« UPDATE: Welcome to the All New North American Mission Board: the Candidacy of Kevin Ezell as President (part II) by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Just Keep Goin On by The Reverend Dan Smith »

2010.09.13

Comments

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

Tim Rogers

Brother Peter,

So, help me understand. Are you speculating that we are going to trade partnerships with the State Conventions for partnerships with the Seminaries? Of course with the giving record of Highview, one does have a strong leg to stand in that assessment. If this is the case, then Daniel Palmer will have to re-issue his paper with a caveat. But, Dr. Lance will be justified in his concern that this whole GCRTF was about getting more money to the seminaries.

Blessings,
Tim

William Thornton

Are we going to have NAMB funding church planting through a handful of megachurches who believe they are doing the job better than states, associations, and/or NAMB?

Traylor might have said that he is "convinced Dr. Ezell can build NAMB into the mission agency [Kevin Ezell] will be thrilled to support."

We will see.

peter lumpkins

Tim & Wm,

Yes, I am speculating the "partnership" trade, Tim, though I would insist it is speculation based upon reasonable interpretation of what's been taking place. Only a bonafide buffoon cannot not see the GCRTF behind the Ezell nomination. Furthermore, we know who ran/runs the GCRTF agenda--two sitting seminary presidents.

Personally, I have no problem with seminaries getting all the money they need to educate our young pastors and ministers. I benefited greatly from CP monies which paid a large chunk of my seminary bill at both Louisville and New Orleans. On the other hand, what we're going to witness, I predict, unless it is trumped by the Rook card (our heretofore beloved trustee system) is a massive shift of CP dollars being funneled into the seminaries (particularly Southern & Southeastern) through an open side window--NAMB--consequently, bypassing the Executive Committee's historic formula for determining which entities get what portion of CP monies.

Of course, it's going to be publicized under the rubric of "church planting." Nonetheless, we will have effectively turned our church-planting strategy over to the seminaries; seminaries will call the shots, not state conventions of Southern Baptist churches. If this takes place, we'd be better off to sell our Nashville building and distribute the funds. Louisville will become the headquarters of the Southern Baptist Convention.

At least, that's my take on it.

With that, I am...
Peter

Mary

So Peter if what you're speculating is true and It certainly seems you're right on the money here - do you see the SBC just going along with the NAMB being absorbed into Al Mohler's grand scheme to reform the SBC or is the SBC headed for a nasty show down? How many Acts 29 churches will the "new" NAMB be funding I wonder?

Norman

Danny Akin, president at Southeastern Seminary, said he volunteered to give up some seminary CP percentage during deliberations in the GCR task force, if that money would go to IMB. His idea was not well received, although it is greatly appreciated here. I share this anecdote to temper the speculation that says the GCR is simply a ploy to get more money to the seminaries. The notion, however, that SBC headquarters is moving 175 miles north is gaining validity. The chairman of the task force recommending the decimation of the Kentucky Baptist Convention -- excuse me, the 9 percent in one fell swoop shift of CP funds from the KBC to the SBC -- is on the Southern faculty.

Tim Rogers

Brother Peter,

Your statement

bypassing the Executive Committee's historic formula for determining which entities get what portion of CP monies.
seems to beg something different. I am not certain there will be a need for "bypassing" as we have a member of the GCRTF serving as President of the EC. Thus, this should fit tightly together. Why? The seven regions that need to be set up will not be autonomous and because of the size of NAMB will probably be placed under the auspices of the EC with a joint funded person to fill that role. This jointly funded position may be one that has charge over the seven regions and reports to both the NAMB and EC Prez'z. This neat little conglomerate will scream loudly of connectionalism-something Southern Baptist have historically rejected, but with the CP moved to third tier doctrine no one will cry about the connectionalism.

Blessings,
Tim

peter lumpkins

Norman,

Thanks for logging on.  I appreciate your valuable perspective.  I am glad you noted I was “speculating” about the scenario concerning more money going to the seminaries through an open side-window. Also, I am glad Dr. Akin has assured you he fought the idea of more money getting to his school.  I would remind you and others of two things, however. First, Dr. Akin’s own Director of Development, Daniel Palmer, offered a study for GCRTF consideration which, in fact, included more money to the seminaries.  And, though stranger things have happened, it seems highly improbable to me Dr. Akin spoke negatively about his own Director of Development’s analysis. 

Second, and more importantly, Dr. Akin was not shy at a B21 panel discussion where he indeed spoke favorably of more money getting to the seminaries.  He said:

“One of the things I would say, I concur completely.  You can be encouraged if, for example, you’re in a state, and I’ll take mine since I know it the best.  Am I happy where it is?  No.  Am I happy where all the money is going?  No.  Am I happy that so much money is staying in the state?  No.  Have I made that known to a very good friend who is our state executive?  Yes.  Is our state in the process of moving in the right direction where they are incrementally changing the percentages so that more does get to the IMB, more does get to church planting, more does get to the seminaries, more does go to the pioneer areas?  And the answer is yes.  We are in the process of doing that.  So even though it’s moving very slowly, much more slowly than I would like, it’s moving in the right direction.  And my goal is, again, to pass the baton at some near future moment to you all with the Southern Baptist Convention being in better health and in a better status than it is today.  So if we’re moving in the right direction, then I can buy into it.  If it’s not, then I have to ask more difficult and more pressing questions” (Baptist 21 Panel Discussion Louisville 2009 Part 2, page3 bold mine)

The simple point is, if Dr.Akin thinks “more money”getting to the seminary is not “the right direction” for the SBC to move, what does his language above mean?

Thanks again.

With that, I am…

Peter

peter lumpkins

Mary,

Interesting you bring up Acts29 Network.  Ezell supports Acts29 Network now. Will he not value their network when he becomes president elect?  Most likely he will utilize what has "worked" for him in planting churches. 

Does anyone recall Dr. Akin's "myth-busters" series on the GCR?  Do you recall the first myth which he engaged? How about the second one? Take a look back. 

Myth #1 

Myth #2

Interesting how these two issues just kinda naturally flow with K. Ezell’s nomination, isn’t it?.

With that, I am...
Peter

Mary

Peter, I wonder who will now be accused of wearing tin foil chapeaus. Methinks they did protest too much :). Oh no there's no conspiricy to take over the SBC.

peter lumpkins

Mary,

Funny :^) 

Oh, btw, though my name is not mentioned, it is safe to say, I suppose, I have been implicated as a blogger who lives with momma and wears a housecoat all day. Check it out here. As for evidence that Ezell is correct, check this out.

One’s gotta have a sense of humor.

With that, I am…

Peter

Mary

LOL! I made the tin foil comment before I read a post which quotes Ezell as claiming anyone questioning his CP record is living in their mother's basement wearing a housecoat. So Peter inquiring minds want to know - are you wearing bunny slippers to go with that housecoat? Which do you prefer doritos or cheetos?

peter lumpkins

No bunnies for me. I have on Miss Piggy slippers. :^)

With that, I am...
Peter

Dave Miller

I am asking all regular SBC bloggers to take pictures of themselves in housecoats and send them to me. I will post them at SBC Voices.

Its the least we can do.

kim

Kim here, Commenting, in jammies I might add, to Peter's blog from his basement. No housecoat or slippers. Still too hot for that. lol

Bunny slippers aside here, is this the great leadership that many of Dr. Ezell's friends and supporters were talking about?! He may well be good in that area, but these comments of his do not bode well. Once again, just like during the GCR debate, those with sincere questions and concerns, not wanting to sign off right away on everything recommended by them, are painted in a negative light, gone after personally, etc. The letters I have read from the different Exec's, as well as your blog posts Peter, have been gracious in voicing their concerns. We can't have different opinions or questions without being spoken of as couch potatoes in mom's basement?!

I'm sorry, but these look like diversion tactics that are used all the time in politics when someone doesn't want to answer a question. Attack personally the one asking questions, getting the focus off the initial issue. Eyes off Dr. Ezell everyone. Eye's on Dr. Hankins, Peter, etc. instead. I believe Dr. Ezell is out of line here, and this pattern I see emerging is upsetting, to say the least. Peter, I for one, think your blog is a ministry and has been helpful on many topics. You keep those piggy slippers on and blog away! lol

volfan007

This statement by Ezell is very troubling on many, many levels; the pic of Peter in his housecoat is even more troubling.

:)

David

Mary

Ezell is now saying his comments are "taken out of context" which is political speak for "darn it these lowly peasents are watching and not just bowing down at the alter of my greatness - how dare they question me." Notice out of context is not an apology and no admittance whatsoever that it was absolutely wrong to insult those people asking questions. And oh! Also no answers to the questions asked. The arrogance displayed is astounding. But somehow this is God's "annointed" to lead in the planting of churches? Seriously?

kim

I have read a few comments from folks who are members of Dr. Ezell's church, and it just confirms our questions and concerns were not in vain.

On another site, one mentioned it was a good thing that they didn't just "dump" their missions money into CP but gave went around all that and gave directly. Another member mentioned that it was a good thing that the Pastor and church wanted to give directly and not fund administrative stuff.

This is just so hard for me fathom. Of course there are administrative costs that come from hiring staff, folks like, a president for NAMB, as an example, for doing all the behind the scene tasks that come with funding missionaries, filling out applications, evaluations, mailing the funds...I could go on and on. Why does Dr. Ezell and many others out there, behave as if these activities aren't part of the whole puzzle of missions? These things are also necessary. They may be mundane tasks, but go along with making sure the money goes where it's supposed to, with accountability as well.

So what happens if a lot of our churches start doing this? Thinking that administrative costs aren't missions and beneath them, wanting to give directly. I liked a comment I read on another site. Would pastors be ok if their members starting doing their tithe to church this way? Members not wanting to pay for the upkeep of the church because it doesn't go directly to missions, or just giving directly to the things in church they care about most, like directly to the nursery or choir, etc. It may sound silly, but I think the point is well made. The CP will decline if this is the direction we're taking, and ultimately, in my opinion, we'll end up funding less missionaries, not more. Just my take.

kim

Sorry. My last post I noticed had a few extra words in some spots, and not enough in others. Hope it still makes sense. Was typing to fast I guess. lol

Mary

What disturbs me is the trend toward "we don't like those people in authority (for instance the KBC) therefore since we could not democratically change those in authority we will not cooperate with those in authority - gonna take our money somewhere else if you won't do what we want. ". I think Ezell's first instinct to insult anyone who had the audacity to question him and then to turn around and say those he insulted were guilty of taken his comments out of context shows at heart this idea that only certain people in the SBC are worthy of respect. What many of these so called "young leaders" seem to have been taught is that if you don't agree with or like those in positions of authority than you don't have to submit and in fact you can insult and belittle them.

Jonathon

Now that Dr. Ezell IS the president, what will we debate.

:)

Wait...IMB Presidency is still up for grabs....that is the next item on the agenda for sure! Have fun with that one Pete.

Randy

Peter, I was sure that yours would be a Snuggie...you disappoint me.

peter lumpkins

Kim,

Your words are encouraging and I am glad something I write may be helpful.

As much as one attempts, it is next to impossible to raise questions about a very popular person like Dr. Ezell without the inevitable charge that one is "attacking" the person. I hope under God's grace I never, ever become so meaninglessly paranoid about myself or my views.

Grace.
With that, I am...
Peter

peter lumpkins

Jonathan,

Thanks for the drive-by. You seem to be suggesting I take pleasure in controversy like this issue. I assure you, I do not. I am by nature a mild type of guy who can get along with just about anybody the Lord places in my path. I will, however, stand up and speak when serious ailments are treated with non-nonsensical prognosis.

Grace to you.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter lumpkins

Randy,
How dare you! Miss Piggy's and/or Kermits *are* my life options.
With that, I am...
Peter

Job

Seems like the fellow is no longer a candidate.

http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5698/53/

By the way, I wonder if this item is related to the topic at hand.

http://sharperiron.org/article/left-behind-apparent-absence-of-fundamentalists-resurgent-church-planting

peter

Job,

Since you apparently have no point, I hope your day well.

With that, I am...
Peter

Jonathon

Peter,

I "drive-by" a bit to your site. I always hope that your superb intellect is engaged in expositing the Bible, dealing with cultural issues, and genuinely pointing us towards more faithful Christian living.

I am consistently disappointed. Instead, I seem to read more about SBC controversy or something about Calvinism and its dangers.

For someone who doesn't enjoy the controversy, you sure do speak of it a lot. I can understand speaking up...you have the right. And I have read your posts concerning Dr. Ezell with interest. I just wish it didn't characterize your blog.

Anyway, looking forward to the day when you post something helpful.

Later bro.

peter lumpkins

Jonathon,

Please. As with Job I counsel you to have a point if you're going to log on. Hurling insults at the bloghost whoever he or she might be offers no contribution whatsoever to the thread. Rather, it reflects a vacuous mind.

Further, I advise you to become wiser with your time. Continuing to dip your bowl in a pot of consistently disappointing soup is not only unwise, it's pretty crass. And, know I have no plans to change my way of doing soup.

Trusting you'll have a great evening
With that, I am...
Peter

Tim Rogers

Brother Peter,

Keeping you in my prayers as you make soup in your housecoat and piggy slippers.

Blessings,
Tim

Rick

Jonathon is right about one thing--IMB is next. I think we can all read the tea leaves and know that the new President is going to have VERY close ties to the Task Force.

I hate conspiracy theories. (I think Oswald acted alone.) But this Task Force was NEVER elected to be the Convention's Central Committee. They sealed their secret proceedings for fifteen years, successfully passed the report referring motions to Convention entities, and are now in the process of placing their hand-picked candidates in positions of power to carry out the afore-mentioned hidden fifteen year agenda.

I submit the name "Great Convention Reformers Takeover Force" for your consideration. To be fair, I think they really do want to spread the Great Commission, which of course I support as well. I just think they want to control the purse strings and the soteriology in the process.

People get ridiculed for talking about a possible convention takeover someday, but what if it has already happened? Louisville is the new Nashville, Atlanta and Richmond combined. 2% is the new 10%. And if anyone questions the leaders and their fifteen year secrets, they are ridiculed as mama's boys wearing house coats.

Aaron Coe

Peter

In your update on the Kevin Ezell presidency, you ask in your second question "Since when is vocational Christian writing and editorial work deemed a ministry to be mocked." I am not sure anyone is suggesting that we should "mock" vocational writing, BUT one, as a writer, does leave himself open for judgment when his writings are consistently filled with speculation. I have noticed in several of your posts and comments that you speculate that NAMB is going to fund seminaries and you also speculate that you are the target of Dr. Ezell's comments to his church about bloggers. I would simply ask, where is your proof? Do you have transcripts of these conversations? Have you conducted interviews with sources that have revealed this information? I am happy to give your writing a fair shake, but it would do us all some good for you to move beyond speculation and toward the facts.

peter

Aaron,

Perhaps you did not interpret Dr. Ezell's words as a mocking barb. Granted. I assume you also grant that those of us whom Dr. Ezell was referencing--at least the ones who "earn their keep," so to speak by farming the grammatical garden--would take a slightly different spin on the clever deterrence from the issues we raised. So, "mocking" is not an unreasonable characterization of the unfortunate words.

And, know I am keenly aware " as a writer,[one] does leave himself open for judgment." I've jumped the blogging hoops for about 4 years now, so believe me--I know the risks...I know the pain...On the other hand, the implication that my writings are "consistently filled with speculation" is grossly mistaken, if by that you are asserting I habitually fail to offer evidential sources for the pieces I post. Apparently, you do not understand the distinction between various pieces of writing. If, for example, I am attempting to prove a proposition I'm offering, unless I show evidence as to why one ought to accept my proposition as reflecting the facts we know, then, of course, my point would be vacuous and consequently you would be correct.

However, if I am merely stating my opinion concerning a state of affairs--and in the case you are referencing--even state upfront I'm offering speculation--to then criticize because there is absent any definitive evidence for my conceded speculation is quite absurd, Aaron. No one expects editorials in opinion columns to be academic exercises complete with footnotes and exhaustive study. Rather the "opinions" are just that--opinions of those who may have a legitimate point.

So, to be honest, Aaron, you're hardly convincing when you say you attempt to give my speculations "a fair shake." The truth is, since you so convoluted those things I write which are meant to make a demonstrable case for some proposition by considering sources, with those things I write which offer my mere opinion about a matter, I can hardly accept you self-admission that you will give my thoughts the benefit of a doubt.

Finally, since you brought it up, there are some evidential traces that I happened to be the "target" of Dr. Ezell's remarks concerning bloggers. For the record, though, I was not as certain about that as you seem to suggest. What I actually stated in the update was, "it is a relatively safe assumption to conclude I was in Dr. Ezell's mind as he said those words--maybe not exclusively but surely in some way." Do you see the difference in the way you framed my words and my actual words? Quite a difference, I'd say.

Anyways, Aaron, I also gave the reasoning I used: "Since I have been the most vocal SBC blog to raise questions concerning Dr. Ezell's giving record to NAMB." So, there's the first evidential "dot." Connect that dot with another "dot": I was not only the most vocal, I was also the first to raise the issue--the first not only before any other blogger, but also before the state convention executives.

One more dot, if I may, Aaron: Dr. Ezell personally identified me as at least one of the bloggers he had in mind. In his interview with Ed Stetzer, Dr. Ezell responded to Stetzer's query concerning his words about "bloggers in housecoats living in mama's basement. In part, Ezell wrote

"I did notice that one of the bloggers who had particularly harsh things to say about me added photos of Al Mohler and Russ Moore wearing housecoats" (emphasis added)

Now, connect the dots, Aaron. I, for one, have no difficulty in affirming as a reasonable conclusion Dr. Ezell had me in mind--not necessarily exclusively but surely in some way-- when he made the "housecoat and mama" comment.


I trust you have a great night and your Lord's Day tomorrow is spiritually refreshing.

With that, I am...
Peter

**you will not find the wording like this now. It has been changed. But if you have a feed-reader with Stetzer's RSS feed, you will see the words I quoted in the originally published article

The comments to this entry are closed.