Keith Olbermann is not my favorite commentator – not by a long-shot. But his recent suspension (and reinstatement) by MSNBC made little sense. He was suspended “indefinitely” (which turned out to be two days) for giving donations to Democratic congressional candidates. Really? I’m shocked! Olbermann makes no pretense of objectivity. He is a liberal Democrat and everyone knows it. He does not provide information, but analysis from a liberal perspective. Was MSNBC surprised that Olbermann supported liberal candidates?
Olbermann is the left wing’s Sean Hannity. Obviously, I agree with Hannity more than I do Olbermann. But Hannity is no more objective than his counterpart. When he speaks of Republicans, he says, “We”. He advocates for the defeat of Democrats as Olbermann ridicules and opposes Republicans.
And I don’t have a problem with either. They are not objective journalists, they are “opinionators”. If you want to know what conservatives think, Hannity is your man. If you want to see things from the far left, flip to Olbermann. Neither of them hides their biases or perspectives.
What really annoys me is when news people hide their agendas – giving the news in a biased way. In Sioux City, our riverboat casino was up for reauthorization this year. The local news outlets and the Sioux City Journal (which receive lots of advertising from the “Argosy”) ran a relentless stream of features about the positive economic impact of the gambling boat on the Sioux City economy. There was little attempt at balance nor was there any admission of their clear agenda on the issue. They pretended to be objective when they were not. And that annoys me.
So, in this post, I want to be open and honest about my agenda in blogging. I’m not an unbiased observer. I have a purpose, an agenda that I try to pursue with every post I write. You don’t have to agree with my agenda, but I hope you will understand where I stand and why I blog.
My Blogging Journey
Some might say that I blog because I have a big mouth and I simply like to spout my opinions. Those tend to be the people who know me well and they are probably right. But there is a reason that I got into blogging and I have not changed my agenda.
The cast of bloggers has changed so much in the years since I got involved. I was part of the early wave of bloggers that hit during the Wade Burleson saga at the IMB. I read that Wade got in trouble for blogging about the new policies on baptism and private prayer language that had been imposed by the IMB on the SBC missionary selection process. So, I started reading (and commenting) on that blog, supporting the effort he was spear-heading to reform the Baptist kingdom. Honestly, for quite a while I wasn’t even aware that there were other blogs than Wade’s.
I was incensed by the policies that the IMB Board of Trustees adopted. I thought it was wrong to impose a narrow view of Baptism and a prohibition against those who practiced a “prayer language” in their private prayer lives. I thought the policies were wrong and silly then. I still think they are wrong and silly today and I hope that one day soon, the IMB may see fit to undo them.
What really troubled me was the suspicion that formed in my mind almost as soon as I read about the policies. It was public knowledge that Jerry Rankin, then president of the IMB, practiced a private prayer language. It was my suspicion that the Board of Trustees was trying to undermine Rankin and force him out. I have been a big fan of Jerry Rankin and I did not want to see that happen.
While no one has ever publicly admitted it, there is ample reason to believe that there was, in fact, an attempt orchestrated by the head of another SBC entity to oppose Rankin to perhaps force him out. There was concern that Rankin was not toeing the line doctrinally in his mission efforts. There were documents produced and letters written which gave evidence that the effort to push Rankin out was real and was organized.
And that made me mad. I think that God’s work should be done in the open. In 2 Corinthians 4, Paul claims that he renounced “secret and shameful ways.” Christians operate in the sunshine, not in the dark. If you have to sneak around and hide your activities, there is a real good chance that you are not doing the work of God.
During the CR, a small group of men met and planned strategy. That never bothered me that much because we were in the middle of a conflict and needed an organized strategy. I wasn’t thrilled by it, but I saw the need for a coordinated effort. In the post-CR world of 2005, I no longer saw the justification for that.
So, I became a supporter of what was known then as the SBC Reform movement. (NOTE: There is a difference between the “Reform” movement and the “Reformed” movement. The Reform movement had nothing to do with theology or Calvinism, but focused on changing the way that the SBC operates.) We wanted to change the SBC – to make it more open, to stop the workings of the group that was behind the IMB policies. We argued for a “Big Tent” in which all who believed the Bible and basic Baptist doctrine were welcomed and were “tertiary” matters were not elevated beyond what they should be.
Concerns with the Reform Movement
As time went on, my dissatisfaction with the reform movement began to grow. I thought some of the attacks against SBC leaders were becoming too personal and extreme. I have many disagreements with Paige Patterson’s administration and some of the things he has done. But I thought some of the attacks on him went way beyond what was justified or even in good taste. I wanted to reform the SBC, not be a part of a group that focused on tearing down its leaders.
I also became concerned by a perceived leftward drift in the reform movement. I’ve never desired to revisit or reverse the Conservative Resurgence. While I’m not proud of every action taken during that time, I am thrilled that we settled the inerrancy issue as a denomination. People who once supported the CR were now repudiating it and its leaders and that gave me pause.
Few in that original “reform” movement are still active bloggers. There is a fella I met along the way named CB Scott who still stops by from time to time to talk about some small-school college football program from the deep south.
My agenda today is pretty much what it was then. I haven’t really changed my viewpoints too much, though the blogging world has evolved rapidly. The things that brought me to blogging keep me involved in the process. Perhaps it is a conceit among those of us who blog to believe that we can really make a difference in all this. But I hope to continue to advocate for those things I believe in. Maybe, perhaps, by chance, something we do here might make a difference.
So, having said all that, here is my “agenda” – spelled out clearly for anyone who cares.
My Agenda
1) I want to build a better SBC
I know, that sounds kinda silly, doesn’t it? But I have been a Southern Baptist since nine months before I was born. I once considered moving in a different direction, but without being too mystical, I can only say that I sensed a call from the Lord to invest my life in the SBC. That is why I transferred from Dallas Seminary to SWBTS in 1980. I have been an active part of SBC life, an associational moderator, a state convention president (not a HUGE deal in Iowa, folks) and now have focused on Baptist blogging.
I see a lot that is wrong with the SBC right now. I am going to be critical of things that I think are unhealthy or unwise. But my criticisms come from a lifelong and loyal Southern Baptist who does not intend to go anywhere else. As Popeye said, “I yam what I yam and that’s all that I yam.” I yam Southern Baptist.
I believe that part of being Southern Baptist means dissenting when the leaders we have elected do or say things that are wrong. During the early days, some of the loudest voices on the status quo side told us to obey our leaders. They said that we should not argue, but should simply submit to the governance of those powerful men who were in charge, and not question their decisions. We were to obey, not to dissent. Baloney.
There are no “elders” in Baptist life to whom we must submit. We elect our leaders and have every right to hold them accountable and to criticize them when they do things that we believe are wrong. Those criticisms ought to be productive, not destructive. I thought some in the dissent movement missed this principle and let their voices become shrill, personal and yes, ungodly in their attacks. But make no mistake. If Kevin Ezell does something I believe is wrong, I’m going to crow about it. If I disagree with Al Mohler or Paige Patterson, I will have my say.
Baptists have a long history of dissent and I think it is important. Fair warning to the leaders of the SBC. We bloggers are here and we are not going away. We are going to speak our minds and not be silent. The Kevin Ezells of the SBC can try to intimidate us into silence with their insults, but we will continue to speak. We’ll go overboard sometimes and have to apologize later. We will get our facts wrong and have to correct them. But we will look. We will watch. We will listen. And we will speak!
I love the SBC. I want it to be better than it is today. When I see things I believe are damaging it, I’ll speak my mind. I just want everyone who reads to know my heart. I criticize what I love. I criticize what I am committed to. I think the criticisms of some in the reform movement because destructive instead of constructive and I rejected that. If you are going to criticize, then offer solutions – seek a better way.
That is what I will try to do.
2) I want the SBC to be inclusive, within limits
Again, I have no desire to reverse the course of the conservative resurgence, but I see no need to coerce uniformity on issues that are not fundamental to being a Christian or being Baptist. Honestly, what difference does it make if a Baptist practices a private prayer language or not?
We need to build a brick wall around certain doctrines – inerrancy, salvation through Christ alone, substitutionary atonement, etc. May we never “revisit” those fundamental truths. But look at what we fight about on blogs. Calvinism. Moderate use of alcohol. Worship styles. Whether tithing (10%) is NT or not. We just came through a raucous debate about the GCR task force which revealed some VERY different perspectives in the SBC.
Last week, I published a post suggesting that one way to get more missionaries on the field might be to de-fund and disband the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. There were several bloggers who logged on with reasonable arguments why that might be a bad idea. But one blogger came out swinging, accusing me of having an “anti-ERLC” agenda even though I said I did not (and, in fact, do not). He used the word “vile” to describe the discussion and basically called us tools of Satan for even suggesting such a thing.
That is the kind of thing I blog to oppose. I oppose those who say that to be Southern Baptist you have to have a private prayer language AND those who would say that a private prayer language should eliminate you from service in the SBC. I oppose those who say that Southern Baptists have to be Calvinists AND those who say that true Southern Baptists can’t be Calvinists. I think that Southern Baptists can advocate abstentionist and moderationist viewpoints on alcohol and can believe that tithing is a NT imperative or a left-over from the OT law. I think Baptists need to believe in baptism of believers only by immersion in the name of the Trinitarian God. But there is room for disagreement on some of the other issues related to baptism. We can have a wide variety of ecclesiological philosophies and all support the same Baptist missions program.
The buzzword back in the blogger’s reform movement heyday was “Big Tent” – some of us were advocating a bigger tent while others advocated a “narrowing of parameters” of cooperation. I am still in favor of a big tent – not so big that it includes those who deny inerrancy or who believe that people can be saved in other ways than through a conscious faith in Jesus Christ, not so big that it includes those who compromise on baptism or other key doctrines, but big enough to include people with divergent views on almost any other subject.
So, when the subject is fundamental doctrine, I’m going to be rigid, even fundamentalist. But on most other subjects, I am going to argue for unity within diversity. That is where I started blogging and I haven’t moved.
3) I HATE secrecy and back-room scheming!
I got into blogging because I did not like the wrangling that was going on behind the scenes to force Jerry Rankin out of office. I still think that secrecy and behind-the-scenes covert action sets a bad precedent.
When Kevin Ezell was elected president of NAMB, there was a lot of criticism lodged against him and his church’s history of support for convention causes. It was, frankly, measured criticism by some important people – convention presidents and others. A few bloggers raised some issues of the wisdom of hiring a man who has shown little respect or support for the SBC’s causes as the head of one of our entities.
Instead of answering the questions, the president-elect went on the attack. He told his people to simply ignore the criticisms and blasted anyone who would dare to question him as a blogger wearing housecoats who live with their mothers. I contacted him by email and told him that I thought that was offensive. He promised to address bloggers and try to make up for his comments, but he never has. Evidently, he does not intend to be accountable to the people he insulted.
Ultimately, the leaders of our entities are accountable to the trustee boards that oversee those entities. But the leaders cannot continue to act as if they have no accountability to “the people” and then wonder why people are less enthused about the process and are giving less to the CP.
Last year, I strongly supported the GCR, but I thought the Task Force made a huge mistake by sealing the records for 15 years. It gave everyone the sense that they had something to hide, that there was information that was being kept from us. It was stupid. I voted for the GCR and for the release of the documents. If the task force had nothing to hide, then they shouldn’t be hiding things.
I think this is one of the fundamental problems of the SBC today. When I was 8, I didn’t know how much my dad made or how he paid the bills. I just did my chores (well, theoretically anyway) and participated in the family and let my parents take care of everything.
Often, it seems to me that the leadership of the SBC is treating us like children. We have no right to know what is going on and we have no right to criticize our leaders (Dr. Ezell made that VERY clear). We are to be quiet, do our chores and let them make our decisions for us.
There have been a series of votes at the SBC (starting with the election of Frank Page as president in 2006 and the passing of the Garner motion a year later) that have shown that we are less willing simply to carry water for the leadership of the SBC. We want to know what is going on. If the SBC leaders want us to increase CP giving and involvement in the process, one step in that process might be to stop doing things behind closed doors. Keep the lights on and the people informed.
Enough of this one – I’m preparing a post on this, hopefully for tomorrow.
4) I believe in Civility
I am sometimes shocked when I read comment streams on this blog and others, realizing that it is not petulant children who are engaging in the conversation we see, but church leaders.
One of the reasons I broke with many in the reform movement was that I believe they lost a sense of civility and fairness toward SBC leaders, especially Dr. Paige Patterson. I’ll be honest – I will not shed a tear when he retires. I wish he would do so today. But some of the criticisms against him were harsh, personal and in my mind, ungodly.
I thought that many conservatives, with whom I agreed on many matters, were unnecessarily harsh in their dealings with others. They had a tendency to question the biblical bona fides of those who disagreed with them on tertiary issues.
We all hate incivility (well, most of us do) and we all practice it sometimes. In fact, some who have talked most about civility have practiced it least when someone challenges their viewpoints, so this is difficult ground to walk on. I have written. several posts at sbcIMPACT about civility and the excuses people give for not being civil. (Here, here)
I think we can carry on serious debate and discussion without resorting to put-downs. It is a noble goal, one we all fail at times. But we should continue to pursue the goal anyway.
That’s who I am. Now, you know my agenda. its out there for all to see. These are the goals I will continue to pursue.
Oh, and there is one more. I want to share with as many people as possible the joys of being a fan of the greatest sports franchise ever – the NEW YORK YANKEES.
I bow before your high-minded and honorable intentions and actions, yay, calling, in SBC matters. But that obviously comes at great personal cost to you.
Namely, any sense whatsoever as regards sports. Like baseball and football.
🙂
Liberal! (Civility does not apply to those who even tacitly insult the Yankees).
Dave, you said:
“I also became concerned by a perceived leftward drift in the reform movement.”
I have self-identified with the “Reform Movement” within the SBC for many years and I find the above statement more than a little puzzling. Now I know that we all perceive things through the lens or our own personal experiences, and because of this we can often have a vastly different perception of the same reality. However a “leftward drift in the reformed movement” is for me a comment “out of left field” (if you don’t mind the pun).
But seriously Dave, what specific issues have you observed in the reform movement in any significant amounts that would lead you to be concerned about a “leftward drift”? I would really like to know your reasoning behind this concern.
Grace Always,
Perhaps I should have said, “Within the original leaders of the reform movement.”
Several of those folks repudiated the CR. More than a few got involved in the “New Baptist Covenant” – a liberal Baptist movement that espouses “theological diversity” – a much bigger tent than I am comfortable with.
I am not talking about the “GCR” group, but the reform movement back in the 2006/2007 era – the one that fought the IMB policies. There are several names that come to mind, but frankly, I’m trying to avoid naming names.
Dave,
As the alleged “coming out swinging” blogger, let me say my comments were never intended to be interpreted as “ad hominem” attacks “directed against a person.” Rather, they were directed against the IDEA of eliminating the ERLC, an idea I honestly consider to be “anti” or “against” the ERLC itself. When you think about it, it’s not really a stretch to say that one who wants to eliminate an organization is against it.
Dave, it appears we may simply disagree about what it means to be “against” something. If I want to eliminate the United Nations, there is a sense in which I’m “anti-UN.” If I want Jerry Jones to fire Wade Phillips (which I do) there is a sense in which I’m “anti-Wade Phillips,” which is not to say I wish the man any harm, but only that I am not impressed with his coaching and would rather see him on the Redskin sideline. This was the sense in which I interpreted your comments as being anti-ERLC. Clearly, I managed to hurt your feelings, a consequence which was never my intention, and for that I publicly apologize.
Yes, some of the comments in the stream included speech I described as “vile,” a word with the following definition which came up first on my Google search: “extremely unpleasant.” People were speaking of a minister and denominational worker I personally admire, whose books I own and who has spoken in the pulpit of the church I am privileged to pastor, using the following words: “denominational fat cat,” “loud, obnoxious uncle” and “an embarrassment.” Forgive me, Dave, but I consider those words to be “extremely unpleasant.”
I never said you were “tools of Satan” for suggesting the elimination of the ERLC. I did state my honest opinion that the ERLC is a force for good, and if it were eliminated, Satan would be pleased. My reasoning is that there would be one less organization out there contending for truth in the arena of public thought where I believe real spiritual warfare is indeed being waged. To give a few other examples, I also think Satan would be pleased with the elimination of the Salvation Army, Campus Crusade, Focus on the Family and Operation Christmas Child.
Dave, perhaps we can bury the hatchet, and not in each other’s skulls. My opposition was never to you personally. It was to one, and only one, of your ideas. The vast majority of your ideas I fully embrace. Keep blogging. Although I may not always agree with you, I believe SBC Voices, like the ERLC, is a force for good.
Rick, I don’t really have a hatchet to bury. I thought your approach was overly aggressive on that last comment stream. I prefer to discuss issues rather than lobbing insults (except at Bob when he insults the Yankees).
I hope that in the future we can do that.
Not mentioning any names,
but is changing from “I believe that putting a mosque at Ground Zero, or very close to Ground Zero, is unacceptable”
to signing “on to an endeavor to fight Islamophobia as a charter member of The Interfaith Coalition on Mosques (ICOM)”
considered a slight drift ‘to the left ?
You’re not asking me, but it certainly is a drift to the left.
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about Christiane. If you want to explain the scenario more clearly, I would be glad to give an opinion.
I am usually willing to opine, but I have no idea what you are talking about, so I’m not sure I want to jump in.
Hi DAVID,
Sorry for the confusion. Was reading Aaron Weaver’s post and stole, er . . . ‘borrowed’ some quotes from there.
Here’s the link:
http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/
I took a look at that. No, I do not think that Richard Land is drifting leftward.
He still affirms the perfection of scripture and he affirms salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone – fundamental Baptist doctrine.
I’m not sure I agree with him on his view of the Ground Zero Mosque or any of that.
The thing that liberals refuse to understand is that we can say something is wrong without being “phobic” about it.
To liberals, saying homosexuality is a sin is “homophobia” by definition. To say that Islam is a false religion is basic biblical Christianity, not “Islamophobia.” Liberals often refuse to make those distinctions.
So, no, I would not equate Land’s positions with leftward drift.
If he denies the inerrancy of scripture or even the importance of the doctrine, that would be leftward drift.
If he begins to believe that salvation can be given to those who do not have a conscious faith in Christ, that would be leftward drift.
If he begins to advocate a lessening of doctrinal standards, that would be a problem.
As I understand it, he is not saying Islam is a good and true religion. He is saying that we should not be discriminatory toward Muslims. One can hold both those positions.
Dave,
She is referring to the principled position of a certain Princeton educated Baptist statesman and scholar whose position on this controversial and emotional issue I will attempt to summarize.
On the one hand, placing a mosque at Ground Zero is opposed because of the insensitivity it would demonstrate toward the families of the victims of 9-11 who, as we all know, were brutally murdered in the worst act of terrorism in American history at the hands of Islamo-fascist extremists claiming to serve Allah.
On the other hand, serving on an interfaith coalition supporting the right of all other religions, including the Islamic community, to build places of worship in America without fear of discrimination or prejudice is nothing other than an example of our historic Baptist position in support of religious liberty, a freedom tragically denied to Christians in predominantly Muslim countries, which frankly serves to highlight just one of the values separating us from them.
Yes, correct on the identity of the individual. I believe he is also Oxford-educated and has served at the request of President Bush as a statesman.
Sooooo . . . he brings something to the job that can relate a bit to the dialogues now underway concerning religious freedom in our country, which vary considerably in their tone from the sort of comments found in some religious blogs, concerning Islam.
These dialogues, although NOT ecumenical, are, at least in their tone, respectful of the dignity of all of the represented parties involved.
I imagine Dr. Land has had quite a lot of exposure to ‘dialogues’ held in academia, and in matters of state, so he can handle himself (as the representative of an SBC entity) with the manners of a Christian gentleman.
As I said above, one can maintain the exclusivity of the gospel while also believing in freedom of religion and the rights of Muslims to practice their faith.
As evangelicals, we reject coercion as an integral part of our faith.
Actually Rick, Land’s position on the Mosque was a bit more complicated. He did make the insensitivity argument that you mention. But he was one of the only (maybe THE only) people to argue that the Muslim group did not have the “right” to build the Mosque. In making that argument, he relied on the Boerne decision – a decision that he ironically lobbied loudly against years ago and referred to as an awful awful decision (paraphrase).
So yea, in light of his position with regard to Boerne, it certainly isn’t consistent to join such an interfaith coalition. If the Boerne decision could be used the way Land wanted to use it to stop the Mosque in NYC then it could be used to stop construction of a worship facility in other localities.
The context to Land’s participation in the interfaith coalition is that over the last year he’s been publicly chastised by Jewish leaders, specifically Foxman of the ADL for his use of a Yiddish slur directed at a Jewish Senator and an insensitive Nazi/Holocaust analogy. A large part of what any organization like the ERLC does on Washington is coalition work. I’m sure Foxman called and asked Land to participate and Land really couldn’t say no. I think his participation is great. But it’s not in line with his past arguments invoking Boerne.
Maybe I have missed it but I haven’t seen BaptistPress report on Land’s involvement in this commendable effort. That’s a little interesting.
Baptist Press? Report? C’mon, BDW. Get real.
Actually, if you go to the ERLC website, you can find several responses to questions about Land’s position RE Muslims/the Mosque.
Yay for civility.
I looked up mockery and scoffing in the Bible, every place I could find it.
Wow. That will put the fear of God in ya.
Also, one cannot say anything to a habitual scoffer about it because guess what? “He who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself, … do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you, ….” (Prov. 9:7-8). Needless to say, this is true.
Does it say anything about people who mock the Yankees?
NOTE: I’ve exchanged a couple of emails with Greg Alford and realized that I need to clarify something in my post. When I said that there were problems in the Reform movement, I meant the movement that was trying to resist the narrowing of fellowship that seemed to be happening in the SBC.
“Reform” and “Reformed” are two different things. Some of those in the Reform movement were Calvinist, but many were not. It did not focus on theology in that way.
Just want to make sure everyone understands. While my beliefs could probably be described as “Calvinist” I am not referencing that theological battle in this post.
Thanks, Greg, for helping me clarify that.
David Miller,
You wrote, in response to Christiane,
“No, I do not think that Richard Land is drifting leftward.<
He still affirms the perfection of scripture and he affirms salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone – fundamental Baptist doctrine. "
???
"Drifting left" — defined by you in the second paragraph of your response "denying the perfection of Scripture and salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone."
Either you need to change your definition, Dave, or you may consider rethinking your absurd accusation that those "original leaders of the reform movement" have drifted left.
Following your logic from post to comment stream is like following a trail on a cloudy, new moon night when one's GPS loses battery power and all goes dark in front of you.
In other words, you make absolutely no sense. But, you are a nice guy.
🙂
Well, at least there is that, Wade.
Let me try to be clear on what I meant. There is left and right and there is a continuum in between. When I speak of the left, I would define it as I mentioned above – denial of the perfection of God’s Word and denial of the exclusivity of Christ. There are some on this blog who advocate both of those false teachings.
Someone can drift in that direction without actually being at that final position.
Specifically, if someone repudiated the CR and advocated for the reintroduction of those who do not adhere to inerrancy or to the BF&M into the SBC, I would consider that “drift.”
One can be drifting in a direction without actually being at a destination.
I became increasingly uncomfortable with the barrage of criticism against SBC leaders that I felt became shrill, personal and went beyond the boundaries of what I felt was acceptable.
As I said in the post, I am glad for the CR and do not want to support anything that seeks to reverse it. I got the impression that some in the reform movement were doing just that.
My point in all this is that I believe in the same things today that I believed in then. I advocate the same things I advocated then. A bigger tent (with limits). Openness and civility in discussion. Reform that improves the SBC.
Perhaps I didn’t communicate that well enough, but I think my position is consistent here and has been consistent through the last 5 years.
Quite obviously to anyone with a lick of sense, the leaders, particularly the most vocal of them, of the “Reform movement” drifted VERY far to the left. Let’s see here–
*Participating in and advocating the New Baptist Covenant–very left wing.
*Calling Jimmy Carter “a genuine Christian” when he has said that mormons are real Christians–that is not a conservative position, quite obviously.
*Saying that faith in Jesus Christ should be the only basis for cooperation?? I guess little things like “inerrancy”, “vicarious blood atonement” and “virgin birth” aren’t important.
What’s really amazing is how long it took one particular leader in that movement to show his true colors.
In any case, anyone with the sense that God gave a rock could read what he has written and see that it hasn’t been so much of a left ward drift as it has been a race to see how left he could go and how quickly he could go there.
Every major African-American Baptist body from the Progressive National Baptist Convention to the National Baptist Convention USA to the Lott Carey Foreign Mission Society to the National Baptist Convention of America to the National Missionary Baptist Convention took part in the New Baptist Covenant Celebration.
Are you and Dave saying that those Black Baptist groups are “liberal” or “left”???
Obviously, we are not going to agree about this group. They advocate a theological diversity that I am simply not comfortable with. Yes, Baptists have historically united around missions, but not at the expense of sound doctrine.
Would the Baptist groups you mentioned affirm inerrancy – the perfection of Scripture?
Would they affirm that salvation is through faith in Christ alone?
If I handed you a bowl of chicken noodle soup with a dog turd in the middle of it would you eat it? Come on, the soup doesn’t sanitize the dog poop?
The fact that those churches you mention are not theologically liberal does not change the fact that most of the churches involved with the NBC are theologically liberal. Their theologically conservative stance does not cleanse the filth of groups like the ABA and the CBF.
Black Baptists are very conservative. Their hermeneutic is quite literalistic. Most of the African-American churches in the SBC such as Dwight McKissic’s are dually aligned with one of the groups I mentioned. Southern Baptists don’t have the corner on theological conservatism.
The only theologically liberal African-Americans that I’ve ever encountered are academics working in mainline seminaries, generally up North or out West and are really outsiders to the Black Church.
I don’t know what the ABA is. I think that’s a conservative group is it not? A Landmark group?
CBF is a fraction of the size of any of the black groups involved. And the average CBFer I know is conservative like John Farriss (sp).
I said ABA but meant BWA.
With the exception of the black churches involved, most of the others would reject inerrancy, question the veracity of miracles recorded in scripture (i.e. the virgin birth, the resurrection), and they would claim that people of other faiths can be saved apart from conscious, personal faith in Jesus Christ. In contrast, Christians affirm inerrancy, know that the miracles recorded in scripture happened, and know that no one is going to get to heaven and realize only after getting there that Christ saved them.
Who questions miracles, rejects the virgin birth, doubts the resurrection, etc.
Other than a few liberal academics over the past 50 years, I don’t know anyone who holds such beliefs.
Funny that you ignored the other two things I mentioned. Wonder why that is?
So you’re conceding that your wrong on all those other points huh? Good for you.
Inerrancy is a more complicated matter. And the Southern Baptist obsession with the word is quite odd considering it can’t be found in the BFM2000. The Baptists I know hold a very high view of Scripture. Many would in fact affirm the BFM2000 statement on Scriptures. Others would prefer the BFM1963. And many would agree with Baptist evangelical theologian Roger Olson on the subject: http://www.rogereolson.com/2010/08/19/why-inerrancy-doesnt-matter/
Salvation is through Christ alone. Again, who disagrees with that other than a handful of liberals somewhere? Want to distinguish between exclusivism and inclusivism – most in CBF circles will still hold to exclusivism. Those with advanced education who have studied the issue more closely than the average layperson would likely lean towards inclusivism. I could care less about how you define who is and is not a Christian. The fact is that many Christian leaders throughout history have held to an inclusivist view of salvation and are accepted as within Christian orthodoxy. Billy Graham, C.S. Lewis, John Wesley to name a few. I don’t see SBTS renaming their evangelism school….
Hi WADE !!!!!! I almost cried when I saw your name, I miss your blog so much! I miss REX RAY, and THY PEACE, and so very many others. I hope you and your family are well, and your ministry continues to be a blessing to the good people of Enid as well as the needy in your new out-reach ministries. I hope your father’s surgery and rehab goes well. Take good care of Debbie.
God bless you, Wade.
P.S.
I know you disagree with DAVID, but you are right that he is a ‘nice guy’. ( On the other hand, I like just about everybody. 🙂
Hi WADE !!!!!! I almost cried when I saw your name, I miss your blog so much! I miss REX RAY, and THY PEACE, and so very many others.
(snicker) and Lion, and Tin Man. But I miss you most of all, Scarecrow. LOL
Be nice, young man.
(batting my eyes–looking innocent)
Why Dave, what ever are you talking about??
Joe,
Either contribute to the conversations or don’t post, it’s not that hard of a choice.
bill,
Mind your own business. It’s not that hard of a choice.
Joe,
What’s the matter, no kittens around for you to punch?
bill,
If you don’t like reading what I write, don’t.
Well, quit clogging up the comment streams with your junk and I won’t have to read it.
I’m trying to get to the useful comments and yours just keep getting in the way.
Oh, poor bill, am I getting in your way? Poor thing.
I’ll post what I want, where I want, when I want, how I want. If you don’t like it and it interferes with your reading enjoyment, the most obvious phrase that comes to my mind is “Suck it up and deal with it”.
No, I’m just tired of your drivel where you insult and denigrate everyone that doesn’t agree with you. I’m tired of your constant insults of Wade Burleson, his church, and his ministry even though he’s left blogging and largely doesn’t even comment here anymore. Your constant back and forth with Debbie is tired and worn out and doesn’t do anyone any good. Heck, even the way you treat those with whom you have no axe to grind makes me cringe when I read your posts.
You openly advocate violence against those who don’t agree with you. You openly advocate hatred against those who don’t agree with you. You openly question the salvation of those who don’t agree with you. And yet you see nothing wrong with any of this? If I wanted this, I’d go read Ken Silva’s attack blog.
I’m just tired of it. Heck, I’ve even toned it down compared to my comments in the weeks and months past.
C’mon you two. Group hug! Enough is enough.
bill,
https://sbcvoices.com/miller-time-my-blogging-agenda/#comment-26287
Dave,
I won’t respond to him again. I’ll just copy the link to that last post so he can read it again if he wants. But I agree, enough is enough.
My point still stands and Joe continues to prove it even more.
So, then. No group hug?
Okay, JOE,
I love you, too. 🙂
P.S. It’s not REALLY true about those kittens.
Is it?
I love kittens.
If you cook them just right they taste like chicken.
Sorry.
Crock pot kitten cassarole. Delicious and nutricious.
Dave,
Appreciate the post, but you prove again that the final sentence of a blog post can wreck the whole thing. Unless the joys you are referring to include spending millions to fail to accomplish what you intend. Or would that make you a Cowboys fan too?
Doug
Frankly, I’m just surprised that many people have noticed the last line. I assume that few actually read the post, but just jump into the comment stream and go to town.
I try to read the whole thing before commenting. Makes me unfit for Congress, but anyway…I won’t promise I’ve read all of your blog posts ever before I comment on this one, but I’ll at least read the whole one I comment on.
I also can’t guarantee I’ve read all comments, although I got in this one early enough that I could. However, over on the Moderate discussion, and I ain’t reading all 1100.
That “playground” has given me the freedom to tell people to “take it to the playground” and not have to have the discussions of the CR dominate EVERY thread.
If you read all of it, I would question your sanity.
Dave,
Actually reading a post before we comment is so “Republican”.
“We have to pass the bill (post) before we read it, so everyone can see what’s in it…”
🙂
As to the question of left/right drift….
There’s “To the left” within the SBC, which is likely still far “to the right” of many Christian denominations, of which not a few are “to the right” of the rest of the world…
In other words, I can perceive a drift to the left in a professor at a current SBC school because he’s gone from the early date for Exodus to the late date, whilst Princeton or other non-religious schools of Biblical studies are debating if the Exodus really even happened. He drifted left, and it seems like a big drift in our little world, but is it really?
I doubt that’s quite what Dave is talking about, but that’s just one perception on the terminology. The bigger tent allows both dates for the Exodus, but there’s probably a stake somewhere that says you have to acknowledge it really did happen. Or that, perhaps, Genesis 5 is representative genealogies and perhaps people really did live that long, but we can discuss it without questioning each other’s salvation.
Just my two cents worth (when did the cents symbol, you know, the c with the line through it, disappear from keyboards?).
Doug
That’s what I was trying to get at. There is left and there is right and there is much in between. I think I can say that someone has drifted toward the left without saying that they have reached a certain destination.
And, yes, I use the word liberal in a distinctively Southern Baptist context. In the larger academic world, the most left-wing liberal in the SBC would be considered conservative. Left and right are relative terms.
Doug,
Don’t you know that anyone to the left of me is a liberal… and anyone to the right of me is,… is,… well, there is no one to the right of me because that would make me a liberal in their eyes.
Grace Always,
I still remember reading about D. Elton Trueblood in college. He was a Quaker minister and professor in the first half, mainly of the 20th Century. When he was near being ‘recorded’ as a minister (Quaker type of ordination) he was sent a long questionnaire regarding his theology, practices, and opinions. He looked at the multiple pages, then at the bottom wrote:
“I am endeavoring, to the best of my ability, to live and teach the religion of Jesus.”
And sent it in with that as his only answer. He was soon afterwards recorded, and was a key voice in the development of the Quaker/Friends group in the 20th century.
Not sure the story’s all that relevant, but it is fascinating: would we accept that answer? Or would we have to pin a person left or right?
I loved your story. It stands a good chance of being true when you consider that the Quakers value words spoken from an enlightened spirit.
This may be only marginally on-topic, but under the heading of improving the SBC: Has anyone seen the video of Ed Young asking the congregation for the bank account info? (Ed Young is SBC isn’t he?) It is the most outlandish thing I have ever seen. And evidently he’s got 20K+ congregants who can’t see this guy for what he is. Whether Young is SBC or not, a big part of our problem is the megachurch mentality. That has to change. And whether people like it or not, blogging has the power to change things. And blogging can empower people who might never have a voice otherwise.
People going off-topic at SBC Voices? Unheard of .
Ed Young, Sr was definitely Southern Baptist. Ed Young, Jr is too, I believe. Not that sure.
As to this statement, “And whether people like it or not, blogging has the power to change things. And blogging can empower people who might never have a voice otherwise.”
I’d like to think you are right.
Bill Mac 33, I agree. This morning I got an email from our Civic League testing the new Newsletter that will be sent to see that other peoples addresses won’t be shown. What is SBC waiting for ? I’ve run into situations where “meetings” before the actual ” Meeting ” were held ahead of time on the telephone. Quicker with no interruptions or huge disagreements, but NOT kosher.
I only rarely read the Baptist Press anymore as they seem to just print Perfume and Roses, and there are much better alternatives to get the news which cost the SBC – nothing.
The New Baptist Covenant is a political thing primarily, within a religious context. I am glad for any groups in the U.S. to get together to discuss issues like that, but it was basically a political thing.
I am uncomfortable with assertions that “Black Baptists all believe…”
I have known many in the African American community. They are not monolithic on doctrinal issues. Asserting that they are sounds a lot like Ross Perot addressing the NAACP years ago when he kept repeating “You people.”
Again, the difference between the Southern Baptists and some other “White Baptist groups – that believe the same thing etc.” is not asserting the bona fides about whether they believe in the Virgin Birth, Resurrection etc. It has to do with whether they believe a common confession on such things is important for fellowship, missions etc.
Objectively confessions are absolutely necessary and common within Christian history. Those who refuse them not only invite eventual discord and a loss of mission focus (because it can become hard to define the mission), but also lose the benefit of discussing and affirming the great truths of God’s word.
Thus, I would not want the SBC to follow in the footsteps of the CBF or one of it’s leaders, Cecil Sherman (RIP) who said that he did not think that a Baptist who had been “lead by Scripture” to not believe in the Virgin Birth should be prohibited from teaching at a Baptist school or seminary or serving as a missionary. I believe that such a lack of belief would be an automatic disqualification, and I believe that the denomination should inquire into such things.
That is the type of choice that the SBC had to face – to have a meaningful doctrinal confession that was a basis for fellowship and service in the denomination, or not to have such a confession.
I believe the SBC chose wisely.
Dave, I affirm much of what you say about the SBC. Keep it up.
BDW,
You said, “Inerrancy is a more complicated matter. And the Southern Baptist obsession with the word is quite odd considering it can’t be found in the BFM2000.”
I disagree. The word inerrancy is not in the Baptist Faith & Message 2000, but the concept is. It says, “all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.” That is a definition of inerrancy.
I remember well before 2000 some moderates got upset when an SBC statement was going to say the Bible “is” truth without mixture of error, rather than the Bible “has” truth without mixture of error. They got upset because they were about to lose a loophole in the 1963 statement.
David R. Brumbelow
It was a political thing in the sense that we are supposed to apply our Christianity in the political/public arena. A main focus was indeed on social aspects of applied Christianity pertaining to issues like hunger, homelessness, peace and justice. So yea, it was political in the same sense that the SBC is political and the NBC is political when those organizations address social issues.
The event – did you attend Louis? – featured leaders from both parties are speakers. I though Lindsey Graham did a fine job and was very impressed with Chuck Grassley and his focus on food security issues.
I too am uncomfortable with broad-sweeping assertions using the word ALL. I didn’t use that word ALL. I can, however, characterize the Black Church as a theologically conservative institution that holds to an extremely high view of Scripture. Most black pastors do not have advanced degrees and have not been exposed to higher criticism. They’ve not studied Schleiermacher and modernist theology because liberalism is not part of the Black Church tradition. Liberalism has made no inroads into the Black Church. Most black pastors haven’t read James Cone which is interesting because most seminary-educated white pastors have. African-American historians and sociologists such as Eric Lincoln, Lawrence Mamiya and Anthony Pinn back up these claims nicely in their works The Black Church and the African-American Experience and The Black Church in the Post Civil Rights Era.
Louis asserts that confessions are a solution and produce theological conformity, at least on the points that the confessions address. That’s just not the case. PC-USA and ELCA and the Episcopal Church are certainly confessional/creedal denominations that regularly affirm these great Truths in worship. They haven’t avoided theological controversy and they certainly haven’t avoided liberalism.
David Brumbelow,
The SBC could have added the word inerrant. It didn’t. And, if you read the link I cited, Roger Olson a selfdescribed “postconservative evangelical” clearly believes that “all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy” as do the Texas Baptists I know yet they eschew the inerrancy label. And by the way, if those 7 words are an adequate definition of inerrancy, what was the Chicago Statement all about???
I think you’re misremembering a thing or two. The line containing the phrase “truth, without any mixture of error” went unchanged from 1963 to 2000. Other changes were made but that sentence was not changed.
BDW,
Inerrancy can be briefly defined as “Scripture ‘is’ truth without any mixture of error” or that “Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.” But for those that want to debate the details, there is the longer Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.
We can all agree the sun “rose” this morning. Or, we can have a long, boring explanation of how the sun does not actually rise, but the earth rotates on its axis, etc. But meteorologists still talk about the sun rising. That’s kind of the way I see inerrancy. You can briefly define it, or you can have a detailed explanation. I think most common believers easily understand the concept of inerrancy.
By the way, the SBC Peace Committee presented several serious doctrinal issues on which conservatives and moderates/liberals were at odds. Two I remember off hand were the actual occurrence of the biblical miracles, and the stated authorship of certain books in the Bible. We had those who did not believe these things, and moderates protected them at every opportunity.
I was not referencing revising the Baptist Faith & Message 1963 statement. My point was that during the Conservative Resurgence at one point, I think it was a resolution offered, that, kind of in passing, said the Bible “is” rather than “has” truth without mixture of error. I know of one leading moderate that got all worked up about that.
The reason is simple. Some moderates and liberals found a loophole in the 1963 statement saying the Bible “has” truth without mixture of error. It did not technically say all the Bible is truth. Rather they said, the truth that the Bible “has,” is without error. So you could sign the statement while believing the Bible has errors in it. That loophole is closed when it is stated the Bible “is” truth without mixture of error. That loophole is also closed when the 2000 BF&M said, “all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.”
I agree that most Texas Baptists would happily sign the BF&M 2000 statement on Scripture. But I also know many moderates prefer the 1963 statement, because it is easily for a few liberals to sign it, while still believing not all Scripture “is” truth, and not all of it is “totally true and trustworthy.” And moderates love to defend liberals.
David R. Brumbelow
PS – For example, do you believe someone could believe the book of Daniel is embellished, yet still believe all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy? Could someone not believe Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles, yet still believe all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy?
I’m not sure why they didn’t just include the word “inerrancy” – but truth without mixture of error is pretty much synonymous.
What was wrong with the word ‘Holy’?
Christiane,
You asked, What was wrong with the word ‘Holy’?” If you mean that in reference to the Bible, as opposed to inerrancy, I’ll give you my view and that of many conservatives.
For many to say the Bible is holy sums it all up. Or to say the Bible is inspired, or authoritative. But then a theological liberal will come along and say he agrees, yet still believes there are errors in the Bible. So conservatives had to define their belief in a way that distinguishes it from those who believe there are errors in Scripture. As many conservatives have pointed out over the years, theological liberals love to use our vocabulary, but their own dictionary. They often present themselves as believing the same thing we do, then teach the opposite.
So using the terms inerrancy or “all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy,” keeps an honest liberal from signing such a confession. A person is perfectly free to be theologically liberal and believe there are errors in Scripture. The SBC just doesn’t want them to teach our preachers and missionaries in our seminaries.
Conservatives also call the Bible infallible – incapable of error. But then some liberals even adopted that term with a different definition – it infallibly accomplishes its purpose. Yes, a conservative could agree, but that leaves the liberal a loophole to still believe the Bible infallibly accomplishes its purpose while still believing it contains errors.
During the 1960s and 70s we had professors who would profess to believe the BF&M 1963, while still believing and teaching there were errors in the Bible.
David R. Brumbelow
Thank you for your explanation.
That part about “As many conservatives have pointed out over the years, theological liberals love to use our vocabulary, but their own dictionary” was particularly interesting.
So it looks like the new term ‘inerrant’ was adopted and defined to explain the nature of the Scriptures in a way that was more in-line with the views of fundamentalist-leaning conservative evangelicals.
I have wondered what ‘criteria’ are applied to the Scriptures to determine the inerrant meanings, though. There must be some firm guidelines concerning this, or there would be chaos.
BDW:
I did not attend the New Covenant meeting.
There are obvious differences between the SBC and the New Covenant. Since the SBC has a lot of things to do at the annual meeting in terms of missions, the GCTF report (this year), trustee elections, budget approvals and agency reports, the time for politics is more confined and limited.
I don’t wish the New Covenant meeting any ill will. I think that it represents well the interests of its constituents. I might agree with some or many of the things said, too.
I read Al Gore’s remarks, and thought they were terribly off base. And I don’t agree with the “Green Bible” award that he got from the Baptist Center for Ethics. In fact, I don’t agree with the “Green Bible” concept, but that is another matter. Kind of like Adam Smith creating a “Green Bible” award back in his day and giving it to the East India Trading Company. It is so easy to remake the Bible into our political vision.
I did not say that theological confessions were a “solution and produce theological conformity.”
I said they were necessary and common within Christian history.
A confession will not keep people together if some of them want to go off the range. You really cannot keep that from happening. It is a constant.
But with no confession, you have no attempt.
It seems to me that all the way back to the NT times that the apostles were spending great time and effort to correct theological error in the church and to purge from the church those in it who were perverting doctrine (Galations – legalism) (I John – Gnostics) (II Cor – Super Apostles who emphasized something other than sound teaching).
I just do not see how this can be ignored totally as a concept. I find it astonishing, really. But I am not angry about it. I just don’t see how a denominational body can function without a common theological confession.
The failures of other confessions to hold their flocks together is not my expertise. But initial thoughts are that the confession has not really been that common for too long. These folks have probably been on different pages for a long time, and no one wanted to talk about it until some unavoidable issue erupts.
Also, those other situations often have confessions that are hundreds of years old. I like old confessions, but a lot differences can be papered over with archaic language. That’s why I believe that confessionalism is so important. It’s a renewing process for the church that should continue and be discussed regularly. Confessions should be re-worded to clarify and refine and to address clearly new generations in new cultures.
David Brumbelow:
I agree with you on inerrancy. The Chicago Statement was not an SBC effort.
I believe that when the BFM committee came to look at the BFM they said to themselves that the BFM already said what it needed to say. Plus, there may be things in the Chicago Statement that are not necessary to affirm inerrancy, but I am not an expert on that.
Folks who have left the SBC have done so primarily not because the BFM says this or that, but because the BFM was seen and applied as a confessional document.
That is an important distinction that I believe BDW would affirm.
In other words, the CBF did not go out and write a new confession, and take out the offending parts of the BFM.
They have not written a confession at all.
So the real disagreement is not with this word or that. It is with the concept of a confession.
Louis,
Do you distinguish between a confession and creed? Between an organization “being confessional” and “being creedal”? If so, what’s the difference?
‘Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh;’
‘I believe, therefore I confess’
(Credo, ergo confiteor).
“”So the real disagreement is not with this word or that. It is with the concept of a confession””
The arguments presented by the CBF do not support the above claim, though that may have been a part. Every CBF’er I had the opportunity to speak with, complained about “this word and that.”
How the BFM is applied in SBC life is another matter that does not preclude the former.
So why are comments closed on your other post?
Nevermind.
Christiane,
The term inerrant is not all that new (for example, inerrancy was used by J. M. Frost about 1900), but is used more today by conservatives because it seems it has about the least possibility of being misused or misunderstood.
I and most SBC conservatives do not use the term fundamentalist of ourselves; it is used as a derogatory term against conservatives.
Another point. Inerrancy is a term, whether new or not, that defines the belief most Christians have had about the Bible throughout the last 2,000 years. “Baptists and the Bible” and other books bring out this fact. The term may be new, the concept is not.
The Bible points to the concept of inerrancy in such passages as: Psalm 19:7; 119:89; Matthew 5:18; 22:31-32; Luke 24:25; John 5:46-47; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21.
You ask, “what ‘criteria’ are applied to the Scriptures to determine the inerrant meanings, though.” Inerrancy says the Bible as originally given by inspiration of God, is without error. That does not mean, however, that settles all various interpretations. Conservatives agree the Bible is inerrant, but we will disagree on particular interpretations of that inerrant Bible.
One conservative may say I believe this Scripture teaches this; another I believe the verse teaches that. But we are agreed that the Scripture itself is inspired by God and totally true and trustworthy. Or, as we often say, inerrant.
David R. Brumbelow
Christiane, if you want to read something that will help you understand the history of Baptists and our view of the Bible, and maybe clear up some of the misconceptions I think you have, the book David mentioned is a great place to start. “Baptists and the Bible” by Nettles and Bush. Great history of the doctrine of scripture.
Thank you both for that reference.
Frank and Larry:
You are right. CBFer’s have complained about particular words. But that’s not the debate, really. That is a sincere line of inquiry, but in reality is a secondary argument.
That’s because CBFers do not believe in a common confession, particularly if it is used to determine the parameters of either membership in a denomination or employment in denominational posts.
That is really where the debate is. Ask BDW, Stephen Fox, and other CBFers on this point. In the North Carolina the CBF state folks discussed the idea of having a common confession, and the concept was rejected.
As Walter Shurden put it in his advice to the CBF – although you will be tempted to do so, don’t ever put down in writing what those in the CBF should believe.
That is a debate about whether to have a confession, not about the contents of a confession.
So, I have for discussing the first issue first. If the CBF and its supporters change their minds and want to have a common confession, then we or they can debate what should go in the confession – “inerrancy” or some other terms.
But until the decide to have a common confession, what should be in a common confession is moot point.
Good word, Louis.
BDW:
I believe that there are differences between a confession and a creed, but that’s me.
Since I would use belief in a common confession as a requirement for denominational employment, some would say that my “confession” is a creed. The point is that the differences can be blurry and it depends on the person.
Boyce, Broadus and Manly, Jr. (the founders of the first SBC educational entity) referred to the Abstract at Southern Seminary as a “Creed”. And the profs there have to teach “in accordance with and not contrary to” the Abstract. The Abstract was drafted as a bulwark against theological trends that Boyce had seen at Princeton and other northern seminaries. That is exactly what the SBC has decided the BFM should be.
But Boyce, Broadus and Manly would not be considered “creedal” in the sense of denominations with a stronger liturgical tradition.
But they might be considered “creedal” today by some.
Do you think that the founders of Southern and the SBC which embraced Southern as its first SBC educational institution were acting improperly in drafting the Abstract and requiring professors to believe it, teach in accordance with and not contrary to the Abstract?
If you do think these SBC founders were “creedal”, then it seems the SBC was creedal from the beginning, or at least 1859 when Southern was founded.
If they were not creedal, then the modern SBC is doing nothing more than what these founders did.
BDW, the problem is not with the word one uses. It’s the concept that Christians would willingly remain obtuse about their theological commitments, or allow others to be so, and claim that as a virtue without recognizing the dangers and eventual and inevitable conflict that course brings.
‘Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh;’
‘I believe, therefore I confess’
(Credo, ergo confiteor).
Dave,
On a personal note, I have enjoyed our conversations and e-mail exchanges in recent months. However, your post provides a good example of why so many in SBC leadership avoid the bloggers and don’t respond when you send questions: there’s very little chance of being treated fairly.
Kevin Ezell has apologized at least twice (Ed Stetzer’s blog and Georgia Christian Index article) for his off-hand remarks about bloggers. He has acknowledged that bloggers can play an important role in discussion and accountability in SBC Life. Yet in this post you continue to beat him up for remarks he has apologized for and you continue to refer to him as someone who sees himself as above being questioned.
You say Dr. Ezell has not answered the criticisms leveled against him for his church’s giving history, yet as recently as three weeks ago he spoke of his regret for disengaging from SBC life in that regard and how he hopes others won’t do the same (as reported in Baptist Press).
That kind of one-sidededness might generate great comments for your posts, but it tears down your credibility as someone who can be trusted to give people and issues a fair hearing.
Mike,
Thank you for your comment and congratulations on your recent promotion at NAMB. I think that you will do very well as the VP of Communications for NAMB. I, too, enjoyed our conversations and have appreciated honest exchanges with you. Since you have commented publicly and honestly here, I will do the same.
First, whether I am honorable as a blogger or not is for God to decide, not you and not even me. But I can tell you this, I write out of my convictions, not any desire to “get comments.” I resent that implication. I write what is on my heart. Sometimes that draws comments and sometimes it doesn’t. But I resent your implication that gathering comments is the motive for my blogging. I blog what I believe.
Sometimes, I make comments and then find them to be in error. If I am factually in error, I will correct it and apologize. But it seems that you are calling the motives of those who are critical of Dr. Ezell into question. You have done it twice with me now. That is exactly the kind of thing that I see as a problem. Do not deal with the issue, but attack the person who raises the issue.
And I do not believe that Dr. Ezell has done what needed to be done. The Stetzer blog? That was some lighthearted banter and softball questions. That is not my idea of an apology. When you apologize, you face the person you have hurt and tell them you are sorry. In his emails to me, Ezell made light of his comments, tried to justify them and make me see they weren’t that big a deal. You did the same in your commend when you called them “offhand remarks.” It seems that he does not want to deal with things, but to make them go away. Is that unfair? Perhaps. But it is my perspective. I tried contacting Ezell about this. He blew me off. So, I write my opinions publicly.
That exchange is illustrates the problem, as I see it. Ezell does not want to deal with the people he insulted. He told me he wanted to make things right and was willing to do whatever it took. But he has consistently refused to face the people he insulted, to show even the least bit of respect. He downplays the insult, justifies it, but he does not face it.
I looked at articles in the Christian Index, but have not seen the apology you referenced. Maybe I will have to correct myself but to this point, I’ve not seen anything that would change my perspective. I remain open to correction on this.
I did see the CI article about the CP – if it is the same one you referenced in your comment. It was interesting. But, again, it seems like he is saying “lets all have a group hug and put the past in the past” – not really dealing with issues.
I know you think I am petty, petulant and childish. But I had hoped for more from Dr. Ezell, so I am disappointed with him. I was enthusiastic about his nomination at first. Then came the insults. Then came the promises to make things right. Then came the failure to do much of anything to really make things right.
Yes, that created a negative impression of Dr. Ezell in my mind. Am I being ungracious, as you accused me of in our earlier correspondence? Maybe. But is it my duty to continue to give Ezell the benefit of the doubt or is it his duty to create an impression of openness? I had hoped Ezell might signal a new direction in Baptist entity leadership. What I have seen is the same old stuff – unaccountable leadership that expects us to fall in line and plow the garden without questioning the people at the top.
You said, “However, your post provides a good example of why so many in SBC leadership avoid the bloggers and don’t respond when you send questions: there’s very little chance of being treated fairly.” Really? Has anyone tried? Maybe Dr. Ezell should actually TRY showing a little respect to bloggers to find out how we will treat him. I can tell you this, if any convention officer or entity head comes on this blog, I will see that he is treated with respect. Honestly, I don’t see how you can make such a statement when Ezell has avoided any contact with “rank and file” bloggers to this point. Try it, maybe you will find we are actually nice people.
After our earlier conversations, I shelved the article I had written that was critical of Dr. Ezell. It was partially because you made some sense, and partially because I understood you to say that there were more efforts to make things right in the works. Evidently, you referred to the Stetzer interview. I don’t know. If you think that the bantering with Ed Stetzer was “accountability”, I guess that again we will have to disagree.
Look, I give my perspective on this blog. If you read it, you know that I don’t mind being challenged or disagreed with. I even search out contributors who disagree with me. I want a debate and an exchange of ideas.
But what really annoys me is when people like you question my motives and integrity in the process, as you have done here. You have challenged me to consider my perspective. I have done some reading of BP articles, but none have changed my perspective yet. I will continue to read. But accusations and insinuations will not bully me.
I don’t want to sound too messianic, but we aren’t going away. As long as people in power behave as some of them behave, we are going to be here calling that behavior into question. We will do it badly sometimes and need to make things right. But if I quit blogging, someone else will pick up a pen. Blogging is a reality that you and Dr. Ezell will have to deal with or simply continue to insult.
FYI, Mike Ebert was recently appointed Vice President of Communications at NAMB. I appreciate him stopping by even though I do not appreciate some of what he said.
I knew it!!!
I thought I smelled a Public Relations official in here.
Be nice.
I am.
Remember, I work in media too.
I’ll lay a challenge here. Get Dr. Ezell to answer some questions at this blog. Actually face the people he injured. I know you are under the impression that I simply want to build readership here. I won’t deny it that I would love to have an interview with Dr. Ezell.
But you and I are at conflict here. Why don’t we look to bridge that conflict. If Dr. Ezell answered questions and faced the music, maybe things would be different. If not, your criticisms would be justified and factually based. You could reference an experience, not a supposition.
But the implication that he would not be treated fairly is fantasy until he actually tries.
Injured? Really?
Insulted?
Here’s what Ezell actually said (though not the exact words) in the last interview with Baptist Press:
1) NAMB is not trustworthy;
2) He was justified in not sending money to an entity that
was not trustworthy.
I see nothing he has done or said that indicates NAMB is anymore trustworthy now than before he arrived. In fact, his consistent attacks (even with apologies) indicates otherwise.
The only vote on the matter I am given is to vote with my feet. Therefore, I will be exercising that right no matter how many public relations people Ezell hires to attack anyone that would question the many misstatements Ezell has made.
Dave
I respect the role you are trying to play, so I hope you know this is nothing personal. You put words in my mouth–I didn’t say you were dishonorable. My point about your posts generating comments was meant to say that the number of comments generated by a post shouldn’t necessarily be considered an indicator that you are building credibility.
It’s your blog and your ground rules, but your response to me illustrates my concern about fairness. I wrote seven sentences—200 words. You used five times that many in your response—more than 1,000 words. You dissected my sentences and assigned motive to my words. Where’s the fairness in that? Why would any entity leader want to subject themselves to that?
And look how impassioned your response was. You used words like “resent” and “attack” and “injured” and “petty” and “petulant” and “childish” and you said I implied you were not “honorable.” Those words reflected what you were feeling just because I questioned how you are treating Kevin Ezell. It’s the same when you and others launch very personal, painful missives at people calling into question their motives, their character and their sincerity. It hurts.
You’ll have the last word on this. It’s your blog and your opinions and that’s fine. But I don’t think it’s realistic to expect someone to voluntarily subject himself to the kind of treatment I’ve described above.
Honestly, Mike, was there ever any chance he was going to talk to rank and file Baptist bloggers?
And there is no question, Mike, that you are good at your job.
Dave,
Do you think that it helps public relations at NAMB for their new VP of Communications to come on here and write what could be perceived as a snarky comment? No, I don’t either. Regardless of the direction that Ezell ultimately leads NAMB, I think there will continue to be an underlying philosophy of goverance that rank and file Southern Baptists will not respond positively to.
I think that leaders who come from a megachurch, CEO model of church polity will, by and large, relate with the grassroots the same way that they were used to relating to their congregations. Ten years ago, that may have worked. With certain personalities, that may still work. But, I am skeptical that Dr. Ezell, from all that we have seen thus far, is one of those personalities. Time will tell, but as “Frank and Larry” observed, the trust factor is still not there. Thanks for shedding light on some of these issues. God bless,
Howell
I don’t know, Howell. I think you may be right.
Mike, I do not understand the issue of fairness you bring up.
Ezell has a high position. His words are reported, in effect, he has a bully pulpit. He also has instant crediblity with many because of his position, title and backing of trustees. Ezell can use many channels to get his views out. He does not have to answer questions from the garden variety SBC member. And he has used channels to get certain things across he wants communicated.
How can it be unfair when a blogger asks uncomfortable questions of a public figure employed by the SBC?
Classic.