Thursday, February 22, 2007

Shock Treatment for Southern Baptist Bloggers?

The Washington Post is reporting that the Chinese government is using shock treatments to cure people with 'internet' addictions. I'm not sure how the government of China deterimines if one is 'addicted,' but I sure do question the use of shock treatments as a 'cure.' You wonder what possesses people to implement such radical solutions to what they perceive to be a problem (or threat?), but then I remind myself that there may be a handful in the SBC who would love to see a few Southern Baptist bloggers shocked with a higher voltage than what China may be using. :)


volfan007 said...


i have a question for you and your commenters...and, i am really interested in everyones response to this.

i want to ask something of all of you who believe that the bfm2k should be our maximum standard of beliefs and practice. if we adopt this as a convention….that all sbc entities should only have the bfm2k as thier standard…maximum standard…then, southern seminary and sebts should do away with the abstracts. no prof. should have to agree with those, nor sign them. would you all agree with that? especially our more five point calvinist brothers who are for the imb bot and southwestern seminary bot not applying more standards than the bfm2k?

i already know of one who does not believe that if we say to our sbc entities that the bfm2k is the maximum standard, that southern and sebts should do away with the abstracts. i find this a little concerning that you would want that to be the standard for everyone except for two of our seminaries.

so, all of yall who believe that the imb cannot set up a rule about ppl m’s not being appointed. or, those who believe that southwestern cannot deny tenure to a woman teaching a man theology. would you also be for making southern and sebts do away with the abstracts? and, if not, why not? wouldnt that be a little hypocritical? i am especially interested in hearing from the five pointers.

david said...

No David,

I do not agree.

Seminaries should be able to sign specific and narrow doctrinal requirements, even more narrow than the BFM 2000.


We have six seminaries. If you don't like a reformed seminary and her Abstract of Principles like Southern's, then go to the Arminian and Dispensational Seminary like Southwestern.

But there is only ONE International Mission Board. There is only ONE North American Mission Board. There is only ONE Lifeway --- the BFM 2000 should be enough for these agencies that serve all Southern Baptists and depend on cooperation.

If we ever get six literature agencies and six mission boards as we have six seminaries, then we could go beyond the BFM 2000 in those boards as well.

By the way, you could never teach at Southern :)

Now you know how it feels for Dwight McKissic or Jerry Rankin to never be able to be a missionary.

But you could teach at Southwestern.

Tell me what other mission board Dwight and Jerry could apply to in order to be a Southern Baptist missionary?

Will said...

...meanwhile, back on the shocking story about internet addiction: Is the treatment 'solely' for those who blog 'current' events?? said...

Don't know Will.

They might wish a shock given to all those five pointer buggers who blog about the past.


RKSOKC66 said...


The voltage of the shock should be a function of the number of "points" of Calvinism that the person adheres to. :)

dwm III said...


To answer your last question... How about their local church?

Just a thought.


dwm III said...


To clarify, I mean the last question on your first comment. ;)


volfan007 said...


i could teach at southern...i would sign...with a few caveats.

and, no, if we are going to set up the bfm2k as the maximum standard, then it should apply across the all sbc entities...without exceptions.

btw, i'm not an arminian...and not really a dispensationalists either.

and wade, i'm not angry either. :)


Bob Cleveland said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alyce Faulkner said...

I certainly don't think people should be 'shocked' for blogging-however we might consider a little bitty shock for not keeping on post? :)

By the way-did you notice this guys toes? my goodness.

hopelesslyhuman said...


The Abstracts existed before the BFM; as such, their use should be "grandfathered" in. That is not the case with the IMB narrowing; the adoption of the BFM in 1929 is the first time the SBC as a whole adopted standards, and if the IMB wants tighter standards, they should work through the "proper processes" to change the BFM.

(BTW - Why is it that the folks who complain the loudest about Wade and others "not following the proper process" don't see that the IMB's failure to "follow the proper processes" to enact change to the doctrinal statement of the SBC is what started this whole mess in the first place? Why aren't they complaining about that?) said...


He's twelve. Big feet for a young boy. said...


If you say 'I'm not angry' one more time I might start believing you are.

:) said...


Good comment.

Bob Cleveland said...

As I was saying:

David: What Wade said.

WADE: I still think those guys will be charged with battery.

I'm off to look for Tim.

Anonymous said...

Ho Hummmm

CB Scott said...


I could be wrong. I have been in the past:-) Tell me if I am. I can take it. I think. Are those Art Rogers' feet? They look a great deal like his feet. If I could smell of them I would know for sure. Was he captured across the Mexican border where his blackberry would not work so he could call for our help?

If those are his feet and this is the end for our friend Art, do you think his wife will give me his truck? I think that would be fair. You guys can divy up his books. You can get one each. I think he has three:-)


Bill Scott said...

Your post was polarizing to say the least. I do think that it got to heart and sole of the matters at hand. I think that you are just wired to write about such things. I also contend that most of us are on the same wavelength as you are. However, some readers are more amped up than others. As such, there will always be some degree of resistance to your viewpoint. We should not accept the current state of flux as the status quo.

Marty Duren said...

Bzzzzt. Bzzzzzzzt. said...

Marty, you're funny.

Steve said...

If all SBC entities (excepting perhaps the seminaries) were bound to the BF&M, that would help standardize a lot of things; also, if we were able to agree on restoring actual Baptist 'priesthood of the believer' and 'soul competency' concepts in a more enlightened age, in a better-written BF&M, that would bring all these agencies out from under the creedal clouds together all at once.

Ready for my thunderbolt now.

volfan007 said...


i'm sure glad that you and i aint married. we'd surely be divorced by now, or we'd have a terrible marriage. we just cant seem to agree on anything.

so, how about this? do you like sweet tea and barbeque ribs? i wonder if those shockers on that fellas feet could fry some bacon? cb and bob will tell ya that i surely do like to eat.


ps. i still believe the abstracts ought to go if the bfm2k is going to be our maximum standard. it's the only fair thing to do.

Kevin Bussey said...

I don't know about shock treatment, but I like caffine shock! :)

Unknown said...

And here I was thinking you were my friend… guess I will just be a “deep-fried five-pointer”… :-)

Give it up… the Abstract will out live us both…

But I do get the point you are trying to make… I don’t agree with it… but I get it…

The “Narrowing of the Parameters of Cooperation” can be used to exclude both those who lean to the left and those who lean to the right… Solution = “Stop Narrowing the Parameters”. But the Abstract stays…

My wife wants to know where she can get one of those… I have to go now… It’s time for my treatment…

Grace to all,

Anonymous said...

It is always amazing to me how you guys who are so committed to the inerrant Bible seldom ever refer to it. Instead, you are constantly fixated on the BF&M 2000. What is even more ironic is that the word inerrant is not even in the BF&M 2000. (Explain that ommission)

I know, I know. . . "Believing the Bible is not enough," the argument goes. "We have to have something that explains the Bible."

The reason I liked the 1963 BF&M version is not that it was perfect, but because it never claimed to be an instrument of doctrinal accountability. Therefore, when an issue of abberant theology came up, we had to discuss what the Bible actually said. The BF&M was only a consensus of Southern Baptists beliefs. Boards of agencies and seminaries always had the ability to fire a liberal professor or a theologically suspect missionary, but the discussion and justification for removing someone had to be what the Bible said, not the BF&M. I affirm confessions as guides. In the past, they were used as a good way to get a conversation going about what the Bible actually said. I deplore confessions being used as creeds. It distracts us from Holy Scripture.

The Bible should be our maximum standard of beliefs and practice. The confessions should be expressions of what SBC'ers generally believe. Boards of agencies and seminaries should then see that those who serve Southern Baptists are acceptable to God and His word.

When you start trying to get too specific with the BF&M, it becomes like a bad set of church by-laws which strangles the church in the future.

It is the same drum, but I love beating it.

East Texas Pastor

Rex Ray said...

East Texas Pastor,
Well said.
Rex Ray

OC Hands said...

If you think this is a joke, this is only one of the types of torture that Chinese Christians have faced at the hands of the Chinese government.
Please pray for the faithful Christians in China who continue to serve the Lord and witness, in prison, or out of prison, in season or out of season

Anonymous said...

Dddddddddon't ttttttttry iiiiiiiit, ggggggguys. Iiiiiiit ddddddddidn't wwwwwwwwork. :(


Anonymous said...

I've got an even better suggestion....if a person can affirm the Apostles Creed we can cooperate with each other.