Thursday, June 16, 2011

Remote sensing on the SBC meeting

I missed all the fun in Phoenix, then again, my expenses were quite low, zero.


I like the business casual announced by Bryant Wright but from the photos it's obvious that the platform brethren aren't comfortable being comfortable. Come on, Frank...come on Kevin, take the tailored suit jacket off too.

The SBC annual meeting has always been a place where some genuine oddballs can grab a mike and get a little face time. Ordinarily, such is not a problem. We understand the process and procedures. When one of the nutcases gets elected to an official position, uses that position to embarrass us, and whose personal life outside of the office is harmful to the SBC as a whole, then we have a problem. I'm speaking of course of Wiley Drake who was a nutcase before he was elected to a VP position, who is a nutcase now, and, unless he gets a brain transplant, will be a nutcase until he dies. Go away, Wiley. Start your own denomination with the 101 idiots or uninformed people who voted for you.

My friend Peter Lumpkins got sufficient notice for Wade Burleson to blog about him. They have had an acrimonious relationship for years, a factor that should be considered when reading WB's stuff. The matter of the SBC and homosexuality bears scrutiny, although I don't see us going down the welcoming and affirming route that the CBF is going. The CBF is doing a stealth W & A at the moment but they will, I predict, exit the closet later.

I withdraw my label of "Gloom and Doom" on the SBC 2011 and will rechristen it "Ho Hum" which is a decided positive for one of these meetings.

Generally: Ho hum, yawn, and let's get to work.

15 comments: said...

Sufficient notice of Peter? Laughing. You couldn't miss Peter at the Phoenix SBC. He's announcing "Press Conferences," holding "accountable" the GCR leaders, calling into question those who exhibit in the Convention hall, and moving to microphones on the floor frequently. Does that sound familiar to anyone else you have written about (even in this post)? I have made as strong, if not stronger statements about Wiley Drake, than you have. Yet, you don't consider Wiley a friend. I do. I particular admire Wiley's love for his wheelchair bound wife, and have told him so in private and at fellowship meals with him and his wife. Yet I have ripped him for his theological pronouncements (i.e. "an imprecatory prayer on Obama"), his procedural gaffes (via Twitter for "nominating himself"), and his over-the-top recommendation for the SBC to boycott Disney. I like Wiley as a person, but it does not negate what I say about his tactics.

I do not play favorites, William. Al Mohler has been the recipient of some strong posts from me as well, as have others whom I admire, including Peter. I admire Peter's consistency and tenacity. Peter has written strong posts opposing my views (and will in the future). However, what some might perceive as acrimony on my part I view as philosophical and procedural stupidity on Peter's part, and have written such. It does not negate Peter's good qualities as a Christian man. It should be noted, however, that Peter is close to being compared to Wiley Drake's embarrassment of the SBC by some of Al Mohler's friends for Peter's repeated and persistent attempts at embarrassing Southern, Mohler, and others connected with the institution and the GCR.

If one writes strongly against Wiley's tactics (as you do), then maybe what should be questioned is any attempt on your part to soften the scathing criticism of Peter's tactics because of friendship. In other words, I challenge you to either treat Wiley in the same manner you do Peter, or acknowledge that I am treating both Peter and Wiley the same, and no "factor in reading WB's stuff" need be considered, including "acromony."

I believe Peter Lumpkins tactics are as dangerous for the SBC as Wiley Drake's and I pull no punches in saying so. I also am friends with at least one of them, and would have no problem having a friendship with the other one, but it will not affect what I write regarding either of their philosophical or procedural approaches to the SBC.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator. said...

JS, I am guilty of many weaknesses and character flaws in my life, for which I readily admit, but cowardice causes me no concern.

Tom Parker said...


You said:"No one listened to you then, and we don't want to hear you now."

I for one am always interested in what Wade B., has to say.

William:You said:"The CBF is doing a stealth W & A at the moment but they will, I predict, exit the closet later"

Why do you dislike the CBF so much for you to make such a malicious charge in regards to homosexuality?

You said:"

Anonymous said...

I agree with JS Houston. If Wade is going to come on here and rip everyone and every thing then he should open his blog to comments. Has nothing to do with cowardice, just plain decency.

Stephen Fox said...

I am not a fan of the SBC but I like Dr. Thornton and Dr. Burleson's exchange here.
Wade was having 130 plus comments a day; which could easily be a full time job. Thus as a distant observer I understand why he chose to prohibit comments for a while.
I'm looking to see Howell Scott's report on SBC as well. Hope there will be exhaustive exploration of the Immigration Resolution and some statement from Alabama Rick Lance soon as Rick was Gov. Bentley's pastor in Tuscaloosa for 10 years or so.
Between UMC Bishop Willimon's strong statement taking exception to the Alabama law, and the debate in Phoenix; looks like Lance will have to take a position soon.

On another note, hope Wade Burleson will engage my invitation to Rev. Thornton and Jerry Vines who is now commenting on occasion on this blog to read Dochuk's from Bible Belt to Sunbelt before Summer's end. I think it adds yet another inflection on the world of 3rd quarter 20th Century that made Pressler and Patterson and the SBC CR possible.

Anonymous said...

I disagree with JS and anonymous. Anybody has every right to say what they wish and keep their comment sections closed. It keeps anonymous people like JS and "anonymous" people from making unwise personal attacks behind curtains of anonymity and self-protection.

William Thornton said...

JS, it is acceptable to note that WB or whomever doesn't allow comments. I do, but not with personal insults. I have deleted your comment. Try again with substance, thanks.

William Thornton said...

Wade, I'll stick with my casual comment that your blog should be read keeping in mind the difficulties you two guys have had over the years. My acrimony radar definitely was receiving some hits when I read your stuff.

There is a considerable difference between what Drake says and does and Peter or myself or another blogger. When Drake says or does something absurd, a frequent occurrence, notice of such is preceded by, "Wiley Drake, former SBC vice president, said..."

Peter isn't the first to use question time to pose a question that makes some uncomfortable. I've only read your account of it but it sounds like Mohler could cope with it.

William Thornton said...

Tom, some of my best friends are cbfers. I'm just reading the tea leaves about the cbf and homosexuality. I can be proved to be wrong but I suspect not.

Feel free to say, 'I told you so' sometime down the road.

Wade Burleson said...


Fair enough. Thanks.


Anonymous said...

Why do so many bloggers feel like they have to confront, rip, tear into, ridicule, scorn other believers? Just because you disagree about something its no cause for what we read in way too many blogs these days. After all, we are on the same team and teammates don't do that. If you don't have something positive to say about someone, then perhaps you shouldn't say anything at all. If you can't stand your pastor or church then go and find one you like and then blog about it all day long. Jesus will get a lot more glory when positive things come out of our mouths.

Jonathan said...

Anonymous, it might be that our own Southern Baptist church and convention structure is to blame for the negativity in the blog-sphere. We have become so fond of the monologue (preaching, report outs, pronouncements, etc...) that there is essentially no place for a real and critical discussion of issues. Even when we set up events designed for discussion, we count on the intimidation factor and the control of microphones (and the parliamentary process) to keep all unwanted comments out. Finally, we've developed a great pattern of insulting, belittling, and diminishing of folks who dare disagree with us.

The internet has changed all of that. No longer are pastors and denominational professionals the only ones with access to mass tools of communication.

We are definitely members of the same team but now, more than one member has the ability to get his or her opinion out. Yes, this is quite a dangerous age...with the greatest danger to those who seek to squelch dissent.

Anonymous said...

Why do we always have to be dissenting about something. Its not a virtue to be one who is constantly dissenting and just because you disagree doesn't make you right. This whole thing has become a disgusting argumentative mess that I'm sure doesn't bless the heart of our Saviour.

William Thornton said...

Savvy denominational leaders are working to relate to some of the small blogging voices. That makes sense to me, much moreso than bashing them from a pulpit.