The Joshua Convergence

People who are insecure about what they believe do not like challenges. They like authority for themselves and a subservient attitude by their followers. People who enjoy truth and desire it, are not afraid to be challenged. They want truth not position and image. They are more interested in truth than in being challenged and proven wrong. People who are insecure do like to be proven wrong and despise challenges. They see it as an affront to their authority.

Pr. 3:3, "Do not let kindness and truth leave you; Bind them around your neck, Write them on the tablet of your heart. "

Pr. 23:23, "Buy truth, and do not sell it, Get wisdom and instruction and understanding. "

 

Still following these takes on the 'food fight' leads to this observation. How are Wade Burleson or Paige Patterson supposed to have any particular 'control' over anything we are talking about here. I'd suggest that the 'control' of or by Paige Patterson has been limited to the three institutions he has headed, in Criswell College, Southeastern Seminary and Southwestern Seminary as President, with perhaps some bit of control as a two term SBC President, whatever board or boards he serves and some as a pastor. LIkewise, Wade Burleson as a 'trustee'? on whatever board or boards he serves, and likewise as a pastor.

Despite any wannabe dreams of control by anyone, the SBC is messenger led, from local churches, in its annual meetings, and elects both now, and for its entire history, the Presidents of the Convention. Granted, the President has some degree of "executive control", but that is it, as Convention President. He or she has not one iota of "control" beyond that.

Influence or supporters is another story, but the 'control' of the SBC does not lie in the hands of Paige Paterson, Bobby Welch, Jack Graham, Morris Chapman, Wayne Dehoney, the late(s) W. A. Criswell, George Truett, E.Y.Mullins, James P. Boyce, P.H.Mell who served as SBC President for a total of eighteen years or William B. Johnson, the first convention president or anyone else among or in between those I've listed. Some of the above have been extremely 'conservative', and some not so much so. What difference does that make? We, the churches, through our messengers, elected each and every one of them. We also did not elect some who may or may not have sought the office.

The entities the SBC 'owns' are another story, somewhat. But any attempt to 'demonize' any from any POV is misplaced, at best. That is Baptist polity. Regardless of whether or not I happen to agree with any, my direct influence is limited to my local church, as a member. Any additional beyond that, as a messenger, and I have been one multiple times, is 'gravy', as we say in the country. And as a messenger, my vote counts for no more than any other mesenger. And since I serve on no boards, I have exactly zero there. So I still call this a food fight.

Ed

 

Double post

 

Compare what the people thought about men like Truett compared to the leaders today?

Sometime do a short study of the leaders of the SBC entities and see how many lead back to a few families and their relatives.

They may not have direct control. But influence and manipulation goes a long way.

Some years ago I was pastoring a church near a pastor who was the son in law of one of the former presidents of the SBC. The church died and a few months later that same pastor was in a large church in another state where the president had served as a pastor. He had only been pastoring a few years.

People tend to trust leaders in religious organizations way too much.

 

Great post!

Go get them kids before the fire of hell does . . .

 

This Joshua and Memphis stuff kind of opened my eyes to how much dislike there is between a few loudmouth members of each "group." Wiser folks from each of these camps would do well to run away from some of these folks.

I don't worry about a SBC "split." I worry about an SBC "splinter." We'll disintegrate over a half-dozen issues, if we turn our backs on the Lord.

I don't believe in character attacks. However, I also don't believe in shielding somebody completely from any and all criticism...lack of accountability has not served the Catholic church well (please, no one take from this that I'm accusing any particular SBC leader of covering up for crimes as did a few of the RCC muckety-mucks)...I believe that as we shine the light on our leaders, they'll do one of the following things:

-get used to light.
-fight us to turn the lights off (whether they could win is debatable).
-complain about the light, and eventually move to a darker location.

 

I believe I already said that influence and supporters of certain were different than control. And no, I do not discount manipulation, from all sides, actually. Yes, certain have much more influence than others.

And certainly George W. Truett, and W. A. Criswell come easily to mind, as would R. G. Lee, Adrian Rogers, and yes, Paige Patterson, to name a few recently. But I seriously doubt that any have any more influence than did P. H. Mell, James P. Boyce, or R. B. C. Howell, or William B. Johnson, to name a few, in their day. And I'm sure many of these 'wannabe' leaders today, had less total influence over the convention, with the exception of Paige Patterson, who does have several family ties, than did B. H. Carroll, L. R. Scarborough, A. T. Robertson, or John A. Broadus, to name a few more.

To name one again, P. H. Mell, one of the founding delegate/messengers of the SBC in 1845, was for a good deal of time the Moderator of the Georgia Association, the President of the Georgia Baptist Convention, the President of the SBC, the Chancellor of the Univ. of GA, a pastor of two churches, simultaneously, with often many of these occurring simultaneously. In fact, he was Moderator of the Association for 33 straight years, starting in 1855, President of the Georgia Baptist Convention for 31 straight years starting in 1857, and President of the SBC for 18 years of 25, save during some illnesses when he was too ill to attend, these gatherings, until his death in 1888. Oh yeah, one more thing - P. H. Mell had no college degree, yet he served at several institutions, including as President or Chancellor of one and declined multiple offers of that same office, at others. So, in short, perhaps one or more have greater influence in numbers, these days. But as to percentages, there is no contest compared to P.H. Mell, for example.

Ed