Time line question for David F.

Discuss life and ministry in the American Baptist Churches, USA

Moderator: Haruo

Time line question for David F.

Postby Ed Pettibone » Mon Oct 03, 2005 5:58 pm

David Flidck wrote
I spent 35 years in the SBC watching the fundamentalist wreck havoc at annual conventions.


Ed: And then David suggest that the same thing is happening in the ABC.
Thus I ask; David, since 79 was only 26 years ago and you have been out of the SBC for a couple years so I am not sure what you mean by the 35 years referred to in that statement. How much "havoc" did the fundamentalist create in the SBC prior to 79? And as new board member in the Central Region of ABC will you call for the removal of all fundamentalist ? OR are they Ok as long as they support the region finically and with their sweat, as long as they keep quiet and don't rock the boat?
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: Time line question for David F.

Postby David Flick » Tue Oct 04, 2005 2:24 am

Ed & Trudy Pettibone wrote:David Flick wrote
I spent 35 years in the SBC watching the fundamentalist wreck havoc at annual conventions.


Ed: And then David suggest that the same thing is happening in the ABC.
Thus I ask; David, since 79 was only 26 years ago and you have been out of the SBC for a couple years so I am not sure what you mean by the 35 years referred to in that statement. How much "havoc" did the fundamentalist create in the SBC prior to 79? And as new board member in the Central Region of ABC will you call for the removal of all fundamentalist ? OR are they Ok as long as they support the region finically and with their sweat, as long as they keep quiet and don't rock the boat?

Well, think about it, Ed. In the years leading up to 1979 there were lots of things the fundies did that wrecked havoc on the denomination.
    1) How about the controversy over Ralph Elliott's book, Message of Genesis? That happened in the early sixties. How can you forget K. Owen White's bitter, "Death in the Pot" letter to most of the Baptist state papers? Both White and W. A. Criswell were both involved in that one. Several Oklahomans were also involved in that one as well. Ralph Elliott was fired and his career as a Southern Baptist seminary professor was killed. But the controversy involved the entire convention.

    2) How about Paul Pressler's "Report to Second Baptist's Deacons" (Houston's Second Baptist Church)? Pressler wrote that in report 1964 and published it as an appendix in his book, A Hill on Which to Die. W. A. Criswell bought into Pressler's fundamentalism and went up and down the land fighting Higher Criticism in the seminaries. The entire convention was affected by the controversy.

    3) How about the controversy over Volume 1 of the Broadman Bible commentary? That happened in the late 60's and early 70's. I remember that one because I entered the ministry in 1964. Kenneth Barnett, pastor of a church in Cache, Oklahoma (Cache is a suburb of Lawton) made the motion on the floor of the 1963 SBC convention in Denver to scrap the original Volume 1 and have it rewritten by Clyde Francisco. Nevertheless, the entire convention was affected.

    4) How about all those radical fundamentalist newspapers that were published and posted at the doors of the annual SBC meetings. They included the Southern Baptist Advocate and the Southern Baptist Journal. They were authored by the likes of William Powell and Russell Kaemmerling, Paige Patterson's brother-in-law, who is now in prison. The entire convention was affected in one form or another by these radical newspapers.

Admittedly those first ten years of my ministry were like a blur to me because I was green as a gourd and understood almost nothing that was going on in the denomination. But there was some kind of a controversy nearly all the years of my ministry as a Southern Baptist. And almost (would say all) of them were brought on by fundamentalists who were wanting to impose their views on all Southern Baptists.

It would be correct to say that I didn't begin to grasp the magnitude of what the fundies were doing in the first decade of my ministry (1964-1974. I graduated from seminary in '74). But I certainly caught on to it in 1979. I was at the '79 convention in Houston when Dr. Wayne Dehoney pointed to the skyboxes where Pressler, Patterson, Rogers and that gang were holed up. I vividly remember Dehoney giving them a piece of his mind. In fact, I recorded some of it in my personal journal... It would also be correct to say that I didn't actively oppose the fundamentalists until the early 90's, but I was sympathetic with the moderate wing from '79 onward...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Time line question for David F.

Postby Ed Pettibone » Tue Oct 04, 2005 7:33 am

David Flick wrote:
Ed & Trudy Pettibone wrote:David Flick wrote
I spent 35 years in the SBC watching the fundamentalist wreck havoc at annual conventions.


Ed: And then David suggest that the same thing is happening in the ABC.
Thus I ask; David, since 79 was only 26 years ago and you have been out of the SBC for a couple years so I am not sure what you mean by the 35 years referred to in that statement. How much "havoc" did the fundamentalist create in the SBC prior to 79? And as new board member in the Central Region of ABC will you call for the removal of all fundamentalist ? OR are they Ok as long as they support the region finically and with their sweat, as long as they keep quiet and don't rock the boat?

Well, think about it, Ed. In the years leading up to 1979 there were lots of things the fundies did that wrecked havoc on the denomination.
    1) How about the controversy over Ralph Elliott's book, Message of Genesis? That happened in the early sixties. How can you forget K. Owen White's bitter, "Death in the Pot" letter to most of the Baptist state papers? Both White and W. A. Criswell were both involved in that one. Several Oklahomans were also involved in that one as well. Ralph Elliott was fired and his career as a Southern Baptist seminary professor was killed. But the controversy involved the entire convention.

    2) How about Paul Pressler's "Report to Second Baptist's Deacons" (Houston's Second Baptist Church)? Pressler wrote that in report 1964 and published it as an appendix in his book, A Hill on Which to Die. W. A. Criswell bought into Pressler's fundamentalism and went up and down the land fighting Higher Criticism in the seminaries. The entire convention was affected by the controversy.

    3) How about the controversy over Volume 1 of the Broadman Bible commentary? That happened in the late 60's and early 70's. I remember that one because I entered the ministry in 1964. Kenneth Barnett, pastor of a church in Cache, Oklahoma (Cache is a suburb of Lawton) made the motion on the floor of the 1963 SBC convention in Denver to scrap the original Volume 1 and have it rewritten by Clyde Francisco. Nevertheless, the entire convention was affected.

    4) How about all those radical fundamentalist newspapers that were published and posted at the doors of the annual SBC meetings. They included the Southern Baptist Advocate and the Southern Baptist Journal. They were authored by the likes of William Powell and Russell Kaemmerling, Paige Patterson's brother-in-law, who is now in prison. The entire convention was affected in one form or another by these radical newspapers.
Admittedly those first ten years of my ministry were like a blur to me because I was green as a gourd and understood almost nothing that was going on in the denomination. But there was some kind of a controversy nearly all the years of my ministry as a Southern Baptist. And almost (would say all) of them were brought on by fundamentalists who were wanting to impose their views on all Southern Baptists.

It would be correct to say that I didn't begin to grasp the magnitude of what the fundies were doing in the first decade of my ministry (1964-1974. I graduated from seminary in '74). But I certainly caught on to it in 1979. I was at the '79 convention in Houston when Dr. Wayne Dehoney pointed to the skyboxes where Pressler, Patterson, Rogers and that gang were holed up. I vividly remember Dehoney giving them a piece of his mind. In fact, I recorded some of it in my personal journal... It would also be correct to say that I didn't actively oppose the fundamentalists until the early 90's, but I was sympathetic with the moderate wing from '79 onward...


ED: Sure David I recall the Elliot Controversy, and K.O Whites Sermon and yes I had heard something of Presslers report to the Secod Baptist Churh of Huston, and the Broadman Comentary hassel back when they happened. I do not however consider them to have risen to the level of "havoc". At the most I would call them "pre event tremors". And in all honesty our "moderate" leadership didn't do a great job of preperation for subsequent damage control.

So you do not want to see such repeated in the ABCUSA what do you offer as a solution? Would you get rid of those opposed to homosexuality?
The last I knew that included you.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: Time line question for David F.

Postby David Flick » Tue Oct 04, 2005 11:43 am

Ed wrote: Sure David I recall the Elliot Controversy, and K.O Whites Sermon and yes I had heard something of Presslers report to the Secod Baptist Churh of Huston, and the Broadman Comentary hassel back when they happened. I do not however consider them to have risen to the level of "havoc". At the most I would call them "pre event tremors". And in all honesty our "moderate" leadership didn't do a great job of preperation for subsequent damage control.

Goodness, Ed, have you forgotten that the '63 BF&M is a direct result of the Elliott Controversy? I certainly wouldn't call the BF&M a "pre-event tremor." And I wouldn't call the controversy surrounding Volume 1 of the Broadman Bible Commentary a "pre-event tremor." Those were major controversies that involved a lot of people and affected the denomination in a major way.

The Broadman controversy was a heck of a lot more than a "hassle." It was a full-blown controversy. While I'll admit that I didn't fully grasp the level of havoc of those two controversies because I was too young, I do remember quite a bit about the Broadman Controversy. I was in college at the time. In 1966, I was a fledgling pastor at the Indian Baptist Church in Seiling, OK. A church in Texas sent me a set of Broadman commentaries that had the revised version. My father in the ministry had a set that contained the original version of Volume 1. He made a big deal out of trashing it and putting Francisco's revised version in its place. That happened all over Oklahoma. Copies of that volume were like poison in a pastor's library. Nobody wanted to be known to have the volume on the library shelf.

Several years ago, I decided that I wanted a copy of the original Volume 1. I searched high and low to find one. I personally knew only one person who had one. That was Lavonne Brown who was pastor of the FBC in Norman. Five years ago, I learned that Eric Mason had one. I offered him a sum of money (three figures :D ) that he couldn't refuse. I now have both Volumes 1's of the Broadman set. But to make a long story short, those controversies were anything but "hassles." They were major controversies.

Ed wrote:So you do not want to see such repeated in the ABCUSA what do you offer as a solution? Would you get rid of those opposed to homosexuality?

The last I knew that included you.

Yes, I am opposed to homosexuality. But I know that I'm not going to be able "get rid" of those who oppose homosexuality. It can't be done. Such a thing can't be done any more than you could get rid of those who oppose adultery, gluttony, pride, and the host of other sins. Getting rid of people isn't the answer. Excluding people isn't the answer. Splitting and divisions isn't the answer. Among Baptists, there will always be a diversity of opinion. Attempting to force others to accept your views isn't the answer either. Baptists fight fiercely for autonomy of the local church and the priesthood of the believer. The modern fundamentalists apparently don't believe in the autonomy of the local church and POTB because they are attempting to control what churches do with everything from inerrancy of the Bible to homosexuality.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Time line question for David F.

Postby Ed Pettibone » Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:54 pm

David Flick wrote:
Ed wrote: Sure David I recall the Elliot Controversy, and K.O Whites Sermon and yes I had heard something of Presslers report to the Secod Baptist Churh of Huston, and the Broadman Comentary hassel back when they happened. I do not however consider them to have risen to the level of "havoc". At the most I would call them "pre event tremors". And in all honesty our "moderate" leadership didn't do a great job of preperation for subsequent damage control.



David:
Goodness, Ed, have you forgotten that the '63 BF&M is a direct result of the Elliott Controversy? I certainly wouldn't call the BF&M a "pre-event tremor." And I wouldn't call the controversy surrounding Volume 1 of the Broadman Bible Commentary a "pre-event tremor." Those were major controversies that involved a lot of people and affected the denomination in a major way.


Ed: So david are you saying the 63B F&M was a bad thing? No? Then wha are you saying? There was a controversy and the 63 BF&M was born where is the "havoc" other than to Elliot's pride? Ah yes and to the sacred cow which I often support within very broad limits, accademic freedom.

David:
The Broadman controversy was a heck of a lot more than a "hassle." It was a full-blown controversy. While I'll admit that I didn't fully grasp the level of havoc of those two controversies because I was too young, I do remember quite a bit about the Broadman Controversy. I was in college at the time. In 1966, I was a fledgling pastor at the Indian Baptist Church in Seiling, OK. A church in Texas sent me a set of Broadman commentaries that had the revised version. My father in the ministry had a set that contained the original version of Volume 1. He made a big deal out of trashing it and putting Francisco's revised version in its place. That happened all over Oklahoma. Copies of that volume were like poison in a pastor's library. Nobody wanted to be known to have the volume on the library shelf.

Several years ago, I decided that I wanted a copy of the original Volume 1. I searched high and low to find one. I personally knew only one person who had one. That was Lavonne Brown who was pastor of the FBC in Norman. Five years ago, I learned that Eric Mason had one. I offered him a sum of money (three figures :D ) that he couldn't refuse. I now have both Volumes 1's of the Broadman set. But to make a long story short, those controversies were anything but "hassles." They were major controversies.


And You can buy used sets of the revised in many book stores for around 30 dollars or less. And if you go to some one unfamilar with that contoversy ( 99.9% of the christian world) with your "original" vol 1, by Davies you may get $3.00 Yea I would like to have a copy for the historical value but not more than $15. dollars worth. Actualy I like Fransico also.

I spent considerable fruitless effort trying to find some one to rescue a collection of "Magic Lantern" slides of the Holy Land taken by Dr. Franscio, that where found in a closet of the Boyce Library at SBTS.


Ed wrote:So you do not want to see such repeated in the ABCUSA what do you offer as a solution? Would you get rid of those opposed to homosexuality?

The last I knew that included you.



Yes, I am opposed to homosexuality. But I know that I'm not going to be able "get rid" of those who oppose homosexuality. It can't be done. Such a thing can't be done any more than you could get rid of those who oppose adultery, gluttony, pride, and the host of other sins. Getting rid of people isn't the answer. Excluding people isn't the answer. Splitting and divisions isn't the answer. Among Baptists, there will always be a diversity of opinion. Attempting to force others to accept your views isn't the answer either. Baptists fight fiercely for autonomy of the local church and the priesthood of the believer. The modern fundamentalists apparently don't believe in the autonomy of the local church and POTB because they are attempting to control what churches do with everything from inerrancy of the Bible to homosexuality.


ED: On the contray David folk who oppose homosexuality are leaving the ABCUSA because they precive a weakness on the part of some in leadership in dealing with it. You seem to feel that it is the right wing who is "spliting" the denomination by thir objection to the acceptance of homosexuality as nomitive. Do you place any responciblity on those who are promoting the acceptability of homosexuality.

As for the "modern fundamentalist", it seems they are quite content with both the PHOTB and localchuch autonomy. So far I have not seen them atempt to close down any local church or to "force" l you or I as to what to think.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: Time line question for David F.

Postby Ed Pettibone » Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:22 pm

Timothy Bonney wrote:
Ed & Trudy Pettibone wrote:ED: On the contray David folk who oppose homosexuality are leaving the ABCUSA because they precive a weakness on the part of some in leadership in dealing with it. You seem to feel that it is the right wing who is "spliting" the denomination by thir objection to the acceptance of homosexuality as nomitive. Do you place any responciblity on those who are promoting the acceptability of homosexuality.


Ed, there are many many American Baptists who don't approve of homosexuality who are not trying to split the ABC or leave the ABC.


Ed: Tim I agree, In fact Trudy and I are two of those who do not approve of homosexuality and who are not trying to split the ABC or leave the ABC.

Tim B:
But, there is most certainly a faction that is trying to split the ABC. It is PSW and ABE that is talking about leaving not AWAB. It isn't the broad middle of American Baptists, most of whom also oppose homosexuality, it is the farthest right wing of the denomination.

What Fundamentalists in the ABC perceive as a "weakness" in the denomination not dealing with homosexuality is a weakness that was designed into the system on purpose.

Baptist denominations are suppose to be weak. It is the local church that is to hold all the power, all the purse strings, and all the autonomous authority.

If you want a strong denomination you can easily find one with a council of Bishops who will tell you what you have to believe, like it or not.

No one has suggested kicking the conservatives out. In fact, the ABC is taking great pains to allow churches in the PSW to stay reminding them that as autonomous local church they are ABC congregation until they themselves vote themselves out of the ABC.

If the ABC wanted those churches gone don't you think they'd have just let them go with the PSW regional leadership?

Make no mistake, it is the ABE/PSW related faction that is choosing to leave and wants to leave because they want a "strong" that is authoritarian denomination that will tell you what is in and what is out.

As to the 1963 BFM, I know look back on it as a mistake. I revere the work of Dr. Hobbs and others in its creation. But, the 1963 BFM because, unwittingly, a faith statement to be turned later into a creed.

The statement "We Are American Baptists" was also never intended to be a binding document. But, from the moment of its creation conservatives have wanted to use it as a required faith statement for the ABC.

Because of temptation for conservatives to want to turn confessions into creeds I believe it is far better to just adopt the view of the Northern Baptist Convention of the 1920s and say, "We have no creed but the scriptures."


ED: Tim, quite respectfully I disagree with your suggestion that either of the groups you mentiond are attempting to split the ABC. I belive there is a difference in saying "we want evidence that we are being heard" and in purposefully trying to split the denomination. Hey I have probaly had as much or more problem with fundamentalist as any one on this board. On the other hand I know Fundamenalist who are good God fearing people.

Just because they where spoon fed on some slopy theology and polity ideas does not prevent them form having a place in the kingdom .

Why is it that so many ABCers are willing to be welcoming and affirming of folk who openly live in unrepentant sin but can not tolerate Christians who are some what lacking in an understanding of Grace. I am glad to see the efforts that are being made to make room for PSW churces that elect to stay with the ABC. Just as I was glad Sunday to hear our New York State Exc. Director, Bill Carleson say that there is some evidence that PSW is considering a reconsiderationof thier request to leave. DR. C. was the speaker at our associational meeting on Sunday.
Last edited by Ed Pettibone on Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: Time line question for David F.

Postby jerryl » Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:17 pm

Ed & Trudy Pettibone wrote:Why is it that so many ABCers are willing to be welcoming and affirming of folk who openly live in unrepentant sin but can not tolerate Christians who are some what lacking in an understanding of Grace. I am glad to see the efforts that are being made to make room for PSW churces that elect to stay with the ABC. Just as I was glad Sunday to hear our New York State Exc. Director, Bill Carleson say that there is some evidence that PSW is considering a reconsiderationof thier request to leave. DR. C. was the speaker at our associational meeting on Sunday.


And who is not "tolerating Christians who are some what lacking in an understanding of Grace?" Nobody ask them to leave. There the ones who've treatened to leave and may be in the process of doing it. They are the ones who can't agree to disagree.

I'm surprised to hear about a reconsideration of their request to leave. Some conservative ABCer's who blog or post on other forums were quite excited about the PSW being the first region to finally "take a stand." I wonder if the PSW's official decision to start the process of separating didn't make more moderate ABC'ers in southern California finally crawl out of the woodwork and make their feelings known.

jerryl
jerryl
 
Posts: 1563
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 11:34 am
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: Time line question for David F.

Postby Ed Pettibone » Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:01 pm

jerryl wrote:
Ed & Trudy Pettibone wrote:Why is it that so many ABCers are willing to be welcoming and affirming of folk who openly live in unrepentant sin but can not tolerate Christians who are some what lacking in an understanding of Grace. I am glad to see the efforts that are being made to make room for PSW churces that elect to stay with the ABC. Just as I was glad Sunday to hear our New York State Exc. Director, Bill Carleson say that there is some evidence that PSW is considering a reconsiderationof thier request to leave. DR. C. was the speaker at our associational meeting on Sunday.


Jerry L:
And who is not "tolerating Christians who are some what lacking in an understanding of Grace?" Nobody ask them to leave. There the ones who've treatened to leave and may be in the process of doing it. They are the ones who can't agree to disagree.

I'm surprised to hear about a reconsideration of their request to leave. Some conservative ABCer's who blog or post on other forums were quite excited about the PSW being the first region to finally "take a stand." I wonder if the PSW's official decision to start the process of separating didn't make more moderate ABC'ers in southern California finally crawl out of the woodwork and make their feelings known.

jerryl


ED: Jerry, I would suggest that had you been in Denver, in particular at the break out sessions on the statements of concern, you would not ask the question and make the statement above.

And there does often come a point in organizational life that agreeing to disagree is counter productive for one party or the other, if not both.

On this board I am willing to make such an agreement but not in the real world.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: Time line question for David F.

Postby Haruo » Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:37 am

Timothy Bonney wrote:I will not allow AWAB to tell my church we have to be AWAB. But, at the same time, I will not let ABE or other conservatives tell my church how we must interpret the scripture either.

Also, you need to note that AWAB churches do not believe that they are living in "unrepentant sin."

I can just as easily say that I believe that the ABE is living in the "unrepentant sin" sowing division and disunity in the body of Christ.

I believe Christ calls on us to fellowship with sinners. When we start kicking out the sinners, then its going to be a pretty small church.


Very well put, Timothy.

Haruo
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12804
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Postby Eric » Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:59 am

Ed, what more could the ABC do on the national level short of kicking out gay-friendly churches that would please ABC and PSW? Would you prefer that option?

Like others here, I am puzzled about how you can take one side in the SBC debates but the opposite side in ABC debates.
Eric
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:42 pm
Location: Chicago suburbs

Re: Time line question for David F.

Postby jerryl » Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:06 pm

Ed & Trudy Pettibone wrote:ED: Jerry, I would suggest that had you been in Denver, in particular at the break out sessions on the statements of concern, you would not ask the question and make the statement above.


Ah, again special knowlege from Ed.

I would suggest you find the Region that has booted a congregation for not being AWAB or not ordaining or hiring an GLBT person.

And there does often come a point in organizational life that agreeing to disagree is counter productive for one party or the other, if not both.

On this board I am willing to make such an agreement but not in the real world.


Well that's not been the problem in ABC-USA. A good faction of the anti-AWAB side has never let go of the position that they hold the only correct view of this issue and that anyone who disagrees with them is not only wrong, but has no place at the table as an American Baptist.

I find it very revealing that the letter that David presented that started these threads didn't question what Dr. Ansell had done or what Dr. Ansell had taught, or what he had written, but wanted to know what Dr. Ansell thought and if Dr. Ansell did not agree with these people, then he should loose his position. No option to explain his position, not option to review his actions; just yes/no, agree with us and stay, disagree and go.

BTW, Trudy, hello, Nice to have you aboard. But you might want to consider getting a Yahoo or google mail account and having your own ID on this forum, so we can better distinguish your posts from Ed's and make me feel less guilty when I make a nasty crack toward Ed.(of course that might help me thing twice when I really want to blast away.)

jerryl
jerryl
 
Posts: 1563
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 11:34 am
Location: Dallas, TX

Postby Ed Pettibone » Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:34 pm

Eric wrote:Ed, what more could the ABC do on the national level short of kicking out gay-friendly churches that would please ABC and PSW? Would you prefer that option?

Like others here, I am puzzled about how you can take one side in the SBC debates but the opposite side in ABC debates.



Ed: In reality Eric, I would prefer that ABWA urge its churches to withdraw from the ABCUSA.

I am persuaded that either way ABCUSA will lose churches over this issue.


I am not sure what you mean when you say that like others here you are
"puzzled about how you can take one side in the SBC debates but the opposite side in ABC debates". In the discussion of homosexuality in the SBC I took the same position that I now take in the ABC.


I note this exchane just above

Timothy Bonney wrote:

I will not allow AWAB to tell my church we have to be AWAB. But, at the same time, I will not let ABE or other conservatives tell my church how we must interpret the scripture either.

Also, you need to note that AWAB churches do not believe that they are living in "unrepentant sin."

I can just as easily say that I believe that the ABE is living in the "unrepentant sin" sowing division and disunity in the body of Christ.

I believe Christ calls on us to fellowship with sinners. When we start kicking out the sinners, then its going to be a pretty small church.



Haruo:
Very well put, Timothy.


Ed: And Tim what scripture is ABE or other conservatives telling you or your churh how it must be interpreted by yu or the church.

I am not sure whyt you say " You ( that means Ed Pettibone right) need to note that AWAB churches do not believe that they are living in "unrepentant sin." What makes you think that I have not already so noted.

As to who is sowing division and disunity in the body of christ on this issue I would say ABWA, Is every bit a guilty as ABE, perhaps more so.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Identity

Postby Ed Pettibone » Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:44 pm

Trudy: Greetings. I would just like to say that I will always precede what I say with my name. I probably won't post near as often as Ed--so much of this stuff I just don't understand or have avoided so long I am totally in the dark--and you might also note that my spelling will be a little better than Ed's. :wink: We are working on the special e-mail account business. Basically, I have asked Ed, who pretty much knows my theme interests, to alert me when there is something that I can respond to in an edifying manner.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Postby Haruo » Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:44 pm

Ed & Trudy Pettibone wrote:Ed: And Tim what scripture is ABE or other conservatives telling you or your churh how it must be interpreted by you or the church.

I am not sure whyt you say " You ( that means Ed Pettibone right) need to note that AWAB churches do not believe that they are living in "unrepentant sin." What makes you think that I have not already so noted.


I removed the part accusing me of sowing disunity and division in the body of Christ. That is certainly not my intention, nor I believe is it the intention of AWAB as a group or of most of its membership. Now, I suspect that "sowing disunity and division in the body of Christ" is probably not the intention of ABE as a group or of most of its membership, either. But of course intentions don't map well onto sins. We all know what the road to Hell is paved with.

Responding to the boldfaced part above: I can't reply for Tim, but since the matter isn't a private one of Tim's, I'll reply on my own behalf. If by "what scripture" you mean particular chapters and verses, then I'm not sure. I've read very little ABE literature and don't claim to know exactly what proof texts they cite to arrive at their points of insistence. On the other hand, asking the question again, it appears to me that "what scripture" here is the entire Bible. If I understand their position, they insist that I and my church interpret the Bible as denying the proper ordinability of GLBT pastors. I on the other hand read the Bible (not just specific verses) as encouraging such ordinations. The point is, I don't believe that Tim Phillips and Patrick Green* are "living in unrepentant sin" any more than any of the rest of us, ordained or otherwise. ABE appears to insist that I so judge them. The specific scripture involved (even if it's just some pronouncement of the ABC General Board! some scripture) is immaterial. It is quite similar to the group within SBC that has managed to impose on the whole convention the notion that the Bible (as whole, not just proof texts though they have some) denies the ordinability of female pastors. (Though they might make an exception for some Lesbian pastors, I suppose, provided they're butch enough and live in a jurisdiction that permits same-sex marriage.) I actually think the biblical case to be made for only men as pastors (not deacons or apostles though - those are clearly bisexual offices) is stronger than the case for not ordaining gays per se. Both are weak cases in my book, and both fly in the face of my understanding of the basic thrust of the gospel.

Haruo

*I cite them by name because of the precedent of Acts 10, which requires that people get to know each other. I don't think those who have an anti-GLBT-pastor bias, in the vast majority of cases anyhow, have gotten to know any spirit-filled, born-again GLBT Christians. (And by spirit-filled I don't mean "exhibiting glossalalia". I'm talking "exhibiting internal renewal in the spirit of Christ". This is one of the great things about Evergreen: many of our African-American pastors, whose first inclination is to be anti-gay, get to know Tim and at least meet Patrick, and realize that these are their brothers in Christ and their colleagues in the gospel ministry, and they no longer want to "toss 'em out".
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12804
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Postby Ed Pettibone » Wed Oct 05, 2005 3:50 pm

Ed: Haruo, I am certain that you have no intention of sowing disunity and division in the body of Christ. How ever that is what I belive your position regarding homosexuals does.

I am glad to see you acknowledge that it "is probably not the intention of ABE as a group or of most of its membership, either..."

I hope you would include those of us who take a similar position to ABE on this single issue.

I also see you as coming across as a bit disingenuous when you accuse those of us who view homosexuality as a sin of not considering the whole of scripture. And no I do not think that it is your intention to be disingenuous.

With your introduction of Tim Philips and Patrick Green you say "I don't think those who have an anti-GLBT-pastor bias, in the vast majority of cases anyhow, have gotten to know any spirit-filled, born-again GLBT Christians. (And by spirit-filled I don't mean "exhibiting glossalalia". I'm talking "exhibiting internal renewal in the spirit of Christ. "

I think you are underestimating the experiance that some of us have had,

Trudy and I were in a church where the pianist a brilliant musician ( this Church has both a Pianist and Organist of professiona quality) who holds a responciable position in a major corperation, to support his avocaion. His parents where also missionaries at one point, he spent the latter part of his high school years in that church. Very much a model church member. He was often the Featurd Solist on the Churches Live TV program of their Sunday Morning service. But one year during a gay pride event at the local Convention center he was one of the featured entertainers and the local Paper did a front page spread on his "comming out". That was while Trudy was in seminary so we where not there at the time and I do not know all the details but he was almost imediatly asked to resign as pianist, and did so.
I would love to have an alblum of his music especialy his "Sacred songs" but I would not invite him to play at our churches or at an associational, regional or national meeting. I have also mentiond previously a co-worker and frind who I woked with for several years who is a homosexual he is a very devoted Methodist. I have indeed known a few gays who in general are better church members than many straights I have known but for me their relationships with members of the same sex are biblicaly unacceptable.

As far as the Your comment about Southern Baptist and the ordination of Women I would ask exactly what do you know about that? Shoot, Southern Baptist unlike most ABC churches ordain Deacons, many of them women. True there are few ordined clergy in the SBC. It is also true that Many ABCUSA churches will not have a woman as Pastor and those are not all ABE.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Postby Haruo » Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:03 pm

Ed & Trudy Pettibone wrote:Ed: Haruo, I am certain that you have no intention of sowing disunity and division in the body of Christ. How ever that is what I belive your position regarding homosexuals does.

I am glad to see you acknowledge that it "is probably not the intention of ABE as a group or of most of its membership, either..."

I hope you would include those of us who take a similar position to ABE on this single issue.

I also see you as coming across as a bit disingenuous when you accuse those of us who view homosexuality as a sin of not considering the whole of scripture. And no I do not think that it is your intention to be disingenuous.

With your introduction of Tim Philips and Patrick Green you say "I don't think those who have an anti-GLBT-pastor bias, in the vast majority of cases anyhow, have gotten to know any spirit-filled, born-again GLBT Christians. (And by spirit-filled I don't mean "exhibiting glossalalia". I'm talking "exhibiting internal renewal in the spirit of Christ. "

I think you are underestimating the experiance that some of us have had,

Trudy and I were in a church where the pianist a brilliant musician ( this Church has both a Pianist and Organist of professiona quality) who holds a responciable position in a major corperation, to support his avocaion. His parents where also missionaries at one point, he spent the latter part of his high school years in that church. Very much a model church member. He was often the Featurd Solist on the Churches Live TV program of their Sunday Morning service. But one year during a gay pride event at the local Convention center he was one of the featured entertainers and the local Paper did a front page spread on his "comming out". That was while Trudy was in seminary so we where not there at the time and I do not know all the details but he was almost imediatly asked to resign as pianist, and did so.
I would love to have an alblum of his music especialy his "Sacred songs" but I would not invite him to play at our churches or at an associational, regional or national meeting. I have also mentiond previously a co-worker and frind who I woked with for several years who is a homosexual he is a very devoted Methodist. I have indeed known a few gays who in general are better church members than many straights I have known but for me their relationships with members of the same sex are biblicaly unacceptable.

As far as the Your comment about Southern Baptist and the ordination of Women I would ask exactly what do you know about that? Shoot, Southern Baptist unlike most ABC churches ordain Deacons, many of them women. True there are few ordined clergy in the SBC. It is also true that Many ABCUSA churches will not have a woman as Pastor and those are not all ABE.


Hi Ed,

I have to go to work any second here and will try to get back to you in more detail later. But briefly: I do not see how my position on homosexuality is divisive. If I wanted to insist that other churches (or even my church) share my view this might be divisive, certainly would be in some cases. But I have no such desire, and no desire to see anyone kicked out of churches or denominations on the basis of their position on homosexuality. As far as I can see this is divisive only for those who want to kick me out, and I can't get too concerned about that.

I find your position on the gay musician completely incomprehensible. I do recall your mentioning him, and it was incomprehensible then, too. To me. I'm sure you comprehend it.

As for ordination of women, my understanding is that the SBC officially disapproves, and that churches that ordain female pastors routinely risk expulsion from their associations, which amounts to expulsion from the SBC (not that this is any great loss!) Again, as with gay pastors, the question is not should you have to call one, but should you have a right to tell my church "it's my way or the highway" and kick us out. Of course there are lots of ABC churches that won't call a woman. I don't think they should be disfellowshipped for that. But I also don't think they should be able to impose their reading of Timothy (the letters, not Bonney!) on those of us who see no scriptural bar to ordaining women pastors.

Haruo
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12804
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Postby Ed Pettibone » Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:30 pm

Haruo wrote:
Ed & Trudy Pettibone wrote:Ed: Haruo, I am certain that you have no intention of sowing disunity and division in the body of Christ. How ever that is what I belive your position regarding homosexuals does.

I am glad to see you acknowledge that it "is probably not the intention of ABE as a group or of most of its membership, either..."

I hope you would include those of us who take a similar position to ABE on this single issue.

I also see you as coming across as a bit disingenuous when you accuse those of us who view homosexuality as a sin of not considering the whole of scripture. And no I do not think that it is your intention to be disingenuous.

With your introduction of Tim Philips and Patrick Green you say "I don't think those who have an anti-GLBT-pastor bias, in the vast majority of cases anyhow, have gotten to know any spirit-filled, born-again GLBT Christians. (And by spirit-filled I don't mean "exhibiting glossalalia". I'm talking "exhibiting internal renewal in the spirit of Christ. "

I think you are underestimating the experiance that some of us have had,

Trudy and I were in a church where the pianist a brilliant musician ( this Church has both a Pianist and Organist of professiona quality) who holds a responciable position in a major corperation, to support his avocaion. His parents where also missionaries at one point, he spent the latter part of his high school years in that church. Very much a model church member. He was often the Featurd Solist on the Churches Live TV program of their Sunday Morning service. But one year during a gay pride event at the local Convention center he was one of the featured entertainers and the local Paper did a front page spread on his "comming out". That was while Trudy was in seminary so we where not there at the time and I do not know all the details but he was almost imediatly asked to resign as pianist, and did so.
I would love to have an alblum of his music especialy his "Sacred songs" but I would not invite him to play at our churches or at an associational, regional or national meeting. I have also mentiond previously a co-worker and frind who I woked with for several years who is a homosexual he is a very devoted Methodist. I have indeed known a few gays who in general are better church members than many straights I have known but for me their relationships with members of the same sex are biblicaly unacceptable.

As far as the Your comment about Southern Baptist and the ordination of Women I would ask exactly what do you know about that? Shoot, Southern Baptist unlike most ABC churches ordain Deacons, many of them women. True there are few ordined women clergy in the SBC. It is also true that Many ABCUSA churches will not have a woman as Pastor and those are not all ABE.


Haruo said

I have to go to work any second here and will try to get back to you in more detail later. But briefly: I do not see how my position on homosexuality is divisive. If I wanted to insist that other churches (or even my church) share my view this might be divisive, certainly would be in some cases. But I have no such desire, and no desire to see anyone kicked out of churches or denominations on the basis of their position on homosexuality. As far as I can see this is divisive only for those who want to kick me out, and I can't get too concerned about that.

I find your position on the gay musician completely incomprehensible. I do recall your mentioning him, and it was incomprehensible then, too. To me. I'm sure you comprehend it.


Ed: What do you find incomprhensiable? That I can reconize the God given tallents of a gay Musician, even to the point of being inspited by his playing but not being willing to give him a place of leadership in a Christian setting? Same way as I discourage palying off Christmas Carols by the Mormon Tabernacle Chior at a Church Christmas party


Haruo:
As for ordination of women, my understanding is that the SBC officially disapproves, and that churches that ordain female pastors routinely risk expulsion from their associations, which amounts to expulsion from the SBC (not that this is any great loss!) Again, as with gay pastors, the question is not should you have to call one, but should you have a right to tell my church "it's my way or the highway" and kick us out. Of course there are lots of ABC churches that won't call a woman. I don't think they should be disfellowshipped for that. But I also don't think they should be able to impose their reading of Timothy (the letters, not Bonney!) on those of us who see no scriptural bar to ordaining women pastors.


Ed: This is one place where you do not understand Southern Baptist. Despite the efforts for the past 26 years by the takeover group ledership, their is no "Offical" position prohibiting the ordination of women in ministry in the SBC. Thats Ok a lot of life long Southern Baptist don't understand it either. That positon is stated in a non binding resolution. Now in daily practice itis true that many SBCers let the leadershp have their way. An "offical position" would require a change in the SBC constituion. And that requires a repetive vote of the convention two years in succesion .

And Huro, I have heard that argument attemting to compare the ordination of women and homosexuals till I am some what sick of it. As other members of this board have stated they like my self believe homosexuality to be a sinfull pratice. Being a Woman is not.

Others have placed the race card some what as you have in you discirption of the African American pastors in Evergreen who have come to accept Tim and Phillip. But again being Black, Red, Yellow or any other hue is not sinful. And yes, I am sure you had no intention of playing the race card with that comment.
Last edited by Ed Pettibone on Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Postby Haruo » Thu Oct 06, 2005 2:24 am

Ed & Trudy Pettibone wrote:I … see you as coming across as a bit disingenuous when you accuse those of us who view homosexuality as a sin of not considering the whole of scripture. And no I do not think that it is your intention to be disingenuous.


You're quite right, that was not my intention. Indeed, it was not my intention to accuse those of you who view homosexuality as a sin of not considering the whole of scripture. Indeed, I don't think I made such an accusation. If I did, point it out to me and I'll apologize. The accusation, such as it was, was directed not at "those who view homosexuality as a sin" but those who want to kick me out of ABCUSA over my belief that it is not a sin. You appear to be one such. But I was not accusing them/you of not considering the whole of scripture. I was accusing (or intended, anyway, to accuse) them/you, in effect, of setting yourselves up as the ones qualified to read and interpret scripture (be it specific proof texts or the Bible as a whole). I do not deny that you consider the whole of scripture. I have no reason to doubt you do. But that does not mean I don't, and the fact that we come to quite different conclusions on this subject doesn't mean one of us is "right" and the other "wrong", with the "wrong" party not "right" enough to be in ABCUSA. I have no desire to kick you out, Ed. I do not think that ABCUSA would be strengthened if those who think homosexuality is a sin all departed.

Ed & Trudy Pettibone wrote:I would love to have an alblum of his music especialy his "Sacred songs" but I would not invite him to play at our churches or at an associational, regional or national meeting.


No, no matter how I try to get my mind around that it does not work for me. Do you have a weight requirement, too? For church musicians, I mean.

Ed & Trudy Pettibone wrote:Haruo:
As for ordination of women, my understanding is that the SBC officially disapproves, and that churches that ordain female pastors routinely risk expulsion from their associations, which amounts to expulsion from the SBC (not that this is any great loss!) Again, as with gay pastors, the question is not should you have to call one, but should you have a right to tell my church "it's my way or the highway" and kick us out. Of course there are lots of ABC churches that won't call a woman. I don't think they should be disfellowshipped for that. But I also don't think they should be able to impose their reading of Timothy (the letters, not Bonney!) on those of us who see no scriptural bar to ordaining women pastors.


Ed: This is one place where you do not understand Southern Baptist. Despite the efforts for the past 26 years by the takeover group ledership, their is no "Offical" position prohibiting the ordination of women in ministry in the SBC. Thats Ok a lot of life long Southern Baptist don't understand it either. That positon is stated in a non binding resolution. Now in daily practice itis true that many SBCers let the leadershp have their way. An "offical position" would require a change in the SBC constituion. And that requires a repetive vote of the convention two years in succesion .


Actually, Ed, I do understand this about the SBC. I know they don't have an official position prohibiting women pastors. But as I said I think it's clear there is a de facto anti-women-pastors position in the Convention, which is enforced when necessary not by the SBC but by the local and state associations.

Ed & Trudy Pettibone wrote:And Haruo, I have heard that argument attemting to compare the ordination of women and homosexuals till I am some what sick of it. As other members of this board have stated they like my self believe homosexuality to be a sinful pratice. Being a Woman is not.

That's right, from your point of view being gay is more like being divorced than it is like being a woman. For me it's the other way around. (Though I think the analogy of handedness is still probably the best.)

The cases of women and homosexuals vis-à-vis ordination are comparable only in that many on your side of the homosexual issue also use similar scriptural arguments to oppose ordaining women. Not identical, but similar. I know you don't take that position, but I think you know that what I just said is true: many of your allies (on the gay issue) do. (Not that they think it's sinful to be female, but that they think that the Bible supports them in their refusal to ordain females. In one case they use the tail end of Romans 1 and 1 Tim. 3:2 (underscoring blameless), in the other case they use 1 Cor. 14:34 and 1 Tim. 3:2 (underscoring husband), for example, but in both cases they conclude that the Bible won't let them ordain such folks.
Ed & Trudy Pettibone wrote:Others have placed the race card some what as you have in you description of the African American pastors in Evergreen who have come to accept Tim and Phillip. But again being Black, Red, Yellow or any other hue is not sinful. And yes, I am sure you had no intention of playing the race card with that comment.

Hadn't actually thought of it as 'the race card', though I guess it is.

Many black pastors, who assume that gays are unrepentant sinners, understandably react to the notion that sexual minorities' civil rights are as important as those of racial minorities. When they realize that their initial assessment was wrong, that gays are not ipso facto unrepentant sinners, then they change their tune. I hope someday you'll be able to see your error. In the meantime I encourage you to stay in ABC and not try to kick me out, either. And you can hope I'll be able to see my error. As Matt Black over at ThinkingBaptists.com puts it in his signature, "I used to think I was fallible. Turns out I was wrong." ;-)

Haruo
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12804
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle


Return to ABC Life and Ministry Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests