I’m…er…uh…Kinda Sorta Sorry

May 26, 2009

Some things will bring just about anyone out of retirement.

You know, over the course of time I’ve been pretty hard on the Baptist Identity Boyz.  I’ve accused them of being girlish.  I’ve implied they are fundamentalists.  I’ve called them theologically wishy-washy and have indicated that their status as vertibrates is in question.  But it is time that I make some sort of apology for all of this.  Emphasis on the “some sort of.”

You see, I’ve simply been passing along high-level insider information that I’ve received from BI headquarters.  I’m not the culprit here.  An unnamed source who is on the official BI payroll announced all of these things and more at a recent public meeting.  In fact, this source indicated that certain BI proponents wear women’s underpants and subscribe to Oprah on iTunes.  It is further reported that a substantial amount of their income is spent on hair care products (certain of the hairless variety being the exception).

However, it appears that I may have been duped.  Used as a shill.

Thus, I want to be up front and honest concerning my motives so that others may avoid the unfortunate pitfalls to which I’ve succumbed.

I’ve written what I’ve written because:

1. My super high-confidential-already-in-a-witness-protection-program source is totally true and trustworthy.  I mean, generally speaking this guy’s the Bible.  He’s an atomic clock.  Steady as a sunrise.  Who knew he was going to go all Jayson Blair on me?

2. Because these things have been so easy to believe.  Come on.  You tell me one look at Rosie O’Worley won’t convince you that she wears women’s underpants.  Or that Yippee Goldstein isn’t an Oprah fan.  Or that Peter Lamekin’s mullet isn’t held firmly in place with the aid of a little Miss Clairol.

3. Because this is important stuff right here.  If these guys are running around in bustiers then someone owes Madonna a serious apology.  If Oprah is becoming a multi-bazillionaire through Baptist Identity contributions then someone owes Lottie Moon a serious apology.  And if these guys are invertibrates then someone owes invertibrates a serious apology.

However, it now appears that all of that information is potentially wrong.  It appears that I may have given the ninth commandment a hairline fracture.  So let me say that I’m kinda sorta sorry.

I want to apologize to Victoria’s Secret for besmirching their good reputation of clothing only swimsuit supermodels and emaciated manequines with their fine line of undergarments.

I want to apologize to The View for the implication that their brand of fundamentalism might require capitalization.

And I want to apologize to the Miss Clairol line.  Who knew mulletts look like that all on their own?

May we all learn a valuable lesson in these trying days.

A Shout Out To Our Friends

February 24, 2009

Long overdue.

Irony

August 6, 2008

…is the gaiety of reflection and the joy of wisdom.” (Anatole France)

or

“What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.” (Don Williams, Jr.)

We consider it pure joy that the good folks over at SBC Today have embarked upon a group chit-chat session.  Our joy has been made complete with the naming of this “round table discussion” group SBC Perspective (we do find it terribly incongruent, though not at all odd given the context, that it is in the singular).  It has not escaped our approving notice that Roget’s Thesaurus lists as the main entry under the word “perspective” as: View.

This has certainly created smiles all around the SBC TooDazed offices.

How (Not) To Sleep In Church

July 22, 2008

Inspired as we were by the recent video clip we ran of Bill Clinton practicing a full-on eyelid inspection during church we at SBC TooDazed wish to provide a brief educational post for those who’s pastor may be preaching through the census data in Numbers, the article on Christian Education in the Baptist Faith and Message or the damning influence of Hershel Hobbs on the SBC of the last generation. These techniques may also be of use at your next local Baptist Identity conference. Of course, you may want to stay awake for the sessions where Calvinists and charismatics get their appropriate skillet-in-the-head treatment, but for those sessions on why we call John “the Baptist” take these notes from Mr. Bean and some very helpful advice from Bro. T. R. Scott.

Mr. Bean:

T. R. Scott:

Bill Clinton Considers A Return To SBC

July 15, 2008

William Jefferson Clinton received his first religions exposure in the Baptist church. He continues to consider himself a Baptist, though a number of years ago there were numerous calls for his home church in Arkansas to discipline him due to his marital infidelity, falsehoods and downright deceit.

Clinton’s relationship with the Southern Baptist Convention has certainly been a strained one. Aside from his home church in Arkansas it seemed that few if any Southern Baptists stood by the side of the former Commander in Chief during his time of self-inflicted trials and tribulations. It is no wonder that Clinton would not feel at home in the SBC.

However, things may be changing.

It was during those turbulent days that Clinton became famous for his grammatical parsing skills. Who will ever forget the unforgettable line, “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is?” Inside sources tell us that the former President is an avid reader of SBC Today and the penchant there for parsing the minutiae of Baptist doctrine along with parsing each word and phrase of the new emphasis on a Great Commission Resurgence has not escaped the admiring glance of the 42nd President of the United States.

Clinton released a public statement saying, “Why, shoot, they sound just like me in 1999. Those Southern Baptists have come a long way in nearly a decade. It really does make me feel like there might still be a place for me in the Southern Baptist family.”

Clinton did say, however, that he is looking for a vibrant worshiping community and if he can find one among the Baptist Identity supporters he would certainly consider a formal relationship with them. “It would be the best of both worlds, really.”

However, if it is no more interesting than the following service, he suggested he might take a pass.

An Open Letter To Yippee

July 10, 2008

Today we left a comment at The View that consisted of the essence of “Case in point number two:” below, but without the sarcasm and wit.  It was rather benign and a point which was relevant to the wildly hurtful accusation <g> leveled at us by the post’s author.  One of the reasons we started SBC TooDazed was that their “resource managers” tend to rule their comment stream with an iron delete button…well….unless, of course, the offender is one of their own.  Then you can practically get away with murder!  [No kidding.  The English language gets killed there on a regular basis.]  However, in the interests of the free exchange of ideas, a voice for the otherwise voiceless, and because we are committed to our part in Rosie’s ongoing sanctification (that she might learn to bless those who curse her and love her enemies), we offer our response here at SBC TooDazed.

Dear Yippee,

Please stop. Blogging. Dear, you’re embarrassing yourself. You were entertaining in Jumpin’ Jack Flash. Not so much on the internet.

Case in point number one: Butchering the English language when speaking can have a sort-of endearing, folksy, down-to-earth sense. I mean, we all love to hear Bill Engvall’s little folksy country twang as he makes fun of people who make videos of themselves being idiots. Thank you, CMT, for bringing enjoyment to our television sets. However, when people write with the hope of being taken seriously it makes it very difficult to do so when the simple rules of English are trampled like attendees at a Who concert. Especially one who has a college degree. It reflects poorly on your alma mater. Surely they know how to educate their students in the basic rules of subject / verb agreement.

Case in point number two: Compelling arguments require clear critical thinking. You demonstrate an aptitude for neither. We hate to say it, dear, but it’s just true. For instance, you recently assume (wrongly, as seems to regularly be the case) that our little poke at The View was in reference to a comment you left on one of Karen’s posts. Au contraire. There was quite enough in the post itself for our attention. However, if you want to insert your own importance into the discussion at hand we are rather more concerned with the part of your comment that you didn’t quote than with the part you did. Take, for instance, this snippet: “My concern is that the GCR advocates more Let’s win the world for Christ and don’t worry about doctrine…” That, my dear, is a criticism of the GCR. That, by the way, is exactly what we stated in the post you referenced here.

Case in point number three: Hyperlinks can be so…fun! They take us places we might never go otherwise. Happy places. Interesting places. We might find a new hat or a good cookbook, or we might find an interesting place to attend where they would both be useful. Many blogging programs try to simplify the hyperlinking process. They do most of the work for us. Yet, you have demonstrated the singular ability to create entire posts which do not contain one successful hyperlink. Links that end up with pages that say, “Try again” or to such uninteresting and useless places like “http.com” are not fun at all.

We would continue, but it just doesn’t seem ladylike to pile on. My dear, you may be a wonderful pastor. Please do not deprive your good people of your personal presence. Use the time you spend on the internet with them or with your family. It will be so much more rewarding for everyone. Or do a Ghost sequel. Now that was a good movie!

Neo-Fundamentalists Vote To Exclude Themselves

July 8, 2008

After two crushing blows at this year’s Southern Baptist Convention neo-Fundamentalists in the Baptist Identity wing of the denomination have voted to exclude themselves from fellowship.

Baptist Identity blogs were unanimous in their support for Georgia pastor Frank Cox.  Cox, however, was defeated in a stunning first ballot vote.  Most prognosticators had predicted a runoff between Cox and Johnny Hunt yet, Hunt took the Presidency with ease in a vote that wasn’t even close.

Nevertheless, Baptist Identity hopes were not entirely crushed as they awaited the adoption of resolutions.  Pastor Tom Ascol had presented a resolution on Integrity in Church Membership the previous two years only to see the resolution killed in committee.  One of those who previously argued against Ascol’s resolution, Dr. Malcolm Inthemiddle, submitted his own version this year, co-authored with Pastor Damned Barebones.  Attempts prior to the convention to craft a resolution that both parties could support failed.  The version of the resolution that the committee brought to the floor of the convention contained the wording supported by the Baptist Identity group.  However, efforts from the floor to include the objectionable wording contained in the Ascol version passed, leaving the neo-Fundamentalists with a second significant defeat.

Having suffered further marginalization the neo-Fundamentalists, having a desperate desire to return home with a victory – any victory – held a closed-door meeting at a local hotel in which insiders tell us member Liz Hasselhoff moved that their group be disfellowshipped from the Southern Baptist Convention and that members disfellowship from one another.  A second came from Rosie O’Worley and discussion ensued.

Speaking to her own motion, Liz noted that they were obviously out of step with the mainstream of Southern Baptists and that their divisiveness warranted a censure.  Babwa Wawa then read the third chapter of Titus with special emphasis on verse ten, arguing that, to be Biblically faithful they must vote to have nothing to do with one another.  There were, apparently, none who spoke against the motion and it was adopted by acclamation.

It is unclear what will become of this Baptist Identity movement, though the history of Fundamentalism would seem to indicate a further sense of isolationism, more narrowly defined rules of cooperation and a “remnant theology” to be on the horizon.  BI blogs have already begun attacking friend and foe alike, recently targeting Dr. Daniel Akin’s call for a Great Commission Resurgence, the Southeastern Seminary Building Bridges Conference and a local Indianapolis confectionery.

Stay tuned for further developments.

SBC TooDazed Goes Primitive

July 3, 2008

Yes, we is throwing out the MLA style book and bringing you our best thinking without messing it all up with things like subject/verb agreement and the like. You used to could of read some other blogs that care about that sorta thing, but we’re throwin’ it to the wind around here.

We used to use all those fancy-dancy rules of English, sometimes throwin’ in a Latin word or two and people didn’t care much for it. They’d call us snooty. Uppity. Holier-n-thou. It made me so mad I was just a-gripin’ and a-gripin’ and the Lord said, “Gripe on!”

Now, we aint gonna dumb it down too much. We’re not gonna get on no kiddie level or nothin. You know, the little children, they talk on a much lower level than what we talk. We gotta keep some class around here. But don’t expect us to be saying anything that’d make you go get your notebook and want to write it down.

That’s all.

Oh, and happy July 4th. Go out and pop you some firecrackers or somethin’.

Burning Bridges

June 26, 2008

Burning BridgesSpeaking of burning, I imagine the reason Yippee Goldstein has been a prominent figure the last week or so at The View is because Karin Bear and Rosie O’Worley are busy medicating their backsides, recently having had the board of education skillfully and repeatedly applied to them by Professor Greg Welty. Oh, well. By the way, Yippee tells us that she once considered investing in a junk yard. You can find it here.

We here at SBC TooDazed are not interested in building any bridges. We intend to burn as many as we can. Surely you can tell that from our masthead motto. But perhaps we should be more specific. We are not just out to burn bridges with our non-Southern Baptist brethren and sistren. We will burn them with as many of our Southern Baptist family as is necessary for absolute and unadulterated doctrinal purity in all things.

Take, for instance, our sister Rosie O’Worley. Recently she told us of the many doctrinal positions with which she would gladly disagree and yet cooperate. Like the doctrine of frequenting restaurants that serve alcoholic beverages. You can find that in 2 Worley 3:16. Or the doctrine of hymns and choruses which can be found in the Canticles of Rosie. Another “tertiary doctrine” is the doctrine of suits and ties. I think I read about that one in Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology. Oh, yes, I see that discussion begins on page 490. No, my beloved, these “doctrines” are very minor and ones with which we should not divide.

However, if you mention camels, charismatics, cooperation, Coronas or caveats without assigning their advocates to a place far past Minos and Cerberus, beyond the City of Dis, across the Phlegethon and straight into Cocytus itself, then there will be nothing but broken bridges that exist betwixt me and thee even if you don’t baptize babies, don’t believe a person can lose their salvation, believe in the authority of Scripture and a host of other doctrines with which you would agree.

So, in tribute we take you back in time to The Trammps for our theme song:

GCR? I Don’t Think So!

June 23, 2008

We at SBC TooDazed are greatly concerned about all the flutter last week concerning the “GCR.” We’re not sure just what a “GCR” is, but we can unhesitatingly tell you that we’re pretty sure we’re against it, primarily because we did not come up with the idea. It isn’t one of the cardinal doctrines of Baptist Identity, the First Year Initiative or a canon of the Association of Convictionless Baptists.

Besides that, everyone knows that Danny Akin and David Dockery, two men who spoke of a “GCR” at the “SBC” last week, are being led around like marionettes by David Rogers. Yes, that same David Rogers who was baptized by a Mormon. Or he baptized a Mormon. Or a Mormon was present at a baptism he performed. What does it matter. He’s obviously a heretic. And a Mormon. Or at least that’s the story we’re going to keep telling.

So, what is this “GCR” that we are against? Don’t let anyone fool you. It is a Great Calvinistic Resurgence. Did you see what happened with Tom Ascol’s resolution this year? Did you see how the convention fell for his nefarious scheme of amending the resolution to include “repentance” language? Are you not aware that “repentance” language is code for five-point Calvinism? Heed me well, within a decade we will all be baptizing babies and preaching from the Institutes. We will have built bridges that we should be burning.

To add insult to injury, the “GCR” has a second meaning as well: a Great Charismatic Resurgence! We all know that Jerry Rankin speaks unintelligible gibberish when he prays. So does Dwight McKissic. Sure, it all starts out so small and innocent, but before you know it we’ll be having missionaries speaking Ega or Narau. Then we’ll be electing Jan Crouch as President of the SBC! Oh, it’ll happen. Trust me.

So, as you can see, we cannot support for one moment any of this “GCR” business. And neither should you.