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!
The evidence was so compelling that the vote of the subcommittee was 4-3 (with the chairman voting with the minority). This is your slam dunk?
Wow. I know they're not out to get me, but they called our offices today to get money. Am I supposed to, in good conscience, urge the congregation. To continue funding a body with no accountability or transparency?
They practiced accountability. A committee was formed to investigate. A vote was taken. The majority ruled. But because the vote didn't go the way you wanted it to go it's not valid to you. Had the vote been 4-3 to dismiss Dr. Aguillard however, I guarantee you would have been more than satisfied with the outcome.
The lack of transparency makes it impossible to know whether or not there was any real accountability. The ONLY third party investigation confirmed the allegations.
And that same third party admitted that their findings were based on incomplete information and a limited time frame to investigate the matter fully.
Glad to read that he didn't resign just because he did not get his way. I've never been a big fan of the "I'll take my ball and go home" attitude.
Tacit approval to unethical behavior is no small thing.
Which is the opinion of the minority.
In a country where abortion is the law of the land, divorce rates are at or above 50%, we voted for 8 years of GWB and then 8 of BHO, forgive me if the "majority" argument doesn't settle anything for me.
Amen! A majority vote crucified Jesus. I guess those same people would love LC's president.
Yes...I'm sure every majority vote in history has been in error. We should just listen to the vocal minority in all instances right?
Don't be silly. It's not wrong to question this majority in particular because the decisive vote came from someone who stands to lose an awful lot if Aguillard was not exhonerated. You talk a lot about me being upset because things didn't go my way. I think you ignore quite a few pertinent facts because things did go your way.
1. I'm curious as to what you think Dr. Hankins stands to lose?
2.Also what "facts" do you think I'm ignoring? What truly proven facts have I ignored?
I'll agree that Hankins has more influence with the board than past directors, but who gave him the influence? LC has floundered before and it was not necessarily a reflection on previous directors.
All your facts are simply the number of people who voted in the minority. And while I respect Dr. Quarles tremendously I did not always agree with him nor do I believe him to be infallible at all times.
All that seems to be reflected in your previous post is your dislike for the way the voting went based on your personal beliefs about Dr. Aguillard's guilt/innocence. However, this is precisely the reason we have democratic votes in our churches and our convention. The vote was taken, the decision was made, and now it's time to move on.