Archive for the ‘pastors who lie’ Category

July 9, 2012 reached an all time low for Peter Lumpkins whose knuckles were already dragging the ground. In an article named, “Big, big $$$$ to attend Send North America Conference by Peter Lumpkins.” Calling the cost a “fat fee,” Plumpkins accuses the North America Mission Board of charging for “what we send money for them to do–educate people on the significance of missions both in North America and the world.”

Wow! One might think such an explosion of concern must mean that Kevin Ezell had set up an entrance fee at the Alpharetta headquarters and instituted the selling of indulgences in the lobby. How much might such “Big, big $$$$” be? $500? $1,000? More?

Has NAMB really reached the point that a conference (really a series of workshops) must cost hundreds of dollars?

In a word? No.

Plumpkins made much ado about nothing. And by “much” that means he made the Rocky Mountains out of a single serving of peanuts.

The cost for the entire conference was $99 per attendee for early registration. For those missing the early bird, the increase was an almost unbearable $20 more. Spouses in each case could come for half price.

In arguing his point, Waco, GA, pastor Peter Lumpkins complains that he could not go even if he had a scholarship. Why?

They cannot afford to send me much less our hauling a van load over to Woodstock to get inspired about church planting.

God forbid if they had held Send North America in a focus city like San Diego. Lumpkins would have given birth to an alien.

Pay close attention: When Lumpkins talks about “hauling a van load,” he is lying. He never had any intention of hauling anyone to SNA. His church barely has a van load in attendance. This is just another smear.

Also, it isn’t the responsibility of the North American Mission Board to tell pastor Lumpkins of Waco, GA, what is going on in the world as his insists. There is an entirely other mission board for that. Of course, he’ll divert the truth about his lack of passion for world missions by complaining about cost. Just as he has no interest in church planting.

Then he complains about the format. Yawn. Then he complains about the lack of diversity in the lineup. One is forced to wonder just how integrated the Corner Stone Baptist Chapel of western Georgia is at 11:00 on Sunday morning? Had any black members join lately?

One observant commenter (Dr. B. Devine) wrote the conference contained lunch and dinner on the first night as well as three meals on the following day. There were 15 workshops and multiple breakout sessions. (If spousal meals were also included, then their registration fee was virtually recouped in saved meal expenses. For general registrants the savings would equal about 1/2 of registration.)

Following this, Peter made two comments (12:09pm and 12:18pm) that are so sarcastic, over-the-top and filled with vitriol it’s very difficult to believe they were made by a Christian. Between he and his girlfriends (Lydia and Mary) the comment thread at this blog is a seething cauldron of bile, rancid flesh and mental excrement.

One wonders why Plumpkins didn’t just borrow the money from this buddy Jerry Vines? He probably has plenty.

All this is set up for an interesting contrast as it concerns Peter Lumpkins. He routinely attacks people and entities all over the Southern Baptist Convention using lies, distortions, half-truths, insinuations, and implications. There literally is no depth to which he will not stoop to “get a story.”

The contrast is why he has never written anything derogatory about recent expenses at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He complained about a $99 conference hosted by the North American Mission Board, but what about the construction of the luxurious and over-priced chapel at Southwestern Seminary?

An article in the Baptist Press dated October 26, 2009 reported the approval to build an expansive, wasteful, 3,500-seat chapel on the center of the campus. The cost was projected to be $30.2 million, although overruns were estimated to have raised the praise to the $32 million range. The chapel features a stage large enough for a 90 piece orchestra, a 200+ voice choir, with a “state of the art” sound and video projection system. (With the passage of time it was state of the art.) The J.W. MacGorman Chapel and Performance Center, as it is called, encloses 96,000 square feet, and was dedicated in late 2011.

What does $30-32 million dollars get you in Fort Worth, Texas, in the center of the seminary campus that once was the crown jewel of the Southern Baptist Convention?

A chapel that is almost never used. Outside groups rent the facility for concerts, and it is most certainly used for “special occasions” on campus. But it is not used for regular chapel gatherings. Why should it be? If all students full and part time were on campus at the same time it would not be full.

Where is Lumpkins on this? Only in Peter Lumpkins can you find a person who strains out a hundred while swallowing 32 million. Flailing away like Don Quixote after a windmill he castigates NAMB for a ONE HUNDRED DOLLAR conference, yet gives a pass on Southwestern Seminary’s waste of $32 million for a monument to a man. No criticism at all is to be found of the cesspool called his blog.

Why? Because Peter is in tight with Jerry Vines (Paige Patterson’s best friend in the world) and in tight with the faculty at Southwestern Seminary. His blog features articles and mentions of Dr. Malcolm Yarnell, a professor at SWBTS, and entries from Dr. David Allen, a dean at SWBTS. A review of Peter’s ultra-fundamentalist, anti-liquor book was reviewed at baptisttheology.org, the official theology site of Southwestern Seminary.

Those ties that bind may soon be the ropes that hang.

The past couple of months have been relatively quiet in BlogDumb. Tim Rogers has been on a self-imposed sabbatical (until yesterday) which was doubtless the answer to innumerable prayers in bowls at the feet of Jesus. Peter Lumpkins, following misstep after misstep, finally started blogging on matters where lies are less frequently required: the history of Calvinism.

It was a welcome relief that these two were not spreading the lies and innuendo which they are accustomed to.

But, as they say, all good things must come to an end.

This week, Waco, Georgia, pastor Peter Lumpkins, went far beyond anything resembling good taste, etiquette, ethics or righteousness. Based on the assertion of a single gay blogger Plumpkins threw a young Southern Baptist writer under the bus and spun the tires on his squirming torso.

Jonathan Merritt is a writer of quite some renown for one so young. According to varies bios he has written more than 300 articles for a large quantity of secular and Christian media outlets. He is often heralded by young Christians as a needed melody of faithful reason in the cacophony of civil discordance. Merritt, unmarried, has long been the target of Plumpkins’ venom.

The gay blogger, Azariah Southworth, was responding to Merritt’s writing about a proposed boycott of Chick-fil-A by the gay community. All of this was in response to some comments the company’s president made on a radio show or some such thing. Southworth claimed Merritt was being less than authentic because Merritt is actually gay, only keeping it closeted for personal gain in his religious community, the Southern Baptist Convention.

Plumpkins, rolling in freedom away from home in Indianapolis, quickly published a post of such deplorable sewage it would have been appropriate to call the city works department to full alert. Under the charged title, “Jonathan Merritt Outed as Gay? by Peter Lumpkins,” the west Georgia resident strung together a flurry of questions, hypotheticals, hair-width thin connections, and faux concern in his rambling, accusatory post.

For Peter Lumpkins no lie is too bold, not assertion too brazen, no slander off limits so long as it is couched in a hypothetical or ended with a question mark. He simply blogs without fear since he had a ready made commenting audience standing at the guard to affirm every inane thing he writes. No matter how grotesque, Lydia, Mary, CASEY, and a couple of others are more than willing to lick the vomit he projects onto the internet.

There are several problems with what Peter is doing. He presents speculation as facts. When he writes on July 24,

Perhaps now it’s been revealed why Merritt was so adamant about not condemning the gay community–at least that’s what’s claimed by a purported long-time friend. According to a prominent “gay evangelical” Merritt himself is gay…

and

Southworth goes on to make this stunning claim:
I feel though what has led Jonathan to this thoughtful and effective approach is his hope for a future where people like me and him, gay people, are no longer excluded but included in every aspect of society” (embolden added).

then finally

It sounds like this dude has the goods. Even so, we’d hope (and pray) Southworth is bluffing and the young Merritt can make his assertion into mere gossip. The untold damage this can and will do, if true, remains incalculable. Merritt routinely speaks for Baptist colleges, universities, and is a frequent speaker at Lifeway’s events. In addition, two seminary presidents–Danny Akin and Al Mohler–have in the past supported Merritt’s views on various social issues.

In fact, Al Mohler told Jonathan Merritt in an interview last year that evangelicals have “lied about the nature of homosexuality” and have practiced what can only be called a “form of homophobia.” Does this alleged new revelation we hear from the gay community concerning Merritt’s supposed gayness shed new light on Mohler’s disturbing words a year ago? We’re not sure yet, but intend to probe more thoroughly.

Note Plumpkins’ questioning tone, his puffery of Southworth’s accusations, his use of modifiers to plant doubt.

Plumpkins was immediately called out in the comments by multiple people. In his demented mind, though, he has done nothing wrong. His argument is always the same, “I didn’t say _______.” No, but you implied, questioned, speculated, and presented it as if it was the only real option.

The fact here is that Peter, without two or three witnesses, took the word of an acknowledged agnostic, not “gay evangelical” as Plumpkins states, and made a pubic accusation. Was Merritt contacted and given an opportunity to respond? No. When challenged on this point, Peter responded, “What do you think a blog is for? If he wants to comment here, he can” (paraphrase). What do you think the Bible is for, Plumpkins? We know, you don’t think about it that often.

Once again we see that pastor Peter Lumpkins is the type of person who will take headlines and blog hits over integrity and ministry. One wonders just how long his church will continue to put up with this? It is time to call him to account.

One is forced to wonder at times if Ebenezer Baptist Church pastor Tim Rogers constantly lies because he is evil to the core. Or is it because he is mentally deficient?

On his blog article of May 18, 2012 (http://pastortimrogers.com/?p=3405) Tim Rogers questions the existence of purportedly new guidelines being used by the North American Mission Board. He writes,

The problem exists that we are now partnering with other church planting networks and no one I can find has any idea what those guidelines are that we operate within.

Let me make this as clear as I know how. NAMB is an autonomous entity and they constantly scream that we need to trust them in their appointments and those that are funded. I say, fine I want to trust you. However, with the trustees recently removing the 2006 Presidential restrictions and now announcing “guidelines for NAMB church planters in relationship with other church planting networks” without producing such guidelines it seems something is not above board. If we are asked to trust someone then that someone should produce the openness and transparency needed for us to support.

If pastor Tim Rogers wants to talk about problems he should find the nearest mirror and start yelling.

Well known Southern Baptist blogger William Thornton wrote on those guidelines on his own blog (http://sbcplodder.blogspot.com/2012/05/namb-trustees-adopt-church-planting.html) which was picked up at SBC Voices (http://sbcvoices.com/namb-trustees-adopt-church-planting-network-guidelines-by-william-thornton). This is what he reported concerning NAMB and church planting networks:

NAMB / Network Guidelines

The North American Mission Board encourages church plants to partner with their association, state convention, NAMB and the IMB. NAMB also affirms that some churches engage with other networks for mission and evangelism purposes in accordance with article 14 “Cooperation” of the Baptist Faith and Message.

NAMB does not affirm or partner with individual networks, but partners with Baptist Faith and Message affirming churches and planters.

That’s it. NAMB does not partner with individual networks. End of story.

And here is the crux of the matter: While pastor Tim Rogers of Ebenezer Baptist Church claims “we are now partnering with other church planting networks” it is not true. That’s what this “Network Guidelines” documents addresses. Further, Rogers links to Thornton’s blog article at the end of his own ramblings. That’s right. Rogers questions the existence of said guidelines while guiding his reader to the very guidelines themselves.

This guy is an unrepentant liar or a nut, take your pick.

If any reader of this blog knows anyone in his church, you should point them this way. Perhaps the local newspaper’s church news reporter would have an interest in a lying preacher.

If there is anything that gets under Pastor Tim Rogers and Pastor Peter Lumpkins collective skins more than Calivinism and good theology it’s Seattle pastor Mark Driscoll. With the publication of “Real Marriage” with his wife, Grace, Driscoll has been all over news broadcasts including appearances on “The View” and “Piers Morgan Tonight.”

With all the dependability of Pacific typhoons-and twice as much wind-Plumpkins and Rodger Dodger have alternately attacked the Falwell brothers and Liberty University (Lumpkins), and Danny Akin and Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (Rogers).

On at least three separate occasions Plumpkins has written about Driscoll’s April 2012 speaking engagement at Liberty University, always condemning the decision to have him. In his January 12, 2012 blog article he called “Real Marriage”

a book which encourages sexual hedonism

In fact, in two separate posts, Peter Lumpkins skipped the first nine chapters-over 170 pages-just to get to the “sexual hedonism.” He acts like a middle schooler who just found the Sport’s Illustrated Swimsuit Issue at the grocery store: “Articles? What articles?”
(more…)

If it was not for the wretched sinfulness of the whole thing, Pastor Peter Lumpkins recent blog article on “Holiness” would be delicious irony. Instead it’s a travesty of the seriousness of God’s word. On March 11, 2012, he writes:

I’m preaching a sermon today from the Old Testament entitled “Hungering for Holiness.” One particular corpus of Scripture which I find especially moving today includes the following (embolden added)>>>

Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name: bring an offering, and come before him: worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness (1 Chron 16:29)

Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name; worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness… . O worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness: fear before him, all the earth… . Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth (Psalm 29:2; 96:9; 110:3)

One is left to assume the “beauty of holiness” does not apply to Plumpkins since, on his blog, he continues to lie, deceive and distort.

His near obsession with Rick Warren’s supposed “Bridge to Mecca” yet again demonstrates his willingness to believe the worst about Christian leaders with whom he disagrees. (See my last post as an example of this typical Lumpkins behavior. http://spoutingnonsense.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/after-apology-pastor-peter-lumpkins-continues-to-attack-southern-baptist-leaders/)
(more…)

As noted here on February 25, 2012, Plumpkins was forced to issue a retraction for a deceptive piece he wrote about the North American Mission Board. He blamed his mysterious sources (likely the same ones he used for this erroneous conclusions about the SBC name change) instead of admitting what is likely closer to the truth: he made it up out of whole cloth. That’s what liars do, after all.

In Plumpkins retraction/apology, which was quoted here in full to give every benefit of the doubt, he said:

In addition, to the readers of SBC Tomorrow, I also offer my sincerest apologies. You deserve commentary on denominational affairs based on the most credible, factual information available. And while I sincerely thought I was basing my commentary on credible testimony, I hold no delusion that you should not be disappointed. The fact is, I am disappointed in myself. I broke my own strict protocol in making sure I have the goods before I deliver the message. This present post stands as the quintessential reason why that is so. And, know I have learned much in the process. I regret my lessons learned, however, came at another’s expense.

Finally, even though my normal commentary is based upon hard evidences like written, audio, and video–evidences which anyone may check and draw their own conclusions–and rarely base what I write on this blog on softer types like anecdotal, or softer still, verbal assertions, know I intend to be more careful still in the future.

May our Lord extend to us all His grace to be the best we can be for His glory alone. And, may our Lord forgive me as I look only to Him for my redemption.

His assertion that his normal commentary is based on hard evidences is enough to make one reach for Gas-X. His ruminations are based on speculation, mental confusion and wishful thinking.

Plumpkins must have enjoyed his earlier mentioned forgiveness fully since it took him less than a week to go off again half-cocked. This time the target of his verbal indiscretions was California pastor Rick Warren.
(more…)

In his post dated February 19, 2012, Plumpkins again distorts some facts while omitting others all for the purpose of propogating his faulty ideas. His inability to correctly report is troubling. Does he lie intentionally or because he really can’t figure the facts? Is he mentally incapable or has he become so distorted that even the simplest truths are skewed by his over-suspicious personality?

Plumpkins writes with reference to the Lifeway trustee meeting:

Unfortunately, [Lifeway communications director, Marty] King did not report any response from the trustees concerning the 2011 SBC resolution in Phoenix expressing disapproval of the version. King did quote Greenway suggesting messengers to the 2011 SBC annual meeting were encouraged to vote for the resolution based on “incorrect information.”

What is the big deal about no response from the trustees? Why does Plumpkins imply that such “response” would provide new information? Note the BP article (written by King):

The task force and the trustee executive committee both unanimously approved the following recommendation: It is recommended that trustees reaffirm the decision of LifeWay to continue to carry the 2011 NIV alongside other versions of the Holy Bible.

The reason is clear and it isn’t nefarious. The vote was unanimous. Both the committee and the full trustee board were unified in the vote. There were no dissenters to interview, no press conference for some to air their differences.

When trustee Adam Greenway spoke, he spoke for the committee and when the trustees voted they conveyed the decision. Why? Because they had researched the information given and found the resolution to be without merit.

Besides the examples of conservative translations in the 2011 NIV given by Greenway there was also this line in the report that addressed the “incorrect information” given to messengers:

As an example, Greenway said the 2011 NIV contains no gender-neutral wording for the names of God.

What kind of “incorrect information”? This is normally the kind of thing Plumpkins spends 2,000 words blathering about. Why the silence on this?

Let us return momentarily to the summer of 2011. Twenty-four minutes into the Wednesday afternoon business session at the 2011 SBC meeting in Phoenix to be exact.

Messenger Tim Overton spoke about the 2011 NIV:

This is a feminist dream. What has stood in front of their agenda about the Bible. Now they have twisted the Bible into a gender-neutral translation.

This is an assertion; it is not evidence, and it gives an example of the misinformation fed to the messengers. It is likewise an example of evidence glossed over by Plumpkins and his disciples in their rush to condemn Lifeway for not taking Overton’s resolution at face value.

Russell Moore, speaking for the Resolutions Committee, said in response to Overton’s plea that there were significant differences between the TNIV and the 2011 NIV. :

We had an NIV that stands in a very different place in regard to the Bible buying public. We now have a multitude of good and faithful denominations, uh, good and faithful translations such as the Holman Christian Standard Bible, the English Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, and so forth. And we did not believe that the NIV changes which, frankly, are just one of many Bibles out there which have very similar language. We did not believe that rose to the level of needing to be addressed by this year’s convention. Emphasis added.

Moore was followed by messenger Darren Lambert who, affirming he might not be the best person to speak in support of the resolution, proceeded to do that very thing. It’s from Lambert’s support that he concern of the gender neutrality of God is addressed:

This is God’s word, and if we affirm the roles that God has given to men and women. And we also affirm God’s revelation of Himself as He, and Jesus as He, and even the Holy Spirit. Emphasis in speaker’s vocalization.

So, the Lifeway trustees were being very thorough, addressing not only the concerns expressed in the resolution, but also in concerns expressed by the one who spoke in support of it.

BTW, if Plumpkins was the least bit interested in being thorough, he could have found video of the above exchange. It should be as easy to do as unearthing a 20-year old quote from Al Mohler on the purpose of resolutions at SBC meetings. (Hint, Peter: http://www.sbcannualmeeting.net/sbc11/)

Why does Peter Lumpkins consistently overlook the facts? It is either overt deception or lunacy. Whichever the case, no thinking, spiritually minded person should give him or his writings a second thought.