I had a good laugh last night when I received the following email from David Corry, a General Counsel with Liberty’s Office of Legal Affairs. I’m posting it here with grammatical, factual, and spelling errors as received.
from: Corry, David M dcorry@liberty.edu
to: “peterlimpkins@gmail.com”
cc: “Tony@sbcvoices.com”
cc: “court-orders@wordpress.com”
date: Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 6:39 PM
subject: Cease and Decist False Statements regarding Liberty University TrusteesPeter Lumpkins:
Your recent internet blog on peterlumpkins.com/typepad.com has come to the attention of Liberty University and its Board of Trustees. (http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2012/04/liberty-university-trustees-unanimous-mark-driscoll-is-not-welcome-by-peter-lumpkins.html) I write on their behalf to inform you that it contains false information that is defamatory and calculated to injure Liberty University by portraying it in a false light. Furthermore, the content of Liberty University’s Board of trustees meetings are confidential and protected both by Virginia law and confidentiality agreements signed by all trustees and officers in attendance. I understand that you are responsible for the blog and write to demand the immediate removal of the post, as well as a posted retraction. The failure to take the actions requested here will result in my advising Liberty University of its full array of legal rights, which include a civil action for damages and injunction relief against you and SBC.com and WordPress.com (Automattic). Additionally, Liberty University may have to take swift action publicly, naming you, to protect and restore its reputation, which action may prove embarrassing to you.
By copy of this email to SBC.com and WordPress.com, we are placing them on noticed as the publishers of the blog, that they have aided in the publication of false information which is defamatory, as well as confidential information that is protected by Virginia law, and that they should take steps immediately to remove, restrict access to, and restrict availability of this material. Not only does Virginia law compel such a result, but their own policies and rules would produce such a result. One of their contributors has violated the terms of service by posting information that is objectively false, defamatory and portrays Liberty University in a false light. To the extent any information in the blog posting regarding occurrences at a confidential board of trustees meeting is not false and defamatory, it is protected as confidential information by law. Accordingly, they should immediately remove the posting as being a violation of their policies governing blog postings for being harmful and objectionable.
Please govern yourselves accordingly.
In His service,
David M. Corry
General Counsel
Office of Legal Affairs
OK. This is a prank. Right?
After my a solid chuckle, I could only imagine this was a prank. Some fun-loving student was having a little joke at my expense. After all…
- Peter’s email address was incorrect
- They thought we blogged at SBC.com
- The confused WordPress.com and Typepad.com
- Who ever heard of legal notice via email?
- The grammar & spelling wouldn’t pass a freshman English course
- How could Liberty actually feel threatened by Peter Lumpkins?
So, I spend about 15 minutes on the phone today with David Corry. In my opinion, he is a nice guy in a difficult situation. Who would want to defend a paranoid leadership team against every rumor & opinion on the Internet?
Then I spend another 45 minutes talking to Peter Lumpkin. We agreed this was an attempt to intimidate a “little blogger” and silence any suspicion of dissent withing the Liberty University Trustees. After all, are those “Christian Champions” at Liberty really planning an embarrassing court case vs. Peter? That would be a blogger’s dream come true!
I told both sides that Peter is our crazy cousin who likes to start fights. But I think it’s wrong to silence voices who make us nervous. Let the people decide. If the story is false that will be obvious in just a few weeks.
Anyway, Dave Miller also gave me his thoughts, but he’s a little nutty and may not be an American citizen.
Let’s Hear Some Noise
I’d love to read your comments on this latest attack attempt to intimidate free speech by an institution loosely affiliated with the Virginia Baptists (the conservative branch). Do you think Peter was wrong? Would you hire Mr. Corry for your next legal battle? What is wrong with Baptists in Virginia? Comments are open below (and I’ll tell Dave to let ’em run wild.)
Dear Mr. Kummer (if that is your real name).
I may be nutty (some bloggers post continually to that effect), but I am a citizen. I have a passport to prove it. It’s a great picture, by the way.
That’s what the last guy said…
Tony, this is the most entertaining thing you’ve put on the internet since you little post after the “nicky-name” came out. Gosh I miss your humor…and good spirit.
BTW…I read the whole post and I think that Peter is a big boy and can handle the heat in this kitchen just fine. 🙂 selahV
and the publicity ain’t bad either…thank you, for exposing this situation. 🙂
Slander, rumors, innuendo, and weasly accusations (implied, not always direct) are all par for the course at Peter Lumpkins’ blog. Even when his posts are proven wrong, he will not retract or repost or admit his fault.
Few in the SBC take him seriously. Liberty should let him be.
Why is it okay to assassinate this particular man’s character publicly?
Jim G.
This is not ok.
Peter has no character to assasinate……unless you count him as a bad character…..then he has a bullseye on his back. Besides that, he can’t ban me from this blog as he has done at his.
Dear Jake,
Spreading old rumors again? You are not banned. No one to my knowledge is banned from my site. There is no reason “to ban” since I started practicing moderation. Why some of you guys glory in the fact that a comment or two didn’t get posted remains incredible to me. Read my commenting rules. There posted publicly for you to see. Unless, of course, you’d like to assert I banned you from reading my site.
With that, I am…
Peter
Sorry… but I just have to point out again… everyone makes typos:
Peter Lumpkins- “There posted publicly for you to see.” (I believe you were looking for “they’re”)
Sorry Peter Lunkhead,
Not a rumor. First hand experience. Heavy handed moderation you might add. Everyone knows you pay no attention to “your rules”…..you know it, I know it and the American public knows it. But it is your blog and you are entitled to that perogative. And that Mr. Lunkhead I will defend in spite of your self.
AGAIN, Why is it okay for Kyle to get away with this? Isn’t this accusing the brethren needlessly? How does this advance the OP? What is written here has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It’s just a personal attack. I’ll keep asking until I get an answer or get deleted.
Jim G.
Good question Jim, so I’ll give you a straight answer.
The standard is different when we don’t like someone. That’s what I told Peter on the phone today, “People arn’t going to like you because of what your write.”
And I told Dave to let this thread get crazy, so he’s removed the delete key from his computer.
WE all make too many assumptions about people who hold different opinion. That’s one problem with “Internet Debate” versus hashing out our opinions over coffee.
I’m trying to parse out your response. How is the standard different for people we don’t like? I’m not sure what you mean by that. All you guys are doing is proving people right who have criticized you for inconsistent application of commenting rules and proving wrong all of us who have told people to give you a chance.
The new commenting rules were made by me and the normal contributors. Tony has his own rules and the blog belongs to him.
Hi Tony,
And because Kyle supposedly doesn’t like Peter, he can call him a slanderer and a weasel on this comment thread and that is okay? Is it okay for everyone on this blog who has something against Peter to take a free shot at him because…well, just because? Doesn’t all of this fly directly in the face of the new commenting policies instituted here just a week or so ago? Doesn’t this come across as a bit hypocritical? Can’t we discuss the issue without getting personal?
Jim G.
Sometimes I use sarcasm to the extent that I forget I was teasing. Dave is always right. Just ask Tyler
I’d forgotten about that one.
Jim G.,
Were you the attorney for Rodney (can’t we all just get along) King?
By the way, Tony, as soon as you realize that I am, in fact, always right, the better things will be around here!!
Jake,
What kind of comment is that?
Jim G.
Actually, Peter had a post a few months ago that he put up about another agency, but then found out his sources were questionable.
And he pulled it down and apologized. I disagree with a few of Peter’s opinions, but I have seen him admit being wrong.
I think you’re misunderstanding his willingness to be a fly in the ointment for being a man with no character. It’s not the same.
Finally…a man who has enough brain cells left in his head to discern the difference between a Christian man on mission and the “anti-Christ”.
Thank you, Doug Hibbard!! selahV
Hi Kyle
Well you have opportunity each and every post I put up to demonstrate how ridiculous my blog posts are. Oh, wait! You have! Dadburnit. I forgot. I actually deleted all your comments so you couldn’t prove what a slanderous, evil person I am.
With that, I am…
Peter
ha ha ha…
Kyle, if Peter’s blog is so filled with “slander, rumor, innuendo, weasly [sic] accusations (implied, not always direct)” and “are par for the course at his blog, why do you, bother reading it? Surely if he was so insignificant in the stream of thought and conversation, and no one takes him seriously, there really is no need to bother chiming in and sharing thoughts that rob you of time for worthier pursuits…surely. selahV
Is this serious? I have no idea even how to comment.
This is not a joke. We were contacted by this lawyer because Peter’s article ran in our aggregator.
If this is real all I can say is wow….talk about being thin skinned!!
I don’t see how that article is damaging to Liberty.
I can see how Liberty might not like the idea that a trustee has violated his/her promise to keep things confidential, but Liberty’s beef is with the trustee, not Peter Lumpkins.
Right on, Louis…! Freedom of speech or something like that?
First of all, I work with many foreign-born people at my job and they would have to purposely try to write such a terrible letter. It’s like a Nigerian scam letter.
Second, Peter and I would disagree on a lot, but that’s his blog and he has free speech to write what he wants, allow what comment he wants, etc.
Third, shouldn’t LU be going after their trustees if in fact Peter’s information was leaked by one of them from the confidential meeting? Why waste time going after a blogger when the problem would be a trustee who broke whatever confidentially agreements (if real) were agreed to?
Fourth, how is SBC Voices responsible for the content of blogs that show up in the RSS feeder? If so, that would have huge legal ramifications for most of the internet world. Imagine holding a search engine like google legally responsible for ANYTHING found on that search. I don’t think any court would uphold this.
Great comment, Josh.
But “First of all, I work with many foreign-born people at my job and they would have to purposely try to write such a terrible letter. It’s like a Nigerian scam letter.” – that was BRILLIANT.
Josh, maybe one of the trustees went home and prayed about it out loud and the maid heard him from the hallway, and that maid just happened to be married to Peter’s barber and the barber was the source of the leak. You know how it goes…only your hairdresser knows for sure. selahv
My question is, while there are some mistakes in the man’s email, is the content of the email correct? Does the internet blog he is referencing contain defamatory and thus false information?
Those are legal definitions. Peter reported what sources told him. So, unless he knew those sources to be lying, I think he is safe.
The whole story could be a lie fed to Peter, perhaps? But (and I finally read the post this morning while talking to Tony) Peter wrote on the basis of what sources told him.
Louis had it right above. The real issue is with the trustee who reported this.
Dave,
How do we know that? Did Peter state who his sources were and does he have evidence of such?
This are several legal questions assumed in the letter. Did Peter actually break the law by reporting statements he believed (in good faith) to be factual… does his blog post actually injure Liberty’s Trustees?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistake_of_fact
Tony, seems to me that Liberty has enough problems dealing with the reason Peter would want to bother writing about the situation in the first place, rather than if they actually voted differently than Peter’s source alleged. You also think that this would only bring more attention to them which in the final analysis gives them as much responsibility in their own “defamation” as Peter or the leaker. selahV
So David Corry is a real lawyer who doesn’t know how to spell “desist”. I thought that was covered in the first law school course.
Talk about using an atom bomb to kill a mosquito…
When we first saw the letter last night, we assumed that, because of the spelling, grammatical and factual errors, it had to be someone’s idea of a joke.
It is not.
The bad grammar does not surprise me a great deal. I suspect most lawyerly communications are written by clerks.
fire that stenographer…yeah…
according to LU’s website, the lawyer focused on freedom of speech and religious freedom issues before joining LU.
We all love freedom of speech until someone says something we don’t like.
Very interesting to note:
http://www.liberty.edu/aboutliberty/index.cfm?PID=23175
Josh—
Your point 4 is a big issue on that whole Internet Freedom thing. Check with the Electronic Freedom Foundation about it, but that’s a big concern on some of the copyright protection laws that have been kicked around, holding Google responsible if someone’s illegal download site pops up.
As to the overall issue:
1. Peter claims to have an anonymous source. If he trusts his source, then he should leave it up there. I don’t know how it would turn out if LU actually tried to sue the man, whether he could be compelled to produce documentation in court, but he should leave the post unless his source is weak.
2. This kind of heavy-handed response is exactly why you end up with needing anonymous sources. Over a university discussion of a chapel speaker, you break out a lawyer? Really? That’s overkill. Fight the fire with a statement on LU’s website: “Despite rumors to the contrary, the board of trustees has not….”
3. I have sorely underestimated the reach and influence of Peter Lumpkins. I knew he occasionally could make himself heard, but to be able to damage Liberty University? Wow. I might should make sure I never offend him again. Again: fight his rumor (alleged rumor) with a clear statement from the University Board.
4. Here we go again: no outside comments about what happens in a board meeting? Haven’t we done that recently and it not gone well?
5. The invitation of Mark Driscoll to speak to LU students about marriage is a public issue. How much of a controversy it is among the LU family is unknown to me, but it’s a brewing issue off the mountain to say the least. It’s going to be open to public criticism.
Peter knows what he’s got. It’s not defamatory of the institution. In fact, he seems to try and commend LU trustees for working to address a problem. If it’s a lie, then that’s on him.
As to SBCVoices: that’s a collection of links, and it’s up to the reader to determine if they even click and read. Had the post gone up here, there might be something to answer for, but I can’t see how that would apply here.
That should be “I must make sure I never offend him again.” If one blog post from Peter can destroy a university, what might it do to a mere mortal like me?
Agreed.
Peter’s blog is mightier than the sword…. unless his reporting is getting too close for some people’s comfort.
While I would love to see Peter repent and pull 2/3rds of his content off the internet, this letter is, as you say, amazing and amusing.
And every part of this story surprises?
Peter posting something that gets someone riled up: not surprising.
Lawyers that can’t spell: not surprising.
A big company thinking they can intimidate a few small people with lawyers: not surprising.
Someone who does not get that ignoring this opposition rather than poking it with a stick would be the better plan: not surprising.
Someone thinking they can intimidate Peter: that part’s surprising.
Did you catch how they spelled his email? That was priceless & a little rude.
to: “peterlimpkins@gmail.com”
I personally think he’s more lump than limp.
Hi Tony,
I resent you calling me more lump than limp. I hearbye put you on noticed that you cease and decist from slandering my good reputation. I demand you both take this comment down and write a full retraction to be posted on sbc.com. You may contact me at peterlimpkins@gmail.com.
With that, I am…
Peter Limpkins
“With that, I am…
Peter Limpkins”
Normally, I’d have to delete a comment like this…
Don’t think I won’t trash this along with the 156 others sitting Dave already buried today.
MY sources are very clear about your lumpiness. Until you can provide medical evidence (with full disclosure) to establish otherwise, I can only assume you are hiding the truth from the public.
Just don’t send any gross pictures, that could start a real scandal.
Wow.
Full disclosure: Part of my family is from Virginia and I actually lived there for a few months in Kindergarten. Furthermore, my real home in Indiana was under domination by the Virginian government in it’s territorial days.
So, any prejudice I have against my former cousins is spoken with deep-felt Christian love.
Born and raised in VA. not all people who lead LU are Virginians are they? After all, not all UK basketball players are from KY. So, this is not about a geographical area nor can it be charged with stupidity or anything of the like, because they happen to be in that particular area. just sayin…
It also appears that the attack dogs have hit the comment section on Peter’s site, where about the last couple dozen have called him all sorts of bad things. He certainly stirred the pot up on this one.
If the dates are correct, Peter posted and then received the legal response the same day. When that happens, you get all the typos and spelling errors (why not use spell check?) that we often see in comments. We think that lawyers are trained in the proper use of the language (and we pay them to say it exactly right and exactly clearly) but it often is not the case.
I thought that Peter was quite civil toward LU (as stated in a comment above) and was puzzled that the lawyer thought it appropriate to send him a threatening note. Someone was offended and they could order a response–I suppose it was the person who scheduled or approved the chapel speaker. They both deserve the “blow back” that is happening.
If anything, it is a reminder that we should not say or do anything we are not willing to have posted on the Internet–even if you are a lawyer. It is also rare that you can get any large group to maintain confidentiality about anything that is remotely controversial.
I’m not sure about the publishing date on this. I could have sworn it went through our blog roll a day or two earlier, then went through again. I don’t know if Peter republished it or what. Certainly not suggesting any subterfuge or anything.
I just thought I’d seen that article go through our blogroll. When I looked at it today, I was surprised to see yesterday’s date on it.
If Peter ever wanders by here, perhaps he can clarify.
Peter clarified – I was wrong – the post was only put up yesterday.
This does seem a little over the top…
But, if what Peter reported is in fact false we cant just keep crying, “What about free speech?”
People cant lie about an institution and happenings within that institution and then hide behind “freedom of speech.”
If everything Peter said was true Liberty should simply leave it alone. If Peter reported false things as facts he should delete it and apologize.
Exactly!!! Freedom of speech dose not give one freedom to lie. If Peter is not telling the truth, either intentionally or out of ignorance he is in the wrong, period. What I do find interesting is Peter’s information is from an anonymous soured. Yet Peter is always the one condemning anonymous posts and statements, this I must ask why the double standard?
To be fair, if the information is false, the only person who probably has a libel case or reason to ask for a “cease and desist” is Mark Driscoll whom the blogpost was directed against or the man named in charge of chapel speakers. Liberty could just release a statement that the information is not correct for the trustee’s purposes. Either way, their real issue if genuinely confidential information is leaking out is with their trustees, not with bloggers.
That is all legal though. There is obviously a moral component to sharing information, whether online or in person that I wouldn’t get into here.
Now if Mark & Liberty both sued Peter … that would be something.
Either way, Peter will either be proved right or wrong within a few weeks. If he’s printing falsehood, he will be the one embarrassed. In fact, he said he’s willing to take that risk. If anything, this letter is the best piece of proof for Peter’s post so far…
If Dave Miller, Tony K, or Matt Svoboda reported this would there be a number of people asking if they were lying or making remarks about their character?
I think not. Yet, because it is Peter Lumpkins who reported this, some folks are determined he is lying.
if Peter Lumpkins got out of bed yesterday and decided to make up a lie like this about LU, he is a most stupid person. He may be the most stupid individual in Baptist life if he made up such a lie.
But here is the deal. Peter is not a stupid person. He did not wake up yesterday morning and say, “I think I will make up a lie about LU, LU trustees, and Mark Driscoll. It will be great fun. Happy, happy, Joy, Joy!”
That did not happen. What did happen is that some trustee/trustees told Peter Lumpkins exactly what Peter has reported to have happened. Yet, because Peter is Peter, folks want to kill the messenger.
I am neither a lawyer nor the son of a lawyer, but if Peter posted this in good faith that he had reliable information from a previously reliable source, then even if it’s wrong he’s not legally in trouble unless he is shown actual errors and fails to correct them.
If he was not personally in the meeting, then he did not violate a confidentiality agreement. The trustee did, but that’s the nature of confidential sources.
I’ve read Peter many times and not cared for what he said or how he said it, but he’s never been dishonest. He has been mistaken, but that’s a whole ‘nother question.
And you notice the lawyer-y sounding “contains erroneous information” in the letter: that’s too vague. If the letter explicitly stated “the trustees made no such resolution” then he would need to rethink. The “erroneous information” could be that he misspelled some guy’s name.
It’s calculated to intimidate him and by sweeping in this blog, it’s calculated to intimidate here as well. The goal is to cause anyone involved to think about whether they want to hear from lawyers before they post a criticism of LU.
Compare the response, for example, of the ABN to the use of an “anonymous source” on a blogpost on this site criticizing them. The editor of the paper made a comment explain his view of what happened. No demand for retraction, no threat of a lawsuit.
One way looks like people being civil, the other looks somewhat differently.
“I’ve read Peter many times and not cared for what he said or how he said it, but he’s never been dishonest. He has been mistaken, but that’s a whole ‘nother question.”
That is the deal, Doug Hibbard.
There have been times when I fought with Pete to near blood letting. I have wanted to pull his tongue out and put it on an ant bed. But, I have never found him to be dishonest.
That’s why I like him so much and defend him so often. He is an honest man–a rare thing these days.
If this is the best that LU can do, then they are pathetic. If this is the best that Mr. Corry can do, particularly with the wording of his “demand letter,” then that is pathetic. Contrary to Bill Mac’s assertion above (which maybe true in today’s legal environment), I proofread every letter that my secretary typed before I signed MY name at the bottom. The buck stopped at my desk. If Corry cannot do any better than this, then he needs to take up a different line of work.
Finally, that Corry was instructed to send this letter is further proof of leaders surrounding themselves with “yes men.” Is there no one at LU who did not see this type of heavy-handed tactic blowing up in their faces? Oh, that’s right. This is the same institution that had Ergun Caner as the Dean of their Theology School. Makes perfect sense now. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
This all still seems like a joke. Do lawyers really do official legal stuff by email?
We prefer fax machines, but only lawyers have them anymore.
But for the most part*, an e-mail is a writing just like a letter. Most courts allow “service” to other lawyers by e-mail now, and all the federal courts require electronic filings. There’s no reason to think a lawyer can’t use an e-mail, particularly if it is urgent, or if you only know how to contact the person by e-mail. If your boss is demanding the angry letter goes out NOW, you get it out by whatever means are available.
*I am not your lawyer, and this isn’t legal advice; “for the most part” has the same weaselly meaning on paper as online.
“Finally, that Corry was instructed to send this letter is further proof of leaders surrounding themselves with “yes men.”
Cousin Howell has pinpointed the infectious disease that is showing up in far too many Christian institutions in recent years.
I wish this whole thing was some kind of a joke . . . I mean this is Holy Week for Goodness’ Sake, and it’s all a bit much for the timing among Christian people, isn’t it?
The rest of Christendom is entering into the Triduum at sunset with appropriate services. I think the timing is unfortunate, and just a bit sad.
Christiane:
It is always timely to point out wrong doing and expose wrong doers. Eph. 5:11 requires us to expose ‘evil doers’….of which Mark Driscoll is one.
But, does that mean that anyone should be allowed to publicly post things “exposing wrong doers” of their “evil?” Isn’t it more the Biblical model to go to the individual yourself? Why post this just to make a scene, especially if you can’t be 100% sure that the information is correct? This does not edify the body of Christ.
Christiane,
This is not a “christian” blog, it is a baptist blog. Baptists never miss a chance for a good tussle, ‘rassle or whatever one wants to call it. We are not a nice, civilized folk like the RC’s.
You are a Christian people, JAKE, and a part of the Church of Our Lord.
I know the ‘rasslin’ is fun sometimes, but am sad to see it today.
Yes, but most of us don’t know enough Latin to go into Triduum.
The unfortunate nature of the modern world: things happen way too fast and this is one of them.
However, if we think this is a free speech issue, then we cannot give it a pass until next Monday, any more than we should have done so for any other issue like this. It is of little things like this that big precedents are made.
DOUG, I’m sure you know what ‘Triduum’ means . . . no Latin required,
just a willingness to be with Him in prayer . . . to spend some time with Him.
The Latin is not that hard, though I had to make sure I was right on “duum” because we’re not to those endings yet in Visual Latin.
The thing about many of us: we are enough accustomed to conflict that we do not find it impossible to come conflict here and then go away and focus on other things. That may not be a good testimony, but it’s the reality.
As we consider whom to blame for all this, I’ve heard Peter, Liberty, the lawyer and the trustee who fed Peter the information.
Allow me to surprise everyone with the simple observation that if Mark Driscoll had never done anything objectionable in the first place, NONE of this would have happened.
Perhaps he could have tuned the magic TV set to this episode, foreseen the conflict and avoided it…all in a very cool and manly fashion.
hour and a half. longer than I thought.
Rick Patrick,
I had a funeral in your neck of the woods today. I stopped by your office to visit with you afterwards. You admin. assistant told me you were visiting hospitals. Maybe I’ll catch you on another day. Stay strong.
Thanks for dropping by, CB. Sorry I missed you. I’d love to catch up sometime. Thanks again and take care.
That was another thing that seemed strange. Mark’s “record” would cause some dissent in many circles. It just sounds right that Liberty people might want to think twice about the event.
Maybe I should say reputation, rather than record.
That’s not to say Peter is right (only time will tell), but why pretend any group of old-school Baptists would be 100% behind Mark coming?
Tony K,
Why do you use the phrase “old-school Baptists” to identify those who would oppose Driscoll coming? Is it your opinion that only “old-schoolers” see Driscoll’s antics as problematic?
I’m thinking of the good people I know who still think preaching without a tie is a problem, only approve cussing in wartime, and think the country choir should sing every Sunday.
Actually that makes me wonder: if the Trustees are old-school Baptists, how was the resolution against unanimous?
After all, there’s that one guy who says “Ain’t nothing unanimous happen’ while I’m here.”
And that’s my church you’re talking about, Tony K. These folks are good people, even if leaving the Heavenly Highway Hymnal alone is tough.
Seriously?
C’mon man! So it’s all Driscoll’s fault now? I’m sorry man, but this is one of the most outlandish comments I’ve read in a while.
People always blame Mark. It may not be fair, but in the end it will show God’s Glory.
Actually, I don’t think people always blame Mark, but when Mark is wrong, Mark is to blame. That should betrue with any of us, except seemingly around here for one guy.
It seems that people blame Peter Lumpkins if he is wrong or if he is right.
Wow. That’s all I can muster here in response. Wow.
We could make this fair & let everyone vote…
Who is a bad guy
1. Dave Miller
2. Peter
3. Mark
4. Dave Miller
5. All of the above
6. Tony Kummer (edited by blog editor in defiance of blog owner.)
Wow? Why Wow?
Isn’t it interesting that PETER LUMPKINS seems to provide the ‘details’ he needs to justify a post and reach some reasonable conclussions from that. YET, his critics, who appear to have done no homework at all, can get by with “smearing” Peter by saying he is “slanderous” “lying” “unfactual” “wrong”, etc., etc….yet never offer any specifics for us to chew on, decide and evaluate. In the case LU and it’s supporters offer nothing to substantiate their claim(s).
SAD for an educational institution to act so shallow.
you wouldn’t know anything about anonymous sources, now would you?
Again,
Proverbs 6:16-19 from the MacArthur Study Bible:
“These six things the LORD hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:
A proud look,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among the brethren.”
guess we all need to turn in our laptops on Sunday morning and have a bonfire, hunh, JaredB?
I don’t believe I said that at all. I just think we all need to remember that just because we’re not actually speaking face to face to each other does not mean we are not still held to the same standards of how we are to treat each other as fellow followers of Christ. I’m no extremist here.
Oh, and also… be careful about tossing the spear at someone for grammatical errors… here’s a quote from the info page here at sbcvoices:
“SBC Voices is the a website…”
We all make some typos now and then.
That’s a legacy typo, we keep it around to keep us humble.
🙂 love that comeback, T
I always thought that meant “a” as in one grade down from “A” but still better than “B” 🙂
Yes, it lacks quotation marks. SBC Voices is the “a” website – as in the best around!!
Am I missing something, or is Mr. Corry actually objecting to something that makes the LU trustees seem reasonable?
I think he’s doing his job. Lawyers don’t go out looking for this kind of assignment. My theory is that someone a little higher up discovered Peter’s post & wanted it to go away.
The exchange continues between Peter & Liberty’s lawyer. I think I’m done after this post, but I would like to see him work the legal issues on his site.
The complaint is centering on the confidential nature of the Trustee work and the insistence that Peter’s information is wrong.
So much irony here – so much.
What happened to this post?
Because the comments are all in a really weird order compared to earlier…
Is that our legal team at it again?
Oh, it’s now displaying newest at the top and oldest at the bottom.
Now–can an improperly addressed email cease and desist really count as a cease and desist?
And now, back to oldest at the top and youngest at the bottom.
Can’t track the conversation. Can’t find where it belongs 🙂
Dave Miller likely broke something 🙂
He’s a good editor, but I think he needs a tech guy to help him. That typewriter he uses can’t handle html.
Liberal. Red Sox fan.
Sorry, I went too far with that last no. No one should be accused of that.
It’s all relative. If it’s the Red Sox against any of 29 MLB teams, then I hope they lose.
But when they play the Yankees…
You should forward it to AT&T, the owners of the sbc.com (formerly southwestern bell company and then sbc before acquiring AT&T and assuming that name for the combined corporations).
All, Let me state as clearly as I know how: I know I am a sparkplug. I know I write provocatively. I know I get under people’s skin. I know I am not liked by many. I know don’t always get things right. I know I am fully capable of making logical leaps. I know I make incorrect inferences. I know the moral distinction between the willful perpetuation of false information one knows to be questionable and publicizing information one sincerely believes to be accurate information. The former is deceit and should be condemned for what it is–lying. The latter while sincere is incorrect . The former is rightly condemned and should reap judgment. The latter is ignorance and should reap correction. Now, while I am sure there are those who believe I traffic in the former–lies, slander, etc–I unashamedly stand before God and can authentically confess that I do not traffic in info I suspect to be questionable. I have made mistakes–embarrassing ones–but they were genuine mistakes definitively not lies. Doug made mention of one I had to correct. I do not fear correction. I rather fear corruption. I’ve said it time and again–I write what I write because I believe what I write to be so. That’s why one gets vigorous objection from me when what I write is questioned. My rigorous (and often misunderstood) defense is not driven by the premise that I feel I cannot be questioned as if I am arrogantly or self-righteously above and beyond questioning. Instead I rigorously defend my position because I believe my position to correspond to reality. That’s all. But when the tangible evidence is ripped from under me, from my standpoint, I have nothing to do but concede, correct the record, and, when it is called for, issue the needed apology, the only honorable option available were one to ask me. Finally, I’m more than sure, people on this very site will question my words now. They’ll say, in some form or another, “you, sir, are a liar.” So be it. I’m perfectly willing to accept the reality that their opinion of me not only will not be changed, but cannot be changed unless I change–for example, I stop being who I am and stop writing what I write. However, being true to myself, and true to expressing what I sincerely believe to be true regardless of how some… Read more »
In the words of Mr Friday, “What is truth? … I find no guilt in him.”
“I know I am a sparkplug.”
Wrong Pete. You are the kid who puts his tongue on battery terminals thinking, “Maybe it won’t hurt this time.”
But I love you anyway. BTW, I just bought “two” brand-new nine volt batteries. Want one? 🙂
This, my friend CB, attains brilliance.
There are two ways of saying no
to someone you believe to be
stronger than yourself.
The first is to say nothing
and go on merely doing
what you were doing before,
and pretend
that you never heard,
allow time and inertia
to be your allies.
And the second?
And the second is to say no
in such a kind and thoughtful way
it befuddles them.
Naturally, if both
these strategies fail,
there is nothing but to relent.
Or to fight:
And of course,
if you decide to fight,
you also have to decide to win.”
Frederick the Wise of Saxony
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_(2003_film)
Peter can defend his post on his own without my help. What troubles me as a grad of Liberty is that a guy who promotes what he promotes in his book is allowed to be at Liberty in the first place.
Boy do I miss the days of Doc being here!
and yes I know Doc had some weird guests for Graduations etc.. But NOT this kind of garbage. Will the men on staff at Liberty allow their wives to go and learn from specifics from this seminar?
P.S. Peter never said that Driscol wasn’t coming. Someone at Liberty needs to learn to read and write I think. This all saddens me! Praying the Trustees step in and clean up this mess!
Well, as a member of the first graduating class in distance learning in Counseling (M.A.), Jan.1988, I must admit my disappointment in the 10th school that I attended and my fourth alma mater (fi only those from which you get degrees count as such). After all, one of my ancestors in Va. fought through much of the American Revolution, and was present at the Battle of Guilford Courthouse here in NC, and all of that so we could have liberty of speech, religion, and press. Now we have an institution supposedly standing for liberty with that term in its very title threatening due legal vengeance upon some individual who reports some of their news which might or might not be very favorable. That makes me most unhappy. Suggest to Liberty Board of Trustees and their legal counsel: Consider what your are doing to our basic doctrine of religious liberty and speech, not mention press, by such threats. Your, basically, robbing all of us of our future by contributing to the darkening of society, the dumbing down of believers, and disregarding the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. As a graduate, I am not happy about that even though I suspect my opinion will not carry much weight.
Wait, wait, wait….
Am I the only one that sees the irony in that NOW Liberty is worried about it’s reputation and integrity?
http://timguthrie.blogspot.com/2012/04/liberty-university-training-champions.html
So it seems that Liberty is officially denying the accuracy of Peter’s post, which means one of 4 things.
1. Peter intentionally misrepresented the facts. Extremely doubtful. Say what you like, but he is careful about these things.
2. Peter’s source intentionally misrepresented the facts. Probable? Who knows?
3. LU is deliberately misrepresenting the facts. This seems doubtful simply because it seems like it would be too easy to disprove.
4. There was a miscommunication and/or misinterpretation of the facts. I suppose in light of the Caner debacle, this might be possible. This still seems to fall on Peter’s source.
So the question is: What now is the appropriate response?
BTW, blaming Mark Driscoll for this is just silly. Yes, if he hadn’t been invited this wouldn’t have happened, but you might just as easily blame the US for winning the revolutionary war or the Romans for losing control of their empire.
I’m with 4 on this. Do we see here that all the heads in the room nodded that Driscoll come was a bad idea, but there was no official vote? In that case, you have a “unanimous expression of discontent” but no vote or action.
Yeah, why is Liberty worried about someone like Driscoll now? Liberty promoted, sponsored and hosted a viewing of the Elephant Room 2 with Driscoll, TD Jakes, etc. They also had Mormon Glenn Beck as a convocation speaker in recent years whose speech was touted as one of the best by Falwell, Jr.
Reputation?
I need to say something about Mr. David Corry, Liberty’s attorney.
There have been some follow-up emails, on which I have been copied (not sure why and I’m not saying a word about the content of those emails). However, the careless grammar and spelling and the inattention to detail and facts that marked the first letter are completely absent in the follow-ups.
He claims the original email was fired off in haste.
We all make gramadakal and spehling errers at times, right?
I still don’t agree with Liberty’s position on all of this, but it may not be fair to judge Mr. Corry’s competence on the basis of the email above.
Agreed. I considered posting the follow-up emails too, but not sure we want to dive into the intricate arguments between Peter & David.
Peter indicates that he’ll be posting those at his place.
Anyone wonder if this is going to come back to definitions of “unanimous” and “vote”?
Kind of like the last business meeting at our church. We unanimously voted to replace the pew cushions. Except we didn’t: we all agreed that next month, we’d get the samples together with the paint chips for the sanctuary and make sure that we had more people there to actually vote to approve it. Yet we had a unanimous sense of the room: we want this done and we want it done right.
So, what would we blog about that? Probably depends on your view of pew cushion replacement. And no, none of that is invented for metaphor purposes.
Liberty publicly responds to Lumpkins here: https://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=572&Announce_ID=22935
“On April 4, 2012, a Southern Baptist blogger, Peter Lumpkins, wrote an innacurate account of Liberty’s recent Board of Trustees meeting as it relates to the university’s invitation to Mark Driscoll to speak in Convocation. Lumpkin’s recent blog contains information that is defamatory and portrays Liberty University in a false light.
The Board of Trustees of Liberty University did not vote unanimously that Mark Driscoll is not welcome on campus, as the blog states, and, in fact, Mark Driscoll is still scheduled to speak in Convocation at Liberty University on April 20, 2012.
Liberty University’s legal counsel has demanded the immediate removal of the post. Liberty University is also posting this notification so that our community is informed as to the inaccuracy of the post, and advised that Lumpkins’ blog is clearly being used to disseminate misinformation about Liberty University and to cause strife and harm to the university.”
Ok, that’s a good thing for them to do. Now we see how this shakes out–was his source mistaken or is something else going on here?
This can be cleared up easily. Mr. Corry simply needs to tell Peter what part of Peter’s article was inaccurate.
The ball is in Corry’s court.
Charles
Doesn’t work. The premise of Liberty’s complaint is that private and confidential trustee information was revealed.
He cannot reveal that private and confidential trustee information to prove that Peter’s information is inaccurate.
Liberty has only two choices. Walk away or seek legal remedies against Peter. Their best choice is to walk away and I think that is what they will do. They’ve publicly called Peter’s information false and I think now that they will drop this like a hot potato.
I’m ready to do the same thing.
Dave, Hello!
It does work. The trustees can agree to release what happened at the meeting. They can provide Peter a statement as to what actually happened.
The fact that Peter got the information and published doesn’t mean that anyone did anything unethical. Maybe, but maybe not. We don’t know how Peter got the information. Maybe a trustee told him in violation of the confidentiality rules. Maybe a trustee told someone else, again, in violation of the rules, and that someone else told Peter. Maybe a secretary at the school overheard the meeting and called Peter. Maybe minutes of the meeting accidentally got emailed to Peter by mistake. Who hasn’t emailed something to the wrong person?
Let’s suppose that a trustee did “leak” the information in violation of confidentiality rules. At what point does a trustee’s obligation to the University conflict with his obligation to Christ? Take an admittedly extreme example: What if the trustees vote to sell Liberty to the Church of Scientology? Would a trustee’s obligation to Christ require him to “blow the whistle” on the sale even though doing so would violate Virginia’s confidentiality rules?
Peter has asked for clarification. Now it’s up to Liberty to clear it up. My opinion: Liberty is now between a rock and a hard place.
Charles
They’ve responded publicly. It’s step #2 and more pressure on Peter, but they left some wiggle room.
https://sbcvoices.com/liberty-publicly-refutes-lumpkins/
At what point is all that has been said about this trustee meeting just gossip, since we haven’t heard any eyewitnesses? Also, in light of Liberty saying that the information Peter has shared is inaccurate?
Also, is it ethical as a Christian to reveal anything about a meeting that is confidential? I realize Peter didn’t sign any confidentiality agreement, but it sounds like the trustees did. Thus, is it ethical for Peter to share information that was obtained due to the sin of another?
I realize it’s not cut and dry, but surely there’s a right answer?
What EXACTLY is the reason for repeating in public, a story that cannot be substantiated? “Sources say” should not be the standard of Christian reporting.
If I remember correctly, Peter was not happy when the subject was Ergun Caner. He wanted facts then.
This rises to the level of gossip.
Chief Katie,
I thought that same thing. Is Peter trying to wiggle out of something on some “technicality.”
By the way: just because something is true does not mean we have to put in print and pass it along: “we are to cover a multitude of sins,” but I don’t think the word “cover” as the Bible dictates is the same way a “blogger” covers a story.
Even if he is right on the facts (by accident rather than investigation) he is wrong in my opinion.
It does little good for soldiers to shoot their own.
Or, as the Chief and I would say: sailors to torpedo their own ship.
Brother Frank,
Thank you for your support. It’s sad that we are now passing on what can only be called gossip at this point.
We should all note that Tom Rich from FBC Watchdog was awarded a settlement for the things that Mac Brunson said about him. In addition, Mac had to publicly appologize. We are accountable for our words.
It’s not too much to ask that Christians be honest. If we can’t be held to the truth with each other, we can’t expect to be trusted by unbelievers.
Happy Resurrection Day.
When we sign agreements to hold information confidential that does not mean that we will hold information confidential till it suits our purposes otherwise or unless something comes up. It means that we will hold the information confidential. Period. Giving our word should be a matter of gravity. It certainly ought to restrict our future choices.
However, Mark Driscoll’s appearance on campus would hardly rise to the level of selling the university campus to the Chruch of Scientology. A trustee who would violate his ( assuming there is such a promise) word to keep matters confidential because he disagreed with having Driscoll ought to resign.
There are times that I really don’t like how Peter approaches his issues but this is not one of them. LU needs to get its house in order.
Why would such and issue require confidentiality?
Are they trying to “sneak” DRiscoll in?
That’s the only way he’d ever get speak in our church.
LU is not the issue. Peter is not the issue. Driscoll is the issue. That’s sad that he has such a legacy and leaves so much turmoil in his wake.
As a former student I’m a bit baffled on all fronts. I’m puzzled as to why Liberty asked Driscoll to speak in the first place. I am also confused as to why they have responded in such a harsh manner until I remember Falwell senior no longer runs the school. Something to keep in mind is that Jerry Jr. is first and foremost a business man and a lawyer. Di I think that’s unfortunate? Very, but it does explain his actions a little better.
I am also a bit puzzled as to why people seem to be going a little more out of their way to paint Liberty in an even further negative light. People seem to think that Liberty was misrepresenting Peters post whcih I believe to be inaccurate. When Liberty confirmed that Driscoll was still speaking others just assumed that they were trying to misrepresent that fact that Peter was reporting. Assumptions tend to lead to mistakes. While I can say for certain, my assumption would be that following the blog post rumors circulated around campus that Driscoll would no longer be speaking. After all Peter did suggest that Driscoll should opt to no longer attend.
Also while I haven;t seen this by a majority of people, I would strongly encourage everyone to realize that this smear on Liberty’s name does not represent all of its students and staff. Many people are shaking their heads about this as much as all of you are.
As one final note I have noticed some people take the opportunity to bring back up the Ergun Caner situation that took place a while back. I’m not sure that’s appropriate to dig up old issues that have past along since then.
I hope this post doesn’t upset or offend anyone. I just wanted to express that as a Liberty graduate I am pretty disappointed at both sides. Someone needs to act like the grown up in all of this, and so far neither side has managed to do so.
The reason the Caner situation is being brought up is that between Caner, Driscoll, Beck, et al, it seems, at least to some, to show a pattern of poor judgement on the part of LU.
If Peter’s story is entirely untrue, then the trustees meeting remains confidential, and they do not have a breach.
If Peter’s story is essentially true with some minor inaccuracies, then LU has a right to be upset that they have a breach of confidentiality. Whether bloggers should repeat that which they know to be confidential is also an issue.
It seems to me that the issue that LU is objecting to the most is the insinuation that they have a division among the top people at the University. If Peter’s story is mostly true, then that is most likely true also.
We are celebrating the death of Christ for our sins and his resurrection, this weekend.
I believe that this issue is a real issue, and we have discussed it at length. Now, let’s turn our hearts to something much more important than blogs and disputes and all of that.
Thom has an excellent devotional that is posted here. Ruminate on that. We can get back to the nitty gritty of things after this weekend.
A few if us out here in heathen ville (aka Seattle) who have actually been living in the same city and watching the damage of Driscoll for almost 10 years launched this petition. Please read and sign and circulate http://signon.org/sign/hey-liberty-university-1.fb8?source=s.fb&r_by=4117796