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 » Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:44 am

Dave Roberts wrote: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????



Dave, I have always wanted the definitive list of all the "liberals" that had to be removed to purify the SBC.

Out of all the millions of SB at the time of the main CR how many were there and by whose definition are we to go by for the word that became the kiss of death for many pastors, leaders, etc--"liberal."
Tom Parker
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Tim Bonney » Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:10 pm

Tom Parker wrote: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.


You've had a different experience than I had either in Missouri or Illinois when I was in the SBC. A lot of people wouldn't even have been able to tell you who the DOM was in the St. Louis Association. I could count the number times I saw him in my home church on one hand. In Illinois I had no experience of the DOM trying to direct the church I pastored.

But even if you have an interferring DOM, I would still contend that most people have no idea who the leadership is nationally of the SBC, who the leadership is/was for the takeover, etc. unless they were in a moderate church that talked a lot about the takeover. It was my understanding that the takeover didn't even get discussed in many churches if the pastor didn't want to stick out his kneck or if he was sympathetic to how things are going.
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5792
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Sandy » Sat Aug 04, 2012 3:16 pm

Tim Bonney wrote:
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.


The convention gathering is the way Southern Baptists do business. The churches elect messengers, not delegates, to the convention. The messengers vote. Following the 1979 meeting, and during all of the years of the controversy, an increasing majority of messengers voted for the candidates nominated by the conservative resurgence. As the news filtered out of each succeeding convention, a larger number of churches sent messengers to the convention, and the conservative majorities widened. I've heard all the griping from moderates about how unfair everything was, and how frumped up the got because churches from outside their inner, rubber stamping circle were sending messengers who were voting. Lee Porter was the well connected moderate registration secretary of the convention through most of the years when conservatives were increasing their majority and I don't recall that he ever challenged the registration of messengers, at least, not on a large scale.

The fact is that churches elected messengers, messengers went to the convention, and for the last thirty-two years, conventions have affirmed the SBC's leadership. In addition to that, in thirty some odd state conventions, the BFM2000, which is the statement of faith produced by the SBC's conservative leadership, has been affirmed in all but two of them.

In most denominational battles, there are major splinters or splits in the denominations, with large groups of people and churches leaving. Nothing like that ever materialized in the SBC. Based on the vote totals at the conventions during those years of controversy, most people expected something like a 55-45 split, with moderates leaving, taking 45% of the convention's churches, membership and institutions with them. But nothing like that ever materialized. Most of the pre-1979 leadership, those that didn't just step down or retire, coalesced into CBF or the Alliance. At its peak, CBF's claimed box score was 1,800 contributing churches, or about 3% of the total number in the SBC, though their website today shows fewer than a thousand. The Alliance numbers just over a hundred churches, of which about 90 came from the SBC. In CBF, about 80% of the churches still support SBC causes. That tells me that the moderates were maxed out when they marshalled their churches and messengers to attempt to influence convention votes during the controversy, while the conservatives had an ever increasing number of churches willing to support them.

That's not a takeover. That's a re-adjustment.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8589
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Shores of the Great Lakes

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Ed Pettibone » Sat Aug 04, 2012 5:53 pm

Ed: Sandy when you write "Following the 1979 meeting, and during all of the years of the controversy, an increasing majority of messengers voted for the candidates nominated by the conservative resurgence." Do you have the the number and the margins for 1979 through 1990, which I believe was the last year the take over cable was opposed. I think you will find the margins greater in 80 through 84 than any of the following 6 years. I rather unthinkingly scraped my collection of SBC Annuals when we left Tampa in 1995.

And after 90 was Jim Henry actually nominated "by the conservative resurgence" in 1994. Many of the moderate folk I knew in Florida at the time bought into his broadening the tent Mantra and voted for him, otherwise I do not think he would have won. And obviously the take over group did not allow him to keep his promise.
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 David Flick » Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:49 pm

Tom Parker wrote:
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. 1But those of us who were there remember it was a takover.

Tom speaking to Tim: 1It was nothing but a TAKEOVER and an ugly one at that. 2People can say it was over 'inerrancy" but that was just a very successful tool to take the convention over. 3IMO 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.
    David to Tom (& Tim):
      1) You are both dead on correct. Speaking as one who vocally opposed the adoption of the BFM2K, I was fired from my DOM position in Oklahoma. I experienced the entire TAKEOVER first hand, having enter the ministry in 1966. I was at the '79 convention in the Summit in Houston when Dr. Wayne Dehoney pointed to the skyboxes where Pressler, Patterson, and Adrian Rogers were calling the shots to their minions via those ancient hand-held 2-way radios. I saw it all with my own eyes. I can vividly recall the tense moments surrounding the election of Rogers. Indeed it was ugly. Sandy can crow to his heart's content about the event being a CR but it most definitely was the formal beginning of the hostile takeover of the denomination.

      2) The takeover wasn't just about forcing the inerrancy issue down the throats of the convention, it was a massive power grab for the fundamentalists.

      3) Your opinion is correct, Tom. When the dust settled after the beginning of the takeover, the convention began its decline into a constant series of embarrassing controversies. There was far more peace in the SBC prior to the takeover that there ever has been since. I never dreamed that I would ever leave the SBC. Didn't think such a thing would be possible. However, for the past 12 years I've been an American Baptist (ABCUSA). I'm completely retired from active ministry now. I can honestly say that as an American Baptist, I never experienced the level of denominational stress I experienced as Southern Baptist.

      4) Last week I had an interesting email from an unnamed fellow who I don't know. He wrote a one sentence query:
      "Are you the Mr flick who wrote the 30 people who screwed up the SBC?" My response was, Yes. Here's the link to the article which I wrote for BL.Com 6 years ago. :D


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.
    Absolutely. Other controversies include Wade Burleson's experience with the IMB, the NAMB financial scam, the recent denominational name change, and Richard Land's plagiarism deal. As soon as one controversy dies down, another arises. It seems that the SBC is stuck on stupid (controversies).
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.
    Count me among the number who have a totally different view about so-called Conservative Resurgence... :censored:
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8416
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Tom Parker » Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:55 pm

David Flick:

The casualties of the CR continue to this very day. Maybe some day in the future I will discuss this.

I will say this, in the part of the world I live in, the DOM and others who support his goals, have made it very difficult if one has differing goals than them.
Tom Parker
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Sandy » Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:04 pm

Ed Pettibone wrote:Ed: Sandy when you write "Following the 1979 meeting, and during all of the years of the controversy, an increasing majority of messengers voted for the candidates nominated by the conservative resurgence." Do you have the the number and the margins for 1979 through 1990, which I believe was the last year the take over cable was opposed. I think you will find the margins greater in 80 through 84 than any of the following 6 years. I rather unthinkingly scraped my collection of SBC Annuals when we left Tampa in 1995.

And after 90 was Jim Henry actually nominated "by the conservative resurgence" in 1994. Many of the moderate folk I knew in Florida at the time bought into his broadening the tent Mantra and voted for him, otherwise I do not think he would have won. And obviously the take over group did not allow him to keep his promise.


The margins increased each year, except in 1988 at the San Antonio convention. Jerry Vines defeated Richard Jackson by just a couple of hundred votes. Nominating Jackson was more of an attempt to slow down the resurgence than it was to move the convention back to moderate leadership. Jackson was an inerrantist, and a conservative, a mega church pastor who was a protege of W.A. Criswell. But he wasn't in the resurgence inner circle and the thinking was that his nominees would be from outside the list of names being circulated by the resurgence, and that he might continue the tradition of an automatic second term for current nominees. The next year, Vestal lost to Vines by about 15%. That was when the moderates decided to pull out. I don't think Henry had an opponent.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8589
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Shores of the Great Lakes

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Ed Pettibone » Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:48 pm

Ed: Sandy replies "I don't think Henry had an opponent." Selective memory Sandy?
In 94 Henry ran against Rev. Fred Wolfe, pastor of Cottage Hill Baptist Church in Mobile, Ala..
Wolfe had already been named CR candidate when Henry announced that he would allow his name to be placed in contention for the SBC presidency.

And lets look at where the all conservative presidential line has led the SBC:

The Southern Baptist Convention is holding its annual meeting this week in Phoenix, Arizona. Prior to the this yearly national gathering of Southern Baptists, Lifeway Research (SBC) released a report showing that baptisms declined again in 2010. This marked the eighth time in a decade that baptisms have declined with the 2010 figure being the lowest number of baptisms since the 1950s.

Lifeway Research also noted that the SBC’s total membership also dropped for the fourth consecutive year. Thom S. Rainer, president and CEO of Lifeway, issued a call for Southern Baptists to “see the urgency of the moment” and receive these numbers “with a broken spirit and a God-given determination to reach people for Christ.”

See SBC membership stats at http://uploadpic.org/v.php?img=FgDma0fCFi Thanks to Aaron Weaver
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 » Sun Aug 05, 2012 10:33 pm

Ed Pettibone wrote:Ed: Sandy replies "I don't think Henry had an opponent." Selective memory Sandy?
In 94 Henry ran against Rev. Fred Wolfe, pastor of Cottage Hill Baptist Church in Mobile, Ala..
Wolfe had already been named CR candidate when Henry announced that he would allow his name to be placed in contention for the SBC presidency.

And lets look at where the all conservative presidential line has led the SBC:

The Southern Baptist Convention is holding its annual meeting this week in Phoenix, Arizona. Prior to the this yearly national gathering of Southern Baptists, Lifeway Research (SBC) released a report showing that baptisms declined again in 2010. This marked the eighth time in a decade that baptisms have declined with the 2010 figure being the lowest number of baptisms since the 1950s.

Lifeway Research also noted that the SBC’s total membership also dropped for the fourth consecutive year. Thom S. Rainer, president and CEO of Lifeway, issued a call for Southern Baptists to “see the urgency of the moment” and receive these numbers “with a broken spirit and a God-given determination to reach people for Christ.”

See SBC membership stats at http://uploadpic.org/v.php?img=FgDma0fCFi Thanks to Aaron Weaver


Ah, yes. Fred Wolfe. I do remember that. That was the year after the resurgence announced they would no longer "name" a candidate. Every contested race for president since then has involved conservatives. I don't really know why Wolfe wasn't ever handed the mantle of leadership. He and Ronnie Floyd have been the hard luck guys.

The current decline in the SBC, the drop in baptisms and membership, has nothing to do with its conservative position, and little to nothing to do with the denominational leadership. The SBC is made up of 45,000 independent, autonomous churches. Factors relating to the culture of those churches are behind the decline. Most of the drop off is in state conventions in the Deep South. The SBC is loaded with small, rural congregations and many of those are made up largely of elderly members who are dying off. Some of the large, traditional churches are in the same boat. The congregations aged, aimed their ministry at the older folks, and now they are dying off. On the other hand, there are state conventions that report rapid growth in baptisms and membership.

I'm not sure that a denominational emphasis or denominational leadership can engineer a reversal of decline. I don't think there is an example to point to. SBC emphases prior to 2000 could be considered "successful" though the membership was already growing, and probably would have without a denominational emphasis. What are they going to do? They already put out a bus tour that lasted a year and cost a quarter of a million dollars. There are fewer and fewer younger people sticking with church after they graduate from college, largely because the influence of 13 years of public education has succeeded in pointing out the inconsistency between the faith they've been taught at home and church and the humanist philosophy they've learned in school. Those that do stay find large, non-denominational congregations more appealing than boxed-in, stuffy, tradition-bound denominational congregations.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8589
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Shores of the Great Lakes

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Dave Roberts » Mon Aug 06, 2012 6:01 am

Sandy wrote:

The current decline in the SBC, the drop in baptisms and membership, has nothing to do with its conservative position, and little to nothing to do with the denominational leadership. The SBC is made up of 45,000 independent, autonomous churches. Factors relating to the culture of those churches are behind the decline. Most of the drop off is in state conventions in the Deep South. The SBC is loaded with small, rural congregations and many of those are made up largely of elderly members who are dying off. Some of the large, traditional churches are in the same boat. The congregations aged, aimed their ministry at the older folks, and now they are dying off. On the other hand, there are state conventions that report rapid growth in baptisms and membership.

I'm not sure that a denominational emphasis or denominational leadership can engineer a reversal of decline. I don't think there is an example to point to. SBC emphases prior to 2000 could be considered "successful" though the membership was already growing, and probably would have without a denominational emphasis. What are they going to do? They already put out a bus tour that lasted a year and cost a quarter of a million dollars. There are fewer and fewer younger people sticking with church after they graduate from college, largely because the influence of 13 years of public education has succeeded in pointing out the inconsistency between the faith they've been taught at home and church and the humanist philosophy they've learned in school. Those that do stay find large, non-denominational congregations more appealing than boxed-in, stuffy, tradition-bound denominational congregations.


I guess some of us still swallow hard on Charles Stanley's announcement that his election by less than 1% was "a mandate from God." It had been eked out by months of political organizing that would have rivaled anything that had ever been done in secular politics. However, I will let that one be. I am intrigued by the list that was given often by Pressler in his travels to speak at churches. They did not possess liberal credentials in any sense of the word.

Sandy, I know you are vested in "private Christian education." I don't see that as the answer. However, I see the poverty of the educational ministry of churches as contributing to the decline of young people who stay with church and of young adults who are found in church life. Curricula for church education that spend years declaring that you are lost and need to be saved do not come to grips with a world that introduces calculus, nuclear physics, molecular biology, and various philosophical traditions. If we don't do a better job with educating that touches the issues that young adults will face, we won't keep young people in church. Our youth are much more capable of discussing the issues they will face than our churches have been willing to give them the chance to discuss it. If young people can't be taught that which will equip them intellectually, then we have little right to expect to retain them.
"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: 7161
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Sandy » Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:26 am

Dave Roberts wrote:Sandy, I know you are vested in "private Christian education." I don't see that as the answer. However, I see the poverty of the educational ministry of churches as contributing to the decline of young people who stay with church and of young adults who are found in church life. Curricula for church education that spend years declaring that you are lost and need to be saved do not come to grips with a world that introduces calculus, nuclear physics, molecular biology, and various philosophical traditions. If we don't do a better job with educating that touches the issues that young adults will face, we won't keep young people in church. Our youth are much more capable of discussing the issues they will face than our churches have been willing to give them the chance to discuss it. If young people can't be taught that which will equip them intellectually, then we have little right to expect to retain them.


You're pretty much on target here. I've argued for years that churches spend inordinate amounts of money on educational and discipleship resources that don't help people very much in the way of learning how to practically apply the principles of their faith to the lives they live, with everything that is out there and with all that they encounter. Kids go off to school six hours a day, five days a week, and are taught in an environment that has been sanitized of anything Christian, in a completely secular environment, with standards and objectives drawn from a curriculum steeped in an atheistic humanist philosophy. Those who are in families who are Christian are lucky if they spend an hour to an hour and a half a week in any kind of study or educational setting related to Christian philosophy and belief. Research shows that the greatest amount of dropping out of church takes place by the time young people have reached 25 years of age. Youth ministry in most churches these days is banana splits and balloons, camps and parties, and very little of subtance. It's been that way for years. College ministry is practically non-existent.

We do, BTW, in our Christian school, spend a lot of time helping our students learn how to be practical in the application of their faith, we do not "indoctrinate," we simply point out facts and teach students how to discern and measure truth. This particular school has been somewhat successful with that methodology over the years, since over 80% of our alumni are active and involved in some kind of local church ministry. The Catholics have invested their Christian education budget in an extensive school system, from Kindergarten through college, and also have a fairly good success rate in retaining the young people that are educated in that system. The decline of mainline Protestant churches in America, now reaching into some evangelical denominations as well, is, IMHO, a direct result of the failure to invest in comprehensive Christian education, however the church chooses to provide it.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8589
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Shores of the Great Lakes

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby David Flick » Mon Aug 06, 2012 4:23 pm

David Flick wrote:4) Last week I had an interesting email from an unnamed fellow who I don't know. He wrote a one sentence query: "Are you the Mr flick who wrote the 30 people who screwed up the SBC?" My response was, Yes. Here's the link to the article which I wrote for BL.Com 6 years ago.

Follow-up: Today I received a followup email from the unnamed fellow..

    From: xxxxxx941@msn.com
    To: David Flick
    Subject: Re: Screwed up Baptists

    Ok, I appreciate your getting back to me. Your article was well written and true. I was raised SBC and was a Baptist poster child most of my life.

    Currently, I'm working as a Lutheran Church musician and often think that the ELCA is what the SBC could have been had it not been tainted by the mentality of those mentioned in your article.

    Unfortunately, the dye was cast for the SBC long ago. After all, it was formed around the belief that Christians could own slaves. It stood in opposition to women's suffrage, desegregation, civil rights, ordination of women, Disney offerings domestic partner benefits and, of course, gay everything.

    The 30 people et al in your article really didn't screw the church as much as kept it on track. When an organization is as consistently "late to the party" called reality as the SBC, it is rather expected that it will spawn those who keep the social retardation alive and well.

    Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx

    Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8416
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Sandy » Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:16 pm

Well, that lends itself to a couple of interesting observations.

the unnamed fellow wrote:Currently, I'm working as a Lutheran Church musician and often think that the ELCA is what the SBC could have been had it not been tainted by the mentality of those mentioned in your article.


I think that there are a whole lot of Southern Baptists who thought that is where the denomination was headed, which is why the conservative resurgence gained traction and won elections at conventions. I would disagree with the contention that the SBC would have followed its pre-1979 leadership to the point where it would have eventually become the ELCA. By 1979, there was a lot of discontent with the direction the SBC's leadership appeared to be going, and a lot of frustration because the cumbersome convention bureaucracy frustrated attempts to bring change. The people in the pews weren't going to follow the leadership anywhere. The ELCA is a fractured, splintered, declining denomination that has been heavily influenced by secular humanism. I could come up with a list of thirty ways they have screwed up Biblical Christianity in pretty short order. The fear of winding up where the ELCA is was a driving factor behind the success of the conservative resurgence. I would bet most Baptists are grateful to the resurgence from saving them from such a fate.

David Flick wrote: [i]from "Thirty People Who Have Screwer Up the Southern Baptist Convention,[/i ]Fundamentalist candidates have won the SBC presidency every year since 1979. By 1989, nearly every one of the SBC boards had a majority of takeover people on it.


Let's see. SBC Presidents have appointive powers over a committee that appoints a second committee to nominate trustee boards and committees. Since 1979, "Fundamentalist" (I say conservative) candidates have won the presidency and used the appointive powers to put like minded people on the trustee boards and committees. The SBC President is elected by a majority of the messengers registered, gathered and voting at the time the election is called for by the chair.

So, the conservative resurgence nominated a duly elected messenger for president each year since 1979. The conservative resurgence's nominated candidate won a majority of the votes and was elected by a majority of the messengers to the convention. The duly elected president of the convention appointed individuals qualified by the convention's bylaws to serve on the committee on committees. The committee on committees appointed qualified individuals to serve on the committee on boards to nominate trustees. The trustee nominees were duly presented to the convention, and a majority of the messengers in a session where a quorum was present approved the nominations. This happened every year since 1979.

So how is that a "takeover," again...?
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8589
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Shores of the Great Lakes

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby David Flick » Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:41 pm

Sandy wrote:
David Flick wrote: from "Thirty People Who Have Screwer Up the Southern Baptist Convention,[/i ]Fundamentalist candidates have won the SBC presidency every year since 1979. By 1989, nearly every one of the SBC boards had a majority of takeover people on it.


Let's see. SBC Presidents have appointive powers over a committee that appoints a second committee to nominate trustee boards and committees. Since 1979, "Fundamentalist" (I say conservative) candidates have won the presidency and used the appointive powers to put like minded people on the trustee boards and committees. The SBC President is elected by a majority of the messengers registered, gathered and voting at the time the election is called for by the chair.

So, the conservative resurgence nominated a duly elected messenger for president each year since 1979. The conservative resurgence's nominated candidate won a majority of the votes and was elected by a majority of the messengers to the convention. The duly elected president of the convention appointed individuals qualified by the convention's bylaws to serve on the committee on committees. The committee on committees appointed qualified individuals to serve on the committee on boards to nominate trustees. The trustee nominees were duly presented to the convention, and a majority of the messengers in a session where a quorum was present approved the nominations. This happened every year since 1979.
    Sandy, apparently you don't have a clue about the truth of what happened before and during the takeover. How, for Pete's sake, do you think the fundamentalists accomplished the dastardly takeover? There were numerous underhanded and vile things that occurred, among them being the following:
    1. In the years leading up to the beginning of the takeover, Paul Pressler, Page Patterson, W. A. Criswell, and their minions spent an inordinate amount of energy destroying the credibility of good and decent Southern Baptist leaders. The architects of the takeover went on scores of liberal hunts ([i]not unlike witch hunts). They were literally spreading lies about seminary professors and leaders around the the convention. In 1964, Pressler wrote "Report to Second Baptist's Deacons". In the "report," he skewered Ralph Elliott's book Message of Genesis. The report ultimately caused Elliott to be fired from Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. The report was filled with lies and innuendos and painted him to be a godless liberal. Criswell went about the country calling seminary professors "skunks". Pressler spent his energy "going for the jugular" of the SBC. Patterson purportedly kept a “heresy file.” William Powell launched the a hate-filled publication ("The Baptist Faith and Message Fellowship"), which attacked the so-called SBC "liberals." Eldridge Miller, the deceased pastor of the First Baptist Church in Sallisaw, OK., wrote numerous anti-liberal articles which were frequently published by the Oklahoma Baptist Messenger and other state Baptist convention papers. Russell Kaemmerling, brother-in-law of Paige Patterson and first editor of The Southern Baptist Advocate, a hate-filled sheet that hurt the cause of Christ and helped no one. While serving as a trustee for the International Mission Board (IMB) of the SBC, he was arrested on 19 counts of criminal fraud and now resides in a federal penitentiary in Beaumont, TX. William Powell left the Southern Baptist Convention Home Mission Board to launch the Baptist Faith and Message Fellowship, a hate-filled publication which attacked the so-called SBC "liberals." Powell was a close associate of Paul Pressler. Robert Tenery the second editor of "The Southern Baptist Advocate", The Advocate was a hate-filled sheet that hurt the cause of Christ and helped no one. Tenery edited the Baptists United News for many years and did on the state level what the Advocate did on the national level. Both publications are gone; but some states now have similar publications. Sandy these examples are but a few of the many that can be found with a simple understanding of the true history of the SBC takeover. The bottom line is that these fundamentalist leaders poisoned the waters of the Southern Baptist constituency.
    2. True, the messengers of the SBC conventions were duly elected to the convention. But the years of lies and falsehoods spread about the so-called "Liberals," who were actually sound conservatives, led to a continuous election of fundamentalist presidents, who effectually led the convention from a conservative convention into radical fundamentalism. You can not name a true "liberal" Southern Baptist who was in a place of leadership prior to 1979. If so, I'd certainly like to see the names of these people.
    3. The messengers attending conventions from 1979 forward were filled with people who believed the propaganda offered by the fundamentalists. After their minds had been poisoned by the takeover gang, the messengers bussed to the conventions by the thousands. I was at at least three conventions where thousands of messengers were bussed in simply to vote for the president and nothing more. Within minutes after the president had been elected, they walked out of the convention center and boarded buses to go home. These elections were rigged start. There was no thought on those messengers to attend or absorb what was occurring at convention
    4. By 1984, moderate conservatives realized the MO of the the fundamentalists, they began having alternate assemblies, eventually leading to the formation of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. The Moderate Conservatives, myself included, grew sick and tired of the shenanigans of the fundamentalists.

So how is that a "takeover," again...?
    Let's see... How about reading what I just wrote, again...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8416
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Ed Pettibone » Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:55 pm

Sandy it was a take over in that the "CR" operatives made it abundantly clear that no one identified as a Moderate or sympathetic to The cooperative Baptist fellowship could be placed in one of those appointive positions. They in fact rejected nominees from from churches with messengers seated at the conventions w/o regard for the nominees personal theology or polity preferences simply because the church had a few members who contributed to CBF.
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 » Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:22 pm

It is the perogative of the elected president of the SBC to appoint whom he choses to the committee which selects the commitee on boards and committees. If Southern Baptists determine that a particular president isn't going to appoint "the right people," they have the perogative to elect a president who does.

"Takeover" is a matter of perspective.

I'm not sure which conservative apologist it was, but one of them documented the narrowness and exclusivity of trustee board and committee appointments in the SBC prior to 1979 but I think its Jerry Sutton. About 70 people were identified, including husbands and wives, inlaws, and even children, from about 40 churches who were perpetually on an SBC committee or board from the late 1950's up to 1979. That means people served on six, seven, eight boards and committees, some simultaneously. "Ain't nuttin' wrong wif at!" as the old saying goes, "It's better to pick your friends than to pick your nose." So there was a feeling of entitlement that this narrow core of individuals should always be at the center of SBC leadership, and should be consulted in the event of change. The fact that this narrow, exclusive, privileged little group of SBC prominents were keeping conservatives in particular out of convention leadership showed up on a few occasions at SBC meetings prior to the 1979 shindig. At one point in the mid-60's, W.A. Criswell had been elected president (Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer!), and had some trouble getting past the pre-approved list of committee appointments he was handed. So when 1979 rolled around, and the messengers didn't elect the pre-selected candidate, and Adrian Rogers came back with a list of people for his committee that didn't include any of the former prominente, the word "takeover" got pulled out, dusted off and put into use. I've never understood, after having served in the vocational ministry, how a person serving as pastor of a church would have either the time or the resources to travel to meetings all over the place, and conduct denominational business all the time. But some of the pre-1979 SBC leaders were holding down a pastorate, associational and state convention committee positions or officer jobs, and serving as an SBC trustee or committee member.

Ralph Elliott's own words convicted him. His view was never widely accepted in the SBC, not then, not now. Even with moderates in control, I am surprised that he was able to remain on the faculty of a seminary for as long as he did after his views became public knowledge. I would say that he's a bit to the left of where even most moderates are.

The planning of strategy and actions taken by the conservative resurgence were most definitely of a political nature, and in many cases the tactics were controlling and heavy handed. The expectation was that they would encounter sustained resistance from an entrenched system of denominational bureaucrats bent on holding on to their jobs and their influence, and protecting their friends who had made careers out of denominational service. They did. And they planned actions to counter the resistance. But most of what those involved in what I call the "alternative Baptist press" at the time did was simply quote from writings and preaching of those they labelled as "liberals." Not all of them were "liberal" in the classic sense of the word, though there were some who definitely were. It seemed to come as a shock to most moderates that the views expressed by those who were labelled "liberal," and that they supported under the banner of Baptist autonomy, turned out not to be widely accepted by Southern Baptists. They had been preaching and publishing their stuff through the BSSB and teaching it in the seminaries for years. They couldn't grasp that the grass roots Southern Baptists weren't falling in line and feeding on their every word. Starting with Cecil Sherman, who actually denied inerrancy and accepted a much more liberal view of Biblical inspiration and interpretation, the moderate mantra through the whole controversy was "open mouth, insert foot." I often felt like prominent moderates should have been briefed before they said anything, so that their faces would not show such incredulity when they realized that what they had just pontificated wasn't widely accepted and cheered by Southern Baptists. There was one "up front" moderate spokesman who made me cringe every time I saw him on television, and who probably did more to convince Southern Baptists that the conservative resurgence was justified in its efforts, and that was Bill Sherman. Some of the best material the conservative resurgence leaders had to work with was the weekly sermon from Woodmont Baptist Church.

Moderates assured everyone that this was indeed a takeover, and that after things had run their course, eventually the pendulum would swing back and the SBC would again cruse down the path they had intended for it to go thirty two years ago. Not only has that not materialized, but the departure of moderates from the SBC did not even create a blip on the radar screen. The door has been wide open for any and all Southern Baptists who were not happy with the conservative resurgence to hop ship and go in a different direction. The different direction hasn't yet even been able to consolidate and organize into much more than a fellowship of churches that spend most of their time and resources trying to look like they are the new SBC as opposed to the old.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8589
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Shores of the Great Lakes

Re: Not good news for SBC race relations

Postby Ed Pettibone » Tue Aug 07, 2012 3:12 pm

Sandy wrote:It is the perogative of the elected president of the SBC to appoint whom he choses to the committee which selects the commitee on boards and committees. If Southern Baptists determine that a particular president isn't going to appoint "the right people," they have the perogative to elect a president who does.

"Takeover" is a matter of perspective.

I'm not sure which conservative apologist it was, but one of them documented the narrowness and exclusivity of trustee board and committee appointments in the SBC prior to 1979 but I think its Jerry Sutton. About 70 people were identified, including husbands and wives, inlaws, and even children, from about 40 churches who were perpetually on an SBC committee or board from the late 1950's up to 1979. That means people served on six, seven, eight boards and committees, some simultaneously. "Ain't nuttin' wrong wif at!" as the old saying goes, "It's better to pick your friends than to pick your nose." So there was a feeling of entitlement that this narrow core of individuals should always be at the center of SBC leadership, and should be consulted in the event of change. The fact that this narrow, exclusive, privileged little group of SBC prominents were keeping conservatives in particular out of convention leadership showed up on a few occasions at SBC meetings prior to the 1979 shindig. At one point in the mid-60's, W.A. Criswell had been elected president (Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer!), and had some trouble getting past the pre-approved list of committee appointments he was handed. So when 1979 rolled around, and the messengers didn't elect the pre-selected candidate, and Adrian Rogers came back with a list of people for his committee that didn't include any of the former prominente, the word "takeover" got pulled out, dusted off and put into use. I've never understood, after having served in the vocational ministry, how a person serving as pastor of a church would have either the time or the resources to travel to meetings all over the place, and conduct denominational business all the time. But some of the pre-1979 SBC leaders were holding down a pastorate, associational and state convention committee positions or officer jobs, and serving as an SBC trustee or committee member.

Ralph Elliott's own words convicted him. His view was never widely accepted in the SBC, not then, not now. Even with moderates in control, I am surprised that he was able to remain on the faculty of a seminary for as long as he did after his views became public knowledge. I would say that he's a bit to the left of where even most moderates are.

The planning of strategy and actions taken by the conservative resurgence were most definitely of a political nature, and in many cases the tactics were controlling and heavy handed. The expectation was that they would encounter sustained resistance from an entrenched system of denominational bureaucrats bent on holding on to their jobs and their influence, and protecting their friends who had made careers out of denominational service. They did. And they planned actions to counter the resistance. But most of what those involved in what I call the "alternative Baptist press" at the time did was simply quote from writings and preaching of those they labelled as "liberals." Not all of them were "liberal" in the classic sense of the word, though there were some who definitely were. It seemed to come as a shock to most moderates that the views expressed by those who were labelled "liberal," and that they supported under the banner of Baptist autonomy, turned out not to be widely accepted by Southern Baptists. They had been preaching and publishing their stuff through the BSSB and teaching it in the seminaries for years. They couldn't grasp that the grass roots Southern Baptists weren't falling in line and feeding on their every word. Starting with Cecil Sherman, who actually denied inerrancy and accepted a much more liberal view of Biblical inspiration and interpretation, the moderate mantra through the whole controversy was "open mouth, insert foot." I often felt like prominent moderates should have been briefed before they said anything, so that their faces would not show such incredulity when they realized that what they had just pontificated wasn't widely accepted and cheered by Southern Baptists. There was one "up front" moderate spokesman who made me cringe every time I saw him on television, and who probably did more to convince Southern Baptists that the conservative resurgence was justified in its efforts, and that was Bill Sherman. Some of the best material the conservative resurgence leaders had to work with was the weekly sermon from Woodmont Baptist Church.

Moderates assured everyone that this was indeed a takeover, and that after things had run their course, eventually the pendulum would swing back and the SBC would again cruse down the path they had intended for it to go thirty two years ago. Not only has that not materialized, but the departure of moderates from the SBC did not even create a blip on the radar screen. The door has been wide open for any and all Southern Baptists who were not happy with the conservative resurgence to hop ship and go in a different direction. The different direction hasn't yet even been able to consolidate and organize into much more than a fellowship of churches that spend most of their time and resources trying to look like they are the new SBC as opposed to the old.


Ed; Ah yes, Jerry Sutton The ex-pastor of two Rivers Baptist church in Nashville, who even as 1st vice president of the SBC, lost his 2006 bid for the presidency. Frank Page won with just over 50% on the first ballot and Sutton came in third with 24% in a tight race for 2nd with Ronnie Floyd of Arkansas who had been the choice of the CR folk. Now I see where you have acquired such skill at Revisionist history. wave:

I have read Sutton's 2002 THE BAPTIST REFORMATION The Conservative Resurgence In the Southern Baptist Convention. Which in my studied opinion is an excellent example for the mixture of Truth & Error.

In 2007 The Associate Press reported,
Scott Hutchings, the church's executive pastor, has acknowledged that the church paid about $4,300 for a (wedding) reception for Sutton's daughter, but said the event was open to all members.

He said Sutton personally paid for another separate reception outside the church. Sutton is a key member of the Southern Baptist Convention's conservative leadership.


And talk about a group taking care of their own After being forced to resign from Two Rivers and freelancing for a couple years, last year his Friend Phil Roberts President of Midwestern Baptist Seminary, in Kansas City Mo., appointed him as interim Dean pending appointment by the trustees at their next meeting, which they did. What is that about one hand washing the other?
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Previous

Return to SBC News and Trends

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron