Time to stop Social Media Abusers

I just viewed one of the most disgusting tweeter threads I've read since I started on Twitter a few years back. Believe me, Twitter can get really nasty really quickly. The truth is I rarely, if ever, bother to check Twitter that much. My largest contribution to Twitter is the feed connection to SBC Tomorrow. Whenever I post a piece on the blog, I link it to my Twitter feed.

In January, the Twitter nastiness became so bad, I started a little site entitled Twitter and the Truth.   I gave then the reason for the site: "Twitter and the Truth is a special page and the purpose is simple: to address the gross moral ignorance and unsurpassed nonsense of social media abusers."

As one can see, I haven't followed through in fleshing it out as it rightly should be. Only two abusers are presently named. We could easily add a half-dozen significant others not to mention a host of cowardly anons who logon undercover. Eventually, I hope to do that. But alas....the time and energy to do so escapes me. Honestly, to wade through the senseless muck these guys produce on a daily basis would constitute a heavy emotional drain. Who has the stamina to do this? I surely don't have the time even if I had the stamina.

On the other hand, when someone goes after a 15 year old boy, ridiculing him and his household, and even encouraging the teen to personally contact him if ever he wanted to know the "real truth" about his dad, now that's something else.

For several months, JD Hall has been baiting me into responding to him concerning Ergun Caner apparently since I am the Vice President of Communications at Brewton-Parker College serving under the President, Dr. Ergun Caner. Hall's last trumpet blast goaded me because I haven't spoken about things going on in Dr. Caner's personal life. The truth is, only an undeniable buffoon assumes a college official thinks it's his or her obligation to speak publicly about the personal life of any employee of the college much less its president. But avoiding buffoonery has never been, nor do I think it will ever be, a virtue social media abusers like JD Hall will crave.

Just today, JD Hall unloaded a series of tweets aimed at intimidating and bullying Ergun Caner's son, Braxton Caner. The unabashed arrogance Hall displays is breathtaking. See for yourself below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hall perpetually calls for Caner et al to repent. If Hall is calling us to live in his world where he judges what right is, I'd rather take my chances in what Hall rejects as an ungodly, immoral world. The scary truth is, more and more the social media abusers sound like the late Fred Phelps.  

As for me and my house, no thanks.

With that, I am...

Peter 

Comments

[Scott Shaver]

As far as I'm concerned, Hall now fits the profile of an online child stalker who's confused enough to think he's doing it for the glory of his god.

[Mark]

Scott,

On JD's site I suggested his "Methodology" was at times predatory and he of course he disagreed.

The sophomoric non-sense displayed by Hall and his "Pulpiteers" fortunately has a very small audience with only a few of us questioning their strange tactics and mostly "Pulpiteers" self-congratulating each other.

[Scott Shaver]

Excellent point Mark.

Not worth a lot of wasted commentary which only seems to feed their sick frenzies.

[eric]

Barry,

Give it a break and think.

You don't publically go after another mans child, period.

You don't defend someone who does, period.

If you have a beef with what another mans child, teenager is doing, you can (at times) correct that teenager, in private, then go to the father. Its the fathers responsibility, period.

You don't go after another man thru his family. period

I know it's rude to use the "period", this is so obviously wrong on so many levels.

[Scott Shaver]

JD has apologized but still wants "chapter and verse".

LOL.

[Scott Shaver]

For JD Hall:

Here's one (chapter and verse) that comes to mind ... (KJV even).

Proverbs 26:17: He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears.

[Mary]

Scott, so not really apologizing at all.

[dustin germain]

At what age can you call out sin in another person [not caner's kid, but any young man in general?] Is 18 the magic number? 21? When do I not have to go to their father, or mother, but rather can address someone directly?

[Lydia]

"At what age can you call out sin in another person [not caner's kid, but any young man in general?] Is 18 the magic number? 21? When do I not have to go to their father, or mother, but rather can address someone directly?"

As my mom used to say: Common sense is not common.

So when JD starts trolling twitter asking young guys how old they are to know if he can "call out sin" to or not, there is a bigger problem, dontcha think?

Your question begs the question: How well do you know the young guy you are dying to "call out sin" to?

I do get it that in your world that might be perfectly normal behavior. Perhaps even a hobby of sorts.

[peter lumpkins]

Don't you just love how these guys torture the Great Commission Jesus gave?

--Jesus: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature"

--James White: "Go into all the world and debate the gospel with every creature"

JD and Dustin: "Go into all the world and call out sin to every creature"

You'd think they stop and reflect upon what they're majoring on, wouldn't you?

With that, I am...
Peter

[Joshautry]

I thought JD's comments were absurd as did my brother. In fact, I saw a very small amount of support for JD on twitter by Caner's critics and widespread rebuke by Caner's critics of JD's attacks on a child.

I disagree with JD's approach for reasons already expressed here. First, it's not my job to call out other people's kids who I have no relationship with. I generally agree to leave families out of it. If there's need for exceptions, they should be narrow.

Second, and this reason may not be a popular one among my fellow Evangelicals, I didn't see anything clearly sinful anyway. When someone points me to the teenagers-shouldn't-kiss-verse, I'll read it. When someone points me to the verse that tells us what words in the modern English language should be banned by the FCC, I'll read it as well.

The reality is I didn't see anything JD claimed to be grossly immoral as even expressly forbidden. And once we start to get into implicit Biblical principals and fuzzies, it just becomes way to easy to put myself on a high horse and say that anyone sins who lives under standards different from my own self-made standards.

Moderator Comment: [Given the lack of login info, not sure this person is to be identified in any way with those in the most recent lawsuit]

[dustin germain]

Lydia, that doesn't answer the question. Clearly there will be different scenarios, but across the swath of them, assuming a mix of having a relationship with them and not really having one with them to not having one with them, how old do they have to be before you can approach them without their parents permission?

[dustin germain]

Also, Peter

First I should mention it's good you spelled my name right. Second of all, what about anything I've said or done would lead you to believe that I'm majoring on this, or that I make it a mission to call out every sin? I don't. Please provide specific examples?

[peter lumpkins]

Dustin

First, I'm about one for two in spelling your name correctly. I try to spell everybody's correctly, but some are harder to remember than others.

Second, here's an example: "At what age can you call out sin in another person...?" They're not hard to find I'm afraid.

With that, I am...
Peter

[dustin germain]

Peter, first of all, that doesn't speak to the accusation that I make it a mission or that i major on it and make that my commission anymore than me saying "where's a good burger joint" means i'm majoring on eating food at the exclusion of other activities. anyway, there are very practical implications of that question.

ie-
Can a pastor address a teens aberrant theology at youth group?

If i'm at a small group and I hear a 20 year old guy spouting heresy, can I approach him without asking his parents permission?

If I have a 16 year old son, can he correct his friend and tell him that his beliefs are false, or does he have to go through his friends father? Can he tell his friend that his father is going to hell unless he believes in Jesus? etc.

If I'm on the streets open air preaching or doing abolitionist work and some Christian teens start disagreeing with me and saying that a woman has a right to choose, can I point out how that is inconsistent with their profession of faith and start discussing their salvation?

by the way some people here have spoken, you would think the answer is a resounding "no" to all these things.

[peter lumpkins]

By the way Dustin, please don't bother with your question here until you find out your answer on your own site. Consider:

--Dustin: "At what age can you call out sin in another person [not caner's kid, but any young man in general?] Is 18 the magic number? 21? When do I not have to go to their father, or mother, but rather can address someone directly?"

--JD Hall: "I shouldn’t have interacted with the boy those couple times once the original tweet was made."

What a Double Georgia Hoot!

[peter lumpkins]

Once again you are blinded to your own words. For you, Christian engagement is all about correction. Without exception every supposition you offered focused on correction. Jesus focused on proclamation. And while there may be some overlap between the two at times, if I have to argue the clear distinction between correcting on one hand and proclaiming on the other, game over, Dustin. You're wasting your time here (By the way, your entire comment is just another example you seek).

Nor did the exchange JD had with a 15 year old boy come across as loving him or reaching out to him. The tweets were definitively worded to hurt not to heal or encourage or help.

Let me be clear: were you to come around my grandchildren with your egotistical extremist legalism nonsense on "correcting" their behavior or belief, I'd literally pick you up by your shirt collar and escort you out of my house or church. Stay away from my kids would be the message you'd get very clearly. And if you continued, I'd call the police who would undoubtedly take my side.

You guys actually are scary. You come across to parents and grandparents as stalkers. Think Westboro Baptist Church...

Sheeesh...

[Joshautry]

This whole thing seems silly. In what world does speak the truth in love translate into, "Hey, everybody, look at this sinner I've found."

[Lydia]

"Lydia, that doesn't answer the question. Clearly there will be different scenarios, but across the swath of them, assuming a mix of having a relationship with them and not really having one with them to not having one with them, how old do they have to be before you can approach them without their parents permission?"

Well, those "different scenerios" are mighty important when it comes to this issue.

Your question is a whole other topic. Perhaps within a church venue the situation is a tad different depending on the relationship with the parents or the teen. In fact, I tell my teen's mentors/teachers at church/school to tell me if they see anything I should know. I have had that attitude since nursery. And one reason I have fewer problems. :o) I was raised like that and could get by with NOTHING. Hee Hee.

But a person who does not know my kid at all and even has a vendetta against me trying to win my teen over to them? There would be SERIOUS problems and frankly I would shut it down so fast it would make their head swim. I would not only think that person a predator of sorts but might even consider some legal action if need be. If only to keep other teens safe from him in the future.

There is something seriously wrong with a grown man trolling the twitter of a teen whose dad he hates to not only call out what he thinks is his sin but to try and turn him against his own father. If you cannot see that, there is nothing more to discuss. You have some of the same problems and trying to deflect the issue with silly questions that you SHOULD understand is about "relationship" not "calling sin out" of teens whose father you despise is a waste of time.

What JD did was not only creepy but calls into serious question his wisdom and discernment as a "pastor". Of course instead of learning from it, he will simply find another way to attack those who dare mention this. But I am safe because he thinks I am Peter. :o)

[volfan007]

Peter,

This crowd does sound a whole lot like the Westboro Baptist Church crowd. Good gracious, to go after a man relentlessly, and then, to after his 15 yr old son????? And then, to try to justify this action???? SMH.

Peter, I'd be like you. If someone went after my children, or went after my wife, and tried to turn them against me....we'd have to have a little talk....and then, I would encourage my family and everyone else to just ignore someone, who would do such, terrible stuff like this.

David

[peter lumpkins]

"I am safe because he thinks I am Peter"

What pride I take in a spontaneous burst of laughter, Lydia.

Thank you!

To make this even more puzzling if not creepier than it already is, I'm told JD's little child was in the hospital and facing serious complications all the while daddy was interacting with and defending his exchange with a 15 year old. I'm telling you, the more we watch these guys and observe their actions/retaliations, behavior doesn't get any more wacky than this bunch of social media screwballs. Another prime example of moral ignorance passed off as "being biblical."

[Scott Shaver]

Dustin Germain keeps asking "what age" young men have to be before he can call out their sin.

More appropriate question is at what age does Dustin become mature enough to recognize that conviction of sin is not his work but that of the Holy Spirit?

[Patrick]

"Dustin Germain keeps asking "what age" young men have to be before he can call out their sin.

More appropriate question is at what age does Dustin become mature enough to recognize that conviction of sin is not his work but that of the Holy Spirit?"

That is an absolutely fantastic question, Scott!

[peter lumpkins]

Scott,

Yes, and Dustin's own mentor, JD Hall, says in his so-called apology, "I shouldn’t have interacted with the boy those couple times once the original tweet was made." But, why, JD, why? As Dustin indicates, there's no 'chapter-verse' to tell you you can't converse-n-correct a teenager. Why shouldn’t you? If it's morally right, why apologize? Again, these guys possess so little sense of moral maturity they have no business trying to correct anybody much less a 15 year old stranger...

[peter lumpkins]

Hi Patrick. Back to offer your occasional reflection on how we all here--well, mostly me, of course--are so ridiculously mentally challenged, we can't seem to offer a sober thought?

Yep. Recording our outrage about teen stalkers qualifies quite nicely, I'd say.

What a Georgia hoot!

[Joshua David Kelso]

Hi Peter,

So in your opinion, is it right or wrong to publicly correct the unchristlike behaviour of a Christian leader?

And if their apology fails to address the core issues of their unChristlike behaviour, is it ok to continue to speak against them publicly?

[Patrick]

"Hi Patrick. Back to offer your occasional reflection on how we all here--well, mostly me, of course--are so ridiculously mentally challenged, we can't seem to offer a sober thought?

Yep. Recording our outrage about teen stalkers qualifies quite nicely, I'd say.

What a Georgia hoot!"

Nothing like paying a compliment to an insightful question presented by Scott, only to be met with a snarky response by you!

[peter lumpkins]

Please, Patrick. All one has to do is look at your history of contributions here. To my recollection, you've NEVER logged a "compliment" to anything here written--with the exception, of course, to another's high-powered insult toward this site (i.e. me). I'll be glad to post a link to all your comments if you like so people can make up their own mind as to whether you were paying Scott a "compliment" or being entirely facetious. Then, they might just more fairly judge if my response to you was "snarky."

With that, I am...
Peter

[Patrick]

You're welcome to think what you wish, but I found Scott's question to be an excellent one, and one that Dustin and JD should seriously contemplate (preferrably before they open their mouths again related to this issue).

[peter lumpkins]

Joshua,

What exactly does publicly correcting the unchristlike behavior of a Christian leader have to do with this thread? You had it correct earlier in the exchange above:

"...despite the kid and his girlfriend's questionable level of modesty, that's solely an issue for their pastor or parent to raise in private, not fair game for an enemy of his parent to use as a smear. Hall is clearly in the wrong here, woefully so" (embolden added)

[peter lumpkins]

Patrick,

Like I said, your contributions here in toto have all heretofore been little more than cynical at best. So yes, your track record pushed me into concluding your being facetious.

On the other hand, since you're insisting you were entirely serious not facetious, I accept it. My deepest apologies to you for making the snarky remark I concluded. I'm very sorry. Please forgive.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Joshua David Kelso]

"Joshua,

What exactly does publicly correcting the unchristlike behavior of a Christian leader have to do with this thread?"

This:

"In January, the Twitter nastiness became so bad, I started a little site entitled Twitter and the Truth. I gave then the reason for the site: "Twitter and the Truth is a special page and the purpose is simple: to address the gross moral ignorance and unsurpassed nonsense of social media abusers.""

[peter lumpkins]

Joshua

Have a great day.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Joshua David Kelso]

You too Peter :0)

Josh

[Scott Shaver]

In this day of instant messaging and cyber misinterpretations I would encourage all folks, especially self-righteous public preacher types (if shoe fits)to exercise the utmost in restraint from public statements of human judgement passed in the name of God if for no other reason than this:

"Thou shalt not take the name of The Lord, thy God in vain"

Wonder how many nonbelievers in cyberspace already think "God" is a low-budget version of Nancy Grace?

Human stupidity will speak for itself. Seldom reason, under the light of the Holy Spirit, to speak against it. God in Christ already has.

"Even a fool is esteemed wise when he shuts his lips"

[Joeseph]

How can one preach the Gospel without pointing out the sin? Honest question. Please no one explode on me.

[Mary]

If you have to ask the question "how old is old enough for me to start attacking strangers under the guise of "lovingly confronting their sin" because you really want to know the answer to that question then you are simply not qualified for any position of ministry.

If you are only asking the question "how old is old enough before I can start attacking strangers under the guise of "lovingly confronting their sin" because you think you're playing a game of gotcha then you are simply not qualified for any position of ministry.

This whole incident has revealed very clearly the motivations of Caner haters - those motivation are not anything to do with God.

[Lydia]

"How can one preach the Gospel without pointing out the sin? Honest question. Please no one explode on me."

How does that question relate to the blog article? Are you implying JD was "preaching the Gospel" to Caner's 15 yr old son on twitter?

[Andrew Barker]

Joseph: How can one preach the Gospel without pointing out the sin? Honest question. Please no one explode on me.

I guess the answer is you can't, but it's not the main focus of preaching the gospel. It's the Holy Spirit who convicts of sin ..... not a preacher's persuasive argument!

[Scott Shaver]

Hey Joseph:

You repeat "The Gospel" as conveyed through God's Word then you get out of the way. The work of conviction never was yours to begin with. It's a spiritual dynamic prompted by the Holy Spirit.

And yes, the individual being convicted "willingly" responds resulting in effectual change by the power of God or "willingly" rejects the Holy Spirit resulting in further estrangement and aimless wandering.

This is the part Calvin NEVER got right.

[eric]

And yes, the individual being convicted "willingly" responds resulting in effectual change by the power of God or "willingly" rejects the Holy Spirit resulting in further estrangement and aimless wandering.

Greetings Scott,
When a person willingly responds to the Gospel, and is changed by the power of God. Does the power of God change that person after he has put faith in Christ?

So, I hear the gospel, I believe and put my faith and trust in Christ for the forgiveness of my sin, And then the "effectual change by the power of God" comes over me.

Am I converted (in faith) before the "effectual change by the power of God"

[Scott Shaver]

Am I converted (in faith) before the effectual change by the power of God? asks Eric.

Don't know ... you tell me since "I" is the subject.

"Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God."