FBCJax Watchdogs, Jason Smathers, and financially supporting a convicted felon

How many times might we cite Thomas Rich (a.k.a. FBC Jax Watchdogs) poking pastors in the eye for preaching on tithing or talking about money? Take your pick of the whopping 639 hits on his site. Many of the hits are main posts he wrote decrying pastors who demand folks to cough up their money in the form of a tithe to support their supposed lavish ministries (and at times, their lifestyles).

But now Rich has the perfect cause which should inspire all Christians everywhere to grab their checkbooks as fast as they can (or rather go on Paypal and make the transaction). Listen as Rich appears he’s fixing to explode before he can get home to log his own generous donation. Speaking of Jason Smathers’ defense of keeping access to videos from Ergun Caner, Rich swoons these words:

“…It is a wonderful thing that Jason is standing up to Ergun Caner's lawsuit, not backing down, and is going to fight it all the way… .

However, we must not just cheer from the sidelines for Jason and wish him well. We need to get involved with finances. Funds must be raised for this defense. I urge all readers of the FBC Jax Watchdog who are able, to donate money to Jason's defense, as there is no way Jason can do this alone…  I'm making a donation today via PayPal as soon as I get home.”

So, on the one hand Rich continually rants at pastors who appeal to their own parishioners for financial support of the local ministry but on the other encourages us to support without question Jason Smathers’ legal counsel? How that's supposed to make sense escapes me.

And, besides: who is this Jason Smathers?  Well, to hear Rich tell it, Smathers’ cause could arguably be the best investment in Kingdom work the other side of the Mississippi. Note Rich's second swoon:

“Also, you will want to read Jason's personal testimony that he posted on his blog on Friday. He explains who he is, and how he came to faith in Christ in 2004-2005, and how his marriage was saved through his personal turmoil. He now is a pastor of a small church in Arizona. Trust me, you want to read his testimony, it is nothing short of amazing. And genuine” (links and embolden original).

A few things in way of response to Rich’s exaggerated description of Smathers and his cause. First, while Smathers did speak about his testimony—at least vaguely about his testimony—Smathers by no stretch “explains who he is, and how he came to faith in Christ in 2004-2005.” Had Smathers explained who he was/is, he would surely have included he was the Jason Smathers who was arrested, tried, and convicted of felony charges and thus sentenced to 15 months prison time beginning in August, 2005. Here is just one of any number of reports one can get easily get from google:

• “ "According to the criminal complaint, Jason Smathers of Harpers Ferry, W. Va., used his inside knowledge of AOL's computer system to steal a list of 92 million AOL customer account "screen names," and then sold them to Sean Dunaway, who is not an AOL employee”—from CNN Money
• “A former America Online employee was sentenced Wednesday to 15 months in prison for his role in one of the USA's most audacious cybercrimes: stealing 92 million AOL e-mail addresses and selling them to spammers”—USAToday Money
• “Authorities yesterday arrested 24-year-old AOL software engineer Jason Smathers, who is accused of lifting 92 million AOL subscribers' e-mail addresses and selling them to 21-year-old Internet gambling entrepreneur Sean Dunaway for $100,000…. Both men were charged with conspiracy and, if convicted, could spend up to five years in prison and be forced to pay a $250,000 fine. That punishment, however, might not even come close to making up for the potential damage to customer confidence in AOL's internal security” –Washington Post

Now to be fair, Smathers does mention—at least in a around about way--his run in with the law, something Rich offers not even a hint about. Instead Rich only praises Smathers’ testimony as “nothing short of amazing. And genuine” (Rich’s emphasis). What’s so amazing about spending 15 months in a federal penitentiary for conspiracy?  And genuine? The reader can judge if Smathers’ words about what he calls his “encounter with the law” reflect a truly genuine testimony or not. Smathers’ writes:

In 2003 I was a software engineer at America Online. I sold a list of AOL user email addresses to an online casino. I was charged and plead guilty to conspiracy to commit interstate transport of stolen goods (email address list) and conspiracy to violate the CAN-SPAM act of 2004. My actions in 2003 started a conspiracy that continued into 2004 by the online casino and thus I was guilty of the new CAN-SPAM Act of 2004.

These are things I am not proud of, but never things I have hidden. I share them anytime disclosure seems appropriate and at times when I believe this part of my past will help someone else to come to know the Lord. …” (//link)

First, while Smathers says he plead guilty to crimes, he offers not a single word about being sentenced to 15 months in the federal penitentiary. The unsuspecting reader could just as well assume time served was probationary only. Second, there’s not a single other syllable on Smathers’ site I could find which so much as hinted about this criminal ordeal. This seems peculiar for any number of reasons. If Smathers' was open and not interested in hiding anything as he and Rich insist, why is nothing else listed on his site? And why is nothing listed until now? He mentions his site has been getting some publicity recently. But starting only now to be open about the past only looks like one has practiced up until now a cover-up.  

Thus when Smathers indicates these are things “never hidden,” one wonders how he can make such a conclusion when nothing on his site outside of the present post indicates Smathers is a convicted felon who served 15 mos. of hard time in prison. Indeed the absence of Smathers’ prison record also calls into question Rich’s glowing report to “trust” his recommendation of Smathers, for according to Rich, Smathers’ testimony is “nothing short of amazing. And genuine.”

What is more, Rich concludes incorrectly that Smathers supposedly came to Christ in 2004-2005. Smathers indicates no such thing—at least clearly he does not. If anything, Smathers remains evasive concerning his conversion.  He describes a six month process of counsel and witnessing by an unnamed pastor of an unnamed church he allegedly later joined which began “After my encounter with the law” and coinciding with marital troubles. According to Smathers, the pastor and his wife “got us both to visit the church and one week we both went forward...to pronounce our faith in Christ publicly.” Smathers neither says nor implies he was saved in 2004-2005. It actually depends on what he means by “after” his “encounter with the law.” Was the encounter Smathers mentions his arrest which took place on June 23, 2004? If so, the counseling with the pastor was going on simultaneously with Smathers’ trial phase. For me, this seems improbable.

Or, does Smathers mean by “after” his “encounter with the law” the date of his sentencing and conviction which came on August 17, 2005? If so, the counsel and witness the pastor offered would have come either in prison (which makes little sense to other factors) or after his incarceration ended, presumably around Christmas 2006. And, if Smathers’ 6 months of dialog with the pastor came after his stint in prison, then his conversion was no sooner than summer of 2007. Of course, all this is speculation but necessary speculation since Smathers’ testimony remains much too vague to determine for sure. It does seem highly improbable that Rich got Smathers’ conversion date right suggesting 2004-2005.

Nor may we fail in placing another factor on the table to confuse us about Smathers’ conversion. In a blog post entitled “Making disciples where people are scarce” (published July 19, 2010), Smathers refers to his being saved not as a result of extensive counseling over a six month period, counseling which included his wife and the pastor’s wife, the process of which culminated with the pastor getting “us both to visit the church and one week we both went forward...to pronounce our faith in Christ publicly.” Instead, Smathers describes his coming to the Lord in much simpler terms:

“A coffee drinking pastor led me to the Lord after meeting me in a small coffee shop.”

That's it. No elaboration at all. No marital counselling. No indication he was about to divorce. No husband-wife team counselling. No six months meeting. No urging to go to church and publicly profess faith. The sense seems to be the pastor met him in the coffee shop and bam! He was led to the Lord.

Now, please understand: there’s not necessarily a definite contradiction here. But surely honesty compels us to question whether the two accounts are compatible, at least in the way the two accounts are verbally phrased. Of course, Jason Smathers knows how to reconcile the two if reconciliation is possible. However, as it stands, one cannot overlook what appears to be a discrepancy in the timeline of someone’s conversion when two very different accounts just don’t seem to square. Of all people, Jason Smathers should know this. 

Complicating matters more, note Jason Smathers’ current resume on google.

 The absence of any so-called “encounter with the law” as Smathers chooses to call his convicted felon status is striking. Notice especially the wording Smathers uses to describe his transition from IT man to pastor:

"My first carrer [sic] was in information technology. I am A+ certified, a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE), and earned my Batchelor [sic] of Science in Information Systems. God gifted me in this area allowing me to earn some income while first entering the ministry. I have since quit taking new clients to focus my time on the ministry. I continue to maintain a web server which hosts the web sites of many of my former clients"

How could any intelligent soul think or legitimately assume that behind and before Smathers entered the ministry, he spent time in a federal penitentiary for conspiracy? That is, he adulterated the gift he claims God gave him to make money by committing and being convicted of high internet crimes? How may we explain Smathers’ profile as “genuine” and thus hiding nothing about his past? So far as I am concerned, both Rich and Smathers need to explain this before anyone seriously considers logging on to Paypal to financially support Smathers' personal legal battles.

In addition to google, Smathers’ linkedin resume is, if possible, even more refined and evasive. Under the “background summary,” Smathers says while “Informational Technology”  was his “first career” he no longer takes new clients so he can “focus on ministry.” Nothing appears which suggests his first career took a decided nose-dive when he was sentenced to 15 months in a federal penitentiary for conspiracy. Instead his profile is written to paint over the rotten baseboard. How is this being genuine? How is this not hiding and covering up one's past?

Also listed on linkedin are recommendations for Jason Smathers written by individuals. One recommendation describes Jason as “hard-working, committed, talented, and ethical.” While the first three descriptors could fit the most hardened criminal we might meet, the last glowing descriptor seems out of place for a convicted felon, at least so far as ethical is used without qualification. So is it possible a convicted felon can reform and be ethical? Sure!  But leaving out “convicted felon” is transparent, genuine, and hiding nothing in what way, exactly? I’m quite sure if Jim Bakker was on television begging for money we’d make darn sure people knew, if they didn’t already know, that Jim Bakker is a convicted felon and went to prison for misspending public money. And, we surely would speak up if we thought he was trying to hide or ignore what he’d done.

The fact is, Thomas Rich appealed to his readership to donate money to Jason Smathers, a convicted felon, based on his word alone: “trust me… [Jason Smathers’ testimony] is nothing short of amazing. And genuine.” And, Rich’s goal, mind you, does not appear to be to help Jason Smathers per se. Instead we’re to give money to “show Ergun that we will back up Jason. Give to his defense fund as soon as you can” (emphasis mine). Rich’s own words reveal his plea seems more about getting Caner than supporting Smathers.

A genuine cause toward which you should give? You be the judge.

What is not genuine in any sense is for either Thomas Rich or Jason Smathers to claim Smathers openly explains who he was and is when neither of them seem willing (at least to date) to publically admit Jason Smathers is a convicted felon who was sentenced to 15 months of incarceration in the federal penitentiary, and the silence of Smathers' website as well as numerous current social media profiles stand as tangible indicators to support the claim. 

Comments

[cb scott]

Kenneth Haugk wrote a book entitled, "ANTAGONISTS IN THE CHURCH."

He defined antagonists in the church thusly:

"Antagonists are individuals who on the basis of nonsubstantive evidence, go out of their way to make insatiable demands, usually attacking the person or performance of others. These attacks are selfish in nature, tearing down rather than building up, and are frequently directed against those in a leadership capacity."

Within the book he profiles the various types of antagonists one may encounter in a church or para-church organization. One particular type of antagonist that he profiles is of a very destructive nature in the church or para-church organization.

He identifies this particular antagonistic personality as a Narcissistic Antagonist.

It is my opinion that both Smathers and Rich could pose as poster boys for a billboard on the interstate:

RICH AND SMATHERS
NARCISSISTIC ANTAGONISTS
FOR HIRE-ANY CHURCH-ANY TIME.
CALL: 1-800-888-RICH

[jaspry]

Are you saying that Smathers "made factual statements that are self-contradictory"?

[Whozep68]

How do you feel about Mr. Rich calling Mr. Caner using racist language? http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2013/06/paul-dean-gets-fired-ergun-caner-keeps.html.

And yes, are these factual statements that are self-contradictory?

[peter lumpkins]

You're skirting the post, 'whozep68.' I'm uninterested in addressing your questions about something my post does not address, and certainly not before you actually engage what i do address. And for the record, I have a strong aversion to anonymous postings. Hence, don't expect to continue here anonymously.

[Bennett Willis]

Given the choice between a person who claims not know a lie when he tells it and a person who has served his time--I sent Smathers' lawyer some money. It was an easy choice.

[peter lumpkins]

Well given the ignorance displayed in the either/or you framed, I can fully understand your choice, Bennett. Thanks for sharing...

[peter lumpkins]

All

While I'm don't mind someone mentioning Ergun Caner in this thread since I obviously raised his name in my OP, I will not post extended rants about Dr. Caner on this thread for the simple reason this post is not about Caner. That's the mistake Bennett made above. Rather this post questions Rich and Smathers' painting over Smathers' criminal record and the discrepancies in his conversion experience. Comments that do not address these prominent themes stand a good chance of not being posted. And I'm certainly not going to post all the vindictive rants composed by the posse of emotional anons that hang around the FBCJax blog. If people want to spew or log ignorance and illogic, then by golly, theyre going to put their name to it...

[Mikre Williams]

wow --- I did post my name and email address and you still do not want to put my comment in since it obviously goes against your belief in Caner.

One thing is for sure, Peter Lumpkins does not know how to be fair and honest and has no problem passing judgement against those who do not agree with him.

[peter lumpkins]

Mikre [sic],

Would you care to repeat with me the last clause of the first sentence in the comment just above yours...the comment from which you pulled my intent not to log anonymous comments? It goes like this:

I-will-not-post... Now you: I-will-not-post...

extended-rants... You again: extended-rants

about-Dr.-Caner... (continue repeating as above)

on-this-thread...

for-the-simple-reason...

this-post...

is-not-about-Caner...

Thus even though I clearly, specifically, intentionally, and directly said there were at least two reasons a comment would not get posted--not one reason a comment would not get posted but two reasons a comment would not get posted-- the two reasons being 1) the comment was anonymous; and 2) the comment was an extended rant against Caner for the simple reason the post is not about Caner...even though I mention two, you assume only one reason a comment will not get posted; namely, if you put your name and email address, the comment will get posted.

Your gross misreading of people's clear words demonstrates nicely why blogging holds such a bad reputation, Mikre. Based on your reductionistic reading of my words, you proudly proclaim the one thing for sure we can all conclude is, "Peter Lumpkins does not know how to be fair and honest and has no problem passing judgement against those who do not agree with him."

Frankly, commenters like you, Mikre, come close to draining every ounce of satisfaction I get from blogging because of the dadgum foolishness passed off as real substance--"one thing for sure."

In short, you indicate a person is not "fair and honest" because he or she did exactly what he or she told you up front he or she would do. Yes, I can see how in some worlds, that would make a person unfair and dishonest. But that is not my world, Mikre. It's yours.

Now, clean up your long, extended rant against Caner in your comment I withheld, and if you leave your real name and email address attached to it, I will publish it.

[Tim Rogers]

Peter,

Let me get this straight. We have one who calls for transparency (FBCWatchdog), who began his blogging career under an anonymous name and was not exposed until a legal court order exposed him, and berates pastors who call for church members to tithe. Who then asks for, and from at least one commenter on this site, receives funds being given for the legal expenses of Smathers--a convicted felon. This convicted felon neither is open nor transparent when it comes to revealing his past. A "run in with the law" and a conviction for stealing email addresses and selling them for profit just are not the same. A "run in with the law" intimates something as small as a traffic stop for making an illegal turn but never something on the level of a federal indictment.

Well, it looks like we are seeing the new standard for those that want to negate what the scriptures call for--a standard of holiness.

[peter lumpkins]

Tim,

That's the paradox (or hypocrisy might be a better word) of guys like Rich. He demands cover-up for himself (and sues to protect it) and white-washes the cover-up of guys like Smathers all the while condemning cover-up on everybody else.

[Patrick]

"That's the paradox (or hypocrisy might be a better word) of guys like Rich. He demands cover-up for himself (and sues to protect it) and white-washes the cover-up of guys like Smathers all the while condemning cover-up on everybody else."

While I don't necessarily disagree about the white-wash of Smathers, and some questionable items in the timeline of his conversion, I'm trying to wrap my head around how that's any different than the other situation at hand. Caner has a seriously questionable timeline with his conversion (and that's putting it extremely nicely). One group wants to expose him and his "misstatements," while another seems to want to brush it under the rug. Smathers has some questions regarding his timeline, and one group wants to expse him, while another seems to want to brush it under the rug. You seem to have a problem with one and not the other, so enlighten me as to what the difference is.

[Justin]

Since you will not post comments about Caner (although YOU were the one who raised his name in the post, and you had to know what that would lead to), I will say this (because I know you'll read it before deciding not to post it): I can't wait until you put your journalistic, investigative expertise to use in the Caner story. If you need help finding material, there are plenty of videos of Caner claiming to be a former Muslim jihadist. Hey, I know...maybe you could present a Resolution at the 2014 SBC, calling on people not to associate with people who claim to be former Muslim jihadists in order to boost their resume. Or you could simply continue being yourself.

[Justin]

Patrick, please get ready to be insulted by Peter. Your logic is far too advanced...

[peter lumpkins]

Patrick,

There's nothing to "wrap" you head around. This post doesn't deal with Caner's timeline comparing it with Smathers'. So, what's the issue, Patrick?

Nor is your assertion relevant when you state "One group wants to expose him [presumably Caner] and his 'misstatements,' while another seems to want to brush it under the rug." A) it's not about "wanting to expose" potential "misstatements" about Caner. And, just who is not aware of these "misstatements" which must be "exposed" Patrick? Is there a basic unawareness of the issues the same people continue to "expose"? Rather we know what it's about, don't we? It's about a continued "getting Caner" posture mainly led by James White and his ilk; B) More importantly, who has suggested brushing anything "under the rug"? I haven't here, now or in 2010, and if you think I've stated we need to brush anything "under the rug" or hide anything, then think again. All of us--you, me, Caner, and even the indefatigable James White--are accountable for everything we say. Period. I've not encouraged cover-up and, anyone who suggests I have are either grossly ignorant, unintentionally mistaken, or intentionally lying.

Hence, this post in no stretch a defense of Caner. Rather it is a rehearsal of the confusion surrounding Jason Smathers as a convicted felon who was sentenced to 15 mos in a federal penitentiary, coupled with the confusion surrounding the timeline of his conversion and the exaggerated claims Thomas Rich made concerning Smathers Rich offered to inspire readers to give to Smathers' defense fund (with the exceptional irony of Rich's frequent rants against preachers who appeal to their congregations to tithe).

Hope that helps...

[Patrick]

"It's about a continued "getting Caner" posture mainly led by James White and his ilk"

I'm not really sure how they're continuing to "get Caner." As far as I can tell, the original post you quoted had nothing to do with White.

"More importantly, who has suggested brushing anything "under the rug"? "

Really? Is that not what the lawsuit is about?

"Hence, this post in no stretch a defense of Caner."

I didn't say it was a defense of Caner. The point I raised was that you seemed (and apparently still do) to have a problem with people "getting Caner" for the problems with his timeline, yet you seem to be doing the same thing, and suddenly not having a problem with it.

I'd like to say I was expecting a coherent, sensible response to my previous post. However, Justin hit the nail on the head.

[peter lumpkins]

Justin,

You charge toward me,

“Since you will not post comments about Caner (although YOU were the one who raised his name in the post, and you had to know what that would lead to)…”

However, consider: I said above to all commenters,

“While I'm don't mind someone mentioning Ergun Caner in this thread since I obviously raised his name in my OP, I will not post extended rants about Dr. Caner…”

And, again I said to Mike “…repeat with me the last clause of the first sentence in the comment just above yours...It goes like this:

I-will-not-post... Now you: I-will-not-post...

extended-rants... You again: extended-rants

about-Dr.-Caner... (continue repeating as above)…

Twice I explicitly said I would not post extended rants about Caner not “comments about Caner” as you wrongly declare, while once I explicitly affirmed one could mention  Caner since I obviously brought him up  in the OP, the latter directly addressing your presumable “gotcha!” when you wrote, “although YOU were the one who raised his name in the post…” (caps yours). 

Justin, you’ve matched Mike in logging the kind of rhetorical sloppiness which gives blogging a bad reputation. You judge; you spew; you insult; you indict; you condemn; you satirize… all based upon careless consideration of what people actually  write.

And, truth be known, this remains one of the reasons all people should be very cautious about taking your interpretations—and the interpretations of guys like you—for what constitutes an actual contradiction in the sermons and words of Ergun Caner or anybody else for that matter.  In short, your impressions are so fundamentally skewed by only God knows what, we simply cannot trust them to offer sober criticism. Emotion sits far too often at the driver’s wheel, I’m afraid.

Now, before you log on again, I’m uninterested in exchange with you further about anything else until you deal with what I’ve just pointed out; namely, your complete botching of what I wrote. Either concede my point, or demonstrate where I’ve unfairly interpreted your words. No other comment from you will be posted until you deal with your obvious blunder concerning my clear words.

P.S. Please take the last assertion literally.

[Louis]

Man, I am in the dark.

I know all about Caner and his situation.

I do not know about Smathers and a lawsuit.

Can someone give me a 3 sentence explanation?

[peter lumpkins]

Patrick,

Your words are emboldened and my response follows:

“I'm not really sure how they're continuing to ‘get Caner.’” No and perhaps you’ll never get it or be sure. But that’s entirely beside the point. From my perspective, I think it’s clear.

“As far as I can tell, the original post you quoted had nothing to do with White.” And, your point is?  I made an observation based upon watching virtually the same few people keep stirring the pot about this issue, James White driving the big blue bus.

“Really? Is that [i.e. sweeping things under the rug] not what the lawsuit is about?” I haven’t a clue what all is involved in this “lawsuit” since I haven’t read any of the legal documents pertaining to the issue. Perhaps you’ve actually read the legal briefings about this conflict, Patrick; I have not.  In addition, I’m not even sure it’s legally proper to call this conflict a “lawsuit” per se since the conflict as I understand it from some media sources suggests it’s a legal complaint asserting  copyright infringement. Thus, the complaint is not about personally suing Smathers for something that’s his (money, land, etc) but asserting he has no right to use something that’s not his (i.e. Caner’s purported videos he claims belongs to him; thus the legal filing contesting Smathers’ right to post them). My personal opinion? It’s not only going to be a long-shot for Caner’s defense to argue this position successfully, I’m unsure it would do any good if they did. The internet is so incredibly vast it’s seems impossible for audio-video to be firmly controlled. Nor am I sure it ought to be.

“I didn't say it was a defense of Caner.” Nor did I indicate such. The conclusion I cited—“Hence, this post in no stretch a defense of Caner”—was a conclusion from my words not indicative of yours.

“The point I raised was that you seemed (and apparently still do) to have a problem with people "getting Caner" for the problems with his timeline, yet you seem to be doing the same thing, and suddenly not having a problem with it.”  In response, no, I explicitly indicated that “It's about a “continued ‘getting Caner’ posture  mainly led by James White and his ilk” (embolden and italics original to the words as I posted them).  This supposed “exposure” is over 2 years old and James White continues to rant and rave and post one screed after another and mention on his broadcast the very same arguments he made in 2010 about this. And, even some of his own followers on Facebook have expressed their dismay and frustration with his seeming obsession with this. 

In addition, you presumably suggest I am “doing the same thing” with Smathers by raising questions “with his timeline” for conversion and perhaps his (and Rich’s)  less than open admission about being a convicted felon sentenced to 15 mos in the federal penitentiary.  Really, Patrick? Well, here’s you a challenge you’re sure to accept: post on this thread all the times I’ve mentioned Smathers on my blog. Go back to 2010 and read the posts during the breaking open of the proverbial pandora’s box. Log them here, Patrick, and shame me. Shame me by posting my supposed continued “getting Smathers” posture I’ve allegedly had for the last two years in questioning the timeline of his conversion or even mentioning a single syllable about Smathers’ conviction as a felon.  Post them all right here. And, if you think I might not post them, why take them all over to FBCJax. I’m sure Rich would love you to no end if you did so and post all you can find. 

I’ll even up the ante, Patrick. Post here every place on the internet where you can find anyone raising questions about the conversion timeline of Jason Smathers, especially anyone perceived to be in the “group” with which you might assign me. Indeed, post all the times Smathers has: a) had questions raised about when and how he was converted; and b) been openly blogged about concerning his convicted felon status. Please see if you can find any Caner defenders citing either a) or b) during the most intense moments of exchange in 2010 til the present. Deal?

Here’s the truth of the matter: you won’t find any allusion here to Smathers’ conversion timeline  or his convicted felon status other than the present post for the very simple reason I had no reason to raise questions about either in 2010. Nor did anyone else raise either issue about Smathers in 2010 and even up until the present so far as I am aware.

And, if I am correct, then I've actually raised the issue for the first time, and perhaps even exposing something not before addressed.  Hence, so much for your charge that I’m “doing the same thing” but  “all of a sudden” have a problem with it. Your implication I am inconsistent remains toothless, Patrick,

“I'd like to say I was expecting a coherent, sensible response to my previous post. However, Justin hit the nail on the head.”  And, just what made you expect or “like to say” you expected  a “coherent, sensible response “ Patrick? Don’t you know I’m incapable of such? 

More seriously, I suspect the reason for the last statement was to log the all too frequent smart-aleck remark some guys enjoy doing as they depart in an exchange like this. So be it.

But unless you can show how my response to you to be incoherent and/or insensible, I’ll leave you to just feel good about implicating me with incoherence and/or insensibleness without actually showing it to be so. Enjoy…

[peter lumpkins]

Hey Louis. While you can make up your mind as to whether ABP would give a fair pic of the legal conflict, it still exists, it seems to me, as one of the more credible outside sources which talk about the issue.

http://www.abpnews.com/ministry/people/item/8612-caner-sues-to-purge-video-from-web#.Ucn05DSkpQ0

[Patrick]

"“I'm not really sure how they're continuing to ‘get Caner.’” No and perhaps you’ll never get it or be sure. But that’s entirely beside the point. From my perspective, I think it’s clear."

I find it amusing that you have this whole "get Caner" conspiracy theory, and continue to rant about it. However, this legal action was initiated by Caner. The screed about being exonerated via Twitter was written by Caner. The attempts to hide any allusion to his multiple testimony stories is being undertaken by Caner. It certainly seems to me, just a bystander, that in recent months, all action has been coming from Caner, not people trying to "get him."

"And, if I am correct, then I've actually raised the issue for the first time, and perhaps even exposing something not before addressed. "

Or perhaps it has never been written about before because your conclusions are completely inaccurate.

"More seriously, I suspect the reason for the last statement was to log the all too frequent smart-aleck remark some guys enjoy doing as they depart in an exchange like this."

You're welcome to think what you like about my reasoning, and write it off as a smart-aleck remark. However, the reason for it was that you're just utterly predictable. Justin and I both saw your typical response coming from a mile away, as I'm sure numerous other readers did as well.

One final note...a friend of mine ordered Alcohol Today from you months ago and still hasn't received it. Perhaps that's how business is done in Georgia, though I find it hard to believe.

[Eric Lockhart]

From the link you listed: So, you might be wondering how I went from a self centered jerk to a pastor. After my encounter with the law, Heather and I had some trouble in our marriage. We thought we would get a divorce and I knew a man who happened to be a Southern Baptist Pastor. I assumed a pastor would know how to counsel someone through a divorce. Instead, he let me know that God hates divorce and he clearly presented the Gospel to me which I heard for the very first time. He didn’t stop there, for the next six months he shared and shared until I was convicted and gave my life to the Lord. Meanwhile, he was doing everything he could do to share with my wife and his wife was doing her best as well. They got us both to visit the church and one week we both went forward, as the was tradition there, to pronounce our faith in Christ publicly. The following week we were both baptized. The Lord saved our marriage and our souls.

What's not clear about that? Shameful, Peter.

[peter lumpkins]

Look, Patrick. I have no desire to continue a table chat when you hardly bring enough beans to eat with the potatoes. You’re droning on and on but no real point, similar to your literary marathon logged about a month ago for me to drop what you called a bad use of “technicality.” Remember?  I even cited credible media sources which used  “technicality” similarly, if not identically, to my usage. You ignored the evidence and fearlessly proceeded full steam ahead.

Hence, I’m going to respond once more. So, unless you’ve got something substantial to contribute, I’ll assume this is it for you as well.

Allow me to inform you now, however, so that it’ll be clear to all readers: if you do log another comment in this exchange, please state all you desire to state because it will be your last opportunity in this particular exchange. I will have the final word.  So if you log yet again to “rebut” my final comment, I will not post it. I’m just not going to keep expending time and thought into a fruitless exchange. You can always take it either to your own blog, or perhaps offer it to Thomas Rich. He’ll allow just about anything there no matter how bazaar or emotionally based—at least that’s been my observation. 

And, I leave it to the readers to judge whether I’m ending the exchange because your points are so challenging toward my stated position. So be it (please remember that not included in my risky invitation to “state all you desire to state” is a suspension of an “extended rant” against Dr. Caner. If you include one in all you desire to state, I won’t post it).

Now, on to your comment:

“I find it amusing that you have this whole "get Caner" conspiracy theory, and continue to rant about it.” So now because I observe a demonstrable pattern of a certain crew of bloggers—a crew obviously led by James White—it’s now a “conspiracy theory.” Yes, that’s very perceptive of you, Patrick. Others will be envious.

 “However, this legal action was initiated by Caner. The screed about being exonerated via Twitter was written by Caner. The attempts to hide any allusion to his multiple testimony stories is being undertaken by Caner.” And who would you think qualifies to “initiate” legal action over alleged copyright  infringement, Patrick; the one who claims ownership of the contested property or the one who claims legal rights to use the contested property? See how baseless and even absurd  your question is?

The screed  on Twitter? What a Georgia hoot! Have you ever looked up the definition of screed?  Talk about misusing words! And, the “attempts to hide any allusion to his multiple testimony stories” is allegedly “being undertaken by Caner.” Well, the only legal filing about which I am aware is the current one. Perhaps you’ve some insight into this I’ve not considered. Even so, precisely what does this have to do with anything I’ve written here? Again you appear to assume I personally advocate covering “any allusion” to “multiple testimonies.” Of course, you can’t demonstrate it for I’ve certainly never written anything resembling  your implication, and there’s a reason; I don’t believe in “covering up” or sugar-coating evidence.

“It certainly seems to me, just a bystander, that in recent months, all action has been coming from Caner, not people trying to "get him." As a “bystander”? I’m afraid, Patrick, you fail to come across as the quintessential standard of objectivity on the issues you’ve engaged here.

“Or perhaps it has never been written about before [i.e. Smathers’ conflicting testimonial statements about conversion and his being a convicted felon] because your conclusions are completely inaccurate.” Perhaps. I have no problem with contesting the claims I made about Smathers. The problem is, Patrick, you’ve not offered a single challenge toward anything I’ve written about Smathers. Instead you’ve simply droned on and on about other things. I’d welcome someone showing how my inferences from the quotes and links I cite are not well taken.

What is more, you not only have not challenged my inferences from the evidences I cited about Smathers, but you actually agreed with it at least in part  in your very first comment! You logged on not to challenge my inferences, but question whether I was being consistent. Consider your opening words again, Patrick:

“While I don't necessarily disagree about the white-wash of Smathers, and some questionable items in the timeline of his conversion…Smathers has some questions regarding his timeline…”

What a double Georgia hoot! 

“You're welcome to think what you like about my reasoning, and write it off as a smart-aleck remark. However, the reason for it was that you're just utterly predictable. Justin and I both saw your typical response coming from a mile away, as I'm sure numerous other readers did as well.” Well, I hope I am predictable, Patrick. I try to follow a consistent pattern of reasonable and sober responses, dealing with the actual points a person logs not what I think the person ought to embrace. And, though I’m sure I fail more often than I should, I nonetheless am fairly satisfied I offer those who wish to engage a subject about which I write a reasonable and stimulating exchange. And, for the record, yes, I still think the sign-off was nothing less than a smart-aleck remark, Nor is your reasoning skills far beyond a settled dose of caged emotion.

“One final note...a friend of mine ordered Alcohol Today from you months ago and still hasn't received it. Perhaps that's how business is done in Georgia, though I find it hard to believe.” Well, all I can say is, I’ll check into it to see if I’ve an order not fulfilled. There’s no excuse on my part if your friend ordered and paid for a book two months ago and not yet received it. It’s true as in all businesses orders sometimes fall through the cracks. It’s also true shipping can at times go haywire. I had only recently two orders of several books each lost in the mail. Once I find out the problem, your friend will not only get the book, I’ll return any monies he’s paid. That’s how I do business in Georgia. Please forward his email to me or ask him to contact me. In the meantime, I’ll still check into it…

[peter lumpkins]

Hi Eric.

Well, nothing is startlingly "unclear" about the single citation you quote, Eric. The question I raised considered both his conversion stories not the single one you cited while ignoring the other one. Hence, I have no reason to feel shame for raising the question of compatibility for the way the two accounts of Smathers' conversion are verbally phrased.

Please read carefully before you prematurely judge others worthy of shame...

[Louis]

Peter,

Thanks. I'll read the story.

[cb scott]

"One final note...a friend of mine ordered Alcohol Today from you months ago and still hasn't received it. Perhaps that's how business is done in Georgia, though I find it hard to believe."

Patrick,

Unless you and maybe your friend have just recently moved to North America and do not yet realize the problems that sometimes arise in the free enterprise system we enjoy here or you and your friend are too very young to have transacted business on your own without the help of your parents or legal guardian, you would have told your friend that he should have made contact with Peter long before these many "months ago" and informed him he had not yet received his merchandise.

On the other hand, the statement referenced above may just be a cheap shot directed toward Peter Lumpkins.

Which is it? Is it a cheap shot or a lack of understanding of the free enterprise system?

[Andrew Barker]

I too had a few problems getting booklets from Peter. Perhaps being UK based was part of the problem. However, Peter will confirm I simply got in touch and it was sorted. I think that's how most of us do business don't we? As it was, Peter sent me two for the price of one BEFORE I had mentioned that I hadn't received the book. Now that's what I call really good customer service. :-)

[peter lumpkins]

CB & Andrew,

Thanks for the support, brothers. I try to be timely and fair. But when circumstances don't cooperate, I also try to go beyond what's "fair." Lord bless!...

[Scott]

How about this? Everybody walk in the light. Stop spinning things. Sovereign Grace Ministries, take responsibility for what has happened under your watch. Ergun Caner, where you lied, own it. Jason Smathers, tell the whole truth about your story. And let none of us be accomplices to help any of these people shy away from the truth about their lives and their choices. Instead, let's walk with them to the cross and find forgiveness and restoration and new strength in service, because all of us not in the public eye need the cross too. But we're all too afraid to do that. On all sides, we're too concerned with covering for our theological comrades to actually love them enough to tell them the truth. Meanwhile, their credibility erodes and ours goes with it so long as we defend the indefensible in any form.

[Eric Lockhart]

I'm unaware of other stories. I just used the link you provided. However, you have to see the irony in your response to me.

[peter lumpkins]

Eric,

If you're "unaware" of the other testimonial story-line, a story-line I both quoted and linked in making the point I did about Smathers' conversion, it only demonstrates the sheer knee-jerk reactionary nonsense many of you log before you take time to either read carefully what's being said or examine sufficiently all the sources from which inferences are drawn (or both). Who cares about the so-called "irony" when your premature judgmentalism remains so glaring?

So, forget the "irony" Eric (whatever you mean by it), and commit yourself to avoid popping off without thoroughly understanding what the heck somebody's talking about.

[cb scott]

Scott,

Not all of us are "concerned with covering for our theological comrades to actually love them enough to tell them the truth." At least, that is not the case with me, nor is that the case with Peter Lumpkins.

However, when a brother has checked himself and made his placed himself under the discipline of God and repented to Him and made it know before his brothers and sisters in the faith that he has done so, it is high time to leave the past and go forward. This avenue of action by the children of God is plainly revealed in 2 Corinthians 2.

Those who continually seek to attack such a person are not unlike poultry, who, upon seeing a scab on the head of rooster where a cut is in the process of healing, begin to peck, peck and continue to peck at it until the wound that was healing is now bleeding to the degree the rooster that was healing nicely bleeds out and dies a premature death.

Then, those cannibalistic chickens seek out another victim and begin the same ritual over again. It seems that we have a few cannibals among us at times, ya think?

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter: Well I respected and agreed with you for a millisecond on the resolution. But seeing you be blind to the things Amy has pointed out that needs our attention, and this...some things never change.

If you read the second article, the judge refused to take away Jason's software license because he felt that Jason has learned his lesson. He was a young, dumb 25 year old who grievously broke the law before he became a Christian. As a result of this he found Christ through a minister. He isn't out there still being a parody of himself and lying. Come on Peter, as a Christian surely the Holy Spirit is showing you that the first scenario is a forgiven sinner saved by Christ and the second is a liar who is duping Christians like yourself. I wish it weren't so, I wanted for Caner to change through all this. Jason would be a good lesson as to what Ergun could be. Forgiven. But instead he chose to continue in his lies and for what? Fame and money. Period.

[peter lumpkins]

Debbie,

Whether on or you believe me now or then is irrelevant to whether or not my position on different issues is sound or not Debbie. That's life.

And, you apparently didn't read the questions I raised pertaining to Smathers' testimony and his conviction and 15 mos. he spent in the fed pen. Nor did you consider the stone cold silence about this incarceration on his blog and resume. I thought you were for openness, Debbie?

Now, either deal with what I did write about on this post or don't deal with it at all. Thanks...

[Scott Shaver]

Pete:

My experience with DK has been that her "respect" for those with whom she disagrees runs in sync with her emotions ...up one minute, down the next.

Logic applied with relevance to the subject under discussion apparently does not enter the picture.

[cb scott]

Peter,

I realize your post is not to be intended to argue the issues related to Ergun Caner. I shall respect that. I do realize that your post does deal with hypocrisy, especially that of Smathers and Rich in begging for defense money and all the while attacking pastors who preach biblical giving to their congregations.

However, I do want to state something to Debbie of which you and I discussed earlier this week.

Debbie, I have a newly developed pathos for you due to what you revealed on my post over at SBC Voices. So does Peter.

Nonetheless, I think you need to stand down on projecting if Ergun is "forgiven" or not. Such things are of God's responsibility and not yours or mine. The brother publicly asked for forgiveness. It does not matter if you like the way he communicated that request or not. The fact is, he did it. Therefore, I think you would do well to read my comment about the cannibalism of poultry above and give its meaning some thought.

[Scott]

cb,

Protection of our buddies and, to use your illustration, pecking of those with whom we disagree should be off-limits for followers of Jesus. I fully agree with that. On all fronts we need to do our best to be people of truth rather than either a "good old boy" network or a group dedicated to the destruction of our theological opponents. If the shoe fits, wear it and if it doesn't, disregard my comment.

[cb scott]

Scott,

The shoe does not fit as I stated. In addition, I "responded" to your comment rather than to "disregard" your comment. That is actually how it works on a blog with an open comment thread.

Now, if your desire is that people "disregard" your comments, don't place them in an open blog thread.

[Paula]

I guess Redemption and repentance only means something if you LIED about your previous sins, right? And only if you don't become a Calvinist.

Peter, you did right exposing Mahaney, but this is so wrong. Smathers doesn't hide his past. Caner does, because he is trying to make Jesus look better.

I'm seriously thinking Caner is still lying not only about his past... but also about his *conversion.*

[peter lumpkins]

Paula,

You say, "I guess Redemption and repentance only means something if you LIED about your previous sins, right? And only if you don't become a Calvinist." And from what exactly do you deduce this? Please be specific.

"Peter, you did right exposing Mahaney, but this is so wrong. Smathers doesn't hide his past. Caner does, because he is trying to make Jesus look better." And, just what is wrong, Paula? Pointing out possible discrepancies in a person's conversion story? Why is this wrong exactly?

Furthermore, Paula, can you point me to a place where Smathers openly speaks about his past? A place, of course, besides where he only recently does so? A place other than the single post linked in my post above? If not, how is this being open about one's past actually? How has Smathers' been open about his convicted felon status and being sentenced to 15 mos in the federal penitentiary when nothing on his blog (except the present post) mentions it? (and even then nothing is mentioned about prison time)

Even more indicting is, nothing in his internet resumes indicates it either. Please explain how Smathers, therefore, has been open about his past (btw, whatever you mean by "making Jesus look better" I do not know).

"I'm seriously thinking Caner is still lying not only about his past... but also about his *conversion.*" Don't ever come here again questioning somebody's spiritual conversion, Paula. This is the kind of judgmentalism Jesus openly condemned (Mt 7:1). I'm sick to my nostrils with people openly questioning another's conversion experience. Tired. Tired. Tired of it. Either respectfully question others or refrain from commenting altogether.

[Nicholas]

Your attempt to accuse Tom Rich of hypocrisy fails, of course, because Rich has not claimed that God commands Christians to donate to Smathers' legal defense fund, nor has Rich claimed that those who don't are "stealing from God": http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2012/03/misusing-scripture-to-scare-christians.html

[peter lumpkins]

Nicholas,

You assert, 'Your attempt to accuse Tom Rich of hypocrisy fails, of course, because Rich has not claimed that God commands Christians to donate to Smathers' legal defense fund, nor has Rich claimed that those who don't are "stealing from God"'.

Care to show where I "attempt to accuse Tom Rich of hypocrisy" based upon his commanding Christians to donate to Smathers' defense fund? You like links as do I. So, please link to my words about Rich's hypocrisy.

[peter lumpkins]

All,

I continue to wait patiently for someone--anyone--to post here all the times Jason Smathers revealed his past on his website prior to the post we linked here, a revelation Smathers apparently first revealed to the reading public on June 21--less than 2 weeks ago. Several have claimed Smathers has not covered his past conviction of conspiracy to commit interstate transport of stolen goods and sentenced to 15 mos in the fed pen. Where is this biographical info found in Smathers' writings or on his present resume? James White has mentioned Smathers on his site dozens of times but never so much as hinted Smathers is a convicted felon converted to Christ (at least he hasn't as I can find. If he has, please inform us). Why?

Paula above outright asserts "Smathers doesn't hide his past." Really? And what proof would Paula offer us? In addition, Paula says the same thing on her blog and disses me there as she does here (one can't comment there so one can't ask her to show her sources). And, Paula comes here and advertises the post on her site.

Fine.

Let's see if she can put some sources where her mouth is.

Here's a challenge to Paula and those who assert Smathers hasn't covered his past:

document the posts Smathers has written which openly deal with his convicted felon status and sentencing to 15 mos in a federal penitentiary, posts prior to the June 21, 2013 revelation

We'll wait patiently for Paula's (or Thomas Rich's and/or others') response.

[Eric Lockhart]

I have researched. I am an unaware because I have not seen any posts that are contradictory about his salvation statement. Since you know of them, why don't you post them? Instead, you link to a site that clearly states his salvation experience. Yet, somehow that is the readers fault.

[peter lumpkins]

Eric,

You don't have to "research". I gave two links to two different posts above, explaining the discrepancy I think exists and about which I cited. If you can't understand that, then please, I've nothing else to say about it. Nor have you on this subject--at least on my site.

[Kel McClanahan]

I have read this article and the lengthy discussion which followed it, and I feel the need to clarify a few issues. Normally I would stay out of a debate like this, since I can't completely speak without a certain amount of unavoidable self-interest, but in this case I will step in simply to provide some context and answer any questions that you might have.

I am Jason Smathers' attorney in this case. I am the person to whom people have been sending money, often in small denominations. And, God willing, I will be the person who collects even more from Mr. Caner in accordance with the laws he chose to invoke against Mr. Smathers.

I say this not out of malice but as a statement of simple fact. Mr. Caner's suit has no merit, and that has nothing to do with whether or not he lied, whether or not he "converted," or anything else about him personally. As a question of law, Mr. Caner does not have a case (for reasons I will not bore you with unless you ask), and the penalty for bringing a meritless copyright infringement case is paying the defendant's attorneys' fees at the market rate. Such is the risk of involving Caesar's court.

Because I am charging Mr. Smathers a tiny percentage of the market rate, that means that if we prevail, everyone who sent money to me gets it back, and I get reimbursed for my time and hard work just as if I was charging my full rate the entire time. That allows my firm to continue to do the non-profit work that we do, representing people like Mr. Smathers who could never afford me otherwise. You may be familiar with some of the work, even if you do not know our name. We represent whistleblowers who were fired by their agencies for speaking out about illegal conduct. We represent journalists trying to get information about government programs so that they can inform the public. One of my clients is a housewife engaged in a nine-year battle to clear her name after a typo by an FBI analyst labeled her a national security risk, costing her her career. You may not agree with our politics, but you can never say that we are driven by profit.

I will not argue about Mr. Smathers' past (or Mr. Caner's for that matter); it is not my place. But it should be made clear that nobody who sends money to me is "financially supporting" Mr. Smathers. If they're financially supporting anyone, it's me (which is largely the reason I've stayed out of this discussion for so long, so as not to appear to be soliciting money). He gets no money from this, nor are donors paying money that he otherwise would have to pay (with a few small exceptions). I cannot go into detail about my representation agreement with him, but I can say that if nobody sends any more money, I will probably go unpaid for the duration of the case. It's what non-profit lawyers do. :)

Thank you for your time, and I will be happy to discuss the case with you to the greatest extent possible if you so desire.

Kel McClanahan
Executive Director
National Security Counselors