Confusing and Annoying: The Art of Pointing Fingers in Making a Point - Sort Of
There has been a flurry of articles (I mind you not blogs because blogs are of the devil) of late that have left me scratching my head. Does it every bother you when you hear people make blanket charges and don't validate or substantiate their charges? We have heard this sort of thing before when the whole "Hypercalvinists are destroying our Convention" in all these lovely white papers and sermons without giving definition or providing explanation. What befuddles me all the more is the implicit attitude that bloggers are biased, illegitimate sources of information not worthy of being read by the larger public while I have read "scholarly" papers from professors and "journalistic" articles from state papers that are incredibly suspect. Let me explain: The first article came from Dr. Danny Akin. In particular I want to draw your attention to the close of his article where he says the following:
Not Forgetting Our Heroes Finally, I shared at our meeting that I will not allow a new generation of Southern Baptist to forget our heroes. We today stand on the shoulders of giants like Boyce and Broadus, Carroll and Truett. More recently it is Criswell andIn my initial response which I made on the Founders' Blog, I said, "I have to assume that he is either talking about students at Southeastern or bloggers he reads on the Internet. My guess is the latter. If this is the case, then who and what is he exactly referring to? Who are those 'throwing grenades at the heroes of our faith?' That's a pretty serious charge to make. Of course, his warning and admonition is well received in that it should remind us that none of what we enjoy as conservative Southern Baptists would be possible if it weren't for the Founders like Boyce and Broadus and for the Resurgence from men like Patterson and Pressler. If anything, I see this younger generation more interested, more passionate, more concerned about the
, Vines and Draper, Smith and Elliff, Pressler and Patterson. For some reason there are today those who want to attack and malign some of these men, question their motives and actions. Are these men perfect? No. Are they good godly men who love Jesus, the Bible, the lost and our Convention? Yes! I often remind our students, and myself, that it is never right to do even the right thing in the wrong way. Some of those throwing grenades at these heroes of faith would be well served to think on this. The intemperate nature of their rhetoric is too often shameful and dishonoring to the Christ they serve. Any truth in their diatribes is lost in the bitterness and sarcasm that flows from their keyboard. (emphasis mine) Rogers
However, there appears to be a mindset among some “younger leaders” today that they are entitled to, or can demand, a position of leadership within our convention. Some may be infatuated with the ideas of holding office, receiving recognition from others, and climbing the denominational ladder. After all, how does one have time for sermon preparation with all of the new requirements for “younger leaders,” such as networking and web logging? Younger leaders are especially susceptible to a revolutionary mentality — one that is on a mission for change. Change is both good and necessary when appropriate. Nevertheless, this mentality sometimes results in a desire to change anything and everything for the sole sake of change itself – leading a rebel without a cause.
Furthermore, the manner in which some “younger leaders” are seeking to bring about change, make names for themselves, and assume their “rightful” leadership roles is disturbing: childish attempts to get one’s own way and to force one’s own voice to be heard no matter who it hurts and how it reflects on the
Again, there is this idea that this guys has the inside scoop on the secret agendas of "some" young leaders? How so? If this guy can go on record and call "some younger leaders" childish and "rebels without a cause," the least he can do is do some good journalism and get some facts. Anybody can say anything about anybody and make print? Where's the verification and vetting of some sources? Could it be that his only source is his imagination? Who are the ones demanding a position in leadership or holding an office? All this vague and ambiguous talk is worse than anything I have read in the blogosphere. Sure, it may be an editorial - but it is not good editorial.
I realize that there has been quite a swell of interest after