Rob Bell’s Confession

Comments

1. 1
   Kyle J says:
   April 8, 2011 at 10:59 am

   Amen to all of that.
2. 2
   Denny Burk says:
   April 8, 2011 at 11:00 am

   At the end of his confession, he says:

   “I also believe it’s best to only discuss books you’ve actually read.”

   I think this last line was supposed to be a real stinger to his critics, but the line is completely uncontroversial. No one on either side of the debate would dispute this. We can only analyze what we have read for ourselves. But this isn’t really the point.

   Critics were responding to what they had seen, not what they hadn’t seen. Bell produced a provocative video suggesting a universalist perspective, and he (or his publisher) released three chapters that suggested the same thing. These were both released weeks in advance of the book. Did he really expect that nobody would be talking about his words in the video and in the chapters?
3. 3
   Chloe says:
   April 8, 2011 at 11:00 am

   Amen!

   (I am having to add these parentheses as apparently, just the word “amen” is too short to be accepted as a comment by wordpress!)
4. 4
   Cody says:
   April 8, 2011 at 11:01 am

   Talk about swinging at windmills, no one has ever debated that you should interact with the content of the book itself.

   I would have been more impressed if Rob said he believed in answering questions clearly and directly, and that he has a pastoral responsibility to do so.
5. 5
   Dennis says:
   April 8, 2011 at 11:07 am

   Aha! He didn’t address the authorship of Hebrews!
6. 6
   :mic says:
   April 8, 2011 at 11:11 am

   Wow!

   (My comment was a bit too short, so I’m making it not too short by letting you know that it was too short.)
7. 7
   Diane says:
   April 8, 2011 at 11:12 am

   It’s the shouts and the rock star atmosphere that makes me more nervous than anything.
8. 8
   Chris Donato says:
   April 8, 2011 at 11:18 am

   @Diane, that stuff is intoxicating. Imagine, if you can, how that must feel. I’d lap that s*** up.

   I’m with Cody #4. Pastoral responsibility (and Christian celebrity accountability) is one the biggest issues, to my mind, revolving around this whole business (and I use business deliberately).
9. 9
   billyv says:
   April 8, 2011 at 11:21 am

   Great! I read the book and have discussed the poor exegesis of his work with my students who ask me about it.
10. 10
    Casey Tygrett says:
    April 8, 2011 at 11:24 am

    What I find fascinating about this whole thing is that just when it is about to die, one side or the other revives it. It’s a book that I have not read. I may not read it but I do know that often the polemical books disappear quickly if left soon after critical assessment. N.T. Wright, C.S. Lewis and others of apparently more respectable levels than Rob have said similar things to what he has stated in interviews and what I’ve read in excerpts. There aren’t people going after them any more, mainly because of the body of work. Plus I believe after “Justification” N.T. Wright may have created a sense of trepidation for those practicing casual critique. Perhaps we should just let it go. If Rob is leading to the Kingdom coming on earth as it is in heaven, to critique him to the extent people are not only wastes time but it is standing in the way of the Kingdom advancing.

    Thanks Scot as always for the provocative post!
11. 11
    Rose says:
    April 8, 2011 at 11:24 am

    “pastoral responsibility” I wonder if it’s okay to be asking the questions and not providing concrete, black and white, either or answers? It seems that Jesus didn’t answer all questions in that way but instead asked questions which provoked a new/old way of seeing…
12. 12
    Kyle J says:
    April 8, 2011 at 11:25 am

    @Denny

    In terms of the promotional video being “provocative,” I think the key is understanding who the intended audience was.

    I don’t think the audience was conservative theologians.

    I think the intended audience was the thousands of people out there who have real, honest questions about heaven, hell, and Christianity.

    I guess you’re right that Bell shouldn’t be surprised that the video provoked a response from the theologians. But I’d guess he’s happier that it provoked real, honest discussion (like what’s occurring on this blog) about what are some pretty scary concepts that don’t get talked about in public very much.

    @Diane

    Do you feel pastors on the other side of this debate are answering questions clearly and directly? Is Gandhi in hell? Is a 10-year old child who dies in a car accident without hearing the gospel in hell? And so on and so forth.

    A big part of Bell’s point, to me, is that trying to create an immutable theological framework ends up putting God, and his love, in a box.
13. 13
    Tom says:
    April 8, 2011 at 11:26 am

    Cody, I don’t believe it’s a pastoral responsibility to answer questions if you aren’t sure of the answer. Isn’t that part of our problem, giving answers out of ignorance?
14. 14
    Kyle J says:
    April 8, 2011 at 11:26 am

    I guess that second part was really for Chris.
15. 15
    bbaltrus says:
    April 8, 2011 at 11:27 am

    If you are really interested in the full discussion it can be found here.

    http://marshill.org/teaching/2011/03/27/letters-to-the-seven-churches-%E2%80%93-rev-2-the-agony-of-explanation/

    The full discussion shows why they were cheering. This is Rob’s home and his family was showing their support!!
16. 16
    Brian says:
    April 8, 2011 at 11:31 am

    Context is important. This was at his chuch within his community. I think letting off a lil steam is fine, especially in that context.

    What’s more interesting is his sermon that follows…

    @Denny: I think he was more surprised at the manner/ tone with which people responded.
17. 17
    John W Frye says:
    April 8, 2011 at 11:33 am

    Having read the book in question, I’d turn Bell’s questions back on him.
    “Which *Jesus* do you believe in?”
    “As a professed Christian, what is involved in Christian *salvation*?”

    IMO, to verbalize a litany of god-words does not settle the troubling issues in his latest book.
18. 18
    E.G. says:
    April 8, 2011 at 11:34 am

    @Denny – Well, one way or the other, you and a few others sure succeeded in selling a lot of books for Mr. Bell.

    And you, and Mr. Bell, certainly succeeded in putting the issue of heaven and hell to the forefront of current Evangelical discussion… at least for the next little while.

    So, you all did your parts admirably.
19. 19
    Tony says:
    April 8, 2011 at 11:57 am

    His confession of not being a universalist would hold more weight if he didn’t argue for hypothetical universalism in his book.
20. 20
    Cody says:
    April 8, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    Yes pastors do have a responsibility to answer questions clearly.

    Obviously Rob does have what he thinks to be answers on the topic, otherwise he would not have written a whole book about the subject and had the knowledge to call one view on the matter “toxic.” You must have some information to konw that exculsivism is toxic…right?

    The Bible warns about the burden of being a teacher of God’s Word and that those who do so will be held to a higher standard.

    Lets not play games and pretend that this means there are not appropriate environments to do so. At the death of a 10 year old it is not the right time to discuss God’s sovereignty but rather to mourn with those who mourn. But a pastor would be doing a grave injustice to his people to tell them that the Bible had nothing for them on this matter at the right time.

    Look Bell is the one who kept saying over and over during his rounds on the talks shows that he is a “pastor” first a foremost. All I am saying is don’t act like you don’t have strong views and opinions on the matter when you really do.
21. 21
    Chuck Roberts says:
    April 8, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    What would really impress me would be if Rob Bell left off that last bit about not commenting on books you haven’t read, which of course is true, but was said to generate applause from a favorable audience. I’d be impressed if he said that in an attempt to provoke a needed discussion about some issues some Christians would rather avoid (good) he made an intentionally provocative video and released a few chapters of his book, which he knew would result in controversy and increased book sales (not good).

    I’d be impressed if Justin Taylor, John Piper, and a few others would blog or tweet their apologies for pouncing on Rob Bell in a manner that does not reflect the way Jesus asked us to love one another.

    When Rob Bell asks question after question after question he’s teaching his congregation that it’s better to have questions than to work hard to find answers. Don’t get me wrong, he’s asking some really good, necessary questions we all should be willing to engage with, and there are too many of us who’ve been willing to settle too quickly on our answers. I’m not quarreling with asking questions, just the manner in which it’s done.

    When Justin Taylor and John Piper responded the way they did they taught their followers that the thing Christians are supposed to do is to pounce on anyone who’s theology doesn’t agree with our own. There’s no way to justify that.
22. 22
    gingoro says:
    April 8, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    Enough about Rob Bell already! In all this discussion I have not seen any reason to change my views and the whole thing is getting tiring. Yes one can hope that no one ultimately will be left in the state of hell but much as I would like to I see no promise of that in scripture. I read Lewis and Stott years ago and find their thoughts more relevant. Let’s return to important matters.
    Dave W
23. 23
    Gloria says:
    April 8, 2011 at 12:25 pm

    No. 21 pretty much sums up my thinking. Thanks for such a reasoned and loving approach.
    No. 2, I am saddened that those who came out swinging at Rob Bell before the book even came out (those who had not read the whole book), are not able to apologize for what they have done. They continue to justify their actions which most of us can see were just so wrong. It is such an unChristlike response by supposed extremely conservative Christian leaders.
24. 24
    Chris Donato says:
    April 8, 2011 at 12:26 pm

    @ Tony, let’s not confuse terms: “hypothetical universalism” refers to the atonement (as in, Christ’s atonement is sufficient for all but efficient for the elect alone).

    Bell’s version, it turns out, was better summed up by Balthasar (not saying the two are in total agreement, as I wouldn’t want to besmirch Balthasar). Perhaps “hopeful universalism” is more apropos?
25. 25
    Jeff L says:
    April 8, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    God bless Rob Bell for asking tough questions, for working hard to find answers, and for humbly admitting when he can’t find definitive answers.

    “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known”

    Bell’s_Velvet Elvis_ was an important factor in bringing me back to the faith.
26. 26
    ScottL says:
    April 8, 2011 at 12:46 pm

    Denny -

    Critics were responding to what they had seen, not what they hadn’t seen. Bell produced a provocative video suggesting a universalist perspective, and he (or his publisher) released three chapters that suggested the same thing. These were both released weeks in advance of the book. Did he really expect that nobody would be talking about his words in the video and in the chapters?

    Well, there are people who continue to critique the book based upon the critiques of others. But I think the main thing, as one major theologian noted, was how the pre-release critique came out of more of a fear-driven paranoia rather than pastoral and patient wisdom.
27. 27
    Michael W. Kruse says:
    April 8, 2011 at 12:46 pm

    Cody #4

    “I would have been more impressed if Rob said he believed in answering questions clearly and directly, and that he has a pastoral responsibility to do so.”

    And that, of course, is why Jesus came speaking in parables, metaphors, and riddles
28. 28
    Brian Renshaw says:
    April 8, 2011 at 12:49 pm

    Of course he believes those things that he stated. No one never said that he didn’t believe in Jesus or anything else. He just tries to define them differently. The slam against people who hadn’t read his book was ridiculous. If he did not promote his book in a way that hinted towards universalism then there would have been this big uproar. In his book he defends a flavor of universalism that is unbiblical.
29. 29
    Peter G. says:
    April 8, 2011 at 12:51 pm

    “I believe in hell” won’t cut it. The question is what is the hell you believe in? I’m tired of hearing Bell say he believes in hell and then redefine it beyond recognition. If you’re going to use a commonly understood word to describe a new concept, you better go out of your way to make that clear. He does in the book. He often doesn’t in public forums.
30. 30
    Michael W. Kruse says:
    April 8, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    As I tweeted earlier, my new name for Bell’s book is “HarperOne Wins.”

    Bell and Harper were attempting to be provocative and his critiques took the bait hook, line and sinker. I suspect many people not from an Evangelical background were intrigued. He got conversation started about the topic and Harper gets a bigger financial reward.

    Sounds like pretty effective promotion to me.
31. 31
    Cody says:
    April 8, 2011 at 12:53 pm

    He did but that is to reductionistic of an interpretation of the Jesus or the Bible for that matter Michael.

    Jesus also spoke very clearly and plainly at times. The Sermon on the Mount is filled with clear teaching on life and the after-life for that matter.

    In addition we have many other books in the NT that are filled with propositional truths and teachings about life, death, Heaven Hell, and many other topics.

    Also this idea that Jesus spoke in riddles so we should do so also, seems quite arrogant since Jesus told us what his purpose was for doing so…what is Rob’s? Especially in light of the rest of Revelation.
32. 32
    Marc says:
    April 8, 2011 at 12:59 pm

    @John W Frye (#17)

    It sounded less like a “a litany of god-words” to me, and more like a riff on one of the Creeds.
33. 33
    MatthewS says:
    April 8, 2011 at 1:01 pm

    I don’t think the audience was conservative theologians.

    I think the intended audience was the thousands of people out there who have real, honest questions about heaven, hell, and Christianity.

    Something I wonder, though – a skilled communicator makes an impact on the intended audience, and Bell is a skilled communicator. Judging from impact alone, what is Bell’s intended audience?
34. 34
    Michael W. Kruse says:
    April 8, 2011 at 1:07 pm

    Cody #31

    When David sinned with Bathsheba, what did the prophet Nathan do? He did not walk into David and say you sinned, here is how, now repent. Instead, he told a story about a man who had a lamb that is taken by a very powerful man. David becomes indigent. Nathan flips the table and tells David he is the man. David is brought to repentance.

    Stories, parables, questions, and riddles have ways of drawing us into a topic that by-passes the reasons and rationalizations we have built up in defense of positions we hold and causes us to look at them through different lenses. Frequently, straightforward answers are the least effective way to develop deep reflection and conversation.

    Yes, Jesus did get more straightforward at times. So does Bell. I’m simply rejecting the idea that this mode is the default for all, or maybe even most, circumstances. For the topic and context Bell is raising, this is precisely the occasion for story and question raising.
35. 35
    Cody says:
    April 8, 2011 at 1:10 pm

    Peter G. in #29 is right. Its like me saying, “I believe in monogamy but what I mean by monogamy is that each woman I am with I am monogamous in that moment with them.”

    People would laugh and say that is not what that word monogamy means. Just like Bell redefining Hell to be just a bad attitude and negative view on life.
36. 36
    Brian says:
    April 8, 2011 at 1:13 pm

    (21) Chuck Roberts: “When Justin Taylor and John Piper responded the way they did they taught their followers that the thing Christians are supposed to do is to pounce on anyone who’s theology doesn’t agree with our own. There’s no way to justify that.”

    And that, unfortunately, has been lost in all of this. When will the Christian community say, “enough is enough”? There is right way to disagree and a wrong way. For all of Bell’s alleged theological short-comings, he at least doesn’t resort to attacking those he disagrees with. There has been a gross lack of Christian love and charity amongst many critics and that’s where the real controversy should be.
37. 37
    Cody says:
    April 8, 2011 at 1:14 pm

    BTW, would love to have someone still answer me how Bell can keep up the charade that all of this is really just mystery to him and therefore he is just asking questions, but has enough answers to call exclusivism “toxic.”

    Where did he get this knowledge? Why is he willing to be so clear and direct on this view of Heaven and Hell?
38. 38
    matt says:
    April 8, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    That the author of Hebrews was a woman is a Rob Bell inside joke. Something to the effect that “if you want to raise the ire of many biblical scholars, just claim that you know who wrote Hebrews”

    Later in the book he returns to referring to the author as an unknown entity.

    Rob really thinks it’s funnier if one doesn’t have to explain his/her jokes
39. 39
    Dennis J says:
    April 8, 2011 at 1:23 pm

    all that cheering in the background is kind of creepy. I hope Bell knows how to keep things from becoming a personality cult.
40. 40
    Dennis J says:
    April 8, 2011 at 1:27 pm

    i missed that comment from bbaltrus 15. now i understand the cheering.
41. 41
    scotmcknight says:
    April 8, 2011 at 1:37 pm

    Matt, you may know that some have actually contended that the author of Hebrews was a woman, perhaps Priscilla.
42. 42
    SuperStar says:
    April 8, 2011 at 1:40 pm

    After being at Mars Hill for 6 years, the evident love for Jesus that Rob Bell talks about, lives and calls all of the people to experience at a deep level, I’m not sure why this confession seems out of the ordinary. And Rob may not be perfect nor all of his poetic prose theologically precise, but after reading Love Wins, I’m inspired to invite more people to live the Jesus way of life. And that is good news.
43. 43
    Robert says:
    April 8, 2011 at 2:15 pm

    The last little thing is just sad. Rather unauthentic.

    #4 Cody pretty much summed up my point.

    I’ve read the book. I have problems with it. Will Rob sit down with me and talk about it?
44. 44
    Richard says:
    April 8, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    @ 37 Cody

    I’m not sure if you’ve read the book or not so here is the comment you’re referring to:

    “A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better. It’s been clearly communicated to many that this belief is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’ message of love peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear…”

    On another of Scot’s threads a point was raised that the “toxic belief” may not be referencing “exclusivism/restrictivism” but may instead be referencing that “if someone doesn’t hold to belief in exclusivism/restrictivism they have rejected Jesus.” It is unclear to me which one it is referring to but I lean toward the second understanding based on the limited understanding I have of Rob and how he has interacted with opposing viewpoints in the past.

    I hope you find this helpful.
45. 45
    Peter Herzog says:
    April 8, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    Is it consistant for Rob to say “I am not a universalist” and “The love of God will melt every hard heart, and even the most ‘depraved sinners’ will eventually give up their resistance and turn to God”?
46. 46
    Hank says:
    April 8, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    Anyone think the early release of three chapters along with the video was for publicity. Hype up the book get people talking about it. Chastise people, whether accurately or not, for not reading the book but commenting (about the issue) to drive up the sales of the book. Sounds like good strategy, though perhaps a bit contrived.
    I don’t doubt Bell believes what he is saying. That said, when someone preaches what the masses want to hear the masses will listen. When a person offers am unpalatable truth, one that makes people uncomfortable, many will stop listening (or even attending that church).
47. 47
    D C Cramer says:
    April 8, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    Denny #2: “Bell produced a provocative video suggesting a universalist perspective…”

    It only “suggested” universalism if that’s what one was looking to find. It could have just as easily suggested soteriological inclusivism, which of course is logically and theologically distinct from universalism.

    When Justin Taylor’s post first came out, Scot suggested on this blog that Taylor (and the Gospel Coalition folks who backed him) were going to need to offer an apology when the book came out. Now, not only have Scot’s words come true, but–as others here have mentioned–these folks are trying to retroactively justify their knee-jerk reactions rather than simply apologizing for jumping the gun.
48. 48
    John W Frye says:
    April 8, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    Marc (#32),
    Yes, I felt the influence of the creed in Rob’s litany, but I, like others here, am not sure of the novel, idiosyncratic content Rob puts into some of those ancient (biblical) words.
49. 49
    Cody says:
    April 8, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    No it is not Peter. This is just like what Bell does with the word Hell, he redefines it before giving his answer.
50. 50
    Diane says:
    April 8, 2011 at 3:02 pm

    I haven’t read Bell’s book and am not about too as I have been underwhelmed by his previous work. My objection to his rock star status has nothing to do with his current theology, which I can’t claim to know, but with a general uneasiness about a servant of Christ receiving rock star adulation … shouldn’t he be getting run out of town … oh but he is … and he isn’t. For once, I agree with Michael Kruse (will wonders never cease?) –let’s follow the money. Harper is no doubt laughing all the way to the bank, and Bell too, though I am sure in his case it is all for the kingdom …
51. 51
    James says:
    April 8, 2011 at 3:03 pm

    Not bashing nor defending Rob, not saying he’s right or wrong, but he does have different definitions of universalism, heaven, and hell than what most of those listening to him will have.

    That’s another element to all of this fiasco…miscommunication.
52. 52
    Brian (not the other Brian) says:
    April 8, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    I clap and cheer when somebody professes Christ as Lord no matter who they are. Does that make it “creepy” or something to be “nervous” about?
53. 53
    Cody says:
    April 8, 2011 at 3:22 pm

    But that is just it James, it is not miscommunication. Bell know exactly what evangelical congregations believe when they hear the word “Hell.” This is not miscommunication this is at worst being manipulative and at best being intentionally vague.

    That is what is so sad about so many on here decrying the actions of those who have spoken out against Bell, but have not uttered one vowel for him to be more clear. I keep hearing how Bell is being misrepresented and misunderstood, but it seems he is the biggest culprit of for that.
54. 54
    Nick says:
    April 8, 2011 at 3:23 pm

    “And that, of course, is why Jesus came speaking in parables, metaphors, and riddles”

    Michael Kruse,

    So many times I have heard postmodern type folk be unclear about their position and then say this sort of thing to the conservative group assuming that the postmoderns are like Jesus and the conservatives are like the pharisees. I know that’s not what your intention was but I thought I would say it.

    However,

    I don’t think that quite works as a defense for being unclear since Jesus himself said, “there is nothing hidden, except to be disclosed; nor is anything secret, except to come to light.” Jesus had a particular purpose in using parables. It’s dangerous to assume that being unclear parallels Jesus’ intent in any way.

    Again, I know you probably being a bit tongue and cheek but there’s nothing wrong with asking someone to explain their position.
55. 55
    Kyle J says:
    April 8, 2011 at 3:33 pm

    @Cody

    “Lets not play games and pretend that this means there are not appropriate environments to do so. At the death of a 10 year old it is not the right time to discuss God’s sovereignty but rather to mourn with those who mourn. But a pastor would be doing a grave injustice to his people to tell them that the Bible had nothing for them on this matter at the right time.”

    This is where many of us can’t go along with the program and, therefore, find Bell’s work refreshing and liberating–as imperfect as it may be.

    If you knew with certainty that a 10-year old child had been kidnapped and was going be tortured by his captors for even a week–and there was absolutely nothing anyone could do about it–would you simply “mourn”? Or would you be shaken, besieged, and even destroyed down to your very soul? Now take “a week” and turn it into “eternity.”

    Bell may well dance around some tough theological questions, but I really can’t accept the idea that those who insist on a fundamentalist interpretation of the afterlife aren’t dancing around even bigger questions.
56. 56
    Michael W. Kruse says:
    April 8, 2011 at 3:55 pm

    #50 Diane

    “For once, I agree with Michael Kruse (will wonders never cease?) …”

    Come to the dark side, Diane. Resistance is futile.
57. 57
    DRT says:
    April 8, 2011 at 3:57 pm

    Get real people. Rob is not preaching to those who diligently take notes in class to learn the answer to the eternal questions. He is preaching to people like me that have to get out there and get run over a couple of times before we understand why we should not participate in a smash up derby!

    NICK, you sound like someone who would say “I have it figured out and so should you so let’s defend it”. Come on, the last thing I am going to do is listen to you if you say you have it worked out. Instead, I will try to see how you are wrong.

    Every generation and person needs to work this thing through on their own. Yes, they need to take in the arguments of others, but people need to form their own opinion on these things. Do you really think that people should accept what they have been taught then take a firm stance on it?

    I believe that Rob is provoking the needed conversation, unlike the modern view which tries to teach their conclusions to others. The goal is the conversation.

    And it is way unfair to listen to this snippet with its provocative title and judge what is going on. That is exactly what he is saying in his end about “those who have not read the book”. You fell for it again, a soundbite out there without listening to the context.
58. 58
    Michael W. Kruse says:
    April 8, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    #54 Nick

    I hear ya. I agree that there are some who play a postmodern game of being a little to cute with the veiled language.

    I haven’t read the book, but from what I have seen, it seems to me like Bell “broke up the soil” a bit with his provocative introduction, raising questions, which he then answers in the book. What I’m hearing is not that he didn’t finally get around to some answers but rather that some don’t like the answers he gave.

    One of my favorite theologians is Kenneth Bailey, a scholar who lived and taught in the Middle East for forty years. Because of our Western post-Enlightenment mindset, we tend to see systematic presentation of facts as the primary form of teaching, with an occasional story thrown in as the illustration. That is the role many see for Jesus parables.

    Bailey reveals that in the Middle Eastern culture, stories ARE the theology, and the linear factual explanations are what are at the edges. It is by entering the narratives and inhabiting them, seeing them from the inside out, that theological truths are accessed, wrestled with, and internalized.

    While I agree that there are some who get a little too cute with the mystery stuff, I think there are a great many more who don’t appreciate what Jesus (and many others in the Bible) was doing in his teaching.

    The linear factual model is esteemed too highly is all I’m saying.
59. 59
    Sean P. Nelson says:
    April 8, 2011 at 4:26 pm

    I love how people make excuses for poor response to an honest debate or set of questions. Instead of holding “theologians” and leaders feet to the fire of loving, honest debate and discussion when the very Bible they are claiming to “defend” has this to say… 2 Timothy 2:24-25 (ESV) “24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth…”

    Many of Rob’s critic’s have missed this mark horribly, so have many on this blog regarding this discussion. Less sarcasm, arrogance please… more love… After all… Love Wins.
60. 60
    FrGregACCA says:
    April 8, 2011 at 4:26 pm

    “There is no terrorism in the Orthodox doctrine of God. Orthodox Christians do not cringe before Him in abject fear, but think of Him as philanthropos, the ‘lover of men.’ Yet they keep in mind that Christ at His Second Coming will come as judge.

    “Hell is not so much a place where God imprisons man, as a place where man, by misusing his free will, chooses to imprison himself. And even in Hell the wicked are not deprived of the love of God, but by their own choice they experience as suffering what the saints experience as joy. ‘The love of God will be an intolerable torment for those who have not acquired it within themselves’ (V. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 234).

    “Hell exists as a final possibility, but several of the Fathers have none the less believed that in the end all will be reconciled to God. It is heretical to say that all must be saved, for this is to deny free will; but it is legitimate to hope that all may be saved. Until the Last Day comes, we must not despair of anyone’s salvation, but must long and pray for the reconciliation of all without exception. No one must be excluded from our loving intercession. ‘What is a merciful heart?’ asked Isaac the Syrian. ‘It is a heart that burns with love for the whole of creation, for men, for the birds, for the beasts, for the demons, for all creatures’ (Mystic Treatises, edited by A. J. Wensinck, Amsterdam, 1923, p. 341). Gregory of Nyssa said that Christians may legitimately hope even for the redemption of the Devil.” – Bishop Kallistos Ware “The Orthodox Church”

    See also:

    http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm
61. 61
    scotmcknight says:
    April 8, 2011 at 4:29 pm

    Thanks much Sean.
62. 62
    Matt says:
    April 8, 2011 at 4:31 pm

    I have a question that I’m not sure about but have a hunch about. Do you guys think that it really got the attention in a good way of non-Christians? I keep hearing Christians say that but I’ve yet to encounter a non-Christian that think it’s cool. Most of the non-Christians I hang out with or teach in college classify Rob himself in the “wanna-be-cool” Christianity camp and the message as “changing the message to please” camp. (I’m not saying it is that, I’m talking impression)

    What has been the experience of you guys on the blog here? And I’m asking about real conversations you have actually heard directly or had yourself with a real non-Christian that has been influenced by Rob Bell’s communications. Because all those I hear from that like Rob Bell are mostly younger-type Christians who are looking for something different.
63. 63
    Matt says:
    April 8, 2011 at 4:38 pm

    In light of Sean’s reminder on 59…I don’t mean to disparage in a harsh way. I appreciate his words and will take them to heart. I was referring to how many secular folks have labeled the recent styles and approaches of hip churches. This article comes to mind in terms of the general impression the church makes on many who aren’t a part of it.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111704575355311122648100.html
64. 64
    Pamela says:
    April 8, 2011 at 5:21 pm

    @45 If you read the book with discernment, you will note that Bell does not claim “The love of God will melt every hard heart, and even the most ‘depraved sinners’ will eventually give up their resistance and turn to God”? (p. 107) He is citing a position he does not himself endorse.
65. 65
    Christy says:
    April 8, 2011 at 5:27 pm

    Matt @62 -

    To answer your question,in my circle of acquaintance, absolutely no one is talking about Rob Bell (even the Christians.) Most non-Christians don’t know who Rob Bell is, and even fewer have a notion of John Piper. Those who are aware of the dust-up because they saw Rob interviewed on CNN or something view the entire kerfuffle with incomprehension.

    The only reason I’ve followed Rob Bell’s career a bit is because I sat next to him in chapel at Wheaton 20 years ago. I don’t particularly like the term, because I don’t like to be defined by what I’m not, but these days, yes, I’m a non-Christian. I can’t speak for the billions of people in the world who also fall in that category, but the only thing I brought away from the whole brouhaha was profound gratitude that I am no longer a part of the evangelical subculture.

    My guess is that might not have been the effect everyone was going for.
66. 66
    Jeff L says:
    April 8, 2011 at 6:24 pm

    Clearly, Piper, Taylor, and a few others owe Bell an apology.
67. 67
    Daniel Otto Jack Petersen says:
    April 8, 2011 at 6:46 pm

    @62 I’ve not run into many non-Christians who’ve encountered Bell and what little response I’ve heard was rather indifferent. But from a number of very artistic psuedo/wavering/struggling Christians I’ve heard the reaction that he’s a bit cheesy (‘trying too hard, unsubtle, and inauthentic’ – urbandictionary.com).

    My wife and I are long-standing Christians trying to hang in there against all odds inside and outside the church, and we’ve been into underground, ‘punk rock’ counterculture for most of our lives – we love quality, edgy art and literature and we, though we can admit he has a gift for communication that occasionally ‘wows’, often find Rob Bell rather painfully cringe-worthy, pretentiously ‘cool’ (as you mentioned), and frankly lacking in real and lasting artistic merit – and we can’t help but feel he often seems to lack sincerity. His ‘militant mysticism’ (as he called his stance in an interview) of endless questions and (seemingly) few answers often strikes us not as ‘profound’ or ‘honest’ but just plain slippery.

    I hope I can say this plainly, to get to the point, without coming across as totally unloving. We try to give him the benefit of the doubt but this impression is what, in the end, we’re honestly left with. I feel it needs to be said and dealt with. We’re very open to being persuaded otherwise.

    We absolutely delight and revel in stories, myth, imagination, imagery, questions, depth, mystery, artistry and so on (we are both artists), but we do not generally find Rob Bell inspiring. We find the likes of Lewis, Tolkien, George MacDonald, Chesterton, Sayers, Bonhoeffer, Walker Percy, Flannery O’Connor, R. A. Lafferty, Gene Wolfe, Tim Powers, Dallas Willard, Tim Keller, C. Stephen Evans, Thomas Oden, Francis Schaeffer, Peter Kreeft, Kevin Vanhoozer, Tom Wright (and, hey, Scot McKnight!) to be far more genuinely exciting, inspiring, insightful, provocative, honest Christian thinkers than the likes of Bell.

    Frankly, though I disagree passionately with his Calvinism and his ‘Farewell Rob Bell’ comment (and any ongoing attitude that betrayed) – come on, a book like Piper’s Desiring God is surely deeper and more transforming than something like Velvet Elvis. (Though I know background and other circumstances will lead some to have the opposite conclusion, so I guess my judgment there may not amount to much.)

    We need much more sincere Christ-like LOVE in our disagreements (the only contribution I’ve made on this ‘Love Wins’ controversy so far on my own church blog is to quote Tozer on not using theological ‘brass knuckles’ to beat on those we disagree with – http://maneatingchurchplant.blogspot.com/2011/03/we-are-not-going-to-make-them-bow-knee.html ).

    But as an artist, can I just say a word of caution to everyone who chimes in with ‘But Rob is an artist, a poet’, etc. Please be as critical about that as anything else. Ask some truly involved, engaged, practicing artists in the real world of contemporary arts and culture to help you make that assessment. There are things to be admired artistically in Bell’s overall output, but it’s not all gold or even silver in its artistic integrity (which includes not just the way it ‘looks’ but how it communicates, the effects it has).

    Thanks.
68. 68
    DRT says:
    April 8, 2011 at 6:56 pm

    Matt#62, 4 of the 5 people who live in my house profess to being non-Christians (guess who says he is a Christian?).

    The reason for being a non-Christian is not Christianity in its form that I define, it is Christianity in the form that churches and people out there define. As my oldest son says, he does not want to be a Christian because he can’t stand the people who are one.

    Now, my oldest son for instance, affirms everything that Jesus taught, and is a genuinely good person. But, he refuses to be a Christian.

    Rob could have an influence on him, but the bigger payoff in my view would be for Rob to have an influence on Christians so non-Christians would want to be more.
69. 69
    Daniel Otto Jack Petersen says:
    April 8, 2011 at 7:09 pm

    @68 Yes, and for Rob to influence Christians in a good way I think would require engaging with the concerns and criticisms I raised in my last comment.
70. 70
    Diane says:
    April 8, 2011 at 7:14 pm

    Daniel #67 You speak my mind. I too hang in there because I love Jesus. Jesus was about edge. I think your criticisms of Bell are accurate, not unloving. A truism, of course, is that people who are doing well by doing good need to held accountable and not just given a pass.

    I loved when you wrote: We absolutely delight and revel in stories, myth, imagination, imagery, questions, depth, mystery, artistry and so on (we are both artists), but we do not generally find Rob Bell inspiring. We find the likes of Lewis, Tolkien, George MacDonald, Chesterton, Sayers, Bonhoeffer, Walker Percy, Flannery O’Connor, R. A. Lafferty, Gene Wolfe, Tim Powers, Dallas Willard, Tim Keller, C. Stephen Evans, Thomas Oden, Francis Schaeffer, Peter Kreeft, Kevin Vanhoozer, Tom Wright (and, hey, Scot McKnight!) to be far more genuinely exciting, inspiring, insightful, provocative, honest Christian thinkers than the likes of Bell.

    Yes, except I haven’t read all of those you list. Those you list that I have read I find inspiring, on the whole.
71. 71
    DRT says:
    April 8, 2011 at 7:20 pm

    Daniel Otto Jack Petersen#67 & Diane#70

    I agree with both of you, but also think that it will take 10 people with different approaches to accomplish our mutual objective. Rob does fill one of the 10.
72. 72
    Daniel Otto Jack Petersen says:
    April 8, 2011 at 7:34 pm

    @70 Ah, well, thanks, Diane – I’m glad to know we’re not alone in this impression. I’m still open to being persuaded otherwise, so anyone who wants to take exception and argue that Bell is a decent artist, please do!

    @72 Hm. I’ve often heard this kind of thing said when a communicator is disagreed with or not especially ‘liked’ in some sense. I’m not sure how convincing I find it. We certainly need all the huge and beautiful (and, sure, messy) VARIETY of the body of Christ in acting and telling the gospel. But that doesn’t mean some people aren’t doing it poorly and yet it’s being said they’re doing it well. This isn’t about denying God’s outrageous grace to all of us either. I’m not promoting some perfectionist ideal of communication here – ‘get it right or don’t do it!’ No. I’m just talking about what we’re aiming for and what we hold up as inspiring models. Let’s hold up the genuinely good and beautiful stuff. Let’s be gracious to the rest and know that God graciously uses us all, comical ineptitude included! (I know *I’m* glad he does – I need it!)
73. 73
    SuperStar says:
    April 8, 2011 at 7:49 pm

    Of course, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen, what is artistic, beautiful and inspiring in your eyes may not be what is the same in my artistic eyes. I think Rob’s art is both helpful and beautiful and I have read most of the authors in your post too. So, I guess we just all have to get along and appreciate our diversity as artistic beings.
74. 74
    RDH says:
    April 8, 2011 at 8:02 pm

    Rob Bell’s pre-publication marketing of his book seems to me to have been purposefully provacative. He knew full well that if he released snippets of information, he would get people like John Piper and Al Mohler all riled up. Now he’s snickering and laughing.

    I’m just an old country boy who has a manual labor job and attends a little Baptist church out in the sticks. We do not think deep thoughts like y’all do on Jesus Creed and in the emergent movement. We just worship Jesus as Savior and Lord.

    I don’t know much of anything about Rob Bell and I haven’t read his book. My question: Does Rob Bell believe the stuff he says in this “confession” or does he really just believe in selling books, drawing attention to himself and using cynical methods to do so?
75. 75
    DRT says:
    April 8, 2011 at 8:12 pm

    RDH#74, “Does Rob Bell believe the stuff he says in this “confession” or does he really just believe in selling books, drawing attention to himself and using cynical methods to do so?”

    Sounds like you believe in cynicism. I don’t think Rob is. To you really believe he is being dishonest? Have you not been around here enough to know that writing a sentance like “We just worship Jesus as Savior and Lord.” means that you think your version of Jesus is god, not necessarily the Jesus of the bible?
76. 76
    CO Fines says:
    April 8, 2011 at 9:50 pm

    So I’m thinking about whether I ought to mention Rob Bell to my wife in the one out of a hundred chance that she might be interested when she e-mails me, Hey, there’s this book I think you might like by a guy named Rob Bell, and goes on to say she would like to go to one of his services. We haven’t been to a church service together in ten years, maybe fifteen.

    So I’m putting together some books to take with me when I go to tip a few with some lapsed Catholic friends I don’t visit often enough and I throw in Velvet Elvis which I read while I was waiting for Love Wins to arrive. Thought it would be a way of introducing the Rob Bell name and controversy. Hey, one of them says, have you ever heard of Rob Bell? We’re going to go to his church when he preaches. Wanna come? I tell them we may not be able to get in for the crowd.

    Both my wife and my friends understand what I mean when I say, God save us from Evangelicals. These, I believe, are the people Bell is writing to more than anyone else. And to me. He isn’t saying anything really new to me, tho I wish I had a rabbi friend to ask about some of the things he says, but he is confirming what I have gradually come to believe on my own over the last 37 years of study and thought and experience.

    It really has been a lonely 37 years. You get tired of people looking at you like you have lost your marbles when you say we don’t have to wait to “die” to “go to heaven”. Now here is someone fairly high profile saying pretty much the same thing. And questioning why a God of Love would be held up as a bloodthirsty sadist and junk yard dog just waiting for someone to climb the fence.

    My man! Anyone who can rile up Evangelicals can’t be all bad, and I think Bell probably still thinks of himself as in that camp. I don’t imagine I would agree with all his beliefs. He seems to think the Nicene laundry list is crucial but I won’t hold that against him. Anyone who brings out the monkey-flung label of postmodern gets a free beverage of choice from me.
77. 77
    Dennis J says:
    April 8, 2011 at 10:46 pm

    @62 Matt

    i think that the significance of what is being done here with Rob Bell is more of an internal thing. People who are ‘outside’ of the faith (looking in) might like Rob Bell or they might see some cad/geek when they look at Bell. I don’t think any of my secular friends care one way or the other.
    what is signigicant is that Bell is one of the first people to breach the setbacks/baggage within the Christian Church (caused by Modernity) on a popular level that allows the average person to be exposed, and perhaps empowered, to tackle these important subjects.
    how many people teetering on the fence rush out and by theological books like N.T. Wright’s? yet, here is Rob Bell on CNN and the N.Y. Times.
    If more people are predisposed to propagate God’s love rather than abstract doctrines that are ill defined. then we have succeeded.
78. 78
    Karen Spears Zacharias says:
    April 9, 2011 at 12:22 am

    Love it — the video, I mean. Haven’t read the book .
79. 79
    Daniel Otto Jack Petersen says:
    April 9, 2011 at 5:18 am

    @73 Thanks for your dialogue. Yes, you’re probably right that we have to make room for the diversity of artistic taste and experience and so on. Point taken.

    However, anyone can say hey, I’m moved by the lyrics of Brittney Spears as much as you’re moved by the lyrics of Leonard Cohen, so I guess that’s just diversity of artistic taste for ya – discussion over, let’s respect each other’s opinions on a particular artist’s quality and effectiveness. But what would be more human and fruitful would be to give convincing reasons to one another why, in some sense, an artist is really good.

    For example, I can gladly point to the immense cinematic quality of Bell’s Nooma videos as evidence in favour of him being a good artist. But, it seems to me, what he actually says in these videos sounds a bit too much like re-hashed 19th c. liberal theology/New Age/therapy that amounts to some freshly packaged conventional, ‘cool’ spirituality. Sure, it goes up the nose of that wildly diverse group called ‘evangelicals’, but the rest of Western pop culture either ignores it as an undifferentiated wave of pop spirituality or feels a nice warm pat on the back assuring them they’re on the right track (except maybe they can add or re-add ‘Jesus’ to their wisdom furniture). And this un-challenging quality of his art just leaves me bored and slightly nauseated as any other presentation of that nature would do. The imaginative and artistic dynamism and beauty and truly welcoming but uncomfortable subversion of Jesus’ teaching by comparison just makes Bell look thin. I know the idea is that he is bringing Jesus’ wonderful subversive message to the world afresh. But… really? Is he?

    I’m interested in seeing how I’ve missed something here. That Rob really is imitating his Rabbi and Lord and bringing the good news in an artistically fresh and exciting way.
80. 80
    Rick says:
    April 9, 2011 at 7:25 am

    For those wanting an apology from those such as Justin Taylor, I really doubt that will happen since they think they have been proven right.

    Peter’s #45 comment is one, short example of why they think that.
81. 81
    Ronnie says:
    April 9, 2011 at 7:37 am

    “I believe that God’s love is so big, he lets YOU decide.”

    I guess Rob’s buddy, Rick was wrong… It IS all about me, afterall.
82. 82
    Timothy says:
    April 9, 2011 at 8:09 am

    Many people say they believe in “freedom of will.” Yet my tradition states that our will is in “bondage” and therefore needs to be liberated. Think of the Apostle Paul- the good he wills to do, he cannot. The evil he wants to avoid, he finds himself doing. That is a will in need of rescue and liberation. We win, and God wins, only when our will is set free for love of God and neighbor.
83. 83
    Pamela says:
    April 9, 2011 at 8:34 am

    Following up on #80 Rick–nonetheless, #45 Peter’s comment indicates reading only to confirm presuppositions rather than reading to understand the book and then. Reading the quoted excerpt in context clearly indicates Bell is not claiming universalism as his belief but instead summarizing others. As Olson stingingly commented on his blog: “This perfectly illustrates a common error among those who don’t really know how to read a book. The quote you provide from page 107 does not express Bell’s own view; he is there explaining a different perspective which he does not endorse”
84. 84
    Jane Wendt says:
    April 9, 2011 at 10:05 am

    I don’t know, I think Donald Miller’s review is the best I’ve read…
85. 85
    Alastair says:
    April 9, 2011 at 10:45 am

    HAHA. Donald’s was hilarious
86. 86
    Garth says:
    April 9, 2011 at 11:19 am

    That’s all well and good Rob! But why don’t you just come out and say that in your book? The myriad of questions you ask lead one to conclude just the opposite. Be forthright in your writing and in your interviews.
87. 87
    Richard says:
    April 9, 2011 at 12:42 pm

    @ 79

    I think the fruit you’re looking for can only be found by seeing if lives are truly being transformed under Rob’s teaching and if his church is seeking to follow Christ and work out their salvation here and now. All the evidence I’ve seen says yes. God’s been working through Bell for quite a while and will continue to do so.

    @ 86

    Some think that Bell has been very clear on these things, repeatedly. It seems egotistical for me to blame it on the author if I didn’t understand what he was saying, shot off my mouth about it, and then blamed him later. It seems more humble to test my assumptions and then draw conclusions. Even more arrogant would be to make up my mind about something without having read it, especially if I’m an editor…
88. 88
    Matt says:
    April 9, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    @77 and others who commented on Rob Bell’s audience…
    I don’t really think his audience is non-Christian either. I do hear that a lot though as an apologetic for his materials from people inside the church. I live in the Phx, AZ area and was just curious if my experience was totally off…
89. 89
    Daniel Otto Jack Petersen says:
    April 9, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    @87 Ok, yes, you surely must be right that we should be looking for gospel transformation of people’s lives. But is that the whole story? Fruit ‘can only be found’ there? We could surely equally argue that the phrase ‘his church is seeking to follow Christ and work out their salvation here and now’ would apply to the likes of John Piper or Mark Driscoll. But does that mean we can’t question the quality, effectiveness, faithfulness, and Christlikeness of their art of communication and even hold them to some account about it in love?

    So far my critique of Rob Bell as artist has been met with:

    *He has one of many styles of communication, all of which we need to reach different people.
    *I like his art even if you don’t, so we just have to appreciate artistic diversity.
    *Look at the good fruit of transformed lives in his church.

    These are interesting comments in themselves, but none of them deal with the question of whether Rob Bell actually IS a good and effective gospel-shaped artist. This isn’t an unfair or irrelevant question, especially for someone who is continually referred to as ‘artistic’ in order to explain his approach to communicating the faith in today’s world that leaves many baffled.

    (My initial point was that my wife and I are lifelong, practicing artists very used to the art world, especially of a provocative or ‘edgy’ variety. Yet we do not find Bell terribly compelling as an artist in service of Christ. What are we missing?)
90. 90
    DRT says:
    April 9, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    Folks, here is my confession about Rob’s confession.

    Rob gives me the permission to question what I have been taught. If you lined up preachers and theologians end to end then I would be able to absorb what they say and what they teach and regurgitate it back to you on a test, to say “I believe in Jesus”. But that is not the point.

    When I believe in Jesus I need to rule out the other competing philosophies that could provide a better avenue for belief. I have the sense that many of you go through life learning something then if it seems correct, believing in it. That is not the way I a wired.

    I know that just because something is correct does not mean it is the truth. For something to be correct it needs to be the best or most convincing explanation for that thing to exist. That is the part that is generally missing from evangelical Christianity.

    Rob takes the topic of interest and explores the periphery of the argument. The evangelicals should be proud of what he has done, but instead he is scorned. There is something terribly wrong here and the thing that it wrong is that the evangelicals don’t understand the meaning of rhetorical questions.

    Evangelicals, please learn to give people a break.
91. 91
    DRT says:
    April 9, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    Daniel Otto Jack Petersen #89 “These are interesting comments in themselves, but none of them deal with the question of whether Rob Bell actually IS a good and effective gospel-shaped artist.”

    Huh? You make no sense to me. You give three ways that people have proposed to ascertain whether someone is a good and effective gospel-shaped artist then just claim they are not.

    The first is:”*He has one of many styles of communication, all of which we need to reach different people.” The whole point was that he is *gaining attention* and that is one part and style need.

    The second is:”*I like his art even if you don’t, so we just have to appreciate artistic diversity.” This person is telling you that his method definetely hits home with them, so how can you dispute that?

    The third is:”*Look at the good fruit of transformed lives in his church.” Isn’t this what Jesus says in the Bible? How can you say that is not good and effective?

    Perhaps Rob does not work for you. That’s OK (and seems to be the truth). Why can’t he be good and effective for others?
92. 92
    Peter Herzog says:
    April 9, 2011 at 2:31 pm

    #83 -Pamela -Are you saying that Rob doesn’t believe that Love Wins? Rob is simply suggesting that some people believe that Love Wins – that God’s love will eventually melt everyone’s heart – but Rob doesn’t believe it? I read the entire book (and really enjoyed it!) and that’s not what I got.

    If Rob does believe God’s love will win in the end by melting every heart then back to my original question at #45.
93. 93
    Daniel Otto Jack Petersen says:
    April 9, 2011 at 2:56 pm

    @91 Ah, but you see you’ve said at least one thing the comments I summarised did not: your reasoning seems to be that since Rob Bell has ‘gained attention’ and/or has ‘hit home’ with some people, he is therefore a good gospel artist. I don’t see that this follows at all. Surely there are all kinds of things in culture all around us that gain great attention and hit home with many, but that we can still fairly question quite strongly whether they are of real and lasting value (e.g. certain pop songs, day time TV shows, etc.)? They may even have good intentions and at least elements of a ‘good message’ but that doesn’t mean their artistry really is praiseworthy or that it’s doing more good than harm.

    And you didn’t engage with the reasons I gave for still being able to question a church leader’s communicative artistry *even if* there are signs of fruit in their congregation. That very communication (say, its lack of love or truth) can also be an area of fruit or lack of fruit.

    Correct me if I’m wrong but your tone there seemed to suggest I’m being pedantic and/or disingenuous. I apologise for coming across that way if I did. I’ll try to be more obviously clear and sincere. I’m trying to have a sustained reasonable conversation here. I honestly don’t see the logic of the answers to my critique of Bell as artist, for the reasons I’ve stated.

    But I’ll back off quite soon if no one is forthcoming in engaging me calmly and persuasively. I do honestly understand that these types of things can be very sensitive issues.
94. 94
    Pedro says:
    April 9, 2011 at 4:00 pm

    @89 “My initial point was that my wife and I are lifelong, practicing artists very used to the art world, especially of a provocative or ‘edgy’ variety. Yet we do not find Bell terribly compelling as an artist in service of Christ.”

    Please note that it is other people who are calling Rob Bell ‘edgy’ and ‘cool.’ What I’ve heard directly from Rob the past 5 years is that he’s given his life to following Jesus and articulating his understanding of the gospel as best as he can.

    In your comments on here you seem to be wondering how people can think of Rob as an artist; to you it sounds odd since you liken yourself a ‘lifelong, practicing artist’ well aware of what’s provocative and edgy.

    If people are interested in what’s cool and edgy and have considered Rob to be and have thus met Jesus, that’s OK. What he’s really interested in is people encountering the resurrected Christ.
95. 95
    DRT says:
    April 9, 2011 at 6:16 pm

    Daniel Otto Jack Petersen #93, I hope to have time to address the content of your message later, but want to make sure that you know that my casual tone is not to dismiss or diminish you, I respect your engagement and am appreciative of it. Hopefully I will actually talk later…
96. 96
    Chuck Roberts says:
    April 9, 2011 at 6:27 pm

    #80-the point is that regardless of who’s right about what Rob Bell is saying I was suggesting that certain ones, including Piper and Taylor, owe an apology for the MANNER in which they pounced on Bell. That is defenseless, no matter what,good or bad theolog, Christian or nonChristian.
97. 97
    Daniel Otto Jack Petersen says:
    April 9, 2011 at 6:51 pm

    @95 Thanks, glad to hear it! Same back to you.

    @94 Ok, duly noted about ‘edgy’ and what have you. I guess what I’m getting at is that I keep hearing people (I’m pretty sure Scot McKnight has been a main one) defend Rob Bell overall and the promo video for this book as well as the content of the book itself by stating that he’s artistic and communicating that way and that we need to hear him that way. I’m pretty sure they’re all saying they think he is *self-consciously* artistic. If so (and surely this is true, considering the artistic-media nature of his whole output!), then he invites engagement with him and his message as such. That’s what I’m trying to do here. Of course, I’m as happy as anyone if people are meeting Jesus through Rob Bell. But, again, that does not mean I can’t or shouldn’t question whether his artistry is really of a good quality that communicates the gospel faithfully and fruitfully.

    I’ve been trying to hold back on this one, but… I’ve heard so many times some famous Christian speaker defended against all critique by the ‘fact’ that so many people are drawn to Jesus through them. I just don’t think that’s such an easy thing to assess in, say, a decade or even a generation. I seriously wonder if maybe that kind of fruit takes some significant time to be observable. In the meantime, we can engage with the speaker’s life and words. (Indeed, surely Rob wants us to engage with his WORDS, so many of which he has given to the world?)

    Taking Rob Bell as an artistic communicator of the gospel (as I think he wants to be taken), I find his artistry mixed at best. I’m left with a sneaking intuition that there’s a lot more veneer than substance. There’s a lot of ‘spiritual’ wow-ing through some admittedly (initially) impressive rhetorical flourishes. But the net result after reading a book or watching several videos is… well, a bit thin. I guess for now I’m going to have to bow to the aesthetic relativity that says ‘that’s just for you, not others’. If I go on to question the spirituality of others who find Rob really draws them closer to God (or question what ‘God’ they’re feeling drawn closer to), then that will just be seen as un-generous, and perhaps it is. But at some point prophets have to rise up and call the church and the world to genuinely rich and robust and authentic spirituality in Christ. I’m just not so convinced right now that Bell is one of those prophets. (And I’m a little disturbed that some find this opinion so utterly scandalous and unacceptable. We can’t question our leaders and spokespeople?)

    But that’s ok. We’ll all just go on serving the Lord the best we can and I hope, pray, and trust he’ll bring us together in his beautiful truth and love for the world.
98. 98
    Brian says:
    April 9, 2011 at 7:21 pm

    Daniel:
    When you say of Bell I’m left with a sneaking intuition that there’s a lot more veneer than substance. I’m concerned that you are drifting into dangerous territory of judging his heart. (And you’ve made this suggestion more than once.)

    You are no longer talking about his theology, his “art”, his methods etc…you’re talking about his heart, his character… I think that’s out of bounds for us as believers. Peace…
99. 99
    Christine says:
    April 9, 2011 at 9:10 pm

    Weary of all the ink and attention on Rob Bell . . . wonder if I’m in the minority?
100. 100
     Peter G. says:
     April 9, 2011 at 11:41 pm

     Daniel, I really appreciate your framing of the issue. Artistic expression should surely be understood on its own terms but when this has been done there’s still plenty of room for critique.
101. 101
     Daniel Otto Jack Petersen says:
     April 10, 2011 at 10:07 am

     @98 I understand your concern. However, 1) Jesus and Paul lovingly but incisively dealt with people’s hearts and challenged them on that level, based on the overflow of their hearts through their mouths and actions. 2) That being said, I’m really not trying to do that here. My ‘sneaking intuition’ you quoted was a comment *on Bell’s art*. The fact that that may also incidentally hint at something about his heart is unavoidable in a world so deeply interconnected as God has made. But I’ve tried to consistently assume in my comments here that Bell is a Christian brother out to share Jesus with the world. From that assumption I’m trying to critique his artistry in doing so and find it rather wanting. It just doesn’t seem as challenging as so many (including him) seem to claim it is. All the phraseology is that this is subversive to the reigning secular/’pagan’/religious paradigms. I find it to be more conventional pop spirituality that helps a huge portion of the world feel affirmed in what they’re already doing (with, as I’ve said, the possibility of adding something about the name of Jesus to the package). I could be totally wrong. If I’m even partly right, my hope is that someone Rob trusts might help him go deeper with his understanding and communication of the gospel so that he really is countercultural in the Spirit of Christ.

     The reason I bring it all up on a public forum is that I think we’re potentially making a mistake if we hold Bell up as a wonderful example of an artistic preaching of the gospel today. I’m not wildly worried about that and making that opinion known takes up the tiniest fraction of my life. I just thought we were discussing our thoughts on Rob Bell here.

     Am I really not being clear here?

     @100 I’m glad you appreciate framing the issue this way and yes, I agree there’s so much more to think about.

     But at this point I admit I regret trying talk about Rob this way. It just isn’t coming across overall, so I’m going to assume what I’m saying is too problematic and withdraw for now.

     @99 I’m starting to agree with you.

     To all: thanks anyway for the engagement! May Christ’s beautiful love, grace, truth, and joy bind us together in his outrageously glorious kingdom mission.
102. 102
     DRT says:
     April 10, 2011 at 10:25 am

     #101 – Here is what I think Rob is doing relative to the conservatives. I actually like his style a lot.

     Rob leads with the most provocative thing he’s got. He does that to lure people in and then hits them up with more or less orthodox teachings.

     This is the opposite of what I see the right doing. There, they lure people in with being nice and love and holy and such, then once in redefine those terms to be nasty.

     I find that to be refreshing.
103. 103
     CO Fines says:
     April 10, 2011 at 11:24 am

     Daniel, I know you have left this particular building but I have been puzzling over your comments on Bell’s artistry for several days now.

     I don’t know Bell, never heard him speak in person, tho I plan to, never started reading him until the uproar. I would guess that in his private heart he might think of himself as a musician. He probably also might not reject poet and perhaps songwriter. For all I know he paints, but I would think his primary label of self-identification would be pastor. This would include such labels as preacher and teacher, but my guess is that if you sat down next to him in a plane and chatted that he would tell you, if asked, that he is a pastor. Not an artist.

     So I find your weighing Bell in the balance of artistry and finding him wanting to be most peculiar. It’s not like he published a book of poems, tho there is certainly poetry in his book and you can’t understand what he is saying without hearing him say it, and the formatting and white space is as important to his meaning as it is in poetry. Or the Bible.

     One reviewer wrote Bell off as fluff saying that the book could be easily read in a few hours and implying that it was padded to justify the price. Those white spaces are in there so your brain cells can do some pushups and your heart can look out the window. The book would not be effective without them and I can’t imagine reading it in an afternoon any more than I can speed reading what we call the New Testament.

     Elsewhere I recently read a discussion of what books could be recommended to a new Christian. Up at the top of the list was Lewis’s Mere Christianity. Can’t imagine very many young people getting fired up over that but couldn’t come up with anything on my own other than Don Miller or those he hangs out with, and I find that lacking.

     I’m still not quite finished with Love Wins but I’ve read enough to know this is the book I would recommend or give to someone not comfortable with Christianity as currently practiced. Head and shoulders above anything else. It is not genius level artistry, but that would detract from its effectiveness. It is extremely high level teaching. Kudos!

     What would you answer if asked to sum up the Bible in two words? I imagine this could reveal a great deal about a person and their world view. I personally cannot think of a better answer than Love Wins. Gives much needed meaning to the Christian expression “Good News”. I’m wondering what your answer might be.
104. 104
     TJJ says:
     April 10, 2011 at 1:15 pm

     Interesting how some people wth very clear intention write a book that is provacative and will therefore be be controversial and get attention and sell copies, and yet they take offense at criticism or rejection or attack of those provacative ideas and propositions, and resist clarification and explanation and answering the very questions that the book invites.
105. 105
     DRT says:
     April 10, 2011 at 5:35 pm

     TJJ#104. I suspect the reason is because the people doing the criticism should know better.
106. 106
     Brian says:
     April 10, 2011 at 11:04 pm

     Daniel: thanks for clarifying. I may have misunderstood you. In an earlier comment you used the word “inauthentic” but looking back at the comment I think you were defining “cheesy” rather than describing Rob as being inauthentic. When I saw something close to that again (in the line I quoted) it seems I read more in your comment than you intended.
107. 107
     CO Fines says:
     April 11, 2011 at 11:20 am

     TJJ#104, you comment on how “some people” write a provocative book and then “they take offense at criticism or rejection or attack”. Sidestepping your sidestepping wording, I assume you are in fact talking about Bell. That he is taking offense in this ongoing discussion surprises me and I would like to observe this for myself. Can you give me a link or links to some specific statement? Gracias.
108. 108
     Brandon says:
     April 11, 2011 at 3:14 pm

     What a great 50 seconds!
109. 109
     Stephen says:
     April 12, 2011 at 7:56 am

     I believe in the traditional idea of hell. That God will burn all the perverts and crooks forever and ever by torturing them with fire. I know that the Bible says God is love, that His very being is love, but God’s love is not like our love. He is also just and holy. So His love is different. The Bible says that God’s wrath is on us already! That we can only go to heaven if we confess our sins and truly repent, and that we need to watch our doctrines closely. It’s a very narrow road. I don’t understand how so many people here can idly sit by and let Rob Bell’s liberal ideas about God’s love just pass without getting upset. It’s like he’s turned God inito some kind of weed smoking hippie. God is ALSO just and holy! All of you who agree with Rob Bell are simply picking and choosing your Scriptures to make it say what you want it to say! I heard Tim Challies speak at a conference recently, and he was the only one who made sense. He said that hell is the most important doctrine in the Christian church, and I agree. he wrote a review of Rob Bell’s book on Crosswalk.com. Hell is real, people, and if you don’t believe it, you may have to answer to God for your beliefs!
110. 110
     Ellen says:
     April 13, 2011 at 4:28 pm

     This whole brouhaha is not unlike the inerrancy mayhem of the ’80s. Seems that we Christians like to find a shibboleth that can define us … at least for a while. Then, when we tire (and realize we really cannot know absolutely the answers to certain questions), we move onto something that seems more promising. Universalism and hell is the current status banner; what will be next? If I could figure that out, I too could write a bestseller.
111. 111
     Jeff says:
     April 18, 2011 at 4:03 pm

     Really weary reading through all these responses of the ad hominem expressions here. Some on both sides. But, like Ellen, no offense, in 110 – “Seems that we Christians like to find a shibboleth …” All that is is ad hominem. It does not address a single point of the argument on either side – and it is typical.

     It is purely dismissive and intellectually dishonest when we say, “you say that because” (Like C.S. Lewis’ character in Pilgrim’s Regress, “You only say that 2+2=4 b/c you are a mathematician).

     The fact is I don’t think there’s much to commend in Bell’s book because I the whole premise does not meet up with Biblical teachings. He’s loose. He doesn’t address many passages or alternatives. I don’t have an axe to grind – I’m not trying to defend a traditional belief. I just want to believe and do what the Scriptures teach. And, I think, while I am very sympathetic to Bell’s view and actually have at times thought about the possibilities, the real issue is his exegesis. He doesn’t incorporate the whole story. Nor does he really address God’s holiness in any depth. And then he is not very clear.

     Someone raised Bell’s question, “Is Gandhi in hell?” as though this is an important one to answer. It is a question that cannot be answered. Only God knows. Maybe he is; we don’t know his heart. Or maybe he is not. That’s God’s choice, not ours. It’s not a rational question. It’s like asking, “Is there a monster on a planet in a solar system in another galaxy?” Hmm … how would anyone know? What has been asked of Rob is – can you be clearer about your own beliefs? That’s a fair question and he doesn’t want to do that.

     The reason it is a concern is that there are many with very little or lose biblical knowledge- who will soak it up. Bell likes his books, however, to be short and edgy. That has its place and Bell is a phenom; but, it’s just a topic that needs more depth of analysis that he doesn’t provide – rather he goes for the rhetorical flashes. I think the fairest review, and one I’d encourage anyone to investigate, is by Ben Witherington in his blog.
112. 112
     Graham William Carmichael says:
     May 20, 2011 at 12:04 am

     I have read the book and so I guess that makes me qualified, according to Rob, to discuss it. Frankly, I am suprised that an individual educated at Fuller Seminary could treat the Bible so poorly. The exegesis is horrific. Rob pulls his interpretations or “suggestions” out of thin air it seems while ignoring context incredibly well. It is almost as if he expects few people will actually take the time to look up the passages. He may be right. I will conceed that he did not express the classic Universalistic perspective, but come on. I do not doubt that he believes in Jesus and the long list that he provides in order to ease our consciences (including his?). However, after reading the book, I wonder how many of Jesus’ words, as they are given to us, Rob actually believes. It is obvious that Rob picks and chooses which passages to use while overlooking verses that teach the opposite of his point in the exact same passages. Also, because he is very intelligent, I am suprised he is acting and talking as if he expected everyone to simply swallow what he had to say without responding. He wanted “conversation” I would guess – well welcome to the conversation. How could he not expect this response? My guess is that he did. By the way, the reviews I have read from pastors who also have read the book are fair and gracious while expressing their honest, orthodox disapproval.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply