Sunday, April 13, 2008

Les Puryear Follow Up

C. B. Scott, Kevin Bussey, Rob Ayers, and a whole host of people have opined that my post before last about Les Puryear was out-of-bounds. These are all good Christian gentlemen, and I'm praying over the matter. Allow me to state the following ad interim:

  1. It is pretty obvious at this point that Les is going to run. C. B. indicated in a comment on the earlier post that he had confirmed independently that Les plans to run. I think that's great (so long as he doesn't win). Go for it, Les. Anybody who wishes to do so ought to be able to run for SBC office. But when you run, you place upon Southern Baptists the obligation to figure out who you are and evaluate you as a candidate. That's what I've been trying to do. If I were not extremely confident that Les is going to run, I would not have posted this stuff.
  2. Les and I obviously have our theological differences, and I have a reservation or two about Les as the leader of the SBC. I'll be voting contrariwise. I was pretty candid in stating that, but no more candid than people have been about Ronnie Floyd or Al Mohler. My objections to Les as the leader of the SBC do not equate to reservations about Les as a person, Christian, or pastor. In fact, among our candidates running right now, Les would be my #2 choice.
  3. I think that politics is a good thing. When Southern Baptists abandon politics, the bureaucracy takes over. Just like when Southern Baptist churches abandon the "politics" of business meetings, the staff takes over. I think that much of what people took as insulting in the previous post was merely my pointing out that Les is working politically. I don't consider that to be an insult. I'm working politically. I work politically a lot. I believe that it is important to do so. I believe that we have an obligation and a duty to do so. I concede that this point makes me something of an odd duck among Southern Baptists. Everyone else seems to love to be political while pretending that they are not. I think that's duplicitous, and needlessly so. The SCLC was clearly political (not solely political, but politics played a role), but that doesn't make it a bad thing.
  4. Given what seems to be the blogging consensus that I've said too much about the Puryear candidacy, I make this pledge: I'll not publish any more posts about Les's candidacy for SBC President between now and Indianapolis.

So, Les can have his announcement without further comment from moi. If I have misrepresented Les, he can clear the air however he sees fit. Differences aside, I believe him to be a good and honorable man. I just don't think he would make a good presiding officer over the SBC. But then neither would I.

83 comments:

CB Scott said...

Bart,

I believe you are political. You do not have to prove that to me. So am I. We take to it like a dog to a hambone. Therefore, I thank you for not denying it and thus bringing me to call you a liar.

I also believe you to be an honest man. It is that which makes you an "odd duck" and not the fact you are political.

All people are political. Some just choose to lie about it.

Now, that we have cleared the air about who is and who is not political I want to ask you a question. Depending on how you answer that question will present the degree of the war we are going to have. Is that fair?

Here is the question;

Did you know before they declared to run that Al Mohler, Ronnie Floyd, Johnny Hunt, Frank Page, Frank Cox, Bill Wagner and others were going to be in the race for the position of president of the SBC?

I hope you will answer this and I know you don't mind a little war from time to time, because, as you said; You are political. :-)

cb

Bart Barber said...

CB,

1. Mohler: Yes.
2. Floyd: No.
3. Hunt. No.
4. Page. No.
5. Cox. Suspected.
6. Wagner. No.

The "no" responses indicate that those candidacies were a complete surprise to me. As to Cox, I had heard rumors that there would be a candidate, with several names as possibilities, his among them. I wasn't sure who would be the one until he announced, just like I wasn't sure about Les until his "next week" comment.

Mohler I knew about beforehand (as did the entire blogosphere, I suppose, and Mohler received substantial negative attention before he ran, such as the critiques of his "anger").

And that's the truth.

[Pulls down visor. Raises lance. Prepares to receive initial stunning blow.]

Dave Miller said...

Bart, I disagree with one thing you said. You said you were unsuited to be president of the SBC.

I think I probably disagree with you about much convention business (not that much, but some stuff).

But I would vote for you.
If I get to go to the convention next year, I may nominate you, with or without your permission.

Then I will nominate CB for First Vice-President.

CB Scott said...

OK, Bart,

I take you at your word and it is true that Al Mohler was taking 'hits' before he was announced.
He took some hard ones and I think we both might agree some of them were unfair.

I think you were unfair to Les by hitting him before he was announced.

Once he is announced he would have been fair game for all except those who would just be out to attack his character.

You opened up on Les because you said you wanted to get the "scoop" on anyone else.

You also challenged him as an Antinomian. I admitted that I had thoughts like that, but those thoughts were generated from one blog fight. Bart, I feel it is a little lacking to go after a guy's theological disposition because of what he may say in a heated blog fight. Especially do I think that due to the way some of us were throwing heavy armaments at him during that little set two.

I think it would have been better for you to have asked him for an interview and then broached the Antinomian question, but I realize that is hind sight so what is done is done. You may or may not want to respond to these two things and maybe they matter very little now.

Now, what I most want to ask you is about what I really think is your problem with Les and any bid he may make to serve as president of the SBC.

I believe you are against Les as president because you say he has a strong link to what Peter has coined as "Enid."

What evidence do you have that Les is so connected with Enid and if he is what is so very wrong with that?

I think you should answer this one and if you cannot illustrate what is Les' connection with Enid and what is so very wrong with Enid, then I think you are wrong to say the things you have about Les and you owe both Les and Enid an apology.

cb

Dave Miller said...

The biggest problem with Enid is that it is in Oklahoma.

Anonymous said...

Bart,

Thanks for the follow up. And, I appreciate your concession--if "concession" is an appropriate term--to those who questioned your post.

Know I am not among those who insist you crossed legitimate boundaries to post about the possibility of Les being nominated for SBC President.

Even our brother CB, who stands tall in admitting Aristotle's dictum of the undeniable "political animal" we all inevitably are, blinks by failing to observe what you clearly state and about which Les explicitly made known:

"The SCLC was clearly political (not solely political, but politics played a role)..."

Three times I think I may have quoted Les' own reasoning that the gathering of the Conference was, at least in part, to discover strategies for small church involvement into the arena of SBC polity. I do not think anyone who has taken exception to your post thus far has acknowledged Les' words about the political aspect of the Conference.

Not that I am suggesting that the sole reason--nor surely the chief reason--for the Conference was such. But then again, neither did you. Which is why I remain puzzled about the continued outcry of "foul ball" when you even so much as mention politics.

"In addition, CB further mentions that "I think you were unfair to Les by hitting him before he was announced. Once he is announced he would have been fair game for all..."

My question is, how does it constitute unfairness to speculate on a potential candidate's run for office? And, if so, to speculate on either his weaknesses or strengths? Suppose your post would have offered an entirely different scenario.

Suppose, for example, you would have posted something like this:

I've been thinking a lot lately. I really think Les Puryear would make a great candidate for President of the SBC. He's smart, a great writer, well connected, a good man and he carries with him a passion for the small Church in the SBC. Someone should step forward and nominate Les Puryear for President.

Would any one who's scolded you for playing politics in speculating about Les' nomination stepped to the microphone and given you a tongue thrashing for talking politics? Or, in CB's words "think you were unfair to Les by [stroking] him before he was announced."? Personally I don't think Micah, Kevin, CB and others would hardly have employed the same objections toward your playing politics with Les.

Finally, while I agreed with your original post in principle, not thinking you overstepped your obligations to fairness, I unfortunately must register my disagreement now with your stated decision:

"I make this pledge: I'll not publish any more posts about Les's candidacy for SBC President between now and Indianapolis."

From my perspective, this is an unnecessary overreach and denies many of us a sober voice to consider as we head toward Indy in June. It really saddens me to know your view will be absent.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

Anonymous said...

CB,

I saw your comments on the other thread, my brother. I thought I'd bing it over here. Nor do I want you to think I'm ignoring you. I think the note I left for Bart may strike up some exchange perhaps.

Grace, always. With that, I am...

Peter

P.S. I trust your service was great this morning and you preached with power...

CB Scott said...

Bart,

I must agree with Peter that for you to say you shall cease to speak about the possibility of Les running for president is; How did he say it? Oh, yeah; "an unnecessary overreach."

Bart, now is the time to interview Les. Now is the time to express you concerns to him and let him answer for himself your accusation of Antinomianism among other things. Now is the time to ask him to speak for himself about all things Enid.

Give Les the same courtesy Peter extended to Frank Cox. Let him stand flat footed like a brother and a man and answer the questions. Give him a fair opportunity to state his positions and then grant him the same grace granted to Frank Cox and others. If he sticks to his word then applaud him. If not then bury him, but above all, give him a fair hearing.

Peter,

For you to unveil my use of Aristotle, again, brings my attention to the fact you are no run-of-the-mill country boy fresh from cleaning the chicken house. Why don't you offer to interview Les. Use the same courteous demeanor you used when you interviewed Frank Cox. Since it was you who coined the use of the word "Enid" to describe dragons in our midst, why don't you ask Les about his relationship to the fire breathing Oklahomans who drink blood, dance on graves and howl at the moon?

cb

CB Scott said...

Peter,

BTW, I noticed you have posted a picture of Wade, Ben, Paul and Les over on your blog.

I posted a little idea for you over there, but since you may not get to it over there I will present it here also.

Let's you, me and Vol have our picture made together and call it:

REDNECK RENDEZVOUS :-)

cb

Anonymous said...

CB,

I could not think of a better caption for us, my brother. I hope we get that pic in Indy and I'll post it with the stated title :^|

As for the interview, I would surely not be opposed to one. And I think the antinomian question is a good one to pursue but may not even be the best. For me, I think a better pursuit might be either:

a) Will the real Les Puryear please stand up (when it comes to supporting Enid or boldly proclaiming Enid's main character--a.k.a., Wade Burleson--is not fit for the Trustee Board)

b) Will the Real Les Puryear please stand up (when it comes to "I am middle-of-the-road" or "I am in no shape, form or fashion middle-of-the-road and to suggest such is a mistake")
c) "I am becoming more and more amenable to infant baptism"

Out of all the options above, for my money, the biggest turnoff from grassroots Baptists would be the "amenable to infant baptism statement. That, in my view, is a definite no-no.

Thus, really I don't think I'm the one to do the interview. In fact, at this stage, as you know, that's probably already planned. I'd guess Micah Fries will do the interview UNLESS nominating Les as well would prevent such.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

Wade Burleson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wade Burleson said...

Peter,

In August 2006, nearly two years ago, Les Puryear made the statement about me that you reference above. Les had fallen into the trap that catch a few people, like you Peter, who make the mistake of making assessments regarding me without having ever met me, spoken to me, or even related to me in ministry. That was the case for Les in August 2006.

We have since met, and Les has apologized for his statements, hence, the picture of Les, me, my father and Ben Cole, taken in 2007, that you posted on your blog. Les displays the characteristics of an honorable man. Les does not agree with everything I say or write, nor should he, but you will not find him anymore making statements about character or prejudging people before he meets them or builds a relationship with them.

Even then, Les understands the nature of cooperation among conservative Bible-believing evangelicals who disagree on tertiary issues

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Burleson,

I am perfectly aware that the statement was made in August, 06--at least that's the date I'm gathering it was publicly stated that he "repented" of the error of his way.

Second, I'm glad Les met you since then and you say Les' public confession that he was duped about you was itself a part of being duped--duped in a sort of dupedness, I suppose. Is this what you are saying?

I'm also wondering, Mr. Burleson, if Les ever publicly confessed he was under the influence of false perception when he confessed being duped; thus, confessing once again he was duped about being duped about you. I don't know. Now you've got me all confused, dad-gum-it!

Third, Mr. Burleson, you write "Les had fallen into the trap...like you Peter, who make the mistake of making assessments regarding me without having ever met me, [etc]..."

I did not know I--nor anyone else, for that matter--needed to meet anyone face to face before giving them a fair hearing for words written.

Granted, it may assist. But to make void a proper assessment, as you appear to suggest, Mr. Burleson, is much too overstated.

Taken as a rule of thumb, that'd mean I could never read an article, a book, an essay, a commentary, an editorial with an eye either to be encouraged or especially to engage. I've met only a microscopic sampling of those who've written those things I read.

And, given your undying allegiance to say, Dr. Voluminous, Mr. Burleson, I cannot see how you could apply your principle of assessment with any consistency whatsoever.

You are correct: I've never met you. But I do not need to meet you to weigh your words with a reasonable degree of certainty.

Finally, Mr. Burleson, your words are indicative of Enid's consistent but quasi-baptistic moorings:

"Les understands the nature of cooperation among conservative Bible-believing evangelicals who disagree on tertiary issues"

In our present discussions, Mr. Burleson, we're not concerned with "conservative Bible-believing evangelicals" generally but Southern Baptists particularly.

Enid confuses the two. All Southern Baptists (as a group) are evangelicals but not all evangelicals are Southern Baptists. Enid wishes Southern Baptists to drink from the spring where CBFers draw water: women as pastors, for example. Something explicitly contrary to the BF&M.

If that is the cooperation you suggest Les Puryear advocates, I do not hesitate to inform you that you may have just signed your own candidate's death certificate pertaining to election.

I trust your evening well. With that, I am...

Peter

Bart Barber said...

C.B.,

1. I don't know of any hard-and-fast rule about waiting for the announcement. Also, I didn't post anything until Les was hinting pretty doggone strongly over at his site. This seems to be the major rub for people—that I beat Les to the punch. Certainly, after this reaction, I'll only do so again if I deliberately want a little war.

2. I haven't interviewed any of the other candidates. In fact, I've never interviewed anyone for my blog. I'm too self-centered to think that people would want to read about anyone other than me. :-)

3. What's wrong with "Enid"? Uh.... Have you ever read any of my blog? :-) Enid is the Gatlinburg Gang in a new suit and with updated terminology.

Wade Burleson said...

Peter Lumpkins,

Please receive this comment with the grace in which it is intended. You write:

If that is the cooperation you suggest Les Puryear advocates, I do not hesitate to inform you that you may have just signed your own candidate's death certificate pertaining to election.

Peter, I am making a request of you, realizing you may choose to ignore it. I do think that honoring my request would be helpful for all involved, particularly the cooperative efforts of the SBC. If it is possible, I would ask that you refrain from assumptions when you write, and only declare something as fact when you know it to be true.

Let me illustrate by pointing out some errors in your comment above. First, I have never advocated Les Puryear do anything. Other than seeing him at the Convention last year, I have never even spoken to him or received an email from him or sent one to him. Second, though Les would make a good President, he is not my candidate. Finally, it seems as if you believe that associating Les Puryear with me will make people not vote for him. In the circles in which you fellowship, that may be true. However, there are other circles of fellowship within the SBC that may think differently than you. Regardless, I think you ought to give Les the courtesy of a phone call before you make assumptions about his candidacy, his endorsers, and his platform.

Blessings,

Wade

P.S. Bart, there will come a day when you too will recognize that conservative, Bible-believing, Christ-honoring Southern Baptists might not see eye to eye with you on interpretations of the sacred text. Unlike the 'Gatlinburg Gang' of old, those with whom you wish to joust today are inerrantists and make no apologies for a high view of the Word of God. We just don't wish to fight about our interpretations, and cooperate with those who disagree. Cooperation seems to me to be the essence of the SBC.

peter lumpkins said...

Mr. Burleson,

As I said, I need not meet you nor anyone else to engage words. That, of course, includes playing your oft mentioned game of "did you call?"

Were I making moral charges against either you or Les, Mr. Burleson, you very well could have a point.

As it is, however, I think I will continue to write as I have been, offering my comments about matters I deem worthy whether or not Enid happens to approve.

I do hope you understand even if you do not agree.

With that, I am...

Peter

Dave Miller said...

I can see the genesis of Wade's comments towards Peter, who has engaged in a campaign of innuendo and character assassination against him.

The "Enid" phrase, which has gained some blogosphere popularity, is a textbook study in demonization.

However, I am not sure I understand Wade's antipathy toward Bart. I have disagreed with and debated Bart, and have seen him in debate with Wade and others. Generally, I find him a model of how debate should be taking place. He states opinions, defends his opinions, shows the flaws he sees in other opinions. But I have not seen him engaging in the kind of blustering we see from people like Peter, David W, Tim and Tim, or Ben Cole on the other side.

When I have disagreed with Bart, I have always felt he dealt with my ideas and not some sort of petty caricature of my ideas.

I must be missing something. My wife often says it is my mind.

Bart Barber said...

Dave,

You haven't been here the whole time. Perhaps you have witnessed my better moments and missed some of my worst. Certainly Wade and I know that we represent two very different futures for the SBC.

Dave Miller said...

That's probably true, Bart. That's why a blogger can probably never be president of the SBC. We all give our opponents plenty of rope with which to hang us.

On the other hand, what a great man you would be if only you would agree with me on everything.

I have to say this. We engaged a couple of weeks ago on some issues related to Baptist polity and the independence of our entities.

I have done some research (actually, a phone conversation with perhaps the top expert on SBC polity alive) and he confirmed what you said. The entities operate independently. The only control we have over them is the election of trustees and the assigning of budget.

You were right. I don't like it,and I still think the IMB made a mistake, but they were within their constitutional (SBC) rights to do what they did.

Bart Barber said...

Dave,

I don't remember that we spoke on the phone.


;-)

Dave Miller said...

Sorry, Bart, you come in 2nd place to this man. However, I believe that if I named him, you would not feel slighted to be ranked behind him.

CB Scott said...

Peter,

You say Micah is going to nominate Les? OK.

Then you say that Micah should interview him.

What a sly, sly fox you are. If Micah is to nominate Les and if he were to interview Les then you might call the whole interview foul. That would frustrate the whole effort to allow Les to speak for himself and muddy the water as to the truth of all the things of which he has been accused.

It would be far better for you or Bart to interview him and ask him the questions related to your accusations.

A better idea may be to commission the globe trotting SBC TODAY interviewer, Tim Rogers to do the honors and interview Les. I am sure he knows, by heart, the right questions to ask Les.

BTW, unless Wade is a bold-faced liar, he has just stated to the whole world that Les is not his candidate for president of the SBC. He has also stated there is no conspiracy between the noble small church advocate, Les Puryear and the blood drinking, grave dancing, moon howling dragons of Enid.

Gentlemen, it seems that more and more the only honorable thing to do is to let Les Puryear speak for himself.

If he has any fiber of presidential qualifications about him he will probably demand such an opportunity when he gets home from vacation and finds all the stones laying in his house that were thrown through the windows during these recent drive by attacks.

cb

Wade Burleson said...

Dave Miller,

I would generally agree with your assessment of Bart. He and I are very similar theologically - believe it or not - and we sat at the end of a table during a forum in Arlington and regretfully had to cut short a fruitful conversation because of the end of the meeting time. I am hopeful we can pick it up another day.

As to those few times when Bart may lose a little balanced perspective, it is when he wishes to associate the Gatlinburg Gang with Enid (albeit with better vocabulary, stylish clothing and a little more panache). :)

peter lumpkins said...

Dave,

You write you "can see the genesis of Wade's comments towards Peter, who has engaged in a campaign of innuendo and character assassination against him." Excuse me?

So your evidence for such is "Enid"? Please, Dave. If you'd like to talk evidences, do so. But how employing Enid as shorthand for Burleson/Cole coalition is somehow character assassination, I am not quite getting. Sorry.

CB,

Unfortunately, as to Micah I plead innocent to the little crossfire you placed me in: "You say Micah is going to nominate Les? OK. Then you say that Micah should interview him. What a sly, sly fox you are..."

While I agree with you about my foxiness, it is not for the reason you state. I wrote this: "I'd guess Micah Fries will do the interview UNLESS nominating Les as well would prevent such." That is, political strategy may prohibit such. I don't know.

But I do have a flat rock to skip against your head, CB. You write of our Les concerning "the stones laying in his house that were thrown through the windows during these recent drive by attacks."

May I ask a question? What drive by? And what stones? I've raised three questions and only three:

1) Enid have I loved or Enid have I hated

2) Middle-of-the road I be or Middle-of-the-road ain't me

3) Baby baptism I refute or Toward baby baptism I'm in pursuit

To my knowledge, those by a long shot do not qualify as drive bys, and surely not rocks. Actually, they've been raised before without closure. I'm merely suggesting they will be raised again.

Dog, CB: you're slipping. Usually you have a semblance of evidence there's a deer in the bushes before you shoot. Now you're sounding like our Brother Dave who did a "decoding" study on "Enid" usage and found it is definitely demoniacally driven dribble and character assassination. What a Georgia hoot.

Grace, my brother. With that, I am...

Peter

Bart Barber said...

Wade,

You're causing me all sorts of trouble. I just now received an email pursuant to your latest comment about the similarities of our theologies inquiring as to whether I am "a tongue-speaking, beer-imbibing, egalitarian who strongly advocates women should serve in all capacities in the church."

I'll be all day clearing this up. :-)

Bart Barber said...

Now someone has asked me with how many points of the BF&M I disagree...and on it goes.

CB Scott said...

So, Peter,

we boil down the worthiness of Les as a future leader in the SBC (and the free world) to:

1. His love or hatred of all things Enid.

2. His political desire (or lack there of) to be a middle-of-the-road guy within the great controversies of the convention.

3. His willingness to or not to baptize infants.

Peter, I must say; You have made it very clear that for a guy to seek the position of SBC president in this climate he had better (1) hate the right people, (2) polarize himself for and against the right issues and (3) never expose any struggles he may have in seeking to be theologically pure and honest to the Scripture.

Peter, I guess you have also revealed the fact that there are only two people left to become president of the SBC; you and me.

Therefore, Peter, let us do this in the American way; Beauty before age. You serve the next two years, you beautiful thing, you. I will follow you. :-)

cb

Bart Barber said...

CB,

With all due respect, infant baptism is not a trivial matter when it comes to looking for a leader of a Baptist body.

Tim Rogers said...

Brother Dave,

You say something that I take offense to. You say; "I have not seen him engaging in the kind of blustering we see from people like Peter, David W, Tim and Tim, or Ben Cole on the other side." While I am not going to defend David W, Tim G, or Peter, I will defend myself. Pray tell where you have seen me involve Wade's or anyone else's wife in any disagreement I have launched. Pray tell where you have seen me attack someone's character. Pray tell put the words out here that you say is a character assassination on the level of Ben Cole.

I will tell you right now that Ben Cole has more intelligence in his small toe than I have in my entire brain. He also has the superior know-how in satire, and any other attack he desire that any of the ones you have contrasted in your statement.

Now Brother, I do not desire this to be an attack and you and I get into a back and forth, however, You have certainly over-spoken or mis-spoken. I will agree that I am not one that can eruditely express myself with the ability of others, but neither have I attacked anyone as you have alleged.

Blessings,
Tim

CB Scott said...

See, Peter,

Bart has just confessed the neither he nor Wade are worthy of serving as president of the SBC.

So, just as soon as we can justifiably declare Les a heretic the road to glory will be ours.

You say; But what about Frank Cox?

Peter don't underestimate us, my brother. Between the two of us we will certainly be able to destroy his credibility in short order. :-)

cb

Ron P. said...

Peter,

Since I have been accused of being like you, let me jump on this too.

I use the term "Enid" as it gives a clear and short description of all things regarding SBC politics, SBC reform, and SBC anti-Baptist identity, ecumenical movement coming from the Burleson/Cole coalition, located in Enid, OK. As you stated, "Enid" is a lot easier to type than Burleson/Cole, yet everyone understands who is referenced by it. No degradation of these men nor of the town of Enid is implied at all.

Also, I keep looking for the rocks that have been thrown at Les' house, but can not find any. Nor are there any broken windows. Seems that some are just upset that Bart has apparently correctly surmised Les' run for SBC President. Bart and you correctly point out Les' own words about the politics of the small church pastor, which neither of you condemn. Both you and Bart just happen to point out the facts of it.

I do not know about you Peter, but I do not recall the same concern for "rocks" being thrown at Dr. Mohler before he announced that Dr. Jeffress was going to nominate him. Seems we have the same issue again that we did with an entity employee running for 1st VP last year. It's OK as long as "they" do it, but not OK, if "we", or in this case Bart, does it.

Blessings,

Ron P.

CB Scott said...

Bart,

Did I say infant baptism was a trivial matter? Certainly not. I said it may be something Les publicly acknowledged he was struggling with as to its correctness both biblically and theologically.

My personal struggles theologically have never been toward infant baptism, but out of fear of absolute condemnation I shall not reveal them publicly here and now. Especially, now that you, Wade are out of any possibility to hinder Peter and I from taking the throne. That is, just as soon as we dispatch Les and Frank.

Of course if Tim-the-Toe or Ben-the-Brain want to enter the fray. And if so; THERE WILL BE BLOOD. :-)

cb

Bart Barber said...

C.B.,

Nevertheless, the convention is full of people with no reservations about one of the cardinal doctrines of our fellowship...indeed, full of small church pastors with no such reservations.

peter lumpkins said...

CB,

"There you go again" my hero once said to yours :^)

So, I'm supposed to have reduced Les' candidacy to: (1) hate the right people, (2) polarize himself for and against the right issues and (3) never expose any struggles he may have in seeking to be theologically pure and honest to the Scripture."

First, it's not about "hating" the right one but will he please make up his mind which one he does "hate."

Secondly, it's not about being middle-of-the-road. Rather it's about saying he is middle-of-the-road then adamantly opposing anyone who dares call him such.

Third, it's not about struggling with theology issues. No one of us surely can boast all our loose ends are neatly tidied up with no dangling ends. Rather, it's about being basically Baptist on this one.

If I'm struggling with whether infant baptism is a viable practice I may be coming around to accepting, not only am I not suited as President of the SBC, I am not suited as pastor in a Baptist Church.

Now, that's me and me alone. Others can fall down where they will fall down. But if we can't even settle the Baptism question, my my my. What can I say? With Luke I lament: "all hope that we should be saved was lost".

Now, as for running for President, I can't. Dave nailed me. I am nothing more than a hired gun...an assassin on mission to corrupt the character of, should I say it? Enid! I fear I'd get no where CB. The race is yours. Win it!

With that, I am...

Peter

peter lumpkins said...

Ron,

I think you are correct, my Brother. I found it comical that Enid is decoded as demoniacally conceived.

In addition, I think Tim employs a great point: who outside Enid has employed despicable strategies against one's family? Yet some of us here are the tarbaby for character assassination. And that, without necessary evidence.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

Wade Burleson said...

Bart,

You write to me:

You're causing me all sorts of trouble. I just now received an email pursuant to your latest comment about the similarities of our theologies inquiring as to whether I am "a tongue-speaking, beer-imbibing, egalitarian who strongly advocates women should serve in all capacities in the church"

(1). I do not speak in tongues, privately or publicly.
(2). I have never even tasted beer, much less 'imbibed.'
(3). I am not an egalitarian.
(4). I have never advocated women should serve as 'pastor' of the church I shepherd, much less any other church.

See there. You and I are very, very close theologically. The DIFFERENCES ARE

(1). I don't condemn those who speak in tongues, particularly when they are conscientious to the regulations of Scripture for this gift and never overemphasize any one gift, including tongues.
(2). I never judge Christian who drinks beer, but will lovingly hold accountable any believer who drinks to excess and violates the biblical command to 'not be drunk.'
(3). I see the egalitarian's interpretation, particularly those who explain there egalitarian view through a faithful treatment to the sufficiency and authority of the sacred text.
(4). I feel autonomous churches should call the person they feel led to call as their pastor, without any directives from a denomination, which would violate the historic principles of what it means to be a Baptist.

So, there you go! We are VERY much alike personally ---

Just different in how we view and treat people who disagree.

Blessings,

Wade

Bart Barber said...

Wade,

Alas, I did not write it to you, but someone else wrote it to me. I myself would have sought greater precision in my wording.

Bart Barber said...

And before you ask me to specify:

1. Knowing that you do not indulge in ecstatic utterances your own self, I would have omitted that part.

2. A simple substitution of "wine" for "beer" here would do the trick.

3. I admit that I know not the wording to depict someone who thinks the prohibition against women pastors to be unbiblical (only cultural, personal, and confessional...is that the phrase...I should look it up, I suppose)...anyway, thinks the prohibition to be without biblical foundation and akin to racial slavery, but personally supports it nonetheless! The phraseology is cumbersome, but only because mankind hath never devised a word for something such as that.

Ron P. said...

Peter,

I wholeheartedly agree with you that Tim is correct. I have not witnessed personal acrimonious attacks upon anyone's wife, their dog, their colleagues,their employees, fellow trustees, and entity heads except from Enid (and followers of Enid).

Ron P.

Anonymous said...

How about when Tim accused me of not being a brother in Christ on Peters blog, deleted that comment and would then not own up to it, even when I asked him to multiple times?

Jim Champion

CB Scott said...

Ron P,

Let me gently correct you about rocks hurled at Dr. Albert Mohler.

I,on more than one occasion, drew sword and mace and went among the rock chunckin' barbarians, nuts and flakes, who were flinging stones by the bushel at Dr. Mohler on various blogs wherein such rock throwers dwell.

Funny, I did not see you when I looked around for reinforcements.

cb

CB Scott said...

One more thing Ron P, and gently again:

If you are in reference to me about an entity head running in you last sentence, that would be a falsehood.

See, I told you it would be gentle

cb

CB Scott said...

Peter,

The Reagan-Carter thing was a work of beauty.

I may never live that down.:-)

cb

Wayne Smith said...

Peter you said:
I think you are correct, my Brother. I found it comical the End is decoded as demoniacall conceived.
Demonically conceived
1.of or resembling demon: relating to or resembling a demon, especially in wickedness
2.intense or frantic: intense, frantic, or wild, as if driven or possessed by a demon
Peter talk about the calling the Kettle Black.

Peter Lumpkin I find you to be the Most Deceitful Person on these Blogs.
Deceitful;
Deliberately misleading: intentionally misleading or fraudulent in lying to people or not telling them the whole truth.

I do believe you not to be what I would call a Brother in Christ, with all you hateful Post and Comments on these Blogs. Because you have been doing the work of, This great Dragon—the ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, the one deceiving the whole world—was thrown down onto the earth with all his army. (Revelation 12:9, TLB)
MAY GOD HELP YOU PETER.

In His Name
Wayne

peter lumpkins said...

CB,

That really just fell right into place, didn't it. :^O

Jim,

As for Tim's comment being deleted, refresh my memory, please. On what post did I delete one of Tim's comments? I cannot recall such.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

peter lumpkins said...

Dear Wayne,

I would tell you I hope you are having a great evening, Wayne, but from your comment, somehow I get the feeling you would hear the voice of 666 instead.

Moreover, if I am who you characterize me to be, there definitively may exist no help from heaven available. Rather my destiny lies fixed in the Lake burning forever and ever.

Know I do take those Biblical images at face value, Wayne, and remain saddened that you would so blatantly overlook our Lord's caution about judging someone--even your fiercest human enemy, as I apparently am to you--to such a damnable destiny.

Lord's Grace on all.

With that, I am...

Peter

CB Scott said...

Bart,

In all seriousness and honesty; I must admit that you are sadly correct relating to the rising numbers of those who would embrace infant baptism among shepherds of God's flocks within the SBC.

I remember when most of those who would allow such a practice were mostly of a theological liberal persuasion who cared nothing for even the most costly in blood of our forefathers who suffered in forging our Baptist Identity. That, of course being Believer's Baptism as you well know.

In the battle for the Bible we pretty dispatched that crowd.

Those who would embrace Infant Baptism today are seemingly of a different breed.

They are believers in an inerrant Bible, yet, they, for whatever reason, do not cling to that which makes us distinctively Baptist in our persuasion.

If Jesus tarries the historians may later describe this new breed more dangerous than the old liberals of the past.

cb

CB Scott said...

Wayne,

Alas, my brother, you have come against Peter this time; damning him to everlasting hell along with the devil, his angels, and the accursed Antichrist.

Surely you do not see such an evil lurking in the heart of my cornbread fed, hillbilly friend, do you?

Peter,

If Wayne is correct let me persuade you to take to robbing banks, taking the money and living like there is no tomorrow in this life or the one to come, for your ultimate destination is one of horror and torment unthinkable. You are damned to cook in the Lake of Fire forever along side the Devil himself and such despicable characters as Hitler, Judas and Pol Pot.

I would ask mercy upon you, but you are obviously beyond such. So, what good would it do?

Wayne? Come on; surely you see the error of this?

cb

Ron P. said...

Bro. Jim,

I do not know of what you are speaking of, as I never saw the comment, only your comments on Peter's and Tim's blog and I was keeping up with that post pretty regularly. But that is between ya'll.

However, your raising this here does not negate the fact that there was no attack on your wife, your dog, etc... as has been the practice of Enid.

Ron P.

Ron P. said...

CB,

Gently thrown, gently received. May I gently fire back?

I did not disagree with Dr. Mohler running, therefore I would not have been in the rock throwin' crowd, just as I did not object to David Rogers running.

Let me also remind you that it was Bart that refreshed our memories about the "Principled Objection or Situational Objection?" where I quoted you from your blog as having supported David Rogers for 1VP. You said you did not vote for him, and gave the principled reasons why. But, based on the comments of some, there does seem to me a bit of situational ethics when it comes to things such as this. Thus the reason for my reference. I was not referring to you, but to others who are casting stones at Bart. Sorry if my wimpy throw hit you instead.

Blessings,

Ron P.

Dave Miller said...

Tim, Peter, et al,

To deny that you have consistently attacked the character and spiritual and biblical integrity of Wade Burleson would rewrite history.

My point was that it was understandable why Wade might be a little short with you guys.

But Bart does not heap condemnation on Wade (in the discussions I have seen at least.) He discusses ideas and disagrees strongly - but he does not demonize Wade and "Enid" the way you do.

Of course, that is my opinion based on my observations. Your denials don't change my opinion based on what I have seen. But, the good news is that you don't stand before my Judgment Seat to give account.

Kevin Bussey said...

Bart,

I have no idea if Les plans to run. I'm out of all that stuff. My only problem was making it sound like the conference he set up was to run for president. I think that was unfair. I truly believe Les' was trying to help small church pastors. I don't think there was any other reason for having the conference. If he wanted to make a name for himself he shouldn't have chosen me to speak.

Blessings to you and your ministry.

Big Daddy Weave said...

Maybe Wayne's colorful imagery was the biblical way of giving Petey the finger.

I do agree with the first line or two of Wayne's assessment. However, "deceptive" would not have been my adjective of choice...

Interestingly, Peter tries to smear Wade Burleson with his claim that "Enid wishes Southern Baptists to drink from the spring where CBFers draw water." I'm curious, how many CBFers does Wade Buuuurleson seek the counsel of? Any?

Ironically, Peter has done drunk from that CBF well or at least he attempted to. Back in the day, Peter e-mailed at least a few well-known moderate Baptist figures for advice on how to "open up a can" (to paraphrase) on those pesky Calvinists. However, I think Peter's attempt to drink from the well of the most distinguished Dr. Walter B. Shurden was rather futile.

Always nice to MORAN someone.

peter lumpkins said...

Dave,

Thanks for the response. Again, Dave, to assert without evidence appears to be the preferred method. We "consistently attacked the character and spiritual and biblical integrity of Wade Burleson..." and "demonize Wade and "Enid"".

That's a heck of a lot of rhetoric pushed one's way with the slothful excuse that it would be "rewriting history". If you're going to mix the cider, brother, at least get the mugs.

With that, I am...

Peter

peter lumpkins said...

BDW,

While I think I know what you mean by the "Moran", I suppose, a slur toward our brother from MO, I am disappointed you think I'm supposed to be moved by it.

As for the "finger" imagery, BDW, that's positive proof you and Enid are ducks from the same pond. Mr. Burleson offered the same imagery to Dr. Mohler in Texas. I bet you guys do that to all your enemies.

As for the paraphrase "open up a can", BDW, I haven't the slightest idea to what you are referring. Please get you paraphrases correctly if you're going to "out someone".

It is no secret my emails made to Dr. Shurden on early Baptist sources. I've visited the Baptist Center in Macon. Also, I've defended his integrity as an historian from some ill-informed critics. How that's supposed to "Moran" someone, I cannot tell.

Also, back when Dr. Westmoreland-White frequented my blog, we exchanged emails not regularly but sometimes. All very cordial.

I even invited him to post on Peace as a Point/Counter Point participant with someone who is a Just War theorist. Would you like that email? I will forward it to you. No wait! You may already have it: "Peter e-mailed at least a few well-known moderate Baptist figures..." Perhaps you can post it on your blog and really embarrass me.

Oh, and yes, Dr. Westmoreland-White, being very conversant in Baptist history, was a recipient of my naughty, naughty request--"Can you refer me to some earlier Baptist nonCalvinist sources?" It seemed such a right question to ask an accomplished academic--especially one that shared a nonCalvinist perspective as did I.

But as for drinking from Dr. Westmoreland-White's spring, I invite anyone to visit our exchanges on my site and come away thinking I shallowed his bitter elixir.

Let's see. Oh, yes, my friendship with Professor Fisher Humphreys in Birmingham. That's a really neat story, BDW. Dr. Humphreys and I used to go around and around in my old Calvinist days.

And, I've mentioned on my blog more than one, I think, Dr. Humphreys taught me more about Calvinism--and that in a positive sense--that just about any other person.

Now, have I missed anyone? Oh, there was a guy in Ky--a Professor who used to be at SWBTS. I can't recall his name but he had a footnote in a book he wrote decrying the takeover in the SBC. He was very helpful.

There now. I think that's it. I have no more of those haunting emails where I've "drunk" from CBFers' well, BDW. So the three CBFers I've "secretly" emailed "gathering advice" are out in the open. Oh, I feel so much better now.

But see what you've done! You've made all my CR comrades nervous because I'm secretly drinking from another well. Yep. I am a goner. I have experienced a "Moran" alright.


With that, I am...

Peter

P.S.

Bill Younce said...

A tad sensitive are we Peter?

Dave Miller said...

Peter, I will take one more crack at explaining my comment, then leave this matter alone.

1) I do not know you and have no axe to grind. I got involved in the blog world because I did not like what was going on at the IMB and for a couple of years, I read Wade's blog almost exclusively. I became concerned about some of the things I was reading (NBC, etc) and decided to see what else was out there. In the last 6 months or so, I have read widely among the Baptist blogs, especially among the more conservative ones. I have observed not only people's interactions with Wade, but also the (often snide) things people say about Wade on other sites.

2) My opinions have formed based on what I have read and observed. Not knowing any of you personally and not being a devoted follower of "Enid" I have no particular axe to grind about the whole thing. I realized that theologically, I am more comfortable with the more conservative side, I just disagree with them on whether the IMB policies and the actions of Dr. Patterson were best for the convention.

3) From my observations I formed opinions. My opinion is that several of you are infected with the same disease (perhaps a milder strain) that has infected Ben Cole. He has a pathological hatred for Dr. Patterson that colors everything he says. Many of the conservative bloggers seem to be infected with deep disdain for all things Burleson, and use sarcasm and innuendo in dealing with Wade.

4) My opinions are based my observations, and are only as good as my perspective. Being a sinner, my perspective is flawed. I could be wrong.

5) But, since my opinions are based on my observations, neither your denials, nor your sarcasm and derogation are likely to change my opinion. The sarcastic, biting tone of your response to me is exactly what I am talking about. It confirms my opinion.

The fact is, not knowing you, I formed an opinion of you solely based on reading your blog and your comment on other blogs. The opinion was that you, like many others, have a real grudge against "Enid".

6) My comment was not so much directed at you, as it was at the exchange between Wade and Bart. I thought it was surprising, since Bart has deal more (in my opinion) with issues and less with innuendo (in my opinion).

The point was that, from my perspective, I could understand Wade being a little peeved with some of the bloggers who have dealt with him. But Bart, from my observations was in a different category. (He claims I may not have seen all the interactions.)

Again, you answer to Christ, not to me. No one has appointed me High Commissioner of the Blog World.

However, I deeply want to be a part of the Conservative Movement of the SBC, even where I disagree. However, I find myself a little embarrassed by the interaction of many bloggers who call themselves conservative. We are not going to advance the kingdom with condemnation.

I wish it were not so.

volfan007 said...

bdw,

wade has consistently said that we should welcome cbf'ers back into the sbc fold. and, the nbcc thing????????

so, peter's comments were true.

dave,

i try to deal with issues as well. if personalities get involved, then you have to mention them. but, i'm in these blogs to encourage sb's to stay true to the bible, and to see the importance of baptist distinctives.

david

Dave Miller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave Miller said...

David,

Wade wants to bring the CBF back into the SBC? I have read almost everything Wade has written and I have never seen that. Does he think the CBF folks were mistreated by conservatives. I would say he does.

Wade-baiters have made that accusation, but I have never seen Wade say that.

Ben Cole was somewhat open to the NBC, and Wade took a wait and see approach. I was disappointed that they did not stand against the NBC more forcefully than they did. But to say that they supported it is also false.

So, from my observations, you just made two patently false statements of derogation against Wade with a absolute certainty that they are true.

That is my problem. Those who want to hold the convention to the Bible should hold themselves to a higher standard of conduct. Truth. Grace. Mercy.

Frankly, while I am in 99% agreement theologically with the more conservative bloggers, I am often embarrassed by their conduct and conversation. Bluster sometimes replaces reason and disdain trumps grace.

Again, that's just me.

Anonymous said...

Dave,
I think it would have helped your understanding if you had read the other blogs the past couple of years too, instead of reading Wade's only. If you've only been reading the other S. Bapt. blogs in the last six months I can understand why you feel the way you do. The other S. Bapt. bloggers were very patient with Wade for a long time. They tried to reason with him, they tried to understand him. Sometimes you've got to say enough is enough. Yes, sometimes Peter's style of writing could use some toning down, but since I have followed his blog from the beginning, I understand his writing style.
Peter and the other SB bloggers have not resorted to misspelling Wade or Ben's names when they address them. Enid has done that over and over. I think this last thread was the first time in a LONG time I seen Wade address Peter as Peter LumpkinS, and not Peter Lumpkin or Mr. Lumpkin. It's those kinds of displays of disrespect that got my attention (and it's not a typo). You will probably say Peter and others have been disrespectful to Enid, but they put up with A LOT before they just started telling it like it is. I appreciate that because Wade was confusing to me even though I agree with him on some things.
Les is another blogger that has confused me. I've read him over the last couple of years, starting with his first blog, which he deleted. He's changed his views so many times I'm confused about what he believes also. If he does run for President it will be interesting to see how he avoids those questions he doesn't want to answer. When he's been backed into a corner the past few years he just refuses to talk anymore.
I think you've missed a lot, Dave, that would have helped you understand what's going on now.

Big Daddy Weave said...

Petey,

I love it. Enjoy your day, I'm enjoying mine.

Volfan,

Show me a quote that proves your point, please. Until then...

I'm on my way to do a little strategery with a NBC leader now on how we can implement those goals into some hands-on ministry here in Waco.

volfan007 said...

dave,

i guess you've missed those posts and comments from wade about how we should welcome the cbf crowd back. this is not false, and maybe someone in here with more computer savvy than me can show you exactly where wade said this. in fact, i beleive that he mentioned daniel vestal by name, if my memory serves me correctly.

also, where were you when wade and ben and marty and cb had thier picture made with jimmy carter, when they met with him about the nbcc? can others of you in here cue dave in about how wade seemed to be encouraging participation in the nbcc?

dave, you consistently say that you're conservative in your theology. well good. that's great. but, you also consistently defend enid and attack the baptist distinctive crowd. it seems that you are always defending wade. you dont defend ben, i've noticed. but, you seem like someone who defends wade no matter what. and, you are consistently saying that peter and tim rogers and me and others are attacking wade. i'm not attacking wade nor ben nor anyone else. i dont like the things that they want the sbc to become. i stand against a lot of the things that they stand for, or at least are willing to excuse or allow for the sake of unity, i.e., drinking, women pastors, tongue speaking, etc. i dont hate wade. i dont hate ben. i dont hate you. i really dont hate anyone. i just believe in standing on the truth, and encouraging the sbc to stand on the truth of God's Word and sound doctrine.

david

volfan007 said...

and, btw, i know dr. john floyd. he was my professor in seminary. he's a great man with a heart for the lost. he also believes in doing things right, though.

david

peter lumpkins said...

BDW,

I always have a good day...

Dear Dave,

About the last statement you write, I fully affirm: “We are not going to advance the kingdom with condemnation.” I also affirm with neither apology nor explanation that at times I employ “sarcasm”, if by that you include irony as a part of working definition.

I explicitly deny employing “innuendo” in dealing with Wade, if by such you take the standard definition that includes slanderous remarks.

The theory of “Enid” you offer, Dave, is a figment of your observation. It does not exist. However, other people employ it, I employ it to mean precisely as I suggested.

To continue saying I use it in another manner after I told you how I do employ it is—I do not know how to say this any other way—itself deception.

Unfortunately, I asked for a slight showing of evidence from you that I condemned Wade Burleson in the way you continue to assert and I got this: “The sarcastic, biting tone of your response to me is exactly what I am talking about. It confirms my opinion.”

But even more, read once again the words you penned to me. [I allegedly am] “infected with the same disease (perhaps a milder strain) that has infected Ben Cole…[with a] pathological hatred…”…and am “infected with deep disdain for all things Burleson…”

In addition, you seem to deny now that your posts were personally toward any of us; but then how does one interpret these words:

“Peter, who has engaged in a campaign of innuendo and character assassination… kind of blustering we see from people like Peter… Tim, Peter, et al… The sarcastic, biting tone of [Peter’s] response to me…[to David] Wade-baiters…”

Dave, your words that “My comment was not so much directed at you…” does not appear to offer much satisfaction in light of the above.

Finally, Dave, more than once in this brief exchange, you insisted “neither your denials, nor your sarcasm and derogation are likely to change my opinion” and then insisted you may be wrong since you are a sinner.

O.K. So am I. And, I am perfectly willing to leave whether or not both you and I are wrong in the hands of readers and especially our Lord.

Yet, what is not kosher for me is for one to be able to spew their juice all over us here, charging us with godless, unChrist-like behavior, then waltz away with the benign reasoning “Well, I may be wrong cause I’m a sinner.”

The exchanges I’ve had over the last year and a half with Wade Burleson are visible for all to explore—either at my site or his. People are free to dig up all they wish and prove my standard approach toward him is/was to never deal with any of Mr. Burleson’s ideas but focus on “character assassination” rather than challenging him.

If I am one of these “Wade-baiters”—the epithet that you so lovingly hurled toward David—demonstrate it.

What I do not wish to spend my time on, you need to know, is engaging someone who is quick to assert something—in this case, judging other people ungodly, all in the name of objectivity, of course—but possesses no interest in offering any tangible evidence. For me, I just don't get that one.

I trust you have a great day. With that, I am…

Peter

Dave Miller said...

David,

Again, your facts are not accurate.

Here is my agenda. I want the SBC to prosper as a conservative denomination. I want it to have a larger tent than perhaps John Floyd wants, but I am not ready to open it as far as Wade wants, and certainly not as far as Ben seems to want.

I want conservative Southern Baptists to debate the issues that lay before us. I wish to see Baptist Christians discussing issues in a spirit of grace.

I want to see the guys who are "defending the Bible" to live it in their conversation.

That is not what I see. I see bluster. I see pettiness. I see condemnation. I see false accusation. I see a greater passion to attack people than to discuss ideas. I see Ben Cole (et al) hating Paige Patterson and I see many bloggers (who all deny it with their words) hating Wade, Ben and all things "Enid".

A person named Luke commented on my site today. He questioned what I had written in a direct, but humble and gentle spirit. The sad thing is, it shocked me. He behaved as we all should - and it was surprising to me.

David, you have every right to ignore me. You don't know me. I don't know you. Please, just do not rationalize my observations with that "he's just supporting Wade" thing.

I am not. I agree with much of Wade's criticism of the IMB BoT. But I am hardly a Enidite. Read my rhetorical imbroglios with Debbie Kaufman on Tim G's site. Read my comments on Outpost. Read all my comments on Grace and Truth. I have been very critical of what I have seen as arrogance and condescension from that side.

Again, you are free to ignore me. Most who know me do. But you are not free to make up a reason. I do not intend to defend Wade, but I am critical of the way people attack him. I think there are legitimate criticism's of Wade's ideas. I just don't think you need to slander Wade to make them.

Frankly, I am nearing a point of despair. In my time on the blogosphere, I have seen precious little of the Spirit of Christ in the conversation of Baptists. I have probably contributed to that, but it still concerns me. If Baptist leaders cannot converse on a higher level than we see here, how can we ask God to bless our denomination?

So, yes, let me be clear. I have often thought that you and others have dealt with Wade in a personal, demeaning nature that was not pleasing to our Lord. I have seen the same thing from Wade at times. I think the whole "liberal" or "CBF" thing is a red-herring - an attempt to demonize people whose ideas you do not like. I think there is a tendency to leap to conclusions without accurate evaluation of facts.

This is what I see. David, I was there in 1979 voting for Adrian, and was at many of the conventions through the 80's and early 90's when the battle was raging. I am passionate about the SBC conservative movement.

I am ashamed of many who promote it now.

Ron P. said...

Dave,

Let me add to the others. I too am relatively new (approximately a year) to the blogs. What drew me in was multiple stores in the religion sections of my two local newspapers that: 1) repeatedly referred to discontented SBC pastors' blogs 2) using bloggers as sources for stories about the SBC. I had to check it out for myself. I made multiple inquires to friends that I trust within the SBC. I also went to the blogs myself.

Like you, I was horrified at what I saw. But what I saw were pastors trying to tear down our historic Baptist identity and beliefs. I saw an ecumenical movement seeking to significantly add to what it means to be Baptist. But I also noticed that there was a clear premeditated attempt to destroy Dr. Patterson, since he is one of the architects of the CR. What better way to undo it? But not only has he been viciously attacked, so has is wife his dog, professors, students (especially homemaking students), friends, associates, and anyone who in anyway is connected to him. Deep diving into the blogs caused me to see a pattern of malicious attacks, innuendo, and outright hatred. But not just towards Patterson. Though not as acerbic, the attacks on the IMB and her trustees was just as bitter.

My eyes were wide open at that point. I wanted to do something. So I jumped into the blogs. I started commenting and even wrote an article on the "Irenic Reformation" that Wes Kenney graciously posted last August. It included links for each point that showed the beliefs and practices of the reformers. Many of those links from one blog have been taken down. I did not start my own blog, because I believed then that there are too many. I still believe that, because as of today, SBC Voices currently tracks 335 SBC blogs.

Let me also say that I agree with anonymous and would add that you are looking at this through a very narrow lens. It's like the guy with the camera taking video of the police using what they deem excessive force with a suspect. However, they were not there to witness the suspect viciously attacking and resisting the police. You apparently have not seen the ruthless attacks that Enid has made against so many.

I must say that Bart, David, Tim G., Tim R., Robin, Peter, Wes, Joe , Jeremy and many others (forgive me if I did not mention them) that have been in this battle since the beginning, are men that I think deserve our respect and admiration for being willing to stand in the gap for Baptists who believe that our historic identity and beliefs are Biblical and important. Enid's tactics against so many, have justified the association of the movement with its leader. Thus the impression that one just coming to the blogs scene might call excessive force has actually been done with great restraint.

Blessings,

Ron P.

Dave Miller said...

I will let someone else have the last word on this.

I seem to have offended some of you. I stated my convictions based on my observations.

Here is my bottom line: We need to exhibit the purity and holiness of Christ, the honesty of Christ, and perhaps most importantly, the grace and love of Christ toward one another.

God is the judge of whether any of us has violated that spirit. I've given my opinion. You have given yours.

My email is pastordave@cableone.net if you wish to carry this on in private.

Wade Burleson said...

Dave,

You wrote: "I guess you've missed those posts and comments from wade about how we should welcome the cbf crowd back. this is not false, and maybe someone in here with more computer savvy than me can show you exactly where wade said this

Since I am the alleged author of those posts and comments, I await your documentation that will prove your statement is not false. Until then, please know that I have advocated only love and not ridicule, kindness and not harshness, prayer for and not rhetoric about our CBC brethren. Not once have I advocated 'we should welcomet the CBF crowd back.' Rather, I have affirmed they are a new convention, a new ministry and a new work that does not need to be folded back into the SBC.

So, David, to prove the integrity and veracity of what you write, please give us the source. Until then, I would encourage you to write after you verify something, not before.

Anonymous said...

Volfann007,

That is Pastor Burleson's polite and seemingly correct way of pointing out you have lied in your comment.

Ed

Ron P. said...

David,

I believe the post you are referring to is: here where Wade stated his regret for the "solid evangelical conservatives" who in his opinion were maligned in the CR. Daniel Vestal is one of the names he mentions.

Ron P.

Ron P. said...

FYI...

For those of you not so familiar with Google you can click on the advanced search link next to the search box. There, you can make your search more specific, including limiting to specific websites (or domains), regions, dates, language etc.

Blessings,

Ron P.

Dave Miller said...

Ron, I have appreciated my interactions with you, even though they have usually involved disagreements.

I am not sure what your point is about the post above. In it, Wade expresses SUPPORT for the Conservative Resurgence, but regret that some good men got hurt along the way.

He says, "Read carefully. I do not regret any attempt to solidify our respect of the authority and sufficiency of the Word of God. Again, any professor in our seminaries who denies the faith, ridicules the Word of God, or makes a mockery of the person and work of Jesus Christ should be dismissed with haste."

By the way, Ron, as I told Bart, I did some heavy research about Baptist polity, and discovered that you were right in our previous discussion. The IMB has the right to ignore the convention and pretty much do as they please. Our only control as a convention is the election of trustees and granting of budget.

Ron and Bart - 1; Dave - 0.

Ron P. said...

Dave,

I too have enjoyed our conversations on the blogs. I dearly hope they continue. I honestly think that our only disagreements have been about Wade and his tactics and beliefs. Where I see some serious theological shifts and attacks upon so many, you apparently do not see the attacks, except from those that disagree with Wade.

My point in the link above, was that David asked for someone to help him find the article. That may not be the article, but I believe that is the one he was referring to. It is a post that clearly states that many in the moderate wing of the SBC and now in the CBF are "solid evangelical conservatives". The only way many of the men he lists on that post can be "S.E.C." is if the definition has changed. That is something that many of us believe has been a pattern coming from this reform movement as well as a desire to broaden the theological tent to all "evangelicals", whatever that may mean today.

Finally, I do believe that the trustees of the various entities are doing precisely what the convention wants Southern Baptists trustees to do: Be unashamedly Baptist i.e. Biblical in their doctrine. After all, it is the Messengers of the convention that has been electing them each year.

Blessings my brother,

Ron P.

Wayne Smith said...

CB Scott,
You know that I have the highest respect for you, as you are a Man of TRUTH and Speak from the Heart.

Peter Lumpkin is a Word Smith and Dances around as if to have an Emotional Problem, as can be seen sitting at his desk talking about the Books he is part of writing.
It is funny that the Post I’am talking about disappeared from Peter’s Blog “POOF” it’s gone!!!!


Peter you said above:
I think you are correct, my Brother. I found it comical the End is decoded as demoniacall conceived.
The dictionary for Demonically conceived is as follows:
1.of or resembling demon: relating to or resembling a demon, especially in wickedness
2.intense or frantic: intense, frantic, or wild, as if driven or possessed by a demon

Peter is being a False Witness against Brothers in Christ that also Speak the TRUTH by calling them Demonically conceived.
CB, I rest my case in calling a Spade a Spade.

In His Name
Wayne

peter lumpkins said...

Dave, et al

For a series of exchanges now I've requested that slanderous remarks and tactics be produced to validate our brothers observations. Unfortunately, Dave think he's entitled to his opinion without evidence.

And, honestly, were it an innoculous opinion or postion on an idea, some room, I feel, could be granted. That, however, is not the case.

Instead, Dave straps on both six guns and starts fanning those pistols, not in the air but at people--slander, character assasination, campaign of innuendo, disdain, pathological hate, derogation, "Wade-bater", etc etc.

None of the above are innoculous in my view. But very serious--serious enough that if someone is going to pop their guns, they need to be willing to be specific.

Shouting out moral crimes against individuals and then suggesting we just need to all get along, from my perspective, is unacceptable. It's not about being offended, Dave. It's about making darn sure you've got the goods before you take the shot.

Dave may appreciate this full agreement I have with what Wade Burleson said on this thread:

"...to prove the integrity and veracity of what you write...I would encourage you to write after you verify something, not before.

I may be wrong but I think my site can take the scrutiny: when and/or if I ever charge a person--and name that person by name--you can darn well take it to the bank I've got the evidence.

That's it for me. Believe it or not, I am extremely uncomfortable defending my character. I am who I am. I trust you all will have a great evening.

With that, I am...

Peter

P.S. Lord bless you Wayne...

Wayne Smith said...

Dave Miller,
What you said about the innuendos and the attacks on Christian Brothers because they shared what is happening behind closed doors in Trustee’s meeting and Autocratic SBC Boards that serve their own Interest is the TRUTH. The SAD part is that the ones you mention are so, so BLIND to the TRUTH. They attack the messenger as in the olden days they killed the messenger (Runner), for bringing the bad news. Even though it WAS THE TRUTH.


In His Name
Wayne

Dave Miller said...

Wayne,

Thank you for words of support. However, your rhetoric is way overblown.

I have stated my observations and stand by them.

But I do not support the tone or tenor of your comments.

volfan007 said...

ron,

thank you for finding that post by wade. that's one of them. thanks for taking the time to look it up and bring it here.

dave, i hope you will continue on the journey with us, my bro. we have enjoyed having you.

wayne, you are way out of line. the things that you're saying to a brother in Christ like peter is way over the top. in fact, your comments, or accusations, or condemnations, are much like what you accuse peter and others of doing. have you ever heard the old saying....the pot calling the kettle black?

david

Wayne Smith said...

David/Vofan007,
Do you agree with Peter’s Statement that Enid is decoded as DEMONACALL CONCEIVED? This is Peter’s way of saying Wade, Ben and Their Church is
1.of or resembling demon: relating to or resembling a demon, especially in wickedness.
2.intense or frantic: intense, frantic, or wild, as if driven or possessed by a demon.

IS This Correct David???

In His Name
Wayne

Peter you said above:
I think you are correct, my Brother. I found it comical the End is decoded as demoniacall conceived.

Dave Miller said...

Wayne,


To be fair, I think the comment you refer to was in response to something I wrote. I maintained that the "Enid" phrase is a "demonization" - a word used to describe a person or group in a negative light.

The word really does not imply anything demonic in its normal usage, which is the way I intended it.

I did not read where anyone called Wade demonic.

Anonymous said...

Wayne, et al,
I think folk use "Enid" the same way that folk used "Camelot" in the Kennedy years to speak of a mythical kingdom.
Steve

Rob Ayers said...

Bart,

Sorry, late to the party. My concerns only were stated in connection to the Small Church Conference. Little was stated about the otherwise "positive" attributes of the conference per se. My protest was concerning my perception of your post: the only good it did was to further the political nest of Les.

Count me as a "ditto" to Kevin's post.

Rob