I have stood up for Bobby Welch on a number of occasions, in spite of not always agreeing with him. I always thought that he had his heart in the right place, anyway.
I hope that it is true, but he had some things to say in this month’s issue of SBC Life that made my jaw drop. I guess on your way out, you can say things you never thought you could before. He no longer heads the SBC nor FBC, Daytona Beach, so he is unfettered by a concern over backlash when he says things that sound mean spirited.
You can read it for yourself here:
A Word From Our Former President
Not to raise the Alcohol issue again, but since Bobby did, I feel I must respond with some thoughts.
It was all pretty tame until he got to the issue of alcohol, where he started off by misrepresenting the vote over the resolution.
“…the Convention voted almost unanimously that they wanted pastors and people who are leading them not to be persons blinded by a theology that encourages and promotes drinking alcoholic beverages of any kind.”
At what time did that statement arise for vote? It didn’t. Nobody encouraged anybody to drink at the SBC and no vote addressed any theology that endorsed the encouragement and promotion of alcoholic beverages. This is a text book definition of a “straw man argument,” at the very least, or a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth. Again, I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but when you say these kinds of things, it is hard.
Then in response to the self-proposed question, “Were there any surprises at the convention?” Bobby answers in the affirmative. He says, “Oh yes! Undoubtedly, the greatest surprise to almost everyone was that several Southern Baptist pastors actually came to a microphone and publicly promoted the drinking of alcoholic beverages and wanted the SBC to do the same! Actually, I never thought I would see that take place, and it is not only a surprise but an outrage! My father was addicted to alcohol, which contributed to his early death. He advised me that if I would never take the first drink I would never end up like he did. I did not, and he was correct!”
Besides abusing the use of the exclamation point as a punctuation mark, Bobby fabricates the ideas that 1) there were SBC pastors who publicly promoted the drinking of alcohol, and 2) anyone wanted the SBC to support the drinking of alcohol. The resolution (we have now adopted 60 or so like it) took the stance that drinking alcohol at all was unbiblical. The debate was on whether or not it was Biblical and those against the resolution were against eisegeting the Scriptures to introduce something they felt was not there. It seems to me the debate was more about whether or not we are true inerrantists or if we will allow traditions of men to govern us if we are comfortable with them.
This is where I insert my normal disclaimer that I am a tea totaler – this is not about my convictions on alcohol. It is about how we treat each other and our culture.
What is it that may truly be motivating Bobby on this issue? I think he is uncomfortable with the influence of change – most readily seen as being represented by Baptist Bloggers. Think not? Consider the impromptu diatribe on evangelism where he stated that folks ought to quit blogging and get out there – or something like that.
Not enough? Try this quote on for size:
“I understand one pastor’s blog site indicates he believes his drinking assists him in soul-winning! What a pathetic joke! These blogging Baptist pastors just blew their collective cork!”
See how we all get lumped together? This completely ignores the fact (probably due to ignorance) that at least two of the most well known in this circle of Baptist Bloggers, myself and Marty Duren, advocate abstinence from alcohol.
Then again, maybe he really does think this is a standard of fellowship and leadership. Consider the harsh language in these two paragraphs:
“From my vantage point, as presiding officer of the Convention, I took a slow and deliberate look at the number of ballots raised in support of such foolishness and comparatively, there was hardly anyone who was in favor of encouraging the use or promotion of the use of alcoholic beverages. In fact, the overwhelming voice and raised ballot vote made it clear that Southern Baptists do not want leaders that use or promote the use of any type of alcohol.
We have many outstanding young pastors and others on their way to leading this Convention to its greatest days, and they are smart enough to know they will not do it as “sipping saints,” but as sober soul winners! God help us to never, ever elect a user or promoter of the use of alcoholic beverages to any leadership position, and I am personally sorry and ashamed if we have any in those positions now!”
I am personally sorry and ashamed that we can’t speak more kindly to one another and that we treat these positions as more than they are. I am personally sorry and ashamed that Dr. Welch took the opportunity afforded him by the SBC to speak so harshly and to misrepresent those who gather together under the flag of the SBC.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Dorcas
on Aug 7th, 2006
@ 6:35 pm:
And to waste his “last word” on the alcohol issue at all … it is sad really.
Does he really want to leave such a diatribe against bloggers as part of his legacy? This article combined with that final speech at the convention … it really is too much.
It makes me sad.
Kevin Bussey
on Aug 7th, 2006
@ 6:58 pm:
I don’t like getting lumped in with others. Why take a shot at all. We all know who he is referring to. Why not talk to the blogger himself. I don’t get it. I agree with Dorcas, that is sad.
BSC
on Aug 7th, 2006
@ 9:18 pm:
Since when did SBCLife start publishing “final words” from outgoing SBC presidents? I can’t find any history of that.
BSC
Hashman
on Aug 7th, 2006
@ 10:00 pm:
Very disappointing quotes. They really killed my buzz. :-)
full disclosure: I am a teetotaler.
http://www.welchs.com
John Stickley
on Aug 7th, 2006
@ 10:05 pm:
I just don’t understand this need people seem to have to take potshots at each other. Would certainly be understandable from non-believers, or maybe even from immature believers… but an SBC president?
Unbelievable. How sad!
Jeff Richard Young
on Aug 7th, 2006
@ 11:12 pm:
This post has been removed by the author.
Jeff Richard Young
on Aug 7th, 2006
@ 11:14 pm:
Dear Brother Art and Friends,
There are several problems with Dr. Welch’s remarks, and I would love to sink my teeth into each one. But I guess I’ll address only the one aimed at me (and some other of you brothers) personally.
Dr. Welch said,
“several Southern Baptist pastors actually came to a microphone and publicly promoted the drinking of alcoholic beverages and wanted the SBC to do the same!”
As you wrote, Art, I came to the mic to advocate no such thing. I rose in defense of the sufficiency, sound exegesis, and correct application of the Holy Bible. In saying what he did in this parting shot, Dr. Welch has lied. I hate to have to say it, but it’s true. He has purposes represented this issue falsely to make his opponents look as if we hold positions that we do not. Shame on him!
I had thought that after this many weeks I could forget all this ridiculous alcohol debate and go back to life as an anonymous country pastor. But now in one week Dr. Richards has rehashed the issue over on the new SBTC blog, and now Dr. Welch has tightened the screws another turn in SBC Life.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Sonya D
on Aug 8th, 2006
@ 5:46 am:
Maybe this issue is being kept alive and on the front burner to discredit those who advocated change in Greensboro. If the “establishment” can build enough straw men and make the bloggers look like a bunch of drunks, maybe they hope it will change things in San Antonio.
PBill
on Aug 8th, 2006
@ 8:34 am:
I like Bobby Welch and his parting piece was classic, vintage Welch.
It is surprising to me that it is surprising to many of my younger pastor friends, bloggers and others, that they are criticized, and sometimes pointedly, for their stance on alcohol. I was at Gboro. I heard the debate and read the resolution. Perceptions are realities in these things. It might be prudent to pick one’s battles. I don’t see the profit in arguing against a standard, boilerplate, resolution against alcohol use as a beverage.
I think you are right to assess some of these criticisms as coming from fear of the medium.
Dorcas
on Aug 8th, 2006
@ 8:56 am:
“Standard, boilerplate language” is often found in legal contracts.
Those who have bargaining power can get any paragraph in a contract changed … boilerplate or not. Those who do not have bargaining power have to accept the boilerplate language or not do the deal.
Perhaps Pbill has said something very profound without realizing it. Clearly Bobby Welch was surprised that there were those speaking against the resolution. Was it truly surprise that there were those who would stand for biblical sufficiency … or was it more surprise along the lines of “how dare you challenge the non-negotiable parts of the contract? If you want to do the deal and be a part of leadership then you had better learn to accept the boilerplate language of how we do things around here.”
Perhaps this word from Bobby Welch is simply saying “bloggers and those who were against the alcohol resolution … you have no bargaining power with us.”
Thankfully, God is in control of the universe, and not Bobby Welch.
art rogers
on Aug 8th, 2006
@ 9:09 am:
PBill,
We are not surprised that we are opposed. When you oppose people yourselves, you create oppostition for yourself.
We are often surprised when we are misrepresented by men we trusted to lead us.
This debate is not about alcohol. It never was. It is about the Inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture. It is about being cooperative with other Christians, who believe in the authority of the Word of God, but interpret Scripture differently than you do.
Alcohol is just a popular stance that they are using to redifine “us.” It is inaccurate and borders on libel.
Dorcas, does it cross the line?
CB Scott
on Aug 8th, 2006
@ 9:14 am:
Art,
I guess “parting shots” are now the way to get in a last dig. First Tom Hatley now Bobby. I read the article and it is not classic Bobby Welch as some might say. I do not know what his motivation was for the article, but it did sadden me to read it.
I recently got into a “heated” debate with an alcohol advocate on another blog so no one should say I promote its use as a beverage. If they do so they are liars and nothing less.
I do have a problem with what someone “trotted” Jim Richards out of the kennel with in Greensboro. He wanted no trustee that uses alcohol on any board.
OK. Why did he not go all the way and say we need to fire any administrator or faculty member that uses alcohol as a beverage? We do have such folks in our ranks and it was the “high watermark” of hypocrisy for him not to include them in “his” amendment.
Of course, hypocrisy is nothing new in the diet of that particular kennel.
cb
Sonya D
on Aug 8th, 2006
@ 9:23 am:
In reading the resolution, I can’t help but wonder whether those who voted for this really understand the ramifications of what it means for them personally.
“That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina, June 13-14, 2006, express our total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages…”
The restaurants at Greensboro that served alcohol were filled with convention attendees. Ballparks, now off limits. Walmart, no way, they serve wine and beer. Convenience stores, etc. etc.
Who will say what is meant by “total opposition?” It seems to me pretty hypocrital to make such a big deal out of something that most SBC’ers aren’t going to live out anyway.
PBill
on Aug 8th, 2006
@ 9:33 am:
Art, I like reading your blog and I wouldn’t argue that you all feel that the issue is “about the Inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture” but it looks like there hasn’t been great success in defining the issue in those terms. It comes across like teetotaling against the moderate drinking. While I may not share your views, I somewhat sympathize with you here.
Matt Snowden
on Aug 8th, 2006
@ 10:22 am:
Sonya Ds earlier comment is on target. I have come to the conclusion that the alcohol issue is a diversion from other important issues. I do not drink and do not recommend it to others. With that said, this issue should die. Most Baptists hold to an abstinance position. If younger leaders keep taking the bait then this conversation will last until San Antonio. That would be very bad for an agenda of positive change.
Dorcas
on Aug 8th, 2006
@ 10:57 am:
As to libel – the news media is exempted from the charge if giving a fair and reasonable hearing to a matter of public concern. (this is my paraphrase of the Texas law).
I suppose we would question the “fair and reasonable” bit here, but fact of the matter is that we are all “public figures” as to this debate and unless Bobby Welch gets one of us fired because of his misrepresentations or causes other irreparable damage to reputations, we are just going to have to deal with it.
We all have voice enough to give clarification to the issues and where cooler heads prevail we realize that the only person Bobby Welch is making “look bad” is himself. When we try to elevate ourselves by tearing others down, we find that we have only torn ourselves down in the process.
Clint
on Aug 8th, 2006
@ 11:04 am:
One of the most telling comments is this one:
“God help us to never, ever elect a user or promoter of the use of alcoholic beverages to any leadership position, and I am personally sorry and ashamed if we have any in those positions now!” (my emphasis)
Is he equally ashamed by the sin in his and the leaders’ lives? This does not feel sincere; rather, it feels like a pot-shot at those secret drinkers in an attempt of a guilt-trip.
Kevin Bussey
on Aug 8th, 2006
@ 12:02 pm:
Why didn’t he take a shot at himself for having a Pro-choice woman speaking from the SBC Platform? Hypocrisy at it’s finest!
Hashman
on Aug 8th, 2006
@ 3:03 pm:
while I know that there is not a direct connection between calvinism and alcohol, many seem to believe that drinking is the 6th point of calvinism.
Welch said, “the Convention voted almost unanimously that they wanted pastors and people who are leading them to not to be persons blinded by a theology that encourages and promotes drinking alcoholic beverages of any kind
Funny that he says, “a theology”, rather than an “interpretation” of scripture.
This statement reveals that the vote wasn’t about drinking, it was about rejecting a theology that promoted it.
This was a vote against calvinism, of course.
Then again, maybe it was about alcohol.
Tim Sweatman
on Aug 8th, 2006
@ 3:31 pm:
PBill,
The ironic thing is that most of us who opposed the resolution are just as opposed to alcohol personally as those who supported it. But our commitment to Scripture is stronger than our dislike of alcohol. The issue is not alcohol, but the sufficiency of Scripture. I for one believe this is an issue that is important enough to take a PR beating over. What good is a belief in inerrancy without a belief in sufficiency?
Alan Cross
on Aug 8th, 2006
@ 5:44 pm:
Art,
I saw this article at John Stickley’s site and finally waded into this debate. I didn’t know that you and Wade had picked up on it. I’m glad you did. I wrote a long post about this at downshoredrift.com where I stated that Dr. Welch is guilty of breaking the 9th Commandment and of bearing false witness against his neighbors to make his own point and prove his argument. This is a serious offense and can destroy lives. He made it against Ben Cole, Tom Ascol, Jeff Young, and the gentleman from Vermont. It is not true and you do well to call him on it.
I have no interest in the alcohol debate. I agree 100% with Sonya. But, this is another matter entirely.
Stuart
on Aug 9th, 2006
@ 11:15 am:
That sound you’re hearing is Sonya D and Matt Snowden hitting the nail squarely on the head.
Jeff, Tom A., and Ben have legitimate complaints about Dr. Welch’s misrepresentations. And they should be allowed to voice their concerns to him however best they see fit.
But the rest of us would do well to let it go.
art rogers
on Aug 9th, 2006
@ 11:32 am:
Stuart,
I appreciate what you are saying, but I am not about to let it go. This kind of twisting of events is uncalled for.
Furthermore, as one who participated in the drafting of, and then signed, the Memphis Declaration, I am committed to not letting such abuses go unchecked.
Stuart
on Aug 9th, 2006
@ 11:57 am:
Art,
I understand the frustration. The ploys seem so obvious that they almost BEG for response.
But most SBs are largely atheological. Most neither understand nor desire nuanced discussion. “Son, you keep your herme-whatever-ics, and just tell me if you hang out with drunks or not.”
Matt has already said it better than I can, “If younger leaders keep taking the bait then this conversation will last until San Antonio. That would be very bad for an agenda of positive change.”
Cam Dunson
on Aug 9th, 2006
@ 8:55 pm:
We’ve got to remember where this guy’s coming from and what he’s carrying with him. He says, “My father was addicted to alcohol, which contributed to his early death.”
He brings some serious baggage to the table on this one and he’s not likely to be able to think and behave rationally on this issue.
Just a thought from a development psych person. . .