Encouraging a Culture of Intimidation in the SBC by Peter Lumpkins

 

Thoughts about the 2011 Southern Baptist Convention in Phoenix do not lack as I prepare for my flight back to a rain-soaked West Georgia. We actually needed the rain. My grass was beginning to look like some I’ve seen in Phoenix! One particular thought I want to pitch to my readers pertains to what I see as a culture of intimidation being promoted in the Southern Baptist Convention. Allow me.

I mentioned at least twice on my site, I thought Dr. Al Mohler needed to answer a particular question about words attributed to him by Jonathan Merritt in an opinion essay published but subsequently pulled by The Christian Science Monitor. And, the reason I stated Dr. Mohler should answer the question is because Jonathan Merritt refused to offer—and even scoffed at the request—of showing tangible evidence for Mohler’s words, evidence for others to examine for contextual clarity. Moreover, I twice sought an answer off the record from Dr. Mohler before the SBC. And, since I said I was prepared to ask the question on the convention floor, I sensed compelled to do what I publicly said I would do—ask a question.

Understand:  I’ve been attending the SBC since 1982 (missing some years in the middle 2s) but have never stood on the convention floor with a question, a motion, a point of order, nothing…until yesterday. A first for me. And, while I’d be less than honest to say it was a pleasant experience, I can say freely standing and freely asking a question or making a motion or offering a persuasive word strikes at the center of being Baptist. I'm glad I could do so.

On the other hand, what stabs the life from free church culture is intimidation. That is, putting the “fear” in people for publicly stating their God-given consciences. Note: intimidation does not reject freedom, it repressess freedom. Intimidation does not forbid people from free expression; instead intimidation fosters fear in those who express unwanted thoughts, ideas, or pesky questions.  Whether it’s a totalitarian state, an episcopal ecclesiology, a dictatorial leader, or a group of verbal thugs who band together to mock and ridicule those who publicly raise a question toward an “anointed one” the same tool is employed—intimidation. Intimidation in its verbal expression is nothing less than a literary form of peace imposed by staring at the barrel of a loaded gun.

So, I asked Al Mohler my question. And, while I by no means got the answer I sincerely expected, he answered (an answer I’ll be digesting a long time, I assure).

Now enter the twisted encouragement of the culture of intimidation.  Below are a few of the “tweets” and blog posts:

• Peter Lumpkins got “spanked” (Wade Burleson)*
• Al Mohler delivered a “slam dunk” (Tom Ascol)
• Peter Lumpkins got “Molherized” (Jarod Moore)
• Peter Lumpkins gets a “well deserved beatdown” (Doug Wize)
• Mohler is “owning Lumpkins” (Jack Maddox)**

My church gives 13% to the Cooperative Program. I was duly elected to be a messenger to the SBC. I had my credentials affirmed and was issued ballots to vote. As a messenger, I am privileged to participate in the discussion as long as I abide by the rules of the convention. And, I did abibe by the rules of the convention.  I stated my question as instructed by the man at the microphone stand. I asked my question. When Dr. Mohler responded, I listened. When he was through, I sat down and enjoyed the IMB commissioning. I left the convention. No ruckus. No abnormalities. No misconduct. Seemingly a perfect example of Southern Baptist cooperative polity.

Why, then, must a sincere question—a legitimate question—be cast in terms of being “spanked,” having a “slam dunk” in your face, or being “Molerized”?  Why would an honorable question asked by a credentialed messenger to one of our paid employees be framed as the inquirer receiving a “well deserved beatdown” or as “owning” another? How do verbal put-downs like the above encourage others in healthy debate, honorable questions, sincere exchange, or sharing viable information among diverse churches in a formal convention setting? 

The answer, of course, is, it does not encourage any of this. Instead the “well deserved beatdown” nomenclature discourages participation by putting “fear” into any would-be participants.  After all, who seriously would desire to enter a conversation at the risk of being “owned,” “spanked,” or “beatdown” by the powers that be?

Know this, my dear readers:  say what the verbal thugs will:

I will not stand down

nor will I remain silent

As long as God gives me a conscience, I speak... I write... I ask. 

And, the powers that be, along with the verbal thugs who exploit intimidation measures to deter dissent, can, as Flo used to say, kiss my grits.

With that, I am…

Peter   

 

*Burleson does not count Mohler an "anointed one" by any stretch I suppose. Instead, perhaps Mohler's words fanned Burleson's fantasies about his own personal attempts at "spanking" me so to speak, a feat Burleson never quite could accomplish. After our exchanges, he always seemed to wander off...head down, mumbling to himself...    

**I’ll offer links later; gotta get packed…

Comments

[MD Valadez]

Modern social media makes it easier for the true, carnal thoughts of men to be exposed.
It is amazing to me how readily people will say the most ungodly and thoughtless things on social media, thereby exposing their real thoughts to potentially millions, things they would never say from their own pulpit...as if God couldn't hear them!
May we as the Church of Jesus Christ repent of our sin and practice Eph 4:32. ...let no unwholesome word...
mdv

[Rick]

Peter,
I read a suggestion of a "smackdown" cage match between Rainer/Mohler vs. You/the Lifeway book selection questioner. People do seem to revel in the verbal beat down of those on the floor by those on the platform.

I've always been amazed at the emotional state of most people who approach those microphones. They always seem flustered, nervous, a little uneasy about addressing 3,000 people... For what it's worth, you were well composed and spoke clearly.

Someone on the platform also made sort of an apologetic remark, along the lines of, "When we meet for conventions like these, we have open discussions, and these conversations will happen." I thought that was a little unnecessary and condescending.

The truth is, Mohler's original quote was provocative and confusing. A clarification was in order. Thank you for securing one.

[Max]

Peter,

Intimidation and manipulation are not gifts of the Holy Spirit.

I’m sorry that you experienced this. You’ve not been done until you’ve been done by a brother.

Thank you for speaking … writing … asking.

“Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.” In the meantime, “Contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.”

In due season, all Southern Baptists will realize just how sovereign God is.

Max

[Lee]

Peter,

I am confused as well. Were does Mohler (dropped the title, as I have lost respect) actually stand on homosexuality? Should we really have to wonder about that? I know most southern Baptist have a pretty good grip on what the bible says about homosexuality. It’s a black and white issue with no room for gray.

So, Mohler admits at the convention that what Jonathan Merritt quoted is correct??? Why would Mohler state we have lied about homosexuality to Junior Merritt during some off-the-record interview AND then write a rebuttal to that topic on his own blog JUNE 3rd, 2011? Makes no sense to me…where does he REALLY stand?

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/evangelical-shift-gays-why-clobber-scriptures-are-losing-ground

http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/06/03/the-church-and-the-clobber-scriptures-the-bible-on-homosexuality/

Regarding the derogatory bloggers. I would not think twice about those guys. Reason why? In light of the topic, I can only assume this means they would support Jay Bakker & junior Merritt’s far left liberal views. And now Mohlers…I guess.

It would also lead me to believe they would support an emerging church movement which holds extreme views like Jay & Jonathan. New enhanced views that try to water down homosexuality. Check out “Soulforce.com”. Just your average everyday group that believes you can be a “gay Christian”.

I am sorry to say, but it appears that Mohler is not the man we thought he was. Jay & Jonathan are easier to figure out.

My prayers are with you brother, keep up the good work!

[Jim Champion]

You have every right and responsibility to ask whatever question you have and get back a reasonable response. I applaud you for stepping up and asking your question. As to those that gloried in their interpretation of your being schooled in any manner but were not at microphones themselves, forget em.

Had I been there and had the opportunity to ask a question of Dr Patterson I would have asked how his seminary had only graduated 250 including college students and why they are destroying the EM school, and why the trustees are not doing their job!

[kim]

Peter,

Sorry you had to go through that just to ask a legitimate question. Intimidation I know about. Troubles with that my first few years on my state ex. board. Not pleasant, and troubling to say the least. As a pastors daughter, meeting so many pastors, deacons, etc. in my growing up years with my dad, I loved them greatly. So many God loving men out there. But I got to see another side of pastors and other Christian men in my service to my state, that frankly, I was floored many times over. I had things said to me and treated in ways that I had never encountered before. Not even from lost folks!

Lying, intimidation, trickery, etc. It wasn't looking like the conventions I remembered hearing about as a teenager, although I imagine my dad wouldn't have been talking about that kind of stuff in my presence anyway. Needless to say, my time serving was really great in many ways, and also some of my lower times I've ever had as well.

Sorry to get off on a tangent here Peter. Your experience just brought this to mind. Keep asking the questions. Don't back down and don't let intimidation be a tactic that works. It did on me for a little bit, but I had to learn fast, and I did. You know you're on to something, when intimidation and names are the only thing others have to answer your questions and facts with. Hang in there!

[Bill Harrell]

Peter:

Thanks for your commitment and boldness. The real danger that emerges from all of this is that little Merritt is out of control and will ultimately go to such extremes that he will cause his dad and Mohler more trouble than they could ever imagine. At some point they will find that they will have to put the reigns on him. Also, the homosexual world will look to Mohler's answer as encouragement. All they will remember is that he said "yes" he did make the statement in question. They will take his long statement and extrapolate support for their activity from it. Either he did make the statement or he didn't. All that was necessary was a simple "yes" or "no" and that would not have eaten up all the time so you could not follow up on the question. WFH

[Dave]

Dear Peter,

What about all the good that happened at the convention? Can you tell us about that? I'd love to hear, as I did not get to attend.

Thanks.

[aaron]

Peter,
Why are you such a lightning rod? What triggers these types of responses?

[Bob Hadley]

Peter Lumpkins got “spanked” (Wade Burleson)*
Al Mohler delivered a “slam dunk” (Tom Ascol)
Peter Lumpkins got “Molherized” (Jarod Moore)
Peter Lumpkins gets a “well deserved beatdown” (Doug Wize)
Mohler is “owning Lumpkins” (Jack Maddox)**

Please don't tell me you were surprised?
I just started following your posts!

LOL

><>

[Jack Maddox]

Peter

Brother - allow me to sincerely apologize for my tweet which characterized you as being 'owned'. It was tweeted in simple humor and came from the observation that a verbal bomb was dropped on you following your question. It obviously offended you and for this I apologize publicly and I am reminded that if twitter or facebook would have been around in days of Holy writ I believe no doubt that James would have addressed not only the tongue but likewise the tweet! My tweet was not intended to personally offend, but when we offend, hardly ever do we see the offense when taking part in the offending action. I again apologize for my flippant comment. Although I do not always agree with every thing that you write Peter, I certainly respect your position and your right to voice it without having to be the recipient of juvenile quips such as I offered yesterday. You and I have allied on far more issues than which we would perhaps disagree - I should have considered that before my comment.

As far as kissing your grits - may I suggest you allow me to reserve a heaping helping of grits and coffee should we have the opportunity to meet here in Northwest Arkansas or perhaps next year in New Orleans! Of course the tab is on me! I like mine with butter, salt and pepper - and perhaps a touch of crow...

Please forgive this big mouthed and sometimes fat fingered preacher : )

Jack Maddox

[Mary]

This reminds me of the Pastor playing the race card because certain "factions" had the audacity to declare that the doctrine of the Trinity is important.

So let's see those who hold themselves out as holier than thou are now gleefully posting about "smackdowns" and "cage matches" because, oh my word, someone had the audacity to request the great, the annointed AL to clarify remarks about his stance on homosexuality and the fact is he didn't so much as clarify as try to come down with an answer that his sycophants could cheer.

I thought it was a sad day when motives were questioned because there were those who stood up for the Trinity, but now Al has chosen to go over to the side of "can't we all get along, just not you fundamentalist who believe homosexuality is a sin, but I do want to get along with you who think homosexuality isn't that big of a deal cause I need you on my side politically" and people who have held themselves out as Bible believers just think "oh Al he's great" all because the person they hate asked the question.

Those Al sycophants can pat themselves on the back all they want, but Al's response and the response of the sycophants prove what's been alleged all along. The elites have decided to take over and will try to delegitimize anyone, even biblical views on homosexuality, as divisive and unChristian. Unity is code for bow down and worship the High Priest. I'm thinking the whole attitude of "don't you dare questions us, but send us your money or we will call you names" isn't going to play so well outside the sycophantic mob.

[Bryan]

Granted, I was not at the convention as, well, the birth of my first child is kind of more important.

I honestly think we are making much ado about nothing, so to speak.

After watching the video from the convention of your exchange with Dr. Mohler, I would argue that your question was phrased in such a way that it sounded accusatory. Now, I wouldn't have the audacity to say you got "smacked down," or "mohlered," or "spanked," (although the usage of Mohler's name as a verb does sound...amusing, sort of) I would also suggest that many of those tweets were rattled off as an attempt at humor.

Really, I am amazed at the way you are such a lightning rod in the Convention. I know that since I would describe myself as a 4-point Calvinist (don't really see Scriptural evidence for Limited Atonement), you and I disagree over matters of soteriology. And as someone who supports Acts 29, I know we would strongly disagree over matters of church polity. But, brother, as someone who firmly believes the gospel, as someone who firmly believes our culture desperately needs to hear the true gospel, and as someone who supports church planting, missions, and evangelism as valid ways of being obedient to the Great Commission, I know that you and I have much more that we agree on than we would disagree on.

Additionally, as a member of a Southern Baptist Church, I would also say that, by the grace of God, we should be able to disagree on matters of secondary importance.

I do thank you for the legitimate questions you raise, and I do thank you for your diligence in raising them. But, let's not forget that when rhetoric gets raised like this, often the result is that far more heat than light is generated.

[A. Price]

Ok, maybe if I say it this way? In MHO, in the Convention of 2011, the SBC, as we've known it, 'died'!

[Bekah Mason]

Peter,

As someone watching via the streaming video on the Internet, I can tell you that, from 2,000+ miles away, the tone and timing of your question appeared out of line, attacking and accusatory. At no time has Dr. Mohler or Jonathan Merritt either one swayed on their biblical stance concerning homosexuality. But one can be ardently opposed to a sin and simultaneously be ardently opposed to those who pharisaically judge the sinner. The church in general, and the SBC in particular, has a blatant history of treating those who struggle with homosexuality as if they have chosen to partake in the unpardonable sin. I have heard with my own ears ministers in our denomination declare that those who are merely tempted by homosexuality are destined for Hell.

At no point has Dr. Mohler or the SBC altered the denomination's biblical belief that homosexuality is a sin. What Dr. Mohler has begun is a brave attempt at opening dialogue concerning this temptation so that churches become a safe place for same-sex strugglers to share their burden and find healing.

I'm a third generation Southern Baptist, and am proud of that heritage, but as someone who had to seek help outside of our denomination when I became convicted of my same-sex attraction, I am humbly appreciative of Dr. Mohler's public chastisement of all who believe we as a denomination have appropriately dealt with individuals who struggle with unwanted same-sex attraction.

Your question had the tone of a set up, and Dr. Mohler clearly and with the authority his position allows, corrected and clarified your question. While you had every right to ask the question, a simple skimming of Dr. Mohler's copious work concerning this issue should have laid to rest any doubts you may have "sincerely" had concerning his stance on the issue. Taking a few sentences from a single interview to use as a weapon to publically call out a leader of our denomination deserved, frankly, every response you received.

But I am glad you asked the question because it gave Dr. Mohler the opportunity to give a brief and passionate explanation of both the SBC's long standing approach concerning homosexuality and the SBC's newly educated and repentant stance concerning our previous, heinously sinful treatment of those who face this temptation. God has already used that video clip in lives to whom I minister.

So it was not your question that deserved to be "Mohlered" or slam dunked as much as the tone and the timing. You appeared to be defending the judgmental and ignorant treatment of those who silently and painfully struggle with homosexuality, and I cheered Dr. Mohler's response. I don't know you or your ministry background, but if you have never had a frank and compassionate conversation with someone who eyebrows with same-sex attraction in a sin-killing, God-glorifying manner, I would encourage you to do so. Those of us who know and understand the issue first hand are the ones who frustratedly belittle a question like that.

If you want a taste of bullying, imagine that you struggle with same-sex attraction and then confide in someone in a typical Southern Baptist church. Trust me, then you can complain about being bullied.

[Dr. James Galyon]

I didn't attend the convention this year, but I did watch the video containing both your question and Dr. Mohler's answer in their entirety (http://mediasuite.316networks.com/player.php?v=y9wii776). On the one hand, I fail to see how you could be blamed of "attacking" Dr. Mohler, as some have suggested. You asked for clarification on the comments attributed to him, and fairly so. On the other hand, I fail to see how Dr. Mohler engaged in "intimidation." He thanked you for your question, clarified whether he stated such things, and made it plain that he is opposed to homosexuality -- unequivocally calling it sin.
===

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Jack,

I am not Peter and in no way am I speaking for him, but, your apology is very well articulated. Thanks for your openness.

Brother Peter,

Remember it was, I beleive, BH Carroll that instructed those seeking to rid SWBTS of any errors at that seminary to 'take it to the professor, if that does not rectify the situation, then take it to the president, if that does not rectify the situation, then take it to the trustees, if that does not rectify the situation, then take it to the people.' Well, you now have the responsibility to take it to the trustees.

Blessings,
Tim

[Joe White]

Peter,

I was disappointed in Mohler's annimated response to your calm, well framed question. Now I have more questions. What exactly does Mohler mean when he says "Homosexuality is more than a choice"? All sex is a choice. People have lived and died without having sex because that is what they chose. In my mind, this is a very slippery slope. Notice the title of this AP story... http://www.onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id=1371676

[CASEY]

It is important that you remember the context of why we're asking Dr. Mohler these questions. Dr. Mohler was criticizing one outside the SBC then he refused to criticize one within the SBC for the same comments and attitude. Why?
That, coupled with some 'new language' regarding homosexuality(that has at least a double meaning) and calling the SBC 'liars'...requires questions and certainly requires answers. The questions have been asked. The answers and clarity have yet to come.
Maybe it's time DR. MOHLER 'apologized to Southern Baptists'.

[Bekah Mason]

Mr. White, you are correct; the act of sex of sex is a choice. When Dr. Mohler and those whose minister to people who struggle with homosexuality speak of it being "more than a choice", we are referring to the temptation of being attracted to the same sex. There are issues of identity, trauma, relational connection; sexuality itself is much more than a behavior.

If you are interested in learning about ministry to those who fight the temptation of homosexuality, I would encourage you to look into the SBC Task Force on Homosexuality or Exodus International, an umbrella ministry that supports churches and parachurch ministries that minister to those seeking to overcome their temptations of sexual brokenness.

A simple way of saying it would be: we can't help what our temptations are, we can only choose how we act on them. That applies to all sin. Outgoing, talkative people may be more prone to gossip, but they choose whether or not to do so.

If the only way we address the issue of sin is to say, "Don't do it," we have reduced a heart issue to behavioral morality, a return to law keeping and an abandonment of the grace of Christ. Homosexuality is complicated, but mainly because it is a sin struggle about which most people are ignorant or fearful.

[Max]

Spanked? … sticks and stones can break my bones, but words …

Slam dunked? … requires a much taller man

Mohlerized? … yep, and the rest of us now know Al a little better … thanks Peter

Beatdown? … but not forsaken

Owned? … if you allow someone’s weakness to overcome your strength, they own you … Peter stood the test

[selahV (a.k.a. hariette petersen)]

@Jack Maddox, now, brother, your apology is a perfect example of how to approach a brother in Christ whom one has wronged. Thank you for sharing how impulsiveness can get the better of us in the age of technology. I appreciate your honest apology.

In my opinion, your apology is exactly what Dr. Mohler should do to all of we Southern Baptists who he says have lied about homosexuality as in the interview he had with Jonathan Merritt. I am offended...that he would condemn us when he does not know us. To broadbrush us all by the words and actions of some is demeaning and unkind.

@Bekah,
Life is hard. We all face temptations. None of us are immune to the devil's bag of tricks. Satan even tells us it is okay for us to do such and such because we are free to do such and such. And after all, we are covered in grace, so we have the liberty to do this or that. Whether it be the self-satisfying desire of fornication, drunkenness, etc., or the self-satisfying perversion of homosexuality, sin is still sin. As ministers of the gospel and ambassadors for Christ, it is our duty and responsibility to stand where the Bible stands--not where man stands. And I do pray for those whom I know personally who struggle with sin in all forms--not just homosexuality. If not for the blood of Christ, our righteousness is as filthy rags. In Him we have righteousness. In the flesh we have the battle. To tell people to surrender the battle and not stand to fight is simply irresponsible. We as Christians are being sanctified as we walk in this evil world. We are each hammered daily by the Prince of Darkness who is blinding, accusing, and using even brothers and sisters against one another to carry out his deeds. I do not know you, but I care that you have your struggles. I care that you are hurting and have had times in which you felt alone. I have been there with other issues and found the only place to be complete is in total surrender to Christ and to let Him give me strength to overcome and rest in Him when I fail.

I know for a fact that Peter has dealt with this issue of homosexuality with the utmost biblical instruction in one of his churches. And given the political correctness of condoning sin as preference, and even being taught in schools that it is okay to be "me", then I have no doubt that he has dealt with it in other churches--perhaps even when he was headmaster of a large Christian School in Georgia.

I am grateful that Peter asked the question of Dr. Mohler on the floor of the convention. What better place to have him on record for his current views. I have appreciated Dr. Mohler's written words in the past on diverse subjects, including abortion and homosexuality in light of scripture.

As far as the tweets? well, boys will be boys and men will stand and call them out. I read a lot of tweets via SBC Voices and found some quite silly, others informing. Tweets will cause some folks to resign, others to continue bullying wherein they once stood against bullies. I am saddened but not shocked at those who wrote what they did to Peter's question. People read into things what they want to read into them. I hardly think Dr. Mohler intended his answer to "Mohlerize" anyone, or to "spank" anyone, or to "own" anyone or to "beat down" anyone, or to "slam-dunk" anyone.

I do believe Dr. Mohler is an honorable man. It is those who do not believe Peter is an honorable man who choose unseemly words to describe Mohler's answer to him in as anything but unseemly manner. Truly? Do they really think those words describe Mohler's heart and intent when he answered Peter?

If anyone should be offended it would be Mohler. He's the one those descriptors spoke to. Peter just asked a question. As is usual for Peter. Dr. Mohler answered. Then again, maybe those men know Dr. Mohler better than the rest of us? I should not persume to know the minds and hearts of others. So maybe they sized up Dr. Mohler's intentions perfectly. If so, I'm with Peter, I sure wouldn't go to a microphone at the convention floor to ask a question with such anymosity poised to smack me down, spank me, own me, or beat me down. Nope. Glad someone else will stand in the gap. Yes sirree!

Well, Pete, here we go again, huh? yada yada, grits, buttermilk, cornbread and misrepresentations. Forgettabou' it. selahV

[selahV (a.k.a. hariette petersen)]

Joe White, Thanks for the link. I stand corrected. Dr. Mohler indeed seems to be spanking ALL Baptists if these statements in that link are direct quotes. So now the press has their nuggets to chew us up and spit us out in a slanted view as hypocrits for our Christless actions and views. Love the statement with which they ended their piece. Tells you where they expect we Baptists to go with our outdated views, doesnt' it?

And it's all Peter's fault for asking Dr. Mohler to clarify a statement he made in a previous interview with Merritt. selahV

[Lee]

Peter,

I had a chance to see you ask your question on video via sbc.net. You did a fantastic job and your home church should be proud of you!

As for Mohlers response to you...from my point of view he dodged the real essence of your question. He appreared to be prepared for your question AND provided a generic message on homosexuality that can be heard from any Southern Baptist pulpit-de-jour across America. The real question, is not about if we all agree homosexuality is a sin...cause it is. AND it's not about if we treat the homosexual better or worse than the adulterer/gossiper. We should treat them the same by sharing the Gospel..no matter what Sin.

The REAL issue is...the extermely dangerous nature of his statement that "We've lied about the nature of homosexuality and have practiced what can only be described as a form of homophonbia" Mohler says "We've used the "choice language when it is clear that sexual orientation is a deep inner struggle and not merely a matter of choice"

Does Mohler not see the threat of his statements? Does he understand the underlying agenda of the homosexual community...the like of Jay Bakker, Johathan Merritt and organizations like Soulforce? His statements will be used as the battle cry for "gay christians" everywhere. I have a close family memeber that considers themseleves a "gay christian" and thinks there is no problem living actively in sin. There point of view is: "God is love and two partners love each other....what could be wrong with that?" I think John may have addressed the issue of staying in sin somewhere (1 John 3:6).

When you say that "it is more than a choice / a deep inner struggle"....every wannabe "gay christian" will shout hoorah, hoorah, I told you I was born that way!

[A. Price]

Bro. Peter and Mary, back in the 'bad old liberal days', their 'battle cry' was 'unity, unity'!

I forget who answered them in a sermon (at SBC convention), James M.?, , but, in that sermon the statement was made, ' unity, at the sacrifice of the truth, is not unity'!

Interesting, isn't it?

[peter lumpkins]

All,

Please make the proper distinction concerning what actually took place at the SBC between Dr. Mohler and myself. Many of you suggest an "exchange" between us took place. While "exchange" in its broadest sense may be appropriate, I get the idea from some of you that you're using "exchange" in the sense of a clash which, of course, lends itself to descriptors like, "slam dunk" and "dress down" etc.

All that took place was a) Report given b) call for questions c) question asked d) question answered--a formal procedure in convention polity.

And those insisting I created drama by trying to make it sound like Mohler was lying, or Merritt was lying, or trapping Mohler with a question are spreading their ignorant nonsense.

a) Mohler was not surprised by the question I asked. I told him I was going to ask it for crying out loud!

b) Mohler himself forced the question to the convention floor. Twice I tried to resolve this in private and twice I was ignored

c) Steve Weaver, a Mohler advocate, tweeted I ought to read a person's position before questioning a person's position. Contrary to Weaver's ignorance, the truth is, I knew Mohler's position and had read much of his material thru the years and agreed virtually 100% with it! To presume I hadn't only perpetuates one's obvious, erroneous bias.

d) that is, I thought I knew his position until Wednesday
e) no one--and I mean NO ONE--could have been more surprised with Mohler's response than was I.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Jack,

No problem, brother. Thank you.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Bekah,

Look, Bekah. I stood up, thanked Mohler, raised a concern I had with Merritt's words, and asked for clarity. If you judge that "out of line, attacking and accusatory" so be it. But I would not change a single thing I said or how I said it. I read from a manuscript I wrote earlier so I would be clear. Nor did I display overt non-verbal body language as I spoke. So, you may judge as you wish about that.

In addition, you assert question had the tone of a set up. Well, my friend, once again you are dead wrong. Mohler forced this to the convention floor by ignoring my attempts privately to get an answer to my question. The fact is, he knew I was going to ask the question. So how a question can fit a "set up" as you judge is nonsensical to me.

Again, you suggest I employed a "simple skimming of Dr. Mohler's copious work concerning this issue" by taking "a few sentences from a single interview to use as a weapon to publically call out a leader of our denomination deserved, frankly, every response you received."

Oh my. Did you listen to my concerns at all? Bekah, you completely missed what I asked. This is why it gets so fundamentally discouraging in exchanging with many on blogs. They speak up, complain, and assert about something that is not even under consideration. Then they make bold pronouncements just like you did: "[you] deserved, frankly, every response you received."

I am only going to say this one time on this thread. Listen carefully: Since Mar 25, 2011, my working presumption has been, I doubted very much Al Mohler said the words in the way Jonathan Merritt attributed to him. Period. I have not waffled from that premise. Everything I've written presumes this. My question on the floor presumed this.

Hence, the shock looms still in my mind that Mohler actually said those were not alleged words but were his words.

For you now to suggest I cherry-picked words--words I did not even believe he spoke (at least in the way JM interpreted them)--from Mohler's writings is so completely mangled I simply give up on conversing about this with you. I suggest you take time to understand my concern before you enter this debate again.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Lee, et al

I do appreciate your encouragement--a much needed balance to the non-stop flow of skewed interpretations of my purpose for the audacity to ask Mohler a question. The truth is, I kinda figured somebody was going to face embarrassment over this issue because the nature of it appeared to require it. But I never dreamed it would be Mohler.

No regrets.
With that, I am...
Peter

[Mary]

A. Price, anyone who follows politics knows of Saul Alinsky. It wouldn't suprise me that the SBC elites have studied Alinsky since they are using the very same tactics to shut down dissent as liberals use to try to quash dissent. It's all the same play book. Intimidate and delitgitimize.

It's astounding the people who will scream about how Christian they are and yet they are falling for this "let's all get along and stop tellling homosexuals they're sinners since it's offensive to them." Those people applauding Saint Al are agreeing that they are homophobic haters who have "lied" about homosexuality. Watch how the lamestream media plays this and will spin it as wondering if the "haters" in the SBC are losing and a new "tolerance" of homosexuality is emerging in the SBC.

I can't help but think some seroius tactical errors were made at this convention by the elite. #1 The majority of the SBC are not in favor on amnesty and are not going to buy the "path to citizenship with retribution line." and #2 Saint Al trying to quash that which he sees as his political opponents in this fight while standing up for more "tolernace" of gays. That ain't gonna play well and I'll bet ol Al's gonna have to do some serious clarifications in the coming days. Will the twitter folk tweet about "smackdowns" and "cage matches" then. This is just the beginning.

[Steve Weaver]

Peter,

I am no doubt biased as we all are, but I'm not ignorant on this point. I wasn't surprised by Mohler's response to you at all, because I remembered reading this several years ago. I'm surprised you didn't since it raised a small controversy at the time.

"The argument that homosexuality is matter of biology rather than morality is too useful for the homosexual community to abandon it altogether. Some remain convinced that research will eventually prove this case. Conservatives will welcome the research as “proof” that homosexuality is freely chosen and that biology plays no significant part in the homosexual condition. Both sides had better be careful lest the scientific evidence should eventually build against their case.

Conservative Christians believe that homosexual behavior is sinful, not because of scientific evidence or the absence of a biological basis, but because the Bible is so clear in its condemnation of all homosexual acts, and even of homosexual desire (Romans 1: 27). The Rice and Ebers study does reveal the weakness of the biological argument put forward by homosexual activists, but evangelicals must be cautious in denying the possibility of any biological factors related to homosexuality.

Both serious and ludicrous arguments are now put forth claiming a genetic basis for, among other things, alcoholism, gambling addictions, violent behavior, and even excessive television watching. All of these represent efforts to remove social stigma and to classify sinful behaviors as normal, or at least understandable. Dean Hamer has moved on to argue that belief in God is linked to a “God gene.”

The flight from moral responsibility is a hallmark of the modern age. We hope for modern science to heal our diseases and excuse our sins. The Bible will not allow this evasion. Our sinful behavior, rooted in biology or not, is a matter for which we are fully accountable. After all, as the Psalmist confessed: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5).

The doctrine of total depravity reminds us that no part of ourselves is free from sin and its injury. That certainly includes our genetic code as well. As the church father Ambrose of Milan (340-397) stated, “Before we are born we are infected with the contagion, and before we see the light of day we experience the injury of our origin.” In the end, the scientific evidence is not morally important, though it may be medically useful.

The church’s witness to the biblical condemnation of homosexuality as sin is a crucial test of faithfulness, no matter where the biological research may lead. In the end, the church must take its stand on the Word of God–not on the latest genetic analysis."
http://www.albertmohler.com/2004/11/11/what-about-the-gay-gene-an-honest-look-at-the-evidence/

I find this blog post from 2004 to be in basic agreement with what he said in the article by Jonathan Merritt and in response to your question. His point is that we shouldn't build our case against homosexuality on the denial of a "gay gene." We shouldn't be surprised if scientists discover such a gene, since the totality of our being has been effected by the fall. Even if scientists discover a gene causing propensity to any sin, we must regard as sin what the Bible calls sin. What about that do you have a problem with? It is a different way of thinking about the issue to be sure, but not inconsistent with Scripture.

This is what I meant when I said you should have read Mohler's writings and you would have known where he stood. BTW, I defended your right to ask the question at the convention in my blog post today. I only wish you had been better informed before asking the question.

Blessings,
Steve

[peter lumpkins]

Steve,

My point concerning your "ignorance" was not implying your ignorance of Mohler's position but ignorance concerning my understanding of Mohler. I have indeed read Mohler. And unless you can produce, from Mohler's 200+ articles, the quotes I cited from the interview he had with Merritt, please don't suggest Mohler has said these things before. Hence, the very reason for my questioning Mohler was the obvious discrepancy between Merritt' s quotes and Mohler's position he had clearly articulated, a position with which I substantially agreed.

With that, I am...
Peter

[JoeL]

I'm not a Southern Baptist and have only been to a SBC convention once (2000), but I watched the video of the exchange between Lumpkins and Mohler, so I'll give my outsiders opinion if you don't mind.

One, Mr. Lumpkins, your question was very well articulated, and I didn't sense anything accusatory at all. I thought it was a very thoughtful and well-framed question, and very respectful. Great, well-written question, nothing more nothing less.

Two, Dr. Mohler's answer was very respectful and affirmed the dignity of Lumpkin's question, though it got a bit preachy towards the end--but that's neither here nor there.

Just thought I'd comment from the peanut gallery.