Colinm. I wanted to be addressed by first name not intials, so Colin it became. In a previous life, I posted as C Reverend Chilifry aka Colin, aka C Rev, aka Crev. But those were on a Baptist forum. And then there was my other personality…

ok. either my computer just straightened out, or else wade put it back up. i just wanted everyone to know that i checked it out one more time, and it came up. so, anyway, i have spent far too much time on whether that post was still there or not. so, thats all for me for now about wiley and this unfortunate sitaution.

david……….volfan007

when you click on the link at the left hand side of wade’s blog for the hard post on wiley, then nothing comes up. i have tried three times to look at it, and nothing comes up. every other post on the left comes up, but that one looks empty…like it’s been deleted. or, maybe my computer is acting crazy….like i said.

also, alan, i dont agree with wade on many, many things. i have told him so in the past. but, i dont hate wade. and, i’m not out to get wade. i honestly love wade in the Lord, just as i love you and art and others that i dont completely agree with.

david…..oscar winning actor(usually plays victim roles)….volfan007 :)

Everyone keeps trying to tell you that there are no leaders, but you don’t believe us. I don’t take marching orders from anyone, nor do I tell people what to write on their blogs. If I choose to, I affirm or disagree with what people say at my own discretion. If I am not interested in what someone is saying one way or the other, I do not comment. There is no coordination going on beyond what you see publicly, at least that I am aware of. Of course, I am a lesser light in the universe of influential Baptist Bloggers, but I understand that there is little coordination at any level.

So, I don’t really see your point. I am one of the few that said I don’t have a problem with Wiley Drake. I disagree with him, but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t lead. I feel the same way about Dr. Patterson. I disagree with him, but I am not interested in his resigning or staying – it matters little to me. I mainly want to see the IMB policies rescinded and see us stick to the BF&M. After that, others can handle the staggering inconsistencies in the leadership of the SBC. I have a family and church to lead.

I have been following this comment stream and, I believe, it is a good discussion of the issue at hand. Many have given sound reasoning for where they stand and I do enjoy seeing the back-and-forth. Brother Colin has done a great job defending his position against not just one dissenter, but a few.

I certainly do not desire to interfere with the dialog, but I do believe I see what appears to be an inconsistency. You say; “I might vehemently disagree with some of his [Wiley Drake] stances, but I don’t think that those stances, unless they are deemed to be blatantly unbiblical, should remove him from office or the pastorate.” What has Dr. Paige Patterson done that is “blatantly unbiblical” enough to have him removed from office?

Before you answer that with “I have never said he needed to be removed from office”, that–I believe–is where the inconsistency enters your argument. You, and others, may not be straddling a fence crowing like a rooster that Dr. Patterson needs to go, but there is one among you that is. There is one among you that has made it crystal clear that he will not rest until Dr. Patterson is out of office. You may feel that he [Dr. Patterson] just needs to be “reigned in” by the BoT. But ascribing to the meanderings of one that is saying and doing all that he can to remove Dr. Patterson from office reveals a duplicitous characteristic. If, on the other hand, you and others were publicly “reigning in” the meanderings of the bombastic one, others would better understand and appreciate your position. The movement is judged by the character of those that lead. That is why this issue with Brother Wiley is of such concern to everyone.

Blessings,
Tim

Did you used to post as Colinm?

I don’t know about the answer to my question in the context that you have created, but I will say that I am not against Wiley serving a second term as 2nd VP if he did not sign his name to the petition. If he supports a murderer, then I would have some reservations, obviously. The one thing that I would question about Wiley’s leadership is his wisdom in focusing on the things he does, but we elected the man and we should expect to bring who he is to the office. I might vehemently disagree with some of his stances, but I don’t think that those stances, unless they are deemed to be blatantly unbiblical, should remove him from office or the pastorate.

In striving to be consistent, I want to reiterate that I do not have a problem with fundamentalists serving and serving from their convictions. They should just be hampered from imposing those convictions on the rest of the SBC. There should be protections. Again, our polity should not trump Truth. But, the fact that they are who they are should not eliminate them from ministry if our differences are tertiary. Once those differences begin to move up the ladder to core issues, then we need to have more governance from the middle, or from a place that reflects what the majority of Baptists believe as reflected in our Confession.

It isn’t really that hard. We just need to elect people to positions who care more about serving the SBC than they do about remaking it to fit their image.

You may be being silly, but you are right in that the BF&M serves as a cushion against extremism. It has continuously served in this capacity, and like any fallible human document, this people’s statement of beliefs is subject to revision. It is active and reactive by the hands of the messengers and their trustees.

My question to the panel: there obviously exists an outcry against perpetual leadership holding a specific qualification (the most bandied about being a member of the “Good Ole Boys Club”). There also exist cries against continually utilizing for service those in churches approaching or having reached mega-church status. What’s wrong with small church pastors? Nothing. Why?

Interesting question.

Are we arguing for an extra-biblical requirement for the leadership of the SBC? Is not a pastor qualified by the Word of God to oversee His flock in His church qualified to lead the SBC? Some may say no.

Is Wiley Drake qualified to lead a New Testament church? If not, in view of the glory of God should not that outcry be greater?

Is Wiley Drake qualified, then, to be 2nd VP? Then why shouldn’t he continue the post in 2007-08?

Further, are “Fundamentalists” or fundamentalists qualified to the pastorate? Are those who are for excluding PPL? Are those who believing closed communion is the only communion?

I have been pondering these questions as of late, and think it is pertinent to your post, Art. So, is Our problem… that our polity always seems to trump Truth or an appeal to what we have all agreed Truth to be?

The post was not taken down. It is right here: http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-wiley-drake-should-not-be-vp-of-sbc.html

Just because it is not on the front page does not mean that it is taken down. There is a link to it in the left sidebar in order of his posts.

Colin,

I understand what you are saying. In a sense then, no fundamentalists need apply for leadership, because by definition, fundamentalists are exclusionary. Interesting. I probably would not hold that opinion, even if they are exclusionary. I am not against cessationists leading, even if they are trying to get rid of continuationists. I guess that my position is that they should not be allowed to exclude people, even if they want to. To say that fundamentalists should not serve at all would be wrong. Their exclusionary desires should be tempered by something however. Hmmm. If only we had some type of confessional something or other that was a summary of what Baptists believe so that we could not be taken over by special interest groups. Hmmm. If only it could describe the Faith and the Message of Baptists. Hmmm. Maybe we should come up with something?

I am obviously being silly. Our problem is that our polity always seems to trump Truth or an appeal to what we have all agreed Truth to be. In that, we become as relativistic as the Liberals we claim to despise.

On the other hand, do you think Wade thinks of it that way? Do you think Wiley thinks of it that way?

I wouldn’t say you were unbiased when it comes to Wade, though. Would you?