Ire Toward Former SBC Leaders

An article from a couple of years ago (but still very much current in terms of continuing attitudes)  came up as I searched via Google for CBF related Churches that may be in my area and have emphasis on Youth Programs (more on that in a bit).  Keith Parks was the former head of Foreign Missions for the SBC,  a position that one does not come to by being a "malcontent".

The response of the SBC leaders to Park's comments are somewhat ironic,  considering how they came to "power" in the first place:

"Dr. Parks has a well-founded reputation of being unpleasant in his dealings with people he disagrees with -- but in this case he is particularly intemperate in his remarks," said Morris H. Chapman, president of the SBC Executive Committee. "It is sad when anyone determines that he can only build up his work by tearing down that of others. Disgruntlement and bitterness spoil a man's spirit, jades his judgment and sometimes warp his integrity.

Seems like a pretty accurate description of the tqctics used by the "crusaders" for theological purity unleashed by the plotters of the fundamentalist takeover. 

I know several fellow seminarians,  who were at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary who have joined forces with the CBF.  One fellow student I know was removed from a mission field post due to advocating some "women's rights" (not abortion) in a setting where he was working....He is now a Methodist Seminary professor.   A friend of mine from college and seminary,  the son of a well-know Southern Baptist pastor in Nashville,  is a CBF leader in Virginia. 

The Baptist Press story,  dripping with self-righteousness throughout its prose,  make sure they let their readers know that this guy, Parks,  is a "bad guy",  and so they surround his quotes with as many derisive comments and use of quote marks as possible:

He (Parks) also said he believes Baptists across the land, if they "really understood what has happened," would rise in opposition to the convention's leadership.

Seems as though many have.   The fact that there is such a large and siginificant movement of people who are willing to agree upon measures to "take ministry in a different direction,  and thus "cooperate" with each other to continue to provide support to members and ministries and missions that the present SBC leadership has declared "anathema" is a telling commentary.  Yes, Baptist Press,   and yes , SBC "keepers of theological purity",  people DO KNOW what happened.   My Dad,  himself a theological moderate but still very much conservative politically,  and who has a tendency to defend "conservatism",  is very distrustful of the present SBC leadership becuase he knows several church members at his large SBC Nashville suburban church who worked at the Sunday School Board and Mission Board who were dismissed for various "theological" reasons. 

No,  it wasn't ever really about "theology" that makes this "cleansing" an immoral act,  but the behaviour and the personal ethics of it.   It seems that the leaders I hear commenting on this issue or that are selected as spokespersons ---  or in the case of SBC leadership --- spokesMEN---on the basis of how arrogant and self-righteous they are.  Time and time again,  the SBC spokesmen are making snide remarks to people being interviewed with them as representatives of opposing sides of varius issues in debate.   Their attitude certainly gets in the way of their opinions.   The scary thing is that this seems to seep across as a kind of "role-model" for "conservative" viewpoints,  which I know to be not at all representative of many "conservative" people I know.

I was telling my younger brother about my new found passion in Weblogs,  and the kinds of things I write about.  When I mentioned that I had written about the SBC takeover issues,  his comment was something like "You need to move on",  like my team lost or something and I should just look forward to next year -   like the complete dismantling of a once-diverse and dynamic denomination and support structure will not have the effect of weakening the mission efforts (which it did and has --- the CBF's own mission support was developed to provide support to missions that did not meet the new theolgical criteria of the "new hermeneutics" of the SBC leadership --- to insure that some worthwhile and crucail work would be able to continue.  In some cases,  this may well involve cooperating with other Christian groups who somehow haven't seen how theolgically illegitimate some of these missions are,  and so still provide their denominational support-   and so the CBF has joined forces --- again, "cooperation" is the operative word.  

© Copyright 2003 Dale Lature. Last update: 9/23/2003; 3:36:59 PM.