« Danny Akin, Ed Stetzer and Muffling Mean-spirited Myth-makers: Part I by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Danny Akin and Muffling Mean-spirited Myth-makers: Part 3 by Peter Lumpkins »

2009.10.15

Comments

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

William Thornton

Floyd has clarified his earlier comments about the various search committees watching the GCTF.

The Task Force could defuse a good bit of criticism by refusing to have closed meetings. If they're discussing the future of the SBC, let all the megachurch people who are on the committee do somethign they don't do in their churches - do stuff in the open.

peter lumpkins

William,
Thanks.

While I concede some clarifications may have been made, the problem is, most every thing I listed here begs for clarification and I could have added to the list! If I am correct, the difficulty for them in diffusing "myths" is simple insurmountable.

Nor do I think your suggestion about being open is too much to ask. As you rightly indicated at BL, responsible journalists could be invited to attend these meetings. The nature of the TF is surely unlike dealing with personnel issues which understandably justify some privacy.

Thanks again, William.

With that, I am...
Peter

Dave Miller

I read Danny Akin’s series of articles and found them interesting and informative. You said that Dr. Akin (and Stetzer), “thought it necessary to squelch the chatter,” and that he desired to “muffle the alleged myth-makers.” I support your right to express dissent, but I do not think that this accusation is fair.

You have freely expressed your viewpoints of the statements made by task force members. Others have joined in the refrain. I’m not saying you were wrong in what you said, though I disagreed with much of it. But Dr. Akin has the same right you have. If you raise issues, he can respond with answers.

And, he is within his right to designate rumor-mongering and spreading of false information to be sinful. Do any of us doubt that rumor-mongering and false information have taken place? He did not mention you or make specific accusations. We do not know about whom he spoke. His criticism was more generic. Do you have some information that his words were directed at you?

But he did not squelch chatter or muffle anyone. Expressing an opinion or conviction does not muffle anyone. He stated his opinion and perspective in opposition to what he saw as myths and rumors that were being promulgated. Stating an opinion to the contrary is part of debate and dissent, and is not squelching anything.

I believe in your right to dissent. I also believe in Dr. Akin’s right to dissent from you or anyone else who he feels mischaracterizes his opinions or work. I thought he did so with grace and clarity.

peter lumpkins

Dave,

Unless I am mistaken, not once have I,

a) suggested Dr. Akin has no right to respond. If so, where?
b) suggested I was the target of his criticisms. If so, where?
c) raised issues to which Dr. Akin responded (at least directly so far as I know). If so, where?

I encourage exchange, Dave but I would appreciate you dealing with the substance of what I've written.

On the other hand:

You say you do not think that "this accusation is fair". The "accusation" about which you speak is Stetzer & Akin's thinking "it necessary to squelch the chatter."

Consider, however:

--"I am going to do a series of blogs that will hopefully help in putting to rest a number of untruths that are being bantered about" (Akin)
--"let’s all take a deep breath and let NAMB recover before we start saying what needs to happen next" (Stetzer)
--"Some of this behavior is simply sad. Some of it, however, is sinful because it is pure rumor-mongering plain and simple" (Akin)

In light of these statements, do you suppose Drs. Akin and Stetzer are suggesting the "chatter" continue, Dave?

Further, to suggest that because they did not actually "squelch or muffle anyone" with the continuing series on myth-making is absurd. You're simply ignoring the real point of my post found at the end.

Namely, the TF itself is as responsible as anyone--perhaps more--for the alleged rumors out there because of the steady stream of confusing signals given by the spokespersons themselves, the confusing stream, part of which I documented in this post. Hence, if Dr. Akin expects to effectively address the alleged "rumor-mongering," a reality check on the public relations area of the TF must be 1st on the list.

With that, I am...
Peter


Dave Miller

Ignore my email, Peter. I decided to respond here.

1) My point was simply that your accusations that he was trying to squelch or muffle (your words) debate were not accurate. I think both you and he have the right to dissent on any issue.

2) It is my sense that you were, by calling his expression of opinion an attempt to muffle or squelch, effectively denying him the right to express a contrary opinion.

3) I did not say that you said he was speaking about you. I said he was not speaking about you. I asked a question - do you have information that I don't have? I'm not sure you read that clearly before your response.

4) It is because of the point I made that I do not think your self-described main point is wrong.

In spite of your response, I believe I dealt substantively and respectfully with your post, even though I disagree with your point.

peter lumpkins

Dave,

Look. You've twice logged your opinion while you find Danny Akin informative you find me neither "fair" (1ST COMMENT) nor "accurate" (2nd comment). That's fine. Believe as you wish.

But I have no desire to exchange over your opinion. If you have any substantial objection to the content I posted, rather than continue to log your repeated value judgment that Akin is informative and helpful but Lumpkins is unfair and inaccurate, I'll be glad to address it. If not, have a great evening.

With that, I am...
Peter

The comments to this entry are closed.