Peter Lumpkins' kangaroo court

1. peter lumpkins

   March 1, 2011 at 7:27 am
   Justin,

   
   

   I’m also curious concerning the circumstances surrounding precisely how you gained access to Bell’s book. If you were assigned by HarperOne (or legitimate rep) to critique the book, why did you not engage the book, giving the public a genuine review? If you got hold of a copy sorta “under the table,” so to speak, well, that obviously raises questions. Not necessarily for possessing it understand. I get sent lots of things I didn’t request. So I can identify with that.

   Nonetheless, presuming for argument’s sake you received the book “under the table,” and hence could not in good conscience engage the content lest you call attention to your having an “under the table” copy (again presuming only for argument’s sake), to sound a “backdoor” warning based on what you actually read in the book by just focusing on the cover and video does raise profound integrity questions–at least to me–precisely why you were compelled to do so.

   Whatever the case, you evidently made a horrible gaffe.

   With that, I am…
   Peter

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/02/28/two-questions-on-the-rob-bell-blog-post/?comments#comment-80961

1. steve hays

   March 1, 2011 at 7:52 am
   Notice Peter Lumpkins’ Kafkesque duplicity. On the one hand he condemns Justin for allegedly drawing conclusions about the book without having read it. On the other hand, he also condemns Justin for drawing conclusions about the book in case he read it. If Justin is guilty as charged, then he’s guilty–but if Justin is innocent, then he’s still guilty!

   Lumpkins is a one-man kangaroo court.

   This is what happens to men who are blinded by their partisanship.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/02/28/two-questions-on-the-rob-bell-blog-post/?comments#comment-80965