|
Credibility
and Reputation I have friends who worry about my credibility as a Southern Baptist. These same people seem to worry about my reputation as a Southern Baptist. Credibility and reputation, I suppose, are in the eyes of the beholder much the same way beauty is. Among my fundamentalist friends, credibility and reputation are closely related to keeping one's mouth shut. For them, credibility and reputation demand that one never criticize opposing views. If one does criticize opposing views, the views must be couched in such a way as to not offend those being criticized. I once agreed with my friends. But I have learned in recent years that my credibility and reputation do not depend on what my opponents think about me or my views. I have learned that some of my fundamentalist friends wear their feelings on their sleeves. It's okay for them to criticize their opponents but it's not okay for their opponents to criticize them or their views. I find this to be especially true for many of my fundamentalist friends. In August of 2000, Oklahoma Executive Director, Dr. Anthony Jordan, and one of the DOMs, without going through a resolutions committee, wrote a resolution for the Fellowship of DOMs. (Oklahoma DOM's Resolution) The resolution was one that declared that the Fellowship of DOMs would formally approve and adopt the new 2000 Baptist Faith and Message as the standard confession of faith for associations in Oklahoma. The resolution declared that the DOMs would return to the associations and "encourage the pastors and members of the churches to consider seriously adoption of the June 14, 2000 revision as their generally accepted confession of faith." I saw this move as a reaction to criticism from moderate Oklahoma Baptists who preferred and accepted the older confession of faith (Baptist Faith and Message 1963). I also saw this as top-down political move by Dr. Jordan. He wanted Oklahoma Baptists to be one of the first state conventions to get in line with the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention. The 2000 Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting had adopted the new creed-like confession and were desperately wanting all Southern Baptists to fall in line with the direction they were leading the denomination. In September of 2000, I posted the DOMs resolution on a Baptist interactive internet discussion forum (BaptistLife.Com). I wrote some material dealing with the resolution, suggesting that its adoption by the DOMs was a top-down political move on the part of the Executive Director. I further suggested that he was using the Fellowship of DOMs as his "middle-men" to facilitate the task of getting all of Oklahoma Baptists on board with Southern Baptists. Subsequent to my posting the DOM resolution to the internet discussion forum, a lengthy discussion about the resolution and the circumstances surrounding it ensued. The discussion dragged on for several days, evolving into several lengthy threads. During that discussion, I suggested that Jordan had used one or several of the DOMs to get it through. I revealed that I was the sole negative vote from the body. Since this was obviously more of a political move than a theological move on Jordan's part, I suggested that some of the DOMs were "bootlickers." I name no DOM specifically. I was simply making an observation about a fact of political life, which in this case was denominational politics. I believed then, as I believe now that there are some Directors of Missions in Oklahoma who are political bootlickers. About a week after the discussion had simmered down, an anonymous person clipped portions of my internet messages, adding commentary that I was saying that all the Oklahoma DOMS were "bootlickers." The anonymous email was sent to Anthony Jordan and all of the Oklahoma DOMs. Anthony Jordan was very angry with me for making this observation. He called me into his office chewed me out in a manner not worthy of describing here. Then later, the topic of my calling Oklahoma DOMs "bootlickers" resumed with much vigor. My fundamentalist adversaries launched an assault on my credibility and reputation as a Southern Baptist. One person in particular kept hammering away, saying that my observation about denominational politics in Oklahoma was unwarranted. This individual has persistently attempted to lead me to name specific DOMs who are bootlickers. I have consistently refused to give names. I don't believe it is appropriate to give personal names. But I do believe it is appropriate to make public observations about denominational politics in Oklahoma. Why? Because it is a fact of life that there are political bootlickers within the body of Oklahoma DOMs. While some may deny this, I believe it is a self evident fact, based on my 20 month experience as a Director of Missions in Oklahoma. I saw it. I observed it. More recently, the same individual suggested that my public comments were bringing damage both to myself and Oklahoma Baptists. He used the term "collateral damage," insinuating that my comments were damaging to innocent DOMs and even to innocent church members. I gather that he believes the tone of my posts has damaged my relationships with others, and perhaps my credibility as well. I fail to see this in light of what has happened and is happening in Southern Baptist life today. I fail to see how that my comments damage anyone, much less my own credibility and reputation. One reason I fail to see this is that Anthony Jordan recently went on record as comparing moderate Baptists, specifically Mainstream Oklahoma Baptists, to lesbians and Mormons. (Mainstream or extreme?) This kind of rhetoric is consistent with the fundamentalists, tracing back to the mid 1970's. W. A. Criswell, Paige Patterson, and Paul Pressler, architects of the takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention, have used rhetoric far worse than my simple observation that there are a few bootlickers in the body of DOMs in Oklahoma. Terms such as "skunk," "infidels," and "heretics" have been used to describe moderate Southern Baptists. In the eyes of my fundamentalist friends, my use of the political term, "bootlicker," is described as "ranting" and is most inappropriate to use when talking about an opponent. However, it appears to be acceptable for my fundamentalist friends to use terms like "skunk," "infidels," and "heretics" to describe their opponents. I've never seen a fundamentalist question the credibility and reputation of an Anthony Jordan, a W. A. Criswell, a Paige Patterson or a Paul Pressler for using such terms. Yet my credibility and reputation is not only questioned, my comments are said to bring "collateral damage" to innocent Southern Baptists. What are these people thinking about? When it comes to my own credibility and reputation, I am aware that as far as my fundamentalist friends are concerned, I have no credibility or positive reputation in their eyes. My credibility with them is nil. My reputation with them is tarnished. The accusation that I am bringing damage to innocent Southern Baptists pales in the face of the great damage already perpetrated on the SBC by the fundamentalists. I have learned not to worry about what fundamentalists think about my credibility and reputation. I could care less what they think. I am an advocate for truth. I am an advocate for the causes of moderate Southern Baptists. I am an defender of the integrity of traditional Baptists. I am advocate for the theology and freedom of interpretation of the Bible which traditional Southern Baptists held before the hostile takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention. I am an advocate for freedom to choose whatever Baptist confession of faith that fits my personal beliefs about the Bible. I am an advocate for freedom of Southern Baptist missionaries to share Jesus with the lost world without being required to sign a creed. I am an advocate for the freedom of seminary professors to teach the Bible without being required to sign a creed. If my advocacy for these historic principles of Baptist life tarnished my credibility and reputation with the fundamentalists, then so be it. I could care less. Even if it does involve publicly acknowledging that there are a few bootlickers in the body of DOMs in Oklahoma. -- December 4, 2002 (This article was written for BaptistLife.Com Discussion Forums) |