I am not sure! I was not in the hall for the debate of my friend Dwight McKissic's resolutions (or ignoring of them). Thanks for the heads up. I will try to find out.
Dwight McKissic's resolutions were not ignored. They were commented on at length by those on the committee responsible for addressing such resolutions. A suggestion was made that perhaps Dwight might want to withdraw his resolution regarding Mormonism. Dwight balked. A vote ensued, and it was overwhelmingly defeated.
I'm thinking it must have something to do with the fact that Dwight made no such condemnation of Black Liberation Theology in 2009, 2010, 2011.
I've no doubt that we haven't heard the last of it.
Maybe it is due to racism that Dwight McKissic's resolutions regarding the America's first foreign missionary (an African-American), as well Mormonism were rejected.
Maybe the latter was also rejected due to SBC support for Mitt Romney. Are they trying to sacrifice Biblical truth on the altar of politics? Are they trying to help Mormonism mainstream itself like Richard Mouw is doing? And are they really willing to overlook Mormonism's racism?
The SBC leaders responsible for rejecting McKissic's resolutions should hang their heads in shame.
We can condemn slavery, prejudice and racial desegregation, but if our resolutions start interfering with Republican politics, well, by George, we better not say anything about our offenses!
And, before anyone says anything, I'm a Republican. :)
The SBC dodged the question as to who was the first American foreign missionary: http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2012/06/was_first_us_mi.html
I wonder if this could be due to Landmarkism in the SBC, since no church "sent out" George Liele.
In truth, no church needed to send George Liele. God sent him to be a missionary overseas.
Wade, If you do any reading over at Voices (and I know you do), then it's clear that those of us who wanted these resolutions to fail were concerned that they were introduced due to politics and we don't think the SBC should frame their theology on politics. Let's be fair. Where was Dwight when BHO's church was, and still is, courting hugely racist black liberation theology? Or where was Dwight to take on the UCC regarding their stand on gay marriage? What kind of Christians are we, that we will condemn other faiths for political reasons? The LDS church has repudiated racism. But Dwight doesn't think they did it the right way and he is going to show them a thing or two. It was HIS behavior that was seen as political.
We asked for fundamental fairness, and we got it.
Do you really think it is our business to start condemning other faiths? If so, which ones? How many should we take on per year?
I think we all agree that Mormonism is a very successful, very wealthy cult. It's previous racism is really the least of its problems because they have turned our Savior into a 'spirit brother'. It hurts my heart to see what they have done. But Dwight's move was political and the messengers saw it for what it was.
Watch the coverage of this resolution from the committee. It was outstanding.
I've always considered you to be a completely fair person. I still do.
Either condemn all other faiths as wrong or condemn none of them. Don't pick and choose to appease your political agenda. The only reason Dwight brought that resolution was because we have a Mormon nominee for President. Sorry, it was political all the way and very distasteful. It was defeated as it should have been.
The Mormon "scriptures" still teach racism just as they did when they were first written. In addition to that, Mormonism teaches that God used to be a man and that men can become gods. Mormonism is a blasphemous religion that should be condemned along with all false religion.
First, if you had heard the explanation from the committe members you would understand why they acted the way they did.
Second, you are correct that the Mormon "holy documents" still use racist language. But seriously that's not nearly as egregious as the history of the SBC and racism. No, we actually took the Holy Bible and mangled the scriptures to support racism. The only reason we don't change anything is because the Bible has rightly never taught racism. This only serves to highlight our own sin.
The Mormons have a different ecclesiology than we we do. They change their outlook by means of a prophet which essentially holds the same weight as their written documents.
But let's answer the essential questions first. Why did Dwight not take on their reducing our savior to the brother of evil? Why did he not take them on regarding their belief in Kolob? Why did he not go after their theology? I'll tell you why. When it comes to Dwight McKissic, everything he does is about race. Do a google search. There it is: It's one attack on race after another.
The SBC is supposed to be about proclaiming the gospel. The last thing we need is to start condemning other churches.
But I'll make you a deal, if Dwight wants to publicly challenge black liberation theology and Mormonism in the same breath, I will change my mind and apologize.
Have some courage and give your name. "Google" does not give you an understanding of the character of an individual. Those of us who know Dwight know that he is much more about the Kingdom than anything else.
Your post on 3-17-12 said the new name could be ‘Great Commission Baptist Convention’ which had the same initials as the new ABC TV show “GCB” that stood for ‘Good Christian Bitches’.
Also your post on Bourbon Street said: “…potential name change to Great Commission Baptist Convention.”
But your comment Wed Jun 20, 08 13:00 AM said: “I expect the convention will announce this morning that the new name "Great Commission Convention" - used as a "descriptor" for Southern Baptists and which was voted upon by messengers yesterday afternoon - has been adopted by a 55% majority.”
My computer has been down for weeks and I’ve just checked the Baptist Standard blog that said:
Members of the Southern Baptist Convention narrowly accepted the alternate unofficial descriptor of “Great Commission Baptists”.
I believe Wiley Drake hit the nail on the head with the close vote by saying: “That means that Southern Baptists are split and we’re split over who we are, what we are, and they’re trying to blame everything on the name.”
The ‘escape goat name’ is NOT going to remove any sin just as the goats used after Calvary.
Of course the name may fit some pastors whose salary takes most of the money given to the Lord. :)
Bro. Wade, From viewing the videos it appears that you were pleased with this year's convention. Were you able to do any "de-weeding" while you were there? Or, have the weeds completely taken over? I would love to read a summary of the state of the convention from your perspective, if you should choose to post one.
The SBC Executive Committee ruled that Todd's motion could not be dealt with by the convention. Reuter's interviewed Todd over the rejection of his amendment.
Thank you for your response. As the Father of three daughters I can tell you that the wedding of your daughter will be one of the major highlights of your life, far more important than any convention.
Thanks for your commentary on the convention. We enjoy the video format as a change. Perhaps you should consider this in the future for periodic updates. Thanks again. Ken Colson
22 comments:
The SBC ignored Dwight McKissic's proposed resolutions:
http://dwightmckissic.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/resolutions-submitted-to-the-2012-southern-baptist-convention-annual-meeting/
Why?
I am not sure! I was not in the hall for the debate of my friend Dwight McKissic's resolutions (or ignoring of them). Thanks for the heads up. I will try to find out.
Dwight McKissic's resolutions were not ignored. They were commented on at length by those on the committee responsible for addressing such resolutions. A suggestion was made that perhaps Dwight might want to withdraw his resolution regarding Mormonism. Dwight balked. A vote ensued, and it was overwhelmingly defeated.
I'm thinking it must have something to do with the fact that Dwight made no such condemnation of Black Liberation Theology in 2009, 2010, 2011.
I've no doubt that we haven't heard the last of it.
Was anything at all said about Mormonism at this conference?
Will the SBC endorse Romney for President?
Maybe it is due to racism that Dwight McKissic's resolutions regarding the America's first foreign missionary (an African-American), as well Mormonism were rejected.
Maybe the latter was also rejected due to SBC support for Mitt Romney. Are they trying to sacrifice Biblical truth on the altar of politics? Are they trying to help Mormonism mainstream itself like Richard Mouw is doing? And are they really willing to overlook Mormonism's racism?
The SBC leaders responsible for rejecting McKissic's resolutions should hang their heads in shame.
Ahh, now I understand!
We can condemn slavery, prejudice and racial desegregation, but if our resolutions start interfering with Republican politics, well, by George, we better not say anything about our offenses!
And, before anyone says anything, I'm a Republican. :)
The SBC dodged the question as to who was the first American foreign missionary: http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2012/06/was_first_us_mi.html
I wonder if this could be due to Landmarkism in the SBC, since no church "sent out" George Liele.
In truth, no church needed to send George Liele. God sent him to be a missionary overseas.
Wade, If you do any reading over at Voices (and I know you do), then it's clear that those of us who wanted these resolutions to fail were concerned that they were introduced due to politics and we don't think the SBC should frame their theology on politics. Let's be fair. Where was Dwight when BHO's church was, and still is, courting hugely racist black liberation theology? Or where was Dwight to take on the UCC regarding their stand on gay marriage? What kind of Christians are we, that we will condemn other faiths for political reasons? The LDS church has repudiated racism. But Dwight doesn't think they did it the right way and he is going to show them a thing or two. It was HIS behavior that was seen as political.
We asked for fundamental fairness, and we got it.
Do you really think it is our business to start condemning other faiths? If so, which ones? How many should we take on per year?
I think we all agree that Mormonism is a very successful, very wealthy cult. It's previous racism is really the least of its problems because they have turned our Savior into a 'spirit brother'. It hurts my heart to see what they have done. But Dwight's move was political and the messengers saw it for what it was.
Watch the coverage of this resolution from the committee. It was outstanding.
I've always considered you to be a completely fair person. I still do.
Either condemn all other faiths as wrong or condemn none of them. Don't pick and choose to appease your political agenda. The only reason Dwight brought that resolution was because we have a Mormon nominee for President. Sorry, it was political all the way and very distasteful. It was defeated as it should have been.
Caleb
Dwight McKissic has consistently opposed gay marriage, Anon.
The Mormon "scriptures" still teach racism just as they did when they were first written. In addition to that, Mormonism teaches that God used to be a man and that men can become gods. Mormonism is a blasphemous religion that should be condemned along with all false religion.
Nicholas,
First, if you had heard the explanation from the committe members you would understand why they acted the way they did.
Second, you are correct that the Mormon "holy documents" still use racist language. But seriously that's not nearly as egregious as the history of the SBC and racism. No, we actually took the Holy Bible and mangled the scriptures to support racism. The only reason we don't change anything is because the Bible has rightly never taught racism. This only serves to highlight our own sin.
The Mormons have a different ecclesiology than we we do. They change their outlook by means of a prophet which essentially holds the same weight as their written documents.
But let's answer the essential questions first. Why did Dwight not take on their reducing our savior to the brother of evil? Why did he not take them on regarding their belief in Kolob? Why did he not go after their theology? I'll tell you why. When it comes to Dwight McKissic, everything he does is about race. Do a google search. There it is: It's one attack on race after another.
The SBC is supposed to be about proclaiming the gospel. The last thing we need is to start condemning other churches.
But I'll make you a deal, if Dwight wants to publicly challenge black liberation theology and Mormonism in the same breath, I will change my mind and apologize.
Anonymous,
Have some courage and give your name. "Google" does not give you an understanding of the character of an individual. Those of us who know Dwight know that he is much more about the Kingdom than anything else.
Did the SBC act on Todd Littleton's motion to reprimand Richard Land? I hope they did.
Also, I'll repost this here so people will see it: http://stopbaptistpredators.blogspot.com/2009/10/hollywood-and-baptistland.html
Wade,
What is the new name of the SBC?
Your post on 3-17-12 said the new name could be ‘Great Commission Baptist Convention’ which had the same initials as the new ABC TV show “GCB” that stood for ‘Good Christian Bitches’.
Also your post on Bourbon Street said: “…potential name change to Great Commission Baptist Convention.”
But your comment Wed Jun 20, 08 13:00 AM said: “I expect the convention will announce this morning that the new name "Great Commission Convention" - used as a "descriptor" for Southern Baptists and which was voted upon by messengers yesterday afternoon - has been adopted by a 55% majority.”
Has “Baptists” been removed in the name change?
My computer has been down for weeks and I’ve just checked the Baptist Standard blog that said:
Members of the Southern Baptist Convention narrowly accepted the alternate unofficial descriptor of “Great Commission Baptists”.
I believe Wiley Drake hit the nail on the head with the close vote by saying: “That means that Southern Baptists are split and we’re split over who we are, what we are, and they’re trying to blame everything on the name.”
The ‘escape goat name’ is NOT going to remove any sin just as the goats used after Calvary.
Of course the name may fit some pastors whose salary takes most of the money given to the Lord. :)
Bro. Wade,
From viewing the videos it appears that you were pleased with this year's convention. Were you able to do any "de-weeding" while you were there? Or, have the weeds completely taken over?
I would love to read a summary of the state of the convention from your perspective, if you should choose to post one.
Nicholas,
The SBC Executive Committee ruled that Todd's motion could not be dealt with by the convention. Reuter's interviewed Todd over the rejection of his amendment.
Rex,
The SBC DID vote to add the descriptor "Great Commission Baptist" but after listening to the debate, one wonders how there was even a majority.
It was emphasized repeatedly that NOBODY has to use the name (even agencies) but it is available if desired.
Off the Cuff,
I am with my daughter for her wedding in Destin, Florida and then my wife will take a week of R and R in Gulf Shores.
I will post my summary of the Convention and do as you ask later this week or early next week!
Thanks for your interest!
Bro. Wade,
Thank you for your response.
As the Father of three daughters I can tell you that the wedding of your daughter will be one of the major highlights of your life, far more important than any convention.
Enjoy!
Blessings to the bride and groom.
Thanks for your commentary on the convention. We enjoy the video format as a change. Perhaps you should consider this in the future for periodic updates. Thanks again. Ken Colson
Post a Comment