Not good news for SBC race relations

[Dave Roberts]

I had a director of missions in an association insist our church adopt the BFM2K. He had a problem. The church had never adopted the 1925 or 1963 versions. They had a confession in their organizing documents drawn from the New Hampshire Confession that predated the SBC, and they were not about to adopt a "johnny-come-lately" document. They understood what being a Baptist was all about.

[Stephen Fox]

I think one of Pressler's closest associates in the takeover, make that two, Albert Lee Smith and N.C. US Senator Jesse Helms thinking the strongest identity of Martin Luther King was the tag the John Birch Society put on him as a Communist.

Baylor should talk to Chandler Davidson, Jimmy Allen, Bill Moyers and Hardy Clemons to get some clear History on Pressler in the 50's and 60's and where he was on Civil Rights. It is my understanding from as far back as Carlyle Marney's stay at FBC Austin Pressler was a nay sayer and impediment; and like his Baptist energies his civil rights had too much in common with Criswell's 56 sermon to the Joint Session of the S.C. legislature.

[Tom Parker]

Dave:

Sadly I think some DOM's would love to attempt force every church in their associations adopt the 2000 BF&M. It matters little at all that it will bring about disunity, suspicion of sister churches, etc.

It is all about power and control.

[Sandy]

[Dave Roberts]

[Tom Parker]

Sandy:

You said:"The Association can adopt the BFM2000 if it wants to, and force anyone who serves as an employee or volunteer board member to agree with it, but in most cases, there is no way to force local churches to adopt it without simply threatening to boot them, and most associations aren't willing to part with that much cash."

For the purist associations they will expel a church and then through PR make up the difference from the remaining churches.

I fear SB associations will selectively expel more churches in the future.

Dave you are so right in that associations pick and choose the parts of the 2000 BF&M they will use to expel sister churches.

The CR lives on and on--it will never end.

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[Tom Parker]

[Dave Roberts]

As I look at many SBC churches here in VA, outside of contributing through the SBC for missions, they largely treat the denomination as irrelevant. It is never mentioned in their preaching, their literature, hard to find on their websites, and hardly a concern in most of what they are doing. The SBC logo that used to grace many signs seems to be largely disappearing for many churches. I looked at the websites of several churches trying to find SBC links, and a number of them do not have any links at all to things SBC. They are operating within the SBC framework, but they are practicing a great deal more of their autonomy. That is one of the definite changes affecting churches today. People in the pews don't know if they are in sympathy with the denomination or not, because they never hear anything about it.

[Tom Parker]

[Sandy]

[Tom Parker]

Sandy:

You said:"What we have learned since 1979 is that there were many SBC leaders prior to 1979 whose view of scripture did not square with that of the vast, overwhelming majority of church members in SBC congregations."

That is absolutely not true what you wrote above! You besmirch the reputations of many good and faithful Christians who did not meet the definition rewritten for the CR and used in a nasty war to TAKEOVER THE CONVENTION. You can say what you wrote above a million times and it is never going to make it true.

[Sandy]

[Haruo]

It may depend on the pews one knows. I am inclined to think Sandy is right overall on this point (though "vast, overwhelming" may be a bit hyperbolic as a description of the pew view), even though I am not a Southern Baptist and surely hold views on the Scriptures that are inconsistent with those of the majority of Southern Baptists past or present. However, I'm sure there were many Southern Baptist churches where the pew consensus was on the moderate side. It looks to me like the big shift in the SBC has been towards increased pressure for doctrinal conformity and decreased tolerance of the outliers.

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

[Tom Parker]

Tim:

I agree with everything you just said. To try to whitewash the CR is to and I am trying to be nice--just shade the truth in a way that is just not the truth.

Many of us know the truth and Sandy is trying to sugarcoat a horrible event that ruined the SBC, many minister's lives etc.

There is only one way to be a good SB and that is buy in to the doctrinal uniformity and ask no questions.

[Dave Roberts]

The formation of a second convention in VA was because the fundamentalists could never muster the votes to win elections. They were not running against liberal preachers, because half the presidents were lay people. When they could not control it, they refused to work any more with others for the sake of the kingdom and went off to form their own version.

[Tom Parker]

[Ed Pettibone]

Tom Parker writes "Dave, I will forever ask who were all the "liberals" that needed to be removed from the SBC. And you correctly point out if they can not control something they go berserk and will not work any more with others for the sake of the kingdom. And just as in my neck of the woods folks will just go and start another church so it can be run their way.

It is maybe real obvious I am no fan of the CR, and the CR is still at work today in the SBC.

Tom Parker"

Ed: Tom, Since there was never a Conservative Resurgence in the SBC how can a CR be continuing?

To me as a former insider, now an outsider looking in, it seems more like the SBC is experiencing a family feud over how to market the new entity that they have created from the carcass of the pre 79 SBC, but they just don't have the talent to pull it together. And hey, that starting a new church to get you own way was not new with the takeover. If you recall the SBC was started with the same motive.

[Tom Parker]

Ed:

I said:"Ed: Tom, Since there was never a Conservative Resurgence in the SBC how can a CR be continuing?"

I should have explained myself better. "They call it a CR and the way they went about the CR is IMO still continuing by demanding more and more their words--doctrinal uniformity.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Tim Bonney]

What bothers me about CR is that "resurgence" implies something about the past of the denomination that isn't true. If they had wanted even to call it "Conservatives Save the SBC" I'd not agree with it but at least it wouldn't be going back into the past of the denomination and try to pretend something has happened that didn't happen.

Even a takeover can be justified if you can convince people you are taking over for the sake of the truth etc. But how does anyone justify re-writing history to suit them? What about honesty? Integrity?

[Tom Parker]

Ed: No Tom, I (Ed) said,"Since there was never a Conservative Resurgence in the SBC how can a CR be continuing?" The fact that "they" (folk who attempt to justify the takeover of the SBC") call it a CR does not make it a CR.

OK, Ed. I give up.