Sign the Shorter petition

[Gene Scarborough]

The writer of this letter has deep insights into Baptist educational involvement = contribute a pittance and expect to totally control the activities and outlook of young adults!

Churches send send them with all the quirks of the hometown and church----then expect them not to drink or dance!!!!

Sorry---it has always been this way and continues to be so AND that is why young adults choose drinking and dancing over attendance to Chapel and the BSU!!!!

[Sandy]

Oh, please. The argument about "contributing a pittance" is a red herring. Most of the money that a college receives comes from tuition and fees, and if the school is owned by the GBC, then the money that is paid in exchange for that service is used by the owner of the school to operate it. Students are not assigned to the school, they go there of their own free will and choice. The school puts out in a catalogue, and on its website, what it has to offer, the atmosphere, the spiritual life, and other details of school life, and students make a choice. Shorter is offering some things that it believes will appeal to students coming from Baptist churches supported by the GBC, as well as other Christian students from other evangelical conservative backgrounds, and it is their convention connection which, according to the information they post, provides about 60% of the student body.

Most of its past contributors and benefactors, at least since it became a Baptist affiliated school, were encouraged to participate and give because of its Baptist connection. The school belongs to the Georgia Baptist Convention, that relationship is defined legally, and the method of operation of the school is under the trustee system, with the trustees being elected by messengers to the annual meeting of the Georgia Baptist Convention. That's really all that matters. That's how the relationship is defined, and therefore, the trustees have the responsibility for writing and enforcing the school's policies and position through its administration, faculty and staff. No "petition" by a bunch of whiny babies who are too lazy or who lack spiritual conviction in the way they want to live their lives is going to change that. If you want pre-marital sex, booze, pot, drugs, afternoon happy hour, and dancing, I hear the University of Georgia is a paradise for anyone into all of that. Apparently there are some young, serious Christians who want the kind of disciplined environment that Shorter offers, because they are enrolling there.

[William Thornton]

[Neil Heath]

[Sandy]

What is being reported about Shorter University and the changes made by the trustees is that the school more closely reflects the perspective of the Georgia Baptists who own it, and the result of that has been increased enrollment and financial stability, two very important things to small, private, Christian universities these days. The report is also that the school now more closely reflects the educational philosophy and values of its owners. How that is the "wrong" direction is a matter of very subjective speculation.

I have said this before and I will repeat it. The door is open to any Shorter alumni or supporters or former faculty and administration to become involved and move the school back to the place where they want it, if they so desire. All that is necessary is for them to register as messengers at the Georgia Baptist Convention annual meeting, and vote, in sufficient numbers, to elect trustees who will turn the school back to whatever place it was that they wanted it. I don't see exactly where that position will take the school and exactly what it is that they want. I don't see how opening the school, enrollment or employment, to individuals whose lifestyle is an example of open rebellion against God will benefit a Christian school, but maybe you can explain how that somehow is an improvement over the Christian values and educational philosophy that the school now represents.

Getting up a petition, instead of going through the prescribed process for making change, is whining, any way you look at it.

[Neil Heath]

[Gene Scarborough]

I am one of the greatly-pissed-off-children of the SBC who doesn't mind making it known. Thanks to the brave "heritics" who gave us a place to enjoy with the CBF, I no longer need to take up my grievences with the NCBSC nor SBC. The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship gives me an opportunity to find autonomous Baptists who actually enjoy their fellowship over going to every meeting for a fist fight.

Whenever, the many are forced into a narrow mold with hostility and deception running it, it's time to protest. I was at Houston when Adrian Rogers was elected the first Conservative Ressurgeance President and did exactly as promised with appointing the Committee on Committees. By hook and by crook the entire SBC approach has been changed over 40 years into something good enough for Jerry Falwell to have joined! No one could honestly say that isn't much change. It started with busloads of Texas Baptists rushing in / violating the rules of messenger : church ratios established clearly / with Pressler and Patterson in the sky box directing the siege of the barbarians.

The whole time the makers of the mess were claiming "the average Baptist believes . . ." = pure hogwash. The "average Baptist" could really care less as long as there is enough fried chicken and the church's A/C and heat work! We are not known for our progressive and intelligent outlook on life. As long as we majored on Missions and minored on Theology, we got along and supported a gospel-sharing enterprise second only to the Roman Catholics. That was wise!

In recent years we have focused on fundamentalism---and it has created a great schism. The public is able to discern things we can't see from inside = stupid people doing stupid stuff to kill and maim one another---and far from the true spirit of Christ. The same problem the Disciples had fussing and fighting over who would sit to the left and right of Jesus at the Last Supper!

NC was one of the last states to be taken over. Now they are working on Associations. In each case, the attendance wanes / giving reduces / mission enterprises suffer. This says clearly to me, "We refuse to financially support these changes which we were told 'all Baptists believe'---when I don't. Real beliefs get financial support. Even the most stupid can see the difference between the SBC of today and that pre-1979.

[Sandy]

[Gene Scarborough]

Typical defense / explaination of ugliness, Sandy.

If it's such a wonderful change, then why are so many churches taking "Baptist" off their sign?

God doesn't bless a mess and the SBC has been nothing but since the official change in outlook. Many efforts were tried to get the Conservatives to explain their real differences and much of what they criticized is still being taught using the same text books at SEBTS as when I was a student 1967-70.

However, I have been in some class rooms and HOW it is being taught has an obvious slant toward what you try to explain above as being "good." Unless someone follows the line, there will be no future for them and their church's money could well be returned in NC. One SEBTS Professor is teaching that using birth control = abortion!

If it were based on TRUTH, it could be a blessing. If it's based on lies and hypocracy, it's a straw dog being sacrificed and missionaries being hurt for lack of support. Some 600 COULD NOT BE SENT for lack of funds recently. That was not a problem when we majored on missions and minored on theological differences before 1979!

There have always been theological differences from the beginning---and that is why the founders of the SBC insisted that no church or member within a church be forced to a certain theology with special words which make little or no sense to one reading the Bible honestly. "No faith but the Bible and Christ" was quite sufficient pre-1979.

[Sandy]

This may be a full circle change of perspective for me, but if the theological direction and church philosophy that you've continually advocated here, Gene, along with your attitude toward the SBC leadership and the name calling that you exhibit is typical of those with which you seem to agree, and they also share your perspective of Baptists in the pew as fried chicken grubbing comfort seekers, then I think the withdrawal of your like-minded churches from the SBC altogether is a good thing. It's a pity that only a small handful of those churches have had the courage to step up and take the risk to make that move.

Taking the name "Baptist" out of the name of the church has nothing to do with the convention. That's something that is happening across denominational lines, though around here, a lot of the more liberal mainline churches are dropping their denominational affiliations and moving in a more conservative direction because people are leaving in droves for the more conservative evangelical churches, looking for something more than good fried chicken and a working heating system. I think the movement of churches out of CBF and back into full cooperation with the SBC, as evidenced by the steep budget dropoff, speaks volumes about where most Baptists are theologically and philosophically. Good luck there in North Carolina. I''ve heard a lot of talk about shedding the SBC and moving on, but I've seen no evidence that it is actually happening.

Shorter University's trustees moved the school in a more conservative direction that is certainly not "fundamentalist'" in any way. Operating in a more moderate Baptist perspective brought them declining enrollment and revenue, switching back, they've seen enrollment increase and finances stabilize because they are now more closely aligned with the GBC constituency. Georgia Baptists already lost one college because of theological mediocrity and lack of clear Christian identity. I'm guessing they don't want to lose any more.

[Gene Scarborough]

Sandy---

Why is it that fundies don't start their own new stuff rather than take over that which was established by folks like me?

There are plenty of fundamentalist schools within easy driving distance of Atlanta. Shorter filled a good nich and now alumni are highly upset and heads will roll. They are placing another ugly face on conservative religion by refusing to honor faculty and staff unless they comply with their outlook just to get health insurance benefits. The hate word used to be "liberal" and now it is "gay." What will the next one be????

This TAKE OVER stuff is the real problem far more than anyone's theology! Lies are told / people are hurt / I fail to see much of Jesus in it----Pharisee, yes, Jesus---NO!

[William Thornton]

Shorter belonged to the GBC, still does. It wasn't taken over by any outside group, although a group did try to transfer all the assets to a new entity out of GBC control. Now that would have been some kind of takeover.

So far as I can see, there is but one fundamentalists on BLife these days, Abel, and he may have had enough. I hope not, even though I don't share all of his stuff.

...but we can still relive the glorious or inglorious past here - take your pick.

[Sandy]

The word "takeover" implies that outsiders came in and gained control. In the SBC, in the context that the pre-1979 leadership had insulated themselves with trustee boards made up of relatives, friends and people who exchanged favor granting in order to remain in power, those who gained control in 1979, in a sense, "took over." But they were not outsiders as far as the denomination was concerned, far from it, I can't think of anyone involved in the conservative resurgence who wasn't Southern Baptist and hadn't been for quite some time.

The door has been open for a long, long time, with a highly publicized open invitation for churches to exit the SBC and join the sympathizers, friends, and relatives of the pre-1979 SBC aristocracy via CBF. There have been few takers, and even some who dipped their toes into the water have withdrawn from that. The state conventions, with two notable exceptions, have all lined up with the SBC, mostly with the overwhelming support of their churches, and with little to no opposition. In the two states where the conventions didn't move with the SBC, conservatives started new state conventions which are well on the way to becoming the predominant Baptist body in their state. In the one state where moderates set up a convention in opposition to the conservative state group, Missouri, it has attracted a handful of churches, and hasn't reached a budget with $250,000 in contributions in the years since it was organized. The BSC in North Carolina was more or less the last one to fall firmly into the hands of conservatives, and it remains to be seen whether moderates will form an alternative state convention there, but the state CBF organization, one of the largest and strongest in the fellowship, numbers less than a tenth of the churches in the state convention. If they haven't gone by now, they're not going to.

The GBC owns Shorter University, and they can do what they want to do with it. Getting up petitions, or attempting to shift assets to weaken convention control would constitute a takeover from the group that it belongs to. If there are individuals who think that its current direction, under its current trustees and administration, isn't to their liking, they are certainly welcome to send messengers to the GBC and nominate trustees who will move the school in the direction they want it to go. I see just a couple of problems with that. One, I don't think that you could find enough Georgia Baptists who would want to do that to get a majority at a convention, and two, Shorter seems to be prospering as it moves in its current direction, and it wasn't when the moderates ran the place.

[Gene Scarborough]

Sandy---

The SBC has been fractured from the beginning between thoe of the Charleston Tradition and those of the Sandy Creek one.

As long as AUTONOMY reigned, we could tolerate one another and go on about our mission business. There have been numerous times in the past when some theological battle divided us, but cooler heads prevailed and we stayed together.

When you have a "place" and respect, you overlook opportunities to fight over those to serve. The average church member likes being "first" Baptist church even if that's not the name on the church. In the SE we have typically been the largest and most affluent chuch in the town. Staying there has as much or more to do with social structure than with integrity and following the high road of AUTONOMY.

You are missing the fact that differing people have worked together in the past. Now that tradition is available under the CBF umbrella and time will tell. All lasting things take time to develope. The Israelites spent 40 years going to the Promised Land and still chickened out when giants were reported. People say they want freedom when they want comfort and familiarity. The Jews were building again their idols when Moses was on the mountain getting a new set of rules from the Big Boss. The people wanted a King just like everyone else when God was advocating letting him rule.

I'll put it this way: If we let the love of Christ guide us, we can do great things together. If we let the egos of men force us into molds, we will continue to fuss and fight.

When Baptists recognize this and find some humility and renewed desire to spread the Gospel over looking pretty, we may see growth once more. Both the SBC and CBF are still wondering in the Wilderness, in my view!

[Ed Pettibone]

[Gene Scarborough]

Ed---

Your descriptions and questions are most accurate. I hope Sandy can see a different picture with our input. I don't begrudge him his joy over "winning." I just wish we could find better ways to present ourselves under the umbrella of "Baptist."

[Ed Pettibone]

[KeithE]

Sandy, if you would, remind us what changed your mind. You used to be foursquare behind CBF and anti-SBC fundamentalism but have changed your religious views along the way (still keeping your political views left of center). You are well within your rights to do so, but I would be interested in "what changed you".

Like Ed, I do not recall any "highly publicized open invitation for churches to exit the SBC and join the sympathizers, friends, and relatives of the pre-1979 SBC aristocracy via CBF". Not that that would be a sin. And btw, in the final judgment, being part of some majority does not count for much. Jesus apparently thought differently when he said "enter through the narrow gate" (Matt 7:13-14).

[Gene Scarborough]

I viewed the takeover personally and saw first-hand the results in ruined careers and lives.

To do the "right" thing for the "wrong" reason is nothing but hipocracy to me! Jesus warned his disciples against hurting children. In that statement I see him talking of both physical and spiritual children. The thinking people watching the SBC takeover can hardly miss the lies and egos involved in such.

Too many average SBC church members assume if it was done under the SBC umbrella, it had to be needed. My mother still sends money without questions to her church and missions. If my father were still alive, he would explain it in clear details to her, but---as a son---she does not understand nor want to discuss it.

My mother and others like her are the reason the SBC still gets support. They live in their comfort of a lifetime enjoying what the SBC used to be. It sounds familiar enough they don't notice the leaders are mega church pastors whose churches do not provide financial support of pre-1979 churches and their pastors who EARNED the right to be honored as President. Each State Baptist Paper now taken over has NOTHING but fluff and propaganda making things appear "not really changed."

[Sandy]

[Gene Scarborough]

Sandy---

You come into my NC with observations inaccurate:

*For years before the takeover here in NC, there was Conservative Carolina Baptists holding separate meetings and with a political agenda full blown. Mark Corts in Winston-Salem was a key player and Calvary Baptist church there hosted the meetings.
*In my local Association (North Roanoke) a group began to meet outside the Pastor's Conference. They said it was only for prayer and fellowship. Strangely, me nor others like me were invited.
*I attended one gathering at a restaurant since they claimed they were into politics. The looks on their faces was astounding---as if momma had caught them with hands in the cookie jar.
*The leader of the group was a SEBTS classmate of mine and the entire meeting was devoted to discussing how CCC was planning to take the Presidency that year = hipocracy of the greatest kind!
*Their leaders have worked in several Associations to force the DOM out / pick on any church ministering to homosexuals / now it extends to any church calling a female minister or ordaining ladies as Deacons.

I hope this serves to let you know how ugly it is on the Conservative side and how much they are manipulating the system. The average church member could care less here and is quite satisfied with the SBC conservatism of the past. When their pastors start telling them tales about SEBTS and other NC matters they are trusting him to be telling the truth.

With respect to NCCBF, they have NEVER asked a church to leave the SBC or make a choice. Many have, for years, had Church-Denomination Study Committees as things were changing and becoming more political and desceptive. Churches which have formally left still avoid internal conflict by allowing members to direct their giving at Christmas.

Average church members in every state I have been (NC/SC/GA), are amazed when the politics were played and covered in their State Paper. First, GA lost it's Editor to firing, Jack Harwell. Next, SC slowly but surely changed tracks. Finally, with many of my friends coming to NC for its freedom and outlook, went away with the forced exit of Norman Jameson who was their personal pick and still not conservative or submissive enough to pass muster.

During the controversial votes, SEBTS gave students credits to join churchs and go to the meeting. The presence here of Paige Patterson and meetings hosted by SEBTS, the situation got far more political. Many churches here have made decisions they did not want to make for fear of internal conflict. CBF is growing by leaps and bounds in NC.

If you doubt my word on this, then contact Larry Hovis for the stats!!!

[Ed Pettibone]

[Gene Scarborough]

Sandy---

That's 2 of us now giving you a perspective which is balanced and not distorted in any way.

I would encourage you to think for yourself and evaluate what we are saying. As I stated before: We have always had differences in the SBC over fine points of theology along with local church practices. The wise founders decided to major on MIssions and minor on Theology. The different perspectives have worked together since the founding as long as AUTONOMY was in place. From NC mountain holy rollers to coastal high church robed clergy and liturgy. we have worked together in the past to send missionaries with the NAMB and IMB.

BF&M 2000 has replaced Autonomy with a Creed which must be ratified to write for the SBC or serve as a Professor in any of its seminaries. It has been extended already to Associations and some State Conventions. It is an Inerrant Creed and precludes any of us who don't use those words from participation---and that's OK with me.

I find in CBF a great way of partnering in missions without the control of the SBC. If you like control, then you like the current SBC approach. Even though Eastern NC is notoriously conservative, the idea of CONTROL is an offense to those same churches.

[Stephen Fox]

The History of Shorter from the RNT responses I think is grand ground for some future litigation against the Price and Dowles regime.
I talked to a former Shorter student last night in Rome, Ga--graduated just couple years ago--that said the Ga Supreme Court Decision 5-4 (by one vote) was on a technicality.
With the Shorter History provided in the RNT and pasted here on this board, a better group of lawyers with advice from the 12 who helped save Furman in 1990--including Larry Estridge, a Rhodes scholar nominee and fomer member of Jim Deloach's church in Rock Hill--I think something yet may be salvaged of Shorter.
I would like to see US Army Chaplain Doug Carver, and the likes of Randall Balmer, Randall Lolley and Mercer's Underwood brought into this conversation.
I am convinced a strong case could be made that the Stripe of Baptists now in charge is not the stripe of Baptists that nurtured Shorter up until the last couple years or so.

And the second point is; for all the pontificating of GScar and Sandy on the SBC takeover, unless I am mistaken I think on this board it is only Bruce Gourley, Aaron WEaver and myself who have made anything close to a respectable headway on the BX 6400 shelf about the matter.
In particular would like to see Scarborough list the references that substantiate his self annointed authority on the matter.

These comments are getting interesting as well

http://rn-t.com/pages/full_story/push?c ... d=16529098

[Stephen Fox]