I got into blogging to “fight the power.”
I did not like the now-infamous IMB policies, which prevented Baptists who were in full cooperation with the BF&M 2000 from serving as missionaries if they did not kowtow to a narrow view of Baptist identity. I was infuriated by them and motivated to do what I could to make a change. Since about the only route available to me was blustering on blogs, I blustered.
I saw myself as some sort of modern day Don Quixote tilting against the powers-who-were who were trying to take our convention the wrong way. I was especially put off by the tendency of some of our leaders to attack those who questioned them. The stifling of dissent is a dangerous thing among Baptists.
I spoke against some of the actions of one of our seminary presidents which I felt were unwise. I spoke out on the (rumored) actions of a search committee that was going to make what I thought was a huge mistake. I complained about megachurch pastors and self-appointed power-brokers and unresponsive agency heads.
Then came the Kevin Ezell imbroglio. His nomination was a surprise. A man who seemed to have disdained our convention’s work was suddenly in charge of one of our entities. When a couple of state convention presidents questioned his qualifications for the job, he responded by attacking – bloggers.
I was annoyed and I told him so by email. He responded by telling me that he had been misinterpreted and asked for my cell phone so we could talk. But once he got to NAMB, that all changed. Staff told me that there was no benefit to Ezell in talking to a blogger. To me, it was the ultimate example of an arrogant attempt to stifle dissent and to tell those of us without power that our voices weren’t welcome.
Now, I was really torqued. My attitude toward the convention and its leadership was decided negative and it often showed in my blogging.
Then, three things happened (not necessarily in chronological order).
1) I saw what I considered to be an overwrought and extreme reaction to the GCR. I am not crazy about everything in the GCR report, but I thought it made a lot of sense. But as I read the comments of bloggers and the extreme disdain for the leadership of the SBC, I began to question whether some of our “holding them accountable” was really just angry negativity. Perhaps it was not justified. Maybe we were becoming nattering nabobs of negativity.
I still believe that the stifling of dissent is a terrible mistake in the SBC. It should not be done. But I began to wonder if our desire to prevent the stifling of dissent was starting to stifle our ability to see that our denomination has some pretty good men as officers, seminary presidents and agency heads. Maybe we went too far.
Watching the pettiness and self-aggrandizement of some bloggers made me examine my own stance and alter it some. I can state opinions without being arrogantly negative about all things SBC.
2) The election of Tom Eliff to the IMB was an important moment for me. This is a really fine man who was a surprise nominee. I had been somewhat suspicious of the IMB search committee but then I began to realize that maybe the Boards had some information I didn’t have and some wisdom I didn’t see.
In other words, I began to realize that often we blog on the basis of partial knowledge and act as if we have a perfect understanding of all that is going on. Wasn’t it a little arrogant of me to assume that I knew more and better than the search committee, or the GCR task force, or whomever was making decisions. We Baptists have the right to state our opinions and dissent from our leaders, but we ought also to respect that other godly people can come to conclusions that differ from our own. Just because an entity does not please me with their actions doesn’t mean that the Father in heaven isn’t pleased.
3) The biggest thing that happened to me was some conversations I had with some people who worked with NAMB. I’ll admit that I wanted to hear some bad stuff about Kevin Ezell that I could turn into negative articles against him here, showing that my initial impression of his arrogance and self-aggrandizement was correct. That is not what they said. They said that he was making headway. He’d had some false starts and perhaps taken some wrong turns, but he was showing signs of being a quick learner and an effective leader.
You’re kidding. He’s not the antichrist? Was it possible that my relentlessly negative view of him was unfair?
As I have observed the recent reaction to Wright’s task force appointment, I’ve noticed the tendency of some to assign motives to him. He’s trying to become a top-down dictator. He’s trying to bypass the convention. He’s abusing his power. He’s…whatever.
Why not just believe that he is a good man who wants to get some information? Maybe he made a mistake and should have gone to the convention. But is it worth the vitriol that has been directed his way? Is it naive to believe good things about our convention leaders? That has been implied to me. But I don’t think so. As I have opened my eyes, I have come to believe more and more that these are good men (and a few women sprinkled in there) who are doing what they believe is right. I don’t always agree, but I’ve stopped believing the worst about them either.
And so, I’ve changed. I hope I’ve grown a little, and not just lost my edge. But I’ve come to realize that the negativity that sometimes characterized my attitude toward the leaders of the SBC was unproductive and perhaps not glorifying to God.
If the leaders of the SBC are in fact conspiring to impose top-down, elitist rule, then I am a fool and a lackey. But if they are men of good will, then my constant questioning of their motives is wrong. I certainly do not believe in the perfection of the leaders of the SBC. But I believe in their general good intent.
It is not an easy balance. I think blogging has an important role in holding those in power accountable. We can be the populist voice in the SBC, asking uncomfortable questions that the powers-that-be avoid. But we can also go too far. For a while, I believe I did that.
When we are angry, unreasonable, when we see everything that is done as negative, we become part of the problem, not part of the solution.
I’m tired of fighting. I am still willing to confront egregious mistakes when I see them. The stifling of dissent would still draw a reaction from me. But I want to be part of the solution and I don’t think relentless negativism will get that done.
I’ve been reflecting a lot over the last couple of days. My personal struggle may not mean much to you, and you are free to ignore this.
But as a longtime blogger, I hope to be part of what I believe is happening – a shifting of blogging from relentless negativism and ambitious self-glorying to something more productive and useful. I think a lot of people have grown tired of the combative and destructive blogging of the Wild West days and want to participate in something better.
One man’s opinion. Worth 2 cents – perhaps.
Speaking of long-time blogging, I came across a comment of yours from Fall 2006 over at Burleson’s blog. The discussion was a new name for Southern Baptists. You threw out a bunch of names but ended up suggesting Great Commission Baptist Convention.
Someone responded and said they sorta liked the name but that Great Commission Baptist Convention just doesn’t roll of the tongue well.
Of course, this was well in advance of the GCR stuff. Very interesting.
Bryant Wright is a good man. He loves Jesus and I wish him the very best. I believe his motives are pure. He wants us all to think about changing our name. Fine.
See, I’m not questioning his character or his motives. I’m questioning his one specific action, namely the unprecedented appointment of an “unofficial” task force complete with press conferences and press releases that make it seem official indeed.
The convention itself should form the task force–or not. For Wright to bypass those channels was a mistake empowering officers and disenfranchising messengers who never got to vote on the task force’s formation. I think he owes the convention an apology.
But I do not think he is a bad man. He is a Christian, a Pastor and a leader. He is a person of good will.
Dave,
Some truths are simply negative. It is that simple. But some want to call it “negativity” when that is pointed out. Therefore a lot of things get stifled because we end up walking on eggshells and the religion of “positive” or what I call “Totalitarian niceness” takes over. Norman Vincent Peale did not tell the whole truth because he wanted to be “positive”. He thought positive was more important than truth.
You wrote:
“In other words, I began to realize that often we blog on the basis of partial knowledge and act as if we have a perfect understanding of all that is going on.”
Dave, the point is we should NOT be working off “partial” knowledge in the SBC! That is the whole point. And this is the excuse those who abuse power have used for decades: You don’t know the full story so your opinion does not count. This is simply a tatic. WE should ask, how come we do not know the full story? What is there to hold back and why?
Now, explain to me why people in the SBC should have partial knowledge about our operations, etc? Is that who we are to be? We have many years of closed door tactics that were not very nice. Let us not pretend that is the right way to do things or to “trust positive intentions’ as I hear so much these days. So very silly when we can see “actions” as plain as day.
Part of the problem is that people get scandal fatigue and want to be accepted and liked by those in power (or leaders) instead of standing up for what is right or even for what is wrong. So much of disagreement these days is ad hominem instead of dealing with actual issues and content. And that wears on people so they just go along or claim it is really not that bad. LEt’s face it, sealing the records for 15 years was very bad. We should not forget it. It laid the groundwork for worse.
As a child in the SBC, I was told this quite a bit: The foot of the Cross is level we do not show favoritism because of a title.
That does not seem to be the sentiment anymore.
“If you are distressed by anything external,
the pain is not due to the thing itself,
but to your own estimate of it;
and this you have the power to revoke at any moment.”
(— Marcus Aurelius)
Dave,
I agree completely with Lydia. The effort to stifle is deafening. Locally and convention wide.
This post brings to mind a very old prayer that helps sometimes, when ‘the world is too much with us’ . . . . and reacting to circumstances becomes unrewarding and exhausting:
“Let nothing disturb you,
Let nothing frighten you,
All things are passing away:
God never changes.
Patience obtains all things.
Whoever has God lacks nothing;
God alone suffices.”
(Teresa of Avila)
This concept recalls to us a patient teaching from the Gospel of St. John chapter 14, this:
” 27 Peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you:
not as the world giveth, give I unto you.
Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. ”
. . . the presence of ‘the Peace of Christ’ is the visible sign of the unity of Christians ‘in community’ with one another,
and being the bearers of that holy peace to the world is the sign of our mission by which we are known,
not something that is beyond our reach at all
Thanks Dave. No where in this post, or in the previous one, did you suggest stifling dissent (just the opposite), nor have you suggested that disagreement is in itself uncivil. It is a shame that such things are misconstrued.
Ahh, you’ve gone and gotten reasonable on me at the worst possible moment! Good grief, I regret my vow to sign all posts and comments in order to avoid slandering others while hiding behind anonymity!
You crack me up.
Seriously….at this moment I would like nothing more than to riff on leadership and leave my post unsigned.
What an onerous burden is self-control!
Stupid Yankees.
I’d still track you down. I’ve got IPs and emails and all that stuff. Insulting the Yankees is never acceptable.
Jeremy,
Don’t worry, the Rangers will send the Yankees home again this year.
Dave,
I don’t think there is a conspiracy by people. I don’t think anyone in the SBC is that organized. I do think like minded people in leadership are seeking the same goal. It’s just that a lot of us don’t like the way it is being done. Like GCR this has been handled poorly, though I would argue even more so.
Blessings,
Ron P.
Dave,
You say this post does not reflect on the comment I left for Howell. O.K. Your apparent mind-reading aside, I’ll repeat here what I mentioned there. Left dangling in mid-air is your continued charge of “over-the-top” and “uncivil” rhetoric coming from those of us who’ve questioned the unbaptistic polity—in our view at least–displayed by our president at the last EC meeting. Here is the point, plain and simple: if you disagree with us, be our guest. But do not strap on our back the uncomely charge of incivility when there is no substantial reason to do so. Our dissent is out Baptist right, the very Baptist right you’ve argued for yourself time after time, Dave. Hence, we will continue in it when we think we possess good and sufficient reason to do so, and that even if you and every other Baptist do not. Finally, albeit your apparent regret for positions you’ve taken, I have no similar regret for my own personal positions. Not that I have always been right on the position I found myself arguing. Rather, I possess no regret for exercising my right and expressing my dissent.
With that, I am…
Peter
I think it’s funny that Peter is calling for his right to dissent. He did not extend the same courtesy to Wade Burleson a few years ago. Quite the contrary, Peter and the BI guys wanted Wade to sit down and shut up.
Little different when the shoe is on the other foot isn’t it Peter?
Again, thanks for logging in, Ryan, but that is a can o’ worms I have little desire to open again.
Fair enough. I agree Peter is a can of worms. 🙂 J/K
Ryan,
That was such a nice comment….so thoughtful and kind.
Wow.
David
Vol
What do you expect from a Burleson Supporter.
And it isn’t anything that many people haven’t thought. I’m glad you said what I was thinking through this whole thing Ryan. 🙂 Difference is this branch like the inclusion, whereas we are constantly fighting those who continually want exclusion.
Difference is this branch like the inclusion
That’s exactly right because there is NO ONE you wouldn’t include. People can believe anything they want and be Christians–well, unless it’s conservative doctrine.
Peter and the BI guys wanted Wade to sit down and shut up.
God, that would be truly heavenly. And an answer to prayer for many Southern Baptists–not just BI guys.
Whoops. I forgot. BI guys also have no ability to have a sense of humor. Just to spell it out for you David…J/K is internet slang for Just Kidding. As in a joke…a play on David’s response. Stop being so sensitive.
Joe,
I refuse to take decorum lessons from someone who has in the past consigned people to hell based on their positions on non-essential issues- such as who they vote for in elections. You have no standing with me or anyone on these blogs to call anyone’s posts into question. Your arrogance in doing so is baffling. Truthfully, I think Dave and the Voices guys show you a tone more grace and latitude than you deserve.
Debbie-
Thanks.
So, I’m guessing I probably shouldn’t look for a Christmas Card in the mail, huh Ryan?
I’m too tired to go back and delete our normal “Sunday Night Wild” exchange. Behave, all of you.
Ryan,
Well, no I think you have me confused with another. To my recall, I never suggested Burleson should “sit down and shut up,” at least not in the way you’re suggesting. While some of us did, in fact, question his posting of certain info which was supposed to have been “confidential” so to speak, I and others challenged Burleson post by post on his inferences from both valid and “invalid” info, not his right to dissent. In fact, when some of us got our eyes gouged pretty good by the “G2U” mob (didn’t you ride with Burleson’s posse?), I often remarked I was doing but the same thing they defended for their boy, Burleson–dissenting–he from SBC (mostly trustees), we from him. Pretty simple, isn’t it?
With that, I am…
Peter
LoL.
The way this issue was handled was one of the most unbaptistic actions taken by an SBC President that I can recall. It is unfortunate that President Wright has needlessly poured gasoline on an already very hot topic. One that even the GCR leaders apparently felt would derail the GCR vote. His unauthorized task force invites dissent and quite possibly ensures the defeat of a name change.
As I posted this morning at my site it’s all in the presentation. Even if it is a good idea to change the name of the Convention, it was brought to us on a garbage can lid (aka Cosby show illustration).
Blessings,
Ron P.
Ron and everyone else, I don’t understand how what Wright did was against Baptist polity. What exactly is Baptistic about voting outside the local church?
I understand that you think Wright went beyond the messengers, but this has nothing to do with local church polity; therefore, it has nothing to do with Baptist polity. Do I just not understand Baptist polity? Or, does congregationalism go beyond local congregations?
Am I totally wrong?
Jared,
No one has claimed he has violated any local church’s polity. It does violate the polity of our BAPTIST Convention though. I agree with others that he does not have the authority to appoint such a task force. I also think Howell is right that he is in violation of our bylaws. I would also argue that as an officer of the SBC, he is bound by the 2004 vote of the Convention to not appoint a task force to study the name change. These actions are unbaptistic. But his intentional end run around the messengers of the SBC to not let them speak and decide whether or not to appoint such as task force for what everyone would agree is a most historic and important issue is unbaptistic.
Blessings,
Ron P.
Ron, I don’t think you can call Wright’s actions “unbaptistic.” There’s nothing Baptist about a parachurch organization. You can say he went against the convention, went against the messengers, etc., but the charge that he did something “unbaptistic” is inaccurate IMO. Congregationalism doesn’t go beyond local congregations. Maybe we’re arguing semantics; but, if you say Wright did something “unbaptistic,” people may think he did something that violated Baptist polity; but, he didn’t.
Jared, OK. I get where you are coming from and maybe we are arguing semantics. But I have always heard of references to Southern Baptist Polity in reference to the SBC and not just the local church (go back to the CR days). So maybe we could say it is “un-Southern-Baptistic”. 🙂
Blessings,
Ron P.
Jared,
Polity, in its broader sense, can refer to “the form or constitution of a politically organized unit or the form of government of a religious denomination.” Polity, therefore, is not limited simply to the local church, even though that’s where most of the discussion seems to lead. Most Southern Baptist churches have a congregational form of polity or governance, which means that there is authority (more or less depending on the particular church) vested in the congregation.
As applied to the Convention of churches known as the SBC, perhaps polity is a misnomer, especially in the situation with President Wright’s appointment of a Name Change Task Force. A strong argument can be made (and I am one who has made it) that what Wright did was unconstitutional, meaning that it violated the SBC ByLaws (see Section 19), its “unofficial” status to the contrary notwithstanding. Obviously not everyone agrees with this interpretation (see Dave and others), but this is the crux of what Ron and others are saying. If it would be clearer, then perhaps we can just say that the unilateral appointment of an “unofficial” ad hoc committee was not only unprecedented, but contravened express language in the ByLaws of the SBC and the most recent expression of the will of the churches (through their messengers) of the SBC in 2004. Hope that helps. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell,
What you just addressed is why we are in big denominational trouble. In many ways, the next generation appears to not only not appreciate Baptist polity, they do not even understand it, and worst still, they apparently do not want to understand it. Hence, they cannot discern when the markers of our polity are being moved.
With that, I am…
Peter
I share your views and to some extent your journey in blogging (or in my case for the last 15 years, forums).
I have more stuff on my blog on NAMB and Kevin Ezell than anything else. NAMB has, unfortunately, been making most of the news over the past five years or so. So, I asked for a NAMB speaker a few months ago and Ezell volunteered to come. Did a great job. We had a laugh about his favorite blogger (not you, Dave, a guy in his church).
I think your approach is healthy, mature, and helpful. God bless you for it.
Thank you, William.
I can’t believe that I’m not his favorite…
I was being sarcastic. Maybe you are…
Uh…yeah.
I understand and appreciate the spirit with which you wrote this.
I don’t see those who have worked on the GCR and other things as being evil or even conspiratorial. I believe they have the best of intentions. I see them as not really understanding how a Baptist Convention works. Many of them are large church pastors who years past having a congregation to answer to, so they treat the convention much like they lead their churches: “This is what the Lord has led me to do…” That’s fine for their local church. It is part of our autonomy as a church. But this ain’t the local church, theirs or mine.
But I do think you have written well. And I continue to wish the Yankees well in their deadly battle against the evil Red Sox. My ulterior motive is so that the Rays get into the playoffs and if that happens, my well wishes for the Yankees will again turn to them being the evil empire.
We are helping out your Rays today. Hope it continues tonight. But if we sweep Boston, you need to change your tune!
I’m a Rays fan 162 plus games a year. A Yankee fan for every other game except when when they’re playing the Rays. My prize autograph is Derek Jeter and my favorite baseball moment was meeting “The Boss” at a funeral I conducted.
But if the Rays make the playoffs, we will crush you! 🙂
It was kinda weird watching the Rays/Yanks this week and halfway cheering for the Rays. Anything to beat the Sox.
The Cards are still in it!!!! AS the Braves fold up, the Cards continue to win…just one back of the wildcard race….Go Cardinals!
David
I’d love to see the Rays take out the Evil Sox and the Cardinals take out the Braves.
My reasons are that I am tired of fighting, I like the direction the Convention is going. We’ve a long way to go, but so far I like what I have heard and seen. I also like the list of those on the committee. It’s diverse as it should be.
I should have probably added that Debbie. I think since 2006 (the election Frank Pge) the convention has changed in some significantly healthy ways. There is more openness (the GCR records notwithstanding) and a less entrenched, more forward-looking viewpoint.
Polity is not the real issue. Considering the name change is the emotional spark driving the conversation. Polity is just a way to keep from discussing the real issue.
Actually, Carter, for me, the WAY this was done is indeed the issue.
I probably do not favor a name change, not because I am dead set against it, but because I do not believe one lost soul is being held back from salvation by our “Southern Baptist” name when most of our church plants just call themselves “The Journey” or some such anyway. I think it’s a weak argument.
But my real problem is that the convention messengers are supposed to create the organizational structures that study and recommend decisions. That was not done here. It was an “end run” by President Wright. He should have known better.
In all fairness, its probably both. A lot of people do not like the name change, and they do not like the way this was handled. Its both.
David
Rick: I agree that the name Southern is not keeping people from coming to Christ. As you pointed out in an earlier post, as a Calvinist I believe the Bible teaches that those God has appointed to come will come and nothing, not even the name Southern or Baptist(which doctrine I firmly believe) will hold them back. The name Christ offended people so that is not my personal reason for wanting a name change.
My reason is that in the past there has been a lot of corruption in the SBC among those with power. A new name change to me signals change for the better. I agree with Alan Cross in that if there is no heart change a changed name is not going to matter, but I see a change in direction, I see some heart change and a name change would be a start in showing that heart change. Christ is back in the center, or at least I pray that he is, and that was something I saw missing in the past in favor of Southern Baptist. Maybe we need to let go of something that I always saw as idolatry. Some idealize the Southern Baptist name. This would have to change if we changed the name.
I might add that I would be in favor of keeping the name Baptist, although that could be done away with and I would have no problem. Some have also idealized the name Baptist to the exclusion of Christ. I believe it happened and those who did this love the Gospel, and Christ. This happened without them even realizing it. But I believe it did happen.
With respect, I find this argument even weaker. We change our name in the HOPE that it will transform us and make us better? Is that how it works?
I lost a tennis match this weekend. I’m changing my name to Andy Roddick.
Nope. That isn’t at all what I said Rick.
What I said was that a name change in my view would reflect a changed heart, not cause it.
Debbie,
So once I start playing better, THEN I should change my name to Andy Roddick. Reversing the order still does not make the name change decision any more logical to me.
Rick
Excellent point.
Rick: Would you apply these scenarios to Paul who changed his name from Saul of Tarsus or God himself who changed Abraham’s name to Abram and I could give more examples from scripture. I just don’t see where your examples apply to the SBC changing its name.
Biblical name changes are fine with me, Debbie. Now if you could point to the chapter and verse where God says that the Southern Baptist Convention should change its name, I would be more than happy to support it.
I’m also pretty sure God is opposed to Campus Crusade for Christ just calling itself Cru. I don’t think that would have happened if Bill Bright were still on this side of heaven. It’s an example of a bad name change. I hope we don’t follow suit.
By the way, the direction of the name change was from Abram to Abraham, not vice verse. (Gen. 17:5)
Rick: Southern Baptist Convention isn’t in the Bible anymore than America or United States is. I think this is where our freedom to change or not change the name is in place.
Why would God be opposed to CRU? I don’t think that’s a big deal.
Rick: You are right on the Abram to Abraham. My mistake.
Really? It would be like us calling ourselves BAP!
In fact, that is now going to be my suggestion, just to remind everyone that sometimes change just makes things worse. (Listening, Obama?)
Just take the first three letters of the second word in your name. Campus CRUsade for Christ becomes CRU. Southern Baptist Convention becomes BAP.
I’m personally in favor of a name change. And personally, I’m not too bothered by an unofficial ad hoc committee to study the matter. The sky, as far as I can tell, is not falling. I’m also personally of the opinion that this doesn’t stand a ghost of a chance of passing. This is a Southern denomination, and Southerners will not support this (for whatever reasons).
That said, I believe there are good, legitimate reasons for opposing the name change, and good, legitimate reasons for believing that Pres. Wright has overstepped his authority with this committee.
I’ve asked this already, but I didn’t get an answer: Does the SBC have a mechanism in place to rebuke or remove a sitting SBC president? If not, well that’s just dumb. If so, why hasn’t the process been started? Especially if this is as big a deal as people are making it out to be.
One last comment: Throwing the word “elite” around is akin to the Democratic tactic of throwing the word “rich” around. It is an instigation to class warfare. Us vs them. Is this really the route we want to take, even if the goal is a good one?
In answer to your question:
I’ve just reviewed the Constitution and By-Laws, twice, and I don’t immediately see any provisions regarding rebuking or removing a sitting president. Moreover, the language of Const. Art. V, ¶ 5, leads me to believe that no such provisions exist.
Specifically, this paragraph concerns the ascension of the vice-president to the presidency in the event of the “death or disability of the president.” While certainly not conclusive, the absence of any language concerning removal would tend to indicate that no such event is contemplated.
I’m very much open to correction, though.
See http://www.sbc.net/PDF/SBC-CharterConstitutionByLaws.pdf
I would concur with Zack that there is no mechanism for re-calling or otherwise removing the President of the SBC once elected. As to rebuke, the most obvious way to accomplish that is for the messengers in New Orleans to either reject the Name Change proposal (which I think is all but certain) and/or bring a motion of “censure” for the way that this was handled (which I do not see making it to the floor).
As to the use of the term “elites” which I and others have used to describe some who are in positions of power, “elites” are those who do not believe that the rules apply to them or who otherwise use power in such a way that it appears that there is one set of rules for those in power and another set for the common people. Elites can be conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican. Elites can operate in government or religious organizations. Bill, I can’t speak for others, but I assure you that I do not “throw” the word around. You may or may not agree with the way that it’s used by me or others, but it is used intentionally and with purpose. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Bill: I have a hard time seeing any legitimate reasons given for Pres. Wright appointing a diverse committee that isn’t costing the Convention a dime and is simply finding facts. It isn’t crossing his bounds or his authority. It’s an unofficial fact finding venture. I would have wanted that from other Presidents instead of some of the hysteria based decisions from our past with no facts.
Bill Mac , If you are for a name change , not bothered by an “ad hoc ” committee then why are you encouraging others to find a way to throw Wright out. This smells of ” blowing with the wind ” or trying to not put your mark down on either side of the question if for no other reason than to remain a vocal part of both sides. Would you be a Democrat or Republican at this moment if you don’t mind saying ?
Jack: Sorry for the confusion. My question about the removing or rebuking a sitting president was essentially a challenge to those who think Wright’s actions are the harbinger of doom on the SBC. If I thought that Wright’s actions were the beginning of the end of the SBC and/or our loss of identity as Baptists (I don’t), then I would be seeking to take some concrete action against him.
As I said, I’m in favor (but not confident) of a name change and don’t see Wright’s actions as the death knell of our convention. I have heard enough however, to acknowledge that the process Wright has initiated might have been ill-advised and ill-fated.
Republican
What is unbaptist or un-southern baptist anyway? If Wright has not broken any Convention bylaws then how would his actions qualify as unbaptist?
And how is it Baptist if there is nothing in the Constitution and Bylaws that allow for the removal of the SBC president?
Some very weak arguments have been advanced tot maintain that he somehow violated the bylaws, but they are unconvincing.
I think one can simply disagree with his proposal without trying to argue that the actions somehow violate constitutional provisions.
Dave,
I suppose weakness is in the eye of the beholder 🙂 I am quite clear that I am strongly opposed to a name change, at least anytime soon. It is divisive and unneccesary at this time. Could I be convinced that a name change was necessary? Perhaps. But the arguments that I have seen thus far, particularly the racial argument that seems to be more in play (see Jon Akin’s FoxNews interview), are similarly unconvincing. The ones who are causing division are the ones who started this process at this time. But, process, in many ways, is just as important as the final outcome. When the process is ill-advised or unconstitutional, then we have a serious problem. I’m sure that most on the pro-name change side would love folks to just move on and forget the actions that began this whole mess, but that will not happen, my friend. If abuses of power are allowed to stand, then you can be quite certain that more of abuses of power will follow! Thanks and have a great day,
Howell
Howell,
Why is a name change divisive?
Mark,
A name change, in and of itself, may not necessarily be divisive. But, it can be done in such a way as to cause deep division. We see that principle played out in our secular political system. When you have a deeply flawed process, including how the Task Force came into being, the timing of the Task Force, the potentially toxic arguments that some are injecting into this debate (i.e., slavery and race), and the overall appearance and/or reality of hardball politics, then you have a recipe for division. Hope that helps answer your question. God bless and have a great day,
Howell
‘I think one can simply disagree with his proposal without trying to argue that the actions somehow violate constitutional provisions.’
Even though messengers voted this down a short while ago? His actions are “in your face” and communicate he does not care what the messengers think. Else, he would have taken this to them in good time.
What part of that do people not get? Perhaps next time, something will be done you don’t like behind closed doors and presented as fait accompli. Perhaps then, you might see that process is important and is there for a reason.
Dave, I’m actually on the other side of that:
I’m personally, emotionally connected to Southern Baptist as a label, but I could live without it. Christian is all that matters in the long run, though I find Baptist the closest branch to Scripture and Southern Baptist is just where I am. If I were Swedish, I wouldn’t have left when it became “Converge.” I’d just converge on down…
The process is more of my concern. It seems like we want this to be two things at once that it cannot be: an unofficial advisory group, which is what we’re being told and a Task Force to consider the name change, which is what the news media is reporting.
If Dr. Wright wants advice, he’s certainly entitled to get it however he wants. Yet by informing the Executive Committee, producing a press release, and setting this out publicly (including a website to poll suggestions for the new name), it crosses the line from private advice. It’s now something that he’s doing not as an individual but as the elected leader/spokesman for the SBC.
For myself, it’s not about the name. Honestly, First Baptist will be First Baptist for a long, long time whatever the SBC becomes. (Speaking of—make sure we start listening for strong gossip, because SBCVoices will have to get a new domain name, too.) It’s about the process and actions to get there. Just because we get to a good place, it’s not helpful if we get there in a way that’s unacceptable. You could take me out for steak, but if you do it by showing up at my house, throwing a sack over my head, and stuffing me in the trunk, I’m not going to be happy.
1/3 of the SBC Executive Committee asked this to be delayed, to not become a public part of SBC life. Would you continue with your pastoral plans if 1/3 of the leadership of your church were against it? Would you accept a pastoral call with a 39-20 vote? Would you build a building with that majority? Or would you step back and say “I can see this is more divisive than I expected, so let’s dial this back a step.” And then not send a press release through the media about your new plan?
I doubt anyone will actually leave the Missional-Great Commission-Anything-but-Southern-Baptist-Not-Really-Just-A-Convention over a new name. What will drive people away is feeling isolated from the direction of the SBC. What will drive people away is the continued turmoil and the raw nerves being re-irritated again and again. That’s more deadly to us than being the Southern Baptist Convention or the Most-Southern-Not totally-Baptist-Convention.
“Not all unity is from God: not all disunity is from the Devil.” David Allen speaking @SWBTS on Tower of Babel.
True, but Christians should still seek unity and not try to justify our petty quarrels and divisions as godly.
🙂
Dave,
I’m not trying to justify petty quarrels and divisions. I agree that we can disagree on many, many things; and we can still worship and serve the Lord together. In fact, this has been true, and is true, of every church I’ve been the Pastor of. All I was saying is that not all unity is from God, and not all disunity is of the Devil. I believe we have some people, who elevate unity up to the level of “unity at all costs, and by any means.” That’s all I was trying to point out.
Just trying to keep it real, Dawg.
David
I don’t disagree that there might be folks who are open to a name change but who disagree with president setting up a broad based committee with no power to advise him on the matter. People of good will disagree all the time.
We can and should disagree agreeably.
What I find dishonest is the over the top rhetoric and emotion from people who are trying to prevent a discussion of the issue by focusing on the process. It reminds me of the democrats love affair with the “sacred” principle of stare decisis in the midst of a supreme court nomination dispute. Of course they don’t really support the idea of settled law by conviction; it was an arugment for the moment.
Now we have SBCers who would attempt to remove a sitting president for creating an advisory committee. That sounds like a spirit of partisan division, not humble conviction.
Peaches, or Miss Peaches,
These people that you’re talking about do not like the name change, nor do they like the way this is happening. I’m sure that some are caught up in the moment, and they’re going a little over the top…wanting to unseat the Pres. of the SBC… but that would be very, very few of them. Mainly, from what I know, is that they do not like the way Bryant Wright seems to be doing an end around the SBC, by doing his own thing, which seems to be the way a lot of Mega Church Pastors run their churches…which smacks of Elder rule over the masses. Now, they dont like the name change, either….just dont see the need for the amount of time, energy, and money for this issue. And, they wonder, along with me, why we would waste such time, energy, and money on something like this, when there are so many people out there, who need the Gospel, who need churches started in their town? Why? We should be about the Great Commission, and spending our money on that! Not on something so frivilous and minute as a name change.
David
Well, Howell, as I think about the way in which Wright communicated the name change task force I don’t find hints of a divisive spirit. However, when he is immediately called unbaptist, acting outside of his authority, divisive, etc. I can see how such a move could be divisive, but the question is who is catalyst behind such division.
Mark,
Maybe now, after you see how divisive a thing this is, you could say that it is a divisive thing? I mean, it is divisive. I would think that anyone in the know would most assuredly know just how divisive a thing this would be.
So, Mark, you’re seeing right now just how divisive a thing this is…right?
David
I see how divisive it is by those who are opposed to Wright’s actions reacting in such a way as to encourage division.
Mark,
Do you not see that these men had to know that something like this would be very divisive? I mean, the history of it would tell you as much, if nothing else. This issue has been brought up before in the SBC…name change has always failed because the majority did not want it. So, why…all of a sudden…would it not be a divisvie thing?
And, once again, Mark, just because people dont like something, and dont want something, does not mean that they are “encouraging division.” My soul, Man, if that’s the case, then we all need to just shut our mouths and do whatever the elites tell us to do…without question….
I dont think so.
David
Mark,
I truly admire your “circle the wagons” approach to this issue. It reminds me of how supporters of President Obama and, even the President himself, when forcing radical changes on the country (see Obamacare for example #1) — said changes being clearly and unmistakably divisive — then turn around and charge the opponents of Obama with being the ones encouraging division. Priceless 🙂
Howell,
If you think I’m circling the wagons then you must have forgotten my response to you at my blog. You, and others, had a choice in how you reacted to Wright. Whether or not his move was/is divisive the reaction from the opposition seemed to want divisiveness to rule the debate.
But let me ask this – Is it possible for Christians to disagree on something without their being division? If so, why can’t we SBCer’s work through this particular disagreement without charging others with being divisive?
Mark,
Your questions are good, but our dialogue illustrates the problem. Whether on the local church level or on the national level, when leaders (Pastors or Presidents) try to force their vision on a people, there will inevitably be division. This is a lose-lose situation. If you want to avoid division, walk away (from the church or convention) or be quiet and ask no questions of leadership. However, why is that when those within the church or convention challenge actions that were divisive in the first place that the ones questioning are automatically assumed to be the trouble-makers? I wish I could say that I don’t get this logic, but I do. Could there have been a better way and/or a better time to bring the name change idea to the churches of the Convention that would have minimized the potential for division? Was there worse way and a worse time to bring the name change idea to the churches of the Convention that would have exacerbated the division which now exists? How one answers those questions will go along way toward answering your original questions. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell,
Well, what I did not say is that “those within the church or convention challenge actions that were divisive in the first place that the ones questioning are automatically assumed to be the trouble-makers.” Another problem with dialogues like this is actually understanding what others are saying. 🙂
My point is that this dialogue can take place even with disagreements without one side labeling the others actions as divisive. I’m not questioning the process of disagreement itself, but how it might be carried out.
Mark,
I must have misunderstood what you were trying to say. I know that David (Volfan007) seems to have misunderstood one of your previous comments in the same way. Is your issue that some, including me, have labeled what Dr. Wright did as “divisive?” Is pointing out a potentially divisive action (or one that is divisive in fact) now in itself considered divisive? Would being silent from now until New Orleans, but then at the Annual Meeting bringing a motion to censure or rebuke the actions of the President be considered divisive? I’m not sure where you’re trying to go with this line of argument. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
“I hope I’ve grown a little, and not just lost my edge.”
A blade is sharpened by removing material. A blade with all it’s original material might just be considered an iron club with which to bludgeon all opponents indiscriminately. So the sharpening of a blade is like learning how to choose your battles. Refining the size of the blade to something very sharp and very small is akin to refining our methods in taking on such worthy battles with skillful tact like as to use a scalpel to heal rather than to harm.