« Shop Closed...Until Further Notice | Main | SEBTS & Mark Driscoll: "Forget the Cussin'! Let's Talk Sex!" by Peter Lumpkins »

Feb 12, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451a37369e20111685db2e2970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Drawing Swords Over Mark Driscoll: Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary vs. Baptist Press:

Comments

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

Wally

pete

why throw stones at brothers in Christ?

W

peter lumpkins

Dear Wally,

Thanks,

A) I read the first comment. No need to post three identical ones.

B) Either identify yourself or restrain from commenting. No anonymous commenters are allowed here (unless you specifically contact me via email with a valid reason; but you will nevertheless have to identify yourself to me)

C) I think you have it confused. While I raised certain issues pertaining to Driscoll last month, I do not raise these issues here. Hence, your comment is morally vacuous.

With that, I am...

Peter

John Daly

The title of ill-informed bloggers should be awarded to "Between the Times." If we only get one shot to make God look great, to live a God-honoring, Christ exalting life, then one need not waste energy walking up "Mars Hill" to find an example.

Chris Poe

I for one am disappointed in the SEBTS response. The bloggers were right, this is not "old news" or dredging up things from years ago and the website referred to in the BP article is still linked by the Mars Hill church website. But as with secular politics, in SBC politics (and church politics in general) people will defend someone to the hilt or attempt to deflect criticism when they perceive one of their own is under attack. I had blogged about this issue on my website as well.

I don't know if I will be in the SBC long term, but I do think Robin on SBC Today is right about the lowest common denominator. Those with such a stance who are Calvinistic try to paint it as a Calvinist/non Calvinist issue, but it's not. You have the same divide within conservative Presbyterianism as well, between those who are more broadly evangelical in orientation (at times referred to as Barely Reformed or Broadly Reformed) and the Truly Reformed, or to coin a phrase, Presbyterian Identity folks who want don't want to deemphasize their denominational distinctives for the sake of a perceived greater good. I'm not too familiar with them, but I think there is a similar divide among Lutherans as well, with some who want to emphasize traditional Lutheran doctrine and others who are more broad in their outlook.

Tim

Peter you were hardly the only ill-informed blogger who has jumped on the Driscoll-bashing bandwagon. Slice of Laodicea, MBLA, Don Hinkle and many others have previously voiced concerns over Driscoll.

The point you fail to make is the poor journalism used in the article. The quotes from McArthur are from 2006, both the SBC men quoted, were not informed their their quotes would be used in this context. Ed Setzer touches on that at his blog. The only reason this article came out was to distance the SBC from SouthEastern's affiliation with Acts 29 and Driscoll. You see Danny Akin, president of SEBTS spoke at Acts 29's church planting bootcamp, less than a week before this article came out.

peter lumpkins

Tim,

Actually, I am on no one's wagon, but thank you very much anyway. I wrote about this as I saw it. And, I've alreay gone through a heap of exchange over the sources including MacArthur, concerning whom, by the way, so far as I know, has not changed his mind about Driscoll's philosophy of ministry. You can take a look at my previous posts if you've any interest.

With that, I am...

Peter

Tim

Again you fail to take notice of the poor journalism used in the article. This article is not about trying to shed light on a recent event the BP thinks concerns baptists. If that were the case the story would have come out months ago. The story was designed to discredit

peter lumpkins

Tim,

Sorry, my brother. Your judgment of "poor journalism" comes across as nothing more than depending on Founders' "poll" to determine what people thought. Just because a story doesn't churn your butter, it doesn't default to bad journalism.

And for the record, Stetzer speaking for the other two LifeWay people are a) not them speaking it nor b) reveals any info whatsoever from the BP editors who asked the questions. They may not have been as irresponsible as you and others make them out to be.

If you have anything substantial to add, by all means do so. However, just restating your initial point about "poor" journalism does not qualify for further comment. Thanks anyways, Tim.

With that, I am...

Peter

Tim

My assertion that the article is poor journalism is based the fact that BP does not used commonly accepted practices of conduct within the journalism world. Baptist Planet, written by tow experienced journalist give the same opinion that BP showed a low level of journalism.

SWBTS, stated of the piece “We were very disappointed in the BP piece, which we believe was inaccurate in content and harsh in tone.”

Another conservative Christian newspaper, The Biblical Recorder said this of BP's journalistic practices: "Unfortunately, the recent face-off between Southeastern and Baptist Press is emblematic of a larger trend. The Driscoll story is only the latest in what is becoming a pattern of bias that is discrediting BP as a reliable source of news.
Conservative Christians who believe news organizations must be fair and balanced in their reporting, should be justifiably upset at Baptist Press’ recent brand of journalism. We can do better, and Southern Baptists should demand better from a press organization that bears the name “Baptist.”

You are correct, to rely on the Founder's poll as the standard for fair journalism would be a disservice to BP. To hear several credit worthy publications voicing concern over BP's journalism is quite a different matter.

Tim

Johnathan Merrit, writer of BR and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution adds this as well:
1. Interviewing individuals without full disclosure and applying their words to imply that they were speaking about something that they were not actually speaking about isn't just shoddy journalism. It is unethical.

2. The article only represented one fringe of opinion and failed to put out a balanced story. A press organization should do their best to remove bias from the piece. While this can never be completely done, Baptist Press' failure to even attempt to add balance is embarrassing. This is what the news industry calls "slanted."

3. The timing of the article says a lot. This New York Times piece used to anchor the story is months old. Why did they release it now? It seems to launch a thinly veiled attack on another Southern Baptist entity. Add to that a 2 year old quote from John MacArthur and you have a story so outdated that no serious news publication in America would classify it as "newsworthy."

The comments to this entry are closed.