"The chair declares at this time that Dr. Steve Gaines at the close of this session will become because of this election the president of the Southern Baptist Convention."
Ronnie Floyd, Presiding SBC President (at 13.03 mark in video below)
J.D. Greear (left) Ronnie Floyd (center) Steve Gaines (right) – Screen Shot
Messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention who convened for their annual meeting in the 'Show Me State' witnessed something unprecedented earlier today. The presiding president, Ronnie Floyd, summed it up this way (at the 16.18 mark of the video below):
To God be the Glory. He has moved. Well, history was made yesterday, and history's been made today. There is no one like the Lord.
Just how was history made? Here's what happened during yesterday's meeting. The nominees for SBC president were Steve Gaines of Bellevue Baptist Church (Tennessee), J.D. Greear, of Summit Church (North Carolina); and David Crosby of First Baptist New Orleans (Louisiana).
In the first ballot cast by 5,784 messengers, David Crosby received 583 votes (or 10.08 percent); Steve Gaines received 2,551 votes (or 44.1 percent); and J.D. Greear received 2,601 votes (or 44.97 percent). In this three-man race, none of the candidates received 50 percent of the vote plus one, which, according to SBC By-Laws, must be attained in order for a nominee to be elected president.
Hours later, a runoff between Gaines and Greear was held. As he wrapped up the late afternoon session, SBC President Ronnie Floyd declared that the second round of voting was also inconclusive. Although 7,230 messengers were registered at the time of the runoff, only 4,824 ballots were cast. Steve Gaines received 2,410 votes (or 49.96 percent) while Greear received 2,306 votes (or 47.80 percent).
Unfortunately, 108 votes were ruled illegal because either a wrong ballot was used or an indistinguishable mark was made on the ballot. According to Roberts Rules of Order, these illegal ballots had to be included in the total vote count, which threw off the percentage of votes each candidate received. In order to attain 50% of the vote plus one, the candidate had to receive 2,413 votes. In this second round of voting, Gaines was just three votes shy of receiving 50% of the vote plus one.
Yesterday evening Floyd informed messengers that there would be a second run-off election (to be held this morning).
When it was finally time to choose a president, Ronnie Floyd had J.D. Greear and Steve Gaines join him at the podium. Floyd recognized Greear, who addressed the messengers by saying he was withdrawing his name. This is what Floyd described as history-making. Gaines spoke next, explaining that unity was of utmost importance to him and that he would be willing to step aside. In the end, Gaines was declared SBC president. You can watch this history-making segment below (see first 17 minutes).
As you might imagine, a number of news outlets jumped to cover this developing story. The Christian Examiner shared the following in an article published earlier today:
Steve Gaines, 59, pastor of the Memphis area Bellevue Baptist Church was elected by acclamation as the new president of the Southern Baptist Convention today following the first day of the June 14-15 SBC annual meeting…
North Carolina pastor J.D. Greear withdrew his nomination to lead the largest non-Catholic denomination in America after two inconclusive votes, but then made a motion to elect Gaines by acclamation.
"I've said from the beginning it is tricky to lead the SBC," Greear said. "I've spent a good amount of time praying and I believe for the sake of our convention and our election we need to leave St. Louis united. … We are united by a Gospel too great, and a mission too urgent, to let a lesser message stand in our way. I am respectfully withdrawing my candidacy as president."
The Christian Examiner went on to explain that Steve Gaines, who had pastored churches in Alabama, Tennessee and Texas, succeeded the much beloved Adrian Rogers at Bellevue Baptist Church eleven years ago. Rogers also served as SBC President twice – with the first presidency occurring in 1979 at the time of the Conservative Resurgence. Shortly after being named Adrian Rogers' successor, Gaines came and spoke in chapel at SEBTS, and I drove out to hear him. I still remember the title of his message – Ichabod. (In the interest of full disclosure, I have also heard J.D. Greear deliver a chapel message at SEBTS and attended his church on two separate occasions).
Finally, the Examiner article states that Steve Gaines has held key positions in the SBC over the years. For example, he preached the SBC convention sermon in 2004 and served as president of the SBC Pastors' Conference in 2005. He has served as as a member of the SBC Committee on Nominations, a trustee of LifeWay Christian Resources, a member of the committee that proposed a revision of the Baptist Faith and Message in 2000, and chairman of the SBC Resolutions Committee.
The Baptist Press explained what happened this way:
Following a runoff vote that didn't produce a majority winner on Tuesday (June 14), North Carolina pastor J.D. Greear announced Wednesday he would withdraw from the race for president of the Southern Baptist Convention during the SBC's annual meeting in St. Louis. Greear's decision — in an effort to help bring unity following a close vote — avoided a second runoff and left Tennessee pastor Steve Gaines elected by acclamation as president of the SBC.
Greear told the convention he prayed last night and believes "we need to leave St. Louis united."
Gaines said "there's no way God is not doing something in all of this." He said he has decided internally Tuesday night to withdraw but agreed to serve as president after a conversation with Greear.
"I just wanted Jesus to be lifted high" and the convention to be united, Gaines said.
Despite a call for unity after the declaration of a new SBC president, there must have been a great deal of tension between Calvinist and Non-Calvinist messengers over the last two days. And who could blame the Non-Calvinists for being concerned? After all, the heads of both the IMB and NAMB are self-identified Calvinists, whom we believe were anointed because of Al Mohler's influence. Can there be any doubt that this trend will continue? We're convinced that Mohler learned how to work the system from his colleague Paige Patterson.
For more background on Steve Gaines and J.D. Greear, check out a post we wrote when these men were first nominated. It is entitled 'WHO' will be the Next SBC President: Steve Gaines or J.D. Greear? It was written before there was a third candidate.
The theme for this year's SBC meeting was Awaken America: Reach the World. Are Southern Baptists cooperating and succeeding at their mission?
We hope you will take the time to watch the above video and scan through the 'WHO' article, and as always, we welcome your observations and questions.
Oh my, this Steve Gaines.
http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2012/09/steve-gaines-elevates-tithing-to-old.html
@ Darlene:
From the link:
“He has called his church members thieves, accusing them of driving stolen cars and eating stolen food. He has said God will make non-tithers’ kids sick. He has said non-tithers’ finances are cursed.”
Oh, well, lovely.
@deb
sidebar: Is the timing of these posts to make evident the night owls among us?
@ JYJames:
Absolutely! 🙂
@ JYJames:
We will have more to say about Gaines. If he wants to unite, this is NOT an acceptable tactic.
@ Darlene:
We'll be getting to this soon. Now that Gaines is SBC president, this info needs to be brought to the fore.
“there’s no way God is not doing something in all of this.”
uh. ok.
“The presiding president, Ronnie Floyd, summed it up this way (at the 16.18 mark of the video below):
‘To God be the Glory. He has moved. Well, history was made yesterday, and history’s been made today. There is no one like the Lord.’ ”
I hope I’m not being unreasonable here, but this statement strikes me as being a bit arrogant, like this has God’s special anointing. Well, if it really did, there wouldn’t be so much arrogance.
Geesh, I wonder why they didn’t burn something to send up white smoke.
Darlene wrote:
??? Is this true: “He has called his church members thieves, accusing them of driving stolen cars and eating stolen food. He has said God will make non-tithers’ kids sick. He has said non-tithers’ finances are cursed. He has threatened them even with death at the hands of God who hates liars.”
Here is another article about Steve Gaines and his views on tithing. There is a video along with the article. It seems Gaines knows how to use the manipulation card when it comes to getting his congregation to tithe.
http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2011/07/lying-continues-steve-gaines-says-non.html
@ Patriciamc:
This is a similar mistake made by some Catholics who feel the Holy Spirit elects the Pope. Nothing could be further from the truth considering the Current Pontiff, and the Popes of the middle ages. Unfortunately, some wish to blanket human decisions with an air of Holy inspiration. When the Jews petitioned for Kings, they were warned of the eventual outcome. Almighty God Raised up David and Solomon, but after them we see how disastrous the line of Kings was to Worshiping the true God. I feel the SBC has morphed from a loose convention of cooperating Churches to an all powerful governing body that is attempting to emulate Rome.
And people wonder why only 4800 of the 7000 voted? If I was a messenger, I wouldn’t have voted for any of the 3….the SBC needs to split….been needing to split for years…trouble is, who gets what?
This reminds me of sometimes how elections go. Being careful here but wink, wink. Sometimes elections have a lose/ lose aspect to them.
K.D. wrote:
Well, that is the problem. Mohler controls the entities. Frankly, none of them want the money to dry up so money will be the uniting force despite how often they invoke the Lord’s Name in Vain.
It’s not “tricky”. It’s creepy.
@ Darlene:
Jeff lorg (ed.), President of Golden Gate, said the same of all SBC pew sitters when the 210 million IMB deficit was announced and they laid off the over 50 year old career missionaries. He blamed the pew sitters saying they had robbed God. (Never mind those high salaries and plush lifestyle perks of the leaders)
You would think as Scholars they would go check and see that God was blaming the religious leaders for robbing Him.
They are running scared and it seems when it comes to money God is not making things happen. (Wink) So when money starts to dry up does that mean the Lord has spoken? :o)
JYJames wrote:
In this he is simply a continuation of Ronnie Floyd. Floyd has quoted Gateway’s Robert Morris and endorsed Morris’ book on tithing.
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/news/article/when-mega-pastors-twist-scripture-and-twist-arms-money
To be fair, the last sermon I heard while visiting The Summit was during one of their giving campaigns. Though I do not remember Greear saying that God required a 10 percent, or more, tithe, the sermon was very emotionally manipulating, including congregation testimonials on how God had blessed them once they gave more to The Summit. However, the worst part was Greear’s complete twisting of the Bible passage he was preaching from (the reference escapes me at the moment). That was the last time I ever plan to set foot in that church.
@ Lydia:
Not Jeff Long. Sorry. Jeff Iorg.
Did Gaines have some FBI files about Greear?
K.D. wrote:
Let the Game of Thrones begin.
(Bring your own food, drink, and tasters and don’t RSVP when invited to any Red Weddings…)
Patriciamc wrote:
This is just me but when I hear such types declare the Lord has spoken (usually after they claim they prayed about it), I instinctively believe the Lord has not spoken at all. The human spoke and invoked God is on his side. It seems to me they should fear this sort of declaration.
I think I stated my opinion yesterday but it’s worth reprising it today.
The SBC is absolutely scraping at the bottom of the barrel if it has sustained as its president a man who covered up a pedophile scandal at his church. I do believe this says volumes.
That said, “not my circus, not my monkeys.” I’m just an observer. I’m not going to lose sleep over Steve Gaines being the president of the SBC. I’ll just engage in a bit of side-eye.
K.D. wrote:
The New Calvinists have been gradually drawing SBC’s vast resources under their leadership umbrella. They now control most SBC seminaries, home and foreign mission agencies, publishing house, and ethics commission. If/when a split comes, the denomination will be faced with the dilemma of who really owns what and how do you divvy it up. The SBC enterprise has been primarily financed by the faithful giving of millions of non-Calvinist Southern Baptists … “whosoever will” is still the prevailing theological default within SBC churches, but shifting to a more reformed slant as time goes on. SBC went through a major split in the past as the “Conservative” Resurgence routed liberals and moderates from the convention during the Bible inerrancy war. SBC’s non-Calvinists and Calvinists stood side-by-side to make that happen. Now that things have shifted to a “Calvinist” Resurgence, Southern Baptists are indeed faced with a dilemma about what to do with the pile of stuff amassed over the years.
Gaines, of course, will call for theo-political unity – as his predecessor Ronnie Floyd did – in an effort to hold the denomination together under his watch. With 45,000+ churches in North America and countless missions around the world, a lot is at stake. The continued wrangling within SBC ranks has cast a shadow on SBC identity as the world looks on. Who are Southern Baptists really? Can two distinctly different theologies (particularly soteriologies) co-exist in a single denomination? Some say they have since SBC’s founding – SBC has always had Calvinists + non-Calvinists they note … but as the watchblogs report, this New Calvinism has a totally different look and feel. It is controlling, manipulating, and intimidating the sheep under its watch. It has an army of recent seminary graduates who are still wet behind the ears, who carry an ideology that they alone possess truth with a militant passion to make sure everyone else gets it too!
As a 60+ year Southern Baptist, I am deeply saddened to witness a once-great denomination go through this inner turmoil. Church and denominational splits are awful things. They are so anti-Great Commission! But can any entity divided against itself stand? Voices from both SBC camps say that Southern Baptists still agree on the essentials of faith and that they are just squabbling over non-essentials. God’s plan of salvation is a non-essential?!! God predestined some to save, but many to damnation, before they ever drew breath?! Such thinking is non-essential?!
I realize this post is lengthy, but this old man has a lot on his mind this morning as he reflects on what took place in St. Louis this week and what lies ahead for Southern Baptists. So I’ll get off cyberspace and think this thing through a little more, but will leave you with the words of another. Charles Finney, the great 19th century evangelist wrote:
“It is evident that many more Churches need to be divided. How many there are that hold together, and yet do no good, for the simple reason that they are not sufficiently agreed. They do not think alike, nor feel alike … and while this is so, they never can work together. Unless they can be brought to such a change of views and feelings as will unite them, they are only a hindrance to each other and to the work of God. In many cases they see and feel that this is so, and yet they keep together, conscientiously, for fear that a division should dishonor religion, when in fact the division that now exists may be making religion a by-word and a reproach. Far better would it be if they would agree to divide amicably, like Abraham and Lot. ‘If thou will take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, I will go to the left.’ Let them separate, and each party work in its own way; and they may both enjoy the blessing.” (Charles G. Finney, Revivals of Religion)
Steve Gaines had a molester problem at his church.
SNAP wrote about it.
http://www.snapnetwork.org/news/baptist/abuse_thrives_silence.htm
We wrote about it.
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2009/09/29/heartbreak-hotel-–-the-memphis-mess/
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2009/09/30/heartbreak-hotel-–-the-memphis-mess-continued/
New BBC Open Forum wrote about it.
http://newbbcopenforum.blogspot.com/search?q=steve+gaines+molester
I could go on and on. We will get this all posted for you to read about.
Suffice to say: I do not think the SBC will make any stride in caring for victims of child sex abuse in the coming year. I believe it will be business as usual Shhhhhh-don’t talk about it.
The SBC is proving that they do not believe child sex abuse is a priority.
@ Burwell:
The tithing thing is interesting. I always accepted 10% as a kid, and now I really don’t tithe. Someone told me catholics count ‘time, talent and treasure’? I’m not sure if that’s true but I like the concept.
I don’t know anything about this site, so not an endorsement, but somebody linked it and it’s interesting: http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/
mirele wrote:
I used to be Baptist. In my heart I’m still Baptist. But the church has gone astray, and I can’t be there. I still hope that they can be fixed, but I don’t think this is gonna do it.
Lea wrote:
This was so sad to read.
Christiane wrote:
Robert Morris of a big church in Texas teaches the same stuff.
Or, the flip side of the coin – he teaches if you don’t want your spouse to divorce you or your kids to rebel, or whatever, you better pay God his due.
It always reminds me of an extortion plan and God is the Mafia Don (did I get my mob terms right?)
I then picture the Robert Morris / Steven Gaines God sitting in a big, leather chair stroking a white, fluffy cat who is sitting on his lap, talking in that Marlon Brando mafia voice.
‘If you don’t give me your ten percent every Sunday, I’m sending my guys in to wack you or break your granny’s knee caps’
Darlene wrote:
I hate it when preachers do the fear mongering thing to sucker money off people. Some of these people may be desperate and are willing to do anything.
I’ve seen TV preachers do similar stuff. They will cite some Bible verse, like (I’m just making one up here), like they’ll cite Galatians 20:35 and in reference to that (if it mentions healing or faith), tell you if you send their ministry 20 dollars and .35 cents to their ministry, God will heal you.
I can just imagine if someone is very naive or very desperate, they would send these guys the $20.35 or whatever amount. Preying on people’s emotional vulnerabilities like they do really, really bothers me.
It’s like when I was a kid I’d sometimes see other kids pick on or take advantage of mentally disabled people (I would usually intervene and put a halt to it if I was near enough and could).
mirele wrote:
In other words, you don’t have a dog in this race (or a pony). 🙂
@ Max:
Finney is prophetic when I look at my former church and what has happened in a short time span of a few years since the Neo Cal takeover. Pew sitters are at each other’s throats but no one seems to notice these were not big problems before. No one dares question the pastor (he is rarely there) and his new vision which is a vague platitude that he will hone into policy at some point. A lot of people left but many SBTS students are now teaching classes and getting the pew sitters to fund their mission trips to England and France. ( I kid you not)
dee wrote:
And I think pedos realize this. They want to go to the places not only where there are children but where access to them is easy because the adults are naive or lax.
Then you have the churches that are nauseatingly emphasizing the “peace, love and grace to pedos because we’re all sinners!” type of gullible thinking, which is yet more cat nip to people who want to prey on kids.
If you’re a pedo, and you had to choose between a church that you know throws the book at an abuser, or one where, if you are found out they will kick the victim to the curb and embrace you and drone on about grace, forgivness and how we’re all sinners, which one would you rather attend?
I think it’s the same principle in other areas of life.
My mother raised me to be a sweet, loving, highly tolerant doormat – so that is what I was. I spent years and years wondering why I kept attracting mean people, bullies, jerks, users, con artists, etc, but now I realize it’s precisely because I was so darn nice, accepting, forgiving.
If you go through life being naive, sweet, and pathologically tolerant, you’re going to attract abusers and jerks like a bear to honey.
Daisy wrote:
This, to me, is where they show that it’s NOT about ‘loving people’ or they would love and show equal grace to a victim. It’s something else.
BTW, you can ‘love’ an abuser from far away. I don’t see why they can’t sit at home and listen to the sermon on a podcast, if it’s really about god.
@ mirele:
Hi MIRELLE,
it occurs to me that something terrible happening to another ‘denomination’ in the Church does still impact the whole Church ‘indirectly’, but negatively
Christian people in the Body of Christ may be ‘separated Brethren’ but they still weep with those who weep and pray for one another with love …. I don’t see ‘division’ going so deep as to disrupt the unity in Christ that calls us into relationship with one another through Him.
Steve Gaines sounds like a bully who tries to intimidate people out of their money. You know a person can believe in ‘tithing’, but it should never cause them to force it on others who haven’t the resources, especially when one draws one’s salary from the tithes of those who suffer. All I need to know now is that Gaines makes a half-million dollars a year salary, and it would complete a dreadful picture of a greed not unlike the ‘Bling Cardinal’ in Germany that Pope Francis sent for and ‘helped’ to reform. Money does strange and terrible things to people who are prone to greed. Maybe Gaines should visit with Pope Francis for a while. 🙂
Burwell wrote:
I agree. I don’t know Crosby which seems to a sort of endorsement these days. :o)
Gaines, Floyd and Greear are all big mega money guys who are showmen. Wasn’t it Floyd’s church that had a fire truck baptism for children?
Floyd had a speaking gig at T$G. I think we will see the same out of Gaines. What unifies all of this is money. They are scared to death it is going to dry up.
I attended this year’s SBC meeting. I suppose I have attended 20+ conventions since my first in Dallas in 1985.
The SBC is made up of a lot of different types of churches from different regions and with different personalities. The Calvinist/Non-Calvinist divide is present, but I do not believe it will split the convention. There are also other divisions that have more to do with culture and emphasis. Some of that was evident in the discussion about the Confederate Battle flag.
I do not sense that the divisions are as deep as they were in the 70s before the Conservative Resurgence.
At the last few conventions that I have attended I have sensed a lot of unity.
Denominational life, in any denomination, is not easy. Just look at what the Methodists went through a month or so ago (the differences in that body are much greater than the SBC differences). The SBC experiences the same kind of divisions as most denominations, but without control over any of their congregations because each congregation is autonomous.
I am grateful for the increasing diversity in the SBC.
In our city alone, the number of SBC ethnic churches in surprising. We have Hispanic, African American, Slavic, Chinese, Korean, Thai, Burmese (2 different people groups), Sudanese, Nepalese, Arabic and other ethnic churches.
At the convention, I have noticed each year a continuing increase in attendance by people of different ethnicities. I believe this is a good thing.
I would have preferred that Greear go ahead with one more final vote so that the will of the Convention could have been expressed. Greear is a Calvinist. Gaines is not. I do not think that most of the Calvinists in the SBC will have anything to be concerned about with regard to the non-Calvinism of Gaines. The cultural differences that the 2 camps represent may create more tension.
But we shall see.
Overall I sensed that the messengers attending this year were very much together on matters. No appointments were challenged. No hostilities were displayed, except a guy who asked Russell Moore about building Mosques. And when the convention voted, the votes that might have been controversial were by my estimate 90% to 10%.
There were apparently an equal number of Greear supporters and Gaines supporters, but that division was never expressed in any of the business sessions.
Overall, it was a good Convention.
Lea wrote:
I made that very same point on previous threads, especially when the Church and Preacher Fan Boys and Pedo Apologists came to this blog to complain that none of us think that Jesus can forgive or heal a child abuser.
They were really into the whole idea that a Pedo should be permitted to attend a church in person.
I asked one of them why, in this age of cable TV and the internet, the Pedo can sit at home and watch the church services online or on TV. The Pedo does not have to show up in person thereby putting the kids at risk.
Max wrote:
Max: Grace to you as you wrestle with these things. I had a front row seat to the Peace Committee process of the mid-eighties as my pastor was a member and gave regular reports. He saw that many who had invested their lives into SBC work were becoming dis-enfranchised and he truly grieved. In other words, I believe I understand your pain.
The problem I see going forward is that the differing views of soteriology would naturally lead to different views of missiology. This cuts to the very foundation of what being a Southern Baptist is about: cooperating in mission work. Remember Bold Mission Thrust? It was a defined, energized vision for reaching the world. I’m not sure how the SBC factions can be united in a vision for missions when they are looking through very different lenses.
Anonymous wrote:
Thank you, Anon. While there, did you hear anything about Bart Barber’s proposed “Resolution on Sexual Predation”; specifically, why the Resolutions Committee did not allow it to be heard and voted on?
FW Rez wrote:
My exact thinking this morning. “Evangelism” and “mission” are defined differently in a reformed grid than the Great Commission my family and my ancestors have been focused on for the past 100 years as Southern Baptists. The message of the Cross of Christ for ALL people was such an important driver in SBC work around the world.
Lydia wrote:
This is also an issue at SBC-YRR church plants in my area. All of the mission effort is done outside of national SBC oversight. They directly fund and send members – usually elders – on missions. They have no idea what the “Cooperative Program” is, let alone that SBC has home and foreign mission agencies in need of support. No offerings are channeled to any of this; yet, the YRR church planter will gladly receive SBC church planting funds!
I don’t consider England and France to be the uttermost end of the earth. Such trips are more like vacations.
Max wrote:
For instance, the obsession with ‘church planting’ in places that already have a bazillion churches?
I saw Bart, but only shook his hand briefly on Monday. Not sure if the Resolutions Committee had met at that point, so the matter did not come up.
I did not talk to Bart after the Resolutions were reported out of the Committee.
What comes out of the Resolutions Committee is not always predictable. I would have looked forward to voting for Bart’s resolution.
Anonymous wrote:
This fact alone may allow SBC traditional churches to survive New Calvinist proliferation. They can operate at the local level without becoming involved in denominational theo-politics. The Cooperative Program was a good idea, but more churches may elect to bypass it for a while and use their funds to directly support evangelistic and mission outreach. Most SBC-YRR church planters are already doing this – heck, they don’t even promote SBC affiliation!
Anonymous wrote:
The messengers may have sung Kumbaya together in St. Louis, but Twitter and blogs are abuzz this morning with both camps expressing concern about the future direction of SBC. I fear that SBC’s denominational gifting in evangelism is being surrendered. That torch which blazed around the world for decades – a polished delivery of the Great Commission which was the envy of other denominations – may soon be surrendered to another group of Christians, if not already.
Daisy wrote:
Right! ha ha… And once in a while he “moves”… whatever that means to anyone…
Max wrote:
In practice, a doctrine of determinism quenches the Spirit of evangelism. The only thing left is for the overlords to colonize the “natives” — whether they are already disciples or not — to keep the elect and non-elect quiet, and living controlled lives that do not diminish the so-called glory of God.
Such is the inherent and insidiously corrosive nature of the spiritual DNA of determinism …
Max wrote:
Similar principles apply to SBC entity employees working with non-convention groups such as TGC, T4G, CBMW, Acts 29, etc, At least, however, with TGC, we know that Piper books are going to the Theologically Famished.
Anonymous wrote:
As an onlooker uninvolved in this world, it’s hard to wrap my head around the fact that they would kill a resolution like this. I mean, isn’t it solely designed to simply protect the vulnerable little ones? How would people not be willing to do that? I don’t understand, can’t imagine, the argument against it? Can you shed any light on this? Was there something in it that led to apprehension?
@ Anonymous:
It’s pretty easy to be unified around an anti Confederate flag resolution.
Sheesh!
@ Anonymous:
My last one was nothing but the adoration of man. Every single speaker was introduced with heapings of over the top praise and declared a great man of God. Everything they said it did was declared of God.
If one is not around that all the time it really is creepy. You should worry if that has become your normal. :o)
I thought the SBC was NOT a denomination because of local church autonomy. It is a convention of independent churches who voluntarily cooperated on funding missions. It was bottom up in polity
Oops, that seems to have changed.
Lydia wrote:
An SBC Voices commenter went on and on about how ‘brave’ it was to speak on this. Nonsense. I almost left a pointed comment but then decided what’s the point. They’re all quite proud of themselves for this thing which does nothing but condemn people that are not themselves for something they may possibly do.
@ Lea:
Yeah, they will dine out on the low hanging fruit for a while. What brave manly men they are!
brad/futuristguy wrote:
Print this and stick it on your refrigerator folks! Herein, rests SBC’s dilemma. No matter how New Calvinists spin it, genuine evangelism does not exist in their theology. Harvesting a predestined elect is not the same as reaching the lost with the Cross of Christ. The Calvinist “gospel” is not good tidings of great joy to ALL people.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
Colonize the natives is a perfect metaphor.
Lydia wrote:
A smooth strategy. Get the attention off abuse of children in church and the explosion of New Calvinism in SBC by dragging out the Confederate flag! Hmmm … and no mention of Mahaney et al.?
mirele wrote:
Funny aphorism there mirele and yet right on the money. I’ll probably wind up sooner or later cribbing your line…
Lydia wrote:
SBC has similarities to a leper colony … it is being avoided and/or rejected by an increasing number of folks looking for a church … too much bad press.
Anonymous wrote:
Isn’t this because of the many takeovers of Baptist churches by Calvinist leaning men?
Anonymous wrote:
I thought the Baptists were Not a denomination?
Anonymous wrote:
You don’t believe the will of the convention was expressed then?
Max wrote:
God begins a good work. But we are not pre-programmed robots in some pre-destined, pre-determined creation, no.
God gives choice. AND He is sovereign. That is something the Calvinist doctrine has no understanding of, so they make up what they CAN sort out using a man-made determinism paradigm.
The thing is, IF God IS sovereign, He CAN give choices. By saying that He did not give us choices, people contradict sacred Scripture, and speak against the dignity of the human person who is made in the Imago Dei.
I don’t understand ‘reformed’ Calvinist thinking, but I do know people of the Dutch Reformed faith who are good Christians. Very good Christians. The Dutch Reformed people I know do not have a smug ‘it doesn’t matter what we do’ attitude. They live in accordance with Our Lord’s example and teachings in a way that honors Christ.
The neo-Cals, on the other hand, seem very arrogant by comparison, almost like a cult. Why the contrast? (?)
Lea wrote:
Oh, but those bazillion churches are theologically famished! The young planters need to plant the “right” theology and restore the gospel that those churches have lost. A community of Christ-followers doesn’t really exist unless they have been Calvinized, Piperized, Deverized, etc.
Lydia wrote:
Exactly!
Christiane wrote:
Amen! The free will of man and sovereignty of God works together in a way that is beyond human comprehension. To put the mind of God into a neat systematic theological box is to stand in arrogance before Him.
Christiane wrote:
Regarding “old” Calvinists and “new” Calvinists. I have worshiped alongside classical Calvinists in SBC for many years. I have found them to be civil in their discourse, offering certain perspectives on Scripture which, at times, have been helpful. Their neo-brethren, on the other hand, are arrogant and militant and being encouraged in that behavior to accomplish what the old guard could not … Calvinization of the Southern Baptist Convention. The old boys are using the energy of youth to push the new reformation forward.
Max wrote:
oh MAX, it seems to me that when Bart’s proposal was ignored, Mahaney WA$ the very large elephant in the convention room
brad/futuristguy wrote:
My son-in-law, a Southern Baptist pastor, was not distracted by SBC’s presidential election yesterday. He was busy leading an 11 year old girl to Christ at Vacation Bible School. He is a bi-vocational pastor, who works long hours with a full-time job in addition to his ministerial duties at a rural church. He has an SBC seminary degree, but unlike some of his college classmates refused to be indoctrinated in reformed theology while there. He went into seminary with the Cross of Christ for ALL people in his heart and came out that way. He will be talking to four more children tonight after they expressed an interest to know more about this Jesus following his evangelistic outreach to them in his VBS message last evening. Be encouraged – not all young SBC pastors have been tainted by the reformed movement! (if you noted my previous lengthy upstream comment, you know that I needed this encouraging VBS report from my daughter this morning)
JYJames wrote:
“TITHE! TITHE! TITHE!”
Furtick Mansions and Godly Gulfstreams are expensive.
“TITHE! TITHE! TITHE!”
Or ManaGAWD will get his Familiar Unholy Spirit to put a Hex on you.
“TITHE! TITHE! TITHE!”
Max wrote:
How long before the Disconnect Decree comes down from Flag?
Lydia wrote:
I could see that happening ONLY if they had just finished reading aloud from the Holy Gospels during a Church service
Lydia wrote:
Especially if they pronounce LOOOORD with all caps and multiple O’s.
Daisy wrote:
Where there’s easy prey, the Predators will swarm.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
Don’t forget Penetrating, Conquering, and Planting as well as Colonizing.
Because “colonizing the natives” has also been called “rape”.
Bridget wrote:
They’re a denomination when it’s to their advantage to be a denomination,
They NOT when it’s to their disadvantage.
Like Papa Chuck and his Calvary Chapels.
FW Rez wrote:
Kind of like giving a thirsting person a glass full of air…
Max wrote:
Purity of Ideology, Comrades.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I hope the SBC’s rejection of consideration of Bart’s proposal is not going to be a huge dog whistle to them what shields predators and crucifies victims instead
Darlene wrote:
You should know by now that poor doctrine is never a disqualifier in SBC polity…only forbidden doctrine is a disqualifier.
Lydia wrote:
Exactly. And let’s face it, “there’s no way God is not doing something in all of this” is probably about the weakest declaration a person could make, anyway, lol.
As on outsider, it appears to me that if God is doing anything, he is putting before every religious organization an obvious choice to make: whether to protect the weakest among us, or not. I see it as a crucible, and one there will be no possible excuse to the Lord for ignoring. While they are applauding each other, they are missing the obvious. I picture Christ setting a little child before them and asking what they are going to do, but they are frantically looking in every other direction so as to avoid his earnest gaze. His warning about millstones, necks and the deep blue sea doesn’t seem to pierce through to their consciousness at all.
Now, if anyone is at the point where they’d like to see something encouraging regarding the church, here is at least something good in the news, there are some in the church who recognize the hypocrisy and want to do what is right- http://lancasteronline.com/opinion/columnists/faith-leaders-want-child-sexual-abuse-victims-to-have-day/article_b1903034-2e70-11e6-81bb-97a9c62c600c.html?platform=hootsuite
Lydia wrote:
Yeah, that is probably the right word here. It is very difficult for me to look at the behaviors of those in power in the SBC and ignore the fact that the only logical unifier of their disparate behaviors is mammon.
Bridget wrote:
No.
dee wrote:
See my previous comment to Darlene 🙁
Bridget wrote:
The SBC has been considered a religious denomination for many years.
The CBF claims it is not a denomination, but a “fellowship”, and has specifically refused the denomination moniker.
Bridget wrote:
The Convention reacted to Greear’s decision to withdraw his name from consideration. Greear can, and did, withdraw without permission. So once he did that, there was only 1 candidate left.
I would rather that the Convention express by a proper vote which of the two it preferred.
Lydia wrote:
Oh, of course. Really, unity isn’t really even an issue for me. Heck, the Nazi party was unified – that wasn’t its issue now, was it? When I look at the behaviors and values, I don’t see Christ. The man worship is an obvious one, but there are many other triggers to people who don’t grow up in this stuff.
Christiane wrote:
Mahaney was not in the room. I never saw him, and I was around all week in the Exhibitor’s booths, one of the 9 Marks meetings, a Southern Seminary function etc.
No one from Sovereign Grace Church of Louisville attended as a messenger.
Even the guy who had initially been appointed to the Tellers Committee by Ronnie Floyd from Sovereign Grace Church of Louisville was no longer on the Tellers Committee as of about 30 days ago.
So, they were all a “no-show.”
Jack Graham, of Prestonwood Baptist, was probably there. As you know, he and Prestonwood have issues with letting sexual predators go unreported to the police.
Graham could have been the elephant.
Or they may have been no elephant at all, as the SBC did pass a resolution or some action proposed by Wade Burleson regarding child sexual predators a couple of years ago.
Still, I wish Bart’s resolution had been reported out of committee.
Max wrote:
Max, that is a great report! Thanks.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
HUG,
You are a smart and well read guy, and respect your opinion.
I have never heard Southern Baptists claim they are not in a denomination. All my life, I have heard the SBC’s denominational status reflected in secular and religious literature.
I have never heard SBC leaders claim the SBC is not a denomination.
Can you help me? Are some SBC leaders claiming that the SBC is not a denomination? Please point me to that, if you will.
I am wondering if people are confusing the doctrinal belief about autonomy of the local church, as opposed to the existence of the SBC as a Protestant religious denomination.
Anonymous wrote:
Considered by whom? I thought this was the argument when the issue of keeping a central register of offender pastors came up, that SBC is not a denomination but rather a convention. What am I missing here?
Anonymous wrote:
What is the tellers committee??
Also, why did so many people not vote, do you know?
I will say I don’t think unity is necessarily a good thing. There are an awful lot of people unified about things I think are a bad idea…
Lydia wrote:
Am not a SB, but have seen this played out before. Something creepy afoot. Deal making is high on the agenda…Ine can wager, The Neo Cals got something in return. Assets are at stake here, and they know it.The Neo Cals are biding time before they cash in their chips.
@ okrapod:
Here is the answer. http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/acloserlook.asp
By doctrine and polity, the SBC cannot and does not unite local congregations into a single legal denominational body.
They go on to say that it is a denomination ‘only in the broadest sense.’
Like HUG said: when it is to their advantage.
okrapod wrote:
It’s not that the SBC is or is not a denomination. It’s the issue of “autonomy” or the fact that each church is completely self-governing and is not controlled from groups or people outside of the congregation.
Okrapod:
This might help:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations#Baptist_churches
okrapod wrote:
There – you found it.
The SBC is a religious denomination. But the churches in the denomination are all autonomous and not under the control of the group.
Lea wrote:
The Tellers Committee counts the votes.
As to why people don’t vote, I am sure it varies. To be admitted to the Convention hall, one needs an identification badge, which you get at registration.
I suppose some are at the Convention for service or ministry purposes, and really don’t care about voting.
@ Anonymous:
Hi,
I wasn’t speaking literally. 🙂 And another reassuring nod to the people backing Mahaney’s inclu$ion into the SBC with all of his ‘predator shielding’ baggage, was also the strange ‘election’ of the Gaines, who brings his own baggage into higher profile with his history regarding the well-publicized case of Paul Williams.
what is that age-old saying of hope for better in the future? ‘Maybe next year, in Jerusalem ?’
Anonymous wrote:
I’ve heard Church of Christ people say this, but I don’t know about Baptist.
Anonymous wrote:
That’s a weird name for that. Go tell it on the mountain?
Unless it’s meant to be like bank tellers…
@ Anonymous:
I did not get that impression when I read the section on ‘denomination’ at the site I gave the link for. I got the impression that no, they are not a denomination, but they sometimes act like it.
I suspect we read that through different glasses, because when I was young the baptists used to ‘brag’ that they were not a denomination. That was one of the basic organization principles that we were taught. From the paragraph I gather that ‘no’ is still legally true, but ‘sort of’ is true in practice.
Of course when I was young they also emphasized that they had no statement of faith to which all the churches had to sign on. This was big. No creed but Christ. Nobody can tell a baptist what to believe. That has certainly gone by the way with the current attitude to BFM.
Patriciamc wrote:
Yes, me, too. I have Church of Christ friends who say this quite plainly.
To my knowledge, they have no “office” like the SBC does in Nashville. The more conservative ones are even opposed to colleges like Lipscomb, Harding, Abeline Christian, Pepperdine.
Lea wrote:
I suppose that’s it.
@ Anonymous:
@ okrapod:
Seems we need to define “denomination.”
Max wrote:
Bless your son-in-law. May his tribe increase.
@ Anonymous:
Did you see our buddy Wade?
okrapod wrote:
I joined my first Baptist Church at age 16. My church recognized there was a denomination – denominational offices at the State and national level.
But they were very clear about autonomy.
When it comes to confessions, Baptists (the ones that descend from English separatists) have had the London Confession of Faith, the Second London Confession of Faith, the New Hampshire Confession of Faith, and others, and then the SBC adopted the Baptist Faith & Message in 1925. That was the denomination’s first confession of faith.
I have heard “No creed but the Bible”, which is actually a creed itself.
I believe it is imperative for Christians and Churches that are going to affiliate and conduct ministry through joint efforts to get some clarity of whether they agree theologically. The failure to do that will eventually lead to anarchy in any joint projects, missions work, educational efforts etc.
But it can get out of hand.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Possibly the horror of the meaning of that is one big reason people turn a blind eye. I don’t mean the pewpeons but rather the “elders” who are responsible. I still remember the day I realized that the “elders” who should have been looking after the welfare of the little ones and the weaker ones were only really concerned with their own position. Regrettably, that was the case in an SBC church as well as a non-SBC conservative church.
Anonymous wrote:
I agree, though I don’t really think it makes much of a difference.
Max wrote:
they don’t even promote SBC affiliation!
Since you brought this up… We are aware of instances where members and attendees of The Summit (Greear’s church) do not realize that the congregation is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. Some mistakingly believe it is nondenominational, especially young people.
@ Anonymous:
Where were you and when? I am thinking this difference between us is probably local and time related. I was a Southern Baptist in Louisville from birth (mid 1930s to the early 1970s.) My aunt was an employee of the Long Run Association (note ‘association’) and I went to Carver School (formerly the WMU Training School) which at the time was associated with but not a part of SBTS. I was a missions major and I heard an emphasis there that the SBC missions enterprise was different in various ways from both missions societies and from missions run by actual denominations. In all of that I never once heard anybody mention any importance placed on any historical confessions of faith or any central statement of faith from the convention (though there was a BFM of course).
But your background and how you were taught and such have been quite different. I am thinking that you are younger than I am and that may be one explanation. The huge changes that have happened in SBC thinking since the resurgence cannot be overestimated.
Calvinists do not believe God dammed some to hell and others to heaven before they had a choice. That is heretical teaching and so many non-Calvinists believe that.I sensed no hostilities from the man asking about the mosques. It was legitimate.
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
@ FW Rez:
Gram3 wrote:
I think it says something that so many of the big mega church guys don’t have a theology degree – they read a lot like tony robbins instead of a minister…
I was just glancing at the Facebook comments on Christianity Today’s page. Under the post about the new SBC president are comments from three guys, one against Calvinism and two others saying Calvinism is good, we know the Bible and you don’t (Roman 9, Romans 9, Romans 9), yes God might have chosen my neighbor to go to hell, and above all else, you just need to stop posting. So, agree with us or shut up.
Bless their hearts.
@ Patriciamc:
Seriously, I’m just startled by the harshness of those two guys.
SBC seminaries update.
http://www.bpnews.net/47069/sbc-seminary-presidents-recap-campus-highlights.
They appear to be thriving.
Patriciamc wrote:
Being a jerk is not a fruit of the spirit!!!
Christiane wrote:
I wonder if the insurance companies got a whiff of that move to quash it for a vote.. Oh wait! They are autonomous churches not a denomination …..until it comes to power.
Christiane wrote:
Even then they confuse Paul with Jesus. :o)
Patriciamc wrote:
Once upon a time, I was surprisable. No more. They are totally filled with themselves. “Because we are right” and “Because shut up” are considered persuasive arguments within their thought cloister.
So does this really surprise anyone?
Protecting Pedos seems to be a Privilege of Pastoral Rank.
Lydia wrote:
They learned well from Papa Chuck of Calvary Chapel.
Anonymous wrote:
Wonder when that was considered the official description by the SBC? I recall it being referred to as a convention when I was a kid. “Denomination” was a no no. You joined the convention to give money to the cooperative program.
Patriciamc wrote:
Never underestimate the Harshness and Arrogance of Utter Righteousness.
The only worse combination is Absolute Power plus Utter Righteousness.
(And they’re working on that — Rushdoony, Seven Mountains Mandate, Reconstructionism…)
Gram3 wrote:
As much of a difference as proper votes of the North Korean People’s Assembly.
Gram3 wrote:
The twenty-something Elders who personally benefit from The Way Things Are?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc1KsSmsGdo
@ Anonymous:
You are doing great at the PR spin. I am getting a feel for the new spin. Gaines will come in handy! (Everyone is guilty so no one is guilty) Mohler must be proud of you. Of course CJ and entourage were not there.
It’s the Mammon!
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
CSLEWIS
Gram3 wrote:
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Yep….I kind of have the feeling the Holy Spirit is just shaking its head.
@ Lea:
Not that I believe this is about the ‘good of the victims’ for these particular people…but some.
@ Anonymous:
The secular media has referred to the SBC as a denomination since I can remember. I also remember adults bristling at the idea of that. Since the CR, it seems to be the internal accepted descriptor. Better way to ease into top down control.
Then it could be that some “autonomous” SBC churches back in the day were more top down than I was around and had no problem with that terminology. I don’t know.
okrapod wrote:
When it is inconvenient vs convenient to be a denomination. This was argued on blogs till the cows came home 10 years ago. It is fascinating how it works.
@ Donald Morgan:
“This is a similar mistake made by some Catholics who feel the Holy Spirit elects the Pope. Nothing could be further from the truth considering the Current Pontiff”
++++++++++++++++++
really? how could you know this?
your statement implying ‘the Holy Spirit never elects the Pope’ strikes me as being just as presumptuous as ‘the Holy Spirit always elects the Pope’.
I think it’s very plausible the HS was involved in Pope Francis getting the job. He’s an excellent human being, championing some very right things that to me seem very needed.
Perhaps one leader with that much power (a king, so to speak) is not the ideal situation. But it’s the system that’s in place, and I think God can work in any situation & system to bring about good & needed change. I think God can use anything and anyone as a catalyst, regardless of how ideal and righteous the person or situation might be.
Deb wrote:
This is typical of most SBC-YRR churches. They use cool names like The Summit, but fail to include “A Southern Baptist Church” on their sign out front. I guess they are ashamed of being associated with the SBC, but see the benefits in tremendous resources available to the reformed movement (seminaries, mission agencies, publishing house, etc.) when they finally conquer the denomination. Or perhaps they feel that identifying Southern Baptist would impact their ability to draw new members – Generation Xers and Millennials don’t like organized religion, you know. So, the YRR “lead pastors” hide SBC alliance in a corner of the “Beliefs” page on their websites with something like “We adhere to the BFM2000.” Of course, the church members don’t know this is an SBC statement and wouldn’t bother to read it anyway … just keep the cool music and coffee coming! An SBC-YRR church planter near me did an amazing thing! After receiving multiple inquiries about the nature of his church, he actually painted “A Reformed Southern Baptist Church” on the church sign. He then explained what that meant on the church website and social media. I may not agree with the young man’s theological leaning, but I sure appreciated his integrity to stop operating by stealth and deception. Yep, I appreciate honesty; you will always know who I am.
Lydia wrote:
Anonymous must be an up-and-comer in YRR ranks or a big dog wannabe. Monitoring and commenting on TWW is probably his assignment; he’s training for reigning.
@ Max:
And he just came back from several days of the constant praising of “men of God” from the stage.
It is heady stuff. If you are around it a lot, you start to believe it.
Gram3 wrote:
Indeed, this is a problem which currently afflicts the SBC, but it is not their problem exclusively!
Lydia wrote:
He will have to keep a low profile until sufficient time has elapsed so that the Usual Suspects can pretend there was no controversy surrounding T4g. They are so transparent.
@ Lydia:
My memory of the SBC matches Okrapod’s. We were not a denomination because denominations had hierarchies and so forth. We cooperated in Judea-Samaria-Uttermost missions. Local associations, state associations, Foreign Mission Board and Home Mission Board. I distinctly remember pride in *not* being directed from somebody somewhere else. Local church autonomy and priesthood of every believer. And back in those days church planting was done by one local church planting another nearby local church and nurturing it until it became able to be independent. Big celebrations when the “mission church” became autonomous.
I do not know how old Anonymous is, but I’ve been around the SBC all my long life, and that is what I remember.
It used to be known that the SBC only exists for a few days every year.
@ Gram3:
That is exactly what I remember. I believe anonymous has mentioned here in the past he remembers the CR as a young adult.
@ Gram3:
Yes! Great memory!
Lydia wrote:
It’s the same sort of motivation used at WalMart annual meetings … the only difference is that they drag God into their agendas.
Anonymous wrote:
But those are two different cultures! And there are sub-cultures within each of those. There are celebrities in both camps, and that is equally odious.
What you call “unity” others might see as practical capitulation much like when the CBF split off. The “moderates” who wanted to be part of the big group learned to go with the flow, and the ones who could not do that left. I was not in the SBC at that time, but I did observe that from a near vantage point.
The Calvinistas can afford to be magnanimous. They have won control over the money and the power centers of the SBC and have built and are operating parachurch organizations like 9Marks and Acts29 which are parasitically supported by non-YRR SBC churches via the CP They are the de facto denominational superstructure of the SBC. And everyone who is intellectually honest can see that. Yes, I realize that is a categorical statement, but I weary of the pious pretense I’ve seen way too much of.
@ Gram3:
So is the SBC a “corporation”? Note the following from SBC’s charter:
” … said corporation being created for the purpose of eliciting, combining, and directing the energies of the Baptist denomination of Christians, for the propagation of the gospel, any law, usage, or custom to the contrary not withstanding ..”
It’s various entities (NAMB, IMB, LifeWay, etc.) are also referred to as “corporations”.
Gram3 wrote:
Exactly. There was a lot of pushback. However, Mohler is safe when it comes to T$G. He is becoming less safe now putting CJ and entourage front and center at convention, like before. They still receive their SBTS perks. Mahaney used to be a draw when he preached pastors meeting.
In 2009 there were lots of CJ clones in attendance. You could pick them out like the Driscoll and Piper clones. It was uncanny. Moore had a whole young boy entourage following him around.
They are in image management mode. That is why anonymous brought up Graham. Bad enough. Yes. No question the man was protecting the mega church image.
But has anonymous read the SGM lawsuits? Sgmwikileaks? That place was predator central in more ways than one– for years! It was ingrained as normal. Can you imagine a pastor advising a mom to lock her daughter in at night so step daddy cant molest her –but he can stay in his headship role? Because nothing is more important than the man’s headship role. Not even the well-being of a young girl. That is their Jesus. Sick and twisted.
CJ Mahaney represents the sickest of sickos in a cult masquerading as Christianity. And Mohler gets by with protecting and promoting him.
Daisy wrote:
Morris even puts it as Jesus being God’s tithe, so that the congregation has to tithe or they aren’t being like Jesus. He completely misrepresents Scripture to do it, but he does it anyway: Mega-Pastor Wrongly Teaches That Jesus Is “God’s Tithe”.
The SBC pastor in our town is the gentlest and kindest person you would want to meet. I can’t imagine him ever telling his congregation God will kill them for not tithing.
Anonymous wrote:
I assume you are not female. The YRR can holler all they want about celebrating diversity, but the plain fact is that the only permissible diversity is ethnic and cultural. Between male and female in the SBC, there is an insurmountable barrier. An Iron Curtain. And it is about money and status.
As far as I am concerned, the YRR (Russell Moore being Chief Cheerleader for this) are using racial reconciliation, at least partially, as a diversion because it is a popular issue among the young. Yes, I mean that. The Confederate Flag should never have been an issue for Christians. The Law of Love should constrain people to support removing a symbol which is a reminder of how one type of human has sought to own other human beings. That does not dishonor the memory of young men of the Confederacy.
The Civil War and the Confederacy were more complicated that just slavery, but slavery was, IMO, the most morally offensive issue. The shame of it is that “conservative” Christians provided theological cover and justification for what was morally and biblically unsupportable.
So, all of the YRR should spare us the moral posturing about reconciliation as long as they are promoting as a “gospel imperative” the evil system of theology which perpetuates the effect of the Fall between males and females for whom Christ died to bring reconciliation.
That is the elephant in the room who continues to leave very large and very stinky deposits. See Driscoll, Mahaney, and Chandler.
Gram3 wrote:
This. Is it. All the players are in place. The takeover is near complete. Gaines works to their advantage, too. He is not exactly thrilled about anyone bringing up molesters in the church due to his dealing with Paul Williams. Williams can’t compete with SGM but Gaines made a huge mistake when he did not make him leave staff and report him to authorities the minute he was confronted by William’s own son.
Lydia wrote:
Jack Graham is not a defense for Mahaney, Driscoll, and Chandler if that was Anonymous’ intent. Just to single out a few exemplars. Thing is, I do not care what color nametag the guys are wearing. Abuse of any kind should not be permitted in the church of Jesus Christ. Period. The YRR brigade should be the loudest protestors of those three, and the Traditionalists should be the loudest protestors of Graham and some others. Tribal affiliation should not matter.
K.D. wrote:
Speaking of voting, did women have a voice in these proceedings? I don’t know how things work in SBC in this regard.
@ Darlene:
It would be interesting to see the percentage of women attending compared to 25 years ago. I bet, except for Pastor wives, it is much lower.
@ Gram3:
Very true. The refuge of scoundrels is ‘everybody does it’.
Lydia wrote:
a shame if it is lower …. ‘the dying of the light’
Lydia wrote:
They know when they’re NOT welcome.
Lydia wrote:
The most memorable time I heard “Everybody’s Doing It!” was a same-sex sexual predator trying to high-pressure his way into my pants. I didn’t fall for it.
Lydia wrote:
AKA It’s All Over But The Screaming.
(And/or the Great Purge after the Coup.)
I haven’t read most of the comments, but I’ll add something here and see where it goes. If Steve Gaines is a staunch Comp who supports ESS, the SBC will have dissension within its ranks in my opinion. I think ESS will rise to the level of dogma further alienating women in the SBC. Even if Gaines isn’t a supporter of ESS at this time, the movers and shakers within the SBC who are could easily convince him that this is the new deal breaker – the issue of the day that will make or break their denomination. On the other hand, maybe everything I’ve just said is moot or of no concern for the SBC.
As far as Patriarchy being one of the lynchpins of the Calvinist movement (Complementarianism is just a term to window dress imo), I was having a dialogue with some Calvinists yesterday on a Calvinist FB site about this very subject. When I spoke of the abuses toward women within the system of Patriarchy, and my own experiences that were detrimental to my marriage back when we believed that way, I was stunned at a response that revealed a person lacking in empathy. This is what he said:
“The Scriptures teach a hierarchical patriarchy. Due to this, no argument raised against it holds any weight whatsoever for the Christian, who is by nature a “person of the Book.” You could prove that every marriage since Gen 3 had been Hell; and yet the Scripture is above all.”
This comment is so disturbing on many levels. What comes to mind is that such a person could end of worshipping a book and miss Christ. As our Lord said, “You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.” Another disturbing element to such a response is the cold hearted, lack of concern toward the abuse of women. He is more concerned about a system that must be adhered to, than actual people. It reminds me of the cold response at TGC toward a woman who spoke about her abusive Comp. marriage, and TGC was only concerned about defending their dogma. (I wish I could remember the woman’s name – TWW did a post on her.) I’m also reminded of something the leader in my former Christian cult said: “In all wars, there are casualties.” This was his response to those within our community who were adversely affected by his harsh tactics in dealing with us.
Whoever thought there could be such a thing as heartless Christianity? The very foundation of our faith – the second instruction from Christ Himself, is to “love our neighbor as ourselves.”
Tim wrote:
Furtick Mansions, Star Scott Car Collections, and Gulfstreams are expensive perqs.
Lydia wrote:
“Effective propaganda consists of Simplification and Repetiton.”
“A lie, repeated often enough, becomes the Truth.”
— both attr to Reichsminister Josef Goebbels
(who stage-managed such a spectacle at Nuremberg)
Max wrote:
A Comrade Ogilvy, faithful Hero of The Party.
Patriciamc wrote:
“Nothing’s worse than a monster who thinks he’s right with God.”
— Captain Mal Reynolds, Free Trader Serenity
Darlene wrote:
There isn’t. All this abuse is NOT Christianity.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Quoting Firefly. Shiny!
Darlene wrote:
This is exactly like the Facebook comments I was reading today between the neo-cals and the guy against Calvinist. The two Calvinists had no problem with the idea that God might have created their neighbor in order to send him to hell. Talk about cold, hard, and totally lacking in Christian love. So, let's think about the future these guys are creating for themselves. Sure, bad things do happen to good people, but if they sow judgment, coldness, and hardness, that's exactly what they'll reap. They're creating some hard times for themselves.
@ Darlene:
You are not familiar with Donna Gaines, are you? My guess is comp in name only. :o)
Christiane wrote:
If it does not look like Christ, it cannot be Christianity. Imagine if this overripe boy (obviously he is not a mature man) met the woman at the well. We would have a totally different story. Or the woman who was unclean who touched Jesus out of her faith. This overripe boy would have been outraged instead of compassionate because how dare she defile him with her touch (sort of reminds me of Piper.)
Lydia wrote:
Lydia, don’t you mean to finance their vacations? Mission trip to England and France…yeah, riiiight.
Lea wrote:
But but but but but but….they aren’t CALVINISTS!!!
brad/futuristguy wrote:
And don’t forget Church Discipline to keep the ghettoized community in line.
So I sat out those debates about the Babylon Bee that were going on recently, because I seem to like it and Adam “4d” a lot less than most here, but these two may make me come around:
First, one on topic (you know I like this one, Dee): http://babylonbee.com/news/confederate-flag-cant-believe-got-ousted-sbc-ed-young/
And then,
http://babylonbee.com/news/local-calvinists-sense-superiority-visible-space/
Anonymous wrote:
I am confused by thus statement. Particularly the word “diversity” applied in the Christian setting. Every individual is unique and created by God with his or her talents, gifts and even quirks. God created no two people the same. So it would follow that every SBC gathering that has ever occurred would have been “diverse”. Correct?
You go on to mention and list the “ethnic churches” so I guess you equate “diversity” with skin color? I know you would never say you value someone based simply on their skin color or ethnicity. But can you see how that can be implied? The recent focus on the Orwellian titled “racial reconciliation” is so cringey and leaves me scratching my head. In this push for “racial reconciliation” it seems that some souls are worth more than others. I genuinely would like to hear your response. Am I missing something?
Gram3 wrote:
What is an overripe boy?
Lydia wrote:
I dunno, Lydia. Doug Wilson seemed to have a problem with the SBC resolution on the Confederate flag. No surprise there. Look, I say, just put that flag which is an offense to African Americans, to rest. History is rather clear as to the meaning of the Confederate flag. The War between the States has been over for 150 yrs. The South lost. The flag and all it represents should be disparaged and laid aside, for the love of neighbor and the unity of our nation.
Darlene wrote:
Not in the south it’s not. The flag is also used to honor soldiers who fought for the Confederacy, not a racist use at all. The man that wrote the resolution even wants to remove Battle Flags from the graves of Confederate veterans from SBC church cemeteries. I see as much political correctness in the resolution as a statement against racism.
I find your comment quite condescending, kind of like the SBC Voices crowd that refuse to entertain different opinions on the issue.
Darlene wrote:
That is so true of so many of them.
I weary of them quoting Scripture verses when they should be quiet and walk the talk.
Anonymous wrote:
I see. So they have some freedom in how they see and carry out the word of God, for instance, they could call a woman pastor if they wanted to?
Darlene wrote:
That would invalidate “you will know them by their fruits.”
No, the fruit is the illustration of the truth. Truth bears good fruit. Not thousands of years of “hell”.
Good grief.
This “person of the book” needs to know the book a little better. A lot better.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
This is OT but oh. my. goodness. I had not heard of Star Scott before so I looked him up. http://unsettledchristianity.com/star-r-scott-a-real-piece-of-work/
You know, it’s really stunning what people will put up with.
I wonder what Steve Gaines’ position will be on this?
http://www.snapnetwork.org/mo_big_baptist_church_tries_to_forcibly_out_abused_kids
Lydia wrote:
What is the CR again?
Ken P. wrote:
Ken, not condescending. I look at history and judge the reasons for and circumstances surrounding the American Civil War just as anyone else does. The words of Southerners – politicians and the like – stated their reasons for secession and formation of the Confederacy. We know what the Confederate flag meant – its in the written historical record in the Confederates’ own words. It stood for their right to retain and defend, by force of arms if necessary, their “peculiar institution” of racially-based slavery. Sometimes we can forget our historical past and view it with some sense of Romanticism. But the historical record reveals the motives behind one of the most shameful eras of our nation.
Gram3 wrote:
Gram3: Very accurate perspective.
Darlene wrote:
This is where so many folks let their thinking go wrong. A book is not a person, and a person is not some derivative of a book. Except, I think that some folks may see themselves as that and in fact may be that. But that is less than personhood. Whatever the book. The books of the law? Jesus got frustrated with people who could not see beyond that. The book of Islam? The Bible? It all looks like the same misunderstanding. The book of christianity describes scripture itself as ‘profitable.’ It is that, but we are not born of the book but rather of the Spirit. The Word was not incarnate as a book. The Word was made flesh, not a book. How did we lose our way like this?
Speaking of will the south rise again, and looking at the rise in the SBC of a style of calvinism in which men basically own women, I am thinking that this idea of ownership has indeed risen again; just the color of the uniforms is different. They can talk all they want to about how it is not about race anymore, it is still about ownership. And when churches demand total submissive obedience from the members is that not part and parcel of the same concept of ownership. Who ya foolin’ anyhow?
There is much good about southern culture, but this is not it.
Darlene wrote:
I contend that the history of the War Between the States and its causes were much more complex than you have presented. I have not the patience to debate the issue at TWW as I and others have covered the subject over at SBC Voices for the last 3 months. You may want to go over there and review some of the posts. There have been about 10 of them. You probably will not agree with those against the resolution, but you may be able to appreciate the different perspective.
As for the “Romanticism” issue, I find that statement condescending too.
Darlene wrote:
Conservative Resurgence.
Deb wrote:
No. I had hoped to but did not.
Ken P. wrote:
Okay, so I went to SBC Voices (never did that before) and clicked on archives and looked at the titles of posts from March 2016 on. I can’t tell what is about the confederacy and/or the flag(s) of the confederacy or not except one thing by McKissick (sp?). Can you point me in the right direction here? If there is another side to the story I would like to hear it.
I admit bias. I grew up in KY, Louisville actually, and when we studied Kentucky history in the seventh grade next to nothing was said about the civil war. The message was that yes there was a war but that Kentucky was fortunate to not be all that involved with it, and now let’s get back to Daniel Boone and the move toward the west in the olden days. I do remember the near adulation of Lincoln, mostly because he used to use a candle by night in the log cabin to do his lessons. And if the great Lincoln could to that so can you, and your homework had better get done. Okay, that is an exaggeration but not by much. Then I moved to the other side of the mountains and the remembrance of the conflict is apparently different here, but I never encouraged conversation about it. I had other issues and one cannot get spread too thin, But now here is an issue that can’t be avoided. Dang it. But yes, I will give a listen to what you have to say.
I said all that to make a point. I have never yet found myself to be unique. If I am like this there is an almost 100% probability that there are a whole flock of people like this also. It is a segment of the populace whose ideas you and others might be trying to influence. So, I am influencable. Which posts should I read?
Max wrote:
Hardly.
Gram3 wrote:
They are different.
But they have much in common, as well.
Beaux wrote:
Yes, Beaux, as my comment states, I am grateful to see churches join the SBC that have varying ethnic backgrounds. I believe this is a good thing. Much like seeing the fruits of missionary work overseas where people from historically non-Christian societies come to Christ. It is a sign of health, I believe, for the SBC to expand and have all kinds of people in it, as the US continues to change demographically, I think it is good for that to happen on the SBC.
siteseer wrote:
The church could do that. The SBC does not control pastoral selection.
The churches of the SBC have not been keen on calling women to serve as pastors, and the churches have adopted a statement of faith that says the Bible teaches that pastors should be qualified men.
I would not think that a church that called a woman pastor would want to be in the SBC.
The CBF, by example, has churches with women pastors, but not that many.
siteseer wrote:
Ha. Ha. A church can get booted for that by the state convent…. errr…denomination. And it has happened. I can’t remember the name of the church but the pastor was a woman by the name of Pennington. I think in Georgia.
However, churches that have predator rings and are Shepherding cults are more than welcome… like CJ Mahaney. And churches run by anti congregational polity proponents like the elephant debt high stakes gambler, James MacDonald, are welcome.
Women pastors are the real sin. I hope that rule makes sense for you. :o)
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
HUG, you are often funny, but this comment is stupifying.
You either really don’t fully appreciate the horror of North Korea, or the independent nature of Baptists.
It’s kind of like when Hitler comes up in an argument for comparison.
When Hitler comes out, one has jumped the shark.
So it is with the Hermit Kingdom!
@ Lydia:
Let me add that how the money flows up has changed drastically after Mohler was secretly crowned Pope. It is all secret non disclosure agreements with the states now. You fall in line or there are consequences to the state apparatus employees. There is a situation in Maryland blowing up now. Something about Ezell threatening to cut off the state employees health care or some other funding if they did not fall in line
Not sure how or why this is the case. For example, a few years back there was a big name group that met called the Great Commission Task Force. They voted to keep the their meeting minutes secret for 15 years. So it is all confusing and as you know, they call it gossip when you question but are not privy to the actual facts.
Just like Jesus, eh?
Anonymous is taking us all on one of his SBC image management rides.
Max wrote:
Max,
You deserve the gold star! If this quote is indeed from the SBC’s charter, that settles the issue of whether the SBC calls itself a denomination.
All of you guys with childhood memories to the contrary should go back and correct your errant teachers.
@ okrapod:
Go to SBC Voices and click on the first Confederate flag post you see. At the end of the article, you should find 3 related posts. That would be a good place to start.
You could also just scroll back to all the posts manually. I may have misled you. It might not be as far back as 3 months. It may be a little hard to follow but if you are patient, you may be able to get at least some of the picture.
Anonymous wrote:
That is a hoot. Independence? That concept has been dead since the CR consolidated it’s win back in the late 90’s. People just did not know that. Some did Like Russell Dilday who saw the handwriting on the wall and tried to warn about the revised BFM 2000.
I would say the Calvinist resurgence has the same roots of entitlement, arrogance and power as North Korean dictators. It sure is churning those types out of Seminary. A North Korean dictator would love a fawning court jester like Mahaney who gives him money and flatters him all the time publicly.
This is usually where the challenge of denomination or convention comes out.
Anonymous wrote:
They certainly all want women to stay out of things, obey and let the men folks handle things…
Lydia wrote:
I am reporting what I saw at the SBC, as I suspect I was the only one commenting here who was in attendance.
Beyond that, I have just been fielding questions about whether the SBC is a denomination, Mahaney’s presence, the Presidential vote at the Convention, and tensions between Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC.
I am enjoying your comments about your childhood where your teachers in an SBC church told you the SBC was not a denomination (which Max shared is contrary to the SBC’s own charter), Mohler’s papacy, the state convention apparatus, secrecy and such. It is all really fascinating.
Frankly, your ride is more fun. It’s like Space Mountain or Neverland. Mine is more like It’s a Small World.
Anonymous wrote:
Dont’ you find it curious that that part (iirc) didn’t pop up until 2000(ish)? It wasn’t so super important in 1925 apparently..
Lydia wrote:
Yes, I’m sure the female percentage would be much lower than in the 20th century. SBC churches I have been a member of over the years always sent female messengers to the annual convention. Of course, there was a better understanding in those days that women believers were also full-fledged members of the Body of Christ. The Southern Baptist convention/corporation/organization/denomination was such a harmonious Christian group back then. The fights didn’t get nasty until the 1980s when theo-politicians started vying for the throne. And we wonder why the presence and blessing of God is not so evident in SBC life these days?
Anonymous wrote:
Well, yes, if you mean that your small small world is a boat ride in the dark in which one theme and only one is presented until people can never get it out of their mind. In that sense, you are right on. If you mean that diversity of ethnicity is all that composes SBC thinking and is big right now, then they are late to the game. Wonder why?
okrapod wrote:
From my perspective, most southerners are very aware of the civil war, but it’s history – a thing of the past not frequently discussed. The late unpleasantness, as was mentioned previously 🙂
It tends to be people not from the south bring it up, usually for the express purpose of talking about how much better they are than southerners, because of stuff that happened long before any of us were born. (unless it is non-southerner who bring it up in a different way – like is doug Wilson southern? Cause he lives in Idaho and the internet san he was born in san diego). For instance, we pretty much never talked about it in high school (unless it was in class or something), but when I went to school people from new jersey would approach me and say goofy things like ‘we won the war’ and want to get into it! Very strange.
For my money, I’m guessing this flag thing was related to the nutjob in south Carolina a while back, but I don’t really know. It just seems like there are more pressing issues.
@ Anonymous:
This is not a new feeling. It goes back to the internet wild west days of the outpost when you used, at least, a first name. But then you got outed over at the watchdog.
The feeling is of needing to take a shower after conversing with you. Frankly, I find your brain gaming deceptive. You and I both know the game. Perhaps you are like one of the marks HUG talks about who was conned and in so deep you can’t admit it. If only your gurus like Dever and Mohler had not taken up with Driscoll and Mahaney, who are hard to explain away, so you use compartmentalization to distance yourself from that aspect of them.
I have been around guys like you for years in the Seeker Mega movement and now the Neo Cals. Some are in my own family. Clever, educated and successful and deadly to truth. Frankly, I would rather hang around with the church janitor….and I do nowadays.
@ Darlene:
I think you are right!
Darlene wrote:
One SBC-YRR that I monitor on Twitter noted in a tweet from SBC-St. Louis this week that he predicts “Southern” will be taken out of the SBC name in 2018 in conjunction with J.D. Greear’s election as SBC President. The “Southern” connotation is impacting them, they say, in outreach to African-American communities and church-planting in areas outside the South.
The more I read of this mess that has become of my native tribe the more thankful I am that there are choices available and that we got out while we had sustained only minimal inconvenience in doing so.
It is sad. I keep hoping for better, probably related to nostalgia or something, but I no longer believe that better is the direction of southern baptists.
Max wrote:
Then they should just split off into their own thing. Needs to be a split anyway.
Lea wrote:
My daughter married into a local family where her former parents in law have a hallway with family pictures including some ancestor in civil war uniform. Their son made sure we all knew how proud they were of that. I have no idea how common that is. I never pursued the subject. I like peace. My family and basically our section of KY was on the other side of the fence when it came time to divide up and choose, brother against brother. But yes, there was the confederate monument on the edges of Belknap Campus (U of L) so maybe we made it a non-issue because of how it tore up that area with division of families. Sort of, the less said the better.
NC, I have been told, was very divided, eastern part of the state vs western part of the state with many in the west not being confederate sympathizers. When we lived in the eastern part of the state in a rural area I think they never forgot the war for one minute, but mostly said nothing. Over where we are now it seems to be a non-issue. We fit in over here but not over there. Again, I like peace.
@ okrapod:
Both Lincoln and Jefferson Davis were born in KY. Strange, eh?
There are statues of both of them in the Capitol Rotunda.
Lincoln’s best friend and business partner was Joshua Speed from Louisville who came back to take over his father’s estate when he died. A fascinating story of a complicated friendship leading up to war.
KY has the most complicated and non sensical civil war history! Mary Todd saw slaves sold at auction in Lexington from her bedroom window, while freed men were in Louisville. Maysville had a very active underground railroad getting across the Ohio. And so it goes.
okrapod wrote:
It’s hard to forget if Civil War battles were fought in your own town and much of your family’s wealth was destroyed. My grandmother’s town of Plymouth was the site of one battle where her family’s home was hit by a canon ball lodging in the chimney and was used by a sniper who was shot at and killed …. he staggered down the stairs into the main hall and died there, his blood still stains the wooden floor. I guess you don’t easily forget when a war comes literally so close to home. That house still stands and is on the walking tour in Plymouth NC and is a registered historical site. The war really happened, and people were impacted, and their descendants hold the memories, still have the letters, and tend the graves of those who were impacted by the war, yes.
okrapod wrote:
My grandmother (from Mississippi) was more into DAR, than Daughters of the confederacy. Old pictures aren’t uncommon.
I think that war was just brutal on the south. So many people dead, then years of poverty and reconstruction…that sort of thing leaves a mark, even without the racial issues.
dee wrote:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9oHIG6bNgTI
Steve Gaines on how wives should respect their husbands
Lea wrote:
The New Calvinists don’t want to leave SBC; they want SBC! There’s too much stuff to leave behind. If it was simply a matter of being someone place that is already reformed, they would have joined Presbyterian ranks or one of the Reformed Baptist denominations, like Piper did. No, they want to take SBC back to its Civil War theological roots – Calvinism – and capture all the SBC booty, too. Starting from scratch to do their own thing would be a much harder row to hoe than taking over a convention/denomination whose majority membership don’t believe and practice like they do. So, the weeping and gnashing of teeth will continue, our youth will be swallowed by the movement, churches will split, mature Christians will join the “done” ranks … while God works elsewhere.
Nancy2 wrote:
Your husband needs to know that he is your hero?? What is this, the hallmark channel?
If someone wants to ‘know’ they are your hero, they should act in a way that makes them so. If someone wants to be respected, be respectable. IF someone wants to be loved, be loving.
I’m curious how much of that sermon was geared towards husbands…
Anonymous wrote:
I assume you are referring to Baptist Men here, since the SBC attempts to brainwash women into believing that we are dependant “derivatives”? I ask that as a woman who was raised in baptist churches and has been a member since 1978.
Nancy2 wrote:
More ‘wisdom’ – Let him (your husband) pick the restaurant. Don’t let the kids be mean to him.
Steve? Darlin? This stuff goes both ways. This is advice for men and women (surely he doesn’t mean let the husband pick the restaurant always because that would be silly).
okrapod wrote:
My ancestors fought for the Confederacy since they were from Georgia and Florida. My family, though, didn’t really dwell on it, and we had family who had to bury food to hide it from the Union soldiers. My great uncles all fought in WWII, so that’s the war my family mostly talked about growing up. Personally, I have no emotional attachment to the Civil War, but knowing people who fought in the Battle of the Bulge makes WWII a bit more personal.
@ Lea:
maybe Gaines would gain more if he put time towards counseling young people before marriage to RESPECT and preserve each other’s dignity ??? But I guess that is not his goal?
I much prefer the Anglican phrase ‘either to other’ in their formal marriage ceremony. It doesn’t quibble over who gets the respect based on body parts, it just speaks of Christian marriage itself as a place of honoring one another mutually.
Maybe Gaines would benefit from reading this:
“from a letter written by Tertullian to his wife (circa 202 A.D.):
” How beautiful, then, the marriage of two Christians, two who are one in hope, one in desire, one in the way of life they follow, one in the religion they practice.
They are as brother and sister, both servants of the same Master. Nothing divides them, either in flesh or in Spirit. They are in very truth, two in one flesh; and where there is but one flesh there is also but one spirit.
They pray together, they worship together, they fast together; instructing one another, encouraging one another, strengthening one another.
Side by side they face difficulties and persecution, share their consolations. They have no secrets from one another, they never shun each other’s company; they never bring sorrow to each other’s hearts… Psalms and hymns they sing to one another.
Hearing and seeing this, Christ rejoices. To such as these He gives His peace. Where there are two together, there also He is present, and where He is, there evil is not.”
I think the early Christians had a better grasp of real Christian marriage than the patriarchists of our time will ever have, yes.
@ Lea:
Steve Gaines became pastor of Bellvue when Adrian Rogers retired. Adrian Rogers was one of the master-minds of the CR in the SBC. He was a major player in writing the BF&M 2000, especially the “wives submit” article xviii.
Lea wrote:
In 1925 I don’t know of any Baptist churches that had women pastors or wanted to have women pastors.
Nancy2 wrote:
It’s just really obvious that they are reacting to culture when they feel the need to stick that sort of thing in what 150 years after their founding and 75 (ish) years after the first BF&M.
Nancy2 wrote:
Nancy, I perceive that you are quite an independent woman, as are my wife and adult female children!
Lydia wrote:
Lydia,
I know that despite our differences that deep down we admire one another. Despite the fact that we don’t agree, and sometimes I don’t agree with your comments, I appreciate the time you take to engage with my comments.
okrapod wrote:
That’s not what I meant. It was a joke.
Yes, the SBC is late due to its ancestry. But as they say – “Better late than never!”
@ Christiane:
Beautiful.
Nancy2 wrote:
So, are we “Done” yet? http://bit.ly/1Ug8T7p
JYJames wrote:
A boy who is well past the age where he should have matured into a man.
Anonymous wrote:
Probably not, but the Free Will Baptists used to ordain women. Back in the late seventies/early eighties I met one of them at a conference. She was still allowed to preach, having been ordained while they still did that, but they had quit ordaining any more women at the time.
siteseer wrote:
LOL!
JYJames wrote:
The “dones” have always cut ranks when church becomes religious and spiritually destitute. They are mature believers who are done, but not quit yet … how can you quit on Jesus?! They are members of the Church within the church, the real deal who can never be satisfied with aberrant theology and the agendas of men. Sometimes they become the Church, rather than go to church. If we could ever gather all the dones in one place, man could we ever have Church!
Patriciamc wrote:
My family has been in what is now Todd County, Kentucky since the late 1700’s. My ancestor’s fought for the Union, while some of their neighbors fought for the confederacy. I live close to a road that we call “the Blue and Gray Park Road”, because there is a cemetery there where soldiers from both sides are buried.
When I was a small child, I noticed special writings on some tombstones in a cemetery that my family tended. My papaw shared tons of family history and stories with me, but he would tell me about these grave markings was, “that meant they were soldiers”. A few years ago, I decided to research my family history. I found out that my ggg-grandfather and my gg-grandfather (along with some of their brothers) fought in the Kentucky infantry. My gg-grandfather was captured by Confederate soldiers in a skirmish near Fairview, KY (birthplace of Jefferson Davis – a 15 to 20 minute drive from my house) and was held prisoner in a camp in Bowling Green, KY.
Besides being against the confederate flag, there are people who want to raze the Jefferson Davis Monument, too. I say let them both stand. We need to remember our history – not destroy it. It makes a statement: this is what we were in the past, but this is what we have learned, and this is who we are now!
The man who now manages the Jefferson Davis State Park is an American of African descent. His ancestors were slaves. He has updated and added displays and information to the park, and has done a better job of managing it than anyone else during my lifetime!
In Aug. 2017, we will have a solar eclipse. Ground zero is in Christian County, KY. Y’all go on over to Christian County and watch the eclipse. While you’re there, take a drive out highway 68-80 and visit the Jeff Davis. It’s just barely on the Todd County side of the Todd-Christian Co. line. Gimme a heads up and I’ll meetcha there!
Nancy2 wrote:
I also thought it was sort of silly that he mentioned quiche, as my current bf specifically asked me to make him quiche…
okrapod wrote:
This what I mean. This particular group of men want to go backwards. Some of them think women shouldn’t have the opportunities by grandmother did in 1940s Mississippi! Ridiculous.
Max wrote:
I agree 100%. Starting their own convention/denomination would have just been too much work. The SBC is easy pickings for them, since rank and file Baptists either don’t know or don’t care what’s going on.
Anyone ever read “A Quiet Revolution” by Reisinger?
I think the best solution would be for neo-cals to just join the PCA and dig a Baptismal Pool at the back of each church’s property and dunk people in secret.
Ken P. wrote:
I think that people like Doug Wilson and the Reconstructionists/Federal Visionistas have a romanticized view of the Confederacy. See the League of the South. However, that is not true of all Southerners or even many Southerners. I have many ancestors who fought in the Civil War/WBTS/Late Unpleasantness on the side of the Confederacy, and the issues were very complex and involved other significant issues besides slavery which would have been worth at least quarreling over. But slavery, IMO, swamps all of those.
I do not think we dishonor those many brave young men who fought for *those* issues by removing the Battle Flag. It is a myth that all or most people in the South owned slaves (and I think that people should stop implying such), but it is true that the institution of slavery is a monstrously grievous sin and offense against human beings created in God’s image. I believe that Christians should acknowledge that offense and seek reconciliation and love their fellow Image Bearers enough to set aside a symbol which signifies, in part, that grievous sin.
What is galling is the moral preening by men who maintain the exact stance toward females as the slave-holding Christians-with-clobber-verses did toward Africans. Russell Moore is, IMO, signaling his own virtue and gathering a following for himself by exploiting the exploitation of his fellow human beings.
That said, I have not read Voices and the threads on this issue.
Lydia wrote:
I know the Speed name if not the history of the family; it is ‘all over’ Louisville. Speed Museum. Speed Scientific School (engineering, U of L) and forever in my heart the Speed home/mansion which is or was in Old Louisville, probably built by one of Joshua’s offspring. Those old mansions used to have music rooms, and the music room at the Speed home was where I humiliated myself before God and man during a violin recital by forgetting the piece half way through. Being the pleasant and docile child I was (sarc) I of course took down my violin, uttered a loud expletive and walked off stage. At that moment being a medical missionary to darkest Africa started to look more appealing. If that story is reworked into some moment of divine guidance it can play well at Wednesday night prayer meeting testimony time if they call on one to speak. Just saying.
I will have to read about Joshua and Abraham. It is really shameful to be this ignorant in this area. But nobody can do it all. That is my excuse!
@ Nancy2:
Folks need to listen to you on this. Your part of the state is so great.
Anonymous wrote:
Yep. I may be a Baptist, but I was raised as a dirt-poor farmer’s daughter, oldest child and grandchild, raised to do a man’s job on the farm.
Godd for you and your family that your wife and daughters are independant. When the rubber hits the road, we all need somebody that is able to take care of business!
Gram3 wrote:
I don’t think Doug Wilson is even a southerner, is he? Because don’t get me started on the non-southern confederacy sympathizers…those people are always trouble.
I think southerners generally hold a more, although this term gets overused, nuanced view of the confederacy. You can have ancestors who fought and died, and respect them, and love the south itself for all its wonderful qualities, while still realizing that slavery was very wrong and we’re better off having gotten rid of it.
@ Nancy2:
Should say good for you … my iPad is freezing up…..makes hard to type!
Anonymous wrote:
That is ridiculous. A female pastor is verboten, and you know that. You make be asserting something which is formally true (autonomy) but which would work out very differently in practice. The fact is that the SBC will tolerate all of the Usual Suspects and welcome others like James MacDonald (and even promote them!), but if a church called old and uber-conservative Cradle roll baptized married in the SBC Gram3 to be its Senior Pastor, you know very well what would happen. That church would be keyed-out of the kingdom. I know from personal experience. And you know that, too.
Anonymous wrote:
So, which is it? Autonomous or bound by a confession?
Lydia wrote:
Beat me to it!
Have you all noticed that US Army dress blues look like a Union uniform from some movie? So I said to somebody once as he stood there decked out like that that it looked like he was in the Union army. I was informed that, of course, the US Army is the union army, what did I think it was.
Never thought about it, but I guess that is right. So I am thinking that if the Union can hang onto its symbolism so can the South. Maybe not the Confederate battle flag, but at least the monuments to the Confederate dead. You can only take so much away from people before they will find a way to rebel.
Nancy2 wrote:
and most of the time, that person is a woman who has been strengthened by enduring quietly while others preened and paraded …. it’s often the matriarchs of sacred Scripture who save the day with their courage
Anonymous wrote:
You sound just like the elders I have had Close Encounters with. Not winsome nor does it adorn the Gospel.
Ken P. wrote:
I actually had a staff member in our State’s Baptist Convention (SBC affiliate) tell me this! A Calvinist himself, he essentially said that the SBC was easy pickins’ for the New Calvinist movement or any movement. It seems that a body once known as a “People of the Word” don’t read it much anymore and don’t even know what theology they ought to profess! Just keep the potlucks coming and they’ll continue to drop bucks into the plate to support whatever. This is another reason contributing to the “Dones” being done with SBC life.
Anonymous wrote:
I am not a lawyer, but the term “corporation” does not mean the same thing as “denomination with top-down hierarchy.”
Lea wrote:
Yes. It was unnecessary to put in that restriction because it was assumed that women were inferior and incapable of holding that position. Now the rationale has become “Because God’s good and beautiful and glorious plan of Authority-Submission.”
okrapod wrote:
LOL! So true.
Darlene wrote:
I find this quote you provided revealing, Muslims use the term “people of the book” for Christians also. In sixty years I have never heard a Christian refer to a fellow believer that way before. Maybe it is not just hyperbole when some refer to the patriarchal enforcers as ISIS.
Gram3 wrote:
Same thing, different word-salad justification.
Lydia wrote:
The church janitor cleans up the messes. The other guys create them. As it happens, Gramp3 had a very lovely encounter with the church janitor at a local church last night. He has served that church for decades. And I do mean served.
Bill M wrote:
Lot of parallels between Calvinism & Islam, especially in their can-you-top-this extreme forms.
Calvin & Mohammed both emphasized God’s Sovereign Will and Extreme Predestination and had God All Figured Out in their Institutes & Koran; why shouldn’t they both show the results and side effects of these common axioms?
Lea wrote:
AMEN to this. My great-grandfather’s brother was William James Ausbon, 17th NC troops, one of the six heroes of the Siege of Petersburg. For HIS sake, I want the Confederate flag in a museum, and no longer being used by racist murderers in our present day who wrap themselves in that image. Slavery with its evil held the whole South in a bondage. And I HAVE seen how much the language of patristics uses the same kind of tactics to impose ‘submission’ on women which I view as a slavery of the spirit of a human person to the whims of another …. a pattern which injures the dignity of BOTH the woman AND the man who is involved in such a perverse mockery of what Christian marriage is supposed to be.
Gram3 wrote:
What makes you think he isn’t a twentysomething Mohlerjugend Elder?
Max wrote:
That is an idea which has been floating around since at least the early 80’s. I think the latest iteration was “Great Commission Baptists.”
Nancy2 wrote:
Is this the same Nancy2 who packs a pistol to “take care of business” when she encounters snakes on the farm? If so, we need more Southern Baptist women like you! Speaking of such, my daughter (a Southern Baptist pastor’s wife) chopped off a snake’s head in her flower bed this week who was in the vicinity of our grandson. She also keeps a discerning eye out for vipers who slither into church disguised as believers, as well as religious movements of men disguised as truth. My daughter “complements” my son-in-law’s ministry well. Yep, we need more SBC women who have haven’t become so open-minded to what some preachers are saying about them that their spiritual brains have fallen out.
Christiane wrote:
If it hadn’t been for the White Supremacist angle, the Stars & Bars or Starry Cross would have become a REGIONAL flag for the South (i.e. the Former Confederate States). It’s part of their regional history, when they were a separate country for four years.
Gram3 wrote:
Just change the name and hype the New Brand.
And so ChEKA changes it acronym to OGPU, then NKVD, then KGB, then FSB…
okrapod wrote:
or be a Rebel?
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Bah. Exact same salad. They just pour a different dressing over it!
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Personally, I think it’s nobody’s business what other people do with the flag (and I don’t really support removing it from historical contexts such as battlefields, cemeteries and museums), but I agree with you. The White Supremacist angle makes it toxic. Which is a shame, because it’s actually a pretty cool looking flag in and of itself.
But it can’t be embraced as a southern flag these days because it sends the wrong message, and flying a flag at all IS sending a message, no matter which flag it is. So, you wouldn’t want to be misunderstood, or to hurt someone unintentionally.
Lea wrote:
Isn’t quiche associated with Perfumed and Pampered ARISTOS?
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
It was a term frequently used in Scotland.
Gram3 wrote:
i.e. an Arrested Development Case, a Perpetual Adolescent, a three-year-old in an adult’s sexually mature body.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I can’t imagine why. It’s basically an egg pie and its quite easy to make. Pie is not considered effete, why is quiche? (I’m guessing simply because it’s French).
okrapod wrote:
Thanks, okra!
Gram3 wrote:
Oh, but that doesn’t fit the New Calvinists. They are on a mission, not THE commission.
Yes, I recall all the hub-bub about GCB … it never went anywhere, but “south” ;^)
Lea wrote:
i.e. Paraphrasing a favorite tag line of Christianese AM Radio Preachers in the Seventies:
“She is the Creature, and HE IS THE CREATOR!”
okrapod wrote:
Many years ago, there was a filk of “It’s a Small World” broadcast on Dr Demento. All I can remember of it is:
“It’s the Real World after all,
Hate and Fear World after all,
It’s the sudden attack
Of a knife in the back,
It’s the Real World after all!”
__
Fresh Air: “The Wonderful Plan Of God?”
hmmm…
It is God’s plan to pardoning sin,
To treat us as if we had not committed it;
Adopting us as His very children,
Admitting us to His heaven on the ground of what His Son, the Lord Jesus has done in our stead.
This is the wonderful plan of God.
Unfortunately, kind folks still seek to save themselves by their own works,
Yet it remains for God’s marvelous plan to save us by the merits of His Son, Jesus Christ.
Call upon Jesus today!
You’ll be very glad you did,
ATB
Sopy
—
Max wrote:
That would be me. I’ve taken care of a few ‘coons, ‘possums, skunks, etc, too. (Can’t figure out how to get those things out of the church pews, though!) I also drove down to central Alabama in the middle of the night once to “rescue” my husband when his truck broke down, and I had power of attorney when my dad had heart surgery. ….. Tee hee – Steve Gaines would probably call that “heresy”!
My husband is not a church pastor, but he is a Baptist preacher ….. With a “rebellious” wife!
Be it ironically, coincidentally or providentially but Spotify just chose for me to listen to “The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down”. Didn’t even know it was on the play list.
Max wrote:
Good one!
Nancy2 wrote:
Red-hot sin-killin’ preaching from SBC pulpits used to do that! Anointed preaching would make them glad, sad, or mad … but they never left church unchanged. Haven’t heard such exhortation in recent years; too bad, it was so purging and cleansing. Pew coons, possums, and skunks couldn’t stand to be near it!
Nancy2 wrote:
That would be her-esey 🙂
Lea wrote:
Much agreement here Lea. I’m a live and let live kind of guy, it’s a credo of mine. Just because the Stars and Bars are displayed, it is by no means an endorsement of antebellum slavery and the ideology that drove it, to me it’s simply a way to honor the Confederate dead in that horrible conflict. There were many kind and good men among them.
Gram3 wrote:
Corporation implies that a group of people are acting as a single entity – a church which stands as one man in Christ Jesus, not separated by race, social status, gender, or creed.
Denomination, by Webster’s definition, is a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to “its” beliefs and practices.
I believe Christ would prefer we be a corporation, rather than a denomination. There truly is just one corporate Body of Christ, even if its parts have been ensnared by denominations. To which the heavens ring out “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins.” Unless we are blessed to be in a place that is operating as the Body of Christ, instead of a religious institution (they are not always the same), it would be best if we put our behinds in our past and move on – our spiritual health depends upon it!
Gram3 wrote:
Gram3 – the Charter uses the word “denomination” and says the SBC is s denomination. That is from the SBC’s founding in 1845. You can look it up on the SBC website, which we all failed to do, until Max did so. Therefore, cudos to Max!
Gram3 wrote:
Hey, don’t blame me! 🙂
Max is the one who found the answer.
Gram3 wrote:
Autonomous!
If a church decided not to believe in the Virgin Birth, it could certainly do that. I can’t imagine why it would want to be in the SBC.
We used to have Baptists like that, if you can believe it.
Max wrote:
It’s not just the SBC.
It’s an interesting time we live in, there’s a Bible version for everyone, Bibles are available as never before, you can even read it or listen to it online for free… yet so few bother. They would rather someone else read it for them and just give them the gist of it (which can’t be done).
At the same time, there always seems to be a new fad of cheap, easy reading, gimmicky Christian books on the market…
Anonymous wrote:
Do you believe ESS?
Ken P. wrote:
of course… that doesn’t mean they will keep not caring if things change…
The church that I was in that had a failed take-over attempt (not SBC) split into a dozen pieces. Only one was those disagreeing on scriptural foundations. Once the fruit became evident, there was something there to offend everyone!
Nancy2 wrote:
That is the best argument I can think of for keeping both the SBC name and the battle flag. I wonder how that resonates with the descendants of slaves? I have never asked that question and do not know.
Lea wrote:
He is not a Southerner, and he is not a theologian, though he plays both on the Internet. Truth is never a bar to a good story in Wilson-land.
Anonymous wrote:
See my upstream comment re: corporation vs. denomination. SBC’s charter stresses corporation over denomination … and I don’t think they are simply referring to legal incorporation. As someone noted earlier, the SBC, for all practical purposes only exists for one week per year as a “convention” for corporate housekeeping. It used to be more of a united group at one time and may have felt like a denomination, but all those members went back to local gatherings of autonomous churches who cooperated (the Cooperative Program) on common missions which united them as a corporate Body of Christ to accomplish the Great Commission together. Unfortunately, that corporation is now divided against itself.
Gram3 wrote:
Gram3,
You know from personal experience? Is/was your pastor a woman? Are you a woman pastor?
I know that the local association in Memphis disfellowshipped a church (Prescott Memorial) that called Nancy Sehested as pastor in the 1980s. Ms. Sehested wss recently an interim pastor and a United Church of Christ that was also affiliated with the Alliance of Baptists (or something like that).
Prescott Memorial went on the become an American Baptist Church. I do not know that it was ever kicked out by the SBC. I figured that church was wise enough to affiliate with a like-minded group, rather than hang around and be unhappy.
First Baptist Decatur, GA, called Julie Pennington Russell (I believe that is her name) to be pastor a few years ago. The Georgia State Convention amended its bylaws or constitution to not allow voting at the Convention for churches that do that.
Ms. Russell has moved on to another pastorate, maybe in DC?
I am not aware that the SBC has ever disfellowshipped a church because it had woman pastor. That could have happened, but I don’t think so.
In fact, the only churches that I know that the SBC has prevented from sending messengers to the Convention is Broadway Baptist in Texas, and maybe other churches in North Carolina. That had to do with the Constitution of the SBC and the issue of homosexuality.
I believe that most churches that want to call a woman pastor, usually decide to affiliate with groups that would appreciate and support that. That is appropriate, I believe.
Historically, I would note that most churches in the Baptist context who do that also have other issues with the SBC and the Baptist Faith & Message. First Baptist Decatur, for example, ordained a practicing homosexual as a deacon. Of course that church is not going to feel comfortable in the SBC.
My experience is that many women whom I know who aspire to be pastors also have deep theological disagreements with other portions of the SBC, not only the so-called “women’s issue”. And historically, most of the ones I have known were liberal in their theology. They would not see the Bible as “truth without any mixture of error” and such.
But that may be changing now.
okrapod wrote:
Okrapod:
That is fascinating. Have not heard that history of Free Will Baptists. I do not know exactly how they function in that area. The churches that I am familiar with are very conservative, much more conservative than the SBC.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I do not know how old he is. I am reasonable certain Anonymous is male since females are not allowed into the Holy Spaces of 9Marks and Acts29 meetings.
I am reasonably certain, as well, that he is close to the Usual Suspects in thought if not in geography or employment. Because I have experienced the feigned sympathy which at first seemed genuine. After I would not capitulate to the spiritual blackmail, then the true colors came out. That is the spirit I hear in the condescending remarks. The one about “independent” wife and daughters reminds me of the old line “I have friends who are _____, so I cannot be racist.”
Anonymous wrote:
I furnished you a link to the convention website where this is explained. Sorry you did not look it up. What it says there is closest to what HUG and Lydia have been saying. It is a classic walk on the fence and suits the description of either way whichever suits them. And they address what the founders of the convention meant when they said thus and such. You really ought to check it out. You could easily see why people are so adamant about either side of that fence. And you can easily see how people would take sides on this when you compare the culture of SBC fifty or sixty years ago with the current culture of SBC.
Lea wrote:
Don’t you love his smug, self-satisfied look of pleasure while he expounds at length on all the supposed meaning held in these couple statements? Good grief.
As he says, it’s easier to submit to someone you respect, but respect must be earned, it can’t just be demanded.
It’s so revealing how men can take a couple small pointers and roll it into a complete system of subjugation. Not only does Paul’s encouragement to wives to respect their *own* husbands come to mean a wife is to be subservient in every possible way, but notice, at the same time, that she is also carrying the burden for his success on her own shoulders, too! This husband she is supposed to be respecting as though he was god himself is so weak he can’t even succeed in life unless she is continually enabling him. How do you respect someone so pitiful?
The part that distresses me the most is the demand that a wife not protect her children from unfair discipline. This goes against all a mother’s best, God-given instincts and is wrong, wrong, wrong. And maybe it explains how these men get the way they are. Ugh.
I think the quiche statement probably goes back to this book http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20082777,00.html probably a clue that he’s a little behind the times.
Hmm my link for Real Men Don’t Eat Quiche didn’t seem to come through, maybe this will work http://goo.gl/pYLVua
Anonymous wrote:
Back a ways, there was variety of thought within Baptist churches. Now, however, rigid and fossilized groupthink is the order of the day. And I do mean fossilized.
I was referring to my perception of your demeanor being similar to the demeanor of some YRR “elders” with whom I have had Close Encounters of the decidedly un-winsome kind for a very unglorious season. I refused to capitulate and insisted on staying with the actual text, so I get keyed out of their kingdom. Not the Kingdom, but their little kingdom of their own making.
Hi Folks,
Just a quick off-topic announcement and then over to the Open Discussion board for any more.
Long-time poster Jeannette Altes has been facing hard times at present: job loss, tumor and treatment, and financial difficulties. She is also looking for work.
Thanks to TWW posters she was able to pay her June rent, bills, and buy some food and gas.
Jeannette needs $150 for expenses not covered by insurance. (I believe that she also need more funds for food, household items, and gas.) So perhaps about $300.
https://www.gofundme.com/ljahelp
Please keep her in your prayers: stress/anxiety, health, job, finances.
Thank you!
@ Anonymous:
I am not into sitting around reading that sort of history; I mostly watch and listen to what is going on, meet people, that sort of thing. That is not because I am illiterate but mostly because there is a whole lot of bias in what people write and I prefer more first hand evaluation when possible. I had a prof in college who kept saying that paper never refuses ink. He got that right.
When I was a Free Will Baptist it was in a small town in eastern NC where there were two FWB churches, one more conservative than the other, and belonging to different branches of their segment of baptist world. There is a FWB college in NC (I suppose it is still FWB) over which there had been a local struggle as to how ‘conservative’ it would be, but that was before my time.
Like I said, I met an ordained FWB woman at a conference where she was one of the speakers, and the only information I have is what she told me. She was, by the way, a good preacher. I did not ask her which branch of that tradition she was with.
@ okrapod:
Oops, I was not comprehensive. There was yet another FWB church in a little area about five miles down the road. It was of the more conservative kind.
JYJames wrote:
Good article. I sometimes picture these who try to grasp control and dominate the people of God as those who are trying to herd the wind. They may succeed for a short time but eventually those who really want to know and follow God will move on.
John 3:8
The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
Anonymous wrote:
Yes, I know from personal experience that anyone who even raises the issue *as an individual with the indwelling Holy Spirit* is immediately disfellowshipped, as you put it, lest they cause “division” in the Body. Irony that the “divisive” card is played by people who have devised the ultimate divisive doctrine: ESS and Female Subordinationism.
FWIW, I am possibly the lone inerrancy-affirming commenter here. My main objection to the current doctrines espoused by the YRR is that those doctrines cannot be supported from the actual texts without copious eisegesis and interpretive gymnastics, to borrow a thought from Danvers. My experience is that the Bible is irrelevant to them and is merely a tool to coerce people. The “elders” were both unable and unwilling to show their case from the text but only to refer to their real Bible, Grudem’s ST. I am a Baptist and do not do that.
You really expect us to believe that a church could remain in good fellowship in the SBC if it called a female pastor? Really?
@ Anonymous:
IMO, the BFM2k was designed to foreclose that possibility. A conservative woman who is really Sola Scriptura and not Sola Usual Suspects would not choose to remain in the SBC. In that respect, you are correct. IIRC, Mary Mohler and Dotty Patterson were the female “representatives” on that committee, but my memory may not be correct on the names. The committee was designed to yield a result.
Gram3 wrote:
I resemble that remark!
Gram3 wrote:
Aren’t they supposed to obey or some other such nonsense? In other words, the committee is stacked with yes-people.
Max wrote:
I always say that scripture is inerrant, but interpretation can be pretty wacky (taking for literal what should be symbolic or exaggerated, etc.)
siteseer wrote:
Cool. More for me!
Anonymous wrote:
Is it all just a ride?
Anonymous wrote:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/southern-baptist-convention-sever-ties-with-kentucky-churches-over-female-pastors-152812/
Dee or Deb, (I’m so sorry, I can’t remember which one) We’re all praying for you and your family and your mother-in-law.
Lea wrote:
One of my husband’s favorite deserts is flan, basically a Mexican quiche! Snort!
Hi Dee,
I’m sorry your mother-in-law has taken a turn for the worse. We love you and your family and her too.
Praying for all of you. Is there anything else we can do from afar?
Love and hugs.
Nancy2 wrote:
https://baptistnews.com/article/georgia-baptists-oust-second-church-with-woman-pastor/
Gram3 wrote:
No doubt about it! I would think that even the SBC-YRR would agree with that at this point, considering the results BFM2000 revision has achieved in their favor. There is a clear reformed slant to the revision; the non-Calvinist committee members must have let the Calvinists have their way to honor their contributions in the inerrancy battles.
Anonymous wrote:
Yes you did, and when I was discussing baptist fundamentalism in a conversation over on the ODP I mentioned that this issue of the virgin birth was one of the ‘fundamental’ issues at the time the essays were published. Apparently it was a big enough issue to be officially addressed at the time. And I bet you all still do have individual Baptists like that. Or maybe (see next paragraph) all Baptists are like that if the Catholics are right.
You do know, I suppose, that there is a difference of opinion between the RCC and the Baptists as to what the doctrine of the virgin birth actually means? You might be interested in checking that out, because ‘born of the virgin Mary’ in the creed is understood differently between these groups. I mean, now that the baptists are wanting to claim that they believe the Nicene Creed there are some areas yet to be resolved.
okrapod wrote:
OKRAPOD, tell us about the differences. I did not know about this. And what would the implications be of the differences, in your opinion?
Dee,
Just prayed for your mother-in-law, you and your family.
Max
Gram3 wrote:
Oh, not at all. It’s the interpretation (and interpretation is unavoidable) that I see causing issues.
People who agree that the scriptures are inerrant in their original languages come to many different conclusions on interpretation.
Anonymous wrote:
Right. I think I’ve heard this message from a couple of Christian groups. If you don’t like the rules, just leave. The rules are more important than you. If you want women (et al.) to have more opportunities, you aren’t happy with us and our rules. Anybody who disagrees is a liberal who doesn’t follow the Bible. But we want them to be happy.
Max wrote:
Sorry, Max!
Patriciamc wrote:
Or the text(s) which we have are inerrant. Or the translation we have is inerrant. I realize for the YRR, the ESV is inerrant, but that has not traditionally been the meaning of inerrancy. 🙂
Hey Dee,
I’m thinking of you & your family, especially your MIL.
Big love.
siteseer wrote:
And that the originals were inerrant according to their definition of this, not the definition of a culture 2000 yrs later. Have been listening to some interesting podcasts on this on Ancient Faith Radio.
Max wrote:
Speaking of the Great Commission, does anyone have any speculations on why SBC’s Great Commission Resurgence Task Force (GCRTF) secretly sealed the records of their deliberations for 15 years? Not to be opened until 2025. Why would Southern Baptists allow their leaders to conceal discussions about the Great Commission … aren’t we supposed to be out in the open and out and about on the Great Commission?!
Anonymous wrote:
This is very chicken and the egg though. If you grew up conservative baptist you never even knew women could be pastors probably. I think this will change.
Unless you think liberal on women (as in, they are equals in all not just worth to Jesus or whatever those guys think Paul meant), means liberal in general.
@ Gram3:
Forgiven. I just didn’t want you to be in error about inerrancy.
Dee, I just saw the notice at the top about your mother-in-law. I am so sorry. May the Lord grant you, your family, and especially your mother-in-law his comfort and grace and peace. What you are doing is beyond difficult, and many of us empathize and know that. Thank you for keeping us posted so that we can pray.
Christiane wrote:
That is way too much to talk about, and this would not be the forum. I will put up something brief on the ODP.
Dee,
Just saw your update on your MIL. Thinking of all of you, sending love and prayers your way.
Take care,
numo
Sending prayers your way, Dee….
Ken P. wrote:
Ken, I think you read condescension in my posts because of your particular mindset and views concerning the American Civil War. Do you understand why I used the term “Romanticism?” Because many Southerners after the war despaired over having lost an institution that enslaved an entire race. They looked upon the Antebellum Period as a time when life was ordered and everyone “knew their place.” Uppity blacks (of course they used the ‘n’ word) were a threat. Hence, Jim Crow to the rescue. Many whites in the South had a romantic view about life as idyllic before the War of Northern Aggression. This is our history. Yes, of course there are always nuances and history is not a cut and dry proposition. But what I have stated above can also been seen through the historical record.
As for Romanticism, I included myself in that. I tend to have a Romantic view of what life was like in Victorian England, and 1950’s America (as a white person, of course). I think human beings can have a tendency to romanticize some other time in history, often because they are dissatisfied with current culture and society.
Gram3 wrote:
No, you’ve got company! 😉
Darlene wrote:
Yes, I think this is true for many. Also, the desire for order and security (or Peace and Safety as the Bible puts it) affects how we view things. What is weird for me is that I can also get caught up in how good I have it and how come my parents and grandparents had it so rough?
Hi DEE,
I’ll keep your mother-in-law and your family in my vigil prayers tonight and in the morning.
This time is precious to you all, though sad. May Our Lord keep you all in His peace.
Lydia wrote:
Thank you Lydia for standing up to the establishment, not just on this, but on other issues as well. So many of these men are used to only hearing what they want to hear and getting their way. You are a true inspiration. You are bold, direct, intelligent, articulate, tenacious, unintimidatable and have a staggering wealth of knowledge and understanding about this corrupt system. I’m pretty sure people other than myself read you regularly and wish they could express themselves so well.
.
Too many people with your knowledge base simply walk away in disgust never giving newcomers the benefit of their insights. Thank you for sticking this out. You help enlighten in ways that only an insider could. You do great work for the Kingdom and your efforts are sincerely appreciated. Thanks.
Thinking of you and yours, Dee, you are in my prayers.
Gram3 wrote:
No.
Nancy2 wrote:
Thanks, Nancy.
One of the churches in the story left on its own.
One was disfellowshipped by a local Baptist association somewhere in Kentucky.
That local association is a separate entity that is not a part of or owned by the SBC.
Churches that are members of the SBC may or may not be members of their local association or their state convention.
okrapod wrote:
Okrapod, yes, I have no doubt that many of us were taught a certain version of our history when it comes to the Antebellum Period and the War Between the States. I remember believing Abraham Lincoln was close to being a Saint, and that was due to the version of the war I was taught in elementary school. It is still a bit surprising to me, though, that there are folks who hold views about Southern life and slavery which had some lovely aspects to it – per Doug Wilson “Southern Slavery As It Was.” Just yesterday I encountered a sympathetic defendant of the South who claimed, “The northern states were far more antagonistic toward Africans than were the states in the South.” I think that only a white person could say this. My response was, that is why the Underground Railroad existed. So slaves could escape to the South. And that is why Frederick Douglass and other freed slaves made their homes in the South. But as I have said, human beings can romanticize or idealize a particular era of history, depending upon the perspective that they hold.
Anonymous wrote:
That’s good. Do you think that females are barred from being elders or pastors? If so, why?
Friend wrote:
Of course that is not what I said.
A basic tenet in any philosophical, religious or political discussion is fairly representing the other side’s point of view.
When you start out by intentionally misrepresenting someone else’s view, that is not correct.
If the vast majority of churches in the SBC believe scripture teaches that pastors should be male, it seems those churches can organize their missions and educational program to reflect that.
And conversely, churches that believe otherwise may go in a different direction.
LT wrote:
I it may surprise you to learn that I agree with much of what you, LT, and much of what Lydia writes.
It’s important to have forums like this where people can speak their minds.
Lea wrote:
Lea:
I agree with you. I believe this is changing.
In other groups where they have had women pastors for over 100 years (take the Nazarenes, for example) you find women leaders who are theologically conservative.
In the Baptist context back in the 70s when the women in ministry thing in the SBC was being birthed, most of my experiences and memory was with women who were liberal theologically.
But you are correct. The groups are and can be separate.
Gram3 wrote:
I do not agree that the Bible teaches women should be pastors of churches. My belief is the traditional belief that you would probably find in the writings of just about any Christian denomination from say 50 years ago and back.
Let me say that a long time ago I determined that the issue of women pastors was not a productive topic for me and Internet discussion. I believe that most people on the internet have made up their minds on the issue, and the arguments are so predictable and well known that I don’t discuss that topic.
You will notice that if the topic is women pastors that I do not comment here – or anywhere else for that matter.
I am glad to have answered the question, but please do not be offended if I don’t go further.
Thanks.
As a former member of the SBC, I agree that as the SBC understands the role of pastor Scripture forbids women from the job.
But here is the kicker: I am now in a very conservative denom that does and always has ordained women. And as they understand the role of pastor I see no problem.
In the SBC pastor means “boss” or “authority” or “ruler” and it appears to me that the Bible does forbid women that role.
But where I am now the pastor SERVES the church, not bosses it. They have no innate authority (though some would like it) and are not rulers. And it appears to me women have always had the chance to serve.
https://baptistnews.com/article/advocates-fault-sbc-presidents-record-on-child-sex-abuse/
Max wrote:
G3 – no you’re not. 🙂
Max wrote:
Perhaps Anonymous, since he was present at the convention, can fill us in on the percentage of women who voted.
Max wrote:
Hmmm….I wonder if this isn’t being just a bit reactionary or fearful. Some things can be taken to extremes. Not everything *Southern* is bad.
Darlene wrote:
The Southern Poverty Law Center, for example.
Anonymous wrote:
The SBC church in the town where I grew up in TN actually left and joined the Cooperative Baptists a few years ago. On the website, the church bluntly states that they support women in all areas of church leadership. Good for them!
okrapod wrote:
Okrapod, I think people’s experiences differ. My sister married a man from eastern North Carolina, and he never let her or the rest of our family forget that we were Yankees. Funny thing is, my ancestors hadn’t yet arrived on these shores during the time of the Civil War. They were still over in different parts of Europe.
Gram3 wrote:
That’s a good point. Some translations have error in them.
When people say they think scripture is inerrant, (and don’t you?), I think they’re setting people up. If you say no, then they can say you’re liberal, feminist (gasp, shock, horror!), watcher of CNN, etc. That’s why I have my disclaimer about interpretation. They can’t pull a gotcha on me, but I get my point across.
@ Linda:
Hi LINDA,
we don’t have women priests in my Church (yet), but the strangest thing is noted that one of our women saints, Therese of Lisieux often said that a woman filled with the spirit of Christ’s pastoral love is a more ‘fitting’ image of His Presence than a man who were to lack such love. You would think that the Church would condemn her for her beliefs in this matter, but they didn’t. They examined all of her writings and made her a Doctor of the Church.
I think women ARE called to pastoral service. And they know that they are powerfully called; they know in their heads and they know in their hearts, as did the little nun Therese who died at twenty-four.
Gram3 wrote:
What of the difference between True Fiction and False Fact?
Lea wrote:
The Reconstructionist Era with carpetbaggers and the like was a sad time in our history as well. I think had Lincoln lived, healing between the North & South would have gone more smoothly. As much as so many Southerners hated Lincoln, his attitude and policies toward the South was to forgive and help rebuild the South and reconcile our nation.
Darlene wrote:
That’s a great question. But I don’t know the answer.
My first convention was the largest – 1985 in Dallas.
In those days and for several years thereafter, everyone wore suits. The women dressed up. Lots of pastors and their wives took that time for vacation.
I don’t remember a lot of young people. There were single people, but I have no way of knowing how many of what gender.
Over the years, the crowd appears younger. That might be because I am older!
There are still husbands and wives, but now there are a lot more children. The Convention had a huge request for childcare this year, so I understand.
Anonymous wrote:
I don’t know your situation, Anonymous, but with all you have encountered in your journeys, you can take comfort in this truth: “Strong people don’t put others down … They lift them up.”
Patriciamc wrote:
You might be surprised to hear me say the same.
I have long advocated for churches and groups who believe in women pastors to start churches and such to affirm their beliefs.
I can’t imagine being of that belief, but having my church stuck in a convention of churches that did not share that belief. That would be miserable.
You would either have to resign yourself to feeling out of place, or commit yourself to a life of constant bickering with your own group.
Oddly enough, I’ve never heard of either Steve Gaines or J.D. Greear.
IHTIH.
P.S. the Union Flag might be a bit of a clue there…
@ Gram3:
Speaking of Bible inerrancy, Adrian Rogers (Steve Gaines’ predecessor) was a great defender of it within SBC ranks. He was my parents’ pastor at Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis.
During the Conservative Resurgence (not the Calvinist one), a liberal SBC leader challenged Dr. Rogers “Adrian, if you don’t compromise, we will never come together!” To which Adrian responded:
“I’m willing to compromise about many things, but not the Word of God. So far as getting together is concerned, we don’t have to get together. The Southern Baptist Convention as it is does not have to survive. I don’t have to be the pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church. I don’t have to be loved; I don’t even have to live. But I will not compromise the Word of God.”
Yep, “The Southern Baptist Convention as it is does not have to survive.”
Anonymous wrote:
But if the vast majority of churches in the SBC are non-Calvinist, then it is OK for the YRR to come in and take over? Or should the non-Calvinists have told the Calvinists to form their own denomination? Which is it? Tolerance for variations or no tolerance for variations? Or does it depend on what the issue is?
Anonymous wrote:
Isn’t that funny how that works? 😉
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
They are American cricket players, Nick.
Ken P. wrote:
close enough! LOL
Anonymous wrote:
No offense taken. People are free to believe whatever on whatever basis they choose. And talk about it if they want to talk about it. It was unclear to me what your perspective is, hence the question about ESS. Now that you have clarified that you hold the traditional view, I think I understand because that was the view I previously held.
I am still very conservative, but I have never heard a defense of the traditional position that does not contain interpretive inconsistency or logical fallacies. Or frank eisegesis. I am embarrassed that I never looked at the actual evidence until forced to do so, but at least I am anecdotal evidence that a very conservative person can reach the mutualist position via very conservative methods.
OTOH, I do agree with you that back in the 70’s, the “woman issue” was driven for the most part by those who were not inerrantists as I am. That is the primary reason the well was poisoned for me for so many years. I think that organizations like CMBW and individuals like Grudem understood the weaknesses of their position when it was no longer supported by presuppositions of exclusively male leadership. Hence ESS. I believe that many more conservatives will examine the textual evidence with an open mind. I know I wish that I had. Now there are extremely limited options for conservative Baptists who have different opinions. Because groupthink.
Burwell wrote:
Well, it is not as lonesome over in the uber-conservative corner as I thought! G3 is a way cooler name, too.
jh
Could you please send me your email address so I can ask you a question. I had to remove your comment for now until I discuss this with you.
Lea wrote:
”
Currently, between reading comments here, I am having a conversation over on Facebook at a Calvinist site. The discussion has now delved into the issue of whether women should be permitted to evangelize men in an out of church setting…you know, at the store, mall, park, on the street, etc. Two women over there have been fiercely defending their Patriarchy and have now make it personal toward me. One responded toward me: ” I don’t think I care for Darlene’s liberal ideas. (Now she could have left it at that, but no…Judgement time must ensue) When your faith is YOU centered rather than God centered one would find the breathtaking beauty of the Gospel as “grating.” Now, she said this because I said I found open air preaching to be grating. Not the gospel, but that particular method. And I’m liberal because I actually think females can evangelize to males – something one of them thinks should never happen, and the other thinks can only occur if their is “male oversight.” But I had the uppity nerve to say I have spoken to men at colleges, universities, the park, at a concert, the mall parking lot – all sorts of venues, without male oversight. And I had the audacity to say that there is no injunction from Scripture prohibiting women to evangelize men, or to be subservient to men in the workplace. And that it is fine for women to work outside the home as doctors, judges, lawyers, in law enforcement, as scientists, architects, etc. Where do these women come from that think our only calling is that we should shut up, stay at home and have babies?
@ Christiane:
Thank you.
@ Beakerj:
Thank you.
Patriciamc wrote:
It used to be understood that only the original manuscripts were inerrant, but that is no longer the case, so I usually include that statement along with my view that inerrancy flows from the doctrine of inspiration which flows from the doctrine of the Holy Spirit which flows from theology proper. However, I believe that certain people and groups have conflated different possible meanings of inerrancy, and I think they have done that for just the reason you cited.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
You lost me. Which is not very difficult these days. My theological degrees are thousands of times as impressive as Wilson’s. 😉
Darlene wrote:
I think that, as a matter of principle, people who hold that view should refrain from enjoying the services and benefits which females provide in the marketplace. For examples, no X-rays or radiotherapy. Because Marie Curie. No computers. Because a woman whose name I cannot now recall. That would be logically and morally consistent and not just an implicit demand to have it both ways. And no theology commentaries for John Piper, either, even if they are not “personal” and direct instruction.
Gram3 wrote:
Yep!
Gram3 wrote:
I resemble this remark. On the other subject of inerrancy, it would depend on your interpretation of the word inerrant.
Gram3 wrote:
Yep, the Holy Spirit is the only source of real Truth. With competing interpretations of mere men, it’s obvious that some were not inspired. The most critical need in the Church today is for God’s people to pray for discernment, to test and try the spirits and the eisegesis of men.
Gram3 wrote:
I guess I don’t see the point in the “inerrancy” statement. We do not have the original manuscripts to begin with. When you take that fact, added to translation issues, and ancient languages that we cannot easily decipher, it seems quite a stretch to call a Bible you and I read today, inerrant.
Darlene wrote:
Well you Liberal Feminist (gasp, shock, horror!). Don’t you know that Matthew 28:19 says, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and if you’re a woman, you can’t do this to a man, but you can smile prettily, and if you evangelize to a child or a woman, make sure you still have the covering of a man. It doesn’t matter if he has an IQ of 2, he just must have male plumbing. Oh yeah, and be winsome.”
That word ‘inerrant’ is a man-made term often used to strengthen someone’s interpretation of Scripture.
Why wasn’t the word ‘sacred’ good enough to describe Scripture?
Darlene wrote:
From church congregations controlled, manipulated, and intimidated by ESS Calvinist men.
Christiane wrote:
Because both liberal and conservative Christians would agree that Scripture is sacred, but not inerrant. Sacred implies religious rather than secular and can be adjusted to one’s doctrinal beliefs. Inerrant refers to the infallible Word of God, containing no error, that cannot be adjusted to the doctrines of men. During the Conservative Resurgence, SBC liberals refused to stand on the infallibility of God’s Word – it was not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to them.
Gram3 wrote:
Gram3: Would patronizing be the appropriate word?
Christiane wrote:
Why that word? Does scripture refer to itself as sacred? To me sacred means holy. I would refer to God as holy or sacred, but not the Bible.
@ Max:
There are more ways to look at the issue than throwing everyone into one of two camps – liberal or conservative. It is not that simple.
@ LT:
You get it. Thanks so much. So few do. It is not worth playing the games as real people are involved. And I know the game well.
Bridget wrote:
I think I understand. For me, it is the point at which I start to reason about the text. It is like an axiom for me because, as you point out, we do not have the originals. Not everyone starts at the same point. For example, someone might reason from the assumption that God has provided a text which is reliable enough to tell us all that we need to know (as opposed to all that we might want to know.) I have no reason to tell that person that they cannot start there rather than where I start. Because the root question is (I think), “Is God faithful and trustworthy?” I am *not* happy with people who use “inerrancy” as a bludgeon for their translation or for their interpretation. That is simply not honest.
@ okrapod:
I love that memory! What a neat setting for a recital. Some of the old mansions even had chapels, too. I always found that odd.
The Speeds also owned the Farmington estate which back then was not part of the city. Years ago, People used to rent it out for weddings. Now the area is not that nice.
okrapod wrote:
For some reason, this reminds me of George Eliot’s novel *Adam Bede.* One of the central characters is a female Methodist preacher. At the start of the novel she preaches in the open air in her rural area. By the end, her church has banned female preachers, and she accedes. At that point IIRC she’s more interested in marrying Adam than in preaching. 🙂 She is kind of a drip anyway as I recall, but it has been many years since I read the book.
Darlene wrote:
I think that it would be. It is true that I am somewhat hypocritical when I complain about Anonymous’ tone. Back when I held his view, I was the same. Some would say I still am! 🙂
Gram3 wrote:
At least you don’t plagiarize and you have a keen mind and your own ideas, unlike some *pastors* (cough)/*authors* (cough again).
FW Rez wrote:
The Band does an excellent rendition of this song!
@ Anonymous:
The SBC charter was written by pro slavers who lost the war. God was not on their side. :o) The wrestling that went on after that is interesting. Peter Lumpkins keeps unearthing historical documents to that effect.
The word “denomination” in the charter reminds me of the Abstract at SBTS. Written by the pro slaver Calvinists.
For some reason (see Lumpkins research) the Abstract went into month balls. I don’t know how long. A hundred years perhaps?
But Mohler pulled it out wiped off a century of dust and declared it the new/old “founding” law if SBTS.
I put that in the same category as the word “denomination” in the charter written over 150 years ago. Do denominations have totally autonomous churches?
I don’t think my teachers were errant. I think they were living in the reality of what used to be a bottom up convention.
Patriciamc wrote:
When you come right down to it, this is what they hang their hats on. It beggars the mind and is as ludicrous as it is funny.
Lea wrote:
Bwahahaha! Love it!
@ Anonymous:
You could be one if you went to China and pastored native men :o)
Gram3 wrote:
I’d like to ask a question that I think might be apropos in this conversation. Do you think the flag of the Swastika that Nazi Germany used as a symbol should ever be used again? Can the symbol be redefined and hence disassociated from its past? The Swastika had a different meaning prior to the Nazi Regime using it as a symbol. When the Nazi’s co-opted the Swastika, it changed the meaning of that symbol that now reminds us of anti-Semitism and Hitler’s desire to dominate the world. Is there room for the Confederate flag to redeem itself or should it be relegated to the past as a symbol for the subjugation of an entire race? I look forward to your responses.
Bridget wrote:
Why that word? Does scripture refer to itself as sacred?
Hi BRIDGET,
‘sacred’ for many reasons, but for me one of the chief reasons is found in the Gospel of St. Luke, Chapter 24, this:
“45Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures. ”
People can use the Bible all day as a science book or a history book or a legal reference …. all filled with a ‘truth’ they call ‘inerrant’;
but it takes the Hand of God to open our minds to that in Scripture which He, in His great mercy, wishes for us to understand.
Some people pray before reading the Scriptures. And afterwards, also. The two activities seem to go together rather well for many Christian people.
@ Anonymous:
Thank you, Eddy Haskell. :o)
Bridget wrote:
Yes, all that. What bothers me the most are the suppositions that have to be made to wade through the inconsistencies. Such that we arrive at conclusions, believe them based on ‘inerrant’ scripture when in fact we have to go to suppositions to get the scripture to fit our conclusions.
Example. The scripture nowhere says that there are seven sayings on the cross. The gospel accounts differ in this matter of what He said, and the only way to arrive at the idea of seven saying is to conflate the stories using certain assumptions: that there really were seven sayings and that different observers only caught different ones; or that each gospel writer was trying to say something a little different about the meaning of the cross, not just the quoted sayings, and paint a little different picture of Jesus; or that something got lost in the verbal transmission of the stories and this is how each pieced it together from the inconsistent reports but somehow (inspiration) it turned out to be exactly correct; or that there is a message here that maybe the Jews understood but we do not; and mostly we have to assume that the idea of conflating the stories is a legitimate thing to do. Somebody has said that no it is not, because when we do that we have the story of the crucifixion according to us and not according to scripture.
There are other assumptions. We assume that because we can conflate the stories and come up with seven, a Jewish significant number, that there were not in fact maybe 14 or 27 or who knows saying from the cross. After all, in this conflation process we already have concluded that each gospel story is in itself incomplete. So how do we know how incomplete it may be, or not, and does it matter?
This whole process is eat up with assumptions and with taking liberties with scripture. So in the face of that what on earth does inerrancy even mean? Each report is incomplete (we acknowledge that) but inerrant. True as far as it goes? Which means that truth goes further than the individual written records, but only supposition says well put them all together and you have the whole truth, except scripture does not say that. Does that mean that the words are inerrant but the message is not?
But if we say we will not try to reconcile situations like this lest we make bad assumptions, that we will just live with incompleteness or inconsistency or such, then we have to say which gospel message is more inerrant than the others if and when they differ? And that is not the doctrine of inerrancy.
I do not see that inerrancy as understood by the Chicago gang is either true or helpful. Even more, sometimes a concept of inerrancy can hinder our understanding of what is being said because inerrancy focuses on specificity and accuracy of language and does not allow for inferences of meaning and such.
Do I think that scripture is inspired? Yes. Did the Chicago boys explain that well with their doctrines of inerrancy and infallibility? No.
@ okrapod:
I agree. I don’t believe in erasing uncomfortable history but learning from it. The Soviets were masters of erasing history. Please- no.
Darlene wrote:
Maybe they are not capable of anything beyond that, anyway, so Darlene wrote:
Don’t you love having the freedom to say something is grating that IS grating? Street preaching is not just grating, I perceive it’s often an outlet for people who hate their fellow man and have serious emotional issues of their own to vent them on others. In the name of God. What a perfect cover.
What a ridiculous and irrelevant god these women are following. They are young, though, maybe.
oops messed up my quoting on that post but you get the gist of it.
Gram3 wrote:
When that vote passed a few years back, Mohler tweeted that SBTS would now be known as the Great Commission Seminary. I pass it every day and the signs still say Southern Baptist Theoligical Seminary. Was it changed anywhere else? The website? Letterhead?
Nancy2 wrote:
Every comp man I know brags about his independent wife and daughters if he has them. What else is new?
Then they go to church and listen to sermons on the unequal “roles”. Kinda funny, really.
Dave Reynolds was the pastor of Cornerstone Bible Fellowship in Arkansas, but now he’s facing 70 counts of acquiring and distributing sexually explicit material related to children. His bond has been set at $250,000. http://bit.ly/1YxMMJK
Anyone familiar with these folks? TGC or SBC or 9Marks or other affiliations? Kiddie porn pastor.
@ Lydia:
And post about Soap Bubbles.
Anonymous wrote:
This pretty much sums up what most church is like for a whole lot of people.
okrapod wrote:
I attended a church in the 1980s in which our pastor was driving to a nearby SBC seminary in pursuit of his doctorate. After church one Wednesday evening, he confided in me that one of his professors that day had spent most of the class explaining away the miracles of Christ. For example, the prof told his students that Jesus didn’t really walk on water – it was only an optical illusion, a mirage caused by the refraction of light that the disciples saw. With teaching like that, the conservatives launched a resurgence to put an end to taking such liberties with Scripture in SBC seminaries.
okrapod wrote:
This is so true.
JYJames wrote:
Exactly!
Lydia wrote:
So, I asked one of the elders at my most recent former church how it is that “female” is a functional role and not related to being (ontology.) Crickets then and every day since then. I showed them the exegetical and logical holes, but they responded with silence until we were keyed out of the kingdom.
They cannot say anything about “male” and “female” and “Father” and “Son” without bringing in “Roles.” Last I checked, they are the ones who are screaming because “gender lines are being blurred.” Well, it is hard to blur ontology, and it is easy to blur distinctions based on function, and that is the knot they tie their boxers in every time they try to draw permissible/impermissible functional bright lines. Yet they want to fall back on function (authority) being grounded in being (female/male.) Yeah, that makes *so* much sense.
@ Lydia:
And what really hurt my pride was I was not the first one to raise the issues. I thought I was so special…
@ Bridget:
Agreed. We need to rethink the use of “liberal” and “conservative” in Christian circles. Things are not so clear-cut under those labels as in politics.
JYJames wrote:
Doug Wilson wants to dictate how much his wife can eat. Gramp3, on the other hand, realizes that his Role is to keep the freezer stocked with ice cream. My role is to eat it. That is beautiful complementarity that leads to joy and a long and happy marriage.
Gram3 wrote:
I suppose the New Calvinists consider the ESV the only inerrant Bible translation since it is endorsed by their icons.
Lydia wrote:
It’s sad to see aging messengers from SBC churches trekking to the annual convention thinking they still have a voice in SBC affairs. They haven’t yet realized that top-down decisions were already made by a handful of SBC elite before they ever purchased their airline tickets.
Beakerj wrote:
Which ones? That’s the Orthodox radio station.
@ okrapod:
I figure God made sure he included the sayings he wanted us to be aware of and if something’s not included, it probably isn’t important. I don’t know why there have to be 7 sayings, I have not heard that before. That’s not something you would think was important or necessary just by reading the accounts.
I sometimes think people look at the Bible not so much as inerrant, inspired or sacred (all of which I respect) but rather as some sort of *magic* book. A book that removes our need to think, learn, observe, make decisions or use common sense.
To me, the scriptures must be trustworthy in order for us to understand who the person of Christ is and what he accomplished. At the same time, we have to recognize the limitations of a book as the medium of God’s message.
John 20:30-31
“Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”
John 21:25
“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.”
Lydia wrote:
That’s it! I’ve been racking my brain trying to think who these smart-mouthed New Calvinists remind me of. Yep, old Eddie could be relied upon to connive and instigate schemes. He had no qualms putting others down with his superior chatter.
Eddie: “If you go around squealin’ on guys, nobody’s gonna like ya”
Larry: “Is that why nobody likes you, Eddie?”
Eddie: “Shut up, fat boy.”
Gram3 wrote:
Gram this is maybe close to where I am? I think all scripture is useful for instruction, and even through a bad translation or lack of knowledge you can come to God through it. I think you need the spirit to understand parts of it, and that can happen even if a translation is imperfect.
I don’t think you can take a verse out of time and place and language and expect every interpretation to be correct. I may not understand what innerancy really is (aside from a club to hammer a specific interpretation as the only one). I think we are constantly picking and chosen what verses we do that with – which is why submit to your husband means you must obey everything and be winsome and all that jazz but submit to each other means leaders are in charge and should keep on leading.
Max wrote:
And his prof. knew this how? By inference based on Enlightenment thinking taken to its pendulum extreme? By purported ‘scientific’ proof that there’s no such thing as the supernatural? Some hard-core academics are guilty of the same fundamentalism they accuse ixtian fundamentalists of, it just goes in the opposite direction.
Gram3 wrote:
Is this woman you had in mind, perchance?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace
I learned about her doing my undergrad in Computer Science.
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
One of my heroines is Hypatia of Alexandria. She was murdered by a mob of religious fanatics in 415 A.D.
Max wrote:
Wasn’t it at night and in the middle of the Sea of Gallilee? Little too deep for anyone to go wading. So the pendelum swung left, now has swung far right. Bwell, things will settle down…at some point…
Anonymous wrote:
Nothing intentional about it. I apologize for any and all misrepresentation.
I’ve lived through two schisms: one in a congregation, the other in a denomination. Both scarred many people, including me. I’m tuned into the many ways in which church folk marginalize other members.
When a church is faced with a controversy, crisis, or social change, deliberate efforts should be made to listen to all voices. If a congregation has so much autonomy, why can it not ordain a woman it really likes and respects, or appoint as a deacon a gay person who has served the church for years? Maybe the results would remain local and not be disastrous. A congregation should not have to leave its denomination/convention for its comfort before testing rules that cause long-standing division.
Patriciamc wrote:
Matthew’s account says “shortly before dawn.” Perhaps the dim light had something to do with the illusion. Oh, but wait a minute, Peter walked on water too for a little while! Those poor disciples were seeing all sorts of stuff that didn’t happen! (Of course, those of us who accept Scripture as inerrant know better).
JYJames
I did a quick search and as far as I can teel they are not affiliated with TGC, 9Marx, SBC or the ARC. They seem to be dispensational in my quick scan of their site so they may be unaffiliated with any of the Calvinst groups.
@ Max:
I too believe the supernatural deeds and exploits of Jesus. Not because somebody tells me I must, or that some document or manifesto on inerrancy demands it, but because it finds gut-resonance with me and I choose to believe it.
@ siteseer:
Jesus’ words while on the Cross were the subject of much religious music, even instrumental pieces, in clasdical music prior to the 20th c. Ususally understood as 7, the Seven Last Words. As okrapod points out, it might well be that there were more, or, given how he died, maybe not. (Due to struggling for breath.) Only the people who actually heard him speak knew for certain.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayings_of_Jesus_on_the_cross
okrapod wrote:
My sentiments exactly. The inerrancy of Scripture does not make sense, especially when the word is only applied to the original manuscripts WHICH WE DON’T HAVE. How can we know they’re inerrant then? I think this entire argument for inerrancy can be a way to pigeon hole people into a system – as Gram3 says – the CLOBBER verses. Hence, we have the True Interpreters of Scripture using inerrancy to force YEC, and Patriarchy, and Reconstructionism, and whatever pet peeve comes down the line.
Anonymous wrote:
I’ve read several articles where churches have been kicked out for having godly, women pastors.
Lydia wrote:
Even Doug Wilson tried pulling this nonsense a while back on his Blog & Mablog site. He spoke of how proud he is of his daughters and wife who have all authored books in their own right. Oh, and how one of his daughters has her own business – something to do with her own line of apparel. Do they think we’re stupid? These fellas go on and on about Patriarchy – call elders if wifey doesn’t do the dishes, the sexual act compared to rape, husbands know better what their wives need than the wives, on and on it goes. And then out of no where, they try that nonsense of saying the women in their lives are strong women. Oh, and the Bayly brothers went this route too, when someone called them out on their Patriarchy. Like I said, do they think we’re stupid?
Anonymous wrote:
This is where ‘autonomy’ comes in handy. (Wink)
Anonymous wrote:
This is where “denomination’ comes in handy. The SBC now has a Creed one must sign off on to be involved with an entity. They added the “no Girls allowed” clause in 2000. So, Meanwhile seminaries are churning out the overripe boys (love that!) as pastors, ministry leaders, etc, that go out into all the world to teach that women are equal but unequal. A derivative of man the more perfect image of God.
They even sent someone to darkest Africa to tell missionaries there they had to sign this Creed or leave. They asked to be able to sign their Bible but that was not good enough. They could not sign in good conscience because the wife, with an M.Div from Southern, (before Pope Mohler) led the home church while husband was out in the bush with new church plants.
So, after 20 years there, they came home and left the SBC.
That is the top down ‘denomination’ part. You see, if you did not sign, it meant you were a flaming liberal.
Of course, pragmaticalky, the ‘denomination’ has every right to purge. Just like the Jesus they claim to represent, right?
Anonymous wrote:
Oldest trick in the book. Some folks get sucked into riding the roller coaster of brain gaming. Don’t do Covert aggressive anymore. Or totalitarian niceness. Unless I am paid well by a business client. When it comes to Jesus Christ, it doesn’t fit.
@ Christiane:
Good shot!
@ Gram3:
Speaking of “being”, my question was one of having a male Savior and what that meant for females. Isn’t our goal to be Christ like? How would that work with “roles” as part of the Good News.
Is there a pink and blue spiritual maturity? Can we ever transcend our plumbing, spiritually?
@ Friend:
Wasn’t it SBC pastors that turned their backs on Ann Graham Lott?
numo wrote:
I guess I’m missing something, though, how does this speak to whether the scripture is inerrant or not? Sorry, I’m dense.
Lydia wrote:
Lydia, do you know these missionaries? Is this the sort of thing that was in the affidavit that missionaries signed in which they were sworn to secrecy?
siteseer wrote:
Since I brought up that illustration let me clarify. There is a thing called the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (and hermeneutics) resulting from a bunch of theologians?? in 1978 I think. It describes what the mean by. The issues of inerrancy, infallibility and sufficient are overlapping issues. When neo-cals talk about inerrancy this is what they refer to. Surely other groups have different understandings of inerrancy, but I am surely not some authority on what other groups believe.
In this matter of the handling of issues like-that would be issues like-the sayings on the cross there are problems with the Chicago statement. I was addressing the issue from that perspective. I should have made that clear.
I got the substance and idea of the problems with the seven sayings issue from Bart Ehrman and I tried to explain the issue also as I saw it and explain what I saw as some of the problems in the light of the Chicago Statement. Ehrman is sometimes a good source and sometimes not, but he cannot be either accepted or rejected in toto, in my opinion.
Unless you have read Ehrman on this and unless you have read he Chicago Statement and unless you have listened to some of the foolishness coming out of some pulpits, then what I said probably makes no sense at all.
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
I could only think of “Navy” and “machine language” when I commented. I was thinking of Grace Hopper. Thank you for the info on Ada Lovelace. I had not heard of her, but what an interesting biography, especially given the time!
@ JYJames:
Cornerstone is sort of generic non denom I think? I went on the website when this broke and they have a page on controversial opinions and they are definitely a comp sort of church. Beyond that I don’t know. I don’t think they are officially designated 9marx but they have similar stances listed.
Lydia wrote:
I’d have to brush up on “Father” Bill Mouser’s thoughts. He places great significance on the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was born a male. Complete with sanctified testosterone. Father Bill makes Owen BHLH look liberal.
Once you start down a path with no mechanism for correction when you take the wrong fork, you end up in weird places like that.
Darlene wrote:
With the IMB and the NAMB, both husband and wife each have to sign a contract agreeing to the BF&M 2000. I checked into it when I found out that my husband was planning to go up north and plant a church.
@ okrapod:
Interesting! Is it by any chance another case of a word being ruined because of all the connotations that got added along the way?
Lydia wrote:
Thanks for the reminder. I took a glance at this piece and found it intriguing:
http://www.strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/10/24/anne-graham-lotz-and-800-pastors-shame/
The menagawd should not have turned their backs… because somebody should have prevented her from speaking to begin with.
Not being SBC, I’m at serious risk of getting out of my depth. In my view, autonomy could reflect many different things, not just “hot-button issues” or a movement toward liberalism. All voices should be heard and heeded. People can dislike a decision, but find peace with it if they feel that they are understood. Instead, too often they are preemptively identified as unworthy to speak, and their mouths are taped shut with convenient verses and rules.
siteseer wrote:
I don’t think so, because if you look at the reasoning behind the statements in the Chicago statement I think they contradict themselves (among other things) which would not limit the problem to added connotations but would be a flaw in their reasoning.
Some time back Lydia commented on several of the problems with the Chicago statement, but the best thing to do is read it carefully while saying to oneself ‘in other words you are saying…’ and also ‘how can that be when you just said…?’ See if it holds together. It may make sense to some people but not to me.
Verbal plenary inspiration of an inerrant, infallible and sufficient scripture is not the only theory out there. The reformed doctrine of sola scriptura which this apparently is trying to support is not the only theory out there either. It makes interesting reading.
Christiane-HI!
Yes, how you define the job will have definite affect on who you believe can fill the role.
One big difference between the SBC and where I am now: I am in an evangelical conservative group with usually non sacramental worship, but we retained the sacraments as such. Anglo-Catholic roots. We see a need for conversion, but allow the sacraments as means of grace along with prayer, Bible reading, preaching, Bible study, personal witness, etc. In the SBC the sacraments have been reduced to ordinances, with preaching and the altar call as new sacraments functionally. I’m in a “holiness” group and your walk and your fruit evidenced in your life are more your credentials for service than your diploma. Or gender.
Those that preach do so because they can’t not preach, not because they desire to preach. And they see it as a life of sacrifice and service, not authority and dignity.
If you are not willing to clean the toilets and wipe snotty noses on kids, you aren’t good enough to be called to preach.
Imagine that in these new puritans. (I use that instead of new Calvinist simply in honor of a pastor I had once in the SBC who was Calvinist but not puritan leaning and he was nothing at all like these new guys. All love, service, and heart.)
@ siteseer:
It doesn’t. I was trying to fill in some background on the 7 last words from the Cross, is all. It is a very ancient tradition.
Gram3 wrote:
Ah yes, Grace Hopper. The mother of machine-independent programming, who helped to create the programming language COBOL. I had forgotten about her. Thanks for the reminder, Gram!
Lydia wrote:
Ah, le bon mot …. c’est une maladie contagieuse!
Lea wrote:
They’re BIG on church discipline if they’e site is the indicator. I wonder how they’ll deal with the issue of their fallen pastor.
Nancy2 wrote:
LoL! I just tried picturing you signing such an agreement, Nancy. They would have to haul out the pastor, assistant pastor, elders – heck, the entire congregation – and hold you down in order to get you to sign that statement. Even then, I don’t think they’d succeed.
Friend wrote:
I read that blog post about Anne Graham Lotz. I think Patriarchal men have a problem with women speaking in just about any circumstance. They would prefer that women have an invisible shield over their mouths and speak only when spoken to. Hmm…that sounds familiar. Yeah, that’s what parents used to say to their children. “Speak when you’re spoken to!”
Darlene wrote:
They are my cousins. Can you imagine the IMB spending money to fly a person there to get a signature on a Creed?
This was a after the bfm 2000 became the required Creed to work in an SBC entity.
They were also not real thrilled that Jesus Christ had been taken out of the BFM. Not that my opinion matters but these were very down-to-earth people in a place that even American foreign service people hope never to be assigned to.
They were non creedal and believed your yes should be yes and your service proof of such.
Darlene wrote:
I think they let him resign before the news broke and they yanked him off the website staff listing quick. Don’t know if he would still be allowed to attend assuming he isn’t in jail…
okrapod wrote:
In the Chicago statement the scholars also don’t take their declarations to their logical conclusions….. always bothers me. It is cognitive dissonance in my view.
I have come to the conclusion that the focus on inerrancy actually hurt the true value and beauty of scripture for many people.
@ Christiane:
You have always been one of the clever ones! :o)
Lea wrote:
He needs to call Matt Chandler. No biggie with The Village ELDERS.
Lydia wrote:
I believe the foundation of these Calvinists’ theology is control over the woman. Currently I am having a discussion with this sort on a Calvinist Facebook site. Not the same thread as I mentioned early above, but another one that reveals their misogyny. This is how it started.
Someone put up a meme of a Spurgeon quote that says: “Some men cannot endure to hear the doctrine of election – I suppose they like to choose their own wives but they are not willing that Christ should select His bride, the Church!”
After the meme, someone said “Boom” as if that nailed it. Then another person put up a meme of a small child giving the thumbs up with the quote: “She Said Yes.” I was flabbergasted at their dull thinking processes. This was my response:
“The problem with that analogy is that men don’t choose their wives in the same way that he speaks of Christ choosing the church. A man proposes (asks) a woman if she will marry him. Her response can be ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ The woman has the agency to decide whether or not she wants to marry the man. Women don’t always respond with a ‘yes.’ Sometimes the man is turned down by the woman. Me thinks this analogy falls short.”
Now, you think that would make sense to the Patriarchy camp. But no, a woman commenting had this response: “What makes this analogy harder to follow is that in this day and age of feminism, a woman who sets her designs on a man may be the one who proposes. But historically it is the bridegroom who chooses, though the bride may refuse betrothal (depending on the culture). Christ chooses His Bride, and she must indeed receive Him. Yet, once our hearts our opened to His truth, we will not say “no” as He is truly irresistible.”
Of course the dirty ‘F’ word had to be used. Feminism is the reasons for all the evil in this world according to the New Calvinists. Make no mistake about it. Anyway, I responded: “So what is it that you are saying? That a woman should have to marry any man that proposes to her because otherwise…..Feminism? Whatever the case, the analogy with regard to Reformed doctrine fails, because the woman would not be able to say “no” – she would be irresistibly chosen. And we know that in real life – heck, even in Spurgeon’s day – this was not the case.”
I went on to say that “Really, the only way that this Spurgeon analogy works is if the woman has no say whatsoever in whom she marries. I don’t know about you, but I’m glad I chose to marry the man I did. If I had no say, I would have had to marry someone else before I ever met my husband. That would not have boded well for either of us.”
The conversation has continued, but as usual, they refuse to listen to ANYTHING that challenges their neatly constructed paradigm.
@ Darlene:
Perhaps this will help them with the “biblical” way to marriage:
1) Find an attractive prisoner of war, bring her home, shave her head, trim her nails, and give her new clothes. Then she’s yours. (Deut. 21:11-13)
2) “Lay hold on” a virgin who is not betrothed to another man, and “know” her, but afterwards pay her father a sum of money. Then she’s yours. (Deut. 22:28-29)
3) Find a prostitute and marry her. (Hosea 1:1-3)
4) Find a man with seven daughters, and impress him by watering his flock.–Moses (Ex. 2:16-21)
5) Purchase a piece of property, and get a woman as part of the deal.–Boaz (Ruth 4:5-10)
6) Go to a party and hide. When the women come out to dance, grab one and carry her off to be your wife.–Benjaminites (Judges 21:19-25)
7) Have God create a wife for you while you sleep. Note: this will cost you a rib.–Adam (Gen. 2:19-24)
8) Agree to work seven years in exchange for a woman’s hand in marriage. Get tricked into marrying the wrong woman. Then work another seven years for the woman you wanted to marry in the first place. That’s right. Fourteen years of toil for a wife.–Jacob (Gen. 29:15-30)
9) Cut 200 foreskins off of your future father-in-law’s enemies and get his daughter for a wife.–David (1 Sam. 18:27)
10) Even if no one is out there, just wander around a bit and you’ll definitely find someone.–Cain (Gen. 4:16-17)
11) Become the emperor of a huge nation and hold a beauty contest.–Xerxes or Ahasuerus (Esther 2:3-4)
12) When you see someone you like, go home and tell your parents, “I have seen a woman; now get her for me.” If your parents question your decision, simply say, “Get her for me. She’s the one for me.”–Samson (Judges 14:1-3)
13) Kill any husband and take HIS wife. (Prepare to lose four sons though.)–David (2 Sam. 11)
14) Wait for your brother to die. Take his widow. (It’s not just a good idea, it’s the law!)–Onan and Boaz (Deut. or Lev., example in Ruth)
15) Don’t be so picky. Make up for quality with quantity.–Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-3)
16) A wife?–Paul (1st Corinthians, chapter 7)
@ Lydia:
Ha! Kind of like how the ‘biblical’ womanhood folks ignore most examples of actual women in the bible.
Lea wrote:
If these ladies are ‘biblical women’, how COULD they ignore the great ‘apostolorum apostola’, Mary Magdalene who WAS SENT by Christ Himself to announce to the Apostles that He had risen ??? There are some women that cannot be belittled or ignored in the Scriptures, and as far as I’m concerned that in itself is a part of the Good News.
Lydia wrote:
LOL!!! Now, I think I’m going to post your suggestions over at the Calvinist site. *With your permission, of course. 😉
LoL!!! Lydia, now I think I’m going to post your suggestions over at the Calvinist site. *With your permission, of course. 😉
Christiane wrote:
They don’t ignore Mary. I mentioned her in one of those discussions. They just don’t believed she was preaching or teaching in a position of authority.
Darlene wrote:
Oh my, spot on!
@ Darlene:
I stole it from somewhere years ago. Hee hee.
Lea wrote:
Bingo! Ever hear them talk about the beginning of Luke 8?
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
Speaking of George Eliot, Silas Marner is a great novel that deals with spiritual abuse and recovery.
Lydia wrote:
Darlene wrote:
Yeah, Mohler was all aTwitter past week about accomplished daughter Katie:
https://twitter.com/albertmohler/status/742818393284333568
“Proud of Katie Mohler Barnes serving on the 2016 SBC Committee on Committees, here bringing report. #sbc2016”
Darlene wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w
Max wrote:
THIS! Thank you, Max, for saying this so well.
Max wrote:
Max, your son-in-law sounds like a wonderful pastor! I thank God for him.
Darlene wrote:
No, Darlene.
The word would be “sarcasm”.
It’s a technique often employed is discussion. And it was a reply to one of Lydia’s comments. Gram3 posted a reply.
Gram3 wrote:
Gram3:
Your tone is fine, so long as you agree with me.
Lydia wrote:
The question was whether the SBC considered itself a denomination.
The founding document written by the SBC says it is a denomination,
Mohler did not have to dust off the Abstract, as it was signed by every person who became a professor at Southern through the years.
I wonder if Molly Marshall Green and others like her are so thoroughly embarrassed that they had to sign such a document and that they actually did so.
Friend wrote:
Thanks.
The basic point is that every denomination has some agreed upon mission or standard for its group.
Churches that find they no longer believe in the tenets of the group will have to either leave or convince the group to change the tenets.
But it’s a painful thing all around.
Velour wrote:
I could be wrong, but I bet if you check, there were local associations that did that.
Anonymous wrote:
There are other choices. One would be to stay in the group; keep listening and speaking; show that you’re children of God and not monsters; and patiently work, pray, and hope for acceptance. Message: We are happy with our pastor/deacon, regardless of your rule.
This could lead the larger group to try forcing out the dissenting congregation. Or maybe not.
It’s sort of like a Thanksgiving table. If a family has one relative who fails to meet “standards,” is it better that the relative stop showing up–perhaps with a nudge from those who do measure up? Maybe it’s better that everyone meet at table once a year, grow, and learn to get along.
(In my analogy, I’m thinking of family members who are different in some way that falls short of actually endangering anyone. An unmarried couple living together, say, not someone who recently stuck up a bank.)
Friend:
True. A church could do that. That is what people keep trying to do in other denominations, with varying degrees of success.
If I were in a church that disagreed with the doctrinal statement of the group in a significant way, I would suggest moving on – to my own church.
Of course there are minor differences, and there are others that are more like an “in your face” statement.
I think that Broadway Baptist tried this with both the SBC and the more moderate Baptist General Convention of Texas. Broadway was affirming the commission of homosexual relations among Christians, and then being coy and less than straightforward when questioned about it by the SBC and the BGCT. Eventually both groups said that Broadway was no longer in friendly cooperation with the Convention and could not seat messengers at the Conventions.
Since there are a variety of Baptist groups nowadays, most of these congregations get tired of the affiliation before the mother group gets tired of the church. I think that is an emotionally more healthy place to be.
I would not want to try and bend the will of a large group of churches that did not agree with me and had vehement objection to my positions.
I would rather build something new that was in accordance with my church’s vision, than live in a years’ long (assuming the national body did not act) state of disagreement and anger.
I might feel differently if the dispute were intra congregational – I was the only church member who held an issue. But even then, I could think of more positive things to do.
I suspect, for example, that most moderate SBC churches that left the SBC are so much more fulfilled and pleased with their status than if they hand hung around for the last 25 years in state of continued anger and frustration.
Anonymous wrote:
I rather think the moderates felt that the SBC had left THEM when it turned such a sharp corner theologically during the ‘Resurgence’ coup.
Anonymous wrote:
Many disputes are both intra congregational and involved with whatever standards and hierarchy link the congregation to others. That’s what makes things so painful.
In some denominations, local women clergy were acceptable until they had the knowledge and experience and support, and maybe even a call after a discernment process, to advance. Then all of a sudden they had authority over congregations that didn’t want women leaders. That is most definitely a painful situation for all. But pain and comfort are less important than what is right. I think that the practice of consensus leads to the best outcomes, but it is not developed as a skill or cultural attribute by many groups. The Quakers are its major proponents.
Darlene wrote:
They would fail miserably, but I would have a grand time! There’s a handful of women at church who would jump into the fray with me!
Ya know, if our men folk would just claim us as legal property, take us down to the PVA office and have us evaluated, and start paying property taxes on us, they wouldn’t have to worry about us signing legal agreements for the SBC!
~~~~~Our menfolk would all be in prison! Prison ministry, anyone?
Lea wrote:
My three favorite people in the OT are Rahab, Deborah, and Jael.
Rahab, the harlot, spoke on behalf of her entire family, including the males, and brokered deal that saved them. And, she became one of Jesus’ ancestors!
Deborah, with a little help from Jael, defeated the army of Jabin.
Darlene wrote:
I am probably a minority. I don’t believe the SBC should change its name or try to sanitize the history of its founding. It was founded on the premise that slavery was good and biblically sanctioned. If they were truly repentant they wouldn’t continually pass resolutions.
Regarding this article by JD Greer, he says “Other conservative complementarians permit a woman to give a testimony in church, even during the Sunday service, and even if her address is filled with the explanation of gospel content and exhortations to obey to that content.However, as one pastor told me recently, she should not do so “in or as the sermon.”
??? These guys have no idea how ridiculous they sound.
This is my favorite:
1. At The Summit Church, can a woman teach in a formal church setting, like a large Sunday School class or an evening Bible study?
Yes, but not if she does so in a way that “mimics” the teaching authority of an elder.
Article at his site “can women teach in the church”
Anonymous wrote:
So people who gave of their hard earned money and time for decades to a church should “move on” when some deceptive Pastor is hired under false pretenses and over time tries to subversively change the polity?
Wouldn’t it be better if the so called Christian pastor was just honest upfront about his intentions? It’s deception pure and simple. You are simply engaging in blaming the victims for being deceived.
@ Mark:
I agree. And they would not have named a college for the pro slaver, Boyce, as late as 1994. Why would they honor such a man? It’s not like that was the name of the college for a century.
Lea wrote:
Seems to me that a woman who mimics a good male teacher would be doing a good thing in any sane world. What is she not supposed to mimic about a male teacher? I can think of a few things, but it has nothing to do with teaching or content…Possibly his authoritative demeanor? Is she required to issue a disclaimer during her teaching that she is not authoritative?
@ Gram3:
Probably supposed to be ‘winsome’ in her teaching.
None of their dumb rules make sense.
Gram3 wrote:
Yes, she must begin with the disclaimer:
“I am but a woman, I really shouldn’t be here, and you men should not be listening to me – oh! I’m sorry, I am but a woman and I should not have made any assertion regarding what you should or should not listen to.”
In order that she exhibit no mimicry of maleness, she should wear a dress overlaid with a kitchen apron.
She may not use any of the technology – no laser pointers, no power point slides, no microphone.
Instead she must hold a spatula in her left hand during her speech, and it shall suffice as a pointer if needed.
Also, speaking in a whispery falsetto is strongly suggested, although not required. However, no women with voices leaning toward the alto or baritone registers need apply.
There, that should do it – that should eliminate any confusion amongst male listeners that the speaker is but a woman, has no authority and no mimicry of authority, and therefore they really aren’t required to listen, much less take anything she says to heart.
Anonymous wrote:
According to the articles, it was the state and national organizations that disfellowshiped these Baptist churches for having godly women pastors whom the members
refused to fire.
Nancy2 wrote:
Have you ever seen the hysterical Jael cartoon by Rachel Stone’s father which he did in the Precious Moments style?
Tim Fall had it on his blog: https://timfall.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/biblical-womanhood-is-nothing-and-neither-is-biblical-manhood/
siteseer wrote:
God is probably doing something in all of this. It just may not be the continued glorification and exaltation of men that the SBC has been trending towards in recent decades. Anyone who’d teach the tithe the way that Gaines has is the sort of hateful human being who will possibly lead the SBC completely into the ditch. At this point, that may be, for all I know, a very good thing. God has a history of “doing something in all of this” by subtraction. Ask Gideon.
One more thing: Am I the only one who looks at the picture of those three men, just the picture alone, and immediately recoils in disgust?
Law Prof wrote:
The leaders of the SBC are so full of themselves they are disgusting! They appear to be clueless that God does not use their kind for good but their actions will be used for something.
Law Prof wrote:
A precedent of “Holy Subtraction” quoted by every Pastor/Dictator who throws his people under the bus.
You’re not the only one.
It’s The Great Dictator, with Adenoid Hynkel flanked by Garbage & Herring.
Or David Miscavage flanked by the top pair of Sea Org.
Velour wrote:
For Blasphemy against the Holy Phallus.
Law Prof wrote:
Yep, that’s quite a crew! I feel like Trump just beat Hillary – now what the heck are we going to do?!!
mot wrote:
I am no saint and I am not without sin, but I hope these leaders are taking seriously the full ramifications of all they say and do .
The Future of the SBC—Is Not White
http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2016/june/our-future-is-not-white.html
Southern Baptists will not both grow and remain a majority white denomination. | by Ed Stetzer