When Joyce Rogers spoke to the Southern Baptist Convention in Greensboro, she took a stand against the narrowing of parameters in the SBC and said that here late husband, SBC giant Adrian Rogers, would never have supported it.
It was a powerful moment, to be sure. Afterward, though, I got the impression – through nothing overt – that some of her late husband’s friends disagreed with her assessment, but wouldn’t indict Adrian’s widow. I heard a comment or two that she was more reflective of her son, David, in her speech, than she was of Adrian.
Last week, I was sent the link to an audio sermon preached by Dr. Rogers and released on the “Love Worth Finding” website in December. Clearly, it validates everything that Mrs. Rogers said.
The entire sermon was great, but it got very relevant to our current SBC culture about minute 24.
Feel free to post your favorite quote from the sermon in the comment section along with the reason you think it is relevant. I’ll give you first crack at it, and I’ll give you mine later.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Bart Barber
on Jan 7th, 2007
@ 10:39 pm:
A masterful sermon. Our convention is lesser for our loss of him.
And yes, I’ve got to admit that it clearly put Dr. Rogers within the no-regulations camp. My favorite quote was when he said, “Take, for example, the case of private prayer language. Those who have opposed the spread of the modern practice of speaking in tongues in the Southern Baptist Convention are clearly extremists!” He was really rocking and rolling at about that point in the sermon.
And you were afraid that I wouldn’t read your blog any more ;-)
Art Rogers
on Jan 7th, 2007
@ 10:44 pm:
Ah, yes, the prophetic interpretation. What he would have said today… ;)
Didn’t know you had fallen into “that” group. :)
Bart Barber
on Jan 7th, 2007
@ 10:53 pm:
Of course, if we really want to know, there’s this strange old lady living over at Endor…
Art Rogers
on Jan 7th, 2007
@ 10:54 pm:
Funny.
Bart Barber
on Jan 7th, 2007
@ 10:56 pm:
But I’ve really got to quit now, I sent my wife and kids off to my in-laws’ place so I could do sermon planning. If she finds out I’ve been blogging rather than planning sermons (and she reads more blogs than I do, brother), then I’m going to have to move into my office at church.
Art Rogers
on Jan 7th, 2007
@ 10:57 pm:
Been there. I pray all goes well with your planning.
Marty Duren
on Jan 8th, 2007
@ 5:00 am:
“You can’t make yourself sick trying to make them well.”
Darren Casper
on Jan 8th, 2007
@ 5:43 am:
The family of Southern Baptists certainly misses the leadership of brother Adrian these days…
Thanks for all your work/research Art
Marty Duren
on Jan 8th, 2007
@ 6:06 am:
Art-
I was pleasantly surprised to hear his words about music and books, ie-culture. I wouldn’t have expected to hear a difference articulated between separation and isolation; there was certainly no condemnation of cuture.
Seems his statements on music in the church were preparatory, but mostly unheeded.
Marty Duren
on Jan 8th, 2007
@ 6:08 am:
*culture*
My misspellings have been helping your hit count lately…
David Rogers
on Jan 8th, 2007
@ 6:56 am:
Art,
Thanks for posting this.
While I will not deny talking with my Mom, and “bringing her up to speed” on some of the issues, the idea to include what she said at the Pastors Conference was hers and hers alone. My Mom is surely strong enough to speak for herself, and surely knew my Dad well enough to represent well his views.
And, yes, I am sure that the views he references here, although they have their most direct application in the local church, also have an application for the SBC at large. My Dad had a pet term for fundamentalist extremists within the SBC. He called them the “tire-slashers” (i.e. they would be willing to do anything, just as long as it served to advance the “cause”). And, he told me personally on more than one occasion that he believed the “tire-slashers” posed a real threat of undoing the good that the Conservative Resurgence had done.
Bart,
No, my Dad made no specific references to the IMB policies, as it was not a public issue before his passing. I have heard directly from several trustees (whom I will not identify), however, that he told them, when they asked his advice, that the new PPL regulation was not a wise move. The quote, if my remember correctly, was: “brethren I believe it would be wise if we left that subject alone”.
Marty Duren
on Jan 8th, 2007
@ 7:10 am:
David-
Interestingly, Danny Akin proposed a “don’t ask, don’t advocate” policy during a Q & A at SEBTS chapel. Don’t ask the candidate about a prayer language and they shouldn’t advocate it on the field. That was pretty close to the prior policies, which worked fine.
Thanks for the input about your Dad. The “tire-slashers” should leave well enough alone.
Tim Rogers
on Jan 8th, 2007
@ 8:25 am:
Brother Art,
After listening to Dr. Rogers’ message, I like everyone else, enjoy listening to such a special message about extremism.
Would your position be that the IMB policy is a result of Secondary or Tertiary (sp) Separation?
Blessings,
Tim
Art Rogers
on Jan 8th, 2007
@ 11:53 am:
Marty,
Get a spell checker with your fancy new Mac.
I also was interested to hear the references to culture and other things addressed in the sermon. It’s good stuff.
David,
I was a little surprised to hear anyone questioning your Mom’s accuracy as well. As close as those two were in their lives – something that was very obvious – it boggled my mind to think that someone might imply she might misunderstand or misrepresent him.
Also, thanks for the insight into your Dad’s mind on the specific issue of PPL. Turns out Bart was more prophetic than he intended.
On a personal note, my uncle David Rogers, the minister from Memphis I have mentioned before, continues to speak of your Dad as gracious and kind to all and to him specifically during their relationship through the Association. He is missed by so many on a personal level, far beyond the needs of the SBC.
Also, I predict that the term “tire slasher” is about to get a lot more play. It is sooooo accurate, isn’t it?
Tim,
Yes, this is a secondary separation. I think the triage deal has been overly exhausted and maybe even misapplied, as Bart pointed out not long ago on his blog. I like Spurgeon’s original term – the one we used to use – “non-essentials.”
Everyone,
There are grounds for separation from those we believe have crossed over the line into heresy. I don’t think that any of the issues under discussion over the last year (and I retain the right to qualify this if there be something I am forgetting or of which I am unaware) is heresy. On top of that, there are a few – but they be very few – Baptist distinctives that I think are essential to cooperation.
We all divide. The question is where to draw the line of demarcation. I say that some are drawing it far too tight. While I am still within the bounds, they are attempting to cut out folks that I don’t think ought to be cut out of the cooperative work.
Tim Rogers
on Jan 8th, 2007
@ 12:52 pm:
Brother Art,
Please explain how you come to see this as secondary separation? While you may point to my speaking about my personal vote of one like you and Brother David, that is not where the majority of SB will stand. Also, just because I will not raise a ballot in support of you or Brother David in a leadership position does not mean I have broken fellowship with you. Secondary separation DIS-FELLOWSHIPS from those that hang out with others of different theological stripes. There has been on one in the leadership of the convention that has dis-fellowshipped any church. Even Dr. Patterson has not banned Dr. McKissic from attending the Trustee Meetings.
This is the point I am trying to make–no one has been asked to leave neither has there been any dis-fellowship going on in the SBC. While Dr. Rogers’ words are very well taken and do have principles that we need to heed, wasn’t he speaking to the church as a local body of believers?
Blessings,
Tim
Art Rogers
on Jan 8th, 2007
@ 1:30 pm:
Tim,
I don’t define secondary separation as disfellowshipping, per se. You have said to David that you wouldn’t appoint him to the field of missionary service because he was willing to work with people who don’t see Scripture the same way you do. I don’t see how it’s NOT secondary separation.
Anyone else have a thought on this?
Also, Dr. Patterson doesn’t have the right to remove Dwight, but he has been asked to step down and Dwight refused, so you are inaccurate in the implication that there has been no attempt at separation there. Obviously, Wade was asked to step down. This is nothing but separation. Disfellowshipping is an ultimate separation, but it is not the only one.
However, to say that you may contribute to our various cooperative funds, but you can not serve is a form of passive/aggressive disfellowshipping. Who is going to want to stay around for that deal? Not many that I know of will. They’ll leave and the side that wouldn’t let them serve will say, “We didn’t FORCE them out.” There’s not much else to it.
Also, Tim, you have unfinished business on the Oligarchy thread.
I am going to go back to that until you deal with it.
Art Rogers
on Jan 8th, 2007
@ 3:44 pm:
Hello?
This post is getting a ton of downloads, but not many quotes or comments. Spill your thoughts, folks … I’ll be quiet for a while.
Bob,
I hope not to have to eat my words. That kind of fast, I would like to live on.
Dorcas Hawker
on Jan 8th, 2007
@ 4:33 pm:
I’m here. I just didn’t have much to say as I haven’t listened to the sermon yet. For what it is worth, as I read some of the comments it makes me wish that I had heard of Adrian Rogers many years ago instead of just last year and curious why I hadn’t as he appears to be well known to many.
A good reminder to all of us I suppose that the pond really is bigger than we imagine it to be, and no matter how important things seem to us, there really is someone out there who hasn’t heard of us yet, and doesn’t hang on our every word. Also a reminder for me that the wisest voice amongst us may be one I have not yet heard.
Art Rogers
on Jan 8th, 2007
@ 4:42 pm:
Dorcas,Thanks for the thoughts. Really good stuff.
Tim Rogers
on Jan 8th, 2007
@ 4:52 pm:
Brother Art,
As for the Oligarchy thread, I posted something there. Now I see that you have said I have not finished my business, it evidently did not post. I did get an error after a while, but I thought it posted. I will repost. I promise you I am not ducking that thread.
As for your statement that I am “inaccurate in the implication” of Dr. McKissic, I believe you are the one that is inaccurate. Depending on how you define that word. If you define inaccuracy as being void of first hand information, you would be correct. If you define the word as presenting an opinion based on information that is open to everyone then you would be the one inaccurate. The press reports are the only thing I have to go on as I do not have the personal give and take that some of you enjoy with those that are leading this movement. However, according to the press reports, Dr. McKissic offered to resign and there was no response from the Chairman of SWBTS’s BoT. After the vote and Dr. McKissic’s continued disagreement with the direction of the BoT’s then the Chairman offered to receive his resignation, but Dr. McKissic rescinded his offer. I believe it was somewhere around the date of this particular blog article http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2006/10/irenic-conservatives-had-better-wake.html#links
Oh, Brother Wade’s asking to step down. Let’s place the cards on the table. When a Trustee Board votes by a 2/3 majority to implement a policy and a Trustee goes public about his disagreement and calls for war on the board, I think it would be time to ask someone to step down. To Brother Wade’s credit he did go back and take the “war” language out, but he never rescinded his call for the loss of trust he implemented by calling for that war.
Blessings,
Tim
Art Rogers
on Jan 8th, 2007
@ 5:08 pm:
Tim,
Thanks for not dodging the issue. I look forward to your response there.
As for the word “inaccurate,” I would define it to mean, “not correct,” or even, “wrong.”
You say that Dr. Patterson has not gotten rid of Dwight, implying no separation, and clearly, there has been a desire to separate. Who offered what and when is irrelevant to the issue. There is a desire to separate.
As for Wade, there are several issues.
1. You do not deny that there is a move to separate, but affirm it, which makes my point: division over a secondary issue.
2. I think you have overstated Wade’s post as calling for war on the board. In fact, Wade has asked bloggers to allow the ad hoc committees to do their work – calling for peace, not war.
3. The post to which you link was in October of last year. The move to separate was in January of last year. Clearly, the two are not related.
Now, an astute observer would note, at this point, that Wade and Dwight were not asked to leave over the secondary issues, but over their handling of the issues.
I would have to say, though, that the issues themselves are the root. If Trustees fulfill the trust of the Convention by making known things with which the Convention may not be pleased, then I am sure that those who are on the receiving end of the conventions reaction would like to “take it out” on the trustee.
To disassociate the trustee’s actions in an attempt to do what they think is best for the convention from the issue that they expose makes no sense. It is taking something out of context, which is not wise.
I hope I have answered your questions extensively.
Thanks,
Art
kevinbussey
on Jan 8th, 2007
@ 6:15 pm:
David,
Our generation owes your dad a debt of gratitude. If it were’nt for him & others many of us would not be in the SBC today.
It was an honor to meet your mom and you in Greensboro. I just wish I could have met your dad.
cb scott
on Jan 8th, 2007
@ 6:57 pm:
Tim,
I hope we are at an understanding of what the use of the word “rumor” as you used it can do. There was no way anyone could have understood your original intent, for it was not stated. What was in your mind is far from what others would think when reading your comment and taking it at face value. Just food for thought.
Now, the reason I am actually commenting here is related to your comment above that Wade was going to “war” with the IMB BoT. Brad, this is very kin to what happened yesterday about “rumors”
Let it be known that I am not in a camp, or particular group and definitly I do not want to be in the BF&M “tent.” I supported Wade for the reason I have always stated. It was wrong for the BoT to try to remove him unless he failed in some moral manner. He has not done so.
For you to say he wanted a “war” or to use “war” relating to his starting one is wrong. Wade was exercising his responsibility as a trustee in voicing an opposing opinion to many of the trustees.
When Ben and I got involved Wade was saying stuff like: “I am going to submit to the directives of the chairman” and various comments like that. In the hearing of several others I told Wade he was crazy to do such. Wade stuck to his position even though I trash talked him pretty soundly.
If you will remember the person that really called for “war”, if that is the word you want to use was Tom Hatley in his last meeting as chairman of the IMB BoT. He trashed Wade in front of Wade’s wife. It was at that point that many, many people took up Wade’s cause. “Tommy boy” made Wade bigger than life in that burst of ego and self-centered pride. I really believe Wade would have submitted to whatever the Board decided had not TH lost his way to proper conduct and played “monkey boy” in front of the whole SBC.
To disagree with Wade on issues is fair. He states his positions openly and that means his positions are fair game and no one has debated him much more than me. Yet, for you to say he started or called for a war is wrong. You need to rethink this. You need to stand down here and apologize to Wade for this. Please take a harder look at the possible consequences before you say these open ended things. People want to think the worse anyway and in saying things like this you make it easy for them.
cb
Tim Rogers
on Jan 8th, 2007
@ 8:54 pm:
Brother’s Art & CB,
You two are so in tune to try and protect something you are not even reading what I am saying. You are taking bits and pieces and turning it to your advantage to castigate my point of view.
Example? Art, you say, “I think you have overstated Wade’s post as calling for war on the board.” What post was it that Brother Wade went back and changed the wording on in order to not sound so militaristic? He stated he would apologized for the words but not the thoughts. I do not know how you can do that as you and CB and others have held me to my words and thoughts together. Then ARt you do not ever follow the link I make available. You seem to be trying so hard to protect Brother Wade that you miss the link is in reference to Dr. McKissic.
Brother CB,
You say; “To disagree with Wade on issues is fair. He states his positions openly and that means his positions are fair game”. As I stated to Brother Art, the language in the blog was changed because of the militaristic language employed. I did not use war language to call all SB to lose trust in the BoT’s at the IMB. But then you call me to “stand down” and apologize.
Not this time.
Blessings,
Tim
Art Rogers
on Jan 8th, 2007
@ 9:24 pm:
Tim,
The post that you don’t even remember the name of is “Crusading Conservatives vs. Cooperating Conservatives.”
In it, he pointed out that OTHERS WERE ACTING WARLIKE Wade used military terms that some found offensive, so in an effort for peace, he went back and changed them.
So, in the end, you have wrongly referred to a post you couldn’t even remember yourself and said that, in it, Wade called for war, when he actually described warlike attitudes of others WHILE CALLING FOR PEACE.
It is clearly you who are not listening, Tim.
I did, by the way, follow your link, and I did mistakenly think it was referring to Wade’s situation when I clicked it. I had read through your comment a couple of times and then clicked on the link – forgetting that it was about Dwight and not Wade, since it was on Wade’s blog.
As to its relevance, I have already stated that it doesn’t matter whether or not Dwight offered to resign, but that they asked for him to do so later. The point is that they seek to divide over “non-essentials.”
You say that you will not apologize “this time.” It is evident that, when it comes to certain people, about whom you have a negative predisposition, you will not apologize at any time, no matter how badly you abuse their character unjustly. as I said in the Oligarchy thread, you are free to discuss things here, but any future character assassination will be deleted. I refer you to my last statement to you there, as well.
Tim Rogers
on Jan 9th, 2007
@ 5:06 am:
Brother Art,
Here we are with the double standard. While you castigate my thoughts as uniformed because I cannot remember the name of a certain article posted over a year ago, you rationalize your mis-reading of an evidentiary link as non-relevant.
Let me say. It is your house and I will heed your warning. As to any disagreement, thank you for that warning because it is evident that any time I disagree with you in the future my disagreement will more than likely be seen by you as “character assassination” and not posted. Er, unless it furthers your and the others agenda. Then it will be posted, picked apart like a dead carcass on the road, and re-worded to further your cause.
Blessings,
Tim
Art Rogers
on Jan 9th, 2007
@ 7:46 am:
Tim,
*sigh*
You don’t even follow your own argument. I didn’t rationalize anything. Your link was never claimed as evidence of anything.
I have never said anything about anyone like you have said about these men. You have mischaracterized their actions and filled in the blanks concerning motives with the most damaging suppositions you could muster.
When people have done such things to people with whom I disagree, I have deleted such comments without discussion. I have been more than patient with you, offering chance upon chance to evidence your claims about these men. I never do that for people who “agree with me.” Only because you were saying these things about “my side” did I allow you opportunity after opportunity to evidence your claims.
I have, on three separate occasions, offered for you to point out where I have done anything like this and guaranteed that I would apologize to them personally and publicly.
It is evident there is a double standard, but it is not me who holds it. If I had assigned motives or described one of your spiritual heroes the way you have done to my friends, you would have castigated me soundly. But you will not listen to my call.
You hear what you choose to hear and you think what sounds good to you. No one who disagrees with you can reason with you. You do not choose to hear what they say.
Finally, after all of this, you impugn my character on the way out the door.
As I have frequently said, “A man’s words say more about him than they say about the person who is the subject of his words.”
Your words do you harm, in my opinion. It is obvious that you think my words do me harm.
The readers will judge for themselves.
But, do me a favor. Don’t sign off with the word “blessings” after you impugn my character. You offer water, but it tastes like ashes.
Art
Tim Rogers
on Jan 9th, 2007
@ 8:02 am:
Brother Art,
WHATEVER!
Blessings,
Tim
Art Rogers
on Jan 9th, 2007
@ 10:10 am:
*sigh*
*shaking head*
*shrugging shoulders*
Debbie Kaufman
on Jan 9th, 2007
@ 11:43 am:
Tim Rogers: So what do you think of Adrian Rogers sermon that Art linked to? It seems you have spoken of everything but what Adrian Rogers has said.
Wayne Hatcher
on Jan 12th, 2007
@ 1:26 am:
What I found to be quite memorable were two statements by Dr. Rogers: “Man, deliver me from the gnat gaggers.”, and “We need to put the sweet grace of God in what we do and how we live.” This last statement, I believe was the most important statement that Dr. Rogers made in this message. We all would do well to seek to live with God’s sweet grace constantly in view.
Now the rest of my comment I am sure will draw criticism, I apologize in advance. Dr. Rogers is an excellent orator, and he has a beautiful southern voice. I agreed with his first and last points, but I had trouble with the middle point. I could not find “extremism” within the context of Titus 3, verses 9 and 10. And in light of the larger context of the entire epistle, I really do not believe that this is what Paul was talking about at all. I do not mean to be disrespectful of the late Dr. Rogers, but I do not believe that is what the passage is teaching. Please do not misunderstand my position on the greater subject at hand. I do believe in a need for reform in the SBC. I simply do not believe labeling the problem as “extremism” serves us well. The secular world looks on all serious Christianity as “extremist”. The world sees the term as a pejorative, but we should view it as a badge of honor. Jesus, in his condemnation of Laodicea in Revelation 3 prefers either extreme to luke-warm. Extreme is just another word for zeal. What the “tories” are doing is nothing more than misguided zeal.
And Dr. Rogers illustration of secondary and tertiary separation was not helpful at all. Secondary and tertiary separation has nothing to do with my ability to fellowship with someone whose friend’s friend’s friend believes differently than I. Degrees of separation have to do with which doctrinal differences deliniate between Christian and non-christian (primary), which doctrinal differences generally deliniate between Christian denominations (secondary), and which doctrinal differences two people or groups can have and yet should not prevent general fellowship, cooperation, membership, and the like (tertiary).
Again, I mean no disrespect, and I do not dissagree with the desire for reform.
In Christ,
Wayne Hatcher