6 Comments »

1. At the risk of sounding mean-spirited or confrontational (of which I am neither), may I ask why we should be concerned about the views of Dr. McCall? I wish him well and do acknowledge the work he has done on behalf of the kingdom and of SB. But, and correct me if I’m wrong, wasn’t he on the other side of the CR? With all due respect, he was among those who had led us to a point where the CR was necessary – and yet now we are giving ear to his willingness to toss NAMB to the wind? I don’t think so.

   I pray daily for the GCRTF – and work daily for a GCR (seems we used to call it revival, but that’s too old fashioned I guess). However, I don’t think we should be listening to those who led us to the point we were thirty years ago. Odd isn’t it, with all the emphases on keeping younger pastors in the SBC, we turn to the words of one two generations past?

   Does NAMB need help – yes. Do we best serve the Kingdom by abolishing it? I don’t believe so.

   Grace,
   Wes

   Comment by WesInTex — October 22, 2009 @ 12:57 pm

2. I agree with WesinTexas! Why give any validity or credit or acknowledgement to this statement. Surely something else more in tune with the GCR is taking place.

   Comment by Tim G — October 22, 2009 @ 5:52 pm

3. I personally think that Dr. McCall is very intelligent and probably has some good analysis of various aspects of SBC life.

   The moderates never did honor Dr. McCall at Southern. Probably because of the firing that McCall oversaw of a bunch of faculty members at Southern (maybe 9 or so) in the 1950s.

   It is both ironic and gracious that Dr. Mohler and the conservatives have decided to honor McCall with the naming of the new pavilion on campus.

   Now, to McCall’s article.

   I would not be inclined to follow McCall’s advice regarding NAMB or SBC life in general. First, his prescription calls for the increased prominence of the State conventions. I personally believe that is a step backwards – to the 19th century. His moderate sympathies do not give me comfort either.

   Second, why in the world would the SBC want to follow the advice of a 95 year old?

   Isn’t the GCR looking toward the future? A 95 year old is NOT the guy to be talking to when mapping the future. I am all for honoring the wisdom of the elderly, but that’s why we have things like mandatory retirement.

   Louis

   Comment by Louis — October 22, 2009 @ 11:28 pm

4. Louis and others, I think we can all agree that Dr. McCall is smart. But I disagree with Louis’ assessment that because of his 95 years of age, that he is therefore irrelevant. Moses was leading God’s Chosen people until 120! Billy Graham is 91! There is nothing wrong with being 95. Following this logic, why should we listen to a 50 year old? How much better is the advice of a 15 year old! Mandatory retirement? It is an unfortunate thing indeed–it is actually worse than telling a young person, “Shut up! You’re too young, you know nothing!” The issue with McCall is not that he is old; rather, it is that he does not agree on the inerrancy of the Bible, among other issues.

   Comment by Joshua Owens — October 23, 2009 @ 12:14 pm

5. Joshua,

   I agree with your assessment that Dr. McCall shouldn’t be dismissed because of his age. As an almost 50 year old, I am troubled by some of the talk going around the SBC that makes it sound as if those of us who have been around a while (and honestly, it is hard for me to see myself in that position) are irrelevant. My point was that some who would point to Dr. McCall’s critic of NAMB as the direction the SBC should move, are the very one’s who make some of us in our 40’s and 50’s feel really old and irrelevant.

   Old doesn’t mean wrong any more than young means wrong. My concern with Dr. McCall (who, as you point out is an extremely intelligent person) is that he is in the “moderate” SBC camp, and I do not want to see the SBC return there.

   Grace,
   Wes

   Comment by WesInTex — October 23, 2009 @ 4:42 pm

6. Joshua and Wes:

   Of course, age does not make one “irrelevant” or require that their opinions should be “dismissed.” I did not and would not use those words.

   What I did say is that organizations (e.g. churches, companies, governments etc.) that are charting a course for the future do not look to 95 year olds for direction.

   But we are largely talking conceptually at this point. There are no 95 years olds on the GCR task force – thankfully!

   Associated Baptist Press and the CBF probably do look to McCall and others like him for direction. And you have both noted, the problem there is not just age.

   Louis

   Comment by Louis — October 24, 2009 @ 12:33 pm

Leave a comment