Sunday, July 29, 2007
Keeping Watch over the Establishment
The Official Establishment Blog (what else could one call the only prominent Southern Baptist blog endorsed by SBC Executive Committee President Morris Chapman, IMB President Jerry Rankin, and Lifeway President Thom Rainer?) has published a personal attack against Dr. Paige Patterson. See endorsements here. The personal attack is in this post, snidely hidden in the "unrelated news" links at the end.
So now, just to keep count, we're up to two members of the Great Commission Council—Richard Land and Paige Patterson—who have been maligned by this blog that has been publicly endorsed by three other members of the Great Commission Council.
And for what it is worth, although the author of the piece is a student at Baylor University, we've seen no exposé regarding the size, appointments, or expense of the mansion provided for the president of that institution.
As a final bonus, I note the following. I first met Paige Patterson when he came to preach at my church. It was several years ago. His financial requirements for coming? None.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
70 comments:
Bart,
To add to your bonus, I would share that Dr. Patterson was the featured speaker at our association's evangelism conference three years ago. His financial requirements were precisely the same as they were for preaching in your church. It was the same the next year when Dr. Mac Brunson was the featured speaker.
These things have caused me to think a bit about what endorsements truly mean. I'll be sharing those thoughts on my blog tomorrow.
Thanks for keeping the pressure up, Bart. One question, does anyone know the financial package of Dr. Rainey, Dr. Chapman, or Dr. Rankin? I haven't been able to find that information.
Bart, Wes, Robin,
I hope this crusade you are on against Dr. Rainey, Dr. Chapman, and Dr. Rankin isn't caused by jealousy. These men represent the hope and future of Southern Baptists. I think you need to be very careful when attacking these men because there character has never been questioned and their ministries are still growing.
SBC Outpost is a blog where certain people will post current information and editorials. The men listed above didn't say they agreed with everything printed on SBC Outpost, but recommended it for the challenge in it.
Have you ever read a book that challenged you, but didn't agree with everything stated in the book or the beliefs of the author? I endorse "Desiring God" by John Piper, but I'm not a Calvinist. I endorse "The Cost of Discipleship" by Bonhoeffer, but I don't view the sacraments like he did.
The leadership of Paige Patterson and Richard Land need to be questioned. I don't know of two people who are hurting their ministries more. These issues need to be addressed.
Finally, I don't think you have to agree with everything someone prints to endorse them, but if I'm wrong then I pull my endorsement of your blogs. Hopefully, you see my point, because I think most of what you guys write is helpful to the Baptist discussion.
OK Preacher,
I didn't know that you had "endorsed" my blog. I'm duly grateful. I'll buy your dinner if mine is the only blog that carries your public endorsement—but I'm pretty safe on that count.
If someone chooses to post links to a wide variety of blogs, showing some sort of eclectic taste in blog reading, that's one thing. The same goes for the situation in which someone endorses a wide variety of books or periodicals. But if executives of the Southern Baptist Convention place their public imprimatur upon one and only one blog that is clearly and monolithically aligned with one and only one side of contentious SBC issues, then that is another thing. Are you saying that you see absolutely no difference between the two?
I do see a difference. Even if they have done so unwittingly, these men have endorsed a movement. It is only fair that people be reminded of the details of the movement that these men are endorsing. Offering that kind of reminder is all that I've done.
And I'm going to keep on doing it.
BTW, Dr. Patterson and Dr. Land have never endorsed abandoning the gospel in favor of the Qur'an. I think their ministries are on pretty solid ground.
Robin,
You said, "Thanks for keeping the pressure up, Bart."
Why is there a need to "keep the pressure up"? Are you involved in a fight of some sort? Has war broken out among the brotherhood?
I really would like to know.
Les
Les,
There certainly do seem to be volleys of fire aimed at Richard Land, Paige Patterson, and Chuck Kelley. To those of us sitting on the sidelines perhaps it looks like entertaining fireworks, but how do you think it would be honestly characterized by those being shot at? By those doing the shooting?
Bart,
I link to sites that I believe can be helpful to the Christian life and give an understanding to the issues facing Southern Baptists. I took away a link I had to Jeremy Green's blog because it doesn't provide anything new or helpful. I have a link to yours, Wes', and Robin's blog because I believe you add something constructive to the Baptist discussion.
If you want Dr. Rainey, Dr. Chapman, or Dr. Rankin to endorse your site as well as the SBC Outlook, I encourage you to email them. Last summer when I did my, "Seven Questions" series, I found them to be very helpful and open to the blogging world.
Lastly, Paige Patterson shouldn't be let fired as president of SWBTS because of his theological beliefs, but his lack of Leadership. SWBTS has taken a nose dive in enrollment, the school is being sued, and there is a plan to spend tons of money on a worship center that will seat about 3 times more people than are enrolled at SWBTS. SWBTS needs new leadership if it is going to grow again.
As far as using the Camel Method I have some issues accepting this model as well, but let me ask you the question I have been asking myself, "How many Muslims have I lead to the Lord this week? How many people period have I led to the Lord this week?" I encourage us all to examine our own evangelism practices before we slam someone’s method of sharing the gospel. We may not like how they are trying to share the gospel, but at least they are trying to share the gospel.
Keeping It Real,
OKpreacher
Bart-
"sidelines"?
Micah,
Not being shot at, here. Don't have anything worth taking. :-)
OK Preacher,
You said..."at least they are trying to share the gospel."
But that's the question, isn't it?
OK Preacher,
I forgot to respond, this blog is endorsed by nobody. I doubt any of those men would endorse here. I have solicited nobody for endorsements. This blog is an expression of my opinions. It stands or falls on the strength of its ideas.
Bart,
"BTW, Dr. Patterson and Dr. Land have never endorsed abandoning the gospel in favor of the Qur'an. I think their ministries are on pretty solid ground."
Who has endorsed abandoning the gospel in favor of the Qur'an, Bart? Are you referring to an entity head? You clearly have someone specific in mind. Is it Mr. Greene, or perhaps someone else? Since you are speaking of entity heads in saying that they have not endorsed abandoning the gospel, I wonder if you are accusing other entity heads of actually abandoning the gospel. Can you enlighten us?
Bart: Do you believe that blogs and bloggers have a big influence on the SBC or messengers? For those who do not believe so, it seems they are sure taking potshots at influential blogs such as the SBCOutpost. This post among others would be in that category?
I'm wondering why and what is the big deal?
Just a point of correction:
It is Dr. "Rainer" I believe (and sincerely hope) you all are referring to here. I think he might be a bit surprised to discover that I am now thought to be President of Lifeway. And in addition, I'm not nearly as important as he is in the grand scheme of things.
If after this clarification, you still want me to disclose my salary and benefits, I"ll be glad to. (Our association's 2008 proposed budget goes to press in just a few weeks, so everyone "in house" will know anyway)
Sorry to get off subject Bart, but when I saw Bro. Robins call for trying to discover Dr. "Rainey's" package, I wondered if I was in trouble. :)
Now, back on subject again: you guys sure seem to be making a "mountain" out of a "molehill" here.
Brother Bart,
I have a desire of careful verbiage on my part in this comment stream as for the last time in entered into a word fray, with some already involved, I ended up with a threat of legal action being brought against me.
First, it is amazing that when someone speaks against the "establishment" leaders endorsing a "news" blog the one speaking against the endorsement is charged with jealousy.
Second, the endorsement by "establishment" leaders is being defended by an organized effort of the same people that spoke so vehemently against "establishment" leaders endorsing when Dr.s' Patterson, Mohler, and Akin did so in 2006. Now they are for endorsements by the "establishment".
Third, the point of the post is tacit attack concerning the financial irresponsibility of certain "celebrity" preachers. You have pointed out that one such leader, who BTW does not consider himself a celebrity, never required anything for renumeration of his time. I, too, have had Dr. Patterson speak in the church I pastored and he never even asked about money or required anything special about accommodations and Mrs. Dr. Patterson was with him.
Fourth, it is amazing at the cheap shots taken at people by those that are supposed to involve themselves in "serious engagement with matters impacting Baptist churches"; and are supposed to "tone down personal criticisms of those who have differing views"; and present a "respectful exchange of diverse opinions"; while being a tool that "will be used by God to open doors of conversation that will help our denomination". Brother Alan Cross has referred to Brother Jeremy Green who is not even associated with the conversation or post. It is clearly a baiting in order to turn a discussion into a fray over words. (1 Timothy 6:20-21).
Time does not permit me to go further, but these are just a few of the things that I find amazing.
Blessings,
Tim
Dear Tim,
You wrote, "First, it is amazing that when someone speaks against the "establishment" leaders endorsing a "news" blog the one speaking against the endorsement is charged with jealousy."
I wrote I hope this attack against Dr. Rainey, Dr. Chapman, and Dr. Rankin isn't out of jealousy. I never charged anyone with jealousy. This is the problem with you, Wes, and Robin. You never read what is actually being said, but try to put your own spin on things.
Let’s face facts; you guys are scared of Ben Cole and Wade Burleson. Even though the SBC is dying, you like it the way it is. Wait, some of you wish we were more like a three hundred year old separatist English church. Either way you have no real answer for the current problems of the SBC.
I'm glad to hear that Paige came and preached at your church for free. He is a great preacher, but he is in over his head as president of SWBTS. No one denies that SWBTS enrollment is in decline. No one denies that Paige discriminated against Dr. Klouda by firing her for the reason of being a woman. No one denies the fact that he is trying to build a multi-million dollar worship center to seat 3 times the enrollment of the school. I'm not against Paige's theology, but he is killing SWBTS. To say Paige Patterson is doing a good job as president of SWBTS is as true as saying that Bush is doing a good job of handling the war in Iraq. Think about this, if he steps down or is fired, he will have more time to preach in your churches. That’s a good thing.
As for Dr. Rainey, Dr. Chapman, and Dr. Rankin they all have growing ministries and are above reproach in they way they carry themselves. To attack them instead of the author of the article just shows how desperate you guys have become.
P.S. – Alan didn’t mention Mr. Green, I did.
Keeping it real,
OKpreacher
It is sooo true
Heb 12:14 Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord.15 See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled;
an embittered guy has embittered so many others, and rather than get on with the work of evangelism he is leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies.
2 Thess 3:12 Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread. 13 But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good.
What could be done for Ben?
2 Thess 3:14 ¶ If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame.
2 Thess 3:15 {Yet} do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.
Tim,
I meant to refer to Mr. Greeson, not Greene. That was a typo. I was not speaking of Jeremy Green, but was referring to Bart's previous posts on the Camel method and was wondering if he thought that Mr. Greeson or someone else was abandoning the gospel and replacing it with the Qur'an. That was my mistake.
Brother/Sister OKPreacher,
You say, "I wrote I hope this attack against Dr. Rainey, Dr. Chapman, and Dr. Rankin isn't out of jealousy." I responded with; "it is amazing that when someone speaks against the "establishment" leaders endorsing a "news" blog the one speaking against the endorsement is charged with jealousy." I have implied that this post is written from a jealous perspective. By stating what you did, you leave the author in need to respond that he is not jealous, thus a presumption is made on your part that there is jealousy.
You then throw out your PS trying to defend Brother Alan. Note Brother Alan's response to me and you will see that through his typo he inadvertently, and unintentionally referred to Brother Jeremy. Did you not read Brother Alan's first comment to Brother Bart? And you charge me with not reading. :>(
Brother Alan,
Thanks for the correction. Because of your correction, please disregard my #4.
Blessings,
Tim
You guys really need to get a grip. This has gone beyond the ridiculous.
For anyone to attack the methods that someone else chooses to run their blog is immature and mean-spirited.
If Bart wants to do certain things on his blog, it is his right to do so.
If Micah and company want to do certain things on their blog, it is their right to do so.
If you don't like a certain blog, don't read it, talk about it, or even acknowledge it.
But this stuff is juvenile.
Les
Les,
"If you don't like a certain blog, don't read it, talk about it, or even acknowledge it."
But then you are on this blog arguing against what they re doing. Hmmmm. Maybe you should take your own advice. Or maybe blogs (especialy ones that say they are a "news" source) are open to fair criticism just as much as Patterson and Land are. If Ben Cole and the contributors to SBCoutpost do not want others to respectfully engage with what they write then maybe they should just email each other back and forth and not make it public. But isn't of the main purposes of blogs like Ben's, SBCOutpost, and this one to distribute information out in the market place of ideas and to try to influence and/or engage others? I think so.
I personally love the free flow of information and opinion on the blogs. I generally tend to like what I read on Burleson's blog and the new outpost - but I read Bart, Wes, Les, Ben, Robin and Peter's blog to give me balance in what I read - I also check into the Baptist life board from time to time as well to get actual admitted moderate views on SBC life itsownself.
I have noticed that Dr Yarnell and others have ceased commenting on Wade's and the outpost blog - coincidence - I think not.
I think all the foks I mentioned write great blogs and each serves the purpose that they seem to desire serve.
In general, I think the result is that the average SBCer who wants to keep up with all things SBC is in much better shape than what we used to be when our only choices were BP and ABP - both also slanted to serve their own constituencies.
I personally dont think anyone should be upset that someone reads or acknowledges that they read the outpost and that they learn things there - what liberal pol does not listen to Rush to hear what the pubs are up to. Every conservative pub in Tx used to read the great Molly Ivins while she was alive to get a handle on tx dem thinking. Same could be said of the NY times or wash post.
Jim Champion
Blackhaw,
I don't believe my comments qualify as attacking the method by which Bart runs his blog which was the point of my comment.
Stay awake. Keep up. :)
Les
Blackhaw-
Open to criticism we are, and to be honest the criticism is not necessarily enjoyed, but welcome nonetheless. No one, we believe, is above critique and we have no problem with anyone weighing our activities.
Jim,
I see your point. (Although I think some of blogs you mentioned are mean spirited and thus not worth a read) I do agree somewhat in what you say. However one of my main criticisms of SBCOutpost is they act like they have no bias. they should just state that they are biased and that they serve as a counter bias versus the more establishment friendly blogs. But that is not what they do. It is clear that Ben Cole makes no attempt to hide his bias though so at least I have have to give him credit for that.
Les,
you said: " I don't believe my comments qualify as attacking the method by which Bart runs his blog which was the point of my comment.
Stay awake. Keep up. :)"
Huh? This makes no sense. The quote I gave from you is criticizing this blog for being immature for criticizing SBCoutpost and other anti-establishment blogs. Obviously Bart is wrong for commenting on a post on SBCOutpost when you say "If you don't like a certain blog, don't read it, talk about it, or even acknowledge it."
I think the problem you are having is that I did keep up with what you said and criticized you for doing what you do not want Bart doing.
Sorry but I can read.
BH- CArl Peterson
Micah,
Okay. I was really just commenting on what Les ahve said. I am not saying all at SBCOutpost are against a fair crtiicism of their blog (or an item on their blog) from Bart or anyone else. But clearly Les is annoyed about it.
BH- CARL PETERSON
Carl
Everyone is biased to some extent, the ones I tend to agree with are biased to moving the SBC back to the center, the ones you tend to agree with (judging by your comments that I see across the blogosphere) would like to move the SBC further to the right. IMHO the men that "endorsed" the outpost think the sbc has moved far enough to the right and are concerned that the younger generation will not stick around if parameters continue to narrow.
What strikes me as funny, is that I dont imagine that you could find myuch theological diffence between Bart and Wade - or Bart and Ben for that matter. Bart could publish one of Wades columns and Barts boys would amen them and Wades would find nits to pick. As an example, go check out Wade's post today.
Jim Champion
Jim,
I agree that everyone is biased. I just see SBCOutpost as trying to say that they are not biased but in actuality they really are very biased. Nothing necessarily is wrong in being biased per se but one needs to just say that one is instead of trying to say that one is not.
I am sure Bart and Wade would be pretty similiar theologically.
As for myself I am more in the middle than my posts might make it seem. I usually post against Ben Cole, SBCOutpost, and Wade because I am usually posting on their blogs (Thus it is their opinions I am engaging with). I am really more in the middle than you wuld think but I can understand your assumption based upon my posts in the blogosphere.
BH- CARL
Blackhaw,
Once again you miss my point. You assume my problem was with Bart when you said, "Obviously Bart is wrong for commenting on a post on SBCOutpost..."
Your assumption that something is "obvious" is incorrect. I have never said that Bart is the problem. Like I said, "Keep up."
Les
Les,
The only problem with that Les is that you are upset at something which Bart did. Bart is criticizing how SBCOutpost is run along with other posters. So you can say that by your ambiguousness that you were not arguing agasint Bart but your comments holds no dice. So whether what you wanted to communicate was that other posters and not Bart were criticizing SBCOutpost for how they run their blog (which I doubt) or not. What is communicated through your ambiguous post and because Bart is doing the same thing is that you are also criticizing him. So sorry your excuse does not wash. And BTW stop writing "keep up" it is arrogant and annoying and dos not add to you post or credibility.
BH
bart,
have you seen the latest on outpost? the ad hominem attack on dr. patterson? man, i'm tired of hearing all that junk. i thought that this new "news journal" was gonna be fair and irenic and respectful? then, all we see are personal attacks and ridiculing jokes and people treated with disrespect. it's sad.
david
bart,
the outpost now has another "endorsement" from a high ranking sbc official....dr. frank page. one part of his "endorsement" that i liked was this....
"In my convention sermon, I also cautioned that all of our communications must be pleasing to Christ. Let us follow the biblical advice of Ephesians 4:15 which commands us to “speak the truth in love.”
dont you wonder when this will be done on sbcoutpost? it hasnt so far.
david
Excerpt from Frank Page's "Endrosement."
"The new SBCOutpost promises to be the kind of forum in which honest dialogue and debate can occur. I pray that this new effort will provide such an avenue. In my convention sermon, I also cautioned that all of our communications must be pleasing to Christ. Let us follow the biblical advice of Ephesians 4:15 which commands us to “speak the truth in love.” If we do so, I believe God would honor serious and constructive debate such as that as will be found on the new SBCOutpost."
While I understand Bart's concern about such endorsements I do not feel Dr. Page is endorsing what SBCOutpost IS as much as what IT CLIAMS to be. It seems to me that Dr. Page is saying that we need honest and respectful discussion in the SBC about our differences. I agree. So I do not see such a problem as to Dr. Page's "endrosement" except that I think he has never really looked at SBCOutpost if he thinks it will contain "serious and constructive debate" and that it is a blog where "honest dialogue and debate can occur."
What has been dishonest on the SBCOutpost david. It's one thing to keep saying this but where is the proof. The things that have come to light should come to light but I also know that darkness hates light.
debbie,
i have seen tim rogers called many degrading names on the outpost. i have been accused of being a liar, and i was called many names...not good names either....by outpost people. i have seen good, Godly men attacked on outpost....called names, accused of bad things, ridiculed, etc.
maybe others who have been disrespected and called names and have been ridiculed by the outpost crowd can chime in here. debbie seems to need more proof than just reading outpost for herself.
david
Debbie,
I have been ridiculed but maybe I am sarcastic also sometimes. But I know one girl who was ridiculed for being a woman and speaking about theology on SBCOutpost. There were also other jokes bout her that were in a sexual sort of nature. I won't go into details about that. But there is a clear double standard on SBCOutpost. Jsut look at Ben Cole's posts and what he gets away with versus other posters. It is pretty obvious.
BH-CARL
Debbie,
Since I am the woman which Carl mentioned in his last comment, I would love to hear your thoughts on his perspective of things especially since you yourself contributed to the attack on my character.
Amy,
I do not know if you are going to get a reply. It does not seem that the SBCOupost apologists want to discuss the hard facts of the bias and character assasinations that gone on over there.
Carl, Amy
your last post intrigued me, as I read the outpost on a daily basis (I suppose I need to get a life!), but I didnt see anyone (well ok Ben - but that was supposed to be humor) attacking Amy in the post in question. Amy made a strong statement, most disagreed with her - but they also defended her right to come to the outpost to say what she wanted to say, as long as she didnt run anyone into the ground to say it. In my opinion Amy made a good argument, but she didnt like the critisism. Ben Cole made a comment to her that I imagine she took offense to - but anyone that reads Ben much knows that was his warped sense of humor. Dorcas in a sense came to her defense as a woman.
volfan was taken to task in that same thread, but he was given a hard time for attempting to hijack the thread.
I will say, that just like taking an argument to Bart, you better have your argument in good order on the outpost because you will be called on it. Iron sharpens iron.
IN defense of all of the major bloggers (outpost, bart, wade etc. It has been my experience that if you come to any of those guys with respect, and make respectful arguments, you are treated with respect.
Jim Champion
Jim,
The comment that both Carl and myself make revolves around a blog in which I had not even engaged in discussion. My name was brought up in jest and then it turned inappropriate.
The title of that particular post was "Deep Roots Don't Grow Overnight."
I can take criticism but I refuse to justify Ben's comments as "that is just Ben." Someone needs to recognize that Ben being just Ben is not appropriate.
Amy & Jim,
My question is why is Ben allowed to "just be Ben" and others are criticized for doing the same kind of things? Not that I want to act and post like Ben does.
Ben Cole is an adult and I will always treat him as such.
BH-CARL
Amy,
I went back and read the comments in question - doesnt look to me like Ben's comment was a slam at you in any way. In fact it was a bit of a compliment - as Ben never admits to being whipped by anyone!
Why does Ben get away with what he does - the same reason the smart allec kids get away with everything and my kid gets sent to the principal - hes just funny. but he also backs up his bluster with facts, and has written some of the most touching articles in blogdom.
When I get right down to it, I dont think I would be comfortable in Ben's church as I think he is as big a fundy as those he is criticising - I am a very conservative moderate. I have thought about going to his church one sunday to see what he is like in the pulpit as I live in Arlington myself.
Jim Champion
Vol-bad names?
Tell me no.Names like deaconette?
You are such the pot calling the kettle black brother.
A lot of blogs, new agencies etc., are nothing more than gossip columns.
I believe it lists some sins in Romans 1, "being fill with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and allthough they know the ordinacne of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty appoval to those who practice them."
How many of these things go on in the blog world, ON BOTH SIDES!!!!! I've seen everyone, including myself, do something mentioned above.
But, its the last part of the passage that scares me. I've actually seen people approve some of these things that are mentioned above. That is very dangerous ground.
So, say what you want about the SBC Outpost, From the Hill, Kerusso Charis or Wes Kenney's blog, or even our beloved Praise God Bare Bones—but if they are promoting these types of things, should we be promoting them?
I will chime in on one thing though: if the issues are discussed, why are there so many names beside them?
That's why I like SBC Witness and other blogs that I'll leave out so they don't have to deal with certain commentators. But there, the real issues are being discussed, without the back bitting and other stuff that goes on.
Dougald
Jim,
I do not know what to say. First there were a lot of double entendres in that post. Second so Ben gets away with it because he is funny? I really do not see him as that funny either. And i do not think I am just being a fuddy duddy. I think he just does predictable things but things that no one else would say because they do not want to offend.
And it is okay because he backs up his posturing? Is this the NFL or NBA or the SBC? You sound like a good guy though and I wish you well in all your endeavors.
Interesting post, Bart. What did you expect from the Outpost? I've enjoyed reading some of Marty's posts in the old Outpost, but when he handed over the mantle, I decided less reading is best for me. I've wearied over the drip, drip, drip of contention toward Dr. Patterson. So your post gives me more reason to avoid it. I clicked on your "here" link and decided posthaste that the print is too tiny for my senior sight. selahV
what's wrong with deaconette? if you are one, then you are one. deaconette= a woman holding the office of deacon. men are deacons;women are deaconettes. :)
david
ps. alcyle, i talked to my friend at central in n. little rock. he said that things are going really well over there. they've bounced back from the difficult situations, and they are seeing people get saved and people are joining nearly every single sunday. praise the Lord!
Carl
I hate to beat a dead horse, but what the heck...
I went back and re read the thread again, because if I thought you were correct I was going to come back to appologize to you.
Where Amy was brought in was as someone who likes a good tussle. The post was that the comment stream follwed was written by a woman. Amy in a previous post had showed her willingness to argue with the boys. her name was used in that context. If the willingness to tussle had been written about a man, there would have been no question that "tussle" would have been synomymous with fight it out - which is why I didnt pick up any double entendres. Amy was being treated as one of the boys. As she had not participated in the comment thread in question using her name in this one may have caused her offense. However, the comments that followed showed a womans strength especially as it relates to enduring pain.
Off point and in no way to condone the use of double entrendes - I was at the installation of Dr Patterson at SWBTS when the big boys of the resurgence were present, there were more than a few double entendres tossed around at that affair. Anyone that has been around Dr Patterson very long knows that his sense of humor can get a bit randy at times.
Jim Champion
Bart,
Do you have an answer for the question that I asked you previously in this thread, or must I assume that you have been away from a computer or out of town. I really would like for you to tell me who you think has denied the gospel and replaced it with the Koran? Are you speaking of an agency head?
Thank you in advance.
Jim,
Then I suppose you would have no problem with your wife or daughter being described in those terms ... with that double entendre? Just curious.
Bart,
I must have fallen asleep or something. I totally missed what has happened with Dr's Patterson and Land. Email me with an update. Can't wait to see what they have mythified now.
Serving Him,
Pastor Mike
Amy
As I dont see it as a double entendre you are correct - my daughters tussle with the best of them, in fact I have raised them to be tusslers! (Of course that leads to my final arguement with them to be Becasue I Told You SO!)
In the thread where you did comment, even though I was not in agreement with you, I thought you held your ground well. My impression was that you had your feelings hurt on the previous thread and read the comments on the later thread through that lens - I truly dont think that there was a double entendre intended
Two things I have learned on these blogs is that you are not going to change other peoples minds, and you cant have a chip on your shoulder.
Carl asked why people excuse Ben - I have thought on that a bit. I have never met the man personally and have less than zero control over him, but if there is one thing that I have found in him is that he is consistent. typically when I read him I know what I am getting - for better or worse. On the other end of the spectrum is our friend JLG who I find just as bombastic as Cole - the difference is that Cole will engage. JLG is criticised about as much from the "barber blogger coalition" as Cole is from the Burleson Blogger coalition :)
I have probably hijacked this thread enough - I wish you well Amy.
Jim Champion
Jim,
We are not going to agree on this one. I stopped commenting, not because I can't handle it but because I refuse to lower myself to their level of diatribe and venom.
What I would ask if that perhaps you ask your wife if she sees a double entendre ... especially the second comment from Cole.
jim,
beyond the double entrende episode, that crowd has attacked me more than fleas attack a hound dog on a hot, sweaty day in july. i've never been treated as bad in my life as i am when i voice what i believe in thier circle of friends. i agree with amy. it's just not good for me to go to thier blogs anymore to comment. i guess they dont really want to hear a difference of opinion. i'm with amy. i think my days of commenting on that crowds blogs are over. i have better things to do with my time and with my life.
also, i have had someone from the blogging crowd telling lies about me to people i know...and, i mean flat out lies. they're lying and they know it. saying that i have written bad things about the people i know on the blogs when i have not. i have caught them in at least two lies....lies which have hurt my relationship with some people.
david
Valfan007 or David,
You say they tell lies, you accuse them of lying and you are a Pastor. Why don’t you tell CB Scott or Bob Cleveland about this and ask one of them to help you clear this up??? I have not seen this on the Blogs that I visit.
In His Name
Wayne Smith
First I also have chosen not to post at SBCOutpost because it is a waste of time. I commented on a post a few weeks ago about it and Ben Cole just said it was "weird." (Or maybe he was calling me weird?) But he celebrated by giving a link from the so long song (I do not know the title of the song)from Sound of Music.
But anyways, I am sick of hearing why Ben gets a free ride. Why he is funny or consistent or whatever. If you do not act like a Christian then someone should say something. That goes if it is me or Amy or Bart or Ben Cole. What SBCOutpost says they are all about, fair, honest, and open dialouge from different viewpoints on important topics. That is all. But I think it is too much to ask on the SBC blogging playground.
Amy
last time for me to comment on this thread :)
I showed it to my wife - who is quite a writer herself. She like me did not see a double entedre, Bens second post simply corrected a gramatical mistake in his first post.
If you and Carl - and from what I can see the rest of the SBC establisment chose to not comment on the outpost, that is your right. I think the only one still commenting is Peter - and with that I say go for it Peter!
I like the give and take - the article and thread by Emily Hunter Mcgowin is one of the best I have read on any blog. the give and take was most respectful by all - but by no means did everyone agree.
Jim
Amy, and Jim, I read the second comment about Amy, by Ben Cole, a few days ago and I was angered. I understood it as a clear breach of the command in Eph 5:4 "And coarse and foolish talking or crude joking are not suitable, but rather giving thanks. "
The double entedre is so plain that it takes outright deceit to ignore it!
Amy is not only owed a full apology, but any and every gentleman shoud take up her cause.
Amy, sady, you cannot expect better behaviour from those whose character is so suspect from the material they have previously put into public print.
Steve
Okay Bart, I've got a completely unrelated question. You said you were taking vacation from the blog during July, yet you posted regularly. Now that its August, you haven't posted anything. Whats up with that??
You wrote: “A person carefully following this method [CAMEL] is never instructed to confront the Muslim god as false. He is never instructed to confront Mohammed as a false prophet—he is rather carefully and explicitly instructed in saying just the opposite.”
I feel you’ve missed the whole point of CAMEL if you think that is all there is.
Note on CAMEL: It has nothing at all to do with the Gospel. It’s a precursor to it before the Muslim would turn a deaf ear.
CAMEL keeps them interested till they hear, understand and respond to the Truth (After the actual CAMEL presentation). Going right into the falseness of their Allah and Mohammad will only produce their knee jerk reaction and they will blast Christianity. Since that is not where most Muslims live, think or believe (rather what they are taught and blindly regurgitate) it will not get us anywhere in Islamic witness as it hasn’t for the whole history of Islamic existence. Take a look at what is happening in the Muslim world today and look at where folks are coming to Christ. Take a look at how they are coming to Christ.
Why address those apologetic issues if it is moving them away from considering the claims of Christ before they even hear them? Those issues you bring up will and are being dealt with. An evangelist I’m partnering with came into my office today and said he’s addressing very similar questions with Muslim seekers. BUT, he first got their attention, respect and listening ear by using CAMEL. The relationship continues and their theology is changing to come into submission to God’s Word. Faith is being birthed. Don’t rush it. It’s a huge jump for Jesus to be simply a prophet to the Son of God as it is for a Muslim to realize his prophet is not reliable when compared to John 14:6. Give Muslims time to process it and believe it. Let God do the same work in his heart as yours, though he’s got a tradition that teaches differently than yours. You and I were brought up believing in some kind of God and his son Jesus Christ. Christmas was ‘in our face’ every year. Not so to every Muslim coming to faith in South Asia or Indonesia. Give them so room to understand.
CAMEL never was meant to not confront. It was meant to open a wedge to then exploit that openness with the skandalon – Christ and the gospel. I'm an SB IMBer in Greeson's region. I'm not defending him, nor CAMEL. I'm simply an insider who has experience in Muslim evangelism, discipleship and church planting. If you talk to Muslims you’ll recognize there are some things that immediately shut them off. I’m not validating some sort of passive-feel-good-friendship evangelism either. Jesus needs to be ‘in their face.’ What I am saying is tact and respect. Paul does not immediately address the blasphemy of the idolatry in Acts 17 either. What he says, he says gently. He opens a wedge and exploits it for the truth. I’m grateful conversations of this nature are finally making their way to blog-worlds.
Also, if you’ll research you’ll recognize that believers in Arabic speaking countries do use ‘ALLAH” to refer to Jehovah God of the Bible (Egypt Christians for example). I’ll leave that research to you as I’ve been there, done that. No one I know practicing CAMEL….Christian background believer or Muslim background believer – believes or practices that the ALLAH of the Koran and the Yahweh of the Bible are theologically the same (though most Muslims in South Asia do believe this!). If folks out there are saying that, they are perverting the practice of CAMEL.
Obviously there are differences between the two. They are not the same. But, I dare say that the ‘God’ of Roman Catholic Mexico is strikingly different than the God of the Bible. What are you going to call God when working there – ‘Dios’ as they do? That same word needs re-defining. Similarly with Islam. Take what you are talking about and move it outside of the English language. Even our own word ‘god’ has pagan roots. Let’s get beyond the etymological use down to what people mean when they use those terms. As Muslims interact with the Bible, their theology will evolve to be aligned with the Truth if they believe….as will anyone’s theology when coming to Christ.
What CAMEL tries to do is to get Muslims to begin seriously taking a look at the ROOT of the matter. I appreciate your point about what the rest of the Koran says about Mohammed. But, the point is not to make more educated Muslims. It is not to develop a full orbed theology … it’s simply to draw out those called-out ones by throwing at them some spiritual bread crumbs to get to the table full of Truth.
Frankly, dissecting of CAMEL by Christian background believers in the US misses a significant point. …maybe the Muslims coming to faith aren’t as literate as MDIVers but they certainly have a genuine faith that is growing day to day in the face of real persecution and ‘shame’ brought to their families due to their conversions. Somehow I honestly think you are throwing out the baby with the bath water. CAMEL was not an invention of Greeson but of Muslim background believers. Greeson simply recorded what appeared to be a way Muslims en mass have been coming to Christ and this was one of the keys. I refer you to the IMB’s analysis of that work which genuinely identified true believers.
OK, so I posted to the wrong post. Sorry. See the next post. I corrected it.
Brother Bart, you didn't run off to that Baptist history celebration in South Carolina, did you? It would be disappointing to know you were over there while we were stuck at home reading the same blog post over and over!
Bart, this is off topic I know, but I just discovered your blog. I can't help but ask . . . do you know the names of Praisegod Barebones' two brothers?
Bill Haynes
To all:
I considered this matter closed when the entity heads unendorsed the SBCOutpost. I'm content with that resolution of matters. In fact, coming back from my hiatus, I had not even read the further comments on this post (there were so many to read...I just didn't have the stamina to do it!). But Alan Cross has asked me to respond to him, so I'll do my best to catch up with all of the comments here. Nevertheless, I state here that I consider the matter closed.
Alan,
Attacks against sitting agency heads are the methodology of others, not me. The closest I have come to doing so is my insistence that some of our agency heads have mistakenly made endorsements without considering carefully their ramifications.
It has been your constant practice from the beginning of the PPL debate to bait me, trying to get me to denounce Dr. Rankin publicly. I have never made any overt initiative toward doing so. You seem determined to make me make it personal. Well, I'm tired of being baited in that way, and I will no longer give your tactics the time of day. Let that kind of vicious attack be the sole province of you guys at SBC Outpost, I say.
Whenever I wish to speak about Dr. Rankin, I will do so clearly. I'm quite capable of articulating my own thoughts.
Anyone can connect the dots and see that he and I differ on a few points of thought. But I have never called him a liar, never ridiculed his wife, never belittled his pets, never lampooned him with shameful videos, never initiated unbiblical lawsuits against him, never planted spies against him or solicited inside information against him. Yet your compadres have done all of the above against Dr. Patterson. I will not stoop there.
Bill/Merrilea/Bill and Merrilea,
If there is some hidden appendix to the CAMEL, it ought to be included in the book. I would think that the moment of confrontation would be among the most critical parts of Muslim evangelization—how helpful is it to purport to train people in Muslim evangelization and yet ignore this very point at which people need instruction the most?
We are off thread here, but I have two more posts on the CAMEL in which we can continue our discussion.
I am tending, however, to concur with your opening comment that the Camel has nothing to do with the gospel.
Thanks for your desire and efforts to spread the gospel of Christ. I have no doubt that many missionaries glean a few helpful ideas from Greeson's work and then create their own hybrid. Nevertheless, the contents of the book cry out for critique.
From what I can tell, the remainder of the comments were you guys talking with each other. If I have left any other unfinished business, please let me know.
Bart,
Thank you for your honesty and clarity. I am left to wonder what Alan et al. will ever do to come to the table regarding the issues rather than the continued missions of personal destruction. When it comes to issues of doctrinal integrity, Dr. Patterson's or Dr. Mohler's or Dr. Ruth's character does not figure into the validity of one's position.
Alan Cross called earlier today and clarified that he did not intend to push me into saying anything negative about Dr. Rankin. It was a gracious and fruitful conversation. I appreciated our time speaking together.
Post a Comment