- The Florida Baptist Witness already has special convention-related news on their site. I expect that they will be publishing updates as the convention progresses. BREAKING NEWS: The Baptist Witness has an interesting breaking story on their site that you won't want to miss.
- The Southern Baptist Texan also has already posted a special convention edition. I recommend it as a helpful resource.
- Baptist Press's new Instant News Blog is a great idea. You can turn there for some of the most rapid reporting available anywhere.
- I plan to be pretty busy, but I'll be posting my own observations as time permits. So check here every day or so.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Convention News
As the convention unfolds, you'll have several options for keeping up with events.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
aint it interesting that ben cole is writing david roger's answers to an interview? i guess this shows without a doubt that david is in the burleson-cole coalition. and, i really cant understand david needing ben to write things for him. in fact, why would he want someone like ben, with his history, to write something for him? david seems much smarter than that. interesting, aint it?
david
I wonder where all the comments will be deriding some casting this nomination as a "political move".
David-
Check Ben's blog before you start believing the Florida paper.
Bart-
Let's see how many times a different blog bests BP in online time.
Readysetgo...
David-
I'm Ben's friend and I wouldn't be happy if I found out that someone else was writing David's material for him. However, as we all know, David is fully capable of handling himself.
Last year I wrote an article for the Witness and had a friend proof it in much the same way that David did. When I sent it to the Witness it contained the same editing marks that David's contained. Jim Smith contacted me at that point and asked for clarification as to the existence of editorial marks. I explained to Jim that my friend had proofed my work and recommended changes and that was that. In this case, however, Ben's name is news and so it makes for a convenient (although insignificant) sidestory for the upcoming convention. I'm not surprised that he didn't overlook this but I am dissapointed that he's making such a big deal out of it. If you take Marty's advice and read Ben's blog and see the edits for yourself you will see that this simply isn't a story.
In fact, I just don't see where this is big news. Furthermore, I would be surprised if David chose not to have someone else proof his answers. I always have friends peruse my material if it's going on to a publication. It only makes sense to do so.
Bart,
Wouldn't you know it? Ben wrote David's answers as he conceded. Of course, he calls it "edited."
But then, he has the audacity to suggest to us that "David Rogers has also released a statement in response to the Florida Baptist Witness’s article..."
Everybody who now believes David actually wrote the statement released to the Florida Baptist Witness, please say 'aye'. I don't think so, Brother Ben.
With that, I am...
Peter
Bart,
By the way, thanks for linking the Richards' interview. I was very impressed in our time together.
With that, I am...
Peter
Bart,
I just read the new analysis The Florida Baptist Winess released of the "edits" Ben made. Edits? Edits?
With that, I am...
Peter
Micah,
I haven't had the pleasure of meeting you and maybe some day I will, but let's not be surprised. Everything you guys do is watched carefully, even this response. If you like the positive press, you are going to love the negative and it will increase.
Gary-
I have been accused of being a bit slow at times, and I won't necessarily disagree, but I'm not completely positive as to what you mean by your comments. Could you clarify please?
Thanks!
micah,
i guess what i'm trying to figure out...is if david rogers is so irenic, why is he letting ben cole write, edit, proof read, whatever....his interview answers?
i dont believe that i would call ben irenic....would you?
david
David-
No, I wouldn't call Ben irenic. However, I do know that he's an incredible writer. He has provided help for many people beyond David, and I don't mean just those of us who agree with some of his positions. Before he helped David he has been known to have helped some folks who are significant in Ft. Worth and who used to work in Wake Forest.
I have a feeling that Bart would concur that assistance in editing is fairly commonplace in academic circles. It's simply not smart to take your material and produce it for publication without getting a 2nd opinion. I did that with my article for the Witness, as I previously stated, although I didn't use Ben as my source for help.
I guess what I am saying is that I just don't see why it is a problem to get help finalizing the piece. Ben is a good writer and I am sure that David knew that he would provide invaluable assistance. I think what most people are fearing is that Ben is some sort of "mastermind" behind all of this. The fact that David wasn't even asked to run until the past month speaks against that, doesn't it?
I think the bigger news is the fact he's aligned with Cole. Right? I have some reservations about whether this happened in the timeline some are saying . . . hmmm?
Micah,
I very much respect you, my Brother Micah. Your comments are regularly judicious and sober. On this, however, it is just not as simple as "running" the post by, etc. Reading the addition of complete paragraphs, adding to the vision, broading it in scope, etc just doesn't fit your description of something of no real import.
All this is documented on the FBW site. It is more than "editing." It is, from my view anyway, marketing. Ben appears clearly to make David more "marketable" to the SBC.
Also, in a document like the candidates were asked to respond, there really was no "right" or "wrong" answer as there may be in an article you or others may pen. Thus, Micah, I really think you need to pause and rethink that one.
Grace. With that, I am...
Peter
Peter-
I crafted a significant response as rebuttal and then decided that your appeal to consider the events was prudent.
I've spoken to Ben today about the event and now have heard from you and others concerning your perspective. I will take both views into consideration and pursue what is best for both the SBC and the Kingdom. I can assure you that I have no greater concern than that of the Kingdom.
I'll look forward to seeing you in a few short days. Look for the guy who is too young, incredibly tall, and ridiculously skinny - not to mention unfortunately bad looking. Blessings...
Micah, I apologize for the vague response. You say "In fact, I just don't see where this is big news." what must be understood is everything written on blogs, responses, press releases, and convention speeches are and will be under great scrutiny. There is a very apparent and deliberate move on the part of what is manifesting itself as an organized faction within the SBC to change her course. Most of us welcome open debate on the issues, we are not so open to certain influences. Cole’s association with Baylor, Wake Forest (this from your post), his stated interviews with Reynolds and Baugh, and his continuous attacks on Patterson suggest more and more that his agenda may not be what he says it is. It is beginning to make some of us wonder if David Currie and Dan Vestal are directing the show. As I said on another post, the Texas moderates will turn out in force in San Antonio. The dilemma is, do they vote for the son of a man they saw as a waste, ("He was a man of enormous gifts, but I tell you what -- I think they were put to a terrible cause," Sherman, who served as the first coordinator of the moderate Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, said. "I take no pleasure in his dying, [but] the results of his efforts in other days caused me and many people great pain.")
or do they vote for Jim Richards, a man whom they despise. Nothing would suit them better than to find a champion in the son of Adrian Rogers. I did not join in this blog world last year but if I am correct, you have been involved for some time. To underestimate the possibilities of where this is going would be a futile mistake. Our current conflict could be a mere debate of the ideas, but some have made it clear that they will take no prisoners. This debate could escalate to be the last 28 years taken to a new level, this time in the eyes of the public via the blog world.
Left off the reference.
Here is the reference to the
Cecil Sherman quote. Some of us older guys continue to have a few issues with the technology.
http://www.abpnews.com/673.article
Gary-
Thanks for the clarification, and I would add, your questions and comments are fair.
I can't answer for Ben, Wade, Marty, et al, but I can tell you for myself that I am no friend of the CBF when it comes to joining together. They would have a difficult time swallowing my theology. :-)
My commitment to the innerancy of scripture, my belief in the authority of the male pastorate, my position on social positions such as homosexuality, abortion, etc. all clarify that I am a conservative. And while I cannot speak for the three other gentleman I do know that Wade has gone toe to toe with the CBF in Oklahoma and stared them down over certain issues.
What I am in this for, in essence, is two-fold. First, I am not in this to "include" the CBF, or anyone else for that matter that cannot come together with us under the umbrella of innerancy, among other things. Rather, I want the SBC to recognize that there are those who unite with us in those areas but who may have a difference in theological positions in minor areas but who are still sufficiently "Southern Baptist". The denomination never reached 16.5 million strong by limiting participation over minor issues that are difficult to validate biblically.
Secondly I am in this to encourage partnerships with other Great Commission Christians in order to expand the kingdom. I am not encouraging us to have them all join the convention but there are times when we have to reach out across the "aisle" of evangelicalism and grab someone else's hands in order to win the world for Christ. We simply cannot - and will not - do it on our own.
I know that doesn't answer your questions about these other men, but I would encourage you to talk to them next week. I generally talk to at least one of them at least once a week, and we don't always agree. They've become friends and men whom I respect, however. I've found that I can talk to them as long as I attempt to do so without animosity, disrespect and/or ulterior motives. When I approach them that way they are more than glad to talk. It's when the attacks pick up that they seem to be reluctant to address someone in a congenial manner. I'll have to admit that I'm much the same way.
I think personal dialogue and the development of friendships with those who may stand opposed to us will be a necessary part to bridging this methodological gap. I wrote something to that effect just last evening on my blog. That's a significant reason why you will find my comments on many of the blogs I don't necessarily agree with. I want to come to a place of understanding and not be a part of fostering the division.
Gary, I hope that is at least slightly helpful.
Bart, I'm sorry if I've hijacked your comment stream.
Gmay,
I can promise you the Vestal, Sherman and Currie of old wars they lost, and should have, have nothing to do with this.
In such a statement you are completely wrong and without merit in verbalizing.
This is about reigning in men that once fought for a noble cause, but have now become drunk on that poison elixer; "TOO MUCH POWER." It is bottled by the company known as "Greed and Ease in Zion."
It is a sad thing to do, but it must be done nonetheless if that which was gained during the CR is going to be preserved.
cb
CB,
Hope your trip to SA will be safe. And, know I agree that no one of us--no matter the greatness of character or success of the past--can avoid the Seductress, POWER, once we gaze into her tempting eyes. "Let him who thinks he stands, take heed, lest..." You know well one's horrid ending who skirts such Apostlic caution.
The question must be raised, CB, if the purported miraclulous antidote being mixed by Wade, Ben and Marty--and to a much lessor extent by you, CB--is not more lethal than the tainted elixir some now are bibbing.
And I say that of you out of pure ignorance. For while I have not observed the same level of proactivity from little Pittsburg, it may be my West Georgia naivet'e oozing out. But proven wrong I must be.
Nor do I believe for one moment, unless I'm cured forever through a raw, literal, no-non-sense rebuke, that you, CB, adhere to that quasi-non-Baptist gobbledegook flowing from Enid.
As for me, call me Socrates. I'd rather guzzle gallons of hemlock than my tongue taste one drop from Enid's ecclesiological fountain.
Grace always, CB. I really do appreciate your exchanges. Coffee in Al. must be before winter.
With that, I am...
Peter
Micah:
anyone else for that matter that cannot come together with us under the umbrella of innerancy...
I'll take that at "face value" and trust your veracity.
However, it will interesting to note who prefers to stand in the rain rather than under the "umbrella" you referenced.
Looking forward to SA and the Riverwalk. Be prepared for good food (but be not gluttonus :)
Grace to you;
Paul Kullman
I have been given hemlock with the same admonition as was Socrates of old. For whatever purpose I did not vanish from the land of the living as was desired by those that gave me the bitter cup.
It is due to that experience that I have learned men can differ without a desire to posion one another.
You are correct about the elixer of "Power" and its effects upon even the best of us (of which I do not claim to be among.
Thus, I too will seek that time for us to sit together and lift a cup brewed with no poison as an ingredient. Maybe in San Antonio?
cb
Peter,
My last comment was directed toward you. In my haste toreply I forgot to address it to you.
cb
CB,
I sincerely hope you are correct in saying my concerns are without merit. The problem is that the current infighting is borrowing from the vocabulary of wars past, which by the way, here in Texas is not just past but also current. It will be a healthy day when we don't have to fear the wars of the past but they continue to return. Those that return are not just the CR but also the landmark and Calvin battles of days gone by.
I would like to see your cause as noble and optimistically try to believe it is, but the attacks and vocabulary sound like editorials in the Texas Baptist Committed newsletter.
gmay: There would be no in house fighting if there weren't those narrowing the parameters. My way or the highway is just not acceptable anymore. Also it's sad when this in the Florida Witness is big news. I think we all have people look over our work. We're just not in the public eye for it to get twisted into something scandalous.
Post a Comment