Here Come Those Boozin' [young, cool, and hip] Baptists: A Problem for Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary? by Peter Lumpkins

I'll never forget Baptist Historian, Walter Shurden's little volume on Baptist history--the first history of Baptists I ever laid eyes on and required to actually read--Not a Silent People (link for 2nd edition, not the original edition). In the volume he used the catchy refrain "Here come those battlin' Baptists!" while dealing with several controversies which have shaped Baptists--particularly Southern Baptists--throughout history.

Over the past couple of days, Between the Times, the official blog of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, has posted on the subject of abstinence from alcohol. Yesterday, a piece entitled "The Case for Abstinence" by President Akin was up, and a fine paper at that.  Dr. Akin expresses--as does Richard Land--the best case for what I call in my book, "The Wisdom View" that's available today (for those of you are familiar with my view, I follow a different map than does Akin-Land but end up in the same place--abstinence).

What I found curious about yesterday's piece, however, does not concern its content...well, content so far as abstinence is concerned.  Rather, this little paragraph had me reading it again and again to see if I was reading it correctly:

This year at our Convention we again passed a resolution calling for abstinence from alcohol.  The resolution passed overwhelmingly, but it did generate significant debate both during and after the Convention.

Uh? 

I stopped and thought--"did we deal with alcohol abstinence in Orlando? Did I miss this?  Was our focus on the GCRTF so pronounced it completely over-shadowed the resolution on alcohol?"  The last resolution was 2006 which did, as Dr. Akin described, produce much discussion.  Well, come to find out, this piece was written in 2006.  Why Between the Times did not place an editorial remark explaining the occasion of this piece (like they did with the piece today) I cannot tell.  It would save old timers like me from thinking they're more senile than they are. But, of course, that's just a personal quirk, I suppose.  Perhaps more curious, however, it looks like the piece was hurriedly put up.

Anyway...

Today's piece again is on alcohol. "Danny Akin on the Emerging Church and Ethical Choices"  is actually, as the editorial comment makes clear, a spotlight on a chapter in the book Evangelicals Engaging Emergent: A Discussion of the Emergent Church Movement (Broadman, 2009) entitled, “The Emerging Church and Ethical Choices: The Corinthian Matrix.” Permission was happily granted to post the entire chapter online.  The reader will want to read this piece and forget yesterday's post altogether, for yesterday's post "The Case for Abstinence" is but a repeat of pages 9-11 in the book chapter, under the section entitled, "Alcohol Abstinence: a Test Case."

I think the focus on alcohol is great myself.  That's why I took the time to research and write a book about the subject. As Brett McCracken writes in his recent book, "hipster Christianity":

“Over the years, I’ve come to see [post-church activities] as one of the clearest distinguishing features of Christian hipster subculture. They usually do something as a group after church, and it frequently involves alcohol” (p. 95, emphasis added).

What I find both puzzling and unsettling is, why it is that Southern Baptists were and still are lectured to endlessly by many on Southeastern's faculty, GCRTF advocates, and others about blowing the horn on drinking intoxicating beverages for pleasurable purposes...

about being hung up on legalistic issues which are not gospel-centered issues...

about being open to people who have different views,

about leaving third tier issues--tertiary issues--alone, instead focusing on what makes for unity...

I'm wondering why...

if someone like Jerry Vines preaches a sermon against alcohol, taking a pro-abstinence stance, and others express their doubts that it is healthy for a seminary to invite I-drink-and-you-can-stick-abstinence-in-your-ear-and-smoke-it-for-all-I-care pastors to preach at conferences and even in chapel services, holding them up as models to mimic, models of excellence, models under which to be mentored, models to follow...

I'm wondering why, when the above is the case, those of us in the SBC who are strongly abstinence-oriented, we get labelled as Pharisaical legalists, traditionalists, who care nothing for the Word of God, who accept the traditions of men rather than Scripture, people who are not gospel-centered, but stuck in the fifties mentality? I'm wondering why?

I'm also wondering why, Southeastern finds it necessary to bring this issue up. It's not the fundamentalists who's banging on the gong. Heck, I probably hold the most radical, "pharisaical" position on the market, nevertheless, I've barely mentioned alcohol since my book debuted in June, 2009. Yet SEBTS sounds the alarm. It leaves its gospel-centered, missional-minded, GCR-saturated message to deal with what can only be, at least according to them, a third-tier issue.  I'm wondering why.

Could it be...

Could it possibly be...

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary is facing a crisis...perhaps a crisis where students are, shall we say, a bit more corinthianistic than they would like?...

Is this possible? After all, when one of the faculty members rhetorically asks, over the cyberways, "Is alcohol a good thing? Sure! If it is taken in moderation,"  would it be surprising if a crisis were brewing amongst the student-body?  Not from my side of the creek.

Could it be, similar to Shurden's, catchy phrase above, Southeastern is sounding the alarm: "Here come those boozin' Baptists!"?

I don't know.

I do know this.

When one makes the consumption of intoxicants for pleasurable purposes, a consumption of which is widely accepted within our culture, into a mere unimportant, insignificant third-tier, non-gospel-centered, libertarian, amoral issue, what under the blue sky do you think is going to happen?

I'm reminded of C.S. Lewis' repsonse on an entirely other matter: they cut out the organ but expect the function.

With that, I am...

Peter 

Comments

[kevin]

Southeastern's student covenant contains a clause against drinking alcoholic beverages while a student at the seminary. I don't know if it's available online or not, but the position of the president is consistent with the covenant, therefore, student-drinking is a disciplinary offense.

In case you didn't know.

Also, the Between the Times blog, as helpful as the content often is, isn't as influential a blog as some might think. You might want to tone down the sensational language: "Sounding the alarm." Dr. Akin addresses the topic at least once a year with students on campus.

So whether they are posting articles in response to any particular happening on campus is, as you admit, only speculation on your part, and, if I may speculate, seems to only add to your stockpile of criticisms toward Southeastern.

At the very least, as a reader of your blog, I don't recall reading any posts where you applaud what is going on at the seminary.

For what it's worth.

[peter]

Dear Kevin,

Perhaps you didn't read my post two days back. Having a dean-professor who makes an original, exciting contribution to Baptist theology qualifies, at least in my view, as clapping one's hands.

Furthermore, if you can show me where back-to-back exhortations to abstinence is on SE's blog at least once a year since its inception, I'd be obliged as well. My comments here specifically referenced the double-barrel shot from BtT's gun.

Finally, unless you can point to something specifically erroneous in my alleged stockpile of criticisms toward Southeastern, I will just view that as your personal brand of unsubstantiated "speculation" if you don't mind ;^)

I trust your day well.

With that, I am...
Peter

[kevin]

You did notice I said I would add speculation to your speculation. It's not unsubstantiated I don't think, as you ask for me to point out errors in your criticisms. With that said, I don't imagine engaging in heavy research into your writing tactics in order to back my comment will be well worth my time or yours.

You are a controversialist, you know!

I suppose, however, I should rescind my previous comment concerning your one-sided posts on the seminary, since I had not read your post on Dr. Keathley's book. I now know there is at least one!

As one familiar with what goes on at Southeastern, I don't think it's necessary to show you where back-to-back alcohol-abstinence posts go on at BtT. (There are no others.) As I said earlier, it's not as influential a blog as some might think.

In other words, it's not a major teaching tool for Southeastern students. They use classrooms and chapel instead, which is where Dr. Akin and / or other faculty annually address the student body on the issue, talk about the reason for the line in the convenant, and remind students of their commitment to keeping the covenant while attending Southeastern.

[peter]

Kevin,

Thanks for the quick kick-back. Thanks even more for the concession. As for me being a "controversialist," I suppose you're waiting for me controvert you on that ;^) What I will do is just point you and others to Akin's discussion thread on his case for abstinence and see if he too fits the "contorversialist" model...

Finally, suggesting BtT is a major teaching tool for the seminary is not a premise I hold; hence, I'm not sure where you're gathering it. on the other hand, to attempt to wash its influence down the drain, as you've twice now attempted to do, is just a wee bit flaky for my tastes.

Good day.

With that, I am...
Peter

[kevin]

If a connection is made between the two BtT posts and Southeastern "sounding an alarm", I will rescind the entirety of my two comments.

My point was to demonstrate that on campus alcohol consumption is not a "problem" for the seminary, and that your speculation doesn't lend itself to the final point you made in your post, because it's not a campus-wide problem among students.

Dr. Akin's posts are consistent with the same message he gives students concerning the student covenant, so it's a big leap to suggest what is posted on BtT is an indicator of a problem for the seminary.

IMO, your critique of theological triage doesn't quite fit what it actually entails; rather your critique is a valid one for those who misunderstand it.

As for Akin being a controversialist on the issue, where commenters seem to suggest that, IMO, they are being unfair to his post. For the most part, it seems they are engaging in healthy discussion of his post.

[peter]

Kevin,

We can tit/tat back and forth about whether your speculation that my post is speculation is true all day. If you have a question, ask it...

Nor did I *only* suggest "what is posted on BtT is an indicator of a problem for the seminary" as you imply; rather I explicitly raised the question whether this was so. I then made a statement that I would not be surprised given the precedents set--hardly a "big leap" or perhaps any leap at all...

As for "critiquing the triage," I did not critique it but alluded to it. Hence, how my alluding to it "doesn't quite fit what it actually entails" seems vacuous to me. I suggest if you want to imply someone's critique misunderstands a subject, you actually read his or her critique first...

And finally, of course commenters are being unfair. Why? Well because Akin *is not* a controversialist but obviously I *am* Makes sense to me...

With that, I am...
Peter

[kevin]

So you're not a controversialist? I apologize. I suppose I meant to log-on to another controversialist blog and found yours by mistake!

I asked you to demonstrate how you connect two BtT posts to your speculation that it could be a problem at Southeastern. It is explicit in your post.

It's frustrating commenting with you, because you're apparently gifted at side-stepping comments, which IMO are accurate (or at least logical) conclusions, which beg answers from you.

If you alluded to TT, you also alluded a critique of it. I don't agree "third tier" issues are unimportant or off-discussion topics. Yet I nonetheless agree with Mohler et al on TT.

If you're unwilling to discuss further what I have written in response to your post, especially my efforts to demonstrate how your speculation (and perhaps concern) doesn't jive with the student environment on campus, then I suppose I have no reason to try discussing it further in this meta.

[peter]

 

Kevin,

Look.  If you or any reader can show me a single question you asked in four fairly lengthy comments, I’ll send you a shiny new nickel for each one. The single question raised in your entire exchange is in the last comment, “So you're not a controversialist?” and that concerning a facetious remark I made. Why do you suppose I mentioned in my last comment, "If you have a question, ask it..."?

On the other hand, in the first comment, other than just info about SEBTS you thought I may need to know, your main point seemed to be your personal advice to me:

“You might want to tone down the sensational language… [which]…seems to only add to your stockpile of criticisms toward Southeastern…”

No questions there.

In your second comment, since “[I am] a controversialist…!” you judged no specific reference necessary to demonstrate my errors from what was before my “stockpile of criticisms toward Southeastern” but now became my “one-sided posts on the seminary.” You also strangely  brought up BtT not being a “major teaching tool” as if such was my premise (and wrongly if so)

Again, no question.

In your third comment, Kevin, you simply rewrote what you said in the first comment—”I disagree with Peter Lumpkins’ post” (a fair paraphrase were I asked), while bringing up a curious statement about my alleged “critique of triage” and finally defending the BtT comment thread.  Only negations of what I happen to have mentioned but still…

Not a question to be found.

Then, without the least blush at all, you log back on with this: 

“I asked you to demonstrate how you connect two BtT posts to your speculation that it could be a problem at Southeastern. It is explicit in your post.”

Not one single question exists in the three comments you logged.  Rather all assertions basically saying--“I disagree with Peter Lumpkins.”

Even more, you also conclude “It's frustrating commenting with you, because you're apparently gifted at side-stepping comments, which IMO are accurate (or at least logical) conclusions, which beg answers from you.” 

Well, I think we’ve got a serious breach on what constitutes “accurate (or at least logical) conclusions,” my young brother.

And, given your series of “accurate” albeit imaginary questions with which you supposedly pounded me—imaginary questions I am apparently gifted at side-stepping--it makes more sense to me how you suppose “no reason to try discussing it further in this meta.”

I agree, brother.  I agree.

Have a great day.

With that, I am…

Peter

[Randy]

I was raised in a church that occasionally read, in unision, the "Church Covenant" (long since out of vogue). There we pledged not to drink or sell intoxicating beverages. Baptists, in our area got a reputation for being the "don't do" religion. Drinking alcohol or not became a litmus test of a true Baptist.

Seems no one thought about acknowling one's freedom of conscinece or discipling us so that we would "mature" to the point that we too embraced what that covenant embodied.

I think keeping the focus on surface issues and hertigage has only produced superfical disciples who are satified (or not) to feed from the surface, abandon the denomination or do what other Baptists do, stay home.

Now pass me a cold one from the cooler. (tongue in cheek, no offense intended).

[kevin]

If I make assertions disagreeing with what you are saying, present evidence to the point, and say, "If a connection is made between the two BtT posts and Southeastern 'sounding an alarm', I will rescind the entirety of my two comments," then I am asking you to interact with what I am saying instead of side-stepping it.

If you have no interest in doing so, it's your choice. I'm not going to force you to do it.

I didn't know I needed to add a question mark on the end of my sentences in order for you to respond to my discussion with you.

I assume, were we talking face to face, I wouldn't need to inflect my voice to sound inquisitive in order for you to respond to my reaction to your post.

Change the terms "question" and "answers" to "response" and "counter-response" and maybe that will help.

If you don't want to counter-respond to my responses, it's OK.

With that said, I have found no substantial interaction from you with my "response." Do you care to "counter-respond" or not?

[peter]

Kevin,

Apparently, you neither "get" your shown failure to put forth a straight-forward question--which was easy enough to display from your own words (as I did)--nor to discern to end an exchange which obviously is going nowhere, and that, in the face of your own suggestion to do so!

Instead you come back fanning your pistols, firing off about how I am apparently supposed to either a)in the absence of a single significant question from you, formulate your questions for you, or b) take your simplistic but nonetheless strongly-worded negation of my propositions as a bold challenge to intellectually spar. All I can say is, what a double West Georgia hoot!

Last word: I have no time nor interest in a conversation which similarly tit/tats:

Person A: It's a bad day today.
Person B: I disagree. It's a good day today.
Person A: Here's what I meant by bad.
Person B: Nope. I disagree. It's good.

Go back to the library....jog...twitter...talk to a professor...just do something personally edifying, Kevin. That's my advice. Conversing here is just not doin it for me nor you--at least on this subject.

I bid you a delightful weekend

With that, I am...
Peter

P.S. By the way, I do not expect a tat for this tit if you please

[peter]

Randy,

You write: "I think keeping the focus on surface issues and hertigage has only produced superfical disciples who are satified (or not) to feed from the surface, abandon the denomination or do what other Baptists do, stay home" I think your are right exactly. Surface slush will produce spiritual slush.

In this case, one must ponder whether the issue I raised is surface slush. Of the several questions my OP hopefully made plain, I honestly do not see one which could be counted surface slush. To find out, we'd have to tease each one out which, honestly was not the purpose of the OP.

Anyways, always good to hear from "Uncle Randy" :^) I met your niece Kim the other evening...

Take care.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Matt Svoboda]

Kevin,

Give up man... Peter cant have a legitimate conversation. He likes controversy and writes ridiculous posts as he desperately tries to insert himself as an important voice in the SBC. Yawn.

Matt Svoboda

[kevin]

I apologize, then, for wasting your time.

[Dave Miller]

Peter, I don't agree with your position on alcohol, (I'm more in the wisdom camp you mentioned). But you have suggested the possibility of a rampant alcohol problem at Southeastern.

You should either provide evidence of the problem you suggest, or take down the accusation.

I am aware that only presented it as a possibility. Fine, but you presented it nonetheless. I could suggest wild accusations against your character and say, "Could it be?"

I could then hide behind the fact that I only suggested these moral failings were possible. I doubt that would be much comfort to you.

One man's opinion - either give some facts or take down the accusation.

[peter lumpkins]

Dave,

Thanks for offering your opinion. Now for the record.

A) I raised two questions, not only one, which you suggest.

B) The issue which you imply is *the* single issue of this piece actually is in the shadow of the other issue which you did not even acknowledge

C) In only one issue I raised--the issue which you strangely over-looked in your comment, the issue which interestingly gets much more cyber-ink than the issue you raised--did I make an "accusation." In other words, you wrongly conclude I made an "accusation" on the issue you raised when I categorically did not. I stated some facts, asked why such and such, and then concluded it wouldn't "be surprising if a crisis [concerning alcohol] were brewing [at SEBTS]," hardly an "accusation" as you call it. Then I even went on to answer my own "could it be...?" with an explicit "I don't know."
Yet in light of this, your logging on and making the post I put up into a blanket accusation of a "rampant alcohol problem at Southeastern" is puzzling, Dave. The words I wrote simply do not bear out your concern.

So, thanks but no thanks: I have no intention of pulling the post down. I stated nothing I can see--at least anything either you or another has raised--which justifies the criticism.

Thanks.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

All,

I've been around the block long enough to realize one who posts publicly and allows a comment stream will eventually gain any number of those willing to object to the posts. I've had good conversations and lousy ones. That's the way it is.

I can only hope those who've followed my site for any time agree, at least in some significant way, about my willingness to engage those who may view things a bit different--or even radically different for that matter--from me.

What continues to trouble me are those who attempt to disagree not because of the words written on the screen, but because of what they thought they saw. For instance, Dave's comment above makes me out as an accuser of the brethren, so to speak, because I asserted that, given the actual scenario that has been going on at SEBTS(i.e. from inviting beer imbibing pastor to speak to professors making public statements about 'good alcohol' being 'moderate' alcohol to arguing drinking is a 3rd tier issue to blasting abstience-oriented guys as pharisical, etc. etc), it would not surprise me if a crisis would be there.

Instead of seeing the real connection I made--the connection between SEBTS's past record(which I carefully reiterated) and what would not at all be a surprise to me personally now (a crisis on booze), Dave skims right on by and slams me for making an explicit accusation against SEBTS, an accusation for which he demands I either substantiate or withdraw.

I'm sorry for saying this, but some of us really, really need to take things very slowly in exchange. Far too many record their knee-jerk, drawers-in-a-wad come-backs instead of actually engaging what is written. We spit out something having jack squat to do with the substantial point in a blog/comment--just to answer back--and end up with literary egg all over our face.

I encourage all to engage anything I've written. We're all made better by our honest contributions. But please, for edification's sake, engage what the author actually writes and/or necessarily implies.

Trusting you all have a great weekend.
With that, I am...
Peter

[Eli]

Having an alcoholic drink is not a sin according to the Bible. Southern Baptists, therefore, do not sin when they enjoy a glass of wine (or 2) with their dinner. The same people who insist that Southern Baptists should not drink are the ones who take 10 trips to the all you can eat buffet. Why is the sin of gluttony more accepted than the non-sin of moderate drinking? Those who have the conviction to not drink, Great! Keep it to yourself. Those who choose to drink moderately, Great! Keep it to yourself. Please take the Mega-sized triple cheeseburger out of your mouth before you try to take the wine glass out of my hand!

[Kai5263499]

Eli, I'll drink to that!

[peter lumpkins]

Dear Eli & Wes,

Sorry guys, this post is not about the pros & cons of imbibing. Those comments are more appropriate on another thread.

Thanks anyways.

With that, I am...
Peter

[bill]

Yeah, this thread is for baseless accusations.

[Mary]

Can a man carry fire next to his chest and his clothes not be burned?
Proverbs 6:27

Telling a bunch of immature punks "sure alcohol's no problem" is playing Russian Roulette with these kids very lives. How many of these arrogant brats have no clue whether they may be genetically predisposed to alcoholism? Every alcoholic thought he could handle alcohol in "moderation". Alcohol is a problem on every campus so of course you don't have "speculate" too much to recognize that where it once was not acceptable but now it's cool to drink problems are going to arise.

[Chris]

I think the telling statement in the post is near the end where you say, "I don't know." So why even write a post if you don't know?

But the title seems to imply that you might know something, and that something seems to be that SEBTS might have a problem with students drinking alcohol. Again, it seems like you are implying something.

I could say, "Could it be that Peter has a 'fill-in-the blank' problem/crisis?" Then I could follow that with, "I don't know." But why would I do that?

You are at your best when you are posting about things that you know.

[peter lumpkins]

Chris,

I answered your concern above. Thanks for logging on.

Mary,
It was said of Joseph Parker's sermons, "always strikes fire." So of you! Lord bless, sister.

With that, I am..
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Dear Bill,

A marvelous contribution. Please hurry back ;^)
With that, I am...
Peter

[Doug]

You think way to highly of yourself...I guess when you want to raise the statisitcs of visitors on your blog you make up stuff...wow! Don't worry about responding....I wouldn't trust your answer to be truthful!

[Gene Scarborough]

O-o-o-o-oh Peter---you have certainly opened a can of worms on this one, BUT you are speaking more truth than you can imagine.

The case may not be proveable, but the bird dog of too much talk about it from SBC leaders is pointing at a covey the hunter can't yet see!! Take a few steps cautiouslly forward and have you gun ready = a good bird dog is seldom wrong!!!

It is called "Reaction-Formation Psychosis." Commonly referred to as "Old Maid's Syndrome." What is means is that the old single lady is constantly calling the cops to report a Peeping Tom or man under her bed. She goes religiously to church with a big Bible tucked under her arm and signed the "True Love Waits" papers.

In reality, she wishes a man were under her bed of in her life, but can't admit to it. The giveaway is the obsessive way she keeps calling the cops and the loud, shrill voice she uses constantly.

It is defined as "an outward show of inward thoughts expressed in exactly the opposite way of what the inner mind wants."

My homosexual Senior Minister did "too much criticism" in San Francisco when we saw them holding hands in the Park. A man called as Pastor after me in Rocky Mount was a big show too: he put on the church sign "Pastor / Counselor / Teacher." He came on personal reccomendation of W.A. Criswell, himself, but turned out to be a womanizer X 3 when he, himself, came forward to confess before the church.

It was, in both cases, an outward show just the opposite of the inward mind!

[Gene Scarborough]

By the way---

I have served several historic churches dating back to the early 1800's. It was their practice---before Prohibition---to select a family to provide real home-made Communion Wine.

Not just any family could do such. It had to be the best "Walton Aunt Recipe." That's just the facts Jack from GA/SC/NC church history. In pre-Civil War days NC had the national reputation for having the best wines in the country---so I guess the best preachers went to the churches having the best wines!

Even one of our famous Foreign Missionaries to China, Marth Franks, always carried a case of homemade wine to fight intestinal problems she incountered on the Mission Field---by her personal story to me, in person.

Well, I just guess we'll all be in Hell with the likes of pre-Prohibition Baptist Church members as well as some of our finest and most dedicated missionaries fighting disease in the field---how about those who use cough syrup--it's at least 90 proof = OH my God!!!!

Does Guidestone have any corporate investments where deep in the portfolio resides a war materials industry or alcohol producer = betcha / betcha!!! Coca-Cola = some alcohol production!!

[peter]

Sorry all,

Been away all day.

Doug,

Thanks...

Gene,

I'm afraid your points are much too philosophically sophisticated. I just cannot wrap my mind around them.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Gary,

No, I won't clarify. The words are plain for all to read. No amount of my stating what I "really meant" will change anyone's mind or keep them from continuing to yak about what they supernaturally know them to mean by peering into my mind.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Peter,

Let me see if I have this right. You create an Op questioning the reason Dr. Akin has presented back-to-back posts on the official SEBTS blog. From that question you simply ask the reason for this and then offer an analysis of the possibility of students using alcohol in a social setting.

From that analysis, you have our Brother Dave Miller call you to task to either produce there is a problem at SEBTS with students imbibing in the social activity or either remove your post. From that request you then have Gene Scarborough (the most well known moderate in NC)and Wade Burleson (the most well known closet moderate in the SBC)log on in order to support the analysis of Brother Dave and even declare that you have a drinking problem in your household simply because you call attention to SEBTS's back to back stance. Oh, and you also wrote a book on alcohol. I think that about wraps up this comment stream.

So, with those facts before us allow me to weigh in on this issue. SEBTS, pre-CR was known in the community for students that imbibed and even were drunk. The garbage people in Wake Forest said they got as much empty containers of adult beverages from the campus trash as they did from a local bar. How do I know that? I lived and grew up within 5 miles of the campus. When Dr. Lolley was asked and accepted the invitation to have a dedicatory prayer for a brewery it seemed that the students took that as a call for advocating the social use of alcohol. (Allow me to add that from what I know of Dr. Lolley he is not one that imbibes. He, I think takes the same position that Dr. Akin takes. The Bible allows for moderation, but for the sake of Wisdom a Christian should not partake.)It was like the students decided it would increase their ability to witness if they showed they also drank. How do I know this? I was one of the local young people that hung around in the Parking Lot in Wake Forest and cruised from the Parking Lot to the Car Wash, with a cooler in the back seat full of iced down long neck Buds. We would sit in the parking lot and have seminary students come and ask for a beer and then drink and try to witness to us. We looked at them as a joke. That was the biggest hypocritical stance of anything anyone witnessed. Why? After a couple of those long necks they stopped witnessing and began to hit on the girls. That is what happened pre-CR.

Cont.

[Tim Rogers]

Continued from Previous Comment

Enter the CR and conservatives becoming a majority on the trustee board. Lolley leaves, the liberal students leave, and some Prof's leave. Dr. Drummond institutes an alcohol abstinence policy. After Dr. Drummond leaves Dr. Patterson enters and the rest of the Profs leave along with a bunch of students. Dr. Patterson, not only maintains an alcohol abstinence policy he goes on to teach Scripture speaks against alcohol and explains why others believes it does, but then presents the reason "that dog will not hunt". I attended SEBTS from 89-91 working on my A-Div. I attended a much chapel as I could stomach. The last chapel service I attended in those years was the service where a NT professor spoke from the parable in Matthew 21:33-45. He immediately moved to the Gospel of Thomas and said he liked Thomas' saying #65 the best because it did not place God the father as a vengeful God as does Matthews rendering. Well, that was the last chapel service I attended during my A-Div days.

When I returned to SEBTS in 1995 to work on my M-Div I was please to find the chapel services alive and presenting spiritual truths from Scripture. However, what brightened my day was to sense that the Profs believed the Bible to be the inerrant word of God. As such, Dr. Patterson taught that abstinence from beverage alcohol was a scriptural position that we should maintain. Not because there is a covenant that we sign as students but because there is a conviction in our hearts that the Scripture teaches abstinence is the position of a Christian. In that time there was no "annual" message, but a once or two time message during my entire time at SEBTS. Oh, because I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, it took me 5 years to get my 94 hours completed. I believe it is 96 hours now.

Today we have the same position advocated at SEBTS. However, it is not arrived at from the same point, though the end comes to the same conclusion--students, while they have the freedom to drink, would be better witnesses if they did not drink. However, during my M-Div experience I listened to a total of 2 maybe 3 messages on alcohol. It was not a yearly emphasis? Why? We, not only were taught the Bible taught it to be against scripture, but Dr. Patterson would personally hunt you down and place your head in his office.

Now, allow me to briefly suggest something that seems to be overlooked by those like our Brother Dave and others. Dr. Akin and others in the administration readily admit that they annually focus on Alcohol and they teach a strong approach for the wisdom position. Ok, that is great. But, one needs to ask the question, why they feel such a need to invest such time on this matter that most will agree is a third tier position?

Blessings,
Tim
(sorry for the length)

[peter lumpkins]

"Once you clarify... I will be more than happy to alter my statement of a disruptive spirit." Unfortunately, Wade, you get no free passes here to set you own rules or make your own demands. Do as you wish at you site. Not here. It wasn't, after all, a conditional request understand

Have a good afternoon.
With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Wade,

No one is immune to rules, Wade, including you. Now what part of that do you not understand?

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

All,

For those who read this comment thread and it looks like I'm talking to Wade Burleson who is not present, I kindly invited him to leave my living room but he's attempting sort of a "sit-in" by continuing to comment after I told him to drop a particular subject. My little granddaughter does the same thing when she doesn't get her way; she just plops down and won't move. Adults acting like 2 year olds are quite funny. Where's Art Linkletter when you need him?!

I tell you, you just got to wonder about people sometimes :^)

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Dear Norman,

Go back to Wade's blog and record your comment there. It's very appreciated, I assure.

Thanks
With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

All,

My apologies. I've turned on the moderation due to internet hacks who like to drive by and lob bombing insults. It looks like sniper's will be popping over from Wade's site.

Any way, I'll turn it back on in the morning.

May the Lord bless your evening.
With that, I am...
Peter

[Norman]

And a gutless wonder.

Congratulations on showing all how to throw a temper tantrum online. Satan is delighted with your performance.

[Tim Rogers]

Wade,

You say;

If you are acknowledging me as a "moderate" because I am different from you in many of my interpretations of the inerrant and sacred text -- "Thank you."

No Wade, I am acknowledging you as a "moderate" in the definition of Dr. Adrian Rogers. He is the one that stated you were a moderate by the definition he placed in his book. You should check it out. He clearly defines what a moderate is in the SBC. You desire to state that people who do not believe in inerrancy are moderates. However, if you read Dr. Rogers book you will find that he has certainly rejected that thought. So, Wade, why don't you come out of the closet.

As to the SBC being destroyed by people like me and Peter, let me address that. You give me much more credit that I deserve. I am the pastor of a church that on a good Sunday will have about 190 in worship. Peter edits Sunday School material and wears an housecoat. Neither of us has a microphone of which one like yourself has, and neither one of us has the connections and secret moles hidden within the various entities. Thus, there is no way you are going to pin the destruction of the SBC on me or Peter. But, these wild-eyed theories have never stopped you before.

Blessings,
Tim

[peter lumpkins]

A message to the emissaries from Wade's community:

If you make a legitimate comment, I'll be glad to post and, if I can, respond. If you come here to continue the feeding frenzies on people, which seem to characterize Wade's community, know your comment, if it does get through, will be taken down.

NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO COMMENT ANYWHERE ON THE INTERNET. COMMENTING IS NOT A RIGHT; COMMENTING IS A PRIVILEGE

A good rule of thumb is, consider yourself a guest as you would in someone's backyard or even in their home...

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Norman,

I trust your day a good one.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Tim,

How dare you! I do not wear housecoats. I wear a moo-moo, thank you very much.

As for your exchange with Wade, I doubt he will be back to accommodate you. I may have hurt his feelings by taking his comment down--twice. I can only suppose since he has his way so much in his community, he reasons others must submit to him everywhere else as well. Hard to know.

At any rate, we Georgia boys just don't cotton to people attempting to tell us how it's going to be in our own back yard. So, he stormed off yesterday and wrote what he thinks is an "I'll-show-you" post about me--"THE FUNDAMENTALIST".

Seems I'm getting alot of those lately.

SBC Voices even had an extended conversation about me and whether my RSS feed should be profiled in the "most influential" list. And had it not been for good old CB, David Brumbelow, SelahV, Darby, and even a few sworn enemies with a more reasonable bend about them, I may have been sliced out of the cake. Oh, and the fact that SBC Tomorrow must give them some much desired traffic, without which, I'm sure, I could not have been salvaged.

Finally, as for your plea for Wade to "come out" I honestly don't think he needs to. My own view is, if one has substantial "caveats" with the BFM, I think it is safe to assume some form of "moderatism." What do you think?

Grace, brother.
With that, I am...
Peter

P.S. Oh, by the way, Wade's present post on my 'destroying the SBC' is only Part I of at least Part II. I bet he profiles you in Part II as THE FUNDAMENTALIST. I just imagine, brother, you wish you'd never have laid eyes on this Georgia boy, getting perceived as you are, as being public buds with Peter Lumpkins.

[peter lumpkins]

Wade,

By the way, check the IP address of the commenter on your present post who is posing as me. I *definitively have NOT* commented on your blog, nor do I intend to, nor would I have written the comment as it's written there. You have an impostor, I assure.

I think you'll be able to discover his or her identity if you'll compare IPs. Perhaps it would even be a good thing to reveal who it is to the public. Of course, assuming you're interested in the public knowing the commenter *is* an impostor.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Wade,

I see you have not taken the comment down written by someone posing as me. All you have to do is check the IP addresses of the commenter. While I have visited your blog, I have not commented there in a long, long time. In fact, I can't even recall when or what post it would have been. I gave such up, in another lifetime I think.

Therefore, please take the comment down and, if possible, deal with the one who is placing my name on his/her comments he/she writes. It is blatantly dishonest to not deal with a forged comment--at least in my view it is.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

All,

I regret this, however, I'm going to remove the comments above between Wade and myself, as well as some others dealing with this incidence.

Allow me to briefly explain.

To those who've followed me closely since 2006, I think you know I have not been one to runaway from what I may have written which produced sparks. However, due to Wade's apparent obstinacy in taking down a 'pretend' comment on the present thread on his blog--a comment which I *did not* compose, a comment which has my name attached, a comment, to which not only others are responding *as if* it were me but also a comment Wade himself is responding to *as if* it is composed by me, and that even when I've assured him through private email it *was not my comment,* a comment which is a scissors and paste job of at least two comments I wrote, a comment which obviously places a vulgar spin on what I actually wrote--my best recourse is to take down the comment(s).

My prediction is, my taking the comment(s) down will be an occasion for him to speak about my supposed hypocrisy for contributing to "missing" material from links, the absence of which I lamented in a footnote on a recent post.

So be it.

And, if Wade takes down the impostor's comment, along with an acceptable explanation, including why he would allow an impostor to log at his site I may restore the comment(s) above (understand though. I ain't dumb, so I'm not holding my breath this will take place!)

I wondered long ago when the descent of some, because their ideas would not be embraced by others nor argued persuasively by themselves, would drive them to imaginary dialogs with real people's names, just to hurt and harm.

Finally, those who've followed SBC Tomorrow from the beginning also know we have not been reluctant to engage Wade. There does come a time when no engagement is better than any engagement at all. Not because one necessarily fears his or her ideas cannot hold-up but because, for any number of reasons, no communication is taking place.

Anyway, know I appreciate the readership SBC Tomorrow has gathered over the years. On the one hand, know I am not perfect; I hope I've never projected otherwise. Yet on the other, I also know I am not the moral thug others make me out to be either, especially those who know little to nothing about me personally, a side I have purposely kept and will continue to keep reserved.

May our Lord bless your afternoon.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Don]

"Could it possibly be...

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary is facing a crisis...perhaps a crisis where students are, shall we say, a bit more corinthianistic than they would like?..."

It seems that Dr. Akin has spoken to this through his comment on SBC Voices. The answer is clear, it is a resounding no. Therefore, it is easy to see that your supposition was incorrect and unfounded. There is no crisis brewing at SEBTS.

Yet, I have seen no withdrawal of your conjecture that there is not said crisis. Why have you not amended the post to reflect that there is in fact no crisis brewing?

SEBTS is in fact an alcohol free campus(Rather, any student partaking of alcohol as a beverage, would be violating their own integrity on the issue, after all, they signed a covenant), it is abundantly clear that alcohol use is not advocated by the Seminary, its president, nor is there a clamoring for it by the student body. It is equally clear that a student caught violating this clearly communicated rule, would be dealt with appropriately.

So while you may be correct that there is a theological discussion about the most biblical view on alcohol, you are incorrect in assuming it is anything more than a discussion.

While they have had speakers on campus that have a different theological outlook on beverage alcohol, SEBTS have in no way publicly or otherwise sought to relax their standards in the area of alcohol consumption.

Further,

"it is healthy for a seminary to invite I-drink-and-you-can-stick-abstinence-in-your-ear-and-smoke-it-for-all-I-care pastors to preach at conferences and even in chapel services, holding them up as models to mimic, models of excellence, models under which to be mentored, models to follow..."

Here you have made an assumption that because someone points to person as an example to "mimic," that means that you are to model everything they do. (It would be helpful if you could point out where someone was encouraged to mimic the pastors you reference.)

It is certainly not a blanket endorsement of "everything" these pastors do, but rather, lets look at the models these pastors are using. Are they good, biblical models? Are these pastors finding ways to engage a lost world with the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

It is after all, a place of higher education, shouldn't these graduate students be able to look at the arguments, models and ideas put forth by these pastors, and using the Bible and their reason, come to a conclusion, that these pastors are doing some things well, and other things not so well.

Could it possibly be? Well, No. There is no crisis. It might go a long way if you could admit that your "Could it be?" is actually an "Absolutely Not."

[peter lumpkins]

Don,

Thanks for your contribution.  One reason I didn’t/don’t take the post down is, even if it were conceded mistaken, it is no more helpful to take this down than it would to attempt to “recall” a magazine article which might be mistaken or even a book, a paper, etc.  Also, it is protection for me.  Many many people love to twist words and/or wrongly assume.  What I stated is here for anyone to examine…

As for it being ‘abundantly clear that alcohol use is not advocated by the Seminary [or] its president” I’m unsure where you’re suggesting I indicated it was. I remain lesser convinced than you that there [is not] a clamoring for it by the student body” if by “student body” you mean less than the whole. Nor do I know what you are implying by “clamouring.” Hence, I’m unclear about your point, Don.

Nor do I know what you mean by suggesting I’m perhaps “correct that there is a theological discussion about the most biblical view on alcohol.” What did I write which gave you that impression?

To the contrary, Don, having a speaker on campus who openly advocates imbibing drink for recreational purposes is itself a weakening of standards.  All one need to do to test this assertion is, to inquire whether Paige Patterson, for example, promoted leaders who were vocal beer-drinking pastors.  I honestly do not know the answer to the question but I’d bet a week’s worth of starbucks he did not.

Don, please; Mark Driscoll is the hottest gig going in church planting circles.  To suggest one does not necessarily lift him up as a moral leader when he is placed in such a prominent petition is, in my view, biblically naive.  One cannot slice character out of leadership roles That is not if one considers leadership from a biblical perspective. Indeed the Pauline model we have in Scripture for leaders remains dominated by if not exclusively driven by character, a moral profile if you will.  It remains impossible to slice one’s morals out of the leadership paradigm which is what I sense you may be implying. Even so, Don, Driscoll was not just an advocate for moderation he was an in-your-face-critic of abstinence-oriented believers.

Finally, in my follow up post, I attempted to explain how Dr. Akin did not really address the main point of the two posts I’ve written.  And, given the trajectories I’ve rehearsed, not only can it not be maintained “absolutely not” but “inevitably” will.

Thanks.

With that, I am…

Peter

[Chris Engelman - SEBTS Student]

I haven't read through all of the past posts so I don't know if this has already been said. What prompted the re-examination of Dr. Akin's drinking policy among the Southeastern Campus and its followers was a question that was presented at a recent President's Forum that Dr. Akin held. This President's Forum can be viewed at the website attached to this post as well as here:

http://apps.sebts.edu/multimedia/?p=1279

[Ron P.]

Ron,

I am unsure your difficulty in logging on. As you can see others are getting through. Below is your comment from the email you sent...

--------------------------------------------------

Peter,

>From what I have read on your site, Voices, and Wade, it appears to me that you are being falsely accused of doing something you did not say. You are guilty of what other people think you meant. To be honest, I would not have worded it as you have, but I do not think your accusers are engaging you in what you actually wrote. I can also say that I remember Danny Akin being strongly against alcohol consumption when he was my Associate Pastor and Professor while I was at Criswell. I do not think you will find anyone who consistently over time has passionately engaged students in the lack of wisdom in imbibing than Danny Akin. So I would have thought nothing of two posts together on SEBTS blog.

But there is no question that young evangelicals, including Southern Baptists are not only questioning the long standing position of abstinence as biblical, but they are also rejecting the wisdom argument that Akin and others argue for. Thus, one can understand, in light of your quote of "Hipster Christianity" the questions you are asking. But let's ask it in a broader context: Are young Christians today embracing a move away from alcoholic abstinence and does that include those who are in ministry or studying for the ministry?

I heartily applaud Dr. Akin's stance, though I hold to abstinence as a biblical view rather than to the wisdom argument alone. I think it prudent to address our young adults in this area - because I think it is desperately needed. I know a number of young Christian adults (both in and out of the SBC) who see nothing wrong with drinking alcohol. In some of my conversations, I have had some immediately dismiss both arguments outright. They will not even consider the arguments for either position. So I hope Dr. Akin and all of our Seminary and college Presidents engage students in this discussion.

In closing, I want to reiterate... From what I have read, it does appear that some of those that disagree with you level these charges based on what they believe you really mean - even though you did not say what they accuse you of saying. I will not guess their motives, but realize that some passionately disagree with your position on alcohol in your book. Maybe that is the impetus behind some of the comments. If they "get" you on this, maybe some believe it works against the credibility of your research and position on alcohol. But as I said, I do not know.

Blessings,

Ron P.

[Aubry]

I was at first concerned when reading your post that something controversial had been published regarding my seminary or the teaching of our president.

But now I see that you have simply chosen to create controversy where none exists in order to stoke the flames of pride and spew dissent. The adversary is surely pleased with your accomplishments in this regard.

I must say that I do admire your audacity in quoting C. S. Lewis in your case for abstinence. I'm sure he would be very please with that.

with that, I am...
censored.