« Blogging with Integrity: A Sincere Desire to Maintain It: by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Enid, OK Pastor Wade Burleson: Does He Stir Up Division? by Peter Lumpkins »

May 24, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451a37369e2011570a2f653970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dr. Bart Barber: Did He Bear False Witness? by Peter Lumpkins:

Comments

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

Jim Champion

Peter

I have had strenuous disagreement with Bart on the BGCT over the years. As one who is known to be active in the SBTC, and a blogger, Bart was an obvious choice, and according to his "apology" was not the only choice to be the plant to run the story.

There are a couple things interesting in this whole mess - why was the story not run in BP (no fans of the BGCT themselves) or the SBTexan the publicity arm of the SBTC. Is it because the individual who planted the story with Bart knew that the those publications would fact check the story first but were able to get Bart all hyped up to run it based on his personal relationship with that individual. We will never know as Bart will not reveal his source, which is too bad as they sold Bart's reputation down the river.

The second thing is Barts personal hatred for the BGCT which is too bad. I do not care if his church stayed with the BGCT or left for the breakaway SBTC - that is a choice for each and every SBC congregation in TX. But the fact is, the BGCT is doing Kingdom work and bringing people to the Lord every day through their ministries. My analogy to this would be to be upset that there are other evangelical (or Baptist for that matter) churches in town - and to be mad at them. We need each and every church in our towns to be running at capacity each and and every sunday, wednesday and any other day the doors are open to help reach our communities for Christ.

Except for Bart calling the BGCT liberal, I do not think he bore false witness - the SBCTODAY boys however - did and continue to bear false witness to the BGCT. When confronted with facts by the BGCT and the SBC they refused to back down. I will say again, the arrogance by that website is not exceeded anywhere in blogdom

Matt Svoboda

"the quintessential father of denominational accusations"

Well said.

I think this recent situation has shown worse on Burlesons character than Barbers. It seems that Bart couldnt of said anything that Wade would of been satisfied with. I feel like I would of done the exact same thing if I was in Barts shoes. Bart at least apologized when he gave false information and yet no Calvinist profs have been fired from SWBTS. The hypocrisy that is displayed by Burleson astounds me. At least Bart is saying, "The SBC should thank me because I sounded the alarm and then they released the money." He had as much evidence as Burleson did.

Matt Svoboda

"At least Bart is saying"

Should be **isn't. Sorry.

volfan007

Matt,

You are very correct and have great insight. I was thinking the same thing. Bart could've come back and said that his revealing this caused the monies to be released. Seems like someone used that before???


David

Byroniac

David, no Bart could not have claimed such. On Bart Barber's on blog, a commenter (Louis) said this:

"A big difference in the two stories is that one story was about a supposed future event - Dr. P has an unanounced plan to fire all the Calvinists at SWBTS.

"I noted at the time that the way the story was written about SWBTS, that it could be claimed to have been true, no matter what eventually happened."

Then later, Clark Logan, Vice President of Business and Finance for the SBC Executive Committee said:

"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."

And...

"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."

This is Apples and Oranges.

Darby Livingston

How familiar are any of you with The Peacemaker by Ken Sande? He gives some very good counsel signs of genuine repentance. I know if one of my children says, "I'm sorry I hit her, but... she took the toy I had," I don't allow that as a sincere apology. It was a slightly veiled blameshift. I'm not saying that's what Dr. Barber did, but I think that's Burleson's point. I think we all need to reread brother Peter's excellent post from yesterday.

Matt Svoboda

Byroniac,

Not apples and oranges, just green apples and red apples.

Byroniac

Matt, yes, apples and oranges. I'm not saying that Wade's blog post concerning the firing of Calvinistic professors is true. I have no way of knowing that one way or the other. I'm biased, so I must admit that I believe it was possibly true, even though that's not an entirely objective assumption.

However, that was concerning an event that was still future at that point (whether or not it was factual is another matter), and could not be verified. This is an apple.

On the other hand, this other concerns a situation with historical data that can be objectively acquired and analyzed (i.e., the actual dates and amounts of money transfers between institutions). Bart Barber could not say his report "caused" anything to happen to resolve the situation, because it concerns an event already in the past at that point with historical data that can be verified. Even if Clark Logan wasn't telling the truth or wasn't who he or she pretended to be, the event is still in the past (March 23rd) and could not be affected one way or the other by Bart Barber's report. That is an orange.

And for the record, I believe Bart Barber is a man of integrity, and whom I trust, though I do not share all of his doctrinal views.

Katie

I’ve got to agree with Matt here. In the comment stream on Praisegod Barebones, we can read this exchange between “the quintessential father of denominational accusations” and Dr. Brad Reynolds, a blogger and professor at Southeastern: (the typos are all original)

Wade Burleson to Brad Reynolds:

“If I am not mistaken, you were told by administrators at the Seminary which employed you at the time to cease your blogging becaue it reflected poorly on the SBC instution from which you drew your paycheck.”

Dr Reynolds to Wade Burleson:

“you are FLAT WRONG - I was NEVER told "to cease your blogging because it reflected poorly on the SBC instution from which you drew your paycheck." Let me state again NEVER - I am not sure where you got such baseless rumors but it is sad you repeat them.

Wade Burleson to Dr. Reynolds:

I will accept your word that you did not receive a warning to cease your blogging from an administrator at SEBTS…

P.S. Think through, very carefully, Dr. Reynolds, before you choose to respond.

Dr. Reynolds to Wade Burleson:

PS - One need not think through carefully what to say when one speaks truth

AMEN Dr Reynolds!

Did you note that Burleson avoided any statement of apology for repeating (making up???) such a rumor which was categorically denied by Reynolds?

If I ever meet Wade Burleson face to face, I’ll try to remember to say, “Wade Burleson, from Enid, Oklahoma? Aren’t you the pastor that the IRS is doing an investigation on for non-payment of taxes? No? Oh well, I guess I’ll take your word for it.”

Katie

From the Middle East

Sister Katie,

I honestly have no dog in the fight between Brother Wade and the rest of the SBC, but your post has overlooked the "..." you eluded to. Below is the full text you omitted from Brother Wade's second comment to Brother Brad:

I will, just like the man you admire (Dr. Barber), issue an apology modeled after his to the BGCT.

"Dr. Reynolds, I apologize for writing you received a warning to cease your blogging because it reflected poorly on the institution which employeed you at the time. The source which gave me the information, whom I shall not name, was either lying or mistaken. However, I reported accurately precisely what I was told by the person employeed at SEBTS in 2006."

Again, this is certainly no defense of Brother Wade (I disagree with him quite regularly but normally do not comment on SBC politics... because they depress me). Frankly, I would not even have looked the quote up to make sure it was accurate, but happened to be subscribed to that comment thread and had already read it yesterday. Having done so, I thought it might be helpful to put the rest of the quote here for the benefit of Brother Peter's readers.

This whole thing has been nasty and, to quote my mother, "I'm sick and tired of it." As a matter of fact, I'm so sick and tired of the whole thing that I think I'll take a line from Forrest Gump and say that, "That's all I've got to say about that."

Peace to you my sister,
From the Middle East

Katie

Brother FTME,

Thanks for the correction. It is true that Mr. Burleson offered a form of an apology to Dr. Reynolds. However, the apology offered was, as Wade admits, simply a parody of Dr. Barber’s post, so I don’t think that we could call it sincere.

You are right; to be fair to the readers here, I shouldn’t have omitted that part of the quote. Thanks for the help. However, does that “apology” change your impression of Pastor Burleson at all? It doesn’t for me.

Katie

From the Middle East

Sister Katie,

It does not.

Peace to you sister,
From the Middle East

Debbie Kaufman

Before you get too comfortable in your argument, I believe Wade had the correct facts, that the situation was thwarted because of the posting. A lot of things that Wade has posted has been the reason changes are being made. To deny that is to not see the picture clearly or to be honest about the situation.

Bart's post is much more serious than posting that there is going to be a dismissal of Calvinists(which I believe the facts show there was)

Bart should plainly apologize with no buts. He is getting more defensive than apologetic. SBCToday left Bart hanging out to dry in my opinion, and they are just as much if not more culpable for letting their post stay up when they could have and should have taken it down. Notice they are strangely silent now.

Before you go pointing fingers here at Wade, let's stick to what the problem is and the problem is not Wade. Stick to what the problem is which is Bart and SBCToday still being mean and wanting to hurt an enmity that they could not hurt this time.

Byroniac

Debbie,

I think Bart Barber explained the SBC Today situation (to my satisfaction personally at least). They supported a friend due to his integrity, until he could "return to the game" so to speak. I think SBC Today is being blamed for what was mostly out of their control: Bart Barber's absence, and the fact he authored and published the piece and assumed responsibility for it. Had it not been for his absence due to a scheduling conflict, I do not believe we would be having this discussion now about SBC Today.

Also, I very seldom disagree with Wade Burleson, and his latest post is one of these times, I guess, in some of the particulars at least (I need to review this post). I for one appreciate Bart Barber's honesty concerning his feelings towards the BGCT. Sometimes I wonder if we are taught to be more polite than honest in our conversations (leading to passive aggressive tendencies?). I do not share Bart Barber's feelings about the BGCT, as I happen to know one elderly gentleman and his family who are staunchly pro-BGCT and I would sooner believe that pigs could fly than believe some of the accusations against the BGCT could apply to them. There are hard feelings on both sides of the conventional divide in Texas, and I have to admit I'm not impartial either. Even though there are great people in the SBTC (I know a few, and there are probably many more I do not know), I would prefer that the BGCT was the only convention in Texas. There, I said it. What could be wrong with my statement, and by extension Bart Barber's, is not our honesty concerning our feelings, but perhaps the misunderstandings that drive them, if any, so dialog is probably the key. I do not believe that our feelings can entirely be helped, because they are formed as the result of what we learn and experience as measured against our personal values, however accurately or inaccurately that happens.

I think Katie and possibly Matt both missed my point. This is not even close to being the same situation as the dismissal of Calvinists issue. One concerned an event that was still future at that time, while the other (this one) concerns an event already past at the time of writing. You cannot equate the two as being the same type of situation, whatever your opinions are of the personalities involved.

I agree with Debbie Kaufman, "let's stick to what the problem [actually] is and the problem is not Wade."

Byroniac

I forgot to add that honesty in communication is a sign of respect. The statement itself can be taken to task, but the respect of honesty should be reciprocated. My opinion (if not agreement) of Bart Barber has increased, whom I already respected.

Debbie Kaufman

Byron: That is not to my satisfaction. It was wrong, no matter the reason.

Byroniac

Debbie Kaufman, I have no idea where all the blame falls in all of this. I can appreciate Bart Barber's distinction between "being sorry" and "apologizing" in placement of regret and blame. Like Wade, I would really like to know who Bart Barber's source(s) were, and what exact agenda drove them. I think until the source(s) are known and could be interacted with (apparently impossible until Judgment Day due to Bart Barber's unwillingness to reveal him, her, or them), satisfaction in this matter will come to nobody. I personally am thankful the story has been discredited, though, and I wish all the CP money could stay in Texas, where I think it belongs. But that is neither here nor there I suppose.

Byroniac

OK, I am not sure if all the CP money should stay in Texas, as I do not want to withdraw support from existing missionaries on the field. My thought was too hastily expressed, out of my partiality for Texas.

peter

All,

There has been some fairly significant conversation here. A couple of things: to suggest Barber's apology inadequate because he did not meet personal linguistic goals one might impose is not only strangely condemnatory, it is flat snobbery at work. Furthermore it reveals a crude belligerance which predictably could not accept an apology no matter what wording used.

Second, the fallacious insistence that somehow Burleson's glaring 'whistle-blowing' post somehow held off a massive firing of Calvinists at SWBTS is so unbelivably shallow, that I'm betting an average kindergarten class--No Wait! I take that back...A BELOW-average kindergarten class--given the facts, could expose the tortured logic which suggests it. Indeed it is not unlike the statement "There's gold in Alaska." How, please tell, is one going to disprove such a statement?

I suggest we stick with reasonable pursuits which are worth our time to examine.

With that, I am...
Peter

Debbie Kaufman

Peter: That is a lot of double talk baloney. An apology need say two words, I am sorry. End of story. Literally. As for the rest of your post, I consider the source and choose to pretend that you didn't even write them, they are wrong and you know it. But that is your crudeness and to be right at all costs. I consider that as who you are by now.

Debbie Kaufman

And if you dare to delete or edit my comment at all as you have done in the past, I have copied it. I would suggest leaving it as it is and where it is. And yes I just personally attacked you in case you had any doubt.

Tim Rogers

Brother Peter,

Thank you for trying to present some semblance of civility in working through this mire. Instead of making nebulous statements you point straight to where the issues are located.

Also, if Brother Bart wanted to, he would be verified as the one that made the EC check on their figures that they sent to the IMB. So, in reality, he could say that if he had not posted this information the $3.3 mil would still be over at the EC in escrow.

Blessings,
Tim

Jeff

Tim, So much for your apology.

Tim Rogers

Brother Jeff,

What do you mean. I said "if Bart wanted" No one has pointed to this as the reason.

So allow me to thank you for keeping me humble with your snide remark.

Blessings,
Tim

Byroniac

Tim Rogers:

"So, in reality, he could say that if he had not posted this information the $3.3 mil would still be over at the EC in escrow."

How? Am I missing something here? They either did, or did not, transmit the money on the date of March 23rd. Are you saying that the Clark Logan who responded isn't who he said he was, and/or that what he said happened didn't happen? All that has to be shown is evidence that such a transaction took place and the claim itself becomes bogus, quite unlike the other situation with SWBTS, no matter how you happen to look at it (the former can be proven, the latter cannot be).

Jeff

Your welcome, and thanks for insisting that false article stay online longer then needed.

BTW, Your assuming the money was in escrow. The whole point it wasn't.

peter

Ms. Kaufman,

I have no interest in conversing with you. Nor does anyone else here who, similar to myself, prefer to engage ideas rather than mindlessly pursue, for the large part, ungodly ad hominem non-niceties. Know this is your explicit confession, not my biased judgment: "And yes I just personally attacked you..."

In addition, the one attempt you made to apparently engage one of the ideas I posted was to simply dismiss it as "double talk baloney," another spiffy little trick to avoid serious talk-back.

Like I said, no interest exists on my end. Tit/tat pecking away at a keyboard stands, for me, fully indicative of a boring life. I could not keep the pace going, I'm afraid.

Now for the warning: you may, in the future, comment here all you wish if and only if you engage ideas. Log on again with personal attacks and I will do as I have in the past: take your comment off the public air-waves.

And, for the record, to my recall I've never deleted your or anyone elses comments. Rather I "unpublished" them, a very different procedure. Indeed, in today's cyber-climate, a blogger is a bit 'titched in da haaed' to delete anything.

You'll be glad to know I still have all of the rabid literary meltdowns you've placed here. They're just invisible to you. Who knows, I may publish them in a book one of these days ;^).

As for your charge I "edit[ed your] comment...in the past," I say this bluntly: don't ever, ever say such a thing here again unless you've got the goods to back it up. To my recall, I've never, ever, "edited" your comments that I now of and unless you've got the quote, sister, keep your baseless accusations to blogs that will let you post them. Period, Debbie. Period.

With that, I am...
Peter

Jeff

I never delete but unpublished lets engage that issue. Can you tell me what the meaning of is is?

Jeff

baseless accusations...such as SBC Today, and Praise God Barebones...

Wade Burleson

Peter wrote:

And, for the record, to my recall I've never deleted your or anyone elses comments. Rather I "unpublished" them.

I do believe, Peter, that you must have graduated with honors from the Bill Clinton School of Grammar and Sementics.

Laughing out loud at your comment,

Wade

peter

Dear Wade,

I'm confident the distinction you miss between "deleted" and "unpublished" surprises few who have read very long the documents you publish, Wade.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

Dear Jeff,

Note the above comment to Wade.

Also, I'll give you a shiny new nickel for every linguistic definition which equates "unpublished" with "deleted." The origin of the former has to do with being "not for the people" or "public" and the origin of the latter from a word meaning "to destroy."

I'm not sure how other blog dashboards operate, but typepad (my blog support) has the following options on my site for published comments:

--unpublish
--delete
--report spam
--edit

Now, unless I am mistaken--and I fully solicit your intelligent input here, Jeff--the above four options allows one to do precisely as I described it to Ms. Kaufman and precisely but strangely gave our Enid pastor such a wild neigh...not to mention my being accused of blatant Clintonese huckstering.

Again, her comments were unpublished (i.e. no longer "for the people). That is not to say, however, the comments were deleted (i.e., "destroyed").

By the way, I've stated this on more than one occasion on other threads, so it's not something I recently I started suggesting.

Any thing else?

With that, I am...
Peter

Jeff

I wow by your brilliance as a teacher. Now I know why you left the pastoral ministry to be a teacher thru writing.

BTW, You might have upset the guys at SBC Today and Praise God Bare Bones by referring to them in your post to Debbie.

Here's the quote, "keep your baseless accusations to blogs that will let you post them. Period, Debbie. Period.


You still have told me what the meaning of is is....o well with that

You are...or is that I am....


Jeff

Dr Lumpkins,

Can you clarify this quote I found on your blog?

"Dr. Barber, a well-known—and I add with utmost confidence—well-respected Baptist blogger wrote a post reporting that sources within the International Mission Board (IMB) of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) cited specifically the Baptist General Convention of Texas (BGCT) as escrowing missions monies given specifically for IMB purposes as a measure to “safeguard BGCT cash flow” (/link).


You quoted that Dr. Barber was told specifically the BGCT was escrowing money, but I read else where that no state convention was mentioned by name.

Can you help me rabbi Lumpkins?

Wade Burleson

Jeff and Peter,

Bart Barber wrote in his apology (and I quote):

The BGCT was not identified by name in (the IMB) presentation as being one of the three conventions (eschrowing funds).

Later, Bart Barber specifically wrote in a non-unplublished and non-deleted comment on his blog that (and I quote):

Nobody else was involved in my decision to specify that BGCT was involved (but me).

In Peter's post he writes:

"Dr. Barber, a well-known—and I add with utmost confidence—well-respected Baptist blogger wrote a post reporting that sources within the International Mission Board (IMB) of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) cited specifically the Baptist General Convention of Texas (BGCT) as escrowing missions monies given specifically for IMB purposes as a measure to “safeguard BGCT cash flow”

Peter, I too am interested in you explaining what you have written. Could you please help us understand how you write that IMB officials NAMED the BGCT when Bart Barber himself says they did not?

I'm sure you have an explanation, right?

Wade

peter

Wade,

First, why you couple Jeff with me as if what he has written and I have written are somehow interdependent remains inexplicable.

Second, even further inexplicable is why you think I have to explain anything. I composed the part of the post you quote directly from the first paragraph of Barber's post. How my quote begs for explanation in light of something in the comment thread I did not write is utterly baffling.

Please come back when you have something relevant to contribute about what I write.

With that, I am...
Peter

Wade Burleson

Peter,

You wrote in the first paragraph of your post entitled Blogging with Integrity: A Sincere Desire to Maintain It the following:

"Dr. Barber, a well-known—and I add with utmost confidence—well-respected Baptist blogger wrote a post reporting that sources within the International Mission Board (IMB) of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) cited specifically the Baptist General Convention of Texas (BGCT) as escrowing missions monies given specifically for IMB purposes as a measure to “safeguard BGCT cash flow."

Yet, Dr. Barber specifically DENIES this happened when Dr. Barber wrote in his apology:

The BGCT was not identified by name in (the IMB) presentation as being one of the three conventions (eschrowing funds),

And then added in the comment section:

Nobody else was involved in my decision to specify that BGCT was involved (but me).

Peter, no amount of word twisting, semantics or other gamesmanship can extricate yourself out of this very real example of you writing a falsehood. It is best, when confronted with an error, to simply apologize and say:

I am sorry. I wrote something that is not true. I had no first hand knowledge of that the IMB identiified the BGCT, and I just assumed the IMB identified the BGCT because of what Bart wrote. However, when Bart offered his apology, he specifically stated the IMB DID NOT identify the BGCT as one of the state conventions eschrowing funds. Therefore, when I sought to defend Bart, I wrote a lie myself. I apologize for this error and will seek to write more truthfully in the future."

That, Peter, is blogging with integrity.

In His Grace,

Wade

P.S. So hello to Katie for me, will you. Smile.

Wade Burleson

Peter,

Before I retire for the evening, I reread your comment to me and it seems that you are missing the point Jeff and I are making. Allow me to simplify the issue for you.

Bart Barber has NEVER said the IMB specifically identified the BGCT as a convention that eschrowed Lottie Moon funds. Again - Bart Barber has never accused an IMB administrator of specifically identifying the BGCT as an offending convention. Bart didn't do it in the original post that caused all the heartache, nor did he do it in his apology, nor did he do it in any of his comments. Bart Barber has NEVER said the IMB specifically identified the BGCT as a convention that eschrows funds. HE CONFESSES TO DRAWING THAT CONCLUSION BASED UPON A REPORT BY THE IMB THAT THREE CONVENTIONS WERE ESCHROWING FUNDS - three UNNAMED CONVENTIONS. BART SIMPLY ASSUMED ONE OF THOSE CONVENTIONS WAS THE BGCT BECAUSE HE HAS A BIAS AGAINST THE BGCT. That is why he apologized.

But you, sir, have published a falsehood. You have specifically and inaccurately written on your blog that that Bart Barber claims the IMB directly and specifically identified the BGCT as a Convention eschrowing funds.

That never happened.

Is that clear?


In His Grace,

Wade

peter

Wade,

If you are going to accuse one of publishing a falsehood, I suggest you actually get some evidence.

I wrote,

"Dr. Barber...wrote a post reporting that sources within the International Mission Board...cited specifically the Baptist General Convention of Texas (BGCT) as escrowing missions monies given specifically for IMB purposes as a measure to “safeguard BGCT cash flow."

My statement was based upon Barber's very first line:

"Sources within the International Mission Board report that the Baptist General Convention of Texas is escrowing Lottie Moon Christmas Offering funds to safeguard BGCT cash flow."

To suggest somehow a devious part on my end, Wade, is not only absurd, it's a bit cooky.

Now as for whether Barber later contradicted himself, I suggest you take such up with him. He's perfectly skilled in taking care of his own defense. I might add, however, just because you "think" you've "caught" him in a dilemma, I personally am not concerned.

Unfortunately the conclusions you draw are much too often premature without a really serious analysis. I know this through experience by hundreds of exchanges with you. Just take, for example, the horrible failure of logic 101 you attempted to exploit in the comment above, miserably failing to make a blaring distinction between something not public but something not destroyed either. I know such sounds harsh, Wade. Sorry, but it's just fact.

In addition, I go on to say in the post you quote, Wade, these words:

"On the other hand, if...the factual basis of his reported story turns out to be false, then moral culpability may be at stake if denial of culpability is maintained...[arguing] the story reported stands true to received information and consequently shields one from any part in perpetuating false information.

...if no factual basis exists for the truthfulness of the report received, then, BGCT deserves a sincere apology. From whom better to publicize regret than the ones who publicized the report?

Why would you not take the final two paragraphs into consideration with the former quote unless desperate to attempt to "catch" me in a dilemma? Once again, I'm forced to maintain: conclusions you draw are much too often premature without a really serious analysis.

With that, I am...
Peter

Katie

Mr. Burleson,

Before you get all excited at catching Peter in “writing a falsehood,” you need to consider that all this played out over a number of days. The Wednesday, May 20 edition of Praisegod Barebones, Dr. Bart Barber’s blog, opens with the following statement:

“Sources within the International Mission Board report that the Baptist General Convention of Texas is escrowing Lottie Moon Christmas Offering funds to safeguard BGCT cash flow.”

So, when you say to Peter, “Bart Barber has NEVER said the IMB specifically identified the BGCT as a convention that eschrowed Lottie Moon funds” that’s not correct. The above quote, which we now know to be incorrect, quite clearly says that the IMB source identifies the BGCT as withholding funds. That was Barber’s very first statement about the whole issue.

On May 23rd (before Barber’s explanation and apology) Peter simply repeats what Barber posted:

“Dr. Barber, a well-known—and I add with utmost confidence—well-respected Baptist blogger wrote a post reporting that sources within the International Mission Board (IMB) of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) cited specifically the Baptist General Convention of Texas (BGCT) as escrowing missions monies given specifically for IMB purposes as a measure to “safeguard BGCT cash flow”

For a man of your intelligence, it’s hard to see why you fail to understand this and why you choose to pursue Peter on this issue. Maybe you are just trying to live up to that colorful descriptor Peter used earlier, “the quintessential father of denominational accusations.”

Katie

peter

Katie

Trust all is well. Thank you for following up. I frankly at first could not believe I was reading Wade properly and actually read his words over several times to make sure I was not missing anything that would serve as the missing piece to make his point coherent. I wanted to offer him the benefit of doubt. I finally concluded, similar to you, his point incoherent for reasons still mysterious to me.

In addition, I think you produced a colorful phrase of you own making--"get all excited." I'm under the impression a "get all excited" state of mind must account for some of Burleson's literary blunders. In the heat of the moment, he must listen far too often to his highly fluctuating emotions rather than waiting for them to level off. Typing away on a keyboard at a time like that inevitably leads to incoherent conclusions like this.

Know that's just a theory in attempting to understand why, as you indicate, "a man of his intelligence," so often draws incoherent conclusions.

Grace, Katie. With that, I am...
Peter

Katie

Hi Peter,

I added my comment before seeing that you had already responded on the subject. Maybe I missed Burleson’s point (despite the fact that he has tried to explain it twice now), but it does seem that he’s really stretching to accuse you of “publishing a falsehood.” Bart revealed in his explanation that the IMB did not actually name the BGCT; but based on his first writings on the subject, which you were merely echoing, that was the understanding he intentionally gave his readers. Since then Dr. Barber has shed more light on the matter and has apologized. I applaud him for his humility, transparency and sharing personal opinions that continue to make him subject to further criticism by some.

Katie

peter

Katie,

Thanks. As far as I am concerned, Burlesonian blogging tactics are no longer welcome at SBC Tomorrow. I hope others will follow suit. In fact a post is up now. Wade Burleson needs to put the brakes on prematurely accusing others.

Grace, Katie.

With that, I am...
Peter

Matt Svoboda

Peter,

I appreciate your blog. I also appreciate that you defend yourself and others from the Burlesonites and Wade himself from attacking everything SBC. I cannot figure out what drives them. By reading Wade's blog and some what comical book I would have to guess that what now drives him is trying to correct how he feels he was wronged. Anytime something happens in the SBC that he doesnt like or agree with he blames 'an abuse of the leadership.' At first I thought he might have legitimate points, but that was about 1 million blog posts ago.

All in all, thanks for your blog and your heart for the SBC. There is a reason why the Burlesonites are small in number and that men like you and I continue to use our blogs for the good of the Kingdom.

peter

Matt

I appreciate the warm words, my brother. And, I agree: there is much immensely good about the SBC without mindlessly implying by such a positive assertion there are not also things the SBC could be and do immensely better!

How it is that a sub-community within the SBC who feels as does Wade cannot make those elementary distinctions I'm endlessly lost in oblivion to understand.

Thanks again, Matt. Know though I rarely have commented at EV, you guys are in my reader and I highly respect the voice you've become among us.

With that, I am...
Peter

Debbie Kaufman

Matt: I do not recall, but you weren't blogging three years or four years ago were you? Those that begin blogging later have no idea of the full picture. There is more to this than most know.

volfan007

Debbie,

Matt has a great understanding on what's going on. I think he sees the whole picture.

David

Debbie Kaufman

David: Are you understanding by now that your view is not the mainstream? Does the latest movement and document that has been signed and will be presented at the Convention, and being pushed by Johnny Hunt not tell you that the BI movement is the minority by a longshot? If not, then not even you have a clue of what is really going on.

volfan007

I'm all for a Great Commission Resurgence...and I may be for this thing that Hunt and Akin are promoting...as soon as I know what it is.

Also, I dont care if it's just me and God that are for sound doctrine and good, clear Bible truth. That's enough for me. But, I am thankful that there are many out here who believe sound doctrine and see how important it is.

David

Debbie Kaufman

Many believe sound doctrine David. I believe in sound doctrine.

Luke

Peter,
For the record, I do not understand Wade's assertion that you are misquoting Bart. It is lost on me how your quote from Bart's blog is a fabrication. And I have followed the dust-up over at the other site as well.

I think both Wade and Jeff misunderstand your quote. Not because what you wrote is unclear, rather, it appears that they are/were trying to find any loose thread in an attempt to unravel you. An unsuccessful attempt in my eyes anyway.

Luke

Bart Barber

My apologies for failing to notice this conversation earlier. Allow me to offer what might be some clarifying thoughts.

1. I had a conversation with IMB sources indicating that three unidentified state conventions were escrowing LMCO funds. I was given the opportunity to blog on this subject.

2. I had a subsequent conversation in which I learned that the BGCT was among the three state conventions.

3. I had a subsequent conversation in which I learned that the data in #1 had been presented at the trustee meeting.

4. I chose to author the post and I chose to mention the BGCT explicitly.

So, all of my statements offered above are true, to the best of my knowledge. The IMB presentation did not mention the BGCT. The conversation soliciting me to blog on this subject did not mention the BGCT. A separate conversation did provide me with the information that the BGCT was among the state conventions, but did not request that I include that information in my blog post.

peter

Luke,

Thank you my brother. I sympathize with you. Wade failed to make his point believable and offered the excuse I blocked his IP because I was intimidated with his questions.

Grace, my brother. With that, I am...
Peter

chadwick

Dr. Lumpkins,

Could you please answer the following questions:

1) How are the students of your blog affected by 'unpublished' comments?

2) How would the students of your blog be affected by 'deleted' comments, if you chose to use that option?

3) Is the outcome of both TypePad 'options' the same? or is it different?

Your answers to these questions will be of great learning value to the students of your blog.

Cordially,
chadwick

peter

Chadwick,

Thank you, my brother. I most certainly can:

1) How are the students of your blog affected by 'unpublished' comments?
If the comments are 'spewy' and/or continued personal attacks, taking them down is intended to calm things down, remind the ones posting them they are guests and are not at liberty to post as they please, and frees the thread, hopefully creating a better atmosphere...

2) How would the students of your blog be affected by 'deleted' comments, if you chose to use that option? Though rare, I have been persuaded to put a comment back up (via email). Deletion makes this impossible. Also, both ones whose comment was taken down as well as others have disputed the contents of what was put up. Deletion makes it an 'he said-she said' scenario because the comments are destroyed. In addition, many times commenters deny they wrote so-and-so. I have the goods and will keep them.

As I said in the thread to DK, a blogger is a little touched in the head if he or she deletes anything nowadays. Far too many unfounded accusations are appearing, and that even on public documents!


3) Is the outcome of both TypePad 'options' the same? or is it different?
No, the outcome is different. Comments deleted are gone and irretrievable (So far as I know. High-tech guys may could get them back; impossible for my level of skill). Unpublished comments remain in the thread. Nevertheless, they are invisible, as it were, to the public. If I choose to "re" publish a comment I "unpublished" it appears in the exact spot it was first logged, with the original timestamp in place (Unless something goofy goes on with it. Typepad has a history with bugs in the comment thread. You'll notice, if you post a lot of comments here, at times your comment won't appear immediately. They have yet to fix that after many many months).

Thus, "unpublish" in distinction to "delete" really does have some key features. Our Wade was still laughing about my explanation on BaptistLife, and his commenters hee-hawed about it on his thread. Interesting...

With that, I am...
Peter

Kevin

Debbie that is funny I believe in sound doctrine when you are promoting we are jion around the campfire and sing lumbyah my Lord Kumbyah with anyone who claims to be a Christian even if their doctrine is not sound and their fruit does not show them to be sound. The BGCT and CBF join hand with groups that deny the deity of Christ say the miracles never happened

Debbie Kaufman

Kevin: Do I know you? I don't believe I've had the pleasure, so I can't answer you accurately, but it could be your view of what sound doctrine is and my view of what sound doctrine is differ.

Looking at the comment section it would appear that Peter does the very thing I said he does. Call it delete. Call it unpublish. Peter, if there cannot be honest discussion, and that includes the parts you don't like or don't want to hear, then nothing is going to be resolved, but maybe that is just the way you want it. So be it. You and a couple of others who come to mind. It's your view or nothing? I'm afraid that that attitude is going to be a thing of the past in the SBC at least I hope so.

Katie

Debbie,

You say that nothing is going to be resolved if “there cannot be honest discussion, and that includes the parts you don't like or don't want to hear.”

In my view, nothing is going to be resolved if we can’t discuss the issues with respect for one another and respect for others’ views, even if we disagree. Being able to disagree in a civil manner is important.

In this very comment stream, here are some statements you have made:

Peter: That is a lot of double talk baloney…
But that is your crudeness and to be right at all costs…
And yes I just personally attacked you in case you had any doubt…
…not even you have a clue of what is really going on.

I think that Peter has shown quite a bit of leniency toward you in what many would consider unconstructive and unhelpful comments. If you really want to discuss issues with the hope of achieving greater understanding and greater commitment to working together as brothers and sisters in Christ, showing consideration and respect in your comments here would a big step toward that.

I don’t comment very often and I don’t have a blog of my own. I like to read various blogs to see what others think and follow discussions about issues in the SBC. And, sadly, as little as I comment, I don’t think that I always succeed at being Christlike toward those with whom I disagree. But it is a goal worth aiming for.

Katie

peter

Debbie,

Continuing to marginalize the possible positive influence one may have is a game I would reconsider playing, were I you. But, I am not you.

Have a great day. With that, I am...
Peter

The comments to this entry are closed.