British church leader says evangelicals use despotic methods to attack rivals

It is not true that the main point of being a Baptist is to be able to be whatever you want. Such a ridiculous idea has been expressed in several ways on this board.

The conservative resurgence has nothing to do with women pastors, although they are unscriptural and are a concern, and neither did it have anything to do with homosexuality. It was about the Bible and the way it was being taught in our schools. Nothing more, nothing less. The means to effect change in this area was to get conservatives elected.

Conservatives did not just take over they were elected by the churches. Libbies continue to act as if there was some overthrow by means of a military coupe. I suppose that is what you need to believe when your views are not supported by the majority.

And it was a deliberate systematic shutout of conservatives as has been documented in Paul Presslers book "A Hill On Which To Die".

 

That does not seem to give a distinguishing identification to the name Baptist.I guess anyone could label themselves Baptist because they can do anything and believe anything they want.

 

Could you explain, because I have never been in a public school that ever taught the Bible nor did I teach in one that taught the Bible.

 

Schools meaning the schools that belong to the SBC. But then you knew that.

 

I did not think of it that way because I do not live in the south and that was never an issue in the circles I am in. I am fully aware that many in the south think prayer ought to be in public schools. So that was the reason I asked.

 

About ten years ago I heard her speak at a dinner and she was powerful. Every person in America should hear her speak.

http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/everett.htm

 

The context was in the SBC conservative resurgence therefore the schools mentioned is referring the Seminaries

 

Should have read "the use of the word "schools" was referring to the Seminaries".

 

I almost agree with you on this. You are right that the issues of women in the pastorate and of homosexuality were not in the game. They had not been raised, at least not with much force, thirty years ago when the conservative resurgence began. And you are right that it was about the way the Bible was being taught in the seminaries ... in a sense. The real issue, as you have pointed out by referring to Pressler's book, is that conservatives felt excluded from positions of power. Were they systematically excluded, for doctrinal reasons? It can be argued that if there was a policy of exclusion it was more about the way doctrinal conservatives conduct themselves, in a combative manner, and therefore they become disruptive on boards. You will not like that analysis, and I will concede that what happened was that boards were made up largely of institutional loyalists who seldom said "No" or questioned the requests of agency administrators. Thus the establishment did build up a perception that SBC agency boards stood for nothing in particular and were unfriendly to conservatives.

However, one item that has always bothered me is the discovery, revealed by James L. Sullivan, then president of the Sunday School Board (now Lifeway), that for these conservatives it was all about power and how to get it, and that they selected the interpretation of the Bible as a rallying cry that they thought, rightly, most Southern Baptists would warm to. In other words, the primary concern was not about how the Bible is read; it was about feeling excluded from power, and how to gain power. The answer was to select an issue that could pander to the instincts of countless traditional Southern Baptists.

I'll leave aside for now questions about character assassination and about less-than-legitimate electioneering, and will agree that the conservatives won the battle. Whether fair or not, they won it. I think the real "blame" (or credit, if you like) goes not only to agency heads who preferred "yes men" on their boards, but also to those of us who were made aware of ways to read the Bible that were not caught up in inerrancy but who failed to teach our people convincingly and winsomely so that they would not fall for the rationalism of the resurgent group. In a sense, conservatives did not win the battle; it is that moderates did not use the weapons they had in a timely way.

 

Allegorizing and not taking a text literally are not the same thing.

Besides, I think that allegorizing the OT probably refers to belief that OT accounts such as Jonah is a fable or parable, and not historically true. I am guessing that was what was meant by "allegorizing the OT."

 

You're right, Marcia, that's exactly what I meant. :thumbs:

 

Of course, Dr. Sullivan was not exactly an unbiased observer. The argument that it was all a power struggle was made by those who were already in power. It wasn't all about power. However, seeking to wrest power from the "ins" was a necessary means of turning the convention around. Conservatives should not run from the "all about power" card played by liberals and moderates.

Using inerrancy as an issue was not pandering to the ignorant, illiterate, unsophisticated, easily led, easily duped country Baptist bumpkins. The bumpkins turned out to be smarter than the "ins" thought.

 

But Dr. Sullivan did not draw this conclusion himself. He reported that one of the resurgence leaders described it to him in exactly those terms ... that they decided to find an issue that would rally Southern Baptist lay people. If that is not pandering, it is at least manipulation.

I have not characterized our laypeople in the pejorative language you have suggested. But I do think that it was and is misleading to rally people to a position that unfairly misrepresents those one is trying to defeat and that involves some sophisticated theological thinking that should be more than sloganeering.

 

At best this is a poor and incorrect characterization of what happened. But it is most likely a complete lie. I will be sure and address it with him when I see him again. I have my doubts as to this statement.

 

Thaaats the spirit. :thumbsup:

Ok, here is some "substance" for you.

They are your brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

No...not all that claim the name "Baptist" are my brothers and sisters in Christ. Certainly those at Westboro Baptist Church are not my brothers and sisters. They don't worship the same God I do and they will all spend an eternity in hell unless they figure that out.

 

Matt...

Well, of course I agree with you on that, but I dont think that is what the original post was referring to.

The impression I got was that it meant Calvinists co-operating with Arminians, conservatives co-operating with moderates, (or even some liberal Baptists), Co-operating with other evangelical denominations, etc.

THAT sort of co-operation should indeed be going on, and its shamefull when it is refused, in my view.

 

On issues of doctrine, church polity, etc. I cannot be in agreement with nor cooperate with. As to thier Christian status I can't say for sure.

 

Cooperating with liberal Baptists? Sorry, I won't cooperate with a "baptist" that believes in homosexual marriage or unions, I won't cooperate with a "baptist" that believes abortion is OK, I won't coorperate with one that believes God "just set things in motion" and we are the products of evolution. Those liberal views show me that they don't worship the same God I do and they, just like the Westboros, will spend eternity in hell unless they figure that out.

Yup, I said it. Let the liberals come and blast me, but if you don't put your faith in the one true God, then you aren't saved. If you are too confused to know who the one true God is, then you can't put your faith in Him. A person is confused if they believe God is OK with homosexuality, abortion, or evolution (obviously there are more areas than these three, but they are examples).