Timmy Brister at Boiling Point over Baptist Press by Peter Lumpkins

Timmy Brister, recently surpassed his boiling point over Baptist Press:

“Fellow Southern Baptists, we cannot afford to have this type of gross mischaracterization printed from our denominational news wire… to have Baptist Press continue to exhibit unacceptable journalistic ethic to support an anti-Acts 29 agenda under the banner of Southern Baptist is simply inexcusable” (//link).

This is certainly not the first time Brister expresses his disappointment with BP (//link,  //link, //link, and //link, for starters).

So what triggered Timmy’s temper tantrum this time?

It seems Baptist Press published a blog post by Tim Rogers in which Rogers criticized the popular “Reformed” church-planting network, Acts 29, whose chief architect is controversial Seattle pastor, Mark Driscoll. For this, Timmy tags Executive Editor, Will Hall, as spearing-heading an “anti-Mark Driscoll/anti-Acts 29 campaign” which, according to Timmy’s take, there is “no level so low Baptist Press is unwilling to stoop,” even including Will Hall’s deliberate publishing of “known errors and blatant mischaracterizations,” that are not even “fitting for the journalistic ethics of non-Christians” (//link).

When Tim Rogers responded on Timmy’s post, he wrote: “You have said perfectly what I was trying to say. Thank you for getting it right.”  However, Timmy’s rejoinder was hardly as courteous:  “This is willful, intentional suppression of the truth. There’s no way around that…You may not have attacked, but you have lied, and that lie has been broadcasted through Baptist Press…” (//link).

Adding a flamethrower to Timmy’s tantrum, Timmy’s boss, Founders Executive Director, Tom Ascol, logs on and gives Tim Rogers a what-for, reminding Rogers of an alleged unfulfilled promise owed to him from Rogers.  I ask:  Exactly what does an alleged personal issue between Ascol and Rogers have to do with the Acts 29 issue? 

Frankly, it’s this type of aggressive, out-of-control bullying which remains the chief identifying mark of Founders’ Calvinism.  When the executive director sets the tone for this type of approach, it’s no wonder thousands of SBC churches fear Founders Ministries.

So, Tim Rogers allegedly lied in his post and Baptist Press perpetuated his lies.  That’s the claim of Founders as it defends a fellow “Reformed” entity, Acts 29.

I happen to know Tim Rogers.  And while I know him to be a superb sampling of a squirrel on steroids, he is by no stretch a liar.

I will show you what I mean by the latter (the former will just remain assumed). 

Yesterday, Acts 29 Director, Scott Thomas, posted a reply to Rogers (as well as a subsequent post by Robin Foster) on the Acts 29 website (//link).  Interestingly, Thomas stated both Rogers and Foster cited “an old covenant tucked in our website that was outdated and took it to task,” obviously implying that neither Rogers nor Foster understood Acts 29 protocol since they were citing an “outdated” covenant which was “tucked” away on their website. 

Indeed the impression one gets from Thomas is, Foster and Rogers went scouring for any information they could get to grease the bucket against Acts 29.

The facts, however, hardly convince one either Rogers or Foster looked for info “tucked” away on the Acts 29 website so they could “take it to task.”

How do I conclude this?

First, the quotes from SBC Today came from links on Acts 29 Homepage.  All one has to do is, click on “plant a church” and the links to every single quote provided by both Rogers and Foster is either on one of two links: a) FAQ  b) Covenant.  That’s it.  Yet, again, Thomas makes one feel like Foster and Rogers were searching for negligible material.

Second, Thomas said absolutely nothing about Rogers using an “outdated” covenant when he showed up on his comment thread.  If I knew someone was using an “outdated” source leading to wrong conclusions, the first thing I’d say is, “I think you’re a bit behind times, brother.” Thomas mentioned nothing about this in his comments (//link).

Third, even granting for argument’s sake both Foster and Rogers used an “outdated” covenant, it does not follow the quotes are irrelevant unless the relevant parts of the covenant they quoted have changed.  And, here is where this really gets thick.

The “updated” covenant is virtually the same as the “outdated” covenant which Thomas alleges Foster and Rogers used.

Note the wording below (order of use is as Rogers quoted the "outdated" covenant "tucked away" on Acts 29):

Acts 29 Covenant “tucked away”	Acts 29 Covenant (as of June 2009)
“Primary funding consideration shall be given to Acts 29-approved planters”	Primary funding consideration shall be given to Acts 29-approved planters
“We agree with the theological beliefs of Acts 29 as a Christian Evangelical Missional Reformed network”	We agree with the theological beliefs of Acts 29 as a Christian Evangelical Missional Reformed network.
“We agree that our church will meet all biblical requirements for elders, including that the church will be governed by a plurality of qualified male elders.”	We agree that our church will meet all biblical requirements for elders, including that the church will be governed by a plurality of qualified male elders
“This means that when we begin our public services we will give 10% of our internal tithes and offerings…to church planting, under local elder authority as follows…”	This means that when we begin our public services we will give 10% of our internal tithes and offerings… to church planting, 9% under local elder authority 1% to The Acts 29 Board Fund as follows: (underlining shows change)

As one can clearly see, the single change in relevant portions of the Acts 29 covenant is the last quote, a change concerning which neither Rogers nor Foster’s post addressed. In other words, the covenant Thomas alleges was “tucked away” and wrongly used by Rogers and Foster turns out to be identical—at least in its relevant portions--to the “new covenant” Acts 29 has implemented since June 2009***.

Consider what this means for Thomas’ accusation Rogers and Foster employed “outdated” information to bolster their conclusions.  Indeed consider what this also means for both Brister and Thomas’ persistent denial that money goes into the Acts 29 network.

Timmy writes: 

“let me reiterate the matter about 10% giving in Acts 29 because this is the foundation to his entire article. The Acts 29 network does not receive mission money from churches within its network…Rather, the 10% giving reflects a commitment of Acts 29 churches to keep the priority of being a network of mission-driven, multiplying churches who dedicate a significant portion of their budget to planting more gospel-centered churches” (//link). 

Nevertheless, according to Acts 29, Timmy apparently is employing the covenant “tucked away” as well. 

Furthermore, according to Acts 29’s interpretation, they are receiving missions money from Acts 29 churches to keep their organization going.  They write: “1% of your general income will be given to The Acts 29 Board Fund” (//link). 

Albeit Acts 29 refers to the 1% as a “voluntary fund” the 1% nevertheless represents monies that “will be given” to The Acts 29 Board Fund for relief and training purposes*.  For a church like J.D. Greear’s, that means approximately $31,000, a bit over half of what Greear’s church gave to the CP (//link).

Final thoughts.

First, Timmy Brister owes Tim Rogers an apology for blatantly calling him a liar when Rogers quoted accurately Acts 29 blog (not to mention Timmy’s boss, Tom, who wrongly brought up a personal matter between him and Rogers on Timmy’s tantrum post). The scorched earth policy Founders has pursued for years needs to give way to a more credible, Christianly approach to those who dare question their "Reformed" commitments. 

Second, Timmy needs to consider his own faulty use of Acts 29 covenant “tucked away” on their site, insisting Acts 29 does not receive missions monies from churches when at least 1% of the 10% goes directly into Acts 29’s network specifically for Board use. Perhaps a post saying "I was wrong" is not a bad consideration.

Third, Acts 29 would do well to avoid charging folks with misrepresenting them when they are only quoting the official Acts 29 material. Founders has milked that cow dry, yelling "Stop misrepresentating us!" when folk object to their vision posted on their website**.

Furthermore, to then charge others with quoting “outdated” information, as did Thomas, when the quotes are accurate—even if it was from old information—is spurious and cheap.  It also lowers the bar for perception, making one appear not only sneaky but also morally unstable.

With that, I am…

Peter

 

*if English language means anything, there is a basic tension here between “voluntary” monies on the one hand and monies that “will be given” on the other but that’s not my concern presently 

**I must confess sometimes I wonder if a stop-misrepresenting-me attitude is intrinsic to Founders' Calvinism

***UPDATE:  A full comparison of the Acts 29 Network Covenants is now available (//link).    And, the single change in the covenants concerns a 1% expectation to be given to the Acts 29 Network Board specifically used at Board discretion

Comments

[Tim G]

Peter,
Once again you cut through the mud and get to the real worm! :)

Nice job.

[Robin Foster]

Peter

I will comment on this further tomorrow, but I wanted to briefly say thanks for this.

Robin

[Dave Miller]

What I appreciated most in following this rather bitter and disconcerting exchange was the graciousness and dignity of Scott Thomas. If that kind of spirit pervades Acts 29, it must be a good organizatiion.

[peter lumpkins]

Tim & Robin,

Thankz!

Dave,

And, so the point is...?

With that, I am...
Peter

[Darby Livingston]

I see where you're coming from, but I took Brister's problem to be that Rogers and BP wouldn't accept the explanation given by Thomas. IOW, it seemed to me that Brister was upset because the director of the network comes into the conversation to clear things up, and rather than giving him a charitable judgment, he was contradicted, as though he wouldn't know the policy of his own network, regardless of which covenant was currently in use. I'll admit that Rogers seemed to be implacable to me, having a preconceived agenda and not letting it die.

[Tim B]

Peter,

I wonder if the convention isn't reaching a breaking point in its diversity. We are already pretty diverse with some charismatic leaning, seeker friendly, contemporary (of varying degrees), traditional (of varying degrees), mega, small, medium, missional, calvinistic, less calvinistic, historical, less historical, landmark and pseudo landmark, alcohol embracing, tee total, country, city, and now, elder governed, and many other sorts of churches. It seems that the push back against acts 29 reflects the uneasiness in the hearts of our pastors and leaders that is growing about our diversity. I feel that same uneasiness and am not sure what to do with it.

[Darby Livingston]

Tim,

Isn't the answer obvious? Split into ten tiny denominations for the glory of God and the good of his Kingdom.

[volfan007]

Peter,

Thanks again for spelling it out very clearly, and exposing the rude, obnoxious, tantrums of those people who seem to go balistic anytime something that they believe is challenged. I have experienced this rude, obnoxious behavior many times when dealing with certain types of people.

It's sad.

David

[peter lumpkins]

Darby,

Thanks. You record Brister's problem with Rogers somewhat differently than I: "I took Brister's problem to be that Rogers and BP wouldn't accept the explanation given by Thomas." If you read Brister's comment to Tim, suggesting he continued to spread "falsehoods" and even lie, I think you may be giving Timmy far too much credit, Darby.

Nor do I take the comment thread at SBCToday--and Tim's response in particular--as being disrespectful. Do you have any particular comment Tim made which fits your concern?

In addition, from what we know now, I think Rogers may have treated Thomas with 'kid gloves' when he logged on. Why?

If you will note Thomas' comment, comparing it with his post, a basic tension exists between his and Brister's insistence on "not taking monies" for the Acts 29 Network and turning right around and admitting they do, in fact, receive monies--1% of the general fund of Acts 29 churches. This does NOT square.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Tom Parker]

007:

You said--"Thanks again for spelling it out very clearly, and exposing the rude, obnoxious, tantrums of those people who seem to go balistic anytime something that they believe is challenged. I have experienced this rude, obnoxious behavior many times when dealing with certain types of people.

It's sad.

David"

And you never do what you just wrote above? Incredible.

[volfan007]

Tom,

You never do what I just wrote? Do you? Have I? I'm sure that I have. I'm trying to do better. :)

Tom, Tom, Tom. I have no problem with people believing what they believe strongly. I have no problem with people calling sin, sin; and liberal, liberal; and wrong, wrong. I have no problem with people differing with me. But, when people are scathing others, blasting others, calling people names that dont fit...like liar, or like saying that people should be fired due to thier not agreeing with them; then, yea, I have a problem with that.

David

[volfan007]

Also, Tom, I have simply said that someone was a liberal for believing in women pastors, and they have accused me of being mean and nasty. I wasnt being mean and nasty. I was just calling it like it was.

Or, I have been accused of being mean and nasty for saying that drinking alcohol for pleasure...to get high...is foolish. How is that being mean and nasty? It is foolish according to the Scripture. Is it being mean and nasty to say what I believe?

Or, I have been accused of being mean and nasty for saying that theological liberals should not be teaching in our seminaries. The Bible is very clear that we should not allow apostates, false teachers, to ruin the faith of people. So, how is that being mean and nasty for saying such a thing? It's just the truth. Nothing mean and nasty about it. It's just the hard truth. If someone wants to throw doubt on the Bible, then they should not be teaching in SBC seminaries, and they should not be preaching in our pulpits.

And, I have no problem with Timmy feeling strongly about what he believes, nor with others who are commenting believeing strongly what they believe; but, let's get the facts straight. Let's not be so quick to call people liars, and throw evil intentions on people's motives, and rake people over the coals just for disagreeing about things concerning the SBC, or about minor doctrines.

David

[volfan007]

Peter,

This is the kinder, gentler me. lol. But, dont worry. I will stand for the truth of the Bible like a bulldog on steroids.

David

[volfan007]

Peter,

This one last thing, and I will try not to deviate from the topic again. But, Tom, we learn from Jesus and the Apostles that there are times when we have to speak strongly...almost harshly. True.

I try to let my speech be seasoned with grace always. I sometimes fail to do that...especially when writing comments on a blog. But, there are times when we must speak out strong.

David

[Darby Livingston]

Peter,

I understand your point. I'll probably have to dig a little deeper when I get a chance.

[Tom Parker]

007:

You said-"This one last thing, and I will try not to deviate from the topic again. But, Tom, we learn from Jesus and the Apostles that there are times when we have to speak strongly...almost harshly. True."

I know this will shock you but I agree with you that you have mastered the fine art of speaking strongly and harshly on a regular basis to anyone who dares disagree with anything that you believe concerning--women, alcohol, etc.

[peter lumpkins]

Darby

Thanks. In the meantime, here is Timmy's response on his site to a questioner:

"Regarding the 1%, it was a part of the new covenant and is considered a *voluntary* fund, not required by A29 leadership. They hold still to the autonomy of their churches and allow the leadership to determine whether they will give to that 1% or not. That does not change the essence of the argument SBCToday continues to level against A29. The 10% still does not got to A29 and the 1% is optional. Therefore, nothing changes regarding the errors of Rogers and SBC Today as you can clearly tell in the comments of Scott Thomas in the original post, including Rogers/Foster belief that they know what Acts 29 believes more than Acts 29 does.

Interesting.

A) Timmy as much as admits he didn't know about the 1% on the "new" covenant. Furthermore, 1% of 10% does, in fact, go into Acts 29 Network which Timmy vehemently denies.

B) He appeals to the "voluntary" wording which is not found on the covenant itself. Indeed as I showed, there is a basic tension which is hard to reconcile on the covenant if "will be given" is interpreted as "optionally be given." What does it even mean to covenant together funds that will be given but are optional funds? Too bad he did not know about this on Tim's post.

C). Again, Timmy concludes, "The 10% still does not got [sic] to A29 and the 1% is optional." This is not according to the covenant anyone can read. Timmy is feeling his way through the dark, here.

D). Timmy puts words in Tim Rogers mind by verbalizing something Tim allegedly believes but which neither Tim nor Robin said: "Rogers/Foster belief that they know what Acts 29 believes more than Acts 29 does." They did not say this. Instead it's Timmy's judgment. That's all.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Tom,

If you'd like to address the issue here, feel free. If your sole desire is to verbally fist-fight David, please go away.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Benji Ramsaur]

C'mon Peter. Disagree, but don't humiliate another by stating their name and putting up a picture like this.

[peter lumpkins]

Benji,

A) Welcome
B) There's no "humiliation of another" (if you don't care for the pic or can't see the humor, ignore)
C) I haven't the faintest idea what you mean by "stating their name"

With that, I am...
Peter

[Tom Parker]

Peter:

Are you sure the picture of the child throwing a tantrum is actually you?

[Ed S]

"When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, but he who restrains his lips is wise." Proverbs 10:19

Let's pray for BP, blogs, etc... seek some godly wisdom and write something that builds the Body rather than tear it apart.

Blessings,
ED

[Doug in Memphis]

Tom,

You are sincerely pathetic and I feel sorry for you.

Now run off to Burleson's blog and suck your thumb. The adults here will continue the lively debate.

[Dave Miller]

I'm just wondering two things:

1) When did we come to believe that ridicule, name-calling and insult were godly or productive forms of communication?

2) How do we justify our words just because someone else did it first, or did it too?

[Byroniac]

Peter,

I really feel that you should not have used the picture you used for this blog post. Could it be humorous? Yes. Can I see the humor in it? Yes. But I choose not to, because I do not think the picture is appropriate or respectful.

Timmy Brister has not complained about it to my knowledge, so I have no idea whether he is offended by it or not. I would hope not, but even if not, I still do not think the picture should be used. And this is coming from someone who grudgingly admits you might have a point concerning the 1% of A29 money, though I know little about either the SBC or A29 and hope that further clarification might clear this whole thing up.

However, knowing you as well I hope I do, I do not think you intended any offense, either, to the person. That you were simply addressing the nature of his complaint. But the picture makes me uncomfortable, and I'm not even being addressed by it.

[Tim G]

Peter,
I am impressed, you got Ed S to speak out on your blog.

Ed,
What would you say people should do if they see a problem? Do you not point out problems with your statistics etc.? I think this would be a great conversation to be held in the present climate of some who want to make all positive when the Bible speaks clearly about what some are doing.

[peter lumpkins]

Ed,

"A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak" (Eccles. 3:7)

Do we really want to swap verses on this?

As for prayers, I covet them as much or more than you. Nevertheless, know my posts are almost always counterpoint

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Byron,

I am unmoved by pouts over a pic I chose. If you have any substance, log on again. If not, good day.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Dave,

If you have a point, I missed it. Drop the cryptic talk and speak plainly. I haven't a clue how you're point.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Tom Parker]

Peter:

Please change the picture. It just appears that you are trying to put Timmy down.

Do you not see how it appears you are attacking him publicly?

I'm confident you want see it that way.

BTW I really do think you are the one having a tantrum. This post really comes off that way.

SB fighting SB don't you know Satan is pleased.

[Byroniac]

Peter,

It's hardly a pout, just an suggestion, and a friendly one at that. Whatever floats your boat, as they say. The picture is counter-productive, but this is your blog.

[Benji Ramsaur]

Peter,

I don't think you need to state the name "Timmy Brister" in the title of your post and then put a picture like that under it.

I do not find it funny [and I happen to like humor] and I do not ignore it either.

[peter lumpkins]

Tom, Benji, Byron, and Dave

Hear this clear: You have registered your complaint concerning the picture. I have heard your complaint concerning the picture. Done.

Nonetheless, I have no intention whatsoever of removing this pic.

The complete breakdown of sober objection concerning the subject of this post jolts the brain a bit. Tim Rogers is falsely called a liar and Acts 29 appears to be disingenuous in its implicating both Robin Foster & Tim Rogers in wrongly citing "an old covenant tucked" away when no such thing took place (the substance here).

Yet, the moral thrust driving you guys is pouting about a picture, which at its worst, implicates somebody as a crybaby. The wrongness in this scenario approaches the extreme part of goofiness.

Once again: I am not removing the picture.

And, if you cannot accept that, I suggest you express your moral "outrage" elsewhere.

With that, I am...
Peter

[joe white]

Peter,

I too marvel at the "moral outrage" over a kid crying. I guess it is easier to complain about a picture than it is to discuss and deal with facts. Facts can be stubborn things; especially ones written in black and white and published for the entire world to read. (-:

It seems this whole mandatory volunteering thing is all the rage these days.

[Tom Parker]

Peter:

ok, but why the tantrum towards myself, Benji, Byron, and Dave.

Why not just not answer us or type I am not removing the picture.

All the other was just a rant on your part.

[peter lumpkins]

Tom,

To my recall, I cannot remember one single time you have showed up on this blog actually addressing an issue. Inevitably it is personal. On this thread it is no different. You show up not to dispute a point but dispute a person--David Worley. You write:

"And you never do what you just wrote above? Incredible."

Now "I'm" the issue--not what I write--"me."

Frankly, Tom I am absolutely uninterested with this type engagement. And since that seems to be your only contribution, please refrain from commenting.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Dave Miller]

Here's what I am trying to say, Peter. You cannot complain about Timmy's name-calling while using name-calling yourself.

Turnabout is NOT fair play.

I assume you are just frustrated because the Atlanta Braves are so bad and the Falcons didn't get Michael Vick back, so I make allowances.

[peter lumpkins]

Joe,

Thanks. It's nice to know the picture is at least ambiguous and not hands down immoral, which is the impression I get from the quartet of dissent.

Grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Dave,

Nice try, Dave.

First, that is not what you wrote--not even close. The questions you posed had "ridicule, name-calling and insult" implying ungodly and unproductive "forms of communication," all of this from a goofy picture.

So, I'm being ungodly for posting a picture which at worst implies someone is a crybaby? I suggest you take a vacation, Dave.

Now, I'm through discussing the pic with you and everyone else.

Second, I am not a Falcons' fan (please don't tell anybody;^).

With that, I am...
Peter

[Tom Parker]

Dave Miller:

You said to Peter--"Here's what I am trying to say, Peter. You cannot complain about Timmy's name-calling while using name-calling yourself.

Turnabout is NOT fair play."

That Peter does not see the obvious about this is amazing.

[volfan007]

Dave,

Peter is writing about the name calling by Timmy as being false name calling based on the facts. He is not getting onto Timmy for name calling, but for not standing on the facts of his name calling.

Thus, you are not getting the jest of what Peter wrote.

David

[peter lumpkins]

David,

And another thing! Stop supporting Orange!

With that, I am...
Peter

[volfan007]

Orange runs in my blood. It comes from generations of orange. I must be orange.

David :)

[Tim G]

The topic of Orange seems to always stop the topic at hand? Incredible fact there!

[Tim G]

Peter,
I keep having trouble posting a comment. Any ideas?

[Tim G]

It only occurs when I use Tim R's name - how weird is that?

[Tim G]

Well, that one got through!

[Byroniac]

Tim G, for me it was trying to post three times in a row and my comment never appearing. I don't even know enough about sports to know what Orange refers to, or who the Falcons are, or what sport they play. I will say the timing is strange.

[volfan007]

Byroniac,

Orange is referring to my beloved Tennessee Vols. Their colors are orange and white. Thus, my name... Volfan007...a reference to my team and to James Bond.

David :)

[Byroniac]

David,

Sorry, I haven't got a clue about sports, but now that you explained it, especially with the James Bond 007 bit, I like it. Good name!