I shall leave the rest of this post intact, but am adding this first paragraph to update some occurrences at the IMB. This week, the Trustee sub-committee charged with looking into complaints about the MLC (now known as the ILC) came back with a clean bill of health after two years of inquiry. Praise God...I think we can all celebrate that. Some bloggers, however, are concluding that this has rebuffed Eitel's first paper and Eitel's, Hadaway's, and Patterson's paper written 3 years ago. Such a leap is unwarranted. Perhaps it was those very papers, which provided the impetus to get things in order or maybe it was something else. In either case we celebrate where things are currently. But until and unless one can show that what was written in the papers were erroneous at THAT TIME...then logic demands they have not been rebuffed:)
The misquoting, misrepresentations, and subjectively skewed analyses of Dr. Patterson and current events in the SBC continue to amaze me. My surprise at what I read in the blogosphere is surpassed only by the ignorance or outright deception of some of those who are writing.
I have evidenced, in the past, the recklessness and disregard for truth that appears to accompany some of what is written on SBC blogs (see my posts ”Bloggers: Are they Really Honoring Christ?” and “Southern Baptist Bloggers Sound False Alarm.”) Today, as I perused the blogs I was once again confounded. For instance:
1. On one blog, the administrator asks, “Why is there a movement by some within the SBC to narrow the doctrinal parameters of cooperation and participation beyond the BFM 2000?”
Interestingly, the administrator gives no evidence that this is occurring. I am left to assume that he is speaking of policies adopted by our agencies. If this is the case, then he is correct, every agency in the SBC goes beyond the BFM 2000 in regard to their guidelines and policies. At Southeastern we have a handbook that deals with issues such as speech, conduct, and dress, which goes far beyond the BFM 2000. The IMB has always had such policies too. The idea of an institution developing policy for more effective ministry is not something new.
On this same blog a second question is asked: “Why was a public statement made by the administration of SWBTS that what Dr. McKissic taught in chapel regarding a private prayer language was "harmful" to churches, and not the position of the "faculty" at SWBTS, when the published writings of several faculty members seem to support the very thing Dr. McKissic was saying?”
ASTOUNDING. My astonishment at the inaccuracy’s implied by this question was compounded by the fact that this same blog has a link to the statement that was issued by the SWBTS administration. The SWBTS statement does not say, NOR EVEN imply “What Dr. McKissic taught in chapel regarding a private prayer language was harmful to churches…” in fact the statement says: “Equally in keeping with our emphasis of religious liberty we reserve the right not to disseminate openly views which WE FEAR MAY be harmful to the churches.” Of note are the words I have capitalized, namely: “We" "Fear” and “May.” In other words the administration is saying "in our personal opinion (we) what was said in chapel gives us concern (fear) that there is a possibility that the doctrine could be harmful to churches (may)."
Of concern to me, is not necessarily the statement from the SWBTS administration but the purposeful misrepresentation of it on blogs. However, I can affirm from personal experience, as a pastor, that the practice of a “private prayer language” “may be harmful to churches.” I recall a lady in a church I pastored who had such a language and shared it, of note was a statement she made to me which came from her PPL. She said, “God told me that you and I are the two witnesses in Revelation!” HELLO? These types of statements “may be harmful” to churches.
Further, the statement, by the SW administration does not say that Dr. McKissic’s views are, “not the position of the "faculty" at SWBTS.” Rather it says, “tongues as ECSTATIC UTTERANCE is not a position that we SUSPECT would be advocated by MOST faculty or trustees.” Notice, first the administration does not speak to PPL but to “ecstatic utterances” – there is a difference. Second, the administration purposefully says, “not a position WE SUSPECT.” In other words they are not saying that the majority of the faculty and trustees would not advocate tongues, but rather they are saying, “WE DON’T THINK the majority of the faculty and trustees would advocate tongues.” Finally, notice the sleight of hand the blog administrator used to turn the word “most” into “all.” The blog administrator in quoting “most faculty and trustees” changed it to “the faculty.” No where does the administration claim that there is not a faculty member or two who may agree with McKissic, rather they claim it is the administration’s BELIEF that “MOST” faculty members AND trustees would not agree with McKissic on this issue.
2. On another blog, a different administrator says, “Southwestern will not use its resources to promote the use of a Private Prayer Language. Southwestern will use its resources to call into question the leadership and direction of the IMB” On this blog the author implies that Dr. Patterson’s cover letter for Dr. Eitel’s paper to the IMB in some way questioned the leadership and direction of the IMB. While the paper itself (not the cover letter) certainly focuses on the direction of the IMB, the purpose behind it was not to question the leadership but rather to critically think about where we want the IMB to go in the future. If and when our agencies reach the point where they are not open to receiving and contemplating constructive criticism, it will be a sad day for Southern Baptists.
Having said all of that, I want to be clear, my purpose for posting this is not reactionary, retributive, or even rebutive. MY desire is to set forth truth and to show the conscious or even sub-conscious skewing that continues to cloud the accuracy and thus the integrity of some blogs. As time continues, more and more open-minded Southern Baptists are seeing the misquotations, malevolence, and misrepresentations made by some bloggers, which begs questions concerning much of what they post.
Therefore, with veracity in mind I want to address the letter Dr. Eitel sent to the IMB ADMINITRATION and TRUSTEES. The following is a chronological sequence of what ACTUALLY occurred. Contrary to statements and assumptions, Dr. Patterson did not ask Dr. Eitel to write a paper for the purpose of some behind the scenes, underhanded, manipulative effort to undermine the IMB administration or to influence policy from Ft. Worth. In fact, Dr. Patterson didn’t even ask Dr. Eitel to write a paper!!!
1. Spring ’03 – Some IMB Trustees contact Dr. Eitel for a possible interview for Avery Willis' position that was vacated.
2. Eitel prepares a paper of talking points for the interview. He was to address: where the IMB had been, where it is and where he thinks it should go.
3. He develops his talking points from: a) feedback from dozens of missionaries and students on the field and at the MLC; b) His observations from his recent sabbatical in East Asia; c) 18 years of short-term mission work.
4. The genesis of the paper was a discussion between Keith Parks and Adrian Rogers concerning what unites Southern Baptists. Parks claimed it was missions; Rogers claimed it was Doctrine. “In essence, Parks was saying that doctrine or theology divides us but missions unites us. Rogers, however, was indicating that unless our theological convictions are solidly established squarely on an inerrant Bible, we will have no legitimate or reasonable basis for doing missions.” Eitel felt Rogers to be right and referenced historical evidence for support.
He then argued that the “New Directions” strategy implemented by the current administration was a strategy that was more in sync with Dr. Parks’ understanding of what unites Southern Baptists than with Dr. Rogers’. He references, the current move toward promoting missionaries without much seminary education to key roles related to church planting and church development. This apparent move caused Eitel to be concerned about the lack of theological training of missionaries on the field. This lack of training was apparently contributing to an exaltation of women in authority over men in doctrinal and ethical matters. Further, and even more dangerous was the lack of theological structure to filter cooperation with "Christians" of other denominations or even cults. Thus, Eitel states “In order to synchronize the IMB with the theological convictions of the SBC, consistently expressed since 1979 and to set the Board’s course directly back into the evangelical roots that were the convictions of the founders of the convention, there must be a system set in place whereby biblical and theological inquiry is not minimized in importance. Rather it should be affirmed and elevated to serve as a critiquing mechanism for setting the policies, practices, and procedures of the IMB in line with Bible as true Truth that instructs, informs, and determines the IMB’s worldview and culture.” He then concludes with his understanding of how to do this.
5. Several WEEKS after Eitel wrote the paper he told Dr. Patterson about it over dinner. Patterson asked to read it. Next day Eitel sent it to him.
6. Patterson tells Eitel, if you don't get interviewed for the job it would be good to send the paper to the President and the Trustees anyway.
7. Intriguingly, he was not interviewed.
8. He sent the paper to the President and the Trustees.
9. Apparently, the IMB administration claimed the paper inaccurately used “isolated incidences” as proof of “systemic” problems.
10. Some Trustees ask Eitel for clarification.
11. Eitel works with former RL Robin Hadaway and Paige Patterson on a second paper citing and documenting numerous on field incidents, which support the statements in the first paper. This paper is sent to one of the Trustees who had asked for clarification. He in turn sends it to the President and the other 87 Trustees.
In this paper, Eitel references the apparent direction of planting “baptistic churches” rather than “Baptist churches.” This is done in order to cooperate with other “Christians” on the field. I, for one, am a little uneasy with our missionaries planting churches with an individual who believes one can lose their salvation. Even worse, is cooperating with those who are “willing to call someone coming from an Islamic background that is in a C-5 church plant a believer even though that person emphatically denies the deity of Christ.”
Other, theological problems occurring on the field with some of our missionaries included: 1) “One lady missionary (who) felt she had to exorcise her curtains of evil spirits”; 2) a female missionary who was ordered by a non-seminary trained divorced female SCer “to perform the ordinance of baptism for a set of new believers” even though the female missionary was uncomfortable doing so, since she felt pastors should perform the ordinances of the church; 3) MUCH MORE including women functioning as pastors without the title (contrary to the BFM 2000); Universalism concerns and Neo-orthodox concerns (see Eitel’s second paper).
This summarizes the papers and events of Dr. Patterson, Dr. Eitel and the IMB.
Interestingly, only ONE person has called Dr.s Patterson and Eitel about what they have been accused of, and he did so because two of his colleagues on the field (who know Dr.s Patterson and Eitel) refused to believe what was being said on the blogs.
This person was shocked to find out no one else has even cared to ask Patterson or Eitel...many are just assuming the blogs are correct.
Even more interesting and ironic is one bloggers' call for people to confront fellow Christians privately before making public accusations, however, he has yet to call Dr. Patterson with his concerns on how the Chapel service on tongues was handled or his concerns of Patterson's and Eitel's perceived involvement at the IMB. This type of systemic blindness certainly gives pause for thought.
While, some will assume the differences, which exists at the IMB and on blogs, are political and adversarial in nature, they are not for me…they are DOCTRINAL and THEOLOGICAL. There is no doubt that the twisting of truth must be brought to light but that does not make this personal...rather it helps us all remain informed about the accuracy and legitimacy of what is being said (logos) and the ethos of those who are speaking. May, the Lord open my eyes to anything I have written that is inaccurate. The desire for Truth and Theological Purity remains my motive before our Father.
With this in mind we will tackle the tongues issue soon:)
BR
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
141 comments:
Ben
I do not post that for which I do not have documented support. And I certainly do not post that which I do not believe.
Perhaps this practice of mine will spread to Arlington:)
BR
Brad,
The ignorant never practice deception. The ignorant are always the deceived.
One thing must be brought out here. While you were still in Virginia Dr. Patterson had raised issues that called into question the leadership of Jerry Rankin. This was long before 2003.
Ben is not a liar nor is he the deceived or the deceiver. Ben is on the money about the "white paper" and moreso about the events that surround it. Dr. Patterson, Keith and a "host" of others know he is.
Still your friend, but certainly amazed with your post for the absence of certain irrefutable facts.................and the beat goes on...... I guess.
cb
CB
My friend and brother, your comment was most confusing for me. Forgive my lack of understanding.
I think I can grasp your statement about the ignorant never practicing deception and always being deceived, however I probably would not have used the adverbs of universality.
Concerning: 1) Dr. Patterson, 2) my being in Virginia, and 3) the concerns of Dr. Rankin before 2003, I shall assume you know of my comprehension of convention happenings, my proximity to Richmond, and my knowledge of Dr. Patterson writing Dr. Rankin about his concerns before 2003 (which is an example of speaking to people privately). This then begs the question of why you brought these topics up.
Concerning Ben being on the money on the white paper. Ben does not state the genesis of it (Eitel being asked to be interviewed for Avery’s position), moreover he seems to imply Patterson was behind it, when Patterson didn’t even know of it until weeks after it was written.
Furthermore, Ben’s description is absent of facts: like 1) Eitel not asking students to report on IMB issues (they came to him voluntarily with concerns). Incredulously, Ben even overlooks that he is one who came to Eitel after being dismissed at the MLC.
Now, if you can show me one instance of neglect of facts in my post I will gladly adjust it. In other words, you’ve called my hand and now I’m calling yours:)
If you can’t, then no amount of blogochatter will substitute for Truth.
Finally, have you called Dr. Eitel and asked him of the genesis of the white paper, or are you depending on secondary sources for your information?
CB – I may be wrong and am willing to receive correction, but don’t just say I’m wrong without evidence my brother. We shall remain friends and certainly brothers through this, and heaven will be glorious, but there is work to do here.
BR
Brad,
The ignorance statement was simply based upon something you said in your first paragraph. You were also universal in your statement.
The topics were brought up because you left them out. You are right that there is work to be done here and Ben and I were there while you were not present in the genesis.
I do not have to call Keith. I was with him when he spoke of these thing as were other of your fellow-laborers there at SEBTS. Ben ,also, was present.
As you know, Ben never tells all he knows. What we say about this matter is no blogchatter. I may be mistaken, but you are the only one to challenge us and you were not there in the beginning as were others. Why are they silent if Ben is lying? (my word not yours)
On this line I must stand, Brad. I will defend Ben here and anywhere on this matter. He is truthful here and I know it and so do others that we all three know and love.
Your friend even stronger due to the fact that as we debate this the truth will come out. Actually,it already has. Ben told it.
cb
CB,
Actually, my statement on ignorance wasn’t universal, I believe I used the adjective “some” while you used the adverbs “never” and “always.”
Nevertheless I digress, concerning my geographical location, I was there during the letter’s inception.
I came in the Summer of 2003. In fact, it was Ben who was gone by that time (although, in fairness, he was at Southwestern), the letter wasn’t given to the Trustees until late fall of ’03 and quite honestly I only recall your presence a few times.
Further, I have not told nearly what I know…it will come out though, and we will be back to discussing theological issues, not “smoke-screens.”
Concerning me being the only one to challenge you on this issue. There may be a couple of assumptions in that statement that beg to be addressed.
1. The number of challenges does not invalidate nor validate the challenge itself.
2. There may be reasons that others have refrained from addressing accusations:
a. they may feel it a waste of time – because of Proverbial cautions.
b. They may feel it is not the right time or venue.
c. They may not have been asked!!!
Finally, your defense of Ben is admirable and your passion honorable. However, I ask you again to show where I have erred. Don’t just claim, “He’s wrong…He’s wrong.” Please, factually reveal where…I will gladly correct it. Otherwise, my friend, your words concerning my errors are empty.
I have already pointed out some gloss-over’s in Ben’s paper (even though I have failed to mention it was written for a project at Baylor, not necessarily a bastion of Patterson admirers. I have a feeling it and he were very-well received.)
BR
Brad,
I am sure Ben's paper was well recieved at Baylor. Nonetheless, it is factual.
You are not wrong in those things of which you have knowledge. Also, motivation is always a guessing game, but I feel, strongly, that Ben and I understand some of the motivation better than you do. I base that only on the fact that we were around before 2003.
Your assumptions as to why you are the only one to challenge, if in fact you are, are very logical and I will agree with you in all possibilities.
I know your assumptions are the very reasons we have withheld certain information relating to many other topics.
Brad, I should have stated that the Rankin issue, as a whole, goes beyond 2003. I realize I made it seem I was speaking of the white paper facet only. Forgive my lack of clarity.
Many things were in the air relating to Dr. Rankin prior to 2003. It is on these points I most strongly stand with Ben. Of course, this, again, goes back to motive for all things in their entireity.
You are correct about my adverbs as well as your use of the adjective "some." Great block and counterpounch:-)
cb
I mean counterpunch. I must be punch drunk. And that is the only kind of drunk I have ever been.
cb
Brother Brad,
Maybe you or CB can answer some questions that may or may not add to the discussion.
2003 is not the beginning point of a relationship between SEBTS and IMB. Was it Dr. Patterson's or Dr. Rankin's idea to begin 2+2? Also, I understood it was the students that began raising the questions because of what they were experiencing on the field. I may be wrong here becuase I am operating on secondary source information, but I understood it was the students that expressed concerns to the Prof's from SEBTS when they were on the field for their teaching assignments that began to make eyebrows raise.
Please help me with my information.
Blessings,
Tim
CB
I must confess that punch drunk is also the only kind of drunk I have ever been - I guess that's why our "judgment hasn't been perverted" on drinking:) (Prov. 31:5).
I certainly agree that motivation is a guessing game and it's best not to guess. However, having said that, I also agree that you were at SE before '03 and thus can look to prior happenings for context with Dr. Patterson and Dr. Rankin.
Yet, even before '03 I stayed in close contact to Dr. Patterson and Eitel and I have some friends who were/are in contact with Dr. Rankin. Moreover, there are others who were at SE before '03 who are extremely affirming of what I have written.
Ultimately, I suppose only Jesus knows all the happenings. Patterson, Eitel, and Rankin certainly know more than most of us and then we draw logical conclusions from what we know. It is my prayer that Truth comes out. And yet, I pray it comes out in such a way as to not bring harm to the Kingdom of Christ. That is why I desire to frame this on theological terms rather than personal terms. I think our desires are the same.
By the way I heard that Charles Barkley may run for Governor of Alabama - I am sure you will be blessed if he does:)
BR
Tim
The 2+2 was Dr. Eitel's amazing idea (interestingly this program was threatened in 2003 because of the going on's).
The students at both the MLC and the field were the ones who called Dr. Eitel and told him their theological concerns, he felt the president of the seminary should know what our students were experiencing so he told Dr. Patterson. (the students called Eitel...he didn't ask them to spy or anything like that. But once they called him, he told them to document what they were seeing, for surely Southern Baptists have a right to know how our monies are being spent, especially if it is ways contrary to the BFM - even more intersting, Ben Cole was one of these students who called and told Eitel of the happenings...in fact when he was released from the MLC he called Eitel and shared a lot, not the least of which were the emotions he was feeling at being released).
Hope this helps
BR
Ben
As I prepare to watch college football today - I am reminded of a truth.
It's not the team that cheers the loudest that wins.
Show me where I'm wrong and I'll correct it - otherwise keep in mind that the decimal level of the computer keys does not effect the facts:)
Refer to my comment to CB concerning why others aren't stating the facts as I am - perhaps they are wiser - Proverbs:)
BR
Ben,
You are correct...I have made that assumption and I have obviously erred. Forgive my assumptions. And I do want to ask for your forgiveness, I should have asked you rather than assuming.
Ben the Baptist Cat,
Since you are anonymous and have implied by some of your statements that you are BSC and have not corrected those who have assumed you were, based on your implications, I will no longer post your comments on this blog - You my friend have some ethical issues.
BR
Ben the Baptist Cat
I will be glad to post your comments provided you come out from under the rock of anonymity.
BR
Brother Brad,
You have asked CB a good question and his response raises for me a question.
How do Dr.'s Patterson, Eitel, and Rankin communicate as collegues? Are there personality clashes? You asked CB about speaking with Dr. Eitel and he responded he did not need to. Would there be a way to get everyone in a room, close the doors, post guards until this is worked out?
Blessings,
Tim
Ben the Baptist Cat
Posting under Benjamin J Cat from Arlington is enough to prompt questions. Add in statements made that appear to be made from Ben and never denying you are Ben is enough
The easy solution...come out from your anonymity.
BR
Tim
I think there may be theological differences as well as institutional concerns that would prevent your solution from taking place (ie - they couldn't agree theologically and it would be unwise for Dr. Patterson to get behind closed doors with the President of the IMB to resolve issues at the IMB).
I do know Dr. Patterson and Dr. Rankin communicated via e-mail and letters long before the 2003 invitation to Dr. Eitel for an interview. I also, know Dr. Patterson expressed his theological concerns in those e-mails/letters.
Hope this helps
BR
Brad,
Naturally, I do not know whom it may be that you are having to administratively remove their comment to this post, and I cannot know the motivation for it, but I believe you are fair so my summation is that their comment is of an ill nature.
If I am correct I would like to plea with them, due to the serious subject matter of this post, that they conduct a proper dialogue.
This would help all involved to come to an understanding about something that has greatly concerned "some" of us for a long period of time.
I thank you for giving me latitude to discuss these matters with you.
Therefore, I ask that all who enter into this comment thread to respect the rules of the blog administrator, especially due to the subject matter, not to mention some degree of respect for the personalities involved.
cb
Tim,
The reason that I do not need to talk to Keith is only due to the fact that I heard him speak of these matters several times in the past.
cb
CB
Their comments weren't bad in nature. I just don't like someone posting with a psuedo-name so similar to our friend Ben Cole and then refusing to deny they are Ben when people make assumptions. It is unfair to Ben and others.
BR
Brad,
I have great love for Ben Cole, but I shake in my boots to think of him being cloned. The world as we know it could not stand the stress. Men in high places would cease to function in their positions knowing that one of the Bens would one day come upon them with his "sling" and cell phone.
In addition there is no greater appetite on earth. If you had to feed two Bens it would take more food than for a Babylonian King's feast honoring Marduk. I would have to ask for an increase in my convention budget.
AS you and Ben know the above is a lark for there is only one Ben Cole and he is my friend for which I am most greatful.
cb
Cat
Fear has never been a strength of mine.
BR
Brian
I have entertained calls from both Caner brothers tonight - they are die-hard Buckeye fans. No doubt - the Buckeyes but a whippin' on us. We'll see how we recover...it's a long season.
I like the 'Noles also...anyone but the Sooners and the Trojans - I think I would like the Trojans more if they weren't over-hyped.
It will be a great year for college football and I hope for the Southern Baptist Convention. I am convinced that as more truth comes out for Southern Baptist - we will be back to calling for Theological Integrity rather than chasing Personality Rabbits.
BR
Brad,
I know this is not related to the main point of your post, but I, when I see my father's name mentioned in writing, take special notice, especially when I feel he is being misrepresented. I believe, as I have previously written
here that my father's comments in the referenced discussion with Keith Parks, were on target. However, I disagree with the inference, made by Keith Eitel, that, by implication, my father's views would be in support of his criticisms of New Directions and Jerry Rankin's strategic leadership direction at the IMB.
brad and david,
dr. rogers may not have been against someone with a private prayer language being in leadership positions, but i do know that dr. rogers thought that five point calvinism was wrong and very dangerous to our sbc. i do know that he was surely against five pointers leading our sbc down that road. i have heard him preach to that end, and all you have to do is read some of his quotes to see that dr. rogers was against five point calvinists taking control of our convention.
here is a quote taken from a book which the founders have to offer called the beginnings of reformation in the sbc...the rise of the founders movement...chapter three ....While Patterson has been somewhat circumspect in his comments, Adrian Rogers has not been so guarded. In correspondence, sermons and pamphlets, he has represented Baptist Calvinists as believing that God does not love everyone and that he condemns infants to hell. He has represented the doctrine of irresistible grace as teaching that God is "going to zap you...no matter what." He has referred to Calvinists as the "chosen frozen, the elite, the satisfied, the cheese and wine theologians." On March 13, 2000, he preached a radio message in which he called a belief in election and irresistible grace a "libel against God." He accused Ernest Reisinger in correspondence of having "more zeal for the cause of Calvinism than for missions and evangelism." He equated the God of Calvinism to the god of Islam and stated, "I refuse[] to let my church be dampened down by a form of incipient fatalism."
i personally have heard dr. adrian rogers speak strongly in messages against five point calvinism. i agree with him.
volfan007
David,
Thanks for your comment. However, I must admit I'm a little confused with your statement about your father (a hero to so many of us). Could you clarify.
Eitel's points (criticisms, as you call them) were:
1. The new direction was one of promoting students without as much theological training in key positions of leadership in church planting.
2. Concerns about women having authority over men in doctrinal and ethical matters.
3. Concerns of Cooperating with "Christians" who believe a Muslim can be a believer without claiming Christ as Lord.
4. Women functiong as pastors without the title.
5. Universalism Concerns.
6. Neo-Orthodox Concerns.
Can you help us understand which criticisms (points)you believe your father would not have supported.
Thank you for your help my brother.
BR
Volfan,
You need to get another string on that banjo of yours...better yet, make it a five string banjo...which would then greatly expand that one-tune repertoire you keep endlessly playing ;^/
Your 5-string banjo playin' friend,
Timotheos
Vol fan,
Although my comment did not have anything to do with Calvinism, I will give you my "take" on the question you bring up...
It is common knowledge that my father was not a big fan of 5-point Calvinism. And, he did preach against what he considered to be the dangers of 5-point Calvinism in our churches. However, I am not aware (though if you have documentation to the contrary, I am open to considering it) that my father ever espoused a view contrary to that, for instance, of someone like Frank Page, who, while not personally in favor of 5-point Calvinist theology, does not see it as a basis for dividing at the level of denominational cooperation. I think he would have agreed with Page when he recently said at Southern Seminary, in relation to Al Mohler, that in spite of our differences, "We are on the same team."
Brad,
I personally, as an IMB missionary who has been through Strategy Coordinator training, and heard and studied a good bit about the philosophical pinnings of New Directions, find it hard to directly correlate the emphasis on lay leadership, who many times may not have had any formal theological training (i.e. seminary) to my father's comments to Keith Parks about biblical doctrine being the guiding force behind our commitment to missions. If you are insinuating a link here, I believe this is a non-sequiter.
Regarding Eitel's other points, I believe the onus is still on Eitel and others who would agree with these charges that these were real problems directly related to New Directions and Dr. Rankin's leadership, rather than isolated cases that in due time have been dealt with adequately by the IMB administrative structure.
So, I'm just wondering who is going to call Dr. Rankin and ask him if he's had any emails/phone calls or letters from Paige Patterson calling for his resignation. Or telling him that he should resign?
I seem to remember a while back someone saying that Rankin had documentation about what has happened and you could call and ask him.
Why do you keep implying that Paige Patterson has done no wrong? I believe that he (as the head of another IMB entity) has meddled in the business of the IMB. Something that is wrong!
When are you guys going to call and ask Dr. Rankin?
All I hear is pro-Paige. No follow up on your part (I use the "your" to refer to that group that continues to defend Paige without calling up the other parties!)
Call Dr. Rankin.
Ask what he's had to endure!
imb m
david,
you know that i loved and respected your dad. he was a great leader of our sbc. he was a hero of mine, and still is. but, i think he would be the first to tell you that he was not the final authority on things.
that being said, do you think that your dad would have let a five pointer be a leader at bellevue? i dont think so. not from what i heard him preach several times. he saw five point calvinism as not only an extreme in theology, but a dangerous one. also, do you think your dad would have let a tongue speaker, or a charismatic, be a leader at bellevue? i dont think so. not from what i heard him preach often. do you think that you dad would have let an alcohol drinker be a leader at bellevue? i dont think so.
the point being, i believe that dr. rogers would have been for the resolution on alcohol at our sbc in greensboro. i believe he voted for the resolutions on alcohol in the past...did he not? and, i have heard him preach against drinking alcohol....true?
so, your dad, dr. adrian rogers, would be for some narrowing boundaries....would he not? and, i mean, beyond the essential doctrines....things that would be defining us as baptists. dont you think?
i know that dr. rogers was against legalism....phariseeism. but, i do know that he stood like a bulldog against liberals....and he stood for sound teaching. he stood against the extremes and tangents of those who would take us down a bad road and ruin our sbc. i have heard him preach it many times. and, i have heard him say it, and i have read his quotes.
i thank God for him and others like him. and, those who want to take us down a five pointer, alcohol drinking, tongue speaking extreme are not welcome in leadership positions in my church, nor in the sbc..as far as i am concerned. i still love these folks. i call them brothers and sisters in Christ. i thank God for any good they do in our world. but, i have seen the harm that people who are into these extremes and tangents do to churches, and now they want to do it to our beloved sbc. no thanks.
from a little less giddy volfan after the narrow escape against air force,
volfan007
Volfan,
I'm curious, what "harm" have you ever seen a sovereigntist do to a church? What harm have you ever seen a moderationist do to a church? You sound like we're some kind of 'boogeymen' or something - it's actually quite humurous to read your abusive dialogue. BTW - I'm not sure I'd 'lump' sovereigntists, moderationists, and charismatics all in the same group. I'm sure there are many sovereigntists who are not moderationists, many moderationists who are not charismatics, etc., etc.
Your friendly boogeyman,
PTL
David
Thank you for your gracious response. However, it prompts more concerns.
If one emphasis non-theologically trained leaders over theologically trained leaders then there is a message being sent whether intentional or not. The Message: Theological Training is not as important as doing Missions. Hence, Eitel’s concerns follows. If my rational is in error, please demonstrate it.
I’m assuming you have not read Dr. Eitel’s second paper. Forgive me if my assumption is erroneous. But I make that assumption based on your belief that Eitel’s concerns were “isolated cases” (which is also the same language the IMB administration employed). The whole point of the second paper was to show that the concerns of the first paper were not isolated cases, but systemic.
The very implications of one IMB Trustee support the concern of Eitel’s of women serving as pastors without the title.
BR
IMB M
Thank you and I have called Dr. Rankin. I left a message this summer...I have not heard back. I assume he is just a very busy man.
Now my friend...what's good for the goose...
Have you called Dr. Patterson?
:)
BR
iamnotbencole,
This saga continues to grow more interesting...however, I assure you, I will not play this game long.
I am amazed that you read the Cat's comments before I removed them...you must either hold my blog in high-esteem and continually refresh the page day and night or else you are more intricately acquainted with the Cat than at first glance. If the former is true I am honored...if the latter then enough said:)
(It is interesting that your blog identity has been created in the last few days)
Anyone who has been blogging since, oh let's say JULY of this year, knows very well who BSC is (as implied by your blog name!!!) He has not been ashamed to let his identity be known...further until recently he had a blog readily available by clicking his name. You know who BSC is as do all those on Blogs, but who is this Benjamin S Cat from Arlington who likes watching Big Daddy? Such deception is unwarranted and unwanted.
Which begs the question as to why one would defend another who has propagated and allowed many to assume he is someone he is not.
Ultimately, my friend and brother (assumptions I am making:) if you don't like my rules there is a solution:)
Let me make no pretence of my future actions. I have neither the time nor desire to play games when their are theological issues and the future of the SBC at stake. MY advice to you would be for you to encourage Ben the Cat to either come out of his anonymity or to change his post name.
BR
Brad,
Thanks for your excellent post. It truly shed much light on the many attempts of a small group of bloggers to misrepresent the truth and to misinform others. I too believe, as you apparently do as well, that the issue is both theological and doctrinal:
BR: “While, some will assume the differences, which exists at the IMB and on blogs, are political and adversarial in nature, they are not for me…they are DOCTRINAL and THEOLOGICAL. There is no doubt that the twisting of truth must be brought to light but that does not make this personal...rather it helps us all remain informed about the accuracy and legitimacy of what is being said (logos) and the ethos of those who are speaking.”
Sadly, it appears that the disgruntled moderates and liberals within the SBC have simply regrouped and revised their strategy. Now, it seems that they have cloaked themselves under the veil of “conservativism.” They affirm that they are conservatives, that they believe in inerrancy, and that they were for the Conservative Resurgence. Then, they state that they want the SBC to become more “cooperative” with other “conservatives” that do not affirm inerrancy; they are constantly criticizing the SBC, the IMB Board of Trustees, conservative leaders in the Conservative Resurgence, the BF&M, and refer to the Conservative Resurgence as some kind of “denominational takeover,” etc., etc., etc. Thus, the “handwriting” appears to be identical to that of moderates and liberals from the past – those that want the SBC to take a “leftward” turn theologically.
What will it take for Bible believing Southern Baptists to wake up and see that moderates and liberals want to sew discord within the SBC and either “widen the tent” or burn it to the ground??? I, for one, am fed up with the antics of liberals and moderates -- this includes those who refer to themselves as “conservatives” in a very “liberal” sort of way :0) -- within the SBC.
Thanks again and God bless!!!
In Christ,
JLG
Vol fan,
As I understand it, this post is not about the leadership at Bellevue, Calvinism, alcohol, or even my Dad for that matter. It is about the IMB, Dr. Patterson, & Dr. Eitel. I made a comment related to my Dad only because he was referenced in the letter from Dr. Eitel. I hold to the point I was trying to make regarding Dr. Eitel's letter and the reference to my Dad. I would rather not get into the other issues you bring up, though, here in this context. IMO, they are basically unrelated to my original comment.
Brad,
First of all, I think it is important to distinguish between formal theological or seminary education, and theological training for leadership. One important contribution of New Directions, as I understand it, is the emphasis on non-traditional means of leadership training in order to avoid the extra requirements of time and finance that so often slow down the sponaneous reproduction and multiplication of new churches. I am NOT talking about opposition to leaders of new churches being grounded in the Word, and adequately trained. I am talking about questions of strategy regarding the most effective way of seeing more and more leaders trained in the context of multiplying church plants. I am in fact deeply involved myself in leadership training in my missionary ministry in Spain, as well as a big supporter of my father's Pastor Training Institute, which is currently being translated into Spanish for use on the mission field. My point was that I feel Dr. Eitel's comment about de-emphasis of theological training was unfair and unfounded, and, IMO, not related to my Dad's conversation with Keith Parks.
Regarding Dr. Eitel's second letter, no, I don't believe I have read it.
Blessings,
David
Brother Brad,
Just a word of encouragement. Even allowing ben the baptist cat and iamnotbencole to post and then trying to respond to them is like reading unsigned letters.
If neither do not have the backbone to come out of hiding and place their name to what they believe they do not deserve the courtesy of a response.
Blessings,
Tim
JLG
Most insightful about the similarities between the moderates/liberals of the 80s and many of the current complainers. Thank You.
David,
Good Comment. Thank you and well said. At this point I think we will disagree about how related Dr. Eitel's concerns are with the emphasis of Missions over Theology. I think his second paper demonstrates his point. I will post his second paper soon.
BR
Tim
Wise counsel. Thank You
BR
Brad,
I have quoted, and linked to, your post in my most current blog entitled, "An IMBlogger of a Mess." Thanks again and God bless!!!
In Christ,
JLG
JLG,
Just for the record and so there will be no confusion--When it comes to being a conservative I greatly doubt you could even carry my water bottle on game day.
I did not misrepresent the truth in relation to anything in these matters. I notice one name coming up whose testimony I know to be questionable.
This problem is not all theological. The great majority of it was and remains the "ego gone wild." (On all sides)
I would be glad to be more specific about the mercenary personality of a certain person (not Dr. Patterson) but that would not be proper for me to do on Brad's post.
In truth, I guess I am saying you do not know this story well enough to say as much as you have about it.
Tim, Brad, Ben and a few others have valid perspectives that when melted down may bring forth the truth of this matter.
I thank David Rogers for being so candid. Who could know a man's heart and views better than his wife and children?
Brad, If you do not want to post this comment I will understand, but here I stand and cannot move from that which I know to be true, with no misrepresentation and you know I was in the gap for conservatives in VA. before young Mr. Green was out of grade school.
cb
Brother CB,
Lighten up on Jeremy, while he may be presenting information from a perspective different from our knowledge, (yours and others are vastly more than mine) he still brings reputable insight to the discussion. You must admit, many of the arguments we are hearing coming from different people associating themselves with the Memphis Declaration movement are the same arguments heard against the Conservative Resurgence.
Also, CB, you said that you were going to dance with the girl you brought to the dance even though she had a little bad breath. I admire you convictions. I also admire you loyalty and strive in my personal walk to attain the walk I feel you have with our Lord. However, my precious Brother, I must say the girl you brought to the dance does not have bad breath it is BO. Not only that, I believe she is married to someone else. Also, there was a secular group from you state of residence that wrote a song, I pray you will not have to be singing when you find out the latter about his girl you are dancing with. The group was Lynrd Skynrd the song was "Give me Three Steps."
I love you CB. I pray for God's good hand of blessings to continually be upon you and your ministry.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
Well said and I remember the prophet Lynard:-) My problem is two fold with young Mr. Green. He lumps all as liberals and you know that is not the case with all that speak to this issue.
I will admit that some (maybe many) are of that stripe but that is not the case of the most well informed.
Secondly he throws things out as if he were there and he was not and in doing so on his own blog he gives no possibility for rebuttle.
There seems to be a little problem with narcissism on that blog or or to "lighten up" as you asked me to do I will say maybe the blogger is "self absorbed."
As the t-shirt reads: "If you can't run with the big dogs stay on the porch" may be needful here, especially if one does not have the willingness to take a punch when he jumps into the ring with those that have been taking their licks in a proper fashion. (You, Ben, Brad, CB and others)
Your friend till my ticket is punched here, or the rapture---matters not to me. And then we will visit on tne other side of the "river" for a while and worry not of these things anymore. Frankly, I long for it, Brother Tim. I really do.
cb
CB
No one has shown any error in what I have written. Many have said it was wrong but no one has demonstrated where. I invite anyone to try.
That being said, JLG has some valid insight concerning the same arguments that were used twenty years ago, and you know what they said, you were on the frontlines. They said “it’s not theological its personal…it’s not about the Bible, it’s about politics, there really are no liberals or moderates – that’s a smoke screen…blah, blah, blah.”
While your concerns may be valid because of the side of the Elephant you are on, I’m not sure the others who want to open up to the CBF are with you. The Elephant in the room is big and perhaps you are just seeing one side of it my friend.
Concerning all the bloggers who don’t allow comments (Dr. Mohler, for example). Their time may not allow it. Not allowing comments does not invalidate their posts. You and I write on the spur of the moment, which isn't always wise (at least not for me), but some may want to think more deeply and respond more purposefully and yet fulfill their ministerial responsibilities and allowing comments may not allow them to do so.
Besides, he is linking to my post…I certainly can’t complain about that type of publicity. Speaking of, next time I see you, I’ll buy you a cup of coffee if you link to my post also:)
Just kidding
BR
Brother CB,
Let us speak about that day. What a day that will be, when my Jesus I shall see, when I look upon His face, the One who saved me by His grace, when He takes me by the hand and leads me through the promised land, what a day, glorious day that will be.
I think I am going to shout!! (In a language we all understand mind you) And Cb, I believe that day will be in the millenium we most affectionatly refer to as "pre" and the period of time intimately known as "Pre-trib". (Do not tell "The Wheel")
Brother Jeremy,
I must admit he has some good points about no comments on your blog. While it is yours and you are free to host it as you feel is best, there does need to be some way to dialog with you about your ideas. I learned this well in Systematic Theology with Dr. Patterson. While my GPA could not allow but one semester of his Blitz Quizes, there was one statement I learned well. If you are man enough to say it, sign your name to it. In all sincerity Brother, you do tie the hands of others by not allowing people to dialog on your blog.
Blessings,
Tim
Brad, One thing I want to point out is that Dr. Mohler is not coming on your blog and those of others doing "Drive By Commentary" and going into hiding. Dr. Mohler is providing a commentary type blog only, as does Morris.
Mr Green needs to understand that he cannot have his cake and eat it too without someone sticking a "fork" in him.
Brad, I am not saying there were or there are no liberals. I am saying for him not to lump us all together as liberals. You know full well we are not.
As far as your statement that he may be thinking "more deeply" about this matter; that is the most humorous thing you have ever uttered in your illustrious career in religious comedy.
I agree with you about the Catboy whomever he may be. You should do the same with the "Hit-and-Run Bandit, Mr. Green.
Now, I would like to read your response to David Rogers about Keith and the possibility that he stretched Dr. Rogers' comments tighter than drum leather.(illustration mine, not David's)
cb
CB
I have addressed David's comment by referencing Dr. Eitel's second paper where he evidences his statements. Read the paper, my friend, it is shocking.
Concerning JLG, I allow anynomous comments on my blog so I will certainly allow a comment by a man who signs his name.
I can certainly relate to being strapped for time and still trying to respond to those who comment and there may come a day when I am unable to respond. I hope not but I will not allow my Call to the Seminary or the Church to suffer because I'm responding to comments on my blog. This is a truth that Dr. Welch hit on. And so if JLG feels his ministry would be hindered by allowing and responding to comments on his blog I am certainly not going to tell him to allow his ministry to be hindered. God is his judge and the Holy Spirit is his guide not me.
Catboy was removed for pretending to be someone he was not...there is a difference, at least for me.
I don't believe you are a liberal and you know that...but my friend you are running with some who look like and smell like a skunk and "a skunk by any other name still stinks:)"
BR
Brad,
Just a suggestion: I think you should remove the first comment in this thread as well. I'm fully behind you banning people who are posing as someone else. If someone is gracious and follows "the rules" and claims a legitimate reason for staying annoymous, I don't have a problem with it. But, when annonoumous people want to be critical, hateful etc, and have not the integrity to stand by their statements...I fully support you removing them. Hoenstly, there are more than the kitty kat that need banning in my opoinion...but it's your blog.
Tim, CB & Brad; I'm enjoying the exchange (& the spirit of it). I'm learning much. Keep it up.
Joy,
Cliff
hmmm....so, according to the prophets Synard: Marty Duren = Linda Lou?
:)
Brother Jim,
Your comment amazes me.Was Martin Luther and inerrantist? He said the book of James was flawed. While Wade Burleson has not said anything like that, just because he nailed the 95 Thesis to the Moderates doors does not really affirm anything for me. While I knew this before now, it just affirms for me his antagonistic tendencies.
Also, you say; "from my reading of Wade's blog, he has never advocated anyone being named to a board or as a trustee who is not willing to sign the BFM 2000, and I dont recall him ever saying anyone that is in the CBF should be allowed to serve." Go back and read his posts again. He tacitly encouraged bringing Dan Vestal, Winfred Moore, and others back to the table. Also, if someone signs the BF&M and then says they do not agree with certain elements of it, is that not the same as not believing and supporting it? With that mindset we had Prof.s' at SEBTS--BP(Before Patterson) that signed the Abstract of Principles and then taught contrary to what they said.
Blessings,
Tim
Brad,
Again I did not make my request properly. The statement I would like you to address would have bearing on this whole matter.
David said: "I feel Dr. Eitel's comment about de-emphasis is of theological training unfair and unfounded, and, IMO, not related to my Dad's conversation with Keith Parks."
If you would speak to this specific statement I would appreciate it.
I do not think you were violating Bobby's famous blogger statement before he made it nor are you now. I know your work ethic and am proud you teach Baptist preachers the same. God knows we have too many lazy ones.
I was glad it was you that took over my teaching responsibilities when I was fired.
I certainly know I am not violating Bobby's call to the work by all laptop and cell phone owners and I do own a Blue Tooth:-)
I seriously doubt that Mr. Green works as much as either of us. (just a gut feeling not a revelation from the Spirit)
Also you are right in saying God is his judge and if he is claiming to be so busy in the vineyard that he cannot allow comments because they "rob" his ministry time which is so full I implore him to read Acts 5 IF THAT STATEMENT IS NOT 100% TRUE.
Brad, you know I cannot link your blog now for a cup of coffee because Jim might accuse us of nepotism:-)
cb
Jim,
I have to ride in Tim's truck on this one and he has plenty of tread on his tires.
cb
Brad,
I wholeheartly agree with your stance in this document. There may not be any of your back room buddies willing to step up and speak out, but you my friend do have your facts together.
Why do you allow Jim Champion to post? He has no webpage just a phony web front. Could he be Ben?
Tim is correct. Wade may not have endorsed putting liberals into office, but neither has he been against it either.
CB,
Sorry to read your comment about being fired. I did not know you were a prof. What did you teach?
Signed,
Not Ben the Baptist Cat, nor BSC, nor NotBenjaminSCole either
Just an ole preacher boy in love with Jesus
Anony ole preacher boy,
You make many assertions not to give your name. I must admit that even young Mr. Green gives his name. How do you know about backroom conversations among buddies relating to this. Do any of us know you? Do I know you? If so, you already know the answer to your question.
cb
CB,
I graduated from Southeastern years ago. I have been to the back room on an occasion or two upon my return visits to Wake Forest. I think I remember you, but I may be incorrect in my rememberance. I think I know Brad, but maybe not. I do know a couple of the old guys that used to hang out there, but they moved to Dallas. Many of the old profs are gone these days so I do not stay in contact as much any more.
ole preacher boy
Brother Brad,
I know this is not the direction of your post, but knowing your heart beats for lost souls as does mine and others that read this blog, I am certain you probably will not mind.
I just returned from visitation. There was an ole boy that is a truck driver and his wife is expecting. God has been drawing that ole boy to Him for a couple of days now. He told me that he could not explain it, but he felt he needed to do something differently. I explained to him he did not have the power within himself to "do" right. After some time of answering questions and telling my story, he asked the question, Preacher what must I do to be saved? I could not believe what I heard. God graciously saved that ole boy tonight. His name is Ray. Pray for him. I had him call his wife, and his sister-in-law to tell them what God did in his life. His wife gets off work at 11. I told him that if she comes home and has questions just call me. I may be getting up around midnight and going back out, but I would rather leave my family at home to share Christ than any other reason.
Man, I do not know if I am Pentecostal, Cessassionist, 5-Point, 4-Point, 3-point, 2 Point, or 1 Point Calvinist, but I do know one thing. I love being used by God as nothing but a clay pot filled with the Spirit of God in order to be used to present Jesus to someone. GOD SAVED HIM!!
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
Praise the Lord!!! The joy that comes from seeing another place their faith in Christ is matchless. I will be praying that his wife gives you a call early tomorrow morning :0). BTW, I will be baptizing both of my daughters this Sunday evening. God bless!!!
In Christ,
JLG
CB,
I find it very interesting that your “dancing partners” (your words) are in favor of “broadening the tent” so that other “conservatives” (their words) that do not affirm the inerrancy of the Bible can feel at home in the SBC. Furthermore, you criticize others, including myself, that are against this type of “cooperation” (compromise appears to be a better term in my humble opinion) in the SBC.
The issue is indeed theological. If you have some personal issue(s) then perhaps you would do well to understand that the SBC does not revolve around yourself. I, as do many other conservatives, firmly believe that the inerrancy of the Bible and confessional accountability are both necessary in order for cooperation to flourish in the SBC. Your “dancing partners” do not and yet you still choose to “dance” with them. Why is that?
BTW, I am planting a conservative Southern Baptist church in a city which is a well-known hotbed of liberalism (at least one of your friends seems to fit in rather well at a nearby educational institution). Thus, I deal with liberals who are angry with “fundamentalists” (i.e. conservatives) on a regular basis and your bark bears amazing similarities to theirs. Is it possible that you are not (or at least are no longer) the great bastion of conservativism that you claim yourself to be?
Furthermore, if you don’t like what you’re reading on my blog then please do not feel an obligation to do so any longer – I will truly understand :0). God bless!!!
In Christ,
JLG
Tim,
We went out tonight also. Hopefully we planted good seed. I am so glad God gave harvest to your work tonight. Why is it that some say visitation is fruitless?
Praise the Lord for a new convert tonight. Praise the Lord for your willingness to be used by the Spirit.
Young Mr. Green,
I have not made one comment about broadening the tent. I have not criticized anyone that is against compromise.
I never said it was personal issues. I said it was "ego gone wild." You should well understand that problem yourself.
I am not the narcissist here. You are. So, I don't think this revolves around me, but I do know who it revolves around. You do not. I am dancing about one principle with Wade and nothing else. I doubt you understand such principles so I guess it is worthless to try to explain it to you. Obviously your reading comprehension is lacking. This is evidenced by what you say here.
Ben Cole is no liberal. It is obviously your ignorance at work again to say such a thing.
(That is if you are speaking of Cole)
If you are speaking of Ben Cole you are a bare-faced liar to call him a liberal or to even suggest such. Ben Cole is a man. He can take what comes at him without hiding. You may not be a liberal, but what good is a hide-a-bed conservative?
Be careful about the "bark" stuff.
Again, you do not read or comprehend what I have said. I guess it is hard to read while admiring yourself in the mirror and patting yourself on the back for a church planting effort in a "rough" place.
God bless? Be careful about blasphemy.
I am not usually this hard on young guys like you that know so little but you did sponcer the Ball and as you said I just called the "dance."
cb
Brad,
I hope that the rest of your friends have more class than CB apparently does. I will let him have the last word on this one. God bless!!!
In Christ,
JLG
Jim
Tim did a great job of addressing the Wade issue. Just the fact he is misleading with
Patterson’s statements is enough to wonder about the rest of what he writes…and then he says he signed the BFM2K but doesn’t believe all of it…HELLO? Does Ethical honesty mean anything?
Now concerning my opinion of BGCT or even dually aligned churches. As a good SB we will accept money from just about any Baptist church (I say that semi-jesting)…however, I think one must affirm the BFM2K to serve on any board and I would certainly emphasize inerrancy…other than that I personally have no problems. I say that as one who has pastored BGAV churches who didn’t know what the controversy was about but believed in the inerrancy of God’s Word. I think most liberals/moderates still in the convention will still wince at inerrancy and so that would rule them out. I would have a MAJOR Problem with a nominee from a church that is supportive of the CBF, even if the church gives to the CP also.
BR
CB
My point in one of comments was that I disagreed with David. In fact Dr. Eitel’s second paper does FOUND the Fairness of his concern of de-emphasis of Theological Training. And by definition when one exalts cooperation in Missions over Theology (placing lay leaders not trained in Theology in leadership positions over students who are trained for the purpose of having more cooperation and participation in Missions) then Dr. Rogers Statement is applicable.
BR
All
Let's keep this from ad-hominal devolution. It is not God-honoring. I have been gracious in allowing comments...but please help me in this.
If this applies to you, then Honor it...if it doesn't then let's all be guarded that it not apply to us in the future. I know I have certainly been guilty of writing to soon.
Thank You
BR
Brad,
It applies to me and I stand down. I should have let it go earlier. I am convicted for letting the old man gain a foothold. I still struggle with my dog of war demon.
I ask your forgiveness and that of those that are really trying to find the truth of this issue.
cb
Brad,
I now hope we can get back to the heart of the post.
Thank you for the clarification and answer. I do think you are on to something here. I do not have the knowledge that you and David have of Dr. Rogers position, but something is burned into my memory that an IBM administrative employee said:
"I would rather have a person that graduated for a good business school than from a seminary. They are easier to train."
I will not reveal the name of this person for I think he may still be there.
Now if this was truly Keith's total concern it was well founded, but I am in doubt of that singular motivation for the actions he and others took. Let's keep digging.
A lack of theological concern for the sake of peace and missions is exactly what brought about the lack of peace and a weak missional effort in the first place back in the 60's.
cb
That should be IMB employee not IBM employee.
JLG (and CB)
I think you would like most of my friends.
CB is a friend and he is kindof rough around the collar. He is very forward and will tell you what he thinks. However, I like that.
I personally feel CB has been decieved by some of these other fellows and I have told him so. He thinks I am decieved. Truth and time will tell.
But CB faught and has some wounds from fighting the ole liberals. He was on the peace committee in the 80s with Dr. Rogers and others...fighten them liberals. He is a rough codger...but deep down a good man.
JLG, I think you are dead on with your analysis of much of what is happening in the convention. And I enjoy your blog. Be patient with CB...I still have hope for him.
And CB, I think if you will look close at JLG, you will see a young man similar to a young CB in the 80's. A young man on fire for Jesus who doesn't like liberals and is zealous against them.
CB, I don't think you are a liberal and I don't think Ben is...but you sure are dancing with those who are holding hands with liberals and Ben is going out of his way to hold hands with BGCT but is not so quick to grab hold of SBCT hands. That is certainly thought-provoking. Conclusions can be drawn by the company we keep...granted the conclusions may be wrong but it might be wise to part company at some time.
CB, I love you my friend but I am convinced you are being used...I pray God will just let Truth prevail...wherever it takes us.
Also, thank you for your comment. Let's keep digging my friend. I think Eitel's motives were pure and I think Dr. Patterson's were. And I believe Rankin's motives to be pure. But I certainly believe the substance of Eitel's letters are of far more importance than any personality conflicts that may or may not exists. If it is a disagreement theologically on missions (ie - unity in missions vs unity in doctrine) then I will be siding with Eitel.
The fact missionaries were allowed to sign the BFM2K without agreeing to all parts implies unity in missions is more important to some in the IMB than doctrine - which is scary.
BR
Tim,
ALLELUIA! PRAISE THE LORD!
DON'T EVER EVER NOT POST SUCH A GREAT EVENT.
WE MAY ALL DISAGREE ON THESE ISSUES BEFORE US - AND I DO BELIEVE THEY ARE IMPORTANT.
HOWEVER, THEY TAKE A BACK SEAT QUICK TO YOUR NEWS. WE CAN ALL CELEBRATE THAT.
PRAISE HIS NAME.
BR
Brad,
The statement of the IMB guy is true. The implication is that theology is of secondary importance to the old institutional problem of "Go along to get along."
The birthing of Baptist is theological not missions. The division of Baptist was missions. God used us anyway. You know the history. No need to waste time with that.
Now let me be clear on my position. I do believe there are and were theological problems. At the same time I know there were other more systemic problems coming to the forefront prior to 2003.
I remember what the IMB guy said because it raised flags in my mind about the IMB.
Brad, I think that in the end we will find there are no heroes in this mess, just flawed guys tripping over each other for their own purposes.
I hope I am premature in my conclusion. Be patient with this old codger:-)
cb
cb
Whilst we are praising the Lord...
We had 3 of my students make professions of faith on Sunday morning during our invitation. I truly believe they were sincere and each was born again! 2 I had been praying for for a long time. It was spiritual ecstasy! The other...well...he was a shock! I thought he was born again! He shared with me that he had known for a long time that he'd been faking it and didn't want to embarrass himself by coming forward with it! Praise God! Ain't his Grace grand?
CB: Forgive my ignorance as I am a newcomer to Baptist politics. Where you a prof at SEBTS?
To all you Texacans: Have you ever noticed you guys are whole lot more combative than the rest of the world? And you even seem to like it and admire it others? :) Geez. (Yes, my tongue is squarely in my cheek! Even if it is true!)
Joy,
Cliff
Good informative posts guys. I appreciate your hearts and your heads.
Brother Brad,
If I did not know CB had his head attached to his heart I would believe he, like others, were doing this for prominence and position. As you know we are not just dealing with an "ole codger". He is like the rough grit sandpaper. Rough grit sandpaper is needed to get the items off of the wood that are attached deep into the grain. CB is one that God uses to keep me looking at myself to make certain of my attachments.
He fought the fight that I never did and paved the way for me to go to a Seminary that had Prof's that believed in the Inerrant Scriptures. I will always honor him for that. When it comes to CB, I am like the compulsive gambler that gambles on the longshot all of the time. CB is my horse, I do not care if he never wins a race.
Having said all of that let me focus on a point. CB said he heard an administrative employee at the IMB say; "I would rather have a person that graduated for a good business school than from a seminary. They are easier to train." This is exactly what the Conservative Resurgence fought against. As you have alluded to earlier we do not unite around missions we unite around doctrine.
Blessings,
Tim
ps Cliff, salvation of three with a Reformed Youth minister during an invitation--can you say t-u-l-I-p? Praise God!
iamnotbencole-
You don't post your name because you are just a coward. I've used my name from the very beginning and let the chips fall where they may. Pull up your pants and get in the game.
Please show me from the writings of Marty Duren where Marty Duren has revealed himself to be a liberal. Neither you, nor Brad Reynolds, nor Jeremy Green know enough about me to make that evaluation, so put up or shut up.
If you are in a church that is so conservative that it considers Marty Duren to be a liberal, then you are in a cult and need to leave immediately.
Brad-
Thanks for attempting to identify some of the issues involved, but what you have written amounts to basic hair splitting, or in Jesus' words, "Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel."
1. Whether you realize it or not, you are saying that Keith Eitel drafted his own cover letter in Paige Patterson's name, printed on SWBTS letterhead and sent it to all the trustees.
2. Your chronology only demonstrates an alternative interpretation of the series of events; it does not, on its face, reveal what "actually" occurred. Since you can't know motives and you don't have all the facts, it still is lacking. Who did forward Keith's resume to the search committee?
3. It still stands, even using your version of events, that Dr. Patterson was recommending the thinking of someone (being considered serve as VP) who was highly critical of the man for whom he would be working!
"Hi Keith!"
"Hi Dr. Rankin! I just want you to know that I am opposed to a butt-load of things in New Directions and think it is seriously flawed."
"Great! You're hired!"
4. Have you contacted any of the trustees to ask why Eitel was "intriguingly" he was not interviewed? What is so "intriguing" about it? Is it "intriguing" if every person was not interviewed? After speaking with a former trustee who was on that team, as I have, it wouldn't be so intriguing. Pretty vanilla, actually.
Besides, after that white paper, Rankin would have been off his rocker to hire Eitel to a VP position.
5. Concerning McKissic: Does SWBTS website directly say or imply in the context of Dwight McKissic's message that "we reserve the right not to disseminate openly views which we fear may be harmful to the churches"? Was this statement on the website before his message? Didn't the original heading refer to the exact date and chapel service during which McKissic spoke? Has Dr. Patterson written any letters to the editor of the Ft. Worth Star Telegram concerning any other chapel speaker, ever?
You split and chop the writer's post into a thousand pieces, yet the original thesis, the position of several faculty on the ppl issue, stands unchallenged and unchanged.
Brad, you seem to be a very genuine person and I have no doubt your heart for Christ and his gospel, but I am sorry that you made no attempt to contact me rather than allowing the aforementioned slur to stand on your blog for days.
BTW, no one has ever stated (that I have ever seen or heard) that there were NO problems ANYWHERE on the field. We have 5,000 missionaries serving in scores of areas in 100's of cultures; it is a given that there will be occasional problems. Divide the number of problems by the number of possibilities for problems and we find something far less than systemic; not pandemic or endemic either. No even "emic."
What has been stated (by trustees in my presence), and never disproven, is that there were no problems that were not handled by staff as was warranted by policies already in place. There has also been NO anectdotal evidence demonstrating a need for the new policies provided to Wade Burleson, who for a year has asked for it. None of it exists.
You insist on the right to define the role of women on the field, even when the Bible is silent (your famous "ethical authority" argument), to define what a partnership should consist of, etc. These are the narrowing of parameters of which we speak. Please don't pretend it hasn't happened. Some fifty missionary candidates have been turned away this year alone, who otherwise would have been qualified--that's narrowing.
Brad-
My paragraph expressing regret over being called a liberal by notben should have directly followed my comments to him, not where it is placed.
Sorry; I started early and no coffee yet.
Marty
Gotta go teach what the Bible says about women pastors:)
But I'll respond to your statements later. Thanks for dropping by. I do think you have made some errors in your analysis.
Concerning letting something stand that others have posted. I rarely remove comments. I have never called you a liberal and don't know you so I can't speak to that (although I assume you are not - and believe your motives to be pure). But I really don't feel the need to contact everyone that is spoken of by others on my blog - if you have that practice great, and I admire you for it. I know Wade doesn't because I have been spoken of on his blog and he never contacted me. Hope this helps alleviate that concern.
BR
Brad-
As long as I know the rules of engagement. You are the admin here and I fully respect that.
It's blogs like this one that Bobby Welch was referring to.
Gentle Ben the Baptist Rin Tin Tin
Cliff
PRAISE PRAISE PRAISE
Isn’t testifying of souls coming to know the King so encouraging.
Speaking of…I spoke at a youth event for a local church Saturday night and we had 4 professions of faith. Praise his name.
BR
Brad:
My dad always said that sparring with folks similar to "CatBoy" is like wrestling with a pig. When you wrestle with a pig, you both get muddy. And the pig likes it.
As to CB: right after the convention, he posted that we ought to have lunch. He gave me a his cell number and I called him. It was a short conversation, as he was on the roof of the home of one of his church members. There was some damage and he needed help fixing it.
No Ivory Tower theologian, this.
No that was not an indirect remark about some unnamed person.
We did have lunch, and I can tell you that anyone CB says ain't liberal, ain't.
This is a terrific thread. Can I make some ourtageous remark to perpetuate it. Please?
Marty
Thanks...I have to admit I have allowed too much freedom in posting lately...I do not like ad-hominal statements and have asked all to refrain...but I think many are not refraining...I will try and continue the encouragement.
Now to your comment. Welcome to the No-Spin Zone:)
You:
1. “Whether you realize it or not, you are saying that Keith Eitel drafted his own cover letter in Paige Patterson's name, printed on SWBTS letterhead and sent it to all the trustees.”
I’m not saying anything of the such. I said what I’m saying:)
You:
2. “it does not, on its face, reveal what "actually" occurred. Since you can't know motives and you don't have all the facts, it still is lacking. Who did forward Keith's resume to the search committee?”
Actually, it does reveal what happened. No one has yet demonstrated in any way where I am wrong…if you have evidence please show it. But just claiming I’m wrong is not evidence.
Of course I don’t know peoples motives nor do I try to guess.
You:
3. “It still stands, even using your version of events, that Dr. Patterson was recommending the thinking of someone (being considered serve as VP) who was highly critical of the man for whom he would be working!”
The recommendation of Keith’s letter came after it was assured Keith would not be interviewed. Further, it is one thing to be critical of the direction of a policy and another to be critical of a person.
You:
4. “Have you contacted any of the trustees to ask why Eitel was "intriguingly" he was not interviewed? What is so "intriguing" about it? Is it "intriguing" if every person was not interviewed? After speaking with a former trustee who was on that team, as I have, it wouldn't be so intriguing. Pretty vanilla, actually.
Besides, after that white paper, Rankin would have been off his rocker to hire Eitel to a VP position.”
As stated above, the paper was sent after he was assured he would not be interviewed. I have spoken to Trustees and apparently the Administration made sure he would not get interviewed.
You:
“You split and chop the writer's post into a thousand pieces, yet the original thesis, the position of several faculty on the ppl issue, stands unchallenged and unchanged.”
Actually, I have accurately dissected their posts. They implied the Administration at Ft. Worth said “our faculty doesn’t support PPL.” The administration never said this and we know it. I affirm that what the administration said still remains “unchallenged and unchanged.” They BELIEVE that the MAJORITY of the FACULTY and TRUSTEES do not affirm PPL. When you can demonstrate the the majority of the faculty and trustees do affirm PPL please let us know. And then we can state the Administrations belief is ill-founded. Interestingly you find problems with my accurate dissecting of their posts...but you have not mentioned any problems you have with their inaccurate dissecting of Dr. Patterson's comments. INTERESTING.
You:
“BTW, no one has ever stated (that I have ever seen or heard) that there were NO problems ANYWHERE on the field. We have 5,000 missionaries serving in scores of areas in 100's of cultures; it is a given that there will be occasional problems. Divide the number of problems by the number of possibilities for problems and we find something far less than systemic; not pandemic or endemic either. No even "emic."”
Read Eitel’s second paper. It is systemic as the signing of the BFM2K reveals.
You:
“What has been stated (by trustees in my presence), and never disproven, is that there were no problems that were not handled by staff as was warranted by policies already in place. There has also been NO anectdotal evidence demonstrating a need for the new policies provided to Wade Burleson, who for a year has asked for it. None of it exists.”
Do you honestly believe Trustees are going to rush to give Wade information that they know will be read by the world and scrutinized and misquoted by some?
You:
“You insist on the right to define the role of women on the field, even when the Bible is silent (your famous "ethical authority" argument), to define what a partnership should consist of, etc. These are the narrowing of parameters of which we speak. Please don't pretend it hasn't happened. Some fifty missionary candidates have been turned away this year alone, who otherwise would have been qualified--that's narrowing.”
I insist on no such thing. The bible is not silent of women teaching men in the church. I don’t define women’s role, nor man’s for that matter, God does.
Now, if narrowing means that we limit Missionaries by theological/doctrinal positions, then classify me as narrow. I don’t want just anyone being our missionaries…I would like them to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and other doctrinal truths expressed in the BFM2K.
Marty, I shall assume you love Jesus and have a pure heart and I believe it, but I think you have been hoodwinked.
Hope this helps.
BR
ptl,
what harm have i seen a five pointer do to a church? do you have five hours to listen to my response? what harm have i seen a tongue speaker do to a church? again, do you have five hours to listen to a response?
btw, i lump these all together....tongue speaking, five point calvinism, etc....because they are extremes in theology, tangents that some get off into. they are grouped together because they are all extremes, although they are different extremes, they are all still extremes...tangents.
and, i have seen these extremes hurt individuals who go off into these extremes. and, i have seen the division and the strife that they cause in a church. i have seen many churches even split over five pointers, or charismatics, who go into a church to "convert" it.
hoping to eat gator this saturday,
volfan007
brad,
i agree with you when you said that we dont want just anybody out there serving as missionaries. we do want people who hold to essential doctrines and to the bfm2k. if they are going to be supported by sbc cooperative program dollars, then they ought to be sbc missionaries. if they want to be assembly of God missionaries, then they ought to be aog. if they want to be presbyterian missionaries, then they should join the presb. and be one.
i dont think this makes me a pharisee....do you? i took that robe and turbin and phylacteries off a long time ago.
keep up the good work, brad.
volfan007
Bob
GREAT Quote...I'm gonna steal it from you and use it.
Thanks
BR
Gentle Ben the Baptist Rin Tin Tin
You said: It's blogs like this one that Bobby Welch was referring to.
Actually Bobby Welch was referring to you and your liberal cohorts Ben, Marty, and Wade.
Harvey the Rabbit
Harvey
Welcome to my Blog. Glad you stopped by.
I am certainly concerned, like you, with the direction of some of those you mentioned...but let's refrain from ad-hominal statements.
Thank You
BR
Tim,
Believe it or not; another just left my office a new creature! I'll be baptizing 4 Sunday! Praise the Lord. Dude, you're funny! I guess I deserved that one after my card playing shot at you and CB!
Brad,
Praise the Lord for souls saved!
Linda Lou (Marty Duren) :), I'm glad you came by. I'm enjoying the exchange.
Question for both: Brad, is it your assertion that Patterson did NOT distribute the "White Paper" to all the BOT? Also, if the problem was systemic; why did the Leadership Development Committee give such a glowing clean bill of health yesterday in their report?
Please know that i am not arguing a side. I'm not trying to be divisive in anyway.
Allow me to encourage all to keep this Christ Honoring. It's been helpful to let "both sides" state their case without it degenerating into Bob's pig sty! LOL (great comment Bob!)
Gator Bait (I mean, Vol Fan)
Churches split for many reasons. I regret terribly hearing of any that split. My brother-in-law was just involved in a nasty one. (Brad, you may have heard about it; it was in your backyard). They split for many reasons. Most of the time it boils down to sin. Calvinist sins, charismatic sins, Armenian Sins, People who are theologically in the middle sins, traditionalist sins, lost people sins, deacon sins....bottom line. Sin is sin. Because you have witnessed certain sins and they have apparently affected you; does not give us the right to become extremists ourselves. Instead of name calling and such; maybe we should pray for one another and work together for the good of God's kingdom! Just a thought.
Hope you have good day Saturday my brother!
Joy,
Cliff
i can name you five or six churches that split over five point calvinism...period. that was all. they had pastors and youth ministers come in and try to convert the churches to five pointism, and it led to division and a split.
i can also name for you many churches that split over the charismatic extremes....namely tongue speaking. it was not over sin....it was completely over tongue speaking.
needing gator for my gumbo,
volfan007
ps. cliff, i am glad that you are talking to me again. howdy.
Rabbit Guy,
To add color to the cake let me again say it is a lie to say Ben, Marty, and Art are liberals.
cb
haha! Oh wait, maybe it wasn't meant to be a joke. JLG has planted a church in a hotbed of liberalism. I clicked on his name to see where that was and the bio mentioned that he has planted a church in Waco, Texas. In what world is Waco, Texas a hotbed of liberalism? I guess it was just to lighten up the conversation where conservatives are being labeled as moderates and liberals, and moderates and liberals are being compared to skunks (nothing new there), girls with BO, and worse.
Voltron-
i agree with you when you said that we dont want just anybody out there serving as missionaries. we do want people who hold to essential doctrines and to the bfm2k. if they are going to be supported by sbc cooperative program dollars, then they ought to be sbc missionaries. if they want to be assembly of God missionaries, then they ought to be aog. if they want to be presbyterian missionaries, then they should join the presb. and be one.
Agreed.
Can you show me where we were sending AoG, Presby and other non-Southern Baptists through the IMB? This wasn't and isn't the issue.
Brad-
Thanks for responding; I'll reply back tonight (I hope).
Tim
Excellent point.
Just because things have changed doesn't mean they didn't need addressing in '03.
In fact the white paper may have been the impetus to produce the glowing report today.
BR
Cliff
I am not saying that Patterson did not send the paper to all the Trustees and the Administration. I will post his cover letter soon…for all to read.
Cliff I think my response to Tim answers your second question.
Thanks for your gracious spirit and your objectivity…although we shall disagree about me making over the top statements :)
BR
Marty,
I believe Wade has slandered some men on your blog (quite possibly unintentionally). However, I'd suggest you remove his post or at least revise it. But; it's your blog and I'm always asking people to remove the posts that are over the top and they never do so....whatever! :)
Vol,
If a pastor and youth pastor went into a church to "reform" it and ended up splitting the church...brother...that was sin. Somehow, somewhere...sin is in there!
I've actually eaten fried gator tail! Not sure though how a Vol tastes. I imagine it’s a lot like chicken.
You didn't address my statement about taking one (or 5) bad examples and running to extremes on our views toward other brothers in Christ. Can we ratchet down the rhetoric, shake hands, agree to disagree and work together for the good of the kingdom?
Joy,
Cliff
Cliff,
In regard to your comment:
"I believe Wade has slandered some men on your blog (quite possibly unintentionally)."
I agree. However, it appears that you did the very same thing. Thus, perhaps you should revise your comments as well. God bless!!!
In Christ,
JLG
Jeremy,
Explain?
Cliff
Cliff,
In regard to your comment on Marty's blog:
“The only one of the men you mentioned in your comment above that clearly calls you a Liberal is the young Jeremy Green.”
Your statement is completely false. I did not call Wade a liberal and if you will reread my posts you will see that I did not. Hopefully you will acknowledge your mistake. God bless!!!
In Christ,
JLG
Ah, I believe I see now Jeremy: I just reread your posts. Technically, you never called anyone by name. I think I said you did over at Marty's. I will fix that. My apologies sir.
Brad,
:)
I was actually referring to things said on this blog by others not you. Though, as I stated above; you Texacans do have a love for the antagonistic!
I'll be expecting a shipment of CB's punch from you soon!
Joy,
Cliff
Jeremy,
We posted at the same time...
Cliff
Cliff
Unless you want some Texan on you like flies on stink please refrain from calling us Texicans:)
God Bless my friend
BR
Cliff,
Thanks for acknowledging your mistake and I would greatly appreciate it if you would in fact correct it. God bless!!!
In Christ,
JLG
What? I got it from a good source you know! The Duke himself! Haven't you ever seen "True Grit?"
I'm wondering if you've drunk water from a "hoof print?"
Laughing Hysterically,
Cliff
Jeremy: Done
Brad,
Would you possibly admit they have been "spanked" just a little bit:-)
cb
CB
My horns were spanked last weekend...but I think they will be better prepared to meet OSU again if OSU makes it to the championship game to play Texas:)
BR
Brad,
I just posted a response on Marty Duren’s blog that pertains to some of the comments that were made here on your blog as well. Thus, I would like to also post it here in order to clear up any misunderstandings that may have occurred.
Wade,
In regard to your statement:
WB: “I want to thank Brad, Jeremy, Les, and I’m sure, soon Tim, for affirming that I am not a liberal.”
Again, it appears that you have inferred something that I did not say. I simply stated, “I did not call you a liberal, period.” I did not say that you were a liberal or that you were not one either. I do not know if you are a conservative, moderate, or liberal. I do know that you have stated that you affirm the fundamentals of the faith.
However, I also know that you have stated that you signed the BF&M and do not agree with it in its entirety and that you believe some individuals are “conservatives” even though they do not affirm the inerrancy of the Bible. BTW, if the Bible is not inerrant, then there are NO fundamentals of the faith. As a Southern Baptist pastor, I personally find your comments, as a trustee of the IMB, very troubling and seemingly contradictory.
God bless!!!
In Christ,
JLG
Brother Jeremy,
Thanks for the email. My wife got to it before I did. I just got home from church and read it. Sorry it took so long to respond. I will call you tomorrow.
Brother Brad,
My name has been taken in vain on another blog along with yours and others. The gloves just came off.
Brother CB,
I have been accused of calling you a liberal. Let me assure I have never said anything or implied any such thing. This is the very problem with where we now find ourselves. Slick talking people attaching themselves to others trying their best to destroy the very ones that laid the foundation for us to stand on. While you, my friend, have told me your reasons and I trust them. Others are attaching themselves to you and allowing you to be their beast of burden in order to carry their load.
I love you Brother,
Blessings,
Tim
JLG
Great insight on what you haven't said. I haven't said that either and he certainly concerns me.
Tim
Brother, I'm with you. Let's respond in Truth but also with pure hearts before the Father...I feel certain you will...thank you for your example
BR
Tim,
I know you called me nothing even close to a liberal. In all
cases wherein you have agreed or disagreed in our blog relationship you have stated your position and that alone without any personal attacks and so has Brad.
Are there things you guys could attack me with? Sure, but you have taken the high ground and for that I thank you.
Now, how is that for a response from a low-life-no-class-questionable conservative as young Mr. Green describes me:-)
cb
Brad-
I'm delayed in my fact gathering so as to provide a more full set of details. Length alone will probably demand it be a post on my blog when ready. Thanks for your patience and I'll let you know when it is ready.
CB,
I am appalled at your insistence upon distorting the facts. I never called you “low-life.” However, your comments do continue to provide evidence for those things which I did claim concerning yourself. God bless!!!
In Christ,
JLG
Young Mr. Green,
I just threw in low-life for spice. Do you not know all of us old codgers are "salty":-)
You need to get rid of some of that youthful steam. Take up martial arts or something. Yesterday I was serious. I said I was sorry for being rough. Today was all a lark. Everyone knows that except you.
I don't really think Brad and Tim are rabid ,mad dog, Pattersonite conservatives. I think they are just rabid ,mad dog, Presslerite conservatives.
They have not gotten their fifth degree rabid, mad dog, Pattersonite conservative belts yet.
For your information I got mine in 83. I took down Bill Lumpkin, Fisher Humpherys, Glenn Hinson and John Stealy in one bout for that belt. Larry Holly awarded it to me in a ceremony in Nashville, noless.
I have just illustrated "larking" for you so lighten up.
Tim,
Please, put "the gloves" back on. Even if others do not; take the high road! :)
Honest assessment from somewhere in the middle: While Jeremy may have brought up a valid point about the comparison of "liberal" arguments in the 80's to the those being made by the Memphis group today; he did so in a way that seems to imply he believes them to be less than conservative. Simply put: Jeremy could have made his point without dancing to the edge of accusation. Both "sides" in this deal have demonstrated an inability to use restraint in this way. Both sides have demonstrated a keen ability to jump to conclusions and get personal and nasty. Then, it degenerates into the boyish banter we've seen today.
As CB pointed out (at Marty's house I think), there are some important conversations going on in a couple of different places. We need to calm down a little; rise above and keep it on the facts.
I think it helpful to recognize who is capable of honest, difficult dialogue and who is not. Jeremy likes to call names and push the envelope quite a bit. It appears to me that Wade had so many unfair things said about him early on that he is now a bit defensive and quick to go off. Both sides seem to not want to admit when they are taking the rhetoric and/or implications farther than is helpful. Maybe we should declare a day of rest from blogging! Let's let everyone simmer down; pray for God's guidance and then re-enter the blogsphere ready to dialogue honestly, openly and fairly. I know it's possible...I've watched it here between CB, Tim and Dr. Reynolds and later in the game, Marty.
Jeremy,
My brother. I say this in love and with humility. You really should think through your repeated statements about CB's classlessness. I remember the story about the mother who complains that the whole band is out of step in the parade...except for her son. You really do come across as a hot headed know it all that doesn't see his own warts.
I noticed you didn't respond to my earlier question.
BTW: If you posted your email on your profile; I would have confronted you privately. I do not like saying the things I just said about you in a public forum, but your descion to cut off private communication leaves me no choice. If you doubt my sincerity in this, please ask Dr. Reynolds and Tim. They will both speak to my practice of raising these types of concerns privately.
God's blessings to you my brother,
Joy,
Cliff
I have spent many, many hours defending conservatives on websites for the past 4 years. Much of that time was spent on the Baptist Standard's forum before they removed it. Many of the attacks were directed at Dr. Patterson and Mr. Pressler, as well as others on occasion. The folks I debated openly hated these men, and thought nothing of not extending forgiveness while continuing to partake of the Lord’s Supper. When I began visiting some of your sites a while back (a long while) and saw Patterson’s name again mocked and jeered, I thought, “moderates.” It was automatic, and I am young- too young to know any of you, really, or your role in the CR.
These days I find myself questioning both sides of this movement, mainly in light of James 4:11:
"Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge."
I will not trivialize this issue, and the many that have spawned from it, by marginalizing either side- even the most zealous among you. I have been known to be overzealous, and have gotten myself in trouble on more than one occasion due to my words, not least of which recently, and at one time with some of you. Even so, I myself have recently been marginalized by members on both sides of this controversy for speaking out against certain actions in both parties. I have in fact faced tangible consequences for my words, only desiring to be above reproach, and for my brothers to be as well.
However, given the timeline of Dr. Reynold's, and the corresponding paper with contradictory accounts of Mr. Cole’s, what is the bottom line issue here? If the IMB is ‘fixed’ now, and Eitel’s concerns have been addressed (directly or indirectly, inconsequential), what is the motivation for “digging deeper”? Overall, this--> Is the concern more than the White Paper, but Patterson’s motives, and there is a move to uncover evidence to expose his hidden motives; a mission to prove the rumors (factual or not) that his deeds are evil?
Further, you cannot wage war without an enemy. Who is the enemy? Where are the frontlines? And, if Paige Patterson is ejected from his position at SWBS, will that solve concerns about the narrowing parameters of qualification at the IMB?
In Christ, For His Glory Alone, Not to ever bow before a man and his cause…
Acts 20:24
Colinm,
Good observation.
Joy,
Cliff
Cliff,
Do you ever sleep?
cb
Brian-
You'll be prayed for.
Brian,
We will pray for your family.
cb
Marty,
Thanks...I look forward to it. God bless my brother.
ColinM
As cliff pointed out...excellent observations.
Brian
Praying for you and family, so is April, we prayed last night...See you today.
BR
Brad,
Thank you for allowing me to post here. Marty seems to fear truth and snatched my comments from his site. You are a good man.
CB,
I missed the meaning about the coloring of the cake, but I am sure it is a worthy snide comment toward me just like you calling Jeremy "YOUNG Mr. Green." However, I love you anyway my brother.
Wade, Marty, and all other conservatives who dance with non Bible believing Christians. You may not be liberals, but just like the pig illustration earlier in this blog, You sure do smell like it.
Wade,
Please do not exalt yourself to the level of Billy Graham. Stay with your friends like Dan Vestal. It gives me see a little clearer picture of what you are really like. After all, a man is known by his friends.
The Rabbit (as CB called me)
Rabbit
You are always welcome here...but let's keep things above reproach.
PS - It's probably good you're anonymous, because if you weren't I fear some of these bloggers would take Elmer Fudd's Words seriously - "It's wabbit hunting season"
BR
Brad,
Thank you for the advice. I do not mean to be condecending in my posts. I just get tired of wolves in sheeps clothing infiltrating the flock. Most of my fellow Alabama pastors would agree with me. CB is the only only I know who dances with the wolves (other than Kevin Costner). If CB is the one I think I met in the back room years ago then he is a die hard conservative and has fought a good fight. I really hate to see him get mixed up and snookered by prettied up wolves.
Thanks again for your kindness and willingness to listen.
Rabbitt
CB
To answer your question: No.
Brad,
I've been thinking about Colinm's post (while I was not sleeping). It brought a couple of questions to my mind. Honestly, I'd rather ask Drs Eitel and Patterson, but I doubt they'd remember me and I have no idea how to reach them.
What is your assessment of yesterday's report? Do you believe it is an indication that the IMB is on the right track? Have the questions in Dr. Eitel's "White Paper" been sufficiently answered?
In my thinking, if the last question is answered in the affirmative; shouldn't this be over? If not, which parts still need to be addressed at the IMB?
Another subject: That wasscally wabbit has posted some pretty nasty "ad homonym" statements. I'd say they are as bad as the ones made by the cat previously that you pulled. Why then not remove his attacks?
Joy,
Cliff
Cliff
I haven't pulled rabbit because he hasn't pretended to be someone he is not. The Cat was pulled for imitating Ben, not for his comments.
Interestingly we have the Cat, the Dog (rin tin tin), and the Rabbit. Some of my colleagues and freinds were kidding me at lunch about being Dr. Doolittle.
Anyway, to your more substantive question. If I recall correctly (and I will check into this, later this week) the committee that looked into these allegations was appointed by a Chair that was very supportive of the direction of the Administration at the time when Eitel raised concerns. That is not to imply anything, but it does imply the committee was handpicked - that does not in itself deny their objectivity, but I do think it is something that cannot be overlooked.
Do I believe there are still Trustees who have concerns...Yes...I know so.
Do I think the IMB is heading in the right direction because of the attention they are recieving (not just the Trustees but the Administration)? I hope so.
I will post Eitel's two papers soon and you will see for yourself if there were matters of concern, and if you think this report has alleviated ALL concerns.
I am hesitant in posting all I know. In fact, I have actually posted little of what I know. I don't think it would be beneficial to the kingdom at this time. But if false allegations continue to be made concerning the leaders of our convention I will post more and more, so that Truth will prevail.
As you have personally seen, of all those who have had problems with my post, not one has shown any error in it - even though I have challenged them to on numerous occassions!
My desire, is we fix the theological struggles, we go forward in the Great Commission, we hold the banner of inerrancy high, and we have as little publicity over inward struggles as possible.
BR
Brian
We join you in Praise to the Father. I'll tell April tonight. Missed you at school today. See you next week.
BR
Brian,
Praise the Lord Brother. Prayed for you guys today!
Dr. Doolittle,
thanks for the answers. I'll look forward to those future posts. I'm interested to see where the lines of theological concerns get drawn. I too want to hold high scripture and the essentials; I'm just skeptical about how some interpret essentials.
Thanks for the clarification on your animal kingdom!
It makes a little nervous to think some of my former profs might be watching all my posts! LOL Who should I be saying hello too? Surely not that wishy washy old systematic prof? :)
Joy,
Cliff
Brad,
I heard a rumor that it was actually Keith Eitel that wrote Animal Farm and you gave him the inspiration from your blog. Tell me everything you know about this rumor.
Anony Rabbit Guy,
No secret or snide remark in the cake statement. I just wanted you to know that those guys are not liberals. Although, in a BBQ joint in Memphis Wade, Ben, Marty and Art,especially Art did smell like pigs when they finally left the place. They were very liberal in their consumption of pig meat.
Of course I ate only a small salad with no dressing since I was the designated driver.
cb
Cliff,
I believe that my statement is an accurate appraisal of his comments both on this blog, the other, and in private discourse. Although I disagree with your loving and humble appraisal of myself, you are entitled to your own opinion :0). Please forgive me if I neglected to answer a previous question of yours. What was it? Thanks and God bless!!!
In Christ,
JLG
CB
Surely your concerned about Wade's openness to men he has mentioned and his stance on signing the BFM2K even if you disagree in minor points. He may not be a liberal but as I've said he is dancing with some who refuse to claim inerrancy is he not? I know his position on alcohol grieves you but what about these ethical questions concerning signing the BFM2K?
BR
Concerning the rumor and animal farm...to quote SGT. Schultz (Hogan's Heroes) - I Know Nothing!
Brad,
Would you please email me your email address? I would like to discuss something privately with you.
Thanks.
Les
Jeremy,
My question really is quite irrelevent anyway.
I'm not saying your assesments are unfounded (open for debate maybe), I just don't like the tone I see. I see it in others as well. I just don't understand why we seem to check decency at the door when we enter "blogworld."
I pray God uses you and your ministry for his Glory my brother.
Joy,
Cliff
Rabbit Guy,
I do not believe in women pastors because of what I believe the WORD says. At the same time what I believe or what Sargent believes does not make Wade a liberal.
Brad,
MY stance on alcohol is different than Wade's. When I read what he said about Peter James Flaming I wanted to throw up. You may remember or have heard of how it was in the 80's in VA. dealing with that guy. Yet, that in itself does not make Wade a liberal.
Wade's understanding of ecclesiology is different from mine, but that does not make him a liberal.
I have spent time with this guy. I have listened to his position on the fundamentals of the faith. He is as you on those things and I know you are no liberal.
I do not understand why he says some of the things he says, nor why he relates to some people he does.
I am sure he does not understand why I do some of the things and say some of the things I do, but I know he does not see me as public enemy #1 as some do. He does not even ask me to empty my pockets and socks when I enter his hotel room:-)
I would not vote for Wade to be president of the United States.
He would probably not vote for me to be in control of all Nuclear Weapons capabilities the US has.
That does not mean he is a liberal. It does mean that if I did have control of those weapons those Terrorist boys had better get their spiritual affairs in order because I would be introducing them to Mohammed in short order. You can throw in all the child abusers and "short eyes" too.
Wade is different from me in many ways, but he is not in any way the kind of person I fought in the 80's and 90's. If Wade hade been in VA. in the 80's he would have fought Flamming just like I did.
He just probably would not have said all the mean stuff to him I did. Of course, neither would you. You guys are good civilized men of God. I am saved but not civilized.
Now, I will illustrate this to you in another way and without using names for it would not be right to do so on your blog.
You relate to some people that I know lie like rugs. Yet, I know they are in no way liberals. They are cowards and scoundrels, but not liberals.
One thing I can also say for ole Wade is you won't catch him lying to you. He will tell you the truth if it hairlips the Devil. Wade will say what he believes even if it make your hair stand up and your skin crawl.
The guy is honest as the day is long and you can take that to the bank. Liberal? NO. A little nuts maybe? Yes:-)
If we get to San Antonio and some ole bunch of "short eyes", child abusers or terrorist decide they want to do a little payback on my head I would rather have the likes of Wade, Brad, Tim, Ben, Marty, and Art and a few more on my side than a whole bunch of other fellows I could name that folks think so highly of because those fellows would run like dogs with hot lard poured on their tails.
One more for insurance would be a Bishop carrying an Elephant gun:-) He will and can fight in a hard spot and I love him for it.
Now every person mentioned by name and those not mentioned by name in this little saga are not liberals except for Peter James Flaming. Wade, if you read this tell me why you didn't just leave that alone?
cb
I spent time with both Wade and Marty this week. I can tell you that neither of them is a "liberal!" They both love God. They are passionate about missions.
Do we all have to agree on everything? Does disagreement mean someone is a liberal? I think not!
Harvey,
Why are you doing this? I really don't see how looking for liberals under every rock brings glory to God.
Is Billy Graham a liberal?
Rabbit Guy,
I was in VA. I fought on every hill and in every valley of the Old Dominion. I am ashamed of some things I did in that fight. Some things I would fight over again. That which I am ashamed of is lumping everyone together that did not think on everything as I did.
I am trying to leave that mentality behind. I must confess it is hard to break the mold, but I press forward believing that God's grace is sufficient.
Wade has publicly affirmed me also, but that does not mean he agrees with me on all things.
You have Marty and Wade wrong here. They are both fine men, husbands, fathers, and pastors of conservative churches.
It is Ben and cb that you have to watch out for. We are "rank" as goat's breath and wear designer suits made of sheep skins. We can have a sheep down, skinned, chopped up and roasting on the grill before you even hear us "howling" in the valley.
We both graduated from the number one "wolf" school in the whole world with honors. Wade and Marty failed the entrance exams. They do not even qualify as wolf cubs:-)
cb
Harvey,
With all do respect, don't go labeling me as a liberal. I actually know Frank Page. I interviewed for a position @ Taylors almost 2 years ago. I was for him because I know what kind of man he is. I'm not turning against him.
I don't agree with everything Wade says either. But he loves God and says he believes the Bible is inerrant. That is good enough for me.
I contacted one of the Big wigs in the SBC about a matter that was being talked about. I caught him in a lie. I won't expose it because I was asked not to publish it.
I'm not for women pastors. I believe the Bible is inerrant. But as Dr. Page says, "I want people to know what I'm for, not what I'm against."
I'm afraid we are becoming more like Bob Jones University everyday.
Harveythewabbit-
You are seriously delusional, dude. Get somebody to take your temperature quick before the top of your head blows off.
Brad-
Thanks for your patience in waiting for my response. Due to the length of it, it is on my blog:
SBC Outpost
The faint of heart should not venture to Duren's blog
"Conclusions can be drawn by the company we keep"
Perhaps I am wrong, but it is a good thing God the Father didn't make any conclusions about Jesus based on the company Jesus kept...although the Pharisees did...because if the Father had the whole substitutionary atonement thing wouldn't be working to well for us right now.
Mark
Jesus closest companions were James, John, and Peter.
BR
not to be cantankerous...
Is that really your response?
What about Matthew 9:10-11 as but one example of when Jesus spent time with sinners?
When judging someone else's friends you need to remember:
Matt 9:12-13
On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
Post a Comment