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Nice historical reference.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.”
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Regarding your final sentence, I sincerely hope you get your wish.