The current group of mostly younger pastors who want things to change are too missional-minded and Christ-following to sink to the hard-line politicking required. The so-called conservative resurgence was successful because of a fruit of the Spirit crop failure and an ingrained war mentality. I don’t see that kind of character among the new breed (praise God!)
If the outlook betrayed by this comment is widespread in our convention, I’m afraid it isn’t good news for the future. To suggest that following Christ prevents working for meaningful change in the SBC is to disparage those who have done just that. Can examples be found of those involved in the conservative resurgence who did not have the Kingdom as their priority? Certainly. But to attribute the success of the resurgence to “a fruit of the Spirit crop failure” shows reckless disregard either for the Word of God or for the testimony of those who were committed to the resurgence goals. My reading of Galatians leaves me believing that the Spirit produces His fruit in “those who belong to Christ Jesus.” The statement about “crop failure” suggests either that the Spirit failed in His work in their lives, or that they are not among “those who belong to Christ Jesus.”
Galatians 5 ends with this admonition: “We must not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.” I pray every day that conceit, provocation, and envy are not a part of my behavior, and when I recognize them, I try to be quick to confess and repent. The attitude reflected in the comment I have quoted smacks of conceit, and I think “provocative” would be a fair description of it.
What has energized my participation in the debate of the last few months has in large part been the opportunity the controversy has provided to those disaffected by the conservative resurgence. Commentors on various blogs frequently (and usually anonymously) tell us that conservatives are getting what we have coming to us because of the way we treated moderates in the last 25 years. I have no hard feeling toward anyone whose conscience led them out of the SBC, but I have a very hard time with those who, having left the camp, continue to lob bombs back into it. I would urge them to make their new camp the best it can be without further damaging this one. And to those who are compelled by conscience because of this latest controversy to leave as well, I would urge the same. Comments like the one that is the subject of this post are the verbal equivalent of friendly fire, and if they continue they will devastate our effectiveness for the Kingdom.
on Apr 17th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
Dear Brother Wes,
You are on it! Obviously your association with me and my great influence on your mind have now completed your Baptist statesman training. That’s the only explanation I can think of for your tremendous expression of this position.
I am especially convicted on this point right now, because I have gone overboard in accusation and criticism of my Christian brothers lately. I am penitent about that, and will endeavor to be more kind and gentle in future writing.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Reply
on Apr 17th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
Wow, Wes,
Agreement from Jeff and followed by me as well.
I think that we get carried away in the blogosphere, sometimes. Words are often so easy to flow, when no one really knows you and you don’t have to answer for them, face to face.
I have been guilty of this. It is not acceptable.
Reply
on Apr 18th, 2006 at 9:00 am
Hi Wes,
Thanks for emailing me concerning your reaction to my comment and your plans to blog about it. I would not have known otherwise and for that I am grateful.
I thought I would offer a few comments to try to explain the nature/tone of my reply on Paul Littleton’s blog.
First of all, I probably would not have used the same words/phrases to make my point if it were your blog I was commenting on. Paul and I go way back and experienced the resurgence at the same time. We have a shared history of the SBC and so I wrote as among a friend who knows me. My opinion is still the same, but out of respect for you I would not express myself the same way.
Still, after I replied, I remember thinking, “Boy! It seems like I’m always sounding cynical when I comment on Paul’s blog. I need to start making more encouraging comments!”
I really am a nice guy, Wes. It’s just that I have been through some of the struggles during the resurgence (national convention meetings, state meetings, associational squabbles, church infighting, etc). I have seen good men deeply hurt by “brothers” who didn’t seem to mind a little collateral damage as long as their main objective was accomplished.
I honestly believe that the resurgence was succesful because of hard-ball politics and an established war mentality. The “crop failure” comment was my poor way of trying to be clever. I do not believe the Spirit fails. I do believe people can quench the Spirit. “Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control…”–these seemed to be in short supply during those 20 years (probably by both sides).
I don’t expect us to agree. But I have now spoken honestly and openly with you.
I consider you my brother. Thank you for opening up this dialogue.
paul t
Reply
on Apr 18th, 2006 at 11:53 am
Paul,
Thanks for your reply, and for your gentle spirit.
I have no doubt that you experienced some difficult times during the resurgence. I was 8 in 1979, and not really aware in any sense until after 2000. Most of what I have heard about those years has been positive, but I recognize the truth of the cliche that history is written by the victors.
Whatever the motivation, our speech must be seasoned with love. I have been guilty of not guarding my speech, and I have tried to be careful to seek forgiveness. My desire is that the conversation and debate within our convention will be such that forgiveness will rarely be necessary.
Thanks again for taking the time to comment.
God bless.
Reply