SBCOutpost

I have written before of the comment made directly to me by Judge Pressler when I suggested the SBC may want to let the CBF issue go and continue supporting the BWA while in Spain a number of years ago. In response he said, “Todd, you do not know what they have done to some of us.” Vindictive ethics in the SBC is not new and often rears its head in peculiar ways.

Many wonder what the aims of SBCOutpost may be. Since we collaborate rather than follow a pre-determined script, this could be answered variously. My hope is reform. I, for one, am finding it increasingly interesting that there are those who want to accuse Ben Cole of vindictive posts against Paige Patterson. These same people seem to find it well within bounds that a well orchestrated move to silence Wade Burleson simply falls under the banner of, “he did not abide by the IMB rules of conduct.” Forget that these new rules were put in place specifically “for” Wade Burleson. I seem to recall a Daniel who continued to pray in spite of the King’s manipulated edict he should cease and desist. Daniel landed in a den of lions.

What really grieves me is the simpleton approach that would think this move in Springfield just “came up.” No, a well orchestrated pre-meeting move must have been in the works. Spiked by the vindictive pen of Jerry Corbaley who did not approach Wade personally about his being “wounded” by Wade’s blog. In fact, it is clear by his actions reported on Wade’s blog that he would not in any way speak with Wade. His actions do not deserve censure though they clearly illustrate the harboring of ill will and his 153 page tome e-mail to all IMB trustees surely provoked the move.

Today, Wade posts on his response to the question of how the IMB might avoid any further public distraction surrounding him when asked by the “ad hoc” committee appointed to work out a reconciliation. . He offered to resign. He offered to shut down his blog. Rather than get what they want, a majority of Trustees approved a vindictive measure. Now, I suspect most did not know what this move would mean. Obviously many did not know this could have “gone away.” Instead, we Southern Baptists need vindictive public spectacles. Russle Dilday anyone?

Then to learn today sources note the real reason Dr. Land may not endorse Huckabee for President of the United States dates back some 25 years when Huckabee would not sign on to the CR and rat out his “liberal” friends just adds to the systemic need for reform.

I laughed when reading on another blog were this to have happened 25 years ago when others held the reigns of power they would have supported the move. How soon we forget.

Reform. Yes, if some were to wonder why do I participate in SBC Outpost it is reform. For I taught my grown daughters there is no room for vindictive ethics. I certainly do not want my future grandchildren to grow up knowing we stood by and did not call for the ethic of Jesus above the ethic of vindication.

One of the central issues in the SBC revolves around the penchant for oppositional thinking. Simply put one is either for us or against us. This statement lifted from the words of Jesus seems to settle down on human relationships and relational configurations so that we find both sides claiming the will and way of God. For instance, what have in some quarters been referred to as “establishment bloggers” assume any call for accountability nothing but disrespect and an attempt to wrest power from those who have led in the CR/Takeover in/of the SBC.

For too long we have had “sides.” For Southern Baptists to refer to factions as sides seems a bit oxymoronic when we will all admit that where three or four Southern Baptists are gathered there are four or five opinions in their midst. Some analysts may view the recent MBC Annual Meeting as “repudiation,” and it may well be. However, what would it mean if it were a signal to those on both sides that lines in the SBC are surely subject to the tide. We talk of lines in the sand but if you have ever watched the tides come in and out, you know quickly lines change in the sand.

It is interesting one time contributor and “owner” of SBC Outpost, Michah Fries, chose the title for his MBC reflections as “Quake at the Lake.” Certainly he notes this is an “overheard” reference, but to select that for your blog reporting signals the presence of fault lines and sides. Micah reports on the goings on in a series of posts laced throughout with references to those of differing positions in the MBC. This is not criticism but reflection. There is little mistaking the tactics and patterns of Roger Moran are not favored by most here at SBC Outpost. We are glad for the shift in leadership away from such legalistic factions-creating personalities. It was interesting to note Micah offered clarifying words regarding statements made by Interim Exec. Tolliver, presumably in his “red meat” sermon.

While it would be interesting to hear a debate between Roger Moran and Darrin Patrick, I for one hope Darrin will decline. You see this would play to the oppositional thinking present in the SBC and we are not in need of further polarization but of a third way. Yes, a third way must include exposure of the egregious leadership errors chiefly illustrated by taking care of the “good old boys.” So, before you, dear reader, think this is a slap at the matters Ben Cole continues to raise on this blog, read again. No one is interested in re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic (read, SBC). Rather, in answer to an oft asked question about the “vision” of some at SBC Outpost, note this author considers it necessary to move beyond the structures and systems that continue to propagate the current climate. Do not attempt to obfuscate with concern for inerrancy or your favored view of the atonement.

We tire of guilt by association evidenced by Roger Moran’s diatribes against the likes of the Acts 29 Network. We are weary, though sympathetic, of the “what took you so long” by those who left the SBC long ago.

I will take the actions in the MBC as indication those interested in cooperation are waking from their slumber. Nothing could be more promising than to think in Indianapolis we may experience this same sentiment. Could we stand in the same way as the SOC and eschew angry men desirous of leadership in the SBC who want to continue to narrow the parameters of cooperation and fellowship? May it be so.

In 1997 Barry Levinson directed, Wag the Dog. The plot-line followed a President accused of infidelity who with the help of a spin-doctor and a Hollywood producer created a war as a diversion. It seemed then an implication of former President Clinton. We all do this. When pressed with our own failings and frailty it is easier to seek a diversion to avoid the necessary accountability required of great leadership. Especially for those leaders considered “statesmen.”

For some time some have trolled the Outpost looking for opportunities to subvert the point of a given post. A couple of recent tactics include obfuscation and revision. Evidence? One recent commenter noted how reform minded the originator of the Outpost was. It goes something like, “When Marty was in charge of the Outpost ….” How soon we forget that it was Marty who broke a number of stories and offered some of the most precise critique of the current direction of the SBC. In the first post-Marty iteration of the Outpost, it was Marty who offered a post titled, “Liar, Liar Pants on Fire.” Revising the intent of the Outpost to make it anything but the call for accountability and asking for an ethic that matches the rhetoric and use Marty in the process is revisionist history meets blog-town.

Obfuscation? Calls for accountability now fall under the heading of attack. A recent post noting the prayer meeting offered for Dr. Patterson prompted by the GCC at the last Executive Committee meeting included a reference to the well documented criticism of Jerry Rankin by Paige Patterson in satirical form,

And in turn Paige Patterson, who did not set any precedents himself in criticizing Jerry Rankin, led in a time of Prayer for Jerry. Or maybe not.

The strike-through introduced an edit noting the reason for the comment. Here is the text re-posted,

[Edit: OK. Sarcasm aside. I genuinely hope this is a move in the right direction. I know that in the past Paige Patterson has done things that have resulted in the straining of his relationship with Jerry Rankin. His criticisms have not been public, though the private nature of those criticisms have, in my opinion, been even worse because I doubt he would have done in public what he has done in private. It has been credibly alleged that Dr. Patterson has gone so far as to attempt to undermine the leadership of Jerry Rankin through the IMB board of trustees. Just read about a year’s worth of Wade Burleson’s blog starting in November or December of 2005.

I would also contend that their appeals for civility are selective. When it was Russell Dilday in 1992 I didn’t hear Al Mohler or Paige Patterson gathering entity heads to rally support and call for prayer. If they are right to do this now, were they wrong not to do so then? It gives the appearance (at least to me) of protecting one’s self and one’s own interests. In mail correspondence I had with Dr. Patterson a couple of years ago he even forwarded to me copies of his personal correspondence with Dr. Dilday leaving me the distinct impression that it was his way of saying, “See, I really am the good guy in all of this and he is the bad guy.” I still have those letters, by the way.

Now, I’d be more than happy for Dr. Patterson to just come right out and say that he thinks it is wrong for anyone to criticize Jerry Rankin. I would be thrilled to see him call for the Great Commission Council, or the Executive Committee, or the faculty and student body of SWBTS, to gather around Jerry Rankin and pray for him and profess to the world his unqualified support for him. But I’m not holding my breath. I think it is telling that SWBTS has such a noted emphasis on foreign missions, yet according to their own chapel archives the head of the worlds largest missions-sending agency, our own International Missions Board, has not spoken in a single chapel service at Southwestern Seminary at least since the Fall of 2005. That may not be rock-solid proof to anyone, but isn’t it at the very least odd, if not tragic? Al Mohler has spoken at SWBTS, multiple times. Chuck Kelly has. Danny Aiken has. Richard Land has. Jeff Iorg has. But the president of the IMB has not.

I’m really not trying to make too big a deal out of this, but if I declared that associational missions was going to be one of the driving forces in our church and I never had our own DOM come speak I can tell you that our congregation would get the hint real fast and I can assure you many of them would be asking why I didn’t have him come and if there was a problem between us.

So of all the people asked to pray over Dr. Patterson the one asked was Jerry Rankin. Now I do see two really good things in that. One is that if that relationship is, in fact, strained there is nothing more than that sort of submission that will really go straight to the heart. Perhaps the GCC wanted Dr. Rankin to say the prayer as a way to get them to “kiss and make up.” I don’t know. But I think it would have also spoken volumes had they in turn asked Dr. Patterson to publicly pray over Dr. Rankin, who has taken his own measure of criticism, much of it directly or indirectly from Dr. Patterson himself. Instead it comes across to this observer as a way of “teaching Jerry a lesson.” I grant that many will have a different take on that. Fine.

At the end of the day my hope is that an event like this will not end up being form over substance. If Al Mohler and the GCC want people to lay off of Dr. Patterson then they should also expect Dr. Patterson to lay off of others, whether the words are coming from Dr. Patterson’s own mouth or from the mouth or pen of a subordinate. Malcolm Yarnell is permitted to speak negatively of LifeWay research and by implication the researchers. Keith Eitel is allowed to write a paper critical of the IMB and by extension its leader and distribute it to the IMB trustees. If the expectation is that we all sit back and declare that all is well in Zion then we must all sit back and declare that all is well in Zion.

And I expect that to mean that our entity heads will not speak negatively about SBC Outpost either.]

Noting documented incidents calling for accountability cannot be termed an attack unless of course one wants to play Wittgensteinian word games. It is interesting to note at this point that it seems using the bully pulpit still plays. Listen in to Dr. Patterson at SBTS in chapel on Tuesday. Interestingly when looking for illustrations for actions appearing to stem from an unregenerate church member, he cites suing a brother in civil court. Since this is so rampant in churches it is little wonder this rose to the level worthy of illustration. (Dr. Patterson does note rampant divorce, child abuse, abuse of women, and upheaval in churches over insignifianct matters.) No mention of gossip. No mention of a lack of love. No mention of abuse of power. No mention of child sexual abuse. No mention of gluttony. No mention of the rampant consumerism runamuck in the Church. No mention of leaders sniping at leaders. No mention of the kinds of things noted in nearly every list of works of the flesh in the Scripture.

Obfuscation? Dr. Luter has been ripped from comment threads to blogs for posting an anonymous letter from an SBC seminary professor. The Outpost castigated for poor journalism. Yet, in a post wherein this author reported the response of five upper level administrators to the question of the substantive truth of the professor’s contentions no one dared comment (save the reference to the Paul Debusman event at SBTS). Charge the Outpost with tabloid journalism but when given the opportunity to defend Al Mohler these men did not. Attacks or clarification? Attacks or an attempt to ascertain whether it would be good for Trustees to investigate? Attacks or an attempt to discredit anonymity?

One commenter interjects the Outpost intends for its contributors and those like-minded to gain power. Read this carefully, this author simply longs for those in whom he trusted the issue was the Scripture in the CR would acknowledge a failed pragmatic ethic. Anything less is “wagging the dog.”

It might help us all if everyone would take a minute to read the rules here at the Outpost. It will explain our commenting guidelines.