« Resolution on Sexual Abuse of Children by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Much of the lawsuit against Sovereign Grace Ministries tossed on a technicality »

May 17, 2013


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


At least you posed it as a question that only Kelly Boggs has so far answered affirmatively. Joe is getting a pass right now from David (and therefore Kelly) because his removal of the 3 religion profs fits nicely with David's longer-range theo-political goals for the LBC and beyond. I'm very curious to see what David will do if SACS drops the hammer on LC next month, as may expect they will. My suspicion is that he'll eventually find a way to (ahem) convince Joe that a change is in everyone's best interests.

Howell Scott


I think this will be one of those cases where people have radically different interpretations of the evidence. While I am in no way saying that Dr. Aguillard is comparable to O.J. Simpson, I think the Simpson case is similar in that there are people, including the criminal jury, who think the evidence exonerated O.J. There are others, including the civil jury, who think that the evidence was enough to find Simpson liable of wrongful death. Obviously Mr. Boggs and a majority of the Trustees and a majority of the Special Committee think the evidence exonerated Dr. Aguillard.

And, while we may never know what the actual secret ballot vote of the Trustees was, we do know -- via Tony Perkins -- that the Special Committee split 4-3 in favor of exoneration. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Special Committee (not to mention the full Trustee Board)had access to all of Dr. Aguillard's files and exhibits, the fact of the matter is that at least three members of the Special Committee, including an attorney who also is the DOM of the New Orleans' Baptist Association, voted against exonerating the President. That fact does speak volumes to those who have ears to hear. But, if people have their heads in the sand, I suppose they will not even have the ability to hear, even if they wanted to. Look forward to catching up with you in Houston. God bless,



Peter, thanks for the update. Will you please keep us posted when Mr. Boggs adds more information? Some of us who live outside of Louisiana would like to follow. I have heard allegations of political maneuvering by Aguillard's camp to save his job. I am not in position to make judgment on his performance as president. However, it is apparent that some who were his opposition were maneuvering to oust him. The leaking of information and partial information at that by some trustees from an executive session says a tremendous amount about their integrity. Ironically they did so to oust a man for lack of integrity. Thanks again for the report.

peter lumpkins

Will do Dean. One thing should be noted. If I'm understanding Boggs correctly, he's saying Aguillard was exonerated from the whistleblowing charges not from all wrongdoing. I think you'll find many are not pleased with Aguillard's presidency. But Boggs' significance is, the whistleblower's complaints were, in large part, rejected by a majority of trustees voting by secret ballot who voted for/against exoneration based upon not only the investigatory study but also the 'file' of info which was claimed to have evidence shedding positive light against the whistleblowers case.

peter lumpkins

And with you Howell!

Scott Shaver

The rats are the first to leave a sinking ship. Would be interesting to know how much lop-sided information hurled at the public by Joshua Breland et al, whistleblowers et al has been swallowed by reading Baptists in states outside of Louisiana.

Calvinism notwithstanding, we have seen the methodology for arriving at "truth" employed by Joshua Breland et al and the Whistleblowers et al. We have heard the self-estimations of "highest intergrity" applied to Quarles and his cadre of exiting professors and students.

Are these guys really as spotless and persecuted as they claim to be? Or is it possible that there may have been more than the "evil agenda" of the LBC, LC, and LBC Executive Director David Hankins at work in Pineville.

sewa mobil

Nice article, thanks for the information.


I think a lot of people have chosen their sides and a lot of the choosing seems to be not actually based on facts but emotion. Which leaves us in the middle trying to understand and I'm not sure we'll ever get to the truth. Seems like most of the people opining actually are not in possession of all the facts but are basing their opinions on celebrity endorsement and feeling. And as we've seen those screaming the word integrity the loudest are those ignoring the lack of integrity shown by those going after Aguillard.

As far as people with heads in the sand. People with heads in the sand tend to be the people who accept such a ridiculous notion as "an attorney said so!" dismissing people who disagree with said attorney as what - idiots - incompetent people unable to understand English or logic? If he's such a great attorney why didn't he make his argument well enough to bring people to his side? Or are we really to believe that everyone is just totally corrupt and/or idiots? I thought Christians were supposed to act with a little more grace than that. Just because an attorney walks in the room doesn't mean we all should bow down and do as we're told or check our brains at the door. Eric Holder is the top attorney in the land and the man is clearly an idiot.


And Peter a word about the law firm's investigation. That investigation didn't seem to uncover anything the trustees didn't already know so it might be the purpose of the investigation was not necessarily investigatory but simply to get an opinion as to whether there was enough evidence that Aguillard had breached his contract and could be removed. So it looks like those who hired the law firm had already determined Aguillard's guilt and just wanted a hired gun to back them up. But again we don't know since we don't have all the facts.

Dale Pugh

I've been acquainted with Kelly for years, and, based on my past experience with him, I have no reason to doubt his analysis. I would say, however, that no matter how it was done and even if confidences were broken, the proverbial cat is now out of the bag. When one becomes preoccupied with trying to corral said feline and repatriating him to his burlap residence, one has lost the ability to move in a very positive direction.
Truth in this situation may have already been sacrificed on the altar of emotion, hearsay, and speculation. I don't know. I haven't read the folder, but the investigating team did, and they found nothing there to change their report and the special committee voted against Aguillard. That is difficult to overlook.
Personally, and I realize that my opinion means absolutely squat here, I would say it appears that the leadership at LC is facing numbered days. Aguillard may need to take what dignity, integrity, and reputation he has left and find a new place of employment. In the long run, such action on his part may be best for both him and the future of LC.

Howell Scott


I hesitate to respond this morning, but I will to simply clarify my own comment above. If you interpreted my comment about "people with their heads in the sand" to include all people who are interested and/or involved in the LC situation, then I apologize for my lack of clarity. Not all people have their heads in the sand in any given, but I think there are certainly some, on both sides, who do.

As to thinking that anyone who voted in favor of exonerating Joe Aguillard is an "idiot" or "incompetent" or "totally corrupt," that was not stated by me nor was it even implied. If you inferred that from my comment, that probably means that you and I have not had enough communication and interaction on this blog or elsewhere for that "miscommunication" to have been avoided. Perhaps this and future interactions can remedy that.

We all have our biases and personal experiences which affect how we view evidence, including the evidence of witnesses. While not all attorneys have credibility (i.e., Eric Holder), there are obviously some who do have substantial credibility. Perhaps I am putting too much faith in Jack Hunter, the attorney and DOM of the New Orleans' Baptist Association, as well as Tony Perkins and Gene Lee, the Chairman of the LC Board of Trustees, all who voted not to exonterate Dr. Aguillard.

If the facts and the evidence truly exonerate Dr. Aguillard, then so be it. However, as Ronald Reagan famously said, "Facts are stubborn things." The facts surrounding all of the principal players in the LC controversy, including any Trustees who may have leaked confidential information, will eventually come to the surface. It's probably only when those facts finally surface and are dealt with that LC can begin the healing process. Hope you have a wonderful and blessed day. God bless,


cb scott

There are some very ungodly things happening today in Baptist institutions among the elected leadership and their underlings.

However, there are still some godly men standing in the gap. For that reason, I thank God for guys like Emir Caner and a few others. May their tribe increase and may they draw near to God more and more in this evil day and having done all, to stand firm, taking up the shield of faith with which they will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.


Peter, I just read Bogg's op ed. I hope everyone will click through and read it. He has a few points which raise serious questions about the law firm's so-called unbiased thorough investigation. The story now seems to be that the law firm admits to having access to the "secret file" which included 28 exhibits. They also had access to Aguillard's six hour testimony. And yet this information is no where in their report presented to the Trustees. Why would you leave that information out? Even if they determined it was hearsay and didn't exonerate Aguillard they should have at least acknowledged that they had this information, looked at and then explained why they dismissed it. Couldn't their reasons for dismissing such "evidence" have helped the Trustees in making their decision? From the cheap seats it seems information was intentionally kept out of the report. Doesn't seem to be so unbiased.

Still waiting for those who always declare they would too hold "their side" accountable - you know those Voices who constantly throw around the word integrity - to point out the incredible lack of integrity of those going after Aguillard.


Howell, your words

"...including an attorney who also is the DOM of the New Orleans' Baptist Association, voted against exonerating the President. That fact does speak volumes to those who have ears to hear. But, if people have their heads in the sand, I suppose they will not even have the ability to hear, even if they wanted to..."

Here is a FACT Howell for people who don't have their heads in the sand and have an ability to hear. You don't actually have access to all the information and yet you dismiss the vote of a majority of a special committee and a majority of trustees because you're impressed with the man who is made a fool of regularly on MSNBC and CNN? Maybe you know the attorney involved but as I've lived with an attorney for a whole lot of years just declaring as "fact" that an attorney and Tony Perkins said so and so is very weak for the amount of hubris involved in phrases such as "head in the sand" and "ability to hear." Your "FACT" doesn't speak volumes to me so I guess I don't have the ability to hear or I have my head in the sand. How could I have extrapolated from that, that I or anyone else with the sound turned down are too dumb to get it. Of course it doesn't speak volumes to my attorney hubby either so his sound must be turned down too. He actually thinks the report by the law firm isn't worth the paper it's written on since it is proving to be so biased by the amount of information they seem to have intentionally left out. But you'll be happy to know my husband does play the attorney with me and pulls the card quite often with "now I didn't say that" when he get's caught saying something he really should not have said to begin with.

Howell Scott


Thanks for the reply. I hope you have a blessed Lord's Day tomorrow. God bless,



Corrections to my previous post: SACS isn't meeting until July, not June. Further, LC's follow-up review isn't until the Fall, so they may or may not even be a topic of (official) conversation at this year's meeting. (IMHO, This actually works out better for David as it disassociates Joe's eventual dismissal from anything related to Calvinism/Quarles/Caskey.)

The comments to this entry are closed.