Louisiana College and its critics: a textbook example where the cure may be worse than the disease

UPDATE: Joshua Breland has just posted what he calls his final piece on Louisiana College (LC). While he speaks of the remarkable blessings he received from LC, it cannot be he can end his series without asserting "Louisiana College needs to figuratively burn to the ground and start afresh before health and prosperity can return." The freshly graduated college senior adds that "The Louisiana Baptist Convention (LBC) is also in need of much correction" since the Executive State Director, David Hankins, remains "part and parcel of the deception and wickedness at Louisiana College." In fact, what's going on there is "pure evil" which Louisiana Baptists ought to rise up and destroy.

Perhaps Breland can volunteer as an undercover agent and secretly record all the evil Dr. Hankins is allegedly manufacturing so it can be exposed for all to see. Of course, Hankins would have to be dumb enough to talk to Breland in private. My guess is, no one from either the Calvinist side or non-Calvinist side will be naive enough to be alone with Breland anytime soon. Who could blame them? Since Breland apparently has no moral reservations on secretly recording someone just in case he or she lies about the situation, I'm unsure who could trust him enough to be comfortable around him. Whatever the case, Breland has surely branded himself for a long, long time to come as a don't-be-caught-dead-talking-to-that-boy type of guy. Sad really.

The parting shot against Hankins apart from any corroborating evidence only highlights Breland's total meltdown in dealing with the Louisiana College fiasco. 

============================================

I'm not interested in burning much more oil on this issue. I have one particular piece I'm thinking about remaining to be published. Until then, I would like to make a few observations about the latest coming from Louisiana College's (LC) fieriest critic, Joshua Breland.

From my personal engagement with some of Breland's pieces he's posted on his site, I've found his critical reasoning skills frequently to be entirely insufficient in establishing the point he seeks to make. It surely was the case with Jerry Vines (here, here), Kelly Boggs (here), and the entire series of posts on LC wherein he exploited Calvinism as the chief issue at LC while openly admitting he knew from the very beginning it was not Calvinism at all (here, here, and here). 

Breland's latest example exposing the stark absence of critical reasoning skills concerns his admitted "leak" of a secretly recorded encounter he had with  Dr. Argile Smith, Vice President and Associate Dean of Louisiana College. Tragically, Breland not only demonstrates his lack of critical reasoning skills sufficient to make his contentious points stick, this time Breland demonstrates the sneaky, conspiring clandestinity many employ to hurt those with whom they disagree. I've personally encountered this type of undercover hooligan myself.  

Why did Breland record it? He says, "I originally recorded a conversation with Argile Smith for my own protection in case he lied about our encounter."

The in-your-face type of moral arrogance and self-righteous superiority coming from this one statement staggers us--in case he lied. Strict Calvinists like Breland often find themselves in excruciating circumstances like this that displays quite nicely whether or not they actually do beliveve and trust in God's Sovereignty. Breland might suggest, "Of course I believe in God's sovereignty! But just in case I'm lied about, I want a backup plan."

I ask:

• What church member out there would want as a pastor a man who would secretly record conversations you have with him just in case you lie about him?
• What association would want as their Director of Missions a man who would secretly record conversations he has with pastors just in case the pastors lie about the conversation?
• What state convention executive would want a man serving under him in a position at the convention office who secretly recorded conversations he had with the executive just in case the state executive lied about the conversation?
• What seminary president would want as a professor a man who secretly recorded conversations with the president just in case the president lies about the conversation?
• What person would want as a friend a person who secretly recorded conversations you had with each other just in case you lied about the conversation?
• What news editor would speak openly with a man who would secretly record the conversation just in case the news editor lies about the conversation?

This is the kind of practical moral scruples Louisiana College critics are offering us to replace what they decry as shady ethics going on in the administration?

Just to be gut level honest, I may have to give President Aguillard more credit than I've offered heretofore.

More than once Breland whined because the president would not meet with him. Perhaps Aguillard already knew about Breland what we now know: Breland not only wishes to meet with people one on one, he perhaps also means to secretly record the meeting he leads you to believe is one-on-one just in case you lie about the encounter.

I'd say those who've had one-on-ones with Joshua Breland have reasons to be concerned. You might just end up on the internet sometime in the future.¹

Sweet Georgia peaches! 

Nothing less here than a classic textbook example of the cure being worse than the disease.

 

¹as one listens to the recording, Breland continually assures Dr. Smith he will never mention his name on his blog. Breland might argue it was pertaining to the Moore issue alone about which he said he'd not mention Smith. It's arguable, at best however, that his words only refer to that particular context. At one point, Breland says: "Dr. Smith, you assume every private conversation we have will go up on my blog." Well, yeah...      

Comments

[Mary]

So Peter remember yesterday we were talking about confidentiality agreements? In an ideal world or should we say in the world among Christians when you have people like Joshie making up their own rules this is why you have to have confidentiality agreements. You get a group of people who declare I know what should remain confidential and what should not you end up with people making all kinds of justifications for pushing the boundaries and just making up their own standards.

Also what poor young Joshie doesn't get is that he just gave the gift of ammunition to Aguillard's supporters.

"If he's innocent why wouldn't he cooperate with the investigation? Why did he withhold evidence?"

"Because the people who are after him have proven you cannot trust these guys as far as you can throw em. They leak confidential documents against the instructions of attorneys, they secretly record conversations, they go back on their word about not mentioning people in the blogosphere...."

It's one big mess and who knows what is really going on.

[volfan007]

Peter,

I'm shaking my head, and saying, "Um um um." This is so incredible....I wouldnt believe it, except that you wrote it. Wow.

Also, double wow about the fella recording you! I missed that post back when it happened...I just read it....wow, wow, wow....amazing, incredible stuff...

David

[Lydia]

"Breland might suggest, "Of course I believe in God's sovereignty! But just in case I'm lied about, I want a backup plan." ''

It has long been obvious to me they do not practice what they tell others is the truth about God. I mean, I don't blame them for not practicing it, it is impossible to apply Calvinism. It needs to stay on paper and only be words. That is why it turns out to NOT be the "true" Gospel and the only place to go if you want to see the nations rejoice for Christ.

If someone lies about him, according to his own doctrine, God planned it and that is the way it is supposed to be. Man up. If God decides that people should believe Joshua, then God will force them to. After all, He is controlling every molecule.

So, practice what you declare others should believe, Joshua. Trust God. He is in total control, remember?

As to the rest of the blog post---why do folks think Calvinism has become such an issue? Breland cannot see the cognitive dissonance in what he says and does as do most of his YRR contemporaries. It is like this all over YRR land. Which is why there is such a big push back. And it will not be easy to gain people's trust who have seen it in action. And more and more churches have seen it in action.

[Mary]

Oh my! I just read his post on this and the poor child has no clue.

First he justifies his completely unethical behavior of secretly recording a conversation by declaring "it was for my protection but I had no plans to release it!" Which tells us he went into this conversation looking for a fight.

Then after his unethical behavior he spends a whole lot of words telling us how he was following the rules in reporting the confrontation. So we see he's comfortable making up his own rules about secret recordings and then he wants us to see how he's a real rule following kinda guy!

Finally we see things go horribly wrong for our brave young hero when he failed to oust Aguillard. And what does he do? HE BREAKS HIS OWN RULE! Laugh. Out. Loud.

He makes up rules for unethical behavior, then paints himself as an upstanding citizen who follows the rules and then just decides it's ok to break his own rule justifying unethical behavior!

And the killer - he's gonna advise people on who is qualified to serve!

Oy! Kids these days!

[SBC Historian]

Peter,

As to your statement, "Just to be gut-level honest, I may have to give President Aguillard more credit than I have offered heretofore," please afford me to offer a plausible suggestion. Could it be that Joshua recorded the conversation only after his repeated rebuffs by Aguillard, including being accused of disrespecting the college by the head security officer? If my memory serves me correctly (which is not always a good assumption for me), Breland had been brought up on (trumped up) charges of misconduct well before he interacted with Argile Smith. This 'plausible suggestion' does not mean I agree with Breland's decision to record or release the tape, but only to provide some historical context for why he may have recorded it, and, in doing so, give you reason to reconsider your idea to give Aguillard more credit than he deserves. His moral ineptitude goes well beyond his dealings with one (or a few) student(s).

[Boris]

Here's another good question:

What college would want a man as their Dean of Chapel and future Dean of the Divinity School, who lies to students and threatens them?

[peter lumpkins]

SBC Historian,

Thanks. The "more credit" than I have "offered heretofore" to Agulliard was intended to be the understandably reluctant posture he may have had in meeting with Breland had he known of Breland's disregard for respectable one-on-one encounters in private conversation. Imagine the wails of protest coming from Breland and his camp (and rightly so) had Dr. Agulliard met with Breland and it was leaked that Dr. Agulliard recorded not only their private conversation, but he had a built-in secret recording system which has recorded every private conversation he has ever had with every individual with which he's ever met.

More significant is Breland's actual questionable practice of recording private conversations. We cannot allow ourselves to lose sight of this.

[SBC Historian]

Peter,

As I mentioned, I do not favor or approve of recordings. But if I was treated the way (I have understood) he was treated by Aguillard, I can't say what measures I go to ensure my statements were not incorrectly used against me. My point, though, was to point out that, based on a timeline of events, the recording took place only after Breland had been harrassed and brought up on charges which, had they been finalized, would have led to his dismissal. If that is the case, I see no reason why Aguillard would have suspected Breland to act as he did before it actually happened, and, therefore, no reason to give him any more credit.

And while it is perfectly fine not to lose sight of Breland's activities, even more so let us not lose sight of the immorality of Aguillard. The man covered up sex scandals, forged documents, misled trustees, ostracized a major donor, misappropriated funds, brought the college under SACS probation (for various reasons), and single-handedly lost $55 million in future gifts from a single source (not to mention how much in potential money he lost since he had asked the donor to solicit additional gifts from his friends).

[peter lumpkins]

Hi Boris,

First, do not bring back up the implication that Dr. Smith lied unless you've got more than hearsay. It's true we presumed the president has misled people at least in some documented instances. But we do not base that on hearsay; we based that on an official investigation report.

Second, I listened to the entire recorded conversation. At no point did Smith actually and clearly threaten Breland. It's true he said "I'm coming after you" (perhaps as many as three times). But what's not clear is, he meant it as any kind of tangible threat. In fact, as I recall, the third time Smith said it, he explained it as a necessary "discussion" he'd have with Breland. Why the former two times must be taken as a tangible threat exceeds reasonable interpretation so far as I am concerned. Dr. Smith while obviously upset never lost control. Neither did Breland for that matter.

But Breland knew he was being recorded. Hence, he knew he needed to be very cool, calm, and collected. Moreover, to approach Dr. Smith as if he just wanted info about Moore was blatantly disingenious. No he wanted something else--he wanted to record Smith's words. This is morally unbalanced at best...

[Nate]

Look, it is inappropriate for Breland to secretly record conversations. However, to say that a Calvinist, because he believes in the Sovereignty of God, should never have a "backup" plan is ludicrous. So, because I believe in the Soveriegnty of God, should I never enter into a contractual agreement because it may be broken by the other party? Should I just trust the "Sovereignty of God" and not be prudent? Should I simply shake another's hand without any contractual agreement about the selling of a piece of property, simply because I believe in the Sovereingty of God, because the buyer might back out? Of course I should have a contract!

It is fine to say that Breland should not have secretly recorded the conversation. It is fine to say that kind of action is sinful, but to misdirect his inappropriate behavior onto Calvinists in general is apalling and simply a red herring.

[Max]

There is a thread of New Calvinism which approaches antinomianism ... lawlessness. Such folks view themselves beyond ethical/moral bounds which should constrain pastors-in-training from activities of this sort. When one is "right," anything is OK in their minds. I truly believe there is a spiritual battle going on in Southern Baptist ranks for the minds of the next generation. We so easily write it off as theological differences, opinions of men, they are young, they will get over it, etc. ... but this thing is spiritual folks ... a war for the minds of our youth, particularly those headed to the pulpit. Pray!

[peter lumpkins]

SBC Historian,

I don't think you see my actual point about Aguillard's "more credit": the "more credit" to him amounts to little more than rhetorical polish! It would amount to being both perceptive and shrewd. It does nothing to alleviate the irresponsible decisions documented against him.

Please note, however: you bring up several things in your indictments against Aguillard which have not at all been substantiated by any objective investigation. Namely, covered up sex scandals, forged documents, misappropriated funds, brought the college under SACS probation and single-handedly lost $55 million in future gifts from a single source. None of this has any corroboration, SBC Historian. Hence, please do not reference them again. We know none of this to be true. Especially the first one--"covered up sex scandals"--I find very offensive and unfortunate.

[Mary]

Historian many words have been spilled and will spilled about Aguillard. The topic here is Joshie.

Aguillard being bad a guy does not excuse Joshie's unethical behavior. If he was worried about his words or threats then the ethical thing to do was tell the other person he was recording the conversation to keep everything clear and insure no misunderstandings.

Joshie's behavior does not help the creditability of Aguillard's critics. Trying to dismiss and/or excuse unethical behavior only adds to questions of creditability to Aguillard's critics.

[peter lumpkins]

Hi Nate,

Well, no it's not a "red herring" so to speak. It's a question meticulous sovereignty solicits when pulled from theory into everyday life.

[Lydia]

It is real simple Historian, you take as neutral of a third party as you can find, with you. If that is not possible then don't meet. One thing you never do as one supposed believer to anotheris record a conversation without the other party knowing it.

There are quite a few professional "Christians" I would never have a private conversation with.

It does not look like Joshua took CB's advice. There are some things you just need to walk away from.. As several I know had to do with SBTS. Someday I hope they will tell their stories.

[Mary]

Max, it is indeed a spiritual battle. We've spent so much time puffing up this generation to assure positive self esteem but have failed to instill just basic commen sense. So you have these young prople running around who feel so good about themselves that they believe they don't have to follow any rules and can just make up their own standards for conduct but they have absolutely no commen sense to draw upon to make up the rules. Add to it that they consider themselves to be more spiritual, more smart, more everything than their elders so they throw out the Bible verses about listening to elders and you get a big ol' mess!

[SBC Historian]

Peter,

If you would allow me to answer your last comment without feeling your wrath from "bringing them up again." Some of my statements do have corroboration. Numbers 3 and 5 (from your listing in your comment at 12.39pm) were substantiated by the independent report produced by the New Orleans law firm. As for numbers 1, 2, and 4, you are correct that they have not been made public nor has there (yet) to be corroborating evidence shown. However, that does not make them untruths. But, as per your request, I will mention them no more. Thank you for allowing me to interact.

[SBC Historian]

Max,

As for your comment dated 12.36pm, sans the language of antinomianism, the same could be said for the LC Board of Trustees.

[SBC Historian]

Mary,

To follow your logic at 12.41, so-called Traditionalists should all be held accountable for the outlandish language employed by Norm Miller when he called Ed Stetzer's behavior treason(ous). But that wouldn't be right. Only Norm said it, and unless you specifically agreed with him, I would not assign that to you also. In the same way, Breland's action does not de jure call into question the accusations of, for instance, Chuck Quarles or Tim Johnson.

[SBC Historian]

Peter,

Maybe I did misunderstand your point about Aguillard. I find online interaction substantially deficient when communicating nuance. I appreciate and fully agree with your third sentence at 12.39.

[peter lumpkins]

SBC Historian,

As for feeling my "wrath" from "bringing them up again" I can only laugh.

You’re correct about the third in the list I mentioned. Actually, that was a blunder on my part by not deleting it from the copy/paste I did to your comment in my response. Misappropriation of funds surely is a part of the investigation findings. But point well taken just the same.

You are mistaken, however, that either the SACS probation or Agulliard's single-handedly losing $55 million in future gifts from a single source was substantiated from the investigation (I couldn't tell which one you were citing for I run both of them together). At least neither is mentioned in the conclusion as substantiated and the first is flat denied as being a part of their study. 

[Mary]

Historian (choosing to be anonymous it might have been better for you to choose a less pretentious moniker).

Unless you're throwing Joshie under the bus and declaring all the bad acts of Aguillard's critics are all Joshie alone then your logic falls apart. This is just another bad act among several - leaking classified documents, throwing out accusations anonymously ...

And it really doesn't matter what's logical or right but how this is perceived. And the perception is Aguillard's critics are using unethical behavior so how can they be trusted.

Add to that that Joshie isn't just anybody in this melodrama - He's the hero! And people's perceptions whether right or wrong will be that this may be a witch hunt.

See what's happened here is Aguillard's team is playing eleventy dimension chess and you guys can't figure out the rules of Candy Land.

[SBC Historian]

Peter,

Glad to provide you a bit of humor today. As for the list (as best I can count, and maybe we are counting the list you provided at 12.39 differently), #3 refers to misappropriation of funds and #5 refers to single-handedly losing $55 million. The issues with SACS was #4, which i agreed has not yet been substantiated. You already agree that #3 was substantiated by the report. I would proffer that #5 was as well, by means of the letter sent by the Cason Foundation stating they believed Aguillard misappropriated funds, misled trustees, and tried to trick the foundation into signing an undated letter. These actions, according to the Cason letter, were the cause of the revocation of the remainder of the gift, which (by all accounts) was listed as $55 million.

[SBC Historian]

Mary,

As always, I'll let you have the last word friend.

[Scott Shaver]

To Nate: Not a "red herring" if Calvinism and the perceived persecution of Calvinists were the flags Breland insisted right or wrong in waving. And wave them he did until the threads started unraveling.

To SBC Historian: You my friend are standing on shaky ground with your unsubstantiated suggestions of hidden sex scandals etc. Faith on View teased out this topic in a most disgusting fashion yesterday. I'm no fan of Joe Aguillard and company but I agree with Pete's request that you back off the rumor-mongering unless you have unmistakable proof.

The role of Quarles and his agenda in this whole debacle are topics I've not seen discussed. He rode out of town (Pineville) before the guns started blazing. Wonder why?

[peter lumpkins]

SBC Historian,

You perhaps may infer that. The investigatory team apparently did not. I also think it remains problematic to infer actually losing what was only potentially awarded. To suggest one plans to give X amount of dollars is not the same as X dollars actually being given. I wouldn't go far down the road with that but it (and perhaps other complications) may have been enough for the investigation team to not infer as did you...

[Mary]

Peter I'm not sure how much an admittedly one sided investigation can be declared as substantiating anything.

Agulliard's attorney played it brilliantly by holding back the secret file. Now supporters can dismiss the law firm's report because there was evidence they didn't see.

David tells me the law firm probably knew what Aguillard had available for defense and so felt comfortable making recommendations without having seen it but still the public perception of a secret folder helps Aguillard's supporters.

[SBC Historian]

Scott,

I have, from time to time, read Faith on View. I don't remember the last time I read it and, until your comment, was unaware of yesterday's post. My comment and Faith on View's post deal with two separate issues.

As for Quarles, I am unaware if he has ridden 'out of town'. I believe his contract does not expire until after graduation. To my knowledge, he's still there (though I could be wrong). But if you blew the whistle on your boss, and then no action was taken against your boss, it is certainly reasonable to believe you (or anyone) would look for a different work environment, right?

[SBC Historian]

Peter,

I do understand the difference between actual money given and potential money given, and I'm fine with you making that distinction. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and I didn't see anywhere where LC articulated that their recent $10 million gift was merely a potential donation. When Joe stood up with a $10 million check made out to LC, the perception (to quote Mary) is that $10 million had been given to the college when, in fact, some report that no money has actually been received into the LC coffers as of yet.

[peter lumpkins]

Mary,

The firm did confirm and repeat the confirmation in its report that a weakness existed in their conclusions--the weakness existing because of no cooperation from Agulliard himself. Thus, they cautiously draw their conclusions.

This being the case, while one may technically throw down that trump card of a "one-sided" conclusion, I personally do not think it gets them anywhere with the court of public opinion. People will smell a rat when the secrecy card (as in "secret file") is overplayed. Aguillard may very well technically win the legal case but lose the public case as surely as OJS won his murder trial but everybody still thought he was guilty as sin.

[peter lumpkins]

Like I say, SBC Historian, I wouldn't go down that road far. But the investigation team didn't go down your road at all...

[Mary]

Peter you may be right. I have no clue which way winds are blowing in the bayou state.

I think the strategy of Aguillard's defense is

1. The Calvinists are after him
2. This is a witch hunt by Calvinists
3. You can't trust these guys - look at leaks and secret recordings so of course I couldn't cooperate and give up my evidence
4. I had information from people who didn't want their names out there because you can't trust these guys.

For people who want to believe Aguillard that all makes sense.

What I would be interested to hear from some one who is unbiased is whether David Hankins truly rules by fear or he rules because he's liked or perhaps a bit of both. That might give you an indication of how the wind blows.

[Mary]

I didn't finish my thought. If Hankins is liked then his endorsement of Aguillard might go a long way. If Hankins is truly the monster as is being suggested then this could be the proverbial straw which motivates the Baptist in the Bayou to clean up the swamps.

[Scott Shaver]

SBC Historian, you are right about looking for a new work environment post whistle blowing. Especially if I had an agenda at work prior to leaving that depended heavily upon the termination of the LC President. What did Quarles know about Tanzania and to what extent was he involved with that particular project under the umbrella of Caskey Divinity School?

[Former_IMB_Trustee]

SBC Historian,

What type of historian are you? Trained? Your venom and baseless accusations bemoan of a hack. Your wild accusations remind me of the Burleson and Co. vs. IMB Trustees battle.

That being said, are you one of the ole' Memphis Declaration boys? Overly righteous? Check! Obnoxious? Check! Distorter of the truth? Check! You are either the second coming of Benjamin Cole or one of the other lackeys from the mid2000s.

[Max]

Mary writes "... they consider themselves to be more spiritual, more smart, more everything than their elders so they throw out the Bible verses about listening to elders and you get a big ol' mess!"

There's no doubt that some of the young, restless and reformed are more restless than others, with a huge dose of arrogance in the mix. Reminds me of Rehoboam's rejection of the advice given to him by Solomon's counselors (think about it - he rejected the advice of folks who advised the wisest man on the planet!). The following passage from 1 Kings 12 fits our SBC dilemma as the New Calvinism movement spreads: "... Rehoboam rejected the advice the elders gave him and consulted the young men who had grown up with him ..." Surely some mature men of faith have taken young Breland aside to reprove and correct, but it's all about reformation and revolution, you know, and the window is open for rebellion. It didn't turn out well for Rehoboam.

[Mary]

Peter, it's that kind of hyperbole by Joshie that pushed me to try to understand "the other side." If this is the worst thing Joshie ever has to go through in his life he will have led an enchanted life indeed. If he's so emotional and over the top about this he may need to reconsider his calling. Let's hope he calms way way down before the arrival of his child - because that's when real life begins.

Now perhaps a wee big OT. How is it that these young Calvinists brag about Calvinists being the best evangelist ever but they have to make up excuses for their lack of fruit. It goes to the idea of this whole logic/reasoning thing is not strong trait among the YRR.

[Rondall Reynoso]

I've debated a whether to weigh in on this blog because I find the tenor to be rather problematic. The insistence by Mary to write in a demeaning manner toward Joshua Breland by referring to him as Joshie seems lacking in appropriate Christian charity and Former_IBM_Trustee's derisive tone toward SBC Historian seems uncalled for.

That said, I still think it may be worth engaging here. For total transparency my name is Rondall and I write the Faith on View blog referenced above. If anyone has read my blog they know that I have a personal history with Louisiana College. When I first took a position at LC I spoke publicly in defense of Aguillard it was not until his behavior demonstrated that such a defense was not justified did I stop. Further, I should point out that it was before Aguillard went after me personally that I realized his character and stopped my defense.

I have to admit I have been surprised by the reaction to Joshua's recording of his conversation with Dr. Smith. I understand that some find it distasteful. But, to me the far worse offense was for Dr. Smith to threaten Breland in the way he did. The idea of a Dean telling a student "I will go after you" is unthinkable. Frankly, to argue that this is in some way less than a threat is silly. Further, how recording a conversation is self evidently immoral escapes me. I understand that it makes some uncomfortable but personally I tend to say what I mean without a lot of political spin so my conversations being recorded, while it would seem weird, is not a huge concern to me. Obviously we all at times say things in confidence and if I said something in confidence and a recording of that was released then I would certainly be upset. However, you must remember that all Breland asked Dr. Smith about was a change in the Chapel schedule. No doubt the issue of recording is a little sticky but remember a couple of things 1) Dr. Smith had demonstrated a propensity for fluid truth, 2) The administration was at the time targeting Breland, and 3) it is legal. I do not think that the recording issue is self evidently unethical. Clearly, there are questions about the wisdom of releasing said recording but given the environment and situation at LC I can hardly blame him for making the recordings.

[Rondall Reynoso]

One last thought on Calvinism. I've seen thrown around in this discussion that the Calvinists are after Aguillard. Their arrogance has also been mentioned. First, let me say that I am not a Calvinist. I am much for Classical Arminian in my theology. I think they are wrong theologically on several issues. I also agree that there can be a good deal of arrogance in the Calvinist communities. That said, the reformed students at LC are no more arrogant than any other college aged kids I've run into, especially for Bible majors. I've run across students at other institutions that are not Calvinist who are much more arrogant. Also, there is no cabal, at least not within the LC Calvinists, to go after Aguillard. Aguillard supported the Calvinist faction for years. After, Dr. Quarles answered honestly some hard questions from the Board and even more so after Dr. Quarles filed the whistle-blower complaint, Calvinism because an issue. An examination of the timeline makes it clear that this was a tool by Aguillard to get back at Quarles by not extending the contracts of those under him since Quarles was protected by the whistle-blower policy.

[peter lumpkins]

Rondall,

You write "The insistence by Mary to write in a demeaning manner toward Joshua Breland by referring to him as Joshie seems lacking in appropriate Christian charity and Former_IBM_Trustee's derisive tone toward SBC Historian seems uncalled for." Sweet heavens man. Are you serious? Breland just referred to a sitting executive director, David Hankins as "part and parcel of the deception and wickedness at Louisiana College" the "covering up and scheming" Breland calls "pure evil" and you show up and speak about how Breland is so uncharitably treated because he's referred to as "Joshie" that you didn't know if you wanted to enter such a presumably unloving environment? Please. Now I've heard it all.

Second, it's not about the secret recording being "distasteful." It's about sheer hypocritical behavior. You wail about the "cover-up" at LC and turn right around and apparently commend Breland for the very same type of action--cover-up, doing things secretly, and behind the scenes. This remains morally absurd.

Third, don't post that trash here again about sexual scandals the president allegedly covered-over. Keep it on your site. I won't post it. We posted what I believed to be a credible investigation. I won't post your junk here. Clear enough?

[Rondall Reynoso]

Peter,

I am not defending the tone Breland took. I think he should have been a bit understated. however there is a clear difference Breland's argument of "pure evil" is a conclusion he has drawn based on his experience with Hankins, Aguillard, and LBC. It may or may not be over stated but it is not belittling for the sake of being belittling. In Scripture both Paul and John call out members of the Church by name when they think what they are doing is wrong even evil. What they don't do is come up with belittling nick names. Would I have moderated my tone more about Hankins? Yes! But such notables as Jesus and Paul used harsh words when appropriate. We can debate the merits and appropriateness of Breland's comments. But, Joshie is diminutive without any redemptive justification.

To compare Breland's recording of a conversation to the unethical and illegal actions of Aguillard demonstrates a misunderstanding of the situation at LC. In Brelan's case he is rightly or wrongly attempting to hold someone accountable for their words and actions. In the case of LC they are trying to avoid the consequences of their actions. Further, I am not commending Breland. What I am saying is that I was not in his shoes. I can see why he did what he did and to conclude that it is self evidently unethical seems simplistic.

Finally, my post which you did not permit was hardly trash. It was a reasoned post with a moderate tone which explicated exactly what I know and don't know. To mischaracterize a quote which your audience has not read to characterize me as a pusher of junk and trash is a useful polemic but does little to serve Truth.

[Mary]

Peter, henceforth Joshie shall be known as Skippy and our new friend Rondy will be Sparky. I'm thinking about Scooter for Historion.

Here's another perfect example about people just making up justications and lowering standards - what kind of standard is "It's not illegal so what's the big deal?" Abortion is not illegal but it's a pretty big deal. We could sit here all night with examples that are not illegal and yet for Christians should still be reprehensible. It's Max's point about lawlessness - everybody just determining what they think is right. But hey declaring ME unChristlike for snark while declaring unethical behavior perfectly acceptable because poor young Skippy was forced into it somehow makes sense.

And Sparky needs some help with reading comprehension. Speculating as to Aguillard's strategy to blame Calvinists is not the same as agreeing this is what happened.

These people really need to get a clue and understand the public perception on some this nonsense or they will never get out of Candy Land. The more you hear from Aguillard's critics the less sense they make. You ain't just preaching to the choir here boys.

[peter lumpkins]

Rondall,

First, let's be clear: I said nothing of you defending Breland's "tone." It's not about "tone"; it's about behavior.

Second, to suggest David Hankins' actions are "pure evil" with nothing to go on but vague "experiences" he's had with him, is absurd. What's more absurd, is your defending it.

Third, to argue "Joshie" is "belittling for the sake of being belittling" while calling David Hankins' unsubstantiated actions "pure evil" as morally acceptable only shows how topsy-turvey ethics can become when men have a stated agenda. In addition, you categorically judged the moniker "Joshie" as "belittling" without inquiring for a single line of explanation as to why she did so. For all you know she was doing so simply because he may be young enough to be her son. You don't know. Finally, while calling someone a name like "Joshie" may or may not be the best way to communicate a point, to categorize it as morally offensive is simply nonsense. You would have to call Jesus morally offensive when he referred to Herod as a fox if your point possesses any moral teeth to it.

Fourth, you claim "To compare Breland's recording of a conversation to the unethical and illegal actions of Aguillard demonstrates a misunderstanding of the situation at LC." Well, that depends on what comparison I was drawing now doesn't it? What I suggested was the same type of cover-up, secrecy, behind-the-scenes maneuvering condemned by you and Breland are commended when Breland covers up a recorder, secretly records another without the person knowing thus hiding this information, information which any person would reasonably want and think he or she has a right to know, all the while telling the person his motives were pure and that he just wanted information about Moore.

The fact is, Breland had two purposes in mind in speaking to Smith: a) get info about Moore's not coming to LC; b) secretly record the conversation. He only told Smith the first purpose while intentionally covering up the second purpose. So, no I don't misunderstand the situation at all. To the contrary, it's you and Breland who want to morally justify covering-up what you're actually doing all the while condemning LC for covering up what is alleged they're doing. If you don't get the connection, I have nothing else to say about it but this: a man is a fool to privately talk to anyone who possesses no moral scruples against secretly recording another's conversation. You got some nerve, brother.

Finally, what you think is a "well-reasoned" post and what I judge to be a well-argued one is obviously far apart. Not only does your despicable defense of Joshua's secretly recording another frighten me, to suggest the hearsay-based post about sexual scandal stands on a par with an official investigation study blow a fuse in me. You've obviously come to the wrong place.

[Scott Shaver]

Don't waste time with Mr. Rondall. The fact that he would post the trash on prospective LC donors on his site that he did belies that until he can clean up his own house (site), He has nothing of value to contribute here. Respectfully that is.

[Mary]

Ok I admit I am old enough to be Skippy's mother. It would not have been a teen pregnancy. Funny but I don't feel old enough to be a Grandmother.

Skippy not only did the morally reprehensible deed of secretly recording a conversation but he shows himself to not be a man of his word. How many times in that recording did he declare he would not talk about the conversation on his blog.

I don't know how many times I've told my children "I don't care what the other guy did YOU have got to do what you
know is right."

And of course Skippy now blatantly seeking revenge is showing anything but Christlike behavior.

Hey Lydia, this would certainly be a good time for Miller over there at Pravda to practice some calling out of his own don't ya think? How many blog posts has he bragged he would call out his own? Somehow I don't think ol' Dave's gonna touch this one.

[peter lumpkins]

Mary,

I lost count how many times Joshua said he wouldn't post Dr Smith's name on anything. No wait! He was inspired by God to warn Louisiana Baptists about Smith. That surely justifies it.! Did you also catch the line Bre land said to Smith when he was correcting Smith's false assumptions about him? Bre land said, "Dr Smith, you're assuming that I post every private conversation on my blog!" Well...Yeah!

[Dean]

I am amazed at the hypocrisy that is on display over this issue. I want to state unapologetically that have a profound respect for Dr. Argile Smith and as hard as I try I am finding little for Joshua Breland. I have never witness Dr. Smith be anything but gracious and genuine. He has been a tremendous educator, pastor and institutional administrator. He has impacted the Gulf Coast area for Jesus. The fact that someone of JB's stature will even be listened to as he questions a life of service like Argile Smith's lets me know that we can have no fellowship with the YRR. I think he did threaten JB and he did so mighty graciously. How many people has JB gone after? He taped the conversation so he could go after Dr. Smith. Dr. Smith says to him in no uncertain terms if you go after my friend, Dr. Moore, I am going to go after you. I heard give it and you will get it. As for Dr. Smith sabotaging a career for JB, if we are talking about the ministry he has done that very well for himself. Jb is through with LC and LBC! Maybe the process of healing can begin.

[Mary]

And some one please tell me that God doesn't have a sense of humor. The child hood church of Skippy's wife, the last pastorate of Skippy's father law who is a friend of the Founders is somehow now considering Dr. Smith as an interim? Some people with what we used to call humility might start thinking that God is sending them a message to get a grip and calm down, but not our young hero! Everywhere a Sovereign God sends these "evil" men Skippy will save the day!

The other thing that was funny is Skippy declaring in the tape that he did not want to destroy the school. Now he wants it to burn down since nothing is going his way.

[Lydia]

"Hey Lydia, this would certainly be a good time for Miller over there at Pravda to practice some calling out of his own don't ya think? How many blog posts has he bragged he would call out his own? Somehow I don't think ol' Dave's gonna touch this one."

Mary, If Miller has been totally silent about Mohler's embrace, defense and promotion of Mahaney/SGM scandalabra why would he mention the obvious problems with this one?

Instead, the opportunity for hyperbole about "great leadership" (Chitwood who is known here as Mohler's pick) and "courage and conviction" for guys who have done nothing more than write articles and letters. As if they stormed Normany and endured torture or something. But then I think the blog posts are "suggested" for him. Yeah, the lack of "Neutrality" screams. Why not just admit you are not neutral?

Look, many over the last 6-8 years too many have had personal experiences with the YRR and it has not been positive. In fact, some of it has been downright mean and divisive in our churches and institutions. That is why the Calvinism attack had legs. Perception is everything and they only have themselves to blame. Now Joshua has given that perspective even more credibility with his recording convos and probably hurt his not yet begun career over it. Maybe the Presbyterians?

It is one thing to speak of what you see or experienced on your blog or even allow others to tell their stories. That is totally understandable and right.

But it is another thing altogether to try and set people up using deceptive means. You become as bad as the bad guys you want to see fall.

But then, no matter what he does or what happens, according to his doctrine, God planned it.

Campbellsville College is next on the list. I am looking forward to hearing who will be smeared as a "liberal" and how "conservative" will be flouted as the new label for Calvinism. Chitwood is preparing the ground. I hope they tell him to walk but that is doubtful since some of Mohler's minions are Trustees.

[Scott Shaver]

Lydia: I wouldn't hold my breath for Miller to come in here offering up his incense on this issue. He's much more comfortable hiding behind a moderators button where he can control the flow and presentation of thought.
Mary: Please stop. My ribs are about to break from laughing. I have known Argile Smith for years and any church that can get him in the pulpit and on the parish beat for any length of time does itself a huge service.
Dean: You are obviously acquainted with the same Argile Smith I know and love. Breland got a lot less from Smith than he deserved for his underhandedness.