BaptistLife.Com Forums.

I may blog on this and email link to Adrian Rogers son David, and Harry Dent's daughter, Ginny. Interestint commentary by Wilkerson Jr. on NPR over the weekend on this matter with some reverberations for the SBC. But we shall see how the analogy evolves.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/b ... zes-391977

Ed I think in effect what the apology is for is for the magazine's involvement. The son is the responsible for the magazine so I think an apology on behalf of the magazine is appropriate. It is similar to the SBCs apology for supporting slavery. It is an apology for the institution and not for the individuals.

I slightly disagree with you there, Ed. I think the son does have a "right" to apologize for the father, though such an apology has much less meaning. It usually comes when the son feels guilty over the acts of the father, which in Wilkerson's case, shines through. In this case, I suspect the explanation (biased as it may be) probably has more meaning than the "apology" itself. I see Foxy's analogy to the SBC situation--though I won't hold my breath for it to happen.

John Fariss

John:

Are you thinking that the major players in the takeover of the SBC will one day apologize or repent for blacklisting folks while they were orchestrating the Takeover?

Haruo:

I often wonder if the major players even consider what they did to other Christians during the takeover? Probably not. When they deemed these other people--liberals, I guess they felt they deserved no compassion or concern.

Ah yes, Liberals. People who think Jesus Christ is a forerunner of Robin Hood, and who probably mostly believe in sacrificing virgins and their children to the gods of Hollywood.

Yes, depriving such folks of their livelihoods is clearly the moral alternative.

The least we can do for Jesus.

I'd certainly not hold my breath for an apology from any of the SBC Takeover crowd. But then also, who cares? If we hope for a change we are simply giving those people some power aren't we?

I remember when I was pastoring in the ABC in Indiana I got invited back to an SBC church I had been Associate Pastor in to preach a set of revival services. It wasn't something I commonly did but the people there were warm and gracious and so I agreed to come and preach the week.

One night after church I was eating dinner with some persons in the church including one seminarian. We got to talking about SBC politics and I expressed my viewpoints critical of certain of the leading takeover leadership. He became very nervous and suggested that I could some how get in trouble for criticizing this powerful SBC leader. I then pointed out to him that as an American Baptist I had nothing to fear from any SBC leader. But even after my explanation his response was something to the effect "Oh, you never know what could happen criticizing this powerful person." I could understand why he would be concerned for himself but why for me?

What I realized is that he was so trapped in the SBC ghetto that he didn't realize that outside of SBC circles most people have no idea who the leaders are of the SBC and that those people have little influence on the lives of persons not in their religious circle. It would be akin to you and I being afraid of criticizing the Pope because he is so powerful in Roman Catholic circles.

Actually maybe the PCUSA, ABC/USA, UMC, DOC, and TEC at least should send a thank you note to the SBC leadership for helping send so many fine clergy, including a lot of fine women, to our denominations.

Tim:

You said:"Actually maybe the PCUSA, ABC/USA, UMC, DOC, and TEC at least should send a thank you note to the SBC leadership for helping send so many fine clergy, including a lot of fine women, to our denominations.

There still is a great Paranoia in the SBC about getting in trouble with the powers?

The only hope for the individual is if he or she can reach the point where there is no fear of the powers.

Only then is the individual Free!!

Sandy:

You said to Tim:"SBC churches have gotten the better end of the deal, in terms of receiving many fine church members from those denominations, alienated by policies handed down by unbending, agenda driven denominational leadership over the years. I think they've gotten the better end of the deal."

IMO, there is and will never be anything worse than the "unbending, agenda driven denominational leadership over the years" of the takeover. Sorry to use your own words but they are most appropriate.