Sunday, May 16, 2010

The Jimmy White of Reformed Apologetics

updated: One of the respondents in this post brought to my attention that there may have been a third elder at the time of the quoted comments regarding submission. If that is the case, Mr. White would have had another elder along with the Pastor to whom he considered himself accountable to. While I would still consider the ad hominem attack by White to have been unnecessary and disreputable, I cannot hold the eldership matter against him as an example of hypocrisy if the information is correct.

Peter Lumpkins has an interesting short piece concerning Mr. James White, one of the more active polemical Calvinists with a rather boisterous young Turk following on the internet. This is the same James White who has been fueling the attack against Liberty University and their Seminary President, Dr. Ergun Caner, regarding some alleged embellishments over the years concerning Caner's Muslim background. Well, the fruit does not fall far from the tree and Mr. White has a history of his own embellishments. In any event, Mr. Lumpkins has offered an interesting picture of a further hypocrisy regarding Mr. White. He has taken opponents and others in disagreement with his various stances to task for an alleged lack of biblical submission and oversight. Lumpkins linked to one of White's articles providing the following quote from White's website.

The reader is warned to beware of Marrs and his type. He is feeding off the body of Christ, drawing disciples away unto himself, spreading half-truths and pure lies at the expense of the sheep of Christ. He is a loner, not under the authority of a local church or elders, unaccountable to God-ordained authority. As for me (and the question is honestly asked, in light of what I just said), I am a member of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, under the authority of the eldership of that local assembly.

Now that would seem to be a rather innocuous statement except for the fact that if one looks at White's church website, it is discovered that he is the elder that runs the church along with the pastor (White teaches most of the classes at the church according to the website). That does not strike me as an accurate statement of being under anybody's authority. It actually places White in the position of being his own authority and answerable to nobody. Now, all this doesn't really amount to a hill of beans but with all the trash talk coming out of the White camp and its followers regarding Dr. Caner, I would think White would not want to stand too close to all those glass walls.


Tom Chantry said...

Nice try. You might want to have a working knowledge of the polity of White's church and others like them before taking this tack.

A.M. Mallett said...

That is an interesting defense, Tom. There is one elder and a pastor, the elder being Mr. White. Who in your estimation defined and set the polity of this particular church? Is there a subset of members who have policy setting prerogatives over the decisions and actions of the elder? I would be curious to know to whom would one appeal to regarding the conduct and actions of Mr. White should there be such cause.
The hypocrisy noted by this example is not founded on the lack of elders but on the spurious notion that White can claim to be under the auspices and authority of elders when in fact he is the de facto elder of that particular church. Certainly you are not going to suggest that the pastor is an impartial advocate? I can hardly imagine that the pastor is unaware of Mr. White's rather divisive history.
What are your thoughts on this matter. What particulars of the "polity" of White's church am I missing here?

Tom Chantry said...

In point of fact, PRBC's polity is one established in a centuries-old confession of faith. In this polity the elders are first under one another's authority, and secondly answerable to the body of the church. Should the body of the church or any part of it find itself in irreconcilable conflict with its elders, or should its elders find themselves in irreconcilable conflict with one another, they may appeal to the pastors and elders of other churches of like polity, of which there are more than a few.

Granted, this may not appear a strong check and balance upon a strong-willed elder, but in practice it works reasonably well. The system depends upon a group of elders who respect one another and defer to one another.

I realize that to many people who know James White by way of his widely public ministry it is natural to assume that he is the "alpha-elder" and that his fellow-elder would naturally defer to him. If that is your assumption, you do not know Pastor Fry. The eldership of that church consists of two very strong and mature Christian leaders. Each defers to the other. One has the focus of his ministry in the local congregation and is consequently less well known elsewhere, but I imagine that to members of the congregation itself White is the "other elder."

The assumption that Pastor Fry would be in over his head if he ever attempted to reign in James White is unjustified. He is very capable, and in the event of an irreconcilable conflict between the two he could draw upon many other experienced elders and pastors to rule between them.

If that is so (and I know it to be so) then White is indeed under a structure of authority. He can teach nothing and do nothing without being ready to give an answer to his church.

Many would say that a larger or more complex structure is needed to prevent him acting like a loose cannon. I would ask where a complex structure has ever restrained a headstrong minister. You may refer to the current problems of the world's largest denominational structure - the one centered in Rome - for clarification of my point.

Jay Van Til said...

Thank you Tom Chantry.

Please, people check out the mountains of evidence: at least 2legal documents, multiple video and audio recordings, as well as written inacuracies in a field the Caner's are supposed to be experts on.

Please find yourself on the side of truth.

No one is asking you to become a calvinist, but you should at least see the evidence for yourself that Ergun Caner has been lying, not just off-the-cuff but in prepared interviews.

Please just look at (all) the evidence.

A.M. Mallett said...

That sounds all nice and such but it remains that White is the elder under whom he has placed himself. You can theorize what might occur should one bring an issue to White's church but from a practical perspective it is indeed a lack of functional check and balance. White made a statement inferring he was under the auspices and authority of the elders of his local church. The truth is that is not an accurate statement regardless of some theoretical congregate eldership. If he were to suggest he is subject to the approval of the church membership at large, he might have made a sustainable argument. However even then, to whom does a person with a grievance appeal to after private appeals fail? Keep in mind this matter arises out of White's castigation of others based on their alleged unaccountability.
Perhaps he was engaging in mere embellishment? Surely, you would want to have him either correct the record, repent or respond in some manner to correct his misrepresentation?

A.M. Mallett said...

Jay Van Til,
This thread is not about the allegations made by Caner's enemies. It is not about the collusion of White and others with anti-missionary Muslims to smear and bring disrepute to one opposed to the teachings and activities of White. I make no bones about my distaste for White's ministry and I have no opinion of Caner's. What I do find distasteful is the utter hypocrisy of the accusing camp while making allegations against another. It is an embarrassment to the body of Christ especially so to bring in Muslim enemies of Christ in order to denigrate another who claims Christ. It would appear to you that Caner is a liar. It appears to others that White has a rather untruthful history that is glossed over and dismissed by his supporters. Such is carnal apologetics.

Tom Chantry said...

I think perhaps you do not understand the interchangeability of "elder" and "pastor" in the confession of White's church - at least as regards the authority of the office. "Pastor" Fry may be so called because he does the bulk of the preaching in the church, but he is also an elder.

The primary group to whom White is responsible is an eldership of which he is a member - but not, as you suggest, the totality. Beyond that, the elders serve at the discretion of the congregation which elected them and may appeal to elders of like-minded (same confession) churches.

As I understand the reference in this post, White was not giving a discourse on Reformed Baptist polity; rather he simply stated that he was answerable to an eldership. On the face of it this is true, as any elder in any Reformed Baptist church could tell you. You may not like the system or think that it is sufficient; very well, but that is a far cry from accusing him of a lying statement.

Again, I think it might be good to have a working knowledge of the polity of White's church before you go slinging accusations of dishonesty around. You have in this thread as well as in the post displayed a lack of comprehension of White's terms in the church tradition in which he uses them. If you want to accuse him of dishonestly, begin by understanding what he has said. Unless, of course, you have no desire to make an accurate accusation, but only to sling mud at someone whose actions you disapprove.

A.M. Mallett said...

Tom, I fully understand what White stated and also understand he is the elder of that church.

I am a member of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, under the authority of the eldership of that local assembly.

I suppose you could define terms as you wish to suit your application of them but when one makes the statement as noted above and it turns out he is really the only elder along with the pastor, something is amiss. This is especially true when the statement is made while castigating another. Perhaps it is time for you to apply the same zeal to White's "misstatements" as you have with Caner's.

Tom Chantry said...

I am a member of Christ Reformed Baptist Church, under the authority of the eldership of that local assembly.
- Tom Chantry

There, I just cut and paste the statement from your comment to mine, changing only the name of the church and signing it. Did I lie? I assure you I am a member of this church. I am subject to its discipline as is any other member. I am also under the authority of the eldership of that church. I am also, as it happens, its pastor, and thus one of its elders. Yet for me to say this is not to lie, but to state plain fact.

You may not like the system of authority at PRBC, but, it being what it is, for White to make that comment is not to tell a lie. You may think he is obligated to explain more of how that works, but it is not the same thing as telling a lie. White did not say, for instance, that he was born in the Kalahari Desert. If someone doesn't say as much as you wish he said, particularly in answer to something not addressed to your query, that is not the equivalent of telling a lie. I trust you comprehend the difference.

A.M. Mallett said...

Making that cut and paste doesn't tell me a thing about the authority structure of your church unless I take it at face value and assume there is actually a board of elders that will hold you accountable. If there is not, then it would be an intentionally misleading statement. In White's case there is no local group of elders (note the plurality of the term he used) that holds White accountable for anything. I trust you can tell the difference between an actual group of elders that has authority and being the elder to whom you hold yourself accountable?

Incidentally, you have vouched for the integrity of White's church and it's system. On what basis can you do that?

Tom Chantry said...

You persist in the theory that White is the lone elder of his church. He is not. Pastor Fry is an elder. That may not be your polity, but it is his. That he is a member of the board to which he is primarily accountable is not at question. Were he the lone elder of his church, then his statement would be misleading. He is not, and has never been.

As for my qualification, for several years I enjoyed regular fellowship with Pastor Fry along with several other pastors. I have heard him preach and know his church well. They operate according to an established polity which has been followed in some Baptist churches for at least 337 years - a polity in which elders, like all members, are subject to the authority of a plural board of elders which may, in the event of irreconcilable differences, appeal to elders of like-minded congregations. Within that polity it is not a lie for an elder to say he is under the authority of the board of which he is a member unless he is the only elder there, which White is not.

A.M. Mallett said...

Tom, when a man states he is under the authority of elders, generally that would not include himself. Now, you are free to redefine and excuse to your hearts content. Reasonable men reading White's statement would be surprised to see that there really isn't a board of elders to which White is subject to. We shall have to continue to disagree.

Jay Van Til said...

"Jay Van Til,
This thread is not about the allegations made by Caner's enemies. It is not about the collusion of White and others with anti-missionary Muslims to smear and bring disrepute to one opposed to the teachings and activities of White."

I note that you brought up that very subject, which brought on my repsonse.

"I make no bones about my distaste for White's ministry and I have no opinion of Caner's. What I do find distasteful is the utter hypocrisy of the accusing camp while making allegations against another."

What you should be concerned about is the truth or falsity of those allegations. Prove them right or prove them false!

Otherwise, what you are indeed saying is, "I don't care that what White is saying is true, I just hate the way he is going about it."

You are no less than as mean spirited toward him as you claim he is. That is hypocrisy.

Now, here's the thing. We are all guilty of it at some point or another. True?

So, now, let's look at something that is extraoridinary. It would indeed be extraordinary for a Seminary President to make up a false past and keep taht position of authority. Not many, I would say, have done that.

"It is an embarrassment to the body of Christ especially so to bring in Muslim enemies of Christ in order to denigrate another who claims Christ."

It should not have taken God's enemies to rebuke a Christian, who had already been confronted by another Christian about their sin.

"It would appear to you that Caner is a liar."

Again, please, see the evidence for yourself. Put aside the messenger, if it is true, than the truth should stand.

"It appears to others that White has a rather untruthful history that is glossed over and dismissed by his supporters. Such is carnal apologetics."

Send me examples, and I will hold him to account as well. And, since the Caner issue must be so overwhelmingly convincing, please send me 2 legal documents, audio, video, and written documentation atht shows taht WHite is as much a liar.


bossmanham said...

Word of warning, AM. If you post about the good ol' boy, Jimmy White, you'll have about a half a dozen of his self appointed apologists swarm your site, as they have the reverse Google search set up to scour the web for those of us "EEEEEVIIILLLL" enough to challenge his childish baloney.

A.M. Mallett said...

Jay van Til,
I am not interested in convincing you of a thing. Reasonable men have looked at the man's ministry and find it an embarrassment. For myself, his fraudulent academic credentials speak volumes (and no, I am not interested in reading his rebuttals for the umpteenth time). The Caner matter belongs in the hands of Liberty University and not in the hands of a man who has been on an anti-Caner bender for the past three years. If Caner needs to be admonished and reproved, then let it be so. In the meantime, who is going to rein in the sword swinger from Phoenix who has made a ministry of tearing down others in the body of Christ?

A.M. Mallett said...

boss .... I know full well how they operate. I've watched them in action over the years. I used to spend too much time on the Paltalk chatroom program where White would occasionally show up under his "Dr. Oakley" moniker. I found the charade a terrible embarrassment for the work of Christ. I marvel at how seductive his ministry is for so many young Calvinists who apparently do not know better.

Jay Van Til said...

While you're at it. Please correct Peter Lumpkins.

He on his site that you mentioned has said that White is THE only elder. Which is not true. The portion of the PRBC website that Peter displays has the word ELDERS above two pictures, yet Peter, just out after White, disregards the very word to take a cheap shot at White that is unfounded.

I posted this reply on his site:

"Is it just me or are you guys not noticing that the word ELDERS is over two pictures, therefore, Fry and White are the elders.

There fore, this comment:
"He IS the elder of the church and apparently has placed himself under his own authority all the while denigrating others he labels as lone wolves."

is both wrond and misleading. Properly, THEY are the elders, elected by the congregation. Further, if the congregation would so choose, THEY could be replaced by other elders or other elders could be chosen and added. Therefore, White is under the authority of the eldership, of which he is A member not THE member. Please take note of that.

Keep up the good work on the things that matter though."


If we all keep each other accountable, maybe then we can have true dialogue and, maybe, even unity.

A.M. Mallett said...

I understand there are two men considered elders. With White as one of them, he is not under the authority of the eldership (implying multiples). He is under his own authority and I am assuming that of his friend and pastor. Imagine a husband and wife ministry team claiming to be under the authority of an eldership when the truth is they are the only two elders. Why this nonsense is not apparent to you is baffling. We could extend this to a couple of partners in the business world and their proclamations of being governed with proper oversight when they alone are the governing committee.

Jay Van Til said...

Ok. At least we have that covered. Hopefully, if there were ten elders, they would still be White's friends, so I guess we can never answer that part of the argument.

As to his polity, I do not agree with his polity, for the very reasons you put out. That is why I am not a Baptist.

Is your major disagreement, then, that White and basically all the Ind. Fund. Baptists should be something else? I would say that there are people out there, heavy on charisma, that do fit the rogue nomenclature. Which is what I believe White was commenting on.

However, I do believe you would not have brought this up had Lumpkins not posted it, and, as anyone can see, Lumkins is putting out there that White is the LONE elder when he clearly is not.

Please bring that to Lumpkins attention.

Also, please note that eldership refers to more than one elder, which there are 2 at PRBC, therefore White did not lie.

A.M. Mallett said...

White did not lie. He just didn't share the full truth. I know several Baptists and have attended a few Baptist churches over the years. I could be a Baptist for the most part. However, I have yet to encounter a Baptist church that had only one elder in addition to the Pastor. Now, I could understand that in a small church but if that were the case, the elder had better be more focused on the growth and edification of his church than cavorting all over the place making an undistinguished name for himself (yes, I really despise his ministry, it shows). White's intentions (and yes, I can read minds with the best of internet apologists)was to state in not so many words "the other guy but not me".

Jay Van Til said...

This portion of the 1689 Confession can be found at the PRBC website. Note taht elders are chosen by the church, and just as anyone selected is answerable to the selector, he is no different than other, none rogue, congregations.

8. A particular church, gathered and completely organized according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members; and the officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church (so called and gathered), for the peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of power or duty, which he intrusts them with, or calls them to, to be continued to the end of the world, are bishops or elders, and deacons.
( Acts 20:17, 28; Philippians 1:1 )

9. The way appointed by Christ for the calling of any person, fitted and gifted by the Holy Spirit, unto the office of bishop or elder in a church, is, that he be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself; and solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer, with imposition of hands of the eldership of the church, if there be any before constituted therein; and of a deacon that he be chosen by the like suffrage, and set apart by prayer, and the like imposition of hands.
( Acts 14:23; 1 Timothy 4:14; Acts 6:3, 5, 6 )

Jay Van Til said...

OK then. I just wanted you to clarify that White did ot lie.

Good. I'm finished.

Tom Chantry said...

"Reasonable men," eh?

"Reasonable men" know that when the issue at stake in a controversy is the alleged telling of bold-faced lies, when you say that one of the accusers is living in a glass house and focus on one of his statements, you are implying that he lies.

"Reasonable men" therefore do not post such statements at 9:29 in the morning, carry on a running debate on the issue all day, and then state at 5:53 that the man in question "did not lie."

What "reasonable men" may do is employ phraseology which has been in use within churches of their own polity for centuries, use it accurately, and expect not to face the insinuation that they have lied.

RazorsKiss said...

Also note that Dr. White IS an elder at a very small church. Until 1996 there was three elders - the same year the article cited was written.

For full disclosure, however, the third elder died in April, while the post was written in August. That information is easily available by searching for "Don Cross" on the AOMin site, or a simple google search. James would have been under the authority of *two* elders prior to Don's death - and in that church, James is the "junior" elder.

However, as Tom stated, he is quite correct - he is under the authority of another elder. I attend a church of roughly the same size as James, and we have 3 elders. There aren't typically large bodies of elders in a church the size of his, or ours. In the church I was in recently (a Calvinistic SBC church with elder leadership), there were 7 elders - for a church ten times the size.

In any case, I just thought I'd point out something rather obvious concerning the dates, etc, to someone more familiar with the ministry, and with PRBC than the author seems to be.

At the time of posting, James had only a short time before been under the authority of two elders, not "only" one. Not that others without an elder/presbyterian polity are typically used to there being more than one in authority over a local body, in any case - and PRBC is not a large body - as he has mentioned *quite* frequently in the past, for those familiar with PRBC, or AOMin.

Mike DeLong said...

Mr Mallett: is that it? Do you have a long laundry list of cases where White has lied?

As a mostly disinterested party I'd have to argue that Mr Chantry has diffused your claim that Mr White misrepresents his accountability relationship: he's one of two elders in a small church. If you find the address of Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church online, it appears to have less than twenty off-street parking spaces; I'd be surprised if they drew a hundred people on a typical Sunday morning. I've been in churches of thirty or forty that only had a couple of deacons or elders. I've been in fellowships that had six families and five elders, one of whom was called by turns "pastor" and "teaching elder."

I see a tiny bit of smoke here, but no fire. I don't think you've justified your usage of "utter hypocrisy" and "rather untruthful history."

I'd be more interested if you could shed some light on why he's not listed on the faculty page at Golden Gate:

or maybe on whether there's some connection between him and Jason Smathers, the blogger who dug up the legal documents.

But no, I'm afraid I'd have to read this point you raised as something about which reasonable people might disagree, but not evidence that White's whole life is a fabric of lies, or whatever.

A.M. Mallett said...

Mike DeLong wrote:
but not evidence that White's whole life is a fabric of lies, or whatever.

I reply: I do not believe I have stated such. Perhaps that is another embellishment out of the White camp?

Mike DeLong said...

I do not believe I have stated such. Perhaps that is another embellishment out of the White camp?

I'm sorry; let me restate what I said earlier. I don't believe you've substantiated your claim that he engages in "utter hypocrisy" or has a "rather untruthful history."

If the sum total of the evidence is what you've stated here: that his church has only one elder and one pastor who may or may not be an elder, I can't agree that you've made your case.

I can't speak for "the White camp."

A.M. Mallett said...

Reasonable men can generally differentiate between a lie and misrepresenting the truth. The truth is White is not really accountable to anybody and insists that those who he denigrates be so.
Who are you, Tom, not knowing the full facts of the matter to declare someone a bold faced liar? That is a matter for Liberty University to determine and not you.
It appears I have rattled your cage so to speak. Thats good. It is a cage that needs rattling it seems. White has very suspicious academic credentials, has defended himself as being under the authority of a nearly nonexistent eldership and has made a career of slinging mud in the house of God. Add to that the slander and libel of Arminians regarding what we believe and hold dear and we have a cage that needs shaking to the ground.
Unless you have anything else substantive to add, have a nivce day.

Tom Chantry said...

...hen the issue at stake in a controversy is the alleged telling of bold-faced lies...

You do know the meaning of "alleged," do you not? I accused no one of telling lies. I said that the controversy which is behind your post is over the allegation that someone is telling bold-faced lies, and that in that context your words about White ring as an accusation that he lied.

Your frank refusal to comprehend the church tradition within which White ministers or the meaning regularly accorded to the words he used within that tradition is astonishing, especially as several commenters have patiently explained things to you. To insinuate that a man is a liar when you do not care to comprehend the words he says is unseemly, to say the least.

Your post was interesting to me at first because it appeared to be written out of a desire to get at truth. Your subsequent comments have disabused me of that notion.

Jay Van Til said...


Would you not agree that, if it is true that when White made the statement in question there were three elders, the argument against White is even more spurious?

So, then, it is incumbent upon the accuser, or speculator, to determine whether or not there were 3 at the time.

If that is untrue, then it still does not mean that White lied, but if it is true, then this little argument should end.

At least on this topic.

A.M. Mallett said...

I do not give two cents for your small church's traditions. White has placed himself in a much larger arena, implied he is under the authority of an eldership when the truth of the matter he really is not, at least not as most of us would surmise by his statement. In addition to that, this is not the first, last and only time he has stated as such. He has played this card several times over the years. Reasonable men can see this for what it is, an ad hominem attack against another while claiming a high road he does not travel.

I recommend you turn your pastoral attentions and responsibilities back to your flock and get out the gutter White has been digging for years. While you are at it, let Liberty University carry out it's attentions and responsibilities without having to deal with swatting the self serving flies out of that gutter. If those words are too strong for you, move on and be blessed.

Tom Chantry said...

Blessings on you as well. I'm sorry you see the need to accuse a brother of lying and another of being a "gutter fly" for pointing out that your accusation is not true.


A.M. Mallett said...

At the time White made the comment, my understanding is that he was the elder along with his friend, the pastor. That arrangement has remained in place these years all the while he attempts to give the impression he is accountable to an eldership.

Now, it is time for me to draw attention to some words that some of you seem to have missed or glossed over.

Now, all this doesn't really amount to a hill of beans but with all the trash talk coming out of the White camp and its followers regarding Dr. Caner, I would think White would not want to stand too close to all those glass walls.

Perhaps you need to step back and examine the man's actions and commentary directed at the greater body of Christ over the years and ask yourself honestly if he is serving Christ or is he serving himself. I have formed my opinion of his ministry, wrote a letter to him several years ago and have never received a reply. As an Arminian, White offends me in Christ. These absurd antics like appealing to a sense of authority through his faux submission go hand in hand with his open and deliberate misrepresentations of Arminian theology. He is in a word, disreputable and Liberty University should have every expectation of refusing his conduct and opinion.

As for Caner, let the truth be known and the sharks back in the pens where they belong.

This matter has played itself out, at least in this thread.

Jay Van Til said...

Here is a note from White about the other elder:

"04/27/2006 - James White

I mentioned on Tuesday that we will have to change the schedule for the DL today. I know, some folks get a little upset with that, but you know, I'm really glad we are not locked into some kind of "network" timeframe in doing the program. The "elder Elder" at PRBC, Don Cross, passed away last Friday at age 85. We are having the memorial today at 11, and though I am uncertain of the exact time for the graveside, there is no way to do the afternoon DL. So, we will go for the morning time slot on Friday, 11am PDT (2pm EDT). "

The links on Lumpkins site lead back to a letter from on White

Unless you can prove, that he was not a member under the eldership in 1996, you continue to miss the point that the accusation is wrong.

You as much stated that since he is a calvinist, you despise him.

" As an Arminian, White offends me in Christ. "

Now, please in all seriousness, a better argument from you would be exegetical/biblical rather than this poor attack started by Lumpkin.

How many ways must you be proved wrong?

Truly, if his calvinism is what you are fighting against, then fight that with "truth." Don't pick at things, find you are taking them out of context, and yet, still hold to them.

You basically said, "Well, I still don't like White!!"

You will begin to lose credibility with those statements.

A.M. Mallett said...

If there was indeed an eldership to whom White was truly accountable, then I should withdraw my objection on this particular matter and you have my apologies. If it is so, I will state so in my post.

I have not stated I despise White's ministry because he is Calvinist. Instead I find him disreputable because of the slanders and libels he has issued with regard to what we hold and preach. Such dishonest apologetics has no place in the body of Christ.

With regard to the eldership issue, my opinion on this matter is really simple. He should not defer to the authority of the elders of which he is one of two. I would have him defer to his pastor. In any event, it would be far better for him to just shut his mouth and sit down The argument is not valid in the first place. It was a cheap ad hominem directed at an opponent.

Jay Van Til said...

Thank you. I do find that you are reasonable.

I would still ask, though, that you make sure your statements.

We have have, I believe, gone unnecessarily round and round, because Lumpkins did not make sure his statements before he posted them. He should have checked whether a statement made years ago would not be taken out of context by looking at the current eldership.

Again, I have no beef if Christians debate and disagree over doctrine. That is how we get to the truth.

These other issues do not lend to the pursuit of truth.

Thank you again for a good dialogue.