Author: art rogers
Read and Compare
Wednesday, March 14th, 2007 @ 9:55 am
I want to heartily commend to you an article by Nathan Finn. Nathan is a historian and does an excellent job of assessing the years of the Resurgence as well as our current situation.
The Varieties of SBC Conservatism: A Blog Essay « Nathan A. Finn
Nathan’s approach to the current situation is much more historical and precise than an article that I did a little while ago, entitled the Myth of the Majority. The purpose of each of the two articles differ, I think, but they touch on the same theme, Conservatives in the SBC are made up of a coalition of people who are inerrantists, but have great diversity beyond that. Of course, mine also provides graphics for the visual learner. 
What most concerns me is that the behavior of pointing to folks who disagree and calling them “liberals” or “moderates” has gone from speaking about actual liberals and moderates, to fellow conservatives. Nathan’s conclusion is accurate, I believe. This coalition is splitting at the seams and it will take an ideological overhaul to create a new common ground on which we can meet and cooperate.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
March 14th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Arthur my friend,
Have you seen the episode of King of Queens, where Doug is trying to learn to play the guitar and he writes a song about he, his wife, and his father-in-law? It goes something like this:
Doug & Carrie
Doug & Carrie
Doug & Carrie
Doug & Carrie
Arthur, Arthur, Arthur, Arthur
Doug & Carrie
Doug & Carrie
Doug & Carrie
Doug & Carrie
Arthur, Arthur, Arthur, Arthur
And it just repeats over and over…Half the time when I visit over here, that’s in my mind.
But I digress.
I read Mr. Finn’s excellent article this morning. It is timely and courageous. There are a lot of people that need to take a cold shower, a deep breath, and count to 10 on all 4 or 5 sides!
My fear is that we will see the implosion of the SBC, within the next 5-10 years. Just like Rome collapsed upon itself, we may do the very same thing. What we need is a unifying vision - and it can’t be “the Bible”. The problem is that we got so many people sitting around talking and not doing anything. The thing is, when fishermen don’t fish, they fight. We’ve not been fishing an awful lot, but we’re beginning to fight a lot. What keeps me out of this mudslinging mess for the most part is what our church is doing. In our e-news I send out each week, I told them this morning:
You do that kind of stuff as well as your “regular” stuff like worship gatherings, small groups and prayer walking and you stay too busy to mess with politics and cutting down others! When you’re focused on the kingdom, defaming, attacking and flaming others just aren’t important.
We need someone to come along and give us a unifying vision. Until they do, we’ll just build his kingdom and stay out of the way of the mess.
March 14th, 2007 at 10:44 am
oh, and did I mention that we’re a church of 50 in Delaware? If we can do it, you can as well!
March 14th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Art,
I read the essay. Impressive. It could have used some Mickey Mouse ears, or something …
I agree that the labeling and name-calling, even among biblical conservatives, is not appropriate. But is it really new? I’m actually much more concerned about the way Christian folk treat each other than I am about the “names” they may call one another.
Lately, my visits to some Southern Baptist blogs and my reading of Southern Baptist news stories is leading me to wonder if we are truly on the same (Jesus) team. We certainly don’t treat one another like we are.
Maybe the splitting is unavoidable. Why should people cooperate if they can’t even get along?
March 14th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Geoff,
I think that you may be splitting something that is one thing. In my mind, the way we speak to each other is part and parcel of the way we treat each other.
If splitting is unavoidable, and it may be, then the split will not be like when the moderates left, but will be a shattering the likes of which all the king’s horsemen and all the king’s men will not be able to put together again.
It behooves us to try. Hard.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Great stuff going on, David. I love it when folks talk about what God is doing at their churches. I think we need WAY more of that type of discussion. It sharpens us and gets the rest of us moving. So, since my church has 250 folks, we should be doing 5 times what you are doing! Ouch! That’s convicting! Keep it up, bro, and we praise God with you!
Art, what if we all took a month long blog fast from SBC stuff to ONLY highlight what God is doing through all of our churches on a missional basis, and to tell stories of ways that we see God moving in other churches? Would that have any type of effect leading up to the convention? Would it bring unity around the main thing? I know that the purpose of everyone having their own blog is so that they can write on what they want to, but that might be a neat collective project for us SBC bloggers. I wonder . . .
March 14th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Alan
I can remembering suggesting a blog fast back in September. It did not catch on.
Art
I can understand your setiments on the labels of moderate and liberal. I personally don’t care for spooky fundamentalism, junior pastor, and others.
Nathan’s post was great. May we all heed his words.
God Bless
March 14th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Robin,
There are more labels flying from all directions than we can “shake a stick at,” so to speak. I get the impression you think I am picking on one side, but not the other… the labels you quote, “Nathan’s post was great,” “heed his words.”
If this is true, let me clarify for you. All derogatory labels are bad, no matter from whom they come.
We all need to quit drawing lines and start working together.
art
March 14th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
I’ve inquired tonight at Wade’s blog about the term “moderate”–what is meant by the word at that site. Maybe it means the same thing here that it means there.
I used to be a biblical/theological conservative–until, in Missouri as member of the MBC executive board, I voted my well-informed conscience before the Lord in an executive session; then, instantly and overnight, I and the board majority on the issue became “moderates” and eventually “liberals”. It was wierd; I didn’t feel the change occur at all; the content of my Bible studies still were the same, I believed just as much of the Bible and missions and evangelism and CP as before; I was still a Christian . . .
Is it state Baptist newspaper editors who are granted authority to decide who’s a moderate and who’s a conservative–or long-time convention-attending pastors leading declining congregations–or, organizers of religio-political groups of church messengers, or who? It seems I’m missing something important here (and being a bit sarcastic/facetious–but this thing needs to get talked-out and resolved; and, I’m still a biblical/theological conservative–no matter what they say!).
March 14th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Art,
Thank you for sharing Nathan Finn’s essay with the regular readers of your blog. I found it very insightful and agree with almost all of his points. I was especially impressed with his willingness to use the word inerrantist to describe many of the groups who are excluded from SBC leadership even though we were told the movement was about inerrancy. I can’t imagine many of the leaders of SEBTS agreeing with him.
Although agreeing with him on many points I would have started the first paragraph slightly different. I would have said, “I am an unashamed theological conservative and inerrantist. I am NOT glad the pseudo-conservatives won the battle of the 1980’s and 1990’s. I disagree with most resurgent Baptists about most issues related to convention politics.” From there on he is pretty close to perfect.
He stated the first group of inerrantists to move away from the larger movement were those who were sympathetic to the status quo or were critical of some personalities or tactics. I would not say they moved away, I would say they were excluded. The conservative resurgence began as an ego driven movement by super church pastors who could not understand why the entire convention didn’t obey them like the members of their own churches. Then it became an attack mechanism that went after any conservative who would not support their political machine. This would include Russell Dilday, Keith Parks, the WMU and hundreds of missionaries, pastors and laypersons who said they would remain true to the Bible and not the words of men. The heart of the resurgence was placed into the hands of men like Roger Moran, T.C. Pinckney, Ron Wilson and Ollin Collins to do the bidding of the leaders of the resurgence.
I will have to bookmark his blog. He, like you, makes the kind of thoughtful points that need to be read by more people in our convention.
March 14th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
I would also say that many conservatives in the early years were in the same boat as David Troublefield in Missouri. The didn’t change, the definitions did. The words moderate and liberal were used in ways that had nothing to do with theology.
I believe you have met the editor of the state paper in Missouri that leads the attacks on behalf of Moran and the other leaders there.
March 15th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
I like Nathan’s article, and I agree that we need to agree upon what we are going to agree upon. My question is, “Who’s going to lead the way for us to agree?” I don’t have a problem with the currrent BF & M. Let’s do something in San Antonio to establish it as the standard of orthodoxy for our convention. Maybe if agreement upon it were required for membership in the SBC we could really use it as the standard for everything from the IMB’s policies to Southwestern’s hiring and firing practices. Lead the way, Art.
March 16th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Alan,
I think your suggestion is great! We should all do a series entitled, “Look What God is Doing!” and highlight the movement of God in a missional way in our churches, in large churches, small churches, medium churches…who knows, maybe we can get some ideas from each other…
March 16th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
I really enjoy Nathan’s writings, but I found your post on the myth of the majority as more edifying than his. I don’t fully know why; perhaps it was the visual thing.
I don’t think it was that, though, as I am more of a word guy.