Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

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

Moderator: William Thornton

"McCarthy and John Birch Inspired"

Postby Stephen Fox » Tue Oct 14, 2014 5:37 pm

http://usreligion.blogspot.com/2012/08/ ... ns-in.html

Just read a few paragraphs down to you get Otten in the conversation and how this "shadowy" figure Introduced techniques of McCarthyism and the Birchers into the Mo Synod takeover.

It has been my longstanding assertion now ratified by Thomas Powers in www.nybooks.com Pressler was the SBC's Otten.
"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: 8880
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Bama Deacon Gov Bentley two blocks away

Postby Stephen Fox » Tue Oct 14, 2014 6:18 pm

Hope to to talk to some of his staff. Already made the scene but had to come back and sign out of my computer time at the Library.
"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: 8880
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby Sandy » Tue Oct 14, 2014 9:43 pm

Dave Roberts wrote:
Sandy wrote: Your memory has faded a bit, Stephen. Lolley as much as admitted in his post-SBC interviews and writing that he wasn't in agreement with conservative theology related to inerrancy, which is what he was "accused" of, if that's even the correct term to use here. Wasn't Lolley one of the ones who stormed out of the convention hall in San Antonio, walked down to the Alamo, and ripped up the BFM 2000, or some related document. Sorry, Stephen, but I believe Randall was admittedly on the outs with conservatives, who were simply pointing out the contrast between his theology and theirs.


So has your memory, Sandy. It was 1988, and what they tore at the Alamo was their ballots. Check your history.


I wasn't certain what document it was, but it was not their ballots. It was 1988, and it was a copy of the resolution defining "Priesthood of the Believer" as it was explained in the then BFM 1963.

Resolution On The Priesthood Of The Believer
June 1988

WHEREAS, None of the five major writing systematic theologians in Southern Baptist history have given more than passing reference to the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer in their systematic theologies; and

WHEREAS, The Baptist Faith and Message preamble refers to the priesthood of the believer, but provides no definition or content to the term; and

WHEREAS, The high profile emphasis on the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer in Southern Baptist life is a recent historical development; and

WHEREAS, The priesthood of the believer is a term which is subject to both misunderstanding and abuse; and

WHEREAS, The doctrine of the priesthood of the believer has been used to justify wrongly the attitude that a Christian may believe whatever he so chooses and still be considered a loyal Southern Baptist; and

WHEREAS, The doctrine of the priesthood of the believer can be used to justify the undermining of pastoral authority in the local church.

Be it therefore RESOLVED, That the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in San Antonio, Texas, June 14-16, 1988, affirm its belief in the biblical doctrine of the priesthood of the believer (1 Peter 2:9 and Revelation 1:6); and

Be it further RESOLVED, That we affirm that this doctrine in no way gives license to misinterpret, explain away, demythologize, or extrapolate out elements of the supernatural from the Bible; and

Be it further RESOLVED, That the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer in no way contradicts the biblical understanding of the role, responsibility, and authority of the pastor which is seen in the command to the local church in Hebrews 13:17, "Obey your leaders, and submit to them; for they keep watch over your souls, as those who will give an account;" and

Be finally RESOLVED, That we affirm the truth that elders, or pastors, are called of God to lead the local church (Acts 20:28).

Lolley, on his resignation:

New York Times October 24, 1987 wrote:W. Randall Lolley, president of the seminary since 1974, told 200 students at a morning chapel service Thursday that ''a vision of the seminary at variance'' with his vision was causing him to step down.


"At variance" tells me Lolley knew he was at odds with conservative theology. There was no "telling lies" about him.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 7870
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby KeithE » Wed Oct 15, 2014 6:34 am

Dave Roberts wrote:I remember the conversation I had with a lady over fifty years ago. We were discussing the Bible and she suddenly said, "There is not a single preacher who takes the Bible literally. How many one-eyed, one-handed preachers do you know?" Her point can't be refuted.


I think like this lady. Stated beliefs very frequently do not line up with actually beliefs.

Matthew 5:27-30: You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. “If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. “If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.


Matthew: 18:8,9: If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.

And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.


Of course a true literalist might say a hand or eye has never literally caused a person to stumble. :lol: But a foot or one’s mind are often the cause of a literal stumble, so one would think we have a lot of footless and/or beheaded literalists around (maybe that where the mindless biblical literalists come from :wink: ).
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 Sandy » Wed Oct 15, 2014 6:54 am

It's been my understanding, and from study, that taking the Bible "literally" includes interpreting the writers' use of literary devices. Things like hyperbole, allegory, and some that were specific to the period of time in which the Bible was written, such as the apocalyptic style of Revelation, are part of what is considered a "literal" interpretation. That may be an additional difference between conservatives and "fundamentalists".
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 7870
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby KeithE » Wed Oct 15, 2014 7:02 am

Sandy wrote:
KeithE wrote: I am neither premillennial nor dispensationalist, in fact, I'm a preterist.


Preterist Definitions

Let me ask if you are a Full or Partial Preterist according to definitions given in the link above.

I have admired the consistency of the Preterist view concerning basically interpreting Revelations, Matt 24, and other NT “last days” as referring to events in 70AD. I have a cousin who is a Partial Preterist and was asked to not talk about that view in his PCA church. Seems like the elders therein want to retain the “end times” talk to be referring only to future scenarios which of course they believe is imminent.

But the real possibility is that Revelations, Matt 24 and the other NT “last days” writings were written retrospectively after 70AD and there was some recognition of Jesus’s words in Matt 24 only after the destruction of the temple in 70AD.
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 15, 2014 7:49 am

Sandy wrote:It's been my understanding, and from study, that taking the Bible "literally" includes interpreting the writers' use of literary devices. Things like hyperbole, allegory, and some that were specific to the period of time in which the Bible was written, such as the apocalyptic style of Revelation, are part of what is considered a "literal" interpretation. That may be an additional difference between conservatives and "fundamentalists".


Glad you recognize the ambiguities of what a “literal interpretation” can imply. The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI) also recognizes this.

However, all the CSBI caveats and possible interpretations that arise would seem to me to take away the desired end goal (that of having one fixed authority that can serve as a single unquestionable source of truth - "The Bible Says It, That Settles It” attitude).

Truth is the Christ-Follower is left with the Spirit of God to apply the bible (whatever canonical form) and other testimonies (oral or written) to their lives today - not a firm fixed set of words written on stone (or in books or in electronic text).

Jesus instructed us:
John 14:26 But the Advocate,the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you.

John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth.

But please read all of John 14-16.

Paul went so far to say (see underlined):
2 Cor 3:1-6:
Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Surely we do not need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you or from you, do we? You yourselves are our letter, written on our[a] hearts, to be known and read by all; and you show that you are a letter of Christ, prepared by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.


It is time that Christians realize that having a firm fixed written “authority” for all faith matters is misleading many and “killing” (non-literally) many. The Emergent Church sees this; the SBC does not see this.
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 Sandy » Wed Oct 15, 2014 11:56 am

Truth, of which God is the source, is consistent and absolute, no matter the form of revelation. If the Holy Spirit inspired the scripture's writers to reveal truth, and the early church was inspired by the same Holy Spirit in the process of accepting authentic writings of the apostles and early church leaders as a "measuring rod" of truth, then that measuring rod is certainly going to be an accurate, and authentic measure of anything that purports to be truth, either literally, or by precept.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 7870
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby KeithE » Wed Oct 15, 2014 6:03 pm

Sandy wrote:Truth, of which God is the source, is consistent and absolute, no matter the form of revelation. If the Holy Spirit inspired the scripture's writers to reveal truth, and the early church was inspired by the same Holy Spirit in the process of accepting authentic writings of the apostles and early church leaders as a "measuring rod" of truth, then that measuring rod is certainly going to be an accurate, and authentic measure of anything that purports to be truth, either literally, or by precept.

A lot of “ifs" there Sandy.

The apparent contradictions and absurdities and inaccuracies in the bible speak against that “if”.

The variations in the canonical lists speak against that “if”.

Let no one believe the faith fails apart without the written form of that purported absolute truth. Christ and Paul said listen and depend on the Spirit which admittedly cannot be tested absolutely - leaves room for faith. But the testing of the words of the bible come out badly sometimes (e.g. Levitical laws, supposed commands to kill all Canaanites, Paul’s 'women should be silent in the church', gouging out your eye, ..... need I go on).

Look it, I know this is not agreeable to many (probably most) herein on BL. But I have spoken my thoughts.
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 William Thornton » Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:27 pm

KeithE wrote:
Truth is the Christ-Follower is left with the Spirit of God to apply the bible (whatever canonical form) and other testimonies (oral or written) to their lives today - not a firm fixed set of words written on stone (or in books or in electronic text).
...
It is time that Christians realize that having a firm fixed written “authority” for all faith matters is misleading many and “killing” (non-literally) many. The Emergent Church sees this; the SBC does not see this.


Not that it makes much difference now, but the above quotes might explain why moderates failed so miserably to persuade enough SBC pastors and laypeople to win even a single election. The argument against inerrancy and Biblical authority just didn't convey any sense of orthodoxy or of the doctrinal stability that endured for centuries.

"...not a firm fixed set of words...fixed "authority"..." isn't likely to rally many to the vague mod/lib cause.

For all the caveats, provisos, and addenda of the CSI, a document unread by almost all SBCers, the concept of inerrancy is easily grasped by ordinary Baptists and they clearly prefer it to its alternative, errancy. No one satisfactorily explained that the two concepts were both unfair reductions and mods were left to trumpet "holy war" and the like. Didn't work. Will not work today. All cons had to do was say, "This is what...this is how..." and let Honeycutt, Chafin, the Shermans, Dilday, and a few others keep talking. If they had kept quieter, mods might have won an election. Just one win would have changed the equation.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11577
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby KeithE » Wed Oct 15, 2014 9:01 pm

William Thornton wrote:
KeithE wrote:
Truth is the Christ-Follower is left with the Spirit of God to apply the bible (whatever canonical form) and other testimonies (oral or written) to their lives today - not a firm fixed set of words written on stone (or in books or in electronic text).
...
It is time that Christians realize that having a firm fixed written “authority” for all faith matters is misleading many and “killing” (non-literally) many. The Emergent Church sees this; the SBC does not see this.


Not that it makes much difference now, but the above quotes might explain why moderates failed so miserably to persuade enough SBC pastors and laypeople to win even a single election. The argument against inerrancy and Biblical authority just didn't convey any sense of orthodoxy or of the doctrinal stability that endured for centuries.

"...not a firm fixed set of words...fixed "authority"..." isn't likely to rally many to the vague mod/lib cause.

For all the caveats, provisos, and addenda of the CSI, a document unread by almost all SBCers, the concept of inerrancy is easily grasped by ordinary Baptists and they clearly prefer it to its alternative, errancy. No one satisfactorily explained that the two concepts were both unfair reductions and mods were left to trumpet "holy war" and the like. Didn't work. Will not work today. All cons had to do was say, "This is what...this is how..." and let Honeycutt, Chafin, the Shermans, Dilday, and a few others keep talking. If they had kept quieter, mods might have won an election. Just one win would have changed the equation.

What us popular is not necessarily what is correct. But Christian post modernism like I’m basically describing is growing with the Emergent Church movement.

And it does not escape me that you snipped out Jesus and Paul.
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 Sandy » Wed Oct 15, 2014 9:14 pm

The Chicago Statement is the straw man moderates use to argue their point and perspective. But the Southern Baptist view of the issue was best expressed by Jimmy Draper in his book Biblical Authority: The Critical Issue for Southern Baptists. That came out around 1978 or 79, though I didn't actually read it until later. But Draper clearly had his finger on the pulse of the churches and their people in the pews, and the conservative leadership drew heavily on his work during the controversy. It's less about the error free nature of the Bible, and more about its practical use as a measuring rod of truth. Draper's view doesn't lend itself to criticisms of "bibliolatry".

I think it is really pretty easy to follow the contexts found in the Bible, and apply its principles, precepts, or literal statements with the illuminating power of the Holy Spirit, and I think that is exactly what Jesus had in mind when he said that the comforter would follow his ministry. Baptists believe that the Bible is authoritative, reliable, and sufficient and that requires, not precludes, the work of the Holy Spirit. In fact, Paul opens his first letter to the Corinthians with a statement that indicates how essential the Spirit's illumination is to the understanding of truth as revealed in the scriptures. Intellect and experience alone are not sufficient, but when blended with written revelation, and spiritual illumination, they can reveal what God wants to reveal. That's the Baptist understanding of Biblical Authority that I know.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 7870
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby William Thornton » Thu Oct 16, 2014 6:54 am

Keith, I'm explaining the problem mods faced not offering a theological treatise. Perhaps there is a way to present a more flexible and nuanced view of Scriptural authority that will persuade ordinary church pastors and members. You demonstrate the mods other problem when you say that "what is popular is not necessarily correct". Dismissing inerrancy and authority claims as not being correct sounds rather elitist (nothing personal, we all have sufficient background with each other here to understand these things) and when the mod elites like Dilday and Chafin would attempt this they alienated thousands of fence sitters who were more uncomfortable with their view of Scripture than with Patterson and Roger's inerrancy.

Even the main mod candidates, the folksy Winfred Moore, the energetic evangelist Dan Vestal, or megapastor Richard. Jackson, the mods best candidate never overcame this problem.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11577
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby Dave Roberts » Thu Oct 16, 2014 7:00 am

William Thornton wrote:Keith, I'm explaining the problem mods faced not offering a theological treatise. Perhaps there is a way to present a more flexible and nuanced view of Scriptural authority that will persuade ordinary church pastors and members. You demonstrate the mods other problem when you say that "what is popular is not necessarily correct". Dismissing inerrancy and authority claims as not being correct sounds rather elitist (nothing personal, we all have sufficient background with each other here to understand these things) and when the mod elites like Dilday and Chafin would attempt this they alienated thousands of fence sitters who were more uncomfortable with their view of Scripture than with Patterson and Roger's inerrancy.

Even the main mod candidates, the folksy Winfred Moore, the energetic evangelist Dan Vestal, or megapastor Richard. Jackson, the mods best candidate never overcame this problem.


William, I have to agree that mods never fully captured the imagination of many folks, but most of the folks in the pews were taking whatever line their pastors espoused to them. Also, when the opposition frames the debate, it's hard to win. Especially when the questions are phrased like the proverbial, "When did you stop beating your wife?"
"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: 6827
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby Lou » Thu Oct 16, 2014 9:36 am

Dave Roberts wrote:William, I have to agree that mods never fully captured the imagination of many folks, but most of the folks in the pews were taking whatever line their pastors espoused to them. Also, when the opposition frames the debate, it's hard to win. Especially when the questions are phrased like the proverbial, "When did you stop beating your wife?"

I couldn't agree more. I grew up in Amarillo, where Winfred Moore was frequently viewed not only as the pastor of FBC but in some ways as the pastor of the entire TX panhandle due to the wide viewing of the televised A.M. service of First Baptist, as well as Dr. Moore's ubiquitous presence at Amarillo's civic functions and his ministry in the city's hospitals. But at the height of the "Conservative Resurgence" the pastor of the church I grew up in loudly (and ignorantly) referred to FBC as Amarillo's "flagship church of liberalism." To call Dr. Moore a theological liberal is laughable; but most of the members of my childhood church bought that line uncritically, blatant lie though it was.
Lou
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 4:55 pm

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby Dave Roberts » Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:37 am

The old fallacy is that if you don't subscribe to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, then you believe the Bible is filled with untruths. I heard variations of that sermon too many times to count. There is just one problem, most of the folks I know who do not subscribe to inerrancy read their Bibles daily, preach from its authority, study it regularly, and allow the Bible to guide their lives. They just don't accept the positivism of inerrancy as a good fit for the book they love.
"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: 6827
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Lou's great point and Grady Cothen

Postby Stephen Fox » Thu Oct 16, 2014 4:25 pm

Lou, so true about how the fundy demagogues demonized Winfred Moore.

I remember Moore coming to Rome Ga before the Atlanta SBC and the associational fundies in Jerry Vines hometown lining up at the microphone with all their gibberish. Among those in the audience was the NBC correspondent who went on to do the weekly program on religion on PBS.

Grady Cothen spent two hours in my home in the early 90's researching his book What Happened to the SBC. Jack Harwell had sent him my way.

Yesterday I found a copy of Baptists Today, 2007 or so issue with an interview of Cothen.

He goes over many of the worn out gibberish on inerrancy folks like Sandy continue to spew up every time the conversation comes up.

Again the important thing is you various revenants find a Print issue of the Oct 9 New York Review of Books and read it.

It goes back to the snake in the woodpile clause of the 20's BFM which added a phrase about the "Science" of the First 11 chapters of Genesis to stave off concerns about the SBC coming unraveled between the illiterates and the fairly literates in the rank and file over the Scopes trial and Evolution! -- see Rachel Held Evans great testimonial "Evolving in Monkeytown".

Read the http://www.nybooks.com Thomas Powers piece to see how Texas Fundies like Criswell, Pressler and that cabal latched on to such mish mash and eviscerated a denomination and set a white mindset up for the Tea Party we have today.

Let's advance this conversation with a group reading of the NY Rev piece which was the whole point to beging with, not an opportunity for Sandy and the like the cough up the same things they were saying about the obfuscations of inerrancy they were spitting out 15 years ago.
"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: 8880
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby Stephen Fox » Thu Oct 16, 2014 4:29 pm

Dave Roberts wrote:The old fallacy is that if you don't subscribe to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, then you believe the Bible is filled with untruths. I heard variations of that sermon too many times to count. There is just one problem, most of the folks I know who do not subscribe to inerrancy read their Bibles daily, preach from its authority, study it regularly, and allow the Bible to guide their lives. They just don't accept the positivism of inerrancy as a good fit for the book they love.



Dave, Cogent and True. Excellent. I hope Johhny Pierce has the good sense to spotlight you with this quote in the next issue of Baps Today page Quotation Remarks!
"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: 8880
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby William Thornton » Thu Oct 16, 2014 4:45 pm

the avuncular, folksy Moore was I'll equipped for the task mod leaders gave him. His airport-hopping, sound bite ready campaign tour prior to one of his lost elections was painful for this con to watch. He just looked so uncomfortable in his role.

The Gatlinburg Gang was just clueless about the whole business. There was just no mod who was much good if not in a back room somewhere making decisions. I'd be open to my mod/lib friends naming one here. Vestal was energetic and charismatic but came in way too late.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11577
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

A most timely piece

Postby Stephen Fox » Thu Oct 16, 2014 5:02 pm

This may help Sandy understand my Dad's place in the Baptist spectrum. My Dad was a summer camp mentor to Colin Harris and they were lifelong friends afte 1960, but Harris the much sharper thinker.

Even so my Dad had an appetite for the right place and the right cause as Randall Lolley eulogized when he passed in 99.

My Dad would be very proud of Colin Harris for this most timely, apropo piece for this conversation.

http://ethicsdaily.com/orthodoxy-and-he ... -cms-22200

As for Thornton, case could be made George Wallace before he got shot was more of a crowd pleaser than the more civil and erudite Albert Brewer in Alabama; but look at the crowd they were trying to make their case to and what kind of response they got.

Such was the difference in rough analogy to Winfred Moore and Jerry Vines, even Rogers or that hack AmWay salesman Charles Stanley, the two percenter.

William you impressed me early on as fan of Jonathan Edwards. I know you have the faculties, the ability to understand the case Thomas Powers is making in www.nybooks.com. Just wish you would find the Oct 9 print issue and lets get on with it.
"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: 8880
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Pressler and Moyers Christmas 1987

Postby Stephen Fox » Thu Oct 16, 2014 5:05 pm

We all remember Pressler walked off the set when Moyers began exploring the diabolical network to Gary North and Texas Right wing Oil Politics.

http://gailpellettproductions.com/the-b ... the-bible/

This remnder from25 years ago is what the Oct 9 www.nybooks.com updates!
"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: 8880
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Conference call last night

Postby Stephen Fox » Thu Oct 16, 2014 5:20 pm

William Thornton wrote:I look forward to reading about the '69 game. Forget Worthen and Birchers. Stick with football.


With the trainer for the game, a running back who later wrote early script for Denzel Washington, a linemen who went both ways and later became acquainted with Tennessee Gubernatorial candidate Jake Butcher in Atlanta; and the son of school board chair who kicked the filed goal in the first half.

Confernece cal, to correct myself was with two of the above and myself and a leader of the moderate movement in Alabama. Refined some of the plays but mostly talked about BBQ in Carolinas and Bama with a search for the open pit and sawdust in the dining room
"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: 8880
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby Sandy » Fri Oct 17, 2014 9:39 pm

Dave Roberts wrote:
William Thornton wrote:Keith, I'm explaining the problem mods faced not offering a theological treatise. Perhaps there is a way to present a more flexible and nuanced view of Scriptural authority that will persuade ordinary church pastors and members. You demonstrate the mods other problem when you say that "what is popular is not necessarily correct". Dismissing inerrancy and authority claims as not being correct sounds rather elitist (nothing personal, we all have sufficient background with each other here to understand these things) and when the mod elites like Dilday and Chafin would attempt this they alienated thousands of fence sitters who were more uncomfortable with their view of Scripture than with Patterson and Roger's inerrancy.

Even the main mod candidates, the folksy Winfred Moore, the energetic evangelist Dan Vestal, or megapastor Richard. Jackson, the mods best candidate never overcame this problem.


William, I have to agree that mods never fully captured the imagination of many folks, but most of the folks in the pews were taking whatever line their pastors espoused to them. Also, when the opposition frames the debate, it's hard to win. Especially when the questions are phrased like the proverbial, "When did you stop beating your wife?"


That's been a typical straw man argument, Dave. But the questions weren't phrased that way. It's also hard to call conservatives demagogues, and claim they demonized individuals like Winfred Moore, or Vestal, or other moderates when most of them have since admitted, and written books about their beliefs which have clearly distinguished them from the conservatives, especially on Biblical authority.

Interesting that William mentions Jackson, who was quite conservative himself, and was the one opposition candidate nominated by the moderates who actually came within a narrow margin of votes of winning. Jackson, though, was an inerrantist himself, but since he didn't really run in the conservative denominational political circles, moderates could count on his nominees to the committees. The fact that he didn't win is an indication, at least to me, that the people in the pews did have an understanding of the differences between the two sides. Moore, Honeycutt, Sherman, Vestal, all denied belief in inerrancy as it was characterized by the conservatives in the SBC, and crystallized in the BFM 2000, not the Chicago statement.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 7870
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby KeithE » Fri Oct 17, 2014 10:20 pm

William Thornton wrote:Dismissing inerrancy and authority claims as not being correct sounds rather elitist (nothing personal, we all have sufficient background with each other here to understand these things).


I would reserve the word "elitist" to those who believe they are correct based on some inheritance, better breeding or better education ( theological in this case) . I have none of those traits. My views about the bible come from my reading the bible. It simply does not live up to the label inerrant. I claim no pedigree I making that statement. The contradictions if not the absurdities are apparent to a straightforward reading.
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 Dave Roberts » Sat Oct 18, 2014 7:15 am

Sandy wrote:
Interesting that William mentions Jackson, who was quite conservative himself, and was the one opposition candidate nominated by the moderates who actually came within a narrow margin of votes of winning. Jackson, though, was an inerrantist himself, but since he didn't really run in the conservative denominational political circles, moderates could count on his nominees to the committees. The fact that he didn't win is an indication, at least to me, that the people in the pews did have an understanding of the differences between the two sides. Moore, Honeycutt, Sherman, Vestal, all denied belief in inerrancy as it was characterized by the conservatives in the SBC, and crystallized in the BFM 2000, not the Chicago statement.


Sandy, I hope you realize two things about the BFM 2k. First, it is the most un-Baptist statement I have ever read. The preamble bills it as "a statement of doctrinal accountability." That makes it a creed. Okay, so I grew up in the mountains of VA where one of the themes of many preachers was "No book but the Bible; no creed but Christ." I simply can't swallow that phrasing. Second, I cannot swallow the removal of Christ as the standard by which all scripture is judged. I've heard all the arguments about the importance of taking that away because it was believed to provide a cover for moderates. Frankly, I've never seen the cover that provided. I preach from the Bible, but I do not preach the Bible. With the Apostle Paul I have chosen to stand preaching "Christ crucified."
"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: 6827
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

PreviousNext

Return to SBC News and Trends

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest