Power of blogs: Call the guy out!

[William Thornton]

One pastor didn't like what he read from a SBC seminary prof. He noted some of the prof's teaching he felt was errant and publicly resolved to do something about it. What he did was to send a private email to the guy's seminary supervisor, a letter in which, not once but twice, the man's job was mentioned. The letter was clearly meant to intimidate and to threaten the man's job for teaching things that the pastor thought outrageous and wrong.

A few people are privvy to the email. One of them sends it to the SBCs most widely read blogger, Wade Burleson. WB, properly, calls the pastor and is told that he did not want to get the profs fired. Well and good. Then, word of the denial trickles back to Burleson's source and it is found that the denial is disingenuous at best, a lie at worst. (Read the email yourself and decide. It's linked in the other thread.)

Soooo, Burleson publishes relevant exerpts from the email and we're off and running.

The pastor is exposed and the SBC blog public gets to see a guy who wants a prof fired for not teaching his view of storehouse tithing.

Burleson is reviled for the ethical breach of publishing exerpts of a private email.

The pastor, Les Puryear, hunkers down, doubles down...but in the end backs down, though maintaining indignancy over his email being published.

What to make of all this?

1. When an issue is put before the great body of Baptists, it may be ugly, but likely gets a better result.

2. If a prominent pastor (Les may be small church, but he is self-designated Mr. Small SBC Church, and has wide visibility) attempts to put pressure on adminstrators over the job of an sbc employee based on some particular non-BFM2K teaching, let them do it publicly. Have a debate. If they try to swing weight privately, let them be exposed and take credit of blame for that they want done.

3. If SBCers are more wary about firing off that email because it may be made public, that is a good thing. If you don't want to receive scrutiny over the views that you want to impose on our common employees, then keep quiet.

Were I an SBC employee, I would feel better today than I did a week ago, knowing that there is some mechanism to combat the wild-eyed fundies who may not be satisfied that their views are prevailing. Let's be plain here. This was about what the Bible teaches on tithing, not inerrancy, not the virgin birth, not the deity of Christ.

No doubt, Danny Akin would have handled his end of this properly and protected the prof. Still, let those who think it proper to intimidate and threaten bear the weight of intense scrutiny for what they do.

I'm not sure how much more open the SBC is now with the internet and blogging that it was in previous times. Certainly some. I cannot see how more openness and transparency will harm the work that we do together, even if it unfolds the way this thing did last week..

[Wade Burleson]

William,

I offer the highest praise possible for your post.

You get it. May your tribe increase.

Wade

[Stephen Fox]

1)There would be no BFM 2000 if the Thornton guidelines had been in effect in the mid 80's cause Thornton and Wade Burleson would have never put up with Jerry Vines use of the Peace Committee visits to SEBTS to stage secret off campus witch hunts against Randall Lolley and and his faculty and administration.

2)I am convinced the ethical design set up by Thornton and Burleson, the code they have adopted by experience with SBC fundamentalism would have aborted the fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention in the 80's.

3)I cannot understand why Burleson and Thornton don't call for ....I'm still working on Number 3 and considering a Four, Five Six and Seven

[William Thornton]

Uh oh...I've been given the kiss of death by Darth Burleson...no SBC office in my future.

Maybe I can be Mr. Small Church Guy...oh, that's already taken.

[Wade Burleson]

Uh oh...I've been given the kiss of death by Darth Burleson...no SBC office in my future.

Sorry William!

Or, on second thought, maybe you should thank me.

[Sandy]

Uh oh...I've been given the kiss of death by Darth Burleson...no SBC office in my future.

Maybe I can be Mr. Small Church Guy...oh, that's already taken.

Would you really want one?

[David Montoya]

William,

Having no future in the SBC is not that bad, in fact, I have a feeling that it will be seen as a thing of honor in heaven. Yes, it is interesting the impact Wade can have when he wants too, but even he is limited.

[Wade Burleson]

William,

Having no future in the SBC is not that bad, in fact, I have a feeling that it will be seen as a thing of honor in heaven. Yes, it is interesting the impact Wade can have when he wants too, but even he is limited.

You are right, David. I am limited. I have had two phone conversations with the United States Attorney for South Texas, and several good conversations with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The chief investigator is supposedly close to making a decision about prosecuting. My gut tells me the government will not prosecute. I am disappointed and belief it is a mistake. They have all of my voluminous written correspondence. If the US attorney will not prosecute, you are correct, there is nothing I can do.

I, however, am still trying to get the government's attention.

[Sandy]

I can think of a whole lot of better things to do with my time and energy than to be some kind of influential big shot in the SBC. There was a time when I thought I might work toward the eventual possibility of ministry service through one of the mission boards, or perhaps even teaching in a Baptist college or seminary, but in spite of the rules, and the trustee system, there always seem to be those individuals who know someone who can help them get around the rules, and either help themselves or one of their friends, or, as in this particular case, agitate to get rid of someone on the basis of an obscure, nit-picky difference of opinion.

And if those in the moderate camp smugly think they're immune to this kind of cliquish provincialism, they need to check their own institutions and their own system of operation, especially those in the "former SBC" or CBF category. I've seen the same thing there to an even greater extent. After all, many of those leaders were the entrenched bureaucrats of the pre-conservative resurgence SBC, and they had this kind of thing down to a fine art.

[Stephen Fox]

Maybe Bruce Gourley will enter this discussion and help me frame the question.

I think this thread would be a great time for Montoya and Burleson to between themselves publicly discuss any new insight they may have about BFM 2000 and the Conservative Resurgence.
I think Burleson not long ago said it was a mistake. Correct me if I'm wrong.
And Montoya has been part of a lot of drama since 88 when he dissented from the Ronnie Floyd, Atkison, Pressler machine in Arkansas and spoke against the Committee on Committees report, orthe Nominating Committee, best I remember.

Where are you two fellows now.
Human beings have flaws but does the CBF have more integrity than the SBC in your opinion and how do you address such a question.
Sandy on this board has looked at it and come down with the SBC.

Was Inerrancy in retrospect a proper tool, an adequate tool in your minds to begin the crusade that ended in the fundamentalist takeover?

Like to hear any new thoughts, revised thoughts either of you have if you think it worth your time to here address it.

Thanks

Sfox

[Wade Burleson]

Sfox,

You ask some excellent questions. I historically have had no problem saying I believe in the "inerrancy" of Scripture because I thought "inerrancy" spoke to the authority, reliability and infallibility of the sacred text.

I am becoming to understand now that many "inerrantists" in the SBC have the attitude "My interpretation of the sacred text is TRUTH. If you disagree with my INTERPRETATION you are a liberal that denies the authority of the Bible."

This saddens me deeply.

Wade

[peter_lumpkins]

William,

With as much respect as I can state, my brother, your concern in outing those you feel are secretly--not to mention cowardly--pressuring, behind the scenes, SBC administrators to deal with employees whom they feel are not living up to "their" standards solicits some sympathy for your motive. Protecting academic freedom is laudable. Nonetheless, to encourage in any degree whatsoever Burleson's share-all, trashy, tabloid technique has got to rate as the worst possible remedy my mind presently imagines. This is classic 101 textbook example where the alleged remedy is as bad or even worse than the desired cure. An army of one side's Moles exposing an army of the other side's Moles (in this case, Wade's 'undercover' info-sharers exposing another 'under-cover' info seeker)? This is supposed to make things more healthy for the SBC?

Suppose I had real problems with Mark Driscoll going to SEBTS (I do). And suppose I wrote a very strong letter to a couple of SEBTS trustees--as strong as Les' to the administrators (I did not). Are you saying it's a perfectly healthy solution for SBC conflict to make my private letters to these trustees public? If not, please say so because that's precisely what I think Burleson's share-all, trashy, tabloid technique is not only suggesting but he's actually doing (the only difference this time the letter was to an administrator).

From my side of Atlanta, my brother William, better to french kiss a copperhead than to drink that moral poison. Not only would academic freedom be protected alright, it would also establish good top soil for genuine heresy to flourish. Moreover, if we think there is no trust now, imagine how distrust would readily be compounded in a culture where everyone should suspect everyone else of being a mole for the other side.

Nor would such moral non-sense as Wade perpetuates when he pops off about having sources all over the SBC who feeds him information--information he very much intends on making public--make for less tension concerning SBC conflict. Les Puryear has been castigated for attempting to get his way through intimidation. Yet Wade Burlseon's share-all, trashy, tabloid technique is every bit as much and even more an attempt to get his way through intimidation. After all, if one thinks a letter he or she sends as a complaint to trustees may very well wind up on the internet at any moment, it's unlikely he or she will risk his or her words being first filtered through a warped prism like Wade's has so many times been demonstrated to possess. And, even if the letter was a letter of praise, the last thing I'd want is for a tabloid to offer my letter's public debut. Would you? No thank you, please.

Hence, if Les' intimidation technique morally sucks. Then I'd like to know why Burleson's share-all, trashy tabloid intimidation technique does not suck even more.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Stephen Fox]

Pressler's plants at Baylor and the seminaries, the nefarious methods he used to flame suspicions about the seminaries; how were they so morally sublime that the means justified the ends.

The whole modus operandi of the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC stank to High Heaven and now Danny Akins and Mohler are virgins whose virtue is beyond reproach?

Baloney.

Tell me again about Jim Deloach and Jerry Vines and their virtue at the heart of the Takeover.

[Wade Burleson]

If Les' intimidation technique morally sucks then I'd like to know why Burleson's share-all, trashy tabloid intimidation technique does not suck even more?

Well, gee whiz Pete, how about one difference is Les contacted a supervisor to privately suggest it might be helpful to remove from faculty a professor because he published a paper with a biblical interpretation on "tithing" that is different than the interpretation to which Les holds. Thus, in Les' mind, the disagreement revealed that the professor denies "biblical authority" and if we don't deal with the professor, then homosexuals, abortionists, and other similar folks will one day be preaching from SBC pulpits. That's the way Fundamentalist ideologues think--"my interpretation is gospel truth, and any disagreement is the devil's work." But I don't expect you to understand, Pete. You seem to have the same attitude (see your book). If Southern Baptists don't interpret the Bible they way you do, even on doctrines that exceed the BFM (such as total abstinence), then they are "liberal," "deny biblical authority," and bow at the throne of culture rather than God. You have already said about Les' letter, "What's the big deal?" You don't get it. All you are upset about is that his email was made public. You don't like me popping off.

Well, get used to it. It's time the SBC as a whole understand what is happening. When we allow ideologues to demand total conformity on their interpretative views, without exposing and opposing their threats and intimidation, then we condone it. You want the intimidation to remain private and to continue unexposed because you CONDONE it. I want the intimidation exposed and opposed. If you don't like what I am doing, then don't try to intimidate Southern Baptists who disagree with you from publishing, teaching or preaching an interpretation contrary to your own. That's the way you guarantee you won't read your name in my trashy tabloid. It's that simple.

[peter_lumpkins]

Pressler's plants at Baylor and the seminaries, the nefarious methods he used to flame suspicions about the seminaries; how were they so morally sublime that the means justified the ends.

The whole modus operandi of the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC stank to High Heaven and now Danny Akins and Mohler are virgins whose virtue is beyond reproach?

Baloney.

Tell me again about Jim Deloach and Jerry Vines and their virtue at the heart of the Takeover.

SF,

Thanks. Question: have you seen or read or heard where I have either in print or verbally argued for the legitimacy of "plants" back in the CR or elsewhere? If not, Fox, then I'm wondering what the heck are you talking about?

I have never been on the inside of anything in the SBC. Period. I never once attended one 'rally' of the CR. I have been and remain a complete nobody so far as the SBC mechanism is concerned. I have served no committees outside the local association. I am on no committee now even inside the local association. Nor have I ever been seriously considered for a 'political' position so far as I know. My allegiance to the CR was and remains an allegiance to an idea--the nature of Scripture. Many Dudes on the other side--your side--do not or cannot appreciate the fact that for so many of us it was not a political power grab. Right or wrong we believed a theological problem existed. That's why we ran with the herd. Hence, 30 years later I'm satisfied whether or not others like you may not be. Hence, your presumptuous frame of reference applies exactly zero to me, Fox.

Nor to be honest do I think you know with certainty anything that went on "in secret" about Jerry Vines.

And, for the record, while I'm unsure just how forged my moral framework was during the waxing of the CR--I was in Bible school when it started in 1979--and therefore it would be all but impossible to say what I most certainly would have done, I can most assuredly say what I would do and have practiced over the last two decades: I have no use for such moral non-sense as is Burleson's share-all, trashy, tabloid technique. Hence, I'm afraid were I to be solicited into a circle which called for it, then I would dismiss myself from the circle. Period.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter_lumpkins]

Dear Wade

I am scared.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Wade Burleson]

Dear Wade

I am scared.

With that, I am...
Peter

Then may I suggest a new signature?

With that, I am scared ...
Peter

Laughing

P.S. The way you guys are screaming and shouting about the publicizing of an email that suggested it would be helpful to remove a professor from a seminary faculty position because he holds to a different interpretation of a tertiery doctrine may not mean you are scared, but it sure as heck seems to indicate you are are really unhappy.

[Sandy]

If Les' intimidation technique morally sucks then I'd like to know why Burleson's share-all, trashy tabloid intimidation technique does not suck even more?

Well, gee whiz Pete, how about one difference is Les contacted a supervisor to privately suggest it might be helpful to remove from faculty a professor because he published a paper with a biblical interpretation on "tithing" that is different than the interpretation to which Les holds. Thus, in Les' mind, the disagreement revealed that the professor denies "biblical authority" and if we don't deal with the professor, then homosexuals, abortionists, and other similar folks will one day be preaching from SBC pulpits. That's the way Fundamentalist ideologues think--"my interpretation is gospel truth, and any disagreement is the devil's work." But I don't expect you to understand, Pete. You seem to have the same attitude (see your book). If Southern Baptists don't interpret the Bible they way you do, even on doctrines that exceed the BFM (such as total abstinence), then they are "liberal," "deny biblical authority," and bow at the throne of culture rather than God. You have already said about Les' letter, "What's the big deal?" You don't get it. All you are upset about is that his email was made public. You don't like me popping off.

Well, get used to it. It's time the SBC as a whole understand what is happening. When we allow ideologues to demand total conformity on their interpretative views, without exposing and opposing their threats and intimidation, then we condone it. You want the intimidation to remain private and to continue unexposed because you CONDONE it. I want the intimidation exposed and opposed. If you don't like what I am doing, then don't try to intimidate Southern Baptists who disagree with you from publishing, teaching or preaching an interpretation contrary to your own. That's the way you guarantee you won't read your name in my trashy tabloid. It's that simple.

Do you really think that the SBC can, at some point, get past this sort of thing, in which someone who is influential, and who has the ability to reach up and pull strings can be exposed, and then as a result of the exposure, neutralized? The fact that this happens over and over again, and that no matter how much is done to change it, it seems that messengers at conventions continue to uphold this very provincial, backward system that thrives on influence peddling and that our denominational structure and culture is incapable of changing this. Look what has happened to you. You've called out a number of individuals, provided factual documentation of the problems they've created and essentially those who benefit from the status quo have done everything they possibly can to put your blog in a corner and render it ineffective while they continue on with behavior that is unethical, unbiblical, but also unchallenged by the messengers the churches elect.

As a result, we're losing an entire generation of leadership. They're going to other evangelical denominations or to groups like Mark Driscoll's in droves, while SBC leaders are wearing blinders and blithely ignoring it.

[Wade Burleson]

Do you really think that the SBC can, at some point, get past this sort of thing, in which someone who is influential, and who has the ability to reach up and pull strings can be exposed, and then as a result of the exposure, neutralized? The fact that this happens over and over again, and that no matter how much is done to change it, it seems that messengers at conventions continue to uphold this very provincial, backward system that thrives on influence peddling and that our denominational structure and culture is incapable of changing this. Look what has happened to you. You've called out a number of individuals, provided factual documentation of the problems they've created and essentially those who benefit from the status quo have done everything they possibly can to put your blog in a corner and render it ineffective while they continue on with behavior that is unethical, unbiblical, but also unchallenged by the messengers the churches elect.

As a result, we're losing an entire generation of leadership. They're going to other evangelical denominations or to groups like Mark Driscoll's in droves, while SBC leaders are wearing blinders and blithely ignoring it.

Good point Sandy. Maybe the entire structure of the SBC needs to change. I have made motions that the SBC have multiple regional video conventions that tie into the main SBC meeting to alllow Southern Baptists from coast to coast to attend and vote electronically. You are correct. We are losing an entire generation of evangelical leadership. If the ideologues are not stopped at the Convention level within the next few years, I myself will be wallking away from the Southern Baptist Convention. Just like 1979, I am exposing, confronting, and opposing. If the PEOPLE OF THE SBC -- not those who attend the Convention -- but the PEOPLE OF THE SBC AS A WHOLE do not agree with me, I will walk away. I personally think the majority in the SBC think like I.

They just don't have a voice.

[William Thornton]

Peter, you and Stephen Fox are the only one among the people discussing this thing that with whom I have had personal, face-to-face contact. You have my respect and appreciation for a keen mind and carefully considered opinions.

I've got so many posts here that I feel I may need to get a real life, but from those you would find me agreeing and disagreeing with WB. I agree with him in this.

I see a difference in one who expresses an opinion about something one of our entites does (SEBTS/Driscoll, as you mentioned) and one who publicly blogged that he was going to do something about profs with unacceptable views on minor theological matters, who then did something - put the guy's job up for discussion. That was wrongheaded, but hey, we baptist pastors can be wrongheaded about things. But let him be transparent in doing so and the rest of us who have an interest in our institutions can join him or not.

You ask if the cure (exposing people for things like this) is worse than the disease. I think not. The email was outrageous and the explanation was even worse. He should have been called on it.

WB is never far from certain characteristics that annoy me but then, as an irascible curmudgeon, lots of people and things annoy me. I think he was right on this.

[peter_lumpkins]

Dear Wade

I am scared.

With that, I am...
Peter

Then may I suggest a new signature?

With that, I am scared ...
Peter

Laughing

P.S. The way you guys are screaming and shouting about the publicizing of an email that suggested it would be helpful to remove a professor from a seminary faculty position because he holds to a different interpretation of a tertiery doctrine may not mean you are scared, but it sure as heck seems to indicate you are are really unhappy.

My experience informs me that when the conversation dips to loutish puns about my perceived signature, there's really nothing else of substance to pursue. Have a nice day.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mark]

I see a difference in one who expresses an opinion about something one of our entites does (SEBTS/Driscoll, as you mentioned) and one who publicly blogged that he was going to do something about profs with unacceptable views on minor theological matters, who then did something - put the guy's job up for discussion...

That's the crux of what I think Wade B. was saying, right there. You nailed it.

[William Thornton]

Quotes From Christian Leaders on Tithing

Soooo, Les has comments from Mohler, Iorg, Akin et al in support of tithing. Exerpts...

Mohler: "Though the believer in Christ is no longer under the law..."
Akin: "When Jesus spoke to this issue, He encouraged His disciples to do more than what was required under the Old Testament with what was called the tithe..."
Iorg: "The tithe is the baseline for Christian giving. Grace exceeds law..."

In his letter calling into question a SEBTS prof, Les said: "It has come to my attention that one of your professors has written a document that is available online in which he states that the biblical command to tithe is no longer applicable."

One would have to say that in Les' world, Mohler, Akin, and Iorg all ought to be fired for not saying that the tithe is "required." While all these men support tithing and beyond, Moher says we are not under the law, Akin notes that Jesus "encouraged" his disciples to do more, and Iorg frames the matter with grace, not law.

If Jesus Himself only encouraged his disciples, as Akin states, Les, maybe He would be unemployable in a seminary you headed.

Since Les has frozen out comments on his blog from all but "team" members, I ask here what I would have asked him directly on his blog:

Les, you said that you did not use the words "fire," "firing" or "termination" in your email. What you did say was this:

My concern is the influence which Dr. Kostenberger may have upon future pastors who may teach this unbiblical position.

I am completely shocked and surprised that a Southern Baptist seminary in the years following the Conservative Resurgence would employ a professor who teaches that tithing is not necessary.

Do you agree with Dr. Kostenberger's position of tithing? If not, do you think it is helpful to the SBC to keep this professor on the faculty of SEBTS?

1. How is a reasonable person supposed to view those words if not in the context that you do not believe the man should keep his job?

2. Do you believe that any prof should be employed in our seminaries who doesn't teach that tithing is required of Christians?

3. Do you not see something unchristian in going over the prof's head to his supervisor and questioning the man's seminary position?

4. Is it not less than the truth for you to respond to Burleson after he had been told that you contacted the supervisor of the SBC profs by saying that, "I have not asked for anyone to be fired, nor will I ask for anyone to be fired" when you clearly made the point that the job of this man was the subject of your email?

You might find that it is easier to tell the truth, Les. You went after this man and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Feel free to comment here…all of our members are team members even if they don’t agree with the moderator.

[Tom Parker]

No, Mr. Lumpkins thankfully you are the only one that I know that uses such a messianic signature. I've never liked it.

[William Thornton]

No, Mr. Lumpkins thankfully you are the only one that I know that uses such a messianic signature. I've never liked it.

Tom, Peter has a unique personal closing to his posts. One may call it quaint, quirky, or even annoying but it is unfair to call it messianic. You are certainly free to dislike his closing or any of the quotes people here use at the bottom of their posts. Those of us who stay informed, misinformed, and sometimes inflamed by SBC blogs know that he and Burelson have often disagreed but my observation is that WB is usually better than the cheap shot he took at Peter's closing but cheap shots are not uncommon here. I take one every now and then myself.

I would like for you to consider that Peter hasn't called for anyone's job. He hasn't disclosed anyone's personal email. He hasn't slandered anyone. He haspointedly disagreed with me and others.

If you dislike his closing, I'm sure he will try to cope with that but how about contributing something of substance and leaving the personal slaps behind?

Thanks.