SBTS, the Abstract, and Local Church Autonomy

I removed my post with the same title because the commenter I quoted has given a correction and apology. 

I was very concerned with the ramifications if the original comment were true, and as I said in my post I wanted to hear from those who knew if this was really the deal.  I did and it wasn't. 

I've also received emails from a couple of friends who are trustworthy, and at least one was concerned this was gossip for me to post.  Thought this might be a good opportunity to discuss blogging and gossip.  I think it's a good question to ask, but I don't think it was gossip.  If I were to simply spread the info as if it were true, yeah, it's gossip.  But I was removed from the situation and admitted that I didn't know and wanted someone "in the know" to comment.  In a way, I may have helped this to get off the gossip mill, but I don't know.

Any thoughts on that?  I'm happy to apologize if I'm wrong.  I'll apologize anyway because I love the people at Clifton (who I was intending to defend if this were true) and I love Dr. Mohler. 

Comments

[Ryan DeBarr]

What are you doing reading an Independent Baptist Blog, anyway?

[Steve McCoy]

Someone emailed me the blog discussion. I've never read it before. My apologies for leaving party lines. ;)

[Ryan DeBarr]

You might find this interesting:

http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=2086

It's a poll of young Fundamentalist men... mostly the Independent, Fundamental Baptist kind who think Jerry Falwell is liberal. Their opinions about alcohol totally shocked me. If real Fundamentalists have such liberal views on the use of alcohol, then they day when alcohol is openly tolerated in Southern Baptist circles is probably not that far away.

[David Wright]

Well I don't know whether you were wrong or not, Steve. I always find these lines tough to draw. However, I've also removed a post from my site that linked to your earlier post.
I had commented on your post and used it as a basis for a satirical riff on goings on in the SBC. Even though the riff wasn't fully dependent on your post for what I was getting at, triggering it based on uncertain information could create a wrong impression.

Given that you made clear (even in the post) that the information might not be reliable or fully established, that was not a wise thing for me to do.

So I don't know about your post, but I would have been prudent to refrain from my comment, I think. I apologize for that lack of prudence.

I hope I didn't offend anyone . . .

[Steve McCoy]

To be clear, I wasn't attacking anyone. The use of the Abstract by a seminary against faculty who have signed it and who are in local "autonomous" churches is a real question. That was the issue I was raising. I actually think that Mohler may have the right do exactly what was said. It isn't far fetched.

So I was wanting to discuss whether or not something is amiss in this scenerio. I could see a circumstance where this could happen.

How should an institution use a confession? Why is it different for wine, Lord's Day issues, and not different for this?

[Ryan DeBarr]

I didn't take your post to be an attack. It's a legitimate question, even if the immediate grounds for it proved to be false.

Of course, Mohler has a right to enforce the Abstract of Principles. However, if there's a disagreement in a vague area, then that should be addressed BEFORE a professor is hired.

I probably wouldn't be a Southern Baptist right now if it weren't for the Conservative Resurgence. However, there are (and were) things about the Resurgence that probably weren't handled the best way. One of the things I'm appreciating about Hershael York is that he's tried to treat the more moderate fairly and work toward finding a solution both sides can live with.

[Timmy]

Steve,

Thank you for the correction. Although the issue of blogs and gossip is a legitimate concern, I feel that people are finding the blogosphere a place where they can say what they want about people with their comments going unchecked. the result from this that people are taking cheap shots and making charges that are baseless and unfounded. I am not saying that you can/should disagree. What I am referring to is accusations based on speculations which lead to deeper ramifications as you mentioned earlier.

Also, for all the SBC and SBTS bloggers out there, it seems that there is a growing antipathy towards baptist institutions, denomiation, and leaders. Sure there are problems with the IMB, with the SBC, with SBTS, and decisions of leaders. But where is the affirmation, commendation, or encouragement for the peoples/institutions we are a part of (referring not to Steve, but to all of us)? I mean, sheesh, don't you think that Mohler and others get enough flack from those outside the camp?

I just think that we need to be accountable for what we say and work to build a greater integrity to blogging altogether.

[Justin Taylor]

Steve,

I think there are some legitimate concerns with your original post. First, it contained a moral charge--bullying, being high-handed, etc--against a denominational and institutional leader. Love believes all things--it doesn't assume the worst. I think some of the criticisms of the blogosphere are overblown. But this is a case, I'd argue, where the blogosphere can be used to spread gossip and potentially slander. You didn't know if the charge was true. But instead of approaching people who might be in the know, you publicized the accusation. Wouldn't that be like me writing on my blog that I heard from one person that Pastor X flirts with women in his congregation--I don't know if it's true, so correct me if I'm wrong. I think putting something like that on my blog would be clearly immoral and unwise.

You suggest it wasn't gossip because you qualified it--saying you didn't know if it was true. But that's precisely the nature of the majority of gosspip. "Hey, I don't know if this is true or not, but I've been hearing that..."

You say that you love Dr. Mohler, and I take you at your word on that. But the question to wrestle with is whether you would do something like this to a family member, or a close friend, or a person in your church. Certainly Dr. Mohler is not above correction--but it is a very serious thing to make a moral accusation against an elder.

Thanks for hearing me out on this, Steve.

JT

[Richard A. Bailey]

Steve, as another former member at Trinity, I appreciate the way you have handled this affair, removing a potentially harmful post and apologizing for it in a very frank manner. Of course, it's a serious thing to make accusations against anyone. In my mind, the fact that a denominational and institutional leader was involved means relatively little. Because, of course, even denominational and institutional leaders (our "elders") can be guilty of moral wrongs. Was one in this case? The world may never know. Fittingly, you stood up and said plainly that things were said that might have best remained unsaid. In my estimation, such an action seems to demonstrate exactly what Justin reminded us all, namely, "Love believes all things." But it also illustrates what precedes that phrase, love "does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth." Thanks for not insisting the version was correct, but for rejoicing with the truth.

[Hashman]

I've mentioned gossip on another comment.

I really appreciate J.T. comments. Here are some additional thoughts on the subject.

I'm pretty acquainted with gossip, because I am a pastor and a lot of gossip get rationalized inside the church and among pastors at the lunch table.

I keep taking my church back to the 10 commandments where is reads, "do not bear false witness." I think Puritan Thomas Watson had it right when he said that not only is it a prohibition against falsehood, but it is an exhortation for us to vigorously defend and protect the good names of our brothers, until we have proof to the contrary. And even then...

If we have reason to doubt them. A short trip to Matthew 18 will give us some guidance.

I was at the SBC Convention and looking at the bookstore. I was standing in front of some Piper books (which isn't too surprizing). A guy leaned over to me and pointed at Pipers name and said, "arogant, arrogant, arrogant" Then he gave some examples of what he deemed arrogance.

I told him that instead of telling strangers that John Piper, a brother in Christ, is a sinner and damaging his reputation and limiting his influence. You should give him a call and let him know.... or be quiet about it.

That wasn't terribly diplomatic, but Biblical.

[Steve McCoy]

Justin, I've been thinking this over all day and I generally agree with you about the dangers, I'm still don't believe I was gossiping. I don't want this to come across as defending my own error, but I know what I was intending. And I hope the fact that I'm willing to discuss this publicly (which wasn't my first choice, to let people comment on whether I sinned) shows I'm really not intending to hide something here. A few points.

There has to be a time to discuss an already public statement to find out if they are true or not. You don't just ignore them. It's already out there and being publicly discussed. I have friends (more than one) who had already read this before I even saw it.

And as I alluded to, Mohler may well have been justified to put pressure on the church with the Abstract, even if "bully" isn't the best word. My concern was with the state of local church autonomy, which would seem not autonomy under these circumstances. The discussion would then turn to the proper use of confessions, etc. I didn't see it as a moral thing with Mohler at all, which seems to be your big concern. He bullied most of the faculty out when he came, and I don't think that was immoral. I liked it (no emails on that point from old school SBTS'rs, please!).

I think the difference here between what you are saying and what I posted is that the original comment I quoted was very Mohler directed, but I was thinking in terms of being a pastor and being pressured to change church practice because of a para-church confession. I wasn't thinking about Mohler, but the ramifications of such action for our churches. In rereading the comment in question, I can see how people would be more worried about the "bully" issue as a moral thing. I assure you that wasn't my intent, and you should be able to see that in the title of my post which is the same as the one I deleted, "SBTS, the Abstract, and Local Church Autonomy." Notice Mohler's name isn't in the title because I wasn't intending this to be about him.

[Matt Mitchell]

Anyone know a good book about gossip? It would be great to read a biblical, systematic, yet practical treatment of this very common sin. I sometimes find myself in similar situations to Steve in this post or have to give counsel to those who are, and I often feel at a loss to know how to evaluate the complexities of this area.

If no book exists, it seems like this would fill a big need in the church.

-Matt

[Steve McCoy]

Matt, I was thinking the same thing. I sat in my office late last night perusing my packed bookshelves looking for something on the topic. Alas, the Bible was all I could find. :)

[Matt]

What? Do my own Bible study on gossip? How "Old School!"

Okay, I'll do it. And then maybe I'll write the book and go on the Christian-lecture-circuit. =D

-Matt

[Amy]

So "bullying the old faculty out" of SBTS was not an immoral thing? I shudder to think of what you consider truly immoral, then. Mohler and his buddies have totally trashed the seminary. I wish someone would bully Al out of town.

[Steve McCoy]

Amy, I guess you didn't see my plea to not hear from old-school SBTS'rs or chose to ignore it. :) I think doctrinal statements are "bullying documents," for good reasons. If not, anything goes.

If you want to argue that they were used in ways not historically intended, or that there was some other immoral aspect, you can try. But we draw lines because we know it's immoral to doctrinally cross them.

[Old Schooler]

No Steve, you said no EMAILS. If we're going to be "doctrinally" ( I mean "technically") correct , you didn't say no comments. Hehheh.

Aside from whatever Mohler said or didn't say in this particular instance, based on what his modus operandi was from the beginning, I wouldn't doubt any story to that effect. That's why he was brought in. to "purge" the Seminary of the "infidels". He's about as far from being a "Baptist" as one can get.

[Old Schooler]

Actually Steve, YOu can remove both these comments if you want. It occurred to me that I was guilty of what was being discussed here, and so I repented after I wrote it. It was a quick reaction, and not so reflective. I'm sorry for that remark.

[Amy]

I'm not sorry for my remark :) The most recent issue of the "Tie" magazine was so openly sexist that I shredded it and put it in my cat's litter box.

[Keith]

I think doctrinal statements are "bullying documents," for good reasons. If not, anything goes...we draw lines because we know it's immoral to doctrinally cross them.

I think Wade Burleson's critics at the IMB could probably use the same kind of arguments in support of their recent doctrinal decisions.

[Steve McCoy]

Keith, I don't think Wade would question whether we should have doctrinal statements for our missionaries or whether we should use them to get heretics out of the way. He would question whether they are right doctrines or policies to have. We would both argue for what I said, but against the particular ones the trustees have passed.

[Keith]

Steve, I understand. I think that the old SBTS'rs like Amy, however, would probably have the same kind of disagreements about whether the doctrines and polices that were used to bully them out of the seminary were the right ones to have.

[Keith]

Steve, I probably should develop why I drew the comparision in the comments above and why I think it matters. It seems to me that your differences with the IMB in Wade's case or the alcohol banners really isn't about their legalism, their tactics against Wade or the drinkers, or the disciplinary actions they chose to take--because you seem to accept that same kind of legalism, those same kinds of tactics, and the same kinds of actions in other circumstances, i.e., against moderates and liberals like Amy who used to be at SBTS or in the SBC.

So it seems to me that your difference with your opponents isn't what they're doing--in and of itself--but rather, your difference is based on a disagreement about the biblical basis for why they're doing it. What that suggests to me is that the "greatest poison" (to use a phrase from your open letter) in the SBC has nothing to do with legalism or bullying itself--because when used against people like Amy, it seems to be acceptable--but rather, the poison seems to be with legalism or bullying when it is used in a way that you disagree with.

To me, accepting the use of legalistic tactics and "bullying" against those you disagree with--and condeming those same tactics against those you agree with--means that the difference between you and the people you are criticizing in your open letter is only a difference in degree, not a difference in kind.

The result would be that, in my view, no real change would occur if all the SBC seminarians endorsed and practiced the recommendations in your open letter. In the letter, one of the underlying arguments that you made seemed to be that the seminarians "have the chance to get this Titanic steered clear of disaster" if they renounce the kind of legalism and power-play tactics that are being used by some in the SBC now. I agree. But in my view, you can't let that same kind of legalism and those same kind of bullying tactics slip in the back door and accept it as OK because you draw the circle a little wider circle than the IMB or Jack Graham. That's just rearranging the deck chairs, not steering the boat away from the iceberg. The dangers--the very ones you implied in your open letter--are still there. There has to be a way to avoid legalism and bullying, even against those with whom you have serious disagreements with over matters of scripture.

I hope that makes sense. I'm not trying to slam you or start an argument over the past or anything. I'm just expressing a concern over what I see as a broken rudder on the Titanic. Turning the wheel a different direction won't help unless you start by fixing that rudder.

Just my take on the last month or so, for what it's worth.

[Kevin Regal]

Steve,

I didn't see your original post--I wasn't even aware that you had read about the affair unitl today.

I agree with you. To discuss information about publicly accountable institutions is not gossip; in fact, I would argue that it is part of keeping an institution like SBTS accountable. I do not believe that I was wrong in posting the information I as I did, either. My only regret is that it turned out that the information I had been given was inaccurate.

Perhaps it could be argued that I should have done more to verify the information before discussing it openly. I doubt it. I received the information from a very trustworthy source, and many other people at Clifton understood the situation exactly as my source did. It was not until the night I posted my correction that my source found out about the misunderstanding, and many others only found out by reading the correction which I posted.

My assessment of the situation--as I originally understood it--was, in my opinion, careful and correct. I did not condemn Dr. Mohler for looking into such a matter, but I did suggest that the situation could have been handled in a better way.

Again, since the alleged "ultimatum" never actually happened, my critique is moot.

Of course it is inevitable that people who would rather have information covered up will come up with all sorts of names for those who expose it. Even before factual errors were discovered, I was accused of the whole litany--cynicism, name calling, lying, etc. I don't find at all surprising that "gossip" has been added to the list. I am glad that you are not "rolling over" just because someone may have accused you of gossip.

Kevin Regal

[Steve McCoy]

Kevin, to be honest, I don't intend to discuss this matter publicly beyond what's already been discussed (at least for this thread). Thanks for sharing your thoughts here.

[Kevin Regal]

Steve,

I don't quite understand. As far as I can tell, there is no matter to discuss anymore. If the original account I was give had been true, then there would be, but it isn't. What is it that you don't intend to discuss?

Kevin

[Steve McCoy]

The accusation of gossip. I've dealt with it plenty, and I don't want to rehash any of it. That's all I mean. Thanks for understanding.

Steve