St. Peter was showing a new arrival through heaven. (Bad theology and really old joke alert!) He took him through the pearly gates on the streets of gold, showing him the lay of the land. But at one door, Peter stopped and put his finger to his lips. They tiptoed by until they were well past the door. The new arrival queried, “Peter, why were we so quiet there?” Peter shook his head and said, “That’s the Southern Baptists – they think they are the only ones here.”
Now, for a true story. The year was 1979, a big year for theology and for Southern Baptists. I had just come back from Houston rejoicing because Southern Baptists had elected Adrian Rogers as our president, triggering what we now know as the Conservative Resurgence. I was sitting in Dr. Blum’s theology class and he began to talk about the recent Chicago Council on Biblical Inerrancy and the statement they had released defining the doctrine (still the best statement out there). I am perhaps not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, but I put two and two together, got four, and asked Dr. Blum, “Do you think the Chicago Statement will have any effect on the Southern Baptist situation?”
He shook his head. “Southern Baptists are so isolated from the Christian world at large that what happens out here has little effect in their world.” It was pretty true. Back in my day, we walked to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways and Southern Baptists kept themselves unstained from much contact with the outside world.
It was a different world back then. A degree from a seminary not affiliated with the SBC was considered a black mark by most pulpit committees and use of materials from non-SBC sources was not a petty offense.
Frankly, I thought we had moved past that kind of isolationism.
Cards on the table time – I am a Southern Baptist. Been one all my life. I am a Southern Baptist convictionally (well, Baptist anyway). I am a Southern Baptist enthusiastically. The 12% that my current church gives to missions through the Cooperative Program is actually the smallest amount any of the churches I have served has given. I am Southern Baptist born and Southern Baptist bred, and when I die I will be Southern Baptist dead!
But I have always thought the sort of provincial isolationist tendencies of some Southern Baptists is just plain silly. More than that, I believe it is dangerous to Southern Baptists and contrary to the mission God gave us. We can learn and grow and benefit from Christians of different stripes, even those who disagree with us on secondary issues. To act as if we have a repository of all wisdom and knowledge and are somehow harmed by learning from and being instructed by Christians who are not Southern Baptist is not a healthy view.
I have been much less involved on a day-to-day basis with this blog recently, because of time factors and some other things going on in my life and work. I seldom get a chance to read other blogs. Whatever time I spend in the blogosphere generally has to be focused on this site.
But I got a tweet a couple of weeks ago that referenced a comment made by Norm Miller, Truett McConnell’s director of communication and marketing and the moderator at SBC Today, a site devoted largely to fighting against Calvinism in the SBC. It was an outrageous and saddening comment, one that I hope is a minority opinion among Southern Baptists.
Here is the comment, left on April 3, at 9:30 AM, in response to David Rogers:
David: To allow those outside of our denomination and who hold doctrinal positions diametrically opposed to our doctrinal positions to then comment to us about theology and doctrine through a teaching curriculum is not a matter that should require me to use scripture to refute as we are aware of our doctrinal differences with Anglicans, Methodists and Presbys. To wit: works salvation, falling from grace, and baptizing babies, respectively. I should not have to offer biblical evidences to the contrary of those positions which I believe are not biblical, nor are they Baptist. I therefore see inviting such people to speak to the SBC in a teaching curriculum, e.g., smacks of ecumenicism at least, and allowing wolves in the sheeps’ pen at worst.
This is not the sort of behavior that pleases me in a Southern Baptist leader (Stetzer). Such behavior is not Southern Baptist statesmanship; it is treason. I would seek no such traits in an SBC presidential candidate. — Norm
Wolves in the sheeps’ pen? Treason? It is a comment that simply boggles the mind.
I tell you what really bothered me was that not one of the folks at that site called him on that kind of insulting rhetoric. Had someone called one of their heroes a traitor, certain blogs would have lit up in horror. If it is wrong for one side, it is wrong for the other! In recent months, I have been accused of being part of the Calvinist conspiracy to take over the SBC. I have also been accused in emails (by someone I would have considered a friend) of turning on Calvinists and joining the anti-Calvinist movement in the SBC. I wear that as a badge of honor – offending the extremists on both sides.
Norm Miller’s rhetoric here is sad and destructive. He should apologize for saying such a thing. Disagree with Ed Stetzer or any other leader of the SBC – fine and dandy. It is healthy to express our disagreement and hold leaders accountable. But to use such language is counter-productive to the cause and an offense against the Body.
Treason: the betrayal of a trust, the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign’s family.
It seems that he is accusing Stetzer of attempting to destroy the SBC from within. Miller is a writer – he works in the field of communications. He knows what words mean and we can only assume he knew what he meant and he meant what he said. It is a serious and slanderous charge, one which Miller should retract and for which he should apologize. Those who share his views should not defend him, but should call him to account for that kind of rhetoric. As long as we protect ungodly rhetoric from those with whom we agree we cannot credibly complain about it when those with whom we disagree employ it. Friends of Norm Miller need to encourage him to refrain from such slander toward a brother.
Ed Stetzer is not above criticism. My goodness, that facial hair he had earlier in the year was an abomination. I am certainly not convinced that his support of megachurches is completely warranted. He has strong opinions which he expresses freely and forcefully. Those opinions are fair game. But why the need to attack the man personally (please don’t tell me the accusation of treason is not a personal attack)?
Ed has written an article at Between the Times, called “Paige Patterson is Not a Traitor.” He shows that in Dr. Patterson’s recent commentary on Revelation, he interacted with and drew from non-SBC sources and in the process defends himself against Norm Miller’s personal attack.
My concern is more fundamental. That is not the way we ought to treat one another. We can do better than the kind of personal attack Norm Miller launched against Ed Stetzer, than the kind of personal attacks Calvinists sometimes launch against non-Calvinists or non-Calvinists against Calvinists. We can do better.
We must.
Thank the Lord that those who edited our hymnals did not take this approach. We sing hymns from all over the Christian continuum, and learn from them.
I hate writing articles like this, because the discussion so easily becomes personal. The discussion is about how involved the SBC should be in the general evangelical world and about whether we should be isolationist or part of that larger world.
I will not be able to engage much here today, but I will stop by to delete the comments of anyone who engages in personal attack or attempts to shift this discussion away from the topic.
SHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
Dave… don’t say that about the Hymnal…
You know it is the 67th book of the Bible and is therefore sacred and beyond such a banal comparison. We must maintain the dignity and solemnity of all things SBC going right back to our founder, John the Baptist.
Yep.
True story: I once had a Baptist deacon tell me that changing the words of a hymn was a violation of Rev. 22:18-19. He was referring specifically to the change made in “To God Be the Glory,” with “our wonder, our transport” changed to “our wonder, our vict’ry.” He believed it was the liberal’s effort to remove the teaching of the rapture from our churches. I told him I would look into it.
Dave, great article I am sure you wish you didn’t have to write. As one who really does have a foot in the SBC and the PCA (my non-profit partners with several SB churches), I can only say I hope Norm’s comments are a huge minority.
Les
As I have said, I think that there are vocal extremes, but I believe that most Baptists want to work together in spite of our differences on certain issues. Voting majorities at the SBC meeting have buttressed that belief year after year.
Dave, I for one don’t believe the “academic” vs “layman” comparison is valid in this circumstance. No one is arguing for Sunday School training material from The Jesus Seminar. I think Rick, David or Tim would not hesitate to recommend Dr. Patterson’s commentary to any of their Sunday School teachers or church members. If so, it is is not a matter of principle but one of preference. I don’t think preferences should continue to be raised to a Level 5 threat alert.
Norm’s use of “traitor” is really curious given many of the textbooks used at Truett-McConnell. One rallying cry of the Conservative Resurgence was “Save our Schools!” It was the suspicion of actual heresy in some CP funded schools that fired up Southern Baptists. Any comparison of Carson, Piper and DL Moody to Bultmann (using non-SBC affiliation) seems pretty flimsy.
If “non-Southern Baptist” equals “traitor” for Miller, then what to think of these books and authors used in Christian Studies classes at Truett-McConnell:
Leadership Handbook of Management and Administration • (REV)07
9780801068140 James D. Berkley (PCUSA)
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels As Eyewitness Testimony • 2006
9780802863904 Richard Bauckham (Church of England, past member of the CoE Doctrine Committee!)
Bible Doctrine : Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith • 1999
9780310222330 Wayne Grudem
Knowledge of the Holy • 1961
9780060684129 A. W. Tozer (Christian and Missionary Alliance)
Ethics for a Brave New World • 2ND 11
9781581347128 John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg (TEDS)
Christian Ethics : Options and Issues • 2ND 10
9780801038792 Norman L. Geisler (Wesleyan)
Found : God’s Will • (REV)77
9781564767400 John MacArthur (suspected Calvinist)
Reformers and Their Stepchildren • 2001
9781579789350 Leonard Verduin (Dutch Reformed CRC)
131 Christians Everyone Should Know • 2000
9780805490404 Mark Galli (Anglican)
Story of Christianity, Volume 2 • (REV)10
9780061855894 Justo L. Gonzalez (Methodist)
Les,
I believe they are.
Dr. Miller’s invective statement is beyond reprehensible.
SolaGratia.
Dr. Miller’s “invective statement”?
How so? Who is being insulted by what he wrote? Where is the highly critical nature of his words? The only criticism is of those who seem to have gone off the path of rational discussion.
I think he is referring to Norm Miller. As best I could tell, though, Norm Miller, like me, is not a Doctor. None of the Truett-McConnell information lists him as Dr. Norm Miller, and colleges are usually pretty careful to identify those with doctorates.
Truly…and had I known I would never have ascribed to him said title.
Nothing but mucho appreciation for my YankeeFan Rev. Miller!
[I think my comment responses show the rust of having taken and kept myself outta this game for so long….now returning to the cave…]
SG!
Hey, the Bronx Bombers have been back the last 3 days.
Sorry–it just hit me that you were referring to Norm Miller, not Dave Miller. I completely misunderstood. My apologies.
Dale,
Wow, I’m stunned. You see no invective in accusing someone of treason? nor in associating them with wolves in sheep’s clothing?
Have you read Stetzer’s post at Between the Times?
For the record, as I said above, I think we are having some confusion here about Norm Miller and Dave Miller. I think you guys are probably on pretty much the same side of this.
See my above comment. I confused the two Millers. Don’t be stunned anymore.
Ed Stetzer has SHAVED?????? His goatee was epic!
On a more serious note, the whole “treason” thing is ridiculous. We can all learn and grow as disciples of Jesus from others within the faith and without the Convention. Shoot, sometimes we can even learn from non-believers. Lines are being drawn in the sand, and this isn’t very pretty.
I think, as a service to humanity, he TRIMMED the goatee. Hopefully, as he grows and matures, he will shave it entirely.
Gentlemen,
I can confirm, with some certainty, that the goatee still grows. I’m guessing 4″ may be a little on the small side.
I thought I saw a picture of him looking more respectable.
I talked to Ed this past Sunday face-to-face and the goatee was still in effect!
Sad to hear. But there’s no accounting for taste.
Stetzer should shave? He needs to grow a nice full beard, like REAL preachers! (Y’know, Spurgeon, Boyce, et. al.!)
The Squirrel
Dave, since you didn’t link to the source of Norm’s comment, I went looking for it. For ease for others who might look for it, I’m pasting a link here:
Ten Traits of a Southern Baptist president
Sounds like a good article in its own right, apart from this kerfuffle. 🙂
I think the author is communist
You usually call me a liberal. I’m trying to figure out if this is progress.
I’m trying to diversify.
When I read Ed’s piece, I was shocked that someone within the SBC would call him a traitor to the SBC. He did not mention who it was, but sadly I knew right where to look. I knew the site the quote would be located on, and I knew the exact post where I would find the comment. I was moderately surprised at the author of the quote, and really saddened that not one person objected to the language.
Nail on the head, Bill. That not a single person called him on that is what saddens me. When we only object to slander against our friends, we lose credibility. Someone should have called him on it.
There are plenty of those that try to object to some of the rhetoric Norm and his “Traditionalist” cohort spit out, but Norm has a heavy and very uneven hand on the moderation button.
Umm, yup.
Signed,
Banned
Dave,
Solid response. I especially like the call to retract the statement made by Norm Miller.
I offered a similar reflection with a slightly different ending.
As I said, I’ve had almost NO time to write and even less to read other posts. I’ll have to check yours out.
Good post, Todd.
I recall a time not long ago when one of our Sunday School teachers did a series of lessons on Islam, Catholicism, the JW & LDS movements, etc. (I’ll get back to the topic in a second .. promise). He thought the members should be aware of what those people stood for. In my experience, though, our members have more trouble when they interact with the Presbyterian at the next desk, than they do with Muslims or Mormons.
There are only a couple of defenses against well-trained Mormons or Jehovah’s Witesses. Or Calvinists. One is to know what you believe, and I’ve found Baptists woefully short on that. The other is to know what the others believe, and why they believe it. In that sense, I’d think that teaching what other Christian doctrinal systems believe, and where they get it, would be profitable for Southern Baptists.
It helped me a lot when I quoted the JW’s version of John 1:1 to them, when they wouldn’t read it out of their Bible, just last week.
When I am teaching, if I stumble across a verse that says Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, I wouldn’t be a good teacher if I didn’t point out that’s a verse that Baptists would emphasize in their “semi-arminian ” soteriology. And the same thing must apply to verse which Calvinists use in substantiating their position, as well.
We’re Baptists and we believe in the priesthood of the believer, so folks really to need to understand and make up their own mind. We seem more likely to point to a walk down the aisle and a repeated prayer as the affirmation of our salvation.
If our position is more sound than those other ones, then interplay with them would be a good deed on our part in helping them see the truth of what we believe. For someone like Dr. Miller to denigrate that simply reveals how big a problem Baptists have.
ps: During my years 20+/- years in the Methodist and Presbyterian denominations, I do recall that the view of Baptists was that they were exclusionary, dogmatic, and scornful of other Christian denominations. It seems, more and more, that those other guys were right.
Thanks for the response, Dave.
I wonder if Norm’s words would also apply to a non-Southern Baptist Anabaptist Conference? Hmm….
Dave,
You call for Norm to apologize when you refused to apologize for saying I write “hate-filled missives.” Sounds a bit hypocritical to me. Still waiting for YOUR apology.
Les, I disagreed with the tone and tenor of your posts and comments. I do not think they evidenced the grace we are called to show to one another. I will not apologize for believing that your posts gave evidence of anger over grace.
That is also not the topic here, so if you would like to discuss it, you can email me.
As I said, we can carry this conversation on in private if you wish.
davemillerisajerk@hotmail.com
I had a long and pleasant conversation with Les. Some time ago, on another blog, I characterized Les’ statements as “hate-filled missives.” In doing so, I attached motive to his posts. That was wrong on my part and I apologized to Les.
We had a good and productive conversation, where we agreed about a lot of things, and disagreed about several others.
That’s definitely a statement that is overboard.
And illogical. Given Ed Stetzer’s name recognition and large non-SBC interactions, if he didn’t have a strong commitment to the SBC, I’m pretty sure he could make a living without us and do just fine. Hardly the attitude of a traitor.
Plus, I’ve never seen him in a lime green suit.
I will offer Ed my lime green suit to wear any time he wishes.
My point was that Ed is a man of good taste and logic.
Which is why we’ve never seen him in a lime green suit 🙂
Although I don’t know his stance on evil sports teams in the Bronx.
I now have an “Ed Stetzer as a Leprechaun” picture in my head…
Thanks Dave…there are some things you just can’t unsee…
I read that statement in context, and really was surprised no one tried to correct it, or even soften it.
It’s not really helpful to unify the SBC if we’re going about calling one another traitors, heretics, or other personal jabs. If that’s the level the debate is going to be held, then we’re going to see more decline and more churches just move on to other things. Kind of sad.
Amen. That, my friend, is the point I wanted to make.
Doug,
Yep, like when Dr. Mohler called Trads “heretics.” He called a great number of Non Calvinists in the SBC “Semi Pelagian” = heretic.
Did all of yall call him out on that one?
David
To be specific, Dr. Mohler said, “Some portions of the statement actually go beyond Arminianism and appear to affirm semi-Pelagian understandings of sin, human nature, and the human will — understandings that virtually all Southern Baptists have denied.” Make of that what you will. Just thought I’d include the context of his statement.
I’m not a Mohler fan. And quite honestly I think this fear of semi-pelagianism is overblown. That said, it seems to me that Mohler said that he was bothered by some of the language, because it seemed to lean toward a position he didn’t think the signatories supported. That is hardly calling anyone a heretic unless you want it to mean that.
It is not unusual for someone to say “did you really mean to say it that way, because it sounds like …………………….”?
I don’t think Joe Blackmon will mind using him as an example. Joe frequently said “true Christian’s don’t ……………” When challenged, Joe would admit that ………………………… wasn’t really a salvific issue and that he wasn’t really advocating works salvation or whatever. We all knew that.
Dave, it seems to me this absolutely not about what was said but who it was said about. On this very blog, Joe Aguilliard was accused of many horrible things with no proof what so ever given. I believe his leadership was called wicked and sinful. When I asked for such comments not to be said about a brother by brothers without proof no one saw it my way. It was ok to say hateful, mean things about this man evidently because he was in the wrong camp. Now Bro. Ed is called treasonous and people on this blog come riding in on white horses demanding apologies. I am in complete agreement that the rhetoric needs to be toned down and this foolishness brought to an end, however, your site in not immune to such behavior.
I think you need to back up that statement. I was critical of Joe Aguillard’s decisions at LC, but can you show where I called him “wicked and sinful.” I do not believe that is the case.
I do not think your accusation is fair. I have been raked over the coals by people I thought were friends because I have challenged extreme rhetoric from people who were on “my side” on certain issues.
Dave, you are the moderator of the threads that made those statements. I will be glad to go back and cut and paste the statements for you. My point is not that you said them but that you didn’t challenge them to show Christian behavior when they were made. When I said the statements were not being said with evidence NO ONE would retract the statements or offer the evidence. Joe Aguilliard may be a gorilla in a president suit but you allowed him to be attacked unsubstantiated on the threads here and did nothing. Now you take Norm to task. Get real!
Honestly, I just simply cannot read every comment, especially on a busy post. Just because I leave a comment up does not mean that I support it or approve of it. Often, I just never saw it.
I try to moderate comments, but I am responsible only for the words I say.
dean,
It was me who stated those truths you have referenced.
Dave Miller openly rebuked me, deleted me, and privately emailed me about my statements. He would not relent even when I called him on the phone and gave him the facts as they are.
Don’t blame Dave Miller for my actions. I made those statements. I stand by them for they are true and Dave Miller still maintains his rebuke of me for making them. . . .and I think we are still friends. Although, he is rather stubborn at times.
CB, thank you for the comment. I remember us interacting over your comments. The only public rebuke I remember was from me. I remember telling you I did not doubt what you were saying was true but please don’t talk in vagueness and believers need a witness to make such accusations. You were very gracious and I appreciate your demeanor then and now. I am consistent in my beliefs and actions on this matter. Norm was wrong for using the word treasonous.
We are going to get nowhere in this discussion if we use the “they said bad things too” argument. We’ve all crossed that line at times.
But do people really want to defend Norm Miller’s personal attack against Ed Stetzer because “someone else did it too.” Is that how we are making moral decisions today?
In an additional defense of Dave here, there is a difference in criticizing the actions of a person as questionable, which is what I find in the one post from Dave about the LC situation, and claiming that actions amount to “treason.”
There is also a reasonable double-standard on comments: one should expect the “staff” of both SBCVoices and SBCToday to hold to a higher standard in comments than one holds passersby to, as what gets said by the editor of a blog can be considered its ‘official’ view.
So, somewhere a passerby may have used wicked and evil to describe Aguillard’s behavior, but there is nothing in Dave’s post or his editor comments that state such a thing.
Doug, how can you not see the question I raise? How can Dave chide Norm for saying something and then ignore similar things said on his website? Dave has laid down the correct gauntlet. I am in agreement with his conclusion. We should all conduct ourselves in a Christian manner according to Scripture. However, you can’t ignore these unfounded hurtful statements about Aguilliard that I found in five minutes on the site history.
My comments here are basically to make it known that what has happened at LC is not about Calvinism. It is about wickedness and hard heartedness. Spoken directly about Aguilliard’s leadership
I am told by sources who need to remain nameless that there is a lot more working here than just the Calvinist issue. There are serious leadership issues at the college? Dave making an unsubstantiated claim
Would Dr. Aguillard like to comment on providing a year’s worth of salary to a former employee who was let go after he was caught sleeping with female students over whom he had authority? where is substantiation of misconduct was done by Aguillard
Would Dr. Aguillard be willing to discuss his leadership style that permitted someone under him to feel comfortable (or maybe even compelled) to forge documents that were sent to their accrediting agency? What if someone insinuated that Ed Stetzer forced people under him to lie about issues, would that be appropriate?
I agree with the tenor of the article, I am just confused about the standard that is used as to when someone is to be chided for not speaking as a brother. To me, it is blurry, is it when a non-Calvinist says hurtful things about Calvinist or when all brothers in Christ do such a thing?
For once and for all, not that it will be:
At some point, one side of a debate has to decide to be mature and stop name-calling. And yes, I just dipped down and called name-calling “immature.” Probably because I’ve been working with my children about it.
Someone, please be the first to keep the debate on the issues and not on the people.
And for the record:
yes, the opening joke is awful.
Bowing. Accepting applause. Beaming.
Don’t be so hasty, DAVID. It sounds a lot like a Catholic joke. 🙂
oh, there’s gonna be a lot of unity in the SBC….not likely….after reading many blogs, and many posts, and this one…along with the comments….it doesnt look like a lot of unity is about to take place anytime soon.
SMH
David
Did you have any problem with Norm Miller called Ed a traitor? When we only criticize one side, it is hard to say we are promoting unity.
volfan007,
Would you say that you are a contributing SBC voice who is actively pursuing unity? How so?
Would you say the comment I’m responding to is one which seeks unity? How so?
“after reading many blogs and posts”…..Do you have links to the “many blogs and posts”?
lol
Good post Dave, Todd and Ed. I am one Southern Baptist who is glad what should have been said was.
Dave,
I want to engage you with three questions
1) Why did you combine the definition instead of separating them into two definitions as does Webster? I believe, in the context of the statement Norm uses “treason” more in line with the short first definition than with the combined definition as you do.
2) Do you seriously believe that Norm is calling for trial and hanging for Stetzer? That is how you are addressing this issue using the combined definition
3) Why is SEBTS and its professors more willing to defend someone who was labeled with “treason” and not willing to defend those who were called heretics? No one spoke out about Dr.Mohler’s tacit charge of heresy.
4) What does Wake Forest and Iowa have to do with Nashville? If Dr.Stetzer is so blown away about this why bring it back to the forefront? Why did you pick up the ball even after you, per your own admission, had stepped out of blogging. Taking this ball up after Dr Stetzer placed it on his blog and then onthe SEBTS blog gives the appearance that both you and SEBTS are “sowing seeds of discord.”
1) Formatting.
2) No, but the use of the word treason was way over the top.
3) One does not justify the other.
4) I haven’t stepped out of blogging. I’ve just been busy and had little time to write. If you read this blog, I’ve dropped from 5 or 6 posts a week to 2 or 3.
Sorry I had one more question 🙂
I just figured you couldn’t count. By the way, I am not sure why your comments got stuck in moderation. I think it was because of the new email you were using. Trust that you are not on moderation here.
Dave,
No problem with the moderation. Thanks for acknowledging how it may have gotten there. I also appreciate your email.
Now, let’s deal with your responses to my question. The first question shows that there are two separate definitions for the word “treason”. It can mean only a “loss of trust”. If I am referencing a national oath or something like that then second definition of the word “treason” would be appropriate.
Now, would I have used the term? No I wouldn’t have. Would I have used the term “traitor”? No, I would not. However, as I said in my comment Dr. Stetzer’s posting about this on his blog and then on SEBTS and now you have placed a post about it seems something that should have not gone any further than SBC Today. If Dr. Stetzer took offense let him deal with it. By you guys taking this to the extreme you have seems to be sowing discord.
Dave Miller,
Tim Rogers does bring up an interesting point. Why are you taking this to the extreme that you are with this post? Is Ed offended? He has certainly been called worse. And everybody knows he is not guilty of treason to the SBC. I think Norm was just using such language to make his point. Guys in blog threads do that rather often. You do it. (Read your comment to Tim Rogers) Hey, I have been guilty of it myself a time or two.
Think about it, Dave. You don’t want the thread to become a debate over Calvinism. However, how can it not? Maybe this post was not your greatest moment, just as was maybe Norm’s comment not his.
cb, I think the problem with assuming Norm was just using such language to make his point is that he wrote more than just that one statement. He laid out a whole context of why he would reject any SB leader; not just Stetzer. Stetzer was just a passing example not the target.
Today, Norm said he has a response that he will release soon.
CB, I got into blogging mainly for one reason: to oppose those who wanted to define their view as the only acceptable view on issues like this, and to exclude others from identity as Baptists or fellowship in the SBC.
So, whether you consider this my “best moment” or not is not my chief concern. What provokes me the most in the Baptist world is when some people appoint themselves as the “keepers of the flame” and exclude those who do not see things their way.
Plus, as you know, I am a big proponent of Southern Baptists not isolating themselves from the Christian world as a whole. So, when a man who is part of the Baptist food chain accuses another one of us of committing TREASON, I find that worthy of comment and worthy of rebuke.
Again, if you disagree, that is your choice.
Unity is definitely important, and there are substantive debates to be had as we pursue it. It is easy to point back and forth about things that people said at different times and on both sides. It is also important to recognize that many of us are less than gracious and should be humble enough to repent. But language matters. And treason means something very specific. It is a word that should not be used lightly. When that accusation occurs, we would be remiss if we did not subject it to examination.
Some thoughts (obviously personal)
While we (SBC) should keep our eyes and ears open to what’s going in with other denominations, etc., let’s not forget that (by the grace of God) we are the only (or a very short list-let me know who else) of historic U.S. denominations who didn’t fall completely into liberalism. So, I do think there is some sense that we (SBC) should remain isolationist (to use Dave’s statement) or we will probably succumb to what every other denomination has succumbed to. The fact is, we may succumb to our own in-fighting while remaining isolated, but there is almost no doubt that if we don’t remain united as Southern Baptists we will lose our identity.
To that end, it does bother me that Stetzer and others who hold denominational high offices in the SBC, also take an active role in non-SBC oriented networks, like Acts 29 for example.
I’m from St. Louis, therefore I am a St. Louis Cardinal fan through and through. The fact of the matter is, that it is impossible, no matter what anybody says, for a Cardinal fan to be a Cubs fan. We feel sorry for them (actually we don’t) but we will never wear Cubbie blue, because we bleed Cardinal red.
So, while I don’t regard Stetzer as a traitor, I have to wonder how he can divide his loyalty. I wonder why, if he believes that Acts 29 is such a viable thing, that he hasn’t franchised that into an SBC organism. Perhaps he is trying, but it does make folks wonder.
For the record, I am a Calvinist who has no problem working alongside a non-Calvinist, as long as we both are for the gospel first and for the SBC as well.
Nate,
From my perspective, here’s where your illustration breaks down. From a biblical perspective–we all claim the Bible as our authority, don’t we?–our “team” is not the SBC, but the Body of Christ. Paul spoke directly to the mindset of viewing a subset of the Body of Christ as our “team,” so to speak, in 1 Cor. 3 and 1 Cor. 12. The SBC is not to be the recipient of our bottom-line loyalty, but rather a tool and a channel through which we can serve and express our loyalty to our Lord, and to His Body, the Church Universal.
David,
I don’t think we are really seeing things all that differently. I believe I did state that the gospel is priority, above and before anything else. However, whether we like it or not, we live in an age of denominations and most of us are tied into one of them. And, I don’t think my illustration is that far off if the denomination is paying your salary, as is the case with Stetzer and others.
The fact is, if you worked for Ford, you wouldn’t be allowed to moonlight for the competition. Now, I realize that other believers are not our competition, but Acts 29 for example, hasn’t been too shy about pointing fingers at the SBC over churches that are receiving money from SBC state conventions and have been affiliated with Acts 29, in regards to disagreements over certain secondary (to the gospel) items, so I do think there is a principle here.
Denominations were born over issues that are secondary (in most cases) to salvation, but are critical to commonality in doing the work of the gospel, for a group of people. Obviously all analogies break down at some point, but I hope you see where I’m coming from.
I realize this is getting a bit off of the topic stream, but Nate, you are pretty much wrong about your ideas about Acts29. THere are many Acts29 churches that have no problem affiliating with with the SBC. And leaders in Acts29 have on several occasions stated that a SBC/Acts29 church that gives 10% to the CP is in full accordance with its requirement that Acts29 churches give 10% to missions/church planing efforts. Maybe you are mistaken and have it backwards after what the Missouri Baptist Convention did to SBC church plants due to their association with Acts29. Guilt by association, they defunded all the churches, and if I am not mistaken at least one had to close as they lost all their funding. Thankfully the St. Louis Metro Baptist Association started a fund that allowed SBC churches to give to these cast out churches, who did nothing wrong, other than be associated with Acts29. I could go on, but I think I have diverted this thread long enough.
I will say however, getting back on topic, that Ed Stetzer’s association with a church planting networking group (note that Acts29 IS NOT a denomination) is no different, than the dozens of other examples that SBC officials have done over the history of the SBC in working with and affiliating with other groups. The majority of SBC folk had no problem working with and supporting Billy Graham even though his ministry was specifically non-denominational. Or again I could bring up the Chicago Statement which many SBC leaders signed and agreed with. And again there are dozens if not hundreds more of examples. Acts29 is not the big bad boggy man that people assume it to be. Unfortunately far to few people are actually willing to listen to the facts as they seem to be inconvenient to their preconceived narrative of Acts29 = bad.
Actually I’m not mistaken by what Acts 29 had to say about the situation in St. Louis. And while technically, Acts 29 is not a denomination, it is Driscoll’s organization, he was the founder, his church sustained it, and he still sits on the board, to wit, it is a quasi-denomination. And I actually never once said that Acts 29 was bad, I said that it potentially caused loyalties to be split. Make no mistake that Acts 29 demands things of those who are in its network, so your blame-game about associations is showing your loyalty (which is certainly your right). The fact remains that those “affected” churches decided which organization they preferred to be associated with, and the MBC’s position on the issue that caused the rift (which the offending church knew full good and well), was met with nothing with derision from Acts 29, even though the MBC had put up an enormous amount of money.
Nate: For the Cardinals to win, the Cubs must lose. It might be better to think of denominations as separate branches of the military. We have a common goal, and although our immediate loyalty is to our branch of the service, our ultimate loyalty is to the United States. It would be foolish to think that Army cadets could not learn tactics, wisdom or philosophy of great Navy or Marine generals from history. To accuse the author of the Navy training manual of treason because he included quotes from Patton and LeJeune would be beyond ludicrous.
Bill Mac,
Even in your scenario, the Navy should be building boats, and learn to fight wars at sea. The Army should be learning how to march, shoot guns, and fight hand to hand.
If I joined the Army, I wouldnt expect to be swapping the decks on a battleship.
And, when we start Churches, they should be SBC Churches(sound doctrine and practice).
David
David: I agree. But Ed Stetzer is not a church planter. And the treason remark was leveled at Stetzer for precisely one thing: For including comments of non-Baptists in the new GP curriculum. And if you will read the various posts that have cropped up over this issue, you will see that this practice has been going on in SBC SS curriculum forever. Long before the Gospel Project. Treason, David? Really? Has Ed Stetzer really betrayed the SBC?
All branches of the military serve on ships, just as all branches of the military serve on aircraft. And there are no more battleships.
I am not calling Ed Stetzer a traitor. And, maybe Norm went a little overboard on his statement. But, I do agree with Rick and Norm about SB curriculum needing to be SB in doctrine and practice. And, I’m not really thrilled that only Calvinists were appointed as the Editors of the GP. It does make us all wonder if Lifeway is not promoting a more Calvinist agenda in it’s curriculum. BTW, I just got a CD from Lifeway promoting a new study for Youth…you know who was featured? David Platt and JD Grear.
But, I’m not personally against quotes from other people, outside of the SB…as long as they’re not all Calvinists.
David
PS. You sunk my battleship?
David,
Good news! The Gospel Project already *is* SB in doctrine and practice.
IF the GP was the only SS curriculum that Lifeway produced and/or offered, you may have a point. However it is not the only SS curriculum that they publish, and it is NOT the only curriculum they sell (online or in the stores). If a church wants to use it, they are free to do so. If they do not want to use it, they are not forced, and there ARE other SBC produced options available to them. I tell you what is an even bigger danger, is SBC churches that use Rob Bell SS curriculum in their classes (I was actually in one such class in an SBC church here in Missouri). I hope you can agree that compared to that, the GP is a million times better.
I was a little surprised to find out there are no more battleships. But Wikipedia never lies. 😉
The problem comes when we define what a church of sound doctrine and practice is. People are attempting to add restrictions that go way beyond the scope of the BF&M to make that definition.
Ed Stetzer fully supports the BF&M 2000, to my knowledge. So do both Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC. But some are trying to say that if you don’t subscribe to this particular vision of traditional SBC life, you are not really an SB. Or, in Norm Miller’s words, you are treasonous.
First, as others have already stated, the defense of Norm Miller, specifically by trying to argue that others have done his very same crime, is nothing short of astounding. Aside from accomplishing TWO logical fallacies (ad hominem and ignoratio elenchi aka red herring), such a defense actually ignores the content of what was said by Mr Norm Miller. It is hard for me to grasp how Christians can excuse one sin, by pointing to other possible sins and saying “See they did it too!” Do you really think that is how God will see things in the end? How many people from the history of the world will try to argue that they are not responsible for their own sins, regardless of how many others were sinning?
As for Norm Miller and Truett-McConnell, I would hope that in the case of no direct and public apology towards Bro Ed Stetzer, the school will then at the very least publicly censure Norm Miller. And if that does not happen, the Georgia Baptist Convention should publicly rebuke the school as a whole. If what Norm Miller said was taken out of context, then he should have quickly stated such and apologized for any miscommunication. The fact that he has not, and indeed people are coming to his defense by arguing that others have done exactly the same as has done, shows that this was not a slip of the tongue, but rather what he believes. If that is the case, then he should not be allowed to hold any position of authority in any SBC affiliated and funded institution. However I strongly doubt that any real punitive and corrective action will ever be taken. Shoot, in some circles he might get an award. And that is what is truly frightening about SBC life today.
SV, would you pull down some statements of someone defending what Norm said? There is no one saying Norm was ok in what he said as for as I can see. There are a few of us however who have been called heretics, semi-Pelagian, etc… on this site and then for Dave to tell Norm he shouldn’t speak like he did is frustrating. I however, am very glad you got to use your “two logical fallacies (ad hominem and ignoratio elenchi aka red herring)” statement. If you are going to ignore what people are writing maybe you could slip in the fallacy fallacy or the moving goal post or my all time favorite genetic fallacy in your next post.
I think that you, and some others are blowing this up…making a mountain over a molehill. Get a grip….take a pill….and calm down.
Also, did you call Dr. Mohler after he “insinuated” that Trads were
Semi Pelagians(heretics)?
David
my last comment was directed towards svmuschaney…not Dean.
David
Thanks Vol I was deleting your baptismal plunge video from my video list. 🙂
🙂
Once again, as others have pointed out and pulled the ENITRE Mohler statement, not just an out-of-contest soundbite to fit your accusations, Mohler stated that parts of the Traditionalist document had statements that seemed semi-pelagian in nature. Rather than offer to correct such, possibly poorly worded statements, or rather than have a rational discussion regarding those statements, the traditionalist crowd began with baseless accusations accusing Dr. Mohler and others of calling ALL traditionalists heretics. As such, NO I will not “call” Dr. Mohler regarding what he said because what he said was a legitimate and valid concern regarding that document. Semi-Pelagianism IS a herecy, and the traditionalist document DID have statements that sounded very semi-pelagian in nature. I find it very odd that no traditionalist actually confronted those statements, and rather all those who spoke up (I dare say not all traditionalists spoke up to do this so many may not feel this way), did so only to attack Mohler than deal with the issue. Based on that, some, myself included, can only conclude that traditionalists KNOW that their statement is semi-pelagian in nature, and rather than deal with the ramifications of that, they want to change the argument, change the debate, and get the focus off of their very poorly worded statement, and onto something else.
With that said, Norm Miller did not say anything like “Those who support Acts29 seem to have divided loyalties and may not be fully supporting the SBC.” No he directly called Stetzer a traitor. Even if what Dr Mohler said was wrong, it does not compare to what Norm Miller said.
Further, I do think it is an important issue. If this was just a regular guy in SBC life, that would be one thing. But this is a member of the administration of a SBC affiliated college. Arguably one of the most distinguished such colleges in SBC life. And that administrator, has called an SBC leader a traitor. I find such an accusation by someone of Norm Miller’s status and position very very troubling. I realize that as Truett-McConnell is GBC, and funded through CP funds from the GBC, I who am in Missouri have no say in how the GBC runs things. THat is why I said I would hope that either the college, or the convention there in Georgia will take action. Unfortunately I doubt (if not know) they will not. And as evidence here, by some, as well as other places already, Norm Miller is closer to be given an award of some kind for his statement rather than a justly deserved (with out a formal apology) censure for what was said.
Okay, I see….svmuschaney….you didnt call out Dr. Mohler, or some others…some who are contributing writers to the SBC Voices blog, here, who insinuated, or who flat said, outright, that Trads are Semi Pelagian, or heretics. I see that it looks as if you might even be agreeing with them. Oh well.
BTW, I quote people, who are not SB’s, in my preaching. I study people, who are not SB’s.
David
PS. I still think that a lot of yall are making a mountain out of a molehill, and it makes me wonder why? Could it be that yall are as gung ho to marginalize Non Calvinists in the SBC? Or, even weed them out? Maybe as gung ho, as you are accusing Norm Miller and SBC Today of being gung ho about stifling Calvinism? Hummmm?
If people were trying to “weed out” non-calvinists in this Norm Miller issue, then I doubt Ed Stetzer, in the article where he points out where he was a called a traitor, heaps a HUGE amount of praise for Paige Patterson for the new NAS Revelation’s commentary.
Finally, I make note that You have not yet condemned Norm Miller for what he said. Lets make it very clear and direct. Do YOU, David believe that Ed Stetzer is a traitor to the SBC? Yes or no? Will you be the first “traditionalist” to actually confront that question? Lets phrase it differently. Was Norm Miller wrong to call Ed Stetzer a traitor? Yes or no? Can you/ will you answer?
I see you did answer my questions on a post that posted while I was posting. So please disregard the second half of this posts….I hope this post is not confusing.
David,
Can you see the difference in these two things:
1. Raising historical and theological reasons for identifying a modern theological position with a historical theological position.
2. Labeling someone as “treasonous” for fraternizing with Christians outside the SBC.
Addendum to my points: as has been pointed out over and over again, all the furor over Mohler doesn’t even make sense considering how little he actually said about semi-Pelagianism in the Statement. Most of the rage has required imposing motives and meanings on his few words. Even if he had called it semi-Pelagian (which, let me say yet again, he didn’t), he would be in the clear – both because it is SP and because even if it isn’t, it’s an issue that can be legitimately debated. But such an action is very different from a generic charge of treason for quoting non Southern Baptists.
I thought I have made over the top statements in the past that I have apologized for. The opposing voices at SBC Today have been banned from that sight so only mostly cheerleaders exist there except for very few they keep around to abuse. I have to applauded Dave Miller for allowing a sinner like me to still post here.
I know of no way to support what Norm Miller said regarding Ed Stetzer. We have been charged by Christ to look after his flock and are responsible as teachers/disciples for our actions and will be held accountable. I know I have made statements I have repented for. What appears to be happening within the SBC currently is not Christ Glorifying. If we continue down this path, St. Peter may be walking past that door quietly for different reasons if this trajectory within the SBC persists.
Dave,
As a general observation, I’ve seen this myopia as well: Baptist= like the KJV, if it was good enough for Peter & Paul (not also Mary), then it’s good enough for me.
Was present when an invitation from another church was discussed regarding a M.O.P.S. program and it’s availability. Now, there were some single mother’s and many married mothers who fit the description: mother’s of preschoolers, but the announcement was not made.
2 reasons:
-1- this was not an SBC program and we need to research an SBC equivalent
-2- Monday was FAITH night (MOPS is during the day) and we will promote nothing oon Monday except FAITH
So, out of SBC pride, a ministry opportunity was not shared with those in the church.
‘rhetoric’ often fails to translate into unity, but this is ESPECIALLY TRUE in a community of faith
Why?
because the ONLY language that the community of faith has in common is expressed in the fruit of the Holy Spirit . . . and the presence of this fruit signals to all that Christ is in their midst as their Source of unity
” But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.”
— Galatians 5:22-23
if folks are looking for another kind of ‘rhetoric’, they may, but in the end, without what is essential to unity, we cannot hope for a bond of Christ’s peace to form between them, binding them to Him and to each other
Southern Baptist (really anyone) who have strong beliefs have strong and set ways. The older we get, the more set we are in our ways. At least the majority of us are that way. This would have been said and accepted in 1960 by a majority of people. What has changed? We have accepted long hair and short skirts. We have accepted praise bands and Christian concerts. We have accepted Cowboy Churches and dropping Baptist from our church name. We have accepted Christian movies and Christian theme parks. When do we say stop and how do we say it?
Personally, the offense is toward Ed Stetzer, or maybe David Rogers. If they call Norm Miller and they settle it, no one should ever know the outcome. That is what is most important about Matthew 18:15. I know it was stated publically, but we do not need to put a neon sign around it. BTW, there was a good post no one commented on before this hot piece of information hit the blog.
Bruce: Norm Miller put a neon sign on the comment when he wrote it. It was a fairly long comment and the word traitor was quite explicit in nature.
Debbie: Is it common place for us to put a neon sign around a neon sign? This is classic gossip with a hint of politics in it, to me. If Norm Miller publically apologized due, in part, to this post many would sit and judge his motive. Ed is a big boy and can either overlook it or contact Norm Miller to see what he really meant.
I’ve seen a post on another blog showing some pastor who was jailed after having sex with a 17 year old. The one who posted it said he got what he deserved. I disagreed with him vehemently for what he said. Our communications should be filled with grace, not justice. We are not under the law and our communication about and between each other should be full of grace and truth. Restoration is our first response in all these matters.
Bruce: There is nothing wrong with justice either. Both are spoken of in scripture as in we as Christians should want justice for those who have been wrong as well as Grace. One is not to the exclusion of the other.
Justice through the legal system is used by God against evil doers. It is God’s judgement only. For us to say “he got what he deserved” about a brother in Christ is a far statement from grace. It borderlines the servant who was forgiven much and threw some one in prison for a small debt. A brother in Christ needs our compassion rather than throwing them under the bus. Since we all deserve the same judgement we have no right to say someone got what they deserve.
Bruce: When someone calls another Christian treasonous that is a serious charge and it is being addressed as it should be. This kind of talk should not be overlooked. It’s tatamount to character assassination which the SBC is so famous for anyway. We’ll have to disagree on this one.
“If they call Norm Miller and they settle it, no one should ever know the outcome.”
I am inclined to agree, though given the public nature of this situation it would be good if they would release some statement along the lines of, “We have discussed the situation and resolved it amicably”, etc. I don’t think we need the details of how they resolve things, but it would help the situation for us to at least know that they did so.
FWIW, though I agree that Norm calling what Ed does “treason” is over the top, I have no personal gripe with Norm, just a difference of philosophy regarding the issues being discussed, which are all very public matters. In Ed’s post, I do not understand him to be taking up a personal grudge with Norm either, just pointing out the inconsistency of him calling what he has done “treason” when others have done the equivalent and are not called down for it. All valid material for blog discussions, as I understand it.
Chris,
I can agree with both. Is every sin against another done openly or in private? If it is done openly there are eyewitnesses and simply no way of informing them the outcome. Telling of the resolve should be optional. The show of Christlike character is how well we speak of each other to others after we resolve it privately. This kind of sin isn’t single dimensional like it is in this post. Sin is 4 dimensional; sin, conviction, repentance and restoration. Like a baseball game, a single, double or triple do not make any points. You have to make it home before it really counts. 🙂
I would just like to point out that if the boyscouts gave badges for prophecy, and if I were a boyscout, I would get a badge.
Almost one year ago I wrote this. Noting that many who viewed Dr. Mohler with suspicion would “latch on to” two statements made by Dr. Mohler.
http://www.mikeleake.net/2012/06/interacting-with-albertmohlers-response.html
Here we are almost one year later and it’s still be quoted. Now I’m mentioning this for a few reasons. One, to drive traffic to my blog. Two, because I want to show off my prophecy skills. Three, to make the point that these discussions always go back to the same spot and are very predictable. I could have just as easily given some sort of Calvinistic merry-go-round. Especially the response when a Traditionalist says, “I know of Calvinists that wreck churches”. Calvinist answers, “name them”. And we go back and forth pretending like we’ve gotten somewhere.
If you agree with Norm Miller’s statement then say so. If you don’t or it makes you uncomfortable then say so. But continuing on this merry-go-round is making me nauseous (and I have a suspicion I’m not alone).
Wow! The comments under this article blew up fast! Someone must of mentioned Calvinism. 🙂
Yep, and Acts29, and Driscoll, and lime green suits. In fact the only thing that has not been mentioned is alcohol! Oh wait…. 😛
Is Driscoll or Acts29 in any way affiliated with the Masons? We have a pretty good conspiracy going regarding the Gospel Project but I don’t think anyone will believe the Illuminati is involved, so maybe we can find Masonic fingerprints here or there.
Boys and girls, let’s not turn this into a Calvinist/non-Calvinism mudslinging session. Ed Stetzer is hardly a Calvinist firebrand. In fact, he has been in trouble recently for calling out angry Calvinists on their nonsense. So, Calvinism is NOT going to be the discussion here.
There are, as best I can tell, three issues.
1) Is it “denominational treason” (seeking to destroy the denomination with secret and scurrilous acts) to quote people from other denominations in our SS literature?
2) Were Norm Miller’s personal attacks on warranted? I strongly believe they were not.
3) Why did not any of those who agree with Norm Miller call him on his extreme and harsh rhetoric?
Let’s keep our eyes on the ball.
1. This issue is between Norm Miller and Ed Stetzer…not everyone in the SBC.
2. This should have been left between Norm Miller and Ed Stetzer, instead of being broadcast to the world.
3. Blog posts like this one….along with the comments by some people, and blog posts like the one that followed this one about hymnals….all just stir up a lot of anger and division…and it really sounds like some politics are going on here.
4. Yall are making a mountain out of a molehill.
David
See https://sbcvoices.com/southern-baptists-and-spiritual-myopia/#comment-174727
1) Norm Miller made a general statement to the public, not to Ed Stetzer, so it is in fact NOT a private discussion between them.
2) Since, Norm Miller intended this as a point of advocacy within the SBC, and since SBC Today is a reasonably active blog within the SBC, this is not just some private point we can just ignore.
He is advocating a view of the SBC with which I disagree and I am going to state my mind on that.
David: I see where you are going, but this was not done in private. Miller called Stetzer a traitor to the SBC, publicly and unequivocally. And Stetzer is not the only one involved with the Gospel Project, so in so far as others are responsible for including non-Baptist quotes in the material, they too are “traitors”.
When Peter sinned publicly, Paul rebuked him publicly.
Didn’t some Calvinist make an inappropriate tweet about one of the speakers at the J316 conference? He was rebuked, publicly, by Trevin Wax, and rightly so.
Bill Mac,
Was Dr. Mohler and Chris Roberts and many others rebuked for calling Trads “Semi Pelagian?”
Nope. Not by very many.
So,for a lot of people…… I guess it’s okay to attack Non Calvinists, but not okay to attack Calvinists. Double standard. Hypocrisy.
David
I have said it was not a great choice of wording and have called on both sides to tone it down.
But, let us agree (for the sake of argument) that “semi-pelagian” was a bad choice of terms for the Trads. Does that make Norm Miller’s designation of Stetzer as a traitor to the denomination okay?
No one is saying, “it’s okay to attack Non Calvinists, but not okay to attack Calvinists.” No one.
The question is this – how does that justify what Norm Miller said?
Um, it seems to me that a great many people publicly rebuked Mohler and Roberts. Weren’t you one of them?
David: He publicly called a brother in Christ, a fellow Southern Baptist, a traitor to the SBC. Does that not deserve a public rebuke?
Bill Mac,
Yes, I did. They are wrong….very wrong to say that Non Calvinists are Semi Pelagian.
I still think that this whole thing should be between Norm Miller and Ed Stetzer.
BTW, did any of you call Norm to talk to him about this, before making it a public rebuke? Did any of you ask Ed if he had called Norm? Or, has Norm tried to contact him?
David
David: I agree. People are far too careless about how they throw around accusation of heresy, and treason.
As to your second question: Public sin calls for public rebuke. Peter / Paul.
Vol, I tried to contact him but he did not respond. I do not have his personal email, so I used the email at SBC Today. I’m not real sure he got it.
Actually, as I read Norm’s comment it was not about Ed Stetzer. Rather, Stetzer was used as an example of the type of Southern Baptist leader who engages in treasonous behavior. While Stetzer was used as an example, the real objection is about behavior and traits of any SB leader who falls into the same categories.
Norm Miller’s statement really has nothing whatsoever to do with the quotation of non-SBC sources…
We all know what is driving this kind of rhetoric.
PROPHECY: Something resembling a retraction will be issued by Norm Miller.
I have heard it said, “The one group Baptists can’t get along with are other Baptists.” After reading some of these posts I would tend to agree. I have been a SBC Christian since I was nine and I just don’t understand why SBCers can’t get along. In my second semester of Church History at GGBTS I did a paper on the Conservative Resurgence. I was shocked to learn how SBCers treated other SBCers. It was just shameful.
I tend to think we should be firing cannons at the the mongrel dogs and bottom feeders who have been attacking Rick Warren after the death of his son rather than drawing lines in the sand about what is and what is not the motivation of a comment in a blog thread.
There are some true low-life scum out there beating on Rick and Kay Warren right now. Why don’t some of you highly capable fellows take your keyboards and set their houses on fire?
My motives and intent in publishing this have been questioned by several. The fact is that I often question my own motives. I was going to ignore this kerfuffle – as is my preference – but I decided to write on it, because this is the issue that has motivated me in blogging since I started.
I blog to encourage and instruct, when I can. But I also blog to oppose the “we are the true Baptists, you are not” attitude that was behind Norm Miller’s comment (in my view).
I did, in fact, attempt to contact Norm by emailing the SBC Today email. But he may or may not have seen that.
It is not my intent to beat anyone up. It is my intent to oppose, as long as I am blogging, the “us against them”, “we are more Baptist than you” elitist and exclusionary attitudes when I see them.
We’ve hashed this over. There may be more posts on this topic, but I think we’ve reached the productive end of discussion here.
I reiterate that Norm Miller’s comment was unkind and needs to be retracted. Norm Miller is not an evil man. He does not need to be pilloried, but his comment needs to be opposed, vigorously.