I am writing in response to Brad Whitt’s article “Young, Southern Baptist and irrelevant?” which was recently published in The Baptist Banner (vol. 24, no.6, pp. 5-8). He laments over what seems to be a self-perceived irrelevance brought on by a minority that he describes as “outsiders from within” (p. 8; code, I think, for Calvinists). This minority of men in the SBC has appropriated the Convention microphone and is taking its cues from not a few prominent non-traditional, non-SBC pastors. The bottom line is that these me are hurting the Convention, and if he, and others like him, could just get that microphone back, then the SBC would once again “grow and thrive” (p. 8).
Now, to retrieve this microphone, and to substantiate his relevance in the SBC, Whitt lays the down the gauntlet in his opening statements. He writes that he is “just a pastor’s son who grew up with a love for [his] denomination – a Southern Baptist boy by birth and by conviction” (p. 5). Furthermore, he has earned three degrees from three separate schools, two of which are supported directly by the Cooperative Program (p. 5). He concludes that he has never wanted to be anything other than a Southern Baptist; over against those whom he somehow knows are secret Presbyterians at heart (p. 5).
Whitt continues to support his right to command an audience. Over against the intruding minority, he still wears a “coat and tie,” includes choir specials in his church’s worship, and maintains the public invitation. Moreover, one church for which he served baptized more than 100 people “just last year.” He grew up with Adrian Rogers and Jerry Vines, has served on a number of local, state, and national committees, and has participated in church planting work in a number of states. And, if I am reading Whitt correctly, he has been the pastor of a 100 years old church for the past nine years (I am confused; if he has been at this church for nine years, then why mention the baptisms of another church as part of his list of credentials?).
Now, if a listing of accomplishments is what gives credence to one’s voice in the SBC, then I must be honest and say that I may be unqualified to even respond to Whitt. I am not the son of an SBC pastor and did not grow up with a love for the denomination, and much less for Christ. When, I came to the Lord in my early twenties, I joined a Southern Baptist church, though admittedly more out of Baptist convictions than SBC convictions. On second thought, this fact just might grant me a small voice in the SBC. That is, although the Southern Baptists where considered anathema among the Independent Baptists of my childhood, I still threw in my lot with them and endured a bit of scorn for doing so. “Blessed are those persecuted for the sake of the SBC!”
As for my education, I received my B.A. from Florida Baptist Theological College, and my M.Div. and PhD from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Perhaps my voice is more relevant than I first supposed, since I hold degrees from schools that are most definitely supported by the Cooperative Program, and since two of my degrees are from the flagship seminary of the SBC.
When I preach, I wear a coat and tie, and I stand behind a pulpit (except for the time when I hurt my back and had to sit on a stool). We have a choir, and I too give invitations (in the sermon and at the end of the sermon).
To my disadvantage, perhaps, is the fact that I have never served on any associational committees. Furthermore, I have only been two years a pastor. I have no experience in church planting, nor have I led in any significant building programs. However, I should digress lest I become one, who is so “bold to class and compare [myself] with some of those who commend themselves.” It seems that when we measure ourselves with ourselves and compare ourselves with ourselves, we “are without understanding” (2 Cor 10:12). I might find myself taking “pride in appearance and not in heart” (2 Cor 5:12).
When I read Whitt’s article, a number of concerns arose in my mind. He says that he “grew up with a love for [his] denomination” (p. 5). How about a love for Jesus? We can only assume that he agrees with this. He says that he is a Southern Baptist “by birth and by conviction.” How about a Christian by new birth and by conviction? Again, we can only assume his agreement. He claims to be in the majority among the SBC (p. 6). I would ask, “In the majority of what?” Of those truly serious about Jesus? Of those who are truly taking the gospel into the world? Of what majority does he speak? We don’t know; he doesn’t say. All we know is that he is in the majority (which necessarily means that he is right) and that he desperately wants to see the minority diminished.
Whitt also decries that he is considered a “dinosaur” in our current denominational world (p. 6). That is, he is not one of the “hip and up-and-coming” among the Convention (one would be hard pressed to agree with this after reading his personal bio on the web). But, I would assert that is the so-called outsiders within the SBC, who are the real dinosaurs. They are the ones trying to return to the pre-historic days of their first love, by laying again the stone of stumbling and the rock of offense that the gospel presents. They are the ones trying to return to the outmoded days when men offered little comfort to those who name the name of Christ, but whose behaviors lack a continuance in the Lord’s word (John 8:31-32). More than building statistics, they are the ones concerned that those under their charge will not come to the end of the age, saying ‘Lord, open up to us!’ only to hear Jesus’ words “Depart from me all you evildoers” (Luke 13:23-28). These outsiders are the ones trying to return to the by-gone days where the following words “If the Southern Baptist Convention is to grow and thrive . . . It will take a greater emphasis from me, and others like me, on cooperation for the sake of the gospel if we are to succeed” will no longer enter the minds of those in the Convention (p. 8; emphasis mine). Rather, the increase of Christ will be kwy answer to the growing and thriving of the SBC.
Whitt goes on to divide the camps (p. 6). He is of Paul (i.e., Rogers and Vines), while the minority are of John Piper, C. J. Mahaney, and R. C. Sproul (funny he did not mention Al Mohler). Is he not carnal? Is Christ divided? I wonder if Whitt would ostracize J. P. Boyce or John Broadus if they were living today.
Whitt, however, may not be carnal, providing he is warning God’s flock against modern day false prophets, ravenous wolves, who are peddling a false gospel. If this is the case, is he prepared to call these men accursed (Gal 1:8-9) and biblically demonstrate his reasoning for such a charge? If he is not, then perhaps he is revealing the sins of his own heart? I have to be honest, after I read this article the first thought that came to my mind, the first one, was that this man sounds more like the Paul’s opponents in 2 Corinthians than he does the apostle. This is a dangerous place to be.
Whitt, it seems, has also set himself up as the gold standard for all Southern Baptist thought and practice. That is, if he and the context in which he serves have nothing in common with these outsiders (p. 7), then logically the outsiders must be wrong. It has never dawned on me that one’s ministerial context determines the relevance or orthodoxy of any biblical doctrine. I have always been convinced of the “SBC doctrine” of the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. It seems apparent that Whitt is frustrated that these outsiders, who are clearly not walking according to the old standard, are still gaining relevant traction within the SBC. I wonder if perhaps, just perhaps, that his context is out of sync with the Scriptures, and therefore with the men he opposes. We can’t really know because he offers no Scriptural basis of any kind to support the integrity of the majority opinion.
As he closes, Whitt, almost in a pouting rant, makes a startling statement. He writes, “I’m not irrelevant. The opposite it true” (p. 8). Yet, Whitt is, indeed, most irrelevant (as is Piper and Rogers, and myself). Who among us has first given to God anything that it might paid back to him again (Rom 11:35)? Who among us can exclude himself from that number that God himself regards “as less than nothing and meaningless” (Isa 40:17)? It is God, who has chosen (if we allow him; I thought I would take some of the edge off of the word “chosen”) the weak and ignoble to confound the strong and the wise, i.e., the relevant (1 Cor 1:26-29). I believe that if the apostle Paul had read Whitt’s article, he would respond as he did to the Corinthians. “You are already filled, you have already become rich (you have served the SBC well), you have become kings without us (i.e., you have the microphone). . . . For I think that God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death. . . . We are fools for Christ sake, but you are prudent in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are distinguished, but we are without honor . . . we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things” (1 Cor 4:8-13).
As I read Whitt’s article, I cannot help but think that his words drip with arrogance, self-pity, self-promotion, and jealousy. He wants to be relevant; and he declares as much. Personally, I would let someone else say this about me. He charges, without argumentation, that the outsiders resent who Southern Baptist’s are and how they do things (p. 8). Yet, it is he, who shows a deep seated resentment and disrespect. Although, I do not know for certain the motives of his heart, I cannot help but think that Whitt’s problem is not theological, but rather stems from the fact that old SBC network of yester year is no longer working in his favor. It seems to me that he thinks the SBC has been shanghaied by intruders for their own spurious purposes, leaving him sitting irrelevant and pouting on the side of the Southern Baptist road. If I am wrong on any account, then I have to say that he has a funny way of conveying the opposite notions. If I were Whitt, who is young, Southern Baptist, and self-important, I would beware, lest he finds himself kicking against the goads. Oh, and one more thing. If his article is the shot heard across the Southern Baptist Convention, I am left to think that it might be a dud.
Alan,
I don’t think it furthers the conversation to read into Brad Whitt’s words all the negative characteristics (arrogance, self-pity, jealousy, self-promotion) you expressed in this article.
Bottom line – we can have a conversation about what it means to be Southern Baptist without resorting to this kind of judgmentalism of one’s motives.
Trevin . . .
you understand what ‘grace’ is
Trevin –
I would disagree that Alan is reading “into Brad Whitt’s words” but that he making an analysis by satirical comparison. I would say it is more likely that since you are not engaging Alan on any of his serious paragraphs, that you are reading negative characteristics into Alan’s blog.
I think it would do well for everyone to read “A Modest Proposal” by Johnathan Swift so as to better recognize satire and irony.
Greg,
Perhaps Alan’s intent was to use satire and irony to make his point. If that’s so, then I still don’t think that satirical comparison is the best way to further the discussion.
Brad Whitt’s initial article was fundamentally flawed in that he sought to ground Southern baptist identity in an unspoken, unwritten “confession within a confession” – something far beyond the BF&M as what determines “the real Southern Baptist.” Dealing with those substantive flaws is the way to go, not reading (even satirically) into Brad’s motives and casting him personally in the worst possible light.
Dead on.
Point taken. 🙂
I personally like satire as a way of illustrating the absurd or silly with absurdity and silliness; but it doesn’t always work. Sometimes I think that everyone takes themselves and their positions TOO seriously.
That in an of itself makes any substantive or serious discussion of the issues almost impossible.
Trevin,
You used a strong word “judgmentalism” to describe Alan’s article (implying he is being judgemental) but Brad Witt’s article is merely “fundamentally flawed.” Read Witt’s article again and tell me if you haven’t made a slight oversight in your judgement.
Trevin, I agree with you. I think that Brad Whitt argued his point well, even if it is one that I tend to disagree with on several points.
Dave, I really just want to say lol because the “well” argued points are essentially subjectively argued from conjecture.
Look, Brad articulated a point and defended it. Just because I disagreed with some (lots) of it does not negate the fact that he stated it clearly and defended it well.
Contra Trevin above, I can’t help but wonder if Alan is answering Whitt on his own grounds. I.e. The quest for relevance based on the conditions that everyone else submit to the person desiring to be relevant while blaming others for the lack thereof. Of course, this does not mean answering in a less gracious manner, but I’m not convinced Whitt’s article furthers the SBC conversation.
Thanks for the food for thought, Alan.
Brother Dave, Let me see, you call “almost in a pouting rant” dealing with the issues? This is absolutely preposterous. Let me ask if you followed Matthew 18:15 principle? Yes you called Dr. Whitt and informed him that there was going to be a condenscending post added today, but you would not send him anything about the post. Neither would you allow him a time to respond. Not only that, but you did not adhere to the very principles you established some weeks ago. If you are following the Matthew 18 principle then why did you not insist that Alan,… Read more »
I take it you addressed the tone, rhetoric, and thinly veiled pot-shots in Whitt’s article. Right?
Jason, I was thinking the same thing.
Brother’s Jason and Mark, No!!! I take it you disagree with Dr. Whitt. Ok, disagree with him. But, look, even that people that usually disagree with me have come out agreeing, maybe not with my individual points, but with my assessment of Alan’s article. This article is nothing more than vitriol venom veiled as a critique. Dave Miller had to send the article back to Alan twice to get it toned down enough to run it. Then when Dr. Whitt asks for a copy so he can reply, Dave does not respond. The article does nothing but take shots at… Read more »
Tim, the article was not sent back to me by Dave Miller for a rewrite. I rewrote it myself so that a first time reader would understand my points better. I do admit that in the weakness of my flesh, my tone was stronger in my first writing. That is why, by God’s grace, I edited my own work. Dave Miller posted the first thing I sent to him without one change. By the way, I wonder why, in light of Matt 18 you did not speak to Dave in private. Also, I wonder if Piper, Mahaney, and Sproul were… Read more »
Tim, I agree with you that this article was not great. IMO, his tone is bad. Even if I agree with his assessment, the tone is poor, and the personal shots were unnecessary. I believe that was Trevin’s point as well. I think you will find agreement in that. I ALSO believe that his tone was drawn from the tone of Whitt’s article. Whitt’s article, was poor in tone as well. He took personal shots as well, but at nameless/faceless bogeyman. Still in bad taste, IMO. I have the ability to agree with someone and also disagree with HOW they… Read more »
This is not my post, Tim. Not every post represents my views. That is the whole SBC Voices purpose.
By the way, I did try to contact Brad Whitt in advance to let him know that this would run.
I just realized that Brad did in fact respond to my email. When i emailed him, I used an email account I don’t use often. So, he responded with a question. I did not see his email until after this published. My bad.
Brad’s response to me was gracious, as I would expect.
Can we please stop putting the Dr. in front of peoples names who have d.min degrees. I do not call the lawers I know or other people with professional docotrates “Dr.” Why is this so in ministry. It is pretty silly.
If someone has a doctorate from an accredited school, whether it is a D.Min or Ph.D or Th.D, it is their prerogative and that of the people who address them whether they wish to use the title.
Tim- Dr. Whitt places the focus on “what used to be” not the true Gospel. The true Gospel is Jesus crucified and resurrected, nit coats and ties and Calvinists. Further, you calling Dave a hypocrite is laughable. On your current blog, you have a post from a man who equates the dress of priests in the OT with coats and ties today. The same article equates the dress of a man with “dishonoring God.” (Here’s the link: http://rebekah1.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/the-perfect-storm-part-2/) You allow that garbage to be on your own blog with no protest. Deal with the plank in your own eye before… Read more »
Brother Dave,
See, even Brother Trevin Wax agrees with me. This article is sad. It is even sadder that you had him re-write it to tone down enough for you to publish it. Now Brother Trevin has seen the final product and agrees this adds nothing to the conversation but only alienates the sides further.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim, I don’t know if I can make you understand the vision of SBC Voices. You may not like it, but your pleasure or displeasure notwithstanding, we are sticking by the vision. The one instruction I was given by Tony when he made me editor nearly a year ago is that this should not become a single-viewpoint blog. Our purpose is to be a place where people can disagree. I published this article even though I disagreed with much that was in it. I publish articles from Howell that I sometimes disagree with. Our authors (and guest authors) are not… Read more »
But posting multiple viewpoints doesn’t mean posting anything, and I’m sure some control goes into what gets posted and what gets requested. I tend to agree with Tim and Trevin here, while I share Pearce’s disagreement with Whitt, I don’t share Pearce’s response. It’s not enough to complain about Whitt’s comments, Pearce is really just stirring the waters without offering much substance in response. No one would doubt that I’m all for vigorous debate. But this post does not contribute to debate, and certainly does nothing for unity. It just lobs mud balls at the other side while saying, “I… Read more »
Not picking on you, Chris, but my experience is that people often confuse “he has something to say,” with “he agrees with me..”
Except as already noted, I generally share Pearce’s disagreement with Whitt. But I disagree with the content of this particular post because no actual case is made, nothing of substance is raised.
Tim, I agree with Dave. The blog title “SBC Voices” does indicate a blog in which all of the major viewpoints of the SBC are regularly represented in posts.
Tim, what will get your heart right would be for you to look at all of the posts solicited on this site by people who agree with you and Brad Whitt. This is a balanced blog! Yes, there’s a post by Dr. Alan Pearce, but look at all of the previous posts solicited from Dr. Malcolm Yarnell. Well…wait…no, that won’t do it. OK, then, there are all of those posts solicited from Dr. Thomas White…er, I mean…Dr. Steve Lemke…uh, Brad Whitt?… Well, just take it from me: SBC Voices is a BALANCED blog. Every significant voice is represented here. The… Read more »
I’m pretty used to getting run down here, Bart, by you and others. But the fact is, without naming names, I have asked some of the people you have mentioned above (and others) to post here.
I’ve made public calls for non-Calvinists to post.
And for the record, Howell Scott is a regular commenter and poster here, and Howell would be much more in the Brad Whitt camp than others.
And, Bart, there are several regular commenters who give the counterpoint to the points we make. They are given free access.
Despite your insinuations, we make a good-faith effort to include a wide range of voices here – not just my viewpoint.
We can’t all be Bart Barber, but I do the best I can here.
Didn’t William just have a post or two on here?
William does a lot of double-posting (many of our posts are doubles here). He posts as the superhero SBC Plodder, then he gives us his stuff.
William is always pretty fun. The Calvinists at SBC Voices all love William!
I regret the comment. I got too impressed with my own cleverness. I do not believe that this blog represents all viewpoints, but that does not mean that I do not believe that this is a good blog. It is one of the few that I read.
I think that the response to Tim was not accurate. But in drawing that out further, I not only inflamed things but also committed the cardinal sin of blogging—I distracted us all from the point of the original post. I apologize.
Dave, You named names! What’s next, being banned from Hop Sing’s? 🙂 You are quite right that I would be closer to Brad Whitt in some of the positions he has staked out. I certainly have posted my fair share of articles highly critical of the GCR, particularly the new NAMB. My Patriotic Worship posts were also a hit with our more Calvinist brethren. 🙂 We don’t all speak or write with the same voice. SBCVoices is akin to Fox News. Fair and Balanced, but there is a certain flavor that comes through. What helps make that flavor is the… Read more »
I would agree with Howell’s characterization of the blog as one where there is variety but a point of view comes through. But Howell, you might want to avoid comparisons to Fox News, since it is apparently the only news organization for which it is permissible for SBC leadership to vilify it from the stage. Go with a network to which we still have to act nicely. 😉
Yeah, that was my point. He said you don’t have opposing views…but William has many opposing views, and he has posted articles here.
That kind of shot is just nonsense. You’re doing a good job, Dave.
Holy Schnikes! I hope we’re better than Fox News.
By the way, I agree with everything Trevin has said here.
are there some comments missing? I’m having trouble following the discussion.
That makes this a fairly normal comment stream.
Hard to make an argument against self importance when Seminary graduates start adding the phrase flagship seminary to their list of credentials. I must ask when did they add “the” to SBTS’s title as if they are trying to distinguish that particular seminary from it’s 5 “sister” seminaries? Just Askin.
Are you serious? He is clearly employing hyperbole to make a point. He is not seriously touting his bona fides as did Whitt.
If you are going to make a genuine contribution, you should not confuse writing styles, pull it out of context, and make such a simple straw man.
Well then where is the condemnation for Mohler who repeatedly touts SBTS as the flagship seminary and refers to it as The SBTS? If we are going to call foul on some potshots (as mentioned above) and self-importance shouldn’t we call foul on all? No problem with Calvinists or libertarian freewillies just tired of finger pointing on both sides.
I think by flagship he means first established. I could be wrong though.
Well SBTS was not even established by the SBC. The first seminary established by SBC was New Orleans Bible College which became NOBTS.
Jonathan, you do realize the name of the school is “The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary”, right? It isn’t wrong to use the word “the”, in fact it is accurate.
You need to do a little study into the founding of the schools.
Is it an afront that the president of a seminary show pride in that ship that he helms?
No, it is not an affront, but you don’t hear Drs. Kelley, Iorg, Akin or even Patterson making such moves to promote the schools they lead over the others. While they each promote their school’s distinctives never do they insinuate the other schools are inferior or following that school’s lead. I think Dr. Mohair is brilliant and a fantastic voice for the SBC but I think he is important enough that he need not make his seminary seem more important than the others.
2 questions:
1. How has Mohler insinuated or stated superiority of SBTS?
and, completely unrelated to question #1, but interesting nonetheless, and could make for interesting discussion…
2. Are there seminaries that are superior and inferior to one another?
Alan,
Brother, I think we younger pastors would do well to imitate Dave Miller who, though not agreeing with Brad on everything (correct me if I am wrong Dave), brought up his name in the past with gentleness and respect.
Even if you were right in every one of your arguments, I think you were over the top.
Grace to you,
Benji (I know what it is like to lapse into pride in seeking to rip someone’s argument to shreds) Ramsaur
Guess I missed the seminary class on knowing another’s state-of-mind. PhD seminar perhaps. Sarcasm is a wonderful thing so long as it doesn’t get too personal.
…but if we’re in that neighborhood, I think there is a whiff of envy amongst us over the attention that Brad Whitt has recieved.
I know very little of the attention Whitt received. I just read the article in our State paper, and responded. No envy here. Disturbed yes, envy no. As the post says below, months to late to be relevant. Alan
My general feeling about the article is that it is somewhat hard to follow, MONTHS too late to be a relevant response to the original article, and responds to one of the original article’s weaknesses in like manner, namely attributing motives to others rather than dealing with their positions.
I understand the intent, just a little late to the game.
William,
I think the tone with which we write does say something about our state of mind.
Is there anybody who would accuse David Rogers, for example, of being arrogant in the blogosphere (even if they disagreed with him)? I don’t think so.
He writes with substantive content and with a tone of humility.
God Bless,
Benji
I agree
Blessings,
Tim
And I agree with Tim agreeing with Benji.
I don’t think either of the articles were very strong. They came off as immature and whiny. Both of them. Neither article dealt with real issues and neither article treated the “other side” with fairness. Whitt’s was especially unfair IMO because there are no references whatsoever to support all these supposed bogeyman. At least this article has Whitt’s words as a reference point. Whitt’s article was simply a “preach to the choir”/stir the pot type of article with little substance. This response answered in the same immature, whiny tone (not sure of that was intentional or not)…but it also didn’t… Read more »
Brother Jason, Here is the problem with your assessment. You waited until someone else responded before you analyzed how Dr. Whitt’s article came across. Now that Alan has placed his article against Dr. Whitt’s you want to analyze Dr. Whitt’s article in light of Alan’s. That is not going to work. Dr. Whitt’s article stands on its own. If it was whiny it was so before Alan’s article was published. Thus, Dr. Whitt’s article stands on its own merrit. Alan’s article on the other hand has to have something to stand on because it has no legs of its own.… Read more »
Tim,
You have a funny way of judging whether an article has merit or not. Many times throughout church history responses to particular teachings, for example, were not published until said teachings became public, etc.
Mr. Whitt is another one who does not publish all of the critical comments on his site. He has the freedom to do so, but it does tend to shut down conversation for those who tried to reply when he originally put up the article. I’m just sayin….
Now I’m off to explore more with the family up here in the TN mountains.
Tim, I did not assess Whitt’s argument in light of Pearce’s. It was whiny, even if Pearce never write a response. It was whiny and immature. I am not sure how t make that more clear. I had never read his article until I saw this article. I went and read it, came back and read Pearce’s response. I did not like either article. I think I made that clear as well. I said BOTH are whiny. Not sure how you didn’t catch that. Your point makes no sense, though. My statements of critique regarding Whitt’s article are solely about… Read more »
Brother Jason,
Ok, your point is taken. Now please show me where you interacted with Dr. Whitt’s article before Allan posted his article.
Blessings,
Tim
I didn’t…because I didn’t know it existed. But what does that matter? I pulled up this page, read the title of this article and the first sentence. Then before reading the rest of the article I went and found Whitt’s article, read it, and came back to Pearce’s response. I needed the context of Whitt’s article to understand this one. I though Whitt’s article was bad. I thought Pearce’s response was mean-spirited. In short, I didn’t like either article, though I enjoy discussing the issues brought up in the articles. The tone of both rubbed me the wrong way. But… Read more »
Pardon me for just a simple observation. Reread your own words gentlemen. You all sound of the “whiny” tone in your responses to each other. It is amazing that no one has really spoken of the real issues raised in either article. Stop criticizing style and speak with some substance….please! Pardon me for whining! 🙂
I have used a good deal (probably too much) hyperbole and irony (again probably too much) in my posts. If this post was supposed to use both hyperbole and irony in such a way as to persuasively argue a point and move the debate forward, then, IMO, it has failed miserably. But, then again, maybe that wasn’t the point. I don’t know because I can’t read hearts or minds. Alan wrote: “When I read Whitt’s article, a number of concerns arose in my mind. He says that he “grew up with a love for [his] denomination” (p. 5). How about… Read more »
Howell, if everyone disagreed as well as you do, we’d be in a lot better place.
I find this all sad and unfortunate, in the instance of both articles. In Dr. Whitt’s I find I am on the same page with him in many ways (although I am attempting to exorcise the tie from my wardrobe) and thus it saddens me to see such developments in our convention. In Pearce’s article I see where he drew some of his conclusions but am saddened by the perceived tone of it. Back in my atheist days (not that long ago – reborn in Christ on 3-31-02 and called to the ministry in 2006) this is the exact kind… Read more »
To write a critical analysis, you respond to the material presented, not the perceived emotion usually attributed to the author. It doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree with the person, you address the material, not the man. “As I read Whitt’s article, I cannot help but think that his words drip with arrogance, self-pity, self-promotion, and jealousy. ” is a useless sentence which cannot be proven nor disproven because it is completely subjective. “Although, I do not know for certain the motives of his heart, I cannot help but think that Whitt’s problem is not theological, but rather stems… Read more »
And for the record, I found myself agreeing more with you than with Whitt on the whole until I read your last paragraph which addresses the man rather than his message. I think you could have seriously left out the final paragraph and strengthened your point.
Bill, My whole article is the specific examples that ground my conjecture.
Sincerely, Alan
I ask this with the hopes of gaining some wisdom from you, and not as a challenge or a disagreement. From comments of yours that I have read in the past I am able to discern that you have far more wisdom in this area than me…so please allow a question. You seem pretty adamant about addressing the message and not the man himself. As you say, “You do no good advancing any argument when you address Dr. Whitt himself.” I agree in the most part, but I also believe that the message is often inextricably linked with the messenger.… Read more »
oops I meant to say that this as addressed to bill.
Mike, to be honest, it’s a learned skill which I’m having to deliberately work at because if you go by my history of comments, I would simply attack the person rather than the message. It’s hard in blogging because the standard by which a blog posting can be released and an article being published are very, very different. There is far more opinion being passed as fact here than would absolutely be allowed in the academic settings that I’ve become accustomed too. In fact, many of the professors that I’m studying under automatically fail you if you put “I” anywhere… Read more »
Also, Bill the message was the man. Whitt interjected his credentials all over the place to buttress his case. This was the whole first half of his article and his conclusion. His message was that “I am relevant.” Therefore, I answered him according to his own standards to illustrate the uselessness of such argumentation.
Kindly, Alan
Whew! A whole lot of biting at words and devouring one’s character in this blog. Fangs and venom aplenty. “If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.” (Galatians 5:15)
We’ve spent most of the time here discussing whinyness and who has a bad attitude. I’d like to see if we can discuss the points in general. Alan makes this point: “Whitt, it seems, has also set himself up as the gold standard for all Southern Baptist thought and practice.” That would be my chief complaint with the traditionalist, “majority Baptist” (a name they have given themselves that I question as to accuracy) argument. They seem to define their preferences as the gold standard of Baptist life and claim that those who have different styles or preferences are somehow marginal… Read more »
I’ve noticed that when pressed on naming the “unwritten ‘confession within the confession'”, there is rarely a straightforward response from those who supported Whitt’s original article.
Dave, I think that is the key issue. Is there an unwritten and unstated standard that trumps the BFM as the measure of a true SBC’er? The interesting thing is that some will answer “yes”, but they then have trouble defining what that standard is. They may not know what the standard is, but they know what it isn’t and will clearly speak of those who are outside of it. That is where the charge of “whiny” comes in. The resulting attitude is to distance one’s self from all of “them” out there who are infringing on this unstated and… Read more »
Here’s a response I wrote to a comment by Whitt a few months ago: http://jaredmoore.exaltchrist.com/2011/04/06/calvinism-the-straw-man-for-southern-baptist-trouble-makers-a-response-to-brad-whitt/
Here’s a brief excerpt: “It’s thus hypocritical for you to speak against 5-point Calvinism in one breath when the SBC has NOT, and then to argue in favor of the cooperative program in the next breath. The gospel should be central concerning our cooperation, NOT how many points of the T.U.L.I.P. you or I affirm beyond the Baptist Faith & Message 2000.”
Totally agree.
It is a little ironic that the charge is often made against calvinists that they make their views the standard for cooperation, when it is clear that the ones who are actually doing so are those who are opposed to calvinists in the SBC. Bill Harrell’s articles suggest that calvinists have a strategic plan to take over the SBC. I never received that memo, nor am I aware one exists. Or maybe it’s (yet again) another creation of a bogeyman so we can scare people away from the dangers of calvinism. The only people I see wanting to exclude others… Read more »
amen.
I don’t see how this kind of rhetoric on either side is helpful in this.
Are we ever allowed to point out hypocrisy without being labeled “unhelpful”? I think I was stern; but also cooperative. I’m willing to seek the nations with Whitt; but, I don’t believe he’s willing to seek the nations with me.
A non-Calvinist SBC pastor is preaching a revival at my church Aug. 26-28. Non-Calvinism is not an issue for me, though I disagree with my brothers and sisters. The gospel is the central issue. So long as the gospel is clear, I’m ready to seek the nations with the rest of the sbc.
Calling Brad Whitt a Trouble Maker was not helpful. Answering his ideas was one thing. But name-calling is something I don’t consider helpful whether I agree with your viewpoint or not.
My goal in the SBC Calvinism debate is not to see one side defeat the other, but to help both sides find the sense that we can dwell together in spite of our differences. I disagreed with Brad Whitt. I did not think labelling him a troublemaker was helpful either.
Dave, I just wanted Whitt to know that he’s not helping the SBC in the least by narrowing the definition of what it means to be sbc. I do think he’s stirring up trouble. Instead of unity, he’s encouraging division. He’s directly and willfully going against the vote of the convention concerning the BF&M 2000. By making Calvinism a “crossroad issue” when the convention has not, I believe Whitt is trying to stir up trouble; trying to argue that he’s in the majority when he has no vote from the convention to prove his desire for division.
Jason, Let me give that Memo … this is from the Father of the Founders Movement in SBC ___________ REFORMING A LOCAL CHURCH STRENGTHEN THE THINGS THAT REMAIN by Ernest C. Reisinger Rev. 3:2 “Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die…” Rev. 3:4 “Yet you have a few people…who have not soiled their clothing.” Chapter II THE KIND OF MEN GOD USES IN REFORMATION Consider the kind of men God has used in reformation. What kind of men were they? What weapons did they employ? What were their methods? We can be sure that if there is… Read more »
Ron, Calvinists in the SBC for the most part (with a few exceptions) have realized and toned down the rhetoric. I think that Calvinists in the last couple of years have made a good faith effort to work together with non-Calvinists in the SBC.
Ron, can you quote a living Southern Baptist Calvinist that argues for similar ideas?
Dr. Whitt’s article was alienating and slightly offensive to those of us who have a more inclusive vision for the SBC. Alan’s article gave a voice-and in my judgement the right voice-for those of us who believe Whitt was advocating an SBC “blueblood” inclusion only,that many of us simply don’t qualify to belong to. Thank you Alan for capturing and rightly responding to the fallacies and weaknesses of Whitt’s article.Your article embraces all in the SBC who embrace the BF&M 2000. Whitt only embraces those of a certain ilk. Whitt’s mentality explains why the SBC is in serious decline.Time will… Read more »
I agree.
Bro.Tim, only you my friend have injected race into this discussion. My “blueblood” reference had to do with the type of SBC pastor that Dr. Whitt references in his article that he now feels is being alienated from the convention. I never said or believed that Whitt’s article was addressing race. This is the second time you have falsely and inaccurately accused me of raising the “racism” flag.Perhaps, after I give you Webster’s Dictionary’s definition of “blueblood” you will apologize this time:”blue blood 1 descent from nobility 2 a person of such descent;aristocrat.” This is the type of SBC pastor… Read more »
Brother Dwight, I too give you a definition of “blueblood” Of course this gives you the origin of the word. Blue Blood is a translation of the Spanish ‘sangre azul’, attributed to some of the oldest and proudest families of Castile, who claimed never to have intermarried with Moors, Jews, or other races. The expression probably originated in the blue appearance of the veins of people of fair complexion as compared with those of dark skin. Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_aristocrats_called_blue_blood#ixzz1UvQXHWn3 Thus the word you used derived from the French who used it to claim purity of race. Oh, by the way,… Read more »
Sorry, that should read it derived from the Spanish.
Tim
Tim: You are reaching here. Desperately reaching. Dr. McKissic gave you the definition, and if you read literature blueblood has always meant the rich, the privileged. Royalty for example would be considered bluebloods. It is usually so by birth. I think you know this.
It doesn’t mean it’s true, it means in their own minds they believe this.
In my opinion, when Dr. McKissic interjected race in a discussion, it should have been interjected. It was about race. He is very intelligent and a honorable man. In this case I heard him speaking of those who believe they are the only doctrine that should be Southern Baptist. This is about doctrine not race. And it was to this I read him referring to.
Dwight,
Is Tim Rogers a “blueblood”? Am I? I wonder if you might elaborate on how it is that either of us qualifies under the definition that you have given above?
Unlike Tim, I do not think that “blueblood” is a racial slur. It’s just a slur.
Bart and Tim,
I’ve written a lengthy response to your questions in entries #83 and#87. My typing skills are very limited.
Therefore, I will have my assistant to type my answers to your questions and post them Monday,either here or at my blog.
I appreciate the questions and the answers will be thoughtful, thorough,and congenial.
Brother Dwight,
Dr. Whitt’s article had nothing at all to do with racism. Your “blueblood” comment draws something into the debate that is not correct.
Blessings,
Tim
Bro. Tim, While some may view Alan’s article as “harsh” or “over-the-top” voice (one of many Voices here), I would respectfully disagree with Bro. Dwight that this was the “right voice” to use in advocating for a position of more inclusiveness. I don’t mind folks using strong language (and I’ve been guilty of that on more than one occasion), but the response to a five month old article (admittedly just read by Alan and several others) to Brad Whitt might come across in a way that was not intended (or maybe it was). I won’t say that this is not… Read more »
Howell,
Thanks for understanding the”blueblood” remark. Your interpretation is correct. If Bro.Tim was not aware of my race he never would have given a racial misinterpretation to the “blueblood” reference.
Since we both like to address SBC issues, perhaps we need to consider writing a few point/counterpoint posts/articles addressing the competing visions for the SBC.
Much love and respect for you brother.
Bro. Dwight,
I would enjoy the point/counterpoint. I’ll discuss further with Dave and see if we can come up with some initial topics and format that Voices might be willing to “host.” Thanks for the kinds words. Love and respect you as well, even though we have never had the opportunity to meet face to face. God bless,
Howell
I think a point-counterpoint would be an excellent idea.
However, since the idea was broached here, I insist that it take place at SBC Voices, or I will contact my crack legal staff (Howell and Louis)!
Seriously, such an interchange would be instructive both as to content and I am sure process.
Let’s do it.
Brother Dwight,
Your race had nothing to do with my reaction to your use of “bluebloods”. It is your past arguments that had to do with my inference of that use. If you were not referencing the white good ole boy network that you think was prevalent in the SBC then by all means I ask your forgiveness. However, if by “blueblood” you were referencing the white good ole boy system that you have decried and called attention to the lack of color then how did I mis-read your reference?
Blessings,
Tim
Dr. Rogers:
Blueblood = race? You’re kidding, right? Please tell me that you were kidding. Or at the very least mistaken.
Job,
I am not a Dr.
What would you think Dwight means when he uses the term “blueblood”?
Blessings,
Tim
I am sorry for calling you “Dr.” Also, in retrospect, after you provided the “dictionary definition”, I was also wrong to suggest that you were mistaken, when the truth is that you were correct in a technical sense. To answer your question, when Mr. McKissick (with whom I often – indeed usually – disagree I might add) used the term “blueblood”, I assumed a common, general meaning of the word that I perceive – whether rightly or wrongly – to be the prevailing one in our contemporary culture. That would be one who is an “insider”, “privileged”, “elite”, “traditional.” Someone,… Read more »
Job:
I agree I do not make the gigantic leap to race that was made by TR.
You are absolutely right that the root of all this is competing visions of what the SBC is and what it should be. Amen!
Brother Tim,
You asked for forgiveness on one hand,then you provided a rationale and a defense for asserting that my “blueblood” reference had something to do with race.
Which is it? Are you asking for forgiveness or are you providing a defense, rationale, or justification for your having injected race into this discussion?
Kingdom blessings
Brother Dwight,
This seems to be an ongoing problem for Mr. Rogers. He has a tendency to inject hidden motives into the comments of people that he perceives as rivals.
TBH,
You can talk to me, not about me. Brother Dwight is a big man and has my phone numbers if he is offended by my comments and I have his. Thus, before you begin trying to explain me to Brother Dwight you need think again. He knows me.
Tim
Brother Dwight,
Please you tell me. When you used the word, “bluebloods” were you referencing the good ole boy system that you have constantly cast dispersion on for not involving people of color?
Blessings,
Tim
Bro. Tim,
No. I was referring to the description Whitt gave of himself in his article. In my judgement he described a classic SBC blueblood. I was exclusively using the word bluebood as a descriptive or summary statement to label the kind of SBC pastor that Whitt says is now being excluded.To read anything else into this statement would be misrepresenting or misinterpreting what I said.
Bro.Tim, blueblood means what the dictionary says it means;and it doesn’t mean race.
In a general sense, now I can see why you interpreted the “blueblood” comment the way that you did. It now no longer seems to be nearly as, well, unjustifiable and strange, as it did before. However, even in light of the context of Mr. McKissic’s previous comments, the fact remains that there is no racial angle in the “Calvinist/non-Calvinist” debate that Dr. Whitt’s piece is a part of. If there were, then blacks would logically side with Dr. Whitt, as there are very few black Calvinists within or without the SBC. Now if you were to expand the debate… Read more »
Jason, This is the part … that I really meant to send earlier. It became part of the book: The Quiet Revolution. ___________ REFORMING A LOCAL CHURCH STRENGTHEN THE THINGS THAT REMAIN by Ernest C. Reisinger Rev. 3:2 “Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die…” Rev. 3:4 “Yet you have a few people…who have not soiled their clothing.” Chapter III SOME PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS FOR THE CONTEMPORARY SCENE Some who read this pamphlet are in, or will be in a reforming situation. And each situation has some different obstacles to deal with. The size of the church and… Read more »
So….the “memo” that is guiding all calvinists to take over the SBC is an article none of us has read??
At the risk of sounding whiny, the dictionary defines “flagship” as “the most important or prestigious among a group of similar and related things.” That Southern Seminary views herself in such a manner is perhaps a larger part of the problem than we realize. Like Whitt, I have felt totally out of place at Southern Baptist Convention meetings since the one in Louisville, Kentucky. I literally walked out of the convention hall to get some air because it seemed like I was now attending someone else’s denominational gathering. It just didn’t “feel” Southern Baptist anymore. In contrast to days gone… Read more »
I don’t agree with your premise, my friend, but kudos for working in the Star Wars reference at the end.
That has to be respected.
No it doesn’t. References to zen Buddhism need not be respected, especially on a Christian blog.
Rick,
How has anyone’s voice been quieted by anyone else?
Well, for starters, the OP pretty much threw Brad under the bus, right? It seems we are no longer hearing the viewpoints we heard just a few years ago. How did they disappear all at once?
First, Brad Whitt is my friend . We are on opposites sides of reformed theology(concerning the doctrine of salvation). I’m A reformed Southern Baptist and Brad is not. We have had many phone disagreements and in person but he has always been very gracious to me and he just discussed with me about preaching at his church. He talks often about Jesus with me and loves to tell me about the Christian growth of his members and we both share a love for the SBC because God used the churches of the SBC to proclaim the Gospel to both of… Read more »
Brad is not my friend, but I would love for that someday to be the case. Interacting with him about this has demonstrated the truth of what you say. He is an honorable and good man whether one agrees with him or not.
Rick, I have a few responses/questions: One, whiny is about tone and the way one responds to others. I did not feel your post was whiny at all. You stated your thoughts and raised interesting points. That is much different than writing an article where all you are doing is complaining that people don’t like your views or that things aren’t how you wish they were…that comes off as whiny. Two, where exactly has Mohler or SBTS promoted this supposed elitism? Quotes? Links? Three, what exactly is the “feel” of the SBC? That is rather vague. Four, your paragraph starting… Read more »
2) I don’t have the quotes, but following the comment stream led me to believe that Mohler is referring to SBTS that way. 3) I admit that the ethos or culture of an organization is hard to define. I just think ours has changed in just the past 3-4 years. 4) Granted, there are a variety of views on these matters. My primary point is that we did not require quite so much “nuance” on these matters, say, ten years ago. They were settled. 5) Mohler should be on that list. Akin’s rise came a bit later, so it’s a… Read more »
Thanks for your response. (2) I have never heard Mohler refer to SBTS that way. I would understand the label “flagship” considering it is the oldest and biggest and is the most well-known outside of the SBC. But I have never seen a link to Mohler making that claim. Even if such a link exists, I doubt one could show that he made such a claim in a way to demean the other seminaries. (Those are 2 different things, IMO.) I would be careful to repeat things that are unverified. (3) I can understand that. It just makes it hard… Read more »
Allan,
I can’t seem to find what church you are connected. Can you help me with the state convention you are connected? Your last name is an unusual spelling so it should be easy to find. However the only prominent “Pierce” I can find within Baptist life is John D. Pierce. Of course he is solidly CBF something I do not believe you are involved in.
Where are you serving?
Blessings,
Tim
Have you tried spelling his name (first and last) right in your search?
I am not prominent. Blessings.
Dr. Pearce,
Ok, I mispelled your name, sorry about that. Spelling was never a strong component of mine. So, what convention is the church you pastor supporting through the CP?
Blessings,
Tim
Dr. Pearce,
My deepest regret. I misspelled your name not once, twice, or even three times. Rather a triple dozen! My deepest apologies to you.
And, thanks to Dave for courteously pointing it out.
With that, I am…
Peter
Thanks for the apologies. As to your response, Mine was a reproof not an analysis. He asserted all of his credetials, tie wearing and all, in order to set himself up as the standard against which all so called Southern Baptists are to be measured. If one does not measure up, then he is an outsider. He said they resent the ways of the SBC and laments his growing irrelevance. My words remain.
Blessings, Alan
Dr. Pearce,
While your “words remain” so do mine:
With that, I am…
Peter
Oh, the irony of you writing: “I suggest you read more carefully the pieces of those whom you “analyze”. Perhaps if you do, you’ll be less likely to make absurd conclusions, and end in attacking the person rather than the principles expressed.”
I am seriously in shock that you would post that. Wow.
Speaking about those who think their seminary is better than the others… I’ve known and worked with many Godly men through the years representing four of our seminaries. Every one of them felt their seminary was the best and I had to sit through many lunch hours listening to why New Orleans was better than Southwestern was better than Southern. After much consideration, I’m glad that the pastors that I knew felt their seminary was the best. To me, it means that they treasure both the education AND experience that their home seminaries provided them through their years of attendance.… Read more »
Clothes are irrelevant to the Gospel. Standing or sitting on a stool is irrelevant to the Gospel. Music is irrelevant to the Gospel. Altar calls are irrelevant to the Gospel. Alcohol is irrelevant to the Gospel. Churches on different sides of all of these issues are preaching the Gospel. There are still lots of single pastor led, deacon run, suit and tie, 3 hymns, 3 point messages with a long altar call type churches in the SBC. If that is your cup of tea, then go join one, or start one. Is some people want something different, shouldn’t they have… Read more »
Hopefully someone will answer his challenge. I doubt anyone will though.
You seem to be correct. If the vast majority of churches are traditional SBC churches as Dr. Whitt describes them, then what on earth is the problem? There are literally thousands of places SBC traditionalists can go and feel comfortable. Or they can start their own traditional SBC church. Is the tiny minority responsible for the decline in baptisms or the approximately 1/3 of our members who exist only in theory, or the declining CP giving? If some of the tiny minority have been given a voice (and shouldn’t they have one?) who gave them that voice? In short, shirt… Read more »
Good point.
If they are the “majority” in the SBC….and the majority of churches are plateaued or declining…then doesn’t it follow that the minority isn’t to blame, and perhaps it’s time for the majority to admit their way isn’t the only way, and probably isn’t the best way?
Just a thought.
And still no dissenting view. Too bad. I say that SBC Voices should allow a “what more do you want?” sort of post (named, well, “What More Do You Want Traditionalists/Non-Calvinists”) to force debate on this issue. Anyone up for writing and submitting it?
Alan Pearce,
What church do you belong to? What state convention is it in?
David
Why are you guys so concerned with finding that out?
I don’t think it really matters where Alan pastors unless he is not pastoring in an SBC church. From what he wrote in his post, it seems clear to me that he is pastoring in a Southern Baptist Church. I did a google search and found an “Alan Pearce” who is pastoring a church in a beautiful area of the country. I pastored not too far from there — about an 1 1/2 drive (if I was making good time) — for 5 1/2 years. My church was also affiliated with the same State Convention that this “Alan Pearce’s” church… Read more »
Brother Howell,
You are correct, it does not matter where he pastors as long as he pastors a Southern Baptist Church. I seriously am not trying to “out” someone. However, if we find that Alan is not the pastor of a Southern Baptist Church then this article is absolutely out of bounds. Would you not agree?
Blessings,
Tim
Bro. Tim, Didn’t mean to imply you were trying to “out” someone. That was a comment directed back at me for my “outing” Justin Nelson earlier in the week. As for where Alan pastors, if it is in the BGAV, there are still a good many conservative Southern Baptist churches that are still affiliated with the BGAV (particularly in SW Virginia). During the 5 1/2 years I pastored in SW Virginia, I was not inclined to lead my church to leave the BGAV because 1) We were able to be an SBC supporting church within the Convention and, 2) I… Read more »
Tim,
So, only pastors are allowed to critique other pastors? What if Alan is a layperson in a SBC church, is that acceptable?
Man, all the unwritten rules that some wish to put in place.
Dr. Pearce,
I believe I have found that you are certainly pastor of a church that would be considered Southern Baptist. Sorry for my question as in your article you seemed a little shy to say you were pastor of a Southern Baptist church. That was the reasoning for my question. I do pray that you are able to lead the church out of the BGAV into the SBCV. Certainly, two years is not enough time to lead in such a move. I pray you are laying the ground work that will be fruitful in the future.
Blessings,
Tim
The inquisitors have begun their inquiry. Must find something to weaken his argument…let’s see…what state convention is his church in? Aha! Is he clean shaven? Does he tuck in his shirt? Must find something….can’t argue with his substance.
Yes is it a hard work. There are true sheep that need a shepherd to feed them. Pray for this work; pray for God’s power. I am beginning to realize with clearer eyes the tremendous import of our work. Eternity is on the line (Ezek 34).
Blessings, Alan Pearce
TBH:
The inquiry for some never ends. It is never inquiry for inquiry sake. There is always a purpose behind their “innocent” questions.
It really is personal for some.
It is pathetic that you guys just had to find out what church he served.
Unreal.
Jason:
For some in makes all the difference in their world. I kind of view it as a form of subtle intimidation.
Well, the only reason I would want to know where someone served is if they served for a CBF or CBF freindly church. That way I’d know nothing they said mattered.
Brother Jason,
Get a life. We have a Pastor critiquing another pastor because of his stance on issues concerning the SBC. At no time did it insinuate or even imply that it was wrong for only a pastor to critique a pastor. Because SBC Voices has a history of people speaking about how things in the SBC should be but they themselves were not part of the SBC I merely asked the question and began the search. If Dr. Pearce were not serving in an SBC church this post would have been proof of Dr. Whitt’s concerns.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim R:
You say to Brother Jason:
Get a life and then you close with Blessings, Tim
Funny the language you use.
You call him Brother, then tell him to get a life and then you close with blessings.
Which of any of that are other than mere words and which parts do you sincerely mean?
This coming from someone who spews venom towards anyone and anything conservative (in other words, anything Christian). Am I saying that someone isn’t a Christian if they’re not a conservative? Well, if the shoe fits…. 🙂
Tom Parker,
I am, against my better judgement, going to respond to you this one time.
According to Romans 16:17 I am not speaking to you.
Blessing on your life and I pray for you.
Tim
Tim
I wonder if that’s one of the verses that the moderates claim isn’t scripture. 🙂 LOL
Wow. Tim said: “Get a life.” Amazing. Classy. Mature. Let’s be real. You were looking for a way to discredit his views. I’m not sure why you would assume he was not SBC. But it is funny that some of you are entirely incapable of addressing the actual points and article without making attacks on the person writing it. If his points are true, then it really is irrelevant. Honestly, how many people on this site are non-SBC? Come on. As for him being a pastor, your statement was: “if we find that Alan is not the pastor of a… Read more »
Jason,
Ok, I will not respond like a child again.
Get a real life and learn how to read. Any one reads; if we find that Alan is not the pastor of a Southern Baptist Church then this article is absolutely out of bounds. and interprets that I am saying only those who are pastors have a right to respond, is either lacking in reading comprehension, or purposefully taking what I wrote out of context in order to inflame the debate. So you tell me which one you are doing.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
I asked if that is what you meant. I didn’t interpret anything. I asked a question…several times. You just refused to answer the question.
So…it appears the one needing some lessons in reading comprehension would be you, brother.
What was I doing? Asking a question.
What were you doing? Failing to read and acting like a child….and demonstrating irony, evidently.
My son played the piano in a church for a few years after he left school. He felt the music there was sometimes not quite up to his standards of taste. A wise minister of music heard his complaints and suggested that the variety of music he chose for services would leave everyone uncomfortable some of the time. The sacrifice of being uncomfortable sometimes was just the price of being able to worship together as a church family. If we choose to divide over what makes us comfortable or play hardball with those who don’t see things the same way… Read more »
“If we choose to divide over what makes us comfortable or play hardball with those who don’t see things the same way we do, it will be easy to be in a church of people just like us. It will be a lot smaller of course …”
Or it could be a very large church offering up a generic brand of inoffensive “Christianity” that doesn’t stand for anything.
I find this to be very unfortunate. 1. While I very much disagree with Brad Whitt’s basic premise as expressed in Young, Southern Baptist and Irrelevant, in my correspondence with him I found him to be very gracious and extremely accommodating and open-minded. The truth is that Dr. Whitt is not opposed to Particular Baptists in the SBC. Also, some of the issues that Dr. Whitt has raised are legitimate, and have also been raised by others who adhere to Reformed theology, like John MacArthur. 2. A huge – and very ironic – tragedy with this is that if one… Read more »
The discussion is moved forward if you realize that although I gave you my bonifides, they were, in one sense, really irrelevent to the core of the discussion at hand. The discussion has moved forward if you saw that the irony in my article exposed the weaknesses of Whitt’s. The discussion was moved forward if we can move from protecting the SBC feel of our lives and move to a more biblical feel (we really do not believe that the SBC has attained to it yet, do we?). The discussion moved forward if this will make us all test our… Read more »
Esteemed Alan Pearce:
I hope that you saw my comment above. It appears, based on my occasional perusing of his blog, that Dr. Whitt had indeed begun to move forward. This entry fails to acknowledge that, and as such represents a digression in the debate.
Thank you.
A regression in the debate, not a digression. Thank you.
Shall I take your reference to me as “Esteemed” as sincere or disingenuous?
Sincere. I disagree with you on this matter, but in general I respect you as a Christian and further as my elder brother in the faith, and hence one in a position of authority over me.
Thank you.
Dwight:
The dictionary definition of blue blood is:
“1. Noble or aristocratic descent.
2. A member of the aristocracy.”
Where is race in that definition?
Jason:
You said to Tim:
“So, only pastors are allowed to critique other pastors? What if Alan is a layperson in a SBC church, is that acceptable?
Man, all the unwritten rules that some wish to put in place.”
Excellent point!
“But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment.” – Jesus (Matthew 12:36, NASB)
Mr. Blackmon:
You can never know how hard I try to refrain from responding to your comments but it is very refreshing for me when I do. May I suggest the same for you to consider this strategy in regards to me–it just hijacks the blog topic and Dave Miller, I have 0 desire to be apart of that.
I wanted to know what church he pastored for the same reason that Tim Rogers wanted to know. Was it an SBC Church? Plain and simple. If it wasnt, then I…like Tim….would look upon this post in a whole different light.
Some of you, people, in here really take the cake. Good Grief, Charlie Brown.
David
Why can’t you just weigh the merits of his article?
I am someone who didn’t like the article, but I can still evaluate that based off of the article itself, not his credentials.
But I am not shocked by the ones asking for his bio. Given how you guys normally address issues, it makes sense.
Jason:
Some are looking for any little detail to dismiss him as a liberal since they are CONSERVATIVE.
You said:”But I am not shocked by the ones asking for his bio. Given how you guys normally address issues, it makes sense.”
Touche
Tom,
If he was a liberal, of course I would dismiss it as more liberal nonsense. But, if he was a conservative Presbyterian, then I’d not like it that they were dogging SB’s.
David
Jason,
And, just what’s that supposed to mean?
David
David, I thought it was pretty clear. It is near impossible to have discussions here because some people here make it personal and avoid the real issues under discussion. Did you respond to any aspect of his article? No. You just wanted to justify your desire to write him off if his bio didn’t meet your expectations for those allowed to discuss this issue. I would hold that anyone in the SBC can discuss this issue. Pastors and laypeople. Not sure why you would wnat to limit it to pastors only. Moreover, just because someone is not SBC does not… Read more »
I’m talking about your comment here…”But I am not shocked by the ones asking for his bio. Given how you guys normally address issues, it makes sense.” What do you mean by this? Or, were you just trying to be a smart aleck? Also, I told you why it was important. It was not a personal matter…I dont even know Alan Pearce. It was about whether he was a non SBC guy running down the SBC, or trying to tell us how to do the SBC, when he wasnt even one of us. As Tim has said, we’ve seen this… Read more »
007:
Why was that little fact so important?
Tom,
Did you read what Tim Rogers wrote earlier? It just takes a little bit away from the whole post when a non SB is running down a SB…or saying very negative things about the SBC, etc.
But, he is a SBC Pastor….sooooo, even though I absolutely did not like his post, and thought it was very inflammatory, insulting, and in very bad taste….it wasnt coming from a non SB.
David
To be clear…I didn’t like it either. I agree with his points, over and above Whitt’s, but I think the tone was condescending.
That said, it did sort of match the tone of Whitt’s article…which I also did not like.
Yes! Done to make a point.
@Jason: “Why can’t you just weigh the merits of his article?” Because sometimes the merits of the ideas are determined in part by the credibility and status of the person disseminating them. I would not advise accepting advice on how to care for a rather severe cardiovascular condition from an economist or a lawyer, no matter how distinguished. Instead, such information should be accepted from a medical doctor, and one that is a specialist in cardiology in particular. So, if one chooses to take comments concerning being an SBC pastor (especially if it contains such rejoinders as “self-important”) from one… Read more »
Ok…but is this of such a matter that one must have an advanced degree in the field of study to understand it? I don’t believe so. I believe the article itself can be addressed regardless of Alan’s credentials. I believe there are many laypeople who could speak on this subject. I also think that it is something that could be spoken of by someone outside of the SBC. Your last point would be valid, if there really was such a “move afoot”. But that is FAR from being proven. Of course his denominational alignment is not 100% irrelevant, but it… Read more »
Job: What are you talking about? From what I can gather from the many, many words you use, that is not happening. There is no evidence of that happening. Tim is intimidating in my opinion and it’s an old tactic. It’s always about power more than doctrine in the long run. And doctrinal purity is a word that has no meaning. Outside of heaven there is no doctrinal purity. This year it’s Calvinists, in the past it has been other conservatives that they disagreed with. The fighting will continue until Tim and his pals have it as just them and… Read more »
Job,
Why would you presume that this was a larger church with a brand of christainity that means nothing rather than a small chruch striving to be a family together? You were both presumptive and rude.
Dismissive does not pass for discussion.
I apologize for being dismissive and rude.
Dave Miller:
You said to Bart:”And, Bart, there are several regular commenters who give the counterpoint to the points we make. They are given free access.
Despite your insinuations, we make a good-faith effort to include a wide range of voices here – not just my viewpoint.
We can’t all be Bart Barber, but I do the best I can here.”
It probably will not count for much my saying it but ,I do believe you allow the commentators great leeway and allow a lot of give and take in the comments.
Tim Rogers:
But you’re needing to know who he is is to discredit him if you can.
Boom goes the dynamite. Maybe we should be like Peter, get our own blog, critique people’s critiques of other peoples critiques, include our name in the title of each post (even though others sparingly write for the blog), and always end in the traditional way.
I understand from one perspective where Tim is coming from in asking what church Dr. Pearce pastors. It may be helpful to know this to get a better picture of Pearce’s view point. However, I would not have sought out that information as an attempt to discredit the article. Even if Pearce were not a Southern Baptist this would not invalidate whether or not what he wrote was true. Maybe it would have been “out of bounds” though I’m not sure what that means exactly, but Pearce’s points either have merit or they don’t regardless. For example, Dr. Lemke recently… Read more »
Brother Mark, I would agree with your analysis if there were no Calvinist in the SBC. However, Dr. Lemke is a theologian, thus critiquing theology is within the realm of his study. Dr. Pearce is a Southern Baptist pastor critiquing another Southern Baptist pastor (Dr. Whitt) on issues pertaining uniquely to the Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Pearce is not critiquing Dr. Whitt on the history of ecclessiology. If that were the case then it would not matter whether Dr .Pearce were a Southern Baptist or not. If you recall Dr. Whitt’s article was about the state of the Southern Baptist… Read more »
Hi Tim,
I don’t plan to go back and forth with you on this. I wasn’t giving the example of Lemke as a perfect parallel, but as an example. There could be numerous roads to go down on this level if we were to drag the discussion out noting the various categories, etc.
I will just state that sometimes an outsider may see more clearly than an insider because their bias does not get in the way as much. Of course, this doesn’t apply in this situation. Anyway..
I would state two perspectives. 1) If Alan Pearce were not SBC, why would he care about any of this? Most SBs don’t even care, but we are simply not that interesting to others outside the SBC realm who regard our internecine battles as somewhat ridiculous. Of course Alan is a Southern Baptist. 2) Had he not been a Southern Baptist pastor (or layman) I would not have published the piece. There might be an exception to that rule that I am not foreseeing at this moment. This is “SBC Voices” and I try to get a lot of different… Read more »
Basically, what I am saying is that Tim’s concerns were understandable but unnecessary.
I guess what rubbed me the wrong way was the assumption that he was not SBC, for whatever reason….and then the desire to know his specific church. That seemed odd to me. Also, to continually say he must be a SBC pastor to respond seems off as well. I asked why he must be a pastor. But then got told to “get a life”. Right, because my question was the crazy one in the whole discussion. LOL I understand if you want to know if he is SBC, but why assume he is not, and why ask his church and… Read more »
That’s kind of what I thought. “Are you SBC?”
I did not speak about the Convention. I spoke of Whitt’s assessment of himself in the Convention. His article was not about the Convention except in an incidental way. His article was about himself. Most on the larger post have missed this point, arguing over my SBC affiliation instead. I am a SBC pastor (a conservative pastor among mostly conservative sheep that happen to historically be attached the BGAV). I did not go to this church bc of the affliation, but because there are, believe it or not, true people of God who need to be fed the word of… Read more »
Perhaps it wasn’t meant this way, but the whole “where do you serve” thing was a little creepy, especially the announcement that he had been “found”, with just enough detail to prove it.
And yes, I’m SBC, if anyone cares.
Yes, creepy is a good word.
From reading Alan’s OP, I gathered that he was Southern Baptist. I won’t speak for Tim or David or any of the other folks who questioned Alan’s background. But, as one who did a Google search to “find” out a bit more about Alan, I can tell you that my motivation was not meant to be “creepy.” Does the fact that Alan pastors an SBC church affect the arguments that he made in his OP? No. Does a person’s background — in this case Alan’s — affect how people might view his arguments and his credibility in making those arguments?… Read more »
“I would venture to guess that this was the motivation for Tim’s and David W.’s questions about where Alan served.”
Yes, especially when Mr. Rogers pointed out the church’s state convention affiliation, “encouraging” Dr. Pearce publicly to lead them out that convention.
Well, considering his church is a member of the moderate state convention that is CBF friendly, what else would you expect a Christian to encourage him to do?
Joe Blackmon:
How are you going to deal with these CBF folks when you get to heaven and you are there with them?
When they’re apologizing all over themselves for rejecting inerrancy and embracing egalitarianism*, I’ll tell them it’s ok, that no person is perfect except for Christ.
*I’d say “…embracing egalitarianism and inclusivism…” but anyone who believes in inclusivism (that muslims, for instance, are saved by Christ without their knowledge) is not a Christian.
The name and location of his church are not important. Sorry. If you want to say that him being in the SBC is crucial, fine. But the specifics about his local church are irrelevant for this issue. You may like to know them, but knowing his church name and location do not make his points more or less valid.
Jason, First, you are free to be “sorry” all that you like, but you do not get to decide what others think is important or not important regarding the background of someone who is writing a public opinion piece to be read and commented on at a public website. It didn’t really matter to me where Alan pastored, but since you and others are making such a huge deal of NOT revealing where he pastors, it only raises more questions, not less. Secondly, perhaps I was not as clear in my above comment as I could have been. Sometimes that… Read more »
Howell, Just because something is important to one person does not mean it is objectively important. So, just because you find it important, does not mean that it really is. You would LIKE to know his background, I get that; but his argument needs to be assessed on its merits. Sure, his background provides insight…but how much background info do you need? His first paragraph provided a great deal. You do not need to know the name of his church to assess his argument. We don’t hold other posters to that standard, do we? Now, I want to correct a… Read more »
PS – Knowing the name of the church he serves does not provide any background info except that you now know the name of his church. It tells you nothing about the church, nor does it make him more or less credible.
But we have wasted too much time on this issue. Let’s get back to the merits of his argument.
I purposely left out my church and that of Brad Whitt’s.
Debbie: In my many, many words, I hoped to express the idea that though I disagreed with Tim Rogers’ general thrust, I do very much acknowledge the relevance of the question “Are you an SBC pastor?” Again, I basically/generally disagreed with Tim Rogers in this matter, but I acknowledged that Tim Rogers raised a valid, relevant point (smaller context), even if he did so in the course of doing something that I disagreed with (larger context). You presumed that merely because I backed Tim Rogers in the smaller context, I did so in the larger context also. Allow me to… Read more »