If you are reading this, I hope that your family is all asleep and you just couldn’t, which is how it is with me right now.
With Marty and Wade on blog fasts I am wondering if I missed a memo or something. I wondered if I should impose a blog fast, but decided that I had already done it. I just didn’t tell everyone. Before I moved to Tulsa, I was posting almost everyday. When we moved, I didn’t have the internet in my home and blogging at work was not only undesirable, but was impossible.
With that happening, I took about 6-8 weeks off without even trying. Not that I didn’t blog at all, but I was dramatically cut back. I had (just had) to go to Starbucks down the road to get connectivity with my laptop so I could write anything. I read almost nothing – I didn’t have time.
Since then, my blogging has gotten much better. I sleep more, since I don’t stay up into the wee hours typing and scrolling. I comment far less. Commenting on everything takes up so much time. I used to wonder why Marty hardly ever commented outside his own blog. Now I get it.
I read more, but mostly I scan. I still read everything Kevin Bussey writes, but his stuff is just so interesting and succinct. We should all take a lesson. Mostly, I rely on Bloglines to keep me up to date on what everyone is writing. That saves a lot of time.
In the end, I have come to a better balance about everything.
If you are reading this on Thanksgiving day, I pray you have not made it this far. If you have, I pray that your family is all relaxed somewhere and you aren’t missing out on the good stuff.
Nah. I know my readers aren’t foolish enough to give away family time just to read my thoughts in the early morning of Thanksgiving.
Happy Thanksgiving.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Rex Ray
on Nov 23rd, 2006
@ 9:11 am:
Art,
Guilty as charged on Thanksgiving.
The story goes that a man said to his wife, “Honey, the whole world has gone crazy except you and me, and sometimes I wonder about you.”
With each rule, the cirle is smaller and a noose tightens on those inside.
China built a wall to keep their knowledge secrete, but the wall kept knowledge out and the world passed them by.
We have a common goal of prohibiting man from limiting God to man’s thinking. Pressure was put on Paul to accept man’s thinking, “…take some vows…then everyone will know that you obey the Jewish laws and are in line with our thinking.” (Acts 23-24)
I will join you at the roundtable to hopefully create pressure to undo the damage the IMB has done to God’s calling of missionaries.
At the same time I hope there is an awakening to the foolishness that ‘infallible’ was rejected from the tent unless it was accompanied by ‘inerrancy’.
For every missionary applicant rejected there are a thousand classified as second grade Christians not good enough to be leaders in the SBC.
Hindsight shows that ‘inerrancy’ was used as a political word for the ‘takeover’ to create control and dominance. By looking back, we see the SBC has started down a ‘Catholic road’ faster than the beginning of Catholicism.
Rex Ray
Art Rogers
on Nov 23rd, 2006
@ 11:30 am:
Rex,
I look forward to meeting you in person.
I will say that if you are looking to re-hash the Resurgence, I doubt you will find much traction.
I think that many in my group addressed issues of wounds during the Resurgence at Memphis and are probably not willing to focus on that during this Roundtable. This is about cooperation among inerrantists.
I say this because if you are able to tie us to an attempt to incorporate those who left over the resurgence, you will make us irrelevant with the SBC. The SBC is not going back down that road, and everyone else at the roundtable, to my knowledge, is not interested in that.
Again, I look forward to meeting you in person.
Dorcas Hawker
on Nov 23rd, 2006
@ 1:15 pm:
Happy Thanksgiving Art & family!
Kevin Bussey
on Nov 26th, 2006
@ 11:21 pm:
Happy belated Thanksgiving!
I appreciate your friendship.
Rex Ray
on Nov 26th, 2006
@ 11:27 pm:
Art,
Once a political system has been established (either government or religious) those in power and control are not about to give up their ‘thinking’ regardless if those opposing them are friends, comrades or whatever.
For proof: look at Patterson and Mckissic. I said that to say being inerrantists does not provide a bullet proof vest.
Look what happened when Patterson attacked the IMB for having women over men: the first thing that Rankin said was everyone on the IMB believed in the inerrant Word of God and he couldn’t understand why Patterson would attack those with that belief.
Look what Burleson said when he was attacked: “I am an inerrantist!” You see, ‘inerrantists” has become a symbol of political acceptance, but it is not a shield.
The purpose of the roundtable is not to “keep the machinery running smoothly–well oiled with no squeaks.” (Quote from Scott Goodson) It will be looked upon as opposition and fair game for all criticism available. All attending may become known as ’roundtablest’.
Attending the roundtable may be interpreted as making a “squeak” and treated the same as you said of moderates “they left.” How did moderates leve when it was said of them, “parasites had been removed and the barnacles had been scrapped from the ship of Zion”? Is that leaving? If they had left, would they still give money?
Art, if there only two factors, do you think you would receive more ‘coperation’ from an inerrantists who did not believe a PPL came from God, or a moderate who did?
When does it become too late to right a wrong?
I like Wade Burleson’s statement: “It is the gospel that unites Souther Baptist, and what unites us is greater than anything that might potentially divide us.”
Rex Ray
Art Rogers
on Nov 27th, 2006
@ 1:10 am:
Rex,
The fact is that you are fighting a decided battle and are interested in getting others to help you do it – but we don’t share your point of view concerning the events or the results.
Yes, ungodly things happened. Some things were wrong and some people were wronged.
This is not about that and it will never be about that, no matter what anyone says.
As for the word, “inerrant,” it certainly is no shield, neither to me nor to those with whom I disagree. It is, however common ground for our cooperation – if there will be any. If you can’t go there, you aren’t going to be taken seriously within the conversation.
Speaking of cooperation, your options create a fallacy. There are not only two factors, but I am calling for cooperation among inerrantists. That is what it is and will not change. There are inerrantists who are willing to cooperate with me whether or not they believe in the existence of a PPL (some do) or not (some don’t). The question is whether or not the Southern Baptist Convention will reflect that or will it limit cooperation to those who agree with certain leaders even to the most trivial point of doctrine.
This has yet to be decided and is the heart of the issue to be discussed. I don’t say any of this to be rude or dismissive, but you should know that I, and I believe everyone else on the reservation list, are committed to inerrancy. Your issues with it are yours and not ours, so an effort to “right a wrong” at this Roundtable will likely find you hearing us say that we don’t think it was that wrong and aren’t interested in the discussion.
In other words, we are not on the same page and we are not fighting the same battle.
Rex Ray
on Nov 27th, 2006
@ 7:04 am:
Art,
Thanks for replying and your sincerity. You say, “I am calling for cooperation among inerrantists”, but will you agree that 90% of Southern Baptists have never read the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy and don’t know what an ‘inerrantists’ is?
All they know is the slander of ‘not believing the Bible’ (put on true conservatives) by giving them the degrading name of ‘moderates’. They shout hallelujah thinking the SBC got rid of liberals when in actual practice liberals have led them down a Catholic road of legalism making the circle smaller.
Now people are waking up to the controlling power of these individuals when their toes got stepped on. People want someone to stand for them, but they didn’t stand for others when they were stomped in the ground. Some might say, ‘you chose your bed so lie in it.’
These liberals made the Bible a political football for a smoke screen to take over the SBC.
Art, you imply you only want the help of inerrantists, but I believe you need all the help you can get in revealing truth.
Rex Ray
Art Rogers
on Nov 27th, 2006
@ 10:08 am:
Rex,
I have no idea who has and has not read the Chicago Statement and I don’t know where you would get the number 90%, unless you were speculating. I know that I have linked to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy numerous times, referred people to it on numerous occasions and have a copy in my desk. All of that is simply to say, that how ever many there were, there are a few more now.
I know that there were true conservatives who were moved on politically during the Resurgence. I know that not everybody was one and I know that among those no longer in Southern Baptist life were some true liberals. People like to speak in absolutes. I heard many moderates say that there was no such thing as a Baptist liberal. Not True. I heard conservatives say that anyone who wouldn’t use the word “inerrancy” was a liberal. Not true.
I wasn’t even in high school when the Resurgence started, and was partly through college when it was really over. The people who are speaking now weren’t around to “make a bed” in which to lie. We are the children of the Resurgence, who have now grown and are pastoring churches.
Rex, you completely misunderstand what is happening. You see this as a push back against people whom you consider to be power grabbers. It’s not.
You want to help “reveal truth?” We are trying to cast vision for a future direction for the SBC. I have tried to say this, but I don’t feel that I am in any way able to get through to you.
We are about two different agendas. Your agenda is to expose the political underbelly of those against whom you bear a grudge.
Our agenda is to help the SBC engage our culture and to allow for diversity among those who hold God’s Word as inerrant.
Your concern is that good people were hurt during the Resurgence. Fine. I have affirmed that and agree that things like that happened. I am not interested in rehashing the details of old wounds. That is NOT what this is about. lead that way all you want and you are welcome to call for followers, but I doubt anyone among my peers is going to be willing to follow you there.
Bryan Riley
on Nov 27th, 2006
@ 12:56 pm:
Thanks for the hint on bloglines. I didn’t know about it. I’ve never hit your site for some reason, at least not in a long time. I hope you had a great holiday. God bless.
Art Rogers
on Nov 27th, 2006
@ 3:57 pm:
Bryan,
You are welcome. Been a while. Glad to see you back here.
I did have an excellent holiday. I pray you are doing well.
Art
Rex Ray
on Nov 28th, 2006
@ 11:24 pm:
Art,
You’re right about me speculating that 90% of Southern Baptists have never read the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. A more accurate percent would probably be around 98.
I had never read it until this year when Brad Reynolds gave it to me. I’m glad to see you posted it on your comment. It states:
“The Statement was produced at the Hyatt Regency O’Hare in Chicago in the fall of 1978, during an international summit conference of concerned evangelical leaders. It was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars.”
Art, could you explain the details how the 300 scholars signed this statement? What I’m pointing out is at the end of the meeting this group produced SIX other definitions of inerrancy. Did they sign the other definitions also? If that is the case, then it is misleading to imply they believed 100% in this posted definition.
The definition chosen by the Southern Baptist was known as the ‘strict’ definition. It had 12 qualifications that MAY be accepted and still qualify as believing the definition. The first qualification was the definition only applied to the original autographs.
All this information was written up by a past professor of SWBTS. His conclusion of a many page article was he would not use a word that had so much confusion with 7 definitions. I fell in love with his writing because one of the definitions fitted me to a ‘T’, and I didn’t feel so much like an oddball. I passed his article out years after he wrote it at SWBTS before an official stopped me. He called him and told what I was doing. He had his secretary call saying that he appreciated me liking his article, but please not to pass it out.
The bottom line is I believe in the Chicago Statement but it depends on which definition.
Rex Ray
Art Rogers
on Nov 29th, 2006
@ 1:49 pm:
Rex,
My point was that speculation is just that – no matter which way you go. Moreover, it is irrelevant. Most of the SBC or none of the SBC have to either have read or believe in the Chicago Statement to make my point accurate.
My point is that this Roundtable is not about Inerrancy, or political maneuvering – either past or present. Redressing the Resurgence is your issue. It’s not mine, and I suspect that it is not the issue for the now 100+ who have made reservations.
I tried to email you, but the email you give when posting is not a valid address, nor is your website address. I found your blog and it is no big deal to me if you don’t want it posted under your name. I would like to, however, send you this email of my specific thoughts.
You can email me at atr1300@yahoo.com.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Art
Rex Ray
on Nov 29th, 2006
@ 5:50 pm:
Art,
Got your email a couple of days ago. I wrote back but found out my emails were not going through. Think it is fixed now and hope you got my email. Don’t know what you’re talking about my website and all that.
Rex Ray
Rex Ray
on Nov 29th, 2006
@ 11:56 pm:
Art,
You said, “Redressing the Resurgence is your issue.” I don’t know why you keep coming up with that. I am interested in today—not yesterday. As I said in my first comment on this post:
“We have a common goal of prohibiting man from limiting God to man’s thinking…I will join you at the roundtable to hopefully create pressure to undo the damage the IMB has done to God’s calling of missionaries.”
I was referring to the rejection by the IMB of missionary applicants who had a private prayer language. At the 2004 SBC, I made a coat of ‘tow sacks’ that had “To credit the devil for PPL is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.” However, I lacked the courage to wear it.
If I was to say anything at the roundtable, PPL would be the subject. Thirty plus years ago, our city church removed two men who had a PPL. My wife and I were the only two that voted against their removal.
I don’t have a PPL, but I believe it is an active gift from God, and those that deny it are walking on thin ice.
Sure, I keep harping on other things trying to get people to see the untruth today is the same untruth yesterday. If that marks me as a ‘liberal’ as your email said, then I’d caution the roundtable not to be guilty of the exclusion it is trying to stop.
Rex Ray