BaptistLife.Com Forums.

Moore will be a top candidate for the presidency at NOBTS when Chuck Kelley retires. This, of course, is based on the assumption that Kelley retires a bit early. He turns 60 this summer BUT has been president for 16 years. That's a lengthy tenure for any president of any age. If Kelley retires in 2-5 years, I think Moore is positioned to be a finalist. Moore is a coastal southerner.

Whenever Land goes, I'm sure Moore gets considered. Land is 66. I tend to think the ERLC under Moore would look very very different than it does now. Moore could be too "liberal" for Land's trustee board though. Moore's approach to politics and positions on some issues are very very different than Land's.

But if the Bryant Wing of the SBC is in the ascendancy and Pressler faction is waning, the applecart could come unstove fairly rapidly.

Moore should be challenged on the grounds of Stephens and Giberson's The Anointed, and challenged Strongly.

And on another front with Caro's next edition on LBJ in the wings, time to find out what Chandler Davidson and Bill Moyers know about Pressler's family history with Marney in the 50's.

Time to disentangle all the gnarls of the Pressler/Helms/Albert Lee Smith designs for the SBC, their Reaction to Civil Rights Gains; time for James Dunn and Moyers and Jimmy Allen to walk folks like you and Curtis Freeman and Gourley through that thicket while the folks who were there are somewhat cogent; disregarding your differences with Curtis on Priesthood.

Baptist Race History deserves your best cooperation in that matter.

This may be it to date. Curious affair all around

http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/7316/53/

27 comments on this one and counting

This is being discussed from a different perspective on the other Land blog here at BL.

I note the speculative nature of many comments thus far when the question is: Why Land did what he did?

Here is my take I have posted on the McKissic blog:

If you note that Land is one of W.A. Criswell's disciples, and his start towards his present position (just like Patterson)---you need to also note how Criswell came to SC in 1956 and addressed the State Legislature with a racist tyrade. It got him the same press as Land over racism, but it was at a time when the integration issue was pending and not behind us by some 30 years.

What amazes me is that Land learned nothing from the Criswell misadventure and is so bent on political gain that he went right back into the lion's den. This makes him more than stupid, in my view. He may well get ousted over this.

Criswell got away with many things by being so strong-willed and so bombastic no one would dare cross him. His magic was a big church and a bunch of church leaders bowing and scraping to him along with his church staff. He figured out the magic of SBC presidential appointment and in that strange person lies the heart of much SBC and national conflict today.

The dilemma with Criswell and Land is integrity vs. going against a playground bully.

Dr. Curtis Freeman has an carefully anotated and accurate article on the whole matter which Stephen Fox gave on the other BL blog. If either Stephen or I can post the link, then you can see the historical perspective of this fiasco.

Found the link to Curtis Freeman's historical perspective on W.A. Criswell:



It is some 12 pages of accurate information based on history and the news around it. I was not in SC at the time, but came shortly afterward and what is reported was what I heard from people there at the time.

I appreciate Stephen sharing it and Freeman doing the good research that tells us much about Criswell going wild when stirred by his listeners in Columbia, SC. It also contains the good rebuke offered by Stewart Newman who was present and wrote Criswell concerning his failures on racism.

Criswell, in typical fashion, chucked and jived his way through the mess. He was a master at shooting off his mouth and then claiming not to mean it!

Here is the McKissic blog on this same subject:

Here is the NY Times coverage of the Friday decision on Richard Land:



It amazes me how a bunch of SBC folks who have been more than brutal with their opposition as they took over the SBC can be so kind to a guy who is putting them in jeopardy with their tax-exempt status. When you keep doing the stuff he has done for years, wearing his Republican suspenders, he is not an asset to religious work.

*He is retirement age
*He makes a triple-digit salary with additional perks far greater than most pastors---undisclosed
*He is part of the Conservative Resurgence which took over the SBC in 1979
*His position and agency previously was a-political and spiritual in nature
*His predecessors all advocated for legal fairness to all citizens irregardless of class / color / or creed---It is the "Ethics Committee"

In my view, he is nothing but a latter day Pharisee.

He keeps his goodies as have all the crooks and liars of Wall Street.

To truly condemn and censure him, is to admit how biased the SBC has become.

I hate to admit I have anything much to do with Baptists these days. It is the curse of my birth and rearing and is nothing like it used to be representing the real spirit of Christ in a troubled world.

The Baptist take on the Land fiasco:



I find it still too political---especially how he ended his last brodcast with the "God bless America" platitude. NIxon and Land got their pardon!

Question: How can CR folks be so cruel to their adversaries and so "forgiving" of this bozo????

Just like the cheaters and liars in investment and banking---he keeps his cookies and nice suit and tie along with the triple-digit income and benefits! He has violated the core of Christian Ethics and still represents it in the name of Southern Baptists.

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/reactions-mi ... -cms-19668

Looks like Scarborough has been throwing up a lot of links lately.

I knew he would come around sooner or later

Major difference, buddy----I offer more personal thought than link. You are still "Linkman."

Had a good chat with a truck driver from Ringgold last night. Said it was rough territory in the 60's and 70's. Said he knew some Pierces but couldn't place John.

What does this have to do with the Richard Land fiasco?

Gene:

John Pierce is editor of Baptists Today. For someone who speaks authoritatively on so many matters, obviously you don't read BT very often.
John is a native of Ringgold, Georgia, a well know fact to folks who pay attention.
Thus my note to John since he had posted just a few moments before.
An aside for sure, but common parlance on this board, part of the fellowship. For instance, I often have exchanges with Lamar Wadsworth, about Dyke Creek BC on the Kingston HWY.
You have nit pikkin egg on your face today. I hope you concede that point and are able to wash it off and get on with your day.
but let this be a lesson

Look, Stephen---

I full well know John Pierce. To drop his name in the middle of something about Richard Land is just---well, name dropping.

What is it about you and your uncle that make you both so contentious and desiring of respect from all who read your "glorious" posts? If they say nothing, then I will continue to remind you of such.

Gene: Not your board, not your site and you are not the Monitor and we are all the better for it.

Stephen---

I think you would be wise to heed your own advice. This wonderful board is a great venue for expressing opinion. When you become the "link man" and we all know it, I would think you could add some decent comment out of your own head.

I don't moderate and don't care to. I do not mind telling a link-obsessed person to speak his mind far more often and not tire me and others out with endless rabbit chasing

You seem to be the only person with an aversion to timely links. Often a link will get to the point in much finer fashion than a random comment by an Emory Grad who cannot think of anything worthwhile he has read in the last five years.
I'm gonna delete some of my previous comments so maybe we can get back to Richard Land and I can get a response from BDW on my concern above about his Dem/GOP take.