• Author: art rogers
• Published: Jun 19th, 2006
• Category: Blogging, Greensboro '06, San Antonio '07, SBC
• Comments: 15

Think I’m The Only One?

TAGS: None

15 Responses to “Think I’m The Only One?”

1. 
   CW
   on Jun 19th, 2006
   @ 6:39 pm: 

   Texas is a big deal. Both sides will mobilize during this year and inner circle will have an attractive candidate. I do know of some SBTC people who voted for Page in Greensboro. Things should be interesting. Will moderates influence the election and turn out from BGCT churches? Will the inner circle once again firmly grasp the reigns of power?

2. 
   Josh
   on Jun 19th, 2006
   @ 8:15 pm: 

   I think you would have to be from Texas or atleast understand the SBTC/BGCT situation to really know about what you are saying. It is funny to me how many people are trying to deny that blogging had anything to do with Page’s election – maybe it didn’t but I still think it did. I was talking to a guy this morning that works for the SBTC he contributed the SBC being in North Carolina with Page’s victory. If that is completely true or not it probably did have something to do with it. I personally saw very few people that were from somewhere other than N.C., S.C., Florida, MS, Tenn, and Georgia. Now I know that I did not see everyone, but if you apply the same logic to next year and the sheer size of Texas. Coupled with the constant Baptist politics in Texas then you are sure to have an interesting convention. People have to remember that for most states this ‘politics’ thing happens once a year for Texas this is an everyday thing. Even in our associational meetings we discuss how BGCT churches will react to such and such as apposed to SBTC churches. I love Texas.

3. 
   Robby
   on Jun 19th, 2006
   @ 8:23 pm: 

   The $64,000 question: will the insiders run a candidate against Page?

   THE UPSIDE (for them):
   Huge home-court advantage, given their unbeaten record in state as Art referred to. Imagine a raucus convention hall filled fired-up SBC Texans (and Paige Patterson loyalists) hardened from years of battles with the BGCT.

   Also, they have a year to whisper against Dr. Page and quietly seek out the perfect candidate…preferably a Texan, youthful, pastor of a big church with generous CP giving and a healthy baptism rate, etc.

   THE DOWNSIDE:
   They could lose. I still believe rank-and-file SBC messenger frown upon challenging incumbant presidents. A loss in San Antonio would dramatically weaken the insiders by further polarizing people against them, making Indianapolis in 2008 an even steeper climb. Also, a lot of inner circle supporters would have to rethink their position and their futures, perhaps looking to jump off a sinking ship.

   I’m not sure they’ll oppose Dr. Page next year. They might be better served by engaging him while drafting a few tricky resolutions, challenging a few nominations, etc. That said, I don’t him Dr. Page and the minefields he’ll have to navigate this year.

4. 
   art rogers
   on Jun 19th, 2006
   @ 9:12 pm: 

   Josh,

   You said: “I think you would have to be from Texas or at least understand the SBTC/BGCT situation to really know about what you are saying.”

   Don’t take this angrily, because I am not. I sincerely am trying to explain this to you.

   Read the left side of my blog page. I grew up and went to college in Houston then Seminary in Ft. Worth. I spent most of my life in Texas and still have roots there. I root for the Aggies, Astros and Cowboys – to this very day.

   I grew up in the BGCT before the split, but moved just before the SBT was founded. I promise you, I know Texas and the politics there. If you would like further knowledge, read my series “My Journey Through The Resurgence to Memphis.”

   No offense, and I mean that. I know that I haven’t lived there for ten years, but I promise I have kept up.

   Other than that, I think your observations are pretty astute.

   Oh, yeah, and I also love “Texas, our Texas, all hail the Lone Star State.”

5. 
   Rzrbk
   on Jun 19th, 2006
   @ 9:33 pm: 

   I doubt if they will run a candidate against Page unless something major happens that can help them rally people to attend. That was one of the mistakes the folks who opposed the political activity of the conservative resugence made in the early years. They kept running their best candidates in the off years to try and beat the incumbant and most people will not vote to do that. Then they were looked at as losers if they tried to run again.
   You need to also remember that the conservative resurgence candidates were defeated handily by the theolocial conservataive in the BGCT. The SBCT was formed because they could not control the BGCT and they refuse to be part of an organization they cannot control. Texas has been the center of the controversy because Pressler, Patterson and 1st Baptist Church, Dallas are all in Texas. Texans saw up close the raw political nature of the resurgence at Southwestern Seminary when Dilday was fired and many fine theologicly conservataive professors were forced to leave. Having the convention in Texas will not be an advantage for the resurgence folks. Frank Page graduated from SWBTS and taught there while Dilday was president and pastored Gambrell Street Baptist Church near the seminary. There are lots of people in Texas who know Frank Page and are happy he was elected.

6. 
   Alan Cross
   on Jun 19th, 2006
   @ 11:15 pm: 

   I’m a novice when it comes to SBC politics and hope to stay one. But, if the “inner circle” really is planning some type of comeback, I agree it would be foolish to make a big deal in San Antonio. The Machiavellian thing to do would be to play nice, get along, smile, and bide your time. Take Dr. Page up on his pledge to not rock the boat or clean house and just go along, business as usual. The most effective controlling organizations are the ones that are invisible. Then, in 2008 in Indianapolis, run a solid candidate who has great credentials across the board and right the ship. See it as a minor setback, learn from your mistakes, and regain control. That’s what I would do. Flailing at the wind of a one time defeat makes you look desperate and will actually rally folks against you. The smartest move is to let us bloggers just run out of steam and take away any reason for anyone to be upset.

   If this approach is taken, the most important thing for everyone to do is to be Christlike at all times and influence the world and the SBC through the power of our witness. Politics is a dirty game and it soils everyone who puts their trust in it. I pray that these days are ending in the SBC. May we help end them.

7. 
   Anonymous
   on Jun 20th, 2006
   @ 6:35 am: 

   1. I have it via email from a top BGCT executive that the conclusion among such is that little can be done by them to influence the course of the SBC; however, that email was from earlier this year and before the results of Greensboro (BGCT executives have been paying attention to the recent SBC events and have been reading these blogs–some may have posted comments without identifying themselves);

   2. people can–and do, in Texas!–say what they want about the theological persuasions of the BGCT, but no one is more conservative theologically (despite that convention’s lack of the use of the word “inerrant” [2001 BF&M proponents didn't have the courage to include the word in revisions to the document that year or since]); both grassroots (eg., my parents) and officially, the BGCT is theologically-conservative–but politically-speaking (number of congregations affiliated, total dollars given to CP ministries, potential due to the size of Texas’ population, etc.), the convention is large enough–and Texan enough!–to stand on its own two feet and has. In that sense only, Texas is “moderate” (politically so; not theologically so–anyone who says otherwise doesn’t know Texas Baptists or BGCT folks personally and hasn’t spoken to them directly);

   3. if Russell Dilday were being nominated as a candidate for SBC president next year, every BGCT church in the state would send messengers to make it happen–but many with a wrong spirit;

   4. Dr. Page served Gambrell Street Baptist Church in Ft. Worth, and taught at Southwestern Seminary there; lots of BGCT folks know and love him–but even that may not be enough to draw them to San Antonio to vote for him;

   5. the San Antonio Baptist Association is composed of 200+ congregations and has good leadership; churches like Castle Hills First Baptist Church (SBTC) are off-set by ones like Trinity Baptist Church (BGCT) if their messengers attend;

   6. member for member (or, minister for minister), SBTC churches may be more intentional about their affiliations than BGCT churches; SBTC congregations consciously chose to affiliate with that convention in recent days (though it’s reported that members of some SBTC congregations don’t know how their churches joined the SBTC; and, not every church listed as SBTC is a church–some are individuals contributing to SBTC causes);

   7. the website of the SBTC has better appeal than that convention has influence in the state, right now (eg., if I’ve met 20 SBTC folks during the years since its organization, I don’t know it–they aren’t saying so anymore than BGCT folks or other Baptists across the nation are; “the redeemed of the Lord should say so”–but we too seldom do);

   8. it’s a 10 hour drive from the Texas Panhandle to San Antonio, but most of the state’s population can reach San Antonio within 5 hours by car;

   9. the history of Texas Baptists shows many splits over 150 years–none, from what I can understand, were for godly reasons (rather, regional differences festering; when Texas Baptists subsequently came back together, it also wasn’t for godly reasons [ie, repentance for unnecessary splits]);

   10. Indiana: much less SBC influence there–but San Antonio is a “funner place to visit”!

8. 
   charliemac
   on Jun 20th, 2006
   @ 2:58 pm: 

   I would suggest that possibly the before guessing as to what the BGCT folk may think or do next year in San Antonio one might do well to read the current editorial in The Baptist Standard ( http://www.thebaptiststandard.com ) I suspect that most members of the BGCT will continue to stay away in droves. Although you keep messing up the missionaries and the “real” old time SBCers of Texas could get riled up enough to once again care.

9. 
   Ron West
   on Jun 20th, 2006
   @ 7:47 pm: 

   Mav Knox asks some good questions that Art, Marty, Wade and other bloggers as well as Frank Page need to answer. The paragraph starting define broad is a good one. How can we say things are changing and this is a new day when most of you continue to affirm the conservative resurgence and all the carnal political activity that accompanied it? He asked a good question. Will those in the BGCT be welcomed by Frank Page? Are they only to send in their CP money and sit on the sidelines when appointments are made as they have been asked to do in the past? How about getting down to some real answers without all the code words.

10. 
    art rogers
    on Jun 20th, 2006
    @ 11:11 pm: 

    Ron? is that you typing under your name instead of rzrbk?

    You said: “How can we say things are changing and this is a new day when most of you continue to affirm the conservative resurgence and all the carnal political activity that accompanied it?”

    Please find for me a place where me or any of my peers – let’s say anyone in Memphis – affirms the carnal political activity of anything – especially the resurgence.

    I know that I have, on NUMEROUS occassions affirmed the heart of theological conservatism and dealing with very real issues within the SBC, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME decrying EVERYONE (read: either side) who used the resurgence for personal political advancement or an “ends justifies the means” ethic to govern their behavior. It is ludicrous that you would try and hang that on me or my peers. It’s a clear distortion of what we have said and what Memphis explicitly decried.

    C’mon, man.

    As to who Frank Page will or will not appoint, the only thing I know is that he said he would appoint “theological conservatives” and the word “inerrantists” was thrown in there.

    Let me say this about “inerrancy.” I use the word because if anyone in my circles tries to skirt the word, eyebrows raise and they whisper you are probably “one of them” who questions Scripture’s authority. I have to embrace it so that I don’t have to go back and defend my beliefs to my fellow conservatives – who probably won’t believe me since I didn’t use that word the first time.

    I don’t like the political strings that are attached to that word. I wish that we were more apt to listen to the way a person defines their beliefs for themselves. I used to try this, but, honestly, we are too shallow. They just want to hear it or hear it denied. Anything other than embracing it is considered to be denial. What else can a conservative do?

    Having said that, you will have to see who Frank Page appoints. I have no knowledge of his mind beyond what I have told you.

    I do know that Ben Cole told him that we (bloggers) wanted nothing from him personally and did not desire any appointments. We all (all=most of the prominant bloggers and some folks from Memphis that do not blog) have affirmed this personally to him and I do so, again, publicly.

    Any “code words” in that? Sheesh!

11. 
    John Fariss
    on Jun 21st, 2006
    @ 9:56 am: 

    Were I among the power brokers and king-makers (HA!), I wouldn’t try to set up confrontations with Dr. Page, not now or next year in Texas. The principle I would employ is incremental (not instant or overwhelming) escalation. I would first try to win him over–make him into a “good ‘ole boy,” show him (and any supporters/advisors who can be identified) how much “alike” they already are, how important it is to “stay the course,” give him new peers who could subtly apply pressure, give plausible rationales for what has been done, then confuse what was done with how it was done. Only if that failed would I try to overpower him. Another word for the same thing: seduction. Another illustration for the same thing: put a frog into a pot of hot water and it will jump out; put the same frog into cool water, but heat it slowly, and it will lie there until it cooks.

    For his blogger-supporters: maybe a bit more confrontation would be necessary, so set up straw men–maybe like beverage alcohol and Calvinism–and use pawns to deliver them. These and other pawns would be rabbits for them to chase–in other words, (1) distract them, and (2) mislead the uninformed.

    At least that’s what I would do–if I were a smart, but spiritually immature manipulator, perhaps dysfunctional or just a control freak. And I would point out that the number of years and positions of authority a person has served is not necessarily indicative of maturity in Christ. In the early 80′s, I heard the head of a state government agency say, “We have people who have been working for us 20 years. But that doesn’t mean they have 20 years of experience; it may mean that have one year of experience they have repeated 20 times.” Just because a person has been a Christian for 20, 30, 50 years or whatever, it does not necessarily mean they have 20, 30, 50 years of growth in Christ. They may have one (1) year of growth they have repeated year after year. That is where DISCIPLESHIP comes in–and discipleship is hardly talked about in Baptist circles anymore. All the leadership seems to talk about is evangelism: reach more, baptize more (properly, of course), don’t purge our rolls of people we can’t find because they can be targeted for evangelism (huh?), and all the problems the SBC or our churches face can be cured by evangelism. But Jesus said to evangelize AND to disciple. Does it bother anyone besides me that we seem to be emphasizing half of what Jesus commissioned us to do at the expense of the other half?
    John Fariss

12. 
    art rogers
    on Jun 21st, 2006
    @ 12:13 pm: 

    John,

    You are one scary dude. I mean that in the nicest way. :)

13. 
    John Fariss
    on Jun 21st, 2006
    @ 1:34 pm: 

    And the scariest part is that I didn’t learn this either from my father, who was a career police officer in a political small town, or from my own 7 1/2 years on the PD in a city of 150,000. I learned it in the pastorate.

14. 
    art rogers
    on Jun 21st, 2006
    @ 8:42 pm: 

    Oh, and Ron, for Marv to have questions that demand an answer, he is going to have to either understand us better or portray us more accurately.

    Marv Knox describes us this way:

    “like Page, they strongly affirm the ‘conservative resurgence,’ trumpet inerrancy and call for loyalty to the Cooperative Program as they define it (supporting only state conventions and the SBC, not other Baptist organizations such as the Baptist World Alliance, Baptist Joint Committee, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and WMU). So, “broad” seems to mean young, polite inerrantists who affirm the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message—not necessarily traditional, mainstream Baptists like most Texans.

    We don’t support the WMU and are not “traditional, mainstream Baptists?” PUUUHHLEEEAAASE.

    As to the other organizations, he may be accurate, but you will have to speak to each individuals as to their personal stance.

    It still doesn’t excuse such careless and pejorative reporting from a “professional” journalist.

15. 
    JUSTAMOE
    on Jun 23rd, 2006
    @ 10:07 am: 

    Art:

    In case this thread still is receiving attention, you typed in reply to Ron, “. . . for Marv [Knox] to have questions that demand an answer, he is going to have to either understand us better or portray us more accurately . . .” Moving nearer to Dallas may give you a chance to get to know Marv better, too.

    Marv was “blogging” before blogging was cool (in the sense that he’s been one sharp editor since before blogging was vogue), he recognizes “off-the-wall journalism” when he reads it in other state Baptist conventions’ newspapers, and–seriously–he’d fit well into the hotel suite photos we’ve seen posted at the popular blogsites now since Greensboro. Anyone disbeliefing this: phone Marv yourself to find out (214-630-4571; cf. Matthew 18–offended one makes the call).

    I think that Marv stands were many Texas Baptists stand today: missing his SBC brothers, not because they “took their toys and went home,” but because those parted Christian brothers are/were his really good friends in ministry and life–and for no reason better than what you unfortunately must state about your own situation regarding the use or conscientious refusal to use the word “inerrant” (reminder: for 40 years, the phrase “truth without any mixture of error” alone basically was considered by all Southern Baptists as the best brief sentence ever written in human history about God’s Holy Word).

    I’ve realized that my several comments posted at the popular blogsites since January have had no profound effect on any reader of them, but I’ll type this one again, just in case . . . and I challenge any reasonable reader to show that this isn’t and can’t be true (so far, no takers): ANY YEAR’S VERSION–1925, 1963, or 2001–IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PERSONAL THEOLOGICAL PERSUASIONS OF EVERY KIND OF BAPTIST EVER WALKING ON THE PLANET EARTH, AND CAN BE THE BASIS FOR OUR COOPERATION IN MISSIONS AND EVANGELISM IF WE WILL COOPERATE–AND THAT IS THE QUESTION TODAY. Not to agree with my statement is not to understand either the BFM statements or Baptists, or both. Until we all understand and accept this, the SBC as a whole will never move out of “stupid mode” and back into maximum ministry effectiveness (the issue isn’t theological, and no longer is only political; it’s just plain ol’ stupid now). And, there is no courageous reconciler anywhere among us working from that basis; if there is one, the rest of us need for him to stand up taller so that we can see him and follow him. Otherwise, editors like Marv are right: “Sorry, nothing changed”.

    Just my two cents, because I’m “justamoe” who is ready for ALL OF US to be wiser, choose better, and move forward TOGETHER—and I know that we can if we will.

    David Troublefield
    JUSTAMOE