Editorial: Extortion is not Christ-like

You probably would not be surprised to learn we receive quite a bit of mail at our office. In the “olden days” of envelopes and stamps, I thought it arrived in torrents. But “snail mail” trickled compared to the deluge precipitated by the ease and speed of email.

Sometimes, I lament the flood, simply because keeping up can take inordinate time. Still, I’m grateful for letters to the editor and personal mail about the work we do here.

Editor Marv KnoxAs you might imagine, some mail conveys adverse reactions to the way we do our work or the ideas I published in editorials. (People seem motivated to write letters when they’re angry or annoyed.) Across the years, I’ve benefited enormously from the criticism readers took time to send my way. Those letters revealed fresh perspectives that had not been apparent to me. They helped me look at our work and the issues facing Baptists with fresh eyes.

Even when I did not agree or did not change my mind, they forced me to think more critically and hone my statements more carefully. So, from a practical standpoint, I appreciate such mail, because it helps me do my job better, and that serves our readers.

More importantly, I appreciate letters to the editor and constructive criticism because I’m a Baptist: I affirm the priesthood of all believers. Among multiple inferences, this means each person—reader, reporter and editor alike—has both the right and responsibility to seek God’s will on the common issues we face, and then to speak up.

Two exceptions

So, I receive mail and email gratefully, with two notable exceptions. The first occurs when writers present themselves as acting spontaneously, but the evidence of more than one letter points toward collusion. The second happens when a reader seeks to extort a specific action by making threats.

This seems to have occurred recently. Perhaps the letters were coincidental, but similarities indicate otherwise. And from the receiving end, they certainly seem threatening. Rather than explain, I’ll share the primary text from the most recent letter:

“I noticed on Baptist Standard website that the Baptist Standard is supplying the link to the Alliance of Baptists which is a pro-homosexual group. I find it very hard to understand why the Baptist Standard would endorse this group by placing it on its website. (Yes you are endorsing it by having it on your website.) I am asking you to remove the link. I will be talking with some Directors of Missions, Pastors, and others about this and letting them know what the Baptist Standard is doing. I am disappointed Marv in the Baptist Standard and in you if you endorsed doing this.”

A link is not endorsement

Yes, the address to the Alliance of Baptists website is one of 104 “Baptist links” included on our website. And, yes, the Alliance of Baptists has taken a minority position among Baptists by welcoming and affirming homosexuals.

But, no, a link on our website does not indicate endorsement of every position the organization has taken. Shoot, we also include links to 13 Southern Baptist Convention agencies and institutions, and we would need to disconnect most, if not all, of them if inclusion implied endorsement of all their beliefs and actions.

Here’s why we include a broad array of links to other Baptist organizations:

First, we believe we should be helpful and transparent in service to our readers. We cover Baptists across the nation and around the world. If our readers want to know more about a Baptist organization that appears in an article, then we should provide easy access to its website. Due to deadlines and the volume of news, we don’t always remember to link every organization in every story, but readers can get there through our “Baptist links” page. (Who knows? Maybe the Alliance-link complainers found out about the Alliance’s stand on sexuality by using our link.)

We trust our readers

And second, we trust our readers. They’re fully capable of conducting their research and deciding if they agree or disagree with another Baptist organization. We don’t need to protect them from the truth. We would be derelict if we tried.

But now these brothers want us to remove the Alliance of Baptists link, or else they’re going to tattle to “directors of missions, pastors and others.” How Christlike of them. When I must deal with pious extortionists, I glimpse a glimmer of how discouraged and fatigued Jesus must have felt when he dealt with the scribes and the Pharisees. “Straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel” makes perfect sense.

Implicit in the threats is the notion these brothers will get the Baptist General Convention of Texas to punish us. Most seem to think they can cut off our funds. But, thank God, the Baptist Standard is the only Baptist news organization not subsidized by a convention. We don’t receive Cooperative Program funds. Never have.

Complacency is dangerous

In the 15 years since a competing convention split from the BGCT, most Texas Baptists have grown complacent about threats to our freedom. We don’t attend BGCT annual meetings to engage in political battle, so most Texas Baptists think we are, well, home free.

That’s not the case, as these threats indicate. A link here, a pulpit there, an agency leader over there. Freedom-deniers think they know what’s best for all Baptists, and they’re happy to force their will onto others. The Baptist Standard will remain a bulwark for freedom. If you’d like to help us, click here.