For a time after the Memphis summit and the publication of the Memphis Declaration, I considered adding my name to those who were not there, but wanted to publicly affirm their agreement with the document. But I never reached a sense of peace about the document, and so I have not added my name. I have concluded that I will not do so.My unease about the document stems from several factors. For one, I have not been a pastor for very long (since October of 2005), and I believed that during the seven years I spent as a youth and music minister, I should focus my attention there, as God had placed a man in authority over me who would give an account to Him for how the church participated in convention affairs. Also, as I read the eight points of the document, while I recognized that the things repented of were very real to those who crafted it, I felt no real sense of conviction in my spirit on the majority of the points. Bart Barber, in his blog Praisegod Barebones, has extensively critiqued the eight points of the Memphis declaration, and I largely agree with his assessments, so I will not spend time here criticizing it myself. Please read each of Bart’s posts on the subject.But perhaps the greatest sources of my unease are the fact that we don’t know who all of the participants were, and of those we do know, the blogosphere contains many examples of speech I find inconsistent with the declaration’s stated intent.
If you have been reading this blog for very long, you know my feelings on anonymity. I believe that part of the price, and also the great blessing, of participation in public debate is being held accountable for the content of your words. There were thirty that met in Memphis, but only twenty signed the document. It is impossible to give proper weight to anonymous posts and comments on blogs, and it is impossible to know how the declaration was shaped by looking at an incomplete list of those who did the shaping.
As to inconsistent speech, I want to give here some examples from one of the main organizers of the Memphis meeting, Ben Cole. Ben is pastor of Parkview Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, and I have communicated with him my distaste for the rhetoric that has appeared under his name on various blogs.
Item 5 of the Memphis Declaration reads as follows:
We publicly repent of having turned a blind eye to wickedness in our convention, especially when that evil has taken the form of slanderous, unsubstantiated accusations and malicious character assassination against our Christian brothers.
Therefore, we commit ourselves to confront lovingly any person in our denomination, regardless of the office or title that person holds, who disparages the name of our Lord by appropriating venomous epithets against our brothers and sisters in Christ, and thus divides our fellowship by careless and unchaste speech.
Below are some examples of what I consider to be “careless and unchaste speech.” All of these are from Pastor Cole, submitted as comments on various blogs:
Predicting the defeat of Ronnie Floyd, before the announcement that Frank Page would be nominated:
Ronnie’s petulant children converge on SBCOutpost to gloat.
We must remember not to return the act when they walk away from Greensboro with a mouthful of crows feathers.
When challenged by another blogger about this rhetoric:
Petulant children was the phrase that came to mind. I was reminded of the “see I told you so” or the “my daddy can beat up your daddy” kind of playground antics from our childhood.
I can be petulant too. It’s not a character assassination. It’s an adjective to describe how ridiculous that kind of banter can become.
But thanks for the caution…honestly.
And … I hope we don’t get to the point where some are “allies” and others are “enemies.” I’m confident that’s not what you meant, but I’m trying hard not to develop an “us” versus “them” mentality. We may end up with Ronnie Floyd as convention president for a year. We may have to swallow our pride and confess that our aspirations for the future of the SBC were overreaching or too aggressive. Of course, there is one positive angle to a Ronnie Floyd Presidency.
The Brothers Caner have already published their history of the SBC presidents. Nobody will have to read about the Floyd years a century from now. Of course, that assumes that people will be reading the Caners’ stuff anyway. Maybe I’m assuming too much.
And you know what they say about that…
Three minutes later, having had time to consider this blogger’s challenge:
By the way…
“Petulant” is defined as “characterized by temporary or capricious ill humor.”
I think “Way to go Dr. Mohler” and “tic.tic.tic.tic.” is a classic example of petulance. “Children” is a way to refer to one’s disciples. Read The First Epistle of Saint John.
I stand by my words on this one.
Responding to some good-natured ribbing on the blog of one of his church members:
Easy Dorcas.
You know I can use the rod just as well as I can the crook.
Come to think of it. God has used lots of crooks in my life. Most of them had seminary degrees.
On the same blog, a drop-in on a post that allegorically described his soon-to-be-started blog:
I believe I’m supposed to sign on here and say the following words:
“Get ready to die you son-of-*****.”
True Grit is one of my favorite movies of all time.
Some of these examples are less egregious than others, but I believe that all could be characterized as “careless and unchaste.”
I don’t mean to paint all the Memphis signatories with a broad brush. I believe they have the best of intentions and that they all want our convention to be the best it can be for God’s glory. But the inconsistency of behavior, combined with the partial anonymity of the group and some other, less important factors, leave me unable to affirm the document.
I agree with most, if not all, of the stated goals of those participants of whom I know, but I am afraid that the current tactics being used to accomplish those ends may be doing more harm than good.
on Jun 4th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
You seem to have done a good job of “lovingly” confronting a brother. These are valid concerns. I also realize that I have said things that were less than wise at times when I am passionate about something.
Reply
on Jun 4th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
Wes,
I appreciate your post. I did sign the document, but have also been uncomfortable with some comments that have appeared on blogs recently.
I don’t think assasinating the characters of our fellow brothers and sisters is productive. Nor do I think slamming or belittling other people’s comments or opinions is healthy either.
Unfortunately, both happen from time to time. But I appreciate your courage in addressing the issue, and respect your decision not to sign.
Reply
on Jun 4th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
Wes
This is all I have been saying the whole time…that the rhetoric is beneath that which our great God calls us to. Thanks for the post and the good words.
Blessings
Jack
Reply
on Jun 4th, 2006 at 10:26 pm
Wes,
You nailed this one! For some, I’m afraid what happened in Memphis truly stayed in Memphis.
Reply
on Jun 5th, 2006 at 6:03 am
Wes -
If Pastor Ben had not been involved with the Memphis Declaration and had no connection to it, would you sign it?
If Pastor Ben had, in the time after the Memphis Declaration, not posted anything of unchaste speech (by your intepretation of it), would you sign the Memphis Declaration?
From your post here I could not tell whether you had given the document an independent reading upon the merit of what it contained regarding issues to be dealt with in the SBC.
Reply
on Jun 5th, 2006 at 7:22 am
Dorcas,
When the declaration was published, my attitude was “wait and see.” What I have seen is that, at least for some, Jamie Wooten’s comment above has proven to have the appearance of being true.
While there are other factors, much of what leads me to not affirm the declaration stems from the motivations of its writers, 1/3 of which are absolutely unknowable due to their anonymity.
My characterization of the comments I cited would lean more toward “careless” than “unchaste,” but these were given equal weight in the declaration. You are, of course, free to disagree without losing any respect in my judgment. I have told you before of my appreciation for your wisdom and perspective. That has not changed.
Thanks for the questions, Counselor.
Reply
on Jun 5th, 2006 at 8:09 am
Wes,
One thing that has been true throughout history is that when the smoke clears from the battlefield, those on the fence are virtually unscathed except for a few splinters.
Reply
on Jun 5th, 2006 at 8:28 am
Philips,
Thanks for the wise saying. Here are some more:
Bad news travels fast.
Don’t throw out your dirty water until you get in fresh.
Don’t use a lot where a little will do.
Even a dog knows the difference between being stumbled over and being kicked.
Good fences make good neighbors.
In politics, a man must learn to rise above principle.
Put your trust in God, and keep your powder dry.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
We may give advice, but we cannot give conduct.
Did you have a point, or were you just sharing this wisdom?
Reply
on Jun 5th, 2006 at 11:34 am
Wes,
I appreciate your heart. I did sign it and stand behind it. I have no problem with Ben. Obviously you do. I don’t agree with everything the SBC does either, but I’m not leaving. I appreciate your alternative viewpoint even on Global Warming
Reply
on Jun 5th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Wes-
None of the 1/3 who attended Memphis were drafters who then refused to sign. There were many who were only able to attend for the first evening and not able to stay for the actual drafting. We did not add their names in their absence. Therefore, they are not anonymous, they simply weren’t present.
Some were members of the same church and allowed their pastor’s signature to stand for them, some were denom and could not be identified with a “non denom” expression. That is common as I heard it from numerous denom folks who expressed appreciation and support, but could not publicly sign.
Reply
on Jun 5th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Wes,
It was not meant to be a “wise saying.” It was just to point out the tragedy among Christians who are willing to sit by or look the other way while the “world is on fire.”
No one can ever accuse Ben of being half committed to anything.
Reply
on Jun 5th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Marty,
Thanks for the clarification. I was obviously too broad in characterizing the anonymity of some participants, and this due to a lack of knowledge, which you have supplied.
Perhaps you can correct my memory if it is faulty, but I seem to recall there being at least one participant whose identity was being protected by the consent of the other participants. Is this the case?
Thanks for participating here, as well as for everything else you do. I appreciate you.
Reply
on Jun 5th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Phillips – I understand what you are saying, but I think Wes has taken a stand. He has chosen not to be supportive of the extreme rhetoric. I would like to see some things change, but the vitriol in some comments can only undermine that goal.
Reply
on Jun 5th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Wes-
There was an individual who participated in the drafting, but chose not to sign nor be identified. He was, however, fully supportive.
Reply
on Jun 5th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
Wes,
First, let me say it’s always a blessing to converse with a fellow Oklahoman. There is a true kinsmanship amongst those from our state. Take this to heart as you read my comments; know that I am grateful for your friendship.
Second, I am grateful that you have given serious consideration to the Memphis Declaration (MD). Many would either summarily accept or reject such a document solely on the participants or the motivating factors behind such a document. You took the time to actively read the MD and make your thoughts known.
However, I tend to disagree with the assumption of your post. You are implying that a document stands not so much on the merits of its words but mostly on the character of its signers/drafters. This argument does not hold, however, when it comes to the Declaration of Independence. Conservative Christians would by NO MEANS wish to associate themselves with the deistic theology of many of the signers of the declaration, but we support the words of the document itself. We can reject the theology of Jefferson, the primary drafter, without rejecting his views on liberty.
Have some from Memphis made statements that are (or appear to be) overly saturated with sarcasm or satire? Yes. Does that disqualify the contents of the MD? Not at all. Time is short and I’m due at a meeting in a few minutes so I will leave my thoughts uncompleted for now. I look forward to any response you might have.
Blessings,
Jason Sampler
Reply
on Jun 5th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
It is obvious that many are coming out and standing against unchaste comments which are clearly agenda driven. Count me as one of them!
The probles as I see it however is that the rhetoric has taken away from the IMB issue and caused undue polarazation.
I stillo feel we need to address the IMB issue, but wisdom demand another way.
Blessings
Jack MAddox
Reply
on Jun 5th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Wisdom also demands I learn how to type
: )
JM
Reply
on Jun 5th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Jason,
When I began to participate in this conversation back in January, you were my model for how to make an argument or state a point with clarity, but more importantly with grace, dignity, and respect for the dignity of others. You remain an outstanding example for which I am grateful.
I humbly suggest that your comparison to the Declaration of Independence falls short in one crucial detail. The theology of the writers is immaterial to me because it is not a theological document. I can fully embrace it because I agree with the writers’ view of liberty.
The Memphis Declaration is a document primarily focused on behavior, and thus the behavior of those who were instrumental in bringing it about becomes a very legitimate factor in judging the worth of the document.
Thank you for taking the time to comment. As a participant in the Memphis meeting, your thoughts are to be given special consideration.
I hope that your recent retreat was refreshing, and you continue to be in my prayers as you carry on your important work in the Crescent City.
Reply
on Jun 5th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Thank you for this insightful analysis. Any good intentions behind the MD are clearly over shadowed by the vitriolic and imflammatory nature of some of the chief spokesmen’s posts and comments.
Reply
on Jun 5th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
Phillips Lynn said… “No one can ever accuse Ben of being half committed to anything.”
Sure they can. He is at best only half committed to article 5 of the Memphis Declaration.
Reply
on Jun 6th, 2006 at 11:07 am
The first time I met Ben Cole, I was not favorably impressed. Actually, that is an understatement: I loathed Ben Cole the first time I met him. I had to suppress the urge to pinch off his head. My attitude toward him has evolved over time, but there are still days I want to throttle him. These days it’s a little different, since he is now my pastor. I do not always agree with Ben, but he receives my opinion whether or not it is in lockstep with his own. Yes, sometimes what he writes on these blogs makes me cringe, but there are things written by other bloggers and posters that make me feel the same way.
I do not come here to act as an apologist for Ben Cole. I can only say this: there have been times I have prayed for the Lord to soften my heart toward Ben. He is not the first person I have encountered whom it is difficult to love. The Lord has used him in my life to show me, among other things, that I am difficult to love. Without knowing it, Ben has caused me to do a lot of soul-searching and forced me to take a long, hard look at myself and my own shortcomings. Every time I have looked at him in judgment, the Lord has reminded me that Ben’s follies are no different than mine.
Sometimes Ben is difficult to love, and sometimes he is nearly impossible to like. I love him dearly, however, because he is my brother in Christ. When I’m having one of those days when I just want to throttle him, I am stopped in my tracks and reminded by the Holy Spirit that, if not for the blood of Christ, I would be far more repugnant in the eyes of God.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m spending some time before Greensboro digging logs out of my own eyes before worrying about the splinters in someone else’s. I still don’t know who will receive my vote for SBC president, but that decision will be guided by the Holy Spirit and not by any declarations or blogs or other propaganda.
Reply
on Jun 6th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Debra
That was one of the finest comments left on one of these baptist blogs.
On a personal level you are absolutely correct – we need to love everyone.
The problem with Ben Cole’s behavior is that he wants to hold the “powers that be” in the SBC accountable for their abuses. Anytime someone attempts to hold pastor Cole accountable for his abusive language the response is like “how dare you,” or “where is your sense of humor,” or “but those guys (patterson and others) are so much worse.”
If Pastor Cole wants to hold people accountable for what they say and do, then the same standard will be applied to him.
Frankly, many of us have had enough with his over-the-top and abusive rhetoric.
I would only like to see him model what he is calling the SBC leadership to do – Repent, apologize, and step down from the high horse.
Reply
on Jun 6th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
Dear Brother Jason,
The signers of the Declaration of Indepence being Deists is a widely-circulated myth. It is not based on fact. Even the Deists do not claim it.
A Deist believes that God made the universe and now watches without interfering in its natural workings. Start reading original source material from the Signers, and you will see they all disqualify themselves, not least of all Thomas Jefferson.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Reply
on Jun 6th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
This post has been removed by the author.
Reply
on Jun 6th, 2006 at 9:30 pm
Jeff,
Were any of those that signed Dentists?
cb
Reply
on Jun 10th, 2006 at 12:27 am
Wes, I know how you feel.
And that’s all I have to say about it.
Reply