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.

Methinks you’ve been painting the living room with the doors and windows shut before you blogged your latest. :)

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

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

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 … ;)

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.

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