Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

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

Moderator: William Thornton

Sandy and Molly Worthen refuted by Powers

Postby Stephen Fox » Thu Oct 09, 2014 9:33 pm

I just read Merritt's interview of Worhen for hte frist time about 30 mins ago. It want take Sandy long to point ou in the last question Worthn appears to side with him about the significance of the takeover and discussions of inerrancy.

But I have posted a comment on Worthen's facebook wall inviting her to engage Powers review circling the wagons asserting Balmer, Moyers and the ususal roll call you have come to know me by in the camp she misses the point when it comes to political strategies of the takeover artists. Here is where I have strong convictions Powers has the greater insight. Quoting his closing paragraph in his sterling review:

Code: Select all
  The quarrels then and now [the last 150 years of southern religious studies and and how they inflect the politics of the region] all seem to be about religion, but Wuthnow offers convincing evidence that something else is ultimately at stake in arguments about God: questions of political and social control. In the Souther he finds the new GOP wants exactly what the old Dem party wanted for a hundred years--power to control people of color, Latinos, Women, tax policy, who judges the law, who issues the regulations, who maps voting districts, and , oh yes, who pust a Nativity Scene on the town square and State House Lawn. Is there any sign the Republican Party and the Southern Baptist Convention are losing their Hold on Texas and the South? None that I can see.
"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: 8999
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby Sandy » Fri Oct 10, 2014 7:00 am

As I've said before, there are a lot of post-controversy stories about "voting irregularities," but if all of that actually occurred, why wasn't it being challenged through the available means at the time? I can point to instances where I "heard" moderates talking about making sure certain people got registered, even though their church hadn't actually elected them. That's all anecdotal anyway.

As far as the denominational cocoon goes, that's a matter of factual record. Bylaw changes and constitutional amendments passed in the 60's and early 70's brought about the system of appointments in which just one person, the SBC president, appointed the committee on committees, and made that committee the key to all other trustee boards and committees in the SBC. That was a deliberate move. Moderate leaders have admitted to the practice of the SBC president asking seminary presidents and institutional heads for lists of people they wanted on their trustee boards. And Sutton documents the fact that during the decade prior to the 1979 SBC, more than 80% of the individuals on trustee boards and convention committees had served on other boards and committees. There were plenty of relatives and wives of agency heads and seminary presidents in that elite little group, too, also documented.

Pressler and Patterson, among others, figured out what it would take, using that system, to gain control of it, and found plenty of support to sustain the necessary majorities, and open up the appointment process to conservative Southern Baptists who had been excluded from it for years. The only defenders of the old, backward way of doing things were those connected to it.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8182
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Sandy and Molly Worthen refuted by Powers

Postby Sandy » Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:49 am

Stephen Fox wrote:I just read Merritt's interview of Worhen for hte frist time about 30 mins ago. It want take Sandy long to point ou in the last question Worthn appears to side with him about the significance of the takeover and discussions of inerrancy.

But I have posted a comment on Worthen's facebook wall inviting her to engage Powers review circling the wagons asserting Balmer, Moyers and the ususal roll call you have come to know me by in the camp she misses the point when it comes to political strategies of the takeover artists. Here is where I have strong convictions Powers has the greater insight. Quoting his closing paragraph in his sterling review:

Code: Select all
  The quarrels then and now [the last 150 years of southern religious studies and and how they inflect the politics of the region] all seem to be about religion, but Wuthnow offers convincing evidence that something else is ultimately at stake in arguments about God: questions of political and social control. In the Souther he finds the new GOP wants exactly what the old Dem party wanted for a hundred years--power to control people of color, Latinos, Women, tax policy, who judges the law, who issues the regulations, who maps voting districts, and , oh yes, who pust a Nativity Scene on the town square and State House Lawn. Is there any sign the Republican Party and the Southern Baptist Convention are losing their Hold on Texas and the South? None that I can see.


That doesn't confirm your theory, and it sure doesn't sound like a "takeover." If the Southern Baptist Convention has a hold on Texas, and the South, then that confirms that the conservative view is the clear majority and what Worthen says about a realignment of leadership is accurate, and talk of a "takeover" is not.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8182
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby Dave Roberts » Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:33 am

Sandy wrote: Bylaw changes and constitutional amendments passed in the 60's and early 70's brought about the system of appointments in which just one person, the SBC president, appointed the committee on committees, and made that committee the key to all other trustee boards and committees in the SBC. That was a deliberate move.


Nobody disputes the fact that the system was vulnerable. A number of us wanted that system changed because it was vulnerable to abuses. Denominational inertia kept the system from changing. P/P just figured out how to systematically exploit the system.
"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: 6964
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby Sandy » Fri Oct 10, 2014 1:00 pm

Dave Roberts wrote:
Sandy wrote: Bylaw changes and constitutional amendments passed in the 60's and early 70's brought about the system of appointments in which just one person, the SBC president, appointed the committee on committees, and made that committee the key to all other trustee boards and committees in the SBC. That was a deliberate move.


Nobody disputes the fact that the system was vulnerable. A number of us wanted that system changed because it was vulnerable to abuses. Denominational inertia kept the system from changing. P/P just figured out how to systematically exploit the system.


It was very vulnerable, and I guess I'd agree with "denominational inertia" keeping it from changing, though I would have to say that the inertia was actively maintained by a few individuals who had a vested interest in making sure it didn't change. Dave, I'd have thought that, in the interest of fairness, and to prevent abuses from occurring, as well as to open things up to the flow of new ideas, it would have concerned more than a few people that there were a large number of individuals who were continuously being recycled from board to board, committee to committee, without any new leadership coming on board. That's been one of the regular criticisms of the current SBC leadership from moderates, though the number of people that conservatives have in their inner circle is quite a bit bigger, and considerably younger, than the pre-1979 moderate SBC leadership was.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8182
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Powers refutes Sandy's version

Postby Stephen Fox » Fri Oct 10, 2014 3:40 pm

Will have that quote from my blog for you soon.

And I've said many times before, sometimes deleted by monitors, Molly's description of 1961 efforts by BSSB officials to raise the level of information across the denomination on the nature of Biblical scholarship was most noble.

In the Baptist case of Molly's wide analysis, those well intentioned, noble efforts were met by the worst type of demagoguery the Powers quote will drive home for you. Again, this conversation needs to be enlightened and elevated by everyone participating reading the full Powers review in the print issue of www.nybooks.com

Lot of the conversation is just rehashing of the same conversation we had on this board ten and 12 years ago.

Worthen and now Powers have advanced the insight considerably if only the rest of you would take advantage of that advancement.
"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: 8999
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Powers version of the takeover

Postby Stephen Fox » Fri Oct 10, 2014 4:07 pm

Quoting:

Excerpt from review:

Ken Chafin said: "I'm not gonna roll over and let a group of Frank Norrisite Texas fundamentalists steal the institutions of my denomination."

But the Pressler-Patterson faction did exactly that; an unbroken string of fundamentalists were elected to head the denomination for the next decade and with power of the presidency they systematically packed every committee and board, pushed out anyone who did not agree, and gradually purged the Baptist seminaries of all the moderates, defined by Pressler as anyone 'who believes the bible does or could contain error of any kind". End quote

Notice how the fundies have tried to refine Pressler's definition of inerrancy over the years, to put more sheen and lustre on it. But the above quote was the rubric Pressler used to demagogue the denomination into his religious political corner.
"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: 8999
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby Sandy » Fri Oct 10, 2014 4:41 pm

If you can steal something that belongs to you, by virtue of your financial support and participation in it, then I guess the quote from Chafin is relevant. But how can you steal something that belongs to you anyway?

I do not know of a single "Norrisite" who was involved in the conservative resurgence. The entire movement, and its leaders, were all members of cooperating Southern Baptist churches and that is the bottom and final line. Chafin's statement is proof that moderates were exclusive, and elitist in thinking they were the only entitled ones to leadership, an Chafin was one of those who rotated from seat to seat, board to board.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8182
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby KeithE » Fri Oct 10, 2014 4:54 pm

Ed Pettibone wrote:
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.


I joined a Baptist Church in 1987 but I was following the “fight” longer than that. Been in similar “fights” for Fuller Seminary in the 70’s.

Truth is they (the fundamentalists*) got out the vote and whipped us over several years (not just the years where possibly fraudulent messengers were bussed in). There is no doubt in my mind that fundamentalism is popular - it is just incorrect.

They used these wins to pack all the Boards; just like fundamentalists were infrequently asked to join the Boards before 1979.

Was it a power play or theology? I’d say both with theology being the prime justification for the power plays.

*I know Sandy (perhaps others) will split hairs over what is a “fundamentalist". So I’ll define it as those that believe in an inerrant and/or infallible Bible. A fighting Fundamentalist is one that will fight and accuse non fundamentalists of being heretics (or something close to that).

CBF consists of non-fighting fundamentalists (SBC has plenty of these as well), moderates (bible inspired by God but written by man therefore has errors) and liberals (bible has no special significance). Other definitions are certainly possible and other scales (such as political cons/mods/libs) but we talk past each other if we don’t define terms.

Sandy- I know you prefer to be called a conservative religiously but are really mod/lib on political matters. Is that correct?
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8405
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby KeithE » Fri Oct 10, 2014 5:07 pm

KeithE wrote:
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?

Still waiting on how you define a “Norrisite” Ed. Not trying to argue with you (on this point), just trying to figure out what you meant by “Norrisite” these days. Note I have read a book about him, so don’t repeat who he was and what he did. I doubt there are many who defend him these days even conservatives/fundamentalists.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8405
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Powers version of the takeover

Postby William Thornton » Fri Oct 10, 2014 5:09 pm

Stephen Fox wrote:Quoting:

Excerpt from review:

Ken Chafin said: "I'm not gonna roll over and let a group of Frank Norrisite Texas fundamentalists stea; the institutions of my denomination.".


And SBC conservatives appreciated Chafin's help.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11808
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Jonathan Merritt interviewed Molly Worthen

Postby KeithE » Fri Oct 10, 2014 5:22 pm

Stephen Fox wrote:http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com/2014/03/10/inconsistent-evangelicals-interview-molly-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


Moving this topic to the SBC Forum has not curtailed discussion. And you have not got pissy with William about this topic (I certainly have on other topics). What has curtailed discussion is the $4.99 it would cost to read the whole Powers article.

Read your blog on this subject at foxofbama. Here is a snippet:
The Birchers and the whites citizens council to Civil Rights in the cauldron Of Exxon Oil and Paul Pressler's Texas Regulars were more of a driving force in the fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention than quibbles over the Nature of Scripture.


You seem to be saying Patterson-Pressler (PP) were directly influenced by J. Frank Norris. Sorry I don't buy that - too many years between them (born 53 years apart). Now the Bircher movement has survived into the late 70’s (I know my mother was involved) and does have ties to white citizens councils. I can’t find where Pressler had any special connection with the Texas Regulars. I see little (if any) connection of these movements to the Patterson-Pressler takeover initiative.

I simply believe Patterson/Pressler and a whole bunch of conservative SBC members were upset about theological points (most notably inerrancy). They were not directly driven by Norris or Birchers or white citizen councils or Exxon or Texan Regulars.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8405
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Presler family in Texas legislature in the 50s

Postby Stephen Fox » Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:32 pm

Pressler's family had a long history in rightwing politics before Pressler invaded the committee system of the SBC and boasted about it to Gary North. Pressler had direct ancestry in the Texas legislature in the 50s that were in the grievance conversation with friends at FBC Austin that led to Carlyle Marney's resignation. Coke Stevenson was the righteous white man's candidate in 48 against LBJ as Sidney Blumenthal pointed out in the 90's exceptions to Robert Caro's version of the LBJ Series.

Chandler Davidson, Tom Edsall and others have written about Exxon Oil and the Birch saturation of Harris County(Houston) in the 60s. Pressler's father was a vice President of Exxon Oil. His closest comrades in the SBC takeover were Jesse Helms and his operatives and the Bircher Albert Lee Smith of Birmingham who had a history of antagonizing Hugo Black, Judge Frank Johnson and their civil rights and church states legacies.

All evidence is from Pressler's obsession with the Baptist Joint Committee and James Dunn is it arose in large part from Dunn's support with Jimmy Allen, both civil rights progressives and major supporters of Carter in the 76 Texas Primary.

In 78 according to Tom Edsall Carter hit the oil industry with a windfall profits tax.

So Keith, not to be pissy, but you do the math and see what you come up with.

As for the 4.99 the library in Huntsville almost certainly has the Oct 9 NY Rev of Books. So you and many others who passionately participate in this conversation have no excuses regarding this poignant piece on the evolution of Baptist fundamentalism in America other than will ful ignorance.

That said, Love you all and hope tomorrow's SEC football contests go well for all.

Thornton you may want to preview my blog efforts on the legendary Gaffney Spartanburg game of 1969 at www.foxofbama.blogspot.com
"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: 8999
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby William Thornton » Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 pm

I look forward to reading about the '69 game. Forget Worthen and Birchers. Stick with football.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11808
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Presler family in Texas legislature in the 50s

Postby KeithE » Fri Oct 10, 2014 7:05 pm

Stephen Fox wrote:That said, Love you all and hope tomorrow's SEC football contests go well for all.


It cannot go well for all.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8405
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby Sandy » Sat Oct 11, 2014 9:05 pm

Keith E wrote:Sandy- I know you prefer to be called a conservative religiously but are really mod/lib on political matters. Is that correct?


That would be pretty accurate.

I agree that the controversy in the SBC had little to nothing to do with "Norrisites." They were long gone and out of the picture by the time Patterson and Pressler came along. Nor did it have anything to do with Pressler's political interests. Pressler was pretty involved politically, but his primary interest in the Southern Baptist convention was theological, as it was for the conservative resurgence. I seriously doubt the charge of irregularities in messenger registration. The moderates controlled that position, and they were either as inept and ineffective at recognizing irregularities as they were about their leadership, or they would have gleefully reported any, which they didn't.

If belief in "inerrancy" defines "fundamentalists," then 65% of Protestants are fundamentalists by definition, and by doctrinal statement. I don't see others, who are more conservative on inerrancy than the SBC being labeled that way. The largest African American Baptist denominations use the word in their doctrinal statement, and they are frequently classified as being more "moderate."

Stephen Fox wrote:That said, Love you all and hope tomorrow's SEC football contests go well for all.


Not so well for Auburn, Mizzou and at the moment, Alabama. Pretty good for Mississippi State, and Georgia. If it's a good night for Ole Miss, then, wow, the SEC's spot in the playoff could come down to the Egg Bowl.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8182
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby KeithE » Sun Oct 12, 2014 8:53 am

Sandy wrote:
Keith E wrote:Sandy- I know you prefer to be called a conservative religiously but are really mod/lib on political matters. Is that correct?


That would be pretty accurate.

If belief in "inerrancy" defines "fundamentalists," then 65% of Protestants are fundamentalists by definition, and by doctrinal statement. I don't see others, who are more conservative on inerrancy than the SBC being labeled that way. The largest African American Baptist denominations use the word in their doctrinal statement, and they are frequently classified as being more "moderate."



65% seemed a little high to me even down here in the Bible Belt. So I googled up some polls.

Gallup Poll

The question was not posed exactly as “Is the Bible Inerrant”(i.e. it leaves room for 65% of Protestants being inerrantists, but does not prove that).

Selected results with commentary following:
Image
I do think that some inerrantists would sign the second category recognizing that some of the bible uses non-literal statements - (Sandy, which category would you place yourself in?) OTOH, I would also describe myself in that second category - I believe the bible was inspired by God but written by fallen/imperfect men (and maybe a women or two) that are often agenda-affected, limited by their culture/knowledge, imperfect historians, language-limited, and naive scientifically. But calling it a set of "ancient fables, history, legends recorded by man” is too weak, imo.

Image

Thus, the % of Protestants that are inerrantists falls between 40 and 88%. 65% might be close.

So Sandy if you want to reserve the term “fundamentalist” to some smaller percentage, that is fine by me, but it would be best if you defined it. Heretofore, I’ll call “inerrantists” “conservatives”, enot “fundamentalists” unless they are “fighting fundamentalists” calling all who disagree heretics or non-Christian.

Image

More educated people are more “liberal” in terms of belief about the bible.

Image

Not surprisingly, the South leads the way in “Actual Word of God, to be taken literally” category. West trails.

I see where this has been updated regularly:
Image
Category 1 (Word of God to be taken literally) has fallen while category 2 and 3 has risen.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8405
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby Sandy » Mon Oct 13, 2014 1:46 pm

Depending on whose stats you follow, the 5 million or so Baptists in the US, mostly in the South and MIdwest, that self-identify as "Fundamental Baptist" have an informal, but pretty solid list of requirements that I consider the identifying mark of "Fundamentalism." They would include:

1. Belief that the Bible is inerrant and infallible in all matters, not just faith and practice, but science, history, philosophy and all other disciplines.
2. Literal "verse by verse" interpretation of the Bible, belief in verbal, plenary, "dictation theory" origin of the scripture.
3. Belief in the supernatural nature of Christ, miracles, his virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, death, literal resurrection from the dead, as well as his physical return.
4. A dispensational, pre-millenial view of end times events.
5. The literal nature of the creation account in Genesis, as well as all other Biblical narratives.
6. Landmarkism.
7. The lack of a close identification with other like-minded churches through association of membership in an organized "convention."
8. Many fundamentalists are identified by KJV only.

Leadership of fundamentalists goes back to Gresham Machen, Lewis Sperry Chafer, and D.L. Moody. The separation is clear enough that there are few Southern Baptists that meet all those conditions.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8182
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby KeithE » Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:40 pm

Thanks Sandy

You classify yourself as a Conservative but not a Fundamentalist; is that correct?

Let me guess what a conservative (like yourself) but not fundamentalist Christian might strike from your requirements to be a Fundamentalist. Correct where I’m wrong.

1. You admit to the possibility of the bible not being error-free in history, science and some other disciplines.

2. You do not agree with “dictation theory”.

4. You are not a dispensationalist in end times viewpoints (which new) and perhaps opposed to dividing up history into 7 periods where God deals differently with mankind.

5. You see the Creation stories non-literally (actually not sure what you believe here)

6. You are opposed to Landmarkism (e.g. Trail of Blood and exclusivism).

7. You favor associations when like-minded,
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8405
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby Dave Roberts » Tue Oct 14, 2014 6:07 am

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.
"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: 6964
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby Sandy » Tue Oct 14, 2014 7:05 am

KeithE wrote:Thanks Sandy

You classify yourself as a Conservative but not a Fundamentalist; is that correct?

Let me guess what a conservative (like yourself) but not fundamentalist Christian might strike from your requirements to be a Fundamentalist. Correct where I’m wrong.

1. You admit to the possibility of the bible not being error-free in history, science and some other disciplines.

2. You do not agree with “dictation theory”.

4. You are not a dispensationalist in end times viewpoints (which new) and perhaps opposed to dividing up history into 7 periods where God deals differently with mankind.

5. You see the Creation stories non-literally (actually not sure what you believe here)

6. You are opposed to Landmarkism (e.g. Trail of Blood and exclusivism).

7. You favor associations when like-minded,


Pretty close. Actually, the Bible is, in many places, the only historical record of note for significant periods of time, and since it meets the standards that secular historians use for verification, I would say that it is an accurate historical record. As far as science goes, the Bible's writers record mainly observations, or revelations. And you're right, I don't see the creation accounts as literal. I am neither premillennial nor dispensationalist, in fact, I'm a preterist. Not a landmarker, and while I believe that an independent, autonomous local church is the New Testament model, and congregational rule with servant leadership precludes ecclesiastical connections and transfer of authority, churches cooperating and working together by common association is fine.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8182
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Again Sandy misses the point

Postby Stephen Fox » Tue Oct 14, 2014 3:32 pm

And Powers is spot on in his Pressler definition of fundamentalism the rubric quoted above Pressler used for the takeover.

Heckfire my Dad probably fit some of Sandy's criteria above about the nature of Scripture, but Randall Lolley was a personal friend of his, a classmate at SEBTS with Bill Self of Wieuca Rd and he knew Pressler and Patterson and Jesse Helms were lying about him.
My Mother walked out on Charles Stanley in Atlanta.

Got a few more quotes from the piece coming for SAndy and others.
"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: 8999
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby Sandy » Tue Oct 14, 2014 4:18 pm

Stephen Fox wrote:Randall Lolley was a personal friend of his, a classmate at SEBTS with Bill Self of Wieuca Rd and he knew Pressler and Patterson and Jesse Helms were lying about him.


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.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8182
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Stephen Fox theory of SBC takeover vindicated

Postby Dave Roberts » Tue Oct 14, 2014 5:19 pm

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.
"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: 6964
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Lolley and Billy Fox

Postby Stephen Fox » Tue Oct 14, 2014 5:30 pm

Sandy, again for Inerrancy see the working definition in the print issue of the New York Review of Books piece by Thomas Powers. That's what we are talking about, Inerrancy as defined by Pressler as the takeover rubric not some esoteric in your confused and foggy mind.

Inerrancy as a smokescreen for Pressler's right wing designs.

BTW this fellow probably knows more about that than you do:

http://sociology.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=78

As for my Dad, his view on the Bible was this oft told Rubric: "Some preach it from the Greek, some from the Hebrew; but whether its the Greek, the Hebrew or the Homebrew it's still the Wordagod, Amen!"

Dave is right about the Alamo in 88. I was there with the sticker on the car. I followed Lolley's group that day to the Alamo. I think former FBC Gaffney pastor Johnny McKinney is in the picture taken there that made Ellen Rosenberg's book about the SB's in Transition.

If you want to kinow what happend at SEBTS ask Jim Deloach and Jerry Vines. Vines broke protocol of the Peace committee and had off campus meeting with the Rocky Purvis fellow whose Father Don took Delanna Orien and the WMU to task in 93; and younger Brother Paul was a president of the Furman SGA.

And for fun here is another quote from nybooks: "Adrian Rogers broad political purpose,only half-hidden by the campaign for an inerrant bible, offended and alarmed traditional Baptists..." Great phrase, half hidden by the campaign for the inerrant Bible.

Stay tuned for reminder of what happened in the Missouri synod, a success for right wing politics Pressler had to be aware of. And we cannot forget Moyers pressing questions that caused Pressler to leave the set of the PBS documentary.
"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: 8999
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

PreviousNext

Return to SBC News and Trends

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest