Peter Lumpkins recently wrote an article titled “The International Mission Board and Uninspired Missions Giving.” In this article, he laments that J.D. Greear and David Platt are the chosen spokesmen for the IMB Lottie Moon Christmas Offering promotional DVD. Here are the reasons he disagrees with Greear and Platt being the spokesmen:
1. Greear’s church (The Summit Church) doesn’t include anything about the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering on its website or in its half-finished Annual Church Profile report, which according to Lumpkins, only includes their number of baptisms.
2. Platt’s church (The Church at Brook Hills) hasn’t filled out an Annual Church Profile Report since 2007.
3. As best Peter can tell, Platt’s church gave to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering in 1996, and hasn’t given to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering since.
The saddest thing about Peter’s article is that instead of actually finding out from these churches if they give to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering or instead of hearing about their giving from the IMB, Peter assumes the worst, that neither Greear’s or Platt’s churches support the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering. Here’s some quotes from his article,
According to the church’s website, Greear’s church sponsors a yearly “Christmas Missions Offering,” the goal of which is 625K for 2011. A full 75% ($468,750) will go toward “Church Planting” and the remaining 25% ($156,250) will be used for “Local Outreach.” One will look in vain for any specific reference that monies raised will be given to The Lottie Moon Christmas Offering. But if Greear’s church does not participate in cooperative giving toward raising the $175,000,000 the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention is pursuing, why is J.D. Greear a spokesman for the offering? Why would IMB allow him to be a catylst for inspiring others to give to a cause toward which Greear apparently has no loyalties? Let me be clear: I am not suggesting Dr. Greear lacks loyalities to global missions, church planting, and/or world evangelism.
To the contrary, when one looks at the many global projects in which The Summit Church is involved, one cannot go away concluding no interest exists inchurch planting. On the other hand, the question is not about whether passion forchurch planting exists but whether a passion for cooperative missions is present. In Greear’s case, then, him being chosen to be a poster boy for the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering remains entirely inexplicable.
Even so, the inexplicability of Greear’s presence as a promotional tool for the IMB is to be surpassed by David Platt’s presence on the video. Why? Since 2007, The Church at Brook Hills has apparently not filed an ACP report which means we do not know if the church either supports the cooperative program in any significant way or presently supports The Lottie Moon Christmas Offering for international missions. And, if their record of past giving to Lottie Moon predicts present support, it is not unreasonable to assume that they are not now giving to international missions through The Lottie Moon Christmas Offering. As best I can tell, the last gift to Lottie Moon given by the Church at Brook Hills was 1996. They recorded $3,333 to the Christmas offering, a sum taken from total receipts of $3.7m. The same year, they posted $198,000 toward “non-SBC Mission Expenditures.” Hence, if David Platt serves as another inspirational catalyst for giving to The Lottie Moon Christmas Offering, one must wonder just how out of touch the International Mission Board is with grassroots Southern Baptists.
Yet, not only is Platt in the promotional DVD, IMB has also tapped into Platt as a keynote speaker for international missions.The International Missions Board is sponsoring a conference entitled “Missions Forum 2012 East” to be held February 20 – 22, 2012 at the First Baptist Church Trussville, AL. Along with IMB vice-president, Gordon Fort, David Platt is scheduled as a featured speaker. Once again, we have men lifted up as role models in areas where there is no apparent evidence they qualify for the job. Since no evidence appears to exist in reasonably accepted sources (i.e. ACP data) that Platt supports Southern Baptist cooperative missions, then the IMB seems obligated to explain to Southern Baptists why it publicizes and promotes him as a spokesman for Southern Baptist missionary causes.
Does anyone see the problem with Lumpkins’s assumptions? He has no proof that Greear’s or Platt’s churches do not give to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering, and yet, he assumes the worst. Just a quick google of Greear’s church, and one finds that The Summit church gave $192,400 to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering in 2010. Thus, Lumpkins’s negative assumption about Greear is dead wrong.
Not only does Peter assume the worst, but his supporters assume the worst as well. Listen to this comment by Ron Hale:
Peter,
We are living in a day, when it is very easy for Missions Leaders at IMB and NAMB to retrieve information on the top ten givers in various sizes of congregations … to the Lottie Moon Offering for International Missions and Annie Armstrong Offering for North American Missions.
It seems only sensible and wise that we would use those who are currently setting the greatest examples of sacrifice as visible and vocal examples in giving to SBC causes.
In a local church setting, we would never use a member for a tithing testimony if they gave poorly to the local church but gave generously to other local charities.
You are wise for not calling into question their commitment to church planting and outreach around the world, but you are also courageous for calling into question their support (or lack thereof) to the Southern Baptist cause of the Lottie Moon Offering for International Missions. Through this proven method, our 5,000 plus missionaries will be blessed.
Although this story greatly saddens me, I must thank you for reporting on this issue!
Courageous? Really Ron? It’s courageous to speculate about fellow brothers in Christ, to assume the worst based on zero evidence? It blows my mind that Lumpkins’s supporters cannot see that his article is based on negative assumptions, speculation, and poor research. There’s no basis for his negative assumptions other than his own bias. He has no data to base his assumptions on. The closest data he has is that the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering is not mentioned on the Summit Church’s website and the Church at Brook Hills didn’t give to Lottie Moon in 2007, so he assumes that they do not give today either. It’s entirely speculation.
This is just another example of many examples where Lumpkins finds smoke where there’s no fire.
So, my challenge to Lumpkins and his supporters is this: If it’s proven that Greear’s church (already proven) and Platt’s church give to the Lottie Moon Christmas offering, will you publicly recant your statements against these men and the IMB? Will you also repent for sowing discord among your Southern Baptist brethren?
Do you think your negative statements about these men and the IMB encourage churches to give to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering? How many Southern Baptists, like Ron Hale, actually believe your statements and your articles without researching for themselves?
Peter, if you’re such a huge supporter of the SBC, why are you throwing a negative light on the IMB during the month of its major offering? You’re not helping the SBC with your various conspiracy theories. To Peter’s supporters, you’re not helping the SBC either by encouraging him to assume the worst about his SBC brethren and SBC entities.
What are your thoughts?
Incoming search terms for the article:
Worship Matters
Unashamed Workman
Trevin Wax
Timmy Brister
Tim Challies
Thirsty Theologian
Theological Studies
Steve Weaver
SBC Voices
Russell Moore
Reformation 21
Reckless Abandon
Pyromaniacs
Paul Helm
Justin Taylor
Joe Thorn
Jeff Wright
Here I Blog
For His Renown
Eric Redmond
Ed Stetzer
Desiring God
Denny Burk
Credo Magazine
Cranach: The Blog of Veith
Craig Blomberg
Christian Communicators Worldwide
Bryan Crawford Loritts
Brandishings
Biblical Theology
Biblical Christianity
Between the Times
Baptist 21
Andy Naselli
Alvin Reid
Al Mohler
9 Marks Blog
.gif "Enjoying God Through the Final Four Harry Potter Movies")
Jared,
I acknowledged your “response” in an update on my post. Unfortunately, your criticisms inevitably lack teeth, Jared–<i>here</i> as in your accusation I “doctored” Al Mohler’s words. What a double Georgia hoot!
Have a good day.
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter, you could be used mightily to encourage unity in the SBC. Instead, you choose to encourage division. You just discouraged churches and pastors in their giving to the Lottie Moon Christmas offering. If this was your goal, you did a fine job.
Brother Jared,
You seem to embellish your statements, which makes your rebuttal see questionable at best. You say: <i>”Just a quick google of Greear’s church,”</i> and then link an article in the Biblical Recorder. The problem is when one does a Google serach of “Summit Church Durham” one will not find that article within the first five pages. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying the article isn’t in a Google search but it is not in a “quick” Google search. Thus, your statement implies that Brother Peter did not do due diligence in his research. Brother Peter used the research he had available to him. That research is the same research that is available to all Southern Baptist pastors. Had he contacted the BR before he did his article he would have probably been directed to those numbers. However something neither the BR nor NC Baptist State Convention point out is that way those “Lottie Moon” numbers are being actually used. That is the article that makes for interesting reading
Blessings,
Tim
Tim, thanks for the comment. It depends on the search terms entered. If one enters the summit church lottie moon 2010, the info comes up on the first page. My point is that Peter should have done better research before he made such outlandish comments. His accusations are serious; therefore, his research must be as well.
Brother Jared,
I agree that his accusations are serious. Have you done research as to how the funds coming from Summit Church are being designated and then reported? I believe if you do that research you will find that Brother Peter, while his research was not as well grounded as you would like, is still correct in his assessment that Dr. Greear should not be a poster boy for Lottie Moon. Why? Lottie Moon is an offering where we give to the IMB for them to disperse as they see fit. It is not an offering we use to support the ones coming out of the church we pastor.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim, has Peter contacted the Summit Church? Is the Summit Church a hub for IMB missions? If so, does it make sense to send the money to IMB and the IMB send the money back to the Summit Church? The point is that we don’t know the various variables about this situation, and it hasn’t been properly researched. The research should have been done before accusations were made.
Peter lacks the proof to make his inference. His assumptions are not reasonable as he claims, they are fideistic. He has “faith” that Platt’s and Geear’s churches don’t give to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering. He doesn’t know for sure. His proof is terribly lacking to make the accusations he’s making. After all, isn’t it a reasonable inference to assume Platt’s and Greear’s churches are giving to the Lottie Moon Christmas offering this year since these 2 men are on the Lottie Moon promotional DVD? Shouldn’t Lumpkins find out for sure before he starts throwing around accusations?
Also, why would he make such accusations during the month of Lottie Moon giving? Is he trying to hurt Southern Baptist giving to the IMB? His accusations aren’t encouraging churches to give to the IMB this Christmas. He should be ashamed, but Peter only listens to those close to him. One of his die-hard supporters needs to speak up.
Jared,
You may call it what you wish.
Nor is it reasonable to assert the “did-you-call-before-you-made-that-statement” nonsense. That’s why we have data banks, Jared. And, I employed the data bank in no special or biased way toward either Greear or Platt. Had the record been positive and deserving of praise, I hardly think there’d be a peep out of you. Why then, when the record is not so good on one’s eyes, you would dismiss it as insufficient research seems telling–at least to me.
Nor do I suppose you would have had a tizzy had I praised, say, Parkwood Church, Gastonia for being #4 overall in LMCO giving though I didn’t call them beforehand to make sure they actually gave that much. Hence, the criteria to which you’ve attempted to appeal is both inconsistent and unworkable. The fact is, if we can’t trust Lifeway stats, we’re really in trouble so far as the accuracy of any conclusions we draw from the data we possess is concerned–both positive and negative.
Nor is it “proven” wrong about my questioning of Greear’s presence as a LMCO promoter just because you linked to a BR article. How do you know the BR article is correct, Jared? To use your method, did you contact either BR or Greear’s church to assure your statement is accurate before you posted it? If so, what did they say? To whom did you speak? If not, why would you assume I should have contacted Greear’s church (and, perhaps Lifeway and/or IMB) to substantiate the statement before I posted it?
Now, the truth is, I have contacted BR to find out the source of their numbers. I’m very interested in why it is that not a single church’s LMCO in the article they posted is the same amount as Lifeway’s ACP. Contrary to your assertion, I am very interested in making sure I quote properly. But I didn’t misquote now did I? At least you’ve not shown I have. You simply ignore my clear assertion that my concern was based on the ACP report and accuse me of mere speculation.
Nor does my post cast a negative light on the LMCO as you assert. Why you conclude such makes little sense. I questioned the IMB’s use of two men as promotional tools based upon no visible evidence on their websites or our official databank that either man appeared to be supportive of The Lottie Moon Christmas Offering I neither implied nor stated reservations concerning the LMCO. Hence, to suggest I did so remains preposterous and completely bogus.
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter, the facts, according to your comments on your site, are that
1) the Summit Church’s ACP only had their # of Baptisms. If this is true, doesn’t this tell you that the report wasn’t entirely filled out? If so, you ignored this fact in your details. If the report wasn’t filled out all the way, why did you assume The Summit Church didn’t give to the LMCO? Did you also assume that no one attended Sunday School at The Summit Church since there were no stats?
2) If the Church at Brook Hills hasn’t filled out an ACP since 2007, and they didn’t give to the Lottie Moon at that time, and thus, you infer that they don’t give to the LMCO today, you’re inferring that any church that didn’t do something 4 years ago doesn’t do it today. It’s an unfounded and ridiculous inference. You’re extremely biased. It is your strange bias and presuppositions that fuel your inference, not the facts.
3) You can only trust Lifeway’s stats if churches fill out the ACP. If the church reports inaccurate numbers or half-finished ACP’s, you cannot trust the stats. Plus, these local bodies are autonomous and do not have to fill out the ACP every year. If they haven’t filled out the ACP, then shouldn’t you ask the church or the IMB or someone who knows instead of inferring based on a 4-year old report?
4) You should have checked with the churches before you made your negative inference. It’s not like you were just asking if Greear’s and Platt’s churches give to the LMCO, you assumed that they didn’t. Do you not owe the leadership of the IMB more grace than this? Also, doesn’t it follow that if these men are the spokesmen on the LMCO DVD that their churches support the LMCO? Isn’t this a more logical inference than assuming their churches don’t give, when the only evidence you have is a 2007 ACP, an unfinished ACP and no reference on a website? That’s laughable evidence for anyone without an agenda.
5) Why would I contact BR? I trust BR and the IMB. I don’t run around looking for smoke or creating smoke where there’s no fire. I don’t believe there’s a YRR conspiracy in the SBC, and I certainly don’t look for the YRR around every corner. I view Greear and Platt as fellow Southern Baptists. It wouldn’t have bothered me in the least if another faithful Southern Baptist (a Non-Calvinist) was on the LMCO promotional DVD. Southern Baptists are both Calvinists and Non-Calvinists, get over it. This is how it’s been throughout our history.
6) Yes, you are casting negative light on the LMCO. You’re questioning the leadership of the IMB right in the middle of its most important offering. I wonder how many Southern Baptists, because of your biased inferences are questioning the leadership of the IMB as well, and thus, will choose not to give to the LMCO this year. Do you really think your article is neutral or positive? Do you really think it encourages readers to either give to the LMCO or that it doesn’t encourage them one way or the other?
I wonder how many churches hadn’t even viewed the LMCO promotional DVD yet, and now, when they view it, if they believe your article, they’ll view it with a disdain, a bias . . . and you really think that this won’t translate to their giving?
Peter, I don’t know what makes you tick, but you’re not helping the SBC. Why don’t you use your platform to encourage unity instead of encouraging division? Or, at the very least, would you present valid proof instead of fideistic leaps that reveal your bais to anyone without an agenda?
Brother Jared,
Your last statement about Brother Peter not helping the SBC is a little over the top. Peter is doing a great job in presenting the facts that no one else desires to speak about. It is apparent from your position that you agree with anything that comes out of the leadership. If I am off on that let me know the last thing that you pointed out a discrepancy in that had Mohler, Ezzell, or Akin leading in.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim, Peter not only presents so-called “facts,” he presents inferences that cannot be built upon his so-called facts. He looks for smoke where there’s no fire. He nitpicks, parses words, and intentionally divorces statements from the context of entire lives. Do I agree with everything that comes out of SBC leadership? No, but I try to be gracious on issues beyond the BF&M 2000. You don’t see me headhunting and parsing words of non-Calvinist SBC leaders. I can learn much from these men. To be fair, I’m not against the questioning of leaders, I’m against parsing words and taking statements out of context, which is what I think Peter has done repeatedly. He’s looking for these people to fail or to give some appearance of failure so he can try and exploit it.
I view Peter as a fellow Southern Baptist, for it is the BR&M 2000 that defines our doctrinal stance (so long as it agrees with Scripture), not some more narrow arbitrary standard that doesn’t have the approval of the convention.
Brother Jared,
One more thing. How do you get this bar off of the screen so I can see what I am typing? This is annoying to have this “like” bar covering your screen.
Tim
Tim, are you talking about the Floating bar on the left? If your browser is open all the way when typing your comment, the bar should be out of the way. If your browser is fully open, and the bar is in the way, let me know so I can fix it.
Jared,
It’s fairly obvious this exchange is going nowhere helpful—at least from my perspective. Why you cannot or will not let this be about what is said and not said without making it personally about me only you can explain. Since, according to you, I have “an agenda” and embrace “conspiracy theories” based on mere “speculation,” “laughable” evidence, and “fideistic leaps” revealing my “bias” to “anyone without an agenda” not to mention “sowing discord” among the brethren instead of creating unity, it’s hardly reasonable to expect anything I might write or say in defense will have any impact on the way you perceive my position. Nonetheless, I will bite my tongue, swallow my blood, and try yet once again:
a) you list six “facts” you say are from my “comments on your site” the first of which is, “1) the Summit Church’s ACP only had their # of Baptisms” and ask, “If this is true, doesn’t this tell you that the report wasn’t entirely filled out? If so, you ignored this fact in your details. If the report wasn’t filled out all the way, why did you assume The Summit Church didn’t give to the LMCO? Did you also assume that no one attended Sunday School at The Summit Church since there were no stats?” Well, no it doesn’t necessarily imply the report wasn’t entirely filled out. It could also imply the report wasn’t submitted at all. Tim answered this, Jared, had you bothered to read his comment. NC calls certain churches who don’t fill out reports. They’re mainly interested in the number of baptisms, which explains why only the baptisms were listed on the ACP report. Hence, nothing follows from your assertion.
More significantly, I added the promotional verbiage Greear’s church has in promoting missions offering at his church, even including the breakdown of the way the “Christmas Mission Offering” will be used. There’s not a single hint in his promotionals his church supports the LMCO. Perhaps, you think it’s good to just assume they give and move on. Be my guest, brother. That’s your privilege.
b) your second “fact” is a skewed rendition of what I actually wrote, Jared. You write: If the Church at Brook Hills hasn’t filled out an ACP since 2007, and they didn’t give to the Lottie Moon at that time, and thus, you infer that they don’t give to the LMCO today, you’re inferring that any church that didn’t do something 4 years ago doesn’t do it today. It’s an unfounded and ridiculous inference. You’re extremely biased. It is your strange bias and presuppositions that fuel your inference, not the facts.” Now, here’s what I actually wrote:
“Since 2007, The Church at Brook Hills has apparently not filed an ACP report which means we do not know if the church either supports the cooperative program in any significant way or presently supports The Lottie Moon Christmas Offering for international missions. And, if their record of past giving to Lottie Moon predicts present support, it is not unreasonable to assume that they are not now giving to international missions through The Lottie Moon Christmas Offering. As best I can tell, the last gift to Lottie Moon given by the Church at Brook Hills was 1996. They recorded $3,333 to the Christmas offering, a sum taken from total receipts of $3.7m. The same year, they posted $198,000 toward “non-SBC Mission Expenditures.”
As one can see, this hardly resembles what you call a “fact” from my site. I specifically noted that if their record of past giving to Lottie Moon predicts present support, it is not unreasonable to assume that they are not now giving to international missions through LMCO. Nor was it that, according to you, I inferred that “any church that didn’t do something 4 years ago doesn’t do it today.” I specifically noted that, “As best I can tell, the last gift to Lottie Moon given by the Church at Brook Hills was 1996”—that’s 15 years, Jared, not 4 years ago as you make it out to be. Nor did I imply that because a church didn’t do something 15 years ago, that it’s reasonable to assume they do not do it now. Rather I explicitly suggested that we have no record (i.e. ACP) of a church’s gift to the LMCO since 1996, and the one in 1996 showed along side the LMCO of $3,333 a whopping $198k to “non-SBC Mission Expenditures.” From this I inferred that if their record of past giving to Lottie Moon predicts present support, it is not unreasonable to assume that they are not now giving to international missions through the LMCO. Nor does anything on their website contradict such an assumption. So much for your “fact” you pulled from my website.
c) you strangely state as a “fact” gleaned from my site, “You can only trust Lifeway’s stats if churches fill out the ACP. If the church reports inaccurate numbers or half-finished ACP’s, you cannot trust the stats. Plus, these local bodies are autonomous and do not have to fill out the ACP every year. If they haven’t filled out the ACP, then shouldn’t you ask the church or the IMB or someone who knows instead of inferring based on a 4-year old report?” Uh? Yes, Jared, I’d say I have to agree that one can only trust facts if facts are present. And, I’m unsure why you’d write, “If the church reports inaccurate numbers or half-finished ACP’s, you cannot trust the stats.” Well, o.k. let’s agree that if a “church reports inaccurate numbers” one shouldn’t trust the numbers. You’ll get no argument from me about that!
On the other hand, how it follows that if a church reports a “half-finished ACP” that the numbers shouldn’t be trusted is something you’ll need to explain. Why are partial reports invalid? For example, why is it reasonable to doubt The Summit Church baptized 477 people in 2010 when the ACP report said it did? The lone stat may be strange but it doesn’t follow it isn’t true, does it? Nor is it remotely relevant that the churches are autonomous. No one is arguing churches must fill out reports. However, not only as a means of accountability to one another, but also as a legitimate means of vital statistical data, we have this system in place. Hence, when churches do not want to submit data (for whatever reason), then complaints about others misunderstanding their statistics appear more and more moot so far as I am concerned.
d) you list another strange “fact” you got from my comments: “You should have checked with the churches before you made your negative inference. It’s not like you were just asking if Greear’s and Platt’s churches give to the LMCO, you assumed that they didn’t. Do you not owe the leadership of the IMB more grace than this? Also, doesn’t it follow that if these men are the spokesmen on the LMCO DVD that their churches support the LMCO? Isn’t this a more logical inference than assuming their churches don’t give, when the only evidence you have is a 2007 ACP, an unfinished ACP and no reference on a website? That’s laughable evidence for anyone without an agenda.” Well, that’s your opinion, Jared. But you have no obvious basis that it is the correct opinion. I employed public information to raise a question. Hence, because you think I ought to have done something more means exactly jack squat as to whether I actually ought to have done more. Nor did I merely assume the church’s didn’t give to LMCO. Instead I went looking for evidence, Jared, as to how the churches supported LMCO. Had I found any evidence I would not have raised the question whether IMB should be using as poster-boys those who apparently showed no signs of giving to the LMCO. And, no, it doesn’t follow that because the men were used on the DVD, they actually give to LMCO. What strange logic you appear to be employing. And, there you go again misquoting me on the “2007 ACP” as if I used that and that alone to conclude Platt doesn’t support LMCO. Please read carefully “b)” above.
e) another strange fact from my site: “Why would I contact BR? I trust BR and the IMB. I don’t run around looking for smoke or creating smoke where there’s no fire. I don’t believe there’s a YRR conspiracy in the SBC, and I certainly don’t look for the YRR around every corner. I view Greear and Platt as fellow Southern Baptists. It wouldn’t have bothered me in the least if another faithful Southern Baptist (a Non-Calvinist) was on the LMCO promotional DVD. Southern Baptists are both Calvinists and Non-Calvinists, get over it. This is how it’s been throughout our history.” I don’t know whether to laugh or scratch my head, Jared. What if I said, “Why would I contact Greear and Platt? I trust ACP”? What a hoot! As for the other, I’m not even going to bother with your little bit of personal innuendo attempting to make this into a Calvinist/non-Calvinist issue with which I’m allegedly making it. Argue with yourself on that.
f) another “fact” allegedly from my site: “Yes, you are casting negative light on the LMCO.” Of course, Jared. From my raising the question whether a promotional DVD should have had two men on it as the faces of LMCO when it’s questionable at best they support the LMCO completely calls into question the entire IMB leadership structure, Tom’s Elliff’s leadership abilities, and the value of the LMCO. How stupid of me. Why could I not have seen such impeccable logic! Great job in exposing my me, Jared!
Nor is it necessary for you to know what makes me “tick”, Jared. Nor am I bothered much by your estimation that I’m not “helping the SBC”. From my side of the street, I have the same opinions about others I could name. Hence, it washes itself out fairly well. The truth is, I write not to impress you or anybody else for that matter. Ultimately, I have One to please and that’s where I’ll rest my case. If you can’t accept that, so be it.
Now, she’s all yours, Jared. You can have the last word.
Have a nice Christmas.
With that, I am…
Peter
P.S. Perhaps you can lead your church through a Harry Potter Bible Study on Christmas Eve!! (wink, wink)
Peter,
First, you made your article about Calvinism the moment you said, “Both men are celebrities amongst the young, restless, and reformed in Southern Baptist circles.” The truth is that both these men are Southern Baptist celebrities. You brought up the YRR. You made this about Calvinism, not me.
Second, so you admit that you have an unfinished ACP report from Greear’s church? Then, you’ve got nothing, no evidence, other than info. from his website. I think it’s pitiful evidence. When the evidence is lacking in the public square, don’t good journalists seek more evidence? Your evidence is lacking and your inferences are fideistic as a result.
Third, What Platt’s church did prior to him becoming pastor is largely irrelevant. You’ve been a pastor, does it really matter what the previous pastor did prior to you, especially almost 10 years before you? I keep pointing to the 2007 ACP because it’s the closest report to 2011. It’s more likely that Platt’s church is doing what they did in 2007 than what they did 10+ years before. That being said, the LMCO can be picked up by any church at any time, thus, it doesn’t really matter who gave what, when? It matters if Platt’s church is currently giving to the LMCO. You don’t know if they do or not because you refuse to check with them. Instead you assume the negative based on a 4 year old report.
Fourth, you didn’t just “employ public information to ask a question,” you answered your own question as it being inexplicable that Greear and Platt are the spokesmen for the LMCO. I wouldn’t have written a response to you if you just asked the question and presented the public evidence. Your inference is the reason I responded. Your inference is based on your bias, not on the evidence at hand.
Fifth, you said this statement about Brook Hills ”if their record of past giving to Lottie Moon predicts present support, it is not unreasonable to assume that they are not now giving to international missions through LMCO,” only after you said, ”Even so, the inexplicability of Greear’s presence as a promotional tool for the IMB is to be surpassed by David Platt’s presence on the video . Why? [Emphasis mine]” You act like you just left up the decision to your readers, when in reality you said that it’s unexplainable (inexplicable) why Greear and Platt are the spokesmen for the LMCO before you made your “if” statements. The truth is that when your evidence is factored in with the fact that the IMB asked Platt and Greear to represent the LMCO, it’s more probable that these men support the LMCO. Once again, you don’t know because your evidence is either outdated or unfinished.
Sixth, concerning me not contacting the IMB or BR, it’s entirely different than you not contacting Platt’s and Greear’s churches because the ACP reports to which you refer are either unfinished or outdated! The fact that Greear’s church gave to the LMCO in 2010 proves this fact. Your research was poor; therefore, your inferences are unfounded, or at best, are based on sorry evidence.
Seventh, my church has graciously allowed me to be with my family on Christmas. So, I’ll be worshiping in Sparta, TN on Christmas. I find it humorous that people automatically dismiss my book based on the title. Haven’t people ever heard, “You can’t judge a book by its cover?” BTW: Tell your pastor that I’m available to teach The Harry Potter Bible Study at your church any time. Just fyi, I don’t speak about my Bible study from the pulpit at my church mainly because I’m unsure how sensitive the consciences are here, but I do teach the same principles presented in the study. There are a few here who have requested my book, and so far, they’ve enjoyed it. Everyone who has read my book and commented have spoken positively about the content, although some didn’t like how the book was organized. If people just read the book, I think they’ll be pleasantly surprised.
Hey man, here’s my thought: why both with Lumpkin? He’s a mild nutjob but why let him bother you? I would encourage you not to waste your time. Pearls before swine and all that…
Anyway, just a little encouragement.
Excuse me… should have been “why bother with Lumpkin.” Haste got the better of me.
With that I am…
Laughing at that electronic signature.
(wink wink)
At the very least, Greear is an acceptable representative for the LMCO because he was an IMB missionary. Through the LMCO he served in East Asia as a Journeyman. In listening to his frequent messages concerning church planting and global missions, he says himself that his church sends because he was, for a time, one that was sent.
Who better to speak about the LMCO than a pastor who served with the IMB and now pastors a church who sends missionaries to the field every year? I am more impressed with a church who sends people than I am with a church who sends reports of their monetary donations.
Sister Bekah,
First, do you agree with Brother Wright’s assessment of Brother Lumpkins being a “nutjob”? If not, you need to make note of that disagreement because your point is built on his point.
Second, You are correct concerning Greear. He did go to the mission field through the IMB. But, you fail to note that Dr. Greear was in an independent Baptist church that did not support the SBC through the CP. He joined a SB church after he found out about the CP and the strategy of the sending of M’s to the international field. Thus, he benefited from the CP and Lottie Moon without investing anything in it. Nothing wrong with that, I am just stating the facts. However, when one benefits from something on that level should one not be obligated to give back? While it is a fact that we do not have a standard in the SBC for sending in an ACP all SB know the ACP is the standard of accountability we have. This was taught in seminary and I know it was because I went to SEBTS the same time Dr. Greear was in attendance there.
Brother Lumpkins post is not about Dr. Greear failing to post the amounts he gives as much as it is about the IMB placing before the entire convention one that refuses to be held accountable for what he is doing. Also, it appears, and others are digging to find out if it is correct, the IMB has moved to courting the mega churches by allowing these megas to allocate their LMCO to go to a specific region that these megas have adopted and sent people from their church as the M’s for that region. If that is the case, then we see a societal method in full blown existence within the SBC. Thus, one then realizes that Dr. Greear is returning to his independent Baptist roots.
Blessings,
Tim
Well said, Bekah! Lumpkins fails to explain that money is not the only consideration for being an IMB spokesman via video. While I can’t judge the intent of his heart, I am weary of his divisive “reporting.” I consider myself a three-point Calvinist (i.e. Biblicist), which means that I am more in line with Peter’s synergistic perspective than I am with the reformers’ monergism. And yet, I would rather stand with Dave Miller and Jared Moore than with Lumpkins, because they will exhort and encourage me, whereas Peter will discourage and belittle me. I love Peter, and even told him so, and he responded to me with a blistering email that was mostly critical and accusatory. The future of the SBC will be better with bridge builders rather than with extreme Calvinists (like James White) or with extreme anti-Calvinists (like Peter Lumpkins). I applaud your stand, Jared, and thank God that you can affirm a differing theologically perspective while calling out a sinfully divisive brother.
Brother Goodman,
By your own words, you are a reformed Calvinist just not totally reformed. When one identifies oneself as “Calvinist” they just left the moniker of “Biblicist”. Why? They have placed the moniker of man and his doctrine above the moniker of God’s word. By your own admission you are not in line with Brother Lumpkins soteriology because he would never state he was any point Calvinist. Thus by identifying yourself by the moniker of “Calvinist” you are positioned yourself more in line with the Brother’s Jared and Dave Miller.
Now, on to your charge of Brother Lumpkins.
Please do not love me in this way. To reveal in public the perceived contentiousness of another is not very loving. You have presented a point that Brother Lumpkins is divisive and strengthened it with some private exchange between the two of you. No one knows of this exchange and the content of it. How do we know that you did not “blister” him in the initial email but began it with “I love you Brother”? To open an email with “I love you” but then proceed to express all of these perceived divisive issues and possibly express it with giving “divisive reporting” is not too loving. Unless you know someone personally you have no right of accountability to confront them privately. Certainly you have a right to report publicly what you perceive as divisive issues that one keeps bringing up, but you have no relationship to call one out privately. You may appeal to “Brothers in Christ” and if that is the case is it brotherly love to attack one on someone else’s blog? Let’s give the benefit of the doubt and say that you are correct and Brother Lumpkins is wrong. Would your expressing your private email be right? If you have confronted someone and he/she did not respond the way you felt they should that should be it. What you have done in this comment is akin to gossip. You then end your comment by referring to Brother Lumpkins as “sinfully divisive”. WOW!! I mean, REALLY?!?! I would tell you that the most disagreeable person I have ever encountered is Brother James White. But if I were to call him sinfully divisive it is way over the top.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim, this statement, “By your own words, you are a reformed Calvinist just not totally reformed. When one identifies oneself as “Calvinist” they just left the moniker of “Biblicist”. Why? They have placed the moniker of man and his doctrine above the moniker of God’s word,” is ridiculous. You’d better take Baptist off your church building. You’d better quit identifying yourself as a Southern Baptist. I’m a Calvinist because I believe Paul was a Calvinist. I’m a Baptist for the same reason. In other words, I affirm Baptistic Calvinism because it’s what the Bible teaches. I even reject the tenets of Calvinism that are unbiblical: pedo-baptism, elder rule, limited atonement, etc.
You say a biblicist is someone who places God’s Word above man’s doctrines. So, what is a biblicist? Is a Catholic, Mormon, Arminian or Calvinist a Biblicist? And, where does the Bible call someone a “biblicist?” It too is a man-made moniker.
I think you’re being inconsistent.
My comment here will be restricted to the statement, “money is not the only consideration for being an IMB spokesman via video.”
Since the WHOLE PURPOSE of the video is to RAISE MONEY for LMCO, I would have to say that your statement is incorrect, relative to this particular video. Peter’s statement is directly related to the question of one’s own giving relative to the need for everyone else to give to the LMCO. I think it is a valid point. There is this move toward a “do as I say, not as I do” mentality in some of the more recent discussions related to giving in the SBC today.
That seems to be the issue and it is a very real perceived problem in ALL areas of giving in the SBC today.
><>”
Tim Rogers,
I stand by every single word I wrote. Thanks, and have a merry Christmas, brother.
Ed Goodman
Ed Goodman,
So that is the way you dialogue. Wonder exactly how Christendom survived discerning those divisive sinners until you came along.
Tim
Brother Tim,
I stood by my words and wished you a merry Christmas (and I still hope you have one). You responded with apparent sarcasm and (ironically) criticized MY dialogue. Very telling, indeed. What a Western Kentucky hoot!
With that, I am…..
Still Laughing
Jared,
I think the Calvinist movement needs to discover within iself what Doctrine (or to what degree of Calvinism) they can agree on.
In addition to Calvin himself, you have Calvinist, New Calvinist, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 point Calvinist and Hyper Calvinist. You can’t even get a consensus on what they want to follow. Some of the academic debates within the Calvinist Community itself, isn’t helping Unify the SBC.
The Strife that Calvinism has brought to the table within SBC Churches is honoring Satan. And Preachers not disclosing their Calvinist Doctrine to Churches who are supporting that Pastor is lacking integrity. (as quoted by Calvinist Preachers that do disclose)
I think when a Pastor purposely withholds his doctrine while accepting “Support” from the Congregation (that doesn’t understand what he truly embraces) would be considered border-line dishonesty, by some people.. It would be considered outright lying and stealing by others, which would mean they are blatantly practicing sin, with an arrogant disregard to “truth”.
Until there is clarity, in the Calvinist movement I think either Calvinist should exit the SBC or the SBC needs to Consolidate. The SBC is unable to manage the diversities of so many different Doctrines, especially when many Preachers won’t disclose what they accept to the SBC or to the churches who are supporting their service.
I think that the SBC needs to educate, SBC Representatives in all 50 States to help churches screen their Pastors so that Churches can ask the right questions, so they can understand what their Candidates really stand for.
But either way Calvinist (and Arminians) need to be unified in their Doctrine. Which I don’t see happening until the Spirit steps in. This is going to involve humble hearts by all Calvinists, Arminians and Baptists that only embrace the Bible, as Gods final authority.
In the mean time if these groups can’t come up with solutions within the next 5 years, because they failed, they need to find a different headquarters outside the SBC.
If they can’t find a solution because extreme hard core Calvinist and extreme hard core Arminians weren’t being led by the spirit, but instead are being led by man, I would like to suggest, that there is an abandon compound in Guyana, where controlling cults may be able to enjoy the freedom of strife and confusion. (Jim Jones old stomping grounds)
David,
Thank you for a very well written statement. (With the possible exception of the last paragraph) I thought I would say “thanks” BEFORE the onslaught begins.
><>”
Jared,
On a personal note, I would request that you NOT use my comments on other blogs or websites in your blog articles … without …my permission. My written comments are personalized to that blog article and its context. I would appreciate you honoring my request for the future. Blessings! – Ron Hale
Ron, thanks for the comment. To be clear concerning both biblical faithfulness and academic etiquette, I don’t need your permission to quote something you said publicly on the Internet. I find it interesting that you would make such a request in light of the fact that virtually Lumpkins’s entire blog is built on quoting comments other people have said publicly. I didn’t take your comment out of context. Your entire comment is posted and most of Lumpkins’s article. Own the statements you say publicly or don’t write them. If you believe what you wrote, I don’t know why you would have a problem with your comment being posted here.
So, my answer to your request is “No.”
Jared,
I know that you do not “need” my permission, however, I am asking you to make a personal decision in honoring my request. Blessings!
[...] writing online.Write extra blog posts quoting him as much as you can.______________________Comment from Ron Hale to Jared Moore. ↩U.S. Copyright Office. Fair Use ↩Related posts:Ethics: Pastor Opposes Tim Tebow [...]