« Mystery blogger at "Escape Plan" | Main | Topics we all talk about but never seem to settle... »

Feb 12, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451a37369e2017c36ce9bca970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Southern Baptists and their silence...:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Lydia

My question is even broader: Why were some of our leaders so accepting of a shepherding cult to begin with? Al Mohler has publicly defended Mahaney's 'strong leadership' when bloggers were speaking out about the abuses. Does he not realize it has been a long time shepherding cult that has revinvented itself several times? It started out as Charismatic Catholic and from there..."Take and Give" to "People of Destiny" to the current SGM. Would Mohler have been involved with the lead Apostle from the People of Destiny had he not decided to make it Reformed?

I fear there has been such a push to build the Reformed brand in the SBC there has been little discernment when it comes to partnerships with not only Mahaney but Driscoll, too.

Christian

Amen and amen!

Dee

Peter
You and I do not see eye to eye on much but I will say this about you. You are no wuss. Liked the post.

Rick Patrick

The charges of wrongdoing are admittedly embarrassing, but the lack of journalistic integrity on the part of Baptist Press through their failure to report a story that clearly impacts Southern Baptists is also embarrassing.

That I have to get the news from the moderate ABP instead of the conservative BP is like having to tune into CNN to get the story that FOX refuses to cover.

As usual, Peter, you are not only well informed, but your perspective on this issue is right on target.

Christiane

Peter, don't ever worry about being 'in trouble', as long as you don't knowingly do the wrong thing.

Christiane

Hi RICK,

I thought most Southern Baptists were in the FOX NEWS bubble and weren't aware of what you know. I am pleased to find out I was wrong.

Lydia

John Piper is speaking at the SGofLouisville church this weekend. Jerry Bridges will be speaking there March 10.

CJ has lots of defenders/protectors in high places.

The SGofLouisville church left Christian Academy English Station where they set up shop (thank God!) and are now meeting at a Marriot in the East End. It is not going well but hard to tell about new members since CJ moved here with a very large entourage from SGM and seminary students are helping to fill some seats. But it looks as if it is about 50 people max.

It is not like we do not have many churches here (including Baptist).Can Mohler explain to us why CJ told the public he was moving here to plant a church near SBTS? What sort of partnership is Mohler planning with SBTS and CJ/SGM? Some of us are not happy about a shepherding cult or their practices becoming SBC mainstreamed. Read the lawsuit if you wonder why I think that way. A long term pattern that is systemic from People of Destiny to SGM.

I do not forsee Mohler admitting he lacked total discernment on this one but I cannot for the life of me figure out where the Trustees and other SBC leadership...are on this.

Even if the partnership with Mahaney was pragmatic as in merging SGM churches to the SBC or forging a church planting partnership like we did with Acts 29, that dream is over.

the SGM "family of churches" are leaving SGM in droves. So, it cannot be about adding Reformed numbers to the SBC anymore.

Max

"So here's my complicated question–Why? Why have we been strangely (irresponsibly?) silent about about what's going on here with something so close to Southern Baptists?"

That's really a fairly simple answer in my estimation. Mr. Mahaney and Dr. Mohler are buds. Dr. Mohler is untouchable in SBC ranks; thus, Mahaney is covered. Why are they buds? They are both champions in the reformed movement ... they need each other.

Tom

Do your part to bring this to evangelical leaders (SBC leaders too) by signing the online petition.

http://www.causes.com/actions/1730803-an-appeal-to-national-leaders-regarding-c-j-mahaney?recruiter_id=186928170&utm_campaign=sharebar_tw

Max

Peter, your last question aimed at seminary trustees is a worthy inquiry. Do you reckon some brave soul in the inner sanctum has already asked that? Perhaps a Micaiah who has delivered a word in this regard or a Nathan who has raised his hand? However, we don't even need a prophet or the son of a prophet to call this one! Surely, surely there's a somebody or two in the trustee ranks concerned about this. I'd find it hard to believe that leadership systems and procedures, checks & balances will fail here ... if they do, we have more trouble in the camp than I thought.

Adam Harwood

This is a sobering article about a sad reality. Thanks, Peter.

Louis

Baptist Press does not have a logical explanation for its failure to report the lawsuit etc. It is, and has been, a big enough story to report.

Mohler and others who are close to Mahaney will eventually have to address this. How they address it is another matter.

I have learned about Mahaney over the last couple of years. Calling oneself an "Apostle" is all it took for me. Then I saw all of the stories on the internet about allegations of abused children, and how the church supposedly addressed them, or failed to address them.

Then came the document dump by a guy who used to work with Mahaney.

Mohler and others have let the common points of theoloigcal agreement and personal affinity cloud their judgment.

I predict that Mahaney will slowly move from the spotlight over time.

I don't know what Mahaney will do in the meantime, but that is not my concern. He can't explain his position or address the allegations. He has to let the situation in court play out.

The SBC entities will be fine. There will be a slow progression away from Mahaney.

As for entities like T4G, Mahaney is such a big part of that, it's hard to know how they fix that.

Mahaney (and Driscoll) are both examples of how a little learning can be a problem. Maybe their personalities would let them anyway, but I believe if they had a broader view of the history of the faith and some strong organizational leaders in their lives their ministries would not have the destructive sides that they apparently have.

Also, it is instructive to note how SGM's polity and connection to the national organization has resulted in the entire thing being engulfed in the lawsuit.

A denonimnation of autonomous churches, with no denonminational control or responsibility (rather than an Apostle at the top and an interconnected arrangement) is a much better way to go.

For anyone needing Exhibit A as to why the SBC should remained organized as it is, and not get into sexual predator databases, ministerial recommendations and/or approvals, all they have to do is read the lawsuit involving SGM.

It would take some real persuadin' for me to ever vote for anything that would put anything that is related to sexual abuse into the hands of the SBC and not the individual churches.

The primary reason is that it wouldn't work, and that it would offer false hope.

But a secondary reason would be the jeopardization of the mission for which we exist as an organization - cooperative missions.

SBC Layman

It’s just a matter of time now until there is a hull-breach within the SBC over Mahaney. When Dever convinced Mohler that SBC churches should be more like SGM, Mohler agreed and bought into Mahaney wholesale. He worked Mahaney into relationships with other SBC leaders. Mohler has made it clear publicly and privately that Mahaney is “the man” to pattern after. Herds of SBTS students idolize Mahaney. College students and youth across the country under the ministries of SBTS grads are encouraged to emulate him. Now fearing something is amiss, SBC Leaders have held back as they wait to see what others, Mohler in particular, will do.

I really didn’t know much about Mahaney until the SGM mess broke out with Brent Detwiler back in 2011. I read through some of the SGM internal e-mails posted on Detwiler’s site. I was taken aback by what I read. I wasn’t so much shocked by the truth or error of Detwiler’s allegations against Mahaney, but rather by the clear SGM “insider speak” all over those leaked e-mails that belies what I believe to be a dangerous church culture. SGMers are so busy identifying sin, mortifying themselves, “correcting”, “receiving correction” and “caring for” each other that it seems to me they must be miserable. I had some experience with these kinds of shepherding groups in college. Their brand of identifying sin (yours, not theirs) and “helping” (your) repentance and confession is nothing I have an interest in. No sir, no thank you. SGM has all the earmarks of that kind of authoritarian group, just from reading their internal e-mails. The e-mails also pointed out how completely unworkable the SGM way of nit-picking each other’s sins for God is. Mahaney can’t stand up to the scrutiny any more than anyone else can – it seemed to me that’s what the Detwiler mess was all about. I am all for appropriate accountability, church discipline and encouraging one another in Christ, but based on SGM internal communications, I want no part of their style of ministries. I'll stick with Jesus as my intercessor.

Why doesn’t Mohler see this? Why is he all-in with Mahaney? What is it about SGM that is so remarkable? What does he see that I don’t? I think Mohler has been in denial due to his personal affinity for Mahaney. How or why he has this affinity, only he knows for sure. I think Mohler has invested so much energy into his idealized view of SGM that he couldn’t see what is blatantly obvious to others in light of currently available information. Mohler almost certainly sees it by now as well, but the question is what will he do? He’s put his eggs in Mahaney’s basket very publicly. He’s commiserated with Dever, Duncan and others, and they’ve all publicly shared how badly Mahaney has been treated by disgruntled trouble-makers. They’ve explained to Mahaney how foolish it was to publicly admit to any faults in the first place. Where do they go from here?

The Godly answer would be to do exactly what Peter has suggested here. I know it is not easy to confront a friend when he’s down, but Mohler’s obvious absence of support in this instance implies that he’s concerned about Mahaney this time. It didn’t take long to come to Mahaney’s defense before, but I only hear crickets chirping now. Mahaney needs to be taken off all SBC platforms until this is all sorted out. There’s no need to pronounce him guilty of anything in regard to the lawsuit – I have no idea what he has or hasn’t done – but I would surely take advantage of this opportunity to step back from a potentially dangerous church system and a very concerning situation. SBC leaders (and SBTS trustees) would do well to ask Mohler and others to step away from promoting SGM and Mahaney.

Max

Louis writes "As for entities like T4G, Mahaney is such a big part of that, it's hard to know how they fix that."

A glance at the T4G website indicates various SBC New Calvinist notables linked to Mahaney, with Dr. Mohler leading the pack. Whew, what a crew! http://t4g.org/

Are they "Together for the Gospel" or together for Calvinism? Of course, to these folks Gospel = Calvinism, I suppose. Problem is if these folks hang together with Mahaney too long, they might just, well, hang together.

Lydia

Louis, Mohler defended Mahaney's 'strong leadership' to a reporter and it was published AFTER the doc dump and while the stories of systemic abuse had been on the internet for years. And Mahaney recently spoke at SEBTS on Feb 1.

I personally think Mohler admired the topdown authoritarian structure of SGM and wanted to help Mahaney keep that control.

The question remains...how many YRR see Mahaney has a role model since Mohler and Akin obviously STILL do not seem to have a problem with him?

Do our seminary presidents really have so little discernment? Same for Driscoll after years of his false and vulgar teaching being public....and Mahaney whose shepherding cult system has been NO secret. Tney started distancing from Driscoll after the lawyer Petry put Joyful Exiles up with massive documentation. That is what it took. Not the vulgar false teaching.

Sorry, but I think it is ok to question their wisdom and discernment. We are NOT a top down organization. Both are employees of entities who expect SBC'ers to pay their salaries.

I agree with you about a database because people (pastors, deacons, leaders) would have to report such things and I do not think most would...they can call the police instead. I am not against it for any anti lawsuit pragmatic reasons.

JND

"a news agency many of us normally view as catering to 'Moderate' or 'Liberal' Baptists."

Let's hear it for us moderates!

peter lumpkins

All,

Thanks for your comments and keeping the thread free of emotional outbursts. This IS a provocative subject I realize. Those who support Mahaney can get heated up quickly. But they must understand that when we're speaking of potentially covering over child abuse, it's unreasonable to expect persons on the other side to remain stoic.

I did find one comment filtered in the spam bucket. Perhaps it was the length or something which landed it there. Not sure. Anyways, written by SBC Layman, it's a good contribution to the thread...

Mark

Peter, I don't know why BP has not written on this topic. A quick search of their site shows that Mahaney or T4G have not been covered much over the years.

Does the BP normally cover scandals like this in regular SBC life and/or when popular leaders are affiliated?

I have some Calvinist friends on Facebook and twitter who have asked about Mahaney's appearance at T4G. They will not attend again as long as he is in the picture or unless his name is cleared in court.

Now, you wrote, "Real defense lawyers will have to prove the real evidence inconclusive and therefore the real defendant, C. J. Mahaney, is not guilty."

To be fair, since Mahaney is innocent until proven guilty in the U.S. legal system you may want to re-phrase. Maybe: Real prosecuting attorneys will have to prove real evidence conclusive and therefore the real defendant, C. J. Mahaney, rendered guilty.

I am just back in town catching up so I have yet to investigate much of this issue. You do have a point about the reporting on Schaap. Heck, you might just throw Osteen and Oprah into the mix as they are often easy targets for their false doctrine, i.e. sin.

Royce

Peter: "Some of the Southern Baptists to whom the letter was sent were quick to judge the fallen pastor of Hammond First Baptist Church, Jack Schaap, hurriedly pronouncing him a "pedophile" before the ink was wet on the breaking story. Even so, we appear to coddle and even shield Mahaney..."

Could it be because Mahaney purportedly gave SBTS over $100,000?

Paul Kellen


All,

I have been in Mahaney's church since 1978. I was the first person he sent to The School Of Ministry (my way paid by the church). The issues are not just hiding sexual abuses from
authorities, caring for sexual offenders rather than protecting wives and children, they include rejecting and shunning people who simply have questions about what's going on. These people get forced out. The result is there now exists a website called Sovereign Grace Survivors. Mahaney cares about one thing : reputation. Sadly, God has gifted him with a personality and sense of humor that he has gradually used to exalt himself at all costs. He has left a long trail of "best friends" behind him under the bus and doesn't care. People are easily deceived by him. He tolerates only "YES MEN." - devastating. The website, Sovereign Grace Survivors has been in existence since 2007. If u want to see the real fruit of Mahaney's Ministry, go to that website. These myriads of people once loved Mahaney and SGM. But the day u disagree with Mahaney, u are finished and he doesn't care what happens to u. He is a "u are either for me or against me" kind of man. If u are for him, he loves u to pieces ; if u are not on his good side, he shuns u, marginalizes u, and eventually u leave. People are afraid to say anything, especially those surrounding him, because they'll lose their jobs. Many have long standing relationships in the church and won't speak up to defend friends because then they win't have friends. Josh Harris, on the other hand, became aware that something was wrong and had the guts to look into it. This led to a break down in their relationship
because Mahaney expected Harris, the senior pastor appointed by Mahaney to do things his way.
Harris was willing to have a mediator as long as the findings were made public - Mahaney don't want those findings public. A church of overt 3000 people, once enamored with Mahaney, voted 93.% to leave SGM - because of Mahaney's immature behavior. Every pastor, except Mahaney's son in laws supported Harris over Mahaney despite being under Mahaney for years. I could tell u my own story, but please, if u want truth, look at Sovereign Grave Survivors. There's a section called "The Stories" - detailed examples of people used and abused because Mahaney had absolute power. Mahaney donated incredible amounts of money to Mohler both from Covenant Life Church and SGM. He was my "Hero Of Heroes" until I saw what he was really like when the truths about him came ti light. He ran away from his local church and escaped to Louisville only to be hit by a lawsuit. You can't run away from God's discipline as Jonah found out. I've watched this man since 1978 and I can't listen to him speak anymore. Josh Harris, on the other hand, has been nothing but kind to Mahaney. I have not seen one ungodly attitude or word from him in this ordeal. He doesn't defend himself - but trusts God. Mahaney blessed us by turning the leadership over to Harris - or I should say God blessed us. Without Harris, this church would have collapsed.

Adam Harwood

Paul,
I just visited Sovereign Grace Survivors. Between that site and these lawsuits, the human devastation appears to be astounding. I had no idea. Still trying to process all the implications. Thanks for speaking out.

Peter,
Thanks for posting this essay.

peter lumpkins

Mark,

Thanks for your contribution and questions, brother. I appreciate them. As to whether BP normally covers scandals like these, I haven't really kept up. I do know that if one types in "sexual abuse" in BP's website search engine, hundreds of articles appear some of which are about scandals like the Sandusky scandal. So, how prevalent BP's covering scandals like these is, I'm not sure. As to its presence, however, I'm sure they've at least breached the subject.

I see your point about rewording my contention that ""Real defense lawyers will have to prove the real evidence inconclusive and therefore the real defendant, C. J. Mahaney, is not guilty." Perhaps. But actually what I've stated I believe to be accurate the way I framed it.

I'm no lawyer nor have a background in law, but what I've stated does not presume guilt. The way I see it, the job of the defense is to contest the conclusiveness of the prosecuting attorney's proposed evidence that a defendant is guilty as charged, hence a verdict of not guilty. It's not about whether a defendant is guilty or innocent but guilty or not guilty. He or she may be found guilty but in reality he or she is completely innocent on the one hand or, on the other, he or she is found not guilty but is completely guilty of actually doing the alleged complaint. No court can judge whether someone is innocent, only that he or she is not guilty. While innocence is presumed, defense lawyers must show the prosecution's evidence to be inconclusive as to guilt; hence, if they are successful, the defendant is declared not guilty (i.e. not guilty so far as the court is concerned but not necessarily as to whether or not the defendant actually committed the prosecution's charge [i.e. he or she is innocent]; the not guilty verdict is based upon the inconclusive nature of the evidence, the inconclusiveness of which the defense has successfully shown leads to his or her client's verdict of 'not guilty'). Thus my statement above.

Now, I concede I'm not the sharpest knife in momma's drawer so far as these technical, legal matters are concerned, and may be entirely off base. We have readers who's far more capable of nuancing this point than I (Howell, Louis, and Mary among others have legal expertise). Perhaps they can state it much more accurately than I did.

Anyways, Mark, I appreciate your point very much and fully see what you're saying.

Know whether my reasoning as to why I worded the point the way I did is actually sound or not, I wholeheartedly agree with you concerning Mr. Mahany: he remains innocent of the proposed legal charges until proven guilty in a court of law and we should by no means prematurely pronounce him guilty. I'd hope this came through loud and clear when I offered my fictitious response from SBC leaders—namely,

"there are some real problems you [Mr. Mahaney] need to work through before you stand before us and minister to our people again."

Concluding, I did not mean to imply a negation of the presumption of innocence. Thus, we should not assume the legal charges against Mahaney are true but only that they are real and therefore must be acknowledged as such. My proposal is, we should stop what appears to be "coddling" (or even some might say, "protecting" him or "ignoring" his legal quagmire) until it works itself out through the legal system of which it is now an official part.

I would hope most of us who care for little children, care for SBs, and most of all, care for our Lord's cause, could agree with this proposal.

Thanks again Mark. Lord bless.

peter lumpkins

Dr Harwood,

I appreciate it brother. There simply has to be a stopping place when we say as lovingly as we know how, "until this issue is settled, we cannot continue our partnerships together."

For some, that immediately brings up a failure of "loyalty" toward a brother in ministry. Perhaps. But it also brings up "loyalty" to one's own mission-call in life, to one's compassion toward victims, to one's responsibility to one's own constituency to whom he or she is accountable, to one's sincere pursuit of truth, to one's Lord. For me, it's highly questionable as to whether the former trumps in any conceivable way one of the latter. In short, I just don't get it.

Here's an interesting sidenote: many of us who've written blogs through the years--admittedly at times, overly provocative blogposts and maybe even self-indulging, self-promoting blogposts--are in many ways shunned, blackballed, ridiculed, and marginalized by many public leaders in the SBC because we write blogs.

However, consider one who has managed to get himself into a legal quagmire of atrocious charges but nonetheless appears to be "coddled" and continues within our circles of incredible influence as if nothing is going on. We become marginalized for stating what we believe to be so based upon the evidences we examine while another who has to go to court to potentially stay out of jail still freely rides his pony all over our ranch.

Thanks again, DrH! Lord bless...

Donna White

Hi Peter,

I attended a PDI/SGM church for three years and now belong to a SBC church. I agree with what you are saying here. People and organizations should stop promoting CJ Mahaney until he is cleared or repents.


I can't help but think though--have you done the same thing regarding Ergun Caner? He has been proved to be a liar yet if I recall you defended him. Have you put out a call for SBC churches and organziations to stop hiring Caner?

It does appear, at least to me, that theological preferences DO influence religious leaders.


peter lumpkins

Hi Donna,

Thanks for contributing. And, while I'm certainly not going to allow this thread to morph into a thread about EC, I'll entertain your query one time and one time only: No. What's going on with Mr. Mahaney is definitively not the same thing as went on with EC. No legal charges were filed (nor even considered so far as I know) against EC. Nor were any atrocious complaints connected concerning alleged criminal activities being covered over. Nor did I personally suggest or argue no discrepancies existed within the endless complaints brought toward EC. In fact, he himself openly admitted some of the discrepancies. For heaven's sake, I once stated how glad I was that all my sermons through the last 30+ years weren't on display to point out the discrepancies I'm quite sure could be found. When I read the 'final proof' of my 2009 book before it went to print, I found I inverted the date of my call into ministry with my salvation experience, hardly a lie but certainly confusing had it gone to print. Why'd I do that? I don't know. But I'd surely had a lot of explaining to do had it been published.

Even so, I argued over and over the same presumption of innocence until proven guilty for EC that I conceded to Mr Mahaney above (see the comment to Mark). Nor did I then nor afterward suggest we should be silent about the issue.

Nor did I then nor afterward promote EC as a speaker. For that matter, I rarely if ever promote any single person as a speaker per se unless the person is a part of a larger conference, etc. Nor was EC "proved to be a liar" as you so confidently maintain. There were scores of evangelicals--then and now--not convinced by the evidences offered. So your assumption is fundamentally mistaken, Donna.

And, perhaps you might reply that all those who defended EC or remained convinced the evidences cited were inconclusive as to whether EC intended deception were EC's friends--like Norm Geisler, for example. Granted. But could I not just as well argue that EC's most vocal, relentless accusers were EC's enemies--like J White, for example? This type of thing is precisely what sets the Mahaney fiasco in an entirely different category, what I mentioned in the OP as "not a case of blogging accusations." It's not about Mahaney's friends or enemies. Rather it's about settling this issue in a court of law. No such court was a part of the EC situation.

So, perhaps you may still think of my actions on this issue as hypocritical. So be it. Being the fallen creature I am, I am certainly not above or beyond hypocritical actions. Nonetheless, I see a profound difference between the two scenarios whether you and everyone else hold an entirely different view of the situation. And, I am happy to allow you your own established views on the matter.

Thanks again, Donna...

peter lumpkins

All,

Please. I really mean this: I am uninterested in answering anything else on whether this situation with C.J. Mahaney is akin to the situation with EC. I've given a thorough answer to Donna above. I have nothing to add to anything I've sincerely offered.

Hence, I warn in advance those who still like to exploit Dr. Caner's situation from a few years back (yes, this is still an active topic on some of EC's most vocal, relentless critics' blogs and I am aware how aggressive many of his critics are)--I do not intend for this thread to be hijacked by your comments.

So, if you agree with Donna, be my guest. Think of my actions as you wish. Or, even if you find my reasoning acceptable. Great. Just keep it to yourself or log it on another blog or even write one on your nickel at your pad. So far as I am concerned, the EC issue is dead at SBC Tomorrow.

Hope this helps. I appreciate the readership here. Lord bless to all...

Donna

Hi Peter,

I appreciate your answer. I know that Ergun Caner is a subject that we will have to agree to disagree on. I will always believe that he intentionally mislead people...the video evidence is overwhelming.

To me the two situations are similar (not legally of course) but because you have nationally known speakers who are on different ends of the spectrum theologically. The arminian camp seems to line up behind Caner and the Reformed camp behind Mahaney. You do have to wonder if people tend to throw their common sense out the window when they so badly want something not to be true about one of their Christian "rock stars". It's almost like Mohler, Dever and others have not read anything online about Mahaney but have based their opinions on their personal interaction with him only.

Having been in a SGM church for three years I can attest that much of what is on the blogs is true. I had many of the same concerns when I attended and for those reasons I never joined. It's not all true, and yes there may be a few bitter people that are exaggerating their stories, but even if 10% of what is on those blogs is true it is cause for concern.

Thank you for this blog post about Mahaney and pointing out that this shouldn't be about loyalty to Mahaney, but about loyalty to the cause of Christ.

Mary

I think one thing the SBC has to come to terms with is that we have leaders in the SBC who would rather go outside the SBC to cooperate with those who are reformed and those very same leaders will attack those within the SBC who are nonreformed. Together for the Gospel is really only Together for Calvinism. The Gospel Coalition is really the Calvinism Coalition. Why are leaders so willing to condemn and attack those within the SBC, as Peter so rightly points out, and then remain silent on the failings of men like Driscoll and Mahaney?

The other thing I think we need to come to terms with is that Al Mohler has been building up a culture that is very similar to that of SGM. Al Mohler is accountable to no one. He has made numerous statements which he should have been forced to publically repent from but which he has refused. He comes across now as one who believes himself to be untouchable. I don't believe the Trustees at Southern have any authority over Al Mohler.

With the things we see coming out of SGM churches and Mars Hill should the SBC really be spending millions of dollars to plant SGM/Mars Hill type churches? We need someone to get control of NAMB because the problems that are cropping up with the closed cult like structures in these churches are now being duplicated with SBC dollars. These are not healthy church structures and the SBC should have nothing to do with them.

The SBC needs to wake up and start questioning whether those in leadership are really worthy of leadership or whether they will lead the SBC to much damage in the future with the church structures. It's not so much about Calvinism, except that it's the Calvinists are who are creating these churches that are so damaging and destructive to the kingdom.

peter lumpkins

Donna,

Just a quick word and this subject is closed. First, the difference is not just "legal". I mentioned many differences. Second, nor is it necessarily about theological buddies. It could just as well be stated that those who agreed with J White theologically were apt to agree with your view on EC. Third, I happened to be one of the few SBs who took Mike Licona's view on concerning Math 27:53. Licona is not a Calvinist but believes very close to what I do concerning salvific issues. It's not always about theology contrary to what you imply.

Finally, you insist you'll always believe EC "intentionally mislead people" a proposition neither you nor any other human being can actually prove. You don't know what EC "intended" to do. He could have had good motives or bad ones or even unknown ones--those in the category of what David called his "secret faults." Nor do I know. God does. And, EC does (or perhaps he may if not the "unknown" category I mentioned above). But you actually know jack squat about what EC "intended," the same jack squat I know concerning what C.J. Mahaney intended in the actions of which he's been accused. This is the crux of the entire matter--assuming one knows the intents of the heart of another person. For me, this comes very close to doing exactly what Jesus said not do (Mt 7:1).

Now this really is all I have to say about this. Thanks again for dropping by.

Royce

Peter,

Thank you for posting this and for being willing to "break the silence."

In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. -- Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

David (NAS) Rogers

I just sent an e-mail to Baptist Press asking about the absence of coverage. I'll let you know if I get a response.

Lydia

SGM used the 1st Amendment defense in their public statement and that is making the rounds in the media. ABC, Huffpo, Breitbart, etc. Also some folks do not realize how deep SGM roots are into SBTS especially with Bob Kauflin.

Vince Coakly, former SGM member, is a radio personality in Charlotte and doing radio programs on SGM. Here he interviews Susan Burke and at the end asks the audience about the SBC.

At the 30 min mark:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/vincecoakley/2013/02/19/revolution-radio-with-vince-coakley

Mary

Well good news for Southern Baptists. Al Mohler is not going to remain silent! It seems like there is within the SBC ranks someone of "neo pentecostalism" and he's about to expose him if the trustess don't do the "right thing" It's not Driscoll because when Driscoll has porno-visions that's totally ok cuz he's a Calvinist don't ya know. But if you are a nonCalvinist who has "visions" totally whacked. Don't worry about what's going on with Al Mohler and SGM anymore because he gots a shiney object he intends to use as distraction. So trust the trustees when they go along with what Calvinists demand but ignore the trustees if they don't do the "right thing" according to our betters the Calvinists! And don't worry cuz people like totally know people who know people who know the story and we can all just take their words on what's going down because they're Calvinists.

Lydia

Mary, I do think the situation at LC will be used as a distraction from very serious entanglements between SBTS and SGM and the bloggers might not even realize it.

I know nothing about LC or its president. I am, however, quite familiar with the bullying proclivities of the YRR and have read one of the LC bloggers over the past few years at SBCV and SBCT blogs. These are young men who think it is loving to call you a heretic and then chide you for not working toward unity. Let's just say there is a level of immaturity there that is astounding. So, obviously I am not convinced this is about Calvinism in the main. Most likely about power as it usually is.

Again we see the lack of understanding when it is mentioned that Russ Moore was cancelled even though he is not a Calvinist. Again we see the convenience of the Calvin label used depending on the points. But we do know that Russ Moore is completely devoted to Al Mohler and his agenda. I would not exactly call him an independent thinker in the big picture.

I have long been wondering when the bully tactics are returned how it would play out. I think we are seeing it now. One cannot go long term as "Christian" bullies and expect others to constantly respond in their definition of love and grace. It has been so one sided. And the history of "Quiet Revolution" and the covert agressiveness displayed in churches coupled with the disdain for pew sitters who pay for it all, is catching up? How does one respond to "Christian" bullies with power? It is quite the conumdrum.

But I do agree with you, Mohler needs a distraction badly because of the very intense situation with SGM. (Telling a reporter that bloggers simply did not like the "strong leadership" of Mahaney)

Now we have the SBC in the public eye as not only supporting Mahaney whose SGM is being sued for long term patterns of not only covering up child molestation but HELPING the molesters legally, BUT SBTS being opened wide to SGM in partnering.

I was reading yesterday about Bob Kauflin's son, Devon, and his SBTS band, Norton Hall which has been really promoted in these parts. And the commenter asked a good question: Does the SBC itself not have any talent? We have to recruit from outside the SBC?

I think the more we dig the more we are going to be shocked...Mahaney son in law getting a job there or tuition discounts? He is not SBC. SBTS has almost completely revamped it's music to match Bob Kauflin at SGM. In fact Kauflin has written about this on his own blog and being closer to SBTS to provide "interns". It is all so intertwined, I doubt many will even see it.

Lydia

Mary, One other thing that confuses me....It was not the porno divinations of Driscoll (or the sodomy he teaches) that had them distancing themselves from Driscoll. It was Paul Petry's legal documentation at Joyful Exiles.

Mahaney is a "Charismatic" Calvinist. Not long ago they had "prophecy mics" at SGM churches. And Mahaney called himself an "Apostle". So not buying the Charismatic vision thing in this situation as being the problem the YRR have with him.

If you have not seen this, you might want to take a look. It proves there are delusions of graduer in that movement of scary epic proportions that are basically around worshiping and promoting a dead guy:

http://vimeo.com/50415486

Mary

Lydia, I know very little about the LC situation. The first I heard was the young punk who has a history of insulting everybody and anybody who's not a Calvinist was in hysterics because LC was alledgely purging the Calvinists. From what can be determined online this all began because of the purging of Calvinists. NO you have other allegations cropping up.

So what it seems like is happening is the Calvinists are now trying to rally folks to their side with "it's not about Calvinism really" when at the very beginning it was about Calvinism. I think Calvinists realized that nobody really cared if a State school was going to purge Calvinists as it is their right to handle their school anyway they wish. The people of the state get to decide what to do with their schools - not the convention. When it's at the level of, oh say Southern Seminary, then we have a right to voice our opinions.

So it looks like now since the "they're being mean to Calvinists" wasn't flying the Calvinists have come up with other reasons - this isn't really about Calvinism.

What's amusing is that one of the reasons is the that the president has "visions" - are they porno visions lik Mark Driscoll we want to know, because we're told those are perfectly fine and everybody just needs to shut up.

Also a sight to behold is the people who if I say, "I had this experience with Calvinism" DEMAND that I give them names, dates, addresses, social security numbers and mother's maiden names otherwise I'm nothing but a liar, hater, antiCalvinist are now just blithely going about posting accusations and innuendo against the president of a state college claiming "I've talked with people so just trust me, I know what I'm saying." So the hypocrisy of SBC PRAVDA is just astounding.

Now as for the inference Al Mohler is going to get involved if the trustees fail to do the right thing. This is where the trustees at Southern need to get involved. Al Mohler has no business getting involved in what the people of LA decide to do with their college. He needs to keep his mouth shut. But it would be a wonderful distraction if the Calvinists can divert attention away from the debacle that is SGM and the fact that the trustees at Southern are not doing their jobs. It's also a wonderful distraction from the Calvinism task force - Calvinsts want to proclaim - look at us we're the victims see! When really what is happening is that Calvinists are reaping what they've sown and they don't like it so much.

It just amazing how SBC Pravda has the reputation for telling everyone to trust the trustees, respect the leaders when anyone says boo about national Calvinists -we're all supposed to be quiet, but now the doings at a local school are open season for all kinds of accusations and demands to do the right thing? The only people who have a right to demand anything in regards LA are the good people of LA.

But now that the rules have changed let's have those conversations about the national convention - oh wait, my bad, Calvinists have different sets of rules for every situation. the situation in LA proves it - no outrage or posts over at PRAVDA regarding the SGM debacle, nothing, nada, but oh PRAVDA is going to now be used as a means to defend poor widdle innocent arrogant, condescending punks who may have broken some rules but since they're Calvinists that's ok - you'd better believe nobody would bat an eye if it weren't a Calvinist getting "picked on." Calvinist never do anything wrong eveh in the history of forever - not even John Calvin himself did anything bad like burn people at the stake.

peter lumpkins

Mary

Sorry. I found your comment in the spam bucket. It's posted now...

The comments to this entry are closed.