Buy Xopenex No Prescription Oct 25, 2006
Medrol For Sale Oct 24, 2007
Where Can I Buy Allopurinol Dec 5, 2006
Temovate For Sale, If you're reading this blog, you know all about Ben Cole's Rick Garner's motion to adopt a statement on the BF&M at the convention last week, including the fact that it passed with roughly 58% of the vote. Wade Burleson has devoted a deluge of text to the analysis of the debate of this vote, Temovate paypal, 10mg Temovate, and even more electrons have been devoted to those who wish to make this statement say what it clearly does not, specifically that trustees of our entities must view the BF&M as the maximum standard for cooperation, 200mg Temovate. Temovate us, So I want in this post to offer my analysis of why this motion was agreed to by 58% of those voting.
This motion was presented to the convention in a manner that was intended to be deceptive, 250mg Temovate. Temovate japan, Should you doubt this assertion (though I know you do not), kindly click here, Temovate overseas. Some of those arguing for the motion were deceptive in their arguments, though I don't believe intentionally so.
In addition to being in the hall when the debate took place, 20mg Temovate, 40mg Temovate, I have also read the transcript and watched the video. Bro, 30mg Temovate. Temovate coupon, Dwight talks about the BF&M being circumvented, which is his view of what has happened at the IMB and at SWBTS, 500mg Temovate. Temovate For Sale, This was his perfect right to do, and I believe that his argument was made with the purest of motives and with no intention to deceive anyone. Temovate usa, I further believe that his argument was, nonetheless, 100mg Temovate, 1000mg Temovate, deceptive.
Most of the messengers in the hall that night do not live and breathe SBC politics. They are not regular readers of the blogs that make up the main source of information for so many of us, Temovate ebay. Temovate india, For the majority of the messengers, what they know about the events of the past year is what has been available in various state Baptist newspapers, Temovate australia, 150mg Temovate, and that is precious little.
If you are one of these messengers, and you hear someone making an argument that the BF&M is being circumvented, Temovate mexico, Temovate craiglist, your response is very likely to be something akin to "Not by the hair of my chinny-chin-chin. We fought too hard for that statement, 750mg Temovate, and I'm not about to see it 'circumvented.'" You vote for the motion, because the one who made that heart-felt argument was in favor of it.
I am convinced that messengers in that cavernous hall in San Antonio last Tuesday evening who would be closely described by the above paragraphs would make up a good majority of the total number of messengers present. In fact, I would imagine that the percentage was somewhere around 58, give or take.
.Similar posts: Augmentin For Sale. Buy Aldactone Over The Counter. Where Can I Buy Antabuse. Where Can I Buy Tindamax. 150mg Valtrex. Hormone india. 50mg Actos. Stromectol craiglist.
Trackbacks from: Temovate For Sale. Temovate For Sale. Temovate For Sale. Temovate For Sale. 200mg Temovate. Temovate coupon. 50mg Temovate. Temovate japan.
Wes Kenney
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:
Dwight McKissic Jun 18 2007 - 5:06 pm
Dear Bro. Wes -
I’m honored and flattered that you would think that my feeble statements concerning the EC recommendation was partly responsible for the motion passing. I am under no delusion or illusion that what I had to say caused the motion to pass. If anything, I’m afraid that because I backed it, I probably cost the motion some votes against it. I am the “Black Sheep” of the SBC in more ways than one. LOL! But again, I’m honored and grateful that you would think my words helped to cause the motion to pass. I wish my mother were alive for her to hear and see that you thought my words moved an entire convention of “white folks.” LOL!! I felt it was an honor and a privilege to have the opportunity just to address the motion. That would not have been possible 50 years ago. So we have come a long way.
I appreciate you stating that you don’t believe some of those arguing for the motion were intentionally deceptive in their argument. I’m even more grateful that you included me among those that you don’t believe were being intentionally deceptive. However, it would be helpful for me and your readers to know what made my words deceptive from your vantage point although you again made it clear that you do not believe that was my intention. By the way, I sure hope we finally get this matter resolved in Indianapolis. It’s sure time to move to more important things. Or better still, if all of the entities would reconsider their policies related to this issue and returned to their pre-policy disposition on this subject matter, the problem would be solved and we could focus on glorification, evangelization, edification and fellowship in Indianapolis rather than this discussion that we’re all growing weary of. Keep in mind this conflict originated with the IMB not with the so-called dissenters. We are simply responding. God bless…enjoy reading your post. I value your friendship. WDM
Reply
Dwight McKissic Jun 18 2007 - 5:13 pm
P.S. – I appreciated the heads-up – WDM
Reply
R. L. Vaughn Jun 18 2007 - 6:23 pm
Bro. McKissic, I commented on this in another place and would be glad to get your response. According to the transcript, you said that “…decisions are being made that are not consistent or compatabile with this document that affects the identity and image of our church.” How can we say that decisions on things not addressed in the BFM are inconsistent and incompatible with it? For example, how can a position on “private prayer language” be incompatible with the BFM? The BFM doesn’t address it. Now I understand that you and others believe since the BFM doesn’t address it, the IMB shouldn’t either. But to me this is more that these decisions are inconsistent and incompatible with how you and others think the BFM ought to be used, rather than the text of the BFM itself.
Reply
Les Puryear Jun 18 2007 - 8:56 pm
Wes,
You know I love you as a brother in Christ, but I must once again disagree with you. Your assessment that a brother in Christ was intentionally deceptive is a serious charge and one that I trust you are not making lightly.
Personally I don’t think anyone was trying to deceive anyone else. The wording of the motion was such that it would be as clear as possible and not be viewed as out of order from the chair. Our bylaws make it extremely difficult to be pointed and direct to trustees as evidenced by the two motions “directing” trustees to do something which were ruled out of order.
Here’s the entire statement: “The Committee further requested that the chair rule the following motions are not in order because the work of an SBC entity is vested in the entity’s board of trustees. Any motion that which seeks to have the Convention exercise the authority of an entity’s board is not in order. Messengers may offer motions which request, but not direct, that an entity take an action. The motions are: 10. Bob Green, OK – Directing Lifeway to review its policy on distribution of fables and allegories. 14. Stephen Fox, UT – Instructing SBC entities to avoid promoting the ‘emerging church.’”
I believe the BFM motion was worded in such a way to clearly communicate its intention within the rules of the parlimentarians. Any wording more direct would have probably resulted in it being ruled out of order.
Therefore, I see no deception in the wording of the BFM motion, only wisdom to allow it to come to a vote at all.
I would sincerely hope that unless you can document deceptive intent upon Rick or Ben’s actions in bringing this motion to the floor, that you will apologize to both men for bringing such a libelous charge.
Regards,
Les
Reply
Joe Stewart Jun 18 2007 - 10:49 pm
I agree with Dr. York and William Faulkner.
Reply
Colin Jun 18 2007 - 11:08 pm
I do not think there is any disputing that there was a desire not to allow completely open debate. And given the revelation of Ben, it is hard to portray relating Wes’s comments here as libel. Libel is defamation in a form such as writing…blogging…and defamation is communicating a statement that makes a false claim.
But we’re all men here. As is Ben, who ponied up and gave the goods unadulterated. He said he wanted to stop Dr. York and Mohler from addressing the convention during the debate. Further, he and Wade agreed (though Wade thinks Ben is remembering this wrongly) that they wouldn’t speak to the motion because it would kill it. But aren’t the messengers smarter than that? They evaluated the motion and its precise wording, clearly articulated by Chapman, right? Or is Ben smart enough to know emotion plays a role (as he told Dr. York?
I think Wes is pleading the same kind of deception, but one of an emotive quality. I mean, really, Ben spelled everything out pretty plainly. Deception involves half-truths and cleverness. The convention heard half the arguments it could have, and there was certainly no lack of cleverness. Ben who has his thumb on the pulse of all things SBC is now being questioned for his consideration of the messengers, “I have said before, and I reiterate my concern, that at any given moment there are only a handful of people who know what’s happening in the Southern Baptist Convention. Most messengers are woefully ill informed and happily so. I can only speak to my reason for having pushed the issue.” Certainly, one of the most adept thinkers on the floor is not only losing his memory but wrong about his characterization of the messengers?
As to Dr. McKissic, I think the man has not one deceptive bone in his body. He is an honorable and irenic man, it seems. And like Cole, he is an open book. No deception, one of the very few to be able to posit thoughts and defend them himself… just the facts… with a handful of passion thrown in.
Reply
Paul Jun 19 2007 - 1:05 am
Wes,
I read Ben’s post and I don’t find the part where he says the motion was given in a manner that was intended to be deceptive. Could you point me to that part?
I do read where he made political maneuvers, not all of which went the way he hoped (e.g. the extension of debate time).
There was certainly nothing manipulative or deceptive in the motion itself. It was actually quite clear. Most of the motion was nothing more than a repetition of the EC statement which has been public since February. Surely if it was that confusing four months is enough time to clear things up, wouldn’t you say?
What is confusing are the comments by those who want to spin the motion to say what it did not say, or not to say what it clearly did. I can assure you that if you want to know the intent of the motion just ask Rick Garner. For that matter you could also ask me as I was standing at the mic ready to make almost the exact same motion had Rick not been there. I don’t understand how so many can talk about the intent of the motion without talking to the one who made it. That should clear up the intent pretty quickly.
Reply
Colin Jun 19 2007 - 1:34 am
Wes,
Please forgive me for butting in.
Paul,
Rather, why not ask the one who wrote it. In fact, you just referenced his blog.
And to confusion,
Whatever the case, the convention has spoken. We did not vote on an interpretation of the statement, or about the motivation of its primary movants. Rather, we adopted a statement that is clear and concise, fair and balanced. It is, I feel, a rather innocuous statement, unless of course you don’t think the Southern Baptist Convention has the privilege to express its mind on any matter. I will grant that the messengers may not have been clear, and surely some of those who spoke for and against the motion were not.
Regardless, he takes the same view Barber and others have taken, that what was voted on was the words of the statement, not the intent behind it.
Reply
volfan007 Jun 19 2007 - 8:51 am
colin,
amen.
david
Reply
Robin Foster Jun 19 2007 - 9:49 am
Bro. Wes
Excellent analysis. Many thought they were voting to reaffirm the BF&M, not to make it a creed limiting our trustees to using only it as a guide.
Bro. Dwight
You are not a black sheep of my SBC family.
Reply
Lee Jun 19 2007 - 10:15 am
After Dr. Chapman had made two very clear proposals in his address directly related to the issue of trustee boards making rules with the force of doctrine behind them, I don’t really see how very many people could be confused by this motion. If they were in the hall for both sessions, and I think most of them probably were, they should have made the connection, especially during the debate. We’re talking about a room full of mostly pastors, with graduate degrees, and wives who at least went to college. If there was any doubt as to what this motion was intended to do, both Dr. Akin and Dr. Mohler removed it the next day.
I honestly don’t think there was any intention on anyone’s part to be deliberately deceitful. It seems difficult, mainly because of the personalities involved, to keep doctrinal debate in the SBC civil.
I guess I’m old enough to find some of this at least slightly ironic. I was in seminary the last time the convention met in San Antonio. I saw, first hand, the way debates were manipulated, votes were “re-interpreted,” and microphones were “managed” with the difference being that the ones who are complaining now were the ones who were employing those strategies then.
No institution or agency of the SBC is the fief of either its head, or its trustees. It all belongs to the convention, and there should be no objection to accountability to the convention on matters as serious as doctrine.
Reply
Paul Jun 19 2007 - 10:56 am
Colin,
With all due respect for my friend Ben it is a rather ludicrous idea that one can present a motion that has no motivation or that one can vote for a motion without a motivation. Everyone’s motivation can be clearly seen in the unending parsing and interpreting of the motion since the words left Rick Garner’s mouth on Tuesday.
Everyone voted with a motivation and it seems that a host of SBC luminaries understood the motivation behind the motion and then voted according to their own. You can have no words without intent. To think otherwise is logically, Biblically, and practically utter nonsense. Show me one statement in all of history that was not spoken or written by a person completely insane that had no motivation or intent behind it. It simply cannot be done and the arguments by intelligent people to the contrary is amazing.
As to Ben’s motives I do not need to ask him because he has already clearly told me what they are. I rather think he has pretty much told the world what they are. It is no big secret, is it?
Reply
Colin Jun 19 2007 - 1:34 pm
Brother Paul,
I don’t think anyone is arguing there existed no motivation, or that motivation did not influence voting. Rather, there was, and it did.
The point of those like Bart and others is simple: the words of the motion have been adopted, not the motivation. The intent is to have the BFM as a sufficient guide. Well, that it is.
It came out of the EC, apart of which is both Morris Chapman and Al Mohler.
If the the SBC vanished and Josiah picked up the BFM 2000 and this motion 100 years from now, what would he interpret it to say?
I am glad you have read Brother Ben’s comments. Then you can see thorough, knowledgeable and intelligent men admit to sensing confusion in the aisles.
Reply
volfan007 Jun 19 2007 - 1:50 pm
boy colin,
you are one smart cookie with great insight. people better think twice before they tangle with you.
david
Reply
Bob Cleveland Jun 19 2007 - 3:23 pm
Wes: If there was anything I said in favor of the motion that you think was deceptive, I’d appreciate knowing just what that was. If not, I’d likewise appreciate knowing what statements, by others, you thought were such.
Thanks.
Reply
Paul Jun 19 2007 - 3:38 pm
[Thinking twice and proceeding with fear and trembling...]
Colin,
I didn’t say there wasn’t confusion. Wes did not simply say there was confusion. He said there was deception. Ben Cole’s purpose was not to deceive. Ben knew that there would be many messengers who would not fully understand the nature of the motion and chose to proceed. Bart Barber has admitted that the floor of the SBC is not a great place for substantive debate. No doubt that is because there are debates and dialog that takes place prior to the convention that many messengers are completely unaware of.
I visited with a pastor this past Sunday who was at the convention as well. He did not ask me about Rick Garner’s motion. He did ask me about Bob Green’s motion and wondered if he really intended LifeWay to avoid selling The Chronicles of Narnia books. He also asked me what the “Emergent Church” is based upon another motion that was made. This is the nature of the convention proceedings. No doubt there were a good number of people there who didn’t completely understand Rick Garner’s motion, but that is really no different from many other motions that are made at the convention every year. That isn’t Ben’s fault and it isn’t Rick Garner’s fault and recognizing that such is the case and choosing to proceed anyway is hardly deceptive. If it is then nearly every motion ever made is deceptive.
Again, it makes little sense whatsoever to say that the words of the motion were approved and not the motivation. That sounds like telling your wife that you love her and her only acknowledging the mere words and not what lies behind it. It’s just nonsense.
If Josiah were to find the motion and was to try to interpret it apart from the context in which it was made then he would be an idiot. No one reads history that way. No one reads the Gettysburg Address apart from Lincoln’s context and intentions. In fact, when American judges read the law or the Constitution apart from “original intent” we call them liberals. Just ask Richard Land. And if you know anything about postmodern philosophy and reader response theory you’d see that Bart Barber’s argument and yours is no different from any of that. If that is the track you want to take then do not complain when someone approaches the book of Romans and tells you that “it doesn’t matter what Paul’s motivation or intent was. It only matters what the words on the page say.” But don’t do that until you pass your hermeneutics class because if you take that approach your professor will flunk you.
Reply
Paul Jun 19 2007 - 5:44 pm
Colin,
One more thing. Al Mohler is not a part of the Executive Committee.
Reply
Colin Jun 19 2007 - 6:43 pm
Paul,
You didn’t think twice for very long.
I will grant you this: unintentional deception is a slippery term. Cunning, craftiness, and a whole host of synonyms might be better suited to discuss the events as they unfolded. Was it wrong? I don’t know, you can judge that. But to claim there was free, open debate with a desire for all points to be heard is deceiving.
Wes probably can clarify what he was arguing.
I do think you misread what I wrote, and believe that I have ignored intent, which I have not. Rather, motivation is what I have deemed unimportant.
Paul, I appreciate the hermeneutics lesson. I assure you I passed. I can also see that you are arguing for the perlocutionary aspect of the motion, while Bart and others are arguing that the illocutionary aspect of the motion can be either dismissed or reinterpreted because 1) the intent wasn’t spelled out during the debate; 2)The wording itself does not achieve the *motivation* behind the motion; or 3)The intent of the author is not the consensus intent of the messengers.
Would you want to enforce intent of a motion that passed the vote but who’s intent (perhaps unknown at the time) would have meant defeat? This is the question that needs to be answered.
But to intent, I think it rather dubious to argue that Morris Chapman argued intent to the motion that was voted on. Rev. Garner introduced Ben’s motion, and his words and the ensuing debate should be the proper forum to interpret the intent of the motion voted on. Had the debate been allowed to flourish, and men like Mohler and York not intentionally kept from speaking to the messengers for fear of losing, and Cole and Burleson intentionally staying away from the debate for fear of tarnishing its simplicity, then the arguments that everything was clear-cut, straightforward, fully-understandable and fully-presented with intent clearly spelled out might be, well, plausible and credible. But, by your words (and Cole’s) they are not:
No doubt there were a good number of people there who didn’t completely understand Rick Garner’s motion said you.
How about, in the introduction to the debate: “Everyone please reference Morris Chapman’s remarks…”
As to the Josiah analogy, I was appealing to the simple reading or plain sense reading of Scripture employed by such simple minded as the Protestant Reformers. The fact of the matter is that the motion is worded in a way that allows one to read it without the author’s intent. In fact, that is exactly why we are discussing it. Simple solution: reword and be much clearer next year. If the messengers want it, it will be unstoppable.
Not everyone agrees with the PPL stance the IMB has taken. But many think the approaches taken to squelch trustee action are negatively far-reaching and unnecessary, as are the attempts to dismiss the BFM in favor of a vague statement of cooperation.
Paul, it seems more are split on the solution rather than the problem. Let us just be crystal clear on what that solution is, and not even give the appearance of subversion.
And, why did I think Mohler was apart of the EC? I am learning, brother, and I appreciate your patience with me.
Reply
Paul Jun 19 2007 - 8:37 pm
Colin,
A part of my point is that the SBC is not designed for “free open debate.” It was not so during the conservative resurgence and it is not so today.
Interesting story. Monday night I told someone who has been a part of SBC workings and an inside part of the CR for 30 years that I was prepared to make the same motion Rick made and that I would be at a mic Tuesday morning to do so. This person told me to be ready for “blockers.” I’d never heard of the term, but apparently they were common during the CR. Apparently “blockers” are people who oppose your motion who stand next to you at the mic and try to intimidate you in one way or another into just sitting down. They invade your personal space and try to read what you have written down.
Now, that didn’t happen to me and probably didn’t happen at all (though it sounds like something Art Rogers is vaguely being accused of by some). Honestly no one would have known who I am or what I was standing there for. But apparently that sort of thing used to be quite common, mainly from the conservative side of the aisle. All that tells me is that “free and open debate” is not something our convention has held in high regard for at least the last 28 years if not longer. Honestly, the parliamentary procedures of the convention do not allow for free and open debate. Hershael York was not prevented from speaking to the motion because of some nefarious agenda by Art Rogers or anyone else. He was not allowed to speak because of parliamentary procedures and prearranged time limits on debate. In fact, debate time was extended thanks to the shouting bunch in the corner. It could have been extended again had the messengers so desired. If the messengers had wanted it we could all still be there debating it today. That wasn’t the will of the messengers. The first guy to call the question was overridden by the messengers. To think that Ben Cole or anyone else manipulated the process to their advantage is giving Ben or whomever way too much credit. Ben wanted the debate shut down the first time, but that isn’t what happened.
I wasn’t aware that Al Mohler was at a mic ready to speak, but he ended up getting much more than the three minutes everyone else got when he gave his “Seminary report.”
Sure, you can read the plain meaning of the words, but if you ignore intent when intent can be discovered then you are simply reading with an agenda. Intent was expressed in every argument “for” the motion, and particularly Rick Garner’s defense of his motion. Intent was expressed by Morris Chapman who helped craft the Executive Committee statement that was a part of the motion. If messengers did not agree with that intent then they have simply had their heads in the sand since February when the EC report came out.
Your solution is to vote all over again simply because you don’t like the implications of the first vote. I understand how that works. Had the motion been defeated I might want the messengers to come back next year and vote on it all over again as well. But the vote passed. The intent of the motion is really pretty clear. I now revert to Bro. Bart Barber’s steady defense of the convention and say, “If you don’t like how the vote turned out we have a process to address it. Come back next year and do all within your power to overturn it.” Until then everyone should have the integrity to live by it.
Reply
R. L. Vaughn Jun 19 2007 - 9:42 pm
Paul wrote, “The intent of the motion is really pretty clear.” I don’t think that is in doubt. That doesn’t necessarily speak to the intent of just exactly what each person voting was thinking, but those who brought the motion made their intent fairly clear.
But ultimately does it matter what the intent of the motion was? From discussing this with Les Puryear and some correspondence with Allan Blume, I have found that according to the Constitution and parliamentary prodecure the messengers cannot give directions to the trustees on how to run their entities. So…if a motion that states something like “trustees are not to establish doctrinal restrictions not addressed in the Baptist Faith and Message” cannot direct the trustees (it would have been ruled out of order), just how does one that only implies it direct the trustees?
Reply
Paul Jun 20 2007 - 12:54 am
R.L.,
You are correct that it does not instruct the trustees. The trustees can do whatever the trustees want to do. Similarly, the Nominating Committee can nominate and the convention can approve of beer drinking trustees and agencies and institutions can hire employees who host cocktail parties in the Southwestern rotunda. The motion has only slightly more teeth than last year’s Resolution #5.
But when the convention speaks it becomes very difficult (or should, anyway) for trustees and administrators of our agencies and institutions to act in a way that is contrary to the expressed will of the convention. When they do so there will almost certainly be consequences that follow.
Reply
Paul Jun 20 2007 - 12:58 am
Colin,
I probably glossed over the fact that you said motives should be irrelevant, but not intent. Wes’s post is not speaking to intent, but to motive (to deceive either intentionally or unintentionally). That is why I have focused so much on motives as well as intentions.
Wes has been asked by several for examples of this motive to deceive and has given Ben Cole’s post as his only support. Reading Ben’s post does not lead one to the conclusion that he had deception in mind. No wonder Wes has not responded to Bros. Dwight and Bob.
Reply
Colin Jun 20 2007 - 2:18 am
Paul,
I think intentionally, there was clearly going to be a move to suppress information.
I think you have brought up an important point. All this parsing and back and forth hoo-ha about the EC motion is not, as I read it, simply about dismissing the will of the convention in order to maintain control. I believe the common thread of inquiry is whether or not this is the actual expressed will of the convention. Regardless of who bites and who doesn’t on this motion, next year will tell a tale about what the messengers were trying to convey. It will be interesting.
p.s. I wouldn’t say this motion has more teeth. It perhaps has the same amount, but this time they are dentures.
Reply
Wes Kenney Jun 20 2007 - 9:12 am
I tried to make this as clear as I possibly could, but the deception was in the effect, and not in the intent, as it relates to those who spoke for the motion in general, and with Bro. Dwight specifically.
When Bro. Dwight said that the BF&M was being “circumvented,” he was expressing his sincerely held view of what happened with the policies adopted by the IMB and the SWBTS trustees.
But what I believe that the average messenger in that hall, who is by no means stupid but is perhaps less informed that those of us who live in the land of the blog, heard in those words was that liberalism must be creeping back in, and it must be stopped. So they voted with the guy who said the BF&M was being “circumvented.”
So again, Dwight was not motivated by an intent (got them both in one phrase!) to deceive, but what happened was the result of his sincere words hitting the ears of the less-informed messenger.
As for Ben’s intent to deceive, the fact that he did not make the motion that he had determined weeks earlier to make is a clearer statement than I could make. Of course, it is possible that I am having trouble looking dispassionately at the writings of one who has called me a coward and publicly insulted my wife.
Reply
Gary May Jun 20 2007 - 10:16 am
Brother Dwight, I think it is a mistake for you to believe you are the black sheep. You are a man with convictions and those have some times not carried the day with others in leadership. That makes you a contributing member of the body. Call the doctor before you get hit with a martyr syndrome.
Reply
Bob Cleveland Jun 20 2007 - 11:14 am
Proverbs 16:1: To man belong the plans of the heart, but from the LORD comes the reply of the tongue. (NIV)
Proverbs 16:33: The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD. (NIV)
I’m neither theologian nor a scholar but if I had to guess, I’d say God was behind the vote, and its results. Just as He was with the vote on Tom Ascol’s motion.
We only THINK we can explain why it passed; God already explained it. I think our concentration should be on why He did what He did.
Reply
Paul Jun 20 2007 - 11:25 am
I’ve already dominated this conversation too much, so let this be my final comment.
Wes,
If you are going to accuse one side of an attempt to be intentionally or unintentionally deceptive I would simply ask that you apply your gazing eye as intently at those on your side of the aisle as you have on those on the other side of the aisle. If you were to do so you would find the following:
* Jim Smith suggests that we would open up our Seminaries to snake handlers (even though, as far as I know, that was not the issue that brought this motion to light).
* Paige Patterson warns that we might set the boat adrift downstream in the waters of liberalism, moderatism or evangelical ecumenism – ignoring that there might be other options available to us besides those and his view of what it means to be motoring upstream.
* Danny Aiken asks Ben Cole if he really wants our Seminaries to be able to hire pedophiles, gluttons, sodomites and adulterers, despite the fact that it is almost certain that no such people have even applied. Ever.
* Gary Ledbetter calls those who brought the motion moderates.
* Hershael York wants to ask the messengers if they desire professors who teach students how to be slain in the Spirit or who have had transgender surgery. Again, one would question Dr. York if any such people have even applied.
None of those things were the issue. If they really wanted to speak to the heart of the motion they would have asked if the messengers wanted to permit the appointment of missionary candidates who, unbeknownst to anyone else, pray in tongues in their private prayer closets. Do they want the convention to approve of missionary candidates who were baptized as believers by immersion in Free Will Baptist churches? Do they want to allow professors who are continuationists to be able to teach at SWBTS.
If they didn’t want to deceive they would have asked those kinds of questions, not the scare-tactic questions that simply obfuscated the issues. That, my friend, is deception, and I would argue that it was entirely intentional.
Reply
volfan007 Jun 20 2007 - 1:20 pm
there was a day when methodists never dreamed that a transgender person would be ok’d to be a pastor…..but, it’s happening today. they have one, and the other leaders said that it’s alright.
paul, i would agree with all the people you quoted….and i would say to you….and we dont want to ever go down the road these men are talking about, either. we dont want there to ever be a day when snake handlers are appointed as “m’s”, nor have copeland and hagen and benny hinn types who are teaching about being slain in the spirit. that’s what this is all about for a lot of us. we dont want to go down a road that’s all too familiar. we must learn from history. a lot of the great denominations started out as solid, evangelistic, bible believing people…..then, they drifted to liberalism and deadness, and some churches drifted off into the charismatic extreme. i’ve seen this…you’ve seen this….everyone has seen this happen, i’m sure. there are many of us who dont want this to happen in the sbc as it was before 1979.
and, just ask steve grosey about how things drifted off into charismatic extremes in australia.
david
Reply
Paul Jun 20 2007 - 1:58 pm
David,
You would agree with them because you are given to emotional scare tactics rather than reasoned arguments. I could equally argue that there is a slippery slope heading toward narrow Fundamentalism and you would cry foul. We always (always) hold our beliefs in tension. 2000 years of Christian history proves that. Scaring people with extremes is a red herring. Apparently you get some comfort in being scared.
Reply
volfan007 Jun 20 2007 - 2:54 pm
paul,
i would be equally afraid of going to legalistic extremes…of becoming too narrow. see my latest post at my blog.
thus, you have me all wrong.
david
Reply
cb scott Jun 20 2007 - 6:09 pm
Vol,
History teaches that those groups that went away went as they did because they first lost their love for the Great Commission and sought to express themselves as followers of Christ in some other way.
If we keep our eyes on Jesus, stay hungry for His Word, Be filled, daily, with the Holy Spirit, seek a holy life before the Father and make the sharing of the gospel something we do as naturally as we eat, sleep, and work; If we learn to pray without ceasing for something other than in-grown toe nails the only snake we will have to contend with is the same one Eve had to deal with in the Garden.
That Old Serpent, the Devil, will be constantly after us, but if we draw near unto God he will have to flee and take nothing but the hindmost parts with him as he goesevery time he comes calling. (1John 4:4)
cb
Reply
Bart Barber Jun 20 2007 - 6:42 pm
Are you guys talking about me behind my back?
Reply