« Are Evangelicals Losing Influence in the Public Square? A Series on Baptist Press by Will Hall | Main | Lost in the Fifties: by Jerry Vines »

2009.06.16

Comments

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

Alan Cross

Thanks, Peter. That was interesting. That was my first convention and likely my next to last (went to San Antonio in 2007).

If you were revamping the list, you'd have to take off all of the bloggers. Their words have gone mainstream and have been diffused throughout the convention. You'd have to add Danny Akin, Johnny Hunt, Ed Stetzer, and maybe J.D. Greear and Matt Chandler. Tom Ascol would still be on there. You might want to add Malcolm Yarnell and Herschel York. Nathan Finn and Alvin Reid might be possibilities.

Basically, I see the locus of influence in the SBC moving to Southeastern Seminary and away from SWBTS, Southern, and the megachurches. I've never even set foot on the campus there, but that is what I see.

William Thornton

The Witness clearly allotted more influence to the bloggers than was warranted. Burleson is the only one among the four bloggers in the list who has genuine influence in the SBC.

Danny Akin would certainly be on any list today.

cb scott

The influence of Wade Burleson in the SBC is more an illusion than genuine.

cb

Tom Parker

"The influence of Wade Burleson in the SBC is more an illusion than genuine.

cb"

Not a nice comment, but made you feel better didn't it.

cb scott

Tom Parker,

Yesterday in a comment thread of a post by Debbie Kaufman you told a lie. It seems the lie was with willful intent rather than a mistake.

I rebuked you twice and gave you opportunity to clear the matter up. You did not. You determined to ignore your wrongful act.

Now, Tom, saying that to you is just truthful. It has nothing really to do with feelings. It is the same with what I said about Wade's influence being an illusion. It has nothing to do with feelings. It is just a fact.

Today I read some things you said in the comment thread of Wade's most recent post. Those things were both sinfully judgmental and hypocritical on your part toward a brother who is trying to gain back his integrity and ministry after admitting a lie he had told.

Your hypocrisy is in the fact that you sinfully judge that brother as being unworthy of ministry and yet you, with willful intent, tell a public lie seeking to dishonor yet another brother.

You seem to be a bitter-hearted gadfly spawning venomous larvae everywhere you go. Why? Have you really been anger about the CR for such a long time? That is sad if that is the case.

Again I rebuke you Tom for your lie. I trust you will reconsider your situation and be of a higher character today than you were yesterday.

cb

Greg Easton

Gee whiz, CB. You come across as an angry bully. I feel sorry for your church and your family.

Todd Burus

Interesting post, Peter. You know, I think another interesting list would be Southern Baptists who have more notable influence outside of SBC life than within it. I'm thinking guys like Bruce Ware, Tom Schreiner, maybe Mark Dever, possibly Stetzer (depending on the day). Alan mentioned the "locus" shifting towards Southeastern in the list you ask about, an observation I mostly agree with, but I think if you looked at the locus in the list I propose it would fall smack-dab in the middle of that big beautiful courtyard in Louisville. Maybe a sign of things to come in the convention?

Tom Parker

Greg Easton:

Yes he does comes across as angry and yes I do believe he comes across as a bully.

I too have concerns for his church and his family.

Calvinator

Greg & Tom,

You don't know who you are talking to. CB can certainly be force to be reckoned with on the blogs. Unpleasant at times? perhaps. But you need to lay off what you assume about his family. Those who know him know better than you. Don't tread there.

cb scott

Peter,

I am going to ask for a grace from you which by no means do you owe me. I am going to ask you to allow me to paste two comments relating to the little set-to between Tom Parker and myself.

If you would rather deny me, please know I will still be more than glad to buy you a cup of coffee in Louisville and will feel no foul has been committed. Just simply delete this comment and we will have no problem between us.

Here are the two comments between Tom Parker and myself from yesterday over at Debbie's place. Anyone familiar with my Obama posts will remember what I said. Frankly, anyone who remembers the presidential race will remember President Obama's words relating to FOCA and his promise to Planned Parenthood to sign it into law.

Tom Parker twisted my words to his desire and I called his hand on it. Otherwise I would have not called him a liar.

Here a re the comments in question:

"Posted by Tom Parker on June 15, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Alan:
If you do not already know-he does not answer questions and really loves to attack quite regularly those that hold a different view from him. I’ve seen in his blogging him subtly or not so subtly threathen people–their jobs, etc. Debbie is very gracious to put up with some of the comments he makes regularly to her. I for one will not engage him in conversation.
I’m still waiting for him to admit he was wrong about President Obama and FOCA. President Obama according to him would immediately pass this after he came into office, but it is 6-15-09 and nothing has happened yet. Maybe that is why I can not find his Blog comments at his blog about it. But maybe they are there and I just can not find them.
We wil wait for his answer both to Debbie and you and also wonder why no follow up on FOCA by him."

Here is my reply:

"Posted by cb scott on June 15, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Tom,
I have to rebuke you for lying. I have never threatened anyone’s person or their job in a blog post or a comment thread in the three and one half years I have been part of the Baptist blog community.
Also, it was, in fact, President Obama prior to being President Obama who “promised” Planned Parenthood he would make the first order of business after he was elected president of the United States the signing of FOCA into law.
The fact he has not done so yet is no evidence of me being wrong in any way. The presidential candidate made the promise, not I. I simply quoted him and called upon biblical Christians to pray that he would not keep the promise.
You should stand down on your comment for it is a falsehood. And it appears to be one of willful intent. That is why I referenced it as lying rather than a simple mistake on your part.
cb"

As of yet Tom Parker has not responded to my rebuke for his lie. If this makes me a bully, then I plead guilty.

I would submit to you that, in fact Tom Parker acted the "bully" today over at Wade's place when he showed extreme cruelty to Steve Flockhart and Johnny Hunt in his comments on Wade's most recent post.

Did Tom Parker lie yesterday? Yes. Was it by willful intent? That is my opinion. If that is not the case and he was simply rushing to make "points" before his audience and misspoke; He has yet to remedy the situation by owning up to his misdeed.

Yet, his greater shame and dishonor rests in his words about Steve Flockhart and Johnny Hunt.

Tom,

You should be ashamed for what you said about Steve Flockhart. The man is seeking to be restored and you kicked him without mercy. Frankly, you should get the log out of your own eye. Then maybe you will see better what you have done.

cb

Dave Miller

The men who seem to be influencing the direction of the SBC right now are Danny Akin, Johnny Hunt, Ed Stetzer.

I'm not sure that any bloggers have real influence. While I enjoy blogging, I believe we may be a small subset of the SBC at large, with less influence than we would like.

I think that in 2006, Wade had genuine influence. It was my hope that he would lead a reform movement that in my mind was much needed in the SBC. However, he turned the movement into a personal vendetta/crusade (my opinion, of course) and has essentially lost any influence within the denomination.

Of course, Paige Patterson and Malcolm Yarnell hold sway in certain circles, but it is my opinion that the denomination is moving beyond their "narrowing of parameters" (to bring up a phrase from the past, hated by many.

All of my predictions plus 89 cents will buy a large coffee at Burger King.

cb scott

Cal,

Thanks for your kind words. Hope to see you in Louisville.

cb

Tim Rogers

Brothers Tom and Greg,

You seriously need to reconsider your sorrow for Brother CB's family and church. I know his family and there is nothing to express your sorrow over.

Now, do you want to do the David Letterman thing and try to make excuse after excuse to justify your comment? Or would you rather just man-up and apologize for bringing his family into this mix?

Blessings,
Tim

jthomas

Perhaps, CB needs to do the right thing to.

cb scott

Thank you Tim.

Tim, I don't know if you read Tom's comments about Steve Flockhart and Johnny Hunt over at Wade's place or not, but I know you know Steve is doing everything Scripture calls for from a brother who seeks restoration. I also know you know Johnny has been used greatly of God to help all kinds of ministers and their wives through some hard times.

Tom should be ashamed of his harsh treatment of those men.

His continual rants against the CR participants being cruel are very hollow in comparison to his brutal and rude behavior toward Steve Flockhart.

Tom, it is time to cowboy up now. You need to acknowledge your lying about the Obama situation over at Debbie's place and for your rude behavior toward Steve Flockhart and Johnny Hunt over at Wade's place.

cb

cb scott

J Thomas,

What would that right thing be in your opinion?

cb

jthomas

You brought it over to Peter's blog, and derailed a great topic given to us by Peter. I realize Peter has said nothing, but still I think you ought to be bigger than the ones you are against---after all you are from Alabama.

Dave Miller

I get so weary of blog conversations like this. Peter had a pretty good subject for a lively discussion. The "I'm rubber, you're glue" conversation has grown tiresome.

Of course, as is normal, everyone is free to ignore my opinion!

Dave Miller

One more thing, had I read Alan Cross's comment first, I wouldn't have even tried to comment. His analysis, as usual, is spot on.

SEBTS and its faculty are influencing the zeitgeist of the SBC right now. And I am glad of it.

jthomas

I think blogs have more of influence than we think or at least I think. I do not agree with Peter, but I think Peter has some influence as does Wade, SBC Today, and Bart.

How many of those listed by Peter have taken themselves out of the circle of influence?

cb scott

Gentlemen,

I made this comment in response to William Thorton relating to the influence of Wade within the SBC:

"The influence of Wade Burleson in the SBC is more an illusion than genuine."

It was at that point that Tom Parker came along as a self appointed apologist for Wade.

I responded with the rebuke that you may or may not have read.

It seems Tom is quicker to defend Wade than he would be to defend the inerrancy of Scripture.

That is what actually derailed the thread if, in fact, it was derailed. Actually it may not have derailed it because in many ways what happened in Tom's defense of Wade proves the truth of Wade's influence in the SBC only being an illusion and not actually genuine.

Here is why I made my original comment to Peter's post. (Those who have been around for the last 3 1/2 years may relate to this better than those who have not been involved so very long.)

Around December 2005-January 2006 Wade became involved in a controversy at the IMB. A very "convention savvy" consortium (four of this consortium were extremely convention savvy) took up Wade's cause and made him somewhat the "poster boy" for their efforts.

Another equally convention savvy consortium of fellows rose up in opposition to those who were sympathetic to Wade's IMB cause.

The perfect storm came across the SBC traveling rapidly over the internet we may now call the "Baptist Blog War Hurricane." The storm blew hard six months prior to Greensboro and on through San Antonio. Wade's "so called influence" within the SBC lasted until the sympathetic consortium somewhat faded away shortly after San Antonio.

The actual and "genuine influence" in the SBC rested in the loosely connected consortium of Wade sympathizers, not in Wade personally. After the consortium broke up Wade continued to blog, but any truly knowledgeable Southern Baptist knows he has no real influence within the SBC.

Wade does influence a very mixed group of religiously oriented people who frequent his blog. But if one reads the comment threads to his post it becomes evident that some of his most ardent supporters are not even Southern Baptists. And many of his supporters who are associated with the SBC are just nominally so.

Thus, my contention that Wade's influence in the SBC is not genuine but rather just an illusion.

Now, before Tom or others say I am being mean or judgmental, let me say this is my opinion. Others have theirs. And history will write itself.

cb

jthomas

CB, Many people read blogs and do not respond so its hard to tell how much influence a blog has---its my gut feeling that a healthy minority in the SBC is influenced by blogs like these...I would also include Wade.

Dave Miller

CB,

While I was critical of the exchange above, I think your last post is a pretty good history of my involvement in the blogging world.

I was horrified at what some powerful people were doing on the IMB BoT and the suspected involvement of Dr. Patterson.

I got involved because I did not want the SBC to go in the direction that it seemed to be going. Wade was, as you said, the poster-boy of this movement. I wrote to Tom Hatley, to John Floyd. I voiced my opinions on Wade's site.

But, as is true with many, eventually I got off the bandwagon. I was in full agreement with the "Bigger Tent" idea. But I came to believe that Wade, once a supporter of the Conservative Resurgence, was beginning to promote what amounted to a reversal of that. I think he "jumped the shark" on women in ministry and wanted a tent way bigger than I was comfortable with. I think he took some unfair criticism in the early days, and I am sure that has an effect on people.

Basically, I think he has gone on a vendetta, a campaign of criticism against those who have opposed him.

I think that the current GCR carries on some of the elements of the earlier reform movement without the stridency or personal rancor that Wade has fostered.

cb scott

J Thomas,

You used the term "minority" in the SBC being influenced. OK that is fair. It would be a minority. Actually it would probably be more of a "sub-set" to a minority. Most Southern Baptists do not read blogs.

Real influence in the SBC was, is and always will be by those who are capable at "networking" through the use of more than one medium. In order to be truly capable of the kind of networking I am talking about, a person has to have a "natural" and "acceptable" base of operation from which to work.

Without a natural and acceptable base of operation, any effort a person makes to influence the SBC is and always will be suspect.

cb

cb scott

Dave Miller,

Tom Hatley had a natural and accceptable base of operation to influence the SBC. He was Chairman of the BoT of the IMB.

Therefore, he did project influence upon the SBC.

I think his influence was negative. But, he was still an influence upon the convention.

cb

Dave Miller

I agree CB. Whatever influence he had was negative.

jthomas

CB, This is why I say that Wade at the very least has influenced the SBC.

jthomas

Forgive the double post: CB you think Tom H. had a negative influence in our convention. IF you were to ask the folks in my church about Tom's influence---I think they would say---Tom who? I think many many So. Baptists would say the same thing. Now, with that said---I would also say that the folks in my church would say the same thing about Wade---Wade who?


cb scott

J Thomas,

I believe you to be correct. That is why I say a person has to have a natural and acceptable base of operation to influence the SBC.

You were also correct in saying it is a minority within the SBC who would be influenced by bloggers. I think it to actually be a sub-set within that minority who would be truly influenced to some type of action or change in their thoughts and behaviors relating the SBC.

A few months ago Wade said there were hundreds of thousands of Southern Baptists who thought like he did. That statement is a self-imposed illusion on his part.

The truth is that there would be hundreds of thousands of Southern Baptists who do not care what Wade thinks or feels about the SBC because he has no natural or acceptable base to influence the great majority of Southern Baptists. For every one he might influence there will be one hundred-two hundred who would hold him suspect because he is not within the "acceptable" boundaries of credible influence in convention life.

On the other hand, Tom Hatley "had" an acceptable base of operation to influence the SBC. He was the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the International Mission Board.

In my opinion he did most certainly influence the SBC. It is also my opinion that his influence was a negative influence.

cb

cb

Tom Parker

he is not within the "acceptable" boundaries of credible influence in convention life.


Wow!!!--what has he done to become so unacceptable to some?

cb scott

Tom Parker,

Read the whole comment thread relating to your "quote Bombing" effort.

You continue to refuse to recognize your lies as sin and repent? One might need to remind you that all liars shall have their part in the Lake of Fire.

cb

Tom Parker

You continue to refuse to recognize your lies as sin and repent? One might need to remind you that all liars shall have their part in the Lake of Fire.

cb

May those of you that support the above man take time to absorb his last sentence to me.

Would any of you others say such a thing?

cb scott

Tom Parker,

Did you or did you not lie relating to the Obama promise to sign FOCA?

Did you or did you not lie about Steve Flockhart?

The answer to both questions is: yes.

Have you made one statement to rectify the situation in either case?

The answer is: No.

Do you know you lied?

The answer is: Yes.

Did you lie with willful intent?

The answer is: It certainly appears to be that you did.

Therefore, is it proper for any Believer, not just me, to remind you that all liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire?

The answer is: Yes.

It is time to come clean Tom. You run all over Blogtown spewing poison and you then expect no one to ever call your hand for your shameful and sinful conduct.

Tom, you need to repent.

cb

Tom Parker

This is way out of hand. CB you believe I have lied about you, that is good enough for me. I will not try and debate the issue as to whether I lied or not. It was never my intention to lie about you. I know what I was trying to say but looking back should have left it unsaid. I repent of my lying. I ask your forgiveness.

I hope this will bring an end to this saga.

cb scott

Tom,

You are forgiven for lying about the Obama promise to sign FOCA. It is over.

cb

The comments to this entry are closed.