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Nice historical reference.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 reached behind those closed doors in St. Louis? Personally, I hope this is not the case…”
Your source’s knowledge that, in fact, such an agreement never took place, is very reassuring to me. I think we can all agree that this year’s SBC Presidential Election was unlike any we have ever seen. Thank you for reporting on the matter.
” 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 were clearly reported as fact.* And yet, we must preserve room for opinions in editorial writing.
Sometimes, the most credible of news agencies employ people to provide commentary and analysis. They speculate. They come on and say, “I don’t think Trump gets 60% of the Evangelical vote.” They say, “Hillary is not going to be indicted.” They say, “Tom Brady is not guilty of anything.” But they do not really KNOW these things FOR A FACT. They are sharing opinions, and people of good will charitably receive them as such.
If an editorial writer reports something as a fact when it is only an opinion, then I take every word of this back. That is lousy journalism and he should indeed be called on the carpet. But if someone engages in literature making use of the subjunctive case, he is not guility of anything but thinking, imagining, and considering possibilities.
I think you all need to make your peace with the very nature of editorials. People have opinions. Sometimes their opinion will be that something MIGHT have happened. It is not against the law to speculate, hypothesize or theorize. And sometimes, speculation is done in cases where the truth may never be fully known. (See OJ Simpson.) To pretend that writers can only write about facts and not about possible scenarios would deprive the world of approximately 1,000 differing accounts of JFK’s assassination.
As long as speculation is presented as speculation (i.e. “Who knows…what might…”) then there has been no dishonesty and no shoddy journalism. Some people need to take a trip to the Imagination Station—a place that may not have all the answers, but at least asks probing questions and invites further exploration.
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 need to ask that question, Todd, shows a lack of clear thinking.
That a pastor and a leader of men would cast aspersions on a brother is despicable.
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 sin, even if that wasn’t their intent, they are duty bound to correct their listeners and repent of their own lack of judgment. All the more so if their original intention was to cast aspersions,
Most secular editorials I read seek to make a case for their opinions by gathering facts and verifying them. But still, there are those who write hit pieces for the purpose of swaying opinion against a person or his publicly held positions. We see that kind of editorial a login political writings. Many times those writers seem to care more about their own position than the truth.
Christians should reflect the Lord, who is the Truth, and know that every word, even idle ones, will be brought under judgment by the Word of Truth.
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 to find the truth.
Occasionally, information will come into the company anonymously—via a telephone tipline, for instance, or via someone who drops off photos or a video, or showing up on Twitter or other forms of social media. All efforts should be made to verify independently the source of all information, particularly that the person calling or tweeting is who she says she is. If you cannot ascertain the accuracy and the provenance of such material, it should not be published.
Bear in mind while writing that attacks on individuals’ character, ethnicity, birthplace, parentage, sexual orientation or personality are no substitute for logical argumentation, careful presentation of fact and intellectual civility.
Rick,
In seems to me that your standards are lower than secular writers and publishers of editorials.
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 no accusation of wrongdoing by me against Gaines or Greear at all. Just the speculation that they may have had a conversation about it. That seems pretty harmless to me.
By the way, the implied answer to the “who knows” question is “God, JD and Steve.”
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 someone be skewed?
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. It seems to me that they may have conspired in that meeting!”
I wonder how Rick, The deacon chair, and the church treasurer might feel about such a public accusation – I mean speculation – I mean throwaway line – I mean just a statement intended for discussion?
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 imagined a scenario in which a conversation took place to consider a nomination completely within the rules, albeit discussed privately.
Apples and oranges.
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.”
One thing that is interesting is that in order to accuse Greear of an underhanded deal for the 2018 presidency, they have to implicate their man Gaines in the same underhanded deal. I was going to call it friendly fire, but I’m pretty sure friendly fire is accidental.
This years Convention was closest to what I have always wanted the SBC to be. Gaines and Greear were just the icing on the cake.
That is why it is so disconcerting when there are those both in and out of the SBC to want to cast dispersion and conspiracy theories based on nothing but their own need to fight over everything.
One thing to remember when using McCarthy as a metaphor; history has since proven that , although his methodology was questionable, his premises were correct. Many brought up to testify before the Un american affairs committee were in fact communists. And the legacy from some of those individuals still infects our country to this day.
But, Donald, his approach prevented his genuine concerns from being taken seriously.
Also, just because McCarthy’s concerns about Communism were partially real does not mean that the accusations, insinuations and such being made here are accurate.
There are two problems. In this case, the insinuations are patently false.
In general, the process of casting aspersions, character assassination, conspiracy mongering and such has caused many godly people to grow weary of the tactics and behavior of those who sow discord in the convention.
I agree. I was merely making a point of fact Re McCarthy. As to Greear/Gaines, idle speculation is detrimental to the Convention. I do agree with some who have posited that the underlying issue, particularly concerning Calvinist/Traditionalist leanings should be vetted and resolved. To ignore this undercurrent within the Convention is detrimental to the work the Convention should be doing. By having the issues at hand resolved, better or worse, would allow all parties the ability to decide what actions they need to take. IMHO, the “emperor has no clothes” position is doing a disservice to all involved.
Wasnt there a group of leaders who dealt with Calvinism at the convention years ago? T Hey decided to unite on Gospel essentials while disagreeing on secondary points like Calvinism and left as brothers. I really don’t think some people will be satisfied until their team wins. Very unfortunate.
Donald: It won’t be resolved by vetting. It hasn’t in the ten years I’ve been involved and believe me there has been some vetting. I think the Convention messengers et al have been handling it just fine by……..ignoring it.
Donald Trump recently “speculated” that Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the JFK assassination. Once it’s out, it cannot be taken back, and as we have unfortunately seen, it works.
Funny that you should mention Trump. After reading Rick’s recent post that’s exactly what I thought of. A bunch of unsubstantiated hot air punctuated with calls for “transparency” and rumors of hidden agendas.
The only people with a hidden agenda are Rick’s tribe. And their agenda is really not that hidden. They want power and control. I have been saying this on this and other blogs for years. They want to be the heirs of the CR. They think they deserve it and they are using the same tactic that was used to accomplish the CR- politicking. The problem is their chosen boogeyman “Calvinists” are not a real threat, unlike the moderates, Cals are orthodox.
The results of this campaign for power and control plays out on their chosen media- their blogs and conferences. The blogs are particularly interesting because they show a smaller and smaller number of people who comment and their comments are always the same, no matter the subject. Further, the most frequent commenters and the loudest supporters of this movement seem to be moderates who are still angry about the CR. Which is quite humorous since their accusations and catcalls are regularly given credence been thought their theology is so far from the Trad statement.
All in all, my expectation is the SBC 2016 will ultimately be seen as the death knell of the Traditionalist Movement. Gaines and Greear showed us the way forward and the truth is there are some people who don’t know how to navigate peace. They are on their way to being a minority after St Louis. And praise God for that.
“The only people with a hidden agenda are Rick’s tribe.”
Actually, that is not correct. If you have followed the SBC, there have always been people with an agenda. Do you think the Founders were without an agenda for the SBC?
That has been one of the factors for the decline of the SBC, too many groups with too many agendas.
Agendas aren’t necessarily or inherently bad in and of themselves – only ungodly, self exalting ones are.
Christian agenda should be for the glory of God in all things and the good of others above ourselves.
Look at the comment section of the article in question and then look at Trump supporters. Assuming the worse in great men, insulting, bringing forth faulty accusations, and frankly, poor rhetoric.
Just read the comment section of that SBCToday article…and of course, most them assume the worse in Greear.
And my strongest suggestion is the opposite. Don’t read extremist sites. .
I stopped reading them a year or two ago and only go on to see a specific article.
A certain discernment blog would publish lies about me and I’d get upset. When I stopped reading it I found out their lies held no power.
Those who seek to sow discord can only do so because we let them. We read their trash, get upset, respond and they love it. Better to just ignore it completely – marginalize them and make them completely irrelevant.
As individuals we have every right to marginalize the divisive. Titus 3:10 commands it.
You’re right Dave. I stopped reading that one blog you’re referring to ages ago and it seems I probably should do the same with the one in question now. What’s funny is, both of those blogs are completely different in their theological convictions, yet they both use the same types of arguments, same fallacies, same insults, and both slander other brothers in Christ.
Hold your fire, brothers. I surrender. While I still believe that asking a speculative question is well within the bounds of an editorial analyzing possible past and future events, it is not worth the hassle of all your charges. In the interest of unity, and as a gesture of good will, I deleted the question in question. It frankly did not contribute much to the general thrust of the article, and it was certainly not the primary point of the article. Since it became a bone of contention for so many of you, and since it really didn’t matter much to me one way or the other, I honored your concerns and got rid of it.
Once again, I never made any definitive accusation that such a conversation took place, and I never even suggested that if such a conversation had taken place, it would have been immoral to do so. I merely speculated that perhaps it happened. But I speculate no more! I am more than happy to remove the conjecture. I hope this resolution paves the way for greater peace and understanding.
Have a blessed Independence Day weekend.
“I’m sorry you’re upset.”
“I’m sorry you misunderstood.”
“I deleted the comment, now y’all should drop it.”
I’ll go ahead speculate that this kind of “apology” probably doesn’t work with Mrs. Patrick.
Oh I forgot one;
“It was a throw away line, it meant nothing, I swear!”
Yep, been there done that. I think I have heard each and every one of those lines before.
The money quote of this comment thread comes from Parsonsmike:
“Depends on what you are speculating about. If your speculation casts aspersions on someone, then it is sin.”
That one comment should speak volumes to all of us. Thank you parsonsmike for stating truth so precise and concise.
Aspersion: “an attack on the reputation or integrity of someone or something.” Where did I question Greear’s or Gaines’ integrity? I wondered if they had a conversation about Gaines nominating Greear in 2018. I never said such a conversation would have been immoral. I also never said they actually had one. I wondered.
All of you, on the other hand, have actually attacked me right here on this site. You are guilty of equivocation by calling my speculation an accusation when it was not. You have also called me names. You have insulted me. You even brought my wife into it.
Not wanting my speculation to cause you to stumble, since it was becoming an issue, I even removed the sentence, but still, that was not enough.
God will judge between you and me regarding whether we have merely engaged in the mental exercise of conjecture, or whether we have engaged in the harsh and personal character assassination of a brother in Christ.
Can we agree to disagree about the sinfulness of wonder? Let’s put this behind us. I sincerely hope you have a blessed day of worship tomorrow and a nice time with your families on this Independence Day weekend.
Don’t think you are the victim here, Rick. If you incur some loss of credibility it was well earned.
Brought your wife into it? Wow, that was an example of how ridiculous your “mea culpa” was and how it’d never work in real life.
Your ability to twist a wrong you’ve committed and somehow turn yourself into a victim is second to none Mr. Patrick.
You misunderstood if you thought my concession was a “mea culpa,” which is an admission of fault. I did absolutely nothing wrong. In an effort to remove the stumbling block of an unnecessary conjecture that was for some reason offensive to certain brothers, I bent over backwards and removed one sentence from my essay that was not even germane to my thesis.
Your statement addressing my wife and my apologies is therefore irrelevant, for I am not apologizing for anything. I am simply surrendering the conjecture and removing the offense. Or trying to. Y’all could just say, “Thanks, Rick, for removing the speculation we found so terribly offensive.” Just sayin.
Rick: Once it’s out there, whether speculation or accusation, it takes on a life of its own, especially on a blog where Greear is already held in pretty low esteem by the regulars. So a theoretical backroom deal becomes something more. The very first commenter uses scare quotes around the word graciously to suggest the withdrawal was possibly not so gracious and goes on to suggest Greear withdrew rather than lose. The next commenter suggests that it was a public relations ploy and a plot to secure the presidency in 2018. Following that is a suggestion that someone will try to circumvent the election and appoint Greear by acclamation. Good grief, people who supported Gaines are faulting Greear for withdrawing (for violating polity?). You can’t make this stuff up. You aren’t completely responsible for what other people say, but you lit the fire.
Rick: Wonderment like that need not be written in public. Talk about it at home, with a small group of friends but anything put online is read by a lot of people and the more scandalous, the more read it. I am all for exposing if one knows it is true and has iron clad proof, but to publicly assassinate someone no matter who it is with no proof whatsoever is not befitting a Christian. It’s not befitting anyone, but especially a Christian. Bullet holes are tough to heal.
I might also add if I may that the comment concerning those who would decry your article, only a fraction would be for Steve Gaines is also an untrue statement. Personally I thought both men were very Christlike in this race and it moved me deeply as I watched the election portion of the Convention.
I was against Steve Gaines for President and watching how both he and Greear responded changed my mind to welcome either man for President of the SBC.
I am for the most part Calvinist, with a few exceptions, but my criteria for SBC President is not whether one is Calvinist or not. My criteria is a deep love for Christ and people. A man or woman who stands strong for what we stood strong for this year on the passing of the resolutions we passed. One who would include people of all nations. Love and strength of conviction for the things Christ taught while on this earth are my criteria.
Rick, your complaint is that Traditionalists are not invited to the table, but I have to tell you that I do not want anyone who believes the article or who commented on the article to be in the SBC. The chaos and strife it would cause would surely be the end of so many things we have accomplished this last meeting. If Traditionalists were more like Steve Gaines showed he was in this election, I would gladly want someone like that at the SBC table in droves.
Regarding your final sentence, I sincerely hope you get your wish.