From the editors of SBC Today:
Last week SBC Today published an article by Dr. Jerry Nash which expressed strong opinions about the future direction of the SBC. It voiced the view that the convention should recognize that the fault lines which divide us are essentially irreconcilable, and that the convention might be better served to divide into two groups that are more homogenous doctrinally. Some have expressed concerns about the appropriateness of SBC Today posting such an article, and questioned whether SBC Today endorsed the perspective voiced in the article. These are valid and important questions, and deserve careful response and clarification.
To respond to the latter question first, it might be helpful to reiterate the strongdisclaimer published in “About SBC Today”:
“As with any blog, SBC Today attracts comments from a variety of perspectives. SBC Today does not necessarily endorse all that is said, not only in the comments but in the articles themselves. Sometimes articles may be included for interest and discussion, but we may not agree with everything that is said.”
Thus, whenever an article is posted in SBC Today, it reflects only the opinion of the author. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion (or endorsement) of SBC Today, its editorial board, or the churches, institutions, or ministries in which they serve. It is the opinion of the author alone that is being expressed. It is likely that the opinions expressed in articles give voice to perspectives shared by some other Baptists, with which other Baptists might disagree. But again, SBC Today does not necessarily endorse either the comments in response to articles, or the articles themselves. The only role of SBC Today is to provide a forum for discussing these opinions.
Regarding the appropriateness of SBC Today publishing an article with such controversial ideas, this is a legitimate question about which reasonable persons might disagree. In one sense, publishing such an article is consistent with the purpose of SBC Today “to provide a forum for discussion and interaction,” “a forum for Baptists to dialogue.” To provide such a forum entails that “as with any blog, SBC Today attracts comments from a variety of perspectives.” Again, from the perspective of SBC Today, “articles may be included for interest and discussion, but we may not agree with everything that is said.” We would all affirm that a person has the right to voice his opinion. Dr. Nash has a right to his opinion, and the discussion of the likelihood of some future splinter or split in the SBC over doctrinal issues is hardly a new notion.
It could be further questioned, however, whether posting such a controversial article is consistent with the standard of comments in SBC Today being made “in Christian charity, expressing your views forthrightly with integrity but also with kindness,” or with its goal “to provide a forum for discussion and interaction which ultimately produces agreement, not divisive or derisive arguments.” These are fair questions. This article was very forthright, and though it did not single out any particular individual, its strong wording may be accused of falling short of being kind or charitable. SBC Today sincerely apologizes to anyone who was offended by the article.
The more a difficult call is to determine the prudence of voicing such a perspective to be voiced in this particular forum. Can posting a controversial article ever “ultimately produce agreement”? It was not the intent of SBC Today by allowing the article to be published to lead to “divisive or derisive arguments.” It was posted simply to foster discussion of these ideas through this forum. In another sense, however, it is important that such opinions enter into a larger discussion. One of the dangers we face in the SBC now is that, as another recent post in SBC Today noted, “Each of the interest groups [in the SBC] talks with people in their own group (and we all agree that the other side is wrong). We may talk to or at other groups, but we do not talk with other groups.” SBC Today hopes to provide a forum in which disparate groups can interact and discuss even those important and controversial issues over which we strongly disagree.
It is important to note that the opinions voiced in the article were matched by equally strong comments in response. SBC Today published both the pro and con perspectives. Dialogue took place between the opposing positions. Our hope is that even these strong disagreements will provide an opportunity by “iron sharpening iron” to move toward consensus in our denomination.
SBC Today thanks its readers for their feedback on this article. We will take it into account in our editorial judgments in the future.
Dear Editors
I, for one, am saddened you had to deal with this in the middle of Dr. Allen’s contribution on preaching. However, I do understand. I’ve been at this blogging gig now almost as long as any of the more established SBC bloggers. And, I think your response is splendidly gracious and even kissing the second mile.
For the record, those whom I’ve read complaining about Dr. Nash’s article are virtually synonymous with those who complain about all things “traditional,” “BI,” “Arminian,” or “Pharisaical” to name a few. Furthermore, unlike SBC Today which has neither funding by NOBTS nor official sanction by any Southern Baptist entity, another blog which is officially sponsored by a Southern Baptist seminary became a recurring mouthpiece for the official GCRTF agenda leading up to Orlando. It seems to me, if a complaint is going to be leveled against SBC Today for the reasons stated, it surely needs to take into consideration the official seminary blog which was not only, as I said, politically captivated by GCR rhetoric, but also only recently used the seminary-sponsored blog to criticize–by name–Dr. Brad Whitt’s popular essay. From my standpoint, this curious overlook may very well reveal the biased concerns those complaining about SBC Today possess.
Thanks again to the SBC Today blog for offering a great resource for Southern Baptists.
With that, I am…
Peter
I have no problem with whatever opinion may appear on SBCToday. The connection with New Orleans Seminary makes me curious, though. I read the paragraph that mentions NOBTS on your “About Us” page. Does the seminary, any of its divisions or components or employees contribute to SBCToday?
In some ways I am surprised, and also saddened, that SBCToday has had to reiterate something so obvious. Anyone with any sense at all can clearly see that the mentioned post was meant to start a helpful, healthy discussion. If we have come to the point in the SBC where only one side of the conversation can be heard and everybody has to either agree or be quiet, then we are much farther down the road toward a full denominational divide than anyone could have ever imagined. Wouldn’t it be better to discuss, openly and honestly, the issues and feelings of those within our convention than to see literally thousands of churches and pastors quietly cut their support and slip away? Or, is that what those in the vocal minority wish for? I believe that a healthy, robust discussion is what is most needed in our convention. That way, if there is a time in the future where we have to part ways at least the people will know why it took place. It will have happened in the light of day, rather in some dark, back room of a convention hall or hotel. Thank you SBCToday for being a balanced presenter of the hope and burdens of our convention of churches. Keep up the good work!
“Anyone with any sense at all can clearly see that the mentioned post was meant to start a helpful, healthy discussion. ”
Hi BRAD
Ummm . . . I think you might have read the wrong ‘mentioned post’.
I believe that the one under discussion is this one, here:
http://sbctoday.com/2011/05/09/hold-the-hearse-i-have-an-idea/
“Anyone with any sense at all can clearly see …”
Wow, that is a statement simply overflowing and running over with Christian grace and charity. And you are a pastor, correct?
“If we have come to the point in the SBC where only one side of the conversation can be heard and everybody has to either agree or be quiet …”
So, people who disagree with the statements made by you and others, what are they to do? Voice them just as you did your own? It certainly seems to me that you want the other side to be quiet. I guess the reason is that the other side is bereft of the “sense at all” that you and your fellow travelers possess exclusive monopoly of.
“Wouldn’t it be better to discuss, openly and honestly, the issues and feelings of those within our convention than to see literally thousands of churches and pastors quietly cut their support and slip away?”
Excuse me, but that is what I THOUGHT that the folks who expressed their opposition to Nash were doing. But I suppose that “those with sense at all” know that ONLY agreeing with Nash counts as “open, honest discussions”, and disagreeing with Nash constitutes driving churches and pastors away.
“Or, is that what those in the vocal minority wish for?”
Well, wow, I honestly don’t know. Do you? I have a totally nonsensical idea … have you asked them? If so, who, and when? Those of you “who just want an honest, frank, open discussion” … have you actually made an honest attempt to pursue such a discussion? And not just with the designated target whipping boys like Al Mohler, Tom Ascol, Ed Stetzer, Kevin Ezell, Mark Driscoll etc. but with the Reformed/Calvinistic/Particular/minority Southern Baptist pastors who aren’t prominent or famous, don’t hold offices in the SBC, are Reformed but not “young and restless”, who aren’t trying to be hip or relevant, who wear coats and ties when they preach from the pulpit with the lights on, and aren’t “trying to be Presbyterian”? That describes the vast majority of Particular Baptists in the SBC, and always has. If there was an actual desire for dialogue, it would start with the traditional Particulars in the SBC, the ones who helped found and run the denomination, were here before the “new Calvinists” were (or for that matter before YOU were) and will be here after the “new Calvinism” fad is long gone. The fact that those making “shots heard ’round the SBC” have absolutely no interest in reaching out to to the ones who actually represent the vast majority of Reformed SBC pastors and members and are every bit as much a part of the SBC history and traditions, and have ALSO “invested their lives in and among Southern Baptists.” Their views and experiences (which by the way which include being totally ignored and marginalized and having their theology mocked, ridiculed, distorted and hated for the past 60 or so years!) just don’t matter to you folks.
Why is that? Simple: it doesn’t suit your agitprop. They ruin the whole “traditional Southern Baptists versus Presbyterian interloper infiltrator carpetbagger conspirators” dichotomy that you folks are trying to construct, so they are ignored. As I am the one who stated that the anti-Particular agitators are using tactics reminiscent of the segregationists on another blog (and I will not indulge in the PR exercise of “apologizing to whoever might have been offended” because I meant it when I wrote it and I still believe it to be true) allow me to make another comparison and state that ignoring the traditional Reformed Southern Baptists (who again constitute the vast majority and the historic tradition of Particular Baptists within the SBC) in order to keep the focus on the “young restless” crowd because it makes for a better storyline is rather similar to how the Democrats and the left do their level best to ignore “minority” (black, Hispanic etc.) conservatives in the political arena.
Bottom line: you guys don’t want a dialogue, because if you did, you’d start with the Particular Baptists in the SBC that are the most like yourselves, and again that would be a logical starting point. Instead, you want a fight (and I should point out, one which you are certain that you would prevail because of your vastly superior numbers). “Anyone with any sense at all can clearly see that” so why not just come out and state it plainly? Dr. Jerry Nash did, and though I disagree with him, I respect his candor, his honesty, his transparency. Oh that others who feel the same way would start behaving the same.
Job,
Devastatingly true summary of the situation!
I guess if this, and my previous comment do not disappear soon, I am no longer being banned from commenting here at SBC-Today??? I still have not received an apology, or even an attempt to justify this action… but then I never really expected one.
Grace for the Journey,
“SBC Today hopes to provide a forum in which disparate groups can interact and discuss even those important and controversial issues over which we strongly disagree.”
Does this statement mean that the blog administrators of SBC Today is no longer banning there fellow Southern Baptist Pastors who strongly disagree with their opinion from commenting on this blog?
If so, can we expect an apology for this extremely offensive behavior anytime soon?
Grace for the Journey,
Greg,
If you come here just to do drive-bys and not seriously discuss the issues you may find yourself banned again. Now, go over to BtT and place derogatory comments about the President or any other contributor there and see how long you will enjoy commenting there.
Blessings,
Tim
Brad Whitt says: “Anyone with any sense at all can clearly see that the mentioned post was meant to start a helpful, healthy discussion . . . Wouldn’t it be better to discuss, openly and honestly, the issues and feelings of those within our convention than to see literally thousands of churches and pastors quietly cut their support and slip away?”
Dr. Nash’s piece was no doubt a conversation-starter, and I have no problem with SBC Today’s posting it. But I’m not so sure that basically telling folks “If you don’t like it, then leave” is the best way to foster “a helpful, healthy discussion.”
Without question, lines have to be drawn. Churches have a right to know that when they mail in a check, purchase Sunday School literature, or elect Convention leaders that they are partnering with like-minded believers. The question is: Where do we draw the line? How do we define “like-minded”? Many believe that the BF&M 2000 draws the lines. Dr. Nash, however, apparently believes that the lines should be draw somewhere beyond that. Fair enough, but he should at least explain where and why he is drawing those lines — rather than simply saying that those outside his lines are “anti-SBC”.
It’s not enough to claim that because a majority of Southern Baptists do or believe X, then those in support of Y should start their own group rather than try to introduce Y into the SBC. If most Southern Baptists sing out of a hymnbook, do they have a right to expect SBC-funded church plants to do the same? If most Southern Baptists believe in a pre-tribulation rapture, do they have a right to hold denominational leaders to that same belief? If the answer to these types of questions is “yes” — if the matter is so fundamental that we deem it essential to our cooperation in the gospel — then we ought to incorporate the matter into the BF&M. That way, everyone knows which matters of faith and practice are integral to being Southern Baptist. If the issues are not so important as to be part of our common faith, then imposing them on SBC employees and entities is not a matter of preserving the gospel but of maintaining a particular SBC “brand”.
Without explaining what lines he has drawn and why those lines are essential to the SBC’s mission, Dr. Nash does not really further the conversation by suggesting the SBC would be better off without those outside the lines.
What was the motivation for posting this? It did not challenge the decision to post Nash’s missive. Nor did it oppose or even distance itself from the views that Nash expressed. It merely gave the (very cliched) “We are sorry for anyone that was offended by it” and “we were just trying to have a discussion.” Therefore, you agreed with everything that Nash said (or at least felt that all his ideas were acceptable and reasonable). If that is so – and it clearly is – why even bother with this effort? To express “shock” and “dismay” that the targets of Nash’s invective would behave as if they are, well, being targeted by invective? What can be gained by such disingenuousness? What is the point? What is the aim?
And please, spare the “SBC Today hopes to provide a forum in which disparate groups can interact and discuss even those important and controversial issues over which we strongly disagree.” This is supposed to be accomplished by graciously allowing (often moderated!) comments? SBC Today’s position is that the Calvinist/Reformed/Particular/minority Baptists are the ones wrecking the SBC, and should either muzzle themselves or take a hike. Since that’s your coat and those are its colors, wear it proudly, and spare us the public relations cliches.
Editors,
Those clarifications were very helpful regarding many of the questions raised elsewhere regarding SBC Today, NOBTS, and the controversial post. As a reader, I was enjoying this site’s re-launch and the level of care and writing put into the articles posted, even when I differed from their conclusions. That particular article seemed vastly out of place in comparison to those other articles, both in tone and in quality. I hope that you will continue the original upward direction I saw from SBCToday after the re-launch.
Brother Josh,
Thanks for the kind words and please know that our desire is voiced in your quote.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim, I sincerely appreciate the apology from SBCToday. Though we often disagree, it is important that we do so agreeably, and Nash is certainly not the man you want to hold up as an example of how to do this.
I say this because of my own experiences with him as a fellow Director of Missions. He has published similar vitriol on Associational blogs, and when confronted, chose not to seek understanding and reconcilliation. After seeking to talk with him personally, and basically being ignored, I responded publicly to counter his fallacious claims (http://noba-blog.blogspot.com/2010/04/ignore-boneheads-and-obey-great.html) I know from experience that he has his mind made up, and has no interest in anything short of a full Exodus from the SBC of those who do not agree with him.
I may have my differences with SBCToday, but I know most of you guys, count you as friends, and don’t believe for a moment that you desire a splintering of the SBC, nor do I. This is exactly why Jerry Nash is the last person you want representing your viewpoint. His “scorched-earth” vision of the SBCs future should not be shared. By contrast, the Association I’m privileged to lead is made up of Reformed and not-so-Reformed, traditional and contemporary, suit-wearing and casual, old and young–58 churches in all as of 2011, and our hope is that we will top 60 by years’ end. Our primary affinity is not any of the above categories, because we value all of them, and see the contextual legitimacy of them all! Instead, what holds us together is the Gospel. This diverse, but Gospel-centered environment is a blessing, and I truly pray that it will be replicated throughout the denomination I love, and in which I was saved by grace. I came to the conclusion last year that if this dream of mine is a nightmare for people like Jerry Nash, it will just have to be his problem.
I pray all is well in North Carolina, and appreciate your prayers for us here in the northeast as we seek to win the lost, raise up leaders from the harvest, and plant churches.
What a rambunctious opinionated group of Southern Baptist pastors and Laymen we have here. I love the SBC and everyone in it(some more than others)… :)