A friend who serves as an International Mission Board missionary for the Southern Baptist Convention sent me the following quote from Dr. Jack McGorman. Dr. McGorman taught New Testament at Southwestern Theological Seminary for five decades, and is considered one of the most popular and effective professors in the history of SWBTS. From the notes taken in Dr. McGorman's class by my missionary friend, it seems the good doctor had a very good understanding of how Christian unity is not the same thing as Christian uniformity. Dr. McGorman said:"The more insecure leadership is the more they demand uniformity. There are things which we don't have to believe exactly as someone else does. You can't have uniformity without coercion. The best marriage is unity without uniformity."Additionally, in the introduction to a book Dr. McGorman wrote entitled, "The Gifts of the Spirit", Dr. McGorman astutely points to one of the major problems we seem to face within our beloved Southern Baptist Convention:
Unfortunately the gospel of Jesus Christ sometimes suffers as much at the hands of its defenders as it does from its distorters. This is difficult to acknowledge because it is always the hardest to recognize and repent of our "spiritual" carnality. It is precisely at the point of what we regard as our greatest spirituality -- whether in the claim of special religious experience or in the claim of loyal defense of the truth -- that we are most vulnerable to carnality. How shall the Holy Spirit convict us of the sin we attribute to him as our greatest good!"In the spirit of Dr. McGorman, I remind Grace and Truth readers that you will be able to watch our third Sunday morning worship service LIVE, via the Internet, at 11:00 a.m. Central Time, or you may join us for the evening service at 6:00 p.m. Central Time LIVE via the Internet. Special guest is William Paul Young, author of The Shack. If you would desire to see a modern illustration of what SBC demands for uniformity look like, then you might read some of the comments attached to this former post.
In His Grace,
Wade
206 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 206 of 206Wade believes in a God of love.
Obviously you don't see God that way. And your view of mankind is abominable. Sick.
Shack Heretical Quote of the Hour.
“I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.
Robert ....tear that Shack down!
Robert, your version of the god of hate is a heresy.
People aren't evil. They are children of the Creator.
Satan is evil. And it is heresy to form a hateful, vengeful god in Satan's image to worship.
To Anonymous who said…Rex and Gary.
Thank you for the details of McGorman not signing the BFM 1964 or the 2000.
I never heard of anyone being forced to sight the 1963. What was the deal on that?
You said, “…the seminary (at least under Hemphill’s tenure) was willing to live with the difficulty of an exception in McGorman’s case and did not force him from the classroom.”
What happened to McGorman after Hemphill’s tenure?
Ron West,
You said, “Blogs like Wades are important because they shine the light of truth on the CR.”
I believe Wade’s blog also gives guys like you to do the same.
You quoted an Anonymous who said he was a former leader of the CR as saying he had been in meetings with highest level and named Paige Patterson, Adrian Rogers, and Charles Stanley. He also said it was stressed to attack liberals for: “their weakness on inerrancy and their softness on homosexuality… and if there were not facts to substantiate an allegation, just make them up.”
I don’t know if anything said of anonymous is true, but I know that Patterson made things up.
He was proved untruthful in accusing a German professor by a tape recording of the meeting. (Patterson was trying to give reasons for leaving the Baptist World Alliance.)
Then at the 2004 SBC, as the last speaker before the vote to leave the BWA, I heard Patterson accuse the BWA of being gay friendly.
BTW, how about all you people try arguing with Ron West and give Robert a break?
Y'all who are giving Robert a hard time are the very proof of how people have checked their discernment at the door, in many instances when it comes to this work of fiction. Since it isnt the Gospel, or the Inspired Scripture, I wonder at your defense of it. I'm surprised folks cannot handle those who oppose the book, or having this man speak in their churches.
You're defending the author of a fiction book, and nailing Robert for quoting well known authors and teachers who also oppose the The Shack.
Havent seen one single person address the problem of what Young believes Jesus did or did not take on the Cross. You can believe in a God of love, but you have to consider His other attributes as well. A nicey nice God is the only God some people want to see. As an author once told me, you can love someone straight to hell if you want to. I wont say what background she was from, but she said please do me a favor and tell those from my background the whole truth. All of it.
Post a Comment