Watched or listened to the whole Founders movie, almost two hours. I’m retired and free to waste time as I see fit. There’s no grass growing right now that needs watching and, not being all that energetic, there’s no drying paint to gaze upon.
There are some interesting things in this and some points that I would join but the film is mostly a lot of old white guys talking mostly about matters of race; long-in-the-tooth white men talking about what women should do,movies we’ve seen for a long time. And someone tally up the minutes of the film that puts African-Americans front and center as the source of objectionable stuff. Well, there’s Voddie Baucham, balance I suppose.
Tom Nettles makes some good points in the film. Is he gravely intoning for the film while sitting in front of a portrait of John Calvin? Subliminal message, perhaps. The Founders needs a boost no doubt.
Josh Buice says, “…if we ask women to do something spiritually that God did not intend her to do, that’s abuse.” This (and Buice states that he is happy to go on record with it) comes in the current context of the abuse scandal in the SBC which happens to be the biggest story of the year. We’ve been exposed to a steady stream of abuse stories in SBC churches with SBC clergy or lay perps where children are abused, teen girls are forced to have sex with their male church youth ministers, and women by the hundreds are physically abused by SBC clergy. That plus learning that the perps have been quietly passed along to another church to continue their ministry while the victims deal with decades of consequences of their abuse. Buice cavalierly and casually devalues and trivializes the the suffering of all these women. The absurdity of this should be self-evident no matter where one falls in regard to the role of women in the church. Tom Ascol joins him, “Great point” he says. The SBC pastor who invites a woman to fill his pulpit on Mother’s Day is abusing her, according to Buice and Ascol. The pastor who forces sex on a female counselee is abusing her. It’s outrageous to make the statement that both are “abuse.” Buice should walk this back and clean this up. It was a mistake for Ascol to feature him with this comment. There are unintended consequences to this. I predict that we will see them.
Disappointed to see Ascol label a black man, Dwight McKissick, as “dishonest, disingenuous, and sinful”:
When Pastor McKissick made his statement that Southern Baptists actually do send women overseas to preach to men, that statement was dishonest, disingenuous, and sinful and it’s sad to see people use these types of dishonest narratives in order to push an agenda that is contrary to the Word of God. (16:53)
It would be hard not to consider McKissick’s point a historical fact even if it is rather soft. He uses Lotte Moon as an example. Even some hard core comps have made points about how Lottie shouldn’t have had to expose the Gospel to men in her day. The SBC, one observes and Ascol notes, officially abjures women leading churches overseas or planting churches but there are women and always have been women in situations where they (ahem!) ‘share’ the Good News with men. If McKissick’s point is soft and requires some context, then why go nuclear by calling him “dishonest, disingenuous, and sinful?” McKissick asked that Founders not use the footage with him in it. They probably should have acceded to that request. This will bite them, I think.
Ascol says that the Baptist Faith and Message limits the “role of pastor” to qualified men. It does not so state. The BFM says that the “office” of pastor is limited to men. (I am aware that there is an entire industry built on interpreting the BFM and adding to it as believed necessary. Ascol’s language is consistent with one approach to reading the BFM and it is typical to presume your view is the correct view and tailor language accordingly.) But is Ascol dishonest, disingenuous, and sinful for that statement? Yes, by the standards he uses in the discussion with McKissick. Both men use some finesse and also some brusqueness in their discussion with each other. Why not allow a charitable reading for both that does not lead to the labels. McKissick generalizes without pointedly labeling his Christian brother as sinful. Ascol is not so restrained. This is troubling. “Dishonest narrative” sayeth Ascol, whose own dishonest narrative, the disastrous trailer for this documentary that was released last summer, seems to have been forgotten. We can do better as brothers in Christ, I believe.
For the record both men make decent points. I don’t see the need to use the labels.
I’d agree with Ascol on the resolution process being flawed and that the notorious Resolution #9 was handled in an “unwise” manner. I’d call the whole resolution process and concept ridiculous, a pail of tepid expectoration. Not sure why our Grand Old Convention can’t get its act together on resolutions.
And, all that time the movie gives Glenn Sunshine on CRT and Marx – what denomination is he, anyway?
I may be the most likely of the main contributors here to find some agreement with the movie but I’m not inclined to look favorably on the Founders group. I wish them well and, based on their actions of late, I wish for increasing obscurity for them. Maybe they get a dead cat bounce out of the movie. Someone spent some money on this and they got two hours of my time. I have the time to waste.
I welcome a more thorough, serious treatment for those who think it worth while. It’s a lot easier to read a few thousand words than to sit for a couple of hours watching talking heads…again, mostly old white guys.
Wade Burleson has a lengthy treatment of this that I commend and I join him and others in prayers for Tom Ascol’s full recovery from his recent episode.
I welcome any of my colleagues taking a shot at this. So far, all I have is an offer for an article on ‘why I will not watch the Founders movie.’
SBC pundits and watchers have forecasted a presidential contest between announced candidate Al Mohler and someone else. We will see. I’m not planning to attend (even though I think I have some very old Disney tickets around here somewhere).
And, I predict that before the year is out people will be calling for a ban on using “dead cat bounce.” I wanted to get one in here on SBCV before it is too late.