Please see my note at the bottom explaining some edits I made to this piece.
It’s happened again. They are beating on us poor Baptist bloggers again. Maybe it’s time to put on my housecoat and head back to the basement!
The lastest iteration of the blogger-bashing tactic comes from someone named Joni B Hannigan in something called the “Christian Examiner.” She wrote an article entitled, “Southern Baptist bloggers bullied leader to disinvite Ben Carson.” (Link removed.) Her article demonstrates a lack of understanding of Baptist life and polity and gives a sterling example of why blogging is necessary. It is because of the attitude evidenced in this article that we cannot go away and we cannot stop speaking out.
Yes, Baptist bloggers have been divisive. Baptist bloggers have been bullies, engaging in harassment through social media and, to be perfectly honest, have done some absolutely despicable things. If you read back through the archives of blogging, there are many moments that do not shine brightly. But we have also been a force for good in this denomination. This is a better convention today, I am convinced, because of the blogging phenomenon. If I did not believe that, I would not do it!
The title of Ms. Hannigan’s article is a false accusation. She has publicly accused Bart Barber and the writers at Baptist 21 (Jonathan Akin?) of bullying and several other sins. She should retract those accusations and apologize to these men for her false accusations.
Let me make it clear that I write on my own behalf. I’ve not spoken to either Bart or the people at B21 about this.
Observations on Hannigan’s article.
1. I am not a professional journalist, so I don’t have a clear sense of what is appropriate as a basica standard, but I found some things frustrating about the article, and have some serious questions about her practices. She never links to Bart’s article or to B21. She puts words in quotes but never sources those quotes. I would have liked to find the source of some of her information, but since she did not give it, I could not trace it.
2. She leveled the accusation of “bullying” without any proof or even explanation. She made no attempt to show how anyone bullied Willy Rice. Bart and B21 expressed opinions. How is expressing an opinion bullying? Nothing in the article even attempts to demonstrate that. If she is going to accuse honorable men of a sin such as this, then perhaps she ought to connect the dots and show how their actions constitute bullying. Her only “evidence” is the opinion of a pastor named Maxie Miller who blasts bloggers. But accusation is not evidence.
3. She labeled this blog (where Bart’s article appeared), B21, and others as “publicly disruptive” (an unsourced quote) and leveled the accusation that we “threatened to worsen” if Willy Rice did not pull the plug on Dr. Carson’s post. There is simply no truth to that accusation. None. She made no attempt to give evidence to buttress the accusation, of course.
That was pretty much her modus operandi in the article – level an accusation, offer no proof, move on. Insinuation and accusation trumped evidence.
So, let’s catalog the accusations:
- Bullying – a serious accusation of mistreatment.
- Publicly disruptive
- Making threats of further disruption
4. It is instructive that she did not link to either of the articles she criticized. Anyone who read the irenic and reasoned tone of Bart’s article and then saw the harsh tone of Ms. Hannigan’s accusations would wonder where she got those accusations. While the tone of the B21 article was stronger than Bart’s it did not justify any of these accusations. Had she linked to the original articles, readers might have seen the absurdity of her accusations. Any reasonable person who read SBC Voices or B21 would see that no bullying took place, that no one was publicly disruptive and that no one made threats. Her accusations lose all credibility when one reads the original article.
5. Can someone explain why she raised the Calvinism issue? Under the heading “Calvinist Criticism” she mentions both B21 and Bart’s posts. What on earth does Calvinism have to do with this? I don’t see it. It seems to say more about her than it does about Jonathan or Bart that she raises the specter of Calvinism so inappropriately.
6. For clarity, Bart Barber is not a Calvinist. The section header says, “Calvinist Criticism” and yet one of the two articles is written by a confirmed non-Calvinist. That fact calls even more clearly into question the validity of raising the Calvinism issue here.
7. One wonders if either Bart or B21 were given any chance to respond. I know that SBC Voices was not contacted. I’ve not talked to Bart, who just got back from Africa a few days ago. Fairness did not seem to be a priority in this article.
The Facts
1. It is not bullying to express an opinion in opposition to that of the leaders of the SBC.
In fact, it is being a GOOD BAPTIST! We are not hierarchical. I love Frank Page but he has no authority over me. I think Thom Rainer has more ministry-wisdom in his pinkie finger than most do in their whole body, but I feel absolutely free to disagree with him. I can disagree with and criticize Ed Stetzer, Al Mohler, Kevin Ezell, David Platt, Jason Allen, Russell Moore, Ronnie Floyd or Willy Rice. It is my right to not only disagree but to publicly express that disagreement.
It is leaders (or journalists) who demand that we follow them without expressing opinions or convictions that are violating “the Baptist way.” Willy Rice had every right to invite Ben Carson, since he was elected by the PC last year. But we had every right to say that we disagreed with the choice to bring a presidential candidate to make a political speech at the Pastors Conference. He made his choice. We expressed our convictions. No one did anything wrong until suddenly Ms. Hannigan began to bandy accusations of bullying and threats.
2.The wrong here is the attempt to stifle the expression of dissent.
This article’s attempt to label dissent as bullying is not just wrong, it is dangerous. Bart was right to express his views. He did so reasonably and respectfully. B21, several weeks later, echoed Bart’s views with a little more force, but they were also respectful and reasonable. Neither article insulted anyone. Neither article issued threats (contrary to Ms. Hannigan’s assertion). The only thing they were guilty of was expressing an opinion that Ms. Hannigan and Pastor Rice did not like. Because of that, the accusation of bullying was raised.
To paint dissent as bullying is a dangerous game. Baptists have always championed the right of dissent and the attempt to stifle that dissent by leaders and by a journalist such as Ms. Hannigan evidence a lack of understanding of Baptist history, polity and nature.
My Baptist buddies, whenever you hear a leader or a journalist characterizing those who have simply expressed a conviction as somehow dangerous or sinful, a red light should go off in your mind. It is tricky. Many have abused social media to harass, gossip, lie, and otherwise engage in ungodly practiced. But it is no sin to disagree with a leader (pastor, seminary president or entity head) and it is not wrong to express that disagreement – as long as it is done respectfully and in kindness.
3. Calvinism hysteria is out of hand.
Those who are so fixated on Calvinism that everything focuses on it need to get perspective. Calvinism had nothing to do with this. Since the first artile written on the topic was written by a leading NON-Calvinist, shouldn’t that tell Ms. Hannigan that this is not a Calvinist issue? Yes, it is an issue and a big one. But it is not everything. Ms. Hannigan’s attempt to make this about Calvinism was confusing and just plain wrong.
4. Baptist journalists need to do better than Ms. Hannigan did.
We can disagree (as we do on many issues) without resorting to derogation and character assassination (as she did). There was no need to go on the attack. We are brothers and sisters in Christ and we do not need to treat one another as the enemy because we disagree over things like who should speak at the Pastors’ Conference. Certainly, character assassination such as Ms. Hannigan engaged in was simply unnecessary. Willy Rice made a choice. Bart disagreed. B21 disagreed. Willy changed course. Some are happy about that, others are not. We disagree on the issue. Does that make some of us good people and others not?
We can do better as Christian writers than Ms. Hannigan did in this article.
5. Baptist blogger bashing needs to end.
Yes, Baptist bloggers have behaved badly at times, but a lot of the anger and hostility directed at us comes because we express opinions contrary to our leaders and shine lights where they wish we would not. We are the true “Baptist Press” – exposing what needs to be exposed, discussing what needs to be discussed, and keeping people informed about what is really going on. We frustrate those who would like to control the dissemination of information and they often strike out at us for it.
And there is no question we do it badly. Often. But we do it. The official Baptist Press does its work as a public relations arm of the SBC, but we are there to discuss, to disseminate news and to provide a forum for people to share their views. No one else is doing that!
Willy Rice had a tough job this year and I don’t envy the Pastors Conference president for next year, who will be scrutinized even more after this year. But the fact is that the opposition to Ben Carson was not just a few Baptist bloggers blustering. It was a LOT of people who didn’t like Pastor Rice’s choice and blogs like SBC Voices and B21 were just mouthpieces that allowed people to speak their minds. It’s easy to strike out, to blame tired whipping boys like bloggers or Calvinism, but the fact is that a real groundswell of opposition rose up against this choice. This was not a few “publicly disruptive” blogs, but a genuine expression of public opinion. Majority? Who knows? But it is wrong of Joni Hannigan to paint those who disagreed with Carson’s appearance as bad people, as having ill will or evil motives, or as being “bullies.”
Please, stop it!
We are bloggers. We may be annoying, but we are here to stay. We aren’t going anywhere. Social media is here to stay. It will morph, but it will not disappear. Resorting to petty accusation will not advance the kingdom or the SBC. Work with us. We are not the enemy. We care about the SBC. That’s why we blog.
One thing is for sure. We all need to aspire to do better than Joni Hannigan did in her article at “Christian Examiner.”
Author’s Note: I want to apologize to Willy Rice for an assumption I made. I sent him an email last night to let him know this article would appear and to express my feelings about this article. I made the assumption that he worked with Ms. Hannigan to put this article out and that she was working on his behalf. He assured me that such was not the case. He gave her a couple of quotes, which she mashed into the mess that appears into the article. He was, evidently, contacted privately by those who pressured him and even were disruptive. But that accusation was not in relation to the blogposts at B21 or the one here by Bart Barber.
So, I apologize to Willy Rice for what I said in the original article, which assumed that he was behind the Hannigan article. He was not. The fault for that article lies squarely with Joni Hannigan and her suspect journalistic practices. One person described it to me as a “hatchet job.” I do not want to engage in such against Willy Rice.
No doubt. I tire of hearing people accuse those who disagree of bullying. Anyone read Perry Noble’s blog on this issue?
https://perrynoble.com/blog/why-i-am-upset-over-the-sbc-uninviting-ben-carson
One wonders if he even actually read Bart’s article along with the B21 piece.
Clearly, he did not.
He did the same thing hannigan did…cast those opposing this as Pharisees or locals with pitchforks, not principled dissenters . Attack, don’t discuss. Demean, don’t disagree.
Joni must get out of her own echo chamber if she intends to do real journalism. Her article was more drama and fiction than it was reality.
And, everyone knows that Bart Barber is at least a 2 – Point Calvinist! Come’on Man! 🙂
Happy to be the contrarian in this but: 1. Would you be comfortable with “pressured” rather than “bullied”? 2. Did you notice after the withdrawal that Burk and Mohler piled on with approval? Would anyone not presume that there were prior conversations? 3. In most of the pieces, Barber was not mentioned but B21 was. Many gave credit for the withdrawal to B21 and the younger guys. I’m also guessing that SBCV was not the major factor in the matter. 4. I take your point on “bullied.” The word doesn’t have much meaning. 5. It was no small thing that… Read more »
“Now, if someone will pressure Rice to come to a mutual decision for MacDonald to drop out.”
I doubt that B21 will raise their hand to volunteer for that.
Helping someone come to a better decision is not “bullying”, or “pressuring”. It is called being a good witness and effective leader. If blogging is called bullying, then wow, how far has someone walked down the road of political appeasement and language manipulation.
A deacon every pastor knows and has had: “Pastor, I’m going to help you come to a better decision on some church matters. A lot of people have come to me about this. I’m just trying to help you by my being a good witness and an effective leader.”
There is a clear difference between a deacon saying, “Some people (unnamed) have come to me,” and B21 saying, “His invitation to speak at a conference for SBC pastors does cause us some concerns, as it has concerned other SBC pastors (with a link) as well.”
Ummm…thanks for putting both quotes together. You made my point. 😉
William, your stating that I have made your point doesn’t make it so. If you cannot see the difference between the two statements, I am not sure I can help you.
Well,”some people” and “us” + “other [unnamed] SBC pastors”.
Work with me here Adam…
[and, I have no doubt you could help me with a lot of things]
Us = http://www.baptisttwentyone.com/who-we-are/
other SBC pastors = Bart Barber and the SBC pastors found agreeing with Bart in the comments section on SBC Voices. Bart’s article is linked to “other SBC pastors” in the B21 article.
I’m somewhat surprised that you are defending her, William.
I’d have thought you do be more of a defender of dissent. Your take on this surprises me a little.
I didn’t defend her. I said “pressured” would have been a better choice. Not sure if she chose the title of the article or not. The general thrust that pressure was brought to uninvite Carson is unquestioned. Bart’s piece was forever ago. Any observer would look to more recent criticism. You did notice how quickly some SBTS people approved of the decision? I like Dr. Carson. I like his humble demeanor. I don’t know why it took so long for pushback to the anti-Carson pushback. We all look bad, of course. Just SBs being SBs. I attribute zero to any… Read more »
I was not in favor of the Carson invitation, but once it was given, I was not in favor of disinviting him. I think that there were other ways that we could have handled that that would have been better for all. What frustrated me the most were the self-congratulatory pats on the back among some because they had rid the SBCPC of someone who had aberrant theology. I didn’t see that here as much as I did in comments that some made on Twitter and other places. I am just saying that because I am a contributor here at… Read more »
Yep.
I welcome those comments, and helps.
Dave- A few questions that you may/may not be able to answer…and I too thought the language of the article was more edgy than necessary. 1. Do you know if there were there ever any conversations b/t Rice and Bart, B21, Mohler, etc prior to the reversal? 2. Had Rice not taken the steps he did to remove Dr. Carson, would it have really stopped from B21? You wrote at the beginning about some not so beautiful moments in blogging and then about blogging as here to stay–that B21 was a mouthpiece for many who opposed the selection–that Willy &… Read more »
Baptist 21 publicly stated that they had been in conversation with Willy Rice and had offered him the opportunity to write his own post for Baptist 21 rebutting their objections and stating his rationale for keeping Carson.
Prior to my initial post, the Pastors’ Conference web site had already issued a statement attempting to defuse controversy over the Carson invitation. My post was not the first notice the Pastors’ Conference officers had received of widespread concern about the invitation. The public posts did not take place before significant back-channel communication had taken place.
Thanks Bart.
So much of the back channel conversations are generally not known, nor should they be.
I appreciate your wisdom. It’s unfortunate how Joni’s article has created a stir of the wrong kind.
I pray the PC will be a tremendous time for all who attend.
As I understand it now, there are two things that are separated, which unfortunately became conflated because of careless writing by Ms. Hannigan. There were the articles by Bart and by B21. While the message was similar, B21 was the one that seemed to light the fire that led to the reversal. But evidently there was quite of bit of private pressure (bullying? Who knows?) behind the scenes. I don’t know who did this – whether powerful people or just average joes like me and you. Ms. Hannigan’s sloppy article failed to clarify these things and gave the impression that… Read more »
The answer to 1 – as I understand it – yes. Extensive.
2. I have no idea.
3. I do not know that B21 claims to speak for an entire generation.
I think the accusation that B21 claims to speak for a generation is more fear than anything. B21 packs the house for their luncheon at the SBC every year. The old guard doesn’t like it when people with a different view of things show up in droves for a meeting where a majority of votes wins the day.
Adam,
The speakers at the B21 event ARE the Old Guard. Mohler and Akin headline the luncheon every year. B21 is as establishment as it gets in the SBC and they have been for some time now – since the pre-GCR clearing of the field in 2006-2008 paved the way for Mohler to fill the void left by Patterson withdrawal. I am not making any kind of value judgment there. It is what it is. I’m just saying that I see B21 as representing the establishment of SBC life at this point.
Of course there is a point at which the new guard becomes the old guard. Perhaps you are right that we have reached that point. If so, that is a recent development. I know 2008 seems like a long time ago, but it is still fairly recent.
To your other point that you have made a couple of times, I too wish B21 would invite a more diverse array of panelists. I too am growing tired of hearing Mohler and Akin opine on the same old subjects year after year.
I have nothing against Mohler, Akin, Platt, Moore, etc., but it is clear that the luncheon/panel exists for those guys, led by Akin and Mohler, to speak to a fairly large group of people extemporaneously about their view of the major issues in SBC life. And, that is fine. But, it is what it is. We usually get one new face each year and the same voices rotating through with Mohler and Akin as the constants. It is a powerful platform for them to speak their views and it is one that was apparently created with that goal in mind.… Read more »
Thanks Dave
To clarify on #3- I asked that ? from how I read your statement regarding B21 and SBCV being mouthpieces for those who oppose. Since the conversation was primarily about B21, I was interpreting “mouthpiece” to be that they are the collective voice for all the opposition. Sorry for that confusion and I want to stand corrected.
I can understand and sympathize with Willy Rice’s disappointment. Joni Hannigan has served in Florida for many years and I’m sure she has a friendship with Pastor Rice. From his perspective, I’m sure it did indeed feel like a lot of pressure was being placed upon him. “Bullying” might indeed be the word he would choose. I think an important difference between bullying and the expression of one’s opinion is simply this: I was in no position to threaten anything nor did I have any desire to do so. I wrote in order to try to demonstrate why not having… Read more »
After clarification from Pastor Rice, I have clarified my article. He did NOT work with Ms. Hannigan, other than to offer her a couple of quotes.
It appears that she mishandled those quotes to further her agenda.
It is my belief that what Willy Rice would like more than anything is for the 2015 PC to stay out of the news.
Good word, Mr. Miller.
Dave, Well, I agree with you that bloggers get a bad rap. In fact, in case anyone has forgotten, the source of your housecoat and basement reference was none other than our current North American Mission Board President, Dr. Kevin Ezell, who ended his report at the convention one year with a line like, “I would be happy to answer any questions at this time, but would prefer not to.” This is a perfect example of why we need Baptist bloggers to report information. When I read the Hannigan article, I felt bad for Bart because it seemed like she… Read more »
B21 is not a “Calvinist” group. It is sad that people still try to pin that label all the time. They have writers from varying sides of the soteriological aisle and if you would look at the site, I don’t think they’ve addressed the subject a single time.
This obsession has become unhealthy in the SBC. It really has.
The reason Baptist 21 is considered to be a Calvinist group is that they are, in fact, a predominantly Calvinist group. There is no obsession here, Dave. They just are. Like Founders. Like 9 Marks. Like many of the Southern Baptists at Acts 29 or the Gospel Coalition. EXHIBIT A: CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS In addition to the BFM2K, Baptist 21 lists “The Abstract of Principles of 1858.” It is a Calvinist confession. EXHIBIT B: LEADERSHIP (a) All three Akins–Jonathan, Nathan and Tim–have Southern, Southeastern and Highview connections. (b) Bryan Barley of Summit Denver uses the Gospel Coalition confessional statement on his… Read more »
Guilt by association? Just because someone comes from Southeastern does not make that person a Calvinist.
I’m friends with Mike Leake but that doesn’t mean I’m a Royals fan. I lived in Virginia but didn’t root for ACC teams.
You don’t let the facts get it the way of your campaign, which I guess is your right.
Dave, What about the confessional statements? The all Calvinist speaker lineup? Some of it is, admittedly, conjecture, with regard to these leaders, some of whom I don’t know. But this is an educated guess since all the ones I do know are Calvinistic, and all these guys just happen to have degrees from the two most Calvinistic seminaries in the convention. Sure, it is possible among those leaders that there are a few 3 Pointers, but if so, they would have to overlook the 1858 Confession. I’m not the one ignoring the facts here. The influence of New Calvinism and… Read more »
Young Restless Reformed
I don’t suppose this tired phrase is going away any time soon.
I wish it would.
Forgive me if New Calvinists receive little sympathy for their dislike of the term “Young, Restless and Reformed.” A New Calvinist is the one responsible for coming up with it in the first place. It was coined by Collin Hansen, who is now Editorial Director for The Gospel Coalition.
I would not expect any less from you, who uses it as bludgeon with which to smite anyone who might possibly be a Calvinist, or have perhaps once talked to one!
Which is why the term has outlived its usefulness. Besides, most of those described are no longer young and have put down roots.
Doesn’t New Orleans Baptist theological seminary use the abstract is a confessional document?
Does that make them Calvinists?
“New calvinists” is also often used as a pejorative term by the Calvinsism obsessionists – like Rick – because they don’t like to admit realities regarding the roots of Calvinism in the SBC.
Maybe we should just start calling people like Rick “new Pelagianists”.
I’m joking just like Rick was. 😉
Alright guys, let’s all play nice from here on out and drop this.
Yes sir. I’m done – just playing around a little.
Bludgeon? Smite? Ignoring facts? Campaign? Dave, you’ve been kinda rough on me lately.
None of these words describe my heart or attitude. Sure, I have a point of view, but don’t we all?
I expect Tarheel to call me a heretic, but aren’t you the moderator guy who’s supposed to be nice to people, even when they disagree. Would you rather I just go away and not comment anymore? I’m kinda feeling a little bit bullied.
Tarheel, NOBTS does not use the Abstract of Principles. NOBTS’ historic confession is The Articles of Religious Belief.
Dean,
Thank you.
Dave, glad to contribute. Nothing shows gratitude like a piece of cheesecake!
You can have it. My strict diet won’t really let me have that. I checked out a piece of cheesecake the other day at Cheesecake Factory. 1350 Calories!
Dean,
Thanks for the correction – my bad.
This is my first mistake of 2015. 😉
Rick,
For the record, and what what it’s worth, I do not consider you a heretic – I just think you’re wrong on several soteriological issues – the “new Pelagianism” comment was a play on what you Calvinism obsessionists call “new Calvinists” and was intended, as I said jestfully.
Now identifying you as “Calvinism obsessionist” – that’s for real, true and demonstrated by a ship load of evidence. You’re not the only one – but you’re surely an example of one.
I don’t think they’ve addressed the subject a single time. I don’t think, in the minds of those whose mission it is to oppose Calvinism, that it matters whether they discuss Calvinism or not. I think they believe that it is impossible for a Calvinist to discuss anything without it being tainted by Calvinism. That’s why Calvinists are so often accused of promoting a different Gospel, a “Calvinist” gospel. As far as I can tell, there was absolutely no reason for the writer of the article to mention Calvinism at all, except to promote some type of GBA. Likewise, I… Read more »
Rick, Ezell has a sense of humor. I once asken him about the basement blogger thing. He used humor to disarm critics.
A Miller/Barber/Patrick PC lineup would be pretty good.
Rick, the “bloggers in the basement” phrase, or something very close to it, originated with Bobby Welch engaging in a bit of complaining from the President’s podium in 2006 in Greensboro. Ed Stetzer then wrote with his tongue in his cheek about bloggers in their mother’s basements in housecoats or something of that nature. So, it predates Kevin Ezell by a few years, and is just meant to diminish the work that bloggers have done.
Not that it matters but Ezell had a real experience in his church with a blogger/critic who answered the door in his mother’s housecoat.
Ms. Hannigan wrote this piece for a purely online “publication” (aka a website). Some would call her a “blogger.” The line between the two is blurring as conventional media goes the way of the dinosaur. What separates the two, by and large, is becoming pure semantics. Hence the irony as she laments those meddling baptist bloggers.
Anyone who is interested to see the depths of pooled ignorance and fact-twisting this whole ordeal is bringing out should read the 700-plus comments here: //www.facebook.com/ToddStarnesFNC/posts/840192759388891
Sigh.
Todd Starnes is something else.
Careful. A lot of people think Todd Starnes is a modern “voice crying in the wilderness”. He doesn’t let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
He makes me cringe.
His disregard for facts and truth in the pursuit of his stories is troubling.
He makes precious things like religious freedom ridiculous at times.
This is precisely why I thought it was such a poor move to encourage him to resign after the invitation had been extended. I think SBC Voices is on the wrong side of this issue this time.
For the first time in my life I actually agree with Perry Noble more than Dave and the fine folks at this blog.
Not sure what you mean. If you look back, I made the statement that there was no way that we could or should rescind the invitation now – about an hour before they announced it.
I said that my hope was that in the future a president would remember this before inviting a politician
I never advocated disinviting Carson. I said it was impossible. Bart never did either
Not sure what you are talking about
Yeah, no one thought that they would disinvite. I think that it was fine to express disagreement with the invite. That is what Bart did. I agreed with Bart in the disagreement. But, disinviting him after the invitation was given was a poor move, in my opinion, and I said so that day. All of that lets me know that there was WAY more going on behind the scenes than a couple of blog posts written by Bart and B21. My guess is that it was the behind the scenes work that really caused the whole thing to happen. So,… Read more »
I did a little research but I still can’t exactly nail down who Joni Hannigan is. I found some references saying she is (or was) Managing Editor of the BAPTIST WITNESS which is the publication of the Florida Baptist convention. However, evidently that information is now out of date. I went to the BAPTIST WITNESS website and looked at the masthead of the paper but her name is not there.
Roger Simpson Oklahoma City
I’d never heard of her, but when I tweeted her, Todd Starnes blasted me, told me she was Woodward and Bernstein rolled into one!
She’s a writer from Florida, but I have no idea beyond that.
If memory serves me correctly, both Todd Starnes and Joni Hanigan wrote for Baptist Press a lot in the previous decade (the 2000s), and they made Baptist Press sound more like Fox News than a denominational news agency. Starnes and Hanigan wrote lots of articles supporting George W. Bush and the Iraq War. By 2005-2006, it became obvious to me that the Iraq War was a disaster, but there would always be some piece by Starnes or Hanigan in Baptist Press that supported Bush and the War. Starnes and Hanigan are representatives of an era in SBC life when we… Read more »
Ahhhh, that explains a lot!
I’ve been told that this “Christian Examiner” is a sensationalistic online journal that pays their writers by the click. For that reason, I am going to remove the links to her article. I don’t want to reward her for this kind of journalism.
Yep. It’s a click-bait website. Anytime anything with “Examiner” in the title runs across your feed, best to ignore it.
I certainly do not intend to be crude or dishonor our Lord in what I say but anyone who says or insinuates that Bart Barber is a bully is unread and speaking from ignorance. They are few Christian gentlemen that are visible on today’s landscape, Dr. Barber seems to be one by all accounts.
Actually, that’s what ticked me off.
Actually, Dean, I have felt bullied by Bart several times. It has been infuriating and I have resented it. I usually had that feeling right before I admitted that he was right about something that I was disagreeing with him about and the weight of his argument was aggravating me. So, I probably muttered something under my breath about him bullying me with the truth or something like that. 🙂
Nice.
Dean,
I could not possibly argree more.
Bart is the epitome of excellence in blogging – even – especially – in disagreement.
Great post Dave, I do not know how many times I started unintentionally writing something that was false, but was saved by my attempt to try and source the claim. Not often, but too many times, I have skipped the sourcing step and had to be corrected publicly. If you cannot source a quote, there is a great chance that it was never said. Everyone would be served better by mainly making claims that you can source. I have often found that Baptists in general and particularly Baptists critical of bloggers tend to not source their claims and cannot name… Read more »
This was an interesting episode. I think it’s valuable to note that we bring our own perspective to interpretation of events. Consider Dave Miller’s take on the events v. Rick Patrick’s. I didn’t get the whole thing more than a sideways glance. I find it amazing to think that SBCVoices itself was by itself anything more than a comment on the situation even with Bart and Dave writing on it. Similarly, while the B21 writers might have been influential, it wouldn’t surprise me if it was comments popping up from several directions that led to the disinvite rather than any… Read more »
I should write slower or proofread more!! 😛
Proofread? What’s that?
Am I worried about grieving the Holy Spirit when I state very clearly that a Seventh Day Adventist presidential candidate should not be invited to give a political speech at the SBC PC? No, not at all.
I mention all of those descriptors because they all concern me, and should all be disqualifying for a potential speaker at the SBC Pastor’s Conference by themselves. When you put them all together, it blows the mind that he was invited in the first place.
Amens!
Dave,
I really do not want to comment on this post due to the edited response you had last time I commented here.
The writer has a working link to Bart’s post on Voices.
I do not see in anyway she calls Bart a Calvinist.
She has links, some do not work but Bart’s brought me to his article on Voices.
I hope Maxie Miller and you can meet at the conference and share a meal. Maybe bring Dwight along and share some Scampi at the Cheese Cake Factory.
Best to you Dave.
I have no idea what you are talking about John.
Are you playing the race card again? I’m just not catching your drift. Sorry.
I am saying your article is inaccurate. You are becoming what you accuses others of being over this issue. Does not seem like the Dave I have gotten here at voices.
I suggest Rick Patrick be enlisted to write a piece for here that outlines his concerns and goals for the SBC in regard to C/NC. His persistence in advocacy doesn’t make him a “Calvinist obsessionist” which phrase is a bit of a cheap shot intended to marginalize him and his organization. There are legitimate, informal and formal, advocacy groups that are all good SBCers. Rick has been led to lead in one. This is not the topic; hence, a suggestion for another. We’re in a run up to the annual meeting where several of these groups will be meeting. Let’s… Read more »
I think Rick’s concerns and the goals of C316 are legitimate, even if I lean more towards the Calvinist side of the aisle. But I think the tactics of some of the TS supporters have gotten ugly and unnecessary. Rick may be sometimes guilty of casting too wide a net for Calvinists, but he’s one of the more reasonable folks on the TS side. Wander over to SBCToday and read the things that Calvinists are accused of and you would think it was ISIS militants being described, not fellow Christians.
William, Thank you for your input. When every conversation one engages in somehow invokes an issue (along with condescension) – whether it is part of the discussion or not – that makes it reasonable to identify that person as an obsessionist. Also, despite you pretending to be some sort impartial referee here – I could not help but notice that you did not call out Rick for his use of “marginalizing” language. In fact I noticed that others called him out on it – you were strangely silent. Yet you found your voice here. Interesting. FYI – I have not… Read more »
You’ll have to point out what you consider marginalizing comments. An advocate, even a resolute advocate, is not an obsessionist. Birthers, 911 truthers, gold bugs, etc. are obsessionists.
Bill Mac, you are right about the ugliness over there. I’m one of only a couple who comments over there from the C side (you also from a C leaning position). The language about and against Cs is ferocious and sometimes vicious. Thankfully those there that engage like that, most anyway, know better than to set foot over and when they do they really tone it down.
Les,
I appreciate your comments over there. I have, from time to time, commented, not as a Calvinist, rather as someone who was trying to get to the root of the post. In every case, I was accused of being a Calvinist (even though I’m not) and accosted. I read the posts from time to time for a laugh, but that site has only one agenda.
Les and Nate,
From reading your comments made here, I would say that yall are the pot calling the kettle black.
David
David,
I won’t say that I don’t get particular in my viewpoints on the threads posted here. However, in my opinion (and it’s probably not worth much), almost every post over there ultimately is an anti-Calvinism post even when the title appears to be something else.
Considering most of my posts here aren’t even responded to, it amuses me that every post I’ve made over there was immediately dissected.. 🙂
I don’t know, I think Les is pretty respectful over there. I don’t think he has accused any traditionalists of being stupid, of promoting a false Gospel, he hasn’t compared traditionalists to a cult or false religion. I don’t think he has accused traditionalists of being deceptive or destroying churches.
Bill Mac,
Les Prouty is not respectful on any blog of which he ventures to comment. He is still wearing that blasphemous Auburn baseball cap even after he was given a perfectly respectful BAMA cap.
Vol,
I’m sure we are veering off topic so this is all I’ll say. Read thru the vast majority of my comments there and here and compare to the comments back to me and about me. Not saying I’m perfect, but the preponderance of evidence….
And I do not include you in what I was talking about.
Blessings brother.
If you wish to discuss Rick’s site, I suggest you go there to do it. I’m not interested in hosting a discussion of the merits of that site.
Thanks guys.
Just a brief defense of SBC Today in light of the charges raised. Our last five articles dealt with (a) healing homosexuals with love and truth, (b) an ode to Adrian Rogers and his legacy, (c) society viewing the church with McDonalds-like consumerism, (d) threats to religious liberty, and (e) nursery duty. It is not true that we only discuss Calvinism. While we do sometimes discuss the theology of Calvinism, we are far more likely to discuss the denominational agendas of our new Calvinist leaders as their philosophies of ministry impact missions, cultural engagement, fairly representing the theology of our… Read more »
There is that “new Calvinists” moniker again…we know what you mean by that – and it ain’t a friendly how do ya do.
If you keep using that term – I might pull back out the “new” moniker I used earlier. Its only fair.
If one gets to pejoratively claim that C’s in the SBC have somehow wrapped on old doctrine in new wineskins – might it be fair for others to say the same about them?
Tarheel,
I did not capitalize the “New” there. I was not talking about “New Calvinist” leaders but our new “Calvinist leaders.”
Who are they?
The only ones I can think of have been Southern Baptist for many many years.
New to their leadership posts… 2012 — Moore
2013 — Allen
2014 — Platt
But none of them are “new” at all – they’ve Ll been and are longtime and faithful Southern Baptists — and were elected to their posts by both C’s and Non C’s on the respective trustee boards.
I still don’t see the beef.
New to their posts. Not new to the SBC. (Actually, many other leaders are new to the SBC and are being appointed by some of these new leaders, but that’s a separate issue.)
To clarify, if all of the new entity leaders in the SBC turn out to be Calvinist-leaning ones like the C’s have gone four for four in the last four years, we will have a problem. And the problem will be that our SBC leadership just won’t adequately represent the composition of our SBC membership.
Rick, I wonder if our entity heads’ views on the Lord’s Supper adequately represent the percentages found in this study. http://www.bpnews.net/38730
But the theological positions these individuals hold, Rick – despite your disagreement – are held by faithful Southern Baptists who are theologically within the parameters of the BFM2000, orthodoxy and evangelicalism. They happen to hold some different views than you on secondary matters – but they are in fact all on the same “team” with all of us. There are leaders of our convention who hold positions I disagree with, but I not only view them as part of my team – but I view them as important and meaningful parts. Hey in fact, I have been pretty vocal in… Read more »
I’ve asked nicely everyone, now I insist.
If you are interested in Rick’s site, feel free to go there and read it. I’m not interested in hosting a discussion of either its merits or its faults.
So, let’s discuss something else, okay?
I sort of insist!