Author: art rogers
Oligarchy
Thursday, January 4th, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
New Year’s Eve found Bonnie and I at the house of some friends – church members who had invited many of the couples our age to their house for games, food and fellowship to ring in the New Year. Typical Baptist party.
The games, the teams for which were divided girls vs. guys all night long, were a variety of Password. It’s amazing how many modern variations of “guess this word by the hints I give” we now have. At one point we were guessing some sort of governmental rule and the word that popped into my head and immediately out of my mouth was, “Oligarchy.”
In the middle of an otherwise frenetic game, everyone took a second to eye me with at least one raised eyebrow before rejoining the competition. My wife, upon completion of the round, spoke for several in the room and said, “OK smarty pants, what’s an ‘oliwhatsit?’”
To be fair, I am sure several in the room knew the word, but they, like my wife, were suspicious of my usage. You see, my wife accuses me of using “big words” just to show I know them. Early on in our marriage I think she really believed that I did that of which she accused me, but now she just accuses me to tease me. She knows that I will jump to my own defense. She knows me so well. She knows I am just a nerd at heart.
Oligarchy, shortly put, is rule by a few. It is opposed to a monarchy – rule by one, a democracy – rule by all, and a republic – rule by representatives. Those are just thumbnail sketches, of course, and not meant to be exhaustive, so those nerdier than myself should not feel compelled to elaborate on those definitions. They are not the point.
Oligarchies are the point.
In a comment stream at SBC Outpost, Dr. Malcolm Yarnell gave us this “key to orthodoxy:”
“The key to orthodoxy, I have come to conclude at this point in time, is a disciplined reading and living of the biblical text under the illumination of the Holy Spirit with the church submitting to Christ as He brings us to the Father.”
My observation was that …
“the definition breaks down … in the application when the phrase ‘with the body’ is misapplied by:
1. being taken to mean, ‘certain leaders of the body,’ or [new comment by me: this is an oligarchy]
2. being taken to mean, ‘certain interpretations to which the body is acclimatized,’” [new comment by me: this is sometimes the result of the oligarchy's theology expressed on behalf of the whole, to which the whole begins to comply because it thinks it should - after all, it comes from the oligarchy]
Many of the political issues that are at play in the SBC right now are a result of our oligarchy expressing its theology, only to find that the people in the SBC are more diverse in their opinion AND the section of the SBC not represented by this theology has become unhappy with the misrepresentation.
You see, we are not meant to be an oligarchy, but a republic with many levels of representation: messengers, trustees, officers, denominational employees, etc. We have allowed a practical oligarchy to exist within our republic. This peculiar arrangement can function, so long as those represented feel that the oligarchy represents them well. To be sure, there is a section of the SBC that is very happy with the oligarchy, supporting its theology and methods as representative of themselves.
For a while, now, our oligarchy has been comfortable in its chosen direction, but many of those represented have been growing in concern over that direction. Remember in 2004, when Bobby Welch was challenged for the Presidency by a nomination from the floor. The pastor of an “average” Southern Baptist Church received substantial portion of the vote, despite the fact that we had been having unchallenged presidential elections for some time. This is not to be seen so much as a referendum on Bobby, but more a referendum on the satisfaction of the messengers (who were representatives, themselves) on the inadequacy of the status quo in standing for the individual members of SBC churches.
That is to say, as a group, they were mildly irritated, but not nearly enough to derail the system. Obviously, the situation is different now. The dissatisfaction has grown to the point where some, feeling they were not represented well, have sought to move the power away from those they feel have excluded them on issues about which they feel it is worth the effort.
The solution to the current situation is not a matter of having the disparate members of the Southern Baptist Convention come, once again, under the representative headship of a few who are so similar in their theology and methodology that they are able to act, almost, as one. In other words, submitting again to the current oligarchy or substituting a new oligarchy will not satisfy the whole convention. Rather, the solution will be achieved when the leadership of the SBC is a more accurate reflection of the whole of the SBC, rather than just a part of it (no matter which part), and when the whole of the SBC is able to acknowledge the differentiation without feeling a need to disassociate from one another over trivial differences.
Upcoming article: When all are willing, we can have cooperation. What to do if you are the one who is unwilling to cooperate with the other(s).
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
January 4th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
What makes any system of government bad is when those who are in power frighten those who would challenge them, saying that challenging them is challenging God Himself. It happened in the Roman Empire. It happened in Great Britain. And it is happening in the SBC. And it is wrong, pure and simple.
SBC leadership has gotten away with this for so long, they believe that they are invincible. But they are not. And they don’t even know it.
January 4th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Art,
Two thoughts: first, dissension within the ranks is not a problem but a sign that the system does indeed work.
And, an oligarchy is not the problem. The problem is the complacency on the part of the VAST majority of SBC churchmen that has allowed an oligarchy to become entrenched. In other words, the oligarchy does not dictate theological interpretations (I think that’s what you’ve implied in your 2nd comment above); the group, instead, colludes to give the impression to some men that they are leading the pack. In reality, certain individuals have simply determined which way the crowd was already moving, manuvered their way to the front, and yelled “follow me”.
In short, I think it is an illusion that certain leaders with SBC actually lead: we need to stop tacitly cooperating with them in this illusion.
January 4th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Art,
A very good post. Yet, it is sad that it is so true. If change does come (and it will) it must not have the composition to become a mere reflection of that which has happened more than once in the past. One thing that MUST happen is for trustees of our entities to truly become the “guardians” of their post and not simply enjoying the benefits of “enlistment.”
cb
January 4th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Very insightful post, Art.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:11 am
Jason,
Every group, especially groups of leaders, will have someone who thinks they are right and should not be challenged. It would be a mistake to paint all Southern Baptist leaders with this brush. I know some bloggers who think the same thing of themselves. I would not take kindly to being painted with this brush because of them.
Bowden,
Complacency, in my opinion, has created the oligarchy, but it is no illusion. If they lead, and they have and do, it is no illusion. The friction has come because we have quit tacitly empowering them by failing to question. Some who were happy with the direction are now threatened by a direction not of their choosing. The oligarchy themselves were used to being unquestioned in their leadership and, I honestly believe, felt that they were truly representing the SBC as a whole. They still cling to this belief, I think, and this motivates them to push back.
CB,
Replacing one set with another is a recipe for disaster. The way to fix it is to let the SBC function as already designed. The key to this, I’m afraid, is personal spiritual responsibility and convictions. Over this, we can control only one – ourselves. It is therefore up to everybody else to feel as convicted as we do about cooperating across our differences.
Greg,
Thanks. (Didn’t want to leave you out.)
January 5th, 2007 at 4:35 am
Art,
We are in agreement. I do think the structure of the SBC is good. I think the major problems of our history and in our current situation does rest at the “feet” of trustees not functioning within the structure in a proper manner. Many have been very “slack” in the use of the “tool” the SBC is within the Kingdom. The SBC is not the Kingdom. It is “a” tool for the advancement of the Kingdom. We have to remember, also, the SBC is not the “only” tool in the Kingdom.
Of “tools” we must remember the admonition of that great “Western theologian, SHANE” said: “……its a tool, its as good or as bad as the man using it…..” After delivering that famous sermon, SHANE put on his Buckskin suit, tied down his holster, and went into the “Convention Hall” and cleaned things up. He did not take a “gift” from the Wyoming Convention. He just cast the proper “vote”, took his “wounds” for doing so, and rode out of town without heeding the insistent cries of the young president of the “HOMESTEADERS SEMINARY” to stay because “everybody needed him”. SHANE was not so vain as to think the the Convention could not advance the Kingdom without him. He left Wyoming to “Shepherd” the flock he had been assigned down in Texas. We need “trustees” like SHANE.
cb
January 5th, 2007 at 5:36 am
Brother Art,
I feel your definition also breaks down. It breaks down at with the illustration of Bobby Welches challenge.
Your said; “Many of the political issues that are at play in the SBC right now are a result of our oligarchy expressing its theology, only to find that the people in the SBC are more diverse in their opinion AND the section of the SBC not represented by this theology has become unhappy with the misrepresentation.” You go on to use the challenge to Brother Bobby’s election as the illustration.
If I remember, the challenge to his election was not based on theology that was not getting an appropiate recognition, but was a result of the messenger not having a choice. Here is his response in the interview. “But Conner said he has “moaned and groaned and complained” about the SBC elections for six years.
“We have not had elections in the Southern Baptist Convention,” he said. “We’ve had coronations.” If you care to read the article it is here; http://www.biblicalrecorder.org/content/news/2004/6_25_2004/ne250604anc.shtml
The point I want to make is that his nomination was basically because there was no one else on the ballot. His assumption to the coronation theory was dead wrong because Brother Bobby Welch was not the choice of the “king makers”. While I understand you may respond that perception was Brother Bobby got the nod, in truth it did not happen. While perception may be reality for some, their oligarchy in which their decision are made is based on information, that at its heart, is false.
Blessings,
Tim
January 5th, 2007 at 5:52 am
Tim,
Bobby got the “nod”. He got such a “nod” that all who were breathing air from the SBC “wind” knew in February before the election in June that Bobby was to be of the “NODDED” with the ANOINTING of the “NODDERS” to get to do the “nodding” for the next two years of nodding.
To think otherwise is to be a NODDING-HAM
January 5th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Tim,
I did not intend to say that the issue with Bobby was theological, and if that is what came across, I am happy to disavow the idea. Rather, there was a general discontent, as you have pointed out, over the Kingmaker process. Now, Bobby put himself forward within that process, but the Kingmakers were content for that to happen.
The difference is that this is no longer about just the process or the existence of the oligarchy – Kingmakers – but now the direction that has come as a result.
Remember, I said many were happy with the direction. From previous discussions with you, I would take you to be one of them? Now our diversity has come to the fore, however, and some have reached a tipping point and been drawn out of their complacency. I contend that it was the practical expressions of the oligarchy’s theology – the IMB issues – that was the tipping point.
Without them, I don’t think we gain the climate that we currently have. I doubt any of the issues within the blogosphere gain any momentum without these two issues. They foster the culture of questioning direction. Without that climate we don’t have the Presidential election we had, the debate on alcohol (I think the resolution would have been unopposed), Dwight McKissic surely would have picked something else as the topic of his sermon, traditional church vs. missional church is still a back burner issue, Calvinism is probably taking the same ridicule from the podiums of the SBC conferences, and the funds management at SWBTS doesn’t get a note by anyone and we surely don’t further have to have the PPL issue addressed by the SWBTS trustees.
Again, it was the IMB issues – the practical expression of the oligarchy’s theology – that were the tipping point into a culture of calling for change.
Just my opinion.
Art
January 5th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Brother Art,
Let me make a point that has not been made yet and I will tell you why.
First, I am not in complete agreement with everything going on in the leadership of the convention. This may sound strange to you, but I am not. The reason I have taken the stands that I have taken hinges on the methodology being employed for change. The term, “the message will remain the same, but the methods will change” is one that I agree with. However, when it comes to methods they can change the message. I thought the message began as principled dissent. However, the methods used since May, 2006 have made the message change from principled dissent to theological differences.
Second, I will stand and fight to the death for principled dissent. I am on board and will say that anyone has a right to disagree with any leader in the convention. Any tactics used to marginalize someone for disagreeing I will not advocate or allow. At the same time those disagreeing should not employ disagreeable strategies in order to make their point. I have always called this type of issue into question. Do you know why I do not have a place “at the table” and probably never will? When Dr. Henry preached the Convention Sermon in Orlando and was nominated for Prez. I was taking a class on the SBC through SEBTS. Part of the time together was a meeting with the outgoing Prez. Dr. James Merrit. I was the one that asked Dr. Merrit two questions. First, would he comment on Dr. Henry’s illustration of the General that left his farm to fight the war, only to return to the farm after the war. Dr. Merrit turned to Dr. Akin and said; “you have set me up”. Dr. Akin’s shoulders were shaking because he was snikering so hard. Akin had no idea I was going to ask such a question. The Second question I asked was directed at Dr. Patterson. I asked Dr. Patterson about the complaints of the conservatives before the Conservative Resurgence. Those complaints were mainly that people who spoke out against those in leadership during those years were blackballed. His response was that it was sad that the moderate leadership would do something like that. I followed that question up with the way the convention was being led now was there a difference? I cannot remember his exact response, but it was short and we moved on to other questions. Allow me to also say that I respect Dr. Patterson, Dr. Akin and Dr. Merrit. I have had Dr. Patterson and Dr. Akin speak in my church. They are men of God that I respect and I trust. I believe that this entire situation comes down to some have a lack of trust for the Leaders. How did we arrive at this level of a lack of trust? I believe it is the methods that have been employed.
I tell you this to let you know where I am coming from. While I disagree with some of the things those who lead us are doing, I do not see exchanging one political group for another.
Blessings,
Tim
January 5th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Art,
Re: “The oligarchy themselves were used to being unquestioned in their leadership and, I honestly believe, felt that they were truly representing the SBC as a whole.” That’s part of what I’m referring to as an “illusion”. They don’t represent the SBC as a whole. And, it’s not really leadership to preach to the same small choir, hear the amens, and convince yourself that you and a handful of others have been the architects of a movement of God.
(In recent years only 3 or 4 percent of the potential messengers even attended the Annual Meeting; how much leadership is involved to get friends and like-minded colleagues to see things your way?)
The illusion lies with the idea that leadership is merely a quality of one individual. I think leadership is a dynamic relationship: a covenant between leader and led. Effective leadership ends when the leader begins to believe he alone is responsible for the dynamic: that it doesn’t matter what the “led” think, desire, or believe. We participate in the illusion when we give a nod to the “great men” of SBC history. The architects of the convention, of the CP, of the resurgence were not a handful of individuals, but the thousands of “little guys” who make up the SBC.
I suspect we’re saying much the same thing… except I think you give too much credence to a group of men by even labeling them “the oligarchy”.
January 5th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Tim,
You and I are the exact same page as far as not exchanging one group for another. I have no desire for that.
Now, don’t take this as an assault, but I really want to clarify what you have said here. You said that you would fight to the death for principled dissent, but didn’t you say recently that you would not support either me for office or David Rogers for missionary appointment because you disagreed with us on a theological interpretation?
I believe it was that I said that though I do not myself believe in a moderationist (alcohol) view of Scripture but was willing to work with those who do, you couldn’t support me – or David.
Really, it wasn’t even that you wouldn’t support our principled dissent, but that you wouldn’t support our support of principled dissent.
If I have misunderstood these two statements to be in conflict, I would be happy for you to clarify them and correct my misunderstanding.
Bowden,
I do think we are saying much the same things. I don’t think I give them to much credit, however. I think that until this year, our complacency had the effect of giving them the privilege of actual leadership. The turbulence now being felt is their expectation that they be followed being disrupted by some advocating that no longer happen.
art
January 5th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Brother Art,
No, I do not feel you are assaulting me. Bud, didn’t you have enough comments in this stream? Here you mention alcohol just to get your comments to increase. :>)
Principled Dissent for me is someone dissenting to a position based on what they believe to be about principle. In your example, you present an issue for you that is not about theology, because your theology on this issue is the same as mine. Therefore, you are opposed to me based on principle. I will fight to the death for you and Brother David to have the right to believe the way you do and to bring that belief to the table for debate. That to me is principled dissent. While I will die (and I do not use that phrase lightly) to give you the right to bring it to the table, I will also die for my right to oppose your directions. According to your premise, IMO, you are equating my willingness to give you open space to present your views with my condoning your views. Your principled dissent does not trump my principled dissent.
Blessings,
Tim
January 5th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Dear Brother Art,
You have put your finger right on the button. The idea that a few powerful people control most of the SBC goings-on irks me. We believe that a church is supposed to be governed by democratic principles under the Lordship of Christ. But then a few people operate our SBC as if our representational system is something to be manipulated and controlled.
Brother Tim,
you expressed your sentiment very well. I agree with most of the positions taken by Dr. Patterson et al, but not with their methods. The situation reminds me strongly of Animal Farm.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
January 5th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
“Really, it wasn’t even that you wouldn’t support our principled dissent, but that you wouldn’t support our support of principled dissent.
Art, that just shot to the top of my list of the funniest classic sentences on SBC blogs in 2007.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Tim,
Principled dissent, and the allowance of it, is the ability to disagree without forcing one side to conform.
If we are both agreed on the right to principled dissent, then neither would disqualify the other for service. To deny one or the other is to deny principled dissent.
I’m sorry, but I think you are in internal conflict. Gotta hate that.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Jeff,
Glad you are back online. Been meaning to tell you that I am loving that Grizzly Adams look you have on your blog.
Art
January 5th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Brother Art,
You are right I do have internal conflict. How to disagree with those that believe like I do on some issues, but are totally on the other side of the fence on other issues.
Blessings,
Tim
January 5th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Wade-
“Funniest classic sentence”? As opposed to the “most somber classic sentence,” or “most thought provoking classic sentence”?
You know, it just dawned on me: I don’t think that Bussey did the Wade Awards this year. There goes my resume…
Tim-
It does seem to me that if you stand for Art’s right to dissent, but not for his right to serve, then you stand for nought. (Hope you had a great Christmas and New Year, BTW) It also seems to me that simply calling the attention of the convention to the issue of principled dissent, only for it never to have an end (progress or change) simply makes for much talking. Am I wrong here?
January 5th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Brother Marty,
Anyone has a right to dissent. You and Brother Art, seem to me to be arguing that if I agree for you to dissent, then I must agree with your dissent. That is not the case.
For example. Here in NC we just had a vote dealing with homosexuals and church membership. While I openly argue for a church to have the right to define their own membership, I still voted to dis-fellowship those that receive homosexuals as members.
Blessings,
Tim
**Disclaimer** The theological stand used in the example in no way means I believe those who oppose me have those types of theological leanings.
January 5th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Tim-
I do understand where you are coming from, I believe. But, since we aren’t talking about a clearly defined sin issue (such as homosexuality or bestiality), it still seems that affirming the simple right of dissent doesn’t lead to much.
My example: It’s the 1960’s and African Americans are in the struggle for the right to vote. You stand arm in arm with marchers who are dissenting from the established law forbidding them that right. The Voting Rights Act is passed and everyone rejoices (or should). Then, when Martin Luther King, Jr. shows up to vote, he finds you blocking the door to the polls! Oh, you didn’t really support his right to vote, only his right to dissent.
Another example: Did those supporting the dissent of the conservatives during the Conservative Resurgence think that there would be no action following the dissent? Did they support Drs Patterson, et al, because the supported principled dissent?
I just can’t see it that way. Of course, when we bring alcohol into it…
January 5th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
If Marty is right in understanding you, Tim, then you support our right to say “I disagree,” and that’s about it.
If this is correct, you are saying that you support freedom of speech. That is certainly a valued thing, and worth many lives already given, some yet to be given in the defense of that right.
However, it is not much of an offer, since everyone in America has it.
The value of principled dissent is not just to allow folks to say whatever they want, but to work with them when you disagree.
There are lines. I won’t cross most of the lines you won’t cross, but you don’t want to work alongside me beyond my contribution to our joint account. In other words, I can have the privilege of giving to joint account, so long as your ideas control where it goes.
What’s the enticement for me?
January 5th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Brothers Art and Marty,
Engaging you both in a debate is very exhilerating, but I do so with fear and trembling.
While I can understand your inability to see my point, I feel maybe it is because we are too focused on our own positions. Yes I support, for Example Martin Luther’s right to express his dissent in the Civil Rights struggle. I will support his and any minority’s right to vote and will be willing to lay my life on the line for that privilege. However, while that right to vote is theirs I will stand against the methods used by say a Louis Faharrakan (sp) to receive the same right.
My position in this has more to do with the methods I have seen employed over the past year, than it does with the Principled Dissent. This entire debate came to light and was labeled “Principled Dissent”. If you will notice from my first blogs I was cautiously on board with the MD. I never signed it and stated my concerns with those involved being some old war horses that I knew had some bad tastes in their mouths. Anyone that went through SEBTS in the mid 90’s to 2003 has heard all of the rumors and innuendos concerning Brother’s CB and Ben. However, I was willing to overlook those rumors as nothing but rumors and proceed on because of Principled Dissent.
Move me to today. This past year has brought about some interesting moves and the movement has moved from “Principled Dissent” to cessasionist theology vs. continualist theology. While I approve of your right to Principled Dissent, I do not approve of the methods employed and the other behind the scenes movements the group is advocating in order to position themselves.
This is just who I am!
Blessings,
Tim
January 5th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Tim,
Is it fair to speak of ‘rumors at Southeastern’ regarding CB Scott and Ben Cole?
I think you may be arguing for the honorable ideal of ‘Principled Dissent’ while at the same time being guilty of the very ugly shortcoming of gossip.
I am just asking you to reconsider posting comments like the one above, and if possible, refrain.
January 6th, 2007 at 1:29 am
Tim,
Tell of the rumors of which you speak.
The one of me spending several K of my own money to help needy students.
The one about me “giving” (not loan, but give) my personal automobiles to those that needed transportation.
The one about my employees holding excellent GPA’s
The one about me helping international student with their studies.
The one about so many of my guys getting into the Ph.D. program.
The one about me getting venders to give SEBTS great deals on material for building projects.
The one about me chewing out some students for conduct unbecoming of a minister of the gospel.
The one about me telling “sissy boys” to grow up or go home because ministry is no game for sissies.
The one about me going to “bat” for students when they were falsely accused of wrong doing.
Well, the above are all rumors. The truth is I was a such a terrible person that I received honors from the institution. I was so terrible that the institution let me teach in the college and instruct in the seminary. I was so bad I helped faculty when they got in trouble. Tim, if you wanted the truth of cb and Ben, I have offered to let you read documents that no one has seen. One more rumor: The one about me helping a student whose father raped her during his time as a student at SEBTS. That is such a rumor that they put him in prison for it. It is rumored that my last act at SEBTS was to make sure the low-life scum went to prison. One more rumor is the one about me being the dishonest one. Oh, well, it was me that got fired. I guess that is “proof” enough. My time at SEBTS was totally negitive for the institution, the whole student body and the faculty. It amazes me I lasted so long.
You are a good man and minister of the gospel, Tim and I respect you greatly. I assure you, you will never hear ill from me directed toward you. I have come to the reality that truth does not matter when, purposefully, leaked rumors can rule the day in the institutions of the SBC.
There are just too many gutless trustees, cowardly administrators, especially of the interim sort, around. Like I said of one recently: “They can’t handle the truth.” For me the past is a dead issue now. I do wish people would leave the rumors alone about cb. The truth is, they really don’t want the raw facts behind those rumors to get out, and I intend to leave it that way as things stand now.
Ben Cole can verify every “rumor” stated above, but so can many others. Ben has just been the one with the guts to do so.
cb
January 6th, 2007 at 1:37 am
Tim Rogers, bless your heart…
Your chronology of the Merritt (not Merrit) presidency is inaccurate. Your reference to Martin Luther as opposed to Martin Luther King is awkward. Your suspicion that you know something about C.B. Scott is ridiculous.
I have no quarrel with you, sir. The great state of North Carolina is further esteemed by your countrymen every time you post something on a blog. The videos that I possess of your various and frequent questions, comments, motions, and points of order at national and state conventions elevates you to a position of considerable honor in our convention.
In fact, would you mind if I nominated you for the oft-coveted responsibility of the 2nd Vice Presidency of the Southern Baptist Convention?
BSC
January 6th, 2007 at 6:26 am
Brother Wade,
Thank you for your admonition for me to remain fair in my debate, however, I receive it as ill advice from one that forms political groups in order to blind-side the very BoT’s on which he sits in order to get his way. Talk about beiing fair? Thanks, but no thanks,
Brother’s CB and Ben,
Go back and read my last comment. I knew I should have written a disclaimer. I have in no way alledged any negatives about your time at SEBTS. The rumors of which I spoke were the rumors of if you wanted anythng to get done see CB Scott. He knew how to make things move and get people to do things they would not otherwise do. Also, if you had a church looking at you, see CB Scott he could tell you the issues about the church because if he did not know the church personally, he knew someone who did. Also, if you wanted an inside tract to Dr. Patterson, see Ben Cole. He could get you a voice with him and if he couldn’t he would get you into Keith Eitel and that was close to the same. If Eitel took your cause you could bet that Patterson would be on that boat. Bless your hearts, those are the rumors to which I referred.
Never once did I refer to rumors about documents, illegally copied, or other acts done by some that were done in order to preserve their dignity, or to one day later push to get their voice heard through the threat of writing a book to expose illegally obtained correspondence because of knowledge of a secret room filled with personal correspondence.
Blessings,
Tim
January 6th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Tim-
The IMB and the SBC are better off because Wade Burleson decided to take a stand. It’s called “dissent,” and sometimes it’s necessary to do more than give lip service to it–it’s necessary to do it.
Blind side? Maybe you should have been in Richmond when Wade got blindsided by a power hungry caucus group that led an ill-advised attempt to have him removed for voicing “dissent.” Wade did not attempt to build a “political group”; Wade made known what was happening (which, btw is exactly what a trustee is supposed to do) and a coalition of concerned SBCers formed. The result was that a trustee board that was running astray was reminded of their accountability to the convention, not furthering own interests, was brought back in line to its call.
It continues to befuddle me as to how differently the same events are interpreted.
January 6th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Brother Marty,
It befuddles me that a Trustee shows up at a meeting with fellow bloggers and who knows what other media contacted, in tow pulling a Sherlock Holmes style of investigation in the hotel lobby and other corridors in an put make known information that should been handled by Trustees.
However, with the Trustees already voting on the policies it was no longer bad policy, but one particular Trustee desiring to have his own agenda presented to the SBC.
Blessings,
Tim
January 6th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Brother Marty,
Sorry but “in an put” should be “in an attempt to”. Sorry about thiat but my mind was traveling faster than my fingers.
Blessings,
Tim
January 6th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Tim Rogers, bless your heart…
I’m assuming that “thiat” was supposed to be “that” as well.
BSC
January 6th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
*and was brought back in line to its call.*
January 6th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Wow, Tim. You have taken a turn in your tone.
Also, you have accused somebody here of being a criminal, though I am not sure whether or not it is CB, Ben or both. You have accused Wade of collusion, which is exactly what Wade decried was happening on the board.
In fact you have said several things about what people have done and why they have done them here, but I have a question:
Are you in possession of evidence to support your claims? Were you witness to these alleged actions? Have these men expressed the motives for these actions you allege?
Or are your claims based on something you heard from others and your own guesses?
Let’s take these documents, for instance. Both men have told me the circumstances of their obtaining said documents. Now, it is not my place to discuss their business here, but, unless they lied to me, neither has done anything illegal. If you have evidence to the contrary, you should now produce it having publicly called their character into question. If you have just heard from others, then you should apologize for passing on a rumor in a public forum.
If you can find a place where I have ever made a claim of this nature without evidence, I will apologize to the person against whom I made the claim and repent publicly here.
CB,
Marty and I have been asking for these documents for a year now and you haul off and offer them to Tim. Maybe I should refer to some supposed rumor to get you fork something over. For the life of me, I can’t understand why you hold onto that stuff.
Ben,
Say something substantial, like how you got those documents and what’s in them. In fact, let me publish them and we will all know.
At the very least, explain how you got them so that the motive of writing a tell all book that has been claimed here will be debunked. Never mind. I know you prefer to keep the truth to yourself while false allegations swirl around you. Why you are content in that I will never know, but I couldn’t.
*Note: Ben has claimed he is writing a tell all book, but he has never said that he obtained any documents that he may have (legally or illegally) was the motive.
CB and Ben,
When you are ready to let the evidence out, a whole lot of this stuff will go away – in my opinion. In keeping so much back, you allow people who have done great wrong to “get away with it.” That frustrates me to no end.
All, I am out for a while. Got to help around the house. Back later. In the meantime, play nice.
January 6th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Anyone wanting to know how Ben got “documents” need only look here where one will be able to see that his “pilfering” was with fill knowledge of the librarian.
CB-
I’m with Art, especially if you offered Tim what I’ve requested at least a dozen times. I should have known you really were a Georgia fan.
Tim-
I never took you for one who is creative, but the stories you have invented for this thread rival Stephen King or Dean Koontz.
January 6th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Oops.
Maybe this link will work. Look around the third comment.
January 6th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Well, I am going to have to get over to Nathan’s blog a little bit. Look what you find there.
And Tim, you have already read that everything was done with knowledge and permission of the archivist. That’s hardly illegal. If it were, why wouldn’t the police have been called, or Ben thrown out of school for stealing? Why was he later offered a job at SWBTS and followed Dr. P. there. If he had stolen something, why all the rest?
You need to apologize or present some proof fro these statements. Either will do, and remember, I have offered to stand at the exact same standard myself concerning anything I have written.
Art
January 6th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Art:
So far, I have allowed a few people to read selected documents from my personal files. In May 2006, I welcomed a reporter from the Fort Worth Star Telegram to my office for an afternoon interview, during which time I gave him approximately 200 photocopied pages. The same month, our church welcomed a guest speaker for a revival service. That man went home without any copies, but since that time I have overnighted about 90 pages of documentation unrelated to anything at Southeastern and obtained from another source. Wade Burleson has been given a binder of documentation to substantiate some of his claims about interference with IMB trustee business by Paige Patterson, et al, and he has provided me with additional documentation and correspondence that he has received. Of all the documentation and personal correspondence/memoranda that I have archived, only two persons in denominational life stand to face criminal charges because of evidence contained therein. One of those persons has already been under investigation by tax authorities, and I do not believe anything is to come of it. The other individual has also been investigated for violation of the law by state investigators, and I have obtained copies of institutional audits that were intended to exonerate the accused. One of them has yet to be investigated for his role in harboring a criminal pornographer. Of course, C.B. Scott has shared further evidentiary documentation of these and other matters that he has archived over the years. Everything else in my personal files consists of newspaper clippings, email and snail mail correspondence, interview transcripts, dossiers, and hand-written notes. There are two additional copies to every shred of paper in these files, one of which has been given to an interested party who is himself preparing to write a book.
As for Tim Rogers, bless his heart, and his silly rumors about my having “special access” to the president of Southeastern Seminary during my time in Wake Forest, both the president and I would strongly deny such a relationship. Paige has always been welcome to any student who wished to meet with him, proving himself either a chronic masochist or an especially gifted person when it comes to the fruit of the Spirit and patience.
BSC
BSC
January 6th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
In case you missed it….
One more time….
BSC
January 6th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
If nothing else, that was significantly more substantial. And substantially initialed.
January 6th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Initialed initially and in multiplicity…
January 6th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Marty:
Then he slunk to the icebox. He took the Whos’ feast!
He took the Who-pudding! He took the roast beast!
He cleaned out that icebox as quick as a flash.
Why, that Grinch even took their last can of Who-hash!
BSC
January 6th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
And in rhyme, “yes, yes…some of the time.”
January 6th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Guys,
I am old school. Therefore there are some things I will not talk about. Ben knows that to be true. A strange thing is that some of what Ben knows is exactly as I know of it, but from different sources. We have agreed that some things should be left as they are.
Ben and I do not hate anyone. I know that to be true because of what we do not say, not because of what we have said.
Some will say I am now lying. To those I simply say: be glad I am old school.
cb
January 6th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Tim, in the comment you made, which I referenced, and asked you to consider not posting ‘gossip’ you said this about Ben Cole and CB Scott.
“I never signed (the Memphis Declaration) and stated my concerns with those involved being some old war horses that I knew had some bad tastes in their mouths. Anyone that went through SEBTS in the mid 90’s to 2003 has heard all of the rumors and innuendos concerning Brother’s CB and Ben. However, I was willing to overlook those rumors as nothing but rumors and proceed on because of Principled Dissent.
You then proceeded to say to me in response:
“Thank you for your admonition for me to remain fair in my debate, however, I receive it as ill advice . . . (T)hanks, but no thanks”
Rarely have I been thanked four times by a person that seems as upset as you, so I am wondering if “Your Welcome” is an appopriate response or not.
Nevertheless, I would like for your to reread the intitial comment you made about Ben and CB Scott (as printed above), and now read your explanation of that comment to Ben and CB in a later comment on this string where you explain the ‘rumors’ to which you were referring:
“Brothers Ben and CB, I knew I should have written a disclaimer. I have in no way alledged any negatives about your time at SEBTS. The rumors of which I spoke were the rumors of if you wanted anythng to get done see CB Scott. He knew how to make things move and get people to do things they would not otherwise do. Also, if you had a church looking at you, see CB Scott he could tell you the issues about the church because if he did not know the church personally, he knew someone who did. Also, if you wanted an inside tract to Dr. Patterson, see Ben Cole. He could get you a voice with him and if he couldn’t he would get you into Keith Eitel and that was close to the same. If Eitel took your cause you could bet that Patterson would be on that boat. Bless your hearts, those are the rumors to which I referred.”
Tim, it may just be me, but it seems absolutely impossible to read your first comment (at the top) and your last comment (immediately above) and even come close to believing that those were the ‘rumors’ to which you were referring about Ben and CB. Why would you need to ‘overlook’ those nice and capable things about Ben and CB? Those weren’t ‘rumors,’ they were compliments.
It seems to me that a better approach would simply be to say, “I’m sorry” to Ben and CB and move on.
There is no need to thank me for this comment. The other four thank you’s are sufficient.
Blessings,
Wade
January 7th, 2007 at 12:31 am
Wade,
It has been rumored that Ben and cb would have received the “I am sorry” approach well, had it been offered, and moved on, because they have been down this “rumor road” in the past and “nothing is new under the sun.” Of course, it is just a rumor, for the reality of such an offer is not before them at this time.
rumored to be,
cb in third person, cousin to Bob Dole:-)
January 7th, 2007 at 6:04 am
Brothers,
You have done what many have tried, but they fail miserably when they do such things, You have pulled a statement out of context and made it a pretext.
The statement I initally made that placed me at such odds in this comment stream was “Anyone that went through SEBTS in the mid 90’s to 2003 has heard all of the rumors and innuendos concerning Brother’s CB and Ben.” That is the pretext that some have jumped on and run with it and the statement, if let stand alone, that I referred to probably needed a disclaimer.
However, that statement was stated after this sentence; “I never signed it and stated my concerns with those involved being some old war horses that I knew had some bad tastes in their mouths.” When you read the above sentence after this sentence you find that I was refering to the fact of the political savy that I initially noticed in the MD group.
The rumors referred to about CB and Ben was their political activities of which both were well known. As a matter of fact–not I said fact–while attending SEBTS as a fellow student of Brother’s Ben and CB, Ben was constantly reminding students of his access to the president and his office. His usual sarcastically laden reminders were something to do with abilities to remove some from school if he so desired.
Now, allow me to deal with a term that I have been called to task on. Illegal! I am sorry, I should not have used that term. You are right, the documents were not illegally obtained and that was a very poor choice of words.
Forgive, my limited vocabulary as I do not know the correct word to use here, I ask that you allow my many words to used now to explain. It seems that when you obtain documents, legally obtained mind you, of private correspondence between two other people–not for research mind you–and you hold those documents for a chance to make them public–at the right time in order to make someone else appear as bad as you believe them to be–while that term is not illegal there is a term for it and I am sure one of my segacious Brothers can tell me. Documentation obtained for research, Ben should be used for research, not some tell all book. Documentation obtained for protection from future reprisals of an employer because of whistle blowing, CB should be used to reveal where the bodies are buried, not harbored in a vieled attempt for protection.
I AM SAYING RELEASE THE DOCUMENTS AND LET THE DEVIL TAKE THE HIND MOST, LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY, WHATEVER WAY YOU WANT TO SAY THAT. AT ANY RATE, STOP USING THESE DOCUMENTS IN SOME ANTAGONISTIC WAY TO KEEP SAYING, “I HAVE INFORMATION NO ONE ELSE HAS AND YOU WILL JUST HAVE TO TRUST ME, IT IS BAD”. THAT, BROTHERS, IS ANTAGONISM AT IS FINEST.
**Disclaimer** The above capitulation was capitalized purposefully. Tone has never changed, I am not mad, and I do not appreciated the implication of Brother Art, trying to marginalize me by using the term of tone change. There is no tone change I love CB, Ben, Wade, Marty, & Art. I have nothing but respect and admiration for them all. I am passionate about this issue for the simple reason it has been over a year now and nothing has been exposed that everyone says they have documentation for.
Blessings,
Tim
January 7th, 2007 at 7:57 am
Tim Rogers, bless your heart…
Your characterization of the way I might have represented a relationship with the president is lacking in any demonstrable evidence. Did you ever hear me make such a claim? Did you ever hear me threaten somebody based on a friendship with the president? In fact, did we ever have a conversation of any kind that you can remember and detail the subject thereof for me?
As for your instruction about how and when I should release any documentation which I have collected for a writing project, I think I shall dismiss that counsel like a turkey would dismiss lessons from a toad about how to trot.
And that comment about “taking a text out of context and making a pretext…” You sound so smart when you lift cliches from your “hermaneutics” course and misapply them. I know this will be hard for you to believe, but C.B. Scott, Wade Burleson, Art Rogers, and to a lesser degree Ben Cole, are quite able to comprehend exactly what is written. Words mean what they mean, Dear Tim, BHH. They do not mean what you want them to mean or what you intended them to mean.
They are, my good man, the chariots that ferry the legions of men’s thoughts. Of course, for some they are the chamber pots that carry the crap. I’ll let others determine for themselves which vessel is more oft found transporting the ideas from your mind. Whatever the case, please do keep offering them — your thoughts, that is — as I find them quite amusing.
BSC
January 7th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Brother Ben,
I will not get into a witty word exchange with you because I know you are much more adept at begin able to win in that exchange.
I will answer you three questions as follows;
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
I am quite certain that you probably will respond desiring a name, date, and time of said incident. Of which I am unable to describe in that detail. Just suffice it to say The Pit and the subject was a heated one between you and some other student.
Blessings,
Tim
January 7th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Brother Ben,
One other time was in the area on the ground floor at Binkley when you and some other student were discussing your angst against some student. You were overheard by me as you railed against the scholastic capabilities of that student, much like you have just done about my thoughts.
You, and I know this is two, have said; “Words mean what they mean, Dear Tim, BHH. They do not mean what you want them to mean or what you intended them to mean.” No one has changed the meaning of words. Thoughts are translated by words and the thoughts are what I said they mean by the words I have written. Do not try to make my thoughts mean something they were not intended to mean by holding to a strict definition of the words used to translate the thought.
I have told you what I was thinking when I wrote what I did.
Blessings,
Tim
January 7th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Tim,
I did not, in any way, marginalize you by remarking on your tone. It was an observation.
Thanks for the apology about the word “illegal.”
I still do not see congruity between these two statements:
“I never signed (the Memphis Declaration) and stated my concerns with those involved being some old war horses that I knew had some bad tastes in their mouths. Anyone that went through SEBTS in the mid 90’s to 2003 has heard all of the rumors and innuendos concerning Brother’s CB and Ben. However, I was willing to overlook those rumors as nothing but rumors and proceed on because of Principled Dissent.”
“I have in no way alledged [sic] any negatives about your time at SEBTS. The rumors of which I spoke were the rumors of if you wanted anythng [sic] to get done see CB Scott. He knew how to make things move and get people to do things they would not otherwise do. Also, if you had a church looking at you, see CB Scott he could tell you the issues about the church because if he did not know the church personally, he knew someone who did. Also, if you wanted an inside tract [sic] to Dr. Patterson, see Ben Cole. He could get you a voice with him and if he couldn’t he would get you into Keith Eitel and that was close to the same. If Eitel took your cause you could bet that Patterson would be on that boat. Bless your hearts, those are the rumors to which I referred.”
In the first statement you clearly refer to Ben and CB together as having similar rumors swirl about them at SEBTS, that these rumors were political (old war horses), that they had “bad tastes in their mouths” – which implies a negative motivation that you clearly say you were willing to overlook. Then you say that you did not allege any negatives. This just doesn’t jive.
Also, you have not produced any evidence that Wade was in collusion or that his motivation was what you claim it was. You still owe him either evidence or an apology.
Finally, Ben is defending himself against your allegations, so I am letting that go unfettered, but if you let his tone “get to you,” you have no chance. Your tone has changed and it shows.
January 7th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Tim,
The problem I have with your statement, “Documentation obtained for protection from future reprisals of an employer because of whistle blowing, CB should be used to reveal where the bodies are buried, not harbored in a vieled attempt for protection” is:
1) The documentation (with the exception of records on the infamous car) was retained to validate that we (in the business office) were instructed to make various payments which were questionable or unethical. The documents, memos, emails, etc. were only for proof that we were instructed to handle things a certain way rather than choosing to do so on our own.
2) It is my belief that if someone will direct you to handle payments less than ethically then they would have no problem denying that they did so or trying to place the blame on the person (or persons) who was following instructions.
I know for a fact that I was not the only one who retained documentation for those same reasons.
It was also amazing when I left SEBTS and began working at the Lutheran Seminary at Gettysburg to find that although you may question their theology you never had to question their integrity. During my time there, I was never asked to perform a financial transaction there that was not completely ethical. I would also like to note that I never made a copy of any email or memo while working there because every transaction was handled with the utmost integrity.
You were wrong in alluding to rumors in connection with Ben Cole and CB. Your statement encourages sick minds to wonder any where they will. I know from your statement that you are ignorant of the facts regarding what happened, but there are people who will accept your allegations because they simply want to believe fantasy.
Given the facts for the situations alluded to, both Ben and CB have been extremely gracious to all parties involved.
Karen Scott
January 7th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Karen-
Woooopooowwwwww!
Also, would CB, by any chance, say, “willfully ignorant” regarding the subject at hand?
January 7th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Marty,
I would say he is “willfully ignorant” or has chosen to believe fantasy. It amazes me how people are often more willing to believe fiction or fantasy than search for the truth. The trustees at SEBTS are examples of such.
CB has protected others all of his life sometimes to the point of risking his own. He carries the scars to prove it. He is never going to change. There are some things that he just will never reveal no matter who wants to know. CB is sometimes loyal to his own detriment.
January 7th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Sister Karen,
My words are opening old wounds–something that was never my intentions. I am sorry that I even brought up anything concerning the term “rumors”.
Blessings,
Tim
January 7th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Tim, bless your heart:
You will continue to find yourself apolgozing, retracting, and causing hurt so long as you persist in relying on the partial information, often received second hand, that seems to influence your perception about men whose personalities you only know from their public actions or the events you only know from reading about on blogs. Some men are not nearly so honorable as you seem to insist. Others are not nearly so devilish.
CB and I are quiet little kittens compared to Karen. When she roars, you know you’ve just walked into a forest from which you will scarcely extract yourself.
I doubt, however, that you will stand down from your silly assumptions and unfounded assertions. In which case, press on noble steed. There are windmills aplenty for you to attack.
BSC
January 7th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
And that word is “apologizing.” Just in case it threw you off.
January 7th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Brother Ben,
Thank you for your noble words. I am certain they will serve me well for the days ahead.
Blessings,
Tim
January 7th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Wow. Go take a nap and wake up to find you got Mama into this deal. No es bueno.
Tim,
Saying you are sorry for bringing something up because it opens old wounds is nothing like saying you were wrong for passing on rumors and misinformation. I hope you don’t think that exonerates your actions. It doesn’t.
And it doesn’t answer my questions of you.
And it doesn’t deal with the accusations about Wade being in collusion, either.
You need to deal with this mess a little more.
Art
January 7th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Tim,
You are correct. Your words did open old wounds and had the potential of causing new ones.
I accept your apology.
Karen Scott
January 8th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Brother Art,
I am at a loss to your reference of my saying Wade was in “collusion”. I believe you may be referencing this statement of which you say I owe Wade an apology. “I receive it as ill advice from one that forms political groups in order to blind-side the very BoT’s on which he sits in order to get his way.” I believe I can answer your concern with one word “Arlington”.
As for your questions that appear to be related to what Sister Karen and I have already worked through, I owe you no response.
Blessings,
Tim
January 8th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Dear Brothers and Mrs. C.B.,
This conversation is painful, and I’m sorry that the events referred to ever happened in the Kingdom, in Baptist life, and in your personal lives.
Dear Brother Wade and Brother Ben,
I agree with Tim on one thing at least: for at least a year, you have been referring to information you have on wrong-doing by major players in the SBC. It seems to me that the thing to do is to post the whole thing online (after securing enough bandwidth to handle one million hits/day, of course). It is counter-productive to keep this information under wraps, while referring to it in defense of your positions.
Dear Brother C.B. and Mrs. C.B.,
I wish you would go to Baptist Press, or a more independent newspaper, or at least a blog, and absolutely tell all you know about financial and other misdeeds at SEBTS, producing every document you have in support of your statements. It irks me to no end that officers in our seminary(ies) have done things unethical and/or illegal and gotten off Scott free.
If you won’t do that, I wish you would at least give a very full explanation of why you won’t. I understand in general that it involves protection of Baptist institutions, innocent parties, the reputation of Christ, and, to a lesser degree, yourselves. But I believe that all those purposes would be better served by a full disclosure of the whole stinking mess.
Dear Brother Tim,
In your initial post about SEBTS rumors regarding C.B.S. and B.S.C.
, you clearly implied that the rumors were negative, and required being overlooked by you. Later to insist that you were referring to rumors that were positive was dishonest. To then offer a politician-style apology-that-isn’t only made matters worse. You have always seemed to me like an upstanding person, and I have respected your input on the blogs, but on this thread your speach has not been up to standards.
Okay, well, having hammered everyone in sight, I guess I’ll check out now. I hope I’m not persona non grata when I check back in later.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
January 8th, 2007 at 10:47 am
(i feel SO left out…….)
January 8th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Tim,
Just because Karen accepted your apology for opening old wounds doesn’t mean it is ok that you implied negative political rumors about CB and Ben. Those are two separate issues. What’s between you and Karen is just that, but it is a different issue.
Also, you still haven’t answered my question about the congruency of the two statements quoted above. That’s a different issue.
The word “Arlington” as a response is so insufficient. You leave everyone to speculate as to what you mean by that word. Are you saying that the Roundtable is some ongoing political group? If so, one could think only that you completely lack comprehension of the Roundtable, what happened and how. Are you saying that a public meeting, open to everyone who cared to attend was a “blind side” of the IMB BOT? or the SWBTS BOT? If that is so, do you think David Dockery is attempting to “blind side” the SBC with the Baptist Identity Conference? Good grief, since when is publicly addressing the culture of the SBC a thing off limits to members of the SBC?
What are you saying? Don’t drop vague answers. You have said some massively critical things here and you need to support them with EVIDENCE, not just your opinion.
By the way, if you say that the Roundtable was a political organization that “blind-sided” any BOT, you need to evidence that, or claim it as speculation for which you have no evidence.
I say this with all sincerity, you wound your credibility in these discussions when you make claims for which you have no evidence and then won’t either apologize or evidence those claims. You know that I have claimed to stand on the exact same footing and have offered the invitation to you find any claim I have made about motivation without evidence or character and I would apologize or evidence. This is not new here.
Jeff has seen it, too. Don’t claim that we are “ganging up on you,” either, because we are not. You have made some serious allegations and are not addressing them with the clarity and integrity that you need.
January 8th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Jeff,
You didn’t hammer me, so… of course you are welcome back!
Bob,
Keep up, brother. I am not on a blog fast … yet.
Anyone else need a wink? Just in case …
January 8th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Jeff Richard Young,
With patience and a continued willingness to be submissive to the wishes of our Convention’s Committee on Order of Business, I await the time for me to give my information to the Executive Committee of the IMB who has been appointed to conduct the investigation into matters matters regarding the IMB.
It is six months since the SBC in Greensboro and as of yet, I have not heard how the matter is being addressed by the EC of the IMB.
There are plenty of options available at a later date, but I believe your counsel is jumping the gun, and though I am a ‘Sooner’ at heart, I will not cross the line before the appropriate time.
Wade
January 8th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
If fasting means abstaining from food, I can only assume that a “blog fast” means’ you don’t have to eat your words?
January 8th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Brother Art,
First, let me say that my response with Sister Karen is sufficient for me. You may not agree and Brother Jeff may not agree, but I do not really care. (That response has nothing to do with being mean or sarcastic. I am just stating that I am done trying to explain what was in my heart when I posted those words. I have explained the best I can the rumors of political activity.)
As for your perceived inadequate evidence of my statements concerning Brother Wade. Do I have private emails? NO! Do I have taped phone conversations? N0! (Neither of these do I claim anyone else has. I have to make that statement so no one else will wrongly judge my heart) What do I have that is evidence of Brother Wade being one that forms political groups in order to blind-side the very BoT’s on which he sits in order to get his way.
Lets look at the written evidence. Trustee #1 becomes embroiled in a controversery concerning board policies. This controversy results after the board voted oberwhelmingly to implement these policies, something Trustee #1 asked for. The vote did not go the way Trustee #1 wanted it to go and he make public items about the vote and calls for a stop to some type of holy war he perceives within the convention. This progresses on and he stands behind the banner of Principled Dissent. Many get on board and group is called together to meet in Memphis where a document is presented for all work through and sign. This group comes to aid Trustee #1 and the proverbial cat is out of the bag. During this time the Karl Rove of the movement and Trustee #1 become car riding buddies across the state of Texas in order to prepare pastors for San Antonio. Enter Trustee#2 and he steps into the pulpit of the institution on which he sits on a board and preaches a message when he 1, speaks against a sister institution and their BoT’s for the policy passed, and 2. speaks and advocates a neo-charasmatic theology that is a fringe doctrine within the denomination. The Karl Rove of this particular movement institutes a blanket call for media and others to cover this issue. This Karl Rove puts together Trustee #1 & 2 and Arlington is conceived.
Was this a meeting to do what is was designed to do? You tell me. Here is what was posted that would be covered;
(a). There will be an announcement regarding the dates, time, place, speakers, and topics for the Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit to be held in April of 2007.
(b). There will be an exploration of the possible formation of a Sandy Creek – Charlestonian Baptist Fellowship open to all Baptists for the specific purpose of assisting Southern Baptist church planters and missionaries who are conservative inerrantists but are now excluded from participation in Southern Baptist missions and ministry.
(c). Discuss and dialogue how the SBC can return to her historic openness to all Baptists and address contemporary issues in Baptist life, identify solutions, and develop action plans for the future.
First, no exploration of a formation of Sandy Creek-Charlestonian Baptist Fellowship. There was a push for another source for sending Missionaries that you this group voted down. Praise God. However, do you really believe that SB would have seen this as anything other than a CBF strategy? (This is not a charge of moderate theology) Second, there was never any dialogue about how the SBC could return. There was a resolution and letters, already drafted, that spoke against the very BoT’ of the two Trustees’ that headed up this meeting. That is why I say this meeting was a political gathering.
Dr. David Dockery. As far as I know he is not a sitting Trustee with a disagreement of a BoT. Also, this is not the first year that this conference has been on the books. It is an annual event. Oh, by the way, Dr. Dockery did not start this conference because he was not getting his way with the BoT’s he served on.
My evidence. This is it. And you thought I did not have any.
Blessings,
Tim
January 8th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Tim,
Methinks you’ve been painting the living room with the doors and windows shut before you blogged your latest.
January 8th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Tim,
Now I know you don’t have any.
You have produced nothing but scandalous speculation based on rumor mongering and eavesdropping – according to your own words – and a gross misrepresentation of what has been documented.
You are welcome to discuss here, but this is the last time you will trash someone’s character in this way.
I don’t do what you have done and I won’t allow it to be done to anyone else, no matter whose “side” they are on.
If you don’t like this, and I say this in the exact same tone as you did, I don’t care. I can’t prove my point to anyone who refuses to look at their own words objectively.
I love you, Tim, but you have done yourself a great disservice here. It is, of course, not nearly as great as the disservice you have done to these others.
January 9th, 2007 at 2:54 am
Tim said “overwhelming vote.” But my memory is that it was a very narrow vote until the chairman of the BoT had the public announcement of the vote totals “recalculated.” I always liked what Blackaby said about close votes…whether positive or negative…”wait for a consensus.” Unfortunately, there has yet to be a consensus on the baptism or ppl policies.