Baptists in the South: Saturated with a False Gospel by Peter Lumpkins

I have to say it:  I get really tired of the "pharisee" analogy offered by some of the young Baptist preachers who appear stuck on making Southern Baptists who happen to possess a more traditional aura about them into godless, lost, faithless, religion-bound pharisees.

The opening speaker at the Pastor's conference, J.D. Grear, made this incisive statement:

"Our churches in the south are filled with people who think if you vote republican and don't drink beer, you'll go to heaven."

Yes, J.D.:  we in the south surely possess no more sophistication in our understanding of gospel truth than your caricature.

There exists no hope for communication when such blatant disrespect for another's view remains the norm.

With that, I am...

Peter  

Comments

[Doug]

If the future of the SBC is in the hands of those like J.D. Grear, this convention is in bad, bad shape.

[Clay]

...or perhaps the future is very bright indeed!!!

[selahV]

Peter, surely this was said in jest! Surely a man who was chosen to speak to the SBC pastors has a better understanding of what kind of people fill churches believe about the Gospel of Christ. Surely, this cannot be his genuine view of what our churches are filled with...if so, then he needs to get out more. He really does. selahV

[John Meche]

Actually I went to that kind of church filled with that kind of people. And I know of many others just like it. I think the majority of our SBC churches are steeped in legalism. Just because we know the difference between legalism and gospel doesn't mean the people in our churches do.

[Douglas K. Adu-Boahen]

I'm sure it was a comment in jest. Seems you have some pre-existent problem with Greear and are merely jumping on his back once an "opportunity" reared its head...

[Bobby Capps]

Caricatures are just that: Overemphasizing prominent features.

He overemphasized.

We'll be okay...

Somebody once said, "My toes are sore already, how 'bout letting 'em heal instead of steppin' on 'em.

Or the way Ed said it this a.m. "We're never gonna change until the pain of staying the same hurts worse than the pain of changing."

Lotta things need to change, we all know that! There's a gracious way to facilitate that.

I vote for that.

[Calvinator]

Actually, the problem is deeper than what J.D. grasps. There are also fast-growing mega, multi-site churches filled with lost people who have not been converted as well. Their lives are no different than those who don't claim to know Christ.

And no, its not only those who think that if you don't drink beer and vote republican who are lost. Its WMU directors, deacons, VBS organizers, pianists, Brotherhood directors, chior directors youth workers and those who do very little other than fill a pew. I HAVE been there and it IS a reality.

J.D. repeats the same mantra quite often, and I'm afriad its used more to justify his methodology than anything. Though, there is truth in the essence of what he's saying.

[selahV]

So...you gentlemen believe this because you know this and I do not agree with you because I know this is not true in my case with the churches we pastored in the South, nor the one my husband and I were called out of in New England and many which I've attended. Are there lost people in churches? Of course. But where would you rather them be? In the bars and football stadiums? I don't. I pray that whomever is in all places are brought to Jesus. To say they "fill" the churches paints all Believers with the same brush. And that is a very sad thing for anyone to preach in "jest" or in all seriousness. selahV

[Calvinator]

That kind of commentary most likely would not disturb those who are geniunely converted and those who see the ignorance toward the gospel that exists in many churches. If it is a church where this is not a problem, then they should be grateful, but concerned for the many where it is, mainly due to years of weak preaching and teaching.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Exactly Calvininator. Instead of saying it isn't and it doesn't exist. It does, and we need to be praying and acting on the behalf of those who it does fit.

Selah: You don't agree with most of JD's doctrine, so how are you going to agree on this. What I think needs to happen is that we(and that also includes you and Peter) begin to do a self exam and see where sermons such as JD's can be used to change us. Love is missing, and it has been missing for quite some time. Love for those even that we disagree with, which admittedly is missing in my own life, and I believe yours as well(please don't tell me not to judge, actions speak what is in the heart).

This should be a time of reflection. If everyone keeps denying that what the speakers of the Conservative Resurgence is saying is true, either no change will take place, or it will take place and you will just be left out with your denials of no it doesn't and no it isn't.

[Chris Gilliam]

well well well. Seems we have a rift. I have been in many churches in the south and across denominational lines. Some with a many a lost memeber--- some were beer drinkers and democrats, some were mean spirited and republican, some were old-school high churched liberals, some were mealy mouthed moderates, some were hard tailed legalist, some were progressive post moderners, some were mega church members, some were traditionalist, some were emergants. All needed Jesus and despite the genre of worship of the method of ministry, some just are tares, yet some are ferile ground that needs a good plowing. And truth be known most city folks never seen a plow and most rural folks don't like the city and yadddaddadada. I agree Peter- time we quit smacking at genra in roder to pump up new genra- bottom line, If we don't proclaim and disciple we all just have perfomance and that just does not please King Jesus.

[Chris Gilliam]

please excuse the typos- me old hands have painted all day and me weak mind can't spell.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Chris: Proclaim and disciples what??? More fighters for the SBC? Just the phrase "mealy mouth moderates" indicates a heart change is needed. We need to repent of warrior type ways and words that are just plain mean. You can either listen to the truth or ignore it, the same choice believers have. But if you ignore it you have just ignored over half of the Bible.

[Debbie Kaufman]

That should be, the same choice unbelievers have.

[Rae Whitlock]

It's always fun (but usually unhelpful) to harp on context-less sound bite.

So, what else did J.D. say?

[Geoff Baggett]

Frankly, I don't see why someone should be bent out of shape over a statement like this. I've never set foot in a SB church where the pastor did not proclaim the lostness of vast numbers of people in our pews.

Having planted a new church deep in the Bible belt within the last decade, I can testify that many, many, many people ... instead of accepting the true Gospel within our churches ... have actually been inoculated against it because of a false system of beliefs predicated upon adherence to a set of legalistic rules.

Indeed, to me, people touched by Southern Baptist life in the past but disengaged from the church are the most difficult people on the planet to reach and reclaim.

[Byroniac]

There is a distinction to be made between constructive criticism and blatant disrespect. I wasn't there, so I don't know for sure which of the two it is. However, given no more than this "sound bite" from which to judge, I'd have to say to me it looks a lot more like the former instead of the latter. If the problem does not exist, why are so many making the same observation? Probably either these people are just overly critical or some problem exists which needs addressing.

[Mark]

What JD said was similar to what he said at the Advance09 conference I recently attended. (Notes on blog.)

JD wasn't the only one who referenced a decline in churches in the South.

Along similar lines, Matt Chandler mentioned that folks in the South are the toughest to evangelize. This is because they are religious and moral, etc.

[peter]

All,

So sorry for no time to interact. What I find amazing in this thread is the absolute breakdown in so many of the comments concerning the "soundbite."

The latter are indicative of completely ignoring precisely what was said: "JD wasn't the only one who referenced a decline in churches in the South."

In no stretch did the quote I referenced say jack squat about the "decline in churches in the south." Rather he said, "Our churches in the south are filled with people who think if you vote republican and don't drink beer, you'll go to heaven." This statement concerns what people believe is required to go to heaven.

Please. If you must take issue with something here, please, for communication's sake, deal with what is published and that with which I actually criticize.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Luke]

Debbie,
Chris' list contained more than just "mealy mouthed moderates". What would you have preferred he said, "spineless", "yellow". Why does "mealy mouth" bother you so much??? Jesus called the Pharisees "white-washed" tombstones full of dead bones. And in the midst of this exchange, you are going to arrogantly claim that YOU have the truth and Chris does not?

PUUULEASE!

Either debate Chris on his comment or move on. But to do the very thing you are accusing Chris of...get over it!

LUKE

PS: not a word of this typed in anger...just sheer amazement

[Byroniac]

Luke, perhaps the problem is with the perception. Of all those in the list that Chris gave, only two have negative descriptions, and only one of those was limited by the word "some." Meaning that it could be perceived that all moderates deserve a negative description ("mealy-mouthed"), when the fact of the matter is, unless one has exhaustive knowledge, all moderates cannot be said to be so. So Chris should have either explained he meant "some" moderates or that his list leaves some moderates out, unless he truly means to say that all moderates are mealy-mouthed, at least in the SBC. A moderate is a worse critter than a liberal according to that list. It can be misunderstood (which begs the question, what DOES Chris mean by that?)

[Luke]

Perhaps you'll want to reread Chris' comment before I respond to you Byron.

Luke

[Byroniac]

OK, nevermind. I misread it. I must admit I don't like the adjective "mealy-mouthed" though. It still seems to imply that if you're moderate you're mealy-mouthed (or at least fails to say there are any other kinds of moderates), and that I think is the root of the problem. Why not just lump the moderates in with the liberals and call them "conversativish" liberals?

[Luke]

Byron,
haha...I like your alternative. To be honest, I had to look up mealy-mouthed. I had heard it a few times before but did not know the accurate definition. But it does point to a common dilemma that we all face. At what point to adjectives lose their helpfulness and become a hindrance. Since I do not know Chris' heart, I will not assume that he was purposely trying to be pejorative. Rather, he was simply using adjectives that are thrown around in various circles. And by the way, I don't like the "mean-spirited" and Republican being put in the same phrase, cause I be a registered Republican.(GASP) I know I heard you gasp.:) But I am not offended because I definitely know of those who fit the bill. Hope ya'll get some more rain Byron. We are in desperate need of it too over here.

Luke

[Byroniac]

Luke, I stand corrected. Thanks! By the way, what is this "rain" thing you speak of, and why should I need it?

[Luke]

Byron,

Cause Luke is spending too much money on watering his garden to make it all worth the effort. My grass is brown, trees are dropping limbs and my roses are particularly unhappy with the chlorine that comes from city water. Our gullys are dry the rivers are clear.

By the way, just read that Ethiopia is having swarms of locusts pass through their area eating everything in their path. Seems almost apocalyptic eh?

[Mark]

OK, Jack Squat Peter. I was simply enlarging the context a little more.

I'm sure JD was using hyperbole to get a point across. Surely, you are familiar with hyperbole, aren't you?

I don't know if churches here in the South are "filled" with those types of folks. I'm unwilling to say that those folks don't exist though.

I love how you pick my one comment out of all the others.

[jthomas]

Peter, why is that when people disagree with you its always their fault for not understanding. Perhaps, your writing is not as clear as you want it to be or need it to be.

You have such an angry tone in your posts. Others can write the same thing, and sound more civil.

[Byroniac]

Luke, may I suggest Astro-turf? It never needs watering, and it's always green. ;) Amazing stuff, that. (And yes that thing about Ethiopia does sound Apocalyptic. I hope it doesn't cause any famine there...sounds like bad stuff).

[selahV]

Luke, well, no one could accuse you of being mealy-mouthed, now could they? ha. I just looked that up myself. Didn't know it meant what it did. Even funnier that Martin Luther is who helped coin the phrase, huh? I may have to study up on him a bit.

Peter, I think what some are missing in the post is that it is assumed by that statement JD Grear (whom I do not know, nor have any idea what he believes doctrinally) said in his sermon, is that he depicts "Our" (as in all the SBC churches in the South)as "filled" meaning partially, somewhat or actually "saturated" as you put it in your title with folks who actually think that being a Republican and not drinking beer qualifies them for a seat in Heaven. That is just nuts. There may be a handful of folks who could possibly think they can get into heaven, but I know of absolutely no one who thinks that way. None. Nada.

And you weren't talking about some folks who may think they are safely gonna reach the Throne because of whatever acts they do or don't do, or beliefs they cling to that have nothing to do with salvation's grace and trust in Jesus. I do believe that is the point you were making. And while we can all attest to all kinds of folks abiding inside the church building, we don't all agree that all that abide within the walls of church buildings know Jesus. I hope folks can understand this a bit better when they think about what you are saying.

I sincerely do not think you were saying JD Grear's entire message was fraught with this kind of statement, but you felt as though this one in particular may have been a tad misleading in the scheme of things. I haven't been able to listen to the messages. My network is not cooperating with our convention's site. I've read some great things about others. Praying the whole is better than a few one-liners. selahV

[Grady Bauer]

Peter,
One thing I'm shocked I haven't heard from you is your solution to the SBC issues. So I want to ask...
1. Do you believe the SBC is in decline? If not, what do the numbers really mean. If so...see#2
2. Why do you think the SBC is in decline?
3. If you had Dr. Hunt's ear....what would your solution to the current state of the SBC be? Would it be the GCR? Would you approach the CP and restructuring?

I read an interesting post by David Phillips that offered a solution...http://www.wdavidphillips.com/2009/06/22/sbc-annual-meeting-2009-if-i-were-to-restructure-the-sbc/
What do you think?

[Grady Bauer]

sorry tried to post this link

http://www.wdavidphillips.com/2009/06/22/sbc-annual-meeting-2009-if-i-were-to-restructure-the-sbc/

[Chris Gilliam]

Sorry so late in catching up.

Debbie- re-read please. There was not a ounce of hate in my listings of the "some" I was contrasting that with the original post of "filled" and with SelahV's comment of "get around some". I went further to talk of their need for Jesus. I was not judging any of them just labeling them descriptively. Sorry you rushed to judge me, but I forgive you. BTW- I have read the text. It appears you missed all the interchanges with Jesus and the pharasees. Seems there are too many to miss, not to mention Paul's warnings, Peter's Jude's....

Luke- you nailed it, thanks for getting it.

Byronic- We cool. Not all moderate are mealy mouthed and not all republicans are mean-spirited.

Peter- I agree to your post in that it is hard to have a conversation when we use such broad words as filled and then associate those catagories with certain genres of worship. It just don't play out. It reminds me other the other day when 3 generations of my family were cleaning fish. we all had a different approach, but the results were the same. To top it off my 80 year old uncle even taught some of us whipper-snappers a new trick!

[Mark]

I've asked JD over at his blog if he would explain a bit about his statement.

Petros,

I hope you will not take personally what I've said. I wasn't trying to derail anything, etc. I'm not sure why you seemed so upset with my one comment.

SelahV and I just made friends and I know you two are friends. So, I don't want to make waves and lose a new friend. :)

[Byroniac]

Chris, thanks. For the last several days I've been especially cranky for no good reason. I probably deserve it somehow, but no one here does. Anyways, watch that Luke fellow, because he's usually on top of things.

[selahV]

Awh, Mark...I'm so glad you are concerned about our friendship. A word of encouragement...rarely does Peter take anything personally. Points. That's what Peter argues. Points. Views. Opinions. Evidence. Topics. Stick to the topic. That's him. Upset? That's funny...no...just stay on topic and don't read anything into what he's saying that he's not saying. Ya know? When you expand into another territory, then that's talking about something he wasn't talking about. Uh...I think they call that a strawman, but I'm not sure, it may be something else. "Hyperbole"? I need to go look that one up. That wasn't nice asking him if he was familiar with something you know full well he is familiar with, ya know?

What did he say to you that made you think he is upset anyway? He's reiterating what he wanted to critique...that's all. And I'd bet my month's worth of coffee that he did it on the fly, too. But since I haven't talked to him, I can't be sure of that.

Hey Peter. If I said something here that is so far off base I need to be corrected, feel free. I know I'm not the brightest bulb in the box, but thought my new friend Mark, needed to know he didn't have to worry about waves and breakers. And so I added a bit of driftwood to the tides. :)

Back to the topic. I'd bet most folks in most SBC churches know it takes more than registering as a Republican and abstaining from beer to get them into heaven. selahV

[Mark]

SelahV, are you serious?

I asked Peter about hyperbole just as it seems I should ask you about rhetorical questions. It wasn't nice to ask about hyperbole? It was a rhetorical question. There's nothing "not nice" about it.

Why I thought my one itty bitty comment upset Peter is because of all of the comments my one was what he focused on.

In no stretch did the quote I referenced say jack squat about the "decline in churches in the south."

I was trying to add some more context to JD's position. Isn't that fair? Did JD just get up there for 30+ minutes and say

"Our churches in the south are filled with people who think if you vote republican and don't drink beer, you'll go to heaven."

Was there no other context? Of course there was. I can understand how one might be upset about that line, but in what context was it given? What was JD really getting at?

Is it too much to ask that you read my comments with just as much charity as you are asking me to read Peter's?

And I did go ask JD about this line on his blog. Let's see what he has to say if he answers.

[selahV]

Mark...mark...brother...what in the world did I stir up? I really wasn't picking on you. Please, please I'm sorry. I really didn't know what you meant by the hyperbole thing. I had to go look up what that meant. seriously. ha ha. this is too funny. Rhetorical questions? uh...which ones? I was only trying to help ya understand what I probably don't even understand. So...please forgive me for being so intrusive. If you hadn't brought up my name, I wouldn't have said a word. But cause you seemed to value our new-founded friendship, I was trying to let ya know that waves weren't crashing in upon my head. That's all. so forget everything I said. I was stupid. Dumb. the lowest wattage in the box. Like my post says today..."Well, shut my mouth." selahV

[Mark]

LOL..okay. It just seemed you didn't misunderstand me, but not it seems that you really did.

All is well! :)

One day Peter is going to let me buy him a coffee.

[peter]

Dear Mark
Thanks for your comment. May I suggest if you do not desire to be
quoted, do not type any words.

With that, I am...
Peter

[John]

Maybe this what's causing the decline in the SBC... someone had an issue with one quote from a pastor that the individuals don't even know and now there are multiple people offended and offending each other for no apparent reason other than they want the last word. I think we need a bit more Jesus and a little bit more grace.

[John]

Maybe this what's causing the decline in the SBC... someone had an issue with one quote from a pastor that the individuals don't even know and now there are multiple people offended and offending each other for no apparent reason other than they want the last word. I think we need a bit more Jesus and a little bit more grace.

[John]

Maybe this what's causing the decline in the SBC... someone had an issue with one quote from a pastor that the individuals don't even know and now there are multiple people offended and offending each other for no apparent reason other than they want the last word. I think we need a bit more Jesus and a little bit more grace.

[Mark]

Peter,

You are so clever. Why didn't I think of that? You either missed or ignored my whole point. I hope other can see it.

I did not come here to be divisive, however, it seems that you want to make me out to be as such. So be it.

I wish you wouldn't make me laugh this early in the a.m.

With that, you are...still my brother in Christ! :)

[Luke]

Is there a link to J.D.'s sermon that I have missed somewhere? I looked all over the SBC site and cannot find a link.

[peter]

John,

Actually, I had more than one issue I mentioned in the short post I put up. Like I said earlier, deal with what's actually posted please, if you'd like to contribute.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Cory]

Mark and any others who may be interested, and if this is off topic then I apologize Peter. J.D. is traveling some of which is out of the country for the next couple of weeks so he will more than likely not be available to share his intent on this statement until a later date.

[peter lumpkins]

Cory,

No problem, bro. Mark was the one interested. I personally heard JD's entire message. I think I understood but he is welcome to correct my perception if he feels I misunderstood.

With that, I am...
Peter

[volfan007]

When people make stupid comments like this to either look cute, or due to biased ignorance, and then they get in a limousine and catch a private plane to a lavish, beach resort...well...it just kind of shows us what is/could be wrong with the direction that some hipster radicals would want the SBC to go.

Where are these people who believe what JD said? My goodness.

David

[Byroniac]

David, what if the reason JD Grear said this fits neither one of your scenarios? What if he was simply exaggerating to emphasize a point that a real problem exists? And what if he is right? What if the so-called "hipster radicals" (whatever those are) happen to be right?

[Byroniac]

David, you can have the last word on this if you want. I just wish that people were not so quick to dismiss (what I feel are) legitimate concerns. The SBC is a wonderful convention with wonderful people, but it has problems too (noted by insiders as well, and not just people like me who are basically on the outside looking in).

[peter]

Byron,

I've attempted to be fair to people's words on this site. Not that I have been without flaw. Yet, I do not think it can be shown my track record here should cause concern.

With that in mind, you question David: "What if [Grear] was simply exaggerating to emphasize a point that a real problem exists?"

Allow me, if I may: The context in which he made this statement did not lend itself to exaggeration.

Now, if you want to challenge that, fine. I encourage it. Listen to the sermon and come back and do so. Perhaps this is one of the times I was unfair to someone. But please do not challenge it if you have no basis upon which to do so.

The quoted statement came from an extended analogy in which traditionalism--those in the SBC whom many would say I represent--was likened to pharisaicalism, hardly an innovation. "We" pharisees, I took from his sermon, embrace everything Jesus despised, a very loving approximation of one's "brother," don't you see?

Now as far as your question proper, had Grear wanted to "exaggerate" to make a point, there were many meaningful things to have said:

--"Churches are filled with people with spiritual maladies"
--"Churches are filled with people who are confused about salvation"
--"Churches are filled with people who think to vote republican is to vote Christian"
--"Churches are filled with people who think drinking is a sin"

Any/all of these "exaggerate" without skewing or imposing false belief

What Grear said was indefensible: "Our churches in the south are filled with people who think if you vote republican and don't drink beer, you'll go to heaven." This is not "exaggeration"; this is provocative, indefensible rhetoric which possesses no correspondence to reality.

a) If this was true, why would it be true in the South and not the West, for example?
b) Can anyone really comprehend millions of southern Christians who believe the plan of salvation is based upon the two pillars of 1) voting republican 2) not drinking beer?

The statement is hopelessly indefensible. What I do understand is careless rhetoric. I've done such. And will do such again before I'm through in ministry.

Why anyone would not just say, "You're right; it is. He was careless. Let's move along." I cannot understand. To built a fort around this thing and make a stand is, for me, decidedly absurd.

With that, I am...
Peter

[volfan007]

Byroniac,

Do you like it when people mischaracterize Dortian Calvinists?

What if he had said that Calvinists are the reason that the SBC is going down and not baptising more people?

Put the shoe on the other foot.

David

[Don Andrews]

Peter, Thanks for the post because I did not hear the sermon. I have two thoughts concerning this. First, I do believe there are some serious misunderstandings concernng the gospel (such as asking Jesus into your heart or I walked the aisle is the same as salvation)in our churches. But I also sense there is another underlying issue here. It seems from several interviews and articles and books that I have read, this same type of qoute has come up. I sense this is a veiled attempt to marginalize those who say Christians should not support pro-abortion candidates and should abstain from alcohol use. It has been reported that many younger "evangelicals" supported Obama and are open to alcohol use. This is just my sense of what is really going on. This is a way to justify support for issues and candidates that other generations would have never supported.One way to justify supporting such liberal interpretations on these moral issues is to marginalize others who oppose them. I am not saying this is Pastor JD's motives, because only God knows his heart, but this seems possible to me.

[Byroniac]

Peter,

What I was getting at and alluded to in my second comment is my (perhaps mistaken) perception that there are problems in the SBC which can be addressed generally (and perhaps in this instance, were addressed more specifically, if in exaggerated and oversimplified form, in J.D. Grear's message). Truth be told, I'm drawing more from personal experience for this, and using this as a vehicle of related opportunity for making a point. I guess I just don't (and truthfully can't) see the SBC the way that you and David Worley and certain others on this site do. I've tried, and failed (reminds me of Dune, except for the "They tried and died" part of testing the Gom Jabbar, if I spelled it right).

The problems are not always Pharisaic in nature. There seem to me to be problems with shallow theology and man-centered traditions (one of those being a KJV-Onlyism at least in my part of the South). Things like religious buildings (though I love my A/C and that's no lie!) and orders of worship for the services (which do nothing for me spiritually but tend to bore me to tears in the flesh) are both religious traditions. And I wonder if specifically the lost and unregenerate are relying upon things like this for salvation in a works-based path of false righteousness. I think even true believers can get caught up in these things; I certainly did. I would have to listen to the whole sermon to be sure, but perhaps J.D. Grear wanted us to respond with, "of course we don't" and then stop and think, well, what if we really are shallow in our approach to the worship of Christ and in our service to Him in some ways? Maybe I'm reading too much into (or out of) it? I don't know.

David,

In my life, the shoe started on the other foot. And it's been downhill since. Though you're right, and no one should be mischaracterized, and I admit that. But one bad experience tends to leave a lasting impression.

[cb scott]

There was a time when a great number of Southern Baptists who lived in the South voted Democratic, dipped Bruton snuff, smoked Prince Albert or Camel non-filters and Pall Malls chewed Red Man or Beechnut. Many of them drank their liquor from a jar.

I am sure that "some" of them, who did the above, believed they were going to heaven, but just did not figure on getting the best houses.

I am sure that "some" believed that if they did not do those things they would go to heaven 'cause they were just "real good" people.

But I really believe that "most all" Southern Baptists living in the South believed and still do believe that a person must be "born again" to go to heaven. And they know/knew being born again had nothing to do with how they voted or what they drink/drank.

The true gospel about Jesus Christ has been preached down here for a long, long time--Longer than any of us have been alive and that's for sure.

"Struggling" with who to vote for and what to drink (and maybe smoke) has been and is an issue of Christian maturity no matter where a Southern Baptist calls home for as long as there have been Southern Baptists. I think that might be true with most all Christians anywhere. At least, that is my opinion.

cb

[Byroniac]

CB Scott, that's a great comment. I wish I could agree, because I sure used to. My opinion is that "most" Baptists probably aren't even saved and think they are, and that there are probably few actually going to heaven. That's just my opinion. I can't honestly say I hope I'm wrong (I fear I'm right) but others are free to hope that I and others who agree with me are wrong. You've done a better job expressing your point of view than I did mine, and you might be right. God bless.

[Bill]

I wasn't at the convention and didn't hear the sermon. I suspect he was using hyperbole but who knows. Whether he stated it correctly or not, I think the phenomenon he is describing is real, and not limited to the South. I suspect that if you pin these folks to the wall and ask them how you get to heaven, they would give you the right answer. But in my experience when you talk to SBCers and other evangelicals what you hear, overwhelmingly in my experience, are the latest dispatches from the culture war and what the folks at Fox News are saying about it. Perhaps that is what he is talking about. Perhaps that is only happening in my little corner of evangelicalism or it is all in my head.

If he had said "a lot of folks" instead of "full", would that have made a difference?

[volfan007]

Let's just get right down to the nitty gritty, he was slamming people who believe drinking alcohol is wrong, and he was slamming the way Christians have turned to the Republican party. Let's just call it like it is. He was trying to make it look like the South is full of Southern Baptists who are more concerned with politics and drinking liquor than they are with the Gospel. He was using the tired, worn out, "those hillbilly's down there in the South are Pharisees, and are more interested in law than grace; and they're backwards and a little bit more ignorant than us sophisticated out here who know better." That's what it really looks like he was trying to say. If you drink liquor, and you voted for Obama, they you're more sophisticated and with it than those ignorant, hillbilly's down in the South who hold to legalism...poor, stupid creatures that they are.

Let's just tell it like it is.

David

[Bill]

David: Believe it or not, I am coming to appreciate your blunt and straightforward method of communication. I really don't know anything about J.D. Grear, but yours seems to be a very harsh assessment of his motives. I think it is possible to be both a Republican and a teetotaler AND concerned that Republican causes and abstentionism have taken too prominent a role in the life of our churches. Do you really think Mr. Grear is commending moderationist Obama supporters as the ideal for SBC life? Yours seems to be the least charitable construction that could be placed upon his words.

[cb scott]

Byron,

PLease notice again what I said.

"But I really believe that "most all" Southern Baptists living in the South believed and still do believe that a person must be "born again" to go to heaven. And they know/knew being born again had nothing to do with how they voted or what they drink/drank."

Notice I said they "believed/believe." I did not say they were "all" saved or even that "most all" were saved.

I do believe that all Southern Baptists in the south who are saved are, in deed, saved. In addition, I believe that all Southern Baptists in the south who are not saved are, in deed, not saved. I also believe that many who are saved are not living out the gospel of Jesus Christ in maturity. (of course that is another topic all together)

My point is that the "true gospel about Jesus Christ" has been and is being preached in the south. It has been for a long time and will continue to so until Jesus returns.

To say that "Our churches in the south are filled with people who think if you vote republican and don't drink beer, you'll go to heaven." is, whether intended or not, an implication that the true gospel about Jesus Christ is not being preached in the south among Southern Baptists.

That is simply not the case.

Most people who attend Southern Baptist churches in the south know a person must be born again to be saved and on their way to heaven.

The fact that many people who attend Southern Baptist churches in the south are not actually saved and on their way to heaven has nothing to do with believing that voting Republican and not drinking beer makes them eligible for a home "just over in the glory land."

Lastly, Byron, please know that I consider J.D. as a good pastor and church builder. Yet, in this case I think he has greatly misspoken, as do we all, from time-to-time. And I am also sure, we all will continue to misspeak from time-to-time until we give up this corruptible body for the incorruptible body in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God who has provided our atonement granting us entrance to heaven.

And finally, Byron, let me say that I consider Peter as a great Christian apologist of the likes whose presence would benefit the faculty of any Southern Baptist seminary east, west, north or south and would greatly enhance the development of future Southern Baptist pastors.

cb

[peter]

Byron,

Unfortunately, the truth for me is, I haven't a clue what you're getting at...

Bill,

Minus the least embarrassment whatsoever, you concede "I wasn't at the convention and didn't hear the sermon" but nonetheless conclude "I suspect he was using hyperbole but who knows."

I'm wondering if this will fly over your sky:

"I heard Dr. Chapman made some outlandish statements about Calvinism. I wasn't at the convention and didn't hear the address. But I suspect he was using hyperbole but who knows."

I wish I'd cleverly thought to defend our ECoSBC so.

Additionally, if you'd pause long enough to reflect on what Greear actually said, you'd be less apt to wrongly assign exaggeration to the statement.

Once again, not only does your assertion originate from the rabbit-hole--"I think the phenomenon he is describing is real, and not limited to the South"--but your question gives away a complete breakdown in comprehension--"If he had said "a lot of folks" instead of "full", would that have made a difference?"

If the phenomenon Greear describes "is real," show it. Where is the proof?

Similarly, whether "a lot" is substituted for "full" has exactly zero--jack squat--to do with what has been repeatedly raised on both the OP as well as the thread--namely, whether there exists a large population of SBs in the south who embrace, as the plan of salvation, a) voting republican and b) not drinking beer.

If you cannot produce such, please, for integrity's sake, refrain from the blushing conclusion, "I think the phenomenon he is describing is real, and not limited to the South."

With that, I am...
Peter

[selahV]

Peter, the troublesome thing to me in reading through this stream is that there could be a few, if not many, who agree with Bro. Grear's assertion. That is just as sad, if not sadder, than the original statement--whether he mis-spoke or not. selahV

[cb scott]

SelahV,

My dear lady, if you did not vote for all and I do mean "all" Republicans and are not against beer
(And remember, you must be right on both. You must have voted Republican and be against beer. If you fail in either, you are hell bound.)
you have no part in this dialogue nor, according to Southern theology, do you have any hope of heaven.

cb

[cb scott]

SelahV,

I just remembered, you are not a native Southerner are you?

Please forgive me. A s a pure born Yankee you will get a free pass right through the Pearly Gates just as soon as you depart this life.

It is us poor Southerners who must vote and drink right. Well, SelahV, I am on my way to choir practice. We are singing Dixie for our doxology tomorrow and I want it to be perfect.

We are having a Republican rally during church tomorrow. The best and most wonderful thing is; Right after church we are going to go outside and shoot our guns. The targets are going to be full cans of beer. We only use full cans so no one will drink them which will cause them to burn in hell.

That is one of our new forms of evangelism down here along with registering former Democrats to vote Republican.

And I must say, we are growing leaps and bounds.

cb

[Don]

David, I also appreciate your straight forward words. I sense this is an attempt to say either say many in the South are more concerned with politics than the gospel, or drinking and supporting liberal politicans is sophisticated and of grace. The reality is many people are more concerned with sports, hobbies,money, etc... than the gospel. I believe this is opening the door accepting supporting abortion, gay-rights and alcohol. Thanks for the comments.

[selahV]

CB...someone needs to answer you for you some poor soul might come by this thread and think you are serious. My word! You are so silly. lol.

I guess being born and raised in VA and spending summers in TN don't count for much. I only went to Connecticut because I married a Yankee. It was my roots in the southern soils that helped me bring that Yankee boy on down to Louisville for an education in Gospel theology by all things Southern Baptist. The oddest thing is, we never heard of such doctrine of Republican Budwiesersism at Boyce. But what can I say, we can't all learn everything and I suppose we could have missed that course. selahV

[Byroniac]

Peter,

I cannot explain myself any better so I guess what I said will have to do, but unfortunately, I probably do not understand where you are coming from, either.

CB Scott,

I'm sure many lost people have heard the term "born again" enough to incorporate it into their vocabulary and possibly their theology as well. What can a lost person know of salvation? It might as well equate to turning over a new fig leaf, or trying harder, or learning vocabulary words so you can make sure you are speaking all the right "Churchianity" lingo. That really does not help someone very much, does it?

I have to concede, I do hear a lot of "repent and believe" from SBC churches, but sometimes it appears to me that salvation comes with its own laundry list of expectations (traditions, really): listening to Christian music (preferably exclusively, like I heard preached from one youth minister recently), voting Republican, abstaining from alcohol, screening movies and television, taking a skeptical stance towards anything scientific (such as global warming and especially anything to do with the origins of life), and other things. Granted, a Christian has a difficult time in this world, and must exercise spiritual discernment and "fasting" from certain types of entertainment. It's like being a believer isn't enough sometimes; you have to listen to the right people, the right music, and say the right words too, or have doubt and suspicion cast on you. It's almost like orthodoxy takes a back seat to orthopraxy, when it should be the reverse (that may not be right generally, but at times it has been my personal experience). Sorry, but I've grown kind of cynical over the last several years (this is not a new thing).

You are right, and I should have admitted it earlier in this comment, about that I missed that you said "believed" as opposed to "are" saved. But I don't see how it changes my opinion much. It does not matter how many fig leaves they turn over or if they know all the right vocabulary words. What always matters is in the heart, of course, and I think you would agree.

I agree with you concerning Peter. The only thing is, I do not hold to his version of Baptist theology (or much of Baptist theology at all I guess any more). There are certain issues I am willing to agree to disagree on, such as alcohol, soteriology, eschatology and the like, but some of them I just can't get really sympathize with personally any more. On the other hand, I'd hate to debate Peter on any of it. I'd lose! :)

[Bill]

Peter: I might remind you that you are the one who provided a contextless soundbite from the sermon for the purpose of your blogpost, about which you proceed to find fault. Therefore disqualifying people from drawing conclusions regarding the quote because they have not heard the sermon seems a bit disingenuous. I did think about the quote, and it still seems like hyperbole to me. I gave my view, using the information you provided. You conclude your post with this:

"There exists no hope for communication when such blatant disrespect for another's view remains the norm."

With that statement, I heartily agree.

[volfan007]

CB,

We'un's down here in Tennessee are gonna shoot But Lite cans full of beer. This might lead to purty near 28 people gettin' saved, cuz they wont be able to drank them there Bud Lites! I'm so glad to hear that Bama is in on this shootin' beer cans full of beer, too. The more'n we shoot, the more people will get saved.

Also, I just joined the Reeepublican party today. I didnt know that I had to be a member of that party in order to walk thru the Pearly Gates...so, I went and joined riiiiiiiight away.

Well, I wonder if that ole JD feller can see what we're typin' right now... you know, after he made his little talk, he got in a big ole limosine and drove to the airport....and from what I understand, he got to ride in a private jet to some beach reeesort. Can you imagine that? Why if'n we were as sophisticated and big city as he is maybe we'd get to go to some big ole beach and ride on a private jet. And, that big ole car he rode off in... weeelllll doggies, that thing was as big as a barn. Why the whole family and the hawgs and the chickens could all ride in that thang.

Oh well, maybe one day, we'll be as big city as old JD and some of them other fellers that are always quoting stats and polls and sounding all smart and everthang.

CB, tell all yer people that David said hey.

David

[Byroniac]

CB Scott,

Maybe a few additional words about where I am coming from (right or wrong) are in order. You said that J.D. Grear's statement was "...an [incorrect] implication that the true gospel about Jesus Christ is not being preached in the south among Southern Baptists." That presupposes (to me as a Calvinist at least) two assertions that I no longer uncritically accept: that most of those doing the proclaiming of the gospel are themselves saved (it could be that several congregations may have some saints led by lost pastors), and that if the true Gospel is preached, that God is somehow obligated, or at least unfailingly willing, to regenerate lost souls. Perhaps God doesn't have (or want) as many elect in the SBC as is commonly supposed. Perhaps the future of the SBC is apostasy, where no Gospel is preached, and this long before Jesus returns (I seriously doubt that, but I'm just saying). No one knows.

I have heard several men, Calvinists and not, who have faithfully preached the Gospel, in and out (mostly in) the SBC. I keep hearing the equivalent of "everything's basically fine in the SBC" and I struggle to believe it. Maybe it really is. But I've observed more than I desire of what seems to me to be dry, legalistic religion as opposed to that which is of the life-giving Spirit. I may not be able to adequately explain it, but I've felt it. And I don't know what the future for the SBC holds, but I think it's a matter certainly worthy of prayer.

[selahV]

Byron, ya know. I understand how one can become discouraged and even decide that a particular denomination or church is not one that feeds their spirit and touches their hearts. I've been there. But in all of the churches I've entered, the one thing that is always present with brothers and sisters-in-Christ is a spirit of love. Genuine concern for others...their needs, their hurts, their sorrows. Another thing that is evident is the joy they have in Christ amid those needs, those hurts, those sorrows.

And no matter how cynical you may have become due to some things you have experienced, Byron, sometimes it is through that cynicism that you see all things, many things, most things, or some things. I pray God heals the cynicism that dwells within you. I pray God leads you to a vibrant loving church where you are fed and nourished and ministered unto. It seems to me that you are hungry for more than the salvation you possess and are in need of genuine fellowship. And I pray you are filled with the joy and peace which you find absent in our churches where you live. I really really do, Byron. May His grace be sufficient and abound in your day. selahV

[cb scott]

Byron,

I have learned that I cannot go by what I have "felt."

I know the gospel, not from what I have felt, but by what the Word of God has revealed.

I preach that same gospel to any and every person I have the opportunity, not because of what I have felt, but because I am mandated to do so by the Word of God and the unction of the Holy Spirit.

Byron, I know there have been and still are pastors in the SBC who are lost and on their way to a devil's hell. Whether they are Calvinists or Non-Calvinists has nothing to do with it.

Byron, this is what I do know.

Jesus died for sinners. He was buried. He rose on the third day. There were many witnesses to His resurrection from the dead. Their witness could not be silenced and still cannot be even though all hell comes against that witness, even masquerading as angels of light.
(many of these masqueraders are pastors, both Calvinists and Non-Calvinists)
This witness was inspired by none other than the Son of the Living God, Jesus Christ. He inspired the witness of men to the gospel when he said in the Beginning of the Good Story about Jesus Christ the Son of God according to Mark's Gospel in Chapter 1, verse 15; "The Kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the gospel."

Byron, that is the gospel. There is no other. Any man, woman, boy or girl who truly repents and truly believes the gospel of Jesus is a born again child of God according to the Scripture.

Byron, I don't know what your problem is with Southern Baptists. But I can assure you that if you are a true born again Christian it is not our theology. For our theology is as close to a biblical theology as there is this side of God's heaven.

That is nothing I have "felt" or "feel." It is something I know from the Word of the Living God. He has revealed it to me and anyone who will read the Word with an open mind, hungering to know the truth.

Byron, if you are not a Southern Baptist, then by all means, be something wherein you can honestly proclaim the evangel of Christ in every area of your life and be what God calls all of His children to be; A witness.

cb

[Byroniac]

SelahV and CB Scott, thank you both. May you both have a Spirit-filled Lord's day. God bless the both of you.

[cb scott]

Byron,

May the Spirit of God grant you grace, peace and victory. If you ever get to Birmingham, give me a call.

SelahV has spoken good words to you this night. PLease take them to heart, for I believe she is a godly and holy woman who has a genuine love in her heart for others. It is for that reason I take her council to heart. I encourage you to do the same.

cb

[Bill]

Byron does make a good point. Whatever Pastor Grear meant by what he said, what he said, at least in the portion that Peter has provided, does not state that the Gospel is not being preached, only what people in the pews believe. One may certainly read into that an accusation against SBC Pastors, if you wish.

There is no question that what Pastor Grear said is wrong, if his words are taken literally. The question is: What did he mean? And apart from asking him, is he likely to be the kind of person characterized by David: a proud, arrogant, rich city slicker who looks down his nose on the South, country folks and considers them all ignorant rubes and who considers beer drinking Obama supporters to be the ideal for the SBC?

I don't know the man at all, perhaps he is precisely as David has described him. I suspect not.

Byron: Follow Christ, in or out of the SBC. God will guide you.

[cb scott]

Bill,

How does God guide a person?

cb

[Bill]

CB: One of my favorite topics. I'm a not a big fan of thinking God will guide me by feelings, even the ever popular "feeling led." God guides through the scriptures, through wisdom, which we are commanded to seek, and I also believe He guides sovereignly, by that I mean the guide-ee doesn't necessarily know he is being guided.

[Bart Barber]

Sometimes a speaker exaggerates to make a point for the simple reason that his point is not very convincing unless it be exaggerated.

[peter]

Bill,

How incredible you still cannot "get" it: no amount of context could redeem a statement like Greear made. Period.

Had Greear merely said there exist but a few Southern Baptists in the south, who believe a) voting republican and b) not drinking beer qualifies for one to go to heaven, the absurdity would be no less apparent. Hyperbole does not reduce to absurdity.

Hence, please refrain from any more nonsense.

With that, I am...
Peter

[cb scott]

Bill,

You said:

"....I also believe He guides sovereignly, by that I mean the guide-ee doesn't necessarily know he is being guided."

So, Bill, does that mean you lean heavily toward mysticism?

cb

[Bill]

Peter: So my comment is nonsense and is rebuked but David's hillbilly mockery of Pastor Grear gets a pass? Ah well, this is your blog, and in honor of that, I will give you the kind of comment you have been looking for:

"Why yes Peter, you sure are right!"

Should we have the opportunity to dialog in other parts of the blogosphere, I reserve the right to post my disagreement with you, but I'll try to refrain from doing so here.

CB: How you turned my comment into a question about mysticism is beyond me. You don't know me, so you have no reason to believe me, but you probably won't find a less mysticism oriented person if you hired Columbo and Sherlock Holmes to find them. I was talking about divine providence. I trust we've all found ourselves in situations not of our own choosing and realized some sort of divine appointment or purpose in the situation. That's what I'm talking about.

[selahV]

CB...I'm really interested here in how you understand being "led by God". I have always seen that as reading His Word and allowing His Spirit to open my eyes to follow by obeying His Word. Some folks seem to think that is "legalism". Is that legalism?

I've also been led by His Spirit (that is one of His jobs) and maybe that is where Bill finds himself at times when he talks about being led sovereignly (I'm not sure). But I have believed that He will speak to us as in "behind our right ear" and tell us which way to go. It's a Spirit to Spirit knowing that comes from God. Discerning this comes from His wisdom, and He gives us that also so that we are walking by His grace--knowing that what we do is in keeping with His Word. And when we do things that are not in keeping with His Word, then He lets us know pretty quickly...as He chastens, and allows circumstances to teach us wherein we stumble.

I guess it all comes down to how one looks at Scripture, the power in it, and the yielding of ourselves to His Spirit. Psalms 1:1 is a great guide for we Christians. Always has been for me anyway. selahV

[cb scott]

OK Bill,

I understand now. You were talking about times when you find yourself in "situations not of your own choosing and realizing some sort of divine appointment or purpose in the situation."

I thought you were into mysticism. How wrong I was.

cb

[cb scott]

SelahV,

I think we are lead by God according to His Word. I do not believe He ever leads beyond His Word. I do not believe there are any new revelations.

I believe that if we are truly "in tune" with the leadership of the Spirit according to the Word of God we will rarely end up in "situations not of our own choosing ."

It seems to me that when I get into a situation not of my own choosing is when I have strayed away from God's revealed will and He brings me back into submission by some disciplinary action not necessarily of my choosing.

When I am in submission to God He directs my paths and I am very aware of His direction and leadership. Faith is not blind. Faith is trusting God to do what He has said he is going to do for His glory and my sanctification. (See Proverbs 3:3-6)

cb

[selahV]

CB...you say is so much better than my pain-stricken brain can write today. This is exactly what I think. Thanks. Can I quote you? :) selahV

[peter]

Bill,

As for David, whether or not his assessment is correct, he at least speaks from some type of evidential base.

And, as for meeting up with me elsewhere on the net, I can only say I desire sensible exchange there no less than here.

Have a great afternoon.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Bill]

CB: My sarcasto-meter is broken so I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. Since beating a dead horse doesn't really hurt the horse, I'll try again. Joseph being sold into slavery in Egypt. Not his own choosing, but certainly by God's design and for His purpose. That's what I mean, no more no less.

[Bill]

CB: I saw your second comment after I commented. Obviously you are being sarcastic. Sorry I missed it. I'm glad you are always in situations of your own choosing. Joseph could have picked up some pointers from you. Perhaps he chose to be sold into slavery and I missed it. Thankfully God was able to use him anyway.

[cb scott]

Bill,

Do you believe Joseph was in submission to God's leadership when he was sold into slavery?

I guess you think Samson was being submissive to God when he was chasing Philistine women around the countryside also?

Bill, read my last comment to SelahV.

cb

[cb scott]

SelahV,

Quote away. But if you get in trouble, you are on your own. :-)

cb

[Bill]

CB: We may be operating under different definitions of leadership, but if Peter will indulge me, I will answer as best I can. Understand that I take an accusation of mysticism quite seriously.

I believe Joseph, despite his faults, tried to honor God in whatever situation he found himself. I don't believe he would have chosen to be sold into slavery or to be falsely accused of rape and sentenced to jail. I don't think he necessarily knew or thought that God was up to something in these early circumstances. When he had the opportunity to save his people from famine, he understood what God had done.

Samson was certainly not being submissive to God, but God used him anyway. God is able to sovereignly use people (or nations) even in their rebellion. That is what I meant when I spoke of 3 types of God leading. One is explicitly through scripture. One is through wisdom so that you make the decisions He wants you to make. Lastly is sovereignly, by putting you in a situation that He wants you in without you knowing it, until the time comes. That is where I would place Joseph's story, although wisdom certainly played a part also. Being submissive to God in whatever circumstance you are in is one thing, but no one feels God "leading" them to drive their car off an embankment and into a tree, even if they get an opportunity to witness to the paramedics when they arrive. I believe God reserves the right to use us sometimes without our knowledge or permission. I think He often graciously allows us to look back at these circumstances and see how He was leading us.

I hope that clarifies.

[cb scott]

Bill,

I agree. Mysticism should certainly concern you. Greatly.

Joseph did not drive his car off an embankment.

He willfully put himself in harms way by rubbing his new coat in his brother's faces.

The result was that some sinful brothers sold their also sinful brother into slavery.

Because God is always sovereign and never not sovereign, He used the situation to His glory.

Joseph's heart changed sometime after being sold into slavery.

Bill, God's sovereignty does not come into play at various times. God is always sovereign. We are to always be submitted to His sovereignty. There was a time in the life of Joseph when he was not. he thought he was the center of the universe. He found out he was wrong.

it is the same way with you or with me. God is either directing our paths when we are in submission or He directs us back to His path when we are not. (If we are His children)

God is sovereign. God is always sovereign.

We are not sovereign. We are always not sovereign.

cb

[Bill]

CB: Um, yes I agree. I think I said (or at least meant) all this. God desires our submission but is not hampered by the lack of it. He uses all things, good and bad, to His glory. God may direct us to do something explicitly (such as a scripture) and allow us to disobey. That does not diminish His sovereignty. But He may also decree that we do something, be somewhere, or that something happens to us and it will be done, with or without our knowledge of what is going on (driving off the embankment).

For the record, I didn't say I was concerned about mysticism, but about being accused of it. I'm the guy who is always after people for saying things like "I feel led" and "God told me" and "I felt impressed." I'm seemingly surrounded by people who think they have an extra-biblical hotline to God and I call them on it. So when I am accused by you of being heavily into mysticism because I said I believe God sovereignly leads people I am more than a little taken aback.

[Bill]

My last paragraph sounds a little boastful, which I did not intend. I have a great many faults and no shortage of people willing to point them out. I am painfully aware of the many things in which I fall short. But being a mystic is one I will not own, anymore than you would own being a pro-choicer or secret member of PETA.

[cb scott]

Bill,

Thank you for recognizing that I would never be pro-choice or be in any way a supporter of PETA.

cb

[Julie]

Actually, there are a very good number of Christians in the south who believe these atributes (being a republican and not drinking beer) to be "fruits of the spirit." I have met them, worshipped with them, and am related to some. There are many who think these atributes are more indicitive of a relationship with Christ than loving your neighbor, feeding the poor, clothing the naked- and even worse, who associate the latter qualities with a "works salvations doctrine." Sorry Peter, open your eyes. This may not describe every person sitting in your pews, but I guaruntee it describes a larger number than you believe.

[peter]

Julie,

Thanks. I agree. Know my wife, about twice a day, scolds me for "closing my eyes." My old age solicits naps from me I used not to require.

Even so--and with my eyes completely open now--I've known (and know) a few theo-nutty buddy's in my time. But I've never met the Southern Baptist theo-nutty buddy who believes, in order to get to heaven, one must a)vote republican and b)not drink beer.

If, in your world, Julie, this strange breed of Baptist exists--who insists both those weird requirements, the absence of which cancels out the work of Christ on the Cross...if this bird exists, please introduce me to him or her.

Thanks again.

With that, I am...
Peter