Ed Stetzer, Michael Spencer and the 2009 Southern Baptist Convention by Peter Lumpkins

I apologize in advance.  I have little time to write.  Know, however, it takes only a little time to assess the guffawed views of some otherwise intelligent people. 

Two such views come from Ed Stetzer, the neo-numbers guru of those who appear to think culture should be the conscience of the church rather than the church the conscience of the culture, and IMonk, A.K.A., Michael Spencer, the exclusive, independent voice among bloggers who possesses no bias, no agenda, and no monkey business.  In other words, "Imonk says it, I believe it, and that settles it!"

First, Stetzer.

Of the exchanges yesterday on the floor of the convention and on the woes of the SBC at large, Stetzer told the Courier Journal, "The question, Stetzer said, is whether 'we can have similar beliefs but simultaneously have, within certain parameters, different ways to engage culture, different ways to worship on Sunday morning...I think we can.'"

Eureka!  Stetzer has just articulated all the woes among Southern Baptists today!  It's about "similar beliefs" and "different worship" styles.  Who would have thought some of us in the SBC could not have seen what is so very plain? 

My, oh my, Dr. Stetzer. 

Let me get this straight:  folk like me want to dictate the way other Baptists worship. 

I challenge you, Dr. Stetzer.  You're the numbers guy.  Where is the research for such an irresponsible assertion? 

If you cannot produce the data, I suggest you stop pulling rabbits out of the hat.

Nor is your assertion any more profound which states, "The question...is whether 'we can have similar beliefs but simultaneously have, within certain parameters, different ways to engage culture."  The question begs to be answered is, what is the content of the "similar beliefs" and "certain parameters'? 

If one is speaking about working interdenominationally, I think that's a pliable principle by which to operate.  The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association has for years used a principle close to that one in partnering with various denominations to get the gospel out .  However, planting churches proves far too demanding for such a loosey goosey maxim.

And, as far as "engaging culture," I think you mean, "accepting culture" do you not?  You know, a Driscollian Paradigm where we "Puff, Preach and Partake," or "Who's 4 Brews?" or "Sexcapades," etc. etc.  Well, brother, I don't think you'll get too many Southern Baptists agreeing with your idea of "engaging culture."

 As for Imonk, what can one say?  He says "The younger leaders of the SBC are taking on power in a denomination that has been, for the most part, attempting to lock the doors and hope they would go away. Well, they didn’t" (//link).  Uh, excuse me.  No one said they needed to go away, Michael.  Get you facts straight.  We said they needed to grow up.  There is a difference, you know.

And, may I ask just what you mean by "the Jerry Vines version of the SBC"? You failed to say.  You assumed everyone knows.  Perhaps you do not like Vines because he built a successful, mega-church in Jax, Florida.  But that can't be it because you probably cite building a mega-church as a reason to embrace Driscollian vulgarity. Oh, but wait:  Driscoll engages culture but Vines did not.  How stupid of me.

You further state:  'This is now a denomination that has given itself clear and simple instructions: Get to the task of world missions, not the task of building a denominational culture."  Uh, I don't think that's what we voted on yesterday, Imonk (I was there and I *voted for* the President to appoint a task committee).  We voted to "study" ourselves...to become official and duly elected navel-gazers for an entire year...to add another piece of bureaucratic armor to study whether we need our present bureaucratic armor for future bureaucratic endeavors. Any other time, we'd be plastered to the wall by 'objective' critics like yourself for wasting time with study committees while the world needs the gospel.

I guess you were probably thinking we could live awhile off the fruit of Founders** since Founders has been so successful with their "patient teaching of the Gospel and church-centered theology."  Absolutely! 

And I bet those innumerable churches who've been decimated because of Founders' "quiet revolution" in transforming Southern Baptist churches into "Reformed" fellowships promoting "the doctrines of grace" stand as further evidence of their "patient teaching."  Of course, I'm unsure many of those churches who've been the receiving end of their "fruit" would agree with you on precisely what constitutes "patient teaching of the gospel."  One can surely sympathize with them since their church was gutted of its leadership, however. Surely.

Also, know we are impressed, Michael.  Your prediction that "Thousands of churches will die in the next 2-4 decades" is reminiscent of another Michael, Michel de Nostredame, (A.K.A., Nostradamus) who continues to dazzle modern culture with his pinpoint prophecy!  Perhaps somehow his 17th C prophecies can be incorporated into Stetzer's "similar beliefs" within "certain parameters" so that we can "engage" modern culture.  I'll see if I can make something work.

Finally--and it really saddens me because I want to go on but don't have time--you assert "Johnny Hunt has chosen to support the future of the SBC and the Gospel. He has laid aside the questions of style, culture and methodology- even the questions of Calvinism- and chosen to side with those who want the Gospel itself to be our unity."  Really?  Really?

Not only is this statement amazingly ignorant of the issues surrounding the divide, it is amazingly ignorant of who Johnny Hunt is.  If you think Johnny Hunt will sell his birthright for a bowl of emergent-like stew, you may be two quarts lower than some people think you are. 

Got to go.

With that, I am...

Peter

**Imonk also cites 9Marks about which I have no workable knowledge 

Comments

[Grady Bauer]

Whats constantly amazes me is that this convention was positive...not negative in focus. There were moments when it tried to go that direction...Chapman again attacking Calvinists...dumb motions to boycott June (gay month), Pepsi and Driscoll...but the guys associating with the GCR have mostly been positive and excited about the future of the SBC. You should be excited about this...the denomination you so love has seemingly turned a corner.

Maybe you and others are made because you no longer steer the ship. As far as Dr. Hunt...I know him and respect him deeply...and I know that he loves Jesus and the SBC and he's going to put his differences aside to help the convention...I believe he has and that his legacy will be substantial.

[peter lumpkins]

Grady,

Would you be willing to answer a simple question: how many conventions have you personally attended?

With that, I am...
Peter

[Jim]

Ugh (that means I agree with Grady). That is all.

[Grady Bauer]

I can't attend...I'm on the field. But I've been watching online and following the twub for 2bc2009. But I do know that for the first time in a long time the blogs are excited about what is going on. Except for your blog which is choosing to focus on small things other bloggers said.

You should be excited...you're not. Why? I think it's because the tide is changing and the recently disenfranchised are being listened to and change is happening.

[Frank Turk]

Peter:

How many Acts29-affiliated churches have you ever visited? How many of their pators (many of whom are young SBC pastors) do you know?

[peter lumpkins]

Grady,

I understand you cannot attend now since you're on the field. Of course, that is not what I asked. I asked how many SBC meetings you've attended, that's all.

Would you care to answer?

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Dear Frank,

None. At least, that I'm aware of...

With that, I am...

Peter

[Grady Bauer]

I have attended none. Why? Is personally attending something a prerequisite for having an opinion on it?

[peter lumpkins]

Grady,

Thank you. The answer is an unequivocal no, it is not a prerequisite for having an opinion on the SBC. It does, however, lend much perspective on your first comment, Grady.

So, let's go back to it:

"Whats constantly amazes me is that this convention was positive...not negative in focus. There were moments when it tried to go that direction..."

Well, I can tell you, Grady, this is typical of most all SBC meetings I've attended since 1982 (know I've only missed a few between 1982 and 2009). There are very positive moments and very tense moments. That's life at the SBC. Period. That you have not attended one is indicative of your perspective at that point.

"Chapman again attacking Calvinists...dumb motions to boycott June (gay month), Pepsi and Driscoll...but the guys associating with the GCR have mostly been positive and excited about the future of the SBC."

Correction: Dr. Chapman not only showed his disdain for Calvinism, but apparently for every other "faction" in SBC life since 1845! You were much too conservative, Grady. Nonetheless, Dr. Chapman believes in the GC as much or more than any Southern Baptist today or yesterday.

Presently, while his problem is not whether people believes he embraces the GC. Of course he does. His problem is friends. He may have alienated everybody in the SBC, including those who agree with some of his analysis!

As for the "dumb motions to boycott June (gay month), Pepsi and Driscoll," you missed one--ban secular music from promos at the SBC. Here's one of the major reasons I asked, Grady, about your attendance at the SBC: anyone who knows the culture of the SBC annual meeting knows any nut can stand up and be just about as nutty as he or she pleases.

Fools love microphones. Indeed I've never attended an SBC where fools were not doing what fools do best: fooling on the public airwaves, with media perched like prowling cats to scratch the blood out of SBs for their foolery.

Again, your perspective is lacking on the SBC annual meeting because you have been absentee: "but the guys associating with the GCR have mostly been positive and excited about the future of the SBC."

May I say that the vote for the GCR task committee was probably about 96-97% in favor of it. By the way, as I stated in the post, I voted for it as did every messenger I personally knew and talked to at the SBC, including the alleged "BI" block.

Also, both men who attempted to derail the motion--one through speaking "against" and the other through a "substitute" motion--arguably fits fairly well into the "nutty" category above. I knew neither man, nor were either affiliated with anyone with I am aware have raised concerns in the blog world. Certainly, they were not "BI" guys.

You'd be happy to know--or should be--that I agree with Al Mohler: "What are we afraid of? Why are we afraid to ask questions about what we're doing good, if, in fact, we could do better?" (paraphrase). My excitement exists. Indeed I'd be excited to ask a few questions of my own! The fact is, there's nothing to be against...yet...

Finally, Grady, you seem to think "[I] and others are [mad] because [we] no longer steer the ship." Please, brother. Know your facts before clumping me into anything. Outside of the local association, I've never served on any committee or board in the SBC. Nothing. I am absolutely an outsider. Period.

Nor has our "denomination [we] so love seemingly turned a corner." You may have picked that piece of pyrite up from Imonk. No, what we did do is vote to form a committee. No vote on any committee/body "turns the corner", especially on the issue of evangelism.

As for your confidence that Dr. Hunt is "going to put his differences aside to help the convention..." I would simply say, it depends on the differences toward which one is referring. But then again, if that is the case, we're back to the issue of all reservations raised about the GCR document itself.

Thanks. With that, I am...
Peter

[jthomas]

Peter, Get Bart to teach you how to disagree with people.

[peter lumpkins]

jthomas,

If you'd like to make a contribution, be my guest. If you want to make this thread about me, jthomas, please refrain or move along.

Thanks.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Frank Turk]

Peter --

So is your opinion that all Acts29 churches are like pastored by men like Mark Driscoll? I'm curious because your complaint against Ed Stetzer looks surprisingly like a smear based on that caricature.

[Grady Bauer]

Peter,
Thanks for the genuine response...this may be the first actual dialogue we've had so far. I can honestly say that prior to this year I've never followed the day by day activity of the convention...honestly I've never cared too much before. Why care now???

Over the last year we've seen people come to faith on a monthly basis...not bad for a 99.9% muslim pg....right now people are coming to faith and alot of good stuff is happening. So when we receive word that we are getting no more 2 year people because giving is down...it makes me want to get involved. 80% of our team is either ISC or jmen...and in a year we'll be reduced to a few career couples.

I want to be involved in the SBC...I'm so grateful for the support that comes from LM and CP...and for friends like Johnny Hunt. I'm excited that we're at least committing to study what changes could happen. I'm hoping we decentralize and streamline our organizations to free up more money for reaching the lost...whether thats in the US or in my neck of the woods.

I still would like to hear your response to my questions I asked on the last post....I really would like to know your opinion.

[kim]

Brother Peter, love your site. You are sharp, funny , and get straight to the point. I found your site on the sbctoday website just recently, and you really are a good writer. (do I sound like a suck up or what! LOL)

Anyway, I wasn't able to go to the convention this year, but did watch it on the internet. I've had concerns about Ed Stetzer for awhile now, and frankly their tired conclusions that we've had it wrong since the beginning of the sbc, and they now know the right things to do in regards to methods, beliefs,etc., well let me just say, we've been there, heard that, and done that already.

Stetzer and others are trying to chalk up concerns that many in the sbc have, as to being nothing but fusses over carpet and windows, so to speak. Many of the books, authors, speakers, etc., that he and some in the younger crowd are promoting or giving cover to, believe totally different things about God's Word than we do. And in some cases, a false gospel, or no gospel at all.

I know that some of the motions from the floor regarding Mark Driscoll and things being sold in Lifeway may have not been presented in the best or most understandable way, but I do give them credit for at least trying to get it out there. This convention needs to address these new beliefs and methods coming into our churches. Ruling everything out of order because it seems mean and doesn't show love and unity to people watching on the internet, isn't going to make folks concerns go away.

We have had a lot of contact with acts 29 and the emergent in our state. I've been researching this stuff for four years now. I've been to conferences, to their churches, read their books, listened to the sermons, emailed back and forth with some, etc. Much of this is going to mean trouble for our convention if we don't address it. If the CBF is partnered with these movements, we really should be taking a hard look at why we're ok with the same stuff.

I was a teenager during the conservative resurgence, but my father, a pastor, was helped in the grass roots effort. Remembering his stories from then and reading everything I was able to get my hands on about what was going on, the similarities to whats coming in today is amazing. Folks denying God's Word as innerant, denying the atonement or twisting it to mean something else, professors who cussed, drinking being an issue, etc., we're dealing with this again, with the authors, speakers and materials we're using.

Sorry I made this so long. How embarrassing. My first post to you goes on and on. Just frustrated that the real issues are getting muddled over and confused by Ed Stetzer and others. Thanks for going over this...and putting up with my long windedness. LOL

[jthomas]

Acts29 and the CBF are not tied together.

[svmuschany]

I echo jthomas' statement that Acts29 and the CBF have no connections by any stretch of any imagination. While many CBF'ers are willing to compromise major theological foundations of the Christian faith, Acts 29 does not. Acts 29 is theologically conservative, in that Acts 29 are inerrantists, they teach Christ as the only way to heaven, they hold to a complementarian view of women in the pastorate, they view homosexuality as a sin and would rebuke a church that did not hold such a view just as the SBC did this year at Louisville.

No my friends, Acts 29 is by no means connected with the CBF, and it is a sad misinformed attack to even suggest that.

[jthomas]

I am trying to figure out if Kim's was a mistake, or was written to slander A29 even more. Perhaps, Kim heard somewhere else and just repeated it.

[peter lumpkins]

Frank,

I haven't the faintest idea about "all Acts29 churches" nor whether all the A29 pastors are "like Mark Driscoll." Nothing in my post remotely suggests such.

Though admittedly, now that you mention it, one would need to be a little 'tuched in de haaed' to not think Driscoll's influence magnificent in that network.

Nonetheless, my alleged "complaint against Ed Stetzer look[ing] surprisingly like a smear based on that caricature" fails to register with me. I'm afraid you're going to have to be more precise, Frank.

As for "smear," I think you have me confused with Imonk's spitball, out of nowhere, blown toward Jerry Vines.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Grady,

Thanks. And I hear you. Your appreciation is obvious, Grady.

As for my views, perhaps I'll post soon on this. Thank you for asking.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Kim,

Welcome. And, know I am glad something I write communicates in some small way.

As for your study of some of Stetzer's material, I am glad you took it upon yourself to independently reach your own conclusions. Too much we fail to follow the paper trail. Laziness I suppose.

Know with many of your conclusions I fully concur. The silly charges leveled today--similar to Stetzer's baseless assertions--as if those of us who are vocal are concerned with "worship times," "worship style," "different methodology," etc are completely beside the point, offering the proverbial red herrings to the real issues that's been raised.

Also, I am not so sure a couple of the other commenters were not giving your the hypothetical analogy between CBF & Acts29 enough credence. To be perfectly honest, I've never before thought of comparing/contrasting the two. And, while I would need to think more deeply about the success of such an analogy, I think the possibility exists.

Continue to study, Kim. And, feel free to log on anytime.

Grace. With that, I am...
Peter

[jthomas]

Peter, Are you trying to say that their is a connection between the CBF and A29?

Your smarter than that...

[Big Daddy Weave]

We CBFers might not be inerrantists. We wholeheartedly support women as pastors. We support the autonomy of the local church and the freedom and responsibility of each believer to interpret the Bible for himself or herself. All that said, you won't find a person at a CBF-sponsored event talking about engaging in you know what kind of sexual behavior....

Mark Driscoll is a filthy man.

Lord knows I'll be extremely embarrassed in the next week or so if my 80-year old die-hard WMU grandma decides to ask me what all the fuss is about Mark Driscoll.

[Tim G]

BDW,
For once I actually like your last comment. I have had the same thought about my mother asking me about him.

[jthomas]

It is embarrassing at to explain how we have treated Mark Driscoll. I agree Tim and Big Daddy. It is very telling that we beat up a man who preaches the Gospel.

[Big Daddy Weave]

Oh gosh. Yea, how many ministers of the Gospel do you know that preach on the joys of that type of sexual behavior, Lewinsky-style.

I'm not conservative. Hear me. But we've got a huge problem in our nation with young girls who are willing to do things that their mothers and grandmothers didn't do. Trying not to be graphic but you know what I'm saying? And here we have a popular public preacher like Driscoll preaching of the joys of such sexual behavior and how women should perform such acts on their husbands, etc. It's a little filthy, buddy. That's not the gospel that I was raised with. I'm 26.

I hear all this talk about methodological diversity. I don't fully understand what that means. But I hope methodological diversity has nothing to do with winning souls to Christ through oral copulation, within the bond of marriage of course...

[Frank Turk]

Peter --

"Coy" in an ugly color on you, brother.

You said this:

[QUOTE]
The question begs to be answered is, what is the content of the "similar beliefs" and "certain parameters'?

If one is speaking about working interdenominationally, I think that's a pliable principle by which to operate. The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association has for years used a principle close to that one in partnering with various denominations to get the gospel out . However, planting churches proves far too demanding for such a loosey goosey maxim.

And, as far as "engaging culture," I think [Ed Stetzer means], "accepting culture" do you not? You know, a Driscollian Paradigm where we "Puff, Preach and Partake," or "Who's 4 Brews?" or "Sexcapades," etc. etc. Well, brother, I don't think you'll get too many Southern Baptists agreeing with your idea of "engaging culture."
[/QUOTE]

One of these "arguments" (they may only be slanders intended to make people hate what they fear), phrased as propositions, looks like this:

[1] A "Driscollian paradigm" is bad.
[2] Ed Stezter proposes a Discollian paradigm.
[3] Therefore, what Ed Stetzer proposes is bad.

Another of your arguments, embedded here to make sure you cover your bases, is that the "Driscollian paradigm" is inherently to offer booze, drugs and sex in church for whatever reason. This is why I have asked you if you have ever darkened the door of an Acts29 church -- because frankly, that's worse than a slur.

I'm not a fan of the unrepentant use of foul language coming from Mars Hill Church's teaching pastor, but to smear all A29 churches as having the same problem when you couldn't name a second or third (let alone a representative sample) A29 church is simply irresponsible.

So in that way, I ask you:

So is your opinion that all Acts29 churches are like pastored by men like Mark Driscoll? I'm curious because your complaint against Ed Stetzer looks surprisingly like a smear based on that caricature.

[peter]

Dear Frank,

So, am I supposed to be so hard-pressed by your stellar, syllogistic logic which strangely insists that, though I said nothing in this post about either the A29 network or the pastors who lead the churches, somehow I am bound to have meant them because your spiffy little syllogism says so? Somewhere, Frank, your premises lost a screw. Go look for it.

Now as for my being the color of "coy," know you have my express permission to believe as you wish.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Frank Turk]

Big Daddy:

You said --

[QUOTE]
I hear all this talk about methodological diversity. I don't fully understand what that means. But I hope methodological diversity has nothing to do with winning souls to Christ through oral copulation, within the bond of marriage of course...
[/QUOTE]

Let's assume for a moment that Ed Stetzer is proposing that talking about sex as if it was not a private and holy thing when he says "methodological diversity". If he is, don't you think he would have published something in the last 10 years that said so, or maybe delivered a sermon on such a thing in all his years of pastoring? If that's his point, why is it not represented in any of his work or in his life?

What we have instead is the fear-mongering of people like Peter Lumpkins, where inuendo replaces fact and slander replaces reputation. My advice to you, before I give you the answer you have reasonably asked for, is that you get familiar with Ed Stetzer's pastoral and professional track record before you try to place him on the pastoral malpractice list.

That said, here's what "methodological diversity" means when Ed says such a thing:

[1] The order of service is not listed or demanded by Scripture, therefore it is a method and not a sacramental requirement.

[2] Scripture clearly shows us that translations of God's word are sufficient to convey to the reader the power of God's Gospel, therefore mandating one translation over another is unwarranted.

[3] Weekly worship is the practice demonstrated by the NT. All other gatherings of the church are, at best, described as pragmatic operations of the church and are therefore subject to innovation or replacement in order to achieve the end of Great Commission.

[4] The only ordinances of the church are Baptism and the Lord's table. All other practices of the church are subject to innovation or replacement in order to achieve the end of Great Commission.

[5] The NT defines obedience the loving response to God which also is reflected in a loving response to people. In seeking to be obedient in that way, we relegate all other activities to their rightful place behind loving one another as Christ loved us.

[6] The declaration of the Gospel is the central and causative mission of the church. Any activity which obstructs that is a sinful activity. However, it is foolish to think that there is only one institutional/communal way of doing this. God declares that every tribe, tongue and nation shall worship him, and we should trust Him to make that true in the tribe, tongue and nation we find ourselves in -- we shouldn;t try to make people in Chicago or Buffalo look culturally like people in Little Rock or Memphis.

Ed might have more to add to this list, but I think this is the place he starts.

[peter]

BDW,

Thanks for weighing in on this particular issue. Your words communicate positively to many, many SBs.

Quite honestly, in fact, your view bleeds the air out of the tires of those who, at least on this singular 'sexcapades' issue, insist Dricollism is the skewed thinking of fundamentalist, moral legalism at work.

Have a great day, bro.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Frank Turk]

And before anyone interprets my silence over Peter's treatment of Michael Spencer as some kind of agreement or endorsement, to link iMonk with Founders is like trying to link me with Scientology. I know a couple of Scientologists, and they read my blog from time to time. that's about it.

This post spells out the real poverty of peter's complaints because they rely entirely on statements that aren't even hearsay -- they're simply fabrications and imaginative stories about people Peter sees as "enemies".

[kim]

Peter, thanks for the welcome.

As for the CBF and Acts 29 connection, I guess I didn't explain that well. Let me clarify. I didn't mean there was a signed, legal partnership somewhere of the two. I mentioned the emergent movement too, and I do realize there are differences between Acts 29 & emergent.

What I meant was the use of many of the same materials, authors, speakers, etc., that are used in the emergent movement, are also utilized in CBF.(CBF's spiritual formation site is one example) Brother Driscoll did separate himself from the emergent, because of their straying from Scipture, and I commend him for that, but he too, uses and recommends some of the same material that help lead that group astray.

I don't believe I'm slandering him. Like I mentioned, I did my homework first. Brother Driscoll leaves a confusing trail to follow. Some of my concerns:

*sex references abound, in books and sermons
*disrespectful talk of Scripture and our Lord.(ex. saying folks in Jesus' day thought mary and joseph were knocking boots in the back of the car, and using the Ecclesiastes verse about whatever your hand finds to do, do with all your might, as a joke for male...well, you know)
*finding things in the Song of Solomon that just aren't there.(read or listen to his Scotland sermon on this. Pretty disturbing how he interprets this)

*preaching at Crystal Cathedral, more than once. Warned by his friends that Schuller's teachings were not biblical, but didn't heed their advice.

I believe we're confusing the flock. We're giving excuses for many things, saying it's ok if their solid most of the time. I've even been told, "throw out the bad and keep the good". How do you do that, where in the case of many in the emergent, they deny core doctrines, and in the case of Mark Driscoll, his vulgarity is disturbing enough, it wrecks what good he does say.

I just believe that some in the SBC, who don't believe in the false teachings of the emergent, or the lack of Holiness in some of brother Driscolls teachings, are providing cover for this, instead of addressing it as a legitimate concern. I hate to say this, but in days gone by, wasn't the label moderate given to folks who believed biblically, but wouldn't take a stand against the unbiblical, or excused it instead?

We can't get so arrogant to think we can't make these same mistakes again. Sorry Peter. Long post again. I'll get better. I promise. LOL

[dac]

I still like Frank, even if he doesn't like me.

But the most amazing qoute of this whole thing is

**Imonk also cites 9Marks about which I have no workable knowledge

Really? Your commenting on the SBC and you have no knowledge of 9Marks?

[kim]

Just a side note to a comment from Frank Turk:

I have been to an Acts 29 church, and I've interacted and listened to other Acts 29 pastors. I'm sorry, but Mark Driscoll is not the only one who uses the foul language. I've heard it and read it myself from others. Now I know that doesn't mean that all in this group do this, but it's not isolated to just it's president.

It still should be a concern to you though, that the leader of Acts 29 does this often and has this reputation. Being the founder and president, he is the face of this group, whether you like it or not. For those in Acts 29 who are not following his example, I'm encouraged, but unfortunately the men I've encountered, are representative of Mark in their language.

[peter lumpkins]

Frank,

I'm not sure if and/or how many "interprets [your] silence over [my]treatment of Michael Spencer as some kind of agreement or endorsement [in linking] iMonk with Founders..." but if they do at all, I'll be a little shocked.

You like logic. Let's see if it works against me yet a second time:

--All A [people whom Peter mentions who quotes a positive statement about an entity] is B [people who are in bed with the entity about whom they positively quote]
--Imonk is an A
--Hence, Imonk is a B

Great heavens, Frank! I'm had yet once again by your irrefutable, perfectly valid logic!

As for the "real poverty of peter's complaints" I cannot deny. Perhaps they do thrive on the wrong side of the tracks--at least in your opinion. But let's be fair, Frank: it's only because of your opinion and not because your sophisticated syllogisms as the former example above shows.

Nor does this post rely on 'fabrications and imaginative stories about people Peter sees as "enemies."' Unless, of course, you can show how I misused any statement I quoted from the sources. If you cannot, I suggest, Frank, you go elsewhere, making your false charges of "smear" to someone who actually likes that kind of exchange.

I trust the rest of your day well.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Dear Dac,

I'm aware 9Marks is an influential ministry in certain sectors of the SBC. So?

Before I take it upon myself to offer a critique and/or an estimation, I at least attempt to dig a bit into what their ministry is about, not rely on the popularity of the ministry. It is in that sense I mentioned 9Ms.

If this strikes you as odd or "amazing", what can I say? Have a great day.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

All,

I'm headed to Atlanta and will be out of touch for a while.

Please, by all means, play. But play nice.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Chris Poe]

Hmm, rather scurrillous, Frank, if I don't say so myself.

In retrospect I was too apologetic over at your place a couple of months ago when you lobbed that word in my direction when I noted that we had heard nary a peep from the most prominent Founders leaders on the Driscoll controversy. If anyone's posting around that time was scurrillous, it was Dr. Ascol's disingenouous (at best) questions about whether or not Dr. Yarnell thought non-Baptists could be saved. (I wonder how many of Dr. Yarnell's detractors even have a clue who Simone Weil and Alexandr Solzhenitsyn were, two non-Baptists that Dr. Yarnell is fond of quoting.) But you gotta stand up for your homies in the Reformed movement, I know, I know. Thus proving my point about the movement mentality tending to cloud judgment that I had been making all along. And there are not a few Founders Calvinists who connected the dots precisely where I did regarding Driscoll, contextualization, etc.

I hold no brief for any "side" in the SBC (I really can't fully identify with any of them, perhaps because I didn't come up in the SBC and have a Presbyterian and independent background) but simply call them as I see them. I am not a Southern Baptist, (now happily attending an independent church) but I do have a lot of respect for Dr. Akin and others and do hope that the churches of the SBC are used mightily in evangelizing the world.

In a recent interview, Dr. Akin reiterated his abstentionist stance. I wonder how long it will be before the SBC youth brigades are clamoring for him to get out of the way with his 1950's fundy old South ideas? (I don't have time to look it up now but apparently it was given just before the start of the 2009 SBC.)

Much of the furor over Dr. Chapman's message was due to the fact that it evidently generated more heat than light. From reading the transcript it appears that his comments about Calvinism, Driscollism, etc. were almost totally negative, no doubt leading to the negative response. But interestingly in the same interview referenced above Dr. Akin made similar comments about Calvinism (stating that that most Calvinists are a positive force, but that unfortunately some do tend toward hyperism and fatalism and seem to have no place for human responsibility in their theology) and backed them up with concrete examples, the kinds of examples that the Calvinists (and even a few non-Calvinists) on Twitter and FB were howling are a figment of the imagination.

Furthermore, why anyone touts the opinion of a man (imonk) on the Great Commission when he's reiterated over and over again that in his opinion Roman Catholicism is just another Christian denomination much like Presbyterianism or Lutheranism and that evangelism of RC's is improper is beyond me. In his much lauded report on the SBC, he opened by deriding those who would be critical of the goings on at the SBC as having "autocratic" forms of church government that are "imitations of the Vatican." (Since the church I attend now has elder rule, I suppose it's an "imitation of the Vatican." I prefer to think of it as biblical church government.) Yet he's shown time and again to not have much of a problem with the real Vatican and has ads selling rosaries on his site.

[peter]

I venture over to Peter's to enjoy his writing on the SBC. What do I see? Peter and B'Diddy in agreement. The agree while some who rubbed elbows with with Peter at the convention now desire to do all they can to derail his points.

It is a strange world in which we live.

Blessings,
Tim

[Chris Poe]

In order to avoid unnecessary tit/tat, let me spell out clearly that I am not linking Turk and Michael Spencer (imonk), two men who have often disagreed in the past.

The last four paragraphs of my comment are general observations on the comments of the past few days that addressed to no one in particular.

[Chris Poe]

Here's a link to Trevin Wax's interview with Dr. Akin that I referenced earlier: http://tinyurl.com/mfjytg

[G F McDowell]

Are you the same Lumpkins who wrote "Baptist Confessions of Faith"?

[Bill]

Preaching at the Crystal Cathedral is bad? So you would prefer that the congregants at the CC never hear the Gospel?

[Frank Turk]

Wow -- so peter Lumpkins disavows his own criticism -- essentially denying every word of it in order to discredit someone who is calling him on it -- and Chris Poe thinks there's a vast Calvinist conspiracy to cover for Mark Driscoll becasue I think it's completely non-credible to put all the A29 churches under the Mark Driscoll blanket?

I love this place! It's like the Ferry ride in the original Willy Wonka movie!

[Frank Turk]

It's also a little edgy of Chris to mention half the matter in regard to his posts at my blog. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and apologized after the fact.

It's conventient to forget that, but not actually very edifying. I wonder why that slipped his mind?

[Chris Poe]

Why all the bold type, Frank? I'll cop to being edgy myself, but I doubt I'm the only one who finds typing in all bold to be rather edgy (or insert other similar adjective of one's choice) as well.

Frank, you are correct that you apologized on your blog for using the word scurrillous to describe one of my posts and that I didn't note that fact here. It didn't slip my mind. My point was simply that in my opinion the use of the term was more appropriately applied elsewhere and that I don't think I should have been as apologetic as I was when confronted in that manner. In retrospect, it would have been better not to have posted here about that at all and to have refrained from rehashing an old thread, especially since I'm supposed to be on "hiatus" (if not retired) from blogging. While I do not retract the substance of my comments, it was unprofitable at best to attempt to settle the score here.

I never alleged any conspiracy, Frank, but merely offered some observations as to why certain individuals remained silent. Ironically, most Calvinists I discussed the issue with personally (including a number of preachers) agreed with me and also wondered why so many leaders were remaining silent. (As has been noted before, until recently, most vocal critics of Driscoll have been Calvinists, although most have been outside of the SBC.)

That issue has been rehashed ad nauseum and I really have nothing to add to it at this point. I never said you ought to do anything one way or the other about the A29 churches, either here or on your blog. I'm no expert on them by any means. There seems to be much to be thankful for in their ministries as well as some areas of possible concern from my standpoint. My guess is that they are no more monolithic than is the SBC or PCA as a whole, although I would imagine that they would tend to share certain characteristics. I wish you and them and anyone who may have engaged in scurrillous behavior well. (And who hasn't done that at some point or another?) I also think the posts of yours that I've read on Driscoll as well as Titus have been quite helpful.

Now, to actually address the topic of Peter's post, I do want to note that I really don't have any issue with Ed Stetzer (other than questioning his eagerness to work with such a wide array of denominations, from pentecostal groups to the PCUSA, something I understand he is going to address soon) and appreciate much of what he says. Joe White didn't like the way he was quoted in the Tennessean the other day when he was interviewed about the convention, stating that he was not actually misquoted but that what was printed lacked context that would have given more clarity to what was printed. It's possible that some of the context of Stetzer's remarks were left out in the article that Peter referenced here as well. While he would likely be comfortable with some methods of engaging culture that some of us might question, in fairness he has been critical of at least some aspects of what Peter refers to as "sexcapades."

Peter, I apologize for hijacking the thread and venting my spleen in this manner. Hopefully I can resist temptation to join the fray again, especially on an issue that doesn't directly affect me. I do want to congratulate you on your book and hope to get it in the near future.

[Chris Poe]

Well, I see that my comment went in all bold too for some reason.

Sorry Frank for insinuating you were being provocative for posting in bold.

[Louis]

Peter:

This is my first comment on your blog, though we have posted comments on other blogs before.

I attended this year's convention.

Here are my thoughts:

1. I was pleased with what I will call the maturity of the messengers and the operation of the Resolutions Committee. There were motions and resolutions proposed that in my opinion were fringe and, if entertained by the body, would have taken lots of energy to work through and would have produced the kind of headlines that usually make us look like clowns. The messengers were amazingly unified in their lack of tolerance for these type of motions, voting in most cases in what I would estimate 85 to 90% unity to stay on track. The Resolutions Committee also reported out just 5 Resolutions and rejected a whole bunch. I am sure some of the ones they rejected were good, but I like the idea of "less is more." I did not agree with the entire text of every resolution, but they were not horrible.

2. The 9Marks meetings that occurred at 9:00 after the Convention each night were GREAT!!! They were packed. Lots of young guys wanting to learn. And the content was excellent. Instead of navel gazing, Mark Dever just honed in on what he thought were the most important values for this up and coming generation of young preachers. One was expository preaching. Another was not worrying about numbers and the eschatalogical place of the SBC. He emphasized faithfulness to biblical principle, basically ignored all of the "decline, decline, decline pessimism." I suspect that you may have some theological differences with Dever, but I can tell from what you have written that you have 2 things in common: 1. The primacy of solid theology (as opposed to experience); and 2. Not letting cultural fads drive our theology or the way we do church. What's interesting is that Dever, Mohler are the guys who are least likely to follow any current cultural fads when it comes to church plants etc. And they are leading a large segment of young people who are serious about the Gospel and what the Church is.

3. The Baptist 21 luncheon was awesome. To see Dever, Mohler, Akin with other guys in front of hundreds of young guys wanting to participate in SBC life, and to see them fielding tough questions and not simply parrotting what one would think would be conventional SBC exec answers OR urging an SBC version of Willow Creek was great.

4. Louisville reflected what I believe will be the beginnings of the younger generation moving into SBC leadership. Lots of people thought Greensboro was going to be that, but other than the election of Frank Page, there were no significant developments etc. And Frank Page's appointments are very much in line with continuing the CR. The guys would appeared that they would lead some kind of movement starting in Greensboro never lead any such movement. They are all gone. Nothing of any lasting worth was produced by that hiccup. Louisville, on the other hand, showed that there are thousands of young people who do not find their identity in being SBC, but they are in the SBC because of the common mission. And what's interesting is that I get the sense that none of these young people wants to be a trustee anywhere, or wants to control anything. They want to have healthy churches and they want the SBC to be as effective as it can be.

5. The CR is not in ANY danger of being overturned or reversed. There are disagreements, but not over the nature of scripture. I did not sense the participation of any significant "moderate" presence at the convention who was wanting to argue about the BFM 2000, the peace committee report, Paige Patterson etc.

6. I have NO idea what the task force is going to recommend. I have the sense that Dr. Chapman is trying to please all of the constituencies that he has to answer too, including the state conventions. So I am not all worked up about what he said.

7. I don't think it will matter, in some ways, what the task force recommends. We started a church in 1992. We do not give the traditional way - sending all of our money to the state, where about 65% is kept for state causes. We had some non-baptists who started the church with us. They were very pro-missions, so we give heavily to the missions. We do that by sending contributions directly to the SBC office in Nashville. We send money to the state, but not that much. I predict that no matter what the task force recommends that giving patterns among younger baptists are going to be based on the mission and interest of the particular fellowship, and NOT just because it has always been done that way.

Those are my thoughts for now. I wish you the best.

Louis

[Bill]

The bold is my fault I think. I forgot to add the last tag.

[dac]

fixed bold?

[Tim Rogers]

Peter,

Good you signed out. Sorry for not recognizing your sign in stuff on my computer.