Seminary gives association six months to vacate property

This is the first statement that is, "out of line" (see your last few lines of your post). No, I am saying that he is above critique but we should not bash him based upon his Biblical stand. In fact, because of accountability I think he should remove them from the Seminary campus. Would you not agree that homosexuality is an important issues... and would warrant them asking someone to leave the campus?

So, are you inferring that his motive was political/financial? The inference could be out of line.

It was a nerve move and I probably would have just left the convention instead of fighting the conservative resurgence. However, I think you fail to recognize the gravity of this decision and the gravity of the theological issues. I believe he was right about the theological issues he saw. Yes, it has paid off well for him. Yet, I do not think he was looking at his long term financial health, but he was looking at Doctrine. They were right on two fronts. The liberals that controlled the Seminaries did not control the churches and there was a huge disconnect and most people were unaware. The leadership and the local churches were on two different pages. The doctrine was similar to what Spurgeon battled in the Downgrade. History has proven Spurgeon correct and I believe Patterson was correct on the doctrinal front. Would I have stayed and fought? No! Yet, I cannot say that he was wrong for trying to fight for the convention over his convictions.

Secondly, you are out of line by saying Patterson is not concerned about doctrinal integrity, that assumes you know his true heart. I do not think, but I could be wrong, that the Baptist Faith and Message forbids speaking in tongues (though the IMB does for their missionaries). As well, everyone acknowledges that through the resurgence, many people were allowed to teach who differed in some views on certain situations. Mohler did, Patterson of course did... etc... There are exceptions that are sometimes made, but they are exceptions. Exceptions are not the rule, but, as one scholar once said about a totally different issue, exeptions often prove the rule by being exeptions.

Yet, for you to say he is not that concerned for Doctrine, I disagree. I, for instance, recommend John Stott's book and love to hear him teach. Most conservative Scholars respect him despite his view of ultimate annihilism, speaking in tongues, etc... CJ Mahaney believes in speaking in tongues, but is a very conservative Pastor. Patterson's most important issue was the Innerancy of Scripture and while he strongly disagrees with some other issues, his focus is keen.

There, at times, are exceptions that needs to be made and wisdom demands that. Most Pastors understand wisdom in such situations. Yet, to say that a man who risked his entire career on doctrine is not concerned about Doctrine is on par with those who believe Obama was born in Africa.

Good, then they should enact association discipline and make sure the church who endorses homosexuality removes themself from the local association or the association should remove them. Yes, I know the liberals will say that this violates the autonomy of the local church. It doesn't, just read the Philadelphia Baptist Association minutes, they believed in both autonomy and an association removing fellowship from divergent churches. The association is not telling the church how to be a church, but they also have standards of fellowship.

Yet, the association does not care that it has an "open" church in the association or else will do nothing about it. So, I guess they really don't care about the homosexual issue? At least not enough to dis-fellowship with them.

I do not know what went into the retirement health insurance issue. Yet, do you actually think that decision was easy? I have made tough decisions that have affected a large staff of people, and they are never easy. I am sure I have been condemned for decisions that were extremely difficult to make and ones I never wanted to make. I think giving double honor to an Elder, especially, means that you trust them when you don't have all the evidence. He, as well, was not alone. Other Pastors on the trustee board helped make the decision. These are never easy decisions but I have learned that in such decisions to normally trust those making these decisions because I have had to make some tough decisions... and losing sleep because of it causes you be more gracious to people who have to make similar decisions. Since Pastors/Elders are due double honor, I am even more motivated to trust their decision. Could they have had evil motives in making that decision? Yes! Yet, without clear evidence I must give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

You need to check your facts.

The Philadelphia Baptist Association did not expel Drexel Hill Baptist (a "Welcoming and (g@y) Affirming" church).

 

I am not referring to recent issues and know nothing about Drexel Hill Baptist situation, thus was not even implying or referencing this situation. When Baptists refer to the Philadelphia Baptist Association, they often refer to it from an historic perspective (this is most often done in academic or pastoral circles). This is especially true when arguing precedence, which is what I was doing. The Philadelphia Baptist Association was the first in the United States. Thus, when I talk of their minutes, I am talking of their historic record dating back to their founding, not recent events. My citing it from an historic perspective is made more apparent with the reference to the Charleston Baptist Association, two pillars in Baptist history.

Historically, the Philadelphia Baptist Association believed in strong doctrinal unity around a strong doctrinal statement and believed a church who disagreed should either remove themself or be removed. They believed in autonomy but also doctrinal dignity. I will grant that this association has suffered from the downgrade in recent history, but my citing of this association is citing Baptist precedence of church history, not modern issues.

Thus, I need not check my facts. My facts are correct.

 

PART I

Apparently you didn’t finish your thought...

Based upon his actions? Jesus said we would know a tree by its fruit. While I can’t judge his motives, I can certainly judge his actions.

Clear biblical teaching about homosexuality and the most appropriate Christian response to people who feel homosexual urges is a very important topic. I believe the scripture is clear that homosexual acts are wrong. However, this whole issue is really not so much about homosexuality.

The church that is almost certainly at issue here is Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth. I am no fan of Broadway, but I know (off the top of my head) about two dozen of their members, probably more. The issue at Broadway is not as clear as some would like to have you believe. The church has been having an ongoing discussion regarding the best way to minister to homosexuals men and women. Some, including a couple of former pastors, were quietly pushing to have the church endorse homosexual relationships as acceptable. A very large number of the congregation simply believed it was appropriate for the church to welcome homosexual men and women into the midst of the congregation to hear and receive the gospel. In the last couple of years the church has been at a crisis point, trying to figure out who they should be. The issue came to a head when they decided to do a pictorial directory and some homosexual members wanted their photos taken together as couples. This began a divisive discussion in the congregation which people outside the church used as an opportunity to try to force the church to church to go one way or the other. Like all good Baptists, Broadway has resented outside forces trying to control the congregation and would rather shed associations rather than be controlled by them.

The Tarrant Baptist Association knows and understands the situation better than any state or national organization, and has stood by the church until it resolves it’s discussion. As far as I know, Broadway has not endorsed homosexual relationships up to this time. If it does, I expect the TBA will ask them to leave.

Another element at play is that the Southern Baptists of Texas convention broke away from the BGCT a number of years ago and has been trying to find controversies to promote its alternative state convention and associations. Branding churches and the BGCT has been a standard tactic over the years. There have been some churches who have endorsed homosexual relationships, and the BGCT has withdrawn fellowship from them.

It was definitely political. He organized a political takeover of the SBC. The issue was over control of the institutions, finances and political structures. I was by definition a political act. If that was not his motive, then he should have started an alternative fellowship/convention and drawn others over to him. God would have provided if it was led of God.

I think I understand the situation very well. The SBC was in bad shape in some of its institutions and good ‘ole boy network. But the result of the so-called “Conservative Resurgence” is worse. We have decades of very unChristian private and public political acts, the SBC’s reputation with the world is heavily tarnished, and while the SBC may have the theology they want “locked down” in documents and policies, many of the leaders in the movement don’t seem to “believe the Bible” outside of a few pet issues.

Nope, I’m evaluating his actions. I knew Dr. Ellis for about 15 years (he was a member of my church and a good friend of my inlaws), and I talked with him about theological matters from time to time. I was surprised that Ken Hemphill (previous president of SWBTS) would have him there, but Hemphill was not as hard-core “Conservative Resurgence” as most. When Patterson came to SWBTS, I was certain Ellis would be gone ASAP. Not so! In fact, at Ellis’ funeral, Patterson and others worked very hard to present Ellis as a tried and true doctrinal champion of the “Conservative Resurgence” while there were dozens of books available (some edited by people on the SWBTS faculty and leadership) that contradicts that claim.

It does not, but Patterson allegedly banned it among professors:

"Southwestern will not knowingly endorse in any way, advertise, or commend the conclusions of the contemporary charismatic movement including private prayer language. Neither will Southwestern knowingly employ professors or administrators who promote such practices."

Yet, most people knew Ellis practiced a private prayer language and it was written about in the biographical sketch of the book, “History and Exegesis: New Testament essays in honor of Dr. E. Earle Ellis for his 80th Birthday” edited by Southwestern professor Sang-Won “Aaron” Son.

This is one of the many times Patterson said one thing publicly (for the consumption of those outside the seminary community) and did something else.

 

PART II

Yet some moderates were vilified and condemned for affirming women in pastoral roles, yet there is no concern for Ellis teaching and writing at SWBTS from a professor who is directly appointed by the president of the seminary.

Where is that consistency?

But didn’t he make a big deal about signing the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message which explicitly rejects annihilationism? (Ellis was not asked to sign since he served at “the pleasure of the president.”)

And if Patterson didn’t care about the rest, why the policy regarding tongues? Is he playing politics, lack of concern regarding doctrine or something else?

So Patterson is allowed to exercise wisdom, but the Tarrant Baptist Association is not...

Hmm. Sound like you think Patterson is a higher spiritual authority than pastors and other churches who work with Broadway Baptist Church every day.

Moreover, why do you think Patterson did not take that stand at SWBTS in the midst of the tongues controversy (which he initiated by the way through cutting the feed from chapel during McKissic’s message)? He could have said, “wisdom demands exceptions to be made, and mature Christians understand that...”, but instead he and the trustees issued a policy that claimed that SWBTS would not “knowingly employ professors or administrators who promote such practices.”

“There, at times, are exceptions that needs to be made and wisdom demands that. Most Pastors understand wisdom in such situations.” - Ruiz

You’ll be happy to know that pastors are working on this situation.

“There, at times, are exceptions that needs to be made and wisdom demands that. Most Pastors understand wisdom in such situations.” - Ruiz

“There, at times, are exceptions that needs to be made and wisdom demands that. Most Pastors understand wisdom in such situations.” - Ruiz

I never claimed it was easy.

You need to understand that while SWBTS solicits money from me all the time for building projects (for things it doesn’t really need), it has not solicited money to provide for the very important need to provide health insurance for retirees. They haven’t gotten anything from me for the buildings, but I would have been happy to open my wallet to help support the commitments made to retired faculty.

But they didn’t ask. In fact, they dropped the coverage as quietly as possible.

 

Patterson barely qualifies as a scholar. The rest of evangelical scholarship doesn't respect him because he's no academic heavyweight and he's been unnecessarily divisive time and time again.

It's no wonder young people are leaving the convention faster than they're brought in. It's no wonder that so many people have been deeply wounded by the SBC.

I don't know him personally, so I obviously can't speak of his integrity, but we've all seen the products of his leadership. Southwestern can no longer hold a candle to the top-notch schools.

Actually, he's fighting for his own very narrow interpretation of Scripture and he attempts to discredit other Baptist believers who dare to disagree with him. This exclusive mentality and the extreme steps he has taken have made him a laughingstock within the heart of evangelicalism. He's almost an inside joke by himself.

This is nothing like a reformation fight. It's a petty squabble from one particular segment of evangelicalism; and a segment that is fading in influence. There is no way he can be compared to a theological giant like Luther.

Yep.

Yes, sir. The actions and words from the "conservative" side were shameful. Not just Patterson and Pressler, but Criswell, Rogers...all of those who participated at the top.

I though Baptists believe in church autonomy. Just because some church maintains an unfortunate position doesn't negate that.

"Shenanigans" is a nice way to put it.

 

Two issues, first, I cannot and will not try to defend every decision by Paige especially when I have little or no knowledge about the situation. Secondly, could I acknowledge inconsistencies? Yes! Could you acknowledge exceptions? I hope! Yet, either being inconsistent or making an exception does not mean this decision is either right or wrong. That decision must be based upon it's own merit.

Yet, wisdom is just that, wisdom. It doesn't apply to every situation, and most of the time does not apply. Wisdom is situational. As Elders, we are called to enact wisdom. A part of double honor is for congregations to trust their Elders when wisdom is being used. I have made decisions, as I am sure you have, that were wise at the time but was not what I nor anyone else would have liked. There were other times in the exact situation where, because of wisdom, I believed another decision was warranted. Wisdom is knowing when to and when to not make an exception. Paige, and I agree, deems this situation as one where they should not make an exception.

Can I defend Patterson in every decision? No! In many of his decisions I have questioned whether it was wise or even right. However, I have not questioned his character or tried to disrespect him personally. I, merely, disagree. I respect the man and would not want to answer for bashing him, God's man at SWBTS. Good disagreements are positive, but let it be on the issue.

Yet, you have not answered the question on whether you believe homosexuality is a Biblical issue where God condemns and whether Biblical Innerancy is also such an important issue.

I didn't say that nor implied this. Rather, what I am saying is that to assign motives to Paige is disrespecting him. I would rather you say he is wrong about homosexuality or wrong about innerancy, but to question his motives in such a manner goes beyond dignity. I am not questioning the motives of the association nor the motives of Elders of an individual church. I merely am saying that they are inconsistent with the teachings of God's Word to such an extent that I would jettison them and those formally associated with them from the benefits of my ministry. It is you and others on this list who then think it is okay to attack the Paige personally. I don't seek to put him higher than other Elders, but I don't want to bash him either.

Again, wisdom is situational. As well, I am not saying he is always wise nor do I think he always makes the right decision, I have opposed many of his decisions in the past. However, I believe in this situation he is wise and I believe he is right. Instead of attacking him, why not defend your position?

Pastors may be working on this situation, but I have not bashed those Pastors. I have taken a strong stand against their view, but I have not assigned motives. You see, the difference between us on this situation is that I see this as a principled move and believe that bashing either group of people's motives or character is out of line. I disagree with the other side. They are wrong Biblically. That doesn't mean they are people I couldn't sit down and enjoy a cup of Coffee with, and laugh and enjoy their company. It doesn't mean they are people lacking integrity. Rather, it means they are wrong on Biblical issues. Your side seems to not only say Patterson is wrong (which, I still don't know why he is wrong, just that people don't like it) but that Patterson himself has bad motives and is out to get the retirees and is really not concerned with doctrine.

As for the situation with the retirees. Again, I was not in the decision making process, but I do know a little about business finance and economics (I have an MBA). Basically, you cannot make one time donations a principle of general fund expenditures. This, in my opinion, becomes a moral issue and I believe horrendous accounting practices. I could go more into detail, and I am not sure this was the reason for the decision, but I could see how I could make a decision to reduce general fund benefits while raising special funds for a one time expenditure.

 

You represent the best evidence of attacking people rather than attacking the issue. If you attack the people at the top of the Conservative Resurgence for their sins, I would also look at your own.

Secondly, you never answered my questions, is homosexuality a sin against God? Is innerancy of Scripture a vital doctrine of the church?

I agree there were things done on both sides of the Conservative Resurgence that were wrong. I was attacked by liberals and people tried to undermine my Pastorate within the liberal camp. I also saw things occur in the conservative camp that were horrible. Both sides have many sins to repent from. I can acknowledge the conservative's errors, and I have called some out of their own errors. Can you acknowledge your side's?

Yet, you show that this is not about the issue, it is about Patterson. To that, I am saddened.

Finally, the only real doctrinal issue you brought up was autonomy. I agree with autonomy as did the Philadelphia Baptist Association. If a church is in error, it is not up to me to undermine the Pastor's leadership (unless I am the Pastor, then I should preach faithfully the Bible). Yet, if I am a church in association with you, you should either have enough integrity to remove yourself from our formal association or I should have enough integrity to remove myself... or the association should consider removing one. This does not attack autonomy, this just says that your beliefs are such that we should no longer fellowship. This both preserves the autonomy of the local church and doctrine. Liberals don't preserve doctrine and some conservatives don't preserve the autonomy. I am for both.

 

These are not personal attacks. Take a second, tone down the resurgence pumping rhetoric and realize they aren't personal attacks.

Also I didn't imply anything so don't put words in my mouth.

Really? I didn't realize Broadway Baptist Church was "openly homos3xual." Since when they they elect church officers who were in this practice? Since when did they install staff with this practice? Since when did they start officiating same 3x unions? Since when did they march in a parade? Since when did they have a sermon on why this practice is okay?

Show us, please, show us your evidence for this libel.

The BGCT isn't liberal. Seriously man you need to chill out and stop believing everything you hear. I have many, many friends in the BGCT and they are fine Christians who I would invite to speak or preach anytime.

See in these last two statements...those are personal, unfounded attacks. So I guess we've got a "Hi Kettle! This is Pot! You're black!"

Puleez!

You clearly have never read my posts on this issue nor have any clue about my theology on this. You have no idea of the articles I've written, the debates I taken, or the legal cases I've been involved with. So don't you think for a second that you can try to lambast me as being for this sinful behavior. You are just simply wrong on this. Come on man, get over the rhetoric and start engaging.

They aren't a Southwestern body. They've occupied a building on campus, but so does several other organizations. I think you're just being disagreeable and, honestly, rather caustic in your accusations in order to defend a man who no one is threatening.

 

Hmmm...does this mean we can't point out the problems with the whole thing? I don't think so. I'm not trying to point out sins. I don't know if they lie, cheat, steal, sleep around or what. The point is that they caused a huge schism that was irreparable as soon as it started. There were many other ways to go about it, but, unfortunately, they chose a route that involved force and coercion and pettiness and, at times, hyper legalism. They also chose a route that excluded the best of Baptist scholarship.

And how about what they did to good folks such as Dilday? Southwestern's never been the same.

I'm not trying to say that everyone on that side was bad, but the way the whole takeover was schemed and orchestrated was very, very unfortunate. There are honorable and faithful people on both sides of the issue. Nothing negates that.

You're asking me personally? Yes. But should the whole association be treated this way because of one congregation has some rogue opinions? I don't think so.

It's not even my side. I haven't regularly attended a BGCT church in a number of years, since I've been working interim church jobs in the meantime. But having grown up around both sides, all I know is that, while neither side was perfect, the real damage was done by the dissenters.

And what's this about calling the BGCT liberal? It's not even close. They are still quite evangelical.

It's about Patterson only as far as his responsibility in the whole mess, which is great, and which mounts every year, it seems. There were undoubtedly others. I'm not going to judge his heart - I imagine he felt like he was doing the right thing - but as far as his actions were concerned, that's another story. It's really about the whole issue. The personal lives of those involved are rather inconsequential in the matter.

All the BGCT folks I've met are quite in favor of doctrine. LOL And they're not liberals, either.

 

I appreciate this statement.

Of course, since you admittedly have little or no knowledge of the situations I mention, you really aren’t in a position to criticize my analysis of them of make proclamations regarding what the Tarrant Baptist Association should or should not do.

Yet you did.

Good.

Sure. Yet your previous arguments did not acknowledge exceptions, unless Patterson was making them.

But one of the main issues of the “Conservative Resurgence” was that there were some issues on which SBC Christians had to take a stand. And then the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message has been used as the non-negotiable standard for seminary and denominational employment. And moreover, Patterson and the SWBTS trustees have also issued their own non-negotiable policies.

Yet Patterson ignores these alleged non-negotiable issues for some reason, but holds others accountable for them. What is troubling is how he can have a professor like Sheri Klouda removed from teaching because she is a woman, yet give employment, a platform, and great honor to Dr. Ellis (who advocated women as teachers of men and pastors) at the same time.

Don't get me wrong, Dr. Ellis was worthy of honor, but the position is massively inconsistent. Ellis was respected worldwide, Klouda was relatively unknown.

Be very careful. What you are describing is what most “Conservative Resurgence” people would call “situational ethics.”

Please note that Patterson is not an Elder over the churches, he is a servant of the churches that allegedly serves the interests of the churches that make up the SBC.

People make jokes about “Pope Paige” all the time, yet you actually seem to advocate that kind of position for him.

I’ve never made the “Pope Paige” joke myself, since that is ascribing an attitude/motive to him that I have no way of knowing.

You freely admit you know nothing of the situation, yet you think that you are qualified to endorse Patterson’s position over someone who is ‘on the ground’ here in Fort Worth, is familiar with Broadway Baptist Church (and not even a fan of the church), who knows most of the people mentioned in this story personally (including Al Meredith, the very conservative Calvinist pastor of Wedgwood Baptist Church), who is a member of a sister church that is active in the Tarrant Baptist Association, and lives less than five minutes from the building in question.

You believe that it’s great for Patterson to exercise wisdom, but not anyone else?

There we are in the same boat.

“Wisdom is known by her children/deeds.” – Jesus

I am looking at his actions and have not tried to “disrespect him personally.” And I would hesitate to say he is “God’s man at SWBTS” other than to say that God has allowed him to remain in the position.

You obviously didn’t read what I wrote in PART I. (That certainly explains why you didn’t respond to it.)

You really need to go back and reread PART I to understand where I’m coming from.

Inerrancy is too low of a view of scripture.

You keep hammering on motives, when all I’ve talked about is actions. You’re not going to be able to make that charge stick, no matter how hard you try.

You’ve already admitted you know nothing of the situation, why should we listen?

Now you are telling me what I think…

Again, I’m talking about publicly documented actions. I’m not saying anything I can document. (And no one can document motives, so that throws that charge out the door.)

I did in PART I, but you apparently missed it.

Wow. You really don’t know what’s going on.

But wait! You have already assumed what “their view” is, and quite bluntly, you are absolutely wrong.

So you have falsely and publicly judged them. Al Meredith, the spokesperson for TBA, among many others, is strongly opposed to homosexual relationships.

You are so wrong here, it’s not even funny. You don’t know a thing about it.

Ah, now you are ascribing falsehoods to me.

1.) I haven’t talked about motives.
2.) I never said he was “out to get the retirees” (where is the world did you get that from?)
3.) I pointed out that his actions in regard to Dr. Ellis and his public statements seem to indicate that doctrine is not the most compelling issue in his decision-making.

Yes, I understand that, but at the same time, if the seminary had wanted to keep their commitment, I’m sure many of us would have helped them keep that commitment until they could get their financial house in order. The millions spend on the new chapel project (which is really, not needed) could have been invested in the seminary’s endowment. Before Dr. Dilday was fired back in the early 1990s, the seminary was financially-stable with a respectable endowment. Not so anymore.

Sure, but don’t you think it’s a moral issue to protect the health and financial security of those who have given so much to the seminary?

 

This is one of the more telling results of the whole mess. Look how far it's fallen.

 

You weren't, so what was your point?

They left the Texas convention over disagreement with homosexuality. That is not libel, that is fact. They disagree with the convention's stance on homosexuality... they disagree with the Bible's stance on homosexuality. I didn't say they elected anyone, only that their doctrine is against the doctrine of SWBTS... against the Bible.

BTW, I hope you know, I am not a SBCer. I had left a long time ago. Why? I believe what I teach, if you don't like things in a convention, you should have the integrity to leave. I left. Not because of their stand on Innerancy, but I left because of their direction. Now, I respect men in the convention, I love many of them. However, I would rather be an independent church who associates with only churches we choose to associate with.

Yes they are. I remember the esteemed head of the State convention bashing the vote for the SBC 2000 because of they were trying to make innerancy a stronger issue. I read the entire sermon as it was given to me by a liberal friend of mine, hoping to show me the error of my ways. I agree with Charles H. Spurgeon in calling such sermons proof of the downgrade. The more modern verbage is liberalism. Yet, having studied most, if not all, the primary sources on the Downgrade, much of what Spurgeon condemned as being a part of the Downgrade, was within that sermon. Are they a part of the Downgrade? Yes! In my book, that makes them a part of liberalism. They are of the same clothe as the newer Princeton people right after Old Princeton. Granted, they are not as radical as Walter Wink or Katie Cannon, but they are liberal. If Spurgeon was right about the Downgrade, and history proved him to be, then I think we can safely say that the Texas convention is a part of the Downgrade... which makes it liberal by historic definition.

You are right, I don't know you and that is why I asked what you believe. If you believe it is a sinful behavior, why would you want someone to continue to be associated with a church whose doctrine supports homosexuality?

So, where am I wrong. What rhetoric am I using? I will glad to define my definitions. However, you have still offered not clear and consistent thoughts on why Patterson is wrong. When I talk, I do refer to historic ideas, thus it may seem as rhetoric.

To let you know, in 1999 I did a study on the Downgrade and liberalism because I wanted to know if the SBC conservatives were right and see if history taught us anything. I think they sounded the alarm too late, but am impressed with the results.

I am not caustic, and have attacked no one personally. I also do not have a problem with several ministries occupying space. However, I do not think SWBTS should continue to allow an association who does not agree with their doctrine to continue to be a part of the campus. That is simple. In fact, homosexual doctrine is anti- the Christian doctrine. I would have made the same decision. I would not want to attack the people, but clearly define where we disagree and why this is necessary, because the integrity of God's creation order and for the uplifting of God's great Word.

So, answer the other question, do you believe Innerancy of Scripture is a vital doctrine? Do you think we should divide on such doctrine? Do you think we should divide over the homosexual issues from other churches? Would you agree with the reformers on Soli Scriptura?

Again, I am trying to get to the debate and I am engaging... it is you who keeps moving towards other things. I would love a discussion on the issue first and foremost.

My position is clear. Broadway's doctrine is contrary and even hostile to the doctrine of Christianity and the stated doctrine of SWBTS... SWBTS has the right and even the responsibility to disassociate with them. The association has the right and responsibility to disassociate with SWBTS. I think integrity on both parties would be to part ways. One side would see it as doctrinal integrity. The other side would be to not offend an brother.

 

How many trustees/administrators/faculty attend TBA churches?

 

I don't have any data, but I suspect that most administrators and faculty do. The trustees come from all over, so I suspect that only a few local trustees are members of TBA churches.

An interesting question to ask is:

"Why haven't administrators and faculty been lobbying the TBA to do something about this situation if it is an clear-cut as the SWBTS leadership would have you believe?"

 

God's side.

That, by definition, means any denominational/institutional loyalty is secondary.

Your question, and it's corresponding answer, has little bearing on the discussion.

One can be in favor of inerrancy, and still think that Patterson is acting shamefully in certain areas of behavior.

God is for inerrancy of His word. He also supports responsible stewardship.

 

Help me understand. If an entity is using your property and that entity endorses activities that are clearly un-Biblical then why would it be wrong for you to ask that entity to leave? If an organization used our church facilities and we found out that they were tolerating homosexual behavior I would have no problem asking that organization to find another place to operate.

Of course why should I expect the SBC haters that have chimed in concerning this thread to give an objective answer?

 

Whose name is on the title?

This is not from an SBC hater....

What ever happened to the sovereignty of the Local Church?

A convention is not a sovereign Church. A convention school is not a sovereign Church. An association is not a sovereign Church. A synod is not a sovereign Church. The holy see is not a sovereign Church, even though the bishop owns all the parish property. Then the pope owns it all.

My what can happen when the local Church abdicates her sovereignty!!!

How come the vatican owns so much stuff?

This situation sounds tortable. Who has the authority to exercise I Cor. 5:1-5? Sounds like the lawyers may win again. How many Bibles will this cost?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Good question. Unfortunately, it is the wrong question since the Tarrant Baptist Association does not endorse homosexual behavior.

Here's the place where the real issue is found. As far as I know (and I don't take obviously slanted journalism like The Advocate seriously), Broadway Baptist Church has not endorsed homosexual relations. If you have evidence from them, I'd be happy to see it. Ruiz made a good point that there is wisdom in working through things with brothers and sisters in Christ rather than knee-jerk reactions. Broadway has experienced an enormous amount of turmoil over this issue (many members have left) and they are still working this out. If they come out in favor of homosexual relations, I'm sure TBA will ask them to leave or withdraw fellowship. If they come out against homosexual relations, TBA will affirm them.

If you actually knew the people in TBA leadership, you would know how false these assertions are. FYI, Al Meredith, the spokesperson for the TBA in this matter, is the pastor of Wedgwood Baptist Church, the church where the gunman murdered seven people back in 1999. Wedgwood is a very conservative church and Meredith is an avid student of Charles Spurgeon and a 5-point Calvinist.

I'm not an SBC hater (although you may believe differently), but I am trying to be as forthright, objective and honest as I know how to be.

 

This is the key point. I don't know anyone who disagrees with Dr. Patterson on the matter of the sin.

You know it is sad that I can, at this point, know who will show up in a thread and accuse others of hating the SBC. In fact many of us (who actually are SBC) care for the convention and support it vigorously.

I just don't understand the degree of polarization of the issues. In fact most all of us would agree on all the issues laid out here. Why is it in the neo-fundamentalist sects of this board (and in the convention) it is almost worse to be respectfully disagree on a fairly minor point (thus being branded a heretic) than to be an outright atheist.

We have too much of a propensity for friendly fire if the other person(s) is/are wearing different unit colors.