SBCOutpost

My mentor, Dr. Rick Davis, recently suggested the need to check out information posted on blogs for “verification and authentication.” In my previous post I noted Nathan Finn calling attention to the new dynamics the Internet creates for SBC politics. In today’s edition of The Daily Oklahoman religion reporter Carla Hinton wrote a piece titled, “Blogging boosts dialogue.” (The online version of the article is titled, “Southern Baptists’ access to information a click away.”)

Wade Burleson, Wes Kenney and Debbie Kaufman receive press for their participation in blogging. Burleson noted his interest began while serving on the Board of Trustees of the IMB. Most, if not all, Outpost readers would be familiar with Burleson. Hopeful blogging would bring more information, transparency and accountability Burleson began blogging chiefly regarding policy changes at the IMB. Since that time Wade has posted on a variety of subject.

Kenney is one of the four founders of SBCToday according to the article. He too considers the goal of of SBCToday to provide information and a place to dialogue primarily about Baptist identity issues. Comments are moderated and when the moderators consider a comment unhelpful will delete it informing its author.

Kenney took the occasion to point up the difference between the aims of SBCToday and another blog SBCTooDazed. On the one hand those at SBCToday contend for a focus on issues rather than personalities. Kenney suggested SBCTooDazed makes personality the issue. I checked out SBCTooDazed and find it not too dissimilar from early parody sites of SBCOutpost. Anyone remember “Marty binDuren?” In fact, those parody attempts used satire just the same to draw attention to the authors differing perspectives. The parody sites of SBCOutpost were also offered by anonymous authors. We too, the Outpost Team, may eschew the method but I did find the content of SBCTooDazed to, more often than not, address an issue raised by SBCToday once getting past the name changes.

I, like Kenney, may prefer a different forum for discussion. But, I do recall reading those early parody sites to hone my own understanding and hope to get an idea of the author’s particular nuance of an argument or difference of opinion. If someone takes the time to write, it may even be a compliment, though I may not think so.

Debbie Kaufman finds blogs helpful to her understanding of issues in the SBC. She notes a regular regimen of research she hopes will continue to make her a more informed voter.
Doubtless one could spend inordinate time perusing the innumerable SBC blogs. Some write blogs with a narrow focus on SBC issues/politics. Others write with their local church in mind. Still others write for a combination of audiences. Careful reading may indeed offer information worthy of consideration. Conversation, as noted in the previous post, would be a great outcome.

There is little doubt each of these bloggers intend to shape opinion. Any change that comes will be a result of any number of factors - thoughtful content, welcome diversity in conversation, and the receptivity to other ideas by the reader among a host of others.

Recently Nathan Finn wrote a fine piece alerting the SBC to the realities of the Internet. In an even handed manner Finn noted the mediums used to chart a new course in the SBC by those who used, “computer mailing lists” and the like. Some recall “Town Hall” styled meetings and “Whistle Stop” tours rallying troops to stand with the assertive new leaders to stem the tide of liberalism, rescue the denomination and ensure the authority of the Scriptures. Enter Al Gore’s “Internet” and look out. Conference calls and snail mail fliers cannot compete with the speed of a DSL connection, a chat program and yes, one’s own website.

These developments give anyone, including me, an occasion to opine about something, anything. Occasionally good questions will be asked and, though not often enough, healthy conversation ensues.

Yesterday while listening to KOSU, Sooner fans don’t excoriate me, an opinion piece was aired drawing attention to the influence of the postmodern mood on our culture. The speaker considers the incessant, and petulant, chasing after conspiracy theories to be something of an expression of the loss of truth to “my truth.” Critiques in our quarters, Southern Baptist that is, regarding postmodern philosophy and its influential mood often point up the loss of meaning for a given text. Or, to put it another way, rather than let the text speak we seem to practice the literary theory to have emerged from or within the postmodern shift, namely “Reader-Response Theory.”

The assumed meaning of the text shifted from what the author may have intended to the reader’s interpretive framework - preconceptions, psychological proclivities and long-held biases. Many who read here at the Outpost, and many who say they don’t but do, want very much to rest in the perspicuity of Scripture - that is, there is a plain meaning of the text. Authorial intent and its form hold what is needed. Yet, since words are on the screen you our faithful readers and detractors will decide for yourselves what is said and what is intended. It is always a risk someone will “mis-read” or “mis-interpret” what is being typed.

I recently wrote a piece here describing my thoughts on recent Lifeway research. One interlocutor determined I lay claim to “Kreskin” like skills and wrote a piece asserting I knew the hidden motive of another thereby questioning my motives. Imagine my shock and amazement, not to mention un-mitiaged belief, that same writer who finds the Outpost a great source of material, writes a response to the recent Rodney Hammer letter released by The Biblical Recorder snooping as it were among the paragraphs and sentences for a conspiracy to expose. That’s right, Rodney Hammer looks to bring down the IMB by making his opinion public and asserting the need to re-think policy. Having sought to express himself to the point of reprimand, he wrote to me, to us, to say “I am concerned.” If the best someone can do is come along and look for a conspiracy in accountability then said person has way too much time on their hands. Furthermore, if this is the best kind of defense, we in Okie land call it “mis-direction” recalling the bygone days of the amazing “Wishbone” era of Sooner Football, critics and the like have to offer then “Nashville, we have a problem.”

Let me make my motives clear. I hold no animosity for another who seems given to twist the obvious. I simply believe that when a man stands on his convictions and is willing to take the heat in the public square then we must listen to his words and not to the ruminations or imaginations of another. Yes, yes, dear reader you will comb the archives being sure to note every instance where we here at the Outpost may have done the same. So before you do it, “Shame on us.” If we have attributed motives to another without proper verification we stand under your scrutinizing eye. But, if we have knowledge of another’s motive and for whatever reason determine not to share it - yes, I am invoking the reality of anonymity here - you will have to take extra Rolaids at what will appear to you a contradiction.

My hope, read “motive,” is that we could really engage in honest, healthy conversation. Calling someone’s motive into question, assuming we know the strength of another’s “ecclesiology” based solely on a comment in a post thread, or ramping up our rhetoric charging ecumenism or the loss of inerrancy to hijack an otherwise honest attempt at dialog is in view. No hidden agenda here. No attempt to subvert what it means to be a Baptist.

Oh, and while I am at it, there is little credibility in slamming Ben Cole, or referring to him in dark terms. Your cries and laments fall helplessly on deaf ears when you claim to want to engage in honest conversation. For our dear critics, like a good addict, you return driving site statistics with your curiosity as to who will slam Ben next or what “juicy” post will follow. Posts offering thoughtful ideas and interjections into the future of the SBC, denominations and the like to you are as boring and uneventful as watching paint dry. So, let’s, in the motive of this post, have an honest conversation. We like to read the tabloid stuff. Our leaders were masters of the invective. They could rally the troops with just the right euphemisms whether or not they accurately described the situation and or person or not.

So, the motive of this post - call attention to Rodney Hammer’s words. Read them understanding his concerns only serve as a tip of the proverbial iceberg. Southwestern Alums recently received their fund-raising letters asking for contributions to keep the lights on. Is it increasing or decreasing enrollment? We here at the Outpost often receive communiques from the mission field noting a lack of resources for “evangelism” and matters they are not to speak of but are certainly causing a great deal of discomfit and interruption in service. Let’s not spin this one. No amount of posturing is going to solve our dilemmas. Open and honest conversation will be the way forward.

I hope I have illustrated that. With that, I point you to Hammer’s letter.

The Biblical Recorder posted the full letter from Rodney Hammer which had been leaked in “bits” around the Internet according to the Recorder. We direct your attention to the letter with no commentary on the content.

Outpost contributor Benjamin S. Cole was interviewed today by Bruce Prescott of Mainstream Baptists, discussing a range of topics including the New Baptist Covenant, Wade Burleson, and the SBC presidential candidacy of R. Albert Mohler.

Listen to the archive.

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.”

As various SBC leaders have recently withdrawn their original endorsements from SBC Outpost, I would respectfully offer two responses: 1) I believe they are well-intentioned in what they are trying to accomplish (i.e., “peace,” as in an absence of other than peaceful things being said in the SBC blogosphere), even if amazingly short-sighted; but 2) There is some notably fallacious thinking taking place–or, at least, inaccurate expression of what may be well-intentioned thinking.

To what am I referring? It has to do with unproven assumptions concerning what constitutes Christ-like and Christ-honoring communication. Read the rest of this entry »

… of organizatinoal reconciliation between batpist Christians in America in this generation.

(In 1985 our family moved to Dallas to attend Seminary. We visited a number of churches. A good friend suggested I visit a church in far southwest Dallas. Not a year later, I was asked to serve on staff of this church and would do so for three years while finishing the M.Div. at SWBTS. Dr. Rick Davis served the church as pastor. He would become my mentor. Now more than 20 years we continue to mentor one another. Rick served in evangelism as the Evangelism Director for the BGCT before moving to FBC, Brownwood, TX. I have asked him to write from time to time as an “Interested Outsider.” Rick writes at Aintsobad.)

I was invited to a wedding. A friend’s daughter is to be married. He said to me, “You may not wish to come. They are using an SBT church for their wedding.”

SBT stands for Southern Baptists of Texas, a convention split from the old BGCT structure to maintain closer ties to the old SBC structure. A known BGCT guy like me is on thin ice when in an SBT setting. Of course, with my recent habit of questioning the BGCT leadership, I am on thinner ice with them.

Perhaps I should take up ice fishing. At least then there is the promise of some reward when one punches a hole through the surface.

Sigh. I remember when a friend’s daughter’s wedding involved finding where they were registered, buying a place setting and getting to the church on time for cake. There are so many considerations these days.

I am going to the wedding, of course. Friends are friends.

Maybe that is the hope. Friend are friends.

I will not sign your SBC 2000 BF & M in order to do business with you.

You will not cross my CBF inclinations to commune with me.

Ok. I get this.

But, when a person has a heart attack, don’t the little blood vessels immediately start to try to put out feelers to get things back together and heal the organ? Maybe the bigger, blocked vessels never operate the same again. Perhaps the organ itself has damage. Still, the little vessels can help the body function, despite the heart damage.

Reach across the aisle. Perhaps there is a hand extended to you. Maybe neither of us can see it because of the haze of battle smoke.

One of the basic questions facing Southern Baptists concerns how we determine those with whom we will cooperate. In a day gone by cooperation may have inferred consensus. That is, a diverse group gathers and determines on what basis they will agree to work. Some consider the only way competing groups may meld is to force compromise. The basic issue then becomes what is the core for cooperation. At this point in a given group the dominant members assert their will and note cooperation will occur on their terms. Now dominant may not be solely a matter of numbers. We have all been in groups where dominant meant personality rather than, “we have the numbers.”

What happens when diverse groups come together for the cause of the Gospel? Good conversation partners illustrate the difficulty we face when practically working through our positions. By good conversation partners we mean those who take the time to listen rather than plan what to say while the other person is talking - or in the “blog” world of commenting, “typing.” We also mean conversation partners willing to consider their own position with humility. I found Sam Storms’ article regarding the conversation partners who participated in, “Together for the Gospel,” a worthwhile read. (HT:WB)

Much may be made of what makes us Baptists. (No dear critic, we did not forget our “Baptist Distinctives.”) Greater time should be spent with what makes us Christian. We may stand confident we are Baptist Christians, but when Baptist Christians, Southern Baptist Christians, begin sounding as “gatekeepers” to the Kingdom of God we have moved away from the center to the fringe. You will need to read the entire article to grasp the value of the following quote (A caution to “quote miners” - be sure to practice good hermeneutics.),

Jesus himself made it clear that the cup represented or pointed to or in some sense embodied “the forgiveness of sins” that would come from the saving efficacy of his atoning death (Matthew 26:28). In 1 Corinthians 11:26 Paul echoed this truth by telling us that every time we celebrate the Lord’s Table we “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” In other words, the Eucharist is a dramatic, visible, vocal enactment of the gospel itself. It stirs our hearts to meditate on Christ’s redemptive work and is designed to stimulate the mind to reflect on the significance of all that he achieved on behalf of those for whom he died.

My question, then, is this: How can we claim to be “together” or “united” for the sake of the gospel and turn away a brother or sister from the very expression and proclamation of that gospel that is so central to the life and testimony of the church? What does this prohibition say to the world around us? What must they think of our professed “togetherness” or “unity” when the elements of the Eucharist would be withheld from a brother such as Ligon Duncan?