Friday, March 9, 2007
The New MD Translation
Today came the announcement that the Memphis Declaration folks are producing a new translation of the Bible. To provide the highest quality translation possible, the group has outsourced much of the translation work to experts. Meet the translation committee for 1 Corinthians 6:1-7.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
113 comments:
Bart,
Let's not take this moment away from them. After all, a lot of work has gone into this. Don't bother them with scripture, they are on a mission to protect the convention from far weightier matters than biblical fidelity.
Interesting how it was preceded by one blogger's post about how sometimes scripture is too simplistic (and yet somehow sufficient) to apply in some legal cases,and a hiatus begun one day before by another.
Brad
Bart: "The Lord laughs at [the wicked]; for He sees that their own day [of defeat] is coming." Psalm 37:13 SelahV
Selahv,
I couldn't agree more...are you talking about Brutus or Caesar?
Bart....your the "Tough,Smart Blogger"!
Tanks for the laugh...I for one needed it today!
JRM
bart,
you are too funny. but, on the other hand, this is really sad and tragic. the sbc will get a huge black eye in the nation, and cp dollars will be thrown away on lawyers and court costs. sad.
it's amazing that its all come down to this.
david
Mr. Barber,
You gave us the wrong link!
This guy is the translation committee also known as Klouda's lead attorney and personal friend/counsel of the most popular IMB blogger.
big daddy is right. if yall will remember, this is the same lawyer that wade threatened to get after steve grosey a while back. interesting.
let me ask yall something though. i have a friend who is a pastor. i wont give his name, nor state that he lives in. he was at a church for 15 or 16 years, and things were going good...until the last two years. some people got mad at him, and they started a campaign against him. yall know what happened during this time i'm sure. well, long story short, he left the church. but, a family in that church had two teen boys, and one of them is now falsely accusing him of trying to molest him on one occasion. my friend is innocent. no one has ever accused him of such a thing before. and now, he's facing a court date and possible jail time for something that he did not do. these people just want to get him.
have any of yall ever been lied about because people didnt like you, and they were out to get you????
anyway, i believe i would sue these people after i was found innocent. i mean, they have made his life a living hell on earth. his picture was all over the local news in the area he lives. he lives with this hanging over him waiting for a court date and out on bail. it's costing him much money in attorney fees. you know, i believe i would assume that they were lost to be that mean and ruthless...to falsely accuse someone just to hurt them, and i believe that i would have to sue them for the money they cost me and for all that they put my family and me thru. am i wrong? i'm really interested in hearing yall's answer.
is it ever right to sue someone in court?
david
bart,
i'm sorry i'm so wordy this morning. maybe its the coffee, i dont know. but another thing that concerns me in this whole issue is that we are going to have courts deciding about our theology….about our beliefs and practice. we are gonna have a court…the government….decide about a theological issue in our seminary. this sends chills down my spine.
most of yall know that i believe that a woman should not be teaching men the bible in a public setting where the woman is in authority over the man…due to 1 timothy 2. many, many more feel the same way as i do. so, we viewed dr. klouda not being given tenure as the right thing to do….theologically. i agree that it was probably not handled right. maybe swbts should have bought her house in the dallas area. maybe they should have given her some kind of severance pay due to the circumstances. but still, having the govt., courts, decide on our beliefs as southern baptists is not a good thing.
david
Volfan:
Why do you go around posting the verbatim comment on blog after blog?
Do you just cut and paste ad nauseum?
See my response to you on Art Roger's blog.
And switch to decaf.
BSC
You know, John, you are absolutely right. I was talking more about the majority of people who convened the Memphis meeting than I was about the people who signed the document.
One of the really smart things about having a movement with no name is that people struggle just with the proper terminology to speak about it.
Brad,
You see things very clearly. Thanks for commenting.
SelahV,
I've got to say, you are one of the sanest and most sagacious voices on the web.
BSC
Perhaps the answer to your question is best answered by simply saying..he can...and he does. If you sir can dedicate your time to attacking and discrediting Paige Patterson then perhaps David can spnd his time to defend him.
JRM
Jack,
"The Tough, Smart Blogger" :-)
You crack me up. I might have to put that up at the top of my blog as a slogan or something. If I had been drinking anything when I read that, it would have wound up in my nasal passages, I assure you. I laughed out loud.
David,
You are precisely correct about the financial tragedy this represents. Sometimes we laugh to keep from crying.
David,
The blogger police are out!!! You cannot cut and paste! They say.
Ah, Ben, lighten up.
dwmiii
i wish someone would respond to my comment at 7:08 am.
david
Why, Bart, I do believe that you and Brad have just libeled me as a convener of the MD. He stated and you agreed that I was more concerned with politics within the convention than Biblical fidelity. As a pastor, you have undercut my character.
Not only is that a ham handed thing to do, but it is not godly.
Good thing I'm not the kind of guy to sue over such things. ;)
Oh, and speaking of "movements," that would imply organization and coordination. Wrong again. There is none. I speak for myself and no one else. No one tells me what to say. No one speaks for me.
So just let me say that the situation grieves me. I don't celebrate any of it. I am pretty sure I wouldn' sue, if I were in the same place.
Not interested in that, though, are you? That doesn't make for good straw men.
David W,
I responded to the "cut and paste" comment on my blog as well, but I will address 7:08 am.
It is interesting that the same lawyer represents Wade and Dr. K. Did he recommend that she sue?
I don't know. I do know these things: Wade has said publicly and privately that he would never sue. the IMB over his issues. That might tell you more about his mindset than speculations about connectionalism.
Gary Richardson's involvement with Wade at the IMB was in consultation of his legal rights as a trustee. Specifically, whether or not he could be barred from certain meetings, as per Tom Hatley's statement upon the end of his term.
And folks call me a "conspiracy theorist." Hmm.
Art,
Glad to know you aren't a part of this.
Jim,
It is indeed a sad situation.
Aaron Weaver,
Don't disturb my hyperbole with your facts.
Actually, I concede that my hyperbole would have been even better with an accurate link. I just like to make fun of the Jim Adler commercials so much, that I was drawn to his site.
David,
I'm working my way there, brother. Sorry for the delay.
I would advise your pastor friend not to sue. I do think that the brethren in the church ought to take up a collection to defray his legal expense. Ideally, I think people who bring failed lawsuits ought to bear the legal expense of the defense.
Nevertheless, the biblical text is clear: "Why not rather be wronged?" In other words, suffering an injustice is preferable to taking a civil case before a secular court.
David,
Usually, courts have the good sense to realize that they may not legislate our theology. Let us hope that this case does not open the door for them to begin to do such.
Once in a previous post I mentioned the story of Hyrcanus. I admit, it was an easy part of Biblical Backgrounds through which to sleep. The story is fascinating and my professor was excellent, but the students all pay more attention to the biblical eras than the intertestamental period. Anyway, as a refresher, I direct you to the Wikipedia article on Hyrcanus, here. Between the article itself and the articles to which it links, you'll find more than enough information to help you decide how much parallel there is between the actions of Klouda and her supporters and Hyrcanus's ill-fated appeal to Pompey.
David,
We have been going through 1 Peter in my home fellowship that I lead with a fellow church goer. You should check out chapter 2 & 3 fully. The gospel is to affect every part of our lives. In this section Peter tells us that we should suffer wrongdoing because CHRIST suffered wrong doing and did not revile in return. And of course, he had every right to because, well, He was sinless.
I think that this passage is pretty clear. But, I've seen some spooky hermeneutics in the blogosphere as of late, so I doubt anyone will be able to be convicted by it. I hope that it helps out as you think about this.
dwmiii
David W,
I'm sorry, I was being a bit myopic in my response and didn't address what you seemed to be asking folks to address. Just the speculation that Wade is somehow pulling the strings on the Klouda case.
Bart,
I didn't write to confirm to you that I was not a part of this.
I pointed out that I wasn't necessarily in agreement with legal action in order to make the point that you were being ham handed in the way you lump and dump, and create straw men.
Calling it hyperbole doesn't make a straw man argument valid.
Art,
You may be correct that Wade has said publicly and privately that he would never sue the IMB over his issues, but I'm not sure that gives us an accurate view of Wade's mindset concerning Christians and the courts. Wade could answer for himself, but I think the speculations about connectionalism are very valid, since Wade himself used a link to this same attorney/friend's (Gary Richardson) web site to threaten a fellow blogger with a law suit on January 25 of this year. I would link for you, but Les Puryear graciously took down that comment stream.
I'm not nearly so gracious. Here are Wade's exact words,
"But there comes a time when outside forces must intervene when behavior is deemed harmful and illegal, and your slander has crossed the line in both categories. If you cease and desist in your ungodly allegations, I will consider this matter closed. If you continue, please expect to hear from Gary Richardson very shortly."
I think it is clear that Wade is fairly open to taking fellow Christians to secular courts.
I realize the Klouda case is in the federal courts, but is it not strange that a professor in Indiana would hire a lawyer in Oklahoma to sue an entity located in Texas? The only apparent connection to the Oklahoma lawyer is a certain Oklahoma pastor who has promised to push this issue.
I think this whole issue goes back to the definition of a conservative inerrantist. It is one thing to claim to believe the Bible is without error. It is another thing to put that inerrant Bible into practice. I think there are some who claim to be inerrantists, but their actions don't always indicate a high view of Scripture. Are we willing to follow God's Word regardless of personal loss, or do we rationalize and explain parts of it away to fit our personal agenda?
Art,
The "hyperbole" comment was not directed to you; it was directed to Big Daddy.
Matt's comments strike straight to the heart of the matter. Matt, the only thing I would add is that, in the hours leading up to the filing of the lawsuit, Burleson posted a blog article suggesting that 1 Corinthians 6 really doesn't mean what it plainly says.
(Not to be confused with the earlier article he posted suggesting that 1 Timothy 2 doesn't mean what it plainly says)
art,
i believe that bart was just using satire to prove a point. this is used quite a bit on other blogs, including yours......and, you seem to just laugh at it, or in the least you let it pass by, when its going along with your viewpoint on your blog. but, let someone use satire that goes against your view, and watch out! you make statements like you did here on bart's blogsight at 10:28 am. art, i've seen far worse on your comment section made by other bloggers, but you let them slide. i would encourage you to be consistent, to let the ones who come into your blogsight and lambast and ridicule and use satire at your blogsight and others have the same rebuke that you gave bart, or else let the satire slide by at other blogs and yours, or when others use it to make a point that you dont agree with. i think we ought to be consistent. should we not?
as i was told at your sight by many people....lighten up, bro.
david
matt,
amen.
david
David W,
There was no satire in the 10:28 am comment. I made specific points all the way through.
I try to do that. I am not one who uses satire on my blog, that's Ben.
But I admit that I am more worried about when I am personally misrepresented than when others are. Just sinful human nature, and I confess it.
Doesn't mean that this satire is accurate, which it isn't.
Bart,
Sorry for misunderstanding your reference.
Matt,
You are completely right that there is a clear appearance of connections. What the truth of the situation is has not yet been revealed. Wade may well believe there is a right for Christians to sue in secular court. I can't speak for him.
I can say that you appear to think that if anyone understands Scripture any differently than you do, they are denying it. They are denying your interpretation. This is just a backhanded way of calling people a "liberal."
For the record, 1 Cor. 6:7b (Why not rather be wronged?) is where I get hung up on suing Christians, and why I probably wouldn't.
And since you place great value on living toward this high view of Scripture you have, can I take you to mean that you condemn those "conservative inerrantists" in Missouri who are suing institutions in hopes of forcing them to return to state convention control?
Art,
I don't know whether Matt will step up to the plate, but I gladly will.
I have not ever commented upon the Missouri situation (since I do not live in Missouri and this is not actually a current event), but I will gladly do so now.
I believe it is wrong and contrary to scripture for the Missouri lawsuits to be taking place.
I further think it is wrong and contrary to the Ten Commandments for the people at those institutions brazenly to steal them from the churches that founded and supported them for years.
I further think that none of these concepts exonerates those involved with this lawsuit.
Mr. Matt Brady,
Those who have read my blog for the last year recognize that I am never embarrassed by what I write. I have no problem saying in public what I say in private because they never contradict. Gary Richardson has been a longtime friend and I have stated that on my own blog. Sheri Klouda requested help and I connected her with him. Her decision to file a cause of action is completely hers and her counsel's decision. In fact, when Gary and I play golf I make a specific point of never mentioning Dr. Klouda because I do not believe it is any of my business.
Personally, if no wrong has occurred, no contract violated, no fraud perpetrated, or no policy violated, then SWBTS should not be concerned. If those things have occurred (notice the word 'if'), then SWBTS should be worried. To say that the courts of our land are unavailable to correct abuses perpetrated by Christian insititutions seems very odd to me and totally contrary to verses that teach that secular authority is 'ordained' by God to punish evil doers.
Bart,
I have never met you, but I do respect you and your mental and theological acumen. However, I question the wisdom of a faculty member of SWBTS, as I understand you are, making statements regarding pending legal action against the institution from which you draw a salary. Further, your public criticism of trustee Dwight McKissic, a member of the governing board of the institution that employees you seems to me to be questionable conduct that would not be considered appropriate by most Presidents of SBC agencies and insitutions.
I would encourage all of us to pray for a quick and equitable resolution to the cause of action that has been filed and refrain from choosing sides.
In His Grace,
Wade
I guess it depends on whether the State has the power to understand and administer biblical concepts of justice as comprehended within the evangelical world. (1Corinthians 2)
I would guess not.
Steve
Wade,
I've counseled and helped countless people, couples, and families in my seventeen years of pastoral ministry. I can't think of a single one I ever referred to a trial lawyer.
Bart,
Careful, now. Wade says lawyers are listening.
Steve Grose,
Did someone really sick a lawyer after you? That's weird. I would like to see how those jurisdictional / continental issues would be reconciled. Funny, I've always enjoyed your input and "company" in the blogosphere. I didn't think you were that hard to get along with. :)
Wade,
I am not a member of the SWBTS faculty. I teach adjunctively for the seminary from time to time. The "salary" involved would probably cover your basketball tickets.
I will not be silenced. You will not intimidate me.
Matt,
Wade sent a similar response to me concerning the Richardson link. However he wrote to me:
"The only thing I find strange is your curiosity about the connection."
I guess we're both strange.
Apparently its only fair when investigator Burleson and his sleuth friends raise such questions?
Art,
I appreciate you stating that you probably would not sue based on Scripture.
I am not, as you say, back handedly name calling. I am pointing out that there is a chasm between various "inerrantists" with in the SBC. How is that so many who say they believe the same thing come to such different conclusions? I would agree with you that it is a matter of interpretation. I would also add, however, that one's principles of interpretation are just as important as saying you are an inerrantist. After all, anyone can say they believe the Bible. I've known some terribly vile folks who have told me that they believe the Bible. The question is not WHETHER you believe, but WHAT you believe about the Bible? Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, even pure heathen, etc. are free to believe what they want about the Bible, but we are Southern Baptists, and we are free to determine what we believe about the Bible.
It seems that some in the SBC have chosen to put pragmatism at the top of their hermeneutical principles. They generally interpret Scripture in whichever way tends to fit their agenda. But, just because an interpretation works for one’s agenda does not make that interpretation correct.
I will not take your bait and call those who disagree with me in this ongoing discussion "liberals." I would, however, point out that some are more liberal or conservative than others.
I will not give a pass to those who give lip service to being an inerrantist to then call themselves died in the wool conservatives. Let’s be blunt. Even Satan , himself, knows that the Bible is true. He was an eyewitness to much of it. I hardly think that qualifies him to be a leader in the SBC. I cannot accept this notion that saying you believe the Bible makes you a wonderful fit for service in the SBC.
Big Daddy (Is it all right, if I call you Aaron?),
Thanks! I never thought the two of us would be in the same camp on much of anything in Baptist life, but if there is a "strangely curious" group within this discussion, I'm proud to be a member with you. :-)
<satire>Please stop, Big Daddy. If you keep on going, I will eventually have to express my agreement with you publicly. Then I'll have to return my "Brownback 2008" bumper sticker, my John Birch Society secret decoder ring, and my Moral Majority coffee mug. I would be blacklisted from ever entering the super-secret Fundamentalist SBC Trilateral Commission (or whatever it is). All I would be good for is going to some church where I would have to wear a robe to preach and wax eloquent about the virtues of Paul Tillich.</satire>
But seriously, kudos to you for seeing this and saying so. I fear the day when you turn your high-powered gaze toward my heart. Therefore I will try to be as consistent as I can.
Mr. Wade Burleson,
You misread my intentions. I had no thought of embarrasing you by quoting your words, only of trying to clarify your position on Christian lawsuits. I told my wife this afternoon, that if I felt you been sorry for the words, I would not have quoted you. In that event I would have been gracious. I assumed the reason you wanted the comments taken down was to remove the other person's comments as opposed to yours.
I am keenly aware that you always stand by what you have written. I, personally, can't ever recall a time when you admitted any weakness or flaw in your argument. I may have to do that from time to time, but trust me, I don't expect that from you.
Bart,
I am quite familiar with intimidation and can assure you that my purpose in questioning your criticism of a sitting trustee on the agency that employees you was genuine and not intended to intimidate you.
Big Daddy,
I don't know why it is difficult for you to understand that Gary is my friend and at Sheri's request I set up a private meeting between him and her. It is not only obvious that I helped Sheri -- I am the one who made it known on my blog. It doesn't take detective work to figure out what I have put in print. You act as if there is some big secret about the connection between Klouda, Richardson and myself, which makes me chuckle, because I am the one who wrote about it. Dr. Klouda told me there was a huge fanfare when she was hired, but I was the only Southern Baptist who sought to help her when she was unjustly removed.
By the way, at the rate you are going you may be very well reunited with your former SBC -- and I for one would welcome you.
You might ask Brad, Matt and Volfann if they would as well.
:)
I have 10 messengers ready to make the trip down to old San Antonio...
Lets get ready to rrrruuuuummmbbbllleeeee
(Just a joke....the umble part...not the messenger part)
JRM
One last word to all.
Matthew says, "Judge not lest you be judged. For, by your standard of measure it will be measured to you."
None of us in the blogosphere could stand up to the gaze of Wade and his compadres. None of us, themselves included. My sadness is that they don't see it. And by sadness I mean that I have wept today over what I have seen.
As Matt said, they have never admitted any wrong to their argumentation. But, what will happen if their own devices are turned on them?
I'm not suggesting we do it, I'm saying we shouldn't. I have already been guilty of doing it here. Show grace gentlemen, do not revile.
Finally, Patterson has not said a word to defame these men in public. At least, I haven't heard of it. Tell me, does anyone find that admirable? I do.
Perhaps, if less public talk was done, there would be more talking done in private of the good sorts. Instead we have hand written notes and blogs.
But, what do I know.
Good night all. If anyone comments on what I have said here, I won't be able to get back with you until Monday. But, I think I'm done with it all.
dwmiii
Wade,
I'm beginning to wonder who you wouldn't include in the SBC.
But thanks for lumping me in another group. I'll be glad to be counted amongst Bart, Brad, and David on this one.
DWM iii,
If you have evidence Dwight McKissic provided confidential information provide it.
You don't, and you ought to be ashamed for your comment.
Matt,
Thanks for your comments. Your words would have more impact if I knew some of your background. I may be missing something but you seem very anonymous, at least that is so by the information presented when you click on your blog name.
To everyone. I've enjoyed the conversation. I am spending the evening with my sons and will not be back.
I wish you all a wonderful Lord's day tomorrow and don't forget to set your clock forward one hour.
In His Grace,
Wade
dwmiii,
Thanks for the good word. I don't want to resort to wrong devices, but I do intend to earnestly contend for the faith. I think we can do that in a forceful, yet loving, way.
Wade,
I am not, nor have I ever sought to be anonymous. Do you really want to know my favorite authors and movies. I'll be glad to post them on my profile, but I hardly see how they relevant. I am a Baptist preacher. What more do you want to know?
Wade,
By the way, You said you clicked on my "blog name." I don't have a blog or a blog name. I use my real name and have argued for others to do the same.
Brother Robin,
I didn't read the Wickipedia article that Bart linked to earlier concerning Hyrcanus and the appeal to Rome, but, Wow, what a great example of what can happen when God's people appeal to outside sources to resolve disputes. I hope those who don't remember the story will take time to read about it.
Hyrcanus
Wade,
Why do I think that you know precisely who Matt Brady is? Matt and I had lunch with Dwight McKissic and Ben Cole yesterday. You've dialogued with him on blogs in the past, but you've never questioned his identity before. You just happen to have this sudden desire to know who Matt Brady is 24 hours after that meeting? Why the subtle innuendo? Why not just come out and say what you want to say?
To all: Matt Brady is my brother-in-law, my wife's brother.
I suppose the implication is that Matt somehow carries water for me. But after nearly 15 years of marriage to his sister I can testify to you all—the Barber hasn't been born yet who could easily foist his opinion upon the will of a Brady. :-)
Brother Wade,
I know Brother Matt Brady. He is not a figment on one's imagination, he is a real live human being that is a pastor. I have eaten Mexican food with him. He would not get my tab, but neither would Brother Bart.
:>)
Blessings,
Tim
Bart,
That Matt is your brother-in-law is news to me.
That Matt was at the luncheon yesterday with you, Ben Cole, and Dwight McKissic is also news to me.
Whether you believe that or not is of no concern to me. It is the truth.
Finally, I have been accused of many things by many people, but your accusation that I use 'subtle innuendo' is a new one. I have absolutely no problem saying or writing exactly what I think and mincing no words.
By the way, I really do appreciate the information you have given about Matt. It gives me a better understanding of the dynamics at play within this comment string.
Again, I wish you a wonderful Lord's Day tomorrow.
In His Grace,
Wade
That, ladies and gentlemen, is Southern Baptist politics at its finest.
Well played, Bro. Burleson. Well played.
Or should I forward my commendation to Ben?
Robin,
Thanks for your comment. As always, I appreciate your spirit.
Two quick questions, and I will happily give you the last word.
(1). Where is the 'outrage' and 'concern' over the Missouri Baptist Convention's lawsuit against the five state Baptist agencies? This action was taken by 'conservative' leadership because of what they believed to be a 'breach of bylaws.'
(2). In Arizona, two Baptist Foundation executives stole millions of dollars of money from thousands of retirees. A class action lawsuit was filed by Baptists across the state in an attempt to get their money back. Were they wrong in their action? Were they 'misinterpreting' Scripture?
Gentlemen, you are acting as if the courts are 'evil.' I see them as 'good' and 'ordained' by God to settle breaches of contract, legal matters and other issues that cannot - or will not - be settled by disputants through negotiation.
This has been the practice of Baptists in the past - as evidenced by the two examples above - and I am just wondering why those who were silent about the above two examples are now all over Dr. Klouda for doing the very same thing.
Bart,
I am not sure what you are congratulating me about, but I guess I will accept it :)
Good night to all.
Wade,
Dynamics at play?
Matt,
Well, I agree with Dr. Yarnell's statement concerning orthodoxy in interpretation (white paper a few months ago - sorry don't have time to look it up). But to say that people are giving lip service to inerrancy but that they aren't true conservatives because they don't see everything like you, is a complete rehash of the old "liberal-fudamentalist" name calling of the past - just more well heeled.
And I did not offer bait. I pointed out what you were doing.
Matt, Aaron, and whomever else,
There is no "group" and Wade is not a leader of this fictionary organization. Are "you all" part of some group? I mean beyond the SBC?
I speak my mind, and sometimes it lines up with certain people more often than others. Just like Aaron, Bart, Matt and whomever else seems to have agreed on their opinion of Wade.
Puuuhhhleeeaase.
Wade,
The passage in question makes clear the reason that we don't do such things. It is not that the courts are evil, but that they are secular. It is the taking of Christian disputes before the "unrighteous" that is in view here. Really, every one of these questions and caveats is answered quite clearly and sufficiently in the text.
BTW, if you'll scroll up through the comment stream, you'll find my statements about the Missouri matter. I'm entirely consistent.
I just didn't realize that, before uttering a word about the unscriptural and sinful lawsuit filed yesterday, I was under obligation to plow through the entire history of Christianity and individually disavow every time anyone has ever violated this particulat tenet of scripture.
Art,
There ought to be a group of people working to defend the SBC and the seminary from these attacks.
If I can't find one, I'll organize one.
Bart: That is why this lawsuit. There are all ready too many people who defend this institution from attacks. They do it well I might add and play the game of politics better than any politician I have ever seen. :)
Sorry, my post should read that is why this lawsuit is important in my opinion. Boy I really do type too fast. :)
Tim,
Thanks for verifying that I am a real person. I owe you one. Next time I really will have to get your tab. :-)
Debbie,
Better than any you have ever seen? Coming from you, that is quite laudatory. As though it were coming from Betty Currie.
Not that I think anyone besides Wade cares, and I realize this has nothing to do with the original post, but just so everyone knows, Bart and I have never been too worried about hiding the fact that we are related to each other. Whenever we are together, we always introduce ourselves as brother-in-laws. We have discussed often whether we should point this out on the Praisegod Barebones blog, but I’m not sure the disclaimer is warranted as if there is some overly special dynamic in play as Wade would imply.
Yes, Bart married my sister, but he is far more than a brother-in-law. He is a friend and a likeminded brother in Christ, just as many who comment on these blogs are like minded friends and brethren. If I were of a different opinion than Bart, brother-in-law or not, I would do my best to take him to task. “If any man come to me and hate not his…brothers and sisters, yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26).
I greatly admire Bart, but I am not his yes man, nor would he be mine. Trust me, Bart is far too intelligent for me to sway, and I’m far too stubborn for him to sway me. It’s just a great thing that my sister married so well.
Awww.
Hug time.
Then let's go out and shoot some of your dad's guns.
I love being lumped into groups.
Though I'm not sure I've given my opinion of Wade?
I merely brought up a connection. Wade's interpretation of my statement is his interpretation. I have not implied that some vast far-fetched conspiracy exists between Klouda, Burleson, and Richardson. Klouda's choice of attorney is interesting and implied Wade played a role in introducing the two. I believe he adequately explained the connection but the connection did deserve a response(IMO).
Actually, until very recently - I've always been a member of a church that gives to the Cooperative Program (CBF grannies still love Lottie..) In fact, MOST moderates belong to churches which allow the member to designate their missions offering to CBF or SBC.
Who doesn't love Lottie? (I mean, besides Crawford Howell Toy)
Uh Oh! Don't let Ben know. He'll be checking our church financial records for taxidermy bills.
Bart: The statement that you have made to me is beneath you, or so I thought. I've been wrong before.
Big Daddy Weave: You have said that you are a self proclaimed moderate, but now it seems that the fundamentalist is appearing when someone disagrees with you, the ones you are joking with however are the very ones who would have you not in the SBC. What say you to this?
Beneath me? Betty Currie is a fine woman. I'm merely suggesting that you regularly witness political prowess at close quarters. I know not why you would take such offense.
Debbie:
Aaron should tailor his convictions to meet his political goals? Is that your advice?
I'll go so far as to say that, in my lexicon, Big Daddy Weave is more than a moderate; he is a liberal.
But here's something I learned while a student at Baylor: Liberals can be Christians, too. And people can vocally, stridently oppose one another's ideas without despising one another just because you fall on opposite sides of an issue. Make your point and make it with all of your heart. You will be a friend of any who is a friend of truth. Even when honest disagreement prevents cooperation on a particular project or within a particular context, it need not engender hostility.
Neither need it breed lawsuits in secular courts.
I suspect that, in Aaron's lexicon, I am a Fundamentalist.
Bart
Count me in as one who will defend PP and SWBTS...not because he and the institution are perfect, they are both far from it...but because this attack (Not just the lawsuit, for I feel that Klouda is somewhat beng used in all of this and this 'attack')is far more involved than what many folks think or believe...but yes, I will help defend the man and the institution not becaus of what they have or have not done...we all know there is always room for correction, but because of the nature of these attacks and the forces behind it.
JRM
Gary: check out my blog at What Matters. I think that about sums it up. This action shows none of the fruit of the Spirit in my opinion. And since I see no good to come from this, I'd say the Lord knows what He will do with the whole mess. He almost destroyed Israel at Horeb because of their stubborness and rebellion against God. Has it not been for Moses interceding and begging God to show him His glory, He would have witdrawn completely from His chosen people. I can't think this is any better than what Israel did. And given that today we have all the prophecies fulfilled, and the written Word of all the times the Lord took care of His people, even when they refused to follow Caeser, I'd say that the "wicked" is anyone who follows after their own ways and do not adhere to God's precepts or His commands.
It's a no-brainer for me. But then I have been accused of having no brain at times. So I may be wrong. The outcome of the lawsuit doesn't matter one whit to me. I don't care if the courts award Klouda fifty million dollars and we all have to ante up. The worst damage has been done with the filing of the suit and the collaterol damage it does to all Christians who must speak to the issues is going to be severe.
That said, I trust in my Sovereign Lord that He will do as He always does: bring about good from the pile of dung we make of our witness and our lives. This isn't just sad. It stinks. It reeks of pride and we all know what happens to folks who trust in themselves for vindication and vengeance as if their needs and desires are superior to everyone elses. Unfortunately, there comes a fall. I've had that happen to me on many occasions and I'd not want to be in that position ever again. It takes a long time to pick up the pieces and heal. It's not fun. God's grace be sufficient to meet the needs of SWBTS, Dr. Patterson and even Dr. Klouda. May His mercy be apparent and His patience be steadfast.
My thoughts are with the many students and their families at SWBTS right now.
There is good news. There is a professor of an Evangelical College up north somewhere who is filing a lawsuit against his college because he wants to dress like a woman because he has a gender-disorder. They have fired him and he isn't happy about it. I hope that circus takes front page and the frenzy of media gnaw on that instead of this situation we face. But I don't think there's much hope of that.
I don't know if I answered your question or if you'll agree with me as readily as you did before, but C'est la vie. selahV
Bart,
Off topic, I realize and apologize. But I didn't see an email address...
I just heard that a number of pastors and leaders in the SBTC will be visiting our own Hudson Baptist Association here in Albany, NY in view of a partnership. I just wondered if you would be a part of it. It would be a pleasure to meet you.
Brad
i would imagine that the liberal news media will be all over this lawsuit. they could take off on this like they did with o.j. i mean, a woman being denied tenure by a narrow minded, male chauvinist, fundamentalist, southern baptist christian. cant you hear that being said now on abc, nbc, and cbs? this will play nicely on many of the liberal, womens lib talk shows as well. this could even be on oprah....oh goody. wont that be special?
david
Bart et al,
Please forgive my late arrival to the ball. However, other matters have needed my complete and undivided attention. It certainly appears that in my 36 hours away from the blogosphere, the SBC world has suddenly entered into some type of altered state of reality where the Burleson-blogger coalition of moderates, liberals, and charismatics are attempting to undo the Conservative Resurgence, undermine the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture, and utterly wreak havoc in the convention.
However, I am not surprised. When any honest individual looks at the posts on Burleson’s blog over the past year, it is clearly obvious that he is a theological moderate that accommodates liberalism. Matt (who is a real person as best I could tell :0) is correct that much hinges upon how one defines a conservative inerrantist. Burleson believes that it is unnecessary for an individual to “affirm” (a word which he defines very liberally, I might add) the inerrancy of the Bible in order to be a conservative. That is not only inaccurate, but it is rather revealing as well. His entire belief system has been greatly affected (perhaps “infected” is a more precise way to put it) by Enlightenment philosophy, thus his emphasis on hyper-individualism instead of doctrinal accountability and the equal validity of various theological viewpoints at the expense of absolute truth.
Matt is also correct in stating that there are some (such as Burleson) that “claim to be inerrantists, but their actions don’t always indicate a high view of Scripture.” His treatment of certain texts (1 Tim 2:12-14; 1 Cor 6:1-7) is shameful. The 1 Corinthians text clearly states that believers are not to sue other believers and anyone who states that “Christian institutions” don’t apply has bumped their theological head while performing hermeneutical gymnastics :0), in my opinion. The 1 Timothy text clearly states that women are not to teach or to usurp authority over men and his suggesting that the text doesn’t mean what the text clearly says sounds strangely familiar to what many in the liberal community would likewise contend.
Bart, too, is right on when he recognized that Burleson was attempting to intimidate him… that is one of his, and his followers, specialties. Conservative pastors in the SBC would do well to remember that God has called us to be preachers, not to be popular. We must be faithful to stand on the Word of God… even in the face of those who seek to assassinate our character, sew discord among the brethren, and injure the Biblical fidelity and doctrinal integrity of our convention. God bless!!!
In Christ,
JLG
David (Volfan),
In regard to your comment:
"i would imagine that the liberal news media will be all over this lawsuit"
Are you referring to liberal rags such as the Associated Baptist Press (ABP) that regularly quote their favorite theological moderate that is currently sewing discord in the SBC and is advocating a leftward theological turn for our convention (a.k.a. Wade Burleson)? Just curious and God bless!!!
In Christ,
JLG
Dougald,
In regard to your comment:
“Finally, Patterson has not said a word to defame these men in public. At least, I haven't heard of it. Tell me, does anyone find that admirable? I do.”
Yes, there is a stark contrast between the continual bombardment of unfounded accusations, charges, rumors, and innuendo by the Burleson-blogger coalition of moderates, liberals, and charismatics against Dr. Patterson and other “fundamentalists” (a.k.a. conservative inerrantists) and that of Dr. Patterson, himself, towards them. Truly, it is telling indeed… Thanks for pointing it out so clearly and God bless!!!
In Christ,
JLG
Matt,
If you will read my initial comment on this string (just about three comments back) you will note that I, too, have acknowledged that you are a real person. Perhaps the next time that we meet, you will pick up my tab too :0). Just being fundy, I mean funny…
God bless!!!
In Christ,
JLG
Jeremy,
I'd be honored to buy a fundy, I mean funny, guy like you dinner.
Speaking of funny, I love the latest post on your site. Thanks for sharing David's work with us.
The movie Amazing Grace - To boycot or not to boycot
Debbie,
Good thing I have no desire to be a Young Southern Baptist leader, huh? :-)
I merely brought up a connection (did not offer an opinion) and my intentions were questioned. Whatever.
I'm a Baptist-news junkie - always have been. Growing up on the campuses of Baptist colleges and with a professor for a father who teaches and writes on Baptist history, I have been surrounded my entire life by baptist news, names, and rumors. While my family has supported the CBf since her inception, I still have quite few Southern Baptist friends and relatives. My uncle pastors a SBC church outside of D.C. and my cousin is currently serving as a journeyman in Botswana. At the moment, I'm writing a paper on T.B. Maston and taking a course on Southern Baptist social attitudes. God-willing, I'll begin a Baptist Studies Phd program after my graduate work at Baylor is finished. Following SBC life is only natural...
I concur with Bart. It seems you'd prefer I harbor ill-will toward my fundamentalist brethren? :-)
Matt,
I'm there. However, it's my turn to buy your dinner, and Bart's. Hmmmm….
McDonald's Happy Meals it is, then. God bless!!!
In Christ,
JLG
Speaking of identities...who are you Gary? I clicked on your name but nothing came up. I certainly don't want to think you are nothing.
I became a great grandmother yesterday. 8lbs. 8oz. Big ol' boy. funny, my daughter is nursing her 6 month old baby and now she's a grandmother. Isn't that funny? Just thought I'd lighten up the stream of things.
Hey Colin: when I type, all of a sudden my cursor locks up and won't type. It freezes for about 5 to 15 seconds. Then goes again. Quite annoying. Any idea what causes that?
Bart: Sagacious, huh? thanks for the vocabulary lesson. Hadn't heard that word before. Now I can be even more discerning. Ha. selahV
I'm on record at Art's blog that I don't agree with this lawsuit, though I have no desire to pile on to Dr. Klouda for her decision.
At the same time, I'm wondering.... I admit that prior to my blog acquaintance with Dorcas Hawker and Bryan Riley I was skeptical that there might be a believer within the legal profession/judicial system, but would anything change if the judge assigned to the case were a believer and the pertinent laws considered were not contrary to Scripture? Was the apostle Paul speaking against going into secular courts or having judgments determined by unbelievers?
SelahV,
Congratulations. I pray that God will bless you, your family, and your brand new grandson!!!
In Christ,
JLG
Selah, I try to offer good theology and now I'm the fixit guy? ha! kidding. Though my job is in GIS, I really am terrible when it comes to computers.
To everything else...don't know what to say- much enlightening conversation going on here.
Bart, I admire your demeanor. I have learned a great deal from you.
Aaron, Though we disagree, well, all the time minus one, it seems ;), I enjoy your take on things.
Bart: Please do not insult my intelligence. I know what you meant by your post to me and so do you.
Mark this down however, I will always stand by the person who helps one injured. Always. No exceptions. Wade is one of those who has vowed to help those who have been hurt. Now you can throw stones and use Bible verses out of context all you wish. I will however always, always always be on the side of the one unjustly hurt. In this case Sheri Klouda.
The lawsuit was her only recourse. Perhaps this will stop injustice by our own from happening, but I doubt it.
BTW SelahV: Having read some of your posts on other blogs an FYI, Sheri Klouda is not evil because she filed a lawsuit. She may be the only sane one in this whole mess.
selah,
you're far too young to be a great grandma.....far too young.
so, you're daughter has a baby, and your grand daughter has a baby...wow.
david
Everyone can argue who was right or wrong in this situation, but the fact remains that PP and SWBTS have been served. There still is time for PP and SWBTS to avoid this. Settle with Dr. Klouda, issue an apology and move on. But that would require humbling oneself and few believe PP is capable of that.
What is interesting to observe here is the focus placed on right vs. wrong. The emphasis on whether or not Dr. Klouda was right or wrong to file this suit.
From those who emphatically proclaim she was wrong, there is a strange silence when it comes to the issue of whether or not she was WRONGED in this whole affair. I, like Debbie, will choose the side of those offended, wrong, and taken advantage of.
And in this entire ordeal, why do I not hear any outcry at the lifestyle of PP? The outrageous expansion of Pecan Manor by PP? At the treatment of Dr. McKissic?
It is a sad day indeed when so many defend that which our Lord so strongly condemned.
Steve
Volfan: I'm not old enough to be a great grandma???? Someone needs to tell God. Cause I sure am. :)
Debbie: I'm sorry, hon. But I've gone back in all my posts and looked for where I called Dr. Klouda "evil". Can't find it. Would you do me the favor of coming to my blog and pointing that out to me? I did put a scripture passage from Psalms 23 on my post at What Matters that said "yea, though I walk through the shadow of the valley of death, I will fear no evil." But in that post I was pointing out reasons we fear and what evil can befall us when our fears are placed in the Shepherd's keeping instead of our own plans, intellect and others counsel apart from God. I was actually thinking of "anyone" who felt a need to "sue" or seek to defend themselves with a means other than scripturally-based means. David--the psalmist, repeatedly turned to God for his consolation, protection and provision. Israel was forever turning to others--secular kings, pharaohs and such because they (according to God), were stubborn, rebellious people. But I digress. You must know this.
I don't know Dr. Patterson. I don't know Dr. Klouda. I don't know Wade, Ben, Bart, Volfan or Matt, Tony, Les, Robin or anyone else in blogland. And to be honest, I don't know you very well either. But I can discern gentleness, love, kindness, patience, goodness, self-control, tolerance, joy and peace when I see it. And when those things are absent in a reproof, correction or exhortation, I find the fruit of the Spirit can do nothing in the way of reconciling individuals.
If I have ever treated you in a way which you feel I lacked in those areas, would you tell me? If I have treated anyone on this blog or any other blog with disrespect, can you point that out to me? If my words have offended you in any way at any time, Debbie, I apologize right now.
I stand on record of saying I disagree with this lawsuit and seeking damages for suffering. It reminds me of a quote I read the other day, "We feel and weigh soon enough what we suffer from others, but how much others suffer from us, of this we take no heed." Thomas Kempis--The Imitation of Christ.
There is enough suffering and hurt already without adding to it. I wish I had a million dollars to give Dr. Klouda to help her with her financial stress. But all I have is about 20 dollars till payday after I pay my bills today. I've been through firings from secular and church situations. Each one left us with incredible financial burdens. We lost our home, and our dignity. In each case we could have taken action against those people. We didn't. We found through our devastation and desert experiences that God is still faithful to His children. And He rewards those Who trust in Him. And from experience, I can tell you that those who raised their injustice against us, met their rewards, too. And they didn't wait till judgement day either. And I am so very grateful it wasn't due to anything we said or did that they reaped what they sowed.
I just wish Dr. Klouda would have given God a chance before she went before the world. That's all. I see no beauty in this. None. selahV
Debbie: Oh, I forgot, so if Klouda is the only sane one amongst us, I guess that means you disagree with Bart in his assessment of me:
"I've got to say, you are one of the sanest and most sagacious voices on the web." Correct? selahV :)
To quote somone else..
SelahV.. you get it!
You understand what it is to follow in the Masters footsteps.
1 Peter 2: 20 For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.
21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
1 Peter 4:19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.
Unfortunately modern day nicolaitans (those who ride in victory!)miss out on sooo much of God's grace now in their experience and the Lord's reward hereafter.
SelahV. I love your Christ likeness.
Can I recommend a book just newly released by Dick Maclellan, SIM and Gospel recordings Missionary to Ethiopia, Warriors of Ethiopia.
It is a Foxes Book of Martyrs on the lives of some unknown and never heard of Ethiopian evangelists martyred in their own country for the sake of the gospel. It makes one truly aware of what God's grace in suffering looks like. No more and no less than SelahV's and her husbands trials and glory in suffering.
Steve
JLG,
Glad to see there are some committed to the inerrent Word of God. Let's all stand up for "Do not forbid speaking in tonuges" (1 Corinthians 14.39), "Is anyone of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the pryaer offered in faith will make the ciker person well" (James 4.14-15), "Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine, because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses" (1 Timothy 5.23), and "Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishoners her head" (1 Corinthians 11.5). We are all glad to know that JLG stands firmly on the Word of God and defends the clear teaching of Scripture: speaking in tongues, drinking a little wine, women who prophesy with their head covered in worship, and anointing the sick with oil so that they may be healed.
Don't hit your head while doing "hermenutical gymnastics" to avoid these clear teachings.
Geesh, Grosey, my face is red. I do not count my fleabites of suffering worthy of company in the sufferings of martyrs. I just look at Paul and all he went through, the beatings, scourgings,imprisonments, shipwrecks and finally beheading and I consider myself pretty fortunate. My favorite book in the Bible is that of Job. His losses were monumental. His wife gets a bad rap sometimes because she told him to curse God and die, but she lost everything, too. Status, reputation, her children and grandchildren, wealth--everything. Then she was scorned, mocked and had to stand by and watch her husband go through similar rebuke of supposed friends and men of God. Combine both Job and his wife's sufferings and one still can't measure up to what Paul endured for the Savior. And he did that all in obedience and submissiveness to his Lord, so we could all find direction from his writings. And then we simply ignore them as if some lawyer in Washington wrote them as suggestions. I'm baffled. I'm no better than a maggot, myself. But for the grace of God, I'd live in torment forever with all the other worms that dieth not in the lake of eternal fire.
Bless you Grosey, can I get that book on Amazon? selahV
I am sorry SelahV, I actually don't know where you can buy it.
My copy came from a close friend of his (It was printed in January).
I once had Dick M preach for me while I was in the USA. I met an SBC misso there who asked if I had ever heard of Dick Mclellan. I said "of course, he's preaching for me right about now!"
The guy was amazed and told me Dick M would go down in the annals of missions as the greatest Missionary to Africa since David Livingstone.
Now I was amazed. I only knew him as a man who lived very very close to the Lord.
And I know that is all Dick wants to be.
At 75 he's back in Ethiopia right now.
Steve
Steve,
Curious- do you know both sides of the story? If you do, fill me in. I am unwilling to cast aspersions on a brother in Christ based on one persons account of what happened. The US Judicial system is even more gracious than that.
So, given the totality of knowledge in this case, do you feel that everyone possesses the right and good amount of knowledge to judge rightly? Could it be possible there is information that would change your mind (possibility does not have to mean liklihood or probability)?
Colin I assume you mean anonomous Steve and not me.
Steve
Yes sir, the anonymous bloke.
anonymous steve,
who are you? you really sound like a guy from texas that we all know.
david
Todd,
Thank you for the kind "complement" :0). Yes, I would most certainly hold to the inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, and sufficiency of the entirety of God's Word. However, I would not hold to the false interpretations of some (especially moderates, liberals, and charismatics) concerning a few of the verses that you referenced. God bless!!!
In Christ,
JLG
P.S. By the way, are you the same “Todd” that often attempts to justify the unscriptural, Neo-Pentecostal/Charismatic practice of “private prayer language”?
Wow. Well written in a calm spirit. Well documented as well.
Post a Comment