BGCT, Lottie Moon, Bart Barber and bad blogging

[William Thornton]

Bart Barber sent a shot across the bow of the BGCT yesterday on the popular (but comment free) blog SBC Today. The title of the blog article was about a close to fighting words as you could get in the SBC: BGCT Refusing to Release Lottie Moon Funds, Sources Report. 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 (Praisegod Barebones) 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 post 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.

[William Thornton]

[Note: All of the following is BD Weaver's post (except what is framed in quotes), William]

The comment thread on this post is incredible.

Clark Logan, Vice President for Business and Finance for the SBC Executive Committee, writes this:

The initial blog entry, “BGCT Refusing to Release Lottie Moon Funds, Sources Report,” and some of the subsequent comments have been inaccurate and unfair to the BGCT, the IMB, and the SBC Executive Committee.

1. The BGCT has a consistent history of forwarding funds to the SBC Executive Committee. As shown on the official report of Designated Receipts (of which the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering is a part) released by the SBC Executive Committee for February, the BGCT forwarded over $6.3 million. While the March report shows a “0.00,” the April report shows over $4.2 million (which includes over $3.3 million actually forwarded on March 23 – explained below).

2. It is correct that the official report of Designated Receipts released by the SBC Executive Committee did show a “$0.00” for the BGCT for the month of March. This is why:

• The BGCT, like all state convention partners, forwards both Cooperative Program funds and Designated Funds to the SBC Executive for distribution to SBC entities at least once (and sometimes two or three times) a month.
• As is usual, in March (March 23rd to be exact), the BGCT wired their designated gifts to the SBC Executive Committee in the amount $3,301,826.17.
• As is not usual, the BGCT did not send a remittance form or any paperwork showing how the money it sent should be applied.
• Apparently the implementation of new software at the BGCT complicated their ability to compile and issue the needed distribution report until after April 1. Therefore, even though the SBC Executive Committee was in possession of the Designated Fund sent on March 23, “$0.00” was reported because the proper application of those funds had not been verified by the BGCT.

3. Distribution and reporting of Designated Funds cannot be made by the Executive Committee until the distribution paperwork is received from the state conventions. In the (normally very few) days between receipt of the funds by the SBC Executive Committee and distribution of the funds by the SBC Executive Committee, the funds are invested on behalf of the entities by the SBC Executive Committee and all interest earned is passed on to the entities pro rata. Rarely does the time frame of this delay overlap the last day of the month – which is the day the books are closed and the monthly Designated Receipts report is prepared for distribution to state conventions and SBC entities. In this case, the delay did overlap the last day of the month, and therefore a “0.00” was reported for the BGCT for the month of March. As previously stated, however, the April report includes both the April gifts and the gifts tendered on March 23. For these reasons, any claim that the BGCT “held money” is erroneous.

4. The Business and Finance division of the SBC Executive Committee works closely with the finance offices at all of the entities. Persons in those offices would have knowledge of or opportunity to access all of the above information. Anytime there is a question, I believe all of those offices would welcome the opportunity to respond to any inquiries from interested Southern Baptists. I wish our office had been called about this matter before various erroneous theories were proposed.

Tim Rogers, editor of SBC Today, responds with this:

Brother Clark Logan,

If what you report is true, which I accept, I have one question.

Why did the personnel of the IMB tell the trustees and the SBC President that funds were in escrow? Also, would you make public the paperwork revealing that as of 5/20/2009 the report going to the IMB reveals that the BGCT's funds were release from the EC to the IMB?

Blessings,
Tim

Blogger Alan Cross responds to Tim:

Tim,

Are you really asking Clark Logan, Vice President for Business and Finance for ExComm to prove to you that he isn't lying when he explained to you in detail what happened?

Come on, Tim. You are better than that.

You guys just need to admit you were wrong and move on. No big deal.

And finally, David Lowrie - President of the BGCT - weighs in:

As President of the BGCT, I want to encourage you to remove your post, and to straighten out this mess. The church I serve is a SBC church with a number of IMB missionaries. It is true that we have been working hard to turn walls into bridges to advance the Great Commission around the world.

I too am a blogger, so I know the challenges of getting the story straight. We must be very careful in these days. I believe a fresh wind is blowing for greater understanding and cooperation in the future on Kingdom causes. We cannot continue the stereotypes of the past.

I believe this was an honest mistake. Please remove the post. Clear the reputation of the leaders of the BGCT, and work hard to help us work effectively together in the days ahead.

The stakes are too high for us to waste our time on matters like this. Let's unite to do the work Jesus called us to do. If the Great Commission Resurgence is to be more than a slogan or motto, we must learn to trust each other and work together again.

Sincerely,
David Lowrie
President of the BGCT
Pastor of First Baptist Church of Canyon, TX

The best comment came from "William" (BL.com moderator William? [yes-WT]) who wrote:

Someone was wrong on this and it was Barber and SBCToday. The protests otherwise are ludicrous. The headline was a deliberately framed, agressive shot at the BGCT. It should have been checked out.

Go ahead and straighten this mess out with respect to the BGCT before you lose any additional credibility.

I admit that the SBC Today crowd is losing more and more credibility especially in light of their attacks on Wade Burleson for his posts that rely exclusively on anyonymous sources. Tim Rogers just can't seem to fully admit these mistakes and move on. Ironically, this whole conversation concerning a controversial SBC Today post authored by Bart Barber is taking place at Barber's personal blog because SBC Today will not allow comments. So, SBC Today editor Rogers is forced to respond and defend himself at someone's elses blog-home due to their anti-comments policy.http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com

"We do not serve well the causes we say we believe in by ignoring the continuing devastation of fundamentalism running rampant." - Stan Hastey

[Sandy]

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.

[Gary]

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 was especially heartened in David's measured response to all of this. He could have blustered through many subjects, but chose the high ground.

I'm hopeful that the olive branch in his hand is not wrestled from his grasp to be used as a lash.

Gary

[Wade Burleson]

I admit that the SBC Today crowd is losing more and more credibility especially in light of their attacks on Wade Burleson for his posts that rely exclusively on anyonymous sources."

William, just a couple of thoughts to add to your well written post. First, it may seem to you I use only exclusively anonymous sources, but those who are quoted in Hardball Religion, by name, may disagree with your adjective. Second, 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. Finally, the one difference between Grace and Truth to You and SBC Outpost and Praisegod Barebones is that in over three years and over 1000 individual posts I have never removed or retracted a single post I have written, whereas the latter two blogs have removed many posts that they have later found to be "in error" - removals with little if any fanfare or acknowledgment, as we should all expect on this particular post involving the BGCT fiasco.

Finally, Bart, Wes Kinney, Tim Rogers and all the SBC Crowd crow about administrators at the IMB telling their "sources" that the BGCT is escrowing money. I'd bet a dollar to a donut (better go wih the dollar in SBC circles) that there was not ONE IMB administrator, employee, VP or custodian who would EVER say that to anyone. The IMB personnel are not in the habit of denigrating the hands that feed them.

But I could name several Texas trustees, close friends of Bart and the SBC Crowd who would burn a few phone lines to let their buds know that the Evil Empire is escrowing funds.

Praise God No Stones are used for assassination of character in our modern times or Texas would be without rocks at the moment.

[Mark]

Relationships between the BGCT and Southwestern Seminary have thawed...

Sure, Sandy.

It's hard to imagine how such relationships can thaw very much when the SBC's alleged "Great Commission Resurgence" (which Paul Pressler has signed, but not Paige Patterson of SWBTS, interestingly) has clauses which demand adherence to (1) inerrancy and (2) wives who graciously submit. The BGCT should continue to resist all of that nonsense without apology.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

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 Pettibone]

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.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

And the saga continues.

This is the latest blog post at SBC Today:

Recent days have seen a firestorm erupt over allegations that the Baptist General Convention Texas has escrowed Lottie Moon Christmas Offering funds. SBC Today received the information from a first-hand source, to which Dr. Bart Barber took the lead in publicizing the events that transpired. Since the report was made public at SBC Today, with opportunities for dialogue at Praisegod Barebones, administrators of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention and of the BGCT have sought to dismiss the report as a technical glitch encountered during a software transition. Thus, instead of the International Mission Board directly receiving the funds, they reportedly somehow ended up in the office of the Executive Committee. The details of this transaction remain sketchy, at best.

What is known is that first, it was reported to a group of IMB Trustees that at least one state convention was escrowing the funds received with designation for the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering. Second, it was later asserted that one convention that was doing so was the BGCT. Third, it was reported that an elected official of the Southern Baptist Convention had commented in an informal setting that this indeed was the case. Having received this information, Dr. Barber wrote “it was reported” that the BGCT has escrowed funds, which remains a factual rendition of the circumstances.

In summary, what is known is 1) It was reported to SBC Today that the BGCT was escrowing Lottie Moon Christmas Offering funds. 2) The BGCT has a history of its leadership publicly removing support from the SBC, including moral, theological, and fiscal support. 3) SBC Today will report to the best of our ability any further developments in this story.

Good thing the BGCT doesn't go around suing people all willy-nilly. In most other arenas of life, a lawyer on behalf of the defamed organization would call those doing the defamation and demand that the harmful words be removed. These guys are backed in a corner and don't know what to do - you'd think a pastor would be capable of saying "my mistake" and move on.

[Tim Dahl]

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

[Sandy]

In summary, what is known is 1) It was reported to SBC Today that the BGCT was escrowing Lottie Moon Christmas Offering funds. 2) The BGCT has a history of its leadership publicly removing support from the SBC, including moral, theological, and fiscal support. 3) SBC Today will report to the best of our ability any further developments in this story.

1. Who reported that "one convention," and later "the BGCT," was the convention "escrowing" funds from the Lottie Moon offering? That's the question where the credibility of the report lies. Rumors are not reports.
2. It is true that the BGCT has a history of leaders publicly removing support from the SBC. However, that has all been brought to the floor of the convention and voted into budgets. The BGCT has reduced the default percentage of Cooperative Program gifts forwarded to the SBC, and I guess it could be argued that it has removed "moral and theological" support as well, at least, as a convention body. Whether doing those things were advisable or not, in light of what has transpired since then, may be questionable. But the BGCT has not deliberately withheld funds given by the churches in accordance with its CP plan, or from the designated offerings, at least, not that I am aware of. Several years ago, responding to churches which objected to the state convention cutting its CP percentage, the BGCT came up with a plan to allow churches to determine their own CP split, and produced a form which essentially allows churches to do this. It is a complicated process, and if not accompanied by a form, the church gifts go to the default giving plan, but what has happened since this has been the process is that the amount of CP giving forwarded to SBC causes from BGCT churches is increasing each year, even while the state convention's CP giving has declined by almost 5% annually for a decade. I cannot see any reason why the BGCT would want to face the kind of outcry that would erupt from those churches within its ranks which still uniquely support SBC causes, approximatey 85% of all churches in the BGCT, from the news that they were escrowing, or spending, money designated to the Lottie Moon offering.
3. What possible motive would SBC Today have for reporting on something that the BGCT is doing? Perhaps those who write for that blog are thinking that if there is a "new wind blowing" in the BGCT, which David Lowrie seems to think is happening, that the BGCT is leaning back toward the right, and that things might be warming up in relationships with the SBC, it might make recruiting new churches for their own convention more difficult. Or, perhaps they are looking for a feather in their cap in order to prove themselves worthy of being nominated for some prestigious denominational post. If word got out that the BGCT was escrowing Lottie Moon money, or any part of what has already been designated by the churches to go on to SBC causes, there would be a considerable outcry from within the ranks of the churches. Heads would roll (well, so to speak, anyhow). There is no reason for the BGCT to do this.

[William Thornton]

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.

[rick davis]

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.

[peter_lumpkins]

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 Burleson]

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

Peter,

Didn't realize the lump in Lumpkins was from the tendency to erupt in pop-a-gut giggles. May I recommend surgery before your intestines descend any lower? As for your mind recalling Greg Welty, you might possibly have forgotten (intentionally?) a couple minor little factos:

(1). Both my posts regarding Dr. Patterson's stated intention to remove reformed professors from faculty for "cost savings" still stand in their entirety.
(2). Dr. Welty was not in the meetings in question, as explained by the professor(s) who were. They, of course, choose to remain anonymous since those who are reformed can swear their innocence in being my source (and be correct), and their friends who are protecting them are too numerous too identify (get the picture yet?).
(3). Dr. Paige Patterson himself, two days after my original post stated on the record:

"Southwestern will not build a school in the future around anybody who could not look anybody in the world in the eyes and say, 'Christ died for your sins.'"

By the way, people who would like to view the post in which Patterson says the above should go to http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2009/02/are-southern-baptists-blind-or.html and take the time to read the 611 comments. It was there that your Baptist Identity friends over at SBC Today were caught changing timestamps, lying to cover it up, and all the other antics.

I would also encourage you, Peter, like the Apostle Paul to "take a little wine for thine hernia," but seeing as you seem to believe you know more than Scripture itself (at least that is what your first book indicates), I'll abstain from such a suggestion due to possibly wounding your sensitive conscience. Finally, when one is truly repulsed by a breach of ethics, as your comment above seems to indicate, it is proper etiquette to refrain from cheap shots. You should know by now that you will not be able to get away with it.

[peter_lumpkins]

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

[Wade Burleson]

Wade,

Sorry, bubba: I said nothing about a post being removed so the "post still stands" retort addresses exactly what? . . .

Bubba?

Laughing.

Have a great Lord's Day.

Wade

[William Thornton]

Barber has an apology post up on his blog.

I consider this episode, inflammatory as it has been, to have been a fluke. Somebody either misunderstood something or made something up. It wasn't me. It wasn't anyone with whom I spoke. We bought it. And with the weight of the IMB behind it, I wasn't in "verify" mode; I was in "publish" mode. I should have verified.
And then I repeated it, although I did so in a careful manner that remains factually accurate. I accurately reported someone else's inaccurate information, and in doing so was careful to represent the information as someone else's data and not as my own first-hand knowledge. Nevertheless, I threw some measure of my credibility behind it. If you believed it because I reported it, then I have done you a disservice. And for that I apologize.

And the entire situation puts me in the bitter-tasting situation of having somewhat wronged an institution that I dislike and owing it an apology. So, to the BGCT, I apologize for not taking greater care in reporting damaging information about you. I will endeavor, whenever criticizing you in the future, to exercise greater caution to stick to the many publicly verifiable items on which we disagree.

SBC Today, as of today, is sticking by their story, I guess…

Too bad, but Bart Barber permanently loses some credibility over this. Without my taking time to parse it, his lengthy apology post leaves me somewhat dissatisfied - maybe too much lecturing and too little humility. Barber doesn't leave the BGCT in that post without some additional shots at them, an unwise move that leaves an opening big enough for Wade Burleson to drive his big blogging truck through (here). I have no doubt that Barber is a decent enough guy but his actions here understandably cause some (Burleson) to question his fitness for appointment as a trustee to Southwestern Seminary, but I guess the seminary knows who it wants to serve on their board.

[peter_lumpkins]

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

[William Thornton]

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:

IMB receives funds from BGCT; blog claims to the contrary ‘erroneous’

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.

[rick davis]

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.

[William Thornton]

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.

http://praisegodbarebones.blogspot.com/2009/05/international-mission-board-no-longer.html

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

This just in from SBC Today: