"Responsible blogging can be a means of promoting the flow of information and encouragement of our people."
But one statement I found quite remarkable.
"That we reaffirm the historic method of administering our agencies and institutions through elected boards of trustees, and we call upon bloggers to cease the critical second-guessing of these elected leaders."
The resolution went on to call those who 'second-guess' elected leaders to 'repent' - as if questioning the actions of those in authority is sin.
The authors and proponents of this resolution - presumably old enough to not only remember, but also participate in the Conservative Resurgence of the Southern Baptist Convention - have either selective memory or the inability to blush at the logical inconsistencies of their own resolution. They themselves questioned the actions of the Boards of our Southern Baptist agencies leading up to - and during - the Conservative Resurgence.
It seems when the dissenters become the establishment those who arise as the new dissenters become the rebellious sinners who need to repent for questioning recognized authority. What baffles me is not the submission of such a resolution by those 'in authority,' but the refusal and/or inaction of Georgia messengers in attendance to amend the resolution before adopting it. Some believe this resolution is aimed at me. I found that hard to believe. The only paragraph that even remotely resembles my blog is the sentence forbidding the second guessing of 'elected' leaders. However, since I am one of those 'elected' leaders, you Georgians feel free to violate the resolution you passed and place your comments that oppose my views on this blog. I promise, you will not be called upon to repent.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
101 comments:
Wade,
“To repent”?
Sounds like “Those who depart theologically will be identified and called to repent.”
How did a Texan’s ideas (vice president of SBC) get over into Georgia?
When I was in seminary at Southwestern, in the late 1980's, the conservative resurgence gained a majority on the executive board of the SBC, and thus, controlled Baptist Press. Dissent disappeared from SBC publications, and dissenters began publishing their own publications. The library's copy of SBC Today had to be kept behind the desk, and you had to sign your name on a list and wait your turn to read it. Before long, a dozen copies were not enough. It was pointed out that it would not be long before the seminary would not be able to display copies of SBC Today, and sure enough, when the resurgence leadership gained a majority on Southwestern's board, it disappeared from the library, along with a host of other publications. I remember hearing jokes about the seminary postal delivery service being told to destroy any copies that came in the mail, and that was the reason for the gigantic bonfire behind the RAC every month.
Blogging is similar in many regards, especially regarding the expression of dissent. It falls beyond the ability of those in power to control. I'm not sure that the Georgia Baptist Convention realizes its extent, nor do they realize that passing a non-binding resolution against it will likely have the same effect that making a copy of SBC Today once did in the library at Southwestern. Your readership, along with a whole host of related blogs, has probably increased tenfold among Baptists in the state of Georgia.
well at least your given us Texans a break Wade...
I think you're still mad about my Red Raiders putting the beat down on 0 University!
jrm (GUNS UP!)
Wade,
Down South BLOG stands for:
B - Betrayed
L - Leftwing
O - Ostracized
G - Georgian
In Oklahoma BLOG stand for:
B - Baptists
L - Love
O - Other
G - Godly believers
At the IMB BLOG stands for:
B - Barbarous
L - Lying
O - Ogre
G - Gone Mad
Have a great week Wade!
Bill Scott
I voted against the resolution. The sentence you call "remarkable" I call "absurd."
Anonymous, I am not a WB supporter. There is nothing wrong with second-guessing elected SBC leaders. The leaders of the Conservative Resurgence did it constantly, and rightfully.
[channeling Ray Charles]
*Georgia...Georgia...no peace I find...just the same refrain got the GBC off my mind...*
DavidinFlorida and others,
On my way to Oklahoma City for pastoral ministry.
Blessings to all.
Wade
As a student of history, and a stock broker, I have always appreciated the story of Joe Kennedy. He made his millions trading on insider information on Wall Street. Back then, it was not illegal, so he would parlay his strong relationships into obtaining information that would let him know exactly when to buy or sell a stock.
After the crash of 1929, President Roosevelt appointed a commission to create new laws regarding securities trading, and that is where our modern laws prohibiting insider trading came from. Who was the chairman of this commission? Joe Kennedy. He made his millions, then made it so that no one else could ever do it the same way as him.
Seems like some people in the SBC have arrived at their positions of power, and do not want to give them up. So they pass resolutions like this, so others cannot come along and unseat them.
Someone needs to repent, alright.
I don't think that Marty will be up for any committee appointments in Georgia anytime soon.
So, they pass a resolution that says that Baptists need to repent of dissenting? Are you kidding me?!?!?!?!? This is beyond absurd, but I simply find it hard to care anymore. It's the same old song and dance all the way to the land of irrelevancy. So, after my initial shock that Baptists, who are Americans by the way, have passed a resolution against dissent, I now shrug my shoulders and go on about my day.
"Power corrupts . . . "
Perhaps the word "repent" should be replaced with the words "apologize and promise not to do it any more." So often we associate repentance with committing a sin. I think a different wording would make the resolution much more powerful and definitely less offensive towards the blogging community.
I fully support open discussion but I think that once a body has made a collective decision the members of that body should bide with that decision regardless of their personal opinions. Once a body has made a decision the members should act as one body without recalling previous dissent or discussion.
"The resolution went on to call those who 'second-guess' elected leaders to 'repent' - as if questioning the actions of those in authority is sin. "
Ironically, this goes against inerrancy of scripture and is opposite of the actions of SBC dissenters 20 years ago.
"I fully support open discussion but I think that once a body has made a collective decision the members of that body should bide with that decision regardless of their personal opinions."
I sure am glad Paul did not agree with this and publicly rebuked Peter for his legalism.
Speaking of Paul, didn't he enter into the arena of thought, not to shut down discussion, but to present the truth. Let the "truth" enter into the blogs, if it doesn't exist, and then let the simple folks decide on their own.
Robert
1919 SBC President Dr. James Bruton Gambrell said,
"Baptists do not have popes. [and] They never put anybody where they can't put him down."
In response to lin:
Peter and Paul were not members of a committee and did at no time make a collective decision that Peter should separate himself from the Gentiles. Paul rebuking Peter was a personal issue. If we bring it up to a committee level we can compare the interaction as two separate committees having a disagreement.
I've re-read the blogging resolution and find a very interesting phrase in the paragraph involving repentance. It specifically addresses "individuals who disrupt the fellowship through blogging" and "[blog] for the advancement of their own personal opinions and agendas." The call for repentance was to those who have disrupted the fellowship. The call is to those who selfishly blog, not to inform people or encourage people. The resolution states nowhere that blogging is bad or that all bloggers are bad. It simply extends Biblical principals of brotherly love, or at least respect, into the blogsphere.
Funny, at this year's Ky Baptist Convention a few weeks ago, I actually attended a (KBC sponsored) workshop on "using blogging in your ministry." It was well done and emphasized the positive aspects of blogging.
Never thought we KY Hillbillies would be on the "cutting edge" of an issue!
Seems that the Georgians are, as many uber-conservatives tend to do, lumping ALL blogging together and judging it "bad." All one has to do is listen to various fundamentalists for any time and you will hear this same reasoning. Like, all movies are bad, all television is bad, all (non-Southern Gospel) music is bad, etc... This line of reasoning is what eventually moved me away from fundamentalism and towards evangelicalism, the tendancy to fear entire segments of culture if they seemed remotely threatening. If something is a threat... make a rule forbidding exposure to it. Now sometimes, this makes sense where clear issues of biblical morality are at stake (i.e. pornography, adultery, violence, etc...) but when talking about the arena of ideas and the freedom to exchange them, this line of logic borders on the absurd.
Since the good folks in Georgia certainly recognize that there are good blogs out there as well (i.e. Dr. Mohler blogs daily), I am sure their attempt was less aimed at stopping all blogging as it was chastising the "wrong kind" of blogging. In the current SB culture, the "wrong kind" of blogging would be defined as any blogger who critiques leadership or dissents from "popular" opinion. Again, the logic is "no one should read THOSE blogs which might foster alternative opinions, criticism, or debate, and/or those blogs which bring to light things we would rather remain secret."
I just wish it would have read that way so as to be more clear what the real intentions are.
Proud "cutting edge" Kentuckian from the holler!
Terry Leap
Thank you Phil, your point is well made and stands as a corrective to some of my thinking.
However, I do believe that "disrupting the fellowship" is a vague and subjective clause, and its interpretation depends largely on where you sit in SB life. If you are on a committee making decisions that affect the entire convention and those decisions might upset many in the convention, then it is convenient to characterize anyone who disagrees with you as "disrupting the fellowship."
Maybe sometimes, the fellowship needs to be disrupted, especially when issues of truth and scripture are in the balance.
Could the CR generation be characterized as "disrupting the fellowship?" Yes, and I thank God that they did. But to imply that no future generations are able to enjoy the same levels of critique and calls to accountability as previous generations just reeks of elitism and arrogance.
I've said before and I'll say again, I don't agree with all of the dissent in the SBC today. Some good men hold very different positions than me on various issues. But I support wholeheartedly their right to have their voices heard without fear of being "censured" or "fired" or "black-listed" in their state convention, etc...
Free and open exchange of ideas rules!
Pastorleap had some good points about disrupting the fellowship and how that is sometimes good. I agree, stirring things up and getting a discussion going are important. However, disrupting implies breaking or interrupting fellowship. I think that fellowship can remain un-disrupted while even heated or passionate discussion takes place. The key is to make civil arguments and to keep in mind the general benefit rather than the personal. That's the heart of fellowship, being able to think about others and valuing people. Now as we deepen the meaning of fellowship we make the idea of disrupting it even more abhorrent. To disturb the brotherly love two men have for each other with spiteful comments really does warrant repentance. As we further understand what it really means to disrupt fellowship we can further understand why it is so important we do not do it.
It feels as if more and more institutions are grappling with the fact that greater numbers of their alumni and constituents have a voice in their proceedings. Baptists (obviously) are not the only ones struggling with this. The blog and Web 2.0 has brought about a revolution of sorts, allowing grassroots movements a place at the table, where they could be silenced (and ignored) in previous times. The churches and denominations and institutions of the future that succeed will be those that find creative and productive ways to engage the grassroots movement, to provide the free flow of information, to work toward the new concept of "radical transparency" that many corporations are buzzing about these days. When we stop operating as an oligarchy but rather as a group of equals, we'll begin to see the positive power that blogging and other Web 2.0 activities can have these days...
"Peter and Paul were not members of a committee and did at no time make a collective decision that Peter should separate himself from the Gentiles. Paul rebuking Peter was a personal issue. If we bring it up to a committee level we can compare the interaction as two separate committees having a disagreement."
Personal issue? I think not. He rebuked Peter PUBLICLY on purpose. Peter had 'gone along' with other Jews (circumcision party...a committee...kinda?) who decided they did not want to eat with Gentiles. It was WRONG and Paul called him out.
Ironically, Peter had more 'senority' than Paul as an Apostle, but that did not stop Paul from rebuking him for all the world to read about for 2000 years...before blogs.
"It specifically addresses "individuals who disrupt the fellowship through blogging" and "[blog] for the advancement of their own personal opinions and agendas."
Phil, who gets to decide what is disruption? Who gets to decide if someone is dissenting for personal advancement or not? Who gets to decide if dissenting is disruption?
Lin said: "Personal issue? I think not. He rebuked Peter PUBLICLY on purpose. Peter had 'gone along' with other Jews (circumcision party...a committee...kinda?) who decided they did not want to eat with Gentiles. It was WRONG and Paul called him out."
I admittedly wasn't very clear in my original statement. What I meant was members of the same committee, after having made a decision, should stick by their committee's decision. Peter and Paul's disagreement about eating with Gentiles is not a "committee divided against itself." It is about accountability between brothers.
Also I want to make clear my understanding of "disrupting the fellowship." I may not grasp the meaning the writers had in mind originally in the "Blogging Resolution" but from where I stand disrupting the fellowship is rebuking a brother without love. Disrupting the fellowship is, using my handy thesaurus, damaging relationships. And damaging relationships for personal gain? This should be immediately recognizable for what it is.
Wade,
Thanks for your leadership and Christ-like spirit. I want you to know that our church voted last night to remain a Southern Baptist Church. We had been contemptlating affiliating with a network of independent churches for the purpose of missions, but when the debate came on the pros and cons of leaving the SBC your name came up. You were used as the example for why we should stay Southern Bapitst. There is hope and health on the horizon from the perspective of those who used your name. Just thought you would like to know.
Harvey Jones
Ok I read these blogs and posts frequently and I really like most of them. Usually I say little b/c I have realized that when I open my mouth it is seldom followed by intelligence. But here goes...
Good grief have we been told that we cannot be a thinking people? Wade this is crazy that we as Baptists cannot second guess or question those in power or position. Just b/c Bro. Bubba Big Baptist said so I can't question his statement or position?...This is NUTS! This sounds like a divine right absolute monarchy. I think it was Voltaire (not sure of spelling) that said, "I may not agree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." Freedom is not only in the public realm brothers; freedom began in the halls and pulpits or our New Testament churches. I stuns me that the powers that be are calling on you to "repent" b/c you question what they say via blogging.
One more teeny tiny bit of information before I finish embarrasing myself. FBC Cartwright pays into the Cooperative Program and the Lottie Moon Christmas offering b/c we believe God leads us to do so. I dare someone to tell me that I cannot know what is said in a board meeting b/c that is private or classified information! Or that a member of that board may not tell me what is going on w/our Baptist missionaries and Baptist dollars. That is a huge double wrong!
Bro. Wade there is no need to repent for being thorough! No need to repent for being forthright..No need to repent b/c you have a different opinion or you bring things into question. Bless you,
Bro.Ray Earley
FBC Cartwright, OK
Questions that need to be asked and answered concerning this resolution:
1. Are we to make peace the paramount and most important value at the expense of personal conviction and truth?
2. When one disagrees with a brother and says so, is that always a personal attack?
3. Has anyone ever shared the gospel with a lost person and been rejected because that person has been reading blogs about issues in SBC life?
4. If differences cannot be dealt with in public view when and where can differences related to institutional matters be dealt with? (The SBC Annual meeting is in public view, as are all state conventions and associational meetings - it seems to all go back to shut up if you don't like it)
5. Would GA Baptists prefer bloggers who have issues with our institutions use the same methodology that brought about the conservative resurgence (making sure people who see things their way get elected President and then appoint people who agree with them)? - For full disclosure, I supported the conservative resurgence.
6. Would GA Baptists want to apply this principle -"we call upon bloggers to cease the critical second-guessing of these elected leaders" - to politics? Would they pass a resolution that Baptists shouldn't second guess our elected governmental officials? There may be more biblical warrant for that resolution than the one they passed.
7. If Martin Luther had followed the principles set forth in this resolution would there have been a Reformation?
8. Isn't suggesting that bloggers are only advancing their own agenda assuming facts not in evidence? Is it possible that the bloggers they have in mind might actually care deeply about the SBC, the cause of Christ and the advance of the gospel?
9. Is it possible that bloggers do have their eyes on the fields and this is what motivates them?
10. Is speaking out for your convictions and conscience something for which one needs to repent?
Regarding the Ga. resolution: What is the problem statement? What events led to the resolution? Who are they targetting, if anyone? Have these individuals been confronted personally, whether in private or in public, or is this a general policy to project shame on thinking opposition?
"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face ..." (Gal 2, ESV). Disagreement often comes from thought. I value my 18 year old son's opinion, not because I always agree with him, but because I know he's put a lot of thought and analysis behind his opinions before he's willing to state them.
I'll bet the catholic church asked Luther to repent too!
"What I meant was members of the same committee, after having made a decision, should stick by their committee's decision"
Bonhoffer (sp?) was a member of a 'group' where the majority made a very wrong decision. I sure am glad he did not go along with it.
Think of what you are saying. Stick with the majority's decision even if it is biblically questionable?
I have to wonder how Georgia is planning to implement this resolution. Blog police?
Wade,
To most messengers, a "blog" is a movie from the 50's starring Steve McQueen. It would have been far different if the resolution had called for, say, state newspapers to "cease critical second-guessing of boards and trustees".
Wade
I understand the 'spirit' of the resolution, however, I do agree that the verbage leaves much to be desired. More thought should have gone into this resolution if indeed the intention was to address the negative side of blogging.
However, this is the business of Georgia Baptists and we in Texas won't loose a bit of sleep over what their messengers have aproved in the way of a resolution.
If I agree I will say AMEN!
If I disagree I will say well God bless you but I must disagree.
I do not disagree with the resolution in whole but certainly see the point that you are making about the inconsistancy in the way of disent. To me it is not about should I have the right to disent, but the manner in which I do so.
jrm
sorry folks, that should have been 'dissent'
I repent of my irresponsible spelling!
: (
jrm
Go GA BAPTIST GO
Phil said
"I fully support open discussion but I think that once a body has made a collective decision the members of that body should bide with that decision regardless of their personal opinions."
Using that line of reason then consider Roe v. Wade (no, not Wade Burleson).
The U.S. Government has spoken by a majority of Supreme Court Justices... should we simply sit back and say, "... a body (the U.S. Gov, i.e. a duly elected Pres by the people, who represents the people, that in turn appointed the Supreme Court Justices) has made a collective decision [and] the members of that body (we the people) should bide with that decision regardless of our personal opinions."
Bad thinking.
jrm,
Look at the big picture. If Ga Baptists decided to allow, for example, non-Trinitarians to affiliate, and thus seat messengers at the SBC, should TX Baptists be concerned?
Russ+
Russ
We have been down this road before...you cannot compare a resolution on bloggong and trinatarian theology. But if it helps, yes, I would be concerned.
jrm
jrm,
I should have been more clear in asking. At what point does what happens in one state affect/effect another? How far are you willing to go? As a student of history, looking specifically at the SBC's Reformation (see Sutton) one must conclude that incrementalism works.
Russ+
If this resolution is a sign that Baptist leadership doesn't grasp technology or its impact, then it will not be long before they are replaced with new leadership.
Oh, btw, Jack--
Texans :-(
But I still love 'em.
I don't recall the leaders of the so-called "conservative resurgence" respecting the decisions of SBC boards when they were led by people with whom they disagreed. In fact, they called for their heads. But that was different, because God told them to do it.
lee
ditto my fellow strugler! If I was a drinkig man I would be drowning my sorrows!
Russ
The line has to be drawn concerning that which truly is essential.Your example of the virgin birth would be one example.
jrm
jrm,
Therein is the heart of the issue. Your line of reasoning is that each congregation or association or convention is completely autonomous to do as they wish (Live and let live).
But if they cross a certain boundary then they forfeit the right to associate within any of the respective groups (live and let live until we don't agree with you).
They must not cross the boundaries of orthodoxy or as you stated the "essentials." (Live as we say or interpret Scripture)
What then are the essentials and who decides so? If it is the BFM then what right does any of the respective groups have to tighten the rules or lessen them?
Normally, if a group adds to the requirements, we call that a cult, i.e. Mormonisn; if a group takes away or denies part of the established rules of a larger group we call that a sect, i.e, the JW's. Why not let the approved standard of affiliation(BFM) be exactly what is was meant to be?
Blogging, tongues, alcohol, and gender are not essentials, yet a group has determined that they are tests for fellowship and employment despite the agreed upon
standard ratified by the SBC.
I guess I should rejoice that the local police and State Troopers do not get to interpret the driving laws like the SBC Magisterium has interpreted the BFM. (I'd be the chief of all sinners/drivers)
Russ+
I just had a thought: what if all IMB and NAMB missionaries were allowed to vote absentee at the SBC each year? Do you think there would be a difference in the leadership?
Othoniel
Son, didn’t you get the message… the GA Baptist Convention told you to stop this sin of blogging :-)
Russ
You have weel articulated your position. It does indeed define the difference between the 2 camps.
I disagree with your conclusion.
Every Baptist body has the right to set it's standards based upon their understanding of scripture. You have the right to disagree. You abviously do. I would take it that may be one of the reasons you are serving the Lord in the context of the Anglican movement. Good for you. You put your convictional money where your mouth is. I can respect that. My question for you brother is where do you draw the line? How far does freedom go. My line is the essentials and historical Baptist identity and polity...pray tell what is yours?
jrm
by the way Russ...I will no longer respond or pursue this subject matter...the poor horse is beaten black and blue. I have enjoyed the exchange. I am better for it. I hope you are also.
Jack
Post says: "The resolution went on to call those who 'second-guess' elected leaders to 'repent' - as if questioning the actions of those in authority is sin."
I just don't get that from reading the resolution. But it is oddly written and vague, maybe leaving each person to examine his/her heart. Thank you for the link.
What in the world are they afraid of? Is it light? Are they afraid that the average yokel like me will find out they are trying to crucify Rankin? What are they afraid of? This discussion about Peter and Paul. If I served on a committee and that committee voted on doing something I consider unethical, I would speak out immediately and not shut up until they changed the unethical practice.
Speaking of Paul, whatever happened to let your "Yea be Yea and your Nay be Nay?"
Are we afraid of light (disclosure)? Why? It is the Lord's IMB and if it is not we had better get rid of it fast.
Only By His Grace,
Phil. Norman, OK
hey
I hear that the IMB has ties to the illuminati and they are secretly planning who will be President of the US even as we sit here and blog!
mmmuuuuuuhahahahahhhhh
jrm
Wade,
Of course you know that herein you have published another inexact and misleading quote. How many have you misled this time by publishing another deceit? By replacing a comma with a period in your quotation marks you fail the accuracy test, the English test, the integrity test, the truthfulness test and the minimal standard for fairness and balance in Christian dialogue.
Regrettably, those who read what you publish and accept it at face value, are deceived again. Even high school students receive failing marks for such inaccuracies in their research papers. Hopefully, people, who, as you say, “Are Using Their Brains” will not succumb to another of your half-truths. The nature of your misquote cannot be rationalized nor excused by another ‘mea culpa’ conditioned apology arguing that your deception was unintentional or inconsequential.
Of course certain ones will rise to your defense. But, those who know you best and most objectively–the majority of your fellow IMB trustees–will not likely vote to excuse your misstatement about what Georgia Baptists adopted.
Hiram
Psa.23:1
PS: Since Georgia Baptists did not mention you, why did you even name them in your Internet attack? The accurate quote of Georgia Baptists reads as follows:
“WHEREAS responsible blogging can be a means of promoting the flow of information and encouragement of our people, but certain people use this tool for divisive and destructive rhetoric at the expense of peace among the Brethren; and”
Wade,
...but wait there is more:
B - Burleson
L - Leave
O - Our
G - Group
B - Burleson
L - Listen
O - Or
G - Go
B - Burleson
L - Lacks
O - Our
G - Groupthink
B - Burleson
L - Lay
O - Off (the)
G - Gel
B - Burleson
L - Loaded
O - Our
G - Guns
B - Burleson
L - Lead
O - Our
G - Grand Ole Convention!
Hiram,
I was pointing out in my post the sentence with which I am in agreement. I do not know anyone who writes a blog for 'divisive and destructive rhetoric' - only commentators.
One other thought:
When did we elect denominational "leaders"? I thought we had denominational SERVANTS. Isn't the purpose of the SBC to assist the CHURCHES in our role in being the church and carrying out the Great Commission? It seems that part of the problem is that an unspoken hierarchy has developed in SBC life that is decidedly NOT Baptist. I wrote a post on this on SBCOutpost way back in July that got little attention, but I still believe that it is right on. We have an unspoken hierarchy in the SBC and they expect everyone to fall in line in predetermined positions. The fact that some conservative pastors and lay people have spoken up and opposed some things that are going on has upset the apple cart and they want to snuff that out.
I thought that dissent was a Baptist Distinctive? It seems that the Baptist Identity crowd has become quite selective regarding which historic Baptist distinctives are worth defending. How relativistic is this?
Alan: I remember that post and it got my attention. I agreed with what you wrote on it then and I agree with you now.
On 26 November, 2007 02:09
William said...
Anonymous, I am not a WB supporter.
However above that no anonymous posts appear, and it isn't clear to what William was referring.
Was someone's post deleted? Is there another explanation?
Wade,
Blogging Baptists need to be looking around using their Brains. To see what is going on right hear in the good old USA.
Why we are debating TBTC resolution on using alcohol. Georgia Convention resolution about blogging. The Atheists have open a Sunday School for Atheists (see Time Magazine article By Jeninne Lee- St. John) It is call Sunday morning at The Children's Program at the Humanist Community of Palo Alto, California.
Much has been made about the SBC becoming the "New" RCC - and this sounds much like what the old RCC would have said to Luther. Repent or be cast out.
Hi Jack Maddox
You said:
"Every Baptist body has the right to set it's standards based upon their understanding of scripture...My line is the essentials and historical Baptist identity and polity"
The first part of that statement is certainly reasonable. But would you also agree that we have a responsibility to improve our understanding of scripture?
"...knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation"
2 Peter 1:20 (NKJV)
If we are indeed responsible for improving our understanding of scripture, wouldn't it stand to reason that historical Baptist distinctives would not merit unconditional loyalty? Because if we are indeed people of the Book, wouldn't it stand to reason that our Baptist distinctives would improve as our undstanding of scripture improved?
I thank you for your thoughts.
Interesting that I am seeing (here and at several other blogs) calls for folks to cease comments about actions of the Texas or Georgia conventions unless they are in those states, and thus are directly affected by their resolutions/actions. I find it interesting because there was a time when Baptists had no identity beyond the local church, or at most the local association. Then, as our country developed a central Federal system, churches also began to "federate," though in much smaller steps: first with para-church organizations (such as the various missionary societies), then with conventions that were state-wide, regional, or national (state conventions, many of which pre-date formation of the SBC, the old Triannual Convention, the SBC, and the Northern Baptist Convention, later American Baptist Convention, then American Baptist Church, plus, after the Civil War, several African-American conventions). Eventually many (most?) Baptists in the South developed an identity beyond their local church, and identified themselves as Southern Baptists before identifying themselves with their association or state convention, though retaining a strong identification with their local church. In more recent times, we have seen a movement to federate firther within our structure--or to put it another way, to identify state conventions as virtual "franchises" of the SBC (and no, I cannot quote anyone in leadership at the SBC or in the CR who has specificially said that, but actions in conventions such as NC and MO, and the newer conventions established in Texas and Virginia strongly suggest that to me). And now, when there is criticism of these interdependent conventions, it seems some want to say their boundaries are such that only those within the boundaries have to right to criticize or comment. Very interesting; can you have it both ways? Interdependent organizations approaching a hierachial system, but where thiose in "separate but equal" sub-systems have little or no right to comment about each other?
John Fariss
Wade, as I'm sure you are aware, many in the broader Body of Christ are watching your case and praying for you and all involved. There is so much at stake.
I have mostly observed, but let me weigh in by saying that gracious (and often a tolerance for ungracious) dissent is Christian, Protestant, Evangelical and, yes, American. I think it's bigger than a Baptist issue.
Jesus was a dissenter (did His opponents always see Him as gracious?), Paul was a dissenter, Luther, ad infinitum.
Unfortunately, it appears that an understanding of that is being lost on *all* those fronts.
I'm really, really big on Christian unity, but it can't be false unity.
A true passion for unity strives to work *through* dissent, not suppress it. Suppression of dissent is not unity; it's merely a power/fear-play to ignore the convictions of the minority.
Unity must be unity of the spirit before it is visible; suppression of dissent is holding up visible unity, which is merely masquerading as unity of the spirit. It becomes a celebration of what is fundamentally untrue--a false idol, one might say.
It's almost always driven by pragmatics, yet is always subject to manipulation by individuals for their personal agenda.
When truth encounters error, it is never to keep silent, unless it is a matter of timing, led by the omniscient Spirit of God.
Furthermore, no one can call themselves a true conservative unless they are committed to complete truth. What do us conservatives want to conserve? Error? Dirty laundry? Institutions?
God forbid. The only thing worth conserving is truth.
The irony is that those who seem most willing to sacrifice truth for unity are the sectarians themselves, who are the first to shout that one should not do so in a broader Christian context.
Would to God we really believed Jesus when he warned us of the log in our own eye.
Yet, again, my even deeper concern is that there seems to be something in the air (and not just in America), and that we are losing our appreciation of dissent at all levels in our society. Loyalty is being interpreted as loyalty to one side of a polarity (whether religious or political) and not loyalty to truth itself.
Historically, we have seen what such a climate brings.
It always brings unthinkable disaster.
Or even the anti-Christ.
"Yet, again, my even deeper concern is that there seems to be something in the air (and not just in America), and that we are losing our appreciation of dissent at all levels in our society. Loyalty is being interpreted as loyalty to one side of a polarity (whether religious or political) and not loyalty to truth itself."
Very prophetic words. This is also a strategy in business. Many have attempted to use strategic planning, team building and leadership training to create a false consensus that produces loyalty to a preconceived outcome.
Sounds good but the outcome has already been decided by a few leaders.
Peer pressure works well with adults, too. The process of consensus building many times is merely an exercise in the Hegalian dialectic. It is not to build consensus it is to shut up dissent.
Dissent then becomes disloyalty, trouble-making, divisive and in church circles, sin. In business circles it is usually referred to as not being a team player which many know is s death sentence for your future.
False unity is valued in more places than the church.
To build on Lin's comment above:
Committees: None of us is as dumb as all of us..
You all are experienced in convention matters and you probably know the people involved, the trajectory, and the attitudes of various people.
But for those of us who don't, this Gs. resolution -- if not cut and pasted -- doesn't try to shut off blogging or dissent. IMO it requests an end to personal attacks, divisive rhetoric and criticism of elected leaders.
Leaders = people, critical conclusions about people's hearts, intent, thoughts and motives. Contrast that with saying, e.g., with all due respect I hope we reconsider this decision, or this wording, or my take on this was different because....
In a court of law, the lawyers present their arguments and ideas -- it's not personal between them because the judge won't allow it, and the system cannot work that way. If the lawyers disrepect or impugn one another (which I saw rarely), the judge and jury get disgusted and tune out, disillusioned with the whole process.
Debate issues not people, is the pithy way Mr. Burleson put it.
But, Wade, the first rule for “pointing out” anything is accuracy.
In your “blogger brains” post you simply misquoted what Georgia Baptists adopted. Now, in your response to my comment you have compounded the deceitful error by calling a clause in their resolution a sentence. Neither your wishing nor your repetitions will ever turn a clause written by others into a sentence by them. Your erroneous comment suggests a “brain” in denial of reality.
Wade, please consider your own words, and seek godly counsel. How can you so glibly resort to the tactics of propagandists? Some employ them on the premise that if a lie is repeated enough it will be believed. Others practice the tactic out of linguistic ignorance, not fully cognizant of the true meanings of their own words and syntax.
You may have other reasons for denying the deception conveyed by your misquote of the resolution they adopted. But, regardless of the motives underlying your attack on Georgia Baptists, I pray that somehow you will come to understand the importance of whole truthfulness and precise accuracy in your posts, in your comments and in all that you publish.
More importantly, I pray that you will adopt the biblical practice of addressing your criticisms of others directly to them in the proper form and in the proper forum. World-wide Internet blogging attacks against the brethren seem a bit foreign to the practices and admonitions of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and of his apostles. I believe Georgia Baptists understand that! Viva Georgia Baptists and their Resolution on Blogging!
Hiram
Psa.23:1
That is, "arguments and facts."
Karen, Hiram: Please then decipher the meaning of this particular paragraph for me.
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that we reaffirm the historic method of administering our agencies and institutions through elected boards of trustees, and we call upon bloggers to cease the critical second-guessing of these elected leaders;
oteI wonder what would have happened if T B Maston made his unpopular stand against segregation in this present climate of no dissent? I guess he should have just kept quite & went with the majority. Praise the Lord for gentle spirits like TB Maston who spoke up for truth.
1040 m
More importantly, I pray that you will adopt the biblical practice of addressing your criticisms of others directly to them in the proper form and in the proper forum. World-wide Internet blogging attacks against the brethren seem a bit foreign to the practices and admonitions of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and of his apostles. I believe Georgia Baptists understand that! Viva Georgia Baptists and their Resolution on Blogging!
Hmmm, so the messengers of the GBC voted for this. So, is it Hiram's contention that Wade should obtain the name and address of every messenger individually? Should he obtain the name and address of the churches and address them corporately?
I'd add that this resolution was made public. So, what Hiram is saying is that a public, corporate act by a corporate body should be addressed privately and individually.
What a stellar misuse of Matthew's Gospel.
World-wide Internet blogging attacks against the brethren seem a bit foreign to the practices and admonitions of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and of his apostles.
1. Christ often addressed the religious leaders of his day publicly and corporately. He did not go to them each individually to have a kindly word with them.
2. The letters we have from the Apostles are public letters to corporate bodies and they were often circulated between the churches not only in one city, but many. So, taking Paul alone, we have instances of him calling out particular people in letters read publicly to the whole church, copied, and publicly distributed for reading in other churches in other places.
Chad
I have no problem with what you have said. I agree! Yet would you not agree that it is this wonderful freedom that we Baptists have that really is the cause of our disputes! I would trade it for anything...
jrm
woops...i would NOT trade it for anything
j
Debbie
With much fear and trepidation I will attempt to answer your question. The resolution very simply says to cease the CRITICAL second guessing of elected leaders. Now I have already said that I do not believe the wording of this resolution passes muster, in fact, I think it has way to may holes in it. In my opinion, I think they should have come and just said what I think they intended, which is that there be a cessation of the calling into question character, motives, integrity and even the salvation of many of our leaders. Now Debbie, it is just a resolution, it is non binding, so nobody has to pay it any mind at all...and I rather suspect it was more preaching to the Choir than anything else. That does beg the question though does it not. These legalistic resolutions that infringe on our Baptist liberty sure to get passed pretty well overwhelmingly by the Baptist bodies voting on them. Maybe all the Fundies moved to Texas and Georgia? I don't know, I just know that the contention that exists on these blogs seem to be non existent when it comes to the folks in whom these resolutions represent casting their votes. Why is it they understand them but blog town doesn’t have a clue? Interesting?
The resolution does not say you cannot dissent or disagree...it simply states within the context of our modern day milieu...it just says be Christlike about it. It would have been better if they would have just come out and said it! For instance...maybe it could say "Be it resolved that BEN COLE repent!" Yea...that would have cleared up the water a little bit!
jack
dave
Who says you cannot dissent? What many have a problem with is the METHODOLOGY of the dissent. Would Maston had made fun of Paige Patterson's weight? Would he have compared trustees who are brothers and sisters in Christ to Hitler?
Would he have made the analogy of many leaders to modern day televangelists? Would he have attacked a sister state convention because of a stand on alcohol abstinence for leaders? In fact, what was Mastons position of alcohol? Better yet, what was his position on Matthew 18?
jrm
Gene
I love it! Paul was a 1st century blogger!
jrm
Hiram,
Any fair minded, impartial reader of this blog will understand that everything I have written in this post about Georgia Baptists is both accurate and respectful, while disagreeing with only ONE sentence (There is a noun and verb - a subject and an action).
Thanks for your comment. I'm quite comfortable with people drawing their own conclusions of my writing and your words have no effect on that comfort.
In His Grace,
Wade
Jack Maddox
You said:
"Yet would you not agree that it is this wonderful freedom that we Baptists have that really is the cause of our disputes!"
Well, yes, I think I can agree to that. But mainly I was just wondering if we should be seeking a Baptist identity, not in interpretations, but in rules of hermenuetics, and/or perhaps even a precise definition of inspiration and inerrancy.
Therefore instead of criticizing doctrines, maybe we should be debating the theories of hermenuetics which lead to those various doctrines. (I'm sure this already takes place somewhere) It just seems like that would be a more sensible path to possible agreement on some of these secondary doctrines.
That's just a thought that probably needs a lot more thought.
Bezner, Paul and Lin are correct.
"Unity = The state or quality of being one."
Where there is absolute autonomy there will never be absolute unity; cooperation is the best one can hope for, our reprsentational republic (U.S. gov) demonstrates this.
Where there is absolute authority/power there cannot be absolute autonomy or freedom; the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (gov) demonstrates this.
For Jack,
My essentials can best be summed up in the Apsotle's Creed & the Nicene Creed (Athanasius' Creed is pretty good too!); and fortunately, these were affirmed 1,900-1,700 yrs ago and haven't changed since :)
Russ+
The problem is that those pious sounding words are meant to stifle dissent. How many unchurched people can name a single issue raised by bloggers that cast the SBC in a bad light? For that matter, how many pew sitting SBCers can name a single blogger? The issue is one of halting anyone from questioning the authority of the leadership, be it the BSC, IMB, or any group for that matter.
Dear Wade & Paul,
A dad standing up for his son and a son standing up with his dad is generally a commendable thing. But, not when the son is wrong.
Wade, you obviously appear to take pride in being a “dissenter.” And though, you, Paul, write that “Jesus is a dissenter,” nowhere in the Bible is Jesus called a “dissenter.” I believe you are wrong to call our Lord a “dissenter.” He was the perfect proclaimer of the “Kingdom of God.”
That is not dissent. It is pure affirmation of the reality that God is omnipotent. Perhaps, Satan can be accurately ascribed the title of original dissenter, but not Jesus Christ.
On resistance to dissent, Paul, you wrote, “It always brings unthinkable disaster. Or even the anti-Christ.”
Do both you, Paul, and Wade really think that we who believe and declare that Wade and any other trustee who willfully refuses to abide by the duly adopted standards of conduct expected and required of trustees are bringing about an “unthinkable disaster. Or even the anti-Christ”?
Such an intimation fails the contact-with-reality test. As I wrote to Wade in my last comment, “please consider your own words, and seek godly counsel.” Sometimes the best thing a dad can say to his son is “Son, I have been wrong, and now you are wrong.”
Paul, you may be able to save Wade, his family and his church a lot of needlessly wasted heartaches and further disappointments by counseling him to accept and come to grips with reality now.
Wade, no amount of aspirations or intentions will make you into a Martin Luther, or a John Knox or a Charles Spurgeon. Your obsession with leveling criticisms against Christian brethren from Georgia to California does not serve well the good faith efforts of fellow Christians to fulfill our Lord’s Great Commission.
With my prayers for the welfare of you both,
Hiram
Psa.23:1
Hiriam,
While I am only watching this battle from the sidelines, not living in either Texas nor Georgia, I do agree with the statement that Jesus was a dissenter (from the current religious leaders of his time.)
I do believe that He called the scribes and Pharisess "White washed tombs" which was one of the nastier things He could have said. He also talked about the Temple being destroyed (and rebuilt in 3 days.) That got him into a lot of trouble.
And I probably would have considered it dissent, if I had lost money and property, when Jesus took a whip, and cleaned the sellers and money changers out of the Temple.
Hiram,
Thanks for your prayers.
I shall continue doing what I feel led by God to do.
No need to feel pain or concern for me, my church or my family.
We all are doing well. Quite well actually. Your concern is appreciated but probably misplaced.
Blessings to you and your family as well.
In His Grace,
By the way, Hiram, it would be interesting to know who you are, your place of ministry, your years of experience, your education, and your family. I always like to know who it is that is so concerned for me.
:)
"Do both you, Paul, and Wade really think that we who believe and declare that Wade and any other trustee who willfully refuses to abide by the duly adopted standards of conduct expected and required of trustees are bringing about an “unthinkable disaster."
How far you guys willing to go? How much more? Women totally silent in church? One must be a cessationist?
How much more beyond the BFM are you guys going to try for in the entities and possibly state conventions? That is the question. When the states sneeze...does the SBC catch a cold?
The resolution on blogging served ONE purpose in my mind. Now, it will be much easier for leaders to call any blogs they do not like as sinful. They can just point to that resolution and say, see what GA said about this sort of thing?
I don't even know the players but I can smell a tactic a mile away.
Have there been any resolutions in the past about dissenting baptist newspapers or articles? Dissenting letters to the editor?
And, of course, the leaders can then decide what constitutes 'criticism' and attack. How convenient. As we have seen over and over...many of our SBC leaders consider any disagreement as a personal attack on their authority.
I have to wonder how many Georgians who voted even know what a blog is...were they taking the word of an 'authority' on this issue or do each one them have experience with blogs?
Hiram,
With respect, I must confess to not being the "Paul" commenting earlier in this section whom you have assumed is Wade's Dad. I am his Dad and have not commented at all until now.
I do appreciate and agree with most of the words the other Paul expressed however. An exmple is his comment...
"A true passion for unity strives to work *through* dissent, not suppress it. Suppression of dissent is not unity; it's merely a power/fear-play to ignore the convictions of the minority."
I must say there is real light and wisdom in that statement. In my forty years of pastoring I've learned the difference in real unity that works through dissent with respect and the desire to present a united front that may be nothing more than a covering over of disagreements that exits.. out of either fear of.. or failure to question those in "authority." Whatever the motivation, lording it over has never been a legitimate option for believers bound to the scriptures. So dissent IS a necessary action for unity to ever be genuinely maintained.
As to counseling Wade in his words and behavior, I would simply say I would challenge you to assess your own words and actions in light of his committment to grace, the facts, and to personal integrity. I believe there would be much to learn from such a comparison. I have personally learned from him as I've compared myself to him over these past couple of difficult years.
One of the great things of Wade's words and action is his integrity in ownership. You know who he is, where he ministers, to whom he's relationally connected and a method of communication personally with him were one to desire to do so.
Hiram, I tried to do the above with you but have been unable to do so. My counsel would be to you that ownership of your words would be a good place to begin to learn from his example.
I'm only guessing that your name is Hiram. Whether that is truthful or not I do not know. I would like to. It would help in REAL dialogue over REAL issues. All this said, which I would have preferred to do in private, I thank you for the privilage of communication in whatever fashion.
I think Mary Duram (sp) is from Georgia. I think he might know what a blog is.
: )
Jack
oh my Lord...I meant MARTY, not Mary!
ggggggrrrrrrr
Jrm
Hiram,
Just a comment on the "Jesus is not a dissenter" opinion which you shared. I would agree that Scripture does not use that term to refer to Jesus. However, I am reminded of Jesus's dissent toward the religious leaders of his day, as indicated through the gospels. Obviously, Jesus did not dissent toward God. He did, however, publicly disagree with the prevailing religious establishment.
Hiram, I really don't understand your problem with the post on which these comments are based. The quotes and text are as clear as can be and not at all misleading in the context of the whole quote that you presented. Please explain how quoting part of a sentence and noting agreement with it, then quoting another part and noting disagreement is misleading. What false premise is being proposed? In what sense is this propaganda?
Paul (Paul B. not Paul L),
I have reading Wade's blog, and enjoy his articles and the comments immensely. It has been a good day. I played Rockwood Golf Course today with a young man in my church. I came within two strokes of shooting my age. I am 67. It was enjoyable to birdie three of the last four holes; then I come to a wonderful wife and a new grandson, eat a delicious dinner, sit back, boot up the PC, read my male and go to Wade's site and read this delightful debate. I haven't enjoyed anything so much since I used to fight in Brotherhood Dorm with Lawrence and Paul Justice. What you see here is "lite" to what we discussed.
Good golly, Miss Molly, has there ever been a time Baptist have not dissented. We were born in dissent out Anabaptist no matter what the Landmarkers say. There was dissent between Particular and General Baptist; dissent on Revolution, dissent on the slavery issue (don't forget our greatest preacher who was compare favorably to C.H. Spurgeon was John A. Broadus owned slaves). We dissented on the Civil Rights in the fifties and sixties and we will be dissenting a hundred years from now, if the Lord tarries.
Paul, like you I have been in the pastorate ministry closer to fifty years than forty years. Much to my dismay, but to my churches' good health, I can remember few Deacon's meetings and few business meetings without dissent. Dissent is the hammer the out the facts on the anvil of truth; the more hammering, the closer to truth we get.
Paul, you and I learned a long time ago the most important things in theology is the meaning and understanding of words. Just maybe a dictionary definition of dissent would help to better understand this delightful argument.
v.
1. Disagree: to disagree with a widely held or majority opinion
2. Christianity not support religious practices: to refuse to conform to the authority, doctrines and practices of an established church
3. Withhold assent: to withhold assent or approval
n.
1. disagreement: disagreement from a widely held or majority opinion
2. christianity religious nonconformity: refusal to conform to the authority, doctrines, or practices of an established church
3. law minority opinion: an opinion of a judge that is not in agreement with that of other judges
4. politics refusal to accept political rules: opposition to the laws, norms, and structures of a political regime, especially on moral grounds
[15th century. From Latin dissentire , literally “to feel differently,” from sentire (see sentient).]
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2004. © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Only By His Grace,
Phil Ratliff, pastor
Alameda Baptist Church
Norman, Oklahoma.
Sorry, should have been "been reading" but you know what it says anyway.
phil
Chad Kaminski,
I don’t know enough to make a comment about what you and Jack Maddox are discussing. The Scripture you quoted seems strange to support your statement that we should improve our understanding of Scripture.
You quoted (2 Peter 1:20 NKJV) “…knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation.”
If verse 21 was not written, one might question the individual possessing the ability to privately interpret the Bible, but that it would take a committee. Is this verse telling us how to interpret the Bible? No…its meaning is brought out in the Living:
“For no prophecy recorded in Scripture was ever thought up by the prophet himself. It was the Holy Spirit within these godly men who gave them true messages from God.”
So, verse 20 was not meant for us other than we should believe prophecies are from God.
Alan Cross,
I believe your comment should get first prize if one was given.
You said on 27 November 02:19, “When did we elect denominational ‘leaders’? I thought we had denominational SERVANTS.”
I won’t quote all you said, but you brought out that leaders were not our bosses.
I’ll give an example of leaders being ‘servants’ and being ‘bosses’.
SERVANTS
Recommendation is brought from deacons and presented to church for a vote.
BOSSES
Same idea is brought from deacons and NOT voted on, but is binding.
Hiram Smith,
Why I’m wasting time with you I can’t decide if it’s a desire to stomp your words of garbage, your mindless chatter, your reasoning of insanity, or to give your own advice:
“Please consider your own words and seek godly counsel.”
If I quoted you saying ‘Godly counsel’, I guess you would have screamed to high heaven.
Wade,
Like you, I am pleased that my words were not at the expense of your “comfort.” I wrote not to cause you discomfort but in an effort to nudge you back toward a reality base perspective on what you were publishing. Your dialectical responses to my linear comments and questions about errors in your posts and comments suggests a denial of reality. That is very troubling, and should be to anyone else who truly cares about you.
Some time back you abused the use of ellipses by substituting them for content that was contextually essential for an accurate understanding of what you were quoting at the time. I did not bother to comment at the time, but now you have taken the next step in deception by replacing a comma with a period which you then enclosed in your own quotation marks. However, the content of that second half of the sentence you left out was integral to an accurate understanding of what you did include. Minimally standard language accuracy required ellipses instead of a period in your quotation marks. Fairness and balance required that you include the entire sentence in your quotation marks.
Despite my best effort to get you to admit and correct the deception conveyed through your punctuation decisions, my message appears not to have gotten through. Does the failure lie in the feebleness of my words, or, rather, in some impediment within your own internal information processing system?
Your responses leave me wondering if you even recognize your errors, particularly the deceptive aspects of them.
Hiram
Psa.23:1
Rex
You said
Hiram Smith,
Why I’m wasting time with you I can’t decide if it’s a desire to stomp your words of garbage, your mindless chatter, your reasoning of insanity, or to give your own advice:
WOW BRO! And I thought you were a little rough on me sometimes.
ouch!
jrm
Hiram Smith,
Ah! “Does the failure lie in the feebleness of my words?”
That’s good. I forgot about that one…Thanks.
Ut Oh, I put a question mark instead of a comma—I’m in big trouble.
Jack,
Hey! I was just getting warmed up. The man has an ax to grind as dull as a sledgehammer.
Rex
just getting warmed up eh? SO much for the irenic, gracious, sweet spirit so faithfuly exampled by our host.
jrm
Paul Burleson, I am sorry that I got confused with you. I hope the damage will be short-lived. If only I had had a father like you...
Hiram, I am not an Southern Baptist. I can kinda understand if you thought I was Paul B. that I was extrapolating out from an SBC/IMB context to the anti-Christ.
Actually, I was doing just the opposite. I was interpolating. Looking at the broader American and global contexts, there seems to be a whiff (zeitgeist, if you will) of totalitarianism in the air--everywhere--not just in Venezuela. Would to God the Body of Christ was immune to such things.
In such an environment, dissenters are seen as disturbed ruffians, or even traitors.
That is what concerns me.
Nevertheless, maranatha.
Oh, and don't tase me, bro.:)
Both Pauls,
Thanks for your comments.
Hiram,
You have been challenged by a man much wiser than I to come forth with your identity in order to take ownership of your words. The lack of fortitude and courage in being identified says a great deal more about you than you realize. Until you identify yourself to those of us in the blog community, all future comments shall be deleted on the assumption you are being deceptive. Once you are identified, all your comments will be allowed to stand, including the personal attacks, unless you are vulgar and profane.
In His Grace,
Wade
Jack,
You’re right. I just got fed up with that comma-period business. I’d apologize, but my heart wouldn’t be in it.
I don’t know how Wade takes such abuse over and over. He’s a better man than I. After a while, I start thinking about ‘shaking dust’ and the ‘pearls advice’.
I’m going to call it a night. I leave you to carry on. I half-way believe you agree.
Deception by commas and periods?
OH MY WORD.
Hey Rex,
Thank you for your comment. You may be correct, but I had understood verse 20 in light of Peter's warning in verse 16.
"For we did not follow cleverly devised tales..."
2 Peter 1:16 (NASB)
So I believed that Peter was giving further warning in verse 20 about recklessly and abitrarily interpreting scripture.
The word translated as "interpretation" is epilysis, (solution, explanation). This certainly seems to touch on the area of problem solving.
So I've tended to take this passage as meaning that great care should be taken as we strive to see the meaning of the text unlocked by the Spirit's activity.
The Ga. resolution is excerpted here in a way that for many would not pass muster. However, because Mr. Burleson provided a link, we can read it for ourselves and use our brains and draw our own conclusions. We can test the spirits, taking what is wise and leaving behind anything else.
BTW, I am who I say I am.
Check the source document or link cited by ANY blogger, if you can. It is often eye-opening.
Is the Georgia in question, the Georgia found in the land of cotton or the Georgia that was formerly part of the Soviet Union?
Wade, here are each your questions in quotes, followed by a few dots, and then my responses.
“who you are”.........Hiram Smith, Jr. (Dropped Jr. when Dad died in ‘96.)
“your place of ministry”...........Retired, so wherever I happen to be is my place of ministry.
“your years of experience”............Ever since 9/6/33–birthday.
“your education”.............Barber College Diploma, H.S.diploma, B.A., M.A., PhD.
“your family”.............Betty Jean Moss-only wife-wed 6/1/54; 1 son and 1 daughter, 6 grandchildren.
“who it is that is so concerned for me”........I wrote my first blog comment on your blog, and expressed my joy over discovering someone on the inside who was willing to give us a real-time perspective on decision-making at the trustee level within one of the SBC agency-entities. You should remember that I wrote you then that I hoped someday to vote for you as president of the SBC. Your fall from informing and building into dissenting tearing down has saddened me greatly. (I can’t believe the continuing failure of IMB staff leadership to provide meaningful non-security related details on all aspects of IMB structure and operations. Have you even attempted to get the IMB staff to step up to the plate in this regard?)
“come forth with your identity”...............What else do you want to know? My life is an open book that nobody reads. I’m surprised and honored that you ask.
“to take ownership of your words”...............All I write is my own. I wish I had the assistance of a good co-writer and/or a good editor to talk with about what I venture to write.
“The lack of fortitude and courage in being identified says a great deal more about you than you realize”.............I have no shield over my identity. I sincerely apologize for whatever I did or failed to do that prompted this remark. It mystifies me. But, I am confident that you had some good reason for it.
“Until you identify yourself to those of us in the blog community, all future comments shall be deleted on the assumption you are being deceptive”.........Pray tell wherein I have been deceptive?
“Once you are identified, all your comments will be allowed to stand, including the personal attacks, unless you are vulgar and profane”......On whom have I leveled a personal attack? Analytical and diagnostic comments on words and other behaviors are not attacks. Properly understood they are helpful to all who truly care about the one whose expressions are analyzed.
Wade, are these responses sufficient for me to have comments published on your blog? If not please ask more specifically what you require. If they are sufficient, please publish this.
Having, hopefully, answered your questions satisfactorily, will you now answer some of my questions? Why do you “in the blog community” want to know about my “identity” or my “ownership”? It is the “blog community” members who commonly use aliases, first names only, etc., which mask identities and lead to confusions such as mine regarding the two “Pauls.”
For my confused reference I sincerely apologize to both “Pauls.” You guys should have a name like “Hiram.” I’m never confused with anyone.
Wherein have I been “deceptive,” or even appeared to be “deceptive”? One thing that I seek hardest to avoid is being or appearing to be deceptive. I will be glad to provide whatever I can to remove the cloud that your “assumption” comment invents and places over me.
Your “assumption” of my guilt until I prove my innocence is genuinely intriguing. But, in one sense you are correct because, as a matter of fact, I am not innocent, only forgiven–for which I am eternally grateful. On the other hand, I do not know of any sound reason for you to accuse me of being “deceptive.” What more do you require of me to have your forgiveness, and your consent to publishing my comments, along with those whose comments read more like echo chambers of support for your opinions and judgements than my comments are likely to ever be?
My predicament seems to be a foreign and strange thing to befall me from the “blog community.” The blogworld is the one place where I thought facts, thoughts and reason ruled, rather than identities, titles, position, authority and most especially a particular point of view.
Wade, your generalization about my comments–“including the personal attacks, unless you are vulgar and profane” also mystifies me. I have sought to be gracious and kind toward all. I have strived to focus any criticisms not on persons but on statements and ideas with which I find serious faults and offer my analytical remarks. I’ve made a special effort to stay well within the standards set by the parameters of what you have published regarding me and many other individuals and certain groups. Please do not publish anything “vulgar or profane” regardless of its author or its object.
Hiram
Psa.23:1
Hiram,
Thanks for the information. Your comments are welcome.
It seems that there are times you attack people instead of addressing issues.
Comments like:
" How can you so glibly resort to the tactics of propagandists?"
and
Wade, no amount of aspirations or intentions will make you into a Martin Luther, or a John Knox or a Charles Spurgeon
are examples. Now that I know who you are, feel free to continue as I will continue doing what I believe is best for the SBC.
And, I can assure you, I have no aspirations to be anybody but me.
Blessings,
Wade
Wade,
I was a messenger this year in GA and I voted against this resolution. By looking at the hands I'd say around 3/4 of the people voted yes. I'm tempted to think that many of the older people in attendance probably didn't know what blogs are. While speaking to this issue at the mics an elderly gentlemen stood up and said that English should be the national language in this country as well as the Convention.
I did give my thoughts on this issue.
At least we didn't talk about tea. :)
Mark
Wade,
You made the news in Tulsa and it is good to hear you are still in the fight for grace and truth.
May the good Lord bless and yours in always everyday.
My prayers are with you.
later
Post a Comment