I was having one of my regular bouts with insomnia Monday night and I started perusing blogs. There have been several articles in the last week or so that have been very critical of one of the past presidents of the Southern Baptist Convention, Dr. James Merritt. He was, for a time, involved in some way in a financial program called Fortune Hi-Tech Marketing. I had never heard of it until blog posts appeared questioning the organization and criticizing Merritt for his involvement in it.
There was a video of Dr. Merritt posted on several sites in which he spoke highly of FHTM and even how he could use it to help people in his ministry who were in financial trouble. By Monday night, the video had been taken down and was no longer available for viewing. That made me curious.
So, I decided to send an email to Dr. Merritt and his church and ask them what this was all about. We spend a lot of time talking about people on blogs, and we criticize them, but seldom do we actually ask them if they want to give an explanation. So, in the middle of the night I sent an email to Cross Pointe church and told them that SBC Voices would love to hear and publish Dr. Merritt’s side of this thing. I got a response yesterday from Gene Mason, the Communications Director at Cross Pointe telling me that, in fact, Dr. Merritt would be very willing to give a response.
Today, I received this communication from Mr. Mason, which expressed Dr. Merritt’s view. Here it is in its entirety. Below, I will have some comments of my own.
Thanks for your inquiry. Pastor Merritt is no longer involved in FHTM. His preaching schedule and church leadership responsibilities take priority. During the time he was involved in FHTM he found it to be a reputable organization. Pastor Merritt has chosen not to respond to blog entries he recently was made aware of because (1) the authors have already defied Matthew 18:15; (2) the allegations are patently untrue and unfounded and (3) considering the source, it would unwise to respond to someone acting as an unbeliever. As Solomon warned, “Do not answer a fool according to his folly or you will be like him yourself” (Prov 26:4).
Pastor Merritt’s integrity is well established through more than 35 years of pastoral ministry. He has never, and would never be a part of an organization that breaks federal law, nor use his ministry for personal financial gain. We understand Pastor Merritt is among many prominent and respected pastors, authors, educators and theologians who have been the target of these and other rumors, all of which lack credibility, have been put forth in a manner inconsistent with scripture, and without regard for the reputation of the cause of Christ, or scriptural instructions regarding conflict resolution.
Of the many that attend Cross Pointe Church and the tiny audience that has glanced at these rumors, you are one of only two individuals who have approached Pastor Merritt directly. No other respected target we know of has dignified these rumors with a response, but your direct inquiry was Christ-honoring, and so Pastor Merritt has elected to respond to you. This will be his only public statement regarding these false rumors.
Grace to you,
Gene Mason,
Communications Director
Cross Pointe Church
(NOTE: for some reason, Mr. Mason’s email text would not copy into this format, so I retyped it. I checked and rechecked to make sure it is correct, and I believe it is an exact copy of his original letter. If I find any errors later, I will make note of them in the comments. Unlike God’s Word, I am VERY errant.)
I would make the following responses to Dr. Merritt’s response (through his communications Director).
1) Dr. Merritt is as, as Mr. Mason notes, a well-respected figure, enough so that he was elected president of the SBC twice. That does not mean he is beyond being questioned or even criticized, but it does mean that whatever has gone on here needs to be viewed within the context of a 35-year ministry track record.
2) It is clear that Dr. Merritt feels injured by accusations made by bloggers (or, perhaps one blogger). We who blog need to work through the ethics of blogging. I have seen discussions of Matthew 18:15 as it relates to blogging. Am I required to contact the party involved before I criticize them publicly? Does Matthew 18:15 apply to blogging? Here’s my current thinking.
- If I am responding to published ideas of an author or blogger, I should reference those clearly but am not required to make prior contact.
- If I am going to make public accusations (such as was done in this case – in which Pastor Merritt’s ministry judgment and integrity were at question) it seems that integrity and common courtesy would demand that an effort be made to contact the person prior to publication. I can remember three times in recent months that I have published articles critical of a particular person. Each time, I contacted the person prior to the publication and tried to get their response in advance. One agency head said he would respond, but then chose not to. In other instances, we had some exchange before publication, and both articles were softened from their original tone as a result.
- It just seems like common courtesy to try to reach someone with an opportunity to explain or respond before you publish articles that criticize them, their ministry or their choices. Is it required? I don’t know. But it took me about 3 minutes to write that email to Dr. Merritt. It’s not that hard. Why not at least make the effort? Even secular news sources usually give a person the chance to respond before they go to press with critical information. It would seem that our ethical standards ought to be higher, not lower. I think we all, as bloggers, need to think through this. We might each arrive at different conclusions, but we need to work through it.
3) Dr. Merritt is convinced FHTM was a reputable organization. There are certainly others who would disagree. Ultimately, it is between him, the Lord, and his church. I think things like this open doors that pastors should be wary about walking through, but ultimately, Dr. Merritt stands before his Lord and that isn’t me.
4) At the risk of setting off a fire bomb here, there seems to be one more thing that needs to be said. Dr. Merritt is the father of the now infamous Jonathan Merritt who has made statements about the environment (which I am not completely on board with) and about homosexuality (which I think are basically biblical and misunderstood) which have been controversial at best. He is the one to whom Dr. Mohler made statements which were the subject of so much debate at and after the convention. Is there more here than just a discussion of FHTM and a megachurch pastor? Would these issues have been raised if other issues were not in play? The juxtaposition of these two controversies would at least open the door to that question.
The comments may tend to be lively here, and I will probably wield a heavier hand than usual in moderation. As always, direct your complaints to davemillerisajerk@hotmail.com.
Dave,
I appreciate your thoughts and position on Matthew 18:15 in the blogging context. I tend to agree.
I think I’m going to write a post examining that in detail. Since Matthew 18:15 is an “in church” verse, I’m not sure it can be completely applied to blogging, but if I am going to publish criticisms of someone, it just seems that decency and common courtesy, in addition to the weight of scriptures, would call me to give the person a chance to respond, clarify, etc.
With all due respect Dave, we are always “THE CHURCH” no matter where or when we are. This is where SBC ecclesiology is WAY off the reservation. The Church is not just the local autonomous body as oft quoted in the BFM2K, it is first and foremost the collective of all believers everywhere. As Paul stated, the body is made of many parts, but they are NOT separate from one another just because one is a toe and another an eye. You cannot biblically divide one part of The Church from another for convenience. It is grievous to scripture to… Read more »
Greg, I actually believe in the universal church – but I also believe in the autonomy of the local church. So, that is why I say that Dr. Merritt does not answer to me.
Sorry Dave- I jumped on my soapbox without checking the strength of the wood. I think that Dr Merritt does answer to you in some manner as we are all responsible to each other. I think that blogging in general has often been an attempt to bring to light issues “before the ‘church'” even for those who are not believers. Whether you believe in the local autonomy or not, it would seem that anyone posting “Do So-and-So and his snake-oil ministry” in a blog or news article in the Christian world (BP or any of several blogs) is an effort… Read more »
And I do maintain that Matthew 18:15 is about conflict in a local church. If I was offended with Dr. Merritt, what church do I “take it before”?
“And I do maintain that Matthew 18:15 is about conflict in a local church. If I was offended with Dr. Merritt, what church do I “take it before”?” Dave, You just gave the reason they throw out Matt 18 for public behavior. You cannot actually practice it all the way through if need be and they know this. However, This has nothing to do with Matt 18 because he did not commit a personal offense against you. But Matt 18 is the absolutely easiest verse to throw out there and try to shame people when they question behavior or put… Read more »
Greg, you wrote, “With all due respect Dave, we are always “THE CHURCH” no matter where or when we are. This is where SBC ecclesiology is WAY off the reservation. The Church is not just the local autonomous body as oft quoted in the BFM2K, it is first and foremost the collective of all believers everywhere. As Paul stated, the body is made of many parts, but they are NOT separate from one another just because one is a toe and another an eye.” With all due respect to you, it is not the SBC that “is way off the… Read more »
Bob,
Amen.
David
Bob,
In reply to Greg you said –
Note, I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with Greg in this reply. You called his comment an assertion and answered with your own assertion. 🙂
So why is Greg’s assertion unfounded?
Matthew 18:15
“If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
Are the words ‘against you’ bracketed in YOUR bibles?
That phrase ‘against you’ does not appear in the codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
If the phrase is ‘removed’, the scope of the ‘sin’ committed is widened . . .
just some thoughts
Well said, Dave.
USA Today had an article on this company and one ‘critic’ of the company is quoted, this: “the Montana Commissioner of Securities and the plaintiffs in a new lawsuit seeking class-action status, say Fortune is a “pyramid scheme” because salespeople are primarily paid for recruiting, not product sales” After reading the article in USA Today, I noticed that many good people were pulled into it before they realized that the investment recuperation and the profit-making was to do primarily with ‘signing other people up’ rather than through product sales. Perhaps Dr. Merritt was one such person, who honestly did not… Read more »
I wonder if Lumpkins read this. Thanks Dave.
I hope so because it pegged Lumpkins perfectly.
Dave,
I think your point #4 is very relevant. The article where this is first mentioned starts off with the rehearsed critique (misrepresentation?) of the younger Merritt before it attacks the older.
The critique of James are fair. But I think if his last name was different than that of Jonathan, the subject of months of blog articles from this blogger, then this issue probably would never have been raised.
Now, that may not be the case. But it definitely seems a bit fishy.
Just curious, but do you ever check your davemillerisajerk email address? Because the guy who emailed me about winning the International Lottery said he tried to get you first 🙂 On-topic: I think part of this connects in with the appearance we pastors sometimes give of having no accountability. It is true that some don’t, but others do, though it may be more behind-the-scenes and private. So, when someone perceives a problem, there’s this automatic assumption that the individual cannot be contacted or talked to about it, because they won’t respond. So, a blogger or bloggers see their only hope… Read more »
Pyramid schemes are only illegal if the money is only made by bringing new people in. Multi-level sales (while I am no big fan) are legal as long as the money is made primarily by selling products. That seems to be the question about FHTM – was it really about selling products or just adding “sellers.”
And I’ve heard some pretty credible arguments that Social Security, if it were operated by the private sector, would be an illegal Ponzi.
Couple of things from my point of view and/or observation. Peter Lumpkins and Tim Rogers have both commented on this issue: http://rebekah1.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/surprised-by-a-hero-of-mine/ I agree with Dave that we should be careful about unchecked criticism. These things take on a life of their own and often the truth gets completely lost. I remain skeptical about Merritt’s involvment with FHTM. If there is nothing to hide, then why the effort to remove any video regarding it? Are not Pastors supposed to be transparent in their activities insofar as it doesn’t hurt someone? Tell me again. Why was Jesus so angry at the… Read more »
I watched the video once before it was taken down. I have no idea where it was filmed. I will be honest, it made me uncomfortable to hear a preacher say things like that. I’m just not a big fan of multi-level marketing, whether they are illegal Ponzi schemes or not. But I would repeat two things: 1) Dr. Merritt answers to the Lord and to his church, not to me. 2) If you are going to write posts that question the integrity of the ministry of a man (whether prominent or not) you should probably contact the man in… Read more »
Dave,
I agree completely.
I’m a little confused about what allegations are false?
Merritt confirmed his past involvement and even defends the organization. We saw his testimonial video.
I do not speak for Dr. Merritt. And I am not defending FHTM – don’t know enough about it.
As you said, Dr. Merritt has admitted involvement in FHTM, but I think he may be thinking of some of the harsher character-based accusations that have been made against him based on that involvement.
You’d have to ask him to know for sure.
Dave, As one who mentioned Dr. Merritt and the FHTM scheme in my weekend post that also linked to both Peter Lumpkins’ and Tim Rogers’ posts on the subject, let me take a moment to comment. First, if someone or something is in the public eye, I do not feel obligated to contact that person who I’m writing about before I post a blog. Others may feel differently. I simply to not believe that Matthew 18:15 is applicable in these situations and, just because Mr. Mason says that others have “defied Matthew 18:15” does not make it so. Others may… Read more »
As I said to Mike above, I am not sure that Matthew 18:15 applies, but I do think it is courteous to contact someone in advance if you are going to name them in a critical way. That may or may not be a universal truth, but it is what seems best to me. If I was going to publish, “Howell Scott is dirty skunk” (which is only in the draft stage now), I would tell you and send you a copy – at least that is what I’ve generally done. If I’m going to post, “Howell’s Scott’s view of… Read more »
A paraphrase of the response:
“Pastor Merritt has chosen not to respond to critics because they are (1) unspiritual, (2) wrong, and (3) fools.”
Call me a cynic but I think I recognize the megapastor shuffle here.
I don’t think his response is the last word on this, but I commend you for asking.
Let me be clear. I know almost nothing about Dr. Merritt. But as I saw him being criticized, I wondered if he might be willing to give a response. He did. I’m not his representative on this. I think you are right that he is pretty much calling out his critics on this – he said that one of them is “acting like an unbeliever.” You can’t get much more harsh than that. I’ve said repeatedly that MLM gives me hives. I was part of the “Anti-Amway Club” at the first church I served. When my kids did fundraisers from… Read more »
I am not sure Matthew 18 is mandatory here. But it makes sense, if one is going to do a blog post on the issue, to call the speaker and find out what is going on. There are bloggers who do this. I have seen Wade Burleson, for example, do this. He has had a question about something and before he has written, he has called the person to get their side or feelings. This may not be practical. With pastor sermons being posted every week, pastors could spend all week fielding phone calls from people who wanted to know… Read more »
Louis,
You said, “Do exaggerate who you are.”
I take it that is a typo?
David R. Brumbelow
I’m going to take a flier and add the word “not” to Louis’ post. Although in this world, self-promotion to the point of exaggeration is considered a good thing. I’m guessing Louis is going the other direction.
correction made – word added.
Howell, I got a kick out of your defense of your blog post. Of having the courtesy to contact Dr. Merritt directly, you say, “First, if someone or something is in the public eye, I do not feel obligated to contact that person who I’m writing about before I post a blog.” Of Dr. Merritt’s involvement, you comment, “Doug, it may not be illegal to be involved with FHTM, but it certainly can be argued that it is unwise and that it is doubly unwise to try to use your position as a pastor to promote this type of scheme.”… Read more »
Just an FYI – the Bill who wrote this comment is different from the Bill who commented below. I was surprised that “Bill’s” comment ended up in moderation – which all first time comments do. Then I noticed the different email and different IP address. Two different Bills.
One Bill is a regular commenter. This Bill is a first timer. So, I might suggest that “new” Bill might want to use a name if he comments again to clarify.
For goodness sake, you don’t want to be responsible for what the other Bill has said. (Just kidding, other Bill),.
“I’m pretty sure Paul had a little something to say about whether we should be focused on the “permissible” or “beneficial.” ”
But Bill, Paul did not contact Peter privately before he rebuked him in front of all for not eating with the Gentiles. He even wrote it down for us to read for 2000 years. Is that really that far from using the church for a business venture using your influence and position with followers?
Lydia, you wrote: Is that really that far from using the church for a business venture using your influence and position with followers? In a word . . . uh, YES, Paul’s treatment of Peter was very much a different situation from Peter’s treatment of James (ironically all Biblical names here, huh?). Paul’s confrontation had Gospel implications. If you pay attention to the text there in Galatians 2 you will see that Peter’s actions suggested that the Gentiles should “live like Jews” and that these same actions led to hypocrisy on the part of Barnabas and even the majority of… Read more »
Lydia, if you wish to respond without the personal insults and character assault, you may. Any more comments such as the one I just deleted will get your comments placed on moderation.
Lydia, if you would like to discuss this, you can contact me at davemillerisajerk@hotmail.com.
Bill, Thanks for the reference. I’m glad that I was also able to give you a kick from reading my “defense” of my blog post. 🙂 You may believe that I am using two different standards, but we (on Voices) have been down this road before regarding contacting sources in advance. Depending on whose ox is being gored, some will argue that contact is required while others will argue the opposite. When writing on public figures, I have chosen not to contact those people in advance when I comment on their public actions and statements that are clear. When a… Read more »
Howell is right that we have sort of a floating set of standards here. With as many writers as we have, it all tends to be a little nebulous at times.
Hi all, Something isn’t quite right here. I will be the first to admit that I don’t know James Merritt or Tim Rogers. But I have noticed this unfortunate mess and I think we need to see some things more clearly. First of all, good for you, Dave, that you contacted James Merritt on the issue and received a reply from his comm. director. I think you did the right thing. Now that the statement has come from Merritt (I know it was written by the comm. director, but I think we can safely assume it contain’s Merritt’s blessing –… Read more »
I have tried to dance around this, because I did not want this to become focused too much on Peter Lumpkins, but it is my impression that the focus of Dr. Merritt’s comments is not Howell or Tim, but Peter, and that part of his emotion is based on the series of articles Peter has posted that are critical of Jonathan prior to this one. Again (not to keep beating the same drum), I am not Dr. Merritt’s representative nor his attorney. I just asked him for a statement and agreed to publish it. But I think, Jim, that Peter’s… Read more »
I think you are right, Dave. That’s why I tried to focus on Tim. He’s the one who brought it up first, and I don’t see that the accusations brought by Merritt fairly apply to Tim. And, quite frankly, I don’t think they apply to Peter on this issue alone. But given the history, I think you are right.
Jim G.
Dave,
After what I read on the FBC Jax Watchdog site, Merritt could very well be referring back to that site.
Hi JIM G.
Dr. Merritt’s video has ALSO been removed from
http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2011/08/another-james-merritt-plug-for.html
I stumbled across a reference to this story from a blogsite called FBC Jax Watchdog while doing a cursory google search. The article on that site linked back to Tim Rogers’ site but the Watchdog site apparently has a working link to the video.
I’m not speaking to the quality or integrity of the Watchdog site, but I did find a working link through that site.
I did not read anything in the FBC Jax Watchdog site.
Fair enough, it only came across my screen via a Google search for a video clip.
Brother Dave, First, I do not know who in the world Jim G is but I certainly cannot say enough to thank him for his analysis. Second, while you have laid your cards on the table you still need to do something else. You need to point out where Brother Peter has made any “allegations” that “are patently untrue and unfounded.” As Brother Jim G has pointed out and you have agreed my blog post has not made any allegations. I used the very words that Dr. Merritt used and stated I was shocked. I was completely shocked when he… Read more »
Tim, it was pretty simple. I saw all this stuff and I wondered if Dr. Merritt would respond. I offered him the opportunity to respond and through his communications director, he did.
I have not endorsed his words pro or con. I actually don’t really know how I feel about all this.
I have not said a word criticizing you or Peter, so I did not contact you guys.
I have said repeatedly that I’m no fan of MLM, though I was completely unaware of FHTM until I read your piece.
That’s about it.
Hi Tim,
This is so ironic, but I’m your neighbor (literally). We moved to Union Co., NC a few months ago. I did some looking and you are right next door!
Maybe we could chat in person sometime.
And no thanks is necessary. Your post on this issue was the original one and I thought you were being unfairly accused. That’s all.
Jim G.
Jim G.
Brother Jim G,
Man, let us get together. Do you know where the Starbucks is located in Target in Monroe? Or if you, like me, admit that Starbucks is sometimes too rich for my blood, maybe we could meet at McDonalds in front of the Walmart at Indian trail and have a Frappe Mocha. Of course you would have to drink out of your own cup. 🙂
Blessings,
Tim
Hi Tim,
I’d love to. I’ll go to your church website and get the email address and drop you a note. I know where the McDonald’s is in Indian Trail. It’s only about 10 minutes from my house.
Jim G.
Here is the answer to your question about what Peter said being patently untrue: 1. Peter assumed that Dr. Merritt was still a part of FHTM (hence, his present tense verbs). He is not, sp this is not true. If you or Peter had the courtesy to verify your facts, you would have known this. 2. He referred to this venture as a Ponzi scheme. He did this in his tweet, his blog, and in the title of the video he posted on Vimeo. However unwise this venture may be, it is not an illegal ponzi scheme or else Dr.… Read more »
Okay, since you asked, I will tell you where I stand as clearly as I can. 1) Dr. Merritt and his congregation are responsible here, so I don’t really have a stake in what he did, pro or con. 2) I agree with your discomfort about Dr. Merritt being involved in that ministry – it makes me uncomfortable. If he asked me if its a good idea, I’d say no. He didn’t ask. 3) I was really bothered by the whole description of using FHTM in counselling – that made me uncomfortable, though I wasn’t sure I completely agreed with… Read more »
And now we will see the obligatory round of posts responding to Dr. Merritt’s response in this post. It’s like internet tag.
Begging pardon, Dave: You claim “I have not said a word criticizing you or Peter, so I did not contact you guys.” Fair enough. You did not bring up either of our names specifically in the original post. But you did state “it is my impression that the focus of Dr. Merritt’s comments is [Peter]… . Peter’s article is probably the one most in Dr. Merritt’s sights here” and even stated your own theory as to why—“…part of his [ Merritt’s ] emotion is based on the series of articles Peter has posted that are critical of Jonathan prior to… Read more »
Peter:
It must be nice to be able to show up here and try and defend yourself. Something you do not do when you are attacking someone else.
One thing is for sure once you have a bone to pick with someone, you are going to pick it all you can at your place where you can block anyone that might try and defend him or her self.
What are you so mad about because you always seem to have a bone to pick with someone and now it appears it is Dave Miller.
He doesnt sound mad to me. He just sounds like he’s defending his blog post about Dr. Merritt. Why must someone always be mad, just because they’re commenting in a way that someone else does not like? I notice that you didnt accuse our good friend, Dave Miller, of being angry…about the OP?
funny, ironic, and sad…
David
I’m angry, Vol, but it’s about the Red Sox winning streak.
Volfan007 is a voice of tranquility in the midst of the storm that is Blogging 😉
Peter on the other hand…
I beg to differ with you on Matthew 18, but I’m happy you’re reading D.A. Carson.
Brother Dave, Could not sleep last night and tried to reply to this post, but something happened and I lost the entire reply. Don’t know where it went, so if you have something in your spam just delete it. Let me be clear as I do not want you to unintentionally misrepresent me. I am not judging Dr. Merrit, nor am I acting as his Bishop. Your and my take on MLM is completely at opposite ends of the spectrum. I have dear friends that are doing well in various MLM companies. I was offered an opportunity to get in… Read more »
I’d like to add Tim that I’ve tried to comment in defense of Dr. Merritt many times on Peter’s blog. None of these comments were ever posted. Of course, all of the “Former CP Member” postings that were critical of Dr. Merritt have appeared on the blog. Two others told me that they attempted to defend Dr. Merritt or offer evidence contrary to Peter’s positions regarding the older and younger Merritt and NONE of these comments were ever posted. It seems there is something more nefarious going on in moderation than a virtuous move to keep from debating a pastor… Read more »
Peter Lumpkins is up to something “Nefarious”… Now Bill! 😉
By the way Bill he did not just start silencing the “Voices” of opposing Southern Baptist views on his blog… he has been doing this for a long time now, all the while enjoying being listed as one of a handful of “Featured SBC Blogs” (The “A” List) here at SBC-Voices… Go figure…
all the while enjoying being listed as one of a handful of “Featured SBC Blogs” (The “A” List) here at SBC-Voices…
Funny thing, when I was reading that I could have sworn I heard violins in the background playing “Cry Me A River”. And I think it was in D-flat, which is kinda weird because strings hate playing in flats.
Could someone PLEASE put Greg on that blasted “Featured” list so he’ll quit his belly-aching about it.
No Joe… you don’t get it… STOP Promoting some Baptist Opinions as being more important that others.
I make no attempt to hide the fact that I don’t like that Peter gets top billing, while many others (NOT ME, I HARDLY POST ANYTHING) who write far more edifying article get buried somewhere on the back page.
This is just my personal opinion… no violins needed.
STOP Promoting some Baptist Opinions as being more important that others.
Ah, but that’s not what you said. You didn’t say “Take down the featured list feed”. You said “Peter is on there. Waah”. Try sticking to the same story instead of changing mid stream.
Joe, NOW I’M JUST ANGRY… and you would not like me when I’m angry… not really 😉
Two things, Tim. One, your comment vanished into thin air, evidently. It appeared in none of our folders – pending, trash or spam. Sorry. Online gremlins got it.
To be clear, I did not intend to accuse you of judging Dr. Merritt or acting as his bishop. I was thinking of myself when I said that, not you – explaining my actions. If that came across as an accusation, I apologize. That was not my intent.
Dave,
Thanks for correcting by inserting the word I meant to insert in the first place.
My experience with Peter L and his blog comments is that Peter shuts comments down (or deletes them) when ever they make good arguements against his position. This generally results in his comment threads that are largely supportive of his position.
Note that I did not contact Peter before presenting my observations about his blog.
On a more personal note, since I cannot get accurate feedback from the comments on Peter’s blog, I don’t go there. This has resulted in brighter days for me. 🙂
Bennett,
I’m sure that Peter is blessed with brighter days, as well.
David
Whenever a pastor is no longer promoting a business of such ill repute as FHTM from his church, I think that is a good thing. I am happy to see a man of God do the right thing.
Bill & Bennett,
So, when did you guys post on my site and didn’t get thru? In addition, who are phantom people who got “deleted”?
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter, you’ve deleted several of my comments.
Jared:
With that, I am….Peter does not call it deleting–he calls it unpublishing and that makes it ok with him.
His is not really a blog.
Well, I guess since it’s blog he can do whatever he wants. I don’t hear you bellyaching when one of your theologically left-wing blog heroes deletes a comment.
Jared… and mine. In fact I was told my comments would go directly to the trash.
Dear Chief Katie & Jared, A) Read my comment policies which I have in place. I attempt to follow them as best I know how (no, CK, I did not have the policies in place when you kept coming back with the “you, sir, are a liar” nonsense during the old JW controversies) b) of course, I skew you comments, Jared. Poor little guy. I feel like putting my arms around you and patting your sweet little head. You’re so, so abused. Maybe mommy can comfort you tonight as she puts you to bed, tucks you in, and kisses your… Read more »
Dear Jared,
Now, if you would only tell the rest of the story we’d be on the same page, Jared.
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter, I’m not going to go through each person’s comment. What I can say as a practicing attorney is that accusing a public figure of being a part of a ponzi scheme is slanderous. A ponzi scheme is illegal, so you are accusing Dr. Merritt of breaking the law. Since he is not a part of a Ponzi scheme, you could very well be held responsible for your comments. If Dr. Merritt were to approach our firm and ask us to represent him as legal counsel, not a single partner would contest this. It would be an open-shut case, and… Read more »
First rule of mega-church pastoring: If someone criticises you, sick the attack dogs on them. FBC Jacksonville, NewSpring, Ed Young’s Jr’s church……..
I am in a snarky mood so I must say that if a lawyer is attacking Peter, Peter must be very right.
Careful, Tom. We actually have at least 3 lawyers that I know of who are regulars here.
No website is perfect… If Jesus could hang out with sinners, so can we. 🙂
Dude, I warned you. If the crack SBC Voices legal team comes after you, I cannot protect you!
Bill, As a former practicing attorney and one of the three attorneys who are “regularly” here at Voices, I am reminded everyday that there is no such thing as an “open and shut” case, no matter what an attorney may tell you. Just ask the Prosecutors on the Casey Anthony murder trial. That being said, I’m not here to defend Peter (he can handle himself quite well), but his (and Tim Rogers’) use of the phrase “ponzi scheme” instead of the more accurate use of the phrase “pryamid scheme” would not rise to the level of the libelous actions that… Read more »
Howell, Thanks, brother for your responses. The fact is, “Bill” (whichever “Bill” it is) seems to like what we might call selectivity in quoting words. For example, while I employed “ponzi” scheme in the closing rhetorical section of the post as a semi-alliterative parallel to “preaching” Jesus I also explicitly described FHTM earlier–when referencing the info I found on the internet–as both an “illegal pyramid scheme” and, at least in one state’s opinion, a “financial scam.” But our “Bill” conveniently ignores it. Even so, if, as he says, I “admitted” I was incorrect, I fasil to see his point. And,… Read more »
With that you are… Peter: All you have to do is contact FHTM, and they can tell you when he was last active. But I know many people close to Dr. Merritt, and they said “he’s been out of that thing for months.” Now, why don’t you answer my questions, UNLESS of course there is something to hide: 1. Who is paying you to blog full-time? Some have said that Jerry Vines is paying you to blog. If this is true, we’d need to read everything you write differently. So tell us. 2. Which staff members (and former staff members)… Read more »
“With that, I am… Peter”:
Can you also tell us who you’ve been contacting from Cross Pointe to gather your information? Can you tell us the staff members (and former staff members) you’ve contacted. The real question is not why you’ve failed to contact Dr. Merritt and his son before posting blogs about them. The real question is why you’ve bent over backwards to contact everyone except them.
Why not?
Just wondering how long it will take Peter to post a blog topic on his sight about all the people “picking” on him.
When it comes to comments, I have found it interesting that Associated Baptist Press no longer allows comments at all. They used to, and it was a fairly robust commentary. They could have moderated, as is done on this site, and that would have been o.k.
But they shut it down completely.
It’s ok by me whatever any blog host wants to do. it’s their blog.
I think Dave would tell you that moderating a website with a bunch of comments consumes quite a bit of time! My understanding is that ABP plans to bring back comments upon implementing a system that is easier to moderate. Clearly, the small staff of ABP was not interested in spending hours moderating (and there was a good bit to moderate) I suspect ABP hopes that when they do get around to bringing back the comments, that the trolls will have disappeared. It got to a point where the conversation at ABP was completely dominated by individuals who were harshly… Read more »
Honestly, I should probably be more active in moderating comments, but it is time consuming. So, I tend to let things go until they get out of hand.
I suspect you are right about BP and comments.
My biggest problem, though, BDW, is getting around to finding the time to read the books and write reviews when people graciously send me copies of such. Need to get to work on that.
Thanks for the info BDW. I hope they bring the comments back. I did not see the excessive troll domination before they changed the rules, but I don’t doubt that could occur. I did not look at the site often, but when I did, I would say there was about a 50-50 split in comments most of the time. Some of the recent opinion commentary on there has been horrible, especially from the younger people. I saw a piece written by some young guy about Michelle Bachman and that she is now attending a Baptist Church apparently. The opinion piece… Read more »
So what we have here is an influential pastor using his influence over a congregation at some point in the past to promote a secular franchise which is under investigation for being nothing more than a pyramid scheme. Then the pastor has just misused his position behind the pulpit to promote a secular business rather than the gospel of Christ. I don’t care about intent or what he desired to do with his increased revenue. He made his sales pitch from behind his pulpit. Jesus didn’t do Matthew 18 with the moneychangers. He came at them like a spidermonkey. Watching… Read more »
Southern Baptists don’t tend to develop codes of professional ethics for pastors. In an ethics class for my MDiv the professor introduced us to a number of ministerial codes of ethics and encouraged us to draft one for ourselves. Every ministerial code of ethics that I ever read excludes this kind of behavior, and that’s with the presumption that FHTM is a pure as the driven snow. I believe that if I were to discover a business that had a 100% foolproof plan for making every participant perfectly devout and honorable while enriching him beyond the dreams of avarice, it… Read more »
It would be hard to quarrel with what you say, Bart.
Well stated!
et al, Concerning those who dearly enjoy complaining about how I “delete” disagreeable comments, won’t allow posts damaging to my position to be logged, etc etc, I offer a few observations. First, anyone interested may examine the comment threads since 2006 and gain their own sense whether a pattern may exist of my supposed cherry-picking which comment type I allow—that is, only those “easy” to answer or positive toward my position. Second, I have clear commenting policies in place, policies which are public. If anyone can point out how I routinely ignore my own policies, I’d be interested. If not,… Read more »
Peter:
I would simply say that what you call your blog is something else and your endless attacks on people such as Dr. Mohler and Johnathan Merritt speaks for itself.
Peter, I’ve posted every comment you’ve levied on my blog. You skew the comments on your blog regardless your “warnings.” (BTW: You’ve only warned me once that I remember; but have deleted a few comments without warning. *I haven’t posted much on your blog.) If someone is defending your position, you’ll post the comment, regardless how ridiculous their defense is. Your comment thread often looks like a shrine to Peter Lumpkins. You however cannot say this about the moderation here at Voices; there’s no comparison. I guess I’m guilty of “whiny-butt” syndrome. You of course are perfect: defend Rob Bell,… Read more »
Let me say from the outset: I like Jonathan Merritt. I almost always agree with Merritt. The last chapter of my dissertation will (when I write it) cover Merritt and his contributions to Christian environmentalism. Now, I think some of criticisms of Peter are quite unfair. Yea, he’s punchy. His rhetoric can be harsh. And sometimes he does go for the jugular. And for that he gets compared to a drug addict? Really? Peter’s doing what your Resurgence leaders taught his generation to do: ask questions, defend orthodoxy and don’t settle for some weak-answer or excuse. The people who spend… Read more »
Big Daddy,
Very good analysis. You and I rarely agree on anything…but, this comment was excellent. I appreciate the fact that, even though you’re a liberal, and you probably dont like a lot that Peter says, at least, you look at things fairly and with an unbiased eye.
That’s very rare in the blog world.
David
The reason your comments often wind up in moderation here is simple. Any comment that has two or more links in it will be moderated until I release it. That’s an anti-spam setting. It happens to a lot of people.
The comment here that was moderated had at least 5 links. When I found it, I approved it.
Dave, Really, Dave? The fact is, I rarely put links in comments. But even so, such does not explain why a number of my comments *do not* get posted. And, please, I am definitively *not* griping. Do with my comments what you will. But some of your whiney-butt community regulars need to get a life when it comes to complaining about comment policies that are a) public for all to read and follow b) enforced; c) very similar to SBCVoices You’re the last say so here. Fine. Well, so am I at SBC Tomorrow, brother. With that, I am… Peter… Read more »
With that, I am …Peter:
Maybe your comments got unpublished like they do at your place.
Dave Miller, I’m just funnin with Peter.
Peter,
Who or what organization pays you to blog full-time?
oh, I forgot. Unless you know something I don’t, my comment had 3 links total, not “at least 5 links”.
With that, I am…
Peter
You are right, it was 3. I was confusing it with another comment that was made by someone else.
But as long as the number is 2, it gets moderated. You are not on moderation here and I do not delete your comments. If they have links they go into moderation, but I do not moderate Peter’s comments.
I’m not saying I’ve never done it, but if I have, it hasn’t been recently.
I didn’t say “delete”; I said a number of my comments *do not* get posted (i.e. publicly, of course). And, thanks for clarifying–” “I’m not saying “I’ve never done it”. On the other hand, what do you mean by “but if I have…”? You know good and well you have not posted a number of my comments, Dave. And, it depends on what you mean by “recently.” Since I don’t show up here very often, I’d say “recently” was perhaps the last time I showed up here. Or did you forget our phone conversation just prior to the SBC? The… Read more »
I’ve had some comments..without hot links…moderated at SBC Voices…I’ve had some not published…with an email from Dave telling me why….
David
ROF… LOL… This is just beyond funny 🙂
Peter L. is being a “whinny-butt” about some of his comments on SBC-Voices not getting posted (unpublished)… I don’t care who you are, That funny!
🙂 🙂 🙂
Greg I like how Peter is all but calling Dave a liar. Yet if you dare even insinuate that he is a liar on his blog, you earn a one way ticket to ban-ville! (and if you respond to the email he sends you telling you you have been sent to ban-ville, you get flagged for spam and are never heard from again). Yet the very fact that he is allowed to say what he has and does say on this thread, is proof that this blog is more tolerant and forgiving. If I were to say the exact things… Read more »
Peter Lumpkins, Tim Rogers, and Tom Rich (FBCJax Watchdog) call attention to Merritt’s involvement in this scheme. Rich will always pick up on prominent SBC pastors and money issues and has a much wider readership than the other two. I don’t agree with all of Rich’s conclusions on pastors and money but I’m glad he isn’t afraid to blog on this. Bart Barber is no piker and has serious comments on this. But, we can always shoot the messenger, and someone usually does. Merritt is one of the most prominent GBC pastors and a past SBC president. This is newsworthy.… Read more »
FYI to all. Since moderation has become the topic here, let me say a few things. There are some automatic moderation triggers here – in the WordPress programming – mostly as anti-Spam measures. 1) First-time commenters get moderated. Once I approve your comment once, you are “one of us” and subsequent comments go through without moderation. 2) Sometimes, if you change your email, your name, or if you login from a new computer (with a new IP address) you will be treated by the software as a first-timer. 3) If you put links into your comment, it will wind up… Read more »
One more thing – if I have someone in moderation and you use their name in your comment, it may end up in moderation. Happens pretty often.
What’s amazing….and very concerning…is that some lawyers get on these blogs and start hinting at legal action!!! Really? Is this what we’re coming to? Do you really want to kill free speech? Do you really want to stop the free flow of ideas and conversation between Pastors and others who want to talk about such matters? Really? Wow. Lawyers. Maybe that’s why all the negative feelings and such about them. All lawyers in here…and others in here, who feel that legal action is required for “blog talk”…please reconsider…in fact, take a deep, cleansing breath…drink a little, sweet tea…eat a little… Read more »
God is sovereign. He still sits on the throne of Heaven. I really believe that….it’s not just a bunch of religious talk with me.
You said lawyers, I’ve only seen 1 here that mentioned possible legal action.
Did I miss some comments?
For the record, David, no one has threatened legal action. What “New Bill” said is that he believed that if legal action were taken against Peter, it would be an easy case.
he did not threaten to actually take that action.
And, also for the record, another lawyer came on and gave an opinion that differed from that one.
I did threaten legal action against Tom Bryant, but only because he made a smart-aleck comment. I think it was clear to all that this was a joke.
If it was a joke, why did I get served with “Cease and Desist” orders this morning!
🙂
I’ve seen legal action threatened at other times, on other blogs, as well as the hint here, on this one. I wasnt talking about the joke….I knew it was a joke. Tom, sorry about the papers being served on you. I know that had to be traumatic. 🙂 I’m seriously thinking about getting out of blogs entirely, again. I’m serious. If all its gonna be is smart aleck remarks, accusations, anger, endless argueing and debate tactics, and all the other junk that goes on…then, what’s the point? I’m beginning to feel like I did about a year ago, when I… Read more »
David:
You said:”Anyway, some of you will rejoice that I’m gone. You’d rejoice if Peter was gone, and Bart, and Tim R., and a host of others, who dont agree with you on every jot and tittle. But, the reality is…our lives would probably be better off to be out of the blogs….
David”
2 comments
1. You’ve got this little whine thing you do down to a science.
2. You and the others you mentioned give us so much to think about in your blogging–please don’t deprive use of that–please.
Sometimes, David, I feel that way as well.
1. You’ve got this little whine thing you do down to a science.
Um, pot/kettle much?
2. You and the others you mentioned give us so much to think about in your blogging–please don’t deprive use of that–please.
Ah, yes, but your blog comments, which amount to basically “Those conservatives were big ol’ meanie heads during the CR. Wahh, wahh, wahh.” are SO insightful and edifying.
“Tom, sorry about the papers being served on you. I know that had to be traumatic. ”
It was. I had to take half a baby aspirin to sleep… That plus I read some of the comment threads here. … ahhhh dreamland… :-))
Take that, Tom.
And this is what usually happens on a group blog with diverse viewpoints. They get accused of all marching in lockstep against the so-called outsiders, as if no one here can tolerate disagreement.
Bill:
I have always been confident of finding differing views at SBC Voices and I am thankful for that.
Whether or not Matthew 18 applies when it comes to public issues and confronting perceived sin we certainly should agree that we are to act in love, humility, and with a heart of restoration (Christ-like). It seems that the Christian blogosphere lacks all three on a consistent basis.