High Noon in Enid, part 2 (Norm, Bruce, Wade B...)

[Mark]

The other thread was getting a bit long, plus I wish not to tarnish these guys' otherwise positive Okie-Lunch report.


Just a few observations:

1. Norm's skepticism is understandable and valid. Many of us remember the empty "tent-broadening" rhetoric of Morris Chapman, John Bisagno, and others in the late 1980s. It was followed by some more empty "tent-broadening" rhetoric prior to the election of Jim Henry as SBC President in 1994, on the heels of Russell Dilday's firing. (Note: An old trick of Patterson/ Pressler, whenever they've overplayed their hand, is to carefully orchestrate the appearance of a "kinder-gentler" SBC, but only for a brief time. ) Having said that...


2. Until there's reason to believe otherwise, I'm willing to acccept Wade Burleson at his word - that his voiced desire for reconciliation and a "broadened tent" is sincere. Moderates understand that to be a contradiction with his embrace of the SBC's "resurgence", of course, but it's nonetheless probably sincere. That's because...


3. Wade's journey and struggles have been different than that of David, Norm, Bruce, myself, and others. The SBC's "blogger bunch" would probably acknowledge that fact, even as they continue to have more difficulty understanding the similarities of our respective trials-by-fire. Bottom line...


4. My best hope is that we're all on a journey toward greater undestanding. I think Wade really wants to believe - as does Charles Page, William, other decent people - that one can reconcile both the "resurgence" and the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message with a more inclusive SBC. The rest of us know that's impossible.


I'll never forget hearing Cecil Sherman tell of walking in circles around the hotel pool late one night, alongside a very distraught Daniel Vestal. The SBC Peace Committee had just completed another weekend-long meeting, and Vestal kept saying "It can't be true, it just can't be true..." The possibility that Fundamentalist Baptists - indeed, that Christian brothers and sisters - were capable of such deception and mean-spiritedness behind the scenes, all the while unbeknownst to hundreds of laypeople, was stunning.


Vestal's eyes were opened that night.

[Sandy]

[rdenton]

[William Thornton]

Mark is understandably pessimistic about things SBC and Sandy is generally Mark times ten or a thousand, depending on the day.

Sandy, there are only a few "long-time, core supporters of the so-called "conservative resurgence" on this board" and I suppose I am the longest-time of them. I am not a Burleson supporter overall, though I have often said that I identify with some of his causes. Dislike enters into this only as I dislike some of his habitual practices, which I see as unproductive. I have said he is a super guy, always gracious (and always happy to remind us of it), skilled and talented, not to mention the best dresser in the SBC.

Sandy, reread the Timothy George piece, Timothy George on the Southern Baptist Revolution the Tuesday, July 25, 2006 blog . As you-know-who would say this is remedial reading that must be done before this discussion can be advanced.

I think the SBC as a whole and the IMB as an institution is in for a period of change over the next decade. [/url]

[Haruo]

[Sandy]

[William Thornton]

[rdenton]

[Sandy]

Fact: There was no challenge presented to the candidacy of Ronnie Floyd as SBC prez right up until it looked like Wade might allow his name to be entered in nomination, and that came from the blogging group. All during that discussion, William's comments went in the direction of the bloggers not being a large or influential enough group to actually bring anything about. RDenton, as usual, was the yes man. Then Frank Page stepped up to agree to be nominated. Wade, who had stated that he would not run if someone else stepped up to the plate, stepped aside and did not pursue the SBC presidency. See a connection here? Once Page, who was relatively unknown, became a candidate, the bloggers focused on the Cooperative Program support, or lack thereof, of Floyd's church. That prompted the conservative resurgence to look for another candidate who had a better record of CP giving, which was no easy task. Page wins a surprising first-ballot victory. Would that have happened without the controversy at the IMB? I seriously doubt it. Nor is the low level of CP support among SBC megachurch pastors that have served as president of the convention a new development. It has been going on since Adrian Rogers took the helm back in 1979, with few exceptions. And you're going to contend that this issue has just now come to the forefront as a "factor" in determining a "majority" among messengers?

Are there other factors at work here, as Timothy George alludes to? Of course there are. But every movement needs an issue to spark the flame, and what has happened to Wade on the IMB trustee board is the spark that has ignited the bloggers, who in turn, have enough of a following to affect votes at the SBC.

As to that job offer from Wade, that was a nice compliment, taken in the spirit which it was given. However, my motivation in supporting his position isn't out of some vague hope that I might get some personal benefit out of doing so, and if that's what you're thinking, you are way off base. I would never take a position from someone in exchange for some kind of political support or influence. The very idea that this happens so frequently in Southern Baptist life nauseates me. Influence peddling and nepotism among people with "Baptist pedigrees" was my major criticism of the pre-1979 SBC leadership, and it is also one of my major criticisms of CBF, and I think I've made that point several times on this board. You can discuss my position and opinion related to the SBC's new direction any way you like, but I'd really prefer that you leave out comments, hints or suggestions that I might be motivated by a job offer.

[William Thornton]

[T. D. Webb]

[Sandy]

[Mark]