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 Tom Parker » Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:13 pm

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.
Tom Parker
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Sandy » Wed Aug 01, 2012 9:30 pm

Tim Bonney wrote:
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.


I was there as well. Nothing happened in 1979 that hadn't happened at SBC meetings for decades before, except that the Patterson-Pressler group had motivated messengers to come from churches that had stopped sending them years before because the convention's narrow, exclusive and heavy handed oligarchy had set its own agenda and expected that the messengers who did show up would rubber stamp it. The convention has always rented busses to run circuit routes between the hotels and the convention hall, and messengers have always loaded up the hall for the presidential votes and then left during the boring business sessions. I myself rode a bus to the convention hall, from a designated parking area. The committee on convention business, like virtually every other SBC committee, was controlled by a majority of moderates until 1989. So if microphones of opposing views got cut off, plenty of moderate Baptists on the committee could have complained about it. A moderate registration secretary, Lee Porter, certified messenger registrations and declared there were no irregularities up until he finally left that post long after the resurgence had gained complete control of the convention. There is no age limit on church membership, or messenger registration and I have seen plenty of people with moderate Baptist sympathies also register their children and vote their ballots.

Here's the bottom line. For thirty two years, an increasing majority of convention messengers, long, long after the political activity of the Patterson Pressler group was motivating and bringing in messengers, voted their approval of the convention's conservative direction. Virtually all but two of its state conventions have done so, and the vast majority of its associations and local churches have done the same. The moderates formed an alternative group and invited all of the Southern Baptists who disagreed with the convention's new leadership and direction to join them. A small fraction of churches and individuals accepted the invitation, though many of them kept their SBC options open at the other end.

It is true that alternative conventions formed in Texas and Virginia because the conservatives couldn't get a majority on the floor of the state conventions. However, those conservative groups have captured a significant number of the churches in both states, a far greater percentage of the total than the moderates pulled into CBF and in both cases, at their current rate of growth, the conservative bodies will be the larger of the two state conventions before mid-decade. The SBTC is now, in resident membership and cooperative program collections, virtually equal with the faltering BGCT, which continues to bleed support well beyond recession level losses.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8858
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Dave Roberts » Thu Aug 02, 2012 6:07 am

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?
"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: 7280
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Tom Parker » Thu Aug 02, 2012 7:06 am

Dave Roberts wrote: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?



Dave: The every day person in the pews could care less what takes place at the SBC IMO. It is more or less a done deal about issues before the folks that go get there. But they feel good that they are united. Lets do the math 8,000/16,000,000=.0005 representation. Now before someone gets up in arms about that fictional number of 16,000,000 that many love to use, lets say it is 8,000/8,000,000=.001 representation.

It is a joke. This uniformity thing is slowing killing the SBC and the leaders are blind or do not care.

Just my 1 cents worth.
Tom Parker
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Tim Bonney » Thu Aug 02, 2012 7:17 am

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.
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 » Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:03 am

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. :)
Tom Parker
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Tim Bonney » Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:59 am

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.
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 » Thu Aug 02, 2012 4:21 pm

Dave Roberts wrote: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?


1. It costs about three times as much to attend an SBC meeting now than it did prior to 1979.
2. Most of those who have the time, money or interest in attending convention meetings these days are older folks or pastors of churches. Messenger interest would revive in a heartbeat if some simple application of technology were allowed, they could register, watch the convention and vote on line from a central place. If that ever happens, you will see convention registration get up close to the 30,000 mark again.
3. There are no controversial issues dividing the convention and spurring the interest of individuals to attend and vote. Most churches are quite comfortable with the convention's direction and leadership at the present time.
4. We are living in a post denominational period with regard to church organization and structure. Southern Baptists, though they are the largest of the Protestant denominations, are feeling the effects of that just like everyone else, in spite of their size and the depth of loyalty that still runs fairly deep. We are not far off from a day when the majority of Protestant Christians will belong to a church with no denominational connection. Most messengers from SBC churches to the convention are now made up of their pastors, wives and sometimes staff. The laypeople are too busy raising families and being connected with other elements of their lives, usually involving their children.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8858
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Dave Roberts » Thu Aug 02, 2012 5:11 pm

Sandy wrote:
1. It costs about three times as much to attend an SBC meeting now than it did prior to 1979.
2. Most of those who have the time, money or interest in attending convention meetings these days are older folks or pastors of churches. Messenger interest would revive in a heartbeat if some simple application of technology were allowed, they could register, watch the convention and vote on line from a central place. If that ever happens, you will see convention registration get up close to the 30,000 mark again.
3. There are no controversial issues dividing the convention and spurring the interest of individuals to attend and vote. Most churches are quite comfortable with the convention's direction and leadership at the present time.
4. We are living in a post denominational period with regard to church organization and structure. Southern Baptists, though they are the largest of the Protestant denominations, are feeling the effects of that just like everyone else, in spite of their size and the depth of loyalty that still runs fairly deep. We are not far off from a day when the majority of Protestant Christians will belong to a church with no denominational connection. Most messengers from SBC churches to the convention are now made up of their pastors, wives and sometimes staff. The laypeople are too busy raising families and being connected with other elements of their lives, usually involving their children.


1. If you factor in inflation, Sandy, there is very little difference. The SBC attendance has always demanded sacrifice for those who came.
2. Then, if younger people have little interest, the convention is doomed. My generation suggested regionalizing the SBC with interconnected halls. We were turned down both pre and post Takeover
3. That is not what I hear from churches who have experienced pastors coming from the New Calvinism in the SBC. They just feel powerless to do anything about it.
4. You seem to be saying that the SBC is out of touch with involving people. In the old days, people came for the missions features, not for the controversies. Guess everyone is too busy to care about missions anymore. :roll:
"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: 7280
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Tom Parker » Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:08 pm

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.
Tom Parker
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Sandy » Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:46 pm

Dave Roberts wrote:
Sandy wrote:
1. It costs about three times as much to attend an SBC meeting now than it did prior to 1979.
2. Most of those who have the time, money or interest in attending convention meetings these days are older folks or pastors of churches. Messenger interest would revive in a heartbeat if some simple application of technology were allowed, they could register, watch the convention and vote on line from a central place. If that ever happens, you will see convention registration get up close to the 30,000 mark again.
3. There are no controversial issues dividing the convention and spurring the interest of individuals to attend and vote. Most churches are quite comfortable with the convention's direction and leadership at the present time.
4. We are living in a post denominational period with regard to church organization and structure. Southern Baptists, though they are the largest of the Protestant denominations, are feeling the effects of that just like everyone else, in spite of their size and the depth of loyalty that still runs fairly deep. We are not far off from a day when the majority of Protestant Christians will belong to a church with no denominational connection. Most messengers from SBC churches to the convention are now made up of their pastors, wives and sometimes staff. The laypeople are too busy raising families and being connected with other elements of their lives, usually involving their children.


1. If you factor in inflation, Sandy, there is very little difference. The SBC attendance has always demanded sacrifice for those who came.
2. Then, if younger people have little interest, the convention is doomed. My generation suggested regionalizing the SBC with interconnected halls. We were turned down both pre and post Takeover
3. That is not what I hear from churches who have experienced pastors coming from the New Calvinism in the SBC. They just feel powerless to do anything about it.
4. You seem to be saying that the SBC is out of touch with involving people. In the old days, people came for the missions features, not for the controversies. Guess everyone is too busy to care about missions anymore. :roll:


The whole convention method of conducting denominational business is no longer efficient or effective. Lifestyles and culture have changed to the point where people do not have time to attend a two and a half day business meeting, and churches have fewer resources to spend on it. Controversy does play a role, and attendance is usually higher when the convention meets somewhere in the South instead of places like Indianapolis or Phoenix, or Salt Lake City. The SBC messenger count would soar past 30,000 if the on line streaming included a way to identify messengers and allow them to vote on line.

The younger people have definitely lost interest, at least in attending the convention itself. But that, too, is not a phenomenon being experienced by just the SBC at denominational meetings. CBF's general assemblies, at least the one's I've attended, are made up of gray heads, and "ministerially speaking," register perhaps 2,000 participants, no elected messengers, just anyone who wants to show up and pay the registration fee. When I left Texas, BGCT gatherings were scarcely drawing 1,000 messengers and the convention was spending a fortune on music performers to get the young people out. They came for the concerts, and left when the business meeting started.

And BTW, missions night at the SBC still draws the biggest crowd.

The Calvinism "controversy" is something moderates like to talk about, but is less of a controversy for Southern Baptists than CBF's policy prohibiting gays from being employed is for the fellowship. I think anyone who has been opposed to the conservative resurgence in the SBC is employing a lot of wishful thinking into their attempts to make Calvinism more of an issue than it really is for Southern Baptists.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8858
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Tom Parker » Fri Aug 03, 2012 5:40 am

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? :brick:
Tom Parker
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Dave Roberts » Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:05 am

Tom Parker wrote: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? :brick:


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.
"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: 7280
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Ed Pettibone » Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:40 am

Tom Parker wrote: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? :brick:


At least Tom, Sandy admits that when he talks about CBF Assemblies, it is the ones he attended, which must have been in the far distant past, since he has forgotten that CBF does not charge a registration fee. Our ABC Friends where amazed at that when we had the combined meeting in D.C.. I was not in Texas this year but for the five preceding assemblies there seemed to be increase in the under 40 sector each year. And of course we (CBF) have never had elected messengers because we are a Fellowship of Churches and Individual members, every participant has opportunities voice opinions.

And I have no Idea where his is coming from when he says
The Calvinism "controversy" is something moderates like to talk about, but is less of a controversy for Southern Baptists than CBF's policy prohibiting gays from being employed is for the fellowship. I think anyone who has been opposed to the conservative resurgence in the SBC is employing a lot of wishful thinking into their attempts to make Calvinism more of an issue than it really is for Southern Baptists.


My friend David Flick is the only moderate that I know who really seems to "like" to engage SBC' ers over the Calvinism "controversy" and he hasn't had the time the past couple years. While there is some debate among CBFers on the CBF's policy prohibiting gays from being employed by CBF. Reports coming out of the 2012 Assembly seem to indicate it was no great issue there.
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 Sandy » Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:26 pm

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.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8858
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Tom Parker » Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:00 pm

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
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Tom Parker » Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:23 pm

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!
Tom Parker
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Sandy » Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:00 am

Tom Parker wrote: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.


Fictitious enemies of the "liberals"? There is plenty of documentation in writing, and in quoted comments, from individuals involved in SBC leadership prior to 1979 that theological liberalism was gaining ground and position in SBC seminaries and other entities, and that others in leadership were allowing it to happen, contrary to the wishes of the vast majority of Southern Baptists. The liberals were not fictitious. I've heard it said on many occasions, that if you wanted to see what would have happened to the SBC seminaries had no change been made in leadership in 1979, you have only to look at Wake Forest Divinity School, Mercer, BTSR, and other schools where ousted leaders wound up. The substantial differences between these institutions and the SBC seminaries today, in terms of doctrine, are easily constrasted. The fact that so few Southern Baptists have followed the former leadership, while so many churches have overwhelmingly and enthusiastically affirmed the Conservative Resurgence leadership shows that you are the one who has a distorted view of what happened in the SBC. There were major problems in the convention, and a lot of talk about the liberal direction it was heading, long before Paige Patterson and Paul Pressler got together to lay out a plan for restoring the convention to its conservative roots. The Ralph Elliott/Broadman Commentary controversy was just the beginning. The bureaucracy was so entrenched, with the same old names and faces on board seats and committees, that it took an organized effort to wake churches up to what was going on.

There were other movements going on in other places long before that. When I was a student at Grand Canyon University, the state convention-related college in Arizona, there was a strong movement there among the students and some faculty to find a way to push the SBC in a more conservative direction with regard to Golden Gate seminary. In fact, many church leaders in Arizona at the time were advocating students get their seminary training at the Conservative Baptist Seminary in Denver rather than the SBC schools.

Southern Baptists always seem to have a love-hate relationship with denominational leaders. The Conservative Resurgence leadership has had some real public relations disasters, which happens when you attempt to strong-arm things, especially among Baptists. Many of them are heavy handed. and not necessarily well-liked by their constituents. 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.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8858
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Tom Parker » Sat Aug 04, 2012 5:29 am

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.
Tom Parker
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Sandy » Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:13 am

Tom Parker wrote: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.


The "slow death" that the SBC is allegedly dying of every day has virtually nothing to do with the conservative resurgence and the restoration of the SBC to its historic, biblical roots.

If it was a "takeover," it was one that the vast majority of Southern Baptists have affirmed hundreds of times since.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8858
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Tim Bonney » Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:20 am

Sandy wrote:If it was a "takeover," it was one that the vast majority of Southern Baptists have affirmed hundreds of times since.


What? You have to prove that one Sandy. The vast majority of Southern Baptists have never voted for SBC leadership, have never been to a convention, and probably haven't any idea about what goes on in the denomination.
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 Haruo » Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:29 am

"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.
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: 12251
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Tim Bonney » Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:51 am

Haruo wrote:"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.


Well Hauro I guess I can use a different term than "vast." But when less than 10,000 people out of 16,000,000 members attend the convention the difference look quite large to me. That comes to about 6 1/1000 of a percent that attend. And I'm being generous since the last convention attendance was closer to 8,000.

In any Baptist church I was affiliated with it was a small percentage of the leadership who attended state/regional meeting and often only the pastor and spouse who attended national meetings. Only when I got into a bit larger churches did many lay people attend. And even then that was usually only when the convention/biennial was close by.

Most Baptists aren't involved in their denomination beyond the local level. A few more are involved at the state level. But few are involved nationally. BTW, this is basically true for United Methodists too.

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.
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 » Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:19 am

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.
Tom Parker
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Dave Roberts » Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:34 am

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????
"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: 7280
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

PreviousNext

Return to SBC News and Trends

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest