SBCOutpost

Art Rogers has blogged about the SBC since January of 2006, but “retired” from SBC political blogging not long after the San Antonio Convention in the summer of 2007. His former posts are still available online at his personal blog, 12 Witnesses. Currently, he is Lead Pastor at Skelly Drive Baptist Church in Tulsa, OK.

Consider here the obligatory mentions of respect and friendship as well as brotherhood toward my fellow Southern Baptist Todd. He is a friend and I like him. Not only that, but I am intimidated by Todd’s complete sense of confidence and self worth. He is neither bullied nor pressed and speaks his mind to Ben Cole without a second thought, which should tell us all something. Boyd Luter is also a friend and I have the utmost respect for him. This article is an attempt to answer Todd’s question (something most people commenting on his article failed even to attempt) as to why some anonymous information is accepted and some is not.

Todd, in his recent article at SBC Outpost, makes a valuable distinction between how and when anonymous criticism is received. It does seem true that sometimes anonymous information allows us to know things we must know if we are to pursue the reform of unrighteousness within the SBC. Read the rest of this entry »

Reasonable Cause | Christianity Today

Christianity Today has posted an article on the BFM and the Garner motion. In it are three quotes from SBC leaders.

Most reasonable and gracious is Frank Page, SBC President.

“The motion will remain open for interpretation,” SBC president Frank Page said. While he encouraged trustees not to apply standards beyond the BFM, Page said, “It will be an object of discussion for years to come. By and large, the messengers were saying, ‘Let’s be careful not to become too narrow, too legalistic.’”

Sounds like the convention made a wise choice by electing and then re-electing him.

Former president Jerry Vines was most prophetic, in my opinion. Perhaps my evaluation is that he says something similar to my assessment here: BFM Motion Analysis.

“Frankly, the motion does nothing,” said former SBC president Jerry Vines. “Things will go on just as they have always been.”

Finally, Richard Land says something I evaluate as quite dishonest. In my report about being at the microphone during the debate on the BFM, At the Mic with Drs. York and Land, I recorded Dr. Land as siding against the Garner motion - which he very publicly was. Now, he seems to be implying that he was always for the motion and that it is the bloggers who are spinning it.

Clearly this is not the case, as I was recorded on the video feed stating that I was there to speak “for” the motion.

Nevertheless, Dr. Land said this:

Richard Land disagrees. As president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Land said he still plans to hire and fire for reasons outside the BFM, offering divorce and alcoholism as examples. Other interpretations of the motion are merely the false bluster of bloggers, Land said. Commonly credited last year with electing Page as president, prominent SBC bloggers such as Wade Burleson failed this year to elect their candidate for first vice president, David Rogers.

“The bloggers are desperate for a win, because their candidate for first vice president got slam-dunk stomped,” Land said. “They are desperate to spin this motion.”(1)

This couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, I was recorded on the video feed as being at the mic and saying that I was there to speak “for” the motion. I don’t know what else to say about this. Dr. Land is President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. If he has deliberately lied, he certainly should not be in leadership anywhere in the SBC, much less his current post. On the other hand, if he legitimately believes what he said and is just horribly wrong, then his abilities to lead are thus called into question.

Either way, this quote puts him in the worst of lights.

————

(1) Oh, and again, I stated well before the election that I didn’t think David Rogers would win and that it was no big deal to me. The 1VP was not the vote. Along with others, I said that the 1Vp election was not the referendum the “Barber Bunch” wanted to make it for any number of reasons. The overall gist is that Richards and Rogers embodied many, many issues - some important and some not - around which the election would turn. Mostly, though, it was Richards’ “home turf.”

As I said last week, the Presidential election next year in Indianapolis will be make a big difference in the course of the SBC in the years to come. Let me reiterate why, briefly, and then handicap the race.

The Presidential election is always crucial because of the Trustee appointments that flow from his appointments. By the way, if you think that the President simply turns the selections over to the committees and has nothing else to do with it, you are mistaken. Some presidents are more involved than others, but all turn over names they would like to see find a place. Moreover, they set the tone for the Committee on Committees and the Committee on Nominations, giving both of them a set of guidelines which he expects them to follow. As I have said before, the thing that will make the difference in the tone of our institutions and agencies is to replace trustees who are more interested in restricting cooperation with trustees who are more interested in facilitating cooperation.

Still more than that, the President is the barometer. How things are going in the SBC is evaluated by the secular world and by those active in the SBC political world by who the President is and what he is doing in his role. Not long ago, when elections were uncontested, it was not the case that the Presidential office holder was all that telling. It was telling when the Resurgence was in doubt and it is again. It always will be, as long as that election is contested.

Finally, the President is the rally point. Because it all flows down from the President, whoever is most interested in shaping the future of the SBC will do what it takes to get to the convention and bring messengers to vote for the President.

The early front runner was rumored to be Al Mohler. Read the rest of this entry »

Outside of the launching of a new version of SBC Outpost, nothing much is happening in the SBC.

Politically speaking, all there is left to do is deal with only one thing: The fallout of the adoption of the EC Report on the BFM - otherwise known as the Garner motion. The entirety of the next year is going to be spent hashing out the practical implications of the SBC adopting this report and it may take longer than a year to do it. In fact, it may take a decade or more. Nevertheless, this year is crucial in setting the direction in terms of how the SBC will respond.

Make no mistake about it, this motion is the center of what many of us have been pushing for in the SBC over the last couple of years. It is the counter to our chief complaint: The Narrowing of Parameters of Cooperation in the SBC.

I want to give you a few thoughts as to where practical changes might be made and how. After that, I’ll give you a few predictions.

First, let me say that the “alternate interpretation” of the report that focuses on the word “guide” while completely ignoring authorial intent as well as failing to exegete the word “sufficient” is, at best, a minority report. The vast majority of the convention doesn’t buy it, regardless of the few that do. The argument for this interpretation will be made in various corners of the SBC, but I don’t think it stands a chance. Still, it may hold some ground among key players who, frankly, interpret the report this way because it suits their agenda.

Let it be known far and wide that I would have preferred a much more clearly worded statement that could have avoided this kind of parsing and eisegesis, but I have come to the conclusion that no statement would have been simply surrendered to without an attempt to undermine it. Parsing it is simply the easiest way to do it. Authorial intent is clearly on record, though it tends to be ignored since it is so problematic for their argument.

Still, many other leaders are supporting this motion as it reads, taking the word sufficient as, well, sufficient. I linked to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary above to reference the source, but for weight in the article here is the definition:

Main Entry: suf·fi·cient
Pronunciation: s&-’fi-sh&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin sufficient-, sufficiens, from present participle of sufficere
1 a : enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end <sufficient provisions for a month> b : being a sufficient condition
2 archaic : QUALIFIED, COMPETENT

In the end, the vocal minority among SBC leadership are no longer the only ones on the soapbox. This will continue to be problematic for them as more and more leaders reveal publicly what I have heard so often privately.

Second, the Mission Boards are going to have to deal with their extra-Biblical, extra BFM “guidelines”. The PPL interpretation is narrow beyond our consensus and the Lifeway study lends weight to the anti-restriction argument. Whatever complaints that may be lodged against the study falls in the same category as the minority report interpretation of the motion: discreditation due to lack of personal support. Read the rest of this entry »