The Joshua Convergence

Not me. I just think of a business meeting.

After a church split.

In the rain.

 

umm...bpt,

• I have also been critical of the "memphis bunch." Read my posts.
• Why can't we have ONE "group?" Why must two meet at separate locations and lob verbal grenades?
• I'm one of those "ornery" Baptists. I believe personal insults are wrong...but if I need to criticize how one of them is leading, it's my perogative, and I ain't going to hell for it. We don't have popes here...I'm not kissing any ring, whether it's Pope Patterson or Pope Burleson (just using their names as examples. Don't get mad).
• Show me in scripture where an SBC leader has scriptural authority over another Baptist believer. That's unscriptural and unbaptist!!! My pastor has scriptural authority over me...but Dr. Joe Baptistguy who serves on the IMB board of trustees or Execution Committee does not...unless he's my pastor (which he ain't).

It's my hope that those who wish to wage war in the SBC over non-issues will meet with the same disappointment as you have met with in this thread. I am energized that many Baptists like myself are wanting to avoid a fight, if the fight is over non-essentials.

And everything ain't essential.

 

Frankly, who cares if you are offended or not. Offense is your trademark.

 

Sure. They have the privilege of expressing their opinions and concerns. But they have been critical of others expressing their opinions and concerns. I think there should be a free exchange of ideas, where the secrecy of the convention agency meetings, politics and manipulations are open for anyone to see.

I don’t think people are really getting upset that others are speaking out. I think they are upset by what they are saying and insinuating.

So the “dissenters” are responding to the things they had to say. What’s the problem?

Yep. I’ve been on both sides in this conflict so I have a pretty good understanding and perspective on the whole mess.

Yes, I can tell from your previous major post in this topic. You clearly did not know what the issues were and what went on in the convention before and during the conflict. I noticed you did not even bother responding to my post correcting and challenging your inaccurate rehash of recent SBC history.

But it would be helpful to actually base your understanding and arguments regarding this situation on truth. The SBC did not arrive at this place in a vacuum. What is happening now is directly related to what started in the 1970s... except Patterson & Co are in control instead of a slightly broader group of denominational leaders. This battle is about two things: Burleson and the bloggers seem to be pushing for integrity in the Convention, and Patterson & Co (including the Joshua Convergence) are pushing for uniformity and maintaining control.

It was wrong for the denominational leaders of the 1960s and 1970s to withhold power and not accept correction from the more fundamental side of the Convention. It is just as wrong for the current Convention powerbrokers to play their political games and stack the boards and agencies with family members, friends and politically-reliable operatives that get their marching orders from certain leaders.

Some adjustment was needed, but you don’t seem to have a handle on what really happened.

Calls for integrity do not serve the SBC well? Nonsense. It is the best thing for the SBC. Now I will admit that following the Convention’s own rules (not to mention the biblical ethics that Convention leaders claim to embrace) will have a detrimental effect on the amount of power that certain individuals wield, but that’s a good thing.

I’ve been following the blogs pretty closely, and I haven’t seen many personal attacks (unless you mean that persons who are clearly doing wrong are being mentioned by name) by those bloggers.

 

Ah, but hence lies the crux of the issue:

• Even if Patterson is dead on 100% of the time...if he doesn't speak the truth in love, then his efforts are in vain (1 Corinthians 13).
• How is it that Patterson has so much "magnitude?" Why do you insist on placing him on a higher pedestal than other men and women of God? His office does not make him above correction. You keep insinuating that it does. I'd rather God define what constitutes "magnitude" than an SBC politician of any stripe.
• Your definition of "respect" sounds pretty interesting. You criticize some of the bloggers--also men of God--but object when Patterson is criticized. What do you mean by "respect?" Does it mean...
  -Don't criticize, even if the behavior or attitude is worthy of it?
  -That anyone who holds his office should not be criticized?
  -Someone who is 95% right should be given a "free pass" on issues of attitude or demeanor? Your insistence of equating "respect" with "don't criticize" might work in Rome, but I doubt many SBC folk will agree with it too heartily.

And I must go back to a previous quote of yours:

If I were going to abide by your admonitions, would I not be compelled to reply...

"Try removing the plank from your own eye before you even think about approaching someone of the magnitude of Burleson (or other Memphis folks). You would do well to accomplish 1/10th of what he has in his lifetime. Try and show some more respect."

However, I'm consistent: I wouldn't use the above statement. I'll admonish either "side" if I see it's needed. You aren't being consistent: you get on to anyone who criticizes Patterson et al, but you freely offer blanket criticism of the "memphis group."

Once again...I realize you love the SBC, and i have no doubt you love the Lord. But I think you have a blind spot in this area.

Concluding statement, repeated from earlier: Why can't we have ONE "group?" Why must two meet at separate locations and lob verbal grenades?

I hope the above question will be scrawled over every square inch of whatever facility the SBC meets in next convention.

 

Rbells post answers your fallacious argument in an excellent manner. Your quote above is an autobiography.

 

Yes you are.

Great advice. Why dont you take it?

Maybe that is because everyone is of equal importance. In Christ, there is no Jew or Gentile. And by the way, we live in a country where all are given an equal chance. Maybe if a Christian loves his neighbor as himself he looks at everyone equal. If you want pedestal worship, take a trip to the Vatican and bow before the pope.

 

Then it would be a good time to learn the historical background of this conflict before embracing a position in the current disagreement. They are directly related to each other.

I don’t mean to be condescending or repugnant, but you have thrown out a lot of alleged justifications for your position that demonstrates you are not really in command of the facts.

If you start with bad information, you will reach false conclusions. That’s why I have confronted you about it.

I certainly have a bias (you do too), but I am fairly objective about the current state of the Convention because I am no longer part of it. I certainly care what happens to it, but I don’t see myself rejoining it even if it somehow comes back in line with what I believe.

I do care about the people who are involved in this struggle, and I’m also very concerned about how the Convention represents Christ. What the SBC does reflects on all Baptists (and other Christians), so I want to point in the direction of truth for all who are involved.

Well you can’t neatly separate the “old conflict” from the new one without completely misunderstanding it. And you can’t separate your opinion of Paige Patterson and his leadership without taking into account what he has stood for and what he has done for the last 30 years. As far as I know he has not publicly repented for any of his previous actions, so it is fair to assume that he still holds and practices the same views, attitudes and methodology that he has practiced for the last 30 years.

Don’t you think that is fair?

For what it is worth, I came into the mainstream of Convention life under the mentorship of the takeover movement. I was close friends with a person who gathered information about my religion professors that might sound incriminating so that Paige Patterson could use it for his purposes. I was even asked to help out. I refused, since I knew that the stuff they were gathering was perfectly innocent and out-of-context. I also sat in on a couple of meetings with Ronnie Floyd (a former pastor) to work up a plan to get rid of the “liberals” at my university. The problem with the plan was that the two professors they were talking about were not liberals at all, they just didn’t go along with the takeover movement. I also noticed that many of the takeover leaders had a very weak theology that seemed to center around a few social/convention issues, but for the most part, ignored much of the teaching of Jesus. I also had an issue with all of the dishonesty and underhanded tactics I experienced. How could you claim to “believe the Bible” and condone the things that they did?

But at the same time, I found that many “moderates” also had a very weak theology. I didn’t fit in very well with them either because they seemed to be just the other side of the same coin regarding a few key convention/social issues. And they had also adopted some of the same strategies as the takeover group and were starting to dabble in the same character assassination I deplored on the takeover side.

I wish he was, but I don’t really think so.

But that’s the real issue. Just because Patterson “loves the Lord,” should not mean that we excuse meanness. The man has shown an incredible amount of meanness in his dealings over the years. Should we be “grateful” for that? Should we respect his meanness?

If someone confronts him for his meanness, hypocrisy, dishonesty or power issues, should we complain about his critics?

When did Patterson, or any other leader in the SBC, rise above accountability?

I don’t know Patterson personally, although he lives less than two miles from my home. However, I do know a number of people, including some of the ones who were part of the original takeover movement, who know him very well. I have also followed what he has publicly said and done, so I do have some basis to evaluate his actions, and therefore, his character. He has demonstrated over and over again a lack of love for his brothers and sisters in Christ. How can a person of Christian character regularly exhibit meanness? Meanness comes from a hardened heart. How can a man claim to love God and hate his brother or sister in Christ? He can’t. He may be self-deceived, but scripture makes it very clear in 1 John.

I don’t think I have a plank in my eye about this issue. I have more sympathy toward the “moderate” side than the takeover side, but there has been plenty of wrong on both sides of the “old conflict.” I have to judge the fruit of his character, not the results of his politicization of the Convention. Jesus teaches us that we will know them by their fruit. Meanness is not part of the fruit of the Spirit.

I do not want to accomplish what he has done. I would shudder in my boots before God if I was responsible for that.

I have enough of my own evil and failures to answer for.

Respect for meanness? I don’t think so. Followers of Jesus must confront each other so we can help each other in our journey of Christ-likeness.

 

I'm glad to hear. I have nothing against you either.

 

BPT,

I respect all ministers of the Gospel. But I do not respect one over another based on his office, title, or on some elusive ideas of "paid dues." How would it be that Mr. Patterson has "paid" more "dues" than a local pastor here who retired after 40 years faithfully serving his country church here? Why should a "legendary figure" receive more respect than another man of God? If we start defining "respect" that we give folks based on "dues," then God help us all.

You have just leveled the greivous accusation at me of having a biblical attitude. My attitude toward SBC leaders must be as follows: I must show them the attitude that Jesus would have me show any other believer. I'm already doing that. There IS NO "pecking order" as you have described for Southern Baptist rank and file. The folks we put in these positions of leadership are caretakers for resources we pool together. They of course should be godly and responsible. But they are not in place to tell Baptists what to do. That's where the "priesthood of the believer" thing comes in.

One concession: If I am an IMB or NAMB employee, or work at a Convention office, there's a different dynamic. There is at that point an employer/employee relationship, and a "pecking order" comes into play. But until we move our "HQ" from Nashville to Rome, local church autonomy will be a defining principle for the SBC.

You keep putting words in my mouth. I am a smart-aleck and like to cut up, but I've not been vicious or mean. I've criticized both "sides." You seem to not remember that. Most of all, I've criticized that there are "sides" at all. That's the problem now...there are "sides," and there's no need for "sides."

Well said...although remember...the SBC is not a structure of authority for churches and individual baptists, so the scripture you alluded to doesn't go as far as you wish it might. But since we're referencing Scripture...

Paige Patterson, Wade Burleson, and any other SBC personality deserves the same respect as the Baptist pastor who retired last week near us after 40 years of ministry. No more. And they also deserve the same correction that I as a minister would get for any public lapse.

When our convention begins to beatify folks because of their position, or "dues paid" then we've missed the boat.

I'm probably late on my "dues." I sure am glad Jesus paid it all.

 

Wow. I'm not asking you to agree with me...but for you to categorize my defense of impartiality and priesthood of the believer as "dribble" (I think you meant "drivel")...

Wow.

I don't know what to say to that at all.

 

I don’t know what that means. That doesn’t sound like a compliment...

Well you haven’t exactly demonstrated anything that might make me change my mind.

There was some need for change, but I believe it was done in the wrong way.

Sure, I’ve been personally attacked more than a few times. I’ve also had a number of friends and church family specifically and falsely attacked by the Pressler/Patterson coalition. And the SBC still takes shots at folks like me through Baptist Press. Folks like Russ Moore still distort the facts and insinuate lies about the CBF. Although I’m not a fan of the CBF, I still know the truth from the lies.

These so-called “reformers” need to do their work in the Spirit of Christ and with truth, not political tactics, backroom meetings and smear campaigns.

Of course it wasn’t. It was not God’s doing and there have been many casualties on both sides.

That smacks of the worst of situational ethics. It was not necessary. Instead of mounting a political campaign, Patterson and Pressler could have mounted a spiritual campaign of renewal and changing of hearts. God would have certainly blessed that.

And all of the Irish of the world thank you for that characterization.

Furthermore, his father, T.A. Patterson, was the pastor of First Baptist Church of Beaumont, Texas for many years and was a revered Baptist in Texas. I grew up in a small town outside Beaumont and heard many fine anecdotes about his father’s even temper and warm generous character. Paige Patterson is a very different person than his father, so you can’t blame his ethnic heritage or his upbringing for his current character.

I don’t fear a mere man. If I stand with Christ and on truth, I have nothing to fear. Frankly, he is not my enemy. He claims to be a brother in Christ, so I will do whatever I can for his redemption.

I have heard that from his friends. And again, how does this demonstrate Christian character?