When King Saul and his son Jonathan died on Mount Gilboa following a battle with the Philistines, David wept and cried "How the mighty have fallen!"
The Philistines themselves might have said the same thing a few years earlier when a younger David whipped their giant champion, Goliath: "How the mighty have fallen!"
Fans of Kentucky basketball might be singing that same lament after the fabled Wildcats were chased out of Rupp Arena by the Runnin' Bulldogs of Gardner-Webb University, one of five institutions of higher education affiliated with the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina (BSCNC).
The story may seem hard to believe, but it's true: upstart Gardner-Webb waltzed onto Kentucky's home court Nov. 7, got off to a 14-0 start, and never trailed en route to an 84-68 victory.
Another story making the rounds in North Carolina is easier to believe, but, to my knowledge, far less true.
On Nov. 13, during the BSCNC's annual meeting, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of North Carolina (CBFNC) will hold a dinner meeting, something the organization has done for several years. Since a fair number of CBF supporters still attend the annual BSCNC meeting, it's a convenient time for the state organization to hold a fellowship gathering. Since so few of the participants tended to return to the Tuesday evening session of the Convention, CBFNC leaders decided to extend their program a bit this year.
That plan has been in place for many months, and I've seen or heard no evidence that it has any other purpose than to promote the fellowship and programs of CBFNC.
Multiple conservative spokesmen, however, have been raising an alarm of late, claiming that the purpose of the CBFNC event is to attract messengers and pack the house for the Wednesday morning BSCNC session, when there may or may not be an effort made to reverse the BSCNC Executive Committee and Board of Directors' decision to remove Woman's Missionary Union of North Carolina (WMU-NC) from the annual North Carolina Missions Offering, beginning in 2008.
In an article on the Conservative Carolina Baptists website, budget committee member Steve Hardy concludes his analysis of Convention issues by saying "CBFNC has planned a major rally on Tuesday evening in Greensboro so they can flood the Convention with messengers on Wednesday morning."
Yadkinville pastor and frequent blogger Tim Rogers said in a recent post:
I received this information in an email and you need to know that it is reliable information. The person I received this from certainly would know about this political move.
NC Baptists need to know that the WMU will try to reverse the Board’s recent action which excludes them from the NC Mission Offering. THIS WILL TAKE PLACE ON WEDNESDAY MORNING!! In the past conservatives have not been faithful to attend on Wednesday morning and we MUST not let that happen this year!!
Rogers goes on to say "The CBFNC (moderate/liberals) are having a huge gathering on Tuesday evening in an effort to get their messengers in Greensboro to be ready for the Wednesday AM budget presentation."
It seems a bit strange to me that I'm on the CBFNC mailing list and in fairly close touch with CBFNC leaders, but I've not heard a word about any "get out the vote" rally on Nov. 12.
If the information is truly reliable, and CBFNC has indeed decided to abandon its longstanding purpose for the meeting in favor of an all-out effort to pack the BSCNC house on Wednesday morning, the organization has done a mighty poor job with publicity, because it appears that only conservatives got the memo.
In truth, it's one of the state's leading conservatives who sent the memo to supporters, incorrectly portraying the CBFNC meeting as a political rally for WMUNC.
I don't doubt that many of those who attend Tuesday's CBFNC meeting will be registered BSCNC messengers who will also attend the Wednesday morning meeting, but there is nothing new about that. They will do so because they are faithful Baptists who are interested in their Convention, not because they were called out to Greensboro by a CBFNC meeting.
That you can believe.
21 comments:
It was the bloggeresque substitution of presumption for verification that spawned the long-time debate over whether bloggers are journalists.
What you have recounted here looks like an example of the old bloggeresque stumble.
As a veteran, mainstream (arrgh!), Southern journalist who has left that realm and blogs, concern about the issues involved will not permit me to stand silent.
When I was a beat reporter, an I know things learned reliably from somewhere argument made it my job to require compelling proof of the speaker.
If none were forthcoming, it was then my job to report that, and often quietly bear the speaker's private fury thereafter.
IMHO you have raised the right issues here.
According to the widely published ethical standards of American journalism, it is up to the gentleman quoted to fully prove his case.
This is not an attempt to gainsay him.
I will not.
In my view, the opportunity to present compelling proof is his and what he does with it lies in the future.
Meanwhile, Rebecca Blood's 2002 essay Weblog Ethics is a thorough, readable examination of the issues involved for bloggers.
Dr. Cartledge,
Contrary to gwf3, whoever that is, (it seems I am being castigated as relaying gossip by one that will not identify him/her self) I have never presumed upon myself a journalist. I have never even tried to be a journalist. And if anyone will read my blog they will notice a tagline that reads, "I give no validity to the truthfulness of the comments of others". As you accurately report that information is from someone else as I have accurately placed it in a block quote.
Now, let's get to the purpose of your article. Are you saying that CBF-NC has always held it's gathering on Tuesday evening? Are you also saying that this particular meeting is being held during this particular time because there is nothing going on at the BSCNC that attracts CBF-NC persons? Are you saying that CBF-NC claims a desire to do missions but has planned a gathering during the time that we will hear from our Baptist Men and WMU-NC about the missions we have accomplished--together?
And you all claim that you are not gathering to get out the vote? Pulease!
Blessings,
Tim
Friend Tim,
I note your disclaimer that you don't take credit for what others say on your blog. Yet, you begin this post by saying "I received this information in an email and you need to know that it is reliable information. The person I received this from certainly would know about this political move."
Are you saying those are not your words, but part of what you received in the email?
In either case, it certainly appears that you agree with the writer's disregard for the truth.
CBFNC has indeed held Tuesday evening dinner meetings in the past, mainly because it's a time when the BSCNC has already attracted many people to town -- not so it can pull in messengers for the BSC.
The difference this year is that they decided to add a worship time after the dinner, because in past years many attenders chose not to return for the Tuesday evening session of the BSCNC, which usually features reports and preaching.
I'm confident that decision was made well before convention planners announced which groups would be reporting that night. I know that some of those reporting were not told when their reports would be until quite recently.
This year's Tuesday evening CBFNC gathering was planned long before the Board decided to remove WMU-NC from the NCMO, and thus long before there was any talk of an attempt to reverse that on Wednesday morning.
No matter how reliable you believe your e-mail's author to be, his claim that the purpose of CBFNC's gathering is to call out the vote for WMU is just plain wrong.
Tim,
If you will follow this link http://www.cbfnc.org/pmfiles/September%2007.pdf
you will see that the CBF gathering was publicized in September as a dinner and worship gathering, long before any decisions about the NCMO concerns related to WMU that are now front and center. It has never been promoted as a "get out the vote" gathering and will not become one. CBF has never used those kind of tactics. No one from CBF has contacted me or anyone else that I know about a "get out the vote" gathering. In fact, I first heard the rumor from you, who heard it from another friend, who heard it from...
For what it's worth I am a CBFNC supporter and my wife and I registered for the Tuesday evening meal and meeting weeks before the executive committee voted to remove the WMU-NC from the NCMO allocations. My guess is that the vast majority of the participants in the CBFNC meeting also reserved a spot long before the vote. I have heard nothing about this gathering being a "get out the vote" campaign by moderates. Most of the moderates that I have talked to, before and after the vote on the NCMO allocations, do not plan to attend the BSC at all. If there is to be some sore of political rally related to the Wednesday morning session connected with this CBFNC meeting, then it has been publicized poorly, for certainly moderates in these parts did not get the word.
Trying to rebut the claims of those who see the CBF gathering as an attempt to "pack the house" in an effort to restore WMU funding in the NCMO is simply an exercise in futility. Nothing you say is going to change their minds. The best rebuttal is to proceed with the plans made long ago, and let the events speak for themselves.
I think there is an old Arab proverb that says, "The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on." Let the caravan move on, my friends.
Haha. I love the Biblical reference for the GWU team.
We seem to have an easily corrected misunderstanding.
"Comments of others" in the context of a blog is generally presumed to refer to attached comments, like this one. Certainly anyone who sees your disclaimer in that light should be forgiven.
You tell us here that you quoted material but did not intend to present it as authoritative.
I understand. Yet in the blog entry at issue you state:
"It is reliable information."
That made it yours.
With that assertion, all prior conditions are swept aside.
Here you tell me that step was unintentional and you in fact "give no validity to the truthfulness of the comments of others".
Thank you, Tim.
I understand.
There is a well-accepted way to correct such misimpressions.
Insert a correction into the blog entry where the error was made.
Write the correction within brackets [at the point where the error is first made].
You can say something like:
[This author makes no reliance upon the factual accuracy of the blockquoted statement and regrets any implication of such reliance.]
Once you do that, everyone will have a reasonable opportunity to learn what you have shared with us here.
Thank you.
Dr. Cartledge,
First, I would call you Tony, but I just cannot bring myself to do so. It has nothing to do with my relationship with you as much as it has to do with the position that you hold. Earned Doctorates, for me, require respect for the work. Add to that your position, now as a faculty member and your previous position as Editor, and you get loads of respect from me. Dr. Cogdill has asked me on a number of occasions to call him Mike, but I just cannot bring myself to do it. I respect the positions you guys hold too much. I know that it may seem a bit impersonal some times, but honestly, it is a term of endearment for me.
Now, to my disagreement. :>)
I will agree with you that those are my words. Thus, allow me to begin again. I believe you when you tell me that this meeting was planned a couple of months back. However, are you saying that the worship leader was initially invited to be there by you guys or was he invited by the PP&P committee? If it was by the PP&P you can see why I say that it is a plan to "get out the vote."
The words I refer to as not mine are those in block quote. I do not give those words a factually true that I have gone behind th scenes to check. However, I do state, and I stand behind this, the person I received this information from is one that has seen the CBF-NC work in the past and has given this information of that past workings.
However, I will be the first to tell you that I could be wrong. I also beleive I know a way to, at least in my mind, settle the concern that is prevalent among conservatives about this meeting. On Monday evening I will make a motion that registration for this meeting be closed at 12 noon on Tuesday. Those that have not registered by 12noon will not be able to register. Those that are registered by 12 noon will be the qualified messengers to the 2007 convention. You give the second, Cottonhead, David Stratton, Harvey Clayton, & gwf3 speak in favor of the motion. That way we all will know that the Tuesday evening meeting is not an effort by CBF-NC to get out the vote.
What say you?
Blessings,
Tim
In response to Tim's last comment:
The CBFNC dinner was planned, not just two months ago, but many months ago, as it has become a tradition of sorts. I do not know the date when the decision was made to add a program after the dinner, but it had to be before September, when it was announced in the CBFNC newsletter. The main speaker, Emmanuel McCall, is the current coordinator for CBF national. The program was designed to promote CBFNC, not to strategize for the BSC.
I don't understand your question "However, are you saying that the worship leader was initially invited to be there by you guys or was he invited by the PP&P committee? If it was by the PP&P you can see why I say that it is a plan to 'get out the vote.' "
The only PP&P committee I know of is the Baptist State Convention's "Program, Place, and Preacher" committee. I had nothing to do with inviting either the BSC speakers or the CBFNC speaker, so I'm not one of "you guys" in either case. I just read the program and see who's coming. McCall was invited to speak long before there was talk of a motion to reverse the Board of Director's position on WMUNC.
Seriously, I just don't understand what you mean by "If it was by the PP&P you can see why I say that it is a plan to 'get out the vote.'"
If there had been no meeting planned until the WMU action was considered, and it had been put together on short notice, I could see your point. But, the meeting has been planned for many months, and I believe the dinner actually sold out some time ago.
As for your suggestion about cutting off registration at noon on Tuesday, I suspect that such a motion might be ruled out of order -- I'd have to read the Articles & Bylaws to know if it's allowed, and don't have a copy with me (or the time to do it at the moment). I would not be interested in supporting such a challenge just to try and "prove" that the Tuesday night meeting was not planned as a get out the vote campaign. I don't think conservatives would support your motion, either. Given the clarion call that you and CCB have sounded, I suspect there may well be lots of conservatives showing up Wednesday morning to register in time for the budget session, and I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate discovering that a compadre had initiated a move to keep them from registering!
I appreciate the humorous side of your suggestion, but we both know it's not really feasible.
Here is the information straight from the BSC by-laws:
E. Duties and Membership of Convention Committees
1. THE COMMITTEE ON ENROLLMENT shall consist of nine (9) members,
three (3) of whom shall have served the previous year. Its duties shall be to provide for the registration of messengers and visitors prior to and during the Convention.
XIII. Amendments To Bylaws
These Bylaws may be changed or amended by a majority vote of the registered messengers present and voting at any session of the annual convention after the Monday night session, provided that the amendment to the Bylaws shall appear in the Biblical Recorder in two (2) separate issues in advance of the meeting of the Convention in which the proposed action is to be taken.
In the event the required notice has not been given, these bylaws may be changed or amended by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the registered messengers present and voting at any session of the annual convention after the Monday night session.
As I understand what I read in the above, the committee on enrollment shall provide for registration of messengers and visitors PRIOR to and DURING the Convention.
Tim's motion would require a change in the by-laws. It's too late for an amendment to appear for two weeks in the Biblical Recorder and without the notice, it would have to be considered after the Monday evening session.
Tim, why can't you just believe what we are telling you? Did you go to the CBF site and see that this event was first publicized in the August newsletter and then again in the September issue with all the details.
There has been no attempt by CBF of NC to "get out the vote" through mass letter writing, e-mails, or phone calls. I'm on the CBF mailing list and I've not received any sort of invitation. It's not the habit nor desire of CBF of NC to use such tactics.
I don't think that if I were to even attempt (or want) to speak to your motion at the meeting that I would get a hearing. I can imagine from what I have experienced and seen at past BSC meetings that I would probably be ruled out of order and my microphone turned off.
Dr. Cartledge,
My reference to the PP&P is the Baptist State Convention. My reference has to do with the worship leader for the AM convention being available for the PM CBF-NC meeting. I truly am trying my best to make clear my argument. I am not saying that the CBF-NC has not met in the past. I am saying that I did not know they were meeting on Tuesday evening in the past. I do know that they usually plan their "gathering" for Monday during the Pastor's Conference. Am I wrong?
Also, this is the first year that there has been a competing meeting with the convention. The Tuesday evening supper time has usually been the times for the alumni dinners. When are they taking place this year?
As to when all of this was planned, I will confess that I am not privy to that information. I will tell you that I believe while this was planned on Tuesday, for reasons other that what I believe it to be for, it certainly has worked out well for the CBF-NC to piggy-back it into a "get-out-the-vote".
Oh, I am glad that you got my humor on the last post. I forgot to place the smiley face.
Blessings,
Tim
In response to Tim Rogers' request that I consider seconding a motion to close BSC registration at noon on Tuesday, I would not favor such a motion (even if it were not out of order), but not because of any imagined "get out the vote rally" on the part of moderates. Such a motion would be a deliberate attempt to limit participation in a democratic process. As a matter of principle I would not favor such an effort to bar conservatives, moderates or anyone else.
You suggest such a motion as a way that you and others "will know that the Tuesday evening [CBFNC] meeting is not an effort by CBF-NC to get out the vote." No offense, but ultimately I don't care what you believe about the CBFNC meeting. You are free to imagine anything you desire about the CBFNC gathering and you are free to use your imagined understanding to rally whoever you want to the BSC. Attendance of the convention has been down in recent years, so maybe this will be a way to infuse some interst in the process, even if the proclamation used to garner said interest is not true. The truth is your conspiracy theory has no foundation in fact that I have been able to ascertain. But, believe it if you want to, I really don't care.
That said, I hope you have a safe trip Greensboro and God's blessing to you.
Tim,
Thank you for offering to permit me to play some role at the BSC. I have and seek no place there.
I'm a Presbyterian who paused to comment here because he has never recovered from the discipline of two decades of daily newspaper journalism.
Thank you again, Tim, for your kind invitation.
Tim, I think if I remember correctly you are a Campbell graduate. You should know when the Campbell alumni gathering is to be held.
I saw Artis Gilmore in 1967, I think it was when the Gaffney High School marching band went 20 miles up the road to play halftime for a football game. Artis was there.
I hope in the future, however to see you and or Pierce; blog on what may easily become the most famous GW Grad; not a bballer but the novelist Ron Rash.
I hope yall hit the microphones for the WMU at the NC State Convention. Somebody at the mike bring up the blessed name of Stewart Newman and Randall Lolley.
Preach the word, it's getting late and the time is nigh.
Tell the Truth. Have a showing of the 93 trustee WMU board meeting where recent SC SBC prez Purvis took Delanna O' Brien to task.
Here in Bama the CBF is not even meeting in conjunction with Bama convention this year. Most interesting thing goin on here is John Killian's blog today about George Wallace and the release of Arthur Bremer, and how it all came to his community of third generation steel mill workers in NW Jefferson County out from Bham toward Jasper.
Along the lines of the basketball mentioned at the beginning of this post. Mercer just upset USC. GO BEARS!
For what it's worth, and it may be worth nothing at all, the group coming from our church will return home Tuesday night following the CBFNC worship session. We have no plans, intention or interest in staying around to vote on Wednesday morning. We've discovered that Baptists are pretty nice people when they're preaching and singing, but they can be downright ornery when they start to voting. We have long since found God to be working in places other than the current manifestation of BSCNC, and we are pleased to invest our energies there.
Old habits die hard. For the fundamentalists everything is designed for manipulation against them. That would be a good thing. But, alas, it just isn't so.
Old habits die hard. For the fundamentalists everything is designed for manipulation against them. That would be a good thing. But, alas, it just isn't so.
Tim,
I recognize that you produce volumes of written word. Surely it must be difficult to remember just what all you have written over the last few years. The only problem is that the more you chose to say and write, the more you are responsible for remembering what you’ve said and written. After all, should any of it actually be your own creation rather than a simple sharing of facts you have observed for yourself, then you need remember what part you made up so you can keep telling that story consistently. Certainly remembering the fabrications takes more energy that remembering the simple truth.
Take this “Dr. Cartledge” thing for instance. On what was perhaps not so serious a note you refer to honoring Tony for his credentials by referring to his title. Specifically you write, “First, I would call you Tony, but I just cannot bring myself to do so.” But like I have already stated, you have written so much. As it turns out you have a long history of beginning your letters with “Brother Tony.” I realize that this slight misrepresentation of a longstanding practice may not be a big deal. It’s just a detail picked up from paying attention. Just one more detail you’ll need to remember and keep up with, lest the fabrications begin to unravel.
Post a Comment