Today I direct you to a recent article at SBC Outpost. They derive pleasure from attacking Dr. Patterson and SWBTS. I like to say good things about them. Rarely can we both take pleasure in the same material.
But today marks that rare occasion. Dr. Patterson, according to SBC Outpost, does not believe that anyone receiving a CP paycheck at SWBTS ought to be a member of homosexuality-affirming Broadway Baptist Church of Fort Worth. SBC Outpost wants you to know about this in the hopes that you will think less of Dr. Patterson and SWBTS for their uncompromising standards. People in the comment stream over there are scandalized to think that a Southern Baptist seminary wouldn't have professors serving as members in any old church that they want.
I direct you to this post because I'm proud of any stand SWBTS takes against this blatant abomination before God.
In Greensboro Dr. Mohler gave thanks that, because of the Conservative Resurgence, Southern Baptists weren't having to debate things like homosexuality. Now, apparently, a conversation has broken out regarding the kind of "narrowing of parameters" that would have Southern Baptist seminary professors not hold membership in homosexuality-affirming churches. But I predict it to be a short-lived conversation.
By the way, where in The Baptist Faith & Message does it say that seminary professors shouldn't be members of homosexuality-affirming churches?
Bart,
ReplyDeleteThis is one of the most clear illustrations we have seen to date of how their hatred is blinding them. The fact that we now see Enid and Outpost people basically defending membership in a sodomite appeasing church, is just startling.
It makes me wonder what the messengers would think of this reform now. I also wonder what other Biblical principles that they are willing to compromise in order to attack Dr. Patterson. The more they prattle the more they continue to marginalize their own movement. Posts and comments like they have on this issue, demonstrate once again, that this isn't about reform, but a vendetta.
Ron P.
Bart and Ron P,
ReplyDeleteYou have said it well. Amen.
There latest attack on the attorney is equally absurd. Reform is not their agenda for sure.
Tim: Attack on the attorney? Tell me one thing in the outpost that isn't true. Also, remember there was a disagreement over this issue within the church so not everyone was defending membership which doesn't make it a sodomite appeasing church. This is another guilt by association tactic and once again it is wrong. These professors are not pro-homosexual membership persay nor is that the reason given for their...what word would you prefer? Demise(My word of choice) or forced resignation, or simply, resignation. I'll let you choose which word fits.
ReplyDeleteReform is what I want. Badly. If you can honestly read this latest information, again with documentation provided, and not see many institutions within the SBC are in deep...I want to use the word sin....., then I am floored beyond words, which as you know is rare for me.
ReplyDeletedebbie,
ReplyDeletewe can wish...cant we? by the way, i hope the floor is carpeted.
david :)
Ben Cole is blinded by hate and cannot see anything through the bitterness of his heart. It is sad. He was once a man who had some good ideas.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast to the those who spew hatred for the convention and its seminaries, and especially for Dr. Patterson, I am glad to now be part of a convention that will take a stand.
If the conservative movement had not happened, Broadway-type churches would be all over the convention.
However, I take issue with the last line of your post. The home and family section clearly defines marriage and condemns immorality of all kinds.
Broadway is clearly outside the parameters of the SBC.
In this case, the BF&M 2000 suffices as a standard (as I wish it would be at the IMB).
To follow up,
ReplyDeleteThe convention has clearly spoken, not only in the BF&M but in other resolutions that we believe that homosexual conduct is sinful.
We voted to disfellowship two churches years ago who either ordained homosexuals or blessed their unions.
Dr. Patterson has full convention authority to do what he has done here.
Bart, where has the convention ever spoken about private prayer language?
Dave's point is a good one.
ReplyDeleteAnd it does seem reasonable, on the face of it, to take this stand. But I have thought perhaps a bit too hard. Surely any SWBTS staff faculty member who is a member at BBC is a force for good? Is there some doubt about that? Can faculty members not be trusted with this decision-making?
And is it morally necessary to control CP monies beyond their initial sponsorship? My understanding is that you cannot give beyond the initial recipient'. When someone in our church asks for money off the streets or as a salary raise we assess whether we trust them and their motives - once we give it's between them and God. I would not countenance giving with an additional binding insistence they didn't visit the liquor store.
I ask these questions because I do not see how the points you've made are any denial that Dr Patterson is prone to an unecessarily and politicized controlling manner. Which is something of a current issue even if we ignore Ben Cole (as we probably should).
Dave: You are being totally unfair. If there is hate involved it is of the deeds, and it should be. I hate the deeds that have been evident lately.
ReplyDeleteFacts are facts. Again show me anything that Ben has posted that is not true. The documents and emails given as proof are pretty convincing. I believe these things ought to come to light. Hate is a word being thrown around in an effort to control. I don't think it's going to be a controlling(pardon the pun) factor here.
Dave,
ReplyDeleteBart's last sentence is correct and illuminates the fallacy of trying to make the BFM a maximal doctrinal standard. The BFM2000 does say in XV. The Christian and the Social Order: ...Christians should oppose racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography...
It however, does NOT state that seminary professors (or other entity employees) shouldn't be members of homosexuality-affirming churches. Common Biblical sense does not need such defining for most Southern Baptists.
However, those that argue that the BFM is a maximal doctrinal statement, would be correct to assert that Dr. Patterson and SWBTS went beyond the BFM as it says nothing about being a member of a church that affirms homosexuality. It just states that Christians should oppose homosexuality.
Bart makes an excellent argument as to why making the BFM a maximal doctrinal statement is ludicrous. Thankfully, the BFM is not a maximal doctrinal statement of Southern Baptists. The BFM reserves that for the Bible.
Ron P.
Alex,
ReplyDeleteI think I agree with you. Dr. Patterson may not be the Antichrist as Ben presents him, but neither is he perfect. There is a middle ground.
Dr. Patterson is not evil, as some would have it, but he has, I believe, made some mistakes.
His interference with trustees at the IMB (which again, is a matter of speculation, but it is my impression that it happened)was a mistake.
Since I have no personal conviction about a woman teaching Hebrew, I am not sure his actions in the Klouda matter were wise.
There is a middle ground between beatifying Paige Patterson, and turning him into the focus of all evil in the SBC.
May we start to see that middle ground.
Ron,
ReplyDeleteHere's my view in a nutshell. We may believe what we want, as long as we join together on the essentials of Baptist doctrine and practice (the "minimal" BF&M).
But no agency should exclude from fellowship or service people who are in full agreement with the BF&M.
If the convention has spoken (like on the issue of homosexuality) then we may enforce that. But where the convention has not spoken, no agency of the SBC should refuse people the privilege of service.
Debbie,
ReplyDeleteAs your Pastor has stated before, the perception created is also fact!
When your church says enough is enough pertaining to a staff member cursing on line on public blogs, sowing seeds of discord among the brethren, and more... then maybe things can work for solutions and revival. When you realize that though we are to love the sinners we cannot do anything but stand against a church that totally accepts (including homosexuals in leadership thus endorsing the lifestyle as normal and appropriate)maybe you will see that this is not hatred but indeed a Biblical stand and one that the SBC (as others have clearly pointed out) has indeed endorsed and spoken concerning.
Bart -
ReplyDeleteI read your link and thought that the main thrust of the SBC Outpost blog was to point out the perceived hypocrisy of Patterson being critical of professors who belong to Broadway BC while simultaneously retaining a lawyer who serves in leadership there. I guess I'm not following your thought very clearly; what are you saying?
Your Friend,
Ben Macklin
Bart,
ReplyDeleteI hope that you will delete that last comment from "Frank the Tank." I've seen a lot of garbage on the blogs, but that takes the cake.
I agree with Ben Macklin, by the way. I read your post first and I expected to see a post at Outpost attacking Dr. Patterson for disciplining faculty who were members at Broadway. Instead, I saw a post that attacked his use of a lawyer from Broadway. This was called hypocrisy. Did I miss something?
Dave,
ReplyDeleteSorry that I have not been able to get back to you until now.
Prior to the BFM2000, homosexuality was not even mentioned. Though, I believe that it is clear from prior BFM statements that a sexual relationship is only between a husband (man) and wife (woman), there are those who would see it differently, especially if the person claims to be a celibate homosexual (but still a homosexual). If it was not in the BFM today, we would have some argue that the the BFM is silent on the issue. Thankfully, it is not.
Historically, our convention has left the establishment of doctrinal parameters to the BOT's of each entity. The bylaws of the convention would have to be changed to make your suggestion enforceable, as it has never been that way in our history or practice. The bylaws as they currently exist, clearly leave that to entity BOTs.
There is a real problem with what you propose. People who believe the following could serve as an entity employee under the scenario you outline:
We have within the SBC, a segment that are clearly charismatic Pentecostals who are still in the SBC, who believe and practice such things as being slain in the Spirit, Holy Laughter, words of knowledge, and so forth. They wholly and fully can affirm the BFM. Nothing in the BFM itself speak to these abuses of spiritual gifts. Yet, Southern Baptists would be in great distress if we appointed missionaries who believed or practiced the above. That is why we have Trustees, elected by the Messengers, to set parameters of service. I am too tired to make a list of beliefs and practices that would violate Scripture, but not the BFM. Dr. Mohler's cross dressing example is another great (and unfortunately realistic in today's culture) illustration of this.
Again, many are trying to give authority to the BFM that the document itself reserves ONLY for Scripture:
The Preamble statesThat the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.
The article on Scripture states that Scripture is ... the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried.
Making the BFM the sole doctrinal "hiring guide" is contrary to everything we as Baptists have practiced our entire history.
Dave, I understand and can sympathize with your position. However, I do not believe that it can be supported without inviting Biblical error into our convention and then requiring constant changes to the BFM to address Biblical error. That violates the intent and purpose of the BFM. That is why the Bible, and not the BFM must be our "hiring guide" with the Trustees being allowed to set those parameters.
Ron P.
Ben and Alan,
ReplyDeleteI would have to disagree, and point you to part of what Bart wrote:
People in the comment stream over there are scandalized to think that a Southern Baptist seminary wouldn't have professors serving as members in any old church that they want.
He is correct in that assessment as there are comments that state such. He also stated, and I concur, that it does appear that SBC Outpost did this to make people think less of Dr. Patterson.
I do agree with your comment about the above comments about Ben. Though Ben does not practice this, he is entitled to the respect that Scripture accords to a minister of the Gospel. This is nothing but a scurrilous attack that has no place in the Kingdom of God!
Ron P.
Dave: Where have I ever in any post here or elsewhere condoned homosexuality or membership in the church by one? Answer: never. I do believe homosexuality to be sin and not a criteria for church membership. What my point was is this, not all members agreed with those who wanted the couple's pics to be displayed in the directory. There was division. Unless the faculty would agree, it's not right to punish all for the actions of some. I shouldn't even have to explain this. Also as has been brought out and the point being made is that Paige Patterson hired a lawyer who is a member of this very church. Now you can cry hatred all you want, you can attempt to discredit, but I don't think it's working too well with as much documentation as has been presented.
ReplyDeleteDebbie,
ReplyDeleteThese “homosexual couples” have been members (yes, that’s right – full fledge members) of BBC for years. By the admission of the pastor some of them have even served in leadership at the church. They have been acknowledged by the congregation and the pastor has even admitted that he believes their inclusion is “of the Holy Spirit.” This is not a new development. What brought this to a head was not that homosexual couples wanted to join the church, but that they wanted public acknowledgment. Evidently the professors from SWBTS who have been members at BBC have not had a problem with this until the issue of the directory arose.
As to this idea of a supposed “hypocrisy” on Dr. Patterson’s part – why do you hire a lawyer? Is it because of his theology or his ability to argue a case in a civil court of law? If this issue had been left where it belonged (in the body of believers – see Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 6) THEN I would have a problem with Dr. Patterson’s lawyer.
Grace,
WesInTex
Wes in Texas,
ReplyDeleteYou have wrapped up the situation is an excellant manner. You do indeed hire a lawyer because of ability to lead a case. I think the scenerio where Dr. Patterson is attacked because of who he hires is absurd - he was the one taken to court, therefore you hire someone who can defend you! You do not hire based on their beliefs theologically.
And pertaining to Broadway, you have nailed this one. The "couples" were indeed active members and in leadership. The directory debacle was just another move on the leaderships part to make the sin of homosexuality more normal in the eyes of the members of the church.
Frank The Tank,
ReplyDeleteI do not know who you are, but by your link, it is obvious that you do not consider a holy life something that should coincide with Christianity. Thus, you appear to place yourself in the camp of a non-believer. As such you need to look to Christ because he is the one that can change your heart.
Your accusation of Brother Ben Cole is nothing but that--an accusation. I will be the first to tell you that I do not agree with my Brother and I believe he is blinded by personal vengeance. However, to imply what you have is far across the line.
I am publicly asking Bart to remove your comments as they are nothing but innuendo and placed in this comment thread for the sole purpose to degrade a person.
Tim
Bart,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tim R and others that Frank the Tank needs a swift boot from the comment stream.
frank the tank,
I pray that you will listen to what God is saying to you in and for your life. We love people as God loves people. Throwing out attacks such as yours are not proper and frankly are WRONG!
It was a bad attempt at a bad joke.
ReplyDeleteAt least this crowd condemns mean-spirited personal attacks, unlike some other crowds.
Frank the Tank, While I do not condone the methods Ben takes to make a point, nor the continual outpouring of degrading attacks from Ben's posts, I feel it quite wrong for you to make such accusations, even as a joke. I don't like Ben's humor, but I think yours is totally out of line. You should apologize. selahV
ReplyDeleteRon -
ReplyDeleteDo I know you? I think you may be confusing me with the other "Ben" (Cole) over at SBC Outpost. I just asked a question of clarity and I don't know what it is that I don't practice, but I'm happy to start practicing it if you'll tell me what "it" is.
Ben Macklin,
Pastor, FBC Vernon Texas
All-
ReplyDeleteI think I'll post as George Macklin from now on; my middle name, "Ben," seems to be unpopular around these parts.
George Macklin,
pastor, FBC Vernon
Ben,
ReplyDeleteI do not think anyone would confuse you with Ben Cole. EVER! Alan had agreed with your post, I was just pointing out that I agreed with Bart and noted to you and Alan the relevant statements from Bart's post to support his supposition. In the same comment, but a new paragraph, I was of course referring to Ben Cole and the appalling comment about him by Frank the Tank. No reference to you was intended. I should have used last names since two Ben's were part of my post. My apologies if you were offended.
Ron P.
Ron -
ReplyDeleteOkay, thanks.
I'd just like to add my voice to those calling for the removal of the comment by "frank the tank."
ReplyDeleteWhile I've certainly had my share of disagreements with Ben Cole, that kind of innuendo is beyond the limit. We can and must debate our differences, but we must not allow those differences to cause us to forget that we are brothers and sisters in Christ.
I know that our host is unavailable, as he is on a mission trip. But I'm confident that when he returns, this offensive comment will be appropriately addressed.
Dear friends,
ReplyDeleteFrank is now in the tank.
I've been gone on a mission trip. I apologize for being delinquent in my blog conservatization duties (I have chosen not to apply the word "moderation" to myself).