Funny Fridays: "Defending" Rob Bell by Peter Lumpkins

Seems my defending an elementary principle like "do unto others" or "love thy neighbor" or any number of other ways one could state a prima facie moral assertion about the hoopla surrounding Rob Bell's book, Love Wins, keeps catching the attention of some.  In fact, my posts on the Bell fiasco so far may be best expressed with something like this: one should not publicly present a personal review of a book when one has not read the book about which one presents a review. And, it seems to naturally follow from that: not to mention conclude someone is a heretic in the review of a book one did not read.

Truth be told, my granddaughter, who is but 3 years old, can actually understand the basis of this principle.  

On the other hand, your average band of Internet "Reformed Apologetics" websites which specialize in Calvinism on steroids, has this to say:

But the Bell kerfuffle was just a trap which Schultz cleverly set to ensnare the grand muftis of modern Arminianism: Ben Witherington, Peter Lumpkins, Scot McKnight, and Roger Olson. He knew they’d take the bait, rushing to the defense of Bell.

What is there to say?  Some people read to understand and write to clarify. Others--unfortunately, like so many Internet "Reformed Apologetics" bloggers like the one above--read but do not understand and write but only confuse.

Gives me a fairly good grin to end the week.

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[drwayman]

I thought you didn't accept the moniker "Arminian." Please correct me if I'm mistaken...

[peter lumpkins]

Dr. Wayman,

Thanks for stopping by. You are correct; I do not. Perhaps I seem to lean in an Arminian direction on some doctrines to be sure. Even so I do not self-confess Arminianism. And, I rarely complain that some call me Arminian (unless they've asked me for my preference and I've explained why). All said, I'm fairly content either way. I believe what I believe regardless of someone's label pinned on me.

What I find highly interesting is, while many strict Calvinists hold no reservation in labeling me Arminian when I personally reject the theological label (because I think it is inaccurate), the very same ones blow spitballs at me for labeling James White a Hyper-Calvinist when he personally rejects the theological label (because he thinks it is inaccurate). Go figure :^)

With that, I am...
Peter

[Chris Gilliam]

Why Peter, we all know how emergent you are;^). what is even more funny to me is that James White is now a Calvinist supporter of Bell! Oh, that point was gently overlooked by some but indeed he defended Bell too, according to their filter!!!!

Have a peachy weekend.
Chris

BTW- I do not endorse Bell, unless it is bell pepper on the smoked sausage.

[R.L. Adler]

oh snap, caught ya red-handed eh Peter?

they should have added 'Modern Arminian' Richard Mouw to that list too.... oh wait...

[Christiane]

"one should not publicly present a personal review of a book when one has not read the book about which one presents a review"

There is an element of fairness and decency that even a non-Christian would understand here. It has to do with withholding judgment until the whole picture comes into view.

But, Peter, is it possible that a lot of 'reviewers' jumped the gun because they don't want people to read Bell's book? I was blogging about this on Denny's blog and a commentator told me he had no intention of reading the book, based on his opinion of what others had told him. (groan)

He didn't 'get it'. That IS sad.

I taught reading for years and I know the value of reading information in context. And I also taught my students to be able to think for themselves and WHY it was important for them not lean on the opinion of others, or of the 'majority' or the 'popular kids'. They 'got it' in one. And I think the parents appreciated my efforts also.

[S Smith]

"one should not publicly present a personal review of a book when one has not read the book about which one presents a review"

There is an element of fairness and decency that even a non-Christian would understand here. It has to do with withholding judgment until the whole picture comes into view.

But, Peter, is it possible that a lot of 'reviewers' jumped the gun because they don't want people to read Bell's book? I was blogging about this on Denny's blog and a commentator told me he had no intention of reading the book, based on his opinion of what others had told him. (groan)

He didn't 'get it'. That IS sad.

I taught reading for years and I know the value of reading information in context. And I also taught my students to be able to think for themselves and WHY it was important for them not lean on the opinion of others, or of the 'majority' or the 'popular kids'. They 'got it' in one. And I think the parents appreciated my efforts also.

Christiane

[Mary]

I saw Rob Bell's Martin Bashir interview and personally, if Rob Bell's performance was an indication of his writing style I'm not sure how anyone can know exactly what it is that guy believes.

As to the topic at hand - some will jump at any excuse to somehow attack and belittle the "Arminians" of the SBC all the while whining about how unfairly Calvnist are treated. But I'm just saddened, angered, distressed, depressed, fill in adjective that we can't all agree that the Doctrine of the Trinity is something we should all stand up and defend. If the SBC has come to the place that the Trinity can be thrown under the bus all in the name of "diversity" then there is no hope for the SBC.

[Benjamin Musclow]

Mr. Lumpkins... did you really take the "reformed perfidy" blog as actually engaging in reality? with the caption "The National Enquirer - Mitty Muckraker" below, methinks you protesteth way too much..

Casting aspersions such as "Reformed Apologetics websites which specialize in Calvinism on steroids" seems a little unlike " do unto others" or "love thy neighbour"....

[peter lumpkins]

Mr. Musclow,

Who said anything about protesting? I wrote about humor. Even so, do you think humor does not teach something?

Nor was I "casting aspersions" upon any at Triabologue based simply upon the little spoof. I'm afraid it's you who's not, as you put it, "engaging in reality," Mr Musclow.

Have a good weekend.

With that, I am...
Peter

[A.M. Mallett]

Christiane,
Is it necessary to read every book by an author to know that particular persons perspective? I've read enough of Bell previously to know that I'm not going to spend another dime of my resources on his "product". However, there are contributors who have read the book and there will be many more, certainly, going forward. There will be many among them that I trust with regard to presenting a fair and reasonable perspective. If I observe a general consensus among those resources I value, I do not think it is at all unreasonable to lean on those observations.
Now, the relevant point being made with these observations is that it is irresponsible to make general categorizations while uninformed however one does not necessarily need to purchase and read the book in order to become informed about it's subject matter concerning the author.

[Frank Rizzo]

Hi Peter, so do you criticize Paul at the blog Aporetic Christianity for coming down hard on Bo Ebrell's book due out later this month?

[The Seeking Disciple]

I think one can present a view of a book without reading it. While one can't say "this is what the author said on page 33" they can give their opinion. An example would be a disciples view of the Book of Mormon. I don't think one has to read the Book of Mormon to know that error is taught therein and avoid it. One can give their opinion that the Book of Mormon is a fictional book. Giving specifics about the Book of Mormon, one must read it. But to reject it, one does not need to read it.

Just my thoughts. For me, Bell has been going down this road for years. No need to read his book and know that he will be no friend to the traditional views.

[peter lumpkins]

I'm simply going to have to insist, my brothers, that assuming one may speak meaningfully, accurately, and/or helpfully--not to mention authoritatively (when one is insinuated to be a 'false teacher' promoting 'heresy', then it surely implies an air of authority)--concerning a book one has not actually engaged cannot be seriously entertained as either moral or proper literary etiquette. The fact is, not a single one of you guys who are advocating such would want someone to treat your writings in such a manner.

I constantly hear from both Calvinists and non-Calvinists whining about each other making caricatures, building strawmen, taking quotes out of context, listening to only a part of an argument, not giving one the benefit of doubt, etc etc etc ad infinitum, ad nauseam. Yet, even in light of this non-stop phenomenon in failing to understand one another--at least, that's the claim made--we nonetheless find ourselves suggesting one does not need to read a work before one publicly speaks a helpful, meaningful, accurate depiction of the work? We surely don't mean that. Surely. If we do actually mean that, I honestly fail to see how this does not qualify for nonsense, brothers. Plain & simple. Nonsense--N-O-N-S-E-N-S-E.

Sorry, but if this is proper literary criticism, count me out. I want no part.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Frank,

I don't have a clue to what you refer.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

BTW, Mr. Musclow

Just for kicks, here’s a another link for you concerning the website I cited as an example of “Reformed Apologetics websites which specialize in Calvinism on steroids.” Not content to allow the spoof of me to stand as is with a bit of humor most can appreciate, the good old boys there must needs copy/paste the post here to their site. But instead of letting it speak for itself, they instead purposely add statements to the piece as if I wrote it—statements I most certainly did not nor would not. Such stands as fairly good evidence why few if any not in their particular club gives them the time of day.

With that, I am…

Peter

[Frank Rizzo]

Hi Peter, I'm talking about how this guy ripped in Ebrell without reading the book

[Ron Phillips, Sr.]

Peter,

A long time ago I worked for a man who I thought was overly indulgent of employees who were quite frankly, lazy and unethical in their work habits. However, when it came time for reviews and raises, he was extremely generous to those that worked hard and gave no bonus or raises to the questionable employees. Some he eventually fired. Later he told me his philosophy: "I give 'em enough rope to either pull themselves up or hang themselves, but it's entirely up to them."

This is what should have been done with Rob Bell - wait for the book to actually come out and let him hang himself (or save himself) with his own words. At no time did I ever get the impression you were defending Bell, you were defending something much greater - principle.

Blessings,

Ron P.

[aaron arledge]

Rob Bell's publishing company knew what they were doing when they released blurbs of the book and the video introducing it. They knew it would cause a great deal of division and fighting on the web. Brilliant marketing. It seems almost everyone has fallen into the trap. It has even caused division where people that should be standing together fighting dangerous teachings are at odds.

[Frank Rizzo]

So Peter, do you condemn that guy for coming down hard on Bo Ebrell's book before reading it?

[peter lumpkins]

"Frank"

If you'd like to make a contribution to the thread, be my guest. If all you are here to do is publicize your links, I'd encourage you to take it elsewhere.

Have a great Lord's Day afternoon

With that, I am...
Peter

[Chris Gilliam]

Peter,

I agree with your principle, even if others are to blind to see it. Due to my current schedule, I am not much up to date on the topic. I was informed that one blogger was given an advanced copy and did a thorough review; with this in mind, it is obvious that it was not this blogger you referenced. I would like to ask a few questions.
1. Did those you hold to the carpet reference the blogger in any way and his work?
2. If not, was the feeding frenzy, in your opinion, just a shot at self promotion? trying to be the first to break the story?
3. If this is accurate, does not this breach ethical standards of general journalism? Not to mention the higher standards we as believers are held to?

Thanks, Chris

[Frank Rizzo]

Peter,

Huh? Let's leave aside that a link isn't links, I'm wondering if you will likewise criticize that guy for critiquing a book he hasn't read? I'm "asking questions." Was he wrong to criticize the book he reports on based off the publishers info and the blurbs Bo Ebrell made in the interview? It's a question

With that, I am...
Waiting for an answer

[peter lumpkins]

Look, "Frank" (or whatever you real name is*),

Leaving aside the fact that whether you left for me one link or ten (that you only left a single link affects my point to you in no substantial way whatever), I've no interest at all in commenting on a spoof site with spoof posts. I do have a sense of humor as those who follow me know too well. But to think I'm actually going to entertain a serious comment toward spoofs is, shall we say, not in my sphere of priorities.

Good Day.
With that, I am...
Peter

*unless you establish good reason for me to accept "Frank Rizzo" as your real identity and not an incognito moniker, don't bother to come back (see commenting rules above)

[Frank Rizzo]

About "links", that's why I said "aside" from your blunder, I wasn't going to belabor the point---though it does show uncleaer thinking on your end.

I have several recordings out as Frank Rizzo, from Brooklyn. Look them up, sizzle chest.

I'll answer the question you won't: You said above that is is NEVER acceptable to comment negatively on a book you haven't read, thus you don't find the actions of the guy I linked to acceptable.

With that, you are...
Sunk

[peter lumpkins]

Dear "Frank"

To the contrary, it's hardly "uncleaer [sic] thinking" on my end to simply write "links" when it was "link," especially when it was not germane to the point I was making. Now, unless you'd show me how it is in any way taking away from my point or skewing yours, please drop the silliness.

On the other hand, I will show you what "uncleaer [sic] thinking" is: you assert,

"You said above that is [sic] is NEVER acceptable to comment negatively on a book you haven't read, thus you don't find the actions of the guy I linked to acceptable" (embolden added)

I'll give you a shiny new nickel for every time you find me saying or my words even necessarily implying such goofy nonsense either on this thread, in the op, or on another site.

Deal?

With that, I am...
Peter

P.S. Sunk did you say?

[Frank Rizzo]

Peter,

Aside from the fact that you think it is relevant to point out typos while complaining when others do the same to you, you wrote,

I'm simply going to have to insist, my brothers, that assuming one may speak meaningfully, accurately, and/or helpfully--not to mention authoritatively (when one is insinuated to be a 'false teacher' promoting 'heresy', then it surely implies an air of authority)--concerning a book one has not actually engaged cannot be seriously entertained as either moral or proper literary etiquette. The fact is, not a single one of you guys who are advocating such would want someone to treat your writings in such a manner.

The guy in the link did this, thus you don't find what he did acceptable. You say here one should not insinuate one to be a false teacher, promoting heresy, etc., based on a book said someone hasn't read/engaged.

Here's the implication of your view, buddy

[1] We should NEVER do anything immoral.

[2] To insinuate that someone is a heretic, false teacher, or otherwise removed from the visible church, is to comment negatively of them.

[3] It is never moral to speak negatively (in the above sense) about some author S based on a book by S that you have not read/engaged.

[4] Therefore, one should never comment negatively (in the above sense) about any author (since S was an arbitrary S).

[5] The guy I linked to commented negatively (in the above sense) about an author (Bo Ebrell).

[6] Therefore, the guy I linked to was immoral for doing that and for commenting negatively (in the above sense) on Bo Ebrell.

[7] Therefore the guy I linked to should not have done that.

With that, you are...
Sunk

[peter lumpkins]

Dear “Frank”

A) “Peter, Aside from the fact that you think it is relevant to point out typos while complaining when others do the same to you”’. I’m confused.  You complained I was doing a bit of "uncleaer [sic] thinking"; yet when I attempt to be careful in my quotations, etc., you want to complain about that.  Tis..Tis.. I don’t know what to do now or how or if I should respond at all…

B)"....." Nothing follows, “Frank” for the simple reason I did NOT either state nor imply what you asserted I did, and your quotes from me only prove it. Again, here’s your little jewel:

“You said above that is [sic] is NEVER acceptable to comment negatively on a book you haven't read, thus you don't find the actions of the guy I linked to acceptable" (embolden added)

I never suggested nor implied it is “NEVER acceptable to comment negatively on a book [one hasn’t] read.” I qualified my statements carefully. My first statement was a summary of my position I’ve logged on this issue: “…my posts on the Bell fiasco so far may be best expressed with something like this:one should not publicly present a personal review of a book when one has not read the book about which one presents a review.”  This pertains to a review of a book not a “negative comment” for heaven’s sake.

My second statement above is even more qualified:

“assuming one may speak meaningfully, accurately, and/or helpfully--not to mention authoritatively (when one is insinuated to be a 'false teacher' promoting 'heresy', then it surely implies an air of authority)--concerning a book one has not actually engaged cannot be seriously entertained as either moral or proper literary etiquette” (emphasis added).

Nothing again about “never acceptable to comment negatively,” “Frank” nothing.  How (or why) you attempt to deduce the nonsensical absolute assertion from my words that it is "NEVER acceptable to comment negatively on a book you haven't read " when I offered carefully constructed qualifiers is confusing and a bit annoying actually.  The qualifiers definitively negate your alleged "logical" deductions, and that aside from the fact I specifically referenced a book review—a meaningful, accurate, helpful, and/or authoritative review--not simply “comment[ing] negatively” about a book.  Please. 

The truth is, Seeking Disciple had a very good point concerning the Book of Mormon which I happily concede. However, he also made my point clear when he said, “Giving specifics about the Book of Mormon, one must read it.” Precisely!  In order to speak meaningfully, accurately, and/or helpfully--not to mention authoritatively—about a book, one must actually engage the book. What is so hard to appreciate about that, I cannot begin to understand.

Now, unless you have something more substantial, “Frank,” I’ll assume you just cannot come up with anything to earn your shiny new nickel.  I’ll also assume that you were after all employing a bit of "uncleaer [sic] thinking." Deal?

Hope your evening well.

With that, I am…

Peter

P.S. I do not know how to be any clearer on your links…ur, uh, I mean link—l-i-n-k—you provided. I am uninterested in a spoof site with spoof posts. Hence, you can draw all the conclusions you want. Clear enough?

[peter lumpkins]

All,

If any of you are keeping up, "Frank" has done us a favor with his persistence. I never implied nor insinuated one could not "comment negatively" on a book one has not read. Obviously, if one knows a bit of history of an author, there is no reason--moral or literary-- it seems to me, why one could not make a general statement--whether negative or positive. One has appreciated J.I. Packer, for example, and one anticipates a positive forthcoming work. Likewise, the same general statement could be make concerning an author one does not particularly care for. However, what drives the statement is not the forthcoming work--the work not inspected. Rather it's more a) the author himself/herself and b) what one knows of his/her past.

The fact remains, when TGC started the criticism, the criticism had virtually nothing to do with the past; instead it was driven by a work not yet published. And, it was not just "commenting negatively" as "Frank" apparently wants us to believe. Instead bold pronouncements were made, so bold, in fact, the horrid "H" word was openly implied and explicitly flung around, and done so by those who, by all indicators, had not read the book.

I do not know how to communicate a valid distinction any clearer.

Finally, as a little experiment...our "Frank" who claims he has several recordings produced, I'm wondering if he'd appreciate people reviewing his music--music they'd never heard before. Oh, they may have heard something he did. Indeed maybe they didn't like it. Now they write him off as a washed up has been for music they'd never listened to. We wonder if "Frank" would be satisfied with his critics' review. We wonder if he'd accept them as being fair and honorable in taking the time to really listen. We wonder...

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

"Frank"

So far as I am concerned, you can think you have "proved" your point. Bravo! But I am not going to continue posting nonsense about the same failed point. I'm perfectly content to allow the readers to judge whether you've made your case or not.

Good bye.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Christiane]

Hi A.M. MALLETT,

I guess the Holy Spirit works over-time for some in the Southern Baptist world
. . . discernment has really 'picked-up' . . .
these 'chosen' few can know before they read something that they don't need to read it in order to judge it and comment on it . . .

Why am I not impressed ?
I should be impressed but it's not happening. :)

[Christiane]

Sorry. That sounded rude, I realized after I posted it.

What I mean to say is that I think people ought to read a book before judging it because it's simply the right thing to do.

Otherwise, their comment 'on the book' truly isn't their comment on the book, but instead is dishonest and mis-leading.

It's about doing what is right.