Sad to leave NOLA behind by Peter Lumpkins

I can't help it. I love this city. I know. I know. NOLA stinks...NOLA's dangerous...NOLA's morally upside down...NOLA's ______. You fill it in. Nonetheless, I love NOLA  >>>

As I'm leaving I'm thinking about  my years in seminary. Upon arriving here in 1987, my first seminary experience of note was a "debate" in chapel on the subject of the atonement. Unlike the endless exchanges now over the extent of the atonement, Paige Patterson and Fisher Humphreys over the mode of the atonement. Dr. Patterson held closely to penal substitution while Dr. Humphreys argued ably for an inclusive model of substitution (not to be confused with what's come to be known as inclusivism). I recall at one time in the exchange, Humphreys charged Patterson with following Calvin too closely with his view!  

It was not that Humphreys denied substitutionary atonement. At least, that's what I came to understand after taking many systematic theology classes under him. Instead if I recall correctly he argued that Scripture offered many models of atonement one of which was penal substitution. Anyways, I have both good and bad memories of my seminary experience while remaining eternally grateful for them all...

Some of the YRR are already suggesting the "movement" to "divide" the convention was handed a definitive blow in NOLA (here's an example of one YRR who apparently thinks the "movement"-- a "movement"which is only a month old by the way--was delivered its head on a platter).

Know we congratulated Dave Miller for being voted in as 2nd VP. For my part, he was not a viable candidate. But obviously there were more who cast ballots believing he was viable for them than believed with me he wasn't. Why is this so difficult to understand?¹  Nor am I devastated because somebody I voted for didn't get elected for heaven's sake. Nor should it be devastating for the so-called "movement"² surrounding Eric Hankins...

Both the resolution on unity as well as all the rhetoric we heard concerning unity in the SBC, if we are honest, were for naught. We all know we are not united. We know this. We can plead all we wish, but so far as I am concerned, those crowing about unity remain very much like the prophets God chastised through Jeremiah:   

They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace (6:14; 8:11)

I will not remain silent. And I will not stand down.

¹nor did Miller's election change my mind on that so far as my vote is concerned. I mean think about it: is Barak Obama a viable candidate for the presidency simply because he won? Not for those like me who didn't vote for him he's not. It gets old explaining these simple little things to some of the YRR. 

²I prefer the term "public push-back" describing Eric Hankins, the Traditional Statement, and the hundreds of signatures aligned with Hankins on the issue of aggressive Calvinism. Until this public push-back grows some chest hair, "movement" is simply nonsense as a descriptor

Comments

[A.Price]

Bro. Peter, Max,Bro. Max, as one who's church was an 'un-knowing' victim of an 'aggressive' Calvinist, I believe I can speak from experinece!
After almost 60 years of exsitence, they are 'stuggling' just to keep the doors open! Why? Because this dear, little, brother, who came in 'sheeps' clothing, DROVE away most of the faithful, dear Saints!!

When asked what he thought was the problem , by admittdly 'timid 'Deacons', he said,"it was b/c of 'sin' in thier lives!

I was on the 'pulpit comm.' that called him! I 'dissented', because , at the time, and based on his 'pulpiteering ability', I did not think he would be a "good fit", but, the 4 others voted to call him.

BTW, he only got 75% of the church vote, he 'elected' (pardon the pun) to take the church anyway!

What's my point, simply this, If out of over 7,000 regesterd voters, only 1,600 bothered to vote, God help us when these, ('The Gospel According to John Calvin' crowd), 'steal' their way into more and more of our SBC churches!

No doubt, 'some' may be AWARE, but, it's now clear to me, MOST will not!

Before I end , can someone on this blog, tell me why in the world, the 'Name Change' thing came up for a 'vote'? My understanding was, over the winter, it was'dead-in-the-water'!

[selahV-hariette]

Well, Peter, one can always count on your posts to be focused and clear on how you stand. No hidden agendas with you, my friend.

"Grows some chest hair"?

Oh my, I do hope folks do not pass over your footnotes--fair warning to those who may get caught in your "cross-hairs" of opposition. Peter knows the pen (or, in this case, keyboard), is mightier than the sword."

I wish I'd been in NOLA. It sure sounded like a wonderful time of historical precedents were set--the significance of which will remain unknown, I'm sure, for a while. I do hope those who voted for the passage of the Sinner's Prayer Resolution will be blessed with many opportunities to practice it in the coming year. May the Holy Spirit draw thousands, if not millions, to the cross of Christ. selahV

[Louis]

I am sorry that I did not see you there, Peter. I would have enjoyed meeting you. I wanted to meet Dave Miller, too, but I did not see him either.

I ran into Malcolm Yarnell and Bart Barber a bunch. We were at the same hotel. I have known Malcolm for over 20 years. He is a great guy. I have known Bart a much shorter time.

I tend to look at this from the things that we agree on - We believe in inerrancy, we are Trinitarian, we believe in salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, made possible by the sacrifice of Christ alone. And we agree on a whole host of other doctrines that make us Baptist and on many doctrines related to practice in the church. We have a strong commitment to missions.

It is true that there are disagreements about certain issues related to soteriology.

I do not discount those, nor do I discount the importance and need for discussing those. I would never want to be in convention where there was not rigorous discussion about issues such as that.

So, I expect that in the days head that we will have more discussion as brothers working together.

But I did not feel before the convention, and certainly do not feel now that this is the kind of issue that is going to seriously affect our future or our continuing to work together.

[Louis]

By the way, I love New Orleans, too. I think that the convention should be there every year.

I ate more calories in 3 days than I eat in 2 weeks usually.

I ate at Redfish Grill, Mr. B's, Arnaud's, Mother's, the Butcher (did you check that place out?), and Cafe Du Monde (twice!)

[Ben]

Peter,

Great point implying that after only a month, it's way too soon to start calling the PR behind the new traditional statement on salvation a "movement." That's why I couldn't believe that the folks at SBCtoday used the word "movement" to describe their effort only two days after they published the statement and had gathered only a couple hundred signatures. The statement was published on May 30th, and on June 1, they were already inviting readers to "email sbctoday to join the MOVEMENT and sign 'A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation'" (bold, italics, and uppercase added by me).

Premature nonsense indeed, brother!

http://sbctoday.com/2012/06/01/an-introduction-to-%E2%80%9Ca-statement-of-the-traditional-southern-baptist-understanding-of-god%E2%80%99s-plan-of-salvation%E2%80%9D-2/

[max]

Thank you Brother Peter for your reports on the convention. I salivated over the Twitter photos of meals you consumed there! I followed most sessions via livestream and thought I saw you trying to get to a mic during the name change discussion. I was hoping you would get the chance to "Lumpkinize" a bit ;^)

From a cheap seat (my desk chair), I heard grand speeches and witnessed history. Dr. Luter's appointment was a glorious milestone! We even took back the "Sinner's Prayer" for the Lord Jesus! The speakers offered varying degrees of encouragement, discouragement, rebuke, correction, vision, accurate exegesis, and feeble eisegesis. Through it all, the call to unity in the midst of disunity in corners of our ranks was a clear sound.

As I listened to the sessions and input from the floor, I realized that God doesn't really need Southern Baptists to accomplish His purposes ... but loves us enough to give us another chance to work with Him as we move forward (be it as SBC or GCB or just Christians). Souls are at stake. I was reminded that God commands the blessing to be only where there is unity and that He hates mixture. So how we address the issues which divide will determine the destiny of this great denomination, for we will need His presence in the evil days ahead.

Thank you Peter for standing in such a time as this. God bless your ministry.

[Mary]

hey Ben, I'm sure you think you'r behavior on here is making you look smart and superior, but you're showing yourself to be a troll. Continue on "brother" showing why exactly the Trad Statement was needed.

[Quartermaster]

My Church has a youth group doing work in NOLA at the moment. They're staying at the Seminary and going out during the day to various projects. My understanding is they are working in the more downtrodden areas of town.

[Mary]

Good news from Al Mohler. He's admitted that the Executive Committee is going to start work on marginalizing the voices that shouldn't be heard. Who exactly gets to decide which voices should be marginalized? Oh but hey, Mohler, et al don't want to kick anybody out of the SBC no sireebob! Remember it's all about the unity - time to start calling people names that need to be marginalized and telling people to shut up.

[Jason]

Mary,

Why the venom? Perhaps you should pray for Mohler, et al or contacting some rather than allowing your comment to be typed out. Before you start your YRR rant/call it both ways, please note that I am not a YRR nor do I care to be one and I have called it both ways.

I say that with the kindest Christian charity.

[Mary]

Jason, sorry, but I'm one of the ones who needs to be marginalized as I'm sure is Peter. No one cares what I have to say.

So in kindest Christian charity what do you think about Al Mohler declaring that there are SBC voices who deserve to be marginalized? Who exactly gets to decide which voices and for what reasons? How does the idea of unity fit with a bold proclamation to start marginalizing voices? Where exactly does that fit with Priesthood of the Believer? Will there be an official list of those whom should not be heard in the SBC? Ala Nixon's enemies list?

[Mary]

Al Mohler says:

"This conversation will marginalize those whose influence should be marginalized — those who have a party spirit, who play into tribalism, or who want to divide Southern Baptists form each other. "

We need a list of all the places where Mohler has declared we're rally just Calvinist but we're not bright enough to know it and that Calvinism is the only way to see the Gospel and of course the most recent that the Trad statement sure sounds heretical and he doesn't believe those men who signed it knew what they were signing.

Does anyone else think Al Mohler is projecting here with his party spirit/tribalism comments.

And of course the man who claims to want to rally around the BFM doesn't mean that should apply to him or Southern Seminary.

[CASEY]

MARY....we needed you at our Monday night strategy meeting and at the microphones on Tues and wed. Make your plans to go to HOUSTON in 2013 NOW!!!!!!!!

[Lydia]

"This conversation will marginalize those whose influence should be marginalized — those who have a party spirit, who play into tribalism, or who want to divide Southern Baptists form each other. "

Mary, this is politics 101. He is going to be first to define his opponent. That gets the focus off him as the one who has been directing the tribal, divisive, spirit. He never does it out front.

What kills me is he is taking over and defining the process. Are the leaders really going to allow him to do that? My guess is yes and he knows they won't really stand up to him.

Mohler has always been much more of a political strategist than a theologian. Here he is known as a culture warrior everyone agrees with. They don't even think of his Calvinism.

[Mary]

Casey, on the other thread I'm being declared as someone to be ignored! LOL!

With my Skippy's health issues it just didn't work out for us this year. Who knows what a year will bring? It looks like it's going to get interesting.

Lydia, EXACTLY. Al Mohler has taken over this idea that we are going to have a "conversation" but he will declare who can participate in the conversation and he will decide the appropriate topics for the conversation and then he will declare "everything is great now that we had this conversation!"

Nothing says unity like Al Mohler telling SBCers to shut up and Tom Ascol declaring some of us just need to leave the SBC. It's very Alinsky - fear monger by telling everyone a group wants to kick you out and/or silence you, all the while they are the ones stifling dissent and telling people to get out.

[Max]

"This conversation will marginalize those whose influence should be marginalized — those who have a party spirit, who play into tribalism, or who want to divide Southern Baptists from each other."

I don't know if Dr. Mohler has a party spirit or not, but the rest of the description certainly fits him well. His tribalism and divisiveness are obvious when he suggests that the Reformed faith is the only viable option for thinking Christians ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6lRMMvNCn8

Better put someone else at the table to direct this conversation. Whew - don't allow him to construct the blacklist!

[cb scott]

Peter,

I was glad we got to spend a little time together at the SBC. I have never come away from a time of face-to-face dialogue with you wherein I did not find myself glad to call you my friend.

Keep your Georgia self safe and may we meet up again soon.

[Howell Scott]

Peter,

I would like to second the thoughts of my Cousin CB. I didn't think I was going to get a chance to catch up with you before Wednesday's session ended. So thankful for the conversation with you and Bro. David Brumbelow at the conclusion of the Convention. It's because of the personal interactions with so many wonderful Christian brothers and sisters during the NOLA meeting that I was sad to leave New Orleans behind. Looking forward to Houston in 2013. Thanks and God bless,

Howell

[Louis]

CB:

I met Bob Cleveland. Sorry I missed you.

Louis

[Jim G.]

Hi Peter,

I'm deeply disturbed, as a Baptist, at Al Mohler's comments on his blog looking back on the NO convention. I'll reproduce the words from his blog here:

"The 2012 SBC was marked by talk about theology, and the issue of Calvinism in particular. At this point, the reality is more like talking about talking about theology, but the talk will become more organized, partly through a process to be led by the SBC Executive Committee. In the meantime, Southern Baptists need to be kind, open, generous, and truthful. We should expect the best of each other, and extend understanding in every possible way. The three weeks prior to this year’s SBC did not find Southern Baptists at their best in terms of this kind of discussion, but we can and must have the right conversations in the right way. This conversation will marginalize those whose influence should be marginalized — those who have a party spirit, who play into tribalism, or who want to divide Southern Baptists from each other. We will stand within the “Baptist Faith & Message” and we will learn how to talk in a way that will help each other to be more faithful and biblical, not more hardened and bitter."

Several questions:
1. What sort of process will the EC utilize to "organize" a discussion about Calvinism?
2. How will this process be managed?
3. Whose expertise will be sought? (I don't see many recognizable theologians on the EC)
4. How binding on SBC policy will the results be?
5. We should "extend understanding in every possible way." Does this include a moratorium on questioning the orthodoxy, motives, and integrity of the men and women who signed the TS?
The rest of my questions revolve around the last two sentences in Mohler's post quoted above.
6. Is it truly Baptistic to marginalize anyone?
7. Who has the right to say anyone "should be marginalized?"
8. Who are the SBC's two largest and most influential "party-spirit" and "tribal" entities if not Founders (who want to reform the SBC one church at a time) and SBTS (the universally-acknowledged "ground-zero" of the YRR, presided over by none other than Mohler himself)? Will they be marginalized in this conversation?
9. Since the answer to the second part of number 8 is almost assuredly "no" (since Mohler himself is bringing it up), then doesn't it stand to reason that any vocal opponent of Calvinism becomes the target of marginalization?
10. Is it me, or in the last sentence is there an insinuation that there is something less than "biblical" about one side of this debate?
11. Finally, doesn't all of this posturing remind one of the backroom schemes of the Jewish leaders in the pre-crucifixion hours a whole lot more than the open and meek behavior exhibited by Jesus and the apostles later on?

Thanks for fielding my questions.

Jim G.

[Lydia]

Jim, You did not ask me but this is classic Mohler. He is jumping out in front and defining his opponent as if none of it applies to him. (Nevermind his GC video, it has been explained away. Or his statement saying his brothers did not know what they were signing and leaning toward heresy. Just forget all those types of things as if they never happened)

Therefore, he repositions himself as one who has NOT been promoting tribalism at SBTS, T4G, GC, with Mahaney, Acts 29, etc. He is defining the discussion and debate. He always does and he always gets by with it because he has a national platform. The SBC leadership will placate him because they think they need him since he has so many followers. We have seen this tactic here at ground zero for years.

[Jim G.]

I know that is what is going on, Lydia. Sometimes I feel like I'm going crazy. Why does this seem so obvious to me and a relatively few others, but so many just do not see it? What is it? Is it money/prestige/power? Is it control? Is it being beholden to those with any or all of those?

It is almost as if people have blinders on with respect to Mohler. People are either so enamored of him or so afraid of him that they do not see the gamesmanship.

What's more, when anyone pushes back, the accusations fly of heretic, discord-sower, ignorant, and now I suppose the key word is marginalized. I mean, Driscoll and Mahaney (with their sordid past and present) are okay, but any non-Reformed person is an apostle of discord deserving of marginalization because we are tribal. I feel like I've just entered the Twilight Zone.

Jim G.

[Mary]

I think Bart Barber's latest post is relavant here. Look at how the so called leaders in the SBC mocked and belittled that man Tribble. It has become accetable to make fun of fellow Christians from the highest leaders in the SBC to all the tweets made by the YRR. They even got into it at the 2ndVP's blog. Because they are oh so superior to a man like Tribble. Mocking and belittling certain people in the SBC is great fun. Only certain people in the SBC are worth anything. Everybody else needs to send money and shut up. Does anybody care how Tribble felt after they spend so much effort making jokes all over twitter and it sounds like they were just outright gossiping about him out of the Convention Center. Of course not - he's someone to be marginalized.

But look at all the time and effort spent calling people like me and Lydia haters because we think Al Mohler should be held to some accountabilty for all the division and discord he continues to sow in the SBC.

[Mary]

Timmy Brister

"..Nettles’ direct interaction with the current attempt to marginalize Calvinists ..."

Now let's see it's Al Mohler who is declaring that voices need to be marginalized but somehow the Calvinists are whining that there is an attempt to margialize Calvinists.

[selahV-hariette]

Jim G. Hang tough. You are not alone. Many know and many see and many are not going to be marginalized...even as some try to do it while saying they are the victims. Not happening. We have a God who is bigger than all of this mess. He will not be mocked. What we cannot see, He sees. Do not grow weary...He has overcome the world. Our times are in His hands and He will perfect that which concerns us. selahV

[peter lumpkins]

All,

Thanks for your participation. Many of you express the same reservations I have toward Dr. Mohler's words--indeed chilling words so far as I am concerned. In fact, I know of no one who more deserves to be left out of the conversation over Calvinism--if any leaving out is done--than Mohler himself. Even though he obviously doesn't personally see it, Mohler remains the poster boy for aggressive Calvinism in the SBC. He's the one who unilaterally made Calvinism the default theology at SBTS. He's the one who told editors the future of the SBC is "Reformed". He's the one who told Christianity Today that non-Calvinists did not understand that only Reformed theology could protect the gospel. He's the one who told us New Calvinism was the only place biblically-oriented, deeply theological young people could turn to for theological answers.

Jim's list sums the questions up well. I had a post ready to put up but got caught in so many things to take care of after returning from NOLA. Perhaps I'll post it today. Better later than never, I suppose...

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mike]

So Peter, who do you suggest?

[peter lumpkins]

Mike,

Thanks. My reservation concerning this "conversation" which is supposed to take place is not actually about who *is* in the mix but who, according to Mohler, "should be marginalized" from the mix. Baptist polity does not prop up so easily *marginalizing* any voice, much less the elite themselves drawing the appropriate names out of the hat.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mary]

I'm just wondering what day Mohler is going to post the list of those whom the SBC is not supposed to listen. Is he going to start declaring some people as not part of the kingdom and unregenerate?

What this tells us is that Mohler/Page are not really serious about having any kind of meaningful conversation. What Mohler's words tell us is that he is very much going to try to stifle all dissent under the guise of having a conversation.

[peter lumpkins]

Mary

I have to agree. To even hint upfront that there are unworthies to whom we should not and must not listen cannot be taken seriously by any convictional Baptist. If Mohler's suggestion had been followed by the SBC in 1979, the Conservative Resurgence would have had a far different outcome, I assure.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mary]

And don't forget the great irony that the Calvinits have been declaring all along that it's the Trads trying to kick out the Calvinists and yet we have THE Calvinist declaring some voices are not welcome in the SBC anymore.

So now it's time for all those people claiming there should be room for everyone to stand up and call Mohler to account for his words declaring some people are not worthy to be in the SBC. But somehow I think we're going to be hearing a lot of crickets from all those proclaiming "unity"

If anything screams division, discord, and DISunity it's this idea that some voices are not worthy.

[Ben]

Good morning, Peter!

I'm curious what your thoughts are on my comment above: http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2012/06/sad-to-leave-nola-behind-by-peter-lumpkins.html?cid=6a00d83451a37369e201774298f49e970d#comment-6a00d83451a37369e201774298f49e970d

Thanks, brother!

[Job]

Peter:

"He's the one who told editors the future of the SBC is "Reformed". He's the one who told Christianity Today that non-Calvinists did not understand that only Reformed theology could protect the gospel. He's the one who told us New Calvinism was the only place biblically-oriented, deeply theological young people could turn to for theological answers."

In other words, Mohler is as chauvinistic about Particular Baptist belief as you are about General Baptist belief. So then, other than having the majority of the SBC agree with your theology, what separates you from Mohler?

[peter lumpkins]

Hi Ben,

Is a comment really necessary? Am I obligated to drop my point because with you some at SBC Today wrongly and/or prematurely characterize as a religo-sociological "movement" what can only be reasonably dubbed the bare makings of a potential movement? O.K. Let me be clear. Even though I theologically agree in sentiment with their particular cause, their dubbing the meager circumstances surrounding the TS as a "movement" makes no more sense than your dubbing it one. How's that?

For my part, the TS decidedly is an historic moment in the conversation since few, if any (including Al Mohler), have seriously listened to independent complaints about aggressive Calvinism in the SBC. I've blown a trumpet on this tune for 6 years. However, TS most certainly did get some needed attention. In this sense, while not a "movement" it nonetheless remains momentous, and can surely become a "movement" if it plays out well to the public.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Hi Job

A paycheck...

With that, I am...
Peter

[Job]

Hello Peter:

All right then. What separates Al Mohler from Steve Lemke?

[Ben]

Peter, I don't think it's a movement at this point either. That's why I put it in quotation marks from the beginning. So, I never called it a movement but rather was simply using the language of SBCtoday.

Thanks for the reply, Peter.

[Hobart M. Tucker]

I can answer this one: Mohler gets a much bigger paycheck.

For those who care, Southern Baptists contributions to the offering plate intended to spread the Gospel worldwide, go in part to make Mohler a millionaire every three years.

-- HMT

[Job]

Hobart:

So your position is that by serving in his capacity as president of SBTS, Mohler is inhibiting or hindering the gospel of Jesus Christ and the spread thereof?

[peter lumpkins]

Job,

HMT has a notable response which should slowly but thoroughly sink into our minds (and btw, Hobart's answer applies almost as much to Lemke & Mohler as it does Mohler & me)...

Now, we could go on "what abouting" for a spell but nothing would be gained. The truth is, as I hope those who understand my free church convictions would know, Al Mohler should not be marginalized from any discussion on any subject we deem necessary to discuss (well perhaps salary might be exempt ;^).

My complaint remains, along with many here, Dr. Mohler has no Baptist business setting parameters on who ought to be heard. In free church traditions in which Baptists are necessarily intertwined, it's level ground for all voices, including those voices we don't like. Mohler can think somebody needs to be marginalized all he likes but when he does, he's revealing just how far he's wandered off the Baptist range onto some form of quasi-presbyterian property. Baptists usually just don't dig the self-imposed authoritarian-template all that much.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Job]

Hobart:

Also, does the compensation of Mohler from SBC funds exceed that of the presidents at NOBTS, SWBTS, Liberty etc. in any significant way? I would presume that the presidents of those institutions do just as much to promote the General Baptist viewpoint as Mohler does the Particular Baptist one. So if Mohler is an "aggressive Calvinist", then he is cut from the same cloth as all of the "aggressive General Baptists" among seminary heads and various other positions of leadership in the SBC.

[peter lumpkins]

Job,

Is this where you start getting really weird? Your comment shows how absolutely out of touch you are with our seminaries not to mention the undeniable misdating you give the terms "Particular" and "General" as if either is applicable to SBs now. Neither decidedly is, Job. Now, unless you have something relevant about the post, we bid you, fare ye well.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Job]

Peter:

First, you do not have the authority to determine whether "Particular" and "General" as if either is applicable to SBs now. I have as much right to use terminology as you do, and I have made consistent use of that terminology on other blogs, including my own (which I really do need to get back to updating).

Second, my comments were relevant to the other comments, many of which were no more irrelevant to your original post than mine are.

So the real issue is that I am being "marginalized." All right. That is fine. Hasn't been the first time. (SBCVoices and SBCToday have both hammered some of my recent comments.) Won't be the last.

[Mary]

The difference between Lemke and Mohler? Seriously? Has Lemke taken over a seminary and made it the policy that only people like him are allowed on staff. Has Lemke used his power and influence (ok that's a joke because we know Mohler is the one who has the power and influence of these two) but has Lemke made sure that only those like him get appointed as President of other seminaries and the NAMB, seen to the takeover of Lifeway so now only Calvinists will be producing SS materials? There's no comparison.

Job, seriously grow up. Are you being marginalized with the full force of the SBC behind it as Al Mohler wants to do with his bully pulpit or only on Traditionalists blogs who get fed up with these antics. Has Paige Patterson declared that you have no right to be in the SBC anymore? Has anyone suggested like Tom Ascol that you should get out of the SBC? Yeah, I didn't think so. Quit playing the victim in a game that began before you were born. You think you know so much about history but you ignore the last thirty years of what the Calvinists have actually done and who exactly is going about kicking people out of positions in the SBC and truly marginalizing voices in the SBC.

Let's see Peter Lumpkins on his blog says Job needs to quit playing his ridiculous games and Al Mohler delaring there are voices in the SBC to be marginalized. Sure that's comparable.

[volfan007]

Peter,

It was great seeing you in NOLA, Brother. I enjoyed meeting your wife and daughter, as well. You seem to have a wonderful family.

David

[peter lumpkins]

Job,

I'm not going to argue with you what is and is not relevant, Job. This is *not* a free public blog where entitlement is guaranteed to everyone. I pay the nickel, brother, you don't. Nor does another single person on this site. And, if you want to equate that with what we've been discussing about marginalizing dissent in a free church tradition, you have my express permission to do so. You've thoroughly confused "Particular" and "General" in applying the terms to Southern Baptists, so why would I be surprised if you confuse private ownership with ecclesial-democracy? Be my guest. But don't expect to get underwritten in marketing your confusion on a website for which I pay a hefty sum to maintain.

Now, I'll say it again: if you have something relevant to say to the post, be my guest. But don't ever show back up here demanding you have a right to redefine terms the way you want to and still converse here. You can take your nonsense anywhere else you like and perhaps they will listen. But I pay for this site here, and I refuse to fund somebody else's purposeful confusion, especially someone who is coming across as belligerent as have you.

I hope I've been clear.

Have a good evening.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

David,

Thanks, bro. Likewise. I especially enjoyed meeting your wife. I'm still of a mind to post your standing on Bourbon Street all alone just looking around...I could...but I won't...:^)

With that, I am...
Peter

[Job]

Mary:

You use such strong words against me, yet not a few days ago you accused me of targeting women for mistreatment. How do you reconcile your words against me now with your accusations against me then?

And by the way ... I wish to see proof, actual evidence that Mohler "has made sure that only those like him get appointed as President of other seminaries and the NAMB, seen to the takeover of Lifeway."

Also, pointing out double standards is quite different from playing the victim.

And I do not deny the truth of "You think you know so much about history but you ignore the last thirty years of what the Calvinists have actually done and who exactly is going about kicking people out of positions in the SBC." But I do reserve the right to ask questions of and otherwise challenge those who purport to be in possession of this knowledge. If the people who possess this knowledge are interested in legitimate dialogue, that should not be a problem.

[Job]

Peter.

Go ahead. Marginalize away. That is what you are doing whether you admit it or not. And no amount of lecturing, finger-wagging, accusing, name-calling or insults is going to change that. No, this is not a free, public blog, but it isn't hard at all to get you to show your true colors when it comes to your "free church convictions" does it?

Oh, but don't mind me. Because, you see, I am just confused. It is perfectly fine for you to call me confused, and claim that my use of "General" and "Particular" is out of context and wrong. But it is a great crime against civility, decency and co-existence in the Southern Baptist community as well as a mark of great arrogance to proclaim that someone doesn't understand Reformed Theology. Right? A whole bunch of geese in this pot but not a single gander.

We both know that this comment won't remain up on this site very long, just as many of mine have gone away in the past. But hey, it is OK when you do it at your blog. Just not when Dave Miller does it at "Pravda", right? And to quote your own words:

"I will not remain silent. And I will not stand down."

And you have a good evening yourself, free church advocate.

[Mary]

Job, it's you who doesn't want to dialogue with anyone and you go around whimpering that everybody's mean to the poor poor Calvinists ignoring what the Calvinists have done. PROOF JOB PROOF. Everybody acknowledges that Southern is THE Calvinist Seminary. You think that happened by accident? It's this denial of reality by the Calvinists that ensures there will never be a conversation. you think that for years Calvinist and Trads were coexisting peacefully and then one day the Trads just up and decided Hey I know let's just go after the Calvinists. Of course you believe that and you deny the cold hard reality that is the Founder's Movement. The Founders who up and one day decided that the SBC was going to be reformed for it's own good and one of the strategies for reformation was taking over the seminaries. Of course since the damage they did was being done when you still in grade school you think it all must be a lie. No matter how many people have the experiences and how many different people in different parts of the country experienced it. You just call people liars. People who had their lives torn apart.

Here's what you do Job since you are so in love with yourself and your puffed up knowledge. You go back over to Pravda with your other young good buddy. Remember the other week when Matt Svoboda was so proud of himself for demanding that we start giving him names and contact information of churches that have been destroyed by the Calvinists taking over the SBC. Remember how much fun that was. SO goose gander. You go over there and you make a post where you guys are now going to start providing all the contact information of all the Finneyites in the convention. PROVE IT JOB. You and all your YRR start giving names, dates, churches and contact information or shut up about all the decisional regenaration nonsense.

Please Job you do NOT want to have a dialogue with anybody. You want to call everybody liars and stupid all the while trying to impress everybody with what you think is your knowledge. Because yeah Job you must surely at the age of 24 know more than men who earned their doctorates in Theology before you were born.

[Hobart M. Tucker]

Job,

I apologize. I have been offline and did not realize my comment had created a stir.

Your questions seem odd, but I will answer both.

(1) Regarding compensation: I object to any SBC executive (or pastor for that matter) being enriched at the expense of Moms and Dads putting off the purchase of a new family car so that they can give more to SBC causes, or Grandmas and Granddads cutting back on “necessities” in order to put more of their Social Security check in the offering plate.

For a better understanding of Mohler’s level of compensation (and others’ within SBC circles), consider that:

-- The top admiral in the United States Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations, earns about $247,000. He commands 321,000 sailors (and directs 200,000 civilians) as well as a fleet of nearly 300 ships of the line (including 11 aircraft carriers, 18 ballistic or guided missile, and 53 attack or fast attack submarines) and 3,700 aircraft. His responsibilities include security of nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors (on ships and naval facilities ashore).

-- For a more local example, and one within education, consider Dr. Berman who left the Jefferson County Public Schools in 2011. As superintendent he earned $260,000 to manage a budget of $990 million, while directing 150 schools with more than 97,500 students (28th largest district in the U.S.) and 18,000 employees. The 1,500 vehicles the system operated made it one of the ten largest transportation systems in the nation.

(2) As for your rhetorical question regarding whether Mohler hinders or inhibits the spread of the Gospel, I guess the only objective way to respond is with data.

Here is the information relating to Mohler’s church for 2009 (I don’t have the information for 2010 or 2011, but I invite anyone with access to ACP to provide it). The "per capita" calculations are based on worship attendance and provide a “per person” means of comparing congregations. This method reduces the biases of church size that allows the smaller church to claim greater contribution because of a higher percentage (of a lesser amount) or the larger church from asserting superiority because of a larger amount (but a smaller percentage). Worship attendance is a better means of comparison than total membership because it better represents who is “in the pews” on Sundays.

2009 SBC stats
6,207,488 worship attendance
349,737 baptisms
$525,866,995 Cooperative Program
$56,643,230 Annie Armstrong Easter Offering
$148,984,819 Lottie Moon Christmas Offering

2009 Highview stats
3,260 worship attendance
121 baptisms
$140,100 Cooperative Program
$10,000 Annie Armstrong Easter Offering
$50,000 Lottie Moon Christmas Offering

-- So just in terms of 2009 per capita CP contribution, the average for the entire Convention was $84.71 per person sitting in the pew. Highview’s average contribution was $42.98 -- half the per capita average for all churches.

-- Looking at special offerings, the 2009 per capita AAEO contribution was $9.12 average for the SBC. Highview’s average giving was about a third of that, $3.07, putting them at the bottom within the SBC. As for the 2009 LMCO contribution, the per capita average for the SBC was about $24, while the Highview average was $15.34.

I would say that his leadership at Highview (as well as the other faculty, staff and students) hasn’t led to exemplary giving that would advance the cause of Christ globally.

Perhaps a more direct metric of the impact he made with the Gospel would be baptisms.

In 2009, the average ratio of baptisms to worship attendance in SBC churches was 1:18. In other words, it took 18 people in the pews to reach a lost person such that the individual followed through with Believer’s baptism. But at Highview, where Mohler is a teaching pastor, the ratio was 1:27, meaning it took 27 persons who faithfully attended worship service to introduce someone to Christ and to lead them to take the step of obedience of baptism.

I don’t like the phrase “facts are our friends” because it masks the reality that numbers out of context are not facts. But I welcome your thoughts about these numbers. I am not trying to be combative, but simply contributing to the conversation as objectively as I can.

-- HMT

[Wayne]

Mary
2 questions:
1)Do these words sounds like someone who wants to dialogue, or more like personal insults?

"you are so in love with yourself and your puffed up knowledge"

"shut up about all the decisional regenaration nonsense"

2) Could you show me (feel free to cut and paste) where Job called you or anyone else in the conversation liars or stupid? "You want to call everybody liars and stupid all the while trying to impress everybody with what you think is your knowledge."

Thank you

[Mary]

Wayne, I am not going to play games with you. Job has a history across the SBC blogs of calling anybody who disgrees with him and tells stories of Calvinist abuse liars and implies that they are idiots for believing what he doesn't. It's the typical Calvinists abuse that Calvinists have never ever done anything wrong, then Job declares he won't dialogue with anyone who keeps saying there's a problem in the SBC. I am not going to the research for you.

[Wayne]

Mary,

It seems to me that you and Job have a lot in common. By the way, I'm not surprised that you ignored my first question and were unable to respond to the second. More of the same. You can always count on Mary to spew and then point at others.

[Mary]

And oh woe is me Wayne another not a fan of Mary Calvinst what ever will I do! And Wayne we can always count on Calvinist here to try to turn issues away from real life actual points being made to lodge personal attacks against the messengers thus proving all the points made about the Calvinists in the SBC. Not a suprise.

[Wayne]

You are the funniest person I've ever known. I would love to understand how you can accuse someone of the very thing you're doing. Also, just so you know, I'm still waiting for you to answer question # 1. Were you insulting Job, or does it not really matter since he's a nasty Calvinist?

[Mary]

I am a very funny person. And yes Wayne, some times the truth is insulting. It's a hard fact of life. I mean just look at the conversation where Al Mohler has declared the Traditionalists statement as heretical and than insulted either the integrity and/or the intelligence of those who signed it. Calvinists like you think those kinds of insults are ok sooo.....

[Wayne]

I don't think it's ok to insult people. You do? I mean, if it's the truth? By the way, I've responded to specific things that you have said that I feel are inappropriate. You, however will quote someone else who is a Calvinist and project those feelings (or at least your interpretation of those feelings) on to me. Why? Because of something I have said? Does that seem fair to you? If I hated all black people because of what some black people say, that would be wrong wouldn't it? Deplorable. Shocking. Sinful. I would hope someone would hold me accountable. Would it then be ok to say that all Calvinists are racist because Wayne hates black people and happens to lean toward Reformed theology?

[Wayne]

Mary
I was looking over some of our recent conversations. I've tried to be clever and cute, but whatever name I put on it... I don't think I've been as kind as I should. I read this blog for a couple of reasons: I like to keep up on what's going on in the SBC and (honestly) I find it fascinating to see the disconnect of the discourse. It's stunning that you call people out for the very behavior you exhibit. I've never seen anything like it. And then you basically respond with something to the effect of "They started it." or "Well what about so-and-so? He's the worst." And then to finish the argument (and it doesn't seem to matter what the argument is about) be sure to remind everyone that Mohler is the devil.

I should probably limit myself to just reading and not responding in the future.