Now that Rob Bell’s book is out I have been receiving request after request to say something. Yes, we will be reviewing the book and doing our best to set this almost kafkaesque scene in context. But I want to let the immediate chatter and some of the knee-jerk reactions to settle down before I post the review.
As you may know, I consider the issues surrounding universalism, the love of God and the justice of God, the relationship of our life now and our life then … I consider these issues to be the most significant challenge to the Christian faith today. Pounding the hell pulpit or knee-jerk defenses of what Rob says aren’t going to satisfy the aching questions so many have about this topic today.
We do ourselves harm by not considering these topics patiently. So I want to read the book carefully, run down some facts and chase down some ideas, and then post something. Whatever you think about this topic, let this be our constant theme: everyone should know us by our love for one another, and that means how we discourse about pressing issues.
Look for a post about the book around April 1.
Thank you Scott for working to keep a civil and meaningful discussion on this important topic.
A reasoned response? Thanks be to God! Take all the time you need…
Yes – Thank you Scot!
If the 1-hour 12-minute LiveStream interview/discussion/Q&A Bell did (courtesy of Harper Collins) is any indication of what the book is about, it will be a rather poor and jumbled and (IMO) boring read.
http://www.livestream.com/lovewins/video?clipId=pla_9997e760-b88d-4294-91a8-142e5ed1c619&utm_source=lslibrary&utm_medium=ui-thumb
As Bell says at 1:10:06 in the “interview”: “I’m not a theologian, I’m not a scholar, um, not very smart.”
I strongly agree with your final words above – “Whatever you think about this topic, let this be our constant theme: everyone should know us by our love for one another, and that means how we discourse about pressing issues.” Speaking as one who does not agree with what I know of Rob Bell’s book, I thank you very much for your reminder. I was in a car repair shop this morning and watched a television interview of Rob Bell. Immediately after that interview, an even more “famous” evangelical was asked what he thought about Bell’s book and the response was the opposite of what you suggest. No one watching the two interviews would have ever guessed that the second professed Christian loved the first. All of which is somewhat ironic in light the title of Bell’s book (“Love Wins”). No, love is not EVERYTHING in Christianity, but it is not NOTHING either.
“kafkaesque scene.” Brilliant analogy.
I agree with taking a breath and holding off. I’m looking forward to reading your review.
Yes, we will be reviewing the book and doing our best to set this almost kafkaesque scene in context. But I want to let the immediate chatter and some of the knee-jerk reactions to settle down before I post the review…. So I want to read the book carefully, run down some facts and chase down some ideas, and then post something…. Look for a post about the book around April 1.
I can see it now:
My one-word review of Rob Bell’s book, LOVE WINS, is this:
Brilliant! Simply Brilliant! One of the most God-honoring, worship-inspiring, thought-provoking books I’ve read in the last 20 years!
Okay, that’s more than one word. But it’s truly that good! Who would have thought that Rob Bell had this in him?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
April Fool!
Here is a fairly comprehensive “play-by-play” of Bell’s interview for those who can’t watch it…
http://www.timschraeder.com/2011/03/14/love-wins-rob-bell/
I do recommend watching it though.
Given the widespread proliferation of comments made on the web, I do wish people of faith would use much more discretion and circumspection before we make comments of others and their beliefs. I don’t think the truth has anything to fear from error. We should be measured, respectful and state our understanding of the truth frankly and without animosity. I now beleive what will be weighed is the spirit folks exhibit rather than specific things the book might actually say. Thanks for your patience, it’s much needed now.
Will look forward to it, Scot. I’m about halfway through it, and I’m glad that Rob is putting Scripture on the table, not just a philosophical approach. But there are huge hermeneutical issues here, and I’m sure you will add valuable reflections on all that. The book doesn’t just raise the issue of the meaning of hell, but the meaning of heaven as well. And the nature of God. And what degree of absolution any of us can pronounce over the human race. Hope you plan on doing a long review!
“Look for a post for the book” on APRIL FOOL’S DAY?!!
LOL!
Take your time, and make it as long as it needs to be. Or as short, I suppose.
Two points for invoking Kafka.
Thanks, Scot!! This sets a good tone. I intend to try to understand better firsthand, myself.
We all look forward to your thoughts on this.
Look forward to it, Scot. Re: Bell’s live stream last night, I really enjoyed Margaret Feinberg’s take on it.
Grace and peace,
EricW@4, please post your email so I can watch the stream
In what sense is it a “kafkaesque scene” and to whom are you referring? Is that really accurate or charitable?
These reviews don’t seem kafkaesque to me:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/03/14/rob-bell-love-wins-review/
http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/love-wins-a-review-of-rob-bells-new-book
While we wait for Scot to weigh in you can watch Martin Bashir on MSNBC interview book. I have to warn you though it is a bit of a train wreck… kind of like watching jello hit the wall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg-qgmJ7nzA&feature=youtu.be
Look forward to your thoughts, Scot. Read it over the weekend. Hopefully CT will get you to write an article like you did last year for McLaren. After reading Bell I actually have (slightly) more respect for McLaren: at least he’s mildly transparent and tries to make a cohesive argument. This book is the most atrocious thing I’ve ever read at so many levels, not the least of which is his handling of the Text and the Christian faith.
@DRT 17. Just click on the link and input your own email – real, fake or otherwise. It doesn’t seem to care.
@DRT 17.: You may have to start here: http://www.livestream.com/lovewins
Most of the Christian responses to this book make me not want to be Christian any more.
re #18 above – Cody, you are right sir, it was a train wreck. Bashir demonstrated a grasp of the implications of the gospel better than any reporter I’ve seen. And Bell dropped the ball, imo.
So wait Hank, I am confused. Your love, union, and following Jesus is so easily swayed by the behavior of other people?
Besides if you really think the behavior of other believers has been that deplorable and sinful, than why not follow Jesus’ example and love those sinners like Jesus does?
I guess I missed the part where Jesus said that people would become his disciples and then act perfect. Now of course at this point I am being sarcastic, but either way I still love you as a brother in Christ!
In the meantime, here is a well reasoned review by Rich Mouw, president of Fuller.
.
http://www.netbloghost.com/mouw/
My copy should be coming in the mail any day now. Like many others, I am eager to hear what Bell has to say. I wonder if C.S. Lewis might have gotten this type of response with “The Great Divorce” had he written in in this media age? I personally doubt that Bell’s orthodoxy is going to be nearly as far “out of bounds” as many are trumpeting.
I’ll give my own review once I’m done, although I look forward to reading Scot’s opinion much more than giving my own lay opinion, for what it’s worth.
WOW! Even after such a level headed response by Scooter, the judgment that seethes from those here that haven’t even read the book is shocking.
When Billy Graham was asked by Newsweek about the destiny of “good Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or secular people,” he had this to say: “Those are decisions only the Lord will make. It would be foolish for me to speculate on who will be there and who won’t … I don’t want to speculate about all that. I believe the love of God is absolute. He said he gave his son for the whole world, and I think he loves everybody regardless of what label they have.”
The last time I checked, I hadn’t learned everything about God yet.
Here is a biblical case for everyone going to heaven:
http://wp.me/PNthc-i6
You may not agree with it, but I think you will agree that it is a reasonable case.
In any event, the most important thing is that we repent and live for Jesus Christ our Lord.
Thanks for a waiting a few weeks to review the book Scot and actually reading it before commenting. Doesn’t seem like a big commendable action but these days it is.
@Hank…is that because most of the Christian responses to Love Wins are based on Scripture and not just our feelings?
Universalism is heresy, there’s no nice way to put that or nuance that. It’s emotionally appealing, but can’t argue Scripture intelligibly. Rob is clear about his views, and his questions go beyond mere asking into telling – he says as much in his book. His treatment of Scripture is brutal and insincere.
And let’s also not forget that Rob Bell wanted this fight. He wrote a book he pre-released to the Christian community for review. He wrote a book knowing it would fly in the face of orthodoxy, plain reason and Scripture. He was silent on the furor that erupted earlier this month until it grew beyond his control, and now he’s doing the media circuit to promote a book that leaves no doubt about his heterodox views.
Rob Bell would like us all to just be quiet and accept his views. We can’t – at least not while he claims to be inside the church.
Here is some interesting commentary in a creative form- taking the style and rhetoric of Bell’s promo video and asking different questions:
http://mikewittmer.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/justice-wins/
Brad hits the nail on the head. So if someone comes out and starts teaching universalism and minimizing the importance of Jesus Christ and his role in our redemption and life in the here and after, we are just supposed to twiddle our thumbs?
I have read almost every critical review out there, and NOT ONE was personal or mean-spirited toward Rob Bell. Most were prayerful, concerned, and thoughtfully engaged with Bell’s book.
I can tell you that I have no interest in banal topics like sports and TV shows, but speaking up against theology that is dangerous to the souls of people, is worth critical engagement.
I wonder how so many on here who promote “conversation” think that is supposed to take place, when every time someone you disagree with opens their mouth you paint them as being angry and “seething” with judgmental intolerance. Might I say this has become quite a hypocritical charge.
This has been a brilliant marketing campaign by the publisher. Kudos to them. Everyone rushes to buy the book and weigh-in. Me? I’ll wait and read reasoned reviews such as Scot’s will be, and then wait until I can borrow someone’s copy. Kinda refuse to follow like an obedient little lemming and do just what the publisher and Bell want – rush out to spend 22 bucks on the book.
@ 31 and 33
So how do we handle the reality that Bell denies being a universalist explicitly and repeatedly? How did those “prayerful and thoughtful” reviews handle that? How do we handle that he is explicitly and repeatedly pointing to Christ and Christ’s teachings throughout the book?
Oh, that’s right, he’s a heretic because he’s not an exclusivist, not because he’s a universalist. I’m reading the book and he doesn’t say anything CS Lewis and others didn’t already say.
Why does it seem that reading and comprehension skills tend to be greatly diminished among those that want to boycott books?
Is the following statement true or false: “The man who is isolated over against God is as such rejected by God. But to this man can only be the godless man’s own choice. The witness of the community of God to every individual man consists in this: that this choice of the godless man is void; that he belongs eternally to Jesus Christ and therefore is not rejected, but elected by God in Jesus Christ; that the rejection which he deserves on account of his perverse choice is borne and cancelled by Jesus Christ; and that he is appointed to eternal life with God on the basis of the righteous, divine decision.”
Let us honestly ask ourselves if we believe that there is a divine alter ego behind Jesus Christ or if we believe that Jesus Christ is indeed the true exegete of God. Is God’s first word “yes” or “no”? Is God’s final word “yes” or “no”? Is there ever a “no” from God that occurs apart from a “yes”? Does God’s “nos” bound God’s “yeses” or does God’s “yeses” bound God’s “nos”?
Hey Richard, bad form to ask a question and then sarcastically answer it. Just reeks of being disingenuous.
The answer to your question (and I just finished reading the book) is that Bell says he is not a universalist, AFTER redefining it.
Bell seems to reduce universalism to what a traditional Unitarian would believe, maybe he has read guys like Karl Barth, but he seems to show ignorance in not seeing that most of his ideas are just recycled Barth and a mutation of universalism.
Though Bell may be able to plausible deny traditional universalism of everyone being with God right away in the afterlife; he can’t deny that he think eventually all will be saved as “love wins.”
Really Bell is promoting universalism, but is able to answer the question in the negative because he sees the process in a different manner. This is where a lesson (if Bell has not had one) in historical theology would do Bell some good in answering these questions with more clarity.
Now see Richard, no need for being sarcastic and trying to demean those you disagree with!
@35
“Oh, that’s right, he’s a heretic because he’s not an exclusivist, not because he’s a universalist. I’m reading the book and he doesn’t say anything CS Lewis and others didn’t already say.”
Actually, his views are heterodox because they diverge from the plain reading of Scripture. There is a hell. It’s eternal and those who reject Christ go there. There’s no verses that suggest a second chance and Rob’s treatment of Scripture, particularly Psalm 22, is painful.
Now I understand that Rob thinks he knows more than the tens of thousands theologians and pastors(though Rob admits to being not much of a theologian in a recent internview) who have given 2,000 years of careful thinking to the issue. But saying he knows better than all of us, no matter how clever or nice, doesn’t make it so.
And by the way, if you had read the Rob Bell Interview Transcript right here on Patheos, you would have read that even Rob Bell admits that Jesus is incredibly exclusive. So I don’t know what you’re underlying point here is really supposed to be – except to slam those who are critical of Bell’s book.
By the way, no one is advocating the banning of books. That’s silly. I’ve bought the book, you should too..and then carefully check all its claims against Scripture.
Should be *your not you’re above…
And Richard, C.S. Lewis’ and Rob’s views of hell are vastly different. Even in the Great Divorce – which you have to largely presume was representative of his views, despite comments he made to the contrary – only a couple of souls from all of hell are welcomed into heaven.
Scot,
Uggghhh. I wish others would dialogue about Bell and his book in the same manner (patient love) that you have chosen.
Bounded or Centered (1)
As I have followed the many posts about “Love Wins”, there seems to be two ways of approaching the Rob Bell Controversy.
In her book, “The Great Emergence” (Baker 2008), Phyllis Tickle discusses the concept of “bounded sets” and “centered sets” (although she wrongly attributes the concept to John Wimber, when it was missiologist Paul Hiebert who used those concepts to illustrate new approaches to understanding the place of persons in the Kingdom of God.) These ideas are also referenced in Darel Guder et al “The Missional Church” (Eerdmans 1998). John Ortberg wrote about this on 06/14/10 in an article at LeadershipJournal.net. I will quote from Ortberg in the post below (as the site does not seem to want all of this in one post)
Bounded or Centered (2)
“A bounded set is one where all its members are determined by focusing on the boundary. For instance, “apples” is a bounded set. Whether or not an item fits depends on whether it meets the criteria for apples — having skin and seeds and so on. Membership in a bounded set is static…
“A centered set, on the other hand, is determined by a focus on the center. For example, ‘bald-headed people’ would be a centered set. The paradigmatic member would be Mr. Clean, at the center of the set.
“Centered sets are dynamic, in motion. A baby might be born with no hair, but hair is coming, so that baby may start near the center but moves away and eventually is out of the category. On the other hand, a 20-year-old might have hair, but it’s already starting to stay on the comb, so he’s on his way into the category.
“With centered sets, the key question is whether I am oriented and moving toward the center or moving away from the center. I’m defined on where I am, and where I’m moving, in relation to the CENTER (my emphasis).
“If we treat Christianity as a bounded set, the gospel will be presented as something to get you ‘inside the circle.’ However, if we treat Christianity as a centered set, the gospel is the proclamation that life with and through Jesus is now available to ordinary people. The way that (we) enter into it is by becoming a follower of Jesus and orienting our lives with him at the center.”
Bounded or Centered (3)
Jesus himself appears to have been a “centered set” person. That’s why he could say to the chief priests and elders in Matthew 21: “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.” The “chief priests and elders” considered themselves inside their “bounded set” and “tax collectors and prostitutes” were definitely on the outside. Yet Jesus seemed more concerned about the direction of their orientation – were they moving “toward the center or moving away from the center.”
It seems that many of those who have been quick to condemn Rob Bell are working from a “bounded set” mentality… whether or not Bell “fits” depends on whether he meets certain criteria for orthodoxy. Those who have been more open to listen what Bell is saying seem more concerned abuot whether this conversation moves us “toward the center” or “away from the center”… which is Jesus.
So the question might be asked… are we only interested in defining who is “in or out” by our definitions of orthodoxy, or are we seeking to understand how the dialogue might move us “toward” or “away” from our Center?
For a diagram of Bounded vs. Centered Sets see post at:
http://thelovewinsconversation.com/
@ Brad, Cody
I had a really long reply to engage further with you guys but on second thought I’d like to propose that we hold off until Scot review’s the book so we don’t run this thread into nowhere with three voices tinging off the walls of cyberspace. Cheers.
Given that I know and love real, live atheists, Jews, and Muslims, not to mention the many who are “spiritual, but no longer religious”… and given the attacks against Rob Bell’s teaching that “love wins”… and given that many will never become Christian in the “orthodox, theologically correct” sense argued by many here, and if such people are correct, right now I feel despondency, darkness, depressed, despondency, not to mention deep despair. I am thinking about these people I love who will be tortured forever and I feel nauseous. My hope has been stolen away. I was counting on the power of Christ’s love to conquer and now I doubt it.