Thread by @SBCUnderground

Adam Wyatt (@pastor_adam) has three problems here: (1) A basic facts problem, (2) A historical problem, (3) A rhetorical problem.

Please read this one carefully; this may well be an exploratory talking point from The Platform.

Quick 🧵- first, the basic facts problem.

[i]

Wyatt's basic fact problem is the SATF unilaterally took up the ERLC’s offer to each be a “consultant” for three years on the Benkert Assessment.

brnow.org/news/erlc-trus…

So they offer their advice freely, where they want to.

No one is talking about this...

[ii]

...but this is a scandal in its own right. The SATF now has (1) standing authority to involve itself *anywhere* in the SBC it chooses to and (2) a mechanism by which the SATF becomes a permanent feature of SBC life.

We have the makings of a SBC Ministry of Love here...

[iii]

...that has no real external constraint placed on it. Again, this is the under-the-radar catastrophe no one is talking about. Why it matters for Wyatt as a basic facts problem?

The SATF clearly (see above) *can* address Rice, Buck, or anything else in SBC Life they want.

[iv]

Contrary to Wyatt, they were *initially* tasked the way he described but then had their scope kicked way up.

Thanks Todd Benkert & Grant Gaines!

Wyatt's next problem is the historical facts problem.

@BruceFrank1 contacted Willy Rice in connection to his work on the SATF.

[v]

Why is that a historical facts problem? Frank clearly *thought* contacting Willy Rice was in the scope of his work with the SATF. Maybe not to advice Rice, we can grant that, but he *did* contact him. It is incontrovertible. Frank admits as much.

So we have authorization..

[vi]

...and we have historical action from the SATF here.

So far: a problem with basic facts + the historical record of action thus far.

The last problem? Rhetorical. Remember Wyatt's first pushback: "The SATF was tasked with investigating the @SBCExecComm and nothing else."

[vii]

Here's Wyatt's rhetorical problem. When Tom pushes back he entirely swaps his rhetoric. See below.

On a dime he leaves, entirely, that they weren't authorized to address Buck/Rice and jumps whole-hog into, "They were put in a spot where any action was a bad move."

[viii]

That new rhetorical position is a *concession* that the first position was inaccurate. But notice - Tom is wrong, no matter what. Just have to cast about until you find a reason he's wrong that sticks.

So what are the possibilities for why these problems exist?

[ix]

1, Wyatt is deeeeply uninformed - thanks again for the cascade of ignorance your unleashed, Grant Gaines & Todd Benkert! - and is out of his depth as a result.

2, This is the new narrative from The Platform & its sycophants to hopefully dupe those paying less attention.

[x]

See a third? Feel free to offer it up.

But please read this, check the information, and do not fall for the sleight of hand. Help others who might fall for it too.

What The Platform has done to the Bucks is monstrous. Inexcusable. All involved must be held accountable.

[xi/xi]

One addition: Looks like Wyatt deleted the tweet.

Perhaps that should be taken as the closest thing to an admission he's wrong that we'll get. We'll see.