Jared Moore

(I’m responding to Peter Lumpkins publicly because his skewing is public.)  Peter, you kill me. You’re not helping the SBC by skewing data to favor your opinions. You’re causing more division. If you want to help the SBC, why don’t you encourage unity? Here’s just a small sampling of your skewing:

This is your doctored video of Al Mohler

First, in your recent videos of Dr. Mohler, you add words to his commentary. Mohler just spoke about his convictions. Where does he say “only” in his statements? He doesn’t say it; yet, you argue he does. How do you not know that Mohler considers you in the “Reformed of another name” stream of Baptist life that he mentions in the video? How do you not know that he doesn’t include what you believe concerning the T.U.L.I.P. in his “reformed” definition? How do you not know that he considers the BF&M 2000, a document you affirm, a “reformed” document? I ask this because why is Al Mohler so cooperative with other Southern Baptists that believe like you, if he thinks they’re not serious about the gospel… as you argue? You seem to know Mohler better than he knows himself, because he sure doesn’t live out what you suggest he’s arguing in the video. So, who should I and others believe, the words and implications you put in Mohler’s mouth, or the actual theology and life espoused by Mohler on a consistent basis? The answer is obvious to anyone who isn’t looking for smoke where there’s no fire. You focus more on what he doesn’t say instead of on what he actually says. Can Mohler not believe strongly that Calvinism is what the Bible teaches, and that it is the best option out there? The Abstract of Principles agrees with Mohler. Which is a confession that he did not write, but one that Southern Baptists wrote, affirmed, and demanded others in the future affirm as well in order to teach at SBTS and SEBTS. You of course leave this fact out. You should be ashamed for how you’ve handled Mohler in the above video.  You intentionally ignore his life and example, and skew a 2 minute video to bolster your opinions.  How is intentionally ignoring the context provided by Al Mohler’s life and consistent example, an honest use of the above video?

Second, a few weeks ago you referenced Frank Page’s interview with SBC Today. This is what you wrote:

In the interview, Dr. Page publicly addressed an issue about which he believes “everyone is aware…but few want to talk about…” The issue?  The divisiveness of Calvinism in the SBC.”

You then quoted Page’s words:

I think one of the issues which is a tremendous challenge for us is the theological divide of Calvinism and non-Calvinism.  Everyone is aware of this, but few want to talk about this in public.  The reason is obvious.  It is deeply divisive in many situations and is disconcerting in others.  At some point we are going to see the challenges which are ensuing from this divide become even more problematic for us.  I regularly receive communications from churches who are struggling over this issue.

Did Page emphasize the divisiveness of Calvinism? I don’t see it in his words, and it’s not in the interview either. His exact words are “Calvinism and non-Calvinism.” He doesn’t emphasize one over the other. In other words, non-Calvinism is just as divisive in the SBC as Calvinism is… a fact that you repeatedly ignore.

Third, can you prove that you represent grassroot Southern Baptists? Nope. I personally believe that there’s more proof aliens exist than that your views against Calvinism in the SBC represent grassroot Southern Baptists. So, why do you continually act like you represent them? What proof do you have other than a few Southern Baptists you know, as compared to the 6,000,000+ Southern Baptists you don’t know? You can’t prove it, yet you continually skew various statistics as if grassroot Southern Baptists agree with you. The bottom line is that unless you can prove with the vote of Southern Baptists, not merely with statistics that say the majority of Southern Baptists are non-Calvinists, but that they’re against Calvinism like you are, you’re intentionally skewing the data. You continually point to 90-95% of Southern Baptists being non-Calvinists, even arguing that they “reject” Calvinism, even though you know that the statistics you’re referencing only refer to 5-point Calvinists in the SBC. You do realize that Russell Moore, Bruce Ware, myself, and numerous other Southern Baptist Calvinists are not 5-point Calvinists, don’t you? Yet, we consider ourselves a type of Calvinist, and we’re definitely not afraid of 5-point Calvinism. I know you realize this, but nevertheless, in order to bolster your articles, you, yet again, skew the data.

Fourth, in your recent article concerning the Daviess-McLean Baptist Association and Pleasant Valley Community Church, you leave out the fact that this rejected church’s confession of faith does not violate the Baptist Faith and Message. You even presume to know that high Calvinism (your words… which are inaccurate) was intentionally left out of the various Baptist Faith and Messages in SBC history. Would you also scold churches for being sure about their eschatology, which is also intentionally left out of the Baptist Faith and Message?  Nope.  So, you single out Calvinism to build an argument that attempts to justify this association’s choice. Yet, if your argument against Calvinism here justifies this Association’s rejection, then you should justify any association’s choice to reject a church over anything beyond the Baptist Faith and Message. You need to be okay with any association rejecting a church from membership based on something that has been “intentionally left behind” by the Baptist Faith and Message.

Fifth, to all the other non-Calvinists out there who support Peter, you amaze me as well. It blows my mind that you will applaud Peter, even though he skews data. Can you not see how terribly ironic it is that Peter gets on to Dr. Mohler by skewing numbers, statistics, exaggerating, parsing words, etc. There’s no way it’s honoring to God to intentionally skew data for the purpose of bolstering articles, opinions, and a specific agenda. It’s dishonest, plain and simple.

Sixth, no one has denied that some SBC Calvinists have behaved badly. But, if your stats are correct that the overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists are non-Calvinists, then this means that most of the church splits in the SBC are caused by non-Calvinists. But, of course, you leave this fact out of your discussion. Here’s just one example of an SBC church splitting, not due to Calvinism or Calvinists, but because of divisive non-Calvinists…http://www.salisburypost.com/News/092511-court-Blackwelder-Park-Baptist-civil-lawsuit-pastor-Keith-Kannenberg-qcd and http://www.salisburypost.com/News/102811-court-Keith-Kannenberg-Blackwelder-Park-Baptist-Church-Jamie-Welch-qcd. Make sure you read the comments in the above two links!  Also, when the SBC seminaries became liberal, who was on guard in the SBC that allowed such liberalism, Calvinists or Non-Calvinists?  Non-Calvinists!  Furthermore, if the majority of the convention is made up of Non-Calvinists and baptisms have continually declined, and giving to the Cooperative Program has continually declined, then who is responsible for this?  Non-Calvinists.  (Let me be very clear, I don’t lay the faults of the SBC at the feet of Non-Calvinists, I lay it at the feet of Southern Baptists, both Calvinists and non-Calvinists, because that’s who Southern Baptists are . . . Calvinists and non-Calvinists.)  A fact you ignore, yet again.

The reality is that I know I cannot stereotype all non-Calvinists based on the several instances I’ve seen where non-Calvinist Southern Baptists have split churches. You and others however refuse to apply the same stereotypes you apply to Calvinists, to those within your own theological system. Why the biased? The answer is simply that you are terribly inconsistent. You’ll keep pointing to the few instances to stereotype the many who you disagree with, while those who agree with your theological system rip churches apart left and right . . . as you sit silent. Shouldn’t you warn people about the arrogant aggressive non-Calvinists in the SBC as well who are responsible for most of the church splits in the SBC?

Finally Peter, I don’t think my article will do you any good.  I’m hoping it will do some good for the few who read and believe your various conspiracy theories.  The reality, however, is that you deal with data in a dishonest manner for the purpose of bolstering your opinions.  You should be ashamed for how you handle some of your articles.  Those who support you should be ashamed and embarrassed as well.  You have an opportunity to encourage unity in the SBC, and instead of encouraging unity, you’re further destroying what you claim to love. You’re better than this.

(If anyone leaves a comment, be kind.  Otherwise, your comment will be deleted.)

What are your thoughts?

Incoming search terms for the article:

• peter lumpkins
• keith kannenberg pastor
• Keith Kannenberg salisbury
• five point sbc russell moore
• peter lumpkins and anti-calvinism
• peter lumpkins eschatology
• peter lumpkins sermon
• sermons by peter lumpkins