Note to Southern Baptist Educators: Take a Clue on How to Deal with "Outing Heresy" from Dr. Ben Witherington by Peter Lumpkins

I know. I know.  I said I was done with this. But, the chatter continues.  Trevin Wax floated a link he feels we should consider on Rob Bell, while Founders Ministries advocate, Timmy Brister, deals with the issue in a more generally focused post on hell>>>

Few "heavyweights" from Southern Baptist quarters have weighed in. Drs. Al Mohler and Denny Burk, both of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary gave their take early. Predictably both supported The Gospel Coalition blog squad. I mean, why not?  Both are strongly "Reformed" in outlook as is The Gospel Coalition.    What remains entirely regrettable is, while one could predict--and even understand--they would support The Gospel Coalition, it hardly follows that thinking men would also support The Gospel Coalition's premature, public hanging of Emergent misfit, Rob Bell, condemning him for theological heresy, heresy they claim he apparently holds in his soon-to-be-released book, Love Wins. 

There is a problem--none of his critics have read the book.*

Even so, at least one "heavyweight" from the "other side" has weighed in on the question I raised about the premature web of condemnation for heresy being spun against Bell by TGC & co advocates. Professor Ben Witherington had this to say:

It seems that there are a ton of Christians out there in cyberspace who are prepared to judge Rob Bell before his book has even been published.  As I happen to have the same publisher as Rob now has (Harper),  I called them today... and the publicist will send me one at the appropriate juncture.  It will then be time to critically evaluate  Rob’s latest thoughts.

...I must say I am hugely disappointed in people like John Piper and Mark Driscoll, who also haven’t read the book yet, and yet are prepared to condemn Rob— one even saying dismissively— ‘Farewell Rob Bell’.... . And what should be said to them is— shame on you for prejudging a brother in Christ.  Shame on you for being prepared to pontificate and judge before you have even read what the man has to say.   IS THIS THE SORT OF BEHAVIOR JESUS WOULD BE HAPPY ABOUT?   I think not..." (embolden added)

I've got to say, from my standpoint, Southern Baptist educators have no business prematurely entering into knee-jerk assessments of doctrinal pieces no matter how severe the error. Southern seminary could have done what academic institutions do and should do thorough and as exhaustively as necessary--wait to properly, soberly, and definitively offer a response to Rob Bell's alleged heresy in their journal as well as their own writing ministries once the materials to be criticized are actually published and officially available. 

In short, my view is, Mohler and Burk should take notes on how to deal with "outing heresy" from Ben Witherington.

With that, I am..

Peter

BEN WITHERINGTON'S POST IN FULL

*At least there's stone-cold silence about the book's content from all the critics I've read. I asked Justin Taylor on his site about how it came about he had a copy (at least partial copy) and received no response. This makes it easy to presume, at least to me, Taylor, Burk, and other critics actually may have a copy (or have access to one) and have read the book but won't comment because, well, it's sorta an "under-the-table" copy. Hence it projects a possible presumption which none of the critics desire if, in fact, they don't have a copy...

Comments

[D.R. Randle]

Peter,

You said, "There is a problem--none of his critics have read the book*", then added in your footnote, "I asked Justin Taylor on his site about how it came about he had a copy (at least partial copy) and received no response." You also used the term "under-the-table".

Both Justin Taylor and Denny Burk have publicly stated they have read excepts so it's not technically true that they have not read the books. What you should know is that many publishers put out pre-publication copies for promotion. Often they contain the introduction and a couple of chapters. Usually the central point of the book is made within those chapters. LifeWay does this all the time. If you went to the SBC lately you probably received one of the these for any number of books. I've got several myself.

Now the fact that Justin Taylor didn't answer you is probably due to the fact that you were pretty insulting to him, calling his post "nonsense" and questioning his integrity (I'm curious - isn't this attacking him personally, something you criticized me for?). Also, you again jumped to some conclusions there based on no facts as to why JT didn't actually quote Bell.

Now, finally, I find it quite hilarious that Ben Witherington would be lecturing anyone about making any premature conclusions about anything, given that he ran around the country a few years ago claiming the James Ossuary was authentic before it had been properly vetted by the greater archaeological community.

[peter lumpkins]

D.R.

“Both Justin Taylor and Denny Burk have publicly stated they have read excepts so it's not technically true that they have not read the books.”

D.R., I read carefully what these guys have said.  Hence “technically” is precisly why I placed a footnote in the blog!

What you should know is that many publishers put out pre-publication copies for promotion. Often they contain the introduction and a couple of chapters. Usually the central point of the book is made within those chapters. LifeWay does this all the time.

Oh my. D.R. your comments are becoming laboriously difficult to wade thru.  I am perfectly aware pre-publication copies are sent by publishers. As a publisher, I send pre-publication copies. As a writer I receive pre-publication copies. The problem is, D.R. publishers normally do not send out copies for review to people who will offer bad reviews. They certainly don’t want anyone’s “enemies” to take the first crack at a book.

“Now the fact that Justin Taylor didn't answer you is probably due to the fact that you were pretty insulting to him, calling his post "nonsense" and questioning his integrity (I'm curious - isn't this attacking him personally, something you criticized me for?).

Have you talked to JT?  Did he call you on the phone?  Did he email you?  Then why would you attempt to speak for him D.R?  If I were to guess, I’d say he doesn’t give two squats of a laying hen what I ask him.  He’s had thousands of comments.  All I said was, not answering the question projects what I’m sure he would not want to project.

Also, you again jumped to some conclusions there based on no facts as to why JT didn't actually quote Bell. Really? It’s difficult to read your mind, D.R.

Now, finally, I find it quite hilarious that Ben Witherington would be lecturing anyone about making any premature conclusions about anything, given that he ran around the country a few years ago claiming the James Ossuary was authentic before it had been properly vetted by the greater archaeological community. Sweet  heavens. Are you for real? You’re now equating a sincere but mistaken interpretation of evidences at his disposal for examination with judging a book heretical before it is read?  D.R. I’m finished answering nonsense.

With that, I am…

Peter 

[Tim Rogers]

"What you should know is that many publishers put out pre-publication copies for promotion. Often they contain the introduction and a couple of chapters. Usually the central point of the book is made within those chapters. LifeWay does this all the time. If you went to the SBC lately you probably received one of the these for any number of books."

Brother D.R.,

You probably need to look to the top right and click on the link that reads, Free Church Press. Then ask yourself this question; "Why would Peter Lumpkins be promoting this publishing company?"

Blessings,
Tim

[Dr. James Galyon]

Actually, I believe Dr. Mohler tackled the issue fairly. Did he deal with the text of Bell's upcoming book? No. But he did quote the publisher's statement about the book, which declares:

"Fans flock to his Facebook page, his NOOMA videos have been viewed by millions, and his Sunday sermons are attended by 10,000 parishioners—with a downloadable podcast reaching 50,000 more. An electrifying, unconventional pastor whom Time magazine calls 'a singular rock star in the church world,' Rob Bell is the most vibrant, central religious leader of the millennial generation. Now, in Love Wins: Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, Bell addresses one of the most controversial issues of faith—the afterlife—arguing that a loving God would never sentence human souls to eternal suffering. With searing insight, Bell puts hell on trial, and his message is decidedly optimistic—eternal life doesn’t start when we die; it starts right now. And ultimately, Love Wins."

The publisher's statement says plainly that Bell argues in this book that "a loving God would never sentence human souls to eternal suffering." Nothing in Dr. Mohler's article, as written, is "premature."

[R.L. Adler]

Dr. James : "The publisher's statement says plainly that Bell argues in this book that "a loving God would never sentence human souls to eternal suffering." Nothing in Dr. Mohler's article, as written, is "premature." "

I find it interesting that calvinists can't get past this word play. To me, its obvious that Bell is doing a kind of C.S. Lewis impersonation ("To avoid Love is to find Hell"). you gotta admire the cat for ruffling some feathers.

[Tim Rogers]

Dr. Galyon,

"a loving God would never sentence human souls to eternal suffering."

Isn't that the same thing that John R.W. Stott says? Where is the charge of heresy for him? Also, if Bell argues that God does sentence them to hell but later redeems them from hell, isn't that the same thing that Origen taught? No one has charged Origen with heresy.

Blessings,
Tim

Blessings,
Tim

[peter lumpkins]

Dr. Galyon,

Give me a much-needed break please. 

You are a scholar. You obviously know better than this.  Why not just say, you disagree and be done with it. Instead you pitch your hard-earned-sweat-of-the-intellectual-brow methodology to the wind and suggest Dr. Mohler quoted a book blurb and all is fine and dandy.

O.K.  Let me quote a book blurb: I ‘m using John Piper’s, Desiring God. From the publisher's jacket cover, it reads:

Desiring God is a paradigm-shattering work.

Piper reveals that there really is no need to choose between duty and delight in the Christian life.

Piper beckons us to approach God with the hedonist’s abandon.

According to Piper, pleasure is not just permissible, pleasure is essential!    Imagine it. God demands I pursue pleasure!  And, what is it that is most pleasing to the eye? To my eye?  Why it’s sex, it’s money, it’s power. It’s doing what I want to do no matter what.  And, since pleasure is essential, God commands you to fulfill your pleasure. Hence, avoiding pleasure is a sin against the Almighty!

You see, for Piper, hedonism is the heart of the Christian faith.  Hedonism IS the Christian faith! Life only goes around once so grab all the gusto you can get.  Pursue pleasure, for in pursuing pleasure you are pursuing God!

What an exciting new message for anyone who thought Christianity was dull, boring, lifeless, and entirely no fun.  Get fulfilled. Pursue pleasure. That’s John Piper’s message.  Avoid all pain and be in God’s will. That’s the message of John Piper. In essence, the Jehovah of the Bible is more like bes of Egypt (god of pleasure)  than many ignorant people think!

Of course, if I wrote that about Piper’s book a month before it was released, I think I know the response you and every Calvinist from Nettles in Ky to Ascol in Florida to White in Az would make: you'd characterize me as being “fair” to John Piper with nothing at all "premature."

One’s got to love blogging to keep doing it.

With that, I am…

Peter   

[peter lumpkins]

BTW, Dr. Galyon,

Tim is spot on: Neither annihilationism nor universalism embraces eternal suffering. Hence, on that point Stott and allegedly Bell agree. So, is Stott a "heretic" too? At least so far as eternal suffering goes?

With that, I am...
Peter

[D.R. Randle]

Tim,

I don't have time to answer Peter's side-step, but I will answer you on your false statement here,

Also, if Bell argues that God does sentence them to hell but later redeems them from hell, isn't that the same thing that Origen taught? No one has charged Origen with heresy.

Tim, starting with the 2nd Council of Constantinople in 553 A.D., the Church considered Origin a heretic (http://tinyurl.com/4mso4gz). In fact, one could say he is a 7-time heretic. His work is considered important to the Church because of when he wrote and the influence he had, but he has been considered a heretic for at least 1450 years.

[peter lumpkins]

D.R.

Please explain "side-step." Of course when you have time. But please, please please don't take a long comment to do it. Just the way you use the term, please...

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

All,

I'm out for a season...

With that, I am...
Peter

[Dr. James Galyon]

First, I took the time to read Dr. Mohler's article. As it is written, I believe it is fair. He noted, "We must await the release of the full book in order to know what Rob Bell is really saying, but his advance promotion for the book is already saying something, and it is not good." I don't believe he jumped the gun the way in which Justin Taylor and some others have.

Second, many of us in Reformed circles have not liked the position taken by John Stott or E. Earle Ellis. Why isn't anyone being overly vocal on the issue at the moment? Probably because Stott hasn't released a work on the topic lately. However, his articles advocating his position, which were published in the '80s, did receive attention by Reformed scholars (e.g., J. I. Packer, J. Gerstner). The response was not a friendly one. So, the Reformed crowd already addressed the issue with Stott...when it first came out.

[peter lumpkins]

Dr. Galyon,

Fair enough. Perhaps Mohler's was not as pronounced as Taylor's inciting little post. On the other hand, Denny Burk's was moreso do you not think?

Also, no one suggests--least of all me--Reformed critics have not been found for Stott. Nonetheless, a) not a single critic of Bell (critics with whom I dealt) also have been public critics of Stott, at least where I have seen; b) nor did the critics who dealt with Stott treat him grossly unfairly either.

BTW, I take it since you did not mention the publisher's blurb I quoted on Piper and my subsequent "review" of Piper's book, presumably I justly, fairly, and with the utmost Christian courtesy, framed Piper's view of hedonism honorably.

With that, I am...
Peter