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

*shaking head*

*shrugging shoulders*

WHATEVER!

Blessings,
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

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

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.

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

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

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.