Originally Posted by Tom Butler Of course, it was a political
movement.
The resurgence utilized the same methods the moderates had
used to control the convention up to that point.
Conservatives
flooded the convention with messengers, elected a president, who
appointed conservatives to the Nominating Committee, who recommended
conservatives to the boards of the various agencies, whom the convention
messengers elected.
Those messengers then elected conservative agency heads (and seminary
presidents), who hired conservative employees, staff (and faculty).
Because of staggered terms, it took several years for the resurgence to
be complete.
It was exactly the method (which you call worldly) used by liberals
and moderates to control the convention machinery up to that point.
The resurgence would never have happened without the groundswell from
the grass roots, who elected that first conservative president.
Did the convention force its views on its agencies and seminaries?
You
bet.
Did it force its views on any local church.
No, nor could it.
How were they wrong?
You can't criticize the conservatives for attempting to take over the convention and let the moderates and liberals off the hook for doing the same thing with the same methods.
It's called voting.
You may not like the result, but you can't fault the way it was done.
They took votes.
Here's prominent Southern Baptist Timothy George (part of the so-called "Founders" crowd no less) blogging about hosting the planning meeting for this ecumenical conclave:
Don't know if I can maintain that any longer, especially after what I've read here. Don't know if I can be a Baptist in the South; seems they're either fundamentalist or liberal, nothing in the middle.
But I'll tell you one thing;
Neither you nor anyone else can take away my Baptist beliefs and heritage. I'll maintain that until I die.
Michael, you list yourself as the Archbishop of a Celtic Anabaptist Church.
Baptists of today may trace their lineage back to the anabaptists from the Reformation and before, but only because the name means "baptized again," and they revolted against the practice of the RCC, and others who held to the practice of infant baptism and their heretical practices.
If I am correct in my history it was the Mennonites and Amish that descended from the anabaptists. Thus if you are an anabaptist today you would be Amish or Mennonite, not Baptist.
Well I'd like to thank those who have completely derailed this thread in a vain rabbit chasing excursion to try to ferret out a supposed "non-Baptist."
The reason I chose Anabaptist for part of the title was to honor Anabaptists and all their spiritual descendants, including Baptists. But you can see in the Principles that our beliefs affirm the Baptist distinctives. I am not a pacifist, thus I could not be Mennonite. I believe the scriptural form of baptism is immersion, although I would allow other forms. Some Mennonites affirm soul sleep; I do not. Mennonites forbid oaths; I would not.