I was feeling rowdy this morning, so I left a comment over on this helpful post by Ed Stetzer. Then I realized that blog is a little boring and wanted to set you commenting animals loose. Besides, I think they just deleted my comment anyway! That kind of controlled discussion always raises my blood pressure.
He was listing the factors that might keep younger leaders away from the SBC annual meetings. Here’s what I said.
Thanks for the helpful post and I see myself in a few of your reasons. Here are two more that you can’t say:
6. The brand value of SBC is beyond zero and now far into the negative.
7. Our missions model is simply outdated and encourages waste at almost every level.
That’s just the way I’ve been looking at things lately.
What do you think keeps young billy goats away from the Sacred Hill?
The Conservative Resurgence led to the firing of many Seminary presidents and profs. The convention took a stance the ends justify the means. Get rid of the moderate influence at any costs. At that time you lost the respect of many younger leaders. I believe in every miracle of the bible and the inerrancy of scripture and I was a little put off. I still don’t trust completely everyone in charge. I guess what I’m trying to say is that they lost my trust in leadership. I can’t stand church politics and I look at every proposal with skepticism. What are you not telling me. What’s really in the GCR proposal. What does it look like when it’s over.
I think alot of young SBC can’t stand the politics either.
Most leaders don’t get multiple conferences to go to so we don’t want to waste it
The speakers were much better this time at the pastors conference. Most of what I’ve seen in the past didn’t impress me. I don’t want to see the same old preachers decomposing on stage.
Love to see more break out sessions at the convention. Hello 20th century
And, herein is some of the problem with a lot of the younger guys…total disrespect for the “older ones” of our SBC. I mean, anyone over the age of “40” is decomposing on stage? I guess? lol. So, are you saying that you dont like to hear anyone preach, who’s over the age of 40? or 50? or 60?
I really sense a rebellious, young, disrespectful attitude in some of the younger people in the SBC right now. Not all of them, but in some of them. And, it’s almost like if you’re not Ed Stetzer, or into the emerging, missional, or whatever the latest name is movement; then you’re not worth hearing.
Listen, I’ve learned much from hearing older pastors like Dr. Jerry Vine’s preach the Word of God, or Dr. Adrian Rogers and Dr. Criswell, back when they were alive. I guess we need to just tell any Pastor over the age of 45 that they’re no longer relevant to the world, nor are they welcome to proclaim God’s Word to us anymore…according to some of the “young peeps” coming out of seminary.
Concerned,
DAvid
Volfan,
That was like the prototypical response from your generation… They dont like something, therefore, “I sense a rebellious, young, disrespectful attitude.”
No one is saying people over the age of 45 arent relevant. That was a childish, emotional response. The younger generation simply doesnt want to see the same guys every single year. I’ll take Jerry Vines every now and then, but give me some David Platt and Matt Chandler as well.
And Matt you just proved his point with a childish response. When it’s pointed out that the young “leaders” have shown an incredible disrespect to older ministers. You start name calling. The Bible doesn’t say respect your elders when you agree with them it says respect your elders period. Having a a seminary degree doesn’t entitle one to the title of “leader”
What you see in the SBC is rampant in society which is this sense of entitlement. Used to be men came out of college and knew they were going to have to work their way up a corporation and maybe some day they’d make it to vice president but today these punks get out if school and they expect the position their fathers spent thirty years working toward – why should they have to Put in any actual time working when they’re ready now. That’s what’s happening in the SBC is you have these young punks who don’t believe they should have to pay any dues and the old men who’ve been at this for years should just get out of the way. Bunch of spoiled brats who want all the glory without working. Everything should just be handed over to them because if you don’t they’re going to pitch tantrums and take their toys to another church. Good riddance.
And Bess responds with a childish response… and I respond with a childish response… etc. Baloney.
While respect is due to older convention leaders, unless the older leaders respond with something other than mere complaining about younger leaders, things won’t change.
Ed Stetzer made some very good points and Tony added two other good ones. These are the types of issues that younger leaders have before them. They are good issues to discuss and younger leaders will tend to lead in such a way as to address them. If older leaders won’t address them meaningfully, then we have an impasse and the next generation will go a different way than the old SBC. It’s as simple as that.
And until the young cry babies quit their whiny about how young “leaders” don’t get no respect the young crybabies are going to be treated like the infants they are. “we don’t want to go to the SBC cause it’s boring wah wah wah”. You know why the little whiners don’t leave the SBC? Cause no other denominations would put up with their “we are so much smarter and cooler than you stupid old men now give us the power and money of the SBC and get out of our way.”. There is no successful organization who would up witha buunch of brats demanding that the brats be allowed control just because “looksie I got’s a degree from Southern.
Amen Bess!!
Matt,
I believe Matt Chandler and David Platt have preached at the SBC for the past 2 or 3 years.
David
I’m not sure age is the big issue. Most of my buddies love RC Sproul & John Piper & some even love Billy Graham.
These guys are not SBC, but they are old.
David,
You said:
Disagreement doesn’t mean disrespect. What does our SBC mean? If our means everyone then those who disagree have the right to do so.
This assertion assigns motive to some younger people in the SBC and therefore may be taken as disrespectful. It seems to only reflect back the attitude being criticized.
The tone of your comment might show one reason why some younger SBC leaders might not be so inclined to listen. Is this the type of rhetorical responses that older, seasoned SBC leaders reach out to the younger generation with?
Calling older Pastors preaching at the SBC “decomposing” on stage is respectful?
Give me a break.
David
That was one disrespectful remark that you used to generalize about many (most?) young SBC leaders. Again, is this the leadership you would offer that the younger should follow?
There is probably some truth to much of that (Stetzer’s reasons and yours). I think a simple reason is that many younger ministers are in church positions like youth or associate pastors, are trying to work some other job, finish schooling, are pastoring (perhaps bi-vocationally) at a smaller church in a smaller town, and/or are church planting. Most of these situations afford these younger ministers with little time or resources to go halfway across the country to attend the SBC and pay for hotels. I know some trooper out there will argue that a TRUE SBC pastor will use his 3 days of vacation and sleep in his car each year to attend the convention, but for guys with families and an ounce of sanity, they would rather use those 3 days to go camping with their wife.
Plus, with the internet, you can watch all the crazy uncle motions and monitor the twitter feed for reactions from your home or office without having to hear The Good Ol’ Boys Gospel quartets. 🙂
Good ol’ boys gospel quartets like “Casting Crowns?”
lol. i’m not really sure Casting Crowns is really what 20-30 year-olds listen to, but anything’s a big improvement over Southern Gospel. 🙂
Does anyone remember the Gathers singing “Somewhere between Jesus & John Wayne” at the INDY SBC 08. There were crowds of younger guys at the back laughing because it was so weird.
That is heresy. My mom and dad LOVE Gaither.
Dave,
You favor Bill Gaither a little bit.
For disclosure I do not agree with all of the BF&M 2000 so take this for what it’s worth.
I think the attraction used to be the Cooperative Program. I think that is over.
I think what has kept some younger leaders attracted is the IMB. I do not think it is the BF&M 2000. I think the BF&M is seen as what is necessary to do missions through the IMB, but the IMB is/has been the main attraction.
If young leaders lose faith in the IMB, then I think it’s over.
Personally, I believe I now value most of the seminaries the highest–especially Southeastern and Southern.
Back in the 1960’s, for example, if you wanted to go to a conservative, Bible believing seminary anywhere in America, I believe it was slim pickens.
I think our conservative seminaries have been and are going to continue to bear fruit, it just might be mostly beyond the SBC borders I think.
If Benji is correct, and the BFM2K is not important to the young guys, then we’re in serious trouble in the SBC…very serious trouble.
And, to say that Southern and Southeastern are the best shows your bias about Calvinism, or the emerging, missional, whatever movement. Southwestern and New Orleans and the other SB seminaries are very, very good schools. Why do you put them beneath the ones you mentioned?
David
Volfan,
I would argue that the BFM2000 really isnt important to Les and Lumpkins is well. If it were they would know that the BFM2000 allows freedom on these “reformed” issues. Yet, those two continue to act as if being a Reformed Southern Baptist is an oxymoron. The BFM allows freedom in these things, but those two and many others do not.
We do they and others insist on making Calvinist Southern Baptists feel unwelcome as if they dont really belong. Which is exactly what they do.
I would say that all the schools are good schools. I dont know about Southeastern, but I do believe Southern has assembled the best staff, which is what makes a seminary great. This doesnt mean I am bias towards Calvinism, but merely that I think SBTS has the best staff.
WEll, I think Southwestern has the best staff in SBC schools, and Mid America Baptist Seminary has the best overall.
Also, Matt, if doctrine is no longer important in the SBC, then we’re in such major trouble that is frightening. And, for you to say that Peter Lumpkins and Les Puryear dont seem to care about the BFM2K is a very childish and stupid statement to make. Of course, they care about doctrine and the BFM2K. You cant read what they write without seeing that.
David
Hmm…
Defending Les Puryear and Peter Lumpkins while attacking the person make the statement without addressing the substance of the post.
Bravo, good sir. Bravo.
And so very typical of your crowd.
What, was Joe Blackmon too busy punching kittens and stealing candy from small children to post some mocking reference to Enid?
Bill, you nailed it- attack me and not deal with the content of what I said. I get it a lot.
Volfan,
I didnt say the younger generation dont care about doctrine. And please, deal with what I DID say next time.
But Matt, you did blaspheme in the presence of future seminary students everywhere in saying:
“Southern has assembled the best staff, which is what makes a seminary great.”
Matt, you and some of the others here have become some of my favorite none dumb young dudes who are smarter than some none smart old dudes.
But you and you alone among the none dumb young dudes have fallen from grace to a dismal degree of wretchedness.
Let me help you to repent. Repeat after me (and remember you are not saying this to me, but to future seminary students everywhere) I repent of failing to recognize SEBTS as the best of all seminaries.
Now, if you really meant that Matt, you are back in seminary grace. Don’t you “feel” better about yourself now?
Volfan007
I cannot speak for Southwestern, but I can speak to the difference in NOBTS and SBTS because I have degrees from both of them in the last 6 years. I can tell you why I don’t put NOBTS in the same category as SBTS. First SBTS puts a much larger emphasis on academic rigor, simply compare the degree programs and the amount of books written by the respective faculties. Second, SBTS puts a much larger emphasis on hands on local church ministry. Compare the ministries that the respective faculties are involved in at their local churches for evidence. Every professor I know of at Southern is either a pastor, elder, or leader in their church. Not so at NOBTS when I was there. Just my viewpoint.
Good comment, Chris.
And, I hope this does not offend, but you have one of the coolest names I have ever seen.
Very good points Chris.
Benji,
I think you are right… The IMB certainly seems to be the main attraction to us young guys. We dont care to be a part of the ‘good ole boys’ club in SBC politics. We just want to focus on the mission work of the SBC.
Matt,
You have no missions apart from correct doctrine. It’s not about politics. I could care less about politics. But, if you dont have correct doctrine, then you dont have a mission to begin with.
David
Volfan,
Again, deal with what I am saying- I am not saying doctrine isnt important. In the comment you just addressed I talked about SBC politics, not doctrine. You old guys just cant keep up. 😉
Ahh Matt, come on now.
I always enjoyed the “good ole boys club. ” Its loads of fun. Don’t knock it ’til you try it.
Most younger guys I know affirm the BFM2000. Obviously, they’re going to have personal beliefs that are more detailed than it, but they affirm it. I don’t really think that’s too blame. Maybe some people’s attempts to narrow what is necessary to be “SBC” from what is stated in our common faith agreement have turned some away, but not the BFM2k itself.
Midwestern is very good also. They have a great mix of professors. I greatly enjoyed my time there.
Josh,
Let’s assume that most young leaders affirm everything in the BF&M 2000. Even if that is the case, do you think that many, if not most of them, would want to go to SBC meetings if they lost faith in the IMB? I don’t.
Probably not. since cooperating for mission is THE reason for being part of a convention. I just wanted to add that the guys my age I know don’t have a problem with it, especially not with the 2000 update. (as opposed to some who might argue that the changes therein are the reasons younger pastors leave).
It also might be good to note that failure to attend the annual meeting doesn’t equal leaving the convention. (that’s just a general thought, not in reply to you, Benji)
Josh C,
I do not think the addition of affirming inerrancy and complimentarianism in the BF&M 2000 causes young pastors to leave. However, I think the necessity of having to agree with “all” of the confession in order to to missions through an SBC agency might possibly make a number of them want to leave…perhaps quietly.
You guys can cuss the BF&M all you want to, any edition you desire. But you guys need to stand down on this seminary comparison stuff.
SEBTS is number one!!
You can put the rest of them in a potato sack and shake them up and which ever one falls out first can be second………a far distant second at that.
I think you guys might need to get saved again. You are all backslidden. Next thing you know, you will be sending your kids to the University of Richmond so they can play on the baseball team.
Preachers come out of SEBTS.
LIfeWay Bookstore managers come from the other five.
And Mid-America??? Mid-America, Vol?? That is a training school for traveling Bible Dictionary Salesmen.
And Benji, “Slim Pickens” was a great American Cowboy actor, Rodeo Star and Lifetime Member of the sacred NRA. Don’t take his name in vain again.
Hey, CB, dont be cruel. Mid America is a great seminary. I thoroughly enjoyed my time at this great school, and it emphasizes missions and soul winning like no other school in the world. You want to talk about hands on mission involvement and soul winning? You cant beat Mid America.
David
Proud Alum of Mid America Baptist Theological Seminary, 1988 grad
How many Bible Dictionaries have you sold this year Vol? 🙂
;0
Vol,
I was raggin’ on you, I trust you know that. I have always thought Dr. Allison to be a stand up guy.
Most of the guys that I grew up with left the SBC early on. The seminaries were not to be trusted. They went to Dallas Theological, Reformed, Masters, and other places. They followed the “Jesus” movement by just a few years. All of the energy from that movement said that one did not have to belong to a denomination, and that, in fact, it might almost be a hindrance. They all worked in the parachurch organizations, which are not denominationally funded.
Fast forward to today. The SBC brand is damaged. It’s been majorly improved doctrinally due to the CR. The seminaries are much better. Lots of people see that now.
But 20 years of fighting (even a fight that is worth it) takes a toll. That’s why I am a big advocate of not fighting now. Many people associate the convention with a fight. Why go somewhere to fight? It’s not like it’s 1980.
Also, the denominational structure of the SBC, while the loosest of all the denominations, still is a structure, and there is still more of a dominant cultural presentation that does not exist outside of denominational life.
Here are some thoughts for moving forward:
1. Don’t obsess about decline. Tell the truth about where we are. But we are where we are. Obsessing about decline is really idolatrous, even though it often passes for “truth telling.”
2. Resist the urge to become culturally more isolated and obscure. Don’t encourage abandonment of the culture. Don’t make churches one-stop places to meet all your living needs. I know lots of neat Christians who don’t have any non-Christian friends (who aren’t relatives) just because they are so busy at church that they never see non-Christians, except to hand a tract to a stranger.
3. Resist the urge toward legalism, both within and without the denomination. The obsession with some social behaviors is just not biblical. Preach what the Bible says, but don’t add to it.
4. Resist the urge to make participation in the denomination harder. Don’t require churches to give certain percentages to the denomination for full participation or service in the denomination. You don’t attract people with austerity or strict giving demands.
5. Recognize the ever increasing cultural diversity in the Southern U.S. and increase church starts in those cultures. The SBC should have hundreds of hispanic church starts, and our seminary enrollments should have lots of hispanics and people from other cultures.
6. Major on the majors of the Christian life and the Bible, not the minor points.
7. Stop having battles about everything under the sun.
8. Cherish Baptist distinctives, but don’t make a totem out of them. We should not be about “Being Baptist.” Let the CBF have that one. Keep the distinctives that are essential (baptism by immersion of confessional believers, church autonomy, priesthood of the believer etc.) Jettison the ones that may have been important at one time, but have not really been practiced by large numbers of Baptists for generations, and are really not central scripturally – objecting to alien immersion (people not baptized in a baptist church), closed or close communion, what to name a church. It’s fine if individual churches want to do this, but don’t try to impose this as a rule or add it to the BFM.
9. Consider changing the name of convention (as LifeWay did) to eliminate the regional emphasis. We want to be national. Why not say that we are?
10. Emphasize the substance of the church, not the size only. We worship at the feet of big.
11. Put only really sharp people in leadership. And then get these really sharp people good help in dealing with the public. Too many pastors and SBC leaders fancy themselves as not only good preachers, but also good PR people. I have heard some really fine men and fine preachers say some really dumb things publically. There is nothing wrong with good PR. And we don’t get “extra” points with God for proclaiming the truth without concern for the PR – that is, how others will hear what we are saying. “Wise as serpents, harmless as doves” should be an important scripture for us.
12. Forget about the denomination. And focus on Christ above all things.
Louis,
I liked your post, but get ready for a BIG firestorm from the BI guys on your 8th point. 🙂
Maybe so. But I like some the BI guys. One of their leaders who is a seminary prof is a dear friend. I enjoy their company. But I don’t agree with them on some particulars.
I understand why my seminary prof BI guy feels the way he does. And I think it is important that the SBC be big enough for a seminary prof such as he and others to promote those ideas.
We should have a convention that is open to debate and discussion with the understanding that not everything debated and discussed is going to rise to the level of inclusion in the BFM and application denomination wide.
So, I say let the BI guys and the non-BI guys have respectful debates and discussions that are convictional and heartfelt. But if either side feels they should push their agenda so as to exclude or forcibly convert the other side, or they conduct their debate in that manner, that is a detriment to denominational health, in my opinion.
Louis: For all practical purposes I think you have just abandoned the BFM 2000 as well as the flawwed Rubric of Inerrancy.
I don’t see how folks of the intelligence I imagine your friends to have, courting friendships and relationships with those outside the faith, who are gonna be able to hold on to the first 11 chapters of Genesis as History and Science, and talk about such matters Pressler and Patterson; talk about it in the language Pressler did when he went to see Jack Flanders at Baylor in 1960 something.
I just don’t believe that.
Now they may want to have conversations about the Bible like the ones Randall Balmer and Marilynne Robinson are having about Faith and Science and the truthfulness of SCripture.
But I think you are playing word games when you think your 11 point plan is gonna hold water with Pressler and Mohlerism.
But I do find your thoughtfulness on these matters intriguing; and your relative eloquence appealling.
First, thank you for the sincere compliment. You often say many things that are appealing.
Second, I do not read the BFM 2000 that way. I don’t think that it mandates any particular interpretation of Genesis.
I believe, for example, that Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian in NYC would be welcomed at the convention. His interpretation of Genesis may differ from many in the SBC, but he believes that Genesis is true, and is God’s word, and is not a myth written by a man trying to understand what God had done. He believes that the Bible is a revelation from the Lord.
That is contrary to what was opposed in the SBC; the idea that the Bible is a mixture of truth and error. That some of the Bible is not inspired.
The nature of scripture was the primary issue.
I, also, disagree with your assessment of Mohler and Pressler.
What made Judge Pressler so effective, among other things, was that he maintained his composure and spoke eloquently in public even though he was firm in his beliefs. He was an excellent spokesman. He did not have the bombastic characteristic that had plaqued the fundamentalists like Norris and others a generation earlier. Pressler is, in my thinking, what Whittaker Chambers said about William F. Buckley after meeting him for the first time. He said that this is what the right had been missing for many years. A young, articulate and kind person. Too many on the right had been screamers.
I feel the same about Mohler. Honeycutt said that Mohler is the smartest person to have ever graduated from Southern. He is clearly smart. He speaks well. For that reason he speaks often – all over the country, in places that evangelicals don’t often get to speak.
I know that you believe the message that Pressler and Mohler may bear is not correct. I am not addressing that per se.
I am addressing the fact that the SBC, while not needing to worship at the feet of good looks, intelligence or polish, needs to understand that there is a place for a good presentation. And we should put the most well spoken among us as our denominational representatives, and not the least well spoken.
Pretty smooth reply
Eloquent folks like Randall Balmer, Buddy Shurden, Mark Noll, David Morgan author of The Baptist Crusade, on and on ad infinitem beg to differ with your characterization of Mohler, Pressler etc; and their integrity.
I think it was Balmer who named Richard Land for instance, a counterfeit Baptist.
But not begging to get into the ad hominems, just pointing that out. I am surprised, at the same time, and heartened by Land’s tack on Immigration. There are some hopeful signs there.
As you know I am convinced Bill Moyers has Pressler’s number as did W. J. Wimpee at Baylor; and of course Mr.Baugh
I think it was Baugh who said on one occasion about his former Sunday School class member at 2nd Houston, the difference between himself and Pressler was Mr. Baugh was a gentleman.
That said I am intrigued by your reference to Buckley and Whittaker Chambers. One summer in my youth I was great friends of the son of a man to whom Buckley dedicated one of his books, the man who gave more money to Nixon in 72 than any other man in America.
So there is a sense in which, Louis, I feel like I know you, but to my knowledge we have never met.
At Bl.com BDW has speculated you are Louis Moore, who I thought was a religion writer at one time in Houston. But I think recently you said that was not you; and your story of your trip to San Antonio from Atlanta in 88 doesn’t seem to scour with what I gather Moore’s story was.
But this is interesting, how folks remember the same event differently. I guess ABraham Lincoln had he not be shot, woulda rememberred the Civil War differently than Stonewall Jackson; and MLKing probably had a different interpretation and memory of Birmingham than Bull Connor.
Mark Noll has that great line about literal Scripture through the lens of Emily Dickinson, Lincoln and Whitman. Hope that registers with you on some occasion.
Looking forward to how this continues to evolve and maybe BDW will bring it to the attention of his Baylor folks soon if not already.
I hope they put up a statue of Jack Flanders on the grounds of Truett Seminary someday.
Well, I know that we disagree about the Pressler and Mohler. But the point of my post was that Pressler and Mohler were polished and good spokesmen. I like them, too, and I know that you do not. But I think that you will agree that they are well spoken.
What is Bl.com? Why is my identity being speculated about there? I am NOT Louis Moore. The only thing we have in common is our first name.
I believe that Louis Moore was a member of Ken Chaffin’s church in Houston and was a moderate supporter early on, but came to realize that the conservatives had a point.
See you soon.
And Louis et. al. to this I would add the thoughts of a board member of the Progressive Baptist Journal Christian Ethics Today. It will be interesting to see how Louis, if he has time to wade through this, distinguishes himself and SBC vision from the convictions of Fisher Humphreys, particularly on the nature of Scripture.
http://tinyurl.com/25vdm9k
Almost all the pages of Lost Tradition Chapter and where the SBC goes next came up for me when I clicked.
You may also want to reference his index cause there is a great listing there of David Morgan and Nancy Ammerman for reference; almost all the BX 6400’s.
All in All an invaluable reference, one that I am with some of you reading for the first time.
“1. Don’t obsess about decline. Tell the truth about where we are. But we are where we are. Obsessing about decline is really idolatrous, even though it often passes for “truth telling.””
Best quote of the post.
You know what John Young?
I tend to agree with you.
Well said, Louis. Since I am not as conservative as most of the people here, my opinion may not be desired, but that a a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee at most places, so I’ll share it anyway.
When I was a young preacher, I had little interest ingoing to conferences and hearing the same people year after year sharing virtually the same boilerplare messages. Some, I am convinced, were following the same boilerplate, and others simply shared the same convictions and opinions and had the same ideals and aspirations, so their message came off the same regardless. Now that I am approaching 60, and my attitude has not changed, whether of the theological orientation of the speakers. I don’t think I am being disrespectful now or when I was younger; but I will not give hours and days of my life that I’ll never get back with no real benefit for me. I have not gone to an SBC meeting since Greensboro–too far to travel, too expensive, to hear all the rankor and feel all the tension. I usually go to my state convention meetings, and association–that is, I make myself go, telling myself it is my dues I have to pay. Now the state has improved (Maryland), as they focus now on breakout sessions and offer real choices of what to listen to. But locally, it too often becomes a brag session, with some self-appointed alpha-dog preacher monopolizing conversations and pontificating. And before someone accuses me of being disrespectful, they really ought to consider the disrespect that a speaker shows when he wastes the time of his audience and/or hijacks the subject he is supposed to address to either beat a dead horse or follow his own favorite wild geese.
John
QUOTE I was feeling rowdy END QUOTE
I may get involved in the substance of this post, but I don’t know. I imagine we can all just mark “ditto,” to our previous posts on any given blog topic because it all turns out the same anyway.
Where in the Bible does Jesus exhort us to be “rowdy” (as in causing strife just for the sake of causing strife). It seems to me, this post takes a Biblical detour from the first sentence.
That’s why, so far, I’ve only read the first sentence and scanned quickly the rest of the post. Here’s my reply to this post:
“Please see my previous replies in regard for why I am thankful for the CR.”
I think Jesus was rowdy too.
“Rowdy” Yates was my favorite character on Rawhide. Mr. Favor used to preach to him all the time for being “rowdy.”
Rawhide!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Clint Eastwood.
Now we’re talkin.
QUOTE I think Jesus was rowdy, too” END QUOTE
Therein lies my problem, “I think.” What “I” think really has no bearing on what is true. Show me one Scripture that describes Jesus as “rowdy” in His nature.
I do not disagree that Jesus was at times full of righteous indignation, but I do not know of any passage in Scripture that indicates Jesus ever went looking for a “rowdy time.”
The issue comes down for me to exactly the scenario you propose: What man thinks versus what God says. This is and has always been at the heart of the struggle between moderates (liberals) and conservatives in the SBC. It is a battle that will not go away because “truth is important.”
In regard to the “us versus them” battle being created over generational issues, it has done more harm to the evangelical church — in my opinion — than anything coming out of the church growth movement of the 70’s and 80’s.
And, as someone pointed out with Andy Stanley — I’m one of the young ones.
CB, I agree with you, our American culture is strongly individualistic and “Rowdy” types play to our base nature. My belief is, we should fight (no pun intended) that urge.
SSBN,
I know you are right. But it is kinda like that last scene in “Shane” for some of us. Remember?
It went sorta like this:
Shane: “I’ve got to be going on.”
Joey: “Why Shane.”
Shane: “Man has to be what he is Joey. Can’t break the mold. I tried it, it didn’t work for me.”
Maybe we have too many definitions floating around here. By rowdy I meant ready to engage in a semi-dangerous & dusty activity (like commenting on an SBC blog).
Yeah. Right. KInda the same thing.
Rowdy Yates rode his horse into “stampedes” to stop them. Rowdy Southern Baptists are a “stampede.”
LTB:
Why is it that there is so much division in the SBC? Why can we not just get along?
“Why can we not just get along?”
Tom,
The Rodney King impression ain’t workin’ either. 🙂
Tony: re #7 – on this point, our church virtually has our own mission board if only to track funds and activities and enable more people to go. I wouldn’t have a chance to be an IMB full-timer and the IMB people associated with our church and members of our church seem to have all kinds of difficulty accomplishing their mission because of the IMB. We’ve attracted IMB missionaries because they can mobilize people to help them through our church without fooling with the IMB.
And the international political landscape has changed dramatically it seems. Older methods of missionary activity are becoming less effective and new methods are required to take the gospel to people who need it. To quickly learn and implement these, parachurch organizations have been helpful. We’re involved with such organizations as Campus Crusade, Child Evangelism Fellowship, Reign Ministries, etc. And we’ve started some of our own fledgling groups like Hope for the Desert and IndiAlive. The IMB only goes so far and stops far short. We need to press on and there billions of unsaved people out there who need our every effort to get the message of the gospel to them. And our Lord, who has chosen to use us as his message-bearers expects no less of us.
Card’s on the table (in regards to things said in this thread): I’m 30, a pastor, I love and love listening to most of the old guys as well as the younger ones, I don’t like church politics, I am very appreciative of the work of the conservative resurgence including the firing and pressured resignation of certain professors et al., I agree with all points of the BF&M2000 except for their statement that proper baptism must proceed participation in the Lord’s Supper (I’m an open communion guy), I’m not a big fan of the IMB in its current form, and you will not catch me listening to southern gospel or casting crowns (sorry, I just don’t like either style)…
With that said: what keeps young-uns from the “sacred hill”… in my experience and my opinion alone, it’s one thing: how is traveling 100’s of miles to a convention relevant to what my church does on a daily basis?
I’m all for cooperative autonomy (or is that autonomous cooperation?), but I think in the tradition of our churches we have taken it too far. In my hometown of 20,000 people there are 18 SBC churches. We have a fairly active association, but rarely do the 18 actually associate together for the purpose of missions, evangelism, bible study, vbs, etc. We cooperate but are autonomous to the extreme. I have little connection to these other SBC churches that are just down the block other than getting together for “associational politics” meetings a couple of times each year that also has some preaching. The way we cooperate for missions is to send a check to some central body which then does the missions for us.
Now expand that same practice to state, national, and global levels.
In one sense I am “cooperating” with 1000’s of other churches who share a common theology by joining with them to fund missionaries…but on the other hand this is very limited cooperation and almost no true connection; let alone any personal connection/contact with those who I am supposedly “sending” to do missions for my church.
As a younger guy, I just like getting my hands a little more dirty than that. I like being more involved in the process and actually doing missions. Thus the work of the SBC isn’t as relevant to me as what actually goes on w/ my own church.
It would be more attractive IMO if we were truly a convention of cooperating churches, but that’s probably something that has to start at the local level and then flow up from there.
Mike,
Maybe I am just getting really old, but I noticed a lot of “young’uns at the sacred hill” this past June in Orlando. Or at least, I thought I did. But like I said, I may just be getting really old.
BTW, for my money, I wish someone would “convert” the sound of Springsteen for Arizona. It would work for me.
“Born in the USA”
SSBN,
I was thinking more of:
“Land Of Hope And Dreams”
Mike:
Great comments.
A lot of SBC business is remote to what the average pastor and church do.
But there is an important connection.
We can bemoan the state of so many institutions. But insitutions depend on those who make them up and lead them.
We have a voting franchise in the SBC. Sure, it’s not direct. Sure, there’s a lot of dysfunction and weirdness. But some of the institutions are great. They will only remain great if great people show up and exercise their franchise.
Here’s a suggestion. You and a few guys from your church come next year. Cram everyone into one hotel room. It’s really more fun to drive because of all the time you get to talk. We have great vision discussions about our church on the way.
Cram in one room, eat cheap, vote, get home, and forget about till next year.
By the way – attend the 9 Marks meeting and the Baptist 21 meeting. They were both great.
I am with CB. There were lots of young guys there this year.
Here’s my advice to people about the convention:
“Celebrate the good. Endure the bad. Ignore the absurd.”
We are going next year and are going to take some extra time in Sedona since one of our elders lived in Arizona for a while.
“Celebrate the good. Endure the bad. Ignore the absurd.”
Louis,
That would make a great movie.
“The Good, The Bad, The Absurd”
Maybe we could get Clint Eastwood to play the role of an aging, former SBC president.
David Platt could be the Rookie Mega-Pastor getting ready to preach at the Pastors’ Conference for the first time.
I can hear it now when Clint says to David, “Look Kid, a preacher has to know his limitations.”
Good one!
QUOTE in my experience and my opinion alone, it’s one thing: how is traveling 100?s of miles to a convention relevant to what my church does on a daily basis? END QUOTE
Mike, thank you for a thoughtful post and for realizing what I, too, realize: I owe a great debt to the “old folks” that have gone before (and I’m quickly, almost daily, becoming one of them).
I believe that we would be much better off to have a “travelling Convention,” rather than a “you all come” annual meeting. I’d love to see five or six regional (identical) meetings over a couple month period, or whatever works logistically. This idea would drastically increase participation. It would also increase logistical considerations.
I think this would go a long way to making us a happier, healthier convention.
QUOTE In one sense I am “cooperating” with 1000?s of other churches who share a common theology by joining with them to fund missionaries…but on the other hand this is very limited cooperation and almost no true connection; let alone any personal connection/contact with those who I am supposedly “sending” to do missions for my church END QUOTE
I think this is the beauty of the CP, if we would do it right: give globally, serve locally.
Those who demand respect rarely get it, and may not deserve it. Those who gain respect seldom do so by simply attaining a certain age. Why not show some respect by engaging Tony and Ed’s arguments and earn some respect in the process?
I think Ed’s point #3 and Tony’s #6 are valid. It may be something simpler however. The SBC is a big business meeting. How many people, especially young people, like going to business meetings? Yes, there is singing, yes there is preaching. But we can get that anywhere, and anytime. The fact is some important business needs to be conducted, but the important business is a fraction of all the business conducted. I know there have been some suggestions (and vigorous opposition) about technological alternatives to a big, live business meeting, but I think it is an inevitability.
@Bill: Great point. Very few people get excited about attending business meetings, even if they are helpful and good.
007:
You said:”And, herein is some of the problem with a lot of the younger guys…total disrespect for the “older ones” of our SBC. I mean, anyone over the age of “40? is decomposing on stage? I guess? lol. So, are you saying that you dont like to hear anyone preach, who’s over the age of 40? or 50? or 60?
I really sense a rebellious, young, disrespectful attitude in some of the younger people in the SBC right now. Not all of them, but in some of them. And, it’s almost like if you’re not Ed Stetzer, or into the emerging, missional, or whatever the latest name is movement; then you’re not worth hearing.
Listen, I’ve learned much from hearing older pastors like Dr. Jerry Vine’s preach the Word of God, or Dr. Adrian Rogers and Dr. Criswell, back when they were alive. I guess we need to just tell any Pastor over the age of 45 that they’re no longer relevant to the world, nor are they welcome to proclaim God’s Word to us anymore…according to some of the “young peeps” coming out of seminary.
Concerned,
DAvid”
Where do you get all of this from–where is your evidence?
I was responding to Jonathan McLain’s comment…the very first comment made. Also, from my observation reading some of the younger guys in the blogs…listening to some of the things said at conferences, etc.
David
Tom,
How’s it going?
LTB does sound a whole lot like Tom Parker, dont he? 😉
Vol and Joe,
It is so easy ain’t it. I don’t think Ole Tom Parker realizes we were all three profilers in a former life. 🙂
This is an interesting example of our convention right now. You start a comment about why young people aren’t coming to convention and it turns into name calling. Some people are looking for an argument. Why has our differences separated us whether reformed or not, young, old, spirit filled, or not, prayer language or not. When did diversity in this country become a weakness. Silly Silly people
Jonathan,
It seems to me that YOU are the one, who got the ball rolling with the name calling….with the old preachers “decomposing” on stage comment. Also, you continue it with the name calling of “silly, silly people.”
David
I personally don’t think it’s the IMB that holds us together. I’m more of an NAMB guy myself. I think it’s our history with the denomination, but I don’t think that has to always be the case. We will lose the younger generation if we don’t wake up and smell the coffee.
If waking up and smelling the coffee means to abandon the doctrines and theology of the Bible, which is what the BFM2K is all about, then we need to “lose the young guys.” If the “young guys” really dont care about sound doctrine, then we’d be better off to “lose them.” To keep them wouldnt really be a good thing.
David
volfan,
It was good to meet you and your wife in Orlando brother. Concerning your comment, I do think the younger generation deeply cares about sound doctrine.
Benji,
It was a treat to meet you and your wife at Orlando. I’m glad we met in person.
Also, I do hope that what you’ve said about doctrine is true. Nothing would bless my heart and soul more.
David
Volfan,
Of course it is true- that is what the whole YRR movement is about. The reason why guys like John Piper, Driscoll, Chandler, and Keller are the most popular preachers in the country is because of how deeply theological they are. My generation flocks to these guys mainly because of doctrine.
For you to think my generation doesn’t care about doctrine shows that you might be completely ignorant of my generation.
Jonathan,
You said “I think it’s our history with the denomination….
When it comes to those who “grew up” in SB denomination, I do think that roots can play a part in them wanting to stay. However, those who have not grown up in the denomination do not have those roots, of course.
Matt,
I’m talking about the comments made in here which seem to imply that the younger crowds could care less about the BFM2K, or that they dont really think about it. Matt, these doctrines are Biblical. The doctrines set forth in the BFM2K are what we’ve believed…as Baptist…that the Bible clearly teaches; and we’ve believed it for years and years and years. And then, I hear yall…and a few others out there…saying that it’s not important; or that it’s not really what attracts young people to the SBC; or that it doesnt really matter to the young crowd. And, those kind of statements concern me.
That’s what I’m talking about. I’m not saying that ALL young pastors dont care about doctrine, at all. Although, I’ve met some that dont seem to care about doctrine. They could go to Joel Osteen’s church, and serve on his staff, and not feel bad about it, at all. But, other young pastors do care about doctrine. BUT, I hear them saying that they dont care about the BFM2K, or that it’s really not that important, and I have to scratch my head. And, I hope that they’re just so young in their faith that they dont know any better, and that as they grow in their faith, that they will see the importance more…that it will mean more to them.
Also, Matt….Driscoll, Piper, and Sproul, etc might be really popular amongst the crowd that you hang with…but they’re not that popular with a lot of other people. And, I dont know if you realize this, or not, but a lot of the fellas that get into blogging are 5 pointers. When I’m at conferences, or at other places where Pastors meet…most of them are not blogging, and dont want to blog. But, for some reason, the 5 pointers tend to like blogging a lot. So, you’re really getting a skewed sample in the blogs of what the average SB pastor thinks and likes, if you’re just basing your opinion on the blog comments and on the particular conferences that you choose to go to.
Now, I’m not saying that there’s not more young people, who are “getting into” 5 point Calvinism right now. It seems to be the latest fad going, at the moment. But, I believe a study not long ago said that only 10% of the pastors in the SBC are 5 point Calvinist? Only 10%.
David
PS. Matt, are you in a SB church, BTW?
“And then, I hear yall…”
Shouldn’t that be “all y’all”? I thought “y’all” was singular…
🙂
Jeff,
Yall can be singular or plural down here in the South, Honey chile. It depends on the context, ya hear?
🙂
David
LOL Vol!
As long as you keep “mashing buttons” and I can get a Dr. Pepper at a restaurant by ordering it as a kind of “Coke”, my faith in the south remains strong!
Volfan,
I deleted your other comment because I already saw this one. We seem to be talking past each other so I just chose not to respond.
Okie dokie, Matt.
David
QUOTE We will lose the younger generation if we don’t wake up and smell the coffee. END QUOTE
If it is only “coffee” keeping the young fellas in the game, I say, “Let ’em go.” Personally, I’ve not seen a person half my age that is doing even half of the ministry I do on a daily basis — and I’m not even a pacesetter among the “old fellas.”
Hopefully, some of these young buck will get a bit of a whiff of the one, single virtue that is essential to Kingdom ministry — # 1 on the Beattitude chart — humility.
I think all the “young” guys and all the “old” guys should get together and blame the Baby Boomers for all of our problems.
Stuart,
The “Baby Boomers” are the old guys.
Somebody already did
I just did a quick search through all the comments on this post. I can’t find anyone who has suggested abandoning the BFM. I certainly haven’t read anyone who has suggested abandoning the doctrines and theology of the bible.
Bill Mac,
If you’ll look again you’ll see statements made about the IMB is what attracts young people in staying with the SBC, not the BFM2K. You’ll see statements to the effect of IMB and doing missions is what we young’un’s want, not the BFM2K. Well, the BFM2K is sound doctrine. It’s what the Bible teaches is essential to being a Christian, and what a Baptist kind of Christian is….based on the clear teachings of the Word of God. And, to say that it doesnt matter, or is not attractive to the young, or it’s not what we want to be about, etc….is very concerning.
David
volfan,
I don’t think the BF&M 2000 is not attractive “at all” to the young leaders. I’m sure they appreciate its statements that affirm inerrancy, the fundamentals, Baptism–immersion–being for believers only [for example].
However, I do not think that confession is the “main attraction”. I think the IMB is.
David: Benji answered your comment. You are reading the comments about the BFM in the worst possible light and jumping to conclusions. Just because people don’t think the BFM is the greatest creation since the wheel doesn’t mean they don’t care about sound doctrine.
Benji, Bill Mac, and all,
I hope what your saying is true and right. Just keepin’ it real.
David
Bill,
That is exactly what Volfan is doing and he does it A LOT.
David,
I think maybe i’ll try to defend the original intent of the BFM2k comment (from what I read it as). People (of all ages) join the convention to get involved in mission cooperatively. Which makes what the IMB (most people think “international” still when they hear “missions”) primarily but also NAMB and state conventions, associations the make-or-break thing for many. No one would join the SBC simply because they thought the BFM2000 was a great statement of faith. They may take that statement and use it themselves, but they’re not going to be part of the Convention just on that basis. But if they don’t agree with it, they’re not going to join either. But it’s the second box to be checked, after cooperative missions for most people, I’d think. After all, you could claim the BFM2000 for your theology and still choose to cooperate with a different group of likeminded churches than the SBC. does that help or did I make things worse?
Yo comprehendo, amigos.
sorry for the overload, David! when i started commenting, the other two above hadn’t replied yet, and I hit send and there were like three responses.
If the folks under 40 in particular knew the origins of the current SBC it’s birth 30 years ago and how far out to lunch Pressler and Patterson were/are with the statement on the history of the Book of Genesis as stated page 51 of the definitive work on Christianity thus far into the 21st Century, then I think they would be repulsed.
And to the degree Ronnie Floyd continues to be the face of the SBC if they take it seriously they will back off. The luck of the SBC in the last 40 years people who have sense to know better still are buying into a Texas Regulars mentality, or a group that is in less a compulsion year by year to come to grips with integrity to the CR, as Mormons in Salt Lake now like to talk about mulitple marriages or the Mtn Meadows Massacre.
Here is a part of that dillemma; John Pierce’s Potato Chip parable from earlier this week:
http://www.johndpierce.com/2010/08/parable-of-potato-chips.html
thanks for giving us the rambling off-topic comment we have come to expect from you, Steven. You clearly are passionate about the CR stuff, and you might want to consider using your own site to expound more on the evils of the CR rather than daily interrupting other conversations to do so.
shh…
It gets mind-numbing reading the back and forth between educated men and the constant hate and insults flying in from Volfan and Joe Blackmon that random posts by stephen are a welcome distraction of sorts.
Think of it as a commercial break.
Thanks Bill for a little Christian Hospitality. I thought Josh C liked some honest dissent but maybe he does not.
If you read Mike Bergman and Jon McClain closely, I don’t think they are ready to be the exclusive fundamentalists Pressler and Patterson groomed the likes of Ronnie Floyd to be. And I would be interested to see what those two fellows said about the Inerrancy of Genesis in Light of MacCulloch’s findings on page 51 of the first thousand years of Chrisitianity.
If you fear that discussion JoshC I don’t see too awful many 40 and under somethings staying with the SBC for the long term once they put on their thinking caps and get over the rush of megachurch Praise and singalong mind numbing euphorias and enthusiasms. Sooner or later they are gonna ask questions about what happenned 30 and 40 years ago and how did it get this way
i have no problem with a little honest dissent. I myself like to dissent plenty of times. the issue is that you have a 1-track mind which can take any conversation on this site and run straight for proclaiming your anti-CR agenda. In real life, if a group of people are talking about an issue and then someone interrupts to change the subject to one of their own choosing and giving everyone links to random articles about that topic, it would be considered sort of rude. I’m just saying that either choose to participate in the topics up for discussion (which is welcome even if we end up disagreeing) or don’t. but don’t keep trying to take over every discussion for your pet topic.
Stephen:
The young guys are not a bit interested in theories like that, espcially when there is no manifestation of them at conventions.
To show you how things have turned, Dallas Willard (sp?) has a book (not sure which one) that a lot of young guys have read.
In the beginning of the book there is a page that is completely unexplained, but it says something like this:
“In those days, there were giants in the land…” and then it lists: Lee Roberson, John R. Rice and a host of other fundamentalist type Baptist preachers.
Young guys would not have anything to do with the cultural issues that those guys stood for.
BUT young guys do believe in sound doctrine and the courage to preach it. And that is what Willard is referencing. That in the 30s and 40s, while major denominations, including the SBC, were becoming more neoorthodox in some of their academic insitutions, these pulpit giants were having a great impact on the populace. Young guys will grab on to that.
So, I am not sure that the young guys would even care about stories relating to politics in the 1940s in Texas. I don’t find any evidence to suggest that the stories are at all relevant or connected (I know that you do). Even if they were, the young guys coming out don’t care about that stuff.
It’s kind of like arguing about Strom Thurmond’s run as a Dixiecrat for President and why that means no one should vote Republican today or something like that. Or that because Henry Wallace was Roosevelt’s VP (until ousted by the Texas Regulars and others – and replaced by Truman), and that Wallace later ran as a “Progressive” that no one should vote for a Democrat today. Or to go further that because the Democrates favored slaveholding in 1860, that no one should vote Democrat today.
Connecting dots and establishing political “bloodlines”, while interesting to some, is not interesting to most, especially when it’s done in complete ignorance of the current situation.
Louis: Another interesting reply. Hoping you can get your hands on Fisher H’s Lost Traditions chapter soon in the link I posted circa 41; and I remain convinced my Friend Randall Balmer, twice the Dotson Nelson lecturer at Baylor, lecturer at Furman, Mercer and Baylor may have a word for you in his latest book on the Evangelical experience in America from Revivalism to Politics. It is published by Baylor.
We’ll continue to explore the matter; and once again Garry Wills is a great buy now at Barnes and Noble with his concluding chapters on the Rove era in American Christianities; a steal for six bucks.
No problemo, Senor Josh
Tom Parker
Why all the angst and name calling against the younger fellas? They have every right to have a voice in the SBC right now.
Why dont you tell us, LTB (Tom). Dont worry, Tom, I wont tell anyone that you’re trying to hide behind this anonymous name.
DAvid 🙂
Tom Parker,
Don’t be silly. You are who you are. We know who you are. We know you now as one of us. We now know you as a real person. So stop being silly. Besides, you are just not really very good as the mysterious LTB. Another piece of advice Tom Parker, don’t take up a night job as Santa Claus. All the kids will know it is just Ole Triad Tom Parker.
What keeps “young leaders” from the SBC? I have no idea, because I’m “young” but not a “leader.”
Here’s what keeps me:
1. Cost. I can’t pay the expense to get to the SBC, and I’m serving a church that doesn’t need to pay for it either. (I made it to Orlando because I have a grandfather in central Florida whose couch I slept on. No one in Phoenix, New Orleans, Nashville, or Baltimore, though.) Find a way to minimize the cost, either regional satelite locations or something.
2. Redundancy. The facts and figures are in a printed book. The presentation of reports are almost 50% video/multimedia. Which is either a copy of what’s on an agency’s website or on the DVD/CD-Rom they either have mailed or will mail. Most of the preachers are available on podcast/video through internet.
3. Cost. Let’s think about the $8 sandwiches at the Orange County Convention Center. We’re worked up over coming up short on missions funding, and we’re dropping tens of thousands on lunch. The sheer waste of it is insane. And then we stand there and talk about how awful it is that people go to bed hungry, children die from lack of clean water. And we’re eating $8 sandwiches and drinking $3 cokes?
4. A sense of irrelevance. At the SBC in Orlando, I had no doubt the GCR would pass. I had no doubt the records would remain sealed. The only point of wondering was electing officers. And wondering “Which mega-pastor will be the next president?” isn’t much interest. Why? Because, while there are some people from small and medium size churches on boards and committees, there aren’t, and won’t be, many. One of the outcomes (good or bad) of the CR is a tight watch on committee appointments, and if you’re not famous enough or a layperson in a famous enough church, with just the right reputation, you’re out. I doubt there would be a 10% variance between Bryant Wright’s appointments and any of the other candidates.
5.This notion that “young leaders” aren’t involved. Like I said above, and maybe this is personal too, but who’s picking “young leaders?” If you’re talking about the ones that already have books, they’re already there. But maybe the “young” folks that are the future of the convention are where the “old” folks were when they were young: working the field God has given them, and the leaders will rise as the years go by, as we see men proven out by years of service to their churches, which in turn helps the SBC. That we spend so much time trying hit the moving target of getting “young leaders” at what is, essentially, a 2 day business meeting, is exhausting. Why? Because, amazingly enough, young leaders are a fairly diverse lot. Just like the old leaders are. It’s just that years of battle for the cause of Christ have helped the old leaders be unified. Right now, younger folks are still learning to get over which seminary is best, which author is best, and whether or not to wear a tie and dress shoes when preaching.
Ok, so maybe that’s a bit too much venting. But there you go. I was in Orlando, but most likely won’t make any SBC’s for several more years. I will be, though, at Centennial Baptist Association meetings, and most ABSC meetings.
Doug
Ok, wow, I was negative. Sorry about that. Here’s the one constructive thought I can muster:
Relationship building opportunities. Not chances to be 1 listener in a crowd of 50 or 500 or 5000. A chance to be 1 in 10, talking with, listening to, and growing together with fellow followers of Christ, especially on the ministry side. Best times at the SBC were spent with a few new friends talking about where we were, what we were doing, and encouraging one another.
And we haven’t spoken since, but there’s been a bit of email and such. But it was a chance to sit and see that I’m not the only pastor that’s not perfect. Maybe that’s what other conferences have that the SBC doesn’t, but it’s not really the purpose of the SBC. The SBC is supposed to be a business meeting. Maybe conduct the business quicker (like 1 day) and do something different with the other day.
Doug
Doug,
I can assure you that Jimmy Jackson’s appointments would have differed from those of whom Bryant Wright will appoint.
Gotcha. I guess part of my problem comes from not really knowing any of the people that were nominated, except by the press releases of their nomination and the follow-up discussion of them on blogs. Which, sometimes, are not the world’s most accurate place.
Doug
I have followed this conversation off and on all day long. I am 35. I planted a church that I now pastor. My congregation’s average age is 29. We average just shy of 100 in attendance a Sunday and have been growing numerically for the past 18+ months. I planted with NAMB and am still affiliated with the state convention and the SBC.
I am not “involved” in the SBC at least as far as meetings, conventions, etc go because I do not have time to take off of work to go to a meeting in some other part of the country to “vote” on “non-binding resolutions” and listen to committee reports. I can listen from home on the net, and I do, and since the resolutions are non-binding they do not effect me either way. My church does not have “Baptist” is its name, so when we pass something silly and publicize it, my church’s reputation is not affected.
I do not have a preference on the age of the person who speaks at the SBC or any other conference so long as the person speaks the truth, uses scripture if the speaking is considered a “sermon,” and seems relatively excited/impassioned about what they are talking about. I enjoy listening to older, experienced guys like Piper, Keller, and Mahaney as much as I like hearing Chandler, Stetzer, and Driscoll (save your Driscoll comments I don’t care what you think of him). I have benefited from hearing teaching from a lot of older guys like C. Mack Roark, Ed Young, Sr., WA Criswell, MH Koonce, Tony Campolo, and TD Jakes. It’s not about age. It’s about their hearts. It’s also about preaching and teaching and not pushing a political agenda.
Finally, let me address doctrine. I have seen several comments on whether or not “young fellas” care about doctrine. Here’s the truth at least from my chair and my part of the country. We care about it a lot. We particularly care about what the Bible teaches about doctrine. That’s where we get into a lot of trouble. That’s why we raise questions and concerns about the BF&M2K. It’s not that we are trying to be troublesome. We are just trying to be Biblical. We take the Bible seriously. We believe it is inerrant and infallible even when our opinions are not supported by it. Therefore, when the Bible comes into conflict with a man-made document, we choose the Bible, even if it means turning our backs on tradition. That’s where I see the biggest exodus coming from in “young fella” circles. We want to be included without having to conform to every past “tradition” and “way we are because we are SBC.”
The Bible means more to me than ANY denominational document or tradition. If it does not, I will lose my flock, because we have discipled them to trust Scripture over their own opinions and preferences. I think the SBC will stop bleeding “young fellas” when it takes the Bible as seriously as it takes its traditions and documents. I’m not trying to start an argument, but you did ask where “we” were. That’s where I am. Thanks for reading and may His Kingdom advance.
Ryan,
Those last two paragraphs are powerful to me.
Benji is right… Ryan, those last two paragraphs are great.
I am sorry Ryan because you sound like a fine fellow, but I have to ask:
If you care for sound doctrine so much why are you reading or listening to Tony Campolo, and TD Jakes? Both of those guys have jumped the fence of sound orthodox theology long ago.
CB-
Fair question. I would respond by directing you to Jaeks’ early preaching ministry when he worked through the passages in the Pentateuch on the architecture of the Taberncale and how it relates to what Jesus does in our lives. Some of the best application of what to me had previously been boring, irrelevant scripture. I do not have to agree with someone on everything to receive some value from their teaching.
On the subject of Campolo, I do not agree with you that he hs abandoned orthodoxy. He preaches Jesus Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection as the only way to satisfy God’s wrath. Tony gets a bad rap because of the way he is portrayed in dealing with the gay issue. I would encourage you to look at HIS writings and speaking on the subject- not the press and not his wife’s. Once again, I do not have to agree with every word that comes out of the guy’s mouth to learn from him.
Now that I have answered you question CB, can you deal with the substance of my post please. It is pretty irritating to write four paragraphs of honest response to an honest question and to have only two names singled out.
Tony had a great sermon in San Antonio at Trinity Baptist I think it was the Sunday night before Criswell did his Skunk Sermon for the Pastor’s Conference; maybe his most glorious Hour since 56 before the Joint Session of the South Carolina Legislature. I have linked it before or you can google Criswell’s Fiery Sermon and Duke’s Curtis Freeman examination should come up footnotes and all.
But Tony had a packed house rockin with his Sermon titled
Four Whores in Honolulu.
Tony Cartledge no more abandoned orthodoxy than NT Wright or Fleming Rutledge,or Fisher Humphreys.
See Fisher’s Chapter Lost Traditions I have linked in this thread.
What all three abandoned like Mark Noll and ClarkPinnock is a use of Inerrancy as a tool to get hold of the SBC and bring it into the sphere of the Council for National Policy.
See Garry Wills on that Subject in American Christianities.
And again, see page 51 in MacCulloch’s Magisterial History of first 3,000 years of Christiantiy when in one paragraph of 1,000 pages he lays waste to Pressler’s defintion of Inerrancy as Pressler confronted Jack Flanders with it at Baylor in the 60’s.
My error, I said Tony Cartledge but meant Tony Campolo.
Ithink Fisher Humphreys, Timothy George’s collleague at Samford is Orthodox as well.
Maybe you could get George to make a statement on Humphreys Orthodoxy.
Fisher chairs the board of Foy Valentine’s founded Journal, Christian Ethics Today.
Steve,
I knew you meant Campolo rather than Cartledge. Tony Cartledge is far less unorthodox than is Tony Campolo. 🙂
And if it makes you fell better, I think you are less unorthodox than Campolo also. 🙂 🙂
To bad he thinks it is ok to ignore the sin of homosexuality. Once again glad for the CR!!!
Ryan,
I kinda thought you would respond to the Campolo question in the way most would relating to his position on the Sodomite lifestyle. He went away from orthodoxy long before his now infamous gay statements. I have read his books and listened to him preach, (on video and in person) otherwise I would not have made so bold a statement concerning his lack of sound theology. Also, I did not say one could learn nothing from Campolo. I responded to his name as you used it in context.
I did respond to the entirety of your post. I said “you sound like a fine fellow” relating to the post other than the the two unorthodox fellows you mentioned.
Now Ryan, I will say a little more. You come off a little condescending in your comment. You mention Driscoll to whomever you were addressing your comment to and then say, “save your Driscoll comments I don’t care what you think of him.” That is condescending due to the evident fact that you have the predetermined notion that the person you were addressing does not appreciate Driscoll and the reason is, he is not as “spiritually in tune” as you so you have to let him know that you “don’t care what” he thinks of him. In other words: I am Ryan. I know. You don’t. So do not speak to the matter. Your opinion is not relevant to the conversation.
In your first paragraph, you gave your qualifications to speak based on the church plant you are involved with is growing. Let me ask you a question:
If your church plant had not grown as well as it has, would that mean you are less qualified to speak?
Ryan, if church growth in 18 months is the qualifier to speak on a blog comment thread, them most of these guys could not say a word on these comment threads. But I could because at a younger age, with no help from NAMB/HMB or any other agency I was pastor of a church plant that grew four times that in 18 months. So, it is my opinion that your qualifier paragraph was not germane to your total comment whatsoever.
Now Ryan, your last two paragraphs were rather good. The third one was one I related to from my past, for when I was young, along with a lot of other young guys we had questions about theology also. Thus the CR was born.
Now Ryan, your last paragraph was the best, especially this part:
“The Bible means more to me than ANY denominational document or tradition. If it does not, I will lose my flock, because we have discipled them to trust Scripture over their own opinions and preferences.”
No more true statement did you make than that one.
Well Ryan, I have now responded to your “whole” comment. I hope you benefit from it.
Let me say in conclusion. Ryan, you were commenting on a Baptist blog comment thread. Nothing more, nothing less. It is what it is. If you are going to get “irritated” because someone responds on,y to one part of something you write in a comment thread, your ego is going to be bruised a lot. So chill down the ego. Don’t take yourself so seriously. Make comments. Be prepared to be challenged. Don’t be so irritable. And remember , this stuff ain’t life and death. What you do in that church plant of yours is.
Well, Ryan, that about it. And may you be used greatly in the Kingdom’s Enterprise.
So When CB Did Tony Campolo Stray. Was it before 1998 because if it was before then somebody didn’t get the memo to the pastor of Church about four miles down from Jerry Vines West Rome BC, the pastor then a Trustee of Lifeway which I think you said you rotated on in 87; Lifeway or ONe Major Board; went from Rome to Upstate SC near Lyman or somewhere;
Anyway somebody didn’t get the Memo to that SBC Takeover Insider cause he had him there for August Revival four week emphasis.
I know,I was there and saw it with my own eyes with my Dad and 2nd cousins from both Momma and Dad’s side of the family; a Sweet Time in Jesus it was.
One Cousin married a Calvinist, and has a brother that was a CBF Missionary; the other cousin on path to be ordained Woman Preacher and she is married to CBF staffer.
So there you go. Preaching was orthodox; the affiliations were wide ranging among the congregation that evening.
Steve,
Don’t let the lack of knowledge of Campolo make you look foolish among your peers today. I am going to give you just four exact quotes to help you with your absence of understanding here. I realize you had in an “August Revival” listening to him. But Steve, one August Revival does not a sound theology make.
Campolo out of bounds:
1. “Beyond these models of reconciliation, a theology of mysticism provides some hope for common ground between Christianity and Islam. Both religions have within their histories examples of ecstatic union with God, which seem at odds with their own spiritual traditions but have much in common with each other.”
—-his book, Speaking My mind—-read it yourself.
2. “I am saying that there is no salvation apart from Jesus; that’s my evangelical mindset. However, I am not convinced that Jesus only lives in Christians.”
——-Tony Campolo, 1999———-
3. “….what can I say to an Islamic brother who has fed the hungry, and clothed the naked? “You say, ‘But he hasn’t a personal relationship with Christ.” I would argue with that. And I would say from a Christian perspective, in as much as you did it to the least of these you did it unto Christ. You did have a personal relationship with Christ, you just didn’t know it.”
——Tony Campolo, date unknown———-
4. “Jesus is the only Savior, but not everyone who is being saved by Him is aware that He is the one doing the saving.”
——Tony Campolo, 1985——–
Steve, I will give you one more. This one should help you to realize I am not trying to be mean to Campolo. Rather, I am just stating the reality of the fact that his theology is not that of an orthodox, historic and biblical position. It is something else. Some would call it heresy. You make your own decision, but do so after you read and listen to more of his work beyond a once attended August Revival.
Read this one closely Steve:
“….isn’t God’s message to sinful humanity that he sees in each of us a divine nature of such worth that He sacrificed His own Son so that our divine potentialities might be realized?….The hymn writer who taught us to sing “Amazing Grace” was all too ready to call himself a “wretch”…forgetting our divinity and over-identity with our [Freudian] anal humanity…Eric Fromm, one of the most popular psychoanalysts of our time, recognized the diabolical social consequences that can come about when a person loses sight of his/her own divinity.”
——–Tony Campolo, 1995——-
So Steve, you ask me when did Campolo stray? Well Steve, I don’t know for sure. But I would imagine it was when he placed more value on the words of Fromm and Freud and others of that ilk than he did on the Word of God.
I will let you be the judge Steve when you have done the “footwork” for yourself. I’ve done mine.
BTW, Judge Pressler and Paige Patterson did not influence me one bit on Campolo so don’t blame it on them. 🙂
CB-
Now that’s the CB I expected. Thanks for being real.
Couple of things..
First, I just included the first paragraph for context- as in I fit the context of the discussion as a younger guy who is pastoring in the SBC. I don’t base my observations on 18 months of growth but 6 years of hard labor and learning tough lessons about what really works in reaching people. (And the answer is not “methodology” but “theology” and “kneeology”. God has grown us not me.) Trust me, if I came across as prideful it was unintentional. I am a nobody, from nowhere, but I serve an amazing Savior.
I made the comment about Driscoll b/c I did not want the thread hijacked. I have seen several threads (and have been a part of some of them) on this blog and others where just the mention of the man’s name brings out both detractors and defenders. What has been written in the post and comments is important and needs to be interacted with. We can fight about our favorite/least favorite preachers later.
I have commented on enough blogs CB, to know not to get my feelings hurt. I was “irritated” because I thought you were dismissing the rest of my content to focus on two people. You were not. I misunderstood. My bad.
I am glad what I wrote in the last two paragraphs resonated with you. I really think most of us are not that far from each other. (I say most b/c even I recognize there are some real wingnuts commenting on blogs just looking to cause trouble- although not as much in this thread, thankfully)
Finally, thanks for your blessing and entreaty. May His Kingdom Advance!
I love gumbo, but if someone gave me a big bowl of gumbo made just like my grandma used to make with the exception that it had a little bitty piece of dog poop in it, I’m not going to scoop out the dog poop and chow down on the rest of it. The whole bowl, no matter how good a bowl of gumbo it was, is now contaminated and worthless.
No matter how good any of his other theology his or how impressive a preacher he might be, if he does not hold to the position that any sexual activity outside of one man/one woman in the bonds of matrimony is always sinful without any exceptions whatsoever because that’s what the bible says then nothing else he has to say has any value.
Joe: What other dog poop is on your list in addition to Sodomy?
In your church do you pass out a questionnaire every Sunday morning and ask everybody to sign it that they didn’t fornicate on Saturday Night.
How about tongue kissing for the 13 year old girls or the 17 or the 21 year olds?
How about Gluttony? Have you asked Richard Land or John Bisagno about Gluttony lately?
How about Football? Can a Baptist Deacon in your church worship football more than Jesus? Is that Dog Poop Theology?
How about the deacon in your church or the ONe Down the Road that still peppers his chat with the N Word, and not in anyway comparable to Chris Rock humor; but because he still is locked in CLC Trustee Curtis Caine’s world view about apartheid and thinks Martin Luther King was a Communist?
Who’s calling them out on Poop Theology?
Is it Joe Blackmon?
Who called Lee Roberts and Bob Tenery out on their Poop Theology of half truths and innuendo on the fallacious wedge issue of Inerrancy in the Takeover.
Where were the Poop Theologists in your camp on that one.
I thought Artur Davis in Alabama had a good point about four years ago when everybody got all up in the air as if the gay community were about to take over the STate and ruin Nick Saban’s rebuilding program at the University.
The Blackpreacher’s inBham were all astir. Davis asked them how many were facing a gay attack in their own congregation? No hands.
How many had problems with unemployment and obesity, backbiting, half truths and gossip in their congregations.
Pretty much unanimous.
I think Joe you may have a lot of problems with the Poop you haven’t considered in your Poop Theology mind.
Steven
Can a person go to heaven apart from repentance from sin and faith in Jesus Christ alone?
Joe, Quit asking those tough questions about going to heaven—Sly Fox doesn’t like those type of questions. 🙂
Ryan,
I think the age thing is a strawman. Guys who are trying to obey Jesus can work together no matter the age difference.
I do think that in cooperation between Christians, Jesus must be the King and sound, biblical theology is the glue.
This whole idea of “bleeding young fellas” is rediculous. Young congregations are going to run into the same problems that churches like Saddleback ran into (is running into). It seems an axiom of life that the longer we are on this earth the “older” we get.
If we are “bleeding young fellas” as suggested, I say, “goodbye” and may God bless you with eternal youth — otherwise there will come a time you will have to run yourself off with all the other “old people.”
The biggest damage to the body of Christ in the last 20 to 25 years is the “generation wars” started by misguided pastors misapplying some of the principles of the church growth (Purpose Driven) movement.
The Bible refers to the church as a “family” of God. I’ve never seen a healthy family that has members all the same age.
These generational battles will not bear fruit. I say this as someone who happens to be older than some and younger than others. That makes me “?”
Let’s stop blaming “age groups” for our struggles in evangelism. I think is “something spiritual,” not generational. This simply my opinion and I understand that many will disagree. But please, don’t punish me by making me hang out with old guys like CB.
SSBN,
I actually think there is some merit in what you say here. I “hang out” with guys of all ages. And believe it or not a lot of young guys have a theological outlook about the same as I do.
I really think this old guy-young guy thing is a pop-gun war with no real basis for it. That is one reason I have just been raggin’ on you guys here. (The other reason I have been raggin’ on you guys here is because it is fun.)
SSBN-
I agree with you that generational wars are counter-productive to the Gospel and to church health as a whole. I largely agree with you on where those wars started. Church growth replaced discipleship in the church lexicon long ago.
I do not mention the average age of my congregation to brag, I seek out older believers all the time to disciple our young adult converts. I am generally rejected out of hand because our music is “different,” our preaching is “too long,” and I do not preach about “political” issues. When we first started, I was roundly criticized for not having “Baptist” in the name of our church.
I’m not sure who the real “warmongers” are in this situation or if others’ experience is the same as mine. The older folks who are a part of the church I pastor are there because they see God working. Maybe that’s the key. We all put aside our “preferences” and join in where God is already working. an older guy named Henry Blackaby wrote a book about that 20 years ago. I think it’s still good Biblical counsel.
Finally, it breaks my heart to read your response to young adults “bleeding” away from our churches is “see ya.” I m thankful that was not Jesus’ reaction to us in our sin. No matter what else you think, I do not think you can square that position with Scripture.
May God work on all of us…
Good words. Keep at it.
Well said, Ryan. BTW, I have learned more from people and books with whom I disagree that those I agree with. Why? When I read something I agree with, it affirms me, but unless it is said in a really pithy, catching way, it’s like water off a duck’s back. But when I read something I disagree with, it forces me to dig deep, and examine whether my beliefs and opinions are valid, or just, as the Quakers used to call them, “notions.”
John
Mr. Scott, Mr Blackmon and Mr.007:
Why is my identity so important to you all?
On this blog topic there is a SSBN, Bess, Bill, and a Louis. Are you three losing sleep over their identities?
Please find something else to be so concerned about.
It’s of no concern whatsoever. We just think it’s funny that anyone who has read what you write and how you write can spot you a mile away. It’d be like me trying to come on here and be nice to moderates…no one would take that seriously.
Further, we want you to know that we know who you are since you’re going to all the trouble of trying to fashion a nom-de-plum. A Bruce Wayne you ain’t. Of course, since your two hero’s of the faith fancy themselves to be a Don Quizote and Lois Lane i could see you as the dark, brooding loaner of ther group. LOL
JoeB: Was it you or Volfan 007 who had the family wedding couple weeks ago.
All this reminds me of the statement former Associate Editor of the Alabama Baptist said about Judge Pressler’s definition of Cooperation:
“I’ll Operate and You Cope!!!”
And Was it Don Quizote or Don Chipotle??
Tom Parker,
How do you know those folks are not known to us also?
Tom, the problem with you is you ask a lot of personal questions of people. You made insane accusations against people. You attacked almost everyone of a differing ideology that you have been taught by Debbie or Wade. You have been bitter. You ask questions but refused to answer questions. You presented yourself as some elite person above others. You have tried to promote yourself as involved in things I know good and well you have no knowledge of other than what you were told by others who know exactly the same as you; nothing. And you have just plain lied to me, apologized, then lied again.
So, I got tired of it and outed you. There is the whole story Tom. So stop being silly. Engage these guys in the dialogue honestly. Stop lying about who you are. And start laughing at my jokes. Lastly, lighten up bean counter and smile a little. Real life is just too hard not to laugh a little when you are on a blog comment thread. Its really not that big a deal.
If Wade taught Debbie and Tom; who taught CB, Volfan Double Knot and JoeB?
In the Voice of the SNL Church Lady:
Was it Judge Pressler?????
CB Scott:
I really believe there are bigger issues than my identity, so please move on.
CB:
Good night and good luck.
Goodnight John Boy. Goodnight Mary Ellen……….” You know the rest, right Tom?
Tom,
When exactly did you become dysfunctional relating to your birth name? Were there early warning signs or did it just come upon you all of a sudden?
Are you seriously going to sit there in front of that computer and say LTB is not Tom Parker of NC? A blind monkey could read your comments and know who you are Tom. Tom, lying is lying. Lying on a blog is still a lie just as it is in person.
You are who you are. You may not like that, but you have to live with it. We all live with who you are. It seems that you could make the same sacrifice.
C.B. are you feeling all right?
I fell just capital L’s, just capital.
How about you?
Glad to hear you are well.
God keep you in His Peace.
L’s,
I am curious. Did you read through the comment thread on Tony’s child abuse post? If you did, I think you would be willing to agree that the comments give evidence that many of these guys are very concerned about child abuse in Baptist life and desire to see some constructive action take place to protect the children God has placed in our watch.
Anyway, I hope you see that to be the case.
Of course she doesn’t, cb. You know Cough-man and Christa Brown are the only two people who really care about all the evil that Paige Patterson has perpetrated on chidlren in the SBC since, as you well know, every child molestation is his fault. If onlly we had a national database like the Catholic Church then no child would ever get molested. I mean, that sort of thing NEVER happens in the Catholic Church.
[/sarcasm]
Joe,
She is silent is she not?
I do not feel I asked her an unfair question in any way. Maybe you are right. Who knows?
Um, I’m confused. I’m not saying you asked her an unfair question. My comment was making fun of the fact that she believes that only Cough-man and Christa really care and that people like us don’t care.
I was agreeing with you whilst mocking her position. 🙂
Joe,
Don’t be confused. My point was that the question I asked of her did not seem unfair to me. But she refused to answer. I was saying you are probably right. Her only interest seems to be to attack SBC leaders she does not like. Maybe she just used the child abuse thing as a springboard.
Just for the sake of full disclosure and to ease Tom’s mind that you are not playing favorites, CB . . . I don’t have a middle name. So the Navy gave me one: nmn. It had to be all lower case.
Now, you may be wondering how this applies . . .
SSBN,
I think I know you. Not as well as I do my good friend Tom 🙂 🙂 But I think we have met before in some conference or meeting of some kind.
CB, I doubt it. I’ve never been to a National Convention in 32 years of ministry and I seldom go to State meetings, and our Association seldom has meetings.
Please do not get me wrong . . . I’m not sure I would admit to knowing you even if we did meet 🙂
PS — I do plan to go to the Convention in Phoenix this year. I’d be happy to buy you lunch (not an $8 convention burger) if you go.
SSBN,
If you feel safe to answer, why does your association seldom have meetings? Secondly, of the meetings they do have, are they of a productive nature or just “meetings”?
CB, nothing particularly eventful. We are in So. Cal. and it is just a very pagan environment, so we don’t have many churches in our association and none of any size. For example, I’m in a town of 128000 and I’m the only SBC church. So, we are few and far apart.
Also, many conservatives in California are just tired of the moderate ideas and bloated beauracracy. In my opinion, the California State Convention and many (but certainly not all) associations are parasitic, rather than prophetic.
My current church was one of the primary churches in the CR in California (which never was as strong as in most areas). Remember, California is the land of “fruits and nuts.” If a weird idea has any chance of growing in a church — it’s California.
In fact, my hope is to start another conservative convention in California. We already have the legal work finished. The SBC (prior to the GCR vote) had returned thousands of dollars from our fledgling “coalition,” because we were not recognized as “cooperative program giving.” We’ll see how that changes now that we are post GCR.
Just for geographical context, my church is just 40 minutes or so from Hollywood Blvd. Not exactly the Bible Belt. Not even a good set of suspenders 🙂
SSBN,
I was afraid you would say, “many (but certainly not all) associations are parasitic, rather than prophetic.”
I know that is so often the case. There are some folks at NAMB trying to change that. I work with them often. Maybe we can talk someday.
Back to the post. As I have a 26 and 20 year old kids, who were raised in very conservative churches and attended Christian schools, and have also talked w a couple Bsu folks, this generation of kids is very intersesting and I think it also applies to younger seminary graduates. They are less dogmatic, have a view on women and gays that is much more driven by the media, they drink alcohol, hate cigarettes and are more ” tolerant”. They are more family oriented and while still materialistic are more likely to be single income and home school. They will go to a church that meets their needs regardless of denomination and could care less about bfm2000 or any other creed or statement. They seem to be drawn to personality driven churches and if that personality leaves so will they.
I don’t see the younger pastors looking to get more involved w a national convention, but see them doing their own mission things locally and internationally. I think they see themselves as conservative but not hung up on denominational politics.
I do think the BI wing will eventually take over the SBC and that wil hasten the demise as they continue to narrow the parameters and drive off the Acts 29 folks etc
Ryan,
I agree wholeheartedly with your statement about the Bible meaning more than tradition. The Bible should be read, believed, and practiced by all of us. That’s why the “man made” document came about…to set forth basic beliefs about the Bible that we Baptists hold to be clearly taught. That’s what the “man made” document is all about… the Bible.
So, yea, us “old” guys love the Word of God, and we love believing it, and we love practicing it; even though we fall short way too much. Thankful for God’s grace and mercy, I am. But, us “old” guys hold to the Scripture, and we want to encourage the SBC to hold to the Bible, AND to it’s clear teachings; so that we can be true to God. Thus, we like to encourage our churches to hold to the teachings of the Bible, and to the BFM2K…which spells out the clear DOCTRINES of the BIBLE…so that we dont get led down the path of errors and extremes and even into heresy. We really like to encourage people to stay away from the teachings of people like Campolo, Osteen, TD Jakes, Benny Hinn, etc.
David
David-
I agree with you that many “old” guys love the Bible. I have been exposed to a lot of them. In fact, they are largely responsible for my love the Bible.
You and I part ways at the need for someone to “set forth basic beliefs about the Bible that we Baptists hold to be clearly taught.” Those are your words. In the Hebrew rabbinic tradition, that was called “midrash.” The problem with midrash is it can take the place of the intention of the scriptures. That is my concern with what several have written on this board, you in particular. You want everyone to take the BF&M2K as the best interpretation of Scripture. Your words again “…we like to encourage our churches to hold to the teachings of the Bible, and to the BFM2K…which spells out the clear DOCTRINES of the BIBLE…so that we don’t get led down the path of errors and extremes and even into heresy.”
Basically, you are saying that anyone who disagrees with the BF&M2K is a heretic or is on their way to heresy. That is a pretty arrogant statement, considering there are good conservative scholars on both sides who disagree politely about some issues outlines in the BF&M2K. Further, your description of the document makes it sound in definition more like a creed (what we must believe) rather than a confession (what we agree upon to believe) There is a definitive difference in the history of Christianity. Besides, I was always taught as a good Baptist that we have “No creed but the Bible.”
I think we could get along and do ministry together David. I don’t think you would find me that “heretical” if our churches were next door to each other. That’s what we really need to see. Guys on both sides of the “age gap” laying down their swords and picking up their plows together. There is plenty of soil for both of us to till.
Grace brother!
Ryan,
One thing, when you said, “Basically, you are saying that anyone who disagrees with the BF&M2K is a heretic or is on their way to heresy;” there’s only one problem with that statement. I didnt say that. I do think that anyone disagreeing with the BFM2K is in error, but they’re not all heretics. For example, Assembly of God Believers would not agree with the BFM2K. I still consider them as my Brothers and Sisters in the faith, although I do believe that they’re in error in their doctrine on certain, minor points of theology.
But, heretics? no.
David
David,
That’s a nice piece of theological triage there! I didn’t know BI guys were allowed to do that. (remembering some discussions from long ago…)
Josh,
You must have really misunderstood the conversation. I dont know of any BI guy that would not consider a Presbyterian, or an Assembly of God, or a Methodist Believer a Brother in Christ. Are they in error in their doctrine? Yes. But, if they’re a Believer in the Lord Jesus, then they’re saved…no matter what flavor of Christianity they are.
David
If I understood the disagreement proper, it was more over what would constitute 2nd-3rd tier issues in triage, but I remember a few statements that seemed to call into question the whole concept. I mostly made the above point in jest because I thought your explanation was well put.
Ryan: I hope you will scroll back up to my link in comment 41 or therabouts, the Lost Traditions of Baptists in the WAke of The Takeover, or the CR as some call it.
Humphreys; author of this fine work with a grand index to the BX 6400’s on page ten as many on this board know, had one of the most thoroughgoing and straightforward interviews with Judge Pressler.
I went to the trouble to tinyurl it for all yall. Ryan I do think you will find itn quite valuable and others as well.
May be a new plateau to further advance this discussion.
CB, great post on Campolo’s drift into the netherworld of sociotheology. What a shame because he is a great communicator. As you point out — anyone who agrees with his theology is definitely a liberal or even a non-believer. If Fox in anyway agrees with Campolo, I have greatly misinterpreted where he stands in regard to Christianity.
You can’t even be a “moderate” and not defend the gospel against Campolo.
Bottom line…Foxy loxy is not a Christian. He doesn’t believe in salvation exclusively through Christ. Or more specifically, he doesn’t believe that you personally have to believe in Christ to be saved. In other words, Muslims worship Alla but what they don’t realize is that Christ is saving them.
Joe, a few weeks ago I would argue with you in regard to Fox. Once someone defends the obvious heresy of Campolo (in spite of his obvious charismatic appeal), it does make you wonder.
I guess my “old” (pun intended) professor was right: “If you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything.”
Fall for anything, just like all those poor folks the SBC takeover artists demaggogged into taking a bus ride into the Conventions and getting that magic 51 percent.
Read what Russell Dilday said in his press conference in San Antonio in Hefley’s Volume Four.
He nailed it.
Inerrancy is a Ruse and Pressler pulled a big one over.
Again, see page 51 of MacCulloch.
Joe, I doubt you are a Christian as well.
What do you know about Will Campbell’s theology in re illegitimacy. I’m starting to think you may be exhibit A of his colorfully termed template on who are the legitimate followers of Jesus and who the are the ones; well you know your Old Testament.
Hey Joe Blackmon how’s that Taliban thing working for you.
Now tell us truthfully,don’t you see a good bit of yourself in the mentality. When you lay down at night, in your gut don’t you wish stoning was back in fashion and you could do the rockin.
Here is a link for your weekend devotions:
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=365
this post was up at #87, but I feel led of the Lord to put it down here:
87 SSBN August 19, 2010 at 12:58 pm
QUOTE We will lose the younger generation if we don’t wake up and smell the coffee. END QUOTE
If it is only “coffee” keeping the young fellas in the game, I say, “Let ‘em go.” Personally, I’ve not seen a person half my age that is doing even half of the ministry I do on a daily basis — and I’m not even a pacesetter among the “old fellas.”
Hopefully, some of these young buck will get a bit of a whiff of the one, single virtue that is essential to Kingdom ministry — # 1 on the Beattitude chart — humility.
The humility street works a lot of ways, up and down the Avenue.
SSBN can you tell us where Ronnie Floyd, for instance, has done the Beatitudinal Humility thing lately.
Stephen, Care to answer Joe’s question?
Don’t know anything about Ronnie Floyd–barely even know of his existence.
I think you might want to question the theological basis for making mortal men the basis for Christian virtue. Just my “humble” opinion 🙂
Since I’m three years away from the big “6” “0” … I guess I’m one of the older guys in the SBC.
The SBC has always given leadership status to leaders who have earned it. They didn’t sit around in their underwear blogging in their dorm room — most of the time.
I was the Director of Missions in Pittsburgh, Pa … when Ed Stetzer was up in Erie planting a growing church that planted other growing churches in his region. I saw and heard of his work when he was starting out. Ed studied hard, worked hard, and pushed himself to the limits. Ed has earned his spot in the SBC limelight.
Another younger leader, Vance Pitman, has planted and grown a great church in the middle of the pagan pool known as Las Vegas. He is now the Prez of the 2011 SBC Pastor’s Confernce.
Roll up your sleeves, win some souls, cooperate with your local association, state convention, and support the CP by praying, going, and giving. The SBC has a great future! It will be handed over to the winners, not the whiners.
Blessings!
Stephen:
I tried to read Dr. Humprheys’ book, the chapter you mentioned, but it does not come up.
2 facts related to that. I saw Dr. Humphreys at a forum discussion in 1985 related to the SBC. He appeared to be a nice person, but at the time he was a moderate apologist. I remember some comments about “parity”, the idea that seminary faculties might have an equal number of conservatives and liberals, neoorthodox or whatever name they wish to use.
Dr. Humphreys was good friends with Richard Land many years ago, and was in his wedding, I believe.
I did read the introduction by Humprheys and was very gratified that he dismisses the theory that the CR was not about theology and was only about politics and power. But he says for many they have only recently come to that realization.
I saw the discussion above about Tony Campolo. I heard the sermon that you mentioned. I heard (by tape) him speak one time at the SBC (at the “Forum”). He said something like, “I don’t know what you Baptists down here in Dixie are fighting about, but…”
I was not impressed. First, it was quite clear to me that he did know what was being discussed, but that by saying that, he was just trying to minimize the issues. He would have been better off saying, “I have not come here to talk about what you are fighting about, but to talk about x…”
I cannot vouch for CB’s quotes, but they seem to ring true to me. Campolo’s theology may be similar to John Paul II – very close to universalism. Such that a sincere Muslim or Hindu would be saved by Christ, he just doesn’t know it yet.
The thing that turned me off of Campolo years ago was 1) his recitation of some story that turned out not to be true (I think it was about a disabled girl), but was used for great dramatic effect (ala Ergun Caner), and 2) a book he wrote wherein he stated that a sincere, conscientious disciple of Jesus could not drive a BMW. I thought that was nonsense – still do. It is legalsim.
I also heard him speak about how a person in the military asked his commanding officer about his responsiblities. The soldier mentioned that he wanted to live and act as Jesus would live and act (WWJD etc.), and he mentioned the issue of dropping bombs. To which the commanding officer said, “Well, of course Jesus would never drop bombs”, which allegedly turned the soldier into a pacifist etc.
I suspect that was a made up illustration, too. But if it was true, it is probably the most irresponsible discussion of the Christian duty of citizenship that I have ever heard. It is manipulative, and extremely undeveloped. Using a story like that is as bad as anything I have ever heard coming from the most manipulative speaker.
Talk to you later.
Oh no! And we must not have any blogging five pointers! Come on David. Get a grip here. It’s not a matter of fame, it’s a matter of who the young think is Biblical. You act like they don’t have a brain, and are not into the Bible. Yet it’s the young that are getting into the Bible, digging like crazy, and finding out there is more in there than they had been told. And I’m not talking about five pointers, but Calvinists and non-Calvinist. I find them to be more Biblical in their preaching than many preachers I have heard because they preach on the passages no one even knew was there for years.
Debbie,
You have flown the coop again. It’s as if you read what someone writes, and you read it the way you want to see it, instead of the way it was written. So, what???? what in the world are you talking about?
Debbie, I never said anything about 5 pointers shouldnt blog. I just made the comment that a lot of them seem to be in the blogs. And, the fame and Biblical and the young thing? I really dont know what you’re trying to say with this?
Of course, Debbie, the young Believers, and young Pastors can dig into the Word of God and find God’s truth. And, of course they have a brain. I never said they didnt. Of course many of them are preaching the Bible. And?????
Debbie, I sure do wish that you’d actually read what I write before going on some kind of a tirade. Take a deep, cleansing breath. Count to 10. And then, tell yourself…”everything will be ok; everything will be ok; everything will be ok.”
David
David
You should know by now Cough-man doesn’t think. She feels. I mean, she brags about her training as a researcher in high school and ju-co English classes. 😛 What a joke!! She doesn’t believe in logic or reasoning…or reading for that matter.
Debbie,
I fully agree that we should have “5 point bloggers” to balance off the pointless ones.
“Yet it’s the young that are getting into the Bible, digging like crazy, and finding out there is more in there than they had been told.”
So Debbie, I guess it is now wrong just to “turn” to a particular Book in the Bible and study it with eager anticipation? Now I need to “get into the Bible” and “dig like crazy”?
Debbie, exactly how “big” is the Bible you own?
To tell you the truth, I don’t have one big enough “get into and dig like crazy.” And if I did, would it not be easier and more efficient if I dug with all “ten” pointers rather than just five?
QUOTE That is a pretty arrogant statement, END QUOTE
In order for a statement to be arrogant it must first be a statement. Could you give the exact quote where David or anyone else made the statement you call an “arrogant statement?”
Or, perhaps an apology for overstatement would be easier.
QUOTE They didn’t sit around in their underwear blogging in their dorm room END QUOTE
Don’t you just hate it when someone puts an image in your head you wish just wasn’t there? 🙂
“60!” That’s not old, that’s fossilized 🙂
Joe
once again, for someone who brags about being an innerantist you once again seem to have stopped your Bible reading before you got to the sermon on the mount…..
Jim,
Do I get credit for referring to the #1 Beattitude? 🙂 I’m proud to have made that post.
SS – I missed that! You absolutely get credit! There is also some quote of Jesus to be doers of the word, does that apply to blogs as well?
I have too much pride to attempt an answer to that question 🙂
Jim Champion #168 What is “BI” as in ” BI wing will take over the SBC”
Jack,
Us’uns is BI and we done got it. 🙂
Jim, the idea that BI is going to “take over” is really contrary to any evidence that is out there. The nearly unanimous BI candidate for president this year didn’t even make it into the runoff.
I think that it is more likely that the SBC will move the in opposite direction, perhaps too much so.
Still haven’t heard what B I stands for unless that’s part of a secret Presbyterian pledge and then I don’t want to know.
Jack,
BI stands for Baptist Identity.
Volfie is the resident BIer with a bit of a second by CB, but he is too mean to fall into anyone’s camp, and a bit too independent as well. The BI wing wants things to revert back to the 50s day and age of sbc life when men were men and women were June Cleaver They stand on doctrine plus old time sbc legalism. No alcohol, no women deacons, closed or close Lords Supper, proper baptiser for a baptism to be recognized, young earth creationism.
For a good look at who they are and how they believe you can check out sbctoday.com
Dave, I hope you are correct because they scare me, however they are the ones who have the political fire in their belly and think the CR is still going on and did not go far enough
Jim,
You obviously have no idea what a BI guy is. Your “comment” above shows a real lack of knowledge of who we are and what we stand for.
David
Jim:
I understand that the BI guys are really into Baptist Distinctives such as not accepting alien immersions (Baptisms in a non-Baptist Church), closed communion, and being intentionally and distinctively Baptist.
They share that last point with CBF crowd, I believe, as I see what Dr. Leonard and others write. “Being Baptist” is one of their slogans. Kind of like what Foy Valentine, a famous moderate, said of the word “Evangelical.” Dr. Valentine said that was a Yankee word and that he would not use it to describe himself or other people in the SBC.
Though let me hasten to say that the BI guys in the SBC believe in having a doctrinal confession and using that doctrinal confession with respect to denominational employees. So in that regard, they are different from the CBF.
The other things you mentioned may be shared by many BI guys, but they may be shared by non-BI guys, as well.
That’s the best stab I can take at it.
Louis: I’m not sure all BI guys would accept your definition. As we can see, they do not accept Jim’s definition, although I suspect that most BI guys do believe the things Jim (sarcastically) presented. (not about the 50s and June Cleaver)
But it does present an interesting question, and one that is perhaps not too far outside the boundaries of this post to be discussed.
Does holding to the doctrines outlined in the BFM make one Baptist enough? My impression is that the BI movement wants to make being Baptist something narrower than what the BFM prescribes, but I’d like to hear that from them, or a refutation. Without a snark war if possible.
Think about what we have seen recently: Numerous blog wars over alcohol, which is not addressed in the BFM. Suggestions that elder-led congregations are outside the parameters of the BFM. The wars over Calvinism, not addressed in the BFM. The very recent and unexpected attack on the “reformed” baptists in the SBC.
I think it is great to discuss these things, but we can’t seem to discuss them respectfully or rationally. And often there is more than a hint of a suggestion that people holding to the “wrong” position on some of these non-BFM issues aren’t really Baptist, or Baptist enough.
Is it possible that this is what is keeping the younger crowd away?
Bill Mac:
Great pick ups. Forgot to mention Calvinism. That is a big one for the BI guys. I guess I forgot about that because I am just finishing the biography of James P. Boyce, founder of Southern Seminary. He was very Baptist. Baptist as it gets. But he was a Calvinist.
Great pick up on the elder thing, too. I really don’t understand the objection to a plurality of leadership. If a church has 2 co-pastors (e.g. Vines and Lindsay), how is that different from a pastor who is and elder serving with lay elders?
Good thoughts. I believe it is possible to discuss these things in a civil manner.
Arguments do keep people away – younger and older.
Baptists need to be less belicose!
Louis and Bill Mac,
Scott Gordon and Les Puryear are 5 point Calvinists.
David
David: I understand that BI is not a monolithic group with entirely uniform ideas. And Les is one of those leading the charge against reformed Baptists in the SBC (go figure). He is also the one who suggested that elder-led congregations are not in compliance with the BFM. He also claims that reformed pastors do not invite people to come to Christ in their worship services.
Actually, I’m not BI and I don’t believe the CR went far enough. If it had, you, Stev, BDW, the guys at BL forums, and Gene Scarborough would have muzzled it a long time ago.
Or they would have gotten louder. 🙂
Debbie,
Seven hundred and twenty-eight. Or seven hundred and fifty-seven.
Part of my previous comment got cut off. It should have read:
I’ll bet you money they wouldn’t. Seven hundred and twenty-eight. Or seven hundred and fifty-seven.
Taliban Joe:
I bet you ain’t nobody at your church has a reading comprehension past the 8th grade. God Loves em cause the Bible says he does and I have a lot of affection sight unseen for em too for all the suffering they endure puttin up with you.
I just think don’t think you read very much; in fact I think you said you don’t have time for it.
But you sure have alot of time telling me and Gene Scarborough we’re going to Hell.
Somehow I think you missed the point of the Gospel.
Stoning folks, you sure you aren’t up for it if you could get the Law changed?
Not being CBF myself if I were to describe them I would say they do have some commonalities w the BI boys and would say they are more Baptistic than the BI boys in things like priesthood if the believer, separation of church and state and autonomy of the local church. Their big distinction is the rejection of the creed as an instrument of doctrinal accountability that BIers wave around like a club.
My biggest concern with BI is that they raise every level of what they consider doctrine to tier I status. Their extra biblical stances serve to exclude, and to tie this back to the post, run off younger pastors who are sola scripture and can see the legalism in some of the BI stances
Love your consistency Joe, have you gotten to Matthew yet?
Champion has a great question for you JOe? Has your Christian Walk gotten you to Matthew yet,or are you still stuck in Leviticus?
Are you and the wife and children gonna rent The Stoning of Sayonara M this weekend or have you already seen it during August Revival meetin time?
Louis,
I believe you may have BI mixed up with Landmark Baptists. Most of the BI guys I know, including me, would accept baptisms from non-Baptist churches, IF they’re Scriptural baptisms. If the Church believes that salvation by grace thru faith, and if it believes in Believers baptism by immersion; then that’s a true, Biblical, Scriptural baptism.
And, yea, you’re right about denominational employees needing to agree with the BFM2K…in the least.
We’re not big on the name “Baptist” being on the sign in front of your church, although…IMHO…your people should know that you’re a part of the SBC, or it seems deceptive in some way.
The BI does not want to revert back to the days of 50’s, as Jim slurringly suggests. We want to go back to the days of Jesus, and we want the SBC to stay true to the Bible. We’re not for legalism. But, we are for truth and obedience.
Also, we do believe the Bible teaches that it’s foolish to drink alcohol, in the least…and some believe that it’s sinful to drink alcohol period. Men should be Deacons and Elders/Pastors. And, yes, I’d say that most, if not all of us, believe the Biblical account about creation over Darwinian Evolution.
Also, I’m glad that we scare people like Jim, and Gene, and Fox, and Debbie, and others. Good.
David
Jim,
Once again, you show a real ignorance of what the BI guys truly believe. Every doctrine is not raised to a first tier level. BI guys would believe that Assembly of God Believers are saved, but just in error over eternal security and tongue speaking and a few other doctrines. But, I do not know of any BI guy who would say that an AOG Believer was lost just because he didnt believe in eteranl security of the Believer.
You might really want to rethink what you think about the so called BI guys. You seem to have a lot of misconceptions…a lot.
David
DoubleKnot Vol Fan David:
You got a big problem with that inerrancy thing, you know.
It won’t scour. And if you cared to learn something about Darwin instead of pontificating your ignorance on the matter; Marilynne Robinson, a fine Christian woman is ready when you are.
In the meantime here is your problem with the History of the Book of Genesis:
“Altogether the chronology of the Book of Genesis does not add up as a historical narrative when it is placed in a reliably historical context.”
Page 51 from the most definitive book of the first 3,000 years of Christianity to appear in the 21st Century.
On page 51 of a thousand pages, in one paragraph Paige Patterson andPressler and Mohler are dismissed arbitrarily cause their “Inerrancy thing” as Paige Patterson once called it, won’t scour; never has never will.
Well, since you’re not a Christian it wouldn’t “scour” with you, Steven.
I think Wade Burleson and lot of other great Christians are start to have serious questions about whether you are a Christian or not, Taliban Joe.
David Rogers, Adrian’s Son? Have you asked him lately about his reservations about how you are representing Jesus in public?
How about your wife and children and your Mother; are they Christians Joe? Do they have to get your permission to talk about it? How does it work among your loved ones, this Christian thing, your bent on it?
Wade Burleson is a left wing nut job.
David Rodgers has every right to think anything he wants. His opinions are his own and he can share them or not at his leisure.
Now, the reason you are not a Christian is because you don’t believe that salvation is found solely by faith in Jesus Christ and repentance from sin. You believe that a Muslim’s faith in Islam can get them to heaven. Therefore, you don’t understand the biblical gospel so there is no way you could have believed it.
Matthew 22:36-40 (New International Version)
36″Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Stephen: May I give you some advice, as respectfully as I can? I think you are often treated rather badly on these blogs by people who should know better. But I must say you paint a big red target on yourself most times that you post. I know you are thought of as a liberal by many here and not even a Christian by at least one. I honestly don’t know how you would identify yourself. This is largely because you never post any of your own thoughts or ideas. Nearly every time you enter a blog comment you are giving us something else to read by someone else.. Some other link, or another book or article. Most of these are critiques of the CR. I can’t speak for anyone else but I suspect most of us never, ever read them. You didn’t like the CR. I think most of us get that. You don’t like the concept of inerrancy. We get that too. Beyond that, we have no idea what you think because you never really say anything. Maybe it is too late for you to gain some respect from some here, but I think it would go a long way if you would just tell us what YOU think, and if it is a biblical issue being discussed, to back up your arguments with scripture, not with yet another link or book reference.
Just my 2 cents worth (or perhaps less).
DoubleKnot and Taliban Joe have a glorious History in America. I can easily visualize them in the mob that lynched Leo Frank. In fact the fellow that stomped Frank when he was cut down in Marietta Georgia had a famous name that escapes me at the moment.
The Harrowing tale in spun out in Steve Oney’s 450 page history of a few years ago, the last book reviewed in the NY Times by the Baptist Preacher’s son, Marshall Frady, the grandest social justice journalist of the last half of the 20th Century.
Bill Mac, thanks for the advice. I have found some folks worthy of civil discourse here including yourself and Louis though we disagree, and I like to see what John Fariss says from time to time.
So with that please pardon the upcoming link. Joe Blackmon and the world of VolFan are a vast wasteland, but maybe the weight of accumulation of just how hollow their view of things is will at some point break them.
Let them consider how their fundamentalism committed this horrible violence only 100 years ago.
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/3138/dangerous_religion/
Steve, How long will you hide from Joe’s question?
Jefty:
I don’t think Joe is a Christian cause I see no evidence on this board. He can’t think, he don’t read why should I waste my time.
I got a question for you, Jefty.
Do you believe in inerrancy, or do you believe in Jesus?
Later I will link for you a picture of Will Campbell and ask where was Judge Pressler?
Well, again, considering that you believe a muslim can call on Allah and be saved by their Islamic faith, wha you believe about someone else really doesn’t matter too much.
Joe, You and Jefty and DoubleKnot believe in Stonin, don’t you cause I ain’t never heard you say you don’t.
How many folks do you know think that Stoners are Christians and if you don’t know any then you must not be one, a Christian that is; Or am I missin somethin in your logistics here.
Steve,
You are on a roll tonight. 🙂
Do you think Frank was guilty of the rape and murder of a 13-14 year old girl? It also has been said that he had a great hatred for Black people. Did he get justice? Who knows. But I really don’t think you should relate Joe or Vol to the guys who hung Franks. And I certainly do not think you should identify yourself with the like of Leo Franks whether he was guilty of the girl’s murder or not. He was not a very savory guy.
BTW, the name of the guy who stepped into his dead face was Robert E. Lee Howell. He also seemed to be an unsavory fellow.
Only one slight problem with your logic….it is common among moderates to claim that all religions lead to heaven and to suggest that proclaiming salvation as exclusively found in the gospel of Chirst is hateful and narrow minded. You’re going to be hard pressed to point to any evidence that conservative Christians believe in stoning.
Again, is salvation exclusively found by faith in Jesus Christ and repentance from sin? “Yes” or “No”. A real Christian wouldn’t hesitate for a second to answer and their answer would be “yes”. A real man would at least answer the question. Of course, since you’re neither you’ll just babble about CR, Pressler, and the Texas Regulars and link to something that no one will read.
Joe and CB:
First Joe; I don’t think your religion leads to heaven. I do think the Christian religion rightly understood and practiced by faith leads to heaven. I think you miss the point; but I am not the final judge of you either.
I honestly think you got some serious flaws with your orthopraxy; easily more than David Dockery and he’s a little screwwed up too.
I do wish you had gotten the point I was trying to make about Will Campbell theology of who is a bastard and who isn’t; but apparently it went over your head as well too, or you missed it.
CB: You are right about the fellow in Marietta, the namesake of Robert E.Lee. I do think Robert E. Lee was a better man than Robert E. Lee Howell.
It is interesting that 100 years after they cut down Frank near where the Big Chicken and the Brumby rocker was on Old 411,seemed to be strong cell of fringe holdouts in the Cobb County area and it was a stronghold of rightwingers, Larry MacDonald and the Birch Society that flourished in that area.
Of course you are familiar with the TomWatson part of the story.
And there was a move in the Frank defense team that scapegoated blacks that is hard to defend.
Quite frankly, as aspect of Tom Watson arose in Criswell in his 56 speech to the SC legislature.
Would Joe and Vol Doubleknot stomp on Frank’s corpse in a frenzy; I don’t know, I nevermet the fellows.
I think the Incestuous Dad in China Town when he tells the JackNicholson character: Most of us never have to face the fact that given the right set of circumstances we are capable of anything….To that extent I could see DKnot and Tban Joe in a lynchin party easier than I could see Bill Mac or Louis.
To sum up: There are some decent folks on this board with whom I disagree.
I don’t think Dknot and Joe Blackmon add much to the discussion or are much of a witness for the Christian faith;then again others beside them may think the same of me.
And third; if you are truly interested in the Frank case I hope you can find the Frady Review; and Ihope you have the opportunity to wade through the Oney 600 pages on Frank and Mary Phagan.
The Wiki article is pretty thorough; and as one interested in these matters as I am on occasion; see if the SamfordLibrary can’t help you turn up the collection of essays in Jumpn Jim Crow. Pretty exhautive discussion in there.
You and Killian should have lunch soon; and I may join Killian and our Bright Star friend this fall.
Steve,
The Steve Oney book presents in its conclusions that Frank was innocent. Other writers contend Frank to be guilty. The case is interesting to me due to the fact that the town’s folks sided with Jim Conley, a Black man, who testified Frank, a Jew, killed Phagan.
The actions of all involved do not make a real condemnation of any “fundamentalism” relating to Christianity such as you suggest and then make the effort to tie the Christian faith of Joe and Vol.
The murder of Mary Phagan and the trial and lynching of Leo Frank along with the grandstanding of Tom Watson (which does not show any similarity to the Christianity of Criswell) show only the “fundamental” truth of the faith that all men are depraved.
Yet even depravity is not a guarantee that any and all men would rape and kill a 13 year old girl given the “right set of circumstances” as stated by the character in China Town.
Steve, I have seen true, undefiled evil up close and personal in my lifetime. I have smelled its putrid breathe and looked into its hollow eyes. I really don’t think you can tie Vol or Joe to such no matter how hard you try with these references to ancient, Southern, moral failures that seemingly only you and I read about from old books on dusty shelves. Nor do I think they can tie you to the Devil’s waiting list simply because you are stubborn.
BTW, Wiki is a poor source for facts. Any simpleton can write that stuff.
BTW Steve,
Do you think the Larry McDonald you mentioned was killed by the Soviets? Maybe we can talk about that one day. 🙂
In response to CB on Leo Frank. My Criswell analogy in the Frank case is to Tom Watson, who was as things played out, one of the larger characters in the big picture of the story.
There is a very interesting discussion of the Cordova Mosque at bl.com. Great discussion tonight on PBS Newshour between Bush 43 former speechwriter Gerson and the regular Friday night news of the week analyst.
They talk about the KKK as proper analogy to Al Qaeda when comparing terrorist wings of Christendom to Terrorist wings of Muslim faith.
In that world this week Newt Gingrich showed his rear end. To frame it in the legacy of the Leo Frank case, Newt like Criswell are the ghosts of Tom Watson.
And it is pertinent to this thread as it falls on the spectrum of varying degrees of fundamentalism
Steve,
I may not be correct here, but I don’ think Watson was ever in the Klan. He just called for its “reappearance” during the Franks trial in a grandstand play. Did he not later speak against the Klan when it suited his purpose to do so?
Watson was a strange bird for a Southerner anyway. He went back and forth on issues all the time as a politician. Did he even claim to be a Christian, much less a fundamentalist Christian at that?
Criswell held no similarity to Watson. And frankly, I don’t think Gingrich does either. How do you make that comparison?
I ain’t skeered. Far from it.
Let me just say that every BI guy I have met is a guy I like and greatly admire.
They are stand up guys to the last man. They love Jesus. They love their families. They love the Word of God and believe it to be true in every possible way. They love the saints of God. They study theology as if everything they do depends on their understanding of it. They are true guardians of the biblical doctrine of ecclesiology and they have a better grasp of it than most because they hold it extremely dear as a biblical doctrine. (It is the one thing that gives them their “Baptist Identity” above anything else that makes them identifiable.)
In a practical sense they are the kind of guys who will live out the teaching of the Good Samaritan parable of Jesus quicker than most people I know. They will give you their last five spot if you really needed it (but not if you are going to buy beverage alcohol with it) and asked them for it. They are the guys who will stop to help fix a flat or lend you their cell phone. They are merciful. (Sometimes to a fault. This is one reason they often get themselves in trouble. They always tend to make their greatest errors on the side of mercy and grace when dealing with brothers and sisters who have gotten themselves in a mess due to personal or public moral failure.)
Do they have faults? Of course they do. I just identified one in saying they sometimes get themselves in trouble with an unbiblical concept of mercy. Naturally, they have other faults as well.
I would be willing to ride the river with most any BI guy I know. I respect them. They are stand up guys, almost to the man.
Now, if it comes to having to go to a gun fight, give me Joe Blackmon, John Fariss, Jim Champion, David Rogers, Dave Miller or Steve Fox any day. But that is another story. 🙂 🙂
CB
you almost never fail to bring a smile to my face, even when you are dead wrong…
Jim,
One out of two ain’t always bad. It always depends on the odds against you in the original venture. 🙂
Now tell me Jim, how am I “dead wrong” here? I trotted out several ideas. Are they all wrong?
CB,
a bit of humor, I have been in disagreement with you very little on this thread. Our basic disagreement has always been over the need for the CR, however your perspective has been from the southeast, mine from the southwest. I do agree that southern and sebts had true liberal proffs that needed to b dealt with. Not so much at swbts. Like fox I think innerrancy was used as a political club
Jim,
Always remember I never called Dr. Dilday a liberal or even a moderate. And I realize that perspective counts for a lot. The SBC was and is a big place.
I was in VA and KY. You were in TX if I remember. During those years, those places were as different worlds as far as the SBC was concerned.
But I still believe the Battle for the Bible was a necessary fight.
CB, just for the record, Dilday has referred to himself as a “moderate.” As to SWBTS having “liberal” professors — that’s a tough call. I think it was by far one of our strongest seminaries, but I did see a couple professors during my time there that had some “suspicious” ideas.
Within just a couple of months of Dilday’s departure, a flood of professors resigned, so any “potential” problems were probably eliminated early on.
Replying to SSBN on Dilday. There is a way to read Russell Moore’s tribute to Clark Pinnock and come to the conclusion the man Mohler’s assistant praises for Discipling Jerry Vines, Patterson and Adrian Rogers at NOBTS, came to a place not unlike Russell Dilday on Pilgrimage. As early as 87 Pinnock said forthrightly his former students Vines, Rogers and Paige missed the point.
Like Dilday Clark Pinnock was on Pilgrimmage using his Priesthood of the Believer to evolve, Pilgrim out of the narrow confines of the Sunday School Class led by the likes of Paul Pressler where Pressler felt compelled to go to Baylor and tell Jack Flanders he better quit thinking like Clark Pinnock; cause everything there was to know Judge Pressler already knew in his Junior Boys Sunday School class.
Clark Pinnock now stands as another witness; this man who got Vines and Adrian Rogers to thinking just a little, became in a sense a martyr at the hands of his own “disciples” and I hope that would trouble SSBN, CB Scott and others.
SSBN,
I know that. I was just saying to Jim that I had never called him one. And SSBN, I still don’t. But I do place Lloyd Elder’s train wreck as president of the BSSB squarely at Russell Dilday’s feet.
Steve,
You know and I know and so do most other people from around then on both sides of the CR that Paul Pressler did not go to Baylor and tell Jack Flanders he better quit thinking like Clark Pinnock; “cause everything there was to know Judge Pressler already knew in his Junior Boys Sunday School class.”
David:
Thanks for the clarification. I did not buy the part about the 1950s, anyway. Interestingly, though, that is the era a lot of moderates yearn for. No agreement on theology. Just agreement on program.
Ok, is anyone else seeing that on this post the top of Internet Explorer says “The SBC Smells Like Your Grandma’s Socks” or is it just me?
I noticed that, but didn’t want to mention it.
More ‘rowdiness’ in action. I would be ashamed of myself if I were a little wiser.
Yeah. I thought it was pretty funny.
Well, at least I know I’m not needing new glasses.
OK, let me see if I have this right. Ed, your faint praise aside for us old folks, it sounds to me like you, ‘younger folks’, can’t wait for us, ‘old folks’ to get off the stage! It may be ‘vailed’ to some, but, having done a lot of research on this, (correct me if I’m wrong), but, you being an ‘ex board member’ of Acts 29 ( a church planting org.), would like nothing better than to bring that group ‘on-board’ and, have them ‘under the umbrella of the SBC, or in other words ‘fully funded’ one day. Right now, with the ‘age diff.’, that’s not possible. Many SBC folks, know what this org. is ‘really’ all about; being LIKE the culture to ‘WIN’ the culture!
I ‘posted’ this on Ed’s Part 1 article on ‘Orlando After Thoughts’, and his notice of ‘age’ differences. So, forgive me if I’m in the ‘wrong chat lane’.
Well, it seems that Mr. A. Price has walked right out in the street in front of everyone and proposed a discussion loaded with possibilities.
It could be interesting to see how it plays out, if, that is, there are any with the same degree of boldness to engage him.
BI also stands for Business Intelligence, in case anyone cares (I know, another work type thing). 🙂
QUOTE are you still stuck in Leviticus? END QUOTE
Someone above (Bill Mac, I believe) sought to get an idea of what another blogger really believes.
I think the above quote should answer the question without much doubt.
Some of the Bible is “more Bible” than other parts for a moderate leaning to the liberal side or an out and out liberal. The above quote, and many like it, were heard often and loudly in SBC seminaries in the 70’s and 80’s, and into the early 90’s.
I have more respect for baloney than I do the “Moderates Bible.” At least the baloney is “all baloney from one end to the other.” In regard to Bill Mac’s post, I really don’t see how there can be any doubt as to the views of most people on this blog. It seems clear to me.
I won’t even mention the man’s name anymore. I tried having a conversation but it felt more like getting a root canal. I try to avoid both, now.
SSBN, I do hope you find that paragraph on page 51 of Christianity to help you get a clue about inerrancy.
I think it is old news to you that Charles Kimball’s When Religion Becomes Evil can help you out of the Fog a little on these matters; but then again you seem to have strong affection for the Fog.
I am so thankful for an unnamed old coot who recommends title after title for reading. It saves me from picking up something that will waste my time.
Thank God this person never recommends reading the Bible. You know that Book is great when it never gets on the recommended reading list of the unnamed theocrat.
You don’t know nothing about moderate Bibles
When was the last time you heard Johnny Hunt and Jerry Vines qutoing Flannery and Faulkner.
They don’t cause they don’t know as much about the Bible as they think they do.
Here’s the stuff grounded in the Bible.
CB knows what I am talking about, cause in his gut he knows Ron Rash knows the same thing. Rash says this is an excellent article and he was a classmate of Johnny Hunt at Garnder Webb.
So SSBN, Don’t talk about what you Don’t know just because you can’t digest the God’s truth on Page 51 about the History of BOG the chronology that don’t stack up.
Only in Judge Pressler and Criswell’s mind was that ever the point.
Here is the Word of the Lord with the Bible as its text:
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=365
Steve, When is the last night you quoted the Bible, not men.
Steve,
There is no moderate Bible, you know that. There is no conservative or liberal Bible. There is no Democrat or Republican Bible (although, I must confess that some of my Republican brothers have claimed the copyrights to the Bible and some of my Democrat brothers have tried to deny the Bible exists.)
Steve, there is the Bible. It stands on its own. The Bible is the Word of God. It does not belong to anyone other than Almighty God. Steve, I think you know all of that.
I also think you know that Steinbeck, Faulkner, Morris, O’Flannery, Hemingway, Rash and a number of others we have bandied about here are just people. They write from their experiences. And like you and me, all of their experiences are flawed and marred by sin and limited knowledge of all the arenas of life. The same is true of Criswell and Pressler. I have read Criswell’s commentaries and Pressler’s history of the SBC. They are also flawed for the same reasons as are those mentioned above.
The Bible stands above all other written material in human existence because it is the Word of Holy God. God authored the Bible, not Moses, not Paul, but God. The Bible is the Book of God.
Hunt and Vines do not err because they do not quote Flannery or Faulkner. They do not err if they do not quote Patterson, Pressler, Criswell or Bruce. But they do err and gravely so, if they do not quote God.
Preaching is either from the Word of God or it is not biblical proclamation.
Steve, because a person does not quote or even read the books you and I talk about here does not mean they are lacking anything in obedience to proclaim the gospel. But if they fail to quote the Book of God, not only do they fail, but they are not men of God.
CB; YOu missed the point. It was SSBN who introduced the notion of the Moderate Bible.
I was just funnin with him.
You and I have discussed our mutual enamoration of Ron Rash. Rash is a big fan of Cormac McCArthy and I have been discussing Will Campbell with JoeB though so far it has not registered with JoeB.
The Bible, God’s Holy Word, the God Breathed Bible that is a light unto my Path, a Lamp Unto My Feet that I might sin against God; that same Bible that has Truth as its Author but IS NOT INERRANT AS USED AS A TOOL TO DIVIDE THE BAPTISTS AS GOD’S CHILDREN MARK NOLL, CLARK PINNOCK AND FISHER HUMPHREYS AND ROBERT MARSH HAVE SHOUTED FROM THE ROOFTOPS FOR THOSE WHO HAVE EARS TO HEAR; that Bible is the foundation of a grand essay Doris Betts has written and Ron Rash has read and found to be excellent and I hope you and SSBN and Al Mohler read it too.
The Cormac Quote is Super. I give you this tip; Ithink it has a good chance of making the Quotation remarks column of Baptists Today before Christmas; it’s that good.
So here we are all askew; this should be in the Books forum thread but SSBN tempted me and here it is in the Setzer deal.
So for you to pick up back in the bookThread while I amthinking about it:
Have you read Robert Penn Warren’s a Place to Come To.
Jededidah Tewksbury and the Mule that Killed his Daddy.
We got something to talk about there; but should segueway it back over to Great books conversation here at The Voices.
Typo Error correction before JoeB and Doubleknot have another cause in their fundamentalist Mind to cast me into Hell; The verse is; Lamp and Light SO I might NOT sin against God.
I left out NOT and I apologize. The Bible is not Moderate on the NOT in that VBS Pledge that is in the Baptist Canon.
I had another thought about the great literary critic James Wood and his template for round and flat characters and your fun with my two fundy antagonists here consigning me to Hell and Miller erasing the evidence; that whole exchange fits his template almost perfectly so to that degree our activity here is noted and affirmed by the consensus greatest literary critic on the planet; whose other provocative notions at some point may be explored by Louis or Christiane; maybe Jack, but I doubt there will be many other takers here among the Voices.
Steve, Do you really want to keep mentioning Pinnock’s name? The man took a left turn and never came back. 🙂
Steve,
I have not read the Robert Penn Warren book you reference, but I do have a story for you about a mule.
The grandmother of a lady I know very well used to spend many nights alone with only her granddaughter staying with her in the summer for company. The reason she was alone at night during those early days of her granddaughter’s formative years was because her husband was an engineer on a train and he had the midnight run to Knoxville.
The grandmother was a fearful woman and was afraid to stay by herself so younger family members did their duty to their elders and took their turn staying with Grand-maw. Thus the granddaughter’s duty was the whole summer of her tenth year.
Late one hot July night, the grandmother awakened to a terrible banging on the backdoor that lead to the barns and utility buildings along the Coosa River. She just knew that some demon possessed, riff-raff had come down the River by boat and was planning to break in, kill her and her beautiful black-eyed granddaughter and only God knows what else lay in store for them at the hands of this low-life trash from “Up the River.”
Due to the great degree of fear the grandmother had about being alone, her husband had taught her to load and shoot an old Single Action Colt revolver he owned. For he was afraid she would not be able to shoot the more complicated GI issue .45 he kept loaded in the nightstand on his side of the bed.
The grandmother retrieved her revolver from her nightstand and grabbed her granddaughter who had entered her room when she heard her grandmother praying loudly for God’s good mercy on her and her granddaughter against the “White-trash” that was breaking down the back door.
With revolver in hand and granddaughter in tow, the grandmother went forward to defend her home and family against the demon-possessed, white-trash trying to break down her backdoor.
According to the granddaughter the following happened next:
The grandmother yelled out at the demonic intruder to go away and leave her and her grand-baby alone. She said, “I have a gun and I will shoot you if you don’t get out of here right now.”
The intruder did not cease his efforts to break down the door. The grandmother being good to her word sat down at the kitchen table with her arms stretched out across the table with revolver in her right hand. She opened fire right through the back door with five rounds of .45 Long Colt ammo. She heard something drop and then nothing but dead silence.
Not convinced she had won the battle completely, she said to her granddaughter, “Come on.” They ran into her bedroom and locked the door. She retrieved her husband’s handgun from his nightstand and went to the far side of the bed. There she and her granddaughter waited for daybreak and the arrival of her husband.
Her husband arrived at the usual time. He came through the front door as always not knowing the hellish night his wife and granddaughter had spent. He found his wife down in the floor behind the bed, crying and telling him he had to get another train that was “on days.” The granddaughter just sat there sobbing.
Upon hearing what had happened the husband ran to the back door but could not get it opened. He ran back to his wife and tried to take his handgun from her but she would not let it go. He took a Marlin rifle from the rack on the bedroom wall and went out the pantry door to face whatever evil he found at his backdoor.
When he got to the backdoor he began to cuss and stomp so loud that his granddaughter ran out of the house and around back to see what was causing her granddaddy to say things she had never heard him say before.(The grandmother stayed behind the bed.) When she got to the backdoor, she saw what was causing her Grandaddy to forget he was a Sunday School teacher at the Methodist Church.
There in the doorway was Ole Early, dead as could be. Old Early was her Grandaddy’s blind mule who had gotten out of the barn and was eating un-shucked corn out of a bushel basket the Grandfather had left against the backdoor before he had left to drive the train to Knoxville.
It all worked out well though. The granddaughter made a decision right then and there to marry a man who did not drive the night train to Knoxville and who would make sure to do proper recon and target acquisition before shooting would be assailants on hot, moonless, nights in July.
She made good on her decision. She married me. 🙂
Who are Morris and O’Flannery??
Steve,
My apologies. I failed to see that SSBN introduced the concept of the moderate Bible. I usually catch every comment in a thread I am trolling, but I missed that one.
Morris is Benjamin F. Morris of whom I have been reading of late. O’Flannery was just a stupid old man mistake. That should have been O’Conner as in Flannery O’Conner of who you and I have discussed a few times.
A question and a comment
From where did the fellow depart to drive the Train to Knoxville?
That was the question; the comment is order paperback copies of A Place To Come To for the closest members of your extended family who know your Mule Story; and make a list of three to get copies of Cormac McCarthy’s Suttree for. In Suttree Knoxville becomes Holy Ground, as Holy as Jabbok’s Ford. I need to work on the analogy but maybe that is about as good a conveyor belt as I can come up with off the top of my head.
And Jefty; Ronnie Floyd, Pressler and Mohler took a RIGHT turn and never looked back.
Page 51 of the Christianity book on the bad chronology of the BOG. Take a look at it.
Fox,
I have never, and pray to God that I will never be a part of a lynching party. I pray that I’ll be the man, who’s standing there against the lynch mob…telling them to not do it.
So, please, go slander someone else.
David
Well, now wait a minute…if CB was looking at Fox, and then turned to me and said, “Vol, my friend, get a rope.” Then, I’d probably….. oh, uh, excuse me….I must have drifted off.
David
Its a rough and tumble world around here ain’t it Vol? 🙂
You and Ole Joe have been called a lot of stuff and now you are called Vigilantes and Old Testament Stoners. Next you will be called Danite Avengers or Golems. 🙂
Yea, CB, and I’ve never stoned anyone in my life? Now, I’ve been stoned before…back in my lost days. But, that’s another story.
🙂
What’s a lynchin or a stonin compared to Hell. If Vol Fan DKnot and Taliban Joe hold the keys to theKingdom on this boad, Stonin and Lynchin should not be a big deal.
I mean it is just not occasional, but three or four times a day given the number of times I post one or the other one tell me I’m going to Hell, then Dave Miller gets tired of it and comes along and erases half my stuff.
So yeah, if TJoe and DoubleKnot want to join civilization, then I’m prepared to inch along in that direction with them.
But if it’s all about going to Hell and this aids and abets it, then let’s get down with Will Campbell’s Bastard theology.
Steve,
LOL ’til my old beat up ribs hurt. I think I shall die. 🙂 🙂 🙂
Its really been rough on you today hasn’t it? Joe and Vol cast you into Hell and Dave Miller erases the evidence. 🙂 Oh, this is too much fun!!
Fox,
Jesus holds the keys, and He has told us who He’ll let in, and who He wont. All of those people, who die outside of Christ will go to Hell forever…to be punished for their sins forever.
The only “Hell” that CB, Joe, and I endure are your posted comments with links.
David
I’m Okay with Jesus; Washed in the Blood, baptized in the water, the whole deal.
Like Mutual here, been a while since I been around folks who tell me with every comment I make I’m going to Hell cause of my Conviction Inerrancy is Bogus.
I link a lot cause the remedial work on this board is overwhelming.
I wasn’t on the plane when Larry McDonald’s plane went down, but one of my fairly close relatives was part of the funeral service at Roswell St in Mayretta, not far from where Leo Frank was lynched.
I did have couple encounters with the Reconstructionist Birch sympathizer than ran to replace Larry in that Congressional Seat, Joe Morecraft.
Steve,
It is rather obvious that you were not on the plane with McDonald.
My question was, do you think the Soviets had anything to do with as do so many other folks who kept up with the Birchers and other such matters?
Steve
as soon as volfie starts losing an argument he questions your Christianity, Joe does not make arguments he just slings insults and makes his little declarations. At least on this site volfie has no say and can’t block comments like he loves to do on his own site.
It is much easier for them to demean and insult than it is to make a declarative statement based on nothing more than what their leaders told them to say
Steve,
Did you catch m,y question back up the thread about Frank and Larry McDonald?
Jim,
Can you show me where I questioned Fox’s salvation in the comments #267, 269, or 272? Where?
I do doubt his salvation due to his beliefs…doesnt believe in inerrancy; doesnt seem to believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven; and several other things that he’s said, or has refused to say….BUT, where do you get that I was questioning his salvation in the comments above?
Jim, I think your obvious disdain for me clouds your vision, and you read things that arent there…but it’s what you want to see about me. And, Jim, let me ask you….if someone said to you that they believed that there were errors in the Bible, and that there were other ways to Heaven besides faith in Jesus, what would you think about that person?
David
Volfie
last question first, I would say they were wrong But it is not for me to decide if they are a Christian. You were the one that called my salvation into question, after I gave my testimony I heard nary a word back from you. When I brought this up to you on sbctoday you not only didn’t respond you erased my comment. Now why would I have a problem with you???
Volfie, I just don’t see much independent thought coming off your keypad. The closest you came was when u came out in favor of the garner motion before your leaders straightened you out.
Fact is I don’t know what fox believes, he stated above that he gave his life to Christ , I’ll just have to pray that he did. As you know it is grace alone, not grace plus innerrancy or yec or anything else that saves.
The rest I leave to Christ, you and Joe would be wise to do likewise
Clark Pinnock has died. His name came up frequently in this discussion on Inerrancy.
Here is the article
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5451/53/
Here is the comment I left at Mohler’s associate, Russ Moore’s blog, in his tribute to Clark Pinnock:
Russell:
Robert Marsh was a classmate of Adrian Rogers and other disciples of Pinnock at NOBTS.
His son Charles in the book Wayward Christian Soldiers discusses Francis Schaeffer’s refusal to sign the Lusanne Covenant in 74 to the chagrin of Billy Graham, among others.
And now Diarmand MacCulloch in his much celebrated book on the first 3,000 years of Christianity, on page 51, lays waste to Pressler’s inerrancy as defined by his stance against Jack Flanders in the 60’s at Baylor.
So Inerrancy is not what it is chalked up to be. To borrow a word from WA Criswell, it is a ruse. It is sad Pinnock’s disciples walked away at the 87 Ridgecrest Conference when Pinnock and Mark Noll in effect said the SBC Takeover movement was on a Fool’s Errand.
http://www.russellmoore.com/2010/08/17/why-conservative-evangelicals-should-thank-god-for-clark-pinnock/
Steve,
You are truly a hard cat to clean after. 🙂
A man suggests in a blog above that I be troubled by the theological pilgrimage of Clark Pinnock.
Indeed I am troubled that a person could drift so far from the safe harbor of Biblical doctrine.
There’ll be many a man in hell who had a sharp mind and courage to “push the limits.” My prayer and hope is that Pinnock won’t be one of them — nor anyone else that follows that path.
It is Judge Pressler and the Texas Regulars who drifted far into the murk of bad doctrine.
Marney was the plumbline in Texas in the days that shaped Judge Pressler; Marney and the last days of George Truett.
It was Truett who was to be in the Ordination Council of Jimmy Allen.
You got a bad plumbline when it comes to Orthodoxy, SSBN.
Clark Pinnock had a mind and attempted to share with his former disciples at Ridgecrest. They had another agenda, one foreign to the best of their time as the Kingdom of God was evolving in their day.
That is the sad and troubling thing about you, SSBN. You jumped on the wrong horse, and missed the Point.
It the 30th Anniversary of Bailey Smith’s God Doesn’t Hear the Prayer of a Jew Imbroglio. In some ways fitting for fundamentalism in the SBC to coincide with Newt Gingrich’s thoughts on the Cordova Mosque in NYC
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=16564
I think the record will show Bailey rode to his High School graduation exercises with Duke’s Stanley Hauerwas, in a suburb of Dallas in the late 50’s. Maybe they should commemorate the occasion sometime with Joe Barnhart.
Maybe all the folks listed in Kaylor’s commemoration of Bailey Smith’s prayer remark should watch the film Freedom Writers; have a film festival and watch Common Word too.
I wonder how Joe B and DoubleKnot woulda faired in Kaylor’s ecumenical memory essay?
I want to add this to something I said in comment #37:
I’m not sure where the NAMB or IMB is at when it comes to whether or not those entities require a complete subscription to the BF&M.
I’m grateful to Benji for opening this discussion back up.
I think the recent news about Al MOhler and the First 11 chapters of Genesis, and the 44 comments and counting it is getting at ABP may create some discussion here about direction of the SBC:
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5635/53/
That and the recent blogs of Jerry Vines and Russ Moore in tribute to Clark Pinnock