Archive for February, 2012

This week, Plumpkins repeated an unsubstantiated rumor that a “gag order” had been issued to NAMB employees. Under the title, NAMB employees under new gag rule? by Peter Lumpkins, he said this:

I’m told by sources in close proximity to the situation that during the chapel service at the North American Mission Board this week, employees were required to sign a statement of confidentiality since information was “leaking out of NAMB”* In short, an order of silence became the norm. And, the sense I got was not private, personal information leaking out, information like social security numbers, salaries of employees and other similar private data which may very well cause pause for concern.

Instead, the “leaked” information apparently pertains to matters which should not necessarily be considered privileged information. For example, if cooperating Southern Baptist churches which give enormous amounts of monies to fund church plants desire to know precisely which church plants receive funding, how much funding, and for how long, no such restrictions such apply. In addition, all stats for church plants including all liaisons with other theological groups (if any) should not be hindered in the free flow of information.

In very short order, Mike Ebert, who works in the communications department at NAMB, made the first comment on the post:

Peter–Absolute fiction.

Posted by: Mike Ebert | Feb 23, 2012 at 07:37 PM



In his December 13, 2011 post entitled, The International Mission Board and Uninspired Missions Giving, Peter “Plumpkins” Lumpkins rails against the establishment again. This time his speculative interests are aroused due to the selections of J.D. Greear and David Platt as being spokesmen for the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering for International Missions. Because the kind of evidence Plumpkins desired was not readily at hand (read: he was too biased to be thorough) he relied on partial evidence.

Very quickly Jared Moore “called out” Plumpkins and the blind he leads at his blog. Moore’s post of December 13, 2011 revealed Plumpkins poor research and erroneous conclusions. Plumpkins responded in form: deny, deny, deny, distract, distract, distract. Oh, and there was also an appearance by Pastor Tim “Roger Dodger” Rogers who commented ineffectually as is his custom.

Wrote Plumpkins:

According to the church’s website, Greear’s church sponsors a yearly “Christmas Missions Offering,” the goal of which is 625K for 2011. A full 75% ($468,750) will go toward “Church Planting” and the remaining 25% ($156,250) will be used for “Local Outreach.” One will look in vain for any specific reference that monies raised will be given to The Lottie Moon Christmas Offering. But if Greear’s church does not participate in cooperative giving toward raising the $175,000,000 the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention is pursuing, why is J.D. Greear a spokesman for the offering? Why would IMB allow him to be a catylst for inspiring others to give to a cause toward which Greear apparently has no loyalties? Emphasis added.

In his same article, Plumpkins turned his B-B gun toward David Platt, the influential author-pastor of The Church at Brook Hills. Lamenting the church’s lack of reporting via the ACP (Southern Baptist speak for “Here’s this year’s numbers”), he assumes they have given nothing to the Lottie Moon offering since 1996, which, incidentally, predates Platt’s arrival by nearly a decade. (As an aside, Platt was 17 years old at the time from which Plumpkins begins to assign blame. This is fair in the Plumpkins universe.)

You see how Pastor Peter Lumpkins plays the game? He places his presumed blame for the church’s actions under a previous pastor in the lap of the current pastor. One could only hope that Plumpkins church, Corner Stone (Cornerstone) Baptist Chapel of Waco, GA gives him a little more grace.

sign cornerstone baptist chapel waco texas pastor peter lumpkins

Before or after Deacons' meeting?

And speaking of Pastor Peter Lumpkins and Cornerstone Baptist Chapel of Waco, GA: what about their Lottie Moon giving? What pattern does this critic show for good Southern Baptists to follow?

Not a very good one it seems.

In a comment on Jared Moore’s article (time stamped December 14, 2011, 1:48pm), Plumpkins defends his foolishness:

Nor is it reasonable to assert the “did-you-call-before-you-made-that-statement” nonsense. That’s why we have data banks, Jared. And, I employed the data bank in no special or biased way toward either Greear or Platt. Emphasis in original comment.

What, then, does the “data bank” show?

In the year 2009-2010, Cornerstone Baptist Chapel gave:
Annie Armstrong- $460
Lottie Moon- $675

Not bad for a church with 45 attendees.

But, in 2010-2011, Cornerstone Baptist Chapel gave:
Annie Armstrong- $1,000
Lottie Moon- $0

Your eyes do not deceive you. Year over year, the church pastored by uber-gripe, Pastor Peter Lumpkins of Cornerstone Baptist Chapel, dropped their Lottie Moon Christmas Offering giving to zero, zilch, zip, nada. Not. A. Single. Red. Cent.

Plumpkins tried his best to make this a “poster boy” or “spokesman” issue, but in his above comment Plumpkins derided Greear for “[apparently] having no loyalties” to the Lottie Moon offering. Loyalty to the LMCO? Really, Peter?

Pot, meet kettle.

**The research methods employed for this article were the same as those employed by Plumpkins. Therefore, it matters not when he became the pastor. He is still to blame.

Since Gerald Harris, Plumpkins and Roger Dodger have speculated publicly and erroneously about the SBC name change, the following might help them get started on their next articles:

“I (I was) [choose more than one from the following] wrong, amiss, askew, astray, at fault, awry, bad, counterfactual, defective, erratic, erring, erroneous, fallacious, false, faulty, fluffed, goofed, in error, inaccurate, inexact, miscalculated, misconstrued, misfigured, misguided, mishandled, mistaken, not precise, not right, not working, off-target, on the wrong track, out, out of commission, out of line, out of order, perverse, rotten, sophistical, specious, spurious, ungrounded, unsatisfactory, unsound, unsubstantial, untrue, wide of the mark”

Get started, boys.

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:

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.

When reading Plumpkins the conspicuous absence of Jesus is overwhelming. One need not even consider any “spirit of Jesus” as to the attitude or interactions. Just look for anything that has to do with Jesus Himself. Plumpkins is one of those in blogdumb who can write about the Gospel and miss Jesus.

A review of his blog from January 2, 2012 to date reveals much in its lack. In a total of 46+ days Jesus has been mentioned less than ten times total in the main posts, with a number of those while quoting other people. If you count the number of times that Plumpkins himself mentions Jesus it is less than five.

Why does this matter? Because Jesus said in Matthew’s Gospel, “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” Or, to put it on the modern setting, “Out of the abundance of the heart the keyboard is struck.” Using Jesus’ own words as a measuring stick, it is clear that Jesus does not abundantly fill the heart of one who almost never talks about him.

What does pour forth when Plumpkins strikes his keyboard? Divisiveness, sowing discord among brothers, lying and deceit. Take for instance his January 23, 2012 article entitled, “Lifeway Resources pushes Calvinism in latest Bible study curriculum by Peter Lumpkins.” His title is a clear assertion that Lifeway Resources [sic] is pushing Calvinism in its most recent Bible study curriculum (which he later identifies as The Gospel Project). The simple fact is that he does not prove his assertion, nor does he even try. The title is deceitful to the point of being an intentional lie.

Too far? You be the judge.

In a comment directed to a Tim Tuggle, timestamped January 24, 2012, 12:24am, Plumpkins writes:

My concern I clearly made here focused on the contributors themselves not necessarily the content they offered.

Clearly Plumpkins intent was to deceive.

Again in the comments Plumpkins is challenged about his deceitful headline. In a comment from a Fred Johnson, timestamped January 24, 2012, 8:22am:

Regardless of how little latitude you are willing to give those who are friendly toward Calvinists, the fact remains that your blog’s primary assertion was not met in the writing. You assert that LW is “pushing Calvinism,” and you mock me for reading the curriculum, but you provide zero proof that is has happened. At best, you should have used the title, “Why I Think LifeWay Will Push Calvinism…” You proved nothing using content, and have only speculated about intent.

To this, Plumpkins replied the same day at 9:10am:

Your curious focus on my post title is patently absurd, Fred. Sorry. There’s just no way to state that any kinder.

And, why I didn’t entitle the post with your suggested is hardly a criticism I either want or need to spend time addressing.

Deceit. Lies.

Simple truth: When the truth is on your side you never have to lie.

If ever there was a word that fit a man, bloviation fits Plumpkins: to speak pompously. This word fits him like hand in glove, like gross on garbage, like weird on Gaga, like points on Calvin, like Demi and Ashton links on a French cuffs.

Even the simplest skimming of his blog makes one things absolutely clear-he loves to hear himself talk, and he loves to hear himself talk down to others. Note any “response” by Plumpkins and quite a large number of comments he has plastered on various websites, and you will see he is a firm believer in the writing philosophy, “Never use one word when fifty will do.”

Earlier this month a fellow named William Birch wrote a 1,308 word rejoinder to Gerald Harris’ Christian Index article. Birch countered Harris’ “The Calvinists are coming” with “The Calvinists have been here…” Plumpkins took a personal offense to the critique of his new hero, thus a two part “response” to Birch. The first topped 2,130 words (including his overblown, condescending footnotes), and the second was nearly 1,600 words. More than 3,700 words to respond to a 1,300 word post. Nearly 300% more words to rebut a person with whom Plumpkins is in ostensible theological agreement? Birch is an Armenian, not a Calvinist.

In at least these two posts, Plumpkins develops a love affair with variations of the word “gratuitious.” He believes “Birch’s piece is the gratuitous approach,” “Birch’s gratuity aside,” “Birch falsely and gratuitously observes,” “Birch’s unsubstantiated gratuitous presumption,” and “Birch’s gratuitous assumption.” The problem is, quoting Inigo to Vizzini in The Princess Bride, “I do not think that word means what you think it means.”

Reading Plumpkins is like reading someone who was first in line for opening day at an overused adjective and adverb sale.

For those who care to look at his drivel, note the superlatives that he heaps on those with whom he agrees, and the denigrating terms-like those used on William Birch-with those who he disagrees. It’s easy to see and no one should fall for it. Peter admits he has a bias, though such an admission is hardly necessary.

In the end, Plumpkins is able to convince the easily impressed readers he has that he’s making sense by virtue of his stringing together descriptors that sound learned, but reading him is like eating marshmallows instead of steak. Or to borrow the descriptive words of C. S. Lewis, one who enjoys Plumpkins is “like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea.”

Here is a thread from a Baptist forum that deals with other lies that Tim “Roger Dodger” Rogers has told recently. Lies that he currently tells and will tell in the future should come as no surprise.

Facts and exchanges are sprinkled throughout, at least through the comment time-stamped Wed Apr 21, 2010 5:29 pm.

This is nothing new. Do a google search with any combination of the terms, “Peter Lumpkins Tim Rogers lie lies liar” and you might be amazed at what you find. And that does not even include the blogs where they have been banned for being liars, divisive and abusive.