BaptistLife.Com Forums.

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.

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.

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.

With Adrian Rogers son David and others:

http://sbcimpact.org/2010/09/13/this-land-is-your-land/

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.

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.

Ed votes against certain transportation modes, namely buses and vans.

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 does a good job of describing the pre-CR SBC.

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.

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

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

Thanks