A Tribute to Dr. Paige Patterson

Today, Dr. Paige Patterson was in some lawyer’s conference room for a deposition. It seems that some were excited that this was a result of a constant pushing and persisting in order to humiliate and insult Dr. Patterson. However, I want to use this post to point out something that many have overlooked.

There is another Texan that took on the enemy and it was during WWII. The entire country recognized this Texan and the following is what happened as recorded in congress. Why is it recorded in congress? Because this Texan was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for bravery.

MURPHY, AUDIE L.

Rank and organization: Second Lieutenant, U.S. Army, Company B 1 5th Infantry, 3d Infantry Division. Place and date: Near Holtzwihr France, 26 January 1945. Entered service at: Dallas, Tex. Birth: Hunt County, near Kingston, Tex. G.O. No.. 65, 9 August 1945. Citation 2d Lt. Murphy commanded Company B, which was attacked by 6 tanks and waves of infantry. 2d Lt. Murphy ordered his men to withdraw to prepared positions in a woods, while he remained forward at his command post and continued to give fire directions to the artillery by telephone. Behind him, to his right, 1 of our tank destroyers received a direct hit and began to burn. Its crew withdrew to the woods. 2d Lt. Murphy continued to direct artillery fire which killed large numbers of the advancing enemy infantry. With the enemy tanks abreast of his position, 2d Lt. Murphy climbed on the burning tank destroyer, which was in danger of blowing up at any moment, and employed its .50 caliber machinegun against the enemy. He was alone and exposed to German fire from 3 sides, but his deadly fire killed dozens of Germans and caused their infantry attack to waver. The enemy tanks, losing infantry support, began to fall back. For an hour the Germans tried every available weapon to eliminate 2d Lt. Murphy, but he continued to hold his position and wiped out a squad which was trying to creep up unnoticed on his right flank. Germans reached as close as 10 yards, only to be mowed down by his fire. He received a leg wound, but ignored it and continued the single-handed fight until his ammunition was exhausted. He then made his way to his company, refused medical attention, and organized the company in a counterattack which forced the Germans to withdraw. His directing of artillery fire wiped out many of the enemy; he killed or wounded about 50. 2d Lt. Murphy’s indomitable courage and his refusal to give an inch of ground saved his company from possible encirclement and destruction, and enabled it to hold the woods which had been the enemy’s objective.

Allow me to give my wording for what I am calling the SBC in NC Christian Medal of Humility.

Leighton Paige Patterson

Rank and organization: President of Southern Baptist Entity, Southern Baptist Convention, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas. Place and date: World Wide as Missionaries and Pastors leave under the guidance of the Holy Spirit from now to eternity. Entered service at: an old fashioned altar. Birth: somewhere in Texas sometime before 1970.Citation President Patterson began leading Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminay in 2003, and immediately came under attack as he tried to organize the institution according to Scripture. President Patterson surrounded himself with qualified scholars and ordered these men not to defend him, but rather to do their job to the glory of God. He remained forward at his post and continued to give direction even at the peril of making himself vulnerable to the Enemy through those that felt slighted by President Patterson’s direction, as he followed his orders from the One that was before time began, through the leadership of the Holy Spirit. Behind him, to his right, was the one that loved him enough to dedicate her life as his wife. She was taking hits from the Enemy, but President Patterson maintained his sweet spirit as he defended her on his knees. She received a couple of direct hits and he rallied troops in order to protect the one he committed to protect and love as the Lord loved the church. As she strengthened and was able to stand strong, President Patterson continued to humble himself under the mighty hand of God. As the advancing Enemy’s infantry mounted more forces that once had given up the fight against God’s direction for the Southern Baptist Convention the Enemy’s tanks were abreast of his position, President Patterson was in danger of being blown up at any moment, he followed the leading of the Holy Spirit and began a campaign to bring about a much needed chapel and prayer tower. He was alone and exposed to the Enemy’s fire from 3 sides, but his courage and direction caused the Enemy’s attack to waver. The Enemy, losing ground support, began to fall back. For years the Enemy tried every available weapon to eliminate President Patterson, but he continued to hold his position and has made available to others a witness of what a Christian does when under attack. The Enemy has been as close as in his very office, through the confidante of others that were less than honest as to their motives for advancement. President Patterson received wounds, but has ignored them and continued the single-handed fight with no worry of his ammunition being exhausted. Why? He is only the vessel in the battle. President Patterson knows that he is only the vessel and God has chosen to use him at this time. President Patterson’s indomitable courage and his refusal to give an inch of ground, has in the past saved the Southern Baptist Convention from the drift into liberalism as he stood solidly on the inerrancy of Scripture. In the future President Patterson will be seen as the catalyst that has directed the Southern Baptist Convention from possible insertion of the insufficiency of Scripture and her destruction because of the ecumenical, pluralistic, doctrine that has destroyed and enabled the Enemy to fulfill that objective as has already been witnessed in other denominations.

What % Would it Take?

When I was growing up, the church I was in voted to pave an area large enough for a tennis court and basketball court. We voted, if I remember correctly, three times on that project. There three votes were not in succession, but were spread out over a period of three years. If my memory serves me well, I was only 10 to 12 years of age when it happened, it seems that the first two votes did not get enough support. It was over the 50% mark, but it was less than 75%. The church leaders did not feel they had enough support from the church body to justify spending the money it would take. After three or four years and on the third vote, I believe it was something between 85-95% and the church decided to proceed. Which brings me to my point.

After listening to an interview with Dr. Frank Cox over at SBC Today, I heard something interesting. The Garner motion was passed by 58% of the messengers meeting in San Antonio, which I already knew. What I found interesting was Dr. Cox’s take on the motion. He said, concerning the percentage of the vote; ‘that is not an overwhelming majority‘. I would agree!

Allow me to play the devil’s advocate here. Let’s us say that everyone knew exactly what they were voting on when the motion was presented. Let’s say that there was no confusion as to the term sufficiency being used when it comes to the BF&M. Let’s say that those who supported it were all in agreement concerning the purpose of the motion. Here is my stand on this matter. It takes a 66% to change the Bylaws and Constitution of the SBC. The Garner Motion, while not changing the Bylaws and Constitution, would have to take into consideration some items in the Constitution and Bylaws if it were to be followed as those that desire for the BF&M to be a maximal statement. For example, if the Garner Motion were a maximal document, it could be argued that the following article would need to be changed as follows

Article VII. Duties of Officers of Boards, Institutions, and Commissions:

1. The executive head of each board, institution, and commission shall be responsible to the directors for all the work of the entity and shall carry on the work as the directors convention may direct.

It could also be argued the same concerning the following ByLaws article

<i>18.The Executive Committee: E. The Executive Committee shall be the fiduciary, the fiscal, and the executive entity of the Convention in all its affairs not specifically committed to some other board or entity.

10. To make its own bylaws in keeping with the Constitution and Bylaws of the Convention and the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 in carrying out these instructions to the Executive Committee; to hold meetings whenever deemed necessary; to make reports of all meetings to the Convention; to notify all the boards, entities, and institutions of the actions of the Convention and to advise with them as to the best way of promoting all the interests of the Convention.

Let’s say that the Garner Motion were a document that was presented in a local church and it passed with a 58% vote. Would it be wise to move forward in the direction that some wanted the document to be interpreted? Let’s take the stigma of the Garner motion out of the equation all together.

Let’s say that a local church were planning to change their legal documents to express their direction more clearly. The vote is taken and 58% is the vote to proceed. Let’s go on to say that it only takes 51% to change the documents. Would it be wise to move forward with such a vote? Let’s say that a church was going to purchase a piece of property. They took a vote and only garnered 58% of the vote. Would it be wise to move forward with the purchase?

I am not trying to drag all of this back up, but I have to question if 58% is a clear majority needed to move forward in unity?

The Rough side of C.B. Scott

For many of you that believe CB Scott is a rough and tumble character, I have some news for you. CB Scott has one of the roughest exteriors of anyone that I know. I also know CB Scott to be one of the most compassionate men I have ever met. Allow me to explain my point by giving you some insight into CB by revealing his dogs.

Brother CB has always owned dogs. The picture on the right is the kind of dog that Brother CB would always deal in. Brother CB looks after his dogs and as far as I know, he has at lest two of these Boxer Bulldogs. He is quite the dog owner and his dogs are very well trained. His dogs love him and respect him because they know Brother CB is their owner.

Which brings me to the soft side of our Brother. The picture on the left is his latest acquisition. It seems that 120 lb dogs are not conducive to for little girls. Brother CB is now responsible for two precious little girls. They need something to play with other than a huge Bulldog. Now, instead of CB being set as such a harsh person, he is just a little pansy boy. I believe I am going to send him a pink sweater.

The Absurdity Argument

Over at SBC Outpost, Brother Paul Littleton seems to have taken exception to a post by my friend Brother Robin Foster.  Brother Robin posted an article on SBC Today giving a scenario concerning the conflict of interest argument being espoused by some.   In that article Brother Robin presented an argument concerning the next president of the IMB.  Brother Robin correctly assessed the situation with these words; Dr. Rankin will one day retire. What I would hope is that the convention allows for the possibility that a pastor may serve as President of the IMB.  It seems that others have taken that statement as some backhanded way to accuse Brother Robin as trying to get rid of Dr. Rankin.  That is the Absurdity Argument.  Take one specific statement and accuse, accuse, accuse until someone accepts the accusation as accurate.

The flaw with this argument is accentuated with the facts found in the absurd statements.  The author at SBC Outpost takes an argument and expands it to the presidential position in a seminary.  He moves to address the need to make certain that we hire an academician for the position.  Thus we fill the position with someone from “the academy” instead of someone from the ranks of Southern Baptist Pastors and Professors.  I can agree that the next president of any one of our seminaries needs to be recognized in the academic world.  But, what seminary president do we have that has not been recognized in the world of academics?

As to Brother Robin’s argument about the next president of the IMB, it seems logical that the person must have a connection with the local pastors.  It is the local pastors that will promote missions and the need to invest the church’s income in missions.  I believe that  Adoniram and Ann Judson thank God that Luther Rice made contact with Rev. Thomas Baldwin, Jesse Mercer, Francis Wayland, and Richard Furman just to name a few.  What connection did Dr. Jerry Rankin have with local pastors here in the US?  Dr. Rankin has done a great job, and I believe will continue to do one, but one day he will retire.  As one that works hard to make certain that I encourage and defend those placed in leadership by a vote of the convention, Dr. Rankin has my support and will continually have it as the President of the IMB.  He is doing a great job and I believe he has a heart to reach the world for Jesus Christ.  Are there issues that I disagree with him?  Certainly!  Are there items that I believe he should be giving better leadership? Certainly, the trustee issues that have plagued the IMB for the past two years is but one issue I believe he should have clearly spoken out on.  But, do I support his leadership?  You bet I do.

What would be the difference, then in having a pastor for the President of the IMB and a non-academician as President for one of our seminaries?  A huge difference.  While it is important, the IMB is not tied with any type of accreditation.   The seminaries are accredited by national and world-wide accreditation.  That accreditation is inherent on the President of the seminary meeting a certain level of educational achievement.  Therefore, the presidential search committee begins with a boundary that cannot be easily voted away.  However, there is no such boundary holding the reigns on the presidential search committee for the next IMB president.

What exactly makes the arguments of some so absurd?  Well it seems absurd to argue that those who have been defending the leadership, now are using back-door tactics to remove some leaders.  The absurdity of this argument is found in the positions of others.  In a post here, there is the implication of a charge against the Executive Director of the Executive Committee of racial hiring practices.  Notice that here, on this author’s collaborative blog, the Executive Director is defended by me against such implied practices.  Also, another absurdity raises its head in the charge leveled by SBC Outpost as to the reason that Dr. Mohler withdrew his name from consideration in the Presidential election.  It seem that some have determined, in their minds, that Dr. Mohler has withdrawn his name because Dr. Frank Cox allowed his name to be nominated.  One other flaw in this argument concerns the same argument I remember hearing from those opposed to the Conservative Resurgence back in 1989.  It seems that when the late Dr. Russ Bush was announced to be the recommendation of the late Dr. Lewis Drummond for the position of Dean of Academics others cried foul.  Their argument?  He was not academic enough.  The only books he had published were not from “the academy” publishing companies, thus he was outside of the academy.  Anyone that took Dr. Russ Bush for any class, especially Philosophy of Religion, knows that he was a scholar’s scholar.

The issue that is at hand is the integrity of the arguments.  Which arguments do you want to follow?  Those that are clearly thought through, or those that are no more than a few outlandish arguments placed in the arena for nothing more than to gain nuts from the fringes.

You Cannot Unring a Bell

When I was growing up my father had a saying that has always stuck with me. He would say it to try and help me understand that one must live with the consequences of the mistakes of others. He would say; “it is too late to close the barn door when the cow is out.” I have heard this same type of saying used as the title of this post.

Which brings me to the latest thing to come from the New Baptist Covenant Celebration. Former President Bill Clinton has presented some story as to how Dr. Ed Young Sr. approached him at the White House concerning the “literal” interpretation of Scripture. Fellow Blogger C.B. Scott, who attended a meeting with Former President Jimmy Carter, has written an excellent article concerning this statement for grandeur made by President Clinton. You need to read that article because it contains the letter that Dr. Young sent to our former president.

Congratulations to Baptist Press for picking up the story. But most of all thank you Dr. Ed Young for your stand on truthfulness. You have correctly identified the flimsy foundation of our former president’s theological understanding of inerrancy. He calls it literalism when in fact he, along with Mr. John Grisham, believe they are reading only a book.

Another Nominee

It has come to my attention that Dr. Frank Cox has now thrown his hat into the SBC presidential ring. According to SBC Today, who received confirmation to this rumor when Baptist Press ran the article, Dr. Frank Cox, pastor of North Metro First Baptist Church in Lawrenceville, Georgia, will be nominated for president of the Southern Baptist Convention at this June’s convention meeting in Indianapolis (Click here for the story). Alabama evangelist Junior Hill has announced that he will nominate Cox.

According to someone that will remain unnamed at this time, Dr. Bob White, Executive Director of the Georgia Baptist Convention, announced Dr. Cox’s candidacy at an Associational Meeting in a Georgia Association on 2/5/08. In that meeting Dr. White announced that Dr. Junior Hill will be nominating Dr. Cox.

This makes for some interesting times to come. Dr. Cox and Dr. Mohler will serve the SBC well if either are the President. Dr. Cox does not appear to be well known to Pastors outside of the SBC political circle. However, Dr. Junior Hill is well known by Pastors of small churches. Dr. Cox has served in various positions and knows the workings and wrangling within the SBC. Accordingly, he served the Executive Committee well for nine years and he served as President of the Georgia Baptist Convention. Dr. Cox’s giving to the CP is an excellent one that should be emulated by churches. Dr. Cox served on the committee that brought a report to the 2006 convention in Greensboro suggesting that people who serve the SBC should be from churches who give 10% through CP. Dr. Mohler, attends a church with a strong missions giving record, but due to some issues within the Kentucky Baptist Convention the church is giving around the convention to the SBC. However, according to this article, that is changing in 2008 as the church is dually aligned with the KBC and the Indiana Baptist Convention. As president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. Mohler has led her from the brink of liberalism to being a solid conservative seminary. He began doing this when he was in his mid-thirties, which speaks well, not only of his academic intellect, but his common sense and Godly wisdom as well. Dr. Mohler is well known inside and outside of the SBC. Dr. Robert Jefress, who is not well known outside of Texas, will nominate Dr. Mohler.

This latest announcement brings the field for SBC Presidential candidates to three and possibly four. If you will remember Dr. Wiley Drake announced sometime back that he would run if someone would nominate him. I have not been able to find out if anyone has taken Dr. Drake up on his offer. But we now have Dr. William L. (Bill) Wagner, a former Southern Baptist missionary and seminary professor and current president of Olivet University International in San Francisco, Dr. Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Dr. Cox.

It will be an interesting June meeting.