A trailer by the Founders ministry is getting a lot of buzz:
I'll make a few comments on the trailer, then make some comments on the backlash:
A. I wonder if the title was inspired by the title of an old book by Greg Bahnsen.
B. Some of the critics of the SBC infiltration are currently employed at SBC seminaries, so they are to be saluted for their courage. They are taking a risk by implicitly criticizing the boss.
C. I agree with everything Ascol says in the trailer.
D. Rod Martin misframes the issue by casting it in terms of guilt, regret, and forgiveness. On the one hand the white slave masters, Klansmen and other suchlike died impenitent. On the other hand, the younger generation isn't complicit in that to begin with, so there's nothing to forgive.
E. There's a clip of James Merritt. I believe he's the father of homosexual activist Jonathan Merritt.
F. SBTS prez Al Mohler tweeted that he's "alarmed at how some respected SBC leaders are represented".
Ironically, that reinforces the image of self-important leaders who maintain a system of cronyism.
G. SWBTS prez Adam Greenway's tweet conveys the same blue wall of silence: "I will not…be part of any agenda seeking to divide Southern Baptists unnecessarily".
H. For his part, MBTS prez Jason Allen tweeted: "This trailer is either a click-bait promo piece or it foreshadows a movie that's uncharitable & unhelpful".
The problem is that SBC leaders have been accused of positively facilitating the infiltration of identity politics into the SBC generally and SBC seminaries in particular. They can't be trusted to solve the problem if they actively support it.
There's nothing wrong with a grassroots movement in the SBC to oppose identity politics. The SBC isn't supposed to be the Church of Rome, where the hierarchy makes all the key decisions. It's not insubordinate for SBC laymen or pastors to challenge policies promoted by the SBC Mandarins.
I. SEBTS prez Danny Akin had the most substantive response to date. Among other things, he said:
I sat down with an interview for what I understood to be a discussion about the authority of Scripture for an upcoming documentary…Today I was disappointed to see the trailer for that documentary. What I saw was edited footage that I believe to be misleading, which misrepresents important issues and what leaders in the SBC actually affirm…I have requested that my association with and contribution to this film be removed.
That raises some ethical issues:
1. Was he interviewed under false pretenses? Since Ascol does think it's about the authority of Scripture, it wasn't conducted under false pretenses from his perspective.
2. Perhaps, though, the objection is that he was interviewed under false pretenses in the sense that Akin wasn't apprised of the use to which his statements would be put. In principle that could happen in one of two ways:
i) He was not informed about the use to which his statements would be put.
ii He was misinformed about the use to which his statements would be put.
3. (ii) is ethically more serious than (i). Mind you, there are exceptional situations in which I subterfuge justifiable. Take the sting operation on Planned Parenthood. Undercover investigators interviewed PP employs under false pretenses because that was the only way to make them own up to their activities behind-the-scenes.
4. Regarding (i), an interviewer might not be forthcoming about his agenda because, if he told the prospective interviewee what the purpose of the interview was, the interviewee back out or refuse to give straight answers. Is the interviewer to blame? Or is it blameworthy that the interviewee won't give honest answers about what's going on if the interviewer tips his hand, forcing the interviewer to be vague about his intentions to make the interviewee drop his guard and level with the interviewer? I'd say it reflects poorly on the interviewee if the interviewer must be stealthy to get information which the interviewee shouldn't be hiding from public scrutiny. Is it the interview or the interviewee who ought to be more forthright?
5. Even assuming (ex hypothesi) that the interview was conducted under false pretenses, that doesn't mean the quotes misrepresent the position of the interviewee. I'd add that Russell Moore and Matt Chandler are target rich spokesmen. They could be quoted more fully, and that would be just as damning or more so.
6. Of course the trailer uses edited footage. It's a trailer. By definition, that consists of teasers and excerpts. That by itself doesn't mean the quotes were taken out of context.
7. Is it wrong to put someone's statements to a use they didn't intend or approve of? Not necessarily. Once you said something you lose control of what you said. Now it's out there. You can't turn the clock back. You can't obligate people to act like you never said it. The moment you say it, it's out of your hands. People can now do with it whatever they wish, whether or not their intentions mesh with yours. The fact that the four SBC seminary presidents are so preemptively defensive is revealing.
No comments:
Post a Comment