NOBTS Situation

Why is Kelley pushing this issue? What does he hope to accomplish?

They really have NO leg to stand on. The lawyer for the SBC (who was there long before the "resurgence") has advised them on numerous occasions that they should just go through with it. Their defense is very weak.

BTW, this does not prove ANYTHING about what happened in the "resurgence". It shows that the SBC is trying to prevent the loss of any of its entities.

 

It is obvious that Kelly is trying to do the right thing here, protect the autonomy of NOBTS. The paper that he has written concerning the issue points to historic baptist principles of autonomy...now that sounds oddly familiar! There is no reason for any of the groups to sign over and make the SBC the sole member, they have been considered the most conservative of the seminaries and done great work in the hardest of prisons. Even Pope Paige is now backing off the sole member issue, saying that they should have thought that through a bit more.

BTW, what would you expect the lawyer for the SBC to say! The resurgence was political and the time is coming when churches will have to affirm in one way or the other the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 to be considered part of the SBC.

 

NOBTS is not a local church...they are not autonomous. They are a servant to the churches of the SBC, if those churches want them to sign over sole authority then they should. NOBTS has forgotten WHY they exist, and who they answer to. They are not an autonomous entity, unless they want to quit accepting Cooperative Program funds. (Of course, if they did that they would collapse, since ~85% of their budget comes from the CF.)

 

Grayhound,
If the churches want them to sign over sole authority, then the churches will be able to speak to it at next year's convention. Kelley has said plainly that if the messengers ask them to do it, then they'll do it. The messengers are, after all, the Southern Baptist Convention.

NOBTS has not forgotten why they exist, nor have they apparently forgotten to whom they answer as you suggest. They answer to the churches, and are obviously well aware of the fact that they answer to the churches--even if the EC seems to have forgotten the polity of its own denomination. The last time I checked, the Executive Committee was not the Southern Baptist Convention.

Perhaps the Executive Committee is confusing its role with that of a Presbytery in the PCUSA.

Jimmy,
I'm not sure this inidcates a "political" intention all along. (But I concede that if I already held that presupposition, this situation would do nothing to change my mind.) This president and these board members were all either involved in or supportive of the conservative movement, so I would hardly see them as "victims" or even the latest "victims" of the political machinations of a few. Rather, I think this ordeal is indicative of what happens when well-intentioned but dumb ideas get implemented too quickly, and then the people involved are too stubborn to admit that their idea, though well-intentioned, was dumb.

This situation also illustrates how easy it is to become that which you formerly despised. If one of the issues that led to the resurgence was an elitist denominational beaurocracy, then I hate to break it to Gary and Morris, but....

 

Jimmy,

Supposedly (and you might know better than I) Patterson has admitted to agreeing with Kelly on this "sole member" matter after hearing arguments, and even questioned if he didn't lead SE to sign on too quickly. I have no idea if that is "on the record" though. So perhaps Kelly's days aren't numbered quite yet.

 

When they run out of people they don't agree with to pick on they will start consuming each other.

Gal. 5:15, "But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another."

 

Jimmy, I think you watch too many episodes of the X-Files.

Once again, NOBTS has no autonomy. You cannot take local church autonomy and apply it to the seminaries or any other SBC entity.

The Exec Committee represents the churches of the SBC, Kelley would have been wise to heed the strong suggestion to sign the thing. Do you really think the churches will vote against it? Come on. This is a smart move on the part of the SBC Exec Committee to help protect the SBC, and I do not see how Kelley's weak defense of his actions hold any water.

 

JGray,

Is it a smart move? Two questions: From who exactly does sole membership protect the entities or the convention? And would sole membership have been a great idea in the 60s and 70s, or is it just a great idea now that we conservatives are "in control."

All this really does is centralize control at the EC. For several years, EC recommendations have taken more and more "say" off of the convention floor and placed more "say" into the board room in Nashville.

If you're okay with a system like our U.S. congress where you elect representatives and they make all the decisions, then that's fine, too. It seems to work pretty well for the PCUSA and United Methodists.

 

I understand the argument...if they think it is a bad idea because it doesn't help anything if the SBC goes left again, that's fine...but don't hide behind "autonomy", no way you can defend that stance.

I think the first argument is a fair argument. I don't think the SBC going left is as big a threat as one of the seminaries or other entities of going left themselves. But, as I said, NOBTS cannot stand alone by itself (they are in a pretty rough spot economically, anyway) and so if those who pay for them to stay open decide they want them to sign over sole authority, then they best do it. NOBTS is a servant to the churches and in turn the SBC...I think they have forgotten that fact. They belong to the SBC...so the Exec Committee does have a HUGE say in what they do.


Serious side note: Kelley had to have known that his hand would be ultimately forced...why on earth would he fight a losing battle? Principles? Surely this isn't a hill to die on.

 

Some folks try to live by their principles and do what is right no matter who it offends or what the personal cost might be.

Why are you surprised that someone might try to live by their principles? There is an Authority much higher than the SBC leadership. I hope we all answer to that Authority no matter what the SBC planners want us to do.

 

Come on, the principle he is standing under does not work...if he believes it's a bad idea that's one thing, but if his principle is sole authority of a seminary he is reaching big time.

Don't make the man out to be a martyr against "the man".

This is not a sin issue...don't pretend it is.

 

Clarification: it is one thing if the SBC is violating a Biblical principle...but they are not. This is a difference of opinion...I would not think he would want to get people mad at him over a difference of opinion.

 

Kelley was charged with leading and protecting the interests of the seminary. If he honestly believes that this demand by the Executive Committee is bad for the seminary, it is important for him to stand up to the Executive Committee in the interests of the seminary.

Why not? Sometimes you can't be a good leader and be popular at the same time.

 

That's a matter of opinion. Personally, I see his point.

Again, these are opinions. Apparently he doesn't agree with you or the Executive Committee.

I'm not. I really don't have a dog in this fight. I gave up on Southern Baptists at the 2000 convention. And anyway, he hasn't been martyred yet...

Lots of things aren't sin issues, but good people have been attacked, fired, vilified, and lied about because there were differences of opinions. The whole "conservative resurgence" (sic) was about differences of opinions.

The only thing that might be sinful in this disagreement will be the way each party might act if they can't come to an easy agreement.

 

Come on now, you know better than this.

 

Come on now, you know better than this. </font>[/QUOTE]So are you denying that differences of opinion were the fundamental issue? Or are you affirming that it was just a power play so certain people could take over?

 

BB, there are MAJOR theological differences that existed. If it was simply opinion, a new statement of faith never would have been drafted. And if it was drafted, no one would have left over it.