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.


Comments are closed.