SBC Voices, Alan Pearce, and Brad Whitt by Peter Lumpkins

Writing as a guest blogger at SBC Voices, Alan Pearce* penned a provocative response to Brad Whit's bombshell, "Young, Southern Baptist, and Irrelevant?," which first broke news in South Carolina Baptist's The Courier, and later was picked up by several state papers as well as Baptist Press (BP positioned Whitt's piece alongside a counterpoint view by Ben Simpson). The Baptist Banner of Virginia picked up Whitt's piece and published it in the 2011 June/July edition. Though it is the same essay as originally appeared in The Courier, Pearce is responding to The Banner printing >>>

Personally, I doubt Brad Whitt will publicly respond to Pearce's piece. He received his share of inflammatory retorts when The Courier first published his short essay, and his response to his critics was nothing short of sober and graceful. Even so, one cannot fault Whitt (or anyone else for that matter) for not personally responding to satirical criticisms like Pearce logged. From my perspective, Dr. Pearce offered little, if any, substantial counter-points in his rebuttal. Nor was he especially insightful in his "analysis" were one to ask me.

Allow me to show you what I mean.

First, Pearce interpreted the "bottom line" for Whitt was to "get the microphone": "The bottom line is that these me [sic] are hurting the Convention, and if he [Whitt], and others like him, could just get that microphone back, then the SBC would once again "grow and thrive" (p. 8)." Incorrect. Whitt indicated no such thing. Here is what Whitt affirmed:

"If the Southern Baptist Convention is to grow and thrive, it won't happen from the actions and attitudes of those who view our cooperative missions and ministries as outmoded and ineffective…" (emphasis added)

This is nothing more or less than an implicit affirmation of the Cooperative Program. Anything wrong in that? Not from my side of the pond. 

Whitt further implied not only is pitting foreign missions against domestic missions unacceptable ("or who see stateside ministry as "bloated" compared to missions overseas"), but if the SBC is to succeed in their combined efforts to win the lost, "It will take a greater emphasis from me, and others like me, on cooperation for the sake of the Gospel" (italics added).  Pearce turned Whitt's meaning on its head, making Whitt look like he was expressing nothing more than a pouting rant because he did not have the microphone. The truth is, Whitt was again touting the historic Cooperative Program. 

Second, in order for Whitt to retrieve the supposed microphone—that is, according to Pearce, Whitt's "bottom line"—Dr. Whitt "lays the down the gauntlet [sic] in his opening statements." According to Pearce, the gauntlet includes Whitt's testimony as a pastor's son, having a love for his denomination, Southern Baptist by conviction, educated in CP supported/supporting schools, and never wanting to be anything other than a Southern Baptist. How rehearsing one's testimony necessarily reduces to a "gauntlet" laid down Pearce does not explain. Nor does the continuing list of personal descriptors Whitt lists including wearing ties, offering invitations, and loving choir specials qualify, according to Pearce, as evidence for Whitt to "support his right to command an audience." Instead these are overlays Pearce supposes in his own mind, but overlays about which Whitt's language does not remotely imply.

One gets the impression from reading Pearce he possesses plenty of sarcastic gripes but no real understanding of precisely what Whitt is driving at in his essay. Indeed Whitt gives the reader a robust "heads-up" in both title (which is a question, by the way, not an affirmation) and opening line: '"I'm not "young, restless and reformed." I guess you'd say that I'm young, Southern Baptist and, it seems, increasingly irrelevant.' Whitt is contrasting the YRR community and what he senses drives their agenda with his own ministry context and what drives his community's agenda. And, even though Pearce complains Whitt does not state exactly who the majority is, it's relatively easy to perceive whom Whitt implies it isn't—the YRR.

Third, and more problematic involves Pearce's carelessly misquoting Whitt and substituting sarcastic questions for serious engagement. Concerning the former, Pearce writes,

"Moreover, one church for which he served baptized more than 100 people "just last year"… . And, if I am reading Whitt correctly, he has been the pastor of a 100 years old church for the past nine years (I am confused; if he has been at this church for nine years, then why mention the baptisms of another church as part of his list of credentials?)"

Perhaps Pearce is confused because he did not properly read Whitt. Whitt actually wrote,

"The church where I serve baptized more than 100 people just last year… . [I] have served as the pastor of a nearly 100-year-old church in South Carolina for the past nine years" (italics added)

The 100 people baptized "just last year" were not in "another church" Pearce erroneously claims but in the church which Whitt has served for the past nine years. Elementary mistakes like this oftentimes reveal either an unchecked personal bias or emotional reading of material rather than sober reflection.

Pearce's substitution of sarcastic questions for serious response is even more vivid. He writes,

"[Whitt] says that he "grew up with a love for [his] denomination" (p. 5). How about a love for Jesus?... He says that he is a Southern Baptist "by birth and by conviction." How about a Christian by new birth and by conviction?... He claims to be in the majority among the SBC… Of what majority does he speak? We don't know; he doesn't say"

Why would one assume one's love for one's denomination must be contrarily juxtaposed to one's love for Jesus? Pearce poses a simplistic false dichotomy, consequently making it appear Whitt's love for Christ necessarily takes a back seat to his love for the SBC. This is patently absurd; just as absurd, in fact, were one to suggest that because Pearce asserted he "joined a Southern Baptist church" because of "Baptist convictions" instead of "biblical convictions" he must love Baptists more than the Bible. Or, again, since Pearce "threw in [his] lot with them," he entirely skirted throwing in his lot with Jesus. This is utter nonsense, and why Pearce thinks similar questions to Whitt are worth pursuing is an enigma.

Fourth, though there exists other nonsensical statements Pearce makes about Whitt we might explore, I'll mention but one more. Pearce writes, "Whitt goes on to divide the camps (p. 6). He is of Paul (i.e., Rogers and Vines), while the minority are of John Piper, C. J. Mahaney, and R. C. Sproul…Is he not carnal?"

Incorrect again, I'm afraid, Dr. Pearce. Here is Whitt's assertion to which Pearce alludes:

"While the current batch of "young leaders" so many reference these days appear to be weaned on non-Southern Baptists like Tim Keller and C.J. Mahaney and are taught to give rock-star status to John Piper and R.C. Sproul, I grew up loving men like Adrian Rogers and Jerry Vines. Both men invested their lives in and among Southern Baptists" (italics added)

First, why does it constitute "divid[ing] the camps" by citing what one believes to be factual? Factual observation implicates one as being divisive? Whitt is not dividing camps. Rather he is discerning division which already exists in the camps—at least in his view. Hence to charge Whitt with carnality for offering an analysis based on his experience and factual understanding stands ridiculous at best. Second, Pearce shows little to no attempt in understanding Whitt's concerns. Whitt makes it clear that among his concerns is the diminishing voice of Southern Baptist heritage. While Pearce may not agree with Whitt, that constitutes no reason to either charge Whitt with carnality or causing division.

Finally, Pearce summarizes his view of Whitt's article:

"I cannot help but think that his words drip with arrogance, self-pity, self-promotion, and jealousy… . it is he, who shows a deep seated resentment and disrespect… Whitt's problem…stems from the fact that old SBC network of yester year is no longer working in his favor…leaving him sitting irrelevant and pouting on the side of the Southern Baptist road."

Not a trace of meaningful engagement summarizes Pearce's conclusion about Whitt's article. In fact, as one can see, Pearce is much more concerned with Whitt himself—"...arrogance, self-pity, self-promotion, and jealousy… . it is he, who shows a deep seated resentment and disrespect."

Sorry, Dr. Pearce. Your attempt to critically evaluate Dr. Brad Whitt's piece miserably fails. I suggest you read more carefully the pieces of those whom you "analyze." Perhaps if you do, you'll be less likely to make absurd conclusions, and end in attacking the person rather than the principles expressed.

With that, I am…

Peter

*I originally (and regretfully) mispelled Dr. Pearce's name throughout this article (i.e. Pierce). My deepest apologies to Dr. Pearce and my thanks to Dave Miller at SBC Voices for courteously pointing this out. 

Comments

[peter lumpkins]

Mary,

"all "voices" are equal, some are more equal than others." I love it. Straight out of the Pigs' regime in Animal Farm. What a Georgia Hoot!

Take care.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mary]

Peter, let me just add one more thing in regards to the Abstact.

The Southern Baptist Convention does not have to be bound to a charter written 150+ years ago. The charter can be changed. I have that from a legal authority who's actually practiced this type of law. Al Mohler and Co choose to allow anyone who has ever asked why they insist everyone sign the Abstract for employment that we have to cuz "it's in the charter." That's the excuse for using a "blue blood" document to determine the course of Southern. That excuse does not hold water. Al Mohler and Co, as you've demonstrated choose to follow the Abstract but only the parts they like. It is their choice not because they are bound by the charter.

I think it is the height of hypocrisy, irony, fill in appropriate word here, that people have attacked Brad Whitt and someone like Tim Rogers accusing them of trying to "kick" people out and having some sort of "blue blood" purity test but then choose to sing la la la when it's pointed out that the true "blue blood" test, people who are actively excluding people are doing so at an institutional level with the resources of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Brad Whitt and Tim Rogers and others go around stating their opinions on activities that they see, but when someone points out that there is actually some "blue blood" purity testing going on but it's not by the people they want to attack then all of a sudden the discussion stops. The "voices" become silent. I've said it before and I'll say again - all "voices" are equal, some are more equal than others.

[volfan007]

Mary,

YOU are definitely spot on with your comments to Dwight McKissic. Truer words could not have been said.

David

[peter lumpkins]

Mary

I think you make some excellent points, especially concerning Southern seminary. Advocates who argue Southern's rightness in promoting a purely Calvinistic theology often do so appealing to necessity based upon the Abstract of Principles. In other words, they say Mohler's molding Southern into a Calvinistic school is required to be in line with the AP, which is an interesting proposal. From their standpoint, they seem to be implying that Mohler is required to make the school into what remains the theological minority position of Southern Baptists, a position you rightly point out initiates division.

More problematic is the inconsistent appeal to the Abstract of Principles Mohler and others make in their obvious attempt to impose Calvinism upon the SBC. In other words, if one appeals to the Abstract of Principles to insist upon soteriological Calvinism, why does the AP not also require Mohler to impose a strict view of the Lord's Day the AP has. Article XXVII reads:

"The Lord’s Day is a Christian institution for regular observance, and should be employed in exercises of worship and spiritual devotion, both public and private, resting from worldly employments and amusements, works of necessity and mercy only excepted"

Does Mohler insist all professors abstain from pleasurable activities on Sunday? I doubt it. If I am correct, if Mohler may pick and choose from the Abstract, how may he legitimately appeal to the entire Abstract as a "confessional identity"?

Similarly, Article XV states that baptism remains a "prerequisite to church fellowship, and to participation in the Lord’s Supper." I have to wonder if this is observed as well. There is at least one Southeastern professor who has questioned this belief among Southern Baptists, and called for a revision of the BF&M to reflect the practice of so many SBC churches.

Perhaps the most telling of all is, the Abstract of Principles says exactly nothing about Limited Atonement. Limited Atonement is neither implied nor mentioned. However, LA is a non-negotiable theological element among strict Calvinists. Why would Mohler impose a purely strict Calvinist affirmation which is not only abhorrent to most Southern Baptists, but also not at all required by the Abstract of Principles?

Keep up your questions, Mary. You're on to something.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mary]

Dr. McKissic, I wasn't addressing the Calvinist divide within the SBC. I was addressing the ideal that Calvinist are purposefully excluding nonCalvinist for employment at two of our seminaries. I'm not sure how anyone who wishes to accuse any faction of the SBC as being exclusive can defend or ignore that exclusion is taking place at the seminary level.

Founder's I think epitomizes the term "blue blood" - they claim to have the "Founders" of the SBC on their side. Churches who don't fit their criteria are somehow "less than" and are guilty of having lost the "Gospel ie DOG" and in need of "reformation"

Surely, exlusion being practiced by anyone or institution in the SBC should be acknowledged and condemned. Not just exclusion by those "not like us."

Or we could - I'm not into football but I believe the term is "punt." I simply thought you were going to provide a reasoned argument as to why exclusion is wrong by anyone of any faction of the SBC.

[Dwight McKissic]

Mary,

Thanks for taking the time to thoroughly answer my question.I was aware of the Abstract of Principles statement at Southern, but I thought your earlier comment might have been alluding to a more recent exclusionary statement at SBTS and SEBTS that I was unaware of. Addressing the calvinist-non calvinist divide in the SBC is somewhat beyond the scope of my post. However, I find it interesting that you appear to see the Founders as the blue bloods.I'm not exactly sure if I will refer to this or not, but I deeply appreciate your feedback.

[Mary]

Dr. McKissic,

That would be the Abstract of Priniciples. I understand that there are some nonCalvinist who would say they can affirm the Abstract of Principles, but when I read this by Dr. Mohler:

Writing in 1874, Boyce detailed the principles which guided the drafting committee: The abstract of principles must be: 1. A complete exhibition of the fundamental doctrines of grace, so that in no essential particular should they speak dubiously; 2. They should speak out clearly and distinctly as to the practices universally prevalent among us; 3. Upon no point, upon which the denomination is divided, should the Convention, and through it, the Seminary, take any position. [3] This explanation clarifies the Abstract's originating process and underlines the incredible theological unity of Southern Baptists at the middle of the nineteenth century. The members of the drafting committee were certain that Southern Baptists were undivided on "the fundamental doctrines of grace......" from this link http://www.founders.org/stand.html

Undivided on the "fundamental doctrines of grace" Would a nonCalvinist be allowed to deny the "doctrines of grace" and still affirm the Abstract?
I believe it's pretty obvious that the Abstract of Priniciples is being used as an exclusionary document. If I may repeat myself - the proof must certainly be in the pudding. Does anyone have the breakdown as to how many of the professors at these seminaries are Calvinist vs. nonCavinist (and for purposes of identifiying in the SBC, 4 pointers are not in the nonCalvinist camp - it's the U not the L that matters)

According to the last available poll the majority of SBC pastors do not consider themselves Calvinist. So shouldn't the theological diversity of the SBC Seminaries reflect the theological divsersity of the SBC? If two seminaries have on a staff a majority of 5 & 4 point Calvinist isn't that skewed toward a miniority view? Shouldn't the people paying the bills, keeping the lights on at the seminaries have their theology adequately represented at the seminaries?

Since Southern is now known as the Calvinist Seminary would it be ok to have a nonCalvinist Seminary in Southwestern? Can we just openly start advocating for that? Paige Patterson must be thinking of retiring soon. Can we be assured that his replacement will be an Adrian Rogers/Jerry Vines type nonCalvinist?

And Dr. McKissic, when you speak against "blue bloods" and those who would exclude will you be taking the Founder's Ministry to task? What exactly is the purpose of the Founder's Minstry. Does anybody know?

Here's their stated purpose:

Our Purpose The purpose of Founders Ministries is the recovery of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ in the reformation of local churches. We believe intrinsic to this recovery is the promotion of the Doctrines of Grace in their experiential application to the local church particularly in the areas of worship and witness. This is to be accomplished through a variety of means focusing on conferences and including publication, education, pastoral training and other opportunities consistent with the purpose. Each of the ministries will be developed with special attention to achieve a healthy integration of doctrine and devotion

So the stated purpose of the Founder's is "the recovery of the Gospel" and "intrinsic" to that purpose is "the Doctrines of Grace"

Now to me that would seem to say that if I've attended SBC churches all my life who would not have affirmed the "Doctrines of Grace" that somehow I was not being taught the Gospel and I now need to be "reformed." But over and over in blogs we're told that there is no such movement a foot with an expressed purpose of "reforming" the SBC.

Sorry Dr. McKissic, I'm wandering along here, but when you bring up "blue blood" tests my mind immediately went to the Founders who tell me I've lost the Gospel and need to be reformed.

Now Dr. McKissic, I understand politics and at the end of the day someone somewhere will come forward and say that the seminaries are not excluding anyone based on their soteiriology. But is that the reality on the ground? Sorta like when people were told they weren't excluded based on the color of their skin, but the facts simply did not back that up. Should be pretty easy to find out. And if it's true that two Seminaries are using exlusionary practices based on Sotieriology what does that say about all the denials that there isn't some movement to Calvinize the SBC? I would love someone to prove me wrong - since Al Mohler has taken over Southern - how many 4/5 point Calvinist has he brought on staff and how many Rogers/Vines Calvinist has he brought in?

I look forward to your thoughts Dr. McKissic. Blesssings to you and yours.

Mary

[Dwight McKissic]

Mary,

As I'm preaparing to write the post you've referenced, would you be so kind as to specifically identify the documents that SBTS and SEBTS uses to exclude fellow Southern Baptists?

Thanks.

[peter lumpkins]

Thanks Steve, for the kind words. Lord bless...

With that, I am...
Peter

[Steve Evans]

Peter, this is exactly the reason I frequent your blog. I really enjoy how you handle your critics without blasting them. (which is what the flesh would say to do) Thank you for the gracious spirit in the midst of such scathing attacks. The fact that I'm Brad's Associate leaves me little room for comebacks. I just bite my lip and know what a Godly man I have the priviledge with which to serve. Keep up the worthy wordsmithing.

[peter lumpkins]

I cannot help seeing the humorous irony in both the present voices' *editor* and now the past voices' *editor* logging comments here neither of which appear to properly handle the written words on the thread.

I corrected Dave's misunderstanding of Les' point about *both* present and past editors (not just the present editor)--a correction based on Les' actual words--and now Matt logs on and suggests I slammed him--not to mention Dave--as "editor" when the only point I made in mentioning him was to correct what I viewed was Dave's misunderstanding of Les' point.

Friends, this is precisely what is lacking in so much blogging--not dealing with what is actually written and what constitutes legitimate implication(s) from those written words. And the irony is, both "editors" who logged on give implicit credibility to some of the criticisms logged toward their role as "editor." Go figure.

Sometimes we do better not to log at all, for if we're not careful, we indict ourselves

With that, I am...
Peter

[Matt]

Les and Peter,

It is funny that you all praise Tony and slam myself and Dave... Tony is certainly a godly man, but it is funny because when I started out as Editor Tony was still quite involved and approved of all that I did and the direction I took it.

Oh well- when men like you two disapprove I know that I am on the right path.

[Mary]

Max, thanks for the encouragement. Those "T" epistles have lot's of great nuggets in them.

Somewhat OT, I did see at SBC Voices that Dr. McKissic will be presenting an Op Ed on the term "bluebloods" and those who would exclude in the SBC. I look forward to it. It's very troubling to me that the Southern Seminary and Southeastern (not "the" just Southeastern) Seminary are allowed to use an exclusionary document in their hiring practices. A document which excludes a majority of the SBC from being qualified to work there. I remember several years ago now the noise when Paige Patterson was alledgely going to exlcude Calvinist from being on staff at Southwestern Seminary. Some hero in a tall white hat rode in to save the day for the Calvinsit at Southwestern of course and nefarious scheme of Patterson was exposed and thwarted, but why oh why is it acceptable for two Seminaries to be so exclusionary? I look forward to Dr. McKissic's view that none of the seminaries should be supportive of such a "blue blood" type test beyond the BF&M. Great times ahead for the SBC now that certain people are going to start demanding that SBC cease and desist all exlcusionary practices.

[LMalone]

One more thing, A few people have asked me about the neoCalvinism in the SBC so I send them over to Voices so they can see what it looks like in action between pastors.

The YRR guys are turning lots of people off. Pretty soon, it is going to look like the legalism of SGM and the scandalabra that is going on there. With Al Mohler's backing.

[LMalone]

Dr. James Wilingham and Howell Scott are the two most balanced and thoughtful commenters over there who discuss the actual "issue" with "content" and stay away from all the ad hominem that goes on over there.

[peter lumpkins]

Dave,

I think Les' point is, *since* TK has pulled away, SBCV' threads have not fared so well. Of course, that would include both "editors" which is why Svoboda's name was included.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Dave Miller]

Les, you are certainly welcome to your opinion of SBC Voices and I won't argue it with me. However, Matt Svoboda has not really been very involved at Voices for the last year. I took over as Editor on my birthday (September 13) and have been the editor since then. Matt writes a post now and again and leaves a comment from time to time.

Whatever negative feelings you have about SBC Voices should be directed at me, not at Matt.

[Max]

Mary,

Stay the course ... you speak truth.

The YRR continue their efforts to silence Brad Whitt, Peter and others who will stand against their "brilliance". I fear that many in their ranks have been influenced beyond repair by our flagship seminary and non-SBC reformed entities. By the way, education doesn't produce one ounce of revelation.

Brad simply provided his perspective in a humble manner, but it stirred up YRR weeping and gnashing of teeth. Dr. Pearce attempted to turn Brad's views into a foolish controversy, but in the process successfully revived his words and position which represents many more SBC voices than they accept. And for that, I am thankful for Dr. Pearce's blog and SBC Voices for publishing it.

I believe the verses you referred to (and which certainly fit) are:

"Avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless."
(Titus 3:9)

"Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels." (2 Timothy 2:23)

"Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen." (2 Timothy 2:14)

[Mary]

Les, there are some (both Calvinist and non, liberal and conservative) at SBC Voices who have much to offer to the conversations that need to be had in the SBC. But overall it seems that bashing anyone who doesn't tow the Al Mohler party line is encouraged and rewarded with front page blog posts (and some of those are just down right weird). It's not really a place where all "voices" are treated equally and with anything remotely resembling respect.

My mind keeps wandering back to the verse, I think in 1 or 2 Timothy about foolish controversies - foolish would be the definition of what goes on at SBC Voices as there is no advancing understanding and dialogue in anything that goes on there. It seems to be a place where the young Calvinist hang out to show their brillance in promoting caricutures of those who disagree with them.

[Les Puryear]

Mary,

SBC Voices was originated by a godly young man named Tony Kummer. Tony is still invovled but not on a day-by-day basis. Unfortunately, he has given that responsibility to Dave Miller and Matt Svoboda.

I love SBC Voices for the links but not the commentary. You are correct in that most of the writers are Calvinists. Some of their guest writers are moderates such as William Thornton. Also, flaming liberals such as Tom Parker, camp out in the comment threads as well. If one wants to argue, SBC Voices is a good place to go.

I used to allow them to repost my blog offerings, but I will not any longer. The tone over there has become mean-spirited and I know longer wish to be a part of it.

Regards,

Les

[Mary]

Ed, what's funny is you missed what some would call the whole "point."

[jim b]

what's so funny? Lumpkin may single people out but he usually stays on topic. his critiques rarely gets personal.

[Ed Goodman]

That's funny.....you're upset because Peter gets singled out, but he singles people out all the time. LOL

[volfan007]

Mary,

You are right.

David

[Mary]

Sorry Ed, we'll just disagree as I happen to think the proof is in the pudding if you will. I'm sure I'm not the only one to see the hypocrisy of those screaming that we need a variety of voices to be heard from those on a blog who have attacked Peter unmercifully for his voice.

SBC Voices is a place where victims of Calvinism have been consistently called liars and belitttled and mocked. Not just in comments but as shown today in the Op Eds that are allowed to be posted. Some victims as some voices are more equal than others to the Calvinist. Peter in particular has been singled out by so-called ministers of the Gospel. It's allowed over and over, time and time again. The editors obviously approve since they do moderate at times and someone had to approve this demeaning "guest post"

[Howell Scott]

Peter,

First, you did a good job in analyzing some of Dr. Pearce's interations with Dr. Whitt's original post (published some five months ago). While it appears that the debate over the competing visions of the SBC had died down, Pearce's article is sure to open the door for a renewed emphasis on the SBC's future -- which is a good thing.

Mary,

I can't speak for anyone else, but as a regular contributor to Voices, I have never been told what to write or not write or even in the slightest been edited (apart from a typo). Dave Miller has given me wide latitude on what to write about. There is no question that a fair number of the regular contributors to Voices are convictional Calvinists.

I describe myself as an inconsistent (in practice) Calvinist, so I usually will write from a slightly different perspective on Calvisism as well as on the SBC establishment. As the two have become intertwined (particularly through Southern and Southeastern), what I write for Voices and on my own blog doesn't usually sit too well with the YR&R crowd at Voices who support the establishment. The MSNBC crack hurt! :-) Thanks and God bless,

Howell

[Ed Goodman]

Mary,

I am definitely not a five-point Calvinist, and I'll never be a monergist, but my opinions aren't belittled or discouraged at SBC Voices. Dave Miller and many of the regulars (like Mark Lamprecht and Dr. James Willingham) have always treated me with courtesy. Of course, they have troublemakers who log on, as well, but it appears that the leadership of the site intends to keep a respectful and thought-provoking atmosphere.

Just my two cents. As far as Peter's analysis of Pearce's article, I thought he provided an exceptionally lucid critique. I don't view Pearce or the Calvinist brethren as "them on the other side." However, Pearce appears to be backing Whitt into a corner. It seems to me that Whitt just wants representation and credibility for his traditional views and for those who affirm his "old-fashioned" methods and views.

Trying to eisogete unexpressed viewpoints into Whitt's article is a faulty journalistic "hermeneutic," so to speak. Pearce was rightly corrected many times by Peter, in my opinion.

Peter, I agree with your assessment on this one, brother. As always, my love goes out to you, my denomination, and all the Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike who love Jesus and seek truth.

[Mary]

This article just proves the point that's been made over and over that these YRR are just mean, nasty people with an apparent agenda that has nothing to do with Christ.

SBC Voices has a reputation for Calvinist running wild, attacking and hating on anyone who doesn't bow down and worship at the alter of Calvinism.

For a nonCalvinist to post at SBC Voices it is the equivalent of a Conservative to go on MSNBC. There is one agenda and it is to silence first and if that's not possible to attack, caricuture and belittle anyone not towing the Calvinist party line.

Allowing a post like the one mentioned just reinforces the criticism of YRR.

[Max]

I just read the SBC Voices posting on this ... whew! An unfortunate analysis offered with agenda and disrespect.

In my humble (but accurate) opinion, Brad Whitt provided a perspective on Southern Baptist life as I too have known it for 50+ years. Contrary to arguments posed by the young, restless and reformed and SBC leaders who encourage them, Southern Baptists have been on the correct mission with the right message. I thank God for Dr. Whitt … it’s refreshing to know that not all young SBC pastors have drifted from the fold. The Gospel he preaches and defends is still culturally-relevant for 21st-century lost folks. The message and mission advanced by majority Southern Baptists still ring true to God’s purpose for His church, regardless of what the change-agents in our midst say.

The only positive thing about the SBC Voices post is that it has revived the testimony of a faithful servant after earlier attempts to silence it.