http://www.baptiststandard.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9627&Itemid=9
http://www.baptiststandard.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9644&Itemid=53
I’ve posted links here to a couple of pieces in the most recent edition of the Baptist Standard that I think can be used to illustrate the principle that one Baptist does not speak for any other Baptist. However, there are times when I think that the “other” Baptists need to step up and make sure that those who are listening get that message, and when sitting silently without comment can be interpreted, or mis-interpreted as the case may be, as complicit agreement.
The first link references an editorial on what seems to be becoming known as the “Great Lottie Moon Offering Non Scandal of 2009.” A blogger who pastors a church related to what the Standard calls the “competing” convention in Texas reported that the BGCT was not passing along money from its churches designated for the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering. The money was, in fact, being sent, but the accompanying paperwork which would have allowed for the reporting of its receipt by the executive committee of the SBC was delayed by a software glitch, a fact which the blogger could have discovered with a simple phone call. Rather, he risked his credibility by reporting without checking the facts.
The editorial in the Standard, and keep in mind, it is an opinion piece, leans heavily on the fact that the blogger is a pastor who led his church into the “competing convention” in Texas, and uses the opportunity to remind his readers that this particular competing convention has a history of similar reporting regarding the BGCT, even though the blogger was writing on his own and not as a representative of the “competing convention.” It’s a very subtle but clear connection between the two, especially since the blogger is a recognized leader in the “competing convention.”
Though the competing convention (let’s be more direct and call them the SBTC) clearly did not make the accusation or prompt the story, the Standard editorial insinuates otherwise. Though it might seem a bit hypocritical to take a blogger to task for not checking his facts by trying to get readers to draw a conclusion that is also not supported by facts, this is one of those places where the SBTC leadership probably needs to speak up and say directly that they are not responsible for what happened. Though the blogger was not speaking for them, they’ve been involved by the very shrewd use of guilt by association. Disassociation, then, would be the simplest solution.
Likewise, Wiley Drake’s widely publicized, controversial statements regarding the subjects of his “imprecatory prayers” are being associated with the Southern Baptist Convention. No mention is made of his remarks without the note that he served a term as SBC Second Vice President. Most people do not understand the idea that no one Baptist speaks for any other Baptist, nor do they understand that a former SVP of the SBC is not an official Southern Baptist spokesperson.
There are probably some individual Southern Baptists who agree with Drake, though I doubt there are very many who would publicly say so. But on the whole, his views are at odds with the SBC’s Baptist Faith and Message 2000 with regard to its statement on the authority of the scripture, and the sanctity of human life. A statement from an SBC officer or executive would probably suffice to correct the misimpressions that have been created, though personally I think the convention body itself needs to vote to remove his messenger credentials. Anything less than that will be interpreted as silent complicity. SBC leaders are on the record in condemning the murder of Dr. Tiller, as strongly as they are on the record against abortion, but I think they need to directly address Drake’s remarks because they have been made in the context of his former position as SBC second VP.
If this all seems somewhat familiar, especially in the Baptist world, keep in mind that Roger Moran once used this very same tactic, guilt by association, to cast some Baptist leaders in an unfavorable light to prevent their being elected to convention leadership. It can work both ways, and that is something that everyone who writes and has an audience, whether a blogger or a Baptist newspaper editor, should keep in mind.
2 Comments
June 9, 2009 at 9:25 am
In the early days of the SBCT ( I no longer read their paper) there were a lot of insinuations and outright lies about the BGCT. There was way too much anger involved. Two wrongs do not make a right, though and the Standard would have done better leaving the SBTC out of this altogether.
June 10, 2009 at 4:17 pm
I did not read the Standard article. Who reads the Standard now?
I can say the main part of this fracas was fought out in cyber-space. Perhaps the Standard is just trying to protect its turf; the too-little, too-late rattle of a medium whose day has past.
Comments are closed.