Fate of Southwestern profs unclear after trustee meeting

It's the voice of the Baptist Left who don't agree with the Southern Baptist Convention anymore.

If you want the left side of Baptist news read

Associated Baptist Press Link

If you want the right side of Baptist News read:

Baptist Press News Link

 

Not exactly. ABP was formed b/c the reporters for BP were no longer free to report fairly and accurately, and were increasingly told what to say and not to say. By the way, you may notice that the Christian Index has a new editor. I wonder why that is?

 

Not exactly. ABP was formed b/c the reporters for BP were no longer free to report fairly and accurately, and were increasingly told what to say and not to say. By the way, you may notice that the Christian Index has a new editor. I wonder why that is? </font>[/QUOTE]Easy Question to answer Because Bro. Neal was too far to the left of the average Georgia Baptist.

 

Not exactly. ABP was formed b/c the reporters for BP were no longer free to report fairly and accurately, and were increasingly told what to say and not to say. By the way, you may notice that the Christian Index has a new editor. I wonder why that is? </font>[/QUOTE]Easy Question to answer Because Bro. Neal was too far to the left of the average Georgia Baptist. </font>[/QUOTE]Living here in Georgia, I strongly disagree. By the way, his departure occurred at the time the Index announced a new direction for the (former) newspaper.

 

Being a Native of Georgia, I disagree even more strongly. And I have communicated to Bro. Neal concerning his obvious bias toward the left.

 

Being a Native of Georgia, I disagree even more strongly. And I have communicated to Bro. Neal concerning his obvious bias toward the left. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]perhaps you could identify some articles or editorials that demonstrate this supposed bias.
By the way, I'm a Ga native, too, and my family has lived and preached here for over 170 years. Many of us don't like what's happened to a once-esteemed newspaper.

 

I lived in GA for ten years, from the 70s to the 80s. During my stay there, I was a member of a SBC church that was very much conservative. We had a membership of over 3,000. I never met any Baptist while in GA that ascribed to a liberal philosophy.

 

Makes you wonder where all the "liberals" were that needed to be ousted, huh? Sometimes "liberal" means that you won't knuckle under and swallow what the SBC leadership is cramming down your throat...

 

You obviously did not meet Rev. Joshua on this board who hails from Atlanta and you obviously did not meet Jimmy Carter, the most infamous former Southern Baptist in the state...Nor did you meet Herman Granberry, author of the book, "As You Believe"....nor did you meet the President of Mercer University, Kirby Godsey...

I could go on and on......

[ April 18, 2003, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: Hardsheller ]

 

Be quite happy to.

I noticed that the CBF ONLINE site has removed from its archives at least one article by Dr. Neal. I wonder if that is in anyway related to his current situation?

The only copy in my files that I have retained is an article that dates back to October 9, 1997, when Dr. Neal wrote an editorial entitled "Baptist Exclusivity Divides Fellowship and Dilutes Resources for Ministry".

He listed 4 concerns in that article.

1. A Concern that SBC Seminaries are becoming indoctrination centers for a more stringent form of Calvinism.

2. A Concern that Churches allowing designated gifts to the CBF are being Blackballed on boards and agencies of the SBC.

3. A Concern that Southern Baptists are withdrawing from Ecumenical meetings and historic relationships with the BWA, etc.

4. A Concern that churches with Women Deacons are often labeled as "liberal" even though they are some of the largest and most active congregations and among the strongest supporters of missions.

In and of themselves these concerns might seem harmless and mainline SBC.

However here are the problems.

1. In the ARTICLE he defines the SBC Controversy as a "Power Contest" and lays the blame at the feet of those who are "most conservative" thus showing his bias for the other side.

2. He says there is a perception that some of our SBC seminaries are becoming indoctrination centers for a more stringent form of Calvinism.

3. He says that big, active churches should be able to ordain women if they so desire after all they're big and active and are strong supporters of missions.

4. He equates conservative concerns about being linked with non-Baptists and liberal Baptists as McCarthyism.

It is obvious that Neal does not approve of the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC.

His view is echoed in a response to his Editorial by none other than the leading liberal of Georgia, Former President Jimmy Carter.

In fact in the October 30 issue of the Christian Index there were 4 letters to the editor concerning this editorial. Three including Carter basically agreed with Neal's assessment - Only one dissented - And that was my letter.

If you read the Christian Index weekly there was absolutly no doubt in any one's mind where Neal stood. He was outspokenly opposed to the Conservative Resurgence and that guaranteed his ultimate fate.

 

Hardsheller,
In other words, Neal was "to the left" or "liberal" b/c he did not applaud the takeover?
You did not cite a single "liberal" stance.
Neal was forced out because he would not drink the kool aid and cheer the sbc. It had nothing to do with his job performance, credentials, or "liberal" theology. Which is why the ABP exists, and the BP is now nothing but a mouthpieace for the "resurgence" crowd. You cannot speak your conscience if you work for BP.But hey, there's nothing wrong with that as far as you are concerned, right? Either march lock-step and print what we tell you, or you are outta here. That's fine for a brochure. Just don't call it a newspaper-or honest reporting.

 

By his lack of support and his obvious leaning to the left he encouraged the opposition to the SBC and the GBC.

While an editor can not be expected to be totally unbiased he can be expected to be non-divisive.

 

In other words, print what we tell you. He worked at a newspaper, not the "Ministry of Information and Propaganda". At least, that used to be the case. By the way, you still haven't shown him to be left-leaning.

 

When Jimmy Carter, The man who couldn't say Mormonism was a cult, agrees with somebody totally, jot and tittle, then you don't have to wonder where that person stands.

Neal stands to the left of center when it comes to Georgia Baptists!

BTW, have you read Kirby Godsey's book - When We Talk About God, Let's Be Honest?

I would agree with you that Neal is not a liberal when compared to Godsey who has already redefined what some Georgia Baptists are willing to accept as OK doctrine. Godsey is so far to the Left that Neal would be considered a raving fundamentalist compared to him.

 

Did I know Pres. Carter? No, but I do know when he ran against the more conservative Pres. Reagan, Carter DID NOT win the state of Georgia. His own state over whelmingly voted for Reagan. That in itself shows you that the majority in GA back then was not of the liberal mind set. Thanks for bringing him up.

 

This statement comes from Mr. Objective </font>[/QUOTE]While I certainly have a bias because of what I have seen and studied, I have tried to be very objective and very fair with person I oppose. It is entirely too easy to assume the worst of people with whom you disagree. Therefore, I try to stick to facts, clear statements and first hand information or information from eye-witnesses in making my assessments.

Are you suggesting you have no biases?

(Sorry I've been away for a couple of days... Heavy deadlines at work and Maundy Thursday and Good Friday services in the evenings took all my time.)

 

Tell that to Baptist Press.

 

Just want to point out that theologicial liberalism/conservativism and political liberalism/conservative are sometimes unrelated.

For example, Mr. Reagan's religious life is not very inspiring compared to Mr. Carter's life of service in his religious community. I can appreciate Mr. Reagan's political leadership but his religious life is certainly not an example for me. I can appreciate Mr. Carter's religious service but his political leadership was a disaster.

(On Carter's behalf, he inherited a difficult situation from Nixon/Ford and was not prepared for the office of President.)

 

A lot of us Georgians were fooled by Jimmy Carter the first time around.

I voted for him for the following reasons:

1. He was a Georgian (call it Cracker Pride)
2. He was a Southern Baptist
3. He was a Sunday School Teacher
4. He was a Quail Hunter

The next time I voted against him because he was an Incumbent President and had shown us what he couldn't do.

I do believe that Georgia overwhelmingly voted for George W. Bush this last election.

See - Even us Georgian can Wise Up!!!