|WikiProject Christianity / Baptist||(Rated B-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Biography||(Rated B-class)|
In the Thelogy section the statement "(he appears to misinterpret 5-point Calvinism as the same as HyperCalvinism)" seems odd. HybridFusion 09:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure the word "staunchly" as an adjective to conservative is neutral. Isn't "staunchly" pointing "conservative" to a negative?
"The denomination has remained staunchly conservative since Rogers' first term as president."
There's no cite, so I don't know where the sentence came from. Recommend removing staunchly to maintain NPOV. But this is my first visit to this page so I'm not changing it now. I could be wrong anyway. :)
Since Dr. Rogers death, there have been multiple anon editors that have removed or substantially altered two or three sections of this article. I wanted to discuss some of these changes, and especially the recent changes made by 126.96.36.199.
First, regarding the theological/ideological tilt of the SBC, I don't know whether the SBC was conservative historically or not. However, I am certain that the SBC, as a whole, somewhat moderate by the late 1970s, given that, at the very least, there were moderate pastors in leadership positions. This hasn't been the case since 1979 when Rogers was elected (whether he was the catalyst or merely a symptom is debatable, and the article doesn't really take a position). Thus, it is an accurate description to say that Rogers' election precipitated a sharp rightward shift in the denomination, and news obituaries (including the AP obit cited in the article) agree on this point. Casting rightward shifts as "return to historical roots" (whether the description fits the situation or not, and i'm not passing judgment on this particular situation) is a common conservative rhetorical tool (this is especially true in politics), and is employed quite often when rightward shifts of any nature occur. Thus, describing the shift as a return to historical roots in this article is POV and inappropriate, in my opinion.
Second, I am not entirely familiar with Rogers' involvement in the revision of the Baptist Faith and Message. I imagine that the article should more thoroughly describe his involvement, assuming that this is done in an NPOV manner.
Finally, the slavery quote. It has been deleted repeatedly, without explanation, by anons. A more recent revision didn't remove the quote, but attempted to defend it by stating that it was "taken out of context" (stating that Rogers was talking about biblical slavery, not 18th and 19th century slavery). First, this apology doesn't make logical sense, given that Rogers tied his statement to welfare, not the Hebrews, linking his statement to contemporary America, which casts doubt on the anon's explanation. Second, and this is just my personal opinion here, maybe slavery, in any context, is unjustifiable. My personal prejudice against slavery aside, the "take it in context" explanation given doesn't make logical sense given my first argument. - Jersyko 21:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- 1) I totally agree that the wording of "return to historical roots" is inappropriate. When I read the edit for the first time, I was struck by it. In my mind, that phrasing makes the sentence sound in favor of the shift and is also misleading because as we all well know that "conservatism" now is different than how it was defined 50 years ago. A more accurate and neutral phrase should be used.
- 2) Further agreement on more info desired on the topic of Roger's involvement in the BFM.
- 3) Most people do not like to be called racists, and I do not think that the article directly states that. The quote could possibly be intrepreted as a moment when Rogers showed a poor choice of words, considering the history of conservative southern churches and racism. Nonetheless, wikipedia does not need to begin a habit in selectively omitting information that some people find offensive. As long as the article is NPOV, potential problems are usually avoided. Any more information on his views of race would be welcome, just as his support in revising the BFM. The quotation in the article is referenced from a published source and other related references about his life can be included. If that first quote is misleading to Roger's life, then the other facts can help to better fully describe his views/actions. -Dozenist talk 01:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Here is a question posted on my talk page by an anon followed by my response. I think it might be useful to have this on this talk page, so I'm reproducing it here. - Jersyko
Why are you insisting on including reference to a one-time "slavery" comment that was obviously taken out of context? That does not at all define who Adrian Rogers was, as all that knew him can attest. If this reference has to be included, there should be a reference to a rebuttal as well. - 188.8.131.52 (unsigned anon)
- Hi, thanks for your comment. While I did not add the slavery quote to the Adrian Rogers article in the first place, I do think, after some consideration, it belongs in the article. While the quote is taken out of context, as quotes often are, I think the contextual issue as it has been presented is not very relevant, as I explain on the article's talk page (see above).
- I am all for offering evidence in the article that Dr. Rogers was not, in fact, a racist or a supporter of slavery. I think the article does indicate, in the sentence following the slavery quote, that Dr. Rogers was not a racist or a slavery supporter, but more could be added. I'm vaguely familiar with a story about when Dr. Rogers was fairly new at Bellevue and told some deacons, who were contemplating not allowing African-Americans to join the church, that he would resign in protest if they decided to ban blacks from the church. I would love to see something about this in the article, assuming that it's true and a source for the story can be found. If you can find verification for this story, and can add something in the article about it in a neutral point of view manner, I, among other editors, would welcome such an addition, i'm sure. - Jersyko talk 22:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I just wanted to point out that a story like that, if eventually is included in the article, would be best to be referenced to some sort of source that can be verified by others. An eyewitness account technically is a source, but something we can all find (like a book, reputable website, etc.) would be better. Otherwise, the story can easily be called into question. -Dozenist talk 01:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
More on recent changes
Being unfamiliar with the Wiki protocols, I made revisions to Dr. Rogers' article before registering here. None of them were in any way inappropriate--yet, rather than just changing things back, I will explain them, and give others the opportunity to restore the previous, appropriate changes, so that there's no back-and-forth between deleting and replacing.
When one confesses lack of information regarding the ideology of an organization, one puts oneself in the position of being unable to judge whether or not statements regarding that organization are, or are not, accurate. Any research into the history of the SBC, regardless of the viewpoint of the information, will make it clear that the SBC had drifted from its historical conservatism by the 1970s; even the Wiki article on the Convention makes that obvious. The idea that the truthful statement saying the denomination returned "to its historical roots" is merely a "conservative rhetorical tool" is nonsense--unless it's wrong to have the truth as a tool. At best, such an accusation is POV in and of itself.
The slavery quote is from a single, unreliable source--an individual who wrote a book and took no pains to make it "NPOV," yet the quote is taken to be not only legitimate, but worthwhile in this article. It should either be amplified, as it was, or deleted altogether.
If these edits need to be discussed, then let's discuss them. Otherwise, I will reinstate the changes I made previously, changes that make the article more accurate and not pejorative. Mike Bratton
- In response: Any research into the history of the SBC, regardless of the viewpoint of the information, will make it clear that the SBC had drifted from its historical conservatism by the 1970s; even the Wiki article on the Convention makes that obvious. Perhaps you are correct. However, the phrase is a common conservative rhetorical tool (as I say above, I'm not passing judgment on whether you have used it as such). Is the current phrasing about Dr. Rogers' presidency precipitating a shift to the right inaccurate? Then why, may I ask, would you prefer to describe the shift in the way you have described if the most simple, universally understandable explanation is "rightward shift"? I stand by my statements regarding this in the above section.
- The slavery quote is from a single, unreliable source--an individual who wrote a book and took no pains to make it "NPOV," yet the quote is taken to be not only legitimate, but worthwhile in this article. It should either be amplified, as it was, or deleted altogether. I think consensus has been reached on this issue, and it has been explained well enough in the above sections of this page (it involves adding a bit to that section, which hasn't been done yet). Also, regardless of whether that particular cited source is reliable, at least one editor initially attempting to remove the quote admitted that the quote was accurate (though taken out of context). - Jersyko talk 21:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- A tool is a tool. Indicting the tool because it had the temerity to be used wrongly would mean blaming a baseball bat for being used by vandals to knock down a mailbox. The SBC was a conservative denomination; in the mid-1960s and into the 1970s, it began a drift to the left, which was reversed in the late 1970s. This is not opinion, and there is no "perhaps" about it; people on both sides of the SBC debate agree about the timeframe, and about the outcome. Merely referring to the "Conservative Resurgence" as a "rightward shift" only tells half the story, and is thus inaccurate. Objections to the phrase "return to its historical roots" are groundless, since they seek to argue well-established facts.
- Ed Babinski has an anti-Christian agenda to push, and is not a reputable source. An Internet debating acquaintance of mine, Dave Armstrong, relates this quote from Mr. Babinski regarding his worldview: "I am frankly sick of religion, and (sic) it's middle men, and polite attempts to suggest everyone else is in eternal error by them and their beliefs."
- Scores of lazy reporters have picked up on the manipulated quote--stripped of context which had been added, mind you--and have used it in attempts to taint Dr. Rogers' reputation; anyone involved with irresponsibly removing the contextual information bears at least some responsibility for these acts.
- Even the slightest effort to research the quote would've yielded this contextual information in a review, by Chad Brand on the founders.org website, of the book "The Godmakers": "Gourley's use of his sources is also problematic. Granted that he makes use almost exclusively of sources whose authors have a vested interest to critique the conservative resurgence. But does he use those sources accurately? In many cases he does not. In Chapter Four he critiques the conservative movement for its racism. "It is a tragedy, however, that the white God which Southern Baptists of the 1800s worshipped is still alive in the minds of many Southern Baptists, particularly in fundamentalist circles" (p. 75). As a prime example he presents this: ". . . Adrian Rogers, fundamentalist pastor and past SBC president, recently revealed his racist beliefs when asked about slavery: `Well, I believe slavery is amuch-maligned institution. If we had slavery today, we would not have this welfare mess'" (p. 75). Gourley seeks with this quote to prove that Rogers is a racist in his attitude toward African-Americans. The footnote for this comment cites an essay by Cecil Sherman, former head of the CBF. But when one looks at the essay by Sherman, an entirely different perspective is apparent. Sherman asked Rogers the question about slavery in the context of their work together on the Peace Committee. But the question he asked was about slavery in the Bible, not the American institution of racial subservience. This is very plain in Sherman's essay ("Moderate Responses to the Fundamentalist Movement," in Walter Shurden, ed., The Struggle for the Soul of the SBC, p. 36). Sherman did not take Rogers' comment to refer to the American institution of Southern injustice, and there is no reason why Gourley should have taken the text in this manner, either. One may disagree with Rogers' statement in any event, but to twist his words willfully in order to score a rhetorical point is unconscionable reporting."
- I heartily agree with the last sentence in that last quote. Mike Bratton
- Rather than merely rehash my responses to what you're saying here, I'll simply refer to my prior comments on essentially the same subjects. I'll also refer to Dozenist's comments in the same section regarding the "return to historical roots" language and adopt his position as my own. - Jersyko talk 17:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- After reading all of this, I still don't understand why the author of the slavery statement is not named if you are using his statement. Otherwise it appears to have no validity. Can't you replace "one author" with a name? - Odestiny 18:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Either get a good citation on this slavery quote or remove it. The citation link for the slavery remark is pretty much a dead link. If this is a real quote, get a real citation, and a legitimate one that can be validated. It's been over a year since I requested the same thing. If someone is prepared to stand up and accept responsibility for the quotation and face up to the legal challenges it will present then do so. Otherwise it needs to be removed. Odestiny (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a random thought, and does not belong in the article, but Dr. Rogers had the strongest hand-shake grip of any man ever. If you weren't on guard, he'd crush your hand. Just thought I'd throw that out there. Even though I disagreed with most of his views, I can't deny he was a great guy. I'm sure he'll be missed. - orioneight (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I have been a life long Southern Baptist and have a father and grandfather who are both ordained ministers within the Denomination. I would simply like to point out that it is futile to argue over the historical validity of certain stances presently held by the Convention. The Baptist movement in general has a very long and detailed history. Unlike protestant groups, like the Methodists, who formed out of the theology of a singular individual (John Wesley, or a single group of individuals if you count his brother Charles and others associated with them), the Baptist movement has developed out of several essentially independent movements. In truth, it appears that the belief in a cognitive profession of faith as a prerequisite for baptism and the belief in the independence of the individual congregations, may be the only two characteristics common among all Baptist sects. From the very beginning, there have been Baptist groups that have tended towards more Anabaptist theological roots and there have others who have tended towards more Calvinistic theological roots. This variety was still present when Baptist congregations began forming in the United States. While there were several factors that led to the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention, theological differences (of the sort in question) played a very minor role. Not because they were universally agreed upon, but because the issues surrounding the rift were of a wholly different nature. Because of this those who claim the current theological stance as historical have just as valid of an argument as those who oppose them. It is sad that these disagreements have been able to fester the way they have. Baptists have a strong tradition of independence that unfortunately seems to have been lost on the Convention, with groups on both sides being at fault. Let’s hope this needles quarreling soon comes to an end. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) .
I deleted the slavery quotation attributed to doctor Rogers simply because there was no source listed for this quote. When I clicked on the reference number to see where this quote came from there was a link to ouramericanvalues.org which was actually the source for the quote before this one.
Fair use rationale for Image:AdrianRogersPhoto.jpg
Image:AdrianRogersPhoto.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The unprofessional conduct on this page. Last Time I visited this page I found that the person responsible for this page was Just a Liar,I am glade that either he was moved to lie in another page,or was promoted or just somebody confronted him and restrained his unethical and unprofessional behavior. But I can say that I don't trust any thing on Wikipedia after that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
If there are sources which exist and are citeable which contradict the position taken in the pro slavery quote, an addition to the article would be appropriate stating that Rogers also preached on the ills of slavery. It doesn't change the fact, however, that a source exists which verifies the pro slavery quote, so it doesn't support deletion of the pro slavery quote unless the source is somehow unreliable. Interwebs (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I added a refernce that include an audio sermon ,In which,Adrian Rogers States that he is grateful that Abraham Lincolin signed that emancipation proclaimation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulHijazin (talk • contribs) 04:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- You completely ignored the substance of my comment above and deleted the relevant passage, however. Interwebs (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
A. your comment was "DO NOT DELETE THIS SECTION, AND DO NOT CHANGE CONTENT UNLESS YOU HAVE REFERENCES" which is ambiguous, unfortunately ,I understood that I can delete if I have a reference. May be you should change it to “DO NOT DELETE THIS SECTION. DO NOT CHANGE CONTENT UNLESS YOU HAVE REFERENCES" . B.you changed the content to "Supporters of Rogers point out, however, that he also allegedly preached favorably about Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation." although it sounds well ,but I have some objections: 1.you don't have to use "allegedly",just follow this link and then press on play audio,the sermon title is "Liberated Living " .if you don't want to listen to all of it,just listen to minute 42. http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Love_Worth_Finding/archives.asp?bcd=2010-4-13 2.you don't have to say supporters of Adrian Rogers to describe anybody who comments in his favor,unless you want to describe commenter's who comment against him as adversaries or opponents. 3. it’s obvious that an audio reference in his own voice should annul,in case of contradiction, a reference with a reported speech, of which the context of the speech -sense he could have been sarcastic about the welfare system-and the truthfulness of the reporter is unverifiable.thanks--PaulHijazin (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- You're misreading my comment. Two sources exist which support the inclusion of the pro-slavery quote. Unless a reliable source exists which disputes the two sources directly, then the quote should remain. I've added a sentence noting that Rogers allegedly took a contrary position in a sermon (I cannot listen to the sermon, so I cannot confirm). Interwebs (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The source that I have added is verifiable, and as I mentioned if you don’t want to listen to the whole sermon for some religious affiliation or whatever other reasons, that’s fine. The quote starts at 41:58 and ends at 42:10, but that doesn’t justify ignoring an important reference in such a significant issue. And honestly, I still wait for a response to my previous objections. --PaulHijazin (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't listened to the sermon because I do not have access to a method to playback audio at this exact moment. I deleted the "supports of Rogers" portion of the sentence to address your concerns. Regarding #3 in your comment, I would point to WP:PRIMARY. Primary sources (e.g., a Rogers sermon) may be used, but not in an interpretive sense (secondary reliable sources are required for that). Thus, we can't use the Rogers sermon to "prove" that Rogers never made the comments about slavery or that he never held the views reported by secondary sources. We CAN use it to prove that Rogers made the statement that the Emancipation Proclamation was a good thing, which we do by adding a sentence after the other, cited material. Even without referencing Wikipedia policy, does it not make sense that Rogers' view of slavery might have changed over time, and that he actually took both positions supported by the sources? If so, we include both, as the article currently states. As it stands, there are two sources which support inclusion of the quote. I've seen no evidence presented that the sources are unreliable. Interwebs (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, hope that our discussion will lead to a more accurate representation of the facts. I want to make three points: 1. I agree with you, the reference that I presented will not negate the references that are cited with regards to Mr. Adrian statements in favor of Slavery against Welfare system. Sense as you justly pointed out that we are discussing discrete events. 2. My main concern now is that the content of the article at this point doesn’t accurately reflect the available evidences, precisely in the following segment: “Rogers later allegedly preached favorably about Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation.” My objections are: a. The main signification of allegedly is “to assert without a proof” which doesn’t reflect the facts of the case. There is a proof that he spoke out in favor of Abraham’s Lincoln Emancipation Proclamation. b. The use of preach; in the context of a sermon preach will signify “to proclaim or to make known the gospel”, but we are dealing with a statement with regard to a historical event and not a biblical or theological issue. c. The content should emphasize that the primary source, which is a direct speech, is more reliable than a reported sources; because in the direct speech we have both the content and the context. With out even going in any argument against or with the truthfulness of the writers.
So I would suggest that the sentence should be changed to " Rogers later in a documented Occasion(Sermon) spoke out in favor of the emancipation proclamation ,signed by President Abraham Lincoln, which restored the freedom to the slaves.he described ,in the same occasion,the slavery as it was practiced in the United States as "Unspeakably Immoral "
3. Regarding the technical problem that deprives you from listening to the sermon, you can move the audio content using the knob on the real player window to any specific point and just listen, so I think that this a good way to go around your technical issue that prevents you from confirming the reference”
I have written down the statements that support my point of view: Adrian Rogers Sermon Titled “Liberated Living” “http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Love_Worth_Finding/archives.asp?bcd=2010-4-13”
13:20-13:31 “..Suppose a man is a slave, he is owned by some one –Slavery as it was practiced in the United States was unspeakably Immoral”
41:58-42:10 “…Abraham Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation, and that freed the slaves, and I am grateful for that” And he continued “But did you know that historians tell us that there were some slaves that continued to live in slavery, they stayed on the plantation. Do you know why? Some of them had never even heard about the emancipation proclamation, others of them had heard, but heard it un-intellectually and they didn’t believe; so sadly and tragically! they continued…"--PaulHijazin (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have no substantial objection to your addition. I take you at your word regarding the sermon, but I will not be able to listen to it until later today. I will add a proper reference for it then. Interwebs (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I am Adrian Rogers son. I know for a fact, personally, that he did not support slavery, with the only exception being a recognition of the Old Testament practice under the theocratic society of Israel, as stipulated by the Old Testament law. He never once suggested, however, that such Old Testament practices, carried out historically in a very specific context, justified in any way the modern-day practice of slavery, either in early American life, or anything similar.
Evidently, the quote by Cecil Sherman, in his autobiography, relaying a supposed personal conversation with my father, hinges on Sherman’s personal credibility. I was not there personally to verify what was or was not said in that conversation. However, I can say that the quote, as stands, in Wikipedia, is totally out of character for what my father may have normally said, and fails to provide the necessary context for understanding it correctly, even if it were recorded accurately.
It is also well known that Mr. Sherman has been actively vocal in his leadership on the opposite pole of my father in denominational politics, and his opposition to the movement with which my father was identified, and may well have motive for manifesting personal bias in the things he says and/or writes about my father.
Paul Pressler, in A Hill on which to Die, published in 1999, by Broadman & Holman Publishers, Nashville, TN, said the following, in regard to Mr. Sherman, and his conflicting statements on the authority of the Bible:
“Having listened to Cecil Sherman in later years and knowing he was one of the top leaders of the moderate cause in the Southern Baptist Convention controversy and later led the breakaway group, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF), I have wondered whether he actually believed what he signed and told the deacons he believed, or whether he misrepresented himself. If he changed, I wondered when and what caused him to change, since he later took up a cause that is counter to this statement” (p. 23).
And, in regard to an election for the presidency of the Southern Baptist Convention:
“When the results were announced, Richard looked as if he had been crushed. He and his wife soon left the convention hall. I said to Nancy, ‘Praise God, the Southern Baptist Convention is being saved.’ Unbeknownst to me, Cecil Sherman and his wife Dot were sitting in front of us and heard me say that. Cecil later had some caustic remarks to make about my statement that day” (p. 116).
Jerry Sutton, in The Baptist Reformation, published in 2000, by Broadman & Holman Publishers, Nashville, TN, wrote the following:
“A November 30, 1982, article published in the Raleigh, North Carolina, newspaper by John Robinson was entitled, ‘Moderates Vow to Fight Swing to Conservatism Among Baptists.’ In the article Robinson said, ‘An influential group of Southern Baptist moderates agreed Monday to continue to fight the denomination’s move towards conservatism. “We will do our homework and try to popularize the views that we think are important to being a Baptist, views that are different from the fundamentalists,” said the Reverend Cecil E. Sherman, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Asheville and leader of the group that met Monday in Atlanta’” (p. 128).
“Meanwhile, moderates were continuing to articulate their displeasure with the entire direction of the Southern Baptist Convention, especially the work of the Peace Committee and the prospects of a peaceful coexistence around the norms established by the Peace Committee. In a page of quotes circulated in November 1986, two leaders of the moderates had very pointed remarks to say … Cecil Sherman, former member of the Peace Committee, said, ‘We have a problem. We are trying to live with some people we are not like, and it’s difficult. And we’re not going to live with those people forever. Why, on certain days, I wouldn’t even want to go to heaven with them’” (p. 180).
The following quotes, from recorded sermons preached at Bellevue Baptist Church, in Cordova, TN, demonstrate Adrian Rogers’ opposition to slavery:
1. "Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation and the scourge and the blight of slavery began to be erased in this country. We still bear the scars of it. But you know the sad thing? When Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, potentially, potentially every slave was freed. But, you know, in actuality, every slave wasn't freed? Do you know why? Some of them didn't know it. Some of them didn't know it. And, do you know what else? Some of them who knew it, it was too big. They couldn't take it in. They just could not take it in. I mean, they'd been slaves so long, they just could not take it in. They could not believe it. So, while they knew it here, they didn't know how to reckon it here. And then, some of them continued to serve as slaves, because they'd served as slaves so long they were intimidated by their own master. And, he would tell them to do this and that, and they would yield to him, when they didn't have to. You see? Do you see, friend? What good is the gospel of Jesus Christ? What good is the gospel of grace? What good is God's Emancipation Proclamation, if you don't know it, if you don't reckon to it, and if you don't yield on it.”
Sermon title: “God versus Humanity” (catalogue #2050), preached on Feb. 15, 1998, at Bellevue Baptist Church, in Cordova, TN. Recording and transcript available from Love Worth Finding Ministries, P.O. Box 38300, Memphis, TN 38183-0300, Phone: (901) 382-7900 (8:00 am - 4:45 pm CT).
2. “Look, if you will, in verses 18 and 19: ‘Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thank worthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.” Now, the word servant here literally means household slave. It’s not talking about a domestic servant like we have today who is paid, but it’s talking about a person who is a slave. And these slaves were not inferior people. In that day, a man would have a doctor slave to take care of him. He would have a teacher slave to educate his children. But, Aristotle, uh, his philosophy had come to full flower, and he said, Aristotle said, “Master and slave had nothing in common. A slave is a living tool, just as a tool is an inanimate slave.” Slaves were not treated as persons; they were treated as things. And yet, Peter says, “Slaves, be in submission to your master as unto the Lord.” You say, well now, wait a minute. Shouldn’t we be against slavery? With all of our heart. And what Peter taught here brought slavery crashing down. He was speaking of reality. They found themselves in a situation over which they had no control. But he said, “Now, guard your spirit. Have a submissive spirit.” Maybe some of you today are not a slave in that sense, but you work for what you call a slave driver. Let me tell you something. There is no better place for you to demonstrate the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ if you have an unfair or an ungodly boss.”
Sermon title: “The Problem with Unworthy Authority” (catalogue #1958), preached on Nov. 3, 1996, at Bellevue Baptist Church, in Cordova, TN. Recording and transcript available from Love Worth Finding Ministries, P.O. Box 38300, Memphis, TN 38183-0300, Phone: (901) 382-7900 (8:00 am - 4:45 pm CT).
3. “Suppose a man is a slave. He’s owned by someone. And slavery, as it was practiced in the United States, was unspeakably immoral. But, suppose a man had a slave. And, the master tells him when to go to bed, when to get up, what to eat, how to dress, what to do, where to go, where to come. And then, the slave dies. What then can his master do? Nothing. He is dead. You’re no longer Satan’s slave because of Calvary.”
Sermon title: “Liberated Living” (catalogue #2466), preached on Nov. 3, 1996, at Bellevue Baptist Church, in Cordova, TN. Recording and transcript available from Love Worth Finding Ministries, P.O. Box 38300, Memphis, TN 38183-0300, Phone: (901) 382-7900 (8:00 am - 4:45 pm CT).
4. “Now, of course Christians are opposed to slavery. And, what Paul was talking about here were household slaves. Unjust slavery. But, he said, don’t have the spirit of a rebel. Now, today, we in America thank God we don’t have slavery as such.”
Sermon title: “The Problem of Unworthy Authorities” (catalogue #8203–KA), preached November, 2002, at Bellevue Baptist Church, in Cordova, TN. Recording and transcript available from Love Worth Finding Ministries, P.O. Box 38300, Memphis, TN 38183-0300, Phone: (901) 382-7900 (8:00 am - 4:45 pm CT).
Based on these statements from my father, Adrian Rogers, and the contradictory statements by Cecil Sherman, I recommend you delete all the comments regarding views on slavery attributed to my father by Mr. Sherman. David C Rogers (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
This article contained some major inaccuracies....
The article claimed that Rogers, "when he was no longer president" of the SBC, "significantly revised" the Baptist Faith and Message. The statement implied that he did so inappropriately and singlehandedly. The truth is, he was chairman of the committee that drew up a new Baptist Faith and Message. He was appointed by Dr. Paige Patterson (who was SBC president at the time), and his appointment was approved by the convention.
The article also claimed that Rogers is the only man to serve three terms as president of the SBC. Obviously the person who added this statement is quite ignorant of SBC history. Many of the early SBC presidents served several consecutive terms. Sometime in the mid-20th century the SBC adopted a new bylaw that prevented the president from serving more than two consecutive terms.18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to address the statement regarding slavery from the article: "While Rogers has repeatedly taken a position against slavery in his sermons, moderate Cecil Sherman questioned Rogers about biblical inerrancy with reference to New Testament passages that seem to support slavery." What does that mean? If there is meaningful data to support the notion that Rogers supported slavery, let's make it available. Otherwise, it seems a bit leading and unfair. Most public figures face criticism from opponents, and NPOV requires that a reason be provided for an implication like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)