2008 SBC Wrap-Up, Pt. 1.
Topic: Uncategorized| Written by: Benjamin Cole|(Since my post has taken so long to finish, it has become quite lengthy. I will, therefore, publish it in two parts. The first, today. The second, tomorrow.)
General Observations
The 2008 annual session of the Southern Baptist Convention proved to be the anticlimactic end to the very long roller coaster ride I have enjoyed for more than a decade. When I first started attending the convention as a young assistant to Judge Paul Pressler – who graciously paid my way for a number of years – I was overwhelmed by the gathering of thousands of Baptists to conduct what seemed to me to be the most important business on the planet. Now, having just entered my 33rd year, I am bored with Baptists.
In 1995, I would not miss one session. I sat in the Georgia Dome and listened to every sermon preached in the Pastor’s Conference. I took notes during the Executive Committee Report. I studied the bylaws of the convention, and carefully memorized parliamentary procedure. I even sat through the WMU report, and the American Bible Society.
In those early years, I met men like Miles Seaborn, Carroll Karkalits, Ted Tedder, and Russell Kaemmerling. I sat at lunch with Rudy Hernandez and Olin Collins and Neal Griffin. Many of those men who shaped the direction of the conservative movement are now retired, or dead, or out of the ministry for one reason or another. I was privileged to see the SBC in the halcyon days of resurgent euphoria. I listened to the stories about liberals and how the convention was “saved.” I memorized names and dates, places and events. At times, I felt like I was born ten years too late. Like I had come of age only to see the dust of conflict settle.
This year, the convention was a dud. As everyone settles into the fact that the conservative shift didn’t produce the beatific vision it was prophesied to have accomplished, only a few stalwarts remain who voluntarily drink the old elixir of Pattersonian pathos. Like the stubby, ruddy architect who led the takeover, the convention has become grayer, slower, and fatter.
In the next few paragraphs, I will offer my observations – biased and brazen as they are – in what shall be my final post-convention analysis. In a subsequent post entitled “Exit Strategy” I will ruminate publicly on my four year plan that has now matured to fruition. Until then, here are my thoughts:
Pastors Conference
I have not attended an entire session of the SBC Pastor’s Conference for several years. The canned voices, the scripted applause lines, the hubris of it all became as distasteful to me as my blogging has become to so many others. It’s the same song, sung over and over again. We need revival. We need to be relevant. We need to preach expository sermons. We need this or that. While the SBC Pastor’s Conference used to be a campaign tour bus for conservative candidates, it is now something of a broken down jalopy along the denominational highway. This year I did not hear a single sermon. I did not join in a single anthem. I did not enter the hall whatsoever during the gathering. And I feel quite good about it.
I’m sure there were motivational moments or tear-jerking tales. I’m sure some people were moved or challenged or changed. My skepticism has not carried me to a point where I doubt the power of the proclaimed Word to accomplish a sovereign purpose. For those who find the Pastor’s Conference a blessing, I’m thankful. For the growing numbers who find it superfluous, expensive, and predictable, I echo their benign disinterest.
Presidential Election
The election of the Southern Baptist Convention president was bizarre. Six candidates, only three of whom had any hope of winning, vied for the coveted position of leading a tired and waning flock of convention-goers for the next two years. Never again will the convention president represent “16 Million Southern Baptists.” The two party system of “liberals” and “fundamentalists” has given way to a Balkanized convention where Calvinists, and Revivalists, and Progressives, and Bureaucrats, and Bloggers, and Anti-bloggers, and every other competing interest under the sun has entrenched themselves on a few issues with very little prospect of intramural collaboration.
I had very different thoughts about the candidates. Johnny Hunt is a passionate man who often comes across as angry. Frank Cox looks the presidential part, though his regional appeal never seemed enough to turn out the vote. Avery Willis is too old to fire up the base of “missional leaders” who might have otherwise been a factor in the election. Wiley Drake should have taken his 2nd Vice Presidency and been satisfied. Les Puryear had a good issue – increased participation of small churches – though he himself knew the uphill battle before him. Bill Wagner’s odd campaign for the presidency, and his students in the trenches distributing fliers with the intensity of SoulForce, never stood a chance.
For me, honestly, I had no idea how I would vote until I heard the nomination speeches. My pastor and friend, Wade Burleson, had determined to nominate Bill Wagner for reasons that I understood but were insufficient to garner my support. Wade is an articulate speaker, and there is little doubt that most of the 400 votes that Wager received owe more to Burleson’s nomination than to Wagner’s popular appeal.
Wiley’s nominator – whoever he was – did a superb job making a speech for a candidate who hadn’t a chance. It was clear and careful, highlighting Wiley’s accomplishments and capturing some of his hopes for the SBC. Listening to it I thought it was something like hearing a nomination speech for Ron Paul and the Republican National Convention.
Dwight McKissic would have been a great nominator for Les Puryear, and I regret that my friend’s health kept him from attending the SBC. Dwight’s associate, Alan Stoddard, is a prince of a man with a huge heart and a genuine enthusiasm for reaching lost souls. When I see men like him at the convention, my single prayer is that they get out as fast as possible before the denominational nonsense creates the inevitable disillusionment. Churches who have staff members like Alan Stoddard should forbid them from attending denominational meetings or reading denominational news. They are too great an asset to the Kingdom to get entangled with convention business.
John Marshall is a great leader in Missouri, and his balanced and peaceable demeanor has done as much as anything else to retrieve the Missouri Baptist Convention from the partisan precipice toward which Roger Moran et al have been driving it. His nomination of Avery Willis was good, but not great. He stared into the camera like he was reading a teleprompter. The speech came off as memorized, which it probably was. In truth, John Marshall would have been a better candidate and Avery a better nominator. But hindsight is 20/20. Look for Avery Willis to fade from the scene, and John Marshall to rise as a new generation of leaders in the SBC.
Junior Hill, the much-beloved evangelist, was looking gaunt and pale when he assayed the platform to offer one of the most half-hearted nomination speeches I’ve ever heard in my life. Basically, Hill suffered a moment of divided loyalty between Frank Cox and Johnny Hunt. Rather than trumpet the virtues of his candidate with unqualified endorsement, Hill threw Frank Cox under the bus. Many of us were disappointed that Junior Hill took the course he did, though no person doubts that he sincerely struggled through a personal commitment to two friends running for the same convention office. Frank Cox should have known the dilemma Hill faced, and offered him an exit in order to solicit a more passionate and unambiguous nominator in Hill’s place.
And then there is Ted Traylor’s puckered-face nomination of Johnny Hunt. I felt that Traylor’s speech contained too many potentially deceptive “truths” about Hunt’s qualification for office. Not only did Traylor slip in an intentionally unclear reference to Hunt’s Cooperative Program support, he also fudged the number of pastors who have been mentored by Hunt. If Hunt has mentored more than 25,000 pastors through his Timothy Barnabas conferences, then he has single handedly trained more than half the pastors in the SBC. I know of some pastors who have attended these conferences four or five times, which means that they have probably been counted four or five times. This is not to undermine the degree to which Hunt has taken a personal interest in the ministries of young pastors, but only to highlight the degree to which his nomination provides another example of Southern Baptists inability to present accurate numbers when denominational grandstanding.
I think what bothered me most about Johnny Hunt’s candidacy is that I have known of his personal assurance to Frank Cox of both his unambiguous decision not to run this year, and of his personal support. I’m always willing to let a man change his mind, but it seems to me that honor was at stake. I had opportunities before Indianapolis to raise questions about Hunt’s nomination. There were some who wanted me to profile the excerpts from Spending God’s Money that chronicle Johnny Hunt’s receipt of $92,000 from Bob Reccord’s slush fund at NAMB. Questions about his honorary doctorates were raised. I refused, however, to crank up the machine to oppose Hunt’s candidacy – if for no other reason that I wasn’t certain myself whether or not I would vote for him.
After the convention, I was called by several reporters for a comment about Hunt’s election. My comment was the same to them all: Johnny Hunt is a passionate catalyst and a hero to many Southern Baptist pastors. When interviewed by a major national newspaper about Hunt’s suspect academic credentials, I did my part to kill the story. “No Southern Baptists in Indianapolis thought we were voting for a theologian or a college professor when we voted for Johnny Hunt. We know he’s not a doctor. But we also know he’s not a fraud.”
I’m not enthusiastic about Johnny Hunt’s presidency. But I don’t think anybody is enthusiastic about very much in the SBC these days. If Hunt uses his passionate, energetic hortatory gifts to mobilize Southern Baptists toward ends more eternally significant than teetotaling campaigns, Calvinist-mongering, Emergent church paranoia, or Republican initiatives, then it will be a good thing. If he gives in to a fundamentalist impulse, Southern Baptists will reap more of what they have sown.
I distinctly remember sitting with Paige Patterson a few years ago outside his Wake Forest office and talking about the line up of future SBC presidential contenders. James Merritt would succeed him, and then probably Jack Graham and Johnny Hunt. He never foresaw Bobby Welch, and he certainly overlooked Frank Page. When I asked Paige what he thought about Johnny Hunt’s ability to lead the convention, he told me that he would do well but would need “theological supervision.” “The problem with so many of Hunt’s generation is that they came through the seminaries during liberal administrations,” Paige explained. Their hearts were hot for conservatism, but their heads lacked the theological grounding to understand all the issues. They were nursed on Bultmann and Barth, rather than Broadus and Boyce, so to speak. They were faithful lieutenants, but they seldom made good generals.
Whatever the case, time will tell whether or not Johnny Hunt will eschew the fundamentalist fringe and get the Southern Baptist Convention back in the hands of the churches rather than charismatic megachurch pastors and overpaid bureaucratic clowns.
One final thought about the election of SBC President. The day cannot hasten soon enough that John Sullivan is no longer a platform personality with so immense a responsibility as clock-watcher and shoulder-patter. Frank Page did a remarkable job as convention president. He could have done us one additional favor by refusing to appoint Sullivan to the team of parliamentarians.
To be continued . . .
June 18th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Ben, you are a fascinating writer. Your article represents a broad perspective of the events of the week in light of the overall scheme of Southern Baptist life.
June 18th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Ben,
It almost sounds like you are bowing out of the fight. Is that true? Will you become detached from denominational life? Do you see the Lord leading you in a different direction? Are you going to make a break with the denomination that nurtured you into the massive catalytic guy that you are?
Just curious…
Tim Dahl
June 18th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Ben,
You nailed it! I was wondering exactly what was going on in my mind and heart as I sat through the convention meetings this year - and now I understand - nothing was going on.
Nothing was going on in the realm of decisions which will have an impact.
Nothing occured which remotely inspires my church to be more participatory in denominational life.
And, sadly, nothing has changed. It seems that the convention is like a ship run aground and the only voice from the captain’s chair is , “full speed ahead!”
June 18th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Good analysis…don’t let others failures instill ‘cynicalism’ in you. Keep on keeping on. Jesus is still looking for that wholly committed individual.
I do think you ought to re-evaluate what’s happening in Missouri Baptist life. We’re not paranoid…we’re consistently(not perfect) guarding our Baptist and Biblical distinctives.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
I left the convention with a disquieted spirit, and I have not understood why! For thirty years I have been in attendance and this was the worst convention I ever recall. Everything about it seemed poor. The Pastor’s conference was simply the worst. Someone should tell Carr that the Tommey’s are yesterday’s business. They were simply awful. I can’t recall a time when the worship sessions between the sermons were more mechanical and contrived. I left the hall disheartened, calling to tell my wife at home that she had missed nothing.
Then the convention itself seemed tired. I really do not understand why it seemed so down. Dr. Page seemed very fatigued. What is going on?? Let us hope our Lord has not moved His annointing to others. We seem to have lost our relevancy and our ability to reach and inspire. I am experiencing it in my ministry and others are sharing with me of the same. God help us!
Next year in Louisville will be difficult logistically. There are few hotels near the convention sight, and relatively few good resturants. None are within walking distance. The ins and outs of the parking lot will be five dollars each time and people will have to drive to find food. All of the malls and good resturants are at least 5 to 7 miles from the convention site requiring offs and ons to the Watterson Expressway. Be warned! Louisville is a great town, but the convention is not located in the downtown convention center but at the state fair grounds. It will be a difficult and uncomfortable meeting.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Ben: This is a very good analysis of this year’s convention, especially the presidential nomination speeches. I share much of your sentiment. I enjoy your posts very much. Keep up the good work.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Thanks for your honesty and the integrity with which you shared your reactions. I attended my last SBC in 1990. Can’t say I haven’t looked back, but I have learned that God is pouring new wine into new wineskins.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Due to the CP money shared, congregations should make certain that their messengers attend the SBC meeting annually–but a different set of messengers every year so that something which only is a religious non-profit organization meant to serve as a tool to our churches’ Great Commission activities doesn’t become a “family” to which we’re sentimentally attached (our love for God, His Word, His church and its ministries notwithstanding).
My congregation doesn’t need anyone else’s congregation in order either to know or to understand what we believe theologically from the Scriptures–we nailed that down about 90 years before many existing SBC congregations were planted. We do, however, need some of the resources–e.g., money and manpower–which God has placed in other churches in order to accomplish our own evangelism and missions endeavors. This, I think, is God’s way of forcing those out of whom He indeed has made family to function like the brothers and sisters in Christ He’s made us (we’d apparently prefer to fight over untrue and fairly silly things–as we have for almost 30 years).
The future of the SBC is the sum of our futures. Where is each of us and our congregations headed?–That’s where the SBC is headed, too.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:16 am
If one of the primary jobs of the SBC pres is to lead the convention and everyone agrees this was the worst ever then shouldn’t some of the blame go to Page? We’ve had multiple posts on the diminishing convention but no suggestion that maybe the reason people stayed home is that they didn’t think they could be inspired by a Page convention.
Please do not take this as an attack, it is a sincere theory, but since I have never been to a convention I don’t know if the President can make or break it, I just imagine Adrian Rogers, etc., being a bigger draw than what I have read about Page
June 19th, 2008 at 4:21 am
“Please do not take this as an attack, it is a sincere theory, but since I have never been to a convention I don’t know if the President can make or break it, I just imagine Adrian Rogers, etc., being a bigger draw than what I have read about Page”
Robin, The draw was always the ‘enemy’ and fighting the ‘enemy’ of liberalism. Every big movement has a perceived or real enemy to rally lots of followers.
We got rid of the enemy and have had 20 years of being taught the ‘leaders’ are always right and we should follow them without question. We got rid of the doctrine of the Holy Priesthood because it is inconvenient to those in power.
It was all mapped out for a long time.
That fact that Page was elected when the numbers were dwindling should tell you something. Most messengers are pastors and staffers and they elected Page.
So now that the liberal enemy has been vanquished, now the winners are fighting each other and that always brings in more factions and dwindles the numbers of those who used to be engaged.
People move on. Nothing has shocked me more than to see real live dissent within the SBC on the internet. It has been a joy to see. Why? Because absolute power, celebrity and the good life over time corrupts even the most godly of men. And that includes me. It is something we must all guard against. And our denomination, if it wants to survive at all, needs to return to the doctrine of the Holy Priesthood that we once believed in fervantly. Our leaders do not have the answers. Only Christ.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:35 am
when we debate and amend non-binding resolutions more than motions the reason for the convention is lost.
if the convention looses its deliberative nature it has lost its entire identity.
the convention is a business meeting and it seems that less and less business is debated and decided by the messengers.
again resolutions don’t count in my book. motions are binding. motions call for action. motions foster change.
unless of course it’s a “garner motion”, that is, a motion which those in power will not enforce cause they don’t like it.
why refer the motion on cooperating again with the bwa? why not have the convention debate and decide while we are assembled together?
June 19th, 2008 at 10:17 am
rsc,
You said “The draw was always the ‘enemy’ and fighting the ‘enemy’ of liberalism.” Only since 1979! Back when the “liberals” (what a laugh) were in charge, the draw was missions and evangelism and fellowship and family. The SBC is reaping the harvest planted since 1979.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Great insight Ben,
I think the most obvious reason our constituents stay away in droves…is expense. I mean if in essence the SBC convention is a gigantic Business meeting (and we know how inspiring business meetings are) added with the major $$$$ it takes to travel, eat and my favorite convention activity….attempting to put a dent into the bookstore…..many say thanks but no thanks…especially when you can order your books from Amazon
As far as the Pastors conference, while I miss people like Ron Dunn, and Adrian Rogers, I have always thought that since our convention is comprised of primarily smaller churches…… (There are no small Churches in the Kingdom of God…R. G. Lee’s response when asked about a picture of his first church hanging in his office at Bellevue)) and truly it takes a big man to Pastor a smaller church…why not feature pastors from churches that truly represent who we are…..I know the argument…. would they be compelling enough etc etc…..I would much rather hear from a man who in between sermons just might have to check on the air conditioning and make sure that someone has stopped by to visit and pray with Aunt Mabel!
One final thought Ray C Stedman once said:
“The mark of a carnal Church is how much they talk about themselves” Southern Baptist often seem to do the same!
June 19th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Ben -
Do you feel you are speaking only for yourself or for a sentiment?
June 19th, 2008 at 10:51 am
rsc, you say:
“Why? Because absolute power, celebrity and the good life over time corrupts even the most godly of men. And that includes me.”
Besides you, who are the men that have been corrupted by power?
June 19th, 2008 at 11:06 am
A thought or two on the election of Johnny Hunt. It was no shock for me at all. I am not saying that the election was completely devoid of the backroom political trickery and showmanship that has characterized so many SBC presidential elections of the last 30 years. But of the 6 guys running, Johnny Hunt wins the popularity contest hands down. His T&B and Men’s conferences as well as the TONS of preaching he does at other conferences and churches throughout the year make him a household name among SBC laity and clergy alike throughout his power base (the Southeastern US).
I could see this coming when Jerry Vines retired and moved back home to north Georgia and opened an office at Woodstock in 2006. He’s got a good staff at Woodstock but a church that large needs a strong pastoral leader to help “mind the store” while he is away on SBC business. Jerry Vines had Homer Lindsay at FBC Jax, for example, when he was SBC president during the late 80s. While I do not think that Vines is on the paid staff at Woodstock, his preaching schedule shows that he has regularly scheduled preaching dates/times there and also I believe he still has an office and a admin assistant there.
Looking forward to reading your next post, Ben.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:08 am
to “An Old Parson”…OF COURSE the Father has removed His spirit…When the BOT of the IMB set the ‘guideline’ regarding PPL…Holy Spirit was insulted and hurt…and when the convention did NOTHING to change the ‘guideline’, or call into question the behavior of the BOT, I personally feel that the final(of MANY) nails in the coffin of the SBC was driven in place.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I think God is completely committed to do the part He already has told us about, and He’s completely committed NOT to do the part He told us He made us responsible for in Kingdom growth or anything. The last one out of the 3000 churches which close annually in the U.S. is the Lord, not the custodian!
We absolutely must do our part in Kingdom growth. Do we have the character for it–and to sustain the doing of it–and do we have the know-how? It seems not, today, on both counts–so, revival and education are needed. No spiritual health restored AND no willingness to learn relevant ways to minister to the world today = no change to write home about. Sorry.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Two comments:
1) I agree with much of your assessment of the pastor’s conference…many of the speakers were unremarkable, though not yet off-message (biblically or thematically). I also desire more expositional preaching at ALL levels of the church! But Tom Elliff and James MacDonald were phenomenal: I listened intently, taking detailed notes, and still bought the CD’s for further listening and to share with others! Given the response to the invitations each night, I felt that Michael Catt’s theme was needed and effective.
2) in reference to your quote: “But I don’t think anybody is enthusiastic about very much in the SBC these days.”. I heartily disagree! Many are up in arms, as you stated in your (sadly true) assessment of the Convention as factional. But more personally, I have found many who desire to “fight” to save the SBC from itself and any decline. Perhaps you will be proven wrong in your predictions of young minister flight and inevitable senescence.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
David said, “The last one out of the 3000 churches which close annually in the U.S. is the Lord, not the custodian!”
Actually, I think the problem for these churches is that he was one of the first out of these churches, which is why they are closing. This is endemic to institutional expressions of churches in North America, not unique to the SBC. The SBC just has its own unique issues leading it to extinction.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
So, were there more baby carriages or oxygen tanks at Indy?
As inconvenient as the convention site in humid Louisville looks to be, perhaps more varied locations can be considered as we move toward a six-to-ten thousand attendee annual meeting.
Presuming that there was a time when we didn’t have a Pastors’ Conference, how hard would it be to stop having it?
A confidence that pressing changes could actually be put in place at an annual meeting would probably justify to more people the expense and time of attending the SBC. Such needs as reversing or authorizing the IMB rules enacted during the Hatley and Floyd years would bring people to Louisville if there was certainty that the issue could be settled there.
June 19th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
I did see some strollers. The stroller section was in the far corner. You could almost see one of the screens from that section. The Annual Meeting might draw a few more younger pastors if it was more convenient for families. Instead, many younger pastors choose to stay home with their wives and children instead of traveling such a distance and then being shoved into the corner.
June 19th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Over the past few months, I have read this and other sites several common themes seem to emerge. Among these are, the lose of “young leaders” however so defined; disagrements over decisions of leadership ( I do not believe that this is necessarily a bad thing); theological differences that seem to divide us; “narrowing of parameters” for cooperation and inclusion; the overall need for reform of the convention; and even the future death of the convention (to some it seems a positive).
While I must agree that all is not perfect in our little baptist world, I am not ready to give up the ship, nor are many others. I know many young adults and young people, such as my last two summer children’s interns (and one’s husband) and my college-age son who believe there is still much good in and hope for the SBC and are committted to it.
During this time, I have been angered, amazed, annoyed, bewildered, challenged (it has made be reconsider the health of our church), and shocked by what I have read on various sites. As I think about what i have read, events at the convention and varied interpretations and analysis of it, I have two questions for those who visit this and other sites who seem to have a different take on the status and future of the SBC.
For those who think that the SBC is in need of major reform, what would a “new and improved” SBC look like? What attitude adjustments, structure alterations, policy and procedure revisions, and personnel changes are needed to take it to the desired state?
For those who believe that the convention is headed toward irrelevancy (if not already there), and who think that the convention is headed for its deathbed (and perhaps not to sad about it) why do you waste your time and energy on the SBC, commenting on decisions, making negative remarks about actions, decisions and leadership and in general having nothing positive to say about the convention, its people or future?
I look forward to your responses.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Steve Austin -
Or alternatively we could integrate those who would have preached at the PC into the Annual Meeting agenda and expand the meeting to three day. This would help struggling churches by eliminating one hotel night for their messangers. It would also give people the incentive to stay for the entire meeting if they knew that Junior Hill or Johnny Hunt or Ben Cole (lol) was preaching the closing sermon.
I’d also suggest that we move the SBC Presidential election to the LAST election on the agenda while still allowing the nominations to occur in the beginning. This might help keep people from ditching out after the announcement of the results and missing excellent entity presentations like the ones given this year by Drs. Hammond (NAMB) and Akin (SEBTS), which were both informative and soul-stirring.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Tom-
The reason none of it will happen to the extent that it needs to is that each level of SBC bureaucracy (church, assoc, state, national) is autonomous. There would have to be a major agreement on give and take with a major agreement on a vision that would entail a restructuring at every single level so that the majority of CP funds could get to the places it needs to be rather than being used to prop up useless positions and needless employees.
Ain’t gonna happen.
There have been hours and hours of conversation of how things should be and how things might be. The fact that you have to ask the question belies the fact that nothing-nada-has changed after all the ideas put forth.
Brother, it just ain’t gonna happen.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
I actually learned more about the author of this post than I did this year’s convention or the SBC in general. Ben is a fine writer, and I hope that he will get to use that talent to it’s fullest in the years to come.
I attended my first convention in the early 80s when the battle was at its peak and have attended several since then.
I have a more sanguine view of the SBC. It is not perfect. It is predominantly made up of small churches. It is predominantly rural in its cultural outlook. I am from an urban background, and my cultural preferences are not always in sinc with the presentations and feel of the convention meetings. As I have said before, I would prefer that the music get an overhaul, or that we just go really simple - a piano and a leader and go for it. When the messengers are allowed to sing a song they know without all of the hoopla, it is very worshipful.
The speakers are always a mixed bag, but I recognize that what appeals to me might not appeal to others. I have heard some great sermons during my years at the Pastors’ Conference.
I thought the election was fine. I could care less about nominating speeches and who does the best job. Personally, I liked the idea of the candidates answering the questionnaire. I would also prefer to hear from them, not some friend of theirs who thinks they’ll make a great President. I do not agree with the author’s summary of some of the nominating speeches. And since I think that they are worthless anyway, I won’t address that.
Human nature never change. All organizations are made up with people. The SBC will never be perfect, and we will always have something to talk about or complain about until the end of time.
The SBC is solid doctrinally. The seminaries are good. They are affordable. The missions programs are good. We don’t have agencies pushing all sorts of weird programs in the public arena, as my Methodist and Presbyterians have to endure. LifeWay has a great presence in the U.S.
There are some great SBC churches in the U.S. The SBC, however, like a lot of Christians nowadays, worships at the feet of “Big.” The small churches feel under-appreciated. There is a constant risk of large, mega churches not reaching new people, but essentially “colonizing” the small churches, or attracting enough of their members to decimate the livelihood of the small churches.
But there is enough really good stuff going on that our church stays in the SBC. My pastor was in the running for a possible Trustee spot on the IMB this time around. But because we give most of our missions giving directly to Nashville, than through the state, he was shot down, and replaced by a more conventional choice. We will soldier on, but hope that one day that outlook might change. We just can’t see the wisdom of 65 cents of every dollar given to “Missions” staying in our State Convention.
Back to the meeting. I thought that this was the best convention ever from a business standpoint. We were together on the budget, the reports from the institutions, and the motions. Just because there’s not a fight doesn’t mean there is no deliberation. The SBC was a wonderful meeting from that standpoint.
I also got to see and meet many pastors, Christian missionaries, seminary profs etc, and tell them how much I appreciate what they are doing.
I plan to go next year, and for many years thereafter. Hope you guys that are of a mind to, especially if you come to worship, pray, fellowship and do the business that needs to be done, will join me.
Maybe the next few years will be sleepy, but productive times at the SBC meeting. That would be really good.
Let all the fireworks happen at the Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian and CBF meetings. (From strictly an “I told you so” standpoint, I am anxious to see how many years it will take for the CBF to finally “come out of the closet” and embrace the homosexual agenda. If this blog site plans on being around, we could place bets and start a pot. The CBF doesn’t even have any confession or doctrinal statement, so they can’t make waves there since they never talk about doctrine).
I just hope and pray that the SBC stays quiet and focuses on its mission.
Take care.
Louis
June 19th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Maybe we ought to find a church sponsor for each missionary family, sell the Nashville headquarters, sell the Lifeway stores, liquidate the Guidestone funds and send a lumpsum check to every retiree and a refund check to every contributing SBC church. Uh,………and have our next meeting in 2025.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
“For those who think that the SBC is in need of major reform, what would a “new and improved” SBC look like? What attitude adjustments, structure alterations, policy and procedure revisions, and personnel changes are needed to take it to the desired state?”
I don’t think EVERYTHING is wrong in SBC land. I appreciate all the seminaries besides one. I also appreciate what Lifeway is doing with the new hymnal and website opportunities for music.
Confessional? Fine. Top down, Strict subscription confessionalism? Necessarily creedal and elitist [Methinks]
The PCA does not even have a strict subscription stance with their confession [theirs is “good faith” subscription].
However, I doubt the SBC will back down from strict subscriptionism because I think militancy would trump any attempt towards being pastoral.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
LivingDust Says: ‘…sell the Lifeway stores…’
Just wanted to say that LifeWay actually produces profit and gives to the CP, it is not a drain on it unlike the other entities. Most people do not understand that.
June 20th, 2008 at 12:43 am
You write so well, but for the life of me, I never understood the goal of your takeover. You wanted control over ever nuance of theology, practice, teaching and you wanted power to change the way of life to one of your making. The corruption was visible to EVERYONE but you. When I finally got over the fact that the SBC was ripped away from me…it was because I was glad that I would not end up like you.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:34 am
Two Things strike me. One of my majors at the greater OBU was history: My Master emphasis at NTSU was the Holocaust. My favorite teacher next to Dr. Vaughan was Dr. Estep at SWBTS. I learned a few lesson about history.
1. The Dogs of War are good for wars and not much else; but I am afraid the war in the SBC from ‘79 to ‘94 was much like the unnecessary war in Iraq. The war was about money in the SBC as it is about money in Iraq for they have stolen our (USA) oil and hid it under their sand; the SBC war was to see who was going to control the annuity Board, the SS Board, NAMB and the IMB. It was not about conservatism vs. liberalism for there were other ways a very few liberal leaning professors could have been taken care of besides the “Reign of Terror.” (”off with their heads,” “you’re either for us or against us”).
Second: The Dogs of War are good for war and not much else. When the Iraq war is over The Dogs of War will be looking for another war for that is what The Dogs of War do; now that the SBC war is over, I am afraid the only enemy left to fight is between us. With The Dogs of War in control, there will always be wars.
When it comes to those in control, I find myself about as cynical as my friend Ben whom I have never met. There is hope; however, it must be back to the basics of Sunday School work, evangelism and missions for the human condition has never changed.
No matter who controls the SBC, I am determined to lead my church to do the basics. There may come a time when we lower our twelve and a half percent to the CP in favor of other organizations and “solo” mission work. We are no where near that place as of yet.
Phil.
June 20th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Is it tommorrow yet?
June 20th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Tomorrow was yesterday. Today is tomorrow’s tomorrow–I think. Probably something coming from Ben next week–four days from the first tomorrow . . .
June 20th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Karen-
If you are addressing Ben Cole then you have a basic misunderstanding of…uhm…pretty much everything.
June 20th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Tomorrow . . . today. Fiddle dee dee.
I post when I feel like it, not necessarily when I promise to. In any event, you don’t have to come back for the second part if you don’t want to, whenever it comes.
June 20th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Did Ben just end a sentence with a preposition? :>
June 20th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Brother Ben,
In this post you seem to have lots of opinions as to the presidential race and the nominators. I have read this post with interest and do see one thing that I believe you need to correct.
You write; Wade is an articulate speaker, and there is little doubt that most of the 400 votes that Wager received owe more to Burleson’s nomination than to Wagner’s popular appeal. I believe if you check the records, Dr. Waggner, despite his SoulForce effort Brother Wade’s rousing nominating speech, did not receive the 400 votes you claim. It was only 255.
Blessings,
Tim
June 20th, 2008 at 10:48 am
#28
What “most peiple do not understand” is that although the publishing arm of the SBC was developed to aid churches in ministry and to keep them from having to pay high prices for appropriate literature, those churches are now paying what you refer to as profit. It is a tax on Baptists that Lifeway then uses to make more money or to shift to the CP. Since the money belonged to the churches in the first place shouldn’t the churches have the choice of using that portion the way the want to? Some of us think it would be more ethical and more helpful to our churches to simply pay cost covering prices to Lifeway. It would be simpler, more honest as a ministry and create much better relations with the churches. (The SBC needs that one badly.)
June 20th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Sorry the above should read, despite his SoulForce effort and Brother Wade’s rousing nominating speech,
Blessings,
Tim
June 20th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Duren,
Ben commited the sin of malapropism, the preposition “to” for the adverb “too.”
June 20th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Why is it that nobody is commenting on the integrity questions brought forth by Ted Traylor’s nomination speech and, according to this post and comments in other post, the fact that “Dr.” Hunt even ran against Dr. Cox at all after giving his support to Dr. Cox.
I have always loved Johnny Hunt’s preaching, but this whole situation has completely floored me. And I am wondering why nobody else seems to care. The events of the presidential election do reaise a question of integrity, and after reading other comments concerning Johnny Hunt, his degrees, and NAMB I have to honestly ask if this is an isolated incident.
I sincerely hope it is.
June 20th, 2008 at 11:05 am
That should read “raise a question”. Sorry, I can’t type.
June 20th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Dewayne,
You are questioning Johnny Hunt’s & Ted Traylor’s integrity on a message board. Man-up and call them if you have any questions! Your integrity is in question by being on here instead of asking them for yourself.
June 20th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Tim R-
You need one more correction. Bill Wagner’s supporters were not SoulForce. Ben likened the passion of Wagner’s supporters with the passion of SoulForce.
SoulForce, unfortunately, is the pro-gay group that shows up at the convention each year. They are not Wagner’s supporters.
Hope you are doing well.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Regarding Ben’s schedule (or lack thereof) for posting: I have always enjoyed the Hispanic concept of “mañana,” which while literally meaning “tomorrow,” pragmatically means “not today.”
June 20th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Brother Marty,
You are correct. I certainly do not mean to imply that Bill Wagner is connected to Soulforce.
All is going well. How about with you? Are you studies coming along well?
Blessings,
Tim
June 20th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
DeWayne
It is possible that if we could really access the information on the registered messengers, that we would see trends such as a common thread, other than the norm, that links Tuesday voters. These indicators could likely amount to a smaller and more subtle act of “bussing.”
Surprise has been expressed by almost everyone that Hunt won on the first ballot. Also when Jr. Hill agreed to nominate Cox, Hill expected that Cox was the consensus choice of the establishment after Mohler had to drop out. Hill has been accused of a lack- luster performance in his nominating speech. Hill is not a political animal and by the time Traylor, (a CR devotee serving on the second tier) had jumped into the scene and planned to put forth an embellished portrait of Hunt, Hill, a good man, must have had the wind knocked out of his sails.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Ben:
We love you, brother. Today, tomorrow, all the time. Thanks for all the effort sharing your thoughts during these many months–seriously; very interesting, enlightening, inspiring. Whether or write the second half or not–but please do.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
“. . . Whether or NOT YOU write . . .”
June 20th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
1) Ben, please post when your schedule allows. You know we’ll be reading, whenever.
2) I think Karen is angry about the CR.
3) There are problems in the SBC, but there are excellent people working on it. I have the honor of knowing two of them. I’ve followed much of the discussion about the problems, and in the midst of it all I’m glad to know there are good people in prominent positions who continue to work on the solutions. And I have full confidence that they’re not going to give up, even when things get incredibly frustrating.
4) This is a little off-topic, but when all is said and done, whether you’re a general, a lieutenant or a sergeant, whether you’re working for change or for the status quo, it is awfully hard to go to battle against the enemy when 97% of the SB foot soldiers are asleep in the pew, or even refuse to acknowledge that they are indeed foot soldiers. (Sorry if the military analogy doesn’t fit perfectly. I’m not really a military person. Maybe you guessed that already.)
June 20th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
I have noticed several times in this thread and other threads on the outpost as well as throughout the SBC a rather frequent use of the word enemy. Usually in reference to the CR. Perhaps the biggest problem with the SBC is that we seem to forge that our brothers and sisters in Christ are not the enemy. Even when their theology isn’t just like ours they are not the enemy.
David
June 20th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Den, YOu said, “Also when Jr. Hill agreed to nominate Cox, Hill expected that Cox was the consensus choice of the establishment after Mohler had to drop out.”
Hill came out and announced that he was nominating Cox way before Mohler dropped out. If you check he was concerned was Mohler’s calvinistic views and wanted to give voters another choice.
June 20th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
The enemy to whom I was referring is not of flesh and blood. Thank you, David, for allowing me the opportunity to clarify.
June 20th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
with Mohler’s calvinistic views…
June 20th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Very little of what happens at the SBC has much of an effect on the churches in the field. Even on the best days of convention attendance and registration, the number of churches sending messengers rarely topped the 20% mark. There aren’t a lot of members in my church under 50 who even recognize the name Paul Pressler, and he lives just down the street.
If there is not a major overhaul and modernization of the convention’s way of doing business over the next decade, as the current giving generation passes off the scene, there will be few messengers left to conduct what little business is left to conduct over the few dollars that still come in. A decade. That’s it.
June 21st, 2008 at 12:00 am
Tim Rogers,
It is an interesting day when you come on the Outpost and call for clarification.
June 21st, 2008 at 1:11 am
Interesting comments Ben. It was really a pleasure meeting you in Indy. BTW…did your hair color change overnight? I thought it was red on Monday, but when I saw you on the monitor the next day… Pulling a “land” on us maybe? (lol)
I look forward to part deux and your insights.
I respect your views and the value that your insights bring to SB life. I truly hope you will not simply “pull out” of the engagement process. Many of us would like to see change in various areas, and I continue hoping for these changes because I still believe that there is something worth saving in SB life today. We are still a convention with its problems, but we also have many godly men and women who are hanging in and doing what is right. We still have thousands of commission-minded churches which want to see the gospel proclaimed to the ends of the earth. We still have some (many?) young leaders which want to be catalysts for change and evolution in methodology.
I still believe that there is a solid-core of great things happening in SB life that are worth fighting for, and I only pray that other young leaders and thinkers like yourself will see that too.
Terry
June 21st, 2008 at 7:58 am
Thank you Ben for your honesty. As if there was a question before, now we all can clearly see that the attacks on the SBC entity heads and trustee boards is NOT about guidelines, dissent, or the Great Commission… it is clearly personal (at least with you).
As for your analysis of the nomination speeches… you called Junior Hill’s “half-hearted”, John Marshall’s “memorized, Ted Traylor’s “puckered face”… why could you not bring yourself to call Alan Stoddard’s what is was?
For me one of the funniest moments of the convention was when Dr. Page thought someone on microphone 3 had a point of order. When they turned the camera on the microphone, there stood Ben. Ben was there to make a motion. The funny thing was the collective groan from the convention. I laughed out loud, if I had been at home it would have been ROFL.
Joe W.
June 21st, 2008 at 10:16 am
Ben, you are clearly a politician. If I may say so, this was a brilliant, diplomatic, non-answer to the journalist’s question:
“No Southern Baptists in Indianapolis thought we were voting for a theologian or a college professor when we voted for Johnny Hunt. We know he’s not a doctor. But we also know he’s not a fraud.”
Well done. See you in Washington!
June 21st, 2008 at 11:27 am
What would a Jesus resurgence look like?
June 21st, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Has it truly come to this, old friend? An exit strategy? Hmmm. I shall await the “Exit Strategy” article, but I always thought that you would be here to shake up the established order, rather than shake the Convention dust from your Birkenstocks. Alas, where did I go wrong as a Dorm Daddy that I cannot keep my young Padawans close at hand???
Keith
June 21st, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Ben,
I really enjoyed your take on this years convention.
I eagerly await the “Exit Strategy”… In the meantime I have learned from experience that the only (and I mean ONLY) thing that a bloated bureaucracy listens to is “Money”.
If you really wish to get their attention… if you really wish to change things… then you go after their sacred “milk cow” (I think you know which one I am talking about)… A national trust fund should be established to hold all CP dollars in “Escrow” from all those who have been disenfranchised by the IMB (and others like the Florida Baptist Convention) until things change.
Grace Always,
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:12 am
Upon further reflection, I guess it is at least a tad unclear whether or not the BF&M 2000 is a strict subscription document in the SBC. However, it does seem clear that there are those who want it to be that [whether it actually is or not].
June 22nd, 2008 at 2:11 pm
“Besides you, who are the men that have been corrupted by power?
Any man that seeks power, authority and fights to hold on to it. It is impossible to live out Matthew 5 in that situation.
Of course, we make all kinds of excuses for this and act as if they/we were the only ones who could save the SBC and even act as if it was a great sacrifice to do so.
They end up more like Diotrephes (or the Pharisees) than Paul or Peter. It is too bad more do not see this because the lesson, if disciplined, can be quite painful.
June 23rd, 2008 at 12:53 pm
With the 2009 Convention approaching, life is too short to wait for part 2!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhJnVSKTkcE
June 23rd, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Alex,
Great idea. I thought Ben wore glasses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBKkwxCV5ls
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:39 pm
One question, Ben. What’d you see that makes you so darn optimistic?
Whatever it was, I didn’t see it. I’m MUCH more pessimistic than you are.
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Well, I am gonna post this one then, before someone beats me to it:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Nnjkb4q6FKU
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:45 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heQi0AZBH-0
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:58 pm
There is a great deal of content in this post about the state of the SBC, and I do not mean the thousand words of bloviation. It speaks volumes that a young Patterson sycophant’s goal is not to study the Word, to reach the lost, to develop spiritual discipline but to learn parliamentary procedure and political maneuvers. Such machinations of cabal have dominated SBC life for more than 20 years, which reflects the sad, spiritual vapidity that stands before you today. Some still follow an unholy crusade. Some jettisoned seek to carve their own political, contrarian voice however small and irrelevant. Most, however, simply have left.
June 23rd, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Are bloviation, cabal-like machinations, and vapidity bad??
June 24th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Wow, Evangel Orthodoxy, I am impressed. You can read a blog post about a specific event and tell what the writer’s “goal” is?
Fess up and use your real name. I’s Kreskin, right?
And I’m not defending Mr. Cole, any more than I defend the poor hornets flying around my shed. They’re quite capable of doing that for themselves.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Love the words, evangelical orthodoxy! English major, or trying to see if people who read this blog are intelligent enough to figure out what you’re saying.
Kind of makes me wonder if you are being sarcastic.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:12 pm
In response to the Phil Ratliff post of June 20, dear brother, you could not be more wrong in you analysis. The war was not about money and control. It was about the encroaching liberalism every where in our denomination. I sat in the classrooms of Southern Seminary during the height of the Neo Orthodox period. I was a student during the days when Molly Marshall herself was a student. Let me assure you it was about a numbing liberalism that debunked everything holy, killed evangelism, and emphasized missions but to what avail. According to what we were being taught in the classroom, why was mission even necessary? Scripture was totally unreliable, filled with error and myth, written by men with agendas to be twisted to fit any percieved need. I sat in a theology class one day when a very respected professor (no it was not Dr. Moody) waxed eloquent about the need to do away with this horrible “blood theology”. Phil, please do not be naive! The issues were real and the battle was necessary. The hope that now exists for the SBC today and into tomorrow is the result of brave, loving, and visionary men who stepped up and challenged and increasing corrupt system, drew a line in the sand, and said no more. The recent reports on Baptist Press of the meeting of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship were chilling in their revelation as to how far these former brothers in arms already have drifted. Were it not for the battle, that is where is SBC would now be speaking from. We already would be joining the Episcopals and the Prebyterians, and the Methodist in the great march to having Incabod written over our denomination heritage and structures. We have hope. Let us pray that we have not offended the Mighty God and that we will retain our relevance and our heart for lost souls.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:07 pm
How long O Israel, How long must we wait on part 2 ?
July 4th, 2008 at 10:03 am
An Old Parson,
I would suggest that you first of all define “liberalism” for me. It is a nefarious, nebulous, catch all word by which we try to attach to anyone with whom we disagree so we can win an argument, destroy a career, or ruin a life. In the South and the SBC it closely associated to Communism, Nazism, the KKK and any other bad characters out there. I remember Winfred Moore of FBC Amarillo, Texas being called a liberal so he would not be elected President of the SBC; even Hershel Hobbs was called a “Liberal” by some of the conservative renaissance leaders though they will deny it.
I may be “naive” but before I accept the “tag,” I will ask you to define the term, “liberal” in very clear words. At Oklahoma Baptist University, I majored in English Literature with a minor in Philosophy (18 hrs). I know what liberalism is. I have read extensively in the movements in Europe which developed and were at their zenith from about 1830-1920. I am not just referring to Welhausen, but to works like “The Century Bible,” works of Johann Jacob Griesbach, G. W. Brameld, Westcott and Hort, Frederick Gardiner, L.A. Sawyer, F.H.A. Scrivener, and others whom many considered “liberal;” however, even these men did not deny the inspiration of most Scripture, the Life of Christ, the deity of Christ, the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. We toss that word “liberal’ around with all its connotations acting as if we know what it is and everyone else agrees with our definition. The most important thing in theology as far as I am concerned is the exact definition of terms and words. So please define “liberal.”
Since you were at one of our seminaries (Southern) as a student, you are very aware of or at least should know what is “theological liberalism.” I was never at Southern Seminary and cannot speak toward it, but I can and was at Southwestern Seminary in Ft. Worth. I can speak about Drs. McGorman, Vaughan, Garland, Fish, Baker, McBeth, Patterson, Tolar, Newport, Drummond, Walker, Tidwell, Terry, (William) Estep, Northcutt, Bennett, Gray, Brister, Drakeford and a dozen others. So let us have some names of these “liberals’ and some examples of what they believed. This theological “cleansing” came because the average person in the pew was told time and again that liberalism was rampant in the seminaries. One or two “liberal” leaning profs doth not a rampant liberal seminary or convention make.
Old Parson,
I was a Pastor at Southside in Denton, FBC Springtown (fifteen miles from downtown Ft. Worth, FBC Watauga bordering Ft. Worth, Keller, North Richland Hills, Haltom City and Smithfield for about twenty years. I served on numerous Tarrant County, Parker County, and Denton County Associational committees, and you could count on your hand the Associational meetings and Pastor’s Conferences I missed. I was very close friends with both George Baines and Bill Lucas. I knew Miles Seeburn, James Robertson (when he was a Southern Baptist) and I preached numerous times for Ollin Collins when his church was called Carey Heights before he relocated it down the road from my church and changed the name to Harvest Baptist Church. I was very close friends with both Wrang and Jimmy Morgan spending much time in prayer with Jimmy Morgan for about twelve years.
If it were not about money, why in the world were leaders of the SBC entities forced into early retirement or forced to vacate their positions only to be replaced by hand picked Paige Patterson men such as O.S. Hawkins and Jimmy Draper? It was about money, prestige and who would have the two hundred and fifty thousand dollar jobs as heads of the old Sunday School Board, Annuity Board, other boards and who would be their water boys. I know many of the lies, the broken promises, and the “deals” made and then gone back on without telling anyone there had been a change of minds. I am no great Dr. Dillday fan for I did not know the man, but he was no flaming liberal.
After the San Antonio National Conventional ( around ‘83), I just said to myself that I want no part of what is going on by either side and have never attended a National SBC meeting since although I am still a full time pastor.
Maybe in your definition, I, too, am a “liberal.” If I am, I am one that takes a Dispensational Pre-mil, Pre-trib postion in interpreting Holy Scriptures; my approach is identical to the plenary, verbal and inerrant approach without any mixture of error “in the original manuscripts.”
Unlike the radical conservatives (radical in the sense that no one is welcome but them) that have taken over the SBC and all entities, I believe in a solid, thick, high wall of separation of religion and state and do not believe that when you join a local SBC Church you are joining a local caucus of the Republican Party. I believe in the old method of growing a church through the Sunday School by keeping many members involved and the units small. I spent seven years working as a volunteer with Campus Crusade for Christ International the North Texas State University campus, I have used Navigator materials and still do since 1962, I and my church are certified Evangelism Explosion members though I will not use anything that comes form James Kennedy, Bill Bright or James Dobson because of their secular involvement in politics.
It is not that I do not understand Judge Pressler and Paige Patterson and those in lock-step behind them for I do and disagree with them. I want the Convention to be a Southern Baptist Convention again without all the saber rattlin’. all the “liberal” tagging, and all the fear. We are a long, long away from where we were in 1960 when I first walked into a Southern Baptist church to find the Lord of life as a young alcoholic. Those who did the hatchet work on those I mentioned above really believed the enemy was the liberals in the Convention that needed to be destroyed at all cost. I am afraid like the comic character, “We have met the enemy and they are us.”
Only By His Grace,
Phil.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Phil, dear brother in Christ:
I apologize for the naive remark. I thought I was dealing with a much younger person into revisionism without having experience. You obviously are more than qualified. Yet, I respectfully disagree. It was a necessary battle fought at urgent moment. While you had a rich and powerful experience with good teachers, there are many of us who would not be able to identify with you in that area. For instance you ask for names. I will refrain from naming the professor, who is now dead, but in my Old Testament survey course a young man held out for an inerrant and infallabile approach to Holy Scripture and I remember sitting there in horror as the professor demolished that young man. Around me others snickered and thought the boy stupid, I suppose, on two levels: for exposing himself and for his high view of scripture. I must admit that I also drank the neo-ortodox kool-aid that was the steady diet in the classrooms of that era. It was only after I got out and was in the local pastorate that a process of re-evaluation brought me back to a high view of scripture. When I see what students are getting at Southern now, I confess a degree of envy.
I believe the strongest response which I could give you is to again observe the most recent gathering of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. One of the priciple speakers was old John Killenger, late of Vanderbilt Divinity School who told his listeners to stop preaching from the gospel of John because Jesus never saw himself as divine; that the book of Daniel was a lie put together much later than it claims with retro - prophecies to appear real; and that the book of Mark was a gnostic gospel. I remind you that the refuges who make up the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship were the leadership class that ran everything until 1979. Was there meanness and and mixed agenda’s in the great battle. Without real knowledge I will say more than likely! But in the end, the resurgence was very necessary. I repeat that we have hope because of its success. You long for a reunion which will make us one Southern Baptist Convention again. I would offer that to be most nearly impossible. Whether we wish to see it or not, there simply is too much which divides us.
Recently I had occasion to calm down one of our young bucks who wished to go after one of the churches of our local association which fully earns the title “liberal” for they cannot even be counted as moderate. I told him basically to cool his heels that the time for the fight had passed. This church no longer is effective, no longer an influence and I felt we would shoot ourselves in the foot to have a protracted battle to remove them. My approach has always been to disagree in Christian love and treat the one with whom I diagreed with Godly graciousness. Phil, you are my brother in the blood of Christ Jesus. God bless your ministry … Go win a soul today!
July 4th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
An Old Parson,
I know that Southern was reputed to have some men who should not have been teaching there. There has always been that element in every era of the church. There may have been one or two at Southwestern after I left the Ft. Worth area who should not have been hired.
When we talk of someone being a “liberal” we are talking about the person you mentioned in the last comment. During my twenty years around the immediate Ft. Worth area (1966-1986), I never ran into one professor at SWBTS who denied the deity of Christ; His death, bruial and resurrection for sin. I knew professors who had their doubts about Mark 16 but not the Book itself; though I disagreed with them, they had grounds for many of their doubts about Mark 16 in what they learned in many of our Greek manuscripts:
Tischendorff omits the last twelve verses of Mark in his Greek Manuscript; Westcott and Hort, and Tregelles keep the verses but not as a part of their main Greek manuscripts; Weiss places the verses in the margin of his manuscript; the 1881 Revisers separated these verses from the rest of the Gospel by a large space; most critical scholarship all the way until the late 1980’s held their nose when they used these verses. I think they were wrong and believe there is much more evidence why the last twelve verses of Mark 16 should be retained. I know of no imminent Greek scholar who believes 1 John 5:7 should be in any Bible. It never appears in the writings of the ante-Nicene Fathers and is not in the best manuscripts. I think a person can be a conservative Southern Baptist while believing that Jonah is a metaphorical story. I happen to believe it was a literal story about an historical event with a historical person, but that is my position.
I saw at Oklahoma Baptist University and at SWBTS, professors present the philosophical positions of Plato, Aristotle, Hume, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzche, Sarte, Dostoevsky, Camus and other great thinkers. Some students and usually ministerial students would run back to their churches telling all who would listen about the out and out liberals on campus. Invariably there would be a handful of preachers show up on campus demanding the resignation of professor after professor. Not one of these students ever, not once that I know of, asked to see the proffesor to hear his belief and neither did the SBC ministers. You could not talk to these men because they immediately castigated you as being a liberal and on the side of the liberals.
Putting the liberal tag on a Southern Baptist professor, denominational worker, or preacher is akin to calling a person in an intelligence service such as the CIA a “pinko” or a “Commie” back in the McCarthy era. I lived through that debacle and can well compare the atmosphere of insinuation and fear.
You and I disagree probably because we had different experiences. I will never believe what went on in Ft. Worth, later in the SBC, and what is now going on with IMB and SWBTS was or is godly or God’s will. It could have been and should have been handled differently. The world can paint with a broad paint brush; the world says, “To make an omelet, you must crack some heads (eggs).” Well the world has its way of doing things, but the church should have a different way. The last time I checked, I think 1 John says we are in the world but not of it.
My main problem as I come toward the end of life is that those who led the takeover are still at it; professors are being fired, missionaries are being sent home, the curtain of secrecy is still pulled shut where the uninitiated cannot see or hear what goes on behind closed doors; and this really upsets me.
I am not angry at anyone. I am not going on a crusade to get someone moved out or moved in. I am just going to keep doing what I have done for the past forty-five years: teaching my people God’s Word to the best of my poor talents and try to lead as many as I can to find Lordship in Jesus Christ. If someone calls me a liberal at sixty-eight years old with three heart attacks and five bypasses, I really don’t care. They can even put a sign on my grave, “Here lies Phil Ratliff, the Liberal.”
Only By His Grace,
Phil.
July 6th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
The critical importance of myth in any movement cannot be understated. Myths about about fallen political figures, celebrities, athletes, etc., and fudge the truth and obscure reality. Such is with the Fundamentalist Takeover of the SBC. The myths of great, godly men saving the convention from liberal, Jesus-hating moderates have tremendous power over the ignorant. It does little good to attempt to change minds or educate. As noted, for one thing the word “liberal” means nothing. If one cannot define it, I would be impressed. The battle is over. The Fundamentalists won the battle but lost the war, and along the way they destroyed lives and lost souls. I am just thankful I will not have to stand before Christ on judgment day and explain my actions. Patterson sold his soul to the Devil for the presidential mansion like so many fallen men before; but eternity sure is a long time, and pecans trees ultimately wither.
July 6th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
An Old Parson,
Thank you for calling me your brother in Christ and for that glorious truth I rejoice.
I do not think we are that far apart in our views. I appreaciate your level-headed comments and accept any criticism as constructive.
Only by His Grace Your Brother in Christ and Fellow Servant,
Phil.