Words Creating Wedges: Exposing the "Imaginary Divide" by Peter Lumpkins

  Timmy Brister, spokesman for Founders Ministries, posted another commentary which essentially attempts to drive division between two alleged visions which Brister, along with his boss, Dr. Tom Ascol, insist are the only viable visions for the future of the Southern Baptist Convention.  Quoting himself, Brister writes:

'"There are two competing visions for the SBC going on right now: the Great Commission Resurgence under the direction of Danny Akin and David Dockery headquartered at SEBTS, and the Baptist Identity Movement under the direction of Paige Patterson and Malcolm Yarnell headquartered at Southwestern Seminary.  Prior to the Annual Meeting in Indy last year, the Baptist Identity boys were blazing the Internet with series of blogposts talking about Baptist distinctives and in particular “ecumenical compromise”' (link/).

Brister took his cue from his mentor, Dr. Ascol, who earlier had stated, "Competing visions for the future of the Southern Baptist Convention are coming to a showdown" (link/).  In the same commentary, Ascol took his sledgehammer and struck the wedge, hoping to drive the iron deeper into the wood by making the bad boys of "BI" reduce to one singular representative--me!  He wrote:

"The BI vision for the future of the SBC has little or no room for cooperating with gospel-centered evangelicals who are "not us." For evidence of this see how they have recenty [sic] tried to chastise Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in general and Danny Akin, Alvin Reid and Nathan Finn in particular for their unwillingness to throw Mark Driscoll under the bus (here, here & here)." 

Two things about this statement.  First, Ascol offers evidence for his wedge words by pointing the reader to three posts he says qualifies as "evidence" of how "they have recently tried to chastise Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in general and Danny Akin, Alvin Reid and Nathan Finn in particular" for not throwing "Mark Driscoll under the bus." 

Observe: all three posts Ascol linked belong exclusively to me.  Period.  Yet, the implication Ascol gives is that Baptist Identity as a whole addressed Driscollism.  They did not.  And, so far as I know, not one blogger identified as BI had addressed the issue at the time Ascol wrote--that is, except me, of course.  Yet, Ascol appeared committed to slinging the sledgehammer, driving the alleged divide deeper still.

Second, Ascol implies I chastised SEBTS and three faculty members (including President Akin) because I raised a question concerning moral matters in our liaison with Driscoll, impling I desired SEBTS to throw Driscoll under the bus.  Again, I raised moral matters I thought applicable--and still do, even after carefully listening to Dr. Akin's defense of Driscoll. 

For the life of me, however, I cannot understand precisely why Ascol would dispute my concerns when he arguably made stronger statements than I concerning Driscoll.  Buried deep within the comment thread (see source above), Ascol had this to say about Driscoll:  "Some of the language I have heard from Driscoll on sex is juvenile and sinful."  No better summary of my three posts could be penned. Why it is suggested I desired wheel tracks smeared on Driscoll's face when Ascol raises the same concerns I raised is not clear.

While Brister and Ascol sling sledgehammers to bust up the SBC into so much visionary kindling wood, The Southern Baptists of Texas Convention united around a Great Commission Resurgence written by none other than one usually associated with "Baptist Identity."  In "An Imaginary Divide" SBC Today documents just how ridiculous the Brister & Ascol proposal is that those usually identified as "Baptist Identity" stand in direct opposition to those who desire a Great Commission Resurgence. Please do not miss their devastating exposé of the "competing visions" proposal by Brister & Ascol (link/). 

Driving wedges simply must stop among Southern Baptists.  I exhort Founders Ministries in general and particularly Tom Ascol, along with one of his chief spokesman, Timmy Brister, to cease this harmful crusade, driving wedges and causing unnecessary division among Southern Baptists.

With that, I am...
Peter

Comments

[volfan007]

Peter,

Amen.

David

[Robin Foster]

Peter

You brought up some great points. I don't understand why this misrepresentation is occurring. Thanks

Robin

[Chris Poe]

Peter,

Since I spoke up, I'm sure I'm considered BI now too in some quarters.

In some ways I guess I am in the sense that I favor close communion and think that if you're going to call yourself an "Historic Southern Baptist" that one should either accept the whole package (i.e. close communion) or drop the reference entirely. But I would differ with some in the BI camp at this point on issues like alien immersion.

If I "chastised" anybody, it was the bloggers who deflected the concerns over what the Mars Hill site linked to with simplistic knee jerk reactions and the assertion that the BP article was simply rehashing "old news" and the old cussing story. If something like Dr. Ascol's belated reference to Driscoll's "juvenile and sinful" actions had been forthcoming at the beginning instead of the howls of protest over the BP article, I seriously doubt I would have ever gotten involved.

As for Dr. Ascol linking exclusively to this site, I can't really fault him for that, although the characterization was questionable as you note. I don't recall anyone definitively stating what Dr. Akin et. al. should do or not do. There's a difference in my mind at least between raising concerns about something and throwing somebody under the bus.

Other than the posts here, Dr. Barber's post on "An Exemplary Pastor," my blog and maybe a handful of others that are also lower profile blogs that may have made one post about it, what SBC bloggers were addressing the issue? During the time in which we were making our posts and comments, I was beginning to wonder if the lights had gone out at SBC Today. :)

[selahV]

Peter: For Ascol to write: "Some of the language I have heard from Driscoll on sex is juvenile and sinful." and then point to you for doing the same with a bit more verbosity, is plain laughable. selahV

[Jim Champion]

Peter

I will once again offer Kudos to you, not necessarily for this post, as I tend to agree with Ascoll and Brister on this. But for leaving your comment stream open for real discussion.

I have always appreciated that you stand behind your words and are willing to engage those who disagree with you.

SBC Today has now turned themselves into and editorial page, much like Jeremy Green.

I might check out green once a month or so, but if one cannot interact what is the purpose of blogging?

I will stop by SBC today from time to time to see if comments have been turned back on, but I most likely will not read their posts. Its too bad really, they have some sharp guys over there, albeit a bit quick tempered at times - and they dont seem to enjoy being disagreed with.

Keep up the good work, and please dont start putting up posts I agree with!!

Jim

[Jeff Holder]

Peter,

1. The divide is not imaginary. It is clearly there, and it is clearly being "widened" by you, Founders, and Between the Times. Even though I think that the divide exists mainly in the Baptist academy and blogosphere, there is still evidence that a divide is starting to appear in the "real world." Granted, most of my evidence is anecdotal, but I have noticed that many of the SB pastors in my area (which is typically rural) are beginning to lean towards one "vision" or the other. I would venture a guess that if some statistical evidence could be gathered on the subject that a divide could be seen. However, my evidence of a divide in the blogosphere is not anecdotal at all. For instance you said in your post on Driscoll and SEBTS, "For the record, I think I'll just keep sailing the old gospel ship, if you don't mind." Are we to infer from this that Dr. Akin, Mark Driscoll, Nate Finn, and Alvin Reid are not "sailing the old Gospel ship?" Even if not, I cannot help but to infer from this that there is a divide or difference of visions between you and them.

2. Dr. Ascol's blog post was not about your view of Dricoll or "Driscollism," which he states deep in that same comment thread from which you quoted. The post was about the division between the BI crowd and the GCR crowd. Therefore, Dr. Ascol was not, from what I could gather, disagreeing with your particular view of Driscoll, but was referring to your disagreement with Dr. Akin over Driscoll's presence in the "Baptist Academy."

3. What is Driscollism? Are you referring to Driscoll's preaching? His doctrine? His methodology?

God Bless,
Jeffro

[Byroniac]

Jim Champion,

I can't believe I'm logging in to defend SBC Today in disallowing comments (only in a sense though!). I was disappointed in them disallowing comments, and I emailed Wes Kenney and told him so, and he was very gracious in his response. To be fair, I had to acknowledge they have that right. But I think credit should be given (though I seldom agree with their viewpoints) that a lot of energy and talent goes into producing what is put on SBC Today for their readership, and they really do care about the issues and seek to discuss them in depth. Nevermind the fact that I mostly disagree with their conclusions, they are sharp guys and the content their is high quality, especially if you are like me and coming at it from an opposing viewpoint and seek to understand the position contrary to what you hold. The interaction from comment threads is really valuable, but not necessary with email exchange remaining open for questions and comments which could result in future posts of explanation or further discussion on a topic. I still don't like it (disallowing comments) but I can understand their issue of not having the time to address comments that are received.

[peter lumpkins]

Jeffro

Thanks. You record,"The divide is not imaginary. It is clearly there, and it is clearly being "widened" by you, Founders, and Between the Times...I have noticed that many of the SB pastors in my area (which is typically rural) are beginning to lean towards one "vision" or the other."

First, I did not nor ever will suggest there are no divides. The question is, divides about what? Founders insists it's a divide between "BI" who wed their vision to being "Baptist" and "GCR" who wed their vision to the gospel. Such a "divide" is completely ridiculous--not to mention harmful--and I offered evidence to the contrary including Texas Baptists who are the sole, Southern Baptist body who've actually gone on record as Great Commission Resurgence driven.

In addition, the document was written by Jeremy Green who is closely identified with the so-called "BI." What Founders is perpetuating is a false dichotomy, which, I am sad to say, you have apparently accepted. There is no "BI" about which I am aware who is opposed to GCR.

Second, you write "many of the SB pastors in my area...are beginning to lean towards one "vision" or the other." Again, you falsely assume it's "either/or" Jeffro. Also, I'd like to know if they really believe that those who are strongly committed to Baptist heritage are opposed to GCR.

As to the "divide" with SEBTS and me, my question, Jeffro, is, why do you assume a "divide" exists over anything other than the one public dissent I raised--SEBTS's liaison with Mark Driscoll? Recall, many Founders Calvinists expressed the very same reservation I expressed concerning Driscoll, not to mention an entire choir of Masters Seminary bloggers who sang their lament about Mark Driscoll well before I raised my eyebrows about him on my blog. To assume other at this point is simply unfair in my view.

As for the purpose of Dr. Ascol's post, you can accept what you will. My own thoughts are recorded and unless you have anything specific in mind, I don't know if anything I'd say would be helpful.

Thanks again, Jeffro. Peace, brother.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Jim Champion]

Byron

I agree with you that they have some really sharp guys over there. I have thought of them as the best BI blog going. I enjoy their posts and the interaction. However, if they refuse to defend their arguments they are nothing more than a print editorial that happens to be on line.

Once upon a time Jeremy Green allowed comments, but because he got slaughtered by his commenters - and could not adequately defend his stances he stopped taking comments. I essentially stopped going to his "blog". Peter, Wade, Volfie, SBC Impact, Tim Guthrie and Tom Ascoll stand behind their blogs. I may or may not agree with any of them on one particular issue or another, but I will keep going back to them because they have the courage to take the hits.

If I want editorials I'll go to print media

Jim

[wade burleson]

Jim Champion,

You wrote: I have thought of them (SBC Today) as the best Baptist Identity blog going. I enjoy their posts and the interaction. However, if they refuse to defend their arguments they are nothing more than a print editorial that happens to be on line.

Once upon a time Jeremy Green allowed comments, but because he got slaughtered by his commenters - and could not adequately defend his stances he stopped taking comments. I essentially stopped going to his "blog". Peter, Wade, Volfie, SBC Impact, Tim Guthrie and Tom Ascoll stand behind their blogs. I may or may not agree with any of them on one particular issue or another, but I will keep going back to them because they have the courage to take the hits.

If I want editorials I'll go to print media.

With your permission, I would like to make your comment above the basis of a post that I am preparing for next week.

Blessings,

Wade

[Jim Champion]

that would be fine with me

Jim

[peter lumpkins]

Jim,

I'm insulted. You chose SBC Today as the "best Baptist Identity blog going." Also, note you have Tom Ascol's opinion with which to contend--he too thinks another burns their britches pretty good (just kidding).

I do want to make a few comments. First, SBC Today is not "refusing" to defend their arguments. You will agree with me, will you not, that there is a vast difference in "refusing" to defend and "choosing" to defend. I think a little more liberty for the guys there is called for.

By the way, presumably not many of our brothers have dropped either Between the Times or Al Mohler from their RSS readers because they do not allow comments. Just for the record, Jim, do you read SEBTS and Dr. Mohler's blogs?

Secondly, you write, "Jeremy Green...got slaughtered by his commenters - and could not adequately defend his stances." I did not know Jeremy in the timeline you are suggesting. I do know Jeremy now. And, from what I know of Jeremy, for whatever reason he closed his comment thread down, he definitively does not come across to me as one who would get "slaughtered" by his commenters.

Any Rooster who loudly crows is going to get an ear of corn thrown at him in Baptist blogdom. And, sometimes deservedly so! All of us have made some darn good points and all of us have made some very weak ones--even me (just kidding:^). But, all in all, only an authentic nincompoop could get slaughtered so bad by Baptist blogdom he folds shop.

All of that to say this: Jeremy Green is bright, quick-witted, and possesses a stellar understanding of both biblical truth and Southern Baptists. For whatever reason he chose to shut the comments down--I've not a clue--it is highly presumptuous to conclude he could not handle the objections.

Grace, Jim. Always my pleasure.

With that, I am...
Peter

[wade burleson]

But, all in all, only an authentic nincompoop could get slaughtered so bad by Baptist blogdom he folds shop.

Never again can it be said Peter Lumpkins is blind to truth.

:)

[Jim Champion]

Peter

One of my favorite bloggers was Nathan Finn - once he went to the SEBTS site (that did not allow comments) I stopped reading him, not because I don't respect him, I do very much. I have, in my own small way defended his statements a time or two. When he made the decision to shut down his blog and move the SEBTS site, I expressed my regret to him - in the form of a coment! No, I don't read Al Mohler either. Once again they are all extremely intelligent individuals, but what I enjoy about blogs is the interaction. I really enjoy watching someone stake out an issue and then defend their stance.

For the record, I dont necessarily lump you into the BI mold - true your stances tend to mirror theirs - but as I recall you had pretty well staked out your issues before they came along, and in my opinion you are more independent of some of the group think that I see over there.

I first ran into JLG as a commenter on Wade's site, at that time he did in fact allow comments. I thought that JLG offered up some of the weakest posts in blogdom, I did not think he was able to adequately defend his positions, got skewered and shut down his comments and then compared himself to Al Mohler...

[wally]

Peter,
You said: But, all in all, only an authentic nincompoop could get slaughtered so bad by Baptist blogdom he folds shop.

Wes Kenney closed down SBCToday to comments, so does that makes him a Jeremy Green or a authentic nincompoop ?

wally

[peter lumpkins]

Wally,

Your & Burleson's raft unfortunately drifted far, far from the lake's edge by focusing exclusively on nincompoop. Notice carefully these words: "could get slaughtered so bad by Baptist blogdom he folds shop." Neither Jeremy or Wes fit such brutal odds, Wally. Unless, of course, you can demonstrate the massacre.

With that, I am...
Peter

[scott shaffer]

Jim,

All the blogs you refer to are editorials, whether they allow comments or not.

Peace,

Scott

[Jim Champion]

Scott, if we are going to pick nits, I would say that they are interactive editorials

Peace back at ya

Jim