When this blog was started the lies of two pastors were exclusively chronicled. One of them has reduced his blogging to an occasional update – thankfully – while the other has focused more on theological content.

Welcomed changes.

Recently a big deal has erupted at Louisiana College. Several professors were not offered contract renewals perhaps because they hold to a Calvinist interpretation of salvation. The president of the college, Dr. Joe Aguillard, and at least one trustee seem content for Calvinist professors and students to leave the school.

Much of this nonsense is being tracked by two Louisiana College student. Joshua Breland and Drew Wales have written about the goings on on their blogs The Daily Bleat (http://thedailybleat.com) and SBC Heritage (http://sbcheritage.com). Breland has set up an active post with links to a number of websites speaking about the situation (http://thedailybleat.com/while-louisiana-college-burns-social-media-and-blogging-explosion/).

a Alan J. Pakulas - All the Presidents Men Hoffman Redford DVD PDVD_008Last week the influential and popular Southern Baptist blog SBC Voices defended the two students in this post: http://sbcvoices.com/leadership-101-fix-the-problems-dont-attack-those-who-identify-them/

So far the focus has been on Calvinism as the problem at the school. What if this is not the case?

The old saying is “Where there is smoke there is fire.” What if the smoke at Louisiana College is at one place and the fire at another? Anyone who has ever built a fire knows it only takes a little wet wood to create a lot of smoke.

While Calvinism is the “green wood” creating the smoke, are the trustees paying attention for any other fires? Are the school’s finances in order? Are all educational requirements up to date? Are accreditation requirements in order? Are contracts legal and in order? What is at work other than the gray smoke of Calvin?

“Follow the money” was famous advice given to two reporters who brought down a president. It might be good advice to follow again.

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.

Waco, Georgia pastor, Peter Lumpkins, has long been known for using half-truths, rumor, innuendo, speculation and creative license to build his blog readership. With a batting average that hovers around .100 on the accuracy scale, Plumpkins latest assult, on writer Jonathan Merritt, should bring a shudder to anyone attached to him in any way.

And speaking of being attached…let’s play Plumpkins for a bit.

Indy from Plumpkins Marriott suite

Did you know Peter Lumpkins was in Indianapolis this week?

Did you know there are no pictures of his wife being with him in Indianapolis?

Did you know there are a lot of drugs and prostitutes in Indianapolis?

Now don’t take this to mean that Peter Lumpkins was doing drugs and running around with prostitutes. These are just the facts. You can draw your own conclusions.

See how easy that is? Not a shred of proof required to cast doubt. No accepting responsibility for irresponsible writing. Two clear cases of innuendo. There is only one eyewitness: Peter Lumpkins himself who admits to being in a hotel room in Indianapolis.

(The completely accurate info is available here: http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2012/07/sitting-in-indy.html)

But enough with demonstrations, how about some things that are true and accurate? These don’t even have to be exaggerated to have questions connected to some very real dots.

Did you know that Peter Lumpkins writes Sunday School literature for the prominent anti-Calvinist and former SBC president, Jerry Vines?

Did you know that Vines sit on the trustee board of Liberty University, and on the seminary committee of that board?

One is force to wonder how long Jerry Vines has been the “Liberty leak” from the trustee board to help Peter’s attacks on Mark Driscoll?

How much of Gerald Harris famous rambling rant against Calvinism in the Christian Index was lifted from Peter Lumpkins blog?

How much other information does Harris get from Plumpkins?

How much has Bill Harrell of Abilene Baptist Church in Georgia shared with Peter Lumpkins?

Will Peter Lumpkins and Tim Rogers be working with the leadership of the SBCToday blog, now under the power of Emir Caner, president of Truett McConnell College?

Since Georgia Baptist Executive Director, Robert White, signed the “Traditionalist Document,” which Tim Rogers affirmed, does that mean he has leaked information to either Rogers or Lumpkins?

The plot thickens…

And that’s how pastor Peter Lumpkins comes to his conclusions.

However, there are things here that are unequivocally true:

1. Peter Lumpkins does write for Jerry Vines’ curriculum line.

2. Gerald Harris did use Lumpkins’ blog for source material, or Lumpkins co-wrote the article with Harris or wrote it for him. There is too much overlap (and too many similar mistakes) for it to be any other way.

3. Jerry Vines is from Georgia and on the trustee board of Liberty. Vines also grew up and pastored his first church mere miles from where Peter Lumpkins now lives and “pastors” his church.

4. Jerry Vines, Bill Harrell, Brad Whitt, Tim Rogers, Frank Cox, Gerald Harris and others are among those trying to “take back” the SBC. From what it remains to be seen? Are they trying to take it back from the inerrantists? Regardless, they encourage Peter Lumpkins and allow him to be a mouthpiece for them. That he lies and slanders makes not a bit of difference.

Here’s the $64,000 question: Will Vines and the rest repudiate Lumpkins attack on Jonathan Merritt as discussed on the last article here? Caveats, explanations, elaborations, and updates are not enough. The slime of muckraking is all over these imagined leaders because of their ongoing association with Peter Lumpkins.

Each of these: Jerry Vines, Gerald Harris, Bill Harrell, and others who have waited in the shadows for Plumpkins character assassinations must now rebuke him publicly. Until each one of them has publicly rebuked Peter Lumpkins for gossip, rumor, innuendo and slander, this article will remain and more articles will be added.

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…


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.

Pastor Tim Rogers of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Indian Trail, North Carolina is up to his deceptive ways again. This time it includes a favorite target of his illogical “thinking”–Lifeway.

Sometime in recent days LifeWay Research mailed a survey to a portion of Southern Baptist Churches. According to a friend it included 43 questions with well over 125 possible responses. Between 35 – 40 of these were of the strongly agree, strongly disagree, I don’t know, neither agree or disagree variety of survey responses. The questions cover a very, very broad section of church life, theology and decision making. The survey appears to expect answers from either the senior pastor or other church leader.

In his post of April 14, 2012, “An Upcoming Lifeway Survey-The Timing is Uncanny, by Tim Rogers,” Tim Rogers fans furiously to create a fire out of nothing. Unfortunately for him the only smoke to be seen is coming out of his ears.

First he deceives his readers by implying the survey has something to do with the name change task force in the SBC. Tim Rogers writes:

I opened a large envelope to find a survey of forty-three questions that began with a question concerning the Task Force that was appointed through a “back-door” reading of our constitution…

Perhaps it is that Pastor Tim Rogers cannot count, because the question to which he refers is fourth on the list, not first.

Why the need to be deceptive, “Pastor” Rogers?

He then turns to one of his favorite whipping boys: the Calvinism debate in the SBC. With density that lead would envy Rogers says:

In this opening article I want to look at two statements to help you see the theological bend the Research Team seems to desire.

[In Rogers’ writing the following two lines are bold and in red. It should also be noted the original survey included the proper punctuation at the end of each sentence. Rogers seems to think proper punctuation is unnecessary; he certainly feels that way about logic and truth.]

1. My church is theologically reformed or Calvinist
2. My church is theologically Arminian or Wesleyan

The statements above represents [sic] the theological positions one my [sic] choose from. From the look of things it is a clear straight forward statement that defines what one believes…What person in a Southern Baptist Church is going to say their church is “Arminian or Wesleyan”? Therefore a pastor has only to choose between “reformed or Calvinist”…I am not an Arminian, and neither am I a Wesleyan. These theological positions places [sic] one in the uncomfortable position of arguing one is not saved forever. Thus, we must choose “reformed or Calvinist”.

Thus, we must choose “crazy or ignorant” to describe Roger Dodger’s conclusions.

“Theological bend”? He can determine that by misrepresenting two questions? Can Rogers also bend spoons by staring at them? Something is bent, that’s for sure. According to Tim Rogers’ delusions the research team must also have a “theological bend” toward pastoral visits, new members classes, death of church members, international mission trips and the like since all of this is surveyed on the same survey.

If a tangled web we weave “when first we practice to deceive,” Pastor Tim Rogers must trip over its strands every time he stands to walk to the pulpit.

On the survey the two statements in the Rogers quote above are each accompanied by five answering options: “Strongly disagree, Somewhat disagree, Somewhat agree, Strongly agree, Don’t Know.” It is not either/or.

CLEARLY there are not only two options as he implies. There are multiple options INCLUDING the opportunity to select a different category altogether by strongly disagreeing with both. This fact Pastor Tim Rogers is not willing to acknowledge.

A commenter on Tim Rogers’ blog, Tom Klein, immediately called him out on this (6:47pm same day):

Then, you misstate (or maybe misunderstand) how polls work. A mainstream SBC baptist would simply answer both of your questions near the middle. You must not understand how polls work since you don’t “choose between” separate questions. You choose within them on a scale.

This is obviously the case.

Since most Southern Baptists, including the ones at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Indian Trail, North Carolina, will never see this survey, Rogers has done a great disservice to his readers and his church members by this deceit.

We are left with three likely conclusions:
1) He is intentionally deceptive. Therefore, his church should rebuke him.
2) He is unintentionally deceptive. Therefore, his church should re-educate him.
3) He is incompetent. Therefore, his church should remove him.

Corner Stone Baptist Chapel pastor, Peter Lumpkins, (Waco, Georgia) returned from a much enjoyed break from the blogosphere to cross swords with…himself, it appears. Again spinning wild conspiracies from the shallow recesses of his brainpan, he sees a “ruling SBC elite” taking over another blog. He writes:

While Dave Miller surely needed to clean up the threads at SBCV (since they so often made the threads into personal assaults against other Southern Baptist bloggers; I ought to know; I’ve personally been the receiving end of their scathing attacks more times than I care to recall),

The idea of Pastor Peter Lumpkins, who regularly lies, attacks and deceives based on the latest rumor, telling another blogger to “clean up the threads” at another blog is rich, rich, rich.

When it comes to the supposed trespasses of others, Plumpkins exercises an x-ray vision that would make Superman envious, but when it comes to his own faults he is as blind as a bat wearing blinders at midnight.

Who are this “ruling SBC elite” and what are they trying to do? The usual suspects that Pastor Peter Lumpkins rails against, a couple of entity heads and other leaders.

Plumpkins channels in inner Winston Churchill with this little ditty:

One thing is for sure: SBC Tomorrow will not stand down nor will we become silent. We will continue to bring our own perspective to the table. The ruling elite will have to contend with the facts as we perceive them. We have no intention of changing anything we presently do. We think we address issues and raise questions blogs which are closely joined to the hip of ruling elites will not address. And, in the end, grassroots Southern Baptists will have their way.

Genuine, Free Church people will never bow their knee to a ruling elite. Never.



At least Pastor Peter Lumpkins acknowledges that he works with the "facts" are "as we perceive them." He doesn't deal with facts. He deals with his interpretation of the facts, more often erroneous than not. By the time he stops spinning his spin he could go to work for Maytag. Such a statement is a befuddled as Pastor Tim Rogers February pleas for someone to "correct the facts" in a certain news article. Facts, Tim, do not need to be corrected. Not to worry, there were very few "facts" in that article anyway. Someone could have spent a month or two refuting the errors, on the other hand.

One is forced to wonder how many personalities make up the "we" to which he refers. Maybe he refers to Gerald Harris, editor of The Christian Index who obviously collaborated with Plumpkins on his Calvinism hit piece. Maybe Plumpkins "we" are just the voices in his head.

Even farther east, at Ebenezer Baptist Church in North Carolina, Pastor Tim Rogers is conducting a love/hate relationship with another SBC entity head. Following the sexual assault tragedy at a seminary, Rogers asks prayer for the president of the entity (a man that he regularly attacks) then, in the comment thread, takes the surprising position that the administration was at fault in the incident. He comments in the thread of his March 18, 2012 post:

The issue is there is a large gap in the time-line of the arrest and the report to the student body.

I want to give the benefit of the doubt to the seminary administration and believe they were caught flat footed on this thing. However, hiding behind the argument that it was the weekend and the administration offices were closed is not going to cut it in today’s environment.

The problem is that he does not want to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. Pastor Tim Rogers can’t even make sense of a perfectly sensible situation. His unwillingness or inability to put 2 and 2 together is an ongoing issue as readers of this blog are aware. Is there anyone who truly believes Rogers is qualified to challenge an administrative decision? Or any decision, for that matter.

Perhaps Pastor Tim Rogers, and Ebenezer Baptist Church, and Corner Stone Baptist Chapel with its pastor, Peter Lumpkins, would be better served by pastors who spend more time in the Word of God than they do tearing down other bloggers, pastors and leaders.