« Bashing The Big Church: Is It Becoming An Issue? | Main | A Much Needed Explanation about My Hair: Especially for Steve Grosey »

Apr 15, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451a37369e200e551d690248833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hershael York and Paul Harvey: One Thing in Common:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

cb scott

So, Peter,

Hershael York puts up one post and that one post proves beyond a doubt that everything anyone has said for over two years is false and "dark" and they are all liars. Is that how you see it, Peter?

cb

peter

CB,

Hey, brother. I thought you were not going to be around for awhile. That's why I put this up. I thought you wouldn't see it. Shucks! I've been had!

With that, I am...

Peter

peter

CB,

Just kidding. Notice, though, what I did and did not say. I did not say, as your interpretation suggested:

"one post proves beyond a doubt that everything anyone has said for over two years is false and...they are all liars."

About as close as I come to explicitly calling a person a liar is to his face and about something he said to me personally.

I have written a lot over these almost two years on the internet. There may be an exception somewhere to that. But I am pretty sure you'd be looking for a neddle.

Now for what I wrote I must own up to:

1) "the Board has faced stiff criticism from many..."

2) "[criticism]...especially from a former trustee of the board..."

3) "Some have levelled harsh indictments toward the Trustees themselves..."

4) "...claiming their policies constituted [death for M/M]..."

5) "...the dark, despicable picture painted by a few rogue bloggers has now been definitively neutered..."

Which one of the assertions necessarily implies anybody a liar?

In addition, the only one that even remotely could be factually questioned is #5. But I argue, my brother, CB:

A) the "dark" picture painted cannot be factually incorrect, given the evidence we all can examine. The bloggers I mentioned do not paint a 'rosey' picture, do they?

That, of course, does not mean that the "dark" picture is not necessarily based on evidence. Perhaps it is. Nonetheless, "dark" it remains.

B) The analysis Dr. York gave of the health of the missions field personnel, their drop out rates, their reasons for leaving, the enlistment excitment, etc. etc. tell a story that simply has not come from the chief critics of IMB. And especially those who've ceaselessly flung criticism toward the Trustees' allegedly "failed" policies.

Thus, CB, since the picture is fleshed out more comprehensively with this latest report, I do not think it either wrong or improper to suggest, as I have here, Dr. York's post serves us all as the "rest of the story" and, in the end, delivers a neutered blow to the critics' position.

I know you state often, CB, Wade Burleson is not lying, etc. Well, Brother, I don't think I've ever said he was.

What I have consistently pointed out, to the express denial of some--who, by the way, love to assert me a slanderer but never can find the time to actually show where I have--is that Enid's posts are so skewed with evidences, and sources so manipulated and mangled, that it would be difficult for me to ever take something quoted there at face value. I simply could not.

Consequently, for me then, if I cannot trust an assertion whose sources I can check, what does that say about those things asserted whose sources I cannot check? Believibility becomes virtually non-existent in an environment like that.

A shorter way of saying the above is to think of the little fable about "the boy who cried wolf".

Sorry, CB. But I really needed to get that off my chest and onto yours :^).

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter


cb scott

Peter,

My chest can well handle what you have given me.

Therefore:

1. The board has "faced stiff criticism." That is true. It is also not without just cause as has been presented by more than Wade, yet, many choose to be deaf and blind to the reality of the confessed criticism.

2&3. Some have "leveled harsh indictments toward trustees." That is true. I have leveled some of the most harsh indictments at the trustees. I even asked Jerry Corbaley to resign and well he should have. Frankly, it is still not too late for him to do so even now.

Wade will have to claim credit for his actions, although it is well proven he did not act alone and without cause.

4. "claiming their policies constituted death for M/M"
I know little of those claims, probably because I put little stock in them. That is because I know full well the board has had greater troubles than it has had even in recent years and survived. I have never had doubts about its survival and for that matter its victories. Yet, my brother, you know, as do I victories do not erase all sins nor guilt. Only true repentance toward God will do that. You and I are both aware of that truth.

5. Who are those "rogue bloggers" who have been neutered? I certainly do not seem to be of a neutered nature, do I, Peter? Actually that is a pretty arrogant statement if you think about it, is it not, Peter?

Therefore, I shall respond in like fashion. Bring forth your newly found champions or those of a more ancient time. We shall debate the issues and see who is and who is not neutered at the day's end.

Peter, you were correct when you stated I was to be away for a while. I did say that, but when I read this fresh post of yours I just had to break away from my tasks and call one dance at this beautiful ball you have sponsored here in your own home. Then when I read you had claimed a "steer's end" for all who had spoken up and against the "folly fouling" of the trustees of the IMB I just had to return and let you know there was at least one "bull" left in the valley. :-)

I trust you understand that, Peter. Frankly, if anyone I know understands that, I know it is you, Peter. I know it is you.

cb


Jeff T

It sure is nice to here the truth about the story, and to know that the IMB meetings are now free from personal agendas.

Bill

Jeff: I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. Do you really think the IMB meetings are now truly free from personal agendas? From one blog post from one person?

Jeff T

I am dead serious. I once supported Wade, but I came to see he is nothing but a political pastor desiring to promote his agenda and his friends.

Bill

So now that Wade is gone, the board is free from personal agendas? Wade was the only one? Well, I hope you are right but I doubt you are.

John D

CB -

Brother, as a frequent lurker in the blog world, I have come to find that your comments tend to be balanced, insightful, and without a hint of duplicity. You are a rare blogger in the bloggoshpere.

But I must admit, your responses on this matter on several blogs leaves me stunned. Their irrationality almost leaves me to think that someone is going around impersonating you.

The slings and arrows you are sending Dr. York's way are completely uncalled for. Someone made the assertion that there is a high attrition rate among IMB M's. Dr. York proved that to be a lie. And that is all.

Are there people who don't like Rankin? I'm sure there is, but Dr. York didn't address that, did he?
Are there problems in the IMB? I'm sure there are. Dr. York didn't say that EVERYTHING was rosy, did he?

He simply showed that there is a low attrition rate in the IMB. You sir, are the one trying to pull Rankin and others into a discussion in which they were not even named.

If you're going to get upset at Dr. York, or you take offence to his post, at least address what he said, and not what he didn't say.

cb scott

John D.

OK, let's say I have done some overkill here. Looking back I can see why you would challenge me. Thank you for grit and a willingness to call a brother to task.

My original complaint with Hershael York was due to a phrase he used about the previous meeting. It was; "absent some drama of the past."

That comment seemed to be a comparison comment stating that the board was now OK due to the departure of Wade Burleson.

There is evidence that it was received that way by comments on more than one post as you may have read. I challenged that. All is not well at the board simply since Wade Burleson is gone. That is just not true.

John, there were problems at the IMB long before Wade appeared, or John Floyd, for that matter. Most of those problems are trustee problems. I personally believe there is also a major administration problem, but that is obviously not the reason you called my hand.

John, just because there was a "sweet spirit" at this past board meeting does not mean there were and are no major problems at the IMB. And it certainly does not mean that the presence or absence of Wade Burleson is the cause or the cure of those problems.

I have never said missionary attrition was a problem at the board. Missionaries are called by God. We just send them out and finance their ministries.

Frankly, if missionaries, come home simply because of trouble within the board of trustees and the administration I question their going in the first place. Anyone called into Christian ministry knows the road is always going to be rough and hardship and suffering goes with the call and the territory.

Therefore, it may be good for some to leave if they complain about the "heat in the kitchen" or the mandated sacrifices of the call.

That has never been my beef. I am protesting anyone who would say there are now no problems and that there never were any real problems other than Wade Burleson's presence on the board. That is simply not true and anyone who says it is a liar by willful intent, ignorance or both.

Now, let me assure you I have just today read another phrase from Hershael York stated in his post on attrition. He said; "Our policies are not perfect to be sure...."

I wish he had made that statement in his first post. But I must also admit he had no way of knowing war was going to break out over what he said in the first post.

John, maybe now is not the best time for an active trustee to be posting about the activities of the IMB. In all fairness, now may not be the best time for me to be ultra-sensitive to what a trustee says also. Certainly it is no time for me to go to war with some outside who simply do not know any better than to use York's post to say there was never any problem/ problems at the board other than Wade's presence. That is simply not true, but it seems I am beating a dead horse. (Yet, that horse does still stink to high heaven.)

Also, my good brother and friend, Peter, of whom I have great respect, should never have used a term like "neutered" in this post relating to the "rest of the story" for the "rest of the story" is yet to be told.

York's post did not neuter anyone. It simply refuted the remarks about the board losing great numbers of missionaries and that is all and nothing more.

Nonetheless, I have to agree with you, John, that I have been rather harsh with Hershael York. Therefore, here is my email: cb5512@charter.net. If you or anyone will be willing to send me his phone number I will call him and make the proper apology. It is my desire to finish well, John. So I need to do what is necessary to do so and I thank you for pointing that out.

Even the "unneutered" make "steerfully" foolish statements at times. :-)

You have been a good brother to me today. I thank you.

cb


peter

All,

I appreciate the participation. Obviously, there are polarizing positions on these issues.

I think it is important to underline what some have implied on this thread:

our beloved IMB Southern Baptists sacrifically support because of an Anointed, incurable heartbeat for global evangelism and Church planting is not the epitome of perfection. It never has been.

Nor are we now delivered a lifetime, money-back gaurantee that the IMB is politically free from any one's agenda. This is always a possible risk in the way Southern Baptists do business.

Nonetheless, the perpetual, dreary commentaries on some specific issues concerning our Board emanating from many dissenting bloggers has been shown, thanks to Dr. York, to be undeniably warped.

In addition, since it remains, for the most part, the very same bloggers who bring up yet other "issues" concerning the Board/Trustees' failures, I am confident that, in light of the positive message coming from overseas, most thinking Southern Baptists who presently read dissenting blogs, will, in the future, harbor a skeptical, critical eye toward those who breathe endless fire on our Agency and their Board.

Grace to all. With that, I am...

Peter

peter

CB,

Hey, Brother. I appreciate your words and also your spirit.

I wish also I could concede the word "neutered" and count, as a substitute, "refuted". But "refuted" is not the heart of my intention.

"Neuter", when used apart from its standard gender contexts, is most often used as a synonym for "neutral". That is "to neuter" something is to "neutralize" it. Or, if you will, to bleed the bias out.

In this case, my assertion about the "dark" picture being "definitively neutered", should be read that Dr. York's "rest of the story" has, in effect, bled the bias out of the "dark" story written by dissenting bloggers. In essence, York neutralized Enid, so to speak (I know, I know, that's demonic and I am looking at an eternal swim in the Lake of Fire, Wayne.)

At any rate, if you did not like "neutered" in my original post, I stand assured: neither will you like "warped" in my comment above.

Grace, CB. Coffee in Birmingham one of these days. With that, I am...

Peter

cb scott

Peter,

It has been well pointed out that Hershael York's post was directly related to attrition and nothing more.

In that same post he said; "our policies are not perfect to be sure..."

I do not want to put words in your mouth, Peter, but your assumptions may be immature and may, possibly, reveal a certain amount of hot Georgia sun "warpage" upon your own abilities to reason constructively.

Since I don't want to be guilty of putting words in your mouth it may be that the safest way for me to "neuter" such a possibility is to simply ask you a question and allow you to give your position its day in the sun to be checked as to the "warp" effect upon your position's substance.

In doing so we both can avoid feeling "neutralized."

Here is the question:

Do you believe all of "Enid's" accusations as to the events at the IMB to be complete fabrications, having originated only in the mind of Wade Burleson?

cb

B-Man

It takes one drama queen to defend another.

smith.we

Peter you said:
What I have consistently pointed out, to the express denial of some--who, by the way, love to assert me a slanderer but never can find the time to actually show where I have--is that Enid's posts are so skewed with evidences, and sources so manipulated and mangled, that it would be difficult for me to ever take something quoted there at face value. I simply could not.
Consequently, for me then, if I cannot trust an assertion whose sources I can check, what does that say about those things asserted whose sources I cannot check? Believability becomes virtually non-existent in an environment like that.
A shorter way of saying the above is to think of the little fable about "the boy who cried wolf".
Sorry, CB. But I really needed to get that off my chest and onto yours :^).
Grace. With that, I am...
Peter
Based on this comment Peter, I have a question to ask of you. You had a post where you were sitting at you desk and told about a book that you were part ofwriting. This post was very quickly removed. What happened and why did you remove this post???????????

In His Name
Wayne

cb scott

Some things I just cannot resist, so..

B-Man, Would you kindly give interpretation as to the specific meaning of your comment?

cb

B-Man

cb= drama queen, wb="

cb scott

B-Man?

You do not even use your own name. You play games as a coward. That is because, in fact, you are a coward. You are not a real man. Maybe that is why you use words like "queen." Is that your comfort zone?

I will say Wade Burleson is wrong about some things theologically. But one thing is a fact. He is a real man. He owns his words and speaks his mind, and takes his licks for them in stride. You, on the other hand hide so very cowardly behind anonymity.

You do name your cowardly self well here though. "B-Man"

I guess that is because you will never be "A"-Man and deep down inside you know it.

That is what is really eating you up inside, is it not? You know that in your whole life you have never been able to stand face to face and toe to toe with anyone. You will always hide behind walls and throw rocks as a child.

I pity you. I really do. I have seen so many like you all over this earth. As a coward, you will die a thousand deaths before your life is over.

How sad. How so very sad.

cb

Tim Rogers

B-Man,

I know Brother CB personally and neither Drama nor Queen are two words that ever come into my mind about this Brother. While, he is more than capable of handling himself along with Brother Wade, I would like to just intercede for the both of them.

Brother Wade is first and foremost a Christian. I do not agree with him and have even been angry at him about some things. However, he has owned every word he has spoken. My latest post concerns words I believe are dangerous if taken to their logical conclusion, but he owned them and has defended them quite well. Brother CB has never taken a swipe at me without me knowing it was him throwing the punch. He owns his words and stands by them.

You, on the other hand have not owned your words and have in fact used words to cause yourself to be in the position you say place our brothers. As a matter of fact, by the way you place this bomb in this thread, you are the Drama Queen. You create drama by your insertion of such childish antics and you certainly are not a man by your lack of owning your words.

Blessings,
Tim

peter

Wayne,

Based on my comment you quoted, the question has exactly zero to do with the comment--unless, of course, you mean to suggest my unpublishing a post somehow proves I skew sources as well. Know I have the source still. Know also the vlog demonstrates nicely my point: irresponsible quoting of sources.

To my knowledge, only you and your good friend, Mr. Burleson, have mentioned the mythical "book deal" I'm supposed to have bragged about--he once (I'm aware of) and you several times now.

Evidently, it may be the source of the myth is another person or you gave it to Mr. Burleson or he gave it to you. Any way one slices that pie, once again it matters not: Enid skews the sources it employs.

Now, whether or not that is enough for you, Wayne, decide for yourself. But please know that while you can curse me to hell like you did the last time you addressed me on Bart's thread, I don't think I'll let you do that here.

I hope your day is filled with grace. With that, I am...

Peter

cb scott

Wayne,

You really need to cease this constant "comment threading" all of these accusations and everlasting condemnations toward Peter.

We all come here to debate, fight, encourage, rag, play, joke, cry, preach, teach, pray for, politic, campaign, praise and embarrass each other over: theological, political, cultural, and SBC issues. Most of us do this instead of playing golf or watching television. It is basically a hobby. It is not our life/lives.

We are not here to take upon ourselves the position of God and see the ultimate destiny of the souls of men and in turn condemn them to the deeper pits of hell.

Wayne, you are a good man. I like you. We all like you. I think you like all of us, but you have a habit of condemning one of us to hell from time to time. Wayne, that is just not your job. I do admonish you to stop doing this.

None of us is right all of the time; not me, you, Wade, Tim, Peter, Ben, Debbie, Vol or anyone. We all err in some way, but it is not your responsibility to determine who is going to be highly ranked in Heaven or who is going to fry in Hell.

The Bible teaches that whosoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved. Only God knows who has actually done that. All these brothers and sisters profess they have done that. Therefore, the rest of us must take their word for it. It is only God who will separate the sheep from the goats at the Judgement.

Please take this as it is given. I am your brother in Christ asking you to rethink your position about condemning others to hell because they differ with you or those with whom you agree.

cb

cb scott

Tim,

Thanks.

cb

volfan007

cb,

vol is not always right????

oooohhhh....that hurt!

david :)

volfan007

wayne,

you are not the Holy Spirit.

david

ps. i also remember peter explaining and apologizing for the misunderstanding of the book thing. so, wayne, i guess you dont forgive people either, huh? unless it's wade or ben?

Tim Rogers

Brother David,

You said; "cb, vol is not always right????". I agree with you.

Brother CB,

It is this kind of tactic you use that infuriates me. You take Vol to task for being wrong on somethings. You, Brother CB, are wrong!!! Vol writes right. :>)

Brother Vol,

Don't worry, he is wrong about me being wrong too. :>)

Blessings,
Tim

peter

All,

You are all nutts. There is only one person here who is never, ever wrong. And I am living with her.

With that, I am...

Peter

Joe DOnahue

Wayne,

After much searching, I have found the video blog where Peter mentions writing his book.

You will need to copy and paste this into your browser:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSsJ19sy3JI

I knew I remembered seeing it...He said that he was going to write a book unlike anything ever read before...from what I remember.

Luke

Alright! That's 3 minutes and 32 seconds of my life that I would like back. :)

Tim Rogers

Brother Luke,

I agree. I am still trying to figure out which one is Peter. :>)

Should have known better than follow a u-tube link place here by a Youth man. :>)

Blessings,
Tim

Chris

Man in that video Peter's got the moves!! the message was pretty good too.

OUTBACK

nooo... I liked the hair style.. but no mullet!! :)
Steve

The comments to this entry are closed.