In our prayer meeting last night, I mentioned the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting next week in San Antonio.
Like most SBC churches, my church membership has trusted the SBC to be doing its job while they did theirs, which is to say that they have ignored the SBC for a while. I have not pressed the issue with them. On rare occasions I have the topic of discussion raised by others and I do not withhold my opinion. I do try to be as diplomatic as I am able, not wanting to presume on even my own church members. Sole competency and all that.
When we prayed last night, I asked my church to pray for unity and that God would use the SBC to reach the lost around the world. I told them that no one with any viewpoint should have a problem with praying that.
Yet it looks like tensions are mounting. Here are a few personal observations.
I see the rhetoric rising on the other side of the aisle. My brothers in Christ and fellow Southern Baptists have taken to calling “my side” the “Burleson Blogging Coalition.” This is a simplistic “ad hominem attack” and an attempt to paint us as being “led” by Wade Burleson, whom they consider to be the easiest target of such words and subsequently to characterize us as an intentional organization. This is despite our frequent correction that we are of like mind on several issues, but we are not uniform nor do we take orders from each other, answering only for ourselves. Obviously as regards the implication of their nickname, nothing could be further from the truth, but in these things, truth among God’s people seems to be taking a back seat. The old tactic of mischaracterization that hurt so many in the past, on all sides of various debates among us, is making a comeback this year.
As an outflow of that, preemptive guessing about what others will or will not do is following suit. If Ben Cole, for instance, reveals evidence of wrongdoing by Paige Patterson at the SWBTS report time, he is spewing vitriol as a personal vendetta rather than exposing truth that the SBC should hear. If he doesn’t, it is merely a calculated move to hopefully upset Jim Richards with the nepotistic nomination of David Rogers. So you see, with these words, Ben is vilified, no matter what he does. If Ben is vilified, so is the group with whom he is so often associated. You see the maneuvering?
It appears to me that, since CP giving is perceived as such an issue in last year’s Presidential election, the CP giving of Green Acres Baptist Church was listed in the press release. GABC is pastored by David Dykes, who is to nominate David Rogers. Since Rogers is a missionary in Spain, he is not linked personally to a stateside SBC church where his leadership regarding the CP is able to be evaluated the way the Presidential candidates were last year. This is being attacked by way of the BGCT’s program of CP cooperation. The argument, frankly can’t even get to Green Acres Baptist Church, which is the top giver to the CP from all states. The argument is against the BGCT, and it is one with which I agree. It completely fails to indict the GABC.
I must note that the SBTC is the very model of CP giving under the leadership of Jim Richards, giving more than half of what they receive to the SBC. I wish that all state conventions, including my own, would live up to such a standard. Nevertheless, his quote last year, that people like Dwight McKissic could ride on the bus (the SBC), but they could not drive it, is more exclusionary than cooperative, which is why I will vote for David Rogers.
Speaking of attempts to discredit, a massive move to discredit the Lifeway study on PPL has reached a brief lull. You can read my observations on the study and the discreditation in my article, “PPL Study by Lifeway is eye-opening…” and in the subsequent comment stream. We shall have to see if this issue is again raised at the convention. Many have speculated as to the timing of the report’s release – just before the SBC. I couldn’t have thought of a less advantageous time to release it. It seems to have stirred the ire of many who were comfortably perceiving themselves in the vast majority of the SBC.
Maybe I am just naive to think that an organization as enormous as the SBC can be used without being divided by folks who desire their own political advancement. I now know of at least a half dozen folks on “my side” who have turned away requests for them to be nominated to serve at various national levels. They have done so for the sake of integrity in the face of the accusation that what we want is political advancement ourselves. I turned aside a similar offer last year and have done so on at least two occasions this year. We don’t want control. We want the SBC to make it into the future. If it is to happen, I can assure you that it will do so, not by the depraved nature of human wisdom, but by the leadership of the Holy Spirit and our humble submission thereto.
Of course, that’s just my take on it. We’ll have to see what happens.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
volfan007
on Jun 7th, 2007
@ 10:01 am:
art,
people are villifying ben cole? are you serious? i’m trying hard to talk about people and what’s been done to me, but these kind of statements are making it extremely difficult for me to keep my mouth shut.
david
David Troublefield
on Jun 7th, 2007
@ 10:02 am:
Art:
Your post mentions the BGCT. Please say more about what you mean about it. Thanks.
Benjamin S. Cole
on Jun 7th, 2007
@ 10:15 am:
Martyr007:
Just what did Ben Cole do to you? Please tell us. We’d like to know.
BSC
volfan007
on Jun 7th, 2007
@ 10:25 am:
ben,
ask bill dodson.
david
volfan007
on Jun 7th, 2007
@ 10:36 am:
ben,
also…..where are you staying?
david
Benjamin S. Cole
on Jun 7th, 2007
@ 10:43 am:
Martyr007:
I’m staying at the Marriott. For the past ten years Bill Dodson and I have had a large block of rooms, but this year it really exploded beyond our imagination. I’m not sure how many total rooms we have, but there are nearly 1000 messengers now in our group. Of course, some of them stay two to a room, and some make their own arrangements.
And yesterday two rooms came open, so we were able to get four more messengers into them: two from Wade’s Burleson’s church and two BGCT pastors from South Texas. Oh, and we were able to get Art Rogers into the Marriott too. I’m glad he’ll be close.
Where are you staying? Do you get a complimentary continental breakfast?
BSC
Art Rogers
on Jun 7th, 2007
@ 10:50 am:
David Troublefield,
The argument is against the BGCT organizational plan for giving that allows churches to give to the CBF, if they choose. It bears some weight against the BGCT, in my opinion. Not against David Dykes or GABC. You can get the gist in the comment section of my immediately previous post. The correction of that argument is also quite fascinating, though not posted by me.
David W. & Ben,
You two are off topic. David, you have a post on your own blog where you are discussing this and you should take this discussion there.
Thanks.
volfan007
on Jun 7th, 2007
@ 10:52 am:
ben,
i guess i will just keep where i’m staying to myself. i wouldnt want anything to mysteriously happen to the room i have. i’ll eat breakfast at several different places, but thanks for being concerned with my well being.
david
Geoff Baggett
on Jun 7th, 2007
@ 11:32 am:
Art,
I can’t quite see your seeming dismissal of the analysis of the Cooperative Program structure of Green Acres Baptist Church and the BGCT. So, GVBC is “the top giver from all states.” But what does that mean, really? The words “Cooperative Program” have been so redefined by the various state conventions that just saying “biggest CP giver” doesn’t quite explain the whole picture.
Indeed, does not GABC voluntarily associate with a state convention that chooses to retain the vast, vast majority of its “Cooperative Program” dollars, at the very expense of our IMB missionaries in the field?
Indeed, if every church and state convention followed the exact giving patterns of Green Acres Baptist Church and the BGCT, our beloved International Mission Board and our international missions force would be financially decimated. Fine missionaries the likes of David Rogers would suffer from a severe lack of funding and support. I daresay many of them would be forced to come home from the field, or seek alternate funding.
So, please understand why, for some of us, the nomination of an IMB missionary for SBC national office within this CP giving context (which the press release made so much whoo-doo about, not Bart Barber et.al.) just does not compute.
Art Rogers
on Jun 7th, 2007
@ 12:00 pm:
Geoff,
As mentioned earlier, I do not dismiss the BGCT giving program, but say that the very legitimate criticism of so much retention of CP dollars is a very legitimate criticism of the BGCT. Note please that the various numbers about the BGCT plan that have been thrown out have been legitimately corrected in a comment in my previous post. For the sake of clarity, I will quote it here:
So the critiques are not quite accurate as they apply to GABC.
Moreover, as a former Texan, and a conservative, I can assure you that Texas Baptist politics are not quite as simplistic as you make them out to be, here. You say that GABC “voluntarily associates” with the BGCT. State association is still very complex in Texas. There are many conservatives within the BGCT and who have not participated in the breakaway of the SBTC. David Dykes is almost universally considered to be among them. There are many reasons, it would appear, that staying with the BGCT is more than a clear cut theological, or even cooperative, choice.
To reiterate: I think the BGCT has a terrible cooperative plan. I have long predicted (for almost ten years now) that leaders within the BGCT plan to create a national convention by inviting others from states outside of Texas to join them. This giving plan is telling of that, in my very humble opinion. Of course, I may be wrong. Nevertheless, the critique is aimed well at the BGCT and not so well at David Dykes or GABC. It is not dismissive.
Also, Baptist Press is the first to express the largess of GABC’s giving record beyond the release. Not bloggers.
I guess, for it to compute, you would have to be willing to accept that there may be true conservatives in the BGCT. If you can’t, then it won’t.
I think that this is an attempt to call David a Liberal without actually saying it and facing the retribution of Rogers family loyalists who would not suffer such fools lightly. In the SBC, they are legion.
Art Rogers
on Jun 7th, 2007
@ 12:03 pm:
By the way, the ratio that GABC is using, 67/33, is not much different than the giving plan in OK – 60/40. A point that I have also decried.
Geoff Baggett
on Jun 7th, 2007
@ 12:28 pm:
Point taken. Thanks for the extra info, Art.
It is, indeed, good to know a little more about David Dkyes and his church.
And know that I’m not part of any campaign to smear David … I care for him too much.
Besides, this is all just a big Rogers conspiracy, anyway. ;)
Art Rogers
on Jun 7th, 2007
@ 12:33 pm:
Indeed, a search of last year’s posts and comments would reveal that I claimed both David and Tim as long lost relatives. At the time, they both claimed me…
Paul Burleson
on Jun 7th, 2007
@ 1:57 pm:
Art,
With due respect to the nuances of definitions, statistics and the modus operandi in state or national entities, your observations in this post are very astute IMHO. Thanks for seeing and saying what we need to see and hear.
Randy
on Jun 7th, 2007
@ 3:25 pm:
Art,
My overall views would probably put me in the so called “Burleson Blogging Coalition.” though I have major disagreements with his view of the New Baptist Covenant and even some of his views of the BFM 2000. I think you are correct it is not some uniform group.
On the other hand you stated,
“If Ben Cole, for instance, reveals evidence of wrongdoing by Paige Patterson at the SWBTS report time, he is spewing vitriol as a personal vendetta rather than exposing truth that the SBC should hear.”
In all due respect though Baptist Blogger has not just exposed truth about the SBC (i do appreciate that) but has unfortuantely has engaged in personal attacks in calling “Dr. Patterson the “Fundamentalist Führer of the SBC” in a recent post as well as some other posts that go way over the line that I believe violate Biblical ethics. No, I don’t think saying it is sarcasm or lighten up should give such posts a pass. There is a right way and a wrong way and personal attacks on people is wrong and only distracts and discredits valid criticism of some SBC wrongs.
Art Rogers
on Jun 7th, 2007
@ 4:08 pm:
Randy,
My analysis of Bart putting a double bind on Ben – where he’s wrong no matter what he does – is not an attempt to exonerate all of his words or attitudes.
Tim Rogers
on Jun 7th, 2007
@ 9:43 pm:
Brother Art,
I still claim you and Brother David as family. I guess I am the black sheep, but as the Sledge Sisters sang; We are F-A-M-I-L-Y. I better stop, Sister Dorcas will join in with us.
Blessings,
Tim
Jim Champion
on Jun 7th, 2007
@ 10:36 pm:
Art
It is very hard to compare the BGCT to the breakaway SBTC. It is much easier for the breakaway convention to give at such a high percentage, they do not support nearly the breadth or depth of ministries that the BGCT supports including Baylor hospital, several colleges and seminaries, buckner benovlence, disaster relief and on and on. SBTC mainly plants churches – a worthy cause but not nearly the ministry provided by the BGCT.
Our church has stayed with the BGCT mainly due to the minsitries of the BGCT, although we continued with the 67/33 split (and give 10%)
Trey Roberson
on Jun 7th, 2007
@ 11:06 pm:
Being a longtime lurker with a small time blog, I have to agree with this post totally. There does seem to be a move to divide the SBC yet again for whatever reason. I deeply appreciate all the blogs for the info and the insight no matter the perspective. I do not agree with all that either “side” writes tho I lean heavily to the “S Burleson C” Please know I say that tongue in cheek. Here is what I see as a 46 year old SBC guy with 20 years around the various wars.
1. Ben is darned if he does…you know the rest. He provides great insight in his own style. I will let people decide about any personal attacks etc. If we arent intelligent enough to decipher what is what in his writing, we dont need to be reading blogs.
2. I have no idea why in the world thoughtful, spiritual people are deciding to go into attack mode lately. It hurts me to read people who are sold out to scripture say things about some of the “lesser issues.” I dont have a PPL…but I imagine some in my congregation do. We don’t sweat who does what to whom first in salvation as long as God does some saving. I lean toward the Calvinist approach but I sure dont want anyone who believes in “grace thru faith” to think I have all the answers.
3. If you go by the BGCT stuff, you are going to be way confused by its weirdness. I am BGCT but not happily so. We choose the 67/33 but I always say it is OUR money and we can do what we believe God leads us to do. There is NO way to really get a handle on the BGCT since it is a horse of a whole other color. Im not saying there isnt accountablity with GABC but dont look to the BGCT for all the answers.
4. Honestly, I am depressed by the tone of the conversations lately. I know some of the bloggers are not at each others throats but I wonder about some others. At one point my conservative friends believed the SBC had been saved from the “liberal drift.” Now the predictions of the drift seem to be coming true. They said at that time the SBC would split again because of not being able to handle doctrinal differences in how they are approached. I had real hope when Page was elected last year. Now I am just hoping when the dust settles in a week or so that there is the same vision to pull us together.
Trey Roberson
Debbie Kaufman
on Jun 8th, 2007
@ 12:57 am:
Trey: Remember that change takes time. Especially in an organization as large as we are. God is in control and able to do more than we even ask. Next year will be even more important than this years Convention. Hang in there and give it time. Don’t give up yet.
Bubba Sims
on Jun 8th, 2007
@ 7:09 am:
Art,
While I plan to vote for an IMB missionary for first VP, remember that Green Acres BC has a choice. They could very easily change the way thier CP giving is designated by changing thier affiliation. Most states offer no such choice to missions minded churches.
Also the first blogger coalition I heard mentioned was when Wade offered to have some buttons made for Bart and friends that said “Barber Blogger Coalition.” I don’t remeber the particular thread but you can find that exchange on Bart’s blog. What I am saying is that in all fairness, Wade may have started that.
Bubba
Art Rogers
on Jun 8th, 2007
@ 7:41 am:
Bubba,
Please don’t take this harshly, but you’re wrong and you’re wrong.
For a church that has been affiliated with the BGCT for so many years, simply “switching” state conventions is an oxymoron. You don’t switch folks out of their traditions easily, no matter if they are state convention alliances or Sunday morning worship styles. Your assessment is reductionistic, I’m afraid.
And the BBC stuff started with a certain blogger on “their side.” Wade was pushing back against the constant libelous insinuations of a certain blogger. I’ll stop there as not to say something I regret.
Bubba Sims
on Jun 8th, 2007
@ 7:49 am:
It would seem perhaps that your tensions are rising as well;-)
Bubba
Art Rogers
on Jun 8th, 2007
@ 8:18 am:
Actually, not at all. I am more at peace today than I have been for several weeks.
Replying to a mistaken statement is not stressful to me. Regular readers of my blog could assure you that if I were tense over what you said, you would have gotten a much stronger answer.
Thanks for asking, though.
Randy
on Jun 8th, 2007
@ 8:30 am:
Trey,
Style or sarcasm has nothing to do we it. Referring to the President of Southwestern Seminary as the “Fundamentalist Führer of the SBC” is way out of bounds and only discredits valid criticism. More than that it is Unchristian and lowers us to the standards of the world.
In all fairness there has been way to much politics from both sides the last few weeks. The SBC convention this year sounds more like the GOP or Democrat Convention rather than a gathering of messengers from New Testament Churches coming to take care of the Lord’s business.
Art Rogers
on Jun 8th, 2007
@ 8:46 am:
Randy,
I agree with your second paragraph whole heartedly.
The first paragraph I differ in that I think anyoneals words that are “over the line” discredit the speaker, if they truly are over the line, but not the argument.
Cyle
on Jun 8th, 2007
@ 9:55 am:
I’ve been invited into the backrooms on both sides of the power struggle issues and have declined the invitation. It is difficult for me to remain focused on the task at hand, the two Greats (the commission and the command). It is time-consuming to be a child of God, a father, pastor, hopice chaplain, baseball coach, counselor and writer. I only have so much energy and ability. I find that I make a much greater impact here in my small church in my small community in my small state than I do on the world stage, or the SBC platform. I always feel as if I need a few more hours in the day anyway. Every time I think I’m going to get involved in politics or denominational politics or some new hobby, someone dies or has an affair or needs a baseball coach. I used to see those things as distractions. Now I see them as ministry, and much of the rest (a.k.a., the struggles of the SBC, etc.) as distraction. So, when I volunteered to serve on my state’s executive committee, I was declined. Honestly, I’m kinda glad. Something more important would have come up anyway. There was life before the SBC and there will be life after.
Randy
on Jun 8th, 2007
@ 1:20 pm:
Hi Art,
I agree with you. Forgive me for not stating myself more clearly. What I was trying to say is that many will use the speaker’s over the line comments (in a unfair manner) to discredit valid arguments that he makes. Never the less as you stated the argument remains true. Hope I made that clear.
Trey Roberson
on Jun 8th, 2007
@ 2:22 pm:
Greetings all…
I sometimes write in vague terms so I apologize for that. I am not…discouraged per say as much as I was alarmed at the changes of tone lately. It seemed that people who love God and His word were slipping into major quarrels over minor quibbels( or is that tribbles?) I agree that an overall look at the tone projected in words etc be taken by this SBC blogdom. My personality is not of the aggressive side but some folks are. Like I tell my congregation, the greatest lie I know is the ones about sticks and stones…words do hurt! Last, as several point out, you cannot compare BGCT with SBCT etc. Personally, I really do like the SBTC approach to the CP. It may be in our next round of budget talks that we choose to do our BGCT in a whole other fashion than the old plan. Travel safe! Pack clothes for the heat! Look out for rabid Spurs fans!
Trey
Bubba Sims
on Jun 8th, 2007
@ 8:21 pm:
Art,
I will not beat a dead horse, and I am not your enemy however as I understand it the SBCTC is barely 9 years old and claims a membership of around 1900 churches. Reductionistic? or just getting it done? I don’t personally know anyone in either texas convention, I’m just making an observation that maybe you dismissed my statement a little to easily.
Bubba
Art Rogers
on Jun 8th, 2007
@ 9:28 pm:
Bubba,
I’m not your enemy either, and I appreciate the word. However, as you say – you don’t know anyone in either convention. I grew up in Texas and went to Seminary at SWBTS. Paul Pressler preached often at my home church and we sent him, as an honorary member, as our messenger to the ’79 convention. Everyone remembers that one, I’m sure. On top of that, I have dealt with the dual convention issue in dealing with search committees from Texas before finally moving to my current church.
I grew up knowing people on both sides and I have friends in both conventions right now.
All of that to say, I can speak with some authority and not in a dismissive way, when I say that saying a church has two options and any Texas church could “just choose” one or the other is a reduction of the complexities of SBC politics in Texas.
People who were raised in the BGCT are sometimes fiercely loyal to their traditional Texas heritage. There are, of course, those in every BGCT church laity that percieve the SBTC as spoil sports, who couldn’t win control of the BGCT throughout the Resurgence – remember that Texas was the first to experience the loss of its institutions in the 80′s, starting with Baylor, in an effort to keep just that from happening.
All of this includes the vicious rhetoric and ruined careers on both sides.
I know true conservative inerrantists within the BGCT who won’t say the “i” word nor join the SBTC because some of that number (and I recognize that this happened on both sides) were brutally ungodly in the pursuit of politics.
So, I can assure you that I haven’t been dismissive of you, but I wonder if you haven’t been dismissive of me.
Trey Roberson
on Jun 8th, 2007
@ 9:41 pm:
Art and Bubba,
Ok, that sounds like a seafood place. Anyway, I am in Texas and I think you are both right in your own ways. Like I said, this whole BGCT/SBTC thing is a horse of a whole other color. I have friends on both sides who all believe in the Scripture as any “I” word you wish to use. That really isn’t the whole issue any longer here. I could go on and on but the main point is that those of us in Texas don’t always understand what is going on. I personally am no big fan of the BGCT tho my church opted to remain while giving the “conservative” amount. We do not support the usual stuff associated with the BGCT that is extra. I have been to a meeting or two with the SBTC but it is not the answer in and of itself either. Anyway, as a Texan, my suggestion is to let this part of the discussion go because you cannot even find a common ground between the two conventions to start a discussion. It is complex to the point of being nonsensical. Trust me, you will sleep better not trying to figure it out. Just my two cents worth from here in the Lone Star State.
Trey
Art Rogers
on Jun 9th, 2007
@ 5:24 am:
Trey,
I thought that’s what I was saying… :)
Gary May
on Jun 9th, 2007
@ 2:42 pm:
Art,
I offer my apologies. I have used the burleson coalition phrase not realizing it would be offensive to anyone. This comment string is interesting to me because I am in Texas, born and raised. The first State convention I attended was Amarillo in 94 when the CP was changed. I vowed never to attend another convention as long as I lived. My marriage vows have lasted almost 30 years yet my convention vows lasted only 4. My next convention was when the BTCT limited its funds to our seminaries.
When I see a group of folks getting together to write resolutions, decide on candidates, and secure a block of rooms for a convention, it looks like politics. The labels will stick if the actions warrant. I appreciate your spirit while I remind you that those who enter the realm where you and others are treading requires a strong stomach, a level head, and a secure spirit.
Someone mentioned all the ministries of the BGCT including its seminaries. For the record, the BGCT did not start those seminaries. Baylor started its own as did Logsdon. After they were started, they came to the BGCT asking for financial assistance. That my friend, is Texas Baptist politics.
Bubba Sims
on Jun 9th, 2007
@ 4:09 pm:
Thanks for the explanation of your thoughts Art. I think that this kind of dialouge is healthy. The SC convention talked about upping our SBC percentage to 50% a couple of years ago but, all of the big church pastors on the study cmtte that suggested this change belonged to churches that gave very little % to CP themselves. That is ultimately why the change didn’t happen. However, we are looking forward to the leadershp of Dr Jim Austin (our new Exec Dir) in the coming years. We fly out at 9:00 Sunday morning. May God be glorified in our meeting.
Bubba