by William Thornton » Sun Feb 14, 2010 8:11 am
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..
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog,