The BF&M and Communion

[Sandy]

I simply want to know how an organization that is governed by majority rule of messengers could be "taken over" when it has been abundantly clear virtually every since 1979 that the vast majority of Southern Baptists sympathized with, and supported, the changes that were initiated at that time. In addition to continuing to draw majorities of messengers who supported the conservative resurgence leaders, the state conventions have overwhelmingly moved in the same direction. In addition, people and churches have had an open door to "vote with their feet." The Alliance of Baptists and CBF have had open doors for those in the SBC opposed to the conservative resurgence, and they're both smaller today than they were at the beginning of their existence.

[Tim Bonney]

[Tom Parker]

Tim:

I am thinking that Sandy is deeply in denial. He shows little to no knowledge of the TAKEOVER.

[Sandy]

I'll accept your term "takeover" when you can point out to me how a clear majority, voting consistently year after year, is "taking over" something that a minority can't hold. When you can answer the question why those who thought they owned the SBC prior to 1979 felt that they were entitled to continue leading it, even when the majority of messengers to the convention, in their own system, kept sending them the message that they didn't want them in control any more, then I'll agree it was a takeover. When you can tell me why the moderate registration secretary, Lee Porter, the one person in the convention in a position to do so, never verified a single registration irregularity during all of the talk about skyboxes and working the floor.

And all that talk about not wanting to "do the same thing" that the conservatives were doing to regain control is just rhetoric. The fact of the matter is that the moderate leadership would have stuffed the ballot box if they could have gotten away with it, or bought votes if they'd have had the money. They finally got around to listening to some advice, and nominated a reputable, non-political, conservative, inerrantist in Richard Jackson. Why didn't that work? You tell me.

The SBC was turned around. But it was not "taken over." In the long run, the vast majority of churches and members went with the resurgence, and the opposition's splinter didn't even make a blip on the radar screen, because too many of their churches weren't willing to sever their ties with the denomination. What kind of a cause do you have if you're not willing to take the risks that go along with supporting it?

[Tom Parker]

Sandy:

It is laughable that you write what you do as if it is reality. You would be an excellent fiction writer. Maybe you have missed your calling in life.

[Ed Pettibone]

[quote="Sandy"] "I'll accept your term 'takeover' when you can point out to me how a clear majority, voting consistently year after year, is 'taking over' something that a minority can't hold. When you can answer the question why those who thought they owned the SBC prior to 1979 felt that they were entitled to continue leading it, even when the majority of messengers to the convention, in their own system, kept sending them the message that they didn't want them in control any more, then I'll agree it was a takeover. When you can tell me why the moderate registration secretary, Lee Porter, the one person in the convention in a position to do so, never verified a single registration irregularity during all of the talk about skyboxes and working the floor. "

Ed: "Sandy I for one do not expect you to accept the term "takeover" any more that I will accept the term resurgence." Those so called clear majorities included votes by children to young to under stand what was going on I saw it In New Orleans in 1990. the majorities included votes of messengers bussed in for the elections. And messengers denied the privilege of hearing objections to the maneuvering when various speakers had their microphones shut off that happened at more than one SBC convention. And then there was the High paid Church of Christ Parliamentarian. Who offed a number of spurious rulings on motions before the body. And on Porter, did he not after the fact of the 79 convention verify the fact that Paul Pressler was not a member of the church that issued his credentials for that meeting although he was the interim preacher there. And what did Lee Porter duties have to do with the sky Boxes and the communications from them to operatives on the Convention floor.

[b]Sandy Continued: [/b]And all that talk about not wanting to "do the same thing" that the conservatives were doing to regain control is just rhetoric. The fact of the matter is that the moderate leadership would have stuffed the ballot box if they could have gotten away with it, or bought votes if they'd have had the money. They finally got around to listening to some advice, and nominated a reputable, non-political, conservative, inerrantist in Richard Jackson. Why didn't that work? You tell me.

Ed: The "talk" about not wanting to "do the same thing" that the conservatives were doing to regain control is NOT just rhetoric. I to so couple well placed moderates that we needed to set up a political machine to counter the Lies innuendo and half truths with the truth. And they informed me "That is not the proper way for the SBC to be operated, we believe in the movement of the Holy Spirit" My rebuttal that "I believed the Holy Spirit could lead us to select a very good candidate and how to market 'him' to the convention was met with cold water."
It was not all together that we where defeated by dirty ticks the moderate leadership from 1980 into about 87 where politically sterile and inept at organizing large groups and several times the non fundamentalist thinking conservatives and moderates ran against not only the Fundamentalist machine but against one another in part that is what happened to Jackson. his being a conservative and an inerrantist also worked against him, along with being non political. Of course you mat recall I do not view politics as a dirty word. There are however dirty politics.


Sandy's post continued: "The SBC was turned around. But it was not "taken over." In the long run, the vast majority of churches and members went with the resurgence, and the opposition's splinter didn't even make a blip on the radar screen, because too many of their churches weren't willing to sever their ties with the denomination. What kind of a cause do you have if you're not willing to take the risks that go along with supporting it?"

Ed: Sandy, I think you may have honestly bought into ( as Flick would say) "That resurgence baloney and cheese" but it is based on revisionist history. Going back to those narrow "clear" majority wins that led to massive firings and replacements rife in cronyism. I have some Ideas as to why you may have jumped the fence but not ready to make any absolute statements as of yet.

[Sandy]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Tim Bonney]

You are probably wasting your breath Ed. Sandy, for whatever reason, has committed himself to the fiction of the "Resurgence." To keep that house of cards standing he has to ignore a lot of evidence to the contrary.

One of the problems with Roberts Rules of Order is that it only takes a bare majority to win, and as you've pointed out, only a bare majority of those present not a majority of the whole body. That hardly constitutes a majority or in any way proves that a majority was involved in the changes in the SBC. My suspicion is many SBC lay people know little about it, never think about it, or think it is unimportant because they've bought the idea that it doesn't effect their local congregation.

[Sandy]

But, in state conventions, associations, and even in individual churches which have affirmed the direction of the SBC, it's been three decades of way more than bare majorities. Sure, the majority of SBC churches don't send messengers to the convention in any given year. If it was just a "bare majority," then it should have been relatively easy for the opposition to gather enough support to put a stop to it, especially if the resurgence really was a takeover. In a denomination organized democratically, a minority can build a coalition to win support for a while, but to sustain it over three decades, no, sorry, that just doesn't happen. And in every state convention but two, the resurgence has been affirmed and supported by more than just bare majorities. The other evidence that this was not a takeover, but simply a redirection, is in the lack of any kind of following of substance that the opposition has been able to gather since. As prone to splits as Baptists are, you would think that if the opposition was substantial and significant, and represented core values that had been usurped and "taken over" by the renegade fundies, then it would seem that there would have been more of them who would have taken a stand for their beliefs, and split away to form a new organization. There was the Alliance, and CBF, but neither of them is anywhere near large enough to qualify as major. They're tiny, ineffectual, sputtering organizations who are now simply trying to keep the budget stream from drying up. There's not been any movement to rise up and "take the SBC back." There's been a little wimpering, and that's about it.

You guys who insist on waah waah waah about a "takeover" are the ones living in la la land.

[Tim Bonney]

I think I'll just leave you with one word Sandy. "Malarkey!"

[Tom Parker]

Tim:

I find it very sad that one can not have an intelligent discussion with Sandy about the TAKEOVER. He wants to talk like an expert, but he fails on all levels.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Tom Parker]

Ed:

The SBC is a sinking ship full of so many self-inflicted holes it can not be fixed. Many like Sandy want to ignore what is happening in the SBC but the TAKEOVER created a mind-set that is destroying itself.

[William Thornton]

[Tom Parker]

William:

I love you man, but when you say:"Aw, come on Tom...the biggest surprise 33 years after the beginning of the CR and over two decades after it was all over is how weak the moderate spinoffs are and how the SBC just lumbers along. The Cooperative Program ain't what she used to be but still funnels hundreds of millions of dollars from churches to various state and SBC causes. " I agree with you but I also disagree with you.

It took years for the SBC to become the well oiled money machine she is even to this day and without the help of the WMU it would have gone bankrupt. IMO the CBF will never be able to replicate the SBC but that is not really the point.

I am entitlted to my opinion as much as you are and the CR, TAKEOVER--I really do not care what name you give it pitted Christian brother and sister against each other and many people's lives were ruined for what?

IMO the SBC ship is sinking.

[Tom Parker]

William:

You said to me:"Get back with us in another three decades and let's see where everything is. I think you are confusing "flat" with "flatlined."

IMO 30 years from now the SBC will not exsist. The SBC will not survive the infighting that the CR, TAKEOVER, you name it brought into the denomination.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Tom Parker]

Ed:

You said to me:"Ed: Tom, I think perhaps you are engaging in wishful thinking. I on the other hand have an idea that some more reasonable voices (of the younger set) will begin to move the SBC somewhat toward greater light and reason. At least enough to keep them alive. "

I hope my prediciton is wrong. But how sad it will be if all that can be said thirty years from now by those still in the SBC is that the SBC is barely alive.

[Ed Pettibone]

[David Flick]

[Sandy]

The question here is how could a democratic organization as wide open as the SBC, with 45,000 churches able to send messengers, most of them the maximum number of messengers, be "taken over" by a group that wasn't representative of the will of the majority of churches and their members? There was ample opportunity for whoever the "majority" was to right the course if that was the direction they wanted to go. The answer given here has never been direct. There have been excuses, whines about unfair advantages, accusations of underhanded tactics which have yet to be proven by hard evidence, but no answer. The reason for that is that there isn't one. A group came forward with a strategy to penetrate an entrenched bureaucratic system that was self-serving and self-preserving, pointed to an issue that had been simmering below the surface for some time, and their message resonated with enough Baptists to allow them to continue to elect the denomination's officers and appoint its trustees. The individuals involved were all members of churches that were in full cooperation with the Southern Baptist Convention, and were legitimately elected messengers to the convention, just like everyone else who had previously served. How can an organization be taken over by individuals who are legitimate members of it?

That's the question that must be answered here. So far, it hasn't.

[Tim Bonney]

[William Thornton]

[Ed Pettibone]