1/8
In this thread I’m going to respond to @BruceFrank1’s response to Mark Coppenger at #sbc22. To see the exchange start at around 54:53 in this video:
In this thread I’m going to respond to @BruceFrank1’s response to Mark Coppenger at #sbc22. To see the exchange start at around 54:53 in this video:
2/8
First, Mark makes the point that this report is like the 1619 project in the sense that it’s saying the whole SBC is stained. Bruce says 400 is just 3% of total and that’s just tip of the iceberg.
But 400 is 3% of 13,333.33. Let’s round that up to 15,000. And:
First, Mark makes the point that this report is like the 1619 project in the sense that it’s saying the whole SBC is stained. Bruce says 400 is just 3% of total and that’s just tip of the iceberg.
But 400 is 3% of 13,333.33. Let’s round that up to 15,000. And:
3/8
Just for fun let’s even double that number. So let’s say 30,000. Let’s say there were 30,000 cases of sexual abuse. Mark’s point from the Houston article is that there were 28,000,000 southern baptists during that time. 30,000 is basically 0.1%. ZERO POINT 1. 1/10 of 1%. So:
Just for fun let’s even double that number. So let’s say 30,000. Let’s say there were 30,000 cases of sexual abuse. Mark’s point from the Houston article is that there were 28,000,000 southern baptists during that time. 30,000 is basically 0.1%. ZERO POINT 1. 1/10 of 1%. So:
4/8
Whether or not u agree w/
Dr. Coppenger his point stands. Even outlandishly multiplying the cases & doubling it u get 0.1%. The point is this is a terrible issue yes but it’s not the issue tht some have made it to be.
But this is not the only place @BruceFrank1 is wrong;
Whether or not u agree w/
Dr. Coppenger his point stands. Even outlandishly multiplying the cases & doubling it u get 0.1%. The point is this is a terrible issue yes but it’s not the issue tht some have made it to be.
But this is not the only place @BruceFrank1 is wrong;
5/8
He says this (watch and read next tweet):
This gets a big applause. But it fails to actually address the issue Mark brings up. Let me put it like this:
He says this (watch and read next tweet):
This gets a big applause. But it fails to actually address the issue Mark brings up. Let me put it like this:
6/8
Why does the widow lady in my church tithing off her fixed income need to give her money for someone else’s sins? She hasn’t “benefited” from the SBC. She has been a benefit TO the SBC! The SBC is NOT the government where you pay your taxes and get services. Rather:
Why does the widow lady in my church tithing off her fixed income need to give her money for someone else’s sins? She hasn’t “benefited” from the SBC. She has been a benefit TO the SBC! The SBC is NOT the government where you pay your taxes and get services. Rather:
7/8
The SBC is a mission’s enterprise. And while it’s true some do benefit of course, it’s not true that every SBC member is a consumer of SBC “benefits” and now owes for other people’s sins in the convention. This is not a cogent or biblical argument from Bruce.
The SBC is a mission’s enterprise. And while it’s true some do benefit of course, it’s not true that every SBC member is a consumer of SBC “benefits” and now owes for other people’s sins in the convention. This is not a cogent or biblical argument from Bruce.
8/8
But it does get the crowd pumped up. And this is something the platform is very good at during convention meetings. Who cares about logical and biblical arguments & responses so long as you can use your power from the stage to build up the emotion of the messengers.
But it does get the crowd pumped up. And this is something the platform is very good at during convention meetings. Who cares about logical and biblical arguments & responses so long as you can use your power from the stage to build up the emotion of the messengers.
BONUS: Mark makes other good arguments that Bruce does not respond to at all. Watch the video.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
