Sunday, January 22, 2006

It's in the DNA...

While surfing the blogsites which are writing about the IMB trustee controversy, I found a post by a youngster named, "Joey." He is a student pastor who hails from Buford, GA, which in northeast Atlanta. In support of Wade Burleson's cause, he seems to be eager to see fireworks and fighting ensue. He wrote an interesting post which he titled, "Let the Fireworks Begin." Joey wrote:
It is a sad day to be a Southern Baptist. I can only hope and pray that we can mobilize a group who are willing to stand up for God and His Word to show the Southern Baptist Convention that being conservative is not the end of the battle. It seems that it has just begun. We do not need to exclude viable opinions and arguments from the boards and committees. Rather, we should freely discuss, debate and decide what is biblical, not what is practical or what secures our power. Just because some of us have a different methodology and philosophy of ministry does not make us liberal. If not accepting the status quo is not conservative enough, I guess we'll have to rewrite Scriptures to sanitize and conservatize (is that even a word) Jesus Himself.
How odd that the young guns, who seem to love fighting and "fireworks," are saying exactly the same thing the moderates were saying decades ago. How about these comments:

1) "We do not need to exclude viable opinions and arguments from the boards and committees."

2) "Just because some of us have a different methodology and philosophy of ministry does not make us liberal."

How ironic that these youngsters are saying precisely the same things we moderates were saying years ago. There was no honest reason to exclude the CBFers and moderates because they held different opinions about the Bible. The CBFers and moderates, while holding a different methodology and philosophy of ministry, were not liberals. These youngsters are completely oblivious to the fact that this is just another round of a fight that the older fundamentalists fought three decades ago.

It's not about doctrine or theology. It's about who holds the reigns of power. The youngsters fancy themselves as being "cooperating conservatives" but are unwilling to cooperate with anyone who will not cooperate with them. Small wonder that they love fighting and fireworks. They come by it honestly because it's in their DNA. The DNA of every fundamentalist contains a gene that produces a tendency to fight and watch fireworks...


AdamScott said...

This comment is in regards to your entire blog, not just this post. I find your anymosity towards the SBC both sad and revealing. The majority of your posts are spent bashing the SBC, not exalting Christ. I am a regular reader of ABP news, and other 'moderate' opinions, and find that attitudes like yours are quite typical. Why can't you forgive (if indeed you need to) and let go of the past?
You claim that CBF and other moderate organizations are not liberal, but simply hold a different opinion of the Bible. While I am not one to lump all CBF people/churches together, I can honestly say that liberalism is alive and well in the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. For instance, Glendale Baptist Church in Nashville, TN is a featured church on CBF's website. The church has an openly gay woman as its pastor. Is the Bible not clear that this is wrong?
The fact is that CBF and the SBC are drastically different theologically. CBF values inclusivity at all costs. The moderate misconstruction of the priesthood of all believers means that anything and everything goes. The opinion of man is allowed to supercede the biblical text. The loss of biblical authority in the SBC made the conservative resurgence absolutely necessary.
You also claim that CBFers were excluded from the SBC. I remind you that those who formed the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship left of their own free will. In essence they simply gave up on the convention. The SBC is run in a democratic fashion. Ultimately, the representatives who vote at the annual conventions have the final say. Why didn't the moderates seek to have their ideas explained and promoted? The fact is that most Southern Baptists value biblical authority over theological inclusivism. For moderates, their lack of biblical substance cost them control of the SBC.

David Flick said...

Adam, you have been duped by the SBC fundamentalists. Your claim that the SBC is run in a "democratic fashion" is patently false. The SBC is (and has been for the past 35 years) run by a small handful of power mongering powerbrokers. Their intent from the beginning was never to "exalt Christ," but to exalt themselves and take forcible control over the denomination. And they succeed through masterful deception and by telling lies.

I don't know how old you are, nor do I know your experience as a Southern Baptist. But I served as pastor of Southern Baptist churches for 35 years. I began pastoring in 1965. I was at the 1979 SBC convention in Houston and I saw the manipulation of the Adrian Rogers' election occur with my own eyes. I watched the powerbrokers execute their vain deeds from behind the windows of the skyboxes in the Summit. I know, from personal experience, how the fundamentalists deceived the rank and file of Southern Baptists into believing that those who hold a different interpretation of the Bible are evil "inclusive liberals."

I can honestly tell you that those whom you are calling "liberals" were not liberals. If you think they were really were liberals, two points are clear. 1) You don't know what a "liberal" is. And 2) you have been thoroughly duped by those you trust most.

My claim that the CBF was excluded is true. There are churches in Oklahoma that were kicked out of their associations for contributing to the CBF. This was true all over the SBC.

Dr. Joe Ingram, a former Executive Director of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma was censored by a committee led by Anthony Jordan for simply writing a letter inviting pastors to attend a CBF meeting. After serving as President of BGCO, Jordan condemned Ingram for writing a letter supporting CBF and set off a controversy that led BGCO to attempt to silence him. Jordan was also a member of the committee authorized to discipline Ingram. Jordan served on the Executive Committee of the SBC when they refused to accept money from CBF. He resigned as Chair of the Search Committee for BGCO’s Executive Director-Treasurer shortly before the committee selected him to fill the position.

You are ignorant of the facts when you say that Southern Baptists did not exclude those from the CBF.

Fighting and controversy are the in the SBC fundamentalist DNA, Adam. Otherwise, there would be no CBF today. We would all be one big happy family...

AdamScott said...

I should have been more specific when I referred to the exclusion of CBF. What I meant was that in the beginning (some time around the early 1990's) several moderate Baptists left the SBC to form CBF. These people left the SBC of their own free will. They could have stayed and tried to fight for the issues they believed in. Their ideas could have been presented, and if the SBC convention representatives agreed with them, their ideas would have passed.

How do you think conservatives were successful in redirecting the SBC? They went to churches and explained their concerns. Those churches sent representatives to the convention who voted in favor of the conservatives. The reason why the SBC is the way it is is that the majority of Southern Baptists are biblically conservative and voted according to their convictions.

I realize that some people have lost their positions due to denominational politics. This is unfortunate, but at times necessary. CBF is a gay-accepting organization,( you didn't respond to my pointing out that at least one CBF church hires homosexual ministers). I don't believe that people who support CBF should be in SBC leadership positions. The two organizations are too different theologically.

You say that I don't know what a liberal is, and I have been duped by those who I trust most. What do you mean? What exactly is a liberal? Would an organization that openly condones homosexuals in the minitry count?

There is no substance to your argument. You call the SBC leaders "powerbrokers", and yet you give no specific examples. You say that they lied, yet again with no examples of these lies. Your anger is apparent in all that you say. Why don't you just let go of the past SBC?

David Flick said...

I see that you now have your blog up and running. Let me be among the first to officially welcome you to the blogosphere.

Now in response to your last reply. First, the information you have about the CBF completely false. I don't know about the church in Nashville, but I believe that's a blatant lie. If there were actually a CBF church with an openly gay woman pastor the world would know about it. But it's a lie so suggest that the CBF is an organization that openly condones homosexuals in the ministry. Whoever told you that is a liar, or is repeating a lie.

Secondly, you are attempting to pontificate in an area where you have limited incorrect knowledge and no personal experience. What do you honestly know about what happened in the 1990's with respect to the CBF? If I have it figured correctly, you could not possibly have been much more than a fledgling teenager in the 1990's. You were born in 1981 or 82. You could know almost nothing about the controversies that led to the formation of the CBF. Certainly, you could know nothing from a first-hand basis. All of the information you have about that controversy came second-hand. Furthermore, the information you gained about that controversy came from persons you trust. I'm saying that you were duped by those you trusted because, clearly, the information you're trying to give me is skewed to the fundamentalist view of things.

Thirdly, you say, "There is no substance to your argument. You call the SBC leaders "powerbrokers", and yet you give no specific examples. You say that they lied, yet again with no examples of these lies. Your anger is apparent in all that you say. Why don't you just let go of the past SBC?" At age 25, and being a seminary student with no pastoral or denominational experience, I suppose you can be excused for your lack knowledge about Southern Baptist history. Those of us who lived through takeover are personally acquainted with the powerbrokers. One of the two major powerbrokers was the president of the institution you now attend. Yes, Paige Patterson was one of the leading powerbrokers in the takeover. Another one was Paul Pressler. Perhaps you've heard of him. I'd be surprised if you haven't. Nevertheless, both Patterson and Pressler were among the chief liars and deceivers in the takeover controversy. There isn't enough space in this blog, plus a dozen others, to delineate the lies and deceptions these two men perpetrated upon Southern Baptists.

Fourthly, you asked, "What exactly is a liberal?" I don't have the time nor the space to delineate what a theological is in this reply. But I can assure you that The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship is NOT a liberal organization. Yes, they are theological moderates, but they aren't liberals by any stretch of the imagination. Neither are they fundamentalists like the current SBC leadership is. But that's another long discussion which is not germane to this one.

I have something that will be of benefit to you if you'll accept my offer. I have a book written by a Southern Baptist historian. Bruce Gourley, who is the Associate Director of The Center for Baptist Studies at Mercer University. He wrote a book entitled, The Godmakers: A Legacy of the Southern Baptist Convention. I'll send you a copy at my expense if you'll send me your snailmail address. In fact, I'm going to email you my email address from your blogsite. You can return your email addfress in a reply.

Finally, you wrote, "Why don't you just let go of the past SBC? I have. I was a Director of Missions in Oklahoma until I vocally opposed the adoption of the 2000BF&M. My opposition to this revision of the SBC confession led to my being fired from my position. Essentially I was kicked out of the SBC. I am now a pastor of an American Baptist Church (ABCUSA).

AdamScott said...

Here you can see for yourself the church that I am talking about:

Or, go to and look for the fellowship churches page. You will find a link to Glendale Baptist Church. You can see that I am not spreading a "blatant lie."

David Flick said...

Adam, I went to the Glendale website and see that you are correct. I retract my "blatant lie" words. Glendale is obviously a Welcoming and Affirming church. I also see that the church is aligned with the Alliance of Baptists and six or seven other Baptist organizations, including the CBF.

That said, I can't explain Glendale's affiliation with the CBF. I've been a supporter of the CBF for five of the fifteen years of its existence. I became a CBFer shortly after the fundamentalists forced me out of my DOM job in Oklahoma. I am certain that the CBF is not a supporter of the W&A agenda, nor do any of the CBF leaders support the W&A agenda. Whereas the SBC no longer believes in local church autonomy, the CBF does not attempt to control the autonomy of local churches.

I am opposed to homosexual leadership in local churches, but I certainly don't believe homosexuals cannot be saved nor do I believe that homosexuals should be kicked out of churches based solely on sexual their orientation. No more than I believe that adulterers should be kicked out of churches. I better things to do in life than police the sexual activity of church members. I am opposed to homosexuality but I'm not a homophobe.

Somehow we have strayed away from the topic of my original post. I still maintain that it's in the DNA for fundamentalists to fight and watch fireworks. They will fight about homosexuality, inerrancy of the Bible, control of boards of trustees, liberal CBFers, control of the denomination, and you name it. High on their agenda is fighting and fireworks. Low on their agenda is carrying out the commands of the Great Commission…