I just spoke to someone who was in the room when Steve Gaines and JD Greear settled their decision for JD to drop out and let Gaines become president on the third ballot uncontested.
Most considered it a magnanimous gesture by Greear and felt as if that was the best outcome possible after the split balloting the first two ballots. Of course, for some, grace, peace, and unity is not a good outcome and so aspersions must be cast, suspicions must be raised, and deals must be insinuated.
According to the person who was there, all of that is fiction. Pure conjecture and accusation – unworthy of any man of God. He said in no uncertain terms that what happened was two good men, godly men, got together and did what they thought was best for the SBC. There were no deals, no quid pro quos, no promises of future nominations. Just two men, both of whom were willing to back out to seek peace in the SBC. JD did. Gaines is president.
At one point during the McCarthy hearings Joseph Welch asked the senator, “Have you left no sense of decency, at long last?”
Perhaps the time has come to wonder if we should ask Joseph Welch to speak again?
Isn’t it time for this to stop?
Steve Gaines and JD Greear did something selfless and good. Can’t we just say “praise God” and move on?
“You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”
Nice historical reference. Entirely appropriate.
Frankly, I believed that to be the case all along and it has made me feel shame for some of my brothers who are of my particular theological position on several issues who have made something more of this than they should have.
Funny you should mention the possibility of a “Greear nominates Gaines this year in exchange for Gaines nominating Greear in 2018” scenario. I recently posted a 1,000 word article about the election in which I spent all of two sentences wondering about the very same thing. Of course, I’m not the only person to speculate concerning all the conversations that might have happened behind the scenes that night. I wrote: “It has even been suggested that Gaines might nominate Greear in 2018 as a gesture of unity in the convention. Who knows what kind of gentleman’s agreement might have been… Read more »
” I recently posted a 1,000 word article about the election in which I spent all of two sentences wondering about the very same thing. Of course, I’m not the only person to speculate concerning all the conversations that might have happened behind the scenes that night.”
An assassin’s well planned “camouflage” of death is usually one wherein the volume of innocent liquid is far greater than the small, but potent, amount of poison mixed with it used to kill the mark.
Excellent analogy, CB!
What’s the difference between two sentences of speculation and sowing seeds of discord among brothers?
There’s nothing inherently wrong with speculating, or hypothesizing if some prefer that term. But here’s what responsible journalists do before they publish what they’ve heard through gossip and rumor, and what responsible scientists do before they publish their unproven hypotheses: They investigate. They look for evidence. They talk to people and collect data. And if the evidence is strong, then they publish.
Bill Mac, This may be the source of our disagreement. I agree with you when the journalism being written is a “news” story. But when the genre of an article is an editorial, then offering an opinion or a speculation or a possibility is completely appropriate. In fact, it is normative. It is routine. It is even expected. Granted, there are certain facts that are included in editorials as facts. Those had better be accurate, as were my vote counts, the dates and times of the balloting, the specific details related to Floyd’s election in 2014, and other items *that… Read more »
Todd asked: “What’s the difference between two sentences of speculation and sowing seeds of discord among brothers?” Depends on what you are speculating about. If your speculation casts aspersions on someone, then it is sin. Its like starting a rumor. If someone in his congregation would start verbally speculating that the pastor was having an affair, as in, “Hey Dave, I am wondering if the pastor is having an affair?” And that person had no evidence of an affair, that would be sin. It would be a speculation and it would be casting aspersions upon the pastor. That you even… Read more »
Bill Mac, Some editorials or published comments give opinions and purposefully are not reporting the news or the facts, but commenting on it. I am sure there are standards in the secular world and lines that responsible publishers don’t cross, but I honestly don’t know where they draw them. Christians though, should hold themselves to a higher standards. We shouldn’t write speculatively as to cast aspersions or to write in a way that encourages others to cast aspersions, especially on a brother, but really, not on anyone. If one did write in such a way as to encourage others to… Read more »
Rick, Most reputable publishers have guidelines for editorials. Here are some I found: As with all good writing, avoid overgeneralizations and assumptions. Follow same rules as reporting when it comes to libel and use of language. Be careful. Always take the high road. No personal attacks or mean-spirited attacks. In the body, provide facts, information and statistics to support your premise. You may pull broadly from past news stories. Provide facts, supporting material. The facts (evidence) should be as complete as possible in the space allowed. Base opinions on fact; avoid repeating gossip and hearsay without demonstrating that you investigated… Read more »
Parsonsmike, If I ever meet such a Christian, especially a Pastor, who writes idle words or spreads gossip, then I will encourage him not to do so. In the present case, of course, I have done no such thing. I made absolutely no accusations of either Steve or of JD. In fact, the article could have been written without that one question asking “who knows” regarding a possible conversation. I never said that a gentleman’s agreement was definitely reached and I never said that if one had been reached it would necessarily be a bad or immoral thing. So there’s… Read more »
Rick,
I didn’t say you accused anyone.
Speculating isn’t accusing is it? Did you speculate?
Did your writings lead to others speculating and accusing?
Did you write based on facts?
Did you follow good standards of editorial writings?
Hey, and ask yourself, why do non-Calvinists find your editorial sad, heartbreaking, and poisonous?
I don’t want to fight against you, I do hope though that you will examine yourself and repent.
Jesus told the one forgiven to go and sin no more. That is our goal, yours and mine, to go and sin no more.
Rick, what if I said, “Rick Patrick may have stole candy from the store. I saw candy there but then it was gone around the same time Rick showed up. Could he have stolen it? Maybe but maybe not.” Now, you may have done no such thing, but if I put it out there like that then the audience might speculate as to whether or not your a thief even though your intentions could be pure or could have had nothing to do with the candy theft. See how speculating might lead to the actual facts and the integrity of… Read more »
Tyler,
There is one major difference. Stealing candy is wrong. It is immoral. Having a conversation saying, “I’ll nominate you if you’ll nominate me,” is not immoral. It may be secretive, but it is not immoral. These kinds of agreements are made in all walks of life all the time. It would be more like saying, “Maybe Rick ate a piece of candy that he paid for or maybe he didn’t.” Ok, true, but so what? It is speculation without accusation because there is no potential wrongdoing.
Good example Tyler, here’s another; Church member, so is known for making accusations against church leadership stands in open Business meeting and says the following: “Rick Patrick wanted a raise. The Deacon chair wanted a new parking lot. Pastor Rick was seen talking to the church treasurer and Deacon chair in his office one day recently.. Strange thing is Rick got his raise – the Deacon chair is on the finance committee. The parking lot was added to the upcoming projects schedule – Rick agreed with the building and grounds that it was necessary. The treasurer rubber stamped this deal.… Read more »
Wow. You do not understand our polity. The parking lot issue would come from the Building and Grounds Committee, on which I have no vote. The salary issue would come from the Personnel Committee, on which I have no vote. It would then go to the Finance Committee, the Deacon Body and then the entire congregation for a vote. I would neither present anything nor moderate the meeting. The system is set up in such a way that such speculation can be definitively disproven. Again, the critical difference is that you are imagining scenarios of wrongdoing, whereas I have merely… Read more »
The person accused you not of voting but of using your influence to sway the building and grounds in exchange for the Deacon chair doing the same with the deacons and finance committee to make the recommendation to the church. He further accused the chair and treasurer of colluding with you and using thier influence.
It doesn’t matter if it’s true it’s been publicly charged and stoked sentiments among others who may also be disposed to believing it.
At any rate you are unwilling to acknowledge your wrongdoing and desire to obfuscate.
I’m done.
Finally.
There is nothing funny about this. Sad. Heartbreaking. Grievous. But not funny.
I meant funny as in “interesting” and not “funny ha-ha.” Sorry for any misunderstanding.
Color me as unsurprised by this latest accusatory peice.
Accusation in the guise of speculation is becoming the norm in the SBC.
Yes.
Bill, you’ve just been accused (or speculated) of being me! I’m not sure if we’ve both been complimented or insulted. 😉
Man, accused of being Bill Mac. That’s bad.
Yep
My “Yep” was in reply to Bill Mac who wrote:
“Accusation in the guise of speculation is becoming the norm in the SBC.”
Some of the brothers think they are Ronald Reagan and Oliver North dealing in the Sandinista and Contreras controversy with North giving Pres. Reagan “plausible deniability.”