« A Special SBC Tomorrow Critique: James White and Fred Phelps | Main | An Open Invitation to James White: My Response by Peter Lumpkins »

Apr 12, 2013


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


Hi Peter,

I posted a prayer from the Anglicans over on SBCVoices to do with making peace . . .

it got deleted

I guess the thought there might have been to let things keep going until everything burned out . . . problem is, although folks might like a good brouhaha-kerfuffle, it is not a good idea for a Christian community like the SBC to dwell for too long outside of the bond of Christ's peace.

it actually was a GOOD prayer, it might have helped . . .
I was sorry that it got deleted, but I guess it wasn't right for that blog


Christiane, that's hilarous. Those ranting and raving that we should be open to learning from those outside the SBC censored an Anglican prayer! LOL!

Peter, it's now up to four posts. No one is an isolationist under their current definitions. This kerfluffle is not about isolationism because nobody anywhere has encouraged isolationism. The attacks against Norm were simply as you describe it opportunism. They wanted a reason to attack SBC Today and Truett McConnell. And of course no one should dare have a differing opinion on the Gospel Project or Ed Stetzer. Notice all the name-calling coming out of those who are alledgely against isolationism. AntiCalvinist, fundalmentlist, isolationist, heretic (yes Mr. Unity managed to get in his heresy attack again) Notice the attacks against Norm and even the suggestion that just because men fought the CR it doesn't necessarily mean they are saved! Comments with the name calling were NOT rebuked. commentors were comforted for their "frustration" It was suggested Norm Miller and Truett McConnell had no understanding of the SBC and should just leave! But oh it's our Baptist world - these are the people fighting AGAINST isolationism! As you say people What a West Georgia Hoot!

Ben Simpson


You said it best when you said, "Yes it is true Norm did not use the term 'traitor' and hence it was Stetzer’s term not Miller’s. Nonetheless, if one suggests a person embraces treason, it seems to be a correct inference that the suggestion a person embraces treason implies the person is a traitor. I honestly don’t see anyway around this. Hence, Stetzer’s point is well-taken—at least in it’s softer sense. That is, while Miller is correct in that 'traitor' is Stetzer’s term, and Stetzer is incorrect by indicating Miller deemed him a 'traitor,' it seems correct to say Miller’s term implied Stetzer was a 'traitor.'

"In fact, if one isn’t implying a person is a traitor by suggesting the person embraces treason, what is one implying?"

Thank you for your common sense! I know you spent the great bulk of your article defending Norm Miller, but at least at this point, you called a spade a spade. I am a bit disappointed with Miller's word. I assumed he used it as a bit of hyperbole, but it just doesn't fit Stetzer. In fact, Norm's word said way more to me about Norm and his way of thinking than it did about Stetzer. It makes me sad for Norm who's box is so small.

Nevertheless, I was not so bothered by Norm's word as I was by his pathetic attempt to spin his way out of what he said. Nice try, Norm, but those with half a brain easily see through it. Peter, thanks for calling him out on it! If Norm had real integrity, he would have either stood by his word and the undeniable implication you have pointed out or just apologize. Either would have been fine really. Instead, he chose to spin and to do so very unsuccessfully.

peter lumpkins

Hi Ben,

Thanks for the kudos but I'm not as sure as you appear to be Norm's response is "spin" as you call it, Ben. I think he made the necessary case for why he used it, but nonetheless was sensitive enough to Stetzer's point to see how Stetzer took it.

My larger point is that this term should honestly never have spawned what can only be called the ridiculous lengths it did. If I can't suggest that one's position I reason to be aberrant betrays our Baptist position--which, yes, implies the one who holds it is betraying our Baptist position, "treason" comes to mind--and hold my position without people foolishly referring to me as using slander so ungodly it "boggles the mind," there is so little of what we call the "Baptist spirit" left, that it remains useless to go on. I'll quit.


Stetzer wrote:

"I've worked for a lot of Southern Baptist entities. I've seen the good, the bad and the ugly… and I can't say I'm impressed with the SBC. I still believe in it, so for me, we've gotten to a place where we have to make some substantive changes… . If I don't see the SBC and my state convention go in the right direction, I will not wait forever to say, 'That's not a good use of my resources.' But I don't think right now is the right time to pull those resources" (//link)"

Oh my word. From an SBC entity employee? So now he has the power and position to remake it to what he thinks it should be?

I found it strange enough that a blog by another employee of an entity (SEBTS) ran Setzer's article with the title that Patterson was not a traitor. Will these guys ever grow up?

Do they understand that calling people heretics is the same as calling them traitors to Jesus Christ?

Dave Miller is outraged and this is why he blogs? If he wants to discuss isolationism, why not start with SGM and our promotion and protection of those who sided with child molesters. He can start with the "isolated" victims of that shepherding cult we have embraced.


"Do they understand that calling people heretics is the same as calling them traitors to Jesus Christ?"

What's interesting is everyone is ignoring the hateful comment which really set off this whole kerfluffle which was "Loyalty to the SBC = Disloyalty to the Body of Christ" disloyalty is a synonym for treason. So declaring that those who have loyalty to the SBC are traitors to the Body of Christ is acceptable to Dave Miller, Ed Stetzer, Alan Cross et al. I would much rather be called a traitor to the SBC than a traitor to the Body of Christ. Where are those declaring that we should call out such rhetoric? Oh wait it was one of theirs lodging that attack. It's been pretty well established with this latest kerfluffle that the rules only apply to certain people.

And then of course after Dave Miller's meltdown because no one in a comment stream attacked Norm we see his absolute hypocrisy when the comment stream at Between the Times allowed to insults to stand without rebuke. No one commentor was given understanding for his frustration when he expressed his doubts about the salvation of those who fought the conservative resurgence. Is Dave Miller banned from commenting at Between the Times? Norm Miller gets post after post attacking him where commentors are allowed to pile on but Between the Times does not rebuke commentors for declaring some people aren't even saved!


Has their ever been such a promotion and wine and dine of a LW curriculum like TGP before? Has their ever been a curriculum so designed and weighted toward the Reformed view before? I believe TGP will subtly indoctrinate folks on their view of Sovereignty over a period of time. A friend of mine sent me an email from their youth pastor promoting TGP as the best approach to hermeneutics cos it is using the Redemptive historical hermeneutic. Yes, he is an SBTS grad.

Max made a comment over on SBCT that resonated with me concerning the quotes. He mentioned LW curriculum that had sidebars or Piper/Driscoll, etc and links to their sites or sermons. (Great, we are promoting sodomy and porno divinations to our young)

This has been a huge concern of mine for a while now. I ran into this same problem in the mega industrial complex cos they all have huge bookstores that carry everything from Spurgeon, McArthur to Joel Osteen to Rob Bell. And folks think that if it is in MY churches bookstore, it must be approved. But it wasn't. It was about money.

There was also a recent indicent where the youth in a church went to a retreat and the speaker praised Piper to the skies. Some youth came back and were talking about him so a friend of mine sent the parents some links to what Piper teaches. (women should take abuse for a season, the stuff on a husband asking a wife to have 3 way sex and her response should make sure he keeps his authority over her, his church not allowing women to read scripture aloud to men, his views on Justification, etc) Some of the parents were shocked. They did not want their teens being influenced with that sort of legalism and false teaching. They were also shocked that Piper is a Calvinist cos their church is not Calvinist.

Within the Reformed wing of the SBC there is a serious trust issue going on that cannot be denied. It started with Quiet Revolution and that covert tactic becoming normal operating procedure in that wing of the SBC. Then stacking entities with like minds who are Mohler loyalists. Namb helping to fund Reformed only church plants, etc.

It is as if "deceit" has become the norm and the only way to keep it from becoming known is to shut people up. It takes form of calling people heretics, claiming Reformed is the only place to be if you are a real Christian and those who are not Reformed in doctrine do not have the mental processes to understand.

And they wonder why we don't trust them when it comes to TGP? They have used covert tactics for a long time now. IN fact, they are isolationists in many ways. It is a tactic of narcissistic behavior to accuse others of what you are doing yourself. And they will jump on any perceieved insult while they insult others constantly. And the whole focus on unity and cooperation is really a one way street...they get to decide how that is defined because their leader has been anything BUT unifying with his own words and actions. But they cannot see that.

We have young men who actually believe it is Christ like behavior to not state their beliefs upfront in interviews cos if the committee is too ignorant not to ask the right questions, that is their problem. It is like a movement of mass narcissism.

They are the ones who have breached our trust. And it can take years for trust to be established again cos we are fools if we listen to words...words are easy. We have to look at actions, too.

All of this will be a moot point if the money dries up cos people will eventually get tired of paying salaries to people who insult them.

Les Prouty

Mary and Lydia. Just a question. You both seem to have problems with Dave Miller and other commenters over at SBCV. But I never see y'all commenting over there. Why don't you engage the posts there and state your cases over there?


peter lumpkins


And why do you not just state your case at SBC Today? Perhaps the same circumstances you claim to face there applies to them.

By the way, you never got around to answering my list of questions on the previous post.

Have a good evening and a grace-filled Lord's Day on Sunday (please know no smurkiness intended. I never glibly refer to our Lord's Day!)...

Les Prouty


Norm banned me at SBCToday. We've had some email exchanges about it and I remain banned.

Sorry about not getting back to your questions. I've several others out there needing my attention. I may try tonight, or later this weekend. Been a busy last few days, other than short in and out comments here and there.

You have a blessed Lord's Day as well as you preach the word.


Les Prouty


It just hit me...this sentence. "Perhaps the same circumstances you claim to face there applies to them."

Actually maybe. I have had to take some hostility back at me at SBC Today. That's fine. And I'd be fine to continue commenting there if I could. It has been made clear to me that at least this "baby baptizer" is not welcome there.



Uhh Les??? Seriously??? Trads are treated like trash at SBC Pravda all with Dave Miller's blessing. Look at how crazy he went today when CB Scott dared to question him and he likes CB. For all those posts he alledgely misses of his Calvinists behaving badly he NEVER misses a post of a Trad who he thinks gets out of line. You know people like Harriette.

Isn't it a hoot that Rick Patrick the lone Trad who still occasionally tries to post over there and gets attacked and has his integrity questioned time and time again, isn't it interesting that Rick Patrick is not allowed to post on "controversial" topics like the Gospel Project for example, but what's been going on these last few days? SBC PRAVDA. All Voices are equal, but some Voices are more equal than others. And you see that's how Calvinists operate they have there safe blogs where they can behave badly and they swarm over anyone with a dissenting opinion, but Trads are not supposed to have their safe blogs like SBC Today and Tomorrow! If Calvinists can't control the content and be allowed to behave badly than it must be "antiCalvinist" filled with "heretics" and now the new attack by the Calvinists "isolationist"

Oh and as badly as Trads are treated? A Trad woman????

And Les they sure could have used you over in the comment section of Between the Times with your Sciptures and admonitions to behave and all! Oh wait what am I saying! It's Les!

(Did you survive the tornadoes without damage?)


And hey Les, I got some questions you should just run over and ask Dave Miller. Here they are - are you ready??? why didn't Dave Miller just address Norm Miller in the appropriate comment stream at SBC Today? He was mad that nobody addressed the issue in the comment stream - what kept him from addressing it himself? Is he banned from SBC Today for some reason? Why did he make not one but two whole blog articles without addressing Norm Miller directly? According to Norm Miller no one tried to contact him before they posted their articles. Why is that? It's funny Les the questions you seem to think of to address us over here that just don't occur to you at the other blogs you gossip about us all at.

Les Prouty


No tornado damage. Thanks for asking. You?

As to Between the Times. I read that one post. Otherwise I don't go to that site. I didn't read all th comments.

I don't know Dave or Norm. I've had some email exchanges with Norm and other person at the college. Never had an email exchange with Dave Miller best of my memory. I don't know about whether he tried to contact Norm. Is that the standard anyway? Contact someone directly before posting about what they posted or said?

"It's funny Les the questions you seem to think of to address us over here that just don't occur to you at the other blogs you gossip about us all at."

What do you mean gossip about you?


Mary... well, let me take a swing at that series of questions. maybe because at SBC Today his VOICE would not have commanded as great an audience? may not have collected as many back-slappers and whooo-ahs? or, maybe because he has greater license to say whatever he wants to anyone he wants and delete anyone's words at will while leaving the birds of a feather unplucked. I don't know. I just love speculating. :)


Les, you have asked this before a while back and I answered. Are you baiting a hook? :o)

Hey when you are next over there, ask Dave why there has been nothing on SBCV about the MohlerSBTS/MahaneySGM Louisville connection and love fest. I would think perverts who molest children being protected by SGM would outrage him as much as Norm's treason comment did. But on SGM lawsuit and Mahaney fleeing to Louisville..... "crickets".

Guess being "Reformed" really does buy loyalty with silence. But it sure does not breed trust.

Perhaps we will be treated to a post on how Christian they are because they do not discuss such things. They sure did stop promoting Driscoll stuff("he preaches the Gospel", they would declare!) real fast after the Petry docs came out. It was funny...before Acts 29 good. Now, nary a word about it.

Les Prouty

Hello Hariette,

"may not have collected as many back-slappers and whooo-ahs? or, maybe because he has greater license to say whatever he wants to anyone he wants and delete anyone's words at will while leaving the birds of a feather unplucked."

Do you think this sort of approach is also at other sites? I mean even here, certain commenters are rarely if ever challenged on their rhetoric, right?

I mean each site has it's own approach. There are back slappers and a cheering section on all sites I think.



Hariette, good job! I'm pretty sure your speculation is spot on!

Les, it's probably good that you've never had an email from Dave Miller - the 411 from those who have had emails and phones calls from him is that he gets pretty mean and nasty when he thinks no one is looking. He's pretty much your typical bully who cannot take any type of criticism.

Now as far as "don't all these sites do it" LOL Les! Here you go - you wander over to Pravda and you make the statement that look you behave on Pravda here in the same manner as SBC Today/Tomorrow - you favor the Calvinists here and they favor the Trads there. You allow Calvinists to behave in a certain way but censor Trads. You all back slap and whooHoo each other the same way they do at those sites. Yeah Les, you go over there and tell Dave Miller that he moderates just the same as Peter and Norm and that he allows his Calvinsts to behave the way Peter and Norm allow the Trads to behave. You go right on over there and tell that to the Pravda gang and let's see the reaction. You might even get yourself one of Dave Miller's infamous emails!

And actually Les, Peter does not moderate the same way Dave Miller does - just look at the nonsense Peter allows through with the current Whitehead melt down - Dave Miller would never allow anyone to question him or say such drivel to him. Peter just laughs it off.

A few tree limbs but really no storm damage on in the South. Of course the sirens go off anyway and I end up with my 80# baby dog on my lap with the cat on top of her. And being as it was Wednesday and everybody's coming and going it was a fun night.

Lydia, it's hilarous how they're just all over there back slapping that they're fighting the good fight against isolationism when nobody no where has suggested isolationism. David Rogers must have just been bored and decided to gin up the masses so as to get a few attaboys. Where are these people claiming we shouldn't have friendly cooperation with those outside the SBC? Talk about your conspiricy theory! It's almost like just declaring Calvinists are not taking over the SBC isn't working anymore for some reason so now they have to form a new line of attack. "Lookee here! shiney object! Isolationism!"

Norm Miller

Dear friend, Peter:

Thank you, and, I'm sorry.

Thank you for this post. What a masterful job you did of both defending me and showing that the Emperor has no clothes. You laid nothing bare; you just aimed the floodlight.

Also, sorry -- sorry for not reading your blog more often. What I said in my response at our blog is true. I simply don't have the time to read others' blogs. But, I confess, I do read yours rarely. Not personal, Bro; it's a practical matter. You see, there are only 37 hours in a day.

In all of this "tempest in a teapot" as someone called it, I find the hypocrisy (a 4-syllable word) of my detractors to be incredibly unbelievable and grossly inconsistent.

Please allow me to demonstrate, here, by taking something you copied from others' sources and placed on your blog post above. The comments are about the word treason used to describe the behavior of one man, but I want us to think of the word semi-Pelagian leveled at thousands of Southern Baptists. (Of course, I will take minimal liberties with your verbiage to make the point). So, with "semi-Pelagain in mind:

“It was an outrageous and saddening comment.”

“It is a comment that simply boggles the mind.”

“Al Mohler’s rhetoric here is sad and destructive.”

“It seems that [Mohler] is accusing [his fellow seminary presidents, former SBC presidents, Baptist state execs, directors of missions, pastors and laypeople -- thousands of them] of attempting to destroy the SBC from within.”

“It is a serious and slanderous charge, one which Mohler should retract and for which he should apologize.”

“As long as we protect ungodly rhetoric… such slander toward [his fellow seminary presidents, former SBC presidents, Baptist state execs, directors of missions, pastors and laypeople -- thousands of them]...”

“Dr. Mohler’s invective statement is beyond reprehensible.”

“That’s definitely a statement that is overboard."

“As for Al Mohler and Southern Seminary, I would hope that in the case of no direct and public apology towards [Mohler's fellow seminary presidents, former SBC presidents, Baptist state execs, directors of missions, pastors and laypeople -- thousands of them] the seminary will then at the very least publicly censure Al Mohler. And if that does not happen, the Southern Baptist Convention should publicly rebuke the school as a whole.”

Physicians, heal yo'selves!

And this paragraph from you is also shining a ga-zillion candlepower flood light on more hypocrisy:

"The irony goes deep and strikes rock. Stetzer, Dave Miller, Cross, and company squeal like poked pigs for people outside Southern Baptists to be heard in our denominational curriculum all the while seemingly doing what they can to shut a person up inside Southern Baptists from being heard concerning our denominational curriculum."

(Now, I need to note that Alan Cross apologized to me at our blog. I received that in the spirit it was offered: sincerely and humbly. Thank you, Alan.)

The defenders of TGP are saying: "Southern Baptists need to hear from everyone within the Body of Christ, Norm, except you."

Hmmm? If that weren't enough of an implication, I understand that one commenter removed all doubt by questioning my salvation. (That commenter must think I'm a calvinist.)

You noted that some took great exception to my "wolves in the sheeps' pen" metaphor. Yes, definitely over the top, and not acurate, either. What is happening to our SBC is a bit more subtle than wolves attacking.

I could go on and on, but, more verbiage will not make the Emperor any more naked. And I daresay I could shed any more light on the brilliance of your post.

Thank you, Peter, for what you did for me. In my march toward what I believe is right, surely, I stumbled; and I have apologized. You, however, have put a bandage on my knee while decisively shoving away the bullies. Again, thank you.

With that, I am ... your debtor.


P.S. I should think that no one could ably and accurately refute what you have written above. How could they? Is just stands t'reason.


"I mean each site has it's own approach. There are back slappers and a cheering section on all sites I think."

The Reformed blogosphere is known for censoring big time. Most have given up even commenting on them anymore so they are cheering parties for the idol of Reformed. Some of the ridiculous ones are Challies, Jared Wilson, etc. Some do not even take comments. Reformed thought is about controlling people, censoring and their definitions.

Everyone has their own idea of civility but I have lived at ground zero and can tell you from my perspective he who defines, wins, and we have let them define everything including what they define as the proper way to interact. Which means they get to own the definitions and frame the debate. That is no more and so here we are.

Reformed doctrine has not really gotten a good public airing in the public square. Sure, in academia, etc, but social media has changed the game. Hence, anyone who brings up a problem with the doctrine is automatically a "heretic". It is the only way they can control the debate.

Here is what I think it going to come back to bite this current movement: The constant call to Protestant history as our guide for what is orthodox. That means we look to man to define truth for us. There is a lot more to this but my point is, this fight needed to take place in the public square. Protestant history is a bloody evil mess. Was there some good? Of course, but you have to look past a lot of evil to get there. And that includes the beloved Puritans who burned people for land. If you don't believe that then you don't know your history well at all. Holding them up as examples becomes a problem.

And the reason all this is a problem for the Reformed movement is that Christianity is about a RELATIONSHIP witth Jesus Christ. There is no mediator for us in a Christenese title conferred by men. It is not fine point doctrine over people. That is for the cults. We have way too many young men who look to Piper/Mohler/Mahaney/Driscoll to define Christ for them. That is not the same as a relationship with Christ.

The question I ask is: Does what we believe cause us to love people OR want to control them for what we think is their own good? The worst tyrants are the ones who want to control you for your own good.

At some point the control, arrogance and vaucity of this movement will weary enough people it will start to die out. As it does time and again in history. Ever wonder where all the Unitarians came from in the NE? :o)

peter lumpkins


Brother, thank you. I so appreciate you and your giftedness used in SBC life for so many years. And, you nailed it, my friend. Dr. Mohler really has no place to hide now.

Grace. Got to go pic up my hunny at airport...

The comments to this entry are closed.