Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Informed Consent?

I pose two questions tonight. One looks backwards and has a definite answer. The other looks forwards and asks for prediction:

  1. Since 1925, have Southern Baptists ever elected anyone as President or Vice-President who has, as David Rogers has done, publicly stated and demonstrated that he is not in agreement with The Baptist Faith & Message?
  2. Will the nomination speech for David Rogers tomorrow afternoon make it clear to Southern Baptists that this is precisely what they are doing if they elect him as First Vice-President? In other words, will Rogers's nomination speech fairly disclose to the Southern Baptist Convention messengers that Rogers has publicly expressed disagreement with The Baptist Faith & Message, or will the nomination be an attempt to trick Southern Baptists into electing someone without their informed consent?
I'll not be available to interact much with the comments, but you are invited to give your answers to these two questions in the comment thread. Of course, those who would rather spin than answer are invited to do that in the comment stream as well.


joerstewart said...

As I show on my blog, the spin has already started. I think the answer to both questions is no. Do you ever sleep?

David Rogers said...

Just in case someone happens to read this post out of context, without comparing what I said in a comment on an earlier post, I copy my comment here as well:

As I have stated numerous times, the only disagreement I have with the BFM is with the following statement in the section on Baptism and the Lord's Supper:

"Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper."

My personal view on participation in the Lord's Supper is as follows:

"Upon presiding the Lord’s Supper, I would normally:

1. Explain that, as a Baptist church, we believe that biblical baptism is for believers and by immersion.

2. Explain that, at the same time, we understand there are other Christian groups who study the Bible seriously and come to other conclusions.

3. Explain that, we also believe the Lord’s Supper is a time for believers to examine themselves, to see if they have any unconfessed sin in their lives; and if so, to make it right with God, or with the one they have wronged, before participating.

4. Invite everyone who is truly a born again believer, and who, after examining themselves to see if they have any unconfessed sin in their life (including the sin of disobedience regarding the Lord’s command to be baptized), determine they have confessed and repented of all known sin, and/ or are not currently under discipline from their local congregation banning them from participation, to participate in the Lord’s Supper."

As I understand it, this is a view very, very close, if not identical to that taken by Charles H. Spurgeon.

It seems to me it is also a view that is either similar, or in the case of many, more strict, than that of many, if not most Southern Baptists and Southern Baptist congregations.

Although I completely agree with and embrace everything else in the BFM 2000, and thus have no problem conscience-wise in saying "I do not disagree with the BF & M," I, also, in good conscience, when asked to sign indicating my agreement with the BF & M, have signed with a note or "caveat," indicating my disagreement on this particular item. I feel, for me, this option is more honest than "carte blanche" signing off on everything indiscriminately.

Strider said...

It was the Pharasees, Scribes, and Lawyers who continually defined the rules of the game and then declared Jesus out of bounds. These two question leave no spin room for where your heart is Bart.

peter lumpkins said...


Why would you immediately bring Bart's heart into this? Cannot we have a healthy exchange without the notoriously grusome allusions to examination of a person's heart?

Bart--right or wrong--asserted David's public disagreement with the BF&M. This is a factual assertion that may be tested by empirical data. I suggest we keep it there.

Sorry, Bart. I realize this is your blog. I did not mean to over step my role as a fellow commenter with Strider.

Grace to you, my brother Strider. With that, I am...


Bart Barber said...

David & Strider,

I'll take that as a "no" to question #2?

As far as I am concerned, David, the speech might contain precisely the information you have given in response to this post and to others, nuanced however you might wish. I just think that it would be a great and forthright thing for Dr. Dykes to make known unto the Southern Baptist people before they cast their votes your disagreement with our confession of faith, however you would wish to characterize it.

The Milkman said...

David & others,

The appeal to Spurgeon, in my opinion, does not automatically validate anyone's disagreement with BF&M.

Lewis Drummond's biography on Spurgeon points out that CHS did not make such exceptions carte blanche. Non-baptized members had to convince him or his deacons that they should be allowed to partake & subsequent approval by the church leaders might or might not be granted. This exception would only be allowed a couple of times for any individual.

Further, Spurgeon also stated that if he were serving in an American church he would be more strict (which I took to mean he wouldn't allow exception.) It seems that the primary reasons CHS held to such practice was because his church had this policy, there were a huge number of paedo-baptists in London, and the Tabernacle was not exactly your average church in terms of regular attendance.

While it has been the practice of many Baptist pastors to open the communion table- it has always been a source on contention with their Baptist brethren. Spurgeon was booted out of association with Baptists in his day for his beliefs and practices. (I'm not condoning, necessarily, just making the statement)

Also, in his comment above David has only proven Bart's point about his disagreement with BFM. Whether you like it or not, Southern Baptists have passed the BFM as the tenents which we most assuredly hold. And no one is arguing that there shouldn't be latitude to believe and practice as you wish. But it makes little sense to hire or elect people who most assuredly do NOT agree with the confession adopted by the very convention in which they seek leadership or position.

Todd Pylant said...

The BFM states:

"We do not regard them as complete statements of our faith, having any quality of finality or infallibility. As in the past so in the future, Baptists should hold themselves free to revise their statements of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time....The sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the OT and NT. Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience."

It seems to me that it is authentically Baptist to question the BFM as it stands up to Scripture. Further, it seems to me that the BFM recognizes and affirms the right/responsibilty to question the conclusions of the BFM. The simple fact that the BFM was ammended in 2000 says that someone questioned it and disagreed with it. We didn't have a problem with dissent then.

cameron coyle said...

Well, Bart, I'm not the Baptist historian extraordinaire that you are, but I would strongly suspect that the answer to number 1 is no. I'm also not a prophet, but I have absolutely no expectation of hearing anything about the BFM in the nomination speech, or at least not anything about David's disagreement.

David, I just don't understand how you and others can plainly state your specific points of disagreement with the BFM and then turn right around and say something like "thus, I have no problem conscience-wise in saying 'I do not disagree with the BFM.'" It just makes no sense.

milkman said...

Sorry, I didn't answer the questions.

1) You're the Baptist History guru- but my guess is No

2) Ask Ben Cole. :) Just kidding- Sorry, I couldn't resist.


R. Grannemann said...

The authority people want to give a lengthy document voted on largely by people who had at most cursorily read it amazes me. It is rather the person who thinks it is never appropriate to question this man-made document that is not fit to lead our convention.

Pastor Brad said...

David and Bart,
I doubt very seriously that the messengers will learn anything more than that David has been a faithful missionary and is the son of Adrian Rogers. As both, I honor David and thank God for his father.
However, for David's political backers and advisers well know, honesty about any caveats with the BFM would be suicidal. That the BFM was approved by the convention states that they view none of these as tertiary and open to caveats from denominational employees. I am amazed at the mindset that any one individual can determine for himself which are tertiary and which are not when those whose giving supports them have already spoken to the subject.
It is flatly dishonest to the people who write the checks in the pews for denominational employees to sign with any caveats.
That said, I believe the universal draw of the Rogers name will overpower the regional draw of Jim Richards, as Cole, Burleson, et al shrewdly understood.

Anonymous said...

pastor brad,

do all those in the pews writing checks know the ins and outs of the BFM?

How many of your church members really get worked up about the distinctions of closed/close/modified close/open communion (without your prompting)?

Yes, SBC polity says that the SBC believes something because the professionals said so in their meeting. Yes, it can be used as a hammer to make sure only true SBC folk lead or serve SBC entities.

Using the same measure, the SBC does not have integrity taking CP money from pseudo-SBC churches.

I sometimes wonder if SBC clergy live in a vacuum.


Pastor Brad said...

I am far outside the vacuum of SBC life. To answer your questions:
(1) none of my church people get worked up about these distinctions because three years ago most of them were or still are unsaved and I am still in the process of discipling them. Open/closed communion is not on the top of that list, but that does not make it unimportant. Beyond that, your question misses the point entirely.
(2) the SBC is made up of the messengers of the churches, not simply ministerial professionals. Again, this misses the point.
(3) the CP receives funds from any church that chooses to send them. It is not an issue of integrity. No church is forced into sending funds.
So here is the point you keep missing: Baptist polity is that the church is autonomous. The church can send any messengers she wishes or can send none at all if she chooses, just as you can chose to vote in the '08 elections or not at all. What you cannot do is not vote and then complain about the result. If churches do not let the voice of the people in their pews be heard, it is not the fault of the system, but of the church. And they have no right to complain that they are disenfranchised. For instance, I am not at the convention, nor are any messengers from our church, because we could not afford to travel from NY to San Antonio, but that is our problem. Further, if they choose to send funds to the CP, that is their choice.
That is the point you are missing.

selahV said...

Hello Todd, I'm selahV. No one that really matters all that much. Just a pewsitting lady in Oklahoma. You said, "It seems to me that it is authentically Baptist to question the BFM as it stands up to Scripture."

that's okay, in my book, so how does Dr. Rogers interpret whatever portion the BF&M states tht he doesn't agree with as it stands up to scripture? Can he at least tell the Covention that before a vote is called? selahV

Anonymous said...

I understand Baptist polity. I even affirm it wholeheartedly. ;)

I still have to chuckle at your idealistic view of the yearly convention.

Those tiny churches pastored by bivocational pastors in Appalachia sure are a voting bloc to be reckoned with aren't they. ;)

I understand this quest for a return of pure, undefiled Baptist identity, well at least the Anabaptist, er, authentic version.

Look, my point is simple. If the message becomes more and more send us your money, but since you don't agree with every jot and tittle of secondary doctrines of the BFM, we do not want your service or your people, you will see some exodus of churches, or at the very least, less entry of new churches.

I understand that is fine with some. I believe Dr. Barber commented many months ago that a smaller SBC might not be a bad thing. I have to agree that a much smaller SBC built on conformity would be a lot healthier than what you have today.

Is that what the people in the pew writing the checks are really expecting?


Rebecca Illingworth said...

I am not a baptist church historian either. However, I love the church, and, oddly enough, baptist polity. Here's my prediction: (1) I doubt Southern Baptist have elected anyone to serve in this capacity that didn't affirm the BF&M. (2) I doubt Mr. Rogers' disagreement with the BF&M will be made known in the nomination acceptance speech.

And that would be deceitful. Do Baptists care? This one does. This is simple. Caveats simply say, "I disagree". This caveat is over the TWO ORDINANCES GIVEN TO THE LOCAL CHURCH. The local SBC church has authority over its members only, making the "open communion" argument mute.

Employees of our convention and its affiliates, should affirm the BF&M or move on. There are religious organizations that hold no measuring rod at all, leaving no one out.

Pastor Brad said...

We Southern Baptists have the worst administrative system in the world, except all the others :).
My simple question to you is, so what is your solution?
Shall we not meet at an annual convention because not all can be there? Remember, I am one of those poor pastors. Maybe we should have a convention solely by blog so everyone can attend...but then you would be excluding the old, those in rural areas, those too poor for internet service...
Shall we simply make no confessions so as not to exclude anyone? Or should we let anyone and everyone lead simply because they give to CP?
Or would you prefer that we set up an elaborate screening process of all funds that are given, where each church is investigated so as to determine if they are truly in line with the BFM 2000? I'm sure that wouldn't eat up too much of the missions money. Or should we not encourage churches to give to the COOPERATIVE Program? Then there would be no one to cooperate with.
Hmmm...seems to me that the system we have, while imperfect, is better than that. Or do you have other proactive ideas?
But then again I'm the idealist, not the realist, right? So what is your realistic solution, my brother? Chuckle away.

Anonymous said...


Your statement is misleading. Your statement that David disagrees with the BF&M is misleading. It could lead the casual reader to infer that he rejects it completely. In the interest of dispelling confusion, I think that you should consider rephrasing your statement regarding David's belief in the future. As you like to say, let David's words speak for themself.

A Simple Student @ SWBTS

Anonymous said...

1) Many Sub-regional convention sites across the country. If multi-site is good enough for churches...

2) Massive, massive, massive education effort for new church members of Baptist distinctives so that everyone knows clearly what they are signing on for. I can't tell you how many times I've heard "I'm a member of a SBC church" versus "I'm a Southern Baptist". I can also tell you that the large and mega churches are not selling Baptist distinctives. They are selling Evangelical with a capital E.

3) Recommendation to encourage churches to do away with church letters. This ties back to #2 and to the issue of who the church can commune with. We seem to have a problem with offering communion to all believers, with Biblical instruction, emphasizing the strong warning to the Corinthian church, yet we freely and excitedly extend a hand of fellowship to the malcontent from the Baptist church down the street.

4) Understand that a much smaller SBC is the only solution to the problems that ail us. You don't need a Lifeway research paper to let you know a megachurch in Missouri will not have the same emphasis on distinctives that a medium church in Georgia will have. I'm a member of a Missouri mega and the only two times I've heard the term BFM is when I've said it, and when a staff member suggested it was too boring a subject to teach (back to #2 again).

5) Massive, massive, massive educational effort to the laity about the issue of CP and the relationship with the BFM and doctrinal accountability. I think many of the people in the pews writing the checks need to clearly hear that their money is good, yet their service is not.

This would specifically answer your question:
Or should we let anyone and everyone lead simply because they give to CP?

Of course the answer is no. Just clearly communicate that to the member of the pseudo-SBC church before they write the check.


Pastor Brad said...

I thought you said you were a realist?
So you would be in favor of liturgical requirements before we allow people to give to our churches?
You think, given how complex the convention is now, it would be feasible to have multiple regional satellite conventions?
Mike, that's not simply idealistic, it's unfeasible.

We agree that church letters are often abused and that pastors need to do a better job of educating their people about the beliefs that are baptist/biblical and about the CP. As a pastor, I seek to do just that. As a layperson, I believe I would find another church if mine thought these were too boring to teach on.

Anonymous said...

I did say recommend and reeducate. No denominational hierarchy for me thank you! Again, Baptist polity...I get it! ;)

I believe that I'm simply restating one of Dr. Barbers suggestions that Southern Baptists need to be reeducated about Baptist distinctives. I believe he said that many, many, many Southern Baptist churches are more Evangelical than Baptist. OK, I added the extra manys for effect.

I believe that in today's (not 1845) church environment, if the Baptist distinctives are pushed so as to exclude people from leadership based on what many (majority?) churches practice, you'll see churches more directly opting for Evangelical versus Baptist identity.

That may be fine. I know many believe that would be great.

Just make sure people understand (re-edumacate!) the implications of this identity crackdown before they write the check.

As the illustrious daughter of a pastor mentioned, there are plenty of God glorifying missions organizations to fund and staff.

Per your multisite issues...

I believe on the convention feed I heard it can take up to 5 years to plan a convention due tothe facility and accomodations restraints. Doncha think a solid technology solution, hosted by several (cooperating, yet autonomous!) megachurches could be devised in less than 5 years?


Debbie Kaufman said...

Bart: This is dirty politics, the same thing Paige Patterson is doing right this moment as I type. Either be truthful or say nothing at all. This is not politics, this is about Christ, or at least it should be and frankly this is getting ridiculous. At least Paige admits he's a Baptist Separatist. At least he's honest in that.

Debbie Kaufman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pastor Brad said...

Evangelical has become meaningless. So, if I or others are forced to chose between Evangelical or Baptist, I agree that many may depart, and that is a tragic consequence of the ecumenism of the last several decades. This points to the very reason it is important to clearly define and hold the standard of who we are as Baptists, even Baptist separatists as Dr. Patterson said (sorry Debbie). I'm okay with that because I believe Baptist and biblical to be synonymous. If I didn't I wouldn't be Baptist.
Further, it is not an identity crackdown, it is an identity preservation.

I guess we now know the answer to question 2. His disagreements were vaguely defended to the informed in such a way that the uniformed would be unaware. Ben is truly a brilliant writer. It is yet to be seen if the messengers were informed or cared. By the way, I think it took about 60 seconds for the "His father, Adrian Rogers, was also my hero...but I don't want you to vote for him because of who his father is. **wink wink**" line.

Anonymous said...


I think it is, in your terms, dirty politics, to use David Dykes, a Pastor respected for his churches tremendous support for missions, as the nominator. It is hard for me to believe Pastor Dykes truly knows what he is supporting or the people he is associating with by making this nomination.

It is obvious that David's father's name will cause many to cast votes for him for no other reason than respect for his father.

If I were a messenger that did not know the bacground on this vote, I would cast my vote for David based on David Dykes nomination and on David Rogers heritage. That is precisely the tack that Ben and Wade have taken.

It is the hope of winning the vote by misleading that is 'dirty politics'.

Steve Allen

P.S. I used to respect David for his ability to stay above the fray through his comments and blog posts. However once he compeletely jumped in bed with Ben and Wade with no reservations, I completely lost all respect.

A word to David R...you are being used and just as you apparently were able to get Wade to see his error in supporting the NBC, I too urge you to reconsider who you are dealing with. I hope you will, for your sake.

Pastor Brad said...

I think it is far too strong to have lost all respect for David. I disagree with him. I disagree with those he has aligned with. I don't think his position should be advanced within the SBC. But I have great respect for any 20 yr. missionary.

Debbie Kaufman said...

Steve: Who he's dealing with are men that Lord the Lord Jesus Christ and the freedom that that brings and they are tired of all the behind closed doors, dirty politics.Christ is. Doctrinal purity isn't.

Anonymous said...

To your #1 question:

Publicly, no.

I can, however think of one recent elected convention official whose church does not practice close/closed communion. I know this because I am a former member.

The kicker is that he was "annointed" at one of those famous preacher conferences, and nominated by one of the "kingmakers".

He was also a loyal soldier in the CR.

Apparently not loyal enough!

Debbie Kaufman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pastor Brad said...

68% Richardson
32% Rogers
I wonder if we now have a new poll on how Southern Baptists view PPL? I cannot imagine any other reason that someone named Rogers would lose that election.
Am I missing a factor? How do you see the Lifeway PPL study in light of this vote?

Ron P. said...

Praise God! Praise God! Praise God! Our messengers have spoken clearly tonight!

Ron P.

Rebecca Illingworth said...

Pastor Brad, am I understanding that we have a result of the vote?

Rebecca Illingworth said...

Never mind . . . I see it on the SBC blog spot.

Ron, you've voiced my sentiment exactly. Praise God, our messengers have spoken clearly.

For whoever is reading here . . . do not misunderstand me. I support our foreign missionaries. My kids served for two years in Russia, and are making the educational preparation to serve elsewhere. But this is simple. Baptists trust those called to foreign service, supported by the SBC, funded by the Cooperative Program, and placed by the International Mission Board to support the SBC doctrinally.

Bart Barber said...

Obviously, the results please me.

Anonymous said...

Pastor Brad,

You are correct and I should not have used the word 'all'. I too appreciate David's service in Spain. Let me rephrase that I have lost a great deal of respect, but you were right to correct me.

Thank you for that.

Steve Allen

Ron P. said...


I too wholeheartedly support our missionaries. My church has many missionaries that are on the field. My son has been called to be a missionary.

However, I want our SBC missionaries to support our doctrinal beliefs as Baptists, which I believe are Biblical beliefs. I would not be in the SBC if I did not believe we are the most Biblical, Christ centered denomination. We rightly expect the employees of our SBC, and most especially our missionaries, to hold to those beliefs that we hold dear and make us unique as Baptists.

FYI... I am watching the SBC live, and they just voted on the BFM resolution. President Page ruled the vote too close (though he said he believes he is sure which way the messengers voted) and has called for a ballot.

I may be wrong, but from his expression, I believe it will be defeated.

Though I disagree with Wade's interpretation of it, he and others would use the resolution for the purpose of not allowing Trustees to make any doctrinal stand other than the BFM. Someon (I think Robin Foster, but not sure) argued that doctrinal issues such as IMB not allowing divorced people to serve as missionaries would be revoked, even though the majority of SBC church's practice this based on scriptural interpretation of the qualification of pastors.

I would have to disagree with Bart on this one, but only because of the spin that would be used on this.

Ron P.

Anonymous said...


Your post to me is a little cryptic. Maybe it is me, but I don't understand all of it. Then again maybe you were posting as the vote was announced and you got flustered.

:) (there is my little smiley face like Wade that makes all posts ok)

Steve Allen

Ron P. said...

Based on Bart's post, I was wrong on reading Franks facial expression. He said the BFM resolution passed.

The spin will be coming.

Ron P.

Rebecca Illingworth said...

Ron, I agree. Our doctrinal beliefs that are baptist are Biblical. When someone disputes my baptist beliefs, they are simply disputing the Bible. That's the way I see it.

Debbie Kaufman said...

I'm going to take a deep breath, ok now, steve Allen, I have proof on what I say, do you? I believe I can vouch for my credit as can others. It however does take away from credit when you pounce on Adrian Rogers son and even without him being Adrian's son, just the fact that David has been nothing but gracious and honest in the midst of well.....let's just say the word lies.

This conference is on glorifying God, repentance and revival through the power of the Holy Spirit. Tell me how is all of this rhetoric that both you Steve's are spouting glorifying God or heading toward revival?

David didn't have to talk to you, he did it because he is a man of integrity as well as gracious. More gracious than I would be to you. To his credit. I don't think standing between you two and your arrows is anything new but it does make me credible.

As for Ben. That's an old question that I have recently answered on my blog, but I guarantee, you won't like the answer. And are you saying that since you think Ben is so wrong that gives you the right to be ? Quit using Ben as an excuse to write what you do. It's a poor excuse. Besides, where is that in scripture?

Debbie Kaufman said...

Rebecca: Just that statement alone is not only wrong but Unbiblical.

Pastor Brad said...

If you don't think baptist theology is biblical theology, then I hate to ask an obvious question, but why are you one?

Rebecca Illingworth said...

Pastor Brad, you read my mind before I could respond to Debbie. It's a good question.

selahv said...

Debbie: which of Rebecca's Baptist beliefs are not Biblical?
I take it you are at odds with the word "my" in her comment, correct?

If not, what are the Baptist beliefs that you see are unbiblical? sincerely yours, selahV

Debbie Kaufman said...

Rebecca: Your statement puts Baptist beliefs on the same level as the Bible. The Bible is infallible and inerrant, we are not. Not even Baptists.

Debbie Kaufman said...

I am Southern Baptist because I do believe that the BFM comes closest to what scripture teaches, but I would never be so arrogant as to say that if you disagree with Baptist beliefs you are disagreeing with the Bible. Both are not inerrant nor infallible.

Debbie Kaufman said...

Selah: Did my answers to Rebecca and Brad answer yours too. I know it sounds nit picky, but I don't believe it is.

Rebecca Illingworth said...

Insert whichever word you prefer: "my" baptists beliefs, "our" baptists beliefs, "their baptists beliefs. It doesn't change the message.

Baptists beliefs are distinctive. Unlike any other denomination. After reading the baptists blogs for a year or more, I understand a few do not hold to that statement.

However, the messengers have spoken tonight, once again, and we can confirm. Baptists have distinctive beliefs/doctrines that make us baptist. Those beliefs/doctrines are biblical doctrine. For baptists, the only doctrine that has any authority is biblical doctrine. Why would we want anything less? The BF&M is but a guideline, based on biblical doctrine of areas that baptists hold dear. It really is quite simple. However, after reading statements and blogs and arguments, a few seem to hold "baptist" as a bad word. Are you not proud to be a baptist?

You can read the blogs for yourself. Debbie, you have used Bart's blog as a forum today for banging on your pulpit, talking about the love of Christ, take a look at the things you have written! The part that really leaves me stumped, however, is that you've acknowledged although you are disappointed, God's will has been done. ??

On that, we can agree.

Rebecca Illingworth said...

Dear Debbie, I do believe that the Holy Spirit can teach us His infallible Word. Even though we are but sinners, (Baptists ones), saved by grace, the Holy Spirit can speak the truth of His Word to us.

The question is, is it possible for our denomination to accurately portray what the Word of God has said about the church? About the function and role of the church? About the ordinances of the local church? OF COURSE WE CAN! God's Word is not hiding anything in this area. God wants us to know what He has to say in this regard. But we have an enemy that stays in the fight. It would be terribly conflicting if we did not have that assurance that God's Word can be known.

That isn't arrogance, my friend. Arrogance is demanding unity at the sacrifice of truth! IMHO :)

selahV said...

Debbie: yep~~sincerely yours, selahV :)

Anonymous said...


You miss my point, and the same point others have made with you. You take to task others about HOW they speak to Ben or Wade, but I do not see you take either Ben or Wade to task about HOW they speak of or to others. That is the point you continue to avoid.

Wade's posts and most comments have become sophomoric (i.e. his latest on what is funny), yet I don't see you admonishing him for the WAY he conducts himself.

Rebecca said "Debbie, you have used Bart's blog as a forum today for banging on your pulpit, talking about the love of Christ, take a look at the things you have written!"

I could not have said it better myself...

Steve Allen

Alycelee said...

BART-well quite the comment stream going on here. Interesting. We have "the people have spoken" forum, the "question the nomination of David Rogers" (not the election mind you,) but the nomination, how dare our brother nominate David and not publicly address his disagreements with BFM, and yet Pastor Brad wholeheartly endorses the nomination speech of " He's one of us, He's one of us, He's one of us." Yes sir, that get's me going.
I voted yes on the BFM, Bart.
I also voted yes on your motion because I'm just the 'full disclosure kinda girl'.
In fact, in days to come, I predict much more disclosure to be forthcoming.

I loved Dr. Hunts call to prayer and repentence. I love the young pastors call to tear down our idols.
I enjoyed meeting you and as much as I disagree with you (and I oft do) , I find you warm, engaging, friendly and sincere.

After the SWBTS report (NOT) I found myself somewhat discouraged-UNTIL
I began to sing "How Great is our God, sing with me, how great is our God." just the mention of Gods name and the mention of His greatness filled me once again with great hope.
Some trust in horses, some in chariots.
Not me, I Trust in the name of the LORD, my God.
Blessings to you.

OKpreacher said...


I'm very concerned about the results of the VP race this year. I have seen posts saying that the messengers spoke up for Baptist conviction when electing Jim Richards.

This isn't about who won or who lost, but what I heard messengers say was, "we don't care who is the VP." Less than half of the messengers voted. That is pitiful! Why come to the convention if you're not going to vote?

So David and Jim, I'm sorry to say, but over half of this year's convention didn't care about your running for VP enough to even vote.

This apathy should concern us all.


Rebecca Illingworth said...

OK Preacher, perhaps some you were observing were not messengers. For instance, my church had more individuals attend than we had messengers. Just an observation.

Anonymous said...


There are over 8 thousand messengers registered at the convention. The vote counts show that most messengers don't care enough to submit a ballot.


Rebecca Illingworth said...

I see. That is a shame and disappointing. I hope to attend next year.