Buy Xopenex No Prescription Oct 25, 2006
Medrol For Sale Oct 24, 2007
Where Can I Buy Allopurinol Dec 5, 2006
Where Can I Buy Allopurinol, I've spent most of my day at the roundtable discussion in Arlington, and after observing all that went on at the roundtable and the ensuing press conference, as having the opportunity to spend a few minutes chatting with Dwight McKissic, I thought I would share some first impressions as I enjoy a snack and the free internet access at Schlotzsky's while I kill time before dinner.
The roundtable consisted of discussion about letters the group will send to the chairmen of the IMB, Allopurinol coupon, NAMB, and Southwestern Seminary and to Dr. Thom Rainer, Allopurinol overseas, president of LifeWay. Allopurinol australia, The first letter, to the three chairmen, asked for them to lead their boards to rescind policies against "private prayer language" for employees and missionaries, 200mg Allopurinol. The letter to Dr. Rainer asks that he commission a study by LifeWay Research to determine the position of the SBC as it relates to charismatic gifts, Where Can I Buy Allopurinol. Allopurinol craiglist, Participants were asked to vote on sending these letters; I abstained from voting on the first letter and heartily voted in favor of the second, probably out of a belief that the study will show that the great majority of the convention agrees with me on the subject. I could be wrong, Allopurinol canada, but I didn't consider that possibility before I voted. Allopurinol uk, Next, the discussion moved to resolutions that would be submitted to the SBC resolutions committee for their consideration and presentation to the SBC in June in San Antonio. There was a very general resolution not mentioning any specific entity or doctrine presented by the organizers of the roundtable, Allopurinol mexico, and another, 150mg Allopurinol, more pointed resolution distributed by a participant in the event. Where Can I Buy Allopurinol, These were debated extensively before being unanimously approved. I chose to abstain on this vote as well.
Next, 50mg Allopurinol, the agenda moved to open discussion of "where do we go from here?" This was the heart of my reason for attending, 1000mg Allopurinol, specifically the fear that this might become a movement to support missionaries disqualified by current policies, a movement that would take away from the Cooperative Program and our mission boards. There were quite a few who spoke to this, Allopurinol us, many advocating the exploration of a framework for such missionary support, 100mg Allopurinol, and a few advocating remaining in the SBC and working to effect change from within. I especially appreciated Micah Fries' clear statement of his desire for change, but his ultimate loyalty to the SBC, 750mg Allopurinol. But it was clear from reaction to those who spoke that the majority of the room favored a movement away from SBC support, Where Can I Buy Allopurinol. Curiously, 40mg Allopurinol, there was no vote in this section of the discussion.
There was a press conference immediately following the roundtable, with Ben Cole, Allopurinol ebay, Wade Burleson, 250mg Allopurinol, Dwight McKissic, and Art Rogers fielding reporters' questions. After the roundtable, 500mg Allopurinol, I and fellow observer Robin Foster had a chance to visit with McKissic for a few minutes, Allopurinol paypal, and I really appreciated his taking the time to chat with us.
When his sermon at the infamous SWBTS chapel service back in August was not archived for online viewing, it could not have been clearer to me why the action was taken: It was simply unacceptable for a trustee of one entity to stand in that entity's pulpit and criticize another entity's policies, 10mg Allopurinol. Where Can I Buy Allopurinol, While this was not a popular explanation in Blog Town, it was nonetheless obvious to me. What further bothered me about the incident was what I saw as McKissic's rudeness. Allopurinol usa, I may have been a bit off on this, as my visit with McKissic today revealed.
I couldn't imagine anyone not being aware of the controversy over the IMB policies, Allopurinol india, and specifically of the widely held (and incorrect, 20mg Allopurinol, in my view) belief that it was Southwestern president Paige Patterson who was behind the policies in an attempt to embarrass Dr. Rankin, IMB President, 30mg Allopurinol. McKissic today assured me that he was, in fact, quite unaware, Where Can I Buy Allopurinol. I asked him very specific questions about the above scenario, Allopurinol japan, and he told me that his only knowledge about Dr. Patterson's position on these matters was Patterson's affirmation of Paul's instruction, "Forbid not to speak in tongues." He says that only after the uproar following his message did he become aware of the larger context. Further, and I very much appreciated this, he told me that had he been aware, he most certainly would not have delivered such a message.
I had been projecting my own awareness of the issues on McKissic, in which light his actions certainly do seem very rude. But my projection was inaccurate, and I have a new appreciation of the fact today.
I will post more thoughts later; there are still some issues I need to think and pray through, and some conversations I need to have, but here is at least a quick reflection on the day, for what it's worth.
Off to dinner...
Similar posts: Buy Flexeril Over The Counter. No RX Flexeril. Discount Accutane. Valtrex For Sale. 40mg Flexeril. Zyprexa paypal. 40mg Plavix. Diclofenac craiglist.
Trackbacks from: Where Can I Buy Allopurinol. Where Can I Buy Allopurinol. Where Can I Buy Allopurinol. Where Can I Buy Allopurinol. 100mg Allopurinol. Allopurinol usa. 250mg Allopurinol. Allopurinol us.
Wes Kenney
cb scott Dec 5 2006 - 7:16 pm
Wes,
Unless you are the greatest and most bold liar on earth right now it is impossible to believe McKissic did not know anything of the controversy related to the IMB for the last two years. He lives in Texas. He lives in Arlington, Texas.
He would have to had lived in a cave for two years before preaching that sermon and spoken to no one on his way to Chapel and we know that is not true.
Please confirm your report of saying the man said he knew nothing of the problems at the IMB surrounding Wade, Baptism and Private Prayer Languages. His personal credibility is at risk due to what you are saying. I have not known you to willfully lie. Maybe you have misunderstood him in some way. Frankly, I hope you have. There is a liar floating around down there if you are correct.
cb
Alan Cross Dec 5 2006 - 8:53 pm
CB,
You misunderstand. Clearly, Dr. McKissic knew of the IMB controversy. He addressed it in his message. He stated that he did not know of Dr. Patterson’s position on the issue, except to say that he had written previously that we should not forbid speaking in tongues. He did not know that he was advocating a position that Dr. Patterson would disapprove of. I didn’t know that either, because I had no proof of Patterson’s involvement either.
He did know about the IMB and Wade, but did not know where SWBTS or Dr. Patterson stood. I think that is acceptable.
By the way, I’m sitting in the airport with Bob Cleveland right now and we were talking about you. All good, I assure you! 
cb scott Dec 5 2006 - 9:31 pm
Alan,
I stand, thankfully, corrected. Tell Bob The Greek I said hell-o and I hope he used my proxy well:-)
cb
Tim Rogers Dec 5 2006 - 9:32 pm
Brother Wes,
Thank you for your humble boldness. I know it was difficult to be there and take some of the stands you took. Also, Brother CB brings out a good point. Many bloggers knew as soon a Chapel Service was over what was said. It is proven by the quick transcripts of the sermon that floated around and being posted on some blogs. Also, notice the following remarks;
“I was unable to hear all of Dwight’s message because of a staff meeting I had this morning, but I have learned that the message spoke directly to some very important issues we face as a convention. I did not hear enough to know whether or not I agreed with Dwight’s premise, but when I went later to hear the archived message, it was not up on the Seminary’s website.”
These are Brother Wade Burleson’s words on Aug 29. Question; Why would he be tuning in to hear Dr. McKissic’s sermon on that particular day?
Just curious. But, when the man says he did not discuss this with anyone else and says he did not know, we take his word.
Blessings,
Tim
Les Puryear Dec 5 2006 - 9:53 pm
Wes,
Thanks for the quick update. I’ll wait until there is more information before further comment.
Les
Kevin Bussey Dec 5 2006 - 9:59 pm
Thanks for the update Wes.
John Stickley Dec 5 2006 - 10:04 pm
Tim,
Why don’t you ask Wade that question, or address Rev. McKissic with your concerns about who (if anyone) he shared the content of his message with?
When I read your comment, I get the impression of an intent to cast suspicion with regard to the truthfulness of Rev. McKissic’s statement to Wes. I want to believe you intended otherwise, but it’s the impresssion I’m left with.
Can you clarify your intent so that no one (or maybe just me) reads more into your comment than intended?
Tim Rogers Dec 5 2006 - 10:16 pm
Brother John,
After reading Brother Alan’s comments, I need to restate. From my evidence it is clear that someone knew something. It could be that I have studied under Dr. Patterson, but I figured everyone knew where he stood on the doctrine of Charismatic practices. If anyone ever went to a Bailey Smith Real Evangelism Conference and listened to Dr. Patterson speak, or to Jacksonville for the Pastor’s Conference there would be no doubt of Dr. P’s stance on this doctrine.
As for my question to Wade or Dr. M, read Art Rogers’ blog on August 29 and tell me who made the first comment and what it means to you.
Blessings,
Tim
Dr. M states on his blog that he did know the sermon would cause questions. I do believe we are attempting to be manipulated. I am glad they are sending letters. Winter is coming and it is good to have fire starters!
John Stickley Dec 5 2006 - 10:53 pm
Tim,
You’ll have to get to your point… I’m a bit slow in following you. I see two posts from Art on August 29th. The first comment on one is from Ben Cole. The first comment on the other is from Wade Burleson.
If you’re referring to Ben’s comment, “your friend seems to be on top of things”, you’ll have to excuse my ignorance… I don’t know which friend of Art’s he is referring to, as Art doesn’t mention the friend that informed him of chapel happenings by name.
If you’re referring to Wade’s comment, “excellent analysis on consistency”, I don’t see where you’re going with this at all.
Maybe I’m just extremely dense, but I don’t see a whole lot of significance in the fact that Art, Wade, and Ben all knew of SWBTS chapel happenings quickly… the fact is they’ve all been involved in recent SBC discussions, all have highly read blogs, all are now fairly well-known SBC personalities. Given that, the fact that someone at SWBTS would inform them of happenings really isn’t all that surprising to me.
So… can you cut through my ignorance (or maybe just my blind optimism about the motives of fellow believers) and just tell me what you’re getting at?
Alan Cross Dec 5 2006 - 11:45 pm
Tim,
You are accusing people of stuff that you know nothing about. The whole thing happened by happenstance. I’ve talked to everyone involved and it just so happened that someone was listening to the LIVE chapel feed and called Wade. No conspiracy here.
Why do you doubt the motives of everyone involved? It seems that you are reaching to cast everyone in a negative light without asking direct questions and it does not suit you. Either those involved are innocent, or they are liars. There is no other position. But, I asked the question and got the answer. I advise you to do the same.
Bryan Riley Dec 6 2006 - 12:54 am
What is sad is that we judge based on our feelings about an individual’s position on things. Typically, when I read these blogs, people who generally are on “one side” read into the “other side’s” writing negatively and vice versa. I have found myself doing the same thing. I think sometimes we read or listen to certain people to find that thing we can disagree with and then we trumpet that to the heavens, but when it is someone with whom we respect we tend to just do a lot of “amen-ing.” God is no respecter of persons and we should not be either. Does everyone hear remember that we belong to one another? Romans 12:5. And, that this is written right in the context of offering ourselves as living sacrifices, all of ourselves, as our spiritual act of worship, and that would include putting forth our ideologies. ARGH!!!!! Why, Lord, do we keep worshiping ourselves rather than you? When will we simply live by the promises and commands of your Scripture? Oh that we could all join in the singing of Psalm 119.
Wade Burleson Dec 6 2006 - 1:05 am
Wes,
It was good to see you and Robin Foster today. Oklahoma, as always, is well represented by sharp pastors who make our state a better place to serve.
Thanks for taking the time to speak to Dwight directly. There is not a confrontational bone in that man’s body. He is a man of conviction, believing all the Word of God teaches, but he is at heart a man of mercy.
I can assure you, and my blogger friend Tim Rogers, that Dwight made nobody aware of the content of his message prior to him speaking. Alan Cross is spot on when he says someone who is in the habit of watching all the chapel services at SWBTS live on the internet called me while it was going on. I have read the transcript and listened to an audio tape. It is a powerful message on the Holy Spirit that would not cause an eyelash to bat in the SBC of past years. It is sound theologically, passionate and well worth the time for anyone interesting in listening to it.
Your example today of speaking personally with Dwight before you blog about him is a good one.
I would offer just one gentle correction, or possibly an addition, to your excellent post. You write,
. . . [I]t was clear from reaction to those who spoke that the majority of the room favored a movement away from SBC support. Curiously, there was no vote in this section of the discussion.
The four men at the head table adamantly, repeatedly, and persuasively argued that NOBODY should leave the SBC. We should work within the framewok to change that which needs to be changing.
Wes, some feel that the SBC would be better off if the people at the meeting today would leave the convention. I am sure that is not your feeling, but to not mention that the organizers of the meeting, to a man, articulated that everyone must STAY in the SBC may cause some who were not there to misunderstand what is actually happening.
Nobody is leaving.
They are all going to San Antonio.
Wade
Tim Rogers Dec 6 2006 - 6:04 am
Brother Wade,
You say; “We should work within the framewok to change that which needs to be changing.” Can you help me understand how two trustees of different entities lead a group of pastors to present letters of disagreements over policies to two of the very entities they are called to hold in trust and another entity whose policy has been in place for over a decade working within the system?
Brother Alan,
I have fallen off of a turnip truck and I was born at night. However I did not fall off of a turnip truck yesterday and I was not born last night. “Happenstance”, Coincidence, Irony, when things fall into the laps of people this is what you would use these terms for. I am understanding you to say that no one spoke to Dr. McKissic before he spoke in chapel that day and all of the blogs that filled with copies of his sermon within 24 hours of his preaching it were these astute bloggers downloading a sermon that, mind you, was not available online and they presented it from memory? You are right, I am not in the inner circle and I do not “know” what has been and is being said, but happenstance–I don’t think so.
Brother John,
It has been rumored since Chapel-gate that our Brother Ben Cole was aware and encouraged Dr. M to proceed with the message. I do not know this and it is purely speculation as to truth. I truly do not know what to believe. However his statement tacitly points to him as the friend that supplied the information to Brother Art.
Blessings,
Tim
Art Rogers Dec 6 2006 - 8:45 am
Wes,
Good post. We voted on one resolution, not two – Wes has confirmed this with me on the phone and encouraged me to post it here in the comments.
Tim,
Ben is the one who watches every Chapel Service and called several people to watch. I was out of the office and couldn’t. Wade was not watching, checked in for a moment and then went to staff meeting. If we all knew about such a thing, wouldn’t it stand to reason that we would have made time to be there and watch it? Wade mentioned this in the Press Conference. It is no secret. I was poking at Ben by keeping him anonymous, he poked back by insinuating that he was indeed the friend. You picked up on that because it was not intended to be a secret. If Ben didn’t want it known that he made the calls, he wouldn’t have said a word. Surely we all know him well enough by now to affirm that he is very politically savvy, and if that is something he didn’t want known, you wouldn’t know it.
The way we got transcripts is that Ben called Cornerstone and asked for a transcript. When he received it he forwarded it to us and we cut and pasted it to our blogs. By the way, Dwight preaches from a script, as many will note in his words at the Roundtable. Ben was forwarded a document that was already saved and he forwarded it to us. It takes no time to reproduce a document that already exists.
As has been mentioned earlier, you are spreading innuendo and it ill becomes you.
John Stickley Dec 6 2006 - 9:21 am
Tim,
I guess I can see where you were coming from now. I still wonder… why not just ask people as to their involvement? Most everyone has contact information of some sort readily available on the internet.
Anyway, I think that if you’ll check out Ben’s blog today, you’ll find more than enough information as to, as Ben puts it, “how it all went down”. Ben specifically states that he did not speak with Rev. McKissic about the topic of his sermon prior.
Les Puryear Dec 6 2006 - 10:27 am
Rather than everyone speculating how Chapelgate went down, go to Ben Cole’s blog today (12/6). He seems pretty open as to how he engineered everything as soon as he saw the chapel service.
He seems pretty proud of it as well.
Regards,
Les
Tim R.,
I hope you will answer this for me as I’ve asked it of various people over the course of nearly a year and have yet to have anyone answer it for me. If Bro. Wade and now Bro. Dwight are wrong in going outside of the “system” with their concerns then was Adrian Rogers, Charles Stanley, Paige Patterson, Paul Pressler, Russell Kaemmerling (perhaps Kaemmerling especially, who edited the Southern Baptist Journal) and others involved in the convention activities over the past 28 years wrong for holding private meetings, publishing print journals and newsletters and drumming up support for their cause among grass-roots Southern Baptists and pastors and for not making changes from within the established trustee system of the SBC? Were those men just a bunch of disgruntled church deacons stirring up trouble in the SBC?
Tim G,
In light of your comment you might want to submit several of your blog posts for kindling as well. 
Robin Foster Dec 6 2006 - 10:42 am
Okay everyone, I will blog on this later today, but let me assure you that Wes is correct in reporting that Bro. Mc Kissic stated that he did not know that there was talk about Dr. Patterson being the architect behind the IMB trustee vote concerning PPL.
Wes, had a great time and enjoyed the fellowship. I don’t know if people realize you have a humorous quick wit.
God Bless
Bro. Robin
Wes Kenney Dec 6 2006 - 11:50 am
Robin,
I enjoyed the day as well. I know many people who would agree with your last statement – half way, at least…
Art,
Thanks for the correction – I didn’t word that very precisely, but I did say “this vote,” indicating that two resolutions were debated around the room, but there was only one vote on the more general resolution.
Wade,
You are correct in pointing out the commitment expressed by Ben, Dwight, Art and yourself to staying within the SBC. I didn’t articulate this very well, only pointing out that no vote was taken on the “where do we go from here” section of the discussion, despite what I perceived as a strong desire by many present to begin the process of developing an alternative framework.
C.B.,
Alan has largely corrected any fuzziness in what I originally said. I didn’t intend to say that McKissic was entirely unaware of any controversy, only that he told me he did not know that many had accused Dr. Patterson of being the architect and unseen hand behind the IMB policies.
I’m not a Southern Baptist anymore, so I really don’t have a car in this race, but my question is, what are people afraid of? Someone implied that it was wrong for trustees of two SBC organizations to go outside the system to accomplish something. Why is that wrong? I can tell you from first hand experience that being a member of a Baptist denominational board is just about as frustrating as it can be. You have little or no voice, and any type of dissent is met with a silencing of Washingtonian proportions. This is important enough an issue that something radical had to be undertaken, and yet, the SBC leadership does not even seem to care that it occurred.
Do not be afraid of opposition, unless you believe that you are 100% right 100% of the time. Then, when you oppose those who would disagree, you’re just dangerous.
Art Rogers Dec 6 2006 - 1:47 pm
Wes,
I offer a correction of my own. Ben contacted me after reading my account and informed me of a factual inaccuracy of my own. I stated that he received a transcript from Cornerstone the next day. That was not accurate. He received a CD copy of the sermon and had it transcribed by someone else, then forwarded everything to myself and others.
I only knew that he had the transcript and assumed the rest. My apologies. Also, you will note that it was considerably more time between the sermons and the appearance of the transcripts than is cited by Tim. I am sure that he was not being intentional in misrepresenting the timeline anymore than I was intentional about misrepresenting how the transcripts came to be.
As to the mood of the room, several more spoke in favor of staying in the convention than of developing other funding strategies. Don’t you remember it that way?
I took the shouting and “amen” calling as more style driven by the one person who spoke to the issue in that way. Recall that two others also showed interest in finding ways to facilitate disenfranchised missionaries, but received no verbal support from the crowd.
Why? I think it was because they didn’t “preach” their opinion while heaping praise on Dwight McKissic like the other did.
Moreover, he was the only one who said that we should “leave the convention.” The other two said they were possibly interested in funding “in addition to” their CP gifts.
I later found out that he had led his church to leave the convention this last summer “over this issue.” He came having already made a determination that leaving was better and had invested his life as well as the lives of his family and church in that decision. It seems clear to me now why he would say what he said with the passion he showed. He is already gone and would like others to come with him.
That would help him do what he is doing, but it also validates the decision he has already made. That informs my understanding as to what the shouting was about.
Again, I think the style may have had a lot to do with the response, though I admit that there may have been some swayed by the speech given.
By the way, that speech was written out ahead of time. From my vantage point, I could see him reading the entirety of it, word for word. It also seemed to me that he had rehearsed it. Of course, that is speculation.
Tom Bryant Dec 6 2006 - 2:20 pm
Did Dr. McKissic say that he was leaving the convention?
Tom Bryant Dec 6 2006 - 2:21 pm
did Dr. McKissic say he had already left the convention?
Wes Kenney Dec 6 2006 - 2:22 pm
Tom,
No, despite what I perceived to be the mood of the room, the four at the main table, as well as several who spoke, made plain their commitment to work for change within the SBC.
Bart Barber Dec 6 2006 - 2:36 pm
Wes,
Thanks for the report, from the dirty dog who stood you up for breakfast and the whole day. I appreciate you.
Tim Rogers Dec 6 2006 - 3:19 pm
Brother Art,
I do not question your sincerity or commitment to what you believe. I do question, because of the evidence, your managment of information. Your post on 8/29 was made after chapel, and probably during lunch. Our Brother Ben’s response is time stamped at 1:46. While our Brother had the time to send it to you by email, how did you know Dr. McKissic stated he was not a popular person at this moment? It certainly does not come across as a conversational issue referencing a sermon on the Holy Spirit. However, If you say that is the way it happened I take your word at it.
Brother Paul,
Great question. Where would we be today if it had not been for the Principled Dissent of people like the late Adrian Rogers, Dr. Paige Patterson, Charles Stanley, and Paul Pressler. They stood for the inerrancy of Scripture and helped lead a denomination that was adrift in the cesspool of Neo-Orthodoxy. However, as I recall, and you would be better able to answer this question, what entities did any of these men serve on as trustees? From what I remember–none. This is my point. Brother’s Wade and Dwight serve as Trustees. They are leading a group of pastors to stand in disagreement with the very boards they are sitting on. The cannot find those on the BoT’s they sit that will stand. Why? It could be that they cannot find anyone with enough back bone to stand for what is right. However, could the real reason be that their stand is not what the board as a whole endorses? That is working within the system. If they disagree with what the board has done and need to go public they resign the board and then go public.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Tim,
Actually, many of those men served not on just one board, but on every board. The President of the convention is an ex-oficio member of all of the boards, if I understand correctly. That means that Adrian Rogers, Baily Smith, Charles Stanley and the others were all working from elected positions within the convention. Should they have resigned as President in order to voice their opinions? Why would it be different for a trustee than for the President of the convention? Both are elected by the messengers. Both work within the framework of standing institutional bodies.
I would also be willing to go out on a limb and suggest that many within the boards of the past have done things privately to undermine the work of those boards – particularly during the years of the resurgence, but did not personally stand out front only because they knew that it would be perceived negatively from a PR standpoint. Instead, they would allow others, namely local pastors, to take the lead in public. But I think we are kidding ourselves if we think that this is the first time in the last 27 years that sitting trustees of our institutions actively opposed the work of the institution as a whole and supported external efforts to influence the direction of those entities. Would you disagree with that?
And in the end here is one major difference that I see. Bro. Wade and Bro. Dwight respect the positions of their fellow trustees and seek change, not by replacing those trustees with others who are more of a like mind, but by convincing those who are already there that it is in the best interest of the institutions, the SBC, and the local church to change the policies. In the past the method was not simply to oppose the policy but to oppose the person voting for that policy and working to get them replaced on the boards with others who were of like mind. The old path was unity through conformity. Bro. Wade and Bro. Dwight’s path is unity in diversity. Anyone who thinks that the path of conformity is the best path is obviously ignoring the make-up of their own churches, where it is often said that if you have two Baptists you have at least three different opinions.
Bob Cleveland Dec 6 2006 - 3:57 pm
Wes:
I’d feel better about it if you’d not abstained from voting on the letters and the resolution. I believe the vote was unanimous and I’m not concerned about appearances, but I know I’ll always vote my convictions on a matter, whether anyone agrees with me or not. But it was your choice, to which you’re certainly entitled.
I really try not to attached sinister motives to the actions of other people until they’ve proven they have them. A few people in the SBC limelight have proven that, to me, via means other than what they’ve said in blogdom. Certainly no one I knew at the meeting is in that place, and I hate to see those conclusions leapt to by others.
There’s been no ongoing voice for those who disagree with trends in the SBC. Despite the statements (I think I saw this someplace of the Memphis clambake and I know I saw of of the Joshua thingamajig ..) that they were to be a voice for the “little guy”, they spit out a piece of paper and some vitriolic videos, respectively, and it’s been yawn ever since. Well, IMO, the Sandy Creek/Charlestonian Roundtable isn’t going away. If that’s so, it’s the most important thing that happened in Arlington, on Tuesday.
From Cole: “The reason I thought that is because I know Paige Patterson. I knew he would not tolerate the expression of McKissic’s position from the chapel pulpit. The reaction would be swift, and I began recording the sermon via audiotape.
I worked the phones laboriously at that point, calling my contacts at the Dallas Morning News, the Fort Worth Star Telegram, the Associated Press, Baptist Press, Associated Baptist Press, Ethics Daily, and the Austin American-Statesman. Within ten minutes — and before McKissic’s sermon was over — I had alerted every major media outlet in the North Texas area and numerous state Baptist paper editors. Before noon, the blogs were already buzzing.â€
1 Corinthians 6:1 When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! 4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers!
Though Paul is speaking of lawsuits, the principle is on the mark and completely relevant to the issue here. I may not be plowing new ground, or even precluding the soon to be evaluated apparent “red flags,†but why, for those of you there, should it not be immediately suspect when a major emphasis is placed on public denunciation and public press conferences? Will they be judging those more rightly than those who will judge the world? Pleas help me understand.
Art Rogers Dec 6 2006 - 6:31 pm
Tim,
No offense here, but it seems that if you are going to take my word, you would just do that. It doesn’t seem that you are doing anything of the sort when you question my word and then say you’ll take it.
Moreover, you are taking the word of a “rumor” (your word) about men rather than the word of the men themselves when you continue to question.
The answer to the question you raise about my mismanagement is that Ben told me Dwight said it when he called me on the phone to tell me it was happening.
My understanding, and Dwight will be glad to clarify this more completely, is that the reference was not to being “unpopular” with Paige Patterson, as Wes and Robin have affirmed he has said, but that it was unpopular among some southern Baptists who may well be represented in the room. Of course, Dwight should be the one to give the final word on that issue.
Really, Tim, we had no idea that he was about to do what he did. I would have been at the computer or even in Ft. Worth had I known. I was at Office Depot when Ben called and was frustrated that Wade was going to a staff meeting while Marty and I were out of the office and nowhere near a computer. He was hearing it alone and describing it to me while I gathered the office supplies for which I had come.
Tim, your consistent suspicion implies a predisposition to believe that certain people are going to act inappropriately. If you met with a friend to plan a surprise birthday party for your wife, and because it was a surprise, you didn’t tell your wife about the meeting, but she saw you, I am sure she would not suspect you were doing anything wrong. She is predisposed to trust you.
I feel that you are predisposed not to trust, which is why you continue to raise questions even when those involved are forthcoming about what they did and didn’t do – even when it opens them to other questions.
Finally, it is what it is. Those people who will question us without any evidence and against our word (I am speaking in generalities, Tim, not about you specifically because you say you want to accept us at our word) will do so no matter what. There is nothing that will convince the man who chooses to believe something rather than allow the evidence and personal testimony to lead him to a conclusion.
I would add that the Trustee system was the the second tier of the Resurgence. The “Big Guns” went to the Presidency and those who were on the next level of leadership went to the Trustee positions.
CB Scott could fill everyone in on that. CB?
Art Rogers Dec 6 2006 - 6:35 pm
Colin,
You said, “Pleas [sic] help me understand.”
If you really wanted to understand Ben’s actions in light of Scripture, it seems to me that you would have emailed him yourself.
Instead, it appears that you want to insinuate that he is in violation of Scripture and do so on someone else’s blog.
Bart Barber Dec 6 2006 - 7:11 pm
Tim Rogers Dec 6 2006 - 9:33 pm
Brother Art,
You say it I take your word for it. It is called managing information. The only information released is the information that makes the point one desires to make. The rest is withheld for a time when it can be manipulated. I am not saying anyone is lying. I am just saying the time lines don’t appear to add up, IMO.
Brother Paul,
Name a time when either of the men you mentioned garnered together a group of people to place a worded document together to castigate the actions of a board of trustees. Also, You ask about the past 27 years of trustees disagreeing with board actions. Name a time when trustees went to the press to disagree with an action of the board they are sitting on. I can tell you that growing up in Wake Forest NC and witnessing the majority of that board becoming conservative, no secular news media covered any events of that until Randall Lolley staged his walk out. I grew up outside that town and was lost until 1988. Nothing, Nada was covered in the media until the walk out. According to Brother Ben’s blog, the same act was taken by him and apparently everyone one else, including Brother Wade, knew it. A sitting trustee on one entity being a part of and pushing an issue that divides a sister entity.
Blessings,
Tim
cb scott Dec 6 2006 - 10:26 pm
Art,
Since you called me by name (first I have heard from you in a while—I think since I called you by name on this same blog) you are dead on the money. That is how the Resurgence worked by design and function.
cb
cb scott Dec 6 2006 - 10:35 pm
One more thing,
If anyone thinks that Ben Cole is the first SBC “watcher” that ever called the press at a strategic moment one needs to read the history of the last twenty years of life in the SBC over without the rose colored glasses.
cb
Bro. Tim,
The Southern Baptist Journal regularly published articles which were publicly critical of all of our institutions. Meetings were held regularly among all of those I mentioned and more. The only difference is the meetings were not open but were often secretive. Go read Randy McDonald’s blog sometime. He’s been an insider. I actually think it is more admirable and shows more integrity to announce your meeting to the public and invite your critics not only to listen in, but to participate, than it is to hold a hush-hush meeting that only the select few know of where the agenda is to overtly undermine an institution or an administrator.
CB has spoken to some of the other issues you mention.
Having read the documents that were voted on at the Roundtable I don’t see anyone being castigated. I think the words used are “a humble request” to “reconsider the policies.” They are both thanked for their service and wished God’s blessings in their work. Thus, I guess I can’t name a time in the past or the present when a group has gotten together to publish a public document castigating one of our institutions. I remember the press showing up to Southwestern when Russell Dilday was fired. I don’t know who called them. I also don’t know who called the press to cover any of the recent issues in the SBC, though I don’t remember Wade Burleson or Dwight McKissic having said that they have done so. Perhaps you know something I don’t. Ben Cole admits to calling the press regarding Bro. McKissic’s chapel message, but as far as I know Ben isn’t the trustee of any Southern Baptist institution. I don’t know who invited the press to Arlington, though I do know that the event was public knowledge and had been posted on Cornerstone Baptist Church’s website as well as Art Roger’s blog. If I remember correctly you knew about it ahead of time, so perhaps you called the press.
It just appears to me that you are reading some improper motives into the purpose of the Arlington Roundtable. Perhaps you should wait until the audio/video becomes available and then make a judgment about the nature of the meeting and/or those involved. Keep in mind that Wes was there also and admits to “heartily” voting in favor of one of the letters.
Tim Rogers Dec 7 2006 - 8:55 am
Brother Paul,
I guess we will find out in San Antonio if the SBC is in agreement with eating at a round table.
Blessings,
Tim
cb scott Dec 7 2006 - 10:26 am
Paul,
One must remember that due to the fallen nature of man not all motives in the Arlington meeting were or are pure. That is the nature of such meetings of personalities as are many pastoral types.
It must also be remembered that conspiracy is not unknown in the SBC, nor is it confined to just any one faction. In truth, conspiracy is more prevalent during this “cold war” than when we were openly “firing” at each other in the past “Great Conflict” of the SBC Nations and Tribes.
cb
ART: Do you know me?
First- “it appears…it seems to me…”?
Second- Ben didn’t sin against me.
Third- My question really concerned the slated press conference at the Roundtable, not in response to the chapel message. That just served to further the point.
CB: Fourth- It has been done in the past. Was it right then?
Fifth- IT WAS A QUESTION! Is it right to do this? It does not seem so, but if there is no problem with it, convince me and others why. I have heard this more than any other reason last week as to why people thought the meeting was nothing ore than a publicity ploy.
“Pleas [sic] help me understand.â€
Bob Cleveland Dec 7 2006 - 12:26 pm
A strange thought just invaded my brainspace.
I decide I want to be free to wear a pink hat. So I do. I also think others should decide for themselves what color they should wear.
Someone else says no, we should NOT wear pink hats. Or perhaps he says no, we should wear any color BUT pink hats.
I say ok, you’re entitled to your opinion. He says we all are. He then throws me out and says I cannot be part of his group.
Who is being divisive? Me?
I think not. Yet month after month folks are saying we need unity and cooperation in diversity, and are then being accused of being divisive. How stupid is THAT?
cb scott Dec 7 2006 - 1:19 pm
Colin,
The only answer I can provide is motive. I can not know the motive of a person unless he or she reveals it in some way. Therefore right or wrong in such a matter would be based upon motive. Another factor is that often, for us all, motives are based on ignorance. So right or wrong in such maters is hard to call. Therefore, one could call such actions a mistake and not an intentional wrong act.
My point is that nothing new has been done here and it is not confined to one faction in any given situation or time in history, for that matter. It is simply the way we operate to achieve our goals. Right and wrong is revealed when we understand the motive behind the action. Once we know that we can ascribe right and wrong (with confidence, I might add) to an action.
cb
Tim Rogers Dec 7 2006 - 2:17 pm
Brother Bob,
Great illustration and I will use it to help you see my point in this entire issue.
The organization in which you belong says you have to wear a hat to organizational meetings. It is written in the documents that the organization if founded on that hats must be worn in accordance with the organization we associate ourselves. The organization in which we associate ourselves says that hats that are red in nature should be worn. You choose to wear a pink hat because pink could be considered by some as being red in nature. You can even produce documents by others, who are not part of the organization that says pink in general could be considered red. The organization presents a directive that says; pink hats are not red in general. Who is being divisive? The wearer of the pink hat or the organization?
Blessings,
Tim
Bob Cleveland Dec 7 2006 - 2:43 pm
Tim:
I understand. But let’s say the by-laws say “Forbid not the wearing of pink hats…”.
But enough said. Please say the last word and I’ll drop it. I respect you too much to let my mind wander away to thoughts of Tomahawk Cruise missiles headed northeast coastward from Birmingham.
God bless. I’ll buy the coffee in San Antonio.
All I can say is that if I see Bob Cleveland walking toward me wearing a pink hat, I’m going to walk the other direction.
Wade Burleson Dec 7 2006 - 3:12 pm
Bob Cleveland,
I laughed my head off at your very last comment.
I wish a little of the wisdom that comes with your grey hair would rub off on the rest of us Southern Baptist pastors.
Tim Rogers Dec 7 2006 - 5:00 pm
Brother Bob,
Great response. However, your bylaws are mistated. It doesn’t say forbid not the wearing of PINK hats it says forbid not the wearing of hats.
Brother Wade,
Glad to see you weigh in. Welcome back from your blog fast.
Brother Jason,
When Brother Bob buys my coffee in San Anton, I plan on presenting him with his pink hat.:>)
Brother Bob,
CB is lurking. :>)
Blessings,
Tim
cb scott Dec 7 2006 - 5:54 pm
Tim and Any,
I am having lunch with Bob the Greek tomorrow and I look to those lunches as a time to relax and listen to an intelligent man speak of many things both spiritual and of interest to men that have been to a Rodeo and seen an Elephant or two. I always leave those times of fellowship with Bob, relaxed, refreshed and with new ideas upon which to think.
Now, I understand he is going to be wearing a PINK HAT……………!! OK.
During this windy time of year I usually wear a black, leather overcoat from the “Land Down Under” and black, leather gloves. It is also my custom to wear dark sunglasses with this winter atire.
I dare not think what the folks that work at O’Charleys will be contemplating when we walk in together (PINK HAT and BLACK LEATHER) at High Noon. Surely they will seat us? You do think they will seat us don’t you?:-)
Opinions welcomed. Warnings may also be given:-)
cb
Tim Rogers Dec 7 2006 - 7:31 pm
Brother CB,
I certainly wish I had an extra $400 lying around for a round trip ticket to Birmingham to do lunch with you two. I would love to just witness the face of the Hostess when you two meet in the lobby.
Seriously, enjoy lunch. I look forward to Brother Bob purchasing me a coffee in San Anton.
Blessings,
Tim
Buy Xopenex No Prescription Oct 25, 2006
Medrol For Sale Oct 24, 2007
Where Can I Buy Allopurinol Dec 5, 2006
Connect with me on the following social networks:
