There is nothing like being called “disgruntled.”
Charlie Warren met with some of the members of the Memphis Summit after we had finished our declaration and interviewed us as a group. The quotes you read in the articles at the Arkansas Baptist News and the Associated Baptist Press came from that interview.
I will not deal with the articles as a whole now, but here are the headlines that opened the respective articles.
Arkansas Baptist News:
“Disgruntled SBC conservatives draft ‘Memphis Declaration’ May 2-3″
Associated Baptist Press:
“SBC narrowness calls for repentance, reform, disgruntled conservatives say”
After reading the articles and remembering the quotes, I wanted to elaborate on one thing that I said. It was included in Charlie’s article in the Arkansas Baptist News, but edited from the ABP article.
Rather than give you the quote from the article, I will rewrite my analogy about the SBC being a ship. I am adding to the words I gave Charlie, so differences will not be a reflection of his reporting. The point of the analogy is to illustrate how NON-POLITICAL we were attempting to be in the Summit.
If the Southern Baptist Convention is a ship, then someone must hold the rudder. We are not attempting in any way to hold that rudder ourselves, nor are we attempting deny anyone the opportunity to hold the rudder. We are not promoting a third party to hold the rudder.
We are simply standing on the deck of the ship and pointing toward the destination that we see as God’s call for us to set as our goal.
That goal is the advancement of the Gospel to the places where lost people live, whether across the street or across the ocean.
The ship has it’s leaks, and there are reports of maladies from all over the great vessel. Still, I believe it is the best vehicle available to reach the goal.
My ambition is to repair the faults to whatever degree attainable, to call for the course set by the Lord, and to ask Him to hold us together in ways that we can not understand.
Not to belabor a good analogy by abusing its limits, the course is an appropriate focus for all passengers. Many fear the shoals represented by a lack of co-operation. Some have already jumped ship and started swimming on their own. Some are preparing to do so.
We can do so much more together than we can do apart. Hold this ship together and point her in the right direction, by God’s mercy.
I humbly pray for all who play a part in its guidance.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Kevin Bussey
on May 5th, 2006
@ 8:37 am:
Great words Art!
Maybe we are a ship, but I hope we are a family. And if we truly believe the Bible is God’s word, then a divorce is out of the question. Functional families argue but they still love each other. They still eat together. They still defend one another. This is my family and I will stick it out!
Rzrbk
on May 5th, 2006
@ 10:26 am:
Kevin,
I live in a country where those who accept the Gospel we present may be disowned and cast out of their family. I too like to think of the SBC as my family. I too will stick it out but there have been some who were cast out of the family and there were few willing to defend them.
Art, I like your boat analogy. However, not all jumped over board. Some were pushed. We can stand on the deck pointing in the direction we see as God’s call for us and for our convention but if those controlling the rudder are taking the boat in another direction, what should we do? I too pray that the ship will be pointed in the right direction.
I do not think of you as a disgruntled conservative. Some in the meeting might have been. It is a shame Charlie Warren who has a reputation for even handedness in dealing with the politics of our convention was not invited to the meeting while two other editors were guests.
martyduren
on May 5th, 2006
@ 10:39 am:
Ken-
There wasn’t a single attendee who would have described themselves as disgruntled, but after an extended sit down interview with multiple attendees, that is the adjective that Charlie used in the title of his article. Not good and not even-handed.
In no way was it shameful that Charlie was not allowed into the meeting; the press is not all powerful nor all deserving. It was blogged by several who attended, written on by Don Hinkle and interviews are still being given.
art rogers
on May 5th, 2006
@ 11:19 am:
Ron (That is you, Ron? Rzrbk?)
I echo what Marty wrote on both counts.
The last thing Charlie said to us before leaving the room was, “I’m not here to hurt you guys. I’m here to help you.”
Then he called us “disgruntled.” That is a perjoritive word and discredits us by attacking our motives. It is also the wrong word to describe the group. There are no two ways around that.
The first thing Charlie asked us, by the way, was, “Have you decided on a candidate for President?”
Clearly he had a predisposition to think this was a political gathering – which is fair, given the various things said about the meeting by so many people. It is not fair to speculate what happened in the meeting beyond what we ourselves told him, since he was not present.
The line, “But the group stopped short of proposing a candidate for SBC office or actions to be taken at the SBC convention next month — to the surprise of some participants,” found in the ABP article is EXTREMELY unfair and misrepresents us entirely.
We never “stopped short” of something that was not on the radar screen. That’s like saying I stopped short of running for the governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Frankly, it was fear of this sort of thing that caused us to keep the media, at large, out. It makes the decision look brilliant, in retrospect.
In fact, if anyone was disgruntled, it might have been Charlie. He waited outside the room until we were done after being told earlier that we would not open the meeting to him. He seemed to display this attitude in this line in his Arkansas Baptist News article: “This reporter was excluded from the meeting…”
I liked Charlie and enjoyed talking to him. I shared the elevator with him on the way to the interview and on the way out of the Hotel. I just think his presdispositions governed his perceptions and, therfore, governed his words.
art rogers
on May 5th, 2006
@ 11:24 am:
Oh, yeah, Ron(?)
As to those “pushed overboard,” I agree. Some were pushed and others are being pushed. The attitudes around such actions are those for which we repent.
That we have parted ways with some was necessary. That we have hurt people by doing it, and that we have parted ways with some with whom we should not have parted, is regretable, and worthy of repentance.
GeneMBridges
on May 5th, 2006
@ 1:18 pm:
I hope you and Marty will write editorials that point out these things to these 2 individuals and ask them:
1. Why they were upset because they were not “invited” when the sessions were live blogged anyway.
2. How they came to the conclusion you were “disgruntled?”
3. How you can “stop short” of doing something that you never intended to do and stated you never intended to do?
–In my opinion, and, in case Charlie reads this, I stress this is my personal opinion, given what I know about the personalities behind some of the current trends in the Convention, as well as the history behind those trends, it’s rather telling that it is coming from Arkansas yet again.
martyduren
on May 5th, 2006
@ 3:40 pm:
I don’t know where “Ken” came from…I meant “Ron.”
Rzrbk
on May 5th, 2006
@ 9:32 pm:
Art and Marty,
As I look at your remarks concerning Charlie Warren I am going to try and use some of my cross-cultural counseling skills to see if I can help overcome a misunderstanding that seems based on the use of words. In doing this I will say that Charlie Warren is the editor of my home state paper and I consider him a friend who I respect although he probably considers me a burr under his saddle. I have never met either of you but I would like to consider you friends because I support what you are writing on your blogs and think you are doing a great service for your readers.
Do you really consider disgruntled a pejorative word? I don’t and I don’t think Charlie did. The dictionary I am holding described disgruntled as having discontent. It seems Ben Cole was the primary organizer of the meeting. Could any person read what Ben has written on these blogs and the letter he wrote to his church and say he was not disgruntled? Have any of the other attendees expressed discontent or disagreement with things in the convention. That is all Charlie was trying to imply. Confession! I am a disgruntled conservative. I am disgruntled at the lack of cooperative program support by leaders of our convention. I am disgruntled at the way trustee positions are awarded. I am disgruntled at the lack of accountability on the part of many of our leaders. You will probably ban me from you blog for admitting that.
If you think being called disgruntled is bad, some of us have been called ultra-liberals and heretics possibly even by some invited to your meeting. Charlie didn’t called you a liberal or a heretic or a fundamentalist. When Charlie said, “ I am not here to hurt you guys, I am here to help you,” he meant it. If you had invited him to the meeting, you might have discovered that.
Was it unreasonable of him to ask if you had decided on a presidential candidate? There had been much speculation that was the purpose of the meeting. Isn’t it possible some in your group came thinking that might happen? How was he to know different? Could it be that your predisposition toward him have governed your reactions to his words.
Marty, I did not say that is was shameful that he was not invited. I said it was a shame that he was not invited. I might say it is a shame when the Arkansas Razorbacks lose a football game. That doesn’t mean it is shameful or I am ashamed of them.
Reading blogs is not the same as being there. If he could have heard your voices and seen your sincerity he might have had a better understanding. He does not believe the press is all-powerful or all disserving. I believe someone on your blog gave us an example of Don Hinkel’s reporting in his articles about those Missouri Baptist who are not in his political organization. Interesting that Ben chose him to attend. Steve Hardy edits a paper called the The Conservative Voice. Is that not pejorative in that it implies the other paper is not conservative?
Art and Marty, if you are going to continue to be high profile in this and sign statements that others might agree or disagree with, you are going to have to get thicker skins and not take any thing you perceive as critical so personal.
For instance being from Arkansas I might get upset at Gene’s remarks saying, It is rather telling that it is coming from Arkansas again, but I don’t even know what he is taking about and I wouldn’t get upset if I did. We know that when people criticize us it is because they are envious.
Ron West
art rogers
on May 5th, 2006
@ 11:52 pm:
Regardless of the dictionary definition, the “street value” of the word “disgruntled” is one that implies that our motives are hostile.
This is NOT the case, and to say so is a base misrepresentation of the truth. As well as speculation.
As to the question about a presidential candidate, I merely quoted it to reveal a predisposition that I thought colored the piece. I said that it was fair for him to think that in my post.
I am not taking the articles personally. I am stating fact that I believe them to be a misrepresentation of the goal and substance of the meeting. It’s a statement of fact that I backed up with evidence of my beliefs. I quoted what I did because I believe in providing evidence of my statements.
Believe me, I have plenty of thick skin. This has not bothered me enough to think about it again until I found your comment.
See: :-) I’m smiling!
David Harp
on May 7th, 2006
@ 10:08 pm:
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rzrbk
on May 7th, 2006
@ 10:29 pm:
Art,
Wow! Do you think David is disgruntled?
I know probably only you will read this since you have already moved forward to another blog and I don’t want to belabor a point but I want you and Marty to try and see who your friends are.
Here is a quote from one of the organizers of your meeting, Ben Cole, in the Biblical Recorder.
He (Ben Cole) said potential candidates for SBC office were discussed but “we are not offering candidates, nor have we determined secretly to offer any candidates.” However, he did not rule out the possibility of such a candidate emerging.
Is it so unbelievable that Charlie Warren would say you stopped short of nominating a candidate after reading what Ben Cole said? Is it such an insult to you that he made that statement? He was not trying to harm you. His use of the term disgruntled was not meant to insult you. I repeat any resonable person who has read some of Ben Cole’s writings could feel comfortable using the word disgruntled at least about him if not about you and Marty. Charlie was excluded from the meeting. There is no other way to describe it. Is this an example of the new openness you are calling for? He meant it when he said he was there to help you and not harm you. Have you and Marty listened to all the propaganda from the Conservative Resurgence people about the state papers for so long that you are afraid to give them a chance? The fact that you devoted a string on your blog to Charlie Warren’s article says it must have bothered you.
art rogers
on May 7th, 2006
@ 11:21 pm:
David,
Sorry, but /you were over the line. Personal character assasination is a “no go.”
You did, however, sign your name, and I am appreciative of your willingness to own your words.
Ron,
In the quote you posted, read where the quotation marks end.
I sat next to Ben when that statement was made. He clearly was stating that such a move was not on the table and was not discussed. It was not a statement out of the blue, but was an answer to the first thing out of Charlie’s mouth, which was to ask who our candidate was. The tone of the political statement started with Charlie, not Ben. Again, I was 18 inches from Ben at the time and across the table from Charlie. This statement was NOT given context, but was placed out of context to give you the exact impression you got. See how well it worked?
I can tell you first hand that Charlie created the implication that there was something political out of a statement that was intended to deny that very thing.
Please don’t take this the wrong way – I am not angry. I am just trying to help you understand that I was there, and you were not. I know what was said, you do not.
I made about four or five other statements, personally, denying politics and framing the meeting in a non-political way – yet none of those statements were used.
People in the room can verify that this is true.
I assure you, Ron, I am framing the situation accurately and you are reading into it what you believe about Charlie and about Ben.
I am sure Charlie is a good guy. I liked him and talked to him in the elevator.
Still, he misrepresented the meeting drastically. I think he did so, in part, because he expected a political meeting.
That does not, however give him the right to speculate about what he does not know nor to reframe what we specifically said.
He was excluded from the meeting, but not by Ben. Ben asked the entire group if we wanted him to come or not. We, as a group, decided that we would be more comfortable with one person who was already there.
No, propaganda has not colored my trust of reporters. I don’t do propaganda, nor do I tolerate it.
Things like this affect my trust. It gives me absolute certainty that we did the right thing.
Yes, that we publicized that we were meeting instead of having a secret meeting and then denying we ever met; that we released our Declaration to the press – Charlie first; that we interviewed with Charlie after the meeting – delaying both lunch and our trips home – are all examples of openness that set us apart.
One more thing, you said:
“He was not trying to harm you. His use of the term disgruntled was not meant to insult you.”
How can you speak to Charlie’s motives and thoughts? Are you speculating, or have you talked to him personally.
If Charlie is aware of this conversation and wants to defend his motives, he should speak for himself. If you are speculating, then I know you will understand that I value my own first hand evaluation of the events much higher than those of someone who was not there and is basing his understanding of the situation on the description given – about the description given.
Since that was a long and convoluted thought, let me rephrase:
Your understanding of what happened is based on the article that you are defending. It is circular logic. “I believe the article becaus the article says that it is accurate.”
Rzrbk
on May 8th, 2006
@ 1:25 am:
We’ve already spent more time on this subject than it deserves but I am missing something in the translation. Did Ben say something to the effect that, We discussed candidates, as Charlie said? If candidates were discussed even casually but none were chosen, then to say they stopped short of choosing one is not an unreasonable statement whether you intended to before hand or not. Could Ben’s and probably some others well publicized comments before the meeting leave the impression they are disgruntled? If so, his use of that word is not too unreasonable nor do I think it is pejorative.
I have not talked to Charlie about this meeting but I have talked to him about subjects discussed at this meeting and have observed his work as editor of our state paper and I can say with certainty that he was not trying to insult you or hurt you. It may be he came not knowing your purpose and when he left still misunderstood how important it was to you that no one think you were doing anything political or challenging the establishment. I think you are reading more into his motives than is justified by what he wrote. I am not using circular logic to defend the article. I am talking about Charlie’s words and their meaning to most people.
You can print this only if you wish. I am really just writing to you and Marty. You don’t need to go looking for enemies where they don’t exist. You are doing a great job. I hope things went well with the search committee.
art rogers
on May 8th, 2006
@ 9:29 am:
Ron,
You are right that this has gone further than it should.
No. Candidates were never discussed in any way. WE discussed that we did not want to talk about candidates – so to portray that as stopping short of doing such is very inaccurate.
I am sure Charlie wasn’t intentionally trying to hurt us. I am also sure that he was colored by his preconceived ideas about what the meeting was.
Thanks for the encouragement. The weekend went well.
David Harp
on May 8th, 2006
@ 11:04 pm:
Hey Art,
You guys are still typical SBC if you ask me…all I did was ask if any of the Big Dogs of the SBC were at your holy and humble meeting. I did follow up your motif of SBC as being a ship as the big ship lollipop. Where’s the character assisination?
Sounds pretty insecure to me.
I’m Deleted Dave
art rogers
on May 9th, 2006
@ 7:25 am:
Deleted Dave,
What you just wrote, while snotty, will stand. It is substantive more tame than your previous post.
As to my being insecure, you are free to think what you want. As I often say, your words say more about you than they say about others.
Thanks for taking the time to repost.
art rogers
on May 9th, 2006
@ 7:51 am:
Also, Dave, you signed your name this time. Makes a difference.
David Harp
on May 9th, 2006
@ 1:07 pm:
Hey Art,
Nice response – you might want to scroll up and look at your own words, I signed every time.
You never did answer my question which again is typical of SBC right wingers (my opinion!) The attitude is pay up and shut up – don’t you measly church people be asking us preachers any questions – we are above all that. On and on the story goes.
Here is a question I would like for you or any of your hard right line brothers to answer honestly.
SBC boys pass the 2000 Faith and Message which I could affirm any mosst aspects easilty. The question: Why are the hard right liners so afraid of women in ministry? Who are the top sellers at Lifeway? Beth Moore and Anne Graham Lotz. Isn’t that more than ironic?
Of course, last time this was called character assasination, so who knows if I will ever get a straight answer from a right liner!
Deleted Dave (don’t forget to scroll up Art – I sign them all. What are they going to do eat me?)
art rogers
on May 9th, 2006
@ 9:08 pm:
David,
Sorry, about the sign your name thing. You are right about that as you point out.
Let me answer both of your questions – There were some “big dogs” at the meeting if you mean long time SBC leaders. Several trustees and national committee members (past and current) were there. Pam Blume, Steve Hardy, Wade Burleson, Rick Thompson are all leaders, and there were others, but these were off the top of my head.
As to the women leaders, your question is along the lines of “How long has it been since you quit beating your wife.” It presumes guilt, and therefore is a logical fallacy.
I will reframe it, though, for myself alone. I can’t speak for anyone else.
I am not afraid of women leaders. I have read and used studies from both Beth Moore and Anne Graham Lotz, both personally and in my church.
I suspect you know this, but the issue for most conservatives is whether or not they can be pastors. I know that some forbid women teachers in Sunday School. I don’t.
The reason for the confusion is the interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12. “I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man.”
There’s more to it than this, but if you want women pastors, you have to do something with this verse. There are great minds on both sides of the issue. I, for myself, feel that by signing the document I am saying that I will treat fairly and kindly someone on the other side of my opinion.
I admit that I have not done this to you. I called your previous post “snotty,” and that is not what I should have done.
I really felt that what you said that I deleted was character assasination. I don’t remember it exactly, though, and I didn’t save it.
art rogers
on May 10th, 2006
@ 2:12 pm:
David,
I stopped short of actually apologizing in the previous comment, but I didn’t mean to do that. As I reread it, I realized my mistake.
I apologize for the unkind tone of my words to you. I ask your forgiveness.
Art