The BF&M and Communion

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

Moderator: William Thornton

Re: The BF&M and Communion

Postby Tim Bonney » Tue Oct 23, 2012 1:41 pm

Sandy wrote:
You've got a couple of posts in this thread where individuals capitalize the word TAKEOVER and use it way more than good grammar rules call for to make a point. That's a whine, any way you look at it.



One user of the forum :misuses: capitalization, and suddenly you are the grammar police?

We've all approached this a dozen different ways with facts, quotations, citations, personal recollection, etc. Obviously you are going to continue to believe this malarky no matter what the facts say. So I'll just stop here. As my Grandmother used to say of some people, "You'd argue with a sign post until it fell down and still go the wrong way." Enjoy your vivid fantasy life Sandy.
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5798
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: The BF&M and Communion

Postby Neil Heath » Tue Oct 23, 2012 3:26 pm

One big reason SBC members went along with the takeover should be placed on seminary trained pastors. There's nothing wrong with good scholarship and what they learned in seminary deepened their knowledge of scripture instead of making them think less of the text. So why did we keep that to ourselves? I believe it was Bill Leonard who observed that most ministers failed to share with their congregations the things they learned about biblical scholarship in seminary. If they had trusted their people and taught them the truth, the claims of the inerrancy crowd would have been met with a shrug instead of a gasp, and we might still be agreeing to disagree while serving the kingdom together.

As to why it wasn't done, I could only guess. Perhaps some of you will know...
Neil Heath
User avatar
Neil Heath
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1863
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 8:39 pm
Location: Macon, GA

Re: The BF&M and Communion

Postby Tom Parker » Tue Oct 23, 2012 3:52 pm

Tim:

You said to Sandy:"Enjoy your vivid fantasy life Sandy."

I say DITTO--I did that for you Sandy.
Tom Parker
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: The BF&M and Communion

Postby Dave Roberts » Tue Oct 23, 2012 4:00 pm

Neil Heath wrote:One big reason SBC members went along with the takeover should be placed on seminary trained pastors. There's nothing wrong with good scholarship and what they learned in seminary deepened their knowledge of scripture instead of making them think less of the text. So why did we keep that to ourselves? I believe it was Bill Leonard who observed that most ministers failed to share with their congregations the things they learned about biblical scholarship in seminary. If they had trusted their people and taught them the truth, the claims of the inerrancy crowd would have been met with a shrug instead of a gasp, and we might still be agreeing to disagree while serving the kingdom together.

As to why it wasn't done, I could only guess. Perhaps some of you will know...


I can only speak to where I was. In my first pastorate out of seminary, I tried to teach the Bible as best I understood it. I did not teach concerning inerrancy, because I had only encountered it in reading Warfield in the library. When the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy was issued in 1978, it suddenly became an issue in the SBC. I examined it with my church members, but I was not a regular convention attender having been to only one SBC during the 1970's. Most of those who came to talk about the inerrancy document were those well-read in scriptures. Most of that church could not have cared about some theory of inspiration. Many didn't want to know about the technical issues of scripture. They only wanted to know how it might impact their lives. Most Southern Baptists, prior to the takeover, were best described as "simple biblicists." Their interest was in how the scriptures spoke to their lives and not in the theories of how it came to be or how scholars understood it. Sunday School and even January Bible Study seldom reflected the depth of scholarship needed to equip people to deal with complex issues. I don't think the generation that preceded my own also could get to these issues for being mired in the politics of racism. The evil they had to challenge kept them preoccupied with how to negotiate the rapids of southern racism that held our churches in the midst of the civil right struggles of the 1950's and 1960's across most of the South.
"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: 7164
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: The BF&M and Communion

Postby Sandy » Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:46 pm

Dave Roberts wrote:
Sandy wrote:If this had been a real "takeover" there would have been a line drawn in the dirt, and once it was crossed, churches and state conventions that felt the pressure of encroachment would have taken a stand and split the denomination. The bottom line is that about 120 churches, out of 45,000, severed ties with the denomination, and another 1,200 or so registered their opposition by sending some money to CBF. That's not evidence of a takeover. Heck, that's not even enough evidence to prove there was a real controversy, at least, not for 95% of the SBC, there wasn't.


I'm laughing out loud. Several years of elections were by 1% or so. There were 45,000 messengers at Dallas and Atlanta in the 1980's. Still, most of the SBC churches were never even represented by the first messenger. Quite a few SBC churches who didn't go with CBF simply set their precentages of giving to match those of Adrian Roger and Bailey Smith's churches, kept the money at home, and are doing missions in a fashion that is largely oblivious to the denomination as a whole. They still send something to Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong, but they could care less about the denomination as a whole. Why do you think gifts to the SBC are declining in the share given by churches?


That's what I find so fascinating about this whole thing. There were two or three conventions where the margins in the presidential race were in the 5% range, only one that I recall in the 1% range, until the big pow wow in Dallas, and after that, the moderates margins dropped off. But when the core moderate leadership determined they were going to do something different, and went off in different directions with CBF and the Alliance, though there was some overlap, few followed. There was no split, not even much in the way of fragmentation. And that more or less proves my point. The core of pre-1979 SBC leadership was made up largely of those individuals who were involved in the convention itself, and the small circle of churches which provided most of the trustees, and apparently most of the messengers, prior to the resurgence. When they lost control and pulled away, it turns out they didn't have that many more supporters across the convention at large. It was a small, narrow, exclusive group not representative of the grassroots of the SBC.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8599
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Shores of the Great Lakes

Previous

Return to SBC News and Trends

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron