Seminary gives association six months to vacate property

[preachinjesus]

Just one question

When the dust settles----which side of the Red Sea do you want to be on???

Two replies: What sides are you suggesting are the only ones which exist?

I affirm (and have done so numerous times around here) the doctrines of inerrancy, local church autonomy, exclusivity of salvation, and the biblical view that homos3xuality is a sin.

 

[Ruiz]

I appreciate this statement.

Of course, since you admittedly have little or no knowledge of the situations I mention, you really aren’t in a position to criticize my analysis of them of make proclamations regarding what the Tarrant Baptist Association should or should not do.

I mentioned the other issues. On this issue, I clearly stated that from all I know, I agree with the decision. Please work with me and try to take my comments in context...

But one of the main issues of the “Conservative Resurgence” was that there were some issues on which SBC Christians had to take a stand. And then the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message has been used as the non-negotiable standard for seminary and denominational employment. And moreover, Patterson and the SWBTS trustees have also issued their own non-negotiable policies.

again, I cannot address this issue as I know little to nothing about it. Yet, I can say that men are often inconsistent... or other men nit-pick. I can say that I agree with Patterson's current decision.

BTW, I am for people adhering to a doctrinal statement for employment.

Be very careful. What you are describing is what most “Conservative Resurgence” people would call “situational ethics.”


Please note that Patterson is not an Elder over the churches, he is a servant of the churches that allegedly serves the interests of the churches that make up the SBC.

People make jokes about “Pope Paige” all the time, yet you actually seem to advocate that kind of position for him.

You are right, he is not an elder but has been ordained and has been respected enough to hold office of a school that trains Pastors. I think the principle would still apply. I, once again, have some substanitive disagreements with Dr. Patterson, but that does not mean I am willing to bash him. Take the late Roy Honeycut for instance. I strongly disagree with him, but he was a personal man who truly cared for people. I cannot nor would I want to bash him personally. I have too much personal respect for him. However, I thought him very inconsistent at times and his doctrine was horrendous. Yet, personally, he was one of the nicest people you could meet.

I think the same respect should be given to Paige. Disagree but acknowledging a great respect for the person.

You freely admit you know nothing of the situation, yet you think that you are qualified to endorse Patterson’s position over someone who is ‘on the ground’ here in Fort Worth, is familiar with Broadway Baptist Church (and not even a fan of the church), who knows most of the people mentioned in this story personally (including Al Meredith, the very conservative Calvinist pastor of Wedgwood Baptist Church), who is a member of a sister church that is active in the Tarrant Baptist Association, and lives less than five minutes from the building in question.

You believe that it’s great for Patterson to exercise wisdom, but not anyone else?

No, I didn't say it was wrong for anyone else to excersize wisdom. In this situation, it was his (along with the trustees) decision. Thus, in this situation, it was up to him to make the call. I do think every Elder should use wisdom based upon the Bible (Godly wisdom). I do not have a problem with people disagreeing with the decision. I do have a problem with people bashing the person making the decision, by trying to make Paige the issue, not the issue the issue.

Inerrancy is too low of a view of scripture.

I agree it is too low of view. Yet, liberals say it is too low of a view because of enlightenment principles. We, though, must start with innerancy and build upon that. Unfortunately, some do not even want to start with innerancy. Without innerancy, you do not have Christianity. If we cannot say the Bible is innerant, we cannot say we have a true faith or any faith. So, do you agree, we should start with the presupposition of innerancy... then build upon it with things like sufficiency, perspecuity, and God-breathed? Not starting with "containing God's Word" and building upon it mysticism.

You keep hammering on motives, when all I’ve talked about is actions. You’re not going to be able to make that charge stick, no matter how hard you try.


You’ve already admitted you know nothing of the situation, why should we listen?

Again, I said this of the other issues you brought forth, not on this one. I believe I was clear that I cannot judge on these other issues, but on this one I agree with Paige.

Now you are telling me what I think…

Again, I’m talking about publicly documented actions. I’m not saying anything I can document. (And no one can document motives, so that throws that charge out the door.)


I did in PART I, but you apparently missed it.

Wow. You really don’t know what’s going on.


But wait! You have already assumed what “their view” is, and quite bluntly, you are absolutely wrong.

So you have falsely and publicly judged them. Al Meredith, the spokesperson for TBA, among many others, is strongly opposed to homosexual relationships.

Who have I judged? Broadway's doctrine is pro-homosexual. No one is disputing that fact. They are a part of the association. That is not judgment, those are facts. Paige had to make a decision, and I agree with him. The view of Broadway is clear. The association does not disassociate with them, that is clear. I would make the same decision. I have not attacked Al, questioned his motives, nor questioned his doctrine. I questioned the association and their association with Broadway. I also didn't say that everyone in the association supports this church. I said that the association should either remove the church or the church should recognize that their presence is against the rest of the association and thus remove themself from association. I think historically that is a Baptist principle.

I say the same thing about SWBTS... they have the same decision. They can accept the fact that Broadway is there, but that would be compromising their doctrine, an important element. Or, they can remove themself from association with this organization. I would choose the latter and in my life, I have been rather consistent in that viewpoint.

You are so wrong here, it’s not even funny. You don’t know a thing about it.


Ah, now you are ascribing falsehoods to me.

1.) I haven’t talked about motives.
2.) I never said he was “out to get the retirees” (where is the world did you get that from?)
3.) I pointed out that his actions in regard to Dr. Ellis and his public statements seem to indicate that doctrine is not the most compelling issue in his decision-making.

You didn't say 2, but it seems that you are upset because he made this decision. I think #3 could be an inconsistency (I don't know about the situation) but it doesn't mean that this man is normally not a principled man on doctrine, as history has shown otherwise. We are all inconsistent, but that does not mean this was not his motive.

Yes, I understand that, but at the same time, if the seminary had wanted to keep their commitment, I’m sure many of us would have helped them keep that commitment until they could get their financial house in order. The millions spend on the new chapel project (which is really, not needed) could have been invested in the seminary’s endowment. Before Dr. Dilday was fired back in the early 1990s, the seminary was financially-stable with a respectable endowment. Not so anymore.

An endowment of millions, may not have been enough. Again, I have never seen the accounting books, but with the dramatic rising health care costs, inflation, and the down economy, you may not make a dent into the projected costs. Add to that, the retirees health care are rising the fastest and causing the greatest stress on medical costs. As well, the projections say that the rates will not get better, but worse. The average health insurance coverage costs employers over $13,000.00 per policy in 2009. When I was an SBC Pastor, the Annuity Board (Guidestone now) was more expensive than I could get with an independent policy and it seemed higher than the rest of the insurance industry. I ran some quick numbers, not real numbers but estimates, and the cost is astronomical. I would guess, this would be a very high percentage of their budget.

I appreciate you wanting to care for them and that is respectful and perhaps churches can unite to help meet the needs of these men. Yet, short of a general fund cure to this problem, I may have agreed with the decision.

Sure, but don’t you think it’s a moral issue to protect the health and financial security of those who have given so much to the seminary?

It is one of those tough decisions. Making a commitment when you probably will not have the money is immoral. I agree, if they had a previous agreement where they relied upon them, that is wrong too. Those are why these are tough decisions.

 

[sag38]

Personally I'm glad that SBC seminary professors are required to affirm the 2000BFM. If they don't want to then let them teach somewhere else. The money my church gives to the Cooperative Program, of which some finds its way to SBC seminaries, isn't to be used for seminary students to be taught by men and women who are unwilling to even affirm the most basic of Christian doctrines.

 

[jaigner]

Personally I'm glad that SBC seminary professors are required to affirm the 2000BFM. If they don't want to then let them teach somewhere else. The money my church gives to the Cooperative Program, of which some finds its way to SBC seminaries, isn't to be used for seminary students to be taught by men and women who are unwilling to even affirm the most basic of Christian doctrines.

The '63 BF&M affirmed the most basic of Christian doctrines. There was no need for an update except to get an agenda across.

As I recall, the biggest issue was whether the Bible was the revelation (00) or the record of revelation (63). It's a bit nitpicky, but record is more specificly correct. The issue was really that it was just another divisive move on behalf of the aggressors.

Of course, there was the ridiculous male headship clause, which is completely irrelovent and unnecessary. It's not basic Christian doctrine, just a difficult issue of interpretation.

It also later gave Paige an excuse to further clean house at Southwestern and remove some of its last elements of respectability.

Completely political. It was just to give the WSM (white southern males) more of what they wanted, which was to exclude more orthodox evangelicals.

 

[Crucified in Christ]

The '63 BF&M affirmed the most basic of Christian doctrines. There was no need for an update except to get an agenda across.

As I recall, the biggest issue was whether the Bible was the revelation (00) or the record of revelation (63). It's a bit nitpicky, but record is more specificly correct. The issue was really that it was just another divisive move on behalf of the aggressors.

Of course, there was the ridiculous male headship clause, which is completely irrelovent and unnecessary. It's not basic Christian doctrine, just a difficult issue of interpretation.

It also later gave Paige an excuse to further clean house at Southwestern and remove some of its last elements of respectability.

Completely political. It was just to give the WSM (white southern males) more of what they wanted, which was to exclude more orthodox evangelicals.

Yeah...No mudslinging here.

 

[jaigner]

Yeah...No mudslinging here.

Absolutely not. These are important theological issues. I'm not insulting anyone or digging up juicy secrets. It's pretty clear what happened. Some just follow these leaders too much to realize it.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I mentioned the other issues. On this issue, I clearly stated that from all I know, I agree with the decision. Please work with me and try to take my comments in context...

I am. But since you don’t know much, you’re basing your views from essentially one side and accusing the rest of us of making personal attacks simply because we are presenting information from the public record that shows a long and consistent history of inconsistency and hypocrisy (saying one thing and doing the opposite).

You are right, he is not an elder but has been ordained and has been respected enough to hold office of a school that trains Pastors.

As you should know, these offices have often been plumb assignments for those who have supported those in power. It’s almost always been that way, even back in the days before the “Conservative Resurgence.”

I think the principle would still apply. I, once again, have some substanitive disagreements with Dr. Patterson, but that does not mean I am willing to bash him. Take the late Roy Honeycut for instance. I strongly disagree with him, but he was a personal man who truly cared for people. I cannot nor would I want to bash him personally. I have too much personal respect for him. However, I thought him very inconsistent at times and his doctrine was horrendous. Yet, personally, he was one of the nicest people you could meet.

Patterson has done many nice things for a number of people and, believe it or not, I have given him credit where credit is due. He was very kind to Dr. Ellis and has been kind to others I have known. At the same time, I think his leadership style has been deplorable and he has created an environment in the SBC that is largely ineffective and destructive. The younger faces in the SBC are not so enamored with him.

I think the same respect should be given to Paige. Disagree but acknowledging a great respect for the person.

You seem to be confusing “respect” with “not holding him accountable.”

No, I didn't say it was wrong for anyone else to excersize wisdom. In this situation, it was his (along with the trustees) decision. Thus, in this situation, it was up to him to make the call. I do think every Elder should use wisdom based upon the Bible (Godly wisdom). I do not have a problem with people disagreeing with the decision. I do have a problem with people bashing the person making the decision, by trying to make Paige the issue, not the issue the issue.

Again, you confuse disagreeing with the basic facts of the issue with “bashing.”

Who have I judged? Broadway's doctrine is pro-homosexual. No one is disputing that fact.

Actually, Broadway’s official position is pro-person, not necessarily pro-homosexual. As far as I know, they have not taken an official position on the matter. The issue is still in dispute among the congregation. (I had lunch with a chaplain friend who knows the situation fairly well since he is also friends with even more members of the congregation than I, and he confirmed that the situation is still very fluid.) Simply linking to an article in the Dallas Voice, a pro-gay weekly advocacy rag that quotes a single voice mail from a gay member of the congregation (guess which side of the discussion he’s on) that claims the congregation has a certain viewpoint is not good evidence. A few years ago my congregation went through a three year discussion (fight) over the future of the church with an abusive faction that eventually left the congregation, and the faction was often very vocal to outsiders regarding what “the church” believed (thinking they were the “true” church in captivity to us young yah-hoos who actually wanted the church to focus on Bible study, discipleship, and ministry and membership to people who might not have the nicest clothes or come from non-Anglo ethnic backgrounds). I routinely heard from friends in other congregations reports about our congregation that were not based in reality at all.

Until Broadway officially makes its position clear, I will withhold judgment on that issue. I trust the leadership of the TBA to work with Broadway to clarify their position.

You didn't say 2, but it seems that you are upset because he made this decision.

Sure. I know a number of retired professors, their widows and families, so it is not only theoretical to me but personal. Furthermore, it violates promises and commitments that have been made for decades. Furthermore, it tells current and prospective faculty members that the seminary is likely to treat them poorly after they retire, if not before. How can the seminary expect to retain the respect and loyalty of current and future faculty/leadership. Furthermore, seminary faculty members and administration will need to ask for higher wages in order to adequately prepare for retirement experiences and insurance, thus making the “savings” very short-term.

I think #3 could be an inconsistency (I don't know about the situation) but it doesn't mean that this man is normally not a principled man on doctrine, as history has shown otherwise.

Actually, Patterson’s history has shown over and over he is inconsistent. I’ve named and documented several issues over the last few years. There are things that are not as easy to document and then there are issues that go back for decades.

We are all inconsistent, but that does not mean this was not his motive.

Don’t accuse me of being inconsistent. What he are actually talking about here is hypocrisy. I don’t issue policies and terminate people on the basic of those policies, while supporting and promoting others in opposition to those same policies. I doubt you do either.

An endowment of millions, may not have been enough. Again, I have never seen the accounting books, but with the dramatic rising health care costs, inflation, and the down economy, you may not make a dent into the projected costs.

The seminary was having financial trouble long before the economy started tanking. It was having trouble in the “boom” economy of the 1990s.

Add to that, the retirees health care are rising the fastest and causing the greatest stress on medical costs. As well, the projections say that the rates will not get better, but worse. The average health insurance coverage costs employers over $13,000.00 per policy in 2009.

I’m well aware of the statistics. I work in the professional world, not in vocational ministry.

When I was an SBC Pastor, the Annuity Board (Guidestone now) was more expensive than I could get with an independent policy and it seemed higher than the rest of the insurance industry. I ran some quick numbers, not real numbers but estimates, and the cost is astronomical. I would guess, this would be a very high percentage of their budget.

Yes, the Annuity Board/Guidestone has been poorly managed for years. But that doesn’t change their obligations.

 

[Tom Bryant]

"From Law to Grace" is written by an unabashed conservative who thinks what SW is doing is wrong. Read about it here

It's an interesting read.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Personally I'm glad that SBC seminary professors are required to affirm the 2000BFM.

Except that, apparently, not all of them have to do it, or at least, not when there is something to gain.

Dr. Ellis didn't sign, nor was asked to sign, and he served directly at the discretion of Paige Patterson, the one who started the movement and set the theological parameters in the first place. (I specifically asked Earle Ellis about it on more than one occasion.) And Ellis did not teach according to several of the dictates of the 2000 BF&M. Ellis was a person of such conviction that he would go somewhere else to teach instead of sign something he did not believe.

Dr. J.W. MacGorman was not asked to sign the 2000 BF&M until after they had completed all of the fundraising for the SWBTS conference center that bears his name was completed (well after the BF&M was revised and approved). Dr. MacGorman couldn't sign the BF&M because he saw it as a creed and was not allowed to teach after that point. However, the desire for a new conference center that used the name of a beloved professor to raise funds appears to have been more important than holding to an endorsement of the BF&M in a timely manner - long after everyone else had either signed or been dismissed.

 

[Baptist Believer]

"From Law to Grace" is written by an unabashed conservative who thinks what SW is doing is wrong. Read about it here

I think he's absolutely correct and the only quibble I would have with the blog is that I don't think that Broadway's position is nearly and cut-and-dried as he believes.

However his reasoning is sound.

Good link!

 

[glfredrick]

The '63 BF&M affirmed the most basic of Christian doctrines. There was no need for an update except to get an agenda across.

As I recall, the biggest issue was whether the Bible was the revelation (00) or the record of revelation (63). It's a bit nitpicky, but record is more specificly correct. The issue was really that it was just another divisive move on behalf of the aggressors.

Of course, there was the ridiculous male headship clause, which is completely irrelovent and unnecessary. It's not basic Christian doctrine, just a difficult issue of interpretation.

It also later gave Paige an excuse to further clean house at Southwestern and remove some of its last elements of respectability.

Completely political. It was just to give the WSM (white southern males) more of what they wanted, which was to exclude more orthodox evangelicals.

You miss the main point of the battle over the Bible. In fact, in plain language, it has shaped up as "The Bible is God's Word" or "The Bible has some of God's words within it." That is the dividing line between the position called "moderates" (who are in fact theological liberals) and conservatives.

I've watched the same battle unfold at Southern, and I have been a part of the school since the fall after Mohler took the helm. I've watched as the nay-sayers spelled out doom and gloom for the school, how it would never regain its student population, etc. THEY WERE WRONG by a million times...

Our student population is now higher than ever before in history. We are doing all the deferred maintenance that was handed down since the liberals held the reigns. Lots of exciting action, and perhaps the single best professorial staff ever assembled at one seminary in the history of the world. What a joy to be a part of God working through faithful people.

But the nay-sayers are still out there. We can't get a good piece of press for anything. Many of the state Baptist newspapers are stacked against the seminaries and against the Convention. It is only through time and attrition that these will finally go away. When the liberal churches all shrink and die, they'll no longer have influence.

 

[jaigner]

You miss the main point of the battle over the Bible. In fact, in plain language, it has shaped up as "The Bible is God's Word" or "The Bible has some of God's words within it." That is the dividing line between the position called "moderates" (who are in fact theological liberals) and conservatives.

I've watched the same battle unfold at Southern, and I have been a part of the school since the fall after Mohler took the helm. I've watched as the nay-sayers spelled out doom and gloom for the school, how it would never regain its student population, etc. THEY WERE WRONG by a million times...

Our student population is now higher than ever before in history. We are doing all the deferred maintenance that was handed down since the liberals held the reigns. Lots of exciting action, and perhaps the single best professorial staff ever assembled at one seminary in the history of the world. What a joy to be a part of God working through faithful people.

But the nay-sayers are still out there. We can't get a good piece of press for anything. Many of the state Baptist newspapers are stacked against the seminaries and against the Convention. It is only through time and attrition that these will finally go away. When the liberal churches all shrink and die, they'll no longer have influence.

This is a very thoughtful and generous post. Thank you.

The BGCT folks I know would still say the Bible is the Word. Otherwise, it would have crossed into liberalism, you're right. But, with the exception of a few, the "moderates," many of whom are still fairly conservative by broader standards, that is not the case.

My main issue were the tactics many involved employed to make this happen. It was their convention, too. There were other ways to exert influence without the schemes and plots.

Let's not forget the shortcomings of many of the early SBC "reformers," such as a fairly well-known guy from Dallas, who were severely lacking in scholarship and interpretation, and who made many, many disturbing statements that not only made Baptists as a whole look bad, but also perpetuated racial injustice, among others.

I am not, not even for a minute, pretending that there was no fault on both sides. It's just a very grievining and unfortunate story for me personally.

I will say this - and I have said as much earlier - there are fine people on both sides. And Mohler has proven himself to be one of the few "conservative" SBC standout scholars. And his leadership has definitely helped Southern.

 

[preachinjesus]

...perhaps the single best professorial staff ever assembled at one seminary in the history of the world.

I commend this statement whole-heartedly!:thumbsup:

Though I would say it is one of the best academic staffs ever assembled at a seminary...there are several others which rival it still.:flower:

 

[glfredrick]

This is a very thoughtful and generous post. Thank you.

Thanks... No need to make any of this a personal attack. That cedes territory to the enemy who is the accuser of the brethren.

The BGCT folks I know would still say the Bible is the Word. Otherwise, it would have crossed into liberalism, you're right. But, with the exception of a few, the "moderates," many of whom are still fairly conservative by broader standards, that is not the case.

I agree. And I also agree that, for the most part, SBC "moderates" are in no way as liberal as are some of the other mainline denominations, but they are tending in that direction, and often choose to be informed by theology that leads that way instead of theology that leads back to a conservative position. J. G. Machen wrote a nice book about that subject way back in 1923 that really examined the issues and definitions used in the debate. It is the constant pushing of the theological envelope to include women in the pulpit, gays in leadership, and especially to see God's words within the pages of Scripture where expedient that have paved the way toward liberalism and the decline of many a denomination and church. The CBF, which appears to have been built primarily by a bunch of BGCT ex-patriots has taken many of these liberal stances and ran with them. Hasn't really gotten them anywhere, but not for lack of trying.

My main issue were the tactics many involved employed to make this happen. It was their convention, too. There were other ways to exert influence without the schemes and plots.

To say this, you would also have to fail to admit that the moderates did not stack the Nominating Board of the SBC for decades, including selection of seminary presidents, etc. There were no "schemes" etc., employed. Just a get out the vote effort for the other side. As a side note, I know many of the major players of the resurgence personally. Their actual stories hardly ever match up to the hype.

Let's not forget the shortcomings of many of the early SBC "reformers," such as a fairly well-known guy from Dallas, who were severely lacking in scholarship and interpretation, and who made many, many disturbing statements that not only made Baptists as a whole look bad, but also perpetuated racial injustice, among others.

Granted... These have always been around and will always be around. Such is the nature of the game.

I am not, not even for a minute, pretending that there was no fault on both sides. It's just a very grievining and unfortunate story for me personally.

I understand. I've been caught in the crosshairs myself. For instance, as a church planter hopeful, in the Minnesota/Wisconsin Convention, I found that the M/W was largely upheld by BGTS funding since their inception. When the BGTS started to collapse around themselves during the resurgence, they also halted funding. The Convention is now strapped for funds and cannot do much for church planting unless one can be self-supporting. I've watch as associational churches that typically ran under 50 members in an association that spanned half a state struggled to keep pastors in the pulpit.

I will say this - and I have said as much earlier - there are fine people on both sides. And Mohler has proven himself to be one of the few "conservative" SBC standout scholars. And his leadership has definitely helped Southern.

That he has, and you are correct. Lots of great people out there doing God's work!

 

[Ruiz]

You seem to be confusing “respect” with “not holding him accountable.”

I do not confuse the two. He made a decision and lives with it. Respect is arguing his decision, which was the point of my first post. Rather, everyone else brought him, his past, and other issues into the fray. The issue we were discussing was this most recent decision. Of that, I have and consistently will say that we can debate that issue. Yet, making him the issue and bringing up everything about him from the past is a logical fallacy, from my first point I have clearly differentiated.

BTW, a President of a Seminary is not a puff role. Try following these men around for an entire week. In fact, try keeping up with people like Mohler and Akin. It is extremely demanding.

Actually, Broadway’s official position is pro-person, not necessarily pro-homosexual. As far as I know, they have not taken an official position on the matter. The issue is still in dispute among the congregation. (I had lunch with a chaplain friend who knows the situation fairly well since he is also friends with even more members of the congregation than I, and he confirmed that the situation is still very fluid.) Simply linking to an article in the Dallas Voice, a pro-gay weekly advocacy rag that quotes a single voice mail from a gay member of the congregation (guess which side of the discussion he’s on) that claims the congregation has a certain viewpoint is not good evidence. A few years ago my congregation went through a three year discussion (fight) over the future of the church with an abusive faction that eventually left the congregation, and the faction was often very vocal to outsiders regarding what “the church” believed (thinking they were the “true” church in captivity to us young yah-hoos who actually wanted the church to focus on Bible study, discipleship, and ministry and membership to people who might not have the nicest clothes or come from non-Anglo ethnic backgrounds). I routinely heard from friends in other congregations reports about our congregation that were not based in reality at all.

Pro-person? I would rather be pro-God and Pro-Scripture. Thus, if their position is pro-person, I see no difference. Will they allow open pedophiles to become members in their church like they do open homosexuals? In my churches, we would work to see repentance and a change in life of a person who is homosexual. Yet, a person who is unrepentant and refuses to change, would be excommunicated. Being pro-person is really a politically correct word for anti-God's Word on the topic. I am not saying that a person who struggles in a sin would not be allowed. I am saying that a person who openly and unapologetically embraces a lifestyle would not be embraced but should be put out of the church. From all I have read about the situation at Broadway, they refuse to back down from their current stance. Yes, i have a link, but it is evidence and you have offered none.

Does this mean we don't care for people and love them? No! Can homosexuals and other people come to our worship service? Yes! In fact, When preaching I used to have Satanists come visit our church regularly. We loved on them and welcomed them. However, in all situations, unless you were willing to forsake your old life and cling to God, you are not welcome to be a member. The man who personally testified of this in the news article is first hand evidence, do you truly need more? [/quote]

Until Broadway officially makes its position clear, I will withhold judgment on that issue. I trust the leadership of the TBA to work with Broadway to clarify their position.

In studying the Downgrade under Spurgeon, Spurgeon's paper, "The Sword and the Trowell", stated that by the time churches or other groups change their doctrinal standard, they have already embraced deviant doctrine. He recounted everything from Socinianism to the universalism and I believe did so in a paper that was difficult to argue against. Spurgeon was censured by the Baptist Union and was told he was wrong. Yet, even those who voted to censure Spurgeon years later confessed that Spurgeon was right. He saw the beginnings of the Downgrade, others refused to acknowledge. He saw all the same signs and the greatest Baptist Pastor in the last 200 years died, mostly due to the stress he saw.

The American Baptist Convention USA (ABCUSA) is the prime example in our modern day of another Downgrade story. In 2001 I wrote on the ABCUSA and compared them to the Baptist Union in Spurgeon's day (but I said they were much further down the road than the Union at the time of Spurgeon). At that time, I noted the same signs in the ABCUSA and the Baptist Union and recommended people leave due to doctrinal issues. A leader in the American Baptist Evangelicals (ABE) told me, essentially, I didn't know what I was talking about. About 2-3 years later, I saw him quoted saying basically the same thing I said and encouraging others to leave. The ABE then disbanded.

When they finally get around to changing the doctrinal statement, it is far too late. The fact that Broadway was a divisive topic even in the more left leaning state convention says that this was not merely hard-liner conservatives making objections. They left so not to cause further problems in a convention that is far from being right-wingers, super conservative. So, to say I or Paige is making a mountain out of a molehill, you would have to argue with people much further to the left than us about your assessment.

Historically, Christians have said one of the key attributes of the church was church discipline. Historically, theologians have said, when church discipline leaves so does the Holy Spirit, and the church ceases to be a church. I contend, that if a man can openly serve as a homosexual in a church without church discipline, that church probably has already ceased being a church, or will soon cease.

Sure. I know a number of retired professors, their widows and families, so it is not only theoretical to me but personal. Furthermore, it violates promises and commitments that have been made for decades. Furthermore, it tells current and prospective faculty members that the seminary is likely to treat them poorly after they retire, if not before. How can the seminary expect to retain the respect and loyalty of current and future faculty/leadership. Furthermore, seminary faculty members and administration will need to ask for higher wages in order to adequately prepare for retirement experiences and insurance, thus making the “savings” very short-term.

I understand. When I ran the numbers I came up with anywhere between 16-20 million dollars are needed today to cover 100 retirees for 10 years. Those are very rough numbers but some of my assumptions were conservative (and many assumptions I never figured into the equation). For instance, I believe we could hit double digit inflation in the health care industry, buth when running the numbers I only predicted a modest amount. Also, if anyone thinks it would be feasible, I am sure they would have come to the rescue to help raise the money. No one has and I assume they see the numbers and believe it is overwhelming. If I am right and we hit double digit inflation on medical insurance, the cost could exponentially rise. Anything over 5% could increase this cost by millions. If you can raise the money, I would encourage you to go for it. Yet, even if you raise the 20 million, you still will not guarantee the retirees will have insurance in 10 years. I am all for having a big heart, but I see no way around the numbers.

In other words, find a way and make it happen. I do not know what SWBTS' budget is, but I think $20 million would be a stretch for this seminary especially since they are having financial troubles.

 

[preachinjesus]

Southwestern's budget is about $40 million a year.

 

[gb93433]

Southwestern's budget is about $40 million a year.

That is a lot of money considering the number of students. I recently taught at a university that was about 12,400 students and their budget was about $90 million. That included undergraduate to doctoral studies. The average class I taught was about 25 undergraduate students.

 

[gb93433]

You miss the main point of the battle over the Bible. In fact, in plain language, it has shaped up as "The Bible is God's Word" or "The Bible has some of God's words within it." That is the dividing line between the position called "moderates" (who are in fact theological liberals) and conservatives.

What seminary teaches personal discipleship as Jesus taught and requires proof from their students of their spiritual reproduction before handing them a graduation diploma? Yet they send men on their way to "pastor" churches. If they and their students are not doers of the word then James 1:22 says they are deluded.

 

[gb93433]

Call Patterson's actions antics... I will call it a fight for the very Word of God... a fight for the Gospel of Jesus Christ itself.

I do not have to fight for the word of God as Peter did for Jesus in cutting off a man's ear.

Scripture takes care of itself if people would apply it and use it in talking with people.

I am amazed at the politicians in denominations who attempt to keep people from the truths of scripture.

If one is obedient in applying scripture then he does not have to worry about being deluded. I have not ever known anyone who is making disciples as Jesus did ever deny the truth of scripture or ever discount God's word.

James 1:22, "But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves."

 

[Baptist Believer]

PART I

I do not confuse the two. He made a decision and lives with it. Respect is arguing his decision, which was the point of my first post. Rather, everyone else brought him, his past, and other issues into the fray.

The reason I, for one, brought up his past is that it reveals a pattern of behavior.

In this most recent issue, some are assuming that Patterson MUST be right because he is a hero of the “Conservative Resurgence” instead of the low profile people of the Tarrant Baptist Association who have lived and worked credibly in ministry here in Fort Worth. But because they don’t have a national platform, I’ve seen you and other accuse them of beliefs and positions they do not hold.

I’m merely trying to bring balance to the discussion.

As I have documented and can continue to document, Patterson has a long history of hypocrisy (saying one thing and doing another, especially using doctrinal purity as justification) to get what he wants. It is not a flattering portrait, I grant you, but it is accurate.

You protests about “bashing” are tantamount to saying “let’s forget everything he has done up to this time and then let’s take his side against these no-name people and make all sorts of false claims about them.”

Well sir, you are “bashing” people you admittedly know little to nothing about, regarding a situation you know little to nothing about, to people who know a fair amount about the situation. Don’t be surprised if someone calls you on it.

The issue we were discussing was this most recent decision. Of that, I have and consistently will say that we can debate that issue. Yet, making him the issue and bringing up everything about him from the past is a logical fallacy, from my first point I have clearly differentiated.

It’s not a logical fallacy, but an issue of credibility.

Patterson’s credibility is not as iron-clad as you insist.

BTW, a President of a Seminary is not a puff role. Try following these men around for an entire week. In fact, try keeping up with people like Mohler and Akin. It is extremely demanding.

I didn’t say “puff”, I said “plumb.”

A plumb position is a favored position given (or taken) by those who please the leadership of a political party.

Pro-person? I would rather be pro-God and Pro-Scripture.

If you are pro-God and pro-scripture, you are pro-person.

Just because I didn’t mention it doesn’t mean that I was excluding anything.

Thus, if their position is pro-person, I see no difference. Will they allow open pedophiles to become members in their church like they do open homosexuals?

Obviously not.

In my churches...

Should I play your rhetorical game and say “It’s Christ’s church, not your church!?”

...we would work to see repentance and a change in life of a person who is homosexual. Yet, a person who is unrepentant and refuses to change, would be excommunicated.

Well I would agree, but Broadway is still working this out among the members of the congregation.

Being pro-person is really a politically correct word for anti-God's Word on the topic.

NOTE: “pro-person” is my word, not their word. I was making a distinction between being pro-homosexual (as you asserted) and being open to all to receive ministry, that it, “pro-person” (as I understand their official position).

So since I coined the word for the purposes of this discussion, your assumption regarding its meaning are pure speculation and completely false.

As I understand the history of this situation, the two previous pastors of the congregation, as well as some of the members, encouraged homosexual men and women to visit the congregation and even become members. The congregation did not ask whether or not people who come forward to profess faith in Christ are homosexual or not (does your church?) and then these new believers became integrated in the life of the church. This happened for a number of years and the homosexual membership kept a very low profile (at least, in regard to their orientation). In recent years, that has changed and the recent church directory controversy took a number of members by surprise. Since that time there have been a number of people leave the congregation (including a pastor), but the matter is not yet resolved. Many church members are agonizing over what is the best way to handle the situation with grace and truth, others are promoting a gay liberation agenda, and others want to toss everyone out who embraces pro-homosexual leanings (although many of those people have left).

Now, do you see how the situation developed?

I am not saying that a person who struggles in a sin would not be allowed. I am saying that a person who openly and unapologetically embraces a lifestyle would not be embraced but should be put out of the church.

I have the same opinion.

From all I have read about the situation at Broadway, they refuse to back down from their current stance.

Yet you know no one there, and your only information comes from what you have read. What is published and what is reality is often two different things.

Yes, i have a link, but it is evidence and you have offered none... The man who personally testified of this in the news article is first hand evidence, do you truly need more?

Your link is not very credible. It is one guy from the congregation that is strongly divided, who is not an official spokesperson, speaking to an agenda-driven news rack weekly free paper that makes most of its money from personals ads, and ads for pornography and escort services.

Since I have the testimony of several members I know personally, yes, I need more than one guy who is obviously invested in one position, not necessarily an even-handed assessment of the situation. For readers of the newspaper, opposition to homosexual relations is all about hatred, fear and repression.

[snip of the Downgrade Controversy and ABC history]

You need to know that the TBA spokesman, Al Meredith, is a great admirer of Spurgeon, knows all about the Downgrade Controversy, is extremely conservative, has (at least, up to this time) been a supporter of the “Conservative Resurgence”, and is a five-point Calvinist.

The fact that Broadway was a divisive topic even in the more left leaning state convention says that this was not merely hard-liner conservatives making objections.

Actually, Broadway was not really a divisive topic in the BGCT (which is hardly left-leaning). There’s are two specific reasons why the BGCT did not fall to “Conservative Resurgence” voters and they are the legacy of J. Frank Norris and because Texas Baptists knew Paul Pressler (Houston) and Paige Patterson (Beaumont/Dallas) and did not find them particularly credible at the beginning of the “resurgence” political operation.

They left so not to cause further problems in a convention that is far from being right-wingers, super conservative.

They left because the BGCT is in bad shape because of poor leadership and people like Patterson and the Southern Baptist of Texas Convention like to use every opportunity to falsely accuse the BGCT.

So, to say I or Paige is making a mountain out of a molehill, you would have to argue with people much further to the left than us about your assessment.

Having been involved in Texas Baptist life for 25 years in ministry, I think I know a little more about the situation than you. I know many of the players involved personally, and where more than a few skeletons are buried.

And for what it’s worth, I haven’t been a big fan of the BGCT for more than a decade, nor Broadway Baptist for more than 25 years, so there is no compelling need for me to protect them except for the basic Christian responsibility of telling the truth and confronting lies.

I am still a fan of the Tarrant Baptist Association, even though I haven’t appreciated some of the positions member churches have taken.

Historically, Christians have said one of the key attributes of the church was church discipline. Historically, theologians have said, when church discipline leaves so does the Holy Spirit, and the church ceases to be a church. I contend, that if a man can openly serve as a homosexual in a church without church discipline, that church probably has already ceased being a church, or will soon cease.

It’s God’s business to remove the blessing of the Holy Spirit, not mine.