Friday, February 27, 2009

Baptist Identity People Don't Like Challenges

When I served as a trustee of the International Mission Board, Dr. John Floyd, Chairman of the Board, seemed to dislike anyone questioning him doctrinally. I personally enjoy fellowship with Dr. Floyd and his lovely wife Helen. They are gracious people, but Dr. Floyd's Baptist Identity ideology causes him to dismiss people who disagree with him as irrelevant or not "truly Baptist." Dr. Floyd has told me he is an avowed Landmark Baptist. I know he would be as comfortable in a Baptist Identity church as a duck would on a pond.

I have no objection with Baptist Identity people being a part of the Southern Baptist Convention. I can fellowship with them at any time, and on any occasion. But I have discovered that when doctrinal questions come up, or heaven forbid, doctrinal disagreement arises, Baptist Identity adherents have a tendency to ridicule those who disagree. If the ridiculing doesn't stop the challenge, then there are overt attempts to shut down comments. In the IMB committee process while we were attempting to debate whether missionary candidates should be baptized in a "Baptist Identity" church, or whether an SBC missionary candidate could possess real "Baptist Identity" if he or she could never possess a private prayer language. I experienced this kind of tactic first hand. Dr. Floyd refused to allow questions to be asked of the professional IMB staff about their thoughts on the policies, and then he would at times marginalize the ones asking the questions or challenging the "Baptist Idenity" policies.

The worst example of Dr. Floyd's tactics was seen in the letter Dr. Rankin wrote challenging the new Baptist Identity policies of the IMB. When Dr. Floyd eventually got around to giving all trustees Dr. Rankin's letter, only after being forced through parliamentary procedures, it was delivered to trustees with Dr. Floyd's handwritten notes and scribbles all over the letter. Dr. Floyd wrote words like "ridiculous," "unscriptural," "illogical," all over Dr. Rankin's letter as he commented on Dr. Rankin's objections to the policies. Dr. Floyd has rightfully been excoriated for his conduct, but the effect upon Baptist Identity people being vigorously challenged by Southern Baptists for both their beliefs and tactics is far reaching.

They shut down the ability for others to either comment upon or, heaven forbid, criticize their actions.

Now, the premier Baptist Identity blog, SBC Today, has chosen to terminate all comments. They may have found it difficult to biblically defend their Baptist Identity positions or they could have possibly felt embarrassed for one their own being exposed in his attempts to marginalize and ridicule challengers through using a false identity, but regardless of their motives, they have shut down comments. Again, I have found that on the whole, it is difficult for Baptist Identity adherents to graciously argue points or positions. It usually denigrates into name calling. One of these days Southern Baptists will awake to the fact that Christian unity and cooperation in the midst of debate and disagreement is a sign of health. But for some reason, Baptist Identity folks don't like being challenged.

Shame on them. The late President Truman once said "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." It seems that when our Baptist Identity friends can't stand the heat, they refuse to get out of the kitchen because they want to keep cooking, so they just bar Southern Baptists from the table of fellowship. Jim Champion, a frequent blog commenter with an excellent spirit and sharp mind, wrote this about SBC Today's decision to shut down comments:

I have thought of them (SBC Today) as the best Baptist Identity blog going. I enjoy their posts and the interaction. However, if they refuse to defend their arguments they are nothing more than a print editorial that happens to be on line.

Once upon a time Jeremy Green allowed comments, but because he got slaughtered by his commenters - and could not adequately defend his stances he stopped taking comments. I essentially stopped going to his "blog". Peter, Wade, Volfie, SBC Impact, Tim Guthrie and Tom Ascoll stand behind their blogs. I may or may not agree with any of them on one particular issue or another, but I will keep going back to them because they have the courage to take the hits.

If I want editorials I'll go to print media.

Well stated Jim. I made known to my Baptist Identity friends my intentions to call them out on shutting down the comment section last week. I expect them to open them up soon. If not, we should follow the example of Jim and simply read print media for the editorial comments.

In His Grace,



Anonymous said...


You always seem to assume the reasoning behind other people's actions. Between the Times is a SBC blog that doesn't allow comments. Dr. Russell Moore did not allow comments for a long time. Is that because they can't defend their theology?

Why can't SBC Today just be a blog that has decided to not allow comments because comment threads usually get nasty? I am pretty sure the men over their can defend their beliefs or they probably wouldn't believe them.

Jim said...


They can.

We just won't read.


Jeff said...

Their timing is sure strange. There have been nasty comments on their blog for a while, why stop it now. They can also moderate them.

Anonymous said...

Jim: If you will read their blog, it wasn't the commenters that were getting nasty. It was the author and others who hold to the BI view that were getting nasty and offended.

It says a lot when discussions are shut down. To me it usually means this is the way it is, no discussion.

Tim G said...

Wade and Debbie,
Will you say the same about the SEBTS related blogs?

You guys sure assume to know much when you actually know little. The obvious is...obvious except to you.

You are better than this!

Alan Paul said...

Why were the comments shut down if they can defend their comments?This is obviously the question that many BI folk will try to ignore or work their way around. I'd like a straightforward answer to that question - no games, no misdirection (i.e. TIm's comment) just an answer.

Anonymous said...

I was also wondering why SBC Today shut down comments. So, I emailed Wes Kenney and asked him. He answered me with a very gracious reply.

I am decidedly not Baptist Identity. I have debated these guys for years now - ever since early 2006. Last year I engaged in a running debate with them on a post regarding alcohol. That comment stream went to over 300 comments. I had leaders throughout the SBC emailing me telling me to give it up because I was wasting my time. No one got ugly with me though. We debated the issues and it was fine.

Last December, I spent almost a week debating Dr. Yarnell on the issue of baptism and communion. He was very cordial. I disagree with him on his conclusions and I left no doubt about that, but we got along fine.

I've disagreed with CB Scott quite a bit on things. He has never once insulted me online or in person.

Tim, Robin, and Wes disagree with me constantly on these things, but they all allow me to post and deal with me cordially. Bart Barber and I have gotten into it a few times, but we have been able to clear it up and as far as I know, have a good relationship after very intense debate over the years.

I am saying all this to say that I have found it possible to disagree with these men in a cordial and respectful way and have them return the favor. Over the past 3 years perhaps only David Rogers has taken them on more than I have on their own turf. I can only speak for myself, but what you write here has not been my experience of the men at SBC Today and I thought that I should say so.

Yes, we disagree on certain issues. But, we are still brothers in Christ and fellow Baptists. I don't know what they think of me, but they have given me respect in our debates so I will return it to them and speak a word of defense for men that I have known as theological opponents on issues of controversy in the SBC, but as brothers in Christ otherwise.

Tim G said...

I think you will find that the answer was given by the guys on the site.

I thought it was clear.

Anonymous said...


The Baptist Identity may have not said anything denigrating or derogatory of you, but it certainly is not true of others. Have you not read the snide comments to Debbie Kaufman and others by these men? Protect the innocent, Mr. Cross, but don't defend the guilty.


Dave Miller said...

Tim G,

There is a significant difference between "Between the Times" or Al Mohler's blog and SBC Today. The first two are blogs by preeminent scholars and leaders of this convention. I would love to interact with them, but what they say has a power, an insight, a depth that most other blogs don't have. They are worth reading without the process of commenting.

I do not think that SBC Today has the same quality of writing. I have had some interaction with Wes and found him gracious and kind. I don't know any of the other guys.

Simply put, and this is not really meant as an insult (though it is also not really a compliment) I don't find the same level of insight, scholarship or depth at SBC Today. The reason I went to that site at times was for the interaction, the exchange of ideas.

Robin, Scott, Wes et al seem like nice guys (with whom I often disagree). But without the inducement of commenting, I will not be inclined to read that site much.

I'm not sure I would cast it as some kind of fundamental flaw in the BI community as this post seems to do, but it will also make it less likely for me to stop by.

If their purpose is to communicate a message and win the minds of Baptists, the decision seems to be counterproductive. said...

Dave, do you usually excel in understatement? said...

Dave, just joshing with you. I think your comment was dead on.

I believe one of the reasons the Baptist Identity crowd is furious with me is because I have been successful in opening the eyes of many Southern Baptists to the fact that they these ideologists, though brothers in Christ, are not the mainstream in Southern Baptist life - nor should they go unchallenged when they pretend they are.

Rex Ray said...

Before comments were removed from SBC Today, one of the comments was:

“Rex Ray said…
You said, ‘It is a shame that you turned comments off…’ [on a certain post]

I believe it’s more than a shame. I believe it reflects the attitude of dictators. The way I retaliate is not read them.”

I’ve never understood why Wes Kenney put his interview with Patterson on his blog when the interview clearly showed Patterson was ‘guilty’ as you had accused him.

I mean with friends like that who needs enemies?

Maybe by closing comments was a way of removing his interview without it being so obvious?

Maybe in the future he will allow comments again, and the embarrassing interview will be forgotten?

Rex Ray said...

You said, “It is difficult for Baptist Identity adherents to graciously argue points or positions…for some reason, Baptist Identity folks don’t like being challenged.”

I went to Bart Barber’s blog for the first time in my life by clicking on your “here” and found myself and other’s challenged to deny the need for the CR by David 007. Their battle cry was De La Torres' interpretation represented their opponents.

I took the liberty to use L’s comment to reply to David 007 statement, and the silence is all over the place. I don’t know if they took a vacation or what, but it’s going on two days now without a peep, except D.R made a comment last night on another subject.

I believe the wisdom of L’s comment has them all shook up. Thanks L’s.

Below is what was said:

volfan007 said...
Wow! All I can say is, "Wow!"

Can anyone come in here and deny the need for the CR after reading this trash? Can anyone deny the need for encouraging and exhorting the SBC to stay strong on the clear teachings of Scripture after reading this inexcusable, heretical trash? Wow!

PS. Let's hear Rex and Robert and Big Daddy and some of the other moderate/liberal fellas come in here and try to defend that and try to tell us that the CR was all about power and politics. Wow!
February 24, 2009 3:16 PM

Rex said...
David (007),
On Wade’s blog, I hit “here” and here I am.
I’m going to let someone else speak to this subject from Wade’s blog.

A word of caution less they might convince you to agree with them.
1. They did not come through the CR.
2. They are not even Baptists.
3. They are not a man.

Christiane said...
As you have done, I read the article by Mr. De La Torre in a different light: it has layers of meaning for me also.

How is it that Christ holds up a mirror for us to see our own prejudices so clearly?

Can the reader not see that Christ lays out the problem confronting all of us: who are 'we' and who are 'they': the others, the 'dogs', the rejected, the lepers ?

What is the difference, if any? And what is it that may we have in common that He values far above our differences?

And what is our obligation to help the 'others' ? Must they always be 'sent away' unaided?

Nothing in this incident was 'incidental'.

All was planned by God and set in motion to teach us something, if we will quietly look at it without our 'prejudices' and without our 'self-righteous reactions'.

The Canaanite woman did not come to Christ by chance:
she was directed to that place by a faith that she would receive healing for her child.

In some part of all of us, we know that every mother would go to hell and beyond to get help for their suffering child.

This woman came to the Lord Christ. And she came to Him confidently.

Do His Words to her not reflect what many in the crowd thought?

And therein lies the irony. He is wisely, once again, holding up a mirror, using His Words to reflect the crowd's rejection of this Canaanite woman. And in doing so, He teaches, in a way that is unmistakably His:

DID he send her away unaided, as they might have done?

No. He did not. And therein lies the resolution of the irony.

She, one of the 'others', had great faith, and so her daughter was given healing by the Lord Christ 'from that very hour'.

Nothing in this story is without meaning.

I disagree with De La Torres' interpretation, as well as the 'indignation' of any who react to De La Torres.

The story is a lesson that ALL the despised and rejected of this world, who are of strong faith, may confidently come to the Lord Christ for healing, not to be turned away by Him.

WE are the ones doing the rejection of the 'others'. Not Him.
Wed Feb 25, 01:59:00 PM 2009 [time on Wade's blog]

February 26, 2009 6:33 AM [Time on Bart's blog]

Anonymous said...

wade, thanks for letting the anon back in! we all appreciate the opportunity to have a voice, regardless of what circumstances we find ourselves.

John Daly said...

Here are my words on SBC Today about closing the comments:

"I’m with CB, you can’t do a drive-by post and then not expect to either get some props or some challenge. Now Wes, I know you are sooooo busy that it’s nigh impossible to keep up with “fast-moving comment streams.” Sorry gents, I’m with you theologically and you’re pretty cool dudes to boot…but I see this as a cop-out and a retreat. That’s okay, you stay in the tower and leave the fighting to us."

Obviously the blog just took a major, perhaps fatal stepback and will soon have a fraction of web hits. And Between the Times is "behind the times" in much the same way.

Even if I do not wish to make a comment, it's nice knowing I have the opportunity.

Not Anonymous and proud of it,

John Daly
St. Louis, Missouri

Lydia said...

After the time stamp scandal, I think it was wise to shut down comments.

But fewer folks will read it.

jasonk said...

The time stamp scandal revealed the lack of...I want to say intelligence, but that is probably not the right word. It showed that they are really out of control, like taking a stand on an issue, a passionate stand (as they often do), but they were flat out wrong. Which is true on many issues they take a firm stand upon. Someone said it on this comment thread--don't react to this with the typical misdirection (Tim G's comment--"you guys are better than this"). The clearest evidence that Wade is correct on the motives behind the removal of comments on SBC Today is CB's response to it. CB is right.
I used to drop in on Jeremy's blog, but since there were no comments allowed, I eventually lost interest. SBC Today has gotten less and less interesting to me over the past few months, but now I see no reason to ever drop in again. Its just more Baptist propoganda.
Comments, even spirited ones, are important to me because I learn more from the comments than I do from the blog post.
Thank you Wade.

Anonymous said...


Same thing at this site.

I ususally have commented here anonymously BECAUSE I WANT TO, not because (as CB has suggested in times past), I'm a coward (which was my retort to good ol' CB). When Wade stopped permitted anonymous postings recently, I said, "What's the use?" and stopped visiting here as much--and still lived! I didn't NEED what happens here (it appears lots of others don't either, as the threads seem shorter since then), and Baptist news is available elsewhere.

Some of the most intelligent posters at this site are anonymous ones; so we don't post our names--get over it, everybody! When, in our own best judgment, our circumstances permit it, we'll type our names. Unless some posting is obviously deranged, either take the posting seriously--or just skip over every anonymous posting; I don't think that anyone here (OK, maybe a few) are so emotionally dysfunctional that he/she can't stand the thought that someone might actually NOT read his/her comments. I believe that the service Wade is providing right now to SBCers is needed; it wouldn't be the end of the world if the blog shut down today. Folks with the correct perspective on things would find a way to speak up anyway.

The Lord Jesus broke down the middle wall of partition (Ephesians 2); have BI folks raised that wall again? If not, they shouldn't live in such as ways as to justify the accusation about them. There's one KING, and no BI person is that King!


Anonymous said...

Here's a challenge:

Why don't we set up an old-fashioned between the Baptist Identity crowd and the Burlesonites. Each group could pick their champion and perhaps debate at an upcoming SBC meeeting or another event. This has happen in recent years with calvinism and tongues. Why not ecclesiology?

If you all are willing, why not issue an open challenge to the folks at

Anonymous said...

That's an old-fashioned debate.

I left a word out.

Anonymous said...


I am not trying to protect anyone. I know what has been said elsewhere and I know that they've crossed the line. So have I at times and I regret it. I am not saying that they or anyone else is innocent. People have to stand by their words and they have the effect that they are supposed to.

These guys have made me mad on many occasions. I do not agree with them on these areas of controversy. All that I am saying is that I have found it possible to interact with them without it denigrating into a name calling session or without them telling me to hit the road. It IS possible. That is my point.

I was an original contributor over at SBC Outpost a couple of years ago. Our "side" did its fair share of name calling too and it became embarrassing. This issue is not original with Baptist Identity folks. It is a part of human nature. As Christians, it all needs to stop. Debate the issues and treat people like human beings, even if they don't return the favor. Who knows? Maybe they will.

Anonymous said...


You seem to love to pat yourself on the back. Does your arm ever get tired of reaching back there so much?

Dwight Schrute

CB Scott said...


I just can't but ask when I saw the picture you used in this post:

Are you comparing the BI guys to terrorists?:-)


Anonymous said...

CB Scott,

I sure wouldn't doubt it.

Christiane said...

Good Morning REX RAY,

It's me, L's

How are you? You recently alluded to some troubles so I have been praying for you, even though I did not know the details. Hope whatever the trouble is will resolve soon.

I have something that might bring a smile to your face. I wrote a
STORY (true story, 'cause no one could make THIS one up) and you can find it at the end of Wades' post on IMPORTANT LESSONS FROM THE RED RIVER RAFT, about four posts ago. It's almost at the end, and it will 'brighten' your day. Enjoy.

So, REX, I see you quoted me. That's wss quite an honor. Nobody has ever quoted me so positively before, so this is a first.
But, Rex, I have no wisdom of my own. All wisdom that we have been given comes from Him. :)

I admit that being a WOMAN and a mother, I immediately identified with the Canaanite woman 'under-DOG' in this Scripture, since, of course, I also have a suffering child (my Patrick).

And being of my faith, all of the words and actions of Christ in the Holy Writings are studied intensely for the lessons and the blessings these words offer to us today.

I remembered another time when Christ intervened for a woman who was in trouble, and how He held up a mirror, and stones were put down, and all involved were blessed by His great wisdom. :)

There is a timelessness about Christ's teachings.
His Words belong to all the ages.

Now, REX, please go read that story I wrote and have a good laugh.
Love, L's

Anonymous said...

Baptist Identity.

Southern Baptist Cooperation.

And we wonder which future is best for the SBC?

Anonymous said...

Wade has deleted Dr. Phil's comments multiple times. In fact, that is why he closed out anonymous comments in the first place. I expect that when he returns, this comment too, shall be gone. Interestingly, however, I've never seen him delete anonymous comments that slam him, as in the above.

We'll see.

Anonymous said...

PSYCHIATRIC HELP: 5 cents please

The Doctor is : IN

Charlie Brown:
" Doctor, you have to help me. We all are talking to Snoopy, but he has STOPPED RESPONDING TO OUR COMMENTS ! "

Lucy Van Pelt:
" So, what I hear you saying is that Snoopy has shut down all communication between you and him. "

Charlie Brown:
"Yes. That's it.
Snoopy is just not communicating at all.
People have stopped coming around to his dog-house to have a word because he is not responding to anyone.
Doctor, what do you think the problem is? "

Lucy Van Pelt:
'I've got it !
Snoopy has finally realized that he is, after all, a dog.'

Charlie Brown: "Doctor, I liked him better when he thought he was a kid like one of us."

Lucy Van Pelt: "That will be five cents, please." said...

Dr. Phil, I know that you did not appreciate being called a wacko, but your comment is inappropriate.

All comments responding to Dr. Phil have been deleted.

I am out again for basketball games. Play nice everyone.

Wally said...



I have taken the liberty of posting your WES KENNEY TIME STAMP article on my blog over at


May I also take the liberty to add your above comment about POOR PETER to my blog posts?


oc said...

Maybe the world would listen to us more if we weren't so dog gone hyper-sensitive. My goodness, some of us don't have church staff positions where life is almost always "appropriate". And some of us have to deal all day long with people other than Christians. We have to deal with them, we can't just delete them. Why should it be that everytime we hear or read something we don't like or agree with, we deem it "inappropriate" and delete that person's opinion? Now I understand deletion and even banning if the person is obviously just here to stir up crap. But to just delete because we don't like it? Why don't we just man-up and deal with the comment, and show them where they may be wrong, instead of deleting the person's opinion? Sometimes I think we are diving into the fox hole, afraid of the incoming.

Instead, wouldn't it be a great teaching moment?

Jeff said...

MMA match would be better. The winner gets the convention.

Anonymous said...

OC wrote:

"Maybe the world would listen to us more if we weren't so dog gone hyper-sensitive. "

There is a need for Christians to retain the great calm that is brought by faith, yes, but maybe
'hyper-sensitivity' is not out of place for Christians if used in a different way.

Maybe 'hyper-sensitivity' is a gift we were given to be used on behalf of others, not in defense of ourselves and our pride.

There is much evidence in the Scriptures that this may be so.

The defensive, self-protective posture of early Christians hiding in the upper-room,
was not evident after Pentecost. The fears and anxieties were removed with the coming of the Holy Spirit.
And the power of His Gifts created a fire in them.
This fire conquered the mighty Roman Empire and spread out into the Provinces to warm the world and on into the centuries beyond that time and place.
This power was not the power of mortal, fearful men.

The B.I. people are 'hiding in the upper room' and may be in discomfort and at 'low-ebb', but they are still your brothers.

Maybe what they need is prayers so that they will be strengthened and be able to rejoin their Baptist brothers in communion/communication?

If we know nothing more in Christianity, we have learned that reconciliation and renewal is possible through the Gifts of God.

It is not over yet.


If, in pride, you have 'insulted' your brother, say to him 'I'm sorry'.
Offer an olive branch: a gift of blessing.
And believe that the mighty Hand of God will bring good out of this for all concerned.
They closed a door.
Knock on it.
Seek reconciliation with your brothers.
That YOU do this, is meaningful.
Leave the rest in the Hands of God.

Anonymous said...


"Anonymous" is back on as an option for comments. Thank you.

I have been reading SBC Today recently, really because it was mentioned here.

Sometimes they allow comments, and sometimes they don't.

There are certainly religious people of all stripes who do not like to be disagreed with. Being ungracious is not a character trait that is shared by one group versus another, though it can be part of a culture in some places more than others.

Seems to me that purpose and goals of the blog really drive whether comments are allowed.

Those that do allow for comments, in my observation, are more lively and often bring in more readers.

On the other hand, some editiorialists are persuasive, and allowing others to comment could detracts from the point they are trying to make.

Following this tack, however, usually leads to only those who agree with you reading your blog.


oc said...

"Maybe 'hyper-sensitivity' is a gift we were given to be used on behalf of others, not in defense of ourselves and our pride."

I believe you know what I was saying. The prissy attitude we often have is not congruent with our Lord and to dying to self. It's a dirty, nasty world. We are not of it, but we sure are in it. We can't afford to ignore what we may see as "lepers". He wasn't and is not afraid to be in the company of those who weren't "religious". He didn't, He doesn't. I'm glad.

While keeping our own house in order, we still need to associate and relate with those who may be seen as the unclean, and not run from them, but to show them the Way. Ignoring, running away, or deflecting is not His way. As beloved of the Lord, we need to have the attitude that He has. Although He existed in the form of God, He emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond servant,and being made in the likeness of men, He humble Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. I sure am glad he did. He could have; and it would have been what I deserved; ignored and deleted me.
He didn't. He doesn't. I'm glad.

And there were times He didn't seem appropriate. Likewise His disciples.

Wally said...

DR PHIL you can email me your comments and I will post them here on for all that love your humorous comments.

Ramesh said...

Dr. Phil and Wally:

They could use your help here.

WatchingHISstory said...

I never thought that you could say anything i could agree with but you have!

WatchingHISstory said...

that is.

Anonymous said...

Lenten Prayer

"Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit:

Psalm 145:
Praise the Lord, O my soul.
I will praise the Lord all my life;
I will sing praise to my God as long as I live.
Put not your trust in rulers,
in the sons of men,
in whom there is no salvation.
His spirit departs and returns to its earth; on that day all his projects perish.

Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob,
whose hope is in the Lord his God. Who made heaven and earth,
the sea, and all that is in them; Who keeps troth for ever:
Who executes judgment
for those who are wronged,
Who gives food to the hungry.
The Lord releases those who are bound.
The Lord makes wise the blind;
the Lord straightens those who are bent;
the Lord loves the righteous.
The Lord protects strangers,
He supports the orphan and the widow;
and wipes out the way of sinners.

The Lord will reign for ever,
Thy God, O Sion,
throughout all generations.

Now and ever,
and to the ages of ages. Amen."

Anonymous said...

Ben Stratton,

You said "Why don't we set up an old-fashioned between the Baptist Identity crowd and the Burlesonites."

That's an interesting idea.

Let me ask you this--Do you think the "Baptist Identity crowd" [your words, not mine] would be willing to have someone debate the issue of ecclesiology using "only" Scripture?

Or do you think they would insist on being allowed to bring in "tradition"?

Anonymous said...

What is 'Baptist tradition' ?

Sola Scriptura, Bible Only ?

Old Baptist Hymnals and their Contents (theology containsed in the traditional hymns
sung by Baptists for generations) ?

Accepted practices honored by Baptists for generations ?

All the BF&M written and approved by Conventions IN THEIR ENTIRETY. ?

The collective wisdom of the missionaries and missionaries-Emeritus of the SBC
(provided that they are allowed to speak freely upon honor and conscience) ?


every word that proceedeth out of the mouths of the BI leadership ?

I imagine 'tradition' will be defined by them that holds the winning hand. Sad, sad, sad.

Gereja said...


I would say Baptist Beliefs are as follows:

Sola Scripture
Sola Christo
Sola Gratia
Sola Fide

A big one: BF&M

Another important tenet is Baptism as requirement for church membership and for many requirement for communion.

Almost universally held by SBC churches is this big one: Tithing.

And last but not least: world missions.

I think most all Baptist churches agree to the above list.

Lu Mo Nyet

Anonymous said...

Lu Mo Nyet,

I think your list is pretty good. But one thing you should know about most Baptists is that while they say "by grace alone and faith alone," their praxis is quite different. You see, a majority of Southern Baptists believe in a works based salvation. Even the current and most previous SBC Presidents hold to a works based salvation. Now of course they do hold to Solus Christus in terms of the possibility of Salvation, but they believe that Jesus only does HALF of the WORK. So, according to them, we are saved "by His Blood" and by our ability to walk the isle, say the prayer and sign the BFM.

A gross heresy.


Anonymous said...


"‘He had no form or comeliness that we should look at him,

and no beauty that we should desire him.

He was despised and rejected by men;

a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;

and as one from whom men hide their faces

he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;

yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God and afflicted.

But he was wounded for our transgressions,

he was bruised for our iniquities;

upon him was the chastisement that made us whole,

and with his stripes we are healed.’

It was through his littleness and pain,

his brokenness and death,

that Jesus had saved them,

by conquering sin and death and the power of the Evil One.

He had overcome violence,

not by shunning or ignoring it,

but by receiving it

and then transforming it

into tenderness and forgiveness.

Anonymous said...

Looks like Dr. Phil really got under Peter Lumpkins skin.

He took the videos down.

The video links are now dead

Funny. You would think Peter would leave them up if Dr. Phil's analysis was not accurate.

Keep up the good work Dr. Phil. You continue to drive em into their caves to take cover.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, I guess Dr. Phil really did something great.

Peter shared quite a lot in those videos and he made himself very vulnerable.

So it was easy pickins.

And now that we all have got Dr. Phil to do our 'dirty work', we can watch Peter's humiliation and keep our own hands clean.

What a night. With Dr. Phil on board, we finally have our own bully and we can all be toadies. Just like those other guys, those B.I. people.

Hey, you know, we aren't any better than those B.I. people are.
And it took good ole Dr. Phil to teach us that, didn't it?

Oh, when will we ever learn?

May God forgive our foolish ways.

Is there anyone here who could watch Peter and not feel some connection to another human being trying to find his way, same as all of us, then I feel sorry for you.
Whatever disagreements any of us had with Peter, did he deserve to be treated like that?

So we are NOT the good guys after all? Not any more.

Dr. Phil,
did the B.I. people send you here to teach us that? Are you one of them 'deep moles' planted to undermine us by using our own pride? Well, it worked.
This time.

I think those B.I. folk just got
'our goats'.

Anonymous said...

I suspect anon 11:44 IS Peter.

Anonymous said...

Maybe 'Dr. Phil'
is Peter.

Anonymous said...

Let's have a vote.

Choose only one:

Dr. Phil is:

A. Our hero because he says what
WE are really thinking and
don't have the guts to write.

B. Dr. Phil is doing 'research'
on hypocrisy in the SBC

C. Dr. Phil is a B.I.
plant sent here to expose
us as 'just like them'

D. Dr. Phil is really who he
says he is, and we followed
along like little sheep/
er. . . little goats.

Gereja said...

Mr. Crowder,

If indeed SBC (most pastors) believe such doctrine of salvation as you portrayed it to be then it is heresy. But all Baptist pastors always preach salvation by grace through faith per Eps 2:8-9. Not works salvation then.

The invitation to walk the aisle of a church or even in seminary chapels is justified by saying that "you have not preach until you invite people to receive Christ as Savior." I attended a seminary chapel and heard the president said that. Still salvation is by grace and grace alone. Is the invitation heresy? It is just an application of the Gospel--adding no works to the Gospel. Though it is not necessary. Salvation is personal between the sinner, the message and the Holy Spirit (Jn16:8-11). If invitation gives the impression of heresy then for the sake of the message just drop it. But then it is not Baptist anymore. Well you have a pont.

Lu Mo Nyet

Anonymous said...

Benji Ramsaur,

You wrote:
"Let me ask you this--Do you think the "Baptist Identity crowd" [your words, not mine] would be willing to have someone debate the issue of ecclesiology using "only" Scripture? Or do you think they would insist on being allowed to bring in "tradition"?"

Everyone that is associated with the Baptist Identity movement bases their beliefs on Scripture, not on the tradition. I strongly believe the Bible supports our positions. For example, I have yet to see a single verse of Scripture supporting open communion. Not one.

Having said that, the reason that Baptist Identity people quote Baptist history and Baptist tradition is because it overwhelmingly supports our positions. In other words, it shows that we are not the ones who have changed our beliefs. I think the reason many non-Baptist Identity folks say that Baptist tradition is irrelevant or unimportant is because they know it goes against their ecclesiology.

I still think a friendly debate at the SBC annual meeting between the two groups would be a good idea. Hopefully people with more pull than me can make it happen.

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:19,


Anonymous said...

To Ben Stratton

'Everyone that is associated with the Baptist Identity movement bases their beliefs on Scripture'

Are you sure?

Can you list those reasons WHY the BF&M2K 'demoted' the words and actions of Jesus Christ in the Bible from their original importance in the SBC ?

Everything has kinda gone downhill since then (I wonder why).

We've heard the eplanations before, but they weren't scripturally-based explanations.

Would apppreciate your input.


Anonymous said...

Why the flip flop on anonymous comments?
Methinks your hunkering for comments?
I say kick them to the curb if people cant sign their name to the comments.

From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters

Anonymous said...

"I say kick them to the curb if people cant sign their name to the comments."

Oooooooh.....feel the love!

Ron said...

I agree with you statement that BI people don't like challenges. I would change it to CR people don't like challanges and say that it goes back further than the blog era. How long has been since anyone who disagrees with the CR has been allowed to speak at the SBC pastor's conference. The editors of Baptist press were fired by the Paul Pressler dominated SBC EC because they would print both sides of the issues. That scares the CR folks and now we have a BP that only prints what will support the CR establishment. Here is one more example of many. Jerry Vines, Charles Stanley and Adrian Rogers were all on the SBC Peace Committee. They evaluated SWBTS while Russell Dilday was president. The peace committee gave SWBTS a complimentary report and said there were no theological problems at SWBTS. They had no fault with the leadership of Dr. Dilday in their report. Just a short time later they encouraged their associate Owen Collins and other trustees to fire Dilday. The trustees up to the last minute were telling him their was no plan to fire him. Instead they waited until he was out of his office and walked in an locked him and out and announced he was fired and then ran away and hid. They would not give their reasons to fire in an open meeting or through the peace committee where he could defend himself or challenge their actions. The leaders of the CR are afraid of challenges or open debate.
Ron West

Rex Ray said...

Your story about the counter and chainsaw sound perfectly logical to me, so how can I laugh about that? :)

Maybe I’m a little like my dad. After driving 4,000 miles to Fairbanks, Alaska, my wife of six weeks met my dad for the first time. At four in the morning and with about three hours sleep, a chainsaw from the outside ripped a 3 x 4 foot hole through the logs in our room for a window.

Thanks for your prayers. I believe our church is at a crossroad as I’ll explain some to Ron West.

You wrote the trustees would not give any reasons for firing Dilday.

That is true as they said, “We don’t have to have a reason—we got the vote.”

Someone had not thought that far ahead as shown by trustee Ollin Collins’s letter to fundamentalists Bailey Smith, Adrian Rogers, Ed Young, James Merritt, Charles Stanley, Jerry Vines, and Homer Lindsey:

“I have to ask, why has there been such a strange silence from you men…concerning the action taken by our board in terminating Dr. Dilday. I say strange because it just seems strange that when we finally did what you men had been leading us to do, for some ten years now, and yet once it was done it was as though we had leprosy and nobody wanted to touch us or be associated with us. We really feel like we have been hung out and left by our self…we received over 450 letters, are bombarded from ever news media, Baptists included, telling us what reprobates we are, calling us ecclesiastical bigots and told that there are special places in hell reserved just for us.”

Dilday believed he was fired because: “I had vigorously opposed the fundamentalist takeover and domination of the SBC. I was therefore—even though a theological conservative—on the ‘wrong’ side of the denominational controversy.”

He wrote: “The reasons the board later announced are unfounded, lame, after-the-fact rationalizations of an inappropriate action that unfortunately is still reaping damaging results.”


Strange how those “reasons” are still alive. At our last deacons’ meeting, one man read from a computer those reasons.

Our pastor laughingly agreed that was Dilday alright. (He was a student at SWBTS at the time.) He has read Dilday’s book, and I was shocked to hear his words.

But they were in keeping with him holding an office in the fundamentalist convention of Virginia at one time and is a strong supporter of the CR.

Therein lies what has been troubling me a long time. I believe as J.M. Carroll’s Trail of Blood states what a church should be:

“Its officers, bishops or pastors and deacons are servants of the church. Its Government, a pure Democracy, and that executive only, never legislative.”

I believe that is saying a ‘congregational led church’.

In my opinion, I believe in the past, our church has been led by ‘deacon rule’ and mainly one deacon. (Not me)

The deacons and pastor are working on the church Constitution and Bylaws…that’s were the fur is flying. I’ve said I feel like a long tail cat in a room full of rocking chairs.

You can see why by a paper given to the church by the pastor that states:

It is not the deacon’s responsibility to lead the church… they do not keep the pastor in line…He does not answer to them. That is not their role. A personnel committee has that role…That committee would follow the lead of the pastor…A wise pastor will seek input from his personnel committee about any direction he believes God is leading the church in finances, vision, or personnel. But, ultimately he must lead…the pastor must be able to appoint the chairman of deacons, finance, and personnel because they become his personnel committee.

Frank Harber said he had been trained how to run a church and his bylaws made him a ‘king’, which ultimately, in my opinion, got him fired and split his church.

Let me ask you preachers; did the seminary teach you how to run a church as our pastor’s paper have about ten of Harber’s bylaws?

Anonymous said...

Alan: If you can show where I have called names or been mean,if I agree with you, I will apologize. I've done it before. I feel I have been straightforward and to the point.

If you see differently however, I will gladly be shown.

Dave Miller said...

As time has gone by, I have come to believe that the title of this post is a blanket accusation that is both untrue and unfair.

I think there are leaders within the BI community who do not want to hear criticism, but I do not believe that it is an accurate statement to generalize it to all BI folks.

I have engaged Bart Barber often. He never backs away from a challenge. To CB Scott, a challenge is red meat. David Worley looks for challenges. I would say the same for Tim Guthrie and the much-reviled Peter Lumpkins.

Does Paige Patterson shy from criticism? Don't know him. Hatley, Floyd, et al - it was certainly my impression. SBC Today? They say they only closed comments because of the time it took, but that is somewhat suspicious.

Painting with a broad brush is usually unfair, and in this case, I believe it is.

I have frequent conflict with BI viewpoints. I have found these guys to be willing to argue and debate. They are tenacious and unbending, but the ones I know do not shy away from a challenge.

Of course, they do not think I am Lord Voldemort. Wink. said...


You write: As time has gone by, I have come to believe that the title of this post is a blanket accusation that is both untrue and unfair.

From your perspective, you may be very accurate. From another's perspective, when phone calls go unreturned, when questions are unanswered, when IP addresses are blocked, when false accusations are made, and then those who make them are found guilty of doing the very thing which they accuse, and when statements like the following are made:

I’ve sworn off any contact with or acknowledgement of Wade Burleson and what he is doing. We’ve installed a plugin that allows us to block IP addresses, and I’ve set it up to block the range of IP addresses Wade Burleson has used to comment on our site in the past. And, with God’s help, I’ll do my best never to visit Grace and Truth to You again.

I am not quite sure how you can expect everybody's elses perspective might be the same as yours.

In His Grace,

Wade said...

Dr. Phil, sorry, but your reposted comment concerning Peter Lumpkins mental state is unacceptable as well, and likewise deleted.

Dave Miller said...

I understand the difference in perspective. You are definitely not going to be invited to the SBC Today banquet.

Christiane said...


It's me, L's

You would have loved 'Frank of the chain-saw' . The whole town adored that humble, crazy Irishman, and yes, he was a little bit eccentric, but that was what people loved most about him. If you knew Frank, you had yourself a friend for life.
On St. Patrick's Day, for the parade, it was Frank who drove the town mayor down the middle of mainstreet in his ancient, huge, very green, Cadillac. What a sight!
REX, you must have Irish blood in your family too, what with all of that spirited use of chainsaws !

Soooo, in the spirit of Ephesians 6:11, to put on the full armor of God, this is for you: a prayer to say in the mornings, so that the stress of your church organizational troubles doesn't harm your health:

Now, REX, this prayer is VERY celtic, so just pick out the parts you feel comfortable with : :)

"The Breastplate of Saint Patrick"

I arise today through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity, through belief in the Threeness, through confession of the Oneness of the Creator of creation.

I arise today through the strength of Christ with His Baptism,
through the strength of His Crucifixion with His Burial,
through the strength of His Resurrection with His Ascension.

I arise today, through the strength of Heaven:
light of Sun, brilliance of Moon, splendour of Fire,
speed of Lightning, swiftness of Wind, depth of Sea,
stability of Earth, firmness of Rock.

I arise today, through God's strength to pilot me:
God's might to uphold me, God's wisdom to guide me,
God's eye to look before me, God's ear to hear me,
God's word to speak for me, God's hand to guard me,
God's way to lie before me, God's shield to protect me,
God's host to secure me:
against snares of devils, against temptations of vices,
against inclinations of nature, against everyone who
shall wish me ill, afar and anear, alone and in a crowd.

I summon today all these powers between me (and these evils):
against every cruel and merciless power that may oppose my body and my soul, against incantations of false prophets,
against false laws of heretics,
against every knowledge that endangers man's body and soul.

Christ to protect me today
so that there may come abundance of reward.
Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me, Christ in me,
Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ on my right, Christ on my left,
Christ in breadth, Christ in length, Christ in height,
Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of every man who speaks of me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.

I arise today through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity, through belief in the Threeness, through confession of the Oneness of the Creator of creation.

Salvation is of the Lord. Salvation is of the Lord. Salvation is of Christ.

May Thy Salvation, O Lord,
be ever with us." St. Patrick

Rex, I will pray for God to keep you safe during these church organizational difficulties, so that you are 'defended in battle', and your health is not harmed. Love, L's

Anonymous said...

Reflections on a Sunday Afternoon:

From Everlasting to Everlasting:
A Prayer of Moses, the man of God.

From Psalm 90

Lord, you have been our dwelling place
in all generations.

2 Before the mountains
were brought forth,
or ever you had formed
the earth and the world,
from everlasting to everlasting you are God.

3 You return man to dust
and say,
“Return, O children of man!”

4 For a thousand years
in your sight
are but as yesterday
when it is past,
or as a watch in the night.

Anonymous said...

Hasn't anyone learned to beware of a person who always paints themselves as the hero. In every post Wade is right Wade is big others are wrong others are small. If you read the SBC Today post they stop taking comments because they are pastors who are busy pure and simple. I am a pastor of a church and would not and do not have time to answer each and every comment and to screen comments.
Wade must be the only Superman pastor who has time to keep up with everything and be a good pastor

Ramesh said...

"In every post Wade is right Wade is big others are wrong others are small. "

Pastor Wade, permits you to rebut his arguments. What more can you want from a blog post? He rarely deletes comments, unless they are un-civil or attack a character of a person than the arguments. And especially, if one attacks him, even though one is Anon, he never deletes those comments.

If you listen to his sermons, he does admit his mistakes.

Rex Ray said...

Dave Miller,
I believe one of your comments on SBC Today, asked the powers that be, to answer the accusations coming from Wade’s blog a while back, but they never gave you a very good answer did they?

You said, “The ones I know do not shy away from a challenge.”

Hey! I asked them to explain the difference from me seeing a discrepancy in the Bible and them seeing it as an “illusion one day” as explained page nine of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy; and they didn’t touch it with a ten foot pole.

And you didn’t reply to my comment saying:

I was cleaning the car and found an old ‘love letter’ from you. It said:

“Rex Ray, are you dodging me? I would like to think my erudite logic so overwhelmed you that you decided there was no way you could respond! I am waiting like a maiden at the dance for your response. February 18, 2008”

It’s almost our anniversary, but has our ‘love’ faded so quickly? I had hoped we would have enjoyed ‘chewing’ on each other much longer.

So here we are ‘together again’…nice to have you back.

Thanks for "The Breastplate of Saint Patrick".

Anonymous said...

"Hasn't anyone learned to beware of a person who always paints themselves as the hero."


Much more to beware of someone who harms other people and says that they do in the Name of the Lord.
Them you don't want to trust, especially when they end up rolling in money donated to help the church.

People tend to trust those who stand up for the rights of others who are being mauled by tyrants.
Especially if it costs them dearly.

If you are attacking Wade's reputation in his own house, at least go back and read what he tried to do for innocent people, and the price he had to pay.

It's not Wade you need to fear.
Watch out for those tyrants, though, they can corrupt your soul.

Dave Miller said...


That may have been the most disturbing comment I have ever received!

I don't remember what we were talking about.

Lydia said...

Hasn't anyone learned to beware of a person who always paints themselves as the hero. In every post Wade is right Wade is big others are wrong others are small. If you read the SBC Today post they stop taking comments because they are pastors who are busy pure and simple. I am a pastor of a church and would not and do not have time to answer each and every comment and to screen comments.
Wade must be the only Superman pastor who has time to keep up with everything and be a good pastor

Sun Mar 01, 03:20:00 PM 2009

This is not only ironic but a bit amusing. Here is an anonymous comment, from a pastor no less, bashing Wade even though Wade allows him to comment on his blog but other 'busy' pastors don't allow such criticisms on the other blog. Pretty rich stuff, indeed. And people actually sit under these sorts of 'preachers'. Perhaps that is why you are anonymous?

DL said...

I have this to say concerning Wade Burleson's "busyness":

When my book on marriage was published, many well-known pastors offered to review it and many complimentary copies were sent all over the country. I'm still waiting, but not holding my breath. However, one pastor reviewed it publicly in a very timely manner, just like he said he would. He said he would, and a few days later, he actually did.

Now I respect the others who received copies of my book for review and realize they're incredibly busy and they don't know me from Adam. But neither did Wade Burleson, and he kept his word. So I really can't sympathize with those who question this pastor's integrity. I realize that's just my experience with Wade, but it's enough for me to give him the benefit of the doubt on other things.

CB Scott said...


The BI guys are my friends, but you have to admit the following is a little strong:

"I’ve sworn off any contact with or acknowledgement of Wade Burleson and what he is doing. We’ve installed a plugin that allows us to block IP addresses, and I’ve set it up to block the range of IP addresses Wade Burleson has used to comment on our site in the past. And, with God’s help, I’ll do my best never to visit Grace and Truth to You again."

With God's help, I'll do my best never to visit G&TtY again? Just a little heavy for me in its implication.

My position is: With God's help I will, when I see Wade again, say hell-o Wade, have a seat and I will buy you a cup of coffee.

As long as Wade does not steal one of my bulldogs or key my truck or vote against the NRA, I will still speak to him. I still think it was a little heavy to block the whole city of Enid, OK from posting. But that was not my call and I guess TODAY had their reasons.

Now, if TODAY wants to become a different type blog; that's their business. I will just have to go where the fight is. I do like what Lydia said about the Anony.

The biggest problem with fighting with Anonys is you may be fighting with your Mother-in-Law and not know it. Then you end up with food poisoning at Thanksgiving and never know why.

When I fight with you, Dave, or Lydia or Wade or Debbie; I at least know who I am fighting with and it does make it far more interesting.

I think all Anonys should be locked up at Guantanamo now that the terrorists have been sent to government subsidized hotels and health spas.

Anyway, that's my opinion.

cb said...


The biggest problem with fighting with Anonys is you may be fighting with your Mother-in-Law and not know it. Then you end up with food poisoning at Thanksgiving and never know why.

That was funny.

:) said...


Thanks for your comment.

I learned a long time ago that when people start resorting to attacking me as a person then what I am sayinng or writing is hitting its mark.

The SBC is moderating in terms of accepting people who disagree and being gracious to those who dissent. The Baptist Identity ideology - separation and marginalization - is being seen for what it is. For that, I am grateful and welcome the personal attacks.


Wayne Smith said...


The demise of the BI people over at SBCTODAY is because they shot themselves in the foot by the video they made and turning the lights out in Enid. In short the just made FOOLS out of Themselves. The last video was the final straw and they were advised to shut it down and eat Crow.


Anonymous said...


I don't know what you are talking about regarding needing to apologize. I did not have you in mind at all when I said there was name calling. Both sides have done it and both sides have crossed the line. I've said things I wished I hadn't. I'm not claiming innocence here either.

You're fine and I admire you greatly for your passion for Christ and compassion for others.

As for my take on all this, I learned a long time ago in dealing with the BI guys to engage them on their terms according to their rules and I am usually fine. I don't mind doing that because I have full confidence in my position and don't mind defending it with two arms tied behind my back. That is why I didn't mind commenting on SBC Today or Praisegodbarebones or a few other places. For the most part, they won't come out and debate you on an opposing blog. They mostly play home games. That's fine with me. But, I've realized that when I'm in their house I have to play by their rules. If I do that, they usually play nice and we can deal with arguments and ideas instead of attacking one another personally.

I'm just relating my own personal experience, not trying to speak to what anyone else has experienced. I know it has gotten ugly and it should not. I am only speaking to the idea that BI guys don't respond to challenges.

Anonymous said...


I think people revert to attacking you because of the content of your blog. What ever happened to the Calvinists at SWBTS? Nothing... hmm. Seems like you lied. You often say that you never get personal, but that is a lie. You spent an entire post basking some Dr. York, but then you wrote a new post because you had a conversation with him and you realized you 'misrepresented him.. aka. You lied about him.

Your gossip, lies, and slander are a theme of your blog. You are like an old woman that gossips with prayer requests.

Yours truly,
Dwight Schrute

John Daly said...

Life seems so much easier and simpler when one local Body partners with another local Body oversees and invests their time, talents, and energy into discipling Believers.

Anonymous said...


from The Ethics of the Sages
Pirkei Avot
which is based on Ecclesiastes
and on the Book of Proverbs:

"learning is a cooperative exercise and colleagues challenge one-another.
The moment challenges CEASE,
opinion freezes into 'fact' and
ideas become idols barracaded
against truth"

"It is too easy to base your will for God's Will; your beliefs for Reality's Truth.
Test what you know against the knowing of others, and test both against the unyielding simplicity of life."

Wally said...

If you google the name Dwight Schrute you will see he is perverted and I say the same to this anon commenter above

Anonymous said...

Acts 20:7
On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.

Note that the "we" (Paul, Luke & Co.) were just passing through, and thus not not members of the local church where they "broke bread" (aka "communion"). Is this a passage of scripture that supports "open communion"?

Anonymous said...


What 'lies' are you referring to?

If nothing happened, that's is a sign of that there was a protective effect when Wade exposed something pending.

I would say, if you are 'Calvinist' and if you study or teach at SWBTS, then:
1. Thanks to Wade, you were given a cushion of time to digest the handwriting on the wall
2. you need to formulate a Plan B before the CR axe falls so that you have an exit strategy to another situation.
3. I would not advise you to sleep well nights under the present regime. Someone let the cat out of the bag, and the cat meowed too loud for anyone to deny its existence.

Anonymous said...

Wally wrote this: 'I Love My Lord Jesus Christ more than anything."

Nice one, for a guy who calls others 'perverts'.

So will the real Wally please stand up?

Anonymous said...

Honestly WALLY,

Your comments just go to prove that there are more horses' asses out there than there are horses.

Try to say something wise next time. It's possible.
Read up on the Book of Numbers where God made Balaam's Donkey talk.

Anonymous said...

Please calm down, Anon 9:03 & 9:37 -- I don't think a fictional character (Dwight Schrute) is going to take offense at being called a pervert.

Anonymous said...

Your're right.

Wally was practicing
'CHARACTER' ass-asination !

Rex Ray said...

I don’t remember our discussion either. You were probably ahead.

If that was the “most disturbing comment” you have ever received, you must be bragging or was that satire? I was expecting one of those ‘smile faces’.

Oh, I think I get it—was it disturbing that a moderate welcomed you back? ;)

Would you tell if/how you were trained to run a church?

Anonymous said...

"The SBC is moderating in terms of accepting people who disagree and being gracious to those who dissent. The Baptist Identity ideology - separation and marginalization - is being seen for what it is. For that, I am grateful and welcome the personal attacks."

Or at least saying it is so might help. Like this newsflash helps me:

”The Southern Baptist Convention is quickly becoming a distinctly Calvinistic denomination. Southern Seminary in Louisville is pumping out so many Calvinists each year that traditionally non-Calvinistic churches are forced to hire Calvinistic pastors. It has been observed, that these churches, after 1-2 years of reformed preaching, overwhelming affirm the doctrines of grace according to some reports. With declining enrollment at Southwestern Seminary, one can deduce that the "Baptist Identity/Landmark/Arminian" flavor of the SBC is fastly and covertly being shown the door. This Calvinistic Resurgence (or CR for short) has been the planning of such Reformed luminaries as Albert Mohler, Tom Rascal, Mark Dever, and Kevin Crowder. (The last of course shining with a lot fewer lumens) :) Reports are out that a total revision of the BFM2000, due to be presented sometime in the year 2011, will be renamed "The Institutes of the Southern Baptist Convention" Also, the 2011 SBCAM will be held in Geneva, CH. It has also been reported that while baptisms are down considerably, so are false conversions.”

So you see, if you say it (or type it)…………it becomes true.


Dave Miller said...


I was joking, but I am on a personal crusade against emoticons. A smiley face might have helped.

You said, "It’s almost our anniversary, but has our ‘love’ faded so quickly? I had hoped we would have enjoyed ‘chewing’ on each other much longer."

Talk of a love letter and "a maid waiting at a dance" - dude, that is disturbing!!!!

I've never thought of you as the romantic type.

Ron said...

Another instance when the CR leaders ran away from a challenge was when Debusman, the libraraian at Southern Seminary wrote Tom Elliff a letter explaining that Tom was wrong when he stated conservatives were not allowed to speak at Southern before the CR. Tom sent the letter to Al Mohler who promptly fired Debusman and had Danny Akin go down and kick him out of his office. They were not willing to admit that Tom was mistaken and instead just fired the person wno pointed out his mistake. Again nothing frightens CR leaders more than to be challenged and have to defend their statements.
In the beginning of the CR they used the blanket charge of liberal against everyone who opposed them. When it was obvious that conservtives such as Richard Jackson and Russell Dilday were probably more conservative theologically than they were they swithed to the label moderate because there was no real definition of a moderate and they didn't have to defend it.
Ron West

Anonymous said...

My experiences exchanging letter with the biggest of the BI group, Paige Patterson, indicated he has little patience with anyone who would dare challenge his Interpretations of scripture. He did not respond to the questions I asked or refute my arguments, he just cited 2000 years of Christian tradition in support of his position! As a young SBCer, I was taught that tradition is nothing and scripture is everything.

I conclude that BI folks are not conservatives, as they claim. They are promoting a radical change in the SBC that will take it from priesthood of the believer and cooperation around missions to demanding conformity on non-essentials, as a requirement to associate with the SBC. They want those who disagree with them to leave because they are not "real" baptists or they are "liberal" or "moderate". I don't feel inclined to indulge them, because they are betraying the bedrock principles and priorities of the SBC.

They are not acting conservative; they are discarding the most time tested and successful Baptist distinctives (priesthood of the believer, autonomy of the local church, and fellowship and cooperation with SBC churches with whom they may disagree on non-essentials) in favor of a handful of disputable interpretations on issues of much less importance.

The BI folks claim (without basis, it turns out) that everything they believe is Baptist to the core and that those who disagree are suspect. In the fairly recent past, they would have used innuendo and other shady tactics to discredit their enemies (anyone who has the audacity to disagree with them publicly). This has become much more difficult now that the accused have an open forum to challenge their accusers. Obviously, the accusers don't like it. The IMB Board's response is a perfect illustration of their first instinct: Ban or marginalize those who disagree. I am thankful that there are those (like Wade and others) who are determined to shine a light on it whenever this (or worse) happens.

Gereja said...

Mr. Pruett,

If your explanation is true then this conservative innovation under BI and BF&M is a departure from Baptist identity in a real sense and is really dangerous. It reminds me of Roman Catholic church. I know the doctrines are conservative in nature, but the organization and the politics are the same.

Is he, Dr. Patterson is so mighty in power? That speaks a lot about the power of the man and at the same time the weakness of thousands in the SBC. Dictators rose to power because the constituencies were weak. Probably SBC is weak and the Baptists are weak and the leaders are cowards. Maybe.

Lu Mo Nyet

CB Scott said...

Lu Mo Nyet,

People like Stephen have been saying this same stuff for years.

The "constituencies" were not weak. It was the work of an organized constituency of grassroots Southern Baptists who stopped guys like Stephen Pruett and others of his persuasion and ideals from the destruction of the SBC.

Sure the SBC has problems now. But had the CR not occurred the SBC would have gone the way of other mainline denominations by the early eighties.


Anonymous said...

Lenten Prayer

Forgive us, Father

that we are often more willing
to accept forgiveness,
than to forgive

More willing to accept your love
than to share it
with those who have hurt us.

Teach us to forgive
As you forgive said...


You wrote: It was the work of an organized constituency of grassroots Southern Baptists who stopped guys like Stephen Pruett and others of his persuasion and ideals from the destruction of the SBC.

If the SBC were composed of 10,000 Stephen Pruetts we would experience real revival.

It's the spirit you display in your comment above that prevents it.

CB Scott said...


You, yourself supported the CR. Stephen Pruett and others of his persuasion and ideals stood against it.

I just stated a fact. Stephen is of one persuasion and set of ideals. We were of another.

The inference of a spirit unbecoming on my part in the statement is not forthright on your behalf.

You post on Watchdog and what he shared is of the same nature as was my comment.

You can't have it both ways, Wade. Don't build a strawman here.

cb said...


Good point about the similarities between you and Watchdog.

You allege the decisions of Stephen Pruett will destroy the SBC. Watchdog alleges the decisions of his pastor will destroy the church.

Here is the difference.

You want to restrict control of the organization to a FEW people who are the elite (i.e. those who think like you), and remove all others from any service or ministry.

Watchdog and Pruett want to stop that kind of ideology from controlling the SBC and the churches.

That's where you are different from both.

CB Scott said...


You say:

"You want to restrict control of the organization to a FEW people who are the elite (i.e. those who think like you), and remove all others from any service or ministry."

Wade, you have no proof for this statement. Actually there is proof to the opposite. I have no desire to restrict control of anything to the "elite" few of anything.

My comment was not between me and Watchdog. It was about my comment and your post. (BTW, it may do Watchdog well to stay "under" as long as possible.)

My comment stated a fact. Nothing more. There was no unbecoming "spirit" on my part. That was your perception. (probably of convenience)

Your post on Watchdog and FBCJax. is what you believe to be fact. It may be. I do not know.

My point is that if my comment is in an unbecoming spirit so is your post.

Or, my comment is what I believe to be fact (it is). Your post is what you believe to be fact (It may be).

And you did support the CR. That is a fact and we both know it.

My point of reference was directed to where Stephan was by persuasion and ideals at the time of the CR. He was in opposition to it as we (you and I) were for it.

That's it Wade. Don't make more of it that what it is.


CB Scott said...

One more thing Wade,

You may have a good post on Watchdog. I do not know. I have not been to First Jax. since Homer died.

But the impact of the post, if it is correct and factual, will be nullified by anonymous comments and Watchdog's purpose will be the lost in the comment thread.

Of course, it is your blog and you have the right to do as you please. There is wisdom in my admonishment though, if you think about it.

cb said...


Most of the anonymous commentors bash me.

When they bash others, I usually delete them.

CB Scott said...

Well, Wade,

Keep your hand close to the trigger this time and fire at will. It could get hot.

cb said...


As to your previous comment.

I have NEVER been for the marginalization of people like Stephen Pruett - EVER.

If you ask Stephen if he believes the Bible, he will tell you he does without hesitation.

Had I known what some who supported the CR actually wanted, I NEVER would have supported it.

My eyes, as they say, have been opened. The CR was never a Battle for the Bible.

It was not about what the Bible IS -

It was always about what the Bible SAYS -

And now I see that most in the CR will tell you what it says and try to crush you if you disagree.

THAT is what I am against. said...

Well, Wade,

Keep your hand close to the trigger this time and fire at will. It could get hot.

Thanks CB. I'm a seasoned veteran. I know the playbook well and am prepared for whatever comes my way.

Won't change a thing.


Anonymous said...

Wade Did not save anyones job. In fact, there has been 0 evidence to give his story credibility.

I could say, Southern Seminary is firing all non BI people!!! Look Out! Then nothing would happen and I would say, 'You're welcome, I just saved all non-BI people there jobs!' I'm so awesome

Dwight Schrute

CB Scott said...


In an earlier comment on this thread, I said I would always speak to you and be willing to buy you a cup of coffee. That still stands.

But, as to your current opinion of the CR; We are in diametric opposition.

It was always about the Bible. We did some wrong things in our efforts, but the "Battle for the Bible" was the core issue. And, in the end it may still be.


CB Scott said...


We both know you know the "playbook" no better than me, if as well.

My admonition was an honest one Wade. I trust you will take it in the "spirit" it was given.

cb said...





Anonymous said...


Good job on not responding to the point I made... it's because you can't. You know that anyone could make up a story like the one I proposed and then take credit for saving jobs...

If that is not what you did why can't you offer any type of credibility to your story?

If you prove your story then it makes one think that you, my friend, are a liar.

Dwight Schrute

Rex Ray said...

You keep telling Wade, “You did support the CR. That is a fact and we both know it.”

So, what’s your point? Only fools never change their minds.

I never knew the CR took place until someone said I was a moderate. I argued I was a conservative.

I now believe the ‘battle for the Bible’ was nothing but a political smokescreen for gaining control and power by bashing all opponents with ‘liberal’ and ‘moderate’.

This attitude was reflected by our now Vice-president of the SBC, Jim Richards when he said:

“Theological agreement will be the first foundation of the new Convention. Those who depart theologically will be identified and called to repent. To the foes of Southern Baptist of Texas, we say, we’re not in competition with you, but we’ve been called to contrast you.” (Baptist Standard 11-18-98)

Their “contrast” was shown by their newspaper (Plumbline October 1998) in saying moderates on the national level:
1. Deny deity of Christ, need for His death, importance of virgin birth.
2. Call for the ordination of gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons.
3. Proclaim Bible does not condemn all forms of homosexual behavior.
4. Refer to God as ‘mother’.
5. Defended the reproduction and distribution of child pornography.

I agree wholeheartedly with Stephen Pruett.

BTW, I don't drink coffee. :)

CB Scott said...

Rex Ray,

The statement Jim Richards made relating to theological agreement being foundational is nothing more than his repeating something most all of us agreed to in the beginning of the CR.

Back during the Peace Committee meetings it was presented over and over that theology was the foundation stone of the SBC.

That is nothing new. Richards was just late to the party on that one.:-)

BTW, even if you don't drink coffee I will still sit down with you anytime.:-)

cb said...


Having a person call me a liar that writes with a pseudonym from a character on the television show called The Office has given me the best chuckle I'll have all day. Thanks.

Rex Ray said...

What you say sounds pretty much like what has happened.

In the last days of Keith Parks as President of the FMB (IMB), as he kept preaching the glue that held Baptists together was Missions, all he heard was:

“No—its doctrine!”

Well, we see what ‘doctrine’ has done. It’s been said that some can only learn from their mistakes, but fools never do.

Where do you think the SBC is right now?

CB, there are parts I really admire about you, and then there are the other parts. :)

CB Scott said...

Rex Ray,

I think you probably already know my thoughts on the tenure of Keith Parks, so we will leave that be.

You say; see "what doctrine has done."

Rex Ray, I think it may be better to say; doctrine has yet to saturate everyone with truth.

What do I think? I think the Battle for the Bible may n ot really be over as we once thought. I also think some things have been poorly handled (IMB, etc)

As far as the "parts" of me..."

Well, Rex Ray, you are old enough to remember that "chicken commercial" back a few years ago; "Parts is Parts" :-)


G. Casey said...

Baptist identity should only be in terms of emersion not merely about style of church in which sometimes it comes across. In some respects I tend to think the eucharist should be a more common event in a baptist church because of the tendency it has on a member to reflect on himself in considering any offense they may have done towards God or another.

Anonymous said...

So true..just because you may have "Baptist" in your name means nothing when you have churches like Westboro Baptist Church around

Rex Ray said...

I’m old enough to remember the chicken commercial, but I’m too old to remember what it said. :)

You said, “I think the Battle for the Bible may not really be over as we once thought.”

There is another factor in what the Bible means, and that is who controls the Bible as shown below:
Who Controls the Bible?
by Lavonn D. Brown
It's a bothersome question. After all, we do want a Bible that is trustworthy. We hope for a translation that is dependable, as accurate as possible, one that will not deliberately mislead us. But, would we want a translation we can control?
Apparently, some do. Al Mohler, Southern Seminary president, recently endorsed the SBC Holman Study Bible in opposition to the TNIV Bible saying: "This is an important thing for Southern Baptists to do, if for no other reason than that we will have a major translation that we can control." (Baptist Press, June 12, 2002) Does that mean that, should the translators suggest a translation that is not in agreement with the private interpretation of certain significant leaders, we would have ways of "fixing that?"
A recent issue of Christian Ethics Today printed a lecture by William Hull of Samford University titled "Learning the Lessons of Slavery" (Feb. 2003, p. 5f). He reminds us of a time in the South when the Bible was used to justify slavery and all who opposed were branded as "liberals." He offers a word of caution. "Beware of preachers who try to substitute the Bible for Christ because they cannot control Christ but can control how the Bible is interpreted from their pulpit, which is often in accordance with the power structure of the church." (p. 8).
The idea of "substituting the Bible for Christ" illustrates one of the troubling factors in the 2000 revision of the SBC Baptist Faith and Message statement. The 1963 BFM statement says, "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ." These words were deleted in the 2000 BFM statement. The latter substitutes, "All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is himself the focus of divine revelation."
The change is subtle but serious. Certainly all Scripture is a testimony to Christ, but, according to the 2000 BFM statement, Jesus Christ must not be considered the "criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted." Those who defend this deletion say it is necessary because some misguided interpreters have abused it.
To be more specific, Ken Hemphill calls the Christocentric language "a loophole . . . used by some unprincipled Baptist scholars (moderates) to ignore difficult texts which they do not believe to reflect the character of Jesus" (Baptist Standard, Feb. 26, 2001, p. 3). This is another way of saying there are Baptist scholars out there whose interpretation of scripture we cannot control. These misguided interpreters, claiming Jesus Christ to be the criterion by which they interpret Scripture, are not coming to the same conclusions proposed by those currently in leadership of the SBC.
What is the solution to this dilemma? It is twofold. First, you remove Jesus Christ as the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted. Second, you encourage a translation (the SBC Holman Study Bible) that can be controlled by the SBC leadership.
One question remains for us. What has happened to the principle of "soul competency" that Baptists treasured over the years? I remember how thrilled I was to learn that Baptists believed in the "priesthood of the believer" and the right of each believer, under the Lordship of Christ (the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted), to read and interpret Scripture for himself or herself. Is it still possible to believe that the Holy Spirit continues to guide the believer "into all truth?"
Perhaps that helps us understand one other deletion. The 1963 BFM statement contains these words: "Baptists are a people who profess a living faith. This faith is rooted and grounded in Jesus Christ who is the same yesterday, and today, and forever. Therefore, the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is Jesus Christ whose will is revealed in Holy Scriptures." These words were deleted in the 2000 BFM statement. So, as Baptists, we may now relax. We have a Bible we can control. The only problem remaining is how to control Christ.
Lavonn Brown, retired minister from First Baptist Church, Norman, OK, is currently serving as interim coordinator for CBF Oklahoma.

CB, an example of controlling the Bible is Mathew 9:18. The Holman Bible has the girl alive, but all other translations have her dead.

Jim Paslay said...

Wade said:

"Had I known what some who supported the CR actually wanted, I NEVER would have supported it.

My eyes, as they say, have been opened. The CR was never a Battle for the Bible.

It was not about what the Bible IS -

It was always about what the Bible SAYS - "

I was waiting for you to finally say the above, it took you a while to do so. Do you remember the Peace Committee report adopted by the convention back in 1987? Do you remember its conclusion? I will quote them, "the primary source of the controversy is "theological," but there are political causes as well." The core difference is over "the extent and nature of (Biblical)authority."

So, who's right? A Peace Committee made up of people from all theological spectrums of our convention or a pastor 22 years removed fighting his own personal battles. I choose the Peace Committee because I was there when most of these events happened. There can be no revisionist history for conservatives battling for the Bible because we experienced it first hand.

In my opinion, your comments do an injustice to men who cannot defend themselves like Dr. Adrian Rogers. If it was a power grab as you have alleged, what exactly was the prize for their winning? Sorry, Wade, but your comments on the CR won't wash! said...

Jim Paslay,

I believe in an inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God.

I do not believe in Jim Paslay's interpretations of this sacred book.


Like you, I have waited a long time to say the above! (wink)

kathyd said...

In the last days, we are to expect men (even church men) to deceive the sheep. We are warned of this. Revelations describes churches who have fallen into various sins...some because of apathy; they have left their first love: Jesus Christ. When there is clamoring for money, all sorts of sins enter in. The love of money (Mammon)truly is the root of all evil. I believe this is why we are currently witnessing an international mission falling apart before our eyes. VOM donors are leaving by droves. VOM area representatives are quitting. I know of at least one regional director who has quit, and now is helping Wurmbrand- Michael Wurmbrand to spread his letter, which gives evidence to the present corruption.
Corruption within mission organizations is just one sign that we have entered the last days that Jesus warned us about.
There is enough of man-made destructive devices: chemical poisoning, bombs, nuclear bombs, that a third world war could be absolutely devastating. In past generations, they perhaps could not believe that a third of the world could be destroyed. Biblical prophecies are true, and a great time of judgment is coming.
Our sole security is in Jesus Christ,