The Pen

Leavening the Lumpkins: Nine Questions for Brewton-Parker’s VP of Communication

[UPDATE: It appears that Peter Lumpkins has removed one (perhaps more) of the comments on his website linked below. I would like to have thought Peter would have learned by now that Canerization doesn’t work. But I digress…it appears that Caner has, indeed, leavened the Lumpkins]

In 2013, Ergun Caner – still unrepentant for the lies he told for nearly a decade and exposed in 2010 – ventured  on a quest to eradicate the audio and video evidence from the Internet. Relying upon churches and organizations to be complicit in his request to remove the links and uploaded media, Caner was surprisingly (but not completely) successful. Individuals, however, were less responsive to his demands than the many of the organizations for whom he spoke. One such individual suffering from the stubbornness of integrity was Jason Smathers.

In 2010, Smathers had requested video from a presentation that Caner had given for the United States Marine Corps via the Freedom of Information Act. Alleging a terrorist upbringing, Caner had provided quite a show for the Marines and it’s definitely understandable why Caner would want the video to go away. However, the United States government released the video to Jason Smathers and it was subsequently posted at his blog. After unsuccessfully demanding Smathers take down the video, Caner then sued him for copyright infringement – regardless of the fact that should he win, it would be the first time in history someone could successfully claim copyright of property owned by the United States federal government and released through FOIA. In fact, Caner’s might arguably be the first attempt to do so.

Yesterday (April 17, 2014), the court ruled in Smathers’ favor. Please note that while the timing of the court’s finding is newsworthy, the inevitable judgment against Caner is not. It was expected, predicted, and the only possible outcome unless the Freedom of Information Act should be completely undone. Furthermore, the court not only found in favor of Smathers, but dismissed Caner’s lawsuit with prejudice. This means that the Caner was so overwhelmingly and obviously wrong in the suit that he’s prohibited from filing the suit again because it was clearly frivolous in the first place. Keep in mind that dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice is a relatively rare and drastic measure taken because of the complete unwarranted nature of the lawsuit. Furthermore, dismissing the case with prejudice is Res Judicata, meaning that the suit not only can’t be refiled in the whole, but not even in part.

And although it doesn’t seem to have factored into the judge’s ruling (he quotes from federal law and legal precedent), it’s interesting that the judge repeatedly refers to Caner’s deceit and dishonesty concerning his Christian testimony.

It’s certainly time to seek clarification and comment from Ergun Caner – and more importantly – from the college that thought it would be a great idea to hire a man still unsuccessfully trying to cover up his sins rather than just plainly repenting of them. And if we’re to seek comment from Brewton-Parker College, that means we need to seek comment from Brewton-Parker’s Vice President for Communication, Peter Lumpkins.

It’s unfair to call Peter Lumpkins a longtime defender of Ergun Caner. To my knowledge, Lumpkins has never defended Caner per se, but has instead resorted to attacking those exposing his sins. After all, even Lumpkins wouldn’t  give a single Georgia hoot to defend the indefensible when obfuscation and retaliation are so much easier.

So, I suggest that interested parties call Brewton-Parker’s VP of Communication and ask any number of the following questions:

1. In June of 2013, you chose to engage in ad hominem attacks against Jason Smathers, while ignoring the merits of Ergun Caner’s lawsuit against him. Now that Caner’s lawsuit has been dismissed with prejudice, will you apologize for your personal attacks on a man who was clearly sued by Brewton-Parker’s president without cause or reason?

2. While engaging in ruthless ad hominem attacks against Jason Smathers, you attacked a man for sins that he has publicly repented for (which on so many levels in unbecoming a Gospel minister). So that we might not be guilty of the same sin as you, would you please tell us when or where Ergun Caner has privately or publicly apologized for lying about his testimony to thousands of people in at least dozens of venues over the course of a decade?

3. The judge in this case clearly says that Smathers copied and posted the video in its entirety (in relationship to fair use law, paragraph 1, page 9). Could you please speak now to why Caner has repeatedly alleged that this evidence has been edited or skewed by Calvinists or Muslims conspiring to “make him say things he didn’t say”?

4. On page 10  of the ruling, it was made very clear that Ergun Caner will be responsible for paying Smathers’ legal fees (awardable through a separate motion). Will Caner being paying the legal fees for this frivolous lawsuit with money given by Brewton-Parker College attained from Georgia Baptists?

5. At Synergism Tomorrow you said, More importantly, who has suggested brushing anything ‘under the rug? I haven’t here, now or in 2010, and if you think I’ve stated we need to brush anything ‘under the rug’ or hide anything, then think again. All of us–you, me, Caner, and even the indefatigable James White–are accountable for everything we say.” That we are, indeed, accountable for everything we say, could you please give an account, considering the frivolous nature of Caner’s now-defeated lawsuit, what suing Jason Smathers was about, if not cover-up? Because you’re not hiding anything “under the rug,” as the Vice President of Communications, could you please explain what this lawsuit was about if there was no legal right to the Marines video?

6. On May 09, 2010 at Synergism Tomorrow, in a post related to Tim Guthrie’s defense of Ergun Caner (which was devastated by the video release by Smathers through the FOIA) you asked the question, “How do you know Ergun Caner never lived in Turkey?” Considering you are now his official spokesman, could you please speak to that issue by giving an a straight answer concerning whether or not Caner has ever lived in Turkey or any other majority-Muslim nation? If you’re not aware of the answer, I’ll patiently hold on the line so you can go to the office next door and ask him right quick.

7. Considering that the infamous FOIA “Marines Video” has been again uploaded to the Internet, would you care to address the many ways that Caner’s testimony contradicts the biography found in the press release from Brewton-Parker College? Can we be certain the facts found in Brewton-Parker’s press release are accurate?

8. In that same press release, Brewton Parker trustees characterized Smathers and others as launching against Caner “relentless pagan attacks.” Given that Smathers is a Southern Baptist pastor who has been found faultless in this matter and it is, to the contrary, Ergun Caner that has lost this groundless lawsuit, will Brewton-Parker trustees care to give a retraction concerning Caner’s critics?

9. Although off topic of Caner’s embarrassing and predictable defeat in court, would you care to comment on [not-so] Traditionalist Johnny Hunt (of whom you are terribly fond) telling a church member in clear and certain terms that Caner has “lied” and should resign? Is Hunt’s observation of the obvious yet another unfortunate Calvinist or Muslim conspiracy?

Galatians 5:9 tells us that “a little leaven leavens the lump.” In short, sin (and its consequence) spreads. One has to wonder how many innocent people Ergun Caner will bring down with him in the end. Sadly, many at Brewton-Parker College will be among those suffering from the fallout (just like the many Liberty graduates who have already testified for The Caner Project). Caner is clearly leavening the lump at Brewton-Parker College…and unless we receive clear answers from their Vice President of Communications, we have to assume that he’s already leavened the Lumpkins.