Wade:

I don’t want to sound like I’m feasting on sour grapes, but I would like to know what “rule” mean. Could you locate the “rule” for me that says that when the President recognized the person at mike 5 to speak against the motion that the other messenger didn’t have to let me speak? If that is so, why do the microphones register a “For” and an “Against” at the same time? If your “rule” were really a rule, there would be only one button pushed at a time. But that is not the case. Because the president alternates for and against, he has the right to call on each mike individually and the person at that mike who is there to speak for or against as he recognizes. Imagine, if you will, that I had been the only person in the room against it. All the other mikes have only people for the motion. I am second in line at my mike, but I am the only one against it. By your “rule” no one would ever get to speak against it.

Wade responded later with this:

Hershael,

You are giving me way to much credit.

I was told that the pages and microphone monitors were instructed that the people at the microphones first were to stay at the microphone until they were able to speak — except for point of orders. In other words, an ‘against’ could not jump in front of a ‘for’ just because he wanted to.

However, I freely admit I may be wrong on the rule given to the microphone monitors. I am just relaying what I was told.

In His Grace,

Wade

P.S. By the way, I think you know by now I have no qualms telling it like I believe it to be. :)

Apparently, Dr. York doesn’t read my blog, and I can’t blame him. He’s a busy man and has recently posted about his being too busy to post on his own blog, much less read mine.

For everyone that needs to know, I don’t receive instructions from anyone. You can feel free to ask Ben if he tells me what to do. Wade as well. Ask.

The truth about the situation is this:

When the motion first came up, I went to mic 9, where I found Dr. Boyd Luter. It was he who made the motion last year, in Greensboro, to which the EC was responding in the first place.

When I arrived, we greeted one another. Dr. Luter was in his own room the night before, so far as I know. The teller at mic 9 said that if we legitimately wanted to both speak to the motion, one of us should find an open mic. Boyd offered to find one, but he was there first, so I told him to stay and I would find a new mic.

I went forward and found a microphone that was completely empty and I told the teller that I wanted to speak for the motion. I was handed the clipboard and began to fill out the required information. After a while, I noticed someone behind me and who told the teller that they wanted to speak against the motion.

Later, I noticed Dr. Richard Land walking up to the same mic. I turned and introduced myself and he warmly greeted me. Only then did I notice Dr. York’s name tag.

When the chair came to mic 5, Dr. Page asked, “Microphone 5, are you there to speak against the motion?” I responded, “No, sir. I am here to speak for the motion.”

You know by now that he moved on from there, never to return.

When Dr. Page asked for a vote to extend time, I voted, along with Drs. York and Land, to extend the time for debate. I wanted to speak to this issue that has been a burden to me for the last 18 months. I wanted discussion to continue, not cease.

I was told to go ahead and leave by the teller at that mic on at least three occasions, but I stood at the mic until the vote was called for by ballot and I knew I would not have a chance to speak.

A few points of clarification for Dr. York and anyone else who needs to know:

I was in the room the night before, but not to receive instructions. In fact, no one received any instructions in that room. Only information. The situation concerning the motion and the ramifications of our convention’s directions were explained to those interested. And we prayed.

I was at that mic first because it was empty. Drs. York and Land could have gone to any mic, they chose the one where I was already standing, not the other way around.

I voted to extend time in order to speak to the motion.

It was my understanding that I was first in line at that mic, and that the order was to be honored. When the teller pressed the “against” button, upon Dr. York’s arrival, I objected. He told me that the “mob box” would keep everything in order. When they came to mic 5 for the “against” statement, Dr. York objected to him that he should have gotten to speak. The teller told him that I was in line first and that I had the right to the mic.

At no time did I conspire with people to keep others from speaking against the motion. No one tried to flood the mics. Nothing dirty or inappropriate was intended or attempted.

I freely admit that I was unwilling to surrender my position at the mic since both I and the teller were under the understanding that I had the right to it.

If I and the teller were mistaken, then for my part, I can say it was an honest mistake.

I would, however add, that Dr. York did receive instruction from Paul Chitwood, chairman of the ad hoc committee at the IMB on the “guidelines” who came over and gave Dr. York some guidance on how to speak to the issue.

Now, I like Paul. He gave me some time last year to privately discuss the issues at the IMB, and I have always respected him. I saw him earlier in the day, and he introduced me to his wife and told me all that was going on in his life. He asked how things were going for me in Tulsa and wished me well.

I merely point out, that of the two of us, Dr. York was the one receiving instructions about how to handle himself at the mic.

Of course, I don’t begrudge him that, either. He’s a brilliant man, and didn’t need instruction. As I recall, he told Paul, “I know, I have a whole list of things.”

I write this as a simple word of clarification for those who don’t yet understand it. I act on my own. No one gives me instructions. I stayed at the microphone because I thought I had a right to it.

Besides, I wanted people beyond the blogosphere to hear what I have to say about the narrowing of parameters within our convention.

But, I’m almost done. Wednesday marks the shift away from Convention politics. I have another post due to drop at 10:00 am Monday. Tuesday will be my last on this subject, unless it crosses the path of my ministry.

So that you know, I have been entreated by many in leadership and laity alike in the SBC not to quit the political analysis. I can only say that I will do what I must for my wife, children and church. I can’t say that I won’t ever again deal with political issues, but I can say that I really don’t see it happening without a move of God in my life. By the way, I have always believed that God was calling me to address these issues – that it was His plan, and not my own.

Comments

• June 17, 2007, Den writes: interesting discussion would be to speculate about what would have happened at the convention if the bloggers had not been there. Imagination used with some degree of seriousness would be helpful. Would there have been any business?
• June 18, 2007, Bart Barber writes: Honest mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. The microphone monitor should have brought forward the person at your mike wishing to speak against, since that's who the President was calling for. In other words, the queue up front had hit on Dr. York's "Against" indication. But, these things happen. You don't bring thousands of people into a town-hall meeting and have everything run smoothly 100% of the time.
• June 18, 2007, Hershael York writes: Art: In part because I am keenly interested in the SBC right now, but mostly because my wife is out of town and I don't sleep well when she's gone, I have read the blogs and written quite a bit on things as you well know. First of all, I am truly sorry I don't know you, particularly since you pastored in Russellville. You may not know this, but as a small child I lived in Logan County when my dad pastored the Olmstead Baptist Church. We lived at Lick Skillet on Watermelon Road by Whipporwill Creek--no kidding! I am very sorry I didn't get to know you while you were here. I suppose my being president of the KBC ran you off to Oklahoma, huh? Anyway, I want you to know that at no time did I feel any resentment toward you for the alleged blocking me from the microphone. In fact, I didn't know it was you and even when it happened I didn't even think anything about it so far as you were concerned. I blamed the monitor entirely, and still do. They have more than one button on that precisely so the president can recognize people on different sides of the issue. The president is concerned with the overall balance, not that things proceed in order on the individual microphone. I had to study up on all this when I moderated the KBC, and that is how I learned it. Anyway, that was not your job to see that I got to speak. In fact, I would never have thought anything about it at all until Ben Cole told me that you did "exactly as he was instructed to do" in the previous night's meeting. In the context of our conversation he did not mean that you individually were told to stay at the microphone, but Ben indicated that he told the entire meeting to respond that way. So that is the basis of any statements I have made about you doing as you were told. I got that directly from Ben. Even if you did, I still understand that it was not your job to allow me to speak, but the monitor's, and he just got it wrong. This is where my belief in the sovereignty of God kicks in. Had God wanted me to speak, I would have. I want to reiterate that I hold absolutely nothing against you. I do not think you did anything wrong. I was and remain frustrated, but not at you. I guess I feel a mixture of admiration for the rough and tumble politics of it all and sadness that we seem to be missing something in the way we often find ourselves debating these issues. I know how to play hardball, too, and I cannot claim to be innocent in this regard. But in the past, I have always felt that I was doing that against de facto liberals, men who denied the exclusivity of the gospel or the trustworthiness of Scripture. Now I feel that men with whom I theologically agree for the most part are using those tactics and sometimes a "scorched earth" blogging tactic against otherwise godly men. For all the talk about being inclusive and working together, what transpired on that particular vote in San Antonio was not designed to have an honest debate, but to stifle it and get to the vote as quickly as possible before people could be informed of possible ramifications. Those that live by the sword die by it, and I am now old enough to see how these things all come around, and they will continue to do so. Blogging has often stripped away a respect for older men of God that we used to value. It has created a false sense of intimacy and led some to mistakenly believe that they have a right to be criticize, to critique, and to challenge men who have done great things for God. "If you have ought against your brother, leave there thy gift and go blog about it" seems to be the spirit of the age. The whole blogging phenomenon has caused some to achieve a level of influence that, frankly, they have not earned by any real advancement of the kingdom. I am rambling here. I want to be clear that I am not saying this specifically about you. I read your blog today for the very first time and I read only your most recent entry, so I frankly have no idea what kind of blogging you do. I am simply making generic comments about my frustration. My main point is that I do not fault you and I have no direct knowledge of whether you were coached to stay in front of the mike and prevent others from speaking, though I can say in all honesty that is precisely what Ben told me--and he is usually brutally honest. So it seems that we might have misguided notions about outside influence on each other because you are mistaken about Paul Chitwood coaching me. To be honest, I have no recollection of Paul saying anything to me. I was so focused on what I was going to say and had already mostly memorized it, that any outside suggestions were distractions. I had forgotten that I even saw Paul at the convention until you wrote about it and it made me laugh because you missed the boat entirely on that one. He may have said something to me--I really don't remember--but I can honestly say that it had no affect on what I would have said--but never got to. Blessings on you. I'm leaving my home for the airport in 3 1/2 hours.
• June 18, 2007, cb scott writes: Art, I was "at the mic" for many years in the past. It was in my room you met. You were never told to block a mic. The monitor did carry out his responsibility properly. You did nothing wrong. There were 12 mics. You were there to speak for the motion. You were there first. It is that simple. In another meeting, in another place, attended by other people, for another purpose, some people were assigned to or volunteered to "watch mics." As far as we know no one, in that meeting and specifically in the one you attended, was told to "block mics." I do hope that no one from the other meeting will deny that some plan was developed to watch mics. The time they were watching the mics was a time when nothing of controversy happened. Some were very surprised, but the boat went its way and nothing happened. cb
• June 18, 2007, Benjamin S. Cole writes: Hershael: The visit in my hotel suite involved many things. At several points, both Wade and I stressed the need to get to a microphone and get there early. I did not know Art was at a microphone until I saw him on the jumbo screen. When he relayed to me how he kept his place at the microphone, I laughed and we all congratulated him that night in the suite. It was a bit of good humor, and I think Art was there when C.B. and I talked about how this very thing had been done strategically during the "old days" of the Conservative Resurgence by people on all sides. And yes, I would use the word "instruct" to describe my comments to the folks gathered in our suite the night before. I use this word, however, in the same way that I would say Frank Page "instructed" the messengers how to vote. That is, he told them the process of voting, not what position they should take on a vote. Art Rogers has "instructed" people what to expect at the convention. Wade has "instructed" people on the significance of a vote. I have "instructed" people about the times for votes and some critical points of parliamentary procedure. But when it came to the microphone, and Art's calm insistence that he had a right to speak in turn, he made that decision on his own without any "coaching." Art Rogers is an incredibly sharp feller. In fact, he's "instructed" me a time or two, and I'm the better for it. Now furthermore, I will say this: You have violated the cardinal rule of blogging. You do not call someone for a discussion, then get to a blog and repeat the conversation. I do not say this to suggest that you have mischaracterized our conversation from Friday evening. In fact, I did say, "Art did what we told him to do." This does not mean, however, that Art Rogers had a little flash card with "instructions" from Ben and Wade handy at all moments in the convention. Art was in a room with a large number of people. Many things were said in the way of information or "how-to." But next time I host a gathering like that, I'll invite you so long as you don't take offense at my "instructing" you how to find my suite in the hotel. Wouldn't want anybody thinking that you were taking orders from me or something silly like that. BSC
• June 18, 2007, Art Rogers writes: Let me first clarify Ben's statement above. When Ben said, "Art did what we told him to do," I was not party to the conversation, so my understanding of the context is somewhat limited. Nevertheless, if by it he meant to say that he told the room that if they wished to speak to the issue, get to a microphone early, then I can agree with that statement. In case anyone thinks that my acumen in parliamentary procedure is dependent on others' instructions, I would point you to last year's series of posts, the SBC Primer. Not in any way to brag or elevate myself to the status of parliamentarian, but simply to say that I don't really need basic instruction. Also, it should be noted that CB is referring to his observation that certain friends and students of SWBTS seemed to be hovering around microphones during the time leading up to the SWBTS report. It was not another meeting in which we were involved, but his ability to recognize that which he was specifically instructed to do years ago, during the resurgence. Dr. York, It seems that we are in agreement in every place but one. I, too, love Logan County. I had once hoped to finish my ministry there among people that I had adopted as my own. In His Providence, God has seen fit to move me, and I am grateful for His watchcare over me. I had some good friends that lived on Watermelon Road. I know it well. Also, I was glad for your Presidency at the KBC. Which leads me to our next area of agreement, that we have devolved into political wrangling of conservatives angling against fellow conservatives. It is this that has weighed heavily on me of late and the reason for my desire to shift away from it. I have been disgusted with some of the things done to me by those who claim to be God's people. Honest discussion is one thing. Politics is another. I also share your frustration in not getting to speak. I desperately wanted to address the issue and I know for a fact that I had the "for" button pushed prior to at least one person who did speak "for" the motion. Like you, I also believe in the Sovereignty of God and have reconciled my frustration over not getting to speak by trusting that He did not desire it. I see that the only area of disagreement seems to be our mutual perception of each other "being coached." Perhaps that is now resolved. In case I did not make it clear before, I don't begrudge anyone receiving advice about dealing with the microphone, what to say, or even how to say it. I just wanted to make clear that I was there to speak my own mind and at my own bidding (Providence not withstanding).
• June 18, 2007, Todd Pylant writes: With all due respect to Dr. York, whom I do not know and of whom I do not know anything about other than what has been written on this post, I found the following quote to be arrogant and insulting. He wrote, "The whole blogging phenomenon has caused some to achieve a level of influence that, frankly, they have not earned by any real advancement of the kingdom." I don't know if he is referring to Art who is working hard to pastor a church or Marty who is working hard to pastor a church or Alan who is working hard to pastor a church or Wade who is working hard to pastor a church, etc. To say these and others have not earned influence due to a lack of any real advancement of the kingdom is not only rude and offensive, but fails to value the contribution to the Kingdom that all pastors make, whether they serve in large, significant pulpits or smaller membership congregations. Yes, the influence of the blogging community has by-passed the "powers that be," but that does not mean that they have not earned the right to influence!
• June 18, 2007, A Simple Student @ SWBTS writes: Hershael York said ... "Blogging has often stripped away a respect for older men of God that we used to value." With all due respect, blogging has done no such thing in my eyes. Attending chapel at Southwestern for two days was sufficient for me. A Simple Student @ SWBTS
• June 18, 2007, Marty Duren writes: Todd- Thank you and bless you, my friend. Simple- Man, that is too stinkin' funny.

Related posts:

• God’s Glory and Our Good
• And Now For Something Completely Different
• Are we compelled to go to the other side of the world with the message?
• God does what our church can’t
• The Run Down August 2, 2007

Well, believe it or not, I don’t read all the comment threads of many posts any more, so you might be surprised to know that I had no idea that Dr. Hershael York had described my actions and motivations on Wade’s comment thread on this post: The Transcript of the 2007 SBC Debate Over the Motion to Adopt the Executive Committee’s Statement on the Baptist Faith and Message

Wade:

I don’t want to sound like I’m feasting on sour grapes, but I would like to know what “rule” mean. Could you locate the “rule” for me that says that when the President recognized the person at mike 5 to speak against the motion that the other messenger didn’t have to let me speak? If that is so, why do the microphones register a “For” and an “Against” at the same time? If your “rule” were really a rule, there would be only one button pushed at a time. But that is not the case. Because the president alternates for and against, he has the right to call on each mike individually and the person at that mike who is there to speak for or against as he recognizes. Imagine, if you will, that I had been the only person in the room against it. All the other mikes have only people for the motion. I am second in line at my mike, but I am the only one against it. By your “rule” no one would ever get to speak against it.

Wade responded later with this:

Hershael,

You are giving me way to much credit.

I was told that the pages and microphone monitors were instructed that the people at the microphones first were to stay at the microphone until they were able to speak — except for point of orders. In other words, an ‘against’ could not jump in front of a ‘for’ just because he wanted to.

However, I freely admit I may be wrong on the rule given to the microphone monitors. I am just relaying what I was told.

In His Grace,

Wade

P.S. By the way, I think you know by now I have no qualms telling it like I believe it to be. :)

Apparently, Dr. York doesn’t read my blog, and I can’t blame him. He’s a busy man and has recently posted about his being too busy to post on his own blog, much less read mine.

For everyone that needs to know, I don’t receive instructions from anyone. You can feel free to ask Ben if he tells me what to do. Wade as well. Ask.

The truth about the situation is this:

When the motion first came up, I went to mic 9, where I found Dr. Boyd Luter. It was he who made the motion last year, in Greensboro, to which the EC was responding in the first place.

When I arrived, we greeted one another. Dr. Luter was in his own room the night before, so far as I know. The teller at mic 9 said that if we legitimately wanted to both speak to the motion, one of us should find an open mic. Boyd offered to find one, but he was there first, so I told him to stay and I would find a new mic.

I went forward and found a microphone that was completely empty and I told the teller that I wanted to speak for the motion. I was handed the clipboard and began to fill out the required information. After a while, I noticed someone behind me and who told the teller that they wanted to speak against the motion.

Later, I noticed Dr. Richard Land walking up to the same mic. I turned and introduced myself and he warmly greeted me. Only then did I notice Dr. York’s name tag.

When the chair came to mic 5, Dr. Page asked, “Microphone 5, are you there to speak against the motion?” I responded, “No, sir. I am here to speak for the motion.”

You know by now that he moved on from there, never to return.

When Dr. Page asked for a vote to extend time, I voted, along with Drs. York and Land, to extend the time for debate. I wanted to speak to this issue that has been a burden to me for the last 18 months. I wanted discussion to continue, not cease.

I was told to go ahead and leave by the teller at that mic on at least three occasions, but I stood at the mic until the vote was called for by ballot and I knew I would not have a chance to speak.

A few points of clarification for Dr. York and anyone else who needs to know:

I was in the room the night before, but not to receive instructions. In fact, no one received any instructions in that room. Only information. The situation concerning the motion and the ramifications of our convention’s directions were explained to those interested. And we prayed.

I was at that mic first because it was empty. Drs. York and Land could have gone to any mic, they chose the one where I was already standing, not the other way around.

I voted to extend time in order to speak to the motion.

It was my understanding that I was first in line at that mic, and that the order was to be honored. When the teller pressed the “against” button, upon Dr. York’s arrival, I objected. He told me that the “mob box” would keep everything in order. When they came to mic 5 for the “against” statement, Dr. York objected to him that he should have gotten to speak. The teller told him that I was in line first and that I had the right to the mic.

At no time did I conspire with people to keep others from speaking against the motion. No one tried to flood the mics. Nothing dirty or inappropriate was intended or attempted.

I freely admit that I was unwilling to surrender my position at the mic since both I and the teller were under the understanding that I had the right to it.

If I and the teller were mistaken, then for my part, I can say it was an honest mistake.

I would, however add, that Dr. York did receive instruction from Paul Chitwood, chairman of the ad hoc committee at the IMB on the “guidelines” who came over and gave Dr. York some guidance on how to speak to the issue.

Now, I like Paul. He gave me some time last year to privately discuss the issues at the IMB, and I have always respected him. I saw him earlier in the day, and he introduced me to his wife and told me all that was going on in his life. He asked how things were going for me in Tulsa and wished me well.

I merely point out, that of the two of us, Dr. York was the one receiving instructions about how to handle himself at the mic.

Of course, I don’t begrudge him that, either. He’s a brilliant man, and didn’t need instruction. As I recall, he told Paul, “I know, I have a whole list of things.”

I write this as a simple word of clarification for those who don’t yet understand it. I act on my own. No one gives me instructions. I stayed at the microphone because I thought I had a right to it.

Besides, I wanted people beyond the blogosphere to hear what I have to say about the narrowing of parameters within our convention.

But, I’m almost done. Wednesday marks the shift away from Convention politics. I have another post due to drop at 10:00 am Monday. Tuesday will be my last on this subject, unless it crosses the path of my ministry.

So that you know, I have been entreated by many in leadership and laity alike in the SBC not to quit the political analysis. I can only say that I will do what I must for my wife, children and church. I can’t say that I won’t ever again deal with political issues, but I can say that I really don’t see it happening without a move of God in my life. By the way, I have always believed that God was calling me to address these issues – that it was His plan, and not my own.

Comments

• June 17, 2007, Den writes: interesting discussion would be to speculate about what would have happened at the convention if the bloggers had not been there. Imagination used with some degree of seriousness would be helpful. Would there have been any business?
• June 18, 2007, Bart Barber writes: Honest mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. The microphone monitor should have brought forward the person at your mike wishing to speak against, since that's who the President was calling for. In other words, the queue up front had hit on Dr. York's "Against" indication. But, these things happen. You don't bring thousands of people into a town-hall meeting and have everything run smoothly 100% of the time.
• June 18, 2007, Hershael York writes: Art: In part because I am keenly interested in the SBC right now, but mostly because my wife is out of town and I don't sleep well when she's gone, I have read the blogs and written quite a bit on things as you well know. First of all, I am truly sorry I don't know you, particularly since you pastored in Russellville. You may not know this, but as a small child I lived in Logan County when my dad pastored the Olmstead Baptist Church. We lived at Lick Skillet on Watermelon Road by Whipporwill Creek--no kidding! I am very sorry I didn't get to know you while you were here. I suppose my being president of the KBC ran you off to Oklahoma, huh? Anyway, I want you to know that at no time did I feel any resentment toward you for the alleged blocking me from the microphone. In fact, I didn't know it was you and even when it happened I didn't even think anything about it so far as you were concerned. I blamed the monitor entirely, and still do. They have more than one button on that precisely so the president can recognize people on different sides of the issue. The president is concerned with the overall balance, not that things proceed in order on the individual microphone. I had to study up on all this when I moderated the KBC, and that is how I learned it. Anyway, that was not your job to see that I got to speak. In fact, I would never have thought anything about it at all until Ben Cole told me that you did "exactly as he was instructed to do" in the previous night's meeting. In the context of our conversation he did not mean that you individually were told to stay at the microphone, but Ben indicated that he told the entire meeting to respond that way. So that is the basis of any statements I have made about you doing as you were told. I got that directly from Ben. Even if you did, I still understand that it was not your job to allow me to speak, but the monitor's, and he just got it wrong. This is where my belief in the sovereignty of God kicks in. Had God wanted me to speak, I would have. I want to reiterate that I hold absolutely nothing against you. I do not think you did anything wrong. I was and remain frustrated, but not at you. I guess I feel a mixture of admiration for the rough and tumble politics of it all and sadness that we seem to be missing something in the way we often find ourselves debating these issues. I know how to play hardball, too, and I cannot claim to be innocent in this regard. But in the past, I have always felt that I was doing that against de facto liberals, men who denied the exclusivity of the gospel or the trustworthiness of Scripture. Now I feel that men with whom I theologically agree for the most part are using those tactics and sometimes a "scorched earth" blogging tactic against otherwise godly men. For all the talk about being inclusive and working together, what transpired on that particular vote in San Antonio was not designed to have an honest debate, but to stifle it and get to the vote as quickly as possible before people could be informed of possible ramifications. Those that live by the sword die by it, and I am now old enough to see how these things all come around, and they will continue to do so. Blogging has often stripped away a respect for older men of God that we used to value. It has created a false sense of intimacy and led some to mistakenly believe that they have a right to be criticize, to critique, and to challenge men who have done great things for God. "If you have ought against your brother, leave there thy gift and go blog about it" seems to be the spirit of the age. The whole blogging phenomenon has caused some to achieve a level of influence that, frankly, they have not earned by any real advancement of the kingdom. I am rambling here. I want to be clear that I am not saying this specifically about you. I read your blog today for the very first time and I read only your most recent entry, so I frankly have no idea what kind of blogging you do. I am simply making generic comments about my frustration. My main point is that I do not fault you and I have no direct knowledge of whether you were coached to stay in front of the mike and prevent others from speaking, though I can say in all honesty that is precisely what Ben told me--and he is usually brutally honest. So it seems that we might have misguided notions about outside influence on each other because you are mistaken about Paul Chitwood coaching me. To be honest, I have no recollection of Paul saying anything to me. I was so focused on what I was going to say and had already mostly memorized it, that any outside suggestions were distractions. I had forgotten that I even saw Paul at the convention until you wrote about it and it made me laugh because you missed the boat entirely on that one. He may have said something to me--I really don't remember--but I can honestly say that it had no affect on what I would have said--but never got to. Blessings on you. I'm leaving my home for the airport in 3 1/2 hours.
• June 18, 2007, cb scott writes: Art, I was "at the mic" for many years in the past. It was in my room you met. You were never told to block a mic. The monitor did carry out his responsibility properly. You did nothing wrong. There were 12 mics. You were there to speak for the motion. You were there first. It is that simple. In another meeting, in another place, attended by other people, for another purpose, some people were assigned to or volunteered to "watch mics." As far as we know no one, in that meeting and specifically in the one you attended, was told to "block mics." I do hope that no one from the other meeting will deny that some plan was developed to watch mics. The time they were watching the mics was a time when nothing of controversy happened. Some were very surprised, but the boat went its way and nothing happened. cb
• June 18, 2007, Benjamin S. Cole writes: Hershael: The visit in my hotel suite involved many things. At several points, both Wade and I stressed the need to get to a microphone and get there early. I did not know Art was at a microphone until I saw him on the jumbo screen. When he relayed to me how he kept his place at the microphone, I laughed and we all congratulated him that night in the suite. It was a bit of good humor, and I think Art was there when C.B. and I talked about how this very thing had been done strategically during the "old days" of the Conservative Resurgence by people on all sides. And yes, I would use the word "instruct" to describe my comments to the folks gathered in our suite the night before. I use this word, however, in the same way that I would say Frank Page "instructed" the messengers how to vote. That is, he told them the process of voting, not what position they should take on a vote. Art Rogers has "instructed" people what to expect at the convention. Wade has "instructed" people on the significance of a vote. I have "instructed" people about the times for votes and some critical points of parliamentary procedure. But when it came to the microphone, and Art's calm insistence that he had a right to speak in turn, he made that decision on his own without any "coaching." Art Rogers is an incredibly sharp feller. In fact, he's "instructed" me a time or two, and I'm the better for it. Now furthermore, I will say this: You have violated the cardinal rule of blogging. You do not call someone for a discussion, then get to a blog and repeat the conversation. I do not say this to suggest that you have mischaracterized our conversation from Friday evening. In fact, I did say, "Art did what we told him to do." This does not mean, however, that Art Rogers had a little flash card with "instructions" from Ben and Wade handy at all moments in the convention. Art was in a room with a large number of people. Many things were said in the way of information or "how-to." But next time I host a gathering like that, I'll invite you so long as you don't take offense at my "instructing" you how to find my suite in the hotel. Wouldn't want anybody thinking that you were taking orders from me or something silly like that. BSC
• June 18, 2007, Art Rogers writes: Let me first clarify Ben's statement above. When Ben said, "Art did what we told him to do," I was not party to the conversation, so my understanding of the context is somewhat limited. Nevertheless, if by it he meant to say that he told the room that if they wished to speak to the issue, get to a microphone early, then I can agree with that statement. In case anyone thinks that my acumen in parliamentary procedure is dependent on others' instructions, I would point you to last year's series of posts, the SBC Primer. Not in any way to brag or elevate myself to the status of parliamentarian, but simply to say that I don't really need basic instruction. Also, it should be noted that CB is referring to his observation that certain friends and students of SWBTS seemed to be hovering around microphones during the time leading up to the SWBTS report. It was not another meeting in which we were involved, but his ability to recognize that which he was specifically instructed to do years ago, during the resurgence. Dr. York, It seems that we are in agreement in every place but one. I, too, love Logan County. I had once hoped to finish my ministry there among people that I had adopted as my own. In His Providence, God has seen fit to move me, and I am grateful for His watchcare over me. I had some good friends that lived on Watermelon Road. I know it well. Also, I was glad for your Presidency at the KBC. Which leads me to our next area of agreement, that we have devolved into political wrangling of conservatives angling against fellow conservatives. It is this that has weighed heavily on me of late and the reason for my desire to shift away from it. I have been disgusted with some of the things done to me by those who claim to be God's people. Honest discussion is one thing. Politics is another. I also share your frustration in not getting to speak. I desperately wanted to address the issue and I know for a fact that I had the "for" button pushed prior to at least one person who did speak "for" the motion. Like you, I also believe in the Sovereignty of God and have reconciled my frustration over not getting to speak by trusting that He did not desire it. I see that the only area of disagreement seems to be our mutual perception of each other "being coached." Perhaps that is now resolved. In case I did not make it clear before, I don't begrudge anyone receiving advice about dealing with the microphone, what to say, or even how to say it. I just wanted to make clear that I was there to speak my own mind and at my own bidding (Providence not withstanding).
• June 18, 2007, Todd Pylant writes: With all due respect to Dr. York, whom I do not know and of whom I do not know anything about other than what has been written on this post, I found the following quote to be arrogant and insulting. He wrote, "The whole blogging phenomenon has caused some to achieve a level of influence that, frankly, they have not earned by any real advancement of the kingdom." I don't know if he is referring to Art who is working hard to pastor a church or Marty who is working hard to pastor a church or Alan who is working hard to pastor a church or Wade who is working hard to pastor a church, etc. To say these and others have not earned influence due to a lack of any real advancement of the kingdom is not only rude and offensive, but fails to value the contribution to the Kingdom that all pastors make, whether they serve in large, significant pulpits or smaller membership congregations. Yes, the influence of the blogging community has by-passed the "powers that be," but that does not mean that they have not earned the right to influence!
• June 18, 2007, A Simple Student @ SWBTS writes: Hershael York said ... "Blogging has often stripped away a respect for older men of God that we used to value." With all due respect, blogging has done no such thing in my eyes. Attending chapel at Southwestern for two days was sufficient for me. A Simple Student @ SWBTS
• June 18, 2007, Marty Duren writes: Todd- Thank you and bless you, my friend. Simple- Man, that is too stinkin' funny.

Related posts:

• God’s Glory and Our Good
• And Now For Something Completely Different
• Are we compelled to go to the other side of the world with the message?
• God does what our church can’t
• The Run Down August 2, 2007

I mentioned that I was struggling with Steve. Really it was more of the concept he was putting forth. The concept with which I struggled was that political engagement would not significantly move the SBC where we all thought it needed to go.

At this point, Steve was on his way out of blogging the SBC and I was full of vim and vigor – just starting. Obviously our takes on the subject were heading in very different directions. His leading SBC blog, Missional Baptist, is now gone from the net. So, we were passing one another in the blogosphere, heading in different directions. I didn’t, at the time, realize that he had been one of the first voices for reform in the SBC in the blogosphere.

This all matters because Steve said a few times, and in various places, that real Missional reform in the SBC is not going to be accomplished by the making of political moves within the SBC. There can’t be anything such as a Missional Resurgence, in other words (mine, not his), because being Missional is about specifically breaking from traditional/political structures and being a more organic source of light in a very dark culture. Steve was saying that the long lasting impact will be from Missional minded pastors and other leaders getting out front and leading by example in engaging our lost culture. Politics would be a short run and ineffective fix.

Well, I went on my journey over the last year and then some, helping to write (I added a couple of words – so that counts :) ) and host the Memphis Declaration. Of course, I blogged regularly about the IMB policies and then posted what one of my friends called the “definitive tome” on how to do business within the convention in a series called, “The SBC Primer.”

The convention was big. Frank Page was the first President elected not backed by either Patterson or Pressler since the Resurgence began, oh those many years ago [edit] with the obvious exception of Jim Henry. Bobby Welch wasn’t their first choice, but they didn’t try to thwart him either.[/edit] Debate on the floor over resolutions was unprecedented. The nominations from Bobby Welch’s committees were excellent with only one or two personal objections. The Executive Committee took reform into its hands and dealt with several by-law issues that were of paramount importance to many of us.

Looking back, I can definitely say that the convention is different because of some of the things I have said and done over the last year. “Politics” has had some positive impact. But how much and for how long?

At the Baptist Identity Conference held at Union University, I sought out Steve McCoy to tell him I had come to some conclusions about his earlier statement. I had come to the realization that he was right. The best effect we are going to have in making the SBC into a convention for the future is leading by example – politics will not ultimately get us where we need to be. He asked what led me to say that. I responded that it was what I had failed to see thus far. After a year of pouring my life into dealing publicly with Convention issues, I have realized that we are not much closer to the overall change that we need to have in the SBC.

Since that time, we have now had the convention adopt the report from the Executive Committee that calls for agencies and institutions to keep from going beyond the BFM in areas of doctrine. Nevertheless, we have also heard from seminary presidents (and at least one professor) who have told us that we didn’t know what we were doing, and that they would do as they saw fit. The issue is still not resolved, though I have done all I could.

Openness towards conservatives who disagree on tertiary (or what SHOULD be tertiary) issues is still a far way away from us now. Are we closer? Sure. But not much.

Instead, I have observed the IMB BOT change its restrictions on missionary candidates just enough to say that they actually changed them, but not enough to make one shred of actual, practical difference in the way they are interpreted or enforced.

It was at this point that I finally realized the End Game.

I have repeatedly said that I could fight for ten years over the authority of the Bible. Who gets to steer the SBC ship is not that big a concern for me. Yet it is now clear that for the institutions that have placed tertiary restrictions on Southern Baptists who wish to serve through their ministries, loud complaints on blogs just won’t cut it. Backroom meetings might cut it, but then you just replace one group with another, and I need no part of that.

Ultimately, lasting change will come from two things that are available to me: As Steve once said, it will come from young leaders living out Missional Leadership as an example for others to follow and it will come from the election of a succession of presidents that are more interested in cooperation than controlling the minutiae of every SBC entity’s theology.

In other words, the Trustees of those organizations will not change their minds nor their actions because they alienate conservative Southern Baptists. They were choosing to do that last year and nothing has changed on that front. The IMB, in particular, has made it clear that they are listening to their own counsel and the rest of us must simply deal with it.

No, to reverse the policies, the trustees at the two mission boards and the one seminary are going to have to be replaced with people who will choose not to alienate their fellow Southern Baptists. To do that, the SBC will have to elect Presidents that mandate that action through the appointment process over the next eight years. It could take less for the mission boards, but it is my evaluation that it will take a complete overhaul of the SWBTS trustees to make the difference there. This is assuming that the BFM report, now adopted by the convention, has little or no effect. I pray I am wrong, but I will wait and see.

Yes, my voice for inclusion has just called for the exclusion of some who currently serve in leadership. I am saying that those who would exclude fellow conservatives must, themselves, be excluded from leadership for the well being of the Southern Baptist Convention.

I say again, I just don’t think I care to do what I’ve done over the last year and a half for another nine years.

Along with others, I have sounded the alarm and raised the issues. It is time for those leaders who are able to rise up and press the issue of cooperation at the national convention level. I have repeatedly said that I wasn’t seeking national appointment. I realize that I have said some things that may exclude me from service that I might otherwise been privileged to enjoy. Among many, because of my vocalization, I have wounded my own reputation, and I deeply regret that. Not that I think it was wrong to speak, but that I dislike being a person of division, especially when my cry has been for unity.

Ultimately, the more cooperative natured among us, especially those already in leadership, are going to have to step up to the plate and move the convention in the direction that portends a healthy future – given my understanding of what a healthy future is. If not, I am afraid that the politics of exclusion, because it is so ingrained in some of our leaders, will lead us to a future of irrelevance and ineffectiveness.

The SBC is a good thing. I think we may have a bright future, but it is dependant on cooperative minded people showing up at the convention and making sure that their willingness to cooperate with their fellow conservatives is the majority view when we do business.

Instead, I see many of pastors and churches beginning to cooperate around the convention. They are building bridges with other churches and forming networks of their own through which they do missions without the exclusionary politics that they despise.

It’s easier to form new networks than to try and secure the future of the one we have.

I brought a couple of church members with me to the convention. They are former church planters who have a heart for engaging the lost and are doing great things in that area with the Sunday School class they now teach. They are coming because the future of the convention matters. I can honestly say, though, that the thought of worrying about voting and being at all the business meetings just isn’t appealing to them.

So here’s the deal. If those who think that restrictive mindsets don’t belong in leadership don’t start being leaders themselves, showing up at the convention to make a difference in the business of the convention and leading out as an example, then we might as well stop talking and look for another way to do missions, because the talking isn’t doing anything of extended value.

If you would ask me now about the BFM motion now adopted, rest assured, I think blogging contributed a small number of votes to the total. Rather, that vote was won on the floor and Dwight McKissic did more for that than anyone else.

As for me, I am tired of haggling over every detail of convention controversy. Close observers of my blog will be able to note that I have cut back on convention business severely up until the convention arrived this week. It used to be that I wrote daily and the convention was my daily source of opinion – even when I was no where near the SBC. It has been a long time since that happened.

I am continuing down that road, as well. I am going to attend the SBC and I will try to bring messengers for several more years. I will continue to blog here at this website. The substance of my blogging though, will be less and less political in favor of being more and more inspirational (I hope) in my desire to be an example of Missional engagement. I will continue to deal with this convention for another couple of weeks, and then will only blog about the SBC when it directly affects my ministry.

As I make that move, I expect readership to drop. There is nothing like watching a train wreck. Political infighting has made my blog one of the most well read sources in our SBC Blogosphere. That is something that I have no problem giving away.

I expect that my Phriday fotos will get better. I expect that my church will become prominently listed on my blog and that my blog will be prominently listed at my church. They have been separated now out of deference to those in my church who may not feel that I represent them in the political arena of SBC life. I expect that the details of our church’s journey to Missional engagement will be chronicled with more regularity. I expect my picture, along with the pictures of my family will be posted here more often. I expect that I would begin to mend fences with some that are on “other sides” from me within my own convention. I expect we will still vote differently, so long as we are both still in the same convention – which I hope is a very long time.

Sorry for the “Wade Burleson length” post. Expect me to be talking more about other things. If that is not what you’re after, then I am not all that sad to see you go, though I am sad that that’s all your after.

1-4-3!

Comments

• June 14, 2007, Keith Price writes: Amen! Thanks...and my daughter wants to know if your new blog style will include music links that will be as good as Steve's. I stop by here often, but comment rarely. I will still stop by often, probably more so. May God bless you in your missional efforts. Keith Price
• June 14, 2007, Strider writes: I really appreciate your heart here, Art. I agree with you that instead of shouting at the darkness we should light a candle. I felt that we M's were slandered by the policies enacted so I began a blog just to tell the story of what God is doing in my life and ministry. I never mention trustees or policies but only tell true stories of God moving in our lives. I would love to continue reading your blog and instead of political spin find the story of what God is doing in your life and in your church. Your readership may decrease, but your influence will surely grow.
• June 14, 2007, Joe Kennedy writes: I look forward to your photos (which have been pretty good so far), and maybe a template change so I don't burn my retinas trying to look at the white text on the black background. Eesh. But most importantly, I look forward to watching you become a missionary in an American context. And maybe I'll comment some now. =) You and Alan Cross both.
• June 14, 2007, Charlie Curce writes: Art, I have appreciated your fair, honest, and open perspectives about the SBC and its future. Rest assured - change will come to the SBC through: 1. Future backdoor revivals (funerals) - "Lord, Send some Revivals!" (And He will - including my own!) 2. A coming funding crunch - the quickest way to bring about change in SBC life. 3. And above all else - Time! With recent studies indicating that 60% of all existing churches will close their doors by 2050 in America(Church Next - Gibbs), change will come and God is and will do a new thing! And that is already happening through: 4. New networks and alliances forged by trusting relationships of churches and church leaders. And some will be Baptist in theology, structure, and orientation though not all will be identified by our user name! Though it will be different, I am excited about the future and again, thank you!
• June 14, 2007, Anonmyous writes: Art, I think you are being optimistic. Circumstances may force you back. 2007 SBC may not be over. I may just be beginning. Already, one post at http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2007/06/practical-outworking-of-2007-southern.html has asked if the resolution invites belivers in errancy back into the convention. "Isn't it almost inviting the liberals back in?" I hear that Paige is very upset and likely to be even more upset when he realizes that inerrancy/errancy is open again. He is not happy with the media spin that the SBC is going moderate. He may start another liberal sweep like 30 years ago to prove that he is still himself. I hear that Mohler is equally upset for the same reasons. He may want to try a liberal sweep himself. This could start as competing liberal sweeps by Patterson and Mohler, turn into a conflict between Patterson and Mohler over who is top dog in the SBC, and degenerate into Calvinist/non Calvinst fight.
• June 14, 2007, tlinasia writes: Art, You have made a HUGE difference. Patterson will ride the SBC ship to its watery grave. Visions of 3,500 seat chapels, large men in suits and homemaking degrees won't lift sinking CP dollars. You have led a noble charge for the right purpose. I urge you to keep up the work, but you must follow God's path for you and for this blog. Thanks for shining light on the deep fissures in our convention.
• June 14, 2007, Sean the Milkman writes: Thanks Art, Awesome post. You have articulated what has been welling up in my heart as I have read many and interacted with a few blogs over the past 6 months. I came late to the game, but it hasn't taken me long to decide what you have decided. While I probably tend to be on "the other side" from you on several issues, I agree that a handful of bloggers (on either side) will not accomplish much for the amount of time invested in this medium. You are right again- it is going to take a long-term committment and more face to face dialogue to mend fences. Blogging has some severe deficiencies. I am so glad that Jesus didn't mandate the SBC. All of this political maneuvering and venemous spewing in the SBC (I am not innocent) breaks my heart, but gives me renewed passion for the local church and my vision for getting on mission. Thanks for being a clear voice. Sean M.
• June 14, 2007, Paul Burleson writes: Art, The battler/builder statement I made on Marty's blog can be duplicated here as well. Thank you for your genuine friendship and your future is very bright in the Kingdom BECAUSE of your heart for the One who rules it.
• June 14, 2007, Kevin Bussey writes: Art, As you know I came to this conclusion a few months ago. I missed hanging out with you in SA but I'm ready to make those connections you are talking about. In fact they have already begun. I received a call that I'm sure you got too about going to Viet Nam with a group of churches like you. I want to be a part of something bigger than me. I appreciate your friendship.
• June 14, 2007, Wayne Hatcher writes: Good words. I look forward to your future, more diverse posts. Blogging can be such a good tool when turned from "fire from hell" into "show and tell". Let others see what you and your congregation are doing to advance the gospel right where you are. Blessings.
• June 14, 2007, Cyle writes: Art, Good post, good to hear your heart. One thing that's been regularly said in all the blogwars in the SBC is that missional leaders are young leaders. From someone on the edge of becoming old, that's really not a helpful label, but it is one that Steve has embraced. You repeated it in this post. It's one that the traditional SBC leaders use, possibly with a bit of disdain. The only successful church planters I know are at least 5 years older than me. I'm 45. If missional people only want to plant churches for people under 25, and they focus on being "young", we're going to miss more than half of un-church, un-regenerate America. Labeling the movement as a "young" movement limits its effectiveness. It limits its methods, and it alienates some people who have a great deal of wisdom from the mix. I want to build networks that reach lost America. I'll do that with anyone of any age. I do hope we don't see a new ethinc cleansing movement in the SBC. I think that will effectively kill it. Cyle
• June 14, 2007, Joe writes: Art: Thanks for the journey that you have taken us all on in the past year. It has been a great ride as you have provided truthful insight into what is going on in SBC life, and a small amount of what is going on in your part of the world. I will miss the SBC post, but not near as much as I am looking forward to hearing how God is going to use you and your church in to change the world. And more pics of your family won't be bad either!
• June 14, 2007, John Stickley writes: Art, As I did with Marty, I want to express my appreciation for everything you've done over the past couple years. You HAVE made a difference. As encouragement for your new direction, I want you to know that I have enjoyed the glimpse of what's to come with your blog that we've seen over the last couple months, and look forward to more of the same! I don't know what everyone else thinks, but I can tell you now that I'll enjoy your blog even more when it's not all SBC, all the time! I pray that God will continue to bless you, your family, and your ministry.
• June 14, 2007, onelittleman writes: Brother Art, I've always enjoyed reading your blog more than any other. You have a gift for getting to the heart of what's going on. I understand and respect your reasons for shutting down the political side of your blogging efforts. When I first discovered your blog and sbcoutpost, I had real hope that the sbc might be self correcting from the excesses of the resurgence. I really hoped that the sbc would become primarily a positive missionary force for the kingdom. However, with the news that first Brother Bussey, now you and Brother Duren completely disengaging from this conversation, it seems that the entrenched leadership has won. As we know, the winners write the history. I am coming to a few realizations, maybe I should blog them myself, feel free to delete if I'm threadjacking. 1. The SBC is no longer led by baptists. 2. The consolidation of power in the hands of a few will probably continue. 3. If a new round of liberal hunting breaks out, then it is probably the end of any meaningful cooperation under any but the most narrow tests of acceptable belief. If we are to accept your call to developing new missional networks of people committed to kingdom purposes, then it seems that it is also time to accept the logical consequence of that effort. It is probably time to quit spending our scarce resources on an apparatus in which we can't cooperate and gives us no missional return. And yes, I'm talking about churches deciding to stop giving to the cooperative program on the national level. No more Lottie Moon. No more Annie Armstrong. No more underwriting seminaries. If the structure is more committed to power than mission, then it makes no sense to keep funding the structure. If life is too short to keep trying to reform the SBC, then it's probably time to serve without it. Let the power brokers have their castle of ashes. As long as we keep sending the money, there will be neither change nor kingdom fruit. Thanks for the work you've done on this project. I'll continue reading the new missional blog you're planning and I'm eager to see what your congregation is going to be doing.
• June 14, 2007, Marty Duren writes: Art- I just want to publicly state my appreciation for standing up and being counted. Only God knows the depth and breadth of what these 18 or so months will be, but you have been in the thick often articulating things that were being lost or overlooked. You've been an intricate part of everything that has happened to attempt to free this convention from its fundamentalist, legalist tilt. God bless you, your family and Skelly Drive BC.
• June 14, 2007, Tim Cook writes: Art, I just want to say thanks - thanks for taking this journey for some of us. It has been a blessing to watch you stand to be counted. I feel like, by your having represented my thoughts and those of others, that I can focus more fully on where God has called me in ministry. I know that, if I had a platform to address national issues, I would have done it in the same way. I guess what I am saying is, not only are you more free to move on in ministry, but some of the rest of us are also. I for one am comfortable with the fact that like-minded people did SOMETHING. now, we will just have to see where it takes us in the future. In Christ, Tim Cook PS if you read this, the same goes for Marty and Alan - thanks for your representation on behalf of the rest of us. God Bless.
• June 14, 2007, Karen Scott writes: Brother Art, I just wanted to let you know how much I have appreciated you and your work in trying to educate and inform Southern Baptist of problems within our convention. May God bless you and your family as you seek to reach the lost in your community for Him. Please continue to pray for us as we will you and yours. Karen
• June 14, 2007, Alan Cross writes: Art, You have been a blessing to me and a good friend. As I told Marty, I'd check my email, go to SBC Outpost, and then come here every day. You helped shape my thinking and my writing on these topics and you were a huge part of letting me know that I could get involved and stand up and be counted. I also step back from this with no regrets because of people like you, Marty, and Wade who reminded me what it really means to be a Baptist. I look forward to hearing more from you in these other areas and I can't wait to hear about what God is doing through your church! Here's to better days . . .
• June 14, 2007, David Troublefield writes: Gee; it already almost sounds like a funeral in here. Your best days, though, are AHEAD of you--not behind! In my opinion, Art, the best writing you've done anyway during the past 12 months was our email exchange of several weeks ago when members of our congregation had moved to your area but not yet found a new church to worship/serve with; you indicated in writing that you'd love-on them, and you tried (our congregation is very grateful to you for it because we truly love and miss that family). Each of us can go merrily and alone on his theological way, smiling and even waving at a distance; no cooperation--or Cooperative Program--is necessary. I know what I believe about/from the Bible; when I feel like I need the input of anyone posting in the blogosphere, I'll ask for it (after all, at Judgment, I'm standing there without you--best I can tell). But when, on my own, I'm trying to reach a great big unsaved world, I'm going to need a little assistance--from a whole lot of other Christians. I don't need your theology; I need your money and your manpower--and you need mine and that of my believing friends for the same. If we can agree enough on theological matters (what the gospel story is, basically), then we can get along for world missions and evangelism (some will split hairs here). The BF&M is a good idea; it just isn't "the Sabbath"--what everything in SBC life must come to a stand-still for. Jesus Christ is Lord of the Sabbath--that day with its man-made impositions--comes to a stop for Him, and He's Lord of the BF&M statement, too. If I were Him (obviously, I'm not), this week--with its 30th consecutive summer of SBC fighting--probably would be an incredibly sad one for Me; I'd probably be getting ready to do something awesomely terrible about it, too. My teenage daughters often saying in teasing, "Dad, build a bridge and get over it!" I'd suggest it now, for all of us. If the SBC cannot be what it needs to be, it only has been a good idea for as long as it's lasted (150 years for any organization is rare); it'd be time to build a bridge and get over it, to continue moving forward together really on-mission with God. I'm "game" for either--again, not because I need the theological input of anyone posting here, but because we good news-tellers need the resources God is providing to Himself for world evangelism through each one of us. Just some thoughts from someone who is as tired of reading bad news as Art is of typing it.
• June 14, 2007, Art Rogers writes: Anonymous, I pray you are not a prophet. I am not desirous of being drawn back in. So much for the prognostications that we want power and positions - that we wish to replace one group with another. Quite the opposite. All, Thank you for the kind and encouraging words. I appreciate you all. I especially appreciate those who have said they look forward to my future blogging than my past. When I first started, no one read what I wrote. Only when I got involved with politics did I gain a readership. You can see, then, that I expected to slip into oblivion, blogopshperically speaking. That's still a possibility, but knowing a few folks will be around to read fuels the desire, a bit. Remember that I have a few more analytical posts to come, but then (with a tip of the hat to Ben) "we at 12 Witnesses will turn our thoughts toward more Kingdom minded pursuits." :) I'm leaving this post up for a day, but look for more soon on the status of the SBC and the motion to adopt the BFM as sufficient. Marty & Alan, I'll be by your blogs shortly to tell you how much I appreciate you both. Grace to all, Art PS I have received several personal emails and I will answer then as soon as I am able. I am still en route home, stopping overnight at my Mom's and picking up my kids. Friday I go home and Saturday kicks off VBS with a big event at the church. I am going to have to take a breath, but I will be returning your emails asap, I promise.
• June 14, 2007, micah writes: Art- Well everyone else is getting sappy, so I guess I'll just say..."Thanks for playing Charles Barkley at the microphones this week." :-)
• June 14, 2007, David writes: Did anyone else see Dr. Jerry Vines at Cornerstone Church Sunday morning? Sources say he was even recognized publicly by Pastor John Hagee. Interesting that he didn't attend a Southern Baptist Church - at least in my mind. :-)
• June 14, 2007, A 10-40 Windows Missionary writes: Art, Those of us "half a world away" appreciate what you and Marty have done for informing us of the world of SBC. It is so easy to get isolated from those who sacrificially give in order for us to serve Him in other lands. We also become isolated from what is really happening in the convention which makes it possible for our service. Thanks to you for trying to inform...Blessings on you and Skelly Drive.
• June 15, 2007, Tim Rogers writes: Brother Art, I would not have known what to do on the blogs if it were not for you. (I am sure you did not want to hear that one. :>)) Seriously, you helped me fashion the blog and taught me about placing quotes in italics and other tidbits. I am grateful. I also am grateful that when we disagreed to the point of my not speaking to you, you were the bigger and more Godly among us and reached out to me. It revealed to me that your heart was pure in this endeavor. I will always respect that in you. I look forward to your closing post, and to your more missional direction. My wife has placed a leash on me for my future blogs. I too plan to do more "this is what God is doing" posts. Blessings, Tim
• June 15, 2007, Art Rogers writes: Apparently, someone from Insight Communications in Louisville, KY felt it would be appropriate to impersonate Jerry Vines on my blog. I removed the comment. Please don't think that because I am changing directions that I have gone soft. As for Jerry attending a non-SBC church, I don't mind. I am against Triumphalism in the SBC.
• June 15, 2007, David Phillips writes: Art, Knowing what I know, all I can say is: "The Best is Yet to Come!"
• June 15, 2007, Brad Guenther writes: Art, I for one will be excited to stop by far more often. Missions, cooperation, and loving our churches, our communities, and our Lord are what it is all about. I've hated all the anger and division I've felt in myself and look forward to linking arms with you and others around moving forward. God bless.
• June 15, 2007, marie writes: Now THIS is what I would call unity! I have been reading your posts with interest as to what was really going on in the SBC. I am no longer SBC, but I still care... I, too, am looking forward to what Jesus Christ has planned for your church and reading here how He is accomplishing His will in answer to His prayer in John 17. This sounds like a Paul and Barnabas moment when they fought about John Mark. The LORD was still able to use both even after their rift!!! :) Abundant blessings to you! Marie
• June 15, 2007, Les Puryear writes: Art, I thoroughly enjoyed the time we spent together in SA. You have a great heart and a wise mind. I, for one, will continue reading your blog whether you talk politics or dessert recipes. Regards, Les
• June 16, 2007, Bryan Riley writes: There is nothing too hard for God. Thank you, Art. I say praise to Him for what you are about to begin. May you walk circumspectly and be filled with wisdom and strength from God alone.
• June 16, 2007, cb scott writes: Les, It was good to see you at the SBC. I do want to tell you one thing; I will not read Art's blog if it is about dessert recipes:-) cb
• June 16, 2007, David Rogers writes: Art, Thanks for your service and insight. I will continue to check in here to see what the Lord leads you to contribute toward the edification of His Body.
• June 16, 2007, Bart Rhea writes: Art - As a member of SDBC the past year, I have grown to love and respect you and your family. You are Art. No falsehoods, no pretenses, no favoritism...just Art. CB - I don't know what the reference to dessert is...but you do need Art's recipe for his world famous grilled steak.
• June 17, 2007, Bart Barber writes: Art, May God bless you in your upcoming pursuits. Happy VBS!
• June 18, 2007, Tim Sweatman writes: Art, Imagine my surprise when, after about 3 weeks of being unable to follow the blogs, I discovered on the same day that both you and Marty are taking your blogs in an entirely different direction. I'll try not to repeat what I said on his blog, but my feelings are mixed. Obviously I believe this move is a detriment to the efforts to bring reform to the SBC, but I cannot help but think that in many ways this new focus will greatly benefit the Kingdom. As I mentioned in my comment on And How Have We Come to This?, I have a hunch I will need you, Marty, and others to help me figure out the practical aspects of these new avenues of partnership and cooperation because I really think the time is soon coming where the SBC will no longer be a viable avenue of cooperation. I'll miss your insights and analysis on SBC matters, but I look forward to seeing how you apply your skills and wisdom to matters more missional in nature.

Related posts:

• Phenomenally Addictive Game
• Phriday foto 11-23-07
• Well, gee, fellas…
• Blogtown Football League
• A thin slice of perspective on the College Football weekend past…

A little over a year ago, I struggled with Steve McCoy. On the one hand, I found him insightful and challenging as I was growing in my understanding of being Missional and leading in a Missional way. On the other hand, he had begun to decry some of the political discussions in which I was beginning to invest myself. I would only later find out that I had come late to the party and Steve, Joe Thorn and Marty Duren were among the first to begin to blog about the SBC and its struggles. Someone recently called them the original “Big 3.”

I mentioned that I was struggling with Steve. Really it was more of the concept he was putting forth. The concept with which I struggled was that political engagement would not significantly move the SBC where we all thought it needed to go.

At this point, Steve was on his way out of blogging the SBC and I was full of vim and vigor – just starting. Obviously our takes on the subject were heading in very different directions. His leading SBC blog, Missional Baptist, is now gone from the net. So, we were passing one another in the blogosphere, heading in different directions. I didn’t, at the time, realize that he had been one of the first voices for reform in the SBC in the blogosphere.

This all matters because Steve said a few times, and in various places, that real Missional reform in the SBC is not going to be accomplished by the making of political moves within the SBC. There can’t be anything such as a Missional Resurgence, in other words (mine, not his), because being Missional is about specifically breaking from traditional/political structures and being a more organic source of light in a very dark culture. Steve was saying that the long lasting impact will be from Missional minded pastors and other leaders getting out front and leading by example in engaging our lost culture. Politics would be a short run and ineffective fix.

Well, I went on my journey over the last year and then some, helping to write (I added a couple of words – so that counts :) ) and host the Memphis Declaration. Of course, I blogged regularly about the IMB policies and then posted what one of my friends called the “definitive tome” on how to do business within the convention in a series called, “The SBC Primer.”

The convention was big. Frank Page was the first President elected not backed by either Patterson or Pressler since the Resurgence began, oh those many years ago [edit] with the obvious exception of Jim Henry. Bobby Welch wasn’t their first choice, but they didn’t try to thwart him either.[/edit] Debate on the floor over resolutions was unprecedented. The nominations from Bobby Welch’s committees were excellent with only one or two personal objections. The Executive Committee took reform into its hands and dealt with several by-law issues that were of paramount importance to many of us.

Looking back, I can definitely say that the convention is different because of some of the things I have said and done over the last year. “Politics” has had some positive impact. But how much and for how long?

At the Baptist Identity Conference held at Union University, I sought out Steve McCoy to tell him I had come to some conclusions about his earlier statement. I had come to the realization that he was right. The best effect we are going to have in making the SBC into a convention for the future is leading by example – politics will not ultimately get us where we need to be. He asked what led me to say that. I responded that it was what I had failed to see thus far. After a year of pouring my life into dealing publicly with Convention issues, I have realized that we are not much closer to the overall change that we need to have in the SBC.

Since that time, we have now had the convention adopt the report from the Executive Committee that calls for agencies and institutions to keep from going beyond the BFM in areas of doctrine. Nevertheless, we have also heard from seminary presidents (and at least one professor) who have told us that we didn’t know what we were doing, and that they would do as they saw fit. The issue is still not resolved, though I have done all I could.

Openness towards conservatives who disagree on tertiary (or what SHOULD be tertiary) issues is still a far way away from us now. Are we closer? Sure. But not much.

Instead, I have observed the IMB BOT change its restrictions on missionary candidates just enough to say that they actually changed them, but not enough to make one shred of actual, practical difference in the way they are interpreted or enforced.

It was at this point that I finally realized the End Game.

I have repeatedly said that I could fight for ten years over the authority of the Bible. Who gets to steer the SBC ship is not that big a concern for me. Yet it is now clear that for the institutions that have placed tertiary restrictions on Southern Baptists who wish to serve through their ministries, loud complaints on blogs just won’t cut it. Backroom meetings might cut it, but then you just replace one group with another, and I need no part of that.

Ultimately, lasting change will come from two things that are available to me: As Steve once said, it will come from young leaders living out Missional Leadership as an example for others to follow and it will come from the election of a succession of presidents that are more interested in cooperation than controlling the minutiae of every SBC entity’s theology.

In other words, the Trustees of those organizations will not change their minds nor their actions because they alienate conservative Southern Baptists. They were choosing to do that last year and nothing has changed on that front. The IMB, in particular, has made it clear that they are listening to their own counsel and the rest of us must simply deal with it.

No, to reverse the policies, the trustees at the two mission boards and the one seminary are going to have to be replaced with people who will choose not to alienate their fellow Southern Baptists. To do that, the SBC will have to elect Presidents that mandate that action through the appointment process over the next eight years. It could take less for the mission boards, but it is my evaluation that it will take a complete overhaul of the SWBTS trustees to make the difference there. This is assuming that the BFM report, now adopted by the convention, has little or no effect. I pray I am wrong, but I will wait and see.

Yes, my voice for inclusion has just called for the exclusion of some who currently serve in leadership. I am saying that those who would exclude fellow conservatives must, themselves, be excluded from leadership for the well being of the Southern Baptist Convention.

I say again, I just don’t think I care to do what I’ve done over the last year and a half for another nine years.

Along with others, I have sounded the alarm and raised the issues. It is time for those leaders who are able to rise up and press the issue of cooperation at the national convention level. I have repeatedly said that I wasn’t seeking national appointment. I realize that I have said some things that may exclude me from service that I might otherwise been privileged to enjoy. Among many, because of my vocalization, I have wounded my own reputation, and I deeply regret that. Not that I think it was wrong to speak, but that I dislike being a person of division, especially when my cry has been for unity.

Ultimately, the more cooperative natured among us, especially those already in leadership, are going to have to step up to the plate and move the convention in the direction that portends a healthy future – given my understanding of what a healthy future is. If not, I am afraid that the politics of exclusion, because it is so ingrained in some of our leaders, will lead us to a future of irrelevance and ineffectiveness.

The SBC is a good thing. I think we may have a bright future, but it is dependant on cooperative minded people showing up at the convention and making sure that their willingness to cooperate with their fellow conservatives is the majority view when we do business.

Instead, I see many of pastors and churches beginning to cooperate around the convention. They are building bridges with other churches and forming networks of their own through which they do missions without the exclusionary politics that they despise.

It’s easier to form new networks than to try and secure the future of the one we have.

I brought a couple of church members with me to the convention. They are former church planters who have a heart for engaging the lost and are doing great things in that area with the Sunday School class they now teach. They are coming because the future of the convention matters. I can honestly say, though, that the thought of worrying about voting and being at all the business meetings just isn’t appealing to them.

So here’s the deal. If those who think that restrictive mindsets don’t belong in leadership don’t start being leaders themselves, showing up at the convention to make a difference in the business of the convention and leading out as an example, then we might as well stop talking and look for another way to do missions, because the talking isn’t doing anything of extended value.

If you would ask me now about the BFM motion now adopted, rest assured, I think blogging contributed a small number of votes to the total. Rather, that vote was won on the floor and Dwight McKissic did more for that than anyone else.

As for me, I am tired of haggling over every detail of convention controversy. Close observers of my blog will be able to note that I have cut back on convention business severely up until the convention arrived this week. It used to be that I wrote daily and the convention was my daily source of opinion – even when I was no where near the SBC. It has been a long time since that happened.

I am continuing down that road, as well. I am going to attend the SBC and I will try to bring messengers for several more years. I will continue to blog here at this website. The substance of my blogging though, will be less and less political in favor of being more and more inspirational (I hope) in my desire to be an example of Missional engagement. I will continue to deal with this convention for another couple of weeks, and then will only blog about the SBC when it directly affects my ministry.

As I make that move, I expect readership to drop. There is nothing like watching a train wreck. Political infighting has made my blog one of the most well read sources in our SBC Blogosphere. That is something that I have no problem giving away.

I expect that my Phriday fotos will get better. I expect that my church will become prominently listed on my blog and that my blog will be prominently listed at my church. They have been separated now out of deference to those in my church who may not feel that I represent them in the political arena of SBC life. I expect that the details of our church’s journey to Missional engagement will be chronicled with more regularity. I expect my picture, along with the pictures of my family will be posted here more often. I expect that I would begin to mend fences with some that are on “other sides” from me within my own convention. I expect we will still vote differently, so long as we are both still in the same convention – which I hope is a very long time.

Sorry for the “Wade Burleson length” post. Expect me to be talking more about other things. If that is not what you’re after, then I am not all that sad to see you go, though I am sad that that’s all your after.

1-4-3!

Comments

• June 14, 2007, Keith Price writes: Amen! Thanks...and my daughter wants to know if your new blog style will include music links that will be as good as Steve's. I stop by here often, but comment rarely. I will still stop by often, probably more so. May God bless you in your missional efforts. Keith Price
• June 14, 2007, Strider writes: I really appreciate your heart here, Art. I agree with you that instead of shouting at the darkness we should light a candle. I felt that we M's were slandered by the policies enacted so I began a blog just to tell the story of what God is doing in my life and ministry. I never mention trustees or policies but only tell true stories of God moving in our lives. I would love to continue reading your blog and instead of political spin find the story of what God is doing in your life and in your church. Your readership may decrease, but your influence will surely grow.
• June 14, 2007, Joe Kennedy writes: I look forward to your photos (which have been pretty good so far), and maybe a template change so I don't burn my retinas trying to look at the white text on the black background. Eesh. But most importantly, I look forward to watching you become a missionary in an American context. And maybe I'll comment some now. =) You and Alan Cross both.
• June 14, 2007, Charlie Curce writes: Art, I have appreciated your fair, honest, and open perspectives about the SBC and its future. Rest assured - change will come to the SBC through: 1. Future backdoor revivals (funerals) - "Lord, Send some Revivals!" (And He will - including my own!) 2. A coming funding crunch - the quickest way to bring about change in SBC life. 3. And above all else - Time! With recent studies indicating that 60% of all existing churches will close their doors by 2050 in America(Church Next - Gibbs), change will come and God is and will do a new thing! And that is already happening through: 4. New networks and alliances forged by trusting relationships of churches and church leaders. And some will be Baptist in theology, structure, and orientation though not all will be identified by our user name! Though it will be different, I am excited about the future and again, thank you!
• June 14, 2007, Anonmyous writes: Art, I think you are being optimistic. Circumstances may force you back. 2007 SBC may not be over. I may just be beginning. Already, one post at http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2007/06/practical-outworking-of-2007-southern.html has asked if the resolution invites belivers in errancy back into the convention. "Isn't it almost inviting the liberals back in?" I hear that Paige is very upset and likely to be even more upset when he realizes that inerrancy/errancy is open again. He is not happy with the media spin that the SBC is going moderate. He may start another liberal sweep like 30 years ago to prove that he is still himself. I hear that Mohler is equally upset for the same reasons. He may want to try a liberal sweep himself. This could start as competing liberal sweeps by Patterson and Mohler, turn into a conflict between Patterson and Mohler over who is top dog in the SBC, and degenerate into Calvinist/non Calvinst fight.
• June 14, 2007, tlinasia writes: Art, You have made a HUGE difference. Patterson will ride the SBC ship to its watery grave. Visions of 3,500 seat chapels, large men in suits and homemaking degrees won't lift sinking CP dollars. You have led a noble charge for the right purpose. I urge you to keep up the work, but you must follow God's path for you and for this blog. Thanks for shining light on the deep fissures in our convention.
• June 14, 2007, Sean the Milkman writes: Thanks Art, Awesome post. You have articulated what has been welling up in my heart as I have read many and interacted with a few blogs over the past 6 months. I came late to the game, but it hasn't taken me long to decide what you have decided. While I probably tend to be on "the other side" from you on several issues, I agree that a handful of bloggers (on either side) will not accomplish much for the amount of time invested in this medium. You are right again- it is going to take a long-term committment and more face to face dialogue to mend fences. Blogging has some severe deficiencies. I am so glad that Jesus didn't mandate the SBC. All of this political maneuvering and venemous spewing in the SBC (I am not innocent) breaks my heart, but gives me renewed passion for the local church and my vision for getting on mission. Thanks for being a clear voice. Sean M.
• June 14, 2007, Paul Burleson writes: Art, The battler/builder statement I made on Marty's blog can be duplicated here as well. Thank you for your genuine friendship and your future is very bright in the Kingdom BECAUSE of your heart for the One who rules it.
• June 14, 2007, Kevin Bussey writes: Art, As you know I came to this conclusion a few months ago. I missed hanging out with you in SA but I'm ready to make those connections you are talking about. In fact they have already begun. I received a call that I'm sure you got too about going to Viet Nam with a group of churches like you. I want to be a part of something bigger than me. I appreciate your friendship.
• June 14, 2007, Wayne Hatcher writes: Good words. I look forward to your future, more diverse posts. Blogging can be such a good tool when turned from "fire from hell" into "show and tell". Let others see what you and your congregation are doing to advance the gospel right where you are. Blessings.
• June 14, 2007, Cyle writes: Art, Good post, good to hear your heart. One thing that's been regularly said in all the blogwars in the SBC is that missional leaders are young leaders. From someone on the edge of becoming old, that's really not a helpful label, but it is one that Steve has embraced. You repeated it in this post. It's one that the traditional SBC leaders use, possibly with a bit of disdain. The only successful church planters I know are at least 5 years older than me. I'm 45. If missional people only want to plant churches for people under 25, and they focus on being "young", we're going to miss more than half of un-church, un-regenerate America. Labeling the movement as a "young" movement limits its effectiveness. It limits its methods, and it alienates some people who have a great deal of wisdom from the mix. I want to build networks that reach lost America. I'll do that with anyone of any age. I do hope we don't see a new ethinc cleansing movement in the SBC. I think that will effectively kill it. Cyle
• June 14, 2007, Joe writes: Art: Thanks for the journey that you have taken us all on in the past year. It has been a great ride as you have provided truthful insight into what is going on in SBC life, and a small amount of what is going on in your part of the world. I will miss the SBC post, but not near as much as I am looking forward to hearing how God is going to use you and your church in to change the world. And more pics of your family won't be bad either!
• June 14, 2007, John Stickley writes: Art, As I did with Marty, I want to express my appreciation for everything you've done over the past couple years. You HAVE made a difference. As encouragement for your new direction, I want you to know that I have enjoyed the glimpse of what's to come with your blog that we've seen over the last couple months, and look forward to more of the same! I don't know what everyone else thinks, but I can tell you now that I'll enjoy your blog even more when it's not all SBC, all the time! I pray that God will continue to bless you, your family, and your ministry.
• June 14, 2007, onelittleman writes: Brother Art, I've always enjoyed reading your blog more than any other. You have a gift for getting to the heart of what's going on. I understand and respect your reasons for shutting down the political side of your blogging efforts. When I first discovered your blog and sbcoutpost, I had real hope that the sbc might be self correcting from the excesses of the resurgence. I really hoped that the sbc would become primarily a positive missionary force for the kingdom. However, with the news that first Brother Bussey, now you and Brother Duren completely disengaging from this conversation, it seems that the entrenched leadership has won. As we know, the winners write the history. I am coming to a few realizations, maybe I should blog them myself, feel free to delete if I'm threadjacking. 1. The SBC is no longer led by baptists. 2. The consolidation of power in the hands of a few will probably continue. 3. If a new round of liberal hunting breaks out, then it is probably the end of any meaningful cooperation under any but the most narrow tests of acceptable belief. If we are to accept your call to developing new missional networks of people committed to kingdom purposes, then it seems that it is also time to accept the logical consequence of that effort. It is probably time to quit spending our scarce resources on an apparatus in which we can't cooperate and gives us no missional return. And yes, I'm talking about churches deciding to stop giving to the cooperative program on the national level. No more Lottie Moon. No more Annie Armstrong. No more underwriting seminaries. If the structure is more committed to power than mission, then it makes no sense to keep funding the structure. If life is too short to keep trying to reform the SBC, then it's probably time to serve without it. Let the power brokers have their castle of ashes. As long as we keep sending the money, there will be neither change nor kingdom fruit. Thanks for the work you've done on this project. I'll continue reading the new missional blog you're planning and I'm eager to see what your congregation is going to be doing.
• June 14, 2007, Marty Duren writes: Art- I just want to publicly state my appreciation for standing up and being counted. Only God knows the depth and breadth of what these 18 or so months will be, but you have been in the thick often articulating things that were being lost or overlooked. You've been an intricate part of everything that has happened to attempt to free this convention from its fundamentalist, legalist tilt. God bless you, your family and Skelly Drive BC.
• June 14, 2007, Tim Cook writes: Art, I just want to say thanks - thanks for taking this journey for some of us. It has been a blessing to watch you stand to be counted. I feel like, by your having represented my thoughts and those of others, that I can focus more fully on where God has called me in ministry. I know that, if I had a platform to address national issues, I would have done it in the same way. I guess what I am saying is, not only are you more free to move on in ministry, but some of the rest of us are also. I for one am comfortable with the fact that like-minded people did SOMETHING. now, we will just have to see where it takes us in the future. In Christ, Tim Cook PS if you read this, the same goes for Marty and Alan - thanks for your representation on behalf of the rest of us. God Bless.
• June 14, 2007, Karen Scott writes: Brother Art, I just wanted to let you know how much I have appreciated you and your work in trying to educate and inform Southern Baptist of problems within our convention. May God bless you and your family as you seek to reach the lost in your community for Him. Please continue to pray for us as we will you and yours. Karen
• June 14, 2007, Alan Cross writes: Art, You have been a blessing to me and a good friend. As I told Marty, I'd check my email, go to SBC Outpost, and then come here every day. You helped shape my thinking and my writing on these topics and you were a huge part of letting me know that I could get involved and stand up and be counted. I also step back from this with no regrets because of people like you, Marty, and Wade who reminded me what it really means to be a Baptist. I look forward to hearing more from you in these other areas and I can't wait to hear about what God is doing through your church! Here's to better days . . .
• June 14, 2007, David Troublefield writes: Gee; it already almost sounds like a funeral in here. Your best days, though, are AHEAD of you--not behind! In my opinion, Art, the best writing you've done anyway during the past 12 months was our email exchange of several weeks ago when members of our congregation had moved to your area but not yet found a new church to worship/serve with; you indicated in writing that you'd love-on them, and you tried (our congregation is very grateful to you for it because we truly love and miss that family). Each of us can go merrily and alone on his theological way, smiling and even waving at a distance; no cooperation--or Cooperative Program--is necessary. I know what I believe about/from the Bible; when I feel like I need the input of anyone posting in the blogosphere, I'll ask for it (after all, at Judgment, I'm standing there without you--best I can tell). But when, on my own, I'm trying to reach a great big unsaved world, I'm going to need a little assistance--from a whole lot of other Christians. I don't need your theology; I need your money and your manpower--and you need mine and that of my believing friends for the same. If we can agree enough on theological matters (what the gospel story is, basically), then we can get along for world missions and evangelism (some will split hairs here). The BF&M is a good idea; it just isn't "the Sabbath"--what everything in SBC life must come to a stand-still for. Jesus Christ is Lord of the Sabbath--that day with its man-made impositions--comes to a stop for Him, and He's Lord of the BF&M statement, too. If I were Him (obviously, I'm not), this week--with its 30th consecutive summer of SBC fighting--probably would be an incredibly sad one for Me; I'd probably be getting ready to do something awesomely terrible about it, too. My teenage daughters often saying in teasing, "Dad, build a bridge and get over it!" I'd suggest it now, for all of us. If the SBC cannot be what it needs to be, it only has been a good idea for as long as it's lasted (150 years for any organization is rare); it'd be time to build a bridge and get over it, to continue moving forward together really on-mission with God. I'm "game" for either--again, not because I need the theological input of anyone posting here, but because we good news-tellers need the resources God is providing to Himself for world evangelism through each one of us. Just some thoughts from someone who is as tired of reading bad news as Art is of typing it.
• June 14, 2007, Art Rogers writes: Anonymous, I pray you are not a prophet. I am not desirous of being drawn back in. So much for the prognostications that we want power and positions - that we wish to replace one group with another. Quite the opposite. All, Thank you for the kind and encouraging words. I appreciate you all. I especially appreciate those who have said they look forward to my future blogging than my past. When I first started, no one read what I wrote. Only when I got involved with politics did I gain a readership. You can see, then, that I expected to slip into oblivion, blogopshperically speaking. That's still a possibility, but knowing a few folks will be around to read fuels the desire, a bit. Remember that I have a few more analytical posts to come, but then (with a tip of the hat to Ben) "we at 12 Witnesses will turn our thoughts toward more Kingdom minded pursuits." :) I'm leaving this post up for a day, but look for more soon on the status of the SBC and the motion to adopt the BFM as sufficient. Marty & Alan, I'll be by your blogs shortly to tell you how much I appreciate you both. Grace to all, Art PS I have received several personal emails and I will answer then as soon as I am able. I am still en route home, stopping overnight at my Mom's and picking up my kids. Friday I go home and Saturday kicks off VBS with a big event at the church. I am going to have to take a breath, but I will be returning your emails asap, I promise.
• June 14, 2007, micah writes: Art- Well everyone else is getting sappy, so I guess I'll just say..."Thanks for playing Charles Barkley at the microphones this week." :-)
• June 14, 2007, David writes: Did anyone else see Dr. Jerry Vines at Cornerstone Church Sunday morning? Sources say he was even recognized publicly by Pastor John Hagee. Interesting that he didn't attend a Southern Baptist Church - at least in my mind. :-)
• June 14, 2007, A 10-40 Windows Missionary writes: Art, Those of us "half a world away" appreciate what you and Marty have done for informing us of the world of SBC. It is so easy to get isolated from those who sacrificially give in order for us to serve Him in other lands. We also become isolated from what is really happening in the convention which makes it possible for our service. Thanks to you for trying to inform...Blessings on you and Skelly Drive.
• June 15, 2007, Tim Rogers writes: Brother Art, I would not have known what to do on the blogs if it were not for you. (I am sure you did not want to hear that one. :>)) Seriously, you helped me fashion the blog and taught me about placing quotes in italics and other tidbits. I am grateful. I also am grateful that when we disagreed to the point of my not speaking to you, you were the bigger and more Godly among us and reached out to me. It revealed to me that your heart was pure in this endeavor. I will always respect that in you. I look forward to your closing post, and to your more missional direction. My wife has placed a leash on me for my future blogs. I too plan to do more "this is what God is doing" posts. Blessings, Tim
• June 15, 2007, Art Rogers writes: Apparently, someone from Insight Communications in Louisville, KY felt it would be appropriate to impersonate Jerry Vines on my blog. I removed the comment. Please don't think that because I am changing directions that I have gone soft. As for Jerry attending a non-SBC church, I don't mind. I am against Triumphalism in the SBC.
• June 15, 2007, David Phillips writes: Art, Knowing what I know, all I can say is: "The Best is Yet to Come!"
• June 15, 2007, Brad Guenther writes: Art, I for one will be excited to stop by far more often. Missions, cooperation, and loving our churches, our communities, and our Lord are what it is all about. I've hated all the anger and division I've felt in myself and look forward to linking arms with you and others around moving forward. God bless.
• June 15, 2007, marie writes: Now THIS is what I would call unity! I have been reading your posts with interest as to what was really going on in the SBC. I am no longer SBC, but I still care... I, too, am looking forward to what Jesus Christ has planned for your church and reading here how He is accomplishing His will in answer to His prayer in John 17. This sounds like a Paul and Barnabas moment when they fought about John Mark. The LORD was still able to use both even after their rift!!! :) Abundant blessings to you! Marie
• June 15, 2007, Les Puryear writes: Art, I thoroughly enjoyed the time we spent together in SA. You have a great heart and a wise mind. I, for one, will continue reading your blog whether you talk politics or dessert recipes. Regards, Les
• June 16, 2007, Bryan Riley writes: There is nothing too hard for God. Thank you, Art. I say praise to Him for what you are about to begin. May you walk circumspectly and be filled with wisdom and strength from God alone.
• June 16, 2007, cb scott writes: Les, It was good to see you at the SBC. I do want to tell you one thing; I will not read Art's blog if it is about dessert recipes:-) cb
• June 16, 2007, David Rogers writes: Art, Thanks for your service and insight. I will continue to check in here to see what the Lord leads you to contribute toward the edification of His Body.
• June 16, 2007, Bart Rhea writes: Art - As a member of SDBC the past year, I have grown to love and respect you and your family. You are Art. No falsehoods, no pretenses, no favoritism...just Art. CB - I don't know what the reference to dessert is...but you do need Art's recipe for his world famous grilled steak.
• June 17, 2007, Bart Barber writes: Art, May God bless you in your upcoming pursuits. Happy VBS!
• June 18, 2007, Tim Sweatman writes: Art, Imagine my surprise when, after about 3 weeks of being unable to follow the blogs, I discovered on the same day that both you and Marty are taking your blogs in an entirely different direction. I'll try not to repeat what I said on his blog, but my feelings are mixed. Obviously I believe this move is a detriment to the efforts to bring reform to the SBC, but I cannot help but think that in many ways this new focus will greatly benefit the Kingdom. As I mentioned in my comment on And How Have We Come to This?, I have a hunch I will need you, Marty, and others to help me figure out the practical aspects of these new avenues of partnership and cooperation because I really think the time is soon coming where the SBC will no longer be a viable avenue of cooperation. I'll miss your insights and analysis on SBC matters, but I look forward to seeing how you apply your skills and wisdom to matters more missional in nature.

Related posts:

• Phenomenally Addictive Game
• Phriday foto 11-23-07
• Well, gee, fellas…
• Blogtown Football League
• A thin slice of perspective on the College Football weekend past…

Ed also devastated the convention, addressing the BFM, division on tertiary issues and putting the misson first.

The video is a must.

Again, this is another leader among us who has stepped to the plate and called us to unity and mission.

My favorite line (among sooooo many):

Wasn’t the promise of the Conservative Resurgence that we could all agree on the same basic things so that we could all go together to win the lost?

(or some approximation of that)

Comments

• June 14, 2007, chuck bryce writes: The old saying I have heard is that Ed, "really put that one in our mailbox." After his message I had to go to that meeting room that is the best barometer of the effectiveness of a message. There were five men I would consider to be older messengers (over 60) in line in front of me. One of them said words to this effect: "That boy can really preach". Another immediately replied, "And he really knows what he is talking about". All the others agreed. You could not have gotten a more positive response if you had announced free chocolate cake in the lobby. Agreement is one thing. Following through is another but Ed's words may serve to change the mindset of a lot of us and get us going in the right direction. bloginafogpastor

Related posts:

• BGCO – Pastor’s Conference pt 7
• The Power in Preaching
• Founders Conference: Ed Stetzer
• The SBC doing things VERY well
• Morris Rocks!

Ed’s sermon was devastating. I was personally crushed in my spirit being convicted of my distraction from the message of hope to the lost.

Ed also devastated the convention, addressing the BFM, division on tertiary issues and putting the misson first.

The video is a must.

Again, this is another leader among us who has stepped to the plate and called us to unity and mission.

My favorite line (among sooooo many):

Wasn’t the promise of the Conservative Resurgence that we could all agree on the same basic things so that we could all go together to win the lost?

(or some approximation of that)

Comments

• June 14, 2007, chuck bryce writes: The old saying I have heard is that Ed, "really put that one in our mailbox." After his message I had to go to that meeting room that is the best barometer of the effectiveness of a message. There were five men I would consider to be older messengers (over 60) in line in front of me. One of them said words to this effect: "That boy can really preach". Another immediately replied, "And he really knows what he is talking about". All the others agreed. You could not have gotten a more positive response if you had announced free chocolate cake in the lobby. Agreement is one thing. Following through is another but Ed's words may serve to change the mindset of a lot of us and get us going in the right direction. bloginafogpastor

Related posts:

• BGCO – Pastor’s Conference pt 7
• The Power in Preaching
• Founders Conference: Ed Stetzer
• The SBC doing things VERY well
• Morris Rocks!

He also said that no issue would be adopted by SEBTS that would keep people from going to share the Gospel. Clearly, in context,
this is a statement that they would not go beyond the BFM with doctrinal issues.

When asked by Marty whether or not he was a cessationist or continualist, Danny said he was a continualist.

When asked by Ben whether or not the Abstract of Principles differed from the BFM, he replied that though there may be nuances, they are not significant. He has specifically separated himself from Al Mohler’s presentation distinctly.

This is an answer to my personal prayers for leaders to step out and deal with these issues.

Comments

• June 13, 2007, Tad Thompson writes: Art - thanks for your great reporting! I am missing being there. Tad
• June 13, 2007, Les Puryear writes: Art, I can't wait to see the spin on this one. :) Les
• June 13, 2007, Trey Roberson writes: Hey guys, This is a bit of a "victory" in itself. If even one of the leaders stands from the old guard it is remarkable considering the last 20 years. The hope is one leader speaking out will lead to another. I know from gathering with preachers etc over the last years that the hunger for reform is very real. As in the early 70s we will need various leaders to hold on despite the pressures. I know that I am reporting to my little association here in Texas on a regular basis. This isnt much but it is one way I can take the lead to spread reform. My blog is more devotional and church centered and doesnt have the readership of the "big 3." I do what I can there when possible. Each of us has to find something we can do to assist these who are more public than us. Just my two cents worth again. Trey
• June 13, 2007, "John" the Baptist writes: Art, Were the questions posed by Marty and Ben during the Q/A time for SEBTS, in the full audio and visual purview of the messengers? If so, this is a great report to hear. "John" the Baptist
• June 13, 2007, Tim Rogers writes: Brother Art, Did we listen to the same report? How did you see Dr. Aiken separate himself from Dr. Mohler? Blessings, Tim
• June 13, 2007, Darren Casper writes: Great to hear Danny stepping up to the plate as a theological conservative leader toward Baptist cooperation and participation... Dr. Mohler's sharp criticism of the conventions actions concerning the BF&M were disappointing.
• June 13, 2007, Tim Rogers writes: Brother Darren, Dr. Aiken said the same thing that Dr. Mohler said. I told him at the SEBTS booth in the Exhibit Hall that I was going to ask him about his understanding of the motion. He responded to me that I needed to listen to what Dr. Al Mohler said. He did not say anything that contrasted what Dr. Mohler said. As a matter of fact he stated that the BF&M was the MINIMAL standard. He said in the Alumni Luncheon that everyone signed the BF&M with no caveats [my word]. He also stated that the BF&M was in no way in disagreement with the Abstracts. So to say that Dr. Aiken is in a separate position than Dr. Mohler is not being accurate. Blessings, Tim
• June 13, 2007, Darren Casper writes: Brother Tim, I really don't believe that Dr. Akin nor Dr. Mohler really believes that the action taken by the convention Tuesday evening had anything to do with the Abstract of Principles. The convention would stand in the way of Southern profs being required to sign accordingly.... This was and is about NAMB and IMB trustees continually narrowing the parameters for cooperation and participation. Dr. Akin and Dr. Mohler seemed to respond to this in two very different directions. Sincerely, dc
• June 13, 2007, Tim Rogers writes: Brother Darren, Ask Dr. Akin if he is saying something different than Dr. Mohler. Blessings, Tim
• June 13, 2007, tlinasia writes: It is ironic that the BF&M2K, which was so vitally important to Dr. Patterson and members of the CR in 1999, and which was used as a club on missionaries (it was sign it or resign), is now seen by Dr.'s Patterson, Kelley, Mohler, Barber, Yarnell, et.al. as entirely too wimpy, and in need of strengthening through additional, far narrower, interpretive positions. Only the Abstract's positions are genuinely historically Southern Baptist. Cessationism and Landmarkism, while present in some Southern Baptists, have never been held by a majority of Southern Baptists.
• June 13, 2007, Darren Casper writes: Brother Tim, Honestly bro, it's time for me to get back to the work of doing mission... Dr. Akin and Dr. Mohler will return to theirs. I just think that tonight, with regards to the conventions actions about the BF&M, San Antonio heard a different response from one of our seminary president than the one this morning. Hey maybe I'm wrong... Safe travels home... We're on our way... Sincerely, dc
• June 13, 2007, Stephen Watson writes: I have to agree with Tim. I watched Dr. Mohler and Dr. Akin, and there did not seem to be a grave difference in the content, just stated differently based on context and mission of seminaries. Mohler was applying the decision from last evening specifically to how it relates to hiring practices, which I don't see would be different from what would happen at Southeastern. Maybe I am a little weird, but Mohler via internet did not come across to me as being sharply critical of the Convention. I will go back and listen again, but I seem to pick up that Mohler placed great authority on what the Convention as a body decided, in essence saying that the Convention had entrusted the Trustees of each entity to help make decisions inline with the Convention's desires - which are clearly guided by the BFM 2000. Also, I felt like Mohler raised the bar for Conventions of the future by setting the stage for more depth and discussion on theological issues if the Convention deems necessary for there to be changes. And as our seminaries produce men that are thoroughly educated beyond the single issue of the inerrancy of Scripture our Conventions of the future will be noticably different in depth and content, I believe. In light of that, I do think there needs to be some more time alotted for discussion on motions, resolutions, etc. I was not there but from the comments of others it seems as though folks were left standing. I believe it was a new day for our Convention and as the graduates of our seminaries begin to lead in our churches across the Convention, I believe the discussion on theological issues will prove healthy for our churches and our Convention. I am proud to have men like Danny Akin, Al Mohler, Ed Stetzer, Thom Rainer, etc as leaders in key areas. We are not a perfect group of believers, but we have a tremendous opportunity with resources and a generation of called men and women willing to risk their lives to run to our future; which is cooperation in seeing the gospel and the glory of God spread to the nations through shared theologically conservative convictions married to creative well-thought out means of engaging the culture in every part of the world.
• June 14, 2007, Art Rogers writes: Tim, It was good seeing you and I pray you have safe travels home. I think you might have missed the difference. My perception was that Dr. Mohler took the stance that the convention had called them to use the BFM as a "guide" only, while Dr. Akin said clearly that the would never adopt restrictions that would keep folks from going on missions. I also think that such a line of thinking as Dr. Mohler's represents is displays a desire to willfully ignore the word "sufficient" before the word "guide." From Webster's: Pronunciation: s&-'fi-sh&nt Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Latin sufficient-, sufficiens, from present participle of sufficere 1 a : enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end b : being a sufficient condition 2 archaic : QUALIFIED, COMPETENT In other words, there need be nothing beyond this guide. It is an interesting tact to interpret the statement this way, but reminds me of President Clinton defining the word "is."

Related posts:

• Motivations
• Why We Believe Children Who Die Go to Heaven
• More on Baptists who blog
• EC Report 3
• Observations from the BGCO (part 1?)

Danny Akin, just endorsed the motion adopting the BFM, separating himself from Mohler, Patterson and Kelley.

He also said that no issue would be adopted by SEBTS that would keep people from going to share the Gospel. Clearly, in context,
this is a statement that they would not go beyond the BFM with doctrinal issues.

When asked by Marty whether or not he was a cessationist or continualist, Danny said he was a continualist.

When asked by Ben whether or not the Abstract of Principles differed from the BFM, he replied that though there may be nuances, they are not significant. He has specifically separated himself from Al Mohler’s presentation distinctly.

This is an answer to my personal prayers for leaders to step out and deal with these issues.

Comments

• June 13, 2007, Tad Thompson writes: Art - thanks for your great reporting! I am missing being there. Tad
• June 13, 2007, Les Puryear writes: Art, I can't wait to see the spin on this one. :) Les
• June 13, 2007, Trey Roberson writes: Hey guys, This is a bit of a "victory" in itself. If even one of the leaders stands from the old guard it is remarkable considering the last 20 years. The hope is one leader speaking out will lead to another. I know from gathering with preachers etc over the last years that the hunger for reform is very real. As in the early 70s we will need various leaders to hold on despite the pressures. I know that I am reporting to my little association here in Texas on a regular basis. This isnt much but it is one way I can take the lead to spread reform. My blog is more devotional and church centered and doesnt have the readership of the "big 3." I do what I can there when possible. Each of us has to find something we can do to assist these who are more public than us. Just my two cents worth again. Trey
• June 13, 2007, "John" the Baptist writes: Art, Were the questions posed by Marty and Ben during the Q/A time for SEBTS, in the full audio and visual purview of the messengers? If so, this is a great report to hear. "John" the Baptist
• June 13, 2007, Tim Rogers writes: Brother Art, Did we listen to the same report? How did you see Dr. Aiken separate himself from Dr. Mohler? Blessings, Tim
• June 13, 2007, Darren Casper writes: Great to hear Danny stepping up to the plate as a theological conservative leader toward Baptist cooperation and participation... Dr. Mohler's sharp criticism of the conventions actions concerning the BF&M were disappointing.
• June 13, 2007, Tim Rogers writes: Brother Darren, Dr. Aiken said the same thing that Dr. Mohler said. I told him at the SEBTS booth in the Exhibit Hall that I was going to ask him about his understanding of the motion. He responded to me that I needed to listen to what Dr. Al Mohler said. He did not say anything that contrasted what Dr. Mohler said. As a matter of fact he stated that the BF&M was the MINIMAL standard. He said in the Alumni Luncheon that everyone signed the BF&M with no caveats [my word]. He also stated that the BF&M was in no way in disagreement with the Abstracts. So to say that Dr. Aiken is in a separate position than Dr. Mohler is not being accurate. Blessings, Tim
• June 13, 2007, Darren Casper writes: Brother Tim, I really don't believe that Dr. Akin nor Dr. Mohler really believes that the action taken by the convention Tuesday evening had anything to do with the Abstract of Principles. The convention would stand in the way of Southern profs being required to sign accordingly.... This was and is about NAMB and IMB trustees continually narrowing the parameters for cooperation and participation. Dr. Akin and Dr. Mohler seemed to respond to this in two very different directions. Sincerely, dc
• June 13, 2007, Tim Rogers writes: Brother Darren, Ask Dr. Akin if he is saying something different than Dr. Mohler. Blessings, Tim
• June 13, 2007, tlinasia writes: It is ironic that the BF&M2K, which was so vitally important to Dr. Patterson and members of the CR in 1999, and which was used as a club on missionaries (it was sign it or resign), is now seen by Dr.'s Patterson, Kelley, Mohler, Barber, Yarnell, et.al. as entirely too wimpy, and in need of strengthening through additional, far narrower, interpretive positions. Only the Abstract's positions are genuinely historically Southern Baptist. Cessationism and Landmarkism, while present in some Southern Baptists, have never been held by a majority of Southern Baptists.
• June 13, 2007, Darren Casper writes: Brother Tim, Honestly bro, it's time for me to get back to the work of doing mission... Dr. Akin and Dr. Mohler will return to theirs. I just think that tonight, with regards to the conventions actions about the BF&M, San Antonio heard a different response from one of our seminary president than the one this morning. Hey maybe I'm wrong... Safe travels home... We're on our way... Sincerely, dc
• June 13, 2007, Stephen Watson writes: I have to agree with Tim. I watched Dr. Mohler and Dr. Akin, and there did not seem to be a grave difference in the content, just stated differently based on context and mission of seminaries. Mohler was applying the decision from last evening specifically to how it relates to hiring practices, which I don't see would be different from what would happen at Southeastern. Maybe I am a little weird, but Mohler via internet did not come across to me as being sharply critical of the Convention. I will go back and listen again, but I seem to pick up that Mohler placed great authority on what the Convention as a body decided, in essence saying that the Convention had entrusted the Trustees of each entity to help make decisions inline with the Convention's desires - which are clearly guided by the BFM 2000. Also, I felt like Mohler raised the bar for Conventions of the future by setting the stage for more depth and discussion on theological issues if the Convention deems necessary for there to be changes. And as our seminaries produce men that are thoroughly educated beyond the single issue of the inerrancy of Scripture our Conventions of the future will be noticably different in depth and content, I believe. In light of that, I do think there needs to be some more time alotted for discussion on motions, resolutions, etc. I was not there but from the comments of others it seems as though folks were left standing. I believe it was a new day for our Convention and as the graduates of our seminaries begin to lead in our churches across the Convention, I believe the discussion on theological issues will prove healthy for our churches and our Convention. I am proud to have men like Danny Akin, Al Mohler, Ed Stetzer, Thom Rainer, etc as leaders in key areas. We are not a perfect group of believers, but we have a tremendous opportunity with resources and a generation of called men and women willing to risk their lives to run to our future; which is cooperation in seeing the gospel and the glory of God spread to the nations through shared theologically conservative convictions married to creative well-thought out means of engaging the culture in every part of the world.
• June 14, 2007, Art Rogers writes: Tim, It was good seeing you and I pray you have safe travels home. I think you might have missed the difference. My perception was that Dr. Mohler took the stance that the convention had called them to use the BFM as a "guide" only, while Dr. Akin said clearly that the would never adopt restrictions that would keep folks from going on missions. I also think that such a line of thinking as Dr. Mohler's represents is displays a desire to willfully ignore the word "sufficient" before the word "guide." From Webster's: Pronunciation: s&-'fi-sh&nt Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Latin sufficient-, sufficiens, from present participle of sufficere 1 a : enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end b : being a sufficient condition 2 archaic : QUALIFIED, COMPETENT In other words, there need be nothing beyond this guide. It is an interesting tact to interpret the statement this way, but reminds me of President Clinton defining the word "is."

Related posts:

• Motivations
• Why We Believe Children Who Die Go to Heaven
• More on Baptists who blog
• EC Report 3
• Observations from the BGCO (part 1?)

For the next two paragraphs, all that I am saying has been relayed to me by others. I have not yet read other blogs, but I am also told that they reacted pretty strongly.

I understand that Dr. Mohler used his time during the Southern Seminary report to “disagree” with the convention’s adoption of the EC report.

The impression I received from others (obviously biased against his position) is that he told the SBC that they didn’t understand what they had done, people took those resolutions very seriously, but he and Southern would be doing as they saw fit.

I wasn’t there and the video is yet to be available, so I will withhold personal opinion.

I do understand that Southern and Southeastern have the Abstract of Principles as their faith documents and this motion puts them in opposition to the report now adopted. However, if Dr. Mohler had asked for special permission for the SBC to vote to affirm the Abstract for Southern, I can’t imagine a vote against. I would have spoken for it. Southeastern’s report is tonight and Dr. Akin could have done the same thing.

And, for all you parliamentarians out there, the convention can suspend its rules for governing business with a 2/3 vote. If the leadership would have brought this jointly to the SBC, it would not have been an issue.

Seeking unity under the Convention’s expressed will is not what is being done, here. We now have both Chuck Kelley and Al Mohler explaining to the convention that we don’t know what we are doing.

It smacks of elitism. I have more to say to the issue of elitism, but I am praying about it and am disinclined to pass on to you some personal experiences with it yesterday, but only pass on that I had some.

Comments

• June 13, 2007, Den writes: There is precedent for the attitude of Mohler and Kelly. Remember the Peace Comm. Report? Good ideas, adopted by convention, cost a fortune, ignored by SBC leadership. Same approach will rule this time.
• June 13, 2007, Gregory Pittman writes: Art, I watched Dr. Mohler's report and, while I didn't agree with the way he answered the question, I don't think the account relayed by others to you is quite fair. I would encourage you to watch it for yourself (as you've already said you would do). Dr. Mohler actually did say he was supportive of the BFM motion and voted for its adoption (unless I misheard him). What we have here are vastly different understandings of exactly what was passed last night. Unfortunately, six months from now, intent of the motion will be pointless. The actual words will be what folks refer to, and there are words that everyone can point to and come to extremely different meanings. While I am in support of the spirit of the of motion, as expressed last night, I fear that the wording is insufficient to accomplish its goal. Another example of words vs. intent is the definition of what the Cooperative Program is. The definition states that in order to be considered in cooperation with the SBC, churches must give through their state conventions. But, when asked about churches that choose not to cooperate with their state convention(s) for one reason or another, the committee indicated they would accept those funds and consider the church in proper cooperation with the SBC. Well, which one is it? Do we have to give through the state conventions or not? Two different understandings, one written and the other spoken.
• June 13, 2007, Lucas Defalco writes: I too have not seen Dr. Mohler or Dr. Akin's comments on the motion. But I must confess strong mixed feelings about this resolution. On the one hand I understand and accept the notion that we must not allow our agencies and entities to enact policies that take strong doctrinal stands that are decidedly outside the parameters of the BFM. On the other hand, the independence of the trustees of these agencies and seminaries must be respected to. Our goal must be to make these boards as apolitical as possible. Doubtless these boards are heavily swayed by certain movements and factions within the convention, but using the conventions political infrastructure to influence them is really not that much different. I really have mixed feelings about this.
• June 13, 2007, Pablo writes: Unless something has changed since I graduated (in the official documents) SWBTS does not use the Abstract of Principles as a guiding document. But I do seem to remember B. H. Carrol (SWBTS founder) referring to it in his writings. Based on the description during Patterson's answers to questions, the BFM 2000 is the only document used there. The formal signing ceremony he described is new since his coming to Ft. Worth. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on this.
• June 13, 2007, Pablo writes: My bad -- I misread the reference to Southern and Southeastern as SWBTS. Apologies, delete if necessary.
• June 14, 2007, Wayne Hatcher writes: I would have to chime in as well that Mohler wasn't being elitist. He always sounds that way. I regularly listen to his chapel and week-day radio podcasts, and he is always a firecracker. If you haven't you should listen to his chapel messages this last spring on the 10 Commandments. On the other hand, if the messengers can't seem to see the need for an integrity in church membership resolution, maybe we don't know what we are doing.

Related posts:

• EC Report 3
• A Phenomenal Report
• Make the Connection…
• Transitions: Deconstruction… Yes
• Executive Committee Report

Let me say first that this will not be a long nor detailed article. I did not stay for the Southern Seminary report. My messengers were leaving to get home so that they could go to work tomorrow, and I wanted to spend a little time with them before they left. I have not seen them much this week and they deserved some time. Not to mention that I enjoy their company.

For the next two paragraphs, all that I am saying has been relayed to me by others. I have not yet read other blogs, but I am also told that they reacted pretty strongly.

I understand that Dr. Mohler used his time during the Southern Seminary report to “disagree” with the convention’s adoption of the EC report.

The impression I received from others (obviously biased against his position) is that he told the SBC that they didn’t understand what they had done, people took those resolutions very seriously, but he and Southern would be doing as they saw fit.

I wasn’t there and the video is yet to be available, so I will withhold personal opinion.

I do understand that Southern and Southeastern have the Abstract of Principles as their faith documents and this motion puts them in opposition to the report now adopted. However, if Dr. Mohler had asked for special permission for the SBC to vote to affirm the Abstract for Southern, I can’t imagine a vote against. I would have spoken for it. Southeastern’s report is tonight and Dr. Akin could have done the same thing.

And, for all you parliamentarians out there, the convention can suspend its rules for governing business with a 2/3 vote. If the leadership would have brought this jointly to the SBC, it would not have been an issue.

Seeking unity under the Convention’s expressed will is not what is being done, here. We now have both Chuck Kelley and Al Mohler explaining to the convention that we don’t know what we are doing.

It smacks of elitism. I have more to say to the issue of elitism, but I am praying about it and am disinclined to pass on to you some personal experiences with it yesterday, but only pass on that I had some.

Comments

• June 13, 2007, Den writes: There is precedent for the attitude of Mohler and Kelly. Remember the Peace Comm. Report? Good ideas, adopted by convention, cost a fortune, ignored by SBC leadership. Same approach will rule this time.
• June 13, 2007, Gregory Pittman writes: Art, I watched Dr. Mohler's report and, while I didn't agree with the way he answered the question, I don't think the account relayed by others to you is quite fair. I would encourage you to watch it for yourself (as you've already said you would do). Dr. Mohler actually did say he was supportive of the BFM motion and voted for its adoption (unless I misheard him). What we have here are vastly different understandings of exactly what was passed last night. Unfortunately, six months from now, intent of the motion will be pointless. The actual words will be what folks refer to, and there are words that everyone can point to and come to extremely different meanings. While I am in support of the spirit of the of motion, as expressed last night, I fear that the wording is insufficient to accomplish its goal. Another example of words vs. intent is the definition of what the Cooperative Program is. The definition states that in order to be considered in cooperation with the SBC, churches must give through their state conventions. But, when asked about churches that choose not to cooperate with their state convention(s) for one reason or another, the committee indicated they would accept those funds and consider the church in proper cooperation with the SBC. Well, which one is it? Do we have to give through the state conventions or not? Two different understandings, one written and the other spoken.
• June 13, 2007, Lucas Defalco writes: I too have not seen Dr. Mohler or Dr. Akin's comments on the motion. But I must confess strong mixed feelings about this resolution. On the one hand I understand and accept the notion that we must not allow our agencies and entities to enact policies that take strong doctrinal stands that are decidedly outside the parameters of the BFM. On the other hand, the independence of the trustees of these agencies and seminaries must be respected to. Our goal must be to make these boards as apolitical as possible. Doubtless these boards are heavily swayed by certain movements and factions within the convention, but using the conventions political infrastructure to influence them is really not that much different. I really have mixed feelings about this.
• June 13, 2007, Pablo writes: Unless something has changed since I graduated (in the official documents) SWBTS does not use the Abstract of Principles as a guiding document. But I do seem to remember B. H. Carrol (SWBTS founder) referring to it in his writings. Based on the description during Patterson's answers to questions, the BFM 2000 is the only document used there. The formal signing ceremony he described is new since his coming to Ft. Worth. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on this.
• June 13, 2007, Pablo writes: My bad -- I misread the reference to Southern and Southeastern as SWBTS. Apologies, delete if necessary.
• June 14, 2007, Wayne Hatcher writes: I would have to chime in as well that Mohler wasn't being elitist. He always sounds that way. I regularly listen to his chapel and week-day radio podcasts, and he is always a firecracker. If you haven't you should listen to his chapel messages this last spring on the 10 Commandments. On the other hand, if the messengers can't seem to see the need for an integrity in church membership resolution, maybe we don't know what we are doing.

Related posts:

• EC Report 3
• A Phenomenal Report
• Make the Connection…
• Transitions: Deconstruction… Yes
• Executive Committee Report

Almost every resolution published on the internet was either folded into another resolution or declined. This is true for all sides of discussion within the SBC Blogosphere.

CB Scott’s resolution on rescuing victimized children was merged with what he thought were at least two other resolutions. He was very happy with it and it passed, I believe, unanimously. This is not always the case as most resolutions will receive a smattering of votes against for some reason or another. There was some vocal response and some clapping for it.

All BFM/PPL resolutions were declined. The committee did not care to take a specific stand on this issue, but the motion handled it anyway. I thought, perhaps, that someone might try and call one of these motions out of committee to attempt to moderate the adoption of the EC report last night.

Tom Ascol’s resolution on integrity in church membership did not make it out of committee, yet again. This really surprised me. Several people wanted to speak for it, and those that spoke against were Malcolm Yarnell, who thought it wasn’t strong enough, and another pastor who thought it infringed on autonomy. Where was this guy when the Disney Boycott came out? Good grief. The vote looked to be a 50/50 split to bring it out of committee, but a 2/3 majority is needed to override the committee.

It amazed me to see so many Southern Baptists voting against a public stance on integrity.

As you may know, my church dealt with our inflated roll last year, taking our membership roll from just under 1,700 to 255. This had the effect of putting us over our actual membership in attendance on most Sundays now and giving us actual statistical data that is helpful in locating our weaknesses as a congregation.

This topic has gained steam across the Convention with so many, I predict it will continue to do so until it is passed. It may well be that next year’s resolution will be called out of committee, if not brought out by the committee.

Comments

• June 13, 2007, Wes Kenney writes: I was disappointed that Dr. Ascol's resolution failed to receive the support it deserved. He assured me after the vote that we'll have another opportunity in Indianapolis. Didn't you just love the opening of his speech in favor of overruling the committee?

  "We're told every number has a story. The number '16 million' has a story as well..."

  That's a loose paraphrase, but I thought it was a priceless moment.
• June 13, 2007, Kevin Bussey writes: Art, Thanks for the report. How did you fix your rolls? We talked about that last week and I've been asked to come up with a letter to send to those who haven't been attending. Did you send out a letter? If so, I would like a copy so I can "borrow" your wording. BTW, I miss being there with my friends but ... you know the rest. ;)
• June 13, 2007, GeneMBridges writes: It will take us talking about it on the blogs this year. I think this is one issue that can effectively draw many who are often blogging "adversaries" together. Might I suggest that we bloggers collectively make a point to take time to post on this issue from time to time. I also think that the average messenger is so untaught they aren't aware of the issues. They need to be educated. That will take some grass roots work, where your associational representatives to your meetings bring it up, even if it irritates the whooey out of your DOM's. I have also suggested that an info packet including articles published in the past couple of years be collated and distributed at the Ridgecrest Conference in Nov. I've even volunteered to man the booth/table since I'm only 2 hrs away and can be there to hawk them. A similar package needs to be made availabe (in .pdf perhaps) for free download so that folks can get it and read it and/or distribute it leading up to Indianapolis. That way, when Tom brings it to the floor, the Convention will know what is at stake and why the resolution is important.

Related posts:

• SBC Primer – Resolutions
• Intermission
• The ACP this year
• A word to the wise concerning the SBC
• In the Hopper…

There is not a lot here, but there are some things in which you may be interested, so I’ll tell you what I think/know.

Almost every resolution published on the internet was either folded into another resolution or declined. This is true for all sides of discussion within the SBC Blogosphere.

CB Scott’s resolution on rescuing victimized children was merged with what he thought were at least two other resolutions. He was very happy with it and it passed, I believe, unanimously. This is not always the case as most resolutions will receive a smattering of votes against for some reason or another. There was some vocal response and some clapping for it.

All BFM/PPL resolutions were declined. The committee did not care to take a specific stand on this issue, but the motion handled it anyway. I thought, perhaps, that someone might try and call one of these motions out of committee to attempt to moderate the adoption of the EC report last night.

Tom Ascol’s resolution on integrity in church membership did not make it out of committee, yet again. This really surprised me. Several people wanted to speak for it, and those that spoke against were Malcolm Yarnell, who thought it wasn’t strong enough, and another pastor who thought it infringed on autonomy. Where was this guy when the Disney Boycott came out? Good grief. The vote looked to be a 50/50 split to bring it out of committee, but a 2/3 majority is needed to override the committee.

It amazed me to see so many Southern Baptists voting against a public stance on integrity.

As you may know, my church dealt with our inflated roll last year, taking our membership roll from just under 1,700 to 255. This had the effect of putting us over our actual membership in attendance on most Sundays now and giving us actual statistical data that is helpful in locating our weaknesses as a congregation.

This topic has gained steam across the Convention with so many, I predict it will continue to do so until it is passed. It may well be that next year’s resolution will be called out of committee, if not brought out by the committee.

Comments

• June 13, 2007, Wes Kenney writes: I was disappointed that Dr. Ascol's resolution failed to receive the support it deserved. He assured me after the vote that we'll have another opportunity in Indianapolis. Didn't you just love the opening of his speech in favor of overruling the committee?

  "We're told every number has a story. The number '16 million' has a story as well..."

  That's a loose paraphrase, but I thought it was a priceless moment.
• June 13, 2007, Kevin Bussey writes: Art, Thanks for the report. How did you fix your rolls? We talked about that last week and I've been asked to come up with a letter to send to those who haven't been attending. Did you send out a letter? If so, I would like a copy so I can "borrow" your wording. BTW, I miss being there with my friends but ... you know the rest. ;)
• June 13, 2007, GeneMBridges writes: It will take us talking about it on the blogs this year. I think this is one issue that can effectively draw many who are often blogging "adversaries" together. Might I suggest that we bloggers collectively make a point to take time to post on this issue from time to time. I also think that the average messenger is so untaught they aren't aware of the issues. They need to be educated. That will take some grass roots work, where your associational representatives to your meetings bring it up, even if it irritates the whooey out of your DOM's. I have also suggested that an info packet including articles published in the past couple of years be collated and distributed at the Ridgecrest Conference in Nov. I've even volunteered to man the booth/table since I'm only 2 hrs away and can be there to hawk them. A similar package needs to be made availabe (in .pdf perhaps) for free download so that folks can get it and read it and/or distribute it leading up to Indianapolis. That way, when Tom brings it to the floor, the Convention will know what is at stake and why the resolution is important.

Related posts:

• SBC Primer – Resolutions
• Intermission
• The ACP this year
• A word to the wise concerning the SBC
• In the Hopper…

When I wake up from my nap, I am going to blog about the resolutions from this morning, the “report” from Dr. Mohler, and the overall landscape.

Stetzer speaks tonight and you can expect highly readable material regarding that and other things from me tonight and tomorrow morning. I have several essays that I consider foundational that I will release.

Comments

• June 13, 2007, Kevin Bussey writes: Wake up!!!!
• June 13, 2007, Art Rogers writes: I am now awake and writing. Be patient! :) I miss you being here, bud.

I am interrupting my live blogging for a time of much needed sleep.

When I wake up from my nap, I am going to blog about the resolutions from this morning, the “report” from Dr. Mohler, and the overall landscape.

Stetzer speaks tonight and you can expect highly readable material regarding that and other things from me tonight and tomorrow morning. I have several essays that I consider foundational that I will release.

Comments

• June 13, 2007, Kevin Bussey writes: Wake up!!!!
• June 13, 2007, Art Rogers writes: I am now awake and writing. Be patient! :) I miss you being here, bud.

Morris Chapman’s address yesterday seems to be spin central in the blogosphere.

If you are reading this, you probably know that I believe he made it clear that he and the EC report sided against the additional doctrinal parameters.

Rather than debate this further, I think Morris Chapman can best speak for himself:

Leading by Example! can be found at morrischapman.com or by clicking the link.

An excerpt:

Only a very few years ago it seemed sufficient for all missionaries and Convention leaders to sign the Baptist Faith and Message as a statement of loyalty to Christ and the Convention. Now other doctrines are beginning to be required aside from our adopted confession. It causes one to ask, “Where does it end?” Let me propose two suggestions for future consideration:

(1) Any practice instituted by an entity in the Southern Baptist Convention that has the force of doctrine should be in accord with the Baptist Faith and Message and not exceed its boundaries unless and until it has been approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and secondly,

(2) If an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention adopts a confession of faith separate and distinct from the Baptist Faith and Message and it includes a doctrine unsupported by our confessional statement, the entity should request approval from the Convention prior to including the doctrine in its confession.

Can you spin that to say he hasn’t come out against additional parameters?

Comments

• June 13, 2007, Karen Scott writes: Brother Art, Amen!
• June 13, 2007, Mike writes: Who was special guest yesterday? Or today? President Bush?
• June 13, 2007, Brian Hamrick writes: Is there a reason there is a break all afternoon on Wednesday? I don't remember that format in Greensboro.... but maybe they had it
• June 13, 2007, Gregory Pittman writes: Yes, they had the same afternoon break in Greensboro. Although in Greensboro there's not much to do with that time. In San Antonio, there is much to do. In fact, if I were there, I would have a hard time choosing whether to attend the convention sessions or spend time in the city. :-)
• June 13, 2007, gadfly writes: Conservatives typically argue that legal texts should be interpreted by 'strict construction' of the text according to the 'orginal intent' of the authors. They typically condemn interpreta- tions that may (or may not) be consistent with the wording of a text, but are inconsistent with the authorial intent and meaning of the text. It seems to be very clear what the Executive Board and Dr. Chapman intended / meant by the wording of the resolution. It was clear last night to both proponents and opponents. It seemed clear today to Dr. Mohler - hence his disagreement and opposition to the Convention's action in accepting the resolution. Those who argue that the resolution does not mean (for them!) what Dr. Chapman said it meant and what the vast marority last night (on both sides!)understood it to mean are being disen- genuous. They would never accept such an interpretive philosophy applied to the Bible or to the Constitution. Those seminary presidents who may ignore this action of the Convention in their adminstration of SBC institutions are doing exactly what it was claimed "liberal" seminary presidentds were doing prior to the 'Conservative (&Fundamentalist) Resurgence!'
• June 13, 2007, Les Puryear writes: Art, It breaks my heart to see SBC leaders try to hijack the BFM motion and Dr. Chapman's message. I thought they were above that. Guess who's eyes are wide open now? Les
• June 13, 2007, Art Rogers writes: Let no one be deceived. This is not an overnight fix. This is a long term issue that has yet to be decided. We'll know in a few years if victory is a possibility, but there is no way of predicting it now. It will take a while, but it is now up to the leadership of the convention to fight it out. Frankly, it is beyond most of us at this point.
• June 13, 2007, Tim Dahl writes: Art, Something to remember, the Patterson/Pressler/Mohler crowd formulated and stuck to a 14 year plan to take over the convention. It was strategic. It was political. It was decimating to anyone that stood in their way... They really did take no prisoners. Be careful. You guys have their ire up... Oh, and we can't watch what happened on Tuesday yet. It hasn't been archived, as of 3:30pm on Wednesday...though, we can watch Monday's Pastor's Conference. Tim
• June 13, 2007, Trey Roberson writes: Guys, You are right on target. This is no more than an unexpected use of the same powers of the mid 80s. I wrote a longer piece over at the outhouse...oops, outpost. (tongue firmly in cheek) I figure some humor might be needed about now. Watch and see how this motion is used/spun/ignored by the same ones who used this same power back then to gain the resurgence. Anyone who blogs or is regular posters on the blogs in support of "reform" should watch to see how it goes. Did we need resurgence? Yes. Do we need reform? Yes. Just be ready to stay at it for 10 years if needed. Doing a great job with the info. I thank you. Trey

Related posts:

• Morris Chapman addresses the BFM and more
• Morris Rocks!
• Morris Champman weighs in on Presidential endorsements
• Pastoral Authority
• Guidestone & SBC Entities, pt 2

I hate spin. Honesty is so much more refreshing. I try my best to be honest without spin, but am sometimes found having fallen to the temptation.

Morris Chapman’s address yesterday seems to be spin central in the blogosphere.

If you are reading this, you probably know that I believe he made it clear that he and the EC report sided against the additional doctrinal parameters.

Rather than debate this further, I think Morris Chapman can best speak for himself:

Leading by Example! can be found at morrischapman.com or by clicking the link.

An excerpt:

Only a very few years ago it seemed sufficient for all missionaries and Convention leaders to sign the Baptist Faith and Message as a statement of loyalty to Christ and the Convention. Now other doctrines are beginning to be required aside from our adopted confession. It causes one to ask, “Where does it end?” Let me propose two suggestions for future consideration:

(1) Any practice instituted by an entity in the Southern Baptist Convention that has the force of doctrine should be in accord with the Baptist Faith and Message and not exceed its boundaries unless and until it has been approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and secondly,

(2) If an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention adopts a confession of faith separate and distinct from the Baptist Faith and Message and it includes a doctrine unsupported by our confessional statement, the entity should request approval from the Convention prior to including the doctrine in its confession.

Can you spin that to say he hasn’t come out against additional parameters?

Comments

• June 13, 2007, Karen Scott writes: Brother Art, Amen!
• June 13, 2007, Mike writes: Who was special guest yesterday? Or today? President Bush?
• June 13, 2007, Brian Hamrick writes: Is there a reason there is a break all afternoon on Wednesday? I don't remember that format in Greensboro.... but maybe they had it
• June 13, 2007, Gregory Pittman writes: Yes, they had the same afternoon break in Greensboro. Although in Greensboro there's not much to do with that time. In San Antonio, there is much to do. In fact, if I were there, I would have a hard time choosing whether to attend the convention sessions or spend time in the city. :-)
• June 13, 2007, gadfly writes: Conservatives typically argue that legal texts should be interpreted by 'strict construction' of the text according to the 'orginal intent' of the authors. They typically condemn interpreta- tions that may (or may not) be consistent with the wording of a text, but are inconsistent with the authorial intent and meaning of the text. It seems to be very clear what the Executive Board and Dr. Chapman intended / meant by the wording of the resolution. It was clear last night to both proponents and opponents. It seemed clear today to Dr. Mohler - hence his disagreement and opposition to the Convention's action in accepting the resolution. Those who argue that the resolution does not mean (for them!) what Dr. Chapman said it meant and what the vast marority last night (on both sides!)understood it to mean are being disen- genuous. They would never accept such an interpretive philosophy applied to the Bible or to the Constitution. Those seminary presidents who may ignore this action of the Convention in their adminstration of SBC institutions are doing exactly what it was claimed "liberal" seminary presidentds were doing prior to the 'Conservative (&Fundamentalist) Resurgence!'
• June 13, 2007, Les Puryear writes: Art, It breaks my heart to see SBC leaders try to hijack the BFM motion and Dr. Chapman's message. I thought they were above that. Guess who's eyes are wide open now? Les
• June 13, 2007, Art Rogers writes: Let no one be deceived. This is not an overnight fix. This is a long term issue that has yet to be decided. We'll know in a few years if victory is a possibility, but there is no way of predicting it now. It will take a while, but it is now up to the leadership of the convention to fight it out. Frankly, it is beyond most of us at this point.
• June 13, 2007, Tim Dahl writes: Art, Something to remember, the Patterson/Pressler/Mohler crowd formulated and stuck to a 14 year plan to take over the convention. It was strategic. It was political. It was decimating to anyone that stood in their way... They really did take no prisoners. Be careful. You guys have their ire up... Oh, and we can't watch what happened on Tuesday yet. It hasn't been archived, as of 3:30pm on Wednesday...though, we can watch Monday's Pastor's Conference. Tim
• June 13, 2007, Trey Roberson writes: Guys, You are right on target. This is no more than an unexpected use of the same powers of the mid 80s. I wrote a longer piece over at the outhouse...oops, outpost. (tongue firmly in cheek) I figure some humor might be needed about now. Watch and see how this motion is used/spun/ignored by the same ones who used this same power back then to gain the resurgence. Anyone who blogs or is regular posters on the blogs in support of "reform" should watch to see how it goes. Did we need resurgence? Yes. Do we need reform? Yes. Just be ready to stay at it for 10 years if needed. Doing a great job with the info. I thank you. Trey

Related posts:

• Morris Chapman addresses the BFM and more
• Morris Rocks!
• Morris Champman weighs in on Presidential endorsements
• Pastoral Authority
• Guidestone & SBC Entities, pt 2

I believe the BFM motion passed at about a 60/40 split. David Troublefield cited some numbers in a comment section earlier, though I am unsure where he got them. Here are a few thoughts.

It is a majority, but not a “slam dunk.” Nevertheless, the Convention has spoken definitively on the issue of narrowing our parameters beyond the BFM. We should be very precise, from this point forward.

Several people had lists of items not covered by the BFM that agencies and institutions had rules about, which they now felt were contrary to the report and the motion, such as divorce, homosexuality and others. I was asked, after the vote, if a similar situation were covered in the BFM. I said, “yes.” The BFM, in Article I, affirms the Bible as authoritative and, therefore, to those things clearly defined in Scripture, the BFM does cover doctrinal statements not listed in other articles. On those things that are not clearly addressed, our agencies and institutions should not establish doctrinal qualifiers on which the convention has no consensus. It is dismissive and arrogant to say there are tons of other things that these institutions adopt as policies that aren’t in the BFM. Behavior restrictions aren’t doctrines. Clearly defined Biblical doctrines are a part of the BFM and are covered. It is only the things around which we have not all gathered upon which our institutions should remain silent. Insert Morris Chapman’s quote from Boyce here, or his own blog article Leading by Example!, or read this applicable article: Boyce answers the bloggers of his day – 3 tests for Doctrinal Unity.

On a practical note, while I don’t want places like SWBTS to have an extra Biblical, extra BFM doctrine as adopted policy, I don’t think it inappropriate for cessationist professors to teach the Bible as they understand it. This statement from the convention does not limit that.

Another practicality is that this motion has the weight of a resolution. The Boards of Trustees can not be instructed by the convention to do a thing. The Boards will continue to vote their conscience before God. If their conscience is bound to represent the convention’s action on this, they will do so. If they feel so firmly that the convention is wrong, they will not change and it will be up to the convention to remove them if they see fit, change its mind on the issue, or live with that of which they say they do not approve.

In other words, this is not over. Those on the Boards who feel that the extra Biblical, extra BFM parameters are not appropriate will point to this motion as leverage to attempt to move their Board back to the place where the restrictions are absent. Success is yet to be determined.

Finally, it is time for the leaders who have indicated that they are in agreement with these sentiments to come out and lead. It is incumbent on leaders to take heat and to address issues that are uncomfortable. Leadership is a responsibility, not a door to privilege. Morris Chapman did this without hesitation today, and Frank Page did so as well, in the introduction of his sermon this morning. Everyone else, to the line, please. Several of our statesmen addressed these issues at the Baptist Identity Conference this year. We need them to make their way to the mic. When I am the one at the mic to defend these issues while men of far greater leadership and academic prowess are absent, the future of our denomination is in jeopardy.

Leaders, you must pick up the issue and be the ones to make of the situation we have revealed something that will be a positive future for all Southern Baptists. You can not continue to allow bloggers or those opposed to our ideas be the ones setting the agenda on these issues.

Comments

• June 13, 2007, Lu writes: Thanks for the assessment on this motion without the spin. As much as I admire Wade, I've had a hard time seeing what he's seeing in this. It appears to me to be ambiguous enough that anyone can read whatever they want to in it; including justifying forcing people to sign the BFM in toto (ie no disagreement on any single points allowed) before they can serve on any board, as a missionary, etc. Or it could be completely ignored as well, as you indicate here. Which means, at least from what I can see, it's largely symbolic and means very little. I don't get why so much is being made of it.
• June 13, 2007, David Troublefield writes: The messenger count for last night came from another blogger's site--one I don't frequent and can't locate now (bloggers did a better job last year with up-to-the-moment posts!--had to visit blogsites I never go to for info [with apologies to those hard-working bloggers]!--I'd like a refund for my subscription rate . . . you're charging other readers here a subscription, right?). The percentage/s followed mathematically, of course . . .
• June 13, 2007, David Troublefield writes: . . . Another thought: since the BF&M 2000 statement doesn't contain the word "inerrant" and the word isn't to be read into the statement (as I now understand the matter)--per this week's messenger majority--can those Southern Baptists who've ceased as much interaction with fellow-SBCers over recent years now come home and in good favor? Just wondering, for everyone's sake . . .
• June 13, 2007, Titanwes writes: This will be a mistake and will take the convention further down into the darkness that has clouded it's resolutions in the years past. By adhering to the BFM as the letter of the law... we are becoming legalistic and forgetting that the BIBLE is not a book of rules, but rather a book of guidelines. By allowing the BFM to be the maximum "law" we are saying that the BFM can only rule over what is listed inside its articles. So what of the major issues that are not listed within these articles? If your response is that it reverts back to the first article stating that it is governed by scripture, then you are contradicting the very idea that the BFM needs to be the maximum defining rule. If the BFM is submitting authority to the Bible, then the BFM cannot be the maximum rule. The Bible is the maximum authority and the only authority. There is no need of another "document" to present itself as maximum authority because that goes against the idea that the Word of God is inerrant and the only authority we as Christians need. Thus, the BFM should rightly only be a minimum guideline... a starting point whose existence should serve to attempt to maintain the path that the Bible has already carved out, not try to reign in what the Bible states. Tell me, is this the most important piece of activity that has occurred today? The problem with the politico in the convention is that they focus on the letter of the law and not the real problem.... 4% of our current generation are turning to Christ. That should be what we work towards instead of leveraging for some political movement within our own ranks.
• June 13, 2007, Art Rogers writes: Titanwes, I believe you misunderstand. This statement by the convention says that the SBC would prefer that its agencies and institutions not add any more rules and regulations beyond what we already share together. It is not about restricting liberty, but restricting restrictions. As for reaching the lost world, that is exactly why I think it is important to quit creating additional tests of fellowship that hinder our ability to do that.

Related posts:

• BFM referrendum.
• Disposition of Motions from the morning
• Wade’s Motion
• Did you hear that?
• At the Mic with Drs. York and Land

First let me say that all other motions, I believe, have either been referred or ruled out of order, so Resolutions tomorrow and Ed Stetzer’s sermon tomorrow night will be the highlights, in my view.

I believe the BFM motion passed at about a 60/40 split. David Troublefield cited some numbers in a comment section earlier, though I am unsure where he got them. Here are a few thoughts.

It is a majority, but not a “slam dunk.” Nevertheless, the Convention has spoken definitively on the issue of narrowing our parameters beyond the BFM. We should be very precise, from this point forward.

Several people had lists of items not covered by the BFM that agencies and institutions had rules about, which they now felt were contrary to the report and the motion, such as divorce, homosexuality and others. I was asked, after the vote, if a similar situation were covered in the BFM. I said, “yes.” The BFM, in Article I, affirms the Bible as authoritative and, therefore, to those things clearly defined in Scripture, the BFM does cover doctrinal statements not listed in other articles. On those things that are not clearly addressed, our agencies and institutions should not establish doctrinal qualifiers on which the convention has no consensus. It is dismissive and arrogant to say there are tons of other things that these institutions adopt as policies that aren’t in the BFM. Behavior restrictions aren’t doctrines. Clearly defined Biblical doctrines are a part of the BFM and are covered. It is only the things around which we have not all gathered upon which our institutions should remain silent. Insert Morris Chapman’s quote from Boyce here, or his own blog article Leading by Example!, or read this applicable article: Boyce answers the bloggers of his day – 3 tests for Doctrinal Unity.

On a practical note, while I don’t want places like SWBTS to have an extra Biblical, extra BFM doctrine as adopted policy, I don’t think it inappropriate for cessationist professors to teach the Bible as they understand it. This statement from the convention does not limit that.

Another practicality is that this motion has the weight of a resolution. The Boards of Trustees can not be instructed by the convention to do a thing. The Boards will continue to vote their conscience before God. If their conscience is bound to represent the convention’s action on this, they will do so. If they feel so firmly that the convention is wrong, they will not change and it will be up to the convention to remove them if they see fit, change its mind on the issue, or live with that of which they say they do not approve.

In other words, this is not over. Those on the Boards who feel that the extra Biblical, extra BFM parameters are not appropriate will point to this motion as leverage to attempt to move their Board back to the place where the restrictions are absent. Success is yet to be determined.

Finally, it is time for the leaders who have indicated that they are in agreement with these sentiments to come out and lead. It is incumbent on leaders to take heat and to address issues that are uncomfortable. Leadership is a responsibility, not a door to privilege. Morris Chapman did this without hesitation today, and Frank Page did so as well, in the introduction of his sermon this morning. Everyone else, to the line, please. Several of our statesmen addressed these issues at the Baptist Identity Conference this year. We need them to make their way to the mic. When I am the one at the mic to defend these issues while men of far greater leadership and academic prowess are absent, the future of our denomination is in jeopardy.

Leaders, you must pick up the issue and be the ones to make of the situation we have revealed something that will be a positive future for all Southern Baptists. You can not continue to allow bloggers or those opposed to our ideas be the ones setting the agenda on these issues.

Comments

• June 13, 2007, Lu writes: Thanks for the assessment on this motion without the spin. As much as I admire Wade, I've had a hard time seeing what he's seeing in this. It appears to me to be ambiguous enough that anyone can read whatever they want to in it; including justifying forcing people to sign the BFM in toto (ie no disagreement on any single points allowed) before they can serve on any board, as a missionary, etc. Or it could be completely ignored as well, as you indicate here. Which means, at least from what I can see, it's largely symbolic and means very little. I don't get why so much is being made of it.
• June 13, 2007, David Troublefield writes: The messenger count for last night came from another blogger's site--one I don't frequent and can't locate now (bloggers did a better job last year with up-to-the-moment posts!--had to visit blogsites I never go to for info [with apologies to those hard-working bloggers]!--I'd like a refund for my subscription rate . . . you're charging other readers here a subscription, right?). The percentage/s followed mathematically, of course . . .
• June 13, 2007, David Troublefield writes: . . . Another thought: since the BF&M 2000 statement doesn't contain the word "inerrant" and the word isn't to be read into the statement (as I now understand the matter)--per this week's messenger majority--can those Southern Baptists who've ceased as much interaction with fellow-SBCers over recent years now come home and in good favor? Just wondering, for everyone's sake . . .
• June 13, 2007, Titanwes writes: This will be a mistake and will take the convention further down into the darkness that has clouded it's resolutions in the years past. By adhering to the BFM as the letter of the law... we are becoming legalistic and forgetting that the BIBLE is not a book of rules, but rather a book of guidelines. By allowing the BFM to be the maximum "law" we are saying that the BFM can only rule over what is listed inside its articles. So what of the major issues that are not listed within these articles? If your response is that it reverts back to the first article stating that it is governed by scripture, then you are contradicting the very idea that the BFM needs to be the maximum defining rule. If the BFM is submitting authority to the Bible, then the BFM cannot be the maximum rule. The Bible is the maximum authority and the only authority. There is no need of another "document" to present itself as maximum authority because that goes against the idea that the Word of God is inerrant and the only authority we as Christians need. Thus, the BFM should rightly only be a minimum guideline... a starting point whose existence should serve to attempt to maintain the path that the Bible has already carved out, not try to reign in what the Bible states. Tell me, is this the most important piece of activity that has occurred today? The problem with the politico in the convention is that they focus on the letter of the law and not the real problem.... 4% of our current generation are turning to Christ. That should be what we work towards instead of leveraging for some political movement within our own ranks.
• June 13, 2007, Art Rogers writes: Titanwes, I believe you misunderstand. This statement by the convention says that the SBC would prefer that its agencies and institutions not add any more rules and regulations beyond what we already share together. It is not about restricting liberty, but restricting restrictions. As for reaching the lost world, that is exactly why I think it is important to quit creating additional tests of fellowship that hinder our ability to do that.

Related posts:

• BFM referrendum.
• Disposition of Motions from the morning
• Wade’s Motion
• Did you hear that?
• At the Mic with Drs. York and Land

In depth analysis after I get back from supper with the Alabama contingent.

Comments

• June 12, 2007, Wayne Wynecott writes: The HIGHLIGHT of the 2007 Annual Meeting: Travis Cottrell leading "In Christ Alone!"
• June 12, 2007, David Troublefield writes: 8500 messengers registered; 60% voting to favor the BF&M motion unammended; 5100 voting "yea" (but probably 8500 not present at the time of the vote, so fewer that 5100 votes favoring); 16 million SBCers in 43,000 churches; Dr. Kelley said it (paraphrased, even if set-up for him at the microphone): "Only the Bible itself tells completely what Southern Baptists believe in detail". Let every SBCer choose the version of the BF&M statement to which he will adhere and everyone take 2 steps forward together for the cause of Christ. Why do so few get that?!
• June 12, 2007, Joe writes: Funny that those who pushed so hard for the BFM2000 are now using recycled arguments from moderates that "the Bible is the only guide for hiring faculty we need."
• June 12, 2007, Joe writes: The previous post would read more clearly had I written "the Bible is the only guide we need for hiring faculty."
• June 12, 2007, Trey Roberson writes: Correct me if I'm wrong but in our tradition without creeds are we not still free to work out the various confessions over the years? At this point it seems you must choose between BFM 1960s and BFM 2000s. Neither one is scripture the last time I noticed. And it seems neither one is perfect. Anyway, here is hoping some clear guidance is achieved in this motion.
• June 13, 2007, Dave Holder writes: You need the Alabama contingent for analysis? I thought this was the place for "independent" analysis! :)

I’ll post more tonight, but I think the motion passed, and did so decisively.

In depth analysis after I get back from supper with the Alabama contingent.

Comments

• June 12, 2007, Wayne Wynecott writes: The HIGHLIGHT of the 2007 Annual Meeting: Travis Cottrell leading "In Christ Alone!"
• June 12, 2007, David Troublefield writes: 8500 messengers registered; 60% voting to favor the BF&M motion unammended; 5100 voting "yea" (but probably 8500 not present at the time of the vote, so fewer that 5100 votes favoring); 16 million SBCers in 43,000 churches; Dr. Kelley said it (paraphrased, even if set-up for him at the microphone): "Only the Bible itself tells completely what Southern Baptists believe in detail". Let every SBCer choose the version of the BF&M statement to which he will adhere and everyone take 2 steps forward together for the cause of Christ. Why do so few get that?!
• June 12, 2007, Joe writes: Funny that those who pushed so hard for the BFM2000 are now using recycled arguments from moderates that "the Bible is the only guide for hiring faculty we need."
• June 12, 2007, Joe writes: The previous post would read more clearly had I written "the Bible is the only guide we need for hiring faculty."
• June 12, 2007, Trey Roberson writes: Correct me if I'm wrong but in our tradition without creeds are we not still free to work out the various confessions over the years? At this point it seems you must choose between BFM 1960s and BFM 2000s. Neither one is scripture the last time I noticed. And it seems neither one is perfect. Anyway, here is hoping some clear guidance is achieved in this motion.
• June 13, 2007, Dave Holder writes: You need the Alabama contingent for analysis? I thought this was the place for "independent" analysis! :)