Judging a book by its cover

Peter Lumpkins has criticized Justin Taylor and others for (allegedly) judging Rob Bell unread. Mind you, he equivocates. He also admits that Justin Taylor, for one, may have based his judgment on firsthand knowledge of the book.

In any event, it’s rather interesting to compare his censorious attitude with his own modus operandi. For on the same blog where he posted this attack on Justin Taylor et al., he has a “peter’s book” icon. If you click on the icon, it will take you to reviews of Alcohol Today as well as blurbs plugging Alcohol Today. For instance:

http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/alcohol_todayorg/what-they-say-about-alcohol-today-abstinence-in-an-age-of-indulgence.html

http://baptisttheology.org/AlcoholToday.cfm

What’s the point of this? Isn’t the point to drum up sales for his book by inviting lurkers to form a preliminary opinion of his book before they’ve read a single word?

Don’t the blurbs summarize his position? Doesn’t the review give a fairly detailed breakdown of the book’s contents?

If I didn't know better I'd almost suspect that Lumpkins is one of those Arminian partisans who trumpets the indiscriminate love of God while practicing a very discriminatory form of love for fellow Arminians to the exclusion of the Reformed.