Thanks for the clarification about “Red, Hot, and Blue.” My understanding was that the restaurant’s menu was based on recipes from some of Memphis’ famous bbq restaurants and that they had actually licensed these recipes for use in the “Red, Hot, and Blue” chain, none of which, as you say, are located in the state of Tennessee. Either way, I would gladly take Memphis BBQ any day over what they call BBQ in Texas I have come to appreciate smoked brisket, but it’s still fun (and easy) to tweak Texans on just about anything, most especially food and the Cowboys! Thanks for reading about the SBC stuff, too. God bless,

Howell

Memphis is very proud of it’s excellent bbq (I’m sure you’d love it), and, as such, there are many places around the country that bill themselves as Memphis bbq and have a Memphis theme or connection. But the only Memphis-based chain I know of with restaurants in other states is Corky’s.

The stuff you wrote about the SBC was kinda interesting, too.

Lydia,

You have nailed it with that one comment alone! Lifeway, and now this, are perfect examples of what has become an elitist, mainly megachurch, mentality that has permeated the Convention. What people don’t want to see is that politics — for good or bad — are always a part of any organization. The SBC/GCB is no different. Sometimes the politics are the art of persuasion and sometimes they are of the hardball variety where leaders employ the “Golden Rule” — He who has the gold rules. I’ll have a short article on this mentality tomorrow. It is from a member of the GCRTF and it was revealed in a Tweet. Apart from my blog posts, which are automatically posted on my Twitter account, I can honestly say that I have never tweeted nor do I have much desire to. Some “leaders” would do well to heed the wisdom of Solomon in Proverbs regarding much speaking. Thanks and God bless,

Howell

I understood your analogy about the pastor taking over the church. Has less to do with experience than how the new pastor viewed himself and the congregation to begin with. Perhaps a pastor with experience would use difference methods to make changes he wants….. but how they view themselves and their “position” to make those changes is really the heart of the matter.

You and I forsee the same outcome but I really thought this was a stepping stone in a longer term plan. You have made some really good points that this is really a done deal. Now I see the brilliance of a “nickname”. Think about it….voluntary. Any YRR and megachurches not on the GCB train will be on it, soon, because it is moving on. Patterson has his ticket.

I have no problem with the name but I have a HUGE problem with how all of this was done. They don’t need messengers anymore.

I do appreciate the dialogue, even though we will probably not see eye to eye on this issue. Since you quoted me, let me just say that I stand by the quote as written and as intended. You perhaps do not see it this way, which is why you are taking the side that you are. I understand that. There’s no question that this committee — which no one disputes was “unofficial” — was used as a way to circumvent (i.e. get around) the clearly stated will of the messengers who have repeatedly rejected even studying this issue. If the messengers would have been given the opportunity to vote on authorizing a study committee, they may have changed their mind (i.e., will) and voted this time to create such a study committee. Therefore, the creation of this unofficial task force circumvented the last known express will of the Convention.

As to contravening the Constitution and By-Laws of the SBC, the documents do not give the President the authority to unilaterally appoint special ad hoc committees. There are express provisions within the By-Laws which state what committees the President can appoint, but a special ad hoc committee is not one of them, absent an express authorization of the Convention (which obviously did not happen). Of course, some would like to read more expansive Presidential powers into the plain language of the Constitution and By-Laws, but this is most certainly not a conservative interpretive philosophy. I hope these supporting facts help you to understand why I wrote what I did. And, opposing something does not mean that one is dividing. If that were the case, then the majority would always be right and the minority could never challenge any actions without being labeled “divisive.” I simply reject that type of thinking. Thanks and God bless,

Howell

Thanks for your response. Your words: “With all due respect to the unofficial Name Change Task Force, I’m not sure that a committee which was created to circumvent the will of the messengers and perhaps contravene the Constitution and By-Laws of the SBC in the process, are the best folks to unilaterally declare the nickname option a “win-win” (although some of our leaders sure like to do things unilaterally; some don’t even need a vote to change the name of a seminary). ”

Usually quotes that begin like this have no respect and this is true here as well. The “stabbing in the back” simply referred to using the blogosphere as a means to assume/accuse Godly Christian brothers of something done wrongfully or with ill-intent. I realize we all have our freedom to express our point via social media, but you are correct, I simply do not like to hear opposition unless factually stated especially when it further divides.

First off, thanks for taking the time to read and to share your thoughts. Although we obviously disagree, I do appreciate your comments. I’m not sure who would say that the Great Commission is not clearly mandated in God’s Word? If anyone on this comment stream, or myself in the OP, has said such a thing, please direct me to that wording. Of course, I would disagree that what I have written divides or stabs anyone in the back. Usually those who do not like to hear opposition will respond in the way that you have. But, that just goes to prove your point — and one that I wholeheartedly agree with — that people either embrace truth or they reject it. What one man embraces another man rejects. Such is life, but truth will win out in the end. Thanks again and God bless,

Howell

Although I surprised at the proposal (a brilliant move, by the way), I am no longer surprised by what many within the establishment are doing. If you can use Great Commission to get a radical overhaul of the Convention passed, then what would stop you from using it again to get a name change through? Within 6-12 months from New Orleans, what we will be left with is self-identifying Southern Baptists — who have supported the SBC through CP, Annie, and Lottie — completely marginalized, much like the older generations have been marginalized in churches that have been taken over by driven pastors. In the end, those SBCers who have not started identifying as Great Commission Baptists will have a choice to make –quietly be resolved to stay in the GCB and keep giving, even though they don’t like it or leave. It is a dilemma with no good outcome. Thanks and God bless,

Howell

I don’t think it will take a rocket scientist or a brilliant theologian to figure out how this will play itself out. Dr. Mohler has provided an invaluable service to grassroots Southern Baptists (and to his allies within the GCB) about what is coming. No sooner than an affirmative vote is recorded for the unofficial nickname — proposed by an unofficial committee through the EC — most megachurches, most YR&R churches, and most trendy, contemporary churches and, most of the entities will start using the GCB moniker, along with catchy logos and such, in their official communications, websites, papers, materials, etc. If I were a conspiracy theorist wackadoodle, I might even venture a guess that some marketing gurus have already been hired (of course through some megachurch so it could be said no CP money was used) to come up with a catchy new logo. After all, the Recommendation encouages this for “churches and institutions.” Everyone thinks this is a done deal — and maybe it is — but this process has been tainted from the get go. I guess the ends do justify the means in Southern Baptist Great Commission Baptist life. Thanks and God bless,

Howell