« Ecumenism Unplugged: by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Mann, Merritt, and Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary »

2009.05.05

Comments

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

Jim Champion

So the SBC today boys are still operating their little editorial page. Too bad they do not take comments - Merrit dropped at Tim G's place and commented, he might have done the same over at SBC today given the chance and carried on a good debate with Bro Mann.

I will be the first to say that I am not in agreement with everything Merritt has to say, but according to the ABC article your putting Merritt and Tyler Wigg-Stevenson in complete agreement on everything is a bit of a stretch.

Your friend - nonglobal warming believer (yet environmentalist) pro nuke friend

Jim Champion

peter lumpkins

Jim

Hey, my nonglobal-warming, pro-nuke friend! I'm glad we have things on which to agree. I do wonder, though, how you read in the few dots I connected my stretched attempt to place "Merritt and Tyler Wigg-Stevenson in complete agreement on everything." Did I do that? Lands' sake, brother. Both Mann and Allen (ABP) drew more dots than I and I would not say either connected Merritt and Wigg-Stevenson so tightly.

I thought my point was, Merritt & Wigg-Stevenson were joined at the hip on global-free nukes.

Perhaps we'll shake hands in Louisville, That is, if you can bare to leave Texas that long.

With that, I am...
Peter

Jonathan Merritt

Peter, Peter, Peter...

I have read other posts on your blog, and quite frankly, my friend, you can do better. I am most certainly NOT a pacifist and I can assure you that those on "the left" do not consider me a member of their club. Your post here--as well as the one linked to on SBC Today--is riddled with false statements and inconsistencies too many to name here, but I do want to point out that the Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative and SEBTS share no relation.

As far as nukes are concerned, to compare a bomb that indiscriminately kills tens of thousands of CIVILIANS to a .22 that can be used by a soldier against a soldier (see Romans 13) is sheer idiocy.

peter lumpkins

Jonathan

Thanks for logging on. I must confess you're right: all my posts are not of the same quality. Some are better than others and this may be one of my weakest. I'll be content to let others make that call. It is soothing to me, however, you have considered my posts before ;^).

I appreciate your stated confession you're "NOT a pacifist." That helps. I wouldn't be so sure about the other though-"the left" does not consider you one of them. I think Ron Sider, Tony Campolo, and Sojourners would give you an honorary membership in their club today if you asked. At least, from your public positions thus far, that'd be my inclination.

As for the SBEI & SEBTS having no relation, thanks for the correction. My deepest apologies. I must have made the connection somehow (I try to avoid making things up). I'll attempt to find where I connected the dots and report back.

Now, Jonathan, while I cannot deal with a vague criticism like "Your post here...is riddled with false statements and inconsistencies too many to name here"--I'm not a mind reader!--I can deal with my supposed analogy which, according to you, is sheer idiocy: "to compare a bomb that indiscriminately kills tens of thousands of CIVILIANS to a .22 that can be used by a soldier against a soldier (see Romans 13) is sheer idiocy."

First, I think you kinda tinkered with my words, young buddy. You picked the reductio ad absurdum to fault rather than my real point--"He says those who will be affected by the detonation of a nuclear bomb are objects of God's love. Well, those who are affected by the detonation of any bomb are objects of God's love. Thus, Merritt's point applies to all WMD, not just ones with nuclear warheads."

My point was and is, nuclear pacifism needs more going for it than arguing the indiscriminate killing of tens of thousands of civilians if you're arguing exclusively for nuclear pacifism. Why? Because any WMD potentially involves indiscriminate killing of thousands of civilians. Hence, it seems to me one either argues for the moral repugnance of all WMD or none, based on the objection you offered.

Now, as for hand-to-hand combat you mentioned, I think there is merit in what you say. Thank you. I'm going to give that some thought. I do wonder why you rooted it in Rom. 13. I'm not sure it's applicable. I'll also point out "the lefties" about which you firmly deny carrying their card play with that argument alot. If I am correct, you're using their arguments while denying their position, always an awkward race to run, if you ask me.

Grace, Jonathan. Maybe we'll have a cup of coffee sometime (I'm on the other side of Atlanta from you).

With that, I am...
Peter

volfan007

Peter,

I would have liked for Jonathan to have pointed out the inconsisties. Wouldnt you?


David Worley, National Spokesperson
Southern Baptist Average Joe's and Rednecks

volfan007

Also, Jonathan, you are tied to the hip with someone who leans very, very left in this matter....do you not?


David Worley, National Spokesperson
Southern Baptist Average Joe's and Rednecks

John Mann

Peter,

It was probably one of my statements on SBC Today that led to the confusion of SBCEI and SEBTS being in a formal relationship. For that I apologize. My point was simply that SEBTS has allowed Jonathan to travel "on their dime" as he speaks to this issue. I suppose that only makes SEBTS a "cooperative partner" with the SBCEI as Jonathan speaks to this issue. Therefore, SBECI and SEBTS are not necessarily in a formal relationship, rather, SEBTS simply gives support to the SBECI. I hope that helps.

peter

John (Mann),


Your apology for getting the relationship between Jonathan and SEBTS is laudable.  Perhaps Jonathan, however, needs to explain the news release from SEBTS and his statements he made about their "non"-relationship.  Consider the link below--


News & Sources--SEBTS


With that, I am...


Peter

volfan007

Peter,

You're bringing up facts again. Facts get in the way of what people want something to say, or mean.

:)

David

Jim Champion

I just love it when conservatives bash conservatives - guess environmentalism just does not fit with the BI or redneck plank. As a hunter and fisherman, I will say that environmentalism absolutely fits within my beliefs - both scripturally and as someone who enjoys the outdoors. There is little worse to me than polluted rivers/lakes or people that trash the environment. I applaud young Mr Merritt on his work - and will say its about time someone within the SBC took up the cause.

I read through the links - although not Mr Manns as the site he chose to post on is noting more than an editorial page - now if he were to post it here or at SBC Impact where Merritt and Mann could carry on a conversation, it might be interesting to see what develops.

As the parent of college age kids, and a long time teacher of a college age sunday school class - two of their hot buttons are Nukes/war in general - they all have friends who are serving or have served in Iraq/Afghanistan etc.

On the environmentalism issue, I do not see Merritt calling for cap and trade or radical climate change initiatives - climate change is taking place - the only argument is if it is man made or not - my personal belief is that it is not - I buy more into the sun spot theory. However Volfie - just because it happens to be cooler in your redneck area of the woods on one day does not mean that warming is not taking place, but I see him doing practical things on the SEBTS campus. Mr Merritt if you would like to elaborate what you are doing I would love to read more about it.

Lastly Volfie - as much as you are ridiculed on your own site, why the venom dripping comments about Mr Merritt here. Hope it makes you feel better. by the way, nice use of the roger Moran technique - if you know someone who might be a liberal, then you must be one as well... did you actually go to the two futures project website - there are some solid conservatives that have signed onto that initiative.

Jim

volfan007

Jim,

Venom dripping towards Jonathan Merritt? Where? Am I not allowed to disagree with someone without being called hateful? I mean, my goodness, Jim, everytime I disagree with anyone, I have you and two or three others calling me a meanie. Am I not allowed to voice my opinion? Am I not allowed to disagree with those who are taking not so conservative roads? And, if I do disagree, does that make me a meanie?

Also, I believe I told Merritt that the stands he's taking are not very conservative, and the guy he's hooked to the hip with is certainly not conservative. Take that for what it's worth.

David

Tim G

Great comment stream,
I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this tonight. You guys helped me laugh more tonight than in a while.

Thank you!

And Peter, I liked the post!

John Mann

Peter,

My point exactly. Whether or not SEBTS has "signed papers" with Merritt is beside the point. They have, according to their own press, entered into an agreement with him which includes funding for travel and authroity to speak on their behalf. Call "formal" or "informal," it makes no difference. But it is a relationship nonetheless, regardless of the spin.

Debbie Kaufman

The fact that John Merritt has come here, to SBCToday and to Tim Guthrie's blog attempting to further dialogue about the inconsistencies gives a lot of credibility in my eyes. Instead of listening further misrepresentation on your part, david, and John Manning, is occurring. I think this is the biggest problem we have in the SBC. The lies keep on coming, instead of attempting to listen and understand.

peter lumpkins

Debbie,

I'll tell you what's wrong: shallow reading which leads to false conclusions. First, you not only miss Merritt's name, you also botch Mann's. That's an honest mistake but a sloppy one to get both parties wrong. But even worse, you indict us all for "misrepresentation" indicative of the "lies" that "keep on coming" instead of "attempting to listen and understand."

I suggest, my sister, you get a life. Unless you're prepared to show both our "misrepresentation" and "lies" we're producing, you should keep your slander to yourself. Do not come back here with such questionable nonsense again. Period.

With that, I am...
Peter

Jim Champion

Volfie

you brought absolutely nothing to this discussion other than pulling a Roger Moran on Mr Merritt. Do you disagree with him - why and where do you disagree, don't just bring your usual big bag of nothing.

By the way - I don't care if you agree or disagree - bring some substance. I would love to debate you on substance, in fact I might just take you seriously. Unfortunately when you are confronted with anything other than conventional thought you retreat with your fingers in your ears. The only time you thought for yourself in my remembrance was with the Garner Motion - you know the one you were for before you found out that the BI boyos were against...

Peter, delete this if you like

With that I am frustrated with the Volfie.

Jim

volfan007

Jim,

I'm just honest and say what I really think. I freely admitted that I was confused about the Garner Motion, and the weeks afterwards, it appeared that many other were just as confused as I was. And, Jim, I do not blindly accept the party line. That's a laugh, and if some who really know me heard you say that, they'd bust out laughing. They would not be able to contain themselves. You dont know me as well as you think you do.

Also, I'm sure that you've seen me write what I dont agree with young Merritt about. I dont believe that weapons of mass destruction are anti-Christian, nor immoral. Thank God that we have them, otherwise, we might all be a part of the USSR by now; or, we'd be looking down the barrel of a nuke from some maniac leading a rogue country. Also, I really dont think that the SBC should waste time, nor God's money, with environmental and climate issues. Puleeease. Let's win souls, do missions, start Churches, train Pastors, take care of children in need....but environmental issues? uh uh. Also, I didnt care much for Merritt's view on homosexuals being accepted by the govt. as ok. In matters like gay marriage, sharing health insurance benefits, being considered family by hospitals, etc. This a perverted sin, and until not too long ago, it was not only considered a crime by most states, if not all the states, but it was also considered a mental illness by the psychological world. Now, of course, I'm not saying that anyone should be mean to homosexuals. We should care about their souls enough to reach out to them with the Gospel of the Lord Jesus, so that they can be set free. But, to recognize their lifestyle as a viable, alternative lifestyle? I dont think so.

Jim, is that substantive enough for you? Or, will you shrug this comment off as well?

David

Jim Champion

Much better Volfie

And you know what, I agree with you on a couple of these. I also think Nukes are a deterrent and that the US needs them, especially with Pakistan, India possible N Korea (at least trying to develop them not to mention Iran...)

Homosexuals - I would argue separation between church and state, although I do not think homosexuals need separate rights and am adamantly opposed to homosexual marriage. Would never agree with the concept of homosexual pastors - but think the church is so scared of homosexuals that we do a poor job of evangelizing them.

If the state wants to rule in favor of allowing insurance benefits to partners - well it keeps people on employer sponsored plans and off medicare and medicaid that is a state decision.

I disagree with the mental illness issue and dont think you will find a reputable psychologist, Christian or nonChristian,who does anymore either.

On the Merritt and climate change issue - Merritt is being funded by a grant not the CP. If SEBTS wants to throw some money to him that is between the SEBTS trustees and Dr Akin. Climate change is an important issue to many - I think Merritt has taken a responsible approach to the issue. I also think it is important for the SBC to be a positive proactive force in the climate change discussion specifically and environmentalism in general

Jim

Debbie Kaufman

And Peter, I refer you to comments 3&4. My reading comprehension is just fine. thanks for your concern anyway.

Sam Wilson

I'm late getting into the fray... no idea if anyone is still reading this...

Am I the only one who even wonders why the SBC is related (no matter how distantly or closely) to initiatives to address a "warm" earth? I have difficulty (I've tried... hard) seeing where the subject even fits into the role of the SBC... is it to attract the lost? Is it packaged with the Gospel message? Does it help widows and orphans? Does it somehow help teach us more about God? Or is it to help current members feel "better" about their denomination?

I think Satan probably enjoys our distraction on this issue, and then Pete (and others) rightly have to take time/effort/research to refute what someone thought was an "important" initiative, when it really shouldn't be on the radar.

Sam

selahV

Sam, I'm still reading. And you voice some questions that are rattling through my mind, but since I don't know what Mr. Merritt is doing with it, I guess I'll just wait and hear. However, since "the earth shall pass away", I do wonder if maybe what Amy Carmichael once penned, says it all: "All that matters is that which is eternal."

The comments to this entry are closed.