Anyone who has been in pastoral ministry for any length of time knows the the title of this post is an axiomatic statement. An unhealthy marriage is measured by the number of secrets spouses keep from one other. An unheathy church is manifested when members are kept in the dark about business matters 'for their own good.' An unhealthy convention will have leaders do everything behind closed doors, keeping secrets from the members at large, believing that only those in power have the true ability to handle all the truth.On the other hand, a healthy marriage is measured by the full and open transparency between husband and wife. A church is in good health when leadership has no desire to "keep" secrets from the congregation. That's not to say everything must be shared with everyone, but simply that leadership takes no effort to keep information from members. The same can be said of a healthy convention.
Dr. Albert McClellan, the former Executive Director of the Southern Baptist Convention's Executive Committee, spoke to a writer for The Baptist Program on December 31, 1980 and said,
"In 43 years there have been fewer than six executive sessions (closed door, private meetings) . . . The Executive Committee (SBC) has an open ear for anyone one who wants to speak to it. For almost 25 years the gallery has been two to three times bigger than the size of the Committee, and the gallery has been permitted to ask any question, to give any information, to make any point and to offer any objection."I am grateful for any positive course corrections brought about by the Conservative Resurgence, and some would argue that the removal of Dr. McLellan was one of those course corrections, but I would propose that if there has been just an infinitesimal increase in the number of secrets in the SBC since 1979, then we may very well be, no matter the objections, worse off as a convention.
Why are secrets being kept? Why do we wish to keep people in the dark? What is the purpose of leaders hiding behind a veiled curtain? I would be interested in your opinions, but allow me to offer a couple of possible reasons through the form of two memorable quotes on transparency.
"One man's transparency is another's humiliation." Gerry Adams
What I'm thinking about more and more these days is simply the importance of transparency, and Jefferson's saying that he'd rather have a free press without a government than a government without a free press." Esther Dyson
In His Grace,
Wade
109 comments:
Amen.
Secrets are only kept when one is concerned with image or appearances, but not of substance or of the heart. This is the essence of the cause.
Our modern day encourages us to maintain these illusions of image, while neglecting the substance. We see the result of it in politics, church, work and at home.
It is truly sad.
The only way to overcome this is to go to the source, Our Lord Jesus Christ. To abide in Him. To rest in Him. Everything else will follow after that. At least I want to believe in this. I am learning the slow way.
Wade:
You said--"I am grateful for any positive course corrections brought about by the Conservative Resurgence"
Do you believe that now almost 30 years removed from what people call the CR, that it made the SBC better or worse?
Anon-
Do you ever post under your real name? I can loan you some courage if you need some in order for you to come out of the dark and into the light. Just let me know.
Tom,
Tough question. The answer, in my opinion, is "both." I have no problem with the CR's focus on the nature of Scripture, but a huge problem with modern demands for a uniform interpretation of the sacred text. And, of course, this post illustrates another problem.
Alan Paul,
I deleted anonymous's post. I don't usually do that, but as you rightly point out, anyone with a lack of courage does not deserve the first slot in the comment stream.
Anonymous, feel free to post again. I believe your question was Do you ever talk about anything else?
Ironically, if you look at yesterday's post, you'll get your answer.
:)
And, one of the commenters in the golf comment stream criticized me for posting on different things.
Sigh. You can't please everyone. Smile.
So, I've decided to not even try.
Grin,
Wade
So I lack courage because I post anon, don't you defend FBCJax even though he does the same thing?
Hmm...
The purposes of a man's heart are deep waters, but a man of understanding draws them out. Proverbs 20:5
Great post Pastor Wade.
Secrets are like the plunder under Achan's tent or the idol's Rachel hid away.
Well.. if that's Wade's view on keeping confidences.. I wouldn't trust him with counselling.
Wade,
You are not old enough to remember the inner workings of the SBC before the Conservative Resurgence but I can assure you that there were MANY MANY secrets being kept. Things haven't changed a whole lot--just the ones doing it. The leaders of the CR sure didn't invent secret keeping.
Nope... I don't defend him - he needs no defending because he is spot on in what he is doing (even if he was afraid) - I actually told him, like Wade, that he should have published his name long ago and there wouldn't be any of this controversy. This will be it as far as communicating with you... I broke my own policy by even reading your post let alone communicating with you.
I'm not a fan on anon's either. One could, however, surely find some examples of cowardice in my walk too. Therefore, I will walk alongside as a fellow coward, although in different areas.
Amen.
Openness in a private, but semi-public organiation such as a church, is very important. This is especially true on governance and business matters.
Louis
Secrets develop a power of their own, but it tends to be a corrosive, even destructive power. Ironically, the power of a secret is often greater than the truth of the secret. In other words, if the "secret" were known, it would have the power of a firecracker, but when made a secret, it is like a stick of dynamite. Unfortunantly, that is the only power some people have, so they cherish and maintain it.
Sometimes people say some secrets must be kept. My answer is that there is a difference between secrets and confidences. I have found that if someone wants to tell me a secret, and me keep it secret, it is inevitably about someone else, and amounts to little more than gossip. So I tell people (especially those coming in counseling situations) that I am good at keeping confidences, because a confidence is what "you" tell me about yourself. However, I am lousy at keeping secrets, because a secret is what you tell me about a third party. Guess what? Folowing this policy has kept me out of the gossip circuit, and indeed, shut at least some of those circuits down!
That is on an individual and church level. On a wider scale, I think things like the identity and location of missionaries in sensitive areas and maybe some "confessions" (unless they rose to the level of a crime or something like that) would be confidences. But some things--who lied what about who to create trouble, who embezzled or misused money from what agency, things like that are definitely "secrets" which need to be exposed to the light of day.
John Fariss
John Fariss,
Great distinction between secrets and confidences. That's one of those "nuggets" that will prove valuable for many of us. Thanks.
Bryan wrote:
Secrets are like the plunder under Achan's tent or the idol's Rachel hid away.Or like Lot's wife looking back at Sodom and Gomorrah and being turned into a pillar of salt.
Greg Harvey
From Ephesians 5
THE LORD, THE GIVER OF LIGHT
5:1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children.
2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
3 But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints.
4 Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. 5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.
7 Therefore do not become partners with them;
8 for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord.
Walk as children of light
9 (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true),
10 and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord.
11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.
12 For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret.
13 But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, 14 for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says,
“Awake, O sleeper,
and arise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you.”
15 Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise,
16 making the best use of the time, because the days are evil.
17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.
18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,
19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart,
20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Anon. 11:00 A.M.- You said, "I can assure you that there were MANY MANY secrets being kept." Just a thought, but if you knew about them were they secrets?
The reason anyone, pre or post CR, keeps secrets is what the business world calls CYA.
As a pastor for many years it is true some things have a reason for confideniality. But I truly believe openness is always the best policy even though some don't want to participate in business of the church they should have the opportunity.
Just a note about Dr. McClellan -- We went to church with his family from 1981-1987. He and his wife were gentle servants of God. There are many of us who have not been able to live with the narrow doctrinal parameters that the SBC has handed down. We are no longer able to identify with the SBC. We wish the Conservative Resurgance had not excluded so many decent Baptists who would not agree with every single point of conformity. We still proclaim, "Jesus is Lord".
from CANTICLE OF ZECHARIAH
(Luke 1:68-79)
Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel;
he has come to his people and set them free.
He has raised up for us a mighty savior,
born of the house of his servant David.
Through his holy prophets he promised of old
that he would save us from our enemies,
from the hands of all who hate us.
He promised to show mercy to our fathers
and to remember his holy covenant.
This was the oath he swore to our father Abraham;
to set us free from the hands of our enemies,
free to worship him without fear,
holy and righteous in his sight all the days of our life.
You, my child, shall be called the prophet of the Most High;
for you will go before the Lord to prepare his way,
to give his people knowledge of salvation
by the forgiveness of their sins.
IN THE TENDER COMPASSION
OF OUR GOD,
THE DAWN FROM ON HIGH
SHALL BREAK UPON US,
TO SHINE ON THOSE WHO DWELL
IN DARKNESS
AND IN THE SHADOW OF DEATH,
AND TO GUIDE OUR FEET
INTO THE WAY OF PEACE.
being informed is overrated...not knowing is pretty darn freeing. too many folks today want to know all the secrets...then what? secrets not had are secrets not potentially kept (or dealt with)
No, no. Being transparent is freeing! It also brings a great insight into your activities when you know that they are all going to be "posted."
Bennett Willis
Wade
Secretes are things kept from being publicly revealed while confidences are things revealed in private.
Confidences are synonymous with trust. Secretes are synonymous with hiding.
IMO, according to the Fall in Genesis, Man sinned and as a result felt shame. Shame caused man to hide from each other and from God.
Walk that backward and secrets are hidings motivated by shame which is caused by sin.
Chuck
Dear Joe,
I don't normally quoite extensive passages of Scripture in my comments, but in reply to your entry of 2:07 PM, I am compeled to do so.
1 Corinthians 13: 1-13, "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."
Joe, do you really think your comments reflect this? It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.
From someone who loves the Word (both written and living) but you consider a "moderate" or a "liberal." And I'm still SBC.
John Fariss
Thanks, Paul. Coming from someone whom I respect so much, that is high praise indeed. Maybe someday I will get away from the east coast and get to meet you. I shall pray for it.
John Fariss
Joe:
Is it just me, but lately everytime you post you are degrading somebody, that is you are labeling people or making snarky remarks.
PSR makes a hearfelt comment and you have to say something nasty to him.
How old are you?
How much do you really know about the CR?
Please make a list of all the horrible "liberals" who were removed to cleanse the SBC and then share it with the world.
And BTW very few want to take back the SBC.
Joe:
What happened to your comments?
Joe took his wooden blocks and went home.
I had to leave to run some errands and missed the negative response to my comments. For clarification, I am a 59 year old woman and work in the accounting field. Even though I am not drawn to any full-time ministry position, as a woman, I felt the sting and rebuke that the Conservative Resurgance brought to women, in general, during that time. I am committed to living my life following the example of Christ, as best I can.
Something bothers me about the title: 'Conservative Resurgence'.
That implies that the SBC was once like it is now and liberals and moderates tried to highjack it.
So, what are we to think? That once, the SBC was heavily into abusing others, and the liberals and moderates tried to stop it?
What exactly was it that 'resurged'?
What and when are examples of missionaries and women being terribly abused by 'conservative' leaders prior to the 1970's?
"Conservative RESURGENCE" is a misnomer. Like it or not, the term "conservative resurgence" will forever be tied to abuse of power and the harm of innocent people.
"Openness in a private, but semi-public organiation such as a church, is very important. This is especially true on governance and business matters."
Louis, can you elaborate on this. I am confused as to what you mean. Do you have semi-public elders at your church? :o)
Joe Blackmon is deleting most of his comments in the past posts.
Wow, ThyPeace, can't slip nothing past you. You oughta change your screen name to the Dark Knight or CyberSherlock.
Hi Joe,
I hope everything is okay.
Love, L's
Lydia, could you give us more information on Jerry Grace? His insights were the best!
Great post. Since everything should be out in the open, could you please blog about your last deacon's meeting and share with us all that was said in relation to your church and members? Thanks for the transparency!
MIKE
L's
Everuthing is 5 by five.
Hope you are recovering well.
Joe,
Everyone is so concerned, I thought I'd ask: Are you subjecting removing yourself from fellowship?
It's late.
...subjecting yourself to church discipline or removing yourself from fellowship?
I tend to think that most people that keep demanding "transparency" and finding secrets even when they don't exist are usually people who don't like the monetary policies in their church.
If a church chooses not to publish salaries and every minute detail but allow them to be handled by elders/committees then that is the choice of that church.
If someone doesn't like the way a church is governed then don't join it or find another or get elected to a position of authority. I have found that those who howl the loudest are usually insecure and are dying to be the ones in authority.
There isn't a snake under every rock.
Hi JOE,
It's me, L's
Thanks. I'm recovering well.
God is good. :)
These comments were left by Lydia and Wade on Fbc Jax Watchdog blog:
-----------------------------------
Lydia said...
Actually, if you read the post at Wade's blog carefully, it is not clear the caller was anonymous. He just did not catch the name the person gave.
Chances are this person really believes such tactics always work. This has been the way of the SBC leadership for over 20 years now. And it worked great until the internet came along and outed them.
This stuff has been going on for years. Here is a story from now deceased Jerry Grace about another unknown victim of their power grabs:
Paul Debusman was reference librarian at Southern Seminary for 35 years.
He was terminated 10 months prior to his retirement for the "harm" he supposedly did to the Seminary in writing a personal letter to SBC President Tom Elliff. The letter advised Elliff that he erred in proclaiming that before the takeover Fundamentalists were not invited to speak at the Seminary Chapel. Debusman wrote: "Chapel as I remembered it from the '50s, '60s, '70s and '80s was a time when we heard everyone. There was a deliberate strategy to bring in different points of view. That is no longer true." Eliff, then president of the Southern Baptist Convention, registered a complaint with Southern Seminary President Al Mohler that resulted in the dismissal of Debusman.
The fundamentalist leaders of the SBC have had very thin skin for a long time.
Whatever became of Paul Debusman?
Jerry Grace has an answer. He wrote about the effect that termination had on Debusman in the e-mail that he sent to me. Here's what he says,
He is a man who is regularly on my heart and about whom I have done a lot of research.
If there is any situation in our history where someone more innocent was assassinated without any reason other than pure power politics, I do not know who or when. I cannot allow the passage of time to dim the brutal nature of what happened to this gentle and innocent man. Friends of his have told me that if you were in a room of people including ten clones of him, you would never notice one of them. I grieve for him and his family and I grieve for a seminary board who could have condoned this. Were the three high officials involved in this sad act, Mohler, Eliff, and Akin on my payroll, I would have fired all three of them. All of them have gone on to bigger and better things but have left this situation ignored and unrepented. Paul Debusman however has suffered enormously.
Al Mohler this past week called for a circling of the wagons in the SBC leadership for the character assassinations going so far to say that none of them will tolerate an individual attack on any of them. If that doesn't sound like someone drunk with power, and fearful of personal exposure I don't know what does.
My question to Al as he decries the criticism and character assassination of SBC leaders this question. What about the assassination of Paul Debusman? Who stood to defend him as you humiliated him and took his career away with only months to go?
What about Paul Debusman? For me he is the embodiment of the millions of humble men and women who have served God, their churches, and their denomination without need of recognition or any aspect of vainglory so evident in the good Dr. Mohler and those who assisted him. He is the man or woman who brings life to our churches in thousands of unnoticed ways. He's the guy who comes down to light the heater, or fill the baptistery, or mow the lawn, or paint the ceiling in the nursery. The one who is always there to serve as a greeter, always taking out the garbage at a social event without being asked, the one who brings his pressure cleaner down to clean the portico just because it was dirty. He's the lady who faithfully says yes everytime she is asked to fix something for a funeral, or decorate the sanctuary, or clean the kitchen, the toilets, scrub the floors till they shine, and never expect anyone to notice. Paul Debusman is my beginner teacher, my sword drill leader, my VBS superintendent, the man who cried for me when my father died and said he wished it had been him and meant it. he's my mother, my grandmother, my father, my aunts, my uncles and countless pastors just getting by. That's who Paul Debusman is and in allowing that decision to happen and stand is just as much an attack on every last one of the terrific, ordinary, invisible, unselfish, loyal, and committed men and women that breathe life and meaning into what the word Baptist means as it was to him. If we can't stand against what happened to Paul Debusman then we have a hard time standing for anything.
. . . Mohler, Eliff, and Akin need to make this right with a public apology to Debusman, an apology to the people of the Southern Baptist Convention, and the payment personally of sufficient damages to in some way acknowledge this very bad act. Until they do, the criticism Mohler says the leaders won't tolerate, will not end. And until they do their integrity deserves the questions that they have brought on themselves.
APRIL 22, 2009 12:59 PM.
-----------------------------------
Wade Burleson said...
Lydia,
Email me with your phone number if you do not mind. I would like to visit with you, at your convenience, about Paul Debusman. I have visited with Paul personally, and he was hesitant to tell me his story, but I was moved by what I discovered.
I am considering beginning an annual "Paul Debusman Award" and would like to visit with you about it.
You make an excellent point in your comment above. Where were these men when Paul was attacked and dismissed? Where were these men when Sheri Klouda was attacked and dismissed? Where were these men when the IMB missionaries were attacked and dismissed? Where were these men . . .
Well, you get the picture.
In His Grace,
Wade
APRIL 22, 2009 2:21 PM.
-----------------------------------
Thy Peace just told me what I had for dinner last night :)
Mr. Debusman was badly abused.
Does he still live?
What he did was simply to try to correct what he thought was a misunderstanding on the part of the SBC President. Mr. Debusman acted honestly and privately and in good faith.
So Mohler is one of the executioners? Thought so.
Were the people of the SBC just slow to wake up to what was going on or were they content to allow it to happen to 'someone else'?
It is said that when you deprive a man of his livelihood, you may as well excute him. It would have been kinder for Mohler, et al. to have murdered Mr. Debusman.
First Samuel 24:13
'evil deeds come from evil people'
Reminders:
1. During its existence, MANY people have posted anonymously here--including folks with "blue names" but no other info provided about themselves (e.g., Thy Peace--for all his/her terrific statements here, who is he/she?);
2. The CR actually was a PCR, a resurgence of the politically-conservative in the SBC. Again (have posted this many times before): relatively speaking, only the SBC was made up ONLY of theologically-conservative believers before 1979; after 1979, it began to be composed primarily of theologically- AND politically-conservative (and Fundamentalist) believers--the theologically-conservative, politically-moderate believers parted ways or are practically uninvolved. Almost all votes at the annual SBC meeting became predictable after that time because of the make up of the meeting.
3. Ministers, and folks working many other "industries" I'm sure, will take hundreds of secrets to their graves--but those secrets are about things which should remain confidential. Happenings among us--supported by the CP dollars of all of us--should be as transparent as possible (exceptions would be personnel matters which qualify).
David
". . . the SBC was made up . . ." NOT ". . . only the SBC was made up . . ."
David
This is an extreme example of literal selective interpretations of the bible and it's effect in real life:
(My thanks to Charis)
-------------------------------------
Nate Phelps 2009 AA Speech
The Uncomfortable Grayness of Life
by Nathan Phelps
American Atheists Convention
April 11, 2009, Atlanta, GA.
On the first anniversary of my father’s suspension, I returned home from school to find my mother weeping in the church vestibule. My older brother, Mark, was trying to comfort her. She turned to him, her eyes red and swollen, her voice choked with rage. She yanked the stocking cap off her head, revealing that her long dark hair has been coarsely chopped off. “He cut my hair off”, she cried. Looking closer, I could see that in some places her white scalp has been exposed.
I think everyone here can understand the trauma of such violence, the feeling of violation and abuse. But for my mother, and for our family, there was more to it than that. My father had a fascination with 1 Corinthians 11, in which Paul teaches the hierarchal authority from god, to Christ, to Man, to Woman. A sign of a woman’s submission, he argues, is her wearing her hair long. Fred took quite literally the instructions that women should have long hair; and more than that, he determined that the Greek word translated as “long” in the bible would be more properly translated as “uncut”. Thus, no woman in the church was allowed to put scissors to her hair. Nor were they allowed to present themselves in church without their heads properly covered.
In my father’s world, obscure standards and requirements that he dug out of the Bible were far more important than improving one’s character, or demonstrating kindness towards others. When he took those blades to my mother’s head, he was making a powerful assertion that he had absolute control over her very salvation. So ingrained were these beliefs that I remember fearing that, by cutting her hair, my father had condemned her to eternal damnation.
Women were second class citizens in our church and family, and my father proclaimed this adamantly, with no room for compromise. The bible was very clear on the subject. Eve was deceived by the snake in Eden, and was therefore the weaker vessel in every respect. Paul bolstered this misogynistic attitude in his letters to the early churches. Wives were to be in subjection to their husbands; and by extension, it was a husband’s responsibility to bring his wife back into submission if she strayed. Women were to keep silent in the church. Women were to have the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit. These were just truths that we took as fundamental.
Yet when my father turned his instructive fist on my mother, I instinctively felt internal conflict. For me, it was intuitively wrong that a 6 foot 2, 250 pound man be allowed to beat up a woman barely half his size. But we dared not intervene or even question his actions, because his behavior was sanctioned by god. In one instance, as my father was stalking our mother at the top of the stairs, she stumbled and started to fall. Reaching out to catch herself she ripped her arm out of the socket. My father refused to let her get medical treatment to repair the damaged muscles and tendons. In subsequent, years when he was angry with her, he would inevitably grab for that injured arm. On a few occasions he managed to get hold of it and re-injure it.
-----------------------------------
Chronology of Major Events in the Controversy
by: Charles McLaughlin
Associate Coordinator, TBC
1967 - Seminary Doctoral student Paige Patterson and Judge Paul Pressler meet at Cafe du Monde in New Orleans and discuss a long term strategy for fundamentalist domination of the Southern Baptist Convention.
1974 - The Baptist Faith and Message Fellowship identifies inerrancy of the Bible as the issue to be used in their struggle against moderates and liberals in the SBC.
1979 - Patterson, Pressler and others run a "get out the vote" campaign in 15 states prior to the Convention, urging a defeat of 'liberalism' in the SBC.
Voters are bussed to the convention in mass numbers but leave after the vote for president.
Fundamentalist pastor Adrian Rogers is elected president.
1980 - Judge Pressler publicly announces the strategy of the fundamentalist takeover, which is to elect the SBC president a sufficient number of times to gain a fundamentalist majority on the boards and agencies of the Convention. This is to be accomplished through the president's power to make appointments. Pressler calls this, "Going for the jugular." [Trustee turnover is accomplished in 1989.]
Fundamentalists successfully elect all presidents of the SBC from 1979 to present.
1985 - The SBC forms a "Peace Committee" to investigate the growing conflict and make recommendations for conflict resolution. Dominated by fundamentalists the committee fails to approach reconciliation. Cecil Sherman resigns from the committee in 1985, followed by Winfred Moore in 1986 because he did not feel he could participate in a "police committee."
1986 - The Home Mission Board trustees become majority fundamentalist. The trustees bar women from receiving pastoral assistance in mission churches supported by HMB.
Seminary presidents attempt peace in the "Glorietta statement" but to no avail.
1987 - The Peace Committee report is adopted, recommending that hiring practices of boards and agencies reflect "the most commonly held beliefs" in the denomination. Moderates charge that Creedalism becomes official SBC policy through this action.
The Southeastern Board of Trustees becomes majority fundamentalist. They take the Faculty out of the process for hiring new instructors, and place this power solely in hands of the president, who must use the Peace Committee document as a doctrinal guide for hiring.
President of Southeastern Seminary, Randall Lolley, resigns in protest.
HMB votes to forbid missionary appointment to persons who speak in tongues and divorced persons, unless the divorce falls within strict "Biblical guidelines."
1988 - HMB uses the Peace Committee report to enforce creedalism in hiring practices.
The SBC meeting in San Antonio passes a resolution elevating strong pastoral authority and denigrating the priesthood of all believers by a vote of 10,950 to 9,050.
Richard Land, a fundamentalist leader, becomes President of the Christian Life Commission.
The Foreign Mission Board fires moderate missionary Michael Willett after a fundamentalist missionary reports on Willett's opinions.
1989 - Fundamentalist leaders give the Christian Life Commission greater responsibility for dealing with church/state issues, in order to circumvent working with the more moderate Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs.
1990 - Southern Seminary Board of Trustees becomes majority fundamentalist. Trustees give students permission to openly tape classes.
Trustee Jerry Johnson of Colorado accuses Southern Seminary President Roy Honeycutt and many faculty of heresy.
Baptist Press editors Al Shakleford and Dan Martin are fired by the SBC Executive Committee due to their reporting on the fundamentalist takeover effort and their refusal to cease writing such stories. Associated Baptist Press is formed in order to maintain a free press for Baptist news.
Daniel Vestal calls a national level meeting of moderate Baptists in Atlanta. 3000 people show up and vow to meet again the next year. This will be the birth of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.
1991 - Southeastern Seminary publishes new statement of purpose and the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy becomes official policy.
Moderate Sunday School Board President Lloyd Elder is forced to resign due to a hostile board of trustees. Fundamentalist leader Jimmy Draper becomes President of the Sunday School Board.
The Foreign Mission Board votes to defund Rushlikon Seminary in Europe because of liberal professors.
6000 Baptists in Atlanta formally organize the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.
Moderates no longer offer an alternative candidate for President of the SBC.
1992 - Paige Patterson becomes President of Southeastern Seminary.
Career missionary and President of the Foreign Mission Board, Keith Parks, resigns in protest against a hostile fundamentalist board of trustees. Parks becomes missions director for the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.
1993 - President of Southern Seminary, Roy Honeycutt, resigns due to a hostile fundamentalist board of trustees. Al Mohler, a leading fundamentalist, becomes President of Southern Seminary.
The SBC votes to cease giving funds to the Baptist Joint Committee for Public Affairs, because it will not cooperate with the fundamentalist agenda to restore publicly-led prayer in schools, government vouchers to attend religious schools and other right wing political/religious goals.
Fundamentalists attempt to refuse seating for messengers from the church where President Clinton has his church membership.
The Southern Baptist Convention affirms a report critical of membership in Freemasons.
Gary Leazer is fired from the Home Mission Board for explaining the meaning of that vote to Masons at a Masonic meeting.
1994 - SBC Executive Committee leaders command SBC Seminaries to cease hosting booths at Cooperative Baptist Fellowship meetings.
Moderate Professor Molly Marshall is forced to resign from Southern Seminary.
A Hostile board of fundamentalist trustees at Southwestern Seminary fire President Russell Dilday and change the locks on his office.
SBC meeting in Orlando votes to refuse CBF funds designated for Missionaries and other SBC agencies.
SBC Executive Committee requests that State Conventions cut all ties to CBF.
1995 - Diana Garland is fired as Dean of Carver School of Social work by seminary president, A1 Mohler.
FMB President Jerry Rankin sends a letter to 40,000 pastors and Women's Missionary Union Directors, urging them to pray that the National WMU would cease cooperating with the CBF.
John Jackson, then chair of the Board of Trustees for the FMB, compares the WMU's cooperation with the CBF with the acts of an adulterous woman.
1996 - Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia form into rival state convention, in protest at the moderate nature of the existing state Association (convention), which cooperates with the CBF and other moderate Baptists.
Southwestern Seminary president Ken Hemphill cancels edition of its theological journal, editor and professor Jeff B. Poole removed from teaching.
1997 - The Carver School of Social Work is cut from the curriculum at Southern Seminary and transferred to another college.
Paul Debusman, librarian at Southern for 35 years, is fired over the content of a personal letter to Tom Ellif, then the SBC President.
New Orleans seminary withdraws invitations to teach from two adjunct instructors due to their ties with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.
The 1997 SBC meeting in Dallas calls for a boycott of Disney Company and related companies, because of immorality in movies and business policies friendly to homosexuals.
1998 - There has been a 70% faculty turnover at Southern Seminary since 1991. Between 1992 and 1996, 42 employees had resigned, retired or were fired and three departments experienced complete turnover or loss of faculty.
Jerry Falwell attends SBC as a messenger for the first time and identifies SBC seminaries as "fundamentalist."
Fundamentalist Baptists in Texas formed Southern Baptists of Texas, to serve as a rival state convention in protest against the Baptist General Convention of Texas.
SBC passes a new article on the family as an amendment to the Baptist Faith and Message statement of 1963. The amendment emphasizes female submission to the husband.
Paige Patterson, early leader of the fundamentalist takeover, is elected President of the Southern Baptist Convention.
1999 - Southwestern Seminary professors Alan Brehm and Dan Kent resign after the seminary requires faculty to sign off on the SBC amendment of the Baptist Faith and Message emphasizing female submission.
SBC Messengers commission a panel to re-examine the Baptist Faith and Message Statement, with a view toward revising it to reflect "unambiguous" fundamentalist language.
Midwestern Seminary trustees fire fundamentalist Mark Coppenger for "misappropriate anger."
Reorganization of SBC from 19 organizations to 12 does not result in larger budget percentages for "frontline missions." Instead the money went to the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the seminaries and the Executive Committee.
Article adapted from the Fundamentalist Takeover in the SBC, by James, Leazer, and Shoopman. Book is available through the TBC office.
May 2000
A friend of mine sat in the orientation for new employees in a mega church. The senior pastor made an appearance to address the group. In his short talk, he emphasized that they would 'hear' things but not to pay attention because 'there are no secrets here'.
Months later, my friend said that it was obvious there was NOTHING BUT secrets there.
Tom Rich has lawyered up.
"SBC passes a new article on the family as an amendment to the Baptist Faith and Message statement of 1963. The amendment emphasizes female submission to the husband."
We can't tell which way this comment is biased. It's funny. I've taken the amendment to emphasize the husband's sacrificial love for his wife. I guess we just find what we're looking for.
Darby, if you ever doubt which way to take the additions concerning the subordination of women:
look at the treatment of Sheri Klouda. Therein lies the truth.
There, in how she was treated, is the answer to any and all confusion on the subject. What 'they' did to Dr. Klouda was jusstified in their minds by what 'they' had written into bfm2k
Examine the complete destruction of this woman's livelihood, without mercy for her sick husband's needs. And then, speak of a husband's devoted service to his wife.
Not so hard to figure the CR out.
All you have to do is to examine how they slaughtered their victims.
Darby,
The fact that the CR leaders felt a need to add a statement on submission of women spoke volumes to many.
Anon,
I am not defending what happened to Klouda. I've always said the question isn't whether to have women professors at seminary, but whether we should even have seminaries. :) I'm thankful for those who were able to assist her and her husband.
But I do think that the BFM could be taken by the average, grass-roots Christian husband as an encouragement to love his wife, just as much as it could be taken as a wife to submit to her husband.
"The fact that the CR leaders felt a need to add a statement on submission of women spoke volumes to many."
Do you think that the section concerning a husband loving his wife was just put in there as an excuse to force a statement on women submitting to their husbands?
I'm the first to admit there seems to be a huge lopside in teaching women to be submissive vs. men to be good lovers.
If I recall correctly, one of the comments made regarding this addition was that "women were the first to sin". This addition of submission of women and accompanying explanations came across as an attempt to make sure that we knew what our place was, and it was not a place of being an equal partner with our spouse -- both accountable to God and to each other.
Submission, by its very nature, is unwholesome, unless it is a 'mutual honoring'.
The antics of Paige Patterson and friends do not speak to any interpretation of the bfm2k that would remotely speak for the honoring of Christian women.
Those "Antics" speak so loudly, I can't hear what you are trying to say, Darby.
They changed the bfm, performed their miserable antics, and we are left with the evidence.
No amount of rationalizing is going to undo the damage that the CR did to the reputation of the Church.
Darby, you can't put the horse back into the barn now. The horse done trampled too many victims.
We can't tell which way this comment is biased. It's funny. I've taken the amendment to emphasize the husband's sacrificial love for his wife. I guess we just find what we're looking for.
Sat Apr 25, 06:09:00 PM 2009
As Eph 5:21 teaches all believers to submit to one another, a husband's sacrificial love cannot be done without submitting to his wife, too. That is why Eph 5:21 is there. It seems very few are looking for Eph 5:21.
"Those "Antics" speak so loudly, I can't hear what you are trying to say, Darby."
This is true not only with antics but with teaching. PP's teaching an abused wife to go back and submit more. Ware teaching that unsubmissive wives trigger abuse, etc. Ware teaching that women are made in the 'indirect image' of God...a derivative. It all adds up. Eventually, you get a Klouda as roadkill on the way to obeying the BFM.
We should count our blessings that "Priesthood of Believer(s)" stayed in. Even though they added the 's'.
Wade,
It is simple. Knowledge is control and control is power. With the right knowledge one can pull off all kinds of surprises.
Knowledge is much like money. The very few who have a lot of it concerning certain matters have the greatest power over the greatest number who are in the dark until it is too late.
I know some conservative Christian leaders who let their wives know nothing about titles, bank accounts, stocks, bonds and deeds because it is a way of keeping the wife absolutely depenendent on them for the smallest to the greatest of needs. "The little wife is not to worry her pretty little head over such matters." That is until he keels over dead with a heart attack or runs off with the secretary.
Phil in Norman.
Still waiting on that post from the business meeting. Also, while we're at it, could you please blog all the details of your last staff meeting? Thank you
MIKE
Mike,
Anybody in our church who wishes to know what goes on in deacons meeting or staff meeting is free to attend either. We would welcome them, there are no closed doors.
Blessings,
Wade
That's not the point, Wade. Everyone can't fly to Oklahoma and doesn't want to. The point is there are things that shouldn't be public knowledge. You don't blog about them because at times they are sensitive in nature for sure. It's the same with the SBC and IMB, every single thing that is said isn't to be shouted, blogged or public knowledge. It's a thing called trust. If we don't trust our leaders enough to lead us, then why the heck are we following them? I don't mean blind, wreckless, no accountablity kind of trust, but seriously, there's not a conspiracy theory behind every closed door meeting.
MIKE
Secrets bespeak 'hiding in the darkness'
Christ brings light.
A church like Mac's needs secrecy.
It has a LOT to hide.
A Church like Christ's, doesn't.
It has a lot to share.
"If we don't trust our leaders enough to lead us, then why the heck are we following them?"
Most of us are not following them.
" I don't mean blind, wreckless, no accountablity kind of trust, but seriously, there's not a conspiracy theory behind every closed door meeting."
Who said anything about conspiracy? But I would be interested in how many folks knew about some of the shenanigans before the internet? Not many, I would suppose.
Sunlight is a great disinfectent.
Ministry of Reconciliation > Is This Story True?.
I would like to ask anyone who may know if this story I ran across concerning the firing of Al Shakleford and Dan Martin is true.
It seems even now, those who I would not believe are attempting to silence some of us, are now attempting to silence us, and I as a Southern Baptist, have too many questions in my investigation of issues to be silenced, no matter what means are used to try and accomplish the silencing.
Can anyone confirm or deny this story?
I ask because the Conservative Resurgence of the past is being so lauded, and I have found so many disturbing things in the methods used, that as I read this I have to verify it’s truth.
It seems that a secret meeting was held, with armed guards at the door carrying loaded guns. If this is true, then how can we call these years glory years, and how can we in all good conscience as Christians say this is right?.
When History Is All We Have by Will Campbell.
Caesar’s Centurions
All of that was prelude to what happened in Nashville on July 17. Immediately following the New Orleans convention, members of the Southern Baptist Executive Committee -- a body of seventy-seven members appointed by past and present presidents to carry on the business of the church between annual meetings -- demanded the resignations of the director and news editor of Baptist Press, an agency charged with writing and distributing news stories concerning Southern Baptists. For some years they had drawn fire for filing news stories many considered not in the best interests of Pressler and the fundamentalist side. When the two men, Al Shackleford and Dan Martin, both nationally respected journalists, refused to resign, a special session of the Executive Committee was called for July 17.
The meeting was scheduled to begin in the auditorium of the Baptist Building at 901 Commerce, Nashville, Tennessee, at ten o’clock in the morning. Two hours earlier more than two hundred people had gathered in support of the two men. And in support of the historic Baptist notion of freedom of information. Speculation inside the auditorium was that the first order of business would be a vote for executive session. Instead, at about a quarter past the hour word spread that the Executive Committee was in secret session in a room upstairs. Earlier, barricades of tables and chairs had blocked the stairs to the second floor. Discovering that they had been removed, the group hurried upstairs. Instead of a barricade armed guards blocked entry.
It was strange for me at first. Why were we surprised? Why did any of us even care? Had we not seen the so-called moderate groups when they were in control, do little better? Had we not watched as they said little, and did less, during the civil rights era? Vietnam? Who among them lifted an editorial voice? And who among them offered leadership to give equality to the women in their ranks, who constituted more than 50 percent of their numbers? Had we forgotten that sometimes our own writings had been kept from the shelves of their bookstores? Was it not they who built the abomination in which we were now standing from the tithes of the poor?
What are we to make of this multimillion-dollar building with its flaunting display of opulence and tight security dedicated to the lowly Galilean? Where are they at this moment, the holdover moderates who have not yet been purged from their plush offices here but probably will be soon, who hang onto the security of Mammon and vow to speak out as soon as retirement age is reached? Why do they cringe behind their own closed doors instead of storming the guards and money changers screaming, "In the name of Almighty God, stop it! Why don’t we? What freedom of information, what historic principle are we defending with our silent presence? Is this not what many of us thought we had walked away from in frustration and despair years ago? Just what is going on here?
...
Someone was trying to make a statement. I assumed that it was for the press. I couldn’t hear much of what he said. Something about Al and Dan each being offered five minutes to defend their work over the years for Baptist Press. I made out that as journalists and as Baptists they were refusing to participate in this secret meeting. Instead, they stood near the guarded door -- their trial, with neither stated charge nor defense, continuing inside.
"Sunlight is a great disinfectent."
Are you suggesting everyone should start having their meetings outside?
Are you suggesting everyone should start having their meetings outside?
Sun Apr 26, 09:12:00 AM 2009
Not a bad idea if weather permits. I have held staff meetings outside before. At the very least we should open some metaphorical windows.
Thy Peace,
Sadly, it is true.
Mike,
It's the same with the SBC and IMB, every single thing that is said isn't to be shouted, blogged or public knowledge. Totally disagree. But for the safety of our missionaries, EVERY SINGLE THING the IMB does in terms of business, finances, and ministry should be shouted from the house tops.
Wade
The presence of 'armed guards' does suggest a problem. :)
If you start making a list of 'here's what we know' and divide it into what was openly shared and what had to be uncovered, it is interesting that what was done openly pretty much involved people who the CR thought would not or could not fight back.
Then, apparently, the CR thought that these individuals would serve to intimidate any possible future opposition.
What has had to be 'discovered' ie. 'uncovered' reveals a more sinister working, if possible, the nature of which is best kept 'secret' from the sheep until it's too late.
If you start making a list of 'here's what we know' and divide it into what was openly shared and what had to be uncovered, it is interesting that what was done openly pretty much involved people who the CR thought would not or could not fight back.
Then, apparently, the CR thought that these individuals would serve to intimidate any possible future opposition..
Substitute "the administration of FBC Jacksonville" for "the CR," and you get a clear picture of what is happening at FBC Jax today. Unfortunately for the administration, they miscalculated that part about "not fighting back."
One man's conservative resurgence may also be another person's totalitarian takeover.
Looks like it damned near was.
What's the business of Mohler circling the wagons to protect the fat-cats? (Patterson, Brunson, etc.)
What are the details?
ABP News > Mohler presidency marked by change.
Elected ninth president of the flagship Southern Baptist Convention seminary in 1993 at age 33, Mohler came to power backed by a coalition called the "conservative resurgence."
Leaders of the group believed denominational bureaucracies had become too liberal and detached from rank-and-file Southern Baptists. They set out to change that by systematically gaining majorities on the various boards of trustees and using those voting blocs to replace moderate agency heads with people more in line with conservative views.
Though he worked at Southern Seminary while a doctoral student, including serving as an assistant to his moderate predecessor President Roy Honeycutt, Mohler switched loyalties to the conservative side while editor of the Christian Index newspaper in Georgia between 1989 and 1993.
Mohler's first clash as president came with Molly Marshall, the first and only woman ever to teach theology at Southern Seminary. Now president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Shawnee, Kan., Marshall left the Southern Seminary campus in Louisville, Ky., under threat of heresy charges in 1994.
That started an exodus of about 60 percent of the seminary's faculty, who left either by force or voluntarily during the next four years. They were replaced by new professors that shared values of the conservative resurgence, including commitment to biblical inerrancy and traditional views on issues like the role of women in the church and home.
In 1995 Mohler fired Diana Garland as dean of the Carver School of Social Work over disagreement with his demand that all professors must affirm belief that the Bible forbids women from serving as senior pastors. Garland stayed on as a professor, but eventually moved to Baylor University, where she now serves as dean of the Baylor School of Social Work.
In 1997 Southern trustees voted to abolish the Carver School of Social Work altogether, on Mohler's recommendation that the field of social work had grown so secularized and liberal that it no longer fit with the seminary's mission. The Carver name was transferred to Campbellsville University, where it's now called the Carver School of Social Work and Counseling.
No-Spin Chronology of Major Events in the Conservative Resurgence
1967 - Seminary Doctoral student Paige Patterson and Judge Paul Pressler meet at Cafe du Monde in New Orleans and discuss a long term strategy for reversing the theologically left-ward drift within the Southern Baptist Convention.
1974 - The Baptist Faith and Message Fellowship acknowledges that belief in the complete trustworthiness of the Bible (aka “inerrancy”) is the key issue in which the SBC must stand to avoid further movement toward theological liberalism.
1979 - Patterson, Pressler and others encourage Bible-believing (aka “inerrantist”) Baptists in 15 states to participate in the annual Convention, urging a stand for the Bible in the SBC.
Voters are provided transportation the Convention in mass numbers, and stay long enough to participate in the vote for president.
Conservative pastor Adrian Rogers is elected president by an overwhelming majority vote.
1980 - Judge Pressler publicly announces the means by which Bible-believing Baptists can ensure that the SBC is returned to its conservative roots, which is to elect the SBC president a sufficient number of times to ensure that Bible-believing Baptists constitute a majority on the boards and agencies of the Convention. This is to be accomplished through the president's power to make appointments. Pressler, recognizing the fight that liberals will put up to avoid losing control of the Convention, calls this, "Going for the jugular." [Trustee replacement (with members who represent the Bible-believing views of the vast majority of Southern Baptists) is accomplished in 1989.]
The messengers voting in the Convention meetings select Bible-believing presidents for the SBC from 1979 to present.
1985 - The SBC forms a "Peace Committee" to investigate the growing conflict and make recommendations for conflict resolution. The liberal-minded minority on the committee causes the Bible-believers’ attempt at reconciliation to fail. Cecil Sherman quits the committee in 1985, followed by Winfred Moore in 1986 because he could not affirm the views of the Bible-believing majority, choosing instead to refer to the effort by the inflammatory term of "police committee."
1986 - The Home Mission Board trustees become majority Bible-believing. The trustees affirm the biblical and historic Baptist view that the position of pastor is reserved for men, and direct HMB funds accordingly.
Seminary presidents weigh in to the controversy with the "Glorietta statement" but it has no significant impact.
1987 - The Peace Committee report is adopted, recommending that hiring practices of boards and agencies reflect "the most commonly held beliefs" in the denomination. Liberals refuse to affirm the views of Bible-believing Baptists, calling such views “Creedalism”.
The Southeastern Board of Trustees becomes majority Bible-believing. They affirm that the seminary president has the responsibility of hiring new faculty, rather than allowing liberal faculty members block appointment of new Bible-believing instructors. The president affirms the Peace Committee document as a doctrinal guide for hiring.
President of Southeastern Seminary, Randall Lolley, refuses to follow the guidelines set by the Bible-believing trustees, and quits in protest.
HMB, following the will and beliefs of the vast majority of Southern Baptists, votes to forbid missionary appointment to persons who speak in tongues and divorced persons, unless the divorce falls within strict "Biblical guidelines."
1988 - HMB uses the Peace Committee report to ensure those hired affirm belief in the complete trustworthiness of the Bible.
The SBC meeting in San Antonio passes a resolution affirming the God-ordained responsibilities of pastors and believers, by a vote of 10,950 to 9,050.
Richard Land, a Bible-believing Baptist, becomes President of the Christian Life Commission.
The Foreign Mission Board releases liberal missionary Michael Willett after a Bible-believing missionary informs leadership about Willett's unbiblical and un-Baptist opinions.
1989 – Bible-believing Baptists increase the role of the Christian Life Commission in dealing with church/state issues, rather than continue funding of the liberal Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs.
1990 - Southern Seminary Board of Trustees becomes majority Bible-believing. Trustees encourage students to openly tape classes, to help ensure doctrinal accountability of faculty.
Trustee Jerry Johnson of Colorado accuses Southern Seminary President Roy Honeycutt and many faculty of heresy, due to their lacdk of affirmation of inerrancy.
Baptist Press editors Al Shakleford and Dan Martin are released by the SBC Executive Committee due to their biased and dishonest reporting on the Conservative Resurgence effort and their refusal to cease writing such stories. Associated Baptist Press is formed in order to provide an outlet for liberal Baptists to propagate their biased accounts.
Daniel Vestal calls a national level meeting of liberal Baptists in Atlanta. 3000 people show up and vow to meet again the next year. This will be the birth of the liberal organization known as the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.
1991 - Southeastern Seminary publishes new statement of purpose and the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy becomes official policy.
Liberal Sunday School Board President Lloyd Elder is released by the Bible-affirming trustees. Bible-believing leader Jimmy Draper becomes President of the Sunday School Board.
The Foreign Mission Board votes to defund Rushlikon Seminary in Europe because of liberal professors.
6000 Baptists in Atlanta formally organize the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.
Liberals no longer offer an alternative candidate for President of the SBC.
1992 - Paige Patterson becomes President of Southeastern Seminary.
Former career missionary and President of the Foreign Mission Board, Keith Parks, quits in protest after the board of trustees becomes solidly Bible-believing. Parks, rather than remaining loyal to the SBC, becomes missions director for the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.
1993 - President of Southern Seminary, Roy Honeycutt, quits after the board of trustees becomes solidly Bible-believing. Al Mohler, a leading Bible-believer, becomes President of Southern Seminary.
The SBC votes to cease giving funds to the Baptist Joint Committee for Public Affairs, because it will does support common views held by a majority Southern Baptists, including that freedom of religion extends to schools, that parents should be given free choice in what schools are supported by their tax dollars, and other conservative goals.
Bible-believers make an attempt to refuse seating for messengers from the church where President Clinton has his church membership.
The Southern Baptist Convention affirms a report critical of membership in Freemasons.
Gary Leazer is released from the Home Mission Board for propagating his inflammatory, personal opinion on the meaning of that vote among Masons at a Masonic meeting.
1994 – The SBC Executive Committee directs SBC Seminaries not to use SBC resources to attempt to recruit students from Cooperative Baptist Fellowship churches.
Liberal Professor Molly Marshall is released from Southern Seminary.
A Bible-believing board of trustees at Southwestern Seminary releases President Russell Dilday, and follows common safety protocols.
SBC meeting in Orlando votes to refuse funds from the liberal CBF designated for Missionaries and other SBC agencies.
SBC Executive Committee requests that State Conventions cut all ties to the liberal CBF.
1995 - Diana Garland is released as Dean of Carver School of Social work by seminary president, Al Mohler.
FMB President Jerry Rankin sends a letter to 40,000 pastors and Women's Missionary Union Directors, urging them to pray that the National WMU (an organization intended to promote Southern Baptist missions) would cease combining forces with the liberal CBF.
John Jackson, then chair of the Board of Trustees for the FMB, compares the WMU's support of the liberal CBF with the acts of an adulterous woman.
1996 - Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia form into rival state convention, in protest at the liberal nature of the existing state Association (convention), which cooperates with the CBF and other liberal Baptists.
Southwestern Seminary president Ken Hemphill cancels edition of its theological journal, editor and Professor Jeff B. Poole removed from teaching.
1997 - The Carver School of Social Work is cut from the curriculum at Southern Seminary and transferred to another college.
Paul Debusman, librarian at Southern for 35 years, is released after writing a critical letter, in his capacity as Southern librarian, to Tom Ellif, then the SBC President.
New Orleans seminary withdraws invitations to teach from two adjunct instructors due to their ties with the liberal Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.
The 1997 SBC meeting in Dallas calls for a boycott of Disney Company and related companies, because of immorality in movies and business policies friendly to homosexuals.
1998 - There has been a 70% faculty turnover at Southern Seminary since 1991. Between 1992 and 1996, 42 employees quit, retired or were released and three departments experienced complete turnover or loss of faculty.
Jerry Falwell attends SBC as a messenger for the first time and affirms that SBC seminaries teach Bible-believing doctrine acceptable to him as a "fundamentalist."
Bible-believing Baptists in Texas formed Southern Baptists of Texas, to serve as a rival state convention in protest against the liberal Baptist General Convention of Texas.
SBC passes a new article on the family as an amendment to the Baptist Faith and Message statement of 1963. The amendment emphasizes the husband’s responsibility to love his wife as Christ loved the church.
Paige Patterson, early leader of the Conservative Resurgence, is elected President of the Southern Baptist Convention.
1999 - Southwestern Seminary professors Alan Brehm and Dan Kent quit after the seminary requires faculty to sign off on the SBC amendment of the Baptist Faith and Message emphasizing the husband-wife relationship as outlined in Ephesians.
SBC Messengers commission a panel to re-examine the Baptist Faith and Message Statement, with a view toward revising it to reflect "unambiguous" Bible-believing language.
Midwestern Seminary trustees release Mark Coppenger for "misappropriate anger."
Reorganization of SBC from 19 organizations to 12 enables more funding to be directed to the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the seminaries, and the Executive Committee.
Article adapted and redacted from the Fundamentalist Takeover in the SBC, by James, Leazer, and Shoopman. Book is available through the TBC office.
May 2000
Lydia said...
-----------------------------------
"Yes I've done a few things too, Lydia. But there is still a difference between Authority and Power. Granted, Power is better, and I have it, as does any woman in Christ. Then again, we can't pretend that God has not ordained authority. He specifically did. And Authority has its responsibilities. I and II Timothy are not written as qualifications for a woman to become a wife or a mother. They were written to lay out the qualifications for a man to become an elder. And the SBC ignores those qualifications and the due process laid out in Scripture. And that is to their shame, every single one of them who lays claim to that authority.
April 25, 2009 8:29 PM
-----------------------------------
Sorry Jeri. I have studied this in depth for many years and you are wrong. There are no pink and blue spiritual gifts in the New Covenant. There are too many contradictions in scripture to believe your view. Why would there be a 'new law' in the NC for women that is not in the OC? We have prophetesses in the OC teaching men!
No 'human' has 'authority' in the Body over another human. What you are reading are very bad translations. Mainly translators laboring under a state/church mentality of the king.
All believers have anointing (1 John) and elders look more like Matthew 5 with qualfications in 1 Tim. However, husband of one wife is an idiom that means more like "faithful spouse'.
Elders are 'overseers' who 'model' Christlikeness. They 'stand before' us as mature in the faith. That is not a pink or blue attribute. Sexual organs have nothing to do with it.
If I believed your interpretation then I could not be Christlike because I am female. We both know that is not true. Christlikeness transcends gender.
There is no prohibition from women teaching men. We also know that Junia was a FEMALE apostle (little a).
One reason why women and little children are molested is because of how they are perceived.
If humans have 'authority' over us in the Body, then we are in trouble because all humans are depraved sinners saved by Grace. The authority in the Body is Jesus Christ who works through the Holy Spirit. He often works through those who are not of noble birth, worldly wise, etc. Paul tell us that.
To live in your world is to wait on "men" to do something about evil. If our male pastors are not doing what they should, we should leave. Many are and opting for home church or smaller church where all believers can exercise the gifts given to them by the Holy Spirit.
BTW: To all, I highly recommend The Gospel of Ruth by Carolyn Custis James.
We have centuries of wrong teaching about women and what they call 'roles' for the genders in the Kingdom.
April 26, 2009 2:34 PM.
-----------------------------------
COFFEETRADER-NEWS&VIEWS > The Ugly Secret.
Recently Chuck Colson gave a commentary on Breakpoint: The Ugly Secret. The ugly secret is finally starting to be acknowledged as the serious crisis it really is in our churches. The example Colson uses is of a deacon and Sunday school teacher who killed his wife. The pastor knew about the abuse, giving her the ‘biblical’ admonition to go home and submit more because he is your ‘spiritual head’.
There is so much wrong here that I hardly know where to begin. Colson calls the pastor’s admonition, ‘misinterpreting scripture’. But note further down in the article, he quotes author Denise George as saying this about ‘Christian’ abusers:
Tragically, however, George notes, some of these men justify their violence “by citing biblical passages.”
For what it's worth, you jokers that keep cutting and pasting yakity yak that is 3 times longer than even the post itself need to know it's not getting read.
Not by the more discernable readers like myself anyway. I can't scroll fast enough passed all of it.
You need to start your own blog. Otherwise, keep your comments readable. Even if it's nonsense, like Lydia's.
Hee-Haw is back.
Darn.
What do we know about anony?
'discernable, like me' indicates pride, though not deserved
critical of others
negativitiy unleashed
hates women: could indicate confusion over own sexual orientation
put-down artist: poor job of this
'art' form though
doesn't want to sign name, but sounds like 'Hee-Haw' in content and tone
anger towards Lydia, (or jealousy?)
no sense of humor
Thank you to those who post this information and links. It has been helpful to me in that I don't see all that is on the internet. I find the information very useful.
Wade,
I like how you dodged the main point of you blogging the details of your staff and business meetings. You won't do it because you know it shouldn't be done. Your deacons wouldn't approve and neither would your staff, nor the majority of your church members. Some things are best left behind closed doors.
Lydia,
I am following our SBC and IMB leaders because they are trustworthy and should be trusted. If people don't like the way SB's handle business, the CBF would be glad to have you.
That was me, MIKE, sorry.
I am following our SBC and IMB leaders because they are trustworthy and should be trusted. If people don't like the way SB's handle business, the CBF would be glad to have you.
Mon Apr 27, 12:17:00 AM 2009
Thanks for the tip but I don't follow men, I follow Christ. That is what the SBC I grew up in taught me.
Did you say 'Mike ?' or "Mac" ?
That's always a great argument, Lydia, but since Jesus isn't physically the head of the SBC right since He sits at the right hand of the Father, then we follow the leaders of the SBC that God has appointed or we join another organization. Last time I checked, all SBC churches are autonomous and are free to partner up with whomever they choose. I happen to follow the SBC leadership and the SBC because it's the greatest missions mobilizing force in the world.
MIKE
"That's always a great argument, Lydia, but since Jesus isn't physically the head of the SBC right since He sits at the right hand of the Father, then we follow the leaders of the SBC that God has appointed or we join another organization."
Jesus isn't "physically" in authority over our churches? You mean He physically needs to BE HERE on earth? With this thnking, No wonder we have all these problems.
Just because someone carries a title conferred by men does not mean they are appointed by God. Allowed, maybe. If I use your logic then I would have to say that if I had happened to be brought up in Jim Jones' church then I would be required to view him as being appointed by God to lead that congregation to Guyana.
Is that what you mean?
Anonymous, I'm with you on the SBC being the greatest missionary force in the world. Since you kicked all the liberals out and dismantled Bold Mission Thrust, your baptisms are skyrocketing and new churches are being started every day. Truly the past 20 years have brought unprecedented growth to the SBC.
Lydia,
Ok so you're telling me Jesus is the Pastor at your church? Wow! Please tell me where you go, because I will be there Sunday. I didn't realize Jesus pastored churches. All this time I thought God appointed His Spirit-filled men to Pastor, lead and shepherd the churches. Now I'm really confused.
MIKE
The 'Good Shepherd', Mike. Ever hear of him?
'I am the vine and you are the branches' . . .
Who is the Head of the Church, Mike?
if telling all is the way to health then you Wade have the healthiest church in the WORLD.
CONGRATULATIONS
" Thy Good And Faithful Informer"
Casting light on a den of thieves and con-artists is one way to make clean things up.
Now, having been exposed, we will see if the people of the church WANT to continue following the theives and the con-artists.
If they do, then they must return to that darkness where Christ is no longer welcomed.
If people don't like the way SB's handle business, the CBF would be glad to have you.
Mike,
The comment threads on this blog are discouraging beyond words. However, I just wanted to give a hearty "Amen" to the above statement. Thank you for the things you've said in this particular thread and for standing on the right side.
"Ok so you're telling me Jesus is the Pastor at your church? Wow! Please tell me where you go, because I will be there Sunday. I didn't realize Jesus pastored churches. All this time I thought God appointed His Spirit-filled men to Pastor, lead and shepherd the churches. Now I'm really confused."
My 'pastor' is a human being who is a depraved sinner but saved by grace just like I am. Now, if he is a good pastor he will want me to be a berean and check every single thing he teaches to make sure it is truth he is preaching.
He is not more special. Nor is he a special class of professional Christian. There are all the spiritual gifts at my church. His is one of them.
But Jesus Christ is the authority or we are in trouble.
Jim Jones said he was 'appointed' by God, too.
Lydia,
I'm really not as stupid probably as you think I am. I realize ultimately Jesus IS the head of the church of course. But your argument and Wade's are flawed because God has appointed and left men-no matter how sinful and wicked they may be (as we all are). Question: In Hebrews 13: 17 the writer says, "Obey those who rule (lead) over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for YOUR souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you." Who is the writer talking about? Jesus? No! He's talking about the Pastor. The point is you have to come to a decision to yes of course always and obviously follow Christ, but if you are going to be a part of a local church, you must follow, trust and support the Pastor God has appointed. And I don't mean blindly and if he leads a church to sin or any of that. I'm speaking generally. If you don't, then you are in sin.
THanks for the amen, Joe!
MIKE
I'm really not as stupid probably as you think I am. I realize ultimately Jesus IS the head of the church of course. But your argument and Wade's are flawed because God has appointed and left men-no matter how sinful and wicked they may be (as we all are). Question: In Hebrews 13: 17 the writer says, "Obey those who rule (lead) over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for YOUR souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you." Who is the writer talking about? Jesus? No! He's talking about the Pastor. The point is you have to come to a decision to yes of course always and obviously follow Christ, but if you are going to be a part of a local church, you must follow, trust and support the Pastor God has appointed. And I don't mean blindly and if he leads a church to sin or any of that. I'm speaking generally. If you don't, then you are in sin.
THanks for the amen, Joe!
MIKE
Tue Apr 28, 10:55:00 PM 2009
Oh, If I don't believe what you say, I am in sin. Hmm. I have heard that before on some other topics.
Mike, Read and study Hebrews 13:17 in the Greek. It is a horrible translation mainly from those laboring under a church/state mentality of a king. Off with your head if you do not obey authority. A better translation of peitho in verse 17 is "Listen to," not "Obey them."
(By the way, where do you see the words 'elder' or pastor in that passage? What was Hebrews just talking about?)
Have the rule over you" (KJV) was given as the meaning of hegeomai. It is used 28 times in the New Testament and translated variously as "count," "think," "esteem," "be governor," and other miscellaneous words such as "chief' and "leader.
There is much more to this but I don't have time to get into it.
It is significant that there are quite a few passages that talk about being lowly servants. Quite a few more than Hebrews 13:17. Hmmm.
But you seem to like to make it into earthly authority. By any chance, you in seminary and looking forward to having 'followers'? Beware of that trap.
"The point is you have to come to a decision to yes of course always and obviously follow Christ, but if you are going to be a part of a local church, you must follow, trust and support the Pastor God has appointed. And I don't mean blindly and if he leads a church to sin or any of that."
So who gets to decide if he is worthy of being obeyed? Who decides what is sin or not?
If I have to obey the pastor, how can I be led by the Holy Spirit. I have to obey the pastor, or I am in sin, as you say.
Lydia,
When is the last time the government "watched over your soul?" I didn't realize you were an authority on translation and can translate the text any way you see fit to prove your point. That's dangerous. Read the scholars, most agree on who this is talking about. Anyway, there's no need to argue over it, if that's what you believe, you're entitled to your opinion obviously. And no I'm not in seminary and the followers I do have follow Christ and look to me for pastoral leadership as the NT teaches.
MIKE
In all this desire to please God by following a pastor, what happens when the pastor tells you to do something that violates your own conxcience, or to 'look the other way', while HE does something harmful to others?
Don't use 'the Bible' to justify worshipping men.
For the record, Albert McClellan was not the executive director, but an associate to three execs between 1949 and 1980. Here's a story about his death in 2004.
http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2546&Itemid=117
I had him for a denominational adminstration class at Southern Seminary in 1983, and as far as I could tell he was pretty much universally admired.
"When is the last time the government "watched over your soul?""
Mike, that is not what I was referring to in the passage. Hebrews 13 does not mention elders or pastors, either. But earlier it does mention 'Those who went before us' in the Faith.
"I didn't realize you were an authority on translation and can translate the text any way you see fit to prove your point. That's dangerous."
I am not an authority. But the Holy Spirit is and teaches us. We have all the tools available for free to study the Word. What you are saying is dangerous. You are saying that I should only listen to those who are 'scholars'. But many times scholars want to maintain positions of authority.
I firmly believe the Holy Spirit can illuminate truth to anyone who diligently prays and studies the Word. If we pray for wisdom and do not doubt, HE will give it to us.
I also believe that we cannot ignore all the 'servant', one another, don't lord it over, the first will be last, etc...passages.
If your 'followers' follow Christ, then they are not following you. You just do not seem to get that part. So either they follow you or they follow Christ. Can't be both or they are serving two masters.
Lydia,
This is the last I'll say on it. They follow Christ and in turn follow me as I have been appointed by Christ to Pastor this local church. That's just Biblical, interpret it anyway you want to.
MIKE
No, Mike.
They follow Christ and you will help them by pointing to Him as their pastor.
You will 'lead the way'.
Post a Comment