The BF&M and Communion

[Tim Bonney]

That's for the support Ed. I have a hard time distinguishing between "untra-conservatives" and "fundamentalists." In my book they are the same thing and I don't see a reason to run from the word. Fundy is probably a short cut term I shouldn't use.

William, when is it ever acceptable for someone else to vote your ballot, elected Messenger or not? Dad had four kids and so he got five votes. Sorry, but in my book that isn't Democratic, honest, or Christian. In secular elections that is called voter fraud. But I guess the SBC doesn't have to live up to as a high moral standards as the unbelieving world huh?

I've noticed over the years that any time I get too close to an uncomfortable SBC subject like the way the takeover was orchestrated by fellow Christians that you bring up that I'm no longer a Southern Baptist. It used to be my ABC affiliation and now my UMC affiliation. So what gives? Do the facts change because I changed Churches? Or would you just as soon everyone forget the non-Christian tactics that fundamentalists in the SBC used to grab power in a Christian organization?

Your concern for my well being is admirable William. But I'm long over any personal distress over the SBC takeover. But it doesn't mean I'm going to pretend it never happened just so you all can be comfortable with the checkered moral and ethical history of SBC that Sandy so loves to white wash.

[David Flick]

[Tom Parker]

Tim:

You said to William:"William, when is it ever acceptable for someone else to vote your ballot, elected Messenger or not? Dad had four kids and so he got five votes. Sorry, but in my book that isn't Democratic, honest, or Christian. In secular elections that is called voter fraud. But I guess the SBC doesn't have to live up to as a high moral standards as the unbelieving world huh?"


I am always amazed and disappointed when William, Sandy, and others want to act as if the tactics used in the TAKEOVER were acceptable.

There were not and never will be.

[David Flick]

[Tom Parker]

David Flick:

You said to me:"Tom, the takeover gang knew no shame. Honesty and Christian integrity meant nothing to them. It means nothing to the current SBC leaders or their supporters. These people will go to their graves believing they did God a favor by destroying those with whom they disagreed. We who experienced the loss and pain will go to our graves the same way."

I seriously doubt those involved in the TAKEOVER tactics have ever repented of their sins but yet they expect God to bless their efforts.

If they really believed the BIBLE--that they made the TAKEOVER about- they would know better.

David, I do not play the game of- pretending everything is ok -very well. The constant watching of Southern Baptists by other Southern Baptists of something to break fellowship over is a lasting legacy of the TAKEOVER mentality.

Someone(s) in the SBC need to own up to the mess THEY CREATED!

But if I was a gambling man I would not bet on this happening.

[Sandy]

take·o·ver
   [teyk-oh-ver]
noun
1.
the act of seizing, appropriating, or arrogating authority, control, management, etc.
2.
an acquisition or gaining control of a corporation through the purchase or exchange of stock

By definition, what happened to the SBC from 1979 through 1989 was not a takeover. One set of leadership was replaced by another over a ten year period, by clear majority votes that followed the bylaws and written governance documents of the SBC. The officers were nominated from the floor, and elected by messengers whose registration was duly confirmed and approved by the officer of the convention elected to have that responsibility. Those individuals elected nominated the respective committees under their authority and those committees, in turn, nominated individuals for the various committees and boards. The convention, by majority votes, approved their nominations. All of the nominees were members of Southern Baptist churches "in friendly cooperation" with the denomination.

There was nothing in the bylaws to prevent a group of people from putting together information and using it to encourage churches to send their full complement of messengers to the convention, nor providing financial assistance to attend, nor to bypassing some of the quirks and "traditions" that had become unofficial procedures after years of entrenched bureaucracy. The conservatives even nominated trustees and committee members for their "customary" second terms, even though they weren't constitutionally obligated to do so. All they really did was end the rotation of people from board to board, and start appointing individuals from a different segment of the convention's churches. There was no seizure or appropriation, or arrogation of authority. The committees and boards transitioned over a decade, all approved by majority votes as prescribed in the bylaws.

[Tim Bonney]

Sandy, You can spin dictionary definitions all you like. I was there, Ed was there, David Flick was there many of us here on BL.com where there. Witnesses don't need abstract definitions. We saw it, we experienced it. We were there. It was a takeover.

The real question here is why it is SO very important for you to deny it.

[Haruo]

Maybe part of it is the understood definition of "takeover". Perhaps for Sandy and/or some others who argue this way, "takeover" implies an outsider coming in and "taking over". They may reason that, since the vast majority of those leading the "takeover" or "resurgence" or "whatever" were not outsiders (they may have been outsiders in the sense of not being members of the ruling clique, but they were nonetheless mostly Southern Baptists of long standing, indeed mostly lifelong Southern Baptists.) Therefore, they could not (given that definition) have engaged in a "takeover". Since they were already within the community, and since they see themselves as embodying or standing for principles that they consider to be basic to their understanding of Baptist Faith and Practice, and which they saw the ruling clique and the seminary faculties as falling away from, "resurgence" seems to them a much better term.

[Tom Parker]

Haruo:

I think folks like Sandy are just looking for a way to deny what happened and spin it in a positive way. No matter how hard they try to do it they are not successful.

[Tim Bonney]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[Haruo]

But Timothy, the SBC (as you are fond of pointing out when contrasting it with UMC) didn't have an official theology. And my guess is that most of the theological components of the Pressler-Patterson gang's positions (as distinct, perhaps, from their political strategy) were already there before the takeover, just not at the national level in a big way. And my guess is that those who held those positions (and were in the SBC) prior to the takeover felt, in a lifelong and increasingly frustrated way, marginalized and rendered powerless by the previous regime.

[Tim Bonney]

[Haruo]

[Sandy]

[Tom Parker]

Tim:

You said:"Actually, sad to say Tom, they basically have been successful in re-writing history to suit them. They know that when enough time passes and they've taught the "resurgence" mythology to enough people it will become not only the official history of the SBC, it will become the de facto history as well.'

You are correct but what encourages me is the TAKEOVER crowd claimed the TAKEOVER was about the BIBLE and it was not. But these folks have made it their business to LIE about the the TAKOVER. Their is quite a bit in the Bible about lying being a sin. God will not bless their efforts.

I'm quite confident the SBC does not want folks like myself because I refuse to play this game of pretend.

[Dave Roberts]

There was one thing about the Bible. When Holman released their own translation, Al Mohler announced: "Now we have a translation we can control." Guess it was about getting to translate the scriptures to suit the mood. Wonder when the HSB will add that "pickles have souls?"

[Tom Parker]

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

Cecil Sherman is probably the one individual among moderate Baptists who expressed the difference between himself and Moderates, and the conservative resurgence. Here are some quotes:

"I will not declare that I hold to an inerrant Bible."
"I actually do think parts of the Bible are more valuable than others, more inspired than others. In fact, I think that some parts of the Bible have been put aside by the Christian revelation."
"A teacher who might also be led by Scripture not to believe in the virgin birth should not be fired."

There was a difference. Sherman not only acknowledged it, but also came to grips with the fact that most Southern Baptists did not share his view, and did share the view of the conservative resurgence.

"I have a pretty good grasp of the obvious. We lost."

There wasn't any whining on his part about a "takeover." He saw the shift, realized that moderates did not have the numbers or the means to win the battle on the convention floor because their view was not the one held by the majority of Southern Baptists, and invested the rest of his ministry energy in attempting to help CBF build an identity and become relevant. He was one of the few Moderate leaders who recognized that Southern Baptists were way more conservative theologically than most of their leadership had been, and that the conservative resurgence was just a readjustment and realignment of the leadership. It was not even close to a "takeover" in his mind.

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[Dave Roberts]