On Rob Bell: Burn Heretic! Burn! by Peter Lumpkins

  I’m hardly at ease with Rob Bell.  Not because I’ve read all his stuff, judging it spiritually unsuitable. Nor am I among the 50K who downloaded his latest sermon this week.  Rather for other reasons.  Brett McCraken, in his celebrated book, hipster christianity, compares Bell with another controversial figure among Christian hipsters, Mark Driscoll:

On the opposite end of the spectrum from Mark Driscoll is Rob Bell, who ironically pastors a church called Mars Hill (in Grand Rapids, Michigan). While Driscoll rails against a chick-ified Jesus and calls his congregants to a highly fortified, macho-man mindset, Rob Bell goes around saying things like, “Weak is the new strong.” Bell has been a very high-profile figurehead for hip Christianity for some time now… . Like most hipster pastors, he speaks in controversial language almost constantly…[and] also speaks in a decidedly hipster, ironic parlance, constantly dropping pop culture and kitsch references with a wink and a nod…” (pp. 105-106)

Frankly, I’m just not fond of trendy, spiffy Christianity.  In my view, there’s very little difference between a Mark Dricsoll and a Rob Bell—two peas from the same kind of pod--albeit different colored pods but the same kind of pod nonetheless.

Hence, when I see the latest huffing and puffing about Rob Bell coming from a select network of blogging kingpins, I‘ve got to be honest, it’s tempting to help them gather wood for a bonfire to see Rob Bell burn.  After all, he’s a heretic, is he not?

So who’s building a bonfire to burn Rob Bell?

• Justin Taylor:  apparently, Taylor sounded the alarm after reading some chapters of Bell’s soon-to-be-released book entitled, Love Wins: A Book about Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who has Ever Lived he got hold of. Not content to wait till the book hit the presses, rather acting like a breaking-news journalist, Taylor had to warn The Gospel Coalition readers about Bell’s heretical volume
• Joshua Harris: so convinced was Harris about burning Bell in a bonfire, he tweeted: “There's nothing loving about preaching a false gospel. This breaks my heart. Praying for Rob Bell” To be fair, Harris did say, when the book comes out, he’d love to look stupid if he’s wrong about Bell. In fact he wants to look stupid!
• Denny Burk: Dr. Burk wears a white hat.  He’s one of the “good-guys,” a Southern Baptist who serves as Dean at Boyce College.  In his piece entitled, “Rob Bell Outs Himself,” he’s confident that Bell is finally, in Burk’s words, “declaring himself plainly”
• Kevin DeYoung: DeYoung is second in command among the blog squad at The Gospel Coalition, reporting directly to Justin Taylor. In his piece entitled, “To Hell with Hell” (a risqué title to be sure), DeYoung reminds us all how much spiritual nourishment we glean from God’s wrath. Even so, we should be glad for Bell’s clarity about heresy. In DeYoung’s better-said words, “thankful for the clarity, but saddened by the content”
• Trevin Wax: hardly a newcomer to The Gospel Coalition community, Wax, a Southern Baptist, now represents all Southern Baptists since he works in a fairly high position at Lifeway. Wax offers a personal twist to the mix, being a former fan of Rob Bell.  Now he’s among the humble souls gathering wood for Bell’s big bonfire

Candidly, I think more will join the crew gathering wood.  And, you know, I might too when I have enough to compel me to place the straw around Bell’s ankles and strike the match.  The thing is, this entire heresy-hunting entourage proceeds on a hunch…at best a guess... a guess about what Bell is going to say. 

• Note carefully Wax’s words: "Based on Rob’s tendency to ask edgy questions and then pull back, I expect that somewhere in the book, Rob will affirm that people who don’t want to be part of God’s kingdom won’t be forced to. In the end, Rob will land somewhere between optimistic inclusivism (most everyone will be saved) and universalism (all will be saved) (embolden mine here and below)
• Burk: “I thought it would be worthwhile to take a crack at answering each of his questions [from the promotional video]”
• Harris: “But I will read the book and if it contradicts the publisher's description and the content of the video I will rejoice and I will apologize to Rob for jumping to conclusions. (At which point I hope Rob will forgive me and also thank me for helping to make his book a best-seller.)”
• DeYoung: “I am eager to read the book, not to pick a fight (though sometimes we need to fight, and this is one of those times), but because a book like this from a prominent pastor like this needs a response, many responses. We should be thankful for the clarity, but saddened by the content”
• Taylor: “I’m glad that Rob Bell has the integrity to be lay his cards on the table about  universalism”

Does any of the above strike the reader as well…strange?

Of the five guys, not a single one quoted Rob Bell’s book, Rob Bell’s words.  Instead the entire case for Rob Bell’s heresy—at this juncture anyways--lies with the promotional video on the one hand and the promotional verbiage written by marketers on the other. Burk claims he read the preface and two chapters but fails to quote a single line (Taylor seems to suggest he has the entire book).  Perhaps copy write laws prohibited quoting the book (though I’m unsure how, if the copies are legitimately obtained). And, that brings up whether or not Burk or Taylor was supposed to have the chapters either of them read.  Were these sent to either Taylor or Burk without permission of HarperOne? If they had permission to possess the book, surely they would have permission to quote the book, it seems to me (but I may be mistaken).

Here is the fundamental problem I see in this:  Rob Bell is accused of embracing heresy based exclusively on premature hunches, promotional videos, and marketing strategies.  And he's accused by guys who have not read his book.  I honestly cannot accept the knee-jerk reactions founded upon such flimsy literary junk. Others are already taking it as gospel truth that Rob Bell is a heretic, this one based exclusively on Denny Burk's intellectual sparring with a video commercial written primarily to sell books.

And know this:  to make these blatant accusations of heresy all the while promising to apologize and ask forgiveness if they are wrong smacks of undeniable spiritual folly in my view.

Who under the blue heavens do these guys think they are?  Josh Harris making the asinine remark that he hopes Bell will thank him for help making his book a best-seller!?  Come on! Is he so entirely stuck on himself that he knows tens of thousands of people will be influenced to purchase Bell’s book upon his testimony alone? I mean, get real.  Where have grace, humility, and let's-wait-to-see-to-make-sure-before-we-charge-somebody-with-heresy attitudes gone?

Look: to label a person a heretic after carefully considering his or her work is one thing.  However, to build a bonfire to burn the heretic while glibly saying “if we’re wrong, we’ll apologize” has got to be the dumbest, coldest, most life-less, and unlike Jesus reactionary position I think I’ve ever run across.

I don’t care for Rob Bell. You need to know that.

But I have to say…

I think I care less for his accusers.

With that, I am…

Peter

Comments

[Barry D. Bishop]

I've considered Bell to be anything but orthodox for several years now. My first tip off was his Nooma video, "Bullhorn," in which he opposed evangelism and warning people about Hell. Another clue was that he stated in an interview that there was no way he could articulate the Gospel concisely (like in 140 characters). I suspected the reason was because he did not know the Gospel or had a false one. Watching the video blurb for his new book shows that he uses the word "Good news" but it definitely means something other than what the Bible states b/c he scoffs at the idea that Jesus had to rescue us from God [His wrath, that is]. Also, his questions in the video have him pit his "god" against how God reveals himself in the Bible and "jesus" against what Jesus said about Hell (think sermon on the Mt.)
Peter, you're entitled to dislike all of hipster Christianity--I can definitely understand that. However, there is a quite a difference in doctrine between Driscoll and Bell. I suspect that Rob Bell isn't really going to say anything new in his latest book that he hasn't been saying for years. The promo video just seems to be a tipping point for other young pastors to cry "heretic." Just my $0.02.

[Bill Pfister]

Brother,

I understand the point you are making that these guys are warning the church based on a promotional piece, not the entire book. But in all fairness, the promotional piece is all that has been released and from what it says by itself there is reason for these guys to talk about it.

I know I have many blind spots in my life and so I hope I say this with grace, but your blogs have as much to do with your dislike of reformed theology and reformed theologians as anything else.

Bill Pfister

[R.L. Adler]

I'm not a fan of Bell myself but I think I'm getting the book just because they've railed against it so much.

Bell (or his publishers), played these YRRs like a fiddle.

[peter lumpkins]

Barry,

Thanks. I have not followed Bell. I know of him and, like I said, have read a few things. That's all. Still, the "tipping point" as you call it the "young pastors" employed is absurd. No one should be judged a heretic on the basis of a book yet to be, a book none of the accusers have yet read...

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Bill,

No, unfortunately, you don't understand the point I am making, I have to say.  Instead you think I'm making a point of my dislike of Reformed theology.  I could just as easily say, these guys are slamming Bell because he's not "reformed"--they love his "hipsterness" but hate his non-Reformed theology. Hence, they make him out to be a heretic.

The key phrase in your defense of these guys is, "there is reason for these guys to talk about it". Precisely! Talking is exactly what marketers desired from the video promo they assembled. But talking about a person's belief on the one hand and judging a person as a condemnable heretic on the other are two entirely different reactions, do you not agree? The former acceptable and the latter non-acceptable in my view.

Finally, while you may think I have a "dislike" for "reformed theology and reformed theologians" you are again mistaken.  Instead I have a profound respect for both.  But I am free church and belong to a Baptist convention not a presbyterian fellowship.  There is no room in a Baptist convention for Reformed theology, Bill.  There *is* room for and always has been for Calvinistic believers and theologians, however.

If you would remember just one simple presupposition underlying my thinking, most of my blogs about "Calvinism" would make a lot more sense: the theological bone I pick is always directed toward Founders-type Calvinists and/or neo-Calvinists who are rigidly 5P people and believe the gospel and the doctrines of grace are somehow intertwined together. These guys believe we've lost the gospel and must regain it by re-Calvinizing the SBC.

Now not everyone agrees with me obviously.  That's cool.  But I do have plenty of evidence to argue my point, I assure. 

On the other hand, what does cause me to look cock-eyed a bit is when believers like yourself will not give me the benefit of doubt but rather assume I dislike all Reformed and Reformed theologians, a gross misstatement if ever there was one.  Only on the last thread here, two accomplished Reformed scholars--Drs Owen and Stewart--came on the thread and commented. If I had a "dislike" for all "reformed theology and reformed theologians" as you put it, I had a perfect opportunity to express my dislike, did I not? Instead what happened?  I had to ban from the thread a Southern Baptist Calvinist!  The Calvinist was the one insulting Reformed theologians!     

What’s more, to the left of me sitting within arm's reach on the shelves are dozens of theologies most of which are Reformed (or at least strongly Calvinistic) and are standards in the field.  These volumes have been my intellectual friends through the years not my enemies.

Thus, your assessment of my “dislike” for Reformed theology and theologians hardly has teeth, Bill. Sorry.

Hope that little bit of personal info helped so you will not make the same mistake again.

With that, I am…

Peter

[Smuschany]

Bro Peter,

You said, "There is no room in a Baptist convention for Reformed theology".

Does this mean you reject men like Boyce, Backus, Spurgeon, Carey, Fuller, ect? Are these men not fit to be in your Baptist convention?

As for Bell, maybe it would have been better if you actually found out more about him before you jumped to his defense. You say you "dont know much" about him and have only "read a little" of his writings. Well if you had done your homework, maybe watched some of those NOOMA videos, you would know that he has been skirting the theological heresy line for years now. I remember watching some of his NOOMA videos 5 years ago in a SBC SS class. I knew THEN that something about this guy was not right.

Furthermore, to compare Bell with Driscoll only goes to prove you dont know anything about either man. All you see is the "young hip movement" and you dont see the substance of either man. Yes, Driscoll has made some mistakes in his ministry (which he has repented of and been willing to take rebuke/advice on), but Bell has done nothing of the sort.

You want to hate on the "young hip movement" fine, its your right. You want to hate on Reformed theology, fine its your right. But it is surprising to note, that it is the REFORMED community speaking out against Bell, and at least here on this blog, the "anti-reformed" are the ones jumping to defend Bell. I just wonder when the book DOES come out, when these men are vindicated regarding their condemnation of Bell's decent into heresy, will you apologize to these men, especially after you "imply" that some of them may have immorally obtained some of the book early.

[Jason]

Burk's name isn't spelled correctly.

[rebecca]

Burke claims he read the preface and two chapters but fails to quote a single line (Taylor seems to suggest he has the entire book). Perhaps copy write laws prohibited quoting the book (though I’m unsure how, if the copies are legitimately obtained).

Publishers do send pre-publishing review copies (usually PDFs) of books to people they hope will review a book. They usually ask that those copies not be quoted in any reviews published because they haven't had a final edit and might contain typos or missstatements. So these people might have legitimate copies of Bell's book and yet not be allowed to actually quote it.

[Chris Roberts]

Peter,

You never cease to astonish me. Bell revealed his wolf affiliation long ago and his universalism has been implicit for some time. His own video settles the issue of where he stands. That you have missed this, and instead turn your sights on those who are willing to speak against Bell, is astonishing and speaks volumes.

[Grev]

Peter:

The views of Bell have long been known by anyone careful enough to take the time and read and/or listen to what he has been saying.

He might as well come out and expound at length about his embrace of universalism in some form because it has been there in his theology for some time.

For him to publish a full length treatment and affirm some form of universalism would only be consistent with what he believes.

I believe he is wrong and it is simply not cool today in this Church society that appaluds the triumph of the "Autonomous Self" to say that anyone is wrong. But he is wrong. He is not the first and will not be the last who will try to relax the Word of God and make it more palatable. And for those efforts -- those who hate God despise us even more.

[Barry King]

Smuschany,

I'm not at all sure that I agree with Peter on the subject of this post. However, in the interest of brotherly love (you did call him Bro. in a spiritual rather than cultural sense?), please consider the following.

If you are going to quote Peter when he says, "There is no room in a Baptist convention for Reformed theology", wouldn't it be right to take note of his very next sentence? "There *is* room for and always has been for Calvinistic believers and theologians, however."

Doing so would make your questions - "Does this mean you reject men like Boyce, Backus, Spurgeon, Carey, Fuller, ect? Are these men not fit to be in your Baptist convention?" - unnecessary.

Please give it some thought.

A Calvinistic believer,
Barry King

[peter]

Smuschany

You write: "You say you "dont know much" about him and have only "read a little" of his writings. Well if you had done your homework, maybe watched some of those NOOMA videos..." Nothing else about Rob Bell is relevant to the point of this post. Nothing. Rob Bell could be a drag-queen for all I know.

But what *is* entirely relevant is, these guys did not base their conclusions on a systematic reading of Rob Bell, nor even the book Rob Bell wrote. Rather, they based their charge on a video promo and jacket blurb, hardly enough to justify yelling, "Burn, heretic, Burn!"

This is pure over-reaction. Read the book. Digest the book. THEN make a fair judgment, including "heresy" if "heresy" is warranted.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Jason,

Got it. Thanks.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Grev,

Unfortunately, Bell's critics on this round did not offer a historical analysis of Rob Bell. They pronounced him a heretic based entirely upon marketing junk, hardly a sober analysis were I asked.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Smuschany]

I apologize. I misread Bro Peter's statement thus some of my previous post is indeed unnecessary.

[R.L. Adler]

I'm convinced Bell only has the right side of his brain, as evidenced by his NOOMA series. but I challenge anyone to visit his church's website to show me any heresy in their statement of faith.

I'll admit I can't stand Bell's delivery and I am a little intrigued by his interpretation of some things, but overall I can't track with his model. Maybe I enjoy Bell only because he gets the fundamentalists riled up.

The question at hand; Will John Piper repent for jumping the gun on Bell? loads of Piper's followers have been convicted to retract their hasty opinions.

If Piper doesn't apologise, I think he should go on another Sabbatical, to address his pride at least one more time.

[peter]

Smuschany,

By the way, you write, when the book "DOES come out, when these men are vindicated regarding their condemnation of Bell's decent into heresy, will you apologize to these men, especially after you "imply" that some of them may have immorally obtained some of the book early."

Why? They are no more vindicated in their slouchy, non-scholarly "reviews" in which they filled the blanks in on Bell's theology by guessing what Bell was going to conclude rather than offering careful theological analysis than Jeane Dixon should be respected for predicting the future.

I want and will have no part in half-baked heresy-mongering from any sector of the Christian church including my own SBC. Heresy is huge in my view and should be charged only under the most restricted conditions.

So, no. I won't apologize for expressing a sound principle of theological discernment even if all of them get every single point correct.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Smuschany,

Thanks. Not a problem. I appreciate the way you and Barry handled it.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Chris,

I'm glad I remain amazing to you. It keeps things interesting ;^) As for the concerns you raised, I think I've probably already addressed them in the other comments.

With that, I am...
Peter

[kim]

I've read enough of Rob Bell's books, seen his Nooma video's, read interviews, etc., to see where his beliefs lie. I've been uncomfortable with him, an understatement, for quite a few years now.

Teaching yoga from his pulpit, the seeds conference he attendend with new age folks, and recommending everyone read Ken Wilbur, is just a few things that should have sent up red flags years ago. He questions every doctrine of Christianity, while still being vague enough that some still aren't quite sure if he believes or doesn't! I've always found that deceptive and cruel to those who follow his teachings.

I'm frankly not surprised at anything he writes or says anymore. I'm just sad for those who do after all this time! Good article, Peter

[Geoff]

The other option is, you can think Rob Bell is a heretic based on the information already available, such as velvet elvis. However, I do think it only helps him when people freak out prematurely. People are attracted to the forbidden.

Also, I agree with Peter that there is not much difference between Bell and Driscol. A lot of calvinists overlook driscol's worldliness and carnality because of his calvinism, but as mentioned in another thread, there's no biblical basis for saying that holiness is less important than adherence to TULIP.

[Luke]

Peter,

Just wondering, are you familiar with Rob Bell's writings? I understand the "hipster" similarities between Rob Bell and Driscoll, but from my reading of both, I find them worlds apart in doctrine.

Honestly, when you watch Rob Bell's video, what conclusion do your draw about his belief's on Hell and God's Judgment?

For those who haven't seen the video, you can view a clip here - http://vimeo.com/20272585.

[Brady Stamps]

Peter,

I am a new reader but I was impressed with your post. I will readily admit that I am a fan of Rob Bell - I have read all of his books,I regularly download his podcast, I own all of his tour films, I own and have lead or taught from all 24 Nooma Videos to groups of the churched and unchurched alike. As a matter of disclosure, I was raised in a Southern Baptist Church - while I will not say that I ever became a non-believer - I will say that I basically walked away from Church after taking World History in my first year of college. If it were not for people like Rob Bell, I would not be actively involved in Church today. Please understand there is a whole generation of people that were told that you were not supposed to question the Church, the Bible, or anything that involved religion or you would go to hell - for me this thinking is not only unacceptable it is repulsive! From an early age I have had many spiritual and religious questions that have gone unanswered. I understand that many people are not comfortable with Rob Bell but I find it disturbing that so many men of god are so quick to dismiss a fellow believer that is working for the kingdom because they do not agree with the questions that he asked. Time after time, I am surprised at people who seem to mistake Rob's questions for his statement of faith. I have found that Rob's teachings are very approachable and are very well suited for people who want to know God but that have either been turned off by the Dogma of their past experiences or those who feel that their questions have never been treated with love and kindness. I now have friends that are learning to love and follow Jesus because of Rob Bell and others like him that not long ago were completely non-believers. I can honestly say that several of these people would have never given many of Rob's critics a chance to teach them about God. Do Rob's critics think Rob is going to stop God from reaching people that are seeking God out? Rob's basic message is LOVE... do his critics think that the Devil is now using the Love of God against God? Do you hear how silly this sounds. Think about how all of this must sound to the seeker of God when "one christian" attacks "another christian".... it at least makes me ponder Mathew 18 - how is posting a tweet that says farewell Rob Bell in the spirit of Mathew 18? Where is the love? Where is the privacy? I find it ironic that terms like burning and bonfire are now being used concerning Rob's discussion about Love Wins since one of his early Nooma films discussed the three types of love from the Hebrew Language while set in front of a large bonfire. I also find it interesting that so many men of God can become so upset by Rob saying that Love Wins... wasn't it said that God is Love.... are Christians really against the concept of God (Love) Winning?

Grace & Peace,

Brady

[peter]

Kim,

Thanks. As I showed in the follow-up post to this one (Remix), The Gospel Coalition crew is hardly consistent in their pursuit of precisely who *is* a heretic based on the afterlife.

Always a pleasure, Kim...

Geoff,

You are correct. Bell *is not* off the theological hook even if his critics are unjustly crusading against him based on crass reasons like video marketing, and failing to answer rhetorical questions he posed. Bell has plenty other "stuff" for which to be accountable...

Luke,

The answer is no, I haven't read a lot of his stuff nor listened to his many sermons available. I did watch the video and, from a perspective like mine, it left a lot to be desired. On the other hand, from a contextual perspective like, for example, Brady's (see comment above), Bell could have pulled such a person in by verbalizing the questions he or she is asking, questions they would have little freedom to pose to someone like me.

That's a marketing answer I realize. But that is precisely what the video is--marketing! And, you can bet your britches they had a target group in mind when they strung the series of rhetorical questions together. And--this is key--you can also bet the church was not in the target-mix. That's the rub: we look at it from what we already know.

My singular point is: it's just dumb to engage a commercial as a substitute for actual content.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Brady,

I do appreciate your logging on. I also appreciate your spirit. As you read, unlike you, I am not a fan of Rob Bell nor of any sub-cultural, niche-oriented Christianity. I'm am less of a fan, however, of over-jealous, heresy-hunters. Know also Bell's critics have not been similarly mindful toward Anglican, John Stott, whose views on hell are apparently closer to Rob Bell's alleged views on afterlife than to The Gospel Coalition.

Even so, I'm so glad you found your way to the Lord Jesus, as the Lord was already hot on your trail seeking you!

Grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Luke Tolbert]

Peter,

Please help me to understand, because I am confused about the point of this article. What is your main accusation against Justin Taylor, etc.? Is it "it's just dumb to engage a commercial as a substitute for actual content?"

If that is your problem with them, then how do you stand behind pieces like this, "Here Come Those Boozin Young Cool and Hip Baptists," where you at worst accused and at best planted the idea that SEBTS is struggling with a drinking "crisis" because of some blog posts that they published (or republished) about the dangers of drinking?

http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2010/10/here-come-those-boozin-young-cool-and-hip-baptists-a-problem-for-southeastern-baptist-theological-se.html

What are the differences between what these authors did and what you have done in the past?

[peter]

Luke,

No. That was my singular in the comment. It was *not* the singular in the OP.

As for your citing the link. You're going to have be be much more specific on precisely how you see no difference in the former post and my contention with TGC.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Luke Tolbert]

Your quote was:

"Rob Bell is accused of embracing heresy based exclusively on premature hunches, promotional videos, and marketing strategies. And he's accused by guys who have not read his book. I honestly cannot accept the knee-jerk reactions founded upon such flimsy literary junk."

To be honest, I struggle with how your point of contention with them is that they wrote articles about the dangers and problems with this book by a man who has consistently pushed the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy. True, they have not read the book because it has not been published. However, my link between their actions and some of your articles including the one that I linked to above are that at their core, they are similar in that they are based on conjecture and personal observations.

In both cases, you and TGC folks appear to have looked at what has occurred in the past, taken a recent event (Rob Bell's video and Akin's blog postings), and then made conclusions based on assumptions. In their case, they assume that this book is is going to promote universalism, or at best, annihilationism. In your case, you made the assumption that there was something going on at SEBTS relating to the possibility of "a crisis where students are, shall we say, a bit more corinthianistic than they would like?"

Perhaps I am overstretching and grasping at straws, and if so, then I welcome your response.

[peter]

Luke,

With due respect, you may interpret the similarities as you wish. But I cannot agree with your conclusion. TGC most certainly *did not* reference *other info* in their assessment. Nothing. Rather they employed marketing materials to criticize a book you yourself concede none of them ever read. I did no such thing in the post you reference, and I challenge any reader to go back and read the long thread if they have any doubts.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Luke Tolbert]

Just to point to one of the blogs that you referenced above, Trevin Wax, did reference "other info:"

"I downloaded dozens of Rob’s sermons from his early years at Mars Hill."

"...read Velvet Elvis as charitably as I could"

"The last time I listened to a Rob Bell sermon was in 2006. Rob had come under criticism because some were saying he denied that Jesus is the only way to God. Answering the criticism, Rob told his congregation: Let me set the record straight. Jesus is our only way. After that, I tuned out. “Jesus is our only way?” That was Rob’s way of having his cake and eating it too. He sidestepped the question in a way designed to deflect criticism, but leave the door open for pluralism."

He also references a book that recounts a conversation about this exact issue with a founding member and leader in Rob Bell's church who affirmed that Rob Bell believes in universalism.

While I can understand your concern with some of the tweets and blog entries, I find it hard to lump all of them together as people who "exclusively on premature hunches, promotional videos, and marketing strategies."

[peter]

Luke,

As I recall you were the chief critic when I posted the piece on SEBTS (and, I don't blame you since you are [or were] a student there). And as I further recall, you attempted to overturn the post then, unsuccessfully in my view.

Now you're attempting to suggest what I allegedly did then is precisely the thing with which I'm attempting to nail TGC now.

Well, attempt away. To imagine calling one a heretic based on a book cover not author content --before one even reads a book no less--and my piece where I offered evidence already present (not evidence that would be or guessed at) is, in my view absurd.

Now about Wax--his view was the lessor explicit of the five and he even suggested we need to wait until the book is "out" before we conclude Bell is a universalist. How this qualification is supposed to negate the larger point escapes me.

Now, unless you have something substantial to add, I trust this is sufficient.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Luke]

Once, again we must agree to disagree (strongly, in my view), but you can't blame me for trying ;)

[D.R. Randle]

Peter,

Try as you might, Luke has you dead to rights on your hypocrisy here. My immediate reaction to this post (as well as a couple of my friends who read your blog) was this is pure and simple "the pot calling the kettle black". You consistently jump to conclusions based on assumptions in your writings. Just a few weeks ago at SBC Voices you more than implied that Alvin Reid's take on NAMB was self-promoting. And certainly your suggestions about a "drinking problem" at SEBTS (of which you had no evidence other than the fact that alcohol had been addressed there) is clearly jumping to conclusions. At least these guys were speaking from their interaction with Rob Bell's theological trajectory (something you even claimed ignorance about).

So you can say dismiss Luke's criticism all you want, but it doesn't make it any less true - or your post any less hypocritical.

[peter lumpkins]

D.R.

Unless you have something substantial to offer, I suggest you hold off logging on. Some of you guys have no interest in actually dealing with content. Instead your entire repertoire seems to center on giving me a piece of your mind, a sorta emotional spewing session. Perhaps you had a bad day, D.R. I'm very sorry. I had a good one...

And, so far as whether Luke "caught" me, I'm perfectly willing to allow the readers to judge his confusing analogy. Nor did you make any more sense of it than did he. And I surely like your "more than implied" about A. Reid, as if that supposed to mean something. Why not quote my exact words here and then make the connection you suggest stick, D.R.?

Now, unless you've got a real point to make, I'll take it you'll, as frequently you do, "get back later when you have time" (but rarely come back ;^)

Nighty-Night.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

WARNING: the comment is necessarily long:

All,

I do not expect D.R. to take my challenge and be back anytime soon with the words he suggests makes me out to be the “pot calling the kettle black.” In short, the “hypocrite.”  Therefore, I thought I’d help him out a bit to show you what he means by “hypocrite.”

Therefore, below is the entire exchange about which D.R. claims “Just a few weeks ago at SBC Voices you more than implied that Alvin Reid's take on NAMB was self-promoting.”

peter February 12, 2011 at 9:22 am

Just an FYI.  Dr. Reid is a respectable professor at SE.  His many years in evangelism speaks for itself.  Yet, make no mistake:  Dr. Reid’s ecstasy on Aaron Coe being named VP at NAMB surely has at least some aspiration in seeing certain connections take place.

With that, I am…

Peter

Dave Miller February 12, 2011 at 10:36 am

If there is something ominous about the connections revealed in your link, I’m not seeing what it is. “SendNY” seems to be a partnership of Baptist churches to plant churches in the NY area.

Looks like a good thing to me. If that is the heart of the man, then Dr. Ezell chose well.

peter February 12, 2011 at 12:20 pm

Look, Dave. I neither stated nor implied anything whatsoever as being “ominous” as you put it. What I did imply is simple: Reid has every reason to be both pleased and encouraged that an organization is tapped under which he sits as a board member. Wouldn’t you? I would. Given that, if you do not see the interesting connections, well, then, know that’s fine with me, brother.

I trust your Saturday afternoon well.

With that, I am…

Peter

 

D.R. Randle February 12, 2011 at 12:38 pm

Peter,

Don’t you think it’s time you renamed your blog “SBC Conspiracy Theory”, or maybe “SBC Subtle Insinuation”? You seem to have a knack for always wanted to connect the dots, whether there’s a reason for it or not.

That’s the entire conversation which D.R judges makes me a hypocrite because I now have the nerve to suggest The Gospel Coalition bloggers offered knee-jerk nonsense for labeling someone a heretic based on a book none of them read.

By the way, to also give you an idea everyone did not take the comment as both Dave Miller and D.R. Randle did—thoroughly negative and insulting toward Dr. Reid—note Howell Scott’s follow-up comment after D.R. Randle’s, a comment Randle failed to acknowledge there (Howell, by the way, is a convictional Calvinist if I’m not mistaken): 

“…I believe that Peter was not trying to say that Reid’s piece was “ominous,” but rather was pointing out that Dr. Reid has relationships with those involved in the new NAMB leadership. Most people probably already know that, but Peter’s link was information that people could take or leave as they were themselves reading and digesting (which I assume you wanted folks to do)... “

So far as I know, the matter about my comment dropped off the radar after Scott’s contribution.

Here’s the deal:  guys like D.R. Randle and women like, for example, Debbie Kaufman rarely show up on blogs to deal with the raised issue itself. Instead they unload every round in their arsenal to demonstrate the author of a piece is either inconsistent or hypocritical or the proverbial “pot calling the kettle black.” For them, victory is gained if and only if the author is thoroughly shown to have no credibility. Think of cheap trial lawyers who think the case can be won if the star witness against the defendant’s character is shown to be shady. That’s kinda how Randle and Kaufman operate (Randle has hardly hit the tipping point for me and hopefully never will. Kaufman is no longer welcome here, however, since her last bout of hurling insults at respectable Reformed scholars who logged on to the thread).

To expose the complete irrelevancy of their point--and in this case, Randle’s point about the SBC Voices’ quote about which he “nailed” me--is simple:  even if—EVEN IF—Randle could show I was being hypocritical…I indeed was the pot calling the TGC bloggers black, what does such a revelation contribute to whether the TGC bloggers were doing a disservice by “reviewing” a book they had not even read?  Granting for argument’s sake, Randle proves my hypocrisy, does my hypocrisy somehow imply an answer from D.R. Randle whether the TGC bloggers were acting soberly, justly, and Christianly by dubbing a brother a heretic based upon a book none of them have read?  It does not. In fact, whether I possess hypocrisy or not is completely beside the point as to whether TCG bloggers acted properly or improperly. 

Hence, I’m sorry to point out but feel I must since he does so frequently, Randle did not show up to address the TCG issue and his take on whether or not their dubbing a guy a heretic based on video marketing strategies matters; rather Randle logged on to address me personally…to deal with me personally.  I’ve experienced the same strategy countless times throughout the years as a pastor. Inevitably, when dealing with particular issues or sin amongst the church, someone, somewhere is going to shout you down by quoting his or her favorite verse in all the Bible, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” While admittedly guys like Randle sound much more sophisticated, their basic premise is the same:  you have no right being a sinner like you are (in this case, Randle suggesting I do the very same as I suggest the TGC is doing) to question another’s actions.

I hope this assists a reader not to be intimidated with people like D.R. Randle and Debbie Kaufman who go after you personally rather than deal with issues raised (FYI, Kaufman was not banned from this blog for attacking me but for insulting accomplished Reformed professors in credible institutions who attempted to contribute to the comment thread. Is there any wonder more educators do not comment on blog when more times than not, they will be ambushed by someone who loves to pull out the “hypocrite” trump card?)

Grace today.

With that, I am…

Peter

P.S.  There you go, D.R.  Make your case.  The words I actually wrote which you claim demonstrate my hypocrisy are easy for all to see and follow…

[D.R. Randle]

Peter,

I really don't think anyone believes that you are the victim here, which seems to be what you are suggesting by saying that someone should not be "intimidated" by me and by suggesting that I dealt with you "personally" by attempting to "shout down" your post. All of that couldn't be farther from reality and only exists in your own mind.

My comments were meant to point out that while you attacked the TCG commentators for jumping to conclusions based on not knowing all the facts, you have done the very same thing elsewhere (and in much worse fashion). First and foremost you did this with your posts on the "alcohol problem" at SEBTS (sonething you failed to even address in your comments above). There you pointed out a couple of articles that were published against alcohol and then proceed to wonder out loud...

Could it be...

Could it possibly be...

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary is facing a crisis...perhaps a crisis where students are, shall we say, a bit more corinthianistic than they would like?...

Is this possible? After all, when one of the faculty members rhetorically asks, over the cyberways, "Is alcohol a good thing? Sure! If it is taken in moderation," would it be surprising if a crisis were brewing amongst the student-body? Not from my side of the creek.

Could it be, similar to Shurden's, catchy phrase above, Southeastern is sounding the alarm: "Here come those boozin' Baptists!"?

You had no real evidence for jumping to this conclusion and making it public (though you did try to weasel out of your hypothesis by adding, "I don't know" - as if that allows you to spread whatever gossip you like with no consequence). I have to ask, would you, when you were a pastor, ever have sat in a deacon's or staff meeting and asked, "what is going on with the (fill in the blank) family? I heard the mother teaching her oldest daughter about abstinence on two separate occasions in the last 2 months. Perhaps she has a lust problem?"

Of course you wouldn't say that...it's gossip - backed up with little to no facts. That's what you essentially did in that post. Then, you have the audacity to excoriate the TGC people for suggesting that Rob Bell is a universalist on the basis of published exerpts that they did read (something you conveniently left out) and a promotional video which clearly led the audience to believe Bell's views were leaning toward universalism, along with a plethora of study of Bell's previous work (which you admitted you had no knowledge of anyway). And don't forget that even you pointed out that they offered a hedge by saying they hoped they were wrong and would admit such if they were.

In your gossip column on SEBTS, you offered no such disclaimer, but only doubled-down your speculation by adding,

I do know this.

When one makes the consumption of intoxicants for pleasurable purposes, a consumption of which is widely accepted within our culture, into a mere unimportant, insignificant third-tier, non-gospel-centered, libertarian, amoral issue, what under the blue sky do you think is going to happen?

And now, months later, you have not offered one stitch of evidence to back up your imagined scenario about SEBTS, nor have you offered a retraction, humbly admitting you were wrong. At least the TGC guys noted they would indeed offer such a retraction (and I believe they will).

Now, as for the Alvin Reid comments, they serve merely as a support for your continued "jump to conclusions ... implant gossip" approach that you used with the SEBTS post and that you seem to deride in the TGC folks posts. And Howell Scott didn't completely exonerate your statements on Reid, he simply noted that they were "ominous". He still suggested that your comments were meant to imply a potential conflict of interest, thus poisoning the well of Reid's positive take on NAMB. There you had no admitted knowledge of how Reid's association with SendNY played into his comments on NAMB strategy - yet you implied it played into his views. That might be subtle, but it's a cheap shot based on a lack of evidence nonetheless.

As for actually weighing in on this post - I disagree with you. The TGC folks had good support for questioning the book - much greater support than you had for your comment on Reid and your SEBTS post. I personally agree with above commentators who think this was simply another veiled attack on the Reformed blogosphere.

But keep it up Peter - you only make yourself more and more devisive and more and more irrelevant. And such devisiveness is certainly not going to help your fledgling publishing company, nor your personal book sales. This isn't Hollywood where even negative publicity is good publicity.

[peter]

D.R.,

I made my case above. You've made yours. I am happy as a bee in honey to allow the readers to decide whether or not your points are well taken or whether there's more of the same (your first line was directed at me not about what I wrote. What a hoot!).

You may now commence to insult.

With that, I am...
Peter

[D.R. Randle]

Peter,

You've never been one to back down from a challenge to defend yourself to the "nth degree". Your lack of response to me says volumes. I do look forward to more folks weighing in on this one.

[peter]

Dee.ARE.

Leet all hoo cars two way inn.

Yeesirree. Yu shore gotz me whur yous wantz me allrite. I thanks aisle jest knot sleap at al toonite.

With thut, I is...
Peater

FYI, to suggest I'm somehow "backing down" has got to be one of the funnier lines I've heard in a long, long time, D.R. Thank you. But, again I remind you, you appear to struggle making a simple, singular comment apart from personal insults. "Backing down" says something about me personally not about any words I've written...

[Howell Scott]

And Howell Scott didn't completely exonerate your statements on Reid, he simply noted that they were "ominous". He still suggested that your comments were meant to imply a potential conflict of interest, thus poisoning the well of Reid's positive take on NAMB.

Peter and D.R.,

Since my name has been brought into this converstation, I thought I might comment. Peter, you have accurately quoted the comment stream from the Voices post about Dr. Reid. And, you are correct that I am Calvinistic in my theology, but I am such an inconsistent Calvinist that I have lost my union card long ago :-) I suppose that I fashion myself a convictional, cooperating Southern Baptist first and foremost, which is why I can be in friendly cooperation with Peter and others who identify primarily as convictional, cooperating Southern Baptists. But, I digress.

As to the comment from D.R. that I quoted above, I'm afraid that D.R. has either left out a word or has misinterpreted what I said. It was not I who said Peter's link to SendNY was "ominous," but rather Dave Miller. My only comment regarding such was that I did NOT see it as ominous, but rather information that one could use to draw their own conclusions as to why Dr. Reid was so positive about Aaron Coe being named as a new V.P. at NAMB.

Let me be clear about what my comment meant to suggest so that D.R. and others will not take it upon themselves to guess. I would not expect Dr. Reid to have anything but positive praise for the radical changes taking place at NAMB, including the new personnel. He is a professor at SEBTS, the place where the GCR got its start. He has a personl relationship with Aaron Coe through SendNY and perhaps other ways. There is no "poisoning of the well," but rather just information that folks can take or leave in how they analyze Dr. Reid's piece. I believe (and wrote) that I thought Dr. Reid's piece was well written. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with his analysis or somehow drop all my criticism of the GCR.

As to bringing up Peter's post regarding an "alcohol problem at SEBTS," I will refrain from comment now. However, with the lineup at this year's SBC Pastor's Conference, I think Peter may be a lot closer to the mark than some might see. If you don't know what I mean, then I may just ask Peter to post a comment that I have asked him to hold from that earier post. We shall see. If anyone needs me to clear up any earlier clear statements, I'll be more than happy to. Thanks and God bless,

Howell

[peter lumpkins]

Howell,

Know I'm notorious for talking about people. I'm just going to have to be more careful;^)

Thanks, brother. I appreciate the clarity you brought to this one and hope your comment similarly lays this puppy down here as your comment originally did on SBC Voices.

Grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

P.S. Just say the word and I'll gladly post your piece, both here and on the other thread...

[D.R. Randle]

Howell,

I didn't misinterpret or misread you, but I did make a typo in leaving out the word "not" before "ominous". I apologize for the confusion. My point was that your comments did not seem to back up Peter's contention that he was not jumping to a conclusion based on incomplete data, as he accused the TGC folks of doing. And I still contend his piece on SEBTS and alcohol where he implies a problem there is no less premature (and likely more so) than the TCG guys' posts on Rob Bell. And interestingly, he elsewhere simply dismisses Paige Patterson's use of the term heretic for Rob Bell(thus giving him a free pass) again on an assumption that Patterson did it for other reasons than those of the TCG (though clearly not knowing what those where at the time of his comment). If he is going to be consistent, then he must excoriate Patterson with the same energy as he did the TCG guys and really much more so since Patterson IS a Southern Baptist.

[peter lumpkins]

 

D.R.,

Howell, is more than capable of interacting with your statement.  But since it involves me, I’m going to deal with it. Your words are bold.

I didn't misinterpret or misread you, but I did make a typo in leaving out the word "not" before "ominous". Well, typo or not, Howell’s correction was perfectly appropriate in calling our attention to it (and note Howell gave you the benefit of a doubt by suggesting “you either left out a word or..."). Even so, you still proceeded to misread Howell’s words. You originally wrote after the “typo”:

“He [Howell] still suggested that your comments were meant to imply a potential conflict of interest, thus poisoning the well of Reid's positive take on NAMB. There you had no admitted knowledge of how Reid's association with SendNY played into his comments on NAMB strategy - yet you implied it played into his views. That might be subtle, but it's a cheap shot based on a lack of evidence nonetheless” (embolden mine)

Yet follow carefully Howell’s desire to avoid any guesswork on your or another’s part, D.R. Howell wrote,

“Let me be clear about what my comment meant to suggest so that D.R. and others will not take it upon themselves to guess….There is no "poisoning of the well," but rather just information that folks can take or leave in how they analyze Dr. Reid's piece. I believe (and wrote) that I thought Dr. Reid's piece was well written. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with his analysis or somehow drop all my criticism of the GCR”

Now D.R.unless I need to go back and read carefully what Howell said again, he is flatly denying precisely what you suggested his words meant—“[Howell] still suggested that your comments were meant to imply a potential conflict of interest, thus poisoning the well of Reid's positive take on NAMB. Hence, if I am correct, “typo” or not you both misread and hence misinterpreted what Howell was suggesting. He denies your take on his words, D.R. Are you going to still blow that whistle nonetheless?

“I apologize for the confusion.” Confusion meaning the “typo,” or the fact that you insisted Howell meant to imply my comment about Reid was a potential conflict of interest, thus poisoning the well of Reid's positive take on NAMB when Howell specifically says he didn't?  If only about the “typo” perhaps Howell is due another apology, D.R., an apology for misreading and misinterpreting his words. What do you think?

And I still contend his piece on SEBTS and alcohol where he implies a problem there is no less premature (and likely more so) than the TCG guys' posts on Rob Bell. You may contend as you wish, D.R.  I raised a question--in fact, a series of questions in that post. I also gave evidence in the post, hard evidence you simply ignore for why I raised the question (contrary to making a bald accusation about drunkenness as a campus problem which is what you'd like people to think I did). So, you may contend as you wish.  Nor is it the same as yelling “heresy” toward a brother in Christ.  And anyone who actually thinks the two are the same, I honestly cannot help them.  I’ll leave them to state it publicly to see if masses are gullible enough to believe it.

And interestingly, he elsewhere simply dismisses Paige Patterson's use of the term heretic for Rob Bell (thus giving him a free pass) again on an assumption that Patterson did it for other reasons than those of the TCG (though clearly not knowing what those where at the time of his comment). D.R. please.  It’s taxing to engage you not because your assertions are so profound but because your assertions are so horribly skewed and spiced with small but sometimes significant factual errors.  It’s as if I have to unpack several different mistakes within each sentence.  First, what you call “dismissing” the “use” of the term “heretic” for “Rob Bell” I call being cautious, the very question I raised toward TGC for not doing. Ironically, I treated Dr. Patterson with the same principle I called on the TGC crew to employ toward someone else. Had I immediately dissed Dr. Patterson, then I would have done precisely what I cautioned the TGC crew to avoid.  Do you not see this? (BTW, your unchecked reluctance to be cautious about a single comment with alleged information on Patterson has come back to bite you--see below)

Second, you thoroughly skew my response as if I “dismissed” it altogether. I wrote:

“As for what Dr. Patterson said, I cannot say. What I'm fairly confident about is, whatever view Dr. Patterson holds concerning Bell, he did not come to his conclusion based upon a video or reading the jacket cover of a book.”

How the above is supposed to fit the emotionally-driven rhetoric toward my words to fit your fancy is incredible. I confessed I could not comment on the words of Dr. Patterson. Why? Because I have not read nor heard nor saw & heard Dr. Patterson’s position on Rob Bell.  Why is that supposed to somehow be viewed as negative, D.R? Are you telling me I should have said something about Dr. Patterson’s alleged words about Bell when I had no clue about them or whether he even spoke them or precisely the words he allegedly used?  I think you’re mistaking the TGC method of dealing with other’s positions with what I am suggesting here, D.R. That would be the knee-jerk-nonsense principle, the very principle against which I contend. Think about that please before you prematurely fire back a “rebuttal”

Third, it’s a good thing I did not say anything about Dr. Patterson’s allegedly employing the term “heretic” to Rob Bell.  I listened to Dr. Patterson’s chapel message. I suggest you do the same.  Unless I missed it—and I very well could have—Dr. Patterson said nothing about annihilationism nor Rob Bell nor that Rob Bell was a heretic. Now perhaps he said it in an announcement before/after chapel. Granted.  But how am I supposed to check something like that, D.R.? So, my “dismissing” (if I may use your term) Patterson’s usage of “heretic” toward Rob Bell apparently has turned ought for the good, ah? However,

Fourthly, now you are in the position of possibly speaking falsehoods about Dr. Patterson yourself, explicitly asserting Dr. Patterson used the term “heretic” toward “Rob Bell,” and such usage based solely—and prematurely I might add—on a single comment a guy named “Phil” left on this thread.  I think it’s becoming clear why you perhaps have few reservations about the way TGC handled the “outing” of Bell as they did—prematurely and relying on horribly insufficient information.

If he is going to be consistent, then he must excoriate Patterson with the same energy as he did the TCG guys and really much more so since Patterson IS a Southern Baptist.

Well, no. I will not, especially not on such flimsy evidence as a single blog comment without further evidence. On the other hand, you perhaps need to think about offering your sorrow for riding the Patterson-said-Bell-was-a-heretic-in-chapel-this-morning train much too quickly without checking the info yourself. And if you can’t produce the evidence for it, do not bring this issue back up again, D.R. Period.

With that, I am…

Peter

[Michelle]

I think I may be in the camp you've condemned here. I do see your point. I've not read the book, and yet I condemn him for what he wrote in the book.

However, the reason I condemn the Bell and his book (without ever reading it) is because I saw an interview and heard from his own mouth what he taught in the book!

Is it okay for me to call it heresy now? Just kidding, lol. I've commented only one time about Bell publicly (on facebook)and it was not complimentary...but it was based on his own verbal words.

But I do get your point, and I thank you for the reminder. I need to keep my mouth shut unless I have more evidence that "Joe Blow on facebook said...."

[peter lumpkins]

Michelle,

Know I try not to condemn anyone per se but attempt to make a distinction between them and their views. I don't always succeed by any stretch, I admit.

Anyways, thank you for seeing the point I attempted to make. From my point of view, Christians of all critics should be as caring & cautious as possible in their judgments of others' views. Evangelicals are notoriously viewed by the public at large as being knee-jerk, overly-defensive, and backward. And, given that strike already against them, why they would add to the established negative perception I haven't a clue.

By the way, your making judgments about Bell's words elsewhere seems perfectly valid. The difficulty the knee-jerk critics find themselves defending, however, is attempting to speak intelligently about a book they did not read. That is the core of my complaint.

Grace, Michelle.

With that, I am...
Peter