Author: art rogers
At the Mic with Drs. York and Land
Sunday, June 17th, 2007 @ 11:07 pm
Well, believe it or not, I don’t read all the comment threads of many posts any more, so you might be surprised to know that I had no idea that Dr. Hershael York had described my actions and motivations on Wade’s comment thread on this post: The Transcript of the 2007 SBC Debate Over the Motion to Adopt the Executive Committee’s Statement on the Baptist Faith and Message
Wade:
I don’t want to sound like I’m feasting on sour grapes, but I would like to know what “rule” mean. Could you locate the “rule” for me that says that when the President recognized the person at mike 5 to speak against the motion that the other messenger didn’t have to let me speak? If that is so, why do the microphones register a “For” and an “Against” at the same time? If your “rule” were really a rule, there would be only one button pushed at a time. But that is not the case. Because the president alternates for and against, he has the right to call on each mike individually and the person at that mike who is there to speak for or against as he recognizes. Imagine, if you will, that I had been the only person in the room against it. All the other mikes have only people for the motion. I am second in line at my mike, but I am the only one against it. By your “rule” no one would ever get to speak against it.
Wade responded later with this:
Hershael,
You are giving me way to much credit.
I was told that the pages and microphone monitors were instructed that the people at the microphones first were to stay at the microphone until they were able to speak — except for point of orders. In other words, an ‘against’ could not jump in front of a ‘for’ just because he wanted to.
However, I freely admit I may be wrong on the rule given to the microphone monitors. I am just relaying what I was told.
In His Grace,
Wade
P.S. By the way, I think you know by now I have no qualms telling it like I believe it to be.
Apparently, Dr. York doesn’t read my blog, and I can’t blame him. He’s a busy man and has recently posted about his being too busy to post on his own blog, much less read mine.
For everyone that needs to know, I don’t receive instructions from anyone. You can feel free to ask Ben if he tells me what to do. Wade as well. Ask.
The truth about the situation is this:
When the motion first came up, I went to mic 9, where I found Dr. Boyd Luter. It was he who made the motion last year, in Greensboro, to which the EC was responding in the first place.
When I arrived, we greeted one another. Dr. Luter was in his own room the night before, so far as I know. The teller at mic 9 said that if we legitimately wanted to both speak to the motion, one of us should find an open mic. Boyd offered to find one, but he was there first, so I told him to stay and I would find a new mic.
I went forward and found a microphone that was completely empty and I told the teller that I wanted to speak for the motion. I was handed the clipboard and began to fill out the required information. After a while, I noticed someone behind me and who told the teller that they wanted to speak against the motion.
Later, I noticed Dr. Richard Land walking up to the same mic. I turned and introduced myself and he warmly greeted me. Only then did I notice Dr. York’s name tag.
When the chair came to mic 5, Dr. Page asked, “Microphone 5, are you there to speak against the motion?” I responded, “No, sir. I am here to speak for the motion.”
You know by now that he moved on from there, never to return.
When Dr. Page asked for a vote to extend time, I voted, along with Drs. York and Land, to extend the time for debate. I wanted to speak to this issue that has been a burden to me for the last 18 months. I wanted discussion to continue, not cease.
I was told to go ahead and leave by the teller at that mic on at least three occasions, but I stood at the mic until the vote was called for by ballot and I knew I would not have a chance to speak.
A few points of clarification for Dr. York and anyone else who needs to know:
I was in the room the night before, but not to receive instructions. In fact, no one received any instructions in that room. Only information. The situation concerning the motion and the ramifications of our convention’s directions were explained to those interested. And we prayed.
I was at that mic first because it was empty. Drs. York and Land could have gone to any mic, they chose the one where I was already standing, not the other way around.
I voted to extend time in order to speak to the motion.
It was my understanding that I was first in line at that mic, and that the order was to be honored. When the teller pressed the “against” button, upon Dr. York’s arrival, I objected. He told me that the “mob box” would keep everything in order. When they came to mic 5 for the “against” statement, Dr. York objected to him that he should have gotten to speak. The teller told him that I was in line first and that I had the right to the mic.
At no time did I conspire with people to keep others from speaking against the motion. No one tried to flood the mics. Nothing dirty or inappropriate was intended or attempted.
I freely admit that I was unwilling to surrender my position at the mic since both I and the teller were under the understanding that I had the right to it.
If I and the teller were mistaken, then for my part, I can say it was an honest mistake.
I would, however add, that Dr. York did receive instruction from Paul Chitwood, chairman of the ad hoc committee at the IMB on the “guidelines” who came over and gave Dr. York some guidance on how to speak to the issue.
Now, I like Paul. He gave me some time last year to privately discuss the issues at the IMB, and I have always respected him. I saw him earlier in the day, and he introduced me to his wife and told me all that was going on in his life. He asked how things were going for me in Tulsa and wished me well.
I merely point out, that of the two of us, Dr. York was the one receiving instructions about how to handle himself at the mic.
Of course, I don’t begrudge him that, either. He’s a brilliant man, and didn’t need instruction. As I recall, he told Paul, “I know, I have a whole list of things.”
I write this as a simple word of clarification for those who don’t yet understand it. I act on my own. No one gives me instructions. I stayed at the microphone because I thought I had a right to it.
Besides, I wanted people beyond the blogosphere to hear what I have to say about the narrowing of parameters within our convention.
But, I’m almost done. Wednesday marks the shift away from Convention politics. I have another post due to drop at 10:00 am Monday. Tuesday will be my last on this subject, unless it crosses the path of my ministry.
So that you know, I have been entreated by many in leadership and laity alike in the SBC not to quit the political analysis. I can only say that I will do what I must for my wife, children and church. I can’t say that I won’t ever again deal with political issues, but I can say that I really don’t see it happening without a move of God in my life. By the way, I have always believed that God was calling me to address these issues - that it was His plan, and not my own.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
June 17th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
interesting discussion would be to speculate about
what would have happened at the convention if the bloggers had not been there. Imagination used with some degree of seriousness would be helpful. Would there have been any business?
June 18th, 2007 at 12:32 am
Honest mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. The microphone monitor should have brought forward the person at your mike wishing to speak against, since that’s who the President was calling for. In other words, the queue up front had hit on Dr. York’s “Against” indication. But, these things happen. You don’t bring thousands of people into a town-hall meeting and have everything run smoothly 100% of the time.
June 18th, 2007 at 1:28 am
Art:
In part because I am keenly interested in the SBC right now, but mostly because my wife is out of town and I don’t sleep well when she’s gone, I have read the blogs and written quite a bit on things as you well know. First of all, I am truly sorry I don’t know you, particularly since you pastored in Russellville. You may not know this, but as a small child I lived in Logan County when my dad pastored the Olmstead Baptist Church. We lived at Lick Skillet on Watermelon Road by Whipporwill Creek–no kidding! I am very sorry I didn’t get to know you while you were here. I suppose my being president of the KBC ran you off to Oklahoma, huh?
Anyway, I want you to know that at no time did I feel any resentment toward you for the alleged blocking me from the microphone. In fact, I didn’t know it was you and even when it happened I didn’t even think anything about it so far as you were concerned. I blamed the monitor entirely, and still do. They have more than one button on that precisely so the president can recognize people on different sides of the issue. The president is concerned with the overall balance, not that things proceed in order on the individual microphone. I had to study up on all this when I moderated the KBC, and that is how I learned it. Anyway, that was not your job to see that I got to speak. In fact, I would never have thought anything about it at all until Ben Cole told me that you did “exactly as he was instructed to do” in the previous night’s meeting. In the context of our conversation he did not mean that you individually were told to stay at the microphone, but Ben indicated that he told the entire meeting to respond that way. So that is the basis of any statements I have made about you doing as you were told. I got that directly from Ben. Even if you did, I still understand that it was not your job to allow me to speak, but the monitor’s, and he just got it wrong. This is where my belief in the sovereignty of God kicks in. Had God wanted me to speak, I would have.
I want to reiterate that I hold absolutely nothing against you. I do not think you did anything wrong. I was and remain frustrated, but not at you. I guess I feel a mixture of admiration for the rough and tumble politics of it all and sadness that we seem to be missing something in the way we often find ourselves debating these issues. I know how to play hardball, too, and I cannot claim to be innocent in this regard. But in the past, I have always felt that I was doing that against de facto liberals, men who denied the exclusivity of the gospel or the trustworthiness of Scripture. Now I feel that men with whom I theologically agree for the most part are using those tactics and sometimes a “scorched earth” blogging tactic against otherwise godly men. For all the talk about being inclusive and working together, what transpired on that particular vote in San Antonio was not designed to have an honest debate, but to stifle it and get to the vote as quickly as possible before people could be informed of possible ramifications. Those that live by the sword die by it, and I am now old enough to see how these things all come around, and they will continue to do so.
Blogging has often stripped away a respect for older men of God that we used to value. It has created a false sense of intimacy and led some to mistakenly believe that they have a right to be criticize, to critique, and to challenge men who have done great things for God. “If you have ought against your brother, leave there thy gift and go blog about it” seems to be the spirit of the age. The whole blogging phenomenon has caused some to achieve a level of influence that, frankly, they have not earned by any real advancement of the kingdom.
I am rambling here. I want to be clear that I am not saying this specifically about you. I read your blog today for the very first time and I read only your most recent entry, so I frankly have no idea what kind of blogging you do. I am simply making generic comments about my frustration. My main point is that I do not fault you and I have no direct knowledge of whether you were coached to stay in front of the mike and prevent others from speaking, though I can say in all honesty that is precisely what Ben told me–and he is usually brutally honest.
So it seems that we might have misguided notions about outside influence on each other because you are mistaken about Paul Chitwood coaching me. To be honest, I have no recollection of Paul saying anything to me. I was so focused on what I was going to say and had already mostly memorized it, that any outside suggestions were distractions. I had forgotten that I even saw Paul at the convention until you wrote about it and it made me laugh because you missed the boat entirely on that one. He may have said something to me–I really don’t remember–but I can honestly say that it had no affect on what I would have said–but never got to.
Blessings on you. I’m leaving my home for the airport in 3 1/2 hours.
June 18th, 2007 at 2:15 am
Art,
I was “at the mic” for many years in the past. It was in my room you met. You were never told to block a mic. The monitor did carry out his responsibility properly. You did nothing wrong. There were 12 mics. You were there to speak for the motion. You were there first. It is that simple.
In another meeting, in another place, attended by other people, for another purpose, some people were assigned to or volunteered to “watch mics.” As far as we know no one, in that meeting and specifically in the one you attended, was told to “block mics.” I do hope that no one from the other meeting will deny that some plan was developed to watch mics. The time they were watching the mics was a time when nothing of controversy happened. Some were very surprised, but the boat went its way and nothing happened.
cb
June 18th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Hershael:
The visit in my hotel suite involved many things. At several points, both Wade and I stressed the need to get to a microphone and get there early. I did not know Art was at a microphone until I saw him on the jumbo screen. When he relayed to me how he kept his place at the microphone, I laughed and we all congratulated him that night in the suite. It was a bit of good humor, and I think Art was there when C.B. and I talked about how this very thing had been done strategically during the “old days” of the Conservative Resurgence by people on all sides.
And yes, I would use the word “instruct” to describe my comments to the folks gathered in our suite the night before. I use this word, however, in the same way that I would say Frank Page “instructed” the messengers how to vote. That is, he told them the process of voting, not what position they should take on a vote.
Art Rogers has “instructed” people what to expect at the convention. Wade has “instructed” people on the significance of a vote. I have “instructed” people about the times for votes and some critical points of parliamentary procedure.
But when it came to the microphone, and Art’s calm insistence that he had a right to speak in turn, he made that decision on his own without any “coaching.” Art Rogers is an incredibly sharp feller. In fact, he’s “instructed” me a time or two, and I’m the better for it.
Now furthermore, I will say this:
You have violated the cardinal rule of blogging. You do not call someone for a discussion, then get to a blog and repeat the conversation. I do not say this to suggest that you have mischaracterized our conversation from Friday evening. In fact, I did say, “Art did what we told him to do.” This does not mean, however, that Art Rogers had a little flash card with “instructions” from Ben and Wade handy at all moments in the convention. Art was in a room with a large number of people. Many things were said in the way of information or “how-to.”
But next time I host a gathering like that, I’ll invite you so long as you don’t take offense at my “instructing” you how to find my suite in the hotel. Wouldn’t want anybody thinking that you were taking orders from me or something silly like that.
BSC
June 18th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Let me first clarify Ben’s statement above. When Ben said, “Art did what we told him to do,” I was not party to the conversation, so my understanding of the context is somewhat limited. Nevertheless, if by it he meant to say that he told the room that if they wished to speak to the issue, get to a microphone early, then I can agree with that statement.
In case anyone thinks that my acumen in parliamentary procedure is dependent on others’ instructions, I would point you to last year’s series of posts, the SBC Primer. Not in any way to brag or elevate myself to the status of parliamentarian, but simply to say that I don’t really need basic instruction.
Also, it should be noted that CB is referring to his observation that certain friends and students of SWBTS seemed to be hovering around microphones during the time leading up to the SWBTS report. It was not another meeting in which we were involved, but his ability to recognize that which he was specifically instructed to do years ago, during the resurgence.
Dr. York,
It seems that we are in agreement in every place but one.
I, too, love Logan County. I had once hoped to finish my ministry there among people that I had adopted as my own. In His Providence, God has seen fit to move me, and I am grateful for His watchcare over me. I had some good friends that lived on Watermelon Road. I know it well. Also, I was glad for your Presidency at the KBC.
Which leads me to our next area of agreement, that we have devolved into political wrangling of conservatives angling against fellow conservatives. It is this that has weighed heavily on me of late and the reason for my desire to shift away from it. I have been disgusted with some of the things done to me by those who claim to be God’s people. Honest discussion is one thing. Politics is another.
I also share your frustration in not getting to speak. I desperately wanted to address the issue and I know for a fact that I had the “for” button pushed prior to at least one person who did speak “for” the motion.
Like you, I also believe in the Sovereignty of God and have reconciled my frustration over not getting to speak by trusting that He did not desire it.
I see that the only area of disagreement seems to be our mutual perception of each other “being coached.” Perhaps that is now resolved.
In case I did not make it clear before, I don’t begrudge anyone receiving advice about dealing with the microphone, what to say, or even how to say it. I just wanted to make clear that I was there to speak my own mind and at my own bidding (Providence not withstanding).
June 18th, 2007 at 10:02 am
With all due respect to Dr. York, whom I do not know and of whom I do not know anything about other than what has been written on this post, I found the following quote to be arrogant and insulting.
He wrote, “The whole blogging phenomenon has caused some to achieve a level of influence that, frankly, they have not earned by any real advancement of the kingdom.”
I don’t know if he is referring to Art who is working hard to pastor a church or Marty who is working hard to pastor a church or Alan who is working hard to pastor a church or Wade who is working hard to pastor a church, etc. To say these and others have not earned influence due to a lack of any real advancement of the kingdom is not only rude and offensive, but fails to value the contribution to the Kingdom that all pastors make, whether they serve in large, significant pulpits or smaller membership congregations.
Yes, the influence of the blogging community has by-passed the “powers that be,” but that does not mean that they have not earned the right to influence!
June 18th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Hershael York said …
“Blogging has often stripped away a respect for older men of God that we used to value.”
With all due respect, blogging has done no such thing in my eyes. Attending chapel at Southwestern for two days was sufficient for me.
A Simple Student @ SWBTS
June 18th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Todd-
Thank you and bless you, my friend.
Simple-
Man, that is too stinkin’ funny.