The Joshua Convergence

[rbell]

Those are good.

Joshua Convergence makes me think of preachers at a potluck.

Not me. I just think of a business meeting.

After a church split.

In the rain.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

I want everyone to read the posts on this thread alone. The vitriolic nature of the tone of some of you guys in here is representative of the Memphis group. Those who represent the Lord are called to be above that kind of negative inflammatory condescending tone expressed by you guys. Try and understand that I am not offended by your protest but the nature of your tone. As far as I can see, the Joshua Convergence must have hit a few of you between the eyes based on the way you have reacted to the meeting. I personally wish that some in here and in the Memphis group would let go of their animosity toward the leaders of the SBC, it is sad, truly sad.

 

[rbell]

I want everyone to read the posts on this thread alone. The vitriolic nature of the tone of some of you guys in here is representative of the Memphis group. Those who represent the Lord are called to be above that kind of negative inflammatory condescending tone expressed by you guys. Try and understand that I am not offended by your protest but the nature of your tone. As far as I can see, the Joshua Convergence must have hit a few of you between the eyes based on the way you have reacted to the meeting. I personally wish that some in here and in the Memphis group would let go of their animosity toward the leaders of the SBC, it is sad, truly sad.

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.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

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.

You have my respect for at least being authentic. However, you ask what I consider to be an important question, that is, what role does the SBC leadership have in the life of the church? This thread is not primarily intended to go in that direction but I think it is a question worth pursuing. I will post a new thread that goes in that direction.

 

[saturneptune]

I want everyone to read the posts on this thread alone. The vitriolic nature of the tone of some of you guys in here is representative of the Memphis group. Those who represent the Lord are called to be above that kind of negative inflammatory condescending tone expressed by you guys. Try and understand that I am not offended by your protest but the nature of your tone. As far as I can see, the Joshua Convergence must have hit a few of you between the eyes based on the way you have reacted to the meeting. I personally wish that some in here and in the Memphis group would let go of their animosity toward the leaders of the SBC, it is sad, truly sad.

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

 

[Baptist Believer]

I can see that some of you in here are very passionate about your service to the Lord, so are the men who presented at the Joshua Convergence. Are they warranted in there attempt to speak out?

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.

What I find ironic is that we often appeal to the priesthood of the believer in our attempts to speak out against the SBC, but when a group of young leaders speak out in favor of the leadership we spurn their attempts and discourage future such engagements.

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.

Basically, these guys and others were not content to stand idly by and watch their mentors get ripped to shreds by the new voice of the bloggers. Their point in all this is theological and not political. As such I think they call into question the methods and the tone of the dissenters.

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

Some of you in here are probably old farts who went through the first conflict in the convention.

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

I am younger than most of those who presented at the Joshua Convergence.

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.

I can tell you that while some in here seem to want to rehash the old wars, I do not.

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.

I am convinced that the adjustments in the SBC were necessary back in the day.

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

I am also convinced that we are not well served by the dissenters that are blogging.

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.

If there are problems in the SBC at what ever level then there is a way to go about addressing those needed changes that does not involve widespread open personal attacks against those in responsibility.

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.

The evidence of the fruits of the Spirit are evident as are the works of the flesh.

Yes they are. A person does what they actually believe, not necessarily what they say they believe.

I can tell you that I know Dr. Patterson very well. He is not perfect but his case is made more effective by his genuine display of a love for the Lord and his passion about personal evangelism.

But does he love his brothers and sisters in Christ? Anyone who claims they love God, but hates their brother, is a liar and the truth is not in them. Dr. Patterson has a VERY LONG history of false allegations, innuendo, and slander against many of his brothers and sisters in Christ that goes back more than 30 years. That fact alone tells me quite a bit about the man, no matter if he is concerned about personal evangelism.

If you want evidence of a change since the conservatives have gained control, look no further than SEBTS. It was the most liberal seminary in evangelical Christianity much less Baptist identity.

Do you have an objective source for that opinion? There were certainly some problems are Southeastern and Southern, but your statement sounds rather extreme.

It was financially on the brink of collapse.

I think it was on the brink of collapse in the immediate aftermath of the takeover of that institution. Without most of the faculty and student body, the school is going to suffer.

Patterson brought about such a sweeping turn around that it can be described as nothing short of miraculous.

Well Patterson has a cult of personality around him that draws like-minded people. At the time, Southeastern Seminary became a place where you knew you would get a certain brand of training from Patterson’s perspective, so it is not surprising that many seminary-bound folks who wanted to rally around Patterson would go there. It had the potential of being very good for climbing the career ladder in a Patterson-dominated convention.

If you do not believe that it is important that we tote the line doctrinally and if your view becomes popular within the convention, then were doomed to repeat our past mistakes.

That’s a strange idea... Integrity in our dealings with each other will doom the SBC?

Every other mainline denomination within the SBC started off as an evangelical and biblically conservative community. All but the SBC went the way of liberalism.

Some are quite liberal, but there are a number that are moderate... with individual members and churches that run the gamut from liberal to extremely conservative. There are also a number of Baptist groups that are more “conservative” than the SBC.

The SBC was all but gone...

That’s not even close to being true. I don’t think even Patterson would claim that. Their official position is along the lines of “there were trends in the SBC that showed the drift toward liberalism, and we had to stop it and reverse the course before it was too late.”

It is clear that you really don’t have a handle on this at all.

...and those who stood up for Jesus back in the day should be honored not trashed, because we owe our current position to biblical integrity to them.

Are they above correction? And what good is “biblical integrity” if we don’t actually apply the biblical ethic to our lives and relationships with others?

You know that the evil one has a very strong doctrine of scripture (i.e. “biblical integrity”), but he is opposed to the work of God.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

I said I was young, I did not say that I do not have an awareness of the what historically took place. Frankly, your tone is rather condescending and repugnant. You have an obvious bias that does not allow you to remain objective about the current state of affairs in the convention. My point in bringing up the fact that I am young is to allow you to understand that I am not emotionally attached to the old conflict. I came into the convention under the tutelage of moderates. I slowly began to ask questions about the biblical integrity of one issue after another, women's role in ministry, authority of Scripture, methodology, etc. In each case I found that my heart was aligned with the conservative group. So whether or not you like it, Patterson is dead on 95% of the time when it comes to the most important issues facing our day. He is abrasive at times and even down right mean at others, but at the end of the day, the man loves the Lord. Anyone who knows him personally can vouch for his true Christian character. Try removing the plank from your own eye before you even think about approaching someone of the magnitude of Patterson. You would do well to accomplish 1/10th of what he has in his lifetime. Try and show some more respect.

 

[rbell]

So whether or not you like it, Patterson is dead on 95% of the time when it comes to the most important issues facing our day. He is abrasive at times and even down right mean at others, but at the end of the day, the man loves the Lord. Anyone who knows him personally can vouch for his true Christian character. Try removing the plank from your own eye before you even think about approaching someone of the magnitude of Patterson. You would do well to accomplish 1/10th of what he has in his lifetime. Try and show some more respect.

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:

The vitriolic nature of the tone of some of you guys in here is representative of the Memphis group.

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.

 

[saturneptune]

Frankly, your tone is rather condescending and repugnant.

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

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

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.

Mr. Bell,

I am not being inconsistent when I allow for biblical language to influence my rebuke of another. The Bible tells us as much, to remove the plank from our own eye before we pass judgment on another. You are clearly an idealist and would like to attribute equal importance to all people. That simply is not the case. On an ontological level we are all equal, but in role and function there is a clear pecking order. The Bible commands us to respect every human institution. The SBC is at least an institution that is worthy of respect. Generally speaking those who advance to leadership in the SBC are proven outstanding leaders at the local church level. Inasmuch, they demand our respect because they have paid their dues. Wade has been the Pres. of a state convention and he has had some opportunities come his way, and for that I would honor him personally. I would respectfully disagree with his politics. However, he is not the legendary figure that of Patterson. There is no equal in influence and contribution in the modern era to that of Patterson. So please feel free to disagree with the man all you want, but be nice. No matter what the other side has done, two wrongs do not make a right...

 

[saturneptune]

I am not being inconsistent when I allow for biblical language to influence my rebuke of another.

Yes you are.

The Bible tells us as much, to remove the plank from our own eye before we pass judgment on another

Great advice. Why dont you take it?

You are clearly an idealist and would like to attribute equal importance to all people.

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.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I said I was young, I did not say that I do not have an awareness of the what historically took place.

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.

Frankly, your tone is rather condescending and repugnant.

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.

You have an obvious bias that does not allow you to remain objective about the current state of affairs in the convention.

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.

My point in bringing up the fact that I am young is to allow you to understand that I am not emotionally attached to the old conflict.

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?

I came into the convention under the tutelage of moderates. I slowly began to ask questions about the biblical integrity of one issue after another, women's role in ministry, authority of Scripture, methodology, etc. In each case I found that my heart was aligned with the conservative group.

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.

So whether or not you like it, Patterson is dead on 95% of the time when it comes to the most important issues facing our day.

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

He is abrasive at times and even down right mean at others, but at the end of the day, the man loves the Lord.

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?

Anyone who knows him personally can vouch for his true Christian character.

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.

Try removing the plank from your own eye before you even think about approaching someone of the magnitude of Patterson.

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.

You would do well to accomplish 1/10th of what he has in his lifetime.

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.

Try and show some more respect.

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.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

Baptist Believer guy, I like you.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Baptist Believer guy, I like you.

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

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

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

I can see you are a salty dog... and I can also see there is no use is trying to change your mind, so that settles that.

I disagree with your take, and do not wish to hash out all the details of why I am pro-SBC, or what constituted the need for change back in the day. I have done my homework, and feel that there was a need for change. You have obviously been hurt by the reformers of the SBC. It was not a pretty affair on either side of the isle. I regret the whole thing had to take place, but in principle I have no doubt it was necessary.

BTW, Patterson is Irish, that should tell you alot about him in terms of his inability to admit he is wrong, or his tendency toward meanness. But let me just say this one thing, if you are an enemy of Patterson, watch out, but Lord help you if you are his friend. I honestly would rather be an enemy sometimes. He places rough.

 

[rbell]

You are clearly an idealist and would like to attribute equal importance to all people. That simply is not the case. On an ontological level we are all equal, but in role and function there is a clear pecking order. The Bible commands us to respect every human institution. The SBC is at least an institution that is worthy of respect. Generally speaking those who advance to leadership in the SBC are proven outstanding leaders at the local church level. Inasmuch, they demand our respect because they have paid their dues. Wade has been the Pres. of a state convention and he has had some opportunities come his way, and for that I would honor him personally. I would respectfully disagree with his politics. However, he is not the legendary figure that of Patterson. There is no equal in influence and contribution in the modern era to that of Patterson. So please feel free to disagree with the man all you want, but be nice. No matter what the other side has done, two wrongs do not make a right...

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 are clearly an idealist and would like to attribute equal importance to all people. That simply is not the case. On an ontological level we are all equal, but in role and function there is a clear pecking order.

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."

The Bible commands us to respect every human institution.

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...

James 2:1 My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism.

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.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

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.

I like that last statement. That is good stuff. Now the rest of what you said is mostly dribble...

 

[rbell]

I like that last statement. That is good stuff. Now the rest of what you said is mostly dribble...

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.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I can see you are a salty dog...

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

...and I can also see there is no use is trying to change your mind, so that settles that.

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

I disagree with your take, and do not wish to hash out all the details of why I am pro-SBC, or what constituted the need for change back in the day. I have done my homework, and feel that there was a need for change.

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

You have obviously been hurt by the reformers of the SBC.

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.

It was not a pretty affair on either side of the isle.

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

I regret the whole thing had to take place, but in principle I have no doubt it was necessary.

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.

BTW, Patterson is Irish, that should tell you alot about him in terms of his inability to admit he is wrong, or his tendency toward meanness.

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.

But let me just say this one thing, if you are an enemy of Patterson, watch out...

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.

...but Lord help you if you are his friend. I honestly would rather be an enemy sometimes. He places rough.

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

 

[rsr]

You are clearly an idealist and would like to attribute equal importance to all people. That simply is not the case. On an ontological level we are all equal, but in role and function there is a clear pecking order.

And nowhere will you find in the Bible the exact deference due to an SBC president. Ain't there.

The Bible commands us to respect every human institution.

Surely you misspoke there. The Bible does not require respect of every human institution. Chapter and verse, please.

The SBC is at least an institution that is worthy of respect.

Them that give repect get respect, generally speaking.

Generally speaking those who advance to leadership in the SBC are proven outstanding leaders at the local church level. Inasmuch, they demand our respect because they have paid their dues.

Ever heard of the Peter Principle? Outstanding leadership at the local level does not necessarily mean "success" at the SBC level.