Not good news for SBC race relations

Discuss current news and trends taking place in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Moderator: William Thornton

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Dave Roberts » Mon Jul 30, 2012 6:22 pm

I had a director of missions in an association insist our church adopt the BFM2K. He had a problem. The church had never adopted the 1925 or 1963 versions. They had a confession in their organizing documents drawn from the New Hampshire Confession that predated the SBC, and they were not about to adopt a "johnny-come-lately" document. They understood what being a Baptist was all about.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7285
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Pressler's History not good news for SBC either

Postby Stephen Fox » Mon Jul 30, 2012 6:26 pm

I think one of Pressler's closest associates in the takeover, make that two, Albert Lee Smith and N.C. US Senator Jesse Helms thinking the strongest identity of Martin Luther King was the tag the John Birch Society put on him as a Communist.

Baylor should talk to Chandler Davidson, Jimmy Allen, Bill Moyers and Hardy Clemons to get some clear History on Pressler in the 50's and 60's and where he was on Civil Rights. It is my understanding from as far back as Carlyle Marney's stay at FBC Austin Pressler was a nay sayer and impediment; and like his Baptist energies his civil rights had too much in common with Criswell's 56 sermon to the Joint Session of the S.C. legislature.
"I'm the only sane {person} in here." Doyle Hargraves, Slingblade
"Midget, Broom; Helluva campaign". Political consultant, "Oh, Brother..."


http://www.foxofbama.blogspot.com or google asfoxseesit
Stephen Fox
 
Posts: 9154
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:29 pm

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Tom Parker » Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:14 pm

Dave:

Sadly I think some DOM's would love to attempt force every church in their associations adopt the 2000 BF&M. It matters little at all that it will bring about disunity, suspicion of sister churches, etc.

It is all about power and control.
Tom Parker
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Sandy » Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:17 am

Tom Parker wrote:From a CNN site:"A spokesman for the Southern Baptist executive committee told CNN the group would defer to local and state organizations for comment.

"We're not a top down organization," said Roger Oldham. "We're a bottom up organization. The congregation is the governing body."

So is this saying the 2000 BF&M from the top of the SBC does not have to be followed at the associational level?


Associations are independent and autonomous entities in the SBC. I've tended to think that most of them are dinosaurs with regard to their relevance and effectiveness as a ministry organization, just another layer of cooperation that eventually turns to bureaucracy. A few of them, especially in the deep South, are directed by a "missionary" that acts as if he's the king of the palace, and dictates to the churches. A few of them have pushed their way into the business of local churches by requiring the adoption of the BFM2000, or they'll kick out the churches that don't comply. In most cases, other associations are standing by waiting to welcome them and their missions money with open arms. The Association can adopt the BFM2000 if it wants to, and force anyone who serves as an employee or volunteer board member to agree with it, but in most cases, there is no way to force local churches to adopt it without simply threatening to boot them, and most associations aren't willing to part with that much cash.

The SBC and State Conventions, if they wanted to take the action of disfellowshipping this church for what it did, would have to wait until their annual meeting, and see if any messengers show up from there.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8863
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Dave Roberts » Tue Jul 31, 2012 5:40 am

Sandy wrote:Associations are independent and autonomous entities in the SBC. I've tended to think that most of them are dinosaurs with regard to their relevance and effectiveness as a ministry organization, just another layer of cooperation that eventually turns to bureaucracy. A few of them, especially in the deep South, are directed by a "missionary" that acts as if he's the king of the palace, and dictates to the churches. A few of them have pushed their way into the business of local churches by requiring the adoption of the BFM2000, or they'll kick out the churches that don't comply. In most cases, other associations are standing by waiting to welcome them and their missions money with open arms. The Association can adopt the BFM2000 if it wants to, and force anyone who serves as an employee or volunteer board member to agree with it, but in most cases, there is no way to force local churches to adopt it without simply threatening to boot them, and most associations aren't willing to part with that much cash.

The SBC and State Conventions, if they wanted to take the action of disfellowshipping this church for what it did, would have to wait until their annual meeting, and see if any messengers show up from there.


What amazes me is that associations, when a church calls a woman as pastor, have an immediate called meeting to discipline or expel that church. Also, state conventions have used their executive committee or mission board to act in interim. It's just a different standard being applied to this issue. I can document both of these if you need to know when and where.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7285
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Tom Parker » Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:38 am

Sandy:

You said:"The Association can adopt the BFM2000 if it wants to, and force anyone who serves as an employee or volunteer board member to agree with it, but in most cases, there is no way to force local churches to adopt it without simply threatening to boot them, and most associations aren't willing to part with that much cash."

For the purist associations they will expel a church and then through PR make up the difference from the remaining churches.

I fear SB associations will selectively expel more churches in the future.

Dave you are so right in that associations pick and choose the parts of the 2000 BF&M they will use to expel sister churches.

The CR lives on and on--it will never end.
Tom Parker
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Tim Bonney » Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:10 am

Tom Parker wrote:The CR lives on and on--it will never end.


I assume you mean the Fundamentalist takeover of the SBC Tom? I'm never going to buy into the historical revisionism of "Conservative Resurgence." Yes, the winners write the history. But those of us who were there remember it was a takover.
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5968
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Sandy » Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:41 am

Tim Bonney wrote:
Tom Parker wrote:The CR lives on and on--it will never end.


I assume you mean the Fundamentalist takeover of the SBC Tom? I'm never going to buy into the historical revisionism of "Conservative Resurgence." Yes, the winners write the history. But those of us who were there remember it was a takover.


Only those who sympathized and agreed with the perspectives of the denomination's leadership at the time call it a "takeover." It has become very clear, in the two decades since the leadership transition was completed, that an overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists found the new leadership to be more in step with their perspectives and position than those who were replaced. The end result of that confirms it was not, in any way, shape or form, a takeover. A major split in the denomination was the prediction, in reality, the structures and organizations created by the ousted leadership attracted the attention of somewhere in the neighborhood of 3% of the total number of SBC churches. Many of those who gave support to the newly established entities kept their Cooperative Program ties. Altogether, the number of churches that have left the SBC behind may number 300 nationwide, out of 45,000. Of those that remain in the SBC, you will find some that don't really care much for the current leadership (which seems to be a Baptist cultural distinctive when it comes to organizations) but you wouldn't find a thimble full of those who have more than just minor disagreement with the theological direction taken by the Conservative Resurgence. Such overwhelming affirmation makes it difficult to call what happened a "takeover."

That said, the "Conservative Resurgence" that was characterized by the leadership of Patterson and Pressler, and began with the election of Adrian Rogers in 1979 is slowly passing off the scene. Most of its leaders are well past 65, or even 70 in many cases, and those who are running around trying to get under the mantle, hoping it will fall on them, aren't being all that successful in their attempts. The SBC will continue to hold to the conservative theology coming out of the "inerrancy controversy" not because of who the leaders are, but because that's where most Southern Baptists are. I do not see anything ahead that will change that perspective.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8863
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Tom Parker » Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:57 am

Tim Bonney wrote:
Tom Parker wrote:The CR lives on and on--it will never end.


I assume you mean the Fundamentalist takeover of the SBC Tom? I'm never going to buy into the historical revisionism of "Conservative Resurgence." Yes, the winners write the history. But those of us who were there remember it was a takover.



Tim: It was nothing but a TAKEOVER and an ugly one at that. People can say it was over 'inerrancy" but that was just a very successful tool to take the convention over. IMO the SBC is only a ghost of what it once was with controversy swirling around in many SB churches because there are so many definitions of conservative and local and state and national elements constantly upset that their are still "liberals" in the SB.

The legacy of the takeover is what we have right now--note the current controversy related to Calvinism.

I will say it again the CR never ever ends.

To question anything in SB life is to cause one to be frowned upon. God never asked me to park my brain after I became a member of a SB church.

But Sandy, and I truly mean this, you can believe your version of the CR, but many of us have a totally different view.
Tom Parker
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Dave Roberts » Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:25 am

As I look at many SBC churches here in VA, outside of contributing through the SBC for missions, they largely treat the denomination as irrelevant. It is never mentioned in their preaching, their literature, hard to find on their websites, and hardly a concern in most of what they are doing. The SBC logo that used to grace many signs seems to be largely disappearing for many churches. I looked at the websites of several churches trying to find SBC links, and a number of them do not have any links at all to things SBC. They are operating within the SBC framework, but they are practicing a great deal more of their autonomy. That is one of the definite changes affecting churches today. People in the pews don't know if they are in sympathy with the denomination or not, because they never hear anything about it.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7285
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Tom Parker » Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:35 am

Dave Roberts wrote:As I look at many SBC churches here in VA, outside of contributing through the SBC for missions, they largely treat the denomination as irrelevant. It is never mentioned in their preaching, their literature, hard to find on their websites, and hardly a concern in most of what they are doing. The SBC logo that used to grace many signs seems to be largely disappearing for many churches. I looked at the websites of several churches trying to find SBC links, and a number of them do not have any links at all to things SBC. They are operating within the SBC framework, but they are practicing a great deal more of their autonomy. That is one of the definite changes affecting churches today. People in the pews don't know if they are in sympathy with the denomination or not, because they never hear anything about it.


Dave:

Is it not a shame that some of the churches and leaders of the Southern Baptist that are still in the Convention hide it from their people. As they say--What is up with that?
Tom Parker
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Sandy » Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:50 pm

Tom Parker wrote:But Sandy, and I truly mean this, you can believe your version of the CR, but many of us have a totally different view.


Here, on this message board, among a dozen moderate Baptists, that is true. Among those who have taken steps to distance themselves and their churches from convention politics since 1979 under that same banner, the view that you hold is prevalent. Comparatively few Baptists hold that perspective, however, given the attention, the books that have been written and the documentaries that have been done to try to convince people that it was a "takeover" and the entrenched, self-entitled, exclusive bureaucrats who ran the SBC prior to 1979, and rotated from board to board, committee to committee, office to office, were somehow pushed out by a small minority of "fundamentalists." What we have learned since 1979 is that there were many SBC leaders prior to 1979 whose view of scripture did not square with that of the vast, overwhelming majority of church members in SBC congregations.

Dave's description of churches that are low key when it comes to denominational affiliation in the SBC is typical of the way most Southern Baptist churches have handled denominational relations just about from the very beginning. The local church reigns supreme, the denomination provides educational resources, ministry support and missions delivery. But walk into 99.9% of the churches affiliated with the SBC today, ask them if the church holds to belief in a Bible that is "truth without any mixture of error" and fully authoritative and infallible and they will answer yes. Give them an honest perspective of the perspective of the leadership prior to 1979 and the leadership today, and the same percentage will choose the current leadership. The leadership is going to change, but that perspective isn't. And all the resurgence leaders did was point out the problem and raise up a constituency out of the apathy and ignorance that kept most SBC churches away from the annual conventions and made them a fief of the narrow, exclusive little oligarchy that rubber stamped everything the friends and family members they had hired for denominational jobs wanted to do.

Dave Roberts wrote:As I look at many SBC churches here in VA, outside of contributing through the SBC for missions, they largely treat the denomination as irrelevant. It is never mentioned in their preaching, their literature, hard to find on their websites, and hardly a concern in most of what they are doing. The SBC logo that used to grace many signs seems to be largely disappearing for many churches. I looked at the websites of several churches trying to find SBC links, and a number of them do not have any links at all to things SBC. They are operating within the SBC framework, but they are practicing a great deal more of their autonomy. That is one of the definite changes affecting churches today. People in the pews don't know if they are in sympathy with the denomination or not, because they never hear anything about it.


The same can be said for just about any church affiliated with any denomination these days. We are in a post-denominational age and identifying with a denomination on a church's website may stop people from looking further. When I was looking at Georgia CBF websites to attempt to guess which "uniquely CBF affiliated" church William may have attended a couple of weeks back, I found only one church that even mentioned its CBF ties. When we were visiting churches here a couple of years back, if we wanted to know whether a certain church was affiliated with a denomination or not, we generally had to ask, usually more than one person, before we could get an answer.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8863
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Tom Parker » Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:02 pm

Sandy:

You said:"What we have learned since 1979 is that there were many SBC leaders prior to 1979 whose view of scripture did not square with that of the vast, overwhelming majority of church members in SBC congregations."

That is absolutely not true what you wrote above! You besmirch the reputations of many good and faithful Christians who did not meet the definition rewritten for the CR and used in a nasty war to TAKEOVER THE CONVENTION. You can say what you wrote above a million times and it is never going to make it true.
Tom Parker
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Sandy » Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:40 pm

Tom Parker wrote:Sandy:

You said:"What we have learned since 1979 is that there were many SBC leaders prior to 1979 whose view of scripture did not square with that of the vast, overwhelming majority of church members in SBC congregations."

That is absolutely not true what you wrote above! You besmirch the reputations of many good and faithful Christians who did not meet the definition rewritten for the CR and used in a nasty war to TAKEOVER THE CONVENTION. You can say what you wrote above a million times and it is never going to make it true.


That's just not true, Tom. Many of the pre-1979 SBC leaders, especially those who came into leadership positions in the pseudo-Baptist entities they created in the years following, have affirmed a position on Biblical authority that is different not only from the position articulated by the conservative resurgence, but different from what most Southern Baptists in the pews believe. Otherwise, why attempt to split off and take people with you to set up some other entity or organization?

I do not see how a group could come in and "take over" something, and then continue to hold leadership over it for thirty two years without the broad support of the rest of the organization, or even just a simple majority of it. Southern Baptist churches and church members have had a very clear and distinct choice of where they are going to invest their missions money for more than three decades. If the CR was a "takeover," then it has been a takeover affirmed by more than 95% of the denomination's churches and church leaders. The opportunity to follow the pre-1979 leadership by exiting the SBC and joining with the organizations formed by former leaders has existed for all but about 10 of those years. Only a tiny fraction of churches have followed, and most of those have kept their options open with the SBC. So I draw two conclusions. 1. If the CR had been a "takeover", rather than a group of individuals who genuinely represented a chance for the SBC to turn back to its conservative roots, then it would not have been able to sustain holding on to the reins of power for as long as it has. 2. If the views of the pre-1979 convention leadership had truly been representative of where Southern Baptists were, and if those leaders had been as revered, respected and admired as their apologists seem to think they were, then they would have gathered a much larger group of followers and would have boldly broken their ties with the SBC, taking a significant number of churches and entities with them when they left to form a new denomination. Instead, they couldn't even get most of the churches that were willing to identify with them to leave the SBC behind.

Likewise, clear evidence that the Conservative Resurgence was not a "takeover" is evidenced in the fact that all but two state conventions have now overwhelmingly affirmed their full agreement and cooperation with the SBC. In Missouri, where moderates broke away to form a separate state convention, few churches followed. On the other hand, in the two state conventions that were considered to be "holdouts" opposed to the Conservative Resurgence, the alternative conservative state conventions that eventually formed in the wake of the controversy are well on their way to becoming the larger, and more powerful of the two state conventions in their state. It's hard to label something a takeover when the vast majority of voting members of the organization affirm the leadership for 32 years straight.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8863
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Haruo » Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:27 pm

It may depend on the pews one knows. I am inclined to think Sandy is right overall on this point (though "vast, overwhelming" may be a bit hyperbolic as a description of the pew view), even though I am not a Southern Baptist and surely hold views on the Scriptures that are inconsistent with those of the majority of Southern Baptists past or present. However, I'm sure there were many Southern Baptist churches where the pew consensus was on the moderate side. It looks to me like the big shift in the SBC has been towards increased pressure for doctrinal conformity and decreased tolerance of the outliers.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12252
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Tim Bonney » Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:53 pm

Sandy wrote:
Tim Bonney wrote:
Only those who sympathized and agreed with the perspectives of the denomination's leadership at the time call it a "takeover."


Really? Are you forgetting the late Jerry Falwell then? I'm no fan of Falwell. But he was never one to cover what he believed to be the truth with political spin and PC talk like "Conservative Resurgence." He called it a takover because that is what it was and what he supported.

But, It really doesn't matter outside of the SBC. Only those of us who remember a different day care now if the denomination was always run by fundamentalists or if it has only been run by fundamentalists for the last 30+ years. You have churches in SBC Associations kicked out for having women pastors in a flash and churches that make national news for promoting racism. It isn't going to matter if you spell it CR or Takeover, it all spells F U N D Y now.
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5968
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Tim Bonney » Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:58 pm

Haruo wrote:It may depend on the pews one knows. I am inclined to think Sandy is right overall on this point (though "vast, overwhelming" may be a bit hyperbolic as a description of the pew view), even though I am not a Southern Baptist and surely hold views on the Scriptures that are inconsistent with those of the majority of Southern Baptists past or present. However, I'm sure there were many Southern Baptist churches where the pew consensus was on the moderate side. It looks to me like the big shift in the SBC has been towards increased pressure for doctrinal conformity and decreased tolerance of the outliers.


If it were only doctrinal conformity it would have been less pernicious. But it was actually a political power grab where doctrine was used as a tool to gain support. And inerrancy was the great straw man. Frankly the Republicans and the Democrats have nothing on the SBC takeover crowd. It was political brinksmanship par excellant. And I don't mean that as a compliment.

I was at the Convention when microphones of messengers were shut off who had opposing views. I was there when messengers were bussed in to take a single vote on the Presidency and then bussed out, and I was there when fundamentalists in front of me had registered all their children as messengers and then voted their balllots.

That is where Sandy's pontifications always fail. Those of us who were eye witnesses to unChristian takover behavior can't swallow his CR because it doesn't jive with what we saw happen with our own eyes.

Sell the historical revision to folks in the SBC where there is no longer a hisorical society Sandy. I'm not taking the fake bait.
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5968
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Tom Parker » Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:19 am

Tim:

I agree with everything you just said. To try to whitewash the CR is to and I am trying to be nice--just shade the truth in a way that is just not the truth.

Many of us know the truth and Sandy is trying to sugarcoat a horrible event that ruined the SBC, many minister's lives etc.

There is only one way to be a good SB and that is buy in to the doctrinal uniformity and ask no questions.
Tom Parker
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Dave Roberts » Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:47 am

The formation of a second convention in VA was because the fundamentalists could never muster the votes to win elections. They were not running against liberal preachers, because half the presidents were lay people. When they could not control it, they refused to work any more with others for the sake of the kingdom and went off to form their own version.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7285
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Tom Parker » Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:03 am

Dave Roberts wrote:The formation of a second convention in VA was because the fundamentalists could never muster the votes to win elections. They were not running against liberal preachers, because half the presidents were lay people. When they could not control it, they refused to work any more with others for the sake of the kingdom and went off to form their own version.



Dave: I will forever ask who were all the "liberals" that needed to be removed from the SBC. And you correctly point out if they can not control something they go berserk and will not work any more with others for the sake of the kingdom. And just as in my neck of the woods folks will just go and start another church so it can be run their way.

It is maybe real obvious I am no fan of the CR, and the CR is still at work today in the SBC.
Tom Parker
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Ed Pettibone » Wed Aug 01, 2012 9:10 am

Tom Parker writes "Dave, I will forever ask who were all the "liberals" that needed to be removed from the SBC. And you correctly point out if they can not control something they go berserk and will not work any more with others for the sake of the kingdom. And just as in my neck of the woods folks will just go and start another church so it can be run their way.

It is maybe real obvious I am no fan of the CR, and the CR is still at work today in the SBC.

Tom Parker"

Ed: Tom, Since there was never a Conservative Resurgence in the SBC how can a CR be continuing?

To me as a former insider, now an outsider looking in, it seems more like the SBC is experiencing a family feud over how to market the new entity that they have created from the carcass of the pre 79 SBC, but they just don't have the talent to pull it together. And hey, that starting a new church to get you own way was not new with the takeover. If you recall the SBC was started with the same motive.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Tom Parker » Wed Aug 01, 2012 9:15 am

Ed:

I said:"Ed: Tom, Since there was never a Conservative Resurgence in the SBC how can a CR be continuing?"

I should have explained myself better. "They call it a CR and the way they went about the CR is IMO still continuing by demanding more and more their words--doctrinal uniformity.
Tom Parker
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Ed Pettibone » Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:05 am

Tom Parker wrote:Ed:

I said:"Ed: Tom, Since there was never a Conservative Resurgence in the SBC how can a CR be continuing?"

I should have explained myself better. "They call it a CR and the way they went about the CR is IMO still continuing by demanding more and more their words--doctrinal uniformity.


Ed: No Tom, I (Ed) said,"Since there was never a Conservative Resurgence in the SBC how can a CR be continuing?" The fact that "they" (folk who attempt to justify the takeover of the SBC") call it a CR does not make it a CR.

And I still contend that "To me ...it seems more like the SBC is experiencing a family feud over how to market the new entity that they have created from the carcass of the pre 79 SBC, but they just don't have the talent to pull it together."
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Tim Bonney » Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:30 am

What bothers me about CR is that "resurgence" implies something about the past of the denomination that isn't true. If they had wanted even to call it "Conservatives Save the SBC" I'd not agree with it but at least it wouldn't be going back into the past of the denomination and try to pretend something has happened that didn't happen.

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?
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5968
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Tom Parker » Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:08 pm

Ed: No Tom, I (Ed) said,"Since there was never a Conservative Resurgence in the SBC how can a CR be continuing?" The fact that "they" (folk who attempt to justify the takeover of the SBC") call it a CR does not make it a CR.

OK, Ed. I give up.
Tom Parker
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:34 pm

PreviousNext

Return to SBC News and Trends

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron