Honeycutt's holy war

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

Moderator: William Thornton

Honeycutt's holy war

Postby William Thornton » Mon Sep 22, 2014 7:59 pm

ABP has an interesting piece on Roy Honeycutt's declaration of holy war on SBC cons 30 years ago. The piece is an article by Bob Allen on MWBTS seminary prez Jason Allen's essay.

http://www.abpnews.com/faith/history/item/29250-sbc-leader-says-honeycutt-s-holy-war-sermon-was-destined-to-fail

You can read the article and judge young Allen's historical view of Honeycutt's sermon. Allen was eight in 1984.

My view is that Honeycutt made a serious strategic mistake that hurt the mod cause. The declaration of "holy war" on fellow Southern Baptists was used thereafter as the antidote to pressler's intemperate and martial 'going for the jugular.' Those who were aghast at the latter could never explain their side's use of the former.

I don't often reprise the SBC CR here but this is interesting. I wonder if any of our forum regulars were present for the sermon.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11524
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Sandy » Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:53 pm

The SBC meeting in Kansas City in 1984, was my third. I had just moved to St Louis. But I wasn't even aware of Honeycutt's sermon until a long time after he delivered it. I wasn't really keeping up with SBC politics in those days, I was 27, still single, and trying to get a career off the ground. I didn't think it affected me much.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 7794
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Dave Roberts » Tue Sep 23, 2014 7:33 am

I think Honeycutt came with "too little, too late." Rather than responding when things were still in flux, he allowed the Takeover Movement to set the agenda for several years and to frame the rhetoric so that any resistance came like a response to the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?" By the time Honeycutt responded, the battle was largely over. He meant well, but his rhetoric came far too late in the game to have an effect.
"
"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: 6787
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Sandy » Tue Sep 23, 2014 9:42 am

Dave Roberts wrote:I think Honeycutt came with "too little, too late." Rather than responding when things were still in flux, he allowed the Takeover Movement to set the agenda for several years and to frame the rhetoric so that any resistance came like a response to the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?" By the time Honeycutt responded, the battle was largely over. He meant well, but his rhetoric came far too late in the game to have an effect.
"


I think, Dave, that Honeycutt probably viewed things in a similar manner to Cecil Sherman. They saw it as another faction within the SBC that, like previous similar events, would eventually reach a saturation point, and die down and go away eventually, and that they would just weather the storm in the same manner as before. They were buffered by a core group of hand-picked trustees, and I don't think they thought the movement would gain enough momentum to continuously replace trustees over a long period of time. Honeycutt's reaction came at a point when it was slowly dawning upon the SBC leadership that the movement was coming up from within the churches, and that it had enough support to sustain it. The mistake was evaluating the conservative resurgence as a "takeover." It was an internal movement that resonated with a large enough majority within the denomination to sustain a long term transition of the trustee boards. It wasn't a "faction" and it wasn't going away. Honeycutt's sermon was a realization that the conservatives finally had leadership that had figured out how to use a provincial and backward system of inner circle influence designed to protect a small group of elites from being ousted to actually oust them. They also realized that the conservatives had the support to sustain the necessary majorities in the convention over the whole period of time necessary to change the seminary and board leadership.

I don't believe Honeycutt, or any other moderate, pre-1979 leader could have turned back the conservative resurgence even with earlier such actions. They failed to discern the level of dissatisfaction with their leadership and theological direction among the churches of the SBC across the spectrum, and interpreted their ability to control the convention and its agenda, in the absence of conservative participation prior to 1979 as confirmation that they were in the majority. As it turned out, they were a very small, elitist minority and the conservatives, far from being a "takeover faction", represented the vast majority of Southern Baptists. But the system worked for Honeycutt, and a core group of other pre-1979 elites who were able to take advantage of the buffer of time that the system provided to fashion the golden parachutes by which they bailed.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 7794
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Dave Roberts » Tue Sep 23, 2014 12:59 pm

Sandy, I keep forgetting that 50.2% (one of the presidential election margins) was a vast majority :lol: :lol: .

By the way, I don't think you knew Cecil Sherman very well. He was one of the voices in the wilderness trying to wake up seminary presidents and agency heads when they did think it was nothing more than a tift. Several told Sherman that he should be quiet and that they knew how to deal with it. Honeycutt woke up far too late.
"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: 6787
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Tim Bonney » Tue Sep 23, 2014 5:41 pm

Dave Roberts wrote:Sandy, I keep forgetting that 50.2% (one of the presidential election margins) was a vast majority :lol: :lol: .


Yes, Sandy has a well rehearsed history of the SBC. It doesn't match many of my recollections. But it is well rehearsed.
Tim Bonney

First UMC, Indianola - http://indfumc.org (My charge starting July 1, 2017)
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5446
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:17 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Sandy » Tue Sep 23, 2014 10:23 pm

Dave Roberts wrote:Sandy, I keep forgetting that 50.2% (one of the presidential election margins) was a vast majority :lol: :lol: .

By the way, I don't think you knew Cecil Sherman very well. He was one of the voices in the wilderness trying to wake up seminary presidents and agency heads when they did think it was nothing more than a tift. Several told Sherman that he should be quiet and that they knew how to deal with it. Honeycutt woke up far too late.


Electoral margins at conventions during the contested years for control were not representative of the numbers in the constituency that turned out to be the way the convention went. Look at it now. The splinter groups of moderates were never large enough to even show up on the radar screen. Ultimately, how many churches actually severed ties with the SBC when the conservatives consolidated their gains and controlled all the boards? Churches ultimately voted with their feet, and when moderates formed their splinter groups, the Alliance of Baptists and CBF, they were unable to convince more than 2 or 3% of the churches to associate with them, and even fewer than that, about 200 altogether, out of over 45,000, actually severed ties with the convention. 49.8% represented the full extent of Moderate ability to muster support, for one big hurrah, but clearly, through everything that has transpired since then, even in states that were moderate strongholds, the moderate faction of the SBC is less than 4%. And most of the time, the margins were much wider than that. Even among CBF, few churches have actually severed ties and stopped any and all support for the SBC, and only 100 or so, some of which overlap into the A of B, have severed their ties with the SBC. Virtually all of the state conventions, and associations, have affirmed the conservative direction of the SBC and I think it is pretty safe to say there aren't more than a handful of moderates left in the SBC. It's safe to say that the SBC is 95% conservative, and pretty much always has been.

Cecil Sherman was my pastor while I was a student at Southwestern, and during this particular time. Sherman did come out pretty early, and he did think this might be more than the typical rift from previous experience, but he thought that by stirring up the moderate alliance, and getting the messengers to the convention, they could contain the resurgence. I don't think he thought that the conservatives had the interest in continuing a fight for control for as long as it would take to get it. He believed the television evangelist presence of conservative leadership could be surpassed by moderates, over time. He thought that if they could mobilize their pulpiteers, they'd be able to turn out the vote. He didn't see there were no more churches or places to turn out moderate votes, while conservatives had massive resources in every region where the convention would meet.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 7794
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Tim Bonney » Tue Sep 23, 2014 10:48 pm

Sandy, it doesn't matter if you could prove (which I doubt) that the majority of Southern Baptists would have supported the takeover. Even if you can justify the reason for the takeover just cause does not equal just means.

You can join and enjoy the historical re-write that all winners are privledged to participate in after they win. Some day all of us who saw the tactics of the takeover will be dead. Then you can all pretend the takeover was a noble cause carried about by angelic leaders. Until then, don't expect us to read your posts about the noble CR and its majority rule without at least rolling our eyes even if we grow tired of correcting your statements. :roll:
Tim Bonney

First UMC, Indianola - http://indfumc.org (My charge starting July 1, 2017)
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5446
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:17 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby KeithE » Tue Sep 23, 2014 11:25 pm

I was not a Baptist in 1984. I joined in 1986 after reading about the tiff in the book “Southern Baptist Holy War” (by Joe Barnhart in 1986) and convincing my wife not all Baptists were rule-based legalists. I hoped to become involved in the left split of the denomination I believed was coming soon.

In that book the term “Holy War” was attributed to Honeycutt in 1984 as William’s article says (pg 2) and WA Criswell responded with “For years we Southern Baptists played softball. Now it’s hardball time” (pg 3). Thus the war of words began but it was no doubt caused by pent up differences about Biblical Inerrancy which today remains the main line in the sand. Those that believe this was mainly about power are mistaken, imo.

More detailed discussion about biblical absurdities (that no one believes) and undeniable contradictions is the only possible way back to joint cooperation and respect. But I do not expect that to happen soon (or at least be successful) given the hard ball cons are playing.

The fact the the cons do not really believe in the plain sense of many biblical passages (e.g. “love your enemies”) is the ironic fact. Mods/libs are more likely to believe that command.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8021
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby William Thornton » Wed Sep 24, 2014 5:42 am

KeithE wrote: I hoped to become involved in the left split of the denomination I believed was coming soon.


Well, if you joined an SBC church in 1986 you didn't have to wait long for a split, the Alliance of Baptists being formed the next year. That didn't constitute much of a split, the AOB reporting 120 or so affiliated churches many of which are dually connected to other denominations including SBC. CBF came later, of course, and is larger.

I'm not sure why Jason Allen dredged up the holy war sermon.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11524
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby KeithE » Wed Sep 24, 2014 6:25 am

William Thornton wrote:
KeithE wrote: I hoped to become involved in the left split of the denomination I believed was coming soon.


Well, if you joined an SBC church in 1986 you didn't have to wait long for a split, the Alliance of Baptists being formed the next year. That didn't constitute much of a split, the AOB reporting 120 or so affiliated churches many of which are dually connected to other denominations including SBC. CBF came later, of course, and is larger.

I'm not sure why Jason Allen dredged up the holy war sermon.

I would have preferred a more thorough and formal split. But my wagon is now hitched to the CBF (as tepid as it is*). There are no AOB churches in Huntsville. I share my thoughts herein on BL and I minister through my church.

* I feel the same way about the Democratic Party.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8021
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Lou » Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:59 am

Sandy wrote: Electoral margins at conventions during the contested years for control were not representative of the numbers in the constituency that turned out to be the way the convention went.

I don't understand how Sandy could possibly know this without having conducted a poll of all SBC church members. I certainly don't recall being included in any such survey. As the old saying goes, "95% of all statistics are made up on the spot."

In any case, so far as demonstrating the measure of support for the "conservative resurgence" is concerned, the number of moderates who ended up leaving the SBC vs. the number of churches who stayed is a meaningless statistic. From my own conversations I know for a fact that many Southern Baptist pastors led their churches to remain in the SBC because of their commitment to the mission work that SB missionaries were/are doing, and not because of any so-called "battle for the Bible."

And if we're going to throw made-up numbers around, I'll add this one to the mix: I'd be willing to wager that the majority of Southern Baptist layfolk weren't even aware that a battle was going on until after victory had been declared.
Lou
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 4:55 pm

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Tim Bonney » Wed Sep 24, 2014 12:40 pm

Lou wrote:I don't understand how Sandy could possibly know this without having conducted a poll of all SBC church members. I certainly don't recall being included in any such survey. As the old saying goes, "95% of all statistics are made up on the spot."

In any case, so far as demonstrating the measure of support for the "conservative resurgence" is concerned, the number of moderates who ended up leaving the SBC vs. the number of churches who stayed is a meaningless statistic. From my own conversations I know for a fact that many Southern Baptist pastors led their churches to remain in the SBC because of their commitment to the mission work that SB missionaries were/are doing, and not because of any so-called "battle for the Bible."

And if we're going to throw made-up numbers around, I'll add this one to the mix: I'd be willing to wager that the majority of Southern Baptist layfolk weren't even aware that a battle was going on until after victory had been declared.


All good points Lou. Also the numbers of Southern Baptists who left the SBC on their own without taking a church with them are legion. Just the number of former SBC pastors in the ABC/USA, Disciples of Christ, UMC, PCUSA, and UCC make up quite a large contingent of pastors. Lay people can move from church to church with an ease that pastors cannot. No one has ever, as far as I can tell, collected stats on the number of former SBCers who left during the takeover.

But I do know that at one time more than 50% of the pastors of the American Baptist Churches of Indiana and Kentucky were former Southern Baptists.
Tim Bonney

First UMC, Indianola - http://indfumc.org (My charge starting July 1, 2017)
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5446
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:17 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Neil Heath » Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:01 pm

I suspect my church is not the only one still counted by the SBC and/or state convention because of a small amount of money we send.

We no longer include SBC or GBC in our budget at all, but we respect every member's right to give as they choose. A few of our older members still give to SBC, probably to support the missions work, and we send it in. As they pass away, that money will dry up and we will no longer be counted.

That generational shift is ongoing, and will need a decade or less to complete.
Neil Heath
User avatar
Neil Heath
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1842
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 9:39 pm
Location: Macon, GA

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Tim Bonney » Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:17 pm

Neil Heath wrote:I suspect my church is not the only one still counted by the SBC and/or state convention because of a small amount of money we send.

We no longer include SBC or GBC in our budget at all, but we respect every member's right to give as they choose. A few of our older members still give to SBC, probably to support the missions work, and we send it in. As they pass away, that money will dry up and we will no longer be counted.

That generational shift is ongoing, and will need a decade or less to complete.


Sandy quotes membership numbers as if might makes right. The fact that the fundamentalists out voted the moderates does not tell us a thing about who was right or wrong. If having the biggest membership makes you right than the RCC has us all beat.
Tim Bonney

First UMC, Indianola - http://indfumc.org (My charge starting July 1, 2017)
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5446
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:17 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Ed Pettibone » Wed Sep 24, 2014 5:15 pm

Ed: Gee guys I have some more comments but must put them off to a latter time. I have to get ready to attend the first night of a three night REVIVAL being held at the OLD STONE Baptist Church pastored by our friend Howard Scheffey who is the black retired NYC Policeman with whom I appeared on a cover of Baptists Today a couple years ago. Old Stone is totally white except for Howard. Tonight Another friend Marie Schilling A former School principal , and former aid to Tony Campolo in his work with the disadvantaged through EAPE the Ministry that he founded in Phily and which had gone International prior to his retierment. Tomorrow Howard will be Preaching and Friday night it will be George Stepheoni sp who until recently was bi-vocational And is serving at Latham Community Baptist where Trudy was interim, her first pastoral experience, when we came to upstate NY.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Sandy » Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:20 pm

Lou wrote:
Sandy wrote: Electoral margins at conventions during the contested years for control were not representative of the numbers in the constituency that turned out to be the way the convention went.

I don't understand how Sandy could possibly know this without having conducted a poll of all SBC church members. I certainly don't recall being included in any such survey. As the old saying goes, "95% of all statistics are made up on the spot."

In any case, so far as demonstrating the measure of support for the "conservative resurgence" is concerned, the number of moderates who ended up leaving the SBC vs. the number of churches who stayed is a meaningless statistic. From my own conversations I know for a fact that many Southern Baptist pastors led their churches to remain in the SBC because of their commitment to the mission work that SB missionaries were/are doing, and not because of any so-called "battle for the Bible."

And if we're going to throw made-up numbers around, I'll add this one to the mix: I'd be willing to wager that the majority of Southern Baptist layfolk weren't even aware that a battle was going on until after victory had been declared.


Wouldn't have to conduct a poll. The number of people who walked away from the SBC following the resurgence was miniscule, compared to the number that stayed. If you want a good example of where most Southern Baptists are when it comes to theology, on this issue anyway, you only have to look as far as the BGCT, a state convention that attempted to distance itself from both the resurgence leadership and the SBC itself. Over two thousand churches, and counting, left to form a state body affiliated with the conservative SBC, committed to a significant financial departure from the norm. Even among those churches that remain in the BGCT, support for the executive leadership of the SBC runs high, given the dollar amount that churches designate around the state convention's plan, toward SBC causes. I don't buy the "average Baptist in the pew didn't know and didn't care" crap. If that were the case, the resurgence would have never been able to sustain the level of support they needed, across more than a decade, to gain control of all of the trustee boards and committees. The absence of any meaningful opposition anywhere close to the size of that which has characterized other denominational splits confirms what any poll would show you, that among SBC affiliated churches, including most of those that support CBF with a few dollars thrown their way to satisfy some members, are just fine with the direction the SBC leadership has taken that ship. The one moderate attempt to draw churches out of a conservative state convention and into a more moderate one in Missouri appealed to six congregations.

Neil Heath wrote:I suspect my church is not the only one still counted by the SBC and/or state convention because of a small amount of money we send.
We no longer include SBC or GBC in our budget at all, but we respect every member's right to give as they choose. A few of our older members still give to SBC, probably to support the missions work, and we send it in. As they pass away, that money will dry up and we will no longer be counted.
That generational shift is ongoing, and will need a decade or less to complete.


Likewise, Neil, there are quite a few CBF/SBC affiliated churches where the older generation contributors are CBF, and when they die out, so will that church's support of CBF. At it's peak, the box score for CBF was 1,800 churches "partnering" with them. As I look at their website now, and observe how the contributions to the budget have fallen by almost 50% from its peak, and see about 900 churches still on the list, I'd say the transition also works the other way.

As far as "legion" goes when counting pastors who left the SBC without taking a church with them, who are now serving in ABC-USA or other denominations, I wouldn't want to count the number of former ABC-USA pastors, or Disciples of Christ, or Methodist, who are now serving in the SBC. In Texas, they were certainly legion. Up here, there are fewer Southern Baptists, of course, but half of the churches in the SW PA association are former ABC-USA congregations who followed their pastors out of the denomination, as is also the case for the Upper Ohio Valley association in the WV panhandle, and in the Youngstown-Warren area of Eastern Ohio.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 7794
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Lou » Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:46 pm

Sandy wrote:Wouldn't have to conduct a poll.

Actually you would, in order to arrive at any legitimate conclusions about what people are thinking about this or any other issue.
The number of people who walked away from the SBC following the resurgence was miniscule, compared to the number that stayed.

Undeniably a true statement, but once again a meaningless statistic as far as proving overwhelming support for the "Conservative Resurgence" is concerned. I myself and my church are Exhibit A of what I'm saying, as I did not support the CR or its methods; but after weighing the alternatives, I thought it best and encouraged our church to remain within the SBC fold so that our support of SBC missionaries would continue. And as I said in my original comments, I've spoken with numerous others who are still SBC for the same reason.

To reason that (A) the CR was able to claim victory and assert control over the SBC's agencies & institutions, and (B) most churches have remained in the SBC fold after that victory, therefore (C) the vast majority of SBC layfolk were supportive of the CR is analogous to saying that (A) Orangutans have red hair, and (B) Lucille Ball had red hair, therefore (C) Lucille Ball must have been an orangutan. Rather faulty logic.

I don't buy the "average Baptist in the pew didn't know and didn't care" crap. If that were the case, the resurgence would have never been able to sustain the level of support they needed, across more than a decade, to gain control of all of the trustee boards and committees.

Once again, absent a thorough survey of people in the pew from across the SBC, this argument carries no weight. As an educator, you know that post hoc does not prove propter hoc. So far as I know, the people I pastor were never consulted on the matter or quizzed on the extent of their awareness of the issues involved; therefore you are not really in a position to understand what they knew or when they knew it.
Lou
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 4:55 pm

Of course

Postby Stephen Fox » Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:32 pm

I think Dave Roberts has the high true ground in this banter. I would love to say more but I fear my friend William Thornton would edit it to death, take the sap out of it something akin to what Pressler and Adrian Rogers did to the SBC.

If the SBC was a question coming out of the 60s for certain the fundy takeover wasn't the answer.

I first saw Cecil Sherman in the flesh in 80 or 81 when he came over to the Wallace Memorial BC in Knoxville to delcare how serious a threat the Presslerites were. In relative terms I was on to it early!
"I'm the only sane {person} in here." Doyle Hargraves, Slingblade
"Midget, Broom; Helluva campaign". Political consultant, "Oh, Brother..."


http://www.foxofbama.blogspot.com or google asfoxseesit
Stephen Fox
 
Posts: 8826
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Lou

Postby Stephen Fox » Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:38 pm

Lou wrote:
Sandy wrote: Electoral margins at conventions during the contested years for control were not representative of the numbers in the constituency that turned out to be the way the convention went.

I don't understand how Sandy could possibly know this without having conducted a poll of all SBC church members. I certainly don't recall being included in any such survey. As the old saying goes, "95% of all statistics are made up on the spot."

In any case, so far as demonstrating the measure of support for the "conservative resurgence" is concerned, the number of moderates who ended up leaving the SBC vs. the number of churches who stayed is a meaningless statistic. From my own conversations I know for a fact that many Southern Baptist pastors led their churches to remain in the SBC because of their commitment to the mission work that SB missionaries were/are doing, and not because of any so-called "battle for the Bible."

And if we're going to throw made-up numbers around, I'll add this one to the mix: I'd be willing to wager that the majority of Southern Baptist layfolk weren't even aware that a battle was going on until after victory had been declared.



As an example as late as 2002 at Collinsville Baptist Church in Alabama in the presence of David Currie and former vp of the WMU Kat Allen, a thenAssistant Supe of the Dekalb County School board, relatively intelligent and capable fellow except for his denominational concerns, with no Resurgence axe to grind said to David Currie and I guess myself: " Why Bring it here?"......

Soon thereafter I pointed out in a fairly exhaustive piece in a local paper Auburn historian Pulitzer nominee Wayne Flynt's observation every Babdiss preacher knows only one family in any church has to rouse 50 percent of the congregation at any business meeting and his family is out of the parsonage on the street.

Something to think about as Lou points out as to where the true diapason of Baptist in the pew headset was.

Old news but as Clayton Sullivan rightly pointed out in the 80's the Baptist middle class took a pass and let the inbreds, the Snopes have a field day; a paraphrase.
"I'm the only sane {person} in here." Doyle Hargraves, Slingblade
"Midget, Broom; Helluva campaign". Political consultant, "Oh, Brother..."


http://www.foxofbama.blogspot.com or google asfoxseesit
Stephen Fox
 
Posts: 8826
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Tim Bonney » Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:51 pm

It really does depend on what you call "miniscule."

There are over 300 ABC churches in Indiana. When over half of them are former SBC pastors there are 150+ people leaving the SBC just in one ABC region. without too much work I could come up with more than a dozen people I know personally who are former SBCers who left as a result of the takeover in one way or another to go to the ABC, DOC, UMC, PCUSA, and TEC as well. It is a fair bet that several hundred pastors left, and that is without me surveying people. It well could be many more since I just have personal information about a few hundred.
Tim Bonney

First UMC, Indianola - http://indfumc.org (My charge starting July 1, 2017)
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5446
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:17 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Ed Pettibone » Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:18 pm

Ed: Sandy has added another verse to his CBF Sour grapes Ode. The refrain remains the same No one where I am has head of CBF because it is dying.

In one of his post above he says " there are quite a few CBF/SBC affiliated churches where the older generation contributors are CBF, and when they die out, so will that church's support of CBF."

To which I say sandy you might want to visit another General Assembly one of these days The young folk who where around Just behind Rick and yourself are actually moving into leadership and for the last decade the young leadership conference has had a very good crowd. As the old timers die off They are being replaced by those younger folk. And there are a significant number of us who have moved to ABC-USA churches and participate as individual members. Perhaps you had forgotten that CBF is made up of Churches and Individuals But as an individual my wife served a term a moderator of the BFNE the current vice moderator is also an ABC Pastor who happens to be on the National General Board of ABC We did have one of the of the older CBF Pastors die in the past 2 years.But we also have another who one who now pastors in the ABC. Coming into ABC causes no need to leave CBF. :)
Last edited by Ed Pettibone on Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: Lou

Postby Lou » Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:22 pm

Stephen Fox wrote:Something to think about as Lou points out as to where the true diapason of Baptist in the pew headset was.

Stephen, I confess that you drove me to the dictionary app on my trusty iPhone for the meaning of 'diapason.' I've added it to my working vocabulary, and plan somehow to weave it into the conversation at this Monday's meeting of The Fellowship Of The Holy Grounds (the ministerial coffee klatsch of which I am a proud charter member). :thumb:
Lou
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 4:55 pm

Arvo Part

Postby Stephen Fox » Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:58 pm

The great Composer whose Magnificat is magnificent. That's where I found the word several years ago, in a New Yorker review. And it's a great one.
"I'm the only sane {person} in here." Doyle Hargraves, Slingblade
"Midget, Broom; Helluva campaign". Political consultant, "Oh, Brother..."


http://www.foxofbama.blogspot.com or google asfoxseesit
Stephen Fox
 
Posts: 8826
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Sandy » Thu Sep 25, 2014 8:50 pm

Timothy Bonney wrote:It really does depend on what you call "miniscule."

There are over 300 ABC churches in Indiana. When over half of them are former SBC pastors there are 150+ people leaving the SBC just in one ABC region. without too much work I could come up with more than a dozen people I know personally who are former SBCers who left as a result of the takeover in one way or another to go to the ABC, DOC, UMC, PCUSA, and TEC as well. It is a fair bet that several hundred pastors left, and that is without me surveying people. It well could be many more since I just have personal information about a few hundred.


There are over 50,000 pastors of churches, and church plants in the SBC. If every ABC-USA church in the US was pastored by a former SBC'er, that wouldn't even come to 10% of the total.
Lou wrote:Actually you would, in order to arrive at any legitimate conclusions about what people are thinking about this or any other issue.


A poll on this issue is conducted every year. It's called the SBC annual meeting, and the annual meetings of the state conventions and associations across the SBC. In any given year, about 60% of the SBC's churches send messengers to either a state convention, the SBC, or both. About 75% of the churches submit an annual profile. Over the course of a decade, about 75% of the churches send at least one messenger to the SBC annual meeting. And if you want to know what random sample groups of Southern Baptists are thinking about issues from conservative politics to denominational politics, Ed Stetzer, at Lifeway research, can probably provide you with polling data. The opposition to the SBC's conservative resurgence leadership within the denomination is miniscule. You guys need to get over the fact that the old SBC leadership was out of step with the churches, and that the CR leadership represented the view of the people in the pew. It's done, and it's clear that few Southern Baptists are moving your direction.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 7794
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Next

Return to SBC News and Trends

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron