Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

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

Moderator: William Thornton

Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby Stephen Fox » Sun Oct 05, 2014 5:38 pm

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... ?insrc=toc

You will have to find a decent nearby library, juco, UGA, Samford, Furman, McAfee Div School Duke not likely Shorter or any of the SBC seminarieis to find the complete article in the print issue.

I'm reading now in Nelson Price's takeover of Shorter U Town Rome Ga, So Price has access at the Berry College or one week at Rome Barnes and Noble. I already asked Barnes and Noble in Rome to order ten copies of the book so Nelson Price can read it. Hope folks in Houston Texas and Dallas and Charlotte will have their local Barnes and Noble saturated with this book so Pressler, and Big John Bisagno can read, the Staff at FBC Dallas and in Charlotte the Billy Graham Evangelistc Association and friends of Jesse Helms.

The article is permeated with my roll call of twenty years from Coke Stevenson to Pressler to Criswell and beyond.

If you have friends in Memphis get them to call their local Barnes and Noble and I iwill take care of Birmingham Alabama for the legacy of Albert Lee Smith.

I think Dr. Thornton has Atlanta covered for Charles Stanley and Amway

I will do my best to contact FBC Spratanburg S.C. tomorrow, and Tom Elliff's son in law D.C. office of the fellow running for US Senate.
"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: 8877
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby William Thornton » Sun Oct 05, 2014 6:33 pm

Next revelation...Stephen Fox invented the internet, found Judge Crarer, and invented a good five cent cigar.

Splendid work. Send me a copy of the book and I'll read it.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11575
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Have the Clark County or Winder Library

Postby Stephen Fox » Sun Oct 05, 2014 6:56 pm

order the book for you. Again you can read the article in entirety a short distance either in Athens or the North Georgia mall, but do it this week.

The book is 39 dollars. As much as I would love to buy one for you, discretionary income doesn't make it possible. I think Furman library is ordering soon. Them or Samford or juco here in NE Bama is my best bet but I'm itching; or the Rome Barnes and Noble. I told them how much Nelson Price needs to read this 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: 8877
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Stephen Fox, Gadsden Times 2003

Postby Stephen Fox » Sun Oct 05, 2014 7:04 pm

"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: 8877
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

See Stephen Fox in the comments SBCImpact

Postby Stephen Fox » Sun Oct 05, 2014 7:06 pm

With Adrian Rogers son David and others:

http://sbcimpact.org/2010/09/13/this-land-is-your-land/
"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: 8877
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby Sandy » Sun Oct 05, 2014 7:13 pm

Well, first of all I'm not going to subscribe to read the rest of the article, the excerpt of which doesn't get past J. Frank Norris. And since I can see where this is going (Norris to John Birch, et. al.) I'm not going to wade into the conversation. This isn't anything new, BTW, and if you want to use that as a reference point, there is the difference between fundamentalist Baptists and Southern Baptists conservatives in an easy to read nutshell. Norris got himself booted out the door, and the line was drawn and established.

Thanks, Stephen, for confirming once again that what happened in the SBC was neither fundamentalist nor a takeover.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby Ed Pettibone » Mon Oct 06, 2014 1:09 pm

Ed: Sandy writes "Norris got himself booted out the door, and the line was drawn and established". True Sandy a line was drawn and established BUT was not well maintained. During my tenure in the SBC I was active in 7 state conventions and 10 associations
and visited in several more. And I never saw an association in the SBC, W/O at least some Norrsites . Some times two, three or more churches full of them of them.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Jonathan Merritt interviews Wuthnow

Postby Stephen Fox » Tue Oct 07, 2014 3:03 pm

Here is my comment submitted to Merritt's post:

Jonathan, I have been following this story for 30 years and have had free lance articles published in Baptists Today and Christian Century on the matter. I may blog in some longer measure at my blog http://www.foxofbama.blogspot.com. I encourage you and your readers to read the nybooks.com print only review of Wuthnow's book by Tom Powers. It goes at some length about Judge Pressler and W. A Criswell, the men without whom your father would never been president of the Southern Baptist Convention.
The story missed to date may be Bill Moyers and Rice's Chandler Davidson to tell. Pressler's family history with Exxon Oil, the Texas Regulars and the margins of the White Citizens Council and John Birch Society go back at least as far as the leaving of Carlyle Marney from FBC Austin in 56.
That is the story many, including yourself need to pursue.
Monitor the ongoing conversation at public policy room of baptistlife.com/forums


http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com ... ent-181137
"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: 8877
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Comment on Paul Harvey's US religion

Postby Stephen Fox » Tue Oct 07, 2014 5:03 pm

Review of Mark Noll's Review of Dochuk and Williams.

I said:

foxofbama at: June 3, 2011 at 9:27 AM said...
I've read the Mark Noll Review in the TNR Print issue and the several interviews at this site with Dochuk and Williams.
Couple thoughts. I think the origins of the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC may have roots in the Texas Regulars Movement in Texas as key SBC leader Paul Pressler race history according to Rice's Chandler Davidson and others was a weighty influence for his passion. His associations with Jesse Helms and Gary North are an interesting inflection to the John Birch Society musings of Dochuk in your interview with him.
Key to understanding this--I have left a voice message on Mark Noll's service at Notre Dame--is the 1948 US Senate Race in Texas between LBJ and Coke Stevenson. A circa 94 New Republic article by Sidney Blumenthal corrects Robert Caro's interpretation of the significance of that event.
For all the majesty of these two books, as well as Noll's review, more attention to the specific religious political pilgrimage of SBC's Judge Paul Pressler may yet be needed.
One current discussion is the difference between Charles Pickering's Allied Defense Fund and Bill Moyers Baptist Joint Committee.
Easily this history continues to have significant national repercussions
"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: 8877
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Quoting Thomas Powers nybooks review

Postby Stephen Fox » Tue Oct 07, 2014 10:06 pm

...the brickwall denial of what SBC fundy baptists had to say about the antiquity of the earth,and the oirigins of the human species,the rise of black and latino liberation movements,white male Protestant designs to maintain control of society and politics on down to President Nixon's "southern strategy" and the south's relentless slow seizure of the mechanics of the Republican party. None of these themes are in high relief but all are there.
But what is missing is why Texas and Southern Baptists are pretty much one in the same in the GOP and raises the question can a leadership similar to what took over the SBC elect a President of the United States


Last couple sentences were a paraphrase.

In the Powers review of Wuthnow, Powers goes on to cite Luther Copeland's analysis of fundy Baptists manifest destiny with a most credible account of how Pressler drove inerrancy through the SBC with the help of W.A Criswell and an Adrian Rogers doing the bidding of Ed McAteer and Phyliss Schlafly against abortion and the Equal Rights amendment.

And with that see my blog today at www.foxofbama.blogspot.com.

I have had an exchange with Wuthnow himself and he is aware of the conversation on this board, so Sandy and Thornton, and Aaron Weaver and Gourley, here is a chance for all of us to refine history a little.
"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: 8877
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby Sandy » Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:14 am

Ed Pettibone wrote:Ed: Sandy writes "Norris got himself booted out the door, and the line was drawn and established". True Sandy a line was drawn and established BUT was not well maintained. During my tenure in the SBC I was active in 7 state conventions and 10 associations
and visited in several more. And I never saw an association in the SBC, W/O at least some Norrsites . Some times two, three or more churches full of them of them.


A handful, maybe less at best, certainly not anywhere near enough to affect the policy in a single association.

Stephen, I'll say it one more time. You cannot "take over" something in which you are entitled, by your financial support and participation, to be democratically elected to leadership. The majority theological view in the SBC is reflected in its leadership, and it got there by getting the most votes, consistently, since 1979. That's the whole crux of the issue, and anyone who now wants to write out their theories are certainly welcome to do so. It's a free country after all.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby KeithE » Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:36 am

Sandy wrote:
Ed Pettibone wrote:Ed: Sandy writes "Norris got himself booted out the door, and the line was drawn and established". True Sandy a line was drawn and established BUT was not well maintained. During my tenure in the SBC I was active in 7 state conventions and 10 associations
and visited in several more. And I never saw an association in the SBC, W/O at least some Norrsites . Some times two, three or more churches full of them of them.


A handful, maybe less at best, certainly not anywhere near enough to affect the policy in a single association.


First of all, I moved this topic to the SBC Forum

Second, I recommend The Shooting Salvationist: J. Frank Norris and the Murder Trial that Captivated America as a page turner read.

Thirdly for Ed- Define what qualifies as being a “Norrisite”. Merely being a fundamentalist? A supporter of J. Frank Norris? A violent sort of preacher? A pastor trying to control a local city? control a congregation? or just what?
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8093
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby KeithE » Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:42 am

Sandy wrote:Stephen, I'll say it one more time. You cannot "take over" something in which you are entitled, by your financial support and participation, to be democratically elected to leadership. The majority theological view in the SBC is reflected in its leadership, and it got there by getting the most votes, consistently, since 1979. That's the whole crux of the issue, and anyone who now wants to write out their theories are certainly welcome to do so. It's a free country after all.


I’ll have to agree with Sandy. The fundamentalist (or conservatives or right wing) segment may have packed a convention or 2 with bus loads of voters, but they have won fair and square over the long term.

That does not make them correct however.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8093
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby Ed Pettibone » Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:33 am

KeithE wrote:
Sandy wrote:Stephen, I'll say it one more time. You cannot "take over" something in which you are entitled, by your financial support and participation, to be democratically elected to leadership. The majority theological view in the SBC is reflected in its leadership, and it got there by getting the most votes, consistently, since 1979. That's the whole crux of the issue, and anyone who now wants to write out their theories are certainly welcome to do so. It's a free country after all.


I’ll have to agree with Sandy. The fundamentalist (or conservatives or right wing) segment may have packed a convention or 2 with bus loads of voters, but they have won fair and square over the long term.

That does not make them correct however.


Ed: Tell me again Keith, when did you first become a Southern Baptist? If you believe that the far right "won fair and square" over the long run, you are simply not well informed.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby Sandy » Wed Oct 08, 2014 12:30 pm

Ed Pettibone wrote:Ed: Tell me again Keith, when did you first become a Southern Baptist? If you believe that the far right "won fair and square" over the long run, you are simply not well informed.


"Fair and square" from a moderate Baptist perspective, means whether or not their little backward protocols were followed or not. Essentially, the conservatives did exactly what their predecessors in leadership had been doing for years. They observed that the trustee boards and committees were stacked with the close friends, seminary buddies and relatives of the institutional leadership, and that they were mainly rubber stamps for what a few people wanted to do. They also observed that the convention structure had been organized in such a way that the gateway into the leadership was the President of the convention, and that for years, the election of this individual had been orchestrated mainly by those in leadership in the institutions.

The conservatives realized that the key to gaining access to the boards and committees was successively electing sympathetic Presidents over time, who would then appoint people who were conservative to the key committee which controlled the trustee and committee nominations. They did exactly what had been done for years previous to 1979. They used the influence, posture and popularity of individual pastors and church leaders to 1) Draw the attention of churches and their members toward what direction the current leadership was taking the convention, particularly the publishing enterprise and the seminaries, and 2) Elect Presidents of the SBC who wanted to reverse the drift toward a theological perspective to the left of most Southern Baptists.

You are correct, Keith, in that there is nothing inherently unfair in the way the conservatives gained control of the leadership. The allegations about "busing in messengers" is ridiculous. Many churches do take their messengers to the convention on buses, but I see nothing in the bylaws that prohibits a messenger arriving at the convention hall on a bus from participating in the convention if the messenger is duly registered. There was organization of groups of churches in many state conventions, and the conservatives organized both transportation and lodging arrangements for messengers. What's unfair about groups of messengers from several churches riding to the convention together on the same bus? Couldn't the moderates have done that, too?

The rules are that 1) no church can elect more than its designated number of messengers based on its membership and financial support, a maximum of 10, and 2) messengers must be members of the church that sent them, and must be elected to serve by that church. There was never a serious charge made, during that entire time that any church violated those rules. The one statement that we always hear is that Paul Pressler was registered at the 1979 meeting with First Baptist Church of Bellaire, Texas, where he was interim, instead of Second Baptist Houston, where he held membership. That was true, but on the record, the convention had previously voted to allow interim staff to serve as messengers of the church they were serving, if elected, without having to move their membership.

There's also the charge that they were "operating" from a sky box in the Summit (which ironically is now Lakewood Church). That's probably true, but there's nothing in the SBC bylaws or constitution that prevent messengers from organizing around an issue or an agenda, or from making sure that all of their people are in the hall when a vote is taken. The difference is that moderates do their agenda organizing by phone calls and letters through influence peddling, while the conservatives gathered their messengers together, stopped the hallway gossip and chat, and had their people in their seats for the vote. I see nothing unfair about that. Moderates had the same opportunity, sky boxes were available for rent, gee, my alma mater rented one to host alumni who spent most of their time grazing at the snack buffet instead of listening to the sermons and business sessions.

The conservatives won because 1) they stated their position simply and clearly, identified its meaning, and gathered majority support for it because it resonated and agreed with the Southern Baptists in the pews, 2) they organized around the existing convention structure, 3)the moderates botched their response, never directly stated their position, and eventually, enough moderates wrote that they were not in agreement with what the majority of Southern Baptist had expressed regarding Biblical authority.

There was nothing unfair about it. The majority was able to be sustained, and events since then, in state conventions and associations across the convention, have confirmed that while there may not be universal support for individual leadership, the SBC does support the contentions and agenda of the conservative resurgence. Few disagreed, and few ever took the opportunity to splinter or split. But as far as a "takeover" goes, no, there was no takeover except in the minds of those who thought the institutions and agencies were their personal entitlements and fiefs.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby Ed Pettibone » Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:03 pm

Sandy right now I have only time to reply to the paragraph about busing since I will be attending The inaugural Class of ABCNYS's regional internet Video presentation of a Baptist History course.

This experiment is being conducted by the Capital Area Baptist Association, most commonly known (CABA).

Here is the paragraph that I am responding to.
You are correct, Keith, in that there is nothing inherently unfair in the way the conservatives gained control of the leadership. The allegations about "busing in messengers" is ridiculous. Many churches do take their messengers to the convention on buses, but I see nothing in the bylaws that prohibits a messenger arriving at the convention hall on a bus from participating in the convention if the messenger is duly registered. There was organization of groups of churches in many state conventions, and the conservatives organized both transportation and lodging arrangements for messengers. What's unfair about groups of messengers from several churches riding to the convention together on the same bus? Couldn't the moderates have done that, too?


Of course you know that several of us disagree with that first statement. How many churches transport their messengers by bus load after all the allotted number of messengers will fit nicely into a mini van or large SUV. Buy the way there are many ways to abuse the system simply because no one anticipated power hungry individuals who would claim that simply because an action was not prohibited by the bylaws that it was ethical. Write "I see nothing in the bylaws that prohibits a messenger arriving at the convention hall on a bus from participating in the convention if the messenger is duly registered." I don't either, but the fact is as I have said before a whole class of we students from Southern traveled to the 91 convention in NO by bus. The Class titled the The Southern Baptist Convention was listed in the 1989- 1991 SBTS Catalog with the purpose being defined as being to provide the student with a first hand look at how the Annual meeting is conducted. Any student was permitted to enroll, transportation and housing where arranged through the school. The other students with whom I was acquainted ranged from far right conservatives to those of us in the Moderate segment of SBC life spectrum. And we where all required to attend every session of the convention not just the Business session to vote. This was a different from some busloads organized by associations out of the Florida Panhandle and several areas in Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas. Some of whom came in only for the business meeting.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby William Thornton » Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:28 pm

Ed votes against certain transportation modes, namely buses and vans.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11575
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby Sandy » Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:48 pm

Ed Pettibone wrote:Sandy right now I have only time to reply to the paragraph about busing since I will be attending The inaugural Class of ABCNYS's regional internet Video presentation of a Baptist History course.

This experiment is being conducted by the Capital Area Baptist Association, most commonly known (CABA).

Here is the paragraph that I am responding to.
You are correct, Keith, in that there is nothing inherently unfair in the way the conservatives gained control of the leadership. The allegations about "busing in messengers" is ridiculous. Many churches do take their messengers to the convention on buses, but I see nothing in the bylaws that prohibits a messenger arriving at the convention hall on a bus from participating in the convention if the messenger is duly registered. There was organization of groups of churches in many state conventions, and the conservatives organized both transportation and lodging arrangements for messengers. What's unfair about groups of messengers from several churches riding to the convention together on the same bus? Couldn't the moderates have done that, too?


Of course you know that several of us disagree with that first statement. How many churches transport their messengers by bus load after all the allotted number of messengers will fit nicely into a mini van or large SUV. Buy the way there are many ways to abuse the system simply because no one anticipated power hungry individuals who would claim that simply because an action was not prohibited by the bylaws that it was ethical. Write "I see nothing in the bylaws that prohibits a messenger arriving at the convention hall on a bus from participating in the convention if the messenger is duly registered." I don't either, but the fact is as I have said before a whole class of we students from Southern traveled to the 91 convention in NO by bus. The Class titled the The Southern Baptist Convention was listed in the 1989- 1991 SBTS Catalog with the purpose being defined as being to provide the student with a first hand look at how the Annual meeting is conducted. Any student was permitted to enroll, transportation and housing where arranged through the school. The other students with whom I was acquainted ranged from far right conservatives to those of us in the Moderate segment of SBC life spectrum. And we where all required to attend every session of the convention not just the Business session to vote. This was a different from some busloads organized by associations out of the Florida Panhandle and several areas in Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas. Some of whom came in only for the business meeting.


And so what? What prohibits associations from organizing transportation for messengers from its churches? If there are five churches in association planning to send their full complement of messengers to the SBC, and one church has a bus that will carry 55 passengers, and offers its use to everyone to save on expenses (which is one big reason why a lot of small churches are not able to send their full compliment of messengers) what's unethical about that? If the church that offers the bus decides it only wants to transport conservative messengers, that's their business. It's their bus, they can choose who gets the ride. I would think that such a way of increasing participation would be welcome. Your 91 seminary class isn't the measure of ethical standards, btw. I've never heard a single provable allegation of "abusing the system" other than the fact that the moderates didn't think of it first, and didn't have the means to muster the same kind of support. Being in business sessions and missing out on the spiritual side of the convention was a long standing moderate tradition long before the conservatives ever came along, the hallway "networking", glad-handing, back slapping good-ole-boy club was alive and well in the hallways and exhibition hall during the preaching and missions presentations.

So, once again, I ask, what was unfair or unethical? Specifics will answer that question, not the usual round of generalities.

Generally, moderates didn't have an answer for what the conservatives were doing to get their people to the meetings, and didn't have the pool of supporters to draw on. They were maxed out, and so the charges of lack of ethics, and "unfair" were the only way to justify the botch job they did, and their own failure to recognize their error and either correct it, or find support for it. The conservatives knew that they couldn't win by just rallying support a few times, they knew how widespread their support was, where to find it, and how to keep it engaged and involved. The moderates had no reserves, their patronizing attitude in leading the SBC put off potential support, and they were stuck in their own backward protocol. Buses had nothing to do with it.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby Ed Pettibone » Wed Oct 08, 2014 11:37 pm

William Thornton wrote:Ed votes against certain transportation modes, namely buses and vans.


Ed: William please note in June 91, I traveled to the SBC convention in New Orleans by bus. Also in November of 94, Trudy and I traveled from The University of South Florida to an AAR/SBL meeting, in Chicago in a van with 8 of her Religious Studies classmates, we stopped in Louisville for breakfast in the SBTS cafeteria and visited the Joseph A. Callaway Archeological Museum on campus. Unfortunately I was unable to find enough folk to charter a buss to Overland Park last year for our ABC/USA Biennial, so we drove our Subaru crossover.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby Sandy » Thu Oct 09, 2014 2:46 pm

So far, I can discern that the conservatives were unethical because they organized busses to transport messengers to the convention, they bypassed traditional state Baptist convention-owned newspapers and published their own, and "distorted" the perspective of moderates when it came to their beliefs regarding the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture. Well, except for Stephen's theory that the whole inerrancy thing was a cover for the John Bircher takeover of the SBC. Or something along those lines.

Though it hadn't been done on a large scale before, a campaign for SBC President, and organization of churches to send messengers, is neither unethical, nor against the rules. Moderates had plenty of ways to challenge irregularities in the registration of messengers and they never did. There's nothing unethical about an association or church recruiting other churches and their messengers and providing them with a means of inexpensive transportation to the convention. That's a moot point.

The moderates in control of the SBC had difficulty defending their position, or deflecting questions about it because they were on the record in books, commentaries, sermons and classroom lectures, and their position was established. There's nothing unethical about making a comparison, and pointing out the differences in perspectives to the churches and their members.

The moderate leadership of the SBC prior to 1979 had insulated themselves inside a denominational cocoon. They had established a structure, with a bottleneck at the appointment process, which protected its institutional leaders, particularly the Sunday School Board and the seminaries, from scrutiny or close evaluation. The trustee boards were stacked with individuals who were close friends, associates, and in some cases even relatives, of the people leading the institutions, and in fact, they were known to name individuals they wanted on their boards, and usually get what they wanted. With bylaws requiring trustee boards to speak as one voice, and bylaws in place forbidding the convention body to directly instruct a trustee board, they could pretty much do as they pleased and never be called to answer for it. And many of them acted like the agencies and institutions they led were their own personal property. That's where the "takeover" mentality came. The moderates spoke of conservatives as if they were outsiders, with no place in the SBC, and in terms of their own pedigree and prestige, even though the leaders that conservatives chose had a heritage and record of involvement in Southern Baptist life, and participated according to the bylaws. And the bottom line is that when they had a chance to compare the issues, the grass roots decided to replace the leadership and go with the conservative direction. There's nothing unethical involved.

I work in a Christian school that has a governance policy board. They put written policy in place that provides guidance for administrative leadership. I have the ability to discern how to apply the policy, but I cannot change it, violate it, or ignore it. I agreed to the doctrinal statement up front, and it is set in place by the board of elders in the church that operates the school. If that doctrinal statement changed, I would have the option of agreeing with the change, or resigning from my position, and I think, because I know the church elders, they'd let me contribute to the discussion, but not because they were obligated to do so. If I wanted to remain in my position, I would agree to the changes, or at least, agree not to teach against them. If I couldn't do that, then I would resign. The trustee boards changed to represent a more conservative perspective in the SBC than previously. I don't see that it is so far to the right that moderate leadership couldn't have agreed to it, and moved on, but they wouldn't. Fine. But when the will of the denomination was spoken through the thousands upon thousands of messengers who came to conventions over the years, they could have agreed and worked together. I don't see any significant difference between the 1963 BFM and the 2000 BFM on this particular topic. Both are clearly statements that say the Bible is inerrant and infallible. So separation was a matter of choice rather than conviction.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby David Flick » Thu Oct 09, 2014 5:22 pm

Sandy wrote:The moderate leadership of the SBC prior to 1979 had insulated themselves inside a denominational cocoon. They had established a structure, with a bottleneck at the appointment process, which protected its institutional leaders, particularly the Sunday School Board and the seminaries, from scrutiny or close evaluation. The trustee boards were stacked with individuals who were close friends, associates, and in some cases even relatives, of the people leading the institutions, and in fact, they were known to name individuals they wanted on their boards, and usually get what they wanted. With bylaws requiring trustee boards to speak as one voice, and bylaws in place forbidding the convention body to directly instruct a trustee board, they could pretty much do as they pleased and never be called to answer for it. And many of them acted like the agencies and institutions they led were their own personal property. That's where the "takeover" mentality came. The moderates spoke of conservatives as if they were outsiders, with no place in the SBC, and in terms of their own pedigree and prestige, even though the leaders that conservatives chose had a heritage and record of involvement in Southern Baptist life, and participated according to the bylaws. And the bottom line is that when they had a chance to compare the issues, the grass roots decided to replace the leadership and go with the conservative direction. There's nothing unethical involved.

    Sandy, you don't have a clue... You're the resident BL.Com radio talk show DJ... :lol:
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8391
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby William Thornton » Thu Oct 09, 2014 6:33 pm

Sandy does a good job of describing the pre-CR SBC.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11575
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby Dave Roberts » Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:10 pm

Only from Sandy's viewpoint (and maybe yours, William). I remember being in the bookstore in Dallas listening to two conservative lieutenants discussing their chances in the election on the next day. One said, "We need at least 200 more messengers." The other asked, "Isn't it too late to get them elected by their churches?" The first then replied, "Their pastors can certify them here. Start making calls."

I stayed behind a bookrack. At least that many appear not to have been elected by their churches as the bylaws require. Evidently some pastors were willing to lie about the status of their messengers in order to win.
"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: 6820
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Jonathan Merritt interviewed Molly Worthen

Postby Stephen Fox » Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:43 pm

http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com ... y-worthen/


Jonathan notified me to day at his blog site. Quite interesting to have the son of a takeover President interview Molly Worthn.

KeithE;

Please stop this foolishness of moving this to SBC Forums. The article in NYbooks.com is about politics. I don't want to go another round with Thornton. Too much forum administration kills the spirit of the conversation.

Please leave this topic here so it gets the oxygen it deserves. And find a way, all of you to read the entire article. If I can find the print issue of nybooks.com in NE Alabama ten miles from Scottsboro, surely you can find it in Macon and Norfolk and 7 miles from the campus of of UGA.

I will do a magisterial blog on this topic tomorrow at foxofbama. Have several folks looking for this article in public policy of this site. Again ridiculous to delete what has been posted so far, and to move it to SBC Forums. Shows a tin ear for the character of the conversations the last two months at this forum site.

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: 8877
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Back to public policy

Postby Stephen Fox » Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:44 pm

This topic needs to go back to public policy and stay there.

Thanks
"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: 8877
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Next

Return to SBC News and Trends

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests