Patterson = Martin Luther

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

Moderator: William Thornton

Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Matt Richard » Thu Apr 25, 2013 3:59 pm

I don't comment much on here...but it's fun to stir the pot when I come across stuff like this. Have fun.
http://www.swbts.edu/campus-news/news-r ... edication/
Matt Richard
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:32 am
Location: Gatesville, TX

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Tom Parker » Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:28 pm

Paige Patterson and Martin Luther. Not even close in my opinion. PP helped to destroy a great denomination--it seems bizarre to award a man for doing this. He can be sure he is leaving a legacy :brick: :brick: :brick:
Tom Parker
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Haruo » Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:48 pm

I had no idea Dorothy had been a nun. But it's true, Paige religiously kept the SBC at arm's length from the Vatican during the entire period of his apostolate. http://www.dorothypatterson.info/Alcohol.cfm (kind of cute treatment; ignores Lot & his girls).
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12659
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Sandy » Fri Apr 26, 2013 9:01 am

Tom Parker wrote:Paige Patterson and Martin Luther. Not even close in my opinion. PP helped to destroy a great denomination--it seems bizarre to award a man for doing this. He can be sure he is leaving a legacy :brick: :brick: :brick:


Whether Paige Patterson can be compared with Martin Luther is certainly up for discussion. But to claim that he helped "destroy" a great denomination is just laughable, given the facts. The problem is that the SBC didn't continue on in the direction you thought it ought to go. There are those who think that the program oriented, traditionalist, entrenched pre-1979 bureaucracy was going to somehow revive the flatlined missions and church growth. There are others who claim that the declines and drops in mission support and church membership would have been far worse than they have been if the pre-1979 leadership had been left in charge. Speculation is pointless. However, the evidence and facts do not support your claim that the denomination has been destroyed.

I do agree with one statement of yours, Tom. There is no comparison between Paige Patterson and Martin Luther. Luther's theology and actions led to the founding of the Lutheran Church, an apostate body of demonic wolves in sheep's clothing, dividing God's holy church, setting its members against each other, and, as it is expressed today, promoting a liberal "I can do as I please" attitude toward the Christian faith. Luther wasn't a Bible believer, after all, calling the epistle of James an "epistle of straw" and spending way too much time in taverns, writing perverted hymns like "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God." How can a church sing a hymn written by a guy who had a few too many beers? No, Patterson is far greater than Luther. He is a modern-day Elijah the prophet. Remember, they didn't like his bluntness or blatant, bullheaded honestly either.

:wink:
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9354
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Dave Roberts » Fri Apr 26, 2013 9:51 am

I was taught in history courses that one requirement for historical perspective is time. Patterson is still out there. The Luther comparison is ludicrous, but there is no real perspective to assess his true influence. At least wait until he has finished his career.
"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: 7511
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby TrudyU » Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:45 pm

Ed: So Sandy, If Luthers best known hymn is perverted why did the SBC's, Broadman & Holman, Publish A Mighty Fortress, in their hymnal both in 1991 & 98 ?

http://www.hymnary.org/hymn/BH1991/8
TrudyU
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Haruo » Sat Apr 27, 2013 1:19 am

Umm, Ed, maybe Sandy just forgot the winking smiley face. I think it is obvious and then some that his sketch of Luther and the Lutherans was written with a large tongue-shaped object imbedded in his cheek.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12659
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Sandy » Sat Apr 27, 2013 8:57 am

Haruo wrote:Umm, Ed, maybe Sandy just forgot the winking smiley face. I think it is obvious and then some that his sketch of Luther and the Lutherans was written with a large tongue-shaped object imbedded in his cheek.


Maybe Ed didn't see the winking smiley face. It's there.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9354
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Haruo » Sat Apr 27, 2013 10:32 am

Why so it is. I didn't see it myself, ;-) but it was pretty obviously appropriate to the post.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12659
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Michael Wrenn » Sat Apr 27, 2013 5:01 pm

Patterson and all of his ilk are demagogues who deny Baptist principles.
Michael Wrenn
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:10 am

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Sandy » Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:33 am

Michael Wrenn wrote:Patterson and all of his ilk are demagogues who deny Baptist principles.

Can you cite a specific example of a "Baptist principle" that Patterson has denied?

People forget that Patterson and Pressler did not work in a vacuum. There was a lot of discussion, and a lot of concern, over the leftward drift of the seminaries, and a lot of support for their position prior to their having a candidate at the 1979 convention. It shouldn't have come as a surprise to the leadership of the convention at the time. Nor would the conservative resurgence have succeeded without sustained support. When the dust cleared, it was as it had been claimed, a restoration of a major denomination to its historic, conservative theological roots. The evidence for that is the virtual lack of support for any kind of effort aimed at splitting or splintering the convention by its moderate leadership. When they left, few followed. It is also evidenced by the continued selection of leadership that supports the conservative direction of the convention. Most major denominations have experienced fracture and division over the conservative vs. liberal divide. The SBC has gone conservative without it.

The mistake that Patterson and Pressler made that will affect their legacy in the annals of Baptist history was taking the step of moving into leadership positions themselves after their initial movement succeeded. Had they stepped back and allowed the process to move forward, their legacy would have been preserved as the leaders who saved the SBC from heretical liberalism. But instead, they reserved for themselves choice positions of influence in order to oversee the continuation of the movement, and in Patterson's case, to grab the job he had always wanted. When you've led something as significant as the conservative resurgence, you generally don't get to lay claim to a stake in a personal interest. Pressler got himself a position on the executive board, and is still a trustee of something. Patterson, of course, used the house cleaning at Southeastern Seminary to get the presidency of Southwestern. That diminishes the value and the significance of their role in the conservative resurgence.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9354
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Haruo » Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:25 am

Sandy wrote:That diminishes the value and the significance of their role in the conservative resurgence.
Yes, it's generally advisable to lay up one's treasure in heaven when the alternative is to lay it up in Texas.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12659
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Tom Parker » Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:49 pm

Sandy: You said:' Had they stepped back and allowed the process to move forward, their legacy would have been preserved as the leaders who saved the SBC from heretical liberalism."

You do realize that even if you repeat a lie a thousand times it is still a lie and not the truth.
Tom Parker
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby David Flick » Mon Apr 29, 2013 1:36 pm

Tom Parker wrote:Sandy: You said:' Had they stepped back and allowed the process to move forward, their legacy would have been preserved as the leaders who saved the SBC from heretical liberalism."

You do realize that even if you repeat a lie a thousand times it is still a lie and not the truth.

Sadly, Tom, Sandy never has figured that one out yet... He still thinks the takeover was a "conservative resurgence."
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8464
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Tom Parker » Mon Apr 29, 2013 1:53 pm

David: For people like Sandy to be so willingly blind amazes me. I'm quite confident they will never realize they were deceived and that an organization--SBC that used to have people working together for a common cause now is destroying itself slowly day by day. For some their fear of their livelihoods must drive their daily behavior to ignore the truth.
Tom Parker
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby William Thornton » Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:40 pm

David Flick wrote:
Tom Parker wrote:Sandy: You said:' Had they stepped back and allowed the process to move forward, their legacy would have been preserved as the leaders who saved the SBC from heretical liberalism."

You do realize that even if you repeat a lie a thousand times it is still a lie and not the truth.

Sadly, Tom, Sandy never has figured that one out yet... He still thinks the takeover was a "conservative resurgence."


...and until we old codgers die off, the CR will always generate talk here.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12361
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Sandy » Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:59 pm

Well, you know, Tom, there might be half a dozen people in the SBC who would agree with you right about now. Those who remain in the denomination, which turns out is pretty much everyone who was in it before 1979, plus about a million more members and about 8,000 more churches than it had in 1979, generally believe the denomination needed the conservative resurgence, and that's what they call it now. You don't get to define what it is or what name it goes by. They do.

You can't "take over" something if you belong to it, have the right, by virtue of your membership in it, to vote, to run for office, and to hold a leadership position, and you are supported in your effort by being elected to leadership by majority vote, and your leadership and the things it brings to the table are consistenty supported by an overwhelming majority. Who, among the officers, trustees, board and committee members appointed after 1979 was an outsider, not a member of a cooperating Southern Baptist church? You can't "take over" something if you are already a member of it, and are entitled to be elected to office.

Tom Parker wrote:I'm quite confident they will never realize they were deceived and that an organization--SBC that used to have people working together for a common cause now is destroying itself slowly day by day. For some their fear of their livelihoods must drive their daily behavior to ignore the truth.


My livlihood is no longer derived from any source that is related to the Southern Baptist Convention. Technically, I guess I am still a member of a Southern Baptist church in Texas, since when I joined the Christian and Missionary Alliance, they simply made me a member based on my testimony, and don't do "transfer of letter."

You keep asserting that the SBC is "destroying itself" without providing a shred of evidence.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9354
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Tom Parker » Mon Apr 29, 2013 7:37 pm

Sandy:

You said to me:" You keep asserting that the SBC is "destroying itself" without providing a shred of evidence."

Sandy, if I gave you 500 reams of evidence as to why the SBC is destroying itself you would reject every page of it. You will forever believe the TAKEOVER purified the SBC and I will forever believe the TAKEOVER removed the heart of the SBC.
Tom Parker
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Sandy » Mon Apr 29, 2013 9:43 pm

Tom Parker wrote:Sandy:

You said to me:" You keep asserting that the SBC is "destroying itself" without providing a shred of evidence."

Sandy, if I gave you 500 reams of evidence as to why the SBC is destroying itself you would reject every page of it. You will forever believe the TAKEOVER purified the SBC and I will forever believe the TAKEOVER removed the heart of the SBC.


You can't seem to find a single page of evidence. I can't reject something that, up to this point, doesn't exist.

Southern Baptists who have remained in the convention, a larger number of both members and churches than were part of the convention in 1979 when the resurgence began, are the ones who get to define what happened, not its critics from among the supporters of the old bureaucracy. Calling the conservative resurgence a "takeover" is just sour grapes. The SBC bylaws and constitution lay out how officers are elected, their appointive powers, and how trustees and committee members are selected. In accordance with those bylaws, and signed off by the recording secretary and clerk of the convention, a majority of messengers elected new leadership starting in 1979, and has consistently done so ever since. There's no bylaw, by the way, that prevents messengers from riding to conventions on busses, nor that prevents individuals from encouraging churches to elect and send their full complement of messengers. The very definition of "takeover" implies that outsiders go around the rules to gain control. There were no outsiders, and no rules were broken, according to the very officials in charge of messenger registration and counting the votes. Everyone elected was, as required, a member of a cooperating Southern Baptist church. You can't take over something to which you already belong and with which you are already affiliated, and which you financially support, and to which you are entitled to hold leadership under the rules, if you are elected by a majority of messengers.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9354
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Dave Roberts » Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:28 am

William Thornton wrote:
...and until we old codgers die off, the CR will always generate talk here.


William, and when the folks who were in the same generation are gone, there will be a new generation in the SBC "that knows not Patterson or Pressler or why it took place. We are not the only dying old codgers. Ask the millennials why it happened and see what you learn.
"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: 7511
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby TrudyU » Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:38 pm

Sandy wrote:
Tom Parker wrote:Sandy:

You said to me:" You keep asserting that the SBC is "destroying itself" without providing a shred of evidence."

Sandy, if I gave you 500 reams of evidence as to why the SBC is destroying itself you would reject every page of it. You will forever believe the TAKEOVER purified the SBC and I will forever believe the TAKEOVER removed the heart of the SBC.


You can't seem to find a single page of evidence. I can't reject something that, up to this point, doesn't exist.

Southern Baptists who have remained in the convention, a larger number of both members and churches than were part of the convention in 1979 when the resurgence began, are the ones who get to define what happened, not its critics from among the supporters of the old bureaucracy. Calling the conservative resurgence a "takeover" is just sour grapes. The SBC bylaws and constitution lay out how officers are elected, their appointive powers, and how trustees and committee members are selected. In accordance with those bylaws, and signed off by the recording secretary and clerk of the convention, a majority of messengers elected new leadership starting in 1979, and has consistently done so ever since. There's no bylaw, by the way, that prevents messengers from riding to conventions on busses, nor that prevents individuals from encouraging churches to elect and send their full complement of messengers. The very definition of "takeover" implies that outsiders go around the rules to gain control. There were no outsiders, and no rules were broken, according to the very officials in charge of messenger registration and counting the votes. Everyone elected was, as required, a member of a cooperating Southern Baptist church. You can't take over something to which you already belong and with which you are already affiliated, and which you financially support, and to which you are entitled to hold leadership under the rules, if you are elected by a majority of messengers.


Ed: Sandy there is much more than a single page a this link: http://www.adherents.com/largecom/baptist_fewerSBC.html and the report of this trend written in 99 has been repeated several times since then.

from the link http://www.adherents.com/largecom/baptist_fewerSBC.html

partial quote
In April, the Southern Baptist Convention reported that in 1998 it experienced its first drop in total membership in more than 70 years. The loss of 162,158 members is a 1 percent drop from the previous year.

Convention officials give several reasons for the drop, including a change in computer software and data collection procedures, and dissatisfaction with last year's declaration about "wives submitting graciously to their husbands" that prompted some congregations to sever ties to the convention.
TrudyU
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Michael Wrenn » Wed May 01, 2013 6:08 am

Sandy wrote:
Michael Wrenn wrote:Patterson and all of his ilk are demagogues who deny Baptist principles.

Can you cite a specific example of a "Baptist principle" that Patterson has denied?

People forget that Patterson and Pressler did not work in a vacuum. There was a lot of discussion, and a lot of concern, over the leftward drift of the seminaries, and a lot of support for their position prior to their having a candidate at the 1979 convention. It shouldn't have come as a surprise to the leadership of the convention at the time. Nor would the conservative resurgence have succeeded without sustained support. When the dust cleared, it was as it had been claimed, a restoration of a major denomination to its historic, conservative theological roots. The evidence for that is the virtual lack of support for any kind of effort aimed at splitting or splintering the convention by its moderate leadership. When they left, few followed. It is also evidenced by the continued selection of leadership that supports the conservative direction of the convention. Most major denominations have experienced fracture and division over the conservative vs. liberal divide. The SBC has gone conservative without it.

The mistake that Patterson and Pressler made that will affect their legacy in the annals of Baptist history was taking the step of moving into leadership positions themselves after their initial movement succeeded. Had they stepped back and allowed the process to move forward, their legacy would have been preserved as the leaders who saved the SBC from heretical liberalism. But instead, they reserved for themselves choice positions of influence in order to oversee the continuation of the movement, and in Patterson's case, to grab the job he had always wanted. When you've led something as significant as the conservative resurgence, you generally don't get to lay claim to a stake in a personal interest. Pressler got himself a position on the executive board, and is still a trustee of something. Patterson, of course, used the house cleaning at Southeastern Seminary to get the presidency of Southwestern. That diminishes the value and the significance of their role in the conservative resurgence.


The SBC is not a Baptist as it was before the takeover, and the 2000 BF&M proves that.
Michael Wrenn
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:10 am

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Sandy » Wed May 01, 2013 6:50 am

Michael Wrenn wrote:The SBC is not a Baptist as it was before the takeover, and the 2000 BF&M proves that.


How?
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9354
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby TrudyU » Wed May 01, 2013 10:15 pm

Sandy wrote:
Michael Wrenn wrote:The SBC is not a Baptist as it was before the takeover, and the 2000 BF&M proves that.


How?


Ed: More top down control as evidenced by the BF&M rewrites after 79. Including new interpretation of he BF&M's authority.
TrudyU
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: Patterson = Martin Luther

Postby Michael Wrenn » Thu May 02, 2013 3:39 am

A comparison of the 1963 BF&M with the 2000 version, with commentary by Texas Baptists:

http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf ... images=yes
Michael Wrenn
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:10 am

Next

Return to SBC News and Trends

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron