Wednesday, May 20, 2009

DISCREDITED POST...SEE CORRECTION: BGCT Refusing to Release Lottie Moon Funds, Sources Report

The content of this post is no longer representative of the position of the International Mission Board. See the next post for more information.

Sources within the International Mission Board report that the Baptist General Convention of Texas is escrowing Lottie Moon Christmas Offering funds to safeguard BGCT cash flow.

Although churches collect the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering for the sole benefit of the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, the funds generally follow the same pathway as do Cooperative Program gifts—churches send their offerings to their respective state Baptist conventions, which serve as the collecting agents for the Southern Baptist Convention. For eighty-four years the various state conventions have acted in good faith in this role, promptly forwarding Lottie Moon Christmas Offering funds to the International Mission Board for rapid distribution to the cause of international missions.

The Baptist General Convention of Texas has trimmed its staff, programming, and budget substantially over the past several years. In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that my church has switched affiliation from the Baptist General Convention of Texas to the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention within the past few years. Although the official BGCT budget has shown increasing hostility toward SBC ministries since the 1990s, this event would constitute a rare occasion of BGCT's taking action to blockade funds designated by BGCT churches to SBC causes.


Anonymous said...

If this is true, I can’t think of much that would hurt the BGCT more, and help more the SBTC and SBC. Baptists can get cantankerous real quick when our denominational leaders go directly against our wishes.
David R. Brumbelow

Dave Miller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bart Barber said...


It is not so much hoping that I am wrong as it is hoping that the sources within the International Mission Board are wrong. Although I have received this information from two sources, I do not have a friendly enough relationship with the BGCT to verify the information from their side of the relationship.

It is newsworthy either way. If BGCT is doing this, it is newsworthy. If BGCT is not, it is newsworthy that IMB folks are making the claim.

Bart Barber said...

As it stands now, I believe it.

Enjoy the conversation, friends. I'm off to revival services and then will be unreachable until late in the weekend.

Bart Barber said...

BTW, Dave Miller,

There is no legal requirement, to my knowledge, as to how QUICKLY a state convention has to remit LMCO funds. It would be illegal to keep the funds, but not necessarily to delay them.

As to whether it would be ethical or not, I think you're 100% correct.

Anonymous said...

The news is not wrong - I've heard through sources that 3 convention are doing this

Anonymous said...

I just got off the phone with the BGCT and the claim is FALSE!

Wes Kenney said...

Several members of the SBC Today gang have been working on this today, and have confirmed with sources both within and without the IMB that this is, in fact, the case. Anonymous, whoever you spoke with was misinformed.

And to the other anonymous, what you say lines up with what we've found, which is that two other state conventions are doing something similar. We have no idea which ones, though we have 99% certainty on one. When we know both, they'll be added to the version of this post that is at SBC Today (

SBC Friend said...

Bart and Wes

Thanks for the report. I also agree this is troubling on several fronts. However, for the two of you to use anonymous sources while condemning Wade Burleson for using anonymous sources within SWBTS to point out the attempt by administration to remove reformed professors from faculty is either funny or hypocrital or both.

Bob Cleveland said...

" escrowing Lottie Moon Christmas Offering funds to safeguard BGCT cash flow."

If that part is true, then the standard of behavior appears to be what they can get away with, and not what's right.They seem to be trusting money in the bank, to do for the BGCT, what they don't trust God to do.


Bart Barber said...

SBC Friend,

Pardon the terseness of my reply. It is difficult to do this by phone.

I criticized Wade for sticking with a story that had been proven false. If I criticized him for using anonymous sources, j have forgotten it. But I am forgetful. I invite you to cite specifically where I did so. Correction is an important spiritual tool, and I need if as much or mode than most.

Rand Jenkins said...

My name is Rand Jenkins and I work as communications director for the BGCT. Earlier today I became aware of this blog and this post. Put simply, the BGCT has and continues to send Lottie Moon funds to the SBC and is pleased to do so.
In March 2009, there was a paperwork error that resulted in the SBC reporting that the BGCT sent no Lottie Moon funds to the SBC even though the funds were passed along as scheduled as they always have been. The paperwork has since been corrected and the SBC’s record should show the BGCT sent the designated funds along.
We are glad to work with our friends in the Southern Baptist Convention and look forward to continuing to do so.

William said...

You made a serious accusation.

Within hours the BGCT officially denied it.

Put up or shut up time?

Anonymous said...

I appreciate the concern and topic of this post. I am glad that the BGCT communications director has posted a response. Something here, however, still seems amiss. The puzzle pieces are not lining up right.

If people at the IMB are saying that money is being held up at the BGCT, that should be looked into and explained. I don't know enough about the mechanics of forwarding Lottie Moon money by the states to the IMB. It does seem odd that it was a problem in March, 2009 (per the BGCT guy), but Bart is blogging about it in late May. Why would anyone be talking about it still, unless the funds sent in March don't show up until late May.

At any rate, this all needs to get straightened out so the facts are clear.

A big question for me is why send Lottie Moon offering funds to the state conventions in the first place? Just sent it to the IMB.


Bart Barber said...

I have learned that IMB personnel have reported the escrow situation to the IMB trustees and that, as of yesterday, IMB had received no LMCO funds from BGCT. I have also learned that SBC President Johnny Hunt was reporting this escrow situation to IMB trustees in informal conversations.

My story remains factual. IMB sources ARE reporting that BGCT has been escrowing LMCO funds. Either Rand Jenkins' denial is Clintonesque, or IMB is misleading its own constituents and trustees and even the SBC President. I am merely reporting on this situation. We just need to let the SBC weigh in further on this.

In about 5 minutes I will be off the grid and in the Ozarks. Even now, the phone is all I have. I will lose even that upon departing this location. If IMB retracts or corrects, I will report it upon my return. And if BGCT is "parsing" I will report that, too.

Anonymous said...

How much money are we talking about?

How "late" is the money?

Just because money is later than usual, does not mean that the BGCT is "refusing to release" it. Before we indict an entire state convention, let's have some facts.

Anonymous said...

Brother Rand Jenkins,
It would be helpful if the BGCT presented an easy to understand chart showing your Lottie Moon Offering receipts each month from December, 2008 through April, 2009. Then show the amount of Lottie Moon funds the BGCT sent to the International Mission Board each of those months.
David R. Brumbelow

Dave Miller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...


A big difference in the two stories is that one story was about a supposed future event - Dr. P has an unanounced plan to fire all the Calvinists at SWBTS.

I noted at the time that the way the story was written about SWBTS, that it could be claimed to have been true, no matter what eventually happened.

I was not critical of that story. I saw it for what it was all along - circulating an unverifiable rumor.

Bart's story is about something that is current and can be verified.

I am very interested to know the truth about this, however it comes out.

Btw, I noticed the current post on Wade's blog and the comments.

I hope we don't go back down the road of debating how true the Bible is.

While it is an important topic for theory and discussion, for actual mission accomplishment, the more that argument rages, the more it shows that many of us are not on the same page. Arguing about it more won't help.

I am for the BFM and inerrancy, and I am not for promoting, subsidizing, planting churches with etc. folks who have another agenda.

That doesn't mean I don't like people who disagree with me on those points. I spend most of my days with people like that. I just don't want to run seminaries and plant churches with them.

It does not have to be this hard.


Tim Rogers said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...


You need to go correct your SBCTODAY editorial page ASAP

Apologies need to be sent the BGCT's way quickly as well. Bart bought into an unfounded rumor and the spread it all over the place prior to verification.


Jim Champion

Anonymous said...

Since it has been proven false, will there be an official apology from Bart and the SBC Today team. Heaven forbid that the "moderates" actually support missions and were truthful while the SBC had the dishonesty within it.

Anonymous said...

I hate to say this, but this is still not making sense. When the IMB did not get the money, one would have suspected that they would just make a call.

Again, I ask, "Why not send Lottie Moon money directly to the IMB?"


Dave Miller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
WesInTex said...


You took the words right out of my mouth. Unlike others who publish false accusations and then fall into the “well, it didn’t happen because I exposed the plot” mentality when proven false, I would imagine that Bart will issue a correction (if needed – as Louis I’m still not clear on this and have my own call into the IMB) as soon as he is able. Everyone needs to remember that Bart is out of town for the moment.

BTW, just wondering, what good is an apology if it is demanded?


Alan Cross said...

I don't know if Bart needs to apologize or not. He probably just needs to say what has been found out and report the full story as it is now known. He reported what his sources reported. His sources ended up being wrong. It is good to check your sources and make sure that they are legitimate, but if they were, you can't totally fault Bart. Like he said in his comment to Dave early on, he hoped that they were wrong and now that they are, that is the story. Of course, generally speaking, it would be wise to call the BGCT and ask what they thought about this before posting. I'm sure that they would have told him, friendly relationship there or not.

Here's the real story though (just like Bart said), and this is what Bart should investigate: Why in the world are "sources" within the IMB all in a twitter about this when all that would be needed to correct the issue would to make a few phone calls? Is it possible that in some people's mind the BGCT is considered suspect on everything so if their LMCO is late or gets misplaced then it equates to some grand conspiracy by those liberal Texas baptists? If the IMB can't track down their LMCO from Texas without flying into hysterics, what should we think about how they are handling their primary business?

I don't have a dog in this fight but this is a bit embarassing for all involved, don't you think? Again (and it bears repeating), if I were Bart or the SBC Today guys, I probably would have picked up the phone and called the BGCT before I ran with this story especially when you consider how much criticism has been heaped on others for running with unfounded stories. But hindsight is 20/20 I guess. Of course, if they had made that call, then they could have printed Rand Jenkins statement alongside the accusations of the anonymous sources and let the readers decide who was more believable. That is generally how situations like this are handled, I believe.

WesInTex said...


I certainly can’t speak for the IMB personnel, or for Bart, but I will say that as a pastor here in Texas, for many it is indeed “possible that in some people's mind the BGCT is considered suspect on everything …” I for one have watched the BGCT do virtually everything in its power to distance itself from the SBC all the while their own receipts are plunging. Actions such as the blowing of over a million dollars in CP receipts for bogus church plants, to cutting the State Missions Division funding while paying for free subscriptions to the Baptist Standard, all the while laying off personnel and not filling already vacant positions, but then hiring a “theologian in residence”; yes, the BGCT is hurting for cash. That’s why Bart’s post didn’t surprise me. I did, however, contact the IMB (no, I didn’t bother contacting the BGCT – see above for reason) before I said anything to anyone else. BTW, I’m still waiting for THEIR version of what happened.

Oh, and one last thing – the church I shepherd IS a BGCT congregation.


Tim Rogers said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tim Rogers said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...


Thank you for the arrogant response.

I apologize for asking the SBCTODAY editorial staff to do the right thing.

You said that Barts post was in error - not to difficult to take take Rand Jenkins' comment, or your own statement and add it to Barts as an addendum.

The first two comments

Brumbleow says

If this is true, I can’t think of much that would hurt the BGCT more, and help more the SBTC and SBC. Baptists can get cantankerous real quick when our denominational leaders go directly against our wishes.


It would be a nearly criminal ethical breach.


Several members of the SBC Today gang have been working on this today, and have confirmed with sources both within and without the IMB that this is, in fact, the case. Anonymous, whoever you spoke with was misinformed.

And to the other anonymous, what you say lines up with what we've found, which is that two other state conventions are doing something similar. We have no idea which ones, though we have 99% certainty on one. When we know both, they'll be added to the version of this post that is at SBC Today (

As spike lee says - do the right thing.


Alan Cross said...


In his first line, Bart said, "Sources within the International Mission Board report that the Baptist General Convention of Texas is escrowing Lottie Moon Christmas Offering funds to safeguard BGCT cash flow."

In your comment timestamped May 21, 2009 1:22 PM you said, "I have just found out that the BGCT sent their funds to the Executive Committee (EC) and the EC was the one with the funds."

Then, in your comment to me, you said, "I believe if you re-read the post you will see that Brother Bart has not posted anything false, or unfounded. The facts are correct. As of May 20, 2009 the IMB had not received one red penny from the BGCT for their LMCO. That is what was reported. The reason for this not coming is something else. No one knew that a computer glitch existed. We stand by the story."

Which story are you standing by Tim? Bart said that sources told him the BGCT is escrowing LMCO funds to safeguard BGCT cash flow. You said that the BGCT sent the funds to the EC and the EC had them. Then, you say that nothing in the original story was false. Are you serious? Those two statements are mutually exclusive. The BGCT cannot simultaneously escrow LMCO funds to safeguard their cash flow AND have sent the money on to the EC.

You are contradicting yourself brother. Bart did not just report that the IMB had not received the BGCT's LMCO funds yet. He said that they had escrowed them to safeguard their cashflow. Unless they were escrowing them with the EC, then his statement most surely was false. Again, I think that Bart had some bad sources so I am not trying to come down hard on him or you guys. Just correct it.

Alan Cross said...

One last question: Is it possible for state conventions to escrow money with the EC? That seems very strange to me, but that is the only way that everyone would be correct in this situation.

Alan Cross said...


Then, over on SBCToday you made a correction where you said,

"It appears that the BGCT story checks out as to their not with holding the funds."

So, you agree that Bart's story (and therefore your story) was initially wrong. That is what I said. Why then would you disagree with me by saying that Bart had not posted anything false? All that I said was that you guys should have made a phone call.

Then, you ended your correction with, "However, we still wonder why an IMB personnel would present to their trustees, along with our SBC President, a report that state conventions are placing in escrow LMCO funds? This needs to be investigated by our IMB Trustees. One simple phone call to the EC from the IMB staff would have kept this from being a story."

One simple phone call would have kept this from being a story.

That's exactly what I said. Tim, your response to me strikes me as odd. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this has been a stressful day for you, brother. We are actually agreeing with one another and you missed it.

Glad that you are getting this straightened out though. Thanks for the follow-up.

BIg Daddy Weave said...


At the minimum, you need to reword the title over at SBC Today.

As you previously noted:

"It appears that the BGCT story checks out as to their not with holding the funds."

Your sources at the IMB gave you bad information.

Come on man.

If a blogger is going to play journalist and report "breaking news" then that blogger needs to be held to the same ethical standards that are demanded of journalists. Sometimes sources are bad. Journalists acknowledge their mistakes and make the necessary corrections and move on.

Anonymous said...

I agree with BDW - but am thankful at the very least that you inserted your comment in red


William said...

Someone was wrong on this and it was Barber and SBCToday. The protests otherwise are ludicrous. The headline was a deliberately framed, agressive shot at the BGCT. It should have been checked out.

Go ahead and straighten this mess out with respect to the BGCT before you lose any additional credibility.


Clark Logan said...

My name is Clark Logan and I am Vice President for Business and Finance for the SBC Executive Committee.

The initial blog entry, “BGCT Refusing to Release Lottie Moon Funds, Sources Report,” and some of the subsequent comments have been inaccurate and unfair to the BGCT, the IMB, and the SBC Executive Committee.

1. The BGCT has a consistent history of forwarding funds to the SBC Executive Committee. As shown on the official report of Designated Receipts (of which the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering is a part) released by the SBC Executive Committee for February, the BGCT forwarded over $6.3 million. While the March report shows a “0.00,” the April report shows over $4.2 million (which includes over $3.3 million actually forwarded on March 23 – explained below).

2. It is correct that the official report of Designated Receipts released by the SBC Executive Committee did show a “$0.00” for the BGCT for the month of March. This is why:

• The BGCT, like all state convention partners, forwards both Cooperative Program funds and Designated Funds to the SBC Executive for distribution to SBC entities at least once (and sometimes two or three times) a month.
• As is usual, in March (March 23rd to be exact), the BGCT wired their designated gifts to the SBC Executive Committee in the amount $3,301,826.17.
• As is not usual, the BGCT did not send a remittance form or any paperwork showing how the money it sent should be applied.
• Apparently the implementation of new software at the BGCT complicated their ability to compile and issue the needed distribution report until after April 1. Therefore, even though the SBC Executive Committee was in possession of the Designated Fund sent on March 23, “$0.00” was reported because the proper application of those funds had not been verified by the BGCT.

3. Distribution and reporting of Designated Funds cannot be made by the Executive Committee until the distribution paperwork is received from the state conventions. In the (normally very few) days between receipt of the funds by the SBC Executive Committee and distribution of the funds by the SBC Executive Committee, the funds are invested on behalf of the entities by the SBC Executive Committee and all interest earned is passed on to the entities pro rata. Rarely does the time frame of this delay overlap the last day of the month – which is the day the books are closed and the monthly Designated Receipts report is prepared for distribution to state conventions and SBC entities. In this case, the delay did overlap the last day of the month, and therefore a “0.00” was reported for the BGCT for the month of March. As previously stated, however, the April report includes both the April gifts and the gifts tendered on March 23. For these reasons, any claim that the BGCT “held money” is erroneous.

4. The Business and Finance division of the SBC Executive Committee works closely with the finance offices at all of the entities. Persons in those offices would have knowledge of or opportunity to access all of the above information. Anytime there is a question, I believe all of those offices would welcome the opportunity to respond to any inquiries from interested Southern Baptists. I wish our office had been called about this matter before various erroneous theories were proposed.

Anonymous said...

Tim Rogers, this is an outright lie:
"The facts are correct. As of May 20, 2009 the IMB had not received one red penny from the BGCT for their LMCO."

The BGCT forwards millions of dollars to the SBC (see Clark Logan's post below,) and for you to say that there hasn't been "one red penny" is simply libel.

Alan Cross said...


I'm glad that was cleared up. Yes, a few phone calls would have been appropriate.

We can all learn from this, no doubt. Things are not always as bad as they seem. Sometimes there really is a reasonable explanation.

I'll let everyone else sort through the rest of this.

Anonymous said...

Wes in TX

The BGCT has actually tried to strengthen ties to the SBC in the last year or so. The pres of the BGCT is very SBC friendly, the new Executive director spoke in SWBTS chapel.

To set the record straight, the theologian in residence is being paid by his former church, not by CP funds.

I was as unhappy as anyone when the border missions mess happened last year, but the BGCT seems to be headed back in the right direction.


rick davis said...


I have spoken to Rand Jenkis, communications officer at BGCT, who assures me the money went to IMB on March 1, with a mistake in the paperwork that caused the paperwork, not the money to be returned to the BGCT.

Your sources lied to you, if they know, and misrepresented the facts at the very least. I know you will want to correct this error in the interests of fairness.

Big Daddy Weave said...

Here is a snippet from Rick Davis' blog

See that here:

"Here is the story:

The Lottie Moon money was sent in March 2009. The corresponding paperwork did not accompany the money (a BGCT omission), resulting in the IMB not crediting the money properly. The paperwork followed three days later. IMB then correctly credited the money.

Rand Jenkins, communications officer of the BGCT, has spoken directly with the VP of communications at the IMB, who has assured BGCT the money is there, has been there and was never not there. Jill Larsen, CFO of the BGCT, has spoken with the appropriate persons at the IMB, who have assured her likewise that the Lottie Moon money is there and correctly credited."

Big Daddy Weave said...


You've created a mess here. Clean it up. Make some corrections. Consider issuing an apology for the sloppiness.

How about a series on blog ethics?

If anyone - absolutely anyone - wants to offer a post on blog ethics, I will post it on my blog ( This is a discussion that the Baptist blogosphere needs to have.

I plan to pen a post on the subject tonight.

Anonymous said...

Gilda Radner comes to memory.

Never mind.


Alan Cross said...

"Jill Larsen, CFO of the BGCT, has spoken with the appropriate persons at the IMB, who have assured her likewise that the Lottie Moon money is there and correctly credited."

So, the money was actually at the IMB all along? There was just a zero for March because of a clerical error?

Sounds like some sources were intentionally lying or they looked at a number and drew some terrible conclusions without asking. I would go with the latter conclusion because lying would be so easily disproven.

What is really sad is that this made it all the way to Johnny Hunt, supposedly, and was making its way to the IMB trustees (supposedly).

Where is Tim or Wes Kenney? I know that Bart is out of touch, but I would love to hear from the other guys at SBC Today over what they now think happened.

Todd said...

oops Tim, makes me long for the Outpost - :)

Paul said...


I don't ever recall you making critical statements about anonymous sources either here or elsewhere. However, I can recall being personally taken to task over on the former SBC Outpost by Wes Kenney and others for our publishing a story about Al Mohler's alleged anger issues using an anonymous source from within the seminary. I don't have a problem with you publishing this story here, though it's unfortunate that you apparently have poor sources within the IMB. I do have a problem with it being published at SBC Today given the strident opposition to anonymous sources expressed by a founding contributor there.

But in the famous words of Doc Holliday in the movie Tombstone: "My hypocrisy knows no bounds."

Not to be incendiary or anything. ;-)

Pastor Steve said...

Is Wes Kenney in Oklahoma the same as WesinTex?

Regardless, four people in this thread, Wes Kenney, Bart Barber, WesinTex and Dave Miller owe the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma an apology.

All four people have impugned the integrity of leadership at the BGCT and then tried to shift their guilt.

Shame, shame, shame.

Tim Rogers said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alan Cross said...


Are you really asking Clark Logan, Vice President for Business and Finance for ExComm to prove to you that he isn't lying when he explained to you in detail what happened?

Come on, Tim. You are better than that.

You guys just need to admit you were wrong and move on. No big deal.

Clark Logan said...


I have no firsthand knowledge of what IMB personnel may or may not have said to trustees.

The Executive Committee distributes monthly reports and year-to-date (YTD) reports at the first of each month to the entities, state conventions, etc.

These reports contain information about Cooperative Program funds and Designated Funds (Lottie, Annie, World Hunger, etc., as well as other funds designated directly to a particular entity) distributed by the Executive Committee within the current reporting month and YTD.

The numbers I placed in my post came straight from the February, March, and April reports. These reports are not secret; as stated, they are distributed widely. In fact, these are the reports that Baptist Press uses as its source for the CP story at the first of each month.


Clark Logan
Vice President for Business and Finance
SBC Executive Committee

Anonymous said...

As President of the BGCT, I want to encourage you to remove your post, and to straighten out this mess. The church I serve is a SBC church with a number of IMB missionaries. It is true that we have been working hard to turn walls into bridges to advance the Great Commission around the world.

I too am a blogger, so I know the challenges of getting the story straight. We must be very careful in these days. I believe a fresh wind is blowing for greater understanding and cooperation in the future on Kingdom causes. We cannot continue the stereotypes of the past.

I believe this was an honest mistake. Please remove the post. Clear the reputation of the leaders of the BGCT, and work hard to help us work effectively together in the days ahead.

The stakes are too high for us to waste our time on matters like this. Let's unite to do the work Jesus called us to do. If the Great Commission Resurgence is to be more than a slogan or motto, we must learn to trust each other and work together again.

David Lowrie
President of the BGCT
Pastor of First Baptist Church of Canyon, TX

Dave Miller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave Miller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Big Daddy Weave said...

No Dave, Bart did not "report facts that came from someone else" - unless you consider false information to meet the definition of a "fact."

A "fact" is by definition "true." It is a known truth.

Dave Miller said...

Okay, BDW, I'm anti-postmodern, so I will agree with what you said.

Bart reported what someone else stated as fact, but it seems that the person who gave him that information was in error.

That states my opinion.

WesInTex said...

Brother Jim,
Thanks for the update about the “theologian in residence.” I was not aware that he was not paid by CP funds. Still, I wonder why the BGCT would need such a position, and I wonder how much we could better use those funds in the mission field.
Also, I was glad to know that Dr. Lowrie was elected President and that the current Ex. Dir. Spoke at Southwestern. My point is not in relation to either of these men. My point is with the BGCT itself. New paint on an old barn doesn’t clean up the mess on the inside. Please don’t try to make it sound like the BGCT and SBC are now working together as we should. Not when the BGCT is still keeping 79% of CP receipts in state to fund their own mission initiatives, SS material and seminaries. Go back to 1994 and 1995 – and the steps taken to separate the BGCT and from the SBC, correct those problems, then we’ll talk about progress.
Pastor Steve,
First, Wes Kenney and I are not the same people. I have the privilege of living in Texas – Wes K. is not so fortunate 8-)
Second, why do you think I owe the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma and apology as we were talking about the Baptist General Convention of Texas (yes, I know, opps – mistakes happen don’t they).
Third, I still don’t know why you would think I owe the BGCT an apology. I have labored in Texas for more than twenty five years and have seen firsthand much of what has taken place – which I have stated here. Now I realize that others will disagree with my take on the events – they are as entitled to their opinions as I am mine. I was at the BGCT in Amarillo in 1994 and at the BGCT meeting in Austin in 1995. I saw what happened and felt as if my heart had been ripped from my body when first the Cooperative Program was redefined and then the EE Committee report was approved at those meetings. I still see that as the time the old BGCT died. I won’t apologize for voicing what I believe to be errors in the BGCT – any more than I would expect Jim to apologize for voicing what he might see as errors in the SBTC.
Finally, I see where your web site is promoting a night of worship with Mark Robins – man, that guy is great. Wish I could come.

JSturty said...

It is amazing to me that these fundamentalist fellows always want to stand firmly against sin, unless it is their own. Then they find all kinds of ways to justify it. The truth is--passing on any information that you do not know to be true, especially if it cast someone or some group in a negative light, and even more especially if it is your opponent or someone with whom you disagree, is nothing less than the biblical sin of gossip. As Christians we do not get our ethic from the journalism department. And ironically, secular journalists would probably have operated with a higher ethic than this blog has shown here. It is the malicious and mean spirited lust to show up your opponent, revealing your own cleverness in ferreting out his sin and wagging your head in self-righteous indignation. It is not just a mistake, it is not just someone else to be blamed, it is sin. You are the man!

Wally said...



Anonymous said...

Dear Wes,

I appreciate your comments about the BGCT. I think I fully understand your thoughts and concerns. Your analogy of an old barn with new paint makes some sense, but I don't believe it reflects the reality of today very well.

There is no way we can turn back the clock to 1994, nor should we. We all have learned hard lessons from our denominational struggles. With the birth of the Southern Baptist of Texas Convention, the BGCT faced the challenge of supporting its Kingdom assignment of planting churches, equipping the next generation with its colleges and seminaries, and caring for the least of these through its care ministries. With less churches clearly their were significantly less funds. So the percentage kept in Texas is a byproduct of those harsh realities. In terms of Kingdom dollars more money is flowing out of Texas than before because of the 50/50 split of the SBTC.

However, each BGCT church is autonomous and can set their own percentages and many do.

Unlike many since 1994 I stayed within the system to work for change. As a Southern Baptist, I hoped for a day when the striving between the BGCT and the SBC would cease and we could find points of connection where we could work together, but I also realized that it was essential for the BGCT to find ways of collaboration within its member churches. The rift ran deep in Texas, and if the BGCT was to be a force for good in the years to come the convention needed to return to its Kingdom assignment (Evangelism & Missions, Christian Education, and Advocacy and Care). The BGCT had to stop drawing theological lines in the sand, and start working together with a synergy of the Spirit of God.

So three years ago a small group of leaders started speaking up and speaking out. Our focus was not so much on the past, but on future. We sought to cast a vision of Kingdom cooperation (some are using the word collaboration today) as the basis of our movement.

The first challenge was getting an Executive Director who understood the challenges of today. By God's grace, Randel Everett was called to lead us. He has led from the middle, not the margins, and he has called us back to our historic roots as Texas Baptists. Texas Hope 2010 was his first challenge to us as a people. He called on us to share the hope of Christ to every person in Texas by Resurrection Sunday 2010, and to make it our mission to make sure every hungry person in Texas had a meal to eat. This God-sized assignment looks impossible from the outside, but it is a mission we are committed to accomplish. This vision has inspired our leadership and changed the conversation among Texas Baptists.

Recently one of our leading conservative pastor's said, "A fresh wind is blowing." I wholeheartedly agree. I think a better analogy for our future using the barn image would be that our old barn was destroyed by a Texas tornado, and we are now in the process of an old-fashion barn raising. We are using much of the same lumber from the first barn, but it will be new barn. It will not probably be as massive, but it will be very functional and effective for its new day.

The BGCT is messy, and mysterious. It is probably one of the most diverse Kingdom organizations in the world. If you want simple black and white answers it is not the place for you, but if you want to be a part of a movement that is positioning itself to impact the world it is a great place to be.

David Lowrie
BGCT President

Tim Rogers said...

To Everyone,

I have removed previous comments. It seems that I have been trying to speak to areas that I do not have complete information. For those I have offended by my comments I apologize.

I will refrain from commenting any further on this subject until all of the facts are public.


Dave Samples said...


I very much understand that until Bart returns, the post on his site will need to remain up--it's his site afterall. No one has the authority to adjust his post.

I do not, however, understand why the post at SBC Today is still up. The premise of the post has been proven false by the SBC EC as well as by the BGCT. Are you requiring that the IMB also post a comment in order to be assured that, "the Baptist General Convention of Texas (BGCT) is escrowing Lottie Moon Christmas Offering funds to safeguard BGCT cash flow"?

The removal of your comments affirming the truth of the story is an exercise in wisdom seeing that the story has now been proven false.

I fail to understand why the editors/contributors of SBC Today have not already removed the errant post. I come to you gently as a brother in Christ and as a fellow-blogger. Do the right thing.

WesInTex said...

Brother David,

Thank you for your kind words, and yes, I will agree that Dr. Everett has proven so far to be a fresh change to the BGCT. There was certainly room for improvement and I for one am grateful that he has sought to moderate the BGCT’s position somewhat. Surely the Texas Hope 2010 vision is a great move.

However … (you knew it had to be, right?)

The idea that the BGCT is justified in its CP percentages is just not correct Brother David, though I certainly understand your position. We can’t go back and change the past, but the past is the reason for the present. The fact is that the BGCT implemented programs that are very costly – that duplicate the work of the SBC unnecessarily. Many of these new ministries were opposed by a great number of Texas Baptists, thus you have a decreasing amount of funding – even among BGCT churches. What some people can’t seem to understand (or admit) is that the BGCT wouldn’t have to keep so much in state if it wasn’t trying to duplicate the work of the SBC. THAT, dear Brother, is much of the problem. Many of us see that the BGCT has simply positioned itself as an alternative to the SBC. Yes, you’re right that the BGCT churches are autonomous in the setting of their CP percentages – mine is one of them.

One line you wrote actually made me laugh. You stated: “In terms of Kingdom dollars more money is flowing out of Texas than before because of the 50/50 split of the SBTC.” Now, I don’t think you’re trying to take credit for the work being done by the SBTC – but that’s what it sounds like.

David, we were not talking about the benefits of the SBTC. We’re talking about the shortfalls of the BGCT. They are keeping more and more money in state because they are continuously duplicating work being done by the SBC. Many of their own churches are simply funding around these duplicated ministries. The reason they are duplicating these ministries is because they considered (maybe not you, but those who started them considered it as such) to be an alternative to the SBC. If I remember correctly, before these duplicated ministries, the BGCT was able to focus on missions/ evangelism, Christian education and Advocacy/ Care pretty well with a lot less of the pie.

“New Barn?” I doubt it. But then again, those scars do run pretty deep. Thanks for the conversation and know that I do keep you in prayer as you lead the BGCT.


From the Middle East said...


I offer this prayer as a reminder. It is not directed at anyone specifically, but it is a good reminder to all:

May I be no man's enemy, and may I be the friend of that which is eternal and abides.
May I never quarrel with those nearest me; and if I do, may I be reconciled quickly.
May I never devise evil against any man; if any devise evil against me,
may I escape uninjured and without the need of hurting him.
May I love, seek, and attain only that which is good.
May I wish for all men's happiness and envy none.
May I never rejoice in the ill-fortune of one who has wronged me.
When I have done or said what is wrong, may I never wait for the rebuke of others,
but always rebuke myself until I make amends.

May I win no victory that harms either me or my opponent.
May I reconcile friends who are angry with one another.
May I, to the extent of my power, give all needful help to my friends and to all who are in want.
May I never fail a friend in danger.
When visiting those in grief: may I be able, by gentle and healing words, to soften their pain.
May I respect myself. May I always tame that which rages within me.
May I accustom myself to be gentle and never be angry with people because of circumstances.
May I never discuss who is wicked and what wicked things he has done, but know good men and follow in their footsteps, through Christ our Lord. Amen. -- Eusebius of Caesarea

Peace to you brothers,
From the Middle East

John Fariss said...

I'm a bit confused. First there ws a rather scathing article at SBC Today (where I first encountered it) on the BGCT escrowing LM Funds, with the same article duplicated here (and I don't know which came first). Then there was an addendum (in red)indicating the funds were not escrowed, but some sort of reporting error was involved. Then (here) there were entries first from Rand Jenkins of the BGCT, and multiple ones from Clark Logan of the EC and David Lowrie of the BGCT, all of which suggest that your initial report (regardless of the source) was in error, apparently caused by computer/reporting glitches. Mind you, I don't have a horse in this race, but especially with the entry by an EC official, it seems conclusive: your source was erronnious at best and outright false at worst.

But then y'all started claiming you did nothing wrong, and the source was "factual" just "in error." That comes off sounding like you wanted it to be correct so much that you just can't bring yourself to admit it was wrong.

But now the initial blog entry (here AND at SBC Today) have been shortened and significantly changed. Now it says that there is a "report" by "IBM sources" that the BGCT is escrowing funds, with the red clarifying entry completely removed! No indication that the initial blog was incorrect, and a shortened entry that suggests wrongdoing all over again! Had I not read the initial one, I would not have believed this. Are you guys so angry over the fact that the BGCT just exists that you cannot admit to a mistake, and want to perpetuate a lie? Or is it more evil than that: are you deliberately posting misleading entries to "blacken the eye" of the BGCT? It is no secret that I have disagreed with you on many occasions, but I never believed before that any of you (either Dr. Barber or the folks at SBC Today) were that unethical or malicious. Unless you can show me a third alternative theory for this series of changes, I will, unfortunantly, be impelled to that conclusion.

"Please Joe--say it ain't so!"

John Fariss

SBC Friend said...

Dave Miller,

You wrote: "Bart reported what someone else stated as fact, but it seems that the person who gave him that information was in error."Earlier you wrote:

It would be a nearly criminal ethical breath."The only ethical breach on anybody's radar is that someone like you would claim the the BGCT had an ethical breach of conduct based on "information that is in error."


Alan Cross said...

I went over to SBC Today and saw that the post is still up, now without even a disclaimer. So, everyone reads that will believe that it is true unless they follow the link over here and read the comments by people from the BGCT and EC directly denying the accusation.
The information reported has been directly disputed by sources that are NOT anonymous. We still don't know who the accusers of the BGCT are. How is this different than what Wade was eviscerated for over the SWBTS-Calvinism issue when Greg Welty disputed him in the comment stream?

Come on guys. You know what is going on. You are scrambling to find proof of your allegations but you are supposed to have proof BEFORE you make the allegations. Then, when those allegations are directly disputed, you can't just say "We'll see" while allowing the allegations to stand.

If you think that you are about to find proof that shows these men from the BGCT and EC to be liars and you are waiting for that, at least point to their denials right now so that the whole story is out there.

This is primarily a SBC Today problem and is exactly why you're credibility is being killed by not allowing comments.

Stuart said...

John and Alan,

I think you're missing the point of the redactions. You'll need to look farther east than Dallas or Nashville to find the scapegoat.

Todd said...

It is public. The information is out. It is indisputable. Your alteration of the original post does nothing but maintain the initial error. You would be better served taking the post down.

Tim Rogers said...

Brother Dave Samples,

In now way am I trying to be short with this answer, but I feel it best that I stick with what I said in my last comment.


John Fariss said...




volfan007 said...

Some of yall need to chill out. Bart is out of computer range at the moment. There's nothing he can do to this post at the moment. Why dont yall back off and give him a little bit of time to get back into computerland. Maybe then, he can straighten all of this out.

But, boy, some of you are like wolves pouncing on the sheep. And, some of you, whom never hardly ever comment in here, are acting like ravaging wolves. Enjoy your moment.

And, what I read was Bart saying that reports from sources were saying....

Let's keep it all in the right prospective.

Todd said...

so volfan you are the comment police. i really don't care one way or another about the story. my concern is precisely about Bart. if there is conflict over the facts, and you know he is out of town, as a friend, would you not want someone to take the post down until it gets cleared up? if not, i would not want you in my corner. this has implications further than an appeal to errant sources. the inflammatory nature of the title tips the hand. i am simply suggesting sparing Bart. if he gets back and his spin from the post title is indeed correct then run it up the flagpole. until then, spare Bart further potential embarrassment from these errant sources.

volfan007 said...


What can I do to Bart's post? I dont have access to his change things, take anything down, or post something new? He is my friend, but I'm not a computer hacker.

Also, you're just hearing one side of the story until Bart gets back. Let's wait and hear from him, instead of jumping to conclusions. And, if he's wrong, I'm sure that Bart will say so. Bart is a man of character and conviction, unlike some in the blog world, who "stretch the truth" and "make mountains out of molehills" as they seek to hunt thier white whales on the high seas called the SBC.

But anyway, let's wait for Bart. Shall we?


Paul said...

What these anonymous sources have admitted is that they value their salaried positions more than they value integrity and truth. If their accusations and charges are true then they are serious enough to declare openly and honestly. Sign your name, friends. Show your fellow Southern Baptists that you value truth and integrity more than money. Continued anonymity discredits everything you say and I, for one, refuse to put any credence in anonymous accusations.

It is time for those who care about the SBC to play the man, speak truth in love and leave the consequences to God.

For what it is worth, I recommend that Bart and the SBC Today contributors handle anonymous sources by encouraging them either to man up or remain quiet in order to keep their paycheck while realizing that they are a part of the very problem over which they profess concern.

Anonymous said...

What would be the MOTIVE in the IMB for 'sources' to spread such a rumor, that funds had 'not been received'?

Are donations documented?
Is there a paper-trail.
Can the BGCT prove their donation was given to the IMB by providing receipts from a bank?

If the IMB DID recieve the money, and IF their are certain 'sources' at the IMB who have alerted the B.I. group involved in 'revealing' what may not be true;

then, at internal examination at the IMB needs to be done
1. to determine the truth of the
B.I. claims
2. If not true, then there is still
a need to identify the IMB
'sources' IF THEY EXIST AT
3. If the IMB balance sheet does
not match up with the BGCT
deposits, where is the money?
4. If no 'sources' are found,
what is the B.I.'s
responsibility in this scandal?
And at whose orders ?
5. An investigation would put
questions to rest.
6. Except for one: MOTIVES
WHY? And another piece of
the B.I. puzzle is put into
place. Soon the 'picture'
will be visible for all to
see. One way or the other.

Todd said...

I think Bart's friends at Today could help the matter. I have emailed Wes. A clarification from the material here and an explanation of Bart's absence would go along way to ending the whale hunting.

As I mentioned. I do not care about the story. But, I would hope my friends would help me in ways they can. No one suggested you hack Bart's blog. But, this got stirred more by the connection to Today. They could help simmer the situation until a more convenient time. Why post something like this when you will be away in the event better information is available is beyond me.

I too think Bart is an upstanding fellow. That is why I would suggest his friends find a way to help him in his absences - not make matters worse.

volfan007 said...


Oh brother.


Alan Cross said...


That was a direct quote from when you were being yelled at over posting the anonymous professor's accusations against Mohler over on Outpost. Or, at least it sounds just like it. But, you're right. Where are the anonymous sources backing up their claim?

Here is what I think happened: Someone at the IMB noticed that the BGCT's numbers were 0 for March. They had never been zero before so they made an assumption that the money was being held. Or, maybe it came in a week or two late to cover payroll or something. Our church has not paid some bills before temporarily to cover payroll until cash flow built back up.At any rate, the money was there within a couple of weeks. The BGCT is autonomous, is it not? I don't see the problem.But, this story likely got spread around and made it to Bart from two different sources. It also made it to Johnny Hunt and IMB trustees. I can see people spreading a story like this when the BGCT is already suspect in an informal "Can you believe what they've done now?" type of way.

I still don't really blame Bart for all of this as he went with his sources and is now out of pocket. But, his name is the one on these reports and it would be helpful if the whole story was reported on SBC Today.

Anyway, Several reputable people have come on and refuted the reports. That has to count for something and should not be ignored. If they are right, the story turns to the IMB. Why spread this? If these sources are wrong, then why would they lie?

At any rate, everyone is better served and protected by printing the denials on SBC Today. If they had a comment stream then we could say this over there. But, they don't so these things happen.



absonjourney said...

Dear Bart-

Thanks for once again bringing to light the most important part of this entire situation...the fact that the Baptist Identity folks have ZERO integrity and are just like their forerunners. May God break your heart for the sins you have committed against those who oppose you.

Ryan Abernathy
Oklahoma City, Ok

WTJeff said...

I'm willing to cut Bart some slack if he is out of town, but the fact that the post is still up at SBC Today is inexcusable. This rumor has been debunked. Admit your error, apologize, and move on.

David Phillips said...

This is actually funny. Someone gets caught with the wrong information, posts it, and takes off for the weekend. One person tries to defend, then make corrections, then return to the (almost) original post and is left taking the brunt of the attack for the OP's wrong information. Nobody else at SBCT wants to touch it...

It reminds me of an Elvis Presly song:
I'm caught in a trap,
I can't walk out
Because I love you too much baby

Why can't you see
what you're doing to me
When you don't believe a word I'm saying

We can't go on together
with suspicious minds
And we can't build our dreams
on suspicious minds
For your own sake, Wes, Tim, Robin, etc, so you do not lose any more credibility, ...Take the post down on SBCT!

John Fariss said...

David volfan007,

The one flaw in your argument is that the original entry on both websites has already been changed--not once but twice! First to include a disclaimer in red, then to remove that and shorten the article (while retaining the allegations of financial shenanigans). Were it not for that, I would certainly agree that all should adopt a wait and see attitude. But "someone" is already manipulating blogsites, not waiting for Dr. Barber to return to computer range.


Anonymous said...

Dear Bart,

One thing that I wish that there were more of is journalistic integrity. If this story had been reported by a journalist and in this manner, than that journalist would be looking for work right now. I have to ask you this question, prior to your posting, did you bother following up on the sources with the IMB? Did you bother contacting the BGCT regarding the perceived indiscretion, such as Jill Larsen, Dr. Everett, or David Lowrie? Did you bother doing any further research on this subject at all past rumor and hear-say?

What you post on your blog is your own business, however you have not only posted on your blog, but the SBC Today website. This kind of reporting reeks of a person who simply has an ax to grind, and the Kingdom has no room for that. Rather than handling your issue in a manner becoming of a believer (specifically confronting those you have an issue with) you heard a rumor and you ran with it. This reminds me of an old press saying “don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.” For this you should be ashamed. I hope and pray that when you return to the grid that you will apologize and retract this story. I echo pastor Abernathy’s prayer of conviction and repentance.

-Josh Lyman
Deputy Chief of Staff for President Josiah Bartlett

Clifford said...

Bart's out of town. We can only wait until he returns to see how he'll respond.

The big issue here is with SBC Today. Unfortunately, SBC Today does not allow comments.

To "knowingly" and "willfully" leave a "false" and "injurious" post online, as SBC Today has done here, does have potential unpleasant ramifications.

Given what Tim Rogers and SBC Today now know (based on comments from BGCT President and SBC Executive Committee VP and how Tim and others have acted [edits, etc.]), SBC Today is "purposefully" causing harm to the reputation and credibility of the Baptist General Convention of Texas by allowing that post to remain online in its original form.

Show a little respect and act on the BGCT President's request to remove the post.

Paul said...


You have a good memory. I'm indebted to the almost-word-for-word plagiarization of Tom Ascol on SBC Outpost. A comment to which Wes Kenney replied: "This surprises me, even for this blog. I can’t say it any better than Tom has in 13. Clearly, 'Professor Anonymous,' if he exists (why the quotes, Todd?) fears man far more than he trusts God."

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Alan Cross said...

Tim, Wes, Robin, and anyone connected with SBC Today.

Now that almost another day has passed, please do not let this go into the weekend. Either back up your evidence, include the denials from the accused on the SBC Today post, or take it down. This really is friendly advice and is not meant to harm you.

Scott said...

The fact of the information being incorrect or not does not absolve anyone who turns around and reports it as fact. You are answerable for your actions alone.

The reporter is still in error because it is his/her words that are going forth from that point. The accountability rests with the reporter, not the sources feeding information to the reporter.

The moment you try to act journalistic with your blog posts, you become answerable to the ethics and legalities associated with news reporting. You can't simply state someone fed me bad information. You decided to make this a story without verification and it's come back to haunt you.

If you want blogging ethics, that's simple. The rules and laws that apply to news reporting including libel apply to blogging. There is legal precedence for that as well.

You got caught with a false story and ran with it. Learn from it, apologize, and realize that is why journalists have to verify, verify, and verify some more. I'd also have a long conversation with my so-called "sources".

Anonymous said...

Volfan said 'But, boy, some of you are like wolves pouncing on the sheep.'

FINALLY you come around and admit to the truth: SBC Today is a pack of wolves and the target was the BGCT!

Volfan, you are a Christian at last. You have seen the light.
Bart has a lot to answer for and it is good for you to finally start siding with the sheep. :)

David Phillips said... I see that there is another post up on the"today show" about the whole deal. Hmm...All that is said is "Stay Tuned!" Is this a way to drive traffic or make yourself relevant?

"Since the report was made public at SBC Today, with opportunities for dialogue at Praisegod Barebones, administrators of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention and of the BGCT have sought to dismiss the report as a technical glitch encountered during a software transition. Thus, instead of the International Mission Board directly receiving the funds, they reportedly somehow ended up in the office of the Executive Committee. The details of this transaction remain sketchy, at best."

Really...sketchy at best? When the BGCT President, the VP of the EC, and BGCT official gave direct comments on exactly what happened, you really think it's "sketchy at best." This is worse spin than Madow or Olbermann on MSNBC.

Man, I would hate to know what you think makes a conclusive argument...Does it have to be written by Moses on a stone tablet?

Caught in a Trap...Can't walk out...

This is sooo funny!!

David Phillips said...

Oh, and another thing...the firestorm that was created...That was created by


No one else knew about it...

This is laughable!!!!!

Paul said...

So now the "reporting of the story" has become the story itself? That's the essence of the new post at SBC Today. The story is no longer what actually happened. The story is now what was reported to have happened.

This just gets more and more bizarre.

SBC Friend said...

SBC Friend,

Bizarre is too kind of a word for the antics of the BI crowd. These bozos allege misconduct at the BGCT at best, possible misappropriation of funds at the BGCT at worst. They emphatically "stand by their story" - even when officials from every single entity deny the allegations. Then, when they get caught with their pants down and have their bottoms beat red by the blogging crowd, they post another stupid essay at SBC Today about details being "sketchy."


You must be joking. What about those "details" they emphatically stood by in the original post. Were they "sketchy?" What about those stern "we know what we are talking about and everybody else doesn't" comments that defended the indefensible? Were those "sketchy?" What about Tim Guthrie's, Wes Kenney's, Dave Phillips, and the rest of the boondoggle BI crowd who crowed over the BGCT's "criminal unethical breaches." The only thing sketchy is the integrity of those doing the writing these past two days.

No wonder they don't let people comment over at SBC Today. At least this one will remain up until Bart gets back and wipes his embarrassment off the screen.

David Phillips said...

Hey SBC Friend

DO NOT list me with the BI crowd...Re-read my comments...I'm laughing at what they wrote!

I am not a BI guy AT ALL!!!

SBC Friend said...

David Phillips,

My sincerest apologies. I meant Dave Miller.

Allow me to give an example of how Bart Barber and his friends should apologize to the BGCT, using my eggregious written falsehood regarding you.

Dear David Phillips,

Allow me to express my sincerest and deepest regrets for saying something about you that was completely and totally untrue. To accuse you of being a part of the Baptist Identity crowd, and to do so in a public forum such as a blog, is almost more than one should be able to bear. Please, I beg of you. Do not sue me. Do not hate me. Do not condemn me. I was dead wrong for writing what I wrote. I, frankly, have lost my credibility. I feel ashamed, almost to the point of advocating any leadership in the SBC for the long term future.

You, kind sir, are a man of integrity. My words have impugned your character, denigrated your ministry and caused you almost irrevocable harm. All I can offer you is to never again write anything about you that even smacks of me wanting to ruin your reptutation.

If you can find it in your heart to do so, please forgive me.


SBC Friend

David Phillips said...

SBC Friend,

In the spirit of how you apologized, I shall demonstrate how I think the BGCT should accept the apology:

To Bart, Wes, Tim, et. al...
Apology Accepted. Now we extend to you the opportunity to meat over a good meal and talk about life and about our mutual faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

It would be good to reconcile in this way and let the world see how people who might disagree on a few, insignificant topics can rejoice in our common faith in Christ. In addition, through this, we can let the world know we are Christians by our love for one another, and honor the prayer of Jesus, that we could be one in Him.
Blessings to you SBC Friend!

WTJeff said...

You know, I always thought SBC Today was a joke. With their latest post, they've removed all doubt! Nothing like blaming your mistake on others. After all, giving the BGCT's tendency to withhold funds from the SBC, jumping to conclusions is entirely acceptable. (My tongue is so firmly implanted in my cheek right now it's about to come out the side of my face!)

greg.w.h said...

If Bart still draws even a stipend from SWBTS, then his effort to disparage the BGCT for allegedly escrowing funds has a regrettable hint--intentional or not--of institutional payback for when the BGCT redistributed funds from the six national SBC seminaries to seminaries in Texas.

That's why this post is particularly poorly postulated, pointedly per the pseudonymous pedigree of its potentially pernicious purpose.

( on a roll there...)

Greg Harvey

Scott said...

Now the new article reads as supposition reported as factual.

Just issue the retraction and issue the apology.

You goofed and you're realizing that the author is accountable for his words. You wrote this, not the sources.

Anonymous said...

Sometimes people that tell lies get caught.

The problem is this: how many times do these SAME PEOPLE lie about others and are taken seriously?

Maybe it's time to ask the 'powers that be' whether or not they standing by this pack of liars.

Or if they repudiate them.
Or not.

Is anyone among these B.I. jokers on the payroll of the SWBTS?

Follow the money . . . .
it will lead to to the culprit in charge of this group.

flboy said...

I wonder if Jesus is happy about all this. Is this what He died for?

Some folks associated with blog and the SBC Today need to learn how to tell the truth.

He is a novel idea. Before you post anything else about anything happen in His church, why don't you ask Jesus if He is happy with the post. If He is, then post it. If not do not post it. That will work every time. Try it, you may come to like it.

Dave Miller said...

I am removing most of my comments because I do not wish to be involved in this thing any longer.

I trust Bart, and believe he had sources for this story that he trusted. I believe they let him down.

My original comment stated my hope - that this story would prove to be false, which it has.

I believe Bart will do the right thing when he gets back in circulation.

SBC Today, you need to act now. Your integrity is at stake.

Anonymous said...

Dave: maybe Bart needs to start trusting in the Lord Christ and not in 'sources who let him down' and lead him into the sin of harassing and maligning fellow Christians.

Those who destroy the reputation of others by gossip and scandal:
it is like someone standing in Jerusalem and killing in Rome.

It is a vicious act of trying to murder the reputation of another.

Bart needs to return to the ways of the Lord Christ, and he needs to ask the forgiveness of those he has slandered. He is in danger of the 'death' that comes when a Christian cannot love another and instead causes them harm. He should read the Bible message at the top right of the SBCToday blog.

And no longer should he blog on any scandal and hate-oriented blog that closes all avenue for comments by those who try to defend themselves or those who have been maligned.
To consort with this hate-group is to endanger one's soul. Enough harm.

If you care about Bart, counsel and pray with him. Don't let him get any deeper into this evil.
And it is EVIL.

volfan007 said...

I see a lot of hate and venom in this comment thread, and none of it is from Bart, nor Wes, nor Tim R. To see all of this hatred and meaness is...well....eyeopening to say the least.

In fact, this reminds me of the CR days and how the liberals and moderates acted back then. Sad. It's really sad.


volfan007 said...

Another little footnote, I know of a family that is involved in the Journeyman program of the IMB. They quit their jobs...sold thier house, and went to the mission field...first for two years, then hopefully to be career missionaries.

They were told that they would have to come home due to the economy after serving for just one year. The finances are not there to keep them on the field.

I have also heard other reports of people not being appointed due to finances...lack of.

This is the saddest thing.


Anonymous said...

Their hate came in the form of slandering an entire convention and now trying to pass off some crack story about how it's still factual but it's not true this time.



Move on.

This is a severe case of journalistic malpractice and you can't say that they aren't reporters. They're running a blog like a news source. Standard rules (and laws) apply to them just like they would to any of the mainstream news blogs.

I can't see how you can circle the wagons here.

Sin is sin. This stops being lying and becomes a mistake as soon as a retraction and an apology is issued.

Anonymous said...

Wow! I almost couldn't get into this blogsite because the suspicion is so very thick just at its entry point, before even reaching any postings!

I can see how this mistaken posting would be written--for the same reason a person would leave a state Baptist convention like the BGCT: LACK OF WISDOM. Maybe time spent in revival-related activities will have a positive effect on that, though?

Unlike some bloggers here, some of us have remained with the BGCT. We're able to pick up the phone to check on info like the errors reported here as facts, instead of doing a drive-by shooting as Bart has. Others of you might give this a try as your new way to operate (have integrity and teamwork, I mean)!

BGCT all the way (even more than the current president of the convention who posted above).

Ron said...

No journeymen are being sent home after one year beause of the economy. They will be able to serve their full two years. New journey appointments may be less and some ISCer wanting to switch to career may have to wait. You need to encourage your friends to encourgae their churches to increase the CP and LMCO giving.

John Fariss said...

Dear David,

I don't know about hate and venom, but there is a lot of anger. When I first read the article, I was angry--angry at the BGCT for such a stupid, irresponsible act. Then, as the story unfolded, it became apparent that the accusations against the BGTC were false, yet the two websites (SBCT & PGBB) kept the story posted, changing some details and even altering the post without acknowledging it, but retaining its thrust. So yes, the target of my anger transferred to those responsible for maintaining a false story injurious to an organization which was innocent. Now: you tell me what's so wrong about that?

And if it reminds you of how "moderates and liberals" reacted in the early days of the CR (I didn't realize you were old enough to remember that), well, maybe, just maybe that indicates (1) they were human after all instead of satanic, and (2) they had equally false and hurtful stories spread about them even after the truth became known.


Anonymous said...

Am I not right--for the sake of others commenting here who appear to think otherwise--that THIS is the BGCT (weblink: [What We Believe])--and, besides, is "Lone Star," in the end not really caring what others insist is right after having already decided for itself what is? I'm for that, being a Native Texan myself.

Someone responsible for this blog has made 2 big mistakes: the first was not checking out sources better, and the second was reporting wrong information. Both can be honest mistakes; the real question now is: can the blog owner/s be honest about it. We all see shortly, right? Come on, Bro. Bart (and company?); do the right thing now. Thanks.

David Troublefield
Wichita Falls, TX

Dave Miller said...

John Fariss,

I have the same emotions as you do. I was horrified at the story, and now that it has been proven untrue, anxious for it to be retracted.

I am sure that Bart, when he gets back into town, will respond appropriately to the new evidence.

I wish that SBC Today had done the same. They have chosen to continue to question the BGCT even after evidence (on this issue) has absolved them.

Anonymous said...

Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.

You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

Titus 3:10-11

Anonymous said...

Shame on you Bart.
The BGCT is well rid of the likes of you.
Now the SBC gets the honor of your presence? Which animal do you resemble most?
A. weasel
B. skunk
C. snake
D. wolf
Wrong. None of the above.
The animal kingdom doesn't deserve to be disgraced by a comparison to you.
Shame on you, you trouble-maker.
If you can't be trusted with something so basic as this, of course you know that Paige Patterson will see that you receive a position in the SBC hierarchy. You be 'one of them B.I. And they ain't Christians.
Thanks for reminding us of that fact.

Anonymous said...

Volfan writes: 'I see a lot of hate and venom in this comment thread, and none of it is from Bart, nor Wes, nor Tim R. To see all of this hatred and meaness is...well....eyeopening to say the least.'

So, Volfan, you don't know what slander is? It is hateful, it is mean-spirited, it is sinful, it is evil, it is destructive, and the people you named are guilty.

You need the Holy Spirit in your life: for the gift of discernment so that you can know the difference between good and evil.

You need help, man.

From the Middle East said...

Brothers & Sisters,

It is no secret that Brother Bart and I have strongly disagreed on some items in the past. He wrote this post with the information he had and it remains up (without comment from him) because HE IS OUT OF TWON AND HAS NO INTERNET ACCESS. Please demonstrate godly love in your comments while he is away.

He will return in due time and needs to deal with the new information that has come to light since then. But enough is enough, please save your negative comments questioning his faith in God, character, etc until he returns. Wait until he has an opportunity to deal with this. And, above all, pursue peace with your brother.

Peace to all,
From the Middle East

volfan007 said...

Anonymous commenters,

It would help to hear what you're saying if you would be courageous enough to sign your names to the hateful, mean, cruel comments that you leave in here. At least Bart and some others in here have the guts to sign their names to what they say. They own up to thier comments, unlike some who hide in the shadows and spit venom from the darkness.

I'm still waiting on Bart to explain all of this, like the guys at SBC Today are doing. I'm giving Bart the time and the benefit of the doubt to explain what's happening. You, who think that you know everything and are attacking Bart, Wes, and Tim, are bomblasting them without hearing the whole story...the whole story that Bart has not even had time to explain, yet.

Wow, that's so Christian of you all.

John, BTW, I'm 47 years old. Maybe you should get all the facts before making statements...huh?


volfan007 said...

Maybe some of yall should read Bart's comment at the top of this comment thread...and take a deep breath. I'm talking about the third one from the top. Take the time to read it before you continue the hateful, mean, ugly attack on good men who love Jesus.


Alan Cross said...

The anonymous commenters really need to stop it. If you are going to question someone's salvation, have the courage to sign your name and quit hiding. I've disagreed with Bart about stuff before, but this is out of bounds. He isn't here to defend himself and the drive-bys need to end.

As I said before, Bart had two sources and Johnny Hunt spreading this information. Could he have checked further? Yes. But, I understand why he went with the story. Keep in mind, he has been gone for all of the denials. I am very confident that if Bart had been here, he would have addressed this appropriately.

My struggle at this point is with SBC Today. They have been around and could have printed the denials in fairness to the accused until Bart came back so everyone could see both sides. When Bart returned and was able to contact his own anonymous sources, the issue could be put to rest. Compounding the matter is the fact that SBC Today does not allow comments, so Bart gets the brunt of this. This is why Todd Littleton was telling the SBC Today contributors to deal with this and not leave Bart hanging.

So, anonymous flamers, either sign your name or be quiet. Bart is a Christian brother and deserves to be treated that way.

Stop being ridiculous and sinful yourself.

Anonymous said...

It has been reported that the Holocaust never happened.

Since it's been reported, I'm sure Bart will feel obligated to pass it along.

Alan Cross said...

I'm reporting that anonymous is an obvious coward.

Sign your name to your flames. Bart signed his. Disagree with him on substance but stop the personal attacks.

Anonymous said...


This may come as a surprise to you, but I'm not going to do what you tell me. I'm sure anonymous posting will be disabled soon, but in the meantime I'll take advantage of it, and you can go to tartarus.

-One of the Anonymous posters

John Fariss said...


You said, "John, BTW, I'm 47 years old. Maybe you should get all the facts before making statements...huh?"

I did not make a statement about that, David. I merely commented that I did not know you were old enough to remember what happened in 1979 and the years shortly thereafter. I'm 56, had just become a Christian then, had little cognizance of what was going on politically/theologically in the SBC, and certainly have no firsthand remembrances of how anyone (moderate, conservative, liberal, or fundamentalist) acted at that time. (By '83 or '84, I had caught up, but not before.) So at any rate, while I did not make any hardfast statement about your age, apparently I did judge your memories of an era some 30 years in the past by my own, and for that I appologize.

Now: how about responding to the bulk of my comments to you. You stated, "Some of yall need to chill out. Bart is out of computer range at the moment. There's nothing he can do to this post at the moment," and I responded with, "The one flaw in your argument is that the original entry on both websites has already been changed--not once but twice! First to include a disclaimer in red, then to remove that and shorten the article (while retaining the allegations of financial shenanigans). Were it not for that, I would certainly agree that all should adopt a wait and see attitude. But 'someone' is already manipulating blogsites, not waiting for Dr. Barber to return to computer range." Later you said, "I see a lot of hate and venom in this comment thread, and none of it is from Bart, nor Wes, nor Tim R. To see all of this hatred and meaness is...well....eyeopening to say the least." I responded with, "I don't know about hate and venom, but there is a lot of anger. When I first read the article, I was angry--angry at the BGCT for such a stupid, irresponsible act. Then, as the story unfolded, it became apparent that the accusations against the BGTC were false, yet the two websites (SBCT & PGBB) kept the story posted, changing some details and even altering the post without acknowledging it, but retaining its thrust. So yes, the target of my anger transferred to those responsible for maintaining a false story injurious to an organization which was innocent. Now: you tell me what's so wrong about that?"

You obviously read at least the second, since my question about your age was in a parenthetical statement immediately following. Any chance you will respond about these that were the real heart of my comments?


Alan Cross said...

No, I didn't think that any of the anonymous posters would do what I said. That is why you are anonymous, isn't it? So you can spew venom without consequence by eschewing any personal responsibility. That is the definition of cowardice. I strongly disagree with what is posted here and on SBC Today. But, my disagreement with what the anonymous posters are putting up is just as strong.

You can will do what you want, apparently. Just remember that there is a God who knows your name who will judge every careless word uttered. Fear Him.

Dave Miller said...

When you converse with anonymous cowards, it only encourages them.

"Never 'rassle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it."

I will converse with anyone who signs their names. I will listen to anyone who confronts me.

But I ignore the mousy little anonymous bloggers who hide behind the cover of anonymity to do evil.

We would all be wise to do the same.

Alan Paul said...

Perhaps some repentance and apologies from you are in order Pastor.

Alan Cross said...

Yeah Dave, but I thought I'd give them another target for their self-righteous bile instead of someone who has been out of the loop and is unable to defend themselves.
I have thought that this whole thing was a mess for a couple of days now. But the real problem is SBC Today because they could just print the denials so that both sides are being told.

I don't agree with Bart here (based on the evidence we now have) but I also don't agree with the hatefulness of the anonymous comments. It is possible to disagree with someone with civility. But, that requires thought.

Anonymous said...


I haven't said anything hateful, but you're being a jerk. For your information, the reason I'm anonymous is that I'm a woman and I don't feel it's safe to post my real name on the internet. You're a judgemental know-it-all, and God will call you to account.

-a different anonymous poster

John Fariss said...

Alan & Dave,

Ditto from me. I have used my real name since the first time I made a comment on a blog. Even those with whom I often disagree--such as Bart Barber & David "volfan007" Worley--have the gumption to put their names to what they write, and I respect that.

Anonymous@1:27 PM: interesting. You are walking where I have never trod (and not being female, never can). I would be curious why you don't feel it is safe to reveal your name (I understand the anti-female bias from some Baptists, but lack of safety is not what I associate with that). Still though, I susect you would feel no less safe explaining why you feel unsafe than you feel unsafe in signing your name; so I suppose I will have to take you at your word there.


Alan Cross said...

Anonymous woman,

If you have not said anything hateful, then I am not addressing you. I do not have a problem with anonymous posters who disagree. I only have a problem with the ones who attack and attack and attack without even pausing to ubderstand that Bart is not here and do not sign there name so that Bart could address them when they did return.

I really don't think that God is going to call me to account for saying that people should stop attacking a man who cannot defend himself because He is deep in the Ozarks this weekend away from communication. I also don't think that God is going to call me to account for saying that we should not question the salvation of another because of disagreement. I also don't think that God is going to call me to account for saying that people who attack others who cannot defend themselves under the veil of anonymity are self-righteous cowards. If you want to call me a jerk and a self-righteous know-it-all for saying those things, then fine. I'll accept it. But, there is truth and the way that Bart is being treated here when he cannot defend himself is not how I would want to be treated. I doubt that Bart sees me as a friend because we have disagreed vociferously over the past several years, but if I had made a mistake the way that he has and was being flamed on my blog by anonymous posters when I could not correct it, then I would hope he would do the same.

Anonymous people who attack another person and say the things that have been said about Bart without revealing their identity to stand by their accusations are cowards. Isn't that the definition of the word? By the way, Bart's "sources" who gave him the information and have not come here to back it up but have instead allowed him to twist in the wind are cowards as well. It goes both ways and it is what is wrong with the SBC.

You might think that I'm a self-righteous jerk for stepping in here, but I am following my conscience and am doing what I think is right. Think of me what you will.

I generally try and get along with everyone on the blogs and don't have any enemies that I know of on any side. If I have made enemies today with anonymous attackers, I regret even that, but something had to be said. I guess a button is pushed when I see someone being attacked who cannot answer back or correct his post.

If you want to address the SBC Today guys, they can answer back so I will not speak for them. I am only talking about Bart here.

Dave Miller said...


I pretty much agree with everything you have said. I have disagreed with Bart often, and am hardly seen as part of the BI movement.

But Bart is a man of constant integrity and I appreciate your defense of him.

I just refuse to respect the opinions of anyone who flames others anonymously.

volfan007 said...


You said,"So yes, the target of my anger transferred to those responsible for maintaining a false story injurious to an organization which was innocent. Now: you tell me what's so wrong about that?"

Where did I say that?


volfan007 said...

Alan and Dave,

I have disagreed with both of you in the past on many things. Sometimes the disagreement went beyond what it should have. I appreciate the way yall are standing up to these mean-spirited, cowardly, anonymous bloggers. I also appreciate the fact that yall own up to your words, and you're not afraid to sign your names to your words.



volfan007 said...


I may be mistaken about the people being Journeymen. I really didnt know if the ISC thing and the Journeyman program were the same thing, or not. I do know that they were appointed to serve two years, with the hope of becoming career missionaries after that. They have served for one year... now they are coming home due to the economy, or the lack of giving from Churches, or whatever. They are being sent home. They have been told by Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis that they can live in thier mission house for a couple of get thier feet back on the ground, so to speak. But, they are coming home, and from what I was told, it was due to finances at the IMB level.


I was at the Dallas SBC in 1985 where a liberal/moderate screamed at me and called me names...all because I did not vote for Winfred Moore for 1st VP. I was also in Atlanta in 1986. You talk about being in the heat of battle...boy, those two conventions were it. And, the things I saw and heard while I was there...well, shall we say that I hear some people in here sounding a lot like the liberals/moderates of back then as they accuse Bart and company, and call them names, and say that they aint saved, and such.


John Fariss said...


I think, to some extent, we are talking past each other rather thaqn to each other.

You spoke of hatred and venom; I said that I observed anger. I said, "target of my anger transferred to those responsible for maintaining a false story injurious to an organization which was innocent," but I neither said nor implied that you said that. It was my comment, I own it, and take responsibility for it. I simply asked you how that was wrong, in light of (what I took as) your defense of the two blogs.

As far as other comments, and what you experienced at the 1985 and '86 conventions: first, I thought you were talking about a few years earlier, 1979-82 roughly; second, I have already appologized for assuming my memories and your were compatiable (albeit based on the earlier dates); third, for any brother to call another brother names or question their salvation, etc., is wrong, regardless of who it is or either's theologies--there has been too much name-calling, from both "sides" and that needs to be ramped down; fourth, I have not called you or anyone else any name other than your own; and fifth, I did compliment you on being man enough to sign your name to your opinions.


William said...

The excuse that Barber is out of touch is rather lame. I'm sure some of his SBC Today friends can call him, go over his mess, and at least get approval from him clean up some of it for him while he is having so much fun being away.

His action to put this up without at least calling the BGCT for comment prior to his excursion was highly irresponsible. He should have known better.

He is welcome to comment on a place that actually encourages discussion:

William Thornton

Anonymous said...

SBC Today has removed the post.

John Fariss said...

Praise be to God! Now let us see what comes next. . . .


Anonymous said...

They may have removed the post but they still left the word "alleged." Their is not allegations left. They have been disproven by the SBC Executive Committee VP. The word "alleged" implies that there is still doubt surrounding the ordeal. Even the removal is slanderous to the BGCT. Are they still bitter that the BGCT is one of two conventions that they did not hijack?

Alan Cross said...

Thanks for the heads-up, Anonymous.

Here is what SBC Today is saying:

"Having spoken to Dr. Bart Barber as he returns from the Ozarks, SBC Today has, with his consent, removed the post concerning the Baptist General Convention of Texas’ alleged escrow of the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering. Dr. Barber will be posting on this issue upon his return."

Good to see them finally make a move like this. I can imagine that the same thing could be said about what will happen here whenever he is able to get to a computer.

William Thornton,

From what I was told, Bart was in a place in the Ozarks where he had neither phone nor computer access. Yes, those places still exist, apparently.

Hopefully, this will all be addressed and corrections will be made to suit the facts as they now exist. This was all really sad.

Anonymous said...

The facts existed--with zero concern on the part of anyone directly involved with them--well before Bro. Bart decided to make an issue out of a non-issue because he has it in for brothers and sister in the Lord like those choosing for their own very good reasons (like this one?!) to affiliate with the BGCT. He just didn't do a good job checking, re-checking, or double-checking those facts.

I bet he will in the future!

David Troublefield
Wichita Falls, TX