« The Five Points of Calvinism: Two Resources to Consider | Main | Dr. Bart Barber: Did He Bear False Witness? by Peter Lumpkins »

2009.05.23

Comments

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

Byroniac

Peter, I have no knowledge of the incident one way or the other, except for what I read that is. But I agree with your reasoning here. I believe Bart Barber has been hindered from responding due to a scheduling conflict so to speak.

At May 20 4:16 PM on his blog, he wrote, "Enjoy the conversation, friends. I'm off to revival services and then will be unreachable until late in the weekend."

Then at May 21 9:17 AM he wrote, "In about 5 minutes I will be off the grid and in the Ozarks. Even now, the phone is all I have. I will lose even that upon departing this location. If IMB retracts or corrects, I will report it upon my return. And if BGCT is 'parsing' I will report that, too."

At this writing, I believe this is the last comment he has made personally relevant to his reasons for absence.

peter lumpkins

Byron,

Thanks for the timeline info. Everything one may observe from Bart Barber is, he is a godly man with a profound sense for integrity and truth. Neither makes for perfection. But it should put to rest any doubts from others he will not handle this matter, when able, in exemplar fashion.

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

volfan007

Peter,

Thanks for this sane post amidst all the insanity that commenters are stirring up at Bart's place. And, stirring it all up when Bart is not even around to answer thier hateful attacks and charges. It's been an incredible sight to behold.

David

From the Middle East

Brother Peter,

Thank you for this balanced post. I too am confident that Brother Bart will deal with the issue appropriately when he is available. The whole thing is out of control.

I do have some concerns about the second post that someone else at SBC Today put up on May 22. It sounds to me like a bias is present when I hear language like the following:

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

and
The details of this transaction remain sketchy, at best.

And then summarizing with this:
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.

Maybe a quote or two from the BGCT President and the Executive Committee of the SBC could have been provided, or at least mentioned in their incomplete summary.

At any rate, my take is that Brother Bart will make this thing right - in spite of the mishandling of the whole thing by those present at SBC Today. Further, the folks Brother David (007) is referring to above need to repent.

Thank you (along with Brothers Alan Cross and Dave Miller in the comment string on Brother Bart's site) for offering some sanity in this whole thing.

Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East

Jim Champion

Peter

The BGCT has had a big target on its back since the inception of the CR - they have strongly resisted many tenets of the CR and have stood firm. In the middle years they began to make decisions that many Texas Baptists disagreed with (reducing funding for the seminaries and decreasing the CP money that would be forwarded on to Nashville the two biggest) To the credit of the BGCT they allowed churches to designate the split as each church saw fit, our own kept the 67/33 split that had been the historic BGCT/Nashville split. A couple years ago we had the very unfortunate "valleygate" incident that revolved around a supposed church planter that cost the BGCT a couple million, and the much worse coverup that happened after that.

In the last couple of years the BGCT has begun to become much more SBC friendly, a move that I applaud. We elected a president who is younger and is leading the BGCT in a much more friendly manner and a new Executive Director, Randel Everett who is committed to the long term viability of the BGCT, and a thawing of relations with the SBC. Paige Patterson had Dr Everett speak in chapel, and while not his usual love fest with his guest speakers, was a significant step on both parts.

I like the BGCT, I support the ministries that the BGCT helps to fund, from the Buckner Benevolence, to the Tx Baptist Men, to the colleges/universities/seminaries. The BGCT has even begun to win back some of the churches that aligned with the SBTC.

If what Bart had asserted were true the effect would have been a mass exodus from the BGCT. A fact that I think Bart is well aware of.

One of my concerns in this whole matter is the arrogance of the SBC today boys. In the face of denials from the BGCT and the SBC they continue to slander the BGCT. When given the evidence and the opportunity to correct the error they just keep piling on.

They lost much credibility during the whole comment date stamp fiasco that they brought on themselves - entirely of their own making by the way, and now this. In addition, they have the arrogance to make these charges and then not own up to them by allowing comments.

Guess this is the BI way..

Jim

kehrsam

Did Dr Barber, then, have no duty at all to either God or the BGCT to ensure that what he printed was accuracte? He took a slander and turned it into a libel. And you write of other people who are flies stirring up stink?

The best that can be said for Dr. Barber's action is that he published with reckless disregard for the truth. Passing blame to the sources only becomes meaningful if Dr. Barber had no obligation to properly source his reporting. And he did.

I appreciate your defense of the man; I like him, too, and make a point to read his posts. I, too, believe that Dr. Barber is a man of integrity. But men of integrity can make errors of judgment. And Bart did.

Kurt A. Ehrsam,
Asheville, NC

Darby Livingston

Well written post, Peter. I think you're right on in your call for integrity from everyone who blogs, because I think we've all posted things (and commented) half-cocked before. At least I know I have. Thanks.

Bart Barber

Peter,

A well-written and carefully constructed post. I am thankful for your affirmations of what you have seen in my character, and I am even more thankful to know that, when I may err, I can count on you to bring to me the faithful wounds of a friend.

peter

David, FTME, et al

Thanks for the input in and affirmation of Dr. Barber. Our Lord be pleased.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter

Kurt,

Thank you, my brother. I think this may be your first comment @ SBC Tomorrow. I appreciate the input. A few responses, if I may.

First, you ask if Dr Barber had a duty to either God or the BGCT to ensure what he printed was accurate? I am unsure how what I wrote implied otherwise. What makes you think I would? Even more, the question assumes Dr. Barber took no measures to verify the information before he printed it.

This is not only uncharacteristic of his heretofore careful practice of precise sourcing (he is a trained historian after all), it unfairly casts a shadow onto him a priori. Please tell us why you would assume such.

Second, to assert Barber "took a slander and turned it into a libel" is based exactly upon what evidence you have, Kurt? Again you appear to unfairly--without evidence--assume the worst concerning Barber. Please explain.

And, yes: I concede guilt. I wrote of 'flies' who stir stink. My assumption was (and is), 'flies' in the blog world exist. My question is, how does what I've written here qualify this post as stink? (assuming that's what you were implying, though I am open to correction, I assure).

You conclude the best way to describe Barber's action is "reckless disregard for the truth." But, Kurt, as I've shown, your premises are grossly incorrect. Therefore, your conclusion is no better than a magician's rabbit pulled out of a hat. Therefore, I have no alternative but to caution you to stop making baseless accusations against Bart Barber.

Finally, you write: "I appreciate your defense of the man; I like him, too, and make a point to read his posts." From my vantage point, you seem to strangely reduce what I've written here to,"I like Bart. Bart writes well. Therefore, Bart is innocent." Care to explain how this squares with any particular passage here?

As for the belief that "Dr. Barber is a man of integrity" and "men of integrity can make errors" you have my 100% support. Nor do I believe I wrote anything here to imply otherwise.

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

The comments to this entry are closed.