Scott Gordon is the pastor of Claycomo Baptist Church in Kansas City, MO. He has previously blogged here at SBC Voices, SBC Today, and his personal blog, SolaGratia! Currently, you’ll most often find him in the comments sections around here or other blogs or on Twitter (@SAGordon).
I have submitted the resolution which follows to the Resolutions Committee for the 2012 SBC Annual Meeting in the hope that they would see fit to recommend it to the messengers from our churches in attendance in New Orleans. I have seen and highly respect the effort Chris Roberts has put into the resolution he has submitted for consideration this year as well and wholeheartedly support his resolution. I think we are both heading in the same direction, though I am choosing to be more specific in focusing a resolution on the current kerfuffle (do I get bonus points for keeping that word alive?) regarding the doctrines relating to soteriology across certain sectors of our convention.
Allow me the privilege of clarification on a few points: (1) I identify as a 5.0 point (though some may quibble with me regarding my view on how one defines the way in which the atonement must necessarily be limited) Calvinist; (2) Though I have friends who are connected with the Founders group, I’ve never been a part of that movement; (3) I had been a part of the Baptist Identity group, and still have friends connected therewith, but this very issue has caused me to pretty much remove myself from that arena; (4) I am not seeking an end-all-discussion-on-this-topic result. I am hoping for a more congenial approach toward one another and a cessation of the crusade to remove Calvinists from the privilege of serving the churches of our convention through leadership in our various entities; (5)…I need a fifth point in order to make this ‘complete’…I don’t have one in this case, so I guess I must move on. 🙂
So, please peruse this resolution. Is it necessary? Is it adequate to our time? I am looking forward to this discussion.
SolaGratia!
ON THE THEOLOGY OF SALVATION IN THE SBC
WHEREAS, a climate of antagonism has arisen within our convention regarding the theology of salvation, specifically as it pertains to Calvinism and non-Calvinism; and
WHEREAS, the Baptist Faith and Message has been approved by our convention of churches as our confession of faith regarding our commonly held convictions regarding biblical revelation; and
WHEREAS, the Baptist Faith and Message speaks specifically to the doctrine of man in Article III stating that while man is created in God’s image and as male and female, he has chosen rebellion against God, the consequence thereof being the introduction of sin into the very nature of all mankind thus incurring the just condemnation of God; and
WHEREAS, the Baptist Faith and Message speaks specifically to the doctrine of salvation in Article IV stating the need for everyone to confess his own sin, repent thereof, and submit his life to Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord; and
WHEREAS, the Baptist Faith and Message speaks specifically to the doctrine of election in Article V stating that salvation is solely the work of a sovereign God and is consistent with the responsibility of man; and
WHEREAS, the Baptist Faith and Message speaks specifically to the doctrines of evangelism and missions in Article XI stating that all Christians share the responsibility of making disciples of all nations by proclaiming the Gospel and teaching faithfulness to all our Lord’s commands; and
WHEREAS, Southern Baptists have benefited throughout our history from the two identifiable and significant influences relating to the doctrine of salvation, these being Calvinist and non-Calvinist; therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the messengers of the churches present at the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention gathered in New Orleans, Louisiana, June 19-20, 2012, do without reservation affirm as our confession of faith the Baptist Faith and Message; and be it further
RESOLVED, that we encourage thoughtful study of God’s Word on everyone’s part for the discernment of the truth and application thereof for all areas of our lives; and be it further
RESOLVED, that we recognize that careful, thoughtful and God-honoring men and women can arrive at various perspectives regarding the doctrine of salvation and related doctrines, including five-point Calvinism as well as non-Calvinist biblicism, within a theologically orthodox framework; and be it finally
RESOLVED, that we who are either Calvinist or non-Calvinist purpose to accept and encourage one another, and to cooperate together in the ongoing work of our Great Commission calling under Jesus Christ, our Savior and Lord.
I like the resolution although I doubt it will be allowed to be voted on. I hope I am wrong.
Tom,
I’m hoping the members of the Redolutions Committee will stop by here and take note of the discussion and be encouraged to recommend this resolution to the messengers in NOLA this summer.
Optimism. Optimism!
Scott,
I appreciate your work here. With only a couple minor word choice quibbles I would wholeheartedly support the resolution.
One suggestion and one question (that is also kind of a suggestion).
In your next to last resolved you say “can arrive at various perspectives regarding the doctrine of salvation and related doctrines”. I would consider being more specific. I say that because some may want to widen “doctrine of salvation” and our ability to differ a little wider than most in the SBC could biblically agree with. Perhaps just say, “doctrine of election” or something of the sort.
My question/suggestion pertains to the first “whereas”. Do you really feel that there is a “climate of antagonism within our convention”? I see it on blogs and I see some rumblings but I’m not convinced that it could be called a climate of antagonism. Just that antagonistic voices can be really loud.
Great thoughts! I really appreciate your work here. Even if it were suggested “as is” I would still vote for it.
I think that one clause will cause it to not pass through committee — too easy to misinterpret.
One thing to note is that the Resolutions committee reserves the right to edit resolutions before presenting them. There are a few places in my own resolution that I’d like them to tighten it up a little, should they choose to present it, and the same could be done with this resolution.
Chris,
I, too, welcome any wording from the committee which would clarify and strengthen this resolution as well.
Mike,
I’m hoping that the wording toward the end of that Resolved—”within a theologically orthodox framework”—covers your concern. If not, please describe for me the scenario about which you are concerned would take place.
I do think there is an attitude of antagonism in certain sectors of our convention. I’ve seen it up close from hyper-Calvinists during my college days (long since gone since this is the 20th anniversary of my OBU graduation this year), as well as on recent blogs by specific non-Calvinists who specifically want 5-point Calvinists removed from leadership of our national entities. Yes, antagonistic & vitriolic people unfortunatrly exist within our ranks when it comes to this issue.
Scott,
That sentence would cover it, I believe. Honestly, I didn’t read it correctly.
I agree that they exist (on both sides) and are loud (on both sides). I’m just not sure I’d call it a “climate of antagonism”. But, regardless, I still would happily support the resolution.
The Resolution is very well worded and seems to me it would or should be agreeable. After all, the Resolution falls in line with the BF&M 2000.
I’m not in any arena that Scott Gordon isn’t also in.
(Sporting arenas excepted)
Scott is a Yankees fan. He should be honored for that.
Aren’t the Yankees also known as “The Evil Empire”? I am just sayin…….
Only to the unbelieving…
Dave,
It’s a Yankee’s world—when it comes to baseball, that is.
Yankees Win! Thaaaaaa Yankees Win!!!!!
wait a minute, didn’t the Yankees just split 4 games in Kansas City against the lowly Royals? I’m confused – is that what winning baseball is supposed to look like? 😉
We are in mourning over Mariano.
Micah,
We’ll check back around Sept-Oct and see how the seasons have gone. 😀
All seriousness aside, Micah, what are your thoughts rgardingbthe resolution?
Wow. So much for my proofreading there—regarding the—yikes.
Scott, I think it’s well done and has my enthusiastic support.
Arenas? I haven’t even been near a sporting arena lately. =)
Quinn,
Are you sure? I hear that living in the “SEC” guarantees always being near an arena of some kind.
But, that aside, what think you regarding this resolution?
Bart,
And, indeed, you are always good company with which to keep.
You should try a few sporting arenas sometime, too. Boone Pickens has his name on a great stadium in Stillwater, OK. Perhaps we could meet there this fall if that Green & Yella team from Waco is gonna be there!
That picture will give me nightmares, but the resolution is nicely worded.
The invasion troops from Planet Rainbow lining up to embark the transport ships to come to Earth.
Adam,
I blame…uh, I mean credit…either DaveMiller or Jared for the picture!
It has to be Dave’s fault. Only a man who owns a neon green suit would use such an image.
Joshua,
Point taken. Dave it must be. 🙂
(smiley added for Dave’s further benefit)
let’s not forget Dave’s skirt that he wears with said suit.
(you’re welcome Dave) 😉
I am on the road and did not add the pic. I’m not going to pass the buck because I don’t want Jared Moore to feel bad.
And I’m working on a resolution against Micah Fries.
I think this will lead to a slippery slope. Are we going to solve all of our doctrinal differences by resolution? For example: what about a revolution on what type of music should be used in church? Or, what about the disputes on which Bible translation is the best.
The Convention is a national body and resolutions should deal with national issues. I have never had a discussion at any pastors meeting in 36 years in which Calvinism has been mentioned.
My fear is we are turning a blogging debate into a denominational crisis.
I will say, I see no big problems with the wording of the resolution. As I’ve seen resolutions come and go, this is of a nature that I don’t think it will make it out of committee.
Frank,
One possible example among many: 2009, Southern Baptist Convention, outgoing Executive Committee chairman Morris Chapman delivers a chairman report in which he specifically singles out Calvinism as a problem in the SBC (setting a precedent for current Executive Committee chairman Frank Page who has also identified Calvinism as a growing problem). When leaders of the SBC use their convention platforms to oppose Calvinism, the issue is much bigger than the blogging world. Additional examples would not be hard to come by.
Frank,
I’ve seen many indicators for this to be worthy of national consideration—Founders Conferences, John 3:16 Conference, Building Bridges Conference and subsequent book on Calvinism, the aforementioned instances Chris listed, Patterson and Mohler at Greensboro—none of which qualify as merely blogging.
I’m curious. What makes you say it I’ll not make it out of committee?
Scott and Chris,
I did not mean to imply that this debate has not come to light from national figures. I guess you both read more into the above incidents than I did–and perhaps rightly so.
My reason for feeling this won’t get to the floor is just that, a feeling. It just seems like the kind of resolutions the SBC has tended to shy away from. I can’t really put my finger on it.
Also, even if it were to get to the floor and pass, I think it is a bit naive to think that it will solve anything. Resolutions are a week part of SBC life and the National Convention has no authority beyong its two-day meeting–unless we put something in our By-laws.
Put, if such a resolution will make somebody feel better, hey, I’m all for it.
Excellent. I wholly agree with your proposed resolutions, Scott. What a better world it is to have these resolutions officially passed and implemented by the SBC.
Jeph’s comment put me in the hot tub time machine back to…
…the movie Roxanne (1987):
“Roxanne Kowalski: Nobody had a coat?
C.D. Bales: I thought you said you didn’t want a coat…
Roxanne Kowalski: Why would I not want a coat?
C.D. Bales: You said you didn’t want a coat!
Roxanne Kowalski: I was being ironic.
C.D. Bales: Oh, ho, ho, irony! Oh, no, no, we don’t get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony’s not really a, a high priority. We haven’t had any irony here since about, uh, ’83, when I was the only practitioner of it. And I stopped because I was tired of being stared at.”
**stares at Jeph**
I would vote yes in a heartbeat.
One sentence made me chuckle:
“including five-point Calvinism as well as non-Calvinist biblicism, ”
Aren’t we all biblicists? 🙂
Where do I sign?
Is not the purpose of resolutions to speak on behalf of the convention in order to express the will of the Body to some outside entity? In other words, a pro-life resolution might speak to Congress, an appreciation resolution to the city of New Orleans, and a non-profanity resolution to the entertainment industry.
Do we use resolutions to speak to ourselves? Or do we not use motions that call for us to take actions instead?
A few years ago I wrote one resolution among thirty or so presented to the Resolutions Committee. It was declined. No reason was ever given. The committee only brought five resolutions forward that year. The whole experience was underwhelming. I doubt I’ll ever draft another.
Rick, what was your resolution about, if you want to share?
It was a resolution opposing socialism during a time when the government was buying out banks, investment companies and entire industries. It was just before the Obamacare initiative to take over health care. I believed then, and believe now, that a free church in a free state is the best way to preserve our religious liberty. Everywhere government has assumed a heavily centralized authority, we find that the loss of a free state results in the loss of a free church. Thus, although containing some elements of political philosophy, the underlying issue was preserving religious liberty.
What bothered me most about the process was that there was no response to it by anyone. I submitted it online in advance as required. Then, I later read the title in the Convention Bulletin and the one word response beneath it: “Declined.”
Good luck, guys, but that’s all I got!
That answers one of my questions – I’ve been curious of resolutions receive any sort of response prior to the convention. I received a letter confirming the committee had received the resolution, but it doesn’t say if I’ll hear their decision prior to the convention.
I, too, received that confirmation letter. Again, the next word I received from them was that one lonely word in the bulletin: “Declined.”
They had not elected to present my resolution. I had not been chosen. I did not feel so much rejected as ignored, although I’m not really sure which is worse. If you get declined too, Chris, maybe we can form a support group for “Declined Southern Baptist Resolution Writers.”
On the other hand, yours may be chosen. If so, you are not invited to the support group.
Sounds like a great occasion for a new blog!
That happened to me with my resolution a few years back. No explanation, just “Declined”
Of course, what I put in my resolution came back in the list of things that everyone should consider in the GCR report, so I was pleased to know that it wasn’t a bad idea, just one that came from the wrong person.
So, you are against socialism? I always had you pegged as a Obama guy….
That’s because we have so much in common. I did live in Hawaii in the late sixties, my mother was white and I love basketball. On top of that, you could probably find a few people (I’m thinking maybe Jared, DR, Joshua and Matt) who suspect I may be the antichrist.
Rick,
I was just reading about you in 2 Thessalonians this morning. Rick “the lawless one” Patrick. 🙂
Resolutions serve a number of purposes. The one that keeps coming to mind for me was directed at SBC entity Lifeway, the resolution brought from the floor urging Lifeway to end sales of the NIV. Passed during this last convention.
Rick,
I hope that this resolution, reaching the floor and affirmed by the messengers, will speak to all of us within he SBC regarding our significant similarities and common mission in light of he Gopel. I also hope it speaks to the greater Evangelical community regarding the identity of Southern Baptists and our Great Commission calling thus opening doors to cooperation and encouraging biblical fidelity among our brothers and sisters in other denominations. The latter would obviously be a form of ‘icing on he cake.’ My primary focus is our convention of churches.
…apparently he ‘t’ on my iPad isn’ working. O:-)
HAY-MAN!
I hope it gets heard, I pray it is heeded…
We really need a Resolution to tell folks to maintain Christlike attitudes and actions?
Bob, you’re not new here so surely you know the unfortunate answer to that.
Sure. But it did need to be asked.
Unfortunately, a resolution will likely have the same effects as my admonitions.
And probably as the “Regeneracy in Church Membership” resolution passed a few years ago.
Bob, Doug, Dave, et al.,
If this resolution can get to the floor and pass, I’m hopeful it would at least cause those inclined to crusade against the others to hesitate. If they were to turn back from such behavior, that’s a great bonus. If we, as a convention are on record with such a resolution, we have a reference point from which to engage these kind of people.
I fully agree. I think it would be helpful for the convention to state clearly that both sides of this eternal debate are within the parameters of the BF&M and have a place among us.
I agree that it would be good and that it is necessary.
I just see it as unfortunate that it is necessary.
Scott,
Let me say that I applaud this resolution and if it came to the floor I would vote for it wholeheartedly. It puts calvinism and non-Calvinism on equal footing. But as you know, many are concerned over the recent aggressive and divisive comments made by some against the non-Calvinists and I wonder if they could vote for this resolution? How could some affirm this resolution when they are on record saying that reformed theology is the only viable option for young guys? Or how some accuse me of using a superstitious prayer when I counsel then lead someone (who is willing) to Jesus through a prayer? Or even use the straw man of semi-pelagian against us who don’t ascribe to the totality of TULIP?
While I know you don’t fall into any of those references, those who do need to understand that they cannot decry peace for two days in New Orleans while making statements that rip into non-Calvinists and create division. Of course I am sure you can also find some pretty divisive statements from the otherwise also.
BTW, you are still BI in my book. Anytime you want to work together to defend the biblical doctrines you and I both cherish, let me know, I’m with you bro.
Robin,
Indeed, I have no problem with people of convictional theology. I believe what I believe is the best way—even the right way. I have no problem decrying decisional regeneration as well as wrestling with how to biblically define limited atonement.
Yes, I see problematic people on either side of this issue. Admittedly we will not stop wrestling with such weighty issues. We must. I’m just adamantly opposed to those attempting to run all Calvinists out of the convention. I’m also opposed to those who think the ‘founders’ with a Reformed bent simply walked on water.
I always look forward to working with you on important matters dear to the heart and consistent with the historic witness of Scripture and our testimony as Southern Baptists.
Scott,
To even mention the Founders is equal to believing they “walked on water” in many circles. That is another story though.
@Rick Patrick:
“I believed then, and believe now, that a free church in a free state is the best way to preserve our religious liberty. Everywhere government has assumed a heavily centralized authority, we find that the loss of a free state results in the loss of a free church. ”
Even if your first point – a free state is the best way to preserve our religious liberty – is true, the fact remains that the church has done just fine, and in fact has boomed and thrived, in places where no religious liberty exists, with a contemporary example being the booming house churches in China, and a better example being the early church. The notion of true religious liberty was never widely implemented in any prominent society before the Bill of Rights. The church did just fine the 1700+ years before then.
“Everywhere government has assumed a heavily centralized authority, we find that the loss of a free state results in the loss of a free church.”
Except that the first Baptist churches were founded in monarchies, the most heavily centralized authority that exists. Free churches currently thrive in plenty of democratic socialist states (i.e. Latin America, Asia and Africa) and in the social democracies that they do not (Australia, Canada, Europe) the reason is not state interference.
Enlightenment philosophy (i.e. democracy, laissez faire capitalism) may be your personal political preference, but it doesn’t have a thing to do with the Bible. Proof of this is the fact that nearly all of the ideas that currently make up neoconservatism are less than 350 years old, and some of them are less than 100 years old.
Or consider this: the first Great Awakening occurred in the colonies where there was no religious freedom. The fact that it was illegal to be a witch – and in some instances a Catholic – in the Puritan colonies did not hinder the effects of preaching “Sinners In The Hands of an Angry God.”
Seriously, Job? You want to criticize my sorry little unworthy motion that never even made it to the convention floor because the committee declined it and dropped it like a bad habit? Hey, thanks, bro!
For a while I thought this resolution thing was serious, and then some cat drug in something that the dogs turned up their noses at (I know, I know, it ain’t good english, but the term Yankees shook me up..after all they burned down the Willingham home place in Union county Arkansas and My great great grandmother loaded up the covered wagon with children and took off to some brothers out in Texas). O it was that pesky baseball team that I try to forget about, the one my son goes bonkers (what a strange term from Yankee land) over. As to the resolution, you might add one that says, “this is being done in the spirit of the Separates and Regulars who agreed to drop their names and be known from thenceforth as United Baptists, allowing for folks like Bob Hadley to preach that Christ tasted death for every man, while Matthew T. Yates would take off to win all of China from his home church that held that Christ for the Church. They apparently knew nothing about Him dying for everyone without exception. Imagine trying to win all of China with the truth that Jesus died only for the Church, the elect (if you please). And then there was that fellow who got all us Baptists enlisted in missions, Luther Rice. He insisted that we go on missions and be sure we preached about election and God’s sovereignty. Of course, the first fellow who had a nervous breakdown over winning the first soul, the one that William Carey baptized, was the hyper calvinist, Dr. John Thomas, who won Krishna Pal, while setting his broken arm. Thomas had been in an up and down cycle emotionally, getting his hopes of winning one of the Indians and then getting his hopes dashed. He lost it on elation over Pal. Interesting isn’t it. O I think we can work together…especially as the calvinists invented the way to do it. Ha!
Dr. W.,
Aside from the unnecessary pejoratives tossed toward the Bronx Bombers 😉 , thank you for your pertinent reminder of the historic ways in which many Baptists have worked together for the same goal while having differing views on how God necessarily accomplishes that work through us.
My, Scott, I didn’t know it was alright to ignore the burning down of the family home place in the worship of baseball. Of course, I did forget to add that my grandfather who raised me was a yankee, and his grandfather was supposed to have been a friend of Abe Lincoln. As to the history and church matters…the union of Separates and Regulars occurred in 1787. Fifty years later in 1827, the old Sardis United Baptist Church was organized in Missouri, later called the Elston Baptist Church, now the First Baptist Church of Elston, Mo. I pastored that church from Marsh of 1965-September of 1966. In 2001, I served as Interim of the Mt. Zion Missionary United Baptist Church near Casar, NC., which had been organized (sometime in the 1850s, I think). These were the result of the effort to unite the two groups, and, generally, the articles of faith clearly endorsed Total Depravity and Unconditional Election and Effectual or Irresistible Grace. The unity idea involves the thought that it takes time and grace for people to come together, to achieve the same level of understanding and maturity in spiritual matters. Even so, as we pray and prepare for a Third Great Awakening (for which I have been praying for nearly 39 years), it is well to remember that the Sovereign Grace people were the ones who came up with the idea of allowing for differences in order to avoid the problem of people being manipulated in to believing and preaching things before they are fully persuaded by the Lord Himself. Manipulation and compulsion are to be avoided like the plague; the end result of the use of force to enforce beliefs ends in the stake, the iron maiden and other means of torture and death.
If your resolution is not chosen does that mean it is reprobate? No. No. Impossible. Irrisistable. Unconditionally so. With that I am not…
Scott,
I like the rsolution. First of all, because I believe everything it says. Secondly, because it is extremely gracious. And lastly, because although there is the risk of controversy the benefits if this pass far outweigh that risk. So God bless you brother in your endeavor.
John,
Thank you for your encouragement.
Scott,
I do not see a climate of antagonism within the SBC directed towards Calvinism. I think it is more accurate to say there is some spirited discussions taking place. Antagonistic and vitriolic people usually exist supporting either side of an argument regardless of the topic and Calvinism is no exception.
This debate has been taking place for many, many years and a resolution during the upcoming meeting of the SBC will not change that nor will it settle attitudes on either side. Just my two cents!
A resolution of this sort is not likely to convince anyone to become or to reject Calvinism, but it does help position the SBC as a convention with room for the discussion.
I see people on blogs who are very antagonistic toward Calvinists. I hope and believe they are a minority and that perceptions are skewed by blogging’s platform. But when you see vitriol coming from the editor of a state paper, it makes you wonder.
Chris Sanchez,
I believe ChrisR & DaveM have well expressed excellent thoughts in response to your comment. I would only add that, as I stated in my introduction of this resolution, I do not wish to see an end-all, “can’t we all just get along” (meaning let’s not even bring this up any more), result to the debates regarding a biblical soteriology. I just don’t want “Calvinists” or “Biblicists” to be maligned as non-Baptist and subsequently be railroaded out of convention leadership or the convention altogether.
And I have been witness on blogs, state convention websites/news sources, and other conversations to that very sentiment having been expressed.
Scott,
Two things:
First, I refuse to cheer for the Yankees until I see an apology for Sherman’s war crime of burning down Atlanta. 🙂 Until that day I will remain a Braves fan.
Second, I can whole-heartedly affirm the intent of your motion. That said, I know there will be some who want specific language tightened here or there to avoid perceived weaknesses. Again, the intent of your motion is desperately needed. I do think that there is a measure of antagonism or pettiness that exists in our convention – on both sides of the debate. To be honest with you, I used to think it was just the Calvinism-Arminian issue that stirred up such contentiousness. Recently, however, I have come to believe that Southern Baptists, like all human beings, struggle to disagree without becoming disagreeable. Perhaps we need a resolution calling for us to model humility and charity as we take strong stands for biblical convictions.
Chris
Chris,
I would hold your breath during that wait… 😉
I think Chris Roberts’ resolution speaks to what you mention here. It is posted here at SBC Voices as well. It is an excellent resolution.
I think you may be right. It seems some just must have a crusade and antagonist in order to be ‘happy.’
…wouldn’t …wouldn’t…wouldn’t…
Ugh. Must pay attention to my typing!
Scott,
I could support your resolution because I think it is an effort towards unity among Southern Baptists. Even if it isn’t brought out of committee it is written with a good spirit. I do however have problems with giving Mr. Calvin so much credit for what God inspired in the first place. Don’t misunderstand, I don’t consider myself a “Calvinist”. Without sounding like a self-righteous Pharisee, I am a follower of Christ, as I am sure you all are. As such, shouldn’t we just accept the Bible as the Word of the Living God and trust the Holy Spirit to interpret it for us. Whether you call yourself a Calvinist or Arminian in your theology, I think we all agree that the Great Commission of our Lord is our priority. I think we can all agree that it is God that does the saving of a soul and it is simply our privilege to lead those lost, searching souls to the Biblical Savior. God is the One to Whom goes all the glory and praise!
I have close preacher friends who accept more of the Tulip analogy than I do, but we have never been antagonistic about it because we all agree on the main goal of the Great Commission. Let’s just accept that we as Southern Baptists all accept some of the Tulip analogy and we are sort of a “Dukes mixture” of both. We will never be able to put all Southern Baptists into one “mold” on issues like this.
By the way, Y’all need to pray for me because I have never fully forgiven Sherman for the heartless cruelty he inflicted upon the South.