Burleson gets threatened...

[William Thornton]

...some of the folks who are involved on this forum understand threats and retaliation.



The anonymous email, reproduced in its entirety on the link above, threatened his kids.

Deplorable.

[Tim Dahl]

It seems that idiocy is contagious. I can only hope the idiot who sent this email isn't a real SBC leader.

Tim

[RonH]

Notice the Yoda like phrasing, "But cease you must from continued attacks."? Now why does that sound familiar?

[Dave Roberts]

The writer of that piece at best needs to be hauled into civil court and slapped with a restraining order and a lawsuit for defamation. Depending on OK laws, he oir she also might need to do some jail time.

[ET]

Sad. Outrageous. Unfortunately, not surprising.

I wonder if these same folks who sent the email to WB have ever condemned people for posting anonymous comments on internet blogs. I would bet my house on it they have.

Just how scriptural can it be to send someone an anonymous email and threaten to bring up issues surrounding the man himself, but his son and daughter and not bring up any concerns directly and in person as Scripture instructs. I bet they didn't count on WB posting it on his blog for all the world to see. Good for him.

[Dave Roberts]

Wade's action reminds me of a friend who while pastoring a church began to receive anonymous mail purporting to be from a church member. He took one the the pulpit one Sunday and read it announcing that he was certain the one who wrote it just forgot to sign his name. It would be on the communion table after the service so the writer could sign it. That was the last anonymous letter he received. I hope this will be for Wade.

[Neil Heath]

It also reminded me of a story Henlee Barnette told one day in class. Someone sent him a nasty letter, and signed it. He took the letter to the person and said, with great concern, that he felt sure this person would want to know that people were writing such terrible things and signing his name to them.

[Haruo]

[TimR2]

I certainly do not believe that one's family should be drawn into such political frays and my heart aches for his children being brought into the public eye. But, according to WB this email was anonymous, thus the person that brought his children into the public fray was WB. You know, as well as I, that anonymous material should remain anonymous. The only reason anonymous material should be exposed publicly is if there are any truths within the anonymous material. Whoever sent that email should be exposed and dealt with. However, for WB to make it public says there are some things he may be afraid of in the email. Certainly, there is nothing in the email that threatens his family's physical well being. However, what does WB do? He links his situation with Dr. Ergun Caner. A person WB has been personally after for some time now. WB seems to be the source for his church member Debbie Kaufman in her attacks, and I know WB has been involved in her initial post on Dr. Ergun Caner.

Thus, what do I think of this recent WB escapade? His actions reveal the emptiness in the threat of the email itself. Why would I say such? First, he never answers the truth of the anonymous charges. What do I mean? His son is no longer in the Marines and his Daughter is no longer at Baylor. How do I know this? WB revealed they were not longer there by making the anonymous email public. Second, he doesn't answer the questions raised about his personal addictions. He doesn't come out and say he has no addictions and he has not been seen slinking around in the casinos. These two items would have been the first things I would have dealt with in the response. However, the kicker for me is the fact that he takes up space and time to deal with this in a public manner. By doing so he names only one person and by naming that person, though it was in supportive way, it appears that is who he believes is behind this. Why would I say that? Notice that every post after that deals with Dr. Caner. WB tries to get people on board that someone is coming after his kids. However, WB made the anonymous email public. Because of Dr. Caner's Sunni Muslim background he has a serious security issue when it comes to his family. In WB's case there is not personal threat to do his family any physical harm. The email does not even suggest such a thing. However, when someone is faced with physical harm to their family what does WB do? He encourages and even continues to attack the very source that would expose someone's family to danger.

Where does this leave us? It makes me question the anonymity of the email itself. WB knows where everything comes from to his computer. If you do not believe that, look back at his comment streams and you will see that he tells us he knows that information. Also, WB is notorious for plastering "anonymous source" material all over the internet that is not really "anonymous sources" but info. he has been given from someone that has a bone of contention to pick. I believe he has made up this email because he was afraid the issues with his children were about to be exposed and he needed something that would deflect the attention from their issues. From what little dealings I have had with WB I can tell you, he knows where that email came from and he also knows that it is not remotely connected with anyone in SBC leadership, now or in the past.

[johnfariss]

Tim, your response beats everything I have seen in my life, to use a "Southernism." To take your speculation at face value, (1) the email would have had no substance, except that Wade made it public, (2) it is Wade that put his children at risk, (3) since Wade made it public, there might be some substance to the charges in it, (4) Wade made it public only because he wanted an excuse to attack Ergun Caner, (5) the email is not anonymous, Wade knows exactly who sent it, and (6) Wade created the email himself out of whole cloth. Did I miss anything?

Having been in law enforcement and investigation for ten or so years, I can tell you a common defense attorney strategy. It goes something like, "My dog is a good dog. He wouldn't bite anyone. He wasn't anywhere near the person who was bit. And besides all that, I don't even have a dog." As I was reading your reply, it similarities to that screamed themselves to me. I don't know how close to the legal community you are, but you might have made a good defense lawyer yourself.

You claim that Wade has some sort of vendeta against "Dr." Caner. I don't know if he does or not; but then I don't. Although my theology is far from his, I have long admired what I thought was his life story. It is, after all, possible to like or admire someone even while disagreeing with them. Now, however, that this story is unraveling, I too think he should share all the truth, not just a vague, "I may have overstated some things." A PhD from. . . who, maybe nobody? A D.Min. from some diploma mill? When did he come to the US? Were the years before that spent in Turkey, or in Sweden? Is he fluent in Arabic? This controversy is giving all of us Baptists, yes Southern Baptists, a black eye among people whom God lives, and is hurting our (collective) witness at least as much as a Baptist preacher who shared the Gospel over a glass of wine.

In my 24 years of ministry, I have received I think 3 anonymous letters. The first one, I had no idea how to respond to. It ate away at me for years. The second one mentioned another church member besides me. I shared it with that member, who recognized the style of the writer (as did I), and let me tell you, he went after her with both fists for sending an anonymous letter, even though he agreed with the writer that I "couldn't preach my way out of a wet paper bag." The third one, I took to church council, and after telling them that anyone could talk with me about anything, and criticise me about anything--as long as they were man or woman enough to do it eyeball-to-eyeball, and explaining what it was, then I burned it in front of them. The story was all around the church by the next day, and it was the last such letter I received. My point is that the light of day is the best disinfectant for things done in darkness.

Your hostility toward Wade is showing. If you have evidence (rather than just suspecions and shakey conclusions) about Wade's actions and/or his character, man up and confront him first, then take it to the next level. Come to think of it--isn't that Biblical?

John Fariss

[William Thornton]

TimR2, I think you are better than you are showing here.

First, Jerry Rankin, is a "bitter old person" because of his views of SBC structure and funding priorities. Now, Burleson, is a liar and manufactures emails. The former is a cheap shot ad hominem. The latter displays your dislike of Burleson. Do you decide which people deserve a tempered, Christian response based on whether you like them or not? You might give this some thought because you nicely fit the pattern of mistreating people that was the ugly part of the Conservative Resurgence and that is the ugly side of church ministry in general.

On Caner, the guy created his own problems and still have some work left to do. Burleson is hardly the only one that has called attention to the man's own record.

As Johnfarris said, your hostility toward WB is showing. You might consider how you look and sound in this.

[Tom Parker]

Sadly, almost everytime TR comments about those who disagree with him--(I will be as nice as I can)--he comes across very mean and vendictive. Jerry Rankin, WB, recipients of his ugliness. Why? What is the problem, TR?

[Chris]

[TimR2]

[johnfariss]

TimR2,

When I disagree, I find it to my advantage (and I mean my advantage spiritually, in my relationship with the Jesus who loved me when I was His enemy) to disagree with a position or an issue that an individual has taken. I have disagreed with Wade, I have disagreed with William, I have disagreed with Bart Barber, and others, maybe you too (I don't know who you are other that TimR2). But you have made your disagreement with Wade into a character issue, and, as far as I can see, based on no more than conclusions based on scant evidence. Is this really the way you think Jesus would do it?

You said, I believe, or at least implied, that anonymous e-mails/letters should be ignored. I say they should be put into the light. And as for your suggestion that Wade frequents casino's, well, Tim, if someone on a blog said that about me, I would not dignify it with an answer either. Now if it were a deacon or member of the church I serve, it would be different--but you, several hundred miles (presumably) away--nope, not a word. Silence may imply consent in English common law, but your accusation--or suggestion--is not a court of law. And if you thionk you have no hostility toward Wade, then, Tim, you are deceiving yourself. It oozes from virtually every sentence.

John

[William Thornton]

[trich]

William: You say:

"Caner has a written and spoken record of his lies.

Whom do you attack and whom do you defend? Well...?"

How true. TR won't say one word about his fellow SBC pastor Ed Young spending millions of church money to lease a jet. He won't speak one word, NOT ONE WORD about the decade-long deceit of Ergun Caner, the documented lies...yet he chooses to assume things about Wade for the purpose of attacking his character. And then he attacks you, calling you a "WB worshipper".

You are right, William. I think its sad to see these "so called Christian pastors" defending Caner and attacking others. Its the way of the SBC these days.

The hypocrisy of TR and his bunch is shocking, but enlightening. Especially Worley and his vitriol and sarcasm discussing the Caner debacle over at SBC Voices.

[Wade Burleson]

TimR2,

Who are you? Frankly, sir, your comments in this comment stream are repugnant. You speak as if you have first hand knowledge of my family, my thoughts, and my motives. I wish I could chalk your words up as simply coming from an ignorant person, but ignorance is morally neutral. You seem to be engaging in active evil.

My son was injured severely while in training in the U.S. Marine Corp. He suffered the largest hernia the Navy Corpsmen who treated him had ever seen. After surgery in San Diego and recuperating for thirteen weeks, then reentering training, he did fantastic and found himself promoted to platoon guide and being recommended as one of seven (out of 800) recruits to stand before the review board as the Company Honor Man. However, three days before he was to go before the Honor Review Board, he was reinjured. His second injury, an intestinal wall rip while doing pull ups, devastated him. Two weeks later he was medically discharged because the doctors couldn't guarantee his full recovery and the U.S. government would have to pay him lifetime benefits if they kept him in bootcamp any longer. That's his story. There's nothing nefarious about it. The good news is he is now medically cleared, is doing quite well in college, and will either move toward Army Special Forces, the FBI, or the CIA. He is unsure at this point.

My daughter suffered the humiliating disgrace of being placed on academic probation by Baylor University. Then, in an attempt to catch up through a summer school Finance Class she took while staying in Waco, she flunked the class. Baylor would not allow her to reenter classes for the fall. She was embarrassed, ashamed, and cried buckets of tears for a week. The good news is, she transferred to a junior college, obtained her Associates Degree in Business, and now is doing quite well in Florida, studying to get her Real Estate license while working at a popular restaurant on the Gulf. That's her story as well. Her parents are quite proud of her. There's nothing morally culpable in her story either.

Now, as far as addictions regarding me are concerned, the accusation is as ludicrous as the implications made against my kids. I am not addicted to anything but Jesus Christ. The closest thing to which I MAY be addicted other than Christ, and I say MAY be addicted, is GOLF. Frankly, my research in history and my writing these past two years has cut into my time for golf. Of course, if you listen to those who hate me, I am addicted to alcohol, gambling, pornography, cocaine, heroine, etc... Give me a break.

Now to your asenine and false conclusions:

(1). I have nothing against Ergun Caner. I think the time has come for Southern Baptists to be held accountable for what they say about their past from the pulpit (i.e. Darell Gilyard, Stephen Flockhart, etc...)
(2). I do not know who sent me the email. I have an idea, but frankly, for you to say I WROTE IT is the most absurd thing I think I've heard in years.
(3). You are correct, I made it public. I did so for one reason. Somebody, somewhere, is listening to someone who hates me share lies about me. For all I know, that somebody sent me the email believing what he had heard. The way to deal with stupid, anonymous emails that threaten to "make things public" is to make the email public. Christians should never be afraid of the light.
(4). My anger is directed at the person who involves my children to try to discredit me. That, sir, is a low blow.
(5). Your comments in this stream reveal that you may have the same kind of character as the one who sent me the email.

I hope you will now see how silly your comments have been.


Wade

[Tom Parker]

TR:

We anxiously await your reply.

[TimR2]

[TimR2]

[Chris]

[trich]

Tim - I am so glad I'm in a church where my pastor doesn't spend his hours leading up to his Sunday sermon attacking everyone that doesn't agree with him.

You, sir, are an embarrassment to your profession. You should be ashamed...but I'm sure your SBC Today Bunch will pat you on the back and tell you what a good job you did.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

[William Thornton]

A compendium of cheap shots by Tim Rogers, since he is unfamiliar with the concept:

1. Jerry Rankin is a “bitter old man.”
2. Wade Burleson is “addicted to gambling.” (This may be slander, worse than a cheap shot. Tim hasn’t provided a shred of evidence.)
3. Wade Burleson manufactured an email, i.e., lied.(More slander and, again, no evidence.)
4. Tom Farris’ opinion is no more important to Tim than a piece of dog ****. Tim didn’t use the ‘s’ word but clearly intended to make the comparison.
5. Yours truly is a “Burleson worshipper.” (evidence, please)
6. Yours truly is a “fence straddling…moderate.” (evidence, please)
7. Tim graciously prays that Tom Parker will preach out of something other than the NY Times tomorrow.

Seven is a pretty good number. Let’s stop here.

Tim, I started a topic because you made yourself such a large target and because your collegue has a nice piece on “How Lost People See Us.”

Well…?