Lately, I have been silently concerned about some of the things that have been blogged about pertaining to certain people in the SBC. Frankly, I got tired of rolling in the mud with certain individuals and I have been busy being a pastor. While these things have continued, I have also noticed on the national scene, the slanderous accusations concerning VP Candidate Sarah Palin. It doesn’t matter what her record is, what matters is painting a perception that turns people off from looking past those accusations and discovering the facts. The whole point is to keep certain people from winning an election by diverting voters from the facts of who the person is an what that person has accomplished.
It is quite possible that this political maneuvering is in full affect in the SBC. It seems that an all out assault is being employed that reflects what is going on in the secular world. Accusations are being made against certain people that seem to divert the focus off what the person actually said or did and paints a negative picture of who that person is. The most recent victim was Dr. Thomas White and his sermon in chapel on October 7th. I felt that David Worley’s assessment on Chicken Little and how the sky is falling was dead on in how Dr. White’s sermon was being manipulated.
In today’s world of blogs, there is a possibility of stating accusations without much of a defense against those accusations. For example, who is going to wade through hundreds of comments or find other blogs that challenge the claims that are made? For instance, it is still reported that Sheri Klouda was fired from Southwestern. That is a lie! She was not fired, terminated, or purposely released from employment. She willingly resigned after (according to court documents) Dr. Blaising offered her another position in the seminary that was part of what she felt called to do. Now when there is a post on the internet that claims she was fired and if someone was to come and read it, they would end up believing a lie.
The recent ramblings against Dr. White’s sermon seem to show that a certain movement in the
SBC was dry for material in their effort to paint a false perception of those who seem to be believed evil and must be rid of in order to move the wider tent philosophy forward. After blasting Mrs. Patterson in a post, a blogger went back two weeks to a chapel sermon for his latest diatribe. Really, who has the time to listen to every sermon produced at a chapel service in Southwestern?
I will leave you with a prediction. In the upcoming John 3:16 Conference there will be some of those who wish to continue as they have that will attend the conference, not for edification or a better understanding of what those who are not Calvinists believe, but to gain more snippets of information taken out of context. Then they will be able to continue the Chicken Little mantra that the sky is falling in the SBC and if Calvinists don’t take a stand, they will be next. The question I have is, when will the Chicken Littles of this convention tire of such worldly tactics and when will those in the SBC say enough is enough.
Robin: Do you think it is appropriate to voice concerns over the content of Dr. White’s sermon? It was publicly given and is publicly accessible. I know you think some people are cherry picking in order to find things to complain about, and that may be. They’ll answer for that. My problem is the seeming knee-jerk reaction to any criticism (on both sides honestly). Maybe there is a blogosphere-wide conspiracy to find fault with SBC seminaries and their presidents. I can’t answer for that. But I found the sermon flawed and disturbing. Is that unfair? Is this a movement towards the SBC adopting quiverfull theology? I don’t know but I would hope not. Is it something we shouldn’t discuss? Or is it tainted from the beginning because Wade or Dwight have commented on it?
Thanks
This post is most interesting. To hear you speak out against manipulation of words and ideas is absolutley hilarious. Have you ever heard of the pot calling the kettle black. It was a group of “chicken littles” that has taken the convention to where it is now by doing the same things that you now condemn.
“Accusations are being made against certain people that seem to divert the focus off what the person actually said or did and paints a negative picture of who that person is.”
So now the so-called conservatives experience what the labeled moderates have experienced for years. So how does it feel?
Here’s the deal–as Robert, above, will attest I am one of those “so-called” conservatives. That being said I was not in support of the thrust of Dr. White’s sermon. Furthermore, I think the entire situation with Dr. Klouda was handled wrong. It’s not just the moderates who overreact to things that are said and done. I think the fact that the internet allows us to remain somewhat annonymous in the blogsphere and com-boxes allows some people to say things that are decidedly un-Christlike. However, that does not mean that every point Wade has made or will make is 100% wrong.
The more I read on the internet the less interested I am in the denomination and the more interested I become in studying God’s holy word,
Robin,
I have not listened to Dr. White’s sermon. Yet, I am sure that if Wade has posted something negative in its regard it is for nothing more that to advance his own private agenda. He has certainly become like those IMB trustees who sought his ouster from the IMB board a couple of years ago in that respect.
But….
Robin, I openly chastise for using Dr. Klouda’s name to illustrate your point. There were and are a thousand illustrations you could have used other than that one to have made your case.
You are unthoughtful and unkind in bringing her into yet another blog post. It is time to let the woman alone once and for all. She has suffered enough at the hands of ignorant men.
You should openly apologize for using her name. No matter your conclusions as to the situation enough is enough.
Get yourself another illustration to use in battle with Wade against his constant scandal mongering.
Your rude behavior in this post is far beneath you and I call upon you to deal with it properly.
Remember if you are going to fight monsters not to become one.
cb
CB
You and I have locked horns in the past, but my respect for you has grown this past year.
I only bring up Dr. Klouda because Wade had brought it up a few weeks ago. I read a comment from someone who just got on his blog and said they just found out about her getting fired. My comment is not meant to hurt Dr. Klouda, but to correct the lie that Wade continues to push and promote.
I will make a deal, if Wade stops promoting that lie, then I will cease correcting it.
Sorry, that should have said, “a few days ago.”
Robin,
I gotta agree with Robert here. Pot, kettle, black. You\’re not the one who should be chastising others about backstabbing and underhanded worldly tactics.
Check the plank in your own eye first. You know what I’m talking about.
Les
CB
After talking with you over the phone, I publicly state that I will not refer to Klouda any more even though Wade will continue to use her and her pain as a pawn in his attacks.
There comes a time when we should not participate in the tactics of the world and just trust God and His justice.
Robin
Thank you Robin for being a stand-up guy.
cb
Robin,
My comment was over the top and undeserved by you. Please accept my apology to you and your readers for my vitriol. You may remove my comment if you wish.
Regards,
Les
Les
No need to remove the comment. No need to apologize. I pray we can talk further and work out our differences. I find that emails or blogs communicate our thoughts (especially mine) in an obtuse manner.
I look forward to seeing you in Sapulpa for your small church conference.
Robin
I keep reading comments that begin with ‘Although I have not heard the sermon…’ Words of advice. Listen to the sermon and then comment.
Robin,
This odd posting comes off as completely disingenuous. Are you being forced to blog or patrol all of the other SBC blogs out there? Is it your calling to defend every cause and name? If you are so upset about what is going on in the blogosphere, stop reading them! If you feel it is distracting from your “first call” as pastor, stop blogging. Don’t flatter yourself into thinking that many read your blog, or that anyone will miss it when it is gone. I enjoy reading the blogs – but not by those who blog while complaining about it! No one is asking you to “police” the blogosphere, or to rush to the defense of the Convention, SWBTS, etc..
Doug,
You caution Robin: “Don’t flatter yourself into thinking that many read your blog, or that anyone will miss it when it is gone.” What is the deal, Doug? How about letting others in on your discerning gift into Robin’s mind and heart, here?
To log onto a post to simply record an insult without the least bit of content or contribution–an insult so disconnected from the post’s concern that it’s difficult to understand its presence–must surely be reflective of something unbecoming at work.
With that, I am…
Peter
Robert,
Even if what you say is so–that conservatives are experiencing the brunt of the tactics they allegedly employed themselves–what does such have to do with whether or not what Robin’s concern is well taken?
Do you agree or disagree with his concern? Is he accurate or inaccurate? If you disagree, where does he miss his target?
If you agree with his concern, why not simply say something like
I have to say, Robert, had some such comment been left, it would have added credibility to your statement. As it stands, however, all one hears, at least from my side of town, is “Ha Ha! That’s what you get!” hardly a deeply suggestive concern.
With that, I am…
Peter
FBC Jax Watchdog
As soon as you can reveal who you are, then we will allow your comments to stand. I could not find who you are on your site, if this is really FBC JW. I have removed your comments as well as the others that have addressed them. Thank you Peter and David. I have been in our yearly associational meeting all day and missed that comment.
Wade and I have sharp disagreements, but I do give him credit in that he is willing to put his name by his remarks.
It is a bit sad that you won’t take a comment from someone who doesn’t want to reveal his name. Even if what he says is true. It seems truth is what you deem it to be, no matter what the reason might be to remain anonymous. Looks like if the comment is anonymous, it can’t be true to you? That was a real good way to exclude Watchdog today. You just didn’t want to deal with what he had to say.
If you can’t deal with the Klouda thing, don’t mention it anymore.
Larry.
And furthermore. Don’t use her name to make a favorable point, and then lose courage and run from it when confronted. That at least smacks of less than courage.
Some may even call it something less.
Larry.
Larry,
To have or have not anons is the decision of the blog-host, not yours…not mine. Commenting on blogs is not a right. All who comment, do so as guests. To even question it is absurd.
With that, I am…
Peter
So Mr. Lumpkins, what are you actually saying?
That truth should be ignored if the messenger happens to be “anonymous”? And I certainly do question your assumption of decisions when it comes to calling out a name, then retreating from it., re: Klouda, when the host was the one who brought up the name, then decides to ignore given evidence.
So are you calling me “absurd”?
Simply…
Larry.
And actually Mr. Lumpkins, you did not adress the issue at all. You only defended the hosts timidity to address what he had already laid open, then when called on it, in defense tried to close. And you by defending such have made yourself complicit in running from answering a legitimate question. Though defending a friend is a good trait, ignoring the truth is not.
Simply.
Larry.
And even furthermore, Mr. Lumpkins, if you would be so kind to see that you were not distinctly addressed at the outset of my comments, you would have to acknowlege that my comments were actually addressed to another until you decided you would become the interventionsist.
Simply…
Larry.
Larry,
Dont you think that it’s just a little bit cowardly to attack people….constantly attack others….while all the time hiding behind anonymity? Dont you think that the person who’s attacking others, and making all kinds of hurtful allegations against others should at least tell us who they are!
David
Larry,
I am quite sure I wrote nothing cryptic, Larry. Thus, I feel no duty to clarify what I wrote.
As for questioning any of my assumptions, be my quest. Your questioning of them I personally do not equate with their truth/non-truth.
As for addressing you personally, recall this is an open thread. As a fellow visitor, I’ll address any other commenter I think I need to. And, understand: you are under no obligation to return an exchange. Fair enough?
As for your only question as I can tell– “So are you calling me “absurd”?”–the answer is no; I am not calling you absurd. Instead, I am calling your complaint absurd.
To stroll onto another man’s farm and begin to belligerently tell him how to feed his chickens is absurd, Larry.
With that, I am…
Peter