« James White and Historical Hooey (Part 2) | Main | Brewton-Parker College raises the bar appointing Dr. C.B. Scott »

2014.01.22

Comments

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

Lydia

Here is another one that is going to change the landscape. We have a young generation that won't understand the concept of "privacy" at all. They are splashing their thoughts and pictures all over the world with social media. Will they think it wrong for the government to have access to all their health information comingled with their tax information? Included in that are schools now issuing ipads where they can enforce policy when students are....at home! So one more foot in the door of privacy. (I realize they have the right just thinking about the implications of what we become "used" to and it becomes normal)

I can remember reading years ago there was not really an understanding of "privacy" in Russian. There was secrecy and other related concepts but not personal privacy. Something to think about considering the cultural landscape. I think we are raising little robots. There used to be virtue in discretion and not talking about oneself too much. Even in Christendom we have educated young men making the most pedantic tweets. Some are not so young like Piper. Someone needs to take his tweet away.

hariette

went to his site, Straight Shooting there, but I, uh...fell short of the Bullseye when I clicked on Books. any suggestions?
h

hariette

p.s. congratulations on your latest position. grace be upon you, friend.
h

peter lumpkins

Hi Hariette

Click on the email link and request a copy.

Thx for the encouragement about the position. Need your prayers!

Lord bless.

With that, I am...
Peter

Fredericka

"Thx for the encouragement about the position."
Peter, are you untroubled by the appearance of a quid pro quo?

peter lumpkins

Hi Fredericka,

Thank you. That's a fair question. Quite honestly I'd have to answer it with an unequivocal yes; I remain without the least bit of concern my new position might appear to some to be a 'pay-back' for my defense of Dr. Caner. I've learned through the years to act upon a principled deontological framework for making decisions in life--decisions both moral and adiaphorous--a framework I find biblically sound. Thus, while I'd normally not intentionally make a decision which might cause some a measurable amount of consternation, at the same time, if I thought the decision was the right thing to do, I'd do it regardless of the consequences. Understand: I by no means claim I've always followed this maxim in life. I've failed at it more than I'm comfortable to recall. Even so, it continues as both a guide for me to live and a goal for me to reach. And, I confidently think the NT generally affirms this moral, decision-making trajectory.

Already social media is ablaze with some who read into this announcement the most egregious interpretation possible. Frankly, I would have been utterly shocked had the half-dozen or so on Twitter who questioned the appointment with unbecoming insults and, as you put it, quid pro quo, would have yielded any other interpretation than they did. Incidentally, the only ones who've yet interpreted the announcement in the worst possible light are predictably those who stalk and harass Ergun Caner on one hand (please don't read this as a reflection on your question; as I said, your question is a fair question); or those who've done their darnedest to chop my literary legs out from under me (i.e. raving Calvinists) on the other. There may be others to be sure. I just haven't seen or read them. Both groups total, as far as I can tell, about a dozen people max; assuming, of course, some of the anonymous stalkers are not the same person(s) as those using their real identity.

What is more significant, few realize that before I ever knew Dr. Caner, I was defending him. When my first post came out as the debacle began, I had never met Ergun Caner; never heard him preach; never talked with him on the phone; never exchanged emails. I was familiar with some of his books from whence I quoted his biographical info in the post I linked. But that was all. Thus, my defense of Ergun Caner began long before I ever met Ergun Caner or he and I developed a relationship (mostly distance-based relationships as my other friends nowadays). I defended Ergun Caner then because I observed a completely unfair reading of his life, his work, and his words by unreasonable men. I defend Ergun Caner now because, despite the increased hoopla over "more and more" evidence allegedly "proving" Dr. Caner is a fraud offered by virtually the same group of critics led primarily by Hyper-Calvinist James White (representing evangelicals) and Mohammed Khan-like Muslims (Muslims who hate the Caner brothers; always have and always will), I more than ever observe unreasonable men making unreasonable arguments to unreasonably destroy Ergun Caner. One would unlikely find a Christian in modern times who has been tortuously hounded, harassed, and unequivocally morally condemned from other professing Christians more than Ergun Caner. None. And, they do so based entirely upon hearsay on one hand (i.e. some condemn Caner solely based upon what they've heard from others they know say) and unnecessary inferences from conflicting information made by men like James White and Mohammed Khan on the other.

In short, Dr. Caner has been unjustly, publicly condemned by unscrupulous critics, critics many times who appear to display a visible hypocrisy in their own standards of judgment when it comes to themselves. Allow me one example:

James White made the proverbial fool of himself in the video I posted of him criticizing atheist, Dan Barker, for "lying" about history. But as I showed in my line-by-line commentary, citing solid primary and secondary sources, James White didn't know what he was talking about as he made one historical gaffe after another concerning the circumstances surrounding Servetus. For instance, White claimed "every Swiss canton without exception" wrote to Geneva and said "Servetus must die by burning" when in fact no Swiss canton said any such thing. Thus, according to James White's own standard, he just flat out lied. And, all White would have to do to prove his innocence is, produce the letters from the Swiss cantons which state without exception, "Servetus must be burned." Of course, White won't produce them because he can't produce them because they don't exist. Now note the hypocrisy: White repeatedly ignores his own "lies" and focuses on the "lies" of others. Frankly, even though I don't take critics like him seriously, others sometimes do. That's why I even take the time to rebut.

My apologies, Fredericka. Forgive me. I gave you more than you asked. But know even though some may think this a 'pay back' I'm just humbled and not a tiny appreciative our Lord allows me to do what I can to assist young students during this last lap of my life and ministry...all for the glory of our Savior.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter lumpkins

All,

I appreciate the dialog about my new assignment and perhaps we'll take it up again elsewhere. I'd rather focus on questions, if any, pertaining to the publishing of this great new release by Free Church Press.

Thanks!

Max

Peter, congratulations on the new appointment. Thank you for staying faithful to your blog tag-line on behalf of "traditional" Southern Baptists: "truth is unkillable".

Kyle B. Gulledge

Bill Harrell is one of the last of a breed of Southern Baptist pastor/preachers who were only interested in an audience of One. I have his book, "Straight Shooting" and look forward to getting "Bullseye"!
Thanks, Peter, for publishing this book.

Max

Kyle writes "Bill Harrell is one of the last of a breed of Southern Baptist pastor/preachers who were only interested in an audience of One."

So true ... rare and endangered species they are. Southern Baptist pulpits are populated with a lot of teachers, and even a few pastors, but not many preachers. Anointed preaching is fading fast.

The comments to this entry are closed.