2013 SBC Annual Meeting

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

Moderator: William Thornton

Re: 2013 SBC Annual Meeting

Postby Sandy » Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm

TrudyU wrote:
Sandy wrote:And Timothy, I know plenty of strong Christians who teach in the public schools who don't even need a pen and a piece of paper to outline everything they encounter that is anti-Christian. There are hundreds of books on the subject. It's all documented. You can talk about a narrow view all you want to, you tend to have blinders on for a lot of things, and you don't want to see it.


Ed: Sandy, I sincerely hope that students coming out of your school can present a cogent argument better than you do. When you toss out something like "There are hundreds of books on the subject. It's all documented." The natural reaction is to say, Name three, who are they published by, who wrote them, what is his or her experience in education and when where these books written . And when you say It's all documented, I have to ask How by whom,when and where?

I have no doubt there is some material on the subject, but I am not sure you are capable of deciding what is and what is not viable. This comes from reading hundreds of your post where you make claims, lacking support. I am not saying that you are always wrong but too often you fail to convince me.


http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5619 ... ic-schools
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011 ... ar-schools

There's one Catholic and one Protestant view to get you started.

I'll recommend a couple of these, though I don't have a link:
The Harsh Truth About Public Schools, by Bruce Shortt
IndoctriNation, a multi-contributor book including pieces authored by R.C. Sproul, Erwin Lutzer, Voddie Baucham and others. Compiled by Colin Gunn.

Ed Pettibone wrote:I have no doubt there is some material on the subject, but I am not sure you are capable of deciding what is and what is not viable. This comes from reading hundreds of your post where you make claims, lacking support. I am not saying that you are always wrong but too often you fail to convince me.


That's code for "I already have a pre-conceived perspective on the subject, I'm not changing my mind, and anything you post in support I will relegate to the status of "not viable" in order to dismiss it." That's a pretty typical response from those who claim to be open minded and tolerant progressives.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 6105
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: 2013 SBC Annual Meeting

Postby Haruo » Sun Jun 16, 2013 9:20 pm

But this is Ed you're talking about, Sandy, and I don't think "open-minded and tolerant progressive" would be what he would claim to be. Like you, he holds positions on various topics that the "open-minded and tolerant progressive" crowd often find internally dissonant. ;-)
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: 9969
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: 2013 SBC Annual Meeting

Postby Timothy Bonney » Sun Jun 16, 2013 9:30 pm

Sandy wrote:And Timothy, I know plenty of strong Christians who teach in the public schools who don't even need a pen and a piece of paper to outline everything they encounter that is anti-Christian. There are hundreds of books on the subject. It's all documented. You can talk about a narrow view all you want to, you tend to have blinders on for a lot of things, and you don't want to see it.


Sandy come on. Yes we all have our blind spots. But you personally hold to a very very conservative interpretation of what constitutes Christianity that certainly many people agree with but also many more don't. We really look at the faith very differently. I'm not wearing "blinders." I am just in a different place than you are theologically.

I am at a place in my life where I know what I believe, I know why I believe it, I know where I stand with God, and I don't need to spend my time proving it and proving it again to conservative Christians no matter how much you all tend to demand it of liberal/progressive Christians. I don't need the validation of conservative Christians for my faith. Maybe at one time I did. But I don't any longer. So, believe what you will Sandy. But that doesn't mean I have to buy it.

EDIT (Monday a.m.): - Also Sandy if you want to contend that public schools are anti-Christian then it is on you to prove it. I'm not interested in a "I believe this now go prove I'm wrong" kind of argument. If you want to prove that public schools are anti-Christian present some evidence rather than telling me to go hunt down the information you haven't bothered to provide.
Tim Bonney
Blog - http://circuitwriter.org
User avatar
Timothy Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3489
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:17 am
Location: Sioux City, Iowa

Re: 2013 SBC Annual Meeting Att Flick going backto 2004

Postby TrudyU » Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:32 pm

Ed: Sandy posted the following:
R.C. Sprul
"Ed Pettibone wrote: I have no doubt there is some material on the subject, but I am not sure you are capable of deciding what is and what is not viable. This comes from reading hundreds of your post where you make claims, lacking support. I am not saying that you are always wrong but too often you fail to convince me."

And replied "That's code for "I already have a pre-conceived perspective on the subject, I'm not changing my mind, and anything you post in support I will relegate to the status of "not viable" in order to dismiss it." That's a pretty typical response from those who claim to be open minded and tolerant progressives.


Ed: Sandy, first off, when have you ever heard me self identify as an open minded and tolerant progressive? And I challenge you to come up with any thing of substance that you have posted that I have relegated to the status of "not viable" in order to dismiss it. (here I am using "any thing of substance" as that which was supported by measurable evidence.)

Alert Flick **

But then you already know I am not one of those Baptist who bow at the name of R.C. Sproul. But I will concede that even Reformed theologians may know something about Christian education . His was the only name I know from your list. Bruce Short rang a Bell, but when I Googled that name the only one I found that may fit in this discussion was Bruce N. Shortt (note two t's). His claim to fame memorable to most on these boards, seems to be co-sponsoring a resolution on Christian education with no less than T.C. Pickney.** But I do not count him short. According to a bio I found " He is a graduate of Harvard Law School, has a Ph.D. from Stanford University, was a Fulbright Scholar, and serves on the boards of directors of the Houston Ebony Music Society and the Exodus Mandate. He is a member of the North Oaks Baptist Church and currently practices law in Houston, Texas, where he resides with his wife and homeschool their sons.[b] Mr. Shortt and T.C. Pinckney were co-sponsors of the Christian Education Resolution that was submitted for consideration at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention. "

And Haruo you is right, I Consider my self to be a Christian, Baptist, of the moderate stripe . Those here claiming to be open minded and tolerant progressives are generally to my left, and for me, too often drift into liberal waters. :wink:

And Tim In this case, you may know what you believe but neither are you making a very substantial case for it. The truth probably lies in between you, I and Sandy. I have no idea where Haruo stands in regard to Public vs Christian Schools.

Here is Pickney speaking to the subject http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0rwj1o_ODs
TrudyU
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:11 pm

Re: 2013 SBC Annual Meeting Att Flick going backto 2004

Postby Timothy Bonney » Mon Jun 17, 2013 8:26 am

TrudyU wrote:And Tim In this case, you may know what you believe but neither are you making a very substantial case for it. The truth probably lies in between you, I and Sandy. I have no idea where Haruo stands in regard to Public vs Christian Schools.


I agree I've not made a case Ed. I've not made a case because I don't intend to at this point. It is Sandy's contention that public schools are anti-Christian. He made the statement. He needs to provide some evidence to back up that statement and not give us a "I believe this now go disprove it" argument. If he wants to convince us of something he needs to present some evidence, even a single shred of evidence. He has not done so. I'm not going to try to disprove a completely unsubstantiated assertion. I'm not going to do Sandy's work for him.
Tim Bonney
Blog - http://circuitwriter.org
User avatar
Timothy Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3489
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:17 am
Location: Sioux City, Iowa

Re: 2013 SBC Annual Meeting

Postby Sandy » Mon Jun 17, 2013 9:09 am

Timothy Bonney wrote:
Sandy wrote:And Timothy, I know plenty of strong Christians who teach in the public schools who don't even need a pen and a piece of paper to outline everything they encounter that is anti-Christian. There are hundreds of books on the subject. It's all documented. You can talk about a narrow view all you want to, you tend to have blinders on for a lot of things, and you don't want to see it.


Sandy come on. Yes we all have our blind spots. But you personally hold to a very very conservative interpretation of what constitutes Christianity that certainly many people agree with but also many more don't. We really look at the faith very differently. I'm not wearing "blinders." I am just in a different place than you are theologically.

I am at a place in my life where I know what I believe, I know why I believe it, I know where I stand with God, and I don't need to spend my time proving it and proving it again to conservative Christians no matter how much you all tend to demand it of liberal/progressive Christians. I don't need the validation of conservative Christians for my faith. Maybe at one time I did. But I don't any longer. So, believe what you will Sandy. But that doesn't mean I have to buy it.

EDIT (Monday a.m.): - Also Sandy if you want to contend that public schools are anti-Christian then it is on you to prove it. I'm not interested in a "I believe this now go prove I'm wrong" kind of argument. If you want to prove that public schools are anti-Christian present some evidence rather than telling me to go hunt down the information you haven't bothered to provide.


I'd be glad to, Timothy, but you're right. You see Christian faith in a much different perspective than I do. When I am engaged with you in a conversation about a theological perspective or a related issue, I often feel like I am chasing a moving target, because you never really allow yourself to be conclusive. You claim belief that the Bible is "authoritative," but you never use its authority to draw a conclusion. Anything I point out, you would say is either conservatively biased, or someone's interpretation, or deny that it is an "anti-Christian" perspective. I could reference works written by ivy league school graduates, or former public school teachers and administrators, but if they hold a more objective, less abstract position than you do, you'd ignore their work and claim bias.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 6105
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: 2013 SBC Annual Meeting

Postby Dave Roberts » Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:06 am

If I were looking for an authority, it would never be T. C. Pinkney. He is a liability for an argument. For 30 years now, he has published "The Baptist Banner," most of which he writes. It is virulently anti-public education and is constantly on the attack toward "secularization," and toward all Democratic politicians. He also has sent unsolicited information packets to vacant churches promoting "God's man for their church." He used to be endorsed by the SBCV, but they have distanced themselves from Pinkney.
"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: 5882
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: 2013 SBC Annual Meeting

Postby Sandy » Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:36 am

Dave Roberts wrote:If I were looking for an authority, it would never be T. C. Pinkney. He is a liability for an argument. For 30 years now, he has published "The Baptist Banner," most of which he writes. It is virulently anti-public education and is constantly on the attack toward "secularization," and toward all Democratic politicians. He also has sent unsolicited information packets to vacant churches promoting "God's man for their church." He used to be endorsed by the SBCV, but they have distanced themselves from Pinkney.


:lol: That's what happens when you have a lot of time on your hands, a lot of money, and not a whole lot to do. Separating Pinckney from what he researches and writes isn't easy, but if you don't, you wind up throwing out the baby with the bathwater. His research is factual, and while he certainly is free with advice about what to do once you have the facts, his research and his presentation of that is accurate. In that, he's not unlike Kirby Godsey, or Robert Parham, who will gladly tell you what they think you ought to do with what they've informed you is now the truth.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 6105
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: 2013 SBC Annual Meeting

Postby Timothy Bonney » Mon Jun 17, 2013 12:01 pm

Sandy wrote:I'd be glad to, Timothy, but you're right. You see Christian faith in a much different perspective than I do. When I am engaged with you in a conversation about a theological perspective or a related issue, I often feel like I am chasing a moving target, because you never really allow yourself to be conclusive. You claim belief that the Bible is "authoritative," but you never use its authority to draw a conclusion. Anything I point out, you would say is either conservatively biased, or someone's interpretation, or deny that it is an "anti-Christian" perspective. I could reference works written by ivy league school graduates, or former public school teachers and administrators, but if they hold a more objective, less abstract position than you do, you'd ignore their work and claim bias.


Sandy you are arguing subjectively while you are calling me subjective. And you've still not put forward an argument for your assertion. :lol: Worse, you called persons who don't agree with your unsupported assertion as having a less than serious Christian faith. If you are going to do so don't you think you should at least have reasons that you are willing to share? Shouldn't you be able to back that up?

If you want to ignore me as the liberal in the room go ahead. But you've made a bold faced statement that public schools are "anti-Christian" without a single reference to what they are anti-Christian about. You expect anyone (conservative, moderate, liberal, etc.) to just accept that without supporting evidence?

Sure I may end up disagreeing with your evidence. But it isn't much of an argument if you just refuse to present any evidence at all. You may fail to convince me. That's fine. But I would argue that this is what is wrong with a lot of statements I hear from the Christian right about schools, government, politics, etc.. Accusations fly and accusations are accepted as fact almost without question. But no one producing any facts.

I object to the idea that a more conservative interpretation of scripture or whatever is more "objective." It is often more black and white but by being so it is also just as subjective as any other interpretation of scripture.

You surely can give at least ONE reason you believe Christian schools are "anti-Christian." My best guess, since you won't tell me, is that you already know your reasons are ones that aren't supported outside of a far right conservative Christian viewpoint of what schools and the faith are about.
Tim Bonney
Blog - http://circuitwriter.org
User avatar
Timothy Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3489
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:17 am
Location: Sioux City, Iowa

Re: 2013 SBC Annual Meeting

Postby Timothy Bonney » Mon Jun 17, 2013 12:49 pm

I thought I'd write a separate note about another statement Sandy made.

Is my theology a "moving target?" I'd have to say yes and no. :wink:

As long as I've known enough to know I have believed in the same essentials of the faith I've always believed in. I know Baptists don't like creeds but I can, without reservation, agree with every statement in the Apostle's Creed. That hasn't changed from SBC to ABC to UMC.

However I do believe my faith has changed and continues to change and I think that is true for most Christians. I'm not saying that you all will change churches as I did. But I think most of you allow for new information and growing maturation to effect your viewpoints.

But I would be worried about any Christian who tells me that they believe EXACTLY the same thing they believed about EVERYTHING 20 years ago. I'd be concerned that maybe they don't read the Bible, don't study, don't pray and don't discuss faith much.
Tim Bonney
Blog - http://circuitwriter.org
User avatar
Timothy Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3489
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:17 am
Location: Sioux City, Iowa

Re: 2013 SBC Annual Meeting

Postby TrudyU » Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:23 pm

Ed: Note the Shortt & Pickney resolution of 2004 SB Convention mentioned above Failed. So it seems the bulk of the messengers at that Convention where not overly impressed with Pickney and Shortt's arguments any more than I was when sandy re-posted them in this forum. And this was 12 years after the take over crowed within the SBC has declared victory.

Sandy why in the world did you include those two in your list of authorities on this subject?
TrudyU
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:11 pm

Re: 2013 SBC Annual Meeting

Postby Sandy » Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:24 pm

TrudyU wrote:Ed: Note the Shortt & Pickney resolution of 2004 SB Convention mentioned above Failed. So it seems the bulk of the messengers at that Convention where not overly impressed with Pickney and Shortt's arguments any more than I was when sandy re-posted them in this forum. And this was 12 years after the take over crowed within the SBC has declared victory.

Sandy why in the world did you include those two in your list of authorities on this subject?


Pinckney and Shortt's resolution was presented in 2004. Southern Baptists were latecomers to the Christian school movement, and in 2004, about 3% of the churches in the convention had the day schools that would have been the recipients of students leaving the public system. Today, about 15% of SBC churches have days schools, there is an organization, the Southern Baptist Association of Christian Schools, and there is a growing trend among Southern Baptists to home educate or to place their children in a Christian school.

You can say what you want about the individuals, just see if you can challenge their assertions with facts. Well done research is still accurate, regardless of the personality or the politics of the person who does it.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 6105
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: 2013 SBC Annual Meeting

Postby ET » Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:19 pm

TrudyU wrote:Ed Pettibone on my wife's computer:

So ET does your support for vouchers extend to families who profess and practice forms of religion other other than Christianity, Such as Judaism, Islam and Wicca or whatever?

Sorry, Ed Pettibone, I didn't subscribe to this thread and haven't revisited it...got caught up in some other discussions, but to answer your question:

If I take the road of supporting vouchers, then I would have to be consistent and support them for whomever....Judaism, Islam, Wicca, whatever. I can't be intellectually honest in supporting choice only for Christians.

I do find one thing very interesting in this matter when it is discussed at the national level. The political left in this country claims to be "pro-choice", but I find them usually only to be concerned with choice in one and only one matter - whether or not a woman possesses the "right" to terminate the life she carries inside her. They are rarely, if ever, for "choice" in education. They are, in my experience, rarely in favor of any choice that would take power from government and give decision-making power to the "99%".

George Will had a good take on the last 50 years in education since the federal government became so deeply involved starting in 1965:
Abundant evidence demonstrates that money is not an Archimedean lever for moving the world of education. Inflation-adjusted per-pupil spending tripled over four decades; pupil-teacher ratios were substantially reduced as the number of teachers increased 61 percent while enrollments rose about 10 percent. Yet test scores stagnated or declined.

So, what will government do now to reverse the decline that has pretty much coincided with federal intervention since 1965? Double down.

So in the last 50 years the feds have inserted themselves into "solving poverty", "fixing education" and becoming the largest provider of health care...and yet are not these 3 issues almost ALWAYS at the top of every Democrats talking points? If you haven't fixed it in 50 years of tinkering, I would suggest you have FAILED...EPICALLY (to use one of the popular terms among the youth of today).

First step towards a better educational system: Abolish the Department of Education. Remove the federal government from funding and meddling in what should be a local and state endeavor. Return the money dollar for dollar to the workers in this country who fund the idiotic federal education bureaucracy.
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.
User avatar
ET
 
Posts: 2551
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:20 pm
Location: Cordova, TN

Re: 2013 SBC Annual Meeting

Postby Dave Roberts » Wed Jun 19, 2013 7:45 am

ET wrote:
George Will had a good take on the last 50 years in education since the federal government became so deeply involved starting in 1965:
Abundant evidence demonstrates that money is not an Archimedean lever for moving the world of education. Inflation-adjusted per-pupil spending tripled over four decades; pupil-teacher ratios were substantially reduced as the number of teachers increased 61 percent while enrollments rose about 10 percent. Yet test scores stagnated or declined.

So, what will government do now to reverse the decline that has pretty much coincided with federal intervention since 1965? Double down.

So in the last 50 years the feds have inserted themselves into "solving poverty", "fixing education" and becoming the largest provider of health care...and yet are not these 3 issues almost ALWAYS at the top of every Democrats talking points? If you haven't fixed it in 50 years of tinkering, I would suggest you have FAILED...EPICALLY (to use one of the popular terms among the youth of today).


Just a little correction here, ET. There has certainly been a lot of Democratic initiative, but the GOP cannot plead "clean hands and a pure heart." Nixon promoted several federal initiatives (whose names escape me). Reagan put major increases in his budget for federal involvement in education. Bush I added education to his Points of Light. "W" created No Child Left Behind. Just be sure you give credit where credit is due.

By the way, wouldn't a voucher system create another level of government bureaucracy determining what does and does not constitute an acceptable use of government funds for private and homeschool education?
"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: 5882
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: 2013 SBC Annual Meeting

Postby ET » Wed Jun 19, 2013 9:40 am

Dave Roberts wrote:Just a little correction here, ET. There has certainly been a lot of Democratic initiative, but the GOP cannot plead "clean hands and a pure heart." Nixon promoted several federal initiatives (whose names escape me). Reagan put major increases in his budget for federal involvement in education. Bush I added education to his Points of Light. "W" created No Child Left Behind. Just be sure you give credit where credit is due.

You are absolutely correct. G.W. Bush was largely a "Big Government Republican", as exemplified by his collaboration with Ted Kennedy of NCLB and the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Nixon created the EPA, I believe. Reagan had to deal with a Democrat controlled House all the time, so even though the proposed abolishing the DOE, it wasn't going to happen. The House controls the purse strings to the federal budget, so what gets spent isn't always decided by the President.

On a related note, Reagan also gave us amnesty for illegal immigrants back in the 80s. If amnesty didn't solve the issue then, what makes anyone thing that amnesty will fix immigration now?

Dave Roberts wrote:By the way, wouldn't a voucher system create another level of government bureaucracy determining what does and does not constitute an acceptable use of government funds for private and homeschool education?

Potentially, but I'd much rather see the concept operated in 50 different locales free from any control by the feds than managed by degree'd idiots in D.C. claiming to be "education experts".
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.
User avatar
ET
 
Posts: 2551
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:20 pm
Location: Cordova, TN

Re: 2013 SBC Annual Meeting

Postby Dave Roberts » Wed Jun 19, 2013 2:38 pm

ET wrote:
Dave Roberts wrote:By the way, wouldn't a voucher system create another level of government bureaucracy determining what does and does not constitute an acceptable use of government funds for private and homeschool education?

Potentially, but I'd much rather see the concept operated in 50 different locales free from any control by the feds than managed by degree'd idiots in D.C. claiming to be "education experts".


Doesn't virtually every state have an education bureaucracy almost equal in size or equal in size to the federal bureaucracy? I can't see much difference in education departments. By the way, here in VA, it was a GOP Governor, Jim Gilmore, who created the Standards of Learning testing that has turned VA education into "teaching the tests."
"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: 5882
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Previous

Return to SBC News and Trends

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests