Fascinating Patterson Comment

Discuss current news and trends taking place in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Moderator: William Thornton

Re: Fascinating Patterson Comment

Postby Sandy » Tue Oct 29, 2013 1:08 pm

I'll be interested to see how CBF, if they make the effort, puts something like that into place without stepping all over the local church autonomy that is usually the cornerstone of any position they take. A database, or even a website, is only useful if a church decides to consult it, or decides to contribute to it when they encounter an abuser. What Christa and SNAP have been advocating is a system whereby the credentials of such clergy are removed so that they can't move on to another church. The SBC doesn't have, and never will have, that kind of authority. The registry will be difficult enough to figure out.

Instead of pawing through piles of resumes to find a pastoral candidates attendance figures, pulpit committees need to be trained in making phone calls that get around the three references provided on the resume, just below the line that tells you during his tenure, the Sunday School attendance went from 120 to 600.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 6363
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Fascinating Patterson Comment

Postby Ed Pettibone » Tue Oct 29, 2013 2:46 pm

Ed: Sandy, has a valid point in saying that Patterson was preaching to his own. WHY would ay one expect him to set his sail to other than a fundamentalist tact. It is further evidence that SBC Seminary presidents do know on which side their bread is buttered.

But when Sandy writes "Does CBF have a central clergy sex abuse registry? If ABP is such an excellent source on the issue, shouldn't they have prompted CBF to become pro-active in this area? Maybe they need to get their ducks in a row before badmouthing Patterson and the SBC. But I sure don't expect that to happen."

He demonstrates again that he has never understood CBF, has no authority over any one other than it's employees.
And that ABP is not owned or operated by CBF, nor does ABP have any form of control over CBF . CBF in my experience does not get involved in local church operations. And I have no idea in what "'area" Sandy feels ABP should have prompted CBF. And I am not sure where Sandy sees ABP badmouthing Patterson and the SBC.

And Sandy in the over 20 years that CBF has been around how many of the supporting churches do you know of that have experienced the problem of clergy sexual abuse?
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11252
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: Fascinating Patterson Comment

Postby Dave Roberts » Tue Oct 29, 2013 2:49 pm

Sandy wrote:
Instead of pawing through piles of resumes to find a pastoral candidates attendance figures, pulpit committees need to be trained in making phone calls that get around the three references provided on the resume, just below the line that tells you during his tenure, the Sunday School attendance went from 120 to 600.


As an intentional interim, I train the search committee in a session, "How to Read a Resume'" to give them that kind of training. Part of that is a reminder that the people given as references will almost always give a favorable recommendation. Ask each of them for another person who knows the candidate. Then on the second tier, ask again to gain a more distant piece of information.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6044
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Fascinating Patterson Comment

Postby Ed Pettibone » Tue Oct 29, 2013 3:33 pm

Dave Roberts wrote:
Sandy wrote:
Instead of pawing through piles of resumes to find a pastoral candidates attendance figures, pulpit committees need to be trained in making phone calls that get around the three references provided on the resume, just below the line that tells you during his tenure, the Sunday School attendance went from 120 to 600.


As an intentional interim, I train the search committee in a session, "How to Read a Resume'" to give them that kind of training. Part of that is a reminder that the people given as references will almost always give a favorable recommendation. Ask each of them for another person who knows the candidate. Then on the second tier, ask again to gain a more distant piece of information.


Ed: Good advice Dave on getting a "second tier" opinion. I am not adverse to asking the references "do you know of any one who may give this person a less than favorable reference". In the NYS-ABC Region we have an enhancement team that assist churches with pastoral searches and we provide search committees similar assistance to that which you provide as as an intentional interim. I am on this Regional team and we are usually in contact with other team members in the Region In addition to resumes, when a church has a serious candidate in view, we have them request a criminal records check from the area he or she is currently serving as well as credit reports. If the candidate has served in another region we may also contact the other Region's Executive Minister. The one fly in the ointment is that churches are not required to use our service. However each team member has 3 to 6 churches assigned and will generally know when a church is looking for a pastor, if they have asked for our assistance or not, and we will try to keep up with their progress.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11252
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: Fascinating Patterson Comment

Postby Sandy » Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:11 am

Ed Pettibone wrote:Ed: Sandy, has a valid point in saying that Patterson was preaching to his own. WHY would ay one expect him to set his sail to other than a fundamentalist tact. It is further evidence that SBC Seminary presidents do know on which side their bread is buttered.

But when Sandy writes "Does CBF have a central clergy sex abuse registry? If ABP is such an excellent source on the issue, shouldn't they have prompted CBF to become pro-active in this area? Maybe they need to get their ducks in a row before badmouthing Patterson and the SBC. But I sure don't expect that to happen."

He demonstrates again that he has never understood CBF, has no authority over any one other than it's employees.
And that ABP is not owned or operated by CBF, nor does ABP have any form of control over CBF . CBF in my experience does not get involved in local church operations. And I have no idea in what "'area" Sandy feels ABP should have prompted CBF. And I am not sure where Sandy sees ABP badmouthing Patterson and the SBC.

And Sandy in the over 20 years that CBF has been around how many of the supporting churches do you know of that have experienced the problem of clergy sexual abuse?


ABP has taken an obscure statement from one of Patterson's chapel sermons, which, if you listen to it would discover that the statement and the scripture citations set the context and were interpreted correctly, and they are using it to attempt to create the impression that he favors churches covering up clergy sexual abuse. They've run a series of articles critical of his position, including one they got by baiting Christa Brown with their interpretation of his remarks. That's badmouthing.

I know of two specific incidents of clergy sexual abuse in CBF-supporting congregations, both in the same city. SInce CBF doesn't publicize its list of supporting churches, and ABP doesn't ever report anything negative about anything remotely connected to CBF, I am not aware of any others, but I'll bet there are some.

I think it is a little bit inconsistent, based on what you say here about CBF, for ABP (which receives a big chunk of its financial support from CBF) to bring in someone critical of the SBC for not setting up a registry or data base for clergy sexual abusers when CBF, because of its polity, can't set one up either.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 6363
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Fascinating Patterson Comment

Postby Dave Roberts » Wed Oct 30, 2013 2:42 pm

Sandy, at the very least, you have to admit that Patterson left much not absolutely clear in his address. A chapel service is an oft-quoted forum. I remember Bill Powell having mined chapel addresses at Southern and Southeastern for out-of context statements that he thought showed liberalism, so reading chapel addresses is nothing new. Of course, Patterson is a big boy. He can take care of this himself.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6044
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Fascinating Patterson Comment

Postby Ed Pettibone » Wed Oct 30, 2013 4:05 pm

Ed: Sandy since you claim "I know of two specific incidents of clergy sexual abuse in CBF-supporting congregations, both in the same city" would you tell us how those cases where handled? And what in the wold did I say about CBF that makes it even "a little bit" inconsistent for ABP to bring in someone who is critical of the SBC's reasoning for not setting up not a registry of the type Christa and SNAP demand. ABP is not the only entity of the 4th Estate that frequently quotes Christa and other SNAP operatives.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11252
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: Fascinating Patterson Comment

Postby Sandy » Wed Oct 30, 2013 4:40 pm

Ed Pettibone wrote:Ed: Sandy since you claim "I know of two specific incidents of clergy sexual abuse in CBF-supporting congregations, both in the same city" would you tell us how those cases where handled? And what in the wold did I say about CBF that makes it even "a little bit" inconsistent for ABP to bring in someone who is critical of the SBC's reasoning for not setting up not a registry of the type Christa and SNAP demand. ABP is not the only entity of the 4th Estate that frequently quotes Christa and other SNAP operatives.


No, but it is quoting her in reference to its criticism of Patterson's remark in his chapel message in this case, and it has done so without any context from Patterson about whether his statement referenced this issue or not.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 6363
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Fascinating Patterson Comment

Postby Ed Pettibone » Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:50 pm

Sandy wrote:
Ed Pettibone wrote:Ed: Sandy since you claim "I know of two specific incidents of clergy sexual abuse in CBF-supporting congregations, both in the same city" would you tell us how those cases where handled? And what in the wold did I say about CBF that makes it even "a little bit" inconsistent for ABP to bring in someone who is critical of the SBC's reasoning for not setting up not a registry of the type Christa and SNAP demand. ABP is not the only entity of the 4th Estate that frequently quotes Christa and other SNAP operatives.


No, but it is quoting her in reference to its criticism of Patterson's remark in his chapel message in this case, and it has done so without any context from Patterson about whether his statement referenced this issue or not.


Ed: Sandy, where in the artificial Thursday, October 17, 2013 Theology, "SBC leader says don't talk to press", does ABP criticize Patterson. It looks to me as if they simply quoted pertinent elements of his address? Since Paige was simply preaching to the choir a familiar refrain from SBC pulpits Paige should send Allen anf the staff a box of chocolates, for broadening his audience. :wink:

I did listen to the "sermon" and would say it was pretty typical Patterson. Why should any one have to ask an educator, preacher, denominational leader what he meant. He is supposed to communicate the 1st time around.
I will cut him some slack and say some of the respondents seem to be challenging him to a debate in his interpenetration of his text just because they have not heard it preached that way. But he did leave himself open to misunderstanding. Some folk believe a Seminary president should be above good ole boy bluster, especially when addressing assembled students.

Hhe left me wondering what is about to blow up at Southwestern that he wants kept quiet.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11252
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: Fascinating Patterson Comment

Postby Sandy » Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:52 am

Ed Pettibone wrote:
Sandy wrote:
Ed Pettibone wrote:Ed: Sandy since you claim "I know of two specific incidents of clergy sexual abuse in CBF-supporting congregations, both in the same city" would you tell us how those cases where handled? And what in the wold did I say about CBF that makes it even "a little bit" inconsistent for ABP to bring in someone who is critical of the SBC's reasoning for not setting up not a registry of the type Christa and SNAP demand. ABP is not the only entity of the 4th Estate that frequently quotes Christa and other SNAP operatives.


No, but it is quoting her in reference to its criticism of Patterson's remark in his chapel message in this case, and it has done so without any context from Patterson about whether his statement referenced this issue or not.


Ed: Sandy, where in the artificial Thursday, October 17, 2013 Theology, "SBC leader says don't talk to press", does ABP criticize Patterson. It looks to me as if they simply quoted pertinent elements of his address? Since Paige was simply preaching to the choir a familiar refrain from SBC pulpits Paige should send Allen anf the staff a box of chocolates, for broadening his audience. :wink:

I did listen to the "sermon" and would say it was pretty typical Patterson. Why should any one have to ask an educator, preacher, denominational leader what he meant. He is supposed to communicate the 1st time around.
I will cut him some slack and say some of the respondents seem to be challenging him to a debate in his interpenetration of his text just because they have not heard it preached that way. But he did leave himself open to misunderstanding. Some folk believe a Seminary president should be above good ole boy bluster, especially when addressing assembled students.

Hhe left me wondering what is about to blow up at Southwestern that he wants kept quiet.


Sorry, Ed, but you are off base here. Patterson's statements came in a chapel message directed at Southwestern students. If the press, ABP included, wants clarification on specifically what he meant, they should do the research and the leg work and ask. His audience, basically the student body of the seminary, certainly didn't need clarification and since that is who he was preaching to, he's not obligated to clarify himself for his hostile critics. Since ABP seems to make Patterson the subject of a significant portion of what they write, they should have either done their job, or not put it in print. Patterson was talking about church conflict being taken to the press, and out in public. ABP put up the straw man of twisting it into a statement about attempting to keep quiet and cover up clergy abuse, which isn't even close to the context of what he was addressing, and their insistence in continuing to press the point with reactions to their misinterpretations points to one thing. Writing about Patterson and stirring up controversy (even though there's really nothing there) must generate readership, and with it, increased income. Otherwise, they'd stick to the promise they keep making that they are going to stop writing about the SBC and the woes of the past.

Uh huh.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 6363
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Fascinating Patterson Comment

Postby Dave Roberts » Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:31 am

Sandy wrote:Sorry, Ed, but you are off base here. Patterson's statements came in a chapel message directed at Southwestern students. If the press, ABP included, wants clarification on specifically what he meant, they should do the research and the leg work and ask. His audience, basically the student body of the seminary, certainly didn't need clarification and since that is who he was preaching to, he's not obligated to clarify himself for his hostile critics. Since ABP seems to make Patterson the subject of a significant portion of what they write, they should have either done their job, or not put it in print. Patterson was talking about church conflict being taken to the press, and out in public. ABP put up the straw man of twisting it into a statement about attempting to keep quiet and cover up clergy abuse, which isn't even close to the context of what he was addressing, and their insistence in continuing to press the point with reactions to their misinterpretations points to one thing. Writing about Patterson and stirring up controversy (even though there's really nothing there) must generate readership, and with it, increased income. Otherwise, they'd stick to the promise they keep making that they are going to stop writing about the SBC and the woes of the past.

Uh huh.


Okay, Sandy. Then Bill Powell et al were also wrong to nitpick chapel messages at SBTS and SEBTS for words or out of context quotes during the Takeover. At least that's what you appear to be saying--chapel messages are meant for the students and not for the press. Right?
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6044
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Fascinating Patterson Comment

Postby Ed Pettibone » Thu Oct 31, 2013 11:25 am

Ed: Again Sandy, In the initial story that is the basis for this thread ABP did no interpretation of what President Patterson of SWBTS meant in his address to students. They simply quoted him at length. As the president of the SBC's largest of 6 seminaries and Past president of the SBC there are people ( both friends and foes) who are interested in what he has to say. ABP gives them that. Do you for some reason believe that Southern Baptist at large are not intelligent enough to know what he meant? If so you do them a disservice.

As I said in the previous post Why should any one have to ask an educator, preacher, denominational leader what he meant? He is supposed to communicate the 1st time around.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11252
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: Fascinating Patterson Comment

Postby Sandy » Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:57 pm

Dave Roberts wrote:
Sandy wrote:Sorry, Ed, but you are off base here. Patterson's statements came in a chapel message directed at Southwestern students. If the press, ABP included, wants clarification on specifically what he meant, they should do the research and the leg work and ask. His audience, basically the student body of the seminary, certainly didn't need clarification and since that is who he was preaching to, he's not obligated to clarify himself for his hostile critics. Since ABP seems to make Patterson the subject of a significant portion of what they write, they should have either done their job, or not put it in print. Patterson was talking about church conflict being taken to the press, and out in public. ABP put up the straw man of twisting it into a statement about attempting to keep quiet and cover up clergy abuse, which isn't even close to the context of what he was addressing, and their insistence in continuing to press the point with reactions to their misinterpretations points to one thing. Writing about Patterson and stirring up controversy (even though there's really nothing there) must generate readership, and with it, increased income. Otherwise, they'd stick to the promise they keep making that they are going to stop writing about the SBC and the woes of the past.

Uh huh.


Okay, Sandy. Then Bill Powell et al were also wrong to nitpick chapel messages at SBTS and SEBTS for words or out of context quotes during the Takeover. At least that's what you appear to be saying--chapel messages are meant for the students and not for the press. Right?


No, I did not say that. I said that the chapel message should be interpreted by the setting in which it is being given. ABP's apologists are saying that the door was left open when Patterson used the term "abused." I don't know where the open door would lead, but in the context of the message he was delivering, it wasn't clergy abuse.

As I recall, during the resurgence, students were interviewed by the journalists who were writing about chapel messages. That would have been a good way to clarify the context of the message, especially since they probably knew that Patterson wouldn't bother with any questions from an ABP journalist. I'm sure ABP journalists are trained and competent enough to know that. But if the students didn't perceive that Patterson was advocating for keeping clergy abuse quiet, it wouldn't have contributed to ABP's agenda. The rate at which their various articles appeared indicated that they already had their interpretation and direction planned out.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 6363
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Fascinating Patterson Comment

Postby Ed Pettibone » Thu Oct 31, 2013 6:29 pm

Sandy wrote "I said that the chapel message should be interpreted by the setting in which it is being given. ABP's apologists are saying that the door was left open when Patterson used the term "abused." I don't know where the open door would lead, but in the context of the message he was delivering, it wasn't clergy abuse."

Ed: It seems to me that every one who has responded realized that the setting was Southwestern's Chapel where Dr. Patterson was instructing future pastors and other church workers how they respond to curious outsiders in the future.

If he had reservations as to the type of abuse he was talking about he needed to make that clear. But are you under the impression that he meant it is OK folk to talk to the press about clergy abuse? How can you not know where the open door would lead, you have been reading about for a couple days. How does the context exclude clergy abuse.
But let's for one moment let pretend it was "janitorial" abuse, do you think Patterson would say it is Ok to talk to the press? As I understand what I heard on the replay, he was saying if it occurred in the church (among staff and/or members) it is off limits. One is to forgive and forget.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11252
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: Fascinating Patterson Comment

Postby Sandy » Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:58 pm

Ed Pettibone wrote:Sandy wrote "I said that the chapel message should be interpreted by the setting in which it is being given. ABP's apologists are saying that the door was left open when Patterson used the term "abused." I don't know where the open door would lead, but in the context of the message he was delivering, it wasn't clergy abuse."

Ed: It seems to me that every one who has responded realized that the setting was Southwestern's Chapel where Dr. Patterson was instructing future pastors and other church workers how they respond to curious outsiders in the future.

If he had reservations as to the type of abuse he was talking about he needed to make that clear. But are you under the impression that he meant it is OK folk to talk to the press about clergy abuse? How can you not know where the open door would lead, you have been reading about for a couple days. How does the context exclude clergy abuse.
But let's for one moment let pretend it was "janitorial" abuse, do you think Patterson would say it is Ok to talk to the press? As I understand what I heard on the replay, he was saying if it occurred in the church (among staff and/or members) it is off limits. One is to forgive and forget.


Ed, listen to the chapel message. It's on Southwestern's web site. The context is pretty clear. He's not talking about clergy abuse.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 6363
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Fascinating Patterson Comment

Postby Ed Pettibone » Thu Oct 31, 2013 8:54 pm

Ed: Sandy I have told you that I have listened to the chapel address and Patterson is not at all clear about what abuse he is or is not talking about. There by leaving it open to the interpretation of the listener.

And Sandy, you ignored this question from my last post "But are you under the impression that he meant it is OK folk to talk to the press about clergy abuse?
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11252
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: Fascinating Patterson Comment

Postby Sandy » Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:52 pm

http://www.swbts.edu/index.cfm/resource ... nMVIeI7CSo

There you go. Get through the whole thing, and then you tell me if he was saying anything about clergy abuse in anything close to the context that ABP attempts to set.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 6363
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Fascinating Patterson Comment

Postby David Flick » Fri Nov 01, 2013 1:51 am

Sandy wrote: http://www.swbts.edu/index.cfm/resource ... nMVIeI7CSo

There you go. Get through the whole thing, and then you tell me if he was saying anything about clergy abuse in anything close to the context that ABP attempts to set.

I had long forgotten how much of an arrogant know-it-all Patterson is. It was nauseating for me just to listen to him deliver that sermon. It was all I could do to hang on for the entire 28 minutes, I have no respect whatsoever for the man. I agree with Jerry_B's description of him. Patterson is a royal hypocrite when he preaches against talking to the press when that's exactly what he did before, during, and after the Takeover controversy.

I agree with Michael Poole's comment to Allen's article:
Michael Poole wrote: I remember a few decades ago when Paige Patterson's trustee henchmen locked Southwestern Baptist Seminary President Russell Dilday out of his office; they fired a good man without cause and without due process. They were part of a shameful conspiracy! But what does Patterson say? "It's okay if the 'church' makes a mistake, screws up someone's life." According to him, the bible says, "Keep it quiet. Hush hush. Get over it. The church is only human, but we don't want unbelievers to know that." (Source...)

I had a front row seat to Dilday's firing in '94. The chairman of the SWBTS Trustees was an Oklahoma pastor. When it comes to abuse against Christian brothers, Patterson's hands are stained blood red. He was a party to the abuse of countless good and godly Christain brothers and sisters...
    .
    .
    .
    .
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8014
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Fascinating Patterson Comment

Postby Sandy » Fri Nov 01, 2013 6:22 am

Well, perhaps Patterson was mistaken in at least part of his message. There are those in the church who apparently never think they make a mistake, especially if they are associated with CBF or any entity that receives support from it. Though it's clear that the series of articles ABP has run directed at criticizing Patterson for this particular chapel message completely missed his context and his meaning, they must not be criticized for their shoddy journalism or for their continued attacks on Patterson in spite of their years old promise to be something other than the anti-SBC. Trying to justify what they're doing with the excuse that "he did it first!" is a victim mentality.

There's nothing in Patterson's message that is in error, he's not advocating hiding anything, or covering anything up. But ABP seems to feel some sort of compulsion to take what he says and twist it to be critical. My guess is that the money is tight, and writing about Patterson generates readership and revenue.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 6363
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Fascinating Patterson Comment

Postby Dave Roberts » Fri Nov 01, 2013 7:21 am

Sandy wrote:There's nothing in Patterson's message that is in error, he's not advocating hiding anything, or covering anything up. But ABP seems to feel some sort of compulsion to take what he says and twist it to be critical. My guess is that the money is tight, and writing about Patterson generates readership and revenue.


And, Sandy, you have a compulsion to blindly defend him.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6044
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Fascinating Patterson Comment

Postby Sandy » Fri Nov 01, 2013 10:22 am

Dave Roberts wrote:
Sandy wrote:There's nothing in Patterson's message that is in error, he's not advocating hiding anything, or covering anything up. But ABP seems to feel some sort of compulsion to take what he says and twist it to be critical. My guess is that the money is tight, and writing about Patterson generates readership and revenue.


And, Sandy, you have a compulsion to blindly defend him.


It's not a blind defense, Dave. I listened to the chapel message twice, and I think the ABP piece is blatantly unfair. On top of that, to draw attention to it, they used the issue of clergy abuse, giving the impression that they value its ability to draw readers above actual reality in dealing with it.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 6363
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Fascinating Patterson Comment

Postby Ed Pettibone » Sun Nov 03, 2013 10:10 am

Sandy wrote:
Dave Roberts wrote:
Sandy wrote:There's nothing in Patterson's message that is in error, he's not advocating hiding anything, or covering anything up. But ABP seems to feel some sort of compulsion to take what he says and twist it to be critical. My guess is that the money is tight, and writing about Patterson generates readership and revenue.


And, Sandy, you have a compulsion to blindly defend him.


It's not a blind defense, Dave. I listened to the chapel message twice, and I think the ABP piece is blatantly unfair. On top of that, to draw attention to it, they used the issue of clergy abuse, giving the impression that they value its ability to draw readers above actual reality in dealing with it.


Ed: Sandy, I have Listened four times to Patterson's chapel sermon, in question, and have read the ABP story a half dozen times. I find each of Bob Allen's quotes to be accurate. In what way do do you feel the piece is unfair. Please tell me in what way the piece is unfair, Bob Allen's words, or what he did other than publish the story that was unfair, not your interpretation. I do not see where, you find ABP using sexual abuse to draw attention to the story? Do you believe ABP is to blame for how some of the respondents interpreted Paige's message? If so how?
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11252
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: Fascinating Patterson Comment

Postby Sandy » Sun Nov 03, 2013 6:39 pm

If you look at the title of the chapel message, and the content, it is easy to see the context of Patterson's message. Allen tries to draw the conclusion that Patterson is advocating "covering up" church conflict issues, and ABP moves the whole context into clergy abuse. Then they use the context of Patterson's message to draw a conclusion that he clearly didn't make, in order to criticize him. Patterson correctly interpreted the scripture as it related to taking church matters to the secular courts to resolve, and included practical applications of his interpretation. The ABP piece, and their follow ups, take this out of its intended context, in order to be critical.

Of course, here, ABP, and anything else run by the Baptists who opposed the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC, are perfect, and so there were no misquotes, they got it right, and Patterson needs to get his act together. Because they said so.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 6363
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Fascinating Patterson Comment

Postby David Flick » Mon Nov 04, 2013 1:45 am

Sandy wrote:There's nothing in Patterson's message that is in error, he's not advocating hiding anything, or covering anything up. But ABP seems to feel some sort of compulsion to take what he says and twist it to be critical. My guess is that the money is tight, and writing about Patterson generates readership and revenue.
    Dave Roberts wrote:And, Sandy, you have a compulsion to blindly defend him.

      Amen to that, Dave...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8014
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Fascinating Patterson Comment

Postby Sandy » Mon Nov 04, 2013 10:37 am

David Flick wrote:
Sandy wrote:There's nothing in Patterson's message that is in error, he's not advocating hiding anything, or covering anything up. But ABP seems to feel some sort of compulsion to take what he says and twist it to be critical. My guess is that the money is tight, and writing about Patterson generates readership and revenue.
    Dave Roberts wrote:And, Sandy, you have a compulsion to blindly defend him.

      Amen to that, Dave...


Of course, now the back patting begins...ABP is one of those agencies that makes no mistakes and always gets it right. It's an attack on mean old Paige, so that might even warrant a few shouts, if there wasn't fear of bringing down the roof with the noise.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 6363
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

PreviousNext

Return to SBC News and Trends

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests