For those interested you can review those who signed the Joshua Convergence Affirmations and add your name if you so desire at www.joshuaconvergence.com
Also, I have been asked by numerous individuals to address the situation in the blogworld this week. I am not familiar with all that took place at SWBTS but from what I can gather from some colleagues and pastors, apparently there was a closed door meeting where Trustees were asked to “consider and pray” about some confidential matters regarding the entrusting of millions of dollars of funds to a company who has managed funds for multi-billion dollar investors and who specializes in non-profit organizations (Apparently, information from this closed door session got out). I am assuming that Trustees are either still prayerfully considering it or they have dropped the issue (I really don’t know) because it was not even mentioned in the Plenary session. Now, while it would be nice to read apologies for all the implicatory comments made on blogs this week I highly doubt that will happen, although I am an eternal optimist.
Also BP has run a story, that few of the blogs are picking up on a vote by the SWBTS Trustees on the tongue issue. You can reference Jeremy Green's Blog Tuesday October 17th for a bloggers take on the vote...also Bart Barber presents a good analysis in his post (also on Tuesday October 17th).
Concerning the IMB, I know I said we would continue our revelation but after some thought I truly think it is best to let it lie for now.
This week a student asked me what caused me to become involved in blogging. As I drove home that afternoon I contemplated the question. What would cause anyone to become involved in blogging? What caused you to become involved?
As I considered the question, I did a lot of soul-searching. Is blogging a wise use of time? Does it accomplish anything for the kingdom? Is it worth the abuse that apparently accompanies it?
Had I not started blogging I would have much more done on the books I am trying to write (blogging consumes the time I set aside for this activity). Had I not started blogging I would not have had the numerous false statements and hateful things said about me (not to mention the false assumptions and misunderstandings). Had I not started blogging I would not have seen the pain that my wife goes through when she reads things said of me on blogs (this is perhaps most difficult).
Why in the world would a pastor and seminary professor ever begin addressing the issues in the SBC on a blog? First, I must admit I felt the Lord’s prompting to start a blog back before the convention this year. Therefore, the first, primary and really only reason I began to blog was out of obedience. But I believe there were reasons behind His prompting.
I believe God created me in such a way that I am almost unable to keep silent when others say or imply erroneous things about men of God. I feel God also used my love for the SBC, and my concern about some widening the tent far beyond where we have been since 1979. Finally, I feel God used my sincere desire to see an open and honest exchange of ideas.
I have done my best to maintain a blog, which allows the free exchange of ideas without spin (I have stated time and again if I post something erroneous or with spin, please point it out and I will gladly correct it). I have expressed my concerns about the widening of the tent and I have passionately defended men of God whom I feel have been maligned erroneously.
Inevitably, those of us who blog must honestly consider whether what we are doing is making a difference, and especially if it is pleasing to God. I am not sure we can answer the second question in the affirmative if we don’t answer the first in the affirmative.
I think it is making a difference for those whose minds have not been made up, but I have no empirical evidence. I have e-mails and comments from two who have said their eyes have been opened but I am not sure if these two are representative of masses or not.
What do you think? Do you believe we are speaking to ourselves? Do you think that those who participate on blogs already have their minds made up on the issues and cannot see the others’ views? What are your thoughts? Why did you start blogging?
I can state I certainly enjoy getting to meet and correspond with so many SB across the nation and the world…this has been the most enjoyable aspect of blogging for me. If I don’t ever get to meet my fellow bloggers here in this world we can sure look forward to glory:)
BR
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
64 comments:
Brad-
You always and forever call this the no spin zone yet your entire second paragraph is nothing but.
The information was not an issue that was being prayed over or considered as if there were options. The recommendations begin with this heading--RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT COMMITTEE
Here is the entire wording of #3:
Southwestern Seminary Foundation wants to inform the trustees that the asset transfer of portable funds presently managed by the Baptist Foundation of Texas to the Southwestern Seminary Foundation is scheduled to take place on October 30, 2006. The estimated amount of funds to be transferred and managed by the SSF is approximately $90 million. Mr. McStay and Mr. McDonald have agreed to be present at this board meeting to personally meet the Board of Trustees. Mr. O'Neal and Mr. Kolander are already scheduled for the attendance as Trustees of the Seminary. We also want to inform you that we will be involving an organization named TIFF, The Investment Fund for Foundations located in Virginia, in the moving forward process in managing the money. [Emphasis mine.]
Simply put, your sources are wrong and your conclusions are wrong. This was not private and not closed door; the decision had already been made (to happen on October 30), the SSF Board members were meeting the full Board of trustees, it was "moving forward," and the decision to delay was announced publicly. There was nothing private about it.
I don't know who needs to apologize, but I know who doesn't.
Brad,
We are not on the same boat in many of these side issues...we don't see eye to eye on some of these 3rd tier issues...
BUT
Don't stop. IT IS worth it. You represent a perspective...I generally agree with Wade and Marty and those guys BUT, God help us if they (our) voice is all that is heard. You do a good job representing your convictions, I showed up late so I don't know if you've always done a good job. You ask questions that need to be asked even if I think you sometimes draw wrong conclusions.
That's how big my tent is, I want to read all credible views and certainly yours is. I didn't know what to make of you at first cause when I showed up all I saw was bombs being tossed that were way out over the line. And I spoke up and asked why you were at least not strongly rebuking that. After a day or so you not only rebuked it but stopped it.
Don't stop blogging. We need various voices at this time, I really believe that.
Even though you are wrong about alcohol...lol
Marty
Perhaps my sources are wrong...I do not know I WAS NOT AT THE MEETING, so I won't speak as if I was. However, I do trust them with my life, so I have no reason to believe any of them would mislead me.
I spoke to a Trustee, but he would not devuldge the information you have posted here, nor would he share much with me at all about it, because he felt it was confidential information shared for prayer and consideration...I certainly can respect that.
So call it spin all you want but I posted what I was told by someone who was there - if someone says "this is what I was told" and then they tell what they were told, then that is not spin but you are certainly free to call it so.
God bless you my friend.
Fox
thanks for your kind words. I have no intention of stopping until I feel it is not accomplishing anything or until I feel my time would be more wisely spent elsewhere...I can say I have enjoyed meeting men who disagree with kind spirits and are humble...it is very encouraging and convicting. Thank You for your heart.
I wished more of us, and I place myself at the front of the list, would learn to say, "perhaps I could be wrong at times." I have found that statement strangely missing on many blogs...when confronted, many either change the subject or become silent or defend themselves, which of course lowers their credability. Sadly, I feel certain I have done this on numerous occasions and am blinded to it. I appreciate when Marty Duren pointed out the error I made on the timeline weeks ago, because I do desire truth. I had to admit my mistake, which is humbling (but grace follows:)
I certainly hope you will be gracious enough to point out errors I make in the future and I hope that God will open my eyes to any that are valid...but your position that my abstinence position is erroneous is not valid:)
BR
Brad
Just curious, do you know if Marty talked to Patterson before he posted his blog. If he did, and no action was taken by Patterson or Patterson did not respond, he may have a reason to publish what he did. The benefit of blogs is they can act like a check on the system, if done correctly in a godly manner. If Marty did not talk to Patterson, then it seems like just another attack on him. Why is it always anti-Patterson/anti-SWBTS? Has anyone checked what the other seminaries do with their money? It just seems all political.
Brad,
First, the name calling is wrong by anyone. I'm sorry your wife has read anything ugly said about you. I have respect for you as a professor, pastor and fellow believer. We may not agree with everything but I'm praying that your ministry will produce fine ministers who will change the world for Christ.
Brad,
I see no reason for a non-Trustee to release Trustee material prior to a BoT meeting nor without the approval of the BoT.
I'm neither for nor against the funding decision that Marty posted prior to the BoT meeting. I just don't think that he nor anyone else other than a Trustee have the authority to release any Trustee material.
Having said that, let me also say that if material is available to the public, no problem. But if Trustee material is being fed from a Trustee to anyone outside of the BoT for the purposes of publication without the approval of the BoT at large is at the very least, unethical.
Regards,
Les
Dr. Reynolds,
It has been interesting to see the outcomes of what has taken place at SWBTS in recent weeks.
Are you intending to blog about the current situation/circumstance surrounding Bellevue Baptist Church's Pastor Steve Gaines and the confusion that has erupted in his leadership.
Brad,
Thanks for blogging - this is your IMB personnel friend - and please know that I have been encouraged by your blog. For a while I was totally depressed from reading so many of the other blogs - especially when I read thing that I knew were just untruths about certain workings of the BOT of the IMB. There are some serious problems in the IMB and it has bene refreshing to see them addressed.
Secondly - tell your wife not to take the things said on blogs too seriously - on the other hand that fact that she does tells me that you are her hero and she loves you a lot - so with that being said - YOU need to take her out for a meal at her favorite restaurant this week - just to thank he for loving you so much.
Finally - and this is what I tell people who ask me - alcohol - even in SMALL quantities alters your personality - and I do not need to alter my personality to have enjoy my life. People who do obviously feel a need to become someone else that they are not - which is too bad. I try to avoid drugs of all types - even presecription one I only take if a doctor tells me I absolutely have to. I avoid marijuana (eventhough there are countries where I COULD live and take it legally), I avoidn nicotine (an almost universally legal drug), and I avoid alcohol (in drug terms it is classified as a depressant) - and while the Bible may not in some people's opinion speak as clearly as they want - the BIble does tell us to "abstain from all appearance of evil" - I think alcohol (along with the other aforementioned drugs) can definitely qualify as having an appearance of evil - and therefore I find very BIBLICAL ground for abstaining.
So hang in there - I am sure that you may err in somethings you say (as does everyone) - however you seem closer to the truth and reality than many of these other bloggers are. THANKS and DON'T STOP.
Anonymous,
I do not know if Marty talked to dr. Patterson…if he did then he obviously has more information than I have. I have what I could gather from individuals who were there but by the same time the Trustee I spoke with was very tight-lipped on most of the issues because he did not want to violate what he considered confidential…so in all reality, Marty probably did receive more information than I did (I do not know if there was spin with the information he received or not). All I was trying to do was post what I knew as the way I received it for those who were wanting another perspective. I do try to be straightforward and without spin and I think people are seeing that, but I also admit I am unable to be totally objective.
BR
Jim and Kevin
Thanks usually name-calling me bothers me less than a fly in my house but when I see it upset my wife then it upsets me. But she is such an inspiration and godly woman that before long she is praying for those who speak ill of me (which is convicting). Thanks for your words and ya’ll are always welcome here even though we don’t see eye-to-eye. I could disagree with both of you all day long and then walk away and buy you a beer (root), because of your gracious and kind spirits.
BR
Connector
I am not interested in posting anything on that issue because I wold probably be speaking out of ignorance although I have read some blogs.
BR
Les
Good Point
Bear,
Thanks. I do try. I may fail at times but I do try:) you are kind.
One of my IMB friends:)
Thank you so much. The evenings this week have been very enjoyable for my wife and I. We are taking “birthing classes” for our soon to be son. Our homework this week has been for me to rub her back and head while she relaxes to soft music. She has thoroughly enjoyed it and thus, so have I. But we will be going out this Friday (our date night). Thanks for your wise counsel and kind words. God bless
BR
Billy Bear,
Normally I would just call you a liar, but in your case I think there is a possibility you may have a problem that brings about your constant vain babblings related to matters of such a silly nature.
I have done some research and have found there are several SYLVAN LEARNING CENTERS located throughout Alabama. Surely one is near your home.
I would be willing to pay for your first session if you sent me a valid receipt. Brad knows my phone number and address. I am sure he will share it with you.
cb
Brad,
I started participating in blogs and especially reading them after the decisions made by the IMB BOT.
I couldnt believe that policy changes could be made and I not know anything about any of the issues till after it was all done.
In SBC Life we do not have a real "press." Think about our country, the Senate and the House have full disclosure on what is going to be voted on, the meetings leading up to the vote may or may not be closed, but we know on such and such days certain legislation will be brought up. We can call our senators/congressmen, and let them know how we feel, we can read about the issues and educate ourselves about which way we would like to see our country head, this kind of accountability is lacking in SBC Life, there is little accountability after the trustees are elected.
For too long the SBC has operated with an air of secrecy or at least in a climate where the SBC family has little knowledge of what is happening in some areas of SBC Life.
So the blogs gave me info,(although we could debate about the accuracy of it all:) when the BP or other State Papers give me little to nothing. In this new blog world, "just send your money and let us run it" is not going to cut it anymore. Our leaders are going to have to learn to deal with this.
Blogs are the SB's nightline, NY Times, Newsweek, etc... A press that keeps the "system" accountable and gives an ability to hear different voices.
For years I thought I was out of place in SB Life, because I was not your standard Pre-Mil, Pre-Trib, Dispensational, KJV only, hymn singing, FAITH programmed, sweet-tea drinking Southern Baptist:) Surprise, surprise, surpries, thanks to the blogs, I have found that there are many others just as weird as me!
Willing to Cooperate with Non-tea drinkers and even let them sit at the same table,
Timothy
Brad,
I know that this was probably an oversight, but this is something that CB and I are very sensitive about and I would like for you to correct it. You stated that you are taking birthing classes for "your soon to be son."
I know you know that he was your son at conception and God knows him and he is wonderfully made. Please acknowledge this for I know we still have young men and women in the SBC who consider abortion as an alternative due to believing that personhood starts at birth and as you know that is wrong.
I know you and CB go back and forth over what you all feel to be world changing and very important matters. I know you guys can't help but do that because of the way God made you both.
But this matter of creation and sanctity of human life is important and I ask you as one who has been in that battle for over 30 years to address and correct your statement about your son.
We are praying for you, your wife and your son in this joyous time.
Love in Christ
Karen Scott
Brother Brad,
You have said something that resonates with me. My wife also gets very discouraged when she reads some of the things that are said about me. However, she too prays for those that are less than kind in references to me.
Keep the birthing classes fun and you will experience a bond with your wife that is closer than the one you now have. I have found that as the years move on the bond becomes stronger. I have also found that as conflict comes at us from outside, God speaks to us in our times together with Him.
Blessings,
Tim
ps My wife also found that prayers out of Psalm really make her feel better:>) (I'm kidding)
well, i went to the founders blog and to wade's blog again. why do i keep punishing myself. they are always so depressing. the founders cant get over that the debate fell through, even though they are really big on the sovereignty of God. and, i beleive that God is sovereign. thankfully, it didnt get off the ground. and really, it wouldnt have done anything but stir up more division and strife if it had of taken place.
and wade is saying that the sbc is gonna fall apart and go down the tubes unless we widen the tent.
wade made the comments that people in the pews dont care if calvinism is around or not....really? just ask the churches that have been severely hurt, or that have even split due to a five pointer coming in and trying to convert everyone.
wade said that no one in the pews cares if someone drinks alcohol or not. really? i have been in 9 churches in my life time. the people in the pews said a lot about the ones who would drink. it was not good things either. if i had of stated that i drank a beer, or mogan david, or a little white lightnin, i would have been asked to leave the church.
wade said that no one in the pews would care about people being baptized in other denominations joining our churches without getting baptised by an sbc church. really? that's not what i have seen in my neck of the woods.
wade said that people in the pews dont care about people having a ppl. well, i humbly disagree again.
wade said that it was just the pastors and denominational leaders who cared about such things. i hope that they would. otherwise, they shouldnt be leaders.
brad,
many of the people who comment on wade's blog call for widening the tent to include those who dont beleive that bible to be inerrant. they believe the bible has errors and contradictions, and they should be welcome in leadership positions. this greatly concerns me. it concerns me further when these people seem to be welcomed and told that they should be welcome in our sbc. people who dont believe that the bible is God's inerrant Word!?!
the sbc will fall apart if we narrow the tent we are told. what kind of an sbc will we have if we have people in leadership positions who believe that drinking alcohol for pleasure is ok....who believe that the bible is not inerrant...who believe that tongue speaking is ok...who believe that any baptism is ok as long as you were immersed...who believe that women should be able to pastor a church? weeellll, let me think here a minute....aint that the way we were going before 1979?
volfan007
ps. i love everybody.
Root Beer is fine. I don't drink!
Kevin and Jim
Should we meet this side of heaven. IBC is on the menu:)
BR
Volfan
I have not read either blog…I do hope you are stating their positions correctly. If so, then obviously I would disagree with Wade, as I do consistently on issues in the SBC. By the way the issue is not that we narrow the tent but that we not broaden it to become the ecumenical council of churches.
Also,
I want to let you and Bear know that I know CB personally and CB is not in the same bed as Wade and some of them other fellows. I disagree with CB on some things and feel he has been hood-winked but he is an old-warrior who has fought with those liberals. He has war wounds from the 80s. He believes in inerrancy and abstinance and has a problem with women pastors. I think you would find out he has more in common with you and Bear than he does not.
BR
Tim
Thanks my friend
Karen
You are right he is my son right now. April and I talk to him and read the Bible to him and pray with him every night. We are reading the Bible through in 6 months so that he will be exposed to the whole counsel of God even before he is born because he is a living person NOW.
Thank you
BR
Timothy
Thanks for sharing your experience in blogging.
I think in some ways some blogs are like the NYTimes but without accountability. We try to be more like Fox News here.
Further, I am confident we would disagree on the importance and integrity of the Trustee system and about how broad our SBC should become but I am certainly grateful you shared your reason for blogging and your camaraderie you have found.
God Bless
BR
Brad,
I read Karen's comment to you and I know you and April have the same passion that Karen and I do for the sancity of human life.
I also know (due to our continued involvement in the issue of human birth rights) that there are still many misguided Southern Baptist that think abortion is a proper alternative rather than being plain murder as it is.
I want you to know it thrills our hearts to hear you are reading the Word to him right now. The Spirit will bless that in his life and your's.
One word of advice: If he does go after the sport of football and gets the opportunity to play college ball remember Texas football is equal to a ladies' parlor game at best.
The real deal is in Alabama. He will do well to wear crimson and wash his jersey in TIDE :-)
cb
Brad
Your friend and mine, Mike Courtney, says hi. Bro. Mike just preached a meeting for me in the church I pastor. I understand you go back to his Tom Bean days. I was in Baily at the time. Looks like we may be closer than we thought.
Blessings
Jack
Brad,
Thank you brother, you are certinly right about the NY times ref to some blogs. As for cooperation, I truly affirm the BFM and think it should define cooperation and participation parameters in all of SBC life, I know that you and others think it needs help. If you want to add to it, get it done at the SBC convention. The Convention should speak for the convention.
Volfan,
I think you are totally misrepresenting comments on Brother Wades Blog, and until you prove that somebody has literally, said are typed that
"they believe the bible has errors and contradictions, and they should be welcome in leadership positions." You should ask for your post to be removed. Even if it has occurred, which I doubt, to say as you did,
"many of the people who comment on wade's blog call for widening the tent to include those who dont beleive that bible to be inerrant." is at best a misrepresentation and at worst an out right lie. Go back and try just try to find "many" who said they want inerrantists to be leaders.
Timothy
Timothy,
Thanks...I wish I knew that Wade agreed with you on the BFM2K. He has chosen not to answer the "difficult" questions.
BTW, I certainly don't want to add to the BFM2K but then again I don't want to take away from Trustees Trusteeship
BR
Jack
Tell Courtney hello. He is a good friend and a mentor to me. Glad to know "it's a small world."
CB
Didn't Alabama win something in football about 300 years ago:)
BR
timothy,
maybe you should go back and look up the comments of william madden and others in wade's blogs who say often that the bible is not inerrant. madden and some others have said often that the bible has errors and contradictions. wade does disagree with them, but he still calls them brothers in Christ. also, has wade not consistently called for people like vestal and w. moore and those in the moderate/liberal state conventions of texas and virginia to be asked back into the tent? those who sided with people who denied the absolute trustworthiness of the bible? those, who during the conservative resurgence, fought for the rights of liberals, who were false teachers in our seminaries and serving in our sbc agencies to keep on spouting thier hellish lies? i dont know about you, but i dont trust men who will fight for the right of seminary prof.s to call God a woman, or to say that people who believe in the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus are crass...or stupid. do you?
if wade, and all of you who support wade, are for keeping out those who dont believe in the inerrancy of scripture...to keep them out of leadership positions... then i will apologize for my statement. personally, i dont know how you can call someone who denies the trustworthiness of Gdos Word a brother in Christ. i dont consider them a bro. in Christ. i call them what jude called them. apostates...false teachers.
timothy,
i suggest that you go to wades blog under irenic conservatives blog. look up madden's comment.
also, timothy, i wont call you names, nor call you a liar. i will just say, God bless you. i pray that the Lord will pour out His love and grace upon you in a wonderful way today.
from the hills of tn,
volfan007
Volfan
In all fairness to Wade, I have never seen him say he wanted Vestal or others like him to come back in our tent, he has called them conservative which prompted my questions under my post, “Legitimate Concerns with Bloggers.” He has yet to answer these legitimate questions and until he does they will plague him. I would love to hear him state on a post on his blog that he believes that “if one does not affirm inerrancy they should never be a M for the SBC.” I think he also needs to address the women in pastorate issue also. Having said all that I return to my purpose for commenting here. I think you have been unfair to Wade and his beliefs. And I want to provide a blog, which is fair and open-minded and an example to other blogs. You and I agree on the issues but let’s be fair to those we disagree with.
BR
To Volfan and All
I do want to let you know I have some more legitimate concerns.
1. He nor any other blogger that I have read yet, has posted the vote from the SWBTS Trustees on the tongue issue. My understanding is that the Trustees affirmed Dr. Patterson’s position on tongues almost unanimously…there was only 1 vote against (Dr. McKissic). Interesting that they did not report on the actions the Trustees did take, but they reported on the actions that the Trustees did not take. Talk about slanted reporting! Perhaps that is why more and more are reading this blog for a more accurate and unspinned report of things in the convention. The bias of others is evident.
2. Wade says in his latest post, "The current problem we face in the convention is an attempt to make everyone conform to, and affirm completely, ONE uniform interpretation of the above named issues. There are some in leadership who see themselves as the guardians and gatekeepers of doctrinal purity, and feel it their calling to either remove Southern Baptists from leadership who don't side with them, or at least to prevent any Southern Baptist from serving as a trustee or employee of an SBC agency who disagrees." Yet he gives no evidence this is occurring. NONE! I said NONE! In fact I know of no one in leadership positions in the SBC who is calling for narrowing the SBC. I know of many who are asking that we not widen it to become something other than Baptist. Now he has consistently asked for those who make accusations to evidence their accusations (to not do so is ad hominems which he is standing firmly against or so he says) but he refuses to do so.
What is most ironic as far as I am concerned is that he begins the post by stating that Dr. Patterson “has graciously and publicly affirmed Dr. Mohler, but is miles apart…soteriologically.” His very beginning belittles any implication that Patterson wants to narrow the convention.
BR
One other thing
Both Jeremy Green's Blog and Bart Barber's blog give a good analysis of the SWBTS vote on the tongue issue.
www.sbcpastor.blogspot.com
and
praisegodbarebones.blogspot.com
Brother Brad,
What is interesting to me is that when the vote is spoken about it is in a way that makes the SWBTS Trustees look like they are robots.
The men that I know as trustees are very Godly and wise men. They are not perfect and I am sure there are some caught up in the personality of popularity. However, it is not so for the majority. Many trustees that I know will stand for things they believe are Scriptural regardless of who brings a suggestion.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim
I agree. Anyone who knows anything about the SWBTS Trustees knows one thing for sure…they are NOT rubberstamp Trustees. I don’t think any of our boards have that, but I know SW does not. I think the blogs have revealed that most pastors in the SBC think on their own and agree on some things but disagree on others. Many pastors are use to speaking their vision to their congregation and being affirmed immediately…to assume these pastors as well as the other men and women on the Trustee board of SW don’t think independently reveals ones total ignorance of who these Trustees are.
I have had the privilege of meeting some who are businessmen, and I assure you, they think for themselves. Besides many of them are Texans – you know how independent that group is.
You can always tell a Texan – you can’t tell him much – but you can always tell a Texan:)
BR
Brad,
Thank you for your even handed-ness. In response to "narrowing," The IMB BOT "narrowed" the possible candidates to be M's with their policy change. Forget about whether we agree if this is righ or wrong, but it did change a previous practice. In the same fashion, Dr. P's response to McKissic now, for the 1st time "narrows" what is acceptable at SWBTS concerning "PPL." I think Dwight pointed out that this excludes SB's past and present from teaching at SWBTS. (Interestingly, after reading Dr. P's commentary on 1 Cor that I recieved when I attended SEBTS, Patterson either has changed his mind on this issue and has violated what a principle he affirmed in his book, namely, to not forbid the speaking in tongues).
Volfan,
I do not ever want ANYBODY in SBC leadership who would not affirm the Inerrancy of Scripture. The liberals are gone: PTL!
But I personally am not afraid of SB's who do not see the prohibition movement as normative for all christians, nor do I have a phobia of SB's who have a PPL.
I will look at the blog you referred to, but I still stand by that fact that your reference, implication, and description of Wade's blog that it is a continuance cry for people who deny the innerancy of scripture to be in leadership is a wrong description read your words again you said "many of the people who comment on wade's blog call for widening the tent to include those who dont beleive that bible to be inerrant. they believe the bible has errors and contradictions" This simply is not true, it is not "many" it may be one or two?
Timothy
Brad,
you said: "I certainly don't want to add to the BFM2K but then again I don't want to take away from Trustees Trusteeship"
Which of the two are a higher priority to you? Not adding to the BF&M2000 or taking from Trustees Trusteeship?
A straight answer would be great, one or the other, which has more value to you?
Thanks Brad
Timothy and Fox
Were Southern Baptists narrowing the tent went Dr. Adrian Rogers led the way with the BFM2K? For the first time in history a Baptist confession addressed women pastors. Did Dr. Rogers lead a charge of tent-narrowing?
Some would say yes. I would say no. Southern Baptists have always and historically affirmed the pastorate was reserved for men; however, it was never an issue before. But when some in the SBC began to espouse that Scripture allows for women pastors, the leaders felt a need to put in print what we have long held.
To say the IMB and/or NAMB have not had policies on tongues is just erroneous. Until the 70’s-80’s it was not even an issue in the SBC because we did not have a problem with M’s speaking in tongues. But with the charismatic influence infiltrating Missions around the world it began creeping into the SBC. Hence for the first time there came a need to respond. NAMB developed a written policy during the time that Dr. Adrian Rogers was president of the SBC. The IMB had an unwritten policy enforced by its president Dr. Keith Parks. Dr. Parks is not what you would call a flaming narrow conservative, however, even he realized tongue speaking is not who we are as SB. He would fire M’s for speaking in tongues and I know of one incident where he sent a RL with firing power to address an M interpreting tongues on the field. When Dr. Rankin became president (he has a PPL) it is my understanding that he implemented (without the approval of trustees) a “don’t ask don’t tell” type of policy where M’s were required to sign a sheet of paper where they would not speak publicly in tongues and would not advocate tongues. Inevitably, this policy could not insure such practice. If tongues were an important “spiritual experience” to a believer then he would certainly share that with his converts in the discipleship progress, especially with the charismatic influence on the field. When Trustees realized this was happening and there were problems on the field they decided to look into the policies, they found the “don’t ask don’t tell” and realized this accomplished nothing in practice and so they developed some guidelines! These guidelines give more wriggle room than policy. However, in an ironic twist of fate the administration, desiring that the guidelines be removed took them to the full board (it was an all or nothing move – because if the Trustees supported their fellow Trustees the “guidelines” would become “policy” if they didn’t they the guidelines would be removed). The full board agreed to the guidelines and thus they became policy.
Now, you would probably say that is narrowing the tent. I would argue that it is refusing to enlarge beyond who Southern Baptist have historically been and I think history is on my side:)
Hope this helps
BR
Also, Fox the answer to your question would depend upon what was added to the BFM2K. If we added the statement that “God is the Creator of all creation” then I would most certainly say I would rather add to the BFM. If we added the statement that “one must be a cessationist to be a good Baptist then I would rather look to ways of changing Trusteeship. However, I do not think it is either or, I believe we can do what we have been doing for the past 6 years – not adding to the BFM2K and not removing the Trusteeship of Trustees.
BR
Wayne
If you want me to post your comment I will, but I think it was primarily for informational purposes for me. Since you didn't cite the comments I will have to go back and go through the couple of hundred comments in the post you referenced and see if there are any that the commenters asked me to remove that I did not...this may take some time.
I hope you are doing better from your surgery I will pray for you later today...God bless
BR
Brad,
Thanks for the Prayers and your not posting my comment to you is okay by me. Thanks for looking.
I really appreicate your new Tone and Blog Post.
CB
thanks for being a True Brother in Christ.
In His Name
Wayne Smith
Billy Bear,
Are you saying Wade is the new Pope? I have wondered of whom you were speaking.
Wade is no Pope. He cannot do the Mass in Latin:-) He would not pass the Cardinals' expectations.
Also, he would never wear anything on his head that would mess up his hair.
Now, in relation to Sylvan Learning Centers: I notice you wrote without your cornpone grammer in your statement to Brad and you employed it again when addressing me.
Obviously you do not need help other than to once again be scolded for the dog and pony show act being hypocrisy.
cb
Brad,
In my opinion, the theological direction of the Burleson-Blogger coalition is one that is drastically different from the trajectory of the Conservative Resurgence. Their mantra of widening the tent of the SBC is nothing more than ecumenicalism. Furthermore, I too cannot be silent when lies are being propagated against the godly men that boldly stood for the truth so that the next generation of Southern Baptists could have the benefit of a convention that unashamedly stood for the inerrancy of the Bible. How can we be selfish and choose the easy route when others have sacrificed so much for us?
In response to your questions:
BR: “Do you think that those who participate on blogs already have their minds made up on the issues and cannot see the others’ views?”
IMHO, most of the individuals that comment regularly on blogs appear to already have their minds made up on most issues – there are no doubt exceptions. Since the convention in June, other individuals, such as you, have entered the blogosphere and have provided a completely different perspective on current issues within the SBC. The result has been that some of those who originally supported the Burleson-Blogger coalition have come to see that the current issues within the SBC are not political but rather theological in nature.
Burleson, a self-proclaimed conservative, has in my opinion provided overwhelming evidence that his doctrinal position could more accurately be described as a theological moderate (please see my post, entitled, “Wade Burleson: Why I am Concerned”).
BR: “Is blogging a wise use of time? Does it accomplish anything for the kingdom?”
The answers to these questions are certainly debatable and will no doubt vary with each individual. Personally, I believe that the recent presence of more and more theological conservatives in the blogosphere has shed some much needed light on the fact that the intended direction of the Burleson-Blogger coalition is one that will lead our convention to take a leftward turn theologically.
The cooperative missions’ effort of the SBC is a vehicle that God is using in a mighty way to reach people throughout the world with the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ. If we remain quiet and allow moderates and liberals to reverse the theological course of the SBC, set by the Conservative Resurgence, then there will no doubt be eternal repercussions. A convention that devalues the importance of theology will soon lose its’ heart for missions and evangelism – that is what the Conservative Resurgence was all about!
Although conservative Southern Baptists are certainly outnumbered in the blogosphere, we are in the majority in the local churches of our convention. That is what enabled the Conservative Resurgence to take place. That is why the overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists approved the BF&M six years ago. That is also why the overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists voted in favor of the alcohol resolution for the 60th time this past summer. Furthermore, that is why Southern Baptists will overwhelmingly vote next summer that 1) we do not want our missionaries advocating charismatic practices such as PPL on the mission field, and 2) that every Southern Baptist Trustee must be able to honestly, unashamedly, wholeheartedly, and unequivocally affirm the BF&M without any written, or unwritten, caveats whatsoever!
BR: “Is it worth the abuse that apparently accompanies it?”
There are many times when I do not feel like it is worth it. However, I know that it is worth it. Standing for the truth of God’s Word is always worth it! Preserving the conservative direction of our convention so that we can reach the world for Christ is always worth it! Please do not be discouraged. I am praying for you. Many others are praying for you. Please continue to faithfully stand for the truth!
Thanks and God bless!!!
In Christ,
JLG
Keep them coming! As a signer and Pastor and SBC 38Yr member, we must hold the ground we have gained. I have a started a new blog at http://sbcinterruption.blogspot.com/ since my ministry blog was hammered today. I will be posting weekly and strongly. May God give us grace and may He prevail!
All,
There is a great interview with former IMB Chairman Tom Hatley posted at the Criswell Theological Review.
I think you will be interested.
Brad,
I do not have a problem with the Convention "narrowing" the parameters of cooperation. This is what the BFM is all about. I do have a problem with Dr. P and any trustees, IMO usurping the authority of the convention, and going beyond the BFM. We did the right thing in changing the BFM as it concerns scriputre, homosexuality, marriage, and women as pastors. If we want to do something about "tongues" then do it. I may disagree with it, but at least it will be done by the proper authority in the convention, the "convention."
Timothy
bubba bear,
thank you for remembering that. there was also more said along those lines in past blog entries. but, bubba, did you see that feller call me a liar?
wow!
i always tell the truth. sometimes i get confused, or i dont hear thangs right, but a liar?!!!!!????! no sir!
dont appreciate being called one either. do you, bear?
well, i hope yall are having a good day of worship like we're having here.
from the hills of tn,
volfan007
Brad: I started blogging because I like to write. I love to communicate with others. I like to hear their stories. Reading your blog has been enlightening. I really don't understand all that's going on with folks named in the blog. But I do understand divided spirits, opposing viewpoints and where all that can lead. My heart goes out to your wife. As a pastor's wife, my greatest pain was not from what people thought of me, but what they said about, did to, and thought of my husband. May God's grace be poured out on you, your wife and all others involved. May God's Holy Spirit minister to your wounded hearts and fill you with peace and give you wisdom. selahV
CB
You have good thoughts, and you know I will post your concerns on issues and even personalities but I didn't post your last comment...please reword it. I am trying to be overly cautious on things now.
Thanks - your friend
BR
SelahV
You are gracious.kind and wise...I saw your comment on another blog concerning where Israel gained her finances. Keep going:)
Thanks for your prayers...April and I went to birthing class again last night, we are really excited
BR
Timothy,
We have no evidence of anyone usurping the authority in the SBC...NONE!
However, we certainly have bloggers who appear to be trying to usurp the authority of Trustees...this is my concern.
BR
Jerry
Thanks for the heads up
Tim
My brother, stay the course. More and more truth is being revealed as more of you Godly men enter the discussion. There was a time when one point of view was all that was heard in the bloggosphere. And IMHO it was the wrong view. Now more and more truth is coming out and rest assured you will be attacked. God will give you grace. Also, thanks for the insight you reveal in your Saturday, Oct. 21 post. Apparently you are not the only one whose comments are not posted at that blog. That is most interesting.
JLG
As always your comments are wise and insightful.
BR
To All
My concern is not that Southern Baptists are narrowing anything. We are not. My concern is that some want to widen our tent to become a new Baptist World Alliance, cloaked under the name of the SBC.
Historically, when ecumenicalism is embraced theological purity is compromised.
I will fight tooth and nail in order to maintain our doctrinal purity and our distinctives. I will not sit idly by while some try to widen the tent at the expense of doctrine!
While I have no problem working with brothers and sisters in Christ from other denominations (such as Presbyterian or Assembly of God, etc) for the sake of the kingdom, I do have a problem with paying them with CP funds.
Some bloggers seem to want to muddy the waters and confuse the issues. They equate working with Charismatics as paying them with CP funds. There is a huge difference.
BR
Bear
Les does have an insightful post for Friday the 20th.
Also, I read the Criswell article interviewing Tom Hatley recommended by Jerry. It is a good article, worthy of our time to read. Let me state that Mr. Burleson has posted a response also.
BR
Brad,
You said,
"I will fight tooth and nail in order to maintain our doctrinal purity and our distinctives. I will not sit idly by while some try to widen the tent at the expense of doctrine!"
All I am trying to say, is that the place that SB's have identified their "distinctives" has always been in our confessions: London, Philadelphia, New Hampshire, and our BFM's. IMO this is where "distinctives" are identified, not by trustees or by presidents.
I used the "usurping" authority reference in relation to the fact that I firmly believe that when it comes to "doctrinal/theological" matters the BFM speaks for the convention. It is the ONLY convention approved statement of faith. I will retract "ursurping", it is a strong word, but they have gone outside of the confession of Faith approved, adopted, and accepted by the Convention.
Tell me this, if the trustees, at any of the seminaries decided, by recomendation of the President, to set a policy against the hiring of any professors that are openly 5 point calvinists, how would that be received? They are in the minority of the conveniton, they are not representative of what the majority of SB's would belive. I personally think this theology could be harmful to the churches (evangelistically) if taken too far.
My point: Forget about the particular doctrines, whether it be tongues, calvinism or whatever, to me the greater issue is that SB doctrine is typically defined in the BFM. The BFM has been the guide for our cooperation as autonomous churches. The BFM excludes some, no problem, it should. But if we want to limit cooperation with particular groups of people, it should be addressed by the convention in the BFM.
Timothy
Brad,
If you hadn't started blogging...you wouldn't have met me! :)
Joy,
Cliff
Timothy
Thanks for clarifying and your kind spirit in doing so. Dr. Hatley has an excellent answer to your question in the Criswell Review we have been referencing. I encourage you to read all of it. While, some may disagree with Dr. Hatley totally on the IMB issues he makes some good points.
As to a seminary setting a policy so as to never hire 5 point Calvinists I think that would be very poorly received. We have a branch in the river called Southern Baptist which flows from such theology, so I think it would be a mistake and I could not support it.
As I said before the BFM is not our only guide as SB, Southeastern and Southern also have the Abstract which goes further in some instances than the BFM…furthermore, our policies concerning who can be admitted as students certainly go further (we don’t permit use of alcohol here – BFM doesn’t address it)
BR
Cliff
Meeting you and others is the joy of blogging. By the way, I am considering throwing in a student ministry post from time to time...what do you think?
BR
Tim
Thanks for the heads up
Tim
I read the article. Excellent article presenting a different perspective than McKissic's by another African American on the BOT at SW.
BR
I have considered on a number of occations approaching you about doing that very thing! I'd love to see you start a seperate blog on the topic! I'm a bit passionate about issues of theology and youth ministry. I think it might be fruitfull for us to have a forum to discuss many of the challenges that face the church today in the area of youth. Start by posting Dr. Reid's essay entitled "Raising the Bar."
Joy,
Cliff
Amen Tim!, but its not Wade's Way! :)
Steve :)
Brad,
I understand your having to delete my post or not publishing it what ever was the case. Wade did the same on the same day. Truth was a little hot for some on that day I guess.
In your case I said the boy disrespects women and has a problem telling the truth.
In Wade's case I said his primary antagonist was a coward and also had a problem with telling the truth.
So, if you will allow me I will lighten it up and simply say to the hat and the fan: "LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE!!!!:-)
How's that for rewording.
Now you must be as was Shakespeare: "To delete or not delete. That is the question" :-)
cb
I agree with Marty Brad, for a no spin zone there are certainly some twists and turns.
Ecumenicalism? Bubba Bears statements; usurping Trustees authority and the list goes on. To say that this is about ecumenicalism is to completely distort what is being said. Those you oppose are simply saying that those who believe in the basic fundamentals yet disagree with your interpretation on non-essentials(which have been raised by some to essentials)should be able to serve in the SBC. They should be able to serve side by side with someone such as yourself. That's it, that's all. There is no hidden agenda. The words that have been written are exactly all that is being said. Yet rumors are flying like cotton in the wind; with you starting many of them. The imaginations are running rampant.
As far as the article goes, that has been addressed. That too is pretty simple.
Debbie,
If you can site one evidence where I have twisted something I will gladly correct it. However, claiming it is twisted without any evidence does not make it twisted. I know what Marty said, but I spoke to a Trustee who told me he had read my blog and Marty was WRONG. It was a PRIVATE, closed door meeting…the Trustee also wondered where Marty got his quote from Trustee material.
I agree the imaginations run wild on the blogosphere: like “kingmakers” in the SBC trying to narrow the tent with no evidence given. For consideration about my “interpretation of nonessentials” please read Dr. Caner’s article. It is my latest post.
I hope you have a great week and thank you for your concern for the SBC. God will certainly honor that.
BR
Tim
Excellent Thoughts
BR
Brad said "My concern is not that Southern Baptists are narrowing anything. We are not. My concern is that some want to widen our tent to become a new Baptist World Alliance, cloaked under the name of the SBC.
Historically, when ecumenicalism is embraced theological purity is compromised.
I will fight tooth and nail in order to maintain our doctrinal purity and our distinctives. I will not sit idly by while some try to widen the tent at the expense of doctrine!
While I have no problem working with brothers and sisters in Christ from other denominations (such as Presbyterian or Assembly of God, etc) for the sake of the kingdom, I do have a problem with paying them with CP funds.
Some bloggers seem to want to muddy the waters and confuse the issues. They equate working with Charismatics as paying them with CP funds. There is a huge difference."
Let's start here.
I have read Dr. Caner's white paper. It is full of what the scripture given to support PPL is not saying and low on any scripture at all. It's full of what tradition says and appears more propoganda than a theological paper.
Thank you for allowing me to comment and for your kindness Brad.
Debbie
I think dr. Caner handles the Scripture well and does a great job historically. however, Dr. Malcolm Yarnell's paper handles Scripture well also. Hopefully, I wlll post that soon...I want to get Dr. Yarnell's permission.
BR
Post a Comment