Kevin Ezell Should Apologize

I was so ticked last night that I couldn't even post on this. 

The Family Research Council (FRC) is holding an anti-filibuster telecast with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Al Mohler, Charles Colson, and Jim Dobson at Highview Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky on Sunday, April 24.  Highview is a Southern Baptist mega-church pastored by Kevin Ezell where several Southern Baptist Theological Seminary professors and students are members.  They are calling this Sunday "Justice Sunday."

It seems that enough Christian conservatives are so frustrated with how some in congress are handling Bush's judicial nominees that they have decided to put together this event.  They are upset at how "people of faith" who intend to become judges are being persecuted.   President of the FRC, Tony Perkins, said, "We must stop this unprecedented filibuster of people of faith."

Some others don't see things the same way.  One of those is Joseph Phelps.  Joe is pastor of the more moderate (but still Southern Baptist) Highland Baptist Church in Louisville.  He wrote an April 21 guest editorial in Louisville's Courier-Journal called "A Tale of Two Churches," contrasting Highview and Highland and their different views of justice, though he admits they are following the same Jesus.

Highland and Highview both advocate on behalf of moral issues in the public square. But Justice Sunday has caused Highview to leap into the partisan political process, and to be associated with erroneous, alarmist assertions about filibusters which supposedly threaten people of faith. In doing so, they have moved beyond the realm of the church's resources and expertise and into a realm where churches are neither equipped nor permitted to go.

Highview and Highland are still linked as sisters by our witness to Jesus. Our differing paths make for interesting family reunions. But we can't give up, just as the larger culture of which we are but a microcosm, cannot give up. We are family.

In a recent Associated Baptist Press article, "Louisville pastor criticizes church for hosting anti-filibuster rally" by Robert Marus, Ezell responded this way (emphasis mine).

"I'm saddened that some of these pastors that really, evidently, don't have a lot to do spend time criticizing other churches," Ezell told Associated Baptist Press. "I would encourage him to spend time reaching more people -- his numbers would seem to indicate he needs it," he continued, presumably referring to Highland Baptist's Sunday attendance figures.

He also took issue with Phelps describing Highland and Highview as "sister churches" in the Courier-Journal article. "I would think we're more like distant cousins," Ezell said.

It's sad that "Justice Sunday" has become Ezell's excuse for a beat-down of a "distant cousin" over their attendance numbers (by the way, Highland has added more members in the last year an a half than many SBC churches have in attendance).  Mega-church arrogance and personality-driven ministry has reared its ugly head and said what we small church pastors have felt they might have thought all along: size does matter. 

Now, I truly believe Ezell is growing sorrier by the minute as he is surely receiving criticism from some wise and thoughtful SBTS profs, Al Mohler, and others.  He hasn't handled a volatile public issue with much grace, and I'm sure he'll learn from it. 

But there is absolutely, without question, no excuse for Ezell's comments.  However you judge the moderate theology of Highland or Phelps, Ezell has made a personal attack.  This is a church attack.  And regarless of his view on politics, filibusters, or even the relationship between Highview and Highland, Ezell should publicly apologize for his silly comments. 

Maybe brokenness over our struggles to love one another (on all of our parts) will show we are all still weighed down with sinful attitudes and actions, still needing forgiveness, and in fact more like sisters than distance cousins after all.  God help us.

For more:
Washington Post
Louisville Courier Journal
Lexington WKYT
Lexington Herald-Leader
KY Post
Associated Press

UPDATE:
Louisville Courier-Journal - various links concerning "Justice Sunday": Link 1 (specific to comments mentioned in my post), Link 2,  Link 3, Link 4, Link 5, Link 6, Link 7

Comments

[Joe Thorn]

Fair words bro. I too was saddened to read Kevin's thoughts yesterday.

[Marty Duren]

Man, please. Last I checked, Jesus wasn't registered with any party. Something about His kingdom not being of this world...

Until God showed that to me, I was a card carrying member of the Moral Majority; no more. Salt and light mean more than voting a party line. No matter which party it is.

We would all do well to remember Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson's book, Blinded By Might. It chronicles the problems with this type of thinking.

[iMonk]

This is really a disaster for the whole Southern Seminary, Conservative SBC community in Louisville. As an SBTS alum, I have supported much- not all- of Mohler's direction the first few years, but now we are seeing a political turn that sickens me. These people are culture warriors first and foremost. That's the agenda that matters most.

But we have to realize the "new SBC" is willingly becoming a wholly own subsidiary of political forces with no desire to keep any independence from those forces. That most conervative SBCers are red state types is fine. So be it. Many of us probably are. But to let this level of partisan carping be sponsored by a major SBC church with Mohler's active participation....it's awful. Ezell's rhetoric betrays the self-importance these people now have. Dissenters are all to be despised. Get in line and Pope Benedobson will tell you what to be mad about next.

Then....irony of ironies...they will continue talking about evangelism the next Sunday. And I used to think that www.landoverbaptist.com was humor. I need to rethink that one.

[Steve McCoy]

iMonk, I think you have it just right, unfortunately.

[Matt]

Our Catholic brothers have managed it well. William F. Buckley and his colleauges at National Review have promoted a conservatism that they (and I) find perfectly compatible with Scripture. We Baptists have somehow messed it all up. "Liberal" SBCers have often been partisan Democrats while "Conservative" SBCers have been GOP activists. I think it's perfectly reasonable to be both a conservative (politically) and a Christian. Indeed, I think the two are very similar. At the same time, there's something about the way it's being done by evangelicals that makes me very, very uncomfortable. Colson I'm usually comfortable with; Mohler, often; and Dobson, rarely.

This is going to hurt conservative political workers by default and then the Church directly. Bad on all sides.

[Matt]

One more comment: I think Ezell's remarks were very wrong, but Phelps is dead wrong, as well. Of course, the FRC's rhetoric tends to precipitate this sort of thing. It's an ugly cycle and as someone who is outraged by the filibuster (I find it unconstitutional and undemocratic), this rhetoric from both Phelps and Ezell is pitiful on all counts.

[Steve McCoy]

Matt, there is tremendous difference between having a wrong position and speaking out on it and baselessly attacking someone in return in a more personal sense. Phelps may have a political position you don't like, but where has he done anything like Ezell? Ezell attacked their attendance!

I think Phelps was very generous in his editorial to show the sisterhood of the two churches despite differences. Ezell then went off topic and attacked numbers. I don't see any similarity. I've read many news stories, and I haven't found Phelps doing anything like Ezell.

[iMonk]

Just for information:

I worked on staff at HIGHLAND Baptist Church for two years during seminary. http://www.hbclouky.org/ It's a small, liturgical, high church, but Southern Baptist/CBF (dually affiliated actually) congregation well known in the Seminary community back in the pre-Mohler era. The church has never been fundamentalist, but has been larger and smaller than today.

HIGHVIEW Baptist http://www.highviewbaptist.org is an SBC megachurch highly affiliated with Southern. Mohler attends there. The church grew to a very large church under the leadership of Bill Hancock, who was certainly an SBC conservative/fundamentalist. It has continued to grow under Ezell. I've visited a number of times.

That these two churches are in the same denomination is amazing. They couldn't be more different.

One note from me I think this is a watershed incident, and while it will come and go, it says a lot about the current SBC conservatives and who is really calling the shots. The SBC I grew up in was a fiercely local bunch of churches. It is sad to see Dobson be able to do this, but at this point, I think Mohler and Dobson have mutually beneficial goals and supporting one another helps both.

[Matt]

Steve: Just to clarify, there is NO excuse for Ezell's remarks, under any circumstance. None.

I was simply pointing out that I found some of Phelp's rhetoric to be incorrect. Chuck Colson is not out for a theocracy. I don't think Mohler is, either, but Dobson...who knows? Though I disagree with Phelps, I still found some of his information to be wanting. That said, Ezell took a personal shot that was not necessary in any context. Hope that helps clarify my position.

[David]

I think what probably ruffled Ezell's feathers was being challenged by a fellow SB preacher in the Courier-Journal. In this case Phelps' medium was his message.

I've only been to Highview one time and it was not my cup of tea (still can't adjust to drums in a sanctuary) and I do cringe when Mohler et al take off on the judiciary, the ten commandments, homosexuality, and the usual things I'm told I shoud care much more about. Nevertheless, when I read Phelps' article the other morning, my immediate impression was that he had taken a family matter out of the house and was trying to make points with people who for the most part do not believe that Jesus died for our sins or desire to see that truth proclaimed. What was the point of Phelps' article except to beg the Bardstown Road crowd to not think Highland Baptist is as dorky or dangerous as its "sister," Highview Baptist?

Also, in what way is what Highview "not permitted" to do what it is doing? Last time I checked a preacher in the pulpit could not advocate for a political candidate, but certainly could comment on what is going on in the government. (Basing a budget on gambling revenue is immoral; enslaving black people is wrong; refusing to allow elected representatives to vote on a nominated judge is wrong, etc.) Still, if a preacher started to talk on that topic, I can guaratee I would leave and go play golf.

[Steve McCoy]

Thanks Matt. That does clarify things.

[Steve McCoy]

David, good to have your comments here.

I find myself all too often wanting to show people that Jesus isn't a Republican, and even if He were His hand wouldn't be nearly as obvious as most Christians, and His approach, I think, would be remarkably different. What Highview is doing is public, and those in disagreement can disagree publicly, including other churches. And Phelps did it strongly yet with sisterly concern. Ezell didn't return the favor.

I don't know what you imply with the "permitted" line. I don't think I've brought up that topic. They can do this, no prob, I'm just not so sure they should, and I'm very sure Ezell shouldn't do it in the way he is.

Honestly, I think it's high time that we stop defending the dumb statements that show the arrogance of Christians. Christians should quickly admit how dumb we really are, how sinful we still are, how weak we still are. If Ezell publicly and humbly apologized, I would be the first to point it out. I wish that would happen.

And I'm not really concerned with why Ezell did what he did. That's no my business. But it is my business and the business of all who have the name of Christ to say, That isn't what Jesus is about.

[David]

Phelps said, "... in doing so, they have moved beyond the realm of the church's resources and expertise and into a realm where churches are neither equipped nor permitted to go."

I don't excuse Ezell. I was just offering my two cents re: why he might have popped off, i.e. he was angry. As opposed to the motive you attributed to him -- mega-church arrogance. Neither is attractive.

[iMonk]

http://www.baptistpress.net/bpnews.asp?ID=20636

Baptist Press has this story with a new angle: Mohler and the Catholic Church.

[Steve McCoy]

David, I think the arrogance is obvious in the quote. It may be a motive, but it certainly is a "fruit." I think the arrogance, in other words, can be seen in the quote (not implied as a motive).

I get you on the quote, but the discussion of what a church should or shouldn't do in politics is a very debatable issue. If that made him angry, that's a pretty poor reason, IMO.

Thanks David. Hi to the fam.

[Steve McCoy]

iMonk, it just gets more interesting, doesn't it?

[Matt]

Whatever problems I have with Justice Sunday, and I've made numerous mentions of them at Stones Cry Out, I think Senator Salazar is grasping at straws when he goes after Mohler for his theological disagreements with Catholics. It's a high level of ignorance. That said, Mohler should know that he's going to face that sort of thing when he gets this political.

[Rick Bennett]

I remember Mohler throwing the first political stones. As Matt pointed out, he decided to get political.

Hey politics is tough business. You got to take it if you are throwing it. Mohler reminds me of Mike Tyson. He seems to have an unbelievably strong punch. But, he reels when hurt and attacks without discipline. I think Ezell is similar. Actually, many of the RR leaders are similar.

If you want to box, learn from better teachers.

When I went on his site, it seemed to be more of'canyou believe this guy is attacking me." ME, ME, ME.

I am starting to see Mohler in the Limbaugh camp more than the Seminary president camp. Just like I see Colson and Dobson moving out of their areas of expertise and helpfulness.

It is sad to call this "Justice" Sunday. The pun is unfunny and insulting to true justice issues worldwide.

This is a waste of time for the church. It will come back on us all.

[Allison]

I visited Highview several times when I first moved to Louisville. Good church, as far as SB churches go. I also had the chance to talk quite a bit with Dr. Ezell. Good guy, as far as SB preachers go.

Oh, but this? I agree with what Rick said there toward the end of his comment: we need to find our places and chill there. Will they be spiritual leaders or political leaders? I find it VERY difficult to become both.

The whole "numbers thing" has gotten under my skin and stayed there for quite some time. The focus, it seems, has been taken off of spiritual growth...and onto a growth in figures. Makes me a little sick to my stomach, actually.

[adam]

unbelievable! its sad that the whole thing has a political slant to it in the first place. ugh. we're toying with dangerous stuff here... political power is not the answer.

[Gerry]

Two wrongs don't make a right. First of all Ezell should never have made those comments in response. You can tell he was very angry. However, I don't think Phelps should ever have taken his feelings public. If he had a problem with what Ezell was doing he should have handled this in a private meeting between the two of them where they can choose to agree to disagree. My guess is Phelps probably knew his comments would solicit some sort of reaction. All this kind of bantering back and forth does is hurt the body of Christ and our opportunities to reach the world.

[Lee Ann]

Unfortunately I did not become aware of this "Justice Sunday" issue until this morning as I listened to a report about it on NPR.

I identify myself in relationship to this story in many ways. First of all, I am a member of a Southern Baptist church and I am a follower of Christ. I am disappointed that some of our churches are insisting that if we don't accept their political views then our commitment to Christ must be called into question. Whatever happened to one of the basic tenants of our church, the Priesthood of the Believer? Second, I am a graduate of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. I still grieve for the stance that the President, Al Mohler, takes which continues to alienate many who desire to live as Christians sharing our faith through reconciliation and love. Third, I have known Kevin Ezell most of my life. I am not surprised, but I am disappointed that he felt a need to lash out in his anger and put down another "sister" church as he did with Highland Baptist. How does he justify this as Christian in terms of Christian brother/sisterhood? Where is Ezell's own reconciliation and love toward those who love Christ? Although we may not always agree on political issues, why do these leaders in the Southern Baptist Covention believe it is okay to call our own personal commitment to Christ into question? I have always held that God is our ultimate judge, and each of us individually answer for the choices we make. Our job as ministers of the Christian faith is to encourage each to seek the Holy Spirit as it is revealed through Christ in each individual.

[THilton]

Steve,

I was so ticked I couldn't hardly type these words....(not really) :) I think you're using selective criticism. I don't view Phelps' comments as "generous" (as you do). He chose to insert himself in the debate (God forbid anyone would mistake the name of OUR church for THEM). I beleive Phelps' comments could very easily spring from the same well as Ezell's- pride. I see very little difference in the tone. Could you be "ticked" because you didn't agree with event to begin with?

MartyDuren,

The point of this meeting in Louisville was dealing with the reality that blatant descrimination is taking place in the U.S. Congress when they refuse to even give a hearing to judges because of their faith or personal convictions. I believe there is a time and a place for Christians to speak to such issues. Maybe I would choose a different venue than a church pulpit, but nevertheless, the concern is a legitamate one.

[Steve McCoy]

"I think you're using selective criticism. I don't view Phelps' comments as "generous" (as you do). He chose to insert himself in the debate (God forbid anyone would mistake the name of OUR church for THEM). I beleive Phelps' comments could very easily spring from the same well as Ezell's- pride."

You seem to think I'm going at motive. I'm not. If we criticize according to words alone, I have no problem with saying Phelps should be able to say what he said, even though I don't necessarily agree with his politics. But Ezell attacked the church's numbers. Can't you see the vast difference?

Anyone can join the debate. You act like Phelps shouldn't have done so. Why not? I don't think the "mistaking" churches idea is an issue for Phelps, really.

And didn't you notice that I didn't critique the event at all? I did that purposefully. So please don't try to interpret what I said by what you think I might have not liked. You would be wrong, most likely.

"I see very little difference in the tone."

Read Phelp's guest editorial and then Ezell's comments. The tone couldn't be much more different, IMO.

I'm happy to discuss this with you THilton. But if you want to disagree, give me some quotes that clarify your point. I did so, and the quotes speak pretty clearly.

[kmack]

Big Daddy-

I hope you are not disappointed when RAM doesn't confront Ezell. I also find it ironic that Ezell would cite numbers as a sign of faithful gospel ministry. His immediate predecessor grew that church numerically during his tenure - all the while engaging in a series of extramaritial affairs. Given Ezell's definition, that would seem to qualify his predecessor as a faithful, hard-working minister of the gospel.

[Steve McCoy]

On RAM and Ezell > I'm compelled to be optimistic! ;^)

I didn't know about the rest of the history. Wow. I hope that Ezell just fumbled during a big game, and it's not a bigger issue than that. But either way he should apologize.

By the look of the standing ovation and support that he seemed to absorb at the event (because the church was supporting Ezell who was under attack???), he probably won't apologize.

[THilton]

Steve,

Let's listen to these words of Rev. Joeseph Phelps again together:

"Highview Baptist..." (I see an attack on a church coming) "sees a messy world and works to CONTROL it..." (emphasis mine) "by laying out a uniform action plan from a Bible that anticipated and prescribed everything we need to fix the world.." (I guess Phelps has an aversion to II Peter 1:3)

And let's take a cheap shot at another institution while we're at it: "(thus, the new "Biblical Counseling" program at Southern Seminary, led by Hihghview's Al Mohler, that pits science and psychology against their view of "what the Bible says") That is just an uninformed, false statement. Nouthetic Counseling, which I am under the impression will be the main approach at Southern, does not "pit" science and psychology against the Bible. However, the approach certainly doesn't begin with psychology, it begins with the truths of scripture.

Well, let's continue:

"It is their calling to IMPOSE (emphasis mine) this plan, perfectly written for anyone to see, UPON individuals, churches and denominations, but also, finally, upon public policy." (It's a vast right-wing conspiracy)

"They..." (could this still be referring to Highview, Steve? If it is, this is clearly an attack on a church and these are NOT gracious words) "...know God's truth with certainty, and those who think otherwise are decieved or deceitful." (Is this a New York Times columnist or the pastor of a sister church writing this article?)

Now here's the kicker:

"Their final frontier: to own the judiciary and to mold it to their reconstructionist Christian-nation view of history. In short, to remake America as a Christian theocracy." (Now, I know some well-meaning Christians who hold to this view, but I don't think Dr. Mohler and the pator at Highview is among them. There is a difference in describing how this country was founded and calling it a "Christian nation").

I could go on, but if this did't initially "tick you off" I think it should have. If I was in Ezell's shoes reading this article about my church and misrepresenting what my church was about (coming from another church in my association) I might be tempted to say something in an unguarded moment that I might later regret (that doesn't justify what he said). But Phelps undoubtedly drew first blood and should also appologize.

[Steve McCoy]

THilton, a few comments.

1. The big, powerful megachurch will always get my criticism when they use their pulpit (and pulpiteer) to bully the small guys with attacks. Not only is Ezell acting like a big-church bully, but his remarks were also the only ones that were merely mean and without context of argument.

2. Why did you feel the need to so over-emphasize your emphasis? Capital letters AND parenthetical statements, sheesh. Could it be because a simple reading wouldn't seem nearly as bad as you try to make them appear? I think so.

3. Let's say for the sake of argument that Phelps is just wrong on his take of the issues. That is not my concern in my post by any stretch, but let's just say he IS "uninformed" as you say.

The point is, he is still speaking on the issues even when he speaks against what Highview is doing! That isn't smearing or cut downs or attack. It's speaking on an issue that he feels like will hurt the body of Christ. In a sense, he probably feels a biblical responsibility to do so. And even if he is wrong, at the least we have to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he is intending to do what he thinks is right.

How could you say that about Ezell? You cannot. It's impossible. It was merely attack for the sake of attack because he was probably mad. That's the issue. That's the difference. And that's why he should apologize.

[THilton]

Steve,

Is going off on the counseling program at Southern "speaking to the issue"? What does that have to do with this event at Highview? Is it accurate to label Highview Baptist Church and Al Mohler as "reconstructionists"? "Doing what you think is right" is not right if it is grossly inacurate.

2. "Why did you feel the need to overemphasize your emphasis? Capital letters AND parenthetical statements, sheesh." ---Did I violate some blogger code? I was simply responding to your request. You asked for examples. I attempted to point out specific words in the article that you instructed me to read carefully in contrast to Ezell's words. You apparently didn't see the blatantly pejorative words and phrases that I observed. Saying that Highland Baptist YEARNS fo a Christian takeover and then slyly contrast the two between love and law says it all. It was inaccurate and it was wrong. A simple reading of Phelps' article would lead one to an inaccurately negative opinion of Highview. Sure, Phelps has the right to openly disagree with Highview on the issues at hand, but not this way.

You say Ezwell was mad, that's probably accurate, but can't you see the bitter tone in Phelps' comments? He sums up a church in contrast to his in a relativley few, short strokes and throws in the counseling department at Southern for good measure. What is that?

Oh, and as a sidenote, I know you don't agree with his theology, but this comment says it all about Phelps' position:

"God's revelation comes as a narative that has trajectory toward justice to be discerned and anticipated to the best of our limited abilities. It points us in a direction, rather than only giving literal directions."

[Steve McCoy]

THilton, I didn't think I would persuade you.

We can go back and forth all you want, but you are still not getting the point. You keep dragging it back to other issues. All Phelps says is still on topic, even the counseling program (shows the direction the institution is going). Maybe he shouldn't have brought it up, but it doesn't really matter. You are still missing the point.

Ezell attacked their size. He put down a smaller church because they were smaller. He wasn't attacking their theology, immorality, or anything else. If you want to try to equate attacking size (never right) with speaking against the direction of an institution (SBTS counseling) that is run by leaders who influence Highview and helped set up "Justice Sunday" (which is wide open for debate), then I'm afraid we have nothing left to discuss.
___

Though it's obviously far off topic, I don't see anything wrong with Phelp's quote unless he pours different meanings into the words than I would, or unless it's in a context that changes the meaning.

He basically just said that Scripture is about justice, and doesn't give us exact directions but points us in a direction. Sounds like he is saying that we don't have specifics on how exactly to work for justice, but we know that we must work for justice. That's true.

[THilton]

Steve,

Highview is not Southern Seminary. A counseling program has absolutely nothing to do with an event advocating a position on judicial appointments. He was venting and grasping at straws. And you can't find one ounce of criticism for Phelps on this? Or the reconstructionist accusation? Maybe there are more differences here than I originally thought...

On the side issue, I think his comments went well beyond the issue of discerning justice. Within his comment on justice was a comment about God's revelation, how it comes about and how it is discerned. You agree with that explanation? Do you think there are no "literal" directions given in the Bible?

[Steve McCoy]

THilton, you should know better. This wasn't just some Highview event. They housed it. Mohler spoke. Kevin hosted. Dobson, Colson, Frist, and so on. All inclusive. All entities of those involved are worthy of discussion as to their direction, discernable motives, and whatever else might show what they are trying to do in the world and how they fit with the purposes of "Justice Sunday." You have given no compelling reason to think that the entities involved as well as their leaders and direction are off topic. To the contrary.

Phelps said, as you quoted, "God's revelation comes as a narative that has trajectory toward justice to be discerned and anticipated to the best of our limited abilities. It points us in a direction, rather than only giving literal directions."

He continues to make his point, "That is to say, the Bible, like the Constitution, must be translated and interpreted."

I don't see something unbiblical about what he is saying. I know how you read things, with all caps and parenthetical thoughts that are your additions (come on, that was funny), but I can't disagree with the quote unless I see a context or doctrinal statement that fleshes out his position. And even if I disagree, it still has nothing to do with Ezell's foot in mouth problem.

You asked, "Do you think there are no "literal" directions given in the Bible?"

C'mon. He didn't say there are no literal directions in the Bible. He said, "rather than ONLY giving literal directions." - emphasis mine ;^)

[THilton]

Let's see...what's the title of this article? Oh, I see..."A tale of two churches"

End of opening paragraph: "Despite the name similarity, these sister congregations don't seem to have been born from the same litter or even the same species."

Third paragraph: "But like so many other siblings, these sisters take different paths. There is a pronounced difference between the "view" and the "land" of Highview and Highland."

Now, what did you say this article was about, Steve? The differences between Highview and Highland, right?
O.K., I'm still having trouble, Southern's courses in counseling just don't seem to fit no matter how hard I try. There would be points taken off my paper if this was my work was in seminary.

Reconstructionists, Steve? Is it substanciated?

[Steve McCoy]

Sorry, don't know what point you are trying to make. I've read the articles and know the quotes you mention. They don't disagree with what I'm trying to say.

He also says, "Both churches come from a heritage that proclaims God to be real and active in the world. Both seek to be faithful to the well-known line from Jesus' prayer "Your will be done on earth as in heaven." And both understand that religious liberty does not ban churches from the public square of influence and debate."

And about the two churches, "This difference is a microcosm of today's religious and political polarization."

And the final paragraph, "Highview and Highland are still linked as sisters by our witness to Jesus. Our differing paths make for interesting family reunions. But we can't give up, just as the larger culture of which we are but a microcosm, cannot give up. We are family."

You said, "Reconstructionists, Steve? Is it substanciated?"

THilton, I'm going to say this again. I would ask for grace in trying to get my point. I don't care if it's substanciated or not! It doesn't matter for what I care to discuss here!

I think I know why Phelps thinks this way, and I don't think it's becaues he's trying to be mean or respond in anger. I think he really believes it's true. So it doesn't matter concerning my point because this isn't about having substance behind Phelp's statements, but the lack of love behind Kevin's attack. But I don't expect you to get that now since you haven't gotten it all along.

Last chance: even if there is no substance behind Phelp's statements (and I think there is at least some), there is no excuse behind Ezell's - period.

[THilton]

Steve,
My point is you should care if it's accurate or not. It ought to tick you off (like Phelps did). It ought to make you say: "where does get off making blanket statements like that?" "I demand an apology!" "Now!" Where's the substance other than there is a difference between the two churches?

Did I not agree with you that Ezell's comments were wrong?

Last chance? Am I expected to do something here?

[THilton]

Excuse me Steve, I slipped. I ment to say Ezell ticked you off. I am joking a little in a demand for your outrage. (I know you're not:)

[Steve McCoy]

There are lots of comments made by lots of people in church leadership that lack substance to really be convincing. I can be patient with that. I have no patience for arrogant statements like Ezell's.

Phelp's statements need discussion and debate. They need facts and argument. Ezell's need apology.

I'm sorry that I can't put the guy you disagree with theologically on par with blatant arrogance. It's different. You agreed about Ezell, with a quick qualifier that Phelp's is just as bad (or however you put it).

"Last chance? Am I expected to do something here?"

Yep. Be done with it already. I just don't find your arguments compelling at all. You have tried to bring Phelps down to Ezell's level (as so far as Ezell's comments in question go), and I believe you have not made your case.

[Steve McCoy]

I caught the slip. Thanks. :)

[THilton]

I take that as goodby.

[Joe Thorn]

Guys, let me bring this back to an important point that has so far been missed. Why do you both spell "substantiated" as "substanciated?" Is this a new, pomo thing?

[Steve McCoy]

You are a toolio. Shaddap.

[Wes]

So I finally took the time to introduce myself to this topic, all the controversy surrounding the telecast and the response to the planned telecast. I just finished reading at least four of the articles linked to, this blog post and all 40 something comments in one sitting (sigh of relief).

A few of my thoughts:
1. Filibustering has been going on for over 200 years. Republicans have used this tool before when they didn't want something to be voted on. They shouldn't expect anything less from their counterparts.

2. So, a bunch of Democrats want to delay your Christian judges from being appointed? I wonder how many of the Republicans were initially compelled to invite a Democrat or two to dinner and speak to them about the gospel instead of arguing only about political justice.

3. The two pastors should have met together personally before the editorials were written. I think the instruction for confronting the brethren in Matthew 18:15ff is a good model (although I'm not sure that it is a direct application to this occurence). Maybe then their editorials/interviews would have been more accurate AND more loving.

[Joe]

From a Methodist Minister in Texas. Perhaps the entire issue is not about Phelps or Ezell or even about the Baptist Church?? The bigger picture is "what is the role of the church in this culture that we exist in?" Let's face it...

we are not a Christian Nation. We want to believe we are, but we are not. Why is that? Because the church has not been successful in carrying out the mission that was given to us by Jesus Christ. Now realizing the need to transform society... how do we do that? Can we even agree on what needs to be transformed? We have differences of opinion regarding society and the issues of the day... war, abortion, prayer in school,etc.

Can and how should we avoid being transformed by society? These are all big questions and even bigger challenges.

I think we all (all denominations) need to pause and remember that we are all part of the same body. Even Methodists and Baptists (chuckle)!! As part of the same body... open, honest, and candid discussion (and disagreement) are inevitable. And maybe even helpful in discerning the will of God. Highview, et al, obviously have a different world view from Highland... as all of us do. My point, is that we should all work together as Christians to bring about the Kingdom of God, and forget about who has the ultimate truth. None of us do, only the Triune God is the Truth. And there are plenty of lost/unchurched/unsaved out there who need Jesus Christ in their lives without us spending our energy on figuring out who is "right" and who is "wrong". When we do that... we are all "wrong"

May the peace of Christ be with all of God's children everywhere... and especially up north (chuckle) there in Louisville and Highview and Highland.

May God bless the ministry of His One Church.

[Matt]

Just a note: Filibusters of appelate court nominees have never taken place prior to the current situation. Delaying a vote or holding someone up in committee, however lame, is an old tradition, but it is not the same as a minority blocking the chance for an up or down vote. This is a declared filibuster by the Democrats; none have ever taken place prior to now. Abe Fortas' nomination to the Chief Justice position was filibustered, true, but he was never going to be confirmed and he had serious ethical issues.

Simply put, there is no historical foundation for the idea that the Dems are just upholding tradition. Uprooting is more like it.

[Steve McCoy]

I agree Matt. From what I understand these filibusters are different and without historical precedent, generally speaking.