I shake my head at the constant back and forth going on in the blogosphere and in the the real world concerning the adoption of the EC report concerning the BFM and the agencies and entities of the convention.
Whatever you do, don’t bother arguing your interpretation of that statement here. I’ll delete it.
It is obvious that however you choose to interpret the statement, your interpretation is almost certainly governed by your predisposition. What is it you want it to say? More than likely, that’s what you interpret it to say.
Into this broiling confusion and heightened tension the Southern Baptist Convention has now been thrown. Are we to relive the “wars” of slander and abuse of yesteryear, where the ends justify the means? It seems that there may now be no other alternative.
Aside from walking away.
It further amazes me that so many have now begun to decry the use of parliamentary procedure and coordination as “unchristian.” Really? Where were you when I published the SBC Primer last year? Did you decry the coordination of questions for the SWBTS report? Do you decry Bart Barber seeking and receiving advice from Ben Cole on how to get the Seminary Professors’ Salary study to the floor of the convention? Did you decry the use of the same system by those leading the Conservative Resurgence? It seems that the problem with using parliamentary procedure only occurs when it is used to accomplish something that is not well received by the complainer.
Does everyone realize that the Committee on Resolutions had numerous opportunities to bring a statement to the floor of the convention that dealt with the issues at hand in one way or another, but chose not to do so? Using the system that we have, the convention was denied the opportunity to speak to the issue in any other way.
Still, I am amazed at the comments that I have seen that said we should have simply made the motion to the convention as it stands. Hello? Many did, from both sides. The Committee on Resolutions denied the resolutions. You know what happens then. Look at Tom Ascol’s Resolution on Integrity in Reporting – a resolution on integrity that was voted down by 1/2 of the convention present. If the CoR chooses not to bring something out and chooses to speak against bringing that resolution out – despite the fact that they have yet to produce a credible reason for not bringing it out: 2006, our church members are prospects; 2007, resolutions interfere with autonomy – then it will not make it to the floor, no matter how good it is, no matter how much the SBC needs to address it, no matter how many Southern Baptists know and understand the issue.
Too many simply do what they are told, and that is THE problem. We are not a top-down organization, but we are often run that way and many among us like it that way.
The only other way to get the issue to the floor of the convention was to adopt the report. It was not out of order, or it would have been ruled so and easily dismissed. It could not be referred, or it would have been referred. It needed to come to the floor and it did.
Now then, having adopted a report that everyone understands the way they choose to understand it; having come to the point of turmoil; having entered into the point where “Christian brothers” have threatened physical harm and verbally taunted those who sought to bring this to the floor of the convention…
How have we come to this?
Many would love to point to me, Marty Duren and others as the source of our mutual discontent. Still others would like to point to the so called “mastermind” behind it all, Ben Cole. More would like to point to Wade Burleson as the dissenting voice of the IMB who took his concern to the blogosphere.
I would say that these men, we all, have personal motivations and desires from which our actions have stemmed, but personal advancement and throwing the convention into confusion and disarray were not ever among them.
Rather, for most of us, we have willingly sacrificed our reputations for the sake of REACTING to restrictive policies that we believe are beyond the bounds of clearly articulated Biblical doctrine.
If the policies of restriction weren’t created and enforced among our entities and institutions, then there would have been no reason for us to address them, either on blogs or on the floor of the convention. Let us not forget, either, that the ad hoc committee report from the IMB cited that there were NO systemic issues on the field that these guidelines, as they are now called, addressed. They exist for whatever reasons their authors created them, but a specific problem on the field is not among them.
I would warrant that the same would be true for NAMB and SWBTS, if a study were done. There were no systemic issues left unaddressed. Pointing to Dwight McKissic? Don’t you think that pulling the video of his sermon and the subsequent statements of the President of SWBTS significantly addressed that issue?
We are here because we have been pushed by people seeking to create and enforce rules that were never necessary and have alienated many in the convention. What their motivations may be, whether they are sincerely worried about Pentecostal theology, desiring to ensure the longevity of their theological viewpoint or seeking to undermine our IMB President, I can not say with certainty, though I obviously have my suspicions.
Nevertheless, we are here, not because some of us have pushed, but because we have pushed back.
In so doing, we have revealed a schism so deep that the Southern Baptist Convention may not be able to reconcile without a specific move of God that will bring genuine repentance to EVERYONE in the entire convention process.
If people now lament the situation in which we now find ourselves, then we can all certainly point the finger and find a guilty party, no matter where that finger aims.
In the end though, I think that those Trustees at all three of our entities who have pressed the issue despite their being no real need for it, have to look in the mirror and ask themselves if the state of confusion, acrymony and division was the fulfillment of their fiduciary responsibilities to the Southern Baptist Convention.
Or was it something else?
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Bart Barber
on Jun 18th, 2007
@ 10:39 am:
Art,
1. Ben volunteered advice; I didn’t seek it. I also didn’t use it. I don’t believe that it would have worked, either. But I do greatly appreciate Ben’s willingness to assist. The fact that my motion was ruled out of order is a function of the “people doing what they’re told” factor.
2. Political involvement is a sign of active interest in the convention. Be proud of being involved.
3. Anyone physically threatening anyone else is wrong for doing so.
4. The EC statement is vague—that’s why it is being interpreted so many ways.
5. Our polity will sort all of this out, eventually.
Paul Burleson
on Jun 18th, 2007
@ 11:28 am:
Art,
I read one who says something that I think is the finest view spoken to date. Then I read another whose words I would elevate to the level of the best thing said. Then I read another…ditto. Now I’ve read your’s…de-ja vu all over again. :)
For what it’s worth, I too believe we will survive this, but, as usual, many pay a price where the pain won’t go away for years to come. I find that disheartening as one who is a brother to those who are hurt by it all. I wish we would take a higher road to accomplish Kingdom stuff than one that separates people who are Kingdom kids. I know that’s your longing too.
Emily Hunter McGowin
on Jun 18th, 2007
@ 2:53 pm:
I share your dismay at the feeding frenzy that has exploded on the blogosphere post-convention. Although I have not commented on any of the pertinent blogs except one, I admit to being one of many messengers who are happy to present my “spin” on things. Increasingly, I feel uneasy with and out of place in the convention I have called home since my baptism.
I do not have the positions or responsibilities of you, Wade, Marty, and others in SBC life. So, for whatever its worth, thanks for being willing to become a target and an object of attack as you “push back” against business as usual in the SBC. In so doing, you represented the concerns of many “little guys” like me. Thank you.
I share your belief that no one but the Almighty will be able to loose the tight knots into which we have tied ourselves in the past 20 years. I agree that the path to freedom begins with repentance by all. It is in this direction that I will pray, both for myself and for all cooperating churches and leaders.
Thanks again, Art.
Grace and peace,
Emily
Tim Rogers
on Jun 18th, 2007
@ 3:32 pm:
Brother Art,
Would you not agree that Dr. Chapman threw down the gauntlet in his first EC time with his statement; “”Any practice instituted by an entity in the Southern Baptist Convention that has the force of doctrine should be in accord with the Baptist Faith & Message and not exceed its boundaries unless and until it has been approved”? This statement came before the vote and it most definitely came before the decision on what to do with the motion was reported. By him making that statement when he did, would one not see that as him desiring to have any doctrinal decisions by the trustees of the entities to be approved by the EC? I know that the implication is the convention must approve it, but the EC acts as the convention between the annual meetings.
Also, I know others may disagree with me, but I would have probably done the same thing that you did when the microphone was opened and I was asked whether I was speaking for or against the motion. While I understand the queue probably had that microphone first in the “against” column, I feel it was the job of the Moderator to ask if there was one there to speak against the motion. I personally cannot place too much blame on the Mic Monitor because the monitors were students–some at their first convention. I know that I spoke to one Mic Monitor and he was a student from Germany, so parliamentary procedures would probably not be his strong point.
At any rate, I am not here to argue the EC Statement, but I, like Brother Bart, believe that “our polity will sort all of this out, eventually”. It was good to see you at the convention. I do not know if I was able to introduce you to your other cousins–my wife and daughter. :>)
Blessings,
Tim
Art Rogers
on Jun 18th, 2007
@ 3:41 pm:
Tim,
I did meet your family – God has blessed you. Your daughter is precious and your wife lovely.
I would not agree that Dr. Chapman “threw down the gauntlet.” Rather, the article above indicates that we were “pushing back” from the place where we were pushed first. I think Dr. C was pushing back.
We wouldn’t be here if we weren’t in the middle of a restriction fiesta aimed at issues that were not systemic.
Bart,
I was told you asked Ben for help, but it matters not. That it was offered was the point.
If you had used the advice given, perhaps you might have been more successful. :)
Emily & Paul,
Thanks for your words.
Bart Barber
on Jun 18th, 2007
@ 4:07 pm:
Art,
Eventually, one of two things will happen with regard to the salaries of professors:
1. I will be successful, or
2. Jesus will come back first. :-)
volfan007
on Jun 18th, 2007
@ 4:28 pm:
art,
do you realize that you have posted three posts about the sbc after stating that you were done….end game….with posting about the sbc? :) hard to get away from it, aint it?
david :)
ps. the ec statement was too vague. thus, all the confusion during the voting and afterwards. also, the church discipline…regenerate church membership… resolution was voted down because tom ascol presented it. if someone else had presented it, i beleive that it would have passed. i think people were reacting to tom and the founders crowd on this one.
Debbie Kaufman
on Jun 18th, 2007
@ 6:43 pm:
Paul said “many pay a price where the pain won’t go away for years to come.” This is the part that bothers me most. Art, I have only meant you once but you are a good man who tired to do a good thing at great sacrifice. I for one am grateful that you had the deep conviction to do this. It wasn’t easy and you did well. Thank you.
Bob Cleveland
on Jun 18th, 2007
@ 8:13 pm:
Was it something else?
How about God, cleaning up the bride of Christ, in preparation for the marriage feast. Which would involve the gauntlet of making us choose whom we will serve.
Art Rogers
on Jun 18th, 2007
@ 8:30 pm:
David (Volfan007),
No, it’s not hard to leave. If you read the “End Game” post carefully, you will find that I said I would cover the convention for about two weeks after that post. It ends tomorrow (Tuesday), ten days earlier than promised.
Interesting that you think that Tom is the reason that the resolution was declined.
Alyce was at the door and said that she thought that the convention, or at least half of it, chose to lie about our size, seeking to carry the 16.3 Million number as our banner.
I originally thought that several misunderstood that resolutions can’t interfere with autonomy. Maybe Alyce was right.
David Troublefield
on Jun 18th, 2007
@ 9:00 pm:
Art:
I know it’s 2 days and counting, but I wish you’d reconsider your decision about blogging as you have in regard to SBC happenings. I read 4 blogsites daily: yours, Marty’s, Wade’s, and Ben’s; on occasion, I read another if reference is made to it by one of these four. I’ve been benefitted greatly by what you’ve had to say–though I understand that to maintain the frequency of contributions you have is very difficult and blogging replies is challenging (so maybe a once-weekly SBC happenings post, with replies by assigned bloggers?). You’ve got momentum–and good insight; “. . . to whom shall we go? . . .” (John 6:68)
Think about it–again, OK?
GeneMBridges
on Jun 18th, 2007
@ 9:20 pm:
Yes, its fascinating to see how the resolutions process works. It is equally fascinating to watch folks call a motion “vague.” One wonders how it was “vague” when they were openly opposing it before. Apparently, it was too vague to pass but clear enough to oppose. Fascinating indeed.
That said, how about us beating our swords into plowshares for something I think we can all, or at least, most of us, can agree upon?
Since Triablogue isn’t listed on the link section of most of the Baptist blogs, I thought I’d pass this along in hopes you (and others) will link folks to it to generate some traffic and “get the word out.”
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/06/regenerate-church-membership-integrity.html
Tim Sweatman
on Jun 18th, 2007
@ 11:27 pm:
Art,
I’m still trying to figure out my take on how the convention went (difficult to do from afar), but my initial impression is that I’m going to need to look to you, Marty, and others who are focusing on a more widespread missional movement for some practical ideas about establishing new partnerships and avenues of cooperation because it appears that the day may be coming (sooner than later) when the SBC is no longer a viable facilitator of cooperation for people like me. After the events of San Antonio, I have very little confidence that any meaningful positive reform will come about. If people like you and Marty—who have invested so much of yourselves in the cause of reform—no longer feel the burden to keep carrying the banner, how likely is it that those who have been further from the center of the action will choose to engage the struggle? I’m hoping that you know something that I don’t that gives you reason to believe that the reform movement can bring needed change to the SBC, but I tend to think that you, Marty, and others who are distancing yourselves from these issues have decided that the effort to reform the SBC will require your families, your churches, and yourselves to sacrifice more than it is worth and that, in the end, there are more productive ways to carry out the work of the Kingdom than playing denominational politics.
Bart Barber
on Jun 19th, 2007
@ 2:13 am:
Gene,
With respect to me, you do err. I voted in favor of the motion.
Debbie Kaufman
on Jun 19th, 2007
@ 6:30 am:
That’s the only thing I disagree with you on Art. They are not supposed to interfere with autonomy, but they carry a lot more weight than that. Resolutions can interfere with autonomy. Take the Disney boycott for example. Those who voiced the fact that they did not participate in it got pummeled. It can be used as a binding thing, even though officially it is not.
Debbie Kaufman
on Jun 19th, 2007
@ 7:25 am:
Volf: Tom is not the reason this resolution was declined. He is deservedly respected for his integrity and he does have a heart for these matters.
Kevin Bussey
on Jun 19th, 2007
@ 8:03 am:
Art,
We’ve talked about this before. Get out while there is still time and you still have passion. This system is broken. I appreciate your heart. I believe God can do great things with those of us who are more interested in ministry and less interested in positions. Tim S., as usual has wisdom in his comment.
Debbie Kaufman
on Jun 19th, 2007
@ 8:54 am:
I do have a sincere question. What happens to our seminaries ,our missionaries if the SBC does dissolve or people such you Art, Kevin, Marty give up on changing the SBC as it is now and possibly will be for years longer?
volfan007
on Jun 19th, 2007
@ 9:08 am:
art and debbie,
there are more people than yall realize who out here who dont like the founders type calvinists. they look upon it as extreme calvinism, and they see it as a danger to the heart of the sbc. tom ascol is the head of the founders, and many, many people know that. i really do think that the resolution was not passed again this year due to tom presenting it. i think if jimmy draper, or robin foster, or alcyle, or if some guy that we’ve never heard of presented it, then it very possibly would have passed.
but, then again, these are just the simple thoughts of a simple man out here in the small town of the usa. :)
david
cb scott
on Jun 19th, 2007
@ 9:48 am:
Debbie,
Our institutions have trustworthy people in places of leadership. They are capable and able to do what needs to be done to keep our institutions on focus as to their mission. Several leaders spoke very well to their intentions and goals to do just that.
Some issues have been brought to the attention of the SBC. In God’s good time those issues will be properly taken care of as the Lord brings about change.
cb
Steve Austin
on Jun 19th, 2007
@ 10:18 am:
Are those who were dismayed by the disunity on display In San Antonio really going to have their hearts broken by the time we have met in Louisville, John Calvin’s new home? Will those who see value in this hallowed institution be able to rescue/preserve/enliven it after the fiefdom-builders of Fort Worth, Nashville, & Washington D.C. have done their damage? Will The Holy Spirit lead the CR spoils-takers to step toward cooperation and sharing instead? Will leadership come from former SBC Presidents who have seen where we’ve been and where we are heading in time? Will HE decide He’s given us enough time already?
Art Rogers
on Jun 19th, 2007
@ 10:18 am:
Debbie,
I would add a couple of comments to CB’s answer.
First, others will pick up the banner. If it is led be a handful of bloggers, it will not be sustained. The truth is that the mass of the SBC is not in lockstep with anyone and this is a grassroots movement. All of us were and are simple pastors with no platform for influence in the SBC – we are on no boards nor committees – but our ideas and the internet.
There are so many more out there with the same heart and access. Trust me. You will not be left in the dark.
Secondly, the missionary sending force of the SBC is not in jeopardy because we, specifically, are not pushing back. They are in jeopardy because influential men and women have put them there of their own accord and from their own motives. This is the point of the article above.
Besides those two things, if the SBC cannot survive this and be put right, then it should not survive this and should be put down. That, of course, is in the Lord’s hands, and not mine.
I am not leaving the SBC. I am merely turning my blog away from constant theopolitical analysis. There is a difference.
If you really want the missionary force to thrive, pray. God can do what we can not.
Hang in there.
Kevin Bussey
on Jun 19th, 2007
@ 10:54 am:
Debbie,
I’ll tell you how I plan to change the SBC. I am sitting in a US Air flight headed to spend time with a pastor who has worked around the contoversy. I plan to work with David Phillips, Art, Alan Cross, Marty, Wade & others who want to partner to do minisrty & missions. I plan to enroll @ SEBTS To get my D.Min. I will strive to move our church towards doing missions more than just giving.
cb scott
on Jun 19th, 2007
@ 12:12 pm:
Kevin B.
Good plan; A church doing ministry and missions. Maybe others will join you. SEBTS will help you put it together. God will empower it to be.
cb
Debbie Kaufman
on Jun 19th, 2007
@ 1:49 pm:
Thank you you all for answering. I definitely will be praying because you are right in that God can do what we cannot. I have been since all of this came to my attention. Know that I support you no matter where God leads you and I do respect this decision. In fact you may be the wiser ones who will lead churches on how missions can be done. :)
Art Rogers
on Jun 19th, 2007
@ 2:55 pm:
All due respect, David, your perception is what it is.
The reason that the resolution did not come to the floor and pass is because the CoR did not offer it and argued (lamely) against it when Tom asked for it to come out.
That’s the top-down aspect of the convention I mentioned earlier that so many love, in spite of talking and arguing against it.
cb scott
on Jun 19th, 2007
@ 3:45 pm:
Vol,
Have you ever thought about joining the FFL? They are always looking for good men and they send you to wonderful and exotic places.
cb
volfan007
on Jun 20th, 2007
@ 9:13 am:
cb,
i dont even know what an ffl is?
david
Art Rogers
on Jun 20th, 2007
@ 11:00 am:
Vol,
French Foreign Legion.
cb scott
on Jun 20th, 2007
@ 1:33 pm:
Vol,
:-) ;-> :-0 :-)
cb