Prior to the debate on the motion to adopt the Executive Committe statement on the BFM, Dr. Morris Chapman, the President of the Executive Committee, had already given his address to the entire convention. Though I have not spoken with him about this issue, I can understand and comprehend his words. During his official report to the Convention, Dr. Chapman said:
"(1) Any practice instituted by an entity in the Southern Baptist Convention that has the force of doctrine should be in accord with the Baptist Faith and Message and not exceed its boundaries unless and until it has been approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and secondly,
(2) If an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention adopts a confession of faith separate and distinct from the Baptist Faith and Message and it includes a doctrine unsupported by our confessional statement, the entity should request approval from the Convention prior to including the doctrine in its confession."
It is my desire in this post to show the intent of the messengers when they voted for the motion to officially adopt the Executive Committee statement on the BFM. The messengers intent was to implement exactly what they had already heard the President of the Executive Committee say we needed in the SBC. Of course, an additional way to know what was in the mind of those who voted FOR the adoption of this statement is to hear those who articulated the reasons why this statement SHOULD be adopted. Likewise, to listen to the intelligent and articulate arguments AGAINST the adoption of this motion informs the impartial reader why this motion was not voted for by its opponents.
The following transcipt is taken from the video archives of the SBC Tuesday night's session entitled Previously Scheduled Business.
Again, the purpose of posting this is simply to prove that there can be no doubt in any fair-minded, non-partisian person as to the intent of the SBC messengers in adopting this statement, and further, the debate shows very clearly that SBC messengers present in the hall knew EXACTLY what they were doing when they voted by a 58% majority to adopt the Executive Committee's statement on the BFM 2000.
Rick Garner is the messenger and conservative pastor from Liberty Heights Baptist Church in Liberty Heights, Ohio who had made the motion to adopt the statement earlier that morning. The Committee on Order of Business believed this motion was important enough to be dealt with by the entire convention, and when it came time to debate this motion, President Frank Page encouraged messenger Rick Garner, if he was present, to move to a microphone. While the convention was waiting, President Page read the motion in order that the convention would be clear what it was we were about to debate and ultimately vote upon.
I move that this convention adopts the statement of the Executive Committee issued in February of this year, and included in the Executive 's report found in the 2007 Book of Reports, Page 17, which reads 'The Baptist Faith and Message is neither a creed, nor a complete statement of our faith, nor final and infallible; nevertheless, we further acknowledge that it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention.'
After reading the above motion, President Page then said, "The Committee of Order on Business has decided that this particular motion should be dealt with at this time, and so, we would like to know if Rick Garner is in this hall and, if so, would he like to speak to this motion.
President Frank Page: Bro. Rick, are you at microphone nine?
Pastor Rick Garner: Yes, sir.
President Rick Garner: You moved. (Laughter)
President Frank Page: Would you like to speak to your motion sir?
Pastor Rick Garner: Yes, Mr. President.
President Frank Page: All right.
Messenger Rick Garner speaks FOR the motion:
Mr. President, the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 stands as the doctrinal capstone of the conservative resurgence. It is the only consensus, and therefore, the only sufficient basis for doctrinal accountability among Southern Baptists. It is the privilege, it is indeed the sacred responsibility, of this convened body to inform our entities, agencies, and institutions of our continued and firm commitment to this instrument of doctrinal accountability.
The question before us this evening is this: Is the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 sufficient in its current form to guide the Southern Baptist Convention and all its agencies, entities and institutions? An affirmitive vote is for its sufficiency. A negative vote is a vote for its insufficiency and will effectively render the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 anemic to accomplish its purposes. I believe it is sufficient. My church believes it is sufficient. The Executive Committee report affirms it is sufficient, and this Convention believes it is sufficient.
If the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is sufficient for the Southern Baptist Convention at large, then it should be considered sufficient for all Southern Baptist entities, agencies, and institutions.
Amos 3:3 says, "Can two walk together unless they are agreed. We have all agreed that the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is our convention's confession of faith. The only remaining questions is, 'Will we walk together?'
Mr. President, thank you.
President Frank Page: Thank you. I would like at this point (uh) what we are going to do, in case you are knew, normally in these situations we allow persons to speak for, and in fairness to speak against, if there is someone - and we do believe because the button is pushed. And let me say this very quickly -- we have a fancy box up here. It's nice, it's real nice. And it tells us who is pushed what buttons, but it doesn't show us who it is. We don't know who it is, but it does tell us if you are pushing for or against, so I hope it is correct. Number 2 says their against this. Would you like to speak against this?
Messenger: Yes I would
President Frank Page: Name, church, and . . .
Messenger: Mr. President, it's another Robin. Robin Hadaway, Missions Professor, Midwestern Seminary, Kansas City, Missouri, messenger Pleasant Valley Baptist Church, Liberty, Missouri.
Wade Burleson's commentary: (Read very carefully the following arguments professor Hadaway gives on why the motion should be voted down. Notice what he calls 'doctrine' and why the BFM 2000 falls short of being 'sufficient' -- to me he articulates very clearly the problem we Southern Baptistts would face had his view prevailed).
Messenger Robin Hadaway speaks AGAINST the motion.
I served as an IMB missionary for 18 years and as an IMB regional for 6 of those years and I enforced the IMB policies. The IMB has long had a policy that divorced persons cannot be appointed as long-term missionaries. This is a doctrinal interpretation of I Timothy 3, and is also based upon the fact that divorced persons are not normally called to Southern Baptist pulpits in the USA and are especially problematic for our Baptist partners overseas. The Executive statement on page 17 of the Book of Reports says, "The BFM is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the convention." Guide does not mean an exhaustive list. Let me list several doctrinal issues the BFM does not speak to.
Speaking in tongues or private prayer languages are not mentioned in the BFM, but do you want a seminary professor like myself, at your six seminaries, practicing glossalalia? This is not in the Baptist Faith and Message.
Last year's Resolutions Committee of which I was a member, and I am a member of this year's Resolutions Committee, passed a resolution on alcohol consumption. Our committee quoted Scripture making it a doctrinal issue. The IMB does not appoint missionaries that drink alcohol, and neither do the seminaries. Alcohol is not in the Baptist Faith and Message.
The Resolutions Committee a number of years ago passed a resolution on gambling. Scripture was quoted making this a doctrinal issue. Gambling is not mentioned in the BFM either.
Neither is the usage of tobacco.
Let's not make a creed of the BFM, let's keep it as a guide and allow the trustees of your boards, agencies and entities to design policies and procedures to select godly men and women as missionaries, professors, and employees to serve in these agencies.
Otherwise, you may have missionaries and professors like me, with practices not in keeping with the vast majority of Southern Baptists. I urge the defeat of this motion.
Wade Burleson's comment on Dr. Hadaway's speech: (Other than the fact I am amazed that the good professor believes 'quoting' Scripture makes something a doctrine, I would like to point out three problems with what Dr. Hadaway said. (1). To equate the Holy Spirit gift of glossalalia with divorce, tobacco, and alcohol would cause every mainline, conservative systematic theologian to raise his/her eyebrow, and (2). Dr. Hadaway well illustrates the problem the Southern Baptist Convention is now facing -- there are some who are attempting to force upon the entire convention their particular interpretations of holiness -- and worse, they are attempting to make EVERYTHING a 'doctrinal' issue and dismiss from service anyone who disagrees, and (3). A few of my fellow IMB trustees ought to be glad I am uninterested in enforcing the good professor's 'doctrine' of tobacco (wink). Of course, the passage of the motion rules null and void Dr. Hadaway's attempt to make everyone look like him.)
President Frank Page: Thank you Robin. Now do we have at microphone number nine again someone to speak for this particular motion?
Messenger Dwight McKissic speaks FOR the motion.
Yes, Mr. President, my name is Dwight McKissic, I pastor the Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas.
It's really a simple matter. Are we going to let the parents make rules for the house, or our we going to let the children rule the house? The agencies and entities should be subordinate to the Southern Baptist Convention.
When I gave my church a doctrinal statement, all of our leaders are asked to read it and believe it, the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. We buy into the convention based on that document. Then, when agencies circumvent that document it leaves a church like the one I pastor in a quandry. "Pastor, you sold us on the Southern Baptist Convention based on the contents of this document. Now decisions are being made that are not consistent or compatabile with this document that affects the identity and image of our church."
I don't let my four children decide what the McKissic household believe. Dwight and Vera McKissic decide what we believe and what we stand for. Joshua said, "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." We need the convention itself to speak to this issue and not the children.
(Loud Applause)
President Frank Page: Thank you Bro. Dwight. One more. Microphone number five do you speak against this motion.
Messenger: No sir, I'm here to speak for this motion.
Wade Burleson's comment: (It was here that the messengers could see Art Roger's at the microphone, the messenger ready to speak for the motion. Behind him one can see on the video screens Dr. Hershael York and Dr. Richard Land prepared to speak AGAINST the motion. You could see Dr. York adamantly attempting to get the microphone monitor to allow him to speak, but Art was at the microphone first and by rule, Art did not have to give up his spot until he had the opportunity to speak).
President Frank Page: To be fair, we've got to go with someone against. All right, we'll try number eight. Microphone number eight over yonder.
Messenger: Yes, sir. My name is Barbara Turner and I am a messenger from the Mountain View Baptist Church in California. And uh, I did not grow up in a Christian home, however, I had people who took me to church and so forth, and I accepted Christ after a Baptist camp, not a Southern Baptist. However, when I moved I had a neighbor who took me to the closest church, which was a Southern Baptist Church. And, as I started learning about that church I picked up a little paper, really a little card, that was called the Baptist Faith and Message. And as a young teenager, really preteen, I read that and thought about it quite a bit. And, you know I believed the things that were in that document. I felt like, yes, this is what I believe - this is what I want to subscribe to - and this is a body of believers that I want to join with. And I put a lot of thought in that, even as a young person, just as I did my salvation, knowing that God would want to call me to things. That document was written in 1963. It was put together thoughtfully with many great leaders, including Herschel Hobbs, who many people still read his commentaries. I have nothing against the 2000 as far as submission or whatever. However, I have a problem with saying you must subscibe to this particular Baptist Faith and Message or you can't serve. I guess I cannot serve because I believe in both of them. And I think there's a problem, and so I believe it should be Baptist Faith and Message - period, and not Baptist Faith and Message of a certain year. And I also believe, as it is stated, that it is a statement of faith - this is what we believe - but we are autonomous. I believe when we are saying we must set this as a guide - we are not using this as a guide - we are using it as a creed, and that goes up against who we are as Baptists. Thank you.
Wade Burleson's Commentary on Barbara's Speech: (Barbara is a very bright individual. She knew exactly what she was saying. However, what she may not have been aware of was that those who were AGAINST this recommendation desire to tighten the BFM even further, 'de facto,' by tightening the doctrinal parameters and narrow the definition of what it means to be a Southern Baptist by using trustees of Southern Baptist agencies changing the doctrinal parameters 'out of the view of the entire Southern Baptist Convention.' I promise you, if Barbara listened carefully to the two speeches by Bob Cleveland and Jeremy Green that followed hers , she saw it).
President Frank Page: Thank you Barbara. Let me ask at this time microphone number one you have pushed a button saying you have a motion, would you please give me your name and your church and clarify what you are asking please?
Messenger: Leroy Cole, West Tyler Baptist Church, Alabama, I call for the question.
Wade Burleson's comment on the call for question: (I do not know Leroy Cole, but his motion to cease debate and vote on the recommendation passed by a two/thirds majority raising their ballots in favor to end debate -- at least according to the ruling of the chair. It was at this moment that one of the lower points of the convention occurred. Several who were AGAINST the motion (and possibly a few who were for it) booed and hissed and shouted at the chair because they didn't feel the motion to end debate had actually passed. Dr. Page graciously ruled that debate would continue for five minutes because it was a close vote, but then he said, "Do not holler at me (applause). Do not holler at me. I have a litte bit of redneck in. Don't holler at me." (Good for the President).
The Continuation of Debate for Five Minutes
President Frank Page: Five more minutes. Microphone number three speaking for.
Messenger Bob Cleveland speaks FOR the motion
I'm Bob Cleveland, lay messenger from First Baptist Church, Pellham, Alabama. I came to the Southern Baptist Convention, to a Southern Baptist Church, from the United Methodist and the Presbyterian churches. In each case I was given, in those denominations, a book and they said "Here's what we believe." And I actually read it. And when I came to our church, I asked Bro. Mike before I ever joined, if we had such a book and he said, "Well, no. We have no creed but Christ." But here's the Baptist Faith and Message which is a consensus statement of our faith. And I read it. And I went back to him and said, "You know, there's a lot of things this doesn't cover."
And he gave me Hershel Hobbs book on the Baptist Faith and Message, and I read that, and I read about what Hershel Hobbs said the fundamental Baptist distinctive is and that's soul competency in religious matters. And I said, 'Woe' this is the most responsible doctrine I've ever seen because it says it's me and God and I'm responsible for what I believe. I cannot blame it on somebody else.
Now if I wanted to change what Southern Baptists believe confessionally I would never attack the Baptist Faith and Message, I would go to missionary sending organizations, both US and foreign, and change what they can be to be missionaries. And then I would just wait until the Southern Baptist Convention changed what they believed.
And if I wanted to accelerate the process I would go to some of the seminaries and change what you had to believe so that they would believe just like me to be a professor. And that would send out pastors into churches here that would believe just what I wanted them to believe. I would never have to touch the Baptist Faith and Message.
We are like the frog in a pot of hot water. You can put him in cool water and turn the heat up and the frog will literally boil to death before he knows he is in trouble. We will change the Baptist Faith and Message because we will change what Baptists believe if we don't vote for this recommendation. Now I know we can't tell the entities what they have to do, but we can tell the entities of the SBC what we believe being a Southern Baptist means, and this is it, and I urge you to vote for it
(Applause)
Wade Burleson's Comment on Mr. Cleveland's speech: (Bob, who is a layman, understands better than anyone I've ever heard that Southern Baptists better be very, very careful in handing over the ability to define what a Southern Baptist IS to either a seminary or an agency)
President Frank Page: Thank you Bob. Now, we will call on microphone number twelve and ask if you are speaking AGAINST this particular issue.
Messenger Jeremy Green Speaks AGAINST the motion
I'm Jeremy Green, pastor of First Baptist Church of Joshua, Texas. According to the Preamble of the Baptist Faith and Message our confessional statement includes only those doctrines that we hold precious and as essential to the faith. If Southern Baptists believe that these doctrines are essentials, then why are certain trustees and employees now not even affirming the bare minimum doctrinal standards of our convention as adopted by each entitity. Baptist polity and our trustee system both necessitate that each individual trustee boards maintain the right and responsibility to employ other doctrinal paramaters as needed.
The Baptist Faith and Message is a sufficient guide, but it is not the ONLY guide. I believe that voting FOR this motion is the first step in the wrong direction. I encourage the messengers to vote against this motion. Thank you Mr. President.
(No applause)
Wade Burleson's Commentary on Jeremy Green's comments: (I thank Jeremy for making very, very clear - right before the vote - what a vote FOR the motion means, and what a vote AGAINST the motion means. He couldn't have said it any better. He's dead on. The convention heard it, and they voted. Contrary to his desire, and others, to move our convention way beyond the BFM to reflect their narrow doctrinal views on matters that are NOT essential to the Christian faith and Southern Baptist identity, the convention said let's keep our parameters of cooperation as broad as possible).
President Frank Page: Thank you Jeremy. Now, here is where we are. Our time is up. If you would like to extend the time, it will require a motion and two thirds majority to extend the time for discussion.
The vote to extend time to debate the motion to adopt the Executive Committee statement on the BFM failed.
Then, the vote occurred on the original motion.
It passed by a 58% majority.
I have a very hard time understanding how anyone can listen to the debate, or read the words of this transcript, and say anyone was confused on what we voted upon.
The convention told the International Mission Board that any doctrinal guideline or policy, based on the IMB trustee board's 'doctrinal interpretation' that has not been APPROVED by the SBC, is not appropriate. Especially when that guideline excludes otherwise qualified Southern Baptists from missionary participation.
The Southern Baptist Convention has spoken. Boards are more than welcome to establish policies and guidelines on practical, ethical or moral considerations, but to move DOCTRINALLY beyond the BFM 2000, and exlude otherwise qualified Southern Baptists from missionary service unless who disagree with their demands for conformity to their additional doctrinal guidelines that exceed the BFM 2000, is not within their purview.
Only the entire convention sets the parameters for cooperation and true Southern Baptist identity. No seminary, no whitepaper, no trustee board, no President -- no one has the authority to narrow the doctrinal parameters of Southern Baptist cooperation but the convention as a whole.
Now, let's see if the boards are listening.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
P.S. Listen to Dr. Chapman's entire address here
118 comments:
Dear Wade,
Thanks again for the great post, and thank you for your service of news about the SBC. I have followed your posts closely so that I could be prepared for the Convention as I feel we are kindred in our concerns regarding the SBC. However, the one thing that I disagreed with about this post was concerning the shouts not to end the debate. I was one of those who shouted "no!", because from my vantage point I believed that it was the fundamentalists that wanted to cut the debate off. I guess that is the dynamic in a auditorium with so many people. The fact is that in the row I sat were a couple others who shouted no and yet we all voted in favor of affirming the Baptist Faith and Message. Guess from where you all were you believed it was the opposite ( and it may have been) but not from me or those around me-we were sitting on the far left side. This is probably a good example of the fallibility of our perceptions especially in the dynamic of that large a gathering.
Blessings
Bob
wade,
even dr. page believes that this statement does not make the bfm2k a maximum standard of beliefs...even frank page!
i will confess something to all of you....in fear and trembling... due to all of you who think that i'm an idiotic, stupid hillbilly already...i was confused to what this was all about. i didnt understand it. so, if i didnt understand it...i'd imagine that all the bubba's from ms and alabama and tn and georgia and texas and florida were like me. we didnt quite understand what was going on with this. was it an affirmation of the bfm2k, or was it saying that the bfm2k was the maximum? i didnt know. i dont believe that many around me understood it either. then, when i heard jeremy and dwight and others debate it....i thought..this must be an attempt to make the bfm2k a maximum standard. after the vote was taken, i sought out bart barber and asked him and matt brady what had just happened. they both immediately responded that the statement did nothing but affirm the bfm2k as our minimal standard of beleif.
there....i feel better....confession is good for the soul. i didnt understand it either. and, i was there.
david
Wade,
I agree.
Anyone who read the motion and carefully listened to both sides should have had no difficulty understanding the issue and its significance. Both sides presented their view succinctly and clearly.
Your comments on Dr. Hardaway’s speaking against the motion is misleading at best and disingenuous at worst. Dr. Hardaway does not morally equate tongues with divorce, tobacco and alcohol. He equates them functionally in the debate over issues not covered in the Baptist Faith & Message. This appears to be a smear tactic you are using to dissuade people from truly understanding the argument.
Secondly, you negatively broad-brush everyone who disagrees with your interpretation of the vote as a Fundamentalist. Again, you continue to use a negative smear tactic to disparage those who disagree with you. I am assuming you also mean to call Chuck Kelly, Danny Akin, Albert Mohler, Hershael York as well as professor Hardaway as a Fundamentalist in the same vein as J. Frank Norris. Again, your smear is not a helpful one for cooperation or unity in the convention, beyond the fact that it is inaccurate.
Furthermore, you state of these Fundamentalists “they are attempting to make EVERYTHING a ‘doctrinal’ issue and dismiss from service anyone who disagrees.” You broad-brush and generalize again and offer no evidence. Please put on the table for us what Drs. Kelly, Akin, Patterson, Mohler, York et al. have said publicly or put in writing that substantiates this last claim.
Wade, you may indeed have put your finger on an issue that needs to be addressed. But you use a brush to paint those who disagree with you that is too broad and misleading.
From listening to the responses of the Convention to Drs. Kelly, Mohler and Akin’s reports, the Convention does not necessarily agree with your take on the motion. I can guarantee that many did not comprehend what you and those you worked with to bring the motion meant by it.
What are the issues you fear these men are going to impose? How are they limiting legitimate doctrinal freedom, specifically and currently? Since you have moved the debate beyond your own woes at the IMB, I am looking for specific evidence from the men mentioned above.
You also suggest that these men are seeking to change “the doctrinal parameters 'out of the view of the entire Southern Baptist Convention.'” What evidence do you have of this? What are these men doing, specifically to substantiate this broad-brushed view? I’m not asking antagonistically. I am genuinely interested in what you know that is fueling you to make these broad and so far, unsubstantiated claims.
What doctrinal parameters does Albert Mohler want to change out of the view of the Southern Baptist Convention and how do you know that?
Your suggestion that men “booed” and “hissed” is an exaggeration. I was there and heard the shouts of “no.” Obviously, by Dr. Page’s own admission, the vote was not as clear as you suggest.
Wade, if these men are suggesting that no amount of liberty can be expressed on secondary issues while also being on a board of a Convention agency, then I am deeply concerned about our ability to cooperate as Southern Baptists. Are you suggesting that Albert Mohler, Chuck Kelly, Danny Akin, Richard Land, Paige Patterson, and others you have pin-pointed negatively as Fundamentalists all hold to the doctrinal issues that began your struggle with the IMB? Knowing a number of board members who don’t necessarily see eye to eye on several issues, I don’t yet personally agree with your blanket assertion.
I began reading your blog here and there about a year ago. You decry the labeling markers that some have tried to pin on you. You suggest that if one disagrees with any Convention head they are negatively marked. To be honest, in reading your posts over the past few days, it appears to me that you perhaps are becoming (attitudinally) the very thing you are decrying.
Only a very few years ago it seemed sufficient for all missionaries and Convention leaders to sign the Baptist Faith and Message as a statement of loyalty to Christ and the Convention. Now other doctrines are beginning to be required aside from our adopted confession. It causes one to ask, "Where does it end?"
During the conservative resurgence, those of us in leadership repeated again and again that the issue at hand was the "authority of God's Word." We specifically stated that "the resurgence is not about the interpretation of God's Word.
Now that we have clarified and solidified what we think about the authority of God's Word, we are struggling with the temptation to lay down certain interpretations for defining a true Southern Baptist compared to a maverick Southern Baptist. For Jesus' sake, and the sake of his Kingdom on earth, we must not make every doctrinal issue a crusade or political football.
(Emphasis mine)
If I am not mistaken, Dr. Chapman called for the convention to lay down guidelines which would require trustees to adhere exclusively to the Baptist Faith and Message, and anything that any trustee board wanted to cover that the BFM didn't specifically deal with needed to be brought to the convention for approval.
I hear some deja vu in the statement that the messengers were confused and didn't know exactly what they were voting for, or that this motion doesn't mean what it really means. It's the same rhetoric that used to enrage the leaders of the conservative resurgence when moderates still controlled trustee boards and tried to re-interpret convention votes that went in favor of the conservatives.
The tone and demeanor of those who were opposed to this motion confirms, as far as I am concerned, that Lifeway's research showing that 50% of Southern Baptist pastors believe that people are gifted with a private prayer language is accurate. They are afraid, for whatever reason, for that to come to the floor of the convention for a vote.
Please note that the comments in my previous post in italics are the words of Dr. Morris Chapman, from his speech earlier that day.
It’s interesting what Ben Cole had to say about it:
“I will grant that the messengers may not have been clear, and surely some of those who spoke for and against the motion were not.”
Wade:
I don't want to sound like I'm feasting on sour grapes, but I would like to know what "rule" mean. Could you locate the "rule" for me that says that when the President recognized the person at mike 5 to speak against the motion that the other messenger didn't have to let me speak? If that is so, why do the microphones register a "For" and an "Against" at the same time? If your "rule" were really a rule, there would be only one button pushed at a time. But that is not the case. Because the president alternates for and against, he has the right to call on each mike individually and the person at that mike who is there to speak for or against as he recognizes. Imagine, if you will, that I had been the only person in the room against it. All the other mikes have only people for the motion. I am second in line at my mike, but I am the only one against it. By your "rule" no one would ever get to speak against it.
So say what it is. The teller there didn't allow me to the mike and Art did as he had been instructed to do in the previous night's strategy session. Come on, man. Just say what it is.
Wade
I understand your point. I certainly felt I understood the intent of the motion from Rick’s intent (You made it very clear what your intent was in a previous post) However, I felt all along that the motion could be interpreted one of two ways, as it is. I voted against it because I obviously disagree with the BFM2000 being THE standard for polity and standards for institutions, boards and entities to use. I have no problem with it as a guide and a MINIMUM standard, yet as the exhaustive standard, that is simply silly IMHO. I do understand why Bart did not vote against it, simply because the text of the motion changes nothing, again, IMHO. The problem here seems to me to be that there is to much left for interpretation...It is kind of like the Glorieta Statement. By that I mean it depends on who is using it and who is hearing it. There is no doubt that there needs to be some clarification brought to bear next year. But if the prevailing opinion of Dr. Mohler and Kelly are representative of our entities response to this motion, then you folks have no other option but to elect "Your Kind" of Presidents and mimic what took place during the CR. This is the only way men like Mohler, Patterson, Kelly etc, will be replaced. As you well know, to quote Paul Pressler "The lifeblood of the SBC is the appointee system, and we must GO FOR THE JUGULAR" (Not a exact quote but close enough). This was how change was brought to bear in the past and it is the only way you will change things now. History teaches us that you do not change the SBC by motions, resolutions and edicts form the convention floor. I do not believe you can do this (elect your kind of president time and again in the next 6-8 years) for 2 reasons.
1) Contrary to 1979, I do not believe that yours is the prevailing opinion of grass roots Southern Baptists who are willing to pay the price and make the trip to the convention. I think Texas was your best hope at beginning the process and with the election of Jim Richards I do believe in this you have failed.
2) Already your leadership seems to be abandoning ship. (Duren, Cole, Rogers) I am not saying I blame them. They have put forth a Herculean effort and for what? A Unclear motion that both sides claim as victory? You are a formidable and reputable leader...but who will you garner to fight this fight with you?
I believe that next year in Indianapolis we will see the clarification that is needed on this resolution and on the election of a President that will not take us back to the theolgical ambiguity of the SBC of the 70's and before.
I do take some measure of hope in and that this little disagreement on the most part is one among friends and brothers. I do count you a friend and appreciate you. Take away the few points of disagreement over polity and procedure of the SBC and as you once said to me "We are 2 peas in a pod"
I end my comment with a question for you Wade. If Al Mohler is nominated and elected President next year...what then would your opinion be of Southern Baptists take on this resolution and the direction of the SBC be?
Jack
What a public service, putting this part of the convention's work out here for all to see. I see the logic of the "nays" who posted here, but it is too easy for the IMB or seminaries to come to the convention (or at least the ExComm?) and get permission to exceed the BF&M if they think it important enough. C'mon, guys, if it is important enough to tell committed missionaries or instructors "No," then it is important enough to get clearance in public first. We have a structure in place - use it (and TRUST it!)
Steve Austin
Hoptown, Ky.
David: As an Alabama resident who flunked out of his freshman year of college, I believe I'm entitled to be as big a Bubba as anybody.
I think I understood it.
The explanations in favor and particularly those opposed to the motion indicate to me that the messengers understood exactly the ramifications and purpose of the motion. I understand why there is so much opposition to this motion in the blog world. Folks who thought their idea of an ever narrower SBC was generally accepted are finding out that it is not.
I especially appreciated Bob Cleveland's story about learning that the priesthood of the believer is the essential Baptist distinctive. I learned the same thing when I was young. At the time I learned this, the SBC was growing rapidly and had bold plans for reaching the world for Christ. We are in danger now of being known not for the reponsibility of each believer before God but for our insistence on uniformity on every doctrine. Disagreement on some issues is not "theological ambiguity" it is acknowleging the truth of scripture when it says we know now only in part.
I also understand that some who oppose the motion and prefer adding specific rules would like to codify the results of the resurgence so liberalism cannot get a foot hold again. I am in agreement with the ends, but not the means. The only way liberalism will ever take hold again would be for a liberal candidate for President of the SBC to be supported by a majority of messengers. If this happens, any rules put in place now can just as easily be rescinded. The impulse to codify conservatism is understandable, but I genuinely believe it has been and will continue to be counterproductive.
Another problem of course is that there is not a consensus on some of the positions that have been implemented and enforced by those who want to guard conservative values in the SBC. Personally, I don't see private prayer language or women teaching in seminaries or not moving toward a landmark view of baptism as a drift toward liberalism. I see it as a sign of a confident forward looking group of believers who are willing to agree to disagree on less important and/or disputable doctrines.
Wade, you write: "...a few are so bold as to suggest that the adoption of the statement does not mean what those of us who voted for it understood it to mean..."
I think a better representation of this is that they "suggest that the statement does not actually say what those of who planned the motion intend it to mean..."
Further: "...the debate shows very clearly that SBC messengers present in the hall knew EXACTLY what they were doing...I have a very hard time understanding how anyone can listen to the debate, or read the words of this transcript, and say anyone was confused on what we voted upon."
There is a fallacy in your logic. The messengers present in the hall (if they could hear and were paying attention) evidently knew what a few people said. The transcript of the debate has no ability to prove that all the messengers KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE DOING. In addition to this: (1) some messengers have stated they did not really understand the motion; and (2) Ben Cole, who credits himself with devising the plan to pass this motion, believes that "...at any given moment there are only a handful of people who know what’s happening in the Southern Baptist Convention. Most messengers are woefully ill informed and happily so."
Finally, Bro. McKissic said that "...decisions are being made that are not consistent or compatabile with this document that affects the identity and image of our church." How can we say that decisions on things not addressed in the BFM are inherently inconsistent and incompatible with it? Evidently those in favor of the motion believe that these decisions are inconsistent and incompatible with how they think the BFM ought to be used.
Stephen
You said
"Folks who thought their idea of an ever narrower SBC was generally accepted are finding out that it is not. "
I do not mean to be overly simplistic, but Wade made it pretty clear that if one was to vote for Jim Richards then it was an endorsement of a 'narrow" SBC. However, it would seem the convention thought different. On this there can be no confusion. When Mac Brunson said "He is one of us" then it was pretty clear to what Jim stood for. The messengers voted. A 2/3 margin of victory...i.e. ..a land slide.
I believe this vote shows us very clearly that the SNC is very pleased with the work being done by the entities and the leadership we have been and our being provided. If Bro. David Rogers would have one I will assure you that Wade would be stating otherwise and claiming that the convention had spoken conserving a plethora of issues that he is in favor of and has endorsed...and he would be correct.
Jack
Wade:
I just listened to the streaming video of the session in question.
I don't think those speaking either "pro" or "con" were raising the same issues.
For example:
---
Rick Garner said "the BF&M 2K is 'sufficient' "
Jeremy Green said "the BF&M 2K is 'sufficient' but it is not the only guide the agencies should use". Robin Haddaway said essentially the same thing that Jeremy did.
To come to the conclusion that Rick vs. Jeremy/Robin are taking opposite sides on the same issue Rick would have had to have said: "the BF&M 2K is 'sufficient" and NO OTHER DOCUMENT OR INPUT can be used by the agencies in framing policy"
Notice both sides said that the BF&M is “sufficient”. So the argument must be over other stuff being used by the agencies besides the BF&M. The resolution did not explicitly address other stuff outside of the BF&M. That is why there is so much ambiguity as to working out the practical meaning of the resolution.
---
Bob Cleveland said that the BF&M is not in the critical path since the agencies should make their own rules based upon input from the convention
---
The lady from Mountain View California didn't even raise "sufficiency". Her issue was between the BF&M 1963 vs. 2000.
--
Dwight said the parents should rule the kids. Meaning that the agencies should not be freelancing but should follow what the SBC at large says in the BF&M. He didn't directly address "sufficiency" but implied that the BF&M was sufficient. I would say that what Dwight says implies that he sees the “meaning” of the resolution the same way that Rick Garner does.
In summary, I think it is “evident” that those speaking on opposite sides of the issue were not taking diametrically opposite views on the same subject. Each of them was speaking only to some particular facet of the total problem space. I believe there was common understanding of the issue between selected people on a given side. However, there was certainly was no common understanding across speakers on both sides of the issue as to what the “meaning” of the resolution was. Key to this lapse of understanding is that the document did not specifically engage other input/documents besides the BF&M being used by the agencies. Thus the resolution was too vague to cut to the core of the controversy.
Roger Simpson
Oklahoma City OK
Truly if it wasn't for blogging, I would have no earthly idea of what went on last week in Texas. That alone, makes me fan. Although as a layman with a finite amount of available time, I will take a missions trip, a conference such as Together for the Gospel, or Vacation Bible School before I would ever go to a convention. For me the BFM is adequate in order to keep up the big tent of the SBC. Although my local congregation doesn't need as big a tent so I'll take the 1689 London Baptist Confession. Wade, do you ever see a day where I would have to "get permission" to have this non-BFM confession for my church?
And I do hope that everyone enjoys their day tomorrow. My family is bringing three unsaved friends and while I don't know how the Lord will work, I do know they will hear the Gospel. Meaning, they're not going to hear ten steps to finanical peace or even for tomorrow, how to be a godly dad. They'll be hearing Christ crucified for the sins of men, which in turn will result in financial peace and being a godly dad as we get to know Him through His Word.
John in 93 degree St. Louis today
Rksokc66: Wow. What a wonderful example of great terminological inexactitude. I didn't say what you said, at all.
I'm dizzy; spin does that to me.
Ditto to Roger concerning the resolution being to vague...we must have clarification next year or else just let it ride! (I am ok with that! : ) )
Jack
Bob Cleveland:
I listened to each of the speakers -- including you -- and took notes. I summarized the salient points of each speaker.
I'm sorry if I didn't correctly summarize what you said. I don't know what part of my summary I need to recant to make it correct.
I thought the essence of your comments was that regardless of the BF&M the agencies should respond directly to the will of the SBC membership at large. You said "go straight to the agencies the BFM should not be touched"
I apologize if I have incorrectly construed your comments.
Roger Simpson
Oklahoma City OK
Bob,
Thanks for your honesty about being one of the ones hollering at the chair (shame on you too :) ).
I have reflected in the post a more accurate picture of who was booing.
Thanks.
Volfann007,
For you to read the actual transcipt of the debate and than say, "The motion did nothing but affirm the bfm2k as our minimal standard of beleif (sic)" causes me to wonder if I showed you a black coat you would say it's white. I don't know what else to do except possibly give one of Debbie's patented 'sighs.'
:)
docjoc,
Thank you for your honest evaluation of the debate.
Your words give me hope that people are actually responding to the authority of the convention.
Bret Capranica,
Thanks for your comment.
I definitely do not wish to broadbrush everyone and will do all I can to simply single out the people involved.
Please understand, I would fight tooth and toenail for Dr. Hadaway to believe what he believes and have no interest in trying to convince him differently.
I just don't want him to demand others believe the way he does.
I appreciate your rebuke and receive it.
I will redouble all my efforts to not become that which I decry. I sincerely do love and respect everyone who disagrees with me.
And look forward to continued cooperative ministry with them. They, however, will need to get used to me standing up to anyone who attempts to remove from service anyone who disagrees with them.
In His Grace,
Wade
Lee,
You said, "I hear some deja vu in the statement that the messengers were confused and didn't know exactly what they were voting for, or that this motion doesn't mean what it really means. It's the same rhetoric that used to enrage the leaders of the conservative resurgence when moderates still controlled trustee boards and tried to re-interpret convention votes that went in favor of the conservatives."
Thanks for the historical perspective.
BFM simply cannot be our "only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs" because the BFM limits itself on what its application is.
For example, before I left MBTS, the faculty application included(with backup documentation from previous SBC resolutions, motions and stands) questions about women pastors, alcohol, abortion, homosexuality, work ethic and application of their faith in witnessing. Some of these questions were applied to non-teaching positions as well. Please note that ALL these questions/issues have an underlying doctrinal basis. So are we(the trustees) to no longer "fine tune" and tailor our questions of prospective employees to cultural issues facing us today? If the convention has to "approve" every "so-called doctrinal issue"...then let's get rid of the trustees...they're not needed to set policy. We can bring ALL the policy and financial questions before the SBC every JUNE. How ridiculous!
Trustees are my "Congressman" who follow the BFM, and don't act contrary to it, but may set policy as needed for the institution where they serve.
FURTHER, the motion that the BFM is not "a complete statement of faith" can only mean that we have other supplemental "consensus" statements. While the BFM has a unique and primary place...but it is undeniably not the only one. Look at previous resolutions, motions, and directives that the Comm. on Nominations has guided itself by...thus trustee bodies have done the same. A vote by the SBC in June is clearly a "consensus statement" at a level consistent with SBC beliefs(BFM) and not contrary to it.
This motion was proposed and "pushed" by the "broaden the tent"(to include PPL and baptism changes) group. Are we to think that this group is not trying to change a direction of the SBC? It is not that the SBC leadership is trying to "narrow" anything(rather further define ourselves)...but that the "newbies" want to broaden the SBC to something it has NEVER been before(in leadership).
A church constitution/bylaws cannot deal with everything in membership or leadership...thus the leadership of pastor/deacons/elders is further defined and requirements placed for leadership. So too does the SBC function and the trustees need to apply the standards they desire for the SBC agency in responding to cultural issues "not contrary to" the BFM.
Some positions have been "understood" as Southern Baptist for years, i.e., drinking in moderation and PPL. Only because these were introduced and debated at a recent convention do Southern Baptists feel the Biblical necessity to address these issues...not specifically addressed in the BFM.
Hershael,
You are giving me way to much credit.
I was told that the pages and microphone monitors were instructed that the people at the microphones first were to stay at the microphone until they were able to speak -- except for point of orders. In other words, an 'against' could not jump in front of a 'for' just because he wanted to.
However, I freely admit I may be wrong on the rule given to the microphone monitors. I am just relaying what I was told.
In His Grace,
Wade
P.S. By the way, I think you know by now I have no qualms telling it like I believe it to be. :)
Wade,
You said, "I personally think it is in poor taste to question the intelligence or wisdom of Southern Baptist messengers just because the majority did something different than the minority would have desired."
Talk about grasping at staws? Those who broach the Barberistic logic of "the messengers aren't smart enough to know what's going on" ought to be ashamed of themselves.
In America, youth has always looked at older persons with something approaching less than respect. I expect this attitude of non-Christ followers, but I expected more of young SBC "leaders".
Les
let's just remember that things were happening a whole lot faster when it was live at the sbc than it is looking at a cold transcript...where you can sit and ponder on the whole deal for a little while.
sigh
david
Mr. Jack Maddox,
I was just waiting for a comment like yours. Read very, very carefully this EXACT QUOTE from the nomination speech of Mack Brunson for Jim Richards:
Jim Richards is one of us. As leader of the SBTOC he has led that convention in eights years to build from 120 churches to 1,895. They are Hispanic, African American, Anglo, Asian. They are non-Calvinists, Calvinists, Charismatic, Cessationist. They are Purpose Driven, They are Cowboy churches (but every church in Texas is a cowboy church). They are mega churches, they are house churches. And let me tell you something, if that's not cooperation and reaching across the aisle . . . Listen, that's not just reaching across the aisle, that's gettin into the other pew!"
Amen. Jim Richards is a man with a broad understanding of what it means to be a Southern Baptist. I was wrong about him, and I look forward to his continued leadership in our convention as he places the people in these churches he has established onto the mission field of the Southern Baptist Convention.
It seems, according to Mack, that Jim Richards is just like me.
:)
wade,
i have noticed that you still have not responded to the statement that dr. frank page made to a reporter that he also believes that the x committee's statement about the bfm2k was to make it a minimal standard of belief!
david
Volfann, I have not seen the report, nor do I need to see the report. I can assure you I know what Frank believes by personally talking to him.
EUREKA WADE!!!!
PRAISE THE LORD!!!!
YOU FINALLY "GET IT" !!!!
You admit then that men like Jim Richards, Al Mohler, Paige Patterson, Danny Akin, I could go on and on, are not "Spooky Fundamentalist" who wish to "Narrow" the parameters of cooperation!
I knew you would come to your senses : )
Jack
Vol,
There are some people in Alabama with your level of cognitive ability, but I don't think that their parents would let them ditch their pre-school classes to come to the SBC in San Antonio. And if they did, I don't think they would have made it passed the credentials committee in order to vote.
cb
Jack,
I promise you, if what Mack said is true, there will be no problem from me.
What he said is what I have been pushing for during the last two years.
Just a question for you:
If Jim Richards starts (or welcomes) 'Charismatic Southern Baptist Churches' in the SBCOT and receives their CP money, will he also be in favor those men and women called to the mission field from those churches be appointed by the International Mission Board?
Just asking.
Nativevermonter wrote: My family is bringing three unsaved friends and while I don't know how the Lord will work, I do know they will hear the Gospel. Meaning, they're not going to hear ten steps to finanical peace or even for tomorrow, how to be a godly dad. They'll be hearing Christ crucified for the sins of men, which in turn will result in financial peace and being a godly dad as we get to know Him through His Word."
AMEN!
The SBC is so BROAD that it encompasses everything from seeker Warren copy cats to Jeff Noblit.
In the end, the BF&M does not really matter. God is Sovereign and He Who starts a good work, finishes it.
Jack Maddox said, "The lifeblood of the SBC is the appointee system, and we must GO FOR THE JUGULAR" (Not a exact quote but close enough). This was how change was brought to bear in the past and it is the only way you will change things now. History teaches us that you do not change the SBC by motions, resolutions and edicts form the convention floor. I do not believe you can do this...
Bro, I don't know you and you don't know me so I just want to say upfront that I truly mean no offense here, but this statement really bothered me. It sounds like you're putting God in a box.
God's never been one to be tied down by our "traditions" or by "history" or "what it teaches" or even by our own inabilities. So it really doesn't matter how things have been accomplished or how power has been usurped and retained in the past. If God desires the things on Wade's (and many other's) heart to succeed in the SBC, they will. And most likely they will be accomplished in a way that those in power have never managed (even with all their might and struggling); in a way that blows all that "history teaches us..." stuff out of the water, because that tends to be the way He shows us it was Him working it all out and not us. And that it's His will being done, not ours.
Wade
What a wonderfully insightful question!
You would need to ask Jim. He is a very accessible man. In my opinion, and it is just that, I believe that he believes in and trusts the trustee system and would say that the convention has a system for dealing with these issues. I would also say that he would agree that the BFM2000 is a MINIMAL standard for our entities to utilize as a GUIDE in their operations. But again, I would say you would have to ask him. I would also say that I think that the baptism issue (which we have heard little about here of late) may be a bigger issue to him, but again, I do not speak for him. Perhaps you would do well to read the resolution passed by the SBTC concerning Glossolalia. I would dare say as our executive director that he would not stand in opposition to this resolution. But again, just my opinion.
Jack
Wade,
I just posted a video from this over at sbcVoices.blogspot.com
cb,
what do you mean? i done graduated the fifth grade. i'm a double naught spy. why, i might even be a brain surgeon one day. do you mean that people go past the fifth grade in alabama? why, i never!
david :)
What I find hilarious in this post (and others since the convention) is the belief that "we" lost on the BFM resolution.
Even though many messengers were confused (based on all the blogs - including Ben Cole's), nothing in the text causes us any difficulty. Since it is clearly vague :) we who hold to the BFM being a minimal doctrinal guide and not a maximal doctrinal creed can clearly support this resolution (though not the pontifications thereof).
Blessings,
Ron P.
Colin,
Ben and I don't always see eye to eye. I consider him a good friend, but he writes what he writes, and I write what I write.
I want nothing more, nothing less, than the SBC to be more accepting and cooperative with Southern Baptists of diversity and differences.
That's all.
We are getting there.
Why should Dwight McKissic speak rather than I? Simple. I don't need to speak. I am not the one being cut out. I have no dog in this hunt for I have no private prayer language. Dwight is the man that people like Dr. Hadaway are saying should not represent Southern Baptists.
I disagree and felt the convention should hear Dwight's heart. As far as Roger's opinion, I appreciate his comments. I think he is putting his finger on the 'sufficiency' issue. Everyone calls it sufficient --
The question is 'do we need more than the BFM in terms of doctrine?' Those who say 'yes' emphasize the word 'guide' and say we need MORE doctrinal statements in order to determine Baptist identity and fitness for service.
I say we don't and will be offering a statement of cooperation soon.
wade,
also, if you talked to frank page about this issue...pray tell how he responded so that we can all know what he said to you. was it different than what the reporter said? inquiring minds like to know.
david
Volfann,
Frank Page believes that the doctrinal requisites for service do not need to be narrowed beyond the BFM. I don't answer for reporters or what they write.
Vol,
I know.
cb
Folks,
I am going to bed. I believe we are making progress.
There are those who wish to use the BFM 2000 as the floor or minimal doctrinal standard for cooperation, and thereby adding to the BFM 2000 through additional doctrinal guidelines and policies to reflect their interpretations of secondary and tertiary doctrines not found in the BFM 2000. Their view would narrowly define Southern Baptist eligibility for missions service 'de facto' through those policies and guidelines.
The Conventon spoke this past week and said that agencies, entities and institutions of the Southern Baptist Conventon should NOT narrow the doctrinal parameters of SBC cooperation without SBC convention approval.
People are beginning to see the issues more and more clearly.
For that I am glad.
Wade,
you said, "I personally think it is in poor taste to question the intelligence or wisdom of Southern Baptist messengers just because the majority did something different than the minority would have desired."
How do you respond that you did this, (and still do indirectly) regarding IMB trustees? You seem to talk out of both sides of your mouth sometimes.
What say you?
Wade,
Baptist Theologue said...
It’s interesting what Ben Cole had to say about it:
“I will grant that the messengers may not have been clear, and surely some of those who spoke for and against the motion were not.”
What say you?
wade,
here is the quote from tim guthrie's blog concerning dr. page....
"One reporter asked Page if he was saying that "when the BF&M is silent on a subject" that an entity "should not take action in any way that goes beyond the BF&M.""No, that's not what I said," Page said. "I said in doctrinal parameters I think they need to be very careful in moving past them. We do respect the trustee system and if they do, they do have that right. I simply said I urge them not to go beyond doctrinal parameters. There are multitudes of issues that trustees have to deal with as regarding personnel, regarding issues of all kinds that may not be directly doctrinal at all." (emphasis added by me)."
so, is dr. page saying the same thing as you?
david
Anonymous,
I have never ever questioned the intelligence or wisdom of my fellow trustees --
I have simply told them that we are accountable to the convention, and we cannot do those things which the convention has not given us authority to do. I have always said if, or when, the convention affirms their action and says I am wrong, then I will acquiesce to the wishes of the convention.
It seems the convention has affirmed what I have been saying all along.
lu
No offense taken at all. I agree with everything you have said. In essence you are saying that God can do what He wants when He wants however He wants.
Agreed
My comments of course were meant with regards to the context of political activity within the SBC and the means to an end that is taken to change the trustee boards of our convention. Again however, you are right sir! And should God use some other way that the constitution of our convention dictates, then of course I will be the first to shout AMEN!
Jack
Oh, geez... I'm tired. I forgot the main reason I came into the comment section!
Thank you, Wade, for putting up this transcript. For some reason my Mac (NO comments from PC lovers please) just doesn't like the SBC video site and I haven't been able to watch any of the archives from this week (or watch it live for that matter). Nor can I watch them at work because the company I work for blocks all videos (I guess the want us to do some work or something, imagine!).
Reading the transcript here cleared up a lot of confusion for me. Although I do wish the motion had been the whole of Morris Chapman's speech rather than just the one statement. :) That would have cleared up ALL the confusion. ;)
Colin,
Ben's recollection is not necessarily the same as mine in that my name was never brought into the discussion as I recall. In fact, it was Ben's motion, and though someone suggested that he not present the motion, I told him I think he ought to present it.
I think you should know by now I am never afraid to speak my mind. I just choose to not always speak my mind.
In His Grace,
Wade
Good night.
I mean it this time.
:)
I wish everone a great Lord's Day.
Wade,
So now that we are clear on the 2000 BF&M being sufficient, isn't it time for the moderates who post on you blog to accept the action of the convention and move on in doing the Master's business? I have listened for over a year how a little group of Fundamentalists shoved the 2000 BF&M down our throats. How it violated moderates' consciences and thus they refused to sign it. It is time to quit demonizing the 2000 BF&M.
If the convention has spoken, and you are certainly spending time communicating that to us, then lead out and defend it against those who continue to rant and rail against it!
You can't have it both ways. Either the 2000 BF&M is sufficient or it not. I am willing to let the 2000 BF&M be our statement of faith and guide our agencies and boards, but I am sick and tired of the bellyaching from those who have made it their mission in life to demonize everything that happened during the Conservative Resurgence. Enough already!
"Those who broach the Barberistic logic of 'the messengers aren't smart enough to know what's going on' ought to be ashamed of themselves." Les, will you consistently apply this to Ben as well as Bart? What do you think about messengers who have said they didn't understand the implications of the motion?
CB,
You should change your photo. You looked much more "sfitcat'd" in the black t-shirt!
bloginafogpastor
Rex Ray said…
Jack Maddox, said “…next year…we will see…the election of a President that will not take us back to the theological ambiguity of the SBC of the 70’s and before.”
Stephen Pruett said… “…some who opposed the motion and prefer adding specific rules would like to codify the results of the resurgence so liberalism cannot get a foot hold again…The only way liberalism will ever take hold again would be for a liberal candidate for President of the SBC to be supported by a majority of messengers.”
The forever jabs that people make to glorify the resurgence irks me to no end.
Jack, will you make a list of “theological ambiguity” you referred to that you claim were in the 70’s? For ever one you can prove, I will name two events that show the resurgence has led to legalism.
Let’s see now. On Tuesday, you said, “I challenge you; again I challenge you to find one time he [Jim Richards] has spoken with the degree of shrillness and un Christ like rhetoric that you have shown him.” The next day, I replied, and here it is Sunday, and you have not defended your challenge. I guess you’ve been busy getting egg off your face...(On another subject). Your only reply to me was: “One does not have to try very hard to make your comments into a joke”
It’s been brought out that the previous San Antonio SBC had 32,727 messengers, and this year it was around 8,000 with only half of them voting on some issues.
WHAT HAS HAPPENED? What has the resurgence done that Baptists no longer care what goes on? I’ll tell you why. Baptists care about MISSIONS period. They don’t care about fussing when a baby reaches accountability and a lot of theology that doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. They don’t care about someone’s “theology purity.”
The other day, a Christian held up his thumb and finger and told me, “I’m about this far from leaving the SBC.” WAKE UP!
I didn’t quote all that Pruett said. He said, “I especially appreciated Bob Cleveland’s story about learning that the priesthood of the believer is essential Baptist distinctive…the SBC was growing rapidly and had bold plans for reaching the world for Christ. We are in danger NOW of being known not for the responsibility of each believer before God but for our insistence on uniformity of every doctrine. Disagreement on some issues is not “theological ambiguity” [Hear that Jack?] it is acknowledging the truth of Scripture when it says we know now only in part.”
Jim Paslay,
I tried to post the above, but it wouldn’t go. Now I’ve read your comment about you getting “sick and tired.”
Do you agree with Jim Richards? who said, “Those who depart theologically will be identified and called to repent.”
I hope that repentance is not like that of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, who punished his hand for signing a paper he believed untrue. He held his hand in flames so it burned before he was consumed. His crime was that his theology was different from his Christian brother.
David007
Apparently you have not been quoted in the media because if so you would pick up on what Brother Wade is saying. There is no such thing as unbiased media so the spin or slant is always made by the writer.
Karen
David007,
P.S. Even in our beloved Baptist Press.
Karen
Chuck,
It is a fact that I did "dress down" for the very first time in my life at the SBC this year. Nevertheless, you did not see me in a t-shirt at the convention.
You must have me confused with another person. There were many old white headed men there:-) I am sure it was an honest error on your part due to such a greaty sea of white hair. Maybe I should dye my hair like _______________:-)
cb
CB: I'm not all that aware of what's going on around me, but I think I had the only black T-Shirt .. it was witness-wear .. at the convention. Methinks Chuck confused you with me. Or me with you.
One of us ought to be worried about that. I'm not sure who.
i think that he got bob and cb confused as well. or, he might have gotten cb and me confused... i dont know. did you think that i was cb? :)
karen,
you are very right...the news media does get things wrong at times...people are misquoted... and, some people, even talking to someone in person, can hear only what they want to hear. you are right.
david
Jack Maddox said
"When Mac Brunson said "He is one of us" then it was pretty clear to what Jim stood for. The messengers voted. A 2/3 margin of victory...i.e. ..a land slide.
Jim Richard's vote total was only 27% of the registered messengers at the convention. I wouldn't say that there was much meaning in his election, during a late afternoon business session when the majority of messengers had left the hall, leaving a clump of Southwestern students and the folks from nearby SBTC congregations that just came in to vote for "Brother Jim." Very few of those people were around in the evening session.
Jack Maddox said:
"I believe that next year in Indianapolis we will see the clarification that is needed on this resolution and on the election of a President that will not take us back to the theolgical ambiguity of the SBC of the 70's and before.
I'm going to be looking at the record of support for the Cooperative Program from any potential SBC presidential candidate in Indianapolis next year. That's the bottom line for me, and if those of you who spun Frank Page's election in that direction last year, it is apparently the bottom line for the majority of the convention.
Here is Dr. Page's statement that denies what Wade is saying (it is from Baptist Press):
"One reporter asked Page if he was saying that "when the BF&M is silent on a subject" that an entity "should not take action in any way that goes beyond the BF&M.""No, that's not what I said," Page said. "I said in doctrinal parameters I think they need to be very careful in moving past them. We do respect the trustee system and if they do, they do have that right. I simply said I urge them not to go beyond doctrinal parameters. There are multitudes of issues that trustees have to deal with as regarding personnel, regarding issues of all kinds that may not be directly doctrinal at all."
Pretty clear! At least I think so:)
Les,
Is someone blogging about this issue who cuts hair for a living? That must be what Les means by "Barberistic." I have nowhere suggested that the messengers aren't smart enough to know what is going on. Rather, I have simply pointed out that the text of the EC statement on the BF&M is vague and does not say what Bro. Wade and Bro. Les allege that it says. Dr. Chapman's sermon, on the other hand, was crystal clear. But we didn't vote on Dr. Chapman's sermon; we voted on the text of the EC statement.
If I'm questioning the intelligence of anybody, I guess it is whoever purportedly boiled down Dr. Chapman's sentiments into this vague, ineffective statement.
Dr. Barber,
The reason I have a hard time understanding your view that the motion is tootless is because everyone who usually takes your view of things spoke firmly against the motion (Jeremy Green, Dr. Hadaway), others who normally see things your way fought hard to try to speak against it (Dr. York, Dr. Land, etc . . . ), and there were 42% of the Southern Baptist messengers who voted AGAINST the motion -- they didn't vote against the debate or Dr. Chapman's message, they voted against the motion -- and yet, you say the motion means nothing.
If that is the case what were all these people speaking and voting against?
Your position makes no sense.
Mr. Guthrie,
The President said . . .
"I simply said I urge them not to go beyond doctrinal parameters."
Well, by george, that is what the convention also said . . .
Of course, by bylaw, the trustees and agencies can dictate whatever doctrines their employees must subscribe to -- THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE.
The issue is 'should they?'
The convention, the President and I all three say the same thing.
NO.
Wade,
I must comment on Robin Hadaway’s statement on the doctrine of divorce as it pertains to missionary appointments. The following is his statement.
"The IMB has long had a policy that divorced persons cannot be appointed as long-term missionaries. This is a doctrinal interpretation of I Timothy 3, and is also based upon the fact that divorced persons are not normally called to Southern Baptist pulpits in the USA and are especially problematic for our Baptist partners overseas."
Actually the IMB does appoint divorced persons as International Service Corps and Masters missionaries. Many of the divorced persons serve over 10 years and some much longer. They do all the ministries that our career missionaries do including teach the Bible, start churches and work with our Baptist partners. Those I have served with have been outstanding missionaries and representatives of the SBC. I am sure there were divorced persons serving as missionaries when Hadaway was a regional leader. This is one of the strange ways we have interpreted doctrine in the SBC and the IMB. Evidently our doctrinal watchdogs believe it is okay to serve as a missionary if you are a divorced person but you are not allowed to receive the same salary and retirement benefits as career missionaries. Is that what Hadaway is saying I Timothy 3 teaches? One of them many problems of the pseudo-conservative resurgence is that it has resulted in this type of thinking being used to interpret mission policy on the field and doctrine at our seminaries.
Ron West
I have learned two new words today: "Barberistic" and "tootless"
I will now use them in a sentence.
The motion is not only "tootless" but it is becoming a very hairy deal in the fact that it is "barberistic" in its debatable in nature:-)
Sorry, Wade, Bart, and Les. I just could not contain myself from such a tootless, barberistic temptation:-)
cb
Wade:
Your reply to Dr. Barber doesn't make any sense. You are not advancing your argument by invoking the fact that because x% of those voting voted a particular way, that this necessarily proves that any group or subgroup did or did not understand the motion.
No one on any side has advanced a plausible mechanism by which a correlation can be established between the vote tally and a finding that some specific group or groups either did or did not understand the motion.
Wade, I think that argumentation on both sides of this debate is becoming fogged over due to the recent dust storm in San Antonio.
It would be better to speak directly to the underlying issues rather than try to "over interpret" whatever happened in San Antonio. Personally, I believe that the San Antonio resolution was -- on balance -- worse than a waste of time. If it was only a waste of time then at least no harm would have been done.
As it is, there is now a perceived "burden of proof" that each side attaches to the meaningless resolution to embark on an exercise in futility to show that what ever happened actually supports their side in the debate.
Roger K. Simpson
Oklahoma City OK
CB,
I called my wife over to read your comment using your new-found words and we both are still rolling in laughter. I don't know Bart, but I'll bet you that Wade and Les get as big a kick out of as I have. [Probably Bart too.]
Thanks for a real belly laugh.
Wade,
Why did those people speak against it? I believe it is because they were reacting to the rhetoric rather than analyzing the actual statement. And I myself have told several of them as much.
BTW, several of them are starting to see it my way.
Oh yeah...it's "Bart", not "Dr. Barber." Thanks.
Sorry to get off track, but I would like to tell Volfan that I really appreciate his good humor and grace in a number of recent comments. I still disagree with you on some things, but if we were to sit down together I am certain our list of agreements would be much longer and the issues would be more important than those things about which we disagree.
All the best,
Stephen Pruett
Paul,
I agree...pretty funny.
Stephen:
Taking up on the irenic spirit that you introduce I'd like to say that I always enjoy reading your cogent comments.
I agree with 80%+ of the stuff you say. In terms of the "big picture" I'm 100% in agreement with you.
Roger Simpson
Oklahoma City OK
P.S. Volfan: I always enjoy your remarks also even though we may be see some things in a different light.
I have debated about whether or not I wanted to comment on this issue again. I have decided too because I would like to respond to one thing Wade said and then make a few other observations.
Wade said:
"I personally think it is in poor taste to question the intelligence or wisdom of Southern Baptist messengers just because the majority did something different than the minority would have desired."
Wade...what I cannot understand for the life of me is why you continue to ignore the MANY messengers who have said they did not understand what they were voting for? Numerous messegners have either written on blogs or spoken to others about their confusion.
Try to understand this Wade. No one is questioning the intelligence of the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention. When you make that comment, you are deceiving people. No one is questioning the intelligence of the messengers. THE MESSENGERS THEMSELVES ARE EXPRESSING THEIR CONFUSION! There are no evil men sitting around in a room questioning the messengers of this Convention.
I ask you to stop being disingenuous with your terminology. Why can't you admit that there are MANY messengers who are saying, without coercion, that they were confused?
I am thankful that Wade, Ben Cole, and others are now giving us the "complete" picture. I believe anyone, after reading what Ben Cole wrote about the behind-the-scenes antics of the Burleson coalition...can clearly see what took place at the Annual Meeting regarding this motion. The messengers of the Convention was deceived. Pure and simple.
The Burleson coalition know that if they said what they are saying now about this motion, the messengers would have shot it down. I mean, they have even acknowledge that if Wade Burleson or Ben Cole put forth this motion, it would have been shot down. That is why they had to go get someone else to "stand in" for them.
My fellow Southern Baptists, look around. All this motion has done is caused CONFUSION and CONFLICT. It was worded in a vague manner and put forth to the messengers in a dishonest manner.
Why do we keep doing this to ourselves? Are we not tired of this? I realize Wade and his followers may believe they have good intentions, but they are doing nothing but creating conflict in our Convention.
I know I have been frank in this post. I am simply telling it like I see it. I truly believe there is a group in this Convention that enjoys causing conflict and strife. They seem to thrive off it. It is appears to be good for their blogs.
However, they have NO DESIRE for cooperation and unity, because if they did, their actions would show it. You can always understand a person and a group by how they act when no one is looking. I believe this incident has shown Southern Baptists the true colors of the Wade Burleson coalition.
I PRAY that our Convention will send a message next year in Indy regarding this. May we finally put to end this strife.
Amen brother Tripp! You have nailed the core issues.
Fortunately, the Burleson coalition continues to be more and more brazen in their posts and we continue to see their real motives shine through. I do hope they continue to blog, because it highlights their arrogance and desire for conflict. Call it what you like Wade, Tripp has you nailed on this one.
Michele
Michelle,
I scratch my head trying to understand how you believe posting the transcript of the debate is brazen.
Tripp, I don't sense any conflict or confusion at all.
To exclude missionaries with the private prayer langauge or those who were baptized properly and Scipturally is wrong.
I'm simply correcting a wrong. And the convenion agrees.
Wade,
I think we are all fully aware of what is going on. :-)
More importantly, the Lord knows.
Thanks for your response.
Wade,
The Convention does not agree with what you just said. Once again, you are deceiving.
If we want to know what the Convention thinks about what you just mentioned...put forward a motion regarding it and lets have a vote.
You know what will happen if we did that though. That is why you won't do it and why you continue to engage in other antics.
Why can't you and those who support you just be straight forward with your motions? Why the need to hide behind people and limit debate?
Amen brother Wade! You have nailed the core issues.
Fortunately, the legalistic coalition continues to be more and more caustic in their posts and we continue to see their real motives shine through. I do hope they continue to post comments like Michile, because it highlights their arrogance and desire for conflict. Call it what you like Tripp and Michele, Wade has you nailed on this one.
Twipp,
Give it a break. Be a man.
Wade shows incredible integrity and grace in not coming back at you. Go post on your own blog.
Oh, wait a minute.
Nobody will read it.
Wade, thanks for being an example of patience. I'd kick Twipp off my own blog in a heartbeat.
michelle's brother,
Grace and peace to you.
Tripp
Twipp,
How about grace and peace from you to Wade?
I'm not asking for it for myself.
I'm asking you to give grace and peace to my brother who is definitely showing some to you.
How about it?
I feel like I have shown grace and peace.
One can be truthful and still show grace and peace. And that is what I did...I was truthful.
I am sorry if you disagree with what I said. I stand by what I said though.
Wade,
I haven't commented in a long time and I must admit, I haven't done so because holding my tongue seemed the only plausible response without sinning. Over and over again, in prior post, you were chastised because people who opposed you claimed the people of the SBC had spoken on various issues. Now that a clear debate has taken place, in which the transcripts themselves show those participating knew what was at stake, they go to the "nobody understood what we were voting on" card. There's a lot I could say regarding the hypocrisy such statements, not to mention how they reek with duplicity -- the very thing you've been accused of possessing. However, I believe I can say this with confidence -- if those who love debate, who stay on high alert, ready for the next battle, don't head the words of Morris Chapman and Ed Stetzer, you can kiss this convention goodbye. The full effects won't be felt for years to come, but our young leaders, who value obedience to the scriptures over endless theological debate, will continue to leave and fulfill the Lord's purpose for their lives elsewhere. I'm not a young leader anymore, but I deal primarily with younger generations, I can assure you they think much of what is talked about is growing tired and silly. If we don't wake up to a kingdom perspective soon, there won't be much to fight over.
Grace,
Jeff Parsons
Brother Tripp,
I think it would be beneficial to you if you went to the archives of the blog. I`m talking about all the way back to December 05 to the present.
If you would, I`m sure you would see Wade differently and you wouldn`t be commenting as you are today.
Give it a try........
Wade:
I'm not the most logical person in the world, but if messengers didn't understand what they were voting on, it's logical to assume that the ones who voted AGAINST the motion didn't understand it, either.
Can you say "duuuh....."?
Wade,
I was not there, but I watched the whole thing and talked to many people who were there. I think a lot of folks voted against it (and wanted to speak against it) because you and your compatriots were for it. And in politics, that's understandable.
But who's for it and who's against it, for whatever reason, does not change the fact that the statement is ambiguous and can be affirmed by all parties. Dr. Chapman's sermon is a legitimate way to interpret a vague statement. Dr. Mohler's report is a legitimate way to interpret a vague statement.
The fact is the statement itself does not reprimand the IMB trustee board, the SWBTS board, or any other board, either explicitely or implicitely. It makes a claim about the BF&M that I am sure 98% of all the trustees at all the boards would agree with, including the boards that have been criticized by you and others in the last year. The BF&M resolution is not a checkmate for either "side." Its a stalemate. Which means nothing changes.
It doesn't matter much anyway. Politically speaking, this was an "in between" convention where much of what happened took place behind the scenes. Indianapolis will be a better guage of where Southern Baptists are. At least the 8,000-10,000 who will be there. :-)
NAF
Tripp,
The CORE ISSUE is that fellow Baptists, brothers and sisters in Christ, have been denied an opportunity to serve as Southern Baptist missionaries and in other capacities because of their belief and practice regarding secondary and tertiary doctrines.
That is wrong. The folks who have made these decisions are wrong. I ask you this - What did our Lord say in Luke 9:50?
This wrong needs to be corrected, fellowship restored and we as Baptists must resolve to cooperate despite whatever differences we may have on the non-essentials.
Like many of you, I am also concerned about the future of the SBC. The LifeWay survey on tongues absolutely shocked me. I had no idea that such a high percentage of pastors in the SBC believe that speaking in tongues in private is a gift from God. Our convention is indeed very diverse on doctrines not covered by the BF&M. I’m wondering if we can stay together as a group. I hope that we can. Personally, I think we’ve analyzed the vote on the EC statement long enough. It’s time to move on. The statistics about generational differences in percentages of Christians in America are also shocking. We need to be asking ourselves why we have been so unsuccessful reaching teenagers and young adults. All of us agree that people become Christians by surrendering their lives to Christ in repentance and faith. We must concentrate on being used by God to bring more young folks into His Kingdom and into our local churches. In my opinion, our present lack of success in reaching teenagers and young adults will kill our denomination before our diversity on doctrines outside the BF&M will. For now, I’m content to let the trustees of our institutions deal with the EC statement until our convention speaks again next summer. Rather than beginning the campaign for the next convention fight, maybe those of us who blog should concentrate our efforts on the more pressing problem of evangelism that lies before us.
Bart, CB, and Paul,
Since I coined the word "barberistic," then I get to define it.
Barberistic: the state of acting or speaking like Bart Barber.
Smile, it ain't necessarily intended to be a bad thing. :)
Les
Livingdust,
I realize what the core issue is.
As I have said before, I have no problem with Southern Baptists disagreeing on tertiary doctrines. I do though believe the Convention needs to very clearly lay forth what it believes regarding primary and secondary doctines. I notice you seem to suggest we can disagree on secondary doctrines. I don't believe that should be the case. We need agreement on secondary doctrines.
The problem is that some of these issues; i.e. speaking in tongues, etc. are secondary doctrines to some people. Others see them as tertiary doctines. In my opinion, the Convention needs to settle this once and for all.
What I am speaking against on this thread is the manner in which the Burleson coalition presented this motion and the way in which this motion is now being used to give them cover to suggest what the Convention meant by it.
rksokc66, Thanks for your kind words. I am glad you only agree with me on 80% of what I write, because if I was estimating, I thinks it's unlikely that I am right in that high a percentage of my comments!
BT, Excellent comment! My son was raised in Baptist churches from the time he was 3 weeks old. He recently graduated from college and got married. He and his wife attend a Methodist church now. I am just glad that, unlike so many of our Baptist youth, he is still involved somewhere. I am torn between the concern that this conflict in the SBC is taking time and effort from important tasks like trying to understand why we are losing the next generation of Baptists and the idea that this particular conflict is necessary because it involves standing up to power on behalf of people who are being excluded from the calling and dream of their life for no good reason. I suppose my hope would be that we can debate in a civil manner and still exert our major efforts on the main thing.
Tripp, Could it be possible that Wade disagrees with you, but that he is not lying or deceving? Is it possible that he believes that most messengers understood exactly what the motion was about? After reading the transcript of the speakers for and against, I would suggest that most folks who were actually listening could discern the intentions of those speakers as well as I could. A few vocal bloggers who plead confusion is hardly a scientific sample and does not really establish anything. The only objective information is the final vote count and the clarity of the statements for and against the motion.
A. Reading the motion and the objections from the bloggers, one is constrained to note that not many of them, if any, have bothered to tell us what, exactly would have made it more clear. How would they have worded it?
B. Were I to start making comparisons, I might be inclined to compare and contrast other motions at this SBC or others. Is it any less clear than other motions regarding doctrinal matters, policies, etc.? It seems to me that if one is going to start saying "It isn't clear" from the opposing side of the aisle, that it might be pointed out that the objection proves too much, for it would apply with equal force to other motions as well.
C. As I read the motion, it seems quite clear, when both those for and against it were telling people explicitly what a vote for it would mean and what it would not mean.
D. I think confusion is arising not because the motion lacked clarity, but because it lacked precision. These are related, but distinguishable principles. Does "sufficient" mean it is maximal or minimal? Does it mean "only" standard?
a. But I suspect that one or both parties, one in particular, would be asking the question "what does 'maximal/minimal' mean? So, really, we're back to the same place, aren't we?
E. That said, if that was a problem, then somebody should have asked the simple question from the floor. Debate is not simply a time to speak "for" or "against" a motion. It is also a time to ask questions. Since nobody asked the question, there's an old legal saying "Silence equals acceptance." E.g. why assume that folks did not know what was going on. Folks, in determining how many understood it or did not, we might ask why some of these issues were not asked and how many of them were asked behind closed doors. As Brother Nathan pointed out, much in the SBC (IMO too much sometimes) is done behind closed doors. For example, one of my concerns would have to do with the historic Abstract of Principles.
a. Since men like Greg Welty, a covenantal Reformed Baptist, teach at SWBTS, which uses the BFM, one can hardly say that the Abstract of Principles is more narrow than the BFM or radically in conflict with the BFM. If true, then why is Welty teaching there, and where is the faculty and trustee report questioning that?
b. On the other hand, I might be concerned that there would be those who have in the past expressed issues with the Abstract to now run with this motion and try to use it to do away with it.
c. So, I might have asked one or more questions about it from the floor about it to allay my own concerns. However, if that was answered behind closed doors and I knew it, I wouldn't need to ask.
F. let's just remember that things were happening a whole lot faster when it was live at the sbc than it is looking at a cold transcript...where you can sit and ponder on the whole deal for a little while.
Objections like the one above strike me as proving too much. They prove to much, because if that's true of this motion, then it's true of every motion.
G. As to the manner it was presented. Might I ask what was out of order about it? I've been to my fair share of conventions, and it seems to have been presented quite like many that have come from the conservative side of the aisle. I think there is merit to something Brother Ben Cole said about Roberts Rules of Order, and if there are those that don't like that, then you have a year to brush up on parliamentary procedure and to craft some questions to the EC regarding the meaning of any terms that you feel were unclear.
Stephen Pruett and Gene Bridges,
Two golden apples for the two best comments of the day.
Well done.
Stephen, I agree that these issues are important and that we need to debate them in a civil manner. My impression is that the blog debate became less civil during convention time. There seemed to be more speculation about motives, and such speculation is always unfruitful. I want to believe that people on both sides of the debate have good motives. We have been unable to change many minds on either side. That should not surprise us. The silver lining is that those people who read the blogs probably have a better understanding of the issues than those who don’t read them. Perhaps both sides could agree to concentrate on our evangelistic problem until one month prior to the next convention. One month would be enough time to accurately frame the issues for the next convention. There are intelligent, godly people on both sides. Wouldn’t it be refreshing to see all of us put our heads together and work on the evangelistic problem?
BT and Wtjeff,
Two of my now middle aged “children” and their families have already left the Baptist Church and a third is about to leave. Yet all of them are committed Christians who are growing in the Lord. They fully understand the major issues of facing our society and want to hear and practice radical Christianity.
They have no interest or time for issues that seem to stoke the heated discussion here.
All now are members of large churches that are open to all the charismata (spiritual gifts) described in 1 Cor. 12. They believe that the Gospel teaches that Jesus saves not only when they die but in the here and now.
Unless Baptists become more open to the Charismata I see a continued loss of membership.
docjoc,
With all due respect, I believe the best days of our Convention lie ahead of us and not behind us. For some reason, many want to have this "negative" view of the SBC. They want to focus on the perceived bad in the Convention and create conflict.
We need to start focusing on the positives of the SBC, instead of always attacking the supposed flaws of our Convention. I speak about this issue on my blog.
Gene Bridges et. al.
The resolution should have been worded something like this to cut to the core of getting at the real underlying issue:
The BF&M 2K is sufficient in establishing criterion for agencies in determining doctrinal parameters for employment. Trustees of agencies must request guidance at an annual meeting of the SBC to establish hiring parameters based upon doctrines not codified in the BF&M 2K.
I believe the above statement is much more explicit than the EC resolution. Wade, correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the above statement is also the essence of what you have been working on for over a year. Also, the above statement encapsulates exactly what Dr. Chapman said.
I don't know if the model statment I've proposed is too much of a lightening rod to have any chance of passage or not. However, it is much closer to actually articulating the idea of what the framers of the resolution intended.
I guess I'm beating a dead horse but to me the Tuesday's resolution says nothing since both sides acknowledge that the BF&M is "sufficient". The resolution only talks about "sufficiency" of the BF&M when the disagreement is regarding the use of "extra BF&M" stuff by agency trustees to resolve doctrinal qualifications for employees.
For example, Jeremy Green says "the BF&M is sufficient but it is not the only input that trustees can use". So the disgreement hinges on stuff that Tuesday's resolution doesn't DIRECTLY touch on.
Roger K. Simpson
Oklahoma City OK
Tripp: This is the actual transcript. Yet you are saying the things you are?
I heard Frank Page say the "Don't yell at me" when I was watching via stream, just didn't know who he was speaking to.
Tripp….
The once mighty Baptist Churches in our large city are suffering slow long declines. Our ministers no longer are held important and are not called upon when any major issue is before our community.
The robust growing churches are those who do not appose the charismata, openly and directly address national and community issues, and who have altered their style of worship.
I agree that God is on the move, but I do not see many Baptist Churches willing to go along.
we continue to see their real motives shine through
I too see the motive and have since the beginning. No more excluding for issues and doctrine not covered in the BF&M. :)
Wade,
I think we are all fully aware of what is going on. :-)
More importantly, the Lord knows.
Thanks for your response.
I'm convinced God is blessed by this effort. Who does God exclude except those who reject his Son for salvation, and sometimes He doesn't give up on them either.
docjoc,
I just disagree. I believe the Southern Baptist Convention, while it has some problems, is being used greatly by God to accomplish His purposes. As I said before, when you focus on the negative all the time, that is the only view you will come to see.
Debbie,
I have read the transcript. However, I continue to hear from messengers themselves that they were confused. That is what they are saying.
I still do not understand why you and others refuse to listen to those messengers who have voiced confusion over this motion.
A transcript does not changed that fact.
This motion has accomplished nothing by confusion and conflict.
Les,
Your's was even funnier than CB's, if that is possible. I know there is some serious dialog going on in this stream of comments, but you guys have been a welcome breather for it all.
Great post Wade,
It really is simple. The people DID know what they were voting on. But those not thrilled with the results have to "muddy the waters" so that they still have room to wiggle around the BFM.
Personally, I found the debate and the vote a Holy Spirit moment. It was clear that God was in the place and the people spoke. It was a highlight of the convention for me. The entity "reports" were often the low point as they spoke more on this vote then on their ministries.
Chris,
The more I read what you write, the more I like what I read.
:)
That's scary!
Just kidding. Great comment.
Chris said:
"Personally, I found the debate and the vote a Holy Spirit moment."
What a statement. Considering what Cole has revealed about their process of putting forward this motion, I don't see how anyone could claim the Holy Spirit was behind it.
I guess we all see what we want to see though.
Tripp,
I would encourage you, if at all possible, to be more gracious in your speech and writing.
Wade,
I feel that I am gracious. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean that I am not gracious.
I have encouraged you to be more forthcoming in your posts and to to stop being disingenuous with your terminology. I hope and pray you will be.
Wade...or anyone else,
Does anyone have a transcript of Dr. Mohler's "report"? Sitting there listening to it, I really felt that I wasn't getting his meaning at the time. If you have one or get one, please post it for us to peruse...
Tripp,
The need for more graciousness in your writing is simply a request. If you are not capable, I understand. I am as forthright, direct and open as I can be.
:)
Post a Comment