SBCOutpost

Art Rogers has blogged about the SBC since January of 2006, but “retired” from SBC political blogging not long after the San Antonio Convention in the summer of 2007. His former posts are still available online at his personal blog, 12 Witnesses. Currently, he is Lead Pastor at Skelly Drive Baptist Church in Tulsa, OK.

Consider here the obligatory mentions of respect and friendship as well as brotherhood toward my fellow Southern Baptist Todd. He is a friend and I like him. Not only that, but I am intimidated by Todd’s complete sense of confidence and self worth. He is neither bullied nor pressed and speaks his mind to Ben Cole without a second thought, which should tell us all something. Boyd Luter is also a friend and I have the utmost respect for him. This article is an attempt to answer Todd’s question (something most people commenting on his article failed even to attempt) as to why some anonymous information is accepted and some is not.

Todd, in his recent article at SBC Outpost, makes a valuable distinction between how and when anonymous criticism is received. It does seem true that sometimes anonymous information allows us to know things we must know if we are to pursue the reform of unrighteousness within the SBC.

Within the blogosphere, the role of anonymity breaks down into several areas. There are anonymous Bloggers who host their own slice of the internet, but they are not big, because - and this is just my opinion - they do not sign their names. There are those that comment anonymously on the blogs of others, some in favor of that person’s ideas, others critical. Among these are those who make claims about other people with reference to personal anecdotes not able to be substantiated. There are also missionaries in secure areas that we allow a certain level of anonymity along with hard words in order that their mission, and possibly their lives, might be kept secure. Of course, the last group are those who are anonymous to the general public, but serve as an inside source to some of the bloggers.

Unsubstantiated anecdotes or personally vilifying comments are simply out of bounds in our conversation, whether they be from anonymous bloggers or from those commenting. Despite the constant insinuation that some of us are not quite Baptist because we don’t suit others’ ideas of what that is, there has been no accusation of which I am aware that any of us are not Christians. Among us, it is inappropriate to assault people verbally and make accusations from the shadow of secrecy.

I have often allowed more harsh words, from those with whom I agree and those with whom I disagree alike, when they signed their name.

I reasoned that in so doing, everyone establishes or discredits themselves by what they write when they sign their name. If they ruin someone’s reputation, it is likely to be their own. I confess that I have done just that - both established and discredited my own reputation with my words. So has everyone else.

However, as Todd pointed out, we would be far behind if not for the anonymous sources within the denominational structure that allowed The Christian Index to expose waste inside of NAMB. Indeed, where would we be in America, if not for the inside information that was published from anonymous sources at various times. First in my mind is the Watergate Scandal, uncovered by W oodward and Bernstein with the leadership of their anonymous source who finally came forward at the end of his life to be known as the man who ended Richard Nixon’s career: Former FBI agent, Mark Felt.

Indeed, many blog stories over the last couple of years have followed suit. Marty Duren cited many times from anonymous sources. I did as well. Never did he or I receive even a fraction of the criticism received by the anonymous letter written Boyd Luter’s friend and posted by Boyd himself.

Anonymous insiders who provide information are a different animal. Like it or not, and my brothers opposed to me often do not, there has been an element of citizen journalism among the bloggers in the SBC this past two years. To deny it, or to lampoon it, is to be either naïve or to reveal your inability to admit the truth due to your predisposition to another standpoint on the issues. Thus, you reveal your predispositions and possibly discredit or establish yourself, depending on whether or not those reading are similarly predisposed.

When a blogger posts information that comes from an inside source, someone is taking responsibility for the information: the blogger. For me, I always identified that I was posting from a singular source, on those rare occasions when I trusted only one source. I usually added that it was less trustworthy than when I posted information that I confirmed with physical evidence or multiple sources - that it may be established by the word of two or three witnesses. When I wrote the story, I was staking MY reputation on it, and was willing to do so. As a result, I never had any serious questions about the credibility of my sources. People believed me and my reputation, or they didn’t.

Leading up to the Greensboro convention, I was posting regularly about the internal conflict going on within the “Inner Circle.” That conflict eventually produced two candidates that were endorsed by CR architects and one amazing election. During that time, I frequently said that the information I had was from multiple sources, and it was. I also said that I would not name my sources - I never have - and if the reader doubted the veracity of the story, then it is my credibility that should be held accountable.

Often, those exposed by the anonymous source strike back by undermining the source’s credibility. “How can we know that this person is who others say they are?” and “How can we know that their perspective is not skewed?” are questions sent up in response. Sometimes the same questions are asked because people are sympathetic to the subject of the information. Sometimes they are asked because the people asking wish to be fair minded.

I think we have seen every example of motivation in the issue of the professor’s anonymous letter. Regardless of the various motivations, the critical questions found some traction. Similar questions were asked of The Christian Index and Gerald Harris concerning the story on NAMB, but they found little traction.

Why the difference?

I think the answer is actually quite simple. In writing an article using anonymous sources, the author of the article is staking his reputation on the accuracy and fairness of the article. If the article is inaccurate, then it is the author’s credibility that is at stake.

And that’s where this professor’s post faces such criticism. It falls neither as an open accusation from a man willing to sign his name nor does it qualify as an anonymous source, since every word belonged to the professor, and no one else. Thus, I believe the negative reaction was exacerbated by the inability to successfully assign these words to Boyd Luter, who had not personally researched them or claimed their veracity, or to SBC Outpost, which has done away with the position of Editor and Chief and moved to a place where every writer is alone responsible for their posts. No one was around to claim these words, and therefore critics assigned the responsibility to everyone. In the case of unsigned letters, they may well be right (though they are wrong when the author signs his/her name). In blogging terms, it reduced the letter to something akin the “anonymous ‘flame’ comment.”

In short, there was no one willing to stake their reputation or credibility on the accuracy or fairness of the claims made. As a result, I believe that there was no sense of gravity to the claims. It could be anybody. They could be disgruntled. They could be unstable. They could be the model of integrity and humility. We just didn’t know.

I believe that it would have all been very different if only one thing had changed. If Boyd, whom I also count as a friend, would have written the article himself as an interview with a professor, it would have changed the perception drastically. If he had compiled several interviews with similar stories it would have been revolutionary. If he had included an interview with Hershael York, for instance, in the substance of his article, it would have had some serious journalistic weight.

I am not condemning Boyd for not doing this. I am not condemning the professor for wanting to be anonymous - I have not called him a coward. I have said that his letter would have had considerably more weight if he signed his name and lacked it because he did not.

Ultimately, if change is going to come and injustices are going to be exposed, someone, somewhere is going to have to own the words that do it, and stake their personal reputation on it. I don’t think it will be accomplished by bloggers, by the way. I don’t think a professor will be able to do it, either.

If the SBC is to be reformed, it will have to be by great men in key positions who are willing to lead out and risk much. I don’t write much about these things any longer because, although I spoke with great men and they befriended me, with a rare exception, many were only willing for me to stand alongside them. They were not willing to stand by me by saying publicly what they privately intimated, or told me in confidence.

Let me conclude, then, like this…

Presidents, Entity Heads, Administrators, Trustees and Committee Members, lend me your ears.

If the SBC means so little to you that it is not worth you putting your reputation, income, friendships and integrity on the line, then do not expect that men like myself (or lowly denominational employees) are willing to do so any longer. Moreover, do not expect that simple pastors with blogs or anonymous profs are able to do more than you.

If you know of that which is inappropriate in SBC life, say so, and the SBC will hear you. You may move many, though I admit it may cost you. The time of the anonymous accusation is well past. It is time to put up or shut up - for everyone.