Comments on: Spinning Morris Chapman

By: Trey Roberson

Trey Roberson — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:57:07 +0000

Guys,

You are right on target. This is no more than an unexpected use of the same powers of the mid 80s. I wrote a longer piece over at the outhouse…oops, outpost. (tongue firmly in cheek) I figure some humor might be needed about now. Watch and see how this motion is used/spun/ignored by the same ones who used this same power back then to gain the resurgence. Anyone who blogs or is regular posters on the blogs in support of “reform” should watch to see how it goes. Did we need resurgence? Yes. Do we need reform? Yes. Just be ready to stay at it for 10 years if needed. Doing a great job with the info. I thank you.

Trey

By: Tim Dahl

Tim Dahl — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:50:18 +0000

Art,

Something to remember, the Patterson/Pressler/Mohler crowd formulated and stuck to a 14 year plan to take over the convention. It was strategic. It was political. It was decimating to anyone that stood in their way… They really did take no prisoners.

Be careful. You guys have their ire up…

Oh, and we can’t watch what happened on Tuesday yet. It hasn’t been archived, as of 3:30pm on Wednesday…though, we can watch Monday’s Pastor’s Conference.

Tim

By: Art Rogers

Art Rogers — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:57:24 +0000

Let no one be deceived. This is not an overnight fix. This is a long term issue that has yet to be decided. We’ll know in a few years if victory is a possibility, but there is no way of predicting it now. It will take a while, but it is now up to the leadership of the convention to fight it out. Frankly, it is beyond most of us at this point.

By: Les Puryear

Les Puryear — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:51:41 +0000

Art,

It breaks my heart to see SBC leaders try to hijack the BFM motion and Dr. Chapman’s message. I thought they were above that. Guess who’s eyes are wide open now?

Les

By: gadfly

gadfly — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:23:50 +0000

Conservatives typically argue that legal texts
should be interpreted by ‘strict construction’
of the text according to the ‘orginal intent’ of
the authors. They typically condemn interpreta-
tions that may (or may not) be consistent with
the wording of a text, but are inconsistent with
the authorial intent and meaning of the text.

It seems to be very clear what the Executive Board and Dr. Chapman intended / meant by the wording of the resolution. It was clear last night to both proponents and opponents. It seemed clear today to Dr. Mohler – hence his disagreement and opposition
to the Convention’s action in accepting the resolution.

Those who argue that the resolution does not
mean (for them!) what Dr. Chapman said it meant
and what the vast marority last night (on both
sides!)understood it to mean are being disen-
genuous. They would never accept such an
interpretive philosophy applied to the Bible or
to the Constitution.

Those seminary presidents who may ignore this
action of the Convention in their adminstration
of SBC institutions are doing exactly what it
was claimed “liberal” seminary presidentds were
doing prior to the ‘Conservative (&Fundamentalist) Resurgence!’

By: Gregory Pittman

Gregory Pittman — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:43:36 +0000

Yes, they had the same afternoon break in Greensboro. Although in Greensboro there’s not much to do with that time. In San Antonio, there is much to do. In fact, if I were there, I would have a hard time choosing whether to attend the convention sessions or spend time in the city. :-)

By: Brian Hamrick

Brian Hamrick — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:40:14 +0000

Is there a reason there is a break all afternoon on Wednesday? I don’t remember that format in Greensboro…. but maybe they had it

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:25:14 +0000

Who was special guest yesterday? Or today? President Bush?

By: Karen Scott

Karen Scott — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 12:15:35 +0000

Brother Art,

Amen!