I don't see anyone here personally attacking Dr. Patterson.
Rather I see legitimate questions about the nature of his leadership of an important institution. Are you saying he's above accountability? I don't see anyone here calling him names, libeling his character. I see honest questions.
Some people said, on this list, that he would rather build buildings than feed widows and orphans. Others called his actions for the innerancy of Scripture "Shenanigans" and that the trustees and him only believe the parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality. You implied that the motive of Patterson is not because of Biblical convictions but because he just wants to "use" it. Those are personal attacks, they are wrong.
How has the Tarrant Baptist Association condoned and endorsed homos3xual behavior?
They are allowing an openly homosexual church to remain in the association. A church that was kicked out/left both the SBC and left the liberal Texas State Convention over this very same issue. The doctrinal statement of the SWBTS and the Southern Baptist Convention is contrary to this stand... The association knows the stand of SWBTS and knows they are in violation of SWBTS and the Southern Baptist Convention's stated position on this issue.
Tarrant condones it by allowing it to continue. Liberals call upon the autonomy of the local church, but they take it too far to even say that an association cannot condemn another church nor remove fellowship (which has been a part of association life long before Southern Baptists were around, in America going back to the Philadelphia Baptist and Charleston Baptist Associations).
I think the homos3xual issue is a flashpoint that too many leaders in the convention are using to push their agendas. I remember watching a convention a couple of years ago (via online) and when an honest question was asked about an action a leader got up and reported it was because of homos3xuality. He then went on to imply that to question the decision was to endorse homos3xuality.
Are you inferring this is not a Biblical issue in which God clearly condemns in the Bible?
I have worked as a Pastor in the SBC, I have worked with liberals and conservatives. I know of no leader in the SBC who would say they fight for the Biblical understanding of marriage and sexuality to just advance their agenda. I have been in meetings where I think motives on other issues could be questioned, but I believe from my first hand knowledge, this is a conviction, not a mere agenda issue. This is clearly a Biblical issue. Was not Sodom destroyed because of this issue? Did not Paul note the depravity of man that God would give them up to more depravity to include homosexuality? Did not God say not to associate with the sexually immoral? This is a Biblical issue, not a political one.
If you disagree, you have a problem, not with Paige, but with the Bible itself.
I don't agree with this decision.
why? Do you think homosexuality is a sin? Do you think associations should allow churches to remain who openly allow homosexuality?
The Tarrant Baptist Association has had a welcomed presence on the Southwestern Campus for a long, long time. It has (until the last five years) been very amicable. When I was attending SWBTS I would go and visit people in the Associational office. Wonderful people.
I didn't say these people were bad people.. I never doubted they are wonderful people. SOme of the nicest people I know and have worked with are liberals that I would never allow my church to associate with. Roy Honeycut was one of the nicest men you can ever meet. I would have lunch on a regular basis with a liberal, whom I love and that I thought was a nice guy and whose company I enjoyed, but doctrinally I would not associate with their ministries.
Nice people are not always Biblical people. The goal is faithfulness to God's Word.
What rules have they broken? The homos3xual issue is a pretext that has little legs. Why, in the middle of a time where we Southern Baptists are losing our valued associational offices, is this one being ripped farther away from the students it could be serving?
This is exactly what I don't get about some peoples' arguments, they take an honest question and rip it out of context and make a threatening accusation. Are you saying Dr. Patterson's leadership is not up for accountability? As an alumnus, do I have the place to ask about where certain monies are being spent? Can we, as Cooperative Program supporting parishioners, ask honest questions about a monstrous chapel project that is far beyond what is actually needed?
I appreciate Dr. Patterson and his ministry. He is excitedly Gospel centered and a fairly well credentialed theologian. He is, without a doubt, a man who has benefited the Kingdom. Please don't say I haven't said these things.
They have violated the stated doctrine of the Southern Baptist Convention. I do believe Patterson should be accountable, and he should be accountable first to the approved Doctrine of the Southern Baptist Convention which is the Baptist Faith and Message. But I do not see what he is doing that is wrong. The association, as well should be accountable. If they allow someone to go against the stated doctrine of the Southern Baptist Convention and of SWBTS, which they agreed to adhere and honor, then should they not be kept accountable. They violated the SWBTS stated doctrinal position and therefore SWBTS does have the option to remove their association with the association.
