I would love for this to be the last post on the latest edition of SBC Life, but we shall see.
I have learned that several ranking executives at the Executive Committee were on vacation when the final layout was approved. I am confident that it would not have been as it was had everybody been around.
This is not about them, though. Unfortunately, it is about Bobby Welch and some poorly chosen words. Bobby Welch chose to say what he chose to say. He could have had it published anywhere he wanted. I am quite confident that several state Baptist papers would have been glad to run his words. Not the least of these papers is the Florida Baptist Witness, which has shown a willingness for open debate and multiple philosophies to be held on its pages (and website). I think that is a good thing, by the way.
Let me clarify a few things that I believe about Bobby Welch and the SBC.
I really believe Bobby is a good guy. I said as much on numerous occasions prior to the convention. I still believe that. I think he tried with all earnest to moderate the SBC in fairness to all.
I also think he really believes what he said. To echo Wes Kenney here, if he were lying, that would imply intent. I think it is an issue of a skewed perspective, governed by predispositions.
I think he owes an apology to those he misrepresented. Don’t expect it, though. He would have to agree that he was wrong to issue an apology, and I don’t think he does or will. This parallels Wade Burleson’s situation, by the way. If you defend Wade’s right to stand on what he believes and not apologize for something he does not consider to be wrong, then you have to apply the same standard to Bobby, now.
This puts the Executive Committee in a catch-22. Everybody is clamoring for an apology that the EC can’t give as they didn’t write Bobby’s article. The EC also can’t disown Bobby Welch. This is what Bowden McElroy refers to as a “double bind.” In layman’s terms: Darned if you do, and darned if you don’t.
Bottom line: It is an irretractable statement that will be dealt with behind closed doors. You won’t hear about it and I won’t publish it when or if I do.
The real issues are:
1. Bobby (and who knows who else) view(s) bloggers as “the enemy,” because they believe that we want to tear down what they built. Let me clarify this for them: If what you are protecting is a power structure, then you are right. If what you are protecting is the Inerrant Word of God and the belief of Southern Baptists in its authority, then I echo Wade Burleson in saying that you should not be surprised that we do what you taught us – simply exegete and believe the Word. And stop “nuancing” and explaining it away. It boggles our minds that those who taught us that the Word was inerrant would do this.
2. The SBC needs to get in line with Frank Page. He was elected by this convention, WITH A MANDATE, and you need to understand that opposition to his leadership is opposition to the majority of the convention and their expressed will. This is a grassroots, bottom up organization, based on the principles of the Priesthood of Every Believer and the Autonomy of the Local Church, which is an extension of the Priesthood of Every Believer. The SBC officers and elected officials are charged with the convictions of the convention. The convention spoke clearly. Respond appropriately.
Your turn…
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Paul
on Aug 11th, 2006
@ 2:27 pm:
For the most part I agree with you. However (of course, there would be a however, right?) I disagree that this is the same as the matter regarding Wade. I agree that both Bobby and Wade have a right to speak their minds and offer dissent. But Wade has been taken to task for general comments made about unspecified persons. When he wrote his Crusading Conservatives post (which seems to be the one that got him in so much hot water) he didn’t mention anyone specifically and here we are nine months later and I still don’t know what individuals he may or may not have been referencing nor do I know anything specifically that they have or have not said due to Wade’s blog.
Bobby Welch referenced individuals whom it is very easy to identify – even today – by either being at the SBC or watching the proceedings on sbc.net. His statements can easily be verified as he was speaking to the specific statements of specific individuals. Reading his comments leaves many with the impression that those who spoke against the alcohol resolution were proposing a substitute resolution that encouraged Southern Baptists to drink. That’s simply not what happened.
Due to his position and his forum Bobby Welch has a tremendous responsibility, at the very least, to give the benefit of the doubt to those who spoke. It would be even better if he spoke to those individuals personally to verify that his impressions were, in fact, the intent of those who spoke against the resolution. It’s as cheap as a phone call or an e-mail, both of which are readily available to him. Instead he took the risk of misrepresenting those whom he characterized and I know that at least one of them has been personally offended, not by Bobby Welch’s beliefs nor his stand on the alcohol issue, but on his playing loosely with the facts.
I think this is a very different thing.
Sarah
on Aug 11th, 2006
@ 2:49 pm:
Well stated. I’m longing to see some transparency in Bobby Welch. Getting him to admit that he was wrong would be a breath of fresh air, and a good step in the right direction towards unity among the believers.
Kevin Bussey
on Aug 11th, 2006
@ 11:36 pm:
Awesome as usual!
This goes back to what you said some time ago about finishing well. I always had respect for Dr. Welch, but this didn’t show me loving spirit. It looks like he wanted to stay in good graces with the “fighting” conservatives.
art rogers
on Aug 12th, 2006
@ 9:08 am:
Paul,
Positive and clear distinctions. However, I contend that watching the tapes would not change Bobby’s mind. To clarify, I believe that there was even debate was shocking to him. To argue against this resolution is an endorsement of alcohol and the rejection of the resolution would have equated an endorsement of such by the entire convention – in Bobby’s mind. He is not alone. 80% of the convention followed that thought, more or less.
In the end, then, his statements are intellectually honest, but factually wrong – in my opinion.
The trustees opposing Wade feel the same way – inthier opinion.
My point is that our own convictions on these issues must be allowed to govern us – and if it is valid for Wade at the BOT, then it is valid for Bobby here. Even though I think his perspective is skewed sharply by his predispositions.
IN HIS NAME
on Aug 12th, 2006
@ 11:22 am:
Why didn’t the SBC Leaders pass a Resolution to Honor the Forth Commandment which is BIBICAL, rather than the Alcohol Issue that they knew would stir thing up. This would have been a Positive thing to do. No we have to do the negative to keep the people happy in their pews. Is this the way to keep the masses under control? That’s the way an animal hunter thinks. I have a new Post on this Commandment.
A Brother in CHRIST
PBill
on Aug 13th, 2006
@ 8:13 am:
As past SBC prez, Welch gets a parting message and SBC Life should print it. Let the beer pretzels fall where they may.
I rec’d my paper copy the other day and am still surprised at the currency the bloggers are giving Welch’s words.
art rogers
on Aug 14th, 2006
@ 9:38 am:
PBill,
He should get a parting comment.
He got much more than that, but again, this post is not about that.
It is about Frank page and the heart of the SBC.