Seems to me that the public support for the assasination of doctors goes way beyond social conservatism.  

If this does not become a scandal in the SBC, that will be the real scandal.

by Frederick Clarkson on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 01:00:51 PM EST
Parent

I think the anti-Paige Patterson Southern Baptists supported Wiley because he's a likeable character.  The position of 2nd Vice President has always been an honorary title with no official duties.

The story will be how (and if) Southern Baptists will respond.

The Southern Baptists that I've spoken with via blogs are truly bothered and have requested a response from both Drake and the Executive Committee.  

That said, my bet is that no official addresses the issue and come June, a big name establishment fundy will be nominated for 2nd VP and Wiley won't get his 2nd term (which is usually a given)  

by Big Daddy Weave on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 10:33:14 PM EST
Parent

Sorry, but no. Even if they think they are following the fundamentals the logic of the case is that they are not. The verses they quote say one thing, but the verses they ignore show their use of those they quote is twisted, just as context determines interpretation in any document Jesus commanded them to show mercy. The beatitudes are most clear. Blessed are the merciful. Therefore if they are not merciful they are not blessed, unless the repent of their viooence He commanded them to forgive. They do not. if they forgave sin they would not be launching crusades to impose on men a Law noone keeps. I suggest you reread the Sermon on the mount. It is all there. Which is precisely why they ignore this passage. They are Pelagian heretics (do a google search). As legalists they have denied christ (read Galatians). Actually it is a literal intrerpretation of scripture that demolishes them, the fact is they are as good as any they condemn at ignoring scripture or explaning it away as metaphor. Put it this way, I now (a little reluctantly) acknowledge the term fundamentalist as applying to myself. And as a fundamentalist I uttely oppose their blasphemous misuse of the Law of God and their equally blasphemous need to usurp God's prerogative alone of ruling. The church is to serve a Christ did, not to rule as God does. In seeking to rule they sin as Satan did, and Satan I take as a literal and real being

by strefanash on Tue May 01, 2007 at 11:18:18 PM EST
Parent