Back in May, I wrote a post about major (restrictive) constitutional and by-law changes for the Baptist General Convention of Texas being proposed by Lee Saunders, former 1st-VP candidate of BGCT and Associate pastor of Garden Oaks Baptist Church (Houston). Read more about those here.
Saunders has announced via his blog Deep in the Heart that he will not be making these restrictive proposals.
Why?
Saunders church recently decided to leave the Baptist General Convention of Texas and uniquely align with the self-described “Fundamentalist Southern Baptists of Texas Convention.” Saunders describes this jump from the BGCT to the SBTC as “A Seamless Transition.” Here is Saunders:
For me, personally, it is not something I would have anticipated supporting as recently as five years ago. However, though it may seem like it has been a long journey from where I was to where I am now, to me it feels somewhat like a return home after having been on a long, long trip.
More from Saunders below:
Over the years, a number of our church families have had students at BGCT-related educational entities, and some of them have reported things taught in classrooms that were not consistent either with their own personal convictions, developed as they were raised in the church, or with those of the church.
Suffice it to say, Saunders should be theologically more comfortable with the SBTC crowd.
Not sure you are right on “self-described”….?
It is interesting to read the reactions to Lee’s post. Discouraging, but interesting.
See the image above from the Google search of southern baptists of texas convention. Note the self-description of “Fundamentalist Southern Baptist state organization”
Google did not generate that description. That’s a self-description offered by SBTC themselves.
Google the big daddy weave and you’ll find my partial self-description as well.
Restrictive? That’s an interesting description of proposals which would have included many more people at many different levels than the current system even allows for. However, even the maximum allowable limits on boards and committees in the BGCT now are not utilized, while a small group of people from a relatively small constituency of churches within the convention are making certain that only a select few from the approved congregations are allowed in. That is much closer to a definition of “restrictive” than what I proposed. But it seems that only those who have vested interests in propping up the status quo and the narrower interests of those who have gained control of the BGCT are the ones who called my proposals “restrictive.”
One of these days, perhaps moderate Baptists will get over their bitterness at having guessed wrong with regard to the theology and sense of direction the SBC needed to go, will recover from having lost repeated elections where messengers clearly reflected the desire of the vast majority of both its churches and their membership, and will live up to their promise to stop whining about the SBC and move on. It’s getting pretty nit-picky when someone has to borrow a point made by someone else on a message board related to a term found in a google description on a search engine.
Making an organization more inclusive is an admirable goal. However, the spirit of such inclusiveness is violated to say the least when the inclusiveness comes through an exclusive means.
You desired inclusion through exclusion. Sorta like peace through war. The ends don’t always justify the means.
Not sure what bitterness has to do with anything. You’ve – as demonstrated above – not stopped whining about the BGCT even though you’ve officially moved on to the SBTC. Practice what you preach?
Call it nit-picky or not, I think it’s quite revealing that the SBTC has chosen to use the adjective “fundamentalist” to describe itself on the World Wide Web’s most popular search engine.
I was wondering about the description b/c I thought Google created them, as seems to be indicated by its webmaster policy:
“Google’s creation of sites’ titles and descriptions (or “snippets”) is completely automated and takes into account both the content of a page as well as references to it that appear on the web. We use a number of different sources for this information, including descriptive information in the META tag for each page. Where this information isn’t available, we may use publicly available information from DMOZ”….
…and by this at wiseGeek:
“Some web crawlers may ignore a meta description tag and substitute its own. This is true of some of the bigger search engines like Google®.”
????
If someone googles this blog and my previous blog, they will discover a self-description that I personally provided not specifically to Google but for all search engines.
I seriously doubt that SBTC failed to provide descriptive information in their META tag.
I’m sticking with the “self-described” bit here.
And so, if the SBTC did choose to use the term “fundamentalist” on google (I doubt that was done officially, since none of their promotional material or website uses that as a self descriptive term) what does that mean? Self-described “fundamentalists” generally refer to affirmation of a specific set of doctrines or beliefs that have their origin in the Bible, depending on the group, generally including belief in the humanity and deity of Jesus, his virgin birth, sinless life, vicarious death on the cross as a sacrifice for all sin, his resurrection, the basic doctrines associated with his purpose in John 1:1-14, his supernatural miracles, and in most cases the divine inspiration and historical-literal interpretation of the Bible, including a belief in its verbal and plenary inspiration. So what’s your beef with that?
Actually, since I belong to a church that has contributed to the Baptist General Convention of Texas during the current year, we will be affiliated with it, and entitled to full participation in it (theoretically speaking, of course) until December 31, 2009.
Aaron,
Just a note on the “self described” tag. If you look at the page source for sbtexas.com, you will not find the word fundamentalist. That moniker did not originate within the SBTC website, nor from the SBTC itself. It generally is considered a pejorative term, especially since many of us in the SBTC would not be welcome in a fundamentalist church.
Blessings,
Ron P.
Pointing to the page source does not prove anything. As far as I can tell, the page source does not provide any descriptors. Obviously, SBTC has provided self-descriptive keywords for search engine purposes elsewhere.
And if you are correct and I am thus wrong, you still have to deal with the bigger reality that your organization is described to the world as “Fundamentalist” (a word you dub as a pejorative) on the world’s most popular search engine.
As a side note, I think you’re hinting at an extremely narrow definition of fundamentalism and Lee is arguing for an extremely broad definition of fundamentalism that does not really allow for a distinction between evangelicalism and fundamentalism.
SBTC’s IT administrator confirms (via phone call this morning):
- SBTC did not choose “Fundamentalist Southern Baptist state organization” as its snippet or descriptor.
- Google generated it (see policies cited above).
- SBTC does not know the source of the snippet. It is not from SBTC’s website – unless it is from linked articles describing the organization as fundamentalist.
- SBTC asked Google to fix this but Google kept generating, instead, a snippet describing SBTC’s hostsite and webmaster companies.
- Speculation: the snippet may arise from media articles which routinely describe SBC-related organizations as fundamentalist.
As to whom is viewed as fundamentalist: IMO increasingly Baptists of all stripes will be so viewed, as long as we believe things like God as creator, the virgin birth, Scripture as God’s word, Christ’s deity, His resurrection, humans as fallen to sin, and salvation in Christ alone.
Taking the time to research Google’s policies, making phone calls to the SBTC itself, etc. – talk about being devoted to the cause.
How about I just drop the “self-described” bit and just leave it at simply fundamentalist. That would still be accurate.
And if SBTC really considered “fundamentalist” to be a true pejorative with its prospective constituency, I think they would work a little harder to have Google fix the problem.
One thing I’ve found is that going to the source is often a shortcut – takes only a minute and tends to end speculation. I am that geek in school who pursued the research outside class!
I am also a member and trustee of a church affiliated solely with BGCT.
To clear up the Google description confusion:
The Google site description process is 100% automated, utilizing descriptions from information fed to it (not created by Google).
There is only one scenario in which Google does NOT utilize self-descriptors from meta-tags within a given web site’s coding (coding that, by the way, may or may not be visible to the general Internet public, but rather is designed strictly for search engine consumption).
That one scenario is that when a site does not provide (internal) meta tag information, the Google search engine “may” (or may not) jump over to the DMOZ Directory to pick up a description.
I just now checked the internal coding of the BGCT homepage, and it (now?) has a new description tag. Also, DMOZ does presently describe the SBCT as “fundamentalist.”
For the record, the Google description of the BGCT as “fundamentalist” has been in existence for at least three or four years (and maybe longer), from my recollection.
So, one of two things happened:
1) SBCT has, for quite some time, used the word “fundamentalist” internally on their web site to describe themselves.
or
2) SBCT has, for quite some time, allowed Google (pulling from the DMOZ site) to describe their organization as “fundamentalist” (unless one wishes to argue that the SBCT leadership has never bothered to look at their search listing in Google).
For more information from Google, see http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35264
SBTC’s IT administrator has denied both (1) and (2) and has stated that repeated attempts to have Google fix this have not succeeded, but have generated instead descriptors of website host companies, e.g. “this site administered by ______ Co.”
He was quite gracious.
Bottom line, SBC-related entities have been labeled fundamentalist, but not by themselves.
Lee: One of these days, perhaps moderate Baptists will get over their [1] bitterness at having [2] guessed wrong with regard to the theology and sense of direction the SBC needed to go ….
bapticus hereticus: [1] “Mommy, look at all the big dogs.” Son, those are cows. “Cows?” Yes, son, cows. [2] That is, moderates are not bitter, God bless their bitter souls, for being ousted from SBC; they are, instead, bitter for not becoming fundamentalists. Oh, goodness.
Lee,
I guess we all have our list of grievances. I always enjoyed your posts and, frankly, never saw you as a SBTC type of guy. In any case, best wishes on your move to a “the other” state convention. I’m certain you will make a positive contribution there.
Also, as far as Lee’s proposed amendments go, the one limiting the number of people from a single church on BGCT boards seems to me to have merit. One church actually had twelve people on BGCT boards? I don’t think the number should be limited to one, but maybe to three.
Also you might limit a single person to a single board at a time. I would not limit a person’s number of terms, however.
Changing the “description” meta tag (a task of the webmaster) is the ONLY way to change the site description; it is something any webmaster knows how to do, and takes about 30 seconds tops. The Google search engine constantly crawls the Net looking for meta tags, and would incorporate the meta tag change within a matter of a few days to maybe a week.
But just to check out your IT Administrators claims of long-time knowledge of the Google description but inability to do anything about it, I researched the sbtexas.com site back to its 1998 creation, using the Wayback Archives (http://www.archive.org). The historical record of the website reveals:
1) The IT Administrator(s) were aware of the meta tag description but rarely chose to use it, although they did consistently use the meta tag title. Also, from 1998 to late 2001, the web master used FrontPage to create the site. And although the web master at times during this period manually suppressed certain meta tags (including the “Generator” tag that displays “Microsoft FrontPage unless manually removed), he or she specifically opted not to use the description meta tag (in FrontPage, the description and generator tags are accessed/changed/added/dropped in the same exact software window; alternatively, both can be manually changed/added/dropped using the unified “html” view). In 2002, the web master switched to Adobe GoLive, of which I am not knowledgeable.
2) Only in 2005 and 2006 did the IT Administrator / web master opt to include the description meta tag. This practice was discontinued by 2007.
3) In addition, in 2007 the IT Administrator / web master specifically instructed Google not to use the DMOZ (Open Directory Project) description. (
). In other words, by 2007 the SBCT was clearly aware of the DMOZ description (DMOZ by then was 9 years old.)
4)Despite clear awareness of the DMOZ description, in 2008 the IT Administrator / web master again opted to NOT use a meta tag description AND he or she chose to ALLOW the Open Directory Project (DMOZ) to determine Google’s description of the Convention site (in other words, the meta tag prohibiting DMOZ was removed from the SBCT site; this is also the current status of the site).
So, the actual coding evidence from past editions of the SBCT site reveals:
1) Inconsistency in using meta tags from 1998 through 2004, and incompetence or disregard in not utilizing description tags.
2) Usage of the description tag in 2005 and 2006, discontinued in 2007. When utilized, the description of the site was as follows: “The Southern Baptists of Texas Convention is Southern Baptist churches in theological agreement, committed to missiological activity through the methodological approach of the Cooperative Program.”
3) There was clear awareness of the DMOZ description by 2007, yet two significant decisions were made: a) discontinuation of the usage of the description tag noted above, and b) somewhere between August 11 and September 11, 2007, a decision was made to openly allow Google to use the DMOZ description (by deleting from the coding instructions prohibiting DMOZ) in Google search results.
In other words, while the SBCT may not have penned the present Google description that includes the word “fundamentalist” (the record is incomplete on this point, admittedly), it is very clear from the internal SBCT evidence (site documentation) that someone in the SBCT briefly “turned off” the DMOZ description, but since at least early 2007 has instructed Google to allow the DMOZ description to be used, while at the same time declining to use the meta description tag (used briefly in 2005 and 2006).
NOTE: For those wishing to further delve into the evidence from the SBCT site documentation, use the Archive link above and explore the source coding of past editions of the SBCT site.
Or you could ask them.
Since SBCT “may not have penned the present Google description that includes the word ‘fundamentalist,’” — and has directly denied doing so — will you be updating/correcting your blog posts or headings? At Baptistlife, “Who Says the SBCT is Fundamentalist: SBCT” has generated 390 page views, 51 comments, and this blog post.
KRay, the evidence is in the source code of the SBCT site, and the evidence is clear that someone within the SBCT either authored or knowingly authorized the use of the term “fundamentalist” in the Google description of the site. Is there a difference between “authored” and “authorized”? Maybe semantically, but not in substance.
Google does not create site descriptions; it displays what the site tells it to display in the meta tag coding, and/or in rare instances, according to the Google document previously referenced by me, may use a description from the Open Directory. (Incidentally, in 12 years of web coding, design and marketing, this would be the first such case like this I have ever noticed.)
Did someone at the SBCT personally pen the word “fundamentalist” in their site description? Technically, I cannot say with 100% accuracy yes or no (I was not in the SBCT offices, and only fragments of the SBCT site coding history still exist).
But, the evidence that is available from the 11 year history of the SBCT site source code clearly shows that the SBCT was aware that Google could potentially use the Open Directory description of their organization. For a short time the SBCT source code – authored by SBCT personnel – specifically instructed Google not to refer to the “fundamentalist” Open Directory description. However, those coding instructions were soon reversed by someone in the SBTC, who (at the same time, as best as I can discern from the actual evidence) took down the 2005 and 2006 meta tag description that would have overridden the Open Directory description. That reversal still stands to this day (or at least it did earlier today when I checked).
Is the history of SBCT site coding bizarre? Absolutely. (For example, why did the SBCT from 1998 to 2004 ignore the description meta tag? And why prohibit Google from using the Open Directory description, but turn around and authorize Google to use it?) But this is hard evidence, and the record therein is quite clear. Whether authored or authorized, the “fundamentalist” descriptor stems from the way the SBCT site was and is coded.
If the SBCT wants to reverse their decision authorizing the Open Directory description (assuming for arguments sake that it is being utilized by Google), they will go back and again deny the OD bot, and then re-create a meta tag description (similar to what they had in 2005 and 2006).
On the other hand, if they are (still) satisfied with authorizing Google to refer to Open Directory for their site description (as has been the case since at least early 2007), they will leave the code as it is.
Maybe you can call the guy. His long explanation to me sure didn’t sound like extemporaneous lying.
“explanation…sure didn’t sound like”
Bruce’s explanation is not short on substance and quite persuasive.
The IT guy’s explanation leaves something to be desired in light of what Bruce has stated above.
I think the person I spoke to was Gary Ledbetter, if you’d like to call him in order to get at whatever may be lacking.
Thanks for that tidbit which was quite revealing.
Gary Ledbetter is the Editor of the Southern Baptist Texan. I find it HIGHLY UNLIKELY that Gary Ledbetter is also the IT ADMINISTRATOR of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention.
You did identify Ledbetter as the IT Administrator. Are you sure he’s even that?
No; I called and asked for “communications” and was sent to an IT person. I asked my question about whether SBTC intended to provide this snippet; he said they did not provide it but he couldn’t speak to their intent. Then I talked to “Gary Ledbetter” who I understood to be in IT (?); he said SBTC did not provide the snippet and had worked (in some manner) to change it but it kept generating unsatisfactory ones.
That answered my original question. I also looked up and posted the Google policy and it seemed consistent.
Gary Ledbetter is listed as “Director of Communications and Public Relations” at SBCT’s website and has some other people listed under his area.
Hope that helps; sorry if I wasn’t precise. I’m a layperson nonblogger. My question was answered so if you guys have other ones ask SBCT.
Wow, you guys care about this way too much. For years we were do it yourself in IT. I was the web manager by default and now oversee our IT specialists. Yes we knew about it, no we didn’t know how to fix it. Frankly, we weren’t worried about it. No we didn’t and don’t call ourselves “fundamentalists” in secret. If it helps, after talking to KGray, we asked for some further assistance and managed to change our descriptor. Bruce and BDW, I saved you a phone call.
What?, coach handbags [url=http://www.amcharts.com/forum/profile.php?id=68894#1]coach handbags[/url], >:O,