Honeycutt's holy war

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

Moderator: William Thornton

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Jon Estes » Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:16 am

Dave Roberts wrote:The un-nuanced description of convention statements and battle polemics relates well for people who have never spent much time in Bible study (without a book or other resource telling them how to eliminate all the issues of passages). It sounds good in debates on the floors of conventions.

WOW! Those faithful SBs who voted for and believe in an errorless Bible have never spent much time in Bible study... Really?
Here is the second problem, if the book or resource they choose to use beyond the Bible doesn’t line up with your theological viewpoint you would probably say the same thing.
Dave Roberts wrote:The Theological study is meant to start with scripture and learn from it how to develop an understanding. Even scholarly efforts to describe inerrancy fall into the death of a thousand qualifications as found in the Chicago Statement. To suddenly expect seminary presidents to have yes and no answers is to say that there is no real reason for education to study scripture, since all the conclusions have already been drawn. There should be studies that go beyond where the rank-and-file in any denomination are.

WOW! Where did you draw your conclusion from? From the Bible or some other source that told you how to look at the Bible? Those rank and file SBers who voted for a stand on the Bible without error have spent many hours in the bible and on their knees.
Whose studies? Ones you and those likeminded approve? Ones which agree with the ideals you want to make qualifiers?
I do not think you mean to but you do come off a little condescending towards those who believe the Bible to be without error. I do not think a SBer needs to read a book on why the Bible is errant or some other name which covers the idea that it cannot be fully accepted as truth without error. You may need to and which others seem to need also but that think that others who see it differently must also is simply idiotic.
Dave Roberts wrote:The Without that, the prophetic voice of the church lies dead.

Without what? A willingness to read beyond the Bible and agree with man? A willingness to say the Bible is not inerrant? A willingness to be progressive? A willingness to accept what God rejects? A willingness to make it cultural instead of Biblical?
Dave Roberts wrote:The How many Old Testament prophets could have won a majority vote? By SBC procedures, they would have been considered heretical. Could Jesus, with his non-mainstream ideas, have won approval of the First Century Grand Synagogue Assembly? Why then can we assume theology is best when adopted by majority vote. It seems, in my reading of scripture, that God has always been more embodied in minority movements. The number of votes is not the test of right thinking, from a biblical perspective. My example--Micaiah and the court prophets.

I am not saying that theology is always best when decided by majority vote. This time it was though. I do imagine, and please correct me if I am wrong, if the liberals would have won the battle, you would not have made such a statement or disagreed with me if I made it.
I have no desire to change your mind but am willing to respond to your comments.
jle
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:14 am

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Dave Roberts » Wed Oct 01, 2014 7:08 am

Jon, I believe the best commentary on scripture is scripture itself. I am convinced that inerrancy puts scripture into an a priori straight jacket that assumes everything fits neatly and harmonizes. As far back (documentable) as Augustine, the church recognized two creation accounts in Genesis and accepted conflicts between the Books of Kings and the Books of Chronicles. We have insisted SBC literature never tell them that fact. Likewise, we have tried to harmonize the gospels rather than recognizing the common threads and uniqueness directions of them and that the Fourth Gospel presents Jesus in a far different way from the three synoptics. Likewise, those who present a unified and systematized version of the Parousia have to put their set assumptions onto passages to fit all this together. I believe we should tell lay people the full story. Do I believe the Bible is riddled with errors--ABSOLUTELY NOT! Do I believe the Bible should be studied carefully and especially that scripture should be used to interpret scripture without a straitjacket system--ABSOLUTELY!
"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: 6890
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Sandy » Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:57 am

Stephen Fox wrote:There was no takeover without the singleminded mule headedness of the Birch Society leftovers that circled around Pressler.


Actually, your statement is partially correct. There was no takeover. You cannot take something over when you are entitled, by your membership and participation in it, to run for office and be elected. The continued use of this term by the few remaining moderate Baptists who were around and involved, and were friends of the insiders in leadership prior to 1979, indicates a patronizing and "entitlement" view of the control of the SBC.

The rhetoric that's been developed by moderates since the controversy tries to make it into something that it was not. It was about whether or not the Bible is riddled with errors and discrepancies, and whether the text can be authoritative and trusted. It is clear, from what's been written since, than many individuals in the leadership of the SBC were moving toward a more classical liberal position, while others, for whom relationships, prominence, prestige and favor granting power were more important than theology, supported them and wouldn't hold them accountable. The Chicago statement, and all of the convoluted attempts at trying to justify why they couldn't just say "The Bible is without error" and move on aren't really relevant to the point, and are an indication that there was no connection between the people in the pew, and the SBC leadership.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Tim Bonney » Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:03 pm

Sandy wrote:
Actually, your statement is partially correct. There was no takeover. You cannot take something over when you are entitled, by your membership and participation in it, to run for office and be elected.


To quote David, Baloney Cheese!

If you use tactics that are undemocratic and that subvert the democratic process you most certainly can takeover from the inside.
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5514
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby David Flick » Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:46 pm

Sandy wrote:Actually, your statement is partially correct. There was no takeover. You cannot take something over when you are entitled, by your membership and participation in it, to run for office and be elected.
    Timothy Bonney wrote:To quote David, Baloney Cheese!

    If you use tactics that are undemocratic and that subvert the democratic process you most certainly can takeover from the inside.

      Absolutely!
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8411
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Sandy » Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:29 pm

Timothy Bonney wrote:
Sandy wrote:
Actually, your statement is partially correct. There was no takeover. You cannot take something over when you are entitled, by your membership and participation in it, to run for office and be elected.


To quote David, Baloney Cheese!

If you use tactics that are undemocratic and that subvert the democratic process you most certainly can takeover from the inside.


I've heard all the arguments, the allegations of "tactics" (none of which were not allowed by SBC bylaws or which were not equally available to the other side), the "busing in" of messengers (what SBC bylaw forbids messengers coming to the convention by bus?). The moderates were in complete control of the officer election process during the entire ten years it took for conservatives to gain majorities on the boards. If there were "tactics," you'd think they'd have been smart enough to catch them. There were plenty of devices, in the process, available to any moderate who wanted to challenge them. The moderate leadership did an excellent job of shooting themselves in the foot every time they opened their mouths. Their patronizing arrogance was legendary. They were darn good at media theater, like marching to the Alamo to tear up a resolution or the BFM, or something. Was that Honeycutt? Sounds like something he'd do. But the fact of the matter is that they didn't have enough "Indians" to muster for the "Chiefs", and the SBC chose leadership more in line with their own theological and ecclesiastical views. And that's not a takeover any way you slice your baloney and cheese, Tim.

Even Stephen's latest literary enamorata, Molly Worthen, points out that the convention's churches were already steeped in influences of conservative theology, and that the change of leadership was a re-alignment, and points out in her observation that the conservative leadership made a correct evaluation of the situation, while the moderates did not.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Tim Bonney » Wed Oct 01, 2014 2:11 pm

Sandy, you keep forgetting you are talking to eye witnesses of the tactics and not persons giving "arguments."

I witnessed voter fraud where a man voted with his, his wife's and his small children's messenger ballets for the fundy candidate. I saw the microphones of moderates cut off or left off to prevent argument. In church the ends do not justify the means. You cannot use unholy tactics for a supposed holy purpose and claim that people just got what they had a right to.

One of the reasons people like the members of this forum don't back down, even years later, on what went on is that we were there. You can peddle this to newbies and young SBCers who weren't there to see it. Make all the claims you want. I saw the tactics with my own eyes.

I was actually at the convention with a pastor who theologically was a near fundamentalist. But he couldn't stand the tactics or the attitudes of the takeover crowd so he consistently voted for people more liberal than himself. We were both shocked at the behavior we saw.
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5514
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Sandy » Wed Oct 01, 2014 2:43 pm

I was there, too. From 1978, I missed only 87 and 88, and then was at all of them until 99.

How did you know the guy was voting for the "fundy" candidate? Could have been a moderate. For a long time, and it may still be the case, there was no age requirement to serve as a messenger. I know moderates who registered their children and took their ballots. It balances out.

The conservatives were perhaps a bit more tactless in cutting off debate, though the convention rules specify the chair has the right to recognize those who wish to debate motions. Jaroy Weber and Jimmy Allen, both good ole boy Texas guys, were known for just saying they had to move the convention program along, and "since we're all in agreement, we don't really need discussion on that," while microphones were flashing all over the hall. And though it wasn't in the SBC, but the moderate controlled BGCT, I will never forget convention president Michael Bell, the first African American to preside over the BGCT, rudely cutting off David Montoya, who was trying to get at the bottom of a massive mis-appropriation of church planting funds, essentially shouting him down until he quit and walked out, and was told that the executive board handled that, it wasn't a matter for convention discussion. Oops.

Here's the obvious conclusion. You didn't like what happened, it didn't agree with your perspective, so they can't be right, and you think your perspective is justified by your rightness, while theirs is dismissed by their "tactics". What really happened was that a different group of leaders from the personal friends and inner circles that ran the SBC prior to 1979 came along, turned the convention back to its traditional, conservative, historic roots, and in order to do that, had to bust up the good ole boy groups. When the good ole boys decided, "We're getting out," and issued the invitation to follow, they managed to attract some of the people whom their favor granting and wagon hitching had benefitted, but not enough to even make a dent in the numbers. Some of your seminary buds and faves got caught up in that, so you don't like it, and you're willing to help blacken the facts to suit your perspective.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Dave Roberts » Wed Oct 01, 2014 3:42 pm

Another Texas example that has nothing to do with moderates in the SBC. I'm glad I never lived in nor served in Texas. There must be oil in the water down there.
"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: 6890
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Sandy » Wed Oct 01, 2014 5:17 pm

Jaroy and Jimmie were both SBC Presidents, both associated intimiately with moderate Baptists. They have everything to do with the SBC, and with the perspective that Southern Baptists had of their pre-1979 leadership.

The BGCT leadership has been so intertwined with SBC moderates, that it is difficult to separate the leadership, in fact, many of them are the leadership. Every CBF coordinator has been a Texas Baptist, the current one gets the perk of an airline commute back and forth from Austin. Timothy was asserting that conservatives only won because of dirty tactics, and that moderates would never do those things. I just shared an example to burst that bubble. The moderates were masters of manipulation of power and influence, and that was one reason they had trouble getting the support from people in the pews.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby William Thornton » Wed Oct 01, 2014 7:30 pm

Timothy, the SBC records secretary said that voting irregularities were not an issue in the SBC CR. We all have our anecdotes. Mods didn't lose every single contested election because of some fundy children's crusade.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11717
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Tim Bonney » Wed Oct 01, 2014 7:56 pm

William Thornton wrote:Timothy, the SBC records secretary said that voting irregularities were not an issue in the SBC CR. We all have our anecdotes. Mods didn't lose every single contested election because of some fundy children's crusade.


Of course not William. But it shows the depths some people are willing to sink. Also the cutting off of mikes sure wasn't done by children.
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5514
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Sandy » Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:11 pm

Microphones are cut off after a person who has been recognized by the chair has had three minutes to speak. It's hard to remember back that far, but I don't recall anyone's mic being cut off except those who exceeded the three minute time limit. I do remember a couple of incidents where self-proclaimed prominent moderates were ruled out of order at microphones, because they were. Of course, the former Lords of the manor didn't appreciate chairpersons who didn't recognize their royal status and made them follow the same rules as everyone else.

It didn't go your way. It wasn't going to. And attempts to try to explain it away, or rewrite the history just sound like sour grapes. Baptists have confessed their belief in the accuracy and integrity of the transmission of the scripture since their beginnings, and the SBC collectively reversed a trend toward liberalism beginning in 1979. From the outset, the resurgence had the support of enough churches and leaders to sustain the necessary changes in leadership. Since then, they've had virtually no opposition, few people left, or split or splintered. The SBC will, like every other denomination, have to face a period of post-denominational change, but they will do it as a solidly conservative denomination. A showdown with the Calvinists is just drama talk from those who are wishful in their thinking that the SBC will unravel. Not gonna happen.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Tim Bonney » Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:30 pm

Sandy wrote:
It didn't go your way. It wasn't going to. And attempts to try to explain it away, or rewrite the history just sound like sour grapes.


ROTFL! That's about the funniest thing you've said to date. Sandy I have no reason to "rewrite" history. I'm not a Baptist and won't be one again. If the SBC were to suddenly be taken back over by the moderates tomorrow I'd not return to the SBC. There is no benefit to me in rewriting anything. I experienced what I experienced. I saw at the convention what I saw. Believe it or not, I really don't care. It isn't as if I have to stay on anyone's good side in the SBC, ABC, or CBF.

You are mistaking incredulity at your ability to make stuff up whole cloth for sour grapes. You spin the SBC so hard Sandy I'm surprised if you don't have to screw your cap on.
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5514
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Ed Pettibone » Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:17 pm

Sandy wrote:Microphones are cut off after a person who has been recognized by the chair has had three minutes to speak. It's hard to remember back that far, but I don't recall anyone's mic being cut off except those who exceeded the three minute time limit. I do remember a couple of incidents where self-proclaimed prominent moderates were ruled out of order at microphones, because they were. Of course, the former Lords of the manor didn't appreciate chairpersons who didn't recognize their royal status and made them follow the same rules as everyone else.

It didn't go your way. It wasn't going to. And attempts to try to explain it away, or rewrite the history just sound like sour grapes. Baptists have confessed their belief in the accuracy and integrity of the transmission of the scripture since their beginnings, and the SBC collectively reversed a trend toward liberalism beginning in 1979. From the outset, the resurgence had the support of enough churches and leaders to sustain the necessary changes in leadership. Since then, they've had virtually no opposition, few people left, or split or splintered. The SBC will, like every other denomination, have to face a period of post-denominational change, but they will do it as a solidly conservative denomination. A showdown with the Calvinists is just drama talk from those who are wishful in their thinking that the SBC will unravel. Not gonna happen.


Ed: So Sandy why where you once an active participant in CBF? And Sandy how long do you expect the SBC " a period of post-denominational change" to last. Moderates have not offered an opponent to The take over crews hand picked candidates. In my studied opinion the takeover folk really messed up with some changes in structure starting with creating "Life Way" as a replacement for the Sunday School Board, Especialy Lifeway Stores to replace The Baptist Book Stores. Accepting AWANA in place of GA's & RA's The demise of Training Union, and the list goes on.
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 David Flick » Thu Oct 02, 2014 1:04 am

Sandy wrote:It didn't go your way. It wasn't going to. And attempts to try to explain it away, or rewrite the history just sound like sour grapes.
    To Sandy, Timothy Bonney wrote:ROTFL! That's about the funniest thing you've said to date. Sandy I have no reason to "rewrite" history. I'm not a Baptist and won't be one again. If the SBC were to suddenly be taken back over by the moderates tomorrow I'd not return to the SBC. There is no benefit to me in rewriting anything. I experienced what I experienced. I saw at the convention what I saw. Believe it or not, I really don't care. It isn't as if I have to stay on anyone's good side in the SBC, ABC, or CBF.

    You are mistaking incredulity at your ability to make stuff up whole cloth for sour grapes. You spin the SBC so hard Sandy I'm surprised if you don't have to screw your cap on.

      Sandy is clueless regarding the true history of the Takeover. You are correct with your analysis that he makes stuff up out of whole cloth. Actually, he simply regurgitates the myths of the Takeover cabal. There are literally scores of books, journals & scholarly articles that delineate the accurate history of the Takeover. Off the top of my head (not counting newspaper & periodical articles I have in my personal library, i.e. the ones I now have unpacked and on my bookshelves) here is a partial list:

        1. Cothen, Grady C. What Happened to the Southern Baptist Convention? A Memoir of the Controversy. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Inc., 1993

        2. Cothen, Grady C. The New SBC: Fundamentalism's Impact on the Southern Baptist Convention. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Inc., 1995

        3. Gourley, Bruce T. The GodMakers: A Legacy of the Southern Baptist Convention? Franklin, TN: Providence House Publishers, 1996. (An analysis of the Fundamentalist Takeover of the SBC.) [My favorite!]

        4. Hankins, Barry. Uneasy in Zion: Southern Baptist Conservatives and American Culture. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2003. (Examines the SBC Takeover in light of conservative reaction to American culture.)

        5. Kell, Carl L., editor. Exiled: Voices of the Southern Baptist Holy War. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2006.

        6. Leonard, Bill J. God’s Last and Only Hope: The Fragmentation of the Southern Baptist Convention. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990.

        7. May, Lynn E., editor. “The Southern Baptist Convention, 1979-1993: What Happened and Why?” Baptist History and Heritage (October 1993). (Entire issue is devoted to the controversy, including essays from persons on both sides.)

        8. Merritt, John W. The Betrayal: The Hostile Takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention and a Missionary’s Fight for Freedom in Christ. Asheville, NC: R. Brent and Company, 2005. (The personal experiences and observations of a former Southern Baptist missionary.)

        9. Shurden, Walter B. and Randy Sheply, editors. Going for the Jugular: A Documentary History of the SBC Holy War. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1996. (A useful chronology of the controversy, along with the publication of articles dealing with the events of the controversy as they occurred.)

        10. Shurden, Walter B., editor. The Struggle for the Soul of the SBC: Moderate Responses to the Fundamentalist Movement. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1993. (Moderate leaders tell their stories about the moderate political response to the Fundamentalist Takeover and the creation of new Baptist communities in the light of the Takeover’s final victories.)

        11. Rob James and Gary Leazer, The Takeover in the Southern Baptist Convention: A Brief History (Decatur, GA: Baptists Today, 1994),

        12. Shurden, Walter B. Not a Silent People: Controversies that Have Shaped Southern Baptists . Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Inc., 1995. (A historical verview of several disputes that have changed Baptist life, with the story of the Fundamentalist Takeover added at the end.)

        13. Robison (Rob) B. James, Barbara Jackson, Robert E. Shepherd, Jr., and Cornelia Showalter, The Fundamentalist Takeover in the Southern Baptist Convention: A Brief History. Fouth Edition, Wilkes Publishing Company, Inc., 2006

User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8411
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Jon Estes » Thu Oct 02, 2014 2:07 am

David Flick wrote:
  1. Cothen, Grady C. What Happened to the Southern Baptist Convention? A Memoir of the Controversy. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Inc., 1993
  2. Cothen, Grady C. The New SBC: Fundamentalism's Impact on the Southern Baptist Convention. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Inc., 1995
  3. Gourley, Bruce T. The GodMakers: A Legacy of the Southern Baptist Convention? Franklin, TN: Providence House Publishers, 1996. (An analysis of the Fundamentalist Takeover of the SBC.) [My favorite!]
  4. Hankins, Barry. Uneasy in Zion: Southern Baptist Conservatives and American Culture. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2003. (Examines the SBC Takeover in light of conservative reaction to American culture.)

  5. Kell, Carl L., editor. Exiled: Voices of the Southern Baptist Holy War. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2006.

  6. Leonard, Bill J. God’s Last and Only Hope: The Fragmentation of the Southern Baptist Convention. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990.

  7. May, Lynn E., editor. “The Southern Baptist Convention, 1979-1993: What Happened and Why?” Baptist History and Heritage (October 1993). (Entire issue is devoted to the controversy, including essays from persons on both sides.)

  8. Merritt, John W. The Betrayal: The Hostile Takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention and a Missionary’s Fight for Freedom in Christ. Asheville, NC: R. Brent and Company, 2005. (The personal experiences and observations of a former Southern Baptist missionary.)

  9. Shurden, Walter B. and Randy Sheply, editors. Going for the Jugular: A Documentary History of the SBC Holy War. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1996. (A useful chronology of the controversy, along with the publication of articles dealing with the events of the controversy as they occurred.)

  10. Shurden, Walter B., editor. The Struggle for the Soul of the SBC: Moderate Responses to the Fundamentalist Movement. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1993. (Moderate leaders tell their stories about the moderate political response to the Fundamentalist Takeover and the creation of new Baptist communities in the light of the Takeover’s final victories.)

  11. Rob James and Gary Leazer, The Takeover in the Southern Baptist Convention: A Brief History (Decatur, GA: Baptists Today, 1994),

  12. Shurden, Walter B. Not a Silent People: Controversies that Have Shaped Southern Baptists . Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Inc., 1995. (A historical verview of several disputes that have changed Baptist life, with the story of the Fundamentalist Takeover added at the end.)

  13. Robison (Rob) B. James, Barbara Jackson, Robert E. Shepherd, Jr., and Cornelia Showalter, The Fundamentalist Takeover in the Southern Baptist Convention: A Brief History. Fouth Edition, Wilkes Publishing Company, Inc., 2006


There is scores of books written from both perspectives. I think the term you use to describe your list you would not use on the other - scholarly. I would just as easy use the term for a list I made.

The best term for both sides to have used (IMO) would have been perspective (which one of the books you listed used that term in their title).

There is no need, for me, to make a list as it is a waste of time when mindsets are not going to be changed as a result.

What would be an interesting read is for one of these younger baptists (who did not live through it) who are apolitical to do a fair research and write their findings. It would be an interesting read. Or maybe a liberal young baptist to corroborate with a conservative young baptist and do a project together.

Then again, anything written, no matter what, if it doesn't fit our baptist worldview, we will relegate it to the dump.

jle
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:14 am

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Sandy » Thu Oct 02, 2014 9:08 am

You're exactly right, Jon, its perspective and David's loaded reading list represents the perspective of those Baptists whose good buddies lost their influence peddling system and their prestige and prominence in the personal kingdom they'd made out of the SBC. The other side uses much the same language, and has written just about as many books from their perspective. I've read both of Cauthen's books, Leonard's, and Shurden's. Cauthen is probably the most accurate when it comes to documentation of facts, though he does allow his perspective to form his interpretation. Leonard editorializes considerably. Shurden does a good job with Baptist Identity. The rest of the works cited there generally copycat and echo the same themes, over and over, as if repetition will make it true.

On the other side, Jerry Sutton's Baptist Reformation contains much of the same documentation that Cauthen uses, and if I were teaching a class, I'd want students to read both in a relatively close time frame, especially the places where they cite the same sources. David Dockery has a book out called Southern Baptist Identity: An Evangelical Denomination Faces the Future, which, while it doesn't really deal directly with the "controversy," does a great job of characterizing the SBC, and that points out why the pre-1979 moderate leadership lost. While Pressler's book, A Hill on Which to Die does contain documentation, it is much more self-serving and apologetic in terms of his own role, and has little value in establishing parameters of discussion of this issue, in much the same way as Bill Leonard's book.

I've been hearing, now, for thirty years, that moderates are "moving on," that being ex-SBC isn't relevant to them anymore, and that they're out of the box, pioneering "new ways to be Baptist." Baloney cheese. Toasted. Not only have they kept record of every offense, and put it on the calendar to celebrate, but when one of these anniversary dates around one of the battling heroes comes out, the same ground gets covered again and again and again....

Essentially, the controversy ended in 1989-90, when the trustee boards were all in conservative hands, and the moderates more or less went their own way. Running a moderate candidate every year since wouldn't have changed the direction the SBC has gone under their leadership. I would suggest that instead of trying to seek significance in continuing to celebrate holy war anniversaries, that those energies be invested in evangelism and missions. And on a more practical note, I'd suggest that they get over their aversion to all things Texan, and as it seems they have an affinity for Texas Baptist leadership, move CBF's offices to Austin. It would sure save some missions money on plane commutes and condo leases.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Dave Roberts » Thu Oct 02, 2014 10:06 am

Sandy, who noted the anniversary? I didn't know William was a moderate.
"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: 6890
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Ed Pettibone » Thu Oct 02, 2014 12:02 pm

Ed: Sandy when you write "While Pressler's book, A Hill on Which to Die does contain documentation, it is much more self-serving and apologetic in terms of his own role, and has little value in establishing parameters of discussion of this issue, in much the same way as Bill Leonard's book."

I agree with your assessment of "A Hill on which to die" but In what way do you compare it to Leonard's "God's Last and Only Hope"? I assume that is Leonard's book you are talking about, he has written several more, not so limited to the controversy.

BTW You haven't answered my question about why you once embraced the CBF.
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 William Thornton » Thu Oct 02, 2014 3:52 pm

Put the Birch stuff elsewhere, Stephen, and don't try and hijack every topic here to ride your Molly hobby horse.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11717
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Birchers and Thornton

Postby Stephen Fox » Thu Oct 02, 2014 4:23 pm

William and Dave and Haruo. Please bring my comment here to Bruce Gourley's attention.

It is Sandy who continues to engage my references to Molly Worthen and I remind him of two specific pages in her book that refute his conclusions.

We have have discussed this matter many times and I say almost every time the BX 6400s shelf on Baptist takeover studies are replete with conclusions I remind this page on the hardwiring of the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC to the right wing of the Republican party.

I am tired of William Thornton erasing my remarks and my participation in this aspect of the conversation; my sentiments that my best reading of Gourley tells me he agrees with me on almost every point.

And I continue to proudly and unashamedly assert this who conversation that comes up about every 3 years on this board would be advanced considerably if more folks beside me and Sandy did a thorough reading of Worthen.

Here I stand, I can do No Other.

Thank-you
"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: 8942
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Sandy Said

Postby Stephen Fox » Thu Oct 02, 2014 4:26 pm

Even Stephen's latest literary enamorata, Molly Worthen, points out that the convention's churches were already steeped in influences of conservative theology, and that the change of leadership was a re-alignment, and points out in her observation that the conservative leadership made a correct evaluation of the situation,


And Sandy is wrong and chapter 9 of Worthen's Apostles of Reason Evangelicals Great Matter, Proves Sandy is wrong.
"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: 8942
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby William Thornton » Thu Oct 02, 2014 5:17 pm

Stephen, i'm not interested in turning every conversation here to Birchers and Worthen. Deal with it. Start a topic "Molly Worthen unlimited" and put it all there.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11717
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Honeycutt's holy war

Postby Tim Bonney » Thu Oct 02, 2014 7:24 pm

Dave Roberts wrote:Sandy, who noted the anniversary? I didn't know William was a moderate.


Anniversary of what?? The only anniversary I keep track of is my wedding anniversary. :D
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5514
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

PreviousNext

Return to SBC News and Trends

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest