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 Sandy » Mon Oct 15, 2012 4:47 pm

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.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8904
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The BF&M and Communion

Postby Tim Bonney » Mon Oct 15, 2012 5:07 pm

Sandy wrote:It is simply not possible to "take over" an organization that utilizes a wide open messenger registration system and that has as broad a constituency as the SBC


Wow! Sorry Sandy that has to be either one of the most naive things I've ever heard anyone say or, one of the most deeply in denial.
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5996
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: The BF&M and Communion

Postby Tom Parker » Mon Oct 15, 2012 5:33 pm

Tim:

I am thinking that Sandy is deeply in denial. He shows little to no knowledge of the TAKEOVER. :brick:
Tom Parker
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: The BF&M and Communion

Postby Sandy » Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:43 pm

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?
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8904
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The BF&M and Communion

Postby Tom Parker » Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:02 pm

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

Re: The BF&M and Communion

Postby Ed Pettibone » Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:44 pm

[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.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: The BF&M and Communion

Postby Sandy » Tue Oct 16, 2012 4:45 pm

Sorry Ed. You can't "take over" something when the majority of those involved in the decision making process go with you.

Ed Pettibone wrote: I have some Ideas as to why you may have jumped the fence but not ready to make any absolute statements as of yet.


That's quite a complicated issue, though you're welcome to venture a guess.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8904
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The BF&M and Communion

Postby Ed Pettibone » Tue Oct 16, 2012 5:37 pm

Sandy wrote:Sorry Ed. You can't "take over" something when the majority of those involved in the decision making process go with you.

Ed Pettibone wrote: I have some Ideas as to why you may have jumped the fence but not ready to make any absolute statements as of yet.


That's quite a complicated issue, though you're welcome to venture a guess.


Ed: Sandy, as you well know, the Majority of SBC churches never send messengers to an SBC annual meeting. Nor are the majority of stock holders present at most cooperate meetings, that is part of the takeover process. to say nothing of the massive plans that are concocted. Read, or reread Pressler's Book A Hill On Which To Die. When It was published in 1999, I became more convinced than ever that takeover is the the proper word to describe what had happened in the SBC.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: The BF&M and Communion

Postby Tim Bonney » Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:41 am

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.
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5996
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: The BF&M and Communion

Postby Sandy » Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:41 am

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.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8904
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The BF&M and Communion

Postby Tim Bonney » Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:53 am

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

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5996
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: The BF&M and Communion

Postby Tom Parker » Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:14 pm

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

Re: The BF&M and Communion

Postby Ed Pettibone » Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:11 pm

Sandy wrote: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.


Ed: And yet Sandy the SBC as large as it is, is a minority of all Baptist. I have lost track of how many times since 1985 they have lost membership over the preceding year. Baptism records never declined in the years that there was significant Moderate leadership as has has happened under the Conservative/ Fundamentalist Leadership. Some of the leading Churches in the SBC in membership, attendance, and baptisms are those which have both a CP and CBF option for giving. By 2030 Tim's UMC my overtake the SBC as the largest non Catholic, single entity the Gospel.

As for there not being "any movement to rise up and "take the SBC back." I do not know of any one who is interested in taking it back. In the 6 Seminaries I do not know of 12 professors I would be interested in. And I have heard talk of their wanting to getting rid of either Mid Western or Golden Gate. The Boyce Library at SBTS not including Al's private collection in the Presidents Library under his official office I could like to have. The Lifeway printing and distribution equipment in Nashville would be nice to have, but again there is the new staff.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: The BF&M and Communion

Postby Tom Parker » Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:24 pm

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

Re: The BF&M and Communion

Postby William Thornton » Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:48 pm

Tom Parker wrote: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. :(


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.

The CBF is on life support, though...

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

[But all Baptists are allowed a wide margin for hyerbole and exaggeration... :) ]
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12098
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: The BF&M and Communion

Postby Tom Parker » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:45 pm

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

Re: The BF&M and Communion

Postby Tom Parker » Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:17 am

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

Re: The BF&M and Communion

Postby Ed Pettibone » Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:37 am

Tom Parker wrote: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: 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 base this on some of the SBC churchs that we have visited when traveling and a feew of the blog I occasionally read. I do think there may be yet another major disruption. And I am glad to be out of the mess, 16 years now.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: The BF&M and Communion

Postby Tom Parker » Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:51 am

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

Re: The BF&M and Communion

Postby Ed Pettibone » Thu Oct 18, 2012 11:34 am

Tom Parker wrote:
Ed,You said to me Tom, I think perhaps you are engaging in wishful thinking. I on the other hand I 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: Tom I did use the word "barely".
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: The BF&M and Communion

Postby David Flick » Thu Oct 18, 2012 3:47 pm

Sandy wrote: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.

Ditto Tim Bonney here, here, and here. Ditto Ed Pettibone here, here, and here. Ditto Tom Parker here, here, here, here, and here.

Sandy, it's abundantly clear that you are clueless about the history of the SBC takeover. You rely solely on parroting the bogus talking points of the Takeover Gang. In a know-it-all fashion, you present the talking points to us as though they are actual history. But as TimB wrote, they (the talking points) are all malarkey.

In the process of parroting a number of the fundamentalist talking points (in this post), you make several baseless claims. In this post, I called your hand on several of the talking points. You failed to respond to any of my questions and comments. In this post I am challenging you to provide some answers. I challenge you to document the points you made about the pre-1979 SBC leadership and the so-called "Conservative Resurgence."

1) To Dave Roberts, you wrote: I have, in recent years, repeatedly stated that the pre-1979 SBC leadership was a very tightly controlled group of elites who were narrow and exclusive in their running of the SBC as the conservative resurgence has been accused of being.

  • Cite names of five or more members of the "very tightly controlled group of elites."
  • Cite examples of how members of this group of elites were "narrow and exclusive in their running of the SBC."


2) More Fundamentalist talking points:
In the same post to Dave, Sandy wrote:That's exactly why the moderates lost. 1First of all, "someone" was always deciding which people to invite to exclusive little gatherings, and it was always the same group of people.. . . . . . . . . . 2They weren't getting any traction because they weren't willing to listen to anyone outside of their exclusive little domain when it came to advice.. . . . . . . . . . 3There were many people, at that time myself included, who would have stepped up and provided support, but more importantly, would have also provided the kind of thinking and ideas that would lead to a workable strategy to bring the kind of support to the convention floor that was necessary to stop what was happening and shift the momentum.. . . . . . . . . . 4But all we ever heard from the "appointed" moderate leadership was the same old stuff, woe is us, there's no way to win except by using the same tactics, we won't do that, blah, blah, blah. I know of at least one group who tried to get the self-appointed moderate leadership on board with an effort that included an individual willing to bankroll the publicity, but they couldn't get inside the oligarchy to help unify the effort.

Taking the talking points individually, I have some questions:
    1a) Who was the "someone" who was always deciding which people to invite to exclusive little gatherings?

    1b) Who was/were the "someone/someones" that "controlled" the exclusive little gatherings?

    1c) When, where, and on what occasions did this occur prior to 1979?

    2a) What were the issues that the so-called elites were unwilling to discuss outside their "exclusive little domain?"

    2b) How exactly were the elites refusing to accept advice from others.

    2c) What "advice" were the fundamentalists offering?

    3) Specifically, what were the issues about which the elites needed help and support?

    4a) Who exactly was the so-called "appointed" moderate leadership?

    4b) Who was the "self-appointed moderate leader?"

    4c) Who was the individual that was willing to bankroll the publicity?


In a post written on Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:54 am, Sandy wrote:Lesson learned from the SBC prior to 1979. 1Talk about exclusion and elite "clubs"! 2They were the champions of that mentality, and apparently some of them, along with their supporters, even in old age, are still frumped up because someone came along and broke up their little club, and messed up their favor granting fiefdom.
    1a) Name just one person who was excluded from fellowship by the pre-1979 leadership. Just one.

    1b) Document one "elite club" among the pre-1979 SBC leadership. Just one.

    2) What do you mean by the term "fiefdoms"?


Conclusion: Sandy, all questions raised in this post come directly from your talking points. I and others here on this discussion forum expect you to answer them.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8431
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: The BF&M and Communion

Postby Sandy » Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:19 pm

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.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8904
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The BF&M and Communion

Postby Tim Bonney » Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:43 pm

Sandy wrote: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?


Sandy, this has been answered more than once. Your characterization of the "democratic" nature of the SBC is only partially accurate. As others have pointed out most church never send their compliment of Messengers. Most church don't have a direct say in what the SBC does at all. The Messengers who do attend are not instructed delegates so they may vote against the will of the congregation they come from if they so desire.

I have actually seen with my own eye at the SBC Convention in Los Vegas children having ballots that their Father voted for them. I actually saw with my own eyes Messengers whose mics were cut off by the chair when they didn't like what they were trying to say. I know for a fact that Messengers who agreed to vote for the Fundys were bussed in and given special treatment to get them there to vote.

If you are willing to play the system, use whatever means necessary, find the weaknesses in the rules, etc. then you can manage a takeover because no human organization has a perfect structure.

For someone who is really interested in politics I'm just really surprised you are this naive about how democratic organizations can be subverted if some of the players don't care about the morality or ethics of how they can accomplish their goal. Surely you could take some cues from secular politics to see how this can happen.
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5996
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: The BF&M and Communion

Postby William Thornton » Fri Oct 19, 2012 5:40 am

Tim Bonney wrote:
Sandy wrote: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?


Sandy, this has been answered more than once. Your characterization of the "democratic" nature of the SBC is only partially accurate. As others have pointed out most church never send their compliment of Messengers. Most church don't have a direct say in what the SBC does at all. The Messengers who do attend are not instructed delegates so they may vote against the will of the congregation they come from if they so desire.

I have actually seen with my own eye at the SBC Convention in Los Vegas children having ballots that their Father voted for them. I actually saw with my own eyes Messengers whose mics were cut off by the chair when they didn't like what they were trying to say. I know for a fact that Messengers who agreed to vote for the Fundys were bussed in and given special treatment to get them there to vote.

If you are willing to play the system, use whatever means necessary, find the weaknesses in the rules, etc. then you can manage a takeover because no human organization has a perfect structure.

For someone who is really interested in politics I'm just really surprised you are this naive about how democratic organizations can be subverted if some of the players don't care about the morality or ethics of how they can accomplish their goal. Surely you could take some cues from secular politics to see how this can happen.




Ah, the myths never die and tendentious relating of history dieth not either.

According to the the gospel of Timothy, the SBC is not democratic because most churches are not represented, an odd conclusion since I know of no group of any size where ALL vote. There is no democratic body in existence, therefore.

The observant Timothy also sez he saw kiddie-poos voting. So what? If a church elected them as messenger they can vote. I trust that our favorite UMCer still allows BAptist churches to exercise their autonomy in this respect, even if he personally likes some serious hierarchy.

The mic was cut off. Alas and alack. I have never failed to see this in about every Baptist large meeting I have attended. It means nothing.

Bussed in, eh? Timothy wishes to summarily deny a vote to those who arrive at the convention hall by certain means of transportation.

Get over it, bro. You are not even a Baptist anymore. Presumably you are happy in a tradition where folks in the pews can be completely ignored and where decisions are entrusted to the few, the ordained.

:roll:
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12098
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: The BF&M and Communion

Postby Ed Pettibone » Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:22 am

William Thornton wrote:
Tim Bonney wrote:
Sandy wrote: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?


Sandy, this has been answered more than once. Your characterization of the "democratic" nature of the SBC is only partially accurate. As others have pointed out most church never send their compliment of Messengers. Most church don't have a direct say in what the SBC does at all. The Messengers who do attend are not instructed delegates so they may vote against the will of the congregation they come from if they so desire.

I have actually seen with my own eye at the SBC Convention in Los Vegas children having ballots that their Father voted for them. I actually saw with my own eyes Messengers whose mics were cut off by the chair when they didn't like what they were trying to say. I know for a fact that Messengers who agreed to vote for the Fundys were bussed in and given special treatment to get them there to vote.

If you are willing to play the system, use whatever means necessary, find the weaknesses in the rules, etc. then you can manage a takeover because no human organization has a perfect structure.

For someone who is really interested in politics I'm just really surprised you are this naive about how democratic organizations can be subverted if some of the players don't care about the morality or ethics of how they can accomplish their goal. Surely you could take some cues from secular politics to see how this can happen.




Ah, the myths never die and tendentious relating of history dieth not either.

According to the the gospel of Timothy, an odd conclusion since I know of no group of any size where ALL vote. There is no democratic body in existence, therefore.

The observant Timothy also sez he saw kiddie-poos voting. So what? If a church elected them as messenger they can vote. I trust that our favorite UMCer still allows BAptist churches to exercise their autonomy in this respect, even if he personally likes some serious hierarchy.

The mic was cut off. Alas and alack. I have never failed to see this in about every Baptist large meeting I have attended. It means nothing.

Bussed in, eh? Timothy wishes to summarily deny a vote to those who arrive at the convention hall by certain means of transportation.

Get over it, bro. You are not even a Baptist anymore. Presumably you are happy in a tradition where folks in the pews can be completely ignored and where decisions are entrusted to the few, the ordained.

:roll:


Ed: William you must have been distracted by some thing else when you perused Tim's post. Where do you find him saying that "the SBC is not democratic because most churches are not represented,..." What Tim correctly said to Sandy was "Your characterization of the "democratic" nature of the SBC is only partially accurate."

And you characterization of Tim's Comment about "Children" having ballots is a simple attempt to justify parents who subverted the process. I have also reported that I saw a mother doing the same at the 1990 Convention in New Orleans. Are you claiming that due to Baptist Autonomy it is OK to teach ones children to be dishonest? I believe in such a setting the rules of the Convention take precedent over the Autonomy of the church sending the messenger.

William, I have an Idea that I Have attended about as many Baptist meeting as you have and at the Southern Baptist convention is the only place I have encountered the RUDE practice of summarily cutting off a speakers Mic in mid sentence. In most other Baptist meetings that I have observed the procedure has been for the chair to get the attention of the gathering . Usually by raping a gavel, and notifying the speaker of why he or she is being interrupted. I am not surprised that you find the rude cutting off the mic of a speaker who OK.

I may conceded that that I and others who had our fill of the SBC leadership and left sometimes use the phease "bussed in" to loosely at times, making it sound as if all who arrived on buses where there only for the voting. In this case TIm is more definitive when he says "I know for a fact that Messengers who agreed to vote for the Fundy's were bussed in and given special treatment to get them there to vote." Your only legitimate argument with that statement, might be with the assertion that those bussed in where agreed to vote supportive of fundamentalist only. Some of the Candidates where not fundamentalist, they where simply conservatives and ultra conservatives. And those bussed in where doing some one a favor and voting as prompted with no idea of the candidates leaning.

I have long said part of the Moderate problem has been over use of the "fundy" handle. For the most part the takeover was engineered by ultra conservatives utilizing rhetoric and scare techniques borrowed from fundamentalist.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

PreviousNext

Return to SBC News and Trends

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest