BaptistLife.Com Forums.

Bart Barber sent a shot across the bow of the BGCT yesterday on the popular (but comment free) blog . The title of the blog article was about a close to fighting words as you could get in the SBC: . One of the state conventions trying to live on the float from their churches designated mission offerings? Say it ain't so. Turns out it wasn't so.

It's a sign of the times that within hours of Barber's (a Texas pastor affiliated with the rival Texas convention) article, a deliberately framed, highly agressive shot at the BGCT, the BGCT communications director gave an official response, a denial of the accusation with factual details, in a comment posted on Barber's blog () which unlike SBC Today does allow comments. Further comments include Executive Committee, SBC staff and the current president of the BGCT, along with the usual blogging crowd - quite remarkable.

Aaron Weaver does a pretty good job of summarizing stuff in his in another thread on BLife. I have copied it and put it in the second post in this thread.

As of this morning, a long long time in the world of blogging, this bit of what has to be called slander still stands as posted and that's too bad. Barber begged off because he is out of town but not before he made an attempt to blame his anonymous sources, if he happened to be proven wrong. Sorry, that excuse is extremely lame. Why some of the other SBCToday folks, including the pretty sharp TimR2 who posts here occasionally, haven't nailed this down with additional facts or retracted it with humble apologies to the BGCT leaves me a bit flummoxed.

These are all good and decent people who need to fix this straightaway. We already knew that bloggers weren't inerrant but it doesn't help to put that on display.

If the BGCT were deliberately delaying or witholding money given by churches intended to be part of what is forwarded to the SBC through the Cooperative Program, there would be a significant cry from within the BGCT to correct the problem. It is not the place of the pastor of a church not affiliated with the BGCT to criticize.

As David Lowrie says frequently, "a fresh wind is blowing." It has become apparent, within the BGCT, that the movement to "stop the spitting contest" with the SBC is gaining ground. Relationships between the BGCT and Southwestern Seminary have thawed. The BGCT is beginning to elect leaders who are demonstrating a willingness to restore the relationships with the SBC, which seems to be the direction most of its affiliated churches want to go. Perhaps some of the SBTC's apologists see that as a problem for their own organization and the influence they have carved out for themselves within it. But then, if we'd been concerned about missions and ministry cooperation all along, instead of turf protecting, we probably wouldn't have two state conventions in Texas.

I wrote the sentence above that has been attributed to William. I should have been more specific. I had in mind one specific instance when Wade relied exclusively on anonymous sources: the SWBTS/Calvinism situation.

It's worth noting that the disclaimers/addendums that Tim Rogers put up yesterday on SBC Today explaining that the BGCT was innocent have been removed. The post in its original form remains over at SBC Today. Amazing.

Ed: When some one relies on an anonymous source I am often suspicious of the "information" provided, however I must admit that have received anonymous information that proved to be both accurate and useful.

Where Wade B. says "when I do use anonymous sources, and the SWBTS situation is the only one that comes to mind for me, it is at the request of the person or person(s) who feel their jobs are threatened." I can understand and accept that rationale but how am I to know when a writer who claims anonymous sources is protecting the source or simply covering for material they may have to retract at some later date? If writers identified there sources as "protected" I might give the material greater consideration. Until then the use of "anonymous" will say to me, caution this may or may not be reliable, and I make no surety as to the validity.

Isn't slander and defamation standard operating procedure for these guys? I'm not surprised about this at all, especially their latest post. These are attack dogs, and attack dogs aren't trained to back down. Again, as far as SBC fundamentalists are concerned: standard operating procedure.

Tim

I don't suppose I'm any great supporter of the BGCT but SBC Today doesn't get it. They permitted a vicious accusation that, absent additional facts they have yet to nail down, has been refuted. To blithely fall back on the statement that they accurately reported what anonymous sources reported to them is pathetically lame. Better line up your facts first then start detonating the nuclear bombs, brethren.

Their sterling exercise in reporting newsworthy items to fellow Southern Baptists consists today of reporting what has been proved false because it is true that their sources reported the falsehood: that's SBC Today.

I saw the report and went to blog with it at aintsobad. It took nothing to clear it up. Now SBC Today is not backing off from their unhappy comments. The simple truth is this is a disinformation campaign to blister the BGCT. The BGCT does a pretty good job of doddering along on its own.

Lying does not help anyone. Mr. Barber and SBC Today have no credibility left with me.

William,

I attempted to post my own thoughts on this. I have to agree, this is not pretty. For the record, one blogger who also posted on this and wrote in the comment stream above that he's never taken posts down, etc. got a pop-a-gut giggle from me. Granting for argument's sake, what he says is true, I could easily document, if necessary, some, shall we say, significant alterations of posts, after getting his little fanny paddled really good. For some reason Professor Greg Welty comes to mind Thus, I imagine one could easily argue, with a strategy like that, who would ever need to "take something down??

With that, I am...
Peter

Wade,

Sorry, bubba: I said nothing about a post being removed so the "post still stands" retort addresses exactly what? What I did indicate is your post substantially changed concerning the alleged meetings Dr. Patterson held--meetings you alleged took place on a day he wasn't even in town!--and changed <i>after</i> Professor Welty paddled your behiny really, really good. For the record, I have the before/after versions of your post if you'd like me to post them here or elsewhere, though my guess is, you'd rather I not (also for the record, William would probably prefer I'd not clog the thread up here, I suppose; but I will give a link if any's interested).

As for the rest of your comment, I am not persuaded you were talking to me: <i>absolutely nothing remotely resembles a sober response to anything I've written here or elsewhere, to my recall. Sorry.

With that, I am...
Peter

Dear William

I'm surely glad Bubba Burleson left laughing. Sometimes after conversing with me, he leaves profoundly insane. Why do you think that is?

Grace, William. Thanks for putting up with a bit of nonsense.

With that, I am...
Peter

I like the idea of pipsqueak bloggers being able to shout loud enough and far enough to make the major agencies and institutions in SBC life sit up, listen, and react. I just wish the bloggers would get it right.

In the case of Bart Barber concerning the BGCT and Lottie Moon money, he got it dead wrong.

Here is the Baptist Standard story on the Barber debacle:



ABP picked up the story and carries it on their site as well.

I don't think Barber understands the seriousness of this thing. SBC Today certainly didn't and still doesn't.

This is blogging as agenda with the mouthpiece organs of the larger group unable to promote their agenda without us pipsqueaks demanding acccountability.

I would recommend people read my series on blogethics over at http://aintsobad.typepad.com. I linked to all my previous writings on blogging and the blogethics which might guide us.

I think a better description of this would be bush league blogging. The more Barber yaks about it, the messier it is. Read the comments.



Of course, SBC Today is still silent, a vast improvement for their blog.

This just in from SBC Today: