Below is my response to Miller
===========================================
Dave, Once again, I am uninterested in whether you personally feel--or even this entire blog community feels--my post is the "nadir" of Baptist blogging, a “primer in bad Baptist Blogging” so much so, that I apologize to Danny Akin and SEBTS for my “public accusation.” I write the way I honestly view things and if that ticks you and others off, so be it. I am willing to live with it.
As for your analysis, it hardly bears out what my post communicated.
Allow me:
Dave: “He has every right to oppose Southeastern and its president.” Excuse me, what do you mean by “oppose SEBTS and its president”? To my recollection I’ve mainly opposed two issues which unfortunately SEBTS has been the center—Driscoll (from whom the alcohol issue has mainly spawned) and some of the GCR agenda, which has been spearheaded by SEBTS and D. Akin. To suggest I oppose either Akin personally or SEBTS as an entity is patently absurd. I’m presently reviewing a book by SEBTS’s dean, an exciting book which is an original contribution to Baptist theology, or does that not count on the other half of your ledger, Dave? It is simply unfair to frame me as being opposed to SEBTS and its president because I’ve expressed differences with both, just like it would have been totally unfair to you were I name you “opposed to the SBC” because of this difference or that you’ve expressed.
Dave:”He does not have the right to raise the specter of a scandal that even he admits there is NO EVIDENCE for. It is just not right.” In this I totally agree. What I as vehemently deny is what I have written is a “scandal” for which I “even admit there is no evidence.” I admitted no evidence? Could you please state where I admitted no evidence for the point of my piece?
Dave: I would make one note – Peter wonders if the SEBTS student body is “a bit more corinthianistic than they would like?”…I think he chose the wrong word to convey the idea that SEBTS might have a lot of alcohol flowing. He misuses the word. but I don’t think he is implying that there is sexual immorality rampant at the school.” You’re right in the latter phrase—I didn’t imply rampant sexual immorality. Unfortunately, your incorrect about a) my choosing the wrong word—I not only chose the word I wanted, I sorta cheated and made up the word; b) I haven’t a clue where you got “the word ‘to corinthianize’ is based on a Greek word…” Even so, I didn’t use “to corinthianize” and I doubt you found “to corinthianize” in your nearest lexicon. But I stand to be corrected on that. But even if I am incorrect about that, the basic point I’d glean—if you’re wanting to argue linguistics, Dave—is that “to live as at Corinth” was a sort of ancient proverb indicating a morally loose life overall. In other words, it carried the idea of profligate indulgence on any number of behaviors including sexual but not excluding imbibing; c) For the kicker, I was really playing around with Dr. Akin’s worthy paper title, “…The Corinthian Matrix” (emphasis added), in which he applied the ‘corithianistic’ practice of boozin it up. I hope that helps on this little side note.
Dave: I challenged him in a comment, and his answer was the kind of defense that could have made Johnny Cochran proud, parsing words and meanings.” So, your response to mine is to belittle it? To disprove it by associating it with a popularly perceived public huckster who gets a murderer off the hook? To dud it mere parsing? Now that’s the example of good exchange, Dave, I’ve been looking for ;^)
Dave: Look at the sections I highlighted above in Peter’s quotes. Does that constitute an accusation? He admits he has no evidence, but he uses insinuation to effectively accuse SEBTS of being an alcohol haven. Yes, he couched his accusation in the speculative, but it was an accusation and I think he is disingenuous to deny it.” a) First, let’s deal with the “he admits he has no evidence” chorus you’ve now sung twice. I immediately recall Ronald Reagan’s famous line, “Now there you go again.” Unless, Dave, you have some hint where I “admitted no evidence” I’m not sure who you’re trying to convince; b) you wrongly assert the accusation—even assuming an accusation actually exists—rises to the heights of “an alcohol haven,” or above, a “scandal.” Look again at the words you yourself high-lighted for emphasis, Dave--“a crisis where students are, shall we say, a bit more corinthianistic than they would like?” Why do these words necessarily imply an “alcohol haven” toward the whole school, Dave? “A bit more than they would like” is supposed to deduce to a “rampant alcohol problem at Southeastern”? Not in my view of things. “A bit more than they would like” could very well, however, call for a double-barrel post on abstinence on their blog, and pose a problem that very well needs addressing. Again, note your own underlining of my words, Dave: ”would it be surprising if a crisis were brewing amongst the student-body? Not from my side of the creek.” Here what you interpret as a “alcohol haven” and ““rampant alcohol problem at Southeastern” I only alluded to as possible crisis in the making, perhaps a crisis brewing. Again, from the very words you emphasized, you simply over-stretched to your own conclusion concerning what I either intended or the words themselves actually imply. Nonetheless, you boldly pronounce my careful wording as disingenuous parsing, nothing less than a dishonest display of hucksterism (AKA, a Johnny Cochran type).
Dave: If I said, “Could it be that Bob Smith has a pornography addiction? I don’t know.” Do you think Bob Smith would appreciate that I couched my accusation in speculation? That distinction wouldn’t mean much to the man accused.” It’s really embarrassing to respond to this, but here goes. You’re simply begging the question, Dave. You’re assuming an accusation is present in your very response. So, it doesn’t mean very much—at least to me. In addition, supposing we just out of the blue said or asked, “Could it be so and so is addicted?” with no framing whatsoever, no recording of any history whatsoever, etc etc, perhaps you may have a point. Happily for me, that is just not the case. I carefully mentioned several scenarios in my post which, in my way of thinking, opens the door wide open for a crisis to take place, the scenarios of which you ignored in your underlining of my words. As an example, I wrote of a SEBTS faculty member publicly and explicitly affirming, “alcohol is a good thing in moderation”; I mentioned openly beer-drinking pastors being held up as moral leaders and spiritual giants at SEBTS; I mentioned the bashing of abstinence-oriented believers as “pharisical legalists” who impugn the sufficient of Scripture; I mentioned making imbibing alcohol into a 3rd tier issue over which no one should divide, even making it into virtually an amoral issue, an issue of Christian liberty. Those are just some I recall mentioning as a backdrop for the “could it be” you so quickly underlined.
Now you are welcome to dispute as actual evidence, but please refrain from asserting I offered no evidence, and by all means refrain from I admitted no evidence. Neither corresponds to my words, Dave. Neither.
Now, here’s where your entire concern drains slowly away, Dave. Contrary to your wrong-headed assertion, I offered, at the juncture you cite, neither speculation nor accusation. I was employing what I thought and will continue to think is coherent reasoning. For me, it's as simple as If A, then B. If A is the case, then we should not at all be surprised if B follows. In point of fact, B necessarily follows according to the canons of logic, if A is accepted. Hence, that is not inaccurate speculation; rather that's coherent thinking. And, please, understand: I concede we may disagree about whether A is or is not. But what you have done, Dave, is completely ignore A, as if I had no A, and gone to the extreme with B.
Worked out, it looks like this in one of my closing statements: [A]“When one makes the consumption of intoxicants for pleasurable purposes, a consumption of which is widely accepted within our culture, into a mere unimportant, insignificant third-tier, non-gospel-centered, libertarian, amoral issue, [B] what under the blue sky do you think is going to happen?”
In other words, the only reason I suggested I'd not be surprised if B exists or follows (i.e. an imbibing crisis at SEBTS) is because I'm convinced A already exists (i.e. the weakening of the stance on imbibing alcohol many things of which I listed serve as examples) . From my standpoint, this is not speculation and it’s certainly not accusation. It’s B--what one would expect to find if A exists.
Finally, I will not apologize to either Dr. Akins nor SEBTS for employing what I sincerely believe to be sound reasoning. And, you may continue to proclaim at your leisure, Dave, I’m both disingenuous as well as the best example of the worst bloggers among Southern Baptists.
Sorry for the long post. I assure you, it will not happen often.
With that, I am…
Peter
========================================================
The Worst Kind of Baptist Blogging
by Dave Miller on October 15, 2010
I just posted on why I love blogging, and soon after posting, I was directed by a friend to Peter Lumpkins’ latest post, “Here Come Those Boozin’ [young, cool, and hip] Baptists: A Problem for Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary?“
Peter has written often criticizing Danny Akin and Southeastern Seminary. Nothing wrong with that. He has the right to his opinion, even if it differs from mine. And this post was typical of his criticisms of SEBTS. But, the last section of this post took blogging to a nadir. It is everything we shouldn’t be and do when we blog. It is irresponsible and sensationalistic.
Akin’s post argued for abstention from alcohol, but not from the prohibitionist perspective, which Peter holds to. Akin arrives at the same place as Lumpkins, but takes a different road to get there. While I do not agree with his analysis, it is legitimate debate, right up until the point where Peter writes:
Could it be…
Could it possibly be…
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary is facing a crisis…perhaps a crisis where students are, shall we say, a bit more corinthianistic than they would like?…
Is this possible? After all, when one of the faculty members rhetorically asks, over the cyberways, “Is alcohol a good thing? Sure! If it is taken in moderation,” would it be surprising if a crisis were brewing amongst the student-body? Not from my side of the creek.
Could it be, similar to Shurden’s, catchy phrase above, Southeastern is sounding the alarm: “Here come those boozin’ Baptists!”?
I don’t know.
I do know this.
When one makes the consumption of intoxicants for pleasurable purposes, a consumption of which is widely accepted within our culture, into a mere unimportant, insignificant third-tier, non-gospel-centered, libertarian, amoral issue, what under the blue sky do you think is going to happen? (highlights are mine)
He has every right to oppose Southeastern and its president. He does not have the right to raise the specter of a scandal that even he admits there is NO EVIDENCE for. It is just not right.
I would make one note – Peter wonders if the SEBTS student body is “a bit more corinthianistic than they would like?” The word “to corinthianize” is based on a Greek verb which meant “to practice sexual immorality.” I do not think that Peter means to imply that. I think he chose the wrong word to convey the idea that SEBTS might have a lot of alcohol flowing. He misuses the word, but I don’t think he is implying that there is sexual immorality rampant at the school.
I challenged him in a comment, and his answer was the kind of defense that could have made Johnny Cochran proud, parsing words and meanings.
He said:
In other words, you wrongly conclude I made an “accusation” on the issue you raised when I categorically did not. I stated some facts, asked why such and such, and then concluded it wouldn’t “be surprising if a crisis [concerning alcohol] were brewing [at SEBTS],” hardly an “accusation” as you call it. (again, highlights are mine)
Okay, you make the call. Look at the sections I highlighted above in Peter’s quotes. Does that constitute an accusation? He admits he has no evidence, but he uses insinuation to effectively accuse SEBTS of being an alcohol haven. Yes, he couched his accusation in the speculative, but it was an accusation and I think he is disingenuous to deny it.
If I said, “Could it be that Bob Smith has a pornography addiction? I don’t know.” Do you think Bob Smith would appreciate that I couched my accusation in speculation? That distinction wouldn’t mean much to the man accused. Does the fact that he added the words “I don’t know” at the end of the insinuation lessen the fact that it is an accusation?
Peter Lumpkins’ blog post is a primer in bad Baptist Blogging. I would renew my call to him to take it down and suggest he apologize to Danny Akin and SEBTS for making this kind of public accusation.
