Saturday, December 08, 2007

Marvin Knox One Out of the Proverbial Park

I do not know Marvin Knox, the editor of The Baptist Standard, but his editorial this past week struck a chord with me. I've met Marvin's mom and dad, a delightful couple who live in southwestern Oklahoma. I can't help but wonder if Marvin's beliefs and attitudes arise from a setting in his growing up years where genuine compassion was displayed for - and Christian love given to - all kinds of people. Marvin's editorial is entitled Differences, Defamation and Grace. He closes his editorial with a description of what disagreeing with grace would look like.

"It means adopting a spirit of humility and grace.

It means accepting the possibility we might be wrong.

It means refusing to treat brothers and sisters in Christ as objects to be vilified and ridiculed.

It means grace over law.

It means people over power.

Jesus said it best: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you.”

Amen to that.

In His Grace,



RKSOKC66 said...


I've never met Marvin Knox either. However, I sent him a letter once about ten years ago expressing my agreement with him with an editorial he wrote in the Baptist Standard at that time. I don't exactly remember the issue but he was calling for a "truce" between the BCGT and the SBT.

He wrote me back a brief note thanking me for my comments.

I've always appreciated Marvin's call for cooler heads to prevail.

It is tragic to see people become increasingly polarized rather than try to patch up the wounds and reach some accommodation. You would think that the shared goal of reaching people for Christ -- and discipling them -- would trump all of the narrow mindedness and bickering that is going on.

Over the last year I've come to realize more and more that at least part of the problem is that due to the bylaws of the SBC there is really no environment in which compromise and accommodation is required.

In the House or Senate of the USA it is often necessarily to forge working coalitions across the aisle to advance certain legislation. If you want anything to happen you have to get a veto-proof majority or work with the administration so the legislation you are crafting will get out of committee, pass both houses and be signed by the president. In the SBC, most of the action happens in the BoTs and for all practical purposes once in office they are answerable to no one. The fact that BoT members are appointed by an arcane method tends to insulate them since they have no incentive go out and take the pulse of their ultimate constituents (i.e. the people in the pews) and speak to various issues that are in play in their respective agencies and SBC life at large.

Wade, we have a system in which “no one” knows who the guys on the BoTs are and “no one” has any idea of what the issues in play are at any given agency. Also, other than a very few (you are one of the few) “no one” on the BoTs is making any attempt to keep the average guy in the pew in the loop. Given our current system, it is no wonder that the BoTs are so opaque.

If it wasn’t for a few “whistle blowers”, like the guy at the Index who blew the cover on NAMB, we would really be in trouble.

I think we also need a couple of whistle blowers at the IMB. Some of the issues on the table in addition to the hiring criterion vis a vis PPL and “administrator of Baptism” is the whole issue of the efficacy of having lock-step models for operations in the field across various cultures and locales. I think Dr. Floyd’s journal is doing the right thing by publishing articles that critique current IMB paradigms. This discussion needs to get some “legs” so that more people in SBC life are weighing in on it.

Roger K. Simpson
Oklahoma City OK

Anonymous said...

I read Marv Knox's editorial weekly, have replied by email to those editorial several times, and have been permitted by Marv to post replies in the Standard on occasion. Marv Knox is a solid Christian man with conviction, courage, and good writing/editing ability--his editorials should be read frequently. (This is an unsolicited positive endorsement of the Baptist Standard!)

Anonymous said...

Please excuse the following OFF-TOPIC ANNOUNCEMENT: This Okie has been pre-occupied with the inexpressible blessing of being a new grandparent to two babies, Kyle Evan and Katie Elaine who weighed in at 6 lbs. 4 ozs. and 19" long, respectively. Their mother, somewhat relieved of "weight gains" for the past 9 months, has already begun (along with her husband) to undertake other "weighty" matters in the raising of these fraternal wonders in our family.

That said, in trying to catch up with the posts here at "Grace and Peace to You", I mistakenly posted a response on the previous blog post. With apologies and your indulgence, I will repost my response here:

A belated congratulations on the second anniversary of "Grace and Truth to You"! This Okie continues to admire the grace and civility with which you have conducted your behavior, especially in the light of the fact that many have displayed very opposite approaches to the issues and a corresponding lack of civility and/or equity in responding to your right of legitimate dissent at the IMB BoT.

Notwithstanding the gerrymandering spins and attempts at taking the focus off the obvious double standard that characterizes the practices of leadership within the IMB BoT, your point remains unrefuted. To put the issue in line with terms of certain gastronomical aspects of the upcoming holiday season, this Okie thought a rhyming verse might be in order:

Gaggles and Gobbles

They sought in vain to “gaggle” your goose,
Yet, one must state with cool candor,
The sauce that they used in their abuse,
They wouldn’t pour on "their" gander.

Feathered nests of birds in quest
They muddy the issues most murky,
To “gaggle” you, Wade, you pesky pest,
Does one hear the “gobbles” of turkeys? ;^)

In His Grace and Peace,

T. D. Webb

davidinflorida said...


While Marv may be a nice guy, and he does come to some very good conclusions at the end of his editorial, I believe he gets there with lack of knowledge and understanding.

I believe that you and Rush Limbaugh are very similiar (not the same, as he grandstands alot) in what you practice. Both of you point out what you feel is wrong and hypocritical of certain leaderships and/or people in power and influence over us. You have given us information that we would not have known about very important issues. If one calls that "ritual defamation", then I don`t think they understand the issues.

I believe that what Marv is saying is that those that challenge the powers that be, should follow his conclusional suggestions, not the powers that be.

texasinafrica said...

I have met Marv, and he's just as genuine in person as he is in print. Thanks for passing on these good words.

And congrats on the grandbabies, T.D.! Don't go trying to spoil them! :) said...


Congratulations from your friend up north in Enid! As always, you kind words are only matched by your intellect and wit. Blessings to you and let's get together soon for lunch with again! said...

Good comments from all. Again, I do not know Marvin personally, having never met him, but I cannot see how any Christian can read his words in this column and disagree.

Anonymous said...

As you have brought up The Baptist Standard and it's editor could you possibly comment on your opinion concerning the current issue of including homosexuals couples' photos in the Broadway Baptist Church, Fort Worth (BGCT) directory and the lack of The Standards coverage? The local newspapers as well as the local TV news have led with the story but Texas Baptist news groups(is there more than one?) have not commented.
Thank you.

Dave Miller said...

I have read several blogs on a semi-regular basis, and yes, there are times when the rhetoric is a little overworked.

But the problem is not usually the bloggers, but the commenters. The inflated rhetoric in most of these comes from those who disagree.

I don't know what it is about online communication, but it seems to bring out the worst in us, sometimes.

When I first got internet a decade ago, I got on sports chat rooms. It was amazing how fast "I love the Yankees" became "All Red Sox fans are troglodyte morons" (perhaps true, but still unkind). There's something about this form of communication that encourages meanness.

I suspect it is the relative anonymity. I use my real name, but who here knows if it is really Dave Miller from Sioux City? I could be Bob Smith from Tuscaloosa. That gives me the freedom to say things without having to take responsibility.

We need to learn to have direct and forceful disagreement without inflated rhetoric.

The sad thing is, I love theological debate. Rex Ray and I engaged in some of that. We disagreed and expressed it strongly, but there was (I hope) nothing accusatory or degrading about it.

Here's to increasing the debate while decreasing the rancor.

Dave Miller said...

And, by the way, the "Knox one out of the park" pun made me reconsider my position.

I think Floyd was justified in censuring you. said...


Why do you feel the need to write anonymously? I don't understand.

What is there to say? Our church would never recognize gay marriage - and would never allow a photograph of a same sex couple - to be in our 'Membership Directory,' but we would welcome any gay individual, gay couple, adulterer, child abuser, hypocrite, gossip, proud religious pharisee, or any other sinner to ATTEND OUR WORSHIP SERVICES and, by God's grace, experience the life changing power of Jesus Christ that delivers us all from our sins.

Whether or not the BGCT, the local Baptist association, or any other Baptist fellowship (including the CBF) chooses to cooperate with a church that receives MEMBERS who are actively homosexual or adulterous is the decision of that organization. If I were members of any of those organizations, and I am not, I would vote to disfellowship with a church that received into membership a gay couple who refused to renounce their sin ---

But I would discuss it and vote for it with love in my heart - not anger, hatred or condemnation toward anyone. If the organization's majority decision would be different than my minority view - which I believe to be a Biblical principle - I would seek to move the ENTIRE organization toward a recognition that their policy does not reflect THE TEACHING OF SCRIPTURE.

Sound familiar?

Maybe the reason the Baptist papers have not said anything is because at this time it is a local church issue and the organizations involved (BGCT, local association, etc . . . ) have not yet met.

Gary said...


It's kind of like the Baptist Messenger's coverage of an IMB Trustee being censured. 3 weeks later and it is a BP story on page 7, no local story, no local editorial, supporting or condemning, either way, from the Messenger.

From one perspective, those folks who hail from the SBTC could care less about Broadway, other than to tut, tut, and tsk, tsk. The BGCT in their eyes are really no better than the CBF. From a different perspective, the Broadway issue is very troubling in that, now, everytime two bachelor, or even widower, brothers who attend the same church and want to be in the Church directory together will either not even think about it, and others, who don't know these men very well, will assume the worst, or they will think about it and not have their picture made together.

And, yes, homosexuality is a sin. But are there degrees of sin? "Bearing false witness" is a sin as well. Gossip. Pick your personal sin. They all separate us from God. Living in perpetual sin is just that, sin. Separates us from God.

Broadway is Broadway and always has been. However, guilt by association will likely lead to the early end of some wonderful Christian educator/leader's careers.

At that, at its heart, is sin as well.

Norman, OK said...

One more thing, anonymous, I have little respect for anyone who attempts to cast aspersions on someone like Marvin Knox - using a church like Broadway's current struggle - and acting like Marvin has some hand in what happened.

That is just ridiculous. said...

Maybe that is why you did not sign your name.


Anonymous said...

Dave Miller,

Here's what needs to be knocked out of the SBC park:

1. The 2 IMB policies that go beyond the BFM 2000 without convention approval.

2. Leadership that seeks to muzzle men who dissent with Christian candor.

Mark Richardson

Anonymous said...

Texas in Africa,
Sorry, but your sage advice came to late. . . :^)

Yes, I'll have "my people" get with "your people" and we'll do lunch! ;^)

Keeping with the subject of "editorial license", this Okie has taken the liberty to revise his poem. . .

Gaggles and Gobbles

They’re seeking in vain to “gaggle” your goose,
Yet, I must retort with cool candor,
The sauce that they use in their verbal abuse,
They’ll likely not spew on "their" gander.

Feathering their nests like birds on a quest
They muddy the issues most murky,
To “gaggle” you, Wade, you young pesky pest,
Does one hear the “gobbles” of turkeys?

T. D. Webb

Anonymous said...


Actually, following the recent "linking" of John Floyd's editor-ship of the Journal critical of the CPM in your most recent post, Marv Knox would be found guilty as well. Brett Younger, pastor of Broadway Baptist writes a weekly "Cyber-column" for the Baptist Standard, of which Marv Knox is editor.

John B.

Hiram Smith said...

Wade, does this statement that you posted–“It means accepting the possibility we might be wrong”–signify that you might be wrong and Paige Patterson right? Does it signify that your fellow trustees might be right and you might be wrong?

Does it signify that you might seek restoration into good standing with your fellow IMB trustees who were elected/appointed/empowered just like you? Does it signify that now you are going to do those things that you told the IMB Executive Committee in Springfield that you intended to do? If so, congratulations and best wishes.

With my best wishes and prayers for your efforts to “concentrate on personal ministry,” and for your full “restoration” as a trustee of the IMB,
Hiram Smith
Psa.23:1 said...

John B.

What is John Floyd guilty of? Absolutely nothing. My word, in my post I DEFENDED his right to edit a journal critical of the IMB -

To allow people to speak, write, or give other viewpoints is NOT to be 'guilty.' Furthermore, the BGCT may eventually request the pastor NOT to write the cybercolumn, but it sure seems to me that you are passing judgment in a harsh manner.

By the way, because I allow a fundamentalist or a legalist or a Mormon or a Church of Christ to comment on my blog - or write articles (and believe me, some comments on this site are articles), does not mean I am 'guilty' of what the author of the comment believes. said...


Absolutely! But until someone with grace, courtesy and civility can show me from the Bible (1). How the only valid baptism is one performed by a 'valid' administrator (i.e. 'a representative of a local Southern Baptist church or a church that believes in eternal security'), and when I can be shown from the Bible (2). How it is not a violation of the Scriptural command 'do not forbid the speaking in tongues' (I Cor. 14:39) to forbid missionaries from appointment who honestly answer in the affirmative when asked if they pray privately in tongues, and if someone can clearly explain to me (3). How an agency can establish a doctrinal parameter that exceeds the 2000 BFM when the Convention has explicitly stated in the 2007 Garner motion that they the BFM to be the sufficient doctrinal paramter of missionary and ministry cooperation . . . THEN I will admit, with humility, that I am wrong.

So far, Hiram, neither you, Paige Patterson, or anybody else has been able to fulfill the above requirements. I will therefore, with grace and courtesy, continue to press my point home, while admitting that I COULD be wrong - but I am waiting for someone to show me.

In His Grace,


Anonymous said...


I have no idea why you accuse me of judging harshly when I passed no judment at all. My comment was simply a communication of the facts. I did not say you did anything wrong. However, many on your comment thread and the thread that Outpost put up was highly critical of Floyd. Perhaps I confused the issue by addressing you in the salutation of the former comment. I just meant to address your blog "community." Please forgive my harshness.

John B.

Anonymous said...

BTW, there was no malicious intent in mentioning Outpost with a conversation here. I AM NOT THROWING STONES AT WADE BECAUSE OF OUTPOST.

John B.

Anonymous said...


If I may pose a question, simply for discussion, not accusation.

You commented how you would respond if a church of your own association embraced homosexuality. Given that you lovingly communicated your belief about disfellowshiping the homosexual embracing church, and the majority vote went against you and it was clear there was no chance of the majority changing... how would you respond? Would you lead your church to leave the association?


John B.

Anonymous said...

I have followed Marv Knox's editorials for many years, becoming acquainted with him when he was editor of Kentucky's Western
Recorder. It was our loss when he went to Texas. Also, I enjoy reading Brett Younger's column. He seems to be down-to-earth and non-judgmental, and of course his sense of humor comes through in a wonderful manner. I am thankful for both men.
Florence in KY

Debbie Kaufman said...

John B: Cyber shouting isn't helping your case any.

greg.w.h said...

John B.:

You resemble the Jewish religious leaders when you set logic traps like that. Each situation has different dynamics and the Spirit can lead differently in each.

But to help you realize the narrowmindedness of your comments: If you church refused to disfellowship visibly practicing gluttons (we'll use the standard of morbidly obese just to make the situation clear), would you remain pastor?

I offer that because it clearly is a lot more relevant for the average Southern Baptist church. As are other hidden sins which we refuse to recognize as just as deadly as homosexuality.

Greg Harvey said...

John B.

A good question that I will answer late tonight. I am on my way to watch my son's college basketball game and then I am involved in our Christmas Pageant.

Thanks for asking, and if I unintentionally wrote as if you were accusatory I do apologize. I sense your heart better in the last two comments and I will respond to your excellent question later.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Burleson,
Thank you for answering my question. It had not occured to me that the situation at Broadway had not gone beyond the local church level.
I had assumed that because major newspaper and television stations it the Dallas/Fort Worth area had reported it that the issue was not recent and had been pending for sometime.
As for anything else that may have been read into my question, that is the readers problem and not mine. I was very clear in what I wanted to know. I don't even read a state baptist paper.
Thank you. said...


Saying something once is sufficient in a comment string unless you happen to be the owner of the blog.


Wade said...

John B,

You asked, "You commented how you would respond if a church of your own association embraced homosexuality. Given that you lovingly communicated your belief about disfellowshiping the homosexual embracing church, and the majority vote went against you and it was clear there was no chance of the majority changing... how would you respond? Would you lead your church to leave the association?"

Short answer: Yes, I would.

But I would trust that I will do it graciously and with kindness, as I will when I leave the SBC if the SBC ever affirms any policy that violates the clear commands of Scripture.

Rex Ray said...

Hiram Smith,
Marv Knox and the Baptist Standard are a shining light for truth. I thank Wade for sharing him on his blog.

Marv has been an inspiration in my life. I met him for the first time last month even though we have shared several emails. My brother-in-law used to kid me by saying, “I don’t read the Standard unless you have a letter in it.” Once Marv told me, “We see I to I.”

When an enemy attacks, one primary objective is to cut communications. That is, they capture the radio, TV, newspaper etc. (In Wade’s case, it would be to cut communications by blogging.)

In years gone by, the Baptist Standard was attacked so effectively one of my close friends said, “The Baptist Standard is written by the devil himself.”

It became one of many innocent victims from the ‘slander department’…especially in 1998 when the SBTC started their ‘recruiting’ of Texas churches.

In 2002, a lady called me wanting to know how her church could find out more of the conflict in the SBC that I had written in a local paper because they had never heard of it. I told her to read the Baptist Standard, and she replied, “Oh, our church stopped taking that paper years ago.”

Yes, cut communication and the battle is half won.

To show the SBTC thinking was rewarded by the CR leaders, its president became a trustee of SWBTS, and its executive director is now the vice president of the SBC.

At one time, churches would have in their budget a Standard for every member, but not many today.

Hiram, I said all that to give the background of Marv Knox saying in his editorial that Wade referenced:

“We wound the body of Christ when we tear at one another in anger and vengeance. We also harm the name of Christ before a watching world when we denigrate one another. Of course, since we’re human and thus sinful, the temptation toward anger is strong. I know: For years, I harbored anger and bitterness toward brothers and sisters I believed (and still believe) caused harm to our national and state Baptist conventions. But one day God told me to give up my anger. I’d savored it like a sweet, righteous dessert, and it was hard to push away. But I realized this was spiritual cannibalism, because I was chewing on another part of the body of Christ, his church.”

Hiram, you missed his whole point. You conclude what Marv was doing was wrong and sinful.

What he was doing was telling the truth which was not sin. The sin part was in his anger, he “savored it like a sweet, righteous dessert”, and “this was spiritual cannibalism, because I was chewing on another part of the body of Christ, his church.”

Marv still believes brothers and sisters “caused harm to our national and state Baptist conventions” but he has given up his anger toward them. That’s the whole point.

You have twisted the editorial of Marv to condemn Wade for not repenting as Marv. You state:

“Apparently he [Marv] changed his course of conduct and experienced a genuine restoration. That kind of restoration is what many of us wish for you, Wade. If you really like Marv’s editorial, now act on it. Go and do likewise.”

I don’t believe Wade has anger in his heart, but I’m not so sure about you and me.

Oops—just checked the blog and your comment is no longer there. Good. I try not to let your words bother me, but I couldn’t stand you criticizing both Marv and Wade.

Jack Maddox said...


I know we are broke up and all but can I ask one more question? Just one? Pleeeezzzzeeeee?

How is Jim RIchards being VP of the convention a reward from the leaders of the CR? I thought Southern Baptist messengers elected him?

blessings on this Lords day


Hiram Smith said...

Rex, you may have concluded “what Marv was doing was wrong and sinful,” but I never reached any such conclusion. I merely observed that Marv came to realize that his “chewing on another part of the body of Christ, his church” was fundamentally wrong. Marv even called his conduct “spiritual cannibalism.” Marv’s characterization of his own conduct employed much harsher words than you will find in my comment.

I admire Marv for his directness and forth-rightness about his own former conduct, which he came to renounce. Marv apparently renounced his conduct unequivocally, not at all like Wade’s conditional offer to change some of his conduct in exchange for his fellow trustees shirking their duty regarding the disciplining of member trustees. Apparently, Marv’s renunciation led to his restoration, which was another good thing. That kind of restoration is what I’d love to see Wade experience. Wouldn’t you? What Wade did in Springfield bordered on being morally reprehensible. He offered to stop doing bad things if his fellow trustees would refrain from doing their duty.

The restoration of Wade Burleson, I believe would lead to many good things for Wade, for the IMB and for the SBC. There are many good things that a restored Wade Burleson might be able to accomplish in the SBC. But, a defiant, dissenting, Internet attacking Wade Burleson will only continue to sow discord among the brethren and give lost sinners more reasons to turn away from hearing the powerful gospel messages preached from Southern Baptist pulpits. That legacy of sowing discord is now being built by Wade. It is a legacy I would wish upon no one.

With my best wishes and prayers for Wade’s full “restoration” as a trustee of the IMB so that he can once again “concentrate on personal ministry.”
Hiram Smith

Tom Parker said...


You come on Wade's blog and I believe unfairly attack him and then end your attack with the following-- "With my best wishes and prayers for Wade’s full “restoration” as a trustee of the IMB so that he can once again “concentrate on personal ministry.” I believe you are very insincere and should not throw the word prayers around so casually.

Hiram Smith said...

Wade, what did Rex Ray mean by, “PS Oops—just checked the biog. and your comment is no longer there. Good. I try not to let your words bother me, but I couldn’t stand you criticizing both Marv and Wade”?

You wouldn’t allow anyone to remove another person’s comments from your weblog without notifying and gaining the consent of the comment’s author would you? Or, surely if you did, you would post a note of what, why, when and whose’s comment had been removed, wouldn’t you?

Otherwise, it would no longer be a weblog. It would merely be an Internet press conference with no significant questions and no answers, only one-sided piling on by sound-alikes. What would happen to dissent if all webloggers did that?

(Rex, you should recognize that my comment was not “criticizing both Marv and Wade.” I simply analyzed the dilemma Wade boxed himself into in Springfield, Illinois. He tried to barter his promise to improve his conduct in exchange for IMB trustees agreeing not do their duty. That was no criticism of Wade nor Marv. It was an objective contextualization of what was at stake in Springfield. My comment was simply an analysis of the moral realities of the exchange that Wade reported initiating.)

With my best wishes and prayers for your full “restoration” as a trustee of the IMB so that you can once again “concentrate on personal ministry.”
Hiram Smith

Jim Sissney said...

"I informed the Executive Committe that I would shut down my blog on December 6, 2007; I would resign from the IMB before the end of the year, and I would personally apologize to any trustee who felt he had been 'disparaged' by my blog. I did request to speak to the entire Board - uninterrupted - before I resigned. I asked to speak to the trustees in the Public session, but since I knew trustee leadership would not allow that, I said I would acquiesce to speak to them behind closed doors."

That was a quote from Wade's account of the happenings at the Springfield meeting.

Hiram, I ask you how this could possibly be deemed "morally comprehensible"? I have read numerous times in these blog comments where Wade has said that his reasoning was not to make "Wade Burleson" the issue in the meetings so as not to distract from the more important issues. If anything his actions should be deemed morally commendable.
How can this be bartering for his position? He merely asked to be able to address the issue in open forum in defense of the accusations. Even the worst of criminals are afforded a defense. Wade was given no such luxury.

My post of last night was accidently deleted. Rex Ray reiterated most of what I had said, and added a few more points I agree with, therefore I will not repost the entire comment. Thanks Rex for doing so.

However, there is one line from the Knox article that struck me as particularly interesting:

"Recognizing this truth does not mean forfeiting our right to disagree. Nor does it mean spiritual pacifism, allowing domination and coercion."

It seems to me that the IMB BoT has promoted domination and coercion by making the policy limiting public comments.

Kerygma said...


Only By His Grace said...


If someone associated me with Rush Limbaugh, I would seriously consider suing him or her. Really, I am kidding about suing, but serious about that despicable person.

Remember? Rush Limbaugh how he mimicked the shaking of Michael J. Fox with all the spasms caused by Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's disease? I do not understand how anyone can listen to the evilness of that man. Remember? Limbaugh and the viagra incident? Remember? Limbaugh and the drugs, the prescription drugs, smuggled in by his house servant. Remember….. I am sure the things about Limbaugh stop somewhere or at least should.

Why do we associate with such a foul person with no commentary about his behavior? Are we that sold out to secular politics?
"O would some Power, the gift to give us,
To see ourselves as others see us!" Sir Bobby Burns, July 4, 1776.

About another comment concerning your article: I am sure the Baptist Standard leaves things out which others would include, and includes things others would leave out; however, your article of today is about what was written concerning a lesson we all need to continually learn; as the old overused saying says, "To disagree without being disagreeable." Your blog about the TBS (Texas Baptist Standard) article was not about homosexuality nor was it a defense of the TBS.

Only by His Grace, II Corinthians 9:8.

Phil Ratliff, Southern Baptist pastor in Norman.

Anonymous said...

Bro. Wade--

I think Marv Knox is a great child of God and very encouraging in times of trouble.

Bro. Wade isn't it nice that the Lord doesn't censor us when we fail him. We are studing Abram at church now and tonight God told Abram that He was his shield and his reward. I believe that no matter what else that when we have that Shield and Reward we need nothing else. As long as you preach the Grace of God and show his love you will be shielded by that Grace. I think we need more men like you that follow Jesus and stand up for what the Word says and not what men think we all should abide by. I think we are seeing a rebirth of the Pharisee mentality within our modern day Christianity. Max Lucado had some bad times with the Church of Chirst. I believe the Lord carried him through his difficulty as He will carry you.

Marvin E. Parvino

Debbie Kaufman said...

Hiram: This from a parishioner of Wade's church, he doesn't have to get back to his personal ministry, he never left it. His church nor his ministry have not suffered from any of this, in fact I believe we are stronger as both a collective church and individually.

Rex Ray said...

Jack Maddox,
Sorry, but you did not say Pleeeezzzzeeeee with sugar on it. “No talkie talkie”, remember?

However, on the slim chance we could patch up our differences, would you agree that whoever the ‘powers that be’ select to be their candidate usually wins? (The exception would be our present president of the SBC.)

Hiram Smith,
I replied to your deleted comment by saying, “Hiram, you missed his [Marv Knox] whole point. YOU concluded what Marv was doing was wrong and sinful.”

You replied, “Rex, YOU may have concluded ‘what Marv was doing was wrong and sinful,’ but I never reached any such conclusion.”

Hiram, do you see how you twist people’s words?” I have said nothing but praise for Marv, but you lead the reader to believe that I may have concluded what Marv was doing was wrong.

The only thing worse than a lie is a half lie because it sounds more believable.

You do it again when you say, “Marv’s characterization of his own conduct…”

You use the word “conduct” four times in referring to Marv, but Marv never said “conduct” even once.

So, where does “conduct” originate except in your mind? You use “conduct” as a weapon against Wade.

Marv used the word “anger” three times, and referenced “anger” as “it” twice.

I’ve told you before that ANGER is what God convinced Marv was wrong, but you choose to switch words to grind your axe against Wade.

Instead of praying for Wade, why don’t you pray that you could speak without a forked tongue, and I could pray to control my temper.

David Richardson said...

Never heard of Marvin Knox, but I sure like his thoughts on grace. That's some good stuff!!

Anonymous said...

HI Wade

English Baptist here, formerly with BMS World Mission and now at a Baptist College. What a strange world we live in, God knows what the IMB are up to 'cos I can't figure it out! Has Micah got something to say here in Ch 6 Vs 8, I think so?