"...When He [Jesus] saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd." Matt 9:36

"Do not rob the poor, because he is poor... for the Lord will take up their case and plunder those who plunder them." Proverbs 22:22-23

Friday, April 13, 2012

Liberty University Tries to Bully Peter Lumpkins, Ed Young Lashes Out at WFAA for Criticizing His Animal Sermon Props

I guess religious institutions and powerful preachers aren't learning their lessons very well.

They still think the best tactic to take against people who write or report what they don't like is to try to bully them, to scare them into silence so they won't write or report what they don't like.

This week Ed Young actually posted a video slamming TV station WFAA because they aired a story that was critical of Fellowship Church's use of live animals during Ed's current sermon series. Ed lashes out at WFAA as some sort of enemy of the gospel that is working to thwart the will of God, that must be overcome for God's name sake. Lighten up, Ed. You brought in a lion from California as a prop for your sermon. You're going to be criticized for that, and those who criticize you aren't of Satan.



Many of you have probably read how Liberty University is now trying to bully blogger Peter Lumpkins over his blog post claiming the LU trustees voted unanimously that Mark Driscoll is not welcomed at Liberty University despite his invitation to speak at LU chapel on April 20th. LU attorney David M. Correy fired off a "cease and desist" email (yes, an email) to Lumpkins demanding he take down his post, and they posted a statement on their blog to embarrass Lumpkins and refute his blog post.

Kudos to Lumpkins, as he did what any blogger should do when they try to share information and/or opinion to inform their readers, and they are bullied by a powerful institution that doesn't like what they write: BEGIN WRITING ABOUT THE BULLYING TACTICS. I did it in 2009 when a well-known preacher threatened me with a lawsuit because I referred to his shady land deal as a "shady land deal" because it was a shady land deal.

But I can't help but point out all the bullying that went on by Peter Lumpkins himself and the team of Ergun Caner supporters in 2010 against bloggers who were busy exposing the lies of Ergun Caner spoken from the pulpit for nine years. Lumpkins in particular was ruthless in his personal attacks against James White. How ironic is it that Lumpkins - a huge LU and Caner supporter in the past - is now being bullied by Liberty. What makes this even more interesting is that Lumpkins was not at all trying to embarrass the LU trustees with his Driscoll post- his post on the Driscoll visit was to commend them for voting correctly!

Lumpkins experience here reminds me of my post I put up last summer in which I wrote about a source, a Liberty University trustee, who claimed that Ergun Caner was forced out of his position as LU seminary president in 2010 when some trustees and faculty members said it was either Caner or them who had to leave, and the trustees decided it was Caner. LU apparently didn't like that I wrote this, and LU trustee Tim Lee came to my blog to say I had it all wrong. I still stand by my story, and if I were to tell you the name of the trustee who was my source, you'd fall on the floor laughing.

So go get 'em Peter. Stand your ground. Speak the truth. Don't let LU bully you. But I hope bloggers who might be supporting Driscoll and Liberty University in this matter won't be as ruthless as you were toward the bloggers who spoke the truth about Ergun Caner back in 2010.

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

You mean that Ed mister cool Young still has a following? Sock it to em Ed. They deserve it.

Anonymous said...

Hey, Watchdog. Thanks for the kudos. But I think you got it backwards. Me bullying James White? Attacking James White? Ummm...I don't think so. White & his minions nuked anyone who dared offer the slightest defense of EC. I happened to be perhaps the most visible SBC blogger who dissented from the crusade. Even so, you are correct. It is ironic I find myself now the receiving end from LU.

But whether I am right or wrong about the Driscoll issue--in the very same way I was right or wrong about the EC scenario--we are free --not to mention obligated--to stand our ground when we log our perspectives. It is becoming virtually impossible to either control information to a sealed room or prohibit others from publicizing their free-speech rights.

Grace, brother.

With that, I am...
Peter

Anonymous said...

It is ironic that Ed Young pulls all of these stunts to garner attention to himself and to Fellowship church (in that order)and yet when he get's some attention from a local news station (albeit not what he is wanting) he lashes out at them. Hey Ed, Harry Truman used to say, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."!
Kyle

Anonymous said...

So true Anon.... He does these things to draw attention to himself. As do so many other so-called pastors. It's always about them. Never about God.

The thing is that they will be sure to munipulate people in order to try and cover up their true motives. He already has success in doing that.

Anonymous said...

Young's gonna have a service soon where dogs are doing tricks, and he's gonna talk about dogs in scripture? That should be quite a contrast.

Actually if he brings in the pet idea with church somehow, that could be a winner. People love their pets. I know a couple who miss church frequently because they don't want to leave their little dog home alone. I'm sure they'd be thrilled to bring him if the pastor allowed it.

Mark said...

I wonder if the lion was flown in his private jet.

Facebook has lit up excoriating anyone who disagrees with Ed Young as "haters." Such Christians they are.

Ever notice how Ed always claims to be the innocent victim of satan's attacks every time he gets his hand slapped or fingers wagged at him? Typical celebrity pastor.

Anonymous said...

It is interesting that LUs statement mainly focuses on the claim that Driscoll is "not welcome on campus". Could this be a matter of semantics? Perhaps they did vote to disapprove the invitation but did not go so far as to say he is not welcome at all. These are two different things aren't they? This could also explain LUs refusal to clarify Lumpkins' errors. LU can call him a liar for now in a attempt to discredit the entire piece. Clarification of his errors would only expose the more detailed truth.

FBC Jax Watchdog said...

Peter - thanks for commenting.

On the EC matter: just who are White's "minions"? There were other bloggers who contributed to the exposure of the Caner lies, myself included who posted Caner's FBC Jax November 2001 sermon, but the interesting thing is that most of these bloggers were totally disconnected, with no personal relationships.

On the other hand, we surely could claim "Caner and his minions" set out to discredit people who did dare to speak up about Caner. Pastors and seminarians who did have personal friendships with Caner and each other dissed Khan because he was a Muslim. White was a Calvinist, so surely it was a Calvinist plot to bring down Caner. Caner's minions went after Debbie Kaufman. Tim Lee came to my blog to say that his committee never found one single instance of Caner lying. I still think you have it backwards on the Caner thing.

But I am glad you are standing up to LU, and I look forward to you chronicling the rest of this saga on your blog.

Anonymous said...

Blogger FBC Jax Watchdog said...

Peter - thanks for commenting.

On the EC matter: just who are White's "minions"? There were other bloggers who contributed to the exposure of the Caner lies, myself included who posted Caner's FBC Jax November 2001 sermon, but the interesting thing is that most of these bloggers were totally disconnected, with no personal relationships.

On the other hand, we surely could claim "Caner and his minions" set out to discredit people who did dare to speak up about Caner. Pastors and seminarians who did have personal friendships with Caner and each other dissed Khan because he was a Muslim. White was a Calvinist, so surely it was a Calvinist plot to bring down Caner. Caner's minions went after Debbie Kaufman. Tim Lee came to my blog to say that his committee never found one single instance of Caner lying. I still think you have it backwards on the Caner thing.

But I am glad you are standing up to LU, and I look forward to you chronicling the rest of this saga on your blog.

April 13, 2012 10:46 PM

If I remember correctly, his brother in law (or someone claiming to be)called him out on a lie about his father in law? Wonder what his friends/minions thought about that?

Anonymous said...

Trinity Foundation would be proud of your work watch. Keep it up!

Anonymous said...

DUDE!!!! A LION FROM CALI!!!!!! REALLY!!!

Look lil Eddie, you could have at least gotten an import

Grace

Bill
Romans 5:1

Douglas said...

Peter Lumpkins hates and despises the truth of Reformed Theology and he will have to account to God one day, sooner than later. Woe is him unless he repents. He writes with a poison pen and he is a master at it. I wouldn't listen to him even if you paid me a million dopllars and I mean that. His sinful wickedness is laid bare for all those that have eyes top see his hatred and he has no fear of the God who is Holy! Holy! Holy! If he did, he would retract every negative screed he has written against Reformed Theology. He is in a fearful place as he could die at any moment. He will reap what he has sown and he has sown a lot of BAD seed.

Douglas said...

"White was a Calvinist..."

James White is loving, caring. concerned, careful Christian and he has suffered deeply for his stand against falsehood.

When I read Peter Lumkins stuff, I wonder if he is even born again. I avoid Peter Lumkins stuff now, like the plague, you can have him.

He needs to repent of his evil wicked sinfulness if he can, unless he is totally blinded to it?

Douglas said...

Peter Lumkins is the ONE who is the bully. Shivers.

Anonymous said...

I thought bringing the lion and the lamb onstage was a GREAT illustration and was creative. That is what I used to love so much about Fellowship, a very creative way to bring God's word.

The animal rights people got their panties in a wad because the animals were caged. Ridiculous in my opinion. They are caged at the zoo and at the circus. These people probably crate their dogs for 9 hours a day while they are at work.

The big "lie" that WFAA reported was about permitting. Just not that big of a deal, but for some reason, the Young family got so irate at WFAA over this. They have been blowing up twitter and Facebook. They have requested help from their followers. "HELP us with our latest media attack. This could happen to you."

My biggest question was, "How much did it cost to bring the lion in from California?" I'm sure that Ed and Lisa paid for it out of their own pocket :), just like they say they do when there is any question about money.

What I find amusing is that whenever there has been any type of controversy, Ed has said from the stage (multiple times) that he doesn't read any newspapers or listen to any news reports. (That way he doesn't know what they said so he doesn't have to answer any questions regarding it. He can just play dumb.) For some reason, this incident has really upset them.

I guess Ed has the biggest army on his side, since he says in the video that he has hundreds of thousands of people connected to FC. I find that number hard to believe.

Anonymous said...

Maybe next WFAA can do a story on that terrible pink jacket.

Anonymous said...

What I find amusing is that whenever there has been any type of controversy, Ed has said from the stage (multiple times) that he doesn't read any newspapers or listen to any news reports. (That way he doesn't know what they said so he doesn't have to answer any questions regarding it. He can just play dumb.)

Do not ever not ever believe that!! The mega pastors may not actually do it, but they have cronies that do it for them!!! They even often see themselves as martyrs

New BBC Open Forum said...

Maybe next WFAA can do a story on that terrible pink jacket.

I'm sure Ed will write about his little pink jacket and skinny-leg, high-water pants here soon.

Dee said...

We had a little dustup with Peter at our blog as well during the Caner thing. But, like you, am so glad that Lumpkin stood up to the nonsense of "cease and desist" emails. Way to go!

Comfort said...

Pathetic that we now find it perfectly acceptable to blog against someone with "sources said"............ It's the equivalent of a cheap Enquirer reporting. Is this really the best Christians can do?

IF Peter Lumpkins has something to say and can provide a reliable source then that is one thing. But that's not what happened here. In essence his story had the credibility of tabloid journalism.

Let's not also forget that Lumpkins has demonstrated his willingness to misrepresent people without a scintilla of conscience about it.

Douglas said...

Many of the readers on this site would not agree with this: True Repentance because they ignorantly believe they have the “free will” to choose God any time they desire. The trouble is, not one soul has the free-will or desire to choose God prior to the new birth. Prior to regeneration, our wills are chained to and are in bondage to sin. No exceptions. We are not free until Christ sets us free.

Anonymous said...

I don't care what people say about Peter,

He's one heck of a Red Neck with guts to face those Goliath's.

Even though he made a bobo about Caner,

Anonymous said...

Lumpkins is the worst of the worst of "Christian" blogging. Everyone with an ounce of discernment knows he is doing the works of Satan in bringing disunity and lies against God's people to the internet on a weekly basis.

May God grant him repentance and forgiveness.

Anonymous said...

Is the moral of the story for Peter that he does not mind bulling others but he does not like to be bullied. How convenient for him.

The Other Tom said...

I wouldn't believe Peter Lumpkin if he told me that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

BTW, does he still stand behind his unnamed source who insisted that Janes White will NEVER again teach a course at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary?

http://www.ggbts.edu/academics/downloads/White_J/L3300/WhiteJ_L3300-51_J12_AZC.pdf

Anonymous said...

Can anyone tell me if Peter ever apologized to Debbie Kaufman for the ruthless way he bullied her about the Caner affair?

Anonymous said...

I'm on LU's side IF what Lumpkins wrote is false, which appears to be the case sInce Driscoll is still coming. It is possible that Lumpkins was given false info or read something into what the trustee said that really wasn't there. Liberty rarely makes a public statement as they receive criticism non stop....I think this time LU got a bit ticked off.

Anonymous said...

April 13, 2012 3:31 PM
Anonymous said...

Actually if he brings in the pet idea with church somehow, that could be a winner. People love their pets. I know a couple who miss church frequently because they don't want to leave their little dog home alone. I'm sure they'd be thrilled to bring him if the pastor allowed it.

Yep, Ed is all about dogs. And ponies.
And Ed. And cool airplanes.

Mark said...

Ed had frogs on stage this weekend. Not sure if they were a backup because he couldn't get a permit for an elephant.

Matt Richard said...

The biggest "dog service" in the history of Christianity.

I think one of Ed's problems is that he confuses creativity with copying. Dog shows and circuses already exist. There is not anything creative about copying those things in the format of a religious service. Even if it does attract a crowd.

terriergal said...

Anonymous said "Young's gonna have a service soon where dogs are doing tricks"

Of course, that's already been done elsewhere... several places actually.

Kudos to Peter for standing his ground. (Though I did not have a problem with James White's criticism of Caner).

Mark Driscoll is an abusive, self centered and coercive man who should not be in a pulpit anywhere. LU seems to have no discernment.