Baptists disagree. We started out disagreeing with the Reformers over baptism, over state churches, and over the restriction of religious freedom. In the 70s and 80s, we began to dissent from the leftward drift in our institutions and entities, and a swelling tide of leaders expressed those concerns publicly. Perhaps, with hindsight, we would modulate our tone a bit, but men stood and spoke, saying the direction of the SBC was not what it should be. Dissent from our leaders is at the heart of Baptist life. It still is today.
I am a loyal Baptist, a lifelong Southern Baptist and I want our convention to prosper. I want our statistical decline to reverse and for history to record that in 2019 our best days lay ahead of us, not behind. But, as the leaders of the Conservative Resurgence looked at the direction of the SBC in the 70s and dissented, I look at where the SBC is headed to today and see things that ought not to be. Our failure to embrace racial reconciliation and to include minorities in our denominational leadership is a serious error. Our tendency to divide into soteriological camps and lob bombs at one another is self-destructive. Our tendency to hide, cover up, and eschew transparency has brought devastating consequences. If we are going to be the denomination that we can be, we need to change. If we are going to change, people have to speak out.
Frankly, a lot of people are afraid to speak out. They are afraid that they will be blackballed and blacklisted. It happens (it really does). Since I’m an old codger from the frozen north, the power-brokers have nothing to hold over me. I decided a while back that though people might get angry at me for it, I need to be one who speaks out. The worst people can do is dislike me and I’ve learned to survive that.
So, I express my disagreements. I dissent. But my dissent is not hate. It is not the invocation of anathema. It is just disagreement.
I Disagree
I disagree with the fact that three of our entity search teams selected presidents without interviewing minority candidates in the final process. I think that was a mistake. Does that mean I think these committees were racist? No. The two that have announced actually made home run hires. Dr. Chitwood at IMB and Dr. Greenway at SWBTS appear to be the best of the best. My quarrel is with the process. There are some home runs among our minority communities and if we keep ignoring the resources in those communities we will regret it.
When the EC announces its candidate, I reserve the right to disagree. They may claim they’ve found “God’s candidate” but as a Baptist, I am not bound by their designation. If I dissent from their choice I will still support the EC and seek the success of the SBC. I will never engage in mindless criticism of the SBC or an entity. But I reserve the right to disagree even when someone else claims they’ve found “God’s man.”
I disagreed strongly with both the content and the tone of the chapel message Dr. Chuck Kelley gave at NOBTS at the beginning of this school year, as he reviewed the tumultuous events at SWBTS. In spite of my disagreement, I consider Dr. Kelley a faithful man of God who has given noble service to the seminary. I can disagree with him and not hate him.
I have been less than thrilled that Southwestern’s trustees have failed to explain the published information about the financial situation at SWBTS. It seems reasonable to me that they would tell the people what is going on. I hope Dr. Greenway will lead them to an era of greater transparency. But I believe Kevin Ueckert has led the Trustees well through what may be the most difficult time in that seminary’s history. I respect and appreciate him even while I disagree with the lack of transparency.
I expressed my dissatisfaction with the Executive Committee’s Bylaws Workgroup’s “inquiry” into the ten churches named by our president at the last EC meeting. They botched it badly. They were not qualified to engage such an inquiry. I wouldn’t have been either. These are tough issues. They aren’t bad people. They were just high school ballplayers trying to play in the Major Leagues. They struck out.
Ken Alford, chair of the Bylaws Workgroup, resigned after the intense backlash. He appears to be upset about the reaction to their work. I agree with the criticism of the workgroup and think that at this point, his resignation might have been the best thing. However, I think the criticism of Alford in many circles became personal, attacking his character, raising issues of the past that were unnecessary and unfair (if the information I have is correct), and resorting to ridicule and gloating when he resigned. The workgroup was inadequate, but I believe some of the response was ungodly.
Sometimes, I disagree.
Finding the Balance
Finding that balance is never easy. Some are unwilling to criticize and, contrary to all Baptist history, view it as inherently ungodly. Others embrace criticism as a way of life and go off the deep end in so-called discernment ministries. Finding the balance of criticizing our fellow Baptists in a biblically acceptable way is not easy. It is like walking a tightrope – to lean to either side can have serious consequences.
I have often leaned to the side of failing to state criticism I knew I should. I like to be liked and criticizing others is not the path to popularity in the SBC. Many of our leaders and celebrity pastors have insulated themselves from criticism and react badly to it. I remember being horrified when Mark Driscoll claimed that a church member criticizing him was a sin against God. There are pastors and denominational leaders who act as if speaking a word of disagreement or criticism against them is the unpardonable sin. I have failed to speak at times because of this.
At other times, I’ve made my criticisms personal. There are people who are ungodly, disqualified from leadership by their sinful actions, arrogance, or ungodly attitudes. But the vast majority of the people I disagree with are not disqualified or worthy of receiving my anathema. They have just done something I don’t agree with. I do not need to make my criticism personal. We are saved by grace and I am constantly amazed at how little of it we display toward one another in public discourse.
An odd thing has happened over the years. Some of my closest friends in Baptist life are people I started out disagreeing with and still disagree with often. I have found that I can have close relationships and deep friendships with those with whom I do not see eye to eye, as long as we keep our disagreements in godly perspective and do not “go personal.”
I have been attempting to walk this tightrope for a baker’s dozen years, failing as often as I succeed. The struggle will continue. I will hold back when I should speak out and speak out when I should shut up. But we baptize believers because our forefathers dissented. We have religious freedom because of dissent. The CR happened because people disagreed with the powers that be. And if the SBC is going to see kingdom greatness in the future, there are going to be some changes necessary. We are going to have to speak the truth in love. Truth. In love.
That is one tough tightrope.
Recently, reading through one of Eugene Peterson’s books on pastoring (by the way–his books on pastoring should not be overshadowed by any dislike you have for The Message Bible. Seriously good stuff.) and he pointed out there that when we stop seeing people as sinners and expect them to be more, then we are automatically setting ourselves up for disappointment and strife. (In context, it was not a “you’re all terrible people concept”)
I think the extension on that is that we have to see all of humanity (including ourselves) as people who are not going to be perfect. We never have been, and never will be. As such, we have to see that every person who is following Christ is our family member and is as forgiven as we are. We need to see the Saviour at work in each other as much as in ourselves. We expect perfection from others while allowing our own errors.
It is quite true that this is a fundamental underpinning of why we distribute “power” within Baptist circles, historically: by involving more of us, we are more likely to see errors and correct them. Unfortunately, our rhetoric has grown in many spaces to focus on highlighting the error, jumping to the conclusion that an error in practice is related to a deep character deficiency that no one else could possibly have, and therefore condemning the person. If we are going to work through the issues ahead of us as Baptists, we have to sit down and listen to each other, including each other’s rebukes. There’s nothing to be gained from sulking in our tents like Achilles, nursing our bruised egos….or demanding things be done our way and that everyone listen to one person only, like Achilles. (He really was a heel, wasn’t he?)
(Please note: “we all make errors” is not an excuse for willful, deliberate sin, especially against another person. Errors are when we do the best we know how and it’s still just wrong. It’s from lack of wisdom, lack of knowledge, lack of taking the time…willful, deliberate sin can and should be avoided, and when someone commits such sins, that’s a different discussion. That’s where one forfeits his seat at the table and his voice in the discussion as possible consequences.)
I agree with most of what is written in the Post and disagree with some. What I do agree with is that we should not start out to destroy an institution, person or denomination. That has never been my goal when exposing wrongs in our denomination. I have never set out to destroy anyone, wanting repentance, changes to be the first and only goal. When that doesn’t happen, then if serious enough I do think resignations and deep changes no matter what they are or how painful, should be made. But when that happens I have to recover because the second is not my goal. I am not opposed to it, just is painful for me personally.
I see some however out to destroy and they will not stop even when changes occur, to destroy. That is horribly wrong in my opinion and totally contrary to who we are as Christians. That is almost when I have to abandon any relationship with them because destruction should never be an easy thing to be part of nor should it be the only way to be satisfied, at least not till all other options are exhausted.
Disagree with me? Heretic.
Ha
(In the interests of full disclosure, I am a member of Crossroads Baptist Church in Valdosta, GA and Dr. Ken Alford is my pastor. Furthermore we have been friends and co-laborers since our college days. This is pretty long!)
Bro. Miller, I have a few questions for you and then a couple of observations:
1. In your evaluation of Dr. Alford’s resignation statement, did you actually read it? Kindly point to the exact place where Dr. Alford “appears to be upset about the reaction” to the sub group’s report. Please highlight the passage in the statement where he showed hurt feelings or sour grapes. He clearly stated, “I have come to the conclusion that I can take at least one step in assisting in the healing that is needed in our convention at this time, and that is to step away from serving as a member of the SBC Executive Committee.” He didn’t have to do that. He did nothing to warrant his resignation. He stepped away because he felt it would help in the healing process. How can you question his motivation for resigning by saying he was upset about the reaction? What a classless thing to do!
2. In your evaluation of the bylaws subgroups “badly botched” report, did you attempt to call Chairman Alford to get his perspective of the report and perhaps gain the nuance of the difficulties/challenges that were inherent in this assignment? I think that when you are talking about calling someone to task for their performance in a pressure packed situation, it is common courtesy to at least get their perspective so you can have a balanced view of it. This is not to mention the biblical mandate of Mt 18. I can assure you no one in the blogosphere has contacted him for his perspective before, during or after this situation.
3. Exactly how did the subgroup “badly botch” the thier report? They worked within the framework of the four provisions outlined by Greear’s own sex abuse study group (which were approved by the EC as an amendment to the SBC constitution) and worked with the information provided to them by Pres Greear.
4. Have you or anyone else thought about why these were, as you put it, “high school ballplayers trying to play in the Major Leagues?” When President Greear directed them to do this, he set them up for failure from the beginning. He asked an 8-member committee that meets 2-3 times per year to monitor SBC bylaws to conduct what amounts to a criminal investigation: Interview victims, victim advocates and authorities. Just the nature of this expectation is ridiculous on its face. By the way, if your high school age son or daughter were placed in a position to go against big leaguers and then were laughed at and criticized for “botching” the opportunity, who would you blame, your high-schooler or the “big leaguer” who put them in the position to fail?
5. I would be grateful if you or someone could point out to me the source of JD Greear’s authority to call for this “investigation” in the first place. Don’t start with his moral authority and obligation. We all feel the same way about sexual abuse, covering it up, allowing perpetrators to continue in church ministry and churches that would turn a blind eye to it. All Pres Greear had to do was present his proposal to the EC in Executive Session and ask for the funds to set up an independent investigation for these things and it would have been done. But his arrogant and public demands put the EC, the SBC and the good people of the bylaws sub group in a position that guaranteed that we would come out with mud on our face. He had no right or authority to call for this without consulting with the EC officers and informing the EC in Executive Session. From my view, as a pastor for nearly 40 years who has always participated in our convention from the Associational, State and National levels, it’s not the bylaws sub group or the EC who are the “high school ballplayers” in this situation!
6. Can you explain to me why Pres Greear left Bellevue Baptist Church off his list of 10 churches? They were church #1 in the Houston Chronicle’s list. I have nothing but respect for Steve Gaines. We have been friends for over 30 years. Knowing Steve as I do, they dealt with the issue they were called out for biblically, compassionately and thoroughly. I’m just wondering why Greear left them off his list without any explanation.
7. Have you asked Pres Greear why, as he was calling out 10 other churches for the things that have happened in their past (some as far back as 20-25 years), he did not mention his own church which had an incident of sexual abuse by a staff member in 2017? I’m sure that they dealt with that situation in a thorough and timely manner. But how do we know that they have complied with the standards set by the sexual abuse study group that has been working on this issue since the convention meeting last year? The answers of the 9 churches reported on by the bylaws subgroup wasn’t good enough without further investigation and scrutiny. Why should The Summit Church get a pass on this issue?
Bro Wayne, can you provide sources for the statements concerning Bellevue Bapt and Summit Church? Not questioning, just wanting to go a little deeper for my own understanding. Im sure there is a way we can connect outside of this forum.
Peace everyone.
I have watched this situation unfold and am sickened by the turn it has taken. People on social media and in the blogosphere have had knee-jerk reactions to it and have taken to verbal abuse and character assassination toward people on the EC who were simply trying to do the best they could in an untenable situation. I am ashamed of Southern Baptists and others who have shown so little of the principle of James 1:19: “But let every one be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger.” The rush to action and subsequent rush to judgment without wisdom or prudence has left good people wounded, vilified and disheartened. And no one is showing any compassion toward them. And that is tragic.
Let’s deal with this issue of sexual abuse biblically, thoroughly and severely. Let’s minister to victims of sexual abuse with grace, love mercy and acceptance. Let’s deal with predators who take advantage of the most vulnerable and see them put away as they should be. Let’s create a database of abusers that is properly maintained and made available to churches that are searching for staff members and employees. Let’s develop a policy by which we can discipline and even dis-fellowship churches who enable these vile persons by protecting them or hiring them. Let’s do all this and more, everything that we can to stop any and all abuse from occurring in our churches.
But let’s do it with wisdom and prudence. Let’s do it without attacking and demeaning one another. Let’s do it in a way that keeps us together and doesn’t rip us apart.
“Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you” (Eph 5:29-32).
Did you read what I wrote? I was pointing out the fact that while I disagreed with Ken’s actions I thought many of the attacks on his character were unfair. I know this is a painful time for you and you hurt for your friend. God’s blessings.
I quoted what you wrote Dave! In my first question. I asked you to point out the part of his statement that indicated he was upset by the response to the group’s report and that was why he resigned. You have not addressed any of my questions. I think they are fair observations and questions. I’m just asking you to respond to them.
Wayne Dorsett: I would ask you to respond to this, the real issue, knowing also that you are hurting for your friend and so sorry you have to hurt at all.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/investigations/article/Southern-Baptist-sexual-abuse-spreads-as-leaders-13588038.php
Agreed Debbie. We have an SBC President that takes a strong stance to a horrific issue and when he strongly and openly confronts it, his actions are called “arrogant and public demand” (Wayne’s words above). How in the world can it be considered “arrogant” to strongly address and call for answers on this issue. This issue has already become way too mired in personality and focusing on procedures and technicalities instead of focusing on the real issue.
I am sick of all the calls for closed door meetings and private phone calls and not dealing with this openly. We have scarred our witness in the world enough over the decades, if we fumble how we address this as Southern Baptists we may well lose any credibility to speak the truth of the Gospel to the lost world around us.
Looks like Wayne asks a lot of interesting questions that should be answered to me. Why wasn’t Bellevue oon his list? Why hasn’t he talked about his own church and what they did? It all has to do with the same thing.
Alan: I can only speak for me personally, but JD has turned around. Completely. He is doing the right thing and has severed ties to McHaney, even naming Sovereign Grace for investigation. He has listened and is listening to victims. He is leading as he should. Restoration and forgiveness being the first and foremost goal in my mind anyway. Not for the abusers, but healing for the victims, forgiveness for some who did not respond properly in the past, but are now and some. That may take some time for victims, as they do not trust the church and I don’t blame them.
As for Bellevue, it took too long, six or more months, but Steve Gaines did the right thing in the end. As a messenger at the Convention this June we passed what is the beginning of taking this seriously. I was elated at what was passed. Do I wish more would have been done? Yes. But I also know these things take time, and I have faith that our denomination is being weeded out of those who would destroy the church. Stop the Gospel from being affective.
We had interruptions at what could have been a meeting of deep repentance, but those interruptions did not stop what I felt was God moving in our Convention to lead us to respond properly to the horribleness of the Houston Chronicle articles.
Ken Alford’s statement and the decision made by Ex Comm was not acceptable, it was beyond not acceptable.
Debbie, what was wrong with KA’s statement? Specifically what was not acceptable about the EC’s report considering the parameters they were given by JDG and the limitations they were under? What more could they have done? By the way, have you been reading the reports of info coming out from the 9 churches? It seems that by and large the report was correct in most, if not all, its observations regarding the way the churches had addressed the issue in the time since their instances of abuse occurred. That’s what I’m gathering from reading these reports. What about you?
Tom, JDG’s actions were arrogant because he had not authority to take them! He had every right and responsibility to address the issue and call for action. But his call for action should have been within the boundaries of his authority. The bylaws subgroup has no investigative powers over member churches of the SBC. an investigation of the churches had to come from the EC itself and it would have if JDG had simply notified the officers, as is correct protocol, and then they presented a joint recommendation that would have included any necessary funding for the investigation. It could have also been worked out to engage an independent group or individual to conduct the investigation, as so many feel needs to happen (I feel there should be independent persons engaged along with representatives of the SBC on this investigation. An independent agency is likely not to understand the intricacies and eccentricities of Baptist polity). Sometimes closed door meetings and private phone calls are legitimate and necessary to take care of complex issues like this one. They don’t mean that the persons involved have bad intentions or impure motives. There is just a proper way of conducting business like this. There is plenty of opportunity later to be as transparent as necessary when an investigation is complete and a report is appropriate. that is the time for full disclosure and transparency.
Debbie, I read the HC article and was sickened and appalled just like you and so many others. It is a tragedy and there is no excuse for covering up any of it or glossing over the horror of it. But there is a right way and a wrong way to go about these types of things. JDG was certainly right in addressing this and appointing the study committee. He was certainly right in sharing the 10 recommendations from the study group. But to call out those churches in public without having contacted the pastors first and giving them an opportunity to share what measures, if any, they had taken to address their failure was not the move of a wise leader, imo. Then to call on the bylaws subgroup to conduct an investigation was not in his authority to do. Those of you who are crying about the lack of an independent investigation, why are you not calling JDG out for his unwise move of directing one or EC subgroups to do the investigation? There are wise and effective ways of doing things and then there are ill-advised and hasty ways of doing things. I think that JDG is guilty of the latter. It doesn’t mean he is a bad person audit certainly doesn’t mean that what he was trying to accomplish wasn’t right. It means we have been goaded and pressured into attempting to do the right thing in the wrong way.
Wayne: I am trying to be understanding to you because of your friend. To say what is wrong with Ken’s statements would take a whole post and definitely be longer than Dave’s and I don’t want him to skim my comment. 🙂
Wayne: If JD hadn’t named those churches Trinity church would still have a pedophile on their staff as a music director. I do not think JD arrogant but bold in doing this. I was delighted having had knowledge of most of these cases for at least 12 year. That alone was worth him naming church names. It was necessary.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Georgia-minister-dismissed-over-abuse-but-victim-13665319.php
You keep saying JD is arrogant. That is simply not true. The victims, not the church are the important thing here. I just don’t think you know everything or your vision is mixed up because Ken Alford is not the victim here which his statement indicates otherwise, those who were abused sexually, the 700 plus who were children, are the victims here. That is what is wrong with Ken’s statement. You are wrong I think, and for good reason. But you are wrong. If you read the 3 part story and have been following.
Read the post on this site written by Jarrod Wellman who is an EC member.
I think they are in the position to investigate. It happened with the church that we disfellowshipped from for standing with homosexuality and it happened with the church that we disfellowshipped from for hiring a woman minister. This tops all of that. But they are not equipped to investigate in 2 or 3 days. It took longer for the above churches I mentioned.
It is the children’s safety that is important, not Ken Alford. I stand with JD 100% in what he did and I believe he did have the authority. He did not want one more victim of sexual abuse.
Just because you believe he had the authority doesn’t mean he did. In any organization, there are protocols and policies that are designed to make the organization run properly and avoid an autocracy or have persons claim authority to do things on their own in the name of that organization. This is true of the church you attend. It is tru of the organization you work for (assuming you do).
The victims of sexual abuse are the most important thing in this situation and I have never indicated otherwise. but Ken Alford and his subgroup are victims as well. I am certainly not comparing their situation with any victim of sexual abuse; I want to state that clearly. But they are victims of hateful and unChristian speech being hurled at them for simply trying to do what they were asked to do. There have been vicious, mean-spirited things said about them on blogs and tweets and even on this sight. People are impugning their character and condemning them, and this is from supposed brothers and sisters in Christ! I promise you this: if the tables were turned and you were being treated like they are, you would be screaming from the top of your lungs about how unjust it is and what a rush to judgment it is. Think about how these persons feel about being thrust into this kind of situation and then being excoriated as they have been by their fellow baptists, and then think of how it would make you feel. I’ll stand and fight you and Dave and JDG and the Devil himself over the victims of sexual abuse (and I have fought for those victims, even to the point of turning perpetrators into the authorities when I was a full time pastor). But I’m also going to stand up for those others as well when the situation warrants it. And this one does!
Wayne, my whole point was to express my disagreement with both the committee and their actions and those who have demeaned Ken personally. The fact that you refuse to see that, that you don’t even see the defensive notes in Ken’s letter, lead me to think we are not likely to solve much with a protracted discussion.
My whole point here is that saying that I disagree with Ken is not saying that he is a bad person. High school players aren’t bad, they just aren’t ready for the majors. Thus workgroup was not ready to do adequate inquiries into these churches.
Clearly, you are upset for your friend. I understand that. But I think they were unwise to do as they did. It has borne bad fruit.
My motivation behind writing this was actually the fact that many were taking harsh personal shots at Ken Alford. My point was to say that we can disagree without those kinds of attacks.
It seems like you are demanding that I AGREE with Ken. I cannot do that.
Agree! And not character assassinating, especially when it is an untrue description is simply unacceptable for Christians I think.
Dave,
You’ve said:
“my whole point was to express my disagreement with both the committee and their actions and those who have demeaned Ken personally.“
“My whole point here is that saying that I disagree with Ken is not saying that he is a bad person.”
“I think they were unwise to do as they did. It has borne bad fruit.”
In another post: “I disagree with the process undertaken and the fruit resulting from it. “. (Paraphrase from memory – forgive me if I didn’t get it exactly right – I am confident I conveyed your thoughts as you articulated them, though.)
my thoughts: Amen! Hallelujah and pass the fried chicken.
I’ll grant you this – now, how about you grant it to your brothers and sisters who might also substitute JDG for the workgroup/Ken in those same statements and sentiments. 🙂
Dave, I am not asking for you to agree with Ken Alford. Again, you did not address the direct quote from your article where you presumed that KA resigned because his feelings were hurt. I am aware that you defended him later in the article, and I not only acknowledge that but I applaud you for it. I just took offense to the fact that you characterized KA as resigning because his feelings were hurt or because he couldn’t take the heat. I assure you that isn’t the case. Once again, I ask you to respond to the questions I raised, from your perspective. I don’t mean to be argumentative. I sincerely want to hear your thoughts on those questions.
I think we read this through different eyes. I believe my reading was fair and accurate and I also believe there’s little chance of convincing you of that. So, I wish you well. Sometimes, I realize that argument is going to go nowhere. If you are in Birmingham, I’d be glad to sit with you, hammer things out. I will buy you coffee.
I hope to be in B’ham and I will take you up on that cup of coffee! So I guess you are just not going to respond to the questions I asked?
Okay, but…You had 6 comments and the total word count likely exceeded that of my post. What ONE question would you like answered?
(To be honest, when comments are that long I tend to skim.)
These are some of my questions that I would appreciate your response to:
1. In your evaluation of Dr. Alford’s resignation statement, did you actually read it? Kindly point to the exact place where Dr. Alford “appears to be upset about the reaction” to the sub group’s report.
2. In your evaluation of the bylaws subgroups “badly botched” report, did you attempt to call Chairman Alford to get his perspective of the report and perhaps gain the nuance of the difficulties/challenges that were inherent in this assignment?
3. I would be grateful if you or someone could point out to me the source of JD Greear’s authority to call for this “investigation” in the first place.
4. Can you explain to me why Pres Greear left Bellevue Baptist Church off his list of 10 churches? They were church #1 in the Houston Chronicle’s list.
5. Have you asked Pres Greear why, as he was calling out 10 other churches for the things that have happened in their past (some as far back as 20-25 years), he did not mention his own church which had an incident of sexual abuse by a staff member in 2017?
1. Among other things, he described it as unfair.
2. Nope. Why would I. I do not need their permission to make public comment on public events.
3. JD is president.
He simply repeated the names of the churches mentioned in the HC article. If you do not know that you likely need to familiarize yourself with details.
4. If you want to know what JD thinks, ask him. I have spoken to him once, behind stage at the pastors Conference, joking about the mistake in the program with his name.
I do not speak for him. I appreciate him and his actions but I cannot explain them to you.
When they clear a church with a pedophile as a music minister after a few conference calls, no contact with the churches, well…
Maybe you’d like to explain that?
“We are going to have to speak the truth in love.” Couldn’t agree more, friend! No matter the approach, there’s not a political, theological, ontological, philosophical, biological, sociological, or Baptilogical question that when addressed will not bring about criticism and disagreement. The Sinless One who was and is The Truth spoke in love and we crucified him! There ain’t no RIGHT WAY to speak save for “truth in love.”
I keep hearing these statements that the EC “was not prepared”, “did not have the authority or expertise”….and I agree, but why could they not say that and instead of releasing a statement that appeared ( I will concede that it may not actually have been rushed but it certainly appeared so) rushed, release a statement that says something to the effect of “we are not equipped or gifted enough to undertake this as a body so we have appointed, engaged, hired task force A, group B, procedure C to look into these churches….”. Instead there was a far too quickly released statement.
Additionally, I am sick and tired of seeing EC members backpedal and say “we did not clear anyone, the media just presented it that way”. I understand the meaning of what they are saying but they need to understand that the perception (which is sometimes all that matters) is that the EC cleared these churches.
As has been stated here on SBC Voices if you want some insight as to how to handle these things look to the example of Thomas Hammond.
Well said Tom.
You hit the nail on the head here.
Don’t wait too long for the trustee committees seeking to fill executive positions to consider minorities or, in fact, for them to consider anyone who isn’t an insider, who has served or is currently serving on a committee or as a trustee somewhere, and who is either not directly connected to a “power-broker” or is not one themselves. Those committees and boards have been about prominence, prestige and personal egos for a long time, long before the conservative resurgence and ever since. There may be pressure from convention messengers to change that, but the trustee boards know that’s a long process which has to be successful year after year. Most of the individuals who are capable of changing that get disgusted with the whole thing once they get inside and lost interest pretty fast. David Platt is a good example of that. The ambitions of most of the best and brightest do not lie with SBC entity or agency jobs or trusteeships.
Much of the SBC’s recent leadership has worked very hard to squelch dissenters such as yourself and other you speak of in this post. If you speak out and you’re not in lock-step with the leadership, you are met with one of two responses, either anger or silence. And yes, blacklisting and blackballing are very real and those who are on the inside know who the dissenters are and how to manipulate in order to silence the dissent. There are a couple of former Baptist Press reporters who met up with that kind of fate for honestly reporting words spoken by one of the conservative resurgence’s “architects” at an executive board meeting. Even here, from both authors and commenters, I read a lot of apologies and acknowledgement of the necessity of certain actions before criticism is leveled at someone associated with the CR leadership.
There are some great pastors and wonderful churches in the SBC. I’ve served on staff of a few, and been a member and a layman in a few more. A few of them have learned from experience that keeping their distance from denominational politics and encouraging their leadership to do the same leads to a ministry focus that encourages and supports revival.