The Conservative Resurgence, Girly Men, and the Southern Baptist Convention by Peter Lumpkins

I could easily make a list of the Conservative Resurgence leaders who placed it all on the line beginning in 1979 to stand for a principled position they believed in—The Flag of Biblical Inspiration, Biblical Inerrancy. Men like Paige Patterson...

Adrian Rogers, Charles Stanley, Jerry Vines, Morris Chapman, James Draper, and a host of other men rode through enemy territory, courageously absorbing the pounding cannons of our critic’s heaviest artillery fire. 

They believed in something.  They stood for something. Believed and stood for something when it cost them.

And we believed in something, stood for something too.

Yet, for them, few will dispute,  it cost them much, much more if for no other reason than they were the public persona of the resurgence taking place.  They were the ones on enemy radar not us.

Indeed I do not think it too much to say, the CR men were men…real men...men of steel…forged steel…men of backbone…forged backbone…men of faith…forged faith…faith in a God that if all were lost, it would be lost, God be praised. The Bible, God’s precious Word, was worth the loss of any personal capital they could accumulate on this earth.

So, that’s why so many of us recall the CR with such passion and look to those leaders with such respect.

In today’s post-Conservative Resurgence era, we have a second generation of Southern Baptist leaders who fly the “flag” so to speak.  The list is just as easily made as the first: Al Mohler, Danny Akin, Ed  Stetzer, Ronnie Floyd, J. D. Greear, Ted Traylor, Johnny Hunt, Jerry Rankin, and others who are the public persona of Southern Baptists.  They too represent a “movement,” so to speak, to  successfully lead Southern Baptists, they confidently assure us, into a 21st century campaign and put the hurt on the devil and his territory.

Here is the problem I see. 

I warn you, it’s necessary to be frank. And frankness will win no votes for popularity or win any new friends.

The problem as I see it is this-- 

no courage.

None.

Courage is out to lunch.

Oh, I’m not talking about shooting from a distance or taking a stray bullet from behind a rock.  Anyone can stand up and blast tradition. J.D. Greear specializes in it. 

Danny Akin can boldly stand from afar and accuse the Southern Baptist Convention of bloated bureaucracies, while Al Mohler peddles the alarming headline that the SBC is failing just like General Motors. Courage?  Not from my dictionary it’s not.

Nor does Stetzer’s rapid-fire statistical gore fanning from his pistol predicting the demise of the SBC hardly qualify as backbone.

Neither does Jerry Rankin’s bull-in-china-shop routine over on his blog qualify, where he swished his tail and rammed his horns through any and all things SBC, including Morris Chapman's bright red blazer.  Some claimed he revealed his passion for global missions.  I didn’t see a passion for missions revealed in his pillaging around as much as a possible occurrence somewhere in the 17 years he’s worked at the IMB that Southern Baptists somehow hurt his feelings.

Here’s what I think.

Girly men.

Yes, Girly men.

What we have in our post-Conservative Resurgence leaders is a fundamental cowardice to lay it on the line.  I say again what I said above about courage--

I’m not talking about shooting from a distance or taking a stray bullet from behind a rock. Crouched cowards can do that twice daily and thrice on weekends.

So, how do I know?

How do I know our wannabe warriors are gutless?

Here’s how.

When the President of one of our strongest—if not THE strongest-- state conventions can publicly announce he will nominate as president of a national SBC leadership position, not only a man whose church gives a miserly 0.18% to the Cooperative Program, but also a man who is a gender egalitarian,* a position definitively contra our Baptist Faith & Message…when John Cross, President of the Florida Baptist Convention, can announce such a candidate, and yet not a canary’s chirp comes from one of these new “leaders,” the Southern Baptist Convention must face the obvious…

We have no leaders…we have no men…real men...men of steel…forged steel…men of backbone…forged backbone…men of faith…forged faith. No men of the Conservative Resurgence breed.  Instead...

What we have is…

Girly Men

That's right, Girly Men who are attempting to "lead" our convention.

So we now offer to our "leaders" this tribute...a worthy tribute to…

The Girly Men of The Southern Baptist Convention

 

With that, I am…

Peter

UPDATE: some have suggested that Troy Gramling has little, if any, opportunity to win a ballot as the president of the SBC Pastors' Conference.  To the contrary, Gramling is apparently not only very close friends with Cross--Florida Baptist Convention's President--which makes him a 'favorite' in his home state where the election will be held, but Gramling also serves on the “Imagine If … Great Commission Task Force,” Florida's version of the national GCRTF (//link).  Hence, Cross did not announce his nominee for naught.

 

Comments

[Mick]

Peter:
Good post. Though the real problem in the convention is finding someone who had not only the boldness of a Rogers, but also his integrity. We see leaders like Caner and others who simply have no integrity. We don't have to agree theologically on every point, but we should display integrity.

[peter]

Ed,

Thanks. Your response is well heard. One quick clarification: my admitted speculation was not whether courage has been absent by the men I mentioned. I've been quite clear & consistent in asserting courageous was required but nowhere to be found.

Rather, the speculation about which you referenced pertains to the political motivations or any motivations for that matter which led to the non-courageous stance.

I trust your day of ministry is filled with God's grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Ed Goodman]

Peter, I appreciate the fact that you're willing to meet me where I'm at and discuss the topic intelligibly. For that I am extremely grateful. :)

I agree that a lack of courage is not out of the question. Many things are possible, and that may even be probable. However, the best you're able to do is speculate, and you'll never be able to conclusively prove your thesis.

Maybe I'm the coward and I'm just blind to my own lack of courage, but if I couldn't prove a point beyond reasonable doubt, I would steer clear of coming across uncharitably with name-calling.

I agree with your assessment that giving a pittance to the CP should prevent even a nomination (I'm summarizing your implications here) to a prestigious denominational position. On that we can both agree. I'm looking forward to seeing how this plays out.

Thanks for your willingness to dialogue, Peter. It's refreshing to have civil discussions in light of disagreement.

Love in Christ,

Ed Goodman
Philippians 3:10

[peter]

Ed,My brother I thank you for not preaching me a sermon, or making me out to be the town liar and hypocrite. That in itself is encouraging to me.

Know also you are not alone questioning whether Dr. Mohler needed to be in my list (I am not referring to Matt who seems only to gag about me personally rather than address the point. Instead I'm referring to my own kin-folk!).

Truth is, when Dr. Mohler was unfairly criticized over the infamous "Garner Motion" I wrote in defense. When he was nominated (subsequently withdrew) for SBC, while I had already committed to a candidate, I also had several exchanges concerning his nomination in which I defended it of all things. When he was charged with recklessness at SBTS by an "anonymous letter" allegedly written by an inside professor post at SBC Outpost & Dr. Boyd Luter's blogs (both defunct), I invited Mohler's former personal assistant Dr. Shawn Merithew to write a guest post here in his defense.

Know I am not mentioning these things to now say, "I've earned the right" to now call Dr. Mohler names. Instead I'm only saying I have not been exclusively lop-sided on people with whom I disagree (nor should you read I'm implying you had this in mind).

Nor did I or do I believe Al Mohler or the others have not had courageus moments when it counted. I hope I made that clear in the comment I logged at Brady's which I c/p here.

For me, what is unquestionably clear is a lack of courage in this instance which I clearly defined. Actually, there is no excuse in my mind for allowing this nomination to get past its first announcement. Since it did, I'm convinced a lot of people are very confused right now. Lots.

Nor will another candidate in my view be enough to offset the silence now. All another candidate says is, we prefer B not A when the reason may be very different from why you or I would prefer B. Perhaps the reason is simply A is not electable. Many men qualify superbly for SBC Pastor's Conf. President who would not be electable. Hence, the idea some have that Gramling cannot be elected anyway is little more than puffing smoke. It clouds the real issue. The issue is not that Gramling cannot be elected; rather the issues is Gramling should not be elected.

If I am correct, the men wanting to lead the SBC in the future should have boldly said, "No. That is not who SBs are or we believe they ought to be."
While I am only speculating now, I fear political motivations may have clouded this issue for them. The big push has been, "get people to Orlando." The John Cross--Troy Gramling--Ed Young, Jr. team can produce lots of young voters in Orlando. That's a fact. And, the last thing desirable is for an entire block of young voters to be alienated by strong rebuke to one of their heroes.

Now, I do not know this. Nor am I am suggesting it has to be politically motivated. What I am saying is, those who would dismiss the silence as possessing political overtones simply do not understand, I feel, how these things forge together.

Those are some of the reasons, Ed, I must insist a lack of courage is not at all out of the question.

As for the "girly men" not being hardly as bad as those make it out to be, I refer you to my response to Jeremy above who insisted I'm sinning against the Lord with using the Gov.'s colorful tage, 'don't be girly men."

Grace Ed. Again, I really appreciate your contribution.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Tommy,

I think your point is not without merit. And, if facing a "normal" June SBC and a "normal" announced candidacy, it may just stick.

I have to think on the other hand my fairly quick objection could easily have been (or should have been is better) preceded--or at minimum matched--by a statement from one of the leaders I mentioned. Here's why.

A) One may be relatively confident they knew (or at least some of them knew) of Gramling's nomination coming. Again, the network is there for such information exchange, given Cross's involvement with the GCRTF & Florida's "Imagine if..." (state version of the TF). Further, it's hard to believe Cross did not include some of the ones I mentioned as he experimented with the nominee early in the process...

B) The Orlando meeting is pivotal, and therefore absolutely no confusion on the TF's report should be tolerated. These guys were fully aware of the exceptions be publicly offered to the TF Report pertaining to the controversial "Great Commission Giving" recommendation. The concern expressed goes to the very heart of Gramling's poor record of 0.18& to the CP, while channeling a cool half mil elsewhere in missions. This was an opportune time to say unequivocally, "We want to be clear. We strongly support the CP. We do not feel 0.18% to the CP and 1/2 million dollars elsewhere fairly represents the recommendation we're proposing." I think SBs everywhere needed to hear them say this.

C) Given Flamingo Road's obvious egalitarian leadership template, there is absolutely no question whether or not Gramling's nomination is over-the-top. Hence, it deserved a strong, clear message from those desiring to cast a vision for our future. Still no word...

Given the above, Tommy, I just don't think Orlando makes the grade for a "normal" SBC summer. That's my take anyway. By the way, if I recall properly, the last convention prez year, Frank Cox's candidacy was announced in early Feb.

Thanks for your sober input.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Ed Goodman]

Peter,

With sincere respect to you and regard for your opinion, I agree with Matt Svoboda that Al Mohler has no place on any list of "girly men." I have never had to endure students turning their backs to me in a chapel service; never have I had to endure death threats against me or my family; never have I once had to read an op-ed piece that questioned my theology, my commitment to missions, or my alleged "agenda" masked by conspiracy. Al Mohler, IMHO Peter, is a strong soldier for Christ who epitomizes masculinity.

In fact, Peter, while I certainly admire the same men you do (e.g. Rogers, Vines, and Stanley), my prayer is that you would follow in their footsteps and not resort to petty name-calling. I admire your solid convictions and the commitment you possess in standing up for your beliefs. Perhaps what you say is true, but I doubt it will benefit anyone to hurl these kinds of accusations around in public.

Please know the heart in which I say this, brother. These are just some sincere thoughts from a man who admires your work.

[Tommy]

Peter,

The one thing I would question about your article is timing. I know in our incredibly instant society many know about the nomination of the individual that has raised your concern and mine as well. However, it is March, is there really a need to come out against this nomination so strongly so quickly? Is there really such need for a STAND right now at all on this issue? Is not the assumed nomination of Luter (and support giving to him already by some of your mentioned leaders) sufficient to show that the SBC will not be led by those who are not committed to our causes and core beliefs.

I personally would be greatly concerned if someone that led a church that gave .18 % to the CP would hold a major leadership position, but I think you have somewhat overreacted. There is still plenty of time for our leaders, and the pastor's conference to make this stand perfectly clear in the months ahead.

Sure it concerns me that the nomination would even be considered, but the silence of the names you mentioned on the issue does not yet bother me.

[cb scott]

Jeremy,

Just checking :-)

I had heard about Luter's nomination and the possibility of a couple more. Any of which would defeat Gramling.

[peter]

David,

To be fair, I personally have not seen any evidence that "Pastor Heather" is ordained. She may or may not be. Of course, such is moot so far as the points made thus far are concerned.

With that, I am...
Peter

[volfan007]

Why is Gramling's Church still in friendly cooperation with the local association and the Florida Baptist Convention and the SBC with them having an ordained, woman Pastor? That's the real question.

David

[peter]

By the way, for the record, Jeremy, I assuredly did not imply, as you indicate, Gramling's nomination means the end of the SBC. Such would be absurd, of course, for it would imply the SBC is presently gone. Instead the SBC is "gone," if Gramling is elected. If such was not clear, it should have been.

Now, as for the possibility of myopia existing, I suggest you give your own eyes a thorough checkup here. You're entirely underestimating the deeply embedded connections Cross & Gramling have in Florida.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Jeremy,

Perhaps I am myopic. I haven't thought about it, to be honest. That about which I do sense a great confidence, however, is knowing the 1st candidacy called for a definitive response from those who desire to lead the SBC. It received none. Nothing. Just supporting or nominating an alternate is prima facie inadequate.

Trusting your day filled with grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Dr. Jeremy Roberts]

C.B. -
What is my opinion of the Gramling nomination? I don't think it means the end of the SBC like Peter does. He thinks I fail to understand the symbolism & the significance of his election. I think he has a myopic opinion.

When Fred Luter is officially announced as a candidate for SBC Pastor's Conference President, I will place my support behind him. That announcement will come either this week or next week.

Troy Gramling does not have a chance of winning the election. Look at the people who attend the SBC. The majority of older folks (a majority of those in attendance) will vote for the guy wearing a suit (Luter) instead of the dude with tats on his arm and holes in his jeans (Gramling). The majority of younger folks (a growing number -- thankfully) will vote for Fred Luter. Even in Florida, it won't be close.

[cb scott]

L's,

Peter is my friend and I have somewhat hijacked his post with my comments to you. He has every right to rebuke me. But I will say this to you and bear his rebuke and beg forgiveness later.

L's, my only source relating to your "faith" is your own confession as evidenced in your comment above.

L's, I challenge you to read the parable of Jesus in Matthew 22:1-14. Give special attention to verses 11-13. There you will find a mirror. Look into it. You will see your own reflection.

[Christiane]

Hi CB,

I have always been moved by your concern for my soul, but I must tell you that you do not know my faith. I could never stand at the throne of God and tell Him that anyone had to go to Hell because "I" said so.
In my faith, we do not make ourselves into 'gods' to curse others to hell. That would be seen as a form of idolatry for those of my own faith, C.B.;
but I know enough to realize that you have no intent to usurp the power of God in judgment over anyone. So I would never accuse you of such a thing. I believe that you are honestly trying to help another soul. And I am sure that the Good Lord knows your heart far better than I do, and that He could not possibly be offended by your kindness to me.
My complete, total trust in God is based not on fear, but on love. In your message of 'hell' and condemnation, I cannot hear echoes of the tone of the angel's messages of 'be not afraid' and 'peace and good will to men'.
If the holy words of the angels came from God Himself to mankind, then Christians should not speak to one another in tones of fear and should not curse one another, I think. My advice is for you to find out about the faith of another, before you judge them. I can see that your 'sources' about my faith have let you down, C.B.
Remain peaceful in Christ.
Love, L's

[Concerned Pastor]

I don't know if I agree with you, Brother Lumpkins, but if you really believe you are called to play a prophetic role, you have gotten our attention. Yes, this is a nomination we should defeat. I don't know that I could call these other men "Girly Men." But I also don't know if I could call the women to whom I was preaching "Fat Cows of Bashan" like the biblical prophet Amos did either. You may be wrong in your assessment of these other men but you are right about Cross and Gramling. Thank you for showing courage.

[cb scott]

Jeremy,

Have not seen you around lately. Hope you are doing well.

A question: What is your opinion of the Gramling nomination? Do you think it would be a positive thing for the SBC if he were actually elected? I think you may already know my position. I am honestly interested in yours.

[peter]

Valarie,

Nope. You don't see it at all. I've deleted nothing nor did I do anything else with your comment.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Jeremy,

Know I am not above a teachable spirit. Nor do I now or have I ever thought I had arrived at a place in my walk with our Lord that the possibility was absent I could not be either wrong or indifferent. Therefore, I hear your words.

Know also that pulling the generic "if I showed this to a lost person" card out and shoving it my way is neither convincing to me you stand in a place to instruct me on this issue nor especially convicting in my spirit of any wrong-doing. Of the latter, plainly put, my little brother in Christ, I take my marching orders from One a few pay-grades higher than yourself, if you do not mind me being frank.

As for the former, making an unmistakably clear point that some men have courage precisely when courage is needed and some men lack it is hardly the evil, wicked deed you made it out to be. Nor is stating with whom I personally see the connection between cowardice and courage, Jeremy. Sometimes it's best not to identify, I realize. And, I do my best under God to discern when to name names and when not to name names. I am not perfect but I do pursue discernment about such a serious matter, I assure.

Indeed I find it morally vacuous for brothers & sisters to log on this post and shout, "Stone the wizard and put him to death!" (Lev. 20:27), for speaking what he believes is the truth, albeit he chose a provocative way to do so.

And, speaking of provocative, which you and some others find "pejorative," "reminiscent of Ben Cole," "sin of [judgmentalism]," "[lacking] humility," not to mention ignoring Scripture you deem significant, Jeremy--the recurring horrible and evil thing I did was dub some men, "Girly Men."

Imagine someone morally condemning the California Governor, accusing him of breaching the heart of Christian ethics by wickedly and maliciously and sinfully and judgmentally referring to some as "Girly Men." This is the sheer moral absurdity, Jeremy, with which you're exhorting me to be "teachable." Not today, my brother.

As for the issue at large, many who've logged here, hurled their rocks, and skipped happily away that they stoned the wizard, still entirely underestimate the significance of the Gramling nomination.

In fact, from what you've focused on, I can only conclude you do not in the least understand either its symbolism or its significance. Why? Simple. You logged here not to express your concern about the factual state of affairs in the SBC. Rather you logged here because my image of a "Girly Man" broke you heart.

Well, brother you'd better wake up out of your dream cause you're surely not living in reality. I personally mean jack squat to the status of the SBC. Nothing I could do...no miserably small influence I have...no blog I could write will mean a gnat's behind to the larger picture of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Yet you come here preaching me a sermon about being sinfully mean to my brothers because I said they were cowards and called them "Girly men." Do you not see how thoroughly callous and low and ignorant that is, Jeremy, toward the condition of the Southern Baptist Convention? Focusing on a washed-ashore preacher like myself when the SBC is about to enter into an almost irrecoverable state?

John Cross would not have announced Gramling if he did not think he had the capital in Florida to pull off his nomination. If this happens, the SBC is gone. It's gone.

In light of just how significant these next two-three months are, I refuse to sit back and just watch somebody strike a match and torch the greatest missionary enterprise since the Reformation and arguably since the first century.

So, let me be clear, Jeremy: I am not repenting. I have no need of turning from something I not only wholeheartedly believe in, but something I wholeheartedly believe is the right thing to do.

As I wrote earlier, more negative rhetoric has been leveled against the SBC by employees of the SBC than any other time I can recall. The guys with the microphone continue to do it.

And now when it's time to stand, when the SBC they say they love and want to make a better SBC faces a crucial moment, where are they? When it's time to stand, to show one's colors for true leadership, to say, "Southern Baptists may need to change, but this isn't the change we had in mind" where are those who have the microphone?

One cannot help but think of Saul. When it came time for Saul to lead, where was Saul? "Is Saul here, Lord? the people asked. "Why yes," the Lord replied. Where was Saul? Saul had hidden himself behind the baggage (1SA. 10:22). Maybe that's where we'll find our "leaders," hiding behind the baggage somewhere, a place which served as an initial clue to Israel they observed a man hardly ready to be leader of a great people.

Finally, Jeremy, know I love you in the Lord. I very much enjoyed meeting you at the SBC a couple years back. And, know also while I am not set on alienating friends I met, neither am I going to sit down and shut up when the SBC is facing disaster.

I intend to speak as strongly, loudly, and powerfully as I can.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Valerie]

Okay, Peter, you deleted my 2nd comment left earlier today. I see how it is.

[cb scott]

L's,

My comment was really not related to the plight of Sherri Klouda. BTW, she is doing well and recently got a good promotion. One other thing about Sherri Klouda; I wonder how may of you who constantly bring up her situation actually ministered to her in her time of financial need? I know some have who we have not heard continuing to "use" her for their "personal gain."

Nonetheless, that was not the purpose of my comment to you. My comment to you was in relation to your lost soul. By your own confession, you have yet to repent of sin and believe the biblical gospel. Frankly, your comment above is reflective of your not truly having a personal understanding of the gospel.

L's repent and believe the gospel.

[Dr. Jeremy Roberts]

Peter -
Reading this post breaks my heart. If I were to send a link of this post to one of the people I am seeking to lead to Christ, this would do nothing but deter them from receiving Jesus Christ as their personal Savior. 1 Thessalonians 5:11a, "Therefore encourage one another and build one another up . . ."

Your pejorative tone is resemblant of Ben Cole's a few years ago. Ben has since abandoned vocational ministry. Please learn from his mistakes in the blogosphere and henceforth refrain from ignoring passages like 1 Thessalonians 5:11 and 1 Corinthians 10:23-24.

Calling people a name like "Girly Men" is simply juvenile and not becoming of a child of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. I cannot imagine standing before the flock the Lord Jesus has called me to serve as Overseer and start calling people names. That is beneath both you and me.

I sincerely hope, Peter, that you will have a teachable spirit, will repent of the sin (judgmentalism -- Matthew 7:1-4) you have committed here, and approach your skill of writing with more humility.

Seeking to Bring God Glory,
Jeremy

[Christiane]

Hi PETER,
I would like to thank you for allowing me to post my thoughts here. You were kind to do it.

Hi C.B. SCOTT,
How are you? Sometimes we talk together over on Wade's or Debbie's blogs. Thank you for your concern for me, but I do not believe that 'biblical Christianity' inspired the brutal treatment of Dr. Klouda. My faith teaches that no evil may be done so that good may come of it. What was done to her was evil. She suffered. Her family suffered. It was not done by Christian hands. I am very grieved and concerned for those who harmed her. I am probably as worried for them, as you are for me, so I understand 'worry'. But we must remember to remain peaceful with one another in Christ, and hopeful that He will give us the strength and grace to 'bear one another's burdens' and seek His Will in all things.
I hope that you remain in Christ's Peace always, dear one,
Love, L's

[peter]

Akuyper,

I will allow your one post to stand. Do not log on again unless you are willing to sign your name.

Thanks.

With that, I am...

Peter

[AKuyper]

I think that a much greater problem in the SBC is men like you who will stoop to such a low level as this and use an argument from silence to justify your ad hom of men who are far greater leaders than you will ever be sitting behind your keyboard and typing out this trash. You are sinning and you need to repent.

[peter lumpkins]

Darby,

Two things. First, if you do not see that the CR men were outsiders looking in from afar on SBC power-brokers, I suggest you revisit that. It makes all the difference in the world to what your attempting to suggest.

Secondly, martyrdom is only applicable to the circumstances in play. Whatever you were suggesting by inserting into the conversation "disfigured bodies of teenagers" I can only say, a person can surely be a martyr for a cause not necessarily intrinsic to acting in the face of a literal gun barrel.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Valarie,

Thanks for logging on, finding my site via twitter. This post does not represent "vitriol" as you suggest anymore than Akin's, Greear's Mohler's or Rankin's critiques against SBs for almost a year now. The discussion taking place and some of the directions apparently suggested are a move to capture the soul of the SBC. Hence, I do not at all agree with you I am wasting my time writing about this.

One tires of being framed as a hypocritical rabble-rouser, I concede. But what can I say? I knew this when I entered the political domain.

I refuse now and up until the SBC is finally washed down the sink with post-modern evangelicalism altogether to stand by without chirping dissent. It's part and parcel of Baptist blood.

Nor will I stand by silently while an aggressive, intrinsically oppressive young, restless, Reformed movement ruin the SBC.

These issues hardly allow me to sit down and shut up for the sake of "unity."

I wish you God's grace in whatever faith community to which you are involved.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Valerie]

Hello, Peter. I came here tonight via twitter in response to a tweet that referenced your blog post. My first and last visit, probably. After reading all you had to say about your brothers, I recall why I'm not Baptist. Please spend the time you have, encouraging the brethren in the grace of God, instead of wasting vitriol against so many. The inhouse fighting has turned so many believers off from church altogether, and if you can make the changes you hope to see, get out of the SBC and start your own cult or something:-)

[Darby Livingston]

Peter,

The leaders you put on a pedestal spoke. That's what they did. They spoke and scrapped from positions of authority with nothing to lose. What did they put on the line, Peter? They didn't take a bullet any more than those leaders you chide. They're not martyrs. They've been rewarded with extreme power, holding the keys to all things SBC since their "courageous" stand. Courage, true forged courage is found in the disfigured bodies of teenagers in every issue of voice of the martyrs.

[peter lumpkins]

Joe,

No, he does not say, to my knowledge, "I am an egalitarian." But the pdf. I tagged made it crystal clear he did not affirm the "Senior Pastor" paradigm where the Senior Pastor has "authority" over other staff pastors, the virtually unanimous approach that complementarian pastors affirm to acknowledge women on staff as ministers. If he does not take that approach, one is actually stuck with a fully functioning egalitarian template whether on not he cares to admit it.

Also, on Aaron Weaveer's present post, he acknowledges Gramling uses the normal language of egalitarians. And, Aaron ought to know--he's an egalitarian himself.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Joe Blackmon]

Ok, I'll go ahead and plead stupid. Peter, I looked at the last post. I saw a link where this guy says he's not the senior pastor. I see where there are women pastors on his staff which of course implies that he's an e-gal. I was wondering if there was a link where he had said "I'm an e-gal." If not, having women pastorettes would pretty well say that, I guess.

With that, I am NOT Peter
but I am
joe
8^)

[peter lumpkins]

Dear Anon,

I will allow your one post to stand, but please: if you do return, as you have before, it will be necessary to log your name. I signed my name to this post. And, evidently according to you, posts like this do have a price tag. If I am willing to pitch in my quarter, then, my brother anon, so should you.

Now you may be correct that posts such as this erases any influence I may have. But you were saying that several months ago over a much less provocative piece. The fact is, if I lose "influence" then so be it. Denominational politics is not a pursuit I'd choose for myself. I'm not a good politician. I know this. I speak what I really think many times instead of either others speaking for me or reminding silent.

If no one speaks, then I will speak. If it is offensive, it is not strategical offense. That's all I can say.

Again, if you come back, please sign your name.

I wish only the best for you.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Matt Svoboda]

IamanM,

I couldn't of said it better myself.

[IamanM]

I have been a regular lurker for many years, even if I have never engaged in the conversation. I quit reading Wade's blog some time ago because of his relentlessness in tearing down Patterson and any in the BI crowd. Unfortunately, this blog has sunk to the same level, and has become entirely negative just as his did. The two of you are consumed with your agendas and are now blinded from seeing any good in people on the other side of issues. His blog began to attract every SB malcontent on the internet, where he has allowed them to rant freely, and this is a problem. However your blog in some ways has become even worse, because of the way in which you write and respond to your commenters. The sarcasm and condescension has always been overwhelming, but the attack agenda has become a waste of time. Reading this blog is like voluntarily submitting myself to listening to negative political campaign ads, and I just realized that I don't actually have to listen. Why don't you put your considerable skills into something positive like writing a book about our CR heroes. Perhaps that would be something that the many young SBs could learn from and might actually influence them to show the kind of respect to these men of courage that you see lacking. Because the vitriol is not going to influence anybody. Learn from the mistakes Wade made. He lost his voice because he was consumed with tearing down SB brothers in Christ. Whatever voice you have is very quickly disappearing as well because you are consumed with tearing down SB brothers in Christ.

I will not be returning... You will not care because you can't see the problem.

[Matt Svoboda]

Well, I probably should of kept my post up, but I decided to be nice. If this is the level of integrity and christian ethic you want to blog on then so be it. I have decided not to join you.

God Bless
Matt

[peter]

All

At least two posts went up last evening taking exception to this one. Matt posted his knee-jerk reaction on SBC Voices last evening but it's gone this morning. Also, Brady, who commented above, wrote a much more appropriate post and quite good, for that matter.

Unlike Matt who seems lately only to puke emotional vomit, Brady's is both thoughtful and irenic--a good read. Check it out by clicking on his name above.

And, since Brady made some excellent points, I thought I'd post my response here to him:

Brady,

Good morning. I appreciate your thoughts. No doubt the piece I posted is provocative to say the least. No argument.

Just a few things. First, that you said I was unfair to Mohler needs some perspective. Had someone queried, “Do you mean to tell me, you don’t think Mohler (or any of these men for that matter) have any courage for anything?” Had someone asked that question, I would have said “of course not.” Mohler has had his courageous moments in dealing with secular culture and his public critiques on national T.V.

On the other hand, Matt is the one & now you particularly who mention SBTS & Mohler’s alleged courage in scenario. I will say again, no courage is needed to accomplish at SBTS what one has been instructed to do coupled with the impotence of those who could resist your accomplishing your task. And, that is precisely the circumstances concerning SBTS in the early 90s. Given our polity, that’s just a fact.

Second, you suggest I accused the men I listed of being unwilling to take a hard stand. I did not. I pointed out they were not taking any stand. Like the mute canary, no chirp has come.

Finally, the men whom I listed came to the banquet and got the microphone by slinging fists. They have pooh-poohed much of who Southern Baptists are. Their rhetoric is unsurpassed so far as I know against who and what Southern Baptists do. Hence, I’m unsure what I’ve done is hardly incomparable to at least some of the decimation many of these man have cast toward Southern Baptists.

Now, even granting for the sake of argument, does that make what I wrote OK? It does not. But to suggest what I wrote is nothing more than an “attack their character” piece is not well-taken. I neither called these men’s salvation in question nor charged them with immoral deeds. What I did do was point out an absence of courage, a cowardly act concerning an issue where we needed to stand.

But if pointing out a lack of courage when courage is called for is off limits and reduced to “attacking character,” well, then so be it. I shall continue, in your terms, “attacking character” when the man with the microphone will not stand up and say something.

With that, I am…
Peter (spellings corrected)

Hope yall have a great Lord's Day.

With that, I am...
Peter

[cb scott]

Christiane,

Have you yet repented of sin and believed the biblical gospel for the salvation of your lost soul?

You can talk about Sheri Klouda and any other cause you like. You can become indignant about man's inhumanity to man. You can talk about the various failures of the SBC. You can even look out your own back door and talk about the total failure of Roman Catholicism to present the biblical gospel.

But,unless you are born again, you cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

[Dr. James Galyon]

Peter,

Thank you for granting me express permission to come up with my own 'SBC Movers & Shakers List'. I'm curious, though, why is it you wanted me to contact a gentleman in FL to ask "him why the largest Calvinist network is giving Cross & Gramling free tickets to disaster" when he wasn't on your list? If someone like Mac, who has considerable influence, didn't make your list, then certainly it's not worth contacting that other gentleman since he doesn't have a microphone either.

[Christiane]

"Indeed I do not think it too much to say, the CR men were men…real men...men of steel…forged steel…men of backbone…forged backbone…"

Oh, Peter, I do so respectfully disagree in one instance: it did not take 'backbone' to put Dr. Sheri Klouda and her family into terrible straits in the midst of her husband's serious illness. I will never understand how any Christ-honoring person could have treated her the way she was treated. So very sad.

[peter]

James,

I will go one last time: I do not think you can name one individual I did not name who has the SBC microphone and public persona more--or perhaps even on a level with--the brothers I named above. And, since Mac's name is not on my list, I think deduction requires, I do not think he belongs there.

Now, James, if you want to draw up your own list of men who publicly personify the present movers & shakers in the SBC, you have my express permission to do so.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Dr. James Galyon]

Peter,
Does Mac have a microphone?

[peter]

James,

You failed to mention the microphone. If you do not see that, so be it....

Justin,
My tone and your reading of my tone may be entirely two different phenomenons, Justin.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Justin]

This is sad. Why post this with this tone?

[Dr. James Galyon]

Dear Peter,

As far as I know, Paige Patterson, Richard Land, and others are still actively working and leading in the SBC. They haven't retired, whereas W. has very much stepped down from the presidency.

I don't have a mentor in Florida, Peter. Never have. So I suggest you contact the gentleman in FL and ask him yourself. You should go ahead and make a call to see why Mac Brunson is giving those guys a pass -- he has a lot more pull in both the SBC and in FL than any Calvinist does.

[peter]

Brady,

Sure. As either of the above lists, it would be easy to assemble a group of courageous men who speak the truth today.

On the other hand, it would do little good to illustrate the point I made above. Why? None of the ones I would place on the list represents the public persona of the Southern Baptist Convention. They do not have the national microphone.

Thanks.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Brady Martin]

Peter,

I know you admire many of the great leaders of the Conservative Resurgence and see little courage in many of the leaders in today's SBC leadership. Is there anyone you would point to as a good example of leadership currently in the SBC?

Thanks for being a good sport,
Brady

[peter]

Dear James,

I'm afraid you are a dollar late, bro. The staff has already passed and I think you know it. The CR leaders gave to the current guys with the microphone a scrubbed blackboard.

One is reminded of Obama's administration still blaming W for the country's woes.

I suggest you contact your mentor in Florida and asked him why the largest Calvinist network in the SBC is giving Cross & Gramling free tickets to disaster.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Joe,

Last post.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Dr. James Galyon]

"Yet not a canary’s chirp comes from one of these new 'leaders,' the Southern Baptist Convention must face the obvious…We have no leaders…we have no men…real men...men of steel…forged steel…men of backbone…forged backbone…men of faith…forged faith. No men of the Conservative Resurgence breed. Instead...What we have is…Girly Men."

Thanks for pointing out the old guard as well. Those who helped forge the CR need to be reprimanded for abdicating their leadership, and leaving the SBC without any. They have been silent, and so it is good you have pointed out that all the leaders in the SBC have become girly men. Exactly where is the outrage from Paige Patterson, Richard Land, and Chuck Kelley we should expect? Why hasn't Ed Young said anything? I haven't even heard a peep from Jerry Vines.

Thanks for calling out the girly men, Peter.

[Matt Svoboda]

Rick,

The men Peter called cowards do stand up and speak out against those things, quite often. They just havent said anything about this nomination, yet.

[Joe Blackmon]

Does anyone have a link where dude has come out and said he's an egal? If so, I'd really like to read it. Thank you.

[Rick]

Peter,

You're right. What would Adrian Rogers have said about a church that gave .18% through the Cooperative Program and embraced female pastors?

We need strong Southern Baptist leaders who will push back against the emergent church, those who accommodate culture, support wine drinking and graduate from seminaries to find no Southern Baptist pulpits available to them because their soteriology and ecclesiology is closer to Presbyterianism.

We are facing many problems in our convention. Perhaps before a Great Commission Resurgence, we need a Second Conservative Resurgence.

[peter]

Matt

I probably won't sleep tonight, my young fellow, knowing I hold but a laughable position in your mind.

Now, as for the only thing you logged worth a response, to suggest it took courage to do at SBTS what Mohler did only reveals a fundamental lack in your mind of what courage requires. Mohler had a no lose situation going into SBTS. He croaked "jump frogs," and the professors necessarily had to say, "how high, sir?" hardly an occasion to express courage.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Matt Svoboda]

Peter,

I am not sure how you can take yourself seriously, I hope know one else does.

The more I think about it the more completely laughable it is that you call Mohler out for being a coward. You, my friend, are a joke.

A girly man is someone who cowardly calls out courageous men via their blog.

[Matt Svoboda]

This post is not only vacuous, but you have reached a new low, Peter.

And Im not sure what forum you want these men to speak out against this nomination, but I know via Twitter that a lot of our leaders spoke out against the nomination quite quickly.

[Matt Svoboda]

haha...

You said Mohler has no courage...

Maybe you dont remember what Mohler did at SBTS. Mohler has displayed a million times more courage than, you, me, and 99% of the people in the SBC.

This post doesn't take courage. This post takes an agenda and thats it.

[Les Puryear]

Peter,

Perhaps we could call the framers of the Conservative Resurgence our "greatest generation."

Have a great Lord's Day.

Les

[Joe Blackmon]

but also a man who is a gender egalitarian

Can you provide a link for this--something 1st hand? I ask out of ignorance. If it is true, it is profoundly disturbing. Well, disturbing to real Christians. I'm sure folks in Enid are tickled pink about it.