I don’t accept your judgment that I am irresponsible, that I gossip, or that I slander a brother in Christ.

I don’t–rather, Jimmy Carter’s reported words from May of this year–do the accusing. President Carter simply needs to refute the reports and the reporters, and I’ll be relieved from the obligation I feel. You pointed out that you’ve had an audience with him before. Why don’t you seek another audience and ask him for the refutation you admittedly wish he’d make?

Now, Brian, you must decide which way you want it:

As you said yourself Sept. 20, “. . . if Oldham was misquoted or misled why has he not spoken out about it yet? If he is going to be the Convention’s spokesperson on this issue then he needs to be . . .”

I say again, borrowing you(r) rationale, “. . . if President Carter was misquoted or misled (by Newsweek or Rabbi Lerner) why has he not spoken out about it yet? If he is going to be the NBC’s convener and keynote spokesperson, then he needs to be . . .”

Brian, if you’re going to presume, due to his silence, that Oldham was accurately quoted, then, to be fair and consistent you must presume, due to his silence, that Carter was accurately represented as well.

I’m not complaining, but I emailed you privately about my contact with the Rabbi. I don’t remember writing about it on your blog, but I may be mistaken. I’m proof that at least one fundamentalist exists for whom it is possible to admit he’s wrong (contrary to another outlandish Carter quote).

I had subsequent contact with the Rabbi since you and I discussed it. Taking into account the Rabbi’s further comments, Carter’s silence, combined with the ground rules you stated in the Oldham matter, I can’t, in good conscience, sweep under the rug the strong possibility that the man is a pluralist.

Until Carter refutes the reports and/or reporters, or the NBC removes him from key involvement, I will continue to contribute my words of caution whenever “authentic Baptist witness,” “new prophetic voice,” “traditional Baptist values,” etc. are used to describe and sell the NBC’s potential to potentially naive readers. I want to guide, not misguide.

Again, I appreciate and respect Big Daddy and you for not censoring comments from dissenting viewpoints in the shameful manner of another blogger.

I should and would never be guilty of adding words to those you write.

So, now you want us to give you extra credit by adding “at times” to your extraordinary statement which okay-ed “benevolent” moderate BGCT leadership’s “heavy-handed” methods?

I’m chuckling again, and you’re statements do sound conflicted, despite your simple, subjective, self-assessing protest, “I’m not conflicted.”

Given, you’d rather have moderates (or liberals) rather than conservatives (or fundamentalists) “ruling” (another reference to control) because you are one. But, what evidence indicates, with such certainty as your statement, that past or current moderate/liberal BGCT leaders have been benevolent (while heavy-handed [even at times]?), or that any potential or previously excluded conservative/fundamental leader would be “mean-spirited?”

You’re correct in that there are a whole lot of conservatives, if not fundamentalists, in those 3,000 BGCT churches, and that if moderates put into practice what they preach about “inclusiveness,” they’ll lose some control. Probably advance God’s kingdom, but lose power.

And, again, you sure sound like (and didn’t protest that) control is what it’s about.

George Dubya alone has addressed the SBC by satellite every year of his presidency, and Condaleeza Rice (a person I greatly respect) addressed messengers just this past year.

Leading civil religionists, “creation scientists”, and other rightwing political stalwarts such as Oliver North, James Dobson, and Tim LaHaye also appear annually at the SBC. I could live with some of that if there was any hint of balance, but that’s not the case.

Notably absent and snubbed, meanwhile, from the SBC’s invitation list in recent years have been Carter, Clinton, and Gore – our living Baptist presidents and vice-president. That’s shameful.

Mark R.
Alabama

I’m not conflicted.

Just add “at times” behind the phrase “even if heavy-handed.”

I’d rather have benevolent moderate leadership ruling the roost (even if mistakes are made along the way) than mean-spirited fundamentalists (which PARITY opens the door to)

If state convention life has taught Baptists anything since the national Takeover, it’s that the moderate minority eventually gets kicked to the curb. Leonard’s “Grand Compromise” thesis didn’t carry over into the 21st century. Parity AND peace is not possible when fundamentalists are still involved. And yes – there are quite a few funamentalists in those 3,000 SBC churches that Lee wants to give a comfy seat at the table.

I’m chuckling once again. No, actually, I’m scratching my hand and somewhat dizzy.

You say, in the same paragraph to Lee, “Moderates respect theological diversity” right after saying “I (and obviously most other moderates) don’t desire the parity that you’re seeking.”

You seem to be conflicted, to have a real love-hate relationship with respect for diversity when it comes to controlling a Baptist convention.

You also say, “Baptists who don’t desire rigidty and conformity should be thankful for the moderate leadership – even if heavy-handed.”

You again seem conflicted, to have both a disdain for “rigidity and conformity” and an acceptance of “heavy-handedness” when it comes to controlling a Baptist convention.

Your objective (control) sounds very much like that which some other Baptists began implementing in a large national Baptist convention in 1979.

I’m not enamored by the personalities you speak of. You hear New Baptist Covenant and picture conjure up the sins of Bill Clinton. I hear New Baptist Covenant and envision a 20,000 strong Baptist Unity rally – a Celebration and time of reconciliation with Black Baptists, Hispanic Baptists, American Baptists and maybe a few Canadians. Unity Amidst Diversity. That’s something that many of us desire. We don’t desire to be Texas Baptist isolationists. We want to connect with the larger Global Baptist community through the NABF and BWA. I’m not sure that’s on your agenda nor is it on the agenda of many Southern Baptists in Texas.

I’m excited about good preaching. Julie Pennington-Russell and Joel Gregory. I want to hear Charles Adams whoop and James Forbes rap. I find black preaching to be quite uplifting. But no, I’m not enamored with Bill, Jimmy or Al. I would like to hear Moyers speak; he is after all perhaps the most articulate defender of the First Amendment in America today. It’s about time the larger Baptist community has a serious discussion about poverty, HIV/AIDS pandemic and the continuing race problem that our nation faces. All that to say, it’s about time that the World sees that we Baptists believe that social justice and evangelism are but different sides of the same missional coin. We cannot neglect one for the other. So yes, I’m enamored with all of the above. From what I hear, a very large constituency of young Texas Baptist Professionals are share my sentiments.

The 25-35 crowd are tomorrow’s Baptist leaders. If the denominational system that is the BGCT plans to continue kickin, they best take into consideration how the young professionals view the New Baptist Covenant which could very well be one of the most historic Baptist gatherings of the past 100 years. I know a Texas Baptist who has been traveling the state and has the “pulse” of where younger Texas Baptists stand on this issue. And the support for the NBC is unbelievable here in your own state.

For Further Inquiry on TBYPN and NBC

I have never understood the New Baptist Covenant to be a secular political rally. The stated goals are to focus in on those things that Jesus preached in Nazareth when he read from the text of Isaiah. The event is billed as an opportunity for Baptists to focus on those things and to think about justice and peace and what the gospel means for those who are “the least of these.” Carter is not doing this as a former president, but as a Baptist. The politicians are there because they can discuss how Baptists can apply the gospel to real life situations.

The election of Joy Fenner would not mean that she would be a puppet for TBC which is what you are implying. Surely you give her credit for having more integrity than that.

As for Charles Wade being the TBC candidate, if you will remember he wasn’t even the first candidate put forward when he was elected. The first candidate turned it down and Charles was the second choice. Now, I can hardly imagine anyone who would get within ten feet of the job.

Michael Dain

No one can guarantee parity. But I can guarantee that if the TBC candidate is elected, there will not be any parity in the BGCT, and little chance of it happening in the next year.

I pretty much agree with you regarding the relevance and viability of big denominations. I think that is why it is vital for the BGCT to get its house in order once again. The paradigm shifts that are occuring in the way we do ministry, church, and related work are pressures that require change, deep change, or slow death will occur. I think we are seeing some signs of slow death, especially in the median age of convention messengers. That’s another reason why I think David Lowrie needs to be elected. Change is coming, let’s be prepared for it. Appealing to missions mindedness is somewhat empty, in light of the deep budget cuts made by the administration in the missions department of the convention. That wasn’t a good move. To save missions money by laying off the employees in the missions and evangelism department, and not make any cuts at all in executive salaries or staff is counterproductive.

You’re just not going to get why the NBC is the recipe for disaster. You are so enamored by the personalities involved that you are blinded to the realities. When the BGCT joined the NABF, there was no indication that meant signing on to an event like the NBC. If that had been revealed at the time, there would never have been enough votes to get the BGCT into the fellowship.

I have no objection whatsoever to the BGCT participating in the NABF or the BWA. The NBC, with the high profile involvement of Carter, Clinton, Gore, Grassley and Graham, is a surprise. We are not a secular political convention, and I couldn’t care less whether anything these men would say would be political or not. They are secular politicians, and the BGCT has no reason to associate itself with anything that might even remotely be perceived as secular politics. You can’t pull a surprise like that and not go back to the convention for a vote. To continue to pursue this, in light of what has transpired in the BGCT and what has come to light in the past year, without a vote would be a grave mistake. Those of you who want the BGCT to continue to be part of NABF and BWA had better hope there is a vote, because if there isn’t, it will not be long before they are defunded and the relationships severed, either at a future convention, or bu default when churches stop giving.

Does the Convention take a vote each and every time the Christian Life Commission takes a political issue?

You know and I know that those 3,000 Southern Baptist churches don’t support many of the positions taken by the Christian Life Commission. That is a historical fact based on 50+ years of history. God knows the majority of BGCT churches wouldn’t support their positions on the environment or immigration. But the CLC “speaks to but not for” Texas Baptists. So, all is well.