Not good news for SBC race relations

[Tom Parker]

Tim:

You said:

"Even a takeover can be justified if you can convince people you are taking over for the sake of the truth etc. But how does anyone justify re-writing history to suit them? What about honesty? Integrity?"

They have rewritten the history to suit them--they are the good guys and everyone else were the dreaded--"liberals."

What honesty--what integrity on the part of these folks--They believe they are right in everything they do.
If you are one of them and take a contrarian view you must go.

[Sandy]

[Dave Roberts]

Sandy, why is there such disinterest in the SBC Annual Meetings these days that only 8,000 even show up? In the pre-1979 days, unless the convention went to the West Coast, there were at least double that number at most meetings. Doesn't that reflect that the things happening there really don't matter to most of the churches?

[Tom Parker]

[Tim Bonney]

Tom,

I'm not defending the SBC. But many Christian denominations never have a national convention where thousands of messenger/delegates show up. It is a bit unique to Baptists. United Methodists have 11,000,000 members and about 1,000 delegatees make up General Conference. The Presbyterians also have delegate system from prebysteries which makes for a fairly large meeting but nothing like the size of the SBC.

But I honestly view a delegate system as potentially more representative because you do get an even number of delegates based on membership and geography. In the SBC and other Baptist groups it is who can afford to attend that determines representation. It is largely money and not membership.

[Tom Parker]

Tim:

You said:" In the SBC and other Baptist groups it is who can afford to attend that determines representation. It is largely money and not membership."

I certainly agree with what you wrote above. My High School English teachers would all tell you I do not write very well but what I was trying to say is that where there were issues at the SBC that votes were 55% to 45% it just seems to me there was more representation than now when there would rarely be a 55 to 45% vote on a major issue.

But back to the main point--I do not think the person in the pews in SB lives cares much about the Association, State, or National organizations. They many times are left totally in the dark about the politics of these groups.

SB churches are curious.

[Tim Bonney]

Tom I don't think most lay people are that tuned into what is happening in their denomination outside of the local church. I think that applies both to Methodists and Baptists (SBC and ABC from my experience.) But what they don't realize is that those decisions will effect their church eventually.

For example in the SBC if seminaries change the theology they are teaching that will eventually trickle down to the local church in that the theology of pastors they can find to call may be different.

In the UMC if the national body (General Conference) changes policies about clergy an appointments that will effect who a UM church gets for a pastor eventually.

So it may take time and it may at times be subtle or slow to see but the denomination has an effect on your church. So it pays to be interested in what is decided in the long run.

[Sandy]

[Dave Roberts]

[Tom Parker]

Dave Roberts:

In the big scheme of things in SB life, missions and evangelism have been pushed far down the priority list IMO.

Oh, I know there is the Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong Offering, but I always get the impression the higher ups do not know how to promote Lottie--especially the part about her preaching on the missions field--that just does not fit in very neatly with the 2000 BF&M.

[Sandy]

[Tom Parker]

Sandy:

Wow! You are certainly entitled to your believes about the CR, but I find it amazing that every chance you get you try to change the subject to the CBF--Why?

[Dave Roberts]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Sandy]

Oh, Dave and Tom, you both know better than that. CBF has had noting else to do except to continue to reference the conservative resurgence and what the SBC is doing wrong since it was founded. From within comes criticism of what the SBC is doing, and what is happening in the SBC that isn't the way they'd have done it if they were in charge. It's been thirty two years since Adrian Rogers was first elected president of the SBC, beginning the process of replacing an entrenched, narrow, exclusive, elitist denominational bureaucracy that was completely out of touch with the people in the churches. The denomination has overwhelmingly affirmed the direction taken by the new leadership at every level. So when stuff like the "Calvinism controversy" or this particular incident of racism in an SBC church comes up, it gets more attention than it is due. I'm just drawing some comparisons.

There's as much whining by a clearly identifiable segment of CBF'ers over the fact that the fellowship has a policy that prohibits the hiring of gays and lesbians as there is grumbling in the SBC over Calvinism. And the reaction to this incident in Mississippi from across the SBC has been swift, powerful, and universally condemning of it. The SBC just doesn't fit the stereotype of backward, provincial, raving "fundamentalists" and that seems to bother some folks.

Fundamentalist attitudes and exclusion can exist on the left as well. On occasion, it needs to be pointed out.

[Tom Parker]

Dave Roberts:

You said:"The SBC has to have some reason to exist, so it's take aim at CBF at every opportunity. Fundamentalism must have an enemies list."

The TAKEOVER could not have taken place without creating these fictitious enemies of the "liberals" and now that they are gone they surely are not going to blame themselves for the current mess of the SBC so the CBF and its members have to be the enemy.

I really do wonder how these christian men sleep at night knowing what they did in destroying the ministries of other christian men by turning them into enemies and what fear they must live with knowing that they to will be turned out if they are found to be on the wrong side of whatever is next.--Currently it is Calvinist--they are the current target.

These CR tactics continue to this very day.

[Tom Parker]

Sandy:

In your last post here you did it again. Your view of the whole CR is so slanted that it just not represent reality.

That you can support fully the CR is beyond me.

It was and will forever be a stain on the SBC!

[Sandy]

[Tom Parker]

Sandy:

You said:"But you can't "take over" something if it belongs to someone else and it has widespread support. It is clear that what transpired beginning in 1979 in the SBC wasn't a takeover, but a conservative restoration of a denomination to its roots."

That is pure baloney!! It was a TAKEOVER IN EVERY WAY!! And the SBC is dying a slow death every day because of it.

But you are certainly entitled to your opinion and so am I.

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

[Haruo]

"Vast" is a relative term. Like the definition of a "landslide" in politics, followed in the presidential case by nitpicking over popular vs. electoral college margins.

[Tim Bonney]

[Tom Parker]

Tim:

You said:"So in most denominations never is the majority of the membership giving any kind of conscience approval to whom their denominational leaders are. Most have never even thought about it."

Heads up--I am going to be snarky-- some, IMO, associational Dom, BSC Presidents and some SBC leaders do a great job of stoking needless fires--got to keep them women pastors out--have to have innerancy--can't drink at all, etc.

[Dave Roberts]

Sandy, my question is, "Did you read the original writings of those accused of liberalism or only the excerpted quotes of men like William Hull, Dale Moody, Glenn Hinson, John Eddins, Wayne Oates, and others?" It makes a difference to read people in context. Just wonder how many of them you read????