A Timely Explanatory Word (II)
September 15, 2007
Four things need to be expressed at this time:
1) What happened in regard to my anonymous professor friend’s open letter was unfortunate and very sad. I really did not take it personally, but have had the most overwhelming sense of sadness for him, praying fervently on his behalf, since he was the courageous one in all this. By God’s grace, he has seen fit to continue our friendship, contacting me earlier today and assuring me of his appreciation of my apology.
2) Although some people submitted comments in regard to the open letter here, I deleted all of them without reading any of them. But, I did so not to bury the comments. I did so simply because I said up front that I was going to be out of town and not accessible to a computer and that I was not going to take comments. I stand by that crystal-clearly-stated “boundary.” End of discussion.
3) However, to compensate, I am going to run all the comments that came in since yesterday in regard to my apology. Also, I am not going to comment myself. In other words, say what you want. This has been a difficult experience for me, but I do not have the ego that requires defending myself and I am willing to admit when I truly am wrong (though, from my experience with a few of my readers–their egos apparently will not let them admit when they’re in the wrong). So, take your best shot! It will give me the opportunity to learn better how to “turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39) in humility.
4) Yesterday, I was too upset–angry about what happened, then, after dealing with that (Ephesians 4:26-27), very sad for my friend–to lay out my posts for next week. But, after prayerful consideration, here’s what I’m going to do:
Coming Monday: Break in series (II): “Some Biblical and Cultural Reflections on Anonymity”
Coming Wednesday: Break in series (III): “An Exercise in Careful Biblical Application, Courtesy of Scott Lamb and Peter Lumpkins”
Looking ahead: Following my standard local newspaper column next Friday, it is currently my plan to do one additional ‘break in series’ post on Monday, September 24, then return to my ongoing series on ‘The Holy Spirit and the Southern Baptist Convention Today’ on Wednesday, September 26.
Nothing like having a plan. My plan is to finish grading 37 lab reports–with a minimum number of blog breaks. Hang in there.
Bennett Willis
Dr. Luter,
The top of your blog has the following:
Agree to Disagree Agreeably
Playing Nice While Blogging about Frustrating Issues
Yet you state in the parent of this article that Dr. Malcolm Yarnell is Paige Patterson’s blog mouthpiece and that Hershael York is Dr. Al Mohler’s mouthpiece. That is not very “agreeable” of you and especially not very nice!
I find your characterization of these men to be insulting and demeaning of two scholars who have spent years studying and researching and have made up their own minds. Neither deserve to be attacked by you just because they agree theologically with Dr. Patterson and Dr. Mohler respectively.
Would you like your academic credentials questioned in such a manner? Would you like it said of you that you are nothing more than a blogging mouthpiece for the anti CR bloggers and thereby imply that you have no scholarly (or other) opinions that are your own? Because that is what you have insinuated.
But then again, this appears to be more evidence that all the attacks are really about attacking Dr. Patterson and anyone who agrees with him.
Ron P.
2)Your exact words were “since I am the liaison here and I will be out of town when this is posted, neither he nor I will be able to take comments” which is not as “up front” as “that I was not going to take comments.” The only thing that is crystal is your own lack of integrity.
Dr. Luter:
We spoke by phone earlier in the week – I hope your retreat went well. I would love to continue our discussion when you have the time. You should have my cell phone number but I would be happy to give it to you again. You can contact me at the email address I provided. I pray you will have a great Lord’s Day.
Derek
Cal:
Man, are you out of line.
Cal,
I have known you a long time. I have known Bob about a year. Bob is right. You are out of line here. You are a better man than to say to Boyd Luter what you just said in this comment.
It was not wise to publish the anonymous letter, but Boyd is a man of integrity. To attack his character on this occasion is truly without merit and is very rude behavior on your part.
You are truly a man of God and all that know you will agree to that without reservation. In this situation you have acted wrongly and should stand down. Please consider this and act accordingly.
cb