« Is Calvinism comparable to a caste social construct? | Main | A.C. Dixon on what results from prayer »



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


Thank you Peter! He's almost as funny as 'Trunk Monkey'. Could you link that one for another laugh?


Cool! I feel like one of those bad girl rock stars in J.D's tiny twitter universe. :o)


ha ha ha... this is too funny for words. I'm sure J.D. wouldn't believe anything anyone who knows all three of you says, but... for the record. Peter, Mary and Lydia are not the Trinity, but they make a pretty good tag-team at times. lol. tooo tooo funny. selahV


Mary, Lydia and Hariette are some of the most godly men I know ;^) ... thank you folks for staying the course.


I think this type of tweet and the conversations of the last few days are informative for those who perhaps are not familiar with SBC blogging.

First if you're so inclined check out the comment thread on voices of Bart Barbers recent post about Barna I think. In the comments see how men talk about "snarky". Then look at previous thread here where I'm told that because I'm snarky I won't be seen as credible So snarky in men is funny and acceptable. Snarky in women is not acceptable

Then add the thought that some how in a discussion about trustees not doing their job that Lydia and I saw parallels to the situation at southern and Al Mohler and we are portrayed as obsessive. Imagine how strange it is that on a blog about SBC issues Al Mohler gets mentioned frequently. How weird is that.

So you watch enough and you realize men and women are not held to the same standards on SBC blogs.

At the end of the day the problem rabid Calvinists have with this blog is not the WAY anything is said but the problem is WHAT is being said. It drives em crazy and so like JD there they can do nothing but resort to ad hominim attacks

Howell Scott

First, I can vouch that Mary and Lydia are real. I'm not sure about Peter, though ;-) If you engage people in civil, Christ-like debate -- even when you disagree on some of the issues -- you find that people are much more pleasant to dialogue with. And, you find yourself building relationships with people who are on opposite sides of some pretty serious issues. For those who have commented thus far (Mary, Lydia, Hariette, and Max), as well as Peter himself, I have found that to be the case for me personally. I enjoy the back and forth, give and take that can happen on blogs. And, I do not mind it when people disagree with my viewpoint, although if Hariette did, I would be sad :-) But, there are always one or two folks who are so incendiary in their comments (probably reflecting their personalities)that it's best to not engage them in debate. As I reminded someone this week, you can't fix stupid and you can't argue with an irrational person. Nor should you try! Thanks and God bless,


cb scott

I am going to let the cat out of the bag Lydia. Sorry, but I can live with the scam no longer.

I know Lydia is a real person. She is my younger sister from our father's third wife. We are Mormons.

Andrew Barker

I hope you haven't faked this tweet Peter!!

JD may not want to give SBC_tomorrow the time of day, but JD doesn't appear to know what day it is! ;)

Rick Patrick

I'm not troubled that JD's picture looks like the guys on TV getting drunk in honky tonks. I'm troubled that he's always picking fights just like they do.


"I know Lydia is a real person. She is my younger sister from our father's third wife. We are Mormons."

Oy vey, I will admit it. Our family shame comes from my rebellious refusal to always "be sweet", know my place and marry an 80 year old at 16. I also refused to wear long denim jumpers with keds.


Howell writes "If you engage people in civil, Christ-like debate -- even when you disagree on some of the issues -- you find that people are much more pleasant to dialogue with."

Howell, I have certainly found that to be the case in exchanges with you. While we may disagree on certain things, I have never questioned your heart. You have never spoken a condescending word or dishonored me in your replies to my comments on your blog.

These are difficult days for Southern Baptists, which are made more frustrating by the aggressive, militant, arrogant fringe of New Calvinism which has entered our ranks. What is missing from many blog debates is a healthy measure of love.

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails."

I'm not certain that we can agree to disagree to get along to go along with some folks who have entered the camp ... so I try to contend for the faith (as I "know" it) without being contentious. I admit that I may have slipped a time or two in my attempts to offer folks the truth in love, but pray that those mistakes do not characterize my overall walk - knowing that I must give an account for my words and actions.

Mary S.

Peter, speaking of humor:

I really enjoyed watching when you questioned Al Mohler and his response to you (at youtube: Al Mohler Responds To Peter Lumpkins). It made me laugh so hard! Thanks.

Dale Pugh

As of 18 hours ago, he tweeted:
"If Mary and Lydia from @SBC_Tomorrow are real people, would they please reach out to me so I know they aren't P.Lump's alter egos? Thanks."
Sounds like inquiring minds REALLY want to know. He's desperate, people! To paraphrase Dr. Evil, "Throw him a stinkin' bone!" :-)


cb scott,

@11:42, what difference does it make to you. What is the significance of your comment.

What does it have to do with the Spiritual abuse Christians are enduring from the Calvinist or in the case a sibbling dealing with being in a broken family?

I haven't been on this thread long enough to know if you are a kidding around or if you are casting stones. If you are casting stones, I would advise caution.


Oh please like JD can be trusted with our IP address.


JD's tweets tell me a few things:

1. He thinks about me much more than I have ever thought about him.

2. He, sadly, does not have a lot of experience interacting with adult independent thinking women.

3. He is immersed in the pink and blue version of Christianity where the physical is often mistaken for the spiritual.

4. He is insecure or he would stop with the ad hominem but that is all he has and it really does work in that movement as it is very much a group think endeavor. But we are silly to listen because his own doctrine says he remains a worm and not a new creature in Christ. God has to force him to say these things.

5. He has not really read Peter long enough to know we have gone toe to toe on issues we strenuously disagreed over. Just a few are alcohol, Paige Patterson, Caner and mutuality. And that is ok. Most adults can disagree and carry on.

Peter makes his case and that is that. What is so hard about that?

I will tell you what is so hard. That movement is about having personal power over others and creating conformity and calling it unity. They need it to sustain their egos. They crave it like many crave a drink or a drug. It has a strangle hold on them that is becoming more and more obvious. Their leader, Mohler, is the same way except when it comes to political strategy he makes Lee Atwater look like an amatuer.

The problem has been all along the YRR movement has insisted we must all agree with them as only they know the true Gospel. I understand that position was needed to rally the young men who do not think for themselves but are easily indoctrinated. They are the ones who introduced the divisiveness, deceitful practices in churches and with our entities. And now some are talking back and they cannot handle it. They are bullies. Christian bullies which is an oxymoron.

The reason the Calvinism issue was believed by many at LU is obvious. Their own LONG track record of deceit and obnoxiousness. It was too easy to believe Calvinists were hired at LU and then started to take on the college. Too many have experienced this very thing in their churches!

They brought this on themselves and continue to wallow in it as they are STILL silent about Mohler's protection and promotion of CJ Mahaney, of the Shepherding cult, PDI/SGM. They now pretend they never promoted or partnered with Driscoll or his Acts 29 creation. Yeah, it got a bit embarassing, didn't it?

Why Mahaney being protected and promoted? They LIKE shepherding cults. It fits their need to control people perfectly. Mohler raved about CJ's "strong leadership" to a reporter.

And then Joshua Breland is too prideful to admit that he did actually write that it was all about Calvinism but now all of a sudden he claims he knew all along it wasn't? Please! His blog contained a ton of evidence showing something very different. Do they really think they have any credibility? And that is what I fear about this movement more than anything. The ability to lie to themselves and expect us to believe it.

And they want us to not only trust them in our churches and entities but pay for this brand of pretend Christianity that loves lording it over others? No thanks. We are heading toward our own large shepherding cult and..... stupidly we paid for them to take us over.


Hey Dixie Howell I'm married to a lawyer (is that another layer of imaginary people in Peter's psyche - my family? What about my pets are they in Peter's mind too?). So but being married to a lawyer I know you guys are trained to argue all sides of an issue. You've presented some thoughts for one side what are you thoughts for the other side? Take all the arguments your making against Aguillard and now be the lawyer FOR Aguillard - what does he say.

See Dix here's the thing, there are a lot of people saying a lot of things and taking sides (mostly one side). That's ok. What's not ok is we're all supposed to be Christians - and it's not ok to go around declaring people evil, soldiers of Satan, and blah blah. We are all very flawed people and people mess up. They mess up for what they think are the right reasons but they still mess up. In cases like these people all tend to pile on. Wouldn't it be nice if someone tried to see the other side where reasonable people who are not evil could come to different conclusions? There's only one thing we know for sure and I know my husband as an attorney would be very careful in what he's saying because of this one fact - that fact is Very few people have access to ALL the facts. So a lot of what's being offered is speculation. Attorneys don't like putting cases together when they know there are secret files out there

cb scott


Joe Aguillard is guilty and it was never rally about Calvinism.


"Oh please like JD can be trusted with our IP address.
Bingo, Mary!

Mark, CB is joking around. We have poked each other for a long while now. Even back to the old wild west days of blogging at the Outpost when getting deleted was considered a badge of honor.

He remains in my good graces because he referred to me as his "younger" sister. He knows.


CB I didn't say he wasn't guilty. I want to try to understand how Godly people went in what seems to be a foolish direction. What's that side of the story?

And I believe you when you say this wasn't about Calvinism but I'd bet the money I didn't bet on the Kentucky Derby today that its gonna be about Calvinism going forward.

Howell Scott


I didn't realize you were a little sister from my Phi Sigma Kappa fraternity days at G.W.U. I'm only used to my fraternity brothers and little sisters calling me "Dix," but I'll respond to just about anything that I am called these days :-) I have no dog in this fight, so what I have written and commented on was not motivated by either liking or not liking Joe Aguillard. Truth be told, I have never heard of the guy before all this blew up. Despite your invitation, I have no desire to be the lawyer FOR or AGAINST Aguillard. I have been making observations and asking questions based on all of the available information to date. As your husband well knows, there is no case in which ALL the facts are available. That is never the standard in any case, whether criminal, civil, or in the special case that we see at LC.

I am trying to use a "reasonable person" standard when looking at the facts. As I half-jokingly wrote in an OP at From Law to Grace on Thursday, I said that I couldn't fathom how the Board of Trustees would "exonerate" Aguillard absent a "double-secret" report or evidence that was not available to the New Orleans' law firm tasked with conducting an independent investigation of this mess. Low and behold, Aguillard comes up with an inch-think file folder containing exculpatory evidence that he did not give to the independent investigators, but instead waited to give to the Special Committee of seven. Aguillard's withholding of this evidence from the investigators can be explained in one of two ways: 1) He forgot that he had the file folder with evidence that would have cleared up the mess and exonerated him much sooner; or 2) He willfully and knowingly withheld the folder full of evidence so that the lawyers conducting the independent investigation could not examine the documents, question witnesses (including Aguillard, who refused to be interviewed by the investigators), or otherwise determine the veracity of the evidence. The first shows an incompetence not worthy of a President of a Christian college. The second shows a deceit not worthy of a President of a Christian college.

It is worth noting that three out of the seven members of the Special Committee, even after given this supposedly exculpatory evidence from Aguillard's double-secret file, voted against exonerating him. Two out of the three no votes were cast by attorneys (Jack Hunter and Tony Perkins). We may never know ALL the facts, but what we do know is that there continues to be something that smells rotten in the state of Pineville. And, not even $10 million can cover that stench. Thanks and God bless,



Well no Dix there's I think a third way to look at the "secret" information What if the information is not his to divulge to the public? What if he didn't participate with the investigation because he felt like he was being railroaded? And I understand that you're impressed with the three people who disagreed but that still leaves four who didn't. Are we really to believe that all the people who voted to keep Aguillard are just Patsy's? And I'm sorry if Tony Perkins is really an attorney he's not a very impressive one. Yes he's on the right side of the issues but I often wish FRC had a better spokesman.

Honestly, I think Aguillard is getting away with proverbial murder. What bothers me is this implication that everyone who voted for him is part of this vast corrupt machine. I was hoping for reasonable man reasoning that maybe there was a way to get to support for Aguillard that made some kind of sense.

And yes I understand you may never be in possession of all the facts but it is dangerous to build a case when you know there are a significant amount of facts unavailable. Add to that that was pretty close to an even split on how those facts were received/interpreted and I think there are a lot of questions. I hope the explanation isnt that there are a significant amount of unethical people on the BOT.

I think there are a lot of unanswered questions. My hubby doesn't have time to read all the background available. And it's certainly your right to not be curious about how the other side would present itself. I i thought that was a common lawyer trait - to push and question all sides of a case before determining where the facts actually lead.


Ok I did get hubby to give me some opinions based on my brief description. He as not at all impressed with Dixie's two options. As an attorney he would not recommend a client participate in an investigation against him. It would also be in a clients interest to not give out all his evidence but to present it in a situation of his choosing.

Another point of interest about confidentiality agreements. They're pretty much SOP for boards. There are legal as well as ethical reasons for these agreements. He points out that Christians get into Christian bubble and aren't able to reason outside the bubble. It is completely unreasonable for a trustee to declare he'll determine what is confidential and what is not.

So there's a lot more but I can't type it all on the IPOD.

peter lumpkins


Can't write but a minute. First, I've been told by some in a position to know that credible rebuttal was offered in executive session on behalf of Aguillard apparently for some but not all of the matters in the investigation. For example the two suits purchased were allegedly due to lost luggage on arrival in Tanzania. Second even given some of the matters had sufficient rebuttal, it seems at least some of the ethical matters in the investigation could hardly be rebutted adequately enough to redeem him completely from administrative misconduct. Third, if all matters were sufficiently answered the NO firm would surely be judged to be a woefully discredited law firm. Fourth, arguably the trustees' committee ma y have set the firm up to fail if they did not assure them full cooperation from LC employees including Aguillard. Mary mentioned Aguillard's lawyer perhaps counciled him to not speak with investigation officials. The trustees were in a position to overturn Aguillard's legal council. They could have simply said either cooperate with our investigation or we will find you hostile toward the good of our school or something like this. It seems to me some such guarantee should have been given to the investigation process and I'm not sure why the law firm didn't demand a written agreement for full cooperation on the part of LC trustees...

Scott Shaver

Makes sense Pete.


"Mary and Lydia and godly, sweet women who impress me daily with their knowledge and love for God. I have a deep meaningful relationship with them both"
---Manti Te'o


Peter, the trustees threw that law firm under the bus, but the law firm should have known better than to conduct an investigation and then give conclusions when they knew they did not have access to all the evidence. It's makes no sense except that lawyers are hired guns. Remember Joe Paterno's family had an independent investigation that came to the conclusion Paterno was innocent of wrong doing.

Aguillard sounds like an incompetent and even deceitful person. BUT Aguillard following the advice of his attorney does not make him a deceitful and/or incompetent person. Aguillard's attorney out gunned the Trustees law firm. He won they lost in an embarrassing way. The Law Firm. Is exposed as actually not having conducted a thorough investigation and yet they offered conclusions based on incomplete evidence. Now Agullard supporters only have to point to the secret file and say there are things we just don't know but the Trustees voted against the Law Firm based on the secret file.

Then just to add insult to the Law FIrm's injury apparently a Trustee decided the Law Firm's report should become public even though the Law Firm told them to keep it confidential. My husband and another lawyer were into lawyer talk yesterday about the fact that going forward Agulliard's lawyer will want to find out which Trustee leaked because by making that document public the Trustees have brokenlawyer/client privilege which means Aguilliard's attorney now has access to information they didn't have access to before. And thus an example of why confidentiality agreements are necessary

Also the fact that you have trustees leaking information and refusing to sign confidentiality agreements gives Aguilliard's a defense as to why he did not turn over his secret folder. The Trustees have proven that they will leak documents even when lawyers tell them this is confidential.

So the Law Firm looks really bad here. Aguillard dodged the bullet and is getting away with his bad acts. ALL of the Trustees look bad for leaking confidential documents and excusing Aguilliard with not even a slap on the wrist - they should have at least admited there were problems but they forgive him and want to move forward.

But going forward someone needs to get hold of Aguilliard and tell him to stop gloating. And they need to get that Trustee board under control. You cannot have Trustees popping off declaring they are going to continue fighting and refusing to sign confidentiality agreements.

peter lumpkins


You make some great points. There is mass confusion here and we'll probably never know now. I'm mixed on the confidentiality agreements. It's not that I do not believe in them per se. I fully realize that some sensitive info must be absolutely guarded without qualification--e.g. personal files, donor information, among other things. Yes, we do what's necessary to protect certain info.

But, how do we balance protecting legitimate information which necessarily comes under the umbrella of exclusively guarded and protected, and information which holds no real reason to validly protected exclusivity? In short, "executive session" might become all too often a political strategy to avoid letting people know what might REALLY be taking place.

Thanks for your perspective. And, tell your hubby thanks for me as well!!


Peter, I think confidentiality agreements are to protect us from rogue Trustees and also to instill in Trustees the seriousness of what they're doing. Ideally Boards should have the attitude of as transparent as is possible while protecting that which should remain confidential. Ideally Trustees should be trustworthy and respect boundaries set by the Board. As this case and past history has shown us Trustees go rogue and declare they will set their own standard for confidentiality and Boards abuse executive sessions power.

I like it when I can get hubby interested and he puts on his lawyer hat and starts rambling. He doesn't just preach to the choir, but makes me look at all angles to understand what the other side of the issue is. In cases like these the SBC blogs spend a lot of time on one side of the other and not enough trying to understand what's going on on the other side.

peter lumpkins

btw, Mary,

check your email...


Peter, we all know now thanks to JD that I'm not real and therefore it would be impossible for me to check my email.

peter lumpkins

Shhhhhhhhhh! It was a trick so JD would think I was really emailing somebody. ;^)


Mary, Interesting comments. From my reading around some seem to think David Hankins is the Al Mohler arctype of Louisiana. Problem is, he did not take lessons from Al on how to control, take over and have thousands of sychophants praising him at the same time even though silent about Mahaney who is in Louisville "to be near the seminary".

I am also trying to figure out why the SBCV blog post on "courage and conviction" from a trustee who wrote a letter. Did he lose his home and his family get thrown to the curb over it? Get thrown in prison? No, he wrote a letter AFTER the fact. My how what passes for courage and conviction gets dumbed down over the ages.

The comments to this entry are closed.