me where I am wrong and what I need to think about that I needed to hear. But the relationship they had with me and their tone to me was never that of condescension and arrogance. I think that is the place where these types of messages need to be communicated, face to face, and when you know someone actually cares for you and your ministry. Without that, it just comes off as self-serving and arrogant, even if it was not intended that way.
Amen, Jason.
yep
smh
We are truly blessed to have Dr. Page Patterson in a leadership position in our SBC….truly blessed.
David
Amen, I agree totally – Volfan.
Right as the rain, Vol. Dr. Patterson was a leader, is a leader, always will be a leader. Leaders do not make everyone happy. Nor is it possible to make everyone happy and still be a leader. Dr. Patterson is a leader.
No one disagrees with that, Vol. I certainly don’t. Not sure why you would “smh”.
You seemed to be implying that Dr. Patterson was self serving, arrogant, and condescending. That is why I just had to shake my head.
David
I thought I was pretty clear and explained how those messages often “come off”. I made no such accusation against Patterson. In fact, in the last sentence of the post I stated that often these types of messages come off that way even though that is not what the intent was.
I’m not sure what Patterson’s intent or tone was, so I’m not going to assume anything of his intent or delivery. Thus, if you re-read it I never made an accusation against him. My post was about these types of messages/posts in general, and I thought I made that pretty clear. I was simply pointing out that there are a lot of these types of messages/posts that float around from people and the way they are received is as condescending an arrogant because they often are not delivered with the growth of the young pastors involved (because there is no relationship with them), but simply just to complain about young pastors and how they don’t “get it”.
You can “smh” at that if you like.
Vol got it right about your post. A couple of provisos tossed in doesn’t change the context here (this particular counsel from Dr. Patterson) and the words you chose to use. This list doesn’t come off at all as you describe, perhaps the issue here is either your choice to vent in general in response to a specific post, or perhaps you just personally resist this sort of direct advice.
Oh, I’m just saying stuff in general. Anything you don’t like wasn’t anything I intended.
Yes, the context of this discussion was Patterson’s address. I explained why these messages rarely hit home with their intended audiences. His message was a springboard for something I have been thinking about for a long time.
You can reject my points if you want, but I didn’t mock Patterson or question his motivations, nor did I reject his points in his message. His points are fine. I just pointed out how these messages could be better received…if the true intended audience was young pastors.
None of that in any way diminishes Patterson’s suggestions, which could be helpful for all pastors, young or old. If I wanted to critique his points, I would have done so directly. (Side note: if I HAD critiqued his words, that would not in any way diminish what he has accomplished in and for the SBC. No man is above critique (not Patterson nor Mohler nor Floyd, etc.). But that wasn’t my intention here, or I would have done it. His words were fine.)
Patterson’s message just sparked anew something I have thought about for a while. That is why I didn’t deal directly with his words, but dealt with “this type of message” which gets tossed around on message boards, pastors conferences, state conventions, local associations, and even local churches quite often. Everyone has advice for “those guys over there” and it almost always is not preached for “those guys” but so that “these guys” feel better about not being “those guys” and can amen how they are not weak like “those guys”. At least that is how it comes of to “those guys”. If “these guys” cared about “those guys” (I hope you’re keeping up with the analogy), then they would not just preach at “those guys” but GO to “those guys” (hey, this works for evangelism too!). “Those guys” (myself included) would appreciate the discipleship and input…but that can’t be done from being preached at from afar, but when older pastors come and put their arms around younger pastors and help them learn. I have benefitted from several pastors who have done that for me, and because “those guys” need to learn lessons, it seems to me that if we really want “those guys” to hear and learn, then we need to show that we care about them and that it isn’t just us trying to preach to “these guys”.
I hope that clarifies my point further. When I say this isn’t about Patterson, I mean it. I hope you would take my word for it, especially now that I have made 3 posts trying to explain my intentions.
Jason – you forgot to use the word “may” – that is the ultimate safety net – so we have been told.
If you had said – “PP May come off as arrogant and condescending – even if he does not mean to.”
that would have been OK. As the use of the word “may” inoculates you from any accusation of being in any way negative.
If Vol, keeps true to form – he will defend you i IF you use the word may – as he has done before.
😉 🙂 🙂
Tarheel may be a
_______________________________________________________________.
David R. Brumbelow
Jason,
Just typical Pattersonisms … I’m glad he is a conservative. His antics work for some…and he is no political dummy.
Well, at least, he did speak of preaching the whole counsel of God, and I have written a response, favorable, to an article he wrote on Election (Eight Theses on Election). Dr. Patterson actually wrote something that indicated Calvinists (Sovereign Grace believers is the better term, more biblical) and Arminians could work together in spreading the Gospel.
I forgot to add that he evidently delivered a speech in which there was only one flaw, the one mentioned by our esteemed editor or whatever the title is. However, to give credit where credit is due, we do have bloggers who are pills, and we all make mistakes.
I have a blog and don’t take offense when someone criticizes bloggers unless they are criticizing something I’m doing that I believe is right. Hopefully they are not rightly criticizing something I’m doing wrong. Maybe part of that is also because I would primarily define myself in other ways, rather than first as having a blog. No criticism to anyone in particular, just my thoughts.
Paige Patterson is a hero of the SBC Conservative Resurgence, a scholar, an evangelist, and has served as a pastor. Those factors usually come out in his preaching and his practice. It is always worth it to hear him and read his writings. He has a big place in SBC history.
David R. Brumbelow
Did Patterson repeat the following statement he made back in April in North Carolina.
We got about 750 missionaries that need to be brought home. Uh, either they are in this movement (the church planting movement) or else they’re singing “Stand’n on the Promises” while they’re only “sit’n on the premises.” And, uh, in either event they need to be brought home. And, uh, so we are fighting another grand battle, this one more subtle than the other one actually. And so I ask you to pray for us as we fight the next battle. It is forever the devil on parade.”
Pretty sad trolling Ron West…
Donald,
Ron West is not trolling. He is correct. Here is the video where Page Patterson makes an unequivocal statement that 750 IMB missionaries need to be brought home: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJg8qWbZZxU
He specifically calls out David Garrison as being responsible for the problems based on Garrison’s doctoral dissertation from the University of Chicago where he advocates the “wrinkling of time” in the Evangelization of the world. Specifically, Garrison argues that it is taking too long to evangelize the world, so we need to allow the natural leader of the house churches (male or female) to rise up to leadership. As a result, many of those house churches are watching Benny Hinn on T.V. and are adopting his theology.
Patterson is also critical of the “Camel Method” of evangelizing Moslems, arguing that it is deceptive.
If Page had his way and he fired the 750 IMB missionaries whom he said “need to be brought home”, there wouldn’t be any need for a V.R.I.
David
I don’t want to appear cynical because that just is not my nature. However, with baptisms going down, attendance the same etc. etc if we fired everyone who is ineffective, there would not be a lot of us left.
DL,
That’s true only if one sole judges “effectiveness” on visible and immediate works and outward appearances rather than on continued faithfulness.
D.L. the point of my post was not to agree with Paige Patterson, but rather to callout Donald who accused Ron West of trolling. I specifically provided video evidence that Patterson had in fact very strongly called for the dismissal of some 750 IMB missionaries, accusing them of establishing house churches who were experiencing teaching from Benny Hinn. Paige also called out David Garrison and cited his doctoral dissertation as the basis for a lot of the actions taking place at the IMB now.
Whether or not Paige Patterson is right that there needs to be a mass firing because they are allowing controversial teaching, that is a separate matter for debate. (I have no idea).
However, I did think it was appropriate for me to hold Donald accountable for making a disparaging comment to Ronald West (Pretty sad trolling Ron West) when Ron was stating the truth. Some may not like it, but it was the truth.
This brings up another point, There are many on this blog who will defend people regardless of their actions, just because they share the same theology or think that they have a heart or passion for missions. My perspective is that it may very well be true that they may be the most passionate person for missions they know, or be the best evangelist around, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t call into question the effectiveness of their policies or some of their decisions. I believe we can do so in a non-disparaging way. However, I find that often when we do ask these questions, we are often shunned with the attitude, “How can you question the actions of the Lord’s anointed?”
I am not saying that you are responding that way, but that does seem to be a common response.
David
My comment was really more tongue in cheek than anything. What I was saying is why single out foreign missionaries. I guess my true feeling is that if we could figure out a way to convert ineffectiveness in the entire SB structure to alternative energy we could light up the world (no pun intended). To be clear I am in the same theological camp as PP, but I am not a PP fan for a number of reasons, but that is not the point of the post. I do think the comment of 750 is irresponsible unless he has definite information and evidence.
Tarheel
I agree with the spirit of your response. I am certainly not a numbers for the sake of numbers person. However I do feel that faithfulness should result in souls being saved and that is decreasing in the SBC. As a DOM I have experienced some faithful men see their church go to nearly nothing. Honestly I do not know how to reconcile that observation because those factors seems so diametrically opposed to each other. My honest opinion is that there seems to me to be ineffectiveness at all levels of SB life.
“Ron West is not trolling. He is correct.”
These are not mutually exclusive. If he wants to bring this up then he should write a blog on that subject and submit it to SBCVoices instead of trying to divert this discussion thread away from the monologue being discussed.
Here is a good resource for some background on Patterson’s thinking prior to his remarks. Pay particular attention to the article “Contending for Southern Baptist Biblical Missiology: Does Doublespeak Live? – Keith E. Eitel”
http://swbts.edu/academics/schools-programs/theology/journal/volume-57/57-1/
Ron
This is new to me. Did not hear that before. Did PP have 750 names or just any 750 missionaries. How did he arrive at this number?
D.L. I don’t know how he arrived at the number, but if you look at the youtube video link which I provided, he specificallygives that number and goes on to state that he may be too old for another fight.
It is pretty ironic that David Platt is asking for about that same number to resign, but Paige is saying instead that that number should be fired. If Platt had let Patterson be in charge of the personnel, he wouldn’t have to pay out all of the money in the VRI and could have saved the IMB millions!
“If Platt had let Patterson be in charge of the personnel, he wouldn’t have to pay out all of the money in the VRI and could have saved the IMB millions!”
Trolling. You’re looking for contention by bringing this up in a discussion on another subject, calling out “irony” (wrongly, btw) as if there is some connection between Patterson’s numbers and Platt’s numbers and with the quoted sentence above. Unfortunately, you will probably be successful in derailing this conversation and making the discussion useless for the subject of the monologue being discussed.
Donald, I don’t know who you are or what you mean by trolling. Many of us have been aware of that statement for some time. I have not mentioned it before because I have not seen Patterson mentioned very much. But this bog seemed to be about where Patterson sees the SBC going. Why shouldn’t it be mentioned? Why did he not bring something this significant up in his remarks? Has he changed his mind?
I just seems to me that when the President of one of our seminaries who is also a former president of the SBC and is described as an architect of the CR and CB Scott says he is a leader makes a claim that 750 of our missionaries ought to be fired because they are spreading heresy that it should be noted somewhere. I have not seen it mentioned in Baptist Press or on this blog or any other. I could have missed it I guess.
Yeah, I knew he’d said that as well – could have brought it up several times in various discussions but chose not because doing so may have caused a firestorm as those “blasting” David Platt would have been placed in quite the precarious position – as they tend t support PP no matter what.
Since you have though….
I think that – for the reasons you mentioned in your final paragraph – it certainly needs to be discussed – if one of the most well recognized and well respected leaders in our convention says that over 700 missionaries need to be fired – I think it deserves attention.
This statement calling for the FIRING of over 700 missionaries was not made by someone like me, or Adam Blosser, or Dave Miller, David Worley, or even William T. No, this statement was made by DR. PAIGE PATTERSON. Calling for the firing 700+ missionaries. That is intense. I assume he has a basis for arriving at that number and a good reason to call for such – and his platform and influence is beyond question – its significant when a man of his stature in the SBC says something like that. I for one would like him to further explain it so that we all may know the details as to why 700+ CP funded missionaries are UNFIT to serve.
(Nothing personal to Adam, David, Dave, and William – just making a point that statements made by some carry more weight than when made by us regular folk)
I in no way want to doubt or minimize the astuteness of our benevolent and esteemed dictator/moderator 😉 . Nor do I seek to question the certainty of the rising up of Adam Blosser into the halls of denominational influence – and of Course William is the Plodder – most know that one pales in comparison to him – Lastly, Mr. Worley – continually above all reproach. So the comments in the preceding paragraph should not be interpreted negatively.
😉 😉 😉
I may not get elected president in 2016, but I do intend to stay in the Holiday Inn Express while in St. Louis. Made my reservation today.
LOL
I am going to take a sleeping bag and camp out at Busch Stadium…..if you are going to St. Louis guys you have to get your priorities straight!!
Oh, I will catch at least 1 Cards game while I am there.
Adam
What are you going to do that is more important the rest of the time. After all by then they will be defending World Champs 😉
yep
Tarheel,
There is an even bigger question than how he arrived at that number. The question is that after over 30 years of complete conservative resurgence control of the trustee appointment process, when the last 3 IMB presidents were chosen by a conservative resurgent controlled trustee board, when every decision was approved by a conservative resurgent trustee board, when ever strategic decision and administrative hire was made by a conservative resurgent appointed IMB president, that Paige Patterson is still declaring war on the IMB and saying 750 missionaries should be fired for heresy. What does that say about the conservative resurgence? It seems we are worse off than we were before the conservative resurgence if you agree with Paige Patterson’s opinions and leadership. I am just asking.
Ron
I am not Tarheel but would like to respond if I may please. I said in an earlier comment that while my theology is pretty much like his, I am not a PP fan, and I added for reasons I will not go into. Now I think I would like to explain my attitude toward him. This statement is IMO typical PP stuff. He has more than once made rather outlandish statements that seemed more to do with shock value than relevant information. Much of what he has said again IMO is not prophetic as much as it is on the edge with no real constructive purpose. During the CR there was a graciousness of many men on both sides of the issue, and some who are not. He was not, again IMO. Hence this has little to nothing to do with the CR, it is just typical PP before and after and I suspect forever.
While this may seem harsh I want to affirm again that my theology matches his and I was, and remain a supporter of the CR.
DL, I have respect for PP – but I cannot really disagree with you that he is one who his entire ministry – seems to have joyfully sought after and moved from “war war”.
Ron, The reason I asked how he arrived at that number and would like some clarification on what he means by 700+ missionaries being unfit for service – is because I think we as southern baptists need to evaluate his accusation as to whether or not they are actually unfit for service or just disagree with Paige Patterson about some issue and therefore deserve to be the focus of “one of his wars”.
I think, as I said when a man of his stature and influence in our convention make such grave and serious statement – it shouldn’t be ignored.
Tarheel,
Outside of asking Dr. Patterson directly, I think you might gain some insight by reading from the 2014 “Missions Methods and Principles” edition of the Southwestern Journal of Theology. I found “Contending for Southern Baptist Biblical Missiology: Does Doublespeak Live?” by Keith E. Eitel of particular interest.
http://swbts.edu/academics/schools-programs/theology/journal/volume-57/57-1/
I think he made a public statement so his explanantion needs to be public. We have been lectured on this board numerous times about such transparency – I do not think I am out of line asking for it.
I may or may not agree with his analysis – but I sure would like to hear (from him – not someone else in an article) why he said what he said and exactly what he means by it.
Well…the statement was during a brief Q&A after a 55 minute speech at ISCA 2015, entitled “Consequences of Revolution: The Conservative Resurgence in the SBC”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBWeK0oBAYs
This had been on Youtube about six months before perennial Patterson-basher Wade Burleson decided to promote 4:00 of the 1:06:00 (starting at 54:40) speech as “Paige Patterson Declares War against the IMB”.
Dr. Patterson begins this 4:00 by saying “We are presently in a serious battle on the mission field.” He goes on to talk about the weakness of certain church planting movement methodology, in particular a concept sometimes called “Wrinkling Time in the Missionary Task”. More information about this available in the following paper:
http://www.baptisttheology.org/baptisttheology/assets/File/Massey_Wrinkling_Time_SWJT.pdf
You seem to want to focus on a suggested number of possibly problematic missionaries, but not care to do your homework. There is already a ton of public material addressing in detail exactly what Dr. Patterson mentions in answering this one guy’s question, plenty of which I have pointed at on this thread. How much of this have you bothered to read? After you do, then you can tell us what exactly you think is still left unanswered?
Donald
Saw that but i don’t think that validates anything.
Except, of course, for what it covers….
Point is, plenty of information on exactly what Patterson was referencing in the answer to that one guy during the brief Q&A after his 55 minute speech.
Have you listened to the entire 1:06:00 video? Have you looked at what all has been published by SWBTS in theological journals and papers? Have you emailed Dr. Patteson, or are you satisified by just ranting on a blog?
It’s all out there, and there isn’t really anything else for Patterson to answer….
Donald
(1) I do not rant
(2) I will match my research skills against yours any day
(3) Your prejudice is showing,, that to which you allude is hardly objective
(4) Your arrogance is distasteful
(5) You really need to get over your hero worship and learn to be objective about peoples comments even if you do like them
(6) Because of your attitude, I do not wish to converse with you any more.
Have a good day
D.L.
Even if 1-6 (Ad Hominem) are exactly right it doesn’t change the fact that the background of his remarks have been made public for some time now and are available to anyone and everyone. That matters….
Donald
Tarheel, I agree with you that these charges should be investigated and David Platt should respond to them and issue a statement through Baptist Press. It won’t happen though.
Of course they already have been investigated. These are no different than the charges Patterson and his side-kick Keith Eitel made in 2003 and were rejected by the IMB board. Jerry Rankin responded to Patterson and Eitel by saying, “disrespect for leadership and policies is being nurtured, non-biblical subversive behavior is encouraged and blatant disregard for truth is propagated.” Platt should issue a similar statement.
I think my question should be answered by all CR supporters. If Patterson’s charges are correct what does that say about 30 plus years of CR rule. If he is wrong, do they have the courage to say so? No they don’t.
Shortly after conservative resurgence leaders took control of the IMB they begin making the same charges Patterson is making today. Missionaries need to be fired, missionaries are spreading heresy, the IMB was controlled by liberals before the CR. Nothing has changed in 30 years. Patterson is still making the same charges.
I was appointed by the FMB in 1978, a year before Adrian Rogers was elected SBC president. At that time future SBC CR presidents Morris Chapman and Jim Henry were FMB trustees. They never said there was a theological problem at the FMB. W.A. Criswell’s good friend Baker James Cauthen had been FMB president for over 20 years. FMB trustee chairmen were conservative icons like W.O. Vaught and Homer Lindsey Sr.. Keith Parks was the new FMB president after being recommended by Cal Guy and other conservative leaders. The FMB was solid theologically and represented conservative Southern Baptist beliefs and theology. You would think that if the conservative resurgence was about theology, conservative resurgence leaders would have congratulated us. Instead they begin a 20+ year campaign of attacks, slander and carnal political activity against our leaders and our missionaries by Patterson and his minions. Patterson is just continuing what he does best, bully and attack. He does this to deflect attention from his failed leadership.
D.L.Payton, I appreciate your words but my theology is not the same as Patterson’s. I am a theological conservative and an inerrantist. That is also why I cannot support the CR. Patterson is a political conservative. My theology and inerrancy beliefs are based on the Bible not men. The CR has an almost cultist worship of its leaders by many supporters.
It will be interesting to see if David Miller allows this post to stand.
I cannot say the accusations made by PP are wrong or right – I do not have enough information – that is why I would like for him to publicly and clearly clarify, explain and defend his gravely serious statement.
I am not sure what a statement from Dr. Platt might accomplish until that is done. Because without a clearly articulated reasoning from PP he would speaking against the wind – as there is no clearly defined target to address. Right now we have a general statement that is profoundly concerning – namely that over 700 missionaries are UNFIT to serve as SBC missionaries in the mind of one of our most influential and respected leaders.
I would not expect to see a statement by Dr. Platt publicly until he has a clarification as to PP’s charges. Hopefully, they are in contact and we may hear something soon,
But I do not wish to see a “war” waged between a seminary President and the IMB unless there is dog gone good and very sound reasoning!
The onus is on PP to make his case, IMO.
Ron
Your second to last paragraph, is perhaps true to an extent. However, I think there may have been many thinking people in the CR. Being the old codger that I am, I was around when this thing began to surface in the public venue. For many of us Adrian Rogers, Richard Jackson, Jim Henry, W.A. Criswell, and John Bisango were among our favorite conference speakers and of course fell on all side of the controversy. That made many of us faced with a hard decision, is this theological or is it political. I became convinced it was not political. While I was and remain a supporter of the CR I am wondering if maybe we lost more than we gained, but that is another discussion.
As this pertains to PP when I say I am like minded theologically, I do mean theologically. I am non Calvinist, inerrantist, pre mil pre trib as he is. A political conservative and a theological conservative are skunks of a different stink (I guess we remember that one at the Pastor’s conference back in the day)
I respect PP as a brother in Christ, would not call into question his character or integrity , but I do question many of his statements, tactics, and believe that he has been much less than gracious when it only brought division. The statement of 750 missionaries needing to go is an example. It is irresponsible and very mean spirited unless he has documentation. The link posted above does not provide that documentation.
Bottom line I think the statement re. cultic worship of leaders is unfair, my brother.
Thanks for the interaction..it is how I best learn
BTW while we are talking theology let me share 4 theological principles that I have observed to be true
(1) Muslims do not recognize Jews as God’s chosen people
(2) Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah
(3) Evangelicals do not recognize the Pope as the supreme leader of Christianity
(4) Baptist do not recognize each other at Hooters
Have a great day
You forgot one, DL. Baptists hide from the Presbyterians in the Liquor Store.
LOL
Thank you DL for your comments. I think we are a couple of old codgers. I was also around when this began and long before it began. I also heard those speakers. I supported the CR when their goals were theological. There were seminary professors who needed to be fired. Unfortunately about 1% of their actions taken in the name of the CR were theological the rest political and carnal.
I will tell you why I believe that. No Baptist entity that I have been associated with is more theologically conservative because of the CR or its leadership. I am an Arkansas Baptist. Our convention was solidly conservative theological before the CR. That did not stop Ronnie Floyd and others from mounting a political campaign to take over our convention in the 80s. Fortunately the theological conservatives lead by Mike Huckabee and others defeated them. I attended Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in the 70s and 80s. Students from all across the US came to SWBTS because of its solid conservative theological reputation. Roy Fish, Oscar Thompson, Russ Bush and other conservative professors were there. That did not stop CR trustees from slandering our president and professors. It is only a shell today of what it was then. I was appointed to the FMB as I said before the CR. It was our largest SBC entity and was solidly conservative theologically. I won’t repeat what I said above about the carnal political campaign waged against the FMB/IMB. None of these entities were made more conservative theologically by the CR but they were all attacked by CR leaders for purely political motives. There has been no conservative theological resurgence in our convention, only political. We are reaping the harvest today.
Ron
I do understand your argument. I also had Roy Fish, Curtis Vaughn, Cal Guy, Jack Gray (who was also my pastor as a child in St. Louis)…all solid godly men. It was a hard time and not pleasant. Again I will hold to my support but as I said I think we lost more than we gained. I don’t think we will ever see the same strength that we had when I graduated SWBTS in 69 and started pastoring in Oklahoma. I attended my first SBC in 68 and every one until 93. Those first conventions were a total blessing and inspiration. The later ones not so much.
As an aside when I came to Montana in 93 with the then HMB, the state exec James Nelson said the pastors up here do not know what is going on in the south and you don’t need to enlighten them. The most refreshing words I heard in a long time. Ministry in Montana has been and continues to be a joy.
Blessings my brother
I am glad you mentioned Jack Gray my missions professor and friend. He came to Taiwan for a year to pastor an English language church. I remember sitting with him in his home in Taipei and him telling me the pain he felt when people who didn’t even know him accused him of being a liberal because he taught at Southwestern. I promised the Lord right then that whenever I heard CR leaders make charges such as that against Godly conservatives like Jack Gray I would challenge them. It happens so often, if I did it every time I heard those kind of lies I would never be able to do anything else, but I try to as much as possible. It doesn’t make me popular on blogs like this.
Dr. Grey’s sister was a member of a church I pastored in Oklahoma. When he came for a visit we had lunch and spent a little time together a few times. He was a precious man of God. He was the influence that took me to Southwestern instead of Southern. I was enrolled in Southern and made the switch 2 weeks before classes started. I could do flexible things like that when I was young…now I am old and set in my ways
While the reply is addressed to D.L., it is intended for Ron. That remark Ron, “I am old set in my ways,” you have no idea, how set he is. LOL. From one who has known him, it seems like forever, but it goes back to the late fifties. LOL
Thanks, Ron, for your kind words about Dr. Gray as well. I was privileged to serve as his grader for a semester or two and it was during his time of extending the invitation during missions week my first year at SWBTS that my wife and I responded to God’s call to serve as missionaries. I echo your sentiments about the painful experience of seeing solid, conservative, outstanding professors slandered by some of the CR bunch in what became a witch hunt that would make Salem blush in embarrassment.
Hey, D.L., and all others interested, I have a friend in Houston area, now suffering from Alzheimer, a vet from WWII. He had a professor of preaching at SWBTS who was the last student to live with B.H. Carroll (Dr. Carroll apparently took students into his home to help them financially, etc.). His name escapes me for the nonce, but, anyway, they were walking down the street one day, when two young African American women passed them going the other way. This dear brother told the class in which my friend took that he overheard one of the ladies say to the other, talking about Dr. Carroll, “I do declare, that is the prettiest looking White man I ever seen.” Any of you all have Dr. Carroll’s Interpretation of the English Bible or his book, I think it is titled, The messages of Jesus on Prayer. Anyway, whatever the title, if the fellow who said, God does not hear the prayer of a sinner, had studied that text a little closer and read Dr. Carroll’s sermon Ps.65:2, he would have never made such a remark. Nuff said. God bless.
Dr. JW
Praying for you and Rosemary…Lisa kept us informed last night
Thanks, Brother. All your prayers are deeply appreciated. Must admit this time has really tripped my anxiety level; it is off the scale. They have yet to figure out why she is so weak with no infection, no pneumonia, no something or other. Regards to Joy. Hey, fellows, in case you all don’t know, this man is my b-i-l, and he is really a splendid fellow, compassionate, diplomatic, disciplined In short, every thing I’m not. God bless all.
To those claiming otherwise, there was a significant theological problem and theological liberalism in our SBC seminaries and agencies before the SBC Conservative Resurgence. I personally experienced some of that liberalism.
Conservatives were not perfect, but they were right to steer our Convention back to a belief in the inerrancy of the Bible.
As one of many examples, the SBC Peace Committee Report, 1987 said in part:
“The Peace Committee has completed a preliminary investigation of the theological situation in our SBC seminaries. We have found significant theological diversity within our seminaries, reflective of the diversity within our wider constituency. These divergencies are found among those who claim to hold a high view of Scripture and to teach in accordance with, and not contrary to, the Baptist Faith and Message Statement of 1963.
Examples of this diversity include the following, which are intended to be illustrative but not exhaustive.
(1) Some accept and affirm the direct creation and historicity of Adam and Eve while others view them instead as representative of the human race in its creation and fall.
(2) Some understand the historicity of every event in Scripture as reported by the original source while others hold that the historicity can be clarified and revised by the findings of modern historical scholarship.
(3) Some hold to the stated authorship of every book in the Bible while others hold that in some cases such attribution may not refer to the final author or may be pseudonymous.
(4) Some hold that every miracle in the Bible is intended to be taken as an historical event while others hold that some miracles are intended to be taken as parabolic.
http://www.baptist2baptist.net/b2barticle.asp?ID=65
David R. Brumbelow
For those interested in a brief history of the SBC Conservative Resurgence, from a conservative point of view:
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2009/08/brief-history-of-sbc-conservative.html
David R. Brumbelow
I agree the CR was absolutely necessary. I agree that were not perfect the “architects” of the conservative resurgence are to be respected. Questioning The validity and reasonability of a public statement made by Dr. Patterson does not necessarily equate to questioning the conservative resurgence.
However – my respect for Dr. Patterson for the work that he did in that regard does not in my mind excuse a blanket statement whereby he declares that 700+ Of our cooperative program missionaries are “unfit to serve”.
It is because I respect Dr. Patterson that this matters – we are at a time in our convention when churches need to be motivated to send more money to the international mission board – however we have one of our most respected and influential leaders telling us that A very large percentage of our mission force should not be on the field.
I have communicated with Dr. Patterson personally and I have found that he does not have a scientific reasoning or a concrete explanation for the numbers – but he does have a basis. I have communicated with Dr. Patterson personally and I have found that he does not have a scientific basis or a concrete explanation for the numbers – but he does have a rationale.
He places these “unfit” missionaries into four broad categories – the first two I find complete agreement with him on. The send grouping I am not so sure –
1. He states that back during the Dr. Rankin years that many missionaries who disagree with the Baptist Faith and message 2000 were just told to sign it anyway so they could stay On the field and not worry about it – if this is true I have a problem with this and I agree those missionaries should come home. ( I wonder though how many Missionaries this actually is – certainly I hope it’s missionaries this actually is – certainly I hope it’s not in the hundreds)
2. Dr. Patterson contends that there are a large group of missionaries who are “sold out to the insider movement” which, according to what I’ve read, includes deceptive practices and even actually changing scripture so as to befriend Muslims as a way of evangelism. I agree that this is a problem. I think at a minimum missionaries need to be instructed that this is not a valid method of evangelism and expected to promise not to engage in it – and should they continue – they should be brought home.
Now for the potential disagreement.
3. Dr. Patterson contends that there are some missionaries who are not witnessing. He explains to me as being ones who do not share the gospel. Missionaries by definition or to be gospel proclaimers – so if they’re actually not sharing the gospel then obviously there’s a problem – but I am not clear as to whether Dr. Patterson objects to someone’s methodology that is not like he i missionaries by definition or to be gospel proclaimers – so if they’re actually not sharing the gospel then obviously there’s a problem – but I am not clear as to whether Dr. Patterson objects to someone’s methodology that does not look like his or the way he thinks it should – or if they are actually not witnessing in a scriptural way at all. In other words I’m not sure if his issue is merely methodological.
4. Dr. Patterson stated that he believes that anyone who is reformed should not be a missionary for the Southern Baptist convention – I disagree profoundly with this. Being reformed is not against the Baptist Faith and message – nor is it unorthodox – nor is it somehow Non-Baptist.
I shutter to think of the outrage that would be all over this board and multiple other blogs if al mohler so publicly tated that all non-reformed missionaries should come home. Or if David Platt announced that he was going to bring home missionaries who did not ascribe to his reformed soteriology. In fact this is already been insinuated by those vitriolicly opposed to David Platt.
So even though Dr. Patterson and I find agreement on the first two categories – and possibly even the third category if his issue is more than methodology and we actually have missionaries who are not presenting the Gospel to the lost on the field then maybe we could find some agreement there, too.
I still would like to know how exactly he came up with the 700+ number – that’s a huge number and a lot of missionaries.
And I’m also deeply concerned that a president of one of our seminaries and a very respected leader within the convention is contending that simply being reformed is a disqualifier for IMB missionary service.
Sorry for the repeat phrases in the above post – I was speaKing into the phone and have finally figured out that when I see an error (because of my accent) and stop the speech feature – that sometimes it will repeat phrases when I start using the speaking feature again –. Or something like that. LOL
Tarheel
I think this illustrate the problem If he wants to bring home Reformed missionaries (keep in mind I am not Reformed) That would produce a fight of great magnitude…..not to mention it does not need to be done.
It just seems to be some generalities as opposed to specifics.
Tarheel,
Thanks for bringing to the discussion some of what you have personally heard from Dr. Patterson. On #4, I was wondering if you could be very specific on what he said in your discussion.
Donald
He wasn’t very specific at all on that point – I have asked for further clarification and am awaiting it.
I think that in the 4:00 cut of the video he referenced Charismatic Calvinist and wondered if that was more of what he intended. Certainly can’t speak for him. Be sure to let us know when you receive clarification.
No. He was speaking of those who are reformed – and did not qualify it by denoting only “reformed charismatics”
I would suppose he is speaking of a certain type of Calvinists, or Reformed, not all.
There are some types of Calvinists who are not evangelistic.
And yes, there are some types of Traditionalists (aka Moderate Calvinists, non-Calvinists) who are not evangelistic.
Our IMB should not employ either one.
David R. Brumbelow
David B.
It does not seem so. He grouped “those who do not witness” in a completely different category as those who are reformed. The way he phrased it indicated that being reformed alone was reason enough to make the “unfit” list.
David B. – Of course I (and likely everyone else) agree that those who are not proclaiming the gospel on the mission field should not be there. I am just not convinced that there are hundreds of SBC missionaries employed by the IMB who are simply milking the system and not doing what we sent them there to do – if that is the case I will be so bold as to say that before we do a VRI we just fire those who are not proclaiming the gospel.
Tarheel
Most certainly. It should not be too difficult to determine who is dead wool and who is not.
I think it should be “Some/many Christians don’t evangelize.” No need to single out Calvinists or Arminians. If Church history and the modern day resurgence of Calvinism tells us one thing, its that Calvinists have always been and continues to be an evangelizing group in its majority.
Yes they are. It would serve us well if we simply considered the work ethic etc on a personal basis not on their theology as it relates to Cal not Cal.
David good point.
Tarheel,
Thanks for this. I have an affiliation with some Southern Baptists related to Haiti. Some of those “some” are Reformed. So this hits close to home for me. Both the Reformed and non Reformed affiliations I have related to Haiti are evangelists in their practice.
Related note. The very idea that Reformed folks should be denied the mission field simply because they are Reformed is about as ridiculous a notion as I’ve seen in a long time. As Tyler notes, Reformed Christians have historically led the way in evangelism and missions across numerous Christian groups, including Southern Baptists!
SDG!
So let me get this straight. We can have Muslim students in our seminaries, but not Calvinist missionaries serving with our IMB?
What if I said that I knew of a Calvinist or two who had gotten saved while serving as a missionary overseas. Wonder if that would make any difference?
Ok, I don’t want to get off topic, but it bugs me when people misrepresent others. It was ONE Muslim student, it was an exception, it was the archeology program, Patterson was doing something nice for someone… It wasn’t like he was secretly teaching Jihad classes with Muslim in his underground bunker….man, people just blow this out of proportion. Its like when people flat out say “CALVIN KILLED SERVETUS!” It’s not that simple and thats not exactly how it worked. And no, Patterson would not say that Calvinist should serve as missionaries in the IMB.
Take a chill pill.
Tyler,
I’m not misrepresenting PP at all. He’s said what I’ve referenced.
He listed reformed persons as ones e thinks should be fired from IMB service – along with those who do not affirm the Baptist Faith and message, practitioners of the “insider movement” And those who “don’t witness”.
He’s stated that these four categories make up the group of the 700+ missionaries that he thinks should be fired.
My comment wasn’t directed toward you, but toward the Muslim comment above.
“Tell them to call me if they want the real story.” – Dr. Paige Patterson
Tarheel,
Some of what you have posted here is incongruent with any public statement I can find from Dr. Patteson. I am not at liberty to speak on matters discussed in private.
Donald
Am I to understand you that PP has relayed to you that people are to call him so he can explain privately a public comment that 700+ IMB missionaries are unfit to serve? Should his clarification for such a statement, made in the midst of strenuous calls for increased giving to to IMB, not be public? I certainly would assume that his private and public explanations are going to be the same.
Everything he said to me is congruent with what he has said in public.
Now, as I have repeatedly pointed out — everything he said in the 4 min cut of his 1 hour 6 min video (i.e. the Q&A where he answered a question posed by one man after this 55 min speech) has all been previously explained by him and others from SWBTS in detail for all to see with the sole exception of how he derived the number – for which YOU explained he had no scientific basis but did have a basis.
What else is there to explain about his public statement?
Now, if anyone has a question about anything that was not in the public statement then Dr. Patterson says “Tell them to call me if they want the real story.”
I do wish there was an “edit” button sometimes….
My last paragraph above reads as if you can’t contact Dr Patterson about his public statement. He did not make that differentiation; but the flow of my post was poorly conceived.
His rationale as to the 700+ unfit missionaries, as I repeatedly said as well, is grouped into four groups – one of which is reformed individuals.
I absolutely agree that his 4 minute comment is insufficient to understand context. It is obvious that the statement clearly is in keeping with PP’s customary firebrand “shock value” style – even going so far as mentioning that he is engaging in “another war”. (I will say here that I appreciate a bit of firebrand style)
It’s more than a little intriguing that a man of his influence and stature would say such fiery things and leave a public vacuum as to the details – and call upon those curious to contact him personally and privately. He’s willing to explain what he meant by this public controversial statement – but only in private? I guess this is the new transparency.
I plan from this moment forward to leave this alone. I will not let “his war” consume any more of my time.
And here is the point:
“It’s more than a little intriguing that a man of his influence and stature would say such fiery things and leave a public vacuum as to the details ”
There is no vacuum, except for those unwilling to do a bit of homework. You can start with any of the links I have already provided.
So, the onus is on the hearer of a Seminary President’s firebrand comments of war with another entity (calling for the firing of a large percentage of their missionaries) to research previous comments made by said President and then read articles that are not even written by said president to find the meaning of said President’s comments? Or every participant of the SBC who is concerned that such an esteemed leader has PUBLICLY called into question the efficacy of our missionary force – needs to contact him directly for explanation?
OK.
Donald, I’m trying to catch up a bit and follow along. Is there disagreement between you and Tarheel over what PP said? If so, can you point out the difference(s) for those of us coming in a bit late?
Thanks, SDG!
Tarheel,
No, that is not what I have said.
Les,
Best way to get Dr. Patterson’s thoughts are to contact him directly.
You are right, Tyler, in view of the fact that he wrote a blog for, I think it was, SBC Today, on Eight Theses on Election which basically concedes the issue.
“Sigh”…. SBC Today (palm in face, shakes head)
http://youtu.be/BNsrK6P9QvI
No, Dr. Willingham, despite Tyler’s face-palm at the mere mention of SBCToday — Dr. Patterson’s Eight Theses Concerning the Doctrine of Election comes from a 1998 Chapel message at SEBTS.
It was generally well received when posted on SBCToday (from a student’s chapel notes) in 2012. Some of you might find it interesting, despite the common disdain encountered here for Dr. Patterson, that Dr. Akin uses Dr. Patterson’s notes on election in his Hermeneutics class at SEBTS. Also, Dr. Mohler has said that Dr. Patterson was the greatest theologian of the Conservative Resurgence. Feel free to check with Mohler or Akin to verify these claims.
No one disputing those claims, Donald.
that’s exactly the point – a man of that stature and respect claiming that one in 10 of our international mission board missionaries or deadweight or should be fired because of thier (completely orthodox – non BFM defiant) theology – is very concerning.
Adam,
“What if I knew of … One or two… That got saved…”.
If only one – it’s worth it all! 😉
And what would you say, if I told of how a Calvinist won my brother-in-law to Christ or that my ordaining pastor, Dr. Ernest R. Campbell, preached a revival at a rural church in Georgia back in the late 40s or early 50s and had a 100 conversions, one of whom was a deacon at the FBC of Augusta and came to the homecoming 40 years later and told me about his conversion. Besides all of them truths which you think you don’t believe are really invitations to be saved. There is more, but I forbear in the hopes of not getting off the topic altogether. Uh, What was the topic? O yeah: Guard What has been Entrusted.”
I know a few Calvinist I wish would get saved.
Yeah, Dean? Maybe it’s your fault they’re not. Work harder – witness more.
😉
Dean, please stop talking about me so much. I’m working on it already. 🙂
Les, stop getting his hopes up.
I am praying fervently for Tarheel.
Adam!
Thank you for your input – bless your heart!
If there is one thing that makes me want to believe God reprobates some it would be Tarheel.
Dean, reprobation is an invitation to trust in Christ, in short, to be saved. Look at our Lord’s use of it in Mt.15:21-28. It is not meet to take the children’s bread and to cast it to dogs. The woman agrees that she is a dog (truth Lord), but even the dogs eat of the crumbs that fall from their master’s table. By the way, dogs return to their vomit, perhaps, a good illustration of reprobation. Anyway she showed that the worst seeming remarks our Lord could put to her were simply ways to trust Him more, to believe the best of Him more, to actually pay Him the greatest compliment of all, for He said, “Great is your faith.” Wouldn’t we all like to get a compliment like that from our Lord. All we perhaps need to do is to believe that His most severe condemnations and refusals to appear receptive to us are the greatest invitations that one could want, challenges of the greatest water, the highest water, to borrow from the diamond trade.
lol
Tarheel,
I thought this thread was finished so I have not been checking it. Thank you for contacting Paige Patterson. I have to comment on the 4 groups he mentions. I will put quotes around your statements as to what he told you and assume they are accurate since they are similar to previous statements he has made.
First: “He states that back during the Dr. Rankin years that many missionaries who disagree with the Baptist Faith and message 2000 were just told to sign it anyway so they could stay on the field and not worry about it – if this is true I have a problem with this and I agree those missionaries should come home. ( I wonder though how many Missionaries this actually is – certainly I hope it’s missionaries this actually is – certainly I hope it’s not in the hundreds)”
This statement is absolutely UNTRUE. I was a missionary on the field at that time and neither I nor anyone I know was told this. This is a typical Patterson exaggeration or misleading statement. That is not to say that some midlevel flunkies jokingly told some of their people something that could be implied this way. To imply that Dr. Rankin or the top level people told our missionaries this is typical Patterson slander. If Rankin or another top official told us what Patterson implies we would raise such a stink that every Southern Baptist would have heard it? Tarheel, do you really think we would have stood for that? If so, you don’t know us!
Let me tell you a little of the background on the requirement to sign. All of us when appointed were ask to affirm and explain our understanding of the BF&M even before the 2000 edition. At first Rankin told us that we would not be required to sign again for the 2000 edition because we had proven our adherence to SBC theological beliefs already. However, trustees pressured Rankin to force us to sign again. He caved in to the pressure.
Second: “ Dr. Patterson contends that there are a large group of missionaries who are “sold out to the insider movement” which, according to what I’ve read, includes deceptive practices and even actually changing scripture so as to befriend Muslims as a way of evangelism. I agree that this is a problem. I think at a minimum missionaries need to be instructed that this is not a valid method of evangelism and expected to promise not to engage in it – and should they continue – they should be brought home.”
I do not work with Muslims and am only slightly familiar with the Camel method which is what I guess he is referring to. Patterson is by no stretch of the imagination a missiologist or experienced in cross cultural witnessing. The Camel method has been studied by many conservative theological missiologist and approved. I trust their evaluation more than Patterson’s which is gained by sitting in his big stuff game filled office at SWBTS.
This has gotten long so I will put my response to the other two groups on a separate post. But first I want to give you food for thought and ask all to respond. Patterson says at this time there are 750 missionaries who need to be brought home because they are spreading heresy. Tom Elliff was Jerry Rankin’s VP for several years and was IMB President for several years before Patterson made this statement. If what Patterson say is true it must be that Elliff allowed, approved and took part in the spread of heresy during his entire times as president of the IMB. There is no other conclusion. Why is this not being reported on Baptist Press?
Third: ”Dr. Patterson contends that there are some missionaries who are not witnessing. He explains to me as being ones who do not share the gospel. Missionaries by definition or to be gospel proclaimers – so if they’re actually not sharing the gospel then obviously there’s a problem.”
He is scraping the bottom of the barrel in his efforts to slander our missionaries here. With close to 5,000 missionaries, of course there are different levels of gifts of evangelism and evangelism styles. Every missionary I know (there are hundreds) desires to witnessing and bring others into a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and uses their spiritual gifts to do that. We are asked to report regularly on our witnessing efforts and results. Some because of their job have less time directly in contact with their target people. I am sure there are some who are not as zealous as others but over all this is a ridiculous accusation to make against our missionaries.
Fourth: “Dr. Patterson stated that he believes that anyone who is reformed should not be a missionary for the Southern Baptist convention – I disagree profoundly with this. Being reformed is not against the Baptist Faith and message – nor is it unorthodox – nor is it somehow Non-Baptist.”
Think again about what he is saying. As I understand it, the president of Southern Seminary is reformed. Therefore the president of our largest seminary is unqualified to serve as a missionary. Isn’t David Platt reformed? If so the IMB president is unqualified to serve alongside our missionaries whom he supervises. In fact Jerry Rankin (speaking in tongues) and David Platt (reformed) were both unqualified to serve as missionaries because of policies suggested or passed in recent years. It should be noted that both of these presidents were elected by trustee boards controlled by conservative resurgence leaders and appointees. Why is this not being reported on Baptist Press?
Yeah, the anti reformed comments are just predictable, stupid and petty, IMO.
As for the not witnessing – it seems clear that “grouping” this is simply a question of whether every missionary sufficiently in his mind meets the “PP methodology” of proclaiming the gospel.,
Kind of like the anti Paige Patterson comments here?
David R. Brumbelow
I have not made anti-Paige Patterson comments here – I have not questioned his integrity – I have not questioned his fitness for service – I have not implied that he is doing something nefarious – instead I’ve simply reported what he has said.
As a matter fact my comments are based on the fact that his opinions and his comments carry much weight – that is why I’m so concerned at a time when the international mission board needs our strongest support and influential and respected leader in the convention has said that at least one in 10 of our missionaries are unfit for service.
Like I said before I absolutely shudder to think what you guys would be shouting if al mohler had said that any International mission board missionaries who are not Calvinists should be fired.
What would you say, David B., if Dr. Mohler were to say such a thing?
I did say his comments were predictable, stupid, and Patty – and I do believe that they are because ( at least part of) the rationale that he gave to justify them just doesn’t hold up. I use The adjectives above because his justifications are reflective more of his (and others) “war on Calvinism” instead of a legitimate concern regarding missionaries.
Yea, if Mohler said anything that even hinted to that, every blogger at SBC Today would be in a frenzy.
Tarheel,
Did Dr. Patterson tell you that “any International mission board missionaries who are Calvinists should be fired”?
You originally reported “Dr. Patterson stated that he believes that anyone who is reformed should not be a missionary for the Southern Baptist convention.”
Can you tell us exactly what he said to you?
I have been quite clear about what he said to me in reference to his grouping of the 750+ missionaries that should be “sent home”. He used the term “sent home” on the video but lets be honest here – there may be a distinction without a difference in saying “sent home” and being fired. The idea of them being sent home or fired for holding to reformed doctrine necessarily translates to “he does not think that reformed persons should be missionaries with the SBC” – why else would he want them sent home????
I have accurately listed the groups as he delineated them.
Reformed/Calvinists are often used as synonyms, so I am not sure there is a basis for the light between my statements you seem to be working on casting. 😉 .
Again, I have accurately portrayed his sentiments.
The distinction between those two comments is the “firing” part of it. You said you were going to contact him for clarification, did you do that?
The only place I have ever heard anything about Dr. Patterson desiring Reformed missionaries to be fired is from you on this discussion thread.
I don’t really want to engage this discussion, but can you differentiate between “bring them home” and “fire” them.
Yes, I did contact him and that’s when he said that reformed persons are part of the group he thinks should be sent home/fired.
I truly am not sure how else to det I truly am not sure how else to reasonably understand the phrase “send them home” and fire them – like I said you’re attempting to create a distinction in Specific language without a difference Real life.
What else could send them home mean?
Ron West,
I would suggest you contact Dr. Patterson on his views if you are going to go beyond what was actually said on the 4:00 video clip.
You also said “I trust their evaluation more than Patterson’s which is gained by sitting in his big stuff game filled office at SWBTS.”: which just proves that you are not up to speed on the issue and have not done your homework. Dr. Keith Eitel has written on this (along with many others) and you will not find a single professor or president at any SBC seminary that has anything but praise for him as a missionary, scholar or “conservative theological missiologist”. Contact Mohler or Aiken and see what they have to say about Keith Eitel.
But why must we read an article written by someone else to understand Dr. Patterson’s comments?
Tarheel,
Not really what we are talking about right now. Ron West claims that Dr. Patterson’s opinions on the camel method are based solely on contemplation among his hunting trophies and so does not stand up well against the opinion of “conservative theological missiologist”. An obviously wrong opinion that is mere rhetorical hyperbole and can be easily disproven by actually reading “conservative theological missiologist” – a resource that Ron West brought up in this particular context.
Dr. Patterson’s comments in the 4:00 clip can stand pretty well without outside reading, but he was answering a question drawing a larger base of information that is neither appropriate nor possible to cover in a brief Q&A after a speech.
Hey! I find that I can’t add a comment to this blog anymore; it claims that I made an error in my email address!!!!! But I notice that I made a comment (about three times the other night about the TPP now having established governmental control over all internet communications.
Tarheel, would you please provide a link where PP said, “Anyone who is reformed should not be a missionary in the SBC?”
Tarheel,
You said “should be fired because of their (completely orthodox – non BFM defiant) theology – is very concerning.”
It seems that the three points Patteson brought up in the video have enough validity to be considered and you posted earlier that you are potentially in agreement with all three (pending some clarification on what he means by “not witnessing”).
I do not mind holding SBC missionaries (or anyone else) to a higher standard than mere agreement with the BF&M. There are many legitimate issues that do not include that particular barrier.
Dean,
For an answer to your query – please seem y comment above at
October 7, 2015 at 3:24 pm
I would only add to that statement the following –
*I have been quite clear about what he said to me in reference to his grouping of the 750+ missionaries that should be “sent home”. He used the term “sent home” on the video and in communication with me…
Tarheel, I sm just a little slow, you are saying in a private conversation with you PP said no reformed person should serve as a SBC missionary?
Dean, that is what Tarheel told me, that Dr. Patterson expressed that to him in response to an email query.
Dave, thanks for the clarity. That was not communicated clearly.
I really think this one has run it’s course. Everything that needs to be said (plus a lot more) has been said. The original subject has long since been forgotten and the thread was hijacked into an iffy discussion with abundant misinformation and misrepresentation bandied about.
Dave Miller, this post needs to be put out of its misery. But, it’s your dime….
There has been absolutely no misrepresentation or misinformation disseminated from me – absolutely none.
“My hope for the future of the church is that a recovery of humility and integrity … will distinguish the body of believers clearly from the world,” Paige Patterson said. “Above all, may such genuine piety be observed in our preaching.”
http://bpnews.net/45614/symposium-looks-at-sbc-and-the-21st-century
David R. Brumbelow
I can understand why Paige Patterson apologists want this to be swept under the rug. No wants to comment on my statement that if Patterson is correct that 750 missionaries need to be sent home (fired) for spreading heresy then it must be true that Tom Elliff approved, supported and took part in the spread of heresy while he was president of the IMB. His statement about missionaries being told to just sign the BF&M 2000 so they could stay on the field is untrue. This is all typical Patterson bombast and slander that has marked his career for 40 years and shows how far we have moved away from conservative theology and inerrancy under his influence.
“No wants to comment on my statement that if Patterson is correct that 750 missionaries need to be sent home (fired) for spreading heresy then it must be true that Tom Elliff approved, supported and took part in the spread of heresy while he was president of the IMB.”
I must say that that is a very valid point – because 700+ missionaries have not been trained appointed and placed on the field under David Platt – therefore these Patterson identified groups of unfit missionaries necessarily must have been appointed during the Eliff administration.
We know how Dr. Patterson feels about Jerry Rankin – and David Platt – but I guess now eliff is getting caught up in his “war” as well.
Tom Elliff, whom I know and admire, bears his fair share of the blame for all the current ills of the IMB. Who has denied this?
By the way I have met Keith Eitel and after reading his book Paradigm Wars do not consider him a competent missiologist. He has been drug around by Paige Patterson from Criswell College, SEBTS and SWBTS to be Paige’s propagandist. He did not serve with IMB but has always been critical of the IMB and its leaders.
Ron is correct in all of his statements.
Thanks Strider. I probably should check my opinions with people I trust more often. You are one of those people.
Why don’t you check this particular opinion of Dr. Eitel with anybody at any of the SBC seminaries? You will find NONE that share your opinion. You trust that Strider knows Keith Eitel better than Danny Akin or Al Mohler?
I’ve read his papers, met him once. His missiology is old and he is trying to find fault rather than trying to listen to what is really happening on the field. My job is to share Jesus with Muslims. It is not easy, but I love it. It makes me tired sometimes to try and share the truth about Jesus with people who have been lied to about Jesus for over 1000 years. But what really makes me tired is coming back home and having to work harder to try and reach my fellow SB’s with the truth about what we are doing.
Donald I do trust that Strider knows Eitel’s missiology better than Mohler or Akin I was not aware of their missiological expertise.
When Eitel and Patteson were at SEBTS one of Eitel’s responsibilities was to travel around the to mission fields, at least once with CB Scott’s friend Ben Cole. He would first set up meetings with former SEBTS students to gather dirt, gossip and rumors to use against the IMB. Those are his principles.
Ron,
Name ANY missiologist at ANY SBC seminary that shares you opinion of Keith Eitel. You are declaring with great confidence negative intention and spinning every comment in a negative way.
For example, why couldn’t “He would first set up meetings with former SEBTS students to gather dirt, gossip and rumors to use against the IMB.” be just as easily described as “He would first contact people he knew and trusted for first-hand information”?
Spin can eventually becomes gossip. I know Keith Eitel and I know that the motivations you ascribe to him in no way match his spiritual walk nor his heart. And I am saying that almost everyone who knows him, whether they agree with him or not, shares my opinion.
Donald,
I am glad you mentioned Keith Eitel. That gives me a perfect example of hypocrisy. In his book Paradigm Wars, Eitel spends the first part discussing the controversy back in the 1800s in China over funding and landmarkism. Eitel supports the side that broke with the FMB and opposes the side Lottie Moon was on.
In the second part he discusses the paradigm war that went on in the IMB in the late 90s and later. He praises Michael Stroope as bold and innovative on target missiologically. Stoope had broken with the IMB at that time. He then describes Avery Willis and Jerry Rankin as stuck in old fashion bureaucracy and out of touch with modern missiology. Here comes the hypocrisy. Michael Stroope along with David Garrison were the architects of the system Paige Patterson calls heretical and were chiefly responsible for implementing it, wrinkling time, women pastors, etc.
Patterson and Eitel’s principle are based not on theology or missiology but on who they want to attack in order to further their own agenda.
Ron West,
Look in the mirror….
Reading this synopsis of the address, seems like pretty solid counsel to me. We need reminders like this and Patterson’s folksy way of getting them across helps me think through them. Not having heard the address, I don’t know if I would be in complete agreement with what he says about ecumenism (Jesus got me before the Baptists did and I believe Baptists are just a part of what God is doing globally — I am happy to partner with those who disagree with me on tertiary and even secondary issues) or about bloggers (blogging is merely a form of communication — you can use any medium in good and bad ways), but the rest of the counsel seems pretty sound.
I have not always agreed with Dr. Patterson, but I do believe he has earned his place as an elder statesman in the SBC. He has played a significant role, IMO, in both the preservation and the unity of the SBC (even if we can point back to significant disagreements with him).
Todd,
Some think that this sort of message doesn’t really communicate well to the target audience (younger leaders in the SBC), but I certainly appreciate it. Communication between the generations has always been an issue, I know I wasn’t easily teachable in my youth.
Donald
Todd,
First, you know many Southern Baptist do not recognize the office of elders! 😉
Secondly – it’s because of that elder satesman identity that this comment calling for the firing of 700+ (1 in ten) that calls for great concern.
If we can simply ignore such a shattering statement from him – then is he really the statesman we think him to be? If such a earth shattering statement carries no weight and is somehow not worthy of examination – then what does that say?
Seems to me that if he is right – in the first three categories then I think we all agree that David Platt has some firing he needs to do – if he’s wrong then he needs to apologize and try to make this right.
If it is truly the intention of one of our elder statesman and a current seminary president to remove reformed persons from the mission field – then I think that needs to be made clear publicly as well.
“If it is truly the intention of one of our elder statesman and a current seminary president to remove reformed persons from the mission field – then I think that needs to be made clear publicly as well.”
Yes.
So we agree?!
Lets both call on Dr. Patterson needs to make public and clear his contention that reformed missionaries should be “brought home” (fired) from the mission field.
Eureka! Agreement is found.
I would love to join in your Eureka! moment, but I was focusing more on the “If it is truly…” part. Sorry, but it seems that he has already made public his clear intentions on what missionaries should be brought home; as expressed on the 4:00 video that hijacked this discussion thread.
Boy, I do come off as snarky on my posts. I might have to rethink D.L. Payton’s assessment of me (i.e. (4) Your arrogance is distasteful). I don’t feel arrogant, but obviously I type that way…..
LOL.
NO…in that 4 minute clip he did not mention all the “groups” that make up his rationale for the 700+ missionaries that should be fired. I will again, summarize the the groupings those he thinks should be fired – – – – AGAIN as HE indicated them to me:
1. Those whom he alleges D. Rankin encouraged/allowed to sign affirmation of BFM2000 despite their not believing it.
2. Those who practice “the insider movement” on the field.
3. Those who do not witness in the field.
4. Those who are reformed.
Donald, seems you both agree that if this is true it needs to be made public. You seem to not want to believe that he said that to Tarheel and Tarheel says that it was in fact said.
But you both agree that there needs to be public clarity. right?
SDG!
I believe there has been public clarity, and think I might be adding to the spread of misinformation by my participation in this discussion. Please feel free to read my previous post, as all I can do at this point is to repeat myself.
Thanks Donald. Yes there has been some public clarity. And I have read your comments. You seem to be pretty well informed.
But based on what Tarheel has said, it appears to me there is a need for more public clarity, especially on the “Reformed should come home” statement attested to by Tarheel.
SDG!
DOnald,
I am trying real hard to be nice – as I do not want a slug-fest to detract from the serious statements made by Dr. Patterson in his declaration of a war he hopes will result the “sending home” of by his count 1 in 10 of our IMB missionaries.
I am asking you nicely, very nicely to cease and desist calling me a liar – using polite language of accusing me of spreading “misinformation” is the same as calling me a liar. I will ask you again to please stop with the personal attacks. Thank you.
I have looked back at the correspondence again, and am standing firmly by my statements as to the content of such correspondence with Dr. Patterson.
With one clarification….he stated in that correspondence (I had forgotten about this part) that the total number of missionaries he desires to be sent home might reach 1000. Thats right. He said 750-1000 need to, in his estimation, come home.
Thanks for the pressure you are adding for me to look back it to ensure that I am not spreading “misinformation.”
I am not doing so! Period. Please stop insinuating that I am.
Tarheel, thanks for struggling to be nice. It is tough at times when passions are at play, and I also struggle –though often with much less success than I would hope for.
You’re welcome.
I just don’t see any real evidence that Patterson wants to fire Calvinist missionaries. (Lazy hyper-calvinists maybe)
Problem with that, Todd is clearly – ” lazy hyper Calvinsts” – would fit into group 3 of his grouping – “those who do not spread the gospel in the field”
As I’ve said – In his email he added a fourth and distinct category referring to reformed to persons.
Tarheel, Perhaps if you had a copy of this e-mail it would help…
Todd, also – how many real hyper Calvinist would be on the mission field – hyper Calvinist are against the idea of missions – unless of course you’re talking about the way that some people refer to all Calvinist today as being hyper Calvinists?
Andy,
See my post that is currently at the end of the thread – if someone doesn’t believe me when I have summarized what was in the email – and either implies are flat out calls me a liar – if I were to post a copy of the emai have summarized what was in the email – and either implies are flat out calls me a liar – if I were to Cut and paste the email – the same people would still continue to call me a liar.
I would vies people to contact Dr. Patterson and ask him for clarification of his remarks regarding the firing of 700 to 1000 missionaries – and since I believe him to be a man of integrity I believe he will answer you just as he answered me.
Andy, i’m going to try that again. – Sorry about that.
Andy,
See my post that is currently at the end of the thread – if someone doesn’t believe me when I have summarized what was in the email – and either implies or flat out calls me a liar – even if I were to Cut and paste the email – the same people would still continue to call me a liar.
I would advise people to contact Dr. Patterson and ask him for clarification of his remarks regarding the firing of 700 to 1000 missionaries – and since I believe him to be a man of integrity I believe he will answer you just as he answered me.
This discussion has driven me back to source documents. I’m blowing the dust off my copy of “Paradigm Wars”. I guess based upon the chatter I’m picking up the embers of war are still smoldering. Is there some other book out there that relates the story of the war from the opposite perspective?
One thing about the “Paradigm Wars” book is that it has extensive footnotes which support the narrative. Maybe the discussion is not about the historical accounts in the book but some interpretations that Dr. Eitel is making.
I thought things were calm at the IMB. The idea of firing 10% of the missionaries takes me by surprise.
I just a guy in the pew. I think this squabble is going to have negative repercussions in the SBC.
People can have discussions regarding historical accounts of the Sherman’s march to the sea or the results from the Battle of Shiloh. That stuff happened over a hundred years ago and is mostly behind us.
I thought that whatever happened with various camps at the IMB was behind us. I guess I’m not paying attention.
Roger Simpson Oklahoma City
Here is a more modern resource, though not from the “other” side. Perhaps one of the guys here could point you to a source:
http://swbts.edu/academics/schools-programs/theology/journal/volume-57/57-1/
Donald:
I followed the link you suggested. I just downloaded the SWBTS Missions Journal as a PDF. Since I’m old school I’m going to print out selected articles and read them.
I’m not advocating maintaining the status quo and throttling any discussion. But on the other hand it seems fruitless to keep on arguing the same points over and over again.
I’m going to try to get up to speed on what’s happening with the IMB. I don’t mean anything having to do with finances or implementing the buyout package.
My potential concern would be having [or continuing to have] missionaries on the field who are “not doctrinally sound” [whatever that means].
In my opinion, the “only” reason that the SBC even exists is to operate our mission boards. Red flags go up when I get wind of potential “doctrinal problems” with some subset of the missionaries on the field.
——————————————————
New Context:
What is needed is something like this from the IMB:
” – – – – –
We have investigated anecdotal evidence of certain practices [such as the Camel Method and/or paradigms inspired by Garrison’s PhD thesis] that have recently been called into question. We find:
A. such practices happened in isolated cases but stopped after 20xx.
— OR —
B. These practices are effective and we
continue to use them
— OR —
C. We allow considerable autonomy with regional management. In certain parts of the world such practices may be appropriate even if inappropriate generally.
— OR —
D. Whatever else the IMB management wants to say ON THE RECORD
– – – ”
My problem with the IMB for the last decade is that a lot of stuff seems to be going on behind closed doors — not in Baptist Press or anywhere else — and then “out of the blue” it blows up. You can’t run an organization by just keeping a lid on dissent. You have to be out there with a proactive message.
We are footing the bill for all of this. How about keeping us in the loop. If one of the agency heads of the SBC raises an issue you just can’t ignore it. You have to step up to the plate and address it PUBLICY.
Roger Simpson Oklahoma City OK
The problem is that said agency head raised the issue as part of a Q&A discussion at the end of a speech. If said agency head is really concerned, he should go to David Platt directly as he suggested I do when I contacted the trustees of SWBTS concerning his alleged intimidation tactics with the Muslim/SWBTS situation. If he has already been to David Platt and his concerns have fallen on deaf ears, perhaps he should go to the trustees. And if they are not listening, perhaps he should speak directly and clearly to Southern Baptists. He certainly has not been shy about doing so in the past in order to get the result he wanted.
Until then, it is strange to suggest that the IMB watch videos of speeches given by entity heads and high profile Southern Baptists so they can be aware of all the accusations hurled at them and respond accordingly.
The issue wasn’t “raised” at that moment. Wade Burleson promoted the video segment months after the speech as “Patterson declaring war on the IMB.” It seems the only reason it came up in that venue was in answer to a question. Some of the issues mentioned go back many years (to the turn of the century at least).
It is supposition that no direct communication has taken place. None of us know what communication has taken place between whom, but really none of this is “new”.
So Dr. Patterson has always been opposed to reformed person serving on the mission field for the IMB?
No, Tarheel, I did not say that. I was responding to Adam’s specific comments about the 4:00 video.
I am going to close out my part of the discussion by saying that despite repeated contentions buy some to the contrary – I am telling the truth – I was and am gravely concerned that one of our entity presidents has waged war with another entity publicly and on video stating that more than one and 10 of our IMB missionaries should be fired. So I went straight to the source and I sent him an email for clarification – he granted my request and doubled down on his remarks – grouping the missionaries that he thinks should be fired into four groups. I’ve posted those groupings for you all several times. He further stated that the number of missionaries that should be fired may even approach 1000.
I’m not sure that there’s much else that I can say or do here – some will take me at my word – some will not take me at my word – others will refuse to see anything about Paige Patterson in a negative light – and still others Will seek to defame Paige Patterson rather then seek much-needed public clarification.
To those who believe Or think that I would make up something this extreme and propagate Falsehood against a brother – intentionally attributing words to him that he did not say or sentiments he did not express – then even if I were to post the text of the email itself – I’m pretty confident that would be called into question as well. For if you believe the above about me – it wouldn’t be a big leap for someone to say that I modified the email.
The information is out there – I stand by it completely – unashamedly – Truth is truth – I cannot help it if people refuse to believe the truth. I’m not seeing much benefit to continuing this conversation – I will encourage everyone who is read this though to contact Dr. Patterson and ask him to clarify the “750+ missionaries need to be fired” remark he made on the video that’s posted (by someone else) earlier in this thread – for you and if he has the personal integrity that I truly think he has – you will see that I’m telling the truth.
Ppatterson@swbts.edu
Good day.
Tarheel,
Thanks for these clarifications and your reply to me above.
I am not questioning your honesty in reporting, but for the sake of clarity, it would be helpful if you posted the actual text that Patterson wrote, or even better, a screen shot of the email. We have all seen how comments have been misunderstood, even unintentionally, in these discussions, and so seeing the actual text would be immensely helpful.
YOU SAID: “I’m not sure that there’s much else that I can say or do here”
THERE IS!
Either post the text, or a screen shot of the actual words Paige Patterson typed…or simply tell us that you have deleted it and can’t retrieve it anymore.
You are correct that if a man of Patterson’s standing said all reformed missionaries should be brought home, that IS worth reporting…
…but honestly, if you can’t produce HIS ACTUAL WORDS, I’m going to have to opine that it would have been been better not to mention it at all.
All we have so far is YOUR paraphrase of what he said. This is not about calling you a liar or anything personal against you. You are, in this setting, functioning as a journalist reporting facts you have discovered…but as yet the facts are unverified.
thanks for considering my comments,
-Andy
Further, you said:
“The information is out there”
It is not out there. The specific, most contentious piece of information, about the unfitness of reformed missionaries, is not “out there.” You are the only one to have reported it, and without a quote. Patterson’s comments about 750 missionaries coming home is out there, but the reformed comments are not.
It seems like we have gotten to the point where we are simply rehashing the same information and opinion over and again. This tends, in my experience, to lead us places we don’t always need to go. So, perhaps we should say our benediction here and lay this to rest.