As we move from summer into autumn here in NC we will experience a drabness in our foliage. It seems that we did not get enough water and because of this drought situation we find ourselves missing much of the beauty that makes the NC Mountains famous. There are some that say too much water causes the leaves to change later and therefore never exhibit the beauty of the colors in the process of that change. While others say that the slackness of rain makes the leaves change earlier and thus causes the changes so quick it makes for a beautiful scene. Which is correct? I do not know. Are these differences of opinion a result of inconsistent data? Or could this just be chicanery on the part of the tourist industry to get tourist to plan trips earlier in order to begin the tours earlier and thus bring in extra cash?
This brings me to something that I have witnessed in the blogging world. It seems that we have been a witness to either inconsistency or chicanery.
Inconsistent is described as: not satisfiable by the same set of values for the unknowns.
Chicanery is described as: deception by artful subterfuge or sophistry.
What have I seen in the blogging world that causes me to ask this question? I can point to many examples, but will use only a few. First the Endorsements at SBC Outpost. These Endorsements were removed at the decision of one person. It appears that the removal of these endorsement statements removed the endorsements of the individuals. Here is where the question of inconsistency or chicanery comes to light. Is it inconsistency or chicanery on the part of the endorsers of SBC Outpost to allow their endorsements to be pulled after they went public without publicly expressing something about the action? If it is inconsistency, where one feels the endorsement is still valid but not listed, then the endorser needs to clarify if the endorsement is still valid. If it is chicanery, where one feel the endorsement appears that it is not valid but in the endorser’s mind it is, then the endorser is guilty of trying to trick SB.
Second, is the in the arena of pastoral moves. We all now are aware that Dr. Jefress is the new pastor at FBC Dallas. However, we also are aware this was made public before either FBC Dallas members were aware of whom the committee was preparing to present, or FBC Wichita Falls was told by their pastor. This was debated in blogland as just “scooping” a story that was going to be released by a secular news organization. However, some of the very ones releasing this information did not seem to be aware that one of SBC Outpost’s leaders was leaving his present ministry to begin in a staff position in Enid Oklahoma. While neither FBC Dallas, nor FBC Wichita Falls had the luxury to hear about these changes from within the confines of their own membership, Parkview Baptist and Emmanuel Baptist were able to announce a transition that should go smoothly because it was presented in a proper manner. If what happened with the scoop is inconsistency then those involved in reporting these items should issue an apology to FBC Dallas, FBC Wichita Falls, and Dr. Jefress. If this is chicanery then it is easily spotted when the secular media turns to these “scooping” individuals in order to further a cause against SBC Institutions.
Also, and the last one to which I point, did you see the issue of silence? This blogger, referencing this post, pointed to the silence of SWBTS when someone seeks information. From both articles it appears that the authors believe it to be due to a serious, possibly law-breaking, matter for SWBTS to remain silent. IOW, SWBTS has seriously broken the law and their silence is the proof seems to be the implication. According to the SBC Outpost article because people are now being referred to a lawyer there must be something wrong. However, when I ask a question concerning a statement here the author responds humorously here. When I press the matter here he responds with silence here. If the author was afraid that I was seeking information because I desired to use it in a legal battle that I have instigated against him this type of action would be considered inconsistency. However, to become silent when the only thing requested were the more than half-dozen names he said “had no clue about Klouda’s forced removal, much less the reasoning behind why a unanimous action of the Board of Trustees needed to be ‘corrected’ ” screams chicanery. Some may not see it that way, but they need to stop and think. SWBTS is under scrutiny like it has never been before. Dr. Patterson is battling constant threats of legal actions against him and the seminary. Then the very person who has encouraged the lawsuit SWBTS is facing accuses him of hiding something by his silence, but when asked to name names instead of placing things out there as gossip, this person refuses to do so . . .
Oh, speaking of chicanery. Remember the issues raised by Brother Wade over Mrs. Debbie Brunson being nominated to the IMB from Florida? Remember his difficulty was not with Mrs. Brunson but the fact that she had been there less than a year and there were many more people in the great state of Florida that had served longer than she. I remember it and, to his credit, the story was pulled from his blog. His reasons? To be honest, I never really understood his reasoning. However, I believe if you will look at the appointments of the current President of the Oklahoma Baptist Convention you will notice a person on the Nominating Committee that violates the very principle that Brother Wade raised with Sister Debbie Brunson. Brother Art Rogers was in Oklahoma for less than a year when the Presidential appointments were named to the Nominating Committee. Brother Art is a great man of God and I do not question his ability to serve. However, is it inconsistency or chicanery for Brother Wade to remove his article concerning his disagreement of Mrs. Brunson and remain silent concerning Brother Art? (I do not know the exact timing of the president’s appointment of Brother Art, but if I were a betting man I would bet $1k to a doughnut hole it was shortly after Brother Wade removed his article.) Also, you will notice that Brother Todd Littleton has been placed on the committee. Now I understand that Brother Todd has been in the state longer than a year. However, it was in 2005 that a member of the church Brother Todd is pastor wrote this article where the church member stated he was done with the SBC. His basis for quiting the SBC was established as something his pastor told him. Is it inconsistency or chicanery for one to lead people to quit the SBC but serve in a position to nominate people for positions in a state convention that supports the SBC. Allow me to ask the Oklahoma Baptist Convention if it is inconsistency or chicanery for the convention to appoint a pastor whose church members have publicly advocated not sending money to the SBC and point to their pastor’s leadership in making this decision?
Let me close by saying that I could care less where the Lord leads our Brothers and Sisters in service for Him. I am excited that people are able to serve Him through the denominational agencies and I support the leadership of those in their positions. Here in NC we have great leadership as I am sure Oklahoma has as well. However, it seems that many of the issues being thrown out castigating the agencies and our leaders come from either inconsistency or chicanery. Which would you say?