Associated Baptist Press - Faith groups begin media blitz for health-care reform

Faith groups begin media blitz for health-care reform

By Bob Allen

Monday, August 10, 2009

WASHINGTON (ABP) -- President Obama will participate in a national call-in and audio webcast on health reform with religious leaders Aug. 19.

Faith leaders made the announcement Aug. 10 in a conference call with reporters. It is one of several initiatives being rolled out by a coalition of faith-based groups trying to frame health care as a moral issue.

Sponsored by groups including Sojourners, PICO National Network and Faith in Public Life, "40 Days for Health Reform" will include television commercials, prayer rallies in congressional districts, and a "Health Care Sermon Weekend" Aug. 28-30 in an effort to press Congress to pass legislation that makes health care affordable for every American family.

"As a pastor, I believe access to health care is a profoundly moral issue," said Stevie Wakes, pastor of Olivet Institutional Baptist Church in Kansas City, Kan., who is featured in the TV ad that began airing nationwide Aug. 10. "In our church and in our community I see countless stories of people struggling to afford health care."

The conference call with Obama is sponsored by about two dozen religious organizations. Two Baptist groups, the National Baptist Convention USA, Inc., and Progressive National Baptist Convention, are among them.

"Every so often there is an issue that is so clear and compelling, or so alarming and disconcerting that it really does galvanize the faith community," said Jim Wallis, president of Sojourners. "That's why this call is so important."

Wallis described health care as an issue of life and death. "Those who have health coverage live and live longer, and those who don't have it die and die sooner," he said.

"Inclusive, accessible, affordable health care for all of God's children is for us a moral imperative and it's a religious issue," Wallis said.

Those behind the effort hope to counterbalance other voices from the faith community leading opposition to the health-care plan now before Congress.

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention called the bill "dangerous."

An ERLC analysis concludes with "absolute certainty … that this legislation will lead to diminished health care for most Americans, less choice, higher taxes, and unprecedented government intrusion into every level and aspect of society, from business, to education, to marriage, to individual liberty."

The Christian Coalition warned that it would mandate coverage of abortions, paid for with taxpayer funds.

Wallis said critics of health reform are trying to use abortion to kill it.

"I am quite disturbed about the way that some people, even on the religious right, are using the issue of abortion to try and defeat health care," he said. Wallis said he cares about health care because of his belief that human life is sacred.

Wallis said he doesn't believe federal funds should be used to pay for abortion, but that people from both the pro-life and pro-choice perspective have agreed to work for an "abortion neutral" position that doesn't allow the hot-button issue to take over center stage in health-care debate.

Wallis also called it "really irresponsible" to be stoking fears that the legislation would lead to euthanasia.

"Our health-care system in America is sick, and the sickness in the health-care system really is a threat to the nation's very soul," Wallis said. "Our soul is sick, because our health-care system is so broken."

Wallis said the faith groups are not pushing any particular reform plan, but simply arguing from a moral position that health care must be fixed. He said it is the job of politicians to figure out how to fix it.

"This moral issue is not something we can allow to be -- let me just say demagogued -- in the streets," he said. "There are people in the country who want to stop an honest, fair, civil and moral conversation about health care. They are organized and they really want to shut down democracy."

"We can't let that happen," Wallis said. "So the faith community literally must stand in the way of those who want to stop the conversation."

-30-

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it is senior writer for Associated Baptist Press.

What's this?

Comments (57) Add Comment

Subscribe to this comment's feed

profoundly moral
written by Dr. J, August 10, 2009

It is 'profoundly' immoral to steal from those who can afford health care. If these religious guys want to make this a moral issue- fine. Let charitable giving pay for healthcare for the less fortunate- don't do charitable work with taxes. It is "really irresponsible".

Some questions about health care...
written by Ken, August 10, 2009

Before you get too excited about this healthcare plan, maybe you should ask yourselves a few questions:

- If this plan is so wonderful, why are members of Congress exempting themselves from it?

- They say we will be allowed to keep our current health insurance, but Nancy Pelosi has acknowledged that this plan will compete with private insurers. How do we know that the government won't tax and legislate private insurers out of business, forcing everyone to choose a government-run healthcare system?

- Our government has a long history of doing things in the most expensive and least efficient way. How do we know government health care will be any different?

Pardon my bluntness, but in my opinion, anyone who supports a government-run health care system is a prime candidate for the funny farm.

...
written by tj282828, August 10, 2009

I can't believe the Democrats are going to destroy the best health care system in the world! Its not as if people do not have access to health care. ANYONE can go into the emergency room and get wonderful care. . . without paying a penny! This video shows without a doubt that Obama wants to destroy private health care insurance. If you like your health insurance you need to watch this video!!!

http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-video-obama-explains-how-his-health-care-plan-will-eliminate-private-insurance/

Contact your congressman!!!

...
written by pjerwin, August 11, 2009

Waaaaaaaaaaait a minute: I thought we were all about this "separation of Church and State" business, you know, "the wall of separation." Where's Brent Walker and the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty on this one?

there can be reasonable and effective reform of health care
written by Xenophon, August 11, 2009

Instead of moving in the direction of socialized medicine, which we know from the experience Britain, Canada, and European countries are having with their state run systems, we can usher in reforms that would help people buy affordable health care services. A major reason that health care costs have consistently risen at a much higher rate than have other services is because health care services are usually paid for by a third party, either government or private insurance.

What we need to do is move away third party payers for routine medical costs and reserve insurance to pay only for extremely costly treatments for catastrophic health conditions. In this way, people have an incentive to shop around and negotiate lower prices to pay for services they really need. For example, my mother needs to have a mammogram each year. In Atlanta, she went to St. Joseph's Hospital to get the mammogram even though the price was nearly twice what it was for exactly the same service at Northside Hospital directly across the street. She liked the folks at St. Joseph's better--Catholic hospitals tend to offer better quality service and tend to be more compassionate. I asked her if she had to pay the difference out of her own pocket, where would she go. She said without hesitation that she would go to Northside in order to save money. That effect would be multiplied throughout the economy if we can wean people off of insurance and government programs for less costly services. Consider how the price of plastic surgery has DROPPED in real terms since most plastic surgery is optional and not covered by insurance.

Another major factor in health care costs is that the system is bogged down treating people for self-inflicted health problems such as obesity. One way to influence this tendency is to impress on congregants that it is immoral to refuse to properly care for one's body including eating immoderately and not exercising. Generally, religious people are healthier. The exception I am sorry to report are Baptists. One speculation about this problem is that Baptists do not offer emotional outlets that other denominations and religions afford people. I do not know exactly where the problem lies, but we need to look into what might be going on here.

Returning to the problem with insurance paying for all services and inducing people to be lax about cost, there is also the problem of moral hazard. If people are insured then they are more likely to engage in risky but pleasurable activities. This includes overeating. Requiring a higher deductible for self-inflicted health problems will force people to bear the true costs of their own choices thereby inducing them to re-evaluate their irresponsible habits.

The proposed health care reform package under current discussion will only worsen the problem of third party payers lowering people's awareness of price. Socialized medicine will also only make the problem of moral hazard worse as irresponsible decisions would become fully subsidized by government.

...
written by pjerwin, August 11, 2009

This is Federal healthcare reform, so faith groups need to stay out of it, right... I mean, separation of Church and Sstate and what-not? Oh, that's right! Bush is no longer in office and wasn't replaced by a conservative, so it's okay.

...
written by Big Daddy Weave, August 12, 2009

PJerwin,

Walker, moderate Baptists, and supporters of the Baptist Joint Committee have NEVER advocated on behalf of a radical Anabaptist-style separation of religion from politics.

Baptist separationists have historically understood that in a pluralistic democracy, religion and politics will mix and should mix though without merging the institutions of church and state. Good Christian citizenship means that Christians should be involved in public policy debates, etc. To quote Baptist ethicist T.B. Maston: "One of the chief threats to political democracy is the poor citizenship of good people."

Again, Baptist separationists have always argued that Christian citizenship required that individuals actively participate in the political process from the local level to the national arena. One renowned Baptist separationist has argued that "biblical theology clearly calls Christians to political action, to attempts to influence legislation, to lobbying...to stay out of politics is a cheap cop out."

The involvement of these Baptist groups in the health care reform debate is consistent with the Baptist separationist perspective represented by groups from the Baptist Joint Committee to the Christian Life Commission of the BGCT (and of course the old SBC CLC under Foy Valentine).

Pretty clear that you don't understand what Baptist separationists mean when they argue on behalf of the "wall of separation."

...
written by pjerwin, August 12, 2009

One of my favorite quotes about Foy Valentine:

Of course, the last twenty years of SBC history have demonstrated that Valentine is spectacularly incompetent at knowing what most Baptists believe.

I understand all too well what Baptists mean by separation of Church and State -- on the left and the right and I understand that the left has a different standard for the so-called "religious right." When conservatives engage in political activism, they're demonized as engaging in nationalistic idolatry -- you know it and I know it -- but when the left does it, it's "christian citizenship."

...
written by ABP Reader, August 12, 2009

I am glad Americans are trying to have a conversation about health care. We're not doing a good job. We can do a better job. Will we?

It would be nice if there was less empty sarcasm, name-calling, and blaming on the part of many Christians involved in these debates, but alas, Christians apparently have a hard time repenting of these sins. "Left." "Right." Many who throw these terms around with such ease and confidence always seem to thnk their own position is objective and agenda-less. It is always the "other" who has an ax to grind and employs an obvious double-standard.

...
written by pjerwin, August 12, 2009

Actually, we're doing a G-R-E-A-T job with healthcare. It's the best in the world. If money was no object and given the choice, I suspect that most people around the world would choose the US for its healthcare. The problem isn't the care; the problem is paying for it. Senator Ted Kennedy’s “HMO Act of 1973” isn’t working.

When it's needed, most people can't pay for their healthcare out-of-pocket, some won't pay for insurance, and some can't pay for insurance. The costs are high for many reasons, including litigiousness; malpractice insurance drives the cost through the roof. Other factors include the cost of technological and therapeutic development. If we would deal with some of the reasons behind the high costs, perhaps it could be more affordable. But even if it was more affordable, statistics prove that a high number of people still wouldn’t buy insurance, even though they couldn’t pay the cost for a major illness or injury, because “statistically (and insurance is built on statistics), it will never happen to me -- and even if it does, the hospital can’t turn me away.”

Nevertheless, about 80% of Americans have adequate health insurance with which they’re generally happy. We’re told that 46 million Americans have no insurance, but the information about the various proposed bills that has been released shows that 30 million will remain uninsured even if they’re passed. So what do we do?

...
written by ABP Reader, August 12, 2009

So much faith in statistics. I have encountered statistics from various sides suggesting opposite conclusions. So much for spouting random numbers.

My own family, friends, and fellow church members are proof enough for me that healthcare is need of reform.

ABP Reader
written by Ken, August 12, 2009

The inefficiency and incompetence of our federal government is proof enough for me that President Obama's proposed healthcare plan will only make matters worse.

...
written by ABP Reader, August 12, 2009

Ken, I'll thank you to keep in mind that I've not once said Obama's plan is best or should be adopted. Rather, I've stated that conversation and reform are needed. Let's be clear and accurate in our discourse.

I have no disagreements about the prevalence of inefficiency and incompetence, but it's not simply limited to governmental endeavors of all sorts. The private sector has proven to be equally inefficient, incompetent, and greedy when it comes to healthcare, which is a signifcant part of the problem we're in at the moment. I feel some sort of overhaul of private/public healthcare is needed if all folks in the US are to obtain access to quality, affordable healthcare. I have no idea which plan might be best, but I'm convinced something needs to be done.

...
written by pjerwin, August 12, 2009

Sure something needs to be done, but again, healthcare is not the problem. Healthcare in the US is highly efficient and more than competent. Cost and how to pay for it is the problem. What are the underlying factors making it so expensive? Determine that and you'll have a direction to go.

ABP Reader
written by Ken, August 12, 2009

"Ken, I'll thank you to keep in mind that I've not once said Obama's plan is best or should be adopted."

Did I ever say that you did?

"I have no idea which plan might be best, but I'm convinced something needs to be done."

And I'm convinced President Obama's healthcare plan, or any other type of government-sponsored healthcare, is NOT the solution.

Big Daddy
written by Ken, August 12, 2009

"Walker, moderate Baptists, and supporters of the Baptist Joint Committee have NEVER advocated on behalf of a radical Anabaptist-style separation of religion from politics."

True enough. They heartily encourage political involvement on the part of Christians - as long as they support a liberal agenda. They only advocate an "Anabaptist-style separation" for Christians who support a conservative agenda.

Assertions But No Facts...
written by Big Daddy Weave, August 12, 2009

I offer a few quotes and you offer an empty assertion?

You claim that these Baptist separationists are essentially inconsistent at best, hypocrites at worst. But you can't back up your claims. Dunn, Valentine, Walker and Maston (a political conservative) have combined penned thousands of articles and dozens of books - a lengthy paper record indeed! Can't back up your assertion with an actual fact-based argument? I guess it is easier to just make stuff up, huh?

Big Daddy
written by Ken, August 13, 2009

I remember when James Dunn was head of the BJCPA and he used to blast conservatives for their political involvement. I've also read numerous articles on ABP which bash Southern Baptists and accuse them of being too involved in politics. Liberals only seem to object to Christians getting involved in politics when they support a conservative agenda.

I advise you to be careful with calling me a liar. Mind you, it's your privilege to attack me, but don't start whining if I fire back at you. I suspect, like many people on the Baptist left, you are a lot better at dishing out attacks than you are at taking them.

Again, Another Assertion But No Facts
written by Big Daddy Weave, August 13, 2009

Ken,

Again, how about some facts? It's put up or shut up time it seems. Time to start basing your assertions on facts. As I noted earlier, these Baptist separationists - particularly those involved with the BJC - have thousands and thousands of pages of writings. Can you point me to something specific that James Dunn or Brent Walker or even T.B. Maston has written that would prove your point?

Liar sounds a little harsh, Ken. Your word not mine. But right now, without anything more than multiple empty assertions, you just seem to be making stuff up...

No whining here. I guess I'm just too accustomed to dealing with individuals who advance actual fact-based arguments (complete with citations) rather than empty assertions.

...
written by ABP Reader, August 13, 2009

I'm in agreement with Big Daddy Weave on this one. I would venture to say Ken is not unaware of the importance of fact-based assertions. I recall seeing him demand "proof" on numerous occasions from a "Dr J" in a rather lengthy and heated back and forth some time ago regarding the MBC-agencies controversy.

"I remember . . . " lots of so-called conservatives and liberals (religious and political) doing terrible, things and making untruthful statements in the past thirty years, but that doesn't really prove anything about so-called conservatives and liberals.

Again, let's try to be clear and accurate in our discourse. Ken, what exactly do you mean by "liberal" when you use the term? How do you decide who you think is on the "Baptist left"?

...
written by ABP Reader, August 13, 2009

Ken, I want to make clear that my questions and comments above are not intended as an attack but as an attempt to understand where you are coming from. I personally try to avoid using the terms "conservative" and "liberal" because in my own ministry context those terms convey no agreed upon idea. I took an informal poll once of about 50 folks and asked them to define the terms. The results were quite diverse. So, that's why I'm asking about your usage.

Big Daddy
written by Ken, August 13, 2009

Do you deny that James Dunn was criticizing conservative Southern Baptists for their political involvement back in the eighties? He actually accused them of wanting to establish a "theocracy." He and others criticized Charles Stanley's involvement in the Moral Majority, but they said very little about Foy Valentine's involvement with ACLU, or James Dunn's involvement with People for the American Way.

You accuse me of "making stuff up", but you say you're not calling me a liar. Am I the only one who sees a contradiction here? I repeat: don't dish it out if you can't take it.

...
written by ABP Reader, August 13, 2009

Since I'm largely unfamiliar with the the specific situations, Ken, I would appreciate the citations for the claims you make.

ABP Reader
written by Ken, August 13, 2009

"I want to make clear that my questions and comments above are not intended as an attack but as an attempt to understand where you are coming from."

Before I answer your questions, I would like to know where you're coming from. Would you be kind enough to explain your own perspective?

P.S. to ABP Reader
written by Ken, August 13, 2009

Let me say here that I intend to make no comments about Dr. J on this thread. He and I have had strong disagreements on some issues, but we seem to be pretty much on the same page regarding President Obama's healthcare plan.

Secondly, if you are unfamiliar with the SBC controversies of the eighties, then I can understand why you've raised the questions you've raised. I'm not so sure that's the case with "Big Daddy", though. As I said, it would help matters if you explain where you're coming from.

...
written by ABP Reader, August 13, 2009

Ken, I tried to be clear that I was asking for you to clarify the terms and labels you are using rather than providing some exhaustive history of yourself or beliefs. I've already explained my perspective on the terms "liberal" and "Baptist left" for the most part. I try not to use them because I don't think they carry any agreed upon meaning. You seem to use them quite a bit on this site to generalize about groups of people. I'm must wondering what you mean by those terms and to whom you apply them. That is my perspective in asking the questions. I've been called conservative, moderate, and liberal all within a week of each other. That leads me to believe that the use of the terms depends on the one employing them. In the future, if you're going to use the terms I think it would be helpful for the discourse to know what you mean.

I consider myself to be a baptist Christian. Born and raised in an independent Baptist Church, spent some time in a Christian and Missionary Alliance church during college, before returning to Baptist life after college.

...
written by Ken, August 13, 2009

"Ken, I tried to be clear that I was asking for you to clarify the terms and labels you are using..."

No offense intended, but trying and succeeding are two different things.

"...rather than providing some exhaustive history of yourself or beliefs."

Huh? Who said anything about that?

"I've been called conservative, moderate, and liberal all within a week of each other. That leads me to believe that the use of the terms depends on the one employing them."

It could just be a simple case of mistaken identity. I can understand what you mean, though. I've been labeled a racist because I oppose President Obama's health care plan (not on this site). I've had people on this site accuse me of "squelching dissent" (Why? Because I was dissenting!).

Many people on this site also tend to use the word "fundamentalist" without any idea what the word means. James Dunn, who has been the subject of debate among "Big Daddy" and myself, used to refer to his opponents as "ultra-conservative crazies." He never did explain what he meant by that.

Granted, the terms "conservative" and "liberal" can have different shades of meaning in different contexts. In the political sense, I generally define liberals as those who are pro-abortion (or pro-choice, if there's a dime's worth of difference between the two terms), pro-homosexual, and pro-big government.

In the theological sense, I define liberals as those who deny such key biblical doctrines as the authority of Scripture, the virgin birth, the substitutionary death of Christ, etc. Not all of them are politically liberal as well, but many of them are. Many of these people used to be leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention. When they were voted out of power, they pulled out and formed organizations such as the Alliance of Baptists and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.

P.S. to ABP Reader
written by Ken, August 13, 2009

"Since I'm largely unfamiliar with the the specific situations, Ken, I would appreciate the citations for the claims you make."

Yet you concurred with "Big Daddy" that I was "making stuff up." How can you say that if you're unfamiliar with the situations?

...
written by ABP Reader, August 13, 2009

Ken, thanks for defining your terms for me. At least now I know what you mean by them. I still think the terms muddy the waters more than they clear them.

To be accurate, I never accused you of "making stuff up." I agreed with Big Daddy that in this particular case you were making assertions without citation, etc. I still stand by that, which is why I am seeking the citations. I want to see for myself if you are or are not making stuff up.

Any chance you are going to supply them?

More Assertions....
written by Big Daddy Weave, August 13, 2009

"Ken"

I've read and studied the words and writings of James Dunn closer than anyone. He was the subject of my thesis which is online at www.thebigdaddyweave.com

James Dunn has never blasted conservatives for their mere involvement in politics. He spent his career encouraging Christians of all political opinions to be involved in politics. In fact, Dunn affirmed the right of both Charles Stanley and Jerry Falwell to participate in the political process, etc. However, Dunn rightly criticized certain underhand, divisive political tactics used by both Christian ministers and Christian organizations in the political arena. Dunn has been an equal opportunity critic of Christian organizations that have formed tight institutional relationships with a specific political party.

Dunn rarely used the term "theocracy" during his ministry. And when Dunn did use the word "theocracy" it was in the context of Christian Reconstructionism. He did, however, believe that Southern Baptist fundamentalists had abandoned their Baptist heritage with their accommodationist, Christian Nation reinterpretation of the First Amendment and the Baptist distinctives of religious liberty/soul freedom.

Dunn used the term "ultra-conservative crazies" to refer to a specific group of rabble-rousers from Texas who gave him grief during his tenure at the Christian Life Commission, J. Frank Norris-style in the 1970s. He did not use that term to describe his opponents in the 1980s.

Thanks for the citations though, Ken. Not.

ABP Reader
written by Ken, August 14, 2009

"To be accurate, I never accused you of 'making stuff up.'"

No, to be accurate, "Big Daddy" accused me of "making stuff up", and you said you agreed with him. Go back and read your posts. I do appreciate you clarifying your position, though.

Yes, I will happily supply citations for my arguments, but you will have to be patient with me. Personal circumstances limit my time to do any extensive research at the moment.

You can read almost any books or articles about the SBC in the eighties and find some of the things James Dunn said.

Big Daddy
written by Ken, August 14, 2009

"Dunn rarely used the term 'theocracy' during his ministry. And when Dunn did use the word "theocracy" it was in the context of Christian Reconstructionism."

He accused the so-called "Religious Right" of trying to establish a theocracy. I believe his exact words were: "They want to create a theocracy, but every one of them wants to be theo."

"In fact, Dunn affirmed the right of both Charles Stanley and Jerry Falwell to participate in the political process, etc."

Citations, please?

"However, Dunn rightly criticized certain underhand, divisive political tactics used by both Christian ministers and Christian organizations in the political arena."

Except when he agreed with their politics.

"Dunn used the term 'ultra-conservative crazies' to refer to a specific group of rabble-rousers from Texas who gave him grief during his tenure at the Christian Life Commission, J. Frank Norris-style in the 1970s."

Yes, and he continued to use that term to describe his critics in the SBC. Like many people on the left, he tried to classify his critics with J. Frank Norris. That is a straw man tactic.

"Thanks for the citations though, Ken. Not."

Where were the citations for your material? How do I know you're not "making stuff up"?

P.S. Ken happens to be my real name, so it's not necessary to place it in quotation marks. Call me a cynic, but I sincerely doubt "Big Daddy" is your real name.

P.S. to Big Daddy
written by Ken, August 14, 2009

Your statements about James Dunn sound vaguely familiar. As I recall, those are the things Dunn used to say whenever his critics called his bluff. In the political arena, that tactic is called "spin."

As I said, I noticed you cited no sources for you information, other than your own writings. That's hardly an unbiased source.

...
written by ABP Reader, August 14, 2009

This appears to have turned into some kind of pissing contest. Ken, either you will provide the citations or you won't. You've said you will, so I hope you keep your word. If you "can read almost any books or articles about the SBC in the eighties and find some of the things James Dunn said," then perhaps it won't take too long.

To be fair and accurate where Big Daddy is concerned, not that I know him or much about him. He said: "But right now, without anything more than multiple empty assertions, you just seem to be making stuff up... " "Seem" is not the same as saying you "are" making stuff up. Ken, you SEEM to be making more out of that comment than what is warranted by the context of the quote. If that is so, I hope you're not doing so intentionally . . . but only you know that.

Thanks for the discourse Ken and Bid Daddy. Perhaps I'll see you on another thread in the future.

No more time...
written by Big Daddy Weave, August 14, 2009

"Ken"

This conversation has run its course. I've written 150 pages on James Dunn complete with 500 footnotes and a bibliography. No thesis, dissertation, book or journal article is without bias. Although, it is an historical work and I tried my best to be objective. I make no claims of objectivity here in a comment thread or in the blogosphere.

If you're interested, skim the thesis. If not, that's fine too.

But you're clearly not interested in providing citations to back-up your assertions. And I am no longer interested in continuing this fruitless dialogue.

My thesis on James Dunn can be found on the right-hand side of my blog - www.thebigdaddyweave.com - or click directly:

http://tinyurl.com/dunn0814

P.S. Dunn's "theo" line was a joke, a Funny Ha Ha moment not to be taken literally. He was not putting forth the argument that all in the Religious Right met the definition of a "theocrat." He distinguished in his writings between your average Baptist accommodationist who was interested in redefining Baptist distinctives and real-live Christian Reconstructionists...

ABP Reader
written by Ken, August 14, 2009

"This appears to have turned into some kind of pissing contest."

Would you watch your language, please? Such vulgarity adds absolutely nothing to this conversation.

"Ken, either you will provide the citations or you won't."

A little impatient, aren't we? I've explained my reasons. I am unable to look these things up at the present time. I know you're going to find this terribly disillusioning, but my life does not revolve around you. By the way, "Big Daddy" provided no citations for his statements, other than his own writings. I notice you raised no complaints about that.

"If you 'can read almost any books or articles about the SBC in the eighties and find some of the things James Dunn said,' then perhaps it won't take too long."

You're missing my point. I mentioned Dunn's writings so you can check these things out for yourself if you don't want to take my word for it. As I said, I've got a lot going on right now, and I'm not going to put everything on hold just to accommodate you.

"Ken, you SEEM to be making more out of that comment than what is warranted by the context of the quote."

That's because you SEEMED to be calling me a liar. You later admitted that you didn't know the facts, so your comment was presumptuous at best.

"Big Daddy"
written by Ken, August 14, 2009

I checked out your website, and it says that you're a 26-year-old doctoral student. I hope you're not offended by my putting your name in quotes, but I have a hard time calling you "Daddy" when you're almost young enough to be my son.

If the information on your website is correct, you're not even old enough to remember the controversies of the eighties. I was a college student at the time, and I do remember them. Thus, I think you have a lot of nerve accusing me of "making stuff up."

Maybe we can continue this conversation after you've grown up.

"Big Daddy" (aka, "Sophomoric Student")
written by Ken, August 14, 2009

Your latest comments about Dunn are more of the usual spin. You've cited no sources for your arguments other than your own writings. Unlike you, I'm old enough to remember the controversies of the eighties.

P.S. to ABP Reader
written by Ken, August 14, 2009

One thing I did not clarify. Most of the writings I mentioned are probably not available online, since they were written before the advent of the Internet. That's why I said it would take time to find them.

One more response...
written by Big Daddy Weave, August 14, 2009

"Ken,"

Yes, my thesis is a secondary source. Theses and dissertations do rely heavily on primary sources. My particular thesis - approved by a committee of professors from different disciplines at Baylor University - cites extensively from James Dunn's own writings, sermons, speeches, etc.

I will hesitate to respond next time I read your comments that, yes, "make stuff up."

"Big Daddy" (aka Little Twerp)
written by Ken, August 14, 2009

Yet you didn't cite any of those sources in your post. Why not? All you've done is give your own interpretation (or rather, your spin) on what he said.

...
written by ABP Reader, August 14, 2009

What childish behavior from the supposed grown-up on this thread. Regardless of your excuses or what issue you take with Big Daddy, Ken, you have yet to provide one citation for your assertions. He called you on this, provided a thesis on Dunn and all you have resorted to is calling him names and questioning his maturity.

If Big Daddy is acting like a "Little Twerp" or "Sophmoric Student," then how would you describe your own behavior?

One wonders whether the obvious anti-liberal bias in many of your comments on this site has eroded your ability to converse without being oversensitive and lobbing playground-like names.

Hey, but it's a free speech kind of site, so you can say and act as you want.

How pathetic.

In the future I'll remember that "Ken" is the one who calls young doctoral students little twerps for disagreeing with him or calling him out on citation-free assertions.

Congratulations, you officially won the pissing contest.

I await something resembling a self-justification, complaining, victim-mentality response. After all, that's apparently what grown ups do.

"Big Daddy" (Little Twerp)
written by Ken, August 14, 2009

"Dunn used the term "ultra-conservative crazies" to refer to a specific group of rabble-rousers from Texas who gave him grief during his tenure at the Christian Life Commission, J. Frank Norris-style in the 1970s."

In fact, Dunn used the term "crazies" to describe opponents of the Civil Rights Restoration Act in the late 1980's - and he specifically named such people as James Dobson, Gary Bauer, and Jerry Falwell. I don't believe any of these were ever Texas Baptists.

ABP Reader
written by Ken, August 14, 2009

"In the future I'll remember that 'Ken' is the one who calls young doctoral students little twerps for disagreeing with him or calling him out on citation-free assertions."

First, as I told "Big Daddy", there's no need to put my name in quotes. Unlike you and him, I'm not afraid to use my real name.

Second, I didn't call "Big Daddy" a "Little Twerp" because he disagrees with me or because he asked me to cite sources (even though he never cited any other than his own writings). I did it because of his self-important attitude. He's lecturing me on things that he's too young to remember.

Third, as I told both you, don't dish it out if you can't take it.

...
written by ABP Reader, August 14, 2009

Self-justification in defense of childish behavior. As predicted.

ABP Reader
written by Ken, August 14, 2009

Your vulgar language and whining doesn't exactly fall under the heading of maturity. Like I said, don't dish it out if you can't take it.

...
written by ABP Reader, August 14, 2009

More self-justification. Sounds like your tattling to a second-grade teacher.

ABP Reader
written by Ken, August 14, 2009

You really are pitiful, aren't you?

Once more...
written by Big Daddy Weave, August 14, 2009

"Ken"

If you insist on calling names, how about taking this conversation somewhere else. Feel free to e-mail me at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

P.S. I wrote my thesis from an historical perspective. Surely you understand what historians do? Not sure how many history texts would exist if living through the era was a prerequisite...sheesh.

Little Twerp Weave
written by Ken, August 14, 2009

No good historian discounts the testimony of people who actually DID live through the era. I did, and you didn't.

...
written by ABP Reader, August 14, 2009

I'm more pitiful than you know. I never claimed otherwise. Same goes for my immaturity.

But, I'll have to admit, your stubborness and arrogance in all of this really has me laughing. Your comments are like a train wreck, it's really difficult to look away from such destruction. But alas, I must.

This pitiful and immature ABP Reader signing off.

P.S. to Aaron (aka "Big Daddy")
written by Ken, August 14, 2009

Aaron,

For the record, I don't insist on name-calling. Since you were willing to give me your email address, though, I'm willing to see that as an extension of the proverbial olive branch. Thus, I'm willing to call a truce.

Have a great day.

ABP Reader
written by Ken, August 14, 2009

"But, I'll have to admit, your stubborness and arrogance in all of this really has me laughing."

You've given me some pretty good laughs, too, so I'm glad I could return the favor. You have a great day, too!

To "Ken"
written by Big Daddy Weave, August 14, 2009

Ken,

I don't discount the testimony of the people involved.

But please don't put yourself out there as an active participant in the Controversy. We don't know who you are. You're just Ken. Ken who?

My address and a great deal of biographical information about me is available online. I wasn't "willing" to give you anything. It was there for anyone to see.

You know my name yet I don't know yours? No olive branch, buddy.

My suggestion was and remains this: if you want to call names and makes this personal, perhaps we should take our discussion somewhere else than this particular forum.

Aaron
written by Ken, August 14, 2009

Now you're making things up. When did I ever say I was an "active participant" in the controversy? I was just a college and seminary student during most of it. However, you were no more than an elementary school kid in those days, so I think my memories of it are considerably more trustworthy than yours.

As for the "name-calling", I've told you time and again not to dish it out if you can't take it.

Have a good day, anyway.

P.S. to Aaron
written by Ken, August 14, 2009

"You know my name yet I don't know yours?"

I told you from the beginning that Ken is my real name. Why are you making stuff up?

Aaron - one more thing.
written by Ken, August 17, 2009

You attack my integrity and expect me to take it. Yet I poke a little harmless fun at you by calling you "Little Twerp", and you get all bent out of shape. If you're that thin-skinned, maybe you ought to be more careful in how you talk to others.

Readers alone are responsible for the content of the comments they post here. The comments are subject to the site’s terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the ABP News. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.

Write comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register

< Prev		Next >

Baptists

Nation

World

Opinion