"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

A Case Study in How Fundamentalists Can Kill a Convention (Part 1)

If one wishes to know the reason behind the numerical, financial and evangelistic decline in the Southern Baptist Convention, one need look no further than at a Fundamentalist Southern Baptist blog called SBC Tomorrow, owned by Southern Baptist Peter Lumpkins.

Mr. Lumpkins recently wrote a post entitled "Here Come Those Boozin' Baptists: A Problem for Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary?" In the post, Mr. Lumpkins suggests that there is a problem with "boozin" and "drunkenness" at Southeastern Theological Seminary among students. Peter writes:

"Could it possibly be Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary is facing a crisis...perhaps a crisis where students are, shall we say, a bit more corinthianistic than they would like?

Is this possible? After all, when one of the faculty members rhetorically asks, over the cyberways, "Is alcohol a good thing? Sure! If it is taken in moderation," would it be surprising if a crisis were brewing amongst the student-body? Not from my side of the creek.

When one makes the consumption of intoxicants for pleasurable purposes, a consumption of which is widely accepted within our culture, into a mere unimportant, insignificant third-tier, non-gospel-centered, libertarian, amoral issue, what under the blue sky do you think is going to happen?"
Fundamentalist Peter Lumpkins has taken the five basic steps Fundamentalists use to destroy gospel cooperation:

(1). Make a third-tier, non-gospel doctrine a first-tier doctrine upon which without agreement no Christian fellowship will occur.
(2). Suggest that any "professing believer" who disagrees with the Fundamentalist's intrepetation is immoral ("corinthianistic") or perhaps "unsaved."
(3). Shut down debate on any questionable interpretation of Scripture by engaging in destructive personalized attacks against those who disagree.
(4). Delete or ignore any comment that places the Fundamentalist's logic in a poor light.
(5). Become so worked up over tertiary issues that eventually the power of the gospel is ultimately lost.

When I revealed the poor logic of Peter Lumpkins' post regarding Southeastern Seminary and their President Danny Aiken, and when I showed Peter and the readers how one of Peter's own commentors on his blog had suggested that he (Peter Lumpkins) had a "secret alcohol problem," I argued that the same tactic Peter uses against Southeastern was now being used against him. I suggested to Peter that his kind of writing (and his commentor's) was as David Miller suggested,  "the worst kind of blogging."

Peter's response to my comment was as follows (verbatim):

You conclude: "I have to agree with Dave Miller that this style of writing is the worst kind of blogging."

Know I've had a pretty rough day dealing with some necessities out and about Atlanta. I had much time to think about the last couple posts and whether what I wrote crossed the canons of moral reasoning I employ for so many daily decisions.And, I must say there were moments when I wondered if my many critics were correct. But then, Wade, I get home, fire up the computer, and upon doing so, my eyes crossed the short phrase from your inspired moment I quoted above...

it was...

it was like...like a...

a bolt of lightening, a truly pentecostal moment, I say...

when I heard as Moses from the mountain...


like Elijah's whisper, it came to me...

with the Apostle Peter's confidence...

for sure, for sure, I tell you...

it was suddenly affirmed I did the right thing. I followed the hard path but nonetheless the right path.

Know, my Wade, your words pushed me toward a verse in God's Word which sealed within me the security I needed to know I did the right thing by posting as I did.

The verse is an Old Testament obscurity but as inspired as any word in the Sacred Book.

It reads, and I quote...

"And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass..." (Num.22:28)

Thank you, Wade Burleson. I am now in perfect peace.

With that, I am...


Posted by: peter
2010.10.16 at 06:05 PM
Ignoring the personal insult, I attempted to engage Peter, at his request, on the fallacy of his writings about a drunkenness problem at Southeastern Theological Seminary. Peter "unpublished" (he does not like to call it "delete") my comments, a practice that is common with him. After attempting to engage Peter regarding the his charge against the students of SEBTS, challenging him to rethink his uncharitable suggestion of "drunkenness" among the students because of the beliefs and teaching of certain faculty at SEBTS, and trying to dialogue on this matter at his invitation, I gave up after my comments were deleted and left a final comment that he also deleted.

My last comment began with a quote from Peter that appears at the bottom of Peter's most recent post where he attempts to justify his accusations against SEBTS students and faculty:

"The reader will note I have the comment posted on my own page. It’s becoming more significant that important links be cached since they too frequently disappear into cyberspace."

Peter, one might suggest that in light of you "unpublishing" (deleting) my most recent comment, a portion of which you quote in your 4:09 PM comment above, you ought to consider removing your statement, italicized above, from your most recent post.

"A hypocrite is in himself both the archer and the mark, in all actions shooting at his own praise or profit" (Thomas Fuller in Holy and Profane States--The Hypocrite (maxim I, bk. V, ch. VIII).
It is people with a spirit like that of Peter Lumpkin that cause the Southern Baptist Convention to fracture and shatter. I no more wish to be identified with the harsh, bitter and condemning spirit of the Pharisees than I do the theological liberalism of the Sadducees.

Every Southern Baptist keeps cheering the "victory" over theological liberals in the Southern Baptist Convention, but if we don't do something to shut down the Fundamentalists who possess the spirit of Peter Lumpkin, there will be no Southern Baptist Convention left within a generation.  Neo might have stopped all the bullets aimed at him, but when Fundamentalists begin aiming their six shooters, they don't stop till all those who disagree with them are dead.

Thank God not all Southern Baptists have the kind of spirit demonstrated at SBC Tomorrow. However, if the majority of Southern Baptists don't begin to speak up and out against the deceptive and ungodly practices of Fundamentalism, we might as well shut the doors on the SBC and turn out the lights.


Bob Cleveland said...

Perhaps the whole flap with Peter's post .. and indeed the post itself .. is part of a "purification" process of the SBC, instituted by God Himself.

Reasoning? It's unlikely that anyone without a strong desire to be Southern Baptist, on convictional grounds, would want to have anything to do with a denomination that spawns such garbage as Mr. Lumpkins has written.

Anonymous said...

I read everything.

Coming from a background in independent, Fundamentalist, baptist churches, the arrogance, haughtiness, spit-fire anger, and sheer hatred of what I read in the comment section over at Lumpkins blog made me shiver.

Thy Peace said...

A minor correction: Neo (The Matrix) :)

shadowspring said...


natamllc said...


there is a ring of truth heard in my inner man when reading this thread and comments.

I too have been unpublished at times after posting on Peter's blog.

I found by approaching Peter on his terms in humility I at least was able to remain published with other comments I posted over there.

This experience is indicative of someone with security problems, he is very insecure and one who is too weak emotionally, emotion driven, to be of assistance to Christ in building the weak up and to edify the soul of another found weak and wanting.

Rom 15:1 We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves.
Rom 15:2 Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up.

One can see the failure within Peter with these Words of Scripture, in my view:

1Jn 4:10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
1Jn 4:11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
1Jn 4:12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.
1Jn 4:13 By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.
1Jn 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

Indeed, Jesus is the Savior of the world. Being a part of His body, we are allowed to be an active extension of this edification process of Christ as Savior of the world.

Also indeed, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another with His love not ours.

The key is the word's meaning, propitiation.

When one is exercised by and matured enough to apply "God's Love" there will always be Peace. We don't see that with Peter.

Reasoned, Wade, it cannot be said that you are unloving when you "expose" Peter hereon, yet, in seeing, I too personally have read the exchanges before they were becoming unpublished, wondering then to myself, why and when will the Holy Spirit breathe on and enlighten Peter so that his gifts and calling can be more useful to his confession of faith? As you indicate, he is entrapped in some sort of hypocrisy.

Sadly, as yet, nothing seems forthcoming with regard to fundamental repentance.

I guess one now can understand perfectly that one facet of the fruit of the Spirit is "suffering long"; and in this case with longsuffering Peter as this seems to be what we are left with with one such as he is, these days, knowing that for him too God's Love never ceases and endures all things that he might be set free and come into full salvation!

Finally, I am reminded of these Scriptures as I see you are reaching out to Peter and show forth the nature of Christ within your soul by them, here:

Heb 12:12 Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees,
Heb 12:13 and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed.
Heb 12:14 Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.
Heb 12:15 See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no "root of bitterness" springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled;

Might we happily endure this brother then and assist in seeing to it that he also obtains the grace of God, as we have ourselves?

Steve Bezner said...

Wade, all I can say is this—you're a voice for those of us who feel as if we no longer have a voice. I hope you'll keep speaking up. Perhaps one day we will see unity return to the SBC. In the meantime, I'll continue to pastor and lead Gospel-change in my city. Thanks.

natamllc said...

Wade, can you check your blog filter and release my comment?


Wade Burleson said...

Thy Peace,

Thanks! There has to be some humor in Nemo vs. Neo.

Mark said...

I read the comments you made at Peter's blog before he deleted them.

Sadly, he is now lying about why he deleted them.The man seems seriously ill.

Anonymous said...

whoah !

is Peter comparing HIMSELF to Balaam's donkey when he quotes Numbers?

Former SBC Preacher said...

What's scary is that these neo-Fundamentalists who are Southern Baptists, men such as Peter Lumpkins, Tim Rogers, and others have either been fired from their churches or pastor teeny tiny churches that can hardly pay the bills to keep the doors open, but now because of their blogs, some Southern Baptists actually believe they are men of influence in the SBC. They never have been nor will they ever be.

Anonymous said...

For Peter to compare himself to an ass would be like Pope John Paul comparing himself to a Baptist.

It not only ain't gonna happen, it's impossible to even cross his mind.

Steve said...

The Balaam quote is obvious to anyone who can read.

Anonymous said...

yeah, he's comparing himself to an ass, an ass who talks

Peter Lumpkins said...

Do not come back to my blog and lecture anyone--anyone Wade--concerning your idea of what a destructive spirit is...Period

Your remind me of my little granddaughter who when she doesn't get her way; she just plops down and won't move and acts like a two year old.

Your readers drive by my site and lob bombing insults. The words I write are plain for all to read.

I called you an ass because you are an ass.

Get over it.

With that, I am...


Anonymous said...

guess I was wrong about him calling himself an ass

Anonymous said...

'Get over it'

Peter's new ghost-writer is joe Blackmon

Anonymous said...

Pot, Kettle lol. I do not think Peter has any idea how he comes across online.

Anonymous said...

Sad to see so little Christian spirit displayed by Mr. Lumpkins.

And talk about a "drive by"

Anonymous said...

This blog has turned into nothing more than what you would expect from a junior high girl. Wade and Peter both act like little boys trying to start a fight with the other one.

The saddest part is that they both then try to act spiritual and make us think that any Southern Baptist actually cares what they think or have to say.

Grow up boys.

Marcus Brody said...

Peter is trying to promote his alcohol abstinence book.

I quit reading his blog a long time ago because he writes only to incite reaction then gets mad when you call him on his flawed logic and/or faulty understanding of Scripture.

He has proved himself to be irrelevant among meaningful Baptist thinkers, movers and shakers.

We should pity him, really.

Anonymous said...

Would someone please buy Peter a fruity drink with an umbrella in it.

Hurdler said...

Interesting as I come from outside the SBC - but have seen the same mindset (what I call "label and dismiss") where there is virtually no ability to dialogue with anyone who might not see every issue identically. One of our problems across evangelicalism is the chronic misunderstanding of "biblical unity." We have generally reduced it to mere agreement or unanimity -- a unity that does NOT require the presence of God; it is enforced or coerced by those in authority. However, I do see in Wade's writing a willingness to push in a different direction, a place where unity is actually realized when we remember that our unity is based on nothing more or less than our common bond in the one salvation and baptism of our Lord. What an incredible "trump card" that can bring unity if we would simply allow for it. Another quick suggestion - Gary Thomas' book entitled -- Holy Available: What If Holiness Is about More Than What We Don't Do? (previous title was The Beautiful Fight).

Robin Michelle said...

Things like this is EXACTLY why I left the SBC.

Robin Michelle said...

Would someone please buy Peter a fruity drink with an umbrella in it.

Send him over to my house...our fridge and freezer are full of the Devil's drink. In fact, I just may go make myself a nice peachy drink. ;P

Darrell said...

John 7:38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him."

In most stagnant water, maggots will appear aftr a while. we can tell who believes in Christ by the water flowing from their mouths (or keyboards)

We can also see tell what is stagnant.

Thanks Wade for always being that breath of fresh air and living water.

Don't worry yourself about stagnant waters that are already dying. :-)

Continue to live with living waters coming from you.


Steve said...

Man, how are we to ever defeat Satan with such hateful attitudes and speech among evangelistic believers as lumpkins consistently demonstrates? As we used to say at school, some people really need to get out more.

Anonymous said...

Well said Peter!

It's sad that you basically admit to enjoying a sin.

Wade Burleson said...

Just returned from watching my youngest son's last football game of the year (J.V game).

Anonymous folks, you are free to post here, but please keep it civil.

Peter, thanks for clarifying your comment.

At some point I would like to dialogue on the issues if at all possible.

In His Grace,


Bennett Willis said...

It is nice to have an opportunity to say something accurate about PL with the confidence that he will read it and that it won't disappear. :) Not just nice but unique.

Robin Michelle said...

Having an occasional drink is not a sin.

Alan Paul said...

I'm unsure why you give Lumpkins the time of day. He needs no publicity. He is a sick and twisted man.

Christiane said...


It would seem on the surface that all of this trouble began over a comment made about alcohol,
but I am thinking that was just an excuse for something ELSE to come out in the open.

Maybe Bob Cleveland is right. His comment was the first one. I've read all the other comments, but I keep going back to his words. He has a gift for understanding, concerning all of this trouble, I think.

Robin Michelle said...

I think so, too...which is why I used the 'drinking' stick to poke with. ;) I don't even care for it, really. I drink enough to be heart healthy as it has been proven to help with a certain condition that runs in my family. Who am I to argue with doctor's orders of wine and good chocolate?

But, really, things like this is precisely why I left the SBC...all the silly arguments over who is more holy and how all these little things (like an occasional drink) will send you straight to hell11!!11!!

I had enough of it all...6 years at a SBC college *really* nailed it for me. I am happy in my new church home where I have grown leaps and bounds in the last two years. I am sure it would be considered a heathen church because our associate pastor is a woman. Oh well....

Steve said...

Actually, the term would be "depublished," wouldn't it, since "un-" makes something (like the offending posts) look like they were passively omitted, whereas "de-" indicates that something was intentionally left out or obliterated.

PL, perhaps some person in your history just simply couldn't handle this particular chemical alchohol, whereas a raw peanut wouldn't faze them, or even boiled okra. If so, I'm sorry how it turned out.

I honestly believe God intended for us to develop alchohol for consumption, as well as Biaxin, aspirin, and all that stuff your listeners apparently have to injest to get through your delivery every Sunday! :)

I would so love to be there when you happen to show up at that really neat gate and tell Jesus he sinned for making, passing around, and drinking wine.

Anonymous said...

A Couple of notes:

1. Dt 14:26 says that whether you drink wine or strong drink (beer or whiskey?) Do it to the glory of God

2. During the J P Boyce days (not sure how long after him that the practice continued, but IIRC at least until prohibition) the students and Profs would often meet in the "Wine Celler" to drink some of Ketnucky's finest whiskey. A little known fact that is kept under the rug at SBTS IE NOT denied, but certainly not freely publicized as well

3. We are all aware that scripture does indeed prohibit drunkedness

How the facts are manipulated by those with an agenda!

Man of the West said...

It would seem on the surface that all of this trouble began over a comment made about alcohol,
but I am thinking that was just an excuse for something ELSE to come out in the open.

Ah! That's the same sort of feeling I had. Took me a night to nail it down a little more. Pretty well convinced that it's less about alcohol than it is about control, that is, I doubt seriously whether people are really as concerned with whether or not someone drains an occasional Sam Adams as they are with who's in control. Issues like that are just a convenient handle by which some hope to exert control.

Or so it seems to me. Just my two cents.

Lydia said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lydia said...

Peter is trying to promote his alcohol abstinence book.

I quit reading his blog a long time ago because he writes only to incite reaction then gets mad when you call him on his flawed logic and/or faulty understanding of Scripture.

He has proved himself to be irrelevant among meaningful Baptist thinkers, movers and shakers.

We should pity him, really.

Mon Oct 18, 09:46:00 PM 2010

Marcus, You have nailed it.
This is the most astute comment on the thread.

Paula said...

This blog has turned into nothing more than what you would expect from a junior high girl. Wade and Peter both act like little boys trying to start a fight with the other one.

The saddest part is that they both then try to act spiritual and make us think that any Southern Baptist actually cares what they think or have to say.

Grow up boys.

Mon Oct 18, 09:43:00 PM 2010

Amen! (except Jr. Hi boys do it too.)

I have had many comments deleted here. The liberals routinely dump hate on the "fundies", it's mean to call someone lost but not mean to mock people they don't like (Lumpkins for example, who I don't like either but he has a valid point in his comment above). Someone mentioned pots and kettles and it fits every Baptist blog I can think of.

I too have had much more peace and spiritual growth since leaving the SBC. I highly recommend it. :-)

Anonymous said...

Peter reminds me of the old saying "I cannot hear your words for your actions are too loud."

Peter might be talking all love and Christian concern, but his actions, such as calling others an ass, writing insinuationg comments about others, his sheer rudeness to those who comment, make it hard for me to believe that he has God's love in his heart.

His actions make me think he is an envious, miserable soul who feels so little self worth that he must continually bully, lambast, and badmouth others.

And, yes, I am full well aware that Peter could care less what I think. I am sure that he will scoff at my comment - tell me that I am a "nothing," an "idiot", even an "ass."

But I do hope that he cares what God sees him doing and the intent with which he is doing it. Peter is not glorifying Gods Kingdom with his mean-spirited blog.


Paul J said...

I always enjoy your blog, even if I am not in agreement. As far as Mr. Lumpkin, to both of you, I say "lighten up!" A good zinger sometimes brings up back to the issue at hand, even if it is slightly off point.

Anonymous said...

Some of the anonymous posts might be more civil if you blog was more civil. You stir stuff up and you know it and then try to cloak your dissenting spirit in humility. Many people are fooled but I am not. You want civility then practice what you preach.

Anonymous said...

You know, I bet Peter Lumpkins is glad to have more traffic than just CraigD and Peter's mom on his website.

If it wasn't SBC Voices policy to have EVERY SBC blog linked, I'm sure Peter would disappear into obscurity.

He's just trying to draw attention to his book since his paid reviews haven't helped spike sales much.

However, Peter isn't interested in a dialogue at all. Anyone who pins him in a corner has his posts either edited or deleted (unpublished is a childish attempt at semantics).

During his Baghdad Bob impression at the height of the Caner debacle was nothing short of hilarious with his overt ignoring of actual legal documents obtained through FOIA requests while trying to make it all about Dr. James White.

I love the fact that he suppresses comments which absolutely blows his own thoughts out of the water. Then again, that's classic narcissism.

Garen Martens said...

Wade - Because of some stands I have taken as a city councilman, I am not popular with all of my constituents. One of them wrote on a slip of paper "You are a jackass" and put the paper in the drawer of my councilman's desk. That paper motivates me to do what is right more than anything that's ever happened to me as a councilman.

Paula said...

That anon Tue Oct 19, 11:28:00 AM 2010 comment is what I'm talking about. See the mockery? It's irrelevant whether Lumpkins deserves it. The point is whether it's only okay for certain "elect" people to dish it out. Either there's a single standard for both sides or there isn't. If it's okay to expose liars and abusers in the SBC, then it's also okay to expose hypocrites, heretics, apostates, divisive people, legalists, false teachers, and subversives. If it's unloving to criticize Wade then it's unloving to criticize Peter.

Tim Tuggle said...

"Christ drank; Christ drank publicly and it was not grape juice.
If drinking is a sin, then we have no Savior.
Implicitly impugning the sinlessness of Christ is not a tertiary issue."
Not sure where I heard all that, but the logic seems pretty solid.

Chris Riley said...

Wow...31 years and the tactics have not changed. What an amazing discipleship program we have built. How amazing it is that this "discipleship program" has not affected real change where it matters...among a lost and dying world. The whole "you bought at the same store as so&so makes you a ______" is ignorant at best and demonic at worst. Clarence Jordan said it best when he commented to a man who accused him of being a communist, "If visitng with a communist makes a me a communist, does going to church with you make me a jackass?"

Rex Ray said...

Maybe your granddaughter takes after her granddad. Your comment on Wade’s post sounded like a two year old. Two year olds want control, and they cry and yell when they don’t get it.

I believe Man of the West has your number when he said:

“…it's less about alcohol than it is about control.”

Peter do you know “Insecurity and pride is the Mother of intimidation and control”?

You try to intimidate with what you think is smart and clever remarks. Your pride even shows in the way you end your comments.
Connecting the dots to “I am” is God speaking – Right?

You’re anything but God speaking, in fact, pride is EGO which stands for ‘Edging – God – Out.

Rex Ray said...

You said, “I too have had much more peace and spiritual growth since leaving the SBC. I highly recommend it.”

I agree I would have more peace if I stopped fighting ‘fundamentalists’; and Paul would have more ‘peace’ if he stopped fighting ‘fundamentalists’, but he wrote:

“…if I preached…Jewish laws are necessary for the plan of salvation, I’d be persecuted no more.” (Galatians 5:11)

I believe Paul was referring to those that were zealous for the law and with ‘tongue in cheek’ called him “dear brother.” (Acts 21:20)

But if Paul had ‘left’ as you did, would he have had more “spiritual growth”?

I probably got a ‘black eye’ for voicing reasons for a church to adopt the BFM 1963.

Paula, there are two things I disagree with your saying, “The liberals routinely dump hate on the ‘fundies’.”

Truth is NOT hate, and anyone ‘in lighting’ fundies is NOT automatically a liberal; even though that is what ‘fundies’ would like moderates (true conservatives) branded.

Paula said...


I left the SBC in much the same way Paul left Judaism. He primarily went to the Gentiles but still agonized over his own people and wished for them to be saved. If I left the SBC the way you say I did, then I wouldn't be here because I wouldn't care. Instead, I'm taking Paul's example of going to where people were already gathering and giving them a message that says "come out of her, my people", of leaving either falsehood or that which is incomplete.

And my statement about liberals is simply that they do what they hate fundies for doing; they are every bit as "unloving". If it's just telling truth to bash fundies, then it's just telling truth to call people out for their double standard, or for hedging on the gospel, or many other things.

greg.w.h said...

Mr. Lumpkins wrote:

I called you an ass because you are an ass.

Get over it.

With that, I am...


Peter, Peter, Peter...

There have been very few times I objected to anything you wrote other than your closing signature. Not because I agreed with you, but because I think the Holy Spirit is capable and able to finish that which has been started in us. And I believe reason is one method for dealing with each other in a brotherly fashion.

I still think your signature shows your stubborn streak of arrogance, by the way. But the namecalling demonstrates that your brain is devoid of reasoning. You are unreasonable and illogical. You defend a position of abstinence while claiming a Savior that turned water into wine.

Perhaps you should observe that:

1. The ass prophesied to the prophet accurately. Which is to say, he corrected Balaam correctly.

2. That when one calls someone else a name, it opens the opportunity for a very specific observation: perhaps it takes one to know one.

Greg Harvey

Chris Ryan said...


A word of encouragement, when the mouth of the ass was opened it revealed more wisdom than Balaam exhibited.

Anonymous said...

Folks, Peter is doing the best he can. I truly believe that.

(But, hey, Peter...it is possible to do better...really.)

Greg Alford said...

Tim Tuggle,

"Christ drank; Christ drank publicly and it was not grape juice.

If drinking is a sin, then we have no Savior.

Implicitly impugning the sinlessness of Christ is not a tertiary issue."

In just 32 words you have laid bear just how serious the theological error of Peter Lumpkins truly is. This is not a "tertiary issue"!!!

If Peter is correct then the Word of God (our Bibles) cannot be trusted... If Peter is wrong (and he is) then he is guilty of "Implicitly impugning the sinlessness of Chris".

And as another comment posted here alluded to... I would not want to be Peter when Jesus meets him at the gate.

Grace Always,

Anonymous said...

I have to say that the amount of attention that the alcohol issue gets in the SBC (aside from whether we are abstinent or not)is really part of the problem.


Anonymous said...

How about instead of everyone telling Peter how he should talk, you model how he should talk?

greg.w.h said...

You know, I actually didn't go far enough in my comments. Not only have I spent very little time publicly disagreeing with Peter, but on two occasions I took a public action that I felt would put him in a positive light:

1. He made some comments about the complementarian position that I was able to extend with what I felt was a pretty good exegesis of Greek on a particularly familiar passage. It's worth noting that I am a complementarian, but I also am very tolerant of those who disagree with me. I just feel that the discussion--regardless of who is involved in it--always deserves the best presentation of both sides.

2. There was a time when the sbctomorrow.com domain wasn't correctly redirecting to his blog. I made a post in his comment section notifying him of that.

I honestly dislike condescension because it always sends the message that the person who comes across as condescending truly believes he (or she) is superior to the listener. I made this very specific argument about his closing signature, and hoped he'd understand the point. But he was entirely dismissive of that point...which kind of proved the accusation of condescension was precisely correct.

That said: I truly believe that Peter is one of the redeemed. I choose to mistake what seems to me his worst behavior as being a form of zealotry for our (shared) Savior. Peter, I forgive you for it. Please re-examine yourself and consider if the path you have chosen is an appropriate fulfillment of your royal ambassadorship.

Greg Harvey

believer333 said...

Regarding P.Lumpkin, it is interesting that when the intelligent are arrogant it makes for entertaining but frustrating reading. And of course dialogue, true exchanging of ideas, is pretty much moot.

Anonymous said...


I'm the anon from 11:28.

I spoke truth. How is that wrong?

Oh yeah, it's contrary to your position.

We've already gone round and round over on SBC Voices.

Actual discussions have occurred since you left there too.

Jack Maddox said...

Dr Akins take on the whole issue is I think very balanced and well stated for those of us who hold to the abstinence position.



Wade Burleson said...

Folks, I received an email while in staff meeting from Peter Lumpkins that the comment here on this blog was not his. The I.P. is is through a third party "anonymous" router, so Peter could be telling the truth--I don't know. The only problem Peter has is that the words in the comment are from Peter's blog, so unless the imposter also wrote Peter's blog and comments there, then it's difficult to swallow that Peter did not write them.

I will be more than happy to remove the comment of the alleged "imposter" if Peter expresses those are not his words.

Ben said...

After reading these blogs (yours and WD's), I have concluded that this is a great time to become baptist.

The SBC is a place where you can quit tithing and start drinking.

Christiane said...

If God can make Balaam's donkey speak,
then God can stop us ALL from 'braying'.

May it be so. :)

'Braying' is attention-getting noise-making. It was never intended to convey ideas to be shared.

We have to begin to talk with one another. Not past each other.
Not down to each other.
But WITH each other.

If God can make a donkey communicate, then He can help us to dialogue with one another.
Kind of like the time of Pentecost, when understanding between people came to them, as a Gift of the Holy Spirit. :)

May our ears evolve much larger
. . . so that we can listen to others.
May God give us the gift of communicating.
And most of all, may we stop beating up on those we consider 'asses'.
( We may not be able to see the angels standing near them.)

Paula said...

Anon Tue Oct 19, 02:29:00 PM 2010,

You missed the point, as usual. Same old double standard, same old denial, same old hatred of those who aren't just like you, same old judgmentalism and self-righteousness. You think those are only other peoples' qualities.

But just once I'd like to see you practice what you preach and show by example what words are acceptable and what words are not. Since you use mockery and belittle those who dare to disagree with you, then it must be okay for everybody, including me. That's the message you're sending.

Paula said...

Lest we forget: Duplicity

Anonymous said...

P A U L A vs. SBC Voices:


" Anonymous said...


I'm the anon from 11:28.

I spoke truth. How is that wrong?

Oh yeah, it's contrary to your position.

We've already gone round and round over on SBC Voices.

Actual discussions have occurred since you left there too.

Tue Oct 19, 02:29:00 PM 2010"

Christy said...

Just read Peter's blogpost and comment section. His rude comments quoted in this stream have all been removed, then he blames the deletion on somebody else. Twisted.

Anonymous said...

does anyone have a copy of the original ? before the deletions?

Anonymous said...


Peter's all about intellectual honesty and standards being applied to everyone but himself.

He chides people for deleting or editing comments yet he does it himself.

His favorite tactic is deleting comments that blow his arguments out of the water. You can't argue with something that ain't there can you?

Maybe he can find a way to blame this on Dr. James White again or just evil Calvinists...

Peter is a farce and made a big mistake by trying to imply that SEBTS is little more than Animal House with a chapel hour. He got called on it by Dave Miller and a few others who directly quoted Peter. All this did was draw a few extra people not named CraigD to his blogsite.

However, in true testament to who is the bigger blogger, Peter didn't really gain notoriety for his accusations until Wade decided to shine a light on it.

Of course, this could have just been a hit piece ordered by the SBCToday bunch with promises of buying his book that he can't sell.

Peter, see what I did with that last statement?

Chris said...


Anonymous said...

didn't SBC Today go out of business ?

Aussie John said...


It seems a dead ass is rather useful:

And he found a fresh jawbone of an ass, and put out his hand and took it, and with it he struck 1,000 men.

So,alive and kicking, you must be much more useful:)

I'm thankful that you understand, and teach,that New Covenant life in Christ, is far more God honoring than life under the Old Covenant.

I have great sorrow for those who think they can (or even need to) add, something worthy of God's attention, to what Christ completed during His ministry on earth.

Anonymous said...

Check This Comment Our From Bill on Peter's Blog in Response to Peter's Alleged Anger Over the "Imposter":


The Peter Lumpkins who wrote on Wade Burleson's blog directly quoted, explicitly directly quoted you, your response to a post made by Wade Burleson.


I know all about third party spoofing of IP addresses and such, but I just find it funny that your mad for someone directly quoting you.

Wade's waiting for a response and he'll delete the post.

You're just deleting stuff on your page. Very brave.

Posted by: bill | 2010.10.19 at 03:02 PM

Thought I'd post it here before it lands in the Lumpkin Lake of Deleted Comments.

Wade Burleson said...

Peter has not emailed me and told me that the words posted by "Peter Lumpkins" on this stream were not his own words. On the contrary, Peter is deleting the comments he made over the past two days on his own website.

I am debating taking the comment by Peter Lumpkins in this stream down, but honestly, I'm having a hard time with the seeming duplicity in, and lack of veracity of, Peter Lumpkins.

His manipulation of the truth reminds me of Wes Kenney's manipulation of his own comment stream years ago--caught by many perceptive Internet bloggers. The Internet makes telling successful lies a whole lot less likely of an activity than it was even just a couple of decades ago.

Facts are pesky little things.

Anonymous said...

Bill didn't last long either.

Bill said...

Nope, Bill did not.


Christiane said...

Well, if Peter is deleting, as some suggest, maybe there IS a way to discourage Peter from deleting like that, and therefore help him to not be tempted to do it anymore.

COPY his post. Periodically, COPY the comments, particularly the ones where you interact with him and he with you. (Tell him what are doing up front. That's important.)

Sometimes I would have a student who repeatedly 'made changes' on graded papers and brought them back to me, saying that I had made 'a mistake' in grading him.

I learned to file a copy of that student's work after grading it, and then, if it happened again,
to gently but firmly explain that I was aware that he was 'making changes' and if he denied it,
I would bring out the copy to show him. It worked. Every time.

The really bad thing was that when packets of graded papers went home every week, sometimes it was a PARENT who pulled the same stunt.
Then, the only thing I could do was to quickly on the phone explain to the parent that I had copies of the original graded papers in my files, and would she like to come and see them.

Ideal? No.
Did it work? Yes. Always.

Lydia said...

Well, if one wants to see the great chasm of Lumpkins style logic and reason compare and contrast his accusation of SEBTS of being Boozing Baptist seminary with his bizarre defense of the pathological liar, Caner, by attacking James White.

This is what I am to expect from fellow believers?

Rex Ray said...

You said, [Paul] “…agonized over his own people and wished for them to be saved.”

That’s true, but I believe you’re evading the point that Paul considered it was Christian ‘brothers’ that persecuted Paul the most – not lost Jews.

“No man stood for me” – Paul realized his ‘brothers’ had not lifted their little finger to come to his aid. They ‘maneuvered’ him to take vows that led to his imprisonment which got him out of their hair.

You might ask, how was Paul in the ‘hair’ of the Christian Jews?

Their words: “The Jewish believers here in Jerusalem have been told [by them?] that you are teaching all the Jews…to turn their backs on the laws of Moses. They’ve heard [by them?] that you teach them not to circumcise their children or follow other Jewish customs.” (Acts 21:21)

These charges would make Wade and Peter’s spat look like a loving couple because “Anyone refusing to obey the law…punished by death…” (Ezra 7:26) To preach against the law was far worse. The ‘brothers’ were successful in convincing Paul he was in a ‘hot spot’ by:

“What should we do? They [believers at Jerusalem] will certainly hear that you have come.”

Paula, you said, “If I left the SBC the way you say I did…”

Could you quote how I said you left the SBC?

The closest thing was me saying, “I agree I would have more peace if I stopped fighting ‘fundamentalists’.”

Did you leave by stop “fighting” fundamentalists?

BTW, am I an unloving ‘liberal’ if I believe Peter has a ‘bad mouth’?

Can you name some liberals that have fired missionaries or Hebrew professors?

Can you name some liberals – period instead of some ‘phantom name used for a punching bag?

Anonymous said...

she flamed everybody on Voices

Paula said...

RR, I was about to respond to your points when I came to this:
BTW, am I an unloving ‘liberal’ if I believe Peter has a ‘bad mouth’?

Can you name some liberals that have fired missionaries or Hebrew professors?

Can you name some liberals – period instead of some ‘phantom name used for a punching bag?

What use is it to answer, when you seem bent on inflating every word with meanings I never intended? Aren't "non-fundies" the ones who love labels so much? Fundy this, conservative that... it's always open season here on anyone slapped with those labels. But let someone use the L word and the screaming starts. Us fundies know all about being punching bags.

All I've been trying to say is that if it's BAD to say negative things about people, then it's bad for BOTH SIDES. If it's ok to ROAST Lumpkins or Blackmon or me or anyone, then it should be okay for "non-fundies" to take what they dish out. But it never will happen here. That's all I'm trying to say.

Did I mention that's all I'm trying to say?

Oh, and all I'm trying to say is that hypocrisy is not a fruit of the Spirit. That too.

And that's all I'm trying to say. :_D

Paula said...

she flamed everybody on Voices

Tue Oct 19, 07:24:00 PM 2010


I think somebody needs a nap! (or a life)

And these anon cowards never provide evidence of "flaming" that differs at all from THEIR OWN. The irony of flaming me for flaming! Priceless!

Anonymous said...

but you did it its true

it was paula-gone-wild

Anonymous said...

Paula was particularly notorious for jumping in with Joe Blackmon on the "Hate-filled lunacy of the day" posts and would attack and belittle people like Debbie Kaufman for making statements as innocuous as, "The sky is blue."

I think SBC Voices has really cleaned up under Dave Miller's watch. Got to give that man his props there.

I've even been deleted by him already. :)


The lower case bill and the one that's been rapid fire deleted by Peter Lumpkins as fast as he can find me.

All in all, Paula doesn't even really contribute, she just attacks and attacks.

Anonymous said...

a lotta people got her number here


Bryan Riley said...

The gospel - the good news - is that Jesus did it. We can't do it. Grace is the answer. When we focus on sin we are not fixing our eyes on Jesus and aren't awakened to the power of the Cross, the hope of glory, Christ in us. Because we focus on sin and not Jesus, when we don't preach the gospel of grace, we end up in a worst state than anyone. We "fall from" grace. "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." That is not a place I want to be.

The law is dead and produces death. Hallelujah that we are freed from that. Oh to hear more preach the gospel of the Kingdom that Jesus preached.

Anonymous said...

Peter Lumpkins and Tim Guthrie delete many nice honest questions in their commenting sections... it is simply hard to believe they are that _______________ (i don't know what word to use). Hopefully there are not many in the SBC that pay attention to them.

Anonymous said...

Tim G. deletes comments.


Rex Ray said...

Ahhh…I regret your not replying to my ‘points’ because of my “BTW”.

I truly would like to know what you think of them. You see, no one wants to see the problems Paul had with the majority of Christians. No one wants to see what’s happening today happened in Paul’s day.

Lydia said...

a lotta people got her number here


Tue Oct 19, 07:59:00 PM 2010

You forgot to go after me, too. I was in agreement with her on that thread.

Paula said...

Thanks Lydia! :-)

If that had been her personal blog I wouldn't have said a word, but it's SBC Voices. If they only want sycophants they should say so up front. The "poor pastor and wife, they put up with so much" pity party is another thing that's wrong with "church", but for a "pastor's wife" to start the party is at the very least a conflict of interest.

But I would challenge all these people who say I flamed everyone to come up with just one example that is any worse than what they themselves have said. Or has the kangaroo court already passed judgment? That's right, cowardly anons... I've got YOUR number.

Anonymous said...


You don't engage in mindless insults and you value opinions that differ from you.

Paula said...

Anon Wed Oct 20, 10:13:00 AM 2010, show me an instance of "mindless insult" that I committed. Then we can compare it with what my accusers have said.

Rex Ray said...

That link led me to my first experience of reading “SBC Voices”. I was glad you stood for what Paula said. In return you got your share of condemnation.

Christiane was there also, and as usual, she tried to pour oil on ‘troubled waters’ by giving a link to Paula’s blog so the ‘condemners’ could see the real Paula.

They probably didn’t look because it didn’t slow them down one bit.

Also, I didn’t like their attitude that church members are “entrusted” to God-appointed pastors. I got the feeling my ‘priesthood’ had to go through the pastor to reach God.

The blog subject was on how to do something nice for the pastor’s wife.

I would like to have written the best would be to take her husband behind the barn and straighten him out if he had lectured her on how she wrecked their car when she was in shock trembling like a leaf. Finally he said, “Well, come here” and held out his arms and the teenager ran the fifteen feet that separated them.

Or when in a rage with her, he raised her mother’s antique rocking chair to the ceiling and crashed it to pieces. One guy said it didn’t make a bit of sense unless the mother-in-law was in it.

Paula said...

Thanks RR :-)

Anonymous said...

Yes Paula, you sure showed me.

My comments excoriating you were deleted by Dave Miller. You can thank him since he was acting to not only discourage hostility, but also protect you.

You responded with a hissy fit.

Also, I've identified myself this entire time. It's not our fault that you can't comprehend what you read.


Also, you were out of line in those posts, not Debbie. Sure, Debbie did have some posts in OTHER threads that were also out of line, but not in that one. You came in with guns blazing and wound up carrying the perverbial knife to a gunfight.

We don't miss you over there. We just wish you'd take Joe with you wherever it is that you went.

Am I being harsh? Probably.

No more so than you or Joe, with both of you getting free passes all the time.

Lydia said...

"Christiane was there also, and as usual, she tried to pour oil on ‘troubled waters’ by giving a link to Paula’s blog so the ‘condemners’ could see the real Paula."

Christiane, You sure you don't want to clear up this little misunderstanding? :o)

Paula said...

"My comments excoriating you were deleted by Dave Miller."

So you admit to excoriating me. I guess it's "loving" when someone does it to me, but not if it allegedly is done by me.

"You responded with a hissy fit.

Nope. Care to present evidence or are you only going to continue with the baseless accusations?

"Also, I've identified myself this entire time. It's not our fault that you can't comprehend what you read."

So who is "bill" anyway? I could post as "billie", would that identify me? Got a website, bill? Email? Facebook?

And after all that, "bill" has the nerve to tell me I was out of line! Pot, meet kettle. And I can just warm my hands over the love coming from statements like this one:

"We don't miss you over there. We just wish you'd take Joe with you wherever it is that you went."

How can any Christian say that, regardless of whether you think I'm worse? What blatant hypocrisy, "bill"! You should be ashamed of yourself. But no, you say:

"Am I being harsh? Probably."

So it's okay for YOU to be harsh, but not for me. Hypocrite. But at least you ended with a joke:

"you or Joe, with both of you getting free passes all the time."


Paula said...

I just checked, and "bill" identified himself in a comment to me ONCE. That's what he calls "all the time".


"bill" just attacks and attacks. And lies. And hates.

Anonymous said...

I've only responded to you twice.

My name appears in both posts.

You can have Wade verify that if you want. There may be one other post that I may have forgot to put my name on, but I sure wasn't addressing you. I want you to know who's addressing you.


Who's lying? Oh wait, honesty isn't something that you think applies to you.

You and Joe must have a hate club. Is that like fight club? Is the first rule of hate club to punch kittens and randomly attack people in threads?

Paula said...


The 2nd one was the one where you made the claim, and now you want to count it-- in spite of trying to give the impression that this means "all the time" and I KEPT missing it?? Wow!

You have your own hate club, with many members I'm sure. But it's "love" when you dish it out I guess. Or are you admitting your own heart is filled with hate? And you're trying to lecture other people on their word? Who do you think you are?

And now I do things like "punch kittens." What's next, magic incantations and satanic rituals? Why don't you just have me burned at the stake and rid the earth of me?

I am amazed at what passes for "Christian love" these days, and how these hateful people think themselves righteous.

But to borrow a Gene S. analogy, if you hang around the zoo too long, the monkeys will fling poo at you.

Now I suppose I'll be hated even more for saying the sort of thing your buddies say all the time.

Flame on.

I'd leave this blog too but then who would you have to hate and attack, billy?

Anonymous said...

Wow Paula, you've almost got the Peter Lumpkins' wounded martyr down pat.

It's amazing how you can dish it out yet bemoan the fact that people, and obviously more people than just me, dish it right back out to you.

I guess next you'll be deleting comments on old threads and altering time stamps.

Maybe you could go write for SBCToday as well...

And you can speculate all you want on Christian love and such. You have yet to model it yourself. That makes us more alike than you care to admit.


This makes three posts. I'll keep count for you if that helps to keep you from lying to save your self esteem.

Paula said...

This is just too funny:

"It's amazing how you can dish it out yet bemoan the fact that people, and obviously more people than just me, dish it right back out to you...

That makes us more alike than you care to admit."

Bill admits he dishes it out and that he's a lot like me. That makes him a hatemonger and attacker by his own definition.

But I have to stop talking to you, bill, because Satan told me it's embarrassing how you keep out-eviling me. I'm no match for your flamethrower. You'll have to find a more worthy opponent for your screeds. Besides, it's really tough for me to concentrate when I'm laughing so hard. Thanks for brightening my day, but rules are rules. :(

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Peter Lumpkins called...

He said you can't match his wounded martyr schtick so just quit now.

Although your ability to STATE THE OBVIOUS knows no bounds.

Check out my history on every blog site, I only come after you and Joe Blackmon because its usually just the two of you acting us a tandem wrecking crew against those who disagree with you.

Perhaps you should leave here too.

The ability for discussion, combined with Wade's brilliant posts, could create a perfect storm of a blogsite.


Anonymous said...

"But I have to stop talking to you, bill, because Satan told me it's embarrassing how you keep out-eviling me."

Satan talks to Paula?