Sent out in 2004 for
Clarification
By Michael
G. Maness
www.PreciousHeart.net/freemasonry
This following were originally the full text to Appendix
6 of my book,
The book version is now condensed, to make room for other
more important material.
Brief History of Closer
Look at Freemasonry Document Questioned
1. Maness Initial
E-Mail to Bill Gordon — 9-9-04, 10:20 AM
2. Maness Initial
E-Mail to Tal Davis — 9-9-04, 8 PM
3. Tal Davis 1st and
Only E-mail Response — 9-13-04, 9 AM
4. Bill Gordon’s E-mail
Agency Response — 9-13-04, 3 PM
5. Maness 1st Follow-up
Plea to Tal Davis — 9-14-04, 8 AM
6. Maness 2nd Follow-up
Plea to Tal Davis — 9-14-04, 6 PM
7. Paige Patterson
e-mail to Maness — 9-30-04, 4 PM
8. Maness Response to
Patterson — 10-01-4, 6 PM
9. Patterson Response
to Maness — 10-11-4, 10:49 AM
10. Maness Response to
Patterson — 10-12-4, 6:30 AM
11. Maness 1st
Follow-up to Patterson — 11-29-04, 9:23 AM
12. Patterson Response
to Maness — 11-29-04, 5:41 PM
13. Maness Response to
Patterson — 11-30-04, 6:06 AM
14. Patterson Response
– End – to Maness — 11-30-04, 6:03 PM
—Lastly, according to Patterson, a
Freemasonry defense is a defense of indefensible, so character truly did not
count. We need more light on Character
Counting today, much more light.
Originall, the Closer Look at Freemasonry (Closer
Look) was written in response to the 1994 SBC for more information by Dr.
Bill Gordon, then of the SBC’s Interfaith Witness Department. Ironically, in
the last year or two, the Closer Look has lost its name and has been
reduced in status—if you can call it that—for it has been changed from the
stability and industry standard of a PDF file (personal document file) to a
mere internet HTML file on Freemasonry on the new SBC Apologetics web site.
That is significant in many ways. The PDF file format can be copied and shared
and then printed with absolute consistency—even quoted. Even though the
original Closer Look did not bear Bill Gordon’s name at the time, it was
in its ten-year-old PDF format an official SBC document. Still, there it was, a
document meant to fulfill the 1994 SBC request for more information, and we
will attend shortly to the info it contains. The new HTML format used does not
allow consistency, cheapens the authority of the document to a
less-than-publisher-ready document, though it is currently identical to former
PDF Closer Look.
We continue to use Closer Look in the book at
our close look at the official SBC document; just know that it has morphed in
title and format, in a way, as though the authorities themselves demoted it.
The Interfaith Witness
Department became Interfaith Evangelism in 1996 when the Home Mission Board was renamed the North American
Mission Board (NAMB). In late 2004, it evolved into Apologetics and Interfaith
Evangelism, according to Jeannie Hope, with most of its work reflected on its own web site, www.4truth.net. In
an e-mail dated 12-21-06, 10:21 AM, new Apologetics and Interfaith Manager
Robert M. Bowman responded with a recognition that
“many Baptists have been and still are Freemasons” and yet recalled that the
1993 SBC convention resolution elements were “not compatible” with
Christianity, and the eight non-compatible items are reflected in the their
document—as though that settled it—so my request to respond “would not be necessary or appropriate for us to post an article
supporting or defending Freemasonry.”
I sent an advance copy of
this book to Paige Patterson and Frank Page (and David Barton) just before
Christmas, 2006, and e-mailed chapters 3 and
4 to Bowman, inviting them to respond before February 28, 2006.
Though Bill Gordon was the author of the Freemasonry articles and though the
originals had no author listed—and the Closer Look title now removed—the
articles remain the same today (January 2007)—only now the authors are “NAMB
Staff”—that is, the staff claiming credit, somehow, still in secret. The
same is true for the little Comparison Chart—Freemasonry and Christianity,
an elementary exercise in prejudice now accredited to “NAMB Staff”—and no one
complains or is embarrassed. Gordon is listed as the author of several
articles, even on Wicca, and was the author of the Closer Look. Is “NAMB Staff” meant to convey plural authorship? Did it take staff
to reaffirm Bill Gordon’s two sources? The staff did not
change anything. Worse, the staff have placed Freemasonry under the “New
Religion” category at 4truth.net, without a hint of rationale, other than
Gordon’s deceptive insinuations. Sounds more like a staff infection,
even a defection from honor given the literature and lack of effort by the NAMB
staff. Such could even be construed as staff expectoration. Let’s
prove our case in a closer look.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Some of the information in the book is based upon
these e-mails. By and large, they express themselves well. Bill Gordon hides.
Tal Davis defers to Bill Gordon’s expertise. Paige Patterson avoids substance
and reference. A Southern Baptist cannot get a simple answer to some clear
questions. Paige Patterson views secrets and a fraternity founded upon
virtues and agreement as childish. Are secrets and virtue childish? Or did
Patterson just not think about what he was saying? Or just did not know what he
was saying? Sadly, there are not a lot of options left.
I did say from the start that I was chronicling my
journey as I went—my own foibles, too.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: M.G.
Maness-mgmaness@earthlink.net — Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004, 10:20 AM
To: Bill
Gordon-bgordon@namb.net — Subject: Closer Look
Bill,
You mentioned that you wrote the Closer Look at Freemasonry.
When did you do that, shortly after the 1993 report maybe, 1994?
How would I get a hold of Gary Leisure [sic]—would you
know per chance?
Mike
### (### is the common designation in
publishing for the end of a communication.)
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
From: M.G.
Maness-mgmaness@earthlink.net — Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 , 8:31 PM
To: Tal
Davis-tdavis@namb.net — Subject: Closer Look [Spelling corrected]
Tal,
I talked with Bill the
other day about Freemasonry.
He informed that he
wrote the Closer Look material on Freemasonry.
I just e-mailed him on
the date of that material, but have not heard back.
Anyway, we had a great
conversation until he found out I was not totally against Freemasonry. I
questioned the clear line he took to throw all of Masonry into Paganism, unlike
the 1993 report to the SBC which he said was schizophrenic.
He also said the 75-page
document mentioned in the 1993 was “deep-sixed”—which was interesting. Do you
have an old copy of that? Know someone who does? Bill mentioned that man named
Gary Leisure (spelling? [Leazer]) had written the 75-page report mentioned in
the 1993 report and that was cut off—“deep-sixed,” said Bill, because Gary was
found corresponding with Masons. Can you give me more information on Leisure,
his current e-mail, address or contact info?
I told Bill I was
researching Freemasonry too—and that I was Criswell, SWBTS, and NOBTS graduate.
I am seriously researching this and want input, and am cataloguing my dialogues
as I go.
This is very serious to
me because I respect George Washington and George W. Truett. I think their reputations with thousands of
others merited more. When I asked Bill about the reputations of
them—Washington, Truett, B. H. Carrol, W. T. Conner, Scarborough, Abner McCall,
and how according to Bill’s report that ALL of them were duped—Bill said, I
quote you, “I have no problem with that.”
Well Tal, I have a problem
with that. Bill and I agree to disagree—but I shall not rest with that. From
the 1993 report, Bill mutated the 8 points into a Closer Look that
defames, and then the comparison chart mutates again—essentially—making the
SBC's official stance that ALL Freemasonry is Paganism (even contrary to the
1993 report). As such, the SBC then clearly makes dupes out of many of our
Founding Fathers, several SBC theological titans, and many more.
I think Bill’s Closer
Look is a farce not resembling anything like real research—my goodness.
Will you help me get
some accurate information so that this piece of history can be accurate
recorded. And again—Gary Leisure [sic, Leazer]—I truly need to get with him
too, to record some of his side.
To chronicle the history
further, do you have the author/s of the 1993 report that went into the 1993 Annual of the
Southern Baptist Convention reported
on your web site?
Thanks for your help
with these things.
Sincerely, Mike
Maness
###
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
From: Tal
Davis-tdavis@namb.net — Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004, 9:43 AM
To: M. G.
Maness-mgmaness@earthlink.net — cc: Bill Gordon — Subject: RE: Closer Look
Mr. Maness:
Dr. Gordon is our specialist in this area of research and
study. We stand behind the accuracy of his work. We do not have copies of the
75 page Home Mission Board study available nor do I know how to contact
Gary Leazer.
Tal Davis, Interfaith
Evangelism,
###
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
From: Bill
Gordon-bgordon@namb.net — Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004, 3:05 PM
To: M. G.
Maness-mgmaness@earthlink.net — cc: Bill Gordon — Subject: RE: Closer Look
Dear Dr. Maness,
Dr. Davis has asked me
to respond to the email that you sent him.
I do not want to get
into all the areas in which I think you misrepresented our phone conversation or
to debate your positions on Freemasonry or the Openness of God controversy.
I do want to respond to
the problem that you have with my position on George Washington, George Truett,
B. H. Carrol, W. T. Conner, Scarborough, and other men that you claim were
masons. In general I have great respect for these men. But, just because I respect someone does not
mean that I must agree with everything that they did or with every association
they may have joined. Baptists believe that the Scriptures are inerrant, but
that Christian leaders are fallible. Unlike Roman Catholics, we have no group
of Church Fathers that we must consult before determining what to believe. I
therefore have no problem believing that
these men were mislead or mistaken on the subject of Freemasonry [Bold
emphasis mine].
Both my conversation
with you on the phone and your email to Dr. Davis leads us to conclude that
further conversation with you on this subject would be unproductive. This will be our last communication with
you.
Sincerely, Bill Gordon,
Th.D.
###
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
Who deserves that? I did
not cuss or threaten Bill Gordon, yet he cannot even give a sincere response to
a rather serious e-mail. Yet that was really not a surprise, for Bill Gordon
does not have to defend his work at all. As long as the anti-Mason agenda is
kept—because the SBC secret cabal demand it—Bill Gordon can write whatever he
pleases.
Hear ye—my phone
conversation was hard enough to bear. I was an inquiring Southern Baptist
researcher who was shut off and now maligned for questioning slights made about
his fathers—even Washington and Truett! And then told—as I shall rub in
later—that Baptists believe the “Scriptures inerrant” and do not need to
consult Church Fathers “before determining what to believe.” Who in the world
was Gordon talking too? Gordon made excuses for not responding with ugly
innuendos that I (or Truett, Carroll, or Scarborough) did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.
Totalitarian in word and deed.
My fathers and Founding
Fathers deserved more than Gordon gave—and I demand it. The true SBC deserves
more.
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
From: M.G.
Maness-mgmaness@earthlink.net — Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 8:26 AM
To: Tal
Davis-tdavis@namb.net — Subject: Closer Look [few spelling corrections made]
Tal,
Thank you for
responding.
I am still interested in the date of the Closer Look.
I am sad that Bill chose to misrepresent me too or even not
respond to the more direct questions of my inquiry.
Believe me, Bill said clearly the 75-page report was
“deep-sixed” and clearly that he
“no problem” with how his Closer Look made dupes out of some
sterling Baptists. Only after the conversation where it was clear I was not
fully in his corner did his vociferous stance wane.
Tal, can you help me get a date for the Closer Look. While Bill is right that
we are not like the Catholics, he also indicates in his comments that he has no
obligation to fellow Southern Baptists (at least those who misrepresent his
phone calls—as he alleges I did). What actually happened was that his fire
burned as I listened—I am a chaplain—and then when I asked
about the good men, sterling leaders of enormous contribution (in leadership
and theology) who appear to be dupes not able to distinguish Paganism—only
then—a double-take was made. And that, Tal, is why Bill will not like
recapitulating our conversation.
Tal—the integrity of good men are important to Southern
Baptists. The Closer Look makes Freemasonry
Pagan—simple and clean, and Bill’s expertise did not reveal or expose how the fraternity
truly relates itself. I am writing a history, and I asked some clear and clean
historical questions—and listened to Bill’s fire and his defense of his work
too. Bill and I do disagree on what productive conversation is, that is for
sure. Bill wrote an important piece
that slices good men in the past and present based primarily on only two sources and apparently independent of the 1993
report.
Surely, Tal, you can see the need to distinguish between
the Bill’s Closer Look and the 1993 SBC
Report.
Could you help me get the date please? This report will be
more accurate with the facts. I tried to
ascertain from Bill the reasons he varied from the 1993 Report, but our
conversation would not allow that. His report was viewed and approved by the
highest persons on the Board, he said, as though they had done similar work or
were similar experts as he was. Getting to the facts is hard work.
It is clear Bill does not want to talk with me further, and
it is natural for you to believe I misrepresented him on his word (though I did
not, and his manner is reflected in the Closer Look too).
In sum, Tal, could you help me get the date of the Closer Look
at least. Secondly, it would be helpful to know Bill's rationale
for culling the 1993 SBC Report and moving the stance “concerns” to 8
“incompatibilities” and to a clearly and solely Pagan faith for the fraternity
of Freemasonry. These are important concerns to a good history. It is also
important to know as well that Bill just will not answer that, as he says below
(and would not on our phone conversation either), or even further address that
from his supervisor encouragement.
Thanks for whatever you can do here. The date is most
important. I pasted Bill’s e-mail response to me below too.
Sincerely, Mike
PS: I also told him I was not a full Open Theist,
and encouraged him to get my book in our conversation there too (which on me,
he misrepresented too).
You can see my work the debate between Classical and Open
Theism in my book Heart of the Living God at www.preciousheart.net —
###
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
From: M.G. Maness –
mgmaness@earthlink.net — Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004, 6:03 PM
To: Tal
Davis-tdavis@namb.net — Subject: Closer Look [few spelling corrections made]
Tal,
With the date of the Closer Look—I forgot—could you tell me (or direct me to who would
know) the author/s of the 1993 report that went into the 1993 Annual of the
Southern Baptist Convention reported
on your web site?
A good history should
have this information.
Tal—please—these are
very serious inquiries. George Truett was a hero of mine after 7.5 years at the
Criswell College in downtown Dallas (1978-1985) under Paige Patterson, and then
B. H. Carroll too at SWBTS in FW (1985-1990). For someone like Bill to say
these men were mislead based upon two references and to deteriorate the 1993
into his Closer Look is hardly a
closer look. And I have amassed a lot of material to that affect.
George Washington too,
and thousands of others past and present.
The date of the Closer Look is a simple matter—one question—and the 1993 report
should have complete history too. I truly desire to know these two things.
And Bill’s
non-responsiveness to these is nearly as offensive as the Closer Look’s lack of support, and the choice of retreat in
misrepresentation rather than dialogue is cowardly. Which begs further for his
motives and rationale in deteriorating the 1993 report without adding anything
to the Closer Look.
But I should like the
questions on the date of the Closer Look and the authors of the 1993 answered, with all due
respect and Christian honor. This is about the integrity (not just the respect)
of many good men past and present—even my own.
Sincerely, Mike Maness
###
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
From: Paige
Patterson-ppatterson@swbts.edu — Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004, 4:23 PM
To: M. G.
Maness-mgmaness@earthlink.net — Subject: Freemasonry
September 24,
2004
Dr. Mike Maness ~
mgmaness@earthlink.net
Dear Mike:
Dr. Bill Gordon has made
me aware of your communication with him about Freemasonry. I just want to make
very sure of one thing. If you are going to support causes like Freemasonry,
which is by the nature of the case a secret society and therefore unworthy of
any New Testament Christian’s support, then please leave my name completely out
of it. I have no idea to what degree some of the people that you listed were
actually involved in the Masonic order, but Dr. Criswell, for example, had
nothing to do with it at all. I wish that he had resigned from it. He never
did, but he also never attended, including even in the earliest days. The same
was true of my father. Dr. Draper, on the other hand, did resign from it and
sent a letter of testimony as to why.
Interestingly, Mike,
about the only time my physical life was ever threatened prior to the
Convention controversy was twice by Masons, and that has happened a number of
times since. Anybody watching the effects of Masonic involvement among Southern
Baptist laymen could only conclude that this was a dangerously flawed alliance.
I am disappointed in your support of the Masonic order as well as the
obstructionist and sometimes misleading conduct of Gary Leazer while he was
working at the North American Mission Board. Mike, what has happened to you?
Until He Comes, Paige
Patterson
PP:cv
###
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
From: M.G. Maness –
mgmaness@earthlink.net — Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 5:59 AM
To: Paige Patterson-ppatterson@swbts.edu —
Subject: Closer Look [few spelling corrections made]
Paige,
It grieves me that anyone
would threaten your life, especially a mason.
You should also know—I
know you do—that there are wacko and extremists in every large and generally
well-respected group. Even in the SBC and Christianity for the last 2,000
years.
I did not know that Criswell
or your father were masons, either—Draper either. That is surprising and good
to know. It is honorable that Draper withdrew when he did not concur. That
confirms in a round about manner one point further, that many more outstanding
men with sterling character and reputation have been masons—and did not resign.
Your name shall not be a
part of this study, unless it becomes part of the history before the study is
done.
I am not fully
surprised—though certainly flattered and glad—that Bill Gordon would contact
you over my communication with him.
He misrepresented me in
our phone call with Tal, then abruptly retreated. Oh, I did mention your name
as well as Dilday’s and Kelly’s to him over the phone, as well as my 8 years at
Criswell (1978-85), 5 at SWBTS (1985-90), and 3 at NOBTS (1995-97), in order to
let him know I was not a fly-by-night researcher in my call. I’ve attached my
e-mails for your own perusal, which I am sure he did not share. I regret—though
only a little—responding just a few hairs over the top to Tal. That is part of my own cataloguing of my own
foibles as well. You see, my conversation with Tal took a southward turn
immediately after he discerned I was not a fellow anti-Mason.
It was a funny phone
conversation, and Bill knows it. I suspect with little doubt that his call to
you was more pre-emptive than anything else. Attached is a copy of the e-mails,
for your information. In a round about way even backward way, I got all the
information and more I needed from my phone call and his and Tal’s response for
my study’s purpose.
Among the reasons for my
call to him was to discern the author of the Closer Look and the date, a normal
question for a researcher (though I never did get to the date in my
conversation, as he was so overblown with every anti-Mason line—uncanny) and so
I followed through with e-mails too in asking for the dates and authors of the
1993 report, Closer Look, and pressed for the Bill's rationale. You can read
that.
I want you to
know—without equivocation—you shall never know how much you were a part of my
life. You were among a small handful of father figures that I respected and
would have followed of cliff after my father’s passing in 1982 and from whom
excreted an enormous amount of influence on me in your example as well as in
all the unilateral transference I placed.
We are called—above
all—to Love God and others in the light of inerrant and holy Scripture. In
that, you were an example and have been a unique and pivotal leader.
Paige, thank you for
being honest. Your, “Mike, what has happened to you?” shall be mulled over in
sincerity—sincerely, even hugged. It is part of the first communication
initiated by you to me in—say—20+ years. Of course, you had not way of knowing
your impact.
What I regret is that
your communication was not first about my prior study of which you were
a significant part of the history. Doubtlessly, Bill mentioned open theism too,
as he misrepresented in his e-mail (as though it was as a large a part of our
talk—he cannot help himself). I am not a full open theist, and have done some
substantial work there—that you know.
It is published—and I
was hoping word would get to you from more academic sources than Bill—as I have
sent a copy to many and still have more on the list to send it too. Of you, I
am sincerely afraid, because unlike Bill—in fact opposite to Bill—you have
little fear about articulating where you stand and why. Though at times you
have over-reacted without due examination.
Perhaps I should have sent you a copy first out of the bag—and for not
doing so—that is my own lack of courage. Fear of further rejection too, as it
appears we have parted ways on some issues and are unable to communicate much.
But appendix 7 in this book is about my relationship to you, as well as
a challenge to you too—quite extensive too. If you buy a copy, I shall
be glad to sign it personally—even make the trip to Fort Worth to do so. Here’s
link to my site which has a near up-to-date contents and an “order now” button
to take you to the publisher (just $26 for 700 pages, a real bargain).
[e-mail advertisement
deleted: see www.preciousheart.net/foreknowledge]
Paige — you have a great
day.
[personal PS deleted]
Sincerely, Mike
###
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
From: Paige
Patterson-ppatterson@swbts.edu —
Subject: Closer Look
To: M.G. Maness – mgmaness@earthlink.net — Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 10:49
AM
Mike:
You will need to ask Dr.
Draper for the letter. By the way, how can the pledge made my Masons about
violence to themselves if they share secrets be construed as other than evil,
even if it is the stuff to which young teenage boys might be drawn?
Until He Comes, Paige
Patterson
PP:jd
###
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
From: M.G. Maness –
mgmaness@earthlink.net — Sent: PM Tuesday, October 12, 2004 6:30 AM
To: Paige Patterson-ppatterson@swbts.edu —
Subject: Closer Look
Paige,
I do not know Draper
much at all, except by reputation, as I have been unable to attend most of the
SBC meetings in the last 20 years, and of course are not part of the inner
circle except from a distance and from history—as with a few like yourself.
I think there is more to
the obligation than the violence, as symbolism (metaphor and allegory) are all
a part and point beyond themselves.
Certainly, the older we
get and the more intimate the relations we have, secrets (aka,
confidentialities) are not only biblical but a part of our maturity. I have
just been pursuing again Bonheoffer’s Ethics and was just appreciating
his last section on telling the truth, a true masterpiece, and the relations
between the parent and the child. Point—secrets in themselves are not bad or
unbiblical.
On the violence, we know
the Bible is full of it. Interestingly, I have been preaching on the Sermon on
the Mount in supply to a little church. This last Sunday, on Matt. 5 and
adultery-divorce section. I had a chance—with God’s blessings—to let out an
articulate and forceful interjection-rhetorical setup for my interpretative
point on how the we as Baptists are people of the Book, from the beginning,
believers of the Book as their rule for faith and practice ... etc. ... and yet
how (just in the previous passage on Murder lashed to thoughts and intents) how
we have not followed this passage, how this passage was addressed to men more
than women ... etc. ... and how if we were truly people of the book, truly
trying to follow ... etc. ... and so few men guiltless here, that we would see
far more one-eyed men and one-armed men than we do today.
And Jesus times were
significant then—as we know—for then blood was seen every day, as any travel at
all entailed your meals following you on the hoof.
When I closed the
message, I mentioned how I think—just me—that knowing the rest of the Bible and
the fuller history of Jesus how he probably wished he could have said to the
men that day, “hold your women in the highest esteem, try with the utmost of
your ability to respect them to the uttermost—as though every one of them were
your purest virgin sister, jewels of your life ... etc.” but as we all know,
and Jesus certainly knew (remember I have been a prison chaplain for 10+ years
with one of two 25 million-dollar super-seg unit, with the worst of the worst
on the planet--you'll see that too in my book if you decided to buy one) that
many men (adult as well as teenagers, and more adult men were probably on the
north shore of Galilee that day) need strong and graphic words to make the
point.
But—greater still—I
think Jesus was serious. That he was not just making a point or trying to
stress the seriousness (as with Freemasonry) and that—even though knowing that
no one would have (though some may have in the past in piety) -- that Jesus was
clear.
Bear in mind—that when a
man (or boy) petitions a lodge, it has never been (hardly) been because of the
attractiveness of the oath. For the violence of the oath would never have been
revealed except as from those who violated their oath or otherwise became
frustrated.
I have written more on
the obligation and more refutation of other anti-mason lines in my study.
Maybe that book will get
me out of the dog house.
Sincerely, Mike
###
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
From: M.G. Maness –
mgmaness@earthlink.net — Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004, 9:23 AM
To: Paige Patterson-ppatterson@swbts.edu —
Subject: Closer Look
Paige,
Hope you had a great
Thanksgiving. Forgive my persistence, but I would very much like a brief chat
with you.
I shall be at work
Monday 1300-2100, and Tues and Wed 8-3 PM. wk: 409-283-8181, x8245 - Chaplain
Maness
I know you are as busy
as anyone. But I do very much want to ask you a question about your
father and Criswell—if you please—I do not want to be in error on that or take
any chances of being in error on that. I am sure you can appreciate that.
Besides, I did spend 8
years at Criswell, followed you on the streets of Dallas too, and then 5 years
at SWBTS. It has been a long time since I set your office. The last time was at
Criswell when I gave you a draft of the ethics book, Would You Lie to
Save a Life the Quest for God's Will This Side of Heaven—asking for
publishing blurb, and talked with you about doctoral work—and the need (you
said) for good ethics professors. My book was sent back to me a year or so
later without a comment. And I am still working on it—sadly. I could not pursue
Ph.D. work because of my poverty. I took my SWBTS M.Div., entered Tx
dept. of Human Services for a short span, then pursued chaplaincy, then while
in Woodville, earned a NOBTS D.Min.
You have some exp. at
NOBTS too, another reason for my pursuit there. I shall be in Waco Thursday
around 1200, and could possible be in your SWBTS office at 0900 Thursday—which
if you can work that in, I shall personally deliver a copy of my lastest book Heart
of the Living God: Love, Free Will, Foreknowledge, Heaven: a Theology on the
Treasure of Love. I will leave Woodville at 0400 to do so. That book was a
mammoth undertaking, and my challenges are nitwit sputters. The book started to
be and appendix to my ethics book, then just got more fun along the way. I try
to make it fun for the readers. Regardless, I shall send you one even if I
cannot see you or talk to you this week.
I think I owe you that
much. I do not need to see you, and am still poor as dog’s breath.
So a phone call would
best. I am only asking for about 5 minutes. That is not much. I do not intend
to cross the threshold of becoming a pest. When Bill Gordon said that was the
end of communication—that was the end between us.
Please give me a call or
allow me to see you Thursday at 0900 in your SWBTS office, or any other place
in FW or between FW and Woodville (Waco) Thursday.
Please. Just 5 minutes.
Sincerely, Mike Maness
###
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
From: Paige
Patterson-ppatterson@swbts.edu —
Subject: Closer Look
To: M.G. Maness – mgmaness@earthlink.net — Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004,
5:41 PM
Mike:
Thanks for your emails.
Unless you have been led to feel that you want to talk in hope of a change of direction,
I must appeal to a certain “stewardship” of time—both yours and mine. Thanks
for understanding.
Paige Patterson
###
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
From: M.G. Maness –
mgmaness@earthlink.net — Tuesday, November 30, 2004, 6:06 AM
To: Paige Patterson-ppatterson@swbts.edu —
Subject: Closer Look
Paige,
Very well then.
One of the main
reasons—I am kind of ashamed to admit—was I just wanted to make sure about your
father and Criswell having been Masons. E-mails are fine and most reliable. But
I would have preferred hearing your voice on their membership; just did not
want to take any chance on this being a second generation or non-direct
communication. Your word is valid and authoritative enough for me there. That
is important, too, given that Truett was Mason and Criswell followed him at
First Baptist. To me that is incredibly noteworthy. In many respects, I am
defending the honor of your father too on this latest book: Freemasonry's Badge
of Honor—Character Counts. Should be out next year.
Here is my question:
even though your father and Criswell were non-active, that is an important
piece of historical information. Would you—please—know what lodge they joined?
Your father in particular. It should be on his apron if you still have it or
the city? And who I could seek out on Criswell (esp. the aprox. date, e-mail or
phone). Just hearing your voice would have been great. Could you help with that
please.
I respect and am as
aware as anyone about the demands of your time. I don't think a change of
direction on some things will be possible without more time than either of us
could give in the foreseeable future. A change for you or me? Go ahead and
smile.
I shall get my book off
to you regardless. I will hope you will spend a little more time on it than you
did on the material I sent on Open Theism last year. Some of that material is
included in condensed form in the appendices.
Anything you might have
to offer on the book will be respected—of course. I know you will read the
appendix devoted to my relationship with you, as scanty as it has been, but
your contribution to SBC history has been pivotal and world-class. Your history
and position in the SBC and SWBTS—well, as I mention, you are a commander of a
mighty ship-of-the-line with an armada behind you plying the theological trade
winds. And there are whales in tow. I am but a cricket firing a few musket
shots over the bow of you barkentine. I must be as true to my own efforts and
gifts and calling as yourself.
In anticipation of the
book—and hoping that it will get more than a glance—I would ask you to consider
what I know you agree upon and what I flesh out with abandon and challenge: I
call it the First Doctrine of our Christian faith that should be definitive and
determinative, that being “our genuine real-time relationship with our heavenly
Father.” Be assured, if you spend some time with it (and 60+ reviews of the
major authors) you might find that we agree on more than we disagree, that am not
full Open Theist (though certainly have sympathies) nor a Calvinist.
God bless.
Sincerely yours in
Christ—Mike Maness :)
Reminder PS—(1) What is
your father's name and anything on where your father was made a mason, and (2)
who I can contact on Criswell's membership (place or approximate date)?
###
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
From: Paige
Patterson-ppatterson@swbts.edu —
Subject: Closer Look
To: M.G. Maness – mgmaness@earthlink.net — Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004
6:03 PM
Mike:
My dad joined the
Masonic order under social pressure when he was a very young man. Once he knew
what they stood for he regretted it deeply and never attended again. He
destroyed his apron and all. If Dr. Criswell were a member, as I suspect, he
never attended, never gave dues or money.
Mike, I do not believe
that one can be a member of a secret society or a childish one like the Masons,
or say the sorts of things they say which are clearly sub-Christian. I do not
have time for the Masonic order nor discussions relating to it, especially not
defenses of the indefensible.
This ends the
discussion.
Paige Patterson
PP:jd
###
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
www.PreciousHeart.net/freemasonry
This above were originally the full text of Appendix 6 of
my book,
The book version is now condensed, to make room for other
more important material.