"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

Thursday, October 08, 2009

At Times It Seems Hard to Tell Who Really Won the War

HIROSHIMA, JAPAN in 1945 (black and white) and in 2009 (color).









DETROIT, MICHIGAN IN 2009 (compare with Hiroshima)






It is tough to tell who actually won WW II.



Ramesh said...

This is only a reflection of white flight away from the cities to the suburbs and the eventual decline of the inner cities. But lately lot of young people are moving back into the cities and as a result revitalizing inner cities.

The major cause of this is the rise of gasoline prices. If in the next 30 years, if the world does not come up with alternate energy sources and efficient battery technologies, the trend would be away from suburbs back into cities.

I live in Philadelphia and have been used to living within the city. I do not need a car to go to work, to visit doctors or to go to the grocery stores. Everything is conveniently located within a walking distance.

My guess is the pictures only show a snapshot. My prediction is cities will revitalize and suburbs will die.

Just think about it. In the suburbs, without a car you can not do anything. And there is no public transportation.

Guess what. In Hiroshima, they have excellent public transportation. Actually Japan is dense and is built around public transportation, but they seem to get the american "disease" of driving everywhere, as a result clogging up their roads. Especially when they all go on vacation all at once. Same as in Europe.

RM said...

The saddest part of our inner cities is that their problems were brought upon them by themselves. It just shows the depravity of man without Jesus. People aren't going to live where they fear for their lives and no amount of money is going to change that.

Christiane said...

"The saddest part of our inner cities is that their problems were brought upon them by themselves. It just shows the depravity of man without Jesus. People aren't going to live where they fear for their lives and no amount of money is going to change that."

The problem is that the 'inner cities' aren't some abstraction. They contain real people, like you and me. I know, I know, you think that they are not 'like you and me', but they are. Like you. Like us. When they are cut, do they not bleed? If their children die in the street, do they not weep?
It is easier for us when we choose not to regard their humanity. "We" are different. (?)
We sleep better at night feeling our superiority and looking down on those who have nothing. It must, of course, be their own fault. Of course.

The comment about people not wanting to live where they fear for their lives is very true. I know for a fact that people who live in inner cities fear for their lives and the lives of their children. And they sure do not want to be there.

'It just shows you the depravity of man without Jesus'.
Yes. It does.
Can you imagine if people believed in Jesus enough to go and help those who suffer in the inner city? Really help them? With free clinics and home-care for the elderly and shelters for the abused? Can you imagine if the Words of Jesus were honored, how very different these people would be treated?
' ....and who is my neighbor?'

A long time ago some men cowered in an upper room until the Spirit of the Lord came to them. And they were strengthened and lost their fear and went out into the world.
That was a long time ago.
But today, as RM said, people won't go into the inner city out of fear.
And no amount of money can change any of this. It was never about the money anyway. Not two thousand years ago and not today.

RM, your words provide such great insight into our need for Christ and for the coming of the Spirit of the Lord, the Giver of strength to those who cower in fear. In all our land, was there ever a greater need for Christ?
Yes, there is enough sadness to go around for all of us.

Love, L's

Jack Maddox said...

The Pics of Hiroshima are really cool! The pics of Detroit are scary

Love, J's

John Daly said...

At first I thought, "Man, downtown Enid has really gotten bad!" :) I run in the most dangerous parts of St. Louis on my lunch break and I pass buildings like this all the time. Our family wanted to live in the city but there's one slight problem, the City of St. Louis School District is not accredited! Goal number one for a city that desires to make a comeback: excellence in education. Goal number two: excellence in law enforcement, give the men & women who wear the blue the highest wages in the city, give them the ability to have a constant presence on the street so folks won't be afraid to report crimes. Goal number three: tough judges who will back up law enforcement.

Wow, I need to run for mayor!

Jon L. Estes said...

What can we expect from a nation which promotes that we live our life with no regard for anyone but ourselves? Our "It's all about me (or may cause)" belief system will lead to what has happened in Detroit and other places around our country.

Think about it...

1 - A man with a gun shoots an elderly women for no apparent reason other than to take were $20.00. -- lady in elevator beaten, shown on news within past year.

2 - A man beats an elderly man trying to get into his car, pins him between his car and another cat with door and beats him, steals car, leaves him for dead and a group of people stand less than 25 feet away and do nothing. -- man in parking lot on news within past year.

3 - We call out others who do not join "our" cause because "our" cause is more important than anything else. -- the ugliness thrown at Dr.Land because he won't ride the wagon we think he should ride, this very blog.

The list goes on and on with examples and some might even want to respond saying my "opinion" is all wrong. Not a problem but this is my opinion and I support you in having yours without denigrating you personally.

2 cents worth, maybe.

Lydia said...

"the ugliness thrown at Dr.Land because he won't ride the wagon we think he should ride, this very blog."

You mean the ETHICS bus?


It is disconcerting to look at the pic of Tiger Stadium. I spent many a summer day there as a kid. Detroit is a perfect economic study of what NOT to do when it comes to politics.

Ramesh said...

About Richard Land ...

He can dish it out, but can't take it when it comes back?

Unknown said...

I have to say I'm skeptical of the point these pictures make in your idea of "who won the war." If you google some images of Detroit at night, its' skyline looks pretty good too. In fact, the one's I saw just briefly look just as good as the one's you posted showing Hiroshima. I know that not everything in Hiroshima is just "beer and skittles" as the pics you put up are, likewise, not is everything in Detroit as bad. Anyone can slant any city how they want provided they post the "right" pictures up...just my thoughts. I agree things are bad in inner city Detroit and other places in the US...but it's not just America's inner cities that suffer; that disposition is world-wide including Japan

M in WE

Unknown said...

By the way...I'm not trying to defend what we did or anything...just saying that the pics aren't really enough for the argument for me, that's all

M in WE

Jon L. Estes said...

You mean the ETHICS bus?

Not exactly but if that is the bus you are riding, I would love to see where you have come out against all the things the ERLC has opposed. But maybe you are talking about the ethics bus you drive and want everyone else to ride. Not everyone will address your causes and that still does not mean they disagree with them.

Jeff said...

I didn't know Dr. Land was upset over this blog.

Jeff said...

Lydia, I answered you from the other post. Just a title is what puts Dr. Land on the spot and lets Wade off the hook. I don't think so---Wade has entered the pond of this argument by writing about it. The question is has Wade used radio, TV, and the pulpit to call out people by name like you think Dr. Land should. I give Wade credit he has used his blog to do that, but has he used all his resources.

I agree with Jon---your just upset because Dr. Land isn't doing what you think he should do.

Sounds like an angry church member who is pouting because the pastor will not do what she thinks she should do.

Joe Blackmon said...

I'm not trying to defend what we did or anything...

Um, we were the good guys, they were the bad guys. When they decided to bomb Pearl Habor, they signed an imaginary document that said "You may now use any means at your disposal to defeat our country." If they didn't want Hiroshima or Naga...Nagi...oh the other city bombed with an A-Bomb they could have laid down their weapons and surrendered. Since they didn't, we had the right to attack them with nukes. Should have done it sooner, in fact.

Ramesh said...

Off Topic:

I am at a loss for words.

NYT > In Surprise, Nobel Peace Prize to Obama for Diplomacy.
OSLO — The Nobel Committee announced Friday that the annual peace prize was awarded to Barack Obama, just nine months into his presidency, “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

The award cited in particular Mr. Obama’s effort to reduce the world’s nuclear arsenal. “He has created a new international climate,” the committee said.

The really sad thing is lot of liberals think that Obama sold out on them and has turned out to be a closet Republican.

Jeff said...

Obama has done nothing to deserve this award. It has become a political issue brought on by Nobel Committee.

Tom Parker said...


Maybe he did deserve the award.

If they had given Bush the award you would probably say he deserved it and I would say he did not.

How is this award about politics?

Joe Blackmon said...

Maybe he did deserve the award.

Based upon....????

Lydia said...

I would be interested to hear what the junior senator from Ill for 173 days who is now our President has acheived for the Nobel prize?

Lydia said...

Jeff and Jon, the only thing defense you have of Land
is to attack me. That is ok. It is par for the course. Yeah, ok...I am just mad he did not do what I thought he should do. I am just another angry church member pouting.

So, to use your same attack tactics then I must say that this means you support pedophile ministers in the SBC, too,and are only outraged when it is about Hollywood. Not our own camp. (See how childish your attack tactics look?)

Keep in mind, none of you has bothered to discuss the ISSUE:

Why was Land publicly outraged (using his own media source) over Hollywood supporting Pulanski but has not spoken out about those pastors and leaders who support and coddle sexual perverts in the SBC? If he is our ethics guy shouldn't this be of some concern?

If no, then why? Isn't Land also upset about the sexual peverts in our camp and those that support them? Why not say so?

Why is it different in the SBC than Hollywood?

But we really should be good little followers and never mention anything negative that might help future victims of the perverts in our churches. There is a different standard for pevert SBC'ers than there is for Pulanski's supporters who are pagans. Hmm.I get it now.

Never mind.

Lydia said...

Nobel Peace prize winners since 1977.

2009 - Barack Obama
2008 - Martti Ahtisaari
2007 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Al Gore
2006 - Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank
2005 - International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei
2004 - Wangari Maathai
2003 - Shirin Ebadi
2002 - Jimmy Carter
2001 - United Nations, Kofi Annan
2000 - Kim Dae-jung
1999 - Médecins Sans Frontières
1998 - John Hume, David Trimble
1997 - International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Jody Williams
1996 - Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, José Ramos-Horta
1995 - Joseph Rotblat, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
1994 - Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin
1993 - Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk
1992 - Rigoberta Menchú Tum
1991 - Aung San Suu Kyi
1990 - Mikhail Gorbachev
1989 - The 14th Dalai Lama
1988 - United Nations Peacekeeping Forces
1987 - Oscar Arias Sánchez
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1985 - International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
1984 - Desmond Tutu
1983 - Lech Walesa
1982 - Alva Myrdal, Alfonso García Robles
1981 - Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
1980 - Adolfo Pérez Esquivel
1979 - Mother Teresa
1978 - Anwar al-Sadat, Menachem Begin
1977 - Amnesty International

Jeff said...

Lydia, If you think I attacked you I am sorry. You are buying to much into Christina Brown's viewpoint that we are protecting perverts. I don't think the SBC does protect perverts. Do we drop the ball sometimes? Probaby, but so does judicial system.

I think Dr. Land has done a good job with his show. Do I wish he would speak about some things on his show? Yeah, but he chooses not to and I do not know why----and neither do you.

This doesn't mean he is covering up anyone. I applaud those who are making efforts to prevent child abuse but please don't think we all have to do it the way you want it done.

Jon L. Estes said...


I did not attack you. I did choose my words carefully so as not to attack you. I agree that there needs to be a stand against ministers who choose to abuse. I disagree that everyone in high places needs to be that voice.

You are passionate about your causes but please, for the sake of Christ, be grateful for all God sends your way to be a voice alongside but don't slam those who don't live up to your expectations.

It is possible that throwing verbal stones at Dr. Land may be what he is keeping his distance from, not the issue you seek to have him speak about. But since the stones are coming from the same people demanding he be a voice for their cause, I'd be cautious also.

We have discussed the issue but not in the terms you are wanting. We did not bring Dr. Land into the discussion but I am trying to show that I can positively say Dr. Land does not support pedophilia but just because he does not speak out against it in the manner you want does not make him wrong in what he does in his ministry and calling.

If you do not want Dr. Land to be part of the discussion then don't bring him into it.

Can you please show us where Jeff or myself fit your accusation below:

So, to use your same attack tactics then I must say that this means you support pedophile ministers in the SBC, too,and are only outraged when it is about Hollywood. Not our own camp. (See how childish your attack tactics look?)

What attack tactics? I simply shared my opinion, disagree if you must but don't call something an attack if it is not.

Lydia said...

Land is the ETHICS guy for the SBC. He spoke out publicly against Hollywood for supporting Pulanski on Richard Land Live.

This rings hollow and is hypocritical to judge the OUTSIDE world when he does not bother to use "Richard Land Live" to speak out publicly about those who support and coddle sexual predators in the SBC. (1 Corin 5)

Why the double standard?

Perhaps his job only concerns ethics for the world. Not Christendom?

Let's face it, we have disfellowshipped churches for much less than supporting sexual perverts in ministry. We tend to look the other way and make excuses. Like what was done for Gaines, a well known pastor of a flagship SB church.

It is not MY cause. It is yours, too. Especially as pastors you should love truth and the Word which tell us that elders must be above reproach to the OUTSIDE. These are negative truths that must be dealt with. The world should see us protecting the innocents not making excuses for perverts who molest children.

Why aren't you asking the hard questions? What are you afraid of? Not being invited to the inner circle?

I am simply asking the hard questions. This is the result of our culture war. We are guilty of the same things we critisize the world for doing.

Are you guys sure you are not supporting Land because he represents the politics you like? As a conservative republican, I cannot ignore hypocrisy and twisting scripture from our leaders on an issue so critical to our churches and our children.

And to support a sexual predator or to keep one on as a minister one has to ignore scripture. Are we requiring stricter ethics from Hollywood than our own "Christian" pastors?

Does no one read 1 Corin 5 or 1 Tim 3 anymore? How about Hebrews 10:26-31? Does not apply to those who claim the Name of Christ and molest children as ministers?

Hollywood is doing what they are about. What is our excuse? What are we about?

Perhaps he should rethink critisizing Hollywood for the very same things we are doing in the SBC.

Neither of you have explained why the double standard is ok.

Tom Kelley said...

The U.S won the war against Japan. But the U.S. government's war against poverty doesn't seem to have met with much success.

Re: Dr. Land -- who is or isn't attacking who is a distraction -- the question Lydia asked is valid and worth asking, i.e., why is Land speaking out publicly against the sin of sexual perversion in the world, when we have heard him nothing in his public forums about the same sort of perversion within the church?

It is disingenuous to claim that we don't know what Land has and hasn't said about sexual predators and perverts in ministry positions in SBC churches -- there is no doubt that if he contacted major secular media outlets with an outcry against sins in his own denomination those media would be all over it. When the motion was made at the SBC meeting a couple of years to examine a database of ministers guilty of sexual abuse, Land could have spoken for the idea, and it would likely have pushed the story to the front page.

It is also asinine to claim that we ought not criticize Land for what he hasn't done because of all the things he has done. His outrage against Hollywood's perversions only amply the sounds of silence when it comes to perversions that are not being addressed in any meaningful way within his own institution. There is no defending it. None. Attempts to make a defense only serve to show the pervasiveness of the culture of silence (and the hostility toward those who dare break the silence).

Surely we all remember the famous Edmund Burke quote, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Have those words become so well-known that they no longer carry meaning? Or what about these words, "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. (1 Cor 5:12-13)? Or these, "For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?" (1 Peter 4:17)?

Lydia, dear sister (and seller of purple), you and others have every right to ask these questions about Land, and you are right to do so. Those who criticize you for doing so ought to be ashamed of themselves.


Jon L. Estes said...


There is no double standard. i am called to preach the word, not wave a flag for every individual sin and disgrace we live among.

I have spoken against the stuff at Bellevue but have been banned from a few forum / blogs because I do not wave the flag in the right way.

Dr. Land deals with many issues and the difference between Hollywood and Churches in the SBC (at least for me) is that one is saturated with a immoral propaganda while the other is not.

It is not Dr. Lands job to speak for every cause ever SB has. This would be an impossibility.

As far as the verses you reference, what are you doing with them? I hope all you want everyone else to.

As far as the double standard, you have not made your case well enough to convince me there is one.

Joe Blackmon said...


I'm an old fundy and I'd like to know why Land hasn't said anything about the known sexual preditors in the SBC.

Christiane said...


Sometimes old fundies can be so lovable. Your comment to Lydia was wonderful.
Love you dearly,

Jon L. Estes said...


How is it helping anyone to ask questions of Dr. Land here? If you want to know what Dr. land thinks, ask him.

But to help those in need of info below is an excerpt of things stated by Dr. Land.

"If anyone related to our churches suspects that this is going on, they have an obligation, both morally and legally, to report it, because we must focus on the victim," he said. "We say [to childcare workers], 'You must do background checks on all of your people who work with children, and if you have any reason to believe, any suspicion, that there has been physical or sexual abuse, you must report it immediately.'"

"Should the church seek to rehabilitate those who have committed these crimes and seek to minister to them? Yes," said Land, who acknowledged he was speaking about all clergy and not solely Catholic priests. "Should they be placed in a situation where they have the possibility or opportunity to perpetrate these crimes against the innocence of children again? Absolutely not."

Sexual abuse by the clergy is more than "a church issue," Land said. "It is not only a sin; it is a crime. And it must always be reported to appropriate legal authorities. Whenever anyone suspects that a child is being physically or sexually abused, he or she has a moral and a legal obligation to report it to the proper legal authorities."

It was there in google land if anyone dared to look.

Lydia said...

You are right, Jon. Land has every right to speak out publicly against Hollywood as our spokesperson for Ethics while the same things have happened in Baptist Land yet he has not used his national pulpit to speak out on those things. Sure. I get it now. Silly me.

Next time share the link that represent Land's words.

If he believes what he wrote, then why wasn't he calling for those in the SBC who protected the sexual perverts to do the right thing?

Let me remind you the SBC has all kinds of publications that say the same thing. But have they ever disfellowshipped a church for protecting a sexual molester or for keeping one on staff?

Yet, they have disfellowshipped churches for other things.

You ask what I am doing? I am not living off the offerings of the SBC and I do not have a national platform representing the SBC to the world concerning Ethics. So that question is like comparing apples to a peanut. Me being the peanut.

Jon L. Estes said...


You can have the final word but remember directing your personal frustration with Dr. Land is vastly different than speaking with Dr. Land, directly.

Which is more ethical?

Tom Kelley said...

Oh, please. The point of asking the question is to highlight the incongruity and hypocrisy of those who find it so easy to loudly condemn the immorality of the lost while barely whispering (if even that) about the same sins by ministers within the body of Christ. I'm not sure what's worse, ministers who sexually abuse members of their congregations, or (so-called) leaders who might be able to help do something about it but don't (too busy railing against lost people acting according to their natures, perhaps?), or those who defend the apathy and hypocrisy evident in their (so-called) leaders. I find all these things distrubing, and I think Jesus does, too. I wish you did.

Lydia said...

You can have the final word but remember directing your personal frustration with Dr. Land is vastly different than speaking with Dr. Land, directly.

Which is more ethical?

Fri Oct 09, 09:45:00 PM 2009

Jon, Are you serious? His comments are public. Now you are going to try the 'it is sin if you don't go to them private, first' excuse? His public comments and teaching can have a public response.

I will see if I can get him on the phone on Monday. I am sure it will be no problem. I will let you know what happens.

Jon, one last thing. You did not originally speak out against Gaines. You defended him by telling the bloggers they should not 'touch thine anointed'. That was your FIRST response.

Later you told us you said that because you did not know about the pedophile minister. But it was no secret.

In any event, your first response was old covenant: Don't touch the king. That is how you think.

I am only sorry we hijacked Wades post. I am pretty sick and tired of us fighting the culture when we are just as bad.

Debbie Kaufman said...

Jon Estes: I think Lydia has made the case solid and then some.

Christiane said...


You wrote this to Lydia: "You can have the final word but remember directing your personal frustration with Dr. Land is vastly different than speaking with Dr. Land, directly."

Jon, Christa Brown wanted to talk with Dr. Land 'directly'. She introduced herself to him and reported that he turned his back on her and walked away.

Of all the people who have a right to speak on behalf of the abused in any denomination, Christa is among the most respectable. She has overcome a terrible ordeal and gone on to help others. To turn his back on her was a difficult thing to understand.
He sends mixed messages for sure.
That is reason for anyone feeling frustration with him.

Love, L's

Jon L. Estes said...


I am not defending Dr. Land, I am saying he has spoken against minister abuse (check quotes I shared). I am also saying that he is not responsible to speak against something just because someone else thinks he should. you think differently, ok but I disagree.


I disagree.


I wasn't there to observe what Christa Brown experienced with Dr. Land but I know I have been accused of avoiding people, bypassing people trying to speak with me, intentionally ignoring people around me and each time it is a wrong perception on the part of the person(s) making the claim.

Dr. Land will be giving a report in Orlando and at the end of the report there is a time for questions. Get your church to elect you a messenger and when the time presents itself, ask him your questions.

Ramesh said...

Jon L. Estes posted Land's comments from a similar post to this (there are multiple new posts around this period that quote these):

Baptist Press > Children's welfare must prevail over clergy restoration, Land says [04-26-2002].

Christiane said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ramesh said...

Interesting excerpt from a fictional source on the crime in the country ... (this source is more than 100 years old)

WikiSource > The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes > The Adventures of Copper Beeches by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
By eleven o'clock the next day we were well upon our way to the old English capital. Holmes had been buried in the morning papers all the way down, but after we had passed the Hampshire border he threw them down and began to admire the scenery. It was an ideal spring day, a light blue sky, flecked with little fleecy white clouds drifting across from west to east. The sun was shining very brightly, and yet there was an exhilarating nip in the air, which set an edge to a man's energy. All over the countryside, away to the rolling hills around Aldershot, the little red and grey roofs of the farm-steadings peeped out from amid the light green of the new foliage.

"Are they not fresh and beautiful?" I cried with all the enthusiasm of a man fresh from the fogs of Baker Street.

But Holmes shook his head gravely.

"Do you know, Watson," said he, "that it is one of the curses of a mind with a turn like mine that I must look at everything with reference to my own special subject. You look at these scattered houses, and you are impressed by their beauty. I look at them, and the only thought which comes to me is a feeling of their isolation and of the impunity with which crime may be committed there."

"Good heavens!" I cried. "Who would associate crime with these dear old homesteads?"

"They always fill me with a certain horror. It is my belief, Watson, founded upon my experience, that the lowest and vilest alleys in London do not present a more dreadful record of sin than does the smiling and beautiful countryside."

"You horrify me!"

"But the reason is very obvious. The pressure of public opinion can do in the town what the law cannot accomplish. There is no lane so vile that the scream of a tortured child, or the thud of a drunkard's blow, does not beget sympathy and indignation among the neighbours, and then the whole machinery of justice is ever so close that a word of complaint can set it going, and there is but a step between the crime and the dock. But look at these lonely houses, each in its own fields, filled for the most part with poor ignorant folk who know little of the law. Think of the deeds of hellish cruelty, the hidden wickedness which may go on, year in, year out, in such places, and none the wiser. Had this lady who appeals to us for help gone to live in Winchester, I should never have had a fear for her. It is the five miles of country which makes the danger. Still, it is clear that she is not personally threatened"
Sadly crime in the modern day inner cities is more random than elsewhere. Also modern day suburbs are not like the country of the old. The houses in the suburbs are much closer than 100 years ago in the country.

John Fariss said...

Before we go too overboard attributing America's decay to politics and godlessness, I think we ought to back up a bit and consider war itself. It is not uncommon for (1) the defeated side in a war to have its infastructure completely destroyed, or nearly so, so that if and when it is rebuilt, it is rebuilt using the newest technologies; (2) whereas the "victor" often sucks its own resources almost dry, leaving precious little to build from or with. Japan's industries, especially the steel industry, were destroyed in WWII--not just by the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshema & Nagasaki, but conventional bombing elsewhere. Consequently, where they were rebuilt in the late 40s and 50s, they began to compete with an American steel industry which was built in the late 1800s and early 1900s--and compete they did! The railroads in America have never really recovered from the strain of WWII and Korea (in the Korean war, old steam locomotives, some dating to the third quarter of the ninteenth century, were literally moved out of the scrap yard and fired up to transport materials and troops, with no more than a boiler test and fresh greese and oil added to their lubrication systems). But the rails in Japan, Korea, France, and Germany were rebuilt--almost from scratch--and thus can accomodate high speed rail systems, while ours, in places, strains at 35 MPH speeds. Much the same thing happened in the South after the Civil War: iron strap rails were replaced by steel I-beam rails, and Birmingham became "the Pittsburg of the South."

Of course, moral decay is a factor, just not the only one.


Ramesh said...

I am beginning to realize maybe this is a trick post. I think the "Just" the commentator made the correct observation.

The important thing is the city of Hiroshima was rebuilt after 1945. Maybe if we visit Hiroshima after 100 years, it might look different.

The biggest factor in Detroit decline recently is the downturn of the economy and the reduction of auto manufacturing industry. Ford seems to have weathered the changes, mainly because of smart decision to acquire loans before the economic collapse a year ago. Sadly long term planners and thinkers are not being encouraged in the short term profit driven wall street culture and we are paying a price for this decline in Detroit. Of course this does not explain the decaying buildings in the above pictures, for the causes for this seem to have happened over longer periods (10 to 30 years).

Wiki > Hiroshima.

Wiki > Detroit.

Lydia said...


Another big factor to Japan's success was Dr. Edward Deming. A man they listened to but we did not so much until much later when Japan was cleaning our clocks in auto manufacturing. I was honored to meet him and hear him lecture before he died.

Jeff said...

Dr. Land has spoken, and why does he need to give Christina Brown and audience. She has no more right to speak to him then me! He has every right to say---I don't have time to speak to Jeff Thomas.

I can appreciate Christina Brown's ministry and passion but IMHO she comes across to strong sometimes---by expecting people to exhibit their passion the way she exhibits her passion. This is one thing I appreciate about Wade he has time to dialogue, and even make phone calls to other people.


Ramesh said...

Wiki > W. Edwards Deming.
Stop Baptist Predators [Christa Brown] > No "Christian ethics" for me, please.
Question: What do Southern Baptist leaders do with a top official who publicly castigates clergy rape victims as “nothing more than opportunistic persons”?

Answer: They reward him!

Christiane said...

Did Christ turn His back on those who reached out to Him?

Debbie Kaufman said...

Jeff: Christa Brown comes off strong(which if she was a man would you still say that?) because she was a victim of molestation as a child by a Baptist minister. I think I would come off strong too. She's passionate because she knows all too well the devastation of being sexually raped from someone you trust and respect.

Jon L. Estes said...


You are right, as is Jeff, Christa comes off strong and I agree it is a result of the experiences she has lived with. Yet, the fact that this strong personality and passion concerning the evil of molestation has become a negative to some, if not many. It seems that she and others want an audience from those they abuse verbally.

I know from first hand experience that if I disagree with Christa's approach and am passionate about the things I desire to say, she will turn her back on me and ban me from the conversation.

I know, its her blog and she can ban anyone she wants. I do wonder if she would shake my hand if she knew who I was?

Jeff said...

Debbie, I am not attacking Christa, just wondering if she learned to control that passion a little better if she would gain a wider audience.

She is not the only one who was molested as a child---not all come across like she does.

Jeff said...

Debbie, I would say that about a male or female.

Jeff said...

Christiane, No but God did turn his back so speak on Jesus.

Ramesh said...

This Little Light - Beyond a Baptist Preacher Predator and His Gang: by Christa Brown.

Dedication: Dedicated to clergy abuse victims whose voices have been silenced. Silenced by shame. Silenced by the false instruction of religious leaders. Silenced by church shunning and bullying. Silenced by church contracts for secrecy. Silenced by suicide.



Part One: A Church Girl...........................1

1 : The Minister's Mustang........................3
2 : Family Troubles...............................5
3 : Moving In on the Prey.........................7
4 : Obsession.....................................9
5 : With God as a Weapon.........................11
6 : Following the Rules..........................15
7 : Still a Virgin...............................18
8 : Satan's Ally.................................20
9 : Going to Hell................................22
10: God's Biggest Test...........................24
11: The Last Assault.............................26

Part Two: A Wife.................................29

12: The Dream....................................31
13: The Voice in the Air-Conditioner.............33
14: A Stockholm-Syndrome Sort of Bond............35

Part Three: A Mom................................39

15: Opening the Box..............................41
16: First SNAP Meeting...........................44
17: Dan's Wail...................................46
18: The Church Threatens Me......................48
19: Getting Past Their Nose-Thumbing.............57
20: Seeking a Symbolic Gesture...................61
21: Substantial Evidence of Abuse................67
22: No Help for Counseling.......................70
23: He's Still a Children's Minister.............74
24: Starting to Unravel..........................78
25: Getting Help.................................81
26: Baptist Leaders Cut Off Communication........85
27: Getting the Labels Right.....................87
28: Letter to the Church.........................90
29: Cult-like Behavior...........................98
30: Church Leaders Brag.........................103
31: Butterfly on the Run........................110
32: The Unspekable..............................112
33: Getting Him Out of Ministry.................114
34: The Creature on the Couch...................119
35: At His Florida Church.......................123
36: The Court-ordered Mediation.................125

Part Four: An Activist..........................131

37: The Curse of Knowledge......................133
38: Reliving It with Debbie.....................136
39: Seeking Clergy Accountability...............145
40: A Tsunami of Survivors......................163
41: Baptist Blogs...............................170
42: Kicking the Messengers......................175
43: Belief is Gone..............................186
44: The Guru Gets Ugly..........................190
45: The Do-Nothing Denomination.................204

Part Five: A Free Spirit........................211

46: The Hurt of "God's Love"....................213
47: Heart of a Missionary.......................217



Ramesh said...

Stop Baptist Predators Blog [Christa Brown] > Showing posts for query this little light.

Christiane said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christiane said...


It's me, L's

You wrote this: "Christiane, No but God did turn his back so speak on Jesus."

Jeff, as a Catholic, I do not believe this. And I have honestly heard other Protestants say this sort of thing.

My Church teaches that God did not intervene in the crucifixion, but at no time did the Father abandon Christ. The words of Christ fulfill the prophecy of the 'suffering servant' in Psalm 22

"My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? Why are You so far from helping Me, and from the words of My groaning?" (Psalm 22:1).

But now, JEFF, I am confused.
Please reassure me that your belief that the Father abandoned His suffering Son IS NOT THE MODEL for Christian behavior towards others.
I cannot understand how any Protestant Christian person could possibly excuse contempt towards another human being based on their belief that God abandoned Christ on the Cross.

Please reassure me that Baptists do not allow themselves to treat any human being with contempt based on this belief as a model of 'godly behavior'. Please!
Love, L's

Jon L. Estes said...


The Father "forsook" = turned away from His son because of my sin and yours... which he took upon Himself.

It matters not what your church teaches, the Bible teaches God the Father turned His back on the Son.

I will admit I don't comprehend all the things in the Bible either but I accept all the things in the bible, by faith.

Christiane said...


And we believe that Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophecy by quoting the 22nd Psalm.

When you get into questions of 'abandonment', you begin to look at the fact that Christ was True God and True Man: two natures in One Person. In my Church, we believe that the human nature of Christ suffered completely, for all of us, in ways so intense we could never understand the depth of it. But we do not see the Father and the Son parted or divided. In my faith, they are eternally 'One in Being'.
I suppose it is a question of deep theology, Jon, and I can respect your point of view as being different from mine.
What I have trouble with is Jeff's comment to me. I don't understand his reasoning, and I have asked him for clarification.
Thanks for responding, Jon.
Love, L's

Ramesh said...

My understanding is that God the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are one and the same. In the body of Jesus Christ did the Father and the Holy Ghost dwell within Him?

On the cross, Jesus endured the suffering as a man. But was the Father also present in Jesus while Jesus endured the suffering? In agony Jesus says, Why have you forsaken me. For some reason He was unable to perceive God, but He is God. But He shed His God-like attributes and became man and endured fully what man must endure. Then the question becomes did not God also endure this suffering, for God, Son and Holy Ghost are one. For what one endures and perceives the others endure and perceive the same. For they are all one.

It appears to be contradiction and sometimes does not make sense. But again logic based on human understanding or perception is flawed here.

BTW when I use the term man it is gender neutral.

Christiane said...

Perhaps THY PEACE, this is a part of the great Mystery of the Redemption.

It includes the ideas of 'who Christ was', the depth and breadth of the Mysteries of our Redemption (Christ is from the ages to the ages, Alpha AND Omega), and the Christian understanding of the nature of the Holy Trinity. "Tri nity" being the Three Persons united eternally in One Being.

I know that the word 'Trinity' is not in the Holy Scriptures.
And I know that the Nicene Creed and the Apostle's Creed do not appear in the Holy Book, as they are written.

But if a faith believes in the orthodox concept of the Holy Trinity, then it is accepted that the Three Persons are eternally One in Being and cannot be divided.

Is it possible for Protestants to accept that the Human Nature of Our Lord experienced great suffering to the point of death, and that His Divine Nature did not die but was not separated from Him on the Cross?
I don't know what Baptists believe.

There is also an orthodox belief that in the Person of Christ, because of His Incarnation and Passion, and Resurrection; that we may be joined to Him, who was both true God AND true man.
And that we come to salvation in Him, and with Him, and through Him, by the Unity of the Holy Spirit, because for it was for our sake that He experienced the Cross.
I honestly don't know how much of the ancient creeds Baptists accept as true. Love, L's

Christa Brown said...

Jon Estes said: "I know from first hand experience that if I disagree with Christa's approach and am passionate about the things I desire to say, she will turn her back on me and ban me from the conversation."

Well, gee whiz, for anyone who's actually interested, here's what actually happened. After numerous comments, on April 12, 2008, Jon Estes himself wrote on my blog that he was closing with a "promise not to bother you any further," and I ultimately decided to hold him to his own promise.

So, when Jon came back on my blog, accusing me of "gossip and slander" and also suggesting that another survivor on the blog was not being "honest," I responded by saying this:
"Mr. Estes: You cannot expect to use my own blog to publicly accuse me of slander. If you want to do that, then find some other blog on which to do it. Just six weeks ago, you closed a comment on this blog with a "promise not to bother you any further." How about keeping your promise?"

When Mr. Estes didn't keep his promise, and after I received written confirmation that he had been banned from another Baptist blog, I decided to delete his subsequent comments and banned him. I questioned why I should put up with his insulting comments when some of his own fellow-Baptist-preachers wouldn't put up with him on their blog.

Aussie John said...


I must have a different Bible to many of your correspondents! It seems to me that the letters to the churches always urged the local churches to deal with these problems, not the so-called "leadership".

Jon L. Estes said...

Greetings Christa,

My slander and gossip comment incontext were:

If those who post things with innuendo or hearsay or question things which answers have not been sought you think this is good discussion?

You are wrong. It is gossip, slander...

They were also to gmommy and others, not to you.

Let me ask two simple questions, if I may.

1 - Are the following words, truth or slander?

Anonymous said...
Looks to me like Mr. Estes is still a defender of churches who choose to keep child molestors on their staff.

Wonder why?
May 23, 2008 3:24 PM

From your blog you linked too.

2 - Do you have any idea why I was banned from www.baptistlife.com (the forum you refer too)?

Jeff said...

Jon, I believe you after reading what internet terrorist have done and will do to others. It seems if you don't join their cause and have their particular tone---you are against them. They are doing a disservice to a noble cause.

Jeff said...

I am beginning to understand why Dr. Land has nothing to do with some of these people.

Jon L. Estes said...


It seems that one can become the enemy quickly if they don't fly the right flag.

Jeff said...

Here's an example of how Christina Brown has taken things out of context. She pulls one thing out of column where Dr. Page calls for action.

Perhaps, this is why Dr. Land refuses to deal with people like Miss Brown

A short while ago, I was interviewed by ABC's "20/20" news for an April 13 program titled, "Preacher Predators." At the request of several, I agreed to this invitation so as to provide some kind of balance to a program which may well be overwhelmingly negative.


There has been a great deal of attention given to this subject in recent days. As I said to the reporter, we are willing and able to discuss this issue because even one instance of sexual abuse by a minister is too much. While I do not believe the problem is systemic and large-scale, there have been several reported cases of abuse by trusted members of staff in our churches. Let me help set a few matters clear for you.

Some persons have accused Southern Baptists of ignoring the issue and hiding behind our polity. Let me clearly state that we believe in the autonomy of the local church as a biblical mandate. We are not hiding behind anything, except the Bible. In fact, the local church is where accountability must be enforced. I call upon every local church to develop written policy guidelines for the care of children and youth. I call upon every church to have a system or policy in place to deal with any accusations made. We must protect children and youth, and the integrity of staff members.

I ask that all of our churches require background checks (on national and state levels) as well as thorough reference checks for all staff. The local church is where accountability must be enforced. As I said to one person, for years the press has complained that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has enabled the hiding of sexual predators. Now, they are stating that the lack of our hierarchy is helping hide sexual predators. The truth is that people can abuse any system. There are people who seek out positions in the church where the trust level can be so high that they can then be involved in horrible actions.

I also call upon all local churches to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law anyone who would take advantage of the trust and love of precious children and students. Simply put, there is no place in the church for persons who would take advantage of these relationships.

I also call on local churches to take advantage of the multiple numbers of resources that are available on the SBC website, as well as through LifeWay Christian Resources, to help safeguard our children and youth through appropriate policies and educational resources. There are many items available to help. Please use them.

Let me also share one other word of clarification. There are many people in the news media speaking about this issue. I am thankful that any attention to this issue brings a heightened level of awareness on the part of our churches and people. However, please realize that there are groups who claim to be one thing when in reality they are another. It would be great if the many groups who are claiming to be groups of advocacy and encouragement in ministry were that which they claim. Please be aware that there are groups that are nothing more than opportunistic persons who are seeking to raise opportunities for personal gain.

As stated earlier, even one instance of sexual molestation is one too many. Let us be people of integrity. Let us be people of such a trustworthy nature as to bring glory to God. Let us be men and women of the Gospel who provide an atmosphere where trust will not be abused. Let us provide churches where there is an environment of encouragement, instruction and spiritual enlightenment. Our Lord Jesus set the example in His deep love and care for the innocent, the young and the hurting. Let our churches be an example of Jesus' ministry.

Frank Page is president of the Southern Baptist Convention and pastor of First Baptist Church in Taylors, S.C. Visit his website at www.sbc.net/PresidentsPage.

Tom Parker said...


Why the continued attack on Christa Brown?

Lydia said...

If Frank Page really believes what he said then why was Steve Gaines invited to speaking engagements all over the SBC AFTER everyone knew he had chosen to retain a pedophile minister of prayer on staff?

(Gaines is just ONE example)

This is why their words ring hollow. They are words. They sound good. Words are meaningless. Why wasn't BBC disfellowshipped when they refused to get rid of Gaines?

Why not send a big message: The SBC will not tolerate pedophile ministers even if they said sorry. We uphold 1 Tim 3. We do not care if folks think we are mean.

Remember, this minister pedophile claimed the Name of Christ while molesting his own son. He was no longer qualified to minister! Does Gaines not know scripture? Does Page?

General platitudes to the media and on brochures are nice. But they do nothing. When the high level peers will not dare speak a word of public rebuke to one another over something so heinous, you expect the pew sitters who have been taught to lean on every word from on high to do something? They have been taught for 30 years to follow the leader. Not Christ.

Page did a good job with the media on 'image'. But as believers, we should have a much higher standard. Let us love these victims and innocents not in word but in deed. Protecting children and rebuking those who won't.

Joe Blackmon said...

I'm not sure Page or the ethics dude can be held responsible for doing much of anything to these guys. I do think the local church should be held responsible. There definitely should be something do if a local church has someone on staff that commits a felony but does not turn that person over to the police. If we're going to disfellowship Broadway (and we were right to do that) I'd have no problem saying "See ya" to a church where that happened.

And I'm a narrow-minded, CR supportin' fundy.

Ramesh said...


Christa Brown's name is not Christina Brown.

Ramesh said...

Jeff's Frank Page text comes from a link similar to this:

Florida Baptist Witness > Point of View
Guarding against sexual abuse in the church
Baptist Press
Published April 19, 2007

Ramesh said...

NYT > In Polanski Case, ’70s Culture Collides With Today.
But if he is extradited from Switzerland, Mr. Polanski could face a more severe punishment than he did in the 1970s, as a vigorous victims’ rights movement, a family-values revival and revelations of child abuse by clergy members have all helped change the moral and legal framework regarding sex with the young.
Joelle Casteix, the southwest regional director of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, traced the changes in attitude toward sex with minors, among other things, to a change in the movies.

“The kids of the ’70s were raised with films — ‘The Omen,’ ‘The Demon Seed’ — that put adult sensibilities into children,” said Ms. Casteix, whose group last week called for continued pursuit of Mr. Polanski at a demonstration in Los Angeles. “But a lot of changes in the ’80s, the Reagan era, made people look at their kids a little more and realize they were children.”

Jeff said...

I do not know all the answers concerning Dr. Gaines---Do you know? I mean besides the watchdog Belluve or whatever the dude's name is.

I have pointed out that Christa edited out a majority of Frank Page's essay.

Jeff said...

I am trying not to attack Christa, but pointing out that her style sometimes hides her important message.

I thought Frank Page made some great suggestions for handling this problem.

I also like Joe's point that we ought to kick a church out if it allows these perverts to cont without discipline.

I think blogs like this and the discussion which I think while passionate has not been unchristian---is making some ground in getting the word out.

Jeff said...

Thy Peace, that is the one I copied and paste.

Christiane said...

Why is the 'autonomy' argument applied by the SBC leadership in the case of clergy abuse;
but not in the cases where the SBC conducts investigations into local churches regarding other types of sins?

Jeff said...

That's a great question, I just a small fish in the big sbc pond but here's my opinion. If a church allows a person to cont to pastor without discipline---kick them out. The SBC has imposed BF&M as a standard (basically) so why could we not have a standard. I haven't though of that point.

Good point.

Jon L. Estes said...


A church which openly embraces, let's say homosexuality, should be voted out of the convention unless they see the error of their ways and repent.

I know of no church who openly embraces ministerial child abuse. some may be able to name a few individuals who have remained silent but an individual is not a local church. If such a person exists and does not repent and the church is aware and does not deal with it, then we might be able to compare the scenarios some want to make apples to apples.

Right now, can you name a church body, in the SBC, which supports ministerial child abuse? if not what then are you wanting to make comparison too?

Joe Blackmon said...

I know of no church who openly embraces ministerial child abuse. some may be able to name a few individuals who have remained silent but an individual is not a local church.

If, as it was alleged, Gaines kept dude on staff after he found out that they guy had sinned sexually in my most humble opinion the church should be held responsible. I also like the idea of a SBC wide Pervert List so that people who do it (have it proven) at one church have that reputation follow them for the rest of their natual lives with the goal being that they never ever serve in another SBC church again.

Jeff said...

Joe, I agree with you. I would like to know more about the situation with Dr. Gaines and please BBC watchdog---don't list your website it is not credible.

Christiane said...


Is it so strange that we have blighted areas of our country that stand like the ruins from a great war?

Over many years, our great industries and mills were closed as greedy corporate heads sought greater profits by sending industry overseas. And they made their profits. And the people here were sent home from their places of work.
And we did not speak to stop this attack on the common good of our people.

The corporate heads went to Congress and sought tax breaks to enable them to make even more profit. They suceeded.
And the people being sent home from their factories paid taxes to help send their jobs across the seas, never to return.
It was 'just business'. It was good 'for business'. All very acceptable. But with the loss of income and well-being of our workers also came the blight of our land. And it was accepted.
We have reaped the fruits of our own greed and the blighted parts of our cities stand as a monument to our short-sighted greed, and also that we forgot that when we abandon the common good of our people, a great part of our American heritage is abandoned for sure.

From Isaiah:

"6 Is not this the fast that I choose:
to loose the bonds of injustice,
to undo the thongs of the yoke,
to let the oppressed go free,
and to break every yoke?
7 Is it not to share your bread with the hungry,
and bring the homeless poor into your house;
when you see the naked, to cover them,
and not to hide yourself from your own kin?

8 Then your light shall break forth like the dawn,
and your healing shall spring up quickly;
your vindicator* shall go before you,
the glory of the Lord shall be your rearguard.
9 Then you shall call, and the Lord will answer;
you shall cry for help, and he will say, Here I am.

If you remove the yoke from among you,
the pointing of the finger, the speaking of evil,
10 if you offer your food to the hungry
and satisfy the needs of the afflicted,
then your light shall rise in the darkness
and your gloom be like the noonday.
11 The Lord will guide you continually,
and satisfy your needs in parched places,
and make your bones strong;
and you shall be like a watered garden,
like a spring of water,
whose waters never fail.

12 Your ancient ruins shall be rebuilt;
you shall raise up the foundations of many generations;
you shall be called the repairer of the breach,
the restorer of streets to live in."

There is much to pray about.
Be peaceful,
Love, L's

Lydia said...

Right now, can you name a church body, in the SBC, which supports ministerial child abuse? if not what then are you wanting to make comparison too?

Sat Oct 10, 10:42:00 PM 2009

That is the whole point, Jon. They go to great lengths to hide it. Then when we do find out, we either ignore it or publicly support those who tried to hide it. (Circle the wagons to support those who protected the pervert and ignored scripture to do so)

If they openly embraced it, we would know to stay away and disfellowship them. That is an easy one.

As a church, what are the differences between openly embracing pedophilia and sexual perversion from a ministry staffer and trying to hide it or supporting the pervert when it is found out?

Seems to me they are both just as bad. Do we get extra points because we do not openly embrace it? Seems to me we ARE embracing it to a degree by not responding scripturally. The message is sent: It is not that big of a deal. You can still be a minister or youth pastor.

You are trying to downplay it, too, by suggesting that since a church does not openly embrace it, it is not as bad when it does happen. How it is handled when a minster is found to be in this sort of sin tells us if the church, as a whole, really knows and wants to follow scripture. From the pastor to the pew sitter.

Jon L. Estes said...

There seems to be an opinion that if a person is a public figure that we can criticize them in public. The criticism of Dr. Land is just one example.

Is this a cultural norm or a Christian norm? If you say it is a Christian norm, can you back it up with scripture?

Lydia said...

There seems to be an opinion that if a person is a public figure that we can criticize them in public. The criticism of Dr. Land is just one example.

Is this a cultural norm or a Christian norm? If you say it is a Christian norm, can you back it up with scripture?

Sun Oct 11, 04:41:00 PM 2009


The Pharisees were critisized by Jesus in public, a lot.

Paul critisized (rebuked) Peter in public. I don't think Peter thought of himself as a celebrity.

John critisized Diotrephes in a letter that has been read by millions for 2 thousand years. But I don't know if he was a celebrity or not. Seems he was wanting to be one.

Would rebuking be criticism? And if no, who gets to decide?

I simply asked why Land spoke out against Hollywood supporting a sexual molester when our SBC leadership has done the same thing in supporting a pastor who protected a pedophile minister.

Why publicly rebuke the heathen culture instead of our own camp? Corin 5 teaches us different.

According to your logic, shouldn't Land have contacted these Hollywood stars privately? Can you make a scriptural case for what Land did in critisizing the Hollywood celebrities?

Christiane said...


The problem is the 'double-standard':
If an SBC leader publicly criticizes a group that supports victims of abuse, and calls them 'evil doers' who are worse than the abusers?

Not that 'name-calling' is acceptable. But did the SBC call this leader to account for his comment? Or what there 'no reaction' from the 'powers that be'?

JON, what victims' rights supporters want from leadership is a public commitment to the safety of innocent people. A commitment that is not clouded by 'mixed-messages'.

When someone in leadership attacks a survivor's support organization as 'evil', that sends a strong message:
1. To the churches that the leadership has this opinion.
2. To the victims that those who seek to support them are seen as 'evil' by prominent Baptist leaders.
3. To the wider Christian Community which has tried to warn all denominations about what can happen and did happen in the Catholic Church when victims were not protected: are their warnings ingnored or dixcounted?
4. MOST IMPORTANTLY: The leadership sends a powerful message to pastors who abuse.
And it is not a 'good' message.

In all honesty, you have to admit that bringing everything out into the light is the best possible solution to all the trouble.
I think people are too worried for the 'reputations' of leadership and for the cover-up of the sins of pastors who have abused.
What a great sin it is to knowingly shelter predators and to expose victims to them, by keeping silence.
What a terrible, terrible neglect of responsibility to care for the vulnerable among 'the local churches'.
Please, Jon, Dr. Land's reputation is owned by him. Christa has simply shared her experience of his behavior to her in turning his back and walking away.
I'm sure he knew she would report it. And if he denied her report, it would be on record.
Jon, it's the double-standards and the mixed messages that also shelter the predators.
Love, L's

Jeff said...

Lydia, Why contact them privately? It appears they are not Christians. Christa's attitude would make me fearful to have a dialogue with her. I have no problem with you saying what Dr. Land ought to do. I disagree, but I have learned from our discussion.

Jon L. Estes said...

The problem is the 'double-standard':
If an SBC leader publicly criticizes a group that supports victims of abuse, and calls them 'evil doers' who are worse than the abusers?

Not that 'name-calling' is acceptable. But did the SBC call this leader to account for his comment? Or what there 'no reaction' from the 'powers that be'?

I do not know who said this but regardless do we make public criticism OK because "they did it"?

JON, what victims' rights supporters want from leadership is a public commitment to the safety of innocent people. A commitment that is not clouded by 'mixed-messages'.

And public criticism of the individuals that support is wanted from is the right way to get it?

I missed the scriptural support for such a reason.

Lydia said...

"Lydia, Why contact them privately? It appears they are not Christians. "

Good point. But lets look at what it means for those who DO profess Christ who are public teachers/leaders/preachers.

We probably disagree that one can give a public response to public teaching and behavior that they believe is in error or hypocritical.

If you are referring to Matthew 18, we probably disagree with that one, too. It says if your brother sins against YOU. Go to him...

Peter did not sin against Paul personally. His behvaior was teaching wrong doctrine. But if I believe that Matthew 18 is teaching that we must privately deal with all wrong teaching and behavior, then Paul was in error. Could that be?

Tom Parker said...


You said--"Christa's attitude would make me fearful to have a dialogue with her."

Surely you are joking.

What would you be afraid of?

Joe Blackmon said...

Well, Lydia, we know Spurgeon was in error for dealing with issues in his day publicly. (Tongue firmly in cheek)

Tom Kelley said...

Jon said ...
Right now, can you name a church body, in the SBC, which supports ministerial child abuse?

I guess that depends on how you define "support". The SBC chose to declare that Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas was not a cooperating SB church because the church allowed homosexual persons to be members and involved in the ministries of the church. The church leaders claimed that their actions did not violate the SBC's constitutional requirement that they not "affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior”. But the SBC as a whole decided that their actions did just that.

So, according to the SBC Executive Committee and the majority of the SBC messengers, when a church’s leadership allows homosexual persons to be members and to participate in the ministries of the church, that church is "supporting" homosexuality. By that same logic, the leadership of Bellevue Baptist Church (Steve Gaines) allowing a child abuser to remain as a minister could be viewed as that church supporting ministerial child abuse. That the church continues to support Steve Gaines says something about how seriously (or not) they view Gaines’ error.

Tom Kelley said...

Interesting (and on topic) Sabbath reflections. However, I think the real persons of greed responsible for outsourcing that need to be called out are not the ones who started and ran the business that provided so many with jobs, but the union leaders and members who forced those companies into a non-competitive position. It is simple supply and demand, a basic tenant of capitalism, which is the underlying fiscal basis of economic and political liberty.

Joe Blackmon said...

By that same logic, the leadership of Bellevue Baptist Church (Steve Gaines) allowing a child abuser to remain as a minister could be viewed as that church supporting ministerial child abuse. That the church continues to support Steve Gaines says something about how seriously (or not) they view Gaines’ error.

I would whole heartedly support someone looking into this.

Christiane said...


BUSINESS WEEK reported this in 2007

"Ford and other automakers are increasingly relying on outsourcing," says Juan José Sosa, national secretary-general of the Ford Autoworkers Union in Mexico. And like their Detroit counterparts, Mexican auto workers are feeling the squeeze of global competition. "The companies are always saying...that in China costs are much lower or that unions in the U.S. are offering very good concessions," says Sosa. Ford acknowledges that it's outsourcing more, as part of an effort to become more competitive worldwide.

That's not to say Detroit isn't already saving a bundle by moving to Mexico. Mexican assembly workers average just $3.50 an hour plus benefits, compared with about $27 hourly plus benefits at a GM or Ford plant in the U.S. But less skilled workers at parts makers such as Delphi Corp. (DPHHIQ.PK ) in Mexico earn as little as $1.50 per hour, and their benefits are skimpier because unions are weaker in the fragmented parts industry."

Hmmm, let's see. $3.50 and hour, that's $28 a day, or somthing arround less than $600 monthly pay for non-union Mexican workers in 2007."

Tom, do you realize that Henry Ford's first car was priced at about a little over $800 dollar and that one of his first Dearborn assembly workers could buy a Ford with four months pay. Well, that means that one hundred years ago, our workers made about $200/month.

Give or take inflation, Mexican workers are paid less now than our workers were a hundred years ago.
And the automobile unions weren't operational at that time.

Thank God for the unions that fought for decent working conditions, benefits, and pay.
When your auto greedy executives make millions in salary per year, I guess we know why Mexican workers aren't paid a decent living wage. But it's just business.
Greed is greed. Out of control greed for profits is not acceptable at the cost of human dignity and of the common good.
Not in the auto industry or in the medical insurance industry.
NOT IN THIS COUNTRY. And, morally, should Christian people ever support the exploitation of workers overseas by American companies? It is a MORAL question.
The commonwealth of our people must be kept as a pre-eminent American value.
Our 'commonwealth' is essential to our American way of life. This value holds the human dignity of our people above the right of greedy profiteers whose decisions have proven to be inhumane.

Our commitment to the 'Commonwealth' is not something we can 'afford' to lose, or we are all at risk for exploitation. Love, L's

Ramesh said...

L's: You are a courageous woman.

Sadly modern day financial mechanisms are only helping the people who are making the transactions, but not the production of goods themselves.

To give an example:

Take the case of sneakers being sold in this country. They are being sold for around $100 to $150. They are made in China for anywhere from $2 to $10.

The really, really, really sad thing is China has been financing the US for the past 20 years. They have developed a trade surplus with US over the years and their dollars holdings are valued at more 2 Trillion $.

And then what did the US do. In the recent economic collapse, the reserver bank diluted the $ holdings around the world by creating out of thin air another 2 Trillion $.

And this miffed the Chinese and others who are holding $ that are being diluted now.

I truly do know we are ALL loosing. The only winners are the financial schemers who are gaming the system.

All I know is this system, if you look at it as a steady state system, will never reach equilibrium. Capitalism is a wonderful idea, so is the idea of currency. But manipulations of the markets will not create true wealth that sustains or lasts long.

PS: Technically shifting jobs offshore, will making the products cheaper. But the sad thing is most of those products are being sold in the US for the same prices as before. I only support it in the context of stimulating competition and the raising of demand for products in the less developed countries. As you can see China will soon overtake US in the GDP (though a meaningless figure, it is being predicted widely).

Ramesh said...

BTW I am all for outsourcing, provided we can outsource ALL politicians, lawyers, doctors, police and the soldiers. And let us not forget all those in the management. Management should easily be outsourced.

As you can see the people financing the US have already been outsourced.

Already engineers, accountants, teachers, nurses are being outsourced.

I am not against the idea. But I believe it should be done across the field.

I left out pastors.

Ramesh said...

This will be my last comment (for this post).

Rome is a good example. Ancient Rome that is. I believe they outsourced everything. Including the soldiers.

And we know what happened to them. Either by lead poisoning or the poisoning of their minds due to lethargy.

Tom Kelley said...

Others can have their protectionist ideas (the very concepts that stifle competition and extended the Great Depression by a decade); I will stick with the founding principles of our country -- individual liberty, private ownership rights, free enterprise. These are the things that have made our country the greatest force of freedom and economic prosperity the world has ever known. I have no use for the Marxist ideals of unionism and statism. Free trade, free markets, free capitalism -- these are moral issues as well, and I will value freedom as a greater morality than the morality of collectivism any day. As I said, the unions caused the problem, not the business owners.

Frankly, I get tired the implications of Progressives that they stand on the moral high ground. From where I stand, the political and economic positions of the left are greatly morally lacking. I really dislike being so blunt, but I dislike socialist propaganda even more. (Or is that Moore, as in Michael.)

With love to all who disagree,

Tom Kelley said...

Thy Peace said...
I left out pastors.

Hahahaaaaa. Now there's an idea! :)

(But actually, isn't that what pretty much most churches already do? Rather than seeking and nurturing those within their own body who have the gift of pastoring, we go on a "search" at other churches to bring in a "qualified professional", as if the Holy Spirit isn't capable of raising up within the body those with the spiritual gifts that the body needs.)

Christiane said...

High moral ground?

What is the ground like when your insurance company denies life-saving care that you paid premiums for?

Sometimes the 'rights' of the profiteers can be very deadly to those in our society who are at their mercy. There are plenty of examples to this truth, sadly.
The right of a private corporation to its profits does not trump the common good of our citizens. Thank God for the courage of our people to fight for better working conditions, for the emancipation of child laborers, for insistence on the safety of products in the market place, and on and on ....

Profit is NOT the prime goal of our society. It is a means to an end: a better life for our citizens.
It cannot be, therefore, something that robs any one of our people of their human right to live: and to live in safety and decency. There is a certain justice in that.

Moral high ground?
I surely hope so.

And yes, love to all those who may disagree. And love to all those who need our protection from the profiteers who have no humane love for the vulnerable among us.
And even enough love for the profiteers to tell them 'NO, not at the price of even a single human person to be deprived of their dignity and health.'

And if we grow 'tired' of 'those who take the moral high ground', then we might reconsider what it is that we are supporting:
Is it not a wise thing to remember the words of Isaiah? That those who wait upon the Lord 'shall not grow weary'.

Love, L's

Tom Kelley said...

I think I need to buy a copy of Glenn Beck's latest book.

Lydia said...

L's, For some strange reason you seem to think the government is going to be more compassionate and will never deny life saving treatment to anyone.

At least now we have some legal options. When government decides for us, we won't.

Christiane said...


Take a look at 'government' that instituted the HMO's power grab as 'health reform'
in the 1970's:

"This is a transcript of the 1971 conversation between President Richard Nixon and John D. Ehrlichman that led to the HMO act of 1973:

John D. Ehrlichman: “On the … on the health business …”

President Nixon: “Yeah.”

Ehrlichman: “… we have now narrowed down the vice president’s problems on this thing to one issue and that is whether we should include these health maintenance organizations like Edgar Kaiser’s Permanente thing. The vice president just cannot see it. We tried 15 ways from Friday to explain it to him and then help him to understand it. He finally says, ‘Well, I don’t think they’ll work, but if the President thinks it’s a good idea, I’ll support him a hundred percent.’”

President Nixon: “Well, what’s … what’s the judgment?”

Ehrlichman: “Well, everybody else’s judgment very strongly is that we go with it.”

President Nixon: “All right.”

Ehrlichman: “And, uh, uh, he’s the one holdout that we have in the whole office.”

President Nixon: “Say that I … I … I’d tell him I have doubts about it, but I think that it’s, uh, now let me ask you, now you give me your judgment. You know I’m not to keen on any of these damn medical programs.”

Ehrlichman: “This, uh, let me, let me tell you how I am …”

President Nixon: [Unclear.]

Ehrlichman: “This … this is a …”

President Nixon: “I don’t [unclear] …”

Ehrlichman: “… private enterprise one.”

President Nixon: “Well, that appeals to me.”

Ehrlichman: “Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can … the reason he can do it … I had Edgar Kaiser come in … talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because …”

President Nixon: [Unclear.]

Ehrlichman: “… the less care they give them, the more money they make.”

President Nixon: “Fine.” [Unclear.]

Ehrlichman: [Unclear] “… and the incentives run the right way.”

President Nixon: “Not bad.”

[Source: University of Virginia Check - February 17, 1971, 5:26 pm - 5:53 pm, Oval Office Conversation 450-23. Look for: tape rmn_e450c.]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Transcript_of_taped_conversation_between_President_Richard_Nixon_and_John_D._Ehrlichman_(1971)_that_led_to_the_HMO_act_of_1973:"

Maybe it is the morality and decency of our American people that I am counting on to stop the abuses. That's why the need for dialogue.

The core is here, As the tape reveals:

Well, Lydia, the HMO's have gone too far. Someone has to put the breaks on these monsters.
Any ideas?
Love, L's

Lydia said...

L's, YOu don't get it. The less care the government gives the better off they will be, too, because they cannot take all our income to pay for it. They have to leave us a little bit to live on. And the government will have the same greed for the purpose of winning elections and giving out jobs in all the new bureacracies that will be needed.

The HMO legislation was Teddy Kennedy's baby. But it did not work. Have you noticed that?

Can you not see the Medicare is broke and continually refusing certain care to seniors?

You simply cannot see that health care started getting real expensive when the government got involved in price fixing and extreme regulation.

We have been through this a million times. And I am trying to figure out why you think I am some big supporter of Nixon. Of course we know that the other side is never corrupt. Why not mention the deal Obama made with Billy Tauzin? Or how about we discuss Acorn?

You still have not explained to me how the compassionate loving Obama can allow his brother to live in poverty in Kenya when Obama made over 4 mill on his book. I am sure he cares more about our well being in health care than his own brother.

Your empty platitudes of love and compassion after you castigage anyone who makes a profit might impress some but not me. I can read right through you: You hate conservatives. You do not fool me one bit. But I am sure it fools many others.

I am only sad you taught your one sided rewritten history to kids.

Christiane said...

"Your empty platitudes of love and compassion after you castigage anyone who makes a profit might impress some but not me. I can read right through you: You hate conservatives. You do not fool me one bit. But I am sure it fools many others.

I am only sad you taught your one sided rewritten history to kids."

I accept your judgment of me as your honest opinion. Please believe that my own opinions are supported by my conscience, most sincerely.
I believe all of us have a right to follow our consciences.
My faith is a 'social gospel' faith, Lydia. If you were interested, you might read the encyclical: "Caritas in Veritate" and tell me how you disagree with it.
We believe that corporations are made up of people, who are morally obligated to follow the moral laws of God.
The profit, if honestly earned, is one thing.

But if the millions made are at the expense of causing human suffering by neglecting moral responsibility, how can anyone support that kind of profit, Lydia?

I may be more conservative in ways than you are. I believe in the old ways: the common good must be preserved above special interests.

Love, L's

Lydia said...

L's, Another reason it is a joke to pull out a 30 year old conversation is that Nixon was no friend to the capitalists. He fixed general prices (not just specific prices like on gas, etc) from 1971-1973 which wrecked even more havoc on the economy. He also started the EPA, the negative income tax and implemented Affirmative Action.

I would think you would like the guy.

Lydia said...

"I accept your judgment of me as your honest opinion. Please believe that my own opinions are supported by my conscience, most sincerely.
I believe all of us have a right to follow our consciences. "

That is a strange belief. Jeffrey Dalmer had a 'conscience'. An evil one. Did he have a 'right' to follow his 'conscience'.

So your 'conscience' says that if we do not support government health care then we do not want to help people and are greedy. Never mind all the problems we already se with government based health programs like Medicare.

That is why it is important to deal in logic, facts and biblical truths. Not the ones you make up from scripture as if Jesus went about teaching that we should get Ceasar to take care of our needs.

Scripture teaches that our hearts are deceitful and that means our consciences can mislead us easily.

"My faith is a 'social gospel' faith, Lydia"

So is mine. But the scripture teaches that Ceasar is not who we look to for the 'social Gospel'. It was not Ceasar overseeing the sharing of material needs in Acts.

You trying to map your version of the social gospel to scripture does not map. The dots do not connect. Why not just be honest and say you are political. You cannot back up your beliefs with scripture. You are simply a liberal that believes that government should distribute the wealth. It is that simple.

Christiane said...

All labels aside, this quote of mine may be more productive:

"There was a time when people wanted government to protect the innocent who were victimized.

under-age children in sweat-shops

unsafe work environmentes (try reading about factory fires where many women burned to death before the gov't stepped in and ordered safe working places with escape routes.
They actually had to 'order it' by law, because factory owners felt that they didn't have to spend their money for the safety of their employees.

I think, Lydia, you might want to consider this word:


This word is not one that is used politically so much as it is used to express what we all hold dear: that we have a right to a certain basic freedom from harm by those who are immoral. That immorality includes those that abuse workers, do not provide safe work places, pollute the environment and ground-water rather than spend money to clean up their manufacturing chemicals, create shoddy and unsafe merchandise, provide additives to foods that increase their profits but harm the consumers, and on, and on . . .

THE COMMONWEALTH of our people, of all of us together, that cannot be abandoned for the benefit of private profit, EVER.

Maybe that will 'reframe' the debate, in a way that makes sense to you. Love, L's"

Debbie Kaufman said...

Lydia: Your last comment is extreme and I believe out of line. As Christians, all Christians we have the Holy Spirit in us who guides our conscience and does so individually not corporately. Even if you disagree with that individual's conscience.

Your comment is not only reaching but it's insulting and I hope you rethink before you stab a brother or sister in Christ like that.

DL said...

"What is the ground like when your insurance company denies life-saving care that you paid premiums for?"

No one gets higher premiums than the government (taxes) and no one puts more stipulations on how that money can then be used than the government and no one is more blind to the suffering of people than those who have nothing to lose from their suffering (i.e. the government). I honestly think a rudimentary understanding of history should be a prerequisite to discussing these issues.

DL said...

"unsafe work environmentes (try reading about factory fires where many women burned to death before the gov't stepped in and ordered safe working places with escape routes.
They actually had to 'order it' by law, because factory owners felt that they didn't have to spend their money for the safety of their employees."

Have tens of millions of women burned to death in factory fires? Try reading most of the world history of the twentieth century. Socialist governments have killed over a hundred million people in less than one hundred years - most by causing famines that spread misery and disease on purpose. Wake up and read up if you're going to be such a prolific arguer for these absurd views.

Lydia said...

Lydia: Your last comment is extreme and I believe out of line. As Christians, all Christians we have the Holy Spirit in us who guides our conscience and does so individually not corporately. Even if you disagree with that individual's conscience.

Your comment is not only reaching but it's insulting and I hope you rethink before you stab a brother or sister in Christ like that.

Mon Oct 12, 02:40:00 PM 2009

Hmmmmmmm. You might want to be at least consistent, Debbie. L's can call those who disagree with her greedy and heartless but that seems to be ok with you. Perhaps it is because you agree with her.

Perhaps it is because I do not wrap my words in sweet sticky syrup and whipped creme t.o hide them better. I am afraid I am not good as such flattery tactics.

I prefer direct communication. I have been reading L's for a long time. I get the tactics.

Christiane said...

Darby, it is morally wrong that even ONE WOMAN burned to death in a factory fire.

There was an argument by anti-Semites, and still is, that the Holocaust victims did not number six million, but much less, so that the Holocaust 'wasn't so bad' as it had been revealed to be.
The answer to that was that even ONE DEATH was one too many.

Those women who burned? They were people, Darby, at the mercy of employers without conscience.
They paid the price horribly. It was the publicity about the horror that made citizens of our country demand better, safer working conditions. The profit people fought them the whole way.

But then, the factory owners were not supported by Christian people, hollering 'government control!'.

Lydia said...

"I honestly think a rudimentary understanding of history should be a prerequisite to discussing these issues."

I agree and not rewritten history as taught in most public schools.

L's The government had no problem with the sweat shops until PEOPLE..mainly the Northern Christians, protested so loudly they could no longer look the other way and expect to be elected. Where do you think the concept of 'Sunday School' came from?

You keep insisting there is nothing but virtue in government.

Even the Founders and the subsequent revolution had a 'profit' motive. That should make our founding anathema to you.

Lydia said...

L's, Can you guarantee us that not one person will burn in a factory owned by the government?

Can you say, "Soviet Union"?

Joe Blackmon said...

Lydia: Your last comment is extreme and I believe out of line. As Christians, all Christians we have the Holy Spirit in us who guides our conscience and does so individually not corporately. Even if you disagree with that individual's conscience.

Your comment is not only reaching but it's insulting and I hope you rethink before you stab a brother or sister in Christ like that.

Lydia, I don't know how you have the stomach to stay in this but I appreciate reading what you've written here. What some are calling a "social gospel" is just liberal politics and has no basis in scripture. Which is fine--everyone has the right to vote however they see fit. It's just hard to take someone seriously when they're all "Oh, help the poor, help the weak, help the defenseless" but they want the law to protect doctors who murder babies.

DL said...

"L's, Can you guarantee us that not one person will burn in a factory owned by the government?

Can you say, "Soviet Union"?"

Lydia, I think you've missed the point. The only way that L's argument makes sense if it can be admitted that government, rather than 'profiteers' have the RIGHT to burn people in factories. The Soviet Union has the right to kill of its citizens. It's only other citizens who have to be kept in check.

She's never admitted that government has made mistakes - big ones. In my opinion, people are people and government is inhabited by people who want a profit without having to earn it. I mean, where else can someone get a cool million dollars for eleven days of not working?

Christiane said...

You might be interested that it is my religion that motivates my conscience. There are scriptural references given, but you may not agree with how they are applied:


Lydia said...

Lydia, I think you've missed the point. The only way that L's argument makes sense if it can be admitted that government, rather than 'profiteers' have the RIGHT to burn people in factories. The Soviet Union has the right to kill of its citizens. It's only other citizens who have to be kept in check.

She's never admitted that government has made mistakes - big ones. In my opinion, people are people and government is inhabited by people who want a profit without having to earn it. I mean, where else can someone get a cool million dollars for eleven days of not working?

Mon Oct 12, 03:11:00 PM 2009

I get what you are saying. I do want to point out that the burning got the law changed. Government did not seem to care about safety before that.

And you make a good point about L's argument: Government will have the RIGHT to ration health care and allow certain people no treatment.

But the crises in government owned factories only got covered up. Just think Cherynoble (Of course I cannot spell that). Most of the people in Russia would not have known about if the free countries had not plastered it all over the media!

PS: My brother has an old post card sent to him by an Uncle who was visiting the Soviet Union back in the 1960's. At the bottom in Russian it says: This card was produced by a factory owned by the Red Army. :o)

DL said...

"At the bottom in Russian it says: This card was produced by a factory owned by the Red Army."

That is hilarious. It's obvious when considering man's inherent depravity that we'd want profits in the hands of the men with guns. It only makes sense.

Also, notice when government deprives people, it's called rationing. When profiteers do it, it's called greed.

Joe Blackmon said...


Ok, that was a long document and I didn't "read" the whole thing but "skimmed" it. However, and again I could be wrong, I didn't see one bible verse cited on the whole page. Perhaps I overlooked it, which is well within the realm of possiblity.

DL said...

Joe, silly superhero, the pope doesn't need Bible verses.

Joe Blackmon said...

Darby, I know you dit'nt.

Lydia said...

"That is hilarious. It's obvious when considering man's inherent depravity that we'd want profits in the hands of the men with guns. It only makes sense."

BWAHAHA. Exactly. I was also thinking that giving the government total control over health care is sorta like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

But now that you mention government also being in charge of the army while rationing health care...well, that is something to seriously think about.

And to add insult, speaking out could now be considered hate speech.

Joe Blackmon said...

Did the Hate Crimes bill end up passing? I have not heard.

Lydia said...

Submitted by NewsSystem on Mon, 10/12/2009 - 01:00 Mission Network News
USA (MNN) -- The U.S. House of Representatives passed a controversial Hate Crimes Bill late last week. Todd Nettleton with Voice of the Martyrs says, "They kind of went about it in a back door way. It does go to the Senate. Apparently, it will pass the Senate, from what we understand, partially because it's attached to this Defense Spending Bill, and the President has said he will sign it." Nettleton clarifies that the Hate Crimes Bill is not the same as a Hate Speech Bill, but, "Is this the first step toward a hate speech bill that would then make it illegal to express Christian ...

Even the VOM is concerned. So am I.

Joe Blackmon said...

Even the VOM is concerned. So am I.

Well you should be concerned. Unfortunantly some really ignorant, naive people who profess to be Christians are not.

Christiane said...

Article on hate crimes bill:


Christiane said...

Is the problem that fundamentalists fear that pastors will be held accountable for inciting murder or hate crimes?

I found this:

"Back in 2006, [Democratic Representative] Artur Davis from Alabama made a statement to [Representative] Louie Gohmert [R-Texas] in a [House] subcommittee meeting that a pastor could be held liable or [as] a co-conspirator of sorts in a hate crime if we found out that his preaching and teaching incited — according to their thinking — someone to commit a violent act against someone that is gay.

That’s right, preaching that the Bible commands the execution of homosexuals, if a member of the congregation were to go out and begin executing homosexuals (in direct violation of the Biblical command to be subject to secular law), would be considered part of a hate crime."

Christiane said...


You wrote to Lydia this: 'Your comment is not only reaching but it's insulting and I hope you rethink before you stab a brother or sister in Christ like that.'

Debbie, I am not affected by Lydia's words. I am at peace that she has spoken what she felt she needed to say.
It is important to me that she feels she can be honest and open.
No harm to me has come from this.

Love you dearly, L's

Ramesh said...

I have to break my last comment ...

Interesting developements from Frank Page Florida Baptist Witness link.

Comments from Christa's Blog:
Lydia said...
Here is a question for the brave anonymous man who calls us girls:

Why didn't Frank Page make that "evil opportunists" comment in all the media venues? Why the addition for the Fla Baptist Witness? The link says this:

Page's comments in a point of view article in this week's Florida Baptist Witness. The column is mostly only slightly edited from a column titled "Guarding Against Sexual Abuse" that appeared April 2 in Baptist Press.

That was after Page had been interviewed for by ABC News for a "20/20" report on "Predator Preachers," but before he had seen the story, which aired last Friday.

But Page's updated column this week includes one new paragraph not in the original article.

"Let me also share one other word of clarification," he wrote. "Please realize that there are groups who claim to be one thing when in reality they are another. It would be great if the many groups who are claiming to be groups of advocacy and encouragement in ministry were that which they claim. Please be aware that there are groups that are nothing more than opportunistic persons who are seeking to raise opportunities for personal gain."

I agree he needs to name names of those who are doing it for personal gain. We need to weed them out and call them out on this. Seems strange a man of his title and position would make such a comment without giving examples. But I guess a general broad stroke would suit his purposes better.
October 12, 2009 9:18 AM
Christa Brown said...
Lydia asked why Frank Page didn't make the "nothing more than opportunists" comment in all the media venues. Page didn't include the "nothing more than opportunists" statement in the Baptist Press, but then inserted it as an addition to his column when he ran it in the Florida Baptist Witness.

Obviously, I can't know what was going on in Frank Page's mind, but here's what I believe the reason was. My own perpetrator was a very prominent children's minister who had worked most recently at the church of former Florida Baptist Convention president Dwayne Mercer. (I suspect Mercer and Page are friends based on an AP photo of them together and other things.) So ... Page apparently decided to try to publicly rehabilite the image of my perpetrator among Florida Baptists by castigating me and my group as being "nothing more than opportunists."

Of course, what Page should have been doing was publicly saying what was known about my perpetrator ... that another minister swore to his knowledge of the minister's abuse of me as a kid, that the largest statewide Baptist convention in the country had concluded there was "substantial evidence" of abuse, that he was listed in a secret Texas Baptist file of "known offenders." But nooooooo.... Frank Page didn't bother with saying any of that stuff, did he? Instead he chose to publicly castigate the group that was calling for accountability of Baptist clergy and for warnings to parents in the pews.
October 12, 2009 9:50 AM

Rex Ray said...

Short on time, so I’m just now reading your belief that God did not abandon his Son.

I believe in trying to understand Calvary it helps to know of Abraham starting to slay his son as it was a symbol of what God did.

The devil did not kill Jesus as he did everything he could to keep Jesus off the cross – starting with his temptation in the desert.

The beating, the thorns, the ridicule and the pain of the cross was just a drop in a bucket compared to Jesus sweating drops of blood in the Garden as he knew (my opinion) the pain he would bear in hell.

Jesus knew his Father would kill him on the Cross as he told his disciples “…for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.” (Mark 14:27 Zechariah 13:7)

As Isaac didn’t know he was the sacrifice, Jesus didn’t know his Father would abandon him:

“An hour is coming…when each of you will be scattered…and you will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone because the Father is with me.” (John 16:32)

Just as Abraham hid from his son that he was the sacrifice, God hid from his Son that he would be alone because God cannot comfort sin as Jesus became our sin.

Jesus was not such a sissy that the pain of the cross killed him so quickly.

His heart burst while crying, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”

Science proves blood turns to water under sever pain as shown by his pierced side when water poured out.

On Calvary, Jesus experienced the punishment of Adam and Eve when God said, “If you eat any fruit from that tree, you will die before the day is over.” (Genesis 2:17 Contemporary English)

The ‘death’ was spiritual separation from God, being abandoned by God, or being alone.

Christiane said...


My faith teaches that Christ was the second Person of the Blessed Trinity Incarnate.
We believe He had two natures. A human nature and a divine nature: that He was both True God and True Man.
We believe that Christ, the Person suffered and died, but that His Divine Nature did not 'die' or abandon Him. Natures do not 'die', persons do. It's complicated.
Love, L's

Praying for Belle,
Love, L's

Joe Blackmon said...

Is the problem that fundamentalists fear that pastors will be held accountable for inciting murder or hate crimes?

Nope. We simply realize that if a pastor preaches from Romans chapter 1 that homosexuality is a sin that he has faithfully exposited the word of God. Now, if someone after hearing that sermon goes out and kills a homosexual that is the responsibility of the person who commited the murder--not the pastor who said that homosexuality is sin. The purpose of the proposed hate speech laws is to make it criminal to say "The Bible calls homosexuality sin".

Now, you want to hold someone accountable who says "If you kill homosexuals, you are doing a service to God" I'll agree with that. However, that is not expositing scripture.

Christiane said...


That makes sense.
Love, L's

Debbie Kaufman said...

Joe: No, that isn't the purpose of the hate crime bill.

Lydia said...

L's, you may have more to worry about than factory burnings that happened 90 years ago:


And this is from the LIBERAL Telegraph.

Joe Blackmon said...


Put a sock in it. Canada has free speech and it happened there. I bet used car salesmen LOVE to see you come on their lot. "There's a sucker born every minute"

Lydia said...

L's, Conrad Black does not own the Telegraph anymore. I do not consider the Tories conservative or even Capitalistic after Thatcher.

It is really a matter of definitions. The Telegraph is quite liberal in my view and so are the Tories.

PS: If you used Wiki, it is not a great source.

Christiane said...


The infamous Barclay brothers purchased the Telegraph. These very wealthy and powerful Brits are 'infamous' for many things, some of them reprehensible: such as their behavior towards the population of the island of Sark, which they purchased.

"Wiki" is a 'jumping off' point, but I never only use one source. It is good to find out who controls a news entity and what their politics are. It takes a little digging. Sometimes sources are hidden in corporations and cannot be identified. But, often, knowing the political bias of the owners can help to factor out 'spin'.
I recommend multiple sources for info on a topic. As varied and wide-ranging as you can find. And then use your discernment to evaluate your findings. Love, L's

P.S. Do you ever read Debbie's and Chris Ryan's blogs? I have discovered them both and they are very interesting. :)

Lydia said...

"The infamous Barclay brothers purchased the Telegraph. These very wealthy and powerful Brits are 'infamous' for many things, some of them reprehensible: such as their behavior towards the population of the island of Sark, which they purchased."

Sounds like George Soros, the other famous filthy rich liberal. :o)

Anyhoo, what do you think of Obama's Muslim advisor to the Faith based initiative on Sharia law?

My blogging is going to be less and less in the near future as I have taken on a new project. That should please a few here! :o)

Rex Ray said...

Let’s point out to each other what we agree on and what we don’t understand. I’ll go first with the understanding we’ll probably both be wrong.

1. Christ was the second Person of the Trinity. Agreed

Note I left out “Blessed”. I’m sort of hard-headed in that “Blessed” could mean there is a Trinity that is not Blessed. It goes back to God saying, “I am” without a lot of adjectives. Jesus said, ‘let your yes be yes and your no be no.’

2. He was both God and Man. Agreed

When Jesus was on earth he was absent in heaven. (“I have not yet returned to the Father.”) I know it was possible for Jesus to sin or he would not have been man and would not have been an example for us. On the other hand, it’s impossible for God to lie or sin…so was it ‘God’ or ‘man’ that ‘controlled’ Jesus? (Like you said, “It’s complicated.”)

3. You said, “He had two natures. A human nature and a divine nature: ..True God and True Man.”

Do you agree with me that it’s human nature to tell lies, be lazy, and steal? Also every human has a soul that will never die but will live in heaven or hell. Peter quoted David saying the Messiah’s soul would not be left in hell. (Acts 2:27) Was this ‘soul’ from “True God” or from “True Man”?

4. You said, “…the Person suffered and died, but that His Divine Nature did not ‘die’ or abandon Him. Natures do not die, persons do.”

I believe this is the “complicated” part. I believe God (not his Devine Nature) abandon Jesus or “Why have you forsaken me” was a lie.

Christiane said...


The ideas that developed during the first centuries of the Church were expressed by the Patristic Fathers in their writings and by the early Councils and the early Creeds.
I do not know how much of these teachings are accepted by different denominations.
I know this: that many of the early responses of the Church were to state openly how the Church differed from 'heresies' that had sprung up (example: the gnostics).

When someone who is not familiar with the 'deep waters' of the ancient Church examines its teachings, it is understandable that they would not agree with some or even all of them.

Here are some of the doctrines.
I would be more than happy to discuss any of this with you, Rex, even though I am certainly no theologian. I'm just L's.
But, for you, anything. :)

Take a look and write back, if you like:

Consequently, St. Peter can formulate the apostolic faith in the divine plan of salvation in this way: "You were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers . . . with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake."402 Man's sins, following on original sin, are punishable by death.403 By sending his own Son in the form of a slave, in the form of a fallen humanity, on account of sin, God "made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."404

Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned.405 But in the redeeming love that always united him to the Father, he assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name from the cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"406 Having thus established him in solidarity with us sinners, God "did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all," so that we might be "reconciled to God by the death of his Son."407
God takes the initiative of universal redeeming love

By giving up his own Son for our sins, God manifests that his plan for us is one of benevolent love, prior to any merit on our part: "In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins."408 God "shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us."409

At the end of the parable of the lost sheep Jesus recalled that God's love excludes no one: "So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish."410 He affirms that he came "to give his life as a ransom for many"; this last term is not restrictive, but contrasts the whole of humanity with the unique person of the redeemer who hands himself over to save us.411 The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: "There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer."412

Rex, you can spot almost immediately where some differences are to Protestant teaching: the idea that God's love motivated our Savation, and the idea that Christ died for all men.
I don't think that all Protestants accept these teachings. Once again, I just don't know.

Hope this helps.

Praying for Belle to Our Lord in the way of my faith, L's

Christiane said...


What with Kevin saying he is taking a break from seminary for a while, and you saying you think people will not miss you, I am very sad.

Oh Lydia, don't you realize: it's not the arguments and the disagreements that divide people. It is so very possible for Christian people to sit peacefully and to discuss the different ways they view matters of faith and morals. So possible.
It doesn't mean that we always will come to agreement. It means we tanscend disagreement in willingness to attempt to see the viewpoint of another person.
I guess that doesn't make much sense.
But I would miss you, Lydia. Not the times I frustrated and angered you. No. But I would miss you. Don't 'stop' blogging.
(It does take time.) Don't 'leave'. You have much to share and to teach.
Love you dearly, L's

Would you like to share about your new project?
Love, L's

Lydia said...

L's, The basic difference between us is that I seek truth only. And I realize truth is outside of me. It is objective and absolute. I must seek it in the Holy Spirit to dwell within me.

Truth has everything to do with love. It has little to do with emotions and feelings. Although we can have emotions about truths and lies.

Those emotions should not guide us. Truth should. And many times absolute truths are negative and scary and we do not want to believe what they really mean. Such as taking up the cross daily and the gate is narrow and few find it. And that God abandoned God in the form of the Incarnate Son on the Cross. That truth should make us fall on our faces in gratitude. It does not make God cruel, it means HE IS HOLY and PERFECT JUSTICE.

None of this has to do with following a 'conscience' because I know that my flesh seeks to please myself. Only the Holy Spirit within gives me the ability to fight the flesh daily.

I know I fail at it many times.

People can follow their hearts into hell and lead others there as well unless they hold it up to the absolute truth of the entire COUNSEL of the Word so as no blood is on our heads. (Acts 20)

Christiane said...

Thank you for sharing that.
I am a very empathetic person by nature. My Church teaches me to try to put compassion into action.
I'm not sure you or I will ever know all that there is to know about the Mysteries of Christ during our lifetime.
I think you are a brilliant woman.
No one's perfect, least of all me.
Before menopause, when I got PMS, I was an absolute witch. I've mellowed out over time a little bit, but not nearly enough.
I want to apologize for any remarks I ever made that were insensitive or hurtful. I mean that sincerely.
If JOE BLACKMON can apologize to people, so can I. Don't you just love him for saying what he did? I was thrilled. But then, again, I always knew he had a heart. He just couldn't keep it hidden that well under all the gruffness. :)
Love, L's

Lydia said...

L's, I used to pass over your comments and would be better off if I had done that in the recent past.

I simply do not know what is the case with you. As an example, In the same comment you imply that anyone against Obama health care is greedy, hateful, lacks compassion and wants to see people die.... then you use some flattery and sign it 'love'.

That last go around implied some of us did not care if women burned to death in factories. It really has gotten a bit ridiculous.

You only want to use emotional platitudes that have no grounds in logic and reason which are important if we REALLY want to help those who are uninsured.

I find your comments manipulative and insincere over a long period of time. I would prefer to be just called hateful, greedy and mean and leave it at that. :o) But to do so and then claim some sort of love is pretty thin.

I have no idea what your commenting on your PMS and menopause is supposed to communicate to me. Please do not bother explaining. Oh well. As a favor to us both, I think I will resume passing over your comments in the future and just allow readers to decide if I am mean, greedy and hateful or not.

Christiane said...


I think we see things very differently.
And express our thoughts differently.
'Implications' or 'inferemces' are subjective at best.
For example the comments I made about my problems with PMS were true. My husband is a witness, poor man. I am past menopause, but still tend at times to be insensitive. I was speaking personally. No matter.

We all encounter one another and bring a certain amount of baggage to the table. I suppose that colors how we interpret what is spoken or shared. Very human.

If my writing upsets you, please ingnore what I comment. I have been told before that most people do. I am not troubled by that at all.

Sorry to have been so much trouble to you. We all are what we are, Lydia: works in progress.
Love, L's

P.S. That comment about 'conscience': am I to understand that 'conscience' is seen differently by Protestants than it is by Catholics?
I will make no assumptions or inferences, here. I just didn't understand the comment clearly.

Joe Blackmon said...

If JOE BLACKMON can apologize to people, so can I

What are you saying, L's?? Huh??

Too funny. You owe me a laptop for the Diet Dr. Pepper I just spewed all over my screen.

Christiane said...

JOE, I am so proud of you.

(If I hadn't just sent my son a wire for 4K for an Apple Computer and all trimmings, I might be able to accommodate you. He was accepted for a program by Penn State through the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard is paying the tuition. Hooray!!!!)

I was thrilled about what you wrote. That made my day.

God works in mysterious ways and this is a day for the record books.
Love, L's

P.S. Sorry about that screen. :)

Rex Ray said...

You’re right that not all Protestants accept that Jesus died for all men.

‘Calvinists’ believe that only Christians caused Jesus to suffer.

BTW, I’m not a Protestant but a Baptists. Wade is too but doesn’t know it. :)

That’s explained in C.M. Carroll’s ‘Trail of Blood’ that can be read on the internet if you’re interested.

I agree with ‘602’ through ‘605’ with the exception of SAINT Peter. The only Saint in my opinion is Jesus.

Of course, all Christians are saints in the sense as the song “When the saints go marching in”.

God did not murder his Son, but executed him by abandonment which was so painful his blood turned to water just as the reverse of his sweat turned to blood.

Christiane said...


Thanks for writing back. I'm sharing a lenten meditation from Br. James Brent. I hope you enjoy it:

Part One:

"It is significant that the soldier strikes Christ and there flows out water. Moses struck the rock in the desert with his staff, and there flowed out water for the Israelites lest they die of thirst (Nm. 20:8-13 and Ex. 17:2-7). The rock is Jesus. For St. Paul says that the Israelites “drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ” (1 Cor. 10:4). The significance of the water will be shown below. Other things need to be pondered first.

It is significant that it was the body of Christ that was pierced and that His body issued forth a flow of water. For the body of Christ is the temple (Jn. 2:21). And the prophet Ezekiel saw a vision in which an ever-increasing river of water flowed from the temple (ch.47).

It is significant that it was the side of the body of Christ that was pierced. In Ezekiel’s vision of the Temple, the water issued from the side of the temple - “from below the threshold of the temple toward the east” (Ez. 47:1). Furthermore, the side is where the heart is accessible. We can plausibly suppose that the heart of Christ was pierced.

It is significant that the water flowed out from the side of Christ. Water flows out from fountains. Now, the prophet Zechariah prophesied of a day when “they shall look upon him whom they have pierced” (Zech. 12:10), and Zechariah says “on that day there shall be a fountain opened for the house of David and Jerusalem to cleanse them from sin and uncleanness” (Zech. 13:1). The evangelist himself refers to this passage of Zechariah in connection with the piercing event (Jn.19:37)."

I am praying both you and Belle,
Peace of Christ to you both.
Love, L's

Christiane said...

REX, here is Part Two:

"The Water

It is significant that water flowed out from the side of Christ for four reasons.

First, the water of baptism gives life and cleanses from sin. In baptism, we are made one with Christ in His death and rise with Him to new life (Rm. 6:4, Col.2:12). The issue of water from the side of Christ, say the Fathers, is a symbol of baptism. As a symbol of baptism, the water also symbolizes the Church. For baptism incorporates one into the Church.

Second, the water from Moses’ rock slaked the thirst of Israel, but Israel thirsted again. The water from the rock of Christ slakes the thirst of the world, and the world need never thirst again. “Whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst” (Jn. 4:14).The water from Moses’ rock gives physical life, but the water from Jesus gives spiritual life consisting of knowledge of God and Christ: “the water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life” (Jn. 4:14). And “eternal life is knowing God and the one whom Thou has sent” (Jn. 17:3). The water from Moses’ rock springs from the strike on the surface, but the water from Christ springs from the piercing of the heart. And “out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water. This he said about the Spirit” (Jn. 7:38-9). The water issuing from the side of Christ thus symbolizes nothing less than the outpouring of the Spirit. It is the Spirit Who is the Lord the giver of life (Nicene Creed), the Spirit Who leads into the knowledge of all truth (Jn. 16:13), the Spirit Who washes from all uncleanness (Ez. 36:27-9).

Third, the water from Ezekiel’s temple also gives life. The river of water from the temple gave life to fish, swarms of fish, and fisherman worked along its banks (Ez. 47:10). So too the water flowing from Christ is swarming with souls, and the members of the Church are “fishers of men” (Mt. 4:19). The river also gave life to trees, fruit trees in particular, with unfading leaves and bearing fresh fruit every month (Ez. 47:12). So too the water from the side of Christ empowers the members of his Church to go and bear much fruit and fruit that will last (Jn.15:8, 16).

Fourth, the water (presumably) from Zechariah’s fountain, like the waters of baptism, cleanses from sin and uncleanness (Zech. 13:1). It also puts an end to idolatry and false prophecy (Zech. 13:25-5), just as the Church will do thanks to the power of the water flowing from the fountain of Christ’s pierced heart. “Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” (Amos 5:24)."

Be peaceful.
Love, L's

Rex Ray said...

Dear Christiane,
Do you realize our discussion on ‘baptism saves’ is going back to 251 A.D.?

History records Anabaptist withdrew fellowship from the majority of Christians when the custom of baptism changed from a symbol to the actual ‘washing away of sin’ for salvation.

It may be argued that it was not a symbol and baptism ‘washed away sin’ from day one, but what did change without dispute was that babies started being baptized for salvation in 251 A.D.

No one knows when the first Christian believed baptism saves, but why did Christians wait over 200 years before baptizing babies?

I believe it took that long before someone put ‘one plus one equal two’. I mean since they believed ‘baptism saves’ and Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me” (Luke 18:16), how could children be any smaller than a baby?

Did Anabaptist not believe babies were children or did they not believe ‘baptism saves’?

I believe they did not believe ‘baptism saves’ and followed Paul’s teachings of “Let God’s curse fall on anyone…who preaches any other way to be saved…” (Galatians 1:8)

The devil’s greatest victory was confusing his greatest defeat…Calvary.

The devil’s first confusion that failed was to argue man had to be circumcised to be saved in Acts 15. His better confusion was to convince man he had to be baptized to be saved.

There are two groups of Christians: Jesus plus something (baptism etc.), and Jesus plus nothing.

‘Jesus plus nothing’ means faith, belief, and trust in Jesus or his gift.

This belief is based on scriptures (excluding Matthew, Mark, and Luke) found in:
1:4, 12, 13
3:15, 16, 18, 33, 36
5: 24, 25, 34, 40
6:29, 33, 35, 37, 39, 40, 47, 63, 68
7:38, 39
8:24 10:10, 28, 29
11:25, 26, 46
2:21, 38
8:20, 37
13:8-12, 39, 48
15:2, 8, 10, 11
16:14, 31
17:4, 12, 34
19:4, 8
1:5, 17
3:22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31
4:3, 5, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24
5:1, 2,
9:32, 33
10:6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17
1 Corinthians
2:16, 19, 20
3:2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 17, 24, 26
4:9, 21, 31
5:2, 4, 6, 11
6:12, 19, 20
3:2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 17, 24, 26
4:9, 21, 31
5:2, 4, 6, 11
1:12, 13, 15
2:8, 9, 21
3:7, 9
1:23, 27
2:6, 12
1 Timothy
2 Timothy 1:1
1 Peter
1:5, 9, 14, 22
2 Peter 1:1
1 John
5:1, 4, 5
Jude 1:3

Rex Ray said...

Christiane, these scriptures indicate man is saved by Jesus plus something:
John 3:5
Acts 22:16
1:12, 26
2:1, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26
1 John
2:4, 6, 17, 24
3:7, 9, 10, 19
2 John 1: 8, 9
3 John 1:11

Starting with the ‘creditability’ of the ‘elder’ that wrote First, Second, and Third John, history records Apostle John was martyred in a vat of boiling oil before 70 A.D which fulfilled the prophesy of Jesus, (tradition says he didn’t die) and couldn’t have written these three books twenty years later.

I believe the ‘creditability’ of James in how man is saved is about like Luther’s conclusion – ‘a book of straw’

Let’s look at John 3:5: “…unless one is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.”

“…Ye must be born again.” (John 3:3)

“All who believe are reborn…not a physical rebirth…” (John 1:13)

“Those born only with a physical birth will not receive eternal life through the Holy Spirit.” (John 6:63)

These three verses say two births and not three births as baptism would require. Jesus was talking about physical birth in John 3:5 when he said, “born of water”.

Let’s look at Paul’s words in Acts 22:16.

“Why delay? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”

These words came off the top of Paul’s head as he faced an angry mob. Paul supposedly quoted the words that Ananias said to him.

Paul knew the mob believed in the baptism of John the Baptist and tried to make a ‘connection’ with them in having sins washed away by baptism.

I believe Paul was saved before he ever met Ananias. He believed that Jesus was the Son of God and OBEYED his command to go to Damascus where many were in fear of him.

Being blind, it would be natural to return home where loved ones would take care of him, but he trusted and obeyed Jesus.

Since God told Ananias that Paul was praying, why would Ananias tell Paul to call on the name of the Lord?

Did God tell him to baptize Paul? No. He told him to place his hands on him so he could regain his sight.

Since Paul said he prayed in tongues more than anyone, what was his first experience?

I believe it was when Ananias placed his hands on Paul that he was baptized with the Holy Spirit as he regained his sight.

“So Ananias left and entered the house. Then he placed his hands on him and said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road you were traveling, has sent me so you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” At once something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he got up and was baptized.” (Acts 9:17-18)

There you have it. Paul’s sins were washed away when he was saved. He had his sight restored and possible spoke in tongues before he was baptized.

Paul was baptized as a symbol of being saved by trusting Jesus.

That’s what Anabaptists believed in 251 A.D. and Baptists believed today.

Christiane said...


It's me, L's

I found record in Church history of a dust-up leading to the Council of Carthage around 251 A.D.

The name 'Novatian' is given for the leader. Apparently, there was a belief he and his followers held that certain baptized sinners called the 'lapsi' could not be readmitted to the Church.

His followers continued for centuries to be at odds with Rome.
They were called the 'katharoi' at one point.

I do not know if this is the group you refer to as Anabaptists. I also wonder if the 'katharoi' were the forerunners of the famous Cathars of France.

Very interesting stuff, church history. :)
Love, L's

P.S. Will try to look up references on baptism later when I have more time.