Some describe the 2011 convention in Phoenix last week as our nadir, as in low numbers. I'd co-opt that word to describe the degeneration of a rather ho hum convention into a silly blogfest and tweetfest over a question Peter Lumpkins asked Al Mohler.
As long as I have been attending these meetings ordinary peons get to ask agency heads questions. Usually they are pablum and milk toast questions but occasionally they are pointed and tendentious questions. Every now and then a questioner will make convention attendees squirm in their seats.
Well, tough. We pay these people well into six figures. They should be able on this one occasion annually to handle these questions from the floor with grace, dignity, and without condescension and an attitude, even if a questioner is difficult. Our way of doing business at these meeting is messy. I see no reason why any of our leaders should not have the wherewithall to handle such things.
Two examples from this year:
Al Mohler’s Response to Peter Lumpkins: The Complete Video
Peter asked, OK, so it was a looooooong question. Mohler launched into an answer. Tough to see the problem here.
Thom Rainer Shows How Not to Answer Questions from Critics
I haven't see the Rainer video.
I think the SBC will survive questions to the leaders. We may not survive the tweeting and blogging absurdities, rancor, and venom that follows.
18 comments:
William, with the Rainer situation, it is clear that there was a lot of back-story there. This guy had asked the question at conventions, by letter and phone time and time again.
We may have the right to ask questions, but there comes a point at which we simply need to say, "thank you for your answer, even though I disagree."
My impression is not that this was some guy with a question, but was a man on a crusade who has made himself a pain in the neck.
He has had his question answered, several times.
Dave Miller:
You said:"My impression is not that this was some guy with a question, but was a man on a crusade who has made himself a pain in the neck.
He has had his question answered, several times."
Amen and Amen.
Sadly, Peter has once again attempted to put the SBC in a negative light by his actions and created division where none was needed.
William:
BTW, as you allow comments on your blog site, try publishing a comment at Peter's sight if he does agree with you.
You will find yourself "unpublished" as Peter like to call it.
Peter can do on his blog whatever he wishes. I occasionally delete comments here. It's irrelevant to the discussion. He has a right to do that and a right to speak at an SBC. Messengers have a right to agree or disagree.
Some may wish it but we had better not start trying to run the SBC annual meeting like the megachurches most of our leaders are from. Little guys still get to ask questions. They should be answered.
Peter asked a question on a matter that greatly concerned him. It gave Mohler a platform for a response. Big deal.
Dave, I don't see how you could prevent even obnoxious questioners from getting to a mike. See Wiley Drake for the personificaiton of this.
William
William:
You said:"Little guys still get to ask questions"
You also said:"Dave, I don't see how you could prevent even obnoxious questioners from getting to a mike. See Wiley Drake for the personificaiton of this."
If Peter comes over to your site and reads the above you wrote, I for one would be very interested in his response to you.
We shall wait and see.
May the SBC always be accountable to the people. May our leaders always to willing to answer questions from those who pay the bills.
I hope we never decide to have a convention where nothing unexpected can happen.
Reminds me of the Deacon who prayed in church one Sunday morning, “Lord, please do something here today that’s not in the bulletin.”
David R. Brumbelow
It was clear from the meeting in Pheonix that our SBC leaders are accountable. They received and addressed each question asked.
Frankly, I appreciated the way Dr. Rainer answered the question that was addressed to him. The young man who asked the question has asked the same question every year for the past few years and has submitted several motions on the same subject. His question was asked an answered several times. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean that the answer is wrong.
The truth is simply this... he had asked his questions several times to several people. Those people had given him answers to his questions. He didn't like the answers so he used (once again) the floor of the convention to try to embarrass Dr. Rainer.
As I think upon the exchange I am not prone to focus on Dr. Rainers response but rather I wonder why this guy continues to ask the questions. Can he just not understand??? Or does he have another motive???
I think Peter knows me well enough to understand that he, me, we...are 'little guys' in the SBC. Micropastors like me get to ask the entity heads questions at the annual meeting. May it ever be so, even if it is messy.
William:
But what will Peter think about those obnoxious questioners getting to the mike--he just might think you were referring to him.
BTW, I just think you are wrong on this one about Peter. But he will surely appreciate it if you are defending him.
I think Peter was fully justified in asking Dr. Mohler on the convention floor since he had written him beforehand asking for an explanation and did not receive one. It was also a great opportunity for Dr. Mohler to set the record completely clear and state that the remarks indeed were his and had not been edited. I personally think Peter conducted himself righteously and I also think Dr. Mohler stated his views which are a long time coming in Baptist circles.
The other guy who questioned Rainer got a firm and polite answer to a question that had already been asked and answered far too many times.
I think anyone should have the right to ask anything from a microphone at the convention but I also think anyone is perfectly free to call and set an appointment to visit in person with any of the agency heads and it will be done.
If you want to know what the horse believes, then go and ask the horse himself.
Anymouse:
You said:"I think Peter was fully justified in asking Dr. Mohler on the convention floor since he had written him beforehand asking for an explanation and did not receive one. It was also a great opportunity for Dr. Mohler to set the record completely clear and state that the remarks indeed were his and had not been edited. I personally think Peter conducted himself righteously and I also think Dr. Mohler stated his views which are a long time coming in Baptist circles."
How do you know that Peter had written Dr. Mohler beforehand
And you think Peter acted righteously?
You must have watched a different video than I did.
And your comment would have more credibility if you identified yourself.
The reason I think Peter had written Dr. Mohler beforehand was because he said he did and I have no reason not to believe him. The credibility of my comment shouldn't be based on whether I post anonymously or not.
Anymouse:
You said:"The reason I think Peter had written Dr. Mohler beforehand was because he said he did and I have no reason not to believe him. The credibility of my comment shouldn't be based on whether I post anonymously or not"
His saying he did does not make it that he did--at this point I would need to see some hard evidence and at least for me your anonymouse post lacks credibility. Be a man or woman and post your name.
Dr. Thornton:
I was pretty much okay with your explanation and exchange with Wade Burleson on this matter at bl.com, though on the whole I think Burleson may have pilgrimmed to a more honest position/take on where the SBC is headed than you.
But you know I have great respect for your civility on these matters, though we disagree.
Forgive me for changing topic just a tad, but I do want to give you a heads up on a sublime Civil War link I have made in History section of Bl.com. I think it is a topic you may want to spotlight as the summer goes on, and it will be hard to platform from a better perspective than Gilpin Faust Jefferson lecture.
Will be looking forward to your unpacking of the essay.
For the record, Tom, my comment was directed at the guy (Channing Kilgore?) who asked a question of Thom Ranier.
Dave:
My apologies. I just reread your comment and it is clear you were referencing the person who was questioning Thom Ranier.
Tom, if it's OK with you, I'll handle anonymous commenters on my own blog. :) Should I need assistance, I know how to find you, bro. Thanks.
For the record, I have no objection to people commenting anonymously unless they are insulting or make inappropriate comments. I've deleted a few for that reason. And there's no reason to disparage an anonymous commenter by using a moderately snide alternate spelling. OK? Thanks.
On Peter Lumpkins, I take his word that he attempted to get a response from AM prior to the convention.
William:
I will gladly comply with your wishes because as you said it is your blog. I do not say that sarcastically.
Thanks for the gentleness in correcting me.
Post a Comment