Speaking for those who have affirmed this post, I will say that reporting a breach of ethics made by the President of the 16 million member, largest Protestant denomination in the United States is not being nit picky.

Your premise is false.

We Baptists should take ethics seriously.

Maybe the reason Baptists are supposedly in decline and decay is due to a lack of ethics?

I know that Washington DC needs a regular dose of ethics daily….

So, none of you here have ever done anything like that, huh? And when you do, are you prepared to have a segment of the Baptist press jump all over you for it?

It’s no wonder Baptists are in decline and decay. We would rather nitpick and blame than be part of any meaningful kingdom work.

and this
Fox here: Gonna cut and paste a long response from over on Killian’s blog I thought you would find interesting. Hoping you will take it to Bl.com and Hankins to see what they think; where it rings true for them or not

From a RonK at my friend Killian’s blog:
onymous said…
Fox said:

“Have you passed the BFM 2000 around the offices of WMU in Bham lately.
Let me know how many signatures you get.”

This is the point fox. Who cares who signs i at the WMU offices. The fact of the matter is that the WMU is it’s own entity and they can do what they like, however to the extent that they cooperate with any SBC entity, they are working with and for those who sign and affirm the BFM.

That’s what we fought for. We fought so that doctrinal fidelity would be plain and open for all to see in every area of leadership in the convention. That has been achieved. If you want to serve and accept the money of thousands of conservative cooperating churches to do ministry, you must have the beliefs of those thousands of conservative churches.

That was what the fight was for. The fight was for who will represent the rank and file southern baptist who is overwhelmingly conservative.

Let’s face it, The CBF churches are is such a small minority compared to those who remained. I attended a CBF (dually alligned church) church while attending college so I am not some crazy fundie nut, but I see so much dishonesty in this debating back and forth. this article certainly represents this lack of integrity and maybe shows a great sense of denial.

When I was at college, (I attended a baptist state college -very moderate) I thought the whole world were moderates. I thought there were only moderate scholars. I got a religion minor and took several upperlevel religion degrees and was never introduced to D.A. Carson? How does that happen? Because we can so often get wrapped up in thinking that our people are a majority because we only talk to our people, but the numbers bear this out in the SBC. THE SBC WAS CONSERVATIVE BEFORE THE CONSERVATIVE RESURGENCE. IT IS CONSERVATIVE NOW. Nothing has changed except that conservatives are in charge of the agencies now and are charting the future.

Frustrating as it may be, It doesn’t matter a dang bit if you walk the halls and every individual at every affilliating church or organization affirm the BFM or not. The point was for us to decide what will be our standard for Ministry and Leadership.

RonK

I see that you deleted my post and after reading it, I do see that I indeed did unleash some some fury, which I regret and apologize for. However, I do feel some things need to be addressed, so I am going to repost it minus the venom. Please allow this post to remain. It will be my last on this thread. And again I sincerely apologize for my anger and my scathing words.

Jeremy,

I appreciate your honesty in the confusion. It is refreshing to hear someone being willing to correct himself. And I apologize for assuming your goal was “to divert attention away from your insinuation about Frank Page and his motives in sharing this story.”

As for the audio, while I have listened to it enough times to quote it, it would be better if you listen to it yourself by going to the ED article. It downloads rather quickly and you can scan to the last 2 minutes. It starts at about minute 30, maybe a few seconds later and it goes until the end at 31:41.

As for this “private” meeting, I am glad you brought that up. It is an assumption to think that Frank Page had a one-on-one meeting with Giuliani. I doubt that was the case. A “private audience” (yes, the proper term for it) with the Pope, is with 5,000 others. So private doesn’t necessarily mean confidential or hidden. Those are just assumptions, and since ED didn’t seem to contact Page about the matter, I imagine it was made without full knowledge of the facts. Further, there is no evidence that Page had taken Rudy to the side in some private conversation. It is likely that he was meeting with several other Evangelical ministers and that there may have been more than just him and Rudy in that conversation. I have shared the Gospel with people before when several people were in our presence. So I think it is not fair to come to the conclusion that a “private” meeting means that everything spoken about is confidential in some way. And I think that should be considered before one makes that assumption.

Additionally, I find that most are presupposing that it is wrong to recount this story. I think it’s an assumption to say it is wrong to publically speak about an experience of sharing the Gospel with someone. What book of ethics or what text of the Bible do find this? Is it always the case that mentioning a person one shared the Gospel with to others is wrong? If so, how about praying for the salvation of men and women in prayer meetings? Aren’t we instructed to pray for men’s salvation? Haven’t we as Baptists always had prayer meetings and times of prayer for specific individuals? What makes Rudy’s case special? Because he is a public figure? Is Jesus really more worried with Rudy’s privacy than his salvation? Shouldn’t one consider that Page sharing this could be in the plan of God so that men would pray and God would answer in saving Rudy’s soul? These are important questions that aren’t being considered here.

What I find most troubling is that the story is focused on a “so-called” breach of ethics rather than in praise of God that Rudy Giuliani had the Gospel shared with him in such a way that he spoke about his father’s conversion in a positive light. It seems that Giuliani understood very clearly what was communicated to him by Page and conceded he wasn’t ready to take that step.

So, I think the focus should be to PRAY FOR RUDY!, not on the remote possibility that maybe his privacy was breached. If Rudy was led to Christ, wouldn’t he be delighted to know that many people were praying for him b/c of Page sharing this story? And I think Jesus is less concerned with privacy than the salvation of souls, don’t you? It may well be that Page or someone else has the opportunity to lead him to Christ. I just don’t get why there is not more rejoicing, rather than charging a fellow brother in Christ with something that is questionable at best, especially given that we find nothing in the Bible that support such a thing as being unethical? Heck, Paul aired plenty of dirty laundry in 1 & 2 Cor., as well as in Philippians.

I mean really, where do we find any evidence that a pastor shouldn’t share an experience like this in the Bible??? For one to judge this as unethical is to take a subjective view that has no ground in Biblical truth, and isn’t that was we often find “fundamentalists” condemned for doing?

As for the Catholic thing…being a Catholic doesn’t make one a Christian any more than being a Baptist does. Apparently Rudy understood the difference in how he answered the question. And again, as I said earlier, ED left out the phrase in the audio, “I shared Christ with him so much that at the end of two hours…”

Now, BDW,

You can’t simply repeat the idea that this was a breach of ethics without proving it to be the case. As I have noted, it is pure subjective opinion that recounting this story was unethical. You must deal with the questions I posed in my previous post.

So, I again ask, “what evidence do you have that such is unethical?” Please explain why Frank Page is wrong and how what he did is different from an elder in the local church telling of an experience sharing the Gospel with a particular person in their community? Why did Page have no business sharing that? What makes it problematic? And, no I can’t see it, because there’s nothing there to suggest such. We have absolutely nothing in the Bible or throughout Church History that clearly communicates that such is a breach of ethics.

You said,

“You’re quite a disagreeable person. There is no need to disagree with each and every word posted on this blog. I’m sure if I were to say that 2+2=4, you’d challenge that as well…”

I’m not always disagreeable and I have agreed with you in the past, but when I see my brothers and sisters in Christ unfairly criticized, I feel it is important to answer those charges and offer a dissenting opinion. Sometimes one must say, ENOUGH! and standup for their brothers and sisters in Christ when it seems they are being constantly maligned.

My question to you is “Do you really think you are building the Body of Christ by criticizing a man who shared the Gospel with a national leader?” You said I was “nitpicking”, yet it seems clear that the bigger story is not some supposed “breach of ethics”, but rather that a man who has pledged to share Christ with every Presidential candidate did so in this case and is asking for prayers to continue to do so. What I think should be done is to lift our brother in Christ up in prayer as he seeks to glorify God in his ministry to a group of people almost no one else on this planet gets to minister to. As for this:

“This post is not about politics. It’s not anti-SBC. No hidden agenda in my post.”

It’s fine to say that in regards to this post, but I don’t get why you are surprised that I would be disagreeable here. And I don’t understand why you are so willing and ready to attack a man like Frank Page when all the facts aren’t known and we have no evidence that relating such a story is any sort of breach of pastoral ethics.

It does bother me to see young men like yourself devoting so much of your blog to criticizing Southern Baptists. It gets overwhelming at times when I consider how much stuff is out there on the blogosphere that is negative toward men and women who have given their lives to Christ. And if anything we as Christians should life each other up, pray for one another, and seek unity in some way, even if we don’t agree doctrinally and feel we can’t work together for Great Commission purposes. In the end, the name of Christ is not uplifted when we constantly criticize. And I realize that I, too, am guilty of that. But, we all have a responsibility to stop it. So I will covenant, if you will as well, to focusing more on the positive attributes of Christians rather than everything out there that is negative, for the sake of the name of Christ. And I promise I will be much more agreeable when it comes to promoting Christian love and charity.

Your critique of ED is somewhat bizarre, nitpicky indeed.

Frank Page had no business telling the specifics of his personal, private conversation with Rudy Guiliani. It was tacky and unethical. If you don’t see that - I can’t help you.

You’re quite a disagreeable person. There is no need to disagree with each and every word posted on this blog. I’m sure if I were to say that 2+2=4, you’d challenge that as well…

This post is not about politics. It’s not anti-SBC. No hidden agenda in my post.

It’s unfortunate whenever a minister displays a lack of ethics. And that is what we have here…

I do not mean this facetiously, but what did Page say about his sharing of Jesus with the other specific candidates? I’m just curious. I didn’t hear him talk about them..maybe they were said outside the broadcast. He said he talked to McCain, but he didn’t mention exactly what was said in the convo…I’d say that’s more appropriate

How do you say that you met with Rudy in a PRIVATE meeting and then talk about it in a broadcast that will be placed on the web? Even if Rudy isn’t embarrassed, does the privacy still not apply?

Finally I would venture to say that Page makes it pretty clear that he doesn’t believe that Rudy is a Christian. But Rudy is a self-proclaimed Catholic, correct? Is Catholicism exclusive from the Christian faith? According to certain leaders in the SBC, they are. And I have no reason to believe from this report that Page’s stance in this area is different from other leaders in the convention.

Even is Page isn’t on the religious right, the argument doesn’t change. His inappropriate disclosure of a private conversation makes me think he really doesn’t care about this man all that much…except maybe for Rudy’s soul.

And the fact that they’re presidential candidates doesn’t make it any different. They’re human beings, not mere fodder for evangelical conquest. And they should certainly be treated as more than mere foils for a Baptist leader’s own self-aggrandizement.

First, this was a question and answer session at the Tulsa association meeting, not exactly a national event. Page asked for prayer and for accountability in dealing with presidential candidates, something that was most surprising about his presidency of the SBC (i.e., that he would be called to spend that amount of time with high-profile political leaders).

Second, Page sets up the story about Guliani by noting that he had made a pledge to share Jesus with every candidate, and in doing so, he came to the table with one agenda and they with another. His was to share Christ and the implication was that theirs was to garner the support of the SBC. I think the fact that Page explicitly notes that he had a different agenda than the candidates, namely to share Christ rather to deal with political issues, is something that should be commended by every Baptist that claims to be worried about religious freedom and politics in the pulpit. Why wouldn’t Ethics Daily mention this rather important point??

Additionally, they left out an important phrase (in my opinion). Page said that “when [he] spent two solid hours in a private meeting with Rudy Guliani [he] shared Christ with him so much that by the end of that two hours [he] said, ‘Rudy, I’m not going to leave this place without giving you an opportunity to pray with me to recieve Jesus as your Savior’” (emphasis mine).

Why not note that Page spent time with Rudy sharing the Gospel most of that meeting? It seems to suggest that it is some offhand, random, and awkward attempt at Evangelism, rather than the result of an intense meeting where Page shared the Gospel over and over again. It lends itself much easier to some of the false and uninformed conlusions made by some on this blog.

Third, this was the very last thing talked about in a 30+ minute tape where all sorts of issues that should have been dealt with on the Ethics Daily site were ignored. Page waxed eloquently on issues ranging from his influence to how trustees are appointed to the positive things he sees in ethnic diversity in the SBC. Page even notes that he directly asked Fred Luter, an African-American pastor to run for president of the SBC next year. And he boldly proclaimed that if Luter were to run, he would win! Yet, ED found only this to report on! Incredible!

So, now to Jeremy-

Correct me if I am wrong, but this post and my comment had absolutely nothing to do with Richard Land. If your comment back to me was written to try to divert attention away from your insinuation about Frank Page and his motives in sharing this story (Remember what you said? - “…could this be an underhanded attempt by this champion of the religious right to cause Rudy to recess in the polls among Baptist conservatives? To that I have to wonder why he did not share his experiences with the other candidates”), then you failed. And, in your question, it seems to make clear that you didn’t listen to the tape, or even read the ED article. If you had, then surely you would have known that he did mention his experience with the other candidates. And it doesn’t even make sense that if it was such an attempt, why waste the zing on a small group of pastors at a Q&A session at the end of a 30 minute segment. If he really wanted to do something, don’t you think he would have brought it up in a sermon before a larger group of people? At least in a sermon at the meeting, not at the end of a 30 minute Q&A session! That would absolutely stupid. In the future if you are going to accuse someone of some well-thougt about nefarious attempt at slander, at least think it out better yourself.

So again, why the insinuation Jeremy? And why the vague reference to statements by Richard Land that have nothing to do with Frank Page? And why call Frank Page a “champion of the religious right” when there is no evidence that he has had anything to do with the organization? Because the man is a Southern Baptist doesn’t mean he is a part of the religious right. That is a stereotype that is not grounded in fact. Just because one votes in a certain way (and remember you have offered no evidence to suggest Page votes in any direction), doesn’t mean one is a part of an organization like the Religious Right. Heck, there are posters on this blog who would probably object if one said they were a part of the Religious Left (a label, btw, that even Jim Wallis rejects).

And to Danny,

Why should Page show discretion in sharing his experience with a national leader to a group of pastors while requesting prayer, especially when the Q&A session was about his role as SBC president, of which he indicated meeting politicians and sharing Jesus with them was a major part? Let’s remember that Ethics Daily was the group that brought this public. They had to go to a rather unknown blogger’s (unknown at least in the sense of national news - I think Art’s a pretty swell guy, but I don’t think he was trying to make national news, posting a 30+ minute Q&A, the subject of this blog about which he made no mention of in his coverage of the meeting).

So, to make that argument, it seems you would have to suggest that Page is going around the country blabbing about this experience, when (while ED didn’t try to make this point clear - imagine that!), in reality, it was a comment made at the end of a Q&A that no one would have even considered had the subject of Page’s example been your Aunt Betty or even a local leader in Tulsa. And that was one of my points. Aren’t national leaders scrutinized more? Haven’t people on this blog and other places publically berated nationally recongnized leaders and had absolutely nothing said about that as being poor discretion? Why is Rudy special?

It makes no sense and just goes to show the lengths some will go to in order to find things to say about Southern Baptists that are negative. I agree with Chuck, who, in the comments section a few blog posts back, noted that that the ole “plank-in-eye” thing doesn’t discriminate, despite repeated attempts by some to suggest that it is only a “fundamentalist” problem.