« President Trump's promise to nominate a Supreme Court justice similar to Antonin Scalia | Main | JESSE MERCER & CYRUS WHITE »



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


iIt was way too vague. I suspected alt right was to mean anyone who voted for Trump but with plausible deniability that if one says that, it means they feel guilty. (That has been the favorite tactic coming out of the Neo Cal movement) They are not exactly known for their upfront honesty and lack of deception.

It was most certainly imbalanced on purpose considering the trajectory of violence all over the country from the left. That is too obvious to deny. It was most definitely the new political agendas from the Moore wing. I always find it strange they don't denounce Patriarchy while they are at it.

My first thought paralleled my reading of Mao's Cultural Revolution tactics. I see it all the time in politics but Baptists? One of the tactics was that the literates had to repent/confess/etc of being literate because it made the illiterates feel bad about themselves. Many literates were not even that literate but to be accepted they had to admit they were bad. Supposedly, that equalized everything. We all know how that worked out.

So, we have a situation where to be accepted one has to vote against something they don't believe they are guilty of or that automatically means they are guilty. Welcome to the SBC, comrades. Sort of reminds me of the Lutheran church of Germany in the early 30's.

My ultra radar senses suspect this was all to vindicate poor beleaguered Russ Moore. I can imagine the media optics he has lined up.

Kyle B. Gulledge

Amen, Peter! As usual you are dead on.
I was telling someone in Phoenix this past week, that " One of the most brilliant bloggers we have is Peter Lumpkins. The problem is, Peter doesn't blog as frequently as I wish."
I hope this is a restart of you getting back into it!


Btw, Shouldn't the Neo Cals root out the "Alt Right" in their churches and 9 Marks "church discipline" them? I will be watching for that.

Hope it's not a big donor. :)

pam knight

We always try to read everything you post and as usual you have once again hit the nail right on the head. Thanks for speaking out for all of us who can't write and depend on a "Like" & "Share" button :-)


For eight years we were told that President Obama was the smartest man ever to hold the Presidency, that he was the best at everything he did - speaking, writing, oration etc. The fact was that he simply repeated the same tripe over and over and his oration skills failed without the use of the teleprompter (reading off a teleprompter is an actual skill which our current president does nor possess and Obama did) but contrary to all the hype when you study Obama and all his speeches and spoken words there simply wasn't a whole lot of depth - no sign that he was very deeply read and as I stated just simply a lot of repetition in his speech. But no one could say that Barack Obama while certainly an intelligent man was not the absolute most bestest, smartest, brilliantist, articulatist, man ever in the history of mankind because RACIST! that's why.

So now in the SBC you have a man who has been petted and fawned over and told how great he is and oh thank you, thank you so much for blessing us with your wisdom oh great one. The truth is this man is not nearly as smart or wise as those groveling want everyone to believe. The truth is this man does not have a gift for writing. The truth is this man is actually a very divisive hateful man who seems to enjoy making all the white boys jump through his hoops declaring how they are so not racist because they love him and have learned so much from him. You can't learn a thing about racism from the race hustlers. You will never jump through enough hoops and never apologize enough to appease this type of man. Never ever ever. If you think you're learning about racism from this type of person than you need to get out more.

Some people in the SBC are starting to recognize the hustle for what it is. Not because they're racist but because they realize it's fruitless to engage these types of people on anything because everything is racism without end.

And for the record the actual racists are the people who grovel to a black man by refusing to tell him the truth which is no you really are not gifted at writing and your motion was an inflammatory, poorly written mess. That's racism when you won't offer even constructive criticism to a black man because he's black.


A few things for those interested

This is a facebook post from a Vaderbilt PolySci/Law Professor who also happens to be an AA woman. Maybe she knows a thing or two about racism.


The SBC has apologized for slavery two or three times. How many black Baptists have accepted the SBC’s apologies? In the current controversy, SBC leaders who accepted the politically-inspired resolution became the peacemakers. There is nothing righteous or holy about extortion. Black pastors should leave their partisan politics at home. It would be far more important for them to focus on teaching their congregants about how to live biblical lifestyles. Phoenix was about politics. Jesus and the Gospel had nothing to do with the extortion and demand for the organization to denounce white supremacy. Black supremacy and extortion was what was on display. The SBC leaders who accepted the political resolution become the peacemakers. I am glad these leaders modeled godly behavior by turning the other cheek.. Those who fanned the flames of discord and those who acted as enablers should be ashamed of themselves. What happened at the convention was wrong, evil, and mean-spirited, It was designed to feed the media’s taste for drama. It hurt Christians and it created more ill-feelings in the nation. #SBC #Baptistconvention

Infogalatic is supposed to be the right's alternative to Wikepedia. I've given the link to it's definition of the Alt right but it might be a source to check against wikepedia when you want a more rightward thought.


And Vox Day who has a real name you can google. He is an Alt-right leader. But understand the "alt-right" isn't as identifiable as some would have you believe. Yes there are white supremacists who identify as alt=right but it's not actually all about racism for a lot of the movement.



"We peed on Liberals and Moderates."

True. As a Moderate I say "Thanks for acknowledging it."

And welcome back!


"Some people in the SBC are starting to recognize the hustle for what it is. Not because they're racist but because they realize it's fruitless to engage these types of people on anything because everything is racism without end."

It IS fruitless. The left? It's like talking to middle schoolers. But their biggest problems start when people don't even want discourse with these mantra spouting censoring/insulting types anymore. They vote with their wallets and feet.


This resolution was about more than racism and the alt right. It's about tarring the entire Republican party with racism. Racist vote R. The Alt Right votes R. White Supremacists vote R. Why do all these evil people vote R? Must be because Republicans are racist as a party. Notice there is never any defense of conservative economic ideology when anyone makes statements that D's are better for AA community with regards to the safety net etc. It's just a given that R's must hate poor people and only care about rich people and the only reason any Christian can have to vote R is abortion and gay marriage. You can't have a discussion that Democrat policies have failed, are failing and will continue to fail because you're a racist if you try to point out facts. Only feelings actually matter and only the feelings of certain people. There is a movement in the SBC to shame people into voting D because only D's care about poor people, old people, children, police hunting black men, saving the planet from global warming and whatever the cause de jour. Republicans are "killing" people with their policies so what's the big deal with abortion?

The alt right is simply a new boogie man because calling everybody racist has stopped working. Used to be you could accuse someone of racism and shut down a discussion. Now you call people racist and they're more likely to say "yeah everybody is let's get back on track here."

One thing this resolution has done is to make pretty much all future resolutions on racism meaningless. Any future committee who gets a racism resolution will send it out to vote and the messengers will dutifully cast an annual "Yes, the SBC is not racist" vote. And the world just laughs because they look at it as "thou doest protest too much!"

Jesse Lott

Looking in from the outside you have a more accurate view than many who were right there in the building. You are spot on! A resolution condemning BLM would have been more appropriate. This one man's agenda, and he was was determined to get his resolution. And he got it, and the SBC is not the better for it.

peter lumpkins

Thanks for the feed back y'all. Check out Joe Carter's explanation of "alt-right" --http://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/what-christians-should-know-about-the-alt-right

Here's the WP piece upon which Carter depended. Are we supposed to just take Carter at his word? Does ERLC not believe in research and offering reputable sources so the reader may dig deeper?


The ERLC defines for you. No independent critical thinking allowed to be in the club.


"This resolution was about more than racism and the alt right."

I think it was push-back against ALL of the hatred that mimics 'religious freedom' in certain circles where ANY push-back is seen as 'religious persecution'.

The SBC squeaked out of a real mess. If there hadn't been push-back, the reputation of the SBC would have been zilch.


The "reputation" of the SBC is already zilch with those who think Christian business owners should be forced to participate in gay weddings or lose their livelyhoods and with those who think that salvation can be found in any and all faiths and not in Christ alone. Some people such as Bernie Sanders call it hate to believe that those who reject Christ as damned is hateful. Jesus was hateful according to Bernie because He stated very clearly "no one comes to the Father but by me." Better to be hated by the world than to go down this road of tickling ears.

peter lumpkins

If yall haven't, take a look at Nathan Finn' s rebuke of some (don't who) critics of the process of Resolution #10. I agree with some of his commentary. But, a) Finn fully ignores both the awkward and aberrant political process in the way Resolution #10 was passed; b) Finn best not push his if-you-were-not-there-then-you-have-no-business-commenting-on-something-you're-ignorant-about point he repeats over and over again. That's an entirely strange point for a trained historian like Finn to make. We "were not there" when Lincoln was assinated. We "were not there" when Pearl Harbor was bombed. We "were not there" when the SBC was formed. Does it follow we have no viable perspective --perhaps even accurate perspective--to offer?

peter lumpkins

Sorry. Here's the link to Finn's piece:



"If there hadn't been push-back, the reputation of the SBC would have been zilch."

With whom?


I guess I ask the above because I do not understand why people are so impressed with meaningless words and cheap gestures as if they have actually accomplished something great for society. As if one "says" the right words, Cultural PC phrases and platitudes (comrades) they are automatically a person in good standing. Worse, the people who go along think it makes them good. It's a sign of how shallow and vacuous our society has become.

Wouldn't it make more sense to hold people accountable for breaking the law? Why all the thought policing with vague targets? Be bold. Name names.


'meaningless words', 'cheap gestures', PC phrases, platitudes, 'shallow', 'vacuous'

goodness mercy, LYDIA

your vocab. arsenal could use some refurbishing .....
(even if you didn't put your name to that comment, people would still know who wrote it :)



how do you feel about the SBC/alt-right brouhaha ?


Feelings are not facts.



You and I have obviously had a number of disagreements over the years. However, I want to commend you for an excellent posting here (and not simply because I happen to agree with you). Your thoughtful analysis on the issue is appreciated.


peter lumpkins

Hi Patrick. Yes, we have disagreed many times. And with you I'm surely glad we've found a center on this one. Thanks. Lord bless...

P.S. Who knows? Perhaps we will find others if we try! ;^)

peter lumpkins


Thank you for the question. I'm conflicted about the "alt-right," who supposedly makes up the "movement," how influential it is, and how and/or why Southern Baptists have entered the debate so quickly about it. I'm concerned we've already gone "on record" (via Resolution #10) absolutely opposing--not to mention abhorring--something or someone with, at least thus far, so minimal an impact of the social cohesion in our culture as the so-called "alt-right" is. Of course, we all condemn without qualification racism and blatant white supremacy; but it's far from demonstrated being "alt-right" morally and necessarily implies either as Resolution #10 appears to suggest. What I am fairly confident about is, the passing of Resolution #10 reveals manipulative politics at work moreso than moral principle at stake.

Presently, as my time is very limited (due to a major research project I'm knee-deep into), I'm reading a few primary sources written not by those whom the media has labelled "alt-right." According to one "alt-righter," the media routinely mistags (intentionally or unintentionally) as "alt-right" many who are mainstream Conservative and definitely not "alt-right" (Who's surprised!).

Rather I'm more interested in reading those who self-identify as "alt-right," those like Richard Spencer, Jared Taylor, and some others (see www.vdare.com/writers for a possibly good list of self-identified "alt-righters"). In fact, some of these guys (many younger guys it seems) detest mainstream conservatism and many others reject historic Christianity, similar to some social & political Libertarians. It's a socio-political motley crew!

In the end, for my part, if the SBC wanted to go "on record" yet once again for its moral condemnation of racism, it would have made much more moral sense to explicitly define the racism they're talking about, and then condemn that racism in any shape, form, or fashion present within and advocated by any and all ethnicity groups rather than to confusingly convolute racism with the "alt-right," a hardly-known and vaguely defined socio-political group that apparently is almost fully limited in exposure and influence to social media and not embedded within the culture at large.

Hope that helps Christiane. Lord bless...


"Where is the E.Y. Mullins? The George W. Truett? The Adrian Rogers?"

In Heaven of course ... whether or not the New Calvinists want to put them there.

It's increasing clear that the "Conservative Resurgence" had a "Calvinist Resurgence" working in the background. Well, thanks to some smooth theo-political maneuvering, SBC's New Calvinists are now on stage and must appear to be taking the high road on unity, alt-right, etc. But their real agenda is clear to those who have been watching the movement emerge over the past 10+ years. If the new reformers want us to stop with conspiracy theories, they need to stop giving us so much evidence!

(Peter, glad to hear you back on the radio again. Take care.)


Thank you for your response, Peter. It did help.


My understanding of 'alt-right' is that it is not just limited to 'racism', no.
Apparently, it has been associated with Bartbreit and with Steve Bannon in certain ways before the white supremecists embraced the term.

So it would be interesting to look at the hallmarks of ideas presented via Breitbart and Steve Bannon and see what more is emphasized by the term 'alt-right' as it was originally developed. I agree that 'white supremecism' is not all in all with the 'alt right', no. There is much more to look at and evaluate.

The comments to this entry are closed.