News reported this afternoon. 16 individuals or couples have signed a letter to Kevin Ueckert and the SWBTS trustees threanening to withhold “tens of millions” in future donations to the school. In seven pages they express “utter disdain for your actions on May 30,” the day Patterson was terminated. They demand for an investigative committee to be appointed, half of which would be signers of the letter (sounds like it would be objective…).
Nugget: Bigtime Southwestern Seminary donors have sent a letter to the executive committee of the board of trustees saying that unless “serious wrongs” against fired president Paige Patterson are “righted,” they will not be donating any more #sbc #swbts https://t.co/wGL1vPOpJa
— Sarah Smith (@sarahesmith23) June 29, 2018
You can read the full letter here.
A few thoughts here.
- This list of donors together has given millions of dollars to SWBTS in the past (we know because the letter says so). Southern Baptists are rightly grateful for that past investment in theological education.
- The landslide vote of the convention was not to fire the board but to allow the full board of trustees to review the actions of the executive committee. If it wasn’t clear before (I’d argue yes), it certainly was after Bart Barber’s speech that the Executive Committee was justified, cautious, and unanimous about the decision they made. Very few, if any, think the full board will reverse that decision. (My guess is these donors don’t either, which is why they demand to make up half of a committee instead of leaving it to the trustees.)
- Southern Baptists are ready to move past this. The SWBTS report was handled exceptionally well by Dr. Bingham. The seminary needs to heal. Many people who were involved do too. The Pattersons do as well, and not turn this in to a drawn-out battle. Dr. Patterson missed his first convention in many years, and things went on without him. There wasn’t a widespread outcry. If anything, there was a sense of relief that the drama had settled.
- The donor letter is a distasteful power move. Threats of withholding money don’t go well in SBC life, and that’s something we should be thankful for. The response on social media to this letter has, rightly, been universally negative, as far as I’ve seen.
- We pray these donors, who will not get their way, will reconsider their actions and realize that theological education is still a worthwhile investment. And specifically future investment in Southwestern Seminary. This is bigger than one man, at least we hope it was for them.
- I believe God will provide for Southwestern Seminary and continue to use that institution for his purposes. Let this be a reminder for us to continue to pray for SWBTS.
For a bunch of evidently smart businessmen, this is a really dumb move.
Even if they got what they are asking, it would be a disaster. Really embarrassing ploy.
Brother Jason, I completely agree! What’s even worse….for a group of Christians…this reeks of manipulation and prepotence.
My unsolicited advice is to reply that these folks are welcome to keep their $$$$ and trust that God will provide for the seminary. No one or several donors are so big and important as to use $$ to leverage what they want. Bid them farewell.
Trust the trustees must mean, as long as they make decisions I trust or agree with. When they go contrary, deligitmize them, and demand equal investigative authority.
Bro. Dwight … they are wanting to trust the trustees, the “full” board of trustees.
Trust the trustees must mean, as long as they make decisions I trust or agree with. Yep. That criticism swings a number of ways!
That’s interesting considering those were the very words of Tom Hatley during his reign at the IMB in the early 2000’s.” Trust the trustees, trust the system.” So I guess to him that must mean until they make decisions he disagrees with Bob and Ron. Considering he made a motion to fire them.
Threatening to with hold money worked for Jack Graham and it shouldn’t have because once again extortion is being used. I agree Les, and that has been our problem as a Convention I believe. Until this year, we have not done the right thing and we always pulled ourselves up by the bootstraps instead of trusting God.
It’s a new day. Money and power plays are not going to be as effective as in times past. I pray we all seek God so we may be recipients of a mighty movement of God’s Spirit that can demonstrate true spiritual power.
Have to wonder why you guys are in such a rush to “move past this”. It’s very suspicious and inappropriate. Be sure of this, its not over.
Mark: It’s over.
There’s no “you guys.” I wrote the post. These are my thoughts. I’m in no rush. The full trustee board will evaluate what the EC did. I’m content to leave it there. And yes, the SBC is ready to move on, even if a few Patterson loyalists are not.
There is a lot suspicious and inappropriate going on…but I don’t think it is from anyone on here.
Why some people feel that such a tactic is appropriate is beyond me. The “I’m rich, you should do what I say or I’m not going to give you money” approach is so obviously sinful. The defense of it is not much better.
Right on, Jason.
Thank you, Mark. I agree with you. It’s long from over. These people will not roll over and play dead. A trusted source tells me that the collective worth of the signatories is upwards of $2 billion, not million, but billion. To borrow from a song title, “It’s Only Just Begun,” or, “The End of the Beginning.” Anyone has a right to disagree and you will, but I say, “Let’s wait and see.”
Brent,
Just as you were quick to join the SBC-styled Me-too movement to smear Dr. Patterson … you are just as quick to smear the motives of these good Southern Baptists who have loved SWBTS as an institution and supported the Patterson’s leadership through the Conservative Resurgence and leadership at the school. You may have left Dallas thinking the matter was settled but others may have thought differently. I married a Texas girl — Texans don’t ride off into the sunset just because somebody says, “scant!”
Blessings!
Ron: It’s over.
Ron – he doesn’t “smear anyone’s motives” in his short article. He stated fact. This is a distasteful power move. When you threaten to withhold donations so that you can get your way after the full convention voted against it…that certainly is a distasteful power move.
Please, brother, Debbie’s right, it’s over. Just stop.
Good Southern Baptists trust the trustees to do their jobs.
Good Southern Baptists don’t use their money to get their way.
These people are Southern Baptists. I would not call them good.
This is a power move. I bet I know who is pulling the strings.
Some people just don’t know when to quit.
Ryan Abernathy,
You are wrong. Southern Baptists can’t always trust the trustees to do their jobs. Southern Baptist history will not support your statement.
Southern Baptist have always used their money to get their way. Southern Baptist history will prove that.
You are right in one thing though. “This is a power play.”
CB is right on all three counts.
Some of the rest of us are Texans too. The term is “scat.” All of us, no matter our geographical ties, need to trust the trustees to get this right. Even those who disagree with it.
When you give money to a seminary, you are not “supporting” the leadership. You are providing for the students who are making pretty big sacrifices, and trusting God for their support. If it is about the “leader,” and you’re willing to stop when things don’t go as you thought they should, then you were certainly not interested in the students or their theological education. The SBC is the final say on this matter, and the convention in Dallas spoke.
Lee,
In theory you are correct. Donations should always be to benefit the students.
However, in reality, many donors give to satisfy their own vanity.
Yes, but it is never easy to tell. These donors have revealed their true intentions. The school has already benefitted from their contributions Thank them, let them know that their decision has no bearing on any trustee decision or action, and let them find someone else to help them out with their tax deduction.
Ron, individuals who threaten to withhold their money because of one decision they don’t like and/or because they have joined the cult of personality do not “love” SWBTS, nor are they “good” Southern Baptists. And I’m unconcerned with how “Texans” act. I’m more concerned that we all act like followers of Jesus Christ. If any pastor—including those of you who are apparently sporting for yet another “battle”—has someone in their church acting this way the courageous response would not be capitulation, but rather, church discipline.
It is not Christlike behavior.
I believe the Lord will provide as well. High handed behavior is sad at best
The Lord will provide. Those types of “givers” are not helpful anyway. It’d be best to Bid these folks a goodbye.
#YouAreNotGivingaGiftIfYouStillThinkYouControlIt.
#TheyHaveARightToStopGiving
#TheyHaveShownTheirTrueColorsThough
#GoodBye
Since when did blackmail become biblical?
Thanks for reading and commenting. We prefer for commenters to use their names in most circumstances. See #4 here: https://sbcvoices.com/about/
Yes. Brent is right. Use your name. So since you are too gutless to use your name, I will use mine.
“Since when did blackmail become biblical?”
However, Ron Hale is right. This is not over. As a matter of fact it will never be over either if the trustees give in to this in any fashion.
BTW, Dr. Bart Barber did not lie . . . . and now, it should be evident that many others, in the past and in the present did not lie either.
I think we can be more kind than that. “Gutless” is inappropriate. Perhaps they didn’t see the rules— there are other blogs that don’t have a problem with anonymous postings.
Kimberly, I had no intention in being “kind.” I intended to be truthful. I was. To post as an “Anony” about this is as I stated, “gutless.” One (Just one) of the reasons the SBC finds itself in this situation now is due to gutlessness.
Kimberly, there is such a thing as gutlessness and it is not improper to identify it as such when it is so blatantly revealed in a person or persons.
CB, your statement implies that you have to choose kindness or truthfulness. It’s not an either/or. You can choose to do both and obviously didn’t. Your choice on how you want to respond , but I’m just saying I think that’s a bad choice. Were they being “gutless”? Maybe, maybe not. But I think it’s better to respond as Brent did instead of making that assumption and running with it. Better to wait and call out gutlessness once you find out it’s truly that instead of potentially running off new people who don’t know the rules.
No, Kimberly. My statement does not imply anything. I intended to be truthful in this case because that is what this case demands. The Anony was the one who was not only gutless, but also unkind. It is unkind to those who read and interact here in honest dialogue to post as an anonymous person. BTW, what is your last name?
In addition, why do you assume this is a “new” person? Probably not new, just gutless. Again, it was and continues to be one of the problems we have in the SBC. Trustees, and leaders alike being gutless.
CB, You know another problem we have? Rush to judgment. Don’t want to be kind? Your choice. And why would I want to give my last name to someone who doesn’t care about being kind? I have places to go so I probably won’t respond further. I have a trip to pack for and a bunch of teens to supervise among other things to do today and this week.
Kimberly,
Now you are gas lighting. I did not say, I don’t want to be kind.” I stated that “I did not intend to be kind.” That was and still is in this context. I am glad you have places to go and teens to supervise. That’s grand and I hope it is something more than virtue signaling. . . and I don’t really care if you respond to me here. I did not state what I did hoping for a response from you or anyone else. I stated what I know is truth and the devil can take the hindmost parts with the rest of it. I stand by my statements. I own them. Have a grand week and share the biblical gospel with someone.
I don’t want to fight with you. I assume you’re actually a decent person. I understand distrusting anonymity. I don’t have a problem requesting that people give their names. I won’t give my last name on here, not because I don’t stand by what I say but because I know that’s not always safe. I’m sure people could figure out who I am.
Look, when I was a freshman at my university I told someone my name in conversation. Just out loud. They looked me up on the university website, were convinced that I was their soulmate from two brief conversations and then turned straight stalker for a few months including sneaking into my all girls dorm and freaking out the entire hall one night, writing nasty slanderous stuff on my door for not showing up to dates I never agreed to and eventually following me to church few weeks before I decided to stop attending.
I assume most people on here are nothing like that. None of y’all would really care who I am offline I’m sure. I’m nobody. But there are crazy psychos and people with bad intentions online and so I don’t prefer to give my full name. It makes me uncomfortable. I mean just check that guy who hates this site and yet still reads it and writes/says some nasty stuff about people on his blog. Pulls peoples pictures off social media.
There may be some confusion on anonymous comments. Many people here use a first name and most of the time some of us know the person. Generally, a stray anonymous commenter isn’t helpful and is asked to provide a name. If anyone wants a serious discussion, particularly one where folks might be critical, then that’s one not allowed with anonymity.
No problem for many cases of mssys and a number of female commenters for reasons you describe.
Lately, there has been an increase in deleted comments. We can do better even with hot topics.
William, I’m all for Brent’s response. I have no problem with saying to give a name. I just think some people might not see the rules of the blog before they post. That’s the only reason I even said anything.
“I don’t want to fight with you . . .”
Well then, don’t.
CB :Ron Hale is not right. It is over. It is a done deal.
Debbie, read the comment. If the trustees give in to this, it will never be over.
Debbie, I hope you are right, but feel quite sure this is wishful thinking. PP is not going down without a big splash down. Something should have been done way before anyone spoke of the stained glass windows. An exercise in self-idolatry. He is used to getting what he wants.
You have worked hard and I appreciate it.
God speed.
If anything, this group of playground bullies has all but guaranteed that the decision of the EC will be rightfully sustained. This letter is beyond shameful and Dr. Patterson could and should put an immediate end to it. The proverbial ball remains in his court.
Agreed. But judging by some of their points in the letter they’ve been fed info by Patterson. I think this is what he is doing with the ball being in his court, but covertly (obviously).
Yep. To me, the letter has the tone of Patterson’s attorney.
Note: The Jim Merritt who signed the letter is not ex SBC President James W. Merritt whose wife’s name is Teresa if I remember correctly.
Let”s not discuss whether the info contained in the letter gives pause regarding the decision by the executive board. Instead,let’s condemn tbe contributors for not wanting to continue to give to an institution led by trustees whom they deem to be slanderers of dr patterson, and who were intentionally misleading regarding said events. Count me as one who is glad to see a call for further investigation into the way the trustees handled this situation.
And I believe the messengers have spoken Kevin. Paige Patterson was rightfully fired. Finally. It should have happened many, many years ago. He is like a bull pulling strings, he won’t go down without a fight, but he did this to himself. It was not unjust. In fact finally justice was rendered.
Hold on. No one is criticizing these individuals because they do not want “to continue to give to an institution” that they see as run by Trustees who made a decision they didn’t like. They have every right to do that.
The criticism is because they are using their money as a means to extort a desired decision from the Trustees.
Do you not see the difference?
Is there a significant difference between a group threatening to financially withhold their support vs a separate group vowing to boycott/march/petition/etc unless Patterson was.fired? Both want their ends achieved albeit using only different techniques to arrive at the end. What matters is the truth. I certainly dont have all.the details, but i think the manner in which Patterson was released is deplorable. There certainly seems to be a bunch of “half-truths” told by the ex committee. Seemed like a poorly handled rush job to hatchet Dr Patterson before the Convention. …smells bad to me. Obviously, others think he could not have been fired soon enough. We will agree to disagree. These 16 are using their resources to seek what they perceive as justice, just as others would use their own means. Scriptures tell us that to whom much is.given, much is required. These donors may very well feel this is a way for them to be faithful to the Lord. If so, dont call it blackmail. It is their money(on loan from God of course), and they are free to follow their collective or individual conscience. If I were a wealthy donor, and I had previously supported the direction of an institution based on its leadership, and the leadership was tossed, i might very well question whether that was a group i should continue.funding. The article didnt state they had quit Christianity, or had quit supporting their local church.
The very evidence of this letter shows they are not afraid of a.backlash, and are being transparent. I hope the Trustees will aspire to that same level going forward.
Kevin (last name?),
Of course there is a difference between boycotting and extortion. You can say it is well-intended and it may be, I have little doubt they are doing what they think is right or at last what they think is their only option. But well-intended extortion is still extortion. Just because “they feel this a way for them to be faithful to the Lord” doesn’t mean that it is – their feeling should not lead them to sinful use of their power.
Now, if their response was to write a letter displaying their displeasure (protesting), fine. If they said they would no longer be giving (boycotting), fine. If they wanted to march or start a petition, fine. But that is NOT what they did. What they did was use their money as a bargaining chip to get what they wanted – that is sinful manipulation. Withholding money is not sinful in and of itself – threatening to withhold unless they get what they want is. There is a huge difference. I’m not sure how you don’t see that.
They don’t owe SWBTS that money and if they are so unhappy they can’t give anymore, that is ok. If they want to make it clear WHY they aren’t giving, that is fine. But that is not what they did. Let’s not downplay extortion just because you might agree with their frustration. To demand a certain result or to demand to make up half of a tribunal in exchange for their money is sinful. Sadly, it appears SWBTS has operated by showing partiality for way too long (they’re not the only ones!) – this letter just exposes that the degree to which these people expect to get their way because they are rich and powerful.
I think there are a lot of half-truths being floated out there, but not from the side you accuse. We will have to agree to disagree on that until all the info comes out.
I doubt that it will hurt SWBTS that much beings that there are windows with the images of Paige, Dorothy, Judge Pressler, and the dog. There is Pecan manor with all it’s riches inside that had to be funded from somewhere. It could be that their “millions” will not be missed as the treasures inside of SWBTS and the retirement apartment had to be funded from somewhere. Millions would just have about covered it and some. Maybe SWBTS will become just like our other seminaries. Normal with no red carpet, no throne, no flash. Just good education with no monarchy or in this case totalitarian behind it.
Well, yeah. That’s a valid thought, Debbie Kaufman. Unwarranted, vain opulence does cost money.
Yeah CB.
Exactly!
The donors are “within their rights” to choose to no longer give – For whatever reason they choose…no one is objecting to that. It’s thier money. What is being objected to his attempts of extortion, manipulation and power playing. .
The last time this was publicly tried – it was not given in to – I trust and hope this action will be rebuffed as well.
CB Is unequivocally correct – if the trustees give into this in any fashion this will never be over and furthermore it will encourage others to do the same.
I would like to see the trustees respond to this letter with a two word letter of thier own…
“Bye, Bye.”
But do they have that right now? In this way? I am criticizing them because they “do not want to give to an institution” etc. These are lies. They either know they are lies or they are ignorant of the facts that can easily be found out.
It seems to me that the only real course of actions for the Executive Committee of the SWBTS Trustees is to release every single detail they have that prompted their actions. Not “just enough”, but everything .. property, financials, enrollments, retirement accounts, the whole works. Then let the people judge for themselves.
It’s too late to avoid messiness.
I’m not sure they can do that legally. This was a personnel matter. It’s messy in that the owner of the school is a Christian denomination, but there’s a procedure in place for handling these matters, and the trustees operated within that procedure. I don’t think Patterson would, at this point, be interested in having everything he did over the course of his time at Southwestern subjected to the scrutiny of written seminary policy. He had a trustee board made up mainly of sycophants, including Bart Barber.
Southwestern, once the crown jewel of SBC theological education, was a thriving institution when I graduated from there, over 5,000 total students, more than 4,000 on the Fort Worth Campus, regognized as the top seminary in the country, located in the state that has 20% of the membership of the SBC within its borders. I think there should be questions about what happened to it. But I think it is more important to start work on what it will take to rebuild, and for Southwestern to continue serve the theological education needs of Southern Baptists.
What is interesting is the criticism leveled against the signatories of the letter but not a peep about the unethical explanation of Chairman Ueckert on the seminary’s website citing a statement made by Patterson in an email that was written 5 weeks after its intended reference. Come on…
And for the record, Barber’s passionate statement at the mic in Dallas simply stated that he decided to go with the others on the EC. He gave NO REASON whatsoever as to WHY he changed his mind, in the 7 days following the meeting of the full board of trustees. If the trustees are not going to be held accountable by those who were at the convention, then those supporting the institution do have both the responsibility and the right to speak out.
I’m not sure the criticism of the signatories is interesting at all. It is obvious. People using their money and power to extort a particular outcome from the Trustees is sinful. The criticism levied against them is legitimate.
Your last statement shows either your ignorance of SBC polity, or your disdain for it. There is a system in place for holding Trustees accountable, and there is a body that can act. That body chose, overwhelmingly, not to act to undo the Trustees, I believe because they saw they acted properly. The idea that donors have either a “responsibility” or “right” to act to undo the actions of Trustees is simply erroneous. Donors have NO responsibility or rights based off of their “donations.” In fact, such actions betray what it means to be a donor. They have no right or responsibility to make demands on Trustees (or anyone else).
Now, they have every right to voice their displeasure with the result as every-day SBC members. They have every right to disagree. They have every right to choose not to donate money or associate with SWBTS from here on out. But they have no right to dictate decisions based off of the size of a check they have previously written.
Power plays are what got Patterson in this mess. They are not what is going to get him out of it, no matter how much spin you put on it. Banking on past actions may have been enough to get one’s way in the past, but the ploy in this case is so transparent it will not work…and it should not work. Extortion is not anyone’s responsibility or right.
Well said. I am a current SWBTS student and agree with you Jason. I also agree with Debbie Kaufman as I have on many things she writes. I am looking forward to a fall semester under Dr. Bingham’s leadership. The seminary belongs to God. Not a group of extortionists.
Bonnie: Thank you for your kind words. I look forward to you as a Christian woman in seminary under Dr. Bingham’s leadership.
Bonnie: Dr. Yarnell has given you high praise indeed and the work you are doing is so God inspired. This is how I pictured SWBTS and other seminary students, male and female, to be. Thank you for doing all that you do to bring the Gospel to those who have not heard.
Debbie, it was such an awesome trip and I was grateful to be able to share the gospel with women who have no hope. I also was humbled by Dr. Yarnell’s words. I was able to have a conversation with an Imam because I had three semesters of Theology with him. He is one of the great professors I am always talking about. I look forward to hearing more from you.
Jason Gray,
Actually, they have the right to do whatever they want with their money. The responsibility as to their decision to exercise their rights to withhold their money now rests upon the trustees of the entity. If the trustees cave in to the demands of this group of donors, then the trustees have failed in their responsibility to the SBC.
These donors have the right to do anything they desire with their money. The trustees of SWBTS are responsible to do the right thing in response to these donors regarding their decision to exercise their right to withhold their money. Their responsibility is not to be moved by the actions of these donors. The SBC has confirmed the decision of the trustees to terminate the presidency of Dr. Patterson. Therefore, the decision of these donors to withhold their money is now meaningless and the trustees are responsible to treat their action as such: Meaningless.
Agreed.
As I said, they have the right to do whatever they want with their money, but that doesn’t give them any rights or authority within the seminary. If it has in the past, then it was wrong. Giving money to have a stake of control isn’t a donation, it is stock-holding. That is not how our seminaries/entities should work. If they have in the past, they all need to clean up their acts and get back on track.
Donors have not been entrusted to make decisions for the school, Trustees have. If these people do not like the decisions of entities, well, join the club. All of us disagree at times with decisions. But they do not have the right or authority to demand particular outcomes or even a place on a decision-making board.
I think this is bringing to light a dark secret within the SBC, how much influence/power/money drive things and how much some of our entities have been driven by it. We will be better off as a convention if we purge that mindset from our midst.
Bob,
That’s just not true… Bart did in fact give reasons… Many reasons… Why he reluctantly, cautiously and with Godly character and diligence came to the conclusion he did.
I am going to assume that you did not actually listen to Dr. Barber‘s speech (or read it when it was posted here)… Otherwise, reasons for saying what you said would seem much more nefarious and I would rather give you the benefit of the doubt.
I was both at the SBC in attendance when Bart spoke and I read his statement several times. Comprehension is a lost art. I challenge you and anyone else to read what he wrote that justified his decision to vote with the executive committee to vacate the decision of the full board of trustees AFTER their decision was made. It is not there with the exception of one statement:
“But I cannot vote for him to occupy any monarchy. We are Baptists. We have no popes. We are all accountable to someone.”
He said he believed in congregational polity and that cannot happen if you replace trustees because you disagree with the decisions they make. I get that. I agree to a degree. What strikes me is we cannot replace the 10 but they can undo what the full board did just 7 days prior. So much for Dr. Barber’s stand on congregational polity.
I respect Dr. Barber and have told him so since the convention. However, the actions of the executive committee on May 30 are unacceptable on a number of levels [Ed. redacted].
Alrighty then – not sure how I can help you, then.
Let us pretend this was the case of any other employee. Say, a cafeteria worker. And despite some mistakes by the employee, the Board offered the worker a slap on the wrist, an unprecedented “Cafeteria Worker Emeritus” job, and great influence on the cafeteria staff.
And the next day, the Worker’s attorney angrily writes the board that this decision was unlawful, illegal, unethical, and a house of lies, and that a “match has been lit,” and that with every breath in his body he’ll wreck the donor base until this injustice is wronged.
I comprehend that as a new fact.
Should the Executive Committee calmly insist the Worker take deal the Worker says is illegal, and allow him to attack the organization from within? Offer the deal again, to make sure he’s the lawful Cafe Emeritus while he attacks his “dishonest” supervisors? Or conclude the Worker is best separated from the workplace for the good of himself and the organization?
I didn’t read the letter. Don’t care to. I did read the names of the signers. Never heard of any of them. These kinds of power plays are not new. Patterson thrived in such circles. Ignore them and their money. This is an attempt to circumvent the Convention and it’s processes. If any of these people were members in my church, I’d make sure that they understood just how wrong this is.
These people are either some of the exact same or at least acting in similar manner to the messengers who verbally accosted Bart in front of his young son at SBC18 after he addressed the convention from the mic regarding these matters. Both actions are deplorable.
& Brent, I am happy to stand with you as “you guys” in the posting of this information.
“…You will know them by their fruit…”
Funny, how for the past 10+ years, Dr Barber was always respected by the “traditional” side, but after one speech, he is now guilty of lies and slander. I say funny, but it really is not. It is really sad that there are people in this convention who would act this way. Of course I am not talking about Dr. Barber but about the so called “Christians” who signed this letter, as well as others involved in the “support” of Dr Patterson.
No one of sound mind, who heard Dr. Barber’s speech, or read the words of other members of the EC, can come to any other conclusion than they were words of broken, humble and contrite men trying to do the best thing for the betterment of SWBTS. Their actions given support by (if my memory is correct) nearly 95% of the messengers at the Convention, the only group who can legally and morally (in a Christian/Baptist sense) hold the EC of SWBTS accountable.
But yet this is not good enough for a small number of people, who are using ungodly, unchristlike, clearly despicable actions to try and get their way. They are moving far past the path of honest discussion of the issues, and moving into the intentional destruction of Godly institutions because they are not in power, because they are not getting their way.
“…You will know them by their fruit…”
May the fruit of the EC at SWBTS, and the faithful (to the seminary, not a person) staff be increased; and may the thorns and thistles of the writers of this letter, be cast into a fire where they belong.
The timing of this is interesting. Just yesterday my wife and I talked about Southwestern Seminary, where I graduated. I told her that the trustees’ action would cause students to leave and donors to stop giving. This donors’ letter proves the latter, and I heard a lot about the former at the SBC. A friend who works for another seminary told me that his seminary gained four transfer students from SWBTS during the SBC meeting. I went to Southern Baptist Seminary to teach at the same time Dr. Mohler arrived to serve as president. When he became president, donors dropped out and the enrollment dipped. However, in the long run Southern Seminary prospered under God’s gracious hand. Now, Southern is the largest seminary in the USA and has sound finances. Southwestern will struggle in regard to finances and enrollment for a time, but it will come through just fine. Critics of the trustees’ decision should remember that the SWBTS trustees were Patterson supporters, not critics. They were chosen to serve on that board because they favored Dr. Patterson. For them to take the action they did shows that they had compelling reasons to do so. The donors’ letter was obviously written by an attorney or with the advice of an attorney. On the other hand, I’m sure the trustee executive committee consulted the seminary attorney as they deliberated. So, all the accusations of illegalities is a matter of one lawyer’s opinion, not fact.
Agreed, Dr. Terry. I think you’re spot on. Already Troubled waters at SWBTS have been strongly agitated – but I, like you, feel the Seminary and the SBC will come out stronger for it. I pray that the trustees keep thier gaze on the Lord and move forward, not looking back, “steady as ya go.”
“Critics of the trustees’ decision should remember that the SWBTS trustees were Patterson supporters, not critics..”
That’s a very important and I think true point, sir. None of these fellows and ladies could be identified as “Patterson haters” (to use modern vernacular).
Haters? No. Enablers? Yes.
I agree Dr Terry. Following Dr Bingham’s strong report. the courage of the EC of SWBTS, Dr Bart Barber’s fearless SBC18 stand, and the strong faculty at SWBTS, the seminary (my alma mater) will be righted. It has taken some hits but will be righted and return to her former glory of many years ago.
I commented on several forums after this matter was settled that history will pass judgment on Dr. Patterson based upon the entirety of his “body of work ”. It’s true and undeniable that there Is lots of good things to be said about his “body of work”.
However, his allowing this type of stuff to take place “on his behalf” by his friends with no public condemnation from him will simply further cement all of the negativity and unpleasantness surrounding him and in all likelihood eventually completely overshadow the good he has accomplished.
Further, if it’s revealed that he’s actually involved in these actions – both the present and history will judge him harshly. He will be remembered exclusively for stuff like this over and beyond any positive qualities/actions.
It’s been said “ with friends like that – who needs enemies“… it’s certainly a trueism in this instance.
Sad, but true nonetheless.
I agree completely Tarheel_Dave. Fortunately for SWBTS, these donors are exposing themselves and their intentions. They are showing their hearts and allowing the seminary to see them for who they really are. This will be Paige Patterson’s legacy. Anything else will be stained (ironic in light of the idolatrous stained glass windows) and overshadowed with how he ended. His friends says it all. What is amazing is if Dr Patterson had been wise, sensitive to the needs of the seminary and retired even a year ago, most of this could have been avoided.
Cases tried in the social media court of opinion risk doing so without access to all relevant facts. There are clearly two distinct sides in this dispute which have different motivations for their stated support. Perhaps this is why a Godly independent party is needed. It is obvious that both sides take great joy in the “got you” moment as a form of righteous positioning. Tragic very little is mentioned about prayer, repentance, and forgiveness (key attributes of Grace). Dividing folks into polar tribes, opposing one another, is marketed, promoted, and celebrated. That has become the popular thing of our day in spite of Biblical direction otherwise. Attendance declines as unity of the church body is fragmented. My sins are more than I can handle and why I need mercy and forgiveness everyday. That is what I hear Him ask of me to yield in return to others. The Lord will handle the rest to His sovereign pleasure.
There are two sides. The CONVENTION no less was asked to vote on the matter, represented by the motion to replace SWBTS trustees in a wholesale manner. The vote was overwhelming. If trustees or any combination of trustees and wealthy donors undoes the convention action we are in big trouble. The trustees, I presume, aren’t perfect but are “godly” people and I’m not willing to turn over any SBC entity to so-called “independent” third parties. It’s the trustees’ job. They can be replaced next year if the convention so chooses.
Rudd, with all due respect, the only side I see that is pulling against unity is the side that is trying to make their statement with their money, along with those Patterson supporters who just won’t accept the process. I believe most are pressing toward healing, re-focus, leading their churches to reach people for Christ, and praying for the parties involved and the institutions. As has been stated several times in these comments, the CONVENTION has spoken and has affirmed the Trustees and Executive Committee. They have affirmed, by their vote, that they believe that the process that put those individuals in place was God-led. Rather than trying to manipulate the process, the better approach, for all concerned, would be to pray for the Trustees and EC. If they have made a wrong, the Holy Spirit will bring great conviction.
Why would a financially blessed believer use their God given resources as a weapon? I understand that if you donate to a ministry or charity, you have the right to withdraw support at any time, for any reason. But unless God directed you to do so, how can threatening to take your ball and go home unless you get your way be understood as anything but a threat?
It sounds to me that what they are saying is that unless the Trustees buckle to our demands (i.e. fix this to our satisfaction, no matter what you think is right), or we will hurt you SWBTS, and eventually hope to take you down.
Didn’t Jesus face adversaries from the priests, Sadducees, Pharisees, etc.? Did he backtrack when he called out truth? And yet He loved His messed up children and disciples in spite of their failings.
I am sad to see this kind of activity from the letter writers, but my responsibility is to pray for them, and try, with God’s help to love them.
Perhaps we are seeing played out precisely the reason Jesus warned his followers about seeking wealth.
IMO, it just doesn’t seem worth it for the trustees to capitulate. First, giving in will likely violate SACSCOC Core Requirement 4.1, so the seminary would probably lose its accreditation. Second, the financial loss from this group will be partially recouped by the seminary not having a President Emeritus (salary, housing, probably a stipend for travel, books, etc.). And third, one of the responsibilities of the incoming SBWTS president will be to solicit new donors. Patterson’s not the only person in the SBC with wealthy friends.
Allow me to interrupt this very savory blog with some unsavory comments.
The most damning and contemptible paragraph of this letter is on Page 5:
“It is our understanding that you knew full well that the female student’s allegations of rape were false, that she had engaged in consensual sexual activities on more than one occasion and those acts had taken place in public buildings at the Seminary, and that campus security were shown the nude pictures she texted to the male student.”
How is this their “understanding”? Did Paige or Dorothy Patterson disclose these details to them? On what planet is Paige allowed to reveal this private, confidential information from a student record with impunity? Just how deep in the mud is he willing to crawl? If these details are true, their disclosure to persons outside of the administrative authority of the seminary is a violation of numerous federal and state statutes. If they are false, then it is the most evil and criminal form of slander.
The Pattersons’ character is being revealed, albeit unwittingly, by their most ardent advocates.
Shame on them all.
Some Patterson supporters in the comments above wanted the content handled more fully. They might change their minds.
True.
Well, then there is that . . .
I’d be interested to see if any of the posters that have replied above will respond to your post to defend that paragraph and those actions.
“Allow me to interrupt this very savory blog with some unsavory comments. ”
I love your “unsavory comments”. They cut through the muck and head right to the point.
There seem to be few depths of depravity to which the ardent Patterson campaign team will not sink. But the tactics to which they sink should show something of their personal character and the (lack of) justice of their cause.
Amen Dave. Are we Baptists or a hidden branch of the Corleones?
Again……with friends like this – who needs enemies?!
Looks to me like the verses in James 2 about showing favoritism to the rich might be relevant here. Someone might say these verses refer to activities within a church. But hasn’t SWBTS during Patterson’s tenure described itself as a church in court (regarding the Klouda issue)?
As for the victims/courageous women who came forward and survived PP. They know about this action. Those who are doing this despicable thing with this horrible letter are possibly causing them pain and anguish all over again. These are strong women who don’t deserve this . I hate that more than anything. This has to stop. Now. No more. Those who were brave enough to come forward are now being lied about in an effort to discredit them. This has not been done once but over and over and over since Paige’s firing. That is just inhuman. It is abuse at its worst. Is it an attempt to silence abused and raped women from coming forward again? That is extortion at its most evil.
You have to ask the question, if they’re using their money as a weapon, were they really interested in investing in Southern Baptist theological education?
Fact is, if the trustees were behaving badly they should withhold their money- not in this kind of crass power play but they should do it.
The simple fact is that Paige Patterson behaved badly and some will not see it. Facts are facts but the supporters love Paige Patterson more than the facts and more than truth.
There was no bigger pro-Patterson man than Bart Barber. But he saw the facts. He saw reality. He took an appropriate and godly stand.
The difference is that Bart is an eyewitness and has all the facts. Those on this anti-Ueckert and anti-trustee crusade don’t have all the facts and refuse to believe anything that doesn’t fit their narrative.
If they had truth on their side then opposing the trustees would be just. They lack truth. They lack Christlikeness in their approach and it is time for healing at SWBTS which can only start after the shameful Patterson episode has ended.
Very well said, Dave!
I’m glad your surgeries are behind you – I hope you’re feeling better.
The authority for the overall operation of the seminary is vested by the SBC to the trustees — not some ad hoc group of dissenters who want to preempt the management of the school by effectively “joining the trustee board as self appointed members”.
The SBC only meets once a year. It just so happened that when the vote was taken to remove the exec committee of the Southwestern Board of Trustees by the convention assembled in Dallas the vote to remove the exec committee lost by a margin of 95% to 5%.
Those wanting to remove some of the trustees [or dilute their influence] had their chance in Dallas. Now they working on a plan to circumvent the will of the convention by becoming a de-facto extension of the trustees.
The messengers have delegated the operation of the school to the elected trustees — not some particular interest group.
Yes, it is wrong for these folks to try to use money as a weapon. That said, reading this letter from a legal point of view, IF (I don’t know) the Trustees failed to follow the bylaws as the letter claims, then just arguing these folks are nasty for withholding funds misses a very relevant question – did the Trustees act within their authority and in the manner outlined in the bylaws? Shouldn’t the Trustees be held to account if the allegations in this letter are true?
I’m not a Paige Patterson apologist and have no affiliation with him, SWBTS, or any of the Trustees. I’m not suggesting any particular action or any particular outcome. I am suggesting that if we care about the integrity of the SBC and its institutions, then we can’t just make blithe comments like “it’s over” and such or treat people who support Dr. Patterson as if they’re some kind of pariahs. Maybe there is something to the claims in this letter, maybe not. If not, then the signatories should, upon being shown they are wrong, repent and seek forgiveness. But if the allegations are shown to be correct, then the Trustees at SWBTS have not acted in a trustworthy manner and should repent and seek forgiveness.
Well said, Mr Nelson
Strange as it may sound, Dr. Patterson’s personal testimony during the Klouda court case may have made the donor letter somewhat toothless other than for them to declare they would no longer financially support the seminary.
Gus, I doubt that’s a real issue. Usually, the “notice” requirement is for the members of the group, not outsiders. If all the members of the group show up at the meeting, this often waives any objection to lack of notice about a meeting.
You’d have to see the bylaws to be sure, but the Executive Committee should be able to agree to meet on short notice, if they are all “present” in person (or digitally, if allowed). If this were not the case, the Ex.Comm. could never respond to an emergency, which defeats much of the reason for such a committee.
If the bylaws said something unusual that gave Dr. Patterson his own right to be notified of any Ex.Comm meeting, you’d expect this letter to quote it. It doesn’t, so I’d guess it’s a smokescreen to raise doubts among friends and supporters. The board should investigate any serious concerns, but I would be surprised if that’s a serious concern to people with all the facts.
We’d have to double-check the minutes, which aren’t public since the long meeting was “Executive Session” but it’s also possible that the long, full-board meeting was adjourned with the statement that the Executive Committee would examine the results of the investigation if it came back before the next scheduled full board meeting. I know that something has been said about requesting information from SEBTS, and they could have specified in the long full-board meeting that the ExecCom would meet when that information arrived. Then the arrival triggers the meeting, not the date–but you already said, and agreed, that the ExecCom would deal with it.
If that were the case, then the notice requirement would be satisfied because notice/intention was made clear in the prior board meeting.
I wasn’t there, but that’s a possible reading on the situation.
Read the letter. Hard to take it seriously without having it proofread. What is amazing is the sense of entitlement the letter exudes. I think this was not written by anyone but Patterson’s lawyer.
If the XCom did so many illegal things, why not just sue them?
How many pastors here have had members in their church threaten to stop giving, because of a decision made they don’t like unless they have their way? How did you deal with it?
There are two sides to this story… 1) the one the Trustees know and are not sharing (and I am sure there is a good reason for this, legally) and 2) the one those who signed the letter have been told (and we have no idea where they got all their information – they are not saying… and probably for a good reason, personally).
It is possible that if we knew everything, the verbal fight would only get worse. I am of the opinion that the Trustees need to stand form (this is not passing blame on anyone) but do what they understand as best for the school, not any individual or group.
If these people have so much money, I would encourage them to start their own school. I think I know of someone who might be willing to be the President.
I had a situation many Years ago while a youth pastor… A wealthy person in our church gave a pretty good some to the youth ministry shortly after I came because the teen ministry budget at that time was nonexistent – not long after that she came to me and began to tell me how we should spend it… Specifically she was demanding that I take the youth to a certain summer camp.
We had already began making plans to go to another camp and deposits have been paid etc.… She insisted and then reminded me that she gave money for the youth ministry and that I should do what she said.
I asked her to repeat herself and she did with even more vigor… I immediately rose for my chair and walked into the administrative assistants office and asked her to cut a check to the lady returning every dime she had given to the youth ministry.
That was a very frustrating Spring and summer for me as I HATE fundraisers – but we did numerous fundraisers in order to continue the ministry that we had planned (we did it all came off great) … The following year the church budget for teen ministry was increased and we never looked back for the contribution.
Good news of the story is that ….That very lady later repented and became one of our most faithful and trusted teen ministry adult workers.
I’m fairly certain that in an “at-will” employment state, no employee of an organization is guaranteed the right to share their side before being terminated. It may be unjust, but that’s the case.
And haven’t we seen a seminary fire professors and even a president without holding any dialogue with the individual? Simply the board met and determined to terminate the employee? Again, it may be annoying or unpleasant, but the system works that way.
The only legal hinge is the question of the ExecCom meeting again, but these are not stupid people who have never read the rules that they are supposed to hold the seminary accountable to, and they did not lack for access to experts if needed. The seminary should have legal counsel on retainer who could have advised, and I doubt that the board was so foolish as to not double-check, if they were within the rules in doing what they did.
The full board will be re-examining this decision in their upcoming meeting. That is the system. So look for another marathon of closed-door which will result in either the much-lamented Emeritus decision being restored, or the much-lamented termination being upheld.
At some point, we have to decide if we will trust the board. If you don’t trust them, then try again in Birmingham to have them removed. That’s your recourse. Not forming extra committees and belaboring this point. As has been said before: due to this being a personnel matter, the Board would be legally remiss if they publicized everything; due to this involving sexual assault victims, the Board would be morally reprehensible if they publicized details of the victims and harmed them further; therefore NOBODY not on the Board or necessary to the Board (legal counsel) is going to have all the information.
So we can keep this cycle turning, or we can admit that it’s got to end sometime. Let it end with the next board meeting, and if you need to wash your hands of SWBTS at that point, the SBC has five other seminaries, there are other seminaries friendly (and committed!) to inerrancy, there are other seminaries friendly to Baptists. If you feel your money is better given elsewhere, then give it elsewhere. There are kids in Texas who are going hungry this week; there are kids in Texas who need to hear the Gospel this week; fund that. There are other seminaries, other colleges, go to those if you can’t take SWBTS and the Board’s decision.
But the Board is supposed to determine this. We elected them to handle it, we re-affirmed our belief that they should handle it in Dallas, and we elected a few new people on the rotation. Let them do their job, and then we can call them into account in Birmingham if they deserve it.
Paige Patterson has raised great amounts of money for SWBTS. It is understandable why some of those donors would stop giving after Patterson has been treated so unfairly.
Large donors would probably also reconsider if the same were done to Al Mohler or Russell Moore.
The SWBTS Executive Committee made a terrible decision. I hope and pray it will be reversed.
David R. Brumbelow
But this isn’t just them no longer giving. This is them withholding their money unless the Trustees cave to their demands.
There is a big difference and you know it.
David,
If the decision of the EC is reversed in any way, there will be a mass exodus of students from SWBTS (more than have left already). The EC is made up of godly men and women who have acted within the scope of their responsibilities to our school. SWBTS belongs to the churches, not to one man and his disgruntled followers. The trustees were put in place by the messengers, the messengers affirmed their action at the annual meeting. This extortion by disgruntled followers must be nipped in the bud. SWBTS needs to be allowed to move on under the leadership of Dr. Bingham.
I guarantee you that once fall semester starts, I will be too busy learning Greek and writing papers to even pay attention to the people who wrote the letter. By the way, did you know that the million dollars that Gary Loveless gave to SWBTS was for the Dead Sea fragments that everyone knows were fake? I found this article ( https://www.chron.com/life/houston-belief/article/Story-behind-exhibit-as-extraordinary-as-Scrolls-3810948.php) when I was looking him up. The million he gave did not benefit the students or faculty (who are woefully underpaid). He may have given more, I don’t know, but that million was not money well spent.
SWBTS will continue to send out men and women who “Preach the Word, Teach the Word” without these donors. I hope and pray the decision of the EC will stand and that God will pour His Spirit on SWBTS this fall.
Bonnie, blessings on your studies and thanks for the insights.
Do you want Patterson restored to President Emeritus or all the way back to being President?
I did not follow the goings on at SWBTS carefully, but get the basic sense of what happened.
I was prepared to trust the full Trustee Board when it came up with the original deal that was offered to Dr. Patterson, which I understand he accepted.
For purposes of the SBC meeting, I trust the SWBTS Trustee Executive Committee decision which reversed what the full board of the Trustees had done. There was no way for me, or the Convention, to get into all the facts and re-decide that.
From a matter of procedure, I am surprised that the Executive Committee can decide something like this without the full Board, unless there is some urgency to the matter – theft, ongoing harm (not reputation only) to the seminary. I would think that as a matter of procedure that the Executive Committee would want the full Board to hear what additional facts they heard that made them take this decision. I get the sense that the action by the Executive Committee was justified, but I can’t tell you why. Maybe it’s just that I know enough of the players on the Executive Committee to trust them. But then, again, I know someone on Dr. Patterson’s staff who told me that some of the publicly available information is not true.
So, I am on the side of what was done because there is no way I can figure it all out, and I have to trust that the system is working. I am glad that the entire trustee board is going to look at it, and I hope that the Convention will get a full report.
Finally, I will also add that evangelicals, much like political leadership in this country, in my opinion, are given to acting quickly when there is negative press or information. Sometimes the information is correct, sometimes it is not. Twitter and social media is the form of communicating now. I think in the future, our institutions should intentionally push meetings and decisions off until things can be fully aired and investigated.
I would have preferred that instead of the SWBTS meeting and deciding so close to the Convention, that if Dr. Patterson had been willing not to address the Convention, that the matter should have been investigated over a period of say 3 months, with a committee of the Trustees commissioned to take the written and oral interviews of any witnesses and compiling a summary report that would have been complete and could be read by all trustees in advance of a decision. It appears that what happened was that the press came in strong fairly close to the convention, the trustees met just in advance of the Convention, and then a smaller set met a few days later with apparently some new information. This is not a good way to proceed, though knowing some of the people involved (including the Patterson supporters), my suspicion is that the actions will have been proven to be appropriate. But, again, I say that as a hunch.
If I were a trustee, and a bunch of negative press hit, I would preemptively form a system that would take a good while to work.
True Justice hurry is justice buried.
Didn’t this guy shield and promote a sexual predator for years? He should have been gone ages ago. Why is this even controversial? He could have ridden off into the sunset a hero (to some) with grace and dignity. But instead he chose to fight, and lost. Even in the unlikely (I guess) event that he is restored to his lofty perch, the allegations will just keep coming and his legacy tainted. Do you supporters of Patterson really want every nitty gritty detail to emerge? Are you willing to harm the seminary to re-elevate him? Does anyone remember Caner? It’s the same crowd, with likely the same results.
The parallels between the two are uncanny. As are their defenders.
I have been saying it for years. It’s about power and control. The loss of PP as a shot caller means a group of people no longer have control. And they thought they were entitled to it.
Hopefully this is the last gasp of this movement. It is definitely a Hail Mary that will color those who defend it for years to come.
Some people should take note of that and stop embarrassing themselves.
Hopefully, this is the last gasp of a group who has been in charge for many years. The world, and the SBC has passed them by and they don’t like it. They grew up in the SBC that existed 45 years ago and want it to be that way again. That’s not going to happen. Younger folks will just ignore them and move on, which is as it should be. They had their day. It’s time to exit stage left. They are only embarrassing themselves. The emperor has no clothes on and everyone can see that now. You really want to say to them, “JUST. STOP. IT.”
Before we get too dismissive of the older folks for whom you say, “Younger folks will just ignore them and move on, and which as it should be”, keep in mind that some day, the “Younger folks” will no longer be so young and they may be ignored by the up and coming generation, too. How is that going to make the current “hipsters feel?” Also, where is the gratitude for those who have contributed to provide a seminary education for many. The students couldn’t afford to get seminary degrees without the generosity of these and other people. These individuals most likely weren’t contributing when Ken Hemphill was President and they may have been giving to Southeastern when Patterson was President there.
If there is any hope that this group of contributors continues to give to Southwestern Seminary, telling them that they should be ignored and that “the world has passed them by” will most likely eliminate that possibility.
I don’t think it is valid to make this generational. David Fisher is shortsighted in presenting this to be a “young v. old” issue.
I agree CB. This is not a generational issue. This is a truth vs. fiction issue.
Some people would rather believe the lies they are told by Paige Paterson rather than the truth they have been presented by Bart Barber and the trustees.
And their behavior is telling.
BEHOLD.
Ryan Abernathy and Tarheel_Dave agree….
Yep.
Bill Mac,
I assume you are referring to Darrell Gilyard? The other side of the story follows:
Paige Patterson’s 2008 statement on Darrell Gilyard
“Throughout my 50 years in the ministry, including the time that I served as president of the Criswell College, I have never turned a blind-eye to clergy sex abuse as the SNAP organization purports,” the statement read in part. “Clergy sex abuse is one of the greatest tragedies of the modern era, and in the classroom and in the pulpit I have steadfastly fought and will continue to warn and fight against it. Throughout my years in theological education, I have routinely addressed the subject with every incoming class and again with every graduating class.”
Patterson, a past president of the Southern Baptist Convention, said he was “neither investigator nor a judge” nearly two decades ago, but just “the president of a small Bible college.”
“I certainly did not have resources available to me to pursue the case, yet I did all that I could within my means to discover the truth when allegations concerning Mr. Gilyard were brought to my attention,” Patterson said. “Until such time as I could ascertain that Darrell Gilyard was in fact guilty as alleged, I could not make any charge against him. Part of justice includes not making charges against people until one can substantiate those charges. This is a lesson from which SNAP could profit.”
Patterson said that once he investigated the matter and was able to substantiate Gilyard was guilty of adultery, he got him to confess publicly and expelled him from Criswell College and moderated the meeting when he was forced to resign as pastor of a Texas church. Since then, Patterson said, he has had nothing to do with Gilyard.
“I do not and have not endorsed his ministry or work and have made crystal clear to Mr. Gilyard that on the basis of his behavior, as well as his divorce, he has no business serving as pastor of a local church,” Patterson said.
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/paige-patterson-denies-turning-blind-eye-to-clergy-sex-abuse-cms-12135
David R. Brumbelow
This is true. The charges against Dr. Patterson regarding the escapades of Darrell Gilyard are without substance.
CB:
They are true. They are with substance and some. To say they are not true is to slap 25 women plus down. It would be interesting to take the Darrell Gilyard incident and put it next to these incidents to see the similarity in Paige’s actions. Tiffany Thigpen Kilgannon who was a victim/survivor of both Gilyard and Paige wrote on this when the latest occurred.
These are the facts as I know them to be: http://stopbaptistpredators.org/scandals/gilyard_and_patterson.html and Tiffany’s article on Facebook in which she publicly told for the first time in many years her encounter with Darrell Gilyard, Paige Patterson and Jerry Vines. To say it is not true is to say Tiffany is not telling the truth and that is a lie CB. It still moves her enough, although she has healed according to her, to have began a site on Facebook and a blog entitled “Abuse Matters and the Rise to Break the Silence.” Read any piece on that site. She is open about it.
https://www.facebook.com/AbuseMatters.org/?hc_ref=ARQ-808XNgCUwe90aaSUnhTklI-GcP0eDSu_KcZycc0vgmebiLb3Pp68dMXSwscXQdY&fref=nf
BTW CB: They were not escapades, they were crimes. A court of law agreed. He went to prison. Not long enough, but it’s an insult to use the word escapades. Sorry for the many comments, this is literally pouring out of me as I read you and Dave B’s ludicrous comments.
CB: The charges are true. You have been shown this over and over since 2006. You have no idea what you are talking about CB. A good read for the facts as I know them to be is here: http://stopbaptistpredators.org/scandals/gilyard_and_patterson.html
Read any story from Tiffany Kilgannon’s newest blog and site on Facebook which she began after this latest with Megan Lively, the 2015 woman who Paige dismissed. It stirred her again after all these years. It never fully leaves a person who has been sexually violated.
Tiffany was a victim of Darrell Gillyard’s at 16, fighting for him to be arrested many years later, and also of Paige Patterson and Jerry Vines, who she courageously stood toe to toe with. She approached Lifeway when Vines wrote his memoirs writing that she was lying etc. making himself the victim, telling them the truth of Vine’s role in her and Gilyard. Lifeway took that part out, they believed Tiffanny.
https://www.facebook.com/AbuseMatters.org/?hc_ref=ARQ-808XNgCUwe90aaSUnhTklI-GcP0eDSu_KcZycc0vgmebiLb3Pp68dMXSwscXQdY&fref=nf
David B; Again Paige is lying. I think you guys know this as when Norm on the other site, asked me why I believe Xcomm, I said Darrell Gilyard and it has yet to be published. By the way, it is funny that Paige’s 2008 statement concerning Gilyard is the same statement he recently gave concerning Megan Lively etc. Gilyard was guilty of rape and sexual assault.
SBCVoices: Please delete the comment in moderation due two links in one post. Thank you.
Hey Debbie Kaufman, I posted on the other site and was asked if I was joining you! I have agreed with many of your posts. I invite you to read my response to David, and Andrew. If you will have me, where do I sign up to continue to defend survivors of rape/abuse/sexual misconduct? I look forward to our friendship.
Bonnie Jacobs: I think we would make great friends. Someday I hope we can meet. I think you are doing just fine. 🙂 I will go and read. Keep doing what you are doing. 🙂
David: That is Patterson’s story, but it is hardly proof. I’ll ask again, do you want Patterson back as president of SWBTS?
BIll, it appears he’s not going to answer that.
Strangely though, David B. has little no hesitation casting aspersions and calling the SWBTS exec committee members liars and scoundrels – but for some reason has profound struggles answering your simple, straightforward question… Wonder why?
Tarheel, Dave Cline,
Perhaps you can show me where I have called anyone liars and scoundrels. I have not done so.
Bill Mac and Tarheel,
The last time Tarheel, Adam, and others here taunted and challenged me to answer their questions, I did, and they promptly deleted my answers. I’m never confident here that I can carry on a conversation.
Bill Mac,
The answer to your question is simple, and I have no problem answering it. Don’t understand why you both think I would.
When the evidence on both sides is fairly considered, Paige Patterson has done nothing worthy of being fired. Many others have noted this. He should be fully reinstated as president of SWBTS, with a huge apology. My second choice is that the full body of trustees at least keep their word in making him president emeritus.
If you want more detail, I have several articles about this at Gulf Coast Pastor.
David R. Brumbelow
Do you have any articles about Darrell Gilyard?
Perhaps you should reread Bart’s statement. There is more there that you fail to address including financial questions. Here is a helpful link.
https://sbcvoices.com/bart-barbers-powerful-statement/
The Darrell Gilyard story is posted above in this thread.
David R. Brumbelow
David, the letter is already linked in the OP. Easily found. Frankly, the less available, the better. Some of it is shameful but folks can read and decide. Patterson defenders will be busy’ I’m sure.
David mentions his own blog, which readers may easily find as well.
David,
How do you know youhave all the evidence?
I have and have never had absolutely any ability whatsoever to delete comments…hence I have never deleted, or for that matter had anything to do with deleting, a comment of yours or anyone else’s.
You saying I did is an out and out lie David Brumbelow and you know it.
Also, You’re doing a nice job of deflecting and refusing to answer and lying about those asking you questions … But hey no one here is surprised about that at all.
For the record, I have no moderating authority on this blog.
David: Do you think the signatories of this letter have the right to demand seats on a special investigative committee? Why? Because they give money?
David,
I find it hard to take seriously the idea that you have “fairly considered” the evidence on both sides.
Perhaps that is because the evidence is pretty easy to analyze, and you are coming to a bad conclusion.
Perhaps that is because in the past you have declared other guilty parties as if they were innocent and time hasn’t proven you to be correct – but very badly wrong. And some of you guys are still unable to call a spade a spade – in the face of mountains of evidence. I mean, some of those situations were clear as day, but you (and others) denied those facts – even to this day.
Perhaps that is because it is hard to think you are some sort of neutral observer of facts when your FACE IS ENSHRINED IN STAIN GLASS AT SWBTS!
Come on, brother. You are not even considering the idea that Patterson is wrong and deserves this. I get it, you are defending your friend. But don’t try and pass this off as if you “fairly considered” all the evidence and came to this conclusion. You don’t have all the evidence, and it seems pretty clear you are ignoring what is obvious to virtually everyone else. In fact, when evidence has been presented, you have basically rejected it.
Just be honest about what is happening. (Others who have their face in stain glass have been honest, if even behind the scenes.)
Look, I could be wrong, maybe you have “fairly considered” everything – but certainly you see why it would be very hard to believe based off history and what has been posted and ignored in this thread.
I think a fair consideration of the facts does not paint a positive picture of Patterson. His actions condemn him. His words condemn him. The numbers at the seminary (financial and attendance) condemn him. The words of the trustees condemn him (if only the ones hesitantly released by godly men.) That is a fair consideration of the facts. I am open to hearing an alternate understanding, but I cannot fathom what they might be. But I am open.
Those who are trying to support PP on this comment thread are missing the point. Younger people will not support SWBTS if PP is put back in charge. They will just walk away. Big donors withholding their money will be the least of SWBTS problems if enrollment drops much further. Things are never going to be the way they used to be in the “good old days”, so GET. OVER. IT. It’s time for a change of leadership throughout the SBC. The CR generation had their days in the sun. It’s time for a new generation to lead. I say this as someone who is almost 60 years old. We can only hold off the inevitable for so long. Young folks are going to take over whether we like it or not, because we arn’t going to be around forever.
Who “dislikes” younger people taking over? Is that not what we all want? Do we not want younger, capable, theologically sound Baptists to take over? BTW, there were no “good old days.” The CR days were what they were. These days are what they are. The only thing that really matters is for those who have been faithful to the teachings of Scripture in all generations to continue to be faithful until King Jesus brings us home, young or old.
This is not generational. This is not about being young or old. It was, is, and always will be about being faithful to Christ, denying self, taking up the cross, and following Him. I don’t think age has ever had much to do with one’s faithfulness to the King.
I don’t think that the folks who wrote this letter want anyone but themselves to call the shots. That’s my point. They still want to be in charge. That’s why they wrote the letter. They want to use their money as a lever to force people to do things their way. The young people I know refuse to play these kinds of games. That’s all I’m trying to say (not very well it appears)
David, Maybe they see inconsistencies in the stories that are being told. Maybe they don’t want their friend do go down being branded as hating women, covering rapes and breaking down rape victims. As it stands, the board of trustees have endorsed that narrative. Apparently you are content with that narrative no matter what the real truth is. I think most are content to live with the truth but we want the truth, not someone’s version of the truth. Particularly not the social media version. The games the people you know apparently want to play social media hit job games. Put half the story on social media, draw a conclusion and then tell the other side to drop it.
Debbie and Bonnie,
This is my own opinion so take it for what it’s worth, and of course it’s always your decision. But I think it is a mistake to post over at the other blog. After the last debacle it lay dormant for weeks and was essentially dead. You are revitalizing it, and in my opinion that’s not a good thing. As I said, just my opinion.
I would concur with that opinion. Samuel Schmidt’s post- which seemed reasonable and conciliatory- seems to have sadly been a one off that isn’t bearing much fruit. Hope that changes.
Ryan: I read Samuel Schmidt’s post for the first time yesterday when I engaged on that thread. I was surprised on what he wrote considering he is the one who wrote the letter to contradict the open letter from Southern Baptist women of which I was one of the signatories. I was pleased with what he wrote however, as that is what I have always desired and so thankful that it seemed to be happening. That is until this latest letter surfaced, which should show that the thoughts on that blog will never die, they are like the energizer bunny. They just keep going and going…… Just because you hear nothing from them online, does not mean they are not working silently with phone calls, emails to everyone.
Bill: Thank you for the advice. As you know I do respect your thoughts. I would rather have them commenting over at the other blog than coming here, which is what they were doing. I don’t mind discussing this with them, and while it may resurrect that blog, which granted I would rather not have, they will have their voice heard by either that blog or another one or SBCIssues. I could be wrong, and I don’t comment there often, but that is how they are. They will spread their hate either there or here. I vote there. They do not hide who they are at that blog, that’s not a bad thing. I think it helped this year. 🙂
I whole heartedly agree with you. I have made my last post over there. I initially was checking both blogs looking for an informed discussion of soteriology (as a result of Dr. Yarnell’s theology class). I am grateful I landed here and will remain loyal to this blog. I am afraid I stirred up a hornet’s nest over there by responding to David Brumbelow. A mistake I will not be making again.
I am late to this discussion. I have had other matters to deal with, but I would like to comment on two issues.
First the donors letter. Their letter and attitude are examples of the direction our convention has drifted in the last 35 years. I suspect much if not most of the money they have contributed has gone to Patterson pet projects (stained glass windows, retirement home, Pecan Manor, etc.). They did not offer to withhold money when the enrollment kept decreasing under Patterson’s leadership or when staff were being let go because of financial mismanagement. They are not concerned with the theological or academic direction of the seminary. They are concerned with perpetuating personality-based leadership and political goals.
Mark Terry hit the nail on the head when describing the problem and the way we got to where we are today when he said, “Critics of the trustees’ decision should remember that the SWBTS trustees were Patterson supporters, not critics. They were chosen to serve on that board because they favored Dr. Patterson.”
Dave Miller said that Bart would walk through fire for Dr. Patterson. It is unfair to ask someone to serve as a trustee and be responsible for holding someone accountable when they would walk through fire for that person. We need trustees who will walk through fire to protect the institutions from abuse and financial mismanagement. Bart finally had the integrity to stand for truth. Not all trustees have that integrity. Tom Hatley and Ron Wilson are examples of trustees that would walk through fire for the CR despite the truth. If Patterson had not been asked to give the convention sermon and brought these issues up again, Patterson with the blessings of trustees who were chosen because they favored Dr. Patterson would have allowed him to retire on his time schedule as emeritus president with a lifetime salary and retirement home despite the financial problems and drop in enrollment.
Bart’s speech acknowledging Patterson’s bullying tactics, deceptive statements, and attacks on those who oppose him were applauded and were called courageous. It would have caused him to be labeled bitter and full of hatred on SBC Voices two months ago. Wade Burleson, Debbie Kaufman and I have pointed out Patterson’s long history of similar actions at the IMB, Criswell College and SEBTS and been attacked. Read the comments by Bart and Dave and others after I appointed out the absurdity of Jerod’s post not long ago.
https://sbcvoices.com/5-reasons-to-be-thankful-for-paige-patterson-president-of-swbts/
Where were Bart and Dave Miller and others on this site when Patterson was calling for the firing of missionaries, attacking the IMB, firing women professors at SWBTS, admitting a Muslim student and on and on. All of these actions would have caused a seminary president to be fired back when conservative theology was a factor in hiring presidents instead of politics.
“Where were Bart and Dave Miller and others on this site when Patterson was calling for the firing of missionaries, attacking the IMB, firing women professors at SWBTS, admitting a Muslim student and on and on. All of these actions would have caused a seminary president to be fired back when conservative theology was a factor in hiring presidents instead of politics.”
Bart was a trustee at the time of those issues and therefore unable to speak to the issue on this forum (his integrity is NOT a newly acquired trait!)
As to “others” on the forum – many, many of us spoke out often and loudly regarding those issues you mentioned… Your convenient memory lapses are almost laughable.
To be specific there’s a thread(s) on here somewhere where many took him on when he called for firing of missionaries, enrolled Muslims and Mormons, etc…
As I’ve stated before – PP did some good things and also some really bad things…he spoke with biblical faithfulness and served well at times and at other times he embarrassed SBCers who were/are not mere sycophants and rmanaged SWBTS into the ground with his constant waging and leading of “war after war.”. The latter finally caught up with him – And to be honest one thing I do agree with you on… It was a long time coming and didn’t come soon enough.
The second issue.
CB Scott continues to say that Patterson’s enabling of Darrell Gilyard has not been substantiated despite the fact that it has been substantiated by numerous women, at least two pastors who told him and a testimony that he tried to “break the women down” as he has been accused again. Debbie has posted numerous articles testifying to this, so I will not repeat that.
This is the same CB Scott who says my state convention, Arkansas, was controlled by liberals without substantiating that claim. He says T.C. Pinckney was correct when he posted on his blog in the late 90s that the Arkansas State Convention was a liberal convention that supported abortion and homosexuality. I can substantiate that this is not true, but facts are seldom important on SBC Voices. Attacking those you disagree with are the SOP here. Jimmy Meek and Doug Hibbard are Arkansas Pastors. Are you willing to say if you disagree with CB or do you know any evidence that would substantiate CB’s claims? Mark Terry and Bart Barber are from Arkansas. Do you recall any evidence that CB is speaking the truth? How are some on this site allowed to make attacks like this without being held accountable by those in charge.
CB stated that Patterson was not involved in the car give away at SEBTS that was a further example of Patterson’s history of financial irregularities. Notice this statement in the following article.
“Ryan Hutchinson also declined to talk about Scott and Prescott. But he did confirm that Patterson knew the car was being given to Duesing.”
https://baptistnews.com/article/seminary-leaders-employees-give-different-accounts-of-car-sale/#.Wz4cffZFxjq
Hey Ron, maybe you haven’t heard, but Paige Patterson has been fired. Quit crying over spilled milk. Just move on.
You know all you guys are tough on Ron West Ron makes some very good points and I think he is right and some. Maybe stop and read his comments, check out his statements before you dismiss them, to see if they are true instead of going by tales that you think you know or have been told, and actually listening to him might be fruitful. He has predicted things to come in the past several years that have come to pass. Good and bad.
Doug Hibbard was kind and concise in his answer to Ron even though he disagrees. Ron knows what he is talking about more than you think. Doug and Adam were just young kids or not even born when Ron experienced first hand the things he speaks of.
Ron, the late 90s were an interesting time for Arkansas Baptists: we had plenty who fully embraced Bill and Hillary Clinton, while also having plenty who did not. We had those who stood strong on the Bible and those were less willing to make a fuss.
I’d say that whoever T.C Pinckney is (I honestly don’t know), he could probably find evidence, like the number of OBU professors who attended First Baptist Arkadelphia, which at the time was somewhat CBF connected, to support his claim.
And that me, Jimmy, Bart, Mark, and a host of others could readily find evidence of faithful, God-honoring, Bible-preaching pastors in Arkansas at the same time.
I know that the state exec in the late 90s is a personal friend, and I know that if he’s a liberal, I’m a flaming heretic.
I was also at OBU when the “crisis” occurred about the Board of Trustees when there was a push to not just make sure we had a conservative board but one more toward the “falling-off-the-right-wing-fundamentalist” end of things, and I know that some of the people involved in that believed anyone who disagreed with them was a liberal…and others that anyone who disagreed with them was a fundamentalist in search of power.
But the main thing I know, personally, of Arkansas Baptists in the late 1990s is that I didn’t know more than a few dozen personally, didn’t see the direct statements of more than a few hundred, and all of the people I knew and knew of loved Jesus and tried to honor the Word of God. Some of them were jerks, and some of those jerks are highly respected in Southern Baptist life, and I hope they’ve repented of being jerks and aren’t that way anymore. Some were asking questions in their theology and did turn to the liberal end and even left Baptist life.
Most were Bible-believing, Jesus-loving men and women. But I wasn’t making a study of where they fit on the spectrum of Baptist Belief Disorders. I was a 20-year-old minister trying to learn what I was doing, pass some classes, and figure out how to balance a checkbook.
Now I’m twice as old, in twice as deep over my head in classes, and we’ll leave my checkbook out of this.
Ron, things were done that were wrong, even by folks whose aim was right. Re-fighting those battles will not restore the broken and it will not further the cause of Christ. We’re learning the lessons to hopefully not have need of those battles again, but having to re-fight them every time a new issue arises helps nothing.
As to where some of us were in the various scandals: we may have been hip-deep in ministry to our churches; we may have spoken out in comment threads or blog that you don’t know; we may have been struggling with mental/emotional health issues that threatened to destroy our lives and families and therefore stayed out of it altogether.
Just some food for thought on that question.
Amazing how bitter you remain, Ron West and you were not really involved very much in anything on either side back during the CR, were you?
I went back and read the article you linked because I had forgotten some of it.
Here is what stands out to me regarding that article. Every name mentioned in it has gone forward in many ways. Also, every person mentioned in that article has, by the grace of God, reconciled their differences and have good relationships with each other.
Let me repeat that, Ron, so you might let it sink into your bitter mind. “Every person mentioned in that article has, by the grace of God, reconciled their differences and have good relationships with each other.”
Ron, you have allowed yourself to be come twisted due to your bitterness. if you don’t lay this stuff down, you are not going to finish well and you are running out of time. So stop this foolishness and get about the work of the Kingdom in the time you have left.
CB, I can understand why you and others associated with SEBTS do not want to be reminded of Patterson’s car scandal but I am not sure why that makes me bitter.
What type of bitterness is it that drives you to call others liberal and insult them when you don’t even know them? Doug and I are personal friends with the people you have slandered? Why do you call us bitter for defending them? That sounds twisted to me.
Ron West,
I did not state that Doug Hibbard is bitter. He is not. I stated that you are bitter and you are. Anyone who reads what you write here or on any Baptist related blog would recognize you to be bitter. If you were the feeder of the monkeys at a blind monkey zoo, every monkey you feed would know you are bitter. They would sense it. Bitterness sprays out of you like stink out of an angry skunk.
However, I do pity you. You live in the past. You can’t seem to let it go. Let it go. Get a life. Finish well for Jesus. Stop living in yesterday.The people there are gone. They don’t live there anymore. They moved on. You should too.
The past seems to be the present and tied in to the present CB. Ron is right and comes up with good points while you jab at him for whatever reason, to make yourself feel good? Ron has said a lot of things in the past that have been true. Predicted things that are coming true now and have been true before. Back off and go insult someone who cares about what you say. You seem really on to analyzing people you don’t know today. Don’t get me started on analyzing you, it would take a couple of sheets of paper. And I like you all these years CB, even if I want to smack you with my fist in your upper arm most of the time.
Well, Debbie, in my best Forrest Gump voice, let me say to you, ROLL TIDE! and “That’s all I have to say about that.”
Doug,
Thank your for statements that you have no evidence that the Arkansas Baptist State Convention was liberal or controlled by liberals.
T.C. Pinkney is listed as a hero of the conservative resurgence in Pressler’s A Hill to Die On Book that is held in such esteem by supporters of the CR. He was also on the 2000 BF&M writing committee. He has also served on multiple trusteeships since the CR. In other words, he is just the kind of CR leader that CB Scott and a succession of SBC presidents value. He is willing to slander and label theological conservatives as liberals. Anyone who claims to know the history of the CR should know who he is.
I also count the convention exec you mentioned as a friend, as are the one previous to him and the present exec. I also have known to some extent all the convention presidents through those years. None were liberal. To say that the convention was controlled by liberals as CB says, there would have to be evidence that out leaders were liberal. You know as well as I they were not. So why do people like Pinkney and CB call Arkansas a liberal state or say we were controlled by liberals. It is because theological conservatives in Arkansas have put the Bible first and not partisan politics. That drives them crazy.
I was also here when the CR hard liners tried to take over Ouachita. The two men they wanted on the board were rejected by theological conservatives at the state convention meeting. One had served as a trustee at Southern and the other on the SBC executive committee. Arkansas Baptists would have never chosen them to represent us. The one who had served on the SBC executive board got mad and started attending a Lutheran Church. So much for his concern about Baptist theology.
I know very little about T.C. Pinkney other than that he was sending resumes to the church I served in southern Virginia a year and a half after he was told (by our treasurer and by me) that the church had called me and to please refrain from sending more resumes. I will leave it to others to discern why; there seems to be no shortage of self-described prophets on this thread.
I don’t know why that happened, John F. – but I’ll share this info that I do know for certain….
The General was operating essentially a one man shop, aging and was quite overwhelmed toward the end of the Baptist Banner days.
Im not prophesying – but offering explanation and suggesting giving him the benefit of considering other than nefarious motives. (not that you were… But others might)
That’s true, Tarheel. The Baptist Banner fell on hard times in the end. T.C. kept it going long after its “golden years” so to speak. The donors dwindled down to just a few and most of the readers took up other causes. The Baptist Banner became a footnote in CR history as did a couple other publications.
I read the Banner back in the late 90’s and early 2000’s. Even had an article published once in there, had written it while I was in college. I think it was important back in that time and served a needed role, that’s not to say it might not have been a little more dogmatic than was needed in its judgment of spotting of liberalism here and there. It was really strident against public schools for one thing. Another, during the later years he published some conspiracy tabloid stuff, I remember writing him an email after one issue where he published an anti-Russell Moore article by Randy White. Told him that wasn’t worth repeating and I hoped he wouldn’t publish that kind of stuff anymore.
I had Dr. William Bell at Dallas Baptist, and he and Pinckney were friends. Had good things to say about Pinckney. Dr. Bell was a hero to me and many, many others who came through DBU.
Thanks for sharing that story, Brent.
To say it was anti-public schools is a bit of an understatement….lol.
[ed. redacted -Brent]
I want to respond to CB and Dave Miller’s continual description of me with the support of the SBC Voices leadership as bitter. I am extremely blessed by God to be a Southern Baptist. I was fortunate to have a 30-year career supported by the IMB and Southern Baptist Churches. I still have the opportunity to share the missions story in churches and WMU groups. I still have the title emeritus missionary and do not fear it will be taken away because of past behavior. I have the opportunity to regularly meet with missionaries and emeritus missionaries such as Mark Terry and thank God for the opportunity we had to serve with other God called missionaries to take the Gospel around the world. I have the opportunity to return to the field from time to time to visit with national believers I baptized and churches I helped start. I have the opportunity to attend a Chinese church here in the US and listen to hymns and sermons in Chinese as a I did in Taiwan and China. I have never had to fire a friend because of his betrayal of the trust placed in him as Bart had to do. I have never been fired by people I trusted because I spoke the truth as CB has. At the IMB we were allowed to speak the truth to power and share our ideas because our leaders had integrity.
I am a member of a great Southern Baptist Church that gives me the opportunity to serve in several capacities.
I had the opportunity to serve my country in uniform and serve with other men and women who loved our country as I do.
I am blessed with a wonderful family including a wife who served by my side on the mission field and children who are active in Southern Baptist Churches and involved in supporting missions.
I have the opportunity on SBC Voices to defend the SBC, the IMB and other entities such as my state convention from false charges. I can do no other.
For some reason CB and Dave Miller think all of this makes me bitter. There is no bitterness in my life only thankfulness for God’s blessing.
I will make no other comments on this thread.
God bless you, Ron. I do not sense any bitterness from you either. From my view, Southern Baptists should be rejoicing. Patterson and Pressler are finally gone. Give each of those millionaire donors a stained glass window to put in their homes to light candles in front of and let’s get SWBTS back on track as a military outpost rather than a museum.
From the Baptist Standard
Donors Put Pressure on Southwestern Trustees
https://www.baptiststandard.com/news/baptists/donors-put-pressure-on-southwestern-seminary-trustees/
David R. Brumbelow
David, this is a week old and already linked in the OP. I asked you if you were uncomfortable with anything in the letter. Are you?
William,
I can’t find where you say this Baptist Standard article (7-4-2018) is linked in the OP.
You asked me the same question at SBC Today, and I answered it there.
David R. Brumbelow
That should be (7-2-2018)
David R. Brumbelow
You did in a way. I was attempting to find out (without repeating the stuff) if you had any discomfort with the way the letter went after one of the victims. It’s on page 5. Do you?