We need better champions against Wokeism (the Founders Trailer disaster)

[BottleOfTears]

The music of the trailer was corny but documentaries use effects like that. White also pointed out that in the trailer there is a shot of Ascol looking glum accompanied by the narration "we've been played". If we follow the logic used by those who said they were attacking Denhollander then we would say the trailer was suggesting that Tom Ascol had "played us". But no-one made that point. Apparently the editing was completely arbitrary in regards to Ascol but deliberate in regards to Denhollander.

The trailers ham-fisted editing makes it very clear who the "good guys" and "bad guys" are. Or are we saying that Nadia Bolz-Weber is portrayed the same way as Tom Ascol?

Every single time a clip of someone not on Founders side comes up in the trailer it has a filter over it. Usually adding a kind of gray effect, but in the case of Nadia Bolz-Weber and Rachel Denhollander it's a yellowish tone. Their clips also comes up at the same timing with the same scary sound effect in the music.

All those in the interviews and the Founders themselves have clear lighting no extra effects or any nonsense. No blurred image of Tom Ascol flashes up on screen accompanied by scary music.

It's not just the timing of the words, it's everything about the editing. It is entirely lacking in style and subtlety. Frankly, anyone who can't see the message the trailer was sending via the effects and music has got to be kidding themselves.

 

[alexandermsmith]

James White himself has said several times something to the effect of, "You can't do everything well," largely as reasoning for avoiding discussion on Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. I respect that and wholeheartedly agree.

I think he and Founders should take the same tack on social issues. I haven't enjoyed his program very much since it has become a constant lament about "how awful things are." I actually agree that they're pretty bad, but others are much more insightful on these issues than White--often Lutherans, Roman Catholics, and even atheists.

He, of course, can do as he likes on his show, but I truly wish he would get back to a more sustained focus on topics such as Islam and Textual Criticism, where I felt like I was actually learning from him (and Calvinism, which would hold true of the Founders as well).

As for the comments on his latest show, they seemed very much in the vein of "Come on, let's give the benefit of the doubt to our guys (but not their guys)!"

Well I think we should give the benefit of the doubt to men who stand up for Christian Truth and see no reason to give it to those who are clearly and deliberately teaching error and trying to undermine many Biblical categories and teachings.

CT, Intersectionality and Egalitarianism is where the fight is today. He has been heroic on this front. Frankly the less he says about Textual Criticism the better. He can't seem to do a show without finding an excuse to hurl abuse at KJV Onlyists who are of no consequence.

 

[Susan777]

Well I think we should give the benefit of the doubt to men who stand up for Christian Truth and see no reason to give it to those who are clearly and deliberately teaching error and trying to undermine many Biblical categories and teachings.

CT, Intersectionality and Egalitarianism is where the fight is today. He has been heroic on this front. Frankly the less he says about Textual Criticism the better. He can't seem to do a show without finding an excuse to hurl abuse at KJV Onlyists who are of no consequence.

Alexander, I’m curious whether CRT and intersectionality are prevalent in Britain, or is this simply an American phenomenon? I’m not speaking of feminism (which in the West is pandemic).

 

[alexandermsmith]

Alexander, I’m curious whether CRT and intersectionality are prevalent in Britain, or is this simply an American phenomenon? I’m not speaking of feminism (which in the West is pandemic).

I can't say how extensive it is over here. As much as I pay attention to what anyone in politics, media or academia over here says I would say the ideas are present in an amorphous form but one doesn't tend to hear the terms themselves in everyday speech, that I've noticed. At least not from our politicians, for example. Liberal media folk in papers like the Guardian will probably use them but as part of general conversation these terms haven't become popular. That's my impression at least. At the universities I'm sure it is being taught. Certainly we have a lot of talk about how our history is apparently racist and there is a drive to "decolonise" our education. So the currents are certainly here.

As for the church I really couldn't say. Thankfully my denomination is separate from all others in the country so we live in "blissful isolation". In Scotland the only major denomination I could imagine it being present in would be the Church of Scotland. Down south in England it's probably in the Church of England.

 

[Kinghezy]

I thought White's Dividing Line on the whole thing, as is usually the case with his show, was very good. He gave a good overview of the situation and why he thinks the response has been hysterical on one hand, and co-ordinated (by some) on the other. I also think he offered a good theory as to why they used the Matt Chandler clip. When he first saw the trailer he thought that the use of that clip was a bit off but he is willing to wait and see how it is used in the context of the film.

His theory as to why they used the clip of Chandler ties in with the Denhollanders: the panel discussion which both clips (of Chandler and Denhollander) appeared to be taken from whilst stensibly on the subject of abuse apparently descended into advocacy for egalitarianism. Which is what my fear would be in regards to people like Denhollander: that they would be co-opted by those who have a malicious agenda but will hide behind victim advocacy to enact it. I don't see what good can come from sharing a platform with the likes of Chandler and Beth Moore.

I have seen that some have accused Founders of "duping" them into appearing in the film. That is merely an accusation. What is their evidence for that? Are we to believe them, and not Tom Ascol who has said he would not get some someone's involvement in an interview/film under false pretences? I would be inclined to think the disavowals are a result of the reaction to the trailer.

The music of the trailer was corny but documentaries use effects like that. White also pointed out that in the trailer there is a hot of Ascol looking glum accompanied by the narration "we've been played". If we follow the logic used by those who said they were attacking Denhollander then we would say the trailer was suggesting that Tom Ascol had "played us". But no-one made that point. Apparently the editing was completely arbitrary in regards to Ascol but deliberate in regards to Denhollander.

Good summary. I liked his charitable reading of the situation, that still (at least to me) was not sycophantic towards founders.

He also made an announcement on Twitter, that he is not going to use Twitter to discuss things going forward, which I think would help his outlook if he is not allowing himself to get pulled into every blowup on Twitter. https://twitter.com/DrOakley1689/status/1154953213818204161?s=20

 

[Susan777]

Good summary. I liked his charitable reading of the situation, that still (at least to me) was not sycophantic towards founders.

He also made an announcement on Twitter, that he is not going to use Twitter to discuss things going forward, which I think would help his outlook if he is not allowing himself to get pulled into every blowup on Twitter. https://twitter.com/DrOakley1689/status/1154953213818204161?s=20

I finally got around to listening to the DL episode and I thought it was excellent. I hope people aren’t so upset with the trailer that they close their ears to the points the movie is likely to make. Is it only me, or are these things (CRT, egalitarianism and sexual degeneracy) accelerating at a peculiarly rapid rate? I love how JW pointed out the ridiculous usage of the words misogyny and white nationalism. The more the public hears this language the more natural it sounds and reason flies out the window. It seems to me there is a strong strain of quietism among some reformed people, sort of, “let’s not involve ourselves in this unpleasantness” but unless faithful men take a stand in the church against these interlopers we will suffer the same fate as once orthodox denominations before us.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Dr. Ascol has issued a clarification about the trailer. He does not apologize. I appreciate his response.

About that Trailer

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Dr. Ascol has issued a clarification about the trailer. He does not apologize. I appreciate his response.

About that Trailer

Perhaps he doesn’t apologize, but he does indicate that he will remove the interviews with the people who objected from the movie.

 

[Taylor]

Dr. Ascol has issued a clarification about the trailer. He does not apologize. I appreciate his response.

About that Trailer

Personally, I think this ought to be the end of the matter until we see the full film, for fear of not giving our brother the dignity and charity of meaning what he says here.

 

[Pergamum]

Dr. Ascol has issued a clarification about the trailer. He does not apologize. I appreciate his response.

About that Trailer

He also claims the trailer never misrepresented anyone's words. BUT 4 seminary leaders says he does.

Ascol writes:
"Some have accused us of misrepresenting the words spoken by certain people who appear in the trailer. We do not believe we misrepresented anyone’s words."

Ascol also claims, "Others have been pressured to withdraw." But he provides no proof.

But...they did re-edit a portion of the trailer and maybe the uproar will cause them to be more careful on the final film.

Again, a pushback against SJW-ism needs to be made. I just don't trust these people to do a good job of it anymore.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Good summary. I liked his charitable reading of the situation, that still (at least to me) was not sycophantic towards founders.

He also made an announcement on Twitter, that he is not going to use Twitter to discuss things going forward, which I think would help his outlook if he is not allowing himself to get pulled into every blowup on Twitter. https://twitter.com/DrOakley1689/status/1154953213818204161?s=20

Yeah it's a shame, I liked his tweets. But I like people who pour gasoline on an already raging fire. Which is pretty much what he did in this case. He said on his show that he had managed to miss the initial blow up: well he certainly made up for lost time. I think he was unnecessarily heated over this issue considering Tom Ascol himself admitted some poor choices in the editing. His take on his show was a lot better.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Dr. Ascol has issued a clarification about the trailer. He does not apologize. I appreciate his response.

About that Trailer

Very good statement. Can't wait to see the film, dv. (I wonder if we're gonna have to pay for it?) Also I need to watch that documentary Battle for the Minds!!

 

[alexandermsmith]

He also claims the trailer never misrepresented anyone's words. BUT 4 seminary leaders says he does.

Ascol writes:
"Some have accused us of misrepresenting the words spoken by certain people who appear in the trailer. We do not believe we misrepresented anyone’s words."

Ascol also claims, "Others have been pressured to withdraw." But he provides no proof.

But...they did re-edit a portion of the trailer and maybe the uproar will cause them to be more careful on the final film.

Again, a pushback against SJW-ism needs to be made. I just don't trust these people to do a good job of it anymore.

He said he interviewed them about the legacy of the Conservative Resurgence and the issues facing it today. The issues addressed in the trailer would appear to be perfectly in keeping with that. Plus, just because you gave an interview for a documentary doesn't mean you have editorial control over it. Each interview is just one piece of the argument of the film. The fact some of the men interviewed may not have spoken about each issue raised doesn't mean their interview can't be used. I'm inclined to think these guys have been scared by the reaction to the trailer. (Although it's also not surprising considering what seems to be happening at some of those seminaries.)

 

[Pergamum]

He said he interviewed them about the legacy of the Conservative Resurgence and the issues facing it today. The issues addressed in the trailer would appear to be perfectly in keeping with that. Plus, just because you gave an interview for a documentary doesn't mean you have editorial control over it. Each interview is just one piece of the argument of the film. The fact some of the men interviewed may not have spoken about each issue raised doesn't mean their interview can't be used. I'm inclined to think these guys have been scared by the reaction to the trailer. (Although it's also not surprising considering what seems to be happening at some of those seminaries.)

If these guys say they were misrepresented but Ascol denies it, then somebody is untruthful..... 4 seminary leaders, or Ascol. SJW-ism is a different topic than the Conservative Resurgence, which happened in the past. Sounds like a bait and switch to me. And while an interviewed person does not have total control over the final editing, being portrayed with hokey horror-effects music and off-lighting while Ascol is portrayed with none of these effects seems a bit much.

 

[Taylor]

...these guys say they were misrepresented...

You keep saying this, but where have these four themselves accused Ascol of misrepresenting them? The only comment I can find is that Al Mohler says he is "alarmed at how some respected SBC leaders are represented," but he is not at all specific on who these "respected leaders" are. It seems like he may be talking not about himself, but men and/or women whom the video directly criticizes.

Where have these four men said that they themselves have been misrepresented?

 

[Pergamum]

You keep saying this, but where have these four themselves accused Ascol of misrepresenting them? The only comment I can find is that Al Mohler says he is "alarmed at how some respected SBC leaders are represented," but he is not at all specific on who these "respected leaders" are. It seems like he may be talking not about himself, but men and/or women whom the video directly criticizes.

Where have these four men said that they themselves have been misrepresented?

Here is an article: https://wordandway.org/2019/07/24/4...concern-over-founders-ministry-films-preview/

"Danny Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in North Carolina, recounted via Twitter on July 23 that he had a brief interview for a documentary, titled “By What Standard,” being produced by the Founders Ministries, an organization founded in 1983 with a Calvinistic view of Baptist life and led by Florida pastor Tom Ascol.

Akin and three other SBC seminary professors took issue with the documentary’s trailer, or preview, of nearly 4 minutes now online.

Voicing his disappointment, Akin wrote, “What I saw was edited footage that I believe to be misleading, which misrepresents important issues and what leaders in the SBC actually affirm.”

Akin voiced concern “about what the tone, tenor, and content of the full documentary will be, and I have requested that my association with and contribution to this film be removed.”

“I hope my brothers will reconsider their strategy for communicating our deeply held Southern Baptist conviction that the Bible is our sole foundation and authority for all of life and faith.”

The Founders Ministries website does not list a release date for the documentary.

Akin was briefly shown in the trailer and it included a 12-second clip with R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kentucky; a five-second clip of Russell Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission; and five clips ranging from one to 10 seconds of Georgia pastor James Merritt, a former SBC president.

Mohler, in three tweets on July 23, wrote that he is “alarmed at how some respected SBC leaders are represented.” He has “long known and enjoyed the company of the folks who made the video and the folks offended by the video and I am hopeful that @FoundersMin will respond appropriately and in a way that affirms their intention to be a responsible voice in the SBC.”

The trailer, Mohler wrote, is a reminder “that HOW we engage and represent one another is as important as what we argue and who we engage. Let’s encourage one another to good works, good theology, and a good mood.”

The documentary, according to the Founders Ministries website, addresses “many unbiblical agendas … being advanced under the guise of honoring and protecting women, promoting racial reconciliation, and showing love and compassion to people experiencing sexual dysphoria.”

Twenty-five years after the Conservative Resurgence returned the SBC to “its historic commitments on the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture,” the website states that “it seems like evangelicals, including Southern Baptists, are in danger of loosening their commitments to those basic, Christian commitments.”

“If we care about true justice — what God has revealed to be just — then we must stand against what is being promoted under social justice,” the website states. “If we care about the true gospel — the gospel revealed in the faith once-for-all-delivered to the saints — we must reject the agendas being promoted by godless ideologies.”

Jason Allen and Adam W. Greenway were the other two SBC seminary presidents voicing concern via Twitter about the documentary’s trailer.

Allen, president of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Missouri, wrote, “This trailer is either a click-bait promo piece or it foreshadows a movie that’s uncharitable & unhelpful. @FoundersMin has often played a constructive role in SBC life, but I’m afraid this video isn’t such an occasion. These issues demand we engage w clarity & charity.”

Greenway, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Texas, wrote in three tweets, “@tomascol asked me to join other seminary leaders I respect like @albertmohler and @DannyAkin in being interviewed on the SBC Conservative Resurgence’s legacy. I will not, however, be part of any agenda seeking to divide Southern Baptists unnecessarily.

“Undoubtedly there are important issues we must confront as Southern Baptists. But HOW we confront those issues matters as much to me as WHAT we are choosing to confront. Part of the SBC’s nature is our willingness to disagree charitably on matters outside our confession of faith.

“There are better ways to have the conversations we need to have as a convention of churches,” Greenway wrote, voicing his intent “to be a part of any productive engagement that will help to bring greater clarity and unity amongst our Southern Baptist family.”"

End of article.
---

So Ascol denies misrepresenting them and at least 4 of those interviewed are on record as claiming misrepresentation.

This doesn't even count a 5th person, Rachel Denhollender, whose image was removed because she, too, was misrepresented.

So somebody is wrong if we still hold to the law of non-contradiction.

Also, Chandler has not responded it doesn't seem, but I would say he was severely misrepresented as well, when he urged churches dealing with sex abuse cases to consult outside sources (contrast his words with Ascol's God's Word...God's rules...comments...), so I believe he, too, was misrepresented. I am no fan of Chandler's but the clips which were used of him were talking about consulting outside resources when you hear of cases of abuse in churches.

Is Founders against that position?


So I count 6 probable misrepresentations.

I think it is clear Founders misrepresented at least several of the people, and now there is a backlash against whatever they do in the future.

Also, I believe they need to narrow their battle. Are they really going to address advocacy for sex abuse in churches as an SJW issue? Are they going to say that the #churchtoo movement is made up? If so, this is a losing proposition. Maybe they are going to say that handling abuse in churches is an internal matter? After all, they used Chandler's quote advising going to outside sources in a negative light. If so, that is extremely stupid in light of all the evidence we have of churches covering up sexual abuse, even ARBCA, who often have close ties with the Founders.

And of course, all the "bad guys" in the film have weird pixellation "horror-effects" happening to them as Ascol is portrayed in excellent lighting. If Ascol directed this himself, I'd say this is evidence of some narcissism since he is clearly portrayed as the hero.

Listen, I am on the same side as the Founders. But they've simply done a bad job. And in giving only a muted apology and by claiming nobody was misrepresented, I have lost trust in Ascol.

Again, we need better champions to fight this battle.

 

[Taylor]

So Ascol denies misrepresenting them and at least 4 of those interviewed are on record as claiming misrepresentation.

With all due respect, brother, you haven't answered my question. I asked specifically where any of these leaders have said that the trailer misrepresented them personally (which is what you claimed most recently here). The article you posted above said the exact same thing I did. Namely, all anyone ever claimed is that "some SBC leaders" were misrepresented (Mohler), and that "important issues" were misrepresented (Akin). But I still have not seen any proof of any of these leaders saying they themselves were misrepresented.

The reason why I think this is so important is not because I think Founders are right (I'm withholding judgment on that until I see the full film, which I think is the charitable thing to do), but because your argument is as follows:

P1) If someone says they have been misrepresented, they have.
P2) Four of the men interviewed in this film say that they were misrepresented.
C) These four men were misrepresented in this film.

What is lacking is an explicit statement where any of these men have said that they themselves have been personally misrepresented. All I have seen is that one man says, vaguely, that "SBC leaders" have been misrepresented, and another says "important issues" have been misrepresented. If this is all that is being said, your argument doesn't hold, and we should move on to discussing what has been specifically referenced as being misrepresented (such as Denhollander), and then discuss those issues as they were presented.

 

[Pergamum]

With all due respect, brother, you haven't answered my question. I asked specifically where any of these leaders have said that the trailer misrepresented them personally (which is what you claimed most recently here). The article you posted above said the exact same thing I did. Namely, all anyone ever claimed is that "some SBC leaders" were misrepresented (Mohler), and that "important issues" were misrepresented (Akin). But I still have not seen any proof of any of these leaders saying they themselves were misrepresented.

The reason why I think this is so important is not because I think Founders are right (I'm withholding judgment on that until I see the full film, which I think is the charitable thing to do), but because your argument is as follows:

P1) If someone says they have been misrepresented, they have.
P2) Four of the men interviewed in this film say that they were misrepresented.
C) These four men were misrepresented in this film.

What is lacking is an explicit statement where any of these men have said that they themselves have been personally misrepresented. All I have seen is that one man says, vaguely, that "SBC leaders" have been misrepresented, and another says "important issues" have been misrepresented. If this is all that is being said, your argument doesn't hold, and we should move on to discussing what has been specifically referenced as being misrepresented (such as Denhollander), and then discuss those issues as they were presented.

Rachel Denhollender's husband said she was misrepresented. Ascol apologized and took away her image. So there is one case proved. So, yes, the Founder misrepresented people.

Chandler I believe was misrepresented. The video evidence is there. I made a case above some posts back that I believe is convincing.

Danny Akin likewise says:
"As a Southern Baptist who has staked the whole of my life and ministry on the authority, inerrancy, and sufficiency of Scripture, I was happy to share my convictions on the matter,” Akin said in a statement posted online hours after the video’s release. “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.”

So there's 3.

A number of those interviewed and featured dislike the trailer enough to have their clips deleted and not used and their photographs scrubbed from the promotions.

I don't think they misrepresented Dwight McKissick(?) and Merrit in the clip. But it seems like Founders has acknowledged they've at least misrepresented some of those featured.

But, I suppose you can call 5 or 6 people liars when they claim that the facts are misrepresented.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Rachel Denhollender's husband said she was misrepresented. Ascol apologized and took away her image. So there is one case proved. So, yes, the Founder misrepresented people.

Chandler I believe was misrepresented. The video evidence is there. I made a case above some posts back that I believe is convincing.

Danny Akin likewise says:
"As a Southern Baptist who has staked the whole of my life and ministry on the authority, inerrancy, and sufficiency of Scripture, I was happy to share my convictions on the matter,” Akin said in a statement posted online hours after the video’s release. “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.”

So there's 3.

A number of those interviewed and featured dislike the trailer enough to have their clips deleted and not used and their photographs scrubbed from the promotions.

I don't think they misrepresented Dwight McKissick(?) and Merrit in the clip. But it seems like Founders has acknowledged they've at least misrepresented some of those featured.

But, I suppose you can call 5 or 6 people liars when they claim that the facts are misrepresented.

Again, as Taylor says, I see nowhere where Akin himself has been misrepresented or is even claiming to have been personally misrepresented. He says he was asked to contribute an interview on the sufficiency of Scripture. That is what the documentary is about: the bringing in of unbiblical categories and ideologies and substituting them for Gospel (looking back at Ascol's statement I see that I conflated the documentary he mentioned about the Conservative Resurgence with the interviews with the various current SBC men). Now the trailer may have taken his words on the sufficiency of Scripture and connected them to things happening in the church and he may prefer that connection not be made (but that is the prerogative of the filmmaker, frankly). But it is quite a stretch to say that he has been misrepresented, something which he himself does not say but only that the trailer is "misleading...[and] misrepresents important issues".

Matt Chandler was not interviewed for the documentary and until we see it we cannot know if he has been misrepresented in it.

Al Mohler is an even more troublesome case since apparently he approved the trailer before it was released and only disavowed after the controversy. Did he or did he not approve it? If he did I can't take his disavowal as anything other than running for cover when he got pushback.

As to the other two Seminary presidents, again neither of them have claimed their contribution was misrepresented only that they didn't like the look of the trailer and the overall argument it makes. And because of the controversy they don't want to be associated with it. Fair enough. That doesn't prove misrepresentation (especially when they don't actually claim they were misrepresented) anymore than it proves they're running scared (which seems more probable). Now Tom Ascol has graciously agreed to remove their contributions. This does not concede their point. It is the Christian thing to do. Whether, legally, he would be required to do so I don't know. I can't imagine it is legally required that all contributors to a film sign off on it before it can be released but as I say I don't know.

The only person who can, as far as I can see, make a case she was misrepresented is Rachel Denhollander. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on that. They removed the image from the trailer. He has reached out to the couple.

So my tally is 1, at most.

 

[Pergamum]

Again, as Taylor says, I see nowhere where Akin himself has been misrepresented or is even claiming to have been personally misrepresented. He says he was asked to contribute an interview on the sufficiency of Scripture. That is what the documentary is about: the bringing in of unbiblical categories and ideologies and substituting them for Gospel (looking back at Ascol's statement I see that I conflated the documentary he mentioned about the Conservative Resurgence with the interviews with the various current SBC men). Now the trailer may have taken his words on the sufficiency of Scripture and connected them to things happening in the church and he may prefer that connection not be made (but that is the prerogative of the filmmaker, frankly). But it is quite a stretch to say that he has been misrepresented, something which he himself does not say but only that the trailer is "misleading...[and] misrepresents important issues".

Matt Chandler was not interviewed for the documentary and until we see it we cannot know if he has been misrepresented in it.

Al Mohler is an even more troublesome case since apparently he approved the trailer before it was released and only disavowed after the controversy. Did he or did he not approve it? If he did I can't take his disavowal as anything other than running for cover when he got pushback.

As to the other two Seminary presidents, again neither of them have claimed their contribution was misrepresented only that they didn't like the look of the trailer and the overall argument it makes. And because of the controversy they don't want to be associated with it. Fair enough. That doesn't prove misrepresentation (especially when they don't actually claim they were misrepresented) anymore than it proves they're running scared (which seems more probable). Now Tom Ascol has graciously agreed to remove their contributions. This does not concede their point. It is the Christian thing to do. Whether, legally, he would be required to do so I don't know. I can't imagine it is legally required that all contributors to a film sign off on it before it can be released but as I say I don't know.

The only person who can, as far as I can see, make a case she was misrepresented is Rachel Denhollander. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on that. They removed the image from the trailer. He has reached out to the couple.

So my tally is 1, at most.

You could literally make EVERY theological issue related to the sufficiency of Scripture. Quite simply, the people interviewed felt as if it was a bait and switch.

Also, concerning Mohler. Not condemning a film does not mean he approves of the film. Even if he did not like it, he might have just responded, ok....we'll see what the final film looks like. I think Ascol's "apology" is more of a justification, and it tries to accuse Mohler of dishonesty.

The way Ascol phrases it, he is basically accusing Mohler of lying or changing his position based on the responses of others.

What is more, on Twitter, Ascol claims that the "uproar" about the film proves how important the issue is.... the guy can't see that he just simply made a bad trailer. His rationale is no way to argue. People are ticked off because we produced a bad product....wow, my finger must really be on the pulse of what is vital! We stirred up the SJWs! Well....there are a lot of people who were former allies who believe almost the same as teh Founders, like me, who no longer trust the Founders to ably defend this topic.

I have come away with all of this not only distrusting SJWs (the evangelical left), but sadly,. also distrusting Tom Ascol and the Founder.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

If these guys say they were misrepresented but Ascol denies it, then somebody is untruthful..... 4 seminary leaders, or Ascol.

"Misrepresented"? It appears you have made a wax nose of that word. Four seminary presidents did not claim they were misrepresented and there is no evidence that they were. Dr. Ascol has provided an explanation but you obviously believe he is lying. I have known him for close to twenty years and find such an insinuation offensive. But just keep beating that drum.

 

[Pergamum]

"Misrepresented"? It appears you have made a wax nose of that word. Four seminary presidents did not claim they were misrepresented and there is no evidence that they were. Dr. Ascol has provided an explanation but you obviously believe he is lying. I have known him for close to twenty years and find such an insinuation offensive. But just keep beating that drum.

Well, Ascol is pretty much saying Mohler is lying in his "apology" so there's that.

 

[Taylor]

I suppose you can call 5 or 6 people liars when they claim that the facts are misrepresented.

I never called anyone a liar. I have been speaking specifically and only of your claim that the four SBC men said they were misrepresented. I never tried to argue that no one or nothing was misrepresented. Putting words in my mouth is quite uncharitable.

 

[Santos]

You could literally make EVERY theological issue related to the sufficiency of Scripture. Quite simply, the people interviewed felt as if it was a bait and switch.

Also, concerning Mohler. Not condemning a film does not mean he approves of the film. Even if he did not like it, he might have just responded, ok....we'll see what the final film looks like. I think Ascol's "apology" is more of a justification, and it tries to accuse Mohler of dishonesty.

The way Ascol phrases it, he is basically accusing Mohler of lying or changing his position based on the responses of others.

What is more, on Twitter, Ascol claims that the "uproar" about the film proves how important the issue is.... the guy can't see that he just simply made a bad trailer. His rationale is no way to argue. People are ticked off because we produced a bad product....wow, my finger must really be on the pulse of what is vital! We stirred up the SJWs! Well....there are a lot of people who were former allies who believe almost the same as teh Founders, like me, who no longer trust the Founders to ably defend this topic.

I have come away with all of this not only distrusting SJWs (the evangelical left), but sadly,. also distrusting Tom Ascol and the Founder.

Brother,

You don't appear to be coming "away from this" with distrust for Tom Ascol and Founders. It seems to me based on your OP and follow up comments that you came into this discussion with some dislike or distrust for Tom Ascol.

For example you included your dislike for an article having nothing to do with this film (on sexual abuse). And even if you did not like the article, it's tone, or it's conclusion it does not change the fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with this film.

You also spoke of a close relationship that Founders and ARBCA have that you disapprove of as more evidence that they are not worthy of speaking on this topic. The problem with that is how do you quantify a close relationship? And if you really want to go there concerning mishandling of sex abuse, it would appear that the SBC has had around 300 separate instances of sexual abuse over the last 20 years, some of which have apparently been grossly mishandled ( …..Village Church ring any bells?) So, by this metric should you not also discredit/distrust the heads of these SBC institutions? And why do you just believe them since there are 4 of them? (Think Justice Kavanaugh) And should you not also denounce the SBC all together? I mean 300....It breaks my heart just thinking about it.

My point is you don't seem to be applying the same rules across the board and that appears a bit dishonest.

Grace and Peace,
Santos

 

[Pergamum]

Brother,

You don't appear to be coming "away from this" with distrust for Tom Ascol and Founders. It seems to me based on your OP and follow up comments that you came into this discussion with some dislike or distrust for Tom Ascol.

For example you included your dislike for an article having nothing to do with this film (on sexual abuse). And even if you did not like the article, it's tone, or it's conclusion it does not change the fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with this film.

You also spoke of a close relationship that Founders and ARBCA have that you disapprove of as more evidence that they are not worthy of speaking on this topic. The problem with that is how do you quantify a close relationship? And if you really want to go there concerning mishandling of sex abuse, it would appear that the SBC has had around 300 separate instances of sexual abuse over the last 20 years, some of which have apparently been grossly mishandled ( …..Village Church ring any bells?) So, by this metric should you not also discredit/distrust the heads of these SBC institutions? And why do you just believe them since there are 4 of them? (Think Justice Kavanaugh) And should you not also denounce the SBC all together? I mean 300....It breaks my heart just thinking about it.

My point is you don't seem to be applying the same rules across the board and that appears a bit dishonest.

Grace and Peace,
Santos

(1) I suppose one's own side disappoints far more than the opponents when they do a job badly.

(2). Folks are saying to rally around this trailer. Or that they represent "our" side. But, if they want to represent "our side" they had better improve their game.

(3) Many are saying that any dislike of the trailer identifies one as an SJW. "They're Triggered" people are saying... This perhaps is my biggest reason for anger. It seems that no criticism is received as constructive...any criticism leveled at the trailer exposes you as a supporter of Social Justice. They double-down and so you've got to really push hard before they'll edit the trailer.

(4) It does appear that the trailer is sensationalistic and badly edited.

(5) Even worse, than 2 or 3 witnesses speak of misrepresentations. Folks are distancing themselves from this trailer and wanting nothing to do with it.

Several folks on the PB deny there are misrepresentations, it seems. Those interviewed assert that there are misrepresentations. Somebody, therefore, is lying. And somebody is calling other people liars, therefore.

(6). There are ARBCA churches within Founders. ARBCA has had a bad record in protecting abuse victims. Add to this fact with the trailer's treatment of Chandler's wise advise on abuse cases and on their omenous blurred image of Denhollender.

Here's how two internet pundits portrayed the "blurred image"

First, Jeff Maples:

"The following clip is a snippet from the trailer (under the fair use clause) that seemingly portrays Rachel Denhollander as a demonic entity — what the Bible calls a “principality.” You can see Denhollanders (blurred) profile flash in the middle of a statement regarding principalities.

The video has several evangelical leaders in shock that founders would dare portray the professional victim — the one who suggested at the SBC conference that the Bible was insufficient to speak on certain matters such as sexual abuse — this way. Even her husband, who is banking on selling her books and story to an audience, chimed in on Twitter, calling out Tom Ascol and Jared Longshore..."

Then Jordan Hall at Pulpit and Pen:

"During one part of the documentary, Owen Strachan – who has vocally opposed Beth Moore’s attempts to change Southern Baptist views on women in church leadership – was speaking about their ideological opponents while background footage seemed to show a blurry image of Rachel Denhollander, a woman who suffered abuse at the hands of predator, Larry Nassar. Denhollander’s husband, Jacob, has largely capitalized on Denhollander’s abuse and turned her victimization into his own cottage industry, and made a virtual career of it."

If these guys above are our "allies" we need to rethink our position.

(7) Above, in another reply, I have stated the juxtaposition of Ascol's words with Chandler's words in the trailer. Ascol first speaks of God's Words, God's ways.... then we see Chandler's words for churches to seek outside help when it comes to abuse cases.

So, should we seek outside counsel if we encounter abuse cases in our churches? Or does this mean we don't believe in the sufficiency of Scripture? The trailer leads us to the second conclusion.

(8). Ascol's "apology" is more like a justification, and one that digs into Mohler and accuses him of either lying or being a coward by pulling support.

This is an important point.

Ascol writes:

"Dr. Mohler called me to express his concern. I was surprised since his previous response to the trailer (when I sent it to him 8 days earlier) had been a simple expression of looking forward to seeing the whole film. He told me that he would be issuing a statement about it later that day."

Ascol is subtly suggesting that Mohler, at first approved of the trailer, and then, for the sake of public image, expressed public disapproval later. And that is certainly what some people are now saing on Twitter, that Mohler was supportive at first and then later disapproved of the trailer after the public backlash, and so he gave a public statement to save his public image. Thus, Mohler is either a coward or a liar.

More likely, Mohler may have had reservations about the trailer but held back any verbal approval or disapproval. Until finally, Mohler felt he had to say something.

(9). Founder's supporters are saying that people are distancing themselves from the trailer due to fear of man (the SBC Elite, etc), not because the trailer stunk.


Now, on the other hand....

Aside from President Trump digging into Russell Moore's antics, I don't see SBC leaders digging enough at him, a man who does wonderful on Pro-life issues but so poorly on immigration and anything having to do with race or Trump. We need to dig into the Evangelical Left harder. BUT smarter.

The SBC on race has gone bonkers, talking about reparations and picking candidates based on race instead of qualifications.

I do agree there should be equal outrage. But, that doesn't change the fact that the trailer stinks.

 

[A.Joseph]

It seems to me there is a strong strain of quietism among some reformed people, sort of, “let’s not involve ourselves in this unpleasantness” but unless faithful men take a stand in the church against these interlopers we will suffer the same fate as once orthodox denominations before us.

 

[Taylor]

Several folks on the PB deny there are misrepresentations, it seems. Those interviewed assert that there are misrepresentations. Somebody, therefore, is lying. And somebody is calling other people liars, therefore.

Brother, I do hope you are not referring to me, because that itself would be a misrepresentation.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

@Pergamum, I think you have become a little unhinged on the issue sexual abuse. You sound more and more like those professional agitators who assume to themselves the sole prerogative to either condemn or absolve in matters relating to sexual assault. And individuals or organizations not conforming to your inflexible and narrow views on sexual abuse must be condemned.

 

[A.Joseph]

Here is an article: https://wordandway.org/2019/07/24/4...concern-over-founders-ministry-films-preview/

"Danny Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in North Carolina, recounted via Twitter on July 23 that he had a brief interview for a documentary, titled “By What Standard,” being produced by the Founders Ministries, an organization founded in 1983 with a Calvinistic view of Baptist life and led by Florida pastor Tom Ascol.

Akin and three other SBC seminary professors took issue with the documentary’s trailer, or preview, of nearly 4 minutes now online.

Voicing his disappointment, Akin wrote, “What I saw was edited footage that I believe to be misleading, which misrepresents important issues and what leaders in the SBC actually affirm.”

Akin voiced concern “about what the tone, tenor, and content of the full documentary will be, and I have requested that my association with and contribution to this film be removed.”

“I hope my brothers will reconsider their strategy for communicating our deeply held Southern Baptist conviction that the Bible is our sole foundation and authority for all of life and faith.”

The Founders Ministries website does not list a release date for the documentary.

Akin was briefly shown in the trailer and it included a 12-second clip with R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kentucky; a five-second clip of Russell Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission; and five clips ranging from one to 10 seconds of Georgia pastor James Merritt, a former SBC president.

Mohler, in three tweets on July 23, wrote that he is “alarmed at how some respected SBC leaders are represented.” He has “long known and enjoyed the company of the folks who made the video and the folks offended by the video and I am hopeful that @FoundersMin will respond appropriately and in a way that affirms their intention to be a responsible voice in the SBC.”

The trailer, Mohler wrote, is a reminder “that HOW we engage and represent one another is as important as what we argue and who we engage. Let’s encourage one another to good works, good theology, and a good mood.”

The documentary, according to the Founders Ministries website, addresses “many unbiblical agendas … being advanced under the guise of honoring and protecting women, promoting racial reconciliation, and showing love and compassion to people experiencing sexual dysphoria.”

Twenty-five years after the Conservative Resurgence returned the SBC to “its historic commitments on the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture,” the website states that “it seems like evangelicals, including Southern Baptists, are in danger of loosening their commitments to those basic, Christian commitments.”

“If we care about true justice — what God has revealed to be just — then we must stand against what is being promoted under social justice,” the website states. “If we care about the true gospel — the gospel revealed in the faith once-for-all-delivered to the saints — we must reject the agendas being promoted by godless ideologies.”

Jason Allen and Adam W. Greenway were the other two SBC seminary presidents voicing concern via Twitter about the documentary’s trailer.

Allen, president of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Missouri, wrote, “This trailer is either a click-bait promo piece or it foreshadows a movie that’s uncharitable & unhelpful. @FoundersMin has often played a constructive role in SBC life, but I’m afraid this video isn’t such an occasion. These issues demand we engage w clarity & charity.”

Greenway, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Texas, wrote in three tweets, “@tomascol asked me to join other seminary leaders I respect like @albertmohler and @DannyAkin in being interviewed on the SBC Conservative Resurgence’s legacy. I will not, however, be part of any agenda seeking to divide Southern Baptists unnecessarily.

“Undoubtedly there are important issues we must confront as Southern Baptists. But HOW we confront those issues matters as much to me as WHAT we are choosing to confront. Part of the SBC’s nature is our willingness to disagree charitably on matters outside our confession of faith.

“There are better ways to have the conversations we need to have as a convention of churches,” Greenway wrote, voicing his intent “to be a part of any productive engagement that will help to bring greater clarity and unity amongst our Southern Baptist family.”"

End of article.
---

So Ascol denies misrepresenting them and at least 4 of those interviewed are on record as claiming misrepresentation.

This doesn't even count a 5th person, Rachel Denhollender, whose image was removed because she, too, was misrepresented.

So somebody is wrong if we still hold to the law of non-contradiction.

Also, Chandler has not responded it doesn't seem, but I would say he was severely misrepresented as well, when he urged churches dealing with sex abuse cases to consult outside sources (contrast his words with Ascol's God's Word...God's rules...comments...), so I believe he, too, was misrepresented. I am no fan of Chandler's but the clips which were used of him were talking about consulting outside resources when you hear of cases of abuse in churches.

Is Founders against that position?


So I count 6 probable misrepresentations.

I think it is clear Founders misrepresented at least several of the people, and now there is a backlash against whatever they do in the future.

Also, I believe they need to narrow their battle. Are they really going to address advocacy for sex abuse in churches as an SJW issue? Are they going to say that the #churchtoo movement is made up? If so, this is a losing proposition. Maybe they are going to say that handling abuse in churches is an internal matter? After all, they used Chandler's quote advising going to outside sources in a negative light. If so, that is extremely stupid in light of all the evidence we have of churches covering up sexual abuse, even ARBCA, who often have close ties with the Founders.

And of course, all the "bad guys" in the film have weird pixellation "horror-effects" happening to them as Ascol is portrayed in excellent lighting. If Ascol directed this himself, I'd say this is evidence of some narcissism since he is clearly portrayed as the hero.

Listen, I am on the same side as the Founders. But they've simply done a bad job. And in giving only a muted apology and by claiming nobody was misrepresented, I have lost trust in Ascol.

Again, we need better champions to fight this battle.

With the feet dragging and unwillingness of church transformationists (using matters of sin to uproot core doctrines) to have open, transparent discussions regarding these agendas (the sex abuse should not be included- as this is a very legitimate and delicate matter that needs to be properly addressed and accounted for) a divide is inevitable regardless of clumsy trailers. 11th commandment is ultimately the initial blow and the nail in the coffin for the SBC.

 

[Pergamum]

@Pergamum, I think you have become a little unhinged on the issue sexual abuse. You sound more and more like those professional agitators who assume to themselves the sole prerogative to either condemn or absolve in matters relating to sexual assault. And individuals or organizations not conforming to your inflexible and narrow views on sexual abuse must be condemned.

We have ample evidence of a long train of failures in the area of sexual abuse in the church. Among Reformed Baptists, too.

To throw around terms like "unhinged" and "professional agitator" doesn't really move this discussion forward.

I do believe, with A. Joseph above, that the subject of sexual abuse should not be lumped in with the other issues. One of the weaknesses of the trailer is that the attacks are too broad....what subject are they really attacking? It would be much improved if they narrowed their focus and left the sex abuse issue out of the discussion for now. Lots of folks are playing the victim for advantage, yes....but there are also true victims, who need to be heard.