• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

SBC Voices

Southern Baptist News & Opinion

  • Home
  • About
  • Team

Paige Patterson’s Decision to Speak Alongside Glenn Beck

July 29, 2010 by Brandon Smith

There has been a large outcry at Jerry Falwell, Jr.’s decision to allow the controversial, Mormon Glenn Beck speak at Liberty University’s 2010 Commencement. What hasn’t gotten near as much publicity is the fact that Paige Patterson chose to speak on the same stage with Beck. I remember a major uproar over John Piper inviting Rick Warren to Desiring God 2010, but maybe that was a different situation in people’s eyes than the Liberty Commencement. I think this is possibly a bigger deal considering the major theological differences between Baptists and Mormons. By major I mean that Mormons are heretics, just to clear that up.

Anyway, what do we make of Dr. Patterson’s decision?

I, for one, think it was a great choice by Patterson. Honestly, I can’t think of any drawbacks to it. I highly doubt that anyone would assume that Patterson was endorsing or minimizing the error Beck’s faith, though I’m sure there were some crazies out there who believed that he was by even being in the same zip code.

Patterson would have been crazy to decline to speak at Liberty due to Beck’s presence. Any opportunity for him to have a chance to present the Gospel in the presence of a Mormon is almost obligatory for a Christian. And he did just that, saying:

“The little baby that Mary held in her arms was the eternal God in human flesh. He had no beginning, He has no ending and He became a man to die on the cross for us.”

This was great because Mormons do not believe in the Trinity or the eternal Godhood of Jesus. Patterson, probably purposely, made a simple statement of Scriptural truth with Beck in attendance. He didn’t let any of the minor comments about God that Beck made in his speech overshadow real, foundational theology.

I also like that Patterson represented Baptists at the Baptist school’s commencement, something Falwell, Jr. doesn’t always put forth a lot of effort to do. I am not in huge favor of Falwell, Jr. inviting Beck, but I love the opportunity that Patterson took to be there.

Connect with Brandon: Twitter | Facebook | Blog

Share this:

  • Email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • WhatsApp

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

0 0 vote
Article Rating
578 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago

Paige Patterson continues to be a leader in the Council for National Policy and Glenn Beck is one of the CNP’s useful tools; so Paige should have no problem appearing with him anywhere.
Brandon, I appreciate your hospitality at various instances in several threads here at the Voices; but that said I do wish you would broaden your framework for considerations of Beck and Patterson with a good reading of Garry Wills American Christianities.
I read it a few years ago, but had almost forgotten about what a grand job it does with the Age of Karl Rove and how Richard Land helped mobilize his wing, The SBC,for the cause with the Values Bus that in 2004 went straightaway to Ronnie Floyd’s church when it left the parking lot in Nashville.
Good news is Wills AC is selling for 6 bucks now at Barnes and Noble so you have no excuses for not putting it in your personal library.
Good chapter on Billy Sunday in this evangelical history intersecting with the Public Square; and several strong and insightful pages on SBC Prez Bobby Welch’s Great friend Jerry Boykin.
And great context for recent discussion here at the Voices on Millenial enthusiams.

0
Louis
Louis
10 years ago
Reply to  stephen fox

Stephen:

Yes, both Patterson and Beck are politically conservative.

There is nothing suprising about that.

If I were important enough to be asked to speak at any commencement at any college, I would go and speak. If the other speakers shared some of my views, that would be a plus. If they did not, I would still go.

By the way, I have never heard that Patterson was a leader of the Council for National Policy. Is that on their website or something or Patterson’s resume or something?

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago
Reply to  Louis

At it’s founding Patterson was on the Board of Governors and as you see had continuing membership during the halcyon days of the socalled Resurgence.
http://www.seekgod.ca/cnp.n-pa.htm#patterson

For a larger framework of the religious political strategies in which Patterson operated, see Garry Wills remarkable history of religious politics in America, American Christianities. You can get a copy now at most Barnes and Noble for six bucks.
Explores the wider world of CNP, Marvin Olasky’s World Magazine and how they influenced and entertwined strategies and networks of the Southern Baptist Convention among others; James Dobson and what not.

0
Louis
Louis
10 years ago
Reply to  stephen fox

Thanks. That looks like a research paper or something that someone did on the council. I can’t tell how accurate their info is, but have no reason to dispute it either.

I still don’t find anything wrong with the group. Even the author of that article says that left wing groups have similar groups that advance their agendas.

But thanks for sharing.

0
Dave Miller
Dave Miller
10 years ago
Reply to  Louis

World magazine is the first good magazine you’ve ever mentioned Steve.

0
Brandon Smith
Author
Brandon Smith
10 years ago
Reply to  stephen fox

Fox,

I’ll take a look at it!

0
Louis
Louis
10 years ago

Brandon:

Thanks for this post. If I ran a college, Christian or not, I am not sure Beck would be on my short list for commencement speakers.

But if Patterson said, in Beck’s presence, what you have typed, I am thrilled to hear about it.

I have heard that there may be some movement among Mormons toward Christianity. Have you heard that?

The Church of God (Herbert Armstrong), I understand, has formally embraced Christian orthodoxy.

I am skeptical that Salt Lake City will ever turn around, but I do believe that there are numbers of Mormons who are reachable.

I am glad that Dr. Patterson had this opportunity.

0
Brandon Smith
Author
Brandon Smith
10 years ago
Reply to  Louis

Louis,

Thanks for the kind words.

I am not sure about Armstrong, but I do know that small sects of Mormonism are more orthodox as we would see it than others. That said, their foundation will never let them be, in my opinion.

The problem is that Mormons think they are Christians and see no need to believe in a Protestant or even Catholic view of orthodoxy. That’s why I posted a week or so ago about what is and isn’t primary for believers. Beck and other Mormons would attest to Christ being the only way to salvation, but the question is: Is that enough to lead to eternal life?

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago

I believe that had Charles Manson been the commencement speaker with the whole remaining Manson Family singing a “special” that Paige Patterson would have, had his calendar allowed, spoken and would have shared the gospel story.

Paige Patterson is first and foremost a gospel preacher. He believes the entire Bible to be the Word of God. Therefore, I am sure he believes that 2 Timothy 4:2 is as applicable to him as it was to Timothy.

0
Christiane
Christiane
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

Evensong

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POm7_WBMJTI

0
Ron West
Ron West
10 years ago

CB,

Russell Dilday is the former president of the same seminary Paige Patterson is president of now. He also believes the entire Bible is the Word of God as well as II Tim. 2:4. What do you think the reaction of the CR leaders would have been if Russell had appeared on the stage with a Mormon while president or invited a Mormon to speak at SWBTS the way Falwell did to Liberty. There would have been claims of compromise of the Gospel and all sorts of other charges. Now we see these same people falling all over themselves trying to excuse Falwell Jr., Patterson and others for the Glenn Beck love fest. The thing that binds these people together is politics, not theology or truth.

You are right when you say β€œ had Charles Manson been the commencement speaker with the whole remaining Manson Family singing a β€œspecial” that Paige Patterson would have, had his calendar allowed, spoken.” It would not have been to share the gospel however. He would have cleared his calendar because he owes Liberty University and the Falwells to many political points to turn down any request they make much less hold them accountable for actions that cheapen their witness.

There is nothing to new to this. Patterson, Paul Pressler, Tim LaHaye, Falwell Sr. and others have long had close political connections to Sun Myung Moon, the Reconstructionist Movement and other heresies through the CNP.

I always found it humorous the way Roger Moran would go to extreme measures to find a connection no matter how casual to claim political opponents of the CR supported all kinds of sinful activities but would ignore the obvious connections of Patterson, Pressler, Falwell and other leaders of the CR to heretical activity.

0
Joe Blackmon
Joe Blackmon
10 years ago
Reply to  Ron West

Russell Dilday is the former president of the same seminary Paige Patterson is president of now. He also believes the entire Bible is the Word of God as well as II Tim. 2:4

No he doesn’t. He believes the bible has errors. Therefore, he does not believe the entire bible is the word of God. He believes it “contains” the word of God. He also believes that loophole that used to be in the BFM about Jesus Christ being the only way to interpret scripture or however it was worded which allowed moderates to say “Well, Paul said [whatever doctrine they don’t like] but Jesus wouldn’t have ever been that judgmental so that CAN’T be what the passage means”.

I’d never get voted Paige Patterson’s biggest fan but to suggest that Dilday and Patterson view the Bible the same way is quite simply one of the stupidest things I have ever read.

0
Brandon Smith
Author
Brandon Smith
10 years ago
Reply to  Ron West

Ron,

Joe makes a good point. It is extremely difficult for someone who doesn’t believe in inerrancy to make a claim on the Bible’s authoritative truth.

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  Ron West

Ron,

Tell me exactly what Paige Patterson owes LU or the Falwells?

BTW, if Dr. Dilday had appeared and preached the gospel, no one would have said anything other than “way-to-go.” On the other hand, had he appeared and not mentioned the name of Jesus as the Sovereign Lord, some folks would have had plenty to say, maybe. Who knows?

But one thing is for sure, no one back then would have “trolled” the waters of minutia looking for every possible link to anything of a questionable nature as do so many of you guys. Ron, you may be able to finish well if you would lay down your sword and shield against all things CR. Face it, there were Liberals in every entity. They were destroying the SBC. They needed to go. We moved them. Did we make any errors? Yes. Nonetheless, the CR was necessary. End of story. Get over it.

0
Louis
Louis
10 years ago
Reply to  Ron West

Ron,

And what is wrong with that? People of like mind on certain issues speaking at a forum. I just don’t get the concern about this.

I wouldn’t have criticized Dilday for appearing with Beck.

Unfortunately, I would be concerned that Dilday would use such an opportunity to condemn Liberty.

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago

Ron; Fantastic point and well said. I have been recommending to the brethren Garry Wills’ American Christianities. I hope you pick up a copy as it is one of the best documented examinations out there of how the SBC Takeover paved the way for the Age of Rove.
I keep telling Blackmon and others, as early as 87 Mark Noll and Clark Pinnock came to Ridgecrest and declared Pressler and Patterson were not only abusing the Bible for political ends, they were abusing the rubric of Inerrancy.

0
Brandon Smith
Author
Brandon Smith
10 years ago
Reply to  stephen fox

Fox,

Just because Noll and Pinnock said it, doesn’t make it true. Pinnock also now believes that God cannot tell the future so…

0
Louis
Louis
10 years ago
Reply to  Brandon Smith

Brandon, you are right on.

Everyone has an opinion.

0
volfan007
volfan007
10 years ago
Reply to  Louis

fOX,

You make us very glad that the CR took place. Every time you and Gene and Ron West comment, it thrills us more and more and more that God used Patterson and Pressler and Rogers and many, many others to bring about the CR.

David

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago

So who gets to say what makes something true.

Adrian Rogers and Mohler and Paige Patterson are the only folks on the planet who get to say what is true about the Bible.
You don’t believe that do you?

What about Noll’s conclusions about the North and the South both literalists during the Civil War, and how it came down to Lincoln, Dickinson and Melville to use that experience to come to new truths about Scripture.
Noll rings pretty true for me there; as does Garry Wills in American Christianities and Helen Lee Turner about Criswell’s SBC pastor’s conferences in the 70’s.

0
Joe Blackmon
Joe Blackmon
10 years ago
Reply to  stephen fox

So who gets to say what makes something true.

God does. And has in His inerrant, inspried word. You might try reading it and maybe believing it sometime.

What about Noll’s… Garry Wills…Helen Lee Turner…

Well, since they’re moderates what possible use could their opinions be to real Christians.

0
Big Daddy Weave
Big Daddy Weave
10 years ago
Reply to  Joe Blackmon

Noll a moderate? The same guy who helped draft the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy?

0
Brandon Smith
Author
Brandon Smith
10 years ago
Reply to  stephen fox

Fox,

For some reason, you think that everyone believes what they do because of someone else’s brainwashing. Let me point out that I do not refer to what other people say about Scripture hardly ever.

I do not believe in inerrancy because of Rogers, Criswell, or whoever and I have never cited them as authorities (as you often do).

I believe truth comes from Scripture. And when Pinnock says that God cannot tell time, I believe Scripture disagrees in its massive amount of reverence for His power and creation of ALL things, including time. When I say the Bible is inerrant, it’s because Scripture tells me that Jesus is the WORD and the WORD was God and that Scripture is HIS WORD.

0
Brandon Smith
Author
Brandon Smith
10 years ago
Reply to  Brandon Smith

AND that the WORD is the actual BREATH of God, for that matter.

0
Louis
Louis
10 years ago
Reply to  stephen fox

Stephen,

God gets to decide what is true.

In the meantime, we all do the best we can.

Southern Baptists, based on their experience and desires for the future, decided that they believed Pressler and Patterson and Rogers et al. They did not want to follow the course suggested by Cecil Sherman, Bill Sherman, Ken Chaffin and others.

This is really not that hard.

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago
Reply to  Louis

Check that out against the Half of one percent vote in San Antonio Pressler made into a Mandate; and ask Richard Jackson if he buys your conclusion.

0
Louis
Louis
10 years ago
Reply to  stephen fox

Stephen:

My conclusion of what? That the conservative position won? That is unassailable, unless someone is living in a parallel universe.

You really haven’t made a point here.

SA was close, but the Moderates had the opportunity to come back next year, and the year after, and the year after. They never won, even when they had all the denominational machinery at their disposal.

The last time the Moderates tried was the Vestal/Crumpler ticket. Vestal spent a year traveling around telling how bad the conservatives were etc. The Moderates put a big push on that year. John Baugh probably spent more money that year than any other. And the Moderates lost by bigger margins than previously.

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago
Reply to  Louis

I agree with you God decides what is true.

I have a deep and abiding conviction from experience and witness and whatever thinking capacity, faculty, I have; the greater Truth, the Higher Virtue, the STronger light from this episode in Baptist life is with the folks who broke away from Pressler and Patterson and the CR’s designs, is with those estranged by half of one percent of the Vote in San Antonio.

0
Christiane
Christiane
10 years ago

“In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days He has spoken to us by a Son.”
Hebrews 1:1-2

0
Brandon Smith
Author
Brandon Smith
10 years ago
Reply to  Christiane

Christiane,

…..right. Where are you going with that?

0
Christiane
Christiane
10 years ago
Reply to  Brandon Smith

I’m going to the Gospel of St. Luke 24:45
“. . . Then He opened their minds to understand the scriptures”

The Christian faith is NOT a “religion of the book.”
Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God,
a Word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living”.

If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter,
Christ, the Eternal Word of the living God,
must, through the Holy Spirit,
“open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.”

0
Darby Livingston
Darby Livingston
10 years ago
Reply to  Christiane

Christiane,

While I agree that the Spirit has to make the Bible effectual in a person’s life, I think you’re falling into the trap of making a distinction where one shouldn’t be made. The Christian faith is a religion of the book, and it is a religion of the Spirit. They’re not against one another, and it’s interesting to see the theological bent of all who try to put them against one another.

Consider your very argument. Jesus didn’t speak directly to the disciples some new revelation. He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures. He illuminated the Book. What good is Jesus opening the minds of disciples to understand a Scripture with errors?

0
Christiane
Christiane
10 years ago
Reply to  Darby Livingston

Hi Darby. Long time no talk.

IF Christianity is Christo-centric, the Holy Scriptures become meaningful. If the focus is taken off of Christ, Who is the ‘fullness of revelation’, the One Who reveals God to us more completely than any other source;
if the focus is taken off of HIM, then the person attempting to interpret the Holy Scriptures may not find their way.
It is Christ’s Holy Spirit that illuminates that way. We can’t lean on our own understanding.

As to Joe’s argument about Christ and St. Paul, if we want to determine the lens that we need to understand Scripture, is it to be done by reading all Scripture through the lens of the Creator, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity? Or by using the words of a creature as the lens to interpret Scripture.

Keeping Our Lord at the center is a perspective that makes a huge difference when applying ‘doctrines’ in ways that honor the Royal Law of Christ, not violate it, as was done when Dr. Klouda and her family were made to suffer.

The inspired (God-breathed) Scriptures point always towards Christ, when read by the light of the Holy Spirit. Any interpretation that does not honor Him and His Commandments cannot be ‘of the Spirit’.

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  Christiane

L’s,

Are you saying there is an open ended revelation from God? Is not the Scripture the complete revelation of God to man? Is there to be more?

Are you saying the Scripture is a dead book? Are you saying that Jesus would lead anyone contrary to the Scripture?

0
Christiane
Christiane
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

No, C.B.
Christ Himself IS the fullness of revelation.

We have seen many PEOPLE mis-use Scripture to lead others astray.
My goodness, have we ever seen that.
But, if the Holy Scriptures, are read, keeping the focus on Christ, then we do not get lost.

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  Christiane

“But, if the Holy Scriptures, are read, keeping the focus on Christ, then we do not get lost.”

Well then L’s,

Keep the focus on Christ. Repent and believe the biblical gospel as Christ alone presented it and be saved. Quit leaning on the Sacraments and Canon Law for your salvation.

0
Mark
Mark
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

To quote cb scott

Well then L’s,

Keep the focus on Christ. Repent and believe the biblical gospel as Christ alone presented it and be saved. Quit leaning on the Sacraments and Canon Law for your salvation.

Amen!

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  Christiane

L’s,

You are trying to slip the traces on that one. Are the Scriptures God’s final and complete revelation to man or not?

0
Darby Livingston
Darby Livingston
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

Christiane,

That is a common argument used to make the Scripture pliable to the whims and wiles of man. A Christ-centered interpretation is absolutely essential to proper interpretation of Scripture. I agree. However, it was not while Christ walked the earth, which is what the gospels point to, that is his fullest revelation of himself to man. God, in his sovereignty, chose the apostle Paul to reveal the mystery hidden for ages. You cannot come to a proper understanding of Scripture without the NT letters. Period. They are the fullness of Revelation. I wonder sometimes if folks who interpret Scripture the way you’re advocating realize that the gospels were written after Christ died by associates of the very apostles they want to belittle.

0
Christiane
Christiane
10 years ago
Reply to  Darby Livingston

“God, in his sovereignty, chose the apostle Paul to reveal the mystery hidden for ages.”

I disagree.
The fullness of God’s revelation is the Person of Jesus Christ.
If you want to learn about the Father, you look at the Son. If you see Him, you see the Father.

I know you know this basic teaching of our Christian faith.
Please don’t ever lose sight of it, Darby, because Christ, from the first years of Christianity is represented as an ‘anchor’ of our faith. St. Paul never contradicted his Lord, although some men have chosen to interpret the words written by St. Paul in ways that have contradicted the teachings of Our Lord.
These men are wrong to do that.

from 2 Timothy 9,10 this:
“This grace was given to us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,
10 but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Saviour Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.”

St. Paul is the servant of Our Lord, and St. Paul could never ask of any Christian to apply a doctrine in a way that would violate the Commandments of Our Lord.
I do believe that men have chosen to ignore that fact, and have abused some of the teachings of St. Paul in ways that have caused harm to innocent people. I can see now, from your explanation, how it is that they might have gotten lost when they took their eyes off of Our Lord.

St. Paul never took his eyes off of Our Lord.
If you don’t want to interpret St. Paul in the light of the Words and Actions of Christ, then at least take a really good look at 1 Cor. 13. and see St. Paul’s teachings in the context of his own words there, which so beautifully point to Lord Christ.
In the light of that 13th Chapter, could any man ever interpret and apply Pauline teachings in ways that would dishonor Christ the Lord by bringing pain to innocent people? No way.
Not a chance.

And yet some people have hurt others, claiming to follow St. Paul’s teachings. They got lost, following their own understanding.

0
Benji Ramsaur
Benji Ramsaur
10 years ago

Christiane,

Paul was an “apostle” of Jesus Christ. Therefore, everything Paul wrote down has the “backing” and “authority” of the Person of Jesus behind it. When Paul speaks doctrine, Jesus speaks. When Paul speaks ethics, Jesus speaks. To disagree with Paul is not to go with Jesus, but to disagree with Jesus.

The problem comes when people try to “go around” God’s revelation of Jesus in the Bible in order to have direct experiential contact with the Person of Jesus and claim that that Person is a higher authority than written revelation itself. This is erroneous mysticism.

Yes, in these last days God has spoken to us in His Son [Hebrews 1:1-2]. This revelation is wonderful because it shows how Jesus fulfilled both the promises and the types of the Old Testament. However, where do we find that revelation? According to Jesus Himself, that revelation comes through His apostles [Jn. 16] .

If this objective revelation [called the New Testament] of Jesus in relation to His Person, work, and teaching is jettisoned, then everything in relation to Jesus becomes a nose of wax. His person can be shaped. His work can be shaped. His teaching can be shaped according to modern man or woman’s whims. That is the problem.

It’s called making Jesus into man’s image.

0
Christiane
Christiane
10 years ago
Reply to  Benji Ramsaur

If a ‘doctrine’ of an Apostle is ever interpreted by MEN and applied by men in a way that offends the Royal Law of Christ,
then those men have made a mistake in their interpretation and possible a terrible mistake in their application of the doctrine, if it causes innocent people harm.

Christ has taught that, if we love Him, we will keep His Commandments. All interpretation of all Scripture must be in alignment with the Lord Jesus Christ’s teachings and with His Commandments, most especially The Royal Law of Christ.

When you see people getting seriously hurt, take another look. Has someone applied a ‘doctrine’ in a way that breaks Christ’s Commandments?

Jesus Christ is the ‘Holy’ in ‘Holy Scriptures’.
He cannot be ‘dismissed’ as He is the reason for the existence of the Holy Scriptures. They revolve around HIM. They find their meaning in HIM.

BTW, for any man to interpret and apply St. Paul’s teachings in any way that would break Lord Christ’s Commandments, would be to a sin against the Holy Spirit. That is a very serious sin.

0
Mark
Mark
10 years ago
Reply to  Christiane

Christiane,

Who wrote the “Royal Law of Christ”?

Who wrote the New Testament epistles?

0
Christiane
Christiane
10 years ago
Reply to  Mark

If a MAN interprets any part of the NT in a way that violates Christ’s Commandments,
then that MAN has made an error.

0
Darby Livingston
Darby Livingston
10 years ago
Reply to  Christiane

Christiane,

If you believe your comment #40, then you would understand that Christ himself “hurts” those who rebel against his will and Word. I don’t understand how someone with such an apparent passion for Christ’s honor would allow him to be dishonored in order to clothe rebels in some sort of fake dignity.

0
Christiane
Christiane
10 years ago
Reply to  Mark

James calls love β€œthe royal law” (Jm 2:8); Jesus calls love of God and love of neighbor the most important commandment. (Mark 12: 28 – 34). And why is it most important – because love is the very essence and nature of God.

quote below is from the book ‘Surprised by Joy’:
“Love is not a duty; it is our destiny. It is the language that Jesus spoke and we are called to speak it so that we can converse with him. It is the food that they eat in God’s new world, and we must acquire a taste for it here and now. It is the music God has written for all his creatures to sing and we are called to learn it and practice it now.”

0
Jim Champion
Jim Champion
10 years ago

Anybody who knows Dr Dilday knows that he believes the entire bible is true without any mixture of error. He is one of the most gracious men I have ever had the privledge of sharing a coversation with. He led swbts to it’s greatest days. Swbts was the conservative seminary during his tenure. Anyone who trashes him is trash. Read his books, listen to his lectures, there is not even a hint of liberalism in him

0
Brandon Smith
Author
Brandon Smith
10 years ago
Reply to  Jim Champion

Jim,

Anyone who trashes him is trash.

Easy, killer.

0
Jim Champion
Jim Champion
10 years ago
Reply to  Brandon Smith

I know, I had to edit myself a couple times πŸ™‚

Brandon, before you start agreeing w Joe, you need to read some of Dildays books and listen to his sermons, he is conservative and subscribes to the fundamentals of the faith.

0
Brandon Smith
Author
Brandon Smith
10 years ago
Reply to  Jim Champion

Jim,

I’ve read a lot of Dilday. I don’t dislike him, but he was railing against all things CR and never affirmed inerrancy, I’ve only read the “contains the Word of God” from him. He is a moderate at best.

0
Jim Champion
Jim Champion
10 years ago
Reply to  Brandon Smith

Especially back at the beginning innerranct was never more than a code word, I would agree with you that politically ( in SBC terms) that Dilday is moderate, but I have never heard a liberal word come out of his mouth, or read one in his writings

of course I still can’t get a great definition of innerrancy and continue to wonder if it was so important why that word itself does not appear in the bfm….

0
Brandon Smith
Author
Brandon Smith
10 years ago
Reply to  Brandon Smith

Jim,

I agree on the BFM2000 not putting “inerrancy” in there, wrote about it on here not long ago. That said, the liberal/moderates of the BGCT still wouldn’t sign it with the current wording. Telling.

By the way, I was loving the Rangers tonight, too!

0
Jim Champion
Jim Champion
10 years ago

When Dilday was president of SWBTS the entire seminary was a family from the students to the blue shirts to the faculty. You would nit have found Dilday building an ediface to himself while mismanaging the finances so badly that they had to terminate the retirees health insurance or suspend 401k matching

the cr folks had to find a morally challenged chair of the trustees (who was in the midst of an affair) to change the locks on his office

now the great Paige Patterson has cut the department that had 60% of the students in the EM school and lost two great proffs, will the entire EM school be next? Where are the trustees???

0
Louis
Louis
10 years ago
Reply to  Jim Champion

Jim:

Who brought up Russell Dilday in a negative way on this thread?

0
Christiane
Christiane
10 years ago
Reply to  Louis

oy vay

0
Louis
Louis
10 years ago
Reply to  Jim Champion

Jim:

Sorry. I see where Joe did that.

0
Louis
Louis
10 years ago

Jim:

I did not agree with Russell Dilday’s prescription for the direction of the SBC. His personal beliefs were never an issue for me. I don’t think that is important.

0
Jim Champion
Jim Champion
10 years ago

Dilday presented a real problem for the cr, he was conservative, ran a conservative seminary, but wouldn’t go along with them. He became outspoken in his opposition to the cr. He did not deserve to be thrown out in the way that he was by the lapdogs ( or bootlickers is how I think CB describes them)

unfortunately there are too many cr types today that subscribe to the belief that Dilday was liberal, and it really gets under my skin

and I was having a great night watching the rangers take 2 out of 3 from the As to extend their lead to 8 1/2 games with a very tough road trip upcoming!

0
Brandon Smith
Author
Brandon Smith
10 years ago
Reply to  Jim Champion

Jim,

Dilday wasn’t as liberal as some liberals… as I said, he’s probably closer to a moderate. It’s unfortunate and it is upsetting to see what happened to him at SWBTS, but that doesn’t make the CR wrong or a failure. Lord knows, and only He truly does, what the SBC would look like right now without it. We’d probably be somewhere in the realm of the PCUSA who just approved gay pastors.

Dilday went on to work at Baylor, showing how non-conservative he truly was. Great man of God, but not a man in step with what the SBC was doing. He strongly supported Dan Vestal for SBC President, a known moderate and attacked every conservative in the convention and said the cause for inerrancy would be devastating to the SBC.

How can you not see his moderate views? Do you gauge conservatism differently than I do?

0
Big Daddy Weave
Big Daddy Weave
10 years ago
Reply to  Brandon Smith

Before dubbing Dilday a conservative or something else, shouldn’t you examine his beliefs? What did he believe about the Bible? My understanding has always been that Russell Dilday was an inerrantist who rejected the political agenda of the Patterson-Pressler coalition. He identified as part of the moderate coalition much like Richard Jackson and other theological conservatives. They were simply conservatives with much less narrow parameters for denominational cooperation. Same can be said about Baylor’s David Garland. Theologically, there is no real difference between folks like Russell Dilday, David Garland, Timothy George and David Dockery. Heck, look at George and Dockery: both have hired egalitarians to teach theology at their respective schools. The whole Baylor = liberal and professor who teaches at Baylor = liberal thing is really bad logic. If I conceded the former, using your logic how is Dilday “sharing the gospel” in the classroom of Truett seminary any different than Paige Patterson sharing the stage with a Mormon heretic to share the gospel? I think Dilday has been at B.H. Carroll for quite some time and makes 6-figures as some sort of communications person with Buckner. I understand why folks like Brandon wish the word “inerrancy” had made it’s way into BFM2000. Southern Baptists have been obsessed with that word in ways that other equally conservative denominations have not. Nonetheless, why is the word needed when the concept of inerrancy is already contained within the document? The Constitution does not contain the phrase “separation of church and state” but only a fool would deny that the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment require some sort of functional separation between the institutions of church and state. That’s a point that even Paige Patterson can affirm! All neo-orthodox language was removed when the BFM was updated. Jesus as criterion is gone. With the 1963 version, the Bible was the “record of God’s revelation.” Now the Bible has simply become “God’s revelation.” Some like Joe say that moderates used a loophole. There was no loophole. The BFM said what it said. It was drafted with the assistance of noted neoorthodox scholar Dale Moody. Words have meaning. And any person who is familiar with the differences between neoorthodoxy and conservative evangelicalism/fundamentalism would readily recognize that the Bible as a “record of revelation” is distinctly different the Bible as “revelation.” Granted back then the document did not hold some creedal quality. Nonetheless, neoorthodoxy… Read more »

0
Brandon Smith
Brandon Smith
10 years ago
Reply to  Big Daddy Weave

BDW,

I do agree that denominationalism inside and outside the SBC should be less narrow, especially when the Gospel is concerned though we’ve talked that I think internally the BFM2000 should be affirmed.

Whether or not Dilday is an inerrantist doesn’t make me dislike him or think he shouldn’t teach. Some say those who don’t hold to inerrancy are heretics, I wouldn’t go so far but it greatly concerns me. I even said earlier that I think Dilday is a great man, but there is a reason besdies the whack job conspiracy theorists’ version as to why he is at Baylor and not Southern or SWBTS any longer. Though I do agree that his disdain for the CR brought too harsh of punishment on him.

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  Brandon Smith

Brandon,

What is a “whack job conspiracy theory/theorists” in this particular context?

0
SSBN
SSBN
10 years ago
Reply to  Big Daddy Weave

Big Daddy,

In the spirit of fair play, I don’t think Dilday was the “most” moderate theologian in the arena at the time. However, I remember (it has been some years now) him writing about how he chose to designate himself. He used the word, “moderate.”

He also chose to side with the moderates, and eventually join them. So, even if he was not the most “moderate” in his theology (and I’m willing to grant that was the case in the early years) he chose sides.

He also created a very clear “us” versus “them” at SWBTS. As a conservative (before I knew there was a movement and got involved) I learned what happened if you did not agree with a professors beatification of Dilday.

So, I partly agree with your assessment and partly disagree. I go out on the limb and say, “if Dilday was the worst theology” afoot in our seminaries, there never would have been a CR. He was more facilitator than foot soldier in the fight — in my opinion.

Just for the record, someone mentioned how the SWBTS was one happy family under Dilday. I didn’t see this as the case, but I did see a really significant move in that direction when Hemphill came.

0
Jim Champion
Jim Champion
10 years ago
Reply to  SSBN

As you can tell I was very upset at how Dilday was treated, but I will also say that I have alot if respect for Ken Hemphill and the job he did under very tough circumstances following Dilday

Hemphil’s treatment is another topic for good people being treated badly when Patterson wanted to come back to TX. And hemphill is a good CR boy.

0
SSBN
SSBN
10 years ago
Reply to  Jim Champion

Just for the record, Dilday has referred to himself as a “moderate” on several occasions. I was there. He was no saint in regard to how he conducted himself at SWBTS. It was “not” a conservative seminary by any stretch of the imagine during his latter years.

Agree or disagree as to whether being a moderate is good or bad — but don’t try to rewrite the history.

0
Brandon Smith
Author
Brandon Smith
10 years ago
Reply to  SSBN

SSBN,

Right on.

0
Jim Champion
Jim Champion
10 years ago
Reply to  SSBN

As I said politically moderate theologically conservative. There are alot of us down here in the great state of TX. He got rid of liberal professors. Name a liberal proff at swbts, there were not any. As I said Swbts was where the conservatives sent their students in those days because swbts was THE conservative seminary

SWBTS is a shadow of the greatness that it once was in sbc life

0
Ronny Cooksey
Ronny Cooksey
10 years ago
Reply to  Jim Champion

Jim said of Dilday, “He got rid of liberal professors. Name a liberal proff at swbts, there were not any.”

Jim, I was a student at SWBTS in the early 90’s under Dilday. I am not slandering Dilday. I believe him to be an honest man. BUT, I had a professor who cursed in class, told off-color jokes, and told us a story of how he “flipped off” another driver. I had another professor who was a deconstructionist and told us about his sermon titled, “God, Our Mother.” There were others. If you look at where many of the professors ended up who left after Dilday was gone, you will see that many were at least moderates.

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  SSBN

SSBN,

And don’t take everything Mark Noll says as absolute. In addition, Pinnock started well, but for some reason unknown to me at least, fell away from the truth. I have heard from those who had him in class in his early years that he was truly inspiring. But now, they scratch their heads in amazement at how far he has drifted from the Truth.

0
Louis
Louis
10 years ago
Reply to  Jim Champion

Jim:

I do not think that Dilday presented a real problem for the cr. He was like many other conservative baptists who did not see a need for the theological correction that the conservatives wanted. He was not unusual in that regard, in my opinion.

0
Brandon Smith
Author
Brandon Smith
10 years ago

Jim and SSBN,

What do you guys think regarding the topic of the post?

0
Ron West
Ron West
10 years ago

Joe Blackmon,

I did not say that Dilday and Patterson view the Bible in the same way. I said they both believe the entire Bible is the Word of God. Your statement that Dilday believes the Bible has errors is wrong. Nor does he believe in any loopholes that allow the plain teaching of scripture to be ignored. He has always stated he believes the entire Bible is true, authoritative and infallible.

0
Joe Blackmon
Joe Blackmon
10 years ago
Reply to  Ron West

true, authoritative and infallible.

But not inerrant, which is the view that Christians have.

0
Christiane
Christiane
10 years ago
Reply to  Joe Blackmon

Joe, that word ‘inerrant’, do you define it to mean that, if you ‘isolate’ a part of Scripture out of the context of the totality of the whole of Scripture, that you can use interpret that part as a ‘separate’ entity?

If this is confusing, I can try to explain my question differently.

0
Ron West
Ron West
10 years ago

CB my friend, I guess I could have written most of what I wrote without referring to the CR but the CR is a fact that cannot be ignored. I think I asked a legitimate question in wondering what the response would have been if Dilday had been on the same platform with a Mormon or had cooperated so often with a heretic like Moon as those I mentioned had. I disagree that if he had preached the gospel they would have said way to go. Anyone who watched his treatment by trustees like Owen Collins and others when they fired him, know that preaching the gospel or being a conservative was not protection against the wrath of the CR leaders. If you think no one was trolling the waters of minutia looking for every possible link to anything of questionable nature, you have probably not had a chance to read Roger Moran’s many publications or Jerry Sutton’s book, or Hefley’s series of books or many others I could name. I said that Patterson owed the Falwell’s too many political points. I was referring to their long time cooperation in political organizations such as the CNP and Falwell’s Moral Majority. Also, their swapping back and forth of associates to each other’s organization. Do you think Paige Patterson had any influence on Liberty hiring Ergun Caner? We could even go back to their mutual sponsorship of Darryl Gillyard. As far as their being liberals in every entity, that was not true. I had no problem supporting the CR when it was truly attacking liberalism. I would support firing professors such as Paul Simmons at SBTS and a very few others. CB, here is my problem with the CR. Most of what they did had nothing to do with liberalism. There were no liberals in positions of leadership or authority at the FMB/IMB. I was employed by the FMB then and am still employed by the IMB. That did not keep the CR from using trustees such as Ron Wilson and Bill Hancock to attack our integrity, honesty and theology. The most disappointing thing for most of us was that CR supporters who talked big about truth and integrity stood and did nothing to defend us when this was going on. I can only guess they were too scared that they would lose their position of influence or their jobs or their… Read more »

0
Brandon Smith
Author
Brandon Smith
10 years ago
Reply to  Ron West

Ron,

To be honest, I think Hefley was pretty fair. Though I’m sure you or any liberal/moderate will never agree with that.

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  Brandon Smith

Ron,

Let me add, as I should have last night, another comment on the Dilday-Patterson comparison you made.

It is my opinion that had Dilday been given the opportunity to speak at the LU commencement he would have done so. I believe he would have also said things similar to that of which Patterson did as well. For after all, just like Patterson, he is first and foremost a gospel preacher.

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  Ron West

Ron, There were liberals at the FMB. They were in Richmond and on the field. You might not want to see that because some of them were your friends, but they were there nonetheless. There were liberals in every entity we have. There were not just a few, there were many. As far as Sutton’s or Hefley’s books are concerned, they both interviewed me recorded part of my experience at the BSSB in their books. So, I have “probably” read them. As far as Moran is concerned, I wish the Judge had never invited that guy to anything. He was blood poison then. He is blood poison now. Dr. Dilday was treated poorly by men who should not have been trustees. Nonetheless, he did take stands he should never have taken against the obvious removal of liberals in SBC enties. He also was directly responsible for Elder going to the BSSB. No greater “mistake” was made during the CR days. Ron, your comment about Patterson owing LU or the Falwells does not hold water. To cooperate with someone in an organization or venture does not mean you “owe” them anything. Also, do you have any evidence that Paterson persuaded Falwell to hire Ergun. Nonetheless, you nor no one else can say Ergun did not help LU. What has happened in the aftermath is a story within itself and stands alone. It does not define the whole man Ergun Caner. Ron, would you like to be defined by a singular circumstance as was Ergun? I assure I would certainly not, which bring me to the following: What Ben Cole and I instigated in January of ’06 was wrong. I pray my whole life is not defined by that foolish period in my personal history. Lastly Ron, This is just a plain silly statement on your part: “Some CR supporters like to say mistakes were made and we need to move on. That is because they lack the courage to bring about the confession and repentance on a convention wide scale necessary to truly move our convention forward and β€œget over it”. CR supporters on a whole have nothing to confess or to repent of in what they did. They were right. Some people, like me, as I have stated before, did have things to repent of and I have. Ron, the CR was necessary. You say what you please. Finally, for… Read more »

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

CB: Have you or anyone on this board read the Unfetterred Word.
Again, Robert Marsh, ADrian Rogers classmate at NOBTS; Marsh’s 90 address to his deacons at 2nd Ponce is a strong antidote to your missleanings in your lengthy statement above, as is Susan Shaw’s book on the women of Jerry Vines West Rome Baptist.
The views of Mark Noll or Robert Tenery. I Have to go with Mark Noll everytime.

0
Jim Champion
Jim Champion
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

As Dilday was treated poorly my men who shuld not have been trustees, the entire SBC is now being treated poorly by the bootlicker trustees at swbts. Patterson continues to do irreparable damage to a oncegreat institution.

Do you remember a couple years ago when he held the newsconference stating the day of declining enrollments were over, not so much.

He has eliminated retiree health insurance, put the EM school in peril by terminating the counseling degree , has a bunch of VPs driving company cars !!! Is building a non needed “state of the art chapel, privately funded but the seminary will have to maintain it at no small cost. The working atmosphere is toxic, proffs are afraid of running afoul of the president.

Of course truett, logsden, bh Carroll and dbu are thanking their lucky stars that Patterson is there, and hoping he never retires.

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago
Reply to  Jim Champion

Karen Bullock, one of Patterson’s dismissals, is now doing a grand work with Daniel Carro and the Baptist World Alliance.
In short time it looks like Ben Cole and Wade Burleson may write the final chapter on Criswell’s abysmal legacy for the Southern Baptist Convention through his Amnon, Paige Patterson.

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  stephen fox

Steve,

I have no idea what Wade may do. It is my opinion that no such book will be coming from Ben.

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  stephen fox

Steve,

In an effort to continue to be honest with you, I think the removal of Karen Bullock from her position at SWBTS was a mistake.

0
Brandon Smith
Author
Brandon Smith
10 years ago
Reply to  Jim Champion

Jim,

You are making every statement with emotional bias and literally no inside knowledge of anything. Every liberal or moderate acts as if Patterson hates the Gospel and only cares about himself. Conflict brings anger, but it is required in order to have a victory and improve the situation. Seems like some guys named Jesus and Paul did those things. Many people of that day thought they were evil, too.

Be objective, like me, and realize that this is what schools do. DBU’s enrollment shot up crazy after building a state of the art chapel with private funding and school maintenance. Most schools who care about growing do things like that.

Again, why would Patterson (and he can’t make that decision alone) cut the counseling program (which is supposedly 60% of the school’s tuition income) if he wants to give company cars to VPs. Do you think he is trying to bankrupt the school and lose his job? Seriously? Put your bias aside, man.

0
Jim Champion
Jim Champion
10 years ago
Reply to  Brandon Smith

DBUs enrollment shot up because Gary Cook drives his recruiters and professors alike in recruitment. He took a school on the verge of bankruptcy and turned it around, the man is a near genius and a workaholic. His buildings are multipurpose buildings that he built out of need. Word on the street is that he is working hard to get as many proffs ( and students) as he can out of the demise of the swbts counseling program – any bets against him?

Patterson can and does make unilateral decisions then demands fealty from ” his” trustees. My facts are true, do a bit of research. I still know people at swbts, and I do get emotional at what he is doing to this once great institution

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  Brandon Smith

“He took a school on the verge of bankruptcy and turned it around, the man is a near genius and a workaholic.”

Jim, I will not argue with you about the statement above. But I bet the farm that you will argue with me when I say:

In 1992 Paige Patterson “He took a school on the verge of bankruptcy and turned it around, the man is a near genius and a workaholic.”

“His buildings are multipurpose buildings that he built out of need.”

I wish Gary Cook well. Can you say you wish Patterson well in surviving the current national financial crisis? Or would you rather the institution fail so you can continue to address everything Patterson in a bad light?

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago
Reply to  Brandon Smith

Brandon, there is some truth to what you say; but again in the world of larger truths there is Garry Wills American Chrisitianities, and Mark Noll’s America’s God and Harold Bloom’s The American Religion to repetitively offer three examples.
BDiddDadWeaver has review Pam Curso’s husband’s book on George Truett.
Broaden your perspective under the leaderhip of the Holy Spirit and in about ten years with Ben Cole you will have pilgrimmed to a place near Big Daddy, Karen Bullock and myself.
In the meantime take a second look at the British Documentary of early 90’s on Patterson and Criswell, Thy Kingdom Come.
And this; I have to believe if the novel is ever written–it would kinda be like the Novel Modern Baptists the name of the author I used to be able to recall; when the Patterson novel is written, his ongoing intrigue with Criswell’s wife will be central to the development of his character; may even overhwelm wife Dot.
Criswell’s wife should be played by Judi Dench if it makes a movie; Betty was her name, Criswell, right?

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago
Reply to  Brandon Smith

I forgot to say OpenMind in my riff on the Holy Spirit as you grow in perspective, Brandon.
With an open mind under the leadership of the Holy Spirit.
And here is the linkto the Novel

http://www.lsu.edu/lsupress/bookPages/9780807131664.html

What was Criswell’s daughter’s name that sang The King is Coming in Dallas SBC ’74?

0
Brandon Smith
Brandon Smith
10 years ago
Reply to  Brandon Smith

Jim,

My goodness.

I go to DBU. Yes, Dr. Cook is a great recruiter and leader, one of the best presidents in America. But, DBU has gone up massively over the past few years and one of, if not the biggest, reason why is the campus upgrades. A $24 milllion chapel, a beauitful new bookstore, new student townhomes, upgrades to the baseball fields all in the past 3 years and a goregeous new academic building going up as we speak. That’s recruitment at its finest.

Anyway, you won’t be objective and I don’t want this post to turn into another bickerfest that gets a comments section closed down like the 700-comment BFM2000 that is closed.

Hope you enjoyed the post even though it was about Patterson. Blessings, bro.

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  Jim Champion

Jim,

It was Boot Strappin’-Baloney Eatin’ trustees not “bootlickers” that you referenced me calling them. And it is true, our boards are congregated with several these days, I will not argue against that nor will I back down from saying it. Its true.

But your comments about Patterson will not stand scrutiny. Are you going to tell me VPs did not drive company cars when Dilday or Hemphill served in the “Big Chair” at SWBTS?

Jim, in all truth the financial woes of SWBTS are the same woes as plague both religious and secular institutions right now. You cannot blame all of that on Paige Patterson. What you can blame on him at the present is making an effort to keep the institution afloat. Do you want him to sit and do nothing during a time of national financial crisis?

Ask Steve about the cuts at Birmingham Southern. Everybody is cutting something.

0
Jim Champion
Jim Champion
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

CB

pattersons moves defy logic. I will never understand hos decision to cut the counselling program, not only are 60% of the EM school students enrolled in that program, the need they fulfill in the world, solid Christian licensed professional counsellors of whom my own family used during a time of need – and according to Brandon I may need again soon πŸ™‚

check to number of VPs in the Dilday or Hemphill years. If finances are tough why cut one of your most popular programs.

If Patterson were growing the seminary, I would give him grudging respect, however the enrollment continues to fall. What are the trustees doing? Anything?

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

Jim,

I have no idea why he is cutting the counseling program. He is the president. Presidents do those things as part of their job. Maybe he is going to revamp the counseling program after the one he revamped at SEBTS. I have no idea.

All I know is that he “raised SEBTS from the dead” and made it our best seminary and he was generally always good to me. I will probably never understand what happened in that last year. I don’t talk to him much any more. But that is water under the bridge. Life goes on and God has certainly blessed me in the meantime. I also know he is not Satan or even the Antichrist. Although he did write the NAC on The Revelation. I am sure it is from a premil position. For that I am thankful. πŸ™‚

0
Big Daddy Weave
Big Daddy Weave
10 years ago

Hefley was fair – fair to one side. No doubt about that. For research purposes, Hefleys analysis is mostly useless. The best thing about his work – and the reason that I cite him some in my book that I’m finishing – is the direct quotes, the snarky and heated comments that he got from various leaders literally in the hallway.

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago
Reply to  Big Daddy Weave

BDidd: do you have near at hand the confrontation between Richard Jackson and Judge Pressler in the Hallway at Nashville Feb of 89 after the fellow from Georgia who went after Winfred Moore went after Jackson.
Maybe that would help Brandon understand the nature of the Takeover and it’s snarky ambience.

0
Brandon Smith
Author
Brandon Smith
10 years ago
Reply to  stephen fox

Fox,

Boy I’m glad you’re on the side of all the halo-wearing liberals! Those meanie-weenie conservatives!!! πŸ˜‰

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago
Reply to  Brandon Smith

Brandon: See my comment #144 roughly as the numbers change on a daily basis around her.
And in fairness you got to let everybody know where the emoticons are in the board. As it standsnow you administrators and fundy insiders have the advantage of us progressive light seekers here(insert some kind of emoticon with a winky smile; borderline Hallelujah wave or something; not charismatic but something that suggests I see that Hand back there)

0
Louis
Louis
10 years ago
Reply to  stephen fox

I heard about that confrontation, but did not see it. I can be who got the most physically out of control and who remained in control, based on other performances I have seen from these two men.

0
Brandon Smith
Brandon Smith
10 years ago
Reply to  Big Daddy Weave

BDW,

And your book will be balanced and fair? A 100% neutral book on those issues probably doesn’t exist. People bring their bias into everything. I think Hefley was more fair than most I’ve read on the issue from either side.

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  Brandon Smith

Big Daddy,

I look forward to reading your book. I am sure it will be much better reading than “Hardball Religion.” At least, I am sure it will be much more objective.

0
Matt Svoboda
Matt Svoboda
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

cb scott,

I read every word of “Hardball Religion”- was the subtitle- “Big Bad Bullies of the SBC?” I cant seem to remember, but I must say that it was the perfect example of objectivity! πŸ˜‰

In all honesty, I think that Wade actually did make some good points, but the lack of objectivity definitely undermined his points. I’ve never read a book in which the author assumes the motives of everyone around him more than Wade.

0
Joe Blackmon
Joe Blackmon
10 years ago
Reply to  Matt Svoboda

Matt,

Don’t you know Don Quixote can read you mind? He’s like the old Alan Parson’s Project song “Eye in the sky”

Wade is the Eye in the sky
Looking at you–oo–oo
He can read your mind

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  Matt Svoboda

Matt,

He footnoted his own blog as a research source.

0
Matt Svoboda
Matt Svoboda
10 years ago
Reply to  Matt Svoboda

cb scott,

lol- that is hilarious. How did I miss that? Maybe it’s because I read it on pdf! I’m just glad I didn’t have to pay for it. I was asked to write a review for it, but I couldn’t bring myself to do it.

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  Matt Svoboda

Did you read the Cole-Duren review? What about the Peter Lumpkins Review?

0
Matt Svoboda
Matt Svoboda
10 years ago
Reply to  Matt Svoboda

I missed those… Have the Cole-Duren links?

0
Louis
Louis
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

I bet BDW would write a fine book, but it will contain a bias, as any book that any of us would write would contain. Still, I would be inclined to read his book.

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago
Reply to  Louis

While you are waiting for BDW’s book, I hope you will take a close look at Garry Wills American Christianities; currently a steal at your local Barnes and Noble; 6 bucks.

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago

Big Daddy,

You are a historian. You know full well that most of the history of the CR was made in the “hallways”, coffee shops, airports, motel rooms, lobbies and dinning tables.

Hefley’s analysis was anything but useless. In most cases it was highly factual as was Sutton’s.

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

Again, CB, as a matter of record, I want us all to be clear you have not read Robison James The Unfettered Word and you haven’t read Ammerman’s collection Southern Baptists Observed.
I think at one time you said you had read David Morgan’s Holy Crusaders.
Have you read any of the three books above?

As I have offerred in other conversations, here is a grand online reference point going forward in this conversation

http://www.sbctakeover.com/

0
Matt Svoboda
Matt Svoboda
10 years ago
Reply to  stephen fox

LOL- you point people to a site called “sbc takeover.” That sure sounds like a fair and balanced place to start! lol

0
Louis
Louis
10 years ago
Reply to  stephen fox

Stephen:

I checked out this website. It looks so corny and uses such inflammatory language that I immediately dismissed it. It also refers people to the CBF. The CBF has not set a course that very many churches have wanted to follow.

Anyone can put up a website, make outlandish claims etc. But getting people and churches to act usually takes much more than that.

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago

Steve,

For the record, I have. I knew Robinson James when he taught at Richmond. I was also there on the sidewalk with Paige Patterson when Robinson James tried to debate him on Southern Baptist history and theology. He lost.

As for Nancy Ammerman’s writing, you miss again. I actually met her once when she was doing research, but I can’t remember where.

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

You met Rob James, but did you read the Unfetterred Word?
Have you read Morgan and Southern Baps Observed?
In the meantime here is some help from Mark Noll and Lincoln on how Fundamentalist readings of SCripture Fail:

Here, then, is the great theological puzzle of the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln, a layman with no standing in a church and no formal training as a theologian, propounded a thick, complex view of God’s rule over the world and a morally nuanced picture of America’s destiny. The country’s best theologians, by contrast, presented a thin, simple view of God’s providence and a morally juvenile view of the nation and its fate. [End Page 18] 36
The theologians talked as if God had accomplished all that had been done, yet assumed that humans could control their own destinies. Lincoln urged his fellow citizens to seize the opportunities of the moment but did not assume that they could control their own fate. 37
For the theologians there was little mystery in how God dealt with the world; for Lincoln there was awesome mystery. For the theologians, God’s power remained securely tethered to the interests of the United States, however differently that interest was perceived. But for Lincoln, God’s power was controlled by no one but God. 38
Many of the theologians found only the language of Christian salvation adequate for describing the rescue of the nation; for Lincoln the question of whether the nation could be rescued evoked the language of divine sovereignty. 39
For the theologians the end of the war only tightened the bond between God and his American chosen people; for Lincoln the course of the war injected a doubt about whether America was the people of God. 40
This is the theological puzzle of the Civil War. Niebuhr was right to claim that the second inaugural represented a moral theology superior to that which came from the nation’s most distinguished theologians.

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/18.1/noll.html

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  stephen fox

Steve,

Yes and Yes. I have also read McBeth’s unpublished history of the SBC.

Steve, why is it that you always and I mean always want to portray anyone who has the opposing view of SBC history from you as a goat herding idiot? Steve, I confess that I came from an uncivilized background from you and most other folks. But reading books was something I did both before and after Christ in my life.

BTW, I debated James a couple of times myself in VA. He lost then also. πŸ™‚

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

BTW Steve,

For the record. Robinson James was a classic liberal. He was also, in my opinion, a theological dwarf.

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

So I guess Robert Tenery and Bill Powell are theological Giants; is that I am to assume?
I am glad you like Ron Rash. That gives me some hope.
RAsh, like me, is a fan of Cormac McCarthy; though Rash brings much more to the table than I do to consider such things.
So if not from me, on behalf of Rash and Preacher McIntyre in Serena; consider googling up and reading Tom Conoboy’s “Suttree as a Barefoot Jesus”. And when you take John Killian in a couple weeks to go see Robert Duvall in Get Low; and you must see the movie and et Killian to go whether you go duet or together or with your families or on the Church van; do go see the movie.
And when you do think about what a loss for American Cinema it will be that Duvall didn’t get to portray Suttree 15 years ago; not instead of The Apostle, but as a complement to his Body of work.
Get Low was written by a fellow from North Alabama, and my friend Lucas Black, of Speake, near Moulton or whatever the town is, costars with Bill Murray.
This thing hsa Killian written all over it; so go see it. Will help you reconcile the things you were reading before you met Jesus with the things after.
I do hope in time you will read Noll on Lincoln and help Volfan understand it. There is not much I can do for him.

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

Steve,

I said Robinson James was a theological dwarf. I did not hint or imply that every person who was/is not of my persuasion was/is so very theological deficient. That is just not the case.

As to thew two you mentioned; Yes, Tenery is a theological giant. Bill Powell would not be considered to be a theological giant, yet he was on the right side. πŸ™‚

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

Steve,

I am pretty sure that my son interviewed Cormac McCarthy right after or before one of his movies came out. He sent me two of McCarthy’s books for my birthday a couple of years back. I started reading “The Road” but I got tired of it.

I did read “All the Pretty Horses” several years ago. That was about all of McCarthy I have really enjoyed. I think “No Country for Old Men” was a waste of ink and paper and the movie is not worth a repeat.

0
Louis
Louis
10 years ago
Reply to  stephen fox

Stephen and CB:

I think that what plagues some books about the SBC is the fact that not many of the conservative leaders are willing to sit down with the people who are disposed to the moderate narrative. The conservatives don’t feel (and I think they are right) that they are going to get a fair shake from some of these writers.

The consequence of this is that some things that are said go unrebutted by primary sources.

The best histories are done by people who have equal access to both sides of the controversy.

I have a friend who is a seminary prof now. He got interviews with conservative and moderate leaders in the mid 90s. Pressler, Patterson, Cecil Sherman, John Baugh and others. They saw his as an honest person, and he is.

I am not sure that his interviews have ever been published. But the thing that struck me about what he found was Cecil Sherman’s insistence that Baptists ought not to have any theological confession that would apply to denomination posts other than “good faith and good sense”. He refused to define that any further for my friend.

Even the Shurden website that you referred me to suggested to those who have left the SBC that they should refuse to put down in writing what they believe because it would be divisive.

That issue in a nutshell is the whether the Baptist community should have a meaningful confession of faith and whether that confession should apply to denominational life. Conservatives believe that there should be. The Moderate position, generally, beyond the doctrines of priesthood of the believer and a couple other matters, is that if there is a confession, it should allow such wide latitude for those who interpret it differently.

I know that there are lots of details involved in that, but that is the basic issue as I see it.

0
Christiane
Christiane
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

I have read the Ammerman study and I have wondered how different Southern Baptist people reacted to it.

Actually, Nancy Ammerman’s book is rather famous among those on the outside, who wish to take an in-depth look at a denomination ‘in transition’, as it were.
She is often quoted in the writings others have done on the Southern Baptist denomination.

Has she fairly represented the denomination,
in the eyes of Southern Baptist people ?

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  Christiane

L’s,

I am glad you read Ammerman. Now go and get Hefley’s little books and read them. But before you do, I would like to ask you to find about five or six of Paul David Washer’s sermons on the internet and listen intently to them.

0
Tim Rogers
Tim Rogers
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

L’s,

Ammerman was required reading at SEBTS in 1995. It was one book that we were required to read when we took a class on the SBC. Dr. Danny Akin taught that class and since he is the President of the seminary now, I would presume it is still required reading.

Blessings,
Tim

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  Tim Rogers

Tim,

You should not have revealed that. Now Tom Parker will begin to think that SEBTS promoted open dialogue during the Patterson administration. We don’t want to give him the wrong idea.

0
Christiane
Christiane
10 years ago
Reply to  Tim Rogers

I read her book from its scholarly perspective as a sociological study. I was interested to know if Southern Baptists considered the book to have scholarly integrity. Thanks for sharing that it was ‘required reading’ at SEBTS. I think that answers my question about the perception of its fairness.

0
Louis
Louis
10 years ago
Reply to  Christiane

L’s:

Like most books, it has good stuff and some things that could have been written better.

I prefer Paul Pressler’s book because he was one of the architects of the CR. You can see what motivated him and why he acted as he did. It is one person’s perspective, however. Not a complete survey of the SBC.

0
Christiane
Christiane
10 years ago
Reply to  Louis

I believe that Nancy Ammerman, as a professional, has some recognition for her scholarly work. Her book is an interesting study. It does not seem to me to be ‘slanted’ towards any particular point-of-view, but instead takes an impartial look at the goings-on of the SBC in transition.

I have my first degree in sociology, as an academic major, but did not pursue research as a research-fellow at UNC at Chapel Hill. Instead, I chose to work in my city as a case-worker and I married at that time also. I never did lose my interest in sociological research, though, and you have to admit, for someone like me, the SBC ‘in transition’ is fascinating as portrayed by Nancy Ammerman’s study. I have not read any of Paul Pressler’s work. Did he ever comment on the Ammerman study, as far as you know? Thanks, if you can help.

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago
Reply to  Christiane

With your interest in Sociology, Chrisitiane, I think you will want to find Ellen Rosenberg’s Southern Baptists in Transition. As a secular Jew and teaching anthropologist, you can imagine how fascinated she became with Mississippi Baptists among others.
Do find her book; it’s invaluable.

0
Louis
Louis
10 years ago
Reply to  Christiane

I have never heard Pressler comment on Ammerman’s work.

0
volfan007
volfan007
10 years ago

Fox and Big Daddy,

Would you like to hear the account of how a liberal went after me in the convention center, after I didnt vote the way he wanted me to? Do you want to hear how mean and nasty he was? how angry he was? He was absolutley livid after I didnt vote for Winfred Moore to be VP, after he lost the bid to be the Pres. of the SBC.

I was a very young man then, and he was an older fella….in his late 40’s or early 50’s. He went after me like Lee taking on Grant. My Pastor saw what was happening, and came over, and took care of the situation.

πŸ™‚

David

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago
Reply to  volfan007

Here is Mark Noll’s grand statement for you and Jim DeLoach to consider:

Certainly, the evangelical juggernaut was working too well for a few souls who, if they could not give up God or if God had not given them up, still wondered if the progressive, energetic, can-do God of the Protestant evangelicals was adequate for the complexities of the universe or the turmoils of their own souls. So Dickinson, Melville, and supremely Lincoln may have been pushed by the successes of “American Christianity” into post-Protestant, even post-Christian, theism. The tragedy of these individuals was thatβ€”to be faithful to the God they found in their own hearts, in the Bible, or in the sweep of eventsβ€”they considered it necessary to hold themselves aloof from the organized Christianity of the United States.

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago
Reply to  volfan007

David: ExCom Member Steve Pounds and I had a similar incident right after the SBC VP from Mobile attempted to witness to me after Jerry Vines first ExCom appearance in San Antonio right after he was elected President by half a percent of a vote and Pressler immediately went after Martin and Shackelford.
Richard Jackson was there and still angry. You know he was a college linebacker or something. Vines said something, I forgot and I went to see what Jackson thought about it. I went to get Jackson and he considered it, but was reluctant to go back in the room cause he was afraid he might lose his temper.
So there was a lot of near riotous occasions in this mess.
Baptists are human.
The greater harm was done my Criswell’s and his disciples demagoguery in the Pastor’s Conferences of the 70’s where theTruth was as absent as it was for the Theologians Mark Noll analyzes in theQuote above or near this post.
That is why you, DAvid Vol Fan, and Brandon and CB SCott, need to read Helen Lee Turner’s assessment in Ammerman’s Southern Baptists Observed.

0
volfan007
volfan007
10 years ago
Reply to  stephen fox

Fox,

I dont need to read Helen Lee Turner’s assessment. I was in it to bring the SBC back to the Bible, and away from liberalism. I was there, and I’m glad that I was able to vote for the men, who led the charge to “kick” the liberals and those who allowed them to be in leadership positions in the SBC(moderates) out!

David

0
Brandon Smith
Author
Brandon Smith
10 years ago
Reply to  stephen fox

Fox,

I told you that I read Turner’s work and it was as propaganda as anything else she writes about conservatives.

0
Bill
Bill
10 years ago
Reply to  volfan007

“He went after me like Lee taking on Grant.”

That shouldn’t have worried you, knowing your history. πŸ˜‰

(written from NY)

0
volfan007
volfan007
10 years ago
Reply to  Bill

Bill,

Now, you’ve done made me mad. If Lee had the guns and ammunition and food and medicine that the North had…everyone would’ve been whistling Dixie today. Lee was a great General, and defeated the Yankees often with less men, less supplies, less everything.

Dont come down here saying things like that. You’ll not be a happy camper after the words leave your mouth.

πŸ™‚

DAvid

0
Bill
Bill
10 years ago
Reply to  volfan007

I couldn’t resist.

0
Ronny Cooksey
Ronny Cooksey
10 years ago
Reply to  Bill

Jim said of Dilday, β€œHe got rid of liberal professors. Name a liberal proff at swbts, there were not any.”

Jim, I was a student at SWBTS in the early 90?s under Dilday. I am not slandering Dilday. I believe him to be an honest man. BUT, I had a professor who cursed in class, told off-color jokes, and told us a story of how he β€œflipped off” another driver. I had another professor who was a deconstructionist and told us about his sermon titled, β€œGod, Our Mother.” There were others. If you look at where many of the professors ended up who left after Dilday was gone, you will see that many were at least moderates.

0
John Fariss
John Fariss
10 years ago

OK, David, I’ll speak as a Southerner whose Georgia ancestors fought in the Army of Northern Virginia, some in the 2nd Corps under one Stone W. Jackson. “Like Lee taking on Grant” is not the best of all possible metaphors, besides the fact that ultimately, he had to surrender. The “high water mark” of the Confederacy happened at Gettysburg, PA, but the Union Army there was led by George Mead, a career, professional soldier who was in command a relatively short period. Grant, at the time, was in “the western theatre,” Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi and such, where he completed the first prong of the Union strategy, to divide the Confederacy at the Mississippi River. By the time he got into direct opposition to Robert E. Lee, the ANV was largely waging a defensive war. Of course, that was the overall Southern strategy anyway, although tactically, there were offensive battles. (Plenty of times I have said the reason it took the Union four years to take Richmond was because they had to go over these two tremendous hills, down a long street, and finally over this impassable stone wall, referring to A.P. & D.H. Hill, James Longstreet, and of course, Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson.) Still Lee had successful campaigns against Grant, but as 1863 turned into 1864, it was largely a war of attrition, and you are right, the North’s superiority in men & material, as well as a commander with bulldog tenacity, won the day. Lee’s last strategy was to unite with Joe Johnston’s Army of Tennessee and try to have enough troops to accomplish something against the Union juggernaut. Of course, the AOT never made it out of Carolina, and the ANV got no further south than Appomatox Court House. All of which says the metaphor is less than appropriate. Maybe one involving agressive generals more involved with tactics than strategy, like Jackson, Jeb Stewart, NB Forest, the Hill’s, or John B. Hood would work. But David, have you really considered the tragedy of the South winning the Civil War? There would be at least two, possibly three (why shouldn’t the west form its own?) weak countries where one strong one now is, lacking therefore the domestic, international and technological progress that has been made; the possibilities of slave rebellions in the South, which was always a concern; absent that, the racial attitudes of superiority/inferiority that are bad enough… Read more »

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  John Fariss

John Fariss,

You mentioned Longstreet in your comment. Have you ever thought that had Lee listened to Longstreet at Gettysburg the South may very well have won the war?

0
volfan007
volfan007
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

Yep, CB is right. Had Lee listened to Longstreet, the South might have won. Also, had Stonewall Jackson not been killed, things might have been different as well. Also, as a sidenote, my great-great grandfather rode with Forrest’s cavalry. He was a sargeant.

John, also, who knows what would’ve happened if the South had won??????? Who really knows????? That’s all pure speculation.
I do know how bad the carpetbaggers were that came down South and pillaged it. That was nice. Stealing land, money, and other valuables. Raping women. Bullying people, etc. It made Southern people really feel good about Yankees.

πŸ™‚

David

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  volfan007

BTW,

Slavery would have ended without that bloody war. (And it was a bloody war. In three days at Gettysburg 58,000 Americans died. That is more than we lost in ten years in Southeast Asia.)
Technology would have made slavery unprofitable. Also, the thickheaded Southern Baptists would have finally realized the Bible did not condone slavery, but refuted it. The Spirit of God would have not allowed Christian men and women to stay silent once they knew the truth.

I can’t help but believe that greed deep in the hearts of men was far more the cause of that war than a desire to free the slaves.

In addition, Vol is right and history proves it. What happened in the Southland after the war was a hell on earth perpetrated by evil and greedy men.

0
John Fariss
John Fariss
10 years ago
Reply to  volfan007

My ancestors on my paternal side lived in Cassville, Georgia, about halfway between Atlanta and Chattanooga. It was the county seat for what was originally Cass County, renamed Bartow in 1861 since Cass for whom it was originally named was a yankee. But it ceased to exist after Sherman came through, so there is no need to tell me about the horrors of war in the South–especially as I come from a long line of storytellers, and many stories have been handed down. And yes, probably slavery was going to end even if the the CS had won–after all, I believe the date was either April 15 or April 30, 1865 that slaveholders were to bring a proportion of their able-bodied male slaves to a central location for induction into the Confederate Army, and the reward (anticipated if not guaranteed) was freedom. Because of Lee’s surrender, it never happened anywhere but around Richmond and on a very limited scale there (where several companies of slaves were formed, armed only with pikes; they never made it to the Petersburg trenches, and as far as I know, were left behind when Lee evacuated Petersburg). But the end of slavery would have been gradual at best, and I am not sure that the remaining slaves would have been content to wait years more for freedom. And yes, the possibilities I mentioned are speculation, but I think plausable speculation. And as far (this to CB) as Baptist preachers eventually realizing that the Bible refuted slavery rather than condoning it and bringing pressure against the institution, I am not so sure. A hundred years later, the great majority of white Baptist preachers in the South were still on the side of segregation and attitudes of racial superiority–not slavery granted, but the attitudes behind it are the same, that some men are born to be leaders and others are born to chop wood and fetch water, in other words, that some are just better than others. I have seen it called (and there is a book with a very similar title) “the Cultural Captivity” of the church in the South. White Southern churches were, in some sense, too successful, and thus became too identified with the leading cultural beliefs of the white “ruling” South, and thus supported not only segregation, but such things as management over workers virtually every time there was a strike in some… Read more »

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  John Fariss

John Fariss,

You said: “And as far (this to CB) as Baptist preachers eventually realizing that the Bible refuted slavery rather than condoning it and bringing pressure against the institution, I am not so sure. A hundred years later, the great majority of white Baptist preachers in the South were still on the side of segregation and attitudes of racial superiority….”

Your statement gives credibility to my idea ranter than refuting it.

The war only served to harden the hearts of Southerners. It retarded progress rather than helped. Southern pastors focused on themselves and the hardships of the aftermath of the war rather than the truth of Scripture. The fallen nature of man got a great stronghold.

Even to this very day the Spirit is working to change hearts of the “Children of the Confederacy” and “Children of Slavery.” Had the greed and sinfulness of men’s hearts not have been hardened greater by the war, the opportunity for “Truth” to have been seen by the day-to-day vision of the horrors of slavery, maybe men’s hearts would have been opened to the reality of what was actually taking place. The war gave men looking of an excuse to be blinded to remain so.

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago
Reply to  John Fariss

John Fariss and CB Scott:
I think some of your concerns have been explored pretty definitively in Reagan Wilson’s Baptized in Blood about the Religion of the Lost Cause; which among other things founded Sewanee, the Epsiscopal School 40 miles West of Chattanooga on top of the MTn where Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham, Andrew Jackson’s biographer is a graduate.
He has recently written about the Honorary doctorates given to Mary Soames and Harper Lee there and Harper Lee’s Cogent Remarks.
As for Cassville and Kingston, Ga, there was the Great Train Chase. I used to ride my bicycle through there on 30 mile round trips to Rome; and I was able to entertain many grand and profound thoughts on those bike rides; and the world was mine and all that dwelled therein.
General Sherman held up in Rome for about 10 days and exitted best I can figure down what is now roughly the Kingston HWY.
Fariss, Must reading for you and CB Scott as well is EL Doctorow’s The March. Great Character in there, Pearl, a slave who has one of the most beautiful thoughts on Freedom I have ever seen in Fiction; comparable to what it means to be Free in Christ, invoking Exodus themes of the Old Testament.
With me, your time could be better spent reading Doctorow that chronicling much confusion here at The Voices.
And if it were a fair and just board, I would make much use of several emoticons here, but I do not have them at my disposal like Our Masters, Brandon, et. al. (LOL)

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  John Fariss

“It has finally happed, CB, during our lifetimes, but it took pressure from outside the typical Southern church for it to happen.”

John, now think about hat statement for a moment. The “pressure” that brought real change was not any pressure from outside such as government or education or court actions or bussing, etc, etc. It was the Holy Spirit of God working in the hearts of men and women just like us to make us see the. And the Spirit is still working in both Black and White hearts.

I really believe had the war not helped the cause of Satan in America, the end of slavery would have come sooner.

John, if I am correct, you are an old soldier and cop. You know as well as I do that when men start killing each other, Satan is just up the hill somewhere laughing in his rotten soul.

0
Brandon Smith
Author
Brandon Smith
10 years ago
Reply to  John Fariss

Fox,

Let me repeat… everybody on here can use emoticons. You simply use the : for eyes and the ) for a mouth and when you hit “submit” the website translates it to an emoticon.

Again, do you really not see how fair and balanced Matt is on here? If it were a bias board, we would never have comments because you and Gene typically take the thing up with disagreements!

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  volfan007

Steve,

If you don’t finally agree to eat lunch with me, I am just going to come to your house (I know exactly where you live.) and beat you unmercifully with the butt of an old cap-n-ball pistol I have that was given to me which was actually used at Gettysburg. I am going to bring John Killian with me so he can be a witness that I was only defending myself when you attacked me with a tire iron. (This strategy has worked on many occasions in the past. I see no reason it will not work now. I won’t even be arrested.)

On the other hand, if you do eat lunch with me we will talk about the SBC, Rash, McCarthy, George Wallace, The War (any one you would like to talk about) and anything else you desire. I will pay the tab.

Now you think about it Steve. I don’t think you will ever get a better offer form any other conservative, card-carrin’ NRA member, Republican, Anti-Democratic-Administration, Southern Baptist than that. πŸ™‚

0
John Fariss
John Fariss
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

CB,

You could be right; but frankly, I am just too cynical and I have seen too much (especially among those who have been evangelized but not converted) to believe it. And yes, when Southern white Christians changed their opinions and racial attitudes, it was the work of the Holy Spirit. But the Spirit did not work in or from a vacume, rather He worked through many African American Baptists such as Martin Luther King, and through many of our northern brethren, Baptist and otherwise.

John

0
John Fariss
John Fariss
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

Yes, I have. Tactically, the battle was very much closer than most realize. Not even Lee recognized the proportions of the defeat there, but the loss of men and material soon began to tell on the South. And the ironies there–a Pennsylvania officer from the area named Culp who died on Culp’s Hill, yet he was in the Confederate Army, the friendship between high ranking generals on opposite sides, the Maine regiment led by Joshua Chamberlain engeged in heavy fighting (at Litle Rountop? I forget) who were then transferred to the Union center for a rest, only to be the objective of Pickett’s charge. If we read about such things in a work of fiction, we’d laugh because it was too improbable.

John

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  John Fariss

You are right about Chamberlain being on Little Roundtop. BTW, Chamberlain was an honorable and strong Christian man to the day he died, teaching others the truth of the gospel as an educator. He was truly a Christ Follower and an American hero. I wish men like him were running this country today.

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago
Reply to  John Fariss

Here is some common ground among us, CB and JFariss. CB Scott with me is a big fan of the novelist Ron Rash. This takes you to the core of one of his novels from a Civil War tale in his family’s ancestry; The Shelton Laurel Massacre of 1863 in Marshall County, NC; about 30 miles above Asheville.

http://www.rusoffagency.com/authors/rash_r/theworld/behind_theworld_made.htm

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  John Fariss

John Fariss,

Are you saying that it took Black and Northern Christians to make the Southern Christian see the truth? Do you believe that no Southern white Christians came to the truth on their own through the power of the Spirit alone?

John, that is as bigoted a statement as I has heard lately.

0
John Fariss
John Fariss
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

CB,

You asked, “Do you believe that no Southern white Christians came to the truth on their own through the power of the Spirit alone?” My answer to that is no, I don’t believe that–not quite. But I know of too many preachers in too many Southern towns, a generation or two before me, who were told that if that they associated with or otherwise appeared to support any civil rights groups, they could expect an emergency deacon’s meeting, to be immediately followed by being fired or pressured to resign. In fact, my cousin JW Smith, toward the end of his career as DOM in the Bessemer Baptist Association (in the late 70s or early 80s), filled the pulpit at First Baptist, Birmingham. Afterward, he was asked if he would submit his resume to their pulpit committee. He told them that he didn’t think they would want him as pastor, because if he were their pastor, he would insist they minister to be accepting of the people around them in downtown Birmingham–the homeless, street people, prostitutes, African-Americans, etc. They told him not to bother with the resume. Uh. . . is First Baptist of Birmingham still in downtown Birmingham?

How many, what percentage, of white baptist Southern preachers do you think “came to the truth on their own through the power of the Spirit alone”?

John

0
Christiane
Christiane
10 years ago
Reply to  John Fariss

Hi JOHN FARISS,
since you are sharing about your Civil War ancestors, you might be interested in two of mine:

this is from a report
“By D. H. HILL, Lieitenant-generai..

There were at least six instances in the siege of Petersburg in which shells, with burning fuse attached, were picked up and thrown over the breastworks. On inquiry, each of these brave men were from North Carolina and their names and commands were as follows:

1. Captain Stewart L. Johnston, Company H, Seventeenth North Carolina Regiment, says: “A shell from one of the enemy’s mortars fell in the midst of the comriany, and while it was spinning round like a top and the fuse still burning, Private William James Ausbon picked it up and cast it over the breastworks where it immediately exploded. General Beauregard in general orders directed his name to be placed on the Roll of Honor and that he be presented with a silver medal.”

William James Ausbon was the brother of my maternal ancestor, Joseph Gray Ausbon. Another brother, Mc Gilbray Ausbon also fought in the war. Our family has a letter written during the Civil War by McGilbray (‘Gib’), that is very moving, and asks that ‘a suit of clothes’ be made for him from a blanket. It is a family heirloom in the keeping of one of our cousins in North Carolina.

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago
Reply to  Christiane

Christiane: I think it is the Battle of Petersburg, the Crater Battle, that opens Cold Mtn.
You can hear some of my acquaintances from the Sacred Harp tradition on the Soundtrack there, and the kid who gets blown up and later dies portrayed by Lucas Black. Black is currently in what appears to be a sleeper hit of the late summer, Get Low, With Robert Duvall and Bill Murray.
But here is a link to others at Petersburg best I understand it:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=Sam+Hodges%3A++Letters+to+Amanda&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=Sam+Hodges%3A++Letters+to+Amanda&gs_rfai=Cw21uciJUTL3WGYGOzQT2jtnPCgAAAKoEBU_QppRd&fp=96dc5b2f1b33f30a

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago
Reply to  stephen fox

The link as a matter of record and all this aside about the Civil War, please don’t overlook the Screaming Point from Mark Noll that came back to haunt the SBC among others in the 1960’s; a fundamentalist juggernaut was not adequate, a literal reading of the Bible as Criswell and Pressler were able to propaganda and administer on the SBC wasn’t up to the task of explaining and resolving the great cancers in the national body politic.
So like Lincoln and Dickinson and Melville in their day; it was Marney, Foy Valentine, the likes of Bill Moyers and a strain of Bonhoeffer and Niebuhr that came down through Jimmy Allen, Carter and TB Matson and Will Campbell that offered Divine Light to the SBC and Criswell and Pressler snuffed it out.

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  stephen fox

Steve,

What “Divine Light” did Foy Valentine, Jimmy Allen or Jimmy Carter ever offer to the SBC?

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago
Reply to  stephen fox

The Light that put Jimmy Carter on the cover of Time magazine in 1970; a light that MO Owens and Bill Powell and Robert Tenery and Pressler were not able to see, not to mention the Alabama SBTS Trustee who resigned or some such from the Trustee Board cause they extended an invitation to MLKing to speak.
So somehow or another the true believer Biblical literalists in the SBC were as inadequate in One of the Great Defining Chapters of the 20th Century as MarkNoll found them to be at the time of the Civil War.
And this same Mark Noll had some wise words for the “Resurgents” at Ridgecrest in 87 that fell on Deaf Ears; so the apologists for the Texas Regulars and Jesse Helms and soon GAry North of the CNP and the REcons went home and hardened their hearts and their Cause.

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago
Reply to  stephen fox

It is also the Light I linked in the Great Cloud of Witnesses thread, the Light that shone on about 410 pictures there.
And the Light coming out of the Baptist World Alliance these past few days meeting in Hawaii.

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  stephen fox

Is the “light” you speak of in Time Magazine the same light that got him an interview in PLayboy in 1976?

Yeah Steve, I think you are right. Owens, Powell, Bear Tenery and Pressler “were not able to see” that one. Their “eyes” and hearts were focused elsewhere; Saving the SBC.

Now tell me about the Divine Light of Valentine and Allen. I would like to know what I missed.

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago
Reply to  stephen fox

So by your Calculus CB Scott, David and all his Divine Utterances are not Fit for Holy Scripture.
Which leader of the Takeover never lusted after a woman in his heart?
Adrian Rogers?
Ed Young?
Tenery?
Criswell?
Vines?
Patterson?

Which ones and how do you know?

If the Bible is literally true then I imagine you woulda had a sightless Leadership in more ways than one on the CR side

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  stephen fox

Steve,

I didn’t say one word about “lust” and Carter. There was more to the interview than that. BTW, I have never asked any of those fellows about lust in their hearts. I never worked for Playboy. Asking about lust in the heart is their first line of questioning, not mine.

My question had to do with what Divine Light did Carter, Valentine and Allen shed on the SBC that we all need so badly. Tell me about that.

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago
Reply to  stephen fox

That would be the Divine Light in the new Book about Jimmy Allen, written by Larry McSwain.
I remember seeing McSwain on an elevator in New Orleans the day after the Chapman vote; Wednesday morning when the Truett remnant of Baptists met for Breakfast.
You know George Truett was a mentor of sorts to Jimmy Allen, would’ve performed Allen’s ordination. I think Jimmy Allen is the True Truett vine of Baptist work in America, not Truett’s successor at FBC Dallas, Wally Amos Criswell; but that is no surprise to you.
Allen stopped by Paige Patterson’s home the night his Father died to pay his Respects. I don’t know if you have heard that story before or not.
I linked a story in The Great Cloud of Witnesses with about 400 pictures that glows with the Light of the Baptist experience of Allen and Carter.
And you may find the comments with this story interesting as well:

http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5369/53/

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  stephen fox

Steve,

Do you know how many folks Paige Patterson “stopped by” to see when they had sorrow in their lives? Many of them were and are on the other side of the isle. So what does Allen’s visit to Patterson during his grief have to do with Divine Light?

Do you think Patterson or Vines, etc. ever shed any “Divine Light” in their years on all of us SBC folks? Or was it all from the Dark Side from “Darth” Pressler?

0
Christiane
Christiane
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

Did he ever, in his great compassion, visit with Pinky Klouda, the husband of his employee at SWBTS, C.B.?

If he didn’t, that is sad.
It might have made a difference in that which ‘went terribly wrong’ in those days.
‘

0
SSBN
SSBN
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

Just a page from my pesonal experience. I was being destroyed a couple of years ago for standing up to a liberal DOM. He made my life a living hell.

Dr. Patterson heard about it from a friend and called to encourage me and offer any help I needed — he did not even know me.

He is an extremely gracious, good-hearted Christian man.

It is one thing to disagree with his conservative values, it is something else to attack his character.

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  stephen fox

Steve,

I have to go to Hoover for a while. Catch you later. If you talk to Killian today, tell him I said hello.

0
volfan007
volfan007
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

Christiane,

Did YOU ever visit Pinky Klouda with compassion? Did you even know who they were before Wade started screaming and hollering about it? Did you? Do you even really know anything about what went on in that whole scenario? Really? I doubt it.

David

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

L’s,

Did you actually write this?

“Did he ever, in his great compassion, visit with Pinky Klouda, the husband of his employee at SWBTS, C.B.?

If he didn’t, that is sad.
It might have made a difference in that which β€˜went terribly wrong’ in those days.”

Here is my answer. I don’t know. he does not communicate those kind of things to me anymore. But I do know he visited a lot of other people who were probably in far worse condition. That is what I know.

Now, let’s talk about something else. Let’s talk about your hypocrisy. First, your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Let’s illustrate it, shall we?

Once before you asked a question similar to this one you just asked about the Klouda’s. I hit you pretty hard if you remember and rightly so.

It was similar to the following:

You asked about the welfare of the Kloudas and made a sick comment about how we all (conservative Christians) hurt them. On that I asked you how much money you sent the Kloudas through Wade’s church to help them out. The answer was $0.00.

I then asked another person the same question. The answer was $0.00.

I then told you to check in with Bob Cleveland to verify if I had sent financial help along with some other guys. Did you ever check that out? If I remember correctly, you and the other person became a little silent on that subject then.

Like I said before L’s. I will say again. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. And you hatred for conservative, biblical Christianity continues to smell up the room.

0
Louis
Louis
10 years ago
Reply to  John Fariss

John:

Love the history. What a fascinating period.

We should all be very grateful that slavery ended. It would have been better had the South given it up voluntarily.

Our country still suffers greatly as a result of our embrace of slavery.

0
Ron West
Ron West
10 years ago

Brandon Smith,

Sorry to get off track on you Glenn Beck post. I will say that I think it is strange that a Christian University that affirms the Lordship of Jesus Christ would invite a Mormon and a political commentator of questionable ethics to speak at their university graduation. Shouldn’t that honor be reserved for those who would inspire the students to greater Christian service?

I have no problem with Patterson speaking since he was invited and not responsible for Glenn Beck being there. I do hope he did gave a sound Christian testimony. I wonder if it had any influence on Beck’s possible salvation?

Brandon, you said the following, β€œTo be honest, I think Hefley was pretty fair. Though I’m sure you or any liberal/moderate will never agree with that.” Hefley is certainly no Roger Moran but I do believe he strained a little to try and justify some of the actions of the CR and to make those who oppose it look bad. Besides he grew up in Arkansas not far from where I grew up so he can’t be all bad. Are you calling me a liberal/moderate? If so you need to repent and ask for forgiveness now! I am a theological conservative and support inerrancy. It is because of my belief that the Bible is true that I cannot support the CR. I find too many contradictions between the clear Bible teachings and actions by CR leaders.

0
Louis
Louis
10 years ago
Reply to  Ron West

Ron:

How have you been?

I have always believed that you were a biblical conservative. But I also thought that you were a moderate during the CR. Did you support the conservative during the CR and have a change of heart later?

Take care.

0
Jim Champion
Jim Champion
10 years ago

Who were they, I hear stories but no names and I am don’t believe in very many stories.

0
Brandon Smith
Brandon Smith
10 years ago

Ron,

I never said that a conservative wouldn’t agree, I said no liberal/moderate would. Stretching my comment a bit, brother.

0
Ron West
Ron West
10 years ago

CB, None of my friends were liberals. If I used the language you used against me, I would say it was arrogant of you to say that. But I will not do that. I will just say you are mistaken. The presidents I served under, Cauthon, Parks and Rankin were not liberal nor were their VPs. In fact they were some of the finest examples of Christians and theologically sound believers I have known. Among the thousands of people who have served with the FMB/IMB in the last 35 years you might find a few you would consider liberal depending on your definition of liberal but they were insignificant in numbers and influence. I repeat, not all entities were influenced by liberals or had liberal leadership. If you want to say the Alabama State Convention was liberal in those days I won’t argue with you since you were there. I was at the IMB and know it was not liberal. In fact no part of the SBC I was associated with has experienced a conservative resurgence since they were all as conservative, if not more so, before the CR than they are now. That would include the Arkansas Baptist State Convention, SWBTS and the IMB. I will concede the term β€œowe” and withdraw it if it bothers you. Maybe β€œtheir close political and friendship connections” would be a better way to describe why he was obligated to attend. CB, I was also β€œthere all the way through” just as much as you. Just in different locations. The things I saw against the CR were just as real as the things you saw for the CR. Glad to hear you didn’t bend a knee. I didn’t think you had. Not many would have the courage to stand up for truth at SEBTS like you did and you paid a price. Many others paid a similar price at the IMB, SWBTS and other places. Paige Patterson never offered me a job so I didn’t get to watch from the inside of the CR but I did get to watch from the vantage point of those receiving the brunt of CR attacks. I passed through Birmingham back in November and wanted to call you and eat some of the BBQ you brag about. Unfortunately my wife and I were committed to eating with her sister and brother-in-law and then had to leave immediately… Read more »

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago
Reply to  Ron West

If not Dreamland BBQ in Bham, then the Downtown Fish Market.
Johnny Ray’s at one time was a decent alternative to Dreamland; They do have great chocolate pie.
I once saw Bellevue’s Steve Gaines at JRay’s out off 280. Maybe he was going to WMU hqrtrs; more likely his son’s football game.

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  Ron West

Ron,

During the CR I was in VA, MS and KY. I only came home to Alabama one week before Katrina hit the coast. Most of my CR days were spent in VA. Think about that just for a moment–the BGAV. Remember? The most liberal state convention in SBC history.

Ron, I do not regret having known Paige Patterson. I was his next door neighbor for eight years. I knew him as an honorable man. He was good to me. He was good to my family. In all honesty Ron, I declare to you that I will probably never understand or know exactly what happened in late ’03 and early ’04. All I know is that something went terribly wrong. Maybe, it is God’s plan for me to never know what really happened. That is water under the bridge now. What I do know is that God has blessed me greatly here in Alabama far more than I deserve and surely beyond my greatest expectations.

In addition Ron, I hold no ill will toward anyone involved in the SEBTS thing any longer. Its over. I also wish I had not gotten into some of the stuff I got into in ’06. That was sin on my part. And I regret tearfully that I got Ben Cole involved. I was wrong. What was done to the Pattersons between ’06-’08 was wrong and I most sorrowfully regret my part in it. If I could rewrite my part in all of that I would.

But Ron, the CR was right. Yes, I admit we made mistakes and there was some sinful conduct. But the CR was right. I don’t know who your friends were at the FMB Ron. And I know that not everyone there was a liberal. But there were too many liberals there, both in Richmond and in the field.

That is all I can say Ron. I can only share my heart with you about what I know. Ron it is my goal to finish well for Jesus. That is all that matters anymore. It should have been the only thing that ever mattered. But like I said, that is water under the bridge.

Ron, if you ever get by this way, lunch is on me.

0
Brandon Smith
Author
Brandon Smith
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

CB,

Comment of the decade.

0
Ron West
Ron West
10 years ago

Brandon since you said “you or any liberal/moderate” I guess some might think you were lumping me in with the liberal/moderates. I am glad to know that was not your intent. I do think you were not clear there.

0
Benji Ramsaur
Benji Ramsaur
10 years ago

I’m wondering if “both sides” might be able to agree with BDW’s assessment:

All neo-orthodox language was removed when the BFM was updated. Jesus as criterion is gone. With the 1963 version, the Bible was the β€œrecord of God’s revelation.” Now the Bible has simply become β€œGod’s revelation.” Some like Joe say that moderates used a loophole. There was no loophole. The BFM said what it said…

Words have meaning. And any person who is familiar with the differences between neoorthodoxy and conservative evangelicalism/fundamentalism would readily recognize that the Bible as a β€œrecord of revelation” is distinctly different the Bible as β€œrevelation.” Granted back then the document did not hold some creedal quality. Nonetheless, neoorthodoxy was popular in the 60s and well into the 80s. Barth, Niebuhr, etc.

One of the things that is good, I think, about what BDW says is that he and I would differ in theology and yet I think he is right in what he says. Perhaps the one place where I am not convinced of his assessment might be that I could see those who put together the 1963 BF&M language as not “intending” a neoorthodox meaning by the language that they used. However, I do not want to get hung up on that.

It seems to me that if both sides could basically agree with BDW, then that would cut down on much of the back and forth that goes on.

I think there was a strong disagreement between those who believed in a neoorthodox view of Scripture and those who believed in a traditional view of Scripture. And the disagreement was strong enough that there resulted a major war in the convention.

Is this too much for both sides to agree upon?

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago
Reply to  Benji Ramsaur

I applaud Benji trying to find some common ground.
Honestly I think Benji and others need to broaden their perspective when they approach this civil conversation with good look at Will’s American Christianities, Rob James Unfettered Word–UWord sets up nicely the history of BFM statements and how 2000 upped the ante considerably towards creedalism; and Helen Lee Turner’s Baptists Observed.
I am glad Benji and BDW are shedding some light and I am finding Ron West contributions more fascinating with every post.

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago
Reply to  Benji Ramsaur

On 2nd thought I’m not sure how much the following thoughts of the President of the Baptist Seminary at Richmond inflect this discussion but maybe BDW can help us work through it.
See the related link sidebarred in this article about Seminary in Crisis. To some extent for a good while, Boyce worked as a Safetly valve at Southern for the nuances of 63 BFM and the 2000 version.
But Pressler was bent on an explosion and he pretty much got it with half of one percent of a vote in San Antonio he was able to inveighle into a mandate:

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=16193

0
Benji Ramsaur
Benji Ramsaur
10 years ago

Stephen,

I actually do not think I disagree when you said the “2000 upped the ante considerably towards creedalism”.

However, I think my disagreement [along with others] with the neoorthodox view of Scripture is so “strong” that we are not interested in “working alongside of” those who want to promote that view on the national level.

I believe the neoorthodox view of Scripture undermines the foundation [i.e. the Bible] for how we know what we know about doctrine and practice. Therefore, the disagreement is too “foundational” in that sense for me to want that view espoused on the national level.

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  Benji Ramsaur

Bebji,

Upon reading your comment #111, it is my opinion that you could have lead the CR as well as anyone else. You have capsulized the “battle cry” of the CR in that statement. If people would catch on to what you have said, they would understand the motivation of the majority of conservative Southern Baptists “back in the day.”

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

I think there is a sense in which the President of BTSR roughly agrees with you, but I wouldn’t want to get lost in the semantic differential.
Even if that turns out to be the case, that doesn’t justify the modus operandi of what I call the Takeover. Ron West is closer to proper sentiment in that aspect of this discussion.
Nor does it–best words aren’t coming for me off the cuff here–get takeover apologists off the hook. They still need to read Morgan, Helen Lee, Noll, Unfetterred Word and Wills on the matter.
Lot was going on in addition to semantic comfort or lack of with higher criticism and post modernism.
Remember, Stanley Hauerwas rode to his HS commencement just outside Dallas with Bailey Smith.
Check it out.

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  stephen fox

Steve,

Hauerwas is another classic liberal. Ands it would not matter if he and Bailey Smith had ridden to the moon together. It changes nothing of his liberal theology.

0
Christiane
Christiane
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

C.B., what is it specifically about the writings of Hauerwas that you objected to?

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

L’s,

With what of his writing do you agree?

0
Tom Parker
Tom Parker
10 years ago

Many will claim the CR saved the SBC and many will say the damage done to Christian brothers and sisters in the name of the CR was very unChrist like. The debate will never end, neither will all the name calling on both sides. IMO the CR tactics ripped the heart out of the SBC and left a permanent stain on a once Great denomination.

These CR tactics have to be traced back to the two PP’s but those that strongly support the CR will rarely admit to this.

0
Tom Parker
Tom Parker
10 years ago

Stephen:

Sadly semantics was a great big part of the TAKEOVER.

0
SSBN
SSBN
10 years ago
Reply to  Tom Parker

QUOTE TAKEOVER END QUOTE

Don’t you mean: TAKEBACK?

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago

Tom Parker,

You were not on either side of the isle during the CR. You are a Johnny-come-lately. Guys like Ron, Steve, and Jim were involved. Therefore, they do have some gripes because they did loose some things. I have respect for those guys. They were in the fray. You just stand on the side of the hill and throw rocks like Ernest T. Bass on Andy Griffith.

Let me go farther out on a limb here and say, you are actually incorrect about being able to “trace back” the CR to the two personalities you berate here. It did not begin with them. It probably began when pastors of Southern Baptist churches began to wonder what was happening to their sons and daughter when they came home for Christmas from Southern Baptist seminaries, colleges, universities, youth and children’s camps and especially when their children began to write home from the mission fields, both at home and abroad.

Those pastors, Sunday School teachers, deacons, etc, etc heard “strange fire” from their children and began to investigate. Thus the CR was born. The leaders you mention were willing to lead. Somebody had to do it. In truth, they were only two of many. But they could have lead nothing had there not been a heart felt need for change among grass root Southern Baptists. The CR was a grass roots movement. But of course, guys like you Tom Parker will never believe that. You have to have a Boogie Man to blame things on. Well, there was no Boogie Man. There was just a whole bunch of Southern Baptists who were tired of liberalism in their house and got brooms and swept it clean. Well, almost clean.

0
Brandon Smith
Author
Brandon Smith
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

CB,

Great perspective, brother. Very good points.

0
volfan007
volfan007
10 years ago
Reply to  Brandon Smith

CB nailed with his comment above. Patterson and Pressler may have gotten the ball rolling, but it was already ready to explode in small churches all over this country as they read the SS literature, and heard of the teachings in the seminaries, etc. Pastors and laymen in the churches of the SBC were already fired up and ready to get these liberals out…before Patterson and Pressler ever led the charge. And, that’s what they did…along with Adrian Rogers and others….they just led the charge.

David

0
Benji Ramsaur
Benji Ramsaur
10 years ago

Tom and Stephen,

If an erroneous medical doctor needs to be removed because of the temporal harm done to the body, then how much more does an erroneous professor need to be removed because of the eternal harm done to the body and soul?

I think this is where CB and others were coming from. I’m sure you disagree, but I think this disagreement is a symptom of the root disagreement you have with them over the Bible.

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago
Reply to  Benji Ramsaur

On the other hand my hero Will Campbell called the SBC Takeover artists, leaders: “Soul Molesters”.
That is strong language but Campbell was the only white minister I know on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel the night Martin King was assassinated.
Look at Will’s American Christianities to get some framework,some perspective on that.
Every matter of virtue among SBC White folk was not tied to race in the 50’s and 60’s; but don’t look back for inerrantists in those days to have any prophetic notion from the Literal reading of the Bible to have any pricks of their conscience.
That is where Wills does a grand job of explanation; and Noll if you read him with an open mind under the leadership of the Holy Spirit.
So where were all the great literal Criswellites during the biggest sin of America in the 20th Century? Out to lunch.
Read the Genaology of Dissent; that is where theBaptist heroes were on that matter.
Richard Land and Morris Chapman were Johnny Come Latelies.
So the proof is in the pudding.
I give you my grandfather with an 8th grade education,pretty much a Bible Literalists, lived a more pious and in most respects virtuous life than I have lived. But that is not the fault of higher critical looks at the Bible or the Enlightenment.
Put things in perspective over time. I don’t know you but I gather you are in your early 30’s. I hope you keep looking at these matters and keep Brandon in the conversation as you go along and check in with Ben Cole in five years or so to see what he is thinking.

0
stephen fox
stephen fox
10 years ago
Reply to  stephen fox

Here is a link for Joe Blackmon and Volfan cause I know they love em:

http://streaksblog.blogspot.com/2005/12/bootlegger-points-out-grownup.html

0
Benji Ramsaur
Benji Ramsaur
10 years ago
Reply to  stephen fox

Stephen,

You talk about “the biggest sin of America in the 20th Century?”

According to what standard?

If you say that it is according to some standard other than the Bible, then upon what basis is this nonBible standard authoritative?

If you say that it is according to the standard of the Bible, then it seems like you come out saying something like this:

Since inerrantists did not follow the Bible in the past, then the Bible is not inerrant

Am I wrong?

0
Tom Parker
Tom Parker
10 years ago

Benji:

Please tell me you did not just question my view of the Bible? If you did and only you know if you did, how CR tactical of you.

Where did I say to keep those professors that would do eternal harm to the body and soul?

0
Joe Blackmon
Joe Blackmon
10 years ago
Reply to  Tom Parker

Well, would you be amiable to keeping a professor who did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, the bodily resurrection of Christ, or the exlusivity of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone?

Serious question.

0
Jim Champion
Jim Champion
10 years ago
Reply to  Joe Blackmon

As the great Norm hitzges says (that reference is for Brandon) no no never no never no no. That is assuming Brandon tunes in the ticket from time to time

0
Brandon Smith
Author
Brandon Smith
10 years ago
Reply to  Jim Champion

Jim,

Haha…. Norm’s voice keeps me away from the Ticket.

0
Jim Champion
Jim Champion
10 years ago
Reply to  Brandon Smith

Baby arm

0
Tom Parker
Tom Parker
10 years ago

Wow!! The arguement begins. The one that no one wins. I know several here just think I’m plain wrong in my views and life is just too short to argue with you. Please have a nice day!

0
Joe Blackmon
Joe Blackmon
10 years ago
Reply to  Tom Parker

Wow!! The arguement begins. The one that no one wins. I know several here just think I’m plain wrong in my views and life is just too short to argue with you. Please have a nice day!

Hard to tell who you’re replying to, but do you mean you’re avoiding this question?

Well, would you be amiable to keeping a professor who did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, the bodily resurrection of Christ, or the exlusivity of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone?

Serious question.

0
Benji Ramsaur
Benji Ramsaur
10 years ago

Tom,

I think there are at least two different categories of folks who make up those who disagree with the CR folks.

1. Those who believe the neoorthodox view of Scripture and thus support professors teaching that view.

2. Those who believe the traditional view of Scripture, but want to at least “tolerate” professors teaching a neoorthodox view.

Either way, what both views share in common is allowing neoorthodox professors to promote their view.

I think CB and others saw that a consequence of allowing this would be the eternal harm done to the body and the soul of individuals because of what they believe concerning the Bible which is this:

The traditional view of the Bible is right and so important that to tolerate any other view being taught would result in the dishonoring of God and the eternal harm of others.

Unless you don’t believe that the neoorthodox view of the Bible was being taught, then I do not believe that you fully believe in what is in italics above.

0
Joe Blackmon
Joe Blackmon
10 years ago
Reply to  Benji Ramsaur

2. Those who believe the traditional view of Scripture, but want to at least β€œtolerate” professors teaching a neoorthodox view.

In many ways, I think those folks are even worse than the liberals because they are willing to sacrifice their fidelity to scripture because they believe diversity is more important.

Talk about someone who doesn’t have their priorities straight.

0
Louis
Louis
10 years ago
Reply to  Benji Ramsaur

Benji:

Great summary.

Of course, another sub issue is that it is a human tendency to look away from problems that are hard.

Cecil Sherman would tell you, point blank, that he would permit a professor to teach in an SBC seminary who would claim that “scripture” led him not to believe in the Virgin Birth. (That is an actual statement from Cecil Sherman, RIP).

Many folks who would permit neoorthodox teaching will spend hours, days, weeks and months denying that there ever was or is such a thing in SBC life.

It makes discussion very hard when human nature engages in that kind of denial.

0
Brandon Smith
Brandon Smith
10 years ago

CB,

Sorry, should’ve clarified. It’s two-fold. Those crazy conservatives who think Dilday is out of SWBTS because he is a raging liberal who hates the Bible and the crazy liberals who think that the CR was out to get him.

I think the truth and objective view, in my opinion, is that he was outspoken against the CR and I understand why they had him removed due to their goals and his opposition was major considering who he was, though I think he was hosed by coming to work one morning with the doors locked.

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  Brandon Smith

Well said.

Back up in this thread somewhere, I think I said basically the same thing.

0
Joe Blackmon
Joe Blackmon
10 years ago
Reply to  Brandon Smith

I think he was hosed by coming to work one morning with the doors locked.

See, here’s my thing:
Were there liberal professors at SWBTS under Dilday’s presidency (folks who denied the miracles of Christ, the divinity of Christ, salvation exclusively through the gospel of Jesus Christ, etc)? Yes. Yes there were.

Did Dilday know what they believed? He most certainly did.

What did he do about it? He wasn’t willing to fire them and he wasn’t willing to suport those who were looking run the vermin out. In fact, he opposed them. So what he did was offer liberals sanctuary in my book.

Therefore, him showing up to work to find his door locked was WAY better than he deserved as far as I’m concerned. He had no right or business to support or be willing to work with liberals. When he did, he painted the proverbial target on his own back.

0
Brandon Smith
Author
Brandon Smith
10 years ago
Reply to  Joe Blackmon

Joe,

You and I agree on most things, but I don’t agree with your hateful crucifixion of liberals… can’t go there with you. Dilday brought it upon himself by railing against the CR, but that doesn’t make the actions right. He was voted by his board and reaffirmed by them as a great leader like 48 hours before being locked out. I do agree that he should’ve gone on to Baylor, which is where he went but I don’t think he “deserved” anything.

0
Jim Champion
Jim Champion
10 years ago
Reply to  Joe Blackmon

The fact is there were NOT liberals as you describe at swbts No one has ever given a name if a swbts proff who believed or taught liberal theology. Hemphil did not fire any proffs for being liberal nor did Patterson upon his arrival

southern, sebts, Midwestern yes, Dilday gives an example in his book of one of his proffs that moved to the dark side – and he fired him

0
Jim Champion
Jim Champion
10 years ago
Reply to  Jim Champion

One last thing, Brandon I had to laugh at your lament that Dilday went to Baylor. He was still a relatively young man who as you point out was wrongfully terminated. Where was he supposed to go, it’s not like he was going to be hired by another SBC institution

0
SSBN
SSBN
10 years ago
Reply to  Jim Champion

Jim, I missed that court decision saying Dilday was wrongfully terminated. Could you please give me the reference.

I remember this coming up from moderate profs while a student in the Dilday incident era, but I don’t remember any court siding with Dilday.

Is it possible that this is just moderate hyperbole and propaganda?

0
Jim Champion
Jim Champion
10 years ago
Reply to  Jim Champion

Given a great job review one day, lock out of his office the next. I think that qualifies as wrongful termination

0
Brandon Smith
Brandon Smith
10 years ago

Fox,

You just use the “:”!”;” for eyes and the “)” for the mouth and it automatically does it haha… It’s not a secret for conservatives or administrators! Geez, bro. Matt does an excellent job of keeping everyone on a level playing field here, don’t jump into some weird conspiracies.

My emoticons aren’t backhands but trying to keep the mood light, nothing more.

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  Brandon Smith

πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚

πŸ™ πŸ˜‰ “!” :-/

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

Brandon,

As you can see from the comment above, it is time.
Release the KRAKEN!!

0
Brandon Smith
Brandon Smith
10 years ago

Jim,

Glad you could get a laugh there big guy πŸ˜‰

And I guess our definitions of liberal are different. But I digress.

Actually, I’m pretty sure on this post or one recently I said that Dilday had no choice, but my point is that theologically he fit better there.

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago

The subject of this post was Paige Patterson and his speaking at LU on the same occasion as did Glenn Beck.

As is the nature of things, if the name of Paige Patterson is mentioned, it draws much attention and comment, some good, some bad, and some just plain crazy and then some actually correct.

Therefore, it was all but impossible to keep the scope of this thread aligned to center mass. It is like trying to shoot the wind.

I would like to address the subject of this post just for a moment. (I know I have added to the “drift” greatly.)
I for one am glad Paige Patterson spoke at LU on the same occasion as did Beck. If it did nothing else, it proved that after all these years, events, changes, and travels that Paige Patterson still knows the primary purpose of his existence is. He is a man called to tell the Good Story of Jesus Christ……and he did so. End of Story.

0
Brandon Smith
Brandon Smith
10 years ago

Jim,

Glad you could get a laugh, but not sure why you’re laughing. You’re probably being too emotional and not reading my statement.

I’ve said before and I think on this comment section, that I think Dilday needed to go to Baylor because it was more fitting for him and he eventually did after leaving SWBTS. I don’t think I ever said that he could have stayed in the SBC seminaries. And, again, your barometer may be different than mine on liberalism. I actually think, and I’ve said this also, that he is more moderate than the crazy conservatives who paint him poorly.

0
Brandon Smith
Brandon Smith
10 years ago

Jim,

Sorry, I thought my comment didn’t post. Just combine those two thoughts! Haha

0
Christiane
Christiane
10 years ago

Responding to comment 163:

“cb scott July 30, 2010 at 5:01 pm

L’s,

With what of his writing do you agree?”

I have read, with interest, his writing on the mentally-challenged, as my son has Down Syndrome. It has always been important to me to try to understand the effect of the mentally-challenged on plight of the whole Church; as well as the effect of the Church on the plight of the mentally-challenged. I don’t expect for that comment to be easily understood, but to me, it makes great sense.

My son is care for in a Christian facility in Wyckoff NJ, which is run under the auspices of the Dutch Reformed Church. Those people are ‘saints’ in the way that they have responded to the needs of those God has placed among us, in order to make us more compassionate.

Hauerwas’ writings came to my attention when he taught at Notre Dame University. Have you read any of his writings to do with the mentally-challenged? Especially as regards Christian ethics, on that subject?

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  Christiane

L’s,

I have a mentally handicapped daughter. She is the light of my day on many occasions. And there are nights when I cry out to Jesus in despair about her future. But there is always joy in the morning when she says, “Pa, I love you” and then she smiles like a little “possum.

Tell me what I need to read that Hauerwas can tell me about just keepin’ on loving Carrie with all my heart knowing God created her and put her into my life to teach us both to love jesus and the biblical gospel more?

Here are the Christian ethics in relation to the mentally-handicapped: Know God created them in His image, just like any other person. Love them as you would love yourself. Protect them from evil people. Give them every possible opportunity you can. Pray for them. Pray for them. Pray for them. Did I mention, love them as you would love yourself?

Well L’s I guess that about covers it for Christian ethics relating to the mentally handicapped. So why do I need a flaming liberal like Hauerwas to tell me anything about ethics and the handicapped?

See L’s I am not mad at God about it. Are you?

0
Christiane
Christiane
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

C.B., there is no one who can teach you more about how to love your little one than Our Lord can. Go to meet with Him in prayer, and go to meet with Him in the Gospels. Ask Our Lord to help guide you to make plans for Carrie’s future. He will give you the strength and the wisdom to find Christian people who care for the mentally-challenged.

Keep the practice of evening prayer hour, and He will never leave you alone again at night in despair over Carrie’s future. You will see.

Hauerwas is an ethicist. His writings are for professionals and theologians, not geared for moms and dads, like ourselves.
Stay in the Lord’s peace, C.B. All will be well. God bless you and your little Carrie. I will keep her close in my prayers from now on, now that I know your need.
Love, L’s

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  Christiane

L’s,

I guess it is time for me to be arrogant again. I am a dad, that is true. I am also a “professional theologian” if there is such a thing. And here is where the arrogance will really kick in. The professional theology of Hauwewas cannot carry cb’s professional theology’s water. That’s no brag, just fact.

And God does help me L’s. I am His child. He hears and answers my prayers. You on the other hand, are not HIs child.

But He is longsuffering with you even though He does not hear your prayers as He does for His children. He is longsuffering with you because it is not His will that you perish, but that you repent and believe the biblical gospel.

You did not answer my question L’s. I said I am not mad at God over my daughter. Are you mad at Him because of your son? Is that why you hate conservative, Bible believing Christians so much?

0
Christiane
Christiane
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

No, C.B., I’m not mad at God.

I think you are tired and need to go rest now.

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  Christiane

BTW L’s,

Carrie’s future is good. She is in the hands of God and His good grace.

Your future, on the other hand is not so good. You see, you stand condemned to hell already. The wrath of God is awaiting you on the Day of Judgement.
But hopefully you will repent of your sinful blasphemous life before then and believe the gospel and be gloriously saved. Then you can be with me, Carrie and your son eternally with Jesus. Otherwise, at your death, you will neither see nor hear from any of us again.

Now that is theology that Hauerwas will not give you L’s. But if he does not repent and believe the biblical gospel he will accompany you in the Day of Judgement. But you guys won’t like each other much. Nobody will like anybody in hell.

L’s now you go ahead and get mad and stomp and cuss. But I am telling you the truth. You need to repent and be saved before it is too late. Your time is running out.

0
Christiane
Christiane
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

C.B., if I were there, I wouldn’t ‘get mad, stomp, and cuss’.
I would probably give you a hug, and order you to go and rest now. I think you are weary and need to rest.

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

No L’s,

You would not give me a “hug.” I don’t allow that. I intend to finish well with no rumor or slander attached to my moral character. If you want to hug somebody, it needs to be your own husband.

0
Christiane
Christiane
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

I just saw your Comment 229, as regards the ‘hug’ remark.

When you really ‘get going’, I think of you as having an alter-ego: a ‘dancing bear in a pink tutu’ who is getting tired
and that thought brings out the ‘mom’ in me.

Do you need a hug? No way.

But that poor bear sure does. πŸ™‚

0
Brandon Smith
Brandon Smith
10 years ago

CB,

I totally agree. And I definitely helped lead the discussion astray as much as I try to keep it centered. The ol’ pride has a way of doing that!

0
volfan007
volfan007
10 years ago

What was so bad about people like Dilday and other “moderates” was that they were basically conservative in theology, but they thought it was okay for liberals to be in places of leadership in the SBC. That was the bad thing about a lot of these “moderates” who were constantly trying to walk the fence.

The liberals in the SBC had to go. There were liberals in the IMB, NAMB, all 6 Southern Baptist Seminaries, the SS board, CLC, etc. They had to be weeded out. Moderates did not have the heart for it. They didnt even see the need for it. They also fought against throwing them out…electing instead to be a part of the Good ole Boy system. I also saw this at work in the TN Bapt. Convention. Good ole Boys slapping each other on the back, and putting their buddies into places of authority and power…usually with very good pay. And, it didnt matter a lick if they were theologically in error, or not.

David

0
Tom Parker
Tom Parker
10 years ago

Christiane:

I’m sure you notice the compassionate response from 007. How typical of him.

0
volfan007
volfan007
10 years ago
Reply to  Tom Parker

lol

0
SSBN
SSBN
10 years ago

QUOTE they were basically conservative in theology END QUOTE

David, I’m not sure that statement tells the whole story. At first, Dilday and his crowd violently opposed the label “moderate,” but within a short while, they embraced the term — identifying themselves — as moderate. As I’ve said before, I was a student in the late 90’s at SWBTS. Dilday later embraced the moderate title.

I don’t think it is correct to call him a “conservative theologically” when his ideas are not always conservative, and he himself uses the title moderate.

I do agree that Dilday was definitely, “liberal-friendly.” Several of my professors openly made fun of conservatives in the classroom — I being one of them. To assert anything else simply is not accurate. I was in the middle of it.

PS — Again, I’m not judging anybody for claiming to be a moderate. But, we should accept what people say of themselves as having validity.

0
volfan007
volfan007
10 years ago
Reply to  SSBN

SSBN,

I agree with you. I guess I know of some people that are moderates, who are basically conservative in their theology. To me, a true moderate is basically conservative, who sees nothing wrong with liberals being in the SBC. I know some like this. But, you’re right that many of the so called “moderates” usually had many liberal leanings, and even some liberal beliefs about them.

David

0
Jim Champion
Jim Champion
10 years ago
Reply to  SSBN

And which one of those ” liberal” proffs were fired by Hemphill or Patterson? None? Why is that? How about because there were not any.

SSBN, were you one of the ones secretly recording lectures and giving them to your leaders, there was a good bit of that happening back in the day as well as some creative editing.

Doesn’t it stand to reason that with all the talk of liberalism Ken and Paige could have found at least one?

Now they may not have walked lockstep

0
Tom Parker
Tom Parker
10 years ago

007:

So you are laughing outloud that Dr. Klouda and her family where treated without little to no compassion by PP?

BTW you are an excellent representative of what the CR does to someone who buys it hook, line, and sinker.

Keep up your good work and the bigger boys may eventually promote you to a higher position in the SBC.

0
volfan007
volfan007
10 years ago
Reply to  Tom Parker

Tom,

The first “lol” was about your idiotic statement in #212. This “lol” is for the one you just made in #216. LOL

Also, Tom, maybe you’d be interested in knowing that I dont want to be in any leadership position in the SBC! I like being a Pastor. I’m a Pastor of a small Church. I really cant see myself being anything else.

Also, Tom, I bought the CR thing hook, line, and sinker; because I saw things myself, personally; and I heard things from those people, who saw and heard things first hand. The Boogie Man was real, Tom, and his name was Liberal/Moderate. He existed, and he was trying to destroy the faith of the SBC; tring to throw doubt on the Word of God; and was seeking to destroy the Gospel message. Thank God the Boogie Man was grabbed by the throat and strangled…

David

0
volfan007
volfan007
10 years ago
Reply to  volfan007

One more thing, Tom, about your insinuation that I was in this for the power I could get….since the CR days, I’ve been the Pastor of small churches in W. TN and N. MS. Where’s the power I got from my helping the CR? lol.

Boy, I really got promoted up the ranks…didnt I? LOL

David

0
cb scott
cb scott
10 years ago
Reply to  volfan007

Well Vol,

You do get those free tickets to SEC games. πŸ™‚

0
volfan007
volfan007
10 years ago
Reply to  cb scott

CB,

Shhhhhhh…I dont want Tom and Fox to hear about that. If they do, Fox will find 100 and 1 links to show us.

David πŸ™‚