Earlier this week, we published How the Conservative Baptist Network took control of the Executive Committee. Yesterday the Executive Committee officers released a statement disputing its interpretation of the facts. Since that statement was released in Baptist Press, there have been calls on social media for SBC Voices to remove the article and issue an apology.
After reading the statement from the Executive Committee, we stand by the concerns stated in our article and others we’ve published. Some have said that the Executive Committee statement proves the article is untrue. The Executive Committee statement does not contradict any of the concerns presented in the article. Our article did not argue that the outgoing Chairman violated the EC bylaws – that was never the issue at hand. Our article included an important perspective on a public meeting with concerns about the CBN Steering Council’s relationship on the EC. In addition, we remind you that the statement from BP is essentially a statement from the EC officers themselves asserting they did nothing wrong.
We stand by what we’ve published.
Some of us wanted to say more, some wanted to say less. I’m sure we’ll have more to say in the coming days, but wanted to make it clear we are not swayed nor convinced by the EC officers’ own PR statement.
To clarify, are you including Pastor Slade’s statements (plural) when you say you were “not swayed nor convinced by the EC officers’ own PR statement”?
Of course they’re not.
From this statement: “ In addition, we remind you that the statement from BP is essentially a statement from the EC officers themselves asserting they did nothing wrong.” From BP…. “ Following a conference call by the SBC Executive Committee on Thursday (June 25) the officers of the Executive Committee convened and issued the following public statement on Friday (June 26): The SBC Executive Committee held a conference call on Thursday, June 25, as a result of public accusations against chairman Mike Stone concerning alleged procedural and ethical improprieties related to the election of officers during its meeting on Tuesday,… Read more »
Preach on Tar_heel Dave! Amen!
“This is nothing in the world but ungodly factionalism and it is not healthy.”
That pretty well sums it up…
So it’s factionalism to oppose what you view as wrong, shady maneuvers? That’s a new way of blaming the messenger.
Possibly, when you’re the only one on the EC publically voicing something shady went down
It can be factionalism when “your side” is always presented as lily white and the other is straight out of hell pepetrated by satan’s archangel.
Dig those heels in DEEP!
I can hear the ghost of Tom Petty…. ‘and I won’t back down, no, I won’t back down’.
But seriously, the EC members bowing down to being bullied or not is irrelevant. SB’s must demand a transparent and accountable leadership structure or our cooperation is done.
The EC statement released yesterday seems pretty transparent.
The whole committee met to discuss a controversy aimed at them.
They fully discussed accusations made against the committee (here on voices) as a whole and its immediate past Chairman. Focusing on actions that took place in a meeting that was streamed and is replayabe online.
They then reported out the meeting – complete with saying we, the whole board, stand by *our* actions as a full board and it even accompanied by a public confession/request for forgiveness and extension of forgiveness.
Not sure how much more transparent they can be.
It is only transparent to some when their desired results come about.
I think that one open meeting does not transparency make. The legacy of Mike Stone is not this one act- which may or may have been ethical- the legacy is the numerous executive sessions which have created the appearance of an unaccountable board. Let me be clear here: There are two facts we must face one, the board is not trusted by many more than are here on Voices and two, this next generation of Southern Baptists don’t need much to push them out of fellowship. Many in our churches don’t even know they are SB, many don’t care if… Read more »
Someone else stepping up and saying something on the EC might help your case. Right now, especially with the words of Slade on this, just looks like sour grapes
All Voices did was publish the opinion of one member of the EC. Here are some points that are still not clear in my mind. 1. Rolland Slade has put in writing that he erred in what he said and did. And Stone accepted his apology. Have you guys reached out to Slade? If so, what did he say? 2. There are admissions that what was done did not violate the Bylaws, but there is a charge that what was done was unethical. But Slade says otherwise. So does the full EC. I can’t see why we should believe one… Read more »
Actually, Voices as a whole is standing behind this one lone voice. Lone at least up to this point. Maybe someone else will speak up with concerns, but right now, it’s Voices against the EC. We’ll see if anything else transpires.
SBC Voices should be ashamed and repent.
It is obvious to the SBC laity who/where the schism is being driven from.
Praying for you all to have Gospel softened hearts..
Voices is merely responding to events that have not been done in a wise, transparent, above-reproach manner. They are not the orchestrators of all this. Your call for repentance is misplaced at best.
I am in complete disagreement with your opinion about my post…at the best.
Voices is reporting opinion and conjecture…and to be above reproach Mr Williams would have had to go to his fellow brother(s) and discuss the issue. Feeding a blog is not even close to the means that Scripture would point us too for reconciliation.
Be careful when using biblical doctrine/verbiage to those of us that do attempt to practice It in its entirety, we will not set by and let unbiblical dialogue go un checked.
Repentance is needed…likely by us all.
Thanks for giving your name. Honesty is biblical.
Hello William,
I am unsure as to how to respond, I am not certain I understand your comment. Feel free to elaborate.
Brandon, did you mean “Mr. Wellman” instead of Williams?
Yes, my apologies…I was writing from a phone and auto corrected.
I am getting the idea from the various negative reactions to the Voices team here that there is a sizable (online anyway) group that believes the EC is above accountability and should not be questioned in any way.
I wonder if the same standard applies to the ERLC, the Pastors Conference, the Resolutions Committee, and the SBC President?
If not, why is the EC different from the others mentioned?
I dont think that’s the case at all. I think more transparency in all of our agencies is agreed upon by pretty much everyone. But right now, it’s one lone voice on the EC saying something nefarious happened. Testimony is established by a minimum of 2-3. If others come forward, maybe things are revealed we need to know. But right now, it’s one person.
Inflammatory Accusation of Racism As a matter of full disclosure, I am love Jesus Christ and I happen to be an African American pastor who serves in Baltimore City. In light of a recent post by our dear Brother Rick Armstrong, I am “bothered” by an “extreme” hyperbolized language used in his post. The broad, sweeping generalizations Pastor Armstrong uses is highly inflammatory and unnecessary, and unworthy of the community of faith who love Jesus Christ. Here are few examples of his offensive tirade: 1. “a legalized [emphasis are mine] execution of a Black man in handcuffs” (What law is he referring to? If… Read more »
David, I think you misplaced your response. Your response is to the previous post.
But it is very well put.
This over generalization is such the crux of the problem in these discussions. Placing every individual person in a category that is either on the right side or the enemies side simply ignores God’s Side. And God’s Side just happens to be over and above everyone one’s side in this world, i.e. seated at the righthand Side of the Father.
Thank you for standing by your convictions. I always post what I believe to be true. But that can lead to pushback .”Strength of conviction for ones faith is celebrated by the church- except when that conviction runs contrary to the status quo.” Jamie Arpin- Ricci
Thanks Dee!
I’m old enough to remember when only God knew the hearts and motivations of men…..
Mark: If someone walks into a bank or store with gun pulled out, pointing it toward you, do you say “Only God knows the hearts and motivations of man”, which btw is the most overused, out of context given verse in controversies like this. It’s obvious and has been since CBN’s inception. They have not made a secret out of it, nor have they made a secret of Paige’s involvement until now.
I have given some thought to these issues over a couple of days and while I will pose some questions – they are rhetorical. As so many have pointed out here so often – The agenda of the CBN and, even that of Mike Stone, not been a secret – so I question – why the howls of lack if transparency? Screams of deception and trickery? when over 3/4 of the entire EC voted “with” Stone’s agenda at the regular meeting in question and then again at follow called meeting (at least a majority – do we know what that… Read more »
Good questions. Answers are mine only. Even Stone acknowledged the timing of the CBN steering committee release “created needless controversy.” He says he didn’t know that two of his four nominees were CBN steering committee people. I take him at his word because the alternative is so harsh. Would one say that the EC over the past two years has been solid and helpful or otherwise? The agenda of the group is not secret but is general when specifics are being charged. They support the CP while partnering with not a CP seminary. Mixed message there. ERLC and russ Moore?… Read more »
Yeah, I hear ya William. Doubt the election will clear it up either. Too much stife in and between the camps. As to whether the EC has thrived under his leadership – I will put it like this – I would not vote for Stone for EC chair if I were on the committee. As for partnerships with Non SBC/CP seminaries – no big issue for me – heck Even our own seminaries themselves partner with non CP/SBC seminaries…there has been a recent kerfluffle involving an SBC seminary president who was a trustee at one. And if course several SBC… Read more »
Oh yeah – and as to the “created controversy” quote – I agree too.
I also think William – absent real evidence otherwise – I think it is good, wise and fair to take Stone at his word about thar because, as you said, the alternative assumption is just too harsh.