Should SBC profs be fired for not teaching strhse tithing?

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

Moderator: William Thornton

Should SBC profs be fired for not teaching strhse tithing?

Postby William Thornton » Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:41 am

That would be "storehouse tithing"...got cut off.

Les Puryear asks the question...and asks it of seminary administrators in the light of some profs who apparently do not teach to suit Les' idea about tithing.

Les got called out by Burleson for his communication to seminary administrators that questioned the employ of profs who do not teach storehouse tithing. Burleson has nothing if not excellent contacts around the SBC. WB's blog on the subject: Christian Liberal Ideology and Christian Fundamentalist Ideology Are Brothers from the Same Mother

Here is what WB quoted from Les' letter to seminary admins. Les can deny these are his words if he wishes. He does deny that he asked for anyone to be fired but the quote below is certainly in the neighborhood.

4) "… do you think it is helpful to the SBC to keep this professor on the faculty of (school name)?" --


Read down the comment thread. Les is upset that his email to seminary admins was leaked to WB.

Well, mod/libs here relish the idea of we SBCers fracturing over little stuff. Here you go...relish for your hot dogs, brethren/sistren.

I always said that finding a stopping place would be a prickly issue for SBC cons.

I like Les and he reads and posts here at times but sometimes he runs off a cliff. I guess he is saying even now on the way down "...so far, so good..."

Maybe Les, the small church advocate, is a megachurch wannabe...those guys certainly have been beating the storehouse tithing drum here lately. :D
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12426
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Should SBC profs be fired for not teaching strhse tithing?

Postby Tim Dahl » Wed Feb 10, 2010 1:45 pm

How bad is it that I really don't care about it?

SWBTS has been heading, train wreck style, to the far right for years now. If anything, this will make them more consistent with their radical right leanings. Les, et al, are all cut from the same cloth. He's just the newer version of Patterson/Pressler. Currently, SWBTS has little to no affect upon my life and church. They've given up on the smaller established churches, which meas that they ignore churches like the one I pastor. I find this puts our church in a very favorable position. Now, if only the SBTC would leave us alone. No matter how many times I ask to be taken off their mailing list, I still get loads of junk mail from them. I've asked to be removed from their propaganda publication, and yet we still get the Texan like clockwork. It's been seven years, and still it comes.

No, I'm tired of the extremists in TX, especially those that are in my town.

Tim
Tim L. Dahl
Using my full name since the warning of Banishment... ;)
"Tike's Best Friend"
User avatar
Tim Dahl
 
Posts: 981
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:45 pm
Location: Fort Worth, TX

Re: Should SBC profs be fired for not teaching strhse tithing?

Postby Dave Roberts » Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:00 pm

What does the BFM2K say about stewardship? Isn't it the duty of seminary administrators to be certain faculty sign it, teach it, and follow it? That should settle the discussion.
"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: 7588
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Should SBC profs be fired for not teaching strhse tithing?

Postby Big Daddy Weaver » Wed Feb 10, 2010 3:22 pm

Gotta love a little baptist blogosphere drama from time to time, at least when one personally is not involved.

I've always thought Les was an interesting fella. When he first started blogging, he was as dogmatic at they come, a fiesty fundamentalist. Then he changed his tone and seemed to be sympathetic of the Burleson/Duren reform camp. And now he's back to his original role as Mr. Fundamentalist. At one point Les vowed that he was exiting the blogosphere never to return....

Last month, Les apparently had a e-mail exchange with my fellow south Georgian Nathan Finn of SEBTS about seminary curriculum. Out of that conversation, Les announced that he's forming a "Christian Ministry Training Institute," small church friendly of course. When your local seminary ticks you off, just start your own seminary by yourself!

By the way, Tim Rogers in his defense of Les offers a blue-print on how to get a professor fired:

If a preacher wanted to get a prof fired it would not be a personal email to the president, but an email copied to all of the trustees. Then it would be a private phone call to the trustees, and then a personal meeting with the trustees. Thus, the prof would be fired by the president because of the pressure coming from the trustees.
User avatar
Big Daddy Weaver
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:15 am
Location: Waco, TX

Re: Should SBC profs be fired for not teaching strhse tithing?

Postby William Thornton » Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:22 pm

People are complaining that all Les did was ask a question. Well, the question was: "4) "… do you think it is helpful to the SBC to keep this professor on the faculty of (school name)?"

If there is any context that would make this a simple question, Les should release the full text but I don't believe that it question can be finessed. If someone asks the chair of deacons in my church "… do you think it is helpful to our church to keep our pastor?" who would think that is an innocent question?
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12426
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Should SBC profs be fired for not teaching strhse tithing?

Postby Dave Roberts » Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:07 pm

William Thornton wrote:People are complaining that all Les did was ask a question. Well, the question was: "4) "… do you think it is helpful to the SBC to keep this professor on the faculty of (school name)?"

If there is any context that would make this a simple question, Les should release the full text but I don't believe that it question can be finessed. If someone asks the chair of deacons in my church "… do you think it is helpful to our church to keep our pastor?" who would think that is an innocent question?


If your church has a "gang of three," they would think it perfectly innocent. :censored:
"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: 7588
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Should SBC profs be fired for not teaching strhse tithing?

Postby lespuryear » Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:10 pm

William,

So you have no problem with Wade publishing a private email without permission from the author?
No matter what was in my email, no one has the right to publish private correspondence of another
without permission.

Les
lespuryear
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:28 pm

Re: Should SBC profs be fired for not teaching strhse tithing?

Postby Haruo » Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:22 pm

When I send email from my work account, it always automatically carries the following caveat:
Jena sinsenkulpiga teksto aŭtomate aldoniĝas al ĉiu eksterofiecejena elektronika komunikaĵo:
DISCLAIMER - Email is not considered secure. Privacy risks are assumed by choosing to communicate via email. If you need to transmit highly sensitive data, please contact us for more information about establishing a secure connection. The information contained in this email, including any attachments, is confidential, privileged, or otherwise protected from disclosure. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or taking of any action based on this material is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender.
fwiw
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12877
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Should SBC profs be fired for not teaching strhse tithing?

Postby Wade Burleson » Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:53 pm

lespuryear wrote:William,

So you have no problem with Wade publishing a private email without permission from the author?
No matter what was in my email, no one has the right to publish private correspondence of another
without permission.

Les


Les,

Please know that I reserve the right at all times, and on all occasions, to publish any email from SBC ideologues that seek the removal or termination of any SBC professor for publishing contrary or dissenting doctrinal views. I made that promise after Dr. Sheri Klouda was removed from her position over ideological reasons and nobody defended her before her removal.

Your belief in "storehouse tithing" is deep and sincere. Fine. Believe it, preach it, defend it. But don't even think about threatening to seek the removal from seminary faculty those professors who publish contrary, not to mention scholarly, opinions. Once we Southern Baptists allow ideologues with intentions like yours to proceed unchecked, our Convention will truly lose all sense of true Baptist identity.

But, since you feel so violated by my publishing your email asking if those two professors should remain on faculty, allow me to ask you three short questions which can be answered with a simple "Yes" or "No" to help clarify whether your feelings are logical.

(1). Would the professors in question tell others that you contacted them personally prior to you contacting their supervisors?
(2). Do you believe "storehouse tithing" is taught, or even mentioned, in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000?
(3). Should Southern Baptists be forced to agree with all your opinions that exceed the Baptist Faith and Message 2000?
The world is too dangerous to live in - not because of the people who do evil but because of the people who sit and let it happen.

Albert Einstein
User avatar
Wade Burleson
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 4:32 pm
Location: Enid, Oklahoma

Re: Should SBC profs be fired for not teaching strhse tithing?

Postby lespuryear » Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:27 am

Mr. Burleson,

This will be my last contact with you.

Where my private correspondence is concerned you have no rights. Thus, you can reserve your rights all you wish, that does not give you the right to infringe on my personal correspondence. What you have done in printing my private correspondence is at best unethical and possibly, at worst, illegal.

Do not call me. Do not write me. Do not endeavor to have any contact with me whatsoever. Your conduct in this matter is unacceptable.

Les Puryear
lespuryear
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:28 pm

Re: Should SBC profs be fired for not teaching strhse tithing?

Postby Tim Dahl » Thu Feb 11, 2010 7:45 am

Actually, email is the ownership of the receiver, not the sender. Once you press send, you've no rights over it; whatsoever. If someone gives a copy of their email to WB, then he can do whatever he wants with it.

Tim
Tim L. Dahl
Using my full name since the warning of Banishment... ;)
"Tike's Best Friend"
User avatar
Tim Dahl
 
Posts: 981
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:45 pm
Location: Fort Worth, TX

Re: Should SBC profs be fired for not teaching strhse tithing?

Postby William Thornton » Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:10 am

lespuryear wrote:William,

So you have no problem with Wade publishing a private email without permission from the author?
No matter what was in my email, no one has the right to publish private correspondence of another
without permission.

Les


No, I wouldn't want my private communication shared but if it was I would own up to it.

Take some friendly advice, Les. Don't quit, take your ball and go home in a snit because you got called out on this. Tell us exactly what you meant by asking, "… do you think it is helpful to the SBC to keep this professor on the faculty of (school name)?" if not to bring pressure to get rid of those who don't suit your view of tithing.

Time to step up to the plate, Les, and have an honest conversation. The matter of your private email being made public is not the main concern here.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12426
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Should SBC profs be fired for not teaching strhse tithing?

Postby Big Daddy Weaver » Thu Feb 11, 2010 9:29 am

Tim Dahl wrote:Actually, email is the ownership of the receiver, not the sender. Once you press send, you've no rights over it; whatsoever. If someone gives a copy of their email to WB, then he can do whatever he wants with it.

Tim


Timothy is right. The above is definitely not true. The author certainly does not give up rights by pressing send. It's really fuzzy at best especially here where you have excerpts rather than the entire e-mail being posted and where the excerpts were published by a third party. The original recipient, presumably the President of whatever institution, who forwarded the e-mail would be the guilty party if a law was broken. Legal issues aside, there are certainly ethical issues at play. However, the ends may very well justify means here, Joseph Fletcher style.
User avatar
Big Daddy Weaver
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:15 am
Location: Waco, TX

Re: Should SBC profs be fired for not teaching strhse tithing?

Postby Wade Burleson » Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:22 am

William Thornton has zeroed in with crystal clarity on the real issue here.

Les, tell us exactly what you meant by asking, "… do you think it is helpful to the SBC to keep this professor on the faculty of (school name)?" if not to bring pressure to get rid of those who don't suit your view of tithing.

Time to step up to the plate, Les, and have an honest conversation. The matter of your private email being made public is not the main concern here.


Your email, Les, was only made public after you denied to me privately, both by phone and in a written email that you published on your blog, that you DID NOT seek the termination of SBC professors who believed differently than you on "storehouse tithing."

My source, after reading the denial on your blog, wrote to me and said you were being less than forthright. He then provided the email, cited Mal 3 and the locusts that destroyed the crops of Israel and included an observation that you were seeking to take away the income of these men while ensuring your own. One of the professors is about to publish a book on the subject, based upon his own dissertation paper while at SEBTS.

Frankly, Les, after reading the email from my source it became evident that:

(1). You were not honest with me.
(2). You were trying to "sound the alarm" in the SBC by seeking the termination of professors who believed differently than what you allege "the majority of Southern Baptists" believe.
(3). Your doctrinal dogma on Old Covenant "storehouse tithing" is not even in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.
(4). The secret, behind closed doors pressure is precisely what I saw happen at the International Mission Board on tertiary doctrinal issues that eventually became post de facto policy in the SBC--backdooring the demands for doctrinal conformity through the individual SBC agencies and not through a convention wide change in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.
(5). The only way those types of things can be stopped is to make public what is happening.

I realize that the issue for you is the publishing of the email you wrote to administrators at seminaries. Please know that I have sources in every agency of the Southern Baptist Convention. Many of these folks are flat out scared. They are afraid to excercise their God-given spiritual gifts and mental acumen to publish scholarly pieces that may reflect different and nuanced views from the Fundamentalist establishment. They are concerned that nobody has their back or will protect them if they get in a pinch with Fundamentalist leadership. Many of them are leaving looking elsewhere to serve, and the scholarship drain at our institutions can be almost audibly heard. That is why these folks contact me. I don't ask for it. They seek me out. They know I know how to handle folks like you. I do not mind my character or my integrity being attacked for a greater cause.

The greater cause is to stop the unbelievable demands for doctrinal conformity that is causing our Southern Baptist Convention to out Mormon the Mormons and out Jehovah Witness the Jehovah Witnesses. When we get to where we are exegeting the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 to figure out the original intent of the authors on "storehouse tithing," we have abandoned sola sciptura and have turned the BFM into The Pearl of Great Price or the Watchtower Magazine. And further, when we seek to remove scholarly and published professors from their faculty positions for disagreeing even with the majority of Southern Baptists, we have sacrificed our true freedoms for intellectual pursuit at the altar of creedal Fundamentalism. I will do everything within my power to not let that occur in the SBC while I pastor a church that cooperates under the SBC umbrella.

Hopefully, this little episode will keep you from ever again seeking to intimidate Southern Baptists who view things differently in a private and secret manner while at the same time denying publicly what others involved in the intimidation know to be true.

In His Grace,

Wade
The world is too dangerous to live in - not because of the people who do evil but because of the people who sit and let it happen.

Albert Einstein
User avatar
Wade Burleson
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 4:32 pm
Location: Enid, Oklahoma

Burleson's limits

Postby Stephen Fox » Thu Feb 11, 2010 2:43 pm

Theological and Historical Jesus


http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=8164

Wade I have a lot of admiration for you,wish you would bring the brothers at SBCimpact.net; David Rogers and his friends into your discussion about your fears for unbridled fundamentalism latest round in the SBC seminaries.

Still, in all due respect you are playing a fool's game.

Lot of grand Baptist Christian within the believing and academic framework of the Century link above that you place outside the borders cause of faulty games over inerrancy.

Even so ain't it entertaining.

Saw where Cindy of much grace joined the 156 and counting remarks on the storehouse blog of yours and thought I would bring her concerns here.
"I'm the only sane {person} in here." Doyle Hargraves, Slingblade
"Midget, Broom; Helluva campaign". Political consultant, "Oh, Brother..."


http://www.foxofbama.blogspot.com or google asfoxseesit
Stephen Fox
 
Posts: 9318
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:29 pm

Re: Should SBC profs be fired for not teaching strhse tithing?

Postby scottaerwin » Thu Feb 11, 2010 5:34 pm

Timothy is right. The above is definitely not true. The author certainly does not give up rights by pressing send. It's really fuzzy at best especially here where you have excerpts rather than the entire e-mail being posted and where the excerpts were published by a third party. The original recipient, presumably the President of whatever institution, who forwarded the e-mail would be the guilty party if a law was broken. Legal issues aside, there are certainly ethical issues at play. However, the ends may very well justify means here, Joseph Fletcher style.


Well, It actually varies from state to state, but the rule of thumb is Email is a public discourse. In Virginia specifically the courts have ruled that email senders nor recipients have any expectation of privacy regarding email correspondence. In Maryland, government emails are always subject to Freedom of Information Act inquiries. Federally the law is somewhat fuzzier, especially regarding executive priviledge. No privacy lawsuits regarding email have been judged by any federal court of appeals.

No one should ever expect privacy from email, ever. No law exist in any state as of yet protecting anyones privacy via email.
Scott, God is not calling you to HAVE a 900 lb. gorilla, God is calling you to BE a 900 lb. gorilla -- discerning friend
User avatar
scottaerwin
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:00 pm
Location: Knoxville, TN

Re: Should SBC profs be fired for not teaching strhse tithing?

Postby Big Daddy Weaver » Thu Feb 11, 2010 7:07 pm

scottaerwin wrote:
Timothy is right. The above is definitely not true. The author certainly does not give up rights by pressing send. It's really fuzzy at best especially here where you have excerpts rather than the entire e-mail being posted and where the excerpts were published by a third party. The original recipient, presumably the President of whatever institution, who forwarded the e-mail would be the guilty party if a law was broken. Legal issues aside, there are certainly ethical issues at play. However, the ends may very well justify means here, Joseph Fletcher style.


Well, It actually varies from state to state, but the rule of thumb is Email is a public discourse. In Virginia specifically the courts have ruled that email senders nor recipients have any expectation of privacy regarding email correspondence. In Maryland, government emails are always subject to Freedom of Information Act inquiries. Federally the law is somewhat fuzzier, especially regarding executive priviledge. No privacy lawsuits regarding email have been judged by any federal court of appeals.

No one should ever expect privacy from email, ever. No law exist in any state as of yet protecting anyones privacy via email.


What varies from state to state? And what is the case in Virginia that you are referring to? That sounds like a rather broad ruling. Was the ruling perhaps in the context of workplace email? Obviously, while the law has not necessarily caught up with advances in technology, courts have treated privacy issues differently in the context of the workplace and government. The situation here relates to private correspondence (not workplace or government related). The rule of thumb you mentioned may be good advice for the sender but definitely not good advice for the recipient tempted to publish the private e-mail online. Any claim arising from the publication of private email would likely not get quashed by a judge. The person who did the publishing might ultimately prevail but that's thousands of dollars and a lengthy legal process later... A good rule of thumb is simply not to publish an email which is presumed to be private.

Regarding privacy, citizens enjoy a right to privacy via U.S. Constitution and in most states, a right to privacy via respective state constitutions. A law specific to email privacy is not necessary for a judge to rule in favor of privacy in a dispute involving email since we have a constitutional rather than statutory system.
User avatar
Big Daddy Weaver
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:15 am
Location: Waco, TX

Send Proffs to Evander Holyfied

Postby Stephen Fox » Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:48 pm

http://www.religiondispatches.org/blog/ ... tithing._/

Evander will beat the Wordagod into em better than Paige Patterson
"I'm the only sane {person} in here." Doyle Hargraves, Slingblade
"Midget, Broom; Helluva campaign". Political consultant, "Oh, Brother..."


http://www.foxofbama.blogspot.com or google asfoxseesit
Stephen Fox
 
Posts: 9318
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:29 pm

Re: Should SBC profs be fired for not teaching strhse tithing?

Postby scottaerwin » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:22 pm

Big Daddy Weaver wrote:
scottaerwin wrote:
Timothy is right. The above is definitely not true. The author certainly does not give up rights by pressing send. It's really fuzzy at best especially here where you have excerpts rather than the entire e-mail being posted and where the excerpts were published by a third party. The original recipient, presumably the President of whatever institution, who forwarded the e-mail would be the guilty party if a law was broken. Legal issues aside, there are certainly ethical issues at play. However, the ends may very well justify means here, Joseph Fletcher style.


Well, It actually varies from state to state, but the rule of thumb is Email is a public discourse. In Virginia specifically the courts have ruled that email senders nor recipients have any expectation of privacy regarding email correspondence. In Maryland, government emails are always subject to Freedom of Information Act inquiries. Federally the law is somewhat fuzzier, especially regarding executive priviledge. No privacy lawsuits regarding email have been judged by any federal court of appeals.

No one should ever expect privacy from email, ever. No law exist in any state as of yet protecting anyones privacy via email.


What varies from state to state? And what is the case in Virginia that you are referring to? That sounds like a rather broad ruling. Was the ruling perhaps in the context of workplace email? Obviously, while the law has not necessarily caught up with advances in technology, courts have treated privacy issues differently in the context of the workplace and government. The situation here relates to private correspondence (not workplace or government related). The rule of thumb you mentioned may be good advice for the sender but definitely not good advice for the recipient tempted to publish the private e-mail online. Any claim arising from the publication of private email would likely not get quashed by a judge. The person who did the publishing might ultimately prevail but that's thousands of dollars and a lengthy legal process later... A good rule of thumb is simply not to publish an email which is presumed to be private.

Regarding privacy, citizens enjoy a right to privacy via U.S. Constitution and in most states, a right to privacy via respective state constitutions. A law specific to email privacy is not necessary for a judge to rule in favor of privacy in a dispute involving email since we have a constitutional rather than statutory system.


Sorry, I wasn't clearer. Let me start over. In regards to the sender of an email. There is no clear cut legal definition as to whether or not email meets the supreme court rubrik of "reasonable expectation of privacy" There are currently no federal state laws regarding the issue of the privacy treatment of emails. My hunch is that this will be worked out not by legislation but by tort, but I could be wrong. What I mean by varying state to state, is that since there is not federal law on the books, and no cases have been judged on appeal, the legality of these issues is a state issue and states have different torts and precedents to decide. (I believe that it will eventually be a federal issue, since it is specifically a constitutional issue.)

For example, in Virginia. All email correspondence by government officials is public correspondence. It was a locally famous case of Fredericksburg City Council members violating state law by corresponding in email only to certain members of the board and the court ruled that emails are public correspondence and that the emails constituted a "meeting" electronically in which business was conducted, based upon precedent that three way phone calls also consitute a meeting in Virginia. you are correct that government and business concerns are different, but those government cases are often used (wrongly in my opinion) as precedence. In Maryland, privacy laws are much more stringent than Virginia so their tort will be different. That is my point about state to state variability.

As to recipients of emails, I agree that it is in bad form to release those emails, but as with written correspondence once it is out there it is public right or wrong. If I write you a letter it becomes your property and I have no privacy rights regarding it. I have no idea what will be decided about these issues, but as it stands, no laws have been broken, and Les should know better.

I remember quite vividly some several years ago when the librarian at Southern Seminary was fired by Al Mohler for writing a letter to the President of the SBC criticizing him (the president of the SBC) It became quite public and I agreed with the librarian that he shouldn't have been fired for his opinion of the SBC Prez. I agree with Les Puryear that his private correspondence shouldn't have been made public, but this is the world we live in. It appearantly only matters which side of an issue somebody is on as to whether or not they agree with the method (I am not saying this of you BDW, just in general)

In short I agree with your post with, perhaps, one quibble. I don't think anyone should presume a email is private.
Scott, God is not calling you to HAVE a 900 lb. gorilla, God is calling you to BE a 900 lb. gorilla -- discerning friend
User avatar
scottaerwin
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:00 pm
Location: Knoxville, TN

Re: Should SBC profs be fired for not teaching strhse tithing?

Postby peter_lumpkins » Fri Feb 12, 2010 7:34 pm

I'm reluctant to post but will offer a few thoughts...

BDW wrote "A good rule of thumb is simply not to publish an email which is presumed to be private." From my standpoint, that should rule the way we handle issues like this when we are recipients of emails presumed to be private. The tit/tat about being careful to write only those things which, were it printed as a morning paper headline, we would not fret cannot be taken seriously. Not a person on this thread writes emails with that type of generic content--emails which are presumed to be private.

I emailed a friend just yesterday which, were it posted in the morning paper, I'd be really embarrassed. Not because of something I wrote about somebody else; to the contrary, it was about me. It wasn't some dark secret I have. Nonetheless, I would feel terrible if the email I presumed to be private was made public. We may yak all we want about being careful what we say but all of us have circles where we are much more direct and open about matters presuming confidence is in tact. And, I really have little believability about a person who insists he or she never says to anyone in a conversation presumed to be private what he or she would not say precisely in the same way in an open forum. Some tators may fry in that pan but many times they do not. And, if any here insists to the contrary, well, be my guest.

In light of the BDW's worthy 'rule of thumb' I have to say it is the precise rule I attempt to go by. I don't know I've been perfect at it but I do try to honor it. Burleson appears to boast about his army of moles deeply embedded all over the SBC feeding him info, info he's fairly well demonstrated he has no intention of observing the worthy 'rule of thumb'--presumed to be private. Indeed if one has kept up with his blog over the last three years or so, I think any fair-minded person would conclude WB thrives on revealing those things presumed to be private. The unspoken but embolden irony is, Burleson fishes in the same pond of secrecy to gather his information in which he fearlessly indicts others. Oh, he has an excuse, alright. He's the ever-present Protector and Defender of all things Baptist. Why people all over the SBC--professors afraid of losing their job, missionaries on the field, top execs, you-name-it--why they turn to Wade Burleson to make things right...At least that's the sense one gets from reading what the old boy posts publicly.

Poor Les can't claim that, however. Though he thinks the belief some professors hold concerning tithing is unhealthy for Southern Baptists, that doesn't make him a Protector & Defender of Southern Baptists like Wade is. Oh, no. Instead, that makes him a lousy, no-good, legalistic, Liberal-like, raving Fundamentalist. There's no room for two Defenders and Protectors over Southern Baptists in Wade's world. What is concern to Les makes Les a nutty-butty Fundy according to Wade. But none of Wade's concerns could never be considered nutty-butty. He just wants to protect Southern Baptists from an unhealthy direction.

Why, Burleson accused SB professors of heresy not so long ago. They were teaching this strange new doctrine of Eternal Subordination. Wade to the rescue! Come to find out--though too late for Wade to take back--if ES is a strange new doctrine, somebody should have told, Boyce, Dagg, and even Mullins about it for they taught heresy too. And, Wade wanted to protect Southern Baptists. But then again, is that not what Les wanted to do? The difference is, Les wrote an email presumed to be private about his concerns. Wade plastered his concerns all over the internet--"heresy! heresy!"--and, now he's plastered an email to an administrator, an email presumed to be private.

The fact is, I think I'd be mad as you know what too if an email I presumed to be private ended up splashed on a blog. Truth be told, I'd really wonder about someone who claims they wouldn't.

So Les, here's to you: we've surely had our hot exchanges both on and off the blogs. But you have my sympathy, my brother. There is no way around it: it was a dirty, rotten low-down thing to do in posting an email presumed to be private on the internet. How anyone could think they were morally obligated to follow through with such a juvenile action not even a trained psychiatrist could explore. Again, I'm with you...

On the other hand, consider William's point a necessary evil. Once one's skirt is up, people done got their eyes full. They know. They saw. No use thinking they didn't see. Nope. They saw all. The good thing is, it really is not that bad. Burleson's notable niche for flamboyance and stretching things all out of whack to "get cha" hardly plays in his favor. The question you asked about the professors does not necessarily lend itself to your desiring satisfaction in the form of "firing." Perhaps you did not intend it that way even if it could be implied from your words. Who of us has not written words with implications which could be both positive and negative, or not too good on the one hand, and absolutely despicable on the other?

I'm reminded that while the mass media had a good point about the emails of the Environmental group being hacked, the question the activist scientists had to face from the public was, what the heck does all this conspiratorial stuff mean? Granted the emails may or may not be presumed to be private because of the nature of the organization. This was a group paid for with public money. Hence, it is a little different. Nonetheless, their skirt got lifted too, and from my standpoint, they owed the public an explanation for their actions. Instead we got from the activists, "Why aren't you angry at the meanies who lifted our skirt?"

O.K. I'm done. Sorry William for going on so long.
With that, I am...
Peter
peter_lumpkins
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 6:18 am

Re: Should SBC profs be fired for not teaching strhse tithing?

Postby William Thornton » Fri Feb 12, 2010 8:02 pm

Peter is always more reflective and thorough than I am and I appreciate his contribution here.

All Les had to do was to admit that his words, the ones that clearly called into question the employment of profs who teach contrary to his view of tithing, were hastily written and ill suited to the situation. That would likely have ended the thing with everyone, and privately at that.

Instead, in his explanation he doubled down on the thing by dragging in abortion, homosexuality, and yea, a deficient view of Scripture as being the underlying principle of any who would disagree with his view. He was caught twice; first with the unwise email made public, and second by trying to finess what he said and being caught in some disingenuity. One would think that integrity would demand he push a matter he feels so strongly about but no, he has a last word and hibernates. I am unsympathetic with his indgination for those reasons.

Burleson is a mixed bag. I agree with some of his stuff and disagree with others. I think he was right here. It is absolutely absurd to call a prof's employment into question over his view of storehouse tithing. I haven't been too interested in the recent revival of storehouse tithing legalism that has swept around the blogs here lately. To push it to the point Les did was unwise and wrong.

No, I would not appreciate a private email being made public, not that I haven't been stung on that.

The question of how far to go doctrinally was always expected to be a prickly one for SBCers. No doubt we will deal with it again.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12426
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Should SBC profs be fired for not teaching strhse tithing?

Postby Tom Parker » Fri Feb 12, 2010 8:21 pm

I am not one bit surprised that Mr. Lumpkins comes here and defends Les. Even though Les is not allowing comments on his blog about this issue does not mean he is avoiding this issue that he started.
Tom Parker
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: Should SBC profs be fired for not teaching strhse tithing?

Postby Tom Parker » Fri Feb 12, 2010 8:33 pm

Mr. Lumpkins for you to say that Les was not trying to get these two professors fired, that it might be implied but no he really did not mean it that way is incredible to say the least.
Tom Parker
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:34 pm

Re: Should SBC profs be fired for not teaching strhse tithing?

Postby Big Daddy Weaver » Fri Feb 12, 2010 8:57 pm

Well said, Peter.

And, Tom, I'll defend Les here - a defense from Les' Left.

First, let me state, more than a few Southern Baptists (generally parents of Baptist students) have called the Prez or Provost to complain about my Professor Dad during his tenure as Chair of the Religion Department at Brewton-Parker College. Weaver doesn't believe this, Weaver doesn't believe that, bla bla bla. College Administrators get calls and e-mails like that all the time. Les' complaint here revealed his fundamentalism.

But the dude did not start anything. He sent an e-mail, presumed to be private, to a college administrator. He didn't broadcast anything on his blog. He sent a single e-mail to two different administrators at two different institutions. Fine.

It was Burleson who published without permission someone else's e-mail. That's a pretty crappy thing to do and I'm not convinced that situation ethics really justify that in light of one e-mail to two administrators. Overreaction? Counterproductive? These are legitimate questions being raised at Burleson's blog.

Glad to see though that victory has been won. Mission Accomplished! Let the Hero Worship begin...
User avatar
Big Daddy Weaver
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:15 am
Location: Waco, TX

Re: Should SBC profs be fired for not teaching strhse tithing?

Postby Wade Burleson » Fri Feb 12, 2010 8:57 pm

On the other hand, consider William's point a necessary evil. Once one's skirt is up, people done got their eyes full. They know. They saw. No use thinking they didn't see. Nope. They saw all. The good thing is, it really is not that bad.


I'm sure Peter, you didn't think it that bad when 13 missionaries were fired by the IMB; nor did you think it that bad when prospective missionaries were told, "Thanks, but no thanks" by IMB trustees because of their view on spiritual gifts; nor did you think it that bad when Dr. Klouda was removed from the classroom because she was a woman teaching men Hebrew; nor did you think it that bad when Karen Bullock was told there was no place for her; nor did you think it that bad when Southern Baptist men worked secretly to pressure Dr. Rankin not to hire Wendy Norvelle as the permanent VP of the IMB; nor did you think it that bad when a librarian was removed for sending a "private" letter to the President of the SBC with complaints about leadership; nor did you think it that bad when SWBTS administration publicly censured trustee Dwight McKissic for his chapel message; I could go on, but you get the point. Nobody anywhere is under the delusion that you would consider the request to remove two professors from their faculty positions for teaching a differing interpretation regarding tithing "that bad."

You don't EVER think it is that bad when people who disagree with you are intimidated to change their beliefs, threatened with removal from SBC service or ministry, or actually removed from their positions. Most ideologues don't. Thanks for your honesty and transparency on this issue. We, however, are more than happy to cooperate with Southern Baptists who, similar to you, believe in the eternal subordination of women, the cessation of spiritual gifts, total abstinence, "storehouse tithing," the free will of man and/or the sovereignty of God, Landmarkism, closed-communion, dispensationalism, etc... It is not any one doctrine that is being opposed. It is the SPIRIT of ideologues which leads to an attempt at bringing about absolute conformity from EVERY SOUTHERN BAPTIST IN TERMS OF AGREEMENT on specific doctrinal interpretations of the Bible. If they refuse or dare voice a differing opinion, they often face being called a "liberal," or their "Baptist Identity" is questioned, or they may even be asked (or forced) to leave SBC ministry or leadership.

It is the spirit of those who threaten or intimidate, or the spirit of those who say "what's the big deal?" when the threats occur, that is being exposed and challenged.
The world is too dangerous to live in - not because of the people who do evil but because of the people who sit and let it happen.

Albert Einstein
User avatar
Wade Burleson
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 4:32 pm
Location: Enid, Oklahoma

Next

Return to SBC News and Trends

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest