EXCLUSIVE! Peter Lumpkins caught on tape...

Yep. It's apparently true. I'm caught on tape being my usual mean, unChristian, and nasty self. Here's what's apparently went down... >>>

My wife and I stopped in Douglasville (about a half-hour west of Atlanta) on our way home from a delightful time at the grandies. We sat down in a fast-food dive at lunch to gulp our sandwich down before trekking on back to Carrollton. As Hun was standing in line to get a refill, I was on my way out the door when a nice young man approached me and said, "Your name is Peter, isn't it?" I responded that it was, and he said he'd like a word with me. So we went out on the sidewalk just outside the door.

When "Josh" began to question me about my alleged hateful tactics on my blog, I thought to myself, "Oh boy. Now how am I going to get away from this nut job?" I queried him, "Have we met before?" As soon as he said, "the plane" I recalled who he was.

Upon leaving the 2011 SBC in Phoenix, "Josh" and his family sat down beside me on the flight back. "Josh" serves a church as pastor about an hour or so from me. As I recall, the first thing "Josh" wanted to do was talk about convention politics, a subject I had no interest in pursuing since I had talked non-stop for three full days about convention politics. And, I knew where he stood since he had been vocal about supporting Al Mohler, etc. Nor did I want to have what could be an expressive exchange with his little kids sitting right there among us. So, I politely dismissed myself from the subject. To my recollect, we only spoke a few words total about other things.

Later, "Josh" came on my site and offered a fairly polite comment up until the last statement, cautioning me about making unfounded accusations against Al Mohler, a comment toward which I also was cordial but had nonetheless expressed strong disagreement with his sympathy toward Al Mohler's position all the while judging my motives to the core. I've not talked to nor seen "Josh" again (that I recall) until today.

While our conversation began both courteous and respectful, it quickly deteriorated into a provocative exchange due primarily, from my vantage point at least, to "Josh's" continued accusations about me being hateful and divisive on my site. I pressed him for specifics. At first, none were offered. Just the standard, generic stuff that reduces to something like "well, you do it all the time." "Josh" also implicated me as being incorrigible and beyond correction to which I replied in the strongest terms possible, that I had no intentions of being held accountable either to him or by him. Jesus made much of the local church of believers being the spiritual accountibility structure for believers (Matt 18) as did Paul, not self-appointed spiritual directors. And I'm certainly not going to be held spiritually accountable by strangers to me (I meant to tell him to stick that in his pipe and smoke it but I forgot).

Well "Josh" finally gave his example of my supposed hatefulness I have on my site---Jason Allen. According to "Josh", I've been hateful and unfair to Jason Allen. Upon his mentioning Jason Allen, I lost it...literally lost it. The truth is, I have been as careful as possible not to make the Allen appointment personal. Allen's family picture reminds me so much of my own daughter's family. My heart hurts for this young man.

Even so, I lost it. And, in losing it, I called "Josh" an ugly, unfitting, unchristian name I admit. He was highly offended and that's when it kinda dawned upon me I'd been had by his possible recording the entire conversation. He made a couple of remarks like, "maybe we need to put this up on the internet" or some such to which I replied something like "I don't care what you do with it. Put it up if you wish" (of course at that time I did not actually know for sure he had recorded it). As "Josh" walked away, I asked something like, "well, did you record our exchange?" He indicated with a smile, "Yes...sure did." ¹

So, I've been caught on tape being the mean, nasty, and unfair rabble rouser the entire YRR in the Southern Baptist Convention knows me to be. They now apparently have audio (and perhaps even visual) evidence to go along with their supposed rhetorical evidence they repeatedly bloat about but seem to always be about two quarts low when they attempt to produce it.

Consequently, I'll probably have to shut this blog down when the recording goes viral. It's pretty bad I'm sorry to say, and I owe my loyal readers a genuine apology.

Forgive me...

Please forgive me...

I called "Josh"...

a little twit

and

I'm caught on tape saying it.

^1"Josh" repeatedly indicated how he only wanted to have a genuine conversation with me, "one brother to another" to talk things out. All the while he was assuring me of his sincere "brotherly" camaraderie, however, he apparently had the tape rolling. So much for genuine "brother to brother" talk. It was all a planned set up, a devious phishing mission to get something on me he could use against me. Even so, I'm confident his little trick will backfire in a number of ways: a) I will be much more cautious when a YRR says to me, "let's get together and talk some things out "brother to brother"; b) the incident with "Josh" shows some of us have been effective in matching their supposed theo-intellectual movement. If they are reduced to focusing on entrapping someone into saying something harmful rather than showing the inadequacy of their ideas, chances are, we're getting somewhere; c) "Josh" left a couple sitting alone in the restaurant while he played this little game with me. Sitting right beside them in the diner, I overheard much of their conversation (no, I wasn't trying to hear but it was much too close to avoid I assure)--a conversation about the "spiritual atmosphere" and dedication to "Scripture alone" he wanted to promote in his church. From the conversation they sounded like church prospects but I cannot be sure. Anyways, to leave a couple alone while playing private detective with me seems to be an odd way to fulfill one's role as a pastor. It perhaps does reveal the obsessive nature some of these guys have in doing anything--no matter how morally questionable like secretly recording a conversation all the while making it sound like you genuinely want to talk to this person as a "brother"--in order to win their point or position or make another look bad. I'm confident "Josh" did his kind nor cause much good with his little trick with me; d) it really shows just how thinned skinned so many of the YRR are. One would have thought I called him the most vicious, ungodly thing imaginable when I referred to him as one who taunts. Furthermore, if he does play the tape publicly, I'll be interested to know if he plays the entire exchange we had, including the first part where cordial words were exchanged between us, or just the parts that reflect poorly on me after he repeatedly taunted me about the so-called "hate-filled" content my blog...the litte twit

Comments

[Lydia]

That is one reason I like it here. You get it. Have seen it firsthand what is REALLY going on out there for anyone who dares to question the great leaders. Josh is an amatuer. Imagine what folks can do who have the position, title, time, money and minions to carry things out.I have seen some pretty bad stuff over the last 10 years. Things that chilled me to the bone. The absolute biggest problem we have is that young minds full of mush are being taught the ends justify the means.

People think I am using hyperbole when I say these young men are willing to do just about anything to protect their hero's and further their "Reformation cause". Even using deception as in "brotherly love" to suck you in and engage you then provoke you and tape it.He formulated a plan when he saw you and carried it out. Premediated sin. And they take this mentality and these tactics into our churches. And they wonder why churches are automatically suspect when a candidate from our Calvinist seminary applies for a job. They have done this to themselves and don't even realize it.

[Griffin]

You are a hero among heroes in your own mind.
Now, if you don't mind, the rest of us will go on with our lives and leave you here to talk about how you don't like how we're doing it.

[Lydia]

BTW:Putting guys like Josh in churches as pastors is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. They cannot handle the power and trust they are given by the very people who pay their salary. Where else could one go and have people pay them to control them? It is uncanny.

[Dale Pugh]

Sounds like some of the tactics used back in the 80's prior to the Conservative Resurgence when people were recording seminary professors giving liberal lectures and passing the tapes along to........oh, wait. THAT was totally different and necessary!

[peter lumpkins]

Well, no it doesn't sound like that at all Dale. If you cannot (or will not) recognize the very clear distinction between public teaching and private conversation, then I'm afraid we can get no further in understanding here.

Now, if you suggested a student went to a professor's office with the clear intention of baiting him into saying something which would reflect poorly upon the professor, all the while, with a recorder running, pretending a desire to genuinely have a "brother to brother" conversation to talk things out, then, yes, there could be a striking resemblance between what your supposed CR example could indicate and what the little twit---oops, I mean "Josh"--did to me.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Lydia,

I sat there listening to him go on and on about building an atmosphere where Scripture alone was the guiding light thinking to myself, this is a great example of how young ministers should behave and lead their churches only to have him less than 10 minutes later slamming me as hateful and unkind while secretly taping my reactions to his sneaky, provocation to get me on tape. Boy was I wrong about his smooth, slick words to the unsuspectful couple...

And, for the record, he's already emailed me apologizing even desiring us to go out to lunch. Are all these guys this amazingly opaque? Go out to lunch? Sweet heavens. The new generation Christian subculture has gone morally mad...

With that, I am...
Peter

[Max]

Peter, it's obvious that you encountered a Mohlerite intent on doing his part for the YRR cause. The militant edge on some of these folks is reason enough to continue to raise flags about the New Calvinism revolution in SBC ranks. Twisted tweets and twits by twerps in their twenties make me twirl and twitch! I've been a Southern Baptist for 50+ years and I've never seen anything like this!

[Christian]

In my opinion Josh did more damage to the "Reformation cause" than to you, Peter. Quite honestly, the YRR are afraid of you. You are too smart for them. Not only are you very knowledgeable, you are most of all "informed". And thanks for keeping us informed! I am sure Josh isn't man enough to make the entire tape available to the public. I predict New Calvinism will die out in a few years, perhaps when these YRR grow up. I don't think you will have to shut down your blog when this goes public, Josh might have to find a new church to pastor! And you were correct, he was One Who Taunts!

[Lydia]

Dale, We taped lectures all the time in college. But I am not sure why that is such a big deal or even why such lectures were some sort of a secret during the CR?

How does it have anything to do with what happened here. Have we become so enamoured with a movement we do not even recognize right and wrong behavior? Basic principles of decorum? There is this whole cheesy "love you brother" then stab in the back behavior. Not exactly a recipe for trust. Just the opposite. And it is part of the Reformed culture.

[Lydia]

Peter, Here is how it works. He now apologizes since you went public, invites you to lunch so all is ok in his mind. If you refuse now to pretend all is ok and because you talked about this in public YOU will be labeled the mean hateful person who refuses to forgive. At least that is the MO used in many of these groups. SGMsurvivors is full of these sorts of situations. It really is a "subculture" of situtional ethics, all in the Name of Jesus, of course. And if you try to point any of this out you will be told, "well, we are all sinners". And that should settle it. And folks wonder why I suggest we hide the silver.

I am well aquainted with athiests in my business dealings who would not stoop to such things. In fact, I have found them to be basically more principled and transparent in business interactions than what I have found in much of Christendom!

Ya think he believe God decreed that he lure you by calling for brotherly love and then tape you? :o)

[CASEY]

LYDIA, it was "secret" and a "big deal" because they were teachings things against the SBC grassroots were paying for via the CP. They were teaching against the BFM(1963) and aligning themselves with the Democrat left-wing. It was atrocious. In addition, when they were "caught", they took 15 pages to explain why we had "misinterpreted" their paragraph, sentence or one page of communication(s). We thought, well, if they communicate that poorly, why do we have them teaching?
In addition, when more and more pastors and laypeople found out what was being taught(the real CR issue was what is being taught in the classroom) then the small snowball rolling down hill became an avalanche.
At MBTS, we passed a motion that "we would not deprive students the most efficient means of taking notes in class(electronic)"...and set out a procedure that these tapes were student property for study(afterall, they're paying the tuition) and a procedure on how the tape was to be used with the administration and prof if the student had a problem with what was being taught.
Amazingly, the 'liberal teaching' for the most part went underground.
Surprising, isn't it, what a little 'accountability' will do!
WE NEED MORE IN THE SBC TODAY!!!!!!!!!!

[Dale Pugh]

Sorry, Peter. It was a joke. No "further understanding" is necessary. Guess I should have used an emoticon.....

[Dale Pugh]

Lydia--
As I just commented to Peter, it was a joke. I always found it a little humorous in seminary when a professor wouldn't allow tape recordings in class because of the possibility that it would go public. My thought was always, "So if you're teaching it in a class in a SBC seminary, is that not public?" It was part and parcel of the battle going on back then. It wasn't a big deal, in my book, but some professors took great exception to how the tapes "might" be used against them.
Again, I guess I should have used an emoticon. Dave hates them over at Voices, so I guess he's conditioned me to not use them........Have I been brainwashed by Dave Miller????

[Lydia]

Hey Dale, I was trying to figure out why taping a prof lecturing a class was a big secret.I think I get it now. See, We did it all the time at university back in the 80's to save time. I find it strange for all sorts of reasons the seminaries would have a policy against it.

But unless you had an Uncle in the CIA, our taping equipment was not exactly designed for secret taping. We did not have phones to tape from just the small voice activated unis with micro tapes that worked best sitting on a table. We thought they were state of the art back then. :o)

If the seminary prof said no taping his lectures, that in and of itself, is cause for concern! Too bad there was no OPEN taping at the GCR meetings! I agree with Casey and will add that sunlight is always the best disinfectant for those who want to operate in a closed system and have us pay for it.

But what "Josh" did was pure deception, underhanded and not worthy of one who wants to call himself a pastor. I kept thinking of "cups" that are clean on the outside, dirty on the inside. Blogging is giving us a clearer picture of what is on the inside.

[BDW]

Sounds like you held your tongue pretty good, Peter. If someone had decided to confront me while I'm out and about minding my own business, eat some fast-food, I doubt I would have been capable of holding back.

Lydia, I have a policy against recording my classes. I do allow international students to record. But I have the policy because I don't want to end up on YouTube thanks to a disgruntled student. More importantly, an effective teacher incorporates discussion into his/her lecture. Lectures should be interactive. Classrooms ought to be a safe spaces for learning to occur, where students can freely ask questions and share their thoughts without having to wonder whether their exchange with the professor is going to be broadcast to the world. So, my policy is about the privacy of the students just as much as it is about my own personal concerns.

[Lydia]

BDW, I was not aware you are a prof. I linked your name and see you teach at Baylor?. I can understand your concerns because such things as youtube exist now in real time. But I am not sure classrooms can ever be 'safe' places for exchanges and privacy of students since so many people are in them. Seems things could easily be repeated. Perhaps no one would believe it without a recording? In fact, if you want them to spread something it is usually best to tell them to keep it in the classroom. (wink)

I can remember sharing lectures with friends and family of my poly sci profs talking about such things as the "great liberators" of history, Mao and Daniel Ortega.:o) But perhaps you are right that they would not want such teaching on youtube. The donors might not like it. :o)

[Jeremy Crowder]

People that try to destroy you as much as it hurts really are doing you a favor. This is what I have learned from my own spirtual battles. God often gives you rewards and opportunities during and after these storms. I would not worry about Josh or the YRR. You have a platform and a base of support the more the YRR make you a target the more people uneasy about the YRR will check out this blog. As people check out this blog they will wonder what the big deal was and hopefully question the rest of the assertions of the YRR. My prayers are with you.

[peter lumpkins]

Dale,

Sorry brother. My bad. One should be able to detect playful jabbing but sometimes it is difficult to see. I should have caught yours... Again, so sorry... Lord bless...

With that, I am...
Peter

[JD Hall]

Peter,

Your self-deluded attempt to be an expose' blogger and self-appointed investigative journalist for the SBC has seemed to have reaped a reward fitting for such an enterprise. You always seem to be launching one crusade or another against Calvinism or some other imaginary enemy. This occurrence should give you pause to stop and reflect on your own sanctification, which might be better focus of your attention in the here and now.

[Tim Rogers]

JD (Or whoever you are)

Maybe you need to read your own words. Your arrogance and your absolute holier-than-thou self righteous attitude that oozes from your pen is absolute rubbish.

We have a man who openly confesses that he used inappropriate language and asks forgiveness and apologizes publicly for it. How do your respond? "You get what you deserve". Well, where is your forgiveness? You say nothing, absolutely nothing, about a leading evangelical writer having illicit, perverted sex with another man in the back seat of a car in Chicago. Now, a man confesses and asks forgiveness, something the leading evangelical author never did, and you tell the person that used an explicative that he gets what he deserves. Wow your sense of grace is certainly over the top because you remain silent concerning the perverted illicit sex, but you speak out concerning an explicative.

JD you sure have a great misunderstanding of God's grace.

[JD Hall]

This blog post was anything but contrite or repentant. This was an attempt to rush to the internet before "Josh" could post Lumpkins' characteristically unchristlike behavior in audio. Lumpkins' apology was about the possibility of shutting the blog down, not for being a "mean, nasty, and unfair rabble rouser the entire YRR in the Southern Baptist Convention knows [him] to be" (to use his words).

Please read this post again for the sake of clarity. The man whom you mention having sex in a car in Chicago confessed - only when caught. Lumpkins' has admitted this behavior - only when caught on tape. Or should I think this admittance would be given had Peter not been under the assumption it was recorded?

Peter should be used to this; it's the type of tabloid "journalism" that he's specialized in.

[Lydia]

"Please read this post again for the sake of clarity. The man whom you mention having sex in a car in Chicago confessed - only when caught. Lumpkins' has admitted this behavior - only when caught on tape. Or should I think this admittance would be given had Peter not been under the assumption it was recorded? "

LOL! Peter was caught on tape calling Josh a twit after Josh lured him with words of "brotherly love" only to try and provoke him so he could have it on tape. Josh IS a twit!And a deceiver. Gee, where IS church discipline when you need it? Oh, never mind, it does not apply to Reformed pastors who follow Mohler. The sheep are not allowed to discipline deceptive pastors. And with elder rulers of yes men, it becomes quite safe to be a deceptive twit pastor. I hope Josh has elders of his own. :o) Guess he is off scott free!

I think you need to read the post for "clarity". You have totally missed it. But then Calvinists are not known for understanding irony.

Yes, Peter admitted his "sinful" behavior of calling a deceptive twit pastor a "twit". But now, according to your comment implications, publishing his experience with the twit pastor and his twit confession on his blog, is sin! I just love how you guys hold the keys to defining sin for others. Must make you feel very powerful. And add to that power to discipline others, WOW. Heady stuff.

Guess I have to say it again...Very thankful I do not live in Geneva in the 16th century.

[Mary]

Lydia and Tim, if you're not famaliar with "Pastor JD Hall" click on his name and take a gander at the hate he spews against all who disagree with Calvinism. He got so nasty at SBC Today they banned him. He's the last person who should be preaching to anybody about "sanctification" You're banging your head against a wall trying to talk sense to such as he - even the Calvinists at Pravda are embarassed by him. He's all about attacking anyone who dares disagree with Calvinism.

[peter lumpkins]

I’ll probably continue to allow strict Calvinists like JD to stick around some. Similar to the twit, JD puts a face on what we’re in for if we allow young Calvinists like them to takeover the SBC. Church members at large do not yet have a clue…

With that, I am…

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Mary,

I think I may be the most talked-about subject on his site--that is, apart from Beth Moore. Frankly, I'm unsure how anyone could take his criticisms seriously since he hardly ever criticizes a person's ideas. Instead it's mostly the "you-sir-are-a-liar" approach of his mentor good old JW.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mary]

Peter, from the crusader who attacks all those who disagree with Calvinism I laughed out loud at this comment:

"You always seem to be launching one crusade or another against Calvinism or some other imaginary enemy. This occurrence should give you pause to stop and reflect on your own sanctification, which might be better focus of your attention in the here and now."

The first I "heard" of JD, Jordan, CalvinS or whatever name he's attempting to post under was a vitriolic rant against the Trad statement. It somehow showed up in the Voices Aggregator and Rick Patrick linked to it. The Calvinists there all sort of put their heads in the sand and proclaimed the "he doesn't represent Calvinists!" Of course anyone who's spent any time on the blogs know he's a perfect example of the Calvinists in the SBC and thus a big reason why we resist so strongly the Calvinization of the SBC. Paster JD doesn't even have the excuse of youth. I'm afraid he's just a mean Calvinist.

[Lydia]

What I don't get is that they have already won. Why so thin skinned? They have their people everywhere in the entities even running them and planting Reformed churches and as trustees carrying out agenda. They have many non Cals in leadership advancing their agenda for them! So why would little old Peter Lumpkins be such a threat?

I know why. Because he makes a case. If there is one thing I saw over at Today during the early days is that if they debate without rules protecting them, they lose. So they have no recourse but to go ad hominem and use the whole shame/honor dynamic of you are sinning by disrespecting God if you disagree or sinning by HOW you disagree. (Nevermind they come with cannons instead of pistols) I mean accuse someone of not honoring God in a debate because their definition of God's Sovereignty is different?

This is theology by coercion. It fits great with a state church polity. In other words, it needs power and force behind it to work. This is one reason they love membership covenants. They get folks sucked in (like Josh did to you) and then they manipulate them.

I am still perplexed as to how one of our employees was allowed to call his peers heretics, claim Calvinism is the only place to go if one wants to see the nations rejoice for Christ and also announce with certainty that "people" who supported the Trad doc were going to be marginalized. This employee is now on the "unity" committee. That pretty much says it all. An entity employee is running the show.

[Lydia]

Mary, Is "CalvinS" JDHall?

If so, CalvinS told me over at Today that democracy started with Calvin in Geneva. And is where true blue Americans came from. :o) We are not talking intellectual giant here.

[pam knight]

I'm praying you keep your blog.
In Christ
pam knight

[peter lumpkins]

Pam,

Thank you. Yes, I plan to keep it. Honestly, I was being more facetious than anything in my remark about shutting down my site. As for my "losing it" I did become angry when the sneaky pastor kept gouging me in the eye with his "you're hateful and divisive" with the only example he could muster being "Jason Allen." My "losing it" was me calling him a twit. When I did so, you'd have thought I'd unloaded a truck bed full of expletives toward him from the way he reacted. "Twit"? "Twit" is a perfectly good word with a dictionary definition of describing "one who taunts" which is exactly what he was doing to me by repeatedly telling me I was mean and hateful. Lord bless...

With that, I am...
Peter

[Craig]

Pardon me while I speak my native Philadelphian:
"Jesus Mary and Joseph!!" This is what consumes the minds of these people while Hell bursts at it's seams?? SERIOUSLY??!! This is advancing the cause of Christ or changing the world?? THIS is salt and light?? Pardon me again when I implore the entire SBC and it's various segments...Grow the H$#@ up!! (Peter may likely have to alter that comment but it's what I sincerely feel right now) Can we get back to our commanded efforts at slowing the growth rate of eternal damnation?? Or don't any of your folks believe in this anymore??

[Mary]

Lydia, JD was braggin on his blog about commenting at SBC Today and since he can't use the name Jordan or JD I was looking for one of the condescending Calvinists.

I think this exchange between Peter and Josh demonstrates nicely what's going on the SBC. Anyone can read through these last several posts about Jason Allen. No one has been "hateful" about Jason Allen. The "hate" is because of dissent. These guys are so brainwashed that they can't read anything which goes against what the elites are dictating and not see it as "hate"

In other news it's been amusing to watch some of these holier-than-thou Calvinists who've gone around bragging that Calvinists are the superior evangelists and only Calvinists know how to evangelize, even lecturing everyone about how evil the sinner's prayer is because - well because Calvinists are just all around better at all things.

Now these Calvinists have to post rants "rebuking" people for pointing out that they haven't actually "evanglized" anybody. See it's not that the Calvinists are "doing it wrong" - they want to insist they are still the super duper evangelists even when the facts show otherwise.

[Steve]

Peter...seems you used the word appropriately... :o)

From Dictionary.com

twit

noun Informal .
an insignificant, silly, or bothersome person: Pay no attention to that obnoxious little twit!