Last year a stir was created in the SBC over apparent Theological Issues. This summer this controversy was extended from Baptism/Tongues to Alcohol and even women pastors. At GuardianMinistries we are systematically addressing these issues and explaining why Southern Baptists have always stood where we stand today. Nevertheless, as more conversation takes place as to the validity of the historical position of SB on these issues, I imagine the ones who initiated this controversy will switch tactics.
I feel quite confident that when those generating the controversy realize they can’t win the theological debate they will begin a more subtle political maneuver of playing on individual’s emotions. However, this ploy will also fail, for Southern Baptists are smarter than that.
Nevertheless, the following is what I expect to see in the future:
1. Accusations or insinuations of a Pope or puppet-master in the SBC. These accusations or insinuations will have no merit other than the imaginations of conspiracy-theorists in our convention. However, the lack of merit will not stop some from making such attacks.
2. Emotional pleas for individuals who have been “apparently” mistreated or “left out”…and yet in reality the individuals will usually have brought their isolation on themselves.
3. Claims of “narrowing parameters” will be consistently made as a scare tactic to Calvinists and young pastors.
4. Emotional pleas to make the tent wider will be made.
With this in mind here are my suggestions for reading blogs:
1. If there are insinuations in a blog post that there is a pope or power-master in the SBC, ask yourself, “Did the blogger site any evidence WHATSOEVER or does he/she just expect us to trust their conspiracy theory?”
2. Did the blog post deal with any theological issue or was there some “tug” on people’s heart-strings for a certain political movement or personality in the SBC?
3. If there is a claim that SB are “narrowing parameters,” ask yourself, “if any evidence is given, or if this is a scare tactic born out of conspiracy-theorists?”
4. If you read a plea to make the tent wider, ask yourself, “at what cost to truth do we want peace?” Ecumenicalism is not evil and Christians should cooperate with other denominations, but there is a reason I am a Southern Baptists and I have no desire to lose our identity in order to pay Charismatics or Moderates to be our missionaries.
My hope is that all SB blogs will deal with the issues rather than personalities or conspiracy-theories. With that in mind we will soon begin our look into the issue of Baptism.
BR
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
74 comments:
Oh goody! I can't wait.
brad,
once again....great insightful comments.
do you know that wade will not allow my comments to be posted on his site? i asked him to explain why he was calling people names...like jr. pastors. and, i asked him why he would make such an unfounded, harsh insinuation about a good school like mid america baptist seminary. he would not allow my post.
even though, i have seen wade come down hard on those who insinuate bad things about those that he likes, and he is supposed to be irenic...is he not?
well, i am going to get off wade. but, i found it interesting that he lays off for 40 days, and then comes right back into the blogging world with mckissic for man of the year, and the bad jr. pastors and mid america seminary are trying to thwart his takeover. wow! then, he wont let people who disagree with him and his agenda comment...especially if they are calling him to task over harsh, unfounded, ad hominem attacks.
volfan007
Brad,
You know I see no need for a tent as long as we have the Bible and Jesus said the Bible will stand forever.
You know I believe an open Bible and an open mind will make a Baptist every time.
cb
Now, for the area we disagree. Not all conspiacy-theories are theories or lies. There has been conspiracy in SBC life conspired and perpetrated by some folks that are really good at it and by some that are not so good at it. Those not so good at it just had plenty of support from people that chose to keep their heads in the sand.
Now, for what we can agree on: An open Bible and an open mind will also make a conservative Southern Baptist every time. Where we mess up is closing the Bible that made us conservative Southern Baptist and seeking power, glory, fame and pleasure and still claiming our Bible is open.
I do not believe your Bible is closed. I believe you are an honest man. I am trying to be, but I guess I fail more than most. One thing is a fact, though, I know that not all conspiracy theories are lies and not all that have revealed them are liars.
cb
CB
All I ask for is that if one claims a conspiracy of potentates that one give evidence of such, rather than asking us to just trust them. To date I have seen no evidence.
Concerning the things we agree on...I think they are for more dangerous than what we disagree on:)
BR
volfan
I really don't want to deal with personalities here. I hate you were unable to post on his site. All views are certainly welcome here.
You peeked my interest, however, and I read his latest post. I'll just say I disagree with him and he is making me out to be a prophet (although he apparently posted that before I posted this).
I do find it interesting that, apparently, if you are a young pastor who agrees with him then you would be a great leader in the SBC who has been neglected by the current leadership, but if you disagree with him then you are a jr. pastor.
Anyway, enough of that, let's look forward to discussing baptism...I think Bart is excited about that:)
BR
Brad,
I yrust you don't misrepresent the truth on a regular basis on your blog.
Your computer i.d. and unique stamp show on my blog prior to this post,
Maybe it was your wife . . .
or kids.
:)
Caught.
Brad,
I'm curious, would you also apply these points, mostly 2 & 3, to all of the Southern Baptist news publications? If so, will you point these out?
Thanks,
Mark
Wade,
Actually, I looked to see if you were up and blogging again but I do not read your posts unless someone references them here or in an e-mail to me, (I really don't have the time nor do I desire to get into a spitting contest with anyone - and I almost never read comments that are made on other blogs). That is not to say that what you or anyone else writes is not important to many.
I also checked to see if Marty was blogging again (he was not). I even checked your blog this morning to see if you have posted a new post (although honestly, I didn't read through it either). I know very well that my computer is tracked on almost every blog I go to (I'm not as ignorant as some may assume) and I really have nothing to hide. I have found that if we are honest about our actions we never have to worry.
I know blogging is very important to many, and I know God has led many to blog, including myself, but it is becoming less and less important to me.
I do not misrepresent truth and your implication is not well recieved, but you are forgiven my brother.
By the way thanks for coming here again and posting comments, I thought you said you would not do that again, sometimes we are caught:)
By the way I have no children yet although April and I are expecting our first within a couple of weeks:)
BR
John Mark
I am very uncomfortable with emotional pleas from the pulpit or papers or anywhere, that is not to say that we should not have good illustrations or inform others what is happening on the mission field, it is to say that we should seek willfull decisions and not emotional ones.
concerning #3 = Yes
BR
Wade
One last thing. Perhaps you could e-mail volfan and explain why you didn't post his comment...he seems frustrated about that and I am sure you desire to work with those who disagree with you.
BR
Brad,
I have commented on several occasions at your blog and you have chosen not to post the comments. I have absolutely no problem with you refusing to to do so since this is your blog.
I simply assumed you would not post the above comment either, but I am glad you did.
However, you must have left your computer on when you stopped by to 'look' or 'check' if I was blogging. The time stamp indicates it was a long look, so you must have been distracted doing other things.
I freely accept your forgiveness Brad, but since I did not ask for it, I guess there is a reason why you granted it.
By the way, congratulations on your impending child! That's great news and I really do wish you and your wife the best -- and many more Reynold's kids.
Wade
Wade
My brother I have NEVER refused to post your comments, unless you have asked me not to post them. I have no idea of what you are speaking, If you can, please reference which ones you are speaking of...anyone who visits here knows I post all comments unless they are extremely mean-spirited. And to my knowledge you have not been so.
I posted the above comment because I do not refuse to post comments nor do I have anything to hide.
Concerning your time stamp, I do not know exactly the time when I first checked to see if you were blogging, but I do know I read your post after volfan brought it to my attention, which was yesterday afternoon sometime, although he commented last night on this post, which I did not post until this morning,
Honestly I still have not read all of it, although I did click on the link to sbcpastors blog and I did read all of that. Further, my post was written yesterday morning, in fact I e-mailed a man (I have the e-mails) whose article I will be posting soon on baptism, yesterday morning after I wrote my post.
As you can affirm from your time stamp I have checked in periodically this past week to see if you were up and blogging.
Hope this helps clear things up for you. If not please feel free to e-mail me. I have no desire for this to be a back and forth between me and you. I really have no desire to get in a spitting contest for all the world to read. I would prefer to deal with issues.
BR
Wade
Thank you also for you wish for me and my wife. We are both excited. It is a boy (Kelton) and our plans are to have many more, if God see's fit.
I would treasure the prayers of all who read this, since I will be entering an area of which I am unfamiliar (fatherhood).
BR
Brad,
Thanks for clearing things up. I just found it curious that you mentioned on multiple occasions in your post and this comment string that you have not 'read' my posts, and that your post was written without reading mine, but you have 'checked' or 'looked' at my blog on multiple occasions in the last week, sometimes for 'minutes' at a time, but 'never' reading it.
I don't think you will be harmed if you read what I write, nor should you be afraid of others knowing that you read what I write. :)
Nevertheless, thanks for the clarification and I hope you have a great weekend.
Brad,
It seems that you've 'assumed' the position of you and yours 'being in the right' and all those who disagree with you as being that component which will turn to more 'subtle political maneuvers' to have their way within the SBC. I certainly agree that (a) there is no reason to bring individual personalities into ANY exegetical discussion of what is true and what is not (i.e. the Pope accusation), (b) there is no reason to resort to emotional tactics (although I've found more than a few who are willing to resort to emotional tactics as support for alcohol abstention - you know, the 'look what alcohol has done to our families' or 'I have a good friend who was killed by a drunk driver') and (c) there is no reason to have ANY parameters EXCEPT Biblical parameters.
So, I agree with the 'thrust' of your argument, brother, but is it possible that those who disagree do so in a manner which is befitting a Christian and that some changes in the SBC may be the result of orderly and Christlike discussion? I have seen much animosity and un-Christlike behaviour from BOTH sides dear brother, and I yearn for the time when BOTH sides are capable of discussing relevant issues without resorting to temper tantrums, name calling, etc.
Grace and peace,
PTL
Brad,
Thanks for the post. I truly appreciate your honesty and willingness to speak the truth. Sadly, those are two qualities that are seemingly absent in many baptist blogs, with a few exceptions of course. I too believe that the tactics of the theological moderates and liberals will be emotive in nature. It only stands to reason due to the fact that weak theology will always be exposed in the light/truth of God's Word. Your wife and soon to be born child will be in our prayers this holiday season. God bless and Merry Christmas!!!
In Christ,
Jeremy
Wade
If I offended you in any way about my comment about not reading your posts please forgive me. It is not that I am not interested in what you have to say, nor do I think what you have to say is not important. There are and will be times when, as I have time, I read your blog...perhaps I will read your upcoming posts...but this is a really busy time of year for me.
I certainly agree, I will not be harmed by reading your blog and I am really not concerned if others know I read it or not.
To be quite frank when I do check out blogs (and your time stamp will reveal it is not everyday) if the title interests me, I will begin reading, if I lose interest after the first paragraph, I stop.
Furthermore, I do not mind letting everyone know that the blogs I usually check out are yours, Marty's, Tom Ascoll's, Ben Cole's, Jeremy Green's, Bart Barber's, Tim Roger's and the other links I provide...sometimes I go to Art Rogers also, although I have not been there for a while.
Also, again, if you can reference any comments you have made that I did not post please help me here. I think you were mistaken here my brother.
Thanks
BR
PTL
If I implied that all who disagree with me with turn to more subtle political maneuvers I apologize. However, I do think that as SOME lose the debate theologically they will turn to such.
On the rest of your comment we agree:)
Jeremy
Your prayers are truly cherished. Thank You
BR
Brad and Jeremy,
Thanks for the posts. I truly appreciate your honesty and willingness to speak the truth. Sadly, those are two qualities that are seemingly absent in many baptist blogs, with a few exceptions of course. I too believe that the tactics of the spooky fundamentalists will be emotive in nature. It only stands to reason due to the fact that weak theology will always be exposed in the light/truth of God's Word. Your wife and soon to be born child will be in our prayers this holiday season. God bless and Merry Christmas!
In Christ,
Wade
P.S. The above are Jeremy's words but for two. This is simply a comment that acts as both a mirror and a test. We'll see whether or not Jeremy sees the beauty of the image and whether or not Brad passes the test. :)
Now my words:
I wish you both a great day and a wonderful weekend.
Wade
Again, would you reference any comments of yours I have not posted? You made an accusation, which begs the question about honesty and truth.
BR
Brad,
I would not expect too much in the honesty and truth categories from a trustee with integrity issues: such as signing/affirming the BF&M without being in complete agreement with its contents – such as Burleson has done. However, that is just the humble opinion of a “spooky fundamentalist” that is merely a “junior pastor” of a “small start up church” :0). God bless and Merry Christmas!!!
In Christ,
JLG
Gentlemen,
Please forgive my lack of diligence this morning. I feel I may have allowed things to get a little personel and it is totally my fault. Please help me in this in the future.
If I have offended any with personel remarks I do ask your forgiveness.
I would like to encourage us all, myself primarily, to stay on the issues and not make this personel, and to the degree we have offended each other let us be quick to forgive.
Thank you both for participating and Jeremy I am very appreciative of your stand for truth, you have taken some unwarranted hits.
Wade, I also admire your fortitude and desire to stand for what you believe is true, although I think you are wrong on many of your views. I would encourage you to provide evidence if you ever imply that there are puppet masters in the SBC or if we are narrowing parameters from our historical and Biblical positions.
Finally, I have done my best to be totally transparent for I have nothing to hide and if you can evidence comments I have not posted I would appreciate it, if not I would appreciate that you not make such an accusation.
BR
Brad, you passed the test.
Jeremy, you failed to see the mirror.
Blessings to you both.
wade
P.S. Brad, I do not have the comments saved or archived or I would send them. Thank you for asking.
I'd like to know how Wade Burleson is tracking how much time a particular person is spending reading a page on his blog.
HTTP is a stateless protocol. Once your browser requests and receives the page, your computer and the server are out of communication with each other until and unless you happen to request something additional from that server. Each request is completely independent, and nothing in HTTP works to track how long someone reads a particular page.
Caught?
Wade
I assure you, either you thought you sent them and did not, or they got lost in cyber-space: I never recieved comments from you, that I didn't post.
Everyone who posts here (even those who disagree adamantly with me) knows that I post ALL comments, unless they are overly mean-spirited (and sometimes I am even lax in that area).
Furthermore, if a comment is mean-spirited I will ask the commenter to rewrite it.
I would appreciate that you not accuse me of that, which I have not done (for both of our sakes).
BR
What can be measured is the time until you load the next page. This is done by inserting a script into the page that transmits data to itself when the page is unloaded. But it is an unreliable measure of actual time spent looking at the page for a number of reasons.
Also, Brad, I encourage you to think about this: How does he know which computer is yours? Unless you have a static IP address, there is no way for him to know.
Bart
I could not answer your question. I have no idea has these things work. But an excellent question.
BR
Brad,
This will be my last comment on your blog since I am on my way out of town for a basketball tournament in which my son is participating. Brad, I appreciate your openness and candor in this comment string, not to mention your spirit. I find all three commendable and worth modeling.
My point in my next to last comment which used Pastor Jeremy's words is simply to point out I do not believe the kingdom of Christ is strengthened - nor relationships broadened - by labeling, name calling or the like. Calling evangelical Bible believing conservatives liberal or moderates, or saying a pastor who is twice as old as you and has started a church from scratch that now runs over 2,000 in worship is throwing 'a temper tantrum'does not help the kingdom.
Unfortunately, some do not seem to respond to gracious comments. I think we must be wise as serpents and gentle as doves in order to determine the best approach to get one's point across, and yesterday I chose the wise serpent approach with Pastor Jeremy.
I do not intend to continue that approach. It is not my style, but I will use it, without apology, when I believe it is needed. For those who still wonder of the appropriateness of identifying Pastor Green as a junior pastor(29 years of age at a church with no other pastors), I would simply say Jeremy has received a tablespoon of his own medicine, and hopefully it will act as an antidote against further name calling and labeling by him.
If not, I shall continue addressing the issues as I have the last year, and will seek to ignore all personal attacks on me, but reserve the right to defend others, like I have Dwight McKissic.
I wish Pastor Green the best in life, family and ministry. I would have told him this in his comment section if he had one.
In His Grace,
Wade
Bart,
Here's how: It's called Site Meter.
So long everyone.
Brad,
I generally try to stay out of the spitting contests on the blogs. It is wearying. However, I read your post, and I think that it is something that we can all benefit from, on both sides of the discussion. Even though I disagree with you on many of your views, and I think that your predictions and accusations of what will happen on the blogs are off base and are more revealing of what is in the heart of those in control, I still thought they were some good words that bore some thought. I enjoyed our debate a while back and you were very Christlike in your nature and argumentation. We can all learn from that.
However, your point was lost in your reaction to Jeremy Green. You call Wade to task for his comments, and I can respect that - it is your view of his perspective and what he said. But then, when Jeremy comes on and does a drive by and accuses a large number of people that he is in disagreement with of being theological liberals and moderates with weak theology, you praise him. Jeremy might be a man who loves Jesus, his family, and his church, but what I see of him on the blogs is that he is someone who attacks his opponents with the most vile labels in Southern Baptist life and then follows it with a "God bless." Even if you agree with him, couldn't you ask him to tone down the rhetoric on a post where you are warning against emotional appeals? Couldn't you ask everyone, including Jeremy, to stop name calling? It doesn't suit any of us.
Les Puryear had a thoughtful post yesterday about a double standard. If Wade is wrong, then Jeremy is wrong. The double standard should stop. But, as long as you attack one and praise the other, you have no credibility to be trying to point anything out on anyone else's blog. I wish you did, because I think that you are someone who could help put a stop to all this nonsense. Les Puryear has done his part, and I am grateful.
So, in calling out Wade for his actions, you praise Jeremy for similar actions, which he engages in again and again. I am sure that Jeremy has some good things to say and that he can add to this discussion, but when he makes untrue accusations meant to inflame the debate through ad hominem attacks, it affects all of us. Shouldn't you call him out as well? I actually expected you to give a soft word of correction to a younger brother. I was surprised when you said nothing. You contradict your own point, in my opinion.
What say you, Brad? If I am wrong, I will be happy to acknowledge it.
Bart
I have no idea how people can track my computer but I just assume and have assumed for months that they can...which is why I am not ashamed to admit where I go on blogs.
But you have certainly peeked my interest...you guys know way too much about blogging:) but I'm glad you know it.
One day, I will catch up to this e-knowledge base, currently I am trying to figure out how to post the students grades on-line (I am told it is easy, but I am a slow learner)
BR
Brad,
While I was writing my comment, I missed your words to Wade and Jeremy. You are free to disregard what I wrote, or post it and respond and disregard this post. I still feel like you could have corrected Jeremy a bit more directly, but I see you exhibiting a desire to have peace and be fair. I appreciate that, even if it is not as strong in one direction as I would like.
I hold you with respect and in no way want to insinuate otherwise.
Wade
I know your son appreciates your attendance, especially as busy as you are. Thanks for the example of keeping your family as a priority. I hope your son plays well.
Concerning Jeremy, I am not his defender but I do appreciate how he has stood for truth. I think Jeremy was concerned with Dr. McKissic’s Trusteeship not his pastorship. I did not read anything where he attacked Dr. McKissic for his pastoring. Further, I believe Jeremy is planting a church in an area where conservative Baptist churches are not overly popular.
BR
Alan
A very fair question.
First, let me state that what I have been responding to in this comment section was Wade’s gentle confrontation of me. Jeremy, issued no such confrontation so there was no need to address him personally. Further, I praised Jeremy for his stand for truth. I am certain that as I have tried to stand for truth, there have been times when I came across as mean…if someone complemented my stand I would not assume they were complementing the way in which I stood. Moreover, I know Jeremy and I know he is not the mean ogre that some assume he is on the blogs…he is a man who truly loves Christ.
Concerning my correction of others: as I reread the comments here I felt I could have been gentler than I was and therefore I issued a statement to all, with myself primarily in mind.
I certainly agree that both sides would do well to stick to the issues. I appreciate what Les is doing also.
Hope this helps
BR
Alan
Thank you for your words. I did not get to them until after I had written my other comment. I am trying to respond and work on my alcohol study which I have almost finished.
BR
Brad,
SiteMeter does what I mentioned earlier. It inserts a piece of javascript into the page that attempts to transmit back to itself when you close the page or navigate to another page. This is an unreliable measure for several reasons.
1. If you click on a link that opens in another window (i.e., a link to someone else's post), then the window to the original post is left open and the meter is still running, although you really aren't looking at that page any more.
2. I don't know the coding for the script, but unless all of the computers involved are synchronized to the same clock, time differences between the computers involved can add up.
So, this kind of thing is very useful if you are just looking for general information about visitors to your site. But it is not the kind of evidence that is worthwhile to "catch" anyone at anything. There are just too many holes in the technology. It is a work-around (similar to session cookies, etc.) trying to add functionality to a protocol (HTTP).
It's kind of like the new-move-in list we get here at the church. Yes, some of them are new movers, and that makes the list valuable to us, but we frequently walk up to the door and hear, "We've been here for fifteen years."
Bart
Thanks for the update.
folks I apologize but I will be on the road to SC for the next few hours and then be visiting with my brother...be back late tonight
BR
Since C# programming is just a side hobby for me, I thought I might ought to bolster my critique of the whole "visit duration" statistical thing.
Here's a link to one developer talking about the problems with the Javascript onUnload event. Visit duration measures depend upon this event.
That said, it is understandable that Bro. Wade would think that he has good statistics there. After all, the people selling hit counters don't tell you about the limitations of the little buggers.
Alan,
Thanks for your kind words regarding my change in approach on my blog. Although there are many issues on which we do not agree, we can disagree agreeably. Or at least, I'm trying to do my part.
As I have said before, I may fail from time to time and I would ask that I be held accountable by my brothers and sisters in Christ for those times I fail.
Many regards,
Les
All this talk of 'tracking' people and 'time stamping' and looking to see who is on my blog and how long they were on it is really kind weird don’t you think? Why would I care who, when, where and why folks read my blog unless I have become so polarized by political ambition cloaked in "Grace and Truth" that I have assumed a ‘us and them’ mentality thus I have to 'keep up' with who reads what so I can ‘dispute’ their claims and assertions and let them know that I have "Caught" them.
All this talk of 'spooky fundamentalism' yet isn’t it kind of ‘spooky’ that there are those of us who are 'watching' others to the when’s and how longs of blog activity on their respected sites.
What some folks need to realize is that all of this is becoming even more so painfully transparent and there are a number of us “Spooky Fundamentalist” who can actually read a map, we know how to get to San Antonio, and we will be heard
And you won’t even have to ‘time stamp’ it….it will be ‘spooky’ clear!
Blessings
Jack "The spooky Fundamentalist" Maddox
Ps – why would anyone even care how long I am on his or her ‘site’?
Brad and Wade,
I am going to get very personal with both of you for a moment as I do not mind speaking of personalities if I am telling the truth and in this case I know I am very truthful and my motives are cleaner than they have been in years.
Brad, it is my very great prayer that your son and future children all favor their Mother as do Wade's favor their Mother because both of you boys are BAD UGLY to the point that science or miracles can never help.
I believe my prayer will be answered because our Lord is very merciful and loving toward children born to wonderful ladies like Mrs. Burleson and Mrs. Reynolds and for that matter to Mrs. Scott:-)
Seriously, Brad I have been praying for your child's birth. Also, your son will be born about the same time that my son, Ben's first son is born to he and his wife Holly. You can bet I am praying for their son to look like his Mother:-)
I pray that both of these births bring honor and glory to the name of Jesus if He tarries in His return and gives them both long life. I do know that both these sons have godly parents and will be given every opportunity to be soldiers of the cross. Such sons are our hope for the spreading of the gospel to the world in these perilous times when so many sons are being born and destroyed in broken homes and sin sick environments from the moment of their births.
Wade and Brad, you boys are not really that ugly. I just realized I have not "broken bad" on either of you guys lately so I want to exercise my gifts and stay in practice for the future:-)
May God bless you both in this Christmas season and I do thank God for the homes you both have established for the rearing of men and women of God.
I think we can all agree here on our children and being thankful that they look like their Mothers:-) and now go back to the "manly" fun of fighting over that which does not mean "doodly squat" in comparison.
Let's pray for the children and the wives that birth them to us and let's pray for the children that are born to those that need the gospel for the sake of themselves and their children and let's pray that we have the wherewithall to proclaim the gospel as men of God.
One more thing for Wade, THE INDEPENDENCE BOWL IS THE PROPERTY OF THE CRIMSON TIDE.
cb
Brad,
We certainly have been through a couple of rounds and I have enjoyed the dialogue.
Although I have to say that this post is 1. polemical and not worthy of your mind and time, (you are fishing for debate, but maybe that is how you want this blog to be, kind of like talk radio, throw out confrontational digs, and wait for the calls, IMO this does nothing to help the fellowship in our Convention and is born of the flesh and not the Spirit of the bond of peace). and 2. In total denial of the history of the SBC resurgence.
Let me just respond to your "pope puppetmaster" line. First, I would not refer to anybody as a Pope or puppetmaster (your entire post is the creation of a straw-man and then attacking it.... certainly you should know better then this brother) But anyway, I have sat in the room with Dr. Patterson and heard from his own lips testimony of meetings and planning etc... is it wrong? No we needed it to enable the conservative resurgence. I have read published books chronicling some behind the scenes gatherings of prominent men to pick prominent men to become Pres. to deny it did not happen, is absurd.
Furthermore, for years the presidential candidate was chosen by _______? and then their name was presented at the FBC Jacksonvile Conference, and then they would run unoppossed....
I will not call them puppet masters or popes, but brother, come on, brother, in a convention that is a democracy at the association, state, and national level there has, is and will be ongoing attempts by behind the scene groups to influence direction.
Tim
Do a Google search for "Ghost Surf" and that'll take care of any thoughts or concerns about anyone tracking you.
:-)
brad and all,
wow! after reading wade's comments, i believe the word hypocrisy comes to mind. i mean, this is the guy who constantly says that we shouldnt blast others, and we should always have facts to back up our statements, and we should be irenic. brad, he was accusing you, and blasting you, and just in general acting rude and ugly. i admire that you were so gracious to him.
also, for wade to say... "My point in my next to last comment which used Pastor Jeremy's words is simply to point out I do not believe the kingdom of Christ is strengthened - nor relationships broadened - by labeling, name calling or the like"....well, what is calling pastors with smaller churches than his "jr. pastors?" what is insinuating that mid america baptist seminary is involved in some spooky fundamentalists conspiracy? wow!
brad, i know that you had rather not get into personality things here, but, did you notice that he did not answer your question about why he would not allow my post on his blog? yet, he attacked you for supposedly not allowing some of his comments on your blog?
this is really getting incredible, and i dont understand how the wade back slappers can continue to support a man that has this god, jr. complex. man alive!
brad, hang in there. stand on the truth, and continue to give good, sound, biblical advice about the sbc no matter what some yay hoo says. God bless you, bro.
from the hills of tn,
volfan007
ps. the blogging world was really becoming irenic until wade came back from his 40 days...now look, everything's stirred up again. who would yall say is stirring up the most strife and division?
All,
Brad is correct in saying that I have not attacked Dr. McKissic as a pastor. In fact, I have never attacked either he or Burleson as pastors or as persons. I have merely confronted what each of them has said publicly (whether on blogs, in Baptist Press, or in the Dallas Morning News) and how they have thrown what I believe to be “temper tantrums” by practicing unprincipled dissent.
Instead of working within the already established trustee system of bringing about change in SBC entities, sadly, they have resorted to vitriolic attacks on their respective trustee boards. The reason for my last post was that McKissic has employed the method that Burleson has made infamous by stating in the Dallas Morning News that Southwestern Seminary is “out of touch with the text and the times.” That comment is not only patently false, but it is in my opinion conduct unbecoming of a trustee. Both he and Burleson are guilty of such “temper tantrums” and are an embarrassment to our convention. Thus, Wade and Alan’s comments on this string are only diversionary tactics that are completely devoid of the truth.
Burleson’s problem with my blog (not to mention Brad’s) is that ours are two of a very small group that will actually dare to speak the truth in a blogosphere filled with moderates and liberals. By the way, it is not “name calling” to say that Burleson is a theological moderate. It is the truth. He cannot affirm the BF&M in its entirety without reservation, stipulation, or caveat. The BF&M, our convention’s statement of faith, only addresses issues that the overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists believe to be “essentials” of the faith (BF&M, 5). Burleson maintains that they are third tier doctrines. He is free to believe so, but he is in disagreement with the majority of Southern Baptists.
I (as a “junior pastor” of a “small start up church”) am glad to cooperate in missions together with both of these men (prominent pastors of large churches). However, I do not believe that Burleson is qualified to serve as a trustee of an SBC entity because he cannot honestly and wholeheartedly affirm our statement of faith in its entirety without intellectual or written caveats. All of the smear tactics that Burleson and his friends choose to employ will not divert me from continuing to share my beliefs with others. I will not be censored :0). God bless and Merry Christmas!!!
In Christ,
JLG
Timothy
I apologize if my post came across as such to you. It was not intended in such a way. I had the skeleton of the post on my computer for a couple of months. I reworked it yesterday morning, originally it was about what I would do if I disagreed with the current leadership. I removed some of my more spirited comments and reworded it totally. I needed something to prepare the readers for our upcoming posts but I had not recieved permission to post from some who wrote articles on Baptism. So I put this together quickly yesterday morning before I went to the Doctor but posted after I got confirmation from one on some articles.
I firmly believe that one should look for these in other posts as well as this one.
Great post Brad.
You are a self-fulfilling prophet.
The at least some of the "signs" you point to in the second itemization confirm that the previous portion of the post is absolutely correct.
Unfortunately, it also identifies this post as one of which you so clearly warn others to beware.
Ironic huh?
To all,
Can we please stay away from personalities. Everyone here knows I post all comments and to claim I don't, begs some questions. And yet, that really has nothing to do with whether blogs should stick to issues or become emotive. So let's stick to the topic. I will be with my family tonight but will update again in the early morning hours.
I should have our first post on baptism tomorrow:)
BR
Kevin
I think if you will reread the post you will find I made no emotive plug, I made no claim I could not substantiate, and I attacked no personalities.
But thanks for commenting. Have a blessed day
BR
Brad,
You sure a troublemaker, you know that?
:)
Les
Brad,
I'm going to make this comment here because it seems to be the only place that J. Green chooses to engage in discussion regarding his own blog posts. I can only imagine what the reasons might be that he feels secure here, but seemingly insecure within comment strings on his own blog, but none of the reasons I imagine as plausable are at all flattering.
Jeremy seems stuck on his contention that Burleson does not accept the BF&M because Burleson has signed the document with "caveats." However, in an exchange of emails with Mr. Green, Green stated that he agreed with Burleson's "caveate" explanation of Article III. Yet Green consistently says that the man who plainly states his interpretation is the one with a lack of integrity.
As for the "Jr" comment, it is quite obvious at first reading, even to those on the most juvenile reading level but yet with a working knowledge of the facts that Burleson's use of the term was a "tongue in cheek" reference to the perceived arrogance of a 29 year old self-proclaimed "Sr" pastor who would launch out on such a disrespectful diatribe against a pastor that is more than twice the senior in age, years in the pastorate, and general experience than the junior making the comment. It takes an extremely insecure individual to conclude that the "Jr" remark was in reference to the size of the church. But, again, maybe that's why he comments here but not there.
I'll also admit that I personally found some humor in the comment because, in the first place, I think use of the term is generally silly, and secondly because I believe laying claim to the title "Sr. Pastor" (which typically implies that there are "Jr Pastors")indicates something other humility in one who pastors a church with a staff of ONE.
And just for the record, lest anyone make the accusation that I am belittling Green because of the size church which he serves, I also pastor a "small" church of less than 100 with a staff of one.
Brad,
I haven't heard a definition for 'spooky fundamentalist' yet, but I think I may be one. I'm not that good looking and I'm a Biblical inerrantist. Does that make me a spooky fundamentalist?
Grace and peace,
PTL
Several blogs have already switched to the "emotional tqactic" as of today. Your comments are very astute in historical evaluation and current practice!
Great Post!
Jack Maddox: I care. I hardly get anybody over at my blogs and I write really neat things about almost nothing to get worked up about. I wonder if those counter things count how many times I visit my own site to see if I have any comments. I don't have a counter thing with 4 of my blogssites but I do with Wordpress. They have a really neat thing that tells ya how many folks visited your site that day. It's kewl! People have really liked my tomato pictures. LOL. SelahV
volfan
Thanks
Tim
I appreciate that my friend.
Les
:) thanks I think :)
Bear
let's be careful not to make assumptions especially without any supporting evidence...I think that's what my post is about...but thanks for dropping by
BR
Brad, after reading the comments on this blog tonite, I have come to the conclusion that I am truly a prophet like Peter Lumpkins said I am. I posted a blog today at one of my blogsites entitled, BOYS WILL BE BOYS AND MEN WILL BE BOYS TOO. (It was inspired by a visit I've had at some other sites recently--nothing to do with this one)
However, having read through the thread of conversation here, I am laughing hysterically. I'm sorry. It is just so funny. It's a "woman-thing". If you have a minute and I know you are quite busy, go to my site http://selahVtoday.blogspot.com Print out the blog and let your wife read it. You don't have to. It's really more for women anyway. Even though I am talking about men in general. This blog and several others I've passed through recently just solidify what I was thinking when I wrote what I wrote at 4:00 a.m. today. And for the record, I didn't read your post either. I read the title, the first paragraph and have just joined the party. You guys crack me up. How come you don't read Peter Lumpkins site? It's good stuff over there. SelahV
To all:
I am not sure why some are bothered by this post.
I could understand if someone said, Brad I think you are wrong I don't think those who disagree with you will do that or Brad I think those who agree with you will do that.
But to get frustrated that I wrote what I thought might be the next move by those who disagree with my perspective is beyond me. Further, I feel quite certain that no one here would defend such political maneuvers form either side and so let me ask if anyone has a problem with me saying to read blogs with a critical eye watching for:
1. Any insinuations that there is a pope or power-master in the SBC without any evidence WHATSOEVER.
2. some “tug” on people’s heart-strings for a certain political movement or personality in the SBC?
3. a claim that SB are “narrowing parameters,” with no evidence given
4. a plea to make the tent wider than historical SB
I really intended to offend no one and I think everyone can agree the above would be a political move rather than dealing with theological issues.
BR
selah
Thanks my sister. I do read Peter's site but I have not been on many lately. I highly recommend Peter's site...he is a brilliant writer whose gentle Christlike spirit flows from his posts.
BR
woooooooooooooooooooooooo
i'm a spoooooooooky fundamentalist
woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
of course, we call them haints in tn.
volfan007
Kevin,
Perhaps you should reread that email from a few weeks ago:
Here was my response to you word for word: "As I have already said, I do not believe that the two documents are in disagreement. The problem that I have with Burleson is that he has signed/affirmed our confession of faith although he does not agree with it in many areas (and has done so many times prior to his latest "disagreement").
You are either mistaken or are intentionally misrepresenting what another has said - which is the reason that I informed you that I would not be responding to any more of your emails. You seemingly have an aversion to the truth.
God bless!!!
In Christ,
JLG
Brad,
I saw the first indication of somebody accusing somebody of being a "kingmaker." Right here:)
Look at BubbaBear's comment. You gently warned him about doing what he always does, bad mouthing certain people... but did you miss the irony? Your #1 prediciton is fulfilled in YOUR own stream,from your own choir loft:) will you please correct Bubba for what you have called the "imaginations of conspiracy=theorists" and making what you also have defined as "making such attacks.":)
Brad,
I appreciate the kindness to my original post, but you did not respond to my statement about the reality in SBC life that men do, have and will politic, meet, strategize, it happens all over Baptist life. To ignore the role and influence that Dr. P and others have had in our Convention is either due to igorance (not meant pejoratively) or willful blindness. Dr. P's recent meddling in the affairs of the IMB are only the most recent chapter. Up to this point, I have praised Dr. P, attended SEBTS because of his presence and still think very highly of the man. I am thankful for what he and other men did to bring our convention to where it is! That being said, I defend his right, Burleson's right, and McKissic's right to dissent... I may not agree with their positions --but if they like or do not like what is happening in SBC life, they can talk about it or attempt to change it... this is each of our right's as Baptists who have freedom of consciencse and the freedom of dissent. To act like any of these men have done anything wrong on either side is ridiculous and more in the order of democratic, liberal PC iniatives rather then keeping with historic Baptist principles. I may not agree with their view, but they have the right to give it anywhere, anytime. Even if it is behind the pulpit of SWBTS or behind the President's desk.....
Tim
Tim
Thanks – I did address Bear and I did address his doing what I looked for those who disagree with us, to do…please reread my comment to him.
Concerning your question about leaders of our convention. I have been to every convention since ’88. I was there when moderates were running individuals for presidency. I was there when it mattered, desperately, who was to be the president, for the Trustees were well split on the boards. I am grateful that Dr. Adrian Rogers, Dr. Charles Stanley, Dr. Paige Patterson, and Judge Paul Pressler (and perhaps others like Jerry Vines, Morris Chapman, Bailey Smith, etc) visited about who could be trusted to make the right nominations.
I was at Southeastern in ’92. I heard the stories from the janitorial staff of what was done in the dorms. I heard of the Wiccan witch who was attending SE the semester before I got there. I heard of the professor who was in a Tree shout “h-ll no, we won’t go.” I heard some of my profs deny the miracles of Scripture, Moses’ authorship of the Pentateuch, Jesus full diety and other such nonsense. I know full well what was at stake. I fear many do not. It has not gone unnoticed by me that the loudest blog voices against our leadership were not at our seminaries at this time!!!
Have we gotten to the point where we can run more than one conservative without fear that a “hidden” moderate may get in? Yes, as evidenced by this past summer. Have we gotten to the point that we should not still be weary of backsliding on theological integrity? No!!! just listen to those who claim we no longer need to use the word inerrancy (one of the 5 fundamentals of the faith).
Concerning Dr. Patterson’s involvement in the IMB please go back and read my September 8th post “The IMB, Dr. Patterson, Dr. Eitel and Truth.”, as well as the immediate posts following that.
Dr. Patterson and Dr. Rankin exhibit their gracious Christian character by letting go of their disagreement in Christian love, but I have a tough time standing idly by when a false implication is made. Just because bloggers claim things about Dr. Patterson, does not make it true. Which is why when bloggers imply that Dr. Patterson meddles in areas he shouldn’t I ask for evidence to which none is ever given!
Do people call Dr. Patterson for counsel? I hope so, I know if I needed godly counsel he would be one of the first ones I would call, since he has been a pastor, is a theologian of the first degree, and knows as much about the past 40 years of the SBC as just about anyone.
I too would defend any Trustees right to dissent, as well as my right to dissent to their dissent. However, what truly concerns me is not their dissent but an apparent evolving tendency to take Trustee matters to the convention (not necessarily confidential matters, but open policy) through blogs, press releases and other such. Even when the conservatives were taking back the convention from the liberals our members on the BOTs operated according to long-standing policy. Can you imagine if a Trustee says, “I don’t like Midwestern’s Student handbook because of its policy against tobacco…it is narrowing the parameters of being a Baptist and we need to discuss from the convention floor what should and should not be included in seminary handbooks”? There is a reason to have a Trustee system rather than popular convention vote on everything our agencies do. If you don’t like the Trustee system, fine, work to change it from the floor of the convention, but don’t question the integrity of the system by taking its every decision to the populace…otherwise there is no need for Trustees. There is a reason we call them Trustees and I don’t appreciate anyone who takes the Trust from them.
Hope this helps clear some things up my brother and thank you for your kind spirit.
BR
Jeremey,
As for my "aversion to the truth", I also have that exchange of emails saved and will post them on my blog and let the readers decide if I've misrepresented your stance on the theological point. I do not believe that it is I who have misrepresented you, but you who frequently misrepresents those with whom you disagree and those who dare to disagree with you.
I'd love to continue this conversation, but you refuse accountability on your own blog site. Your email address is not filtered from my inbox (as mine is from yours), so if you care to continue the discussion, drop me an email or better yet, call me. I suspect you'll do neither.
The point is that to accuse one of a lack of integrity because he chooses to clearly state his beliefs (which you seemed to theologically agree with, at least on the point you chose for an example) is absurd.
You claim that other individual has signed that which he admits not agreeing with. The TRUTH is that he signed saying that he agreed with the document as explained or with exceptions as explained. That's not lack of integrity, that is the epitome of integrity. The misrepresentation of the truth, and thus lack of integrity, seems to me to lie with the one accusing him of a dishonest affirmation of that which he did not affirm.
If you don't like that he doesn't interpret the BF&M at face value the same way you do, fine. But Do you honestly believe that the thousands of SB's that have signed the BF&M without "caveats" of explanation all have the exact same interpretation on every point as you do? Who is to determine which differing interpretation is correct? Who among them lacks integrity (careful, some of them are conservative resurgent leaders)?
Coincidentally, Wade Burleson is not the only SB employee to ever include "caveats" with his signature. Why do you not track all the others down, take them to task for "lack of integrity", and call for their resignation or dismissal?
Brad,
The fact that you see "no emotive plug" or "scare tactics" in your post only confirms what I've always said.
Commentary is by nature subjective and biased; to attempt otherwise is admirable; to expect otherwise is unrealistic. Therefore it is not the presence of those characteristics that bother me, it is the assertion by writers and speakers that their works are totally void of such characteristics that raises questions with me.
Also, I suppose it was my subjective reading of your post that caused me to infer an insinuation that it is only those "other guys" who would be guilty of such things. I saw your comment where you agreed that such things can/do occur on both "sides."
In light of that clarification, I apologize for my mistaken inferrence.
Brad,
We are getting closer:)
"There is a reason to have a Trustee system rather than popular convention vote on everything our agencies do. If you don’t like the Trustee system, fine, work to change it from the floor of the convention, but don’t question the integrity of the system by taking its every decision to the populace…"
I support the Trustee system, but we show our immaturity in the way we react to Trustees who disagree with the majority. I feel any SB has the right to disagree regardless of the position they hold. They may have to suffer the consequences. They may never be elected a trustee again.
I do not think anybody is wrong for going through the system to effect change. Just because it is somewhat new to SB life, an appeal to the "populace" is not wrong either, either the populace will have deaf ears and it will fall, or if enough share a concern, the maybe the trustees should listen.
I think the convention did ask the trustees to do something for us at the last convention... well within our rights as a body. Let us never forget authority in baptist life goes from the ground up...
i have been going to sbc since 1985. believe me, i thank God for dr. rogers and dr. patterson and judge pressler and all the others who turned our convention around. it was bad and getting worse before the conservative resurgence.
brad, thank you for sounding out how bad things were, and for sounding out that we dont need to go back...now way...no how....and we must guard against it.
sitting in trees and shouting h__l no, we wont go!!!!! wow! i bet that was a sight to see. seminary prof.'s shouting that from a tree.
volfan007
Folks
Will reply when I get back tonight. Off to a wedding.
Jim
You are free to post here and I don't mind advertisement of most blogs...but I would prefer not to advertize a blog dedicated to the criticism/praise of another blogger
Thanks
BR
Kevin
Stating that I had "an emotive element" or "scare tactic" doesn't make it so. Please show me where or don't make the accusation. That seems to be exactly what I am writing against, unsubstantiated claims.
If I have such an element I will correct it and I would appreciate you bringing it to my attention.
God Bless
BR
Brad,
It is my opinion that with the possible exception of teaching concrete facts and technical skills (like how to calculate the terminal velociy of an oil droplet rising through an agitated column of brine between two electically charged grids) any communication, especially that which attempts to sway opinion, give warning or encouragement, or call the audience to action, has an emotional element.
I see emotional elements in your post. You don't. OK. There will in all likelihood be other posts that you perceive to have a greater emotional element that I perceive. That's OK too. At least for me.
Commentary is subjective. How the reader interprets commentary is subjective. Maybe I put the emPHAsis on the wrong sylLAble.
I didn't mean my original comment as a slam. Only as what I subjectively thought was an interesting philosophical irony.
Kevin
No problem my friend. However, if your statement is correct then your accusation (of my writing being emotive) also has an emotional element, which makes your statement of irony ironic:)
BR
Brad, does Wade not like you? It seems that way to me. Or is he just distrustful of you.
I don't think I read through your writing that you dislike Wade, but I do think I read that things Wade thinks and does are things you don't agree with. My kids do things I don't agree with, I didn't agree with the fact that they did things I taught them were wrong because the Bible teaches they are wrong. But I never ever didn't like them. I feel that from reading some blogs that some people don't like other people and then if that is true, they can't hear the other person's voice or position. In fact they do everything in their power to find something one says with whom they don't like as incorrect, fishing, baiting and ignorant (in the definition of stupid).
When that happens don't you think that people have reached an impass like when Paul tried to persuade that leader and the leader said you almost persuaded me?
I'm trying to understand all the dialog. I think I understand part of it. I'm beginning to see the players in all the threads of communication. I'm beginning to understand the Jeremy, Dwight, ppl, moderation in alcohol, BFM2000 and opposite theological positions(not necessarily the theology--but each person's idea of theology) factors in all the conversations. But I think this is alot like the word "trust" in trustee.
If people can't trust the trustees, then they aren't going to trust actions or thoughts of trustees. Correct? And if people trust one or more trustees then they are most naturally going to just trust the trustee they trust. Correct?
Anyway, I feel bad for all of you. I like you Brad. I think you have some really good thoughts. I like the way you address folks. I guess we can all get a little emotional in our thinking. Even the ones who point out our emotions in our thinking are actually emotionally connected to words. I am.
It's hard to be a peacemaker. I read the following somewhere, maybe Rick Warren's book, maybe the Bible (just wanted to credit the person though can't remember where I got it):
God has restored our relationship with Him through Christ, and given us the ministry of restoring relationships. 2 Cor. 5:18. God blesses those who work for peace, for they will be called children of God. Mt.a5:9
If you want God to bless your life, you must learn to be a peacemaker. Jesus did not say blessed are the peacelovers, or the peaceable. Jesus said, "Blessed are those who work for peace--thosed who actively seek to resove conflict. Peacemakers are rare--because peacemaking is hard.
To be a peacemaker one must be willing to step outside of themselves and give that part of division to Jesus. Then look at everything from Jesus' eyes. Not from ones theology, philosophy or personal background.
That is hard. Real hard. I want to commend you for trying so hard.
selahV
Selah
Wise words
Thanks
BR
Selah,
I like everyone! To disagree is not a synonym to dislike, is it?
Your's and Brad's friend,
Wade
P.S. Are you female?
Post a Comment