« Name-"change" |
| Sad to leave NOLA behind by Peter Lumpkins »
Posted by peter lumpkins on Jun 20, 2012 at 10:21 AM | Permalink
| Digg This
| Save to del.icio.us
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I'm a 'prophet' in my time!!!!
Jun 20, 2012 at 10:45 AM
Jun 20, 2012 at 11:08 AM
Someone at the convention, please tell the majority SBC messengers who didn't vote that they need to eat breakfast earlier when such important sessions are on the AM docket.
Jun 20, 2012 at 11:15 AM
Dave Miller begins his unity campaign. Next Week at Pravda more "you idiots who aren't Calvinists should just shut up and let us make the decisions from now on."
Jun 20, 2012 at 11:44 AM
Max, I refer to my 'comment' on Eric Hankins for second VP!
In years past, (Cons/Libs in SBC), we Cons. KNEW to be in our places, even as the doors were open!!!
I don't know what's gone here; maybe this bunch didn't KNOW how the 'game' is played???
I'm sad to say that, but, anyone who knows anything about, 'SBC politics', it's true!
Jun 20, 2012 at 11:48 AM
Congrats to Dave.
aaron arledge |
Jun 20, 2012 at 11:50 AM
Alright you negative Nelsons, relax. The election of Dave Miller is not the end of the SBC.
Jun 20, 2012 at 11:52 AM
Why the venom? Perhaps we should pray for him as he leads the convention as the new 2VP.
Jun 20, 2012 at 12:07 PM
A. Price - the fact of the matter is that majority Southern Baptists are simply not informed, while the reformed are effectively networked on social media ... in this case to Twitter their way to rally the vote ...while the majority were touring New Orleans or drinking chicory coffee during important sessions. I'm sure "oh shucky darn" rang through the convention center when the majority finally showed up.
Jun 20, 2012 at 12:15 PM
Dave Miller is as good and fair a man as we could have elected. He has a good vision for unity and going forward as a denomination. I'm happy for the denomination.
Bill Pfister |
Jun 20, 2012 at 12:17 PM
Oh well ... at least us sinners now have permission to pray.
Jun 20, 2012 at 12:18 PM
We're all Presbyterians now.
Jun 20, 2012 at 12:20 PM
This is definitely a historic convention. If I were a traditionalist, I'd be more than a little worried - way more.
The Hankins-Miller election is of monumental importance. Dave Miller won by a roughly 3-2 margin, but his victory is not as deep as Hankins' loss. Even though 2VP is not a very high office, the moral victory/loss here is immense, and the message it sends shows us the future of the convention.
In many ways, Hankins' election would have ratified the TradDoc he principally authored as a viable option at the SBC theological table. Now that he has been defeated (albeit by a reluctant, late candidate in the process), the TradDoc now will likely be relegated to a dark corner of the room and its message will be severely hampered. I predict discussion about it will fizzle to almost nothing in the coming weeks.
The Hankins loss also tells us that the SBC will continue to be moving further toward the Reformed line. I also think it reveals the "Traditionalist majority" concept to be a myth. How can we say there is a traditionalist majority when the spokesman for a "traditional" theological stance loses 2-3, especially to a last-minute candidate?
Now, Calvinists in the SBC might be a numerical minority, but I think among the SBC members who are active and passionate about the future of the SBC, and how it will look in 10, 20, or 30 years, I would guess that the Calvinists outnumber the traditionalists by about a 3-2 margin. The remaining SBs (and I fear this might be the REAL majority) are either ignorant or apathetic as to what is happening. They are asleep at the switch.
I guess my question to traditionalists is how important is this to you? If it is important, you had better bust your tails over the next 12 months rallying these slumbering brethren and take another stab at it. But you seriously overestimated your influence. The TradDoc now looks like a colossal political failure. Maybe that is why some of our Reformed brethren have been so vocal over the last year or so - they knew they had enough votes to win the day when the day came.
If there is a "traditional majority" out there, you have 12 months to find it. You won't get another shot.
Jim G. |
Jun 20, 2012 at 01:48 PM
Jim G., some of your points I think are spot on. The SBC is slumbering. I'm not sure how many ouside the net actually knew about the controversy of the Trad document.
I wonder though if perhaps there was more politics behind the timing than you think. Perhaps the Trads knew this was not the convention for them this year - with the election of Fred Luter, it would have looked very bad to have pushed a Trad "agenda" this convention. I don't think anyone wanted to mess up the historic moment and distract from that. The politico move was on the side of the SBC Elite who annointed Luter last year. There was no way anyone could come out against Luter claiming they didn't like the direction the convention was going by those who pushed Luter to the forefront. If any dissention had occurred it would have been smacked down as racism. I think it's wonderful the SBC has it's first black president - the way it happened was nothing but pure crass politics.
So having said all that I think the Trads knew very well this wasn't the year. Will they be able to awake the slumbering giant? I suspect we're going to see more churches, associations and possibley state convention directing money away from the Calvinists instituions. That's going to start getting some attention as being divisive. Of course Calvinists like Kevin Ezell have been designating funds for years without any accountability.
I think we're also going to start seeing SBC schools proclaiming themselves as Trads - the Calvinists will scream yet defend their right to keep Southern and Southeastern Calvinist.
So this was either a bad year for Trads are perhaps the beginning of a two year plan.
As far as Dave Miller, I've seen the kind of unity he pushes at Pravda. The activity there is exactly the kind of actitivity that should be denounced. Now that he's 2nVP he will only come under more scrutiny and they'll just be more fuel for the Trads to say "this is what we're dealing with. Arrogant young Calvinists who think they are the first generation to have discovered the Gospel and they are better than anyone in the history of Christendom so we should just get out the way because we're all a bunch of stupid heretical liars."
In the end the Calvinists aren't going to take over the SBC as we see it today. They may destroy it, but not take it over. They don't want a seat at the table as they claim, they want the whole table as we've seen happen when they take over the institutions. But the Cooperative Program is doomed if th Calvinists insist they can have Calvinist seminaries and use NAMB to plant Calvinists churches. Churches will just stop giving at some point.
Jun 20, 2012 at 02:16 PM
Well, SBC leadership has their "yes man". The man who deletes with impunity the nicest woman in the world..... was elected. Not to mention Howell and others. The wine and dine by Setzer and he is their man. He is one of them...he likes to censor and he is the aribter of fairness??? as the YRR over there are as nasty, whiny and arrogant as ever but they cannot see it? That sums it all up. I don't find that a "unifying" position at all.
My position all along is that MOhler felt "comfortable" saying his learned colleauges did not know what they were signing and are leaning toward heresy. For an employee of the SBC to say such a thing publicly should be a red flag to all that MOhler has more power than most might realize. I think other less Reformed leaders go along with a lot because they see that he has the potential to bring in numbers from Acts 29, SGM, etc.
If that is what the future of the SBC is going to look like I say no way will a lot of people support such cultish type of churches. Or as more and more gets out about the YRR brand of 20 somethings craving power to discipline and rule people will many trads pay for it. But, they need Trad money to bring more churches in to have authority over. And that is what this is all about.
The SBC is dead. The Calvinists won. Time to stop sending them money so they can "lord it over others". That is only enabling sin.
Jun 20, 2012 at 02:38 PM
As a "traditionalist", I reluctantly agree with most of what Jim G. has written. There is indeed a "traditional majority" out here, but she is apathetic and complacent. If you stick your head in the sand long enough, someone will step on it. Local pastors have avoided this theological controversy like the plague - their congregations are uninformed and unengaged. State convention papers have failed to cover the issues sufficiently. But, it may simply be a matter of the majority choosing to be willingly ignorant. They better wake up and start exercising free will soon!
On the other hand, it is increasingly clear that the reformed movement in SBC ranks is effectively networked, mobilized, and growing. They successfully use social media to their advantage, while the SBC majority has little idea what a "tweet" is or follow blog traffic. They are effectively forging a new Baptist majority. Given the number of SBC-NOLA messengers registered vs. ballots cast, the majority must have been out and about instead of focused on their responsibility to effectively represent the churches that sent them.
While Hankins' defeat as 2nd VP was disappointing, his articulation of "God's Plan of Salvation" and the "Sinner's Prayer" will always be remembered by those of us who sat up and took note. I'm sure he was pleased to have highlighted the importance of a sinner's prayer, rather than be elected to an SBC office.
The majority better figure out how to get the word into the pews in the months ahead, for the minority is running full speed ahead. Another shot? I'm not sure. New Orleans may prove to have been the last volley ... but God!
Jun 20, 2012 at 02:40 PM
Mary, I agree with you on 'most' of what you said. However, I do think the 'turning-point' for a 'lost SBC' came in NO. with all their 'victories'!
The only thing we can hope/pray for is, THEY too will fall prey to 'falling asleep', in the future, and , eventually start to lose postions!
A question to you though, is, don't you think the 'Calvinist will start to 'creep' into the other seminaries, with the exception of NO, the same way they did Southern, and Southeastern? After all, that's been part of their 'agenda' since the beginning.
Jun 20, 2012 at 02:50 PM
A. Price asks "... don't you think the Calvinist will start to 'creep' into the other seminaries, with the exception of NO ... ?"
Midwestern is next in line - they are currently searching for a new president.
Jun 20, 2012 at 03:00 PM
How do the Reformed love authority and how they view it? Check out this example comment from Pravda:
"Greg Harvey June 20, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Dave: you’re probably going to have to moderate my comment…
Nate: you’ve been opposed to this since the beginning. You made your point. DO you not accept the leadership of our president and the acceptance by the convention by a majority to allow churches and entities to “tag” themselves as Great Commission Baptists? Because it sounds like you’re having issues accepting the authority God has placed over you simply because a vote didn’t go your way."
They really do view "authority" this way and it is scary. Say goodbye to the Priesthood, folks. They have redefined it for us.
Jun 20, 2012 at 03:04 PM
A. Price, I wouldn't underestimate the sinner's prayer victory. That was a hard one to swallow for the YRR as evidenced by all their nasty tweets.
The Calvinists are not going to fall asleep. People have been asleep but we've seen hints I think that some are starting to wake up and see that the Calvinists aren't going to be happy playing in the sand box. They want the whole sand box. More people are talking about the Calvinization of the Seminaries. People don't buy Lifeway's "we didn't know all the Gospel Project's contributors were Calvinists -honest!" The NAMB church plants are going to be coming under a lot of scrutiny. The fact that there were some very public rebukes of Al Mohler and his insults to the Trad signers, I think was significant. So I'm not sure the Calvinists are going to find it as easy to "creep" as they have in the past. I saw one Calvinist somewhere claim that Paige Patterson was getting rid of the Calvinists at Southwestern. Which of course Calvinists cannot complain about if they claim it's ok for there to be Calvinists seminaries. It will be interesting to see who gets appointed to Midwestern and when the time comes who replaces Paige Patterson when he retires. If those men are Calvinists like Russ Moore, than I'd say the SBC is lost and the only thing left for the Trads to do is stop funding it. And the Calvinists can't claim to want "unity" if they go along with the Calvinization of more Seminaries.
Now another thing I think will be interesting over these two years is what will Luter's agenda look like? Is he all about bringing diversity in his appointments over the Calvinization or will it be diverse Calvinists? One things for sure - the Pope in Louisville didn't approve of Luter without thinking Luter would follow the Calvinists agenda. Does Luter know? Is he on board with the Calvinization?
We'll see. It could be that this was the year to get the Trads fired up. I don't think telling the Trads to shut up because they're a bunch of stupid heretical liars is necessarily the smartest thing the YRR has ever done. And remember - those losses this year were not by a great margin. And then there's the fact that a few thousand in NO does not equal want the millions in the pews think and believe. The question is if there's a movement to start getting the info into the pews where the money is. The money controls everything.
Jun 20, 2012 at 03:11 PM
So sorry. My period here has not allowed much "live-blogging" per se. I did have a longer post with considerable commentary. However, due to technical difficulties, the post failed several times to post this AM. No problem. Even so, it turned out OK since some of the commentary would be dated now that some key announcements been made. I may revise it and post later...
With that, I am...
Jun 20, 2012 at 03:19 PM
Lydia, that comment shows an extreme cluelessness as to how the SBC is structured.
Of course the YRR think we should have a top down structure. All these people who aren't really saved because of the sinner's prayer need to have someone in authority over them so they don't mess up the plans of the YRR.
Did you see Jared Moore today? I was wondering if someone was going to challenge him "you claim everyone in your area prayed the sinner's pray and now they don't show signs of repentance. PROVE IT! Give me their names or SHUT UP! I don't believe YOU! Give me the names of their churches, their last 20 addresses and their mother's maiden name or stop bearing false witness!"
Jun 20, 2012 at 03:21 PM
I really dont think that the election of Miller was a huge statement for the Calvinists. I think a lot of people, who didnt know Dave or Eric Hankins, voted for Dave, because he was introduced as a small, Church pastor from a pioneer state, who is for unity. Unity was a word used often by Alan Cross in introducing Dave Miller. You'd be surprised how many will vote for the "unity" candidate.
Also, the organized twitter barrage helped Dave immensely. Out of 7,800 people registered, only 1,600 even voted in this election.
Congrats Dave, on the win.
Jun 20, 2012 at 03:40 PM
Sorry I just don't fully agree with your analysis. It is true many of us are disappointed with some of the convention outcome--admittedly including some "key" votes. Once that's conceded, nothing follows from what I consider to be your dismal obituary of the so-called "traditional majority." An approximate 1,600 voters out of an almost 8,000 registered messengers may indicate both the so-called "traditional majority" and the supposed "New Calvinist" resurgence were apathetic toward the significance of the 2nd VP position and therefore failed to show up for the voting (in addition, it may also indicate the "new Calvinists" were not as apathetic as the so-called "traditional majority"). However, it is premature to suggest the vote demonstrated the "myth" of what some of us continue to believe to be the "traditional majority."
You are definitively right to predict, however, that some type of tangible evidence must soon surface that those of us who connect the dots with "traditional" SBC belief and practice exists. By tangible evidence, I mean voting messengers. So far as I am concerned the "traditional majority" has yet to be affected. For that to be demonstrated an army of foot soldiers must soon engage the work. No longer will internet connections do the job.The "Traditional majority" will remain out-flanked, out-manned (and womaned), and sorely out-done. And, as you indicate it must happen relatively soon or, playing upon Luke's words in Acts, "all hope that we should be saved" is lost.
I've got a second wind in NOLA. I seriously contemplated giving up only recently. I no longer have that haunting notion. I shall remain until the ship sinks. If I go down with it, so be it. My time on earth is quickly entering its last lap. I shall do with all my doing everything I can to be faithful in representing the "mythical" majority until I am become convinced the "mythical" majority either never or no longer exists.
Thanks always Jim. Your contributions are important to me.
With that, I am...
Jun 20, 2012 at 03:52 PM
"Also, the organized twitter barrage helped Dave immensely. Out of 7,800 people registered, only 1,600 even voted in this election."
I did not know that.
And I do wonder how one can speak of unity when there has been so much censorship on Pravda of positions or people he disagrees with. Seems hollow and phony to speak of unity when one simply deletes other positions.
Jun 20, 2012 at 04:05 PM
Some of the name calling in these comments doesn't seem very godly. Agree or disagree, but Christian civility should be more apparent.
Frank Gantz |
Jun 20, 2012 at 04:26 PM
Implying one's learned colleagues are ignorant and leaning toward heresy is not "Christian civility". So why not say so publicly? That is the model of our influential employee that so many are following;. So sorry if your "rebuke" seems a bit hypocritical.
Jun 20, 2012 at 04:35 PM
"One things for sure - the Pope in Louisville didn't approve of Luter without thinking Luter would follow the Calvinists agenda. Does Luter know? Is he on board with the Calvinization?"
Did you not see the tweet from Timmy Brister (Founders) with a link to a 6 min clip of a sermon Luter preached on election. The clip made it sound like Luter was a Calvinist. So I am assuming he is being positioned whether he likes it or not. That is how it usually works and why their point system comes in so handy. They can claim Calvinism with a few points but then say they are not really Calvinist when it is convenient. This has been used here locally with both Russ Moore and Ezell when the question comes up although both follow Mohler blindly.
Orwell would be jealous of the point system tactic.
Jun 20, 2012 at 04:39 PM
Thanks Peter. I hope you are right. It's only my view from the really, really "cheap seats."
The SBC has a WAY bigger problem if just over 20% of those registered voted. In that case, the possibility is large that 15% or less of those registered can make policy. That fact is far more disturbing. Travel safely back.
Jim G. |
Jun 20, 2012 at 04:42 PM
As you all might know, I am no fan of the Caner's. But Emir hits it out of the ballpark here. He makes a point that I have tried to communicate over at SBCToday. the NC comes from a statechurch/authoritiarian mentality (He calls it convenantial) and we come from a Free Church perspective. The difference is so huge I do wonder. We have been more inclined to be tolerant of the NC because we are Free Church and that is one reason why so many have been asleep.
The NC has to take over churches and lord it over people because they are right on all things. They cannot tolerate even a sinners prayer.
Emir nailed it when he said the NC is more about ATTITUDE than our doctrinal differences. They cannot tolerate us.
Jun 20, 2012 at 05:01 PM
I'm sorry, but Frank is right.
Certain individuals have made claims about ignorance or heresy. Others are making broad claims about conspiracies of takeover. It is not proper to then respond to the entire movement with sweeping generalizations. I don't care what side you're on--don't "bear false witness" about all Calvinists OR all Trads. If you want to accuse Mohler of this, then accuse him individually and be sure to talk to him. If you disagree with Hankins, accuse Hankins individually and talk to Hankins. But don't generalize your accusations to the rest of us.
You're speaking about brothers and sisters in Christ. Type things that you would say to their faces, and repay discourtesy with courtesy. You're better than that, and Christ is better than that. And I'll say that to both camps, repeatedly and firmly. Don't dehumanize people just because you're typing on a keyboard and facing a computer screen.
Michael Vaughan |
Jun 20, 2012 at 05:37 PM
My two cents.
I don't understand the tactical thinking in running Eirc for 2VP in the first place. Really, does anyone think Dave Miller has anything to brag about in being crowned "Miss Canned Yams of Union County"? So he and Wiley are now "2VP brothers." Nothing gained.
Unfortunately, I think too little thought was given to the risk in the final analysis.
Eric already has strong bona fides from being pastor of a healthy and growing church, and founder of the One8 church planting network. His leadership in developing the Traditional Statement has him rising. He didn't need to be tagged with the title of "SBC 2VP."
This was not a battle that needed to be won. Having said that, Israel was routed by Ai the first time. The bottom line is that we don't need politics to win the issue of staying true to a biblical theology.
Take time to pray and reflect on the Word and let the Holy Spirit work among the SBC.
Hobart M. Tucker |
Jun 20, 2012 at 06:51 PM
Micheal, I live at ground zero. I can't swing a dead cat without hitting an angry arrogant YRR guy. I have lived with it for a long time and was amazed at how many non Reformed sweet people tolerated it for sake of unity. But it has become wearying to many and they are starting to wake up a bit. We are churning out little Calvins/Pharisees at an alarming rate. We are NOT churning out young men who are Christlike in any way shape or form. That is a huge problem when we send them out to churches.
Now, on the other hand, I do know some older people (late 30's/40's who have gone to SBTS, are Calvinist and are appalled at what they see in the attitude and bearing of the YRR. A few of these were hired by my non Reformed church and are wonderful. But they had some real life experience in the real world before seminary and were resistant to such brainwashing as "only we are right". And they don't worship Mohler, Driscoll, Mahaney, etc. They know better. And yes the youngen's do worship these guys and would follow them off cliffs. And they also want to be followed and obeyed when they have a church position. It is what they have been taught. Authoritarianism. In fact, they really believe the SBC has been wrong for a 100 years. And they believe most of us are not really saved.
I will take a beating from an unbeliever for the sake of Christ but not an arrogant YRR. That is a Pharisee to me and fair game and I tell them so to their face, friend. Many times.
Jun 20, 2012 at 06:56 PM
I agree with Michael Vaughan.
Jun 20, 2012 at 07:23 PM
"I agree with Michael Vaughan."
I am shocked!
Jun 20, 2012 at 07:46 PM
If you are going to hold Dave Miller's deleting comments against him, then allow me to point out that Peter Lumpkins has deleted plenty of my comments. So, how about a little consistency? And incidentally, Dave Miller has deleted a few of my comments also.
"I will take a beating from an unbeliever for the sake of Christ but not an arrogant YRR. That is a Pharisee to me ..."
The New Testament tells us to bear each other's faults with patience and grace in Galatians 6:1-2, the Sermon on the Mount, and various other places.
Jun 20, 2012 at 08:38 PM
"If you are going to hold Dave Miller's deleting comments against him, then allow me to point out that Peter Lumpkins has deleted plenty of my comments. So, how about a little consistency? And incidentally, Dave Miller has deleted a few of my comments also. "
Did Peter "delete" you or "moderate" you? Big huge difference. No one knows if you were "moderated". Many know when you are "deleted". And that makes it authoritarian on a "voices" blog. (Just not all voices even if irenic)
"I will take a beating from an unbeliever for the sake of Christ but not an arrogant YRR. That is a Pharisee to me ..."
The New Testament tells us to bear each other's faults with patience and grace in Galatians 6:1-2, the Sermon on the Mount, and various other places. "
White washed tombs is more what I was thinking as in little Pharisees.
The strangest thing about the YRR is they think their continued arrogance and insults are normal behavior and not mean at all. It is bizarre. It is like mass narcissism.
How does one communicate with "Christian" bullies? It is quite the conumdrum.
Jun 20, 2012 at 09:02 PM
Isn't this Job character one of the meanest nastiest commentors from Pravda? And he's over here thinking to correct a woman.
I love all these "I'll call out the bad behavior on both sides" and yet you never see them calling out the bad behavior of the YRR on a blog like Pravda. And how many of those who are doing all this rebuking only rebuke women? Hmmm. Internet bullys trying to intimidate the lil women to get back into the kitchen and stop talking about things they can't possibly understand.
Jun 20, 2012 at 09:08 PM
Well Lydia, I am going to agree to disagree with your "there is a difference between deleted and moderated" stance, and instead state that Dave Miller has deleted comments of mine that he felt were injurious to the traditionalist majority non-Calvinists also.
"The strangest thing about the YRR is they think their continued arrogance and insults are normal behavior and not mean at all. It is bizarre. It is like mass narcissism."
So, you don't believe that your continued insults against Calvinism and Calvinists are normal behavior and not mean at all? I will tell you what is confounding. On this Calvinist-traditionalist debate, the traditionalists have this conviction that they can make any accusation or insult against Calvinism and Calvinists and it is perfectly fine, yet anything said by a Calvinist against a traditionalist is hateful, angry, arrogant, divisive etc. and this even includes comments made by Calvinists defending themselves from very vicious and personal attacks! A lot of the "regulars" on this very blog play the "I can say anything I want about Calvinists but if they say anything negative about me even in response to what I initially said, then that makes them mean and hateful and by extension proves Calvinism and Calvinists to be mean and hateful."
I see a ton of "we're right, you're wrong so you're just going to have to take it" from the traditionalists. And yes, more than a few of the comments on SBC Voices that Dave Miller has "moderated" were Calvinists responding to extremely vicious insults from non-Calvinists. I know this for a fact, because my responses have been among those deleted.
Jun 20, 2012 at 09:18 PM
"So, you don't believe that your continued insults against Calvinism and Calvinists are normal behavior and not mean at all?"
This is the conumdrum. I am not a pastor or asking people to support me as one. But, for years many have been trying to interact with the YRR in a civilized manner only to be bullied and insulted and hear nothing but ad homenim arguments. or "Prove it"! which is so childish one can hardly believe these are pastors. So trying to interact in an adult manner has not worked. Why? they are bullies. We need to admit this and call it what it is. That is what they are and they are being sent out to bully people in churches. I am against spiritual abuse. Some of our leaders have supported and promoted spiritual abusers like DRiscoll and Mahaney. You might not think they are but that is because you probably agree with their tactics. Our leaders have agreed with their methods for a long time. That is where we are headed. I will not stop warning people. Because bullies see "nice" as a weakness and run roughshod over it.
Jun 20, 2012 at 09:29 PM
This tweet says it all:
"RT @timmybrister: Did anyone notice that there more people at T4G (majority who were Baptist) than messengers at #sbc12?"
And to think, TG4 followers think Mahaney, the blackmailer who is Apostle of a shepherding cult, is godly! This is so scary I can hardly believe it is happening before our eyes. Nicolaitans?
Jun 20, 2012 at 09:58 PM
Wow, my reply to Mary got hammered because of a temporary Internet outage. Oh well. Life goes on. I will just plead guilty to the "mean and nasty" charge from Mary - with the context that my meanness and nastiness was merely replying to vicious attacks against my theology and the people who adhere to it - and label her other charges to be false. And if Mary was claiming that I should be restrained from confronting women with what the Bible says, well I would like for Mary to provide Bible verses to justify that doctrine.
"But, for years many have been trying to interact with the YRR in a civilized manner ..."
That is precisely my point. What you believe to be civilized may be perceived as bullying by the people that you are interacting with. Example: "You might not think they are but that is because you probably agree with their tactics." Now how was I supposed to interpret that except as an accusation? And how am I supposed to respond to a (very serious!) accusation other than to A) defend myself and B) make another accusation in turn?
Now of course, I am not saying that it is all your fault. Or even that it is even half your fault. I have not walked a mile in your shoes, so for all I know you may well under siege on every side by mean, nasty hateful Calvinist Southern Baptists. If that is the case, then by all means treat them the same way that Jesus Christ and His apostles did to the wayward in the New Testament: with rebuke. Paul's upbraids of arrogant, mean, prideful, hypocritical Christians in places like Corinthians, Ephesians and Galatians were precisely that. If they're acting the way that you claim, then it needs to be done, and you may well be the person called by God to do it.
I am only stating that based on what I have seen on a lot of Christian blogs (and not just SBC ones by the way), non-Calvinists do often tend to believe that they should be allowed to say whatever they feel about the theology and the people who adhere to it only to be shocked, wounded and hurt by the responses to their own words. I don't necessarily mind the mixing it up, and I myself indulge in such pastimes oft. It is the "dish it out but can't take it" thing that is not only frustrating, but incomprehensible, especially since it is so pervasive. Is it because of honestly not knowing that Calvinists find searing attacks against their beliefs - and themselves personally - to be offensive? Or is it because nonCalvinists find Calvinism so inherently offensive to begin with? "Why are you complain about my words offending you when your beliefs offend me so much more!" Is that it? I really do wonder often if it is.
Now again, I am not saying this in response to your life and what you have to deal with. Maybe you are indeed oft set upon by scoundrels who adhere to my theology. Instead, I was only speaking in the context of what I have encountered in the Christian blogosphere. And in books. And in sermons. Etc. etc. etc.
Jun 20, 2012 at 10:15 PM
For the record, I'm probably classified as YRR. I'm 26 years old. I came to the church later in life and over the last four years I've evolved into a five-point Calvinist. Could I be wrong on the doctrine of election? Sure. I admit that. Do I think I'm right? Obviously, or else I wouldn't be a Calvinist. I'm happy to go to a reformed church, given the option, but I'll choose an SBC church over a non-SBC reformed church any day. My loyalties don't lie with TGC, and especially SGM or Acts 29. I was president of the BSU at my university. I want to work for the IMB as a career missionary. I love listening to both Piper and Platt. I hate listening to Driscoll and Mahaney, and I don't care for their doctrine or their practices. I have only lately realized there even was a controversy, and since th Trads doc I've started telling Calvinists and non-Calvinists to simmer down. We've got work to do to take the gospel to the nations, and we need to remember the deference between inter- and intra-varsity conflict.
All that to say: we're not homogenous. We're not one big group that you can lump ino the same category. We're not all angry. Are some? Absolutely. On both sides of the issue. I'm not here to convert you to Calvinism. Would I love to see a movement towards Calvinism happen in the SBC? Sure. I think it's right. But I'm not going to exclude anyone from our big tent, and if it happens, it needs to happen openly and with the full support of the churches that call these reformed pastors to preach.
That's what I take issue with. When you make sweeping generalizations, you're including me in those statements, and it hurts. I'm not trying to make excuses for my brothers, but I am asking for you to remember that we've been purchased together with the blood of Christ.
Michael Vaughan |
Jun 20, 2012 at 10:30 PM
You are only classified as YRR if you self-identify as such. I am young enough to be classified as YRR myself, but I reject it in favor of aligning myself with historic Particular Baptist tradition ... Spurgeon, Bunyan, Carey etc. If you were to read the books and sermons by the original Particular Baptists and even guys who came around over 200 years after the movement begun, you'd be amazed at how different they were from the modern guys.
Case in point: Piper, as well as the leading theologian of the YRR movement Wayne Grudem. Sorry. If I wanted to be a continuationist, I would have never left Pentecostalism behind to be Baptist in the first place. As for "I'm happy to go to a reformed church, given the option, but I'll choose an SBC church over a non-SBC reformed church any day" ... well I myself attend a non-Reformed SBC church because my pastor is a Godly man of excellent temperament who has produced much great fruit for the kingdom of heaven, so I have no reason or justification to leave merely because of differences over tertiary issues.
By the way, no need to go through the exercise of trying to prove your SBC bona fides merely because you are a Particular Baptist. It is totally unnecessary despite what many choose to claim.
Jun 20, 2012 at 10:46 PM
Job, Did you think Mohler's blog statement, "It's Time to Talk" was gracious in totality? Did you see any problems with it?
Jun 20, 2012 at 11:55 PM
To those who are expressing chagrin at the comments of Dr. Mohler, and saying that as your "convention employee" he's outta line....need to realize he's not a convention employee.
Al Mohler, Paige Patterson, Danny Aiken are seminary presidents, and are not your employees. They are accountable to the board of trustees at the seminaries they've been appointed to lead.
In fact, does the convention actually really even have employees? Doesn't everyone (except those directly elected as officers by the members at the annual meeting) work, serve and sit under the authority (and autonomy) at the pleasure of the board of trustees of that entity?
I'm saddened by the whole "the SBC is dead" head wagging going on. I disagree, profoundly.
Sure there are YRR individuals who sinfully, brashly, arrogantly, and obnoxiously give other reformed people a bad name....but the problem there is not the doctrine they hold, but the spiritual immaturity the posses and demonstrate. (as evidenced by some comments on these blogs, twitter, Facebook, etc...)
Just as there are (as evidenced in some of these comments, twitter, Facebook, etc...) brash, arrogant, sinful, and obnoxious "traditionalists" giving others a bad name....and likewise the problem is not with thier theology....but with the spiritual immaturity they posses and demonstrate.
My point is we ALL need to grow up. Practice Romans 12 and let our love be genuine, outdoing one another in showing honor.
Right now there's too much of the "outdoing one another" going on, and not enough of the showing honor and genuine love.
God bless you all.
Dave Cline |
Jun 21, 2012 at 06:47 AM
The semi-Pelagian thing was something that never should have been said even if you were thinking it. (I posted a comment to that effect on SBC Voices.) But other than that, look we have different soteriology. We ought to be able to say "we believe that we are right and you are wrong on this matter" without claims of being hated, victimized, persecuted and abused by the other side. And again, that is the lack of the two way street that I am speaking of. The traditionalists have the stance that any statement that they make against Calvinists and Calvinism is legitimate while taking the stance that anything said by Calvinists against non-Calvinists that rises above mealy-mouthed milquetoast is an attack. How is a dialogue going to take place with those ground rules? A better question: why should it take place?
Again, I would not use the term "semi-Pelagian" because that has a specific theological meaning and historical context, not to mention the fact that Christendom officially regards it to be heresy. Internal usage of the term by Calvinists have given it a meaning for us that is quite distinct from everybody else. Also, Mohler should have been more sensitive to the fact that the statements that seemed semi-Pelagian were instead reactionary. I use that in the original meaning of the term "reactionary", not the more modern perjorative one, in that the traditionalist statement seemed semi-Pelagian when and because they were reacting to - or defining themselves against or in light of - the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity. In my opinion, the statement needs to be refined in order to be less self-consciously "against." For example, instead of feeling the need to respond to Calvinist distinctives, just state what you believe and let it stand in its own context. The reason for this would not have been to avoid debate and conflict with Calvinists - especially since more than a few Calvinists are looking for a fight anyway - but for theological clarity.
But even the inappropriate Semi-Pelagian charge ... I will see that and match it with the claim that Calvinism is a man-made system, raise you with the claim that 5 point Calvinism is hyper-Calvinism, and then stack it with claims that Calvinism is anti-missionary and incompatible with the Baptist free church tradition. All of those claims range from highly suspect to demonstrably false according to the facts of history, yet they are freely frequently made.
Jun 21, 2012 at 07:46 AM
Michael Vaughn writes "I'm happy to go to a reformed church, given the option ..."
Michael brings up a good point. One of the issues we have in SBC ranks is that prospective church members do not know what theological direction leadership at a particular church may lean. Likewise, messengers this week while voting on SBC officers weren't introduced to a particular candidate's theology in platform nominations (if they were not on certain Twitter distribution lists). As Michael points out, he would be happy to select a reformed church if given that option. Indeed, messengers should have been afforded that option as well. Nominations indicating that a candidate is a "small church pastor" or "unifier" doesn't complete the resume. One will say "But we all Southern Baptists - theology shouldn't matter!" It's increasingly obvious that it does matter to a lot of folks!
A young SBC Calvinist pastor in my area just did a remarkable thing. He painted "Reformed" on the bottom of his church sign and updated the church website's "What We Believe" page to explain what this means. All current and prospective members now understand the theology underlying this pastor's ministry. As a non-Calvinist, I don't agree with this young man's theological leaning, but I sure appreciate his integrity! Put "Reformed" or "Non-Reformed" on your church sign, on your website, and in your nomination of SBC candidates. Give us the option!
Jun 21, 2012 at 09:23 AM
'To those who are expressing chagrin at the comments of Dr. Mohler, and saying that as your "convention employee" he's outta line....need to realize he's not a convention employee.'
I agree David, He is an employee of SBTS which is operated through and for the SBC including funded by the SBC. And whose Trustees are chosen by elected officials in the SBC in a process developed for such accountability.
No matter how it is parsed. He is an employee of Southern Baptists and should be held accountable for his behavior and who he chooses to associate the seminary with.
Jun 21, 2012 at 09:33 AM
"The semi-Pelagian thing was something that never should have been said even if you were thinking it."
Actually Job, while that charge was most likely meant to affirm and rally his troops it really hurt him more in the long run because it has been thoroughly refuted by many. In fact, it showed that the Reformed guys are not as smart as they think they are or purposely deceptive when they trotted out edited quotes? Is this what they are taught at seminary and we pay for? (SBTS profs did the same thing quoting Anathanasus for ESS...deceptive)
No, the real zinger was when he said his learned colleagues, brothers he knows well did not believe what they signed.
That was the cutting insult from a man who was given power too young and has had it for too long. It is our fault he is so arrogant. He has no respect for his colleagues and said so publicly. He should be censored by the trustees but will not be. And therefore he will eventually get worse. He has been known as a tyrant here to work for. He even had to apologize when it was made public back in 2006.
Mohler needs to be reigned in. His affirmation of the cult leader Mahaney moving to Louisville to plant a church "near the seminary" is quite telling.
Jun 21, 2012 at 09:42 AM
"As a non-Calvinist, I don't agree with this young man's theological leaning, but I sure appreciate his integrity! Put "Reformed" or "Non-Reformed" on your church sign, on your website, and in your nomination of SBC candidates. Give us the option!"
I cannot agree. Churches should promote and be organized around Jesus Christ, not theological distinctives. It is appropriate for denominations and conventions like the SBC to give local churches the benefits of aligning with each other on the basis of the things that they have in common.
This idea that Calvinists should go around in the SBC wearing some theological scarlet letter is absurd, based on the false idea that Calvinists are on this subversive mission to infiltrate and take over the SBC, and justified solely by anecdotal instances of Calvinist pastoral candidates not being completely forthcoming when they seek employment (something which by the way is by no means limited to only Calvinists seeking to soft-pedal their theology by the way). Non-Calvinists may see Calvinists as exotic and suspect (and may have the "can you wear a sign or put on a special t-shirt so we can identify and classify you?" attitude as a result) but that is not how Calvinists see themselves.
I would have been happier if this young Southern Baptist pastor had named his church "Second Baptist Church" and placed "Southern Baptist Convention" (not a GCB guy) instead of "Reformed."
Jun 21, 2012 at 09:53 AM
Job writes "Churches should promote and be organized around Jesus Christ, not theological distinctives."
Young man, you are exactly right! In the meantime, it is my prayer that the more militant and aggressive YRR within SBC ranks would be honest with pastor search committees. Our association just had two churches split over this very thing - by young pastors who were less than honest in their responses to certain questions. After obtaining those pulpits, they rapidly moved to introduce reformed teaching materials and change congregational church polity to plurality of elders. They have attracted young Reformed new church members from across the area, while the established non-Reformed members opted to leave and lose the church facilities they had paid for in order to stay focused on non-Calvinist belief and practice. From other such blog reports, this is not an isolated situation. If you are not in favor of identification of theological persuasion, perhaps you have enough influence and persuasion over YRR peers to halt this sort of activity.
Jun 21, 2012 at 10:27 AM
You do realize that calling Mahaney (who is not southern Baptist) ugly names and deriding his character without real evidence does nothing to further your point? In fact it weakens it.
You cant argue against "mean spirited, militants" while being one yourself. Unless of course you can biblically show how acting that way is OK when you're doing it.
Jun 21, 2012 at 10:59 AM
There is a ton of evidence against men like Mahaney and Driscoll. Just because the YRR have held these men up as idols and dismiss all the facts as "ugly names" doesn't change the facts. The SBC should have nothing to do with either of these men.
Now Lydia, you're pretty astute and perhaps you've noticed as I have that there is a new talking point in regard to Mohler et al. The talking point which says that Al Mohler is only accountable to the Trustees. It's this idea that somehow the SBC is run as top down. This talking point shows a complete utter lack of knowledge as to how the SBC actually works. The SBC is not a church. It has no Biblically mandated offices. The SBC is only "in session" for a couple of days a year. The annual convention is a business meeting not a "church" meeting. Trustees are not ELDERS. Seminary Presidents and entity heads are not in authority over any one in the SBC except those they've been employed to manage. The Trustees serve at the pleasure of the SBC. Trustees do not have absolute authority over the entities they have been elected to oversee. Trustess are accountable to the SBC. Everybody getting the picture here? These relationships are not Biblically mandated - these are business relationships. Al Mohler has been hired through the trustees system on behalf of the entire SBC to run Southern Seminary. The Trustees do not pay his salary. The SBC pays his salary. Al Mohler is an employee of the SBC. Al Mohler is accountable to the SBC. Al Mohler does not have the right to insult the SBC at large. Pew sitters in the SBC have the right to call Al Mohler to task for his divisive words and actions. The Trustees are NOT ELDERS who get to claim they've decided Al Mohler doesn't have to apologize and you all need to shut up. The SBC IS NOT an ELDER RULED convention. Get it out of your heads that Trustees or Seminary Presidents have some kind of authority over pew sitters in the SBC. They do not. The Trustees and Al Molher need to be held accounatable for the division and discord that Mohler has caused with his flaming rhetoric and insults.
Jun 21, 2012 at 11:23 AM
Here's a name for Mahaney: People of Destiny International.
It was described as a cult then and it hasn't changed character when it changed names to Sovereign Grace Ministries.
Hobart M. Tucker |
Jun 21, 2012 at 11:23 AM
By the way. I don't know of any legitimate post graduate institution headed by someone who only has a high school diploma. Mahaney is like Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. Likewise, Calvinism is like Mormonism ... but so is Arminianism, Dispensationalism and Pentecostalism -- as well as ALL MANMADE RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHIES.
We are seeing Athens all over again -- Epicureans and Stoics seeking mysterious knowledge. Christ didn't need a Mishna or a Gemara -- or Piper or Platt ... or Wesley or Adrian Rogers. The BEST these feeble voices could do is repeat the Scripture word for word. I have yet to hear a pastor improve on the Sermon on the Mount.
For that matter, I have never (yes, I instend to use this absolute) read Christ referring to the words of anyone else in order to convince others about Himself.
The Bible says, "And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself" (Luke 24:27).
As for the "New" Calvinism (it has been a long term effort by Piper, Nettles, Ascol, Whitney, etc.), I have yet to read or hear a Calvinist explain his theology-in-a-box beliefs simply using Scripture, line upon line and precept upon precept and in context of the whole word.
Instead, each one has had to revert to tautology, establishing their beliefs on the statements (sometimes twisted) of Calvin or Augustine or some other personality outside the inspired writers of the New Testament. It boggles the mind to think that Christ would not have spelled out the TULIP if that is what He meant to say when He inspired every word from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21. It is insulting to the divinity of Christ to develop these theories of what He said, supposing to speak on His behalf as if to say, "what He meant to say is ...".
Too many people in this debate have spent too much time reading 40,000 books (or being awed at someone who has) instead of reading the Word 40,000 times (with the leading of the Holy Spirit instead of the lens of feeble human systems of thought).
"Only the Word" should not be merely a Nehushtan slogan.
Hobart M. Tucker |
Jun 21, 2012 at 12:01 PM
"You do realize that calling Mahaney (who is not southern Baptist) ugly names and deriding his character without real evidence does nothing to further your point? In fact it weakens it. "
Dave, It does not help your case when one refuses to do due diligence. The evidence is out there in many forms. Unless of course, your idea of evidence is for Mahaney to admit to what he taught at the pastors college to be implemented in the PDI/SGM churches, was wrong and caused a lot of spiritual abuse even with molestations, etc. Or perhaps your idea of evidence would be Mahaney admitting he blackmailed Larry Tomzak concerning his son's confession to Mahaney?
If you read the ridiculous SGM wikileaks documents and did not walk away with how cheesy and fake these man are who have too much money and time on their hands, there is little hope for you or Mohler to grow up.
Take and Give, People of Destiny and now SGM are all shepherding cults that simply changed the name to fit the times.
I will warn about Mahaney as long as it takes and in effect warn about Mohler who has supported and affirmed him even in the secular press. Now Mahaney as SGM is coming to Louisville to "plant a church near the seminary". Why do you think that is?
Jun 21, 2012 at 12:15 PM
"The SBC pays his salary. Al Mohler is an employee of the SBC. Al Mohler is accountable to the SBC. Al Mohler does not have the right to insult the SBC at large. Pew sitters in the SBC have the right to call Al Mohler to task for his divisive words and actions. The Trustees are NOT ELDERS who get to claim they've decided Al Mohler doesn't have to apologize and you all need to shut up. The SBC IS NOT an ELDER RULED convention."
Bingo. This is an aspect of the Reformed movement I don't think many think about enough. They need top down government to implement Reformed thinking. Al wants a denomination like the Presbyterians have. He wanted elder rule instituted at Highview. Al loves power and always thinks he is the smartest guy in the room. It is our own fault. We made him what he is by giving him too much power too young.
Jun 21, 2012 at 12:21 PM
Another point to the Molher is not an employee meme. Southern Seminary as all the properties and entities of the SBC is owned by the SBC at large not the "trustees" Who exactly employees Mohler if not the SBC? Seriously, do you not get how illogical that is? Southern Seminary is a property and ministry of the SBC not the Trustees system of the SBC. Does Al Mohler not have a job? Who exatly is his employer if not the SBC? It ain't the trustees.
Jun 21, 2012 at 12:22 PM
To Job and Max,
I actually appreciate it when churches advertise that they're reformed. In my old city (Augusta, GA), there is only one reformed SBC church, and they advertise the fact that they're reformed on their marketing and by listing the church with the Gospel Coalition church directory. Just moved to Southaven, MS, and--again--a single reformed church that identifies itself as such. It made it a lot easier for me to find a new church home.
But, again, SBC non-reformed > non-SBC reformed any day.
Also, speaking as a YRR, I distrust both Mahaney and Driscoll. Poor theology and poor church government, coupled with immaturity in the pulpit. Some of that is contextual, but both of those appear to be very unhealthy churches and church networks.
Michael Vaughan |
Jun 21, 2012 at 02:43 PM
Speaking of not knowing how the SBC works...you correctly stated that the SBC is only in session 2 days a year and yet you then argue that they should manage and oversee seminary presidents whom they will only see once or twice a year...that's assuming they go to the annual meeting.
That's ridiculous. The 'way it works" is that the presidents are hired, overseen, rebuked, corrected, fired, etc...by the trustees...plain and simple.
As for the evidence against Maheney you speak of...I feel no compulsion to either defend him or attack him. I have never met him and never had any direct interaction with him.
It seems that you are perfectly happy believing everything you read or hear about someone, and fail to remember that it is a mighty thin board that only has one side. I do not know whether the 'accusations' made against him are true in whole are in part or not at all...but honestly...do you either?
I know you are protected by his 'celebrity' from slander lawsuits...but the biblical prohibition against it stands.
I also hope you know that there have been and continue to be vicious rumors and innuendo around about some of the signers of the TS....but I will tell you right now...if I hear any Calvinists making such accusations in order to 'strengthen' an argument...I would call them out on it. Its sin. Its stupid, and its immoral.
I have had to repent for a post I made early in this debate on another blog....I was so convicted by it that I felt the need to publicly apologize since I had publicly sinned.
Again, relentlessly and unrepentantly attacking an 'opponents' character to build your argument is not only weakening to your argument, and shows a great level of spiritual immaturity.
Dr. Mohler speaks highly of a friend...imagine that. You, nor I, know nothing of their relationship and the accountability that may exist therein. This.is.not.the.unpardonable.sin.
Just for clarification....are you saying that anyone who recommends/affirms someone who is not perfect or in alignment with your views, should be removed from a seminary presidency?
Jun 21, 2012 at 02:57 PM
Who does Richard Land accountable to? Who disciplined him for the acts plagiarism he committed as a representative of SBC religious liberty and ETHICS commission?
I will tell you who it was....the trustees of the ERLC. I am hearing NO cries of demand for you or other TS supporters that the SBC reign him in....or take some action at the annual meeting....or fire him....ya know why....it has been handled by those who supervise him.
Open sin took place by Dr. Land (this is not slander he has admitted his guilt) and he has made clear that he was reprimanded by the trustees of the ERLC...In fact, lets use use his wording "I am completely under the authority and oversight of the trustees and thank them for their godly correction and purpose for this to never happen again."
Are y'all gonna demand further action by the messengers at the 2013 annual meeting...or maybe you might wanna call a special one.
My point is that within the system in place...Dr. Mohler, Just like Dr. Land, is accountable to the trustees and should they find reason to do so any discipline that may come his way will have to come from them.
Jun 21, 2012 at 03:09 PM
Well Dave, I'm so glad you know how it works. The next time Land runs his mouth off ala Trayvon Martin you be sure to point out that no one in the SBC has a right to say anything against Land since the convention isn't formally in session and only the Elders/Trustees have any rights to question and or rebuke. There was a big blow up where people were writing posts against Land and they could have used your knowledge that what they were doing was wrong and they should have just let the Executvie Comm deal with Land in their own way and time.
The problem with Driscoll/Mahaney is not just that they have views the majority of the SBC disagrees with. It's Driscoll's blasphamy against God in his claim that God gives him pornographic visions and both men have serious character flaws that have been shown over and over and over. You can't sue someone for slander when what you're saying is the truth. These men should not be held up to the SBC as anyone to emulate.
If the leaders of the SBC, continue to endorse these men than that points to flaws in these leaders characters. Since these men are employees of the SBC they and the trustees who are not holding them accountable for this lack of leadership need to be held accountable.
Jun 21, 2012 at 03:11 PM
Richard Land as an employee of the SBC is accountable to the SBC. The trustees did the job they were assigned to do. Al Mohler's trustees are not doing their job. That doesn't mean everyone should just shut up about Al Mohler. Al Mohler is an employee of the SBC. He is accountable to the SBC as are his trustees who are not doing their job.
You keep trying to make the Trustees into elders and whatever they do can go unquestioned and so if the Trustees don't have a problem with Mohler than everything is ok. LET ME SAY THIS AGAIN REALLY LOUD THIS TIME - THE SBC IS NOT AN ELDER RULED CONVENTION. The trustees don't RULE. You Dave, nor anyone else have the right to come in here and tell everyone to shut up about Al Mohler because you think the Trustees have some authority over us. THEY. DO. NOT. These are not Biblical offices ordained by scripture. Shareholders in corps don't have to shut up about the CEO. The can actually talk amongst themselves about problem in the company. The SBC believes in the Priesthood of the Believer not ELDER RULE. I know Al and all his sycophants want the peasants to quit talking, but that is not how the SBC is set up.
Jun 21, 2012 at 03:25 PM
Extrapolate what's being said here ala trustees= elders to the NAMB/IMB.
How many times do we hear from our missionary boards that these are "our" missionaries. According to Dave's logic these are actually only NAMB/IMB's missionaries since once we send the money and the trustees and commitees take over we have no say or right to claim any part of what is being done. The whole idea of COOPERATIVE is that it belongs to all of us as cooperating churches. But now we're told that we should submit to authorities and keep our mouthes shut.
This conversation should be an eye opener for anyone who doesn't get the NC/YRR eccesiology is ELDER RULED even over our cooperatively held institutions. How dare pew sitters think they have the right to questions those who rule over us!
Jun 21, 2012 at 03:33 PM
Driscoll and Maheney are not the only Calvinists in the world...nor are they particularly indicative of the group as a whole. You're pretending that all reformed people act, move, breathe and think alike on all things and emulate the same leaders. You're wrong.
Re; Land. I said at the time that trustees should fire Land...I still think that...but they did not....the only recourse we have to blog about it, and maybe create a fuss at the next annual meeting.
I have no interest in doing either of those things. You can have it though, if you desire.
In fact...I have evangelistic and discipleship ministry to do and no longer feel the need engage in this fruitless banter.
Enjoy your blogging.
Jun 21, 2012 at 03:33 PM
"As for the evidence against Maheney you speak of...I feel no compulsion to either defend him or attack him. I have never met him and never had any direct interaction with him."
I know, Dave. Most Reformed think like you as if meeting him has anything to do with it. I have never met Clinton, either.
"It seems that you are perfectly happy believing everything you read or hear about someone, and fail to remember that it is a mighty thin board that only has one side. I do not know whether the 'accusations' made against him are true in whole are in part or not at all...but honestly...do you either?"
Five years of documented stories (some with police investigations because of molestation) from hundreds of people out of SGM churches all over the country. Testimonies even as far back as PDI. The internal SGM wikileaks documents of emails are proof these guys were cheesy fakes who had too much time and money on their hands. If you do not see it after reading it, then I would definitey stay away from you, too. REcorded phone call of Mahaney to Doris and Larry Tomzak of his blackmail. There is plenty out there but I would advise you not to bother. There are many who do not want to believe Mohler would coddle such a charlatan. Mohler admires Mahaney's authoritarian shepherding style.
"I know you are protected by his 'celebrity' from slander lawsuits...but the biblical prohibition against it stands."
Oh, nice one. Frankly, I think CJ has a lot of blood on his hands from how he taught them to deal with molestations at SGM and blackmail. Of course, he used the same tactic you just used, it is a sin to sue a Christian leader.
So, why do you think SGM is leaving Maryland? Because things are going so great?
"I also hope you know that there have been and continue to be vicious rumors and innuendo around about some of the signers of the TS....but I will tell you right now...if I hear any Calvinists making such accusations in order to 'strengthen' an argument...I would call them out on it. Its sin. Its stupid, and its immoral. "
Negative truths are NOT gossip. If there are spiritual abuse situations you must warn to protect people from wolves.
"I have had to repent for a post I made early in this debate on another blog....I was so convicted by it that I felt the need to publicly apologize since I had publicly sinned."
I doubt very seriously we have the same definitions. To not speak out about Mahaney's spiritual abuse and wrong teaching about God and his word to lord it over people would be enabling sin. Same with Driscoll.
"Again, relentlessly and unrepentantly attacking an 'opponents' character to build your argument is not only weakening to your argument, and shows a great level of spiritual immaturity."
You keep saying it is to build an arguement. I have gone after Paige Patterson many times. When he said an abused woman should go home and pray more, I was relentless that his teaching was wrong. I also went after Caner.
I am an equal opportunity person against spiritual abuse and using God to build little fiefdoms. I do not follow Paul or Apollos. Nor do I follow Mohler or Patterson.
If one wants to be a Christian celebrity, then the only way to get by with spiritual abuse and building your own kingdom is to censor people, call speaking out about bad behavior as gossip (Mahaney dined out on that one for years) and blogging as sinful....unless done their way.
They are having a hard time with the internet. They want to control the messages there but cannot. So they call any negative truths, sin. It is a spiritual abuse tactic.
Jun 21, 2012 at 03:35 PM
"In fact...I have evangelistic and discipleship ministry to do and no longer feel the need engage in this fruitless banter."
Of course you do Dave, you being the superior spiritual being that you are because after all posting on a blog means we don't do evangelism and discipleship in our lives. Thanks for the parting shot at how much better than us you actually are.
Jun 21, 2012 at 03:44 PM
"Driscoll and Maheney are not the only Calvinists in the world...nor are they particularly indicative of the group as a whole. You're pretending that all reformed people act, move, breathe and think alike on all things and emulate the same leaders. You're wrong. "
Interesting blanket statement considering the actions to remove Driscoll from so many venues after Petry's documents came out, porno vision vid and sodomy discussions, was so swift. Piper was swift to have his "I LOOOOVEEE Mark Driscoll's Theology" promo video was removed after being up for a few years. All of a sudden Driscoll is resigning from Acts 29 right AFTER just coming back! Chandler is put in. Scott Thomas resigns. Sojourn announces they are no longer Acts 29. Akin does this peice on sex to try and counter balance DRiscolls book he promoted. And many other examples I don't have time to list
Oh, the influence was there alright and it became a bit embarassing for our leaders. They did act fast though to try and distance from Driscoll but his DNA is all over the YRR guys. You can hear it in their comments.
Mahaney ran to Dever (Even when his own rules for discipline stated the sgm pastor had to stay at his own church for discipline) and was coddled there. We are up to our eyeballs in our Reformed SBC leaders like Mohler and Dever rehabing the charlatan shepherding cult leader, Mahaney.
Jun 21, 2012 at 03:45 PM
"In fact...I have evangelistic and discipleship ministry to do and no longer feel the need engage in this fruitless banter"
Oh dear, I fear when I hear this from one after defending charlatans. Please do not use your ministry position to lord it over others as Mahaney and Driscoll have done. Remember, you are a lowly servant and model of Christ to others. Not the leader/authority.
Jun 21, 2012 at 03:48 PM
I am not better than yall...did not mean to imply that...just saying that I'm not going to spend a year blogging and planning "a move' for Houston.
While you are at the game of impugning those of reformed theology.....y'all have any juicy gossip or anything to say about Keller, Carson, Grudem, Harris, Platt, McArthur, Ligon Duncan, RC Sproul, Anyabwile, Deyoung, Chappell, Begg, or any other reformed theologians/pastors...whether SBC or not?
lay all your cards on the carpet.
You also are aware that SBC churches have been investigated and even sadly some SBC pastors, deacons, SS teachers, evangelists, etc.. have been convicted of being sexual predators....many have had affairs....many have been addicted to pornography....or is all that confined to those you disagree with theologically.
Some of these men have subsequently been "spoken for" by leaders of the SBC....
I am able to eat meat and throw away bone when reading an author, or listening to a conference message....we're not cookie cut Driscolites, or Maheneyites....neither my shelves or sermons on my ipad consist of very much of either.
For context, Piper was talking about Driscolls love for the gospel when he spoke of loving his theology.
now, I'm done.
Jun 21, 2012 at 04:07 PM
To be more precise, Driscoll's DNA is all over Ed Stetzer who introduced him to Southern Baptists as an "emergent" until that fraudulent religious philosophy was exposed.
Hobart M. Tucker |
Jun 21, 2012 at 04:10 PM
Dave, your last statement shows that you have no clue what you're talking about here. You've bought into this idea that we "hate" Calvinists which is not what is going on AT. ALL. But it is a nice distraction that Mohler and others who have used their authority to spiritually abuse Christians use constantly - those people are just haters, slanders and liars.
I'm glad you're done because you obviously don't want to engage in facts and issues - you just want to silence dissent by trying to shame people and implying they are sinning by questioning.
Jun 21, 2012 at 04:15 PM
I first read about Driscoll way back when the seekers I was working with were all reading Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller and dying to know who the cussing pastor Miller referred to, was. It was Driscoll. Yes, he was emergent and working like crazy to build a large following. But emergent was going no where and was not authoritarian enough.
But many like Mahaney, Driscoll, saw where the wind was blowing and the money flowing and switched to the growing Reformed movement. Mahaney removed the "prophecy mics", the holy laughter, Toronto blessing stuff to be the charismatic wing of the Reformed and Driscoll employed some systematic reformed teaching with his Indie Rock focus and here we are today.
I have no doubt that a man who watches trends, like Setzer, saw a gold mine in Driscoll partnerships. What young man would not his Christianity to be all about sex?
Jun 21, 2012 at 04:18 PM
"You also are aware that SBC churches have been investigated and even sadly some SBC pastors, deacons, SS teachers, evangelists, etc.. have been convicted of being sexual predators....many have had affairs....many have been addicted to pornography....or is all that confined to those you disagree with theologically. "
Not at all. Check out "stopbaptistpredators" blog for a listing of all of our jerks and charlatans and those we partner with.
I guess I am missing your argument and wondering if such arguments worked with your mom when you were a teen. Are you suggesting that others are as bad or worse so we cannot mention any unless we mention them all? That never worked with my mom when I wanted to hang around with someone questionable. Well suzy hangs around with worse!
In fact, many of us have spoken out in many venues. I have even been to court a few times while the "Christians" were there to protect the predator. More of them should be in jail if the church people did not rally around them. Cheap grace all around....for charlatans.
Jun 21, 2012 at 04:24 PM
"For context, Piper was talking about Driscolls love for the gospel when he spoke of loving his theology."
DRiscoll's "Gospel" came with a huge glass of arsenic which negated the real Gospel message. I have listened to him for a long time. I know what I am talking about but perhaps you agree with Driscoll's "Gospel". And that is what scares me about what is happening in the SBC.
Jun 21, 2012 at 04:28 PM
Mahaney was "Holy Laughter???" I read several years ago about the Vineyard Movement and how in those churches the people were told NOT to ask for guidance from the Holy Spirit so as not disturb the Holy Spirit. Yeah somehow the Holy Spirit could distract the Holy Spirit.
But it all just comes together when you see how these guys are taught not to question anyone who is perceived to be in a position of authority. In the case of Holy Laughter members were told only certain people had the authority to call on the Holy Spirit. Scary Stuff.
I know the Acts29/SBC A29 knockoffs are being set up in this "you will not question" authority evah, cultic practice. If the SBC isn't destroyed by designated giving with everyone only giving to people like them than these new church plants that are following these cultic practices will likely bring it down.
Jun 21, 2012 at 04:42 PM
Hobart Tucker writes " ... Driscoll's DNA is all over Ed Stetzer ..."
Last time I looked, Ed Stetzer was on the Acts 29 Board of Directors.
Jun 21, 2012 at 04:48 PM
"If the SBC isn't destroyed by designated giving with everyone only giving to people like them than these new church plants that are following these cultic practices will likely bring it down"
These churches are hard to leave. They have you sign membership covenants and people do not realize they have been vetted by attorneys before they sign them. They have "discipline" rights over you (you agreed to it but it was worded much nicer and they love bombed you). There are documented instances of them coming to people's homes AFTER they have left a church and trying to hold them accountable for church discipline. \
A lawyer I know says to always send registered mail a letter to any church where you signed such a membership agreement that you are no longer a member. Do this right away when you decide to leave for any reason. Then they cannot harass you without facing legal problems. Thing is, people don't expect Christians to act like this
But even before it gets to that point, they have brainwashed many that they "hold the keys to the kingdom" as elders. (Dever) It is very authoritarian and you must "obey" the leaders and make it a "joy" for them to serve you (Mahaney). Not only that but some of them are teaching their congregations, many who claim to be saved, that they are totally depraved!! think of the implications of that for mind control. I do wonder if Matt Chandler or Dever who both said this are also totally depraved and we should warn others about them?
There are a ton of control tactics that people fall for. Reading over at SGM surivors you really see the mind control games that were played on people
It is very important to warn people what is going on in these groups.
Jun 21, 2012 at 06:05 PM
One point I think that's being admitted to here is that this wasn't so much a vote FOR Dave Miller as it was a vote AGAINST the Traditionalists. Nice that they are blatently admitting this all the while claiming to want "unity."
Jun 21, 2012 at 06:47 PM
OK...I never said anyone was sinning by questioning...I said, and I stand by that one is sinning when they impugn another's character to score points and by inference impugn the integrity of a secondary person by association.
Yall are building false equivalencies and straw men (much like the document did) so you can tear them down. Sad thing is, aside from shooting at the non SBC Mahaney and Driscoll easy targets, you have also attacked several SBC men (Mohler, Dever, Piper, Chandler and Platt) who have no such accusations lodged against them...and have attempted to also impugn their integrity using guilt by association.
And sincerely, how you can read the post from these ladies (Mary and Lydia) and not see Calvinist hating going on is beyond me...Truly.
Also Mary...you are talking about people 'admitting' voting against Hankins....well if that is true, which I am not sure it even matters...then a majority of those who voted spoke loudly and clearly that the statement he authored is NOT the majority view. For it it were...he would have won, no? Besides, someone said a few posts back that the SBC is not a church (agreed) but a business. Well OK...you have to admit that messages are sent by voting against someone or an issue held by that person, just as much as they are by an overwhelming vote for a person/issue. The clear message from NOLA was that with traditionalist statement the powers of the last generation made a 'big power move' and they lost. Will they continue to lose - only time will tell.
Jun 21, 2012 at 08:19 PM
"Yall are building false equivalencies and straw men (much like the document did) so you can tear them down. Sad thing is, aside from shooting at the non SBC Mahaney and Driscoll easy targets, you have also attacked several SBC men (Mohler, Dever, Piper, Chandler and Platt) who have no such accusations lodged against them...and have attempted to also impugn their integrity using guilt by association."
So what is their excuse for promoting, coddling and partnering with cult leaders? They have even better access to information than I do. They cannot plead ignorance. So what is it? Now you are trying to act like there is little "association" and it is meaningless. You could not be more wrong.
I mean Dever openly welcomed Mahaney to Capitol HIll when Mahaney's own rule book at SGM said a pastor had to stay in his own church for discipline. See, the rules never apply to the great leaders. Mohler gives a statement to the secular press lauding Mahaney's "firm leadership" and trashing the bloggers. Remember, many of the documented abuses were molestation and how handled at SGM. Chandler has served on the Acts 29 board for several years. He approved of porn divinations, sodomy and firing elders using Acts 29 resources? Can he really plead ignorance?
Dave, you will ALWAYS find me on the side of the wounded and abused. The celebs have plenty of protection from followers like you who would throw the wounded off a cliff to prop up your favorite celeb. And I believe this whether Calvinist or not.
What you don't understand is that I have heard it all been called every name in the book for daring to confront the tyrants, wolves and charlatans who use others for their own advancement. It does not bother me one bit. I should ask why you hate those who have been used and abused so much by the charlatans? It would make about as much sense as you saying I hate Calvinist. I hate abusive behavior and using Jesus to build a fiefdom..
Jun 21, 2012 at 08:30 PM
the fact of the matter is that majority Southern Baptists are simply not informed
Introduction to the "Traditional" statement on Southern Baptist Soteriology:
We believe that (the "traditional" statement)does reflect what most Southern Baptists believe
Yeah....I'd say you guys are about right.
Anthony Clay |
Jun 21, 2012 at 08:36 PM
Also, having not spent much time reading the ramblings of disgruntled members who have left (or been disciplined and removed) from these churches, I would like to say that it is never wise to only read the comments from the unhappy - but also seek out those who attend these churches and are incredibly happy to do so. Agreed, however it is wise to know what the unhappy are saying too. Balance is the key.
Typically, just like at walmart.com, or ratethesehotels.com, primarily disgruntled unhappy people rant about their experience. (used those .coms for example purposes only..not even sure the second one is a real site..made it up...lol)
Make it personal. How often do you call the 800 number and take those stupid receipt surveys from a chain restaurant or grocery store if you're happy with your service...but if you're not happy you are what 10 times more likely?? to call and register your dissatisfaction.
I am not saying there is no truth to the complaints...fact is I do not know (and neither, likely, do you). I'm just saying, once again, its a mighty thin board that only has one side.
As a pastor I can say with certainty that unhappy people make much more noise that happy ones...and often the unhappy ones are in the minority. I also will grant you that sometimes, a vocal minority may the ones that are 'on the side of the angels' so to speak.
Again, I am not saying that these accusations have no validity. I'm only saying most probably don't know they whole story regarding them.
And even if they are true...guilt by association is not right.
I ask again...are you saying that if a seminary president commends a minister/pastor/evangelist/author and the individual commended turns out to be a scoundrel...then should that president be removed?
If you KNOW more for certain more than I have the feeling you know I will stand to be corrected.
Jun 21, 2012 at 08:45 PM
Yeah Dave, right a 1000 people vote against Hankins in New Orleans and that equals a majority of Millions in the SBC. Oooookaaay. And Al Mohler is not an employee of the SBC - we don't exactly know who his employer is, but it's not the SBC.
We get it Dave, Calvinists have never eveh done anything wrong in the SBC. There are no victims. Lydia and I have personal experiences that says otherwise, but we're just stupid, lying, heretics according to you and Al Mohler. All the divisive statemens that are avaialble for all to see that Al Mohler has made over the years are not really divisive since - he's a Calvinist that's why. All the victims of Mahaney and Driscoll are all stupid liars. All the physical evidence - emails and such are just made up fairy tales according to Mahaney/Driscoll sycophants.
You show us how well you've been indoctrinated. Al Mohler tells you the peasants who dare to question him are liars and you take his word for it. We get it.
I thought you were too busy evangelizing to still post here.
Oh and maybe in your emotional rant against the wimmin folk you made a mistake but if you think Piper is SBC than again you have shown you utter and complete ignorance of what's going on in the SBC. I know, I know how dare lowly peasant women speak out against Calvinists idols.
Jun 21, 2012 at 08:47 PM
I said Piper is NOT SBC....LOL
I never said you were a liar.
You have not posted PERSONAL experience only referenced accusations made by others...I simply stated that the whole story is not likely knowm by any of us...that's all I said nothing more.
I am not indoctrinated. I will say though that I am in good company having my character assailed by you...and I am certain you do not know me!
That shows how deep your hatred for anything or anyone associated with Calvinism.
Your venom seems to have little if any boundary.
You're being women has absolutely nothing to with this! (guess I should have expected that card too.)
Jun 21, 2012 at 08:58 PM
OK, I see where I inadvertently added Piper to a list of "SBC men"....that was not intentional. I know he is not SBC, and stated so other times...that was an oops moment.
Piper is Baptist, just not Southern Baptist.
Jun 21, 2012 at 09:07 PM
"....you have also attacked several SBC men (Mohler, Dever, Piper, Chandler and Platt) who have no such accusations lodged against them..."
LOL! yourself there Dave yeah you put Piper with the SBC men.
And you know nothing about Lydia or me. You have shown the typical hatred of the YRR for anyone who dares to question heir idols. Oh and please don't claim you're not hating on us since you have demonstrated that wonderful gift you YRR have where you can read hearts and minds over the internet and determine exactly that we are nothing but haters.
When the scoundrals have been exposed and the Seminary President is still endorsing him? Uhh yeah there's a serious problem. John MacArthur, one of the good guys (Lydia disagrees with me because of his views on women) denounce someone like Driscoll and yet our Seminary Presidents are still holding him up as someone the YRR should idolize - then even you Dave should be able to recognize there's a serious problem. Piper has even begun to distance himself from Driscoll. Where's Piper's endorsement of Real Marriage. Don't you get how odd it is that Driscoll's "mentor" Piper has suddently gotten silent about Driscoll. Driscoll commits blasphame against God and yet where are Seminary Presidents who endorse him to denounce his blasphame? Of course you're probably one of those who think Driscoll's porno vision is ok.
Yeah Dave we're all haters here. That's exactly what the Pope of Louisville is teaching you guys. Don't think for yourselves and don't you dare question your Cavinists betters.
Lydia and I have personal experiences. There is evidence to back up claim that is made here but of course you claim it's all lies and hatred. Now you pull the usual "you hate Calvinist card" It's the usual internet YRR bullying and you're not really that good at it. I notice you don't have anything to say against Mr. Tucker or the men who have made claims against Mohler. Why is that? Oh right you think you can get away with calling women names.
Jun 21, 2012 at 09:18 PM
I am not YRR. now who is making assumptions and pretending to know someone on the internet? You have made lots and lots of assesments my CHARACTER and INTEGRITY having never met me...I only stated that your behavior and wording (the only thing I know about you) shows immaturity and an over willingness to believe anything bad thing you might hear or enters your mind about those with whom you disagree on doctrine.
You clearly are an hater. Admit it. I am a hater when it comes to the doctrine of the health, wealth, and prosperity preachers. I am a hater, along with Paul (see Galatians) when it comes to teaching that denies the gospel by preaching either legalism or a social'gospel". Admitting being a hater of certain doctrines is not a bad thing....but denying being obvious one is, to be honest, quite transparent.
I do not follow or read Driscoll so I know nothing of his 'porno visions." The only books I have by him are ones that were given to me as a gift and they have sat uncracked and will likely continue to be so.
Basically, calling me a mind numbed robot and sycophant and assuming I dine on the words of Albert Mohler is laughable...if you only knew.
McAurthur is actually the one (another non SBC but "baptististic" non baptist...lol) that I consider to be a 'hero' a term he he neither wants or I really want to use. But for the moment words other than that are failing me. I think he is dead on about Driscoll. Johnny Mac (as I call him) has also written extensively on the need to YRR's to grow up...another set of posts that I enthusiastically embrace.
I am not stamped with any DNA from him (MD), I promise you.
Jun 21, 2012 at 09:40 PM
I have not called you names....I have addressed your behavior but have not gone past that.
As for picking on you and not Mr. Tucker; LOL
I have not noticed where Mr. Tucker has taken the approach that you have...with the character assassination, guilt by association and rumor mongering.
Jun 21, 2012 at 09:49 PM
....shows immaturity and an over willingness to believe anything bad thing you might hear or enters your mind about those with whom you disagree on doctrine.
You continue to show you know nothing about what we're talking about but then claim we are the ones believing anything we might hear because we disagree on doctrine? You don't know about Driscoll's porno vision but we are the ones who believe anything we hear?
what have you done but show an over willingness to excuse bad behavior because you obviously hate those who disagree with your doctrine and will defend the indefensible when it's been shown over and over you have no clue what you're actually talking about. You come here just playing this you are better than everyone card and we are all immature haters because how dare we discuss the failings of men who happen to be your idols. What could they be but idols when you don't even know what we're talking about but you come here you are defending them over and over and calling people immature and haters and claiming we must be liars because you don't like what's being said.
Time and again you get shown to be wrong and illogical and all you come back with is we're all immature haters. Hey where's you're apology for being wrong about Piper. Notice how when you're shown to be wrong you just ignore that? Keep up with the spiritual bullying - it's what Calvinist are known for on this site.
Jun 21, 2012 at 09:59 PM
You don't have to call me "Mr." -- my name only makes me sound old. But when I do reach that magic age of being over the hill, name-wise I will be set. Feel free to call me "Hobart" or "H.M." or "'Bart" -- but use the apostrophe, otherwise it might become confusing when Bart Barber is in the discussion. ;^)
Hobart M. Tucker |
Jun 21, 2012 at 10:15 PM
Ok how bout Bart T which distingushs you from Bart B :)
I like the Mr. Tucker because it reminds me of a song from Hello Dolly
Mr. Hackel, Mr. Tucker, don't forget Irene and Minnie, just forget you ever heard a word from me.....
And any time you want to jump in with your knowledge of Driscoll and Mahaney to show how much our friend Dave doesn't actually know is fine by me. Of course it never matters with these guys how much evidence you actually give them - it's all lies and slander.
Jun 21, 2012 at 10:29 PM
I feel like some of you (Lydia in particular) are so detached from real life that you think it's fine to just attack a good man. And really, you're attacking him for no reason.
When I was in college, I was a firm anti-Calvinist. I opposed it wherever I saw it because I thought that it was not what my God was like.
I moved to a liberal Baptist area, and started to get serious about inerrancy. It was then that I started to see Calvinism as the scriptural soteriological position.
I've been on both sides of the Calvinism/anti-Calvinist debate. Both sides have great people who believe the Scriptures (though they may interpret it differently). There are some nasties on both sides, too.
Just be civil, folks. Using Soviet terminology and claiming a conspiracy is ridiculous. Dave Miller is a great man (and I'm sure Hankins is too). Treat him (and the rest of your brothers and sisters in Christ) with a bit of respect.
Jun 21, 2012 at 10:55 PM
I'm not a Calvinist, but I just have to say that Lydia and Mary make me ashamed to be a non-Calvinist Southern Baptist. You two are part of what's wrong with the SBC. I don't understand how you can claim to love your Calvinist brothers and sisters in Christ, and treat them the way you do. If you really want to help the SBC, please repent and love your brothers and sisters as commanded in Scripture. In other words, quit commenting in such an ungodly manner. Can you not disagree in a loving way?
To all Southern Baptist Calvinists, I want you to know that Mary and Lydia don't represent me and many others. Just ignore them.
Jonathan Davis |
Jun 21, 2012 at 11:21 PM
Les Prouty |
Jun 22, 2012 at 01:31 AM
Oh come on! You guys can do better than that. What about "Jezebel" spirit? You forgot that one.
About 10 years ago or so I went out of town to sit with a woman in court who had been raped by a staff minister. The church people turned out to give character testimonies of rapist. They were furious at the victim for pressing charges because after all, he said sorry. The woman did not have ONE SINGLE person in the church who supported her. They were furious with her for "airing dirty laundry". They said she was divisive, unforgiving and trying to ruin his career and life. They accused me of having a Jezebel spirit for supporting her. They accused her of wanting revenge. (Nevermind the law?)
When he was sentenced they turned out for the hearing and begged the judge for leinency.
A friend of mine from undergrad school is now a judge and an unbeliever. He once asked me why the Christians will pack a courtroom for a zoning hearing on porn shops to shut them down but then pack the court room to give character witness for a child predator at their church.
I told him what I will now tell you. They don't care about the victims. They are more in love with their institutions and celebrity pastor that they will twist the words of our Lord to prop up something false and evil. They hate the victims for showing what they have been propping up all along.
Mahaney and Driscoll are spiritual abusers who have hurt many people. The evidence and documentation for both are out there for those who are concerned about what they might be supporting. Several of our influential leaders have supported and promoted them. And many want to turn a blind eye to this. It makes me wonder what is really important to them. No, actually I do know what is important to them and it is not individuals who make up the Body but their their own influence and power. Because they love institutions and power more than people. So it is easy to dismiss all the documentation and call them troublemakers. I know the drill well.
So fire away. I am proud to stand with victims of these charlatans and wolves because I know the world hates them and does not care a bit about what has been done to them in the Name of Jesus, no less! But those who love Jesus Christ, care about them as members of the Body. If that is your definition of hate, then so be it. I hate evil and I hate supporting evil.
The victims of spiritual abuse? They are used to being ignored by guys like you all.
Jun 22, 2012 at 02:59 AM
Les, I'm so glad you quit with all the fake niceyness game you were playing at.
Jonathan and Nick, no worries Al Mohler has declared that there are some people in the SBC who should be marginalized. He's going to give everyone instructions on how the "conversation" is going to go and I'm sure he's going to be posting a list of those people and blogs that should be ignored. Jonathan, I'm not really sure where you get the authority to tell people whom they should ignore, but hey whatever floats your boat. One thing we know is that somehow Al Mohler has the authority to deem people in the SBC as unworthy to participate in the conversation. We don't know where exactly he gets this authority since we don't actually know who is employer is, but he certainly thinks like Jonathon that he has the authority to declare some people are to ignored. Will the shunning begin soon? Will Mohler et al begin calling all those whom he's called stupid heretical liars "unregenerate" Will he be able to take away their SBC membership? I mean if he has the authortity to declare which of the peasants actually has a right to speak and those who are to just shut up does he have the authority to declare apostates?
Gang up and bully all you want to guys. Call me names like hater and antiCalvinist all the while calling me a mean meanie for not bowing down to worship your idols. Imply that I'm so simplistic and ignorant that I believe just any little ol' thing on the internet. You're not gonna shut me up.
You should all be checking your emails, I'm pretty sure the edicts will be coming from on high that this is an Al Mohler approved blog with Al Mohler approved commentors. You don't want to get in trouble with the Pope of Louisville do ya?
And yeah that Dave Miller he's a great guy who has allowed people like Peter to be called antiChrist and other wonderful names over there at Pravda. It's a great place for unity as long as Traditionalist stay in their place.
Jun 22, 2012 at 03:01 AM
Mary, "fake niceyness?" Really?
Lydia, I do nor claim to know what you have seen and experienced. But I think that there may be better ways to speak out about those tings that you believe in rather than what more than a few see as bitter and venomous personal attacks on people. Now I'm expecting a bold push back from you and Mary, but maybe you are even making the case more clear.
Les Prouty |
Jun 22, 2012 at 06:20 AM
Mary, allowing someone to call another names is one thing, but calling others names is much worse. Dave allows people to comment at Voices much like Peter allows us to comment here. It's about the conversation.
Name calling (such as the whole Pravda thing) has no legitimate place in a conversation. Respectful disagreement does, but baseless accusations do not.
We are all Christians. We are all Baptists. We (probably) are all conservative Southern Baptists. We have a lot in common. Calvinism/Arminianism is nothing like the conservative/liberal controversy of the 1970s-1990s. We have the same goals, and we can be in the same group without sacrificing Scriptural truth.
Jun 22, 2012 at 08:52 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.