Author: art rogers
How far apart are we?
Thursday, November 30th, 2006 @ 11:33 pm
Baptist Press has an article that focuses on the statement of John Sullivan to the Florida State Convention. John’s the Executive Director - Treasurer of the convention and his statements came during their annual meeting during a segment called, “Concerns of Florida Baptists.” During his comments, Sullivan says that he was “embarrassed” that the SBC debated the Alcohol Resolution (the infamous Resolution #5) for 30 minutes.
He pledged, to resounding applause, that the Florida Baptist State Convention would soon move to mirror the amendment to the resolution that Trustees be “teetotalers.” The FBSC, apparently, will soon move to require that all trustees of Florida Baptist institutions be abstentionists.
Let me clarify that statement. Sullivan has confirmed to someone I know that he means by the term “teetotaler,” not that they just abstain from alcohol, but that they believe that the only valid interpretation of Scriptures be that every Christian should abstain.
There are other statements by Sullivan that you should read. Voddie Baucham also has some interesting words on the subject, presented prior to Sullivan’s comments.
I’ll link to the article at the end of this post. In the meantime, however, I would like to point out a few things about this development.
1. This has nothing to do with Alcohol. The debate was over the Sufficiency of Scripture. The fact that so many leading the Convention miss this, astounds me. Again, I am a “teetotaler,” but I allow that the moderationist position, while not my position, is a valid, orthodox position in Christian Theology. Let me be clear, I think the moderationist position is wrong, but according to John Sullivan, I am not qualified to serve as a leader in our convention. I have no aspirations in this regard, but I know several good men that should be considered, but whom would also be ruled out.
2. The debate was also over our tendency to condemn lost people for being lost. Our Convention is viewed by the lost culture in America as “against everything.” Why wouldn’t they? All we have to say to them is, “You’re wrong!” Surely we have something more to say to them. Something gracious, perhaps?
3. We have now gone beyond Alcohol, Sufficiency and cultural relevance. Now we are about absolute control over every theological belief. While this is a direction that we have been trying to avoid, it seems that John Sullivan has taken us to a place of exclusion that may divide us irrevocably.
I have been writing passionately about my commitment to the Southern Baptist Convention and how we need to work for reform. There have been a lot of actions that have stoked the fire. This commitment to control the theology of SBC leaders to this level should be the red alert, defcon 2 for all of us that are afraid the SBC is about to start circling the drain of implosion.
Regardless of whether you agree with anyone over the Alcohol issue, the PPL issue, or anything else on the radar screen for us, this ought to get your full attention.
Here’s the full article:
Sullivan pledges “teetotaler” agency trustees
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Posts with related content
Church, General Christian, Missional, SBC
December 1st, 2006 at 6:34 am
I’m an insurance broker, and some of our companies have Field Reps who arre women. Now, Field Reps have bought lunch for Agents, for years and years (I’ve been in this business for 48 years) and there’s a possibility that one of our Field Reps might want to take me to lunch in the normal course of business (I hasten to add that’s never happened with me, though).
Nobody in the business world would think a thing about that. But church folks sure would. They would be the ones who would condemn me. They would be the ones who would be suspicious. They would be the ones who would gossip about it and run to the preacher.
Let’s face it: the way we’ve done church, the way we’ve added to our numbers, the way we’ve trained our people is what has caused this condemnatory attitude, this air of suspicion, this mistrust and judgmental attitude on the part of so much of the body. The saddest part is we seem to be proud of that. It seems to be ok with us.
I have never, ever heard a “weaker brother” say “Wow I guess it’s ok for me to drink, since HE is doing it! Never. But that’s mostly what we hang our hat on.
It doesn’t stop there. Most of the things “hyper-calvinists” say are actually things that Baptists say hyper-calvinists say. I spent a lot of years in the Presbyterian denominations and I’d imagine I’d have heard it, there, if that’s what they say. But I don’t think it is.
When you add to that the fact that, when someone asks me the question “If you were to die tonight, do you know where you’d spend eternity?”, it’s normally not a Baptist (they’re usually from Briarwood Presbyterian), I wonder what it is we’re so proud of.
Personally, I think we may be re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
December 1st, 2006 at 7:27 am
Art,
Thanks for including this post; very troubling to me.
I was talking with a pastor friend of mine yesterday about the exciting times we live in for the cause of Christ. We are both convinced that these are great days to be in the ministry and that much good is going to come from the changes in our culture; the gospel can be clearly seen as distinct from the social religion that infects so much of the church.
Moves like the one mentioned above give me pause for the future of our denomination. What hope can there be for reform and theological conversation when the smallest matters become the measure of orthodoxy and leadership participation? I am fairly sure as an employee of an association of churches that I am both unfit for service in the IMB and could not work in Florida. I am really glad that the pastors I serve alongside are more even handed with their gate building.
Thanks for the HT.
December 1st, 2006 at 7:31 am
Mistyped ^^ HT
“Thanks for the heads-up Art!”
December 1st, 2006 at 8:17 am
Brother Art,
When I saw this on the BP Newsline I was going to put together an article for it. However, I stopped because I had this overwhelming suspicion that my Brother Art was going to do it also. And sure enough when I check my usual blog lines that I look at daily what is the one I see? :>)
I do not want to be contentious. I do want to say something from a perspective that seems to be overlooked. While you say; “I am a “teetotaler”, you go on to say; “I allow that the moderationist position, while not my position, is a valid, orthodox position in Christian Theology.” I would agree with you 100% on those two statements. Where I would disagree with you is that you tacitly advocate the service in our denominational leadership of those moderationist. This would be where I would have to be honest and say that if someone was known by me to be as you say you are but feel it is okay for moderationist to serve, I could not in good conscious raise my ballot in support of your service. Brother, this is nothing personal against anyone. By your statement and tacit approval, we open the door for alcohol to be served at the dinners and other functions sponsored by the different entities. While I do believe this is an extreme, I also see the door opening for such.
Your further assertion that all the world hears coming from the SBC is; what we are against. Again, I do not want to be contentious. However, I am against abortion, I am against homosexuality, I am against pedophilia, I am against gossip, I am against slander, I am against sex outside of marriage. Wouldn’t you agree that one of the greatest campains by SB was “True Love Waits”? That campaign came about because we were against teenagers having sex.
Brother Art, I do hear what you are saing about always being known as being against something. I certainly want to the news media to speak good about what we are doing. Remember when Hurricane Katrina hit? There was only one news story about the good we as Baptist did to help restore some civility to an upturned world. Does that bother me? It does if I want the world to view me as something that is palatable to them. I am reminded of Jesus’ pronouncements of Woe’s in Luke 6. In this list of Woe’s he was calling attention to the Christian’s desire for the world to accept us. In Luke 6:26 He said; Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so they did their fathers to the false prophets. E.V. Rieu translates the first part; Woe be unto when all mankind applaud you; NT in Basic English translation is; When all men give you their approval; and John Phillips translates it When everybody says nice things about you.
I understand about being relevant and I will do all that I can to be so. However, God called me to reach my culture through relationship, not backing up on scripturally based doctrines.
I love you Brother, I guess you and I are in disagreement.
Sorry about the length of the comment.
Blessings,
Tim
December 1st, 2006 at 9:00 am
Oh dear, here we go again. We have massive problems within Southern Baptist life with gossip, unregenerate church membership, pastors who love their church more than their family, and so on. Beyond that we have a world full of people dying daily without even the chance to know Christ. Instead of dealing with real problems, however, we are trying to deal with insignificant ones, and trust me, alcohol within SBC life is a very, very insiginificant problem.
My dad was at the meeting where Sullivan spoke and although his comments were planned ahead of time (and I have no doubt that they were) they carried extra emphasis in the face of Baucham’s previous remarks. It is sad to see genuine biblical exegesis applied by Baucham and then to watch our leadership stand up and simply ignore that word.
I believe strongly in the SBC. I believe that the CP, the IMB and NAMB are the most efficient ways that we have today to go about “doing” missions. If we continue, however, to isolate ourselves - to further marginalize ourselves - by pushing theologies and ideas that are at best an opinion with thin biblical support, we will continue to grieve God as we ignore the much greater problems within our own fellowship.
Voddie Baucham is right. We talk about alcohol because we don’t really have a problem with alchol. It’s about time we start dealing with issues that need to be dealt with, but one’s that will create backlash, instead of simply preaching to the choir because it will gain us a lot of “atta boy’s” speaking engagements and publicity.
It’s nauseating, to say the least.
December 1st, 2006 at 9:07 am
Pastor Tim,
Maybe I’m missing something here, but doesn’t your comment validate Art’s concern? You wrote “I would agree with you 100% on those two statements” (one of those statements being “the moderationist position, while not my position, is a valid, orthodox position in Christian Theology”) and then went on to condemn having leaders who believe in a “valid, orthodox position”.
Doesn’t that place the argument, as Art believes it is, squarely within the realm of sufficiency of Scripture?
And aren’t you saying Scripture isn’t enough?
If that’s not what you’re saying, could you try it again, because I’m not tracking with your argument. Thanks.
December 1st, 2006 at 9:16 am
I agree with Micah. This whole talk is giving me a hangover.
December 1st, 2006 at 9:34 am
Art,
Thanks for this post. Your words have helped me understand your position better than I did before.
Kindest regards,
Les
December 1st, 2006 at 9:37 am
Why is this happening? Why are these folks circling the wagons? Because they are being criticized and they want a fight, and this is a fight they think they can win. This is the issue that they will use to paint all their critics as promoters of drinking. It’s classic. The previous battle was over the inerrancy of Scripture and they painted all of their critics as moderates, even if they weren’t, just because they disagreed with them on tactics or how far to take this (I am a staunch inerrantist, by the way). Now, they will paint their critics as being pro-alcohol, which is not what anyone is saying.
It is amazing to me that 30 minutes of debate over the sufficiency of Scripture at the SBC has garnered all of this furor! No one is even mentioning this anymore! It was bloggers who brought up the issue, not that anyone wanted Baptists to drink, but that we should not pass resolutions that go beyond the clear teaching of Scripture. The same principle applies to PPL and baptism. Yet, this is a winnable battle for them because they know that most baptists will not take the time to learn the truth. So, either they are confused or they are intentionally mischaracterizing the debate. Either way, our leadership is a mess, in my opinion.
This remains discouraging.
December 1st, 2006 at 9:49 am
Perhaps I should sell my stock in NyQuil, the only SBC approved alcoholic beverage.
Sullivan’s position is typical of SBC leadership–why let the Biblical facts get in the way of a good sermon.
I am a moderationist, but I have not always been. I used to tow the SBC line. If I drink a beer, or have a glass of wine, it does not negate my witness, nor does it cause harm to my relationship with Christ.
Tim, your comments are appreciated and not surprising. I used to feel as you do. But I have learned that when we focus on loving God and loving one another, you don’t have to worry about being against a long list of things like gossip, alcohol abuse, and sex with children. The sooner Baptists figure that out, the sooner you can get off high center.
December 1st, 2006 at 10:14 am
Thanks for your insightful comment, Alan. These men are far beyond us politically (perhaps why Dr. Patterson is so fond of “The Art of War”). They have framed the discussion in a way that makes it look like we are marketers for Anheiser Busch, with the net result being the discussion of the real issue never occurs.
But I keep asking, “Why”? Why are these men doing this and particularly at this time? What is their goal? Are they trying to get us to leave?
December 1st, 2006 at 11:09 am
When will someone point out that all evidence points to the fact that Christians in the US (including the SBC ) have failed to reach the lost generations of America?
The only metric that will matter, ultimately, is not whether we believe the Bible to be inerrant, but, rather, whether we have obeyed (and taught others to obey) the inerrant Bible (John 14:15).
We have expected the lost to first become like us so they can be saved.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:35 am
Brother Bowden,
I do not believe you can read my comments and deduce that I have condemned anyone. I merely stated my position as a messenger at a SBC meeting when a slate fo nominees comes forward to be voted on. There is nothing condemning in not voting for someone you believe would not be the best choice. This belief is based on conviction which is based on scripture. It is called principle dissent–something I thought brought about all of this in the first place.
Blessings,
Tim
December 1st, 2006 at 11:57 am
Tim,
My advocation of leadership within the convention not being restricted beyond the bounds of either the BFM, or even the Sufficiency of Scripture as you have affirmed, is not tacit, but overt.
I wholeheartedly and unequivocally affirm that diversity of opinion within the SBC under the umbrella of Sufficiency and Inerrancy should not disqualify you for leadership.
The alternative is that we are willing to accept someone’s money, but not their ideas. John Sullivan is promoting theological “purity” at a level that, frankly, denies the Sufficiency of Scripture. No one is allowed to advance ideas that do not meet his standard and his standard does not allow for anyone else to be right nor for himself to be wrong. It’s hubris.
Please keep sending those CP dollars, though.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:03 pm
I just have one question for Greg Hicks. You bring up The Art of War by Sun Tzu as something that Dr. Patterson is fond of. Perhaps I am naive but what is your validation for saying this? Has he mentioned this book as something to follow? Honest questions, no agenda hidden or otherwise behind them.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:49 pm
He recommended it in comments made to a group of pastors at a retreat I attended.
December 1st, 2006 at 1:32 pm
I will no longer vote for a dispensationalist for a position of service within the SBC. While it may be a valid interpretation, it hangs on a very loose interpretive thread which is not wise to follow. It potentially leads to an escapist approach to engagement with a lost world, a lack of real concern for the environment and the world around us and is hopelessly pessimistic. It has, in fact, led to those very things in the lives and experience of many in our country. It is deadly to the soul. Therefore, any person put forth for service who is a dispensationalist will be vigorously opposed.
December 1st, 2006 at 2:02 pm
Tim,
Let me try again. If I understand your position, you are saying:
1. You can agree with Art that “the moderationist position… is a valid, orthodox position in Christian Theology.”
2. But, you cannot support anyone for a SBC leadership position who holds this particular “valid, orthodox position”.
What I don’t understand, is how that is “a position based on scripture”? What scripture? Were you to say you didn’t believe the moderationist position was a valid theological belief, then I could understand the unwillingness to support anyone who held to such a belief. I would disagree with you, but I could understand your position. But to agree with Art “100%” and still hold to some kind of a different standard is an argument I don’t understand.
Doesn’t this support Art’s contention that the debate is about the sufficiency of Scripture and not really about alcohol?
That’s why I was asking for clarification.
December 1st, 2006 at 4:52 pm
Art,
We’re talking about behavior here. It’s as if were we [the SBC] to agree on abstinence as our chosen behavior in this issue [wine] we would have a greater impact on our culture. It seems to me we’ve raised that issue to a such a high level of concern that it has become a defining issue. So are we going to wind up with a list of acceptable behaviors that, if not the people, at least our leaders, have to agree on?
Were we to be truly Christlike, there would be a totally different defining issue. In Matthew 25:34-40 Jesus boiled it down to a blessing on those who fed the hungry, clothed the naked, received strangers, and visited the prisons. That’s the biblical defining issue about behavior in the NT.
The same for our condemnation. In that same passage Jesus called cursed those who refused to behave in the fashion described there. Talk about impacting a culture. That would cause people to rise up and listen when we gossiped the gospel. [Webster's dictionary says a gossip is..."one who habitually reveals personal or sensational facts.]
We bless those who don’t do certain things and curse those who do certain things but it sure isn’t related to the Jesus list. If we’re going to play that religious game, let’s at least be consistent with His standard. [If not the people, at least the leaders.]
Paul B.
December 1st, 2006 at 5:41 pm
Paul B., that’s probably one of the best statements I’ve read in a long time. Bravo! Here, Here! Jolly Good!
In other words, I agree completely. Thanks for actually bringing us back to the Bible.
Amazing what wisdom you find there when you look, eh?
December 1st, 2006 at 9:40 pm
Brother Bowden,
Allow me to phrase this in the way I am trying to say it. In my way of saying I agree it is a Biblical position I am not saying I agree with it. I am saying I can see how someone can from Scripture defend the position. That does not mean I agree.
My support for people in leadership in the SBC comes from an understanding that they believe and behave the same as I. We do not walk lock step with everything, but they do think and behave like me. When I cast my ballot, it is cast for ones that believe like I do. Others are free to vote the way they desire, the same as I. Those who vote different than I does not mean they condemn my point of view. It means they believe different.
Concerning the Sufficiency of Scripture, I believe it is sufficient for all Believers to live their lives accordingly. My belief in abstaining from alcohol is based on the sufficiency of Scripture, not on how close I can get to sin before I sin.
Blessings,
Tim
December 2nd, 2006 at 12:00 am
Tim,
Thank you.
December 2nd, 2006 at 3:32 am
This would be where I would have to be honest and say that if someone was known by me to be as you say you are but feel it is okay for moderationist to serve, I could not in good conscious raise my ballot in support of your service.- Tim
Tim, I think this is the heart of the post that Art has written. You agree with Art on most everything we know about. You even like him as far as I can tell. But he is now not to be considered for leadership by you- and if we understand Florida by many. This is evil and here’s why. I will use your own illustration to illustrate. When you go into a voting situation God’s will is no longer the issue. What does God want? Who has He gifted for this job, this situation? What is His will concerning this vote? These are no longer considerations. We now have a handy dandy formula to tell us what to do- we don’t need discernment. We don’t need God. This, Tim is what many are fighting for. Not the right to drink wine, but the responsibility we have to discern God’s will for our beloved SBC. It is all about relationship. Whenever we have a formula or a rule that we elevate over our friends, brothers, and God then we left the Way.
All of these discussions about rules are about fear and control. All fear is of the evil one except the fear of God. We serve what we fear. If we fear drinkers in the SBC then we serve the drinkers and not God. If we fear ppl then that is what we serve. When I say ’serve’ I mean that our decisions are based on that issue and not on God’s will. There is no slippery slope. Either God is the King or we are lost already.
December 2nd, 2006 at 7:06 am
Brother Strider,
Allow me to be as clear as I can be without being contentious. I have neither called anyone evil, nor have I accused anyone of falling away. I have not accused anyone of living outside of the Scripture, nor have I accused anyone of not relying on Scripture. Since entering this comment stream, I have been accused of condemning people, and now you have accused me of being evil and also of leaving the Way. If it is a fight you want, then keep accusing Brothers who are trying to reveal their way of understanding Scripture of the things you accused me of and it will be a massive uprising you will get. That is not what I desire and it certainly is not what the SBC needs. As you defend your position against me, please make certain you do not castigate my opinion as evil or that I have left the Way.
Blessings,
Tim
December 2nd, 2006 at 8:07 am
You people,
express so many good ideas. I like especially Bob Cleveland’s, “…re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.”
It is almost funny your concept is based on an escape goat expressed by “moderationist position.” That’s right—‘blame it on the moderates.’
The moderates had as much to do with this as the Christians burning Rome.
Rex Ray
December 2nd, 2006 at 8:54 am
I am so sorry Tim. I do not communicate well in comments. I like to tell stories as my blog testifies. I did not mean to call you evil. I meant to say that weighing and measuring others by rules and regulations was evil. I did not mean to say that you left the way. I meant to say that if we lay down a rule book that tells us what to do and think that is other than the Book then we have left the way.
I am really calling us to focus on Jesus. Not alcohol, not ppl, not anything else. Jesus never spoke out about these things. He does want holiness and that is accomplished by lifting up Him and not by setting up these regulations about food that do nothing to benefit the soul.
I have a friend who is an alcoholic. His problem is not that he drinks. I could tie him up in the closet and keep him from ever drinking again but that would not change his heart. The hearts and minds of billions are damaged and broken and betrayed and only Jesus can heal them. But we are too busy holding up dead laws to show them Christ. This is what I am concerned about. I think this is what Art and the others are concerned about. The hope of the SBC is that many more will choose to lift up Jesus and leave these other issues behind. The jury is still out.
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:03 am
Rex,
You misunderstood. The “moderationist” position refers to someone who believes the Bible allows for drinking alcohol in moderation. No one is blaming anything on moderates. At least not in the thread.
Tim,
Bowden was seeking clarification on what you were saying. He asked you to clarify what he understood you to be saying.
I am glad Strider clarified his statement. For the record, Strider, “evil” and “left the way” are inflammatory, though I appreciate that you say you didn’t intend it that way. Tim, Strider does make a good point. We no longer have to pray if we set up a bunch of rules about leadership qualification - and those rules are not clearly defined in the Bible.
I am a little confused myself, though. You say that you affirm 100% that abstention is Biblical, but that the moderationist position is a valid, orthodox theological position. Is that accurate?
If so, then you and I believe precisely the same thing concerning the consumption of alcohol.
The thing that really separates us is that I would allow a moderationist a position of leadership, and you wouldn’t.
My question is, and I think you have said this - I just want to be sure, does the allowance of a moderationist to lead in the SBC disqualify me for leadership?
*Obligatory disclaimer stating that I am not, nor have I ever - as my peers are often accused, seeking “a place at the table.” Again, I have told this face to face to several vital leaders within the SBC and posted it on my blog. My question is about principle, not personal. Disclaimer over*
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:55 am
Brother Art,
I am glad you have commented on it in that way. You have clearly stated what I believe is the concerns that lay before us. You, as I, believe in an abstentionist theology. However, you as not I, believe that it would be wise for one who holds a moderationist theology to be in a leadership position. Our Brother Strider tacitly claims that I have thrown prayer out of my decision making strategy and you appear in your comment to agree with him. Prayer is a vital proponent of decision making within my abstentionist theology. While you have the same theology you would allow for one with a moderationist theology to serve in leadership capacity. Once that happens we begin to allow moderationist theology to prevail on boards and other areas of leadership. Once moderationist theology begins to be presented we who hold to abstentionist theology will be castigated as being rule bound and pharisaical in our application of Scripture. (You can see it in the responses I have already received.) It is for that reason, unless God moves on my heart in prayer, I would not be able to cast a ballot for someone who holds to abstentionist theology, but allows for one who holds a moderationist theology to sit on boards.
Blessings,
Tim
December 2nd, 2006 at 11:16 am
Tim,
A couple of things. I don’t think anyone is implying that you don’t pray. I hope you know me better than that. What I am saying is that if we have rules of conviction, certain people are excluded without having to pray about them. You have ruled out every moderationist. If Wade comes up for renomination, you no longer need to pray about that, as you have decided that since he is a moderationist, he is disqualified.
By the way, I am sure it is an oversight, but you didn’t answer my question - am I disqualified to hold a position of leadership because I do not object to moderationists leading?
Finally, you fear the abstentionists being marginalized and shoved aside (”castigated” was your word), but isn’t that exactly what you, John Sullivan and others are doing? You say that they have inferior theology and are unfit for leadership.
I am afraid that this small molehill is becoming the new hill on which to die. I have no desire to make this the fight of our generation. It is not worth it.
However, I don’t feel that this is the fight. Cooperation between Baptists of different convictions is my passion. In fact, we are, it seems on the opposite side here. I feel that the division that you say is necessary - not supporting those of a different, orthodox and valid theology, is precisely the problem.
I hope that none should be excluded. By the way, I have never heard any moderationist I know call for anything other than cooperation. Your fear that they will exclude abstentionists, to my knowledge, is a fear for which I have never had any evidence.
Blessings,
Art
December 2nd, 2006 at 11:42 am
Pastor Tim,
I very much appreciate your forthrightness and your gracious spirit. I think that you have clearly stated your views. I would ask one further question. You stated that “When I cast my ballot, it is cast for ones that believe like I do.” While this thread was generated as a response of the alcohol discussion, would you also extend your voting criteria to other theological issues? For example, would you vote for a fellow believer who has a different eschatological view? Or different views on election? Why is alcohol the sine qua non of leadership?
Thank you so much for having the patience to discuss these issues so cordially.
December 2nd, 2006 at 12:20 pm
I agree in total with Art that it’s astonishing that this has become the “hill on which to die.” While I disagree with Art and Tim and hold to a moderationist position, I don’t see it as an argument (from either side) with merit sufficient enough to sever fellowship. As such I refuse to argue the point beyond a simple surface discussion; however I couldn’t help but add that if we follow through on this concept of abstention only for our leadership, we will have disqualified the following historical giants from service in the Southern Baptist Convention:
Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, Ulrich Zwingli, not to mention prominent puritans such as Increase Mather. Beyond that it would disqualify Charles Wesley, George Whitfield and suprisingly enough, would also exclude prominent Baptists such as John Bunyan and maybe the greatest Baptist pastor of all time, Charles Spurgeon.
When the SBC begins to exlude men like these from our fellowship - no scratch that, we’re glad to have their money but we want to exclude them from leadership - in my opinion, we’ve overstepped our biblical boundaries.
December 2nd, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Brother Art,
Is it me or does your comment stream increase when I comment? :>)
I thought I answered your question in my last comment when I said; “It is for that reason, unless God moves on my heart in prayer, I would not be able to cast a ballot for someone who holds to abstentionist theology, but allows for one who holds a moderationist theology to sit on boards.”
Brother Taran,
When one is placed in leadership, then we become aware of their life styles. The reason for me that alcohol is the sine qua non of leadership has to do with lifestyle. Theological doctrines such as eschatology is like debating over how many angels dance on the head of a pin. Also, the alcohol issue is not something that just began this year. This debate has been prominent in the SBC for over 100 years.
Brothers,
Let me say; “I am only one vote”. While you may not agree with me you seem to present arguments toward me like I can change something. I am not in agreement with everything that comes out from the leaders in the SBC. That is the reason we have the SBC once a year. Your opinions are voiced and debated and we vote. Once the vote is in the SBC has spoken. It makes no difference the number of churches represented, the SBC spoke this past June on the alcohol issue. Getting back to the point of the article, it appears that Florida Baptist spoke loudly also concerning this issue.
Blessings,
Tim
December 2nd, 2006 at 2:35 pm
Tim,
I thank you again for your kind response. You have been very helpful in expressing your perspective. I do see a bit of myself in you. Life-style decisions affect the respect I have for others as well. When I listen to an obese pastor or evangelist, I have trouble overlooking their obvious gluttony.
I think that I would still consider the obese for positions of leadership, but you do present a convincing case that has me reconsidering. I mean, after they get into positions of power, what if they wanted to run off all the skinny people?
Alas, given my own ample girth, I fear I would survive the purge.
I kid, Tim, but to restate, I really appreciate your willingness to offer a contrary point and I hope that you will continue to engage in this dialogue. May God continue to bless you and your family.
December 2nd, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Bro Tim Rogers
The most important thing is not that the “SBC” has spoken. The most important thing is what God has spoken. “Sola Scriptura” is begining to really mean something to many in the SBC. We certainly won the war for the truth that the Bible is innerrant! Now we must win the battle for the Sufficiency of Scripture or we will fight each other till we become irrelevant and powerless. The Holy Spirit will not bless the spirit of contention and division that is becoming so characteristic of our fellowship. Tim you are saying that you support the excluding from full cooperation of those you disagree with on the PPL and the Moderation issue. Here is the difference between you and me, I disagree with you on both these issues, but just because you are wrong on these issues:) to me they are not core issues found in the BFM - so I am willing to support your full participation in Baptist life. As For Me - you say sorry, we dont want you, thanks Bro. Now You tell me which is more Christ-like? Please read Romans 14 prayerfully and then tell me why it does not apply to SB life? These guys got PHD”S and they dont know how to apply God’s Word in the way we treat each other! Amazing.
The ranks are growing of young men that dare to step outside of the shadow of SBC tradition and biases and allow God’s Word to be the sole authority for their doctrine and practice. They do not care what “men” say or have “said” as much as they desire to be faithful to the Word. Patterson, Mohler and others have resounded the call to Expository preaching and teaching - surprise-surprise when this produces a growing tribe that are unwilling to go beyond the clear teaching of God’s Word in making absolute stands where God’s Word does not. It is the issue of Authority. By what authority do I demand abstinence when God’s Word does not? By what authority do I reject Bros and Sis from service because I asked them if they have a PPL and they honestly answer? It is not the authority of God’s Word. Romans 14 says receive those you dispute with over disputable matters.
The SBC has taken the wrong side on issues in the past and in my opinion they are outside of the teaching of God’s Word on some issues today. You say that you hold your position based on the sufficiency of scripture. Now where in the Bible does it teach that all christians are to abstain from alcohol?
Even Dr. Patterson, just this week in a question and answer time at the SWBTS chapel admitted that you cannot find this demand in Scripture. But nevertheless, if you don’t hold to my view, ……
Tim
December 2nd, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Hey Guys,
I have to stop long enough to say; How bout them Deacons? They are now going to the Orange Bowl. I could argue they should play for the National Championship. No other team has done what they did–shut out Florida State at Doke-Campbell.
Blessings,
Tim
December 2nd, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Tim,
That’s great about the Deacons. Don’t forget about us, though. When you get the chance…
My question about whether or not I am disqualified from service for being willing to support moderationists is of crucial importance to this discussion.
Blessings.
Art
December 2nd, 2006 at 4:19 pm
Brother Art,
As I have said; if I know that one, such as yourself who believes like I do, but sees nothing wrong with approval of others who take a moderationist view to theology, it would cause me great concern to cast a ballot for you to serve in leadership. While you may not agree with this, please uderstand it is not personal. I have a sister that has a moderationist view of Scripture, I could neither cast a ballot for her to serve in leadership. Many may be upset with me about this and I may have just sounded the death bell for my service in the future, but that is okay with me. I am not here to strive for service in the SBC. I am happy doing what I am doing.
Blessings,
Tim
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:19 pm
Tim,
You are opposed to those who believe that PPL is biblical from serving in leadership - even those who do not have a PPL.
You are opposed to those who abstain from alcohol but have moderationist leanings from serving in leadership as well.
You seem to be against a lot of people from serving in leadership for reasons that go far beyond Scripture, and even seem to contradict Scripture. I always enjoy our debates, but you continue to perplex me. I think that everyone is just trying to follow your line of reasoning.
Also, you support the DEMON Deacons of Wake Forest. Perhaps it is you who should be disqualified for leadership!
December 2nd, 2006 at 11:48 pm
Tim,
Thank you for your answer. This is crucial. What you are saying is the same as John Sullivan in Florida is saying, so you are in good company, I suppose. It certainly hasn’t hurt his chances for service.
Now the issue: This is no longer about the theological viewpoint, but about who we would include and exclude. You and I agree theologically, but we disagree on inclusion.
It is this, and this alone, that does threaten to tear us apart. Whereas I have no problems with you serving in leadership, if gifted and called, you object to me, not because of what I believe - we are identical there - but because of the people with whom I am willing to cooperate.
Frankly, I don’t think there is any fixing that. My hope is that this does not represent the SBC as a whole. If it does, we are not long from the majority of my generation walking away.
I do have hope that this is not so. The overwhelming response to the Roundtable is evidence that gives me hope. The future is not yet revealed to us, so let us pray with fervor and work for a bright day of reaching the world with the Gospel together.
December 3rd, 2006 at 5:44 am
Art,
Your reply above to Tim is the crux of what has been going on since the IMB meeting where it all started. It is not a theological issue but one of a willingness to cooperate with people who disagree. But this time it is not the nature of scipture but the meaning of scripture. It began with PPL but it will not stop there.
Stripped of verbage, complete with vivid illustration, you have nailed it.
Paul Burleson
December 3rd, 2006 at 5:49 am
Opps, make that verbiage. It’s to early. PB
December 3rd, 2006 at 5:52 am
Being married to a Math and English Editor has created a personal standard for me. Sorry. “it’s TOO early.” Last time I promise. PB
December 3rd, 2006 at 7:54 am
The problem I have with this issue is that Southern Baptists are so proud of being people of the Book, but the arguement for abstention has no real basis in Scripture, at least not enough that would warrant excluding people from positions of leadership.
And many of the very people who are so proud that they abstain from alcohol are overweight, have high cholesterol and diabetes, and have no problem with it whatsoever.
If we are really going to exclude people on the basis of what goes in the body, lets take it all the way. No more big guys allowed in leadership positions.
December 3rd, 2006 at 7:59 am
Brother Alan,
Demon Deacons are the only type I have ever known of.:>) No seriously, I have had great service with great men of God in the office of Deacon. God has truly blessed me with some wonderful Deacons. The reason I pull for the Deacons is two; I like pulling for the under-dog, and I grew up outside of Wake Forest, NC. The university moved to Winston-Salem in 1959 and we still have not forgiven the Reynolds family for supplying the money for the move. But we are loyal to a fault.
I think I can empathize with the Supreme Court nominees because one day these lines may come back to haunt me.:>) I do want you to understand my line of reasoning, which most of the time perplexes me. If one believes a certain way, but has the open tendencies to allow others that believe differently leadership positions, the dominant belief of those in leadership will prevail. Look at SBTS as one example. Everyone knows that if you want the Reformed thought of Theology go to Southern. That is my line of reasoning. Nothing wrong with Reformed Theology, it is now the prevailing teaching at SBTS.
Brother Art,
I do not desire to see anyone leave. I am just one vote and I will stay regardless of the prevailing attitude. I do desire you to answer one question. If the Round Table prevails in the issues that your group will probably be bringing to the convention and those who believe like I do leaves, will that concern you?
Blessings,
Tim
December 3rd, 2006 at 1:51 pm
“Sufficiency of Scripture” has a strong and pious ring to it, but the church has always had to consider philosophy, the sciences, and a variety of sources of information, including natural reason, in order to arrive at its theology. In fact, we Baptists are heavily affected by rationalism in the way we do theology. While I would certainly not suggest that we look for or create a magisterium, as the Roman Catholics do, we would do well to recognize that the conclusions of Christians over 20 centuries ought not be ignored when we try to answer theological and moral questions.
December 3rd, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Art,
While I agree with the basic premise stated by JMS, ["we would do well to recognize that the conclusions of Christians over 20 centuries ought not be ignored when we try to answer theological and moral questions"] I do make, what is for me, a basic distinction.
When I use the idea of “sufficiency of scripture” I’m not referring to no use of traditions or Baptist/Church history in the investigation of the meaning of scripture. That would be foolish it seems to me. To understand what others have said or believed as to their interpretation of the text can only help in my coming to an understanding myself.
This is not to discount the Spirit as the One Who illuminates the text either. But it does speak to the tools He often uses in giving that illumination. All of this is to be added to my study of the grammer, history, and context of the text itself. Actually this should be the first thing I examine.
But the “sufficiency of scripture” does refer, for me, to the fact that I cannot BASE my final understanding of a particular doctrine on anything BEYOND the text of scripture. This means if tradition or Baptist/Church history were to conclude things that my final evaluation of the text itself refutes, I accept the text of scripture as final. Otherwise tradition/Baptist-Church history/creeds/confessions [you name it] would supercede the authority of the scriptures themselves. Then, I would fall into the hole/trap the Pharisees dug for themselves concerning the Law of Moses.
I would then hold lightly my particular meaning of a lesser doctrine [not related to salvation] so when good people are on both sides of a particular issue, such as a PPL or a ton of other things, I would be able to fellowship around the reality of Christ and Him crucified without rancor toward others. This would also leave me teachable.
Paul B.
December 3rd, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Art,
I don’t have any problem when Brother Tim says he would only vote for people who believe as he does when it comes to SBC leadership. I think each messenger voting his/her conscience is the essence of our system.
And I don’t particularly have a problem with resolutions calling for “tea-totalers only” in leadership roles; but only because resolutions are so empty of meaning and power.
My problem is when SBC entities exclude participation based on doctrinal issues that are not addressed in our statement of faith. My problem for the past year has been attempts to clarify or define “what real Baptists believe” on any issue (alcohol, prayer language, baptism, Calvinism, etc) without actually changing or addressing the BF&M.
Brother Tim can and should vote his conscience; just don’t require me to vote Tim’s conscience. I don’t mind being outvoted and finding myself in the minority position. I do mind being told, in effect, that belief in the SBC statement of faith isn’t good enough for consideration for leadership… that leaders in the SBC must believe in the “BF&M plus”.
And since Florida isn’t the SBC, then if Florida Baptists want to define a “real Baptist” as a complete tea-totaler; power to them.
I won’t be transferring my membership to a church in Florida anytime soon.
December 3rd, 2006 at 5:16 pm
Brother Bowden,
You have stated what I am striving to state. I do desire to fellowship with all believers, but when it comes to casting my ballot, I cast it according to my conscience.
Brother Paul,
JMS, I do not presume to speak for, I feel was saying that we do not negate centuries of Scripturally shaped doctrine. Sufficiency of Scripture has now become a buzz word that completely ignores, IMO, the centuries before us of doctrine and also the over 100 years of SBC resolutions. While Paul was writing Scripture he maintained consistency to the Jerusalem Council findings.
Blessings,
Tim
December 3rd, 2006 at 7:28 pm
Tim,
As I said, I wouldn’t ignore it. [Speaking of .."centuries of scriptural shaped doctrines" and "the 100 years of SBC resolutions."] It is too important for research and study. I just wouldn’t make it the final word on doctrinal correctness when it states something different than or more than the text of scripture. It is that difference that we disagree about it seems to me.
By the way, I don’t use “buzz words” in conveying long sought and researched ideas that are important to me. But I don’t speak for others on that issue, only myself.
Paul B.
December 3rd, 2006 at 8:46 pm
I am thinking of the kind of stance taken by the early Christian, Justin Martyr, who said (paraphrasing) that “anything aright by anyone in any time belongs to us Christians.” The revelation of God in Scripture is a unique and indispensable source of truth; but others have spoken truth as well. And that the Spirit has continued to work in the church is something we should take seriously.
But I am cheered by the statements above that you might hold “lightly” your conclusions about the Scripture, inasmuch as few if any of us are equipped to discover all that the text was intended to say, and equally few of us are able to be aware of all the ancillary truths that may shed light on any given text.
All of that is a very complicated way of saying that I want to give credit to human reason informed by the Spirit and to the accumulated wisdom of insightful people, whether Christian or not, who may help us understand the issues that face us. I am arguing for a kind of Christian humanism rather than living inside a stained-glass frame of reference.
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:23 pm
Art,
Yesterday, I said, “blame the moderates” to address a problem today that this group does not understand or refuses to acknowledge.
You said no one is blaming the moderates which is what I wanted you to conclude.
Waving a red flag in front of a bull may ruffle his feathers. (That’s another ‘checker trap.’) “Moderationist” has been used in the comments 27 times. That’s close enough to a red flag to make a moderate mad because I hate being called a moderate because my group refused to go with the crowd that made the Bible a political football.
How about changing some rules for these comments—instead of “moderationist”, let’s substitute the word “conservationist” because that’s who started these Pharisee rules, and they will continue as long as Christ’s commands are broken concerning loving one another.
Who is a liberal? Wade Burleson’s definition of “liberal” on May 8, 2006:
1, “One who denies the deity of Christ OR
2. Denies salvation by grace through faith OR
3. Denies the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures.”
Is his definition accepted by the ‘inter circle’? It seems to be that number 3 is what the big fuss is about and has been since the first church counsel that Paul and Peter lost to the ‘inter circle of Jews.’
In practice, number 3 says, “Denies the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures the way we interpret.”
The roundtable is trying to stop Pharisees from excluding Christians who interpret Scripture a little different than the ‘inter circle.’
The roundtable is getting a taste of its own medicine since they were part of the group that excluded Christians by changing the glue that held Baptist together from ‘missions’ to ‘doctrine.’ The love of doctrine had priority over loving their brother.
Rex Ray
December 4th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Paul, I agree with you in the way you express Sufficiency of Scripture.
Tim, because others may misuse a word, does not mean that they don’t know what they are talking about. I haven’t misused “Sufficiency,” by the way. For instance, someone on this thread has misused a word several times, but I didn’t point it out, nor did anyone else. We all understood and gave grace. Don’t discount the Sufficiency point because others may throw it around loosely. It is THE issue here. In fact, we should all make sure we understand it well before we move further in our prayers and actions concerning the Convention.
To answer a much earlier question, I would be greatly disturbed if others left because they found out they were in the minority. I would be willing to promote leadership that doesn’t agree with me on most of this stuff. However, if my generation leaves, it will not be because we are in the minority, but because we are excluded from the marketplace of ideas within SBC life.
Rex, how can you count that word so many times and still not understand what it means, even after I explained it in a previous comment?
MODERATIONIST - ONE WHO DRINKS ALCOHOL IN MODERATION
It has NOTHING to do with Conservative and Moderate!!!! The root word is the only similarity there.
Also, your last statement is libelous and one for which you have NO evidence. You are discrediting everything you say, here.
Finally, JMS. Your argument leads to existentialism where experience of the reader/interpreter is superior to revelation. It also leaves out the work of the Holy Spirit in both the authorship and the reading of the Bible. You are walking a path that ends with God, revelation and interpretation are what we make of them rather than who and what He says they are.
No dice.
Alright, I am heading for Arlington tomorrow, as are some of you. If you are, I look forward to seeing you there. If not, play nice in the comment string. I do still have rules for comments, but have yet to put up the button on the new blogsite. I haven’t needed to delete anything, and I would greatly appreciate everyone acting in such a way as to keep it that way.
Blessings.
Art
December 4th, 2006 at 6:37 am
Art,
Thank you for replying to some of my comments.
I’m sorry I did not communicate very well. You may not know what a ‘checker trap’ is. All tool design dimensions are reworked by a ‘checker’ to look for errors. (By the way, I designed the tool for the space shuttle nose cone.) Sometimes a designer would intentional have a wrong diminution to make sure the checker was doing his job. That wrong dimension would be called a ‘checker trap.’
My first comment (“moderates had as much to do with this as the Christians burning Rome”) was a checker trap just like a bull having feathers. The reason I made this error was to have it pointed out by someone with creditability that moderates are not the reason for the mess Southern Baptists are in.
I believe you agree we are in a mess or there would not be a roundtable. I believe you would also agree that moderates have been “excluded from the marketplace of ideas within SBC life” for many many years.
You said, “Your last statement is libelous and one for which you have NO evidence.”
Hmmm—what evidence did you present that proved my statement was libelous with No evidence?
My last statement said, “The roundtable is getting a taste of its own medicine since they were part of the group that exclude Christians by changing the glue that held Baptist together from ‘missions’ to ‘doctrine.’ The love of doctrine had priority over loving their brother.”
The only evidence is history which I thought everyone knew. The new convention of Texas (SBCT) was formed to contrast the old convention and is a mirror image of the SBC. Their executive director of the SBCT stated “Theological agreement will be the first foundation of the new Convention. Those who depart theologically will be identified and called to repent. To the foes of the SBCT, we say, we’re not in competition with you, but we’ve been called to contrast you.” (Baptist Standard 11-18-98)
Keith Parks (IMB president for 12 years) wrote (Baptist Standard February 11, 2002) “IMB President Jerry Rankin has precipitated an agonizing choice for many missionaries: Give up their historic Baptist conviction that ‘we have no creed but the Bible’ or give up their calling. It has never been clearer that the fundamentalist leaders have changed the very nature of the SBC. Their highest priority is not missions. It is doctrinal conformity.”
I believe forcing over 100 good missionaries from their call by God because they would not sign doctrine (BFM) pretty well proves the ‘inner circle’ loved doctrine more than their brother. That changed the glue that held Baptists together from missions to doctrine. Is that enough evidence?
Oh yes, is the roundtable getting a taste of its own medicine? Again, history shows the SBC is run by inerrantists. Inerrantists did all the above. Now the roundtable ‘inner circle inerrantists’ have a PPL problem with the larger ‘inner circle inerrantists’, and that’s getting a taste of what they’ve been dishing out.
Last night I watched “Prison Outbreak”. All prisoners were in one large room. The ‘turfs’ were divided into black, white, and Spanish. The Spanish outnumbered the others 7 to 1. The Spanish (SBC) beat up the whites (roundtable) while the blacks (moderates) watched. I hope that is not an omen.
Why don’t we drop the petty doctrines and get back to ‘missions’ and loving one another in lifting up Jesus? Why not let moderates eat at the same table?
Rex Ray
December 5th, 2006 at 12:09 am
Rex,
Two things:
1. I don’t have to provide evidence that you didn’t provide evidence. That’s a logical fallacy. I can’t provide evidence that there is an absence of evidence. I can only point to it, which I did.
2. We get it. You think we deserve to get kicked out because we didn’t stand up for you, once upon a time. Isn’t this where you quote Niemoller and say “they came for the Jews,” etc. Fine. I was in grade school when it all went down in ‘79, but I’ll take it.
What else? It’s a done deal and you can lament it all you want, blame others all you want. If you expect a crowd of conservatives to turn on their heels and beg for the CBF to rejoin the SBC, then you are either delusional or high. It’s not going to happen and if you think we deserve the division we now have, then that’s fine, too.
But enough. You are off the topic of this post and I am tired of being pulled off topic to defend the Resurgence. That’s your issue and you can blog about it on your blog. Feel free to comment ON TOPIC here.
December 5th, 2006 at 2:57 am
Good post. My only disagreement, Art, is that I am not even sure what it means when you say the moderationist position is wrong. It not only undercuts the rest of your post, but it sounds extrabiblical and is really just a personal conviction, not a theological viewpoint, not edifying to the Body, nor based on scripture.
Micah, add to your list of historical figures that would be unable to serve Jesus.
I don’t understand comments about voting one’s conscience (a conformity with one’s own sense of right and wrong). I pray we would all vote as God directs us to vote. That’s not a personal conscience, which may just be idolizing oneself; rather, that is submission to God. And, please don’t chide me for playing semantics here. Words are important and when someone says “my conscience” or talks about others’ conscience, i worry that we are submitting to ourselves and not to God.
We need to stop worrying about what is important to us individually and start praying that God will release us to live for Him, living a life of love, submitting to one another in love, and living the truth that we belong to one another.
December 5th, 2006 at 9:39 am
I have been very interested in these comments.
I too am a moderationist by conviction, although practically I abstain.
However, I THINK that Tim Roger’s position makes a whole lot of sense.
If I read others’ comments correctly, they actually do, too. Sounds like if something is specified in the BF&M, many of you would also exclude others from SBC leadership who disagree with that.
So it really isn’t that “good” fellow Baptists would ever be excluded from leadership, it is that alcohol is not on many peoples’ lists as an excludable issue. But other issues are.
Saying it another way, you are giving Tim grief for something you would do, too, just on different issues.
For example, in OK recently, a very large SBC church proposed allowing adults to join its church who had never been baptized by immersion. That maybe someday after joining, they would want to be immersed. Or not. That was withdrawn for now.
I personally would not vote for such a leader to have a position in larger SBC life.
Although in other ways I could and do cooperate with and study what evangelical Presbyterians have to say.
December 6th, 2006 at 12:27 am
To Tim Rogers,
I haven’t taken the time to ask what you meant when you said, “While Paul was writing Scripture he maintained consistency to the Jerusalem Council findings.”
Hmmm…the Council was to decide how Gentiles were saved. The Council rejected Peter’s warning, (“Why are you going to correct God by burdening the Gentiles…” Acts 15:10) and said, “For it was the Holy Spirit’s decision—and—ours to put no greater burden on you that these necessary things.” (Acts 15:28)
The Council decided God didn’t know how to save Gentiles as Peter reported unless that obeyed some “necessary things.”
With that said, what did Paul say that was consistent with their findings?
In fact, Paul spent the rest of his life fighting “necessary things” as shown by, “You are certainly free to eat food offered to idols…it is not against God’s laws to eat such meat.” (1 Cor. 10:23) He wrote almost 100 verses saying, man was saved by believing, trusting, or having faith in Jesus. He preached faith plus nothing, and not faith plus works as was the ‘findings’ of the Council.
I believe their findings were the roots of Catholics, while Paul’s writings of the teachings of Christ were the roots of Baptists.
Rex Ray
December 6th, 2006 at 9:54 am
Karen,
You said, “Saying it another way, you are giving Tim grief for something you would do, too, just on different issues.”
This is not true. Tim would exclude violators of the BFM and would expect us to do the same. This is not about major doctrinal issues that we have in common. This is about the minor points on which we differ. I don’t think we should exclude on minor points. At least on this one, we are assured that Tim would.
The other way of looking at it is that Tim might think that this is not minor, but a major issue. This is also a problem, because that would indicate that specific interpretations of Scripture had been elevated to the level of Inerrancy.
December 6th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Art,
I’d like to reply to your “Two things.”
1. You state, “I don’t have to provide evidence that you didn’t provide evidence.”
I was not charged for not providing evidence. You said I had NO evidence and concluded I was libelous and had discredited myself.
Now that I have provided “evidence”, will you take back the words “libelous” and “discredited”?
2. You state, “We get it. You think we deserve to get kicked out because we didn’t stand up for you, once upon a time…I was in grade school when it all went down in ’79.”
No, you don’t get it. I want the roundtable to have success in standing for God called people to be missionaries. “Tasting your own medicine” is not a wish for the roundtable to get “kicked out”, but it’s a wish for it to be a wake-up to the still present exclusion that started in 2000 when missionaries were fired.
You have said, “Cooperation between Baptists of different convictions is my passion.”
How do we have “cooperation” when throughout history the religious have excluded their own in one way or another? Why would we expect it to be different today?
Rex Ray
December 6th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Rex,
I am going to answer this response by you and then I am done discussing this issue with you. I encourage you, again, to take it up on your own blog if you think it is fruitful.
You said that you thought the Roundtable was getting a taste of its own medicine because WE were part of a group excluding Christians by changing to doctrine rather than missions the glue that bound baptists.
First of all, you have NOT provided evidence that Wade, Art, Ben or Dwight was a part of anything. To be sure, we certainly never led such a group. Rather, in everything we have done, spoken and published, we have expressed a desire to work across minor issues of diversity. That’s why I said there was no evidence and that the comment was libelous. That hasn’t changed.
Secondly, if that is what you meant to say, you were very unclear about it. Now you’ve said it and now we are done discussing it.
For anyone else interested, Rex’s blog is truthofacts.blogspot.com.