Now, I don’t want to ascribe any motives, so let me here and now disclaim any knowledge of Dr. Floyd’s thoughts on the subject. It does, however, strike me as odd that anyone anywhere would assume that beer would not be sold at a ballpark. Once again, I state plainly that I don’t drink and do not enjoy being around those who drink too much – people often found at a ballpark.

My curiosity is further peaked by the recent resolution on Alcohol where Southern Baptists “resolved” the following:

Resolved, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina, June 13-24, 2006, express our total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages;

With the amendment to this resolution concerning leadership within the convention that also passing, it would seem Ronnie had no choice if he were desirous of representing Southern Baptists in accordance with our recent resolution on alcohol.

He certainly had no choice but to pull his endorsement if he ever hoped to serve in elected office seeing as how his CP giving record hurt him so badly last time. Directly disobeying an overwhelming resolution would certainly disqualify him.

You can read the Democrat Gazette news story:

Springdale : Pastor retracts stadium OK over beer sales

[HT: ARB]

[update]

Dr. Floyd clarifies his position concerning the ballpark and alcohol

[/update]

Comments

• June 22, 2006, Bro. Tim writes: Ok, this is so sad that it is almost funny. Who in their right minds wouldn't think that they would sell beer at a ballpark? Can't you hear the guys in the background: "Cooold Beer! Get yer ice cold beer, right here!" The sad thing is that he is being forced to change his endorsement because of denominational politics. I'm sure that the initial reasons he was "for" the ballpark are still valid. But, denominational power is very real. Tim
• June 22, 2006, dave woodbury writes: I remember when I was on staff at a mega-church we wanted to rent the local NHL arena for our Easter Sunday morning service. Of course, there were beer advertisements everywhere in the arena. One of the first questions from the senior pastor as we toured the facility was if we could cover up the beer signs. He was told the we could not. To his credit, we still went ahead and celebrated Easter Sunday with Budweiser signs bathing us in their warm glow. I was still confused as to how we were ever gonna cover all those signs. I wonder in this case why it was okay to endorse it when all manner of other sins might be committed there, but beer was the deal breaker. Dave
• June 22, 2006, Rod writes: I do a lot of stupid things that I don't think through until later. Isn't it possible that the lightbulb finally clicked on at Springdale? That someone finally got off the "support our community" bandwagon and saw a flaw in their support? Which might be more costly? Keeping support of the ballpark and suffering the possible wrath of SBC abstinencists or recanting the support and suffering Springdale ridicule? I think I'm leaning toward the latter. Aren't we in a season of SBC life where we need to cut each other an enormous amount of slack and give a heaping of grace?
• June 22, 2006, Adam writes: Art, This is the first time I have been to your blog. I was somewhat taken back by you choosing to comment on this subject. Give Dr. Floyd a break! It’s hard to see the relevance of pointing this out. Now I don’t want to ascribe any motives to why you posted this, but let me say that I think this appears that you are trying to kick Dr. Floyd when he is down. You played your part in not seeing him elected president. But Greensboro is over. You said, “It does, however, strike me as odd that anyone anywhere would assume that beer would not be sold at a ballpark.” Yet the article that you referenced states: “At the time we stated our support we were unaware that alcohol would be sold at the park,” Floyd wrote this week in an e-mail to Virginia Pozza. “Our support will be withdrawn from any action that would place the sale of alcohol in a family-oriented environment.” Later Alan Damron, associate pastor of strategic communications, stated: “This is not some vision he’s had as of lately. He’s always been against that. He definitely does not support the sale of beer.” Springdale Alderman Mike Overton added: “Now it appears that Mr. Floyd hasn’t been told the whole truth…” I’m not sure if Overton is a Christian or not, but I find it interesting that he gives Dr. Floyd the benefit of the doubt. In reading your blog, it seems as if you don’t. As brothers in Christ, when Dr. Floyd claims he did not know that there would be beer sold, we should believe him. And let’s not jump to the conclusion that he has ulterior motives in the choice he made. I know you claim to not be judging his motives, but the fact that you put this on your blog contradicts that entirely. God bless!
• June 22, 2006, art rogers writes: The truth is, Adam, I am not trying to kick him when he is down. I never endorsed any of the three candidates, and was on the bubble until the day before the election as to the person I would give my vote. I was not, though, considering Floyd as an option - full disclosure. I do think it is odd that Dr. Floyd thought that beer would not be sold at a ballpark. That's just myopic. I do suspect that he is responding to the aforementioned resolution. I have a right to that opinion. Sorry if you disagree. I don't think its bad to respond to that resolution, either. Just say that is what you are doing. It just makes mroe sense. I do have a hard time giving him the benefit of the doubt on this, though. Unless someone said that there would not be beer, why would anybody assume there wouldn't be? If they did tell him that, why hasn't he called them out for lying to him? Because it never happened. The timing of it is just wierd. As for "we should believe him," you should feel free. I don't and you are, of course welcome to dissent. We like dissent here. As for the topic of choice, if this surprises you, you must be new. Hey, if you don't like this, whatever you do, don't go to Arkansas Razor Baptist's site You'll have a stroke. Baptist Blogger will kill you dead. Villa Rica will entertain you until you figure out the analogy. God Bless you, too.
• June 22, 2006, tim rogers writes: Brother Art, Sorry for the dissent, but I too find it strange that this is something that has the bloggers razing their keyboards place their questioning key strokes. What is the big deal? He found out they sold beer at the facility. I live in a dry county and they do not sell beer at the professional baseball stadium here. Also, don't you think you need to cut Adam some slack? If he is new do not feed him to the rabid pit bull named Baptist Blogger, nor to the charming cobra named Villa Rica.
• June 22, 2006, art rogers writes: Tim, You may be right about the dry county thing. I just found out it was a dry county, so all that I posted before is put into new perspective for me. It does seem more plausible that he really didn't know. Having said that, Adam may be new, but he didn't pull any punches with me. He's in the deep end of the pool and seems like he's swimming fine to me. You, however, I have a problem with. The way you describe BB and VR is at least as inappropriate as anything I've said about Floyd - ever. The "pit bull" and "charming cobra" tags are offensive to me. I think you are wrong in your estimation of them, but that is beside the point. How would you react if I said "[somebody] is a filthy swine" or "a disobedient dog." That stuff is a character assault and not an evaluation of actions. Not cool.
• June 22, 2006, jgsy3kids writes: Let's not forget that we'll now be watching to see who attends movies at theaters that serve alcohol. Forget going to eat at many restaurants because they serve alcohol...and renting stadiums with alcohol advertisements visible. This new resolution is ludicrous! Next it will be something else... I guess Jesus was wrong for hanging out in areas where sinners congregated... I guess my husband can't go to the local buddhist temple anymore to share with people. (These are the people in our community that are most openly seeking something else. These are the people in our community that want to talk about spiritual things.) Good heavens, someone might think that he wants to be Buddhist! Mark 7:5-8 So the Parisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradion of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?". He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain, their teachings are but rules taught by men.' You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the tradtions of men" (This is in no way directed towards Ronnie Floyd; but instead toward this resolution and those who passed it!) It seems that the SBC has decided that it's important to 'appear' righteous and that man's traditions outweigh God's Word. jenni
• June 22, 2006, Arkansas Razorbaptist writes: Art, We actually don't mind Coach Floyd's position. Benton County is a dry county, for those of you not from the South, that means no alcohol sales. Benton County is the county where the stadium is being proposed. So I'm not surprised that Coach didn't know brews would be sold.
• June 23, 2006, Jeff Richard Young writes: Dear Brother Art, You have given voice to the same things I have believed for months now, but the last couple things you've posted have just seemed like you're out to get someone, anyone who is in range. You ragged on the pastors' wives' meetings, and now you have pounced on Coach Floyd for not thinking that beer would be sold in a dry county. Are you getting caught up in the fighting spirit? Written with MUCH LOVE, Jeff
• June 23, 2006, tim rogers writes: Brother Art, Sorry that you "have a problem" with me. You then call me into question for what you call "character assualt". Let me first deal with that issue and then give you my opinion of your obvious displeasure with my assessment. First I have not assualted anyone's character. You yourself said; "Baptist Blogger will kill you dead". Yes you say that it hyperbole, why is my statement about him being a Pit Bull not? He in a comment post on his blog; "My exact phrase of self-description is as follows: "I'm mean as a snake. Sly as a fox. And dirty as a dog." About Villa Rica, you said; Villa Rica will entertain you until you figure out the analogy. I thought of a snake charmer charming a snake and that snake biting the snake charmer. Something your hyperbolic statement definetly refers to. You do not know that she is in actualilty spanking you until you can put together the hyperbolic statements and see. You cannot see these statements until you have fully engaged her in dialog. This is what you are apparently saying, I do not feel I am reading anything in that. Now you "have a problem" with what I have posted. Brother, your problem does not seem to be with my comment post as much as it seems to be with my post on my blog concerning the Weaker Brother argument when it comes to alcohol. Face it, you have a problem with that post because there is no defense to Christians shouting FREEDOM while pushing a DRUG onto society and saying they are being BIBLICAL. Just my opinion!
• June 23, 2006, Arkansas Razorbaptist writes: This post has been removed by the author.
• June 23, 2006, Arkansas Razorbaptist writes: ALERT ALERT I was wrong, Springdale is in Washington County. You can buy booze there.
• June 23, 2006, Paul Burleson writes: Art, One person [Wade Burleson] says..."I teach my children and my church that abstinence is a wise choice for every christian and the best way to avoid drunkenness." "The idea that to drink a glass of wine, or any other alcoholic beverage is a sin against God is foreign to the teaching of the inerrant Word of God." "Drunkenness is a scourage on our society and we must sharply rebuke anyone, including the alcohol industry, who minimizes or encourages drunkenness and we treat sin seriously." The other one ,[Tim Rogers}...says "Now you 'have a problem' with what I posted. Brother, your problem does not seem to be with my comment so much as it seems to be with my post concerning the Weaker Brother argument when it comes to alcohol." "Face it, you have a problem with that post because there is no defense to christians shouting FREEDOM while pushing a DRUG onto society and saying they are being BIBLICAL." Now let's see...who is pushing something here? Who is shouting something here? Paul Burleson
• June 23, 2006, Paul Burleson writes: Sorry, I do know how to spell "scourge", I just don't know how to correct it once posted. Oh well... :) PB
• June 23, 2006, art rogers writes: ARB, Thanks for the alert. That changes everything. Back. That changes everything back. Something like that. Jeff, I assure you that I am not attacking anyone. I am raising issues that I think are important. From the comment string on the ladies' luncheon, many comments from ladies, I would say that many others think it is important as well. My problem with the luncheon was that the organizer has had a personal penchant for lavishly decorating presidential mansions at two seminaries, and I think the theme of the luncheon reflected that a bit. As to this post, Dr. Floyd is not the subject. The reversal of course is my concern. I see it as the natural outworking of the Alcohol Resolution, to which you eloquently spoke during the convention. I would have posted about this if any SBC pastor (Wade Burleson included) had done the same thing. I have no problem with Dr. Floyd supporting the stadium or not supporting the stadium. Either are defensable positions. The reversal, and the timing of it, strike me. Tim, Ok. Items one by one, then. 1. My description of those guys to Adam was in the vein of, "If you react this strong to my words, ARB's are stronger, BB's are stronger, yet, and VR's don't seem strong, but are very much so." I did not impugn their character. I was not saying that BB would attack Adam, as you seem to have read it. Yes, you did misread my words. Calling someone a "vicious pit bull" and a venomous snake is a reference to character. If not, then to what is it a reference? It can be nothing else. If BB describes himself saying, "I'm mean as a snake. Sly as a fox. And dirty as a dog," then he is free to do so. We are free to quote him on that. We are NOT free to add to it or reinterpret it. To my knowledge, VR has never made such a statement about himself, either. Oh, and VR is a man, not a woman. 2. Why would you think that I would hide a motive for repremanding you? Have you ever known me to duck an issue? Have you ever known me to say one thing but mean another? Occum's Razor, cousin. Unless compelling evidence of something else is present, a thing is what it appears to be. Do you have evidence that I have a problem with your stance on alcohol? I don't. I have said in this very post that I do not drink and do not like being around drunkards. I do disagree with the resolution, because I think it extra-biblical. That is my opinion. In fact, you are very welcome to express your opinion on this NON-ESSENTIAL issue here as well. I have no problems with it - though I differ slightly from you. In case you have not known this from the beginning or learned it by now: I promise to tell you exactly what my problems are with anything you say and not obfuscate it in any way. I did this earlier and I am doing it again. art
• June 23, 2006, art rogers writes: Thanks, Paul. You can't correct once posted in the comments section.
• June 23, 2006, tim rogers writes: Brother Art, I stand to be corrected. I posted my last comment with the wrong thought of those posting to my post about the Weaker Brother. You did not post and for the jump into your reasoning for your response, I truly am sorry. (I which I could make that bold, but I have not learned this fine art when it comes to comment posts) I disagree with your comments about my assualting characters. Anyone that has entangled BB or VR on opposite opinions will attest to the feeling of absolute nothingness once they quite speaking and spanking you with words. BB is a master at spanking you with words--read his post. VR I must confess I am not intelligent enough to understand his/her? posts, however they have been known to bite. If anyone feels I have assualted a character, please forgive me. That is not what I have done. I call it like I see it and I see BB and VR (when I can understand) using words and hyperbole that bites and stings those against whom they post. Also, now Wades Dad has weighed in to defend his son. I respect that, but I always come back to the Biblical ground that alcohol is wrong for a Christian because of the weaker brother. WE CANNOT FORGET THEM! What is most important--we impress a heathen, or we keep a weaker brother from stumbling?
• June 23, 2006, Dorcas writes: Totally off topic - The suggestion made in a comment that Villa Rica is a woman really made my day. Still laughing!
• June 23, 2006, art rogers writes: Tim, Thank you for your words. As to the character assault issue, I understand where you are coming from, but just disagree. Even saying what you are saying now is not near as bad, in my mind, as calling them those names. I assure you, by the way, VR is a man. He is a friend. Dorcas - I know, the thought of him in a dress with a purse and certain ladies' hat has me rolling! art
• June 23, 2006, Tim writes: Our brother Ben Cole has posted something on his site that I think you might find amusing. Go check it out at: http://baptistblogger.blogspot.com/ Tim D
• June 24, 2006, Kevin writes: Art I have a question? Didn’t the Coliseum have a sign as you enter about having a wristband on to buy beer? Why didn’t we move our convention elsewhere. Just a thought! Good night Kevin Lancaster

Related posts:

• More Presidency News
• Trifecta?
• Morris Champman weighs in on Presidential endorsements
• The Presidential Speculation
• The IMB BOT has a new chair

Dr. Ronnie Floyd has reversed course in the issue of a minor league baseball stadium. Cox Cable network has been running spots of Dr. Floyd endorsing the stadium twice a day for a couple of weeks. Floyd has now pulled his support of the stadium, citing the stadium plans to sell beer during games.

Now, I don’t want to ascribe any motives, so let me here and now disclaim any knowledge of Dr. Floyd’s thoughts on the subject. It does, however, strike me as odd that anyone anywhere would assume that beer would not be sold at a ballpark. Once again, I state plainly that I don’t drink and do not enjoy being around those who drink too much – people often found at a ballpark.

My curiosity is further peaked by the recent resolution on Alcohol where Southern Baptists “resolved” the following:

Resolved, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina, June 13-24, 2006, express our total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages;

With the amendment to this resolution concerning leadership within the convention that also passing, it would seem Ronnie had no choice if he were desirous of representing Southern Baptists in accordance with our recent resolution on alcohol.

He certainly had no choice but to pull his endorsement if he ever hoped to serve in elected office seeing as how his CP giving record hurt him so badly last time. Directly disobeying an overwhelming resolution would certainly disqualify him.

You can read the Democrat Gazette news story:

Springdale : Pastor retracts stadium OK over beer sales

[HT: ARB]

[update]

Dr. Floyd clarifies his position concerning the ballpark and alcohol

[/update]

Comments

• June 22, 2006, Bro. Tim writes: Ok, this is so sad that it is almost funny. Who in their right minds wouldn't think that they would sell beer at a ballpark? Can't you hear the guys in the background: "Cooold Beer! Get yer ice cold beer, right here!" The sad thing is that he is being forced to change his endorsement because of denominational politics. I'm sure that the initial reasons he was "for" the ballpark are still valid. But, denominational power is very real. Tim
• June 22, 2006, dave woodbury writes: I remember when I was on staff at a mega-church we wanted to rent the local NHL arena for our Easter Sunday morning service. Of course, there were beer advertisements everywhere in the arena. One of the first questions from the senior pastor as we toured the facility was if we could cover up the beer signs. He was told the we could not. To his credit, we still went ahead and celebrated Easter Sunday with Budweiser signs bathing us in their warm glow. I was still confused as to how we were ever gonna cover all those signs. I wonder in this case why it was okay to endorse it when all manner of other sins might be committed there, but beer was the deal breaker. Dave
• June 22, 2006, Rod writes: I do a lot of stupid things that I don't think through until later. Isn't it possible that the lightbulb finally clicked on at Springdale? That someone finally got off the "support our community" bandwagon and saw a flaw in their support? Which might be more costly? Keeping support of the ballpark and suffering the possible wrath of SBC abstinencists or recanting the support and suffering Springdale ridicule? I think I'm leaning toward the latter. Aren't we in a season of SBC life where we need to cut each other an enormous amount of slack and give a heaping of grace?
• June 22, 2006, Adam writes: Art, This is the first time I have been to your blog. I was somewhat taken back by you choosing to comment on this subject. Give Dr. Floyd a break! It’s hard to see the relevance of pointing this out. Now I don’t want to ascribe any motives to why you posted this, but let me say that I think this appears that you are trying to kick Dr. Floyd when he is down. You played your part in not seeing him elected president. But Greensboro is over. You said, “It does, however, strike me as odd that anyone anywhere would assume that beer would not be sold at a ballpark.” Yet the article that you referenced states: “At the time we stated our support we were unaware that alcohol would be sold at the park,” Floyd wrote this week in an e-mail to Virginia Pozza. “Our support will be withdrawn from any action that would place the sale of alcohol in a family-oriented environment.” Later Alan Damron, associate pastor of strategic communications, stated: “This is not some vision he’s had as of lately. He’s always been against that. He definitely does not support the sale of beer.” Springdale Alderman Mike Overton added: “Now it appears that Mr. Floyd hasn’t been told the whole truth…” I’m not sure if Overton is a Christian or not, but I find it interesting that he gives Dr. Floyd the benefit of the doubt. In reading your blog, it seems as if you don’t. As brothers in Christ, when Dr. Floyd claims he did not know that there would be beer sold, we should believe him. And let’s not jump to the conclusion that he has ulterior motives in the choice he made. I know you claim to not be judging his motives, but the fact that you put this on your blog contradicts that entirely. God bless!
• June 22, 2006, art rogers writes: The truth is, Adam, I am not trying to kick him when he is down. I never endorsed any of the three candidates, and was on the bubble until the day before the election as to the person I would give my vote. I was not, though, considering Floyd as an option - full disclosure. I do think it is odd that Dr. Floyd thought that beer would not be sold at a ballpark. That's just myopic. I do suspect that he is responding to the aforementioned resolution. I have a right to that opinion. Sorry if you disagree. I don't think its bad to respond to that resolution, either. Just say that is what you are doing. It just makes mroe sense. I do have a hard time giving him the benefit of the doubt on this, though. Unless someone said that there would not be beer, why would anybody assume there wouldn't be? If they did tell him that, why hasn't he called them out for lying to him? Because it never happened. The timing of it is just wierd. As for "we should believe him," you should feel free. I don't and you are, of course welcome to dissent. We like dissent here. As for the topic of choice, if this surprises you, you must be new. Hey, if you don't like this, whatever you do, don't go to Arkansas Razor Baptist's site You'll have a stroke. Baptist Blogger will kill you dead. Villa Rica will entertain you until you figure out the analogy. God Bless you, too.
• June 22, 2006, tim rogers writes: Brother Art, Sorry for the dissent, but I too find it strange that this is something that has the bloggers razing their keyboards place their questioning key strokes. What is the big deal? He found out they sold beer at the facility. I live in a dry county and they do not sell beer at the professional baseball stadium here. Also, don't you think you need to cut Adam some slack? If he is new do not feed him to the rabid pit bull named Baptist Blogger, nor to the charming cobra named Villa Rica.
• June 22, 2006, art rogers writes: Tim, You may be right about the dry county thing. I just found out it was a dry county, so all that I posted before is put into new perspective for me. It does seem more plausible that he really didn't know. Having said that, Adam may be new, but he didn't pull any punches with me. He's in the deep end of the pool and seems like he's swimming fine to me. You, however, I have a problem with. The way you describe BB and VR is at least as inappropriate as anything I've said about Floyd - ever. The "pit bull" and "charming cobra" tags are offensive to me. I think you are wrong in your estimation of them, but that is beside the point. How would you react if I said "[somebody] is a filthy swine" or "a disobedient dog." That stuff is a character assault and not an evaluation of actions. Not cool.
• June 22, 2006, jgsy3kids writes: Let's not forget that we'll now be watching to see who attends movies at theaters that serve alcohol. Forget going to eat at many restaurants because they serve alcohol...and renting stadiums with alcohol advertisements visible. This new resolution is ludicrous! Next it will be something else... I guess Jesus was wrong for hanging out in areas where sinners congregated... I guess my husband can't go to the local buddhist temple anymore to share with people. (These are the people in our community that are most openly seeking something else. These are the people in our community that want to talk about spiritual things.) Good heavens, someone might think that he wants to be Buddhist! Mark 7:5-8 So the Parisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradion of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?". He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain, their teachings are but rules taught by men.' You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the tradtions of men" (This is in no way directed towards Ronnie Floyd; but instead toward this resolution and those who passed it!) It seems that the SBC has decided that it's important to 'appear' righteous and that man's traditions outweigh God's Word. jenni
• June 22, 2006, Arkansas Razorbaptist writes: Art, We actually don't mind Coach Floyd's position. Benton County is a dry county, for those of you not from the South, that means no alcohol sales. Benton County is the county where the stadium is being proposed. So I'm not surprised that Coach didn't know brews would be sold.
• June 23, 2006, Jeff Richard Young writes: Dear Brother Art, You have given voice to the same things I have believed for months now, but the last couple things you've posted have just seemed like you're out to get someone, anyone who is in range. You ragged on the pastors' wives' meetings, and now you have pounced on Coach Floyd for not thinking that beer would be sold in a dry county. Are you getting caught up in the fighting spirit? Written with MUCH LOVE, Jeff
• June 23, 2006, tim rogers writes: Brother Art, Sorry that you "have a problem" with me. You then call me into question for what you call "character assualt". Let me first deal with that issue and then give you my opinion of your obvious displeasure with my assessment. First I have not assualted anyone's character. You yourself said; "Baptist Blogger will kill you dead". Yes you say that it hyperbole, why is my statement about him being a Pit Bull not? He in a comment post on his blog; "My exact phrase of self-description is as follows: "I'm mean as a snake. Sly as a fox. And dirty as a dog." About Villa Rica, you said; Villa Rica will entertain you until you figure out the analogy. I thought of a snake charmer charming a snake and that snake biting the snake charmer. Something your hyperbolic statement definetly refers to. You do not know that she is in actualilty spanking you until you can put together the hyperbolic statements and see. You cannot see these statements until you have fully engaged her in dialog. This is what you are apparently saying, I do not feel I am reading anything in that. Now you "have a problem" with what I have posted. Brother, your problem does not seem to be with my comment post as much as it seems to be with my post on my blog concerning the Weaker Brother argument when it comes to alcohol. Face it, you have a problem with that post because there is no defense to Christians shouting FREEDOM while pushing a DRUG onto society and saying they are being BIBLICAL. Just my opinion!
• June 23, 2006, Arkansas Razorbaptist writes: This post has been removed by the author.
• June 23, 2006, Arkansas Razorbaptist writes: ALERT ALERT I was wrong, Springdale is in Washington County. You can buy booze there.
• June 23, 2006, Paul Burleson writes: Art, One person [Wade Burleson] says..."I teach my children and my church that abstinence is a wise choice for every christian and the best way to avoid drunkenness." "The idea that to drink a glass of wine, or any other alcoholic beverage is a sin against God is foreign to the teaching of the inerrant Word of God." "Drunkenness is a scourage on our society and we must sharply rebuke anyone, including the alcohol industry, who minimizes or encourages drunkenness and we treat sin seriously." The other one ,[Tim Rogers}...says "Now you 'have a problem' with what I posted. Brother, your problem does not seem to be with my comment so much as it seems to be with my post concerning the Weaker Brother argument when it comes to alcohol." "Face it, you have a problem with that post because there is no defense to christians shouting FREEDOM while pushing a DRUG onto society and saying they are being BIBLICAL." Now let's see...who is pushing something here? Who is shouting something here? Paul Burleson
• June 23, 2006, Paul Burleson writes: Sorry, I do know how to spell "scourge", I just don't know how to correct it once posted. Oh well... :) PB
• June 23, 2006, art rogers writes: ARB, Thanks for the alert. That changes everything. Back. That changes everything back. Something like that. Jeff, I assure you that I am not attacking anyone. I am raising issues that I think are important. From the comment string on the ladies' luncheon, many comments from ladies, I would say that many others think it is important as well. My problem with the luncheon was that the organizer has had a personal penchant for lavishly decorating presidential mansions at two seminaries, and I think the theme of the luncheon reflected that a bit. As to this post, Dr. Floyd is not the subject. The reversal of course is my concern. I see it as the natural outworking of the Alcohol Resolution, to which you eloquently spoke during the convention. I would have posted about this if any SBC pastor (Wade Burleson included) had done the same thing. I have no problem with Dr. Floyd supporting the stadium or not supporting the stadium. Either are defensable positions. The reversal, and the timing of it, strike me. Tim, Ok. Items one by one, then. 1. My description of those guys to Adam was in the vein of, "If you react this strong to my words, ARB's are stronger, BB's are stronger, yet, and VR's don't seem strong, but are very much so." I did not impugn their character. I was not saying that BB would attack Adam, as you seem to have read it. Yes, you did misread my words. Calling someone a "vicious pit bull" and a venomous snake is a reference to character. If not, then to what is it a reference? It can be nothing else. If BB describes himself saying, "I'm mean as a snake. Sly as a fox. And dirty as a dog," then he is free to do so. We are free to quote him on that. We are NOT free to add to it or reinterpret it. To my knowledge, VR has never made such a statement about himself, either. Oh, and VR is a man, not a woman. 2. Why would you think that I would hide a motive for repremanding you? Have you ever known me to duck an issue? Have you ever known me to say one thing but mean another? Occum's Razor, cousin. Unless compelling evidence of something else is present, a thing is what it appears to be. Do you have evidence that I have a problem with your stance on alcohol? I don't. I have said in this very post that I do not drink and do not like being around drunkards. I do disagree with the resolution, because I think it extra-biblical. That is my opinion. In fact, you are very welcome to express your opinion on this NON-ESSENTIAL issue here as well. I have no problems with it - though I differ slightly from you. In case you have not known this from the beginning or learned it by now: I promise to tell you exactly what my problems are with anything you say and not obfuscate it in any way. I did this earlier and I am doing it again. art
• June 23, 2006, art rogers writes: Thanks, Paul. You can't correct once posted in the comments section.
• June 23, 2006, tim rogers writes: Brother Art, I stand to be corrected. I posted my last comment with the wrong thought of those posting to my post about the Weaker Brother. You did not post and for the jump into your reasoning for your response, I truly am sorry. (I which I could make that bold, but I have not learned this fine art when it comes to comment posts) I disagree with your comments about my assualting characters. Anyone that has entangled BB or VR on opposite opinions will attest to the feeling of absolute nothingness once they quite speaking and spanking you with words. BB is a master at spanking you with words--read his post. VR I must confess I am not intelligent enough to understand his/her? posts, however they have been known to bite. If anyone feels I have assualted a character, please forgive me. That is not what I have done. I call it like I see it and I see BB and VR (when I can understand) using words and hyperbole that bites and stings those against whom they post. Also, now Wades Dad has weighed in to defend his son. I respect that, but I always come back to the Biblical ground that alcohol is wrong for a Christian because of the weaker brother. WE CANNOT FORGET THEM! What is most important--we impress a heathen, or we keep a weaker brother from stumbling?
• June 23, 2006, Dorcas writes: Totally off topic - The suggestion made in a comment that Villa Rica is a woman really made my day. Still laughing!
• June 23, 2006, art rogers writes: Tim, Thank you for your words. As to the character assault issue, I understand where you are coming from, but just disagree. Even saying what you are saying now is not near as bad, in my mind, as calling them those names. I assure you, by the way, VR is a man. He is a friend. Dorcas - I know, the thought of him in a dress with a purse and certain ladies' hat has me rolling! art
• June 23, 2006, Tim writes: Our brother Ben Cole has posted something on his site that I think you might find amusing. Go check it out at: http://baptistblogger.blogspot.com/ Tim D
• June 24, 2006, Kevin writes: Art I have a question? Didn’t the Coliseum have a sign as you enter about having a wristband on to buy beer? Why didn’t we move our convention elsewhere. Just a thought! Good night Kevin Lancaster

Related posts:

• More Presidency News
• Trifecta?
• Morris Champman weighs in on Presidential endorsements
• The Presidential Speculation
• The IMB BOT has a new chair

The article is right about most things, but wrong in its title and in the declaration that the heart of the Executive Committee recommendation had been stripped from the proposal. In fact, only one item was lost – that affecting IMB BOT Chairman John Floyd. The nepotism clause remained intact and in force for all new nominations.

You can read the full story here:

SBC messengers strip much of anti-nepotism motion

Comments

• June 21, 2006, jgsy3kids writes: So for clarification; the recommendation did pass that spouses can't serve at the same time? And if you currently receive money/salary/pension from an entity, you can't serve under on that entity's board of trustees? I thought the whole thing had been killed....I'll be glad if some of these things remained! jenni
• June 21, 2006, art rogers writes: Yes, Jenni, all the rest stayed. Only the stuff about being formerly employed was removed from section (f) of by law 15.

The ABP has an article about Bill Sanderson’s amendment to the Executive Committee’s motion to rephrase by-law 15 (f) concerning Trustee Qualifications.

The article is right about most things, but wrong in its title and in the declaration that the heart of the Executive Committee recommendation had been stripped from the proposal. In fact, only one item was lost – that affecting IMB BOT Chairman John Floyd. The nepotism clause remained intact and in force for all new nominations.

You can read the full story here:

SBC messengers strip much of anti-nepotism motion

Comments

• June 21, 2006, jgsy3kids writes: So for clarification; the recommendation did pass that spouses can't serve at the same time? And if you currently receive money/salary/pension from an entity, you can't serve under on that entity's board of trustees? I thought the whole thing had been killed....I'll be glad if some of these things remained! jenni
• June 21, 2006, art rogers writes: Yes, Jenni, all the rest stayed. Only the stuff about being formerly employed was removed from section (f) of by law 15.

Here’s what Phillips Lynn says:

Greensboro is Behind Us, Now What?

OK. Everybody now. Tell us what you think about Texas.

(As always, mind your manners.)

Comments

• June 19, 2006, CW writes: Texas is a big deal. Both sides will mobilize during this year and inner circle will have an attractive candidate. I do know of some SBTC people who voted for Page in Greensboro. Things should be interesting. Will moderates influence the election and turn out from BGCT churches? Will the inner circle once again firmly grasp the reigns of power?
• June 19, 2006, Josh writes: I think you would have to be from Texas or atleast understand the SBTC/BGCT situation to really know about what you are saying. It is funny to me how many people are trying to deny that blogging had anything to do with Page's election - maybe it didn't but I still think it did. I was talking to a guy this morning that works for the SBTC he contributed the SBC being in North Carolina with Page's victory. If that is completely true or not it probably did have something to do with it. I personally saw very few people that were from somewhere other than N.C., S.C., Florida, MS, Tenn, and Georgia. Now I know that I did not see everyone, but if you apply the same logic to next year and the sheer size of Texas. Coupled with the constant Baptist politics in Texas then you are sure to have an interesting convention. People have to remember that for most states this 'politics' thing happens once a year for Texas this is an everyday thing. Even in our associational meetings we discuss how BGCT churches will react to such and such as apposed to SBTC churches. I love Texas.
• June 19, 2006, Robby writes: The $64,000 question: will the insiders run a candidate against Page? THE UPSIDE (for them): Huge home-court advantage, given their unbeaten record in state as Art referred to. Imagine a raucus convention hall filled fired-up SBC Texans (and Paige Patterson loyalists) hardened from years of battles with the BGCT. Also, they have a year to whisper against Dr. Page and quietly seek out the perfect candidate...preferably a Texan, youthful, pastor of a big church with generous CP giving and a healthy baptism rate, etc. THE DOWNSIDE: They could lose. I still believe rank-and-file SBC messenger frown upon challenging incumbant presidents. A loss in San Antonio would dramatically weaken the insiders by further polarizing people against them, making Indianapolis in 2008 an even steeper climb. Also, a lot of inner circle supporters would have to rethink their position and their futures, perhaps looking to jump off a sinking ship. I'm not sure they'll oppose Dr. Page next year. They might be better served by engaging him while drafting a few tricky resolutions, challenging a few nominations, etc. That said, I don't him Dr. Page and the minefields he'll have to navigate this year.
• June 19, 2006, art rogers writes: Josh, You said: "I think you would have to be from Texas or at least understand the SBTC/BGCT situation to really know about what you are saying." Don't take this angrily, because I am not. I sincerely am trying to explain this to you. Read the left side of my blog page. I grew up and went to college in Houston then Seminary in Ft. Worth. I spent most of my life in Texas and still have roots there. I root for the Aggies, Astros and Cowboys - to this very day. I grew up in the BGCT before the split, but moved just before the SBT was founded. I promise you, I know Texas and the politics there. If you would like further knowledge, read my series "My Journey Through The Resurgence to Memphis." No offense, and I mean that. I know that I haven't lived there for ten years, but I promise I have kept up. Other than that, I think your observations are pretty astute. Oh, yeah, and I also love "Texas, our Texas, all hail the Lone Star State."
• June 19, 2006, Rzrbk writes: I doubt if they will run a candidate against Page unless something major happens that can help them rally people to attend. That was one of the mistakes the folks who opposed the political activity of the conservative resugence made in the early years. They kept running their best candidates in the off years to try and beat the incumbant and most people will not vote to do that. Then they were looked at as losers if they tried to run again. You need to also remember that the conservative resurgence candidates were defeated handily by the theolocial conservataive in the BGCT. The SBCT was formed because they could not control the BGCT and they refuse to be part of an organization they cannot control. Texas has been the center of the controversy because Pressler, Patterson and 1st Baptist Church, Dallas are all in Texas. Texans saw up close the raw political nature of the resurgence at Southwestern Seminary when Dilday was fired and many fine theologicly conservataive professors were forced to leave. Having the convention in Texas will not be an advantage for the resurgence folks. Frank Page graduated from SWBTS and taught there while Dilday was president and pastored Gambrell Street Baptist Church near the seminary. There are lots of people in Texas who know Frank Page and are happy he was elected.
• June 19, 2006, Alan Cross writes: I'm a novice when it comes to SBC politics and hope to stay one. But, if the "inner circle" really is planning some type of comeback, I agree it would be foolish to make a big deal in San Antonio. The Machiavellian thing to do would be to play nice, get along, smile, and bide your time. Take Dr. Page up on his pledge to not rock the boat or clean house and just go along, business as usual. The most effective controlling organizations are the ones that are invisible. Then, in 2008 in Indianapolis, run a solid candidate who has great credentials across the board and right the ship. See it as a minor setback, learn from your mistakes, and regain control. That's what I would do. Flailing at the wind of a one time defeat makes you look desperate and will actually rally folks against you. The smartest move is to let us bloggers just run out of steam and take away any reason for anyone to be upset. If this approach is taken, the most important thing for everyone to do is to be Christlike at all times and influence the world and the SBC through the power of our witness. Politics is a dirty game and it soils everyone who puts their trust in it. I pray that these days are ending in the SBC. May we help end them.
• June 20, 2006, Anonymous writes: 1. I have it via email from a top BGCT executive that the conclusion among such is that little can be done by them to influence the course of the SBC; however, that email was from earlier this year and before the results of Greensboro (BGCT executives have been paying attention to the recent SBC events and have been reading these blogs--some may have posted comments without identifying themselves); 2. people can--and do, in Texas!--say what they want about the theological persuasions of the BGCT, but no one is more conservative theologically (despite that convention's lack of the use of the word "inerrant" [2001 BF&M proponents didn't have the courage to include the word in revisions to the document that year or since]); both grassroots (eg., my parents) and officially, the BGCT is theologically-conservative--but politically-speaking (number of congregations affiliated, total dollars given to CP ministries, potential due to the size of Texas' population, etc.), the convention is large enough--and Texan enough!--to stand on its own two feet and has. In that sense only, Texas is "moderate" (politically so; not theologically so--anyone who says otherwise doesn't know Texas Baptists or BGCT folks personally and hasn't spoken to them directly); 3. if Russell Dilday were being nominated as a candidate for SBC president next year, every BGCT church in the state would send messengers to make it happen--but many with a wrong spirit; 4. Dr. Page served Gambrell Street Baptist Church in Ft. Worth, and taught at Southwestern Seminary there; lots of BGCT folks know and love him--but even that may not be enough to draw them to San Antonio to vote for him; 5. the San Antonio Baptist Association is composed of 200+ congregations and has good leadership; churches like Castle Hills First Baptist Church (SBTC) are off-set by ones like Trinity Baptist Church (BGCT) if their messengers attend; 6. member for member (or, minister for minister), SBTC churches may be more intentional about their affiliations than BGCT churches; SBTC congregations consciously chose to affiliate with that convention in recent days (though it's reported that members of some SBTC congregations don't know how their churches joined the SBTC; and, not every church listed as SBTC is a church--some are individuals contributing to SBTC causes); 7. the website of the SBTC has better appeal than that convention has influence in the state, right now (eg., if I've met 20 SBTC folks during the years since its organization, I don't know it--they aren't saying so anymore than BGCT folks or other Baptists across the nation are; "the redeemed of the Lord should say so"--but we too seldom do); 8. it's a 10 hour drive from the Texas Panhandle to San Antonio, but most of the state's population can reach San Antonio within 5 hours by car; 9. the history of Texas Baptists shows many splits over 150 years--none, from what I can understand, were for godly reasons (rather, regional differences festering; when Texas Baptists subsequently came back together, it also wasn't for godly reasons [ie, repentance for unnecessary splits]); 10. Indiana: much less SBC influence there--but San Antonio is a "funner place to visit"!
• June 20, 2006, charliemac writes: I would suggest that possibly the before guessing as to what the BGCT folk may think or do next year in San Antonio one might do well to read the current editorial in The Baptist Standard ( www.thebaptiststandard.com ) I suspect that most members of the BGCT will continue to stay away in droves. Although you keep messing up the missionaries and the "real" old time SBCers of Texas could get riled up enough to once again care.
• June 20, 2006, Ron West writes: Mav Knox asks some good questions that Art, Marty, Wade and other bloggers as well as Frank Page need to answer. The paragraph starting define broad is a good one. How can we say things are changing and this is a new day when most of you continue to affirm the conservative resurgence and all the carnal political activity that accompanied it? He asked a good question. Will those in the BGCT be welcomed by Frank Page? Are they only to send in their CP money and sit on the sidelines when appointments are made as they have been asked to do in the past? How about getting down to some real answers without all the code words.
• June 20, 2006, art rogers writes: Ron? is that you typing under your name instead of rzrbk? You said: "How can we say things are changing and this is a new day when most of you continue to affirm the conservative resurgence and all the carnal political activity that accompanied it?" Please find for me a place where me or any of my peers - let's say anyone in Memphis - affirms the carnal political activity of anything - especially the resurgence. I know that I have, on NUMEROUS occassions affirmed the heart of theological conservatism and dealing with very real issues within the SBC, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME decrying EVERYONE (read: either side) who used the resurgence for personal political advancement or an "ends justifies the means" ethic to govern their behavior. It is ludicrous that you would try and hang that on me or my peers. It's a clear distortion of what we have said and what Memphis explicitly decried. C'mon, man. As to who Frank Page will or will not appoint, the only thing I know is that he said he would appoint "theological conservatives" and the word "inerrantists" was thrown in there. Let me say this about "inerrancy." I use the word because if anyone in my circles tries to skirt the word, eyebrows raise and they whisper you are probably "one of them" who questions Scripture's authority. I have to embrace it so that I don't have to go back and defend my beliefs to my fellow conservatives - who probably won't believe me since I didn't use that word the first time. I don't like the political strings that are attached to that word. I wish that we were more apt to listen to the way a person defines their beliefs for themselves. I used to try this, but, honestly, we are too shallow. They just want to hear it or hear it denied. Anything other than embracing it is considered to be denial. What else can a conservative do? Having said that, you will have to see who Frank Page appoints. I have no knowledge of his mind beyond what I have told you. I do know that Ben Cole told him that we (bloggers) wanted nothing from him personally and did not desire any appointments. We all (all=most of the prominant bloggers and some folks from Memphis that do not blog) have affirmed this personally to him and I do so, again, publicly. Any "code words" in that? Sheesh!
• June 21, 2006, John Fariss writes: Were I among the power brokers and king-makers (HA!), I wouldn't try to set up confrontations with Dr. Page, not now or next year in Texas. The principle I would employ is incremental (not instant or overwhelming) escalation. I would first try to win him over--make him into a "good 'ole boy," show him (and any supporters/advisors who can be identified) how much "alike" they already are, how important it is to "stay the course," give him new peers who could subtly apply pressure, give plausible rationales for what has been done, then confuse what was done with how it was done. Only if that failed would I try to overpower him. Another word for the same thing: seduction. Another illustration for the same thing: put a frog into a pot of hot water and it will jump out; put the same frog into cool water, but heat it slowly, and it will lie there until it cooks. For his blogger-supporters: maybe a bit more confrontation would be necessary, so set up straw men--maybe like beverage alcohol and Calvinism--and use pawns to deliver them. These and other pawns would be rabbits for them to chase--in other words, (1) distract them, and (2) mislead the uninformed. At least that's what I would do--if I were a smart, but spiritually immature manipulator, perhaps dysfunctional or just a control freak. And I would point out that the number of years and positions of authority a person has served is not necessarily indicative of maturity in Christ. In the early 80's, I heard the head of a state government agency say, "We have people who have been working for us 20 years. But that doesn't mean they have 20 years of experience; it may mean that have one year of experience they have repeated 20 times." Just because a person has been a Christian for 20, 30, 50 years or whatever, it does not necessarily mean they have 20, 30, 50 years of growth in Christ. They may have one (1) year of growth they have repeated year after year. That is where DISCIPLESHIP comes in--and discipleship is hardly talked about in Baptist circles anymore. All the leadership seems to talk about is evangelism: reach more, baptize more (properly, of course), don't purge our rolls of people we can't find because they can be targeted for evangelism (huh?), and all the problems the SBC or our churches face can be cured by evangelism. But Jesus said to evangelize AND to disciple. Does it bother anyone besides me that we seem to be emphasizing half of what Jesus commissioned us to do at the expense of the other half? John Fariss
• June 21, 2006, art rogers writes: John, You are one scary dude. I mean that in the nicest way. :)
• June 21, 2006, John Fariss writes: And the scariest part is that I didn't learn this either from my father, who was a career police officer in a political small town, or from my own 7 1/2 years on the PD in a city of 150,000. I learned it in the pastorate.
• June 21, 2006, art rogers writes: Oh, and Ron, for Marv to have questions that demand an answer, he is going to have to either understand us better or portray us more accurately. Marv Knox describes us this way: "like Page, they strongly affirm the 'conservative resurgence,' trumpet inerrancy and call for loyalty to the Cooperative Program as they define it (supporting only state conventions and the SBC, not other Baptist organizations such as the Baptist World Alliance, Baptist Joint Committee, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and WMU). So, “broad” seems to mean young, polite inerrantists who affirm the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message—not necessarily traditional, mainstream Baptists like most Texans. We don't support the WMU and are not "traditional, mainstream Baptists?" PUUUHHLEEEAAASE. As to the other organizations, he may be accurate, but you will have to speak to each individuals as to their personal stance. It still doesn't excuse such careless and pejorative reporting from a "professional" journalist.
• June 23, 2006, JUSTAMOE writes: Art: In case this thread still is receiving attention, you typed in reply to Ron, ". . . for Marv [Knox] to have questions that demand an answer, he is going to have to either understand us better or portray us more accurately . . ." Moving nearer to Dallas may give you a chance to get to know Marv better, too. Marv was "blogging" before blogging was cool (in the sense that he's been one sharp editor since before blogging was vogue), he recognizes "off-the-wall journalism" when he reads it in other state Baptist conventions' newspapers, and--seriously--he'd fit well into the hotel suite photos we've seen posted at the popular blogsites now since Greensboro. Anyone disbeliefing this: phone Marv yourself to find out (214-630-4571; cf. Matthew 18--offended one makes the call). I think that Marv stands were many Texas Baptists stand today: missing his SBC brothers, not because they "took their toys and went home," but because those parted Christian brothers are/were his really good friends in ministry and life--and for no reason better than what you unfortunately must state about your own situation regarding the use or conscientious refusal to use the word "inerrant" (reminder: for 40 years, the phrase "truth without any mixture of error" alone basically was considered by all Southern Baptists as the best brief sentence ever written in human history about God's Holy Word). I've realized that my several comments posted at the popular blogsites since January have had no profound effect on any reader of them, but I'll type this one again, just in case . . . and I challenge any reasonable reader to show that this isn't and can't be true (so far, no takers): ANY YEAR'S VERSION--1925, 1963, or 2001--IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PERSONAL THEOLOGICAL PERSUASIONS OF EVERY KIND OF BAPTIST EVER WALKING ON THE PLANET EARTH, AND CAN BE THE BASIS FOR OUR COOPERATION IN MISSIONS AND EVANGELISM IF WE WILL COOPERATE--AND THAT IS THE QUESTION TODAY. Not to agree with my statement is not to understand either the BFM statements or Baptists, or both. Until we all understand and accept this, the SBC as a whole will never move out of "stupid mode" and back into maximum ministry effectiveness (the issue isn't theological, and no longer is only political; it's just plain ol' stupid now). And, there is no courageous reconciler anywhere among us working from that basis; if there is one, the rest of us need for him to stand up taller so that we can see him and follow him. Otherwise, editors like Marv are right: "Sorry, nothing changed". Just my two cents, because I'm "justamoe" who is ready for ALL OF US to be wiser, choose better, and move forward TOGETHER—and I know that we can if we will. David Troublefield JUSTAMOE

So you think I am the only one who thinks Texas will matter next year?

Here’s what Phillips Lynn says:

Greensboro is Behind Us, Now What?

OK. Everybody now. Tell us what you think about Texas.

(As always, mind your manners.)

Comments

• June 19, 2006, CW writes: Texas is a big deal. Both sides will mobilize during this year and inner circle will have an attractive candidate. I do know of some SBTC people who voted for Page in Greensboro. Things should be interesting. Will moderates influence the election and turn out from BGCT churches? Will the inner circle once again firmly grasp the reigns of power?
• June 19, 2006, Josh writes: I think you would have to be from Texas or atleast understand the SBTC/BGCT situation to really know about what you are saying. It is funny to me how many people are trying to deny that blogging had anything to do with Page's election - maybe it didn't but I still think it did. I was talking to a guy this morning that works for the SBTC he contributed the SBC being in North Carolina with Page's victory. If that is completely true or not it probably did have something to do with it. I personally saw very few people that were from somewhere other than N.C., S.C., Florida, MS, Tenn, and Georgia. Now I know that I did not see everyone, but if you apply the same logic to next year and the sheer size of Texas. Coupled with the constant Baptist politics in Texas then you are sure to have an interesting convention. People have to remember that for most states this 'politics' thing happens once a year for Texas this is an everyday thing. Even in our associational meetings we discuss how BGCT churches will react to such and such as apposed to SBTC churches. I love Texas.
• June 19, 2006, Robby writes: The $64,000 question: will the insiders run a candidate against Page? THE UPSIDE (for them): Huge home-court advantage, given their unbeaten record in state as Art referred to. Imagine a raucus convention hall filled fired-up SBC Texans (and Paige Patterson loyalists) hardened from years of battles with the BGCT. Also, they have a year to whisper against Dr. Page and quietly seek out the perfect candidate...preferably a Texan, youthful, pastor of a big church with generous CP giving and a healthy baptism rate, etc. THE DOWNSIDE: They could lose. I still believe rank-and-file SBC messenger frown upon challenging incumbant presidents. A loss in San Antonio would dramatically weaken the insiders by further polarizing people against them, making Indianapolis in 2008 an even steeper climb. Also, a lot of inner circle supporters would have to rethink their position and their futures, perhaps looking to jump off a sinking ship. I'm not sure they'll oppose Dr. Page next year. They might be better served by engaging him while drafting a few tricky resolutions, challenging a few nominations, etc. That said, I don't him Dr. Page and the minefields he'll have to navigate this year.
• June 19, 2006, art rogers writes: Josh, You said: "I think you would have to be from Texas or at least understand the SBTC/BGCT situation to really know about what you are saying." Don't take this angrily, because I am not. I sincerely am trying to explain this to you. Read the left side of my blog page. I grew up and went to college in Houston then Seminary in Ft. Worth. I spent most of my life in Texas and still have roots there. I root for the Aggies, Astros and Cowboys - to this very day. I grew up in the BGCT before the split, but moved just before the SBT was founded. I promise you, I know Texas and the politics there. If you would like further knowledge, read my series "My Journey Through The Resurgence to Memphis." No offense, and I mean that. I know that I haven't lived there for ten years, but I promise I have kept up. Other than that, I think your observations are pretty astute. Oh, yeah, and I also love "Texas, our Texas, all hail the Lone Star State."
• June 19, 2006, Rzrbk writes: I doubt if they will run a candidate against Page unless something major happens that can help them rally people to attend. That was one of the mistakes the folks who opposed the political activity of the conservative resugence made in the early years. They kept running their best candidates in the off years to try and beat the incumbant and most people will not vote to do that. Then they were looked at as losers if they tried to run again. You need to also remember that the conservative resurgence candidates were defeated handily by the theolocial conservataive in the BGCT. The SBCT was formed because they could not control the BGCT and they refuse to be part of an organization they cannot control. Texas has been the center of the controversy because Pressler, Patterson and 1st Baptist Church, Dallas are all in Texas. Texans saw up close the raw political nature of the resurgence at Southwestern Seminary when Dilday was fired and many fine theologicly conservataive professors were forced to leave. Having the convention in Texas will not be an advantage for the resurgence folks. Frank Page graduated from SWBTS and taught there while Dilday was president and pastored Gambrell Street Baptist Church near the seminary. There are lots of people in Texas who know Frank Page and are happy he was elected.
• June 19, 2006, Alan Cross writes: I'm a novice when it comes to SBC politics and hope to stay one. But, if the "inner circle" really is planning some type of comeback, I agree it would be foolish to make a big deal in San Antonio. The Machiavellian thing to do would be to play nice, get along, smile, and bide your time. Take Dr. Page up on his pledge to not rock the boat or clean house and just go along, business as usual. The most effective controlling organizations are the ones that are invisible. Then, in 2008 in Indianapolis, run a solid candidate who has great credentials across the board and right the ship. See it as a minor setback, learn from your mistakes, and regain control. That's what I would do. Flailing at the wind of a one time defeat makes you look desperate and will actually rally folks against you. The smartest move is to let us bloggers just run out of steam and take away any reason for anyone to be upset. If this approach is taken, the most important thing for everyone to do is to be Christlike at all times and influence the world and the SBC through the power of our witness. Politics is a dirty game and it soils everyone who puts their trust in it. I pray that these days are ending in the SBC. May we help end them.
• June 20, 2006, Anonymous writes: 1. I have it via email from a top BGCT executive that the conclusion among such is that little can be done by them to influence the course of the SBC; however, that email was from earlier this year and before the results of Greensboro (BGCT executives have been paying attention to the recent SBC events and have been reading these blogs--some may have posted comments without identifying themselves); 2. people can--and do, in Texas!--say what they want about the theological persuasions of the BGCT, but no one is more conservative theologically (despite that convention's lack of the use of the word "inerrant" [2001 BF&M proponents didn't have the courage to include the word in revisions to the document that year or since]); both grassroots (eg., my parents) and officially, the BGCT is theologically-conservative--but politically-speaking (number of congregations affiliated, total dollars given to CP ministries, potential due to the size of Texas' population, etc.), the convention is large enough--and Texan enough!--to stand on its own two feet and has. In that sense only, Texas is "moderate" (politically so; not theologically so--anyone who says otherwise doesn't know Texas Baptists or BGCT folks personally and hasn't spoken to them directly); 3. if Russell Dilday were being nominated as a candidate for SBC president next year, every BGCT church in the state would send messengers to make it happen--but many with a wrong spirit; 4. Dr. Page served Gambrell Street Baptist Church in Ft. Worth, and taught at Southwestern Seminary there; lots of BGCT folks know and love him--but even that may not be enough to draw them to San Antonio to vote for him; 5. the San Antonio Baptist Association is composed of 200+ congregations and has good leadership; churches like Castle Hills First Baptist Church (SBTC) are off-set by ones like Trinity Baptist Church (BGCT) if their messengers attend; 6. member for member (or, minister for minister), SBTC churches may be more intentional about their affiliations than BGCT churches; SBTC congregations consciously chose to affiliate with that convention in recent days (though it's reported that members of some SBTC congregations don't know how their churches joined the SBTC; and, not every church listed as SBTC is a church--some are individuals contributing to SBTC causes); 7. the website of the SBTC has better appeal than that convention has influence in the state, right now (eg., if I've met 20 SBTC folks during the years since its organization, I don't know it--they aren't saying so anymore than BGCT folks or other Baptists across the nation are; "the redeemed of the Lord should say so"--but we too seldom do); 8. it's a 10 hour drive from the Texas Panhandle to San Antonio, but most of the state's population can reach San Antonio within 5 hours by car; 9. the history of Texas Baptists shows many splits over 150 years--none, from what I can understand, were for godly reasons (rather, regional differences festering; when Texas Baptists subsequently came back together, it also wasn't for godly reasons [ie, repentance for unnecessary splits]); 10. Indiana: much less SBC influence there--but San Antonio is a "funner place to visit"!
• June 20, 2006, charliemac writes: I would suggest that possibly the before guessing as to what the BGCT folk may think or do next year in San Antonio one might do well to read the current editorial in The Baptist Standard ( www.thebaptiststandard.com ) I suspect that most members of the BGCT will continue to stay away in droves. Although you keep messing up the missionaries and the "real" old time SBCers of Texas could get riled up enough to once again care.
• June 20, 2006, Ron West writes: Mav Knox asks some good questions that Art, Marty, Wade and other bloggers as well as Frank Page need to answer. The paragraph starting define broad is a good one. How can we say things are changing and this is a new day when most of you continue to affirm the conservative resurgence and all the carnal political activity that accompanied it? He asked a good question. Will those in the BGCT be welcomed by Frank Page? Are they only to send in their CP money and sit on the sidelines when appointments are made as they have been asked to do in the past? How about getting down to some real answers without all the code words.
• June 20, 2006, art rogers writes: Ron? is that you typing under your name instead of rzrbk? You said: "How can we say things are changing and this is a new day when most of you continue to affirm the conservative resurgence and all the carnal political activity that accompanied it?" Please find for me a place where me or any of my peers - let's say anyone in Memphis - affirms the carnal political activity of anything - especially the resurgence. I know that I have, on NUMEROUS occassions affirmed the heart of theological conservatism and dealing with very real issues within the SBC, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME decrying EVERYONE (read: either side) who used the resurgence for personal political advancement or an "ends justifies the means" ethic to govern their behavior. It is ludicrous that you would try and hang that on me or my peers. It's a clear distortion of what we have said and what Memphis explicitly decried. C'mon, man. As to who Frank Page will or will not appoint, the only thing I know is that he said he would appoint "theological conservatives" and the word "inerrantists" was thrown in there. Let me say this about "inerrancy." I use the word because if anyone in my circles tries to skirt the word, eyebrows raise and they whisper you are probably "one of them" who questions Scripture's authority. I have to embrace it so that I don't have to go back and defend my beliefs to my fellow conservatives - who probably won't believe me since I didn't use that word the first time. I don't like the political strings that are attached to that word. I wish that we were more apt to listen to the way a person defines their beliefs for themselves. I used to try this, but, honestly, we are too shallow. They just want to hear it or hear it denied. Anything other than embracing it is considered to be denial. What else can a conservative do? Having said that, you will have to see who Frank Page appoints. I have no knowledge of his mind beyond what I have told you. I do know that Ben Cole told him that we (bloggers) wanted nothing from him personally and did not desire any appointments. We all (all=most of the prominant bloggers and some folks from Memphis that do not blog) have affirmed this personally to him and I do so, again, publicly. Any "code words" in that? Sheesh!
• June 21, 2006, John Fariss writes: Were I among the power brokers and king-makers (HA!), I wouldn't try to set up confrontations with Dr. Page, not now or next year in Texas. The principle I would employ is incremental (not instant or overwhelming) escalation. I would first try to win him over--make him into a "good 'ole boy," show him (and any supporters/advisors who can be identified) how much "alike" they already are, how important it is to "stay the course," give him new peers who could subtly apply pressure, give plausible rationales for what has been done, then confuse what was done with how it was done. Only if that failed would I try to overpower him. Another word for the same thing: seduction. Another illustration for the same thing: put a frog into a pot of hot water and it will jump out; put the same frog into cool water, but heat it slowly, and it will lie there until it cooks. For his blogger-supporters: maybe a bit more confrontation would be necessary, so set up straw men--maybe like beverage alcohol and Calvinism--and use pawns to deliver them. These and other pawns would be rabbits for them to chase--in other words, (1) distract them, and (2) mislead the uninformed. At least that's what I would do--if I were a smart, but spiritually immature manipulator, perhaps dysfunctional or just a control freak. And I would point out that the number of years and positions of authority a person has served is not necessarily indicative of maturity in Christ. In the early 80's, I heard the head of a state government agency say, "We have people who have been working for us 20 years. But that doesn't mean they have 20 years of experience; it may mean that have one year of experience they have repeated 20 times." Just because a person has been a Christian for 20, 30, 50 years or whatever, it does not necessarily mean they have 20, 30, 50 years of growth in Christ. They may have one (1) year of growth they have repeated year after year. That is where DISCIPLESHIP comes in--and discipleship is hardly talked about in Baptist circles anymore. All the leadership seems to talk about is evangelism: reach more, baptize more (properly, of course), don't purge our rolls of people we can't find because they can be targeted for evangelism (huh?), and all the problems the SBC or our churches face can be cured by evangelism. But Jesus said to evangelize AND to disciple. Does it bother anyone besides me that we seem to be emphasizing half of what Jesus commissioned us to do at the expense of the other half? John Fariss
• June 21, 2006, art rogers writes: John, You are one scary dude. I mean that in the nicest way. :)
• June 21, 2006, John Fariss writes: And the scariest part is that I didn't learn this either from my father, who was a career police officer in a political small town, or from my own 7 1/2 years on the PD in a city of 150,000. I learned it in the pastorate.
• June 21, 2006, art rogers writes: Oh, and Ron, for Marv to have questions that demand an answer, he is going to have to either understand us better or portray us more accurately. Marv Knox describes us this way: "like Page, they strongly affirm the 'conservative resurgence,' trumpet inerrancy and call for loyalty to the Cooperative Program as they define it (supporting only state conventions and the SBC, not other Baptist organizations such as the Baptist World Alliance, Baptist Joint Committee, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and WMU). So, “broad” seems to mean young, polite inerrantists who affirm the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message—not necessarily traditional, mainstream Baptists like most Texans. We don't support the WMU and are not "traditional, mainstream Baptists?" PUUUHHLEEEAAASE. As to the other organizations, he may be accurate, but you will have to speak to each individuals as to their personal stance. It still doesn't excuse such careless and pejorative reporting from a "professional" journalist.
• June 23, 2006, JUSTAMOE writes: Art: In case this thread still is receiving attention, you typed in reply to Ron, ". . . for Marv [Knox] to have questions that demand an answer, he is going to have to either understand us better or portray us more accurately . . ." Moving nearer to Dallas may give you a chance to get to know Marv better, too. Marv was "blogging" before blogging was cool (in the sense that he's been one sharp editor since before blogging was vogue), he recognizes "off-the-wall journalism" when he reads it in other state Baptist conventions' newspapers, and--seriously--he'd fit well into the hotel suite photos we've seen posted at the popular blogsites now since Greensboro. Anyone disbeliefing this: phone Marv yourself to find out (214-630-4571; cf. Matthew 18--offended one makes the call). I think that Marv stands were many Texas Baptists stand today: missing his SBC brothers, not because they "took their toys and went home," but because those parted Christian brothers are/were his really good friends in ministry and life--and for no reason better than what you unfortunately must state about your own situation regarding the use or conscientious refusal to use the word "inerrant" (reminder: for 40 years, the phrase "truth without any mixture of error" alone basically was considered by all Southern Baptists as the best brief sentence ever written in human history about God's Holy Word). I've realized that my several comments posted at the popular blogsites since January have had no profound effect on any reader of them, but I'll type this one again, just in case . . . and I challenge any reasonable reader to show that this isn't and can't be true (so far, no takers): ANY YEAR'S VERSION--1925, 1963, or 2001--IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PERSONAL THEOLOGICAL PERSUASIONS OF EVERY KIND OF BAPTIST EVER WALKING ON THE PLANET EARTH, AND CAN BE THE BASIS FOR OUR COOPERATION IN MISSIONS AND EVANGELISM IF WE WILL COOPERATE--AND THAT IS THE QUESTION TODAY. Not to agree with my statement is not to understand either the BFM statements or Baptists, or both. Until we all understand and accept this, the SBC as a whole will never move out of "stupid mode" and back into maximum ministry effectiveness (the issue isn't theological, and no longer is only political; it's just plain ol' stupid now). And, there is no courageous reconciler anywhere among us working from that basis; if there is one, the rest of us need for him to stand up taller so that we can see him and follow him. Otherwise, editors like Marv are right: "Sorry, nothing changed". Just my two cents, because I'm "justamoe" who is ready for ALL OF US to be wiser, choose better, and move forward TOGETHER—and I know that we can if we will. David Troublefield JUSTAMOE

Ronnie Floyd’s statement about Sutton splitting the “strong, conservative vote” is telling. What he really means – AND I AGREE WITH HIM – is that the vote of those who follow the Inner Circle (knowingly or unwittingly) was split. That is true.

Again, he is wrong to assume that all Sutton votes would have gone to him had Sutton not been in the race. That still doesn’t matter, though, because Page beat them both combined.

The question now is, “What will be the make up of the convention in San Antonio?”

Before I left, Marty, his lovely wife, Sonya and I ate at the Lone Star Steakhouse. As we were waiting, I took a picture of this:

Somehow, I thought it significant.

By the way, this is an anti-littering campaign slogan that the state of Texas came up with when I was a child. It seems to have taken on a life of its own.

Comments

• June 19, 2006, Jeff Richard Young writes: Dear Brother Art, The Inner Circle underestimated the level of dissent, fomented and fostered in part by us Baptist Bloggers. But even in their moment of weakness, all that happened was that a non-establishment man got 50% of the vote for President, and that's about it. Remember that Dr. Ascol's resolution on church membership and Dr. Cole's on principled dissent were not even cosidered! As far as the sentiment here in Texas, remember that Dr. Jim Richards is the one who strengthened the anti-alcohol resolution, and he's our SBTC Executive Director! If we are to affect further positive change, and not have the leash yanked back next year in San Antonio, we're going to have to keep up the biblical education and communication that we've started. Much good work needs to be done between now and then. Love in Christ, Jeff
• June 19, 2006, CB Scott writes: Art, Did you guys have the Rattle snake bites? That is what I had there and they were sooo good.
• June 19, 2006, Phillips Lynn writes: Jeff, You are correct. We can't quit now. We have to continue to attend BoT meetings, especially the IMB BoT meetings, as we have opportunity to do so. And we have to continue to inform our readers and churches of the issues. The "old guard" will not rest until they are "back in the saddle" again. They will have more time to develop their strategy and rally their troops. This year they were not prepared for the "blogger effect." That will not be the case next year. We must continue to pray, especially for Dr. Page and his family. The "old guard" will be watching his every move in order to gain information to use for their next campaign. Now that Greensboro is behind us, I hope to see you next year in San Antonio.
• June 19, 2006, Kevin Bussey writes: You went to Greensboro and didn't have BBQ! Uggh! What am I going to do with you!
• June 19, 2006, art rogers writes: They didn't have BBQ in Greensboro. All they had was pulled pork and there is no way I was going to torture myself thusly. I have not sufficiently sinned enough to require such an act.
• June 19, 2006, annie writes: I tend to disagree about the OG trying to fight to "get back in the saddle." With the advent of blogging there are no secrets anymore. In the past, cover-up was easier. Now they know that in reality, they can't trust anyone. THERE ARE TOO MANY SKELETONS IN THE CLOSET to draw attention to one's self lest it encourage excessive "delving.
• June 19, 2006, martyduren writes: Art- How long have you been reading Eating the Elephant?
• June 19, 2006, art rogers writes: Finished with it months ago. I've moved on to and through Blue like Jazz and the Missional Leader. Everything on the right side of the screen is still in a stack on my desk, waiting on me to quit blogging at night and read. Might just have to do that after we get moved.
• June 19, 2006, Sonya D writes: You mean we could have had rattle snake bites with our raspberry tea?
• June 19, 2006, Kevin Bussey writes: So that's why you don't eat real BBQ because you are eating elephant!
• June 19, 2006, Tim writes: About the SBC Annual Meeting in Texas... I don't know, but you might be pleasantly suprised by the BGCT turnout. I know, I know, the BGCT has given up on the SBC, right? Well, you probably are right. But, a lot of us still give to the CP, and therefore have some interest in things. Also, don't count out those guys that give a smattering to the CP, and would love to show up just to vote against the Fundementalist Establishment. Seriously, there are some old farts here that have long memories, and would love to be a fly in the ointment to the old SBC guard. Also, and finally, there is a generation of BGCT/SBC pastor/leaders that were barely in Jr. High when the original conflict was taking place. Yes, they will be different from you in some areas. We won't use the word "inerrant," but we do use words like "infallible, totally trustworthy in all areas" and even "without error" to apply to the Bible. But, we won't use the word "inerrant" because of political reasons. Heck, you might even find some of us that won't use "inerrant" or "infallible" because of the political overtones. So, who knows... You may be suprised. Tim

Related posts:

• Think I’m The Only One?
• Messier Mo
• Ray Boltz new single: Don’t Tell Me Who To Love
• Don’t waste your… Business Card
• Mark Driscoll on Evangelism: Not Imposing but Proposing

The Inner Circle has never lost in Texas. It is their strong tower, so to speak. However, I know a couple of SBT pastors who’s sympathies do not run to the Inner Circle. These are not bloggers, either. I wonder how many others like them are there? I am led to believe that many in the BGCT, though able, are not willing to send messengers, having had enough fighting for the SBC, so the question will be, “Where will the SBT sympathies lie?”

Ronnie Floyd’s statement about Sutton splitting the “strong, conservative vote” is telling. What he really means – AND I AGREE WITH HIM – is that the vote of those who follow the Inner Circle (knowingly or unwittingly) was split. That is true.

Again, he is wrong to assume that all Sutton votes would have gone to him had Sutton not been in the race. That still doesn’t matter, though, because Page beat them both combined.

The question now is, “What will be the make up of the convention in San Antonio?”

Before I left, Marty, his lovely wife, Sonya and I ate at the Lone Star Steakhouse. As we were waiting, I took a picture of this:

Somehow, I thought it significant.

By the way, this is an anti-littering campaign slogan that the state of Texas came up with when I was a child. It seems to have taken on a life of its own.

Comments

• June 19, 2006, Jeff Richard Young writes: Dear Brother Art, The Inner Circle underestimated the level of dissent, fomented and fostered in part by us Baptist Bloggers. But even in their moment of weakness, all that happened was that a non-establishment man got 50% of the vote for President, and that's about it. Remember that Dr. Ascol's resolution on church membership and Dr. Cole's on principled dissent were not even cosidered! As far as the sentiment here in Texas, remember that Dr. Jim Richards is the one who strengthened the anti-alcohol resolution, and he's our SBTC Executive Director! If we are to affect further positive change, and not have the leash yanked back next year in San Antonio, we're going to have to keep up the biblical education and communication that we've started. Much good work needs to be done between now and then. Love in Christ, Jeff
• June 19, 2006, CB Scott writes: Art, Did you guys have the Rattle snake bites? That is what I had there and they were sooo good.
• June 19, 2006, Phillips Lynn writes: Jeff, You are correct. We can't quit now. We have to continue to attend BoT meetings, especially the IMB BoT meetings, as we have opportunity to do so. And we have to continue to inform our readers and churches of the issues. The "old guard" will not rest until they are "back in the saddle" again. They will have more time to develop their strategy and rally their troops. This year they were not prepared for the "blogger effect." That will not be the case next year. We must continue to pray, especially for Dr. Page and his family. The "old guard" will be watching his every move in order to gain information to use for their next campaign. Now that Greensboro is behind us, I hope to see you next year in San Antonio.
• June 19, 2006, Kevin Bussey writes: You went to Greensboro and didn't have BBQ! Uggh! What am I going to do with you!
• June 19, 2006, art rogers writes: They didn't have BBQ in Greensboro. All they had was pulled pork and there is no way I was going to torture myself thusly. I have not sufficiently sinned enough to require such an act.
• June 19, 2006, annie writes: I tend to disagree about the OG trying to fight to "get back in the saddle." With the advent of blogging there are no secrets anymore. In the past, cover-up was easier. Now they know that in reality, they can't trust anyone. THERE ARE TOO MANY SKELETONS IN THE CLOSET to draw attention to one's self lest it encourage excessive "delving.
• June 19, 2006, martyduren writes: Art- How long have you been reading Eating the Elephant?
• June 19, 2006, art rogers writes: Finished with it months ago. I've moved on to and through Blue like Jazz and the Missional Leader. Everything on the right side of the screen is still in a stack on my desk, waiting on me to quit blogging at night and read. Might just have to do that after we get moved.
• June 19, 2006, Sonya D writes: You mean we could have had rattle snake bites with our raspberry tea?
• June 19, 2006, Kevin Bussey writes: So that's why you don't eat real BBQ because you are eating elephant!
• June 19, 2006, Tim writes: About the SBC Annual Meeting in Texas... I don't know, but you might be pleasantly suprised by the BGCT turnout. I know, I know, the BGCT has given up on the SBC, right? Well, you probably are right. But, a lot of us still give to the CP, and therefore have some interest in things. Also, don't count out those guys that give a smattering to the CP, and would love to show up just to vote against the Fundementalist Establishment. Seriously, there are some old farts here that have long memories, and would love to be a fly in the ointment to the old SBC guard. Also, and finally, there is a generation of BGCT/SBC pastor/leaders that were barely in Jr. High when the original conflict was taking place. Yes, they will be different from you in some areas. We won't use the word "inerrant," but we do use words like "infallible, totally trustworthy in all areas" and even "without error" to apply to the Bible. But, we won't use the word "inerrant" because of political reasons. Heck, you might even find some of us that won't use "inerrant" or "infallible" because of the political overtones. So, who knows... You may be suprised. Tim

Related posts:

• Think I’m The Only One?
• Messier Mo
• Ray Boltz new single: Don’t Tell Me Who To Love
• Don’t waste your… Business Card
• Mark Driscoll on Evangelism: Not Imposing but Proposing

We ended up going to the second level, which was also quite full. As we made our way down the side we saw some empty chairs at the top of what turned out to be some pretty steep stairs. Since no one submitted a picture of me, and you didn’t meet me at the convention, you might not know that I am no longer the slim young man I once was.

That is to say, I suffer from “Dunlapped Disease.” In the words of Jeff Foxworthy, my belly Dunlapped over my belt.

Anyway, on the way up, I saw Steve McCoy and Joe Thorn about halfway to my destination. Finding them to be quite fun and funny upon meeting them face to face, and needing desperately to stop and suck in much needed oxygen, I paused for a quick word of greeting.

A few minutes later I was at the top, directly behind the “Missional” men, removed by about 10 rows. I kept thinking that if I had anything to throw, that I could easily have hit Joe’s head as it presented itself as an inviting target. Alas, I had no ammunition.

The first two presidential nomination speeches were full of cliches, dropped names and winking nods that their man was inner circle connected. I found the whole thing humorous.

I particularly found it funny when Johnny Hunt declared his nominee to be “Missional.” Apparently, so did Steve and Joe, because I thought they were going to literally fall out of their seats. They were laughing so hard, I thought they might hurt themselves.

I knew this would be true, because Steve suggested a couple of weeks ago, at my expense, that one must read something akin to a doctral dissertation before being allowed to use the word.

Marty took off down the steps to say something to them about it, but I was laughing pretty hard myself and couldn’t move.

Amazingly, this was the last I saw of those two. I wonder where they went.

Comments

• June 17, 2006, Steve McCoy writes: It's not the volume of material needed that's important, it's the content. I'd be happy if someone read an accurate sentence fragment on "missional." Geez. Were those nominations awful or what? And please now admit, Art, that we as SBC'rs have completely ripped "missional" out of its defined glory. If that isn't clear after those nominations, I don't know what is. Oh, and as to where we went, after the resolutions we had a meeting with an "important insider" and then left because my Grandma had a stroke. By the way, great to meet you finally.
• June 17, 2006, art rogers writes: Steve, I wholeheartedly agree that the word is now just a buzzword among the SBC with little context for most who use it. True dat. Again, praying for you and your family. It was great meeting you, as well. As I said at your place, you are much taller in person than on your blog. art

Related posts:

• Laughing Out Loud…
• Book Tag
• Simply Missional Article from Ed Stetzer and Eric Geiger
• Missional Non-Conference with David Fitch
• Here’s Missional

Right before folks were nominated and then received votes for President, Marty Duren and I were looking for a seat in the convention center. Of course, this is the premier moment and everyone was there for the vote.

We ended up going to the second level, which was also quite full. As we made our way down the side we saw some empty chairs at the top of what turned out to be some pretty steep stairs. Since no one submitted a picture of me, and you didn’t meet me at the convention, you might not know that I am no longer the slim young man I once was.

That is to say, I suffer from “Dunlapped Disease.” In the words of Jeff Foxworthy, my belly Dunlapped over my belt.

Anyway, on the way up, I saw Steve McCoy and Joe Thorn about halfway to my destination. Finding them to be quite fun and funny upon meeting them face to face, and needing desperately to stop and suck in much needed oxygen, I paused for a quick word of greeting.

A few minutes later I was at the top, directly behind the “Missional” men, removed by about 10 rows. I kept thinking that if I had anything to throw, that I could easily have hit Joe’s head as it presented itself as an inviting target. Alas, I had no ammunition.

The first two presidential nomination speeches were full of cliches, dropped names and winking nods that their man was inner circle connected. I found the whole thing humorous.

I particularly found it funny when Johnny Hunt declared his nominee to be “Missional.” Apparently, so did Steve and Joe, because I thought they were going to literally fall out of their seats. They were laughing so hard, I thought they might hurt themselves.

I knew this would be true, because Steve suggested a couple of weeks ago, at my expense, that one must read something akin to a doctral dissertation before being allowed to use the word.

Marty took off down the steps to say something to them about it, but I was laughing pretty hard myself and couldn’t move.

Amazingly, this was the last I saw of those two. I wonder where they went.

Comments

• June 17, 2006, Steve McCoy writes: It's not the volume of material needed that's important, it's the content. I'd be happy if someone read an accurate sentence fragment on "missional." Geez. Were those nominations awful or what? And please now admit, Art, that we as SBC'rs have completely ripped "missional" out of its defined glory. If that isn't clear after those nominations, I don't know what is. Oh, and as to where we went, after the resolutions we had a meeting with an "important insider" and then left because my Grandma had a stroke. By the way, great to meet you finally.
• June 17, 2006, art rogers writes: Steve, I wholeheartedly agree that the word is now just a buzzword among the SBC with little context for most who use it. True dat. Again, praying for you and your family. It was great meeting you, as well. As I said at your place, you are much taller in person than on your blog. art

Related posts:

• Laughing Out Loud…
• Book Tag
• Simply Missional Article from Ed Stetzer and Eric Geiger
• Missional Non-Conference with David Fitch
• Here’s Missional

Then I read his conciliation blog. You can read it at:

SBC Is Over, Let’s Move Forward

In this post, Ronnie claims that when Jerry Sutton entered the race, eight days before the convention, he split the “strong conservative vote.”

I’m sorry, but this is myopic.

To claim that Jerry Sutton split the conservative vote, implies that everyone else is a moderate or worse – a liberal. In fact, it ties Ronnie now to the insinuation that Frank Page is less than a strong conservative.

It is a slap in the face of the entire Southern Baptist Convention, who voted more for Frank Page than for Floyd or Sutton COMBINED. Ronnie just implied that not only is Frank less than conservative, that we are as well.

Here’s how you know he’s wrong.

1. 30+% voted for a floor nominee two years ago, showing strong dissatisfaction with the “Kingmaker Appointment” process. This problem has been there for years. It is not new.

2. Ronnie is assuming that Jerry Sutton took all of his votes. He is not factoring in whether or not he took any of Frank Page’s votes. I know for a fact that he did. Ronnie would not have inherited 100% of Jerry’s votes had Jerry not been in the race.

3. The attendance, while up slightly, was not the 18,000 to 20,000 that some were predicting. 11,500 messengers was the highest total I heard. With just the slightest augmentation, the people who always show up were there this year.

These guys just don’t understand how out of touch with the Southern Baptist Convention they are. We are conservative, innerrantist men and women of God who are tired of our Cooperation together being used as a political tool to stroke the need of some to gratify their ego or satisfy their need for control.

And for Ronnie to say that he took the high road after saying that Sutton split his vote, implying that the rest of us (the majority of us) were less than conservative, and that he would never understand the logic in such a move, simply boggles the mind.

Comments

• June 16, 2006, Kevin Bussey writes: Art, It is a slap in the face to Dr. Page! I expected better from Dr. Floyd. I really did. He owes Dr. Page an apology!
• June 16, 2006, Jamie Wootten writes: Art, I understand how you and some others interpret Floyd's words to imply that Page and everyone who voted for him are mod - lib. I think we should give him a little more benefit of the doubt though. These are the words of a man who is likely frustrated, humiliated and even hurt. Sometimes we all say things we don't honestly mean when we let our emotions get the best of us. With that in mind... I do believe no matter what he was implying or not implying that his tone was ungracious and smacked of being a sore loser. Kevin is right, a public apology and congrats to Dr. Page would a nice gesture.
• June 16, 2006, Anonymous writes: Dr. Floyd's post was a little surprising. However, he did contact Dr. Page and prayed with him on Thursday morning.Whether that was a simple gesture or sincere I do not know. I feel we should give Dr. Floyd the benefit of doubt.
• June 16, 2006, Kevin writes: It was good to see you at the convention I also saw Wes but didn’t see many others. For a first time SBC convention goers my wife and I felt that a lot was accomplished at this years convention and really enjoyed most of it (a lot of business and reports) but there were some things that happened that I found humorous. 1. Ergun Caner sat behind me as Wade made his motion what made me laugh was when he came up and found his friends he asked if this was his seat they said no they were saving that for "a trustee" and his reply was "I am going to go start blogging" Which made me turn and look the older man behind me noticed I was from OK and asked what part, I talked to him for a while and really enjoyed that. (I really wanted to shake Dr. Caners hand with the statement "Hi I am a blogger."he left before I got the chance.) 2. On the plane ride home there were more preachers than you can shake a stick at. What was funny was that on row 21 was Paige Patterson in about row 17 was Ben Cole! I hope I am not the only one to find this funny? I did get a chance to talk to Dr. Patterson but did not get to talk to Ben. There were many others there and not one including Dr P said this was a bad conference most felt the vote was all about the CP giving. 3. We all laughed about Wiley's nomination. It was the best humors one ever. They also said that Forrest gave the best nomination and I agree with Wade that is what won it on first ballet I heard many around me make their vote because of what he said. Any way it was a very good convention in my opinion and there were some things that got done. I would have liked to see the SBC get the IMB issue fixed and Wade back to work. One bit at a time! Well call me when you get to T-Town and I will come down and we will do Lunch. In Him Kevin Lancaster
• June 16, 2006, Kevin Bussey writes: Anonymous, I'm glad they prayed together. Dr. Floyd should take his post off his site. I've done that on many occasions when I was confronted by wise people. He won't allow comments so there is no way we can confront him. I have always respected him. But this just sounds like sour grapes. I hope not but it is what it is.
• June 16, 2006, Phillips Lynn writes: Kevin, I am certain that apology will come as quickly as the one to Wade from the IMB BoTs. An apology would require an admission that a person was wrong and "kings and king makers" have an extremely difficult time admitting error in judgment. Art, You are correct in you statements "These guys just don't understand how out of touch with the Southern Baptist Convention they are." I believe that was presented loudly in Greensboro. Although it is a fact that Jerry Sutton was approached about allowing himself to be nominated for president because some of the "kings and king makers" could not in good faith vote for Ronnie Floyd, it is NOT true that Floyd would have gotten all of their votes had Sutton not be in the race. Floyd and Page would have split some of those votes with Page getting probably as many additional votes as Floyd. We would have seen more who just would not cast a vote for anyone for whatever reason. The "L" word has been used by the "kings and king makers" for so long to explain their problems and position. It will take them awhile to comprehend this new situation and develop a new vocabulary for explanation. Until then I guess we will keep seeing the "L" and "M" words thrown around because they have rallied their troops and empower their position with these words for so long.
• June 16, 2006, Anonymous writes: Don't over react to the word "conservative"--it is just some holdover language. Dr. Floyd truly is a man of integrity and character--ask his flock of almost 20 years in NWA. You younger pastor's will better appreciate his consistency and lived out character once you have done this for nearly 3 decades as he has done.
• June 16, 2006, art rogers writes: Anonymous, Sorry, but you come off as condescending. I hope that you are not. I am in my 20th year in ministry, myself. I believe I have a pretty good perspective on these things. If you would like to understand my perspective more, go back and read the series I did entitled, "My Journey Through The Resurgence To Memphis."
• June 16, 2006, CW writes: I think Coach's post illustrates the disconnect between denominational leaders and the rank and file Southern Baptist. I do feel we should take it easy on him. His post read like the words of a man in pain. I agree with Kevin and imagine he will remove it or change it. The sad thing is that we have a glimpse into his heart and can see that it is filled with a misconception.
• June 16, 2006, Darren writes: Art, It was good meeting you on Tuesday around lunch in the food court area of the mall. Duren's just a good ol Georgia boy that my wife and I really enjoyed talking with and I appreciate your spirit and candor. As things continue to simmer down from Greensboro, my hope continues toward the resolution of the new policies that go beyond the BF&M that will keep good men and women from going to the field and serve as a distraction for some who are currently there. I sooo appreciated Mr. Burleson's stand. He showed great grace and courage. I'm sure Wade would agree with this, but this wasn't and isn't about Wade for me, it's about these policies that narrow the parameters of cooperation in Kingdom work. I hope folks don't forget this...
• June 16, 2006, art rogers writes: Darren, Amen and amen. art
• June 16, 2006, Anonymous writes: Reaction to defeat in the SBC presidential race? Ronnie Floyd's was the same as when he was defeated in the presidential contest of the Arkansas Baptist Convention -- he lost, by 2-1 margin, to the current governor of the State of Arkansas Mike Huckabee. Not much support for the CP through state channels after that.
• June 16, 2006, TheMDude writes: Over here in Asia we would simply see Ronnie's words as an attempt to save "face" - what he doesn't realize is that he is not a "player" in the SBC anymore - and perhaps the vote is a mandate from small church pastors that the direction of the SBC will be led by the majority (small churches) and not the minority mega church pastors. Blogging is citizen journalism. The many to many. Just as Americans are dis-inchanted with legacy news media (papers and network channels) and are getting news themselves online, SB members realize that blogs are the answer. I know some of the bloggers think readership will decrease now, but I think it will increase.
• June 16, 2006, GeneMBridges writes: I was particularly struck by the language he used before and after. When expressing his desire to accept nomination, he spoke of a Macedonia vision and we were told he was supernaturally drafted by God. Now that he's lost, Brother Ronnie blames it on Jerry Sutton "splitting the strong conservative vote." One can only gather from this that his answer to Job's question, "Shall we accept good from God and not accept adversity?" (Job 2:10) is "Yes." Let's see him say that God, in His providence, as put Brother Frank into office. That is very evident, for history is nothing more than the record of God's sovereign decrees enacted. We KNOW that God, for purposes yet to be seen, has put Brother Frank into his office as president, precisely because it happened. He works all things after the counsel of His will. Let's see Brother Ronnie glorify God instead of blaming man...and that, anonymous, is the true mark of consistent Christian character.
• June 16, 2006, Alan Cross writes: From reading his post, I think that it is possible that he sees himself as the true conservative. I think that it is possible for him to see things that way without thinking ill of Dr. Page or thinking that he is a moderate or liberal. Sometimes during a great disappointment, we can become rather introspective and only see things through our point of view. Our words may be negative towards others, but they may not be intended that way. I supported Dr. Page and was not a supporter of Dr. Floyd, but I've got to think that he is very disappointed and is possibly dealing with some confusion and feelings of rejection, both by God and his fellow Christians. I guess, even with his language not being all that I would like, I feel for the guy and cannot imagine how I would handle such a public rejection, especially after throwing myself in the ring at the beginning, believing that it was a done deal. History has shifted and so much that was true about the SBC two months ago has been turned on it's head. Ronnie Floyd got caught in the wake of an emerging grassroots groundswell and no one knows where it is headed. I'm willing to give him a pass right now as he tries to figure out how to react. In other words, I think it is possible that he considered himself the conservative candidate without necessarily implying that Page was the moderate candidate. But, I could be wrong.
• June 17, 2006, Rzrbk writes: Art, Thanks for sharing with us Ronnie’s take on the convention and correctly pointing out his mistaken implication that he and Sutton split the conservative vote and that those voting for Frank Page were not conservative and therefore liberal. For those of us from Arkansas, this is nothing new. He and the resurgence party in Arkansas have used this same labeling strategy for years. You may be correct in saying they just don’t get it or it could be that they get it but still use those labels because they know most others don’t get it and will believe them. Now I wonder if many of the young bloggers get it. Are they guilty of using the same kind of language? I am not directing this at you Art. When Wiley Drake says that there are still lots of liberal wolves in sheep clothing around and describes them as Southern Baptist terrorists, do he and those who rejoice in his election get it? In Wade Burleson’s Conservative vs. Compassionate Conservatives blog he said the liberals met their Waterloo in Dallas in 1985. Charles Stanley defeated Winfred Moore in that race. There were 45,000 in attendance and Moore got close to 20,000 votes. Winfred Moore was a solid theological conservative as were 99 percent of those who voted for him. Does Wade get it? In 1988 in San Antonio, Jerry Vines defeated Richard Jackson by 50.53 percent to 48.32 percent. Jackson was a solid theological conservative as were the over 15,000 Southern Baptists who voted for him. Remember only 5,000 voted for Frank Page. Jackson was pastor of a church that gave over $1 million dollars a year to the cooperative program and led the SBC in baptisms with over 1,000 a year for several years. That didn’t stop the resurgence folks from starting rumors and innuendoes about him and his wife. Too bad there were no bloggers to spread the truth in those days. Jackson was committed to appointing theological conservatives while Vines was committed to making political appointments that resulted in people such as Olin Collins and Bill Hancock serving as trustees. I believe if Jackson or Moore had won, our convention would be more theologically conservative today and we would not have the continual battles for control that we have experienced over the last 25 years. When the young bloggers make statements like the liberals are no longer here we are all conservative now that is a slap in the face to those theological conservatives who supported our convention but were attacked and made to feel unwelcome by people like Wiley Drake, W. A. Criswell, Paul Pressler and others who have used dishonest labels to attack those they disagree with. They say it is about the Bible but they spend our time at the convention arguing over things like the WMU and private vs. public schools. Maybe it is time to reread the Memphis statement and see if we all still have some repenting to do. Ron West
• June 17, 2006, Jeff Richard Young writes: Dear Brother Art, Is Dr. Floyd, along with everyone else, missing the fact that even Sutton's and Floyd's votes together do not equal Page's? Even if the "strong conservative" votes had all been for Floyd, he still would have lost. Dear Alan, You are very nice. I learned alot about personal kindness in the brief time I spent with you this week. But you are being too easy on Dr. Floyd here. He gets no pass from me on this one. He consciously, consistently lead his church to reduce CP % giving steadily for 20 years until it is .27 of one percent. As a result, he now can't get elected for SBC president despite the support of the establishment. Then he wants to say those who voted for Page are not strong conservatives and that Sutton cost him the election. I know 10-year-old soccer players who are better losers that this pastor. Sorry, no pass on this one. Love in Christ, Jeff
• June 19, 2006, Anonymous writes: Art, For the record, you are right on target. I have a member whose grown children attend FBC Springdale (Ronnie Floyd's church) and when she asked me this Sunday what I thought about the SBC, I told her I was excited about the future now that Frank Page was elected president. She expressed fear, saying, "I heard he was a bit liberal." I told her that whoever passed that along to her was completely mislead, or sore that Ronnie Floyd had lost.

Related posts:

• Two Three Way Races?

I am glad to hear that Ronnie Floyd is ready to move on now the SBC is over. I have said a few good things about him, but raised more questions concerning his CP giving. I had thought that he was handling himself fairly well in defeat, being that I perceived him to want the position very badly.

Then I read his conciliation blog. You can read it at:

SBC Is Over, Let’s Move Forward

In this post, Ronnie claims that when Jerry Sutton entered the race, eight days before the convention, he split the “strong conservative vote.”

I’m sorry, but this is myopic.

To claim that Jerry Sutton split the conservative vote, implies that everyone else is a moderate or worse – a liberal. In fact, it ties Ronnie now to the insinuation that Frank Page is less than a strong conservative.

It is a slap in the face of the entire Southern Baptist Convention, who voted more for Frank Page than for Floyd or Sutton COMBINED. Ronnie just implied that not only is Frank less than conservative, that we are as well.

Here’s how you know he’s wrong.

1. 30+% voted for a floor nominee two years ago, showing strong dissatisfaction with the “Kingmaker Appointment” process. This problem has been there for years. It is not new.

2. Ronnie is assuming that Jerry Sutton took all of his votes. He is not factoring in whether or not he took any of Frank Page’s votes. I know for a fact that he did. Ronnie would not have inherited 100% of Jerry’s votes had Jerry not been in the race.

3. The attendance, while up slightly, was not the 18,000 to 20,000 that some were predicting. 11,500 messengers was the highest total I heard. With just the slightest augmentation, the people who always show up were there this year.

These guys just don’t understand how out of touch with the Southern Baptist Convention they are. We are conservative, innerrantist men and women of God who are tired of our Cooperation together being used as a political tool to stroke the need of some to gratify their ego or satisfy their need for control.

And for Ronnie to say that he took the high road after saying that Sutton split his vote, implying that the rest of us (the majority of us) were less than conservative, and that he would never understand the logic in such a move, simply boggles the mind.

Comments

• June 16, 2006, Kevin Bussey writes: Art, It is a slap in the face to Dr. Page! I expected better from Dr. Floyd. I really did. He owes Dr. Page an apology!
• June 16, 2006, Jamie Wootten writes: Art, I understand how you and some others interpret Floyd's words to imply that Page and everyone who voted for him are mod - lib. I think we should give him a little more benefit of the doubt though. These are the words of a man who is likely frustrated, humiliated and even hurt. Sometimes we all say things we don't honestly mean when we let our emotions get the best of us. With that in mind... I do believe no matter what he was implying or not implying that his tone was ungracious and smacked of being a sore loser. Kevin is right, a public apology and congrats to Dr. Page would a nice gesture.
• June 16, 2006, Anonymous writes: Dr. Floyd's post was a little surprising. However, he did contact Dr. Page and prayed with him on Thursday morning.Whether that was a simple gesture or sincere I do not know. I feel we should give Dr. Floyd the benefit of doubt.
• June 16, 2006, Kevin writes: It was good to see you at the convention I also saw Wes but didn’t see many others. For a first time SBC convention goers my wife and I felt that a lot was accomplished at this years convention and really enjoyed most of it (a lot of business and reports) but there were some things that happened that I found humorous. 1. Ergun Caner sat behind me as Wade made his motion what made me laugh was when he came up and found his friends he asked if this was his seat they said no they were saving that for "a trustee" and his reply was "I am going to go start blogging" Which made me turn and look the older man behind me noticed I was from OK and asked what part, I talked to him for a while and really enjoyed that. (I really wanted to shake Dr. Caners hand with the statement "Hi I am a blogger."he left before I got the chance.) 2. On the plane ride home there were more preachers than you can shake a stick at. What was funny was that on row 21 was Paige Patterson in about row 17 was Ben Cole! I hope I am not the only one to find this funny? I did get a chance to talk to Dr. Patterson but did not get to talk to Ben. There were many others there and not one including Dr P said this was a bad conference most felt the vote was all about the CP giving. 3. We all laughed about Wiley's nomination. It was the best humors one ever. They also said that Forrest gave the best nomination and I agree with Wade that is what won it on first ballet I heard many around me make their vote because of what he said. Any way it was a very good convention in my opinion and there were some things that got done. I would have liked to see the SBC get the IMB issue fixed and Wade back to work. One bit at a time! Well call me when you get to T-Town and I will come down and we will do Lunch. In Him Kevin Lancaster
• June 16, 2006, Kevin Bussey writes: Anonymous, I'm glad they prayed together. Dr. Floyd should take his post off his site. I've done that on many occasions when I was confronted by wise people. He won't allow comments so there is no way we can confront him. I have always respected him. But this just sounds like sour grapes. I hope not but it is what it is.
• June 16, 2006, Phillips Lynn writes: Kevin, I am certain that apology will come as quickly as the one to Wade from the IMB BoTs. An apology would require an admission that a person was wrong and "kings and king makers" have an extremely difficult time admitting error in judgment. Art, You are correct in you statements "These guys just don't understand how out of touch with the Southern Baptist Convention they are." I believe that was presented loudly in Greensboro. Although it is a fact that Jerry Sutton was approached about allowing himself to be nominated for president because some of the "kings and king makers" could not in good faith vote for Ronnie Floyd, it is NOT true that Floyd would have gotten all of their votes had Sutton not be in the race. Floyd and Page would have split some of those votes with Page getting probably as many additional votes as Floyd. We would have seen more who just would not cast a vote for anyone for whatever reason. The "L" word has been used by the "kings and king makers" for so long to explain their problems and position. It will take them awhile to comprehend this new situation and develop a new vocabulary for explanation. Until then I guess we will keep seeing the "L" and "M" words thrown around because they have rallied their troops and empower their position with these words for so long.
• June 16, 2006, Anonymous writes: Don't over react to the word "conservative"--it is just some holdover language. Dr. Floyd truly is a man of integrity and character--ask his flock of almost 20 years in NWA. You younger pastor's will better appreciate his consistency and lived out character once you have done this for nearly 3 decades as he has done.
• June 16, 2006, art rogers writes: Anonymous, Sorry, but you come off as condescending. I hope that you are not. I am in my 20th year in ministry, myself. I believe I have a pretty good perspective on these things. If you would like to understand my perspective more, go back and read the series I did entitled, "My Journey Through The Resurgence To Memphis."
• June 16, 2006, CW writes: I think Coach's post illustrates the disconnect between denominational leaders and the rank and file Southern Baptist. I do feel we should take it easy on him. His post read like the words of a man in pain. I agree with Kevin and imagine he will remove it or change it. The sad thing is that we have a glimpse into his heart and can see that it is filled with a misconception.
• June 16, 2006, Darren writes: Art, It was good meeting you on Tuesday around lunch in the food court area of the mall. Duren's just a good ol Georgia boy that my wife and I really enjoyed talking with and I appreciate your spirit and candor. As things continue to simmer down from Greensboro, my hope continues toward the resolution of the new policies that go beyond the BF&M that will keep good men and women from going to the field and serve as a distraction for some who are currently there. I sooo appreciated Mr. Burleson's stand. He showed great grace and courage. I'm sure Wade would agree with this, but this wasn't and isn't about Wade for me, it's about these policies that narrow the parameters of cooperation in Kingdom work. I hope folks don't forget this...
• June 16, 2006, art rogers writes: Darren, Amen and amen. art
• June 16, 2006, Anonymous writes: Reaction to defeat in the SBC presidential race? Ronnie Floyd's was the same as when he was defeated in the presidential contest of the Arkansas Baptist Convention -- he lost, by 2-1 margin, to the current governor of the State of Arkansas Mike Huckabee. Not much support for the CP through state channels after that.
• June 16, 2006, TheMDude writes: Over here in Asia we would simply see Ronnie's words as an attempt to save "face" - what he doesn't realize is that he is not a "player" in the SBC anymore - and perhaps the vote is a mandate from small church pastors that the direction of the SBC will be led by the majority (small churches) and not the minority mega church pastors. Blogging is citizen journalism. The many to many. Just as Americans are dis-inchanted with legacy news media (papers and network channels) and are getting news themselves online, SB members realize that blogs are the answer. I know some of the bloggers think readership will decrease now, but I think it will increase.
• June 16, 2006, GeneMBridges writes: I was particularly struck by the language he used before and after. When expressing his desire to accept nomination, he spoke of a Macedonia vision and we were told he was supernaturally drafted by God. Now that he's lost, Brother Ronnie blames it on Jerry Sutton "splitting the strong conservative vote." One can only gather from this that his answer to Job's question, "Shall we accept good from God and not accept adversity?" (Job 2:10) is "Yes." Let's see him say that God, in His providence, as put Brother Frank into office. That is very evident, for history is nothing more than the record of God's sovereign decrees enacted. We KNOW that God, for purposes yet to be seen, has put Brother Frank into his office as president, precisely because it happened. He works all things after the counsel of His will. Let's see Brother Ronnie glorify God instead of blaming man...and that, anonymous, is the true mark of consistent Christian character.
• June 16, 2006, Alan Cross writes: From reading his post, I think that it is possible that he sees himself as the true conservative. I think that it is possible for him to see things that way without thinking ill of Dr. Page or thinking that he is a moderate or liberal. Sometimes during a great disappointment, we can become rather introspective and only see things through our point of view. Our words may be negative towards others, but they may not be intended that way. I supported Dr. Page and was not a supporter of Dr. Floyd, but I've got to think that he is very disappointed and is possibly dealing with some confusion and feelings of rejection, both by God and his fellow Christians. I guess, even with his language not being all that I would like, I feel for the guy and cannot imagine how I would handle such a public rejection, especially after throwing myself in the ring at the beginning, believing that it was a done deal. History has shifted and so much that was true about the SBC two months ago has been turned on it's head. Ronnie Floyd got caught in the wake of an emerging grassroots groundswell and no one knows where it is headed. I'm willing to give him a pass right now as he tries to figure out how to react. In other words, I think it is possible that he considered himself the conservative candidate without necessarily implying that Page was the moderate candidate. But, I could be wrong.
• June 17, 2006, Rzrbk writes: Art, Thanks for sharing with us Ronnie’s take on the convention and correctly pointing out his mistaken implication that he and Sutton split the conservative vote and that those voting for Frank Page were not conservative and therefore liberal. For those of us from Arkansas, this is nothing new. He and the resurgence party in Arkansas have used this same labeling strategy for years. You may be correct in saying they just don’t get it or it could be that they get it but still use those labels because they know most others don’t get it and will believe them. Now I wonder if many of the young bloggers get it. Are they guilty of using the same kind of language? I am not directing this at you Art. When Wiley Drake says that there are still lots of liberal wolves in sheep clothing around and describes them as Southern Baptist terrorists, do he and those who rejoice in his election get it? In Wade Burleson’s Conservative vs. Compassionate Conservatives blog he said the liberals met their Waterloo in Dallas in 1985. Charles Stanley defeated Winfred Moore in that race. There were 45,000 in attendance and Moore got close to 20,000 votes. Winfred Moore was a solid theological conservative as were 99 percent of those who voted for him. Does Wade get it? In 1988 in San Antonio, Jerry Vines defeated Richard Jackson by 50.53 percent to 48.32 percent. Jackson was a solid theological conservative as were the over 15,000 Southern Baptists who voted for him. Remember only 5,000 voted for Frank Page. Jackson was pastor of a church that gave over $1 million dollars a year to the cooperative program and led the SBC in baptisms with over 1,000 a year for several years. That didn’t stop the resurgence folks from starting rumors and innuendoes about him and his wife. Too bad there were no bloggers to spread the truth in those days. Jackson was committed to appointing theological conservatives while Vines was committed to making political appointments that resulted in people such as Olin Collins and Bill Hancock serving as trustees. I believe if Jackson or Moore had won, our convention would be more theologically conservative today and we would not have the continual battles for control that we have experienced over the last 25 years. When the young bloggers make statements like the liberals are no longer here we are all conservative now that is a slap in the face to those theological conservatives who supported our convention but were attacked and made to feel unwelcome by people like Wiley Drake, W. A. Criswell, Paul Pressler and others who have used dishonest labels to attack those they disagree with. They say it is about the Bible but they spend our time at the convention arguing over things like the WMU and private vs. public schools. Maybe it is time to reread the Memphis statement and see if we all still have some repenting to do. Ron West
• June 17, 2006, Jeff Richard Young writes: Dear Brother Art, Is Dr. Floyd, along with everyone else, missing the fact that even Sutton's and Floyd's votes together do not equal Page's? Even if the "strong conservative" votes had all been for Floyd, he still would have lost. Dear Alan, You are very nice. I learned alot about personal kindness in the brief time I spent with you this week. But you are being too easy on Dr. Floyd here. He gets no pass from me on this one. He consciously, consistently lead his church to reduce CP % giving steadily for 20 years until it is .27 of one percent. As a result, he now can't get elected for SBC president despite the support of the establishment. Then he wants to say those who voted for Page are not strong conservatives and that Sutton cost him the election. I know 10-year-old soccer players who are better losers that this pastor. Sorry, no pass on this one. Love in Christ, Jeff
• June 19, 2006, Anonymous writes: Art, For the record, you are right on target. I have a member whose grown children attend FBC Springdale (Ronnie Floyd's church) and when she asked me this Sunday what I thought about the SBC, I told her I was excited about the future now that Frank Page was elected president. She expressed fear, saying, "I heard he was a bit liberal." I told her that whoever passed that along to her was completely mislead, or sore that Ronnie Floyd had lost.

Related posts:

• Two Three Way Races?

Since no one sent me a picture of myself for my photo contest, here is a phone pic I took. Look for a few more, later.

Comments

• June 16, 2006, Stephen A Morse writes: Hello Art, my name is Stephen Morse. My wife and I sat with you at the Founder's Breakfast. It was a pleasure to speak with you. I wish that I would have known you when I was serving in your area at Calvary in Franklin. I longed for Reformed brothers (I still do). Come visit me sometime at www.throwtheword.com.
• June 16, 2006, art rogers writes: I deleted an anonymous (of course) comment that insinuated that Rachelle Burleson was pouring liquor. Give me a break. I saw no liquor anywhere at anytime during the SBC. I personally do not drink. The insinuation is character assaination and to post such a thing anonymously shows a complete lack of character on YOUR part. For everyone's information, she is pouring out of a plastic soda container a red soda. She was squeezing it in the middle as some do (not me, though.) You can tell that it is a soda bottle because of the white ring around the neck where the white plastic cap was detached from the safety ring. Leave your libelous rhetoric behind. Why would anybody listen to what you say if you assasinate character and do so both poorly and foolishly. Just wait until CB hears about this. It's a good thing I deleted this comment before he found it and tracked your ip address. Yeah, he knows someone who can do that.
• June 16, 2006, Tim Sweatman writes: Art, NO, not a picture of me taken from the side!!! If that resolution on gluttony were to ever pass, my denominational career would be over! Hmmm, I should be safe.
• June 16, 2006, Wade Burleson writes: It was Strawberry Soda from the local grocery store! :) My favorite. :)
• June 16, 2006, CB Scott writes: I have no doubt that Wade is truthful in saying it was strawberry soda. He always buys the cheap stuff:-) cb
• June 16, 2006, Philip writes: Hey Art, That anonymous comment was me. I did not intend to post it anonymously, I just wasn't careful with the radio buttons. Perhaps I should have put a winking smiley face to indicate my sarcasm, but I thought it was pretty clearly tongue-in-cheek. I guess the fact that it was mis-interpreted to be real means there are people who really would make a serious accusation like that from a phone camera photo? At least if some of the other comments I've seen on some of these alcohol threads are to be believed. Anyway, my apologies. I was just trying to joke around a little after a bunch of seriousness. I don't want Wade to worry that the photo will be presented at the next IMB meeting.
• June 16, 2006, art rogers writes: Philip, Hey, thanks for clarifying. I'm sorry if I over reacted. I have been bombed a couple of times today, so I guess that colored my thinking. Praise God He is merciful and does not judge us on our inabilities, but on His sufficiency. art
• June 16, 2006, Villa Rica writes: Phillip, Thank you for clearing that up. I had just loaded up the bulldogs to begin the "hunt" when my friend CB told me to stand down that it was not a green light. The dogs were restless due to not getting to go. I calmed them down with a promise that we would go to Kevin Bussey's house and let them smell his microphone so they could get on the trail of the Phelps Gang and round them up before they desecrate any more Flags or bring more sorrow to the families of fallen service men and women. Again, thanks for standing up and dealing with the matter properly. Villa Rica
• June 16, 2006, Dorcas writes: Hey - that's a picture with me in it! How fun.
• June 16, 2006, Dorcas writes: Art - I have some camera phone photos of CB ... but don't have the technology to get them off my phone and to my blog. Bummer.
• June 16, 2006, Kevin Bussey writes: Villa, You are a funny one! I could have used your dogs! :)
• June 19, 2006, Alan Brant writes: Art, I took a photo of you standing next to the curtain waiting on the presidential results to be read. I later deleted it because it was dark in that corridor going into the arena and you were looking shadowy. But good grief - if I would've have known your standards for posting photos, I would have kept it and claimed my prize! =-)
• June 19, 2006, art rogers writes: Hey, camera phones are camera phones. What can you expect? You should have sent it. I was expecting "clandestine" photos to be dark and blurry. Heck, I was counting on it.

Related posts:

• Phriday foto 5-11-07
• Wal-Mart Employee trampled to death on Black Friday
• Oklahoma City Bombing Anniversary 13 Years
• Vietnam
• Phriday Photo 09-07-07

Steve McCoy and Joe Thorn always post great pics on Friday. Mine is not great, but…

Since no one sent me a picture of myself for my photo contest, here is a phone pic I took. Look for a few more, later.

Comments

• June 16, 2006, Stephen A Morse writes: Hello Art, my name is Stephen Morse. My wife and I sat with you at the Founder's Breakfast. It was a pleasure to speak with you. I wish that I would have known you when I was serving in your area at Calvary in Franklin. I longed for Reformed brothers (I still do). Come visit me sometime at www.throwtheword.com.
• June 16, 2006, art rogers writes: I deleted an anonymous (of course) comment that insinuated that Rachelle Burleson was pouring liquor. Give me a break. I saw no liquor anywhere at anytime during the SBC. I personally do not drink. The insinuation is character assaination and to post such a thing anonymously shows a complete lack of character on YOUR part. For everyone's information, she is pouring out of a plastic soda container a red soda. She was squeezing it in the middle as some do (not me, though.) You can tell that it is a soda bottle because of the white ring around the neck where the white plastic cap was detached from the safety ring. Leave your libelous rhetoric behind. Why would anybody listen to what you say if you assasinate character and do so both poorly and foolishly. Just wait until CB hears about this. It's a good thing I deleted this comment before he found it and tracked your ip address. Yeah, he knows someone who can do that.
• June 16, 2006, Tim Sweatman writes: Art, NO, not a picture of me taken from the side!!! If that resolution on gluttony were to ever pass, my denominational career would be over! Hmmm, I should be safe.
• June 16, 2006, Wade Burleson writes: It was Strawberry Soda from the local grocery store! :) My favorite. :)
• June 16, 2006, CB Scott writes: I have no doubt that Wade is truthful in saying it was strawberry soda. He always buys the cheap stuff:-) cb
• June 16, 2006, Philip writes: Hey Art, That anonymous comment was me. I did not intend to post it anonymously, I just wasn't careful with the radio buttons. Perhaps I should have put a winking smiley face to indicate my sarcasm, but I thought it was pretty clearly tongue-in-cheek. I guess the fact that it was mis-interpreted to be real means there are people who really would make a serious accusation like that from a phone camera photo? At least if some of the other comments I've seen on some of these alcohol threads are to be believed. Anyway, my apologies. I was just trying to joke around a little after a bunch of seriousness. I don't want Wade to worry that the photo will be presented at the next IMB meeting.
• June 16, 2006, art rogers writes: Philip, Hey, thanks for clarifying. I'm sorry if I over reacted. I have been bombed a couple of times today, so I guess that colored my thinking. Praise God He is merciful and does not judge us on our inabilities, but on His sufficiency. art
• June 16, 2006, Villa Rica writes: Phillip, Thank you for clearing that up. I had just loaded up the bulldogs to begin the "hunt" when my friend CB told me to stand down that it was not a green light. The dogs were restless due to not getting to go. I calmed them down with a promise that we would go to Kevin Bussey's house and let them smell his microphone so they could get on the trail of the Phelps Gang and round them up before they desecrate any more Flags or bring more sorrow to the families of fallen service men and women. Again, thanks for standing up and dealing with the matter properly. Villa Rica
• June 16, 2006, Dorcas writes: Hey - that's a picture with me in it! How fun.
• June 16, 2006, Dorcas writes: Art - I have some camera phone photos of CB ... but don't have the technology to get them off my phone and to my blog. Bummer.
• June 16, 2006, Kevin Bussey writes: Villa, You are a funny one! I could have used your dogs! :)
• June 19, 2006, Alan Brant writes: Art, I took a photo of you standing next to the curtain waiting on the presidential results to be read. I later deleted it because it was dark in that corridor going into the arena and you were looking shadowy. But good grief - if I would've have known your standards for posting photos, I would have kept it and claimed my prize! =-)
• June 19, 2006, art rogers writes: Hey, camera phones are camera phones. What can you expect? You should have sent it. I was expecting "clandestine" photos to be dark and blurry. Heck, I was counting on it.

Related posts:

• Phriday foto 5-11-07
• Wal-Mart Employee trampled to death on Black Friday
• Oklahoma City Bombing Anniversary 13 Years
• Vietnam
• Phriday Photo 09-07-07

Our state Baptist paper is the Western Recorder. David Winfrey is a good reporter and a good guy. He published some of my comments and quoted some things off of my blog – from the “A Clumsy Retreat” article – in his article “Russellville youth minister making name for himself among bloggers.”

At the end he quotes the end of my article where I quote the words, “Mene Mene Tekel Parsin,” and then applied them.

David did a good job and I am not disputing what he wrote. I would like to clarify that those words are not for all of the Trustees at the IMB.

Specifically, I was talking about the caucus group that I perceive to be leading the BOT astray in certain areas. I have had the good fortune to meet with a few Trustees who voted to expel Wade. I found them to be kind and sincere. Though I wouldn’t say we were on the same page when all was done, I feel that we at least had a valid conversation and we were both heard.

Also, Peter Smith quoted in me in two articles. Peter writes for Louisville’s Courier Journal. He does a great job in being fair and balanced, I think. If you are not Southern Baptist, or don’t have SBC history in your own life, it is often hard to understand the subtle nuances of our interactions. Peter does well, first in the article, “Disputes likely at Baptist meeting,” and again in the article, “Southern Baptists in Kentucky see shift toward a more open annual convention,” in which he quotes fellow blogger Tim Sweatman.

Feel free to give ‘em a read.

Comments

• June 15, 2006, Kevin Bussey writes: You are famous! I want an autograph picture. Use the funny book one :)
• June 16, 2006, JT333 writes: This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
• June 16, 2006, Kevin Bussey writes: jt333, What are you implying about Art? He is a humble man who tells the truth. You have no idea how many posts he deletes. Get to know him and you will find out his passion for God and the SBC. Are we just to ignore mis-handling of SBC funds? Are we just suppose to accept any candidate that the powers that be send our way! Art, You are the man!
• June 16, 2006, art rogers writes: Kevin, Thanks for the support. Jessica, No way anybody gets away with such a self righteouss and judgemental thing around here. Read the rules for comments - no character assasination of ANYONE.
• June 16, 2006, art rogers writes: To be clear, I don't know to whom Jessica was referring with her bomb, but it's interesting that Kevin thought it was me! I thought it more accurately applied to certain others in the SBC, but I will not assasinate their character. More likely, though, since the subject of this post was me, she was probably targeting me.
• June 16, 2006, Kevin Bussey writes: I've got your back! :)
• June 16, 2006, Dave Samples writes: Art, I've been reading your blog for about a month prior to the SBC and have really been blessed by the info. I read my first blog less than two months ago and now I can't stay away. Are there "12 Step" groups available? I appreciate your passion and your desire to grow the kingdom.
• June 16, 2006, art rogers writes: David, Thanks for reading. Marty calls my blog "12 Steps" but I think it may serve to further entrench you.

Related posts:

• Art’s blogging (Pastoral Blogging 8 – this time it’s personal)
• The SBC this week
• Breaking Presidential News
• McKissic Mania
• More Presidency News

The Southern Baptist Convention and I made some Kentucky publications this week.

Our state Baptist paper is the Western Recorder. David Winfrey is a good reporter and a good guy. He published some of my comments and quoted some things off of my blog – from the “A Clumsy Retreat” article – in his article “Russellville youth minister making name for himself among bloggers.”

At the end he quotes the end of my article where I quote the words, “Mene Mene Tekel Parsin,” and then applied them.

David did a good job and I am not disputing what he wrote. I would like to clarify that those words are not for all of the Trustees at the IMB.

Specifically, I was talking about the caucus group that I perceive to be leading the BOT astray in certain areas. I have had the good fortune to meet with a few Trustees who voted to expel Wade. I found them to be kind and sincere. Though I wouldn’t say we were on the same page when all was done, I feel that we at least had a valid conversation and we were both heard.

Also, Peter Smith quoted in me in two articles. Peter writes for Louisville’s Courier Journal. He does a great job in being fair and balanced, I think. If you are not Southern Baptist, or don’t have SBC history in your own life, it is often hard to understand the subtle nuances of our interactions. Peter does well, first in the article, “Disputes likely at Baptist meeting,” and again in the article, “Southern Baptists in Kentucky see shift toward a more open annual convention,” in which he quotes fellow blogger Tim Sweatman.

Feel free to give ‘em a read.

Comments

• June 15, 2006, Kevin Bussey writes: You are famous! I want an autograph picture. Use the funny book one :)
• June 16, 2006, JT333 writes: This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
• June 16, 2006, Kevin Bussey writes: jt333, What are you implying about Art? He is a humble man who tells the truth. You have no idea how many posts he deletes. Get to know him and you will find out his passion for God and the SBC. Are we just to ignore mis-handling of SBC funds? Are we just suppose to accept any candidate that the powers that be send our way! Art, You are the man!
• June 16, 2006, art rogers writes: Kevin, Thanks for the support. Jessica, No way anybody gets away with such a self righteouss and judgemental thing around here. Read the rules for comments - no character assasination of ANYONE.
• June 16, 2006, art rogers writes: To be clear, I don't know to whom Jessica was referring with her bomb, but it's interesting that Kevin thought it was me! I thought it more accurately applied to certain others in the SBC, but I will not assasinate their character. More likely, though, since the subject of this post was me, she was probably targeting me.
• June 16, 2006, Kevin Bussey writes: I've got your back! :)
• June 16, 2006, Dave Samples writes: Art, I've been reading your blog for about a month prior to the SBC and have really been blessed by the info. I read my first blog less than two months ago and now I can't stay away. Are there "12 Step" groups available? I appreciate your passion and your desire to grow the kingdom.
• June 16, 2006, art rogers writes: David, Thanks for reading. Marty calls my blog "12 Steps" but I think it may serve to further entrench you.

Related posts:

• Art’s blogging (Pastoral Blogging 8 – this time it’s personal)
• The SBC this week
• Breaking Presidential News
• McKissic Mania
• More Presidency News

Some people have said that what happened yesterday was a result of bloggers and we had turned the corner. This is giddy excitement, but I would add some perspective.

Bloggers have played an important role, no question, but the Convention leaders are the ones who have led the way behind the scenes, and they are the ones making the real strides.

The election of Frank Page was a sentiment that had been brewing in the SBC for years. Remember that a floor nomination to the office of President two years ago, fielded 30+% of the vote. We aligned with the convention, not the convention with us.

The election of Wiley Drake is in the same category.

The By-Laws changes were, perhaps, one area where our voices yielded some fruit. However, we must all understand that we did not accomplish the by-law changes. The Executive Committee bore the weight of leadership and did the work. These are our leaders and they deserve the credit. We could never have gotten this done from the floor. They did it for the sake of the SBC. We came alongside them.

Bobby Welch instructed the Committees on Committees and Nominations to bring back reports that were free from the charges of nepotism, cronyism and connectionalism. With only three names from all of those reports having served prior, they did a great work. We have come alongside those leaders, not them to us.

Anyone who thinks that it is all over, should now take note of this.

Ben Cole was told that he and Tom Ascol, both having submitted resolutions, would be happy with the report brought by the Committee on Resolutions. This morning, both of their resolutions were absent from the report. Dr. Ascol desired to ask the resolution be brought to the floor with a 2/3 vote. He was told he had to wait.

In the meantime, a resolution on consumption of alcohol, advocating abstinence, was brought to the floor. It was debated, with several speaking for and against. That would never have happened 10 years ago – no one would have spoken against this resolution. It was also amended to ban any Trustee of any institution from consuming alcohol. It was a resolution so it is not binding, but any observer with the smallest amount of sense would realize it was pointed directly at Wade Burleson. Burleson has said that the Bible does not forbid the consumption of alcohol. Rather, the Bible forbids drunkenness.

I want to clarify my personal position, here. I agree with Wade. I myself have a personal conviction that I do not drink, and I believe that is a Holy Spirit led conviction. However, you will not find a prohibition on alcohol in Scripture. Moving on…

After debate and amendment, the resolution passes and it comes back to Dr. Ascol, who is waiting at the mic.

Dr. Ascol gets to read his entire resolution to the convention – which is a good thing – and a member from the committee speaks to it. Although there were people at the mics, they took the vote on Tom’s motion without discussion.

I wise SBC leader said yesterday that change is incremental. He also said that when there is a push, there is a push back. Some within the convention were pushed hard yesterday, and today they pushed back.

What happens over the next ten years will determine whether or not we are the beginning of a movement for cooperation and “missional” thinking or we are a footnote in Southern Baptist History.

Here are some predictions:

The Inner Circle now has a much clearer view of its influence, or lack thereof. They really believed that they had much more sway than they did, and they were shocked.

As a result, the splits and fractures will be quickly mended and old partnerships will resume in order to push back into the positions of influence they once held.

The next year will be one of positioning, although, the positions of nepotism, cronyism and connectionalism have been hindered considerably. The IMB will have a year of scrutiny and the future there is up in the air.

Frank Page will appoint conservatives with similar instructions as Bobby Welch and this will further weaken those positions.

Next year’s convention is in San Antonio. The BGCT, although they are able to send messengers will not likely do so. They have been ignored and closed out for years and, frankly, they have given up on us. The SBT, however, will come in droves and it will be a bigger convention than this by far. We can expect a large “push back” then.

I would go so far as to say that Dr. Page might even receive a challenge to his second term as President, which has become traditionally accepted as a given. Even the challenge will hurt those who promote it, but if they win, it will be the same situation, escalated further, in Louisville the next year.

There is great joy and hope here today. However, there is much work to be done and we must pray diligently. We should not pray that we will “win,” but that God’s will is paramount to all of us and that it will be done in the SBC.

Bobby Welch led us again today. During a time when they were trying to work something out, Dr Welch began to speak to the convention. He said that we are not each other’s enemies, but that Satan is our enemy. We need to act accordingly. I come alongside him here.

Comments

• June 14, 2006, imb m in asia writes: glad you got some sleep! a big THANK YOU for all the up-to-date info! we need it over here! Question? Will you have time to do a primer for the responsibilities of the SBC pres like you did on the SBC convention? Thanks again!
• June 14, 2006, annie writes: If you do the primer for the M would you please include detailed explanation of the expense account available to the pres? Welch'es must have been enormous. I remember when Ed Young was president his 100 or more people serving on "task forces" cost the CP perhaps more than a million. Could this be true and what is the correct policy? Better get it straight now to avoid attacks later. Every pres seems to want to "leave his mark" and it is costing Baptists a bunch.
• June 14, 2006, Anonymous writes: Did the convention already vote on the big batch of entity nominations? If not, do you know when it is scheduled? I heard a vote after the committee on nominations talk about being nepotism free, but didn't catch the whole thing. Thanks for your thorough recap!
• June 14, 2006, Kevin Bussey writes: You sloth! :) Seriously, Art, I'm with you on the alcohol stuff. I don't drink either. I think the winner of the convention is the SBC! Thanks for your work and I want your Treo!
• June 14, 2006, greg hicks writes: Might I suggest an alternate title for your excellent blog: "The Empire Strikes Back"
• June 14, 2006, church staff guy in TX writes: Don't be so sure that SBTC church messengers in Texas will be "pushing back" next year. We have plenty of young church plants as well as reform-minded individuals all over. If this was between theological "moderates" and theological "conservatives," sure, many Texans would push back against a "moderate movement." But we're not all lock-step with Paige, I promise. You might be really surprised at our annoyance with the "establishment" situation. But, as with any non-establishment types, it could be a challenge to get "modern" SBTCers to care enough about the Convention to come...
• June 14, 2006, Alan Cross writes: Excellent analysis, Art, as usual. It is one that I agree with almost completely at this point. I do think that the bloggers were influential, perhaps mostly in bringing things to light that were already in the works. But, at the same time, it is obvious that we tapped in to the attitude of the convention rather than changing the attitude. We were just part of the greater whole. I am optimistic about the future, as long as everyone who has been mobilized keeps their heart full of the gospel and their eyes focused on Jesus. If we focus too much on the inner workings of the SBC to the detriment of giving praise to God and engaging in Kingdom work through our blogs, our churches, and our lives, we have just become another annoying voice. The next year will truly be interesting!
• June 14, 2006, tim rogers writes: Brother Art, I am at loss here. As I posted a comment on Marty's I also post the same one here. How can you and anyone else pull this toward Wade? I understand the resolution, as you have pointed out is not binding, to be a statement forbidding Trustees from drinking alcohol. It says nothing about a trustee saying the scripture does not say abstain from alcohol. If we take the resolution the way you are saying it was presented, as against Wade, then we will also lose our President at SBTS because he advocates the same thing that Wade does when it comes to alcohol and scripture. Tim
• June 14, 2006, Dorcas writes: Art - I am so disappointed. You scolded us and scolded us about how we weren't to be at Starbucks during key votes. You said you would have some words to say if any of us weren't in the convention for key business. What if Tom and Ben's resolutions had been allowed? What if we had had the grand discussion on Baptist Dissent from the convention floor? That is part of the main discussion on these blogs. And you would have missed it. You slacker. :) (did I make you feel guilty enough?)
• June 14, 2006, Kevin Bussey writes: Way to go Dorcas! Get him!
• June 14, 2006, Villa Rica writes: Brother Art, To imitate you, imitating Elvis let me say to you: Thank you, Thank you very much. Villa Rica
• June 15, 2006, art rogers writes: Dorcas, Kevin and all, I had to sleep because I had to drive home today and hadn't slept much at all. Bonnie was trying to get the house ready to go on the market by herself and was behind. Knowing that the significant business was done and that you all had things well in hand, I came home to help my wife. Talk to you soon.
• June 15, 2006, Rzrbk writes: Art, You offer many good insights in this post. As a missionary supported with cooperative program dollars, I am excited about the election of Frank Page and his commitment to the Bible, missions and the cooperative program. I think bloggers had a large part in his election. A lot of factors came together to make this the year someone outside of the power structure could be elected. I do not think Wiley Drake’s election is in the same category. I think it was a joke that could come back to haunt us. His election does not go along with the request to elect those whose churches give strong support to the cooperative program unless you consider 1% strong support. Some of you who were with him in Memphis can tell me if exhibited any of the repentance called for in the report. Drake was quoted a year ago as saying, I for one Southern Baptist, since 1965, will not quit, give up, or back down, nor will I be lulled into believing that the liberals all left, Drake said. Our homeland security, Southern Baptist style, praying through and messenger led, will continue to expose these wolves in sheep’s clothing. The cost of being called a rebel, trouble maker and even damage to our ministry will not prevent our war on Southern Baptist-style terrorism. Art, did you see any of these wolves in sheeps clothing Drake is talking about at the convention? Is he going to use his position as 2VP to carry out a war on these Southern Baptist style terrorists as he calls them? Even more disturbing to me is that he led the effort to pull the SBC out of the BWA but he has had no problem with working with a man like Sun Myung Moon and lending his name to Moon’s campaigns and materials in the past. Does this show good judgment? Has he repented of this? He has also joined Roger Moran and T.C. Pinckney in trying to get the SBC to tell parents to pull their children out of public schools and accused parents who put their children in public schools of endangering their children. I fear we will regret having his name referred to as an SBC 2VP every time he makes a statement. I am also not sure the Committee on Committee report was free of cronyism. There may be few new names but i suspect most are cronies of those who have been calling the shots for years. The two from my state of Arkansas were from churches that have been well represented in the past because of the conservative resurgence. The two from D.C. were from Hillcrest and Capital Hill. These same two churches have had these same positions many times. Is there anyone in Capital Hill Baptist that has not served as a trustee yet? You will have to look at your own states and say if the same is true there. Bobby may have asked for no cronyism but I don’t think they listened. There will be plenty from the BGCT at the San Antonio convention, especially if they feel we are returning to the point where our actions show belief in the authority of the Bible and not just our words. Ron West
• June 15, 2006, Phillips Lynn writes: Art, I appreciate you and the time you invested in helping us to become more enlightened to the situations in our convention. You are a great guy. I am praying for you and Bonnie as you prepare for your move and new ministry. May God greatly bless you both as you continue to serve Him.
• June 16, 2006, Joseph M. Smith writes: This is my first time posting on this or any other blog. I am a bit of a dinosaur, as a graduate of SBTS "back when" (1963) and a recently retired (well, semi-pseudo-retired) pastor. I came to this blog after reading the headlines just to see what it's all about. I did want to respond to the comment about how only one or two churches in the District of Columbia Baptist Convention are sources for trustees of the agencies. This has been going on for a number of years, and is just ridiculous and unfair, in my opinion. And check the records to see how much Capitol Hill gives to DCBC causes ... SBC, yes, but not DCBC. Seems grossly unfair.

Related posts:

• BFM referrendum.
• BFM Motion Analysis
• To look for this week…
• At the Mic with Drs. York and Land
• Last Verse, Same as the First…

I know some folks who will kill me for this, but I slept in. I had about 8 hours of sleep over three and a half days and just couldn’t get up. Frankly, I am still a little groggy. To top it off, the maids changed out my wife’s high thread count pillowcase that matches our sheets at home. It was an accident and they had set it aside – I got it back, honey – but I went looking for it last night.

Some people have said that what happened yesterday was a result of bloggers and we had turned the corner. This is giddy excitement, but I would add some perspective.

Bloggers have played an important role, no question, but the Convention leaders are the ones who have led the way behind the scenes, and they are the ones making the real strides.

The election of Frank Page was a sentiment that had been brewing in the SBC for years. Remember that a floor nomination to the office of President two years ago, fielded 30+% of the vote. We aligned with the convention, not the convention with us.

The election of Wiley Drake is in the same category.

The By-Laws changes were, perhaps, one area where our voices yielded some fruit. However, we must all understand that we did not accomplish the by-law changes. The Executive Committee bore the weight of leadership and did the work. These are our leaders and they deserve the credit. We could never have gotten this done from the floor. They did it for the sake of the SBC. We came alongside them.

Bobby Welch instructed the Committees on Committees and Nominations to bring back reports that were free from the charges of nepotism, cronyism and connectionalism. With only three names from all of those reports having served prior, they did a great work. We have come alongside those leaders, not them to us.

Anyone who thinks that it is all over, should now take note of this.

Ben Cole was told that he and Tom Ascol, both having submitted resolutions, would be happy with the report brought by the Committee on Resolutions. This morning, both of their resolutions were absent from the report. Dr. Ascol desired to ask the resolution be brought to the floor with a 2/3 vote. He was told he had to wait.

In the meantime, a resolution on consumption of alcohol, advocating abstinence, was brought to the floor. It was debated, with several speaking for and against. That would never have happened 10 years ago – no one would have spoken against this resolution. It was also amended to ban any Trustee of any institution from consuming alcohol. It was a resolution so it is not binding, but any observer with the smallest amount of sense would realize it was pointed directly at Wade Burleson. Burleson has said that the Bible does not forbid the consumption of alcohol. Rather, the Bible forbids drunkenness.

I want to clarify my personal position, here. I agree with Wade. I myself have a personal conviction that I do not drink, and I believe that is a Holy Spirit led conviction. However, you will not find a prohibition on alcohol in Scripture. Moving on…

After debate and amendment, the resolution passes and it comes back to Dr. Ascol, who is waiting at the mic.

Dr. Ascol gets to read his entire resolution to the convention – which is a good thing – and a member from the committee speaks to it. Although there were people at the mics, they took the vote on Tom’s motion without discussion.

I wise SBC leader said yesterday that change is incremental. He also said that when there is a push, there is a push back. Some within the convention were pushed hard yesterday, and today they pushed back.

What happens over the next ten years will determine whether or not we are the beginning of a movement for cooperation and “missional” thinking or we are a footnote in Southern Baptist History.

Here are some predictions:

The Inner Circle now has a much clearer view of its influence, or lack thereof. They really believed that they had much more sway than they did, and they were shocked.

As a result, the splits and fractures will be quickly mended and old partnerships will resume in order to push back into the positions of influence they once held.

The next year will be one of positioning, although, the positions of nepotism, cronyism and connectionalism have been hindered considerably. The IMB will have a year of scrutiny and the future there is up in the air.

Frank Page will appoint conservatives with similar instructions as Bobby Welch and this will further weaken those positions.

Next year’s convention is in San Antonio. The BGCT, although they are able to send messengers will not likely do so. They have been ignored and closed out for years and, frankly, they have given up on us. The SBT, however, will come in droves and it will be a bigger convention than this by far. We can expect a large “push back” then.

I would go so far as to say that Dr. Page might even receive a challenge to his second term as President, which has become traditionally accepted as a given. Even the challenge will hurt those who promote it, but if they win, it will be the same situation, escalated further, in Louisville the next year.

There is great joy and hope here today. However, there is much work to be done and we must pray diligently. We should not pray that we will “win,” but that God’s will is paramount to all of us and that it will be done in the SBC.

Bobby Welch led us again today. During a time when they were trying to work something out, Dr Welch began to speak to the convention. He said that we are not each other’s enemies, but that Satan is our enemy. We need to act accordingly. I come alongside him here.

Comments

• June 14, 2006, imb m in asia writes: glad you got some sleep! a big THANK YOU for all the up-to-date info! we need it over here! Question? Will you have time to do a primer for the responsibilities of the SBC pres like you did on the SBC convention? Thanks again!
• June 14, 2006, annie writes: If you do the primer for the M would you please include detailed explanation of the expense account available to the pres? Welch'es must have been enormous. I remember when Ed Young was president his 100 or more people serving on "task forces" cost the CP perhaps more than a million. Could this be true and what is the correct policy? Better get it straight now to avoid attacks later. Every pres seems to want to "leave his mark" and it is costing Baptists a bunch.
• June 14, 2006, Anonymous writes: Did the convention already vote on the big batch of entity nominations? If not, do you know when it is scheduled? I heard a vote after the committee on nominations talk about being nepotism free, but didn't catch the whole thing. Thanks for your thorough recap!
• June 14, 2006, Kevin Bussey writes: You sloth! :) Seriously, Art, I'm with you on the alcohol stuff. I don't drink either. I think the winner of the convention is the SBC! Thanks for your work and I want your Treo!
• June 14, 2006, greg hicks writes: Might I suggest an alternate title for your excellent blog: "The Empire Strikes Back"
• June 14, 2006, church staff guy in TX writes: Don't be so sure that SBTC church messengers in Texas will be "pushing back" next year. We have plenty of young church plants as well as reform-minded individuals all over. If this was between theological "moderates" and theological "conservatives," sure, many Texans would push back against a "moderate movement." But we're not all lock-step with Paige, I promise. You might be really surprised at our annoyance with the "establishment" situation. But, as with any non-establishment types, it could be a challenge to get "modern" SBTCers to care enough about the Convention to come...
• June 14, 2006, Alan Cross writes: Excellent analysis, Art, as usual. It is one that I agree with almost completely at this point. I do think that the bloggers were influential, perhaps mostly in bringing things to light that were already in the works. But, at the same time, it is obvious that we tapped in to the attitude of the convention rather than changing the attitude. We were just part of the greater whole. I am optimistic about the future, as long as everyone who has been mobilized keeps their heart full of the gospel and their eyes focused on Jesus. If we focus too much on the inner workings of the SBC to the detriment of giving praise to God and engaging in Kingdom work through our blogs, our churches, and our lives, we have just become another annoying voice. The next year will truly be interesting!
• June 14, 2006, tim rogers writes: Brother Art, I am at loss here. As I posted a comment on Marty's I also post the same one here. How can you and anyone else pull this toward Wade? I understand the resolution, as you have pointed out is not binding, to be a statement forbidding Trustees from drinking alcohol. It says nothing about a trustee saying the scripture does not say abstain from alcohol. If we take the resolution the way you are saying it was presented, as against Wade, then we will also lose our President at SBTS because he advocates the same thing that Wade does when it comes to alcohol and scripture. Tim
• June 14, 2006, Dorcas writes: Art - I am so disappointed. You scolded us and scolded us about how we weren't to be at Starbucks during key votes. You said you would have some words to say if any of us weren't in the convention for key business. What if Tom and Ben's resolutions had been allowed? What if we had had the grand discussion on Baptist Dissent from the convention floor? That is part of the main discussion on these blogs. And you would have missed it. You slacker. :) (did I make you feel guilty enough?)
• June 14, 2006, Kevin Bussey writes: Way to go Dorcas! Get him!
• June 14, 2006, Villa Rica writes: Brother Art, To imitate you, imitating Elvis let me say to you: Thank you, Thank you very much. Villa Rica
• June 15, 2006, art rogers writes: Dorcas, Kevin and all, I had to sleep because I had to drive home today and hadn't slept much at all. Bonnie was trying to get the house ready to go on the market by herself and was behind. Knowing that the significant business was done and that you all had things well in hand, I came home to help my wife. Talk to you soon.
• June 15, 2006, Rzrbk writes: Art, You offer many good insights in this post. As a missionary supported with cooperative program dollars, I am excited about the election of Frank Page and his commitment to the Bible, missions and the cooperative program. I think bloggers had a large part in his election. A lot of factors came together to make this the year someone outside of the power structure could be elected. I do not think Wiley Drake’s election is in the same category. I think it was a joke that could come back to haunt us. His election does not go along with the request to elect those whose churches give strong support to the cooperative program unless you consider 1% strong support. Some of you who were with him in Memphis can tell me if exhibited any of the repentance called for in the report. Drake was quoted a year ago as saying, I for one Southern Baptist, since 1965, will not quit, give up, or back down, nor will I be lulled into believing that the liberals all left, Drake said. Our homeland security, Southern Baptist style, praying through and messenger led, will continue to expose these wolves in sheep’s clothing. The cost of being called a rebel, trouble maker and even damage to our ministry will not prevent our war on Southern Baptist-style terrorism. Art, did you see any of these wolves in sheeps clothing Drake is talking about at the convention? Is he going to use his position as 2VP to carry out a war on these Southern Baptist style terrorists as he calls them? Even more disturbing to me is that he led the effort to pull the SBC out of the BWA but he has had no problem with working with a man like Sun Myung Moon and lending his name to Moon’s campaigns and materials in the past. Does this show good judgment? Has he repented of this? He has also joined Roger Moran and T.C. Pinckney in trying to get the SBC to tell parents to pull their children out of public schools and accused parents who put their children in public schools of endangering their children. I fear we will regret having his name referred to as an SBC 2VP every time he makes a statement. I am also not sure the Committee on Committee report was free of cronyism. There may be few new names but i suspect most are cronies of those who have been calling the shots for years. The two from my state of Arkansas were from churches that have been well represented in the past because of the conservative resurgence. The two from D.C. were from Hillcrest and Capital Hill. These same two churches have had these same positions many times. Is there anyone in Capital Hill Baptist that has not served as a trustee yet? You will have to look at your own states and say if the same is true there. Bobby may have asked for no cronyism but I don’t think they listened. There will be plenty from the BGCT at the San Antonio convention, especially if they feel we are returning to the point where our actions show belief in the authority of the Bible and not just our words. Ron West
• June 15, 2006, Phillips Lynn writes: Art, I appreciate you and the time you invested in helping us to become more enlightened to the situations in our convention. You are a great guy. I am praying for you and Bonnie as you prepare for your move and new ministry. May God greatly bless you both as you continue to serve Him.
• June 16, 2006, Joseph M. Smith writes: This is my first time posting on this or any other blog. I am a bit of a dinosaur, as a graduate of SBTS "back when" (1963) and a recently retired (well, semi-pseudo-retired) pastor. I came to this blog after reading the headlines just to see what it's all about. I did want to respond to the comment about how only one or two churches in the District of Columbia Baptist Convention are sources for trustees of the agencies. This has been going on for a number of years, and is just ridiculous and unfair, in my opinion. And check the records to see how much Capitol Hill gives to DCBC causes ... SBC, yes, but not DCBC. Seems grossly unfair.

Related posts:

• BFM referrendum.
• BFM Motion Analysis
• To look for this week…
• At the Mic with Drs. York and Land
• Last Verse, Same as the First…

The Executive Committee showed fortitude in dealing with a difficult situation about which I have often written. In section F, the committee was asking the SBC to amend the by law to exclude from service to boards people who were formerly employed by the entity on whose board they might otherwise serve.

The specific instance at hand is the new chairman of the Board of Trustees of the IMB. Dr. John Floyd is a former missionary and it is widely reported that he has issues with certain staff at the IMB. He now serves as their supervisor, in a sense.

As a missionary, I readily concede that his insight would be valuable to us, but to have him serve at an agency where the friction of daily stressful work with personalities creates problems, such a role reversal is a huge conflict of interest.

If he were to be nominated to serve on the North American Mission Board, no such conflict would exist.

The Executive Committee exercised the responsibility of leadership and dealt with a very touchy situation that would have removed Floyd next year after his term ran out because he would have been ineligible for appointment to yet another term (this is his umpteenth).

The implication that this by law amendment’s primary effect would be to limit seminary students is misdirection of its real intent.

Unfortunately, the Ex. Com. was not ready for the argument and did not defend it well. It would have required carefully chosen words to relate the substance of the article without calling Dr. Floyd into question. I would have done it, to the best of my ability (having advocated this exact policy numerous times) but I was sandwiched in a crowd between mics and unable to get near one within at least 90 seconds. That is an eternity in this situation. Secondly, the chair called the question on the Sanderson amendment without it being asked for and without discussion – which are both out of order. I earnestly believe that this – taking the vote with no “call” and no discussion – was not deliberate. The leaders of the Convention believed in this ammendment and wanted it to pass as originally presented.

The SBC was “hoodwinked” because it was made to believe that the amendment was a poorly thought out article that hurt Seminary students.

If all things were able to be replayed, I would move to table the Exec. Comm. amendment until such time as the Committee on Order of Business could reschedule it during this convention. This would give the EC time enough to reword the amendment and report it in a new way. The EC could have withdrawn its original motion, making the Sanderson motion moot. It could then have submitted a new motion to amend and published the new, more precise, wording.

It is now a done deal and will not be revisited this year.

Comments

• June 14, 2006, jgsy3kids writes: You know, there is some disappointment that this amendment didn't go through, however, it can be worked on over the next year and be brought up again next year. Also, who's to say that John Floyd will even be elected to another term as an IMB BoT? If the plan is not to recycle people, then he should be out after this year....IMHO.
• June 14, 2006, Rzrbk writes: Unless there is an exceptional reason a trustee is always given a second term. John Floyd will be elected to a second term and even if this policy is put in place next year it will be too late to change his status for another 4 years.
• June 14, 2006, Jenni writes: No, Art, not hoodwinked. I think this was God and I'll tell you why. It's fine to have that restriction for boards like Lifeway or the seminaries, but that would really not be a good idea for the IMB. As a career missionary, I have a better perspective on how to make strategic missiological (or even just practical) decisions dealing with our situations overseas than your average pastor or SBC layman. I think that you guys must think you know a lot more about the experience of being a full-time missionary than you actually do. I know of many pastors who've taken a vacation overseas (a "mission trip") and then come home and call themselves a missionary and proport to be an expert. Frankly, I want those making the decisions for my life and ministry to be those who understand what it means to sell all you own, move 5000 miles away from everything and everyone you know to a place you cannot talk or understand anyone, trust God with the very lives of your small children where there are no doctors, and plan to plant yourself for 30+ years. UNLESS YOU HAVE DONE ALL THAT, YOU HAVE NO UTTER IDEA WHAT THE MISSIONARY FACES. TWO WEEKS OF YOUR SUMMER VACATION DOES NOT EQUIP YOU TO RELATE TO THAT. A two-year tour better equips you, but it's no comparison to the experience of knowing that you're in it for life. You guys have so much wisdom in so many areas, I can't believe you don't see that you can't make a DENOMINATIONAL WIDE policy because ONE person with a burr in his saddle got a trusteeship. You also pointed out he would likely be grandfathered in anyway. So, this doesn't solve the problem of John Floyd and it saddles us with a policy that prohibits almost every SBCer who knows about missions from ever serving on the IMB. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of John Floyd. I'm praying hard that God would change his heart or remove him from this service, but I'm also praying that we don't stick ourselves with a counterproductive policy that would be in effect long after both Floyd and Rankin are gone. Forgive me if I've been condescending. Let me take this opportunity to tell you how very proud I am of you all (bloggers) this week. You've worked hard. Ýou've all determined not to let things slide through the cracks. You've come alongside us missionaries, defending us in a way that we aren't in a position to defend ourselves. You've worked not just hard, but smart. You all were heard. You made an impact when it looked like you were up against impossible odds. You're wise enough to know that there will be counter attacks next convention. You've '(We've) struggled to stay humble and Godly in your speech and you've won that struggle, too. I'm so very proud of you all. Congratulations, great job. YTTWOYP (Young tongue talkin wife of young plumber)
• June 14, 2006, Brian writes: This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
• June 15, 2006, Brian writes: Care to share why you deleted my comment. Not upset just curious.
• June 15, 2006, Phillips Lynn writes: I think Jenni offers a good point, but even restricting former employees from serving on LifeWay, Guidestone, Seminaries, etc. would also be a bad idea. Who is better than a former employee to recognize a "smoke screen" or "lumps" under the carpet. Those unfamiliar with the workings of an institution are usually blinded by the "illusion" of what is presented and have no idea of what is truly happening or needed.
• June 15, 2006, art rogers writes: Brian, Jenni's tone dances close to the line of personal attack, but she moderates it at the end of her post. I felt your post went over the line in dealing with her. I was on the road and could not deal with it in any other way than to call Marty Duren and ask him to log on as me and delete it. If I could have I would have explained this sooner. Sorry. I will deal with the substance of your post here: Jenni and Phillips, First, I said that the Convention was hoodwinked because I believe it was misled. It was made to believe that this clause was about Seminary students and not about the real target. Second, John Floyd was not the specific target of the ammendment, but is its best example. The Executive Committee would not ammend a by law in order to chase down one man. The situation in general is a problem. The problem is a conflict of interest. When someone serves under the authority of another, good and bad things begin to stress that relationship. This also happens with people in the organization who serve at peer levels and in subordinate roles. In short, if you then take that person and put them on that entities Board of Trustees, they bring baggage that others would not, and the baggage they bring is significant. Again, John Floyd is the best example of that. I understand the desire to have folks with your perspective on the Board. I think that the desire you have is outweighed by the conflict of interest. Now, Jenni, as to your argument. You make a straw man out of us with the whole "vacation mission trips." When did I, or any of my peers, claim to undertstand your perspective? We didn't and never would. Much less would we use brief trips as an excuse to do so. I don't claim to know your perspective or know what you might think is best. I do claim to know what things affect the dynamics of interpersonal relationships within an organization. I have said before and will say agian now, if you want missionaries from NAMB to serve the IMB, and vice versa, then I am all for it. I know it is not the same, but it is the best way to compromise so that we achieve the most effective working of an organization. By the way, I was asked about Floyd being grandfathered in anyway. This would have kept him at the IMB this year, but not allowed him to be reappointed next year, for yet another four year term. As it now stands, Floyd will serve this and, in all likelihood serve another term, even if this is reworded and brought back up next year.
• June 15, 2006, Brian writes: I understand i was just a little frustrated. we are in the process of leading our church through some major changes towards missions. I guess it just hit home. Thanks for your understanding. Brian
• June 15, 2006, Jenni writes: Bryan, I am sorry. Apparently I offended you. I didn't see your comment, so I don't know in exactly what way, but I do apologize. Art, In response to your question about your peers claiming to know how best to do missions: If "your peers" are pastors and churchgoers in the states, then the answer is "constantly." You wouldn't believe the stories I could tell you. The board makes decisions every meeting that affect our lives, our families, our ministries. I do think that to exclude the vast, vast majority of missions experts from the pool of candidates is not a good idea. I really don't want to say too much about NAMB and their compentency or effectiveness of their methods. In addition, you may want to refer to my (personal) definition of "missionary" above. I want to stress that I'm not concerned about our board making decisions based on my personal perspective. I am concerned about a board of folks who don't understand the realities of overseas life and ministry in general. Again, I want to apologize if my expressions of disagreement have been disagreeable. I looked up "straw man" in the dictionary but didn't understand what you meant. Like I said, you guys are so wise in so many things, I don't understand your stance on this one. But, it's clear I'm not going to convince you. I really do support you all in what you're doing and this is the only point on which I disagree with your agenda. I also realize that, in my attempts to convince you of my arguement, I probably came across as one who sees a missionary as somehow superior to those who aren't. The truth is I don't and find it strange when other people do--until someone who isn't wants to tell me how to do my job. It's just like my degree. I have a master's in developmental psych. I feel personally like I know almost nothing about psychology--UNTIL someone starts giving me child-rearing advice.
• June 16, 2006, Jenni writes: For some reason, blogger isn't letting me delete and reword my own comment above. So, after a conviction-filled night, I ask you to please re-read my fourth paragraph above as: "I understand your point about former Nambers, but I don't think that someone who has served with NAMB is any more equipped to understand the realities of overseas life and ministry than anyone else living and serving in the states." I hope that better expresses what I'm trying to communicate. It's not that I think that our board should be composed entirely of former missionaries, but I do think they bring something valuable to the table. I think that most former Ms who would seek to serve on the board would not do it to bring vengence upon former employers, but would see it as a way to continue to impact a lost world. One amazing reality of life in this organization is that ANYONE at ANY TIME could be your supervisor. People aren't necessarily bumped up the chain of command -- someone you supervise could be your supervisor tomorrow. Happens all the time. Note to Brian, If my apology to you above doesn't suffice, or if you want to point my errors out further directly to me--I'm setting up a post at my blog to give you a comments section to do that. I really don't want to cause anyone frustration without giving them a satisfactory apology and/or explanation. Click on my name to go to my profile and then to my blog. thanks, Jenni
• June 16, 2006, art rogers writes: Jenni, It's a complex issue and I appreciate your perspective. It does seem to me that you have some previous experiences triggering strong emotions on this subject, though. No, by "my peers," I mean people who are publicly advocating the substance of the proposed amendment. Not two week Mission Trippers.
• June 16, 2006, greg writes: Art, Thanks for addressing this resolution. I don’t disagree that a conflict of interest or even personal agendas and vendettas resulting from past employment with an agency could create extremely difficult situations for current employees if the nomination process fails to address those concerns and inappropriate candidates are presented to fill trustee positions. However, I believe that the potential for those occurrences are far less likely than the blessing that can come when an individual has served the Lord effectively in one role for a season in their life and later has the honor and privilege to use the skills, knowledge, and wisdom gleaned from that previous affiliation to help shape and guide the future of that same agency as a trustee. Admittedly, I do have a personal motive in opposing the resolution as it was presented. Having served the IMB for several years, now on staff at SWBTS, and having been in full-time employment at two other SBC seminaries as a student, I have a great passion for global missions and the equipping ministries of our seminaries. I would count it a real blessing if in retirement (if for some reason I am unable to return to the international mission field in the Master’s program someday) God would allow me the blessing of continuing to serve Him through the SBC as a trustee of one the agencies I have grown to love. Regarding Jenni’s comments, I do understand and appreciate her viewpoint. I often felt that we had some wonderful, passionate, and well-meaning volunteers, pastors, and even trustees that did not wholly grasp the difficulties of third-world, cross-cultural living. The dynamics of providing for a family, developing relationships among people of a different language and faith practice, working with hostile governments, spending a whole day or longer completing simple tasks such as cashing a check, gathering groceries, or getting a phone, among a multitude of other challenges on the field cannot be completely appreciated in short visits. As such, I do believe that having former mission personnel serving alongside other trustees who are pastors and laymen that bring to the table the needs and expectations of partner churches, is the most effective formula for giving direction and support to our mission endeavors. Greg
• June 17, 2006, Greg writes: I repeatedly said "resolution" instead of "amendment" - I'm going to blame that slip on the loss of sleep due to the various psychological and physiological effects of jet lag caused by the great travel distance between Greensboro and Fort Worth.

Related posts:

• Executive Committee and By Law 15

In my last post concerning the amendment of SBC by-law 15, I said the SBC was “hoodwinked.” In my immediate absence (I went to visit with some of the folks from today and just finished at just after 1:00 am Eastern) several good questions were raised about this.

The Executive Committee showed fortitude in dealing with a difficult situation about which I have often written. In section F, the committee was asking the SBC to amend the by law to exclude from service to boards people who were formerly employed by the entity on whose board they might otherwise serve.

The specific instance at hand is the new chairman of the Board of Trustees of the IMB. Dr. John Floyd is a former missionary and it is widely reported that he has issues with certain staff at the IMB. He now serves as their supervisor, in a sense.

As a missionary, I readily concede that his insight would be valuable to us, but to have him serve at an agency where the friction of daily stressful work with personalities creates problems, such a role reversal is a huge conflict of interest.

If he were to be nominated to serve on the North American Mission Board, no such conflict would exist.

The Executive Committee exercised the responsibility of leadership and dealt with a very touchy situation that would have removed Floyd next year after his term ran out because he would have been ineligible for appointment to yet another term (this is his umpteenth).

The implication that this by law amendment’s primary effect would be to limit seminary students is misdirection of its real intent.

Unfortunately, the Ex. Com. was not ready for the argument and did not defend it well. It would have required carefully chosen words to relate the substance of the article without calling Dr. Floyd into question. I would have done it, to the best of my ability (having advocated this exact policy numerous times) but I was sandwiched in a crowd between mics and unable to get near one within at least 90 seconds. That is an eternity in this situation. Secondly, the chair called the question on the Sanderson amendment without it being asked for and without discussion – which are both out of order. I earnestly believe that this – taking the vote with no “call” and no discussion – was not deliberate. The leaders of the Convention believed in this ammendment and wanted it to pass as originally presented.

The SBC was “hoodwinked” because it was made to believe that the amendment was a poorly thought out article that hurt Seminary students.

If all things were able to be replayed, I would move to table the Exec. Comm. amendment until such time as the Committee on Order of Business could reschedule it during this convention. This would give the EC time enough to reword the amendment and report it in a new way. The EC could have withdrawn its original motion, making the Sanderson motion moot. It could then have submitted a new motion to amend and published the new, more precise, wording.

It is now a done deal and will not be revisited this year.

Comments

• June 14, 2006, jgsy3kids writes: You know, there is some disappointment that this amendment didn't go through, however, it can be worked on over the next year and be brought up again next year. Also, who's to say that John Floyd will even be elected to another term as an IMB BoT? If the plan is not to recycle people, then he should be out after this year....IMHO.
• June 14, 2006, Rzrbk writes: Unless there is an exceptional reason a trustee is always given a second term. John Floyd will be elected to a second term and even if this policy is put in place next year it will be too late to change his status for another 4 years.
• June 14, 2006, Jenni writes: No, Art, not hoodwinked. I think this was God and I'll tell you why. It's fine to have that restriction for boards like Lifeway or the seminaries, but that would really not be a good idea for the IMB. As a career missionary, I have a better perspective on how to make strategic missiological (or even just practical) decisions dealing with our situations overseas than your average pastor or SBC layman. I think that you guys must think you know a lot more about the experience of being a full-time missionary than you actually do. I know of many pastors who've taken a vacation overseas (a "mission trip") and then come home and call themselves a missionary and proport to be an expert. Frankly, I want those making the decisions for my life and ministry to be those who understand what it means to sell all you own, move 5000 miles away from everything and everyone you know to a place you cannot talk or understand anyone, trust God with the very lives of your small children where there are no doctors, and plan to plant yourself for 30+ years. UNLESS YOU HAVE DONE ALL THAT, YOU HAVE NO UTTER IDEA WHAT THE MISSIONARY FACES. TWO WEEKS OF YOUR SUMMER VACATION DOES NOT EQUIP YOU TO RELATE TO THAT. A two-year tour better equips you, but it's no comparison to the experience of knowing that you're in it for life. You guys have so much wisdom in so many areas, I can't believe you don't see that you can't make a DENOMINATIONAL WIDE policy because ONE person with a burr in his saddle got a trusteeship. You also pointed out he would likely be grandfathered in anyway. So, this doesn't solve the problem of John Floyd and it saddles us with a policy that prohibits almost every SBCer who knows about missions from ever serving on the IMB. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of John Floyd. I'm praying hard that God would change his heart or remove him from this service, but I'm also praying that we don't stick ourselves with a counterproductive policy that would be in effect long after both Floyd and Rankin are gone. Forgive me if I've been condescending. Let me take this opportunity to tell you how very proud I am of you all (bloggers) this week. You've worked hard. Ýou've all determined not to let things slide through the cracks. You've come alongside us missionaries, defending us in a way that we aren't in a position to defend ourselves. You've worked not just hard, but smart. You all were heard. You made an impact when it looked like you were up against impossible odds. You're wise enough to know that there will be counter attacks next convention. You've '(We've) struggled to stay humble and Godly in your speech and you've won that struggle, too. I'm so very proud of you all. Congratulations, great job. YTTWOYP (Young tongue talkin wife of young plumber)
• June 14, 2006, Brian writes: This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
• June 15, 2006, Brian writes: Care to share why you deleted my comment. Not upset just curious.
• June 15, 2006, Phillips Lynn writes: I think Jenni offers a good point, but even restricting former employees from serving on LifeWay, Guidestone, Seminaries, etc. would also be a bad idea. Who is better than a former employee to recognize a "smoke screen" or "lumps" under the carpet. Those unfamiliar with the workings of an institution are usually blinded by the "illusion" of what is presented and have no idea of what is truly happening or needed.
• June 15, 2006, art rogers writes: Brian, Jenni's tone dances close to the line of personal attack, but she moderates it at the end of her post. I felt your post went over the line in dealing with her. I was on the road and could not deal with it in any other way than to call Marty Duren and ask him to log on as me and delete it. If I could have I would have explained this sooner. Sorry. I will deal with the substance of your post here: Jenni and Phillips, First, I said that the Convention was hoodwinked because I believe it was misled. It was made to believe that this clause was about Seminary students and not about the real target. Second, John Floyd was not the specific target of the ammendment, but is its best example. The Executive Committee would not ammend a by law in order to chase down one man. The situation in general is a problem. The problem is a conflict of interest. When someone serves under the authority of another, good and bad things begin to stress that relationship. This also happens with people in the organization who serve at peer levels and in subordinate roles. In short, if you then take that person and put them on that entities Board of Trustees, they bring baggage that others would not, and the baggage they bring is significant. Again, John Floyd is the best example of that. I understand the desire to have folks with your perspective on the Board. I think that the desire you have is outweighed by the conflict of interest. Now, Jenni, as to your argument. You make a straw man out of us with the whole "vacation mission trips." When did I, or any of my peers, claim to undertstand your perspective? We didn't and never would. Much less would we use brief trips as an excuse to do so. I don't claim to know your perspective or know what you might think is best. I do claim to know what things affect the dynamics of interpersonal relationships within an organization. I have said before and will say agian now, if you want missionaries from NAMB to serve the IMB, and vice versa, then I am all for it. I know it is not the same, but it is the best way to compromise so that we achieve the most effective working of an organization. By the way, I was asked about Floyd being grandfathered in anyway. This would have kept him at the IMB this year, but not allowed him to be reappointed next year, for yet another four year term. As it now stands, Floyd will serve this and, in all likelihood serve another term, even if this is reworded and brought back up next year.
• June 15, 2006, Brian writes: I understand i was just a little frustrated. we are in the process of leading our church through some major changes towards missions. I guess it just hit home. Thanks for your understanding. Brian
• June 15, 2006, Jenni writes: Bryan, I am sorry. Apparently I offended you. I didn't see your comment, so I don't know in exactly what way, but I do apologize. Art, In response to your question about your peers claiming to know how best to do missions: If "your peers" are pastors and churchgoers in the states, then the answer is "constantly." You wouldn't believe the stories I could tell you. The board makes decisions every meeting that affect our lives, our families, our ministries. I do think that to exclude the vast, vast majority of missions experts from the pool of candidates is not a good idea. I really don't want to say too much about NAMB and their compentency or effectiveness of their methods. In addition, you may want to refer to my (personal) definition of "missionary" above. I want to stress that I'm not concerned about our board making decisions based on my personal perspective. I am concerned about a board of folks who don't understand the realities of overseas life and ministry in general. Again, I want to apologize if my expressions of disagreement have been disagreeable. I looked up "straw man" in the dictionary but didn't understand what you meant. Like I said, you guys are so wise in so many things, I don't understand your stance on this one. But, it's clear I'm not going to convince you. I really do support you all in what you're doing and this is the only point on which I disagree with your agenda. I also realize that, in my attempts to convince you of my arguement, I probably came across as one who sees a missionary as somehow superior to those who aren't. The truth is I don't and find it strange when other people do--until someone who isn't wants to tell me how to do my job. It's just like my degree. I have a master's in developmental psych. I feel personally like I know almost nothing about psychology--UNTIL someone starts giving me child-rearing advice.
• June 16, 2006, Jenni writes: For some reason, blogger isn't letting me delete and reword my own comment above. So, after a conviction-filled night, I ask you to please re-read my fourth paragraph above as: "I understand your point about former Nambers, but I don't think that someone who has served with NAMB is any more equipped to understand the realities of overseas life and ministry than anyone else living and serving in the states." I hope that better expresses what I'm trying to communicate. It's not that I think that our board should be composed entirely of former missionaries, but I do think they bring something valuable to the table. I think that most former Ms who would seek to serve on the board would not do it to bring vengence upon former employers, but would see it as a way to continue to impact a lost world. One amazing reality of life in this organization is that ANYONE at ANY TIME could be your supervisor. People aren't necessarily bumped up the chain of command -- someone you supervise could be your supervisor tomorrow. Happens all the time. Note to Brian, If my apology to you above doesn't suffice, or if you want to point my errors out further directly to me--I'm setting up a post at my blog to give you a comments section to do that. I really don't want to cause anyone frustration without giving them a satisfactory apology and/or explanation. Click on my name to go to my profile and then to my blog. thanks, Jenni
• June 16, 2006, art rogers writes: Jenni, It's a complex issue and I appreciate your perspective. It does seem to me that you have some previous experiences triggering strong emotions on this subject, though. No, by "my peers," I mean people who are publicly advocating the substance of the proposed amendment. Not two week Mission Trippers.
• June 16, 2006, greg writes: Art, Thanks for addressing this resolution. I don’t disagree that a conflict of interest or even personal agendas and vendettas resulting from past employment with an agency could create extremely difficult situations for current employees if the nomination process fails to address those concerns and inappropriate candidates are presented to fill trustee positions. However, I believe that the potential for those occurrences are far less likely than the blessing that can come when an individual has served the Lord effectively in one role for a season in their life and later has the honor and privilege to use the skills, knowledge, and wisdom gleaned from that previous affiliation to help shape and guide the future of that same agency as a trustee. Admittedly, I do have a personal motive in opposing the resolution as it was presented. Having served the IMB for several years, now on staff at SWBTS, and having been in full-time employment at two other SBC seminaries as a student, I have a great passion for global missions and the equipping ministries of our seminaries. I would count it a real blessing if in retirement (if for some reason I am unable to return to the international mission field in the Master’s program someday) God would allow me the blessing of continuing to serve Him through the SBC as a trustee of one the agencies I have grown to love. Regarding Jenni’s comments, I do understand and appreciate her viewpoint. I often felt that we had some wonderful, passionate, and well-meaning volunteers, pastors, and even trustees that did not wholly grasp the difficulties of third-world, cross-cultural living. The dynamics of providing for a family, developing relationships among people of a different language and faith practice, working with hostile governments, spending a whole day or longer completing simple tasks such as cashing a check, gathering groceries, or getting a phone, among a multitude of other challenges on the field cannot be completely appreciated in short visits. As such, I do believe that having former mission personnel serving alongside other trustees who are pastors and laymen that bring to the table the needs and expectations of partner churches, is the most effective formula for giving direction and support to our mission endeavors. Greg
• June 17, 2006, Greg writes: I repeatedly said "resolution" instead of "amendment" - I'm going to blame that slip on the loss of sleep due to the various psychological and physiological effects of jet lag caused by the great travel distance between Greensboro and Fort Worth.

Related posts:

• Executive Committee and By Law 15