5 thoughts on “The flipside of Memphis?

  1. Micah,

    I am not sure the FBW got this right at all. I was at Memphis and very little about this statement is contrary to those who were in Memphis – as far as I can tell.

    We are inerrantists, we affirm the resurgence, we affirm the BFM 2000.

    The only minor points seem to be (1)the possible implication that if you led out in the resurgence, you, perhaps should not be questioned about actions in the future; and (2) the withdrawing from the world section, which seems sort of legalistic and leans toward the attitude that governs such groups as the Amish in their attempt to avoid sin, in which they avoid most everyone altogether.

    No, in fact, it is not the opposite of the MD and I find it very curious as to why it is being styled that way. The implication, of course, is that everything they affirm is something that the MD authors and signatories reject – which is false on its face.

  2. Art-

    My thoughts are much like yours. As far as those who have stood together, post Memphis, and asked for change I think we can agree, with unity, on almost the entirety of this new statement from this Joshua group.

    It is my understanding, after dialogue with some involved in this Joshua Convergence stemming back 2-3 months, that this meeting was intended by the framers of the Joshua Convergence to be viewed as an alternative to the Memphis Declaration. Therefore, although we would not view them as in contrast to ourselves, they appear to view themselves that way.

  3. Micah,

    That’s interesting. I notice this difference between the two meetings as well –

    Memphis was a gathering of people with no specific agenda but a general concern about the future of the SBC, some of which was portended by the acts of the past. Those people (that is, we) decided to hammer out a statement in hopes of setting an example – one of humility, contrition and a commitment to integrity.

    Here, it seems, a statement is made and then a call for others to come to the organizers standard.

    Again, if this is intentionally opposed to the MD, they are implying that we are against a great many things we are for – which is false.

Leave a Reply