Saturday, May 13, 2006

I Know the Difference Between Character Attacks and Solid Questions

It seems that those who are running for President of the Southern Baptist Convention or those who are supporting particular candidates are now being asked some very difficult questions about things they said in the past, have done in the past, or are currently doing in the present. These questions run the gamut from CP giving, the propriety of endorsements for candidates from SBC agency heads, evangelism techniques, church leadership, etc . . .

What disturbs me is that the people who are asking specific, issue oriented questions are now under attack themselves. In other words, the character of the questioners are being called into question as a diversion from people having to answer the questions. Those character attacks against the questioners contain words like "mean spirited," "unchristian," "troublemakers," etc . . .

The people who are asking the questions phrase the inquiries with specific information about words spoken or actions taken by the Presidential candidates or their supporters, but I find it very troubling that the debate seems to be being turned from the issues being raised to the character of those raising the issues.

I am familiar with this strategy.

When I was publicly accused of gossip and slander, later changed to resistance to accountability and loss of trust, I requested that someone, anyone, give me the specifics. I have continued to ask for this, and I also said I welcome everything being made public. I have only talked about the issues on my blog, and have always been respectful of everyone, particularly those who disagree with me on the issues. However, I don't think it is morally acceptable for anyone to make charges against someone's character for simply raising questions.

Of course, I have always believed that what some did not like was WHAT I was saying, and in some cases asking, and as a result, there was an attempt to silence me by making character accusations. It didn't work. I have forgiven those involved and I am moving on.

But let's not let those who now shout "Stop attacking!" confuse our understanding. When someone asks tough, appropriate questions, those questions deserve an answer. I would caution all about attacking the questioners, whether they be bloggers like Marty Duren, Ben Cole, Tad Thompson, Art Rogers, Dorcas Hawker, Wes Kenney, David Rogers, and a host of others who have displayed both wisdom and courage in asking tough questions, or even the more denominational loyalists like Morris Chapman, Anthony Jordan, Jerry Rankin and others who have raised questions via the more established media. Not one of these individuals who is asking tough questions is attacking anyone's character, they are only asking good, tough, specific questions.

There is a real difference between character attacks and asking tough questions.

Again, I for one know the difference.

In His Grace,



CB Scott said...


I think I qualify to say A-men to that.


Anonymous said...

What is your personal positon on Calvinism?

Benjamin S. Cole said...


I've decided to attack you today. And since it is Saturday morning, I think I will do it in Yosemite Sam mode. The attack follows:

"You raggin' friggin' nazel-trap sufferin' varmint. When I get my hands on you....ooooh weeee, It's gonna be a tusslin' tied-up showdown."

brad reynolds said...

Frankly, I’m not concerned with who, or how many others might be nominated as President of the SBC, because there seems to be a lack of Union, of those on the same page.

Allow me to explain. As of yet, only one man has been announced as allowing his name to be placed in nomination for the President of the SBC. Dr. Patterson comments on how he felt this man would do a great job. No other names are out, no one is even sure another name will be nominated, and many are hoping a unity on the essentials will prevail.

And yet your article is about differences between character attacks and solid questions. Would you include the following as character attacks? “Patterson sees himself as the Arbiter of Grace and the Defender of Faith (in the SBC)” or “Patterson would have been able to get Larry Lewis out of the HBM even sooner, I SUPPOSE” or “How long until Paige Patterson makes a mistake?” This came from one of the 30 who signed the Memphis Declaration which accordingly was repentance from those thirty for “having turned a blind eye to wickedness in our convention, especially when that evil has taken the form of slanderous, unsubstantiated accusations and malicious character assassination against our Christian brothers.” And further states “Therefore, we commit ourselves to confront lovingly any person in our denomination, regardless of the office or title that person holds, who disparages the name of our Lord by appropriating venomous epithets against our brothers and sisters in Christ, and thus divides our fellowship by careless and unchaste speech.”

If you would not characterize these as such, please explain and if you would characterize it as such perhaps you can explain why it was posted on another signer's of the Declaration’s Post, since the thirty have committed to confront such.

I, for one, long for unity with the essential Fundamentals of the Faith to prevail. Whenever personality differences, paradigms, or pride take precedence over the Principle of inerrancy something is indeed unhealthy.

My honest fear is that some: 1) have issues with certain personalities in the convention (whether they be defending a person because he is nice, or attacking a person of whom they disapprove), or; 2) have different views on Calvinism or Ecclesiology, or; 3) are young leaders frustrated because they haven’t been included, and some in these groups have decided to create disunity among brothers who agree on inerrancy. I certainly can understand a desire for inclusion (which, sadly is my pride that I must constantly battle) and a desire for everyone to agree with my soteriology and ecclesiology but never at the cost of disunity among those who agree on the Fundamentals.

This fear is exasperated by the thought that those who use the issues to (unknowingly perhaps) create disunity will be joined by those who state “inerrancy came from the lips of the devil.” At times those in our boats could be far more dangerous than those in the boat we are leaving.

This is exactly what was predicted; do we really want a history of fights over the nonessentials? And yes I fear when you open the door for such fighting it will continue endlessly. So let us be unified on the Fundamentals of the Faith and allow Baptist freedom to prevail on these non-essentials.

Which reminds me concerning the essential of inerrancy…you said you would answer my questions:
1. Would you define a person who does not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture the way you defined a person who does not believe in the inspiration of Scripture…namely, a liberal?
2. Do you affirm totally the BFM2K?
3. Do you think it is right for the SBC to ask its employees (including M’s) to affirm and sign it?

Thanks for your openness and Christian spirit, from one who desires unity in the SBC on the Essentials without requiring unity on personalities or paradigms.

Kevin Bussey said...

Great ideas! said...


I will devote an entire post on the BF&M 2000 in the very near future. I think you will find every single one of your questions will be answered in that post to the nth degree. I support the practice of issuing confessions rather than creeds and believe the 1644 London Confession and the 1689 London Confession are brilliantly written and doctrinally sound.

The BFM 2000 confession is not written well, is very generic in many foundational doctrinal issues (unlike the London Confessions), and extraordinarily specific in at least one issue that has never found its way in any evangelical confession of faith in the history of Christianity.

I support the BFM 2000 and our church has affirmed it. However, to sign something smacks of creedalism and since I was not a Board member at the time, and because of the new rules on trustee dissent of official Board actions, I cannot comment on the missionary signing of the BFM 2000. I think you should justi THOROUGHLY examine missionaries before they are appointed in areads of faith, doctrine, and Christian practice.

I am aware of some missionaries who signed the document who placed a couple of personal notes with their signature saying they did not agree with a couple of specific articles, but in the spirit of showing their conservative, evangelical faith (not to mention their desire to keep their jobs), they signed the Confession.

Again, I often wonder why we can't just ask people what they believe, and if they are orthodox in the essentials of the faith, cooperate with them, giving them freedom to disagree on the non-essential.

Finally, the Chicago statement on inerrancy is brilliantly written, and I wholeheartedly affirm it.

Thank you Brad for all your questions. I would urge you to begin a blog for yourself and focus on those issues which concern you. I think you have some great thoughts. You are correct, it is a little distracting when you keep coming to my blog, commenting on my posts but your comments have nothing to do with what I have written. said...

One more thing Brad.

Of course I would believe that anyone who believes the original autographs of Scripture contained error is a liberal.

It is mind boggling that question has to even be asked. said...

This is not about the nature of Scripture, it is about the interpretations of the sacred text. There are some conservative evangelicals who have women deacons who are called "Liberal."

That is a sin, because those conservatives base their practice on the inerrant Word of God and the example of "Deaconness Phoebe" and others in Scripture held up as a model. said...


You should tell your story. Publicly.

CB Scott said...


Coming soon.

Right now I would like to ask Brad a question. Brad what about the statement: "Your real enemy is in Fort Worth" What was that about?

I am in NC right now. My number is 205 453 2419. You may call me here as you promised.

Anonymous said...

I'm the 70 year old brother who knows you HEART.
When the Baptist stopped using the 1644 London Confession and the 1689 London Confession they started drifting away from the doctrine..Well DONE

brad reynolds said...

Your Christian spirit in your comments is evident and appreciated.

If I start my own Blog, would you read it? :)

I look forward to your post on BFM2K.

brad reynolds said...

Perhaps you can point me to that post...don't know what you are referencing...I called you at your house Thursday and left a message but will call you on your cell.

Jack Maddox said...


Ben, I dont always like the way you say things even when I think your right. I think sometimes you come across as overly critical, yet I do not think that is your intent...

but dude!!!!!

That Yosemite Sam bit was a
R I O T!!!!!!!!!
I would vote for you as pres based upon that post alone!!!!!!

CB Scott said...


I have made an effort in the last few years to clear the board on all things between me and any other person.

Brad called me a moment ago and the result of the conversation is that there was no statement made about an enemy being in Fort Worth.

We were the victims of one we befriended speaking a falsehood to me and me believing it.

My position now is to repent of listening to a lie and I forgive my friend for telling it. Brad Reynolds was not involved in any way.

Brad, I asked you the question in public so I now ask your forgiveness in public. Also, I ask you to forgive our friend for saying something that I allowed to come between us without talking to you before now.


Jack Maddox said...

Wade, would you consider Ben Cole's comment on SBC Outpost which seemingly refers to current SBC leadership as 'Baal' referencing 1 SAM 19:18 which 'comes to mind' (Ben's Words) after reading Dr. Chapman's latest blog as a out of line comment? How does that rate as attacking ones character?

Now Ban...don't you go Yosemite Sam on me!

I still loved that!


Arkansas Razorbaptist said...


I traded e-mails with Paige Patterson, this morning. I asked him what his motivation was for supporting Ronnie Floyd. I did so because his support, frankly, seems very odd. He responded "It is not my practice to correspond with anonymous interlocutors whether on blogsites, email, or snail mail."

I completely understand his position, but if someone, who isn’t hiding behind some Batman-like persona, wanted to e-mail him, I'm sure he would tell you everything you wanted to know. ;) said...


Thanks for the update between you and Brad. I'm glad all is well. That's the way things should be worked out. said...


I went over to SBC Outpost and read the comment to which you refer. I didn't see where Ben mentioned anyone by name. On what basis do you think he is attacking someone's character?

CB Scott said...

I have heard seminary faculty use that passage to present the concept that we are never alone. There is always God and there will always be other people that stand.

I know Ben Cole and If he wanted to refer to someone as Baal he would just call them Baal. Case closesd.


Anonymous said...

Have you seen a copy of the original texts?

GeneMBridges said...

There are some conservative evangelicals who have women deacons who are called "Liberal."

This is an excellent observation. The irony here is that those of us who govern by a plurality of elders are very often criticized because have female deacons and govern by elders.

A. First we're accused of being Presbyterians, because we have an elder system. Never mind that it isn't the Presbyterian elder system. A Baptist elder is both a teaching elder and ruling elder. Presby's separate the two. T.E.'s are also ordained clergy and can function anywhere in a presbytery even if not active at a local church. Baptist elders are limited to their local church.

b. Yes, we have female deacons. This is no secret. Women serve the women; male deacons serve the men. Deacons are not assigned whole families, unless the family is a single parent (widow, divorcee) or single (female/male, the gender of their deacon is indexed to their own gender 1:1).

c. Deacons do not rule/govern in our churches. They serve. They function as "group leaders" like the group leaders in many SBC Sunday Schools function.

D. Irony of irony, we with elders find the whole idea of ruling deacons unbiblical. Since our deacons don't govern and only serve, we have to wonder why those with governing deacons (who, from our perspective do the work of elders) are complaining about our way of doing things and calling us "liberal." It would be "liberal" if we had female deacons who doubled as elders (teaching and governing). Compare this with most the complaining indivduals I've met who not only have governing male deacons but also allow women to teach the men. There's only a shade of difference between Sunday School that is taught well and expository preaching in the pulpit. So, we deny women teaching positions over men and deacons any governance, yet we're the "liberals." Uh-huh.

I say this to illustrate how this goes. You're right, Wade, excellent example. This is a good, relatively non-threatening one (vs. the Calvinism issue or even the baptism issue) for illustration of this principle. Thanks. said...

Mr. Annonymous,

No I have not, but I receive by faith that the word of God is "God-breathed," and therefore, it is impossible for it to contain error.

Jack Maddox said...


No one in particular, I do not think that was his intent...but the context seemed to be Dr. Chapman’s comments concerning the propriety of endorsing a pres candidate...maybe Ben needs to respond...I am sure that he does not believe the current SBC leadership to be 'satanic' or 'Baalish' (Is that a word? I thinketh not :) ) however, my concern is the rhetoric...Do you Wade, as one who very well may be a candidate for President of our convention, feel that the rhetoric that is coming form many of the movers and shakers from the Memphis group needs to tone down a little?

My point is that this must remain a honest disagreement between brethren...but I continue to believe it is much more than that.

I stand to be corrected and informed.


Anonymous said...

Well said. God makes no mistakes but our understanding of his word is not perfect. I have been proclaiming his word for 37 years and my understanding is still growing.
The passage that reminds us that we will be judged by our method of judgement is coming to pass for the inner circle of the SBC leadership. They attacked the character and motives of many faithful followers of Jesus Christ who led the SBC for years. As a bystander in observance of the emerging conflict in the SBC I would remind all of you who are presently in that conflict that those in power have not changed their ways and will not allow any way but their way.
Wish you well and admire you for speaking your convictions. God's word is without error but that cannot be said about our word and our actions.

Dori said...

It is kind of like living in an old E.F. Hutton commercial some days isn't it?

Anonymous said...

I love Ben Cole.

Jack Maddox said...


I suppose I am simply taking into consideration the context...however, my question is still the same. DO you believe his comment to be 'over the top' or reflective of the Memphis statement? You know Ben and perhaps can give some explanation. He has not responded at this point.

J said...


I find Ben to be a very sharp, intelligent young man who speaks his mind. I think Gene Bridges answered your questions beautifully on Marty Duren's site in the comment section. Frankly, I find it a tad refreshing to see people who say what they honestly feel for all to see, rather than the backslapping "I love you man" and "prayin for you man" in public, and knife sticking behind close doors in private.

So, I guess what I'm saying is I don't find Ben's comment over the top because he is pointing out there are people in the SBC that are not afraid to speak their minds, regardless of the consequences.

Jack Maddox said...

Thanks Wade for your answer! If you are following my posts on SBC outpost you see that I too am impressed with Ben's candor and his passion. I am certain we do not agree on methodology concerning the current state of the SBC, but many may be surprised that we probably share some similar concerns.

In short, I think Ben would be a great guy to have in your foxhole...I am just glad I am not the one he is lobbing grenades at...

at least I don't think I am...

Nah...I am not...I don't even think Dr. Patterson knows who I am...

I am just glad Jesus does! the way...I Nominate Jesus as President of the SBC! :)


Dori said...

Wade -
I'm praying for you man.

Patrick -

CB -
So I've got your number in my cell phone now. Do you have a preference on ring tones?

Brian Armas said...

Wade- Don't let this get you razzled. Hang in there. It's too close to Sunday for you to be focusing your energy here.

Adam said...


what percentage of your 2005 undesignated gifts went to CP according to the 2005 ACP report?

Pastor Ray said...

Jesus knew the difference as well. Sometimes grace pastors are attacked. I was once attacked by a gentleman who said, "Now you say that God has elected some to eternal life." I replied, "I never said that. I just repeated it...The Bible already said it."

Grace to you as well,
Ray Earley
John 15:16

Pastor Ray said...

Discernment is a large part of it for me...I'm praying for you my brother.
Ray Earley said...


A little over 5%. We are also the sole supporters of three missionary SB missionary units --- one in India, the other two in Africa. They do not qualify through the IMB. They have the two largest evangelical ministries in their respective countries. That's why our total missions giving is about 18% of our budget, with CP at 5%. We give a set amount to the CP, not a percentage.

Brian Armas said...

Wade- can you please tell us your membership vs. attendance? said...


We have 1,960 members and this morning we had 1450 in worship). We have small groups that meet throughout the week (almost every day). Our traditional S.S. attendance this morning was 900, but our involvment in small groups (which is "Sunday School" just in a non-traditional format) was 1350 this week.

Anonymous said...

I found the following prayer a number of years ago in Richard Foster's "Prayer: Finding the Heart's True Home". It helped me through many challenging experiences as an m in a "creative access" country. I thought of it as I read Saturday's post.

"By the authority of almighty God I surround myself with the light of Christ, I cover myself with the blood of Christ, and I seal myself with the cross of Christ.

"All dark and evil spirits must now leave.

"No influence is allowed to come near to me but that it is first filtered through the light of Jesus Christ, in Whose name I pray. Amen."

You are in our prayers.


Tim Batchelor said...

Brother Wade,

I would be interesting in learning how your church has expanded its small group ministries beyond Sunday School. My burden is to find a way to reach folks on shift work who cannot attend 2 out of 3 or 4 Sundays along with folks who just won't come to traditional Sunday School. I am not sure that canceling Sunday Night services for home groups would be an answer for our church. Maybe a post and discussion on effective non traditional ministries that work in traditional settings would be of benefit. Thanks.

Adam said...


It appears that your church doesn't give that much higher of a percentage than Ronnie Floyd.

There are many that are saying that 10% is the standard for CP giving, including many at the Founders Blog. If the standard is 10% for aspiring SBC leaders, can you really say that you qualify? Is it wrong for others to hold Ronnie Floyd to the sacred 10% standard?

brad reynolds said...


I also know Ben, personally, and he is a very intelligent man, whom I believe, honestly believes, he is doing right. But if you, and the other signers, believe his comments "Patterson sees himself as the Arbiter of Grace and the Defender of Faith (in the SBC)” and "how long until Paige Patterson makes a mistake," made in the context where he says I am very angry, do not fit the 5th Memphis declaration, then that is very telling as to what the Declaration actually was.

brad reynolds said...

There is no forgiveness needed, I was not offended, I really did not know what you were referencing, but thanks for your spirit in this. You know my care for you and your family and I know yours for mine.
I love you, but fear we will be on different sides at the convention and hope what is being done this year, is no precedent, for those who, in the future disagree on lesser things but agree on inerrancy - it seems that creates unnecessary division and is exclusionary. Further, as I told you, I fear there is a neo-orthodox element that is jumping in the boat of those dissatisfied with the SBC.

Marty Duren said...

Man, that was good!

Is your series on the BFM2K going to be less that 5,000 words? said...


I think 5.25% is just 20 times more than .25%.

Jack Maddox said...


I agree with you concerning the Neo-Orthodox connection. I certainly believe that the rhetoric does not match the report!


Bob Cleveland said...

Well why not ... might as well toss in my 2 cents' worth even if I don't know any of them big words.

I've taught Ken Hemphill's course "Serving God .. Discovering and Using Your Spiritual Gifts" (if I recall the name correctly) several times. One of the more interesting points he makes in it, with which I agree, is that the mission of the church .. the task .. the vision .. should depend on the giftedness of the members, not the preferences of the pastor. I like that, particularly since I had first hand experience with a strong-willed mission-church interim pastor once, who didn't care what the people thought, but came in with a stone-chiseled agenda.

If that's the case, if the local church should capitalize on the gifts within the membership, and do those tasks they equip the church to do, then it's illogical for any outside entity to hold a pro-forma up against it as a measure of performance.

I do think the local church is commanded to do its part in the "great commission", but how it does that must be handled other than on a "cookie cutter" basis.

But that's just my opinion. Free, and worth every penny.

naflash said...


Thanks for your thoughtful comments over the last several days and your candidness on many of the issues. I have a comment and wanted to get your take on it regarding the CP debate as you have already weighed in on today.

If we are true Southern Baptists and recognize local church autonomy shouldn't we applaud a local pastor for making decisions (like you did regarding India) that are in the best interest of reaching and influencing souls as is his SBC encouraged right?

So why the CP debate? It seems it is a fallacious argument to support SBC "doctrine of autonomy" but debate the validity of acting upon that autonomy (requiring or even debating on an amount)...

I am sort of confused with the CP debate. Help me.

Anonymous said...

Brad Reynolds
How would you define inerrancy of Scripture in the HOLMAN CHRISTIAN STANDARD BIBLE Mathew 9:18-19 versus ALL Other Translation ?
A Girl Restored and a Woman Healed
18 As He was telling them these things suddenly one of the leaders came and knelt down before Him, saying, "My daughter is near death, but come and lay Your hand on her, and she will live." 19 So Jesus and His disciples got up and followed him.

CB Scott said...


You know my position on the Bible. You know Ben's position on the Bible. I am sure that you have read Wade's position on the Bible.

I know your position on Scripture is like ours. We all agree on the Bible.

What you may not know is that every one of the Memphis 30 holds the same position on the Bible that you do. If any one of them holds another position than that the Bible is the prefect Word of God they lied before God and 29 witnesses.

I tell you , my brother, that I was in the presence of 29 godly people in Memphis and I am doing my best to give over all of my life to Christ. If there was a bad egg in the crowd we both know it was me. Yet, no one that can spell theology would ever call me neo-orthodox.

You also know that Ben and CB can smell anything "neo" at 10 miles out.

Brad, never has there been a complete absence of neo-orthodoxy in the SBC. If anyone believes the resurrgence removed all of it they have failed to read or listen to certain faculty we both know.

Brother, we are not dissatisfied with the SBC. The Memphis Declaration states that of which we are dissatisfied. We are dissatisfied with sin in our own lives first of all and secondly with sin that needs to be repented of within the lives of some of the leadership in our convention.

We seek godliness in our hearts and the hearts of our brothers and sisters that God may bless us in missions and evangelism as a body that was born for such. If God does not bless us as a parachurch organization to honor and glorify Him through evangelism and missions what value are we in the work of the Kingdom?

I think I know your heart in many things. I respected you long before we were co-workers at SEBTS.

I will never forget Virginia and the bonds made there. I may differ with you on some things but know this: Ben Cole and CB Scott love you and will come "a runnin" if bears get after you.

But you probably will not need us now that you are a "sure nuff Bruce Lee" :-)

I love you brother.


Anonymous said...

Brad Reynolds,
In the past, you’ve had a problem of substituting plural (we) for singular (I) as if you had a mouse in your pocket, and on this post you substitute plural (those) for singular (Rex Ray).
I would think you would know how to copy-paste when you quote someone, but you said, “…THOSE who state ‘inerrancy came from the lips of the devil.’”
I said, “No one word has caused more harm among Christians than inerrancy. I pray it will expire from where it came--the SMILING lips of the devil.”
Brad, are you ripping your clothes? I can visualize the campaign speeches—THOSE will be right up there with LIBERALS to fight against.

May I be allowed to defend myself? You accused me of calling you a ‘rat.’ No, I accused a mouse in someone’s pocket of smelling like a rat because that someone was masquerading as an IMB missionary.

Numbers and Deuteronomy is the Word of God written by Moses. (Deuteronomy 1:37) “And the Lord was even angry with me because of them and said to me, ‘You shall not enter the Promised Land.”
Was this the same meaning that was written in the original autographs? Let’s hear Moses again: (3:26) “But the Lord was angry with me on account of you, and would not listen to me.”
And again: (4:21) “The Lord was angry with me on your account. He swore that I would not cross the Jordan and enter the good land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.”
Moses was saying it was the people’s sin that made God angry with him. They got to go to the Promised Land, but he didn’t. Looks like after obeying God all those years, poor Moses got a raw deal from God.
Is this account the Word of God? Does this reflect the true meaning of the original autographs? Now I’m not asking if it’s true what Moses said, but is it true that he said it.

We know the real truth is what God said in Numbers.
(Numbers 20:12) “But the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, ‘Because you did not trust Me to show My holiness in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this assembly into the land I have given them.”
(20:24) “The time has come for Aaron to die…for the two of you rebelled against my instructions concerning the water at Meribah.”
(27:13-14) “After you have seen it [Promised Land], you shall die as Aaron your bother did, for you rebelled against my instructions in the wilderness of Zin…you did not glorify me…by following my instructions to order water to come out of the rock.”

We see this account in Numbers is the truth of God, and the story in Deuteronomy is the untruth of man, but since Moses wrote both Books, why didn’t he omit his lies in Deuteronomy? Sure it’s a fact he said it was the people’s fault, but when he wrote the Book wouldn’t it have been natural to skip what he had said since it made him look bad?
But God had him to record exactly what happened. Isn’t that great?

So, how is this believed different than me? I believe any untruth in the Bible is not out of the mouth of God which means the lies of Moses were not breathed by God. The Bible says it is impossible for God to lie, so how could he breathe a lie for Moses? Only truth is perfect and to say every word in the Bible is perfect is only a political football.
Rex Ray

Anonymous said...

Brad, In my opinion to lump all the signers of the Memphis declaration with what Ben Cole posted on a blog is wrong.

Tim Rogers said...

Brother Wade,
While I appreciate you openness in responding to your church's giving % and 5.25% is 100 time more than .27% You defended your church's less than 10% giving the same way Dr. Floyd defended his churches .27% giving. Dr. Floyd defended his church by giving the total missions budget. You said:
"A little over 5%. We are also the sole supporters of three missionary SB missionary units --- one in India, the other two in Africa. They do not qualify through the IMB. They have the two largest evangelical ministries in their respective countries. That's why our total missions giving is about 18% of our budget, with CP at 5%. We give a set amount to the CP, not a percentage."
Also, I am new to some abreviations can you tell me SB Mission unit? From your response I believe this to be Missionaries that your church has sponsored full time on the Mission field? Is this correct? If it is, because a church is sending them out would that not make them "independent" missionaries and not SBC missionaries?

Anonymous said...

Glad to see you are still around. On May 3, do you remember Greg Cloud saying, “Man, what a great discussion. Keep going, Gene, I’m learning a lot from you. Hang in there, Rex Ray, I have to look up a lot of Gene’s words, too, but I think it’s good for me.”? But you never answered.
We were discussing the differences in the BFM1963 and BFM2000. I had asked you six questions—the last one; “The office of pastor is limited to men” was a confession of faith which was something the BFM2000 said it would not do—“Baptist deny the right of any secular or religious authority to impose a confession of faith upon a church or body of churches.”
I believe Wade’s rules to be friendly or ‘agree to disagree’ are good.
Rex Ray

Anonymous said...

Blogger Blues,
The joy of victory (your comment posted) and the agony of defeat (not posted). Batting 500 is good in baseball but not blogging. Oooo the midnight oil spent—didn’t mean to be that critical—should not have said that—but it felt so good—oh well, will try again.

“We’ve run way over on business meeting. Eddie will have to cut tonight’s sermon short.”
From the pulpit, “How long would Rex know I preach? He slept through the morning service.”
Ut-oh, too much blogging. “If it will make you feel better, I dropped off during the song service.”
Blogger addict

brad reynolds said...


Thanks for the encouraging words and your concern.
It really is comforting.

brad reynolds said...

If you inferred from my comments that I was lumping the signers of the Memphis Declaration with Ben's comments, then I must not have been clear.

I was saying and showing that what Ben said fit the prohibition against unChrist-like made in the 5th declaration, to which the signers agreed. In part they called on themselves to confront such an individual. Not only have they not stated on their Blogs the statement was wrong but one even posted it on his Blog. The statement was wrong and I have said so both on the Blogs and to Ben personally, although I did not sign the Declaration.

The inconsistencies is what begs questions about the purpose of the Declaration.