SBC=>ENCOUNTERS

African American Pastors Taking A Stand

He Ain't My "Weird Cousin from Georgia", He's My Brother

I encountered, as usual, several posts and comments yesterday and today, some worth noting, others...not so much.  I find the whole business and debate, if you please, quite sad and unquestionably stuck in the middle of double set of standards.

One voice I particular trust in the SBC community is David Brumbelow's.  As I penned my post yesterday and today, I thought about the effects it might have on any "tomorrow" should a person drop in and find it among the thousands I've written for cyber consumption over the past few years.  I think David's summation on the recent SBC "kerfuffle" is germane:

"It seems to me this post [link] is ridiculing Peter Lumpkins, and then saying if anyone doesn’t like it, we’ll make fun of you too.

Anyway, I’m glad you have him back. David R. Brumbelow"

When a brother-in-Christ uses his Christian faith as a jumping off point to influence culture and people about his personal views, and becomes a pseudo-spokesperson to admonish other Christian brothers and sisters for homophobic attitudes (at a time he was in this struggle with homosexuality), then yes, we [Southern Baptists] should be told who we are looking at when we pick up his book, A Faith Of Our Own, and consider what he has to say. This book promotes Jonathan as:

"...a faith and culture writer who has published over 350 articles in outlets such as USA Today, The Christian Science Monitor, CNN.com and Christianity Today. He is author of Green Like God: Unlocking the Divine Plan for Our Planet, which Publisher's Weekly called "mandatory reading for churchgoers." As a respected Christian voice, he has been interviewed by ABC World News, CNN, Fox News, NPR, PBS, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. Jonathan resides outside of Atlanta, GA where he actively serves and teaches at Cross Pointe Church." [emboldened mine]

"As a respected Christian voice", Jonathan has passed himself off as a purer, kinder, gentler idealogue who stands head and shoulders above his Southern Baptist brothers and sisters in today's culture.  Evangelicals are "homophobes and liars"; he is the righteous man who brings their sinful hypocrisy into the light.  He is a celebrity and a rising star in Southern Baptist and Christian forums of cultural debate. A political liberal, Kirsten Powers, wrote the forward for his latest book. Many Southern Baptist leaders have used Jonathan as a spokesman for their pursuits of environmental and cultural change; he's the son of a former SBC president, after all. He has doors in high places opened to him--he has friends with influence and power within the SBC political structure to add credibility to what he writes. Jonathan is the highly acclaimed writer interviewed by national newspapers, magazines, television programs and Huffington post. He is sought after for his opinion on Christian viewpoints.  With the outing of Jonathan by gay blogger and former Christian television personality, Azariah Southworth, Peter Lumpkins chose to alert the SBC community of Azariah's outlandish and alleged claim.

When Azariah's claim proved credible and not so outlandish at all, Ed Stetzer posted a confessional interview with Jonathan on his blog wherein Jonathan admitted in part to the allegations by Azariah which Azariah has since countered as inaccurate, "There was no dinner"...the "magic" happened in the back seat of his car after a drunken night on the town "in Chicago"...I was not the only one".  Meanwhile, Peter's blog was removed from the listings of the prominent aggregator owned by Tony Kummer a children's minister, and edited by Dave Miller, an Iowa pastor and recently elected 2nd VP of the SBC.

But let us just look at Peter Lumpkins--the recently dubbed "weird cousin from Georgia" by Tony Kummer. In comparison to Jonathan Merritt, Peter is a virtual nobody in the world.  Peter, like Jonathan, writes his personal opinions and started a little blog called SBC Tomorrow back in 2006 because he was concerned about the direction of Southern Baptists--just like Jonathan. The majority of Peter's blog consists of historical facts and information he has found in his research of Baptist history. He reads about, and reports what he finds. A smaller but more controversial portion of his blog addresses topics and behavior and rhetoric which he views inconsistent and duplicitious, of which could effect the views of Southern Baptists.  Peter was so concerned about the acceptance of alcohol use in Baptist circles that he wrote a series on alcohol.  That led to the publishing his first book, Alcohol Today, Abstinence in An Age of Indulgence. He is a pastor of a little church in Georgia. He's the son of an alcoholic father, not the son of a former SBC President.  Peter is not on the public stage of national recognition.  Peter is an enigma at times. On one post he may disagree vehemently with a leader's position and words, while the next day highly support said leader against all foes on another issue. That's because Peter is not writing about the heart or intentions, but the actions, positions, and words of others.  Peter was so certain of one leader's position in the SBC, and certain that the leader had been misquoted, that he went to a microphone (for the first time in his Baptist life), and asked for clarification and verification on the convention floor in Phoenix.  For his desire for truth he was ridiculed, smacked down and insulted repeatedly by fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.  That didn't bother Peter as much as the shock he got when the leader confirmed that he'd indeed been quoted correctly about homophobia among his peers in ministry.

Jonathan, on the other hand, writes about the hearts of man-- the motives and intentions of their minds.  He has repeatedly called evangelicals and Southern Baptist brethren homophobic. I, personally, would not have written about Southworth's outing or Jonathan's trist into gay activity, nor would I address many other topics Peter has, but that is not the issue here.  Peter wrote his article about Azariah Southworth's claim against Jonathan because he saw it as important and newsworthy to the general conversation of Christians and how it may effect Southern Baptists in particular.  His source of information was a gay man's testimony of having a relationship with Jonathan; the source wrote he had evidence to support his claim if need be.

However...

Peter's act is deemed sinful by some critics.  It's okay to tell the world that sisters and brothers in Christ are homophobes, to "out" them as liars about homosexuals without naming a single pastor in the Southern Baptist Convention, or citing a single sermon said pastors have preached.  But it is not okay for Peter to write about a gay man's credible allegation regarding the secret life of Jonathan who hides his homosexual sin in a closet of deceit and self-righteousness while writing critical anti-homophobic admonishments toward the SBC family of God.  No.

Yet, now, here in the court of public opinion of holy bloggers, Peter is censored, chastized, trashed, insulted, and belittled for not only this infraction of reporting a truthful accusation, but every single solitary word he's ever written is deemed suspect.  Every angry feeling anyone has for Peter is brought to the surface of blogland. Every bulging vein of contempt is opened for everyone to comment upon at will.  Several comments with links to appalling trash (of not only Peter but insults of other notables in the Southern Baptist family), are allowed to stand by Dave Miller (editor of SBC Voices, and 2nd VP of the SBC).  They still stand on line, for hundreds to follow to the disgusting anonymously written website and read the slurs upon Peter, Dr. Jerry Vines, Dr. Gerald Harris and others.  This kind of post is perfectly acceptable?

Throughout the comment section of the post at SBC Voices written to publically shame Peter Lumpkins was the call: "He sinned."  "He gossiped."  But not one word was written about Jonathan Merritt's deceit among us, was it?  Peter was given a "time-out" and sent to the corner and then after he'd spent sufficient time in the corner, he was then stood before the class and painted with a brush of "shame, shame, shame on you".  He was pulled into the public square and placed in stocks to be further condemned and ridiculed.  What about Jonathan?  Well...Ed Stetzer gave him an interview and whitewashed his guile in front of his peers.  Case closed.  

Make no mistake.  I felt bad for Jonathan.  I still feel badly for him.  He had the weight of sin upon him and any of us who know the heaviness of sin (which is a terrible choice we freely make against a holy God), knows the pain of brokenness we have when we carry our private shame.  We all know that "but for the grace of God go we".  We know that Jonathan is hurting, all the more, because of Azaraiah's "outing".  Yet, Jonathan knew this day was approaching.  He said he'd been thinking about telling everyone.  Exactly what Jonathan was going to reveal to everyone, we don't know.  And I don't care.  It doesn't matter because he didn't mean for me to know what we know or how we know it, and when we knew it. But now that we do, he is sorry.  For something-- what, we still do not know.  Certainly not for deceiving the brethren; it wasn't mentioned.  Now everyone tells Jonathan how courageous he is for sharing his forced confession and explaining away Azariah's claims.

Not so with the author and journalist who first reported it.  No.  Peter is dirt.  Lower than dirt.  He is the worm in a sewer.  Funny how one man's choice is barely gray among peers while another man's choice is so clearly black among the same peers.

It is perfectly acceptable to not only block Peter's site, without even a courtesy email to let him know why, then plop a post on the screen with a silly-faced boy and a "yanh, yanh, yanh" attitude pictured as, what appears to me to be, another in-your-face slap across the Georgia bad boy's cheek.  That's okay.  Why? I am not sure.  Perhaps because Peter is just a "sidenote in Baptist conversation".  He's not a nationally known writer.  He's not a prominent "respected Christian voice" in SBC heirarchy.

But hey, now, Peter has been "welcomed back" into the fold where he was once banned for daring to write a verifiable post.  A post over which a group of people have appointed themselves jury and judge and pronounced him evil in the sight of God and man.  I ask myself: Is their condemnation any more acceptable than Peter's alleged gossip and indiscretion?  Is Peter's alleged sin any more sinful than deceiving the brethren?  Is Peter's punishment any greater than the zero commentary or open comment section about another brother who has lived a lie and publically condemned and criticized his brethren regarding homosexuality? for addressing said sin in the pulpits of America?  Is Southworth a greater sinner for admitting he is openly gay and wanting Jonathan to be honest?  Does the righteousness of holy commenters (most of whom are pastors) exceed that of Peter who did not once condemn Jonathan in his original article?

Jonathan's accuser, Azariah Southworth was set to prove his account with evidence if people did not believe him.  Texts?  Photos?  Who knows what?  Had Peter not written about this, Jonathan might still be flying under the radar until Azariah unleashed "the rest of the story" with far greater embarassment.  Or maybe today, Peter would not be facing the firing squad of public criticism if he had not chosen to highlight the hypocrisy of another SBC leader in connection with Jonathan's story and admonishment of another alleged fallen Christian...entire story/link.

To me, this whole debacle seems to be an odd set of double standards.  It's so glaring I can barely see the connective sinews.  Perhaps a commenter on Peter's blog best explains the oddity used in reporting opinions of unseemly and sinful behavior of the "weird cousin from Georgia":

 "Merritt is SBC and trying to build a celeb [celebrity] profile. Schaap was the leader of an IFB [Independent Fundamental Baptist] cult started by Hyles. He is not ours [Southern Baptist] to deal with but we can sure beg people to get out of that cult. And the guy is a bonafide creep. The whole place up there is a huge cult.

The problem is, Schaap's heinous sin does not negate Jonathan Merritt living a lie while in ministry and promoting himself within the SBC with manifestos, public articles, etc. That is the truth the boys do not want to hear so they [Ed Stetzer and SBC Voices] change the subject to marginalize you [Peter] instead.

You are their whipping boy."

I am not privy to the behind the scenes machinations of SBC politics, nor the FBI investigation into Pastor Schaap. However, lately I have witnessed actions and words which repeatedly support the "marginalizing" of certain writers and Southern Baptist "voices" within our convention.  I have witnessed the demonizing and maligning of certain people.  I've seen the perjorative arrows directed at people who do not follow the leader like geese flying in a row. I've watched the way some people are targeted and picked off while others fly on unaware of the danger.  With traveling geese, a leader flies on point, the leader drops back to rest and allows another to lead for a time.  If only we were geese and could understand that the leadership is a chore for us all...not just one person. We all should be washing feet. No one is above reproach. Yet, we are left with the dirt of some feet having more weight than the dirt of others.

If you ask me, which you aren't, but if you were, I think it best if we all took a bit of a rest, and perhaps more than a few should be sent to "time-out". But as far as Peter Lumpkins is concerned?  well, he ain't my "weird cousin from Georgia", he's my brother.  And as far as some Southern Baptists are concerned, Peter is hardly a "side-note to the Baptist conversation" as Tony Kummer concludes.  One blogger, in support of Peter Lumpkins, wrote:

"Peter - Your writings represent the heart of a multitude of silent "SBC Voices" ... majority Southern Baptists who would stand with you on the essentials of your reporting, but yet not engaged in the critical issues at hand (a group which better wake up soon). The movers & shakers in the SBC reformed movement should consider a time out for their youngsters over at that "other" blog, lest they become too visible and lose their momentum by exposing arrogance and agenda.

There weren't any time outs when I acted up as a kid. My folks preferred knock outs and black outs! Keep flushing them out Peter. Truth can never be timed out." Posted by: Max | Aug 07, 2012 at 09:10 AM at SBC Tomorrow

Now, my friends and readers, I pray with all my heart, that we will examine ourselves in light of God's Word.  I pray for Jonathan in his struggle and shame.  I pray he is able to not only forgive himself, but find the path on which to walk that honors the Savior who died to cleanse him from all unrighteousness.  I pray he lives in the power of the Holy Spirit and accepts the offerings of a Father whose mercies are new each day.  I pray that grace be upon him and his family and abound.  I pray that as we point fingers at others we learn quickly that three point back at ourselves.  I do not think God made a mistake in how He constructed the hand of man.  May the gay community find it in their hearts to forgive Jonathan, also. If you think our criticism is harsh, the community which Jonathan has supported is cannibalistic.  May we not be the same.  May we extend the hand of mercy and grace.  May we seek forgiveness for any shred of ambiguity on our part as we encourage and reconcile with our brothers in Christ--no matter how "weird" they seem to us, or how wrong we think they are.  selahV

Now That Your Chicken Is Digested One Pastor Asks...

The television networks are abuzz and the internet websites are in a flurry as reports come in on the Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day.  One newspaper offers readers another way to handle the support for Chick-Fil-A: Sally Quinn urged gays to infiltrate the Christian business (check out her article/link).  In part, Quinn writes:

"Gays and lesbians could start applying for jobs at Chick-fil-A. Get in there. Become managers, take over the places.  Gays could begin patronizing Chick-fil-As and I don’t mean carry out. Make the restaurants the gay hangouts of the community.   Gay partners and Married gays could begin taking their children there. They could start having birthday parties for their kids. They could have Gay pride events there. (They have an events manager – just call)  They could even have gay weddings there."

New Mexico pastor, Howell Scott, published a piece his blog about the whole thing but it was one statement he wrote in the comment streams that grabbed my attention and made me think deeper on the matter.

"It will be interesting to see how Christians respond in the days ahead, now that the hoopla surrounding the National Day of Appreciation for CFA has passed. Will we go back to our unengaged lives and become oblivious to the subtle and not-so-subtle attacks on our religious liberty and free speech that take place on a daily basis? Will we become complacent? Or, will we continue to “contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints?”"  Howell Scott of From Law 2 Grace

It does make one wonder if all the ruffled feathers in the "hoopla" are simply a one-time emotional outpouring of ire or another wake-up call to Christians everywhere.  In my thinking, the incident is not so much about whether gays are boycotting Chick-Fil-A or hetero-sexuals are supporting the restaurant in counter-protest.  It's about the subtle, but continual battering upon the walls of Christian beliefs, religous freedom, and civil liberties.  For example, what if Christians had said they were going to, not only boycott JC Penney, but the mayors of Louisville, Dallas, and Atlanta announced they were not going to allow JC Penney to open a business in their cities because their CEO supports gay-marriage?  What if?

As far as I can tell, this is the wishbone of the chicken this debate.  This is the position that we all must consider in our free America.  After the bones are picked clean, who is going to get the short side of the bone?  Are we to assume that one person's personal views should dictate the right to open a business within the parameters of the law?  Has there been some new amendment to the U.S. Constitution that exempts Chicago and Boston from complying with the law of the land?  If mayors who dance with the president have the authority to keep businesses to come into their cities and sell chicken sandwiches, what next?  Churches that preach that homosexuality is a sin?  Private schools that promote marriage is between a man and a woman?  Will licenses be refused to Christians who want to open all businesses?  Will there be some kind of vetting to get a license to operate a Christian business: a Mardel's, a Hobby Lobby, an Interstate Battery store?  Will anyone who owns a business be forced to shut up or be shut down?  Must they be politically correct, or lose an opportunity to feed their family?  Will they turn off Christian radio stations and television programing?

If you think not, then think again.  They may not be able to legally do it, but they can make business so difficult for Christians that they will be silenced.  The mayors of Chicago and Boston boldly proclaimed there was no way Chick-Fil-A could do business in their cities.  Sure, these businesses can fight it in the courts, but at what cost?

Steubenville, Ohio is removing the cross and a chapel silhouette from their city logos to avoid a lawsuit by one disgruntled citizen in their town.  People are demanding the removal of crosses from graves of soldiers in military cemeteries.  The law of the land forces religious institutions to provide drugs to support abortions for people they insure.

There is more to chew on than a chicken nugget these days.  There is more than one day of appreciation at stake.  Much more. And when business owners stop and count the cost, they may find it more than they can handle.  We shall see.  selahV

What OBAMA Evolution Means to Southern Baptists

I've watched as Barack Obama's personal opinions catapulted from professing that he believed the Bible, yet rarely attends church, but basically thinks:

...that the words of Jesus mean the rich are responsible for the poor (even those who choose not to work);

...that determining life's conception "is beyond his pay-grade", but can end at the time a woman chooses to end it;

...that the government has the right to force religious institutions to supply medical procedures that compromise and are totally against their core beliefs and doctrines;

...that Romans has an "obscure passage" which is immaterial for the position he should take on homosexuals marrying people of their own sex...

...that the "Golden Rule" supercedes the entire Bible, and trumps all commands for holiness from the Author of the Bible;

...that faith has no place in government (as in supporting the observance of the National Day of Prayer)...but that government has a place in religion.

I wonder.  How does this affect the average Southern Baptist?  Well, let's just look at the "Golden Rule" a bit: “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:21

I don't know about you, but I do not "wish that others" should commit sin in the presence of my family and friends and call it sinless and expect me to approve of it.  I do not "wish that others"  commit an abomination unto the Lord and lie to my grand-children and tell them it is "good".  I do not "wish" that people promote sin as healthy and holy and God-approved behavior.  I no more "wish that others" sanction homosexuality than I "wish others" to cuss, lie, steal, get drunk, commit adultery, murder people, take God's name in vain, and burn churches.  Neither, do I "wish for others" to deny me the right to speak the truth of God's entire Word and call it "some obscure passage from Romans" that is meaningless in order to promote a political and personal agenda. [see Romans 1]

So, Mr. President, the "Golden Rule" cuts both ways.  When Jesus was preaching to the people, as recorded in Matthew, He answered a question about the greatest commandments:

"Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment.  And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Matthew 22:37-40

The "first and greatest commandment" is to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind."  The first and the greatest.  Loving the Lord is more than lip service.  It is honoring Him and the commandments and by living a life holy and acceptable to Him.  To love the Lord God with "all your mind" does not give us the freedom to rewrite commandments in the Bible, to ignore a passage because we consider it "obscure" and not validating a president's "personal opinion" or position.  Jesus also said:

"Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill." Matthew 5:17

Dr. Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Dallas, refuted Obama's personal "evolution" opinion:  Jeffress said that the Lord Jesus spoke clearly on the issue of marriage in Matthew 19, and it is between a man and a woman. [Fox News 5/10/12]

The President and Vice President of the United States have weighed in that two men and two women should have the legal right to be married if they want.  This is the first time in the history of our nation that the two most influential men of politics in the free world have made such an anti-Biblical proclamation.  This my friends, in my opinion, is where removing the Ten Commandments from the school systems has taken us.  This is where the government forced political correctness in our public school systems has brought us.  As we seek to share what Jesus died to save us from (namely SIN), sin is being watered down and made null and void in the sight of man and government.  Next thing we know, we shall be using the "golden rule" to approve and condone the pedophile.  Why should some little "obscure passage" in Corinthians have any power over the "golden rule"?  After all, did Jesus specifically say pedophilia was wrong?  don't pedophiles say they are just "loving" that child?  should they not have equal rights, too?  For that matter, did Jesus say not to commit incest?  have abortions? dance naked in the streets?  No, but Jesus did say:

“No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.  Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers.  The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks."  Luke 6:43-45

And what do we hear the mouth of President of the United States speak?

""I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,"  President Barack Obama, Huffington Post

He talked to friends, family and acquaintances.  He talked to his little girls.  And Barack Obama comes to the conclusion that what the Bible says is not valid.  Well, friends, I do not have to give an account for what the President of the United States says when I stand before the Most High and Holy God.  No, I only have to answer for what I say.  And you only have to answer for what you say.  I choose this day to stand with God and what He says; and God says marriage is between a man and a woman, not between men and men and women and women.  What say ye?  selahV

Bruce H. commented on this post and it was, in my opinion, a powerful commentary worth considering in this conversation.  Therefore I'm adding it to the post to better ensure it being read:

"Seeing who President Obama has counseled with tells the story. America has a president that seeks the counsel of the "ungodly". He sought counsel from his friends, family, neighbors and homosexuals. He never mentioned that he sought counsel from pastors, theologians or God. Under this man, here is our fate:

"Blessed [is] the man Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, Nor stands in the path of sinners, Nor sits in the seat of the scornful; But his delight [is] in the law of the LORD, And in His law he meditates day and night. He shall be like a tree Planted by the rivers of water, That brings forth its fruit in its season, Whose leaf also shall not wither; And whatever he does shall prosper. The ungodly [are] not so, But [are] like the chaff which the wind drives away. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, Nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. For the LORD knows the way of the righteous, But the way of the ungodly shall perish." Psalms 1:1-6 " Bruce H. from the www.