υἱοθεσία - Adopted by God

Scott Wilder Show Returns Again

2012-01-26T03:30:00.003-06:00

Scott has just announced that He and Lauren are back on the DFW airways on 1190 AM from 9:00 AM - 11:00 AM Monday through Friday.

It will be good to have them back on terrestrial radio again. Please see Scott's note about it here. Please pass this on to your friends and post on facebook.

SBC Name Change: Presented on a Garbage Can Lid

2011-09-25T02:39:00.000-05:00

I know the title may be provocative, but my illustration will explain. The following is a link of the great Bill Cosby in the Cosby show episode "With This Ring". In it, he tells Vanessa's fiancée Dabnis, that they don't like him. But it's not his fault, it's Vanessa's... it's in the presentation. It was how she brought him to them... on a garbage can lid. He tries to explain and gives what I think is one of the all time great illustrations of the importance of presentation. Watch the Cosby Show Clip.

Even if the changing of the name of the Southern Baptist Convention's time has come, it was presented to us upon a garbage can lid. It was not the finest hour for a President of the SBC. Our polity was completely disregarded. The will of the Convention was ignored. The possibility exists that this task force is a violation of our Bylaws see here. I do not question President Wright's motives. But his presentation of changing the name of the Southern Baptist Convention was to say the least, very poorly handled.

Others have been more eloquent than I, but lest it be misunderstood, let me emphatically state that what this Baptist finds objectionable is the way in which this process has been started. I agree with Bart Barber, if we were voting to start a denomination today, Southern would not and should not be in the name. However, I do have reservations about a name change, mostly for the legal and financial implications of such. This cannot be ignored or underestimated as the unintended legal and financial consequences could be quite costly You can read more about that here. I also have concerns that there are some who would like us to forsake the name Baptist. That cannot happen! That will not happen! Finally, if Southern Baptists do decide on a name change, what name would solicit unity amongst us? I don't know that such a name exists, other than the name of Jesus Himself. Maybe we should focus more on His name than changing ours.

Blessings,

Ron P.

SBC and Blogging

2011-03-29T23:43:00.006-05:00

I have really missed being active in SBC blog town! Though I rarely comment, except for a few sites, I do try to actively read the major SBC blogs. My site has never been very active, but I thoroughly enjoy being part of the conversations at other sites. I wish I had time to partake in the recent discussions about the GCR, the Cooperative Program, the Pastor's Conference issues, and other pertinent issues to the Southern Baptist Convention. Truth be told, I just do not have the time. I have commented more this past week on a site than I probably have in the last year. I do not like making drive by comments. i.e. commenting and then not engaging others afterwards. But lack of time makes that difficult, so I have to pick and choose when and where I comment.

Part of the reason for my absence is family - which comes way before blogging. I know that I have stated here several times that I would explain more about the issues we face with our precious little one that we adopted a year ago. However, I do not want to publicize the issues that he faces in great detail, at least not yet. I want to respect his privacy as he grows up and hopefully overcomes the tremendous adversity that is ahead of him. I do hope to share some of it as we go through life together and work with the support of others who face the same obstacles and challenges that he has. I do ask that you pray for him and for us as parents.

Between home, work and church - where I also work and volunteer part time, blogging has been forced to a lower priority level that I would like. With the issues that face Southern Baptists, I am concerned that we not forget that our forefathers in the faith, gave their lives for the important issues of having a free church that was biblically sound and obedient to Christ. There are issues facing Southern Baptists that require us to be vigilant defending our biblical heritage, our ecclesiology, our theology, and our Baptist Identity. Our identity as Southern Baptists is not a curse or a pox. I do not want to be silent as some try to redefine what it means to be Southern Baptist. Blogging may not be the avenue that best suites the needs of my family and my responsibilities at this time. But I will join in the discussions where possible and when I feel I can not afford to be quiet.

Blessings,

Ron P.

Baptist: That's what I am

2010-09-08T22:48:00.005-05:00

An excellent white paper from Baptist Theology has been released. It is a must read for Southern Baptists. It so clearly addresses what I believe and what it seems most Southern Baptists also believe. We are neither Calvinists nor or we Arminians - We are Baptists. I like the definition given "We are majoritarian Baptists in the Sandy Creek tradition, who formulate theology according to the authoritative, inerrant, and sufficient Word of God so that we might better proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ to all human beings."

I invite you to read the entire paper Neither Calvinists nor Arminians but Baptist

Blessings,

Ron P.
A Baptist who is neither a Calvinist nor Arminian.

The Ergun Caner Feeding Frenzy

2010-05-14T23:59:00.001-05:00

Sharks are interesting and frightening creatures. When I lived in Southern California, I got to see sharks fed in a large salt water fish tank. It was fascinating to watch the bloody and relentless feeding frenzy. I was captivated by it - by the sheer ruthlessness that was on display. I remember thinking how horrible it would be to suffer through such a vicious attack. Sharks are not the only ones who participate in feeding frenzies. I am certain the reader is aware that a "feeding frenzy" is also slang for a ruthless attack on or exploitation of someone. I think that is happening in many circles within the blogsphere towards Ergun Caner. There are some who are trying to exploit this for various personal reasons. To pretend otherwise is naive at best and disingenuous at worst. I am not saying that this is true of all or even most in the blog world. But I am dismayed that so many are denying that there are ulterior motives involved by some of the principles who are leading this feeding frenzy. I guess from the shark's point of view there is nothing wrong or amiss with such. But for those of us on the sidelines watching, it has been a terrifying thing to witness. I would never wish for this to happen to anyone! It is clearly a violation of Scripture (Galatians 6:1-5).

I believe this same sense of horror is the motivation of some who have been pleading for the attacks to stop. But these pleas have fallen on deaf ears for weeks on end and the frenzy has only gotten worse. It is frustrating. To switch analogies, this has quickly become an uncontrollable blog mob with a few ringleaders ready to bring a rope to the doorsteps of Liberty to execute frontier justice. How can we maintain our integrity while trying to stop a mob and be Christlike to everyone on both sides of the issue? It is not easy and some have been thrown in as extra chum for giving a brother grace and believing his repentance to be sincere. It may be just me, but I get the impression that if Jesus walked up to Ergun Caner and the principles involved and said let him who is without sin cast the first stone, that a few would actually have the nerve to cast stones. It appears that it has become that personal.

Finally, I also have an issue with the "do as I say not as I do" bloggers. Several have lent credibility to the lies (and/or repeated them) that Ergun Caner was never a former Muslim or was not a devout former Muslim. This is even after evidence and a contemporary former Muslim have confirmed such. Take for example that Tom Ascol posted about it a while back and has never recanted. I have not heard a single call for a public apology and repentance from him (or the others who also joined in) from those demanding such from Ergun Caner. For those engaging in the demands for public apologies and public repentance, doesn't integrity demand you, without prejudice, do the same to Tom Ascol and the others? Where are the calls to their ministries and churches? It kind of makes the clamor for Ergun Caner and Liberty to do so seem just a tad bit hypocritical from my point of view.

Personally, I would prefer we give grace to all involved - on both sides.

Blessings,

Ron P.

Scott Wilder Show Returns

2010-03-08T21:48:00.003-06:00

In case you have not heard, the Scott Wilder Show has not only returned, but is now a nationally syndicated radio show. You can go to Scott's website here to read more about it.

It was great having a reasoned principled voice back on the radio. Scott was great too. Just kidding. If you have listened before, you know I am talking about Lauren Litner, who has worked with Scott on the air for a number of years. Though they have been streaming at scottwilder.tv, I always enjoyed listening on the radio on my long drive home every afternoon.

Welcome back Scott and Lauren, and best wishes on syndicating the show in more markets.

Blessings,

Ron P.

Gotcha Day 2010

2010-03-04T01:15:00.006-06:00

On Wednesday, March 3, 2010, the adoption papers were signed! The hearing and rulings were on the 11th of February, but we did not get the orders signed until yesterday. This gave us the opportunity to let the Judge meet Josh, take pictures, and watch her sign the papers.

It was two years ago today that we brought him home. It was not something we were seeking and it was only suppose to be for a short time...

But God had other plans for us and for Josh. We have been very blessed (and challenged - more on that later). So "Gotcha Day", which I stole from Bart Barber, is now officially March 3, 2010.

We had interesting weather the day of the hearing. We set a record for snowfall in a 24 hour period with 12.5 inches! All four boys were outside playing in the snow and celebrating. We had to postpone our big celebration at Chuck E. Cheese that night until the following week. After the signing today, we again took Josh to Chuck E. Cheese to celebrate. There was only one other child there, so the three of us had the run of the place.

God has truly been good to us!

Court Hearing - Please Pray

2010-02-10T13:50:00.001-06:00

UPDATE: I want to thank everyone for their prayers today. The judge terminated the birth parent's rights and granted our petition for adoption. Josh is now officially a Phillips!

It has been quite a while since I have penned anything. It certainly is not because I have lost interest in Baptist (or other) issues, but due to such a busy schedule. I will share more about that at a later date. I have been reading the blogs, just not writing. That will probably change as the SBC nears.

I am writing today to ask for your prayers. If you have read my first post here, you know why I chose the name υἱοθεσία (huiothesia - Adopted by God) as the name of my blog. See here and here. For almost two years we have been blessed to have a little boy that was placed with us. We prayed about the situation and agreed to take him in so that he would not be placed in state foster care. This allowed the parents and other immediate family to still be active in his life while the parents worked with CPS. There is much more that I can not share publicly, but that did not happen. We have a great relationship with his great grandparents and other family members, but after much prayer and counsel, we decided to pursue adoption. The trial is finally upon us and we go to court tomorrow. This hearing will determine whether the court terminates the rights of the birth parents and thus allow us to adopt.

Please pray that Christ will be glorified and that God grants the judge wisdom. Please pray for the birth parents. It is our hope that they will know Christ and his mercy. Please also pray for our attorney and the attorney appointed by the court to look after his best interests. Obviously, it is our prayer and hope that the judge allows us to adopt him and make him a legal permanent member of our family. We are excited and anxious. It is with a heavy heart for the parents that we must pursue this, but love for a little boy who needs parents to help him with so many issues that he will face the rest of his life.

Thank you in advance for your prayers. I will post an update tomorrow after the hearing.

Blessings,

Ron P.

Scott Wilder Update and Open Letter To Salem Communications

2009-07-31T12:30:00.005-05:00

I wanted to give an update since I have received several emails from other listeners who also have left KWRD and are asking about the responses I have received from advertisers and/or the station. I also want to post the email that I just sent to Salem Communications CEO Edward Atsinger, III and cc'd to John Peroyea, and David Darling.

The response from listeners has been overwhelmingly in support of Scott and Lauren. I am amazed and gratified that there are new posts daily on many facebooks, twitter and blogs. This issue is not simmering down and going away. It is especially heartening to see the continual encouragement given to Scott and Lauren on his facebook and website. The responses I have received from advertisers have been as concerned as the listeners to the show and several that emailed me are no longer advertising or considering it. Another asked Salem: "Why would the station, in a down economy, eliminate the most popular and highest revenue producing personality for a station?" All of our calls and emails are most certainly being noticed and felt! You can read my last post as to the response I have received from station management.

Below is the email that I mentioned above:

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Phillips, Sr.
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 12:19 PM
To: edwarda@salem.cc
CC: John.Peroyea@KLTY.com; ddarling@ksky.com
Subject: Scott Wilder Show

Dear Mr. Atsinger,

I have already emailed you, Mr. Peroyea, Mr. Darling, and several KWRD advertisers. I have received several responses from advertisers who have already canceled their relationship with KWRD, and/or are concerned about the effectiveness of advertising on KWRD. Some have told me that may cease to advertise on the station.

I do not understand why Salem Communications would cancel the most popular local Christian talk show in Dallas-Fort Worth (which is the 5th largest market according to your own Resource Guide) . His show even won the National Religious Broadcaster's award for Talk Show of the Year in 2004 according to your own Investor Relations site. As one advertiser put it: "Why would the station, in a down economy, eliminate the most popular and highest revenue producing personality for a station?" There clearly has been a mass exodus of listeners from KWRD since the Scott Wilder Show was canceled. Some listeners, including myself, have publicly posted that they will boycott all three Salem stations in the DFW area (KWRD, KLTY and KSKY). The postings on various facebooks, twitter feeds, and blogs continue to be strong and numerous. My own blog exploded in the number of hits and has been steady every day since with only the one post about the show. The analytics show that numbers of people are reaching my blog via Google search looking for Scott Wilder. Scott's own website and facebook continue to have new listeners post every day who are just becoming aware of the cancellation and they too are stating that they will no longer listen to KWRD. I expect when I post this open letter on my blog, that it again will explode with page views.

If I were a stockholder, I would be asking these questions at the next shareholder meeting:

Is Salem management being fiduciarily responsible to it's shareholders?How is eliminating a consistently reliable revenue generating program a sound financial decision?
The show may even be one of the most popular on all three stations owned by Salem in this market, and we are expected to believe it is for "budgetary" reasons?
What happens when the show is picked up by one of your competitors?
Has Salem management not just given away for free their most valuable local asset in the 5th largest market to their competition as well as the multiple thousands of listeners (and advertisers) to whomever picks the show up?
With the listening audience dramatically reduced, how will that have anything but a negative impact on advertising rates and revenue? Will they not demand lower rates and/or go to your competition to reach a wider audience?
With the listening audience dramatically reduced, how will that have anything but a negative impact on rates ministries pay to be on the air? Will they too not follow the listeners to your competition to reach a wider audience?

Please understand, that the listeners of the Scott Wilder Show are very loyal and we are going to be vigilant in this. We will not waiver. This is not going to blow over in a few weeks or even a few months. Our voices will be heard, and our absence from your listening audience will be a great financial drain upon your company. It will take several years for you to rebuild the trust of listeners in this market which I do not believe this station can survive.

The unnecessary mass exodus of listeners from KWRD, which will be followed by advertisers and then the ministries paying for airtime is entirely the responsibility of the person(s) who made the decision to fire Scott and Lauren and cancel the show. Sadly and most regrettably, the resulting financial losses to Salem need not have happened as this is a self inflicted wound.

Sincerely,

Ron Phillips, Sr.
Fort Worth, TX

UPDATE: 11:15 PM, July 31, 2009

Here is the response I received from Mr. Peroyea to the email above:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Your e-mail
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:36:34 -0500
From: John Peroyea

Dear Ron,

Thank you for your comments. We appreciate hearing from you
about a change that obviously saddens you as it saddens us as well.

An estimated 35000 people have been laid off in our industry in
the last several years. No company is immune from the dismal economy
America is experiencing, and I know of no company that relishes having
to make these tough decisions and changes.

Our company is doing what we need to do in order to continue
furthering the Kingdom and providing our listeners with the absolute
best conservative talk platforms in radio today. We offer many people
ministry programming all day as well as conservative talk that they rely
on, and God willing, we will continue doing this forever.

I ask you to consider continuing to listen and support our
station during these rough economic times that America is totally faced
with. With one of three Christian Talk and Teach stations in Dallas-Ft.
Worth going out of business and selling to become a rock station, all
Christian radio stations need the support of our community. Other than
the few of hours of talk in afternoons on 100.7 KWRD, we have a great
number of hours each day delivering Christian teaching and ministry
programs that tens of thousands of our listeners rely on us for.

Janet Mefferd, our new host in afternoons is not Scott nor will
she attempt to be. Whenever a new air talent is introduced, the new
talent will always have their own styles and talents. To date, the
feedback we have been receiving on her show from the masses has been
extremely plentiful and very positive. I hope that you would consider
giving her some of your listening time to get acquainted. This company
decision along with many others were made totally out of necessity. This
situation with the Wilder show was not a firing, it was a necessary
financial layoff. I can assure you, our decisions have all been made
through an abundance of thought, discussion and prayer. Let me also
assure you that we will not be changing from our political positions or
core values as a station or a company.

We all wish Scott and Lauren well, as they are friends. They and
our company parted on good terms. We view any layoff of employees as an
extremely difficult task. This decision was made out of necessity and
was decided at the highest levels of our company. We do not take these
moves lightly, and I can assure you that our parting with Scott and
Lauren was done with dignity, compassion and professionalism.

God bless you Ron,

John

John L. Peroyea
Vice President of Operations
Salem Communications Corporation

94.9 KLTY, 100.7 KWRD, 660AM - 92.9 FM - 95.5 FM KSKY
Dallas/Ft.Worth
Vice President - General Manager

6400 Beltline Road Suite 120
Irving, Texas 75063
Direct Phone line: 214.561.2142
Direct fax line: 214.561.2143

Listen online at: www.klty.com
www.thewordfm.com
www.ksky.com

This electronic mail message contains information which is (a) LEGALLY
PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY IN NATURE, OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY LAW FROM
DISCLOSURE, and (b) intended only for the use of the Addressee's) names
herein. If you are not the Addressee's), or the person responsible for
delivering this to the Addressee's), you are hereby notified that
reading, copying, or distributing this message is prohibited. If you
have received this electronic mail message in error, please contact us
immediately at (972) 870-9949 x152 and take the steps necessary to
delete the message completely from your computer system.
Thank you.

Scott Wilder Show Canceled

2009-07-19T14:45:00.004-05:00

UPDATE: Scott Wilder is back on the air as of Monday, March 8th, 2010. See my post here for more information. I keep seeing a lot of hits to his page from Google, so I wanted to let those of you coming to this page know that Scott and Lauren are finally back on the air!

For those of you in the DFW Metroplex, a staple of Christian talk radio has been canceled. The WORD FM (100.7 - owned by Salem Communications) has canceled the Scott Wilder show. Scott and his producer and coworker for over 20 years (Lauren Lintner) were unceremoniously fired for "budgetary" reasons. However, his show has consistently has been the most popular show on the entire station as well as in the entire DFW market. Please keep Scott and Lauren in your prayers during this time!

Scott is the type of talk radio host that conservative Christians need to have on the air. He is an evangelical conservative biblical Christian, who is also a social and political conservative. In my personal opinion, Scott is the best conservative talk show host in all of radio. I do not say that lightly. But the fact that he actually understands the Biblical Gospel and the need to let Scripture be our guide in social and political views gives him a unique voice that is rare in conservative radio. His shows were fun yet serious when needed. He has come under a lot of fire from callers on the left on his show since the election for his stands against the agenda of the President. Scott's replacement is the wife of a senior executive of Salem Communications. How interesting.

Talk radio is loved by corporations because it is cheap to produce and gives a great return on advertising dollars. How can a corporation realistically expect it's listeners to believe that this was truly for budgetary concerns? There is no way that this show was not making the corporation money. I do not know this years Arbitron's ratings, but the show was listed as 5th in the market in 2008 (according to Salem's own 2008 Resource Guide). That is a very high number for afternoon drive time for the DFW secular market when he is even competing with Sean Hannity (whom I also like).

Twitter and Facebook are on fire with listeners who are upset. I hope it makes a difference. I have already emailed the VP and have gotten two responses from him. I will post my email with all the replies at the bottom of this post. I will not listen to the three Salem stations here in the metroplex. I will be contacting KWRD's advertisers and ministries that buy time on the air letting them know that they need not buy air time, as there has been a mass exodus of listeners from the station.

One listener has posted all the advertisers and their contact information. I have posted on another blog and on a facebook entry that we also need to contact the ministries that buy air time on this station. I wrote:

Contact the ministries that buy air time too!!! In addition to protesting this to the Management of Salem and the advertisers that Michael Sissom graciously posted for us, we also need to let the ministries know that we will not be able to enjoy their programming because we are not listening to the station anymore. If each ministry received thousands of emails, letters and calls, they would quickly be concerned about spending their ministry dollars on a station that had a mass exodus of listeners. Each program buys time to be on the air. This is air time that the station does not have to pay for content to produce nor do they have to try and sell advertising. It is free money to the station.

We can effect change if we unite in our boycott of KWRD, KLTY and KSKY and if we contact management, advertisers and ministries that buy air time.

Forgive the formatting, but I am running late to a meeting at church. Here is the entire email and replies that I sent to management and received back:

Mr. Peroyea,

Based on Twitter, Facebook, and blogs and comments, I realize you have probably received numerous emails about this, and I thank you for responding to mine twice now. I apologize for the length, but I am responding to issues you raised.

You are right, I am angry as are a great many former WORD listeners based on hundreds of comments. Several have also said that they too will not listen to the WORD or KLTY anymore because of this action. Our anger is justified, as a corporation has decided to remove one of the most popular shows in Christian Radio.

In my opinion, the Scott Wilder Show is the best conservative talk show in all radio. That includes Rush, Hannity, Mark Davis, and many others. Unlike some conservatives, he consistently held to Biblical positions on the show and his character and principles are unequaled. Frankly, there is no one as good as Scott Wilder in any radio market that I have had the privilege to listen to. I have never understood why Salem has not taken his show nationally in the Christian radio market.

Salem Communications apparently does not appreciate nor desire listener loyalty. If they did, Scott and Lauren would still be on the air. According to Salem's own Resource Guide (which I just looked up for my blog article on this), the Scott Wilder Show was 5th in it's time slot here in the Metroplex. That is amazing for a Christian talk show during the afternoon drive time slot in a very secular market! I find it unbelievable that this was truly a budgetary reason. Talk radio is very popular. Both with listeners and the corporations that air them. They are cheap to produce and have a very high return from advertising dollars. This makes no sense from a financial standpoint.

I and the hundreds of others that are talking this weekend, do not want to destroy any radio station. We want Scott and Lauren back on the air. It is as simple as that.The only voice we have in effecting that decision is to go to the advertisers. As a corporation, Salem will listen to it's advertisers, especially if they start pulling their ads.

You castigate me for my loyalty to Scott and Lauren and state that my actions "will do nothing to grow God's Kingdom, but actually attack it." How does removing Scott and Lauren from the airways grow God's Kingdom? It doesn't. Salem has removed a voice that was a consistent witness for Christ. Scott has raised millions for causes for the Kingdom of Christ and he no longer has the ability to bring his listeners along in support of several Kingdom ministries.

Thank you for your prayers. I too am praying for you and for Salem to right a monumental mistake. I hold no animosity towards you or Salem, but I will join with the hundreds of others, who in the last day have decided to fight this with the only weapons we have available: our pocket book and listening choice. We will be recruiting fellow listeners, our church members, and co-workers and friends to bring Scott and Lauren back.

Finally, it is very Biblical to be loyal to friends and partners in ministry. It is also a Biblical axiom that one reaps what one sows. Salem has brought this upon itself. Though I have never met either, I feel like both are a part of my family - more than any other personality on the air. Paul and Barnabas had a great argument and fight regarding John Mark and decided to to their separate ways. It is well within Salem's ability to stop the mass listener exodus by bringing Scott and Lauren back. Otherwise we will have to agree to disagree on this and a great many of your listeners and advertisers will part ways with Salem.

Respectfully yours,

Ron Phillips
Fort Worth, TX

John Peroyea wrote:
Dear Ron,

If your decision is to tune out to the other wonderful ministry programs we offer tens of thousands of listeners each day, it is your decision. If you choose to not support companies that advertise and support one of two remaining Christian Talk and Teach stations in DFW,
it is again your choice. I point out to you that not everyone that listens to our station or even other Christian stations may share your particular listening choices or preferences. You choosing to not listen to the great ministry programs on KWRD that have brought tens of
thousands of people to the Lord from your own words appear to be the result of your own personal anger, and these decisions you have expressed really do nothing to grow God's kingdom, but actually attack it.

Our company is doing what we must do under these trying economic times to further the Kingdom. If you feel that boycotting advertisers or your attempts to destroy a Christian radio station will help you, again that is your choice. I see nothing in my Bible where it says anything like that.

I will indeed pray for you Ron.
John

John L. Peroyea
Vice President of Operations
Salem Communications Corporation

94.9 KLTY, 100.7 KWRD, 660AM - 92.9 FM - 95.5 FM KSKY
Dallas/Ft.Worth Vice President - General Manager

6400 Beltline Road Suite 120
Irving, Texas 75063
Direct Phone line: 214.561.2142
Direct fax line: 214.561.2143

Listen online at: www.klty.com
www.thewordfm.com
www.ksky.com

This electronic mail message contains information which is (a) LEGALLY PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY IN NATURE, OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY LAW FROM DISCLOSURE, and (b) intended only for the use of the Addressee's) names herein. If you are not the Addressee's), or the person responsible for delivering this to the Addressee's), you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail message in error, please contact us immediately at (972) 870-9949 x152 and take the steps necessary to delete the message completely from your computer system. Thank you.

Dear Ronald,

Thank you for your comments. I am sad as well about losing Scott & Lauren, and know that they will both be fine wherever God places them next. Unfortunately we are not allowed to discuss personnel related matters outside our own company; I am sure you understand that.

Most radio companies today have been faced with financial challenges like never in the history of radio broadcasting. Some of the largest companies have laid off as many as 7,000+ employees, and with some recent announcements, more are certain to follow. One of the three Christian Talk and Teach stations right here in DFW is now going out of business, selling to a company that is going to program rock music on
it. Two separate national radio companies yesterday were taken over by their lenders. We also are doing changes that we do not like doing, but we will survive. I would appreciate you listening to Christian Talk with Janet Mefferd who is currently on afternoons on 100.7 KWRD. I believe you will find her program to be very relevant and interesting. As with any change of personality in a timeslot, there will be differences. Every air talent has their own styles. I am sensitive to your concerns,
and simply ask you to consider giving this new host a fair chance to gain your listening. The feedback on her first show yesterday was plentiful and extremely positive.

We have already cut the KWRD "infomercial" Consumer Magazine in half, and soon, it will be moved to night time. Over the last 6 months KWRD's infomertial content has reduced from 27+% to less than 6% in total. Our mission is to reduce it to zero.

Soon, we will be adding some additional, very well known and highly respected Ministry programs at various times. A few programs will move slightly, however the Christian teaching lineup will be the strongest in KWRD's history. We are committed to making 100.7 KWRD a pure, relevant Christian Talk and Teach station, and are making progress in doing so rather quickly.

If you wish to speak with me directly, my personal direct number is listed below, and I would be happy to talk with you anytime.

Blessings,

John

John L. Peroyea
Vice President of Operations
Salem Communications Corporation

94.9 KLTY, 100.7 KWRD, 660AM - 92.9 FM - 95.5 FM KSKY
Dallas/Ft.Worth
Vice President - General Manager

6400 Beltline Road Suite 120
Irving, Texas 75063
Direct Phone line: 214.561.2142
Direct fax line: 214.561.2143

Listen online at: www.klty.com
www.thewordfm.com
www.ksky.com

This electronic mail message contains information which is (a) LEGALLY PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY IN NATURE, OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY LAW FROM DISCLOSURE, and (b) intended only for the use of the Addressee's) names herein. If you are not the Addressee's), or the person responsible for delivering this to the Addressee's), you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail message in error, please contact us immediately at (972) 870-9949 x152 and take the steps necessary to
delete the message completely from your computer system.

Thank you.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ronald J. Phillips, Sr.
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 11:19 PM
To: John.Peroyea@KLTY.com; ddarling@ksky.com
Subject: Scott Wilder Show

Dear Mr. Peroyea,

I have been a WORD listener since it came on the air here in the Metroplex. I am very upset that Scott Wilder and Lauren Lintner have been fired and the Scott Wilder Show canceled. This show is the main reason that I listen to 100.7. Though I enjoy some of the other
programming (Dr. Jack Graham, Alistair Begg, Adrian Rogers and others), Scott's show was the principal basis for my listening to this station.

I and my family will no longer listen to this station, KLTY, nor KSKY in protest of this decision. Instead, for Christian music and preaching, I will listen solely to KCBI henceforth. For conservative talk, I will listen to WBAP. I will no longer support any advertisers of the WORD FM either. I plan to join with others who are preparing to begin a writing
campaign to the WORD advertisers.

When I got in my car Friday and heard Janet Mefferd, I thought Scott and Lauren were just out for the day. I was not at all impressed with her and did not even listen to a full segment before the next commercial came on. I was actually going to write the show an email next week stating that I did not like her as a fill in host.

I believe that this decision will result in a great many listeners to abandon this station and her advertisers. Twitter and Facebook are just now starting to become ablaze with irate listeners who are upset with this decision.

Sincerely,

Ron Phillips
Fort Worth, TX

NOTE: This post has been changed to try and clean up some text and html above the posted emails. No content has been changed.

Blessings,

Ron P.

The Elephant In The Room of SBC Declining Numbers

2009-07-01T14:45:00.005-05:00

There is an "elephant in the room" of the Southern Baptist Convention when the issue of declining numbers is brought up. I must admit up front that I have a lot of questions and few answers. I keep hearing about the latest programs and strategies that experts tell us will grow the Kingdom of God. I also keep hearing about the problems that plague us and are the cause of decline such as legalism. We then have those that argue we need to enlarge the Baptist tent by setting aside theological differences to only the most primary doctrines (i.e. salvation). There is no end to the criticism within the SBC. But what is not being talked about is a sad reality that I wish was not ture and pray that it is not. But the evidence is to the contrary, and we need to admit to its possibility as the real reason our number of baptisms are declining in the SBC, and why every evangelical denomination is seeing a decline in numbers.

So what is the "elephant in the room"? Could it be apostasy? Has the United States turned her back on God? We once humbly, publicly and officially proclaimed God as Sovereign and Lord and we as a nation repeatedly asked for His blessings and guidance upon our land and our leaders. But no more. As a nation, we have forsaken the Lord God. Has not our country become so secular, pluralistic, materialistic and humanistic that we are becoming more like Europe, where the hearts of the people are outright rejecting any semblance of anything to do with God? Is God turning our country over to the evil desires of her heart?

What is some of the evidence of a national apostasy of the United States of America?

Pluralism - America has rejected the One True God.
Antagonism towards God - working hard to push God completely out of the public square.
Abortion - we as a nation have murdered nearly 51 million babies since 1973.
Gross sexual immorality - America is fast becoming one of the most sexually hedonistic cultures in history.

There is a plethora of evidence that one could use, but might not our declining numbers be indicative of a nation that is apostate and thus we are reaping what we as a nation has sown? We can not ignore the possibility that the decline in numbers is due to sin, and like in the days of Noah, most will not repent. Scripture and history are both replete with examples of the faithful proclamation of the Gospel yet with limited or no conversions. Though there is nothing inherently wrong with looking at our numbers, I would say that it is more important to be faithfully about the business of God no matter what our numbers are.

Simply put, might our declining numbers be (at least in part) due to an apostate unrepentant nation? My final question is this: How do we contend with apostasy?

Again, it is by being faithful to all of the Word of God. It is in working to fulfill ALL of the Great Commission:

Going.
Making disciples of all nations.
Immersing (baptizing) those disciples in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Teaching them to observe ALL that Christ commanded.

Doing this does ot necessarily mean our numbers will not decline. It does not even mean that we will see apostasy abated in our nation. But not doing this (ALL of the Great Commission) relegates anything else we do to be for naught.

Blessings,

Ron P.

Alcohol Today - Book Review

2009-06-16T02:25:00.000-05:00

I ordered my copy of Peter Lumpkins' book Alcohol Today: Abstinence In An Age Of Indulgence almost two weeks ago. When it arrived, I started reading it right away. I had been anticipating this book for some time and I was not disappointed. I finished it quickly and without equivocation highly recommend this book. It is well worth the $14.95 I paid for it. This is a great example of stellar research by an author. I was impressed with several aspects of the book which I will share with you below. For a relatively short book, it will become a definitive modern treatise advocating the Biblical and historical position of alcoholic abstinence for the believer. With an impressive thirteen endorsements inside the cover, plus the forward by Dr. Jerry Vines, one cannot escape the intellectual clout and the logical and Biblical persuasiveness that this book has garnered.

However, I also want to do something different with this article. This is a very important issue for Christians in general and Southern Baptists in particular (more on this later). I will highlight pertinent aspects of the book for the purposes of this review. I will then advance what I believe will be the the anemic criticisms and unfortunately, some of the forthcoming calumny attacks of this book and it's author.

The Review

The book is organized in a well thought out manner in that Lumpkins has divided the book's twelve chapters into three sections. The first section concerns the obvious discussion on why this book is needed today. There has been a decided shift of attitude on intoxicating alcohol within Christendom. Lumpins notes that “Even though a century ago the church was certain imbibing was a carnal evil, it remains certain no longer.” p.19. The need for this book is clear as proponents of abstinence of intoxicating alcoholic drink are routinely dismissed with accusations of following tradition or advancing personal opinion as Biblical truth. But one can clearly see that rather than church influencing culture, culture has now influenced the church in the debate today. For history junkies like me, his chapter on Prohibition is fascinating as he closes section one. In the second section, Lumpkins moves from history to disseminating the five distinct positions, attitudes, and arguments regarding the pleasurable use of intoxicating drink. The reader will be presented with logical argument and reasoning as well as fallacies or shortcomings of any position but abstinence. This is an intellectual exercise that many fail to make when asserting opinions about any issue. The author has not failed here in using sound logic and reason when discussing these five positions on this subject. When addressing the usual chorus defending intoxicating drink, he rightly notes that "Such simplistic, inadequate, and unstudied conclusions boldly pronounced by preachers of the Book without one shred of argument pertaining to imbibing intoxicating substances for pleasurable use remains frightening for the church, not to mention culture." p. 52. Finally, the author then goes to the authoritative source in section three: Scripture. This is not the first usage of the Word that Lumpkins uses, quite the contrary. But this is where he deals exclusively with what the Bible says about the subject. He does not disappoint the reader in that he addresses the “difficult” passages and words that opponents of abstinence like to use as proof texts. His research into the etymological linguistics of various words for wine in Scripture and their contemporary sources in antiquity is impressive and will be difficult for the moderationist to answer, if not impossible. Lumpkins does his research in that he even demonstrates that the English word for wine has changed. The etymological arguments are very compelling. He rightly asserts that “Given the impressive evidence to the contrary, how we manage to possibly assume wine in Scripture necessarily and always refers to intoxicating beverages remains inexplicable. Indeed this may be the grandest hermeneutical hoax of the ages.” p.120.

I have to be upfront with you, I like footnotes. The reader will not be disappointed in the fact that the author has three appendices that total fourteen pages plus an additional six pages of a bibliography of cited works. My only disappointment is that I prefer numbered footnotes in the text to follow along with the bibliography (I know, I am a geek). However, this is not a problem per se, in that all the works cited are there for the reader to further research if one desires.

Alcohol Today: Abstinence In An Age Of Indulgence is a must read for anyone who wants to seriously examine the issue of a Biblical view regarding intoxicating alcoholic drink. You can order directly from the publisher at Hannibal Books or from Amazon as well as other online book sites.

The Coming Denunciations

As promised earlier, I now turn to the opponents of a Biblical view of abstinence. In this age of indulgence, how will this book be received? Moderationists will lament this work. Actually, I think they will try to ignore it and denigrate it and/or the author, because they will not be able to answer many of the arguments that Lumpkins raises. These attacks will especially occur within the SBC. Hence the importance of this within our own Convention. I believe that you will see a number of strategies used by opponents of Biblical abstinence to try and justify their position. Most, though not all, will involve sophistry and other types of fallacious reasoning. In fact, throughout the Baptist blog world, there have already been preemptive strikes made. My tease at the end of my last post was made precisely to highlight this point. So what are the slings and arrows that will be launched?

Argumentum ad hominem

There will be blistering personal attacks upon the author. We have seen this all too often in the blog world. Argumentum ad hominem will most likely be the favorite weapon of some (and two or three in particular). This will involve (as has been the case very recently) mis-truth and nefarious claims about one thing or another about the author. There will be other fallacies as well, but making the messenger the issue has always been an effective means to distract and move the debate away from the issues. Red Herrings, like the author's personal and familial experiences with alcohol will be exploited to “prove” his bias. It will be important in the blog discussions of this, to keep moving the target back to the issues and arguments that Lumpkins has postulated, as they are not the basis of his factual assertions and reasonings. Every personal attack will be nothing less than confirmation that they do not have an answer for his arguments.

Argumenum ad nauseam

I think that we will also see repetitious ideas put forth until it is proclaimed fact. This is the major weapon of the moderationist. They have incessantly expressed the idea that intoxicating drink is the only (or main) wine in both the Old and New Testaments for quite some time. It will continue. I do not expect the moderationists to carry out as thorough an etymological study of yayin (Hebrew) and oinos (Greek) as well as the other words in the Bible that are translated into English as wine as was done by the author. Looking to the LXX, other writings of antiquity, exegetical contexts of these words, and other scholarly works was well researched by the author. Answering these will be most difficult. They may cite modern works and cherry pick others, but in light of historical usages of these words that have been presented, I think we may mostly hear silence on this. Well, except for the loud and frequent proclamations that do not actually address the etymological evidence in a credible manner.

Anecdotal Evidence

This type of argument will be offered to counter points made by the author. But this is yet another fallacy in that just because God uses something untoward, it may not have been how He would have preferred it. Ask Sampson when we get to Heaven about that. God did deliver Israel from the Philistines by the hand of Sampson as He promised. But I can assure you it was not as God had intended Sampson to accomplish this task. Anecdotal evidence on this issue is no different. God may use an imbiber to lead a person to Christ, even while drinking. But that is not evidence of a Biblical permissiveness with regards to partaking of intoxicating drink for pleasure.

Strawman and Specious Arguments

One must expect that the forthcoming rhetoric will also include several age old Strawmen. Charges of legalism, Pharisaicalism, fundamentalism, traditionalism, cultural influence, arrogance, self righteousness, and other similar allegations will be numerous. While some of these will be part of the ad hominem attacks, some will just be stated to try and incite FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) in the abstinence position itself. You will also see “arguments” made that the belief in Biblical abstinence is an infringement upon Christian liberty and our individual ability to be led by the Holy Spirit in this matter. Being led by the Spirit is important and not a strawman . But when they fail to address the points the author brings up and use that as their “Maginot Line”, it then becomes a Strawman. These are tactically similar to the ad hominem assaults in that the point is solely to distract from the subject and topic of a technical discussion. This will of course be tied to Baptist Identity (and derisively called Baptist Identity Fundamentalism) with the implication that adherents to Biblical abstinence want to decide what Christians are to believe and how they are to live. Included in this will be guilt by association, especially if some unseemly statement or person can be lumped into the abstinence camp. For example, one Baptist blogger has already done this and in another post, noted the endorsements and proponents of this book and derisively attempted to pigeonhole them into a group he frequently bashes. But these are strawmen set up solely for the purpose of not engaging in the carefully reasoned arguments that have been brought before us by the author. Such specious arguments clearly demonstrates a lack of intellectual acumen and integrity.

Presumption and Haughtiness

There will be some people whose mind is made up and will not seriously nor prayerfully examine the evidence at all. They may even actually read the book, but they want to drink and they are going to. For them, the matter is settled because the Bible does not explicitly state “Thou shall not drink” as the 11th Commandment. I am concerned for such people, as it demonstrates a shallow understanding of Scripture and the life of holiness expected of the Spirit indwelled believer. In several discussions that I have had with opponents and proponents of abstinence, my experience has been that arrogance and presumption is actually more prevalent in the moderationist camp. I do not want to over generalize, but my experience has been that a a great number of moderationists tend to get very angry when discussing this issue. Why? Another person I spoke with stated that he could refute everything in the book. This is without having been aware of its existence (and obviously it's content) prior to our discussion. Dogmatic statements that condemn an abstinence view are nothing more than presumptuous assertions of "I am right you are wrong". Is this not doing the very same thing that they accuse those of us who do not agree with them? Actually, it would be akin to post modernism, in that the moderationists assert "what's wrong for you is not necessarily wrong for me".

I would encourage the moderationist reading this to carefully consider the compelling evidence that Peter Lumpkins has proffered. Are you truly seeking to glorify God or are you seeking after your personal liberty and right to indulge for personal pleasure? If you want to continue holding to a moderationist position, at least do it without casting aspersions or using fallacious and specious arguments that are attempts to poison the well of this debate. But most importantly, form an intellectually honest opinion based on the evidence of Scripture asking the Holy Spirit to reveal the Word of God. If you try to see this issue through the lens of modernity and not seek to understand the Biblical record and the linguistic and etymological evidence of antiquity, you may be guilty of deceiving yourself. Worse, you may end up deceiving others.

Blessings,

Ron P.

Assorted: GCR, BI and Captain Ahab

2009-06-10T01:30:00.001-05:00

I realize that when I started this blog I stated that I would probably not blog often. But I sincerely expected to blog much more than I have. I feel that I have missed out on some of the important issues within SBC blogtown the last couple of months. However, life's been busy as a lot has been happening, especially related to our effort to adopt a sweet young boy that we have had in our home for the past 15 months. It has been a struggle with the length of time and expense of the legal side of it. To be precise, it has been a test of patience. God is good, and things are progressing, but at a much slower pace than what we had anticipated. We fully expected to have completed the adoption process quite some time ago. I can not share details at this time, but ask for prayer for all involved, especially for this little guy who had such a rough start in life and may have a difficult journey ahead because of it.

As stated above, I feel like I have missed much in SBC life. I have tried to regularly browse the blogs that I normally read, but I have had little time to comment. In some instances, I deeply regret not joining in the fray. So pardon me as I take a shotgun approach (or as the great sports columnist Blackie Sherrod of the Dallas Times Herald and later the Dallas Morning News would say), “scattershooting” a wide range of topics that I tried to follow to some degree, but was unable to find the time to participate. However, I will limit the number to just a few.

First: The GCR. I have yet to fully read the document. In part, I wanted to wait and see the final draft since I have not be able to engage in discussions about the changes being made to it. I have read Bart's blog on his reservations (here) and must admit that he gives me pause to want to know more. Today, I finally got to read the editorial in the Southern Baptist Texan (here). I like what I saw there. Since, I am woefully uninformed on this document, I will leave it at that for the moment. But I wholeheartedly agree that we need a GCR. We need to obey the entirety of Christ's command to go and make disciples and immerse those disciples teaching them to observe all things Christ commanded. I hope that we see a renewed commitment to ALL of the Great Commission of Christ.

I deeply regret not joining in two particular conversations. The first was Dr. Bart Barber's report of what IMB personnel openly reported to Trustee's about Lottie Moon funds being held in escrow (see here and here for more details). The second is related, in that Peter Lumpkins was attacked for what he wrote about it (see all here, here, and here). More on that later. At the outset, I want to apologize to both men for not coming to their public defense. Not that either ever need me to defend them, as both are imminently more astute and scholarly than I will ever be. But since I believe both were inappropriately attacked by some drive by comments, I should not have left them there without taking a stand with them. I believe the lengthy record of integrity in the blogging of both men stand above any who were casting aspersions and acerbic attacks. One of the problems that Bart especially faced, was being unplugged where he had no access to the outside world to come back to explain his post and make a needed correction. His intentions, integrity, honesty and everything else in his character were called into question, especially by those seeking to get a “leg up” on the issues within the SBC. I must point out that several who have disagreed with Bart in the past, did give him the benefit of the doubt, but some were especially cruel beyond any respect. As is usually the case from some of these types of unprincipled diatribes, they attack the character of the person with whom they disagree, because that is the only way they can win an argument.

Now let us turn our attention to the personal attacks that Wade Burleson has repeatedly launched against Peter Lumpkins. It is interesting to say the least. Despite Wade's incessant protestations, he does not stand by everything he writes. And yes Virginia, Wade has on multiple occasions changed his posts (thus altering facts and/or important facets of his post) without notifying readers of said changes, as has been observed by many others elsewhere. Thus one can safely conclude he does not really stand by what he writes. For example a recent post tried to marry comments by Wiley Drake to Peter and thus to Baptist Identity. This is his modis operandi: attach something unseemly to those he opposes so as to discredit them. The last time I checked my BI membership Rules, Creeds, and Doctrines, “imprecatory prayers” were not on our list of doctrines that we must adhere to. Yet, Wade had a link in his original post to Peter's blog in an attempt to bind the two (and thus join BI) to these comments in some sort of “unholy matrimony”. I noticed that some called Wade out for his lack of integrity for doing so. Since the original post was published he has removed the link to Peter's blog. But if you did not read it when it was first published, you would be unaware of the clear personal attack on Peter, which at the time of this writing, no public apology has been proffered. Prior to this as linked to in the paragraph above, Wade published untruths on Baptist Life that Peter clearly refuted. I will not rehash the episode, you can read the links above on Peter's site.

Before anyone accuses me of what I accuse Burleson of: personal vitriolic ad hominem attacks, let me state clearly that I hold no personal animosity towards him. I loathe having to point out these things. But, it is necessary to not concede these attacks. It must be pointed out that his issues are not really issues, but misdirection and character assassination in the hope to destroy confidence or support of those with whom he disagrees. It is an effective tactic (ask Barry Goldwater about Lyndon Johnson's 1964 Daisy Girl Ad). I truly wish Wade would actually engage in the great issues of our Convention without always having to build his arguments first upon the ash heap of personal denigration. However, it is he that has his arms buried up to his shoulder blades in mud that he continually slings at anyone with whom he disagrees. Calling him out for his repeated character assassinations is not a personal attack. It is merely stating clearly observable behavior. It is he that has called the movement which he leads irenic but it has been anything but. As I have also stated elsewhere, the blog world is "littered with the bodies" of those who have been on the receiving end of his movement's acerbic ad hominem attacks. It is he that has been caught repeatedly embellishing facts or apparently withholding pertinent information to enhance his attempt to get his readers to reach a conclusion that he wishes to bring them to. For example, witnesses to “facts” he claims in his book, do not recall events happening as he stated them. These are witnesses that he cites to corroborate his tale that were at these events and witnesses named as participants whom he attacked. It is illuminating that their combined recollections are a striking contrast to that of Burleson's who clearly writes with what seems intentional obfuscation. One must logically assume that A) he remembered these events incorrectly; B) embellished said events; or C) was completely untruthful about said events. I will leave you to draw your own conclusion as to which, though none are flattering to Burleson or his credibility.

For me personally, much of Burleson's writings remind me of an episode of M*A*S*H (“The Novocaine Mutiny”) where Major Frank Burns has filed charges against Hawkeye for mutiny. During Burns' testimony, his recollection of the events that led up to the breakdown of command were, shall we say, a greatly embellished fantasy. Hawkeye is then asked to take the stand and testify. Hawkeye states: “The Major’s version of what happened was to say the least fascinating. It was to say the most perjury! No, to be fair I have no doubt that he remembers it that way. More’s the pity. And there was some truth to the story. It was October 11 and we were in Korea. Other than that…”. (emphasis mine). Hawkeye's statement sums up the conclusion that Burleson has led me to draw about himself. More's the pity!

I think that I may be guilty of being the first to label the personal attacks of Cole/Burleson as a remarkable resemblance to Captain Ahab's hunt for Moby Dick. It is the most compelling illustration that one could ascribe to this movement. However, it seems to me that Peter has now become the white whale that Burleson is chasing 'round the world. Why? Think on that for just a few minutes. Take your time. Actually, sit back, relax and take a nice long sip of a non-intoxicating drink and ask yourself this question: Why is Wade so juiced about Peter Lumpkins?

Blessings,

Ron P.

Jesus Christ: Our Propitiation

2009-04-10T23:00:00.007-05:00

Good Friday is over. At the time of this writing, it is 7:00 AM in Jerusalem, which would have been 13 hours after the end of Good Friday nearly 2000 years ago. If we were there at that time, Christ would already be buried in the borrowed tomb for the second day.

These days leading up to Easter are very sobering for us as believers. It is unfathomable to me that the Lord of Glory would descend to this earth; and take on the form of man to become the God-Man in order to become our propitiation to a Righteous, Just, and Holy God. He satisfied the Wrath of God as our penal substitute. The love that He has shown us is truly amazing! Whenever I partake of the Lord's Supper or when I remember the events of this week, it always brings to mind the horrible price that Christ paid to redeem me from my sin. As much as Christ suffered physically, and it was exceedingly great suffering, to willingly accept the Wrath of His Father as it was poured out upon Him, is what I can not fully comprehend.

Christ was tortured and beaten because of our sin. He suffered the Wrath of God because of our sin. He willingly laid His life down and shed His precious blood to atone for our sin. He who knew no sin, became our sin offering. Easter is a great and wonderful day that I look forward to every year. To celebrate Christ's victory over death and the victory He won over the penalty of our sin can not be over emphasized. But these days just before it are an important time for Christians to remember how horrible our sin is before a Holy God. It is a time to reflect on the fact that it was our sin that required the Perfect and Holy sacrificial Lamb of God to die so that our sin could be forgiven. We are free from the bondage of our sin and we need to live in His righteousness because we who have died to sin, should no longer walk in it.

Celebrate Easter and Christ's resurrection! But remember! Remember why Christ suffered so much:

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16

In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. I John 4:10

Purpose Driven Advice

2009-04-10T01:00:00.005-05:00

I wish I could say that I was surprised that Rick Warren, Pastor of Saddleback Community Church, has apologized to his homosexual friends for comments he made in October to his church in support of Proposition 8 in California. What actually surprised me was his backing of Prop 8 (although belatedly) at all. There are several excellent reads on his inconsistent statements: here, here, here, and here. Both believers and unbelievers have already called him out on his duplicity.

Therefore, I do not need to point out Warren's parsing of words and phrases in his attempt to walk a tightrope between Scripture and his homosexual friends. Instead, I would like to call your attention to some Purpose Driven Advice. It was given to me several years ago (and several times since). It originally was advice that was first given to a young pastor by his mentor and I think it quite appropriate for today. I wish all pastors would heed this advice.

There was a young pastor who was having a difficult time in his ministry. His mentor, who knew that he did not have much longer to live, wrote his son in the ministry. I am of course speaking of Paul in his writing to Timothy in the second epistle to Timothy. He especially gives Timothy counsel on the culture of his day (and ours) and his responsibility as a Pastor in the third and fourth chapters:

1 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! 6 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, 7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; 9 but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was.

10 But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, 11 persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra—what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

1 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

6 For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure is at hand. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8 Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have loved His appearing. II Timothy 3:1 - 4:8 NKJV (emphasis mine).

Paul's words to Timothy are pretty plain. He firsts outlines the perilous times. He then stakes out claims about the culture being in great sin. But Paul reminds Timothy that he knows the Word and the Truth. He then gives an emphatic command to this young pastor: Preach the Word! To be counter-cultural and stand against sin and the false teachings of this world. He explicitly commanded Timothy to convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. Paul clearly commands him to be anything but compromising. Truth matters. You can not speak love apart from the truth - for that is not love. However, we should not speak truth apart from love and longsuffering. But we can not tickle the ears of hearers. We must follow the advice and instruction of the Apostle Paul here, so that we too may receive the crown of righteousness. This is where I think Rick Warren has failed. He is not Preaching the Word as Paul commands here.

This is yet another example on why compromising the Word of God is dangerous and leads down a slippery slope. Where do the compromises end? They don't! Once you start, it beomes exceedingly difficult to stop. Warren is attempting to walk a tightrope between Scripture and culture that can not be walked. They are diametrically opposed. Compromise eventually leads to error and false teaching. Jesus said in Matthew 5:13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men." We must not lose our flavor! We must stand firm and be faithful and care what God's Word says, and not what our culture wants to hear.

Preach the Word!

Gotcha Day 2009

2009-03-04T16:40:00.002-06:00

Stealing from Bart Barber... Today is "Gotcha Day" for Josh. We too celebrate his birthday and the day that we got him. One year ago today, we picked Josh up for placement in our home for emergency foster care. Of course we fell in love with him, and he has become a big part of our family.

We are going to celebrate "Gotcha Day" with our church family and his friends in his class tonight. We are so grateful to God for brining him into our family. Please pray as we seek to make it permanent and adopt him into our family. We have a way to go in the legal realm to get there.

Believers Baptism: Dying for Naught

2009-02-03T00:30:00.004-06:00

...The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain... Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, November 19, 1863. (emphasis mine).

Just as we should remember the sacrifice of the soldiers who have bled and died to give us our freedom, we as Southern Baptists need to remember those who went before us and gave their lives for Our Lord and for their faithfulness to the Scriptures. I believe that there are those within our Convention that have in all practicality, relegated our forerunners to have died in vain.

Last month was the 482nd anniversary of the death of Felix Manz, one of the first Anabaptist Martyrs. It was on a cold January 5th, 1527, that Manz's hands were bound to his knees, with the stick thrust between arms and legs and then thrown into the icy waters of the Limmat River in Zurich. Manz's death, as well as other Anabaptist martyrs, are in essence being rendered as needless and for naught, by our ecumenical loving and/or Presbyterian leaning brethren within the Southern Baptist Convention. I do not believe that these two groups have the same goals and agenda. But some in both camps seem to share a limited acceptance of paedobaptism, though stating that they personally hold to believers baptism.

I think the martyr's deaths are diminished by those willing to affirm that which the martyrs denied: paedobaptism. Let me put it another way: Would today's Baptist be willing to suffer horrendous torture and die a martyrs death to faithfully uphold believers baptism and it alone? I think most would not. Would today's Baptist be willing to accept some into their church as a member, who sincerely believed their infant baptism to be biblically justified? Would they invite them to share in the Lord's table? It is happening within our Convention today, though historically and categorically rejected by Baptists as un-biblical. There are some who seem so willing to abandon one of the primary reasons such a great price was paid by our Anabaptist forerunners: Faithfulness to The Great Commission and Obedience to the Command of Christ to only baptize disciples (i.e. believers baptism). If they can so easily lay aside the importance of obeying Christ's command, then by their actions they are declaring these deaths to have been hollow and pointless. Either Manz (and all who gave their lives for this essential doctrine) were right, and died for the truth of Scripture or they should have capitulated. The ecumenical Baptists of today (which is an oxymoron) can not proclaim that Manz and others died for Christ in a just cause and yet accept false “baptisms” for which the martyrs rejected and willingly died for.

This ecumenical Baptist movement is troubling and most of all surprising. The “presbyterian” movement is not as surprising, as we do share much in common theologically. Believers only baptism is not one of them, and thus a point of division. I hold them as dear brothers and sisters in Christ, but who are in serious theological error and agree with the need to divide in order for us to be faithful to Scripture. Our history as part of a greater Baptist community has stood against theological appeasement since the earliest days of the Reformation as well as by our English Baptist forefathers. In recent years the Conservative Resurgence turned back a movement that was leading us to theological liberalism. Yet, here we are again, having to defend within our own Convention, Baptist Distinctives that Scripture clearly teaches. Believers Baptism is not the only cherished doctrine that is currently under attack from within our own ranks. It is not even the most prominent attack. It is however the most illogical one, because WE ARE BAPTISTS. Our very name identifies us as being a people like Manz and others, who believe that the only valid biblical baptism is believers baptism!

At this point, I must make clear that I do understand the difference between the Anabaptists (whom I call our forerunners) and our English Baptist forefathers. I agree with Dr. Malcolm Yarnell in “The Heart of a Baptist” when he states: Of the four Reformation era traditions just mentioned, Baptists come closest to the Anabaptists, for we are their theological heirs, even if we may or may not claim to be their direct historical heirs. I am a Christ-follower first, and unashamedly a Baptist by conviction. I agree with those who have gone before us, both Baptist and Anabaptist, who were convinced that Believers Baptism is a doctrine not only worth fighting for, it is worth dividing over, and yes, worth dying for. There is something about their conviction to the fundamental truth of Scripture that appeals to me.

Several men and women were martyred for their faith in Christ during the 16th Century, many for following Christ's command regarding baptism. Our non-protestant radical reformation forerunners died for a just cause: Fulfilling The Great Commission of Christ and obeying all that He commanded. Any “baptism” that is not immersion of a believer has failed to obey Christ and has failed to obey The Great Commission.

I wish I could ask Manz and Sattler and others what they think of Baptists who have in all practicality declared their deaths meaningless and pointless. I do not believe that these men and women died for naught. But it will be for naught for Southern Baptists if we do not turn back those that seek to take us away from obeying Christ. It will be for naught if we do not follow their example of faithfully holding to the Scriptures no matter the cost.

Below are some short accounts of a few of those that paid the ultimate price for a doctrine that Baptists have always held near and dear. Remember what they did for Christ and for those of us that came after them.

Huldrych Zwingli's successor Heinrich Bullinger wrote of Felix Manz:

As he came down from the Wellenberg to the fish market, and was led through the shambles to the boat, he praised God that he was about to die for His truth. For Anabaptism was right, and founded on the Word of God, and Christ had foretold that His followers would suffer for the truth’s sake. And the like discourse he urged much, contradicting the preacher who attended him. On the way his mother and brother came to him, and exhorted him to be stedfast; and he persevered in his folly, even to the end. When he was bound upon the hurdle, and was about to be thrown into the stream by the executioner, he sang with a loud voice: ‘In manus Tuas, Domine, commendo spiritum meum.’ (‘Into Thy hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit.’) And herewith was he drawn into the water by the executioner, and drowned.

From Wikipedia

Please read what Martyrs Mirror has to say about a few of those who were martyred for believers baptism:

George Blaurock: On the day Manz was martyred, Blaurock was severely beaten and permanently expelled from Zürich. He kept moving, laboring at Bern, Biel, the Grisons, and Appenzell. After his arrest and 4th banishment in April of 1527, Blaurock left Switzerland never to return. From here he turned to the Tyrol. In 1529 he became the pastor of the church in Adige Valley, after their former pastor, Michael Kürschner, was burned at the stake. Blaurock conducted a very successful ministry in Tyrol. Many believers were baptized and churches founded. In August he and Hans Langegger were arrested by Innsbruck authorities. While in captivity they were tortured for information. On September 6, 1529, Blaurock and Langegger were burned at the stake near Klausen.

Dirk Willems: Dirk was imprisoned in Netherlands; escaped through window by rope. Prison guard chased Dirk across frozen river. Dirk crosses safely; guard fell through ice. Dirk rescued guard, who captured him. Dirk was burned at stake. Remembered as compassionate Christian who risked recapture to save pursuer.

Hans Bret: Anabaptist baker in Netherlands; imprisoned & tortured for teaching Anabaptist faith. His letters to his mother detail torture. Before being burned at stake, tongue screw was used to silence him. Pastor retrieved screw; married Hans’ mother: screw became family heirloom.

Michael Sattler: Arrested; charged with violations of Catholic doctrine & practice. Asked for debate; prosecutor replied: “You rascal of a monk, should we dispute with you? The hangman shall dispute with you” 20 May 1527, martyred. Tongue cut out; Chained to wagon; Flesh torn with hot tongs; Bound to ladder; bag of gunpowder around his neck; pushed into fire; Prayed for persecutors. Wife Margaretha was drowned 8 days later.

Balthasar Hubmaier: 10 March 1528, in Vienna, burned at stake with sulphur & gunpowder rubbed into his beard. “O dear brothers, pray God that he will give me patience in this my suffering. I will die in the Christian faith.” Wife Elizabeth drowned in Danube 3 days later.

In the booklet Who Were the Anabaptists, we see that not only were these faithful believers tortured and killed by Roman Catholics, but by “evangelical” Protestants as well.

One of the very few things on which most Protestants and Catholics agreed at this time was the persecution of Anabaptists! As a rule, Catholics burned them, but Protestants drowned or beheaded them.

The Anabaptists criticised Luther, Zwingli and the other Reformers for being ‘halfway men’, afraid to follow through what they knew from Scripture to be right. They were convinced that the Bible was authoritative for ethics and the shape of the church as well as for doctrine, which many Reformers seemed unwilling to admit.

The Anabaptist movement was drowned in blood in many parts of Europe, but their courageous martrydoms attracted many people to their teachings – so much so that the authorities sometimes resorted to tongue-screws to silence Anabaptist on route to their execution. ...15-year old Adriaen searches through the ashes to find the tongue-screw used on his mother, Maeyken Wens. Hubmaier spoke for all Anabaptists when he said: “Truth is immortal. You may burn a man to death for heresy, but if he believes the truth, you have not destroyed it.”

I invite you to read more on Michael Sattler:

Michael Sattler was captured by the Roman Catholic authorities in Horb, tried on May 17, 1527 at Rottenburg, and was martyred on May 21, 1527. "On the morning of that day this noble man of God, in sight of horrible torture, prayed for his judges and persecutors and admonished the people to repentance. He endured the inhuman torture stipulated in the sentence. Then his mangled body was tied to a ladder. He prayed again for his persecutors while the ladder was placed upon the stake. He had promised his friends to give them a sign from the burning stake, to show that he remained steadfast to the end, enduring it all willingly for Christ. The fire having severed the cords wherewith he was bound, he lifted up his hand for a sign to them. Soon it was noticed that his spirit had taken its flight to be with Him whom he had steadfastly confessed under the most excruciating torture, a true hero of the faith.

Mennonites In Europe, John Horsch, Rod and Staff Publishers, Inc., 1942, 1995, pp.70-78.

...Michael Sattler, [an Anabaptist]...was 'committed to the executioner...[and taken] to the square and they first cut out his tongue, and then forged him fast to a wagon and there with glowing iron tongues twice tear pieces from his body, then on the way to the site of execution five times more as above and then burn his body to powder as an arch-heretic' [?]...Sattler, who had given a true and skillful testimony at the trial, was thus handled. Even after the pieces were torn from his body and a part of his tongue cut out, Sattler still prayed for his persecutors and admonished the officials to repent and be converted. As he was dying, Sattler raised the two fore-fingers of his hands giving the signal to the brethren, as he had arranged, that a martyr's death was bearable. From his seared lips, the crowd heard him say, 'Father, I commend my spirit into Thy hands.' Then he fell asleep.

The Noble Army of "Heretics", Bill Jackson, Colonial Baptist Press and on the web, pp. 27-28.

Then there was George Wagner:

When he was delivered over to the executioner and led into the middle of the city, this excellent man said, “This day will I confess my God to the glory of Christ Jesus, that such happiness is afforded me in the sight of all the world.” His face was not pale nor were his eyes distorted. With a smile playing on his lips he went to the fire, where the executioner bound him to the ladder and hung a bag of gunpowder around his neck. And when he had taken leave of a Christian brother, he was thrust into the fire, and calmly yielded up his spirit to Christ, February 8, 1527.

J. Newton Brown's book, Memorials of Baptist Martyrs

Dr. Bob Pearle Interview

2009-01-19T21:46:00.003-06:00

The blog for Hannibal Books has posted an interview of Bob Pearle discussing his recent book The Vanishing Church: Searching For Significance in the 21st Century and declining church membership. It originally aired two days ago on KCBI 90.9, flagship radio station of Criswell Collge. You can listen to the interview by going here. The interview also aired on Family Net Radio.

The interview is just under four minutes. I invite you to listen to Dr. Pearle as he discusses this important issue for Southern Baptists in the 21st Century.

The Vanishing Church: Book Review

2009-01-05T23:56:00.005-06:00

Today I finished reading Dr. Bob Pearle's book The Vanishing Church: Searching For Significance in the 21st Century (Hannibal Books, 2009, 143 pages, ISBN: 978-1934749395, $14.95 paperback). Pearle has served as the pastor of Birchman Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas for the last eleven years. He is also President of the Southern Baptist of Texas Convention. I have had the privilege and honor of having Brother Bob as my pastor for nearly six years.

In his book, Dr. Pearle argues for a reclamation of a biblical church by using Scripture as the foundation of his argument that is buttressed with pertinent examples (good and bad) from church history to the present day. He does so to show that churches that have lost their doctrinal core are struggling with an identity crisis. p. 7. He describes how This book began with a sermon series I preached to the congregation of which I pastor... p. 8. Having heard the sermon series and having now read the book, I am pleased to enthusiastically recommend this book to pastors, theologians, church leaders and layman alike. Every committed follower of Christ that seeks to be part of a biblically based church should read this book.

I found the book to be a straightforward, readable apologetic which a layman can easily understand and grasp. It will also hold the interest of any biblically concerned theologian. I believe that you will agree that Pearle says more with less words than most who endeavor to embark on such a work. The author clearly states that the book is not a formal thesis and not "... an academic treatment on the subject..." p. 8. However, one cannot escape the thorough research of Scripture as he does not shy away from the exposition of texts and words of the koine New Testament Greek and even the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament). In this short volume, the reader will find an extraordinary two hundred and seventy-five endnotes of references and Scriptures. He does this in a manner in which a layman unfamiliar with biblical languages would not be overwhelmed or feel that the subject matter is over his head. For example, when defining the word church, Pearle explains the origin of the word in Greek (ekklesia) as well as it's use within Scripture. In fact the entirety of Chapter Four: The Church of the Living God is exemplary of how an expositor of the Word of God can and should use Scripture. Specifically he aptly utilizes the original language in order to allow the text to define itself and make salient points. He then ably uses history and present day illustrations to supplement the text of Scripture.

The book is distinctively divided into three sections that encourage the church to take an honest hard look inward, backward and forward. Throughout the book Dr. Pearle appeals to Scripture as the basis of his assertions. He is an intrepid author contending that many of today's churches are in danger.

Once again the Apostle Paul sounded the alarm. This time the alarm was not sounded to the outside culture but to the church in Colossi. He warned them of certain errors in teaching that threatened the faith of the believers in the church. In Paul's day this error was known as the "Colossian heresy". Today the same kind of error disguises itself in differing ways in the contemporary church. What happens today is just as dangerous and harmful. p. 19.

We see parallels today. In contemporary society and the emergent-church culture truth is viewed as fuzzy, uncertain, vague, and even unknowable. Emergent-church leaders are uncomfortable about declaring any hint of certainty about what the Bible means. p. 33.

Dr. Pearle addresses the issue of regenerate church membership throughout most of section two. Chapter 5 discusses Church Membership; Chapter 6, Christian Baptism; and Chapter 7, The Purpose of the Church. He succinctly and emphatically advocates that a New Testament Biblical Church is one that is only composed of believers that are biblically Baptized (immersed), who follow the command of the Lord to make disciples.

For this Baptist, I am delighted that my pastor deals with an issue most dear to me: ecumenism within our Southern Baptist Convention and the need to recover our Baptist distinctives. After quoting J.M. Frost, founder of the Baptist Sunday School Board, Pearle elaborates:

The need Frost saw last century was to advance Baptist distinctives and denominational identity. This is the same need today. The trend toward ecumenism is diminishing doctrinal differences. Baptists need to get more serious about their doctrinal distinctives and quit trying to be an ecclesial supermarket serving the whims of religious consumers. p.113

Pearle rightly points out that The antidote for Baptists to not travel the same path of Evangelicalism is to remain true to their doctrinal distinctives. Celebrate them and adhere to them, or the same fate of Evangelicalism will be ours. p. 115. He further gives insight to the failure of modern preaching that is void of biblical truth and thus ineffective.

In the modern church this kind of preaching is in short supply. Repentance from sin is seldom declared from church pulpits, if they have one. The therapist's couch has replaced the pulpit in some churches. Felt-needs such as obtaining happiness, overcoming loneliness, dealing with depression, and gaining material wealth are typical of the messages of the day. Felt-needs have trumped biblical doctrine in the preaching ministry. In this therapeutic culture, sin is treated as a disease and not as wickedness and rebellion against God. p. 117.

We are currently living in an age where we are witnessing a movement by Baptist theologians and pastors who want to forget the many sacrifices of our Baptist forefathers and relegate them to a martyrdom that was for naught. They desire to abandon biblical fidelity by widening the definition of what it means to be Baptist. Dr. Pearle argues that churches today are choosing pragmatism over truth. The majority of Christians in the pew (and many unaware pastors) would be shocked to learn that we Baptists are having to defend biblical baptism within our own convention! Pearle articulates a sound biblical vindication of our historic Baptist principles and the need to adhere to biblical doctrine and truth in all matters. Today many preachers and churches are seeking to be culturally relevant rather than biblically sound. This is what is most refreshing about this book; it is a call back to the Scriptures and a reminder that our forefathers died at the hands of other denominations because they would not compromise the Word of God. Dr. Pearle's book is a clarion call for the church to be faithful and vigilant to obey the commands of Christ rather than the latest culturally driven trendy church growth fad.

23 Wonderful Years

2009-01-03T16:37:00.002-06:00

Twenty-three years ago, Tammie and I were married. It has been an amazing journey for us. I can not even fathom the thought of not having her to share my life with. We have had ups and downs, trials and triumphs, and sorrow and joy. Next to Jesus, she is the greatest treasure of my life.

Looking back on the past 23 years, I think about a woman who: puts up with me; is a caring and loving wife; a wonderful Mom to our children; a woman who has been my best friend for almost 26 years.

I think back to the time a mutual friend (who we just found for the first time since High School) tried to set us up. She said that we would be perfect for each other. I was a preacher boy and Tammie was a very gifted singer. Neither of us would believe her. Tammie worked with her, and everyday at school, Hope would keep trying to get me to call her. I finally caved, but I did not trust that this was a good idea. We talked for maybe five minutes or so on the phone. Neither of us liked the other. I thought she was kind of stuck up (but later I found out that she had the same misgivings that I did). She thought I was a nerd. When talking to Hope today on the phone, I reminded her of that. Hope told me that I was a nerd in High School. Tammie tells everyone that I was born old. I had been preaching at one of our nursing homes for about three years (since I was 16). Maybe that is why I loved it: I was born old.

After I graduated from High School, I was unable to afford to go to college. I really wanted to go to Criswell College, and knew that is where God was leading me, but not at this time. It was in December of that year, that I was approached about working in one of our local Funeral Homes. I was hired and did everything from cleaning the facilities, yard work, driving families to and from the funeral and eventually became a Licensed Embalmer and Funeral Director's Apprentice. I started attending our local college (Cameron University) part time in the Spring semester of 1984. I liked college, but I loved the BSU. I was part of our revival team and had many opportunities to preach there, as well in Churches within our Association, and regularly in my home church. I was usually preaching three out of four Sundays. That fall, at the BSU, is where I met Tammie. Actually, she met me. I did not know who she was until a month or so later. I was preaching at one of our weekday noon praise and worship services. Tammie says she knew then that she was going to marry me. But she did not pursue me. She prayed. I met her, when we were making flowers for the BSU's homecoming float. Our BSU director earlier that week asked me if I knew Tammie, and if I did not, that I should. I got the hint. Over the next 16 months, she put up with my unpredictable work schedule (as well as me). I was quickly falling in love. When I would preach, I would take Tammie with me, often times (no every time) have her sing. She quickly learned to be ready and took music with her. I was, and still am, amazed at the beautiful voice she has.

It was on a BSU retreat to Falls Creek, that I proposed to her at Devil's Bathtub. You have to be an Oklahoma Baptist to know how beautiful it is there. We were married less than a year later. That summer, I served as a Summer Missionary with the Home Mission Board (through the BSU). I went to Glorietta, NM after the summer with the BSU and came back to get ready to get married in a few months. We were walking in the mall one day, when our mutual friend, happened to be back in town. She came up to us screaming (for the entire mall to hear). She kept saying that she knew we were perfect for each other. She was right.

As I look back to the time leading up to our marriage, and the 23 years since, I can not help but thank God, that He has blessed me so richly! I know that it was His will that prevented me from attending Criswell College, until He brought us together. Otherwise, we would not have met. I have a wife who has selflessly sacrificed for me and our children. To me, she is a mix of characters that God has uniquely made into my wife. Strong, yet gentle. Soft hearted, but not a pushover. Compassionate towards others, above herself. She has more love than I can even begin to imagine. I always kid her that she would take in any stray, two legged or four legged (we have had many of both in our home over the years). We currently are trying to adopt a little boy that God has brought into our lives. I would never have been one to do so, if I had not had a wife who was so open to what God has planned for us. She is a woman who would rather spend time together shopping for groceries, than go to the finest restaurant or other entertainment. She epitomizes selflessness. I truly have never met anyone like her. I will never forget when we could not get a babysitter for the boys for an anniversary one year, she decided we would all go to Chuck E. Cheese and celebrate our anniversary. We had a great time!

Over the years, we have known the great joys of having children and watching them grow into young men. We have also walked through the dark valley of a miscarriage and of losing a daughter during childbirth. Yet, God has been gracious, loving and kind! He has sustained us, and I can say with all sincerity that I would not trade my life with Tammie for anything in this world. Without her, I would be incomplete and empty.

Because of her, I can say, I am a man most blessed by God!

Who is Ron P.?

2008-12-20T14:45:00.007-06:00

Ron P. is none other than me, Ron Phillips, Sr. After nearly two years of following SBC blogs, I have decided that the time is right to make myself known. Before I go any further, I want to explain why I reluctantly chose to remain somewhat anonymous. It was a deliberate and intentional decision on my part. It was only somewhat anonymous, because several people involved in SBC blogtown have been aware of who I am and why I was posting as Ron P.

I originally started out as Ron P. just for normal internet safety consideration. Though I was well acquainted with Information Technology (IT) blogs which I have frequented for several years, I was completely unfamiliar with SBC blogs. It soon became apparent to me that anyone who disagreed with some bloggers, that personal attacks soon followed. This was so eerily similar to the flame wars on a few IT sites (pre-blog era). It surprised me that Christians, and especially Pastors engaged in such. However, the reason for not fully identifying myself to blogtown was simply that I wanted to avoid other people from wrongly being associated with my personal views and comments. One of the great tragedies of the SBC blogs, especially those who claimed to be irenic, has been the acerbic ad hominem attacks. But these attacks have not just been directed at those with whom they disagree, but also with anyone who is associated with the person. This was especially true at SBC Outpost and Baptist Blogger and for the most part, the same person. The arrows that might have been directed towards me were of no real concern. I was however concerned for others. The posts are no longer available, so I can not link to them, but on more than one occasion, there were demands to know what church I went to and who my pastor was. The requests had nothing to do with the comments that I made, except that they did not like the comments, but I believe were solely to intimidate. Based on conversations that I have had with others who have commented on blogs, this was not an infrequent occurrence. More than one has stated how their emails and/or phone would be inundated after they made comments or posts critical of the dissident bloggers beliefs or practices. One such person was out of the country, even stating so on a comment thread on one of the blogs. Yet, this person's cell phone kept ringing off the hook and was left multiple voice mails to call about the issue of the day. I was even made aware of calls being made to friends of bloggers to pester them about something someone else had written.

I had several discussions with multiple people in and out of the blog world about how best to avoid such entrapments while I was working on my first blog article in August of 2007. I really did not mind attributing my name to my comments or posts, but I did not want anyone to be belligerent towards my pastor, church, or friends. I had seen enough of that to be reticent. My comments would be mine and mine alone. I originally was going to sign my name to the article Wes Kenney allowed me to write as a guest on his blog on The Irenic Reformation of the SBC, but several concerned friends strongly recommended that I not do so. What I found encouraging, is that our concerns were for each other. My friends and my pastor was concerned about me, not themselves. My concern was for them and not myself. After much internal struggle, prayer, and discussion with said friends, I chose to publish as Ron P. since that was moniker that I originally went by.

So why reveal myself now? Since the cessation of SBC Outpost and Baptist Blogger, except for one or two conspicuous bloggers, the most caustic attacks have actually been less than they were. The personal attacks are ineffective and counter productive to their movement, as it even drove many of their own away. In fact, it has probably engendered more support for those whom they did attack (except within the CBF fan club that continues to egg on such venom).

I wish I could say that the attacks have stopped altogether, but they have not. In fact, the division within the SBC over the various views of Calvinism (or critique thereof) may actually surpass the intensity of the previous debates over the last few years. I sincerely hope not. This is most certainly not an issue worthy of dividing or fighting over. But even with the tempestuous debate about the SBC itself still raging in some ares, I want to continue in the online discussions that I have been a part of these past two years. To do so, I believe, requires me to do this now, though I do not regret my earlier decision to remain anonymous.

In Christ,

Ron Phillips, Sr.
a.k.a. Ron P.

Why υἱοθεσία - Adopted by God

2008-12-19T22:30:00.002-06:00

You may be thinking that υἱοθεσία - Adopted by God, is a curious name for a blog. I chose υἱοθεσία (huiothesia), as this is an important issue for my family at this time in our lives.

We are in the process of adopting a little boy who recently turned two. We have had him since he was 16 months old. I plan to share with him how God adopts His children and use his adoption with us as an illustration. It is my prayer that God will use it as a testimony to His grace and bring this little boy to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

huiothesia, which is pronounced hwē-o-the-sē'-ä, is of course Greek for adoption, which is a compound word from υἱός and τίθημι (huios and tithēmi). Huios is son and tithēmi is to set or place or fix. It literally means to place as a son. The term was used in the New Testament only five times, all by the apostle Paul. I have been reading up on Paul's usage of huiothesia and it's Roman and Greek practice. It truly is an amazing illustration of God's adoption, in that all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of the son in the former family are lost (slave to sin) and now bound to his new family (salvation by God). In Roman adoptions, all previous debts are considered to be paid in full. It truly is an amazing illustration of God's forgiveness of our sins, canceling our debt and placing us as heirs with Christ!

As Paul Harvey would say, "Now you know, the rest of the story".

Chronicle - The Irenic Reformation of the SBC

2008-11-20T23:25:00.030-06:00

For nearly two years, I have been reading and commenting on various SBC blogs. I posted my first article as a guest of Wes Kenney on August 20, 2007. It was entitled "The Irenic Reformation of the SBC". I originally chose not to have my own blog, because I believed there to be so many, that adding one more, would be of little value, especially since I would most likely not write posts very often. But, I have decided to jump in, though I still do not plan to post very often. As a matter of fact, I am posting this article before this blog goes live. Frankly, it may be quite some time before this blog becomes public. This is for my personal benefit of having this on my own blog.

Since my first (and only) article was posted on a blog not my own, I am reposting it here (with the comments) so I have an online chronicle of this and any future articles penned by me. Since the comments are included in the post, this is rather lengthly.

Guest Author - “The Irenic Reformation of the SBC”

Aug 20th, 2007
by Wes Kenney.

You have probably seen Ron P.’s comments on various blogs. Ron P. attended Criswell College from 1986-1988. He currently works in the IT industry, but has served as an interim pastor, two youth pastorates, and other ministry positions. He is a homeschool father of three sons (of which the second is starting college) and has been married to his wife for over 21 years. Today, he offers the following as a guest author here at Reason for the Hope:

For the past several months, I have been trying to understand the current reform movement by some SBC bloggers. In jest, I have come to call this movement The Irenic Reformation. I became aware of the Baptist blogs with repeated references to bloggers as source material in the religion section of one of our local newspapers. I just assumed it was the online chatter that traditionally was done in person at associational meetings and state and national conventions (not that gossip in person is any better than gossip by blog). I should have been aware of the movement, but I confess, like many, I was inattentive. I realize not all those within this crusade hold to all of the beliefs and practices that are prevalent in this movement. I do not wish to paint all with a broad brush, but it is not easy to ignore what has taken place in the “Baptist blogs”, unless, like me, you have not read them.

Part of the problem I have encountered in this endeavor, is the apparent change in the definition of words. In the computer software industry, this same practice with software standards is called “embrace and extend”, which one particular software monopoly is infamous for. An existing universal standard is taken (embraced) and then subtle undocumented changes to the standard are made (extended). The changes are pushed out, and by default, the change is now the standard, which is now owned by the one making the change. This very same thing is being done with the definitions of words by these so called reformers. History is replete with examples of words that once meant something to only be morphed into something analogous and sometimes disparate. A recent example is the word evangelical. It no longer carries the purpose and intent that it once did, as evidenced by the belief that one in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church can still serve as President of the Evangelical Theological Society. Another example is the word gay no longer really means merry, but something quite different in our culture. I believe that several words are being co-opted in this movement, such as conservative and inerrant. I find it ironic that some of the reformers have to endlessly remind us that they are conservative, just like moderates kept reminding us that they were conservative and inerrantists during the Conservative Resurgence (CR). However, just as it was during the CR, their words and actions betray them. The use of the word irenic has especially been “embraced and extended” in this movement. In essence, Post Modernism is thoroughly embraced. Definitions of words are changed, so that they can "embrace and extend" their version of the truth. You can even call yourself conservative and inerrantist if you want to. For the purpose of this analysis, I am not referring to the definition in the dictionary, as someone wanting to promote peace or reconciliation, but to those within this movement, that quite frankly, are promoting neither.

Being irenic apparently necessitates the acceptance of those that do believe and practice what is being published (and commented by those that are a part of the irenic) on the blogs. These bloggers have chosen, again I state emphatically, CHOSEN, to make their blogs and comments the public persona of this Irenic Reformation. I amassed this incomplete list of beliefs and practices, with website links for you, the reader, to reference. I apologize for the length, as what originally was only 894 words proliferated to this current document. Yet there is so much more out there. The more I researched and read, the more appalled I became. When reading the linked sites, please also read the comments posted by the irenic ones addressed to those that dare disagree or question them. Many times the comments by the irenic ones are much more atrocious than the blog entry itself. Some of the links below are from conservative bloggers that point out the fallacies of their logic (and theology). The number of links that could have been posted is too exhaustive for this work. Since I am relatively new to these blogs, I freely admit that there are probably better links available than what I have provided. Without further adieu, here are some of the beliefs and actions of the Irenic Reformers on full public display:

Public vitriolic ad hominem attacks are common place and encouraged. These same attacks against fellow trustees are even more laudable. The highest esteem goes to any attack upon Paige Patterson. See here, here, here, here, here, and here.
You get to call anyone who disagrees with you: gnostic, fundamentalist, legalist, or Landmarker. See here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
Privately praying ecstatic utterances (but not speaking in tongues) is the new Baptist, non charismatic practice that can not be questioned without being accused of being a cessationist or someone who wants to redefine what a Baptist is. A very flawed (scientifically speaking) survey is used to prop their belief that 50% of SBC pastors believe in PPL. Don’t laugh, they are serious. See here, here, and here. Oh, other new spiritual gifts are to follow: here.
The death penalty is morally reprehensible for civilized Christians. See here.
Gun control needs to be embraced. See here.
Drinking is a great evangelism tool. See here.
Ecumenicism is the new inerrancy. See here, and here.
It is no one’s business if an SBC church supports the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. The church should still be allowed full fellowship with other SBC churches. See here.
Baptism – what does it matter? Duh, we are Baptists. See here, here, and here.
The pot calling the kettle black winner award: (SBC Blogger Bile): here.
Lawsuits and complaints against believers and our institutions, over clearly religious issues, are encouraged and supported, violating both Scripture and the U.S. Constitution. See here, and here.
Double entendres that are of a sexual nature attacking women of the non-irenic persuasion is well within the accepted (and defended) behavior of some. See the comment section here.
Publicly revealing confidential information about a pastor being called to another church, before the church is first informed, is considered an acceptable practice. Except when it is one of the irenic ones, who happens to be a contributor to said blog. I believe they were correct to NOT leak his move, just hypocritical. It is to their shame that they do not give the same courtesy and honor to a fellow pastor. See here, here, here, here, and here.
A Baptist Blog that touts itself as the premier information for Baptist news and information believes that religious concerns should not override their “news” decisions. I thought the Word of God trumped all. Mind you, these are actually pastors making such comments. See here and here.
You get to call your blog a bridge and a place of diverse opinions. However, only the irenic opinions are valued. If you don't like what you read you are told “don't read it”. How's that for valuing diverse opinions within the SBC? See here, here, here and here.
You can take a “clearly vague” statement that passed at the convention, and then get to claim it says something it does not say. In the same vein, when you incontrovertibly lose an important vote you were pushing, you just listen to the “Sounds of Silence” and ignore the loss and declare that it means nothing. See here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
The Baptist Faith and Message is seen as full of tertiary doctrines. Even though we as Southern Baptist clearly have stated that these doctrines are “precious and essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice.” See here, here, here, and here.
The irenic leaders want the Baptist Faith and Message to be both a minimal doctrinal guide and a maximal guide. The twisted loops of logic that you have to go through to be able to hold to both of these opposite positions (at the same time), is enough to cause the most avid roller coaster enthusiast to say “no mas, no mas”. See here, here, and here.
Irenic leaders want to be able to allow those serving an SBC institution to affirm the Baptist Faith and Message with caveats (or be able to affirm any of our historic confessions). How is that affirmation to something that the SBC holds essential to our doctrinal unity? See here and here.
You can call yourself and others irenic, but only if they agree with the irenic. What is really priceless: Always being one of the irenic no matter how mean spirited and acrimonious you are. See here, here, here, and here.
If you are an irenic one, your comments are logical, thoughtful and scholarly. If you are not one of the irenic, you are just one of the minions of the evil one, blissfully ignorant of your blind stupidity. See here, here, and here.
Our missionaries, though financially sponsored and supported by our convention, should only answer to the Lord, which in reality is a push to be accountable to no one. They should not be required to affirm and teach the beliefs that uniquely make one a Southern Baptist Christian. Who are we to tell our missionaries what to teach and preach? See here, and here.
A woman's place is NOT in the home and there should be no support of such ~~biblical~~ archaic beliefs by our institutions of higher learning. Good grief, it's the 21st Century already! See here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Christian men should not stand up and sacrifice their lives in defense of others, and most especially should not be encouraged to do so by evil men who love guns. It’s everyone for him self. See here.
Mohamed, the Qur'an, Mosque, Muslim prayers and Muslim beliefs about their god, can be continued to be held by "completed Muslim Christians". They can also forsake the assembly of believers. Those teaching this false gospel can serve as SBC missionaries. See here, here, here, here, and here.
Paige Patterson MUST be brought down! No matter what the cost, the sacrifice, the effort… Kind of reminds me of Moby Dick by Herman Melville: "I'll chase him round Good Hope, and round the Horn, and round the Norway Maelstrom, and round perdition's flames before I give him up!" Also from Moby Dick: "Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee. Sink all coffins and all hearses to one common pool! and since neither can be mine, let me then tow to pieces, while still chasing thee…” Read almost any posts/comments at: Baptist Blogger, click on the Paige Patterson link and read ANY of them. But see these too: here. Actually, read any of the irenic bloggers and note that Outpost is becoming a lead ship in their “whale hunt” of Dr. Patterson.
Anything that will help in the attacks on Paige Patterson is a legitimate high value target, including his wife, professors, his dog, or others that agree with him. See here, here, here, here, and here.
The ban on women Pastors is/will be something we need to repent of. Though not supported by one of the irenic leaders for personal and cultural reasons, he can not biblically justify the prohibition of women pastors. Women teaching men is OK by him though. I for one do not get that logic. It does seem apparent that the movement will definitely support Woman Pastors. See here and here.
Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Bill Mercer, Bill Underwood, Tony Campolo, Marian Wright Edelman and others have organized the National Baptist Covenant (NBC). The organizers alone should give Southern Baptists pause to carefully scrutinize this effort and their motives. Some of the irenic leaders have been invited to participate. See here, here, and here.
The NBC, though not officially inviting pro homosexual conventions, do have them serving on committees. But don't worry; they'll be at the table in a short time. See here.
If leaders of the NBC personally tell an irenic leader that they believe in salvation in Christ alone, oppose abortion, etc. but yet publicly make contrary statements, those that point out the contradiction are denigrated or told that the personal assurance is enough and is to be believed. See here, here, and here.

Once you have immersed yourself in the blogs, certain conclusions are unavoidable:

Several of the reformers are anything but irenic (in the dictionary sense of the word).
Undermining those in authority is considered acceptable and common place.
Gossip is not confined to the local church but is blogged to a lost and dying world.
Posting an emoticon (like “:)” or “:D”) makes it OK to be acerbic and invidious while twisting the proverbial knife in the backs of the non-irenic.
It appears that animosity towards Dr. Paige Patterson and an aversion to anything for which he is associated is the propellant that fuels some of the irenic.
Attacks against a man’s wife (Dr. Patterson) though reprehensible and repugnant, seem to be done with such perverse delight by some of the irenic.
These “reformers” are quick to remove the speck in other’s eyes, but do not see the log in their own eyes.

In light of beliefs and practices of the Irenic Reformers, we need to wake up our Baptist brothers and sisters in Christ and sound the clarion call to once again, stand up, get organized and fight for the convention to remain true to God’s Word. This time it is not just the inerrancy of the Word of God that we must defend, but the sufficiency of it as well. We must also defend what we as Baptists have understood what it means to be a Baptist. Who would have thought that Baptists would have to defend biblical baptism within our own convention?

The Irenic Reformation appears to be nothing other than an attempt to undo the CR using technology (blogs and blackberry’s) as a tool, but employing an age old tactic: the politics of personal destruction. If you can not win on the issues, attack any and all who stand in the way. Again, I do not want to paint all with a broad brush, as some who agree with the irenic have been most kind and Christ like in their comments and actions. But some of those same sweet brothers and sisters stand by silently while repeated caustic attacks are made. Those that have been the most vociferous mistakenly believe that if they take down the leader of the CR, the whole resurgence will fall. How naïve of them! Despite their prating, the CR is not tied to any person, though we are most grateful to all who led the battle for the Bible. The CR is the belief in the inerrancy and sufficiency of the Holy Scripture to guide us in all matters, not the one who led it. I must humbly stand in opposition to a movement that would seek to strip Southern Baptists of their historic identity and do it in a manner that is more reminiscent of Absalom and Diotrephes than of Christ, the Apostles, and our Baptist forefathers. Those that have bled and burned for that heritage deserve so much more from us.

Wake up, Stand Firm, and be Vigilant!

65 Comments on “Guest Author - “The Irenic Reformation of the SBC””

#1 Geoff Baggett
on Aug 20th, 2007 at 7:42 am

Ron (& Wes),

You have spoken what so many of us have felt over the past several months. I, too, think there are many things in the SBC that need to change. But I also know there is an honorable way to bring about change. Much of what I have read is anything but honorable.

I have been almost entertained by the repeated use of this term, “irenic.” But, far from being irenic, I think that the movement is a bit more “sirenic.”

There are many of us out here who want to talk about the difficult issues, but not act belittling and mean to one another.

Geoff
http://geoffbaggett.com
#2 Scott Gordon
on Aug 20th, 2007 at 9:42 am

Ron & Wes,

Thank you for this THOROUGH distillation of information. The aspect of the “irenic” label has been most troublesome to me. Beyond the issues being discussed, the acerbic, vitriolic posts and comments have nearly been enough to turn me off to this debate. If I were not so stubbornly convicted about my theology and ministry as a Southern Baptist, I would leave well enough alone. BUT, we must be ready (vigilant) to post warning signs warning of the dangers which lie ahead.

SOLA GRATIA!
#3 Paul
on Aug 20th, 2007 at 10:01 am

Nice piece of quote mining.

Wes,

I believe the “sides” that have formed have become so polarized that we are no longer able to give the other the benefit of the doubt. I see this occasionally on the Outpost and I see it often in the status quo blogs (here, Robin Foster, Tim Rogers, Joe Stewart, etc.).

Unless we can find a way to come to some sort of mutual agreements about our cooperative efforts I don’t see how the SBC can not further fracture. If we all keep posting this sort of stuff we’ll simply see further fracturing.
#4 Debbie Kaufman
on Aug 20th, 2007 at 12:29 pm

I strongly agree with what Paul has written.
#5 Jeff Richard Young
on Aug 20th, 2007 at 2:33 pm

Dear Brothers Wes and Ron,

Thank you for this good post. You’ve really done your homework. Please allow me to add my perspective.

Early in this process, about 20 months ago, I had great admiration for Brothers Wade and Ben, for bringing perceived (and in some cases actual) abuses of power to light. To the extent that they continue to do that, I continue to admire their work.

Each of these men has also been very polite and brotherly to me personally, and has actually helped me in tangible ways when I was on my recent sojourn between pastorates. Ben invited me to preach at his church in his absence, and led the church to welcome me warmly and compensate me generously. Wade made a well-placed phone call to a search committee, and that search committee eventually did invite me to come to their church “in view of a call.”

But, in the case of Brother Wade, his stances on such things as inviting “moderate” SBC-ers back into leadership, joining in President Carter’s new NBC, and dismissing Dr. P’s position on women out of hand have forced me to distance myself from him, and withdraw from his chorus of supporters.

In the case of Brother Ben, his tactics and rhetoric in criticizing Dr. and Dr. Mrs. P have been out of line with Christian principles. He has shot himself in the foot with these methods, in that some of the very people most ready to believe him (me included) are being driven away by his behavior. His method has made his message non-credible. To his credit, his recent reports on financial dealings of agency heads, although transparently anti-Patterson, have been heavy on facts and light on spite. (Hey, that rhymes!)

As for the leading persons of the CR, I have developed a strange sense of admiration mixed with distrust. It seems obvious to me that zeal for the SBC has confused their minds on certain points of doctrine. The IMB trustees, for example, are undoubtedly fine Christians. But their ridiculous November 2006 baptism policy, especially the ludicrous white paper belatedly issued in its defense, left me baffled as to their interpretation of both the Bible and historic Baptist distinctives. Likewise, the CR’s strong emphasis on total abstinence from alcohol led them to do some hermeneutical gymnastics that revealed their lack of commitment to the text of the very Bible they so strongly contend to be inerrant. I say this in love of men such as Dr. Jim Richards, who has been very brotherly to me (a very small fish in his SBTC pond) on two different occasions, and Dr. Al Mohler, whom I view as a heroic spokesman for Baptist Calvinists.

That’s why I stand here looking at the “Irenic” Burleson-Cole-Duren-Cross camp and the “CR” Patterson-Corbaley-Mohler-Richards camp, not wanting to enter the tents of either. Neither group’s positions and persons seem worthy of full allegiance, so until a better camp is formed, I will just try to operate effectively and contribute meaningfully from out here in the wilderness.

Love in Christ,

Jeff
#6 Ron P.
on Aug 20th, 2007 at 5:33 pm

Wes,

Thank you for posting this article. It was most gracious of you to do so!

Ron P.
#7 Ron P.
on Aug 20th, 2007 at 6:06 pm

Geoff,

Thank you for your comments. I wish I had thought to use the term “sirenic”. Also, I read with great interest your post “My Last Visit to SBC Outpost”.

Scott and Geoff,

Thank you for reading. All of us on both sides should sincerely be ready and willing to debate, but as gracious servants of the Lord who regard each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. It really may come down to agreeing to disagree. Our historic confessions, I believe, are biblical and I am not prepared to abandon those convictions. I will try to graciously stand my ground, while respecting those that disagree.

Paul,

I was not mining for quotes. I truly was trying to come to an understanding of what they believe by researching their writings of these reformers.

Regarding your statement about the polarization, you state in part: “I see this occasionally on the Outpost and I see it often in the status quo blogs (here, Robin Foster, Tim Rogers, Joe Stewart, etc.).” is quite a statement. Only occasionally at SBC Outpost? Even the former editor and several contributors would not claim that. I tried to find, but don’t have the time to search for it, the post that someone made that had a graph of the stories of SBC Outpost since it was launched. The great majority of it was dedicated to attack articles. It looks like many of those articles and comments are not going to be posted on the New,New SBC Outpost. With the utmost respect Paul, I hope you do not seriously believe that SBC Outpost only occasionally was polarizing.

Ron P.
#8 Steve
on Aug 20th, 2007 at 6:12 pm

An excellent pice of work reminiscient of “The Truth in Crisis”.
Well done!
Steve
#9 Ron P.
on Aug 20th, 2007 at 6:14 pm

I found the article to which I was referring in the above comment. An excellent analysis by Colin McGahey regarding the content of SBC Outpost articles at: http://seminaryblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/sbc-outpost.html

Ron P.
#10 Alan Cross
on Aug 20th, 2007 at 6:22 pm

Jeff,

I am in no one’s camp. I tend to agree with some on certain positions, but I am my own person and desire to walk in truth. I certainly have no one following me and I am not making any decisions. I was asked to contribute and I have tried to do so in a respectful way.
#11 Ron P.
on Aug 20th, 2007 at 6:42 pm

Jeff,

Forgive me for misspelling your name in my comment to Geoff, Scott and you.

Steve,

I am not even in the same hemisphere with regards to that great work. But I thank you for the kind words.

Ron P.
#12 Tim Sweatman
on Aug 20th, 2007 at 8:21 pm

“I must humbly stand in opposition to a movement that would seek to strip Southern Baptists of their historic identity and do it in a manner that is more reminiscent of Absalom and Diotrephes than of Christ, the Apostles, and our Baptist forefathers.”

Uh, isn’t this statement an example of some of the things you criticize the “irenic reformers” for?

Anyway, I agree with your statement that “some who agree with the irenic have been most kind and Christ like in their comments and actions. But some of those same sweet brothers and sisters stand by silently while repeated caustic attacks are made.” I don’t know that I could be called “sweet,” but I know that there have been quite a few instances where I thought some people with whom I agreed went too far in their rhetoric, but I didn’t point it out because I didn’t want to give the impression that I disagreed with the point of their statements. I freely admit that it was wrong for me to do so. That being said, I’m sure that many of the readers and I would have differing views on whether someone has gone too far, but that’s another matter.

While your post was not meant to be humorous, I almost laughed when I read the following statement: “This time it is not just the inerrancy of the Word of God that we must defend, but the sufficiency of it as well.” I have no doubt that the status quo group is committed to inerrancy, but to me they seem to be a bit soft on sufficiency. I have yet to find anyone who can explain how the IMB guidelines, the insistence that abstinence from alcohol is the only acceptable choice for a Christian, or a crusade against Calvinism demonstrate a commitment to the sufficiency of Scripture. While I’d guess you probably don’t agree, to me it is clear that the reformers are the ones who are committed to defending the sufficiency of Scripture.
#13 Paul
on Aug 20th, 2007 at 8:53 pm

Ron,

Since we have heard so many voices quite recently vociferously challenging the research of LifeWay regarding charismatic practices let me challenge our brother Colin’s “research” as well. First of all you state that all of those written about Patterson/SWBTS are attacks and they simply are not.

I would also disagree with his method of categorization. As we heard so many say just a couple of months ago, it’s all in how you ask the question, and Colin has given some fatally flawed answers. For instance, I would imagine that he included my post regarding the SWBTS minutes. While SWBTS is mentioned in that post, it is only illustrative of the problem I was addressing: an entity refusing to send public minutes to the local church. That is, at it’s heart, an accountability issue, not a SWBTS issue. Had it been NAMB or Southern that refused to send the minutes the issue would be the same, only the particulars of the illustration would have changed.

In addition, Todd wrote three pieces focused on the dangers of sectarianism, yet Dr. Patterson’s address to the convention served as the illustration. The post, at heart, was not about Dr. Patterson but was based on Dr. Patterson’s illustration in his SWBTS report to the convention. Had Morris Chapman given that same address Colin would have categorized the post differently, yet the issue would not have changed one bit.

I’m guessing Colin has not had a course in statistics and research. This has led to a fatal analysis. It may be good fodder for these blogs, but it is not scientific, it is not scholarly, it is a perspective given by a blogging SWBTS student. I guess I could point out the obvious - that being that he has an obvious bias in favor of his school. If you guys want to continue to hold that up as the standard by which to judge the Outpost that is your prerogative, but let us not assume it is some kind of unbiased research from a disinterested blogger. It clearly is not.
#14 Tim Rogers
on Aug 20th, 2007 at 9:20 pm

Brother Tim,

You said; “to me it is clear that the reformers are the ones who are committed to defending the sufficiency of Scripture.” I believe you have just presented something that clearly defines the differences that are between many. We all would affirm the sufficiency of Scripture. I believe my question would be; what are the reformers desiring to reform? Once the reform is in place how far does one desire that we reform? You have seen where Brother Jeff Richard Young was concerned with the alliances being formed and the presentation of moderate-SBC’ers as something good to place back in leadership.

I believe our separation is that we all understand we cannot be what we were in 1960 and move into 2020, but it appears there is no line of demarcation out there that even remotely resembles Baptist as to where the reformers are going to stop reforming.

I do not say this in any derogatory way as I have been accused of being divisive in this comment stream. However, this is where I see the division. There is no limit to where we will stop the reforming. We throw theology and Baptist distinctives out of the window in the name of relativism.

Blessings,
Tim
#15 Wayne Smith
on Aug 20th, 2007 at 9:28 pm

Wes and Ron P,

I agree with Brother Jeff Young and Brother Tim Sweatman. I also agree with Paul because in the beginning I saw peaceful dialog and sharing of information on the Blogs. Then came the attacks from some in this group and I told them I could not see Their Hearts. Les Puryear was one of those in that group. Brother Les Puryear did a complete turn around and God Has been Blessing His Ministry ever since. So I ask what has God Been Doing in your Ministries???

For REFORM by Being in GOD’s HOLY WORD to be INFORMED!!! Why don’t you Join Me???
In His Name
Wayne Smith
#16 Paul
on Aug 20th, 2007 at 11:19 pm

OK, I’ve asked this question a number of times in the past and it continues to go unanswered, but I’ll try again. In this post Ron P. suggests there are some in the reform camp who wish to give away our historic Baptist identity. Wes has suggested as much in the past. Tim Rogers says so on his own blog and here in comments. Robin Foster has made the same charge and I’m sure the list go be extended. In light of Wes’s question to Wade where he asks him to name one Southern Baptist who believes “it is wrong to educate women in the classics, the languages, or Biblical theology…,” may I now ask any of the aforementioned to name one Southern Baptist reformer who believes we should give away our Baptist confessional identity? Who is saying we should abolish the BFM? Who is saying believer’s baptism should become optional for all Southern Baptists? Who would have us give away eternal security, the priesthood of the believer/all believers (however one might want to phrase that one), local church autonomy or any other specifically Baptist distinctive? Just one example will do.
#17 Ron P.
on Aug 20th, 2007 at 11:52 pm

Tim Sweatman,

Thank you for reading and for your comments. RE: “Uh, isn’t this statement an example of some of the things you criticize the “irenic reformers” for?” No. I stand by the statement as an allusion to the behavior of some.

I believe that Tim Rogers very capably answered your statements in your last paragraph.

Paul,

Thank you for your questions. I really appreciate you stopping by. One of the points that I think is clear, even by some of the contributors and the editor at the 2nd iteration of SBC Outpost is that it seemed to be all about Paige Patterson. That is what I was referring to when mentioning Colin’s analysis, which you affirm with several references to Dr. Patterson in your comment. Paige was the focus on SO much of the writings there. It became so abhorrent and reached a crescendo that it apparently caused many to decide to quit going to, posting on, contributing to, and editing SBC Outpost.

You brought it up, so I do have one question for you. Since “…a course in statistics and research” determines whether or not an analysis is good, can I assume that you agree with Dr. Malcolm Yarnell’s ” assessment of the Lifeway study on PPL, since he IS an expert? See: here.

Wayne,

My dear brother in Christ. I am (almost) at a loss for words. Though you did not intend to do so, you have shown that what I have found on the “irenic” blogs to be true. Your attack on Wes (and myself) as to whether or not our ministries are as successful as Bro. Les’ is something that should be grieved by all. I for one hope that Les is extremely successful in proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ! I have the same hope and desire for you, just as I do for Wade and Ben and others with whom I do not agree on some of these issues. Your comments confirm my point above that: “If you are an irenic one, your comments are logical, thoughtful and scholarly. If you are not one of the irenic, you are just one of the minions of the evil one, blissfully ignorant of your blind stupidity.” Les was bad until he agreed with you.

Ron P.
#18 Scott Gordon
on Aug 20th, 2007 at 11:53 pm

Paul,

UM….a SBC institution trustee who would sign the BFM with caveats (baptism)? One who would have us water-down the identity of Southern Baptists to attend the NBC? One who would lament the removal of the SBC from the BWA? Could it be that you would prefer that be called a redefinition of Southern Baptist rather than a changing, or losing, of the identity of our convention?

If we need to broaden the tent so large, why don’t we just follow in McLaren’s footsteps in being a “a missional, evangelical, post/protestant, liberal/conservative, mystical/poetic, biblical, charismatic/contemplative, fundamentalist/calvinist, anabaptist/anglican, methodist, catholic, green, incarnational, depressed-yet-hopeful, emergent, unfinished Christian”?
#19 Ron P.
on Aug 21st, 2007 at 12:01 am

Paul,

I copied the wrong link above in regards to Malcolm’s post on the Lifeway study. It is here and just in case it was not my fingers making the mistake: http://praisegodbarebones.blogspot.com/2007/06/dr-malcolm-yarnells-response-to-lifeway.html

Ron P.
#20 Jeff Richard Young
on Aug 21st, 2007 at 12:06 am

Dear Brother Alan,

I hope you and all readers here understand that I hold you in extremely high esteem. Including you in my “camp” name is because you have come down opposite the traditional CR leadership on several issues over these past two years, as have I. I know, and I’m sure it’s obvious to everyone else here, that you are operating on an ideological basis, not a political one. In include you as a leader of this particular “camp” because you have been a consistent, respected spokesman for the “reform” position on these issues.

Love in Christ,

Jeff
#21 Wayne Smith
on Aug 21st, 2007 at 12:18 am

Ron P,
I don’t see your credentials or a Blog reference anywhere. I’m one of the dumb one’s that spent his life In the Computer World 1954-2001. What your handle?

In His Name
Wayne Smith
#22 Paul
on Aug 21st, 2007 at 12:30 am

Ron,

Once again, I only mention Dr. Patterson because he is an illustration of some of our accoutability issues. Sometimes names have to be put on issues because the issues are predominantly being created by the one carrying the name. But in the end, it is the issue that matters.

Regarding Dr. Yarnell, I would assume his analysis of the issue would be contrary to the analysis of the same issue by the people at LifeWay who actually make a living doing this sort of statistical research. Thus, we do not simply have Malcolm Yarnell who has some expertise in the area, but a team of researchers at LifeWay to consider as well. And in that case I would probably lean toward those who do that sort of thing for a living over a professional theologian who had some limited experience in the past. But I still don’t know where Colin’s “research” fits into all of that. Pretty low, in my view, particularly because of his obvious bias.

Scott Gordon,

I’m sorry, but none of those things you mention threaten Southern Baptist identity. Wade’s caveats are still in line with historic Southern Baptist identity. Not everyone in Southern Baptist history has held to close communion and some of our historic Baptist confessions actually seem to lean against such a thing.

I don’t know of any Southern Baptists who have said that they will definitely be attending the New Baptist Covenant and if they did they would not be jeopardizing our Baptist identity by attending a Baptist event. Does the irony of those very words not speak volumes?

As for the BWA, surely you know that Southern Baptists were instrumental in the founding of the BWA. So now it is preserving our Baptist identity to distance ourselves from an organization we helped found? And please tell me which Baptist distinctive the BWA has given away. Is it a Baptist distinctive to be vindictive toward the CBF? Oh, wait, maybe you do have a point with that one. I’m sorry, brother, but you still haven’t shown how any of this is causing us to lose our Baptist identity. What would we be if we remained a part of the BWA, had a pastor all on his own attend the NBC or allow a trustee to disagree with close communion? Presbyterians? Non-denominationalists?

And the McLaren quote is a fine example of a straw man.
#23 Wayne Smith
on Aug 21st, 2007 at 12:35 am

Ron P,
How do you measure success? I said God is Blessing Les Puryear’s Ministry. I don’t know what your Ministry is. I also do not know how Wes’s Ministry is doing either. Les Puryear and I do not see eye to eye on everything, so how has he come around to my way of thinking?
In His Name
Wayne Smith
#24 Ron P.
on Aug 21st, 2007 at 12:42 am

Paul,

Though I have links to posts and comments above that reference this already, I will answer your request to “name one”. Wade has made it abundantly clear that he finds the BFM to have “tertiary” issues. Southern Baptists have absolutely rejected this by adopting and affirming our confessions over these many years. Indeed, the messengers have affirmed, as stated above, that these doctrines are “precious and essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice.” Removing any of these doctrines, I believe, would be throwing away our historic identity as Baptists.

Let me add that the accusation that those of us holding to the historic/doctrinal/confessional beliefs, are trying to narrow the parameters of what it means to be a Baptist. Quite the contrary! It is the “reformers” that are trying to aggrandize what it means to be a Baptist and blur the lines of historic confessional beliefs and identity. This appears to this humble Baptist, to be nothing but the beginnings of ecumenism within the SBC.

Ron P.
#25 Ron P.
on Aug 21st, 2007 at 1:11 am

This will be my last post tonight, as it is 1:00 A.M. here.

Wayne, you ask how I measure success? By being faithful to God’s Word. Isaiah, when he answered God’s call, was told that he would preach to those who would not hear. Noah labored for 120 years, and only 8 people out of the population of men and women on the entire earth were allowed by God to be on the Ark. Faithfulness to God’s word is what I believe will bring about that desired response of our Father to say: “Well done, thou good and faithful servant”.

Blessings, and goodnight.

P.S. It is the blogging software, not my fingers that put this post as the hyperlink twice above.

Ron P.
#26 Joe Stewart
on Aug 21st, 2007 at 8:53 am

Paul
Perhaps you’ve read my blog. I almost always land my plane on a certain runway, but I also attempt to circle the landing strip to look at other approaches. I do appreciate you parachuting in to drop the ‘occasional’ and ‘often’ packages. I assure you it’s a rarity that the status quo label is ripcorded my way, but I’ve often misunderstood the implications of missives spread in the comment zone. I honestly have no animosity towards you despite your group think assertion.

Blessings
Joe
#27 JIm Champion
on Aug 21st, 2007 at 9:17 am

Paul

I agree with most everything you have posted in your conversation with Ron.

I have really enjoyed the outpost, and in my opinon what I have seen as honest questioning of the entities and changing of what it means to be a Baptist are seen as attacks.

Most of the attacks I have seen have come from those that come from the status quo camps, from Jeremy Green who relentlessly attacked Wade Burleson, calling him a theological moderate on countless occasions - and then providing proof by referencing his own articles! Then Brad Reynolds got into the act with his multiple commenters who seemed to be his own alter egos to Tim Rogers and even Bart.

The fact is, the questions asked by Ben Cole are questions that should be made available to all churces at least once a year to show us how our CP dollars are being spent.

Questions demanding accountability are not attacks, and just because someones name is used in an artilce or post is not an attack on that person

Jim
#28 Trish
on Aug 21st, 2007 at 10:17 am

Jim,

If I understand your comments right, if the question being asked is valid, it doesn’t matter how it is being asked or why it is being asked? That’s not in line with scripture. 1 Cor 10:23-24, “All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things are edifying. Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor.” and 1 Cor 10:31, “Whether then, you eat of drink, whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”

While the questions might have been lawful, I did not see them as profitable or edifying in the manner in which they were asked. I found the questions to be asked in a destructive manner and not a constructive manner. We are to build up, not tear down. If something has been done wrong, it should be brought to light and corrected. If sin has been committed it needs to be confronted, speaking the truth in love with the goal to be confession and repentance, plus a renewed, stronger relationship with Christ. I did not get this from the articles that were posted about SWBTS and Paige Patterson. I did not see how the method used gave glory to God.

Something I was recently taught, by a professor at SWBTS, that really gave me pause to think and reshape my actions, was how I should not look at what I want to do and ask myself if it is sinful, but instead to ask myself if it glorifies God. I see now how that is a good, common sense approach but I was not operating that way. I was more focused on not sinning and less focused on making sure God was glorified. It has definitely made me stop and think before acting, and that applies to this post. I am striving very hard, praying as I type, to have the right attitude and share my thoughts in a manner that gives God the glory. I think we can all agree that this is right, we serve Him for His purposes and at His pleasure. We owe Christ our lives, the very least we can do is to put Him at the front of all our actions.

If there is a problem at SWBTS, if Dr. Patterson has sinned, if there are problems at the other SBC Entities, I trust that God will bring them to light and see that they are corrected, if we will seek His will in how to go about getting things identified and fixed.

I keep reading about the need to get both sides together to discuss the issues that are causing division and separation, but some feel that the gulf is too wide to cross. I think some have forgotten that Christ bridges that divide and there is nothing that can’t be accomplished when it is done through His strength and for His glory. If all both sides can agree to is that Christ is Lord and Savior, then start there and build on that. It’s a great foundation, He is solid rock!

Since learning about the SBC this summer and attending my first convention, my heart has grieved over what I see happening between people who all love Christ as their Lord and Savior. If my heart has grieved, and I’m just a wretched sinner, how much has God cried over watching the behavior of His beloved children?

Let’s meet at the cross and go from there. God is big enough to handle this problem, it can be fixed. He just needs to be allowed to do it His way, not our way.

Well, I wrote far more than I intended. I pray I did give God the glory through my words and actions. I pray my motives were pure and honoring to Him. I’m new to the SBC and was totally against it for years. But God worked in my heart and showed me the value of this denomination. I want to see it continue to be a light to the world, reaching the lost for the Kingdom, training disciples and sending them out to the world. I am confident that all of you want the same things.

God Bless all of you and the love you have for Christ.

Trish Reilly
#29 Robin Foster
on Aug 21st, 2007 at 11:31 am

Paul

Real quick three come to mind. I will leave the names out since I don’t want this to be about personalities, but facts.

Authority of Scripture - Some believe that women should not pastor a church, but they come to that belief over cultural influences and personal preference. Baptist, while at times have not always done a super job, have based their beliefs on the Word of God. It is the final authority of faith and practice, not cultural influence and personal preferences.

Lord’s Supper - Some seem to want to advocate taking the Lord’s supper with paedobaptists. This has not been the historic view of Baptists.

Congregationalism - To take the authority of decisions away from the congregation, under the Lordship of Christ, is to devalue the priesthood of all believers. Some are advocating elder rule. While many don’t have an issue with a body of elders, Baptists have always drawn the line at allowing any body outside or inside of the church to make decisions that the church should make.
#30 JIm Champion
on Aug 21st, 2007 at 2:04 pm

Trish

If evidence is shown that our entities are being wasteful in the spending of CP $$ thier trustees need to deal with the situation. If the trustees are afraid, or unwilling to deal with the situation, they need to be replaced.

The only way that we as church members can find out how our entities are spending thier funds is to examine the financial reports that are produced by the entities. If those entities refuse to produce the reports, or are afraid that those reports will make them look bad, most likely it is because they will.

Ben Cole asked the questions, several of the entities responded to him, some did not. We as SBCers that send our CP contributions faithfully each and every month (Our church contributes 9% of our undesignated funds to the CP - total missions giving is close to 12%) deserve the answers. We should demand accountability from all of our entities.

One thing that Ben has never brought up that I have wondered about for several years is why is it that SWBTS gives its VPs seminary provided (company)cars! Why in the world do they do this especially when enrollments are down and then on top of that they added a few VPs in the last three years or so!

I do not think that Ben Cole attacked Patterson in asking this question, I think SWBTS opened Patterson up for critique by not answering the questions, as did any other entitiy that does not provide full disclosure.

Wes, I sent you an email in response to the email you sent me

Jim
#31 Robin Foster
on Aug 21st, 2007 at 3:07 pm

Jim

You said, “I do not think that Ben Cole attacked Patterson in asking this question.”

The problem isn’t that Ben asked the question. He sent this request out to all entity heads. The issue is that he gave detailed reports for Dr. Patterson (from SEBTS) and left other entity heads unchecked. There are no details concerning Morris Chapman. Why is that?

I am not out to get Dr. Chapman. Frankly, I have more important things to worry about than how much he makes, but it seems that Ben is protecting some and going out of his way to ruin others.
#32 Wayne Smith
on Aug 21st, 2007 at 3:54 pm

Robin,

I think Ben has shown us who is open and willing to show where and how CP Funds are used for GOD’S GLORY. If you are really interested in what they provided Ben, why don’t you ask these People yourself? They don’t have anything to Hide. I wonder why those you and your friends are protecting don’t want the Church to know what Good Stewards they are with CP FUNDS?

In His Name
Wayne Smith
#33 Steve
on Aug 21st, 2007 at 5:21 pm

Paul, your stated question:
“And please tell me which Baptist distinctive the BWA has given away.”
It is good to see a revision in directors at the BWA this year. Former Ruschilkon trained Barthian office holders explored universalism and so had issues with evangelical soteriology.
The General Secretary made a public statement in a newspaper that “There is no dofference between Baptists and Catholics except in regard to ecclesiology.” Canberra Times.
I would have to say what I said of one BWA member, she may be a good Baptist, but she is a lousey christian”.
In short, its not the Baptist distinctives that are of great concern with the BWA, its those things that are NOT distinctives, but essentials for evangelicals that are at stake with the BWA.
Steve
#34 Debbie Kaufman
on Aug 21st, 2007 at 5:49 pm

I have read twice now that Wade has wanted moderates to come back into leadership. Could you please provide a quote with a link to show this to be true. To my knowledge it has not now nor ever been the truth.

Trish: We have the freedom Biblically to ask any question from any SBC institution or agency. I would go so far as to say we are foolish and poor stewards if we do not ask the hard questions.

I again agree with the rest of what Paul has written. It seems the Great Divide is still going to be. The issue is that of will you be able to work side by side including in leadership and missions with those who disagree. Will you allow them to be in leadership and missionaries etc. if voted in although you had no part in voting for them personally. This is not a matter of changing anyone’s view. It’s always been about cooperation. Period. Allowing things in that you may not see in scripture, but that someone else clearly does. That is the issue here and this keeps getting stepped over.
#35 Paul
on Aug 21st, 2007 at 10:04 pm

Ron,

It seems to me to be anachronistic to read the BFM2000 (let me spell that one out just for a little emphasis “two-thousand”) - a Baptist document adopted a mere seven years ago - and claim that everything in it is essential to an historical Baptist identity. What did that make those Baptists who crafted and adopted the First London Confession, the Second London Confession, the Philadelphia Confession, The New Hampshire Confession and the hundreds of other Baptist confessions? Were they Methodists because they didn’t have an article on Education? On Stewardship? On the Christian and the Social Order? On Peace and War?

I would also say that your contention is not only with me but with Dr. Mohler who sat on the 2000 revision committee and then turned around several years later and proposed a view of theological triage in which he puts some of those very topics covered in the BFM2000 into the “third tier” (a synonym for “tertiary”) category. Is Dr. Mohler one of those you are critiquing here? I didn’t notice a link to his series of articles on theological triage in your post.

Historically Baptists have not considered many things in the BFM2000 as “essential to our Baptist identity and practice.” Thus, I think your argument is not against what is historically considered to be Baptist, but what is recently (as recent as 2000) considered to be Baptist. Now, if you want to make the charge that many are not good current-day Southern Baptists you might have a better case, but to say these same people are not good historic Baptists is historically false.
#36 Paul
on Aug 21st, 2007 at 10:12 pm

Robin,

I think your first charge cuts both ways. I see a great many from the status quo side who uphold Biblical authority with their lips yet deny it in their practice. We’ve even seen it in a number of our leaders who have said that total abstention cannot be supported exegetically from Scripture, but then conclude that it is the wise thing to do. I fail to see how that is any different from your first example.

Lord’s Supper - a number of prominent Baptists in history have, in fact, practiced a form of open communion including John Gill and Charles Spurgeon. And they were Baptists.

Congregationalism - that is also historically naive. There have been a great number of Baptists throughout history who had a form of elder-led congregationalism. Are you saying that Capitol Hill Baptist Church is actually not a Baptist church? I attended a Baptist conference last year and bought a book in their book store giving the Biblical basis for elder leadership from a Baptist perspective. It may not have been prominent, but it has always been a part of our Baptist heritage.
#37 Tim Sweatman
on Aug 21st, 2007 at 10:25 pm

Tim R.,

Part of the difficulty inherent in reform is that while reformers agree that change needs to occur there is a diversity of views regarding how much change needs to take place. For example, within the abolitionist movement there were those who simply wanted to see slavery ended as well as those who desired equality for black Americans. They agreed on the fundamental change (abolition of slavery) but not on what the status of the freed slaves should be.

A similar diversity exists among SBC reformers. Most of the reformers agree on the following points: SBC entities should not be allowed to establish doctrinal parameters that have not been approved by the convention as a whole, SBC leadership needs to operate in openness and transparency about the inner workings of the convention and its entities, and we need to select leaders from diverse SBC (not Baptist, but SBC) backgrounds. Of course, several who have these goals have other goals that are not shared by their fellow reformers, but that does not stop us from working together to achieve those goals on which we agree. If and when the commonly agreed upon reforms are achieved, the reform group will undoubtedly split as some push for additional changes.
#38 Paul
on Aug 21st, 2007 at 10:41 pm

Let me correct my statement about Dr. Mohler. He only uses different interpretations of eschatology as an example while affirming all that the BFM affirms in the statement on Last Things. I would certainly be interested to know if Dr. Mohler really believes the statements on Education, Peace and War and the like are first or second order doctrines which identify one as a Baptist. I remain skeptical that he would.

By the way, why are his connections with the Together For The Gospel group not questioned in the same light as those who have shown an interest in the New Baptist Covenant? Several of the TFTG participants are not even Baptists. Is Dr. Mohler giving away our Baptist identity by working with those men? Is he one of Robin’s Ecumenical Baptists threatening the identity of the SBC?
#39 Tim Sweatman
on Aug 21st, 2007 at 10:44 pm

Ron,

Your characterization of certain reformers as being reminiscent of Absalom (the traitorous son who waged war against his own father) and Diotrephes (who sought power within the church and used it in an abusive manner) is no different than someone at SBC Outpost questioning the integrity and leadership of certain SBC leaders. I’m sure that those who made such statements about our leaders stand by them just as much as you stand by your characterization of some reformers.
#40 Steve
on Aug 21st, 2007 at 11:33 pm

Paul again, your stated question:
“And please tell me which Baptist distinctive the BWA has given away.”
It is good to see a revision in directors at the BWA this year. Former Ruschilkon trained Barthian office holders explored universalism and so had issues with evangelical soteriology.
The General Secretary made a public statement in a newspaper that “There is no dofference between Baptists and Catholics except in regard to ecclesiology.” Canberra Times.
I would have to say what I said of one BWA member, she may be a good Baptist, but she is a lousey christian”.
In short, its not the Baptist distinctives that are of great concern with the BWA, its those things that are NOT distinctives, but essentials for evangelicals that are at stake with the BWA.
I am sorry that you cannot respond to this, as it is public knowledge that BWA issues were those concerning substantial doctrines even more important than our basic baptist distinctives (that which makes us differ from other evangelicals).
The issues with the BWA had to do with essential christian doctrines. I guess from your silence these are of no importance to you either.

Steve
#41 Ron P.
on Aug 22nd, 2007 at 1:21 am

All,

Just got home a little while ago from a situation at church. I would ask you all to please pray, as we had a young woman show up tonight with her 2 year old daughter and some very serious sin issues. Praise God, she repented, and is going to publicly rededicate her life to Christ this Sunday, but she has a long way to go. I also praise God for the faithful members of our fellowship that visibly demonstrated the love of Christ to her and her daughter. God is so good!

Since my vacation is over and I have to go back to work tomorrow, I am going to have to go to bed and not respond to all that have directed questions or comments to me today. I will try to get to them tomorrow night or Thursday. I really have enjoyed discussing these issues with you all.

Tim Sweatman, I do want to address your comments to me tonight though. I think you are reading more into my statement than what I stated, or intended. I prayed and thought long over this article and especially that statement.

I clearly was making a contrast. Absalom and Diotrephes both sought to usurp authority and did it in a manner that we all would agree was sinful. Absalom was purposely trying to turn the people against the king (authority) and telling all who would listen, if only he was a judge in the land, he would do things differently. He would be just. He would be fair. The Apostle John said that Diotrephes was “prating against us with malicious words”. This is of course in contrast to biblical submissiveness to those in authority. The manner, I repeat, the manner in which the dissent has been made by several of the leaders of this movement, is what I and so many others find sinful. Yes, I said sinful and I mean it. The attempt to turn Baptists against those in authority and wage a personal war against those who lead us, by their prating and malicious words is why I wrote that it was more reminiscent of Absalom and Diotrephes. Again, I emphasize that many who disagree with the historic Baptist beliefs that I and others are defending, have not behaved as such. But there is no question that some leaders of this movement have.

Let me also point out, that dissent should be done biblically, while still submitting to those in authority over us. If you want to change the BFM, bring it before the messengers. If you believe that entity BOT should not be able to implement doctrinal guidelines, bring that specifically before the messengers to amend our bylaws. If you believe that women should be able to serve in the role of Pastor, add that to the changes you wish to make to the BFM. If you want the SBC to be more ecumenical and you want to broaden the parameters of what it means to be a Baptist, by all means make the motion to the convention messengers. If you believe that an entity president is not acting biblically or is fiscally irresponsible, approach that person privately. If not satisfied, go with two or three privately. If still not satisfied, bring the issue to the BOT. If that does not satisfy you, do what was done during the CR, elect Presidents that would use the appointment process to implement the reforms you desire.

Ron P.
#42 Debbie Kaufman
on Aug 22nd, 2007 at 8:13 am

You get to call anyone who disagrees with you: gnostic, fundamentalist, legalist, or Landmarker. See here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

It’s not because we disagree, there are landmarkers and fundamentalists and legalism. One poster is a self proclaimed Landmarker. I’m sorry that this is angering to you, but by definition it is in the SBC and we would be remiss not to say so.
#43 Debbie Kaufman
on Aug 22nd, 2007 at 8:26 am

One last comment here, irenic does not mean that we do not confront those who are wrong, it does not mean that we do not question and that we just go with the flow. It does mean that we love despite these things, it does mean that we do not want to go up against the powers that be or some of the policies that go both beyond the BFM 2000 or scripture, but it in no way means that we won’t. Irenic means that we care about missionaries and missionary candidates who are being rejected over these policies that churches are being excluded for these policies and more. It should be and we care that this is happening. Irenic is not the definition you seem to be giving it which is “go along to get along.”
#44 Debbie Kaufman
on Aug 22nd, 2007 at 8:34 am

OK, one more comment. The things that are mentioned in your post with links attached are taking things out of context. That is not bile in your opinion? Sorry Ron, that is simply not true. I am glad that you linked to these posts however, people need to read them. They are what I believe to be happening in the SBC. It also puts what they had said into the right context. So thank you for that.

For the record, I do not say this because Wade is my pastor, I am not in this simply because Wade is my minister. I happen to agree with him on this and the man I agree with happens to be my minister. I sincerely hope that people read these posts you have linked and decide for themselves, but as for me it is there. But I’m wondering if this post does not fall in the very category that you and others such as Wes have accused SBCOutpost of doing? OK I’m done. Thank you for allowing me to comment.
#45 Scott Gordon
on Aug 22nd, 2007 at 12:10 pm

Paul L,

I have just posted on my blog concerning your assertion/accusation regarding Dr. Mohler and Together for the Gospel. I believe Dr. Duncan’s take on the issue is quite telling.
#46 Scott Gordon
on Aug 22nd, 2007 at 12:15 pm

Sorry, didn’t do something right there. Here’s my blog link:

Together for the Gospel…AMAZING
#47 Paul
on Aug 22nd, 2007 at 3:13 pm

Scott,

I would ask you to please read my comment again. I make no assertion nor accusation. I simply ask questions.
#48 Robin Foster
on Aug 22nd, 2007 at 4:29 pm

Paul

Concerning authority of scriptures, while it might cut both ways, I see it cutting deeper on the side of the Baptist ecumenist.

Lord Supper - While Gill and Spurgeon may have practiced this, (I haven’t found Spurgeon advocating this) putting up one or two names does not mean that taking the Lord Supper with paedobaptists was a common practice of Baptists.

Elder led congregationalism - I don’t see your argument here. Our church is pastor led congregationalism. Please don’t try to infer by a question that I somehow don’t think that Dr. Dever’s church is a Baptist church. In his church, the final authority rests with the congregation, not the elders.
#49 Paul
on Aug 22nd, 2007 at 5:13 pm

Robin,

According to the famous “slippery slope” argument it seems to matter little which one cuts deeper if it is happening at all on both sides. That’s like saying “Well, we don’t completely believe in the authority of Scripture but we believe in it more than you.” If you’ve given that much then it’s just a matter of time before you will either meet or exceed the depths of the cut. You logically lost this point when you made your concession.

As to the Lord’s Supper, neither does it mean that it wasn’t. It simply means that there is evidence on both sides and that both sides were/are Baptists, and thus this is not an illustration of giving away Baptist identity.

Regarding congregationalism my point is that Baptists have historically had a form of elder-led congregationalism in some churches. Some in history even had “ruling elders” who were unordained. In his book Elders in Congregational Life, Phil Newton gives his first chapter the title “Why Baptist Elders Is Not An Oxymoron” and covers this topic from an historical perspective. My argument is that Baptist churches that have a form of elder-led leadership are not giving away historic Baptist identity but are well within that historic Baptist identity.

I’m not trying to paint you into any corners, but you must know that ideas have practical consequences in the real world. If you want to make the case supporting the polity of Capitol Hill Baptist as being well within the stream of historic Baptist practice then I will be thrilled for you to do so. It will, however, seem to undermine your point here.
#50 Robin Foster
on Aug 22nd, 2007 at 6:07 pm

First, no slippery slope here. I did offer that concession because their might be be some comment tucked away in blogger land that has someone who would be in agreement with me on most stuff making a statement like that. I haven’t found it, but I was only trying to be gracious to your point.

Second, to continue to think that because a few shared the Supper with paedobaptists means that is a baptist view is tremendously wrong. There is a possibility that some baptists handled snakes, that doesn’t make it historically a Baptist practice.

I don’t know what beef you have with me concerning my views on congregationalism. I believe in a Pastor/Elder led congregation as long as the congregation has the final authority under the Lordship of Christ. I believe you would find Dr. Dever agreeing with me. What is unbaptist is Elder rule. I think you would find Dr. Dever agreeing with that also.

To site a few references that skew away from the norm is not evidence that Baptists have held this view as their identity.
#51 Paul
on Aug 22nd, 2007 at 8:20 pm

Robin,

The point I’m trying to make is that Baptists have been a rather diverse bunch from day one. I grew up in a Southern Baptist church being told that if you have two Baptists in a room you’ll have three opinions. That is a testimony to our historic diversity as Baptists. That same diversity is expressed in the various Baptist confessions of faith. There is a world of difference on some points between the Philadelphia Confession and the BFM2000. Even the topics covered are different. The Philadelphia Confession has a statement on Christians and Magistrates while the BFM2K does not. The BFM2K has a statement on Education which the New Hampshire Confession does not. It is anachronistic to read a seven-year-old document and say that everything contained therein is historically Baptist. It just isn’t true, even if we have codified it in our statement of faith.

Likewise, Baptists have always had a respect for minority views on issues that are not central to Baptist identity. Take for instance the Calvinism/Arminianism debate. Probably 90% of the early leaders of the SBC were strongly Calvinistic. Today LifeWay tells us that only about 10% of the SBC population is today. But we aren’t running all of the Calvinists off…well…some seem to be trying to do just that, but not on the grounds that it isn’t “historically Baptist.”

The truth of the matter is that Baptists have had open communion adherents from the beginning, even if they were a minority, but we have not historically run all of them off or called them threats to our Baptist identity. Baptists have practiced a variety of forms of polity. The New Hampshire Confession doesn’t even speak to a particular form of polity, but no one was running off my home church in OKC which was constituted under the New Hampshire Confession as a threat to our historic Baptist identity.

What I’m saying is that some of you are more narrowly defining what it means to be Baptist than Baptists have defined themselves for 400 years and it’s coming across as a crusade to purge the SBC of all those who are not like you. Is that what you want? Do you want all of the “Ecumenical” Baptists to leave? Do you want all of the open communionists to leave and be shut out of denominational leadership? And for what? So that you can presume to have a “pure” denomination? Even the Philadelphia Confession is humble enough to realize that even the best and purest of churches are still beset by a measure of error.

Let’s not forget that this simply began as a call for our missions agencies to return to the policies they had lived with for decades. It continues because of their refusal to do so. We existed in cooperation and with a measure of harmony on all of those points for a long time. It is mystifying to some of us why all of a sudden it is no longer sufficient for our mutual cooperation. Please keep in mind that the IMB trustees finally admitted that there were no problems on the field that weren’t already being addressed. This was about theological changes they wanted to implement, and did.
#52 Robin Foster
on Aug 22nd, 2007 at 8:52 pm

Paul

Let me say that my “beef” comment didn’t sound right the second time I read it. I hope you don’t take it negatively. I have appreciated the Christian tone you have expressed.

I am not advocating that anyone run off. No doubt, we have been a diverse bunch, but the minority has not set the agenda.

Baptists have always held to only those who have practiced credobaptism should participate in the Lord’s supper. While there may have been a few who advocated otherwise, if you look at the record, there has been a consistent majority witness to baptism being a prerequisite to membership and the Lord’s supper. Of course you and I have gone round and round on the whole Baptism and Membership thing before and we have agreed to disagree.

I am not advocating getting rid of people, but the minority view should not overrule the majority or become the norm for all.
#53 Ron P.
on Aug 22nd, 2007 at 11:08 pm

Debbie,

Thank you for your comments. Though we do not agree on some of these issues, I do appreciate the conversation.

By no means do I wish to disparage you, but I must humbly point out that you have unwittingly affirmed my point on co-opting words.

You state that:

“irenic … does mean that we love despite these things, it does mean that we do not want to go up against the powers that be or some of the policies that go both beyond the BFM 2000 or scripture, but it in no way means that we won’t. Irenic means that we care about missionaries and missionary candidates who are being rejected over these policies that churches are being excluded for these policies and more.”

Your statements are demonstrative of “embrace and extend”. Irenic means none of the definitions that you gave. My definition of irenic is not as you stated “go along to get along”. As stated in the article I see someone as irenic: “…wanting to promote peace or reconciliation”. For me, irenic is simply and only peaceful or reconciliatory. I am not the one pushing the irenic label on the “reformers”. This is a label they gave themselves.

Lastly, you say that I am taking quotes out of context and ask if that is not bile for which I accuse SBC Outpost of. Respectfully, no. All I have done is search out the writings of the “reformers” and attempted to do it without attacking anyone. I have diligently tried to speak the truth without bile or malice.

In the posted comments that have disagreed with the overall crux of this article, I have yet to see any substantive dispute of the evidence or conclusions presented. The conclusions may be despised, but they have not been discredited.

I do hope that you have a very good week.

Ron P.
#54 Paul
on Aug 23rd, 2007 at 12:06 am

Robin,

See, we really can get along, can’t we?

I don’t think anyone, least of all those who come from a minority position, are asking for their position to become “the norm.” Quite the opposite. We simply want to be granted our position as a valid position within the stream of historic Baptist thought and not be prevented from being missionaries or serving the convention in other ways. Wade Burleson has said that very thing so often that I’ve lost count. BTW, your linking baptism with eternal security is a minority position, I’ll bet, but that doesn’t mean I think you are threatening our Baptist identity (though I do think you are threatening a Biblical understanding of baptism).
#55 Robin Foster
on Aug 23rd, 2007 at 8:32 am

Paul

Let me say something a little better than what I may have said in the past.

I link baptism to our identity in Christ. We are united to Him, to His death and resurrection. Christ rose from the dead, “…never to die again; death is no longer master over Him.” Romans 6:9

Sorry for being so unclear before.
#56 Debbie Kaufman
on Aug 23rd, 2007 at 9:41 am

“…wanting to promote peace or reconciliation”

Ron: This is the correct definition, but that does not mean that we stand aside and agree with your view no matter how wrong it is. I am not saying that you are 100% wrong and I am 100% correct. I am saying that the definition you are giving it is different than the actual definition. I want to promote peace and reconciliation. In fact what Paul has commented on I agree with. I know, I have agree with Paul on all that he has said here, it’s just right on target IMO. What he has said to Robin is my desire, but I will speak out when exclusion is the goal. I cannot in all good conscience endorse that school of thought. That does not make me less irenic. In fact it is what makes me irenic.

I am wondering why you list gun control among your list of things as a problem. I see no problem in this. Maybe I am reading you wrong. This is a sincere question.
#57 Chris Johnson
on Aug 23rd, 2007 at 10:50 am

Robin,….

Interesting blog, …..I have watched this debate for almost 30 years now…..

So who is the Body of Christ?

1. Any whom God has given Jesus Christ
2. Any whom believe, trust, and confess God the Father Almighty through the work of the Spirit.
3. Any whom believe, trust, and confess the Gospel through the work of the Spirit
4. Any whom believe, trust, and confess that Jesus Christ is God’s Son through the work of the Spirit.
5. Any whom believe, trust, and confess that Jesus Christ died for the sins of His people through the work of the Spirit.
6. Any whom believe, trust, and confess that Christ has risen from the dead for the justification of the elect through the work of the Spirit. (imputed righteousness)

Or

1. All of the above, and
2. Only those obedient to baptism by immersion for membership into the body of Christ.

Fortunately and biblically, you can’t have it both ways,…. yet the Body of Christ is baptized as Mark made clear “….. but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”
(Mark 1)

I guess the real question might be…. Is the Church different than the Body of Christ?

So far for me…..I have never found it difficult to baptize (immerse) members of Christ. It’s a great way to worship!

-Chris
#58 Ron P.
on Aug 23rd, 2007 at 11:47 am

Debbie,

The thrust of my article really was two fold. What do the “reformers” believe? What is their methodology to bring about said reform?

During my research, I have come away with the impression that clear Baptist distinctiveness is at stake. I have come away with the conviction that this movement wants to widen the scope (aggrandize) what it means to be Baptist. It appears to be a movement towards ecumenism. Possibly, as an unintended consequence, but nonetheless it is where this reform is destined if not carefully checked and evaluated.

The movement and dissent would have been better received if (so many of) the attacks were not so personal and clearly motivated by bitterness. Hence, one of the reasons I listed gun control as an issue, was to demonstrate that no matter what the issue, it really appears to be all about Dr. Patterson, whether it is attacking his wife, his dog, his professors, or his guns. As I said, I do not believe that to be the case for all though.

The recalling of endorsements and having a third iteration of SBC Outpost, where many (including the editor) who were part of the dissent have left that blog, clearly show that the methods have had a very negative impact upon the credibility of the dissent.

Again, I did not choose the word irenic to describe anyone. The rabid personal attacks (methodology) against people stand in contrast to someone being irenic. That is why I have come to the conclusion that this movement is anything but irenic. Paul and Barnabas in their disagreement about Mark, were not irenic. But they did not claim to be. The leaders of this movement are claiming to be irenic.

Thank you for the dialog.

Ron P.
#59 Colin
on Aug 23rd, 2007 at 1:14 pm

Paul,

If you had questions about my research (or “research”) why didn’t you comment on my blog or contact me and ask? I have in your two comments become uneducated in statistics, biased, guilty of “low” research, and have created a post that “is not scientific, it is not scholarly, it is a perspective given by a blogging SWBTS student.”

Very interesting tactic, Paul. Was this why the comment was removed that had the link to my blog on Alan’s post at the SBC Outpost?

A few questions for you:

What makes you think any research in the world is unbiased? One thing I learned FROM MY STATISTICS CLASSES (plural) in college is the bias of all research. The key is minimizing that bias.

What made you think I was pointing out everything negative or derogatory written about those subjects? Further, though a post may have a single theme, it may have several subjects. So do you double them up? Do you tally three different subjects for one post? You could, Paul, but your overall results will not be that much different. Or I could have just gone with the themes of the post- but that is not what I was commenting on. I was commenting on the mentioning of certain subjects, not trying to discern the authorial intent, and for that my data was objective. My point: the SBC Outpost has an issue with mentioning Patterson and SWBTS. The readers can decide if it was negative or positive. I bet you can guess where Frank Page, Thom Rainer and Jerry Rankin may fall on that decision.

I can redo the chart if you like, but the data shows that per the 52 posts written since the June inception of the Outpost, Patterson/SWBTS is included in 16 of them. I could have deleted the “Letter of Financial Accountability” category and beefed up the numbers for Patterson/SWBTS, which I didn’t do even though they (hmm mm) mention him. I invite you to do the statistics on all the negative-critical-derogatory posts versus the positive-edifying ones.

On being a SWBTS student, is that suppose to disqualify me from some kind of credibility? You’re in the SBC. Do you want credibility for your research on the SBC? I do know one thing, being here I can see firsthand much of what is written about on the blogs about the school, staff and classes is either a blatant lie or severe ignorance. Maybe some will see that as a virtue instead of a vice.

I you have any more questions about this student’s qualifications in statistics, I can send you some of the maps I create illustrating statistical data for, say, the status of global evangelization, or the amount of urban growth in northern Travis County by building permit and year, etc. Because if you would have asked, you would have known I own and operate a consulting company that does exactly that.
#60 Ron P.
on Aug 23rd, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Colin,

I apologize if I got you pulled into this. I thought your graph perfectly illustrated that the SBC Outpost articles did have one resounding theme: Paige Patterson. It was precisely that point that I was trying to make.

You gave a most excellent defense of your work.

Blessings,

Ron P.
#61 Paul
on Aug 23rd, 2007 at 2:18 pm

Colin,

Ron P. gives a great example of why I wrote what I did. He (and others) attributes your graph to the theme of the posts, not subjects mentioned. As you have noted, you have choices to make in that regard and you’ve made them. I think the choices are obvious.

I did not ask you questions because I didn’t have any questions for you. I did not say that your being a SWBTS student disqualifies you. I said that it may reveal a bias. My own opinion is that it does.

Finally, perhaps you now know just a very tiny bit about what the LifeWay research department was probably feeling like back in June when the blogosphere that camps on your side of the block was raking them over the coals for their research. Everyone will want grace for you to go along with their hard-and-fast examination of LifeWay. I am suggesting that if they are not beyond critique, neither are you and perhaps you more so in this particular regard.

Now, breathe deep and count backwards from ten to zero. It isn’t like I attacked your manhood and my own sense is that it was a tad bit more respectful than your reply (which seems rather ironic in light of your post today).
#62 Colin
on Aug 23rd, 2007 at 2:59 pm

Paul,

I am afraid I do not understand where I was disrespectful. I addressed each point you mentioned, and was rather nice given your attempt to discredit my research based on guesses about me. It is a clever tactic to disarm my points with a stab at my perceived defensiveness, worry about “my manhood,” etc. I hope we can avoid that type of communication and address the points of your critique and my response.

I am glad you understand my point on bias and choices. I would like an example of where an ‘answer’ I gave in my research is fatally flawed, as you suggested. I hope you do not miss the point that you can choose otherwise and still come up with the same results, as I invited you to do.

I also think you missed Ron P.’s point. He states the overall resounding theme of SBC Outpost is anti-PP, not that every post of the Outpost has that as its theme. I hope you do not dismiss the three denominational figures’ agreement with Ron P. on the tenor, etc.

Further, I have never attacked Lifeway, and do not have a side. Please tell me what you think my stance is on PPL, tongues, or the new baptism policy. I am interested to hear.

Paul, I am not trying to out-man you or save face. I am tired of rhetoric and negative communication, as I indicated in my current post. So I am going to hold you to what you say. Please back up your remarks (see above bold). I enjoy critique, it’s the only way I can improve my skills. However, let’s make sure it’s critique and not denigration.
#63 Debbie Kaufman
on Aug 23rd, 2007 at 6:20 pm

Ron: I will speak for myself here in answering your comment. I do want the Baptist Identity to widen, not past the BFM but certainly larger than I believe Robin, Bart, Dr. York, Dr. Herschel and others would have it. They have narrowed it down so far that I don’t think even they themselves could fit in. No one has answered what Baptist Identity is. For me however, it is scripture as the final authority.That entails alot. I do believe in immersion and the main fundamentals of the faith that the Bible is clear on such as Christ is the only way to heaven, virgin birth etc.

During my research, I have come away with the impression that clear Baptist distinctiveness is at stake. I have come away with the conviction that this movement wants to widen the scope (aggrandize) what it means to be Baptist. It appears to be a movement towards ecumenism. Possibly, as an unintended consequence, but nonetheless it is where this reform is destined if not carefully checked and evaluated.

The movement and dissent would have been better received if (so many of) the attacks were not so personal and clearly motivated by bitterness. Hence, one of the reasons I listed gun control as an issue, was to demonstrate that no matter what the issue, it really appears to be all about Dr. Patterson, whether it is attacking his wife, his dog, his professors, or his guns. As I said, I do not believe that to be the case for all though.

This is going to be controversial but I am going to say it. There were no personal attacks in my opinion. Facts were brought out on wrong doing with documentation. Could some things have not been said? Sure. There was no false information brought out. It was fact. That seems to be alluded. The same attitude prevailed when it was brought out that Richard Land, Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell met with Mitt Romney a Mormon who is running for President. They were supporting him. That is wrong. No a whimper from Wes, Bart, Robin or you. Les Puryear wrote on it. I bring this up because I can’t understand all the murmuring against SBCOutpost and I am sincere. But I believe in telling it like it is and maybe too much so. I don’t know.

As for the pulling of endorsements? I am disappointed and believe that Jerry Rankin and Frank Page are wrong in writing what they wrote, but also respect their write to speak. It’s the first time I have ever disagreed with them on anything, but I thought asking for the endorsements was a mistake anyway. The posts on the Outpost were nothing compared to the comments. Emily Hunter was trashed. Literally in some of the comments. That’s just one example. Both views were wrong in the comments Both views. But I found those who would agree with you, Robin etc. especially harsh. Cruel even. I am not saying this to be tit for tat. It’s just the facts. Irenic people cannot go that far. We can go pretty far, but a line(at least for me) is drawn pretty quickly. I can’t cross that line. It is not in me to do. I’ll stand toe to toe with a harsh person, but I cannot get as harsh as some have been.

Ron, Irenic is not passive. You are taking a definition which I believe does describe those who wish reform and taking it to a level that of your own making while fighting to the death yourself. Do you really think that we will not fight back to a large degree? Of course we will. When shot at, we don’t just stand there with a big grin and God loves you look on our face. Remember how this all began. Missionaries and some from my own church who I know personally, good men and women of God with a burning desire to do God’s call in their lives as missionaries were being rejected due to admitting to a private prayer language or having been baptized in a river by someone other than an ordained Southern Baptist minister. That is what began this desire in us to change things. Then my minister who stood against these policies privately with no response but lots of antagonism, was threatened to be ousted from his duties as trustee, behind closed doors, with no hearing and no recourse. That is not something that irenic people stand by and allow to happen without a battle of sorts. We would be utterly stupid to do that. So if you are saying go with the flow and just be quiet and let things stay as they are, letting too powerful people run others off just because they may disagree,then I will gladly drop the word irenic. No problem. I feel the word fits, but not by your definition. Look what happens to abused women or children when they are beat up and don’t fight back. It doesn’t stop the abuse, it spurs it to continue.

I genuinely care about all the people in the SBC, but what you are proposing frankly hinders the gospel in my opinion. Look at the numbers. Church attendance down the past twenty years, Baptisms down. People leaving? Up. We are not the sixteen million that we claim. Far from it. At least ten million have left in the last twenty years and possibly more. That concerns me, but it also tells me a lot. I am sorry for the long comment but hope I have clarified things at least from my viewpoint.

I would like to see us change things together for the glory of God and for the love of each other. My husband and I are polar opposites on almost everything, but I love him deeply and vice versa. We have been married for 23 years. I wouldn’t trade him for anything. We argue, we disagree, but in the end we always compromise because we love each other. Same principal should apply here. We should love Christ and each other along with other people so much that we are willing to sit down and talk this through. I would like to see what I experienced at the Holy Spirit conference permeate the SBC.
#64 Paul
on Aug 23rd, 2007 at 8:11 pm

Colin,

It seems clear we are talking past each other. You think I’m denigrating you when that is not my intention. I think you sound harsh and defensive and you say you are not. Perhaps we should simply agree that we disagree and move on.
#65 Debbie Kaufman
on Aug 23rd, 2007 at 10:32 pm

For clarification, I do believe the CR should have happened. I was not a Southern Baptist then, but I read about it and I do believe there were liberal attempting to take over the Convention. That is not the case now however. It’s Conservatives disagreeing with Conservatives.