Posts Tagged ‘foolishness’

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.


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.”