Like Bart, I’m fine with the separation in working relationships of the SBC and the other moderate or progressive Baptist families/conventions, including BWA. As you pointed out, local churches can still find ways of cooperation.

What I’m not for is the coarse vermin of guys like Bruce Prescott. Actually, I don’t know of any others right off hand like him. His comments indicate he continues to grow bitter, not better. He harms the cause of Christ when he says stupid stuff like:

“Southern Baptists have completely undermined the integrity of the Baptist witness in the eyes of the world. More than anything else, the world needs to hear that all Baptists are not like Southern Baptists….Today, there is no way to maintain moral integrity as a Baptist without distinguishing yourself from Southern Baptists…”

In addition to being totally subjective and emotional–if not flat out lies–these comments are offensive. My moral integrity is just fine, thanks, and I’m a Southern Baptist.

When I wish to distinguish myself from, say, the New Baptist Covenant, it’s because of pluralist tendencies of Jimmy Carter, etc. But I don’t question the moral integrity of all New Baptist Covenant supporters–including Carter.

Prescott crosses the line–he’s out of bounds. And you don’t need to be agreeing him, BDW.

I was kicked out of the SBC in ’92–but I shook the dust off my feet. Until we can get on with creating a new Baptist reality that has no reference to the SBC, we will be stuck in the takeover of the ’80s and ’90s.

I DON’T miss the SBC and think that if it continues to bleed members and influence, the entire Body of Christ will be better off (unless a new generation can reform the SBC from within, but I do not hold out much hope for that). I hate what Mohler and co. have done to my alma mater, SBTS–and since I live in Louisville, it is hard to ignore. But I HAVE to ignore the SBC except when its actions spill over to larger fields or I become the mirror of the fundamentalists. I see much of that in the CBF and some, though less, in the Alliance of Baptists.

Here’s my experience. I came into CBF life because I was drawn there. It was a peaceful and gradual process. The same is true for my wife. It’s the core vision of CBF that I am attracted to. And I think leaders like Daniel Vestal have communicated that core vision well, instead of hanging out on the periphery always fighting fundamentalists. Here’s the great thing: fundamentalists aren’t attracted to the core vision of CBF.

Others came into CBF by another route, one more ragged and rocky. CBF was the lifeboat they built while the old SBC ship was pirated and plundered. I owe a debt of gratitude to those builders. Their journey was not mine: they had to fight and salvage and rebuild while I only had to step aboard. I can understand their anger at the past piracy. But such anger will not help us sail the new ship. Nor will it help us invite others to step aboard.

A new ship is sailing. It has been christened with a new name (CBF). It will never be part of the old SBC ship again. But if we constantly keep our cannons pointed at the old ship, we will always be sailing right next to them. I say put the guns away and let’s set our own course.

Is the BWA better off without the SBC? Yes and no. It makes me sad where the SBC ship is sailing. Like Gushee, I want to call them to return to the larger fleet in a spirit of humility. But I am close to certain that will never happen. They would only return to control and command others, and that is neither Baptist nor Christian.

BDW, I agree that getting along doesn’t mean the same thing as working together. At the moment, however, we aren’t doing either. And I know that there’s the problem that we aren’t welcome in the SBC. But I do think it’s possible for there to be a little more civility in the dialogue.

Thanks for stopping by.

Like I said earlier, I usually am in agreement with what David Gushee has to say in his columns and other writings. But not when it comes to his take on the SBC and past history. Gushee is indeed a newcomer to the post-SBC scene. His interpretation of the COntroversy is not mine and probably not in line with most “moderate Baptists.” An example is how Gushee adopts the Fundamentalists framing of the Controversy by using the language of a “conservative resurgence” rather than a “fundamentalist takeover.” I don’t really want to rehash that here. But with that in mind, I think Prescott’s response is quite understandable.

The only gossip that I’ve read in the Baptist Blogosphere was actually directed AT certain moderates. As to potshots, we all take them from time to time – whether they be at religious politicians or secular politicians. I’m not capable of comparing the common “potshot” to the tactics of fundamentalist leaders during the Controversy. There is no comparison.

As to the inability to find a way to get along with Southern Baptists being displeasing to God: see Bart Barber’s comment above. No need to force a “working relationship” that would inevitably be unhealthy and definitely not constructive. “Getting Along” doesn’t necessarily mean “Working Together.”

The confusion here suggests to me 1) that is harder to forgive in the real, tangled, messy world than it is in our own mind or spirit 2) post-SBC moderates and progressives are not really as ready to forgive as we want to be, or say we are 3) Gushee’s column, by and large, probably expresses the feelings of many younger Baptists who have given up on the power game while Prescott’s response expresses the feelings of the more established folks who lost the power game. This is a fascinating division, I think, that is just beginning to emerge. Fascinating, but dangerous. I echo bart’s sentiment: pretending differences don’t exist doesn’t help us a bit.

That said, of course the fundamentalists need to be identified for what they are, and criticized for causing rifts in the body of Christ. I’m with those who think that our inability to find a way to get along with one another is displeasing to God.