Here is it, folks.
You can watch the entire exchange and make your minds up.
Fair warning, emotions are running high on this issue. This site will not be hosting a “bash-a-thon” for either participant in this exchange.
Let’s deal with the content of the discussion (well, the question and the answer.)
Dave, I was going to take issue with you for some of your words above. When you say, “Here is it, folks.” I wonder what exactly you mean by “it” and “folks.” If you are referring to Mohler’s response isn’t calling the response an “it” a little disrespectful? Of course, I “can” watch the exchange. I think you mean “may” watch the exchange. How can anyone know what yo mean when you use words in such an unclear manner? As for the “fair warning” is there a such thing as an “unfair warning?” C’mon, Dave is that really fair? “Let’s… Read more »
lol- that was awesome.
I have to admit, this kinda confused me until I saw the comment about parsing words on the other post.
This is one of those things that only the Baptist blogosphere could over blow this bad…
You got the dudes acting as if Mohler triumphed over a great enemy of the Kingdom and you have the people that act as if they cant figure out Mohlers position on homosexuality. While Lumpkins might not have had pure motives(probably didnt) and while Mohler might have painted with too broad of a brush(probably did)- this whole thing is stupid. Both sides seem pathetic, in my opinion…
Let’s move on SBCers- there are much more important things out there.
Matt, I agree… not much to see here… let’s move one.
From Mohler’s response, it sure seems he believes this to be an important discussion that deserves more attention not less, not a “move on” mindset. Aside from some bickering, there have been some folks having a serious dialogue. Dave was the first person to do so with his comments about there being at least some division re: homosexuality among SBCers. It’s clearly settled that the SBC including Mohler believes same-sex behavior to be sin. Mohler has certainly never failed to make that clear. If Mohler’s remarks have any implications (and I think they clearly do), then one worthy of discussion… Read more »
BDW – in my mind at least, overblown is focused on the “Mohler-Lumpkins” confrontation, not the issues themselves.
I agree about that.
Yes, I was saying move on from the confrontation with Mohler-Lumpkins… Certainly not the issue itself.
I commented on the last post that “lied” and “homophobia” were the only objections I had, and my objections were not with the explanations that Mohler gave, but with his use of those terms. With his longer explanation (I did not read the original article), I understood what he meant. But I still think that “lied” and “homophobia” are not the appropriate words to use in describing what Mohler was talking about.
The great thing about the SBC is that someone like Al Mohler is not above answering question from someone like Peter Lumpkins.
The tragic thing about the SBC is that someone like Peter Lumpkins thinks he is Al Mohler’s peer in some way.
That video looks like the death throws of the old school of SBC politics. Let’s hope that’s what it turns out to be.
Frank,
Those are some very “insightful” observations. 🙂
Peers? He’s the head of an SBC agency, not Lord Albert of Louisville. This is precisely the time and place to raise a concern about the viewpoint of an agency head, if you’ve got a concern. The “Convention” is Dr. Mohler’s peer, and messengers have the right to ask about the direction of their agencies.
I didn’t think the question, or the response were unusual for an SBC meeting. Is anyone really scandalized by this level of public disagreement? No effective organization seizes up when “the little people” asking tough questions of leaders.
Open letter???
Peter Lumpkins is Al Mohler’s peer as (1) a brother in Christ, (2) a fellow Southern Baptist, and (3) a duly elected messenger whose vote counts just as much as Mohler’s, not to mention a soul made in Christ’s image for whom Jesus died.
What do we possibly gain in terms of gospel truthfulness by creating a system where Peter and Al are not peers?
“Peter Lumpkins is Al Mohler’s peer as (1) a brother in Christ, (2) a fellow Southern Baptist, and (3) a duly elected messenger whose vote counts just as much as Mohler’s, not to mention a soul made in Christ’s image for whom Jesus died.” Yes! And Mohler is also an employee of the SBC. By reminding folks of that, I am not siding with Peter. But as some have pointed out this whole situation runs deeper than just the exchange on the floor. I am still wondering who the homophobes and liars are. How can someone make such a vague… Read more »
Frank:
The only thing about now versus another time in the SBC is that here we have two brothers who basically agree on this issue, and the debate is on the margins.
In other religious denominations where this stuff is discussed, and in previous SBC days, (and similar issues like views of biblical inspiration and doctrinal issues) there is, and was, a lot of dishonest dialogue that is often smoked out by a confrontational question.
In this situation there is no “there” there.
Agreed, Matt. This is perhaps the most overblown thing ever. Peter asked a question – granted, a little prosecutorial in tone, but a legitimate question.
Mohler gave a biblical answer. You don’t have to agree with everything in the answer, but it was based in scriptural interpretations and gospel applications.
Personally, I think Mohler was 100% biblical. But that’s just me.
Dave:
You said:”Agreed, Matt. This is perhaps the most overblown thing ever. Peter asked a question – granted, a little prosecutorial in tone, but a legitimate question.
Mohler gave a biblical answer. You don’t have to agree with everything in the answer, but it was based in scriptural interpretations and gospel applications.
Personally, I think Mohler was 100% biblical. But that’s just me.”
Then what in the world is going on in your opinion, as this exchange and dialogue is all over the place?
Two things:
1) Peter Lumpkins is a polarizing and controversial figure. (As, for that matter, is Mohler).
2) Homosexuality is the key moral issue of our day.
Dave:
Thanks. I believe you are on to something with the two items you listed.
Funny, I’ve never had him described as polarizing.
Dave, I think the issue is found in your words, “a little prosecutorial in tone.” Simply inserting words like grace, brother, blessings, etc. does not absolve one’s words from being overall prosecutorial which has been a problem in blogging.
The problem now faced with this issue is that no matter how legitimate the questions may be they seem to be out of a “gotcha” perspective rather than a “brother help me understand” perspective. It’s as if some of Mohler’s accusers are not even trying to understand his position or atleast give him some grace.
Matt —
Let me know if you honestly think that the SBC’s track record in delivering the Gospel to homosexuals is even a 3 on a scale of 1 to 10 (with 10 being best case).
You didn’t ask me, but that has never stopped me from letting my opinion be known.
1) As to homosexuality, we have done well at holding to the biblical truth that homosexuality is a sin.
2) As to homosexuals, we have done a POOR job of ministering to those trapped in this sin – 3 would be a generous number there.
Frank, is this a good time to bring up the eight year Disney boycott in reply?
Anything that gives me an excuse not to go to Disney is a good thing.
Frank,
I would put it at a 1.5. 🙂
I personally agree with every word Mohler said… I’ve actually read most of those 200 articles he has written on the issue and I dont know one thing I disagree with.
While SBCers/evangelicals have delivered the gospel to homosexuals in an exceedingly poor manner- I do understand why some of his statements(the broad brushing) are getting this much attention.
Here’s my question: Did Mohler have some idea this question was coming?
His answer was unbelievably erudite. I know he’s smart, but if that was off the cuff, wow.
I think a few years of radio help you be able to think on your feet like that. Plus it’s an issue in which he’s incredibly well-versed. It was like a hanging curve ball.
I was going to say the same thing Brent! When I used to listen to his radio show he dropped bombs like this quite often! Especially on Wedesdays(ask anything)!!!
I still miss “Ask Anything Wednesdays”…
Squirrel
DAVID, in order to make the original statements that Peter wanted confirmed and clarified, Dr. Mohler must have been deeply convicted from the sacred writings . . . note that he speaks of 1 Cor. 6 . . . ‘ but such were some of you . . . but you were washed ‘; and Dr. Mohler calls on the Church of today to have a place for those who can also say ‘ I once was THAT’ . . . I think Dr. Mohler was deeply convicted in order to give that impassioned response. The ‘spirit’ of his words… Read more »
I believe Peter told him that if he didn’t answer the questions posted on his (Peter’s) blog, that he would raise them on the convention floor. It may be that Mohler does not read Peter’s blog but I believe Peter also tried to question him directly. So he knew this might be coming.
I’ve seen Dr. Mohler in many settings and he seems prepared for any and every question. Amazing to say the least.
I have a friend who worked on Mohler’s radio show for a short time. He told me that as soon as Mohler began asking the question the soundtrack to his radio show began playing in his head. What he was suggesting was that he had heard Mohler answer questions like this off the cuff dozens of times during his time at the show. It was nothing new. It very well could be that Mohler knew the question was coming, but I am doubtful that he had to craft a preliminary response in his head. Any guy who’s read 40,000 books… Read more »
Here’s the thing about the exchange in my view—especially now that Lumpkins is playing the victim. The whole “I’m just asking a question….” bit really won’t fly. Lumpkins clearly thinks he’s caught Mohler in a quote that would make most Southern Baptists gasp. In fact, it’s so unbelievable for someone whose “normal, clear articulation” on “socio-ehtical issues” that Lumpkins graciously gives Mohler the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t actually say those words! (How gracious of Peter.) Read some excerpts: “He cites you, Dr. Mother, as… your words… as evidence…” “Merritt quotes words he alleges you spoke in an… Read more »
Brent,
Exactly!!!
P-Lump intended to start a firestorm of controversy for Dr. Mohler… but only managed to burn himself.
I think the idea was to catch a little fish and they think they’ve now caught a big fish. I think Peter and co were certain that Mohler would throw Merritt under the bus. He did not, and now they think, inexplicably, that Mohler threw himself under the bus. I understand the kick back at the word “lied”. But we have all used the “royal we” at times when trying to make a general point. I just did it in that sentence. Mohler’s critics have also used the “royal we” any number of times, so kicking at that seems pretty… Read more »
Frankly, I get tired of Peter making accusations with no accountability. This time, he put himself out there in public, and was answered in such a way to eradicate his accusation. This is why I’ve pointed to it on my blog. I just grow tired of Lumpkins saying whatever he wants about whoever he wants without anyone responding. Mohler responded, and left little room for doubt in my mind. Peter however is skewing Mohler’s words as much as possible though. I agree with Dave and Mohler though, 100%.
Jared,
I agree… No one skews words more than Lumpkins. I know he is a smart guy, which is why it is funn when his obvious skewing of words makes himself look like a moron at times.
His tactics are exactly what make him and Mohler NOT peers on many levels.
Matt, the biggest thing that bothers is me is that those who support Peter, support him to the death. They don’t call him on his skewing, but instead respond in approval. It blows my mind. If a Calvinist southern baptist used the same tactics as Peter, I’d call him on it, regardless how good his content was.
Agree 100%. Im always in amazement when people come and defend his obvious skewing… Just reminds us that many people dont care about truth as much as they care about their agenda.
Hummmmm…same thing could be said about a lot of people defending calvinist guru’s and anyone else who goes along with what they believe….ie, Mohler, Ascol, Nettles, etc., etc., etc…..
oh, the hypocrisy, or short sightedness….
Vol: That may be true of some, but not all. I for one am not at all a fan of Mohler the culture warrior. I also don’t appreciate him telling Christians how soon to marry and how many children to have. (yoga? Good grief)
Vol,
Peter goes out of his way to character assassinate anyone who he wants.
During the Caner fiasco, he turned it into a crusade against James White.
It’s not uncommon for dissenting posts to find themselves deleted, especially if they bring things commonly known as facts or reasoning or logic.
He only attacks. He’s not interested in debate or discussion. He attacks.
Well, Mohler launched back with a well-reasoned, well presented “defense” which would be the first round of discussion between most people. Judging from Lumpkins’ blog since, he attacks yet again.
Lumpkins’ has no interest in having a discussion.
Vol,
When someone skews they skew. Blanket statements like yours are unhelpful. If you have a specific instance of one of those people being defended to the grave by someone on here, then by all means post it.
Vague generalizations tend to be all you have, though.
Oh, the irony…
Vol: I have been a critic of Al Mohler’s for the same reasons that Bill has given plus a few more. But on this I am in full agreement. He said it well.
And when someone does call him out on the what he says, he does not allow their posts to go “public” on his blog as he moderates every post. And quickly after that, he bans you from posting. Thus the “no accountability” is oh so true in regards to Peter.
it is such a wonder so many people are either banned from his blog or are constantly threatened about their comments.
The comments following mine are laughable…. Do yall really believe what you’re saying? Or, is it just a debating tactic to try to win an arguement?
lol
Translation: I cannot answer the comments, so if I laugh them off maybe they will go away.
Is that a debating tactic? Avoidance?
No one is doing what you are accusing them of doing. Your vague attacks are meaningless. As I said, make a specific reference to prove what you are saying has happened. Shouldn’t be hard to do if this is happening all the time, right?
There are lots of things that are natural for me, inclinations I was born with, that are opposed to God and sinful. I think we don’t like the “biological” argument re: homosexuality because we think that means we must give homosexuality a pass. Well, I’m naturally inclined to shoot my mouth off with cutting remarks. I might even claim that I was born that way. But I make a huge mistake if I use that as an excuse to let myself off the hook. I’m still responsible and my “natural inclinations” are not excusable. Mohler was right that the gospel… Read more »
“When the church focuses more on issues that are predominantly matters of sinfulness outside the church and so consistently ignores (or at least minimizes) so many sinful issues within the church (consumerism, self-idolatry, selfishness, greed, adultery, etc.), we’ve lost our way.”
Great answer. I’m not sure I could agree more or put it more succinctly.
My issues with Dr Mohlers point. 1. His contention that we as a Church have not done well with with dealing with this issue. Show me the facts do not make blanket statements not substantiated! Does he mean that we have failed because the homosexuals dont give us a group hug. I just disagree that we have failed in our outreach. I especially found this strange considering that Dr Mohler holds to the Reformed understanding of regeneration? 2.His contention that we have told not the truth but half the truth. Another word for that is a lie. Personal I do… Read more »
1. I think Mohler is speaking from a denominational perspective about doing a poor job (this was the annual meeting after all). The evidence doesn’t need to be supplied (boycott of Disney… anyone remember that). 2. Again, denomination, not individually, we (the SBC) have consistently let it be known that it is merely a sin of choice, period. We expect homosexuals to repent and THEN come to church… please don’t bring your ex-partner. That is the message we (corporately) project. 3. Homophobia is present when we boycott Disney rather than schedule our vacations to FL so that we can minister… Read more »
Greg,
You said, “Homophobia is present when we boycott Disney rather than schedule our vacations to FL so that we can minister to and love on the people who come during gay-pride day/week @ Disney.”
Sorry, I strongly disagree with that. You are not homophobic in the least if you chose not to take your family to a gay pride parade. You are welcome to do so with your family, but that in no way demonstrates who loves the lost and who doesn’t.
David R. Brumbelow
David, I’m sorry for my misleading statement; I shouldn’t have used the word “vacation” since that implies a relaxing family visit rather than a goal oriented mission trip. My oldest child understands the human sexuality on a very basic level, but I’m not inclined to clue-in my 9yo yet. I mean that, when the SBC would see gay-pride day @ Disney as a threat rather than as an opportunity to show the love of Christ, then it is an expression of homophobia: being scared of gays and their agenda. As a tool of the political liberals in this country, there… Read more »
I’m just wondering how we are all doing so poorly on ministering to homosexuals. Are we then doing better with ministering to widows and orphans — which is a clear mandate in Scripture. How many resources should a church put into ministering to a 1% segment of society? What do homosexuals really need? There per capita income is among the highest in the land. Are homosexuals begging for help from the church that we are not giving? Or, is the primary complaint of the homosexual community that we as evangelicals keep calling their practice a “sin?” The more I think… Read more »
His point about homophobia wasn’t so much about what we’re doing to engage the homosexual community. His point was based on 1 Corinthians 6, where we actively and openly embrace those into our fellowship who can stand up and claim, “I once was but now I am washed…” and feel the love of the church even if they still struggle. The problem is (and Mohler’s point here was not that this is true of every church but it seems to be the general attitude of Southern Baptists) we talk (scream?) about the subject in such a way that those coming… Read more »
I don’t think he was talking about serving them physically when mentions ministry. I think he is talking about what they all need, which is the gospel. His remarks were nothing about serving them food or clothing. I totally believe Mohler was talking about us getting out there and sharing the gospel with them.
Good grief Frank. How plain do you want it? I’m sure you believe he was off base, I believe he was right on target. He is talking about Grace. Showing Grace as God showed his grace to us. It’s not difficult. And to say we(and I use the collective word we), have not done well in this. We are not going to get anywhere until we as a denomination humble ourselves and admit we have failed in this and other area by being militant to homosexuals. As militant as we say they are. To deny this is to deny the… Read more »
Debbie, True to your style you just rant. You never answer any question or offer any substance. As far as I remember, Mohler never mentioned grace once. If what he said was so clear, then why the discussion. Just make an attempt at answering one of my questions. Or, just move on by. Remember how you said in another post: “That’s why I NEVER respond to Frank.” OK, don’t respond. If it is all about grace, tell me where “we” have said otherwise. Frankly, I don’t think you have a clue as to what it means to actually engage the… Read more »
Frankly, I don’t think you have a clue as to what it means to actually engage the homosexual community
You are very, very wrong.
Then offer some suggestions or show the rest of “us” where we are doing it all wrong according to Dr. Mohler.
Mohler spoke for me (and the entire SBC) and you are taking up his fight. So, tell me exactly what it is I am doing wrong in ministry involving people who openly embrace the homosexual lifestyle.
I’m open to gaining greater insight.
However, right now I’m going to go to bed.
A man from mars would view the video and wonder exactly why all the rancor, insults, and name calling. Peter asked a question (OK, it was a looooooooooong time coming). Mohler took the opportunity to give an answer. Reactions seem far out of scale with what I see on the video. Peter has the right to zero in on public pronouncements of our employees and to ask a question. Mohler is the SBC’s most visible spokesperson on culture issues and he is a big boy capable of articulating a position and defending it. He feels a need to engage in… Read more »
I am not a Mohler fan, but apart from his, also, wordy response, complete with irrelevant and questionable assertions, he came out ahead in the exchange, with Peter looking like he needed to get back to cleaning his mother’s basement. Peter, known in the SBC blogosphere, playing gotcha, rambled, did not get to the point forever organizing his words, was called for time. Being a highly educated professional with a serious perspective for one of his theological stripe, he did not present himself or his perspective well. Professional meetings for professional ministers are business casual at the least, not Saturday… Read more »
BH,
Nice analysis. Very witty. Especially liked the idea of “playing gotcha.” That always looks bad to me. It also backfires as many times as it works it seems to me.
Also liked the “batter’s box” and catcher analogy.
Thanks.
A test of one’s maturity is how we respond to criticism or rebuke.When Paul rebuked Peter as we read in Galatians,Peter never mentioned it again.Even though Peter had been saved longer than Paul,he refused to defend himself or write posts on his blog sight implying that he was a victim and Paul was a bully.This is a lesson that all of us would do well to heed.
There is a distinct difference between saying “homosexuality is a sin that must be laid at the foot of the cross, and saying “homosexuality is the way God made me, hence, it is not sin”. The latter is what the Episcopals and other denominations seem to be embracing. If Baptists seem to be contrary, it is only because we affirm that the scriptures teach the former. Dr. Mohler is crystal clear that he believes homosexuality is a sin. He did not equivocate. His argument is the ‘way’ we affirm the teaching. To the unbelieving world we come across as mean… Read more »
I believe that a distinction is now being made that did not exist before: Prior, the word ‘homosexuality’ included those with same-sex attraction AND those with it who ‘acted’ on it, and called both ‘sin’ equally. Now, if I am understanding the ‘change’, people with ‘same-sex attraction’ are not being looked at in the same way as homosexuals who live the lifestyle. That term, SSA (same-sex attraction) does not have the same implications as the term ‘homosexual’; and this new perspective (new in the SBC) opens the door for the Southern Baptists to relate to SSA people as members of… Read more »
Chief, Far be it from me to go against a fellow sailor, but I kind of disagree with your assertion that the homosexual community believes that all Christians, or even most, believe that homosexuals should be put to death. That is propaganda from the militant homosexual movement. What I hear many saying on this thread comes right out of their playbook. Do some preachers come down too hard on homosexuals? Maybe. But, the perception “we” have of the homosexual community is given to us in large part by the homosexual activists. We must be careful not to play into their… Read more »
Frank, We can agree to disagreee. On most things, I’m quite happy to hear the views of others. I don’t lose any respect for someone who has a different view unless they do it the way Peter Lumpkins proceeds. I’m loathe to use words like ‘everyone’, ‘all’, ‘never’. Although sometimes I do, I try to avoid it. I don’t think we can accurately lump all homosexuals into one camp, but I think we can tell from the culture, that in general, they do not see their sin as sin. Instead, folks like the Metropolitan church, dismantle scripture, to justify their… Read more »
Chief,
Let’s say we agree on Mohler’s point being, “we need to do better.” One, he only stated his case in the negative, “we are all homophobic liars.”
That’s not going to get much done in my way of thinking.
So often leaders point out the problems, but offer little solutions. We disagree perhaps in whether he even got the problems right, but do we agree he did not offer in real solutions?
That’s my beef. Don’t just tell me I’m a “liar and a homophobe.” Give me some clear-cut objectives to march toward.
Frank, We agree that he didn’t offer any tangible solutions. On the other hand, the setting did not lend itself to a sermon on how to reach the lost homosexual. Mohler articulated that we have a problem and that we need to start dealing with it in a Biblical manner instead of slamming our doors and ignoring the problem to our peril. Personally, I think that Mohler is correct. On the whole, we’ve not responded well. I didn’t hear Mohler calling me personally a liar or a homophobe. I heard that in a collective sense, we aren’t being completely honest… Read more »
Chief Katie: Great observations. I think that the SBC should simply be loyal to Christ and probably not make such a big deal of the issue. Of course, we have to recognize that evangelicals are usually responding to issues that the homosexual activists and their fellow travelers are pushing. So-called Gay Marriage is the classic example. The activists have a long term strategy that revolves around the courts. Selecting friendly states, bringing test cases, all to subvert popular opinion. This results, as it should, in some push back, which has been amazingly successful. Every state that has had this issue… Read more »
For the record, did Mohler say “Every Southern Baptist has lied?” Someone ask Peter this question! Mohler said, “We’ve lied.” Does Peter really want to suggest that Mohler meant every single southern baptist? How ridiculous. How could Mohler know every single Southern Baptist? It’s obvious to anyone, anyone without an agenda, to see that Mohler was making a general, not an exhaustive statement.
Peter, either represent Mohler accurately or be quiet. When you intentionally misrepresent, you do not bring glory to God. When you intentionally misrepresent, you lie.
Jared, We if not qualified certainly qualified has to include “all,” or at least “most.” The statement certainly was overly general without any consideration that anybody was doing anything right. I think that is a fair characterization of his statements. Again, I’ve said, “Peter being wrong does not equate to Mohler being right.” I am only addressing Mohler’s statements that I think were inconsiderate, overly broad, and inaccurate. That made them also incendiary. I have mispoken in such a way so I cannot be overly harsh on Dr. Mohler personally. We will see how he clarifies or extends his remarks… Read more »
For the record, did Mohler say “Every Southern Baptist has lied?” Someone ask Peter this question! Mohler said, “We’ve lied.” Does Peter really want to suggest that Mohler meant every single southern baptist? How ridiculous. How could Mohler know every single Southern Baptist? It’s obvious to anyone, anyone without an agenda, to see that Mohler was making a general, not an exhaustive statement. And if you listen to his response, he didn’t even use the “we” so much in terms of Southern Baptists but in terms of the broader scope of evangelicals. Of course, those mad he said “we” might… Read more »
Mike:
I’m not sure that Peter is open to questions about his actions. Try posting something that he does not agree with at his blog. He gets really testy and your are very likely to not get published.
Tom… it took me a moment to figure out what you were talking about… that italics part was quoting Jared… 🙂
Jared, is that the royal “we”? :o)
Seriously, who are the “we” who have lied and been homophobes on this issue?
BTW: Peter has no credibility with me at all…especially since his big defense of Caner’s lies and his attacks on James White who asked “legitimate” questions. I
Lydia, the “we” are the southern baptists that have lied. Those that haven’t lied, the “we” doesn’t apply to them. As a whole however, I believe Mohler’s statement is generally true.
Jared:
I think some are just taking the word “we” as an opportunity to be offended when they have no cause to be.
When Mohler says “we”, does he mean himself, too? if not, then why use “we”? Who do you think of when he says ‘we’ lied and have been homophobes if it is generally true? See, it gets uncomfortable when we have to back up a general statement. That is why it is unfortuanate he made a general statement concerning a very serious charge. Is he speaking of Westboro who claim to be Baptists? Wiley Drake who pray imprecatory prayers? Who? You are suggesting above that those who lied and practiced homophobia know who they are. How can you be so… Read more »
Yes, when Dr. Mohler says we, I believe he is including himself.
If I were Peter, I would say something to the effect that he feels badly that Dr. Mohler has admitted to lying to the public and being a homophobe all these years. I, Peter, have not lied and an am not homophobic, but apparently Dr. Mohler believes otherwise of himself. I will be praying for Dr. Mohler in this regard, and will covet his and others prayers for me in my ministry, as well.
Lydia, First, I’ve seen the homophobia first hand. Others in southern baptist churches have already responded in agreement with Mohler, for they’ve seen the lies and homophobia as well. Even in this comment thread, examples have been given. You can hear those examples or ignore them. Second, Mohler was asked a question that he was not prepared for; expecting specific examples in answering an unplanned question isn’t fair. Also, what if he had pointed to specific churches; do you think that would have been helpful? Concerning the “lies” and “homophobia,” Mohler explained what he meant by those terms. If you… Read more »
The “we” is a corporate we that is very commonly used. I’m not sure why this is such a mystery. “We” (Southern Baptists) passed a resolution apologizing for our heritage on slavery saying, “That we apologize to all African-Americans for condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism in our lifetime; and we genuinely repent of racism of which we have been guilty, whether consciously (Psalm 19:13) or unconsciously (Leviticus 4:27).” Of course, no one believes that every messenger present in 1995 was guilty of racism, but the word “we” was used repeatedly. Mohler did nothing different. Why anyone thinks that… Read more »
Allow me to stir up something a little more… 😉 May I suggest that the people who are now asking for clarification on what Dr. Mohler said, namely the “we have lied” and “we have been homophobic”, because they do not like the idea of Dr. Mohler speaking for them, are acting a bit prideful? People keep saying that as an employee of the SBC, Dr Mohler is open to questions from the floor like what Peter Lumpkins gave him. As an employee and representative of the SBC and one of the SBC seminaries, when Dr. Mohler uses language like… Read more »
Smuschany,
Also, if southern baptists, including Peter, have NOT lied in the way Mohler suggests, then Mohler was NOT talking about them. It’s a general statement that applies to the guilty parties; and there are many that are guilty in the SBC. I’ve seen it in southern baptist churches first hand, as many others have already shared.
So, now “questioning” and/or wanting clarification of his general statement concerning a very serious charge of sin and lying is the sin of pride? You guys have all the bases covered. Sheesh!
Ok…….. We (the SBC) have been racists and have lied about our hatred for African Americans.
Now, I am not the great Mohler but should I not back that statement up with clear examples? Would it be “prideful” (which is a sin) for you to question what I mean and ask me to clarify and give examples?
Can you come up with clear examples in an extemporaneous speech during a Q/A session like which took place during the convention? Do you expect anyone, Dr. Mohler included to be able to do so at the spur-of-the-moment? I remember in my Speech/Debate class in Highschool we had to memorize dozens of cases which we could refer to during the debate. But that was only one ONE topic. Each year only dealt with one topic, so we only had to have case studies and references to that specific topic. Dr. Mohler is head of SBTS, has a talk show, goes… Read more »
The “great Al Mohler?” Lydia even when I wrote about Paige Patterson I showed respect by never calling him anything but Dr. Patterson or Paige Patterson. We are Christians first and foremost. Using language like this is not productive nor is it right. It’s cynical and demeaning.
lol
Vol:
Your little lol’s sure get might old at least to me.
lol….wow!
Amen! Thanks for this response.
That amen was for smuschany
Having gone and watched the video and processed a bit, had I known nothing of Peter or Dr. Mohler, I would say that a concerned SBCer asked a clarifying question about statements in a news article to an entity head, received a gracious, Biblical and comprehensive answer to clarify what the quotes had meant, and that the person’s answers were well received by those in attendance. Question clarified, move on. I typically disagree with about 87% of what Peter writes, but if he was concerned about that quote, he had a right to ask. Why Dr. Mohler’s office hadn’t sent… Read more »
But Josh, we do know Peter, his articles since this exchange tell the tale well.
To look at this video and not see Peter’s agenda is somewhat denying. Peter’s articles since show exactly why Mohler’s office did not respond to him. Some here have articulated well what Peter does on his blog. It’s not worth responding to Peter Lumpkins on anything.
Josh C:
You said:”Unfortunately, Peter was not satisfied with this answer at the Convention and I think it will only get uglier in the weeks ahead.”
My prediction is Peter will still be blathering about this two months from now even when most of us have moved on.
Peter has the right to ask whatever he wants to ask…as a messenger of the SBC. As an entity head, Dr. Mohler has the responsiblity of answering whatever is asked…. I dont know all the motives of Peter asking the question. I dont know the intent of his heart…only he and God knows that. But, I’m still scratching my head over Dr. Mohler’s meaning about SB’s lying about homosexuality and being homophobes…I dont understand such a blanket statement being made. I could understand if he’d said that some SB’s had been lying about homosexuality…and that some SB’s had been homophobes… Read more »
David, He never said “ALL SB’s.” He said, “we.” Sort-of like when you say, “We’re having church again tonight at 6 so ya’ll be sure and come back this evening.” Then you show up at 6 and see how many are really a part of the “we.” Now, ALL SB’s know that “we,” in that case, doesn’t mean every single person in the group. But you’re not going to change and say, “Now some of you come back tonight,” or even “Now, somewhere around a quarter to a third of you come back this evening,” even though that might be… Read more »
So, it’s okay to make such blanket statements? and, to make them when you’re the leader of an SBC entity?
David
PS. I used to get buried in these blogs whenever I would make such blanket statements….but, I guess if you’re the MOHLER, then you get a pass with some groups of people.
Yes, it’s ok for him to make such statements because he doesn’t mean by it what guys like you and Peter say he means. He’s clarified it already in articles he’s written. Whenever someone asks a guy like Peter his opinion on a subject Peter is more than ready to tell them to go wade through his past posts and find what he’s said. I’ve never heard you object to that. If you would read what Mohler has written you would see that he already has clarified these issues. In fact, I believe he clarified them as recently as an… Read more »
Just so you don’t have to do the hard work, here’s a quote from an article where he gets specific about how we’ve lied and how we’ve been homophobic: Of course, Christians committed to biblical truth will recognize this as a demand to lie to sinners about their sin. The church cannot change its understanding of the sinfulness of homosexual acts unless it willfully disobeys the Scripture and rejects the authority of the Bible to reveal the truth about sin and sinfulness. In other words, the believing church cannot surrender to the demand that we disobey and reject biblical truth.… Read more »
For clarification, I guess the quote tag doesn’t work, so paragraphs 2 – 5 should be in quotation marks. A link to the full article can be found here.
Debbie,
Just for the record, I have said I don’t think Peter’s motives were as pure as they sounded.
For the record, I don’t think Dr. Mohler is without his agenda.
This a problem we have as a body of believers: trying to escape our egocentric predicament. It affects us all.
Frank, how dare you say “It affects US all.” Speak for yourself :). How dare you group every single southern baptist into your “egocentric predicament.” Just how has each and every southern baptist revealed their “egocentric predicament”? Give examples for every southern baptist on earth!
Jared,
But the difference: “I’m right” 🙂
The Bible says “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God”.
What do you mean using the word all. I haven’t sinned. I have been good, I call others to repent from sin, but not me. I am not a sinner who has come short of the glory of God. Man…the nerve and it is not helpful to pain with so broad a brush.
This exchange merely amplifies why I stopped reading Peter’s blog years ago and why I continue to read Mohler’s consistently.
“This exchange merely amplifies why I stopped reading Peter’s blog years ago and why I continue to read Mohler’s consistently.” I am not a follower of either one of them. Nor a fan of either. I think this becomes a problem when discussing these issues…people tend to have sides (issues) or leaders they support or sides they cannot stand so they have a hard time seeing the nuances and problems on either side of the issues/personalities. Some want to defend Mohler and others want to get Peter. It only clouds the deeper problems: 1. Yes Peter is allowed to ask… Read more »
My respect for the one and not the other has less to do with the content of their positions than it does the demeanor of their approach (both on the blogosphere and in person).
Mohler tackles issues head on, but he does so in a matter that shows respect for his opponents. For this reason, I enjoy hearing his position on a whole host of issues, even on those that I disagree. As for Peter, watch the video again and then read his blog and I’ll let you come to your own opinion of his contributions.
Lydia:
Good question about Merritt the Younger. Don’t know him. But the only referenced to him are this bit and the environmental bit.
Sounds like a young guy with a megaphone who keeps stepping in it.
I hope the younger crowd in the SBC isn’t looking to him for steady, consistent leadership.
2 swings, 2 misses from where I sit.
Louis:
You said –Merritt the Younger–“Don’t know him. But the only referenced to him are this bit and the environmental bit.”
Sounds like a young guy with a megaphone who keeps stepping in it.
I hope the younger crowd in the SBC isn’t looking to him for steady, consistent leadership.
2 swings, 2 misses from where I sit.”
Wow!–with so little knowledge of a christian brother you basically write him off.
That does not seem very charitable of you.
Tom:
Good point.
ALL I know about him is his foray into these 2 matters.
I suspect that if and when I get to know him and hear him say more, there will be a lot of good things to say.
If Dr. Mohler addresses or clarifies his remarks, he will continue to be castigated by many and every word “scrutinized.” Thanks Debbie for your remarks about showing respect.
“Can you come up with clear examples in an extemporaneous speech during a Q/A session like which took place during the convention? Do you expect anyone, Dr. Mohler included to be able to do so at the spur-of-the-moment? ” First, I think Mohler was expecting the question and secondly, I think he totally ignored the “liar and homophobe” part on purpose. I certainly hope that if I ever claim a group are liars and homophobes that I have clear examples to share before I dare say it. He could have said, my vote to Boycott Disney is an example of… Read more »
Lydia: First of all it was at the Convention which is allotted so much time for any one person. Al Mohler’s statement was given using the exact amount of time. It wouldn’t matter if he knew the question was coming, doesn’t matter at all. His answer was great. You already know of an example with the Disney boycott, so do most other Southern Baptists. You answered your own question so no example was necessary. We don’t need examples, if we are honest and look at ourselves in that way, we already know the examples.
Debbie:
Peter has attended many SBC conventions so he knew well how the Q & A works. No surprises in what happened. He asked the Q and Dr. Mohler gave the A.
I will go so far as to say that Al Mohler and his office may not have answered Peter’s question in order for him to bring it as a question on the floor of the Convention. I knew he would do that, I’m sure Dr. Mohler is much smarter than I. 🙂
By “he” I mean Peter. I knew that was going to be Peter’s next move. So predictable.
Debbie:
Maybe it can be said that Peter got outsmarted on this one. Maybe after all is said and done he will learn something from all of this.
We–there is that word again–can hope that for Peter.
Peter Lumpkins is a provoker. He has been a past master of the slap and slide, making outrageous, unfair statements and then sliding away from them. He is not interested in dialog. He does not seem to have a track record of accomplishment.
We should not allow him to put anyone on trial or to dominate our conversations.
That was the collective we, not the imperial one.
Good point Peaches, P-Lump is a “master of the slap and slide”. Is this the a quality/attribute that we as Southern Baptist should admire, encourage, and even tolerate in those who serve as pastors among us? I think not. To take someones words and twist them in an attempt to make it appear to others that they support, or hold a position, that they do in fact not hold… is to bring a “False Accusation” against a Brother in Christ. Is this what P-Lump has done? After reading his comments and the comments of some of those posting on his… Read more »
Could we not use the “P-Lump” designation? Peter is a public figure and has made himself so. I think that discussing his opinions and actions is fair game.
But whatever anyone thinks of Peter, let us use his name, Peter Lumpkins.
Okay?
On an unrelated topic: I hate the tweets on the sidebar. The heretofore best additional feature of Voices was being able to see recent comments as soon as the page loads.
Thanks Dave,
One of the things that troubles me in the blogging world is the overall lack of respect for people. We can all be guilty of it from time to time. I appreciate the reminder.
Dave,
I agree too. Thanks.
David R. Brumbelow
May I ask a question? If in this discussion you could substitute “pedophilia” for homosexuality and “child molestor” for homosexual, would we be having the same reactions and if not, why not?
Wouldn’t that be like failing to see a difference between adultery and rape?
I think, David, that yours is a genuinely misplaced comparison.
I do not intend a comparison, other than to draw attention to the fact they are both sexualized sins and elicit different levels of reactions. Some sins are worse than others, some sins contradict “nature” the Apostle Paul said. My question is meant to make us think logically about the charges of “phobia” and the challenge of “welcoming” sinners.
Good question. I think the answer is “yes,” we would have the same reactions. I would think that to be honest and fair with scripture, all sins have at their root desires that are self-centered (idolatry) and not God-centered. That means that what one person sinfully desires may not be the same sinful desire of another: some are gossips, some are liars, some are blasphemers, some are fornicators (I believe that homosexuals and pedophiles are sub-sets of fornication), some are drunkards (drug abuse is a sub-set of this, being that both are destructive), etc. Either all sins originate in our… Read more »
Buchanan,
And some are Willful Slanders of Christine Brethren…
David Pitman,
Have you read ‘A Queer thing happened to America’ by Dr. Michael Brown? In the book he shows that the arguments for normalizing homosexuality are now being used to normalize ‘intergenerational love’!!!! Pedophilia by any other name.
Your question is fair since the tactics being used are exactly the same. It’s also why those in the homosexual community will not consider answering any questions about pedophilia. They know all too well that we see the slippery slope of denying that sin is indeed sin. Both homosexuals and pedophiles claim they are born that way.
Total depravity, aye!
Chief,
Thanks for the update. This is why I am so concerned that Dr. Mohler’s statements play right into the homosexual agenda. I know that is certainly not his intent (as far as I can know someone else’s heart).
Total Depravity, for sure.
Frank,
“This is why I am so concerned that Dr. Mohler’s statements play right into the homosexual agenda.” (SLAP)
“I know that is certainly not his intent (as far as I can know someone else’s heart).” (SLIDE)
Did you learn this from __________?
Good point. I do know that we encounter legal complications when convicted child molesters want to attend church services where children are present. I am not suggesting that we do not witness to them or welcome them into the family of God if they are saved. I know that parents and grandparents of children who have been sexually molested are very protective of those children and very careful about accepting former child molestors into their neighborhoods and churches. I know the children also have a difficult future ahead of them; grace saves indeed but sin’s scars can linger in this… Read more »
Well, where Al Mohler has worked tirelessly to bring this issue to the forefront for discussion and possibly begin the turning of the ship in regards to how we minister to and interact with homosexuals, Peter has now sabotaged that effort and is trying to make this into an issue of institutional intimidation and strong armed tactics. Nevermind that he was gladly on the side of the intimidation tactics when it was something he agreed with last year… Mohler wants this to be something out there and discussed. So now, instead of us taking a long hard look at just… Read more »
Bill,
Thank you for your insight.
I simply disagree with it.
Frank,
Okay, where do you disagree with me and let’s talk about it. I’m very open to debate here and I do love interacting with you since you do often present very well reasoned responses.
Thanks,
Bill
Bill, My big disagreement with Mohler’s words are that they have not basis in fact–at least no fact offered by Mohler. He did not substantiate his claim to widespread homophobia among the pastors and people of the SBC. Is there any instance of such? I believe there most certainly is, but it is certainly not limited to the SBC. For years, the public in general rejected the militant homosexual agenda–but not anymore. So, I think Mohler has been overly influenced by the homosexual propaganda machine. That is my perception and opinion from what he said in that one speech at… Read more »
I have not read the volume of articles written by Mohler (I’m into double digits now) so I don’t know what criteria would be in place to call homophobia or practicing homophobia as a convention would be or look like. I could only go anecdotal in my own experience but like you apparently, I’m also very close to a situation where it can affect unbelievers. However, if we were allowed to use anecdotal evidence, I could certainly fire off some stories where I’ve seen “You’re going to hell, don’t talk to me.” used more often than “You’re going to hell… Read more »
Bill, Thanks for your response. I don’t have any major issues with what you said. I still think Dr. Mohler was “more than ready” to answer Peter’s accusation. He was as precise as he wanted to be, in my opinion, and it was not very precise. It certainly was not the “height of statesmanship and erudition” some of assessed it to be. If his point was to change the minds of the Convention, I think he probably failed. If his point was to rebuke a small segment of the Convention guilty of what he asserted, I think he failed to… Read more »
Frank,
Please explain the following comment you made…
“Those that already suspect Mohler is “not one of us,”
EXCUSE ME!
Alford,
This is hardly a statement worth making a big deal out of because as a diverse group, I’m pretty sure it’d be impossible not to have some group in the Southern Baptist Convention hacked off at you. It’s the danger of being a public figure. I read this statement and really thought nothing inflammatory about it. Go try to incite Frank somewhere else.
Bill,
I have gotten after Dr. Patterson pretty hard on the blogs in the past over one thing or another… BUT, I NEVER accused him of “NOT BEING ONE OF US”.
That is the sort of ABSURD statements that keep coming from Frank and the gang, and they are starting to wear a little thin with me…
It is really unfair and unchristian to bash Peter Lumpkins here. The anonymous commenter above, Peaches, who assailed Peter for lack of accomplishment should identify him/herself.
Agree or disagree, Peter Lumpkins puts his name on what he writes. Wade Burleson put his name on his criticism of PL, as did most others. It is the cheapest of cheapshots to have an anonymous commenter take a gratuitous slap at Peter.
I recognize that Dave Miller and others here attempt to moderate conversations and appreciate that.
This whole issue is being blown out of proportion by those who wish to make an issue where there is none. I was there in Phoenix, and I have watched the video over again (2x) to be sure about how I feel about the exchange. Mr. Lumpkins asked a legitimate question. He was not disrespectful and did not appear to be driven by an agenda. He praised Dr. Mohler and respected the decorum of the convention and its rules. He was not at all out of order. Dr. Mohler answered his question. His answer was respectful and on-target. I think… Read more »
Terry Leap:
You said:”However, I don’t think there is really a story here.”
Uh, Peter Lumpkins is on his I believe 5th blog topic related to this item.
Ad nasuem seems to be Mr. Lumpkins mantra.
Well, the exchanges could be worse i.e. Peter exposed? Thoughts? http://t.co/uG1mPMp
Mark:
I glanced through these items pretty quickly and it is the Mr. Lumpkins I know in action.
He deserves to be exposed.
AMEN Tom… AMEN!
Okay, Tom, we get it. You don’t like Peter. Let’s discuss the issue, not Peter’s personality.
Dave:
Where did I say anything about Peter’s personality?
You said:”You don’t like Peter.”
How do you know that I do not like Peter?
Peter Lumpkins has been blogging for a long time and the flavor of his posts can be determined by just reading a few of them.
I’m upset that the SBC was trying to find some unity at the 2011 SBC convention and Mr. Lumpkins has attempted to derail this.
I am just trying to encourage people to keep their comments focused on the issue of our response toward homosexuals, and not on Peter Lumpkins.
Can you help me with that?
Dave:
Sure.
Norm: Concerning the Lumpkins-Mohler dialogue, did you enjoy taking a shot at me, William, at BL, thus leaving me no way to respond? Encounter me here, brother, where I can respond. You might learn that there is a literature behind said observations.
If it is questionable for one to make comments anonymously as you have asserted in this thread, then it is just as concerning to question one in a forum in which the one has no way to respond.
Norm, what are you talking about?
Norm: Dave, our friend William criticizes those that post without using their names, thus attenuating accountability, as he would suggest, but on the other hand, he has taken a shot at me concerning this thread’s contents on a forum in which I am unable to reply. In the scheme of things this is not very important, but it is the only way I have of stating, “OK, but I have the measure of your words.”
Sorry for the bother.
Sorry for the bother.
Well, you are a bother so it’s good that you are willing to apologize. My question is: How are you not able to get onto Baptist Life? Someone of your theological persuasion would be welcomed and embraced there. You’d fit right in with that ilk.
Joe B:
You said to Norm:”My question is: How are you not able to get onto Baptist Life? Someone of your theological persuasion would be welcomed and embraced there. You’d fit right in with that ilk.”
Why the use of the word ilk?
Why the constant name calling of others?
How do you know the theological persuasion of someone else? As someone recently said on this blog:”t’s amazing to me that someone can judge another’s motives and intentions, when they’re not God.”
Why the use of the word ilk?
I like the sound of it. It sounds filthy which, when you’re talking about a moderate or a liberal, is fitting.
Why the constant name calling of others?
Ah, yes, but you’re so respectful of everybody. If only we could be more like you.
How do you know the theological persuasion of someone else?
By reading what he has written on mulitple blogs over the years.
Norm, I mentioned that some had even criticized PL for his attire but I had forgotten it was you who did such.
Since you reminded me, if you wish to email me your explanation for that criticism, I will happily post it in that other place where you cannot respond.
William,
“I mentioned that some had even criticized PL for his attire…”
______ _________ looked like he had come off a Three Day Binge! I mean really! watch the video, ______ ________ looks ROUGH. 🙂
This is actually the only post I really understood. Well done, William.
wow, now we’re gonna put down a man for his clothes….
David,
Watch the video… It’s not just his cloths…
I’m trying to be generous here, but honestly ______ _________ looks like he just rolled out of bed. 🙂
I honestly don’t understand the slaps over the man’s dress and appearance. Is this what we are to expect of each other?
Someone call up Stacey and Clinton. Maybe Nick Arojo can help out too. (/sarcasm)
I don’t think anybody there could be accused of having too much fashion sense.
End of discussion of Peter’s appearance. I have never been mistaken for Tom Selleck (age-dating myself here, I guess).
Some church history describes the Apostle Paul in the most unflattering terms – he had something to say.
Last warning to all.
Sorry Dave, I meant no offence…
http://gritsgrace.blogspot.com/2011/06/dr-mohler-vs-peter-lumpkins-do-cloths.html
It’s amazing to me that someone can judge another’s motives and intentions, when they’re not God.
David
David:
You said:”It’s amazing to me that someone can judge another’s motives and intentions, when they’re not God.”
That’s just silly.
So, Tom, you think you’re qualified to judge the intentions and motives of others? I thought only the Holy Spirit could do that.
I dont think you’re name is Holy Spirit…is it?
David
PS. I can judge others actions….I can see them…hear them. I can judge whether someone is a false teacher, or not…by the things they say and do. I can judge whether a person is walking with God, or not…by the fruit they’re bearing…but, how can I see into the heart of a man, and judge what his motives and intentions are? I can see that….
that last line should read…”I CANT see that…”
LOL 🙂
Greg,
What’s so funny?
David,
Never mind me… I’m just enjoying the view… 🙂
Greg:
I am LOL this morning too with Vol up to his usual protocol.
Vol:
Thanks for providing the humor I needed this morning.
I agree wholeheartedly. Now please go and post this on Peter Lumpkins’ blog as often as you find him doing it. Better get started soon – it might take months or even years to post them all.
[Like]
I think if some of yall truly want to see Peter’s motives, then you should read his new post..over at his place.
David
But how can we TRULY know a man’s motives? We are not God. Let me see if I can decipher this: If you agree with someone, you can truly know their motives. If you disagree with someone, you cannot truly know their motives. I hope you can see the inconsistency of your argument. You can READ motive and intent. You can HEAR motive and intent. Look at HOW someone asks a question. Listen to where they place emphasis. Understand the context from which someone asks a question – and then their tone when asking a question. Motive can be obvious… Read more »
Jason, Obviously, many in this comment thread have misread Peter’s motives for asking Dr. Mohler this question. Have you read his latest post? And, I can judge anothers words and actions….yes. I can see that. I can hear what they say. But, for example, when I put my offering in the plate on Sunday….can you really judge whether I’m doing it as praise to the Lord, cheerfully, willingly; or that I’m doing it to just show off to people…to show them that I’m a big shot, putting an offering in the plate? Listen, all you can do is see that… Read more »
Yes, I see what you are saying. But I don’t fully agree. I think you are right that it is hard to determine someone’s GOOD motives. But not impossible. It is not always hard to determine someone’s BAD motives. Though it sometimes is. For example, I can tell the difference between when one of my sons gives a toy to his brother because he wants to do so and when he is told to do so. Same action: giving of a toy. Different motive: desire to love, required out of obedience. His motivation is all over his face. It is… Read more »
Vol:
One last question of you as I’m sure your are busy. How many Blog topics do you think Peter can get out of his question he asked of Dr. Mohler?
who cares? what does it really matter? It’s his blog…he can do what he wants to with it.
Which is real funny coming from you when bloggers were making very well informed accusations against Caner, you were among the most vocal critics of those bloggers.
PLEASE, let’s not open that Caner-worms, folks!
I think this comment stream has reached a point of no return. Unless someone says something productive and insightful pretty soon, I will feel it necessary to shut down the comments on this post.
Either address the exchange between Lumpkins and Mohler or move on. This is not the place to wage our personal wars.
Well, when you have the most polarizing blogsite owner taking on one of the most polarizing figures in the Southern Baptist Convention, then what do you expect to happen?
Besides, it’s not hard to discern that this most polarizing blogsite owner happens to be one who has flung far too many rocks in a glass house that past grievances are going to come flying to the surface.
Shut this thread down. We’ve given him enough free publicity.
Dave Miller:
I will try and ask something insightful. What do you believe will be the results of the Q & A between Dr. Mohler and Peter Lumpkins?
Will this pass away into the night or will this be long and drawn out?
Tom, as I have said above, I think the church’s response to homosexuality and to homosexuals is one of the key issues of our day. Most have gone in one of two directions. There are churches/denoms/etc that have denied the clear teaching of scripture and have said that homosexuality is not a sin, but an acceptable lifestyle. When I was in Boston recently, there were little rainbows on many church doors, designating them as culturally-acceptable “welcoming and affirming” churches. They deny God to please culture – an affirmation approach. Many conservative churches have gone the other direction and in my… Read more »
Dave . . . I’m really late to this party and you may well have shut down the comments. As you said, it gets a little old. I did want to say that the response we received in the Dare To Care exhibit at the SBC Convention showed an increased desire on the part of Messengers to cut through all the cultural clatter and come to Biblical conclusions regarding not just homosexuality but brotherhood and the command to love each other as people made in the image of God, regardless of the sexual issues thrust upon us through contact with… Read more »
My wife enjoyed meeting the fellas at the Dare to Care exhibit. We had a very good conversation with the ones, who were there, when we came by. I’ve tried to lead my church to be more accepting of reaching out to gays and lesbians. I’ve made the statement many times that I wish that every gay and lesbian in our county would come to our church next Sunday and sit in the front. I’ve told them that I also wish that every drug addict and drunk would come, as well. I’ve tried to lead my people to love homosexual… Read more »
David,
How comfortable would most people in SBC churches be with open homosexuals coming to their churches? How would they respond toward them? How do people in churches discuss homosexuals? In a loving and caring way – or a mocking tone?
Obviously, we are speaking in generalities…but how do most believers (most SBC people) talk and respond to homosexuals? Not “in theory” but “in reality”?
BTW, Mohler explained precisely what he meant when he said that we (SBC, and other believers) have lied about homosexuality. He said we have taught a “half-truth” about the nature of homosexuality saying that it is “merely a choice” when it is clear it is more deep-rooted than “merely a choice”.
We have spoken a “half-truth”….which in most people’s understanding is a lie.
Maybe we can call it a “factual statement that is self-contradictory”…then we can all KNOW it is a lie, but we can pretend like it isn’t.
😉
Jason,
The problem I have with Mohler’s words, is that he’s saying that the SBC has lied….how has the SBC lied? Where did we lie? When did we lie? How did we lie?
How were SB’s homophobic?
Now, if he’d said that a lot of SB’s had lied…or, that a lot of SB’s were homophobic…then, I would’ve amen-ed everything that Dr. Mohler said.
But, he didnt.
David
PS. But, even though other factors might lead someone down that path..to homosexuality….it’s still ultimately a choice.
Obviously he was speaking in generalities when he said the SBC. Obviously he did not man every single one of us. You know that. You know he was speaking in generalities. you know he was speaking of the overall tone and position from the majority of Christians and majority of churches and a majority of the SBC people and churches. General statement. He said “we as the SBC”, including himself, in the generality…this is a pretty obvious one. Come on, man. You may wish he said something different…but you KNOW what he was saying….and I think you KNOW what he… Read more »
This is the crux of the matter: Will the SBC fight to keep as its foundational doctrine regarding homosexuality, the notion that homosexuals simply and freely chose their same-sex attraction, or will they come around to the idea that same-sex attraction is something far more complex, possibly stemming from developmental experiences that we may never be able to pinpoint. Adherents of the former seem to be presupposing a false dichotomy: Either same sex attraction is freely and consciously “chosen” or else it is a genetic condition. Since they have, a priori, rejected the latter, the former is the only option.… Read more »
Bill,
“I think the idea that Mohler is embracing the gay-gene hypothesis is deliberate misrepresentation. He has done no such thing.”
I think you are absolutely correct here… What is sad is that there appear to be no consequences to deliberate misrepresentation in the SBC???
Bill Mac wrote: “Adherents of the former seem to be presupposing a false dichotomy: Either same sex attraction is freely and consciously “chosen” or else it is a genetic condition. Since they have, a priori, rejected the latter, the former is the only option. They see no middle ground. I think the idea that Mohler is embracing the gay-gene hypothesis is deliberate misrepresentation. He has done no such thing. What he has done, wisely I think, is preemptively stake out a position that EVEN if scientists discover some type of genetic predisposition to homosexuality, that the bible’s clear prohibition of… Read more »
Anyone read the ‘Manifesto’ by John Shelby Spong concerning homosexuality? http://secure.agoramedia.com/spong/34674.asp His disdain of the gospel shines through and through. But we can’t expect anything different from a man who claims the Apostle Paul was a homosexual! I bring this up, because this is the mentality that we are clearly set apart from. The problem is of course, that we will not abandon the clear teaching of scripture. Nor… will we ‘read into’ scripture what the Episcopals, Presbyterians USA), Methodists, etc have. These denominations, at least in my mind, have abandoned scripture to make an attempt at being politically correct.… Read more »
Jason,
I agree with you that a lot of SB’s dont respond to homosexuals like they should. Yes, I agree. I agree that some people in SB Churches…and some SB Churches….dont deal with gays and lesbians like they should.
I also would have to confess that some people in my church would not respond to gays and lesbians like they should.
And, Dr. Mohler’s generalities sounded a lot like he was speaking about the SBC…as a whole….not about individuals and some churches in the SBC.
David
Yes, he was speaking “as a whole” because while you say “some people” I would say “most people”. In fact I would say “most pastors”.
Are there some individuals, and some pastors, and some churches that are doing well on this issue? Of course. Praise God. But not many…and definitely not most.
Jason,
The point is..he said that the SBC lied….okay, where did the SBC lie? What was the lie?
He said that the SBC was homophobic? The SBC? How are we homophobic..as a convention?
David
This has been explained repeatedly. He was speaking of the SBC in general. Kind of like when we say “we (SBC) are doing a poor job in evangelism or baptisms or CP giving”. He was making a general statement. I think that was obvious. I’m not sure if you are being purposefully antagonistic or if you are obtuse as to this point. This has been stated and re-stated…and I think people speaking in generalities is an accepted practice, especially at the SBC. Given that we can accept he was speaking in generalities… 1. The SBC has lied. Mohler explained this… Read more »
Jason,
How can the SBC lie, when calling homosexuality a choice, when it is a choice? How are SBC people lying?????? A lie is when you purposely say something that you know to be false, and tell the thing as truth. So, again, how are we…the SBC….lying????
Also, homophobic means to be scared of homosexuality…that’s what phobic means. So, how has the SBC been phobic about homosexuality?
He said it was a ‘HALF-TRUTH”. Now, most of us recognize a half-truth as a lie. Is it not? We have stated clearly that homosexuality is a sin. It is. We have said it is a choice. That is true. We have been conveniently silent on the issue of attraction and have not stated that the issue is clearly more complex than “merely a choice.” We have not dealt with that issue honestly. It appears many still are not willing to deal with that issue honestly. Thus the half-truth statement. As for homophobia, I explained that in the last post.… Read more »
So, everyone in the SBC, who believes that homosexuality is a choice, is lying…is that what you and Dr. Mohler are saying? That everyone in the SBC, who believes that homosexuality is purely a choice, is intentionally deceiving people? intentionally telling something that aint true? That’s what a lie is. Now, he might’ve said that many in the SBC dont understand homosexuality, or same sex attraction….but lying? Also, it’s not homophobic to not be willing to deal with gays in the right way, in a way that pleases Christ. Homophobia means that you’re scared of them, or you’re scared of… Read more »
David:
You’re just not going to get it what Dr. Mohler said, cause your just not even trying to.
But, I would love to compliment you on your ability to keep stirring the pot.
I can’t tell if he is unable or unwilling to get it.
It is mind boggling, that is for sure. It’s pretty simple and straightforward. It has been explained repeatedly.
If it is just to stir the pot, then that is unhelpful and very disingenuous.
I dare not speak for Dr. Mohler, nor would I think he wants or needs me to defend his words. I have sought to explain to you what I understand to be a pretty simple statement from him. I explained the terms the way he did, the best I could. He was straightforward, and it appears most people are not having a hard time understanding: (a) the use of generalization, (b) the concept of a half-truth being a lie, and (c) the use of the phrase “a form of homophobia”. You fail to understand these basic concepts, or you choose… Read more »
David/Vol,
I noticed you did not respond to this post.
Joe Blackmon: You said to my questions:”Why the use of the word ilk? I like the sound of it. It sounds filthy which, when you’re talking about a moderate or a liberal, is fitting. Why the constant name calling of others? Ah, yes, but you’re so respectful of everybody. If only we could be more like you. How do you know the theological persuasion of someone else? By reading what he has written on mulitple blogs over the years.” So let me see you think it is fitting to use the word ilk–because it sounds filthy in relationship to other… Read more »
A half-truth isn’t necessarily a lie either… You can just tell part of the story and leave out important elements. We were real quick to tell homosexuals that they’re going to hell. What we didn’t say is that is grace and forgiveness of sin to be had… We were real quick to condemn the sin of homosexuality. However, we have largely ignored the sins of adultery, lust, and the evils of pornography… We weren’t lying when we told people that homosexuality is a sin and our sin condemns us to hell. We forgot the part where there is redemption and… Read more »
“”A half-truth isn’t necessarily a lie either…””
I disagree. Please see the Devil’s use of Scripture (truth) in Matthew 4.
Also, every half-truth I ever marked “TRUE” in college and seminary was marked, “WRONG!”
I’m defining a half truth as not necessarily telling the entire story.
Half-truth: Don Larsen pitched a shut out in 1956.
Truth: Don Larsen pitched a perfect game for the New York Yankees in the 1956 World Series.
I didn’t lie, but I certainly didn’t paint the entire picture. And on a multiple choice, my half truth would certainly be wrong because my truth was more right.
This is where I’m coming from to better elaborate on my position.
If someone knowingly tells a half-truth, they are attempting to hide something, which is a kind of deception. There are many ‘new’ less-than-ethical varieties of communication out there these days, but Christian people should understand not to get drawn into them. One example is calling telling an untruth the same as ‘mis-speaking’. It doesn’t fool anyone.
What you call a “half-truth” I call an “incomplete truth.” There is a difference for me.
A half-truth, for me, means a half-lie. An “incomplete” truth would contain a full measure of truth that would not be contradicted when the “full” truth was acquired.
So, using your qualification, I see your point, but still do not agree with how you view the video statement — at least I don’t agree entirely.
I do think I understand where you are coming from.
Frank,
My half-truth is your incomplete truth. At least we now know each other’s interpretation of what we’re looking at here. Now that I know where you’re coming from, I also agree with your premise of what you call a half-truth also being a half-lie. I just call it a lie, but I tend to be more absolute there.
Thanks for the back and forth, this was helpful for me.
Jason,
You are simply obnoxious toward David!
Why dont you and your ilk explain to me why the Washington Post, the Huffington Post, the AFA, the Associated Baptist Press, and even BDW seem to get the same impression that David is saying re Dr Mohlers statement.
So is Bryan Fisher dumb?
Inquiring minds want to know who the homophobes are in the SBC?
I’ll just say that where I live the majority of Christians could be described as “practicing a form of homophobia” and if those of us living her took an objective look at our attitudes towards homosexuals we would have to agree with that assessment. Also, read the latest article on Dr. Mohler’s website. He’s pretty clear on what he believes regarding homosexuality. Same-sex attraction may not be a choice, but homosexual acts are a choice and are sinful. You can read the updated BP article about Bryant Wright’s meeting with the homosexual activists at the Convention meeting and see that… Read more »
Robert Masters:
That word ilk is just not very nice. One recent poster explained that he used this word because he thinks it is a filthy word.
And you think Jason is obnoxious. As one poster loves to say LOL.
So a prominent, previously untouchable Calvinist has been found guilty of: hyperbole! The result? The entire BI blogosphere up in arms. ( “we’ve got him now”) Conspiracy theories about Baptist news reporting and muzzling free press. A 200 article paper trail dismissed in the blink of an eye.
And these are largely the people who vociferously defended a prominent rabid anti-Calvinist in the face of years of repeated exaggerations and falsehoods (facts that are self-contradictory). Wisdom is truly justified by her children.
No one in the BI crowd has a “got him now” mentality. They are simply saying that those words being used by a SBC entity head is disturbing, and it’s confusing, and it’s concerning. How has the SBC lied? How has the SBC been homophobic? I mean, this just seems to fit right into the crowd that wants to be accepting to homosexuality as an okay lifestyle. This is not what Dr. Mohler has said in the past…many times, and in many venues… I’ve seen him being interviewed on TV and applauded him…in the past. Anyway, like I said, I… Read more »
You have been told repeatedly HOW the SBC has “lied” and been “homophobic”.
Why are you still asking that question as if you don’t know the explanation?
Bill,
You may be onto something. Many of Mohler’s words are being questioned. Even in this thread his words seem to be taken out of context so they may be questioned.
I wonder why no one questioned the general statement from the 1995 resolution that said:
Mark,
It was questioned…by many of the people I know…but, the SBC was started due to the issue of slavery…so, you can see it a little better, as being needed….and, as being more true of the SBC!
David
David,
Did you not notice the phrase “in our lifetime?” Slavery hasn’t existed in our lifetime, so this was obviously dealing with the issues of our own day (circa 1995 for this resolution). So are you saying that racism is “more true of the SBC” today (or in 1995)? Are you saying that “we” is an appropriate word to use of the SBC in regards to racism “in our lifetime” (circa 1995)?
Do you really not see the parallel here?
Paul,
That was just on “resolve” of many in that resolution.
David
But it is there!! You can’t simply dismiss it because it’s not the only “resolved” there! That resolution, which included that particular “resolved” was passed by the messengers of the 1995 convention using “we” in precisely the same way Al Mohler used it. Yes, there were people afterwards who objected and they all looked terribly out of touch doing so. Honestly, from my own perspective, those who protest the loudest often seem to have the biggest issues with whatever the topic is. If I had been there in 1995 I would have voted for the resolution even though I don’t… Read more »
Mark,
I wasn’t a fan of that resolution, but I don’t think it was a “spirited and inflammatory as Mohler’s” for one.
For another, it was a vetted statement not a blanket, general, unquestionable accusation.
There’s a difference.
Frank,
I’m getting lost in all of these threaded comments. It seems you are more speaking to the “tone” of Dr. Mohler’s presentation vs. the racism resolution’s. I was more attempting to compare the content.
I disagree with you (see my breaking down of the racism resolution below).
Mark,
Not really. I’m basically making a distinction between the individual nature of Mohler’s speech compared to the body response of the resolution.
I don’t think Dr. Mohler’s “tone” was particularly a problem. He sounded like he always sounds to me. I’ve already said, I’m not much of a fan of his approach to SBC life — as I know it from a limited distance from the platform.
I personally wouldn’t walk across the street to hear him speak, but that was not my issue with his statement.
Bill Mac,
I would not get too worried about these BI guys… they have a far greater opinion of themselves than the convention has. Just go back a watch the Video again and notice the response from the convention to ________ _________ (crickets, crickets, crickets). Now, notice the response from the convention to Dr. Mohler… (applause, applause, applause). These guys couldn’t touch Dr. Mohler in a WWE cage match…
Greg, Yea, all 2,000 people in the convention hall…lol… Greg, many, many people, who are not into the extreme Calvinists and emerging, ecumenical movements chose to not attend this SBC. Many. 4800 total messengers….only half voted for the SBC President…only approx. 2100 were there to vote for the VP…and only 1500 were ther to vote on the immigration resolution…. More than likely, a lot of the messengers were there, because they’re SBC employees, and were expected to be there….SBC entity heads, and their entourages…Lifeway workers,….booth workers for colleges, seminaries, etc….So, when you factor them in the equation…the attendance in Phoenix… Read more »
David:
You said:”It was pitiful for a reason.”
And the reason is _____________________?
Tom,
Read my comment above again….you will find the answer there if you’ll read it.
David
This is the first time I’ve heard that the messengers at the SBC were largely extreme Calvinists or emergent churchers.
David:
I did not find the reason in your answer.
Please give me and others the reason. Notice you used the word reason–so does that not imply one reason.
So I will ask you again–And the reason is______________?
Me too, Bill. Extreme Calvinists, emergents, ecumenical types and convention employees. And all, apparently, on the same page! That must have been one interesting convention.
And all those convention employees left their booths in the exhibition area to go applaud Mohler’s response to Peter. Amazing!
One reason the attendance was down could be people such as myself who are content with the direction of the Convention. It was in Phoenix. And those who stayed away who think as you do only furthered the direction of the SBC, which is a good thing in my opinion. Very good thing. If there were still as many as you claimed David who stayed away out of protest, that was silly, they could have voted for another direction. I think there are not many of you left.
Paul: 🙂
No, all 20 in the convention hall.
I for one am thankful you stayed home. 🙂
Debbie:
I really believe that David does not get it that those of his persuasion are a very small number in the SBC and I for one am very thankful.
I was there, Debbie. I’m talking about a lot of Pastors that I personally know….they looked at the Pastors Conf. line up…they see the direction of some of the SBC leaders…and they chose to not spend the money and the time to attend….
I’m just telling you what I’ve heard, and what I think…
Let your yes be yes and your no be no. Incomplete truth?? Its either the truth or its not. Are not both statements true? One is just more descriptive than the other. Its kind of sounds like you are justifying being able to tell half truths to me. If it is not truth it is a lie. I could be wrong but propaganda comes to mind when trying to understand your position. Forgive me if I am way off base here.
Parish, Propaganda sounds about right…
I would break down and ask about the racism apology line like so. (Emphasis mine.) That we apologize to all African-Americans Is it proper that the “we” unequivocally include all Southern Baptists? Is everyone okay with that? Why? for condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism The “we” is further expanded to include “individual” and even “systematic” racism. Is everyone okay with admitting they are or have been guilty of such racism? in our lifetime; And is everyone comfortable admitting they’ve done this in their own lifetime, no questions asked? and we genuinely repent of racism of which we have… Read more »