« From Heaven He Came And Sought Her: A Review by David Allen | Main | Sharing your faith? Well, maybe not like this »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Michael Naaktgeboren

Mr. Lumpkins,

Why is it that on SBCVoices.com you are chastising Moore for asking Caner to clarify his childhood timeline and saying he is gossiping, but when I come to your page you are doing the same thing of Driscoll's possible plagiarism? Are you simply hypocritical or is there a hidden agenda?

Tim Rogers


Uhm, let's see. Let's do a little compare and contrast. Driscoll is accused of plagiarism by a credible journalist. Caner is accused of not being raised Muslim by a Muslim, and Calvinist that hates Caner.

Driscoll's response causes the credible journalist to remove her comments and beg everyone's forgiveness. Caner is investigated and exonerated.

Driscoll hangs up on the interview. Caner retains a position on staff at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary.

Driscoll has people explaining he did not hang up.
Mefferd's producer resigns and walks out of the door claiming pressure came down hard on Mefferd to do this.
Caner is investigated by Arlington Baptist College and the result is he is offered the position of Provost.

Tyndale comes out defending Driscoll as having met "market standards".
IVP has now come out with a statement stating that his other commentary did not meet "market standards".
Caner is investigated by Brewton-Parker College and the result is an unanimous vote and an offer of the position of President.

Caner has been investigated by three independent investigations and the latest investigation and neither investigation came to the conclusion that anyone has "lied".

So you want to now ask why Peter is posting the fact that a reputable publisher is now calling into question another reputable publisher's definition of "market standards"? But you want to ask why he is so adamant when someone is doing nothing but trying to stir up junk? You are just looking for truth? Yea, right!! (sarcasm firmly in mind)

peter lumpkins

Hi Michael,

I'll bite once but fair notice to you and others: I will not allow the thread to be hijacked by personal curiosity seekers like you or Caner-haters who simply will not leave the man alone.

A) Oh yes, I "chastened" Moore but not for asking for clarity. Why would I "chasten" someone for just wanting simple information? Rather Jared Moore is a visibly contentious, young Calvinist who appears often to rake muck all the while couching his "questions" as innocent, kind, and loving.

B) While I can't recall saying Jared "gossiped" as you put it, I can recall refusing to accept his lame rhetoric he just wanted "clarity" on issues toward which long ago clarity was offered but spurned by Moore's community. Nor was Moore's idiotic assertion implying that all EC had to do was "tell" him and it'd be over reasonable. That is, Jared Moore wanted no tangible evidence or proof but just EC's word on things, a request which remains disturbingly absurd on its face. Clarity was offered--at least a sincere attempt was made at clarifying much of the confusion--but inevitably shouted down every single time. In addition, for EC's rhetorical confusion an apology *was* given and still exists on this site and SBC Today. Needless to say, EC's apology was ridiculed, parsed, and definitively rejected by Moore's band of muck rakers

C) That you claim I'm "doing the same thing of Driscoll's possible plagiarism" remains one of the primary reasons I have little energy to even discuss with Caner-critics anything which requires one to think beyond what a high school education diploma offers, Michael. I offered not a single indicting comment toward Driscoll above. In fact, I elsewhere suggested we should not be too quick to judge Driscoll as actually committing plagiarism-- http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2013/12/janet-mefferd-pulls-documentation-alleging-plagiarism-against-mark-driscoll.html#more

Neither am I "calling Driscoll out" nor demanding he "publicly repent" or "give me clarity," as Moore demanded. Truth is, Mark Driscoll owes me jack squat. He owes me no explanation at all. He very well may owe his church a lot of explanation not to mention IVP. But as for my publicly calling for Driscoll to do anything is actually funny--LOL. Even so, more funnier still, Michael, is your claim that I am doing exactly here what Jared Moore's contentiously written moral assassination of EC did at his sight and SBCVoices. Not to mention I've learned enough sense to get in out of the rain through the years. Neither Moore, Lamprecht, White, nor perhaps you, however have learned to know when to stop. Nope. Ya'll never quite know when enough is enough. Nothing else is going to be said to change anybody's mind at this point. But leave it to the Calvinists to keep trying any way.

Of course, none of this makes any difference since you have judged me either a) hypocritical; or b) possessing hidden agenda [make this "D)" please]. Hence, why it is I'm even answering is the real question. According to your clever wording, if I refuse to admit I'm a hypocrite, then it follows I've got a hidden agenda. So much for real communication, Michael. I lose either way I answer your indicting question.

Thanks. And if you don't mind, copy and paste this answer over there. I'm quite sure since I left the thread, the bees came swarming me.

With that, I am...

Alex Guggenheim

My understanding is that in the book 1 and 2 Peter book, the New Bible Commentary is cited elsewhere which leads me to believe that this is likely an assistant editor/in-house publishing oversight.

Yes, anyone permitting their name on a book is ultimately accountable for the errors or outright plagiarism, if that is the case, but not personally accountable as the one that actually erred.

I could be wrong and am happy to have someone provide information otherwise.

Not a fan of Mark Driscoll for many reasons but I still am a fan of getting as many principally plausible explanations before concluding on the side of the most grievous.

peter lumpkins


Thanks. I fully agree. I mentioned earlier that we should not judge Driscoll too quickly on this one -- http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2013/12/janet-mefferd-pulls-documentation-alleging-plagiarism-against-mark-driscoll.html#more

And, I too noted when I examined Driscoll's book that he twice correctly cited The New Bible Commentary (NBC) on pages 5 and 6, footnotes #4 and #5. Hence, the disputed text in Driscoll's Trial very well could have been an unintended oversight though still not without legitimately noting that the wording under examination in Driscoll's text (page 4) is not blocked off in quotation marks like the two later citations I mentioned above are correctly footnoted. Rather, the borrowed text from the NBC on page 4 appears in every way to look like Driscoll's thoughts entirely, and that remains the smoking gun for IVP it seems to me.

So thus far, while Driscoll may owe IVP a public apology and perhaps some type of rectification (after all his name in on the cover), I'm inclined to believe this is a careless oversight and not a deliberate case of plagiarism.

But what do I know? I'm just a West Georgia Redneck.

With that, I am...

John Carpenter

You want to make a big deal about supposed "plagiarism" while you ignore the repeated, high-profile, open lies told by Ergun Caner? That's not being a person of integrity.

peter lumpkins

Hi John,

A) I've read your inflammatory remarks to others like Dr. Throckmorton and remain unimpressed, John. Please don't assume you'll be as free here to spew your ridiculous retorts as elsewhere. Clear?

B) If you get from what I penned on both the post and comment thread I actually 'make a big deal' of Driscoll's troubles, it only demonstrates the tomfoolery I mentioned in A). I've been quite neutral on this issue with Driscoll and actually think many have prematurely judged him--at least on this issue.

C) As I said above in a general comment to all, I'm not going to allow this thread to become a smear EC frenzy. Your personal moral judgments of him are just that--personal and quite impossible to prove. Hence, so far as I am concerned, you're morally assassinating a brother as a fraud without the slightest objective evidence EC undeniably intended to deceive a single person. That's precisely why guys like you cannot be trusted to offer a fairly sober appraisal. You morally condemn those you a priori reject and morally defend those whom you a priori accept, quite apart from viewing all the evidence available. You know. Kinda like you did with EC and MD above.

So, John, that's about it. Unless you can carry on a sober exchange, kindly remain in the background please.

With that, I am...

The comments to this entry are closed.