-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
SWBTS New Testament Prof Fired
- Thread starter Jimmy C
- Start date
Actually, it is usually dead-on accurate.
Not to long ago a number of us knew that Paige Patterson had been selected to take the place of Ken Hemphill almost immediately after Hemphill was reassigned.
Yet many folks assured us that our sources were wrong. What happened?
Many of us are very close to the situation at Southwestern and know a number of these people firsthand. We are very well-connected and probably have a better sense of what is going on than even an active student.
Consider this, if someone perceives you as a friend or someone to be influenced, they are probably going to be on their best behaviour. If that same person perceives you to be an enemy or an obstacle to their goals, you're likely going to see the worst of their character.
It's no surprise that a number of us who have concerns about the "conservative resurgence" and/or the SBC leadership's disregard for telling the truth are going to experience much of the worst of these folk's character.
Actually, it is usually dead-on accurate.
Not to long ago a number of us knew that Paige Patterson had been selected to take the place of Ken Hemphill almost immediately after Hemphill was reassigned.
Yet many folks assured us that our sources were wrong. What happened?
Many of us are very close to the situation at Southwestern and know a number of these people firsthand. We are very well-connected and probably have a better sense of what is going on than even an active student.
Consider this, if someone perceives you as a friend or someone to be influenced, they are probably going to be on their best behaviour. If that same person perceives you to be an enemy or an obstacle to their goals, you're likely going to see the worst of their character.
It's no surprise that a number of us who have concerns about the "conservative resurgence" and/or the SBC leadership's disregard for telling the truth are going to experience much of the worst of these folk's character. </font>[/QUOTE]I knew that Hemphill was looking for at least four years before he left SWBTS. It did come from Ft. Worth and Houston.
Can the SBC tell the truth? Not acording to the news from when Dilday was fired. It was tell the press and do another. That is the way it was. When questioned they said that they didn't want the press to know. Integrity! Where? At the time the chairman of the trustees was a womanizer. Later it was found out that he was spending some intimate time with two different ladies in his congregation whom he had been "counseling." All for the conservatives in leading but doing the liberal thing.
Jimmy and GB, I have read your replies and would like to respond:
Regarding the decline of SWBTS after the resurrgence, you fail to mention that at the same time enrollment at SBTS and SEBTS had begun to skyrocket (schools that were already well known as having come back to their conservative roots). SWBTS has been the last of the six to come back full-swing to the right. Again, you demonstrate your use of redaction history.
To imply that the CBF is not sympathetic with open-theism doctrines simply because the issues were not discussed as part of the annual meeting's business is hilarious! Why else would they have brought in a speaker to teach a "breakout session" who was sympathetic with open-theism to explain its errant theological tenants? Clearly, open-theism is a moderate/liberal doctrine that is only being espoused by those who are of that "camp." And you mention that Calvinism was discussed - in what light? Do you actually mean to tell me that there was a break-out session hosted that was in favor of Calvinism as a favorable theological position? If so, please provide me with the name of the speaker and the title of the session. Otherwise, stop making such hollow claims that can't possibly be proven.
I pray that you guys will let go of any moderate/liberal theologies that you have been holding to and that you will get on board with what's happening in the SBC. The number of missionaries being appointed is at an all-time high. Missions giving has never been stronger. Seminary enrollment has never been better. Church planting has never been as strong as it is right now within the SBC (just look at what's going on in New England for instance). The SBC is currently doing through missions what the Bold Mission Thrust of an increasingly moderate/liberal SBC in the 70's and 80's could only dream of! I will be the first to admit that the effects of the resurrgence have not been completely felt by the local churches, but give it time and I'll believe you'll see revival come to the local churches of the SBC - it takes time to undo the moderate/liberal fallacies that found their root in too many of our churches and State Conventions.
No doubt - he will attract those who have no time for moderate/liberal theology, but those who have placed their full faith and trust in the inerrant Word of God. This is the wisest thing you have said throughout the string.
This is wrong on two accounts. Clearly SWBTS was seen as liberal during the time of Dilday. For instance, a fine man who is now on faculty at SEBTS was doing his Ph.D. work at SWBTS back in the 80's. His disseration was based upon a conservative theological stand, and after he had completed all his colloquims, seminars, etc., he was asked to leave the school. And the reason given? None, that's right, none. But he knew full well why he was asked to leave - his research was grounded in the viewpoint that Scripture is the inerrant Word of God, and Dilday couldn't stand it. In fact, Dilday was the one who brought about his departure. This is just one example of how moderate SWBTS had become under his leadership.
Regarding the decline of SWBTS after the resurrgence, you fail to mention that at the same time enrollment at SBTS and SEBTS had begun to skyrocket (schools that were already well known as having come back to their conservative roots). SWBTS has been the last of the six to come back full-swing to the right. Again, you demonstrate your use of redaction history.
This is all the confirmation that I needed to demonstrate that you didn't know what you were talking about. Just because you heard a rumor or received some "first-hand" info doesn't mean that you know what you're talking about. The very fact that you would use the word "if" is further proof of your ignorance about this subject. Don't make statements or accusations unless you are sure of their validity - that is a favorite tactic of the boys at the ABP.
Again, you prove my point. The website itself states the reason for the drop in enrollment during the time of Drummond - "a transitional era." Wouldn't one expect a drop in enrollment as an institution transitions from being an openly moderate/liberal institution into one that is fully committed to biblical integrity? Growth never comes without pain, but 10 years removed we can now clearly see that all the growing pains were worth it now that SEBTS has record enrollment every semester and one of the best seminary faculties in the world. SEBTS is now almost double the size that it ever was under moderate/liberal leadership.
Got worse? When was the last time you visited SEBTS? Since the takeover of the seminary, old dorms have been completely remodeled, a new capital stewardship campaign has been launched, and multiple faculty positions have been added, an undergraduate program has been started - not to mention the record enrollment that comes with each new semester. I hardly call that "worse" - quite to the contrary, I call that much, much better!
I was not wrong - if the moderates/liberals had never gained such control of the seminary, the conservative resurrgence at the school would have never been necessary to begin with. That means that the student decline, faculty turnover, and accredidation problems would have never come about were it not for the moderate/liberal leadership at the school. It was their godless doctrines and self-centered leadership that put SEBTS in the doghouse to begin with.
Friend, those weren't just allegations, they were REALITIES. JEPD was being taught as truth, egalitarianism abounded in the theology department, and there were even some faculty who were sympathetic with pro-homosexual causes (for instance, one pro-homosexual group was even allowed to have a rally on the campus in SEBTS's darkest days). Those are hardly hollow allegations as you make them out to be - pre-takeover SEBTS only had themselves to blame for their liberal reputation for they truly earned it!
When it comes to Christian higher education, a liberal is any one who does not accept the Scriptures as the inerrant Word of God. Further, a liberal is anyone who may accept some prima facie form of inerrancy, but then goes and teaches that the Scriptures are not historically reliable and that those who penned the Scriptures were biased and prejudiced. This, in a nutshell, is what constitutes the description of one as liberal within Christian higher education. For many examples of this, just look at the faculties at many of the (former) State Baptist institutions of higher learning - Belmont, Carson-Newman, Baylor, Wake Forest, Duke, Stetson, Samford, etc. The list goes on and on of schools who's faculties are filled with liberals.
Yes, I am fully aware that the CBF doesn't like to be called a denomination, but a fellowship. Allowing themselves to be recognized as a denomination would put an end to those who are affiliated with the CBF from being able to remain within the Annuity Board. For what other reason would the CBF choose to remain a "splinter fellowship" of the SBC?
Check with the school's admissions departments if you want the facts - just saying you're "not sure" if they have begun to increase yet makes it clear that you hope they haven't begun to increase yet because that would be further validation of the blessings of God upon the SBC and its seminaries. What you will find is that enrollment is up at all the SBC seminaries with the exception of SWBTS, and we all know that their enrollment will come with time. FYI, the enrollment at SEBTS has increased from 545 to over 2300 since the resurrgence. And those numbers are not hear-say: They came directly from Anthony Allen, the school's head of admissions.
I found it interesting that you implied that the SBC has brought in speakers like Campolo, yet you supplied not a single name. Typical moderate/liberal avoidance of the issues. To my knowledge, the SBC has not invited a single person to speak at the annual Convention meetings since the resurrgence who does not espouse the full inerrancy of the Scriptures - definitely can't say that for the CBF. Rather, they have turned to left-wing sociologists such as Campolo for no other reason but the shock factor. I found it amusing that Campolo had to apologize for his statements following last year's CBF meeting. Provide me with one post-resurrgence name and I'll leave this one alone.
Now you're making me laugh.
Now you have reverted to the logical fallacy of comparing apples and oranges. It is perfectly fine (and in my opinion academically required) to teach and study all viewpoints, but it is quite another to accept errant viewpoints and then teach them as truth or at least with a strong sense of sympathy towards those doctrines. I am prepared to provided you with proof that the presenter within one of those breakout sessions was sympathetic with open-theism - would you like me to do so?
I'm sorry, but doctrinal accountability is not an "agenda," it is a mandate of Scripture - "Ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." (Jude 3) The moderate/liberal crowd have been the ones who have portrayed the leaders of the SBC as adhearing to some sort of evil, arrogant "agenda," but clearly their only motivation has been the resurrgence of doctrinal accountability - something that would have long since been dead were it not for the conservative resurrgence of the SBC.
Don't worry, we won't forget to give you a loving rebuke if your theory proves to be wrong.
Here again we have another explicit assertion that the faculty of the school would willingly be evasive and dishonest with the students. I'm telling you guys, you walk on unrighteous ground when you make these kinds of statements - it really borders on "bearing false witness," and I think we all know what the Word of God has to say about bearing false witness.
Nobody that I'm aware of ever denied that Patterson had been contacted about the position at SWBTS when he was finally contacted (which was much later then many detractors let on - again, I had that confirmed by Dr. P himself over dinner). What many did vehemently deny though was that Hemphill was being forced out. Clearly, the trustees had let Hemphill know that certain changes had to be made, but it was his decision as to whether he would make them or not. No one forced Hemphill out, and all the "secret meetings" that Mark Wingfield wrote of in the Texas state newpaper never happened. I find it interesting that he is now no longer with the Texas state paper (though I realize he accepted another ministry position).
Can anyone please provide me with any substantial, verifiable truth that any of the SBC leaders has ever lied about the current situation at SWBTS? If not, then for your own sakes, please stop making these hollow accusations. So-called "first-hand" information doesn't count - the proof is in the pudding, and let's just say I have seen any Jello yet.
Provide proof for any of these claims. You say "that is the way it was," but in whose eyesight? Yours? Dilday's? The ABP? For all you moderate/liberal guys, truth is in the eye of the beholder. Substaniate your claims, or else stop making them.
I pray that you guys will let go of any moderate/liberal theologies that you have been holding to and that you will get on board with what's happening in the SBC. The number of missionaries being appointed is at an all-time high. Missions giving has never been stronger. Seminary enrollment has never been better. Church planting has never been as strong as it is right now within the SBC (just look at what's going on in New England for instance). The SBC is currently doing through missions what the Bold Mission Thrust of an increasingly moderate/liberal SBC in the 70's and 80's could only dream of! I will be the first to admit that the effects of the resurrgence have not been completely felt by the local churches, but give it time and I'll believe you'll see revival come to the local churches of the SBC - it takes time to undo the moderate/liberal fallacies that found their root in too many of our churches and State Conventions.
Daniel David
New Member
My personal mentor went to SWBTS in the early '80s.
Looking back, he thinks that maybe half of the faculty was even saved.
They were advocating the feminism (not just egalitarianism - which is for confused folks), abortion, errancy of Scripture, etc.
They were not moderates. They were rank and file liberals.
It is good to see a Christian president there. What with Dilday and such...
Oh, and good riddance to Bullock and the other waste of time profs.
Looking back, he thinks that maybe half of the faculty was even saved.
They were advocating the feminism (not just egalitarianism - which is for confused folks), abortion, errancy of Scripture, etc.
They were not moderates. They were rank and file liberals.
It is good to see a Christian president there. What with Dilday and such...
Oh, and good riddance to Bullock and the other waste of time profs.
Joseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
Who is your personal mentor?
Looking back, he thinks that maybe half of the faculty was even saved.[/QUOTE]
Did he name the ones that he thought were and were not saved and why he thought that?
They were advocating the feminism (not just egalitarianism - which is for confused folks), abortion, errancy of Scripture, etc.[/QUOTE]
Which profs advocated this and where is the evidence?
They were not moderates. They were rank and file liberals.
It is good to see a Christian president there. What with Dilday and such...[/QUOTE]
When I was there, I tended to think pretty highly of Hemphill and several of the professors. Several have retired. Some have left. Some are still there. I certainly saw no evidence that Hemphill was not a Christian. Did you?
Oh, and good riddance to Bullock and the other waste of time profs. [/QUOTE]
Why are you happy to see Bullock go? And who are the "other waste of time profs" and why do you feel that way about them?
Joseph Botwinick
Daniel David
New Member
Joseph, I don't know that he wants his name out there, but I will say that he was one of the first to really raise the issue about Scripture.
He didn't think they were saved based on some of their theology. It wasn't personal.
I don't know there names. I am only repeating what I have heard him tell me about his seminary days.
I don't doubt the salvation of Hemphill, just his loyalty to contending for the faith.
I am happy to see bullock and the rest of the recently removed, errrrrggggg, replaced profs go because of their weak stand on crucial church and/or theological issues.
He didn't think they were saved based on some of their theology. It wasn't personal.
I don't know there names. I am only repeating what I have heard him tell me about his seminary days.
I don't doubt the salvation of Hemphill, just his loyalty to contending for the faith.
I am happy to see bullock and the rest of the recently removed, errrrrggggg, replaced profs go because of their weak stand on crucial church and/or theological issues.
Joseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
I understand that. Of course this raises the issue of credibility as we do not really know the source of your information and whether or not he might have been a disgruntled former employee, student, etc...
The other issue is something that seems to be prevelant throughout this entire thread. I knew someone who knew someone that said this about so and so, etc...no offense to you and several others here, but this seems a lot like gossip to me.
He didn't think they were saved based on some of their theology. It wasn't personal.[/QUOTE]
Again, it is easy to demonize a general group of people without names or specifics, or evidence, about what they believe or taught.
I don't know there names. I am only repeating what I have heard him tell me about his seminary days.[/QUOTE]
I had a friend when I was in seminary there whho was on the other side of the issue. He told me many things about the fight. I studied this and found some of what he said to be absolutely true and some of it was probably born out of emotional hurt or bitterness. I am wondering if you believe everything you mentor says about SWBTS or did you not study the issue for yourself and decide that it was true. If you did, then certainly, you would know their names and the specifics of their beliefs and the evidence. Right?
I don't doubt the salvation of Hemphill, just his loyalty to contending for the faith.[/QUOTE]
Do you mean his unwillingness to go as far as the political establishment wanted him to go? I have read his books and conversed a few brief times with Hemphill and found him to be a man of God who did stand up for the Gospel and was a strong supporter of missions in Fort Worth, America, and the world.
I am happy to see bullock and the rest of the recently removed, errrrrggggg, replaced profs go because of their weak stand on crucial church and/or theological issues. [/QUOTE]
Would you please give me some specific examples?
Joseph Botwinick
Todd
To Start this thread I stated that Dr. Crutchley was fired by Paige Patterson, whether you or anyone else in the Baptist Board believes me does not matter. I reported the truth and by the end of the academic year what I have reported will be born out. Will you take my challenge as Preach in Jesus has - or does thought that someone with the integrity of Dr. Crutchley not fitting in with the Drs Patterson keep you from it?
As to Daniel David - he is continuing his past practices of slamming anyone who disagrees with him and the little world he lives in. Never has facts, and will never back up his statements.
To Start this thread I stated that Dr. Crutchley was fired by Paige Patterson, whether you or anyone else in the Baptist Board believes me does not matter. I reported the truth and by the end of the academic year what I have reported will be born out. Will you take my challenge as Preach in Jesus has - or does thought that someone with the integrity of Dr. Crutchley not fitting in with the Drs Patterson keep you from it?
I have known Dr. Dilday for many years, he is very conservative theologically. I do not believe what your friend reported to you is the truth. The deans of the school of theology have been very conservative, bible believing Christians, and have been giants. Dilday would not have been threatend by someone like this - there is clearly more to the story.
As to Daniel David - he is continuing his past practices of slamming anyone who disagrees with him and the little world he lives in. Never has facts, and will never back up his statements.
Joseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
Jimmy,
As far as I can see, he has presented about as much evidence for his claims as you have for yours.
Joseph Botwinick
I only heard a few students questioning the salvation of one of the professors and that professor is still there.
Could you give us some name of those "liberals" because I think you should warn us about them. In fact you are obligated to contact Dr. Patterson concerning them too. Now you wouldn't want to let God down would you and not fulfill you obligation according to scripture. Man if there are heretics as you claim, then we should know about them and get them out of there teaching prospective pastors.. If you know this for sure then you are nothing more than a gossip and a whimp not to say something. Otherwise we will just treat it as unbelievable gossip and hearsay.
When I was a student at SWBTS I would hear things like what you have mentioned but never once did I ever hear that same gossiper confront the professor openly or in private according to scripture except to write letters to the trustees. So if you and your mentor have any integrity both of you will confront those men and if there are women too. You are not a liberal are you? I am assuming you believe the Bible and will be obedient to it.
I am only repeating what I have heard him tell me about his seminary days.
Thst's gossip. Your mentor is willing to gossip about people you do not know personally and yet you are protecting him! He needs to be confronted for who he is--a gossip. You are repeating gossip. You cannot even give us a personal first person account. Did your mentor ever confront those men who he claims are not born again or is he too weak.
Seems to me that Jesus spoke about those who were born again in jn 13:35, "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."
So has your mentor demonstrated his love by confronting these men about their salvation. I have never seen one person who ever made such claims you mentor makes ever confront any professor about this matter. But yet they continue to gossip about them.
Many pastors have left because the ministry because of people like you and you mentor causing such damage only led by Satan.
When you read the following verses notice the last word. It is translated from the form of Gehenna.
James 3:5,6, "So also the tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it boasts of great things. See how great a forest is set aflame by such a small fire! And the tongue is a fire, the very world of iniquity; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of our life, and is set on fire by hell.
Please note that you are also responding to things I wrote.
This is wrong on two accounts. Clearly SWBTS was seen as liberal during the time of Dilday. </font>[/QUOTE]
I suppose that the perception is in the eye of the beholder. If you are an extremist, then everyone else looks extreme.
Please provide a name.
How do you know this? Some students are asked to leave on moral grounds.
How does he know this if there was no reason given?
And how does he know this? Why should I believe an anonymous charge?
The strangest thing about your story is that Dr. Dilday has very strong views on the reliability of the scriptures (no matter what the trustees claimed after they fired him). Dilday wrote an excellent book regarding the inspiration of scripture – I used one of them as a resource in an undergraduate term paper on inerrancy in 1988 -- and he was at least as conservative in that doctrine as the leaders of the “resurgence” crowd.
Yes, enrollment did improve at those two seminaries because they recovered from the public relations effects of the takeovers during that period.
If you knew your history, you would know that Southwestern was the last school taken over because it had previously not been considered a problem. No one had seriously alleged “liberalism” there.
Again, you prove my point. The website itself states the reason for the drop in enrollment during the time of Drummond - "a transitional era." Wouldn't one expect a drop in enrollment as an institution transitions from being an openly moderate/liberal institution into one that is fully committed to biblical integrity? </font>[/QUOTE]
Ignoring your insinuation that the “moderate/liberal” version of Southeastern did not have “biblical integrity”, you seem to freely admit that your previous allegation is not accurate. The drop in enrollment, faculty turnover and accreditation crisis occurred during the Drummond era. Why is it so hard to admit that you misspoke?
Got worse? When was the last time you visited SEBTS? Since the takeover of the seminary, old dorms have been completely remodeled, a new capital stewardship campaign has been launched, and multiple faculty positions have been added, an undergraduate program has been started - not to mention the record enrollment that comes with each new semester. [/QUOTE][/qb]
You’ve just tried to change the subject. Your allegation is that student enrollment and faculty turnover was terrible under Lolley and then Drummond and Patterson came in and everything improved. I pointed out the error of that allegation and you tried to switch the topic to campus improvements, growth of faculty and an undergraduate program to compete with state universities that were all launched under Patterson.
I think you’ve just demonstrated that you made an inaccurate allegation.
“Worse” referred to your original allegation, not what you are trying to twist it to mean.
I was not wrong - if the moderates/liberals had never gained such control of the seminary, the conservative resurrgence at the school would have never been necessary to begin with. </font>[/QUOTE]
Ah, the perceived actions of those you opposed caused your group to overreact and cause further problems…
There’s plenty of blame to go around. It would be nice if you would admit it.
The accreditation problems and student decline probably would not have happened if the “resurgence” folks had done things properly. (In case you didn’t know, Southwestern seminary also had problems with their accreditation when the trustees fired Dilday. The trustees’ blatant lies and violation of their own guidelines threw Southwestern into probation. That did not have to happen.)
When it comes to Christian higher education, a liberal is any one who does not accept the Scriptures as the inerrant Word of God. Further, a liberal is anyone who may accept some prima facie form of inerrancy, but then goes and teaches that the Scriptures are not historically reliable and that those who penned the Scriptures were biased and prejudiced. This, in a nutshell, is what constitutes the description of one as liberal within Christian higher education. </font>[/QUOTE]
By your definition, I have only met one “liberal” in Christian higher education, and he was not at a seminary. None of my former professors at Southwestern (many of whom were fired, left, or did not have their contracts renewed) were “liberals”.
Continuing my conversation with Todd:
I had said previously:
It is more than a name issue, it is a structural and polity issue as well.
Freedom of association. There are many Fellowship churches that have absolutely nothing to do with the SBC. Then there are others that are dually-aligned. As far as the CBF being a “splinter fellowship”, I haven’t ever heard that term from CBF people, only their SBC accusers. If you could give me a reference from the CBF for you allegation that they considered themselves part of the SBC, I’ll accept your assertion.
I see you are now judging my heart. I say that I'm "not sure" because I don't like asserting that things are a certain way without checking them out - I haven't looked at the latest figures. Enrollment and increases in membership are not an indication of God’s favor or curse. That’s simple biblical doctrine, you should know that. The only reason we’re discussing it at all in that you made that false allegation that “the liberals” put Southeastern into a tailspin as far as enrollment and faculty turnover goes.
Here’s a reference for you about things going on in the seminaries over the past few years. This report is a couple of years old, but it is rather informative: http://www.bgct.org/communications/ssr.htm
You mentioned his name like it was clear evidence that something ungodly was going on. I don’t share that point of view, so I hoped for the best and assumed that you meant that the CBF was wrong to bring in a popular speaker. Furthermore, I didn’t allege anything except that the SBC often brings in speakers that will draw crowds for their annual meeting.
That’s a troubling statement. It seems you have now reduced me to “typical moderate/liberal” status, where you can feel more comfortable ignoring any valid points I might have to make. For the record, I have not lowered your status to anything “typical”. You are simply a person who, I’m assuming, is a brother in Christ who sees things differently than I do.
Depends on what you mean by “inerrancy”. If you mean “fully reliable”, then I may have to question your allegation. If you are talking about certain theological positions of interpretation in the reliable scriptures, you are probably correct.
Perhaps they brought him in because he is a thought-provoking speaker? The last thing the CBF needs is more controversy. I don’t think they need to stir up any more trouble with the SBC. The SBC folks already attack them enough.
To imply that the CBF is not sympathetic with open-theism doctrines simply because the issues were not discussed as part of the annual meeting's business is hilarious! </font>[/QUOTE]
I'm not laughing. Evidence please!!!
To understand its teachings (kind of like the Bereans) so they can speak knowledgably of it. Have you ever studied a belief system or doctrine with which you do not agree? Does that make you guilty of “espousing it”? OF COURSE NOT! Just in case you don’t know, what it called “open theism” is heavily distorted and misrepresented by those who try to refute it.
That is a gross oversimplification of the issue. It is a much more complicated issue. SBC “resurgence” people and classic liberals are too rationalistic/modernistic to embrace “open theism”.
Break-out sessions are information sessions when a short presentation is usually given, followed by about 30 minutes of discussion. Speakers are there to provide information, not promote agendas. I have attended a number of Break-out sessions over the years. I gather you don’t have a clue about them.
I see you automatically assume that the session has to have a strong bias. If I remember correctly, for both the “open theism” section and the “Calvinism” section there were two speakers – one speaking in favor of the theological viewpoint, and one speaking against it. The attendees were able to quiz both speakers in the discussion time.
Not really, because I’ve already explained the context. You assert that they have expressed sympathy to "open theism", but have provided absolutely no evidence. When I was studying in that cults class, one of our term assignments was to go talk to a cultist about their beliefs. You learn more from an adherent of a faith system than you do from books. Personally, I learned more about Mormonism from two Mormon missionaries I witnessed to over the course of four months back in 1989 than I did from all the books I read about Mormonism.
Your premise only makes sense if one assumes that those who are accused are being justly accused. Most of the people I know who have been attacked by the “resurgence” crowd are innocent of the allegations against them.
What about accountability to the commandments not to bear false witness and to love your neighbor?
It is only “clear” to those who need to believe it.
Unfortunately, I think it is clear you don’t have the perspective you need to make adequate judgments in this matter. I know a number of the people who have been attacked (and I have been personally threatened by a seminary president), I have done the research, I was at Southwestern during the Dilday firing. I have seen numerous documents (you should investigate the Texas Historical Collection’s document collection from the time of the Dilday firing – they have all sorts of leaked internal communications from the trustees to each other) and have more than a passing familiarity with the CBF. I have personally investigated a number of Baptist Press hatchet-jobs on the CBF (I am a writer and journalist by profession) and have seen how Baptist Press loves to twist the truth.
I had said previously:
Yes, I am fully aware that the CBF doesn't like to be called a denomination, but a fellowship. </font>[/QUOTE]
It is more than a name issue, it is a structural and polity issue as well.
Freedom of association. There are many Fellowship churches that have absolutely nothing to do with the SBC. Then there are others that are dually-aligned. As far as the CBF being a “splinter fellowship”, I haven’t ever heard that term from CBF people, only their SBC accusers. If you could give me a reference from the CBF for you allegation that they considered themselves part of the SBC, I’ll accept your assertion.
Check with the school's admissions departments if you want the facts - just saying you're "not sure" if they have begun to increase yet makes it clear that you hope they haven't begun to increase yet because that would be further validation of the blessings of God upon the SBC and its seminaries. </font>[/QUOTE]
I see you are now judging my heart.
I say that I'm "not sure" because I don't like asserting that things are a certain way without checking them out - I haven't looked at the latest figures. Enrollment and increases in membership are not an indication of God’s favor or curse. That’s simple biblical doctrine, you should know that. The only reason we’re discussing it at all in that you made that false allegation that “the liberals” put Southeastern into a tailspin as far as enrollment and faculty turnover goes. Here’s a reference for you about things going on in the seminaries over the past few years. This report is a couple of years old, but it is rather informative: http://www.bgct.org/communications/ssr.htm
I found it interesting that you implied that the SBC has brought in speakers like Campolo, yet you supplied not a single name. </font>[/QUOTE]
You mentioned his name like it was clear evidence that something ungodly was going on. I don’t share that point of view, so I hoped for the best and assumed that you meant that the CBF was wrong to bring in a popular speaker. Furthermore, I didn’t allege anything except that the SBC often brings in speakers that will draw crowds for their annual meeting.
That’s a troubling statement. It seems you have now reduced me to “typical moderate/liberal” status, where you can feel more comfortable ignoring any valid points I might have to make. For the record, I have not lowered your status to anything “typical”. You are simply a person who, I’m assuming, is a brother in Christ who sees things differently than I do.
Depends on what you mean by “inerrancy”. If you mean “fully reliable”, then I may have to question your allegation. If you are talking about certain theological positions of interpretation in the reliable scriptures, you are probably correct.
Perhaps they brought him in because he is a thought-provoking speaker? The last thing the CBF needs is more controversy. I don’t think they need to stir up any more trouble with the SBC. The SBC folks already attack them enough.
Now you're making me laugh.
I'm not laughing. Evidence please!!!
To understand its teachings (kind of like the Bereans) so they can speak knowledgably of it. Have you ever studied a belief system or doctrine with which you do not agree? Does that make you guilty of “espousing it”? OF COURSE NOT! Just in case you don’t know, what it called “open theism” is heavily distorted and misrepresented by those who try to refute it.
That is a gross oversimplification of the issue. It is a much more complicated issue. SBC “resurgence” people and classic liberals are too rationalistic/modernistic to embrace “open theism”.
Break-out sessions are information sessions when a short presentation is usually given, followed by about 30 minutes of discussion. Speakers are there to provide information, not promote agendas. I have attended a number of Break-out sessions over the years. I gather you don’t have a clue about them.
I see you automatically assume that the session has to have a strong bias. If I remember correctly, for both the “open theism” section and the “Calvinism” section there were two speakers – one speaking in favor of the theological viewpoint, and one speaking against it. The attendees were able to quiz both speakers in the discussion time.
It is perfectly fine (and in my opinion academically required) to teach and study all viewpoints, but it is quite another to accept errant viewpoints and then teach them as truth or at least with a strong sense of sympathy towards those doctrines. I am prepared to provided you with proof that the presenter within one of those breakout sessions was sympathetic with open-theism - would you like me to do so? [/QUOTE][/qb]
Not really, because I’ve already explained the context. You assert that they have expressed sympathy to "open theism", but have provided absolutely no evidence. When I was studying in that cults class, one of our term assignments was to go talk to a cultist about their beliefs. You learn more from an adherent of a faith system than you do from books. Personally, I learned more about Mormonism from two Mormon missionaries I witnessed to over the course of four months back in 1989 than I did from all the books I read about Mormonism.
I'm sorry, but doctrinal accountability is not an "agenda," it is a mandate of Scripture… </font>[/QUOTE]
Your premise only makes sense if one assumes that those who are accused are being justly accused. Most of the people I know who have been attacked by the “resurgence” crowd are innocent of the allegations against them.
What about accountability to the commandments not to bear false witness and to love your neighbor?
It is only “clear” to those who need to believe it.
Unfortunately, I think it is clear you don’t have the perspective you need to make adequate judgments in this matter. I know a number of the people who have been attacked (and I have been personally threatened by a seminary president), I have done the research, I was at Southwestern during the Dilday firing. I have seen numerous documents (you should investigate the Texas Historical Collection’s document collection from the time of the Dilday firing – they have all sorts of leaked internal communications from the trustees to each other) and have more than a passing familiarity with the CBF. I have personally investigated a number of Baptist Press hatchet-jobs on the CBF (I am a writer and journalist by profession) and have seen how Baptist Press loves to twist the truth.
Continuing my conversation with Todd:
I had said previously:
It is more than a name issue, it is a structural and polity issue as well.
Freedom of association. There are many Fellowship churches that have absolutely nothing to do with the SBC. Then there are others that are dually-aligned. As far as the CBF being a “splinter fellowship”, I haven’t ever heard that term from CBF people, only their SBC accusers.
I see you are now judging my heart. I say that I'm "not sure" because I don't like asserting that things are a certain way without checking them out - I haven't looked at the latest figures. Enrollment and increases in membership are not an indication of God’s favor or curse. That’s simple biblical doctrine, you should know that. The only reason we’re discussing it at all in that you made that false allegation that “the liberals” put Southeastern into a tailspin as far as enrollment and faculty turnover goes.
Here’s a reference for you about things going on in the seminaries over the past few years. This report is a couple of years old, but it is rather informative: http://www.bgct.org/communications/ssr.htm
You mentioned his name like it was clear evidence that something ungodly was going on. I don’t share that point of view, so I hoped for the best and assumed that you meant that the CBF was wrong to bring in a popular speaker. Furthermore, I didn’t allege anything except that the SBC often brings in speakers that will draw crowds for their annual meeting.
That’s a troubling statement. It seems you have now reduced me to “typical moderate/liberal” status, where you can feel more comfortable ignoring any valid points I might have to make. For the record, I have not lowered your status to anything “typical”. You are simply a person who, I’m assuming, is a brother in Christ who sees things differently than I do.
Perhaps they brought him in because he is a thought-provoking speaker? The last thing the CBF needs is more controversy. I don’t think they need to stir up any more trouble with the SBC. The SBC folks already attack them enough.
To imply that the CBF is not sympathetic with open-theism doctrines simply because the issues were not discussed as part of the annual meeting's business is hilarious! </font>[/QUOTE]
I'm not laughing. Evidence please!!!
To understand its teachings (kind of like the Bereans) so they can speak knowledgably of it. Have you ever studied a belief system or doctrine with which you do not agree? Does that make you guilty of “espousing it”? OF COURSE NOT! Just in case you don’t know, what it called “open theism” is heavily distorted and misrepresented by those who try to refute it.
That is a gross oversimplification of the issue. It is a much more complicated issue. SBC “resurgence” people and classic liberals are too rationalistic/modernistic to embrace “open theism”.
Break-out sessions are information sessions when a short presentation is usually given, followed by about 30 minutes of discussion. Speakers are there to provide information, not promote agendas. I have attended a number of Break-out sessions over the years. I gather you don’t have a clue about them.
I see you automatically assume that the session has to have a strong bias. If I remember correctly, for both the “open theism” section and the “Calvinism” section there were two speakers – one speaking in favor of the theological viewpoint, and one speaking against it. The attendees were able to quiz both speakers in the discussion time.
Not really, because I’ve already explained the context. You assert that they have expressed sympathy to "open theism", but have provided absolutely no evidence. When I was studying in that cults class, one of our term assignments was to go talk to a cultist about their beliefs. You learn more from an adherent of a faith system than you do from books. Personally, I learned more about Mormonism from two Mormon missionaries I witnessed to over the course of four months back in 1989 than I did from all the books I read about Mormonism.
Your premise only makes sense if one assumes that those who are accused are being justly accused. Most of the people I know who have been attacked by the “resurgence” crowd are innocent of the allegations against them.
What about accountability to the commandments not to bear false witness and to love your neighbor?
It is only “clear” to those who need to believe it.
Unfortunately, I think it is clear you don’t have the perspective you need to make adequate judgments in this matter. I know a number of the people who have been attacked (and I have been personally threatened by a seminary president), I have done the research, I was at Southwestern during the Dilday firing. I have seen numerous documents (you should investigate the Texas Historical Collection’s document collection from the time of the Dilday firing – they have all sorts of leaked internal communications from the trustees to each other) and have more than a passing familiarity with the CBF. I have personally investigated a number of Baptist Press hatchet-jobs on the CBF (I am a writer and journalist by profession) and have seen how Baptist Press loves to twist the truth.
I had said previously:
Yes, I am fully aware that the CBF doesn't like to be called a denomination, but a fellowship. </font>[/QUOTE]
It is more than a name issue, it is a structural and polity issue as well.
Freedom of association. There are many Fellowship churches that have absolutely nothing to do with the SBC. Then there are others that are dually-aligned. As far as the CBF being a “splinter fellowship”, I haven’t ever heard that term from CBF people, only their SBC accusers.
Check with the school's admissions departments if you want the facts - just saying you're "not sure" if they have begun to increase yet makes it clear that you hope they haven't begun to increase yet because that would be further validation of the blessings of God upon the SBC and its seminaries. </font>[/QUOTE]
I see you are now judging my heart.
I say that I'm "not sure" because I don't like asserting that things are a certain way without checking them out - I haven't looked at the latest figures. Enrollment and increases in membership are not an indication of God’s favor or curse. That’s simple biblical doctrine, you should know that. The only reason we’re discussing it at all in that you made that false allegation that “the liberals” put Southeastern into a tailspin as far as enrollment and faculty turnover goes. Here’s a reference for you about things going on in the seminaries over the past few years. This report is a couple of years old, but it is rather informative: http://www.bgct.org/communications/ssr.htm
I found it interesting that you implied that the SBC has brought in speakers like Campolo, yet you supplied not a single name. </font>[/QUOTE]
You mentioned his name like it was clear evidence that something ungodly was going on. I don’t share that point of view, so I hoped for the best and assumed that you meant that the CBF was wrong to bring in a popular speaker. Furthermore, I didn’t allege anything except that the SBC often brings in speakers that will draw crowds for their annual meeting.
That’s a troubling statement. It seems you have now reduced me to “typical moderate/liberal” status, where you can feel more comfortable ignoring any valid points I might have to make. For the record, I have not lowered your status to anything “typical”. You are simply a person who, I’m assuming, is a brother in Christ who sees things differently than I do.
Perhaps they brought him in because he is a thought-provoking speaker? The last thing the CBF needs is more controversy. I don’t think they need to stir up any more trouble with the SBC. The SBC folks already attack them enough.
Now you're making me laugh.
I'm not laughing. Evidence please!!!
To understand its teachings (kind of like the Bereans) so they can speak knowledgably of it. Have you ever studied a belief system or doctrine with which you do not agree? Does that make you guilty of “espousing it”? OF COURSE NOT! Just in case you don’t know, what it called “open theism” is heavily distorted and misrepresented by those who try to refute it.
That is a gross oversimplification of the issue. It is a much more complicated issue. SBC “resurgence” people and classic liberals are too rationalistic/modernistic to embrace “open theism”.
Break-out sessions are information sessions when a short presentation is usually given, followed by about 30 minutes of discussion. Speakers are there to provide information, not promote agendas. I have attended a number of Break-out sessions over the years. I gather you don’t have a clue about them.
I see you automatically assume that the session has to have a strong bias. If I remember correctly, for both the “open theism” section and the “Calvinism” section there were two speakers – one speaking in favor of the theological viewpoint, and one speaking against it. The attendees were able to quiz both speakers in the discussion time.
It is perfectly fine (and in my opinion academically required) to teach and study all viewpoints, but it is quite another to accept errant viewpoints and then teach them as truth or at least with a strong sense of sympathy towards those doctrines. I am prepared to provided you with proof that the presenter within one of those breakout sessions was sympathetic with open-theism - would you like me to do so? [/QUOTE][/qb]
Not really, because I’ve already explained the context. You assert that they have expressed sympathy to "open theism", but have provided absolutely no evidence. When I was studying in that cults class, one of our term assignments was to go talk to a cultist about their beliefs. You learn more from an adherent of a faith system than you do from books. Personally, I learned more about Mormonism from two Mormon missionaries I witnessed to over the course of four months back in 1989 than I did from all the books I read about Mormonism.
I'm sorry, but doctrinal accountability is not an "agenda," it is a mandate of Scripture… </font>[/QUOTE]
Your premise only makes sense if one assumes that those who are accused are being justly accused. Most of the people I know who have been attacked by the “resurgence” crowd are innocent of the allegations against them.
What about accountability to the commandments not to bear false witness and to love your neighbor?
It is only “clear” to those who need to believe it.
Unfortunately, I think it is clear you don’t have the perspective you need to make adequate judgments in this matter. I know a number of the people who have been attacked (and I have been personally threatened by a seminary president), I have done the research, I was at Southwestern during the Dilday firing. I have seen numerous documents (you should investigate the Texas Historical Collection’s document collection from the time of the Dilday firing – they have all sorts of leaked internal communications from the trustees to each other) and have more than a passing familiarity with the CBF. I have personally investigated a number of Baptist Press hatchet-jobs on the CBF (I am a writer and journalist by profession) and have seen how Baptist Press loves to twist the truth.
Still continuing my conversation with Todd:
I had said previously:
Here’s an easily-verifiable one:
FACT: When the trustees fired Dilday, they had the locks changed on his office door during the meeting so he could not return to his office.
FACT: Miles Seaborn, a Southwestern trustee claimed: “We changed the locks to keep the students out of the office.” – (this was repeated by many trustees, often with the implication that the students were likely to vandalize or steal from the president’s office )
Now let’s think about this claim:
I was a student at the time and I apparently didn’t get my key to the president’s office during registration. If they really wanted to keep students out, all they had to do was lock the door. If they thought that the students were going to vandalize the office, changing the locks probably wouldn’t work – at that time the door to the president’s office was made of plate glass and a vandalizing mob would not likely be deterred by plate glass.
Clearly, this is a blatant lie.
There is an error in his statement. I believe the trustee chairman at the time of Dilday’s firing was Ralph Pulley. The chairman he mentions, Ollin Collins, was heavily involved in Dilday’s firing (along with Miles Seaborn), but because chairman a few years later. (Do a search on “Ollin Collins” and “Harvest Baptist Church” if you want more information.)
Thank you, but I’ll stay true to the teaching of the scriptures and the leading of the Spirit.
I had said previously:
Here’s an easily-verifiable one:
FACT: When the trustees fired Dilday, they had the locks changed on his office door during the meeting so he could not return to his office.
FACT: Miles Seaborn, a Southwestern trustee claimed: “We changed the locks to keep the students out of the office.” – (this was repeated by many trustees, often with the implication that the students were likely to vandalize or steal from the president’s office
)Now let’s think about this claim:
I was a student at the time and I apparently didn’t get my key to the president’s office during registration.
If they really wanted to keep students out, all they had to do was lock the door. If they thought that the students were going to vandalize the office, changing the locks probably wouldn’t work – at that time the door to the president’s office was made of plate glass and a vandalizing mob would not likely be deterred by plate glass.Clearly, this is a blatant lie.
Provide proof for any of these claims.
There is an error in his statement. I believe the trustee chairman at the time of Dilday’s firing was Ralph Pulley. The chairman he mentions, Ollin Collins, was heavily involved in Dilday’s firing (along with Miles Seaborn), but because chairman a few years later. (Do a search on “Ollin Collins” and “Harvest Baptist Church” if you want more information.)
Thank you, but I’ll stay true to the teaching of the scriptures and the leading of the Spirit.
GB and BB, you guys are excellent at redaction history (maybe that's because moderates/liberals are so sympathetic with higher criticism). Further, you continue to make claim after claim with no substantial evidence to validate those claims. And when you did provide some attempt at some verifiable proof of your claims about seminary enrollment, you provided information from a clearly biased source (BGCT) that was at least four years old (website copyright 1996-2000). Your "proof" was not even relevant to the current condition of today's SBC seminaries!
Regarding my claims, with each of the ones that I made in my previous post they were all substantiated by REAL first-hand information, and not simply some type of hear-say. The only one you challenged me on (the prof at SEBTS), I would be more than happy to provide you with his name if I knew that he would allow it. I will tell you that he is in the Church Administration area and that he has been teaching at SEBTS now for about 6 years. Everything I shared about him came directly from his mouth as it was shared with me from him. If you would be interested in talking with him about his experience within the Ph.D. program under Dilday, I'm sure he would be happy to do so. Just let me know and I'll try and set it up.
Also, when I told you I could validate the content of the "open theism" breakout session of the CBF from last year's annual session, you said that such proof was not necessary and then you proceeded to say that I had not provided the info. Well DUH! I'm not going to give you info that you're not even going to look at (for fear that it may tear down many of your pre-conceived notions about the SBC). If you want it, I'll be more than happy to give it to you. If you don't want it, don't claim that I'm not willing to offer you the information.
Further, I want to point out a fallacy about Dilday and others like him that I have been hearing. You can't say that someone is theologically conservative if they are liberal in their practices (as was Dilday). CONSERVATIVE THEOLOGY MUST ALWAYS RESULT IN CONSERVATIVE PRACTICE. To say that things could be otherwise is to say one thing, then go and do another.
I'm not sure that this string will be very edifying to anyone, because some of you guys keep insinuating that some of the SBC key leaders have been manipulative and purgurous, yet you have provided no valid proofs of those claims. Even the information you provided about the "changing of the locks" can't be validated. If it can, then please provide us with the information we need to validate your claim. Otherwise, quit passing along things as true that can't be validated. You might preface such a comment like the one you made with, "Well, I heard..." or "This is what I saw at SWBTS..." but don't pretend like such a claim is absolute truth when it can't be validated.
In my opinion, some of you want to believe everything the BGCT and the ABP tells you without attempting to verify your information with the named individuals mentioned in their stories. The reason for your belief? I can't speak for your own reasons, but I do know many moderates/liberals who were turned off to the SBC when they saw many of their professors and friends removed from positions of leadership within the SBC and its seminaries (for theological/philosophical reasons). It is apparent to me that many of those folks are simply "holding a grudge" against the SBC, and as a result they are constantly critical of the SBC's current leadership and recommendations. Many of these folks, in their attempts to discredit the current leadership, are making claims that are simply not true or that have no way of being validated (the whole "truth in the eye of the beholder" bit). One good example of this would be Mark Wingfield's column in last Septembers's edition of the state Newspaper of Texas Baptists (can't remember the name of that paper - sorry) that alleged of "secret meetings" during the time of Hemphill's departure and Patterson's hiring. He provided no verifiable sources for his info, and to this day no one has been able to prove that those meetings ever took place. Further, if someone would have gone to the named individuals listed by Wingfield, they would have been told that what Wingfield was saying was simply not true (as was the case when I spoke with Dr. Patterson in October over dinner). His was just another attempt at discrediting the conservative leaders of the SBC.
This is my point - when moderate/liberal/pro-CBF folks attack the SBC, rarely do I find that they attach their theology. Rather, they often make accusations of the SBC leaders being "mean-spirited," "power hungry," and "arrogant" (each of these terms were used early within this string - just check pg. 1). Clearly, these are the best attempts that they can make to try and prove their case - "we can't find a chink in their theology, so instead we'll just attack their characters."
On the other hand, when you find folks like myself who are theologically conservative making statements about the CBF, former SBC leaders, and others, most often you will find them rooted in theology, not personalities. It is the moderate/liberal crowd that made the whole "resurrgence" thing an issue of personalities. The moderate/liberal folks seem to thrive on critiquing the SBC and it's current leadership - if you don't believe me, just attend one of their annual meetings or read one of their state funded newsletter (such as the one I used to receive when I was a Pastor in SC). They keep dwelling on the perceived "evils" of the SBC, and that's why you find so many older congregations affiliated with the CBF. It is for this reason that I believe the CBF will be short-lived - how are they going to attract younger folks and younger congregations? By filling them with anti-SBC rhetoric? Who wants any part of that? In my opinion, once the moderates/liberals of the old SBC begin to die-out, the CBF will not be able to reach newer, younger congregations because no one wants to be affilated with that stuff.
It's worthy of note that if SBCers did want to attack personalities within CBF life, they wouldn't have to look very far (David Currie - how many times has he been married?, Tony Campolo - hasn't he become increasingly more liberal, as evidenced by his wife's approval of the homosexual lifestyle?, etc.). It is not even necessary for those who are on the theological "right" of the issues to make these kinds of attacks though - their theology is so easy to expose as faulty that such personal attacks are useless and unnecessary.
Again, if those of you in the moderate/liberal camp would like to debate some issue of theology, in my opinion that would be much more profitable. We are never going to agree on history, because I'm afraid that there is too much revisionist history being utilized here - it has become far too subjective. By remaining with the objective truths of Scripture and sound exegesis, I'm more than confident that I will be able to refute your errant theologies. Just let me know what issue and I will be more than happy to oblige. If you would like any of the info I made reference to earlier, please just let me know.
Regarding my claims, with each of the ones that I made in my previous post they were all substantiated by REAL first-hand information, and not simply some type of hear-say. The only one you challenged me on (the prof at SEBTS), I would be more than happy to provide you with his name if I knew that he would allow it. I will tell you that he is in the Church Administration area and that he has been teaching at SEBTS now for about 6 years. Everything I shared about him came directly from his mouth as it was shared with me from him. If you would be interested in talking with him about his experience within the Ph.D. program under Dilday, I'm sure he would be happy to do so. Just let me know and I'll try and set it up.
Also, when I told you I could validate the content of the "open theism" breakout session of the CBF from last year's annual session, you said that such proof was not necessary and then you proceeded to say that I had not provided the info. Well DUH! I'm not going to give you info that you're not even going to look at (for fear that it may tear down many of your pre-conceived notions about the SBC). If you want it, I'll be more than happy to give it to you. If you don't want it, don't claim that I'm not willing to offer you the information.
Further, I want to point out a fallacy about Dilday and others like him that I have been hearing. You can't say that someone is theologically conservative if they are liberal in their practices (as was Dilday). CONSERVATIVE THEOLOGY MUST ALWAYS RESULT IN CONSERVATIVE PRACTICE. To say that things could be otherwise is to say one thing, then go and do another.
I'm not sure that this string will be very edifying to anyone, because some of you guys keep insinuating that some of the SBC key leaders have been manipulative and purgurous, yet you have provided no valid proofs of those claims. Even the information you provided about the "changing of the locks" can't be validated. If it can, then please provide us with the information we need to validate your claim. Otherwise, quit passing along things as true that can't be validated. You might preface such a comment like the one you made with, "Well, I heard..." or "This is what I saw at SWBTS..." but don't pretend like such a claim is absolute truth when it can't be validated.
In my opinion, some of you want to believe everything the BGCT and the ABP tells you without attempting to verify your information with the named individuals mentioned in their stories. The reason for your belief? I can't speak for your own reasons, but I do know many moderates/liberals who were turned off to the SBC when they saw many of their professors and friends removed from positions of leadership within the SBC and its seminaries (for theological/philosophical reasons). It is apparent to me that many of those folks are simply "holding a grudge" against the SBC, and as a result they are constantly critical of the SBC's current leadership and recommendations. Many of these folks, in their attempts to discredit the current leadership, are making claims that are simply not true or that have no way of being validated (the whole "truth in the eye of the beholder" bit). One good example of this would be Mark Wingfield's column in last Septembers's edition of the state Newspaper of Texas Baptists (can't remember the name of that paper - sorry) that alleged of "secret meetings" during the time of Hemphill's departure and Patterson's hiring. He provided no verifiable sources for his info, and to this day no one has been able to prove that those meetings ever took place. Further, if someone would have gone to the named individuals listed by Wingfield, they would have been told that what Wingfield was saying was simply not true (as was the case when I spoke with Dr. Patterson in October over dinner). His was just another attempt at discrediting the conservative leaders of the SBC.
This is my point - when moderate/liberal/pro-CBF folks attack the SBC, rarely do I find that they attach their theology. Rather, they often make accusations of the SBC leaders being "mean-spirited," "power hungry," and "arrogant" (each of these terms were used early within this string - just check pg. 1). Clearly, these are the best attempts that they can make to try and prove their case - "we can't find a chink in their theology, so instead we'll just attack their characters."
On the other hand, when you find folks like myself who are theologically conservative making statements about the CBF, former SBC leaders, and others, most often you will find them rooted in theology, not personalities. It is the moderate/liberal crowd that made the whole "resurrgence" thing an issue of personalities. The moderate/liberal folks seem to thrive on critiquing the SBC and it's current leadership - if you don't believe me, just attend one of their annual meetings or read one of their state funded newsletter (such as the one I used to receive when I was a Pastor in SC). They keep dwelling on the perceived "evils" of the SBC, and that's why you find so many older congregations affiliated with the CBF. It is for this reason that I believe the CBF will be short-lived - how are they going to attract younger folks and younger congregations? By filling them with anti-SBC rhetoric? Who wants any part of that? In my opinion, once the moderates/liberals of the old SBC begin to die-out, the CBF will not be able to reach newer, younger congregations because no one wants to be affilated with that stuff.
It's worthy of note that if SBCers did want to attack personalities within CBF life, they wouldn't have to look very far (David Currie - how many times has he been married?, Tony Campolo - hasn't he become increasingly more liberal, as evidenced by his wife's approval of the homosexual lifestyle?, etc.). It is not even necessary for those who are on the theological "right" of the issues to make these kinds of attacks though - their theology is so easy to expose as faulty that such personal attacks are useless and unnecessary.
Again, if those of you in the moderate/liberal camp would like to debate some issue of theology, in my opinion that would be much more profitable. We are never going to agree on history, because I'm afraid that there is too much revisionist history being utilized here - it has become far too subjective. By remaining with the objective truths of Scripture and sound exegesis, I'm more than confident that I will be able to refute your errant theologies. Just let me know what issue and I will be more than happy to oblige. If you would like any of the info I made reference to earlier, please just let me know.