"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

We Need David Rogers for 1st VP of the SBC

David Dykes, pastor of Green Acres Baptist Church in Tyler, Texas, the largest Cooperative Program giving church in the United States, announced today that he would be nominating David Rogers to become First Vice-President of the Southern Baptist Convention at the annual convention in San Antonio next week.

David is a longtime field missionary with the International Mission Board and the son of legendary Southern Baptist pastor Adrian Rogers. For the past thirteen years, Rogers has served as a church-planter and mobilization coordinator in Madrid, Spain.

"For 162 years, Southern Baptists have been driven by a missionary heart," Dykes said of his reason for nominating Rogers. "Like never before, we need to refocus our convention on the fields that are white unto harvest. I believe a convention that is serious about missions should have a missionary leading us."

"Southern Baptists need a new vision to plant churches," Dykes continued. "Who better than an experienced church planter to lead this effort?"

During his service with the International Mission Board, Rogers has focused his evangelistic efforts to plant new Baptist churches in one of the most culturally, ethnically, and religiously diverse mission fields, Dykes noted. Madrid boasts the third largest population in Western Europe at 5.8 million, with a fast-growing immigrant population pushing into the hundreds of thousands every year. Recently, North African Muslims and South American Catholics have flooded the city, though Baptist churches have struggled to keep pace.

Rogers, a 1989 graduate of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, first sensed God's call on his life to foreign missions as an eleven year-old boy at a Royal Ambassador camp. As a young man, Rogers obeyed the call by serving as a summer missionary among Navajo peoples in North America, and then for two years aboard the missionary ship M.V. Doulos with Operation Mobilization.

"As a pastor, I've made a commitment to lead our church to be on mission with God," Dykes said of Green Acres Baptist Church, which leads the Southern Baptist Convention in Cooperative Program mission giving.

"We can give all the money in the world, but budget percentages don't plant churches. Missionaries plant churches, and if it weren't for the field missionaries, we wouldn't have a convention to start with," Dykes said.

"David Rogers represents everything that the Conservative Resurgence was about. He believes the Bible, he believes lost people need Jesus, and he believes that hell is waiting for those who never trust Christ as their Savior."

Rogers and his wife Kelly have two sons from their marriage of 19 years: Jonathan, 17, and Stephen, 10.

The International Mission Board recommends that field missionaries maintain church membership in their countries of service. Rogers and his family are field members of Iglesia Bautista Buen Pastor in Madrid, Spain. Their home membership remains with the Bellevue Baptist Church of Memphis, TN, where Rogers' father served as pastor for almost 33 years.

"I will not ask Southern Baptists to elect David Rogers to honor his father, though we can all agree that his father is worthy of great honor. I will not ask them to elect David Rogers to honor our missionaries, even though we believe these faithful ambassadors of Christ deserve our honor. Quite simply, I'm going to ask my fellow Southern Baptists to elect David Rogers to honor the Lord Jesus Christ," Dykes said.

"God willing, this convention will keep our focus where it ought to be: going to the ends of the earth to tell people about Jesus. I believe that electing David Rogers will help us renew that focus."

I can't tell you how excited I am about David being nominated for First Vice-President.

(1). David is well liked and well respected by every Southern Baptist I know.
(2). David is balanced in his theological positions and peace-loving in his disposition.
(3). Of all the people who have cautioned me about the NBC, David's words of caution alone reached my heart because of his gracious, personal, carefully selected words of wisdom -- an example that if people need to be convinced of a truth, you do it through love and dialogue, not vitriolic attack.
(4). David does what all of us as Southern Baptists allege you cooperate to do -- missions.
(5). David will give us exactly what we need at this hour - an irenic leader to support Dr. Frank Page in his last year of office.

David Rogers should have everyone's unqualified support for First Vice-President of the Southern Baptist Convention.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

98 comments:

Bob Cleveland said...

I agree wholeheartedly.

smithwe said...

David has shown nothing but Love for Our LORD and Saviour, with much GOD given wisdom. May GOD continue to use David Rogers for HIS KINGDOM.

In His Name
Wayne Smith

Bishop said...

I am so thankful that David is willing to serve. It will be an honor to cast my vote for him.

Matt Brady said...

Lifeway's recent report notwithstanding, I still think that David's acceptance of the practice of praying in tongues puts him at variance with the majority of Southern Baptists.

While I appreciate the work that David is doing and certainly honor his father, I'll be voting for Jim Richards.

Strider said...

David does not pray in tongues. David does not promote praying in tongues. David refuses to condemn those who pray in tongues. Vote for Jim if you feel that he is the better man for the job but to not vote for David because he refuses to condemn others is just sad.
We need great statesmen to lead us through difficult times. David Rogers is a great statesman.

Matt Brady said...

Strider,

Please don't misunderstand me, I think David is a good, godly, gracious man. I mean no disrespect to him at all. I just disagree with his acceptance of a third wave phenomena.

By the way, your description, “A great statesman” could also be used of Jim Richards.

Matt Brady said...

Strider,

Also, while I would not vote for David for the above mentioned reason, my vote for Jim Richards is not about being against David. I will be voting for Jim Richards because he has exhibited the ability to be a genuinely gracious leader while at the same time maintaining his genuine conservative convictions. I believe he has proven himself as one of the greatest leaders in Southern Baptist life today.

Amy Downey said...

I am not a messenger (Sorry, Bart!) and therefore cannot vote. Neither do I have an opinion at this moment as to whom I would for if I could. However, what I found fascinating is that 3 of the 4 bloggers all have this posted ... and almost at the same time.

As Spock would say to Kirk along with a raised eyebrow, "Fascinating."

irreverend fox said...

brother Wade...this is great news! I pray that more vocational missionaries...home and foreign...will lead our convention in years to come!

I pray brother Rogers will be elected by our convention!

Bill Scott said...

Ms. Downey,
I fail to see the conspiratorial reference you mentioned concerning posts appearing "almost at the same time." As Spock would also say to Bones, "That is not logical." So say I to you.

I also believe that the true missions perspective that David brings to the table would be a breath of fresh air in the politically charged atmosphere of the upper echelons of our convention.

Bill Scott

Tripp said...

I agree with Matt. From what I understand currently, I believe Jim Richards is the best choice for Southern Baptists when it comes to the office of 1st Vice President.

I worry though that the "name" will play a role in this election. Almost all Southern Baptists appreciate what Adrian Rogers did for the Convention. I worry that many will simply vote for David Rogers just because of who his father was.

I would highly recommend that everyone research these two candidates and not just rely on the last name. By doing this you will realize that while both candidates are Godly men, Jim Richards is the leader we need right now.

Amy Downey said...

To quote Ronald Reagan, "there you go again." (I guess I am in a quoting mood today).

Where is my conspiratorial reference? I just typed in the word fascinating.

You read into it what you wanted to see but then I guess you have a habit of doing such things.

(BTW: I probably need to apologize for this last sentence because it is definitely snarky but for right now I will leave the sentence in my comment).

Paul said...

Tripp,

I have researched the two candidates and realized that, last names notwithstanding, David Rogers is the man for this hour. He is thoughtful, eloquent and gracious. A uniter, not a divider. He sees the big picture. He will sever very well alongside Frank Page. I look forward to enthusiastically casting my ballot for David Rogers.

volfan007 said...

david rogers seems to be a good man...no doubt. i loved his dad. i looked up to his dad. dr. adrian rogers is one of my heros of the faith. but, i too will be voting for jim richards.

david

G. Alford said...

David Rogers would be a great choice for any leadership position in the SBC...

We need men who understand first hand the importance of “Cooperation”…

We need men who will NOT seek to narrow the parameters of “Cooperation”…

We need men who understand Coerced Conformity is not “Cooperation”…

And quite honestly “We need men that can help bring us together, not men who will further divide us”.

From what I know of David Rogers he is just such a man.

Tripp said...

G. Alford, are you implying that Jim Richards is a man who can not bring us together as a convention? Are you implying that he is a man that will seek to divide us as a convention? I hope not.

There are some who are trying to cause division within our Convention, I will give you that. I don't see that division though coming from men like Jim Richards.

In my experience, those who can level nothing but criticisms at the Convention tend to be those who are seeking to divide.

volfan007 said...

tripp,

amen!

david

Wade Burleson said...

Lady and Gentlemen,

Thanks for all the comments. Matt Brady, I marvel at your comment about David in light of Lifeway's report.

We must be careful that in our zeal for ideological ends, we do not end up excluding from leadership David Rogers. If you can't vote for him, fine. To allege he is not qualified is quite over the top.

Amy, would it be fascinating to know that bloggers are given a press pass at the SBC and many prominent bloggers in the SBC are now on email lists for various media outlets?

Bloggers often move quicker than traditional media, but I think it would go without saying there are very few people in the SBC, bloggers or not, who could (or would), ever say a critical word against David Rogers.

In His Grace,

Wade

Debbie said...

Amy, call it reading between the lines or it's pretty obvious, pick whatever one you choose. If having access to news is "fascinating" well then it's fascinating.

I agree as well. What a great nomination.

Wade Burleson said...

Tripp and David,

I'm sure Jim Richards is a good man. I don't know him.

Just because we believe David Rogers is a man better suited for the position of first VP is not being critical of Jim.

ml said...

I do not personally know Jim Richards and have had the occassion to read his articles in the SBCT paper. It's interesting, however, that Jim Richards is a member of The First Baptist Church Fort Worth. That is the same church where the infamous J. Frank Norris was pastor. Google his name and read about his history as an example of a FUNDAMENTALIST [not fundamentalist nor Fundamentalist, but FUNDAMENTALIST] pastor--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Frank_Norris. This is the same church who had a bus ministry for many years. The bus ministry was an illustrious testimony to convention togetherness and cooperation. This was the bus that went around the seminary with a loud speaker telling us how each of us were going to hell for being at SWBTS. Wade do you ever remember that bus circling seminary hill? Again I do not know Richards, I do however know of the reputation of the church.

Alan Cross said...

David Rogers is an awesome man of God with a great heart and a great mind. He loves the Lord, the lost, and the SBC. I could not imagine a better candidate for ANY leadership position in the SBC than David Rogers.

I will not vote against Jim Richards, but FOR David Rogers.

Praise God.

ml said...

Oh this being said, Jim Richards certainly is elligible for leadership in the SBC. Why? Because his church plays by the rules. They are contributors to the missions cause and cooperative program. Despite my previous comments, I would not dismiss Jim Richards simply because of his association with FBC FW.

Todd said...

Just wondering out loud (typing that is). How does unity square within states where "break-away" conventions exist. No condemnation intended for those who choose to participate with one rather than the other - what about working with both? Now that would be unifying rather than dividing. I care little for the close association Jim has with any church. It is his close connection with certain big leaguers that create concern for me.

That being said, I have met Jim. Quite a congenial fellow. I have not met David. Read them both online. Observed connections they both have from a distance.

I will vote for David.

volfan007 said...

wade,

did you and marty and art get this info off of a news media email? which news outlet was it?


david

Wade Burleson said...

David Dykes emailed all media from his church Green Acres Baptist Church -- including it seems, others he considers established, influential bloggers like Art, Marty, and myself. I will be happy to have him add you on his list of influential bloggers.

:)

Tim Patterson said...

Wow! Great nomination! Will speak volumes to Southern Baptists if an IMB field missionary like David Rogers becomes 1st VP. I believe it will go a long way in building bridges instead of burning them. Might possibly help us to refocus on the purpose of the convention... cooperation for mission to reach the world for Christ.

ml said...

Would David Rogers nomination be unprecedented in SBC life? I know offices are not restricted to Pastor/Church staff only as other denominational leaders have held office--Roy Fish most recently. But has there been an international employee of the convention in office before? Is it fesible for David to serve in such a position and remain on the field? Just a curiosity question.

volfan007 said...

amy,

i guess david dykes and green acres church are a news media outlet that sends emails. :)

david

Wade Burleson said...

ml,

I think this very well may be the first. It won't be the last. :)

Anonymous said...

The International Mission Board recommends that field missionaries maintain church membership in their countries of service.

I've been an IMB for almost 10 years and have never heard this recommendation. Can you give more information about where you learned this?

I'm also curious as to how David can serve in Spain and fulfill his duties as VP? Lots of travel back and forth across the ocean?

Tripp said...

Wade, I understand your comment about those who are supporting David Rogers.

I just found it troubling for someone to claim support for David based upon the idea that he won't cause "division" in the Convention and will bring about "cooperation" (whatever that means). When this is said, it allows one to assume that Jim Richards would cause division, etc.

I believe both men are worthy of this office. However, considering the issues facing the Convention, I tend to believe Jim Richards is the best choice.

bryan riley said...

If I were there I'd be voting for David absolutely. Fantastic!

ml said...

Hey Tripp, tell me what are the issues you think Jim Richards is best suited to address? And why not David Rogers? Just curious.

Paul said...

Oops! He will serve, not "sever" very well with Frank Page.

In addition, Jim Richards has been a part of "division" among Texas Baptists. I hear from churches that, despite the denials, the SBTC was out recruiting churches away from the BGCT even before the SBTC was officially constituted. That is neither uniting, nor is it statesmanship, in my opinion (if it is true).

If you want some context just go and read the archives at Randy McDonald's blog.

Wade Burleson said...

Anonymous,

Very few trips of David will be required from my understanding. With modern technology, conference calls will be used as much as possible for dialogue with President Page.

Frankly, we may end up saving money compared to the flights of Wiley Drake from CA!

:)

Tim Patterson said...

Wade,

It is my understanding that David will be on stateside assignment starting this summer. I am not sure for how long... but that will cut down on distance for travel.

Wade Burleson said...

I believe you are correct Tim.

Debbie said...

David Rogers is a man of prayer and does however God leads him. I know this for a fact. However this would work out, God would be in it so the details would not be something I personally would question. If David is first VP I will know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is God leading David Rogers there.

Jack Maddox said...

What a great opportunity for Southern Baptists! Although I will be voting for Jim Richards, it seems to me that for the position of 1st VP, we have a Win/Win situation! Southern Baptists have not at this time spoken as a convention on the PPL issue, therefore David's stand on PPL should not disqualify him for leadership. IN fact, his personal theological take on the issue is not even a factor for me. Dr. Richards is my executive director and he has done simply a marvelous job for Southern Baptists of Texas. This is why I am voting for him...I am not voting against David Rogers.

Now the office of president next year and it's role in appointments...hmmmmm...oh well, lets not borrow trouble, the interest is to high!

If Jim should win..AMEN! If David prevails...well praise the Lord!

how’s that for irenic? : )

Jack

Jack Maddox said...

Debbie

I like your perspective on the sovereignty on God! If Dr. Richards wins will you feel the same way? (concerning God "being in it")

Jack

Wade Burleson said...

Nice nomination speech Jack.

:)

Barry King said...

Great to hear about the stellar support David Dyke's church gives to the cooperative program. What percentage does David Roger's church (BBC) give?

Jack Maddox said...

Wade

Thanks...well I have to admit...Ben Wrote it! That kind of thing should not surprise you though ;)

Jack

ps - het Wade...do you remember Dr. U Ben Took from the old resurgence days? Boy he would be having a hay day!

Anonymous said...

Some folks might appreciate links to anything these gentlemen have written (if they have a paper trail on the Net.) Either one sounds like he could serve us well.

Steve Austin

Debbie said...

Jack: In answer to your question, yes I would most definitely feel the same way.

blackhaw66 said...

I guess he sounds okay but I do not know much about him at all so I reserve to withold further judgment until later. I think some of the problem with positions like these is the only people most people know are teh very high profile ministers. I guess this guy is high profile because of his daddy. But is he really a good fit for the job? What does the VP of the SBC do anyways? I feel that there is something I do not know about all this and I do not like that.

Jack Maddox said...

debbie

I am glad to hear it! I don't want you to be to upset come Tuesday afternoon!

hehehe : )

Jack

Alycelee said...

I'm thrilled.
.... and Amy-no conspiracy, I just get breaking news from ABP. Anyone can.
We have much to look forward to.
Alycelee

CB Scott said...

Well,... OK then... Let's do it.

cb

Jack Maddox said...

CB

What do you want us to do?

Jack

Wade Burleson said...

Vote for David, of course.

:)

CB Scott said...

Well, Jack. I thiught that was pretty plain from reading Wade's post:-)

Would you not agree? Of course, we could make it mean you buy my lunch on River Walk:-)

cb

CB Scott said...

Jack,

I thought I spelled thought. I guess I need that lunch after all:-)

cb

Anonymous said...

I will not be at the convention this year, therefore I will not have to choose between Jim or David. Many seemed to be surprised at David being nominated for 1st v.p. For two weeks, there were all kinds of talk on the blogs about a mystery man being nominated. Yesterday at lunch, I told a friend that it would be David Rogers. If you read most of the major blogs everyday, David being nominated is not a surprise. I was somewhat surprised that Dr. David Dyke was the person who would do the nominating. Green Acres is a mission minded church, (I know that first hand as I used to visit Green Acres in the early 80's,) therefore maybe it makes sense after all.
Both Jim and David are good men, so pray about your choice! As I stated earlier, I will not have to make that choice since I will be in the middle of VBS!
Gene Price
Gleason, TN

Lee said...

I don't know much about Jim Richards, other than the fact that he is the exec director of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention. I've never really been terribly fond of the idea of SBC executives, regardless of what level they are on, holding elected office in the SBC. A position like this, with little real power or duties, is better suited for small church pastors, or laypersons, IMHO. Or, a missionary on the field like David Rogers.

Jim Richards is probably a great guy, but I cannot, in good conscience, vote for someone who represents a group formed by divisiveness. I don't think that sends a good message, especially with what the convention is dealing with at the present time.

Tripp said...

I wonder lee...would some claim that the Southern Baptist Convention was formed by divisiveness?? If that is the case, then would that disqualify the early Southern Baptists from leadership positions?

I want to echo what has been said in these comments so my position is clear. I believe both men are qualified and I don't have a problem with either one of them. I will just be supporting Jim Richards because I admire what he has done in the past and believe he is a strong Southern Baptist leader.

G. Alford said...

Tripp & David,

You guys are being a little fast on the draw…

I did not even mention your and my brother in Christ, Jim Richards… I do not know Brother Richards at all… I had never even heard of him before he was nominated… and I am sure he is a fine Christian Gentleman worthy of all respect… and until I personally know otherwise I will treat him as such…

My comments were directed toward the values I believe those elected to leadership positions within the SBC need to exhibit… I see these (from his comments and writings) in David Rodgers…

If you see these same (or other praise worthy) values in Brother Richards then please share them with us all…

Brother Jim Richards,

I apologize for any perceived slight… it was not intended… and if you are elected I am sure you will be a fine first vice president.

Grace to all,

Rick said...

David's got my vote.

Debbie said...

Jack:I won't be upset at all Tuesday either way because I know God works all things for His good purpose.:) Just ignore my vote David Rogers for VP1 bumper sticker and pin. :)

ml said...

Tripp,

you said: I believe both men are worthy of this office. However, considering the issues facing the Convention, I tend to believe Jim Richards is the best choice.

I am still waiting to hear you articulate what you consider these issues to be and why Jim is a better choice over Rogers? What are these issues? This sounds mysteriously similar to the charges put forth by the IMBoT. You talk about conspiracy theories and then they retract the theory driving their decision but stay with their decision. What is/are the issue[s] in your humble opinion?

ml said...

Sorry Tripp not you specifically who talk about a conspiracy theory but I should have typed: talk about a conspiracy theory . . . The irony of their retraction and yet sticking with a course of action.

Anonymous said...

Some great statements from Dr. Albert Mohler in this week's "Convention Issue" of World Magazine...

"A generation that was playing Little League as the “Battle for the Bible” raged now includes some who loudly claim that the Conservative Resurgence has gone too far. Not hardly."

Scott Lamb
www.thoughtsandadventures.com

Wade Burleson said...

I was a little league star, one game away from the Little League World Series!

Unfortunately, that was 1973, long before the Conservative Resurgence, so I'm sure Al was talking about someone other than me.

:)

martyduren said...

Wade-
I'm not sure if this got covered in the comments, but David Rogers will be on stateside assignment for one year beginning June 20. Travel expenses will not be an issue.

Amy-
Perhaps you've heard down in the hallowed halls--blogs are a news source and legitimate means of disseminating information. Those who recognize the changing nature of news and communication are accepting of and adapting to the blogosphere. Those who hold to the more traditional means of communicating the news tend to ignore bloggers altogether. I find that "fascinating."

Tripp said...

G. Alford...thank you for your comments. I might have assumed too much from your first post. I was just seeking to clarify that you were not implying Jim Richards to be a "divisive" candidate. Thank you for clearing that up.

ml...I will be supporting Jim Richards because I believe the Southern Baptist Convention needs strong, passionate, conviction minded leadership. We need leaders, with a proven record, who are articulate and courageous in their leadership.

Jim Richards has been a leader of the SBTC over it's eight and a half year history. He was the founding executive director of that convention. His leadership has seen that convention grow from 120 churches to over 1,800 churches. He has also led the convention to plant over 300 new churches.

He has led the SBTC to also stand stong on conservative biblical principles. He has a proven record regarding his leadership ability. His boldness and passion for both the Great Commission and God's word are admirable qualities which are needed in the Southern Baptist leadership structure.

With all of this said, I am not implying that David Rogers isn't any of the above. I just believe Dr. Richards has a proven tract record of quality leadership for Texas Southern Baptists and it would behoove the SBC to have this leader as 1st Vice President.

Also, the quote by Dr. Mohler is right on target. I am part of that generation that was playing little league when the Resurgence was taking place. Yet, I also am very much aware that the Resurgence hasn't gone too far.

If anything, we still need to go futher by not only giving lip service to biblical authority, but also applying those strongly defended biblical precepts to our lives and practice.

Bart Barber said...

Wade,

One clarification. I don't think that bloggers are given press passes at SBC—at least, not the same kind of press pass that a reporter from CNN might get.

Anonymous said...

Rex Ray said…
Ah, Jack Maddox,
You’re still around. I thought you’d left since you only took up for Jim Richards once on Sunday’s blog. Is he not worth more than one comment, or did you and Gary Ledbetter of the SBTC see it was getting to be bad publicity since you couldn’t refute truth?

I’ve never met Jim Richards and know very little about him, but he has been one of the leaders that split away from the 150 plus year-old convention of Texas; the BGCT. This harm was expressed in a letter to the Baptist Standard April 8, 2002:

“WOOING ANOTHER’S WIFE
I am a widow in my 80th year, and I’m distressed over what has happened in our beloved convention.
The letter written by SBC Executive Committee President Morris Chapman and sent to churches in Texas to suggest they decrease the amount given to the BGCT and also to persuade them to join the rival convention reminded me of a man trying to woo a wife away from a faithful husband and not caring at all how she also would be deserting all her many children—ministries of the BGCT.
I’m convinced the takeover by the fundamentalists has come about because the average person in the pew is either blissfully unaware or uncaring about what is really happening. W.I Sparkman…Kopperl, TX

Just as David was rejected by God for building his temple because he had too much blood on his hands, Jim Richards has too much harm on his hands to guide the SBC into cooperation for giving the world the Gospel.

Rick in Thailand said...

It's that time of year. I love the drama of politics!

Bart Barber said...

Rick,

I have a mission team from my church (FBC Farmersville, TX) in Thailand right this minute. If you should happen to cross their path, greet them for me.

Bart Barber said...

Rex,

Is there any way I could get you to come down to San Antonio and give that speech—just like that—right before the 1VP election? :-)

Wade Burleson said...

Bart,

Passes like media passes. The only difference they say "Blogger" and you can't ask questions.

But you can drink the dinky cokes and eat the cookies just like the big boys.

:)

Bryan Riley said...

To see David's heart, go and check out his blog at http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com

His June 4th post is very good and in the comments you can see how gracious he is even when his integrity is challenged.

Rick in Thailand said...

Hey! Bart Barber!
Thailand is a big place and we may eventually run across your folks before they leave but we haven't yet. I'm not sure which of our colleagues they're working with right now.
NEXT TIME check out our site on www.centralthaiteam.org to see if you might want to send some more good folks to work with our Central Thai team. They could help us introduce Thai people to Jesus who have never even been told that there is an Almighty, Creator God!(Conversation with typical Thai: "Have you ever heard about Jesus?" "Who?" "Have you ever heard about the Great God who made the universe?" "Uh, no.") Praise God for your church's sending people throughout the world. It's quite expensive for the typical Southern Baptist to travel way over here. They have to sacrifice time away from their family and usually must use a lot of the very little vacation they have to come. Believe me, it's very humbling for us to see our SB volunteers making these types of personal sacrifices. It's also very encouraging for us to see such commitments and support as they contribute in meaningful ways to what God is doing in faraway parts of the world. Praise God for you and praise God for the faithfulness of all Southern Baptists who went over the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering Goal of 150 million!!!! Now THAT'S what I'm talkin' about!!!(We do love reading Wade's site too. This is where we get all the news!)

Anonymous said...

As an m this nomination means the world to me, even though I don't know David personally. Sometimes we feel as though the convention is out of touch with what's going on around the world in the name of our cooperation. All we hear about are the quarrels over minor things which cause us to fear for our future.

It would be a great word of encouragement to all of us on the field if the SBC were to elect someone from the field to serve in leadership. It would mean that we get a strong voice in the convention. I'm not suggesting that Jim Richards wouldn't represent our concerns, but I know that David Rogers would...missions is his passion, and what he's given his life too.

I believe that the greatest challenge facing our convention today is the same as it was 30 years ago, 100 years ago and at our convention's inception. The challenge is how we can work together as a convention of many, many churches in order to reach a lost world for Jesus Christ. That is why supporting a field missionary would be such a breeze of fresh air in our convention.

That's not to say that Jim Richards isn't a supporter of global missions, personal evangelism, etc. I'm sure he is. It's just to say that I know everything David Rogers was willing to give up in order to reach Spain for Christ, and know that this would have a profound effect on how he would lead in our convention. He would lead selflessly as someone willing to give up everything in order to spread Christ's fame to the nations.

Bart Barber said...

Rick in Thailand,

They are working with a guy named Dave, laboring in Thailand, but not to reach the Thai people. They are involved in a port ministry to reach Ch1nese.

Anonymous said...

Rex Ray said…
Bart Barber,
There are 3 ways to reply to a comment when you disagree with what is said:
1. Prove it wrong by using truth.
2. If truth is not on your side, then smear the speaker’s character.
3. If truth is not on your side, then make the speaker’s words into a joke.

I see you have chosen #3 by asking me to give a speech at San Antonio.

If I were to speak at San Antonio, I’d emphasize the main reason the SBC exist:
1. To reach the world for Christ.
2. To have a heart for the lost by having MISSIONS as the glue that holds us together.
3. It does NOT exist for all Baptists to be forced to think as the majority.
4. It does NOT exist to have‘doctrinal glue’ that we can fuss about forever.

I would raise the question which candidate would have the heart for missions.

One who has devoted his life to missions as a missionary?

Or one who said:
1. Theological agreement will be the first foundation.
2. Those who depart theologically will be identified and CALLED to REPENT.
3. To the foes of the SBTC, we say, we’re not in competition with you, but we’ve been CALLED to CONTRAST you.

Bart Barber said...

Rex,

Certainly I was in an unusually jovial mood late last evening (as evidenced by multiple comments here). So, my attempted humor regarding your post is more likely explained by my mood than by some suggestion that I spent the wee hours of the morning trembling before the invincible vise of your logic. :-)

Rather, I just think that your opinions would be very, very unpopular at the SBC Annual Meeting. You disagree?

Rick in Thailand said...

Bart Barber,

I am very familiar with that fantastic ministry and those facilitating it. It is a continuing work taking place in the same province where we live, but as you mention, with a different people group. We'll be praying for your team and the others.
Rick

Anonymous said...

Wade says..."I was a little league star." In the immortal words of "The Boss."

Glory days well they'll pass you by
Glory days in the wink of a young girl's eye
Glory days, glory days.

Amy Downey said...

As my grandma would say, "Good night nurse, you must have touched a nerve!" Not only do I have the ever-present Debbie explaining the reason why the bloggers posted the David Rogers news first, I also have Wade, Marty, and even Alycee. I think I should feel honored! :-)

Let me respond by saying, I am not sure who would be the best candidate for this position. I have not yet studied the rationale for each candidate, I have not considered the CP giving of their home churches which was such a BIG HAIRY DEAL last year for president, I have not reached a conclusion on which candidate would be the best for both doctrinal and convention unity. In other words, I have not studied the issues as of yet and so any "vote" would be premature.

I just wish that it would be acknowledged by those who decry the "smoke-filled room" operations of their adversaries (and there is no other word especially for one particular person), that they have their own strategy sessions in which they plan, and hopefully pray, on who would be a good candidate to advance their causes.

To deny and decry would be to invoke not only Spock's "fascinating," but also perhaps McCoy's euphemism, "Jim, I'm a doctor and not a miracle worker." :-)

Anonymous said...

Rex Ray said…
Bart,
Who do I owe ‘thanks’ for the “suggestion”? You know, when you said, “…by some suggestion that I spent the wee hours of the morning trembling before the invincible vise of your logic.”

I realize WE both are being funny.

You say, “I just think your opinions would be “very, very unpopular at the SBC.”

Now you’ve stopped # 3, skipped # 1 (replying with truth to my statements), and are trying #2 where you refer to my reputation.

Since I agree with most of Wade’s opinions, is his included in being unpopular, or what opinion do you have in mind?

Jack Maddox said...

Rex

One does not have to try very hard to make your comments into a joke : )

Jack

ps - you coming to San Antonio or are you just going to chunk rocks from a distance?

R. L. Vaughn said...

Rex, the letter of the 80 year old widow to the Baptist Standard is emotional and touching. I have no doubt it correctly expresses how she felt about the matter. It does not express correct ecclesiological truth. A local congregation does not stand in relation to an association or convention in the same way a wife does to her husband. If so, many a church is involved in a polyandrous relationship with three husbands (local association, state convention, and national convention). To which husband should she be loyal?

blackhaw66 said...

So Wade's "Glory Days" were while he was in little league? Wow! I stunk at little league Baseball. I could never hit the ball. Now I was good at Pee Wee football. I just liked to hit people. I will not answer if I stil like to do it today. However my 1 year old son likes to hit the top of my head over and over. My wife and I are trying to break him of that habit.

Anonymous said...

Rex Ray said,
Jack,
With your reasoning, I’ll add a fourth way to reply to a comment when truth will not apply.

#4. Change the subject.

Since I drove 2,000 miles last year to vote for Frank Page, San Antonio is just around the corner.

But my wife is checking in at Mayo Clinic on June 8, so I may not make it. (After all, politics and wives are not as important as golf and wives—is it? Now if you think I’m serious—that’s a joke.)

I predict Rogers will win by a landslide based not only him being a missionary, but the way he has expressed his concerns and wisdom on the blogs. He does not have the ‘condemning’ tone as I, but disagrees without being disagreeable. He even read my Truth of Acts. He did not agree, but I felt he had given me a fair shake.

Anonymous said...

Rex Ray said…
R.I. Vaughn,
Thanks for replying to 80 year old widow’s letter.

I think you missed her point when she said, “…reminded me of a man trying to woo a wife away from a faithful husband and not caring at all how she also would be deserting all her many children—ministries of the BGCT.”

“Ministries of the BGCT” were institutions like ‘Texas Baptist Men’, ‘Buckner’s Children Orphan’s Home, etc (over 30 I think.)

BTW, the Baptist Standard printed my letter on March 18, 2001 that said:

“Institutions of the BGCT were tempted by the SBCT like Jesus was tempted:
1. They were approached.
2. The bait was genuine. They would receive what was desirable.
3. The demand was to accept new theology.
4. So far, all followed the example of Jesus.”

Jim Paslay said...

I'm a little curious about the remarks concerning Jim Richards not being qualified because of him being part of a divisive group in Texas. Would that include people identified with the CBF since it was a divisive group? Would Baylor alumni who agreed with the heist of Baylor University by Dr. Reynolds be included in that divisive group?

I do not know either Jim Richards or David Rogers personally. I do know that I have the greatest respect for Dr. Adrian Rogers and his ministry and I could easily vote for his son based on the testimony of others. I am sure that Jim Richards is a fine man as well.

My vote this year will stay at home while I lead my church in VBS. Either man will serve well and I will sleep very soundly the day after the election!

I'm in a curious mood, would the effort to elect David Rogers as 1st VP be considered political activity within our convention, and if so, is it any different than the activity that went on during the Conservative Resurgence? Should such activity be condemned by moderates who loathe political activity? Just wondering!

Tripp said...

Just a note...I give more of my opinion on this issue on my blog, onthemississippi.blogspot.com .

As I say there, I believe there is a clear choice between these two candidates and how it relates to the Conservative Resurgence.

R. L. Vaughn said...

Rex, I suppose whether I understand the 80 year old widow's argument is debatable. But I do disagree with the argument I think she was making.

Ultimately, autonomous churches don't have much of a problem as long as their "three husbands" (local association, state convention and national convention) are in substantial agreement. When they fall out with one another, then they must choose their loyalty/loyalties. As far as I am concerned, a local church can choose to support ministries of their local association, state convention and/or national convention or none of the above and still be loyal to her Lord Jesus Christ.

Alycelee said...

Dr. Barber, do you have a media press pass?
Alyce

Anonymous said...

Rex Ray said...
R.I. Vaughn,
You are 100% correct that a church has the right to support any, all, or none of the local, state, or national organizations.

Baptists are people of freedom in Christ. But with the present 'powers that be, our freedom has become more and more restricted by fundamentalist leagalism.

These leaders have returned us to the days of Paul when he wrote, ...came to spy on us to see if we obeyed the Jewish laws [leagalism]...but we enjoyed freedom in Christ.

(Sorry...don't have my Bible at present or spell check)

I still don't see how you disagree with the widow who complained about pressure put on churches to change from the old state convention to the new convention of Texas that would not care for the 'children' of the old convention.

Anonymous said...

Rex Ray said...
Jim Paslay,
You asked the question why Jim Richards being in a divisive group in Texas be any different from a divisive group like the CBF and others.

The big diffrence is the CBF didn't go away angry or feel "CALLED" to "CONTRAST" the SBC. They didn't go around slandering the SBC. They kept MISSIONS as the glue that held them together, while the SBC changed the glue to DOCTRINE.

Jim Richards promoted the same kind of glue when he said, "Those who depart doctrinely will be identified and called to repent."

My goodness, that would require a KBG to inforce his rules.

I just believe many did not trust him at the state level and would not trust him at the national level.

othoniel a valdes sr said...

I will not be voting for Rogers &
as a missionary he would be wize to stay away from convention politics

R. L. Vaughn said...

Rex, part of the difference may be in how you view it as an insider (and me as an outsider) and whether this was "pressure" or "suggestion".

You seem to think, though I may be reading you wrongly, that the Texas churches in the BGCT relate to the SBC through the BGCT, while I view them as having another relationship with the SBC independent of the BGCT. Since the SBC is older than the BGCT, it is possible that some older Texas churches may have had a relationship with the SBC before they had one with the BGCT. So, anyway, since I view the two relationships this way, I see no problem with one organization with which a Texas church is related (SBC), suggesting that the SBTC might fit a church's theology and purposes better than the BGCT (as well as enhance its relationship with the SBC). It would be also fair game for the BGCT to suggest to SBTC churches that they (BGCT) are a better fit. If there was something unethical or immoral about the way they did the "suggesting", that would be a different story.

Ultimately, I just don't buy the mother/husband/children analogy as parallel to the situation.

You also mention to Jim that "the CBF didn't go away angry..." I'm not sure about exact word choices to describe how the CBF went away. After I made a query to the CBF office in Atlanta several years ago, they put me on their fellowship! (monthly periodical) mailing list. There evidently was a lot of pent up anger or hostility or just hurt feelings, because every month there would be something that indicated they hadn't moved on, but that they were still ruminating on the SBC problems.

Debbie said...

Mr. Valdez: I have to wonder if you are the same man that was told us when you first began posting. Either that or there is an awful lot of mean spirited folks in the the SBC and that's even more frightening a thought to me. I just can't believe if you are who you say you are, you could in all good conscience post the things you have and if you are using a fake identity how can you post at all?

qweaq said...

1.
Welcome to enter (wow gold) and (wow power leveling) trading site, (wow gold) are cheap, (wow power leveling) credibility Very good! Quickly into the next single! Key words directly to the website click on transactions!

2.
Welcome to enter (wow gold) and (wow power leveling) trading site, (wow gold) are cheap, (wow power leveling) credibility Very good! Quickly into the next single! Key words directly to the website click on transactions!

3.
Welcome to enter (wow gold) and (wow power leveling) trading site, (Rolex) are cheap, (World of Warcraft gold) credibility Very good! Quickly into the next single! Key words directly to the website click on transactions!

qweaq said...

1.
Welcome to enter (wow gold) and (wow power leveling) trading site, (wow gold) are cheap, (wow power leveling) credibility Very good! Quickly into the next single! Key words directly to the website click on transactions!

2.
Welcome to enter (wow gold) and (wow power leveling) trading site, (wow gold) are cheap, (wow power leveling) credibility Very good! Quickly into the next single! Key words directly to the website click on transactions!

3.
Welcome to enter (wow gold) and (wow power leveling) trading site, (Rolex) are cheap, (World of Warcraft gold) credibility Very good! Quickly into the next single! Key words directly to the website click on transactions!