In mid-January, I posted a provocative piece entitled, '"The Cussing Pastor" Continues Influence Among Southern Baptists' which drew many to this site defending Driscoll, including Tyler Jones, Lead Pastor, Vintage 21 Church, the host church for Plant & Thrive, an Acts29 boot camp. I have to say, some of the defense was enlightening.
Yesterday, Baptist Press raised some of the same concerns as did I, employing some of the same sources as did I. "Driscoll's vulgarity draws media attention" is definitively worth your time.
Founders Ministries advocate, Timmy Brister, has an interesting response on the BP story--vote on it!
More interesting is a response by "Between the Times," a blog sponsored by Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. It reads in part:
Just a few quick points.
First, the response noted that the earliest criticism was "limited to ill-informed bloggers." If I may, since I was the only Southern Baptist to my knowledge who blogged about this (and I am open to correction), presumably I stand at least among those whom SEBTS identifies as "ill-informed." I would be delighted if SEBTS would be so kind as to demonstrate the allegation of "ill-informed." If I happen to be on the radar screen who's presumably written something untrue or "ill-informed," then, for a Georgia peach's sake, spit it out!
Secondly, to suggest that "At first the criticism was limited to ill-informed bloggers..." (emphasis added) completely skews the issue. Again, I'm assuming I'm at least among those bloggers SEBTS alleges were "ill-informed." The fact is, I reported exclusively the criticism of others, including John MacArthur's. If John MacArthur retracted his criticism, I'd like to know where. If not, is SEBTS willing to allege Dr. MacArthur is "ill-informed" as well?
Furthermore, the one conclusion I drew was this: "For me, I do not at all think oddity is an improper description to call this curious liaison." If I gave any criticism, it was based on others' criticism. And, the strongest thing I initially mentioned about Driscoll's presence at SEBTS was it's "oddity."
Thirdly, SEBTS concluded similarly the Baptist Press article. They write:
"...yesterday Baptist Press entered the fray with an article... We were very disappointed in the BP piece, which we believe was inaccurate in content and harsh in tone" (emphasis mine).
Looking beyond the charge of inaccuracy on the one hand and a harsh tone on the other, one will look in vain for a single scrap which led SEBTS to their conclusion. The BP story had numerous quotes from several people, some working at Lifeway. Which ones are inaccurate in SEBTS's estimation, we do not know.
Nor is it evident precisely what they mean by "harsh in tone." From my three-plus years of blogging experience, receiving the "harsh in tone" charge is little more than a catch-all phrase when one writes something another dislikes.
My hope for "Between the Times" in the future is, if they're going to joust with others--especially being critical toward the official news organization for Southern Baptists--they do so apart from inaccuracy in content and harshness in tone ;^).
With that, I am...