The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's report was NOT just another report. I think that Dr. Mohler has spoken a word that will encourage and unite Southern Baptists. Don't miss it.
what I find funny is the moderates and liberals are complaining about Paige Patterson and Al Mohler's "reports," yet they seem to think Morris Chapman hit a homerun.
I've only seen one or 2 blogs on what Dr. Mohler said, but from what I saw I think he took the motion like many of us did.
It is incredible that people could view this motion as meaning that the BF&M has now become the all-inclusive policy guide for hiring SBC employees.
Many seem to have missed some important words in the motion such as "guide" and "forming policies". I take those words to mean that the doctrinal positions contained in BFM are not to be violated. I take it to mean that while one agency or entity might produce further policies, THOSE policies will not be viewed as representing the concensus of the Convention (since only BFM has that status).
Finally, I understand where Dr. Chapman was coming from in his address, but he does not decree the policy of SBC, nor is he the interpreter of it, is he? (no disrespect intended)
As many have stated, it will be interesting how this motion actually impacts things in the year(s) to come.
The only "hit" Dr. Molhler made was when he hit home the fact that none of what was voted on applies to either him or Paige Patterson. 6,000 messengers and sometimes less than that, out of 16 million Baptists isn't exactly the whole Convention speaking is it? I'm waiting for the day with technology the way it's progressing, when all of the Convention does speak.
Right, Debbie, let's let some random member of some church out there, who's not attended in 20 years, has zero knowledge of SBC history and its practices, vote with the entire convention.
So you are saying "some random member of some church out there, who's not attended in 20 years, has zero knowledge of SBC history and its practices" should not have the right to vote if elected by their church to be a messenger to the convention?
I'm definitely not shooting anyone. I'm not in San Antonio, but am trying to figure out what Mohler said. Actually, now, I'm simply trying to figure out how people interpreted what he said.
The bloggers I've read all took offense. From Barts post, I assumed he thought Mohler's speech would calm the waters rather than stir them.
milkman: Bart is a good guy. I have met him and I was impressed with this man I met, he's also intelligent. I point to all of this in order to say: I think Bart knew that Al Mohler's talk did anything but calm the waters, at least for this gal.
"Where in scripture does it say to go by history?"
I ask you, where in scripture does it say to limit discussion on a motion to a certain time period?
It's procedural and the concept of letting all 16-million members of the Southern Baptist Convention is the silliest concept I have yet to read on any blog - ever.
Anonymous: I believe Karen got what I was saying much better than you have. Just by your statement, you didn't get it at all. Are you Southern Baptist?
"As an observer: Chapman>a leader Patterson/Mohler>bully pulpit"
Funny! Thing is, they both used their "bully pulpit" to offer their thoughts on all this mess. So the one who espoused the statements you prefer is a leader and the others bully pulpiters!?
When it comes to voting, a Southern Baptist knows that "all" means messengers elected or appointed by their church and that number is based on their church's record of giving and membership.
Karen, did you actually really read Debbie's comment? Here is the part where you two drift unknowingly to yourselves.
"6,000 (it was actually over 8,000, Debbie) messengers and sometimes less than that, out of 16 million Baptists isn't exactly the whole Convention speaking is it?"
I agree with you, Karen, that the elected messengers consists of the actual Southern Baptist Convention for that given year.
But not Debbie! No, no! She wants every member of every church in the SBC to vote.
"I'm waiting for the day with technology the way it's progressing, when all of the Convention does speak."
So, again, I say - would it be okay, Debbie, (and with you, Karen) if someone who hasn't been in the church in ages, knows nothing of current events in SBC life, votes via email (or whatever fancy concoction Debbie might think of) so the "whole convention" can speak? Or is it actual elected messengers?
I'll go with the latter.
Again, the messengers at this convention spoke loud and clear on a clear-cut vote, not one hidden and watered down to confuse people who have no knowledge of hidden agendas of some.
Here is what the convention said - we do not want to go back to the pre-resurgence days. Result? See below.
Again, the only way to vote is to be elected as a messenger from your church whether the voting is done in person as it is now or if there could be as Debbie stated a way to electronically vote.
She in no way stated that all members of every church would be voting. Her assumption was that she was directing her comment to informed Southern Baptist who knew that only messengers from churches are allowed to vote and that is as I stated based on your church's record of giving and membership with the maximum number of allowed messengers to be 10.
In fact the SBC Constitution reads as follows:
1. One (1) messenger from each church which: (1) Is in friendly cooperation with the Convention and sympathetic with its purposes and work. Among churches not in cooperation with the Convention are churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior. And, (2) Has been a bona fide contributor to the Convention's work during the fiscal year preceding.
2. One (1) additional messenger from each such church for every two hundred and fifty (250) members; or for each $250.00 paid to the work of the Convention during the fiscal year preceding the annual meeting.
3. The messengers shall be appointed and certified by the churches to the Convention, but no church may appoint more than ten (10).
4. Each messenger shall be a member of the church by which he is appointed.
So therefore, Debbie and I both realized that there is no way every member of every church would be allowed to vote.
And surely a church would not appoint or elect a messenger who has not attended in 20 years.
Karen, I am fully aware of how messengers are elected. I completely agree with you on this.
However, Debbie was clearly stating that she wished that "all" the convention could speak on issues.
Here is her comment again -
"6,000 messengers and sometimes less than that, out of 16 million Baptists isn't exactly the whole Convention speaking is it? I'm waiting for the day with technology the way it's progressing, when all of the Convention does speak."
I'm just wondering what this statement means. What is "all" of the convention to you, Debbie?
FYI - Yes, I am a Southern Baptist and have been active behind the scenes in Southern Baptist life for over two decades.
Chapman> a leader??? that is funny, the guy couldn't even give straight answers on direct questions posed to him. He seemed to revel in the ambiguity the messangers were having over the CP definition. When direct "YES or NO" questions are asked a leader should have what it takes to give an answer not the run around.
and why because Dr. Mohler and Dr. Patterson spoke directly and matter of factly to an issue are they Bullies??? I think their addresses can stand alone so I don't need to defend them, but don't take a directness as a bullying tactic, some people just have what it takes to be a leader
Debbie is correct in stating that 6,000 (or a little over 8,000 as in this year) messengers representing 16 million members is a pitiful commentary.
Also if the statistics that I read on another blog are correct, the 8,000 plus registered messengers this year cast votes (ballots) which only totaled 6,000 plus and that is pitiful.
Where were the other 2,000 registered messengers who were supposed to be representing their churches?
ALL: this reminds me of another discussion about what "all" is. and whether all means all. :>)
As Debbie said in her post, "God's will has been done."
And His will is that we all accept His will and surrender ours to His. If only, if only.
And since God is sovereign can't we all just be thankful for a convention that didn't make Fox News? I am. I did notice that the liberal rag in Louisville tried to spin the convention stuff to meet their usual disdain of Baptists and conservative views, though. Press would rather us be fighting over women in ministry, homosexuality and drinking. Makes for better press. Thank God this year was civil. (from all the accounts I'm reading) selahV
Anonymous: Are you Southern Baptist. I gather that the answer is no. A. You are anonymous and B. You obviously do not know who Morris Chapman is. c. You have avoided the question.....twice.
Selah: I so agree with the rest of your comment. We didn't make the news, at least not yet. It shows we did a lot right. I believe this years convention was very Christ centered. I was so encouraged and pleased with it as a whole. The messages for the most part were terrific.
Anonymous: Karen is right on the money. I do know the protocol but the number of messengers this year hardly could represent the sixteen million(and yes I do think it's less than sixteen million but for sake of argument). There has got to be a better way.
FYI - Yes, I am a Southern Baptist and have been active behind the scenes in Southern Baptist life for over two decades.
Anonymous: Yes I did read the comments and missed this part. I would go further into what I think of this statement, but I think at this point it's best left unsaid. :)But I would at least take responsibility for my comments and attitude if I were you and sign your name. I do. :)
Well said Bart! I am sorry that some don't care for his comments, but he did a super job in a clarification of position, as did the other seminary presidents that followed.
For those of us who missed it...what did Dr. Mohler say?
ReplyDeleteBart,
ReplyDeletewhat I find funny is the moderates and liberals are complaining about Paige Patterson and Al Mohler's "reports," yet they seem to think Morris Chapman hit a homerun.
Go figure!
The convention has spoken!
Jim Richards - 69%
David Rogers - 31%
Bart,
ReplyDeleteI've only seen one or 2 blogs on what Dr. Mohler said, but from what I saw I think he took the motion like many of us did.
It is incredible that people could view this motion as meaning that the BF&M has now become the all-inclusive policy guide for hiring SBC employees.
Many seem to have missed some important words in the motion such as "guide" and "forming policies". I take those words to mean that the doctrinal positions contained in BFM are not to be violated. I take it to mean that while one agency or entity might produce further policies, THOSE policies will not be viewed as representing the concensus of the Convention (since only BFM has that status).
Finally, I understand where Dr. Chapman was coming from in his address, but he does not decree the policy of SBC, nor is he the interpreter of it, is he? (no disrespect intended)
As many have stated, it will be interesting how this motion actually impacts things in the year(s) to come.
sean
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe only "hit" Dr. Molhler made was when he hit home the fact that none of what was voted on applies to either him or Paige Patterson. 6,000 messengers and sometimes less than that, out of 16 million Baptists isn't exactly the whole Convention speaking is it? I'm waiting for the day with technology the way it's progressing, when all of the Convention does speak.
ReplyDeleteRight, Debbie, let's let some random member of some church out there, who's not attended in 20 years, has zero knowledge of SBC history and its practices, vote with the entire convention.
ReplyDeleteSheesh.
Anonymous Sheesh,
ReplyDeleteSo you are saying "some random member of some church out there, who's not attended in 20 years, has zero knowledge of SBC history and its practices" should not have the right to vote if elected by their church to be a messenger to the convention?
Karen
Bart,
ReplyDeleteYou apparently mis-judged the effects of Dr. Mohler's speech. It is stirring up a hornets nest (see Wade's Blog).
Did he really defy the SBC or has he simply interpreted yesterday's BF&M motion as many of us (including you I think) have.
His words are not bringing unity in bloggerville.
Karen: I was thinking the same thing.I'm glad you asked the question. Evidently Dr. Patterson thinks not either.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous: Where in scripture does it say to go by history?
milkman: You are shooting the messenger......again. :) He didn't put the words into Al Mohler and Paige Patteson's mouth.
Debbie,
ReplyDeleteI'm definitely not shooting anyone. I'm not in San Antonio, but am trying to figure out what Mohler said. Actually, now, I'm simply trying to figure out how people interpreted what he said.
The bloggers I've read all took offense. From Barts post, I assumed he thought Mohler's speech would calm the waters rather than stir them.
Sean
Karen,
ReplyDeleteRead again what Debbie said about letting "all the convention" speak - all 16 million voting was her brilliant concept.
Of course if someone is appointed from their church as a messenger they should be allowed to vote.
The comment was made in response to Debbie's juvenile idea of letting all 16-million members vote.
milkman: Bart is a good guy. I have met him and I was impressed with this man I met, he's also intelligent. I point to all of this in order to say: I think Bart knew that Al Mohler's talk did anything but calm the waters, at least for this gal.
ReplyDeleteDebbie, you said:
ReplyDelete"Where in scripture does it say to go by history?"
I ask you, where in scripture does it say to limit discussion on a motion to a certain time period?
It's procedural and the concept of letting all 16-million members of the Southern Baptist Convention is the silliest concept I have yet to read on any blog - ever.
Anonymous: I believe Karen got what I was saying much better than you have. Just by your statement, you didn't get it at all. Are you Southern Baptist?
ReplyDeleteDebbie says - "I'm waiting for the day with technology the way it's progressing, when all (meaning all 16 million) of the Convention does speak."
ReplyDeleteYep, I got it loud and clear. Again, what a brilliant concept.
As an observer:
ReplyDeleteChapman>a leader
Patterson/Mohler>bully pulpit
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou left out:
Anonymous>a leader in anonymous bullying
:-)
"As an observer:
ReplyDeleteChapman>a leader
Patterson/Mohler>bully pulpit"
Funny! Thing is, they both used their "bully pulpit" to offer their thoughts on all this mess. So the one who espoused the statements you prefer is a leader and the others bully pulpiters!?
LOL - good one.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to voting, a Southern Baptist knows that "all" means messengers elected or appointed by their church and that number is based on their church's record of giving and membership.
So as Debbie asked are you Southern Baptist?
Karen
Karen, did you actually really read Debbie's comment? Here is the part where you two drift unknowingly to yourselves.
ReplyDelete"6,000 (it was actually over 8,000, Debbie) messengers and sometimes less than that, out of 16 million Baptists isn't exactly the whole Convention speaking is it?"
I agree with you, Karen, that the elected messengers consists of the actual Southern Baptist Convention for that given year.
But not Debbie! No, no! She wants every member of every church in the SBC to vote.
"I'm waiting for the day with technology the way it's progressing, when all of the Convention does speak."
So, again, I say - would it be okay, Debbie, (and with you, Karen) if someone who hasn't been in the church in ages, knows nothing of current events in SBC life, votes via email (or whatever fancy concoction Debbie might think of) so the "whole convention" can speak? Or is it actual elected messengers?
I'll go with the latter.
Again, the messengers at this convention spoke loud and clear on a clear-cut vote, not one hidden and watered down to confuse people who have no knowledge of hidden agendas of some.
Here is what the convention said - we do not want to go back to the pre-resurgence days. Result? See below.
Jim Richards - 69%
David Rogers - 31%
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteAgain, the only way to vote is to be elected as a messenger from your church whether the voting is done in person as it is now or if there could be as Debbie stated a way to electronically vote.
She in no way stated that all members of every church would be voting. Her assumption was that she was directing her comment to informed Southern Baptist who knew that only messengers from churches are allowed to vote and that is as I stated based on your church's record of giving and membership with the maximum number of allowed messengers to be 10.
In fact the SBC Constitution reads as follows:
1. One (1) messenger from each church which: (1) Is in friendly cooperation with the Convention and sympathetic with its purposes and work. Among churches not in cooperation with the Convention are churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior. And, (2) Has been a bona fide contributor to the Convention's work during the fiscal year preceding.
2. One (1) additional messenger from each such church for every two hundred and fifty (250) members; or for each $250.00 paid to the work of the Convention during the fiscal year preceding the annual meeting.
3. The messengers shall be appointed and certified by the churches to the Convention, but no church may appoint more than ten (10).
4. Each messenger shall be a member of the church by which he is appointed.
So therefore, Debbie and I both realized that there is no way every member of every church would be allowed to vote.
And surely a church would not appoint or elect a messenger who has not attended in 20 years.
Karen
Karen, I am fully aware of how messengers are elected. I completely agree with you on this.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Debbie was clearly stating that she wished that "all" the convention could speak on issues.
Here is her comment again -
"6,000 messengers and sometimes less than that, out of 16 million Baptists isn't exactly the whole Convention speaking is it? I'm waiting for the day with technology the way it's progressing, when all of the Convention does speak."
I'm just wondering what this statement means. What is "all" of the convention to you, Debbie?
FYI - Yes, I am a Southern Baptist and have been active behind the scenes in Southern Baptist life for over two decades.
Chapman> a leader??? that is funny, the guy couldn't even give straight answers on direct questions posed to him. He seemed to revel in the ambiguity the messangers were having over the CP definition. When direct "YES or NO" questions are asked a leader should have what it takes to give an answer not the run around.
ReplyDeleteand why because Dr. Mohler and Dr. Patterson spoke directly and matter of factly to an issue are they Bullies??? I think their addresses can stand alone so I don't need to defend them, but don't take a directness as a bullying tactic, some people just have what it takes to be a leader
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteDebbie is correct in stating that 6,000 (or a little over 8,000 as in this year) messengers representing 16 million members is a pitiful commentary.
Also if the statistics that I read on another blog are correct, the 8,000 plus registered messengers this year cast votes (ballots) which only totaled 6,000 plus and that is pitiful.
Where were the other 2,000 registered messengers who were supposed to be representing their churches?
Karen
ALL: this reminds me of another discussion about what "all" is. and whether all means all. :>)
ReplyDeleteAs Debbie said in her post, "God's will has been done."
And His will is that we all accept His will and surrender ours to His. If only, if only.
And since God is sovereign can't we all just be thankful for a convention that didn't make Fox News? I am. I did notice that the liberal rag in Louisville tried to spin the convention stuff to meet their usual disdain of Baptists and conservative views, though. Press would rather us be fighting over women in ministry, homosexuality and drinking. Makes for better press. Thank God this year was civil. (from all the accounts I'm reading) selahV
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous: Are you Southern Baptist. I gather that the answer is no. A. You are anonymous and B. You obviously do not know who Morris Chapman is. c. You have avoided the question.....twice.
ReplyDeleteSelah: I so agree with the rest of your comment. We didn't make the news, at least not yet. It shows we did a lot right. I believe this years convention was very Christ centered. I was so encouraged and pleased with it as a whole. The messages for the most part were terrific.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous: Karen is right on the money. I do know the protocol but the number of messengers this year hardly could represent the sixteen million(and yes I do think it's less than sixteen million but for sake of argument). There has got to be a better way.
ReplyDeleteDebbie, you said:
ReplyDelete"Anonymous: Are you Southern Baptist. I gather that the answer is no.. c. You have avoided the question..... twice."
Ummmm, Debbie, do you actually READ the comments or just glance over them? Look at my comment from 9:48 PM last night.
All of the meetings are recorded and can be viewed via internet at sbc.net. Just finished watching Dr. Mohler.
ReplyDeleteFYI - Yes, I am a Southern Baptist and have been active behind the scenes in Southern Baptist life for over two decades.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous: Yes I did read the comments and missed this part. I would go further into what I think of this statement, but I think at this point it's best left unsaid. :)But I would at least take responsibility for my comments and attitude if I were you and sign your name. I do. :)
Well said Bart! I am sorry that some don't care for his comments, but he did a super job in a clarification of position, as did the other seminary presidents that followed.
ReplyDelete