The Bible and Culture

I largely agree with what you have written here, Ben.

But, I do have a question, How upset are you — and would granny have been — about publishers and authors who tease out a book in a provocative way?

Just wondering.

Hi Dr. Witherington,

I agree that Bell’s critics should have waited to read the book before actually criticizing it. And if they were intending to criticize the promo video, then they should have been more clear, though promo videos are notorious for being hard to pin down and not necessarily communicating what will actually be said in the book.

What I’m curious about is your suggestion that the critics should have contacted Bell personally if they had an issue with potentially unBiblical ideas in the book. I tend to think that once something comes out in print in public, it is fair game for fair and public reviews (journals, blogs, etc.). Surely we don’t expect every potential Christian reviewer to contact an author before reviewing his or her work to discuss the criticisms. I guess my question is: When something is in print, haven’t we gone past the one-on-one phase to a public discussion phase? You and I both have written public critiques of books with which we disagree; I haven’t contacted the authors beforehand. Do you? Should I start? I have heard of some doing it on occassion, if there is a really big, big issue, in order to make sure the reviewer is understanding what has been written. But my guess is that most of the folks out there writing reviews are not contacting authors before publishing critiques.

Thanks,
Matt O’Reilly

Matt I think it depends on the seriousness of the issue. If it is a very serious issue and we are talking about a very influential Christian leader, then yes various of his friends should go to him personally. Of course they should. I don’t think its incumbent on all of us— after all, he’s got a huge audience. I do think, its incumbent on some of us, particularly those who know him well.

As for Jon’s comment, I hear that, but we have no control over what secular publishers are going to do. I’ve just learned to live with it and take it for what it is— epideictic rhetoric, a sales pitch.

BW3

I remember very well the uproar from these same hyper-Calvinists when N.T. Wright’s book, “Justification” was released. To me the reaction then and now with Rob Bell’s book is very unChristlike.

Thanks for clarifying. I absolutely agree that people who have a personal relationship with an author ought to discuss disagreements before putting it all in print.

Matt

You’re spot on, Ben. Good post.

Ben you fail to realize they aren’t judging Bell for a book that they haven’t read but what’s he been saying in his promotion of the book.

LOL and it’s hilarious that one hand you condemn them for not approaching Bell in private (even though Bell did not make an offense personally to them nor did he do this in private {youtube, vimeo etc..}) and on the other hand you condemn them publicly. Your hypocrisy is showing, I suggest you cover it up.

Ben I assume it bugs you alot that Paul would even go as far as to criticize Peter publicly rather then talking to him in private. Ben does it bug you when Jude gets off topic about our common salvation and begins talking about contending earnestly for the faith? Ben I wonder had you been living in the times of the apostles when they were combating gnosticism would you have been there waving a finger at them judging them? Who’s side would you have been on the Apostles or the “super apostles” side? Your fanfare to Rob Bell is sickening how much you worship him, tell me does your worship of him replace Christ?

I agree with Ben.
I might add that I think the teaser video coupled with the title of the book hint that Bell IS moving in the universalist direction. That seems to be the natural ‘direction’ of the promotional material. Of course, we’ll have to wait and see.

I realise that those who’ve been quick to attack Bell have jumped the gun. That’s simply not good enough. However I think this whole debacle has brought to the surface some underlying tension between Bell and the broader Evangelical community.

This whole thing will be a big learning experience for a lot of people.

Matt Viney

My original position was this:

Fully understanding the importance of God’s wrath on those apart from Christ, or as fully as my tiny, finite, human brain can comprehend Scripture, I don’t think this video is enough to condemn the book, or his views outright. I say this because he makes a very valid point about people viewing Jesus as saving us from God, and the appearance that such a God cannot be loving. I would hope that to most Christians, that the answer would be clear, but it depends on how Bell addresses this point, and I only see one of two ways:

1) Jesus saves us from ourselves by saving us from our sin nature and actions of sin, whether of commission or omission, that make us deserve Hell. If Bell addresses this by showing how God is good, righteous, and loving in the punishment of sin, and equally so in extending grace through Christ, then I’d say he framed the question very well (to get the attention of both Christians and non-Christians) and answered it adequately and accurately.
2) He could also affirm that we deserve Hell, and then stray from Scripture by saying that God effectually extends and applies grace to everyone through Christ, resulting in Hell containing nothing more than Satan and demons, which isn’t Biblical.

I don’t know that I have high hopes for this book, given what I’ve heard about “Velvet Elvis”, but I think we should all be prayerfully discerning before condemning someone as apostate or as a heretic solely on the basis of a promo video designed to get the hook in someone’s mouth.

In this post, Kevin DeYoung mentions that the commotion isn’t over what Bell MIGHT say in his book, but rather what he DID say in the video.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/02/28/bell-brouhaha/

Haven’t had time to formulate further thoughts on that as I’ve been too busy to care about whether Bell’s a good Christian, a heretic, apostate, or just a moron.

One thing is clear, we must defend the gospel, it’s the nature of how the defense plays out that seems to be the issue.

I like this snippet from Christopher LaTondress’s Huffington Post article re: Rob Bell and the Piper tweet:

“Christians should hope that all people can be (and will be) saved. Hell: Population 0.”

Reading the comments of many self-identified evangelicals in the last day or so makes me think people would be terribly disappointed if God had mercy on everyone. As though heaven would be less enjoyable if it had to be shared with someone like Ghandi. Apart from a small amount of reasonable discussion on theological differences, I see a deep disconnect from people God created and loves that does not have a lot of Jesus in it.

By your own logic, shouldn’t you have gone to the Reformed brothers in private, and asked Dr. Piper what he meant by his ambiguous three-word tweet?

Bell put his thoughts in a public forum. He’s said plenty of questionable things in previous books. He’s a pastor responsible for the souls of those who embrace his teaching. He can’t make a provocative video and not expect to get called out.

While I agree that we should wait until we have read a book before we read it, this is a case where the PUBLISHER and AUTHOR of the book are promoting it with heresy. Maybe it will turn out that it’s just a smokescreen that is being used to create buzz and that is certainly working. However, the promo material does look pretty damning on the surface. Your criticism of Piper and Driscol is a little shrill. Call them out on the merits of what they did, not on the grounds of their being part of the “hyper-Calvinistic wing”. I believe such name calling is just as uncharitable as they are accused of being. So I put your own question back to you “IS THIS THE SORT OF BEHAVIOR JESUS WOULD BE HAPPY ABOUT?” I’m a student at Asbury and am by no means reformed, but we need to be above this. Again, call them out if you think they are wrong, but do it on the evidence at hand not some hyperbolic histrionics.

Personally I think some damage has already been done by the video. Granted, it is ambiguous enough to perhaps keep the collective of pastors and theologians at bay until it is released.

But what about those members of my congregation that lean on Rob Bell for guidance? What will they hear in the video? It is painfully obvious. And that might be enough, combined with a skilfully produced medium, to throw their opinion over the edge.

I plan to read the book when it comes out. I hope Bell turns it around. But even if he does, some damage has already occurred.

P.S. I find it interesting that you categorized Driscoll and Piper as Hyper-Calvinists, and then called their comments typical behavior. Could you please elaborate on how you arrived at assigning them those categories and that behavior as typical? Thanks Ben!

Ben, this was a wonderful post! I appreciate someone of your stature calling out the folks who jumped the gun on this one and chose to cast the first stone.

For me, I see this now as a pastoral issue. I describe such a situation on my blog today. If anyone is interested, click on my name as I have linked it to my site.

I will certainly look forward to your blog about the book after it comes out!

The issue is with what Rob Bell revealed in his promotional video, not in what his book will discuss. It is an natural culmination of what he has been espousing over the last number of months.

“In this post, I have a very different beef—– 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…And even it it turns out there are some unBiblical ideas or thoughts in Rob’s new book, shouldn’t the approach to the matter be to first ‘go to the brother’ and gently talk to him personally about these things before twittering, tweeting, or blogging about the matter?”

Did you first go to John Piper and Mark Driscoll and gently talk to them personally before blogging about your grievances?

Rob Bell opinions via his video were public and did not require a one on one discussion. The statements had to be addressed publicly.If theses were made just to sell a book ,it was very unwise. He judged himself. The questioned to be asked, “Is Christ happy with these statements made on this video?” The blogs I read were not unfair. They addressed some very damaging statements. It is one thing for someone to offend me as an individual and I keep the offense between the two of us and we work it out according to scripture. His statments were made to all who wanted to hear therefore they had to be addressed so that all who want to hear or read them could do so. I disagree with your perspective. I appreciate it but disagree.

“Frankly this is all too typical of the hyper-Calvinistic wing of the Evangelical world. Shoot first, ask questions later…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.”

But Justin Taylor, whose post set the ball in motion, says he did rely on firsthand knowledge of the book. So did you actually read Justin’s post, or are you bouncing off of 2nd/3rd-hand hostile accounts of what “the hyper-Calvinistic wing” said? If so, aren’t you “shooting first, asking questions later?”

Justin Taylor said in an update “I have not read all of Bell’s book, though I have read some chapters that were sent to me. When the book is published there will be detailed reviews, and I will link to them. I think that the publisher’s description combined with Bell’s video is sufficient evidence to suggest that he thinks hell is empty and that God’s love (which desires all to be saved) is always successful”

From what I can see Piper et al wanted to condemn Bell without sufficient evidence, and Ben is upset that Piper and friends can condemn (to hell, as if they are God) someone in public without taking appropriate steps or reading the darn book! I think Ben is right here.

Personally, I thought Bell’s video was interesting and hinted toward orthodoxy (at least it felt that way to me). So… I think I will wait and see what happens when the book is released.

For those who think Ben is being hypocritical I’d urge you to consider if you are comparing like assaults. The Neo-Cal crowd didn’t just critique or act disappointed – they went further and called Bell a heretic, said he has departed from Biblical christianity and orthodoxy. This is a far cry different than Dr. Witherington saying that he is disappointed in them for their decrees.

If you want to play the game your way though, let’s just call you out for calling BW3 a hypocrite publicly. Then take it a step further and call me out for calling you out. In fact, we could just create an entire culture centered on calling each other out for calling each other out! That would spread like yeast through the dough!

Really, Ben expressing disappointment is not even in the same category as Piper dismissing Bell, potentially, to hell and definitely to heresy.

John (above) wrote of Ben: “Your fanfare to Rob Bell is sickening how much you worship him, tell me does your worship of him replace Christ?”
Really? I mean, really? I can think of no context in which this comment is appropriate. It is condescending and disrespectful.
Ben may not ask for one, but an apology should be made.

JoeyS

“For those who think Ben is being hypocritical I’d urge you to consider if you are comparing like assaults. The Neo-Cal crowd didn’t just critique or act disappointed – they went further and called Bell a heretic, said he has departed from Biblical christianity and orthodoxy.”

You hide behind a conveniently vague “they.” But Justin Taylor, for one, was very qualified in what he said.

“This is a far cry different than Dr. Witherington saying that he is disappointed in them for their decrees.”

That’s far from all that BW3 said in this post, and you know it.

“If you want to play the game your way though, let’s just call you out for calling BW3 a hypocrite publicly. Then take it a step further and call me out for calling you out. In fact, we could just create an entire culture centered on calling each other out for calling each other out! That would spread like yeast through the dough!”

So you have one standard for the “Neo-Cal crowd” and another standard for your own kind.

“Really, Ben expressing disappointment is not even in the same category as Piper dismissing Bell, potentially, to hell and definitely to heresy.”

Quote Piper consigning him to hell.

“For those wanting my take on Rob Bell & his new book I won’t make a personal statement until I’ve read the book. I’m praying for the best & fearing the worst as I know a bit from behind the scenes” – This is the only clear statement that I’m aware Driscoll has made regarding Rob Bell’s new book. Is this what passes for hyper-calvinist condemnation these days? Even Piper’s comment of “Farewell, Rob Bell” is too ambiguous to definitively support the accusations that are floating around here. Also, why is there no mention in this blog post of Justin Taylor who wrote the article that Piper and Driscoll were directly referencing in their comments? If you have a legitimate gripe, should that post not be the primary reference? Once you’ve engaged with that, perhaps you should consider Kevin DeYoung’s rebuttal of criticisms already made.

I too am disappointed by the ethics of some evangelical commentators who use prejudiced interpretations to publicly grind axes against those they have pigeon-holed, but today, it’s not calvinists that are at fault.

For reference:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/02/26/rob-bell-universalist/
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/02/28/bell-brouhaha/

John’s comment (#7) is absurd to the nth degree.
I agree with Paul, an apology should be made.

Well, if the wayfarin’ wrangler is truly remiss and his bell ain’t ringing true than why not simply ask him to raise his hands aand drop his guns until the matter is investigated. If he’s found a wantin’, then shoot him out of the saddle or at the very least let him shovel the bull patties out of the back forty over into the back-back forty and all to be done in one week-end. But this piping hot judgemental nonsense has natrually just got to stop.

Mean while, the school marm needs some fixin’ to be done at the school house, an act of pure charity on the part of a few good men. But alas it can’t be done ’cause were all shootin’ at each other.

I think we would maker a bigger difference for the kingdom is we would just start telling the world about Christ and quit fussing over the unknown of a book. The people that need Jesus don’t even know who Rob Bell is nor do they care.

i,ve been hearing much about the love wins book,my teenage son came home one night after church talking about the out cry its causing he was actually up set,he likes bell very much.we talked it through looked at the promo,although it does seem to say something, unless you read the book theres no way you can really tell what he,s saying,i,m going to get the book,and i actually like the fact that in a world of hate and judgement,sadly even in the church that can be said to be true,i like to think that the message of the cross rings out true that love actually does win,a world that has lost hope would be very happy to hear that.looking forwards to reading the book.Bet the sales go through the roof after all the drama.
thanks

The negative “reviews” I read made it clear that they were based on what Bell and the publisher had teasingly disclosed.

But that is not all the reviewers had to go on, is it?

There is a history here and it has nothing to do with Calvinism or Wesleyanism or whatever. Bell has a history of not allowing his theology to be controlled by the text of Scripture. (Just read the horrendous but important chapter “Yoke” in his Velvet Elvis.) Based on all this, the reviewers have a right to be concerned.

I just re-read the “horrendous chapter” in Velvet Elvis. I thought it was a great chapter. I’m not sure what was horrendous about it. I found it refreshing and helpful. It made me want to open my Bible with renewed amazement and re-committed diligence to understand it better and know its Author better. Thank you Pennoyer.

I plan to read Mr. Bell’s book, simply out of curiousity, if for nothing else

I’ve always thought that God is not only the very progenitor of love, but is so holy that to look directly on Him would likely vaporize us.

And that holiness & our sinfulness cannot coexist. It’s like oil & water not being able to mix, taken to the infinite power.

The most uncomfortable truth I’ve been dealing with in the last 10 yrs or so is that a lot of really wonderful people that I love & like are going to go to hell.

For instance, I really like Oprah. I don’t buy into everything she touts, but as a person, I really like her – she’s be interesting to know.

I really like the Dali Lama. I think he would be very intriguing to know.

The same goes for many people like that – I may not like everything they do or say, but I think they’re really interesting.

And if we use the standard of “I am the Way, the Truth, & the Life – no one comes to the Father but by me”, well, they’re indeed going to go to hell.

Because God still sees their sinfulness, & that sinfulness can’t coexist with God.

But if we trust Jesus to be the one who saves our butt, as our substitute, then God doesn’t see the sin, has forgiven it, & has forgotten about it.

It will be interesting how this will all shake out, over the next few months & years, as well as in eternity.

and just for facts sake. Mark Driscoll has given a link to the Justin Taylor blog and said this on facebook, “For those wanting my take on Rob Bell & his new book I won’t make a personal statement until I’ve read the book. I’m praying for the best & fearing the worst as I know a bit from behind the scenes.”

dont see that as really jumping the gun.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Well said Ben!

I can’t agree with you. Bell and his publisher’s promo for the book have been released with the sole objective of creating just this sort of controversy. If Bell really cared, he could have just realeased a statement clarifying his position. Leaving the controversy open helps his book’s sales. He is like so many others who care more about publicity than about furthering Christ’s kingdom.

I’m curious, did you mean to label Piper and Driscoll as hyper-Calvinists in the formal sense or were you just saying they are extremely Calvinistic? A Hyper-Calvinist and a Calvinist (even a really zealous one) are quite distinct.

Excellent Comment!

“If Bell really cared, he could have just realeased a statement clarifying his position. Leaving the controversy open helps his book’s sales. He is like so many others who care more about publicity than about furthering Christ’s kingdom.”

To add further to post #34. With quite a degree of familarity with the emerging church movement, I have little problem accepting that Bell does embrace some form of universalism.

Without having read the book. The video definitely points to that.

He knows the controversy and he needs to clarify.

Interesting read. I will read Rob Bells book, but I am unsure of his point, and am worried where he is heading. here is the comment I would like to make. Bell says in his video “Christians sometimes make it sound like Jesus saves us from God.” But we know that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. I do not have high hopes for this book, or for Rob Bell, but I will read his book as a way to see what he believes.

On a side note, it is interesting that I picked up your blog. I just finished reading one of your commentaries for seminary.

Grev (#35),

Just for clarification, Bell has never claimed any affiliation with EC (or anyone else). He has stated several times that he’s definitely not a part of Emergent Village or anything that’s associated with it.

Thank you Dr. Witherington for a timely and good response.

I have not found John Piper to agree with many people and Mark Driscoll is quite rough around the edges in his delivery of his opinions also. Thought Driscoll has stated he will not judge before he reads the book, his tweets have been a bit cutting in ways to Bell’s controversy. So it doesn’t surprise me they have tweeted negatively about Rob Bell even before really reading the book.

While I agree those who critique others should first go to the person and discuss their differences, I would add the words they choose to critique a fellow Christian in public should be chosen more carefully. Piper’s “farewell Rob Bell” post sounded like excommunication not like he wanted to have the doors of communication open between Bell and himself or even between Bell and the rest of the Christian culture.
One of the posts I appreciated by you Dr. Witherington was your discussion with Dr. Stone. It demonstrated how Christians should sound as they debate theological issues while still loving and respecting each other. It would have been nice if Piper would have chosen to be more constructive than destructive.

Are you sure Piper has not read the book? Where did you read that? There are quite a few copies floating around. I see bloggers reviewing the book who have it in their hand. I am sure Piper could get his hands on one as well.

Based on what I saw, Driscoll declined comment, although he did express concern. I am sure people where asking him for comment, and his response was more or less “I am concerned, but I will reserve comment until after I read the book”

Seems like you are doing the same thing you accuse others of doing? You are being critical based on inaccurate assumed facts.

Here is the biggest problem. The strongest defense for Bell is that his promotional videos are “Just being provocative” or is “Trying to start a conversation”. It worked. Get over it. You can’t try to start a conversation, then yell foul when people engage.

As far as I am concerned this is a complete Slander of Driscoll.

Show me his comment.

Dr. W

Thank you for a fair-minded response to TGC blogging crew–not to mention Piper, Driscoll whom you cited but also, Al Mohler & Denny Burk whom you didn’t cite–in their decidedly hack job on Bell. Not a single one of those mentioned raises theological eyebrows against J. Stott for views closer to Bell’s allaged views than to TGC entourage. Yet before the book has wet ink, they aim their guns and fire at Bell (whose views & methodology, by the way, from what I already know, I’m not in agreement). Could this be because he’s an emergent misfit? Mohler seems to suggest such in his post.

Anyways, thanks again.
With that, I am…
Peter

I agree with the two comments above.

Driscoll has not gone on record anywhere saying anything about this book.

And what’s more: you commit the very sin you accuse others of here by failing to address the grievance privately.

And on top of all of that, there are plenty of blog posts where readers review the actual book.

Here’s one I found by googling for 44 seconds:

http://thetenthleper.com/2011/03/01/review-love-wins-by-rob-bell-part-i-some-introductory-thoughts/

He quotes Bell in the book:

“Hell is a real place, but God’s love will prevail for every person and they will be restored.”

Bill, I found this post via a tweet. I have never heard of you, but you apparently consider yourself “one of the worlds leading evangelical scholars”. If you want to claim such a lofty title, then you should be above such ill-informed finger-pointing.

With sincere concern,
Zack

BTW – one of your banner adds at the moment is an advertisement for the Mormon church.

Seriously.

From this side of the Atlantic I have found the response to Bell enlightening.

I don’t know what teen culture is like in the US, but when I watched the promotional video I could hear my teenager children (and their friends) in the questions. I think these are exactly the kinds of questions young people outside the church have, particularly when they hear Calvinist/conservative evangelical doctrine articulated.

From the theological perspective, what worries me about the responses so far (apart from being premature) is that they seem to prioritise doctrinal statements in themselves over the text of Scripture, as if any group can define God, rather than have a (confident but) provisional understanding of Scriptural revelation.

Bell is not the only one who needs to ensure his ideas are open to revision.

(Dr Witherington, do you have any plans to be in the UK in the near future…?)

Wow…. alrighty then. An interesting discussion. For the record I have had private exchanges with John Piper, just so you will know. And I also have been critical of some of Rob’s previously published stances. And yes, I have talked to him as well. At this juncture about the only way to get to him is through his publicist.

But let’s take a brief deep breath, and wait and see what the end of the month reveals. According to the Bible, Hades, the land of the dead will indeed be empty at the final judgment. Some will go on to what Revelation calls the lake of fire, and Jesus calls Gehenna. The debate historically about this ‘final destination’ has been between eternal torment and anihilationism. Many Christians have taken the latter position, which if correct means not universalism (all are saved), but rather that many simply cease to exist, i.e. no ongoing existence in what we call Hell. This is a possible Christian view, and it does not amount to all are saved in the end. I don’t think, at the end of the day, this best explains all the NT evidence.

Just a little food for thought.

BW3

Zack, its not my banners, its Patheos’ banners.

BW3

Well, in the it was bound to happen in the good ole U.S.A. you can now officially choose sides between Rob Bell and John Piper by buying and wearing the appropriate T shirt.

Here’s the link, sent to me by alert reader Omar.

http://roborjohn.com/

Ben,

While I agree with you in spirit, I have to say that Bell has it coming in his typical post-modern edgy gimmicky style: “bring them to the edge, dangle them, then…” He wanted to get a rise out of us, and he got exactly what he wanted. I can’t see how he should/would/is disappointed. I’m not likely to buy the book because I tire of this sort of marketing.

Wow, some of the worst reasoned comments on this thread I have read in a long time. The Piper/Driscoll crowd sure knows how to mix it up and defend their leaders. I’m with those who think that things said publicly in videos or books should be eligible for public criticism. If you want to interact with actual IDEAS and ARGUMENTS that are made in a book, that can be done publicly. But, of course, you would have to actually read the book first in order to do that. A promo video or a few chapters doesn’t count. There’s no need for personal contact, unless it is to damn them to hell for their views or excommunicate them from your tribe. Then a personal visit for coffee is in order. And no, what BW3 is doing here is not the same as what Piper did. Piper very flippantly insinuated that Rob Bell had left the bounds of orthodoxy, BW3 is saying, “hey, that’s not the way Christ would have us work through our theological issues.” Totally different.

Ben,
Are you going to give us a link to show us Driscoll criticism of the book that you alledge?
I think you are wrong about that. The only comment I have seen from Driscoll is that he is concerned, but is withholding judgment until he reads it.
If you have seen something different show us. Otherwise I think you owe Mark an apology.

Josh-
I am not sure of any quotes from Driscoll other than some tweets such as:
“If you’re new with us, we’re the Mars Hill that doesn’t think Jesus was a liar or confused.”

He has a couple of these little biting remarks which seem to be tossed at the whole Rob Bell situation.

Leanne,
I think has been on the record for a long time about his opinion of Rob Bell. He has been very specific with is criticisms. A couple days ago, I posted a lecture he gave on the subject on my blog.
But that isn’t what this is about. Ben is accusing him of slamming “Love Wins” without reading it. Something that Mark has gone out of his way not to do. In fact, Driscoll specifically declined comment.

ben witherington

“For the record I have had private exchanges with John Piper, just so you will know.”

Well, that’s rather evasive. The question at issue is whether you had a private exchange with Piper regarding his Bell tweet before you blasted him.

Likewise, you pass over in silence whether you had a private exchange with Driscoll on the same issue.

Not to mention your all-purpose McCarthyite smear about “this is all too typical of the hyper-Calvinistic wing of the Evangelical world.”

And, of course, that tipped your hand. The reason you don’t seem to follow your own strictures is because you have one standard for “hyper-Calvinists” and another standard for your own kind. A bigot is blind to his own bigotry. It’s always the other guy who’s bigoted.

Leanne,
The comment “If you’re new with us, we’re the Mars Hill that doesn’t think Jesus was a liar or confused” was posted by @fakedriscoll, an account that parodies Mark Driscoll. You should double check to make sure that the biting comments you’re thinking of were actually made by the real Mark Driscoll.

I’m not a hyper-calvinist nor a calvinist. Nor do I care to take sides in the Bell-Piper debate – whatever that means.

But, in terms of this blog, Ben, I think you should respond to Steve Hays last post – which raises legitimate points of concern. You did make strong accusations against Piper and Driscoll in the blog with respect to personal contact – but when questioned your responses did obfuscate the whole matter.

Did you contact Driscoll before writing about him in this post? If not, the blog itself is inconsistent and you should have the humility to just say so.

I personally don’t like visceral attacks. Certainly those levied against N.T. Wright were over the top at times.

There are two big flaws in the evangelical world in the U.S.:

1) A general lack of humility and willingness to admit that one made a mistake or was wrong to accuse prematurely, etc. Why is it so few preachers are willing to do this? To think that we don’t make such errors in judgment or simply unthinking pride is ridiculous. Humility is simply missing.

2) The sense that doctrine has already long been “known” and so there is no need to investigate free and openly any more. This results in an “attack dog” mentality, rather than a spirit of Acts 17:11. It’s one thing to say that God’s Word is Truth and infallible. But, my (or whoever’s) conclusions are not infallible.

Ben you calling out Piper.. etc. before you go them is like Furtick doing a video on Haters. and in the video he is hating on Haters. Lol .. funny how you take the judge not lest you be judge verse and apply it to this.. Love your blog by the way and your movie reviews. GO HEELS!!!

I am going to repeat myself until somebody listens.

Mark Driscoll declined comment on Bell’s book.
Mark Driscoll declined comment on Bell’s book.
Mark Driscoll declined comment on Bell’s book.
Mark Driscoll declined comment on Bell’s book.

Pick on Piper all you want. But to drag Driscoll into it is a lie.

It isn’t a real mystery what Bell’s book says. Bell put out a promo for it. Bell has years of sermons online. It is no mystery. If Piper is ready to write him off, Piper is ready to write him off.

Besides, Piper is not leading this charge. If you want to have civil discourse, the person you need to talk to is Justin Taylor. Piper just agreed with his post, which was pretty darn honest, and pretty issue oriented.

Anyway, unless I am proven wrong. Ben Witherington is doing exactly what he accuses people of doing. He is slamming Mark Driscoll for a tweet, a blog, or a facebook status that nobody has ever read. (Because Mark didn’t ever write it)

If somebody posts an idea to a public forum, It is teaching that is out in public, and ought to be addressed publicly.

Sorry Josh. You have ignored Driscoll’s twitter feed.

BW3

Josh R

Driscoll weighed in when he re-tweeted Taylor’s link.

Steve you have not been paying attention for long enough. If you would bother to go to my blog archives on Beliefnet and look up the various blog posts of mine which deal substantively with Piper and his way out of line criticisms of Tom Wright, you would know that I am being very mildly critical of him here compared to what could be said. McCarthyism has to do with communism, so I plead totally innocent, and no I am not smearing anyone. The facts are the facts. The man deserves a reality check from time to time, and perhaps that’s true of most of us. Arrogance and ignorance, especially arrogance about dogma is a dog that will not hunt and remain Christian.

Thanks,

BW3

My bad. Sorry I thought I had checked that out and obviously was wrong about the tweets.

Regardless of any bad blood generated I think it is great that the doctrine of Hell is being discussed. It seems that most American churches consider this doctrine to be the black sheep to be well hidden from the public, or at least thoroughly ignored. The fact however, is that if we do not know what fate awaits our unsaved friends and family there will not be sufficient impetus to offer them Christ.

Ben,
I would be very interested in hearing some of your critique on the annihilationist position.

Thanks,

Aaron

No, People retweet interesting topics all of the time.

Driscoll went out of his way to specifically decline comment on his facebook feed. That is the only comment he has made on the topic. He is not going to comment until he reads the book.

Ben,
Which tweet? The one with the Question mark in it? That is Irony for you if I have ever heard it…

Here is ALL that I have seen Driscoll say on the matter:

“For those wanting my take on Rob Bell & his new book I won’t make a personal statement until I’ve read the book. I’m praying for the best & fearing the worst as I know a bit from behind the scenes”

Driscoll links to a lot of interesting topics on his twitter and facebook feed, I think it is clear that he does not endorse those ideas. Particularly when he goes out of his way to say so, you ought to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I may never be found defending Driscoll again, but in this case he has held his tongue rather well. A few months ago I saw a public confession he made where he repented for speaking about public figures inappropriately in the past. I was actually quite moved by it. Don’t tell anyone

Hi Ben,

While I appreciated the overall sentiment, I think you jumped the gun too when you essentially condemned John Piper as a hyper-calvinist for his rather unfortunate knee-jerk Twitter reaction…just saying.

Brad

My tweet from the day all this started brewing:

“Looks like Rob Bell finally climbed far enough under the bus that the reformed folks feel comfortable hitting the accelerator. Thump Thump” https://twitter.com/#!/jreighley/status/41660965736943616

So I don’t really even disagree with your premise. I do think Rob Bell is responsible somewhat — He put out the video, intending to get this reaction, so that his book would sell.

I just disagree with your hypocrisy. Thump Thump. Your foot is on the accelerator. It was Justin Taylor that climbed under your bus, but you are running over The whole YRR camp. Piper speaks for Piper.

A few thoughts on the “Piper/Driscoll” crowd

1) I’m broadly supportive of “The Gospel Coalition”, and I don’t think that it’s helpful to define it in terms of Piper and Driscoll. Carson and Keller would both tend to be more nuanced, and less doctrinaire, in their Calvinism.

2) To put it crudely, I do think that there is a “split” of sorts in the works (broadly down emergent/traditional evangelical lines. I imagine that this will be over the interpretation of significant doctrines, like the atonement, and morality, for example homosexuality.) And I think that this sense of an approaching split leads to a sense of panic among traditional evangelical writers.

3) I think that the more “emergent” evangelicals have a purchasing power than exceeds their numbers, so I think that the moral panic that they cause conservative evangelical writers is unwarranted. We cannot judge their influence by counting the number of books that they publish and sell.

4) I think that “The Gospel Coalition” is partly an attempt to ‘shore up the dam’ against emergent tendencies in evangelicalism. Now I can sign up to the TGC confession wholeheartedly. But I wonder if it couldn’t have been a little broader in outlook. There are many evangelicals that are not Reformed, or Complementarian, who are also quite conservative.

5) I’m glad the Dr Witherington produced a commentary on Romans. It gave me a perspective on Romans 9 that went beyond standard Calvinist reading, and that was more persuasive. I’m glad that William Lane Craig has produced so much work on Middle Knowledge. It has enriched my understanding of providence and free will, and again, provided something more compelling than standard Calvinist accounts.
Now I am, broadly speaking, still Calvinist. BW3′s reading of Romans 9, and Middle Knowledge, are both consistent with Calvinism – (perhaps not the confessional kind, though). The exchange of ideas is a good thing. So if we do have to set boundaries on evangelicalism, we need to be very careful to draw large boundaries. We should not just link arms with “evangelicals like me”.
A consensus on which beliefs are necessary to understand what it means to need Jesus as Saviour and Lord (including what is necessary to live a Holy life) would be a good place to start. A consensus on the responsible interpretation of Scripture would be a good place to end.

Graham Veale

Dr Witherington

I am sympathetic to what you have written above, and I concur that some writers and preachers say unhelpful things for shock value. (To put my cards on the table, I think that Driscoll could learn from Job’s comforters. He should keep silent for a seven days and nights before speaking.)

However, I wonder if you aren’t applying the standards of the academic world to the pastoral world. Yes, you cannot critique a book that you have not read. Yes, some of the statements about Mr Bell’s book are over the top. However, I do think that a pastoral warning of “reader beware” would be appropriate, even before the book hits the presses, given Mr Bell’s past “form”.

G Veale

PS; surely it can’t be right that I can seek your advice, or Alex Pruss’s advice, or Tim McGrew’s or Vic Repperts very easily…

but to hear from other writers I need to go through an agent/publisher!!!! Something is wrong with that picture!

Graham you have made lots of helpful comments on this thread, and I will need to ponder the issue of whether I am applying academic standards of fair play to pastors. Alas, however Piper is no mere pastor. He himself is an academic, and should be held responsible for things he says in public, for example his truly sad remarks about those killed in the bridge collapse in the city where he ministers—- Minneapolis, remarks which I found just appalling but perfectly consistent with a ‘God wills everything ultimately’ point of view.

BW3

Dr Witherington

Thank you for the very kind comments

“Piper is no mere pastor. He himself is an academic”

That’s a good point; I’d forgotten about that.

And I also have very little time for the “macho” Calvinism that prides itself on shocking outsiders, and avoids nuance and qualification as a sign of weakness. And I think that Dr Piper plays that tune too often.
I suppose I should be clear that I’m not a “confessional Calvinist”. (I think most of the Reformed Confessions would tie me to a denial of indeterministic Free Will. )

Graham Veale

(I should also make it clear that I am in awe of Reformed Scholars like Bruce Waltke and Paul Helm.)

Dr. Witherington:

I think it would be good to mention you have edited your original post somewhat. Specifically the reference to Driscoll has been toned down. Maybe there were other changes.

You have been very supportive and defensive of Bell over the years as concerns have been raised regarding his theology. But blending your face with Bell’s on the post graphic?

Quick question Ben,

Did you contact John Piper or Mark Driscoll before slamming them (and their ‘fan boys’)?

Seriously doubt it.

But he read there comments in context…he didn’t comment on what they might say about this book. Dr Witherington commented on what they had said.

Sorry – “their comments”

Hey good point. Matthew 18 is taken out of context in your article but that’s ok. Ben, you draw the same conclusions as this article at http://www.theomag.com

http://www.theomag.com/2011/03/bell-gets-rung-early/

Graham,
Has Piper made any extensive comment about Rob Bell’s new book? The most I’m aware he said was “Farewell, Rob Bell” while linking to Justin Taylor’s blog, which is frankly ambiguous beyond an expression of disapproval. Driscoll has publicly refused to comment on Rob Bell’s new book until he’s read it, and the most you’ll find in his twitter feed is “Rob Bell – Universalist?” as he also linked to Justin Taylor’s blog, which in context is only a descriptor of that link. Beyond that, both men have made various tweets regarding universalism and hell in general, but they have not been specifically towards Rob Bell but only putting up more information about the broader universalism debate. If you want to view this as driven by some ulterior motive, then that should be substantiated. Simply attaching a pejorative like “hyper-calvinist” won’t cut it.

To further the point, both of these men were directing attention to Justin Taylor’s blog that started this whole teapot tempest. In that blog post, Taylor critiques what Rob Bell has said in his promotional video, not what he might have said in his book.

Unless I’m missing a comment that no one has yet to quote or link to, Dr. Witherington is lambasting people for accusations they haven’t made. Nor has he addressed the Justin Taylor blog post that is the actual criticism regarding Rob Bell, nor has he addressed others such as Kevin DeYoung who publicly answered these sorts of complaints before Dr. Witherington even made them.

So I have to ask, who was the one working off of a “shoot first, ask questions later” model here?

Jesus came and challenged everything. The cross changes the way people view God and changes the way that people see God viewing them.

The church has always progressed through people challenging the status quo. Martin Luther was one who revolutionised Christian and church thinking.

I am looking forward to reading this book because Rob Bell is a revolutionary. We have nothing to fear from anything that Rob will write in his book. I am sure that what is written will challenge our assumptions and prejudices. If our faith is strong it will strengthen it, but at worst it can only get us thinking.

Through it all however, God will still be God. The cross will still stand and love will win.

Who is making the accusations?… or what are you blogging on? I think think that the video deserves criticism before hunderds of thousand eat this all up!

I think you need to reevaluate your own criticism. What in the world does “love will win” all convey theologically in orthodox terms?

Shamgar

I don’t read “Farewell, Rob Bell” as ambiguous! Driscoll’s comment is ambiguous, and positively restrained by Driscoll’s standards. (As it happens, I’ve much more time for Piper’s writings and sermons than Driscoll’s).
Kevin de Young’s blog post was fair, as I have come to expect from de Young, and it came closer to the “pastoral warning” that I think is warranted. I’ve only read three of de Young’s books (Why We Love the Church, Why We’re Not Emergent, and Just Do Something) and a few of his posts; but I get the impression that de Young generally gives sound and wise pastoral advice. I think he and Keller embody what is good about The Gospel Coalition.

I think that some of the “shoot first, ask questions later” comments just come with the nature of blogging and tweeting.

I would rather evangelicals read Bell than Spong or Peter Rollins. We might even learn something from his critique; it’s odd not to learn anything from a critique of your beliefs. And evangelicals read Chesterton and Lewis with benefit, even though both writers promoted doctrines that are beyond the pale for evangelicalism. Richard Swinburne would be a contemporary writer adored by many evangelical apologists, who (at times) seems to endorse “works righteousness”.

At the same time, I wouldn’t want evangelicals, especially evangelical students, believing that Bell is describing what Evangelicalism could be or should be. And this is the balancing act that we need to perform. We need to give Bell’s books a fair hearing, and not allow his “rethink” of the Gospel to have too much influence.

Graham

PS I prefer the pejorative “macho-calvinism” to “hyper-calvinism” as Hyper-Calvinism also refers to a position that Piper rejects, and has written against.

Pennoyer

Give a blogger a break, would’ya? Comments go out thick and fast, and I wish I could reword many a comment I’ve posted!

Graham

Graham

I understand. My point (#74) is that Ben has made some changes that make some of the COMMENTS seem uncalled for and over-the-top. Sure, make the changes but note them.

Oh, right. Thanks Pennoyer. I’ll take my foot of my mouth now (-;

Macho doesn’t match John Piper’s physique or demenor. I found BW3′s comment about the bridge incident interesting and went back and listened to Piper’s comments on the matter.

I don’t see a problem with his comments, but that is another topic.

Was Jesus being “unchristlike” when He threw out the money changers and overturned their tables without first approaching each one individually to discuss the matter? Was He being “unchristlike” when He publicly called the Pharisees hypocrites and went on to excoriate them without first talking to them privately? Matthew 18 prescribes actions for when a brother sins against you personally. I think people have a right to be upset when someone appears to be calling into question –or casting aspersions on — the clear teaching of our Lord.

Josh

I was thinking more about his comments on Romans 9, or his review of Packer’s “Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God”, than about his comments about the bridge collapse. As it happens, I do think that -

“Maybe he let it fall because he wanted all the people of Minneapolis to fear him.” “Yes, Talitha,” I said, “I am sure that is one of the reasons God let the bridge fall.”

-wasn’t helpful. He does tend to state his more controversial beliefs very directly, and it’s this “suck it up” attitude that I dub ‘macho’. ( I’ve heard Reformed preachers say far, far worse though!)
Piper has said a lot of helpful things, and wise things and good things. He is an important figure in Evangelicalism. For example, he has helped to build a bridge between the Pentecostal and Reformed traditions, and between the Baptist and Reformed traditions. But he should never be above criticism. While I would never go so far as to say that he has an unBiblical view of God, I do think that his views on Providence and Election could use a lot of nuancing and enriching.

Graham

Mr. Witherington appears to look down on people for questioning the theology of “love wins” based upon limited pre-released material. He names Mark Driscoll as guilty. Ironically, I have not been able to find any evidence that Driscoll has commented on this publication or the pre-release material as of present. Perhaps I am missing something, but I kindly suggest that you either back up your attack on Driscoll or risk appearing a bit hypocritical. Also the word hyper-calvinist appears to be used as a lazy smear; in other words what differentiates sincere reformed theology from this “hyper-calvinism that your appear to despise so much? What in their belief system causes your to label them as the latter?

What does Piper and Driscoll’s calvinism have to do with Rob Bell new book?

Nothing. Their views on soteriology do not apply to Bell’s book on eschatology.

This is unwarranted name-calling.

Here’s the facts about Driscoll’s comments: (nothing critical about Bell)

1.) Mark Driscoll Facebook
“For those wanting my take on Rob Bell & his new book I won’t make a personal statement until I’ve read the book. I’m praying for the best & fearing the worst as I know a bit from behind the scenes”

2.) Driscoll’s facebook:
“Even if u dislike a book, u have to admire the work it takes to write one. Ask yourself “How many thousands of hours went into that?”Most folks can’t even regularly update their Facebook wall”

3) Driscoll’s twitter feed:
“Rob Bell: Universalist? – Justin Taylor http://ow.ly/445Q5”
—-He FORWARDED a friend’s blog, that is all. I do this for my friends all the time, even if I don’t agree with them.

Matthew, I just love the fact that there is a ? in Justin Taylor’s title. It is so Ironic. That question mark was put there by Rob Bell when he posted the video.

Rob Bell can ask provocative questions about weather God is evil, and that is kosher, but if anyone asks if Rob Bell is deceived and deceiving, they must be evil hyper-calvinists.

Seems to me that Bell’s strongest defense (For the video) is that he is just asking questions. He is just trying to start a conversation.. It worked. People oughta be happy for him that his ploy worked. It is evil to set a conversation trap, then villianize the folks who have the gall to converse with you.

Rob Bell to his credit remains silent.

It seems like if Bell remains silent, perhaps his fan club ought to as well — They haven’t read the book yet either…

Guys – you’re sure you’re not being a wee bit sensitive about this?
I can cheerfully call myself a Calvinist, and I can fully understand why some of Piper’s comments could seem a bit irritating to those outside the Reformed camp. They irritate me at times, and I’m in it!
Which is fine by my book. With a character like Piper you take the rough with the smooth. He’s going to deal out hard knocks, and he’s going to take them.

Graham

Driscoll — very different story. Shock jock, not worth bothering with. Can’t even see why BW3 would take him under his notice, whatever he did or didn’t say.

BTW I thought long and hard before including that last statement. I just think the less attention we give Driscoll, the more likely he is to behave himself.

My nose is bent out of joint because BW3 lied about Driscoll, while pretending to be on the high road.

Piper is fair game as far as I am concerned.

Perhaps it was a mistake on Ben’s part. I feel the right thing to do is to point out hypocrisy when I see it.

He chose to put it out there the way he did, and it is very unbiblical. Many will only watch the video and think “yes! I’m going to heaven!” and never read the book regardless if he says so in his book. We are told to properly judge and to watch out for false teachers. This idea of not judging is man-made and a misinterpretation of Scripture.

re not Christ like: I think you need to go back and read the Gospels friends. Christ told those who were leading others in false teachings very clearly what he thought of them. He was bold. He was not quiet and careful, he loudly proclaimed that they were false teachers and why.

No one has said they hoped people would go to hell.
Ironically enough, those turning their nose up at others w/ whose theology they don’t agree are judging them. Go figure.
GOD says that many will be in Hell and that many who even call on His name He does not know. God does. It’s not some man-made notion thought up on a whim.

“I think we would maker a bigger difference for the kingdom is we would just start telling the world about Christ and quit fussing over the unknown of a book. The people that need Jesus don’t even know who Rob Bell is nor do they care.”

The reaction isn’t about the unknown of a book. It’s about a video that tells unbelievers that they don’t need Jesus to be saved. So, I’d say that the outrage is indeed over lost souls. Lost souls who are being told that they are saved. That’s worth getting passionate about. Pretending heresy isn’t so doesn’t glorify God. Nor does it save the lost to let them believe it.

I just posted another opinion on Bell’s Love Wins at the following location. It is provisional (of course) but takes into account some of his earlier work. Let’s just say, I hope to be surprised by an excellent book!

http://www.nestheology.org/2011/03/06/ready-for-rob-bells-new-book-love-wins/

You have to remember, for many out there in Xtian land…most even….if it isn’t “bad news”, then its not the Good News!

Well Rob Bell,
Where in scripture did you dig up this silly doctrine? Jesus is saving us from God!!?? Jesus & God are One! Also be warned – It would be better if there were a millstone tied to your neck and are cast into the ocean. (paraphrase)

@joe #101

“For God has consigned ALL to disobedience, that he may have mercy on ALL.” Romans 11:32

I don’t need to read this book to pass judgment, Rob Bell has made plenty of heretical statements in the past. This book will just add to them.

It’s important to keep in mind that the goal of the video was to create interest in (and sell) Rob’s new book. Rob is provocative, he always has been. But he raises some interesting questions. An important step in clarifying your beliefs is to talk about and even defend them. So the fact that the publicity campaign for Rob Bell’s book has provided an impetus for Christians to actually do theology (to figure out what they think about God) is a positive thing. Even if you disagree with Bell, it’s important for Christians to wrestle with what they believe. Another great resource on heaven, what it’s like and who will be there is “Heaven Revealed” by Dr. Paul Enns, released this month by Moody Publishers. I recommend it. Here’s the amazon page: http://dld.bz/P8sz

Jesus told his disciples he would make them fishers of men.
My unbelieving (and unbelieving) friends’ most common question about God are ths same questions asked in the promo video (and hello, Christian publishing is a BUSINESS, and this is a promo video, not a theology class!)
What if Rob was trying to “fish” for those people, who ask those questions? And he was using the “bait” of asking the same questions they as do?
In my research for my forthcoming book on Old Testament words, I was surprised to learn that the Jewish concept of hell was quite different from ours, which is deeply influenced by Dante’ Divine Inferno, written many centuries after Christ!
Bell’s questions are not new–theologians for centuries have debated the nature and duration of hell. What’s tragic to me is the response of conservative Christians. All those who are asking honest questions and were intrigued by Bell’s video will likely write off Christianity because of the very unChristian response it received from within the church.

Love Wins!

….or, to say it another way:

God’s “Yes” is bigger than our “No!”

I know I’m a little late to the party on this one, but I just read an excellent critique of Piper / Justin Taylor by the Fake D.A. Carson. Apparently he “re-opened” the blog just to discuss this: http://fakecarson.blogspot.com/2011/03/open-letter-to-entire-evangelical-world.html

I’m with Ben – we should wait until the book comes out, not rush to judgement based on a short and provocative marketing video.

At the risk of stating the obvious, it is worth mentioning that the conservative evangelical world can’t really tolerate its dogmas being questioned. People who study the Bible and come to a conclusion that puts them at odds with the status quo tend to be excommunicated as heretics (eg look what happened to Peter Enns). I find this really saddening, and have long felt that we need to find a better way of handling our differences than burning people at the stake.

Sorry, I’ve just spotted the comments by 4granted and Keri Wyatt Kent which say very similar things to me. I hadn’t read them when I wrote my 2 cents!!

i, too, don’t feel prejudging is advisable. however, nor do i think rob bell’s elusiveness a prudent way to go. either, he has adopted unorthodox views (putting it more tastefully) and does need to be exposed (and mourned), or he has been intentionally deceptive for marketing purposes. either way is just wrong and a poor way to treat the brothers and sisters in the body.

my hope is that he hasn’t adopted rogue doctrine and that his publishers made decisions in marketing that he had no control over. one can hope.

Let me see if I follow this :

1) Tosh et al conclude from two chapters of an unpublished book and a YOUtube video that Rob Bell is a heretic

2) If Rob Bell was not a heretic, he’d come out and clairify his position,

3) Rob Bell has not come out to clarify his position,

ergo, 4) Rob bell is a heretic.

1) When in the history of academia was reading two chapters of a book and watching four minute YOUtube video considered “first hand evidence”? At most, a person can do is construct an inductive investigation into what Rob Bell’s book is about. However, the reasonable conclusion inevitabley ends like this: “Based on two chapters from Love Wins and this YOUtube video I think the book is about X, but I wont know until I read it”. So, on this premiss, no one has the last word on Bell’s book yet.

(2) – (3)- invalid. Rob is under no obligation to clarify what his book is about especially since it is going to be released soon. He might be more inclined if nothing else would be said on the issue then those two chapters and the YOUtube video, but that isn’t the case.

(4)- In light of the problems with 1-3, I don’t see any reason why anyone should entertain the conclusion that Rob Bell is a heretic with evidence from 1-3.

I think this entire discussion is sad. When the Church is no longer effective in the ministry of evangelism it will look instead to hunt for witches. This is not to be mistaken with “contending for the faith” like in Jude. Two chapters and YOUtube video is not a false doctrine, the book is yet to come out. And besides, no writing exists in a vacuum. Not, Ben’s, Rob’s or even the Scriptures. Everything has a context, and to judge it outisde of that context isn’t the best way to divide and handle the word of truth, at least, I don’t think so.

Ben I’m sorry about my previous post, me and Bell have bad blood since his velvet elvis turned one of my great Christian friends into questioning if scripture is authoritative and accurate. After calming down, and reading that Paul and Derek called me to apologize I re-read the last part and realized I was not speaking in love but in anger. The last part about Bell taking place before Christ was inappropriate and could have done without it. I’m sorry.

Gracious goodness, what a firestorm! (pun intended) LOVE WINS will surely sell like slushies in the Sahara!

I have no doubt that this Hellish issue will be the next “test of orthodoxy” that the heresy hunters will concoct for many “conservative” denominations. Their older tests have grown stale, and their latest tests haven’t gained enough traction. So sad, actually.

Having witnessed the ruthless wrath of one major witch-hunt and a few minor ones, I’m in no mood to experience another.

I did find this article that was quite sane & helpful: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/marchweb-only/rob-bell-universalism.html

Did you talk to Mark and John before posting this?

I’d actually say that Love Wins is somewhat of a Rorschach Test: If you can’t stand Bell, or have always questioned what he had to say, you will read the book through that lens and find what you’re looking for. If you’ve been on the fence about him, you’ll still be there. If you’ve read him charitably in the past and found that, even when you disagree, he is still within the stream of orthodox Christianity, you will still find that he’s there. One of his stated purposes in the book is to get folks to study what is actually in Scripture, and to ask the tough questions – and accept fuzzy answers and to be charitable to others who do, as well. For example, here is an examination of what the Scriptures actually say about hell, and it is possible to take them seriously, yet come up with a different answer than eternal, conscious torture.

Hello, Neat post. There is a problem along with your site in internet explorer, may check this¡K IE nonetheless is the marketplace chief and a large element of other folks will pass over your excellent writing because of this problem.

@chels I know what you mean, its hard to find good help these days. People now days just don’t have the work ethic they used to have. I mean consider whoever wrote this post, they must have been working hard to write that good and it took a good bit of their time I am sure. I work with people who couldn’t write like this if they tried, and getting them to try is hard enough as it is.

Appreciate your spending some time to go about it, I’m honestly regarding as well as like reading through a little more about the following content. Just in case likelihood, because you have expertise, are you willing to responses writing your blog page by using much more tips? This is useful for me and my peers.

This is a great post. you got cheap shoes online .I like cheap designer shoes as well give you designer shoes outlet

Great post. I was checking continuously this blog and I’m impressed! Very useful info specially the last part I care for such information a lot. I was seeking this certain information for a long time. Thank you and best of luck.

I’m very happy to read this. This is the type of manual that needs to be given and not the accidental misinformation that’s at the other blogs. Appreciate your sharing this greatest doc.

I agree using your thoughts here and I really love your website! I’ve bookmarked it making sure that I could revisit & read more later on.

The best things to go about doing over the internet is without question to study answers, which is the key reason why My spouse and I have to continue to keep coming back here, you guys do a marvelous role

The most excellent step to actually do using the web is without question to study knowledge, which is the key reason why I have to always keep returning back at this website, you guys do a awesome duty

Very inspiring, nice to know others are also interested in these things!

Interesting stuff, I’ve bookmarked your site and hope to come back.

This was interesting and helpful, thanks for sharing.

Amen!