.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

prov·o·ca·tion - something that provokes, arouses, or stimulates. pant - to long eagerly; yearn. a collection of thoughts intended to provoke and inspire. these posts are hoping to encourage people to think, especially Christians, and pant even harder for the waterbrooks of the Lord. If you are not a believer in Christ Jesus, I welcome your perspective and encourage your investigation on these matters.

Friday, May 19, 2006

"Aping" the SBC and the Central Problem of Our Convention

This will probably be my last post on the SBC and the current issues related to its presidency. I had not intended to write all this, but as recent days unfolded, I felt that it was important to chime in. There have been some who have been reading blogs and have come to the conclusion that those being critical are somehow “anti-Floyd” or attacking him. This is simply not the case. Sure, there are some real, legitimate reasons why one should be concerned about some of the things Dr. Floyd has said and done, but there is no reason to think that he would be a fine president. But as I have stated earlier, the SBC needs exemplary leadership—and that not only from the president, but also from all of its denominational heads.

Two quotes have been ringing in my ears over the past couple of days. One is from Francis Schaeffer as quoted by Nancy Pearcey in her book Total Truth, and the other is from Morris Chapman from his blogpost “Diminishing Returns? I want to share them with you and add a little commentary as I believe the content of the comments are timely and true today. First, let’s hear from Francis Schaeffer:

“The central problem of our age is not liberalism or modernism,” Schaeffer writes—or even hot-button social issues like evolution, abortion, radical feminism, or homosexual rights. The primary threat to the church is the “tendency to do the Lord’s work in the power of the flesh rather than the Spirit.” Many church leaders crave a “big name,” he continues: They “stand on the backs of others” in order to achieve power, influence, and reputation—instead of exhibiting the humility of the Master who washed His disciples’ feet. They “ape the world” in its publicity and marketing techniques, manipulating people’s emotions to induce them to give more money. No wonder outsiders see little in the church that cannot be explained by ordinary sociological forces and principles of business management. And no wonder they find our message unconvincing.

As Pearcey continued in her observations of such who “ape the world,” she asked the question, “Where is the authenticity in all this?” and later repeated by asking, “Where is our passion for truth and authenticity?” These are good questions for the SBC. Where is the passion for authenticity? Where is the transparency in all of this?

Now to Morris Chapman who recently wrote this article as news that SBC leaders came out to endorse a presidential nominee. Just in the last week, Drs. Patterson, Akin, and Mohler have expressed their public support for Dr. Floyd which is proof that what Chapman has said is true. This is not good news for the SBC. As the good ole’ boys prop up their candidate with their powerful punditry, SBCers are becoming more skeptical and less trusting in the process and politicking that is so prevalent in the SBC. Here is what Dr. Chapman had to say:

Today political strategies, agendas, and power politics threaten to distract us from empowered possibilities of a people who rely solely upon God's guidance. We are drawn to do things as the world does them. To lose power from above all too often drives us to generate artificial power of our own making. We can intellectualize the Word of God 'til the cows come home and Christ reigns supreme upon the earth, but the more we attempt to do in our own power, the less we shall know the power of God. Our strength pales in comparison to the Christ who arose from the grave and ascended to the right hand of the Father.

When a president of an entity publicly endorses a potential nominee or nominates a candidate for elected office, he potentially alienates some who otherwise hold him in high esteem because they differ with the person he has embraced publicly for an elected office. Consequently, the entity head endangers his potential to provide effective counsel and spiritual leadership to the larger body of Southern Baptists although their beliefs may coincide with the entity head on most other issues.

I agree, as Dr. Chapman has said, that there is a “diminishing admiration” of such leaders in the SBC along with an eroding trust in the system with they seem to manipulate. In the end, they may wind up getting everyone’s vote, but the question remains whether or not they really have our trust and respect. I have personally talked to close friends who have worked under such heads who have told me, “If you knew what really went on in the political end of the SBC, you will wish you weren’t a Southern Baptist.” To some degree, I am glad that I do not know; but then again, why should I be glad? Why should there be matters that I wish I did not know? Is it because there are those who like to “ape the SBC,” who are doing this work in the power of the flesh and not of the Spirit? “According to the artificial power of our own making?” Who are “standing on the backs of others” rather than serving from the bottom up as the “slave of all?”

We are now 27 years past the beginning of the conservative resurgence. The threat of liberalism or modernism is hardly an issue. The real threat to the SBC comes within the SBC itself. If we believe that Christ is the Lord of the Church and of the Christian, then why can’t we agree that He is also Lord of the Convention? If we believe He is, then I pray that the process of nominating and voting on presidents and other elected officers will reflect this reality. Truly, the heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord, and so are the hearts of all us. So let us pray to Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will that we may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God. For the sake of Jesus and our brethren in the SBC, may God be pleased to bring reform from top to bottom in our beloved convention. I am hopeful and will be praying about these matters, and if you are a SBCer, I encourage you to do the same.


Blogger Broadstone said...

This reminds me of a reporters source who desires to remain anonymous for various personal/political reasons, "I have personally talked to close friends who have worked under such heads who have told me, “If you knew what really went on in the political end of the SBC, you will wish you weren’t a Southern Baptist.”"

I am not sure this adds any benefit to the conversation unless we are dealing actualities with the "who" and "what" of such comments. Though like the Caner/White email exchange such transparency would be helpful and as well as risky. This only adds a sense of fatalism if all such politiking is left to "if you only knew". Well, for myself, I want to know who and how and when and bring such things to light and such brothers to account. If it means underlings getting fired and outed because of exposing corruption then so be it. What kind of Christians are we? (of course the retort might be, "that's easy for you to say, it's not your job/friendship on the line" to which I reply, "it's not me you are accountable towards.") We know what kind of SBC'ers this makes us.

In the end, I agree with you on the need for prayer and seeking the Lord on behalf of our Convention. But, the action to this is being very specific and transparent and redemptive in our response. This is certainly a form of Church discipline and it must be shown at the highest levels.

I sincerely hope this is NOT your last post on the SBC for awhile. You have too many good thoughts and concerns.

Grace and Peace,

Kelly Bridenstine

5/19/2006 08:01:00 AM

Blogger J. Gray said...

Another great post. You hit the nail on the head, Timmy.

I have several points of frustration in all this. But the biggest one right now is that people think that if you question something or want discuss an issue that you are opposed to EVERYTHING. It has never been an attack on Floyd, but a questioning of the methodology employed in many SBC churches.

Somtimes I think I am losing my mind and I am the only one that sees it that way. but thankfully I can read your blog and feel comfort I am not alone.

The world sees the SBC as irrelevant and disconnected. Why? because we are. Because we have pastors who are more concerned with making a name for themselves than faithfully teaching the Bible and actually making disciples (instead of baptizing 1 million). We need to wake up.

- Jason Gray

5/19/2006 09:35:00 AM

Blogger Timmy said...

Kelly and Jason,

Thank you for your interaction to my posts. I really appreciate your feedback, criticism, and encouragement. I often do not expect to have many people agree with me (as proven in past posts), but every now and again you find kindred spirits on particular matters.

I am a proud Southern Baptist. The more I read about the rich heritage left to us from the likes of Boyce, Broadus, Dagg, Mell, etc., the more I want to see SBC become a convention that glorifies God in every aspect. What I have written was simply my thoughts as the recent events transpired. There are several bloggers who exclusively blog about the SBC and its issues, and I think they are doing a good job. I don't think I have it in me to write much more. I might if future events merit a post, but I have so many other things I want to write about which I hope will be helpful to those not only in the SBC but in the larger evangelical world.

Kelly, the difference between my conversations with my friends and the email exchange between the Caners is that I do not have verbatim correspondence through letter, email, or any other from of print or audio. It was simply our conversations.

A while back I wrote a post called "Across the Theological Beltway" which addresses spiritual elitism and bloggers. I think I might re-post it along with sequel called "Kissing Judases." Maybe it can be a good addendum to the discussion.

Concerning the need for corporate repentance and discipline, I encourage you to check out the Memphis Declaration.

Again, thanks for taking the time to read what I have to say, and I hope that we can continue discussing these and other matters in the future.

5/19/2006 01:46:00 PM

Blogger K. Elijah Layfield said...

Great article Tim! It's good to hear your level-headedness on this issue. I'd love to e-mail with you about the future of the SBC some time.

5/19/2006 03:25:00 PM

Blogger Timmy said...

Thanks Elijah! If you would like to email me, feel free to do so at gospelcentral [at] yahoo [dot] com. I appreciate your comments.

5/19/2006 03:43:00 PM

Blogger Broadstone said...


Thanks for the clarification,
though I do think it important to bring corruption/incompetence to light and to account. The motivation isn't so much of feeling they must oblige me in particular, I don‘t have an axe, but rather seeing the overall effect this is having in the SBC is disheartening.

By the way, I found the “Beltway” article you wrote. I agree, but that’s life at this point. Finish your degree and then you will have credibility…man, I still have several years yet…hmmm.

I have read the Memphis Declaration and do think it is in general a right and necessary step.

Declarations 5 and 8 speak best to our conversation:

“5. We publicly repent of having turned a blind eye to wickedness in our convention, especially when that evil has taken the form of slanderous, unsubstantiated accusations and malicious character assassination against our Christian brothers.

Therefore, we commit ourselves to confront lovingly any person in our denomination, regardless of the office or title that person holds, who disparages the name of our Lord by appropriating venomous epithets against our brothers and sisters in Christ, and thus divides our fellowship by careless and unchaste speech.

8. We publicly repent of our inattentiveness to convention governance by not seeking to hold trustees accountable to the body which elects them to preserve our sacred trust and direct our entities with the guidance, counsel, and correction necessary to maintain the integrity of those entities.

Therefore, we covenant with one another to assist in the preservation of our convention's sacred trust and fulfill our biblical responsibility to hold those trustees elected to serve our entities accountable, and to pray for them as they seek to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities.”

I think these declarations especially argue the point I was making regarding your conversations. Those who are aware of corruption have got to start doing some Matthew 18 stuff. I may never, in this Age, get insight to such loving disciplining and am glad not to as long as the flock is well fed and kept after.

The form of your reference comes nervously close (at least for me) to the “unsubstantiated accusations…” declaration #5. Maybe not. Maybe I am over nervous for those of us who concerned about the SBC, it’s leadership, theology and future and losing credibility by referencing to a “so and so said” which cannot be substantiated. Regardless of the form of your conversation, left undocumented, the idea still remains in the minds of readers. Some readers will respond assuming what is referenced is true (I assume it is. Your blogs tend toward truth-telling.) others will read that and feel it unfair and reckless to make a claim (true or not) which has the appearance of veiling sources and thereby calling into question those sources.

Anyway, I won’t belabor this anymore. Simply some concerns.

Thanks for your gracious response, realizing I hope, my enjoyment of this sort of dialogue as well.

Grace and peace,

Kelly B

5/19/2006 11:32:00 PM

Blogger Kevin Stilley said...

I think that you have made some serious mistakes in your assumptions and analysis. I hope you will check out my thoughts regarding Chapman's comments that are found on my blog.

5/20/2006 03:27:00 AM

Blogger Timmy said...


Thank you for expressing your concerns and exhortations. I take them seriously and pray that the Lord uses them to convict me of the sin in my life and conform me to the image of my Savior. I am really grateful to have folks who care enough to express their hearts for their brothers, especially when they disagree. May the words of my mouth and meditations of my hearing be acceptable in His sight!


Thanks for commenting. I respect dissenting opinions, and yours are welcome here at P&P. While I disagree with your assessment of Dr. Chapman's article, I respect the fact that you interacted with what was said and expressed your take on it beyond a superficial level. That is to be commended. You mentioned that those who are using his words to sow dissention should be ashamed of themselves, and one can only assume that you are referring to folks like me (since I do quote Dr. Chapman in this post). I am truly sorry if you (or others) come to this conclusion. Principled dissent or reasoned disagreement should not be written off as bringing dissention. Part of the big problem with the SBC as it is today is that there is no room for disagreement (even among the conservatives). I think it is healthy that there is a genuine exchange of differing ideas and opinions and that we should welcome sincere, critical feedback from those really interested in the matters. I can that you are such a fellow, and I wish you would consider me (and others like me) likewise. Again, thanks for commenting, and I hope you feel welcome posting here. :)

5/20/2006 05:15:00 AM

Blogger Mark said...

Let me know if I am mis-reading you.... It seems you do not think Dr. Mohler should endorse a candidate for president of the SBC? That is how I understood this section,

"Just in the last week, Drs. Patterson, Akin, and Mohler have expressed their public support for Dr. Floyd which is proof that what Chapman has said is true. This is not good news for the SBC. As the good ole’ boys prop up their candidate with their powerful punditry, SBCers are becoming more skeptical and less trusting in the process and politicking that is so prevalent in the SBC."

Am I wrong, or is it disrespectful to sarcastically call our leaders in the Lord, "good ole' boys." Also, from what I can tell Dr. Mohler just wrote Dr. Floyd a letter. He wasn't "propping up" a candidate with his punditry, he ws encouraging a brother and friend who was under attack. But even if he were, what is wrong with that? I would much rather here the opinion of respected, time-tested men who have demonstrated their wisdom (men like Akin, Mohler, and Patterson), than a bunch of seminary bloggers. I am not saying that twenty-something bloggers shouldn't be read. I just can't figure out why you think leaders who we respect should stay silent, while bloggers who we don't know and who don't know the candidates, should get more attention?

Also, I am not sure what you were trying to argue in your first quote from Schaeffer/Pearcy? You wrote:
"The primary threat to the church is the “tendency to do the Lord’s work in the power of the flesh rather than the Spirit.” Many church leaders crave a “big name,” he continues: They “stand on the backs of others” in order to achieve power, influence, and reputation—instead of exhibiting the humility of the Master who washed His disciples’ feet. They “ape the world” in its publicity and marketing techniques, manipulating people’s emotions to induce them to give more money."

This was in a post about Dr. Floyd, and the selection process. I gathered that you were saying these things in some way characterize Floyd. Am I right?

I'll be interested to see if I misunderstood you, or to read your answer. Thanks for your time.

5/22/2006 02:30:00 PM

Blogger Timmy said...


Concerning the "good ole' boys," that is taken directly from the BP interview with Dr. Floyd which he calls them. Other writers refer to them as Kingmakers - those select few who for years now have nominated their man to be SBC president. The term "good ole' boys" is not original with me, so I do not see how I can be deemed as sarcastic or disrespectful.

Secondly, Dr. Floyd is not under attack per say, speaking of himself, character, etc. Furthermore, I do not think people doing a little research and reporting on it could be considered an "attack" either. That's precisely the semantical bias that is being played against bloggers. Let me remind you that it was Paige Patterson who called the fire truck baptistry as "blasphemous." So if you want an attack, please refer to Dr. Patterson himself. I don't think anyone in the blogosphere has made such "attacking" statements as that.

Thirdly, the letter with Mohler is the third being written by seminary presidents for the purpose of endorsement. This is an ethical breach as far as I am concerned because Drs. Mohler, Patterson, and Akin are denominational heads and consequently alienated those who think otherwise. Why can't we just let the people in the SBC decide for themselves. If he is "supernaturally drafted" for the presidency, then why is it necessary to have every SBC elite come to his defense?

Fourthly, it would be complete naivate to think that these "well-respected" men of the SBC are not politically tied. Come on, Mark, this is not about skepticism, this is the reality behind the SBC. Why do you think we would have Dr. Jack Graham come speak in our school who has denounced the doctrines our school holds as fundamental to our faith if there is not a trumping political tie to it? I am sorry, man but I refuse to have my head in the sand or reply with "See no evil; hear no evil."

Fifthly, if you feel so inclined to not read seminary bloggers, no one is holding you to it. That's what is great about blogging, especially in the SBC. It is free press and democracy at work. Why do you think Dr. Floyd would not answer the questions posed by Tad Thompson? Because the question were bad? No, they were excellent and to the point. But no, he will no answer. While everyone has a voice, not everyone has the right to hbe heard. If you don't want to listen, turn off the chanel. Unfortunately, this is what is wrong with us. We want to listen to people who like us, who agree with us, who will side with us. Man, hear me. I am not against Dr. Floyd! I just want to express my concerns and feelings as any other SBCer has the right to. Am I to be faulted for that? How have I been unfair? Have I misrepresented, spun, or distorted the facts?

Sixthly, I am not saying that leaders should be silent. I am saying that they should not come out and explicitly endorse a candidate. Others, like Dr. Chapman, have come out and spoken on this and have not endorsed a candidate. It is one thing to talk about the presidency and weigh in on the candidacy (including speaking about the cadidates themselves); it is another thing to write a letter of endorsement like a blank check. By the way, of the over 20 pages of writing I have done thus far on the SBC, have I told you who I am going to vote for? Have I endorsed a candidate?

Seventhly, the quote by Schaeffer/Pearcey is explained in my quote by Chapman and my comments thereafter. Why do you jump to the conclusion that I am trying to characterize Dr. Floyd? Anything and everything that I have said about Dr. Floyd has been complementary or positive (regarding him). Elsewhere I have expressed my opinion on things he has said and done, but nowhere have I challenged his integrity, godliness, or love for the Lord. A conclusion that says I am trying to characterize Dr. Floyd is simply false. I consider him a man of God and worthy of honor as such. However, this does not mean that he or anyone else for that matter is excused from any evaluation.

I hope I have answered your questions here. If not, please let me know. I welcome the comments from anyone, especially from those who disagree with me. God knows I need to be challenged and tested. And when I am wrong, I want to quickly repent from my sin publicly and acknowledge it as such. Thanks again.

5/22/2006 04:11:00 PM

Blogger Mark said...

Thanks for your prompt response. I was really just asking clarifying questions to see if I understood you correctly.
First, the origin of the term “good ole’ boys” has nothing to do with whether or not it could be disrespectful. Just because others use the terms “kingmakers” and “good ole’ boys” doesn’t mean that it is a respectful way to refer to our leaders. Here I am referring to Drs. Mohler, Akin, and Patterson – the three men you referenced in your post directly before calling them “good ole’ boys.” I am glad you were not meaning to use it sarcastically, and don’t find it disrespectful. That is the way I read it at first. It is helpful to hear your explanation. I still find it a bit disrespectful, but can see how we just have a different take on how we should refer to our leaders in public discourse.

Like I said, we just have a disagreement on how we should refer to our seminary president(s) and when we are justified in publicly calling them out. I would feel uncomfortable saying that someone who has been placed in authority over me in the Lord has committed an “ethical breach.” I may be too passive, but I usually error on the side of silence when criticizing Christian leaders in public. Why is it unethical for a seminary president, or seminary professor to take a position on which Southern Baptists disagree? Would that go for controversial theological issues too? Or just issues of denominational politics? (Timmy, I am just asking an honest question here – not trying to make a point)

Secondly, good point. I now revise my original statement to say, Dr. Mohler was simply writing a letter to a brother and friend whose leadership, evangelistic integrity, and denominational loyalty was being criticized (not attacked). I wasn’t trying to make a point about bloggers attacking there, just that Dr. Mohler was writing an encouraging note – not trying to make a “king.”

Third, you said, “why can’t we just let the people in the SBC decide for themselves?” They will. But I honestly don’t mind hearing from men like Mohler and Akin and Patterson (both his letter and his comment to Dever about the blasphemous baptistery) that I respect. It is helpful to read your clarification that you don’t think leaders should stay silent – but that they just shouldn’t endorse. I don’t tend to agree, but see your position as more reasonable with that clarification. Timmy, that is really all I was trying to do with my response, was to ask clarifying questions.

Fourthly, I don’t claim these “well respected men” aren’t politically tied. I understand that. I also wasn’t saying that you should have your head in the sand. I understand that the Metro Churches have a lot of influence on the denomination – and I agree that is not always good. But I disagree that political ties “trump” the convictions of these 3 men you’ve mentioned. I believe that if Dr. Mohler affirms someone’s candidacy, he really believes he would make a good president. Also, I don’t necessarily think that it is wrong to be politically tied. You and I are politically tied. The “kingmakers” just have more political influence than we do.

Fifthly, I want to apologize for the way my statement about seminary bloggers came across to you. I am not against them. In fact, I am one, although I mostly stick to stuff about my family and walk with Christ, and am read by about 1/100th of the people yours probably is. I also am inclined to read seminary bloggers and learn from them (I am here reading your blog after all). I didn’t at all say you don’t have a right to express your concerns, and I am glad that you do. I was just saying that the opinion (and even endorsements) of seminary and church leaders are valuable – and not to be silenced.

Sixthly, you wrote, “Why do you jump to the conclusion that I am trying to characterize Dr. Floyd?” Timmy, I didn’t jump to a conclusion. I made a temporary conclusion, but didn’t fully understand what you were arguing. That is why I asked a clarifying question. I didn’t jump to a conclusion. I sought more information so I could make an accurate conclusion with all the information. That is really what I was trying to do – not argue, but understand.

Thanks for helping me understand better.

5/22/2006 06:59:00 PM

Blogger Timmy said...


Thanks for your lengthy comment and concerns. I sincerely appreciate them.

No, I personally do not refer to my leaders as "good ole' boys" but my reasoning for doing such was because of its reference to the Baptist Press article and Dr. Floyds usage of it. Whenever I meet or talk to Drs. Floyd, Mohler, Akin, or the like, I always refer to them as Dr. so-and-so--even on my blog (see previous posts for evidence of this).

Secondly, I am not calling out Drs. Mohler, Akin, and Patterson. I am simply stating that making a public endorsement while a denominational head is unethical. Dr. Morris Chapman, head of the Executive Committee, made the admonishment before Drs. Akin and Mohler came out with their statements. If there is any disagreement or public calling out, it is between these denominational leaders. Honestly, I think it is refreshing to see denominational leaders actually disagree. It was a courageous and bold thing for Dr. Chapman to say what he said. Obviously, he is not in the majority opinion on this. I don't know if theological issues would be analagous to this situation because I don't know if those certain issues would be voted upon at large, so I can't answer that quesiton definitively.

In times past, I have both questioned and defended my leaders publicly. My allegiance and loyalty to them does not come with my mind and conscience checked at the door. When I think they are wrong, I will state so, and when they are right, I will back them to the hilt. Mark, there is this idea today with respect that is much like the modern view of tolerance. Modern day tolerance says that you must be tolerant of everyone except those who are intolerant. They say we must presumptuously accept anyone's views because no view is absolutely right. Modern-day respect says that we should respect everyone meaning that we should never question their line of thinking, decision-making, or disagree with them whatsoever. I don't buy into this version of "respect" as I see it disrespectful of the very definiton of respect. I tend to think that Dr. Mohler in particular whould appreciate having students who thoroughly think through these issues and even disagree at times. The healthiness of our confessing evangelical faith often finds its robustness not through a pat-on-the-back, but from a prick on the arm. Dude, I honestly would never want someone I am over to respect me blindly. To me that is superficial, unwarranted, and will be proven faulty in times of testing. I don't want to belabour this point any further, but I think it is important for you to know how and why I make my positions or stances. I rather make them and repent when I am wrong than to never have made one at all. Silence sometimes is too conspiratorial for me. :)

As far as feeling uncomfortable, you bet I do! Man, sometimes I honestly can make my mind stop thinking and actually go to bed because of the convictions in my heart and the dictates of my conscience! I think I live more of my life uncomfortably than I do comfortably. I find much encouragement from the likes of Athanasius or Luther who felt like the world was against them (contra mundo). Now, I would never compare myself to the likes of these giants, but can say that I would rather live my life uncomfortably than comfortably--especially when I have a fire shut up in my bones. If I can remember correctly, Dr. Mohler and other great SBC leaders have made some decisions that I am most assured were uncomfortable ones and may have resulted in sleepless nights. Yet in all of this, God has shown himself meticulously in control over all of these affairs, and I believe he will continue to in the future (even in spite of me).

Mark, thank you for your comments, seriously. I am going to think through what you have said some more. One of the disadvantages of a medium such as this is that there are some real limitations to communications which inhibit the understanding of what one is saying. I apologize if I came across too defensive or agumentative. Honestly, I think I have come to the point where I am burned out and discouraged over the issue. I want to move on. This is not to say that somewhere down the future I will address this again, but I have simply too many things to write about that are important to me. I sincerely hope you feel welcome to comment here anytime and say whatever you wish. Faithful are the wounds of a friend, brother, and better is open rebuke than concealed love. What you have shared I pray will conform me into the image of my Savior and cause me to love my brothers all the more. I have so much to learn, so many places where I need to grow. Thanks again, and I hope to hear from you soon.

Gotta go . . . got to catch Dairy Queen before it closes to get me some tasty Cookie-Dough Blizzard action. :)

5/22/2006 09:34:00 PM

Blogger Kevin Stilley said...

Hello Timmy,

Thank you for your comments regarding my thoughts. However, I think you misread me. I did not say that it is wrong to disagree, I said that those who use Chapman's statement to foment dissention should be ashamed of themselves. Chapman's argumentation is deeply flawed. Therefore, to use Chapman as a tool for creating dissention, is not "principled dissent" but nothing more than an argument to the person. I believe that Christians, even us SBCers ;) should give more thought to the positions we take and have been disappointed by those who have accepted Chapman's statement as something more than what it really is.

5/30/2006 04:18:00 PM

Blogger Timmy said...

Kevin Stilley,

As mentioned over SBF, I have realized that you have copied and pasted a generic comment to point people to you blog. I do not think that you have addressed anything I have said here or Gene's post over at SBF. I would like to confer you to Gene's reply in which can he found at the following link:


5/30/2006 05:20:00 PM

Blogger Kevin Stilley said...


I do not believe that I have presented a position on anything other than Chapman's statement and the improper use of it. Gene mentions many other issues, on none of which have I taken a public position. I apologize if I have offended you, it was not my intent.


5/30/2006 09:04:00 PM

Blogger Timmy said...


For the record, you did not offend me. My problem is that I felt that your comment was a "drive-by" comment which did not give a fair treatment of what I wrote. I am more than happen to dialogue with those who disagree with me (and be corrected when I am wrong), but dialogue consists of two people interacting with one another - something I thought you did not participate in.

In the future, I hope that you do feel welcome to comment here at P&P and post whatever opinions you hold, so long as they are delivered in the appropriate manner. Thanks again for commenting, and I hope to see you around!

5/30/2006 10:11:00 PM


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Site Counters as of May 4, 2005