“I believe when I stand before the Lord God, I’m going to say: ‘Dear God, I violated a policy but I didn’t want to stand before you with blood on my hands,’ Dear God, I did the best I knew how.’”
Paige Patterson (SBC 2014 Annual Meeting)
B.H. Carroll Memorial Building (SWBTS)
A week ago the Annual Meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention was in full swing at the Baltimore Convention Center. As is the custom at these meetings, the presidents of the six Southern Baptist seminaries report to the messengers.
Paige Patterson, who leads Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, delivered the next to the last report. His address followed that of the president of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and preceded the report of the president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Thanks to live streaming, I was able to hear his remarks, along with two questions that were asked during the time remaining. Here is a clip of the final 18 minutes, which Wade Burleson featured in a post on his blog.
As I watched this segment of the SBC meeting live, the first question (asked at the 3 minute mark) struck me as somewhat odd. In response to Wade Burleson's post on this topic, one of his commenters made some interesting observations (see below).
RRR wrote:
This is why it all seemed quite staged and insincere to me: I think there were two questions directed to Brother Paige from the floor of the Convention regarding his SWBTS Report. The first was a gentleman asking why SWBTS gives seminary training to non-Christians (atheists, Muslims, etc.) in the SWBTS "prison ministry" where they apparently offer seminary courses to inmates. At the first of his response to that question, I believe that Brother Paige said the man presenting that question was his brother in-law. Regardless, this question gave Brother Paige the opening to explain how SWBTS is justified in providing seminary teaching in prison to professing non-believers because the prison is a secular institution. Therefore, SWBTS is not allowed to provide seminary education in prison without offering it to ALL inmates regardless of their religious affiliation. In the process of providing this ministry they have rejoiced in seeing some inmates come to Christ.
Only then did the second question come from the floor asking Brother Paige why he had allowed a Muslim to register and attend SWBTS "on campus". Does anyone else see where this is going?
The first question regarding SWBTS’s including non-believers in their prison seminary program seemed to muddy the water by comparing apples and oranges; i.e., justifying the offering of seminary courses to non-believers in a secular prison environment where SWBTS has limited administrative control compared to offering it to non-believers on a seminary campus work where the administration and application of policies is totally under the control of SWBTS. The entire sequence of questions to Brother Paige appeared to me to be a very astute political maneuver and well planned in advance thereby undermining any sense of sincerity (to my thinking at least) regarding subsequent statements.
Then came the "apology". I was at first hopeful for witnessing a redemptive heart at work but soon dismayed by what appeared to me to again be a very well rehearsed and planned stage event. I know, I know, I am not able to judge a brother's heart, but God gave us all a brain and hopefully a sense of discernment to guard us from deception and having misled trust. I never heard Brother Paige offer an admission of having done a "wrong". All I heard was a spoken regret saying that if what he did hurt your feelings he was sorry about that, but…. Never a word of apology that "I did wrong and I’m not going to do that again."
Then he expounded (humbly?) to say that even if there was anything done that was in error in some people's mind it was justified by it all having been done to win people to Christ. The end justifies the means sort of thing.
Brother Paige addressed any accusations about his misusing Cooperative Program dollars by saying that no CP dollars were used to finance the Muslim’s tuition but it was done through private grants. What about the facilities where he lives?/The professors salaries who teach him?/The payment of the electric and water bill on campus? THOSE are paid with Cooperative Program dollars in support of all students.
But apparently, as demonstrated by what appeared to be (I was not in attendance but watching on-line) an overwhelming standing ovation following Brother Paige’s explanation, I must be in the minority with my impression of it all. Given that most of us do have the presence of the same Holy Spirit, maybe I better go back to my prayer room.
I greatly appreciated this commenter (RRR) because his remarks caused me to do some digging, as I will share in the remainder of the post. For clarification, the first gentleman to ask a question was not Paige Patterson's brother-in-law (BIL), as RRR assumed. In fact, Patterson's BIL is Charles S. (Chuck) Kelley, brother of Dorothy K. Patterson and president of New Orleans Theological Seminary, who had addressed SBC messengers just before Patterson came to the platform.
So who was this first questioner?
He identified himself as Jim Richards of First Baptist Church, Keller, Texas. I had never heard of him, so I decided to do a Google search. Have I mentioned lately how much I LOVE the internet?
I immediately discovered the following biographical information about Brother Jim:
Dr. Richards’ education includes two undergraduate degrees, an M.Div from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and D.Min. from Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary in Memphis. In June 2007, Dr. Richards was elected First VP of the SBC. When the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention was formed in Nov of 1998, Dr. Richards became the first Executive Director.
Richards' bio can also be found on the SBC Texas website. It includes the following:
When the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention was formed in November of 1998, Dr. Richards became the first Executive Director. The SBTC has experienced phenomenal growth both numerically and financially. The Convention has become an important partner for churches in Texas and with the Southern Baptist Convention.
According to a Baptist Press article, the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention (SBTC) has
increased from 120 to nearly 2,100 churches. Since arriving in Texas, Richards has also been a great friend to Southwestern. The SBTC has given many financial gifts to help the seminary train scholars for ministry. A total of $300,000 has been given toward Southwestern’s new chapel.
This BP article, which provided a wrap-up of Southwestern's Fall 2008 Trustee meeting, named the recipients of the L.R. Scarborough Award.
The L.R. Scarborough Award was created in honor of the seminary’s second president. He sustained and furthered the passion for evangelism and missions held by his predecessor, B.H. Carroll. Trustees honored Jack and Barbara MacGorman, Jim and June Richards and John and Virginia Seelig.
(emphasis mine)
Five years before that (June 25, 2003), the Baptist Press published an article entitled Patterson responds 'openly, honestly' in meeting with Southwestern faculty. Interestingly, this BP article features Jim Richards' remarks on why Patterson would be as asset to SWBTS (he was president of SEBTS at the time). Here is the pertinent excerpt:
However, in light of Patterson's staunch stance on the authority and truthfulness of the Word of God, Southern Baptists of Texas Convention Executive Director Jim Richards believes Patterson will strengthen the ties between the seminary and the new convention.
"No one has a greater missionary spirit. He has preached and practiced personal involvement in the Great Commission," Richards said. "Denominationally, Dr. Patterson commanded the respect of his peers by being elected twice as president of the Southern Baptist Convention. His accomplishments at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary are almost of biblical proportions. I predict a strong working relationship between Southwestern and the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention."
(emphasis mine)
Then on March 27, 2012 Jim Richards was invited to speak in chapel at Southwestern.
A few months later, Richards joined key convention leaders for an informal meeting in New Orleans at Cafe Du Monde, where the Conservative Resurgence was first conceived by Paul Pressler and Paige Patterson. Remember, the SBC Annual Meeting took place in New Orleans that year, and this gathering immediately preceded it. Here is a screen shot of that announcement.
Are you getting the picture? Paige Patterson and Jim Richards have a well-established friendship that spans quite a few years.
And here is the final revelation regarding the friendship of Paige Patterson and Jim Richards. On Friday (June 20, 2014), Richards' book Revelation: The Best Is Yet to Come will be released in paperback. Guess who Richards asked to write the Foreward for his book…
PAIGE PATTERSON!!!
Now let's go back to Jim Richards' question (starting at the 3 minute mark). Couched in his minute-long query, Richards asked:
Would these tremendous ministries be possible without admitting atheists, Muslims, and other non-Chrisians who meet qualifying academic standards?
Was Richards attempting to mislead the messengers into believing that the Muslim student who had attracted such negative attention leading up to the convention was a student in the Darington Prison College that had been co-established by SWBTS and the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention? Here is a portion of Patterson's response that led me to wonder this.
Unfortunately, it is the case that you cannot discriminate and have a program in prison, and so in our program are atheists and in our program are Muslims and in our program probably are some other things that we’re not fully aware of yet, but we do know that these prisoners will never be out on the streets. These are folks who are guilty of such heinous crimes that they are there as far as they know forever, and we have no choice we have to admit them to class…
It sounded like a deflection to me.
A subsequent question on this matter was posed by 'William', a messenger from Thomasville, Georgia, at the 6-1/2 minute mark. William stated:
I appreciate your answer to the previous question, but I would like to have a straightforward explanation as to why at your direction the seminary admitted a Muslim student on campus in violation of the seminary’s charter and your admission guidelines.
Of course, it was this request that caused Patterson to shed what appeared to be crocodile tears as he uttered:
I believe when I stand before the Lord God, I’m going to say: ‘Dear God, I violated a policy but I didn’t want to stand before you with blood on my hands,’ Dear God, I did the best I knew how.’
If you have not yet heard Patterson's response to William's inquiry, I would encourage you to watch the video. It certainly appears that the good 'ole boy network is alive and well in the SBC.
Again, I am grateful to RRR for peaking my interest in discovering just who Brother Jim (Richards) is and how he is connected to Brother Paige. No wonder so few Southern Baptists bother attending the SBC Annual Meeting. I believe they are tired of the shenanigans and power plays demonstrated by this tiny portion of the SBC business meeting.
Lydia's Corner: Daniel 5:1-31 2 Peter 2:1-22 Psalm 119:113-128 Proverbs 28:19-20
First!
I am confused and wondering something here….Should I be outraged a Muslim student was admitted to the college or outraged that these good old boys have declared war against the transgendered, and continue to ignore those horrible whispers of sexual abuse of minors in their churches. Those whispers are getting louder, and people are waking up. Their numbers are down and they know it. This is just another nail in the coffin of the SBC. A few years ago I helped cater at the installation of the newest president of the SBC because my friends sister works at the main church. I walked around astounded at the feeling I was standing in a time capsule, a church right out the 70s with all the biblical ideologies to prove it. I really am not upset they admitted the muslim guy I am upset that they have manufactured this huge story and drama because it really feels like it is meant to distract.
So the “first question” was from a shill planted in the audience?
Rebecca Lynn wrote:
I think the issue is that local churches give money to the seminaries to train Baptist pastors, not Muslims. And, to be perfectly blunt, a Muslim would likely get a less sectarian and more rounded education if he went to one of the more ecumenical seminaries (Harvard, Yale, Union in NYC, GTU in Berkeley), but they’re tough to get into. I’d also note this is my personal opinion. I honestly *do not* understand why Patterson is allowing a Muslim to attend the seminary. There’s something more to this story that I don’t get.
@ mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort:
I am wondering about this story too. As for the shill in the audience I think anyone that showed up that day is a shill. The folks there just drink the kool aid and do what they are told unless they are one of those calling the shots. I don't understand why a muslim student would want to go to a Baptist seminary either. OR why this is more important than those poor kids being molested? Again there are real problems and then there are those that seem a little manufactured. I, like you, think there is a lot more here. But I question whether we need to focus on this versus focusing on some of the other issues and problems being caused by the SBC.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I wonder how long Richards stood at the microphone #8 so that he could ask the first question? And why wasn't William (standing at microphone #5) recognized first? How far up the SBC ladder was this orchestrated?
This was gross to watch. Well-rehearsed, well-orchestrated. Not only was it a denial of the responsibility he agreed (and was paid) to assume (and did not require him to sin by obeying), it was a reframing of history to shed a glorious light on a weasely (and rebellious to authority!) act. I told my son yesterday I could not listen to one more (deleted adjective) southern preacher thundering on about gawd. I broke my rule and I knew better. “Repentance” resulting in applause…all male…Say, why don’t the thousands who are drummed out of their local SB churches with a gag order get a microphone to defend themselves? Not to mention an ovation for a limp and manipulative “apology”? I think the answer lies in James 2:1. The Laodicean church is right under our noses and we applaud it.
I know there are people not upset they allowed a Muslim into the seminary. I am.
I remember the hoops I had to jump through to get into SWBTS, including the fact I had to prove I was a member of a SBC Church, and I was a practicing Christian. ( yes they allowed non- SBC into the seminary, but they were Christian….and most of a denomination very similar to the SBC….)
When I attended in the 1980s, there was a black female in our MDiv courses. She Is now a minister in a church in Florida. In the 1990s after the so-called conservative putsch, there was some discussion about not allowing females into the MDiv program, she being an example of what happens when females get into the program, and PP is one of SBC who still thinks females in the pulpit is a no-no…( I am not….after I saw her witness in the airport Phoenix, I was convinced that females are called into the ministry.)
The seminary is for training people for Christian service. Male, female. It is not for Muslims, and besides, who now is going to hire a SWBTS graduate now in the academic world?
( I had a hard time getting a teaching interviews in certain areas of Texas, such as Austin and the Hill Country, I was told by a HR person because I had attended SWBTS.)
K.D. wrote:
I wonder how the anti-female position apparently held by SWBTS might be seen as counter-productive in the workplace where mutual respect and team work is a necessity. I can see how this attitude would affect day-to-day operations in any business negatively.
Deb
I told you shortly after viewing the video that Patterson summoned the tears. If you watch his facial expression. it did not change to match the crying jag. In my opinion, this was a a Grade B movie acting job. Someone needs to get the guy some acting lessons.
K.D. wrote:
K.D. wrote:
Get rid of the females. Get rid of the so-called “liberals” but admit a Muslim. Things are nuts in Baptist land.
Deb wrote:
It was signed, sealed and delivered prior to the meeting.
dee wrote:
It was a poor acting job….very poor….reminded me of a crying scene in the local community player’s theatre.
I am the most irked by the fact that, once again, the person with the power is flaunting it. Doing as he wishes without regard to the rules and bylaws of the organization he is supposed to be serving. Anyone with a background in business or anyone who has ever even served on a committee knows no one agent for an organization is allowed to do this.
If PP wanted to act or make decisions in a manner that went against company laws, he should have called a board meeting, discussed it, held a vote, changed the law, THEN taken whatever action the board allowed. This is blatant abuse of office, abuse of power. People like him would never make it working for a corporation in the real world. I wish more christians would start thinking and not fall for this "set up" question and answer, nor his fake hyper emotional excuse. Waaay too many Christians these days just open their mouths wide, take the spoonful of whatever is being fed them, and think its all good.
By the way, my twenty year old daughter who is a solid christian, went to a rigorous classical school, understands denominational differences, etc…values academic excellence, especially in the study of scripture and the church fathers, etc…was broken up with this weekend by her boyfriend who is working at a church camp for the summer. He says she "thinks" about her faith too much. She isn't "emotional" enough. Is it wrong to think he would be in the standing ovation for Paige Patterson?
Did Patterson say WHY he admitted the Muslim student? It’s hard for me to read these absurd stories closely. And why would we care if he thought it was the right thing, he is the leader of the seminary, after all. I don’t know his heart or why he would cry and be so upset if he thought he had done the right thing. And as far as prison reach out, is that not a good thing? Perhaps the Holy Spirit can plant a seed (of all things).
Hanni wrote:
Being a leader doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want; as in ignore the guidelines of the institution you lead.
@ Hanni:
Apparently, my point about prisoners taking classes through Southwestern's outreach did not come across correctly. I was not being critical but trying to point out that I believe there was an orchestrated effort to change the topic. It was a distraction technique IMHO.
mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
Why is the Muslim student interested in going to the seminary…? I… just don’t understand.
The fact that PP allowed a Muslim to attend SWTS is no big deal and not, for most people, I think, the issue. The issue is PP gets to flaunt the rules of SWBTS and make up his own rules as he goes along like any other petty dictator. Funny how his shill in this farce was a guy who headed an organization that gave $300,000 to PP’s chapel (which includes an ugly stained glass window of PP himself – can you say “idolatry”). But that’s OK, as long as he keeps up his jihad against women teaching and in the ministry. PP is despicable and if he represents Christianity, include me out.
@ JeffT: I agree!
He said he violated the policy at SWBTS so he would not have blood on his hands when he stood before the Lord. Is he therefore indicting the entire admission policies of the school and saying they will have blood on their hands??
There’s no question that the question in question was a shill question given the relationship between the questioner and the person being questioned.
Seminary/University Presidents are generally granted the right,as part of their contracts, to waive a University’s policies or use their administrative power to over-rule something like an admissions decision.
In that sense, Paige Patterson was probably entitled to admit a Muslim student and Al Mohler was empowered to (reputedly) give the SGM Pastors’ College tuition breaks and/or give members of the Mahaney family special privileges at Southern Seminary even though they are not Southern Baptists.
The kicker is that these men have a moral, ethical, and fiduciary responsibility to explain their actions, just like the leaders of any other major organization that solicits donations from many sources.
People give money to Seminaries believing that they will follow their policies and act in the best interest of the institution.
If Patterson thought there was a compelling reason to admit a Muslim student, in violation of the University’s guidelines/donors’ reasonable expectations, he should say what that was, clearly. Making a weird angst-ridden statement about talking to God on judgment day, about his admissions decisions, doesn’t cut it.
Likewise, if Mohler helped a Mahaney son-in-law get a coveted Southern Seminary part-time job and/or offered reduced tuition to SGM Pastors’ College students, benefits that arguably should have gone to Southern Baptist individuals/institutions, then he should explain those decisions clearly. Was he acting in the best interests of Southern Seminary or just trying to help out a friend?
Having the right to make a decision does not free a leader from his or her obligation to justify it.
That neither Patterson (based on this incident) or Mohler (based on his general reputation as a Seminary President) appear to believe this, makes one question whether they think they’re accountable to anyone despite their claims to be part of a Congregationalist Denomination.
First, I want to make it clear that I have no problem with a Muslim studying archeology at SWBTS, although I think the student could do better (SWBTS isn’t exactly known for its archeology program – in fact, I didn’t even know it had one until this tory). I also don’t have a problem with cooperative money funding secular education. That being said, I do understand how people who give to the cooperative under established precedent would be confused or angry at how their donated dollars are being spent. And I can’t imagine how anyone in Patterson’s position could possibly think it was a good idea to make up his own set of rules. If Patterson thinks that the current admissions process closes the door on missional relations with non-Christians, then he should work to change the rules, not just break them by executive fiat.
JeffT wrote:
I remember reading an article about the chapel (with slide show) and thinking (ed)??? Beyond bizarre imho.
Deb wrote:
Hero Medal to the Party Commissar of Spontaneous People’s Demonstrations?
dee wrote:
Muslims are also very much into Complementarianism, Enforcing Public Morality, and Making a Godly Nation. Enemy of my Enemy is My Friend.
I missed PP’s report. I had to leave the convention early to get home.
I am glad that you have told your readers about the friendship between PP and Richards, but believe me, that friendship goes back years and most people are aware of that.
I do not believe Richards’ question was very well worded. It was so obvious what he was doing by this question that I would be surprised if it had any effect. In fact, it was such a clumsy attempt to help I would not be surprised if it actually hurt.
PP got the applause for one reason. PP was a leader in the conservative resurgence. The one goal of the conservative resurgence was to make sure that the SBC seminaries and other institutions did not suffer the same kind of doctrinal slide that has occurred in so many Christian denominations in the U.S. Because of his leadership in the CR, PP will always have the respect of most Southern Baptists. Danny Akin’s response to PP’s apology reflects that respect.
But there is not doubt that most people in the convention think that PP did a really bad thing admitting a non-Christian to the academic program of the seminary in violation of the charter and the other seminary documents. PP knows he did wrong. The trustees will deal with this and make sure that it does not happen again, but they will do so privately.
There are some people in leadership, secular and religious, who make what their admirers consider to be a contribution so significant that they will be gentle about their shortcomings. We see this a lot in secular leadership – in the public and the private sectors. It happens in the church, too.
PP is not long for further leadership at the seminary. He must be pushing 70 or 75. Unless there is a major moral failure of some sort, he will be allowed to ride his horse into the sunset.
That will make PP’s detractors angry. We all hate when we see a failure ignored because of a past contribution. But life is full of frustrations like this.
Thanks for your post.
Deebs –
Any news on No More Perfect’s babe?
I just read about this on “religionnews.com”, there are quite a few articles about it. They said it was illegal to discriminate in prisons whilst disseminating various “helps.” It is not funny I guess, but the pictures they had of him crying reminded me of my kids years ago when they knew they were in deep doo-doo. They also said church funds were not used. I can understand why a Muslim scholar would want to study archeology of the Holy Land. I find his comment about “he didn’t want to stand before God with blood on his hands” kind of a “what in the world statement?” That was the real Hail Mary excuse, again IMO. Hope I am not being too snarky, getting grumpy I guess.
Victorious wrote:
The men pursuing M.Divs from these institutions don’t expect to have to work out in the secular world. Consequently, they live in a bubble and don’t have a clue as to what it’s like out here in the “real world.” A consistent anti-female position would go over very poorly in my office, where the executive over our group is a woman.
Hanni wrote:
Just looked at the website. It’s an MA in Archaeology and Biblical Studies. I’m trying to figure out what a Muslim would do for a 2 hour class in “spiritual formation.”
I’m also reminded by looking at the website that SWBTS is the place with the homemaking certificates for the little ladies. *shakes head*
*Off Topic, but hopefully worthy of its own post here at TWW*
Boz Tchividjian (who helped draft it) and others are reporting that the Presbyterian Church in America, today at its General Assembly, passed WITHOUT OBJECTION the most strongly worded child sexual abuse statement of any denomination.
https://twitter.com/StoneBridgeCLT/status/479669735479447552/photo/1
Burleson correctly sees this matter, though it might be worth noting that entity heads have long had to subject themselves to questions from the floor, a good thing. Occasionally, someone will recruit friendly questioners who will monopolize all the mics, thereby preventing any hostile or uncomfortable questions. Nothing new about that.
I presumed that all of our seminary heads had some discretionary admits they could use for special students. Patterson admitted this Muslim student who participated in the school’s archaeological dig in Israel. Trustees will take the matter up later. We will see what they do.
As an SBCer, I judge that there is some Patterson fatigue around the convention. I’ve got a mild case myself.
So he did something by “executive order”?. Oops, no. Wrong topic. He broke the rules regarding stewardship of co-operative program funds. He by-passed the rules of the organization in which he holds a prominent position. Well, shame on him.
Then he apologizes all over himself for following he requirements of a secular state funded institution at which they offer classes, pleading Caesar made me do it. Or maybe he just explained thinking the messengers would be upset about it. Un huh, I guess I get that.
But “blood on my hands?” Spare us the drama, Paige. If this kind of stuff is blood on the hands, some of these boys better spend the rest of their lives doing penance in some monastery at 10,000 feet elevation, barefooted on the stones. What they have done to baptist-dom is waaaay beyond this little dust-up. But, of course, they did it all the right way, I guess. Destroy your enemies, seize control, rewrite the rules and crush your opponents. Who would take exception to that? And yes, a baptist school I went to back in the day was eliminated by some of these people. Personal thing here.
mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
As I have said, I was on church staff for a while. I left when I no longer could look at my face in the mirror….In my mind, I could not justify my paycheck.
I’ve have recently started to visit a SBC Church. There are 5 people on staff. 3 full time, 2 part time……I am not sure what one of the full time staffers and one of the part timers do…..I asked 3 long time members…..they didn’t know what they ” DID” outside they knew their title…
No, I have been of a mind for quite a while now most ministers need to be bi-vocational. ( I know there are guys and girls who earn their keep as ministers, but I am convinced, most staffers, ministers don’t….)
Victorious wrote:
This point was brought up in the book Quitting Church by both men and women.
Some of the people mentioned it was like entering a time warp, and that it was very disconcerting, to step foot into a complementarian church where women were limited, after having just left a job where women were given equal footing to men, and that based on ability.
One guy interviewed said it felt embarrassing to enter churches that still limit women just for being women.
@ pcapastor:
Thanks for this info. I remember that last year the PCA attempted to address child sex abuse at its national meeting, but in the end no action was taken.
BTW, Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan participated in a panel discussion at the PCA General Assembly last year.
https://www.rts.edu/seminary/newsevents/NewsDetails.aspx?id=1823
(off topic)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2014/06/19/university-tells-rape-victims-to-repent.html
Bob Jones University Tells Rape Victims to Repent
K.D. wrote:
I think there’s another reason why bi-vocationality is a good idea. It helps disperse the damaging idea that only the pulpit is a place of ministry, and that only traditionally religious activity is “the Lord’s work”. God’s desire for the workplace is more than just that our colleagues stop smoking, swearing and being gay, then join us on Sundays.
Nancy wrote:
As I’ve commented here before, it wasn’t a “conservative resurgence”, it was a fundamentalist resurgence.
@ Daisy: Absolutely awful!
Ken wrote:
There is so much odd tolerance of the anti-America/Christian Islamic religion among our political and religious leaders I am beginning to wonder if there is a lot more to their stories than they can or will tell us.
Caitlin wrote:
The tale as told by PP is that he was at an archaeological dig in Palestine and this young man was working at the dig. He expressed an interest in studying biblical archaeology in the U.S. and to earn a Ph.D. in the field, based on his undergraduate education and his experience. PP then arranged to have him admitted to attend SWBTS to work on his Ph.D. in biblical archaeology. Keep in mind that Arabs believe that they are descended from Abraham, believe that God (the word for which in Arabic is “Allah” described in the OT is the same one they worship. So an interest in ancient OT sites is a natural one for an Arab Muslim. A distant cousin of mine was on the faculty at SBTS for a long time and worked digs in the ME, sometimes with staffing by Muslims.
Guy gives ham actors a bad name.
But more dangerously, he raises his fists “to God” as he enacts his imagined plea before the Judgment Seat.
The arrogance!!!! His puny fat fists are no match for the Almighty.
@ Lisa:
*bangs forehead with brick*
@ Rebecca Lynn:
Ok, ok….I’ll let you be first Rebecca!! :-p
Daisy wrote:
(BJU Dean)
You know, I’m not a violent man, and have never punched anyone in the nose. But this joker just might tempt me. Then I’d say, “We have to find the sin in your life that caused your broken nose.”
@ Dave A A:
Original full report and interviews on BJU at AJAM:
http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/articles/2014/6/18/bob-jones-universitysexualabuse.html
@ Dave A A:
You know what, Dave? You and I obviously have very similar minds.
(No offence intended… 😉 )
hope its ok if I share this, wish I could share it with the sbc.
homosexuality is a sin and stated clearly in the bible. But the ‘church’ is dealing with it in the same manner as they did divorce years ago. ‘Divorce is a sin and you are a sinner and you are not welcome in our church, we do not care why you are divorced, you are not welcome to help us minister to the poor, you are not going to our picnics, we will publicly condemn you we will not speak to you on the street, we will not rent houses to you and we will shun you children. and there is NO WAY you will buy our PASTRIES at our BAKERIES!!!!
This is not the gospel of Jesus, the ‘church’ has made homosexuality the biggest global plank in its own eye.
This is the gospel according to Jesus:
Two men went up into the temple to pray, the one a pharisee, and the other a publican. The pharisee stood and prayed thus: God i thank you that i am not as other men are, homosexuals, illegle aliens, or like this guy whose doctrine is not right like mine. I am a member of the right christian political party, i tithe 10% and thanks for my new car. I attend the largest church on the block, we have lots of new members because we have air conditioning and great movies! I am a soldier in the Lords army, and i am fully armed, locked and loaded. Lord, please remember the starving children in africa, and have those people stop putting the ads about them on tv. they make me feel bad and then i can’t enjoy my football game. i told some more people today how much you hate them. Oh yeah i pray you would bomb all those ____ in ___country because they are killing people that they think don’t follow God right, they are so violent.
the publican, wearing his protective mask of toughness and self assurance to protect himself, left the temple praying by himself, and not able to look up to heaven he asked God to be merciful to him, a sinner. As the pharisee passed him he said to the sinner, “the judgement of God is coming because of you!”
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Luke 18:14 (KJV)
@ Rafki:
Clueless. Absolutely clueless counselling at BJU. What scripture are they reading to do what they do? I can’t find anything that says sin causes sin against you.
__
Brooks Hamby : Proverbial -Rabble-Rouser, Perhaps?
hmmm…
“He just wanted to ‘thank Jesus’ in his 2014 high school graduation speech.”
huh?
But alas, references to Jesus and prayer in graduation speechs are now deemed (in certain quarters of the good ole United States) as “inappropriate” and are now viewed (by some) as violating “prevailing legal standards.”
What?
“prevailing legal standards”?
-snicker-
(hmmm…how the M-i-g-h-t-y “American Eagle” has fallen?)
“…In life, you will be told, ‘No’; in life, you will be asked to do things that you have no desire to do; in life, – you will be asked to do things that violate your conscience and your desire to do what is right, be the salt of the earth, be strong and stand for your convictions and stand for what is right, what is ethical, what is moral and what is Godly, no matter what is the cost to you, stand for what is good wherever you go and whatever you do- may the God of the Bible bless each and every one of you every day in the rest of your lives…” ~ Brooks Hamby
Amen!
*
Hath American “salt” lost it’s taste?
Has good, right, and true, lost it’s savor a well?
(sadface)
could b.
“…let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy, behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done…” ~ Jesus
…gonna b a heck of a party!
(grin)
hahahahahaha
Sopy
__
reference notes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th9_xk8QClY
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/christian.salutatorian.defies.school.officials.graduation.speech/38198.htm
http://libertyinstitute.org/file/Brawley-UHSD—Student-Prayer-at-Graduation—Student-3rd-draft.pdf
http://libertyinstitute.org/hamby
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/16/god-redacted-from-high-school-graduation-speech/
;~)
—
Anna wrote:
I have run into this before, with a family member, and I think that I know what they are thinking. I am a bit scared to say it because I am afraid that somebody will think that I agree with them. But they are using an idea taken from scripture and twisted (in my opinion) to bully other people because of (and here I am “judging” these people’s actions) either their own individual hardness of heart or because they themselves have been so indoctrinated in this type of thinking that they neither think about it nor question the correctness of it.
In my experience with baptist fundamentalism, and this issue among it all, I have not found any way to reason with these people because they distrust and reject the reasoning process itself, again based on a comment in scripture taken alone and misapplied.
There is a way to deal with these people, however, but it takes a bit of being a rascal and being able to distance one’s self from it and see it for the foolishness that it is. They are easily deceived, and the person who has been attacked by them has some deceptive options which can be used as survival mechanisms in this case. But, if the other party, the one who has been vilified, is also caught in fundamentalist thinking, I have not found a way to neutralize the aggressor is such a case.
@ sam h:
I think your statement is well thought out. The SBC is getting worried about their image and they should. The members are dropping like flies.
That is why Russell Moore recently said something about toning done the rhetoric. He has not changed his views one iota but he is seeing the long term effects the the culture war is having on the SBC.
Frankly, most people do not care what the SBC says anymore. Even their own members do not show up to the annual meeting.
One point-When we say that homosexuality is a sin, what most mean is that the homosexual act is a sin. There are a number of people on this bog who are celibate Christians, choosing not to act on their SSA.
The reason I want to make this point is because there are some in the SBC who actually believe that even having SSA feelings is a sin.
dee wrote:
I think that Russell Moore has lots more sense than Al Mohler about a number of things. He was a good pick for his job, if people wanted a neo-cal for the job. I read both his books, and I was very impressed by his thinking in both of them, neither of which was hard core neo-puritan. And I read his blog, and I think that if SBC is going to snatch themselves out of the fire they best start listening to cooler heads than Mohler.
As much as I am heartbroken to see what has happened to SBC, and as much trouble as I have had with the thinking of baptist fundamentalism, there a lot of people involved who do not need their world torn apart because of some hard core fanatics in their midst. I think Moore is mistaken about some things, but I do not think that he is either poorly informed nor unstable. I just happen to disagree on some issues.
dee wrote:
Absolutely correct. There are a lot of folks who think that the catholic position on this is the way to go.
And some who would be even a bit more liberal than the catholic position, but who would stop short of condoning same sex behavior (actual sex acts).
But it is extremely hard to attract an excited and screaming crowd around a sensible, biblical and moderate point of view. Staging a circus draws more crowds.
__
FaithGate: “…Those Who Do And Teach Others?”
hmmm…
…faith in Jesus Christ no longer a prerequisite for entrance to a certain Baptist seminary?
…isn’t that something?
(Oh, good night!)
huh…
“Indeed, those who submit themselves absolutely to GOD alone, while leading a ‘righteous’ life, will receive their recompense from their Lord; they have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve…” ~ Quran 2:112
What?
For I say to you that unless your “righteousness” surpasses that of a certain SBC seminary president, your proverbial religious ‘doghouse’ will not be air-conditioned.
(grin)
hahahahahaha
Sopy
__
Comic relief: Patti Page – “How Much Is That Doggie In The Window?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AkLE4X-bbU
;~)
—
Those of you with the fortitude to read my comments over the last couple of years here will know just how passionately I care about what happens at an SBC convention.
…
Anyway, moving on from that, we’ve seen/examined two contrasting statements of repentance here lately; Paige Patterson’s, and that printed by Christianity Today after taking down the article interviewing a sex offender.
Point 1 of 3
Thing is, we do like our quick gratification, and different things tick different people’s boxes. I use the first person deliberately, and I’ll come back to that point.
Point 2 of 3
Patterson’s apology clearly ticked the boxes for many in the SBC audience. He did it because he cares, because he’s a noble and heroic man who put his neck on the line to save a man’s life for all eternity, sob sob, etc etc. Observers often, in settings like that, talk effusively over how the person displayed “true repentance”. But true repentance cannot be displayed; it can only be evidenced by its fruit over time. The question remains, will Patterson bear fruit to show that he has repented?
Point 3 of 3
Christianity Today’s apology, by contrast, ticked my boxes. It was unembellished, hid nothing and sought to justify nothing. If the person or people who penned it were crying as they did so, they made no mention of it. If I wrote an apology, it would look very much like theirs.
Point 4 of 3
It would be tempting therefore, given my own prejudices and my own liking for quick gratification, to applaud Christianity Today for their “true repentance” and to despise Patterson as an ageing ham actor milking a silly and babyish audience. But as Futuristic Brad pointed out on a recent thread here, CT also need to produce fruit in keeping with repentance. We’ll only know if their apology is meaningful if we see their editorial policy, and similar, changing from here on. If not, their apology would just be a nicely-crafted little poem by a deluded academic who happens to resemble me. And if Patterson actually submits himself to meaningful disciplinary action, and/or seeks out those he’s thrown out of college over doctrinal technicalities far smaller than a rejection of Jesus’ identity as the Son of God, and/or similar, then I will be forced to conclude that he has indeed repented.
I know what would be easy to believe, and I know what I expect to happen. But I’m going to have to follow the evidence regardless.
@ Nick Bulbeck: CT (or rather, Leadership Journal) ticked my boxes with their apology too. It was clear cut, no loaded language, didnt deflect or dodge, it simply said words to the effect of “we screwed up and we’re sorry”. While I agree with the idea that they should have kept the piece with a forward saying “this is what an unrepentant predator sounds like” at least they finally listened to what many many people asked them to do.
Two things:
First, my father passed away last night. I was there for his very peaceful passing. I appreciate all the prayers and good wishes.
Second, and this is related to something the Deebs have talked about in the past, an Ohio state appellate court held that a lawsuit against a Vineyard church in Columbus, Ohio, could proceed. The lawsuit was the outgrowth of misconduct by an assistant pastor (he had an affair with a woman he was counseling). The church had claimed, as a condition of membership, the family had promised to use either biblical counseling or binding arbitration in disputes, rather than going to court. The appellate court upheld a lower court decision which found there was no evidence the family had agreed to such a policy.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/faith_and_values/2014/06/20/church-loses-appeal-on-policy.html
One of my lawyer buddies opines: “Actually having a disclaimer? basically screams they’re doing **** they could be sued for. I.e. they plan on financially ripping you off or abusing you in some way.” He also notes that these contracts *are* generally binding, so beware!
Just to add, for those of you who like reading legal opinions, here’s the appellate court opinion in the case just mentioned:
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/10/2014/2014-ohio-2617.pdf
And note, courts LIKE binding arbitration. If the court could have found for binding arbitration, it would have. IMHO, this was pretty egregious.
mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
I am so sorry about that. I lost both my parents and it is not easy under any circumstances. It was good that you could be there. I have said a prayer for you, hope you don’t mind.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Easy there, brother. I understand that this is not your problem. But anything that remotely sounds like I just don’t give a rat’s *** about you guy’s problems is a bit much. I am not saying that you exactly meant that, but the words sounded like that.
So I am going to shamelessly use this as an opportunity to say something that is on my mind. Thank for the opportunity.
SBC is big, rich and influential, especially in the southern states (the so-called bible belt) in this country on this continent. A huge crash of SBC, a complete collapse of the system would be a shipwreck for a lot of folks. The obvious problem would then be where would those religious refugees go? Think: several million disillusioned bible toting adults descending on the remaining religious structures and causing havoc wherever they go, precisely because they have become in their own mind losers in some battle they just can’t wait to win that battle somewhere else. Or else think: thousands of churches who think that autonomy of the local church is a deal breaker, suddenly set adrift from the only co-operation with other churches that some of them have, and this is the perfect setup for the development of individual cult-like congregations to develop.
While pondering that, look at what has happened to western christianity in europe and UK, and think about the reality that we see this and are trying desperately to keep that from happening here. All the while noting that searching biblical prophecy and fantasizing about armageddon and the mark of the beast will sell movies and books, and people are wondering if they really will be able to “die for the faith” should it come to that. And storing beans and rice just in case. And all of this end-times and imminent disaster thinking has gone main stream secular, not just organized religion.
IMO, given these variables, as many situations as can be stabilized at this point need to be stabilized, whether or not they are perfect. That is why I continue to care about SBC. These issue hit home because we UMC folks, so they say, are about to face a denominational split and I have to say to myself, what the blip am I going to do when faced with decision time. I don’t want to see this happen to SBC or SBC people-deterioration of the system I mean.
These are the biggest reasons why I continue to care about SBC, annual meeting and all.
mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
For those of us who would not understand if we read it, help. What is egregious? The fact that the court upheld the lower court’s decision? The fact that the church had such a contract (or not) with its members? The fact that courts like arbitration? Really, this is above my job description. Help.
mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
I’m so sorry, mirele. More prayers going up for comfort for you.
I too want the SBC to survive. However, it has got to evolve. It can’t stay in 1954.
I write a blog, and no this isn’t a shameless plug as my name on here isn’t associated with the name on the blog….and it’s geared for this area of Texas……anyway, I basically wrote yesterday that I no long have a problem with gay marriage. I am involved with sins in my life as are you, and sin, is sin, is sin…..and how will it hurt you if they marry? The church as it is now is full of people who are now divorced, re-married, divorced, re-married….and how many single mothers are in the audience, how many people are living together? ( it had a huge positive response from the under 40 crowd. Straight people, married with kids….evangelicals all…)
I am not saying a pastor has to marry gay couples, but I am going to a wedding tomorrow at a SBC Church in which a Criswell grad will marry a couple who were divorced from their first spouses for ” non-Biblical” reasons….
The SBC has got to evolve. It is going to lose on the gay couples. It knows has to do so….
@ mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort:
So sorry about your father. Praying for comfort to you and your extended family.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Nor offense, neither. Seriously, one wishes one could get a male counselor like this to imagine himself falsely imprisoned for the gospel’s sake, and being raped while there.
@ mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort:
Sorry to hear about your father …
mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
Please know that I'm praying for your family. So sorry for your loss.
@ mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort:
I am so sorry about the passing of your father. I have asked the TWW community to pray for you on the home page banner.
Oh Mirele, I’m so sorry. The loss of a parent is very very hard.
@ dee:
Judging by the level of ignorance I’m encountering on the ground (and occasionally even on threads here), these people 1) aren’t limited to the SBC and 2) may be a much larger group than we’d like to imagine.
@ pcapastor:
Awesome! Unfortunately all the PCA people I know personally, mentioned only that the PCA GA was addressing “important issues” like women’s ordination and theistic evolution. Personally I think those are basically non-issues next to child sex abuse, but what do I know? I’m Lutheran…
@ Dave A A:
Another thing I find odd about that perspective (that there’s a sin underneath a sin), is how any Christian can take that perspective, when Jesus, who was sinless, died for other people’s sins.
Would these guys argue that Jesus’ alleged personal sin must have played some role in why he was scourged by Romans and crucified?
The Old Testament said Job suffered, not because he did sinned, but because God and Satan had a challenge going on. I think Job was actually referred to as a “righteous” man.
Or, as Jesus explained in John 9 and Luke 13, sometimes bad stuff just happens to people through no fault of their own, that it’s either the ramifications of living in a fallen world, or God is up to something sneaky in the spiritual realm that we’re not privy to (unless God chooses to reveal it to us in the here and now).
How anyone can read all those stories and verses and still walk around automatically assuming a person is somehow to blame for any and all bad things that happens to him or her and his/her personal sin is beyond me. (The Bible teaches the opposite is true in some cases.)
@ Daisy:
Joseph in Genesis is another example.
He didn’t sin or do anything wrong, but his brothers were jealous of him and sold him off into slavery.
Some of today’s Christians, like those at BJU, would tell Joseph his being sold as a slave and being in prison must be due to his own sin. (“What sin brought on your brother’s sin to sell you into slavery? You surely must have done something to deserve it, to be punished by God.”)
@ Rafki:
That full report also mentions the use of biblical counseling in the context of how that university deals with sexual assault victims. I’m afraid the Bible gets really mangled by certain Christians, these counseling groups being no exception.
I see the Bible as being very “pro victim” and telling the stronger to help protect the weak, to be compassionate to those who are hurting, etc, but some Christian organizations (eg, BJU) use the Bible as a battering ram against people who are already wounded, or who have been victimized.
They re-victimize the victim. Their priorities are all out of whack. It’s deplorable and the exact opposite model that Jesus set.
@ mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort:
I am so very sorry for your loss.
@ Nancy: Nancy, I think his comment was pretty tongue-in-cheek (knowing Nick and his sense of humo[u]r). That said, I have to add my own name to the list of those who are living in a different place and just don’t get the whole SBC (in any way, shape or form). That’s not intended as criticism, but as a statement of fact about cultural differences in other parts of the country (and the world, for that matter).
As for the impending collapse of the SBC (should that happen), maybe it wouldn’t be an entirely bad thing, in that the lock that the SBC has culturally/socially might be undone. I’m *not* saying that I’m in favor of schisms (they are hurtful and brutal and usually very acrimonious; often entirely unnecessary), only tat *maybe* the church’s prominence in certain parts of the country *on a cultural/social level* would be better off if it diminished – then people who truly want to be the church can, well, just get on with it.
I guess I come from a very different mindset (being Lutheran, having hung around with many Catholics during the openly ecumenical days following Vatican II, favoring many things about how the Anglican Communion works), so it’s hard for me to “get” a lot of the debates and the emphasis on preaching/church “planting”/etc. (because in my corner, the focus isn’t on those things, but on communion and liturgy and not on the “wretched urgency” of most evangelicalism).
All that said, I feel you, because you’ve clearly spent much of your life and love and energy in the SBC, and it’s awful to go through what you and others are experiencing right now. I think anyone who’s been through a church split and/or been in abusive churches knows the drill. You peeps are definitely in my thoughts and prayers, but it’s a whole different world to the one I know, and very often I find myself getting slightly boggled by the inside details that show up in posts here and elsewhere. Maybe an analogy would be useful: a lot of people in the world (India, the West Indies, Australia, SE Asia and the UK) are truly passionate about cricket. They know how it works, and to them, it’s a thing of beauty and really engages their minds and hearts. For almost all of the rest of the world, cricket provokes “?????” That’s not to say that it’s a bad game or silly or incomprehensible or whatever – only that those with little/no exposure to the game just don’t understand it, or the passion it arouses in fans.
Hope that makes sense, and is helpful in explaining this, from my pov, w/out (I hope!) giving offense.
Mirele,
Sorry for your loss. It was 4 years ago this week I lost my dad…prayers for you and your family….
@ mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort: Mirele, so very sorry for your loss.
@ Hester:
I’m not sure if I am lumped in with those in your post you were commenting on or not.
I don’t know if I feel a person having SSA is a sin (I lean towards no, it’s not), but I still believe acting on the feelings is unnatural, and that the Bible defines such behavior as sin (just as it does heteros who have sex outside of marriage, or hetero married people who have affairs).
Most churches and denominations these days are very shoddy about defending and supporting sexual purity these days (including virginity and celibacy).
Preachers either prefer to ignore the topic of what the Bible says about sex altogether, because they are afraid of offending or hurting anyone who is dabbling in sexual sin if they speak out against it, or, they water down what the Bible says on these issues.
The church does not support hetero or homosexual celibate adults. We get no encouragement, nothing. All the attention of the Christian community either goes to homosexual marriage debates, or preachers giving the umpteenth “marriage is great!!” sermon.
Nancy wrote:
There are SO many places for them to go, Nancy. Again, not intended as criticism – just saying. I think maybe it’s hard to see the forest for the trees sometimes? Because I’d be willing to put money on the issue – i.e., that there are good, and welcoming, churches (of many denominations) right there in the Bible Belt that would be more than happy to absorb folks who find themselves displaced. Goodness knows, a lot of people who’ve left the SBC and other evangelical churches have found their own niches in other churches.
Not to get all religious-speak about this, but I do trust that the Lord of the universe will help people find the places where they and their gifts/callings fit best, or at least, pretty well. I don’t think God hammers square pegs into round holes, or vice versa.
@ Hester: Boy howdy, are you ever right on both counts, Hester!
@ numo:
That was nice of you to say that. I appreciate it.
@ Nancy: Oh gosh, it’s no problem at all! Like many here, I’ve been through some church stuff (abuse) that’s been deeply hurtful to me and to others, and I’ve also seen some acrimonious divorces, so…
And I think it’s only fair to help give some perspective – albeit limited, since it’s mine and I’m just one person – who’s looking in from the outside. Again, I certainly don’t mean to brush off concerns and very real problems. I have a hunch that some of you evangelicals from the Bible Belt might find your eyes glazing over when trying to read about the politics and divisive issues in various Lutheran synods, or the Eastern Orthodox churches (not all are in communion w/each other), or Catholicism, or…
@ numo:
My point was that they would tear up the place wherever they went. As in, think about where they would go and then think about the consequences of that.
I left baptist-dom and became a methodist. Mostly I just sit silent, smile more or less, go through some of the motions, but after several years I do not think it will get better. None the less, I respect them, understand their theology and am more or less comfortable and have found a small group that is alright. In order to not be a problem, though, I lapse in silence and stay that way. ( I know that may be hard to believe.) Most baptists that I know would not be very willing to do that. They would be a problem. Sorry I did not communicate that well.
@ mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort:
My condolences on the passing of your father. I hope you and your loved ones can find comfort in this difficult time.
@ Nancy: I think you *did* communicate it well – it’s just not something I’ve ever seen happen in the church circles I’ve been in, That it *does* happen, well, I have no doubt.
Like I said, those of us who are on the outside looking in aren’t privy to the kinds of cultural experiences and information that you are.
Nancy wrote:
Sorry for the lack of clarity. Let me elaborate.
Judges love arbitration clauses. If they can find an arbitration clause valid, they will, because it cuts down on the number of cases in their overburdened dockets.
That said, it has to be a real contract. The problem, at least from the opinion of the appellate court is that the church couldn’t show conclusively that it had affirmatively presented the arbitration clause to the plaintiffs and they had agreed to it. This was demonstrated in two ways. First, while the head pastor testified that he’d taught the class the plaintiffs were in and they went over the clause, records apparently show this particular session was taught by another pastor. So the head pastor’s testimony was discredited.
Additionally, and to me, much more conclusively, there is no copy of the newcomers’ booklet that dates before 2012. The incident in question occurred in 2011. The 2012 newcomers’ booklet talks about the arbitration clause. There’s *no evidence* to suggest the clause was in earlier booklets, or for that matter, that there was an earlier booklet. For their part, the plaintiffs state that they would not have signed the membership agreement had they known of this clause.
I find it *very* hard to believe that somewhere in a megachurch’s hard-copy files or on a hard disk somewhere, there wasn’t a copy of a pre-2012 booklet. Either they all were given away (hard to believe) or they were made to disappear when the lawsuit was filed back in August 2011 because they didn’t include this all important information. I’m suspicious enough to think it’s the latter. Yet the membership agreement had this information in it. People were probably told just to sign and be done with it and didn’t bother to read it. In order to have made it ironclad, the church should have had specific places next to the arbitration clause for members to sign, to ensure that they knew what they were getting into.
But I rather like what my lawyer buddy told me this morning–which is that people should just stay away from churches like this.
@dee
So true, thanks. “Feelings of being gay obviously sinful due to “Satanic influences; something they CHOSE; etc.”. Where is the logic? You either feel this way or you don’t.
Nancy–good points and I agree!
K.D.–um, no, the SBC does not have to evolve to loosen restrictions on gay people or lose them. To be honest, better to lose them than compromise the truth.
See, what is “truth” is not a matter of popular opinion or vote. Oh sure, it could very well happen that any denomination could be dead right on any issue and because of refusal to compromise on it, find themselves with too few members and close.
But would that not be so much better than today’s evangelical focus on nickels and noses? Would it not be better to say or preach what you really believe, and then deal with the consequences?
Are you suggesting people that truly believe homosexual sex to be sin put on the mask of a hypocrite for the sake of butts and bucks?
Nancy–we do an excellent SBC SS every other week, refuse to join, and skip worship as we cannot stand the infernal din and this focused on anything but Jesus preaching. And other Sundays we attend either Church of the Nazarene slightly calmer contemporary services, or more likely the local very high church Methodist church. If we knew the UMC would stop drinking at the hyper liberal fountain we would just join there.
Hard indeed to find a truly moderate church these days, neither liberal nor fundamentalist. What I loved about the old SBC, and hate about the new one.
linda wrote:
But you are okay with the “divorced” or the ” shacking up” in the pews?( don’t get me wrong, there are other reasons for divorce other than biblically explained….if I beat on my wife, I would expect her to be gone…) Or the adulterer. Or the HS kid involved in promiscuity, male or female, and trust me there are plenty of HS kids in church, involved ” with each other.”
I am sure there is probably an unmarried woman embraced in you church….and a sorry dad who caused the child who is welcome with open arms…
Seriously…..I am seriously sick of one group of sinners being ignored and another group being embraced….
Nancy wrote:
I would add that part of this stems from an inability in our culture to recognize that people of the same sex can love – really love – each other. in fact, the Bible says that David loved Jonathan more than any woman. Unfortunately, our culture has evolved where these kinds of feelings are automatically labelled as “gay”. I have two personal friends who had feelings like this and (mostly as a result of their toxic religious context) were basically told that they are gay and unwelcome. Both of these men are completely straight. They have men they love, but it is not a sexual love. One is now happily married.
Just wanted to repeat here the recent words of Most Rev Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury.
“A 21st-century global church loves the poor and the victim, and stands for human dignity, challenges oppressors and supports victims. It speaks for women killed in lynchings called ‘honour killings’, or for those imprisoned under blasphemy laws. It does all that despite its own suffering. Truth and love embrace.”
At least one senior cleric seems to have got it right.
Daisy wrote:
This is a good point. There is a glaring inconsistency in much of the church. I agree that the Bible seems to be pretty clear on homosexual acts being sin (Robert Gagnon at Pittsburgh Seminary has done excellent work in this regard). I have no problem with churches taking this position. But it becomes downright weird when churches dedicate the Divine Service to preaching against homosexuality, etc., while the Bible’s other ethical teachings regarding sex are basically ignored.
@ K.D.:
Yup. For instance, religious kids who take purity vows are no less likely to have sex than religious kids who don’t, but are less likely to have safe sex when they do. Bad combination. But nobody talks about that.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/12/30/virginity.pledges/
@ Daisy:
I was not thinking of you.
@ mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort:
I’m so very sorry mirele. I hope comfort is found.
Nancy wrote:
I’m with Numo here, Nancy – I don’t think you communicated badly at all. Your response, to my comment, was actually very thought-provoking; I hadn’t meant to be dismissive, but at the same time I hadn’t considered the perspective you hold.
In other news, it is midnight in Scotland on the eve of the longest day. I’ve been admiring the endless Scottish summer twilight outside…
linda wrote:
My feelings exactly.
@ K.D.:
What do you suggest that the church do with all these sinners? If they get thrown out of church, and there are those who advocate that very thing, what then? Maybe there could be elite churches without all those sinner people, s/p church discipline orgies, and then in addition there could be mega meetings at football stadiums or fair grounds or such where everybody who had been thrown out of church could go listen to preaching or whatever. That sounds like maybe what was going on in Jesus’ day, what with his outdoor sermons to the crowds compared with his appearances in the synagogues. Or like Peter at Pentecost, or Paul in Athens, or.. Just an idea. I would choose the outdoor meetings if for no other reason than to get away from current church music. But since I divorced some 40+ years ago that is where I would have to go anyhow. Not a bad idea, really. Of course, there would be fewer people back at church funding the outdoor meetings, but that would be a small price to pay to get the dirty sinners off the nice clean pews.
Mirele, I am so sorry for your loss.
Nancy wrote:
You know, that is not correct. It has not yet been 40 years, actually. You would think I would remember the date of my unforgivable sin better than that. Oh, well, maybe the brave new church of the truly good will tattoo it on my forehead or something just to keep the record straight.
Nancy wrote:
You are reading me all wrong here Dr. Nancy….I am all for inclusion….divorced, adulterer, homosexual, whatever. Look, I got skeletons in my closet that probably would make some of your hair stand on end….I was pretty wild in college…
Church is for sinners. I think I may have misread, misunderstood a post earlier.
I think I for a while I would have fit right in with the apostles. I was about as rough as they were. Come one, come all…..we all are sinners. We are going to mess up….badly.
This is what church is for….trouble is. It isn’t, and what can be done about it? I do not know….
dee wrote:
Thank you for adding that clarification, my post was shared with mostly extreme right political groups and I didn’t want to get into the actual topic in a brief post on their pages. I actually was reading about the convention to see if the SBC was going to actually discuss the issue and maybe even try to see the various angles because it was a topic they p.r.’d and they dance around the issue every time and then talk about everything else and never that. I hoped that the part of the post about “we don’t care why you are divorced” might lead some to open the topic of the many many reasons people are identifying as gay and intersex and transgender instead of saying “we don’t care, homosexuality is a sin” lumping anything from ssa/transgender/intersex/cai? etc into one big “we aren’t even going to talk about it, its all sin. At the same time, as a poster recently said, welcoming people that have remarried multiple times, people that are hetero who are actively fornicating, not to mention people that abuse children, abuse their spouses, etc
@ mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort:
I am very sorry for your loss, I pray that Jesus would send His comfort to you and your family
Nancy wrote:
the confusion is that nancy responded to kd who was responding to linda who actually said all those mean things, when I tried to respond to a respond to post, the same thing happened and it appeared I was responding to the wrong person. by the way I think the nancy response which was I believe directed to linda should be published in the news it was sooooo awesome. my butt has been kicked off those clean pews many many times and I prefer the great outdoors also!
I cant wait to see who it says I am responding to rofl
when I was still thinking about the awesome post that nancy wrote about keeping the pews clean from those sinners, and the post the other day by the woman that was abused by her granddad that brought us to tears and so many others I have read here I was thinking that the D’s should make a folder (no comments, just read only) for especially amazing posts and call it something like “Jesus’s Zing of the Day!”
Mirele – I’m sorry to hear about your Dad.
Praying for you, too, Mirele, as you mourn the passing of your father.
@ Daisy:
Excellent examples! It occurs to me that the more people are redirected to sniff out what sins caused their troubles, the less they will even look to the church/religious organizations for help. Eventualy people clam up and keep their real lives to themselves, and we end up with “clean pew” syndrome.
Mirele, Sorry to hear about your dad.
Nancy wrote:
There is a federal law that says that agreements to arbitrate, unless improperly entered into (e.g., by force) or plainly abusive, must be enforced by the court. So what the appellate court found was that there was no proof of an agreement to arbitrate. What was egregious was the church saying that there was an agreement without anything to support that an agreement existed. My guess is that the church said that agreeing to arbitrate is a condition of membership, but that no one told the plaintiffs that until after they were members and they had not signed such an agreement. To say that they, by merely being members and not having signed an agreement, had agreed to binding arbitration and that it should be forced on them was egregious behavior by the church.
Mirele,
My sympathies on the loss of your dad. Mine has been gone seven years now, and I still miss him. He would have been 95 this year.
@ numo:
Most SBC churches are members of a local association, typically covering a county or two, or a metro area. Some of those local associations also have other churches that are Baptist but not SBC (more moderate ones, e.g., supporting the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship). Most SBC churches are also a member of a state-wide Baptist convention, some of which cover a larger area than a state. Some state associations are extremely conservative, others less so.
Dave A A wrote:
It’s something that comes up on various Christian TV shows I’ve watched over the years. I will see a Christian guest on a talk show get upset that there is not more transparency in churches, that Christians wear masks and never get vulnerable with each other.
I used to be an open book when I was younger. When I was younger I did not understand why I would sometimes hear adults say “none of your business” when another adult asked them questions. Now I understand why adults do that: it’s for self-protection.
It’s all well and good for Christians to ask other Christians to be less fake in church or around Christians, but I think it’s to your own safety that you remain reserved and not tell everybody at a new church everything about yourself, faults and all.
Because, unfortunately, there are some jerks out there (not just self-professing Christians but some Non-Christians too) who will take advantage of your weakness, or if they even perceive you as being weak and vulnerable in general or in some area of your life.
Looking back on the days I was a doormat, I remember many people (including an ex) who exploited by various weaknesses, like my extreme reluctance to say no to people and maintain healthy boundaries.
At that office job I had where I was being harassed by one boss, when just about everyone learned I was afraid of the bully boss, they would use that against me. I had co-workers threaten that if I did not do their work load on top of my own, they would report me to the bully boss.
There are people out there who will exploit your vulnerable areas if you allow them to know what they are.
@ Daisy and
Dave A A have been conversing to the following effect:
Oddly enough, there are two poles (as in, opposite extremes) to this problem. Opposite the “sin-sniffing” you describe, there is a “hurt-sniffing” culture. That is, your struggles are all caused by hurts and wounds you experienced – usually as a child. Therefore, you may be an adult on the outside but your true nature is that of a frightened, helpless, hurting baby. And you need me to suckle and breast-feed you to help heal you of your hurts. Whereas sin-sniffing perpetually criminalises the believer, hurt-sniffing perpetually infantilises the believer. Always repenting, but never forgiven: or always healing, but never healthy.
Both can be exploited to create a culture of control and dependency. The more you tell me you’re not hurt, the more I’ll know that you are hurt, and are obviously putting on a bold front because you’re afraid to face your hurt and pain. So I’ll have to force-feed you my gentle nurturing breast-milk, to help you to grow. And yes, I speak from experience!
@ Nick Bulbeck:
There is both some truth and some danger in what you are saying. Some injuries leave permanent damage. Some hurts cannot be healed or made to go away. The whole field of research into PTSD is up to its eyebrows in this reality and/or potential reality. It is good to take the approach that someone’s hurt or victimization or PTSD and such do not define the totality of the person, and what can be made whole should be made whole. But it is not realistic to expect or much less demand total healing of everything in everybody all the time. I am not remotely suggesting that you said that. I say it for some readers who may be in that situation to reinforce that we all understand that.
That said, there is a tendency for people to apparently “want” other people to be diminished by hurts and such and wanting them to be an identified victim for some reason. Last year when I was first diagnosed with cancer, and I had to tell a couple of people why I would not be at certain church functions for several months. So I could not actually keep it a secret. I had to deal with the tendency of the church of identify cancer patients as perpetually on the verge of death, perpetually in need of urgent prayer (published on the church prayer list and sent out to the entire membership) and forever unable to go and do. Such that the usual and customary form of address would not be ‘Hi” but rather “How are you feeling.” To stop this before it started I had to get in the face of a couple of people in no uncertain terms. It worked. They do not treat me like a victim, and we can go on our way. Societal victimization in this sense is not good for anybody. But to avoid it takes a bit of doing.
mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
In fairness to complementarians, which I interacted with a lot before I ‘jumped ship’ and decided that I needed a change of scenery, most of them are decent people who’ve compartmentalized their thinking and are perfectly able to work with and under women. Most complementarian churches teach something along the lines that wives have to submit to their husbands, but that this does not extend to women and men in general. Of course, it also varies from one person to the next and I also knew some men who were very frustrated that their wives were making more money than them because women’s first responsibility was homemaking, but they were the minority.
Pingback: The Fruit from Prison Ministry Promises Hope - The Christian Culture Center Blog