Question Raised Over Baptist Press Silence Concerning Al Mohler's Provocative Claim about Homosexuality and Southern Baptists by Peter Lumpkins

North Carolina pastor, Tim Rogers, raises the question concerning Baptist Press' silence about Dr. Al Mohler's claim at the SBC in Phoenix that evangelicals broadly and Southern Baptists particularly "have lied about the nature of homosexuality" and practice "what can only be called a form of homophobia." During the Q/A time at the end of the seminary report at the SBC, Dr. Mohler affirmed the words were his and accurately quoted by cultural critic, Jonathan Merritt  >>>

In his article entitled, "Where is Baptist Press Coverage?" Rogers explains:

"When one views the article concerning the seminary reports one will notice something conspicuously missing.  Baptist Press presented an article in its Thursday online edition of the seminary reports....In the individual reports from each seminary there were only two questions asked of the presidents from the floor.  One was asked of Dr. Akin...and the other was asked of Dr. Mohler....in BP’s coverage of [Dr. Akin's] report one will notice that two paragraphs of a 12 paragraph report is devoted to a brief question...But, it is not the same with [Dr. Al Mohler]...

And then concludes:

BP, either refused to acknowledge the question to Dr. Mohler in their article, or the news organization has intentionally covered up the question and the answer.  Whatever the case is, BP needs to rectify this situation.  As a Southern Baptist, if I do not attend the convention, BP is the place I turn to get information concerning what is taking place in Southern Baptist life...[but]...I would not know that Dr. Mohler believes Southern Baptist have lied concerning the nature of homosexuality and are practicing a form of homophobia.

Perhaps we'll hear from our brothers at Baptist Press* about why it was not judged newsworthy that an entity head claimed that we've deceived the American public about homosexuality--not to mention the homosexual community as well as all adherents to the Christian faith--and done so by embracing lies and half-truths about homosexuality which has apparently led not only to our practicing "homophobia" but also to commit sin from which we must repent.

With that, I am...

Peter

READ TIM ROGERS' FULL ARTICLE

*So far as I am concerned, it's difficult for me to criticize some of the good staff at Baptist Press. To be honest, I think their hands are tied, so to speak, on some of the issues they are allowed to cover. Implied, of course, is the presumption that people with "higher pay grades" are pulling the strings. If I am correct, I fully understand the dilemma they face. Even so, it does not make the silence any less frustrating to grass roots Southern Baptists who want to know what goes on at our convention. In short, Tim Rogers' point appeaers to be well-taken

Comments

[Les Puryear]

Peter,

I know most of the good staff at Baptist Press and I will say that they do an excellent job with what they are allowed to work with. If there is any avoidance of issues, I personally believe it has more to do with the EC top leadership than with the BP staff, as you mentioned in your * note.

Les

[Lee]

Peter,

It appears you may need to change side jobs from blogger to religious investigative reporter. It appears you my have stumbled into something much bigger. Why the reluctance from AM to clarify something ("have lied about the nature of homosexuality" and practice "what can only be called a form of homophobia.") that has been brought to the floor forthrightly? Something that has been questioned privately and publicly by you now for months?

How in the wide-world-of-sports could the BP not cover this? Is there some type of cover-up? Meaning, is AM now in the left wing camp of the likes of Jay Bakker, Junior Merritt and the Gay Christian movement? I know..I know, over 200 articles written on homosexuality. Is it possible that he has changed his position? How would I know? The silence is deafening.

Keep up the good work my Brother!

[Max]

Is Baptist Press the over-riding influence on coverage by State Baptist publications? They have been silent on this issue, as well.

We should expect objective coverage by Baptist Press on all matters important to Southern Baptists ... this was certainly such an item.

Max

[Eric]

I may be a bit naive but I think Dr. Mohler was very clear in his statement to Peter on what he said. He's not a man that's given to casual statements without meaning. Maybe Peter can encourage the Baptist Press and a lot of the state newspapers to delve into this a little further. I for one would enjoy hearing what else Dr. Mohler might have to say on the issue.

[Ben Simpson]

Peter,

Two things:

1)It should be noted that Baptist Press didn't include the question that was asked to Dr. Kelley of NOBTS either. It seems that actually reporting on the questions to the seminary presidents, at least this year, is the anomaly. So, it's not just a Mohler/SBTS thing.

2) Could it be that the reason Baptist Press is not covering the question asked to Dr Mohler is that you, Peter Lumpkins, asked it? I'm sure they at BP know your portofolio of blogging work, which, in my opinion, often aims at promoting divisiveness and skepticism in the SBC. Perhaps they want to draw as little attention to you as possible. Of course, I'm just prognosticating.

[Remi]

Peter, thank you for continuing to stand up for the truth, even if it upsets people.

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Ben,

You point is well taken concerning the coverage of the question for Dr. Kelley. I did forget that Dr. Kelley was asked a question concerning the lay-offs of professors. However, I do not believe we need to totally concede the point. Why? If you will go http://www.baptistpress.net/blog/article.asp?id=334&title=Tuesday+afternoon%2Fmorning+session+running+blog>here and scroll to the 3:55 time stamp you will find that BP did live blog the report. That is a point that I made over at my blog. BP didn't even cover live blog the SBTS report. Thus, just because they didn't record the question for Dr. Kelley they still covered the report.

Blessings,
Tim

[Ben Simpson]

Brother Tim,

Good point about BP not live-blogging the SBTS report. I'm not sure why they didn't, but they surely rectified the situation in the seminary reports article, http://www.baptistpress.net/BPnews.asp?ID=35568.

As you look at the live-blog link you pointed me to, http://www.baptistpress.net/blog/article.asp?id=334&title=Tuesday+afternoon%2Fmorning+session+running+blog, you will notice that although BP live-blogged the NOBTS report, there is still no mention of the question that Dr Kelley was asked.

So, three seminary presidents (Kelley, Akin, Mohler) were asked questions from the floor after their report, and BP only reported on one of the questions, namely Akin's. Therefore, reporting on the question is the anomaly and not the norm. For this reason, the question to pursue is not: Why did they not report on the question posed to Mohler? The question to pursue is: Why did they report on the question posed to Akin?

I think the answer to the question is found at bottom of the seminary report article that I linked to above. At the bottom, you'll find these words: "Based on reports by Phyllis Evans of Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary; T. Patrick Hudson of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary; Gary D. Myers of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary; Lauren Crane of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary; Aaron Cline Hanbury of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; and Keith Collier of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary."

So, it seems that the BP article was merely a compilation of what each seminary's person gave to BP. Therefore, it seems to me that NOBTS and SBTS didn't want the questions from the floor included and SEBTS did. So, I guess you should blame it on the seminaries.

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Ben,

First, I will agree with you that the BP article is the compilation of the seminary PR department reports. No doubt about that, which makes my point even stronger. While there is no live blog of the question for NOBTS there certainly is a live blog of the question for Dr. Akin.

Second, you say that the situation is "fully rectified." Wrong, that point I cannot concede. The Seminary report from Southern was there from the start. There never was a question to the report, my concern was the question. So, great try in your attempt to make everyone believe that the situation was "fully rectified" but it was not. You either did not understand what I was referencing or you intentionally tried to cover something up. I choose to believe the first, you just did not understand.

Blessings,
Tim

[peter lumpkins]

Tim,

Thanks for staying on top of this. As you rightly point out to Ben, BP emphatically did not "rectify" the most newsworthy item which has made many headlines--a leading evangelical theologian says we've lied and are guilty of practicing homophobia. I'm told BP will, however, "rectify" this before the week is out. We patiently wait.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Eric]

Peter,

I'm sure you have already seen this but if not, you might find this interesting reading by Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association. I found it on the Associated Baptist Press site.

http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/6505/53/

[peter lumpkins]

Eric,

I have but thanks anyway for the post!

With that, I am...
Peter

[Casey]

So now we 'dismiss' the obligation of 'BP to report us the SBC news' by saying that reporting only on SEBTS is the un-normal? What kind of 'stinkin-thinkin' is that? BP has an obligation to tell us ALL the news: good, bad and simply ugly.
Let Southern Baptists decide and quit manipulating the information...the result of manipulation (or increased manipulation) will be decreased confidence in our leadership and decreased CP giving.
[I hope Nashville, Louisville and Wake Forest are listening]

[Ben Simpson]

Brother Tim,

I'm a bit confused. Are you upset that BP didn't live-blog the SBTS report, or are you upset that BP didn't include Peter's question to Dr Mohler in the seminary report article?

If it's the former, then they surely rectified (I never said fully) not live-blogging the SBTS report by including it in the seminary report article, covering up to before the question like they did with Kelley and the NOBTS report. But perhaps you are right: there's a conspiracy afoot evidenced by BP not live-blogging the SBTS seminary report.

If it's the latter you're upset with, you are chasing the wrong rabbit. The rabbit you should be chasing is why the question to Akin was included. Otherwise, you need to harp on why Kelley's was not included as well.

To be honest, I hope that BP soon covers Mohler's answer. I suspect that you and Peter believe that if the word gets out to the "grassroots" SBC about what Dr Mohler said in response to Peter that it will reduce Mohler's esteem and influence in the SBC and tarnish his name. However, I believe the opposite will be happen. If the crowd's response to Mohler's answer at the SBC is any indication, the more they hear his gospel-centered and compassionate response, the more they'll appreciate him. Furthermore, I believe God could use Mohler's comments to spark introspection and Bible searching. So, I pray BP covers it soon and very soon.

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Ben,

First, I am not "upset" about anything. Why is it that someone raises a legitimate question and they are determined to be "upset"?

Second, you seem to be muddying the waters with your back-and-forth assessment that is flawed from the beginning.

Here is where it stands. I pointed out in the post over on my blog and Brother Peter linked to it here, that BP failed to report the question raised on the floor of the convention by Brother Peter. You raise an objection that NOBTS also had a question raised that was not covered by BP. You then pointed out, in a later comment, the BP report published came the PR departments of the individual seminaries. I conceded that point to you and it took BP somewhat off the hook as far as the reporting of the seminary reports. My point of the question merely asked the reason it was not reported by BP when the question and answer itself made world wide news. Time magazine has picked it up and Dr. Mouw of Fuller Seminary is stating it appears Dr. Mohler has changed his position.

You do, by your insistence raise a rather interesting point concerning the questions asked and the coverage of them. I was talking to Dr. Lemke at the convention and he abruptly closed the conversation and had to go. I asked why the hurry? He responded that Dr. Kelley was about to give his report and it was rumored that some type of question was coming. He didn't know the question or the subject of the question but understood there was a question that was going to be raised. The question concerned the reasons for the layoffs of profs. Dr. Kelley did a great job answering that question and his answer made it a non-issue. When NOBTS presented their report there was no coverage of the question as it really was not news. The layoffs were covered in the news earlier and as such no further information was gleaned from the question. Dr. Mohler was asked a question that was rumored would be asked. Everyone in the hall felt a question was coming and they knew the subject of the question as well as the person that would ask it. The question was asked and you know the rest. SBTS PR department filed their report and there was no report of the question. SEBTS made their seminary report. There was not even a hint there would be a question coming from the floor. But, when the question was asked Dr. Akin responds to the question by reading his answer. The report from the seminary's PR department includes the question and the quotes of Dr. Akin's answer. So, how does one account for two questions that are rumored to be asked, and seminary presidents respond in an extemporaneous manner, and neither question gets reported versus one question no one has any idea will be asked, the seminary president responds by reading his answer, and it gets reported? I submit to you that the SEBTS question was not a question raised by a concerned messenger but a question raised for PR purposes only.

Now, let us not get lost in the muck of other questions and non-questions. Let us reject any conspiracy theories that may abound. However, let us deal with the issue at hand. BP, who is responsible for the reports regardless of where they receive them, failed to include a question that has made national news. I merely asked the question, "why?". I did get a telephone call from the BP editor and we spoke "off the record." Therefore, I will not reveal any of our conversation. I will tell you there will be new directives concerning the reports received from the PR departments of the entities in the future.

So, to say I am upset is really inaccurate. The problem you will need to address, Brother Ben, concerns your defense of a matter that you think is a non-issue. This non-issue has made national news with leading evangelical voices calling for answers.

Blessings,
Tim

[peter lumpkins]

Tim,

Very well said, brother.

Ben,

Two things. First, whether you wrote "fully rectified" or "surely rectified" makes virtually no difference to Tim's point and your failed counter-point. The fact remains, BP did not "rectify"--either "fully" or "surely"--its glaring overlook of SBTS in the live-blogging segment by including SBTS in its seminary report on BP. Tim's point was not the absence of the SBTS per se but the absence of the definitive newsworthy question. Think of the movie, The Matrix, and Trinity's whisper in Neo's ear: "It's the question, Neo"

Second, you offer what you think is really at work here:

"I suspect that you and Peter believe that if the word gets out to the "grassroots" SBC about what Dr Mohler said in response to Peter that it will reduce Mohler's esteem and influence in the SBC and tarnish his name.

Unbelievably, Ben, you come on this thread avoiding the real issue of the thread--BP's neglect of a definitive news-making moment--and the foundational issue driving the issue with BP on this thread--Dr. Mohler's inexplicable confusion by stating SBs have propagated deception and practiced homophobia--and instead blow smoke in our face that the issue from your standpoint is, Tim and I are potentially gloating over the possibility Mohler's name will be tarnished and he'll lose influence. So this is what you dub genuine dialog, Ben? Is this representative of the kind of arguments young Calvinists like yourself are capable of producing? Addressing the issues raised straight-forwardly by taking cheap shots--nonsense shots--at those who raise issues rather than the issues themselves?

May I suggest you simply drop out now, brother before you log even more foolish innuendo. You're not assisting Dr. Mohler or BP by changing the subject from him & it to us. The way out for Dr. Mohler is to offer clear, straight-up language about precisely what he meant by

a) "we've lied about the nature of homosexuality";
b) we practice what can only be called a "form of homophobia";
c) what Mohler exactly means when he indicates being homosexual is clearly more than a choice;
d) exactly what beliefs and/or behaviors have SBs embraced about which he calls on us to repent, along with some hard evidence to demonstrate his exhortation

None of the above appears unreasonable given the confusing severity of his actual words. We've got good reason to believe a BP article will appear on or before Friday attempting to clear up this matter. Hopefully, we can move forward positively from there.

With that, I am...
Peter