I find it deeply ironic that most of the critics of Bell's new book haven't actually read it yet. I'll keep my powder dry till I've had a chance to read it.
I agree that if there is a universalism prevalent in this particular book, then I would have a problem with it. All I'm saying is I haven't read it, and by Justin Taylor's own admission, neither has he (in totality). So I think it's a bit premature to be slating Rob Bell, a brother in Christ, without knowing the facts.
I have watched the clip and have to say that I found it interesting and intriguing. It is set up in a way to sell the book. I am just cynical enough to believe that even Christian publishing organisations have bought into a marketing strategy aimed at creating a 'storm' of controversy/interest which gets people talking about the product. (which they hope to convert to sales). I am not condoning this, by the way, just that's the way it is.
Rob Bell asks questions. That's what he does. That's no bad thing. I ask questions all the time. Why does God answer some people's prayers for healing one way and others by letting them die? Why do certain things in the Bible appear to make no sense? Why does God use death so severely and vengeance so prominently in how he deals with his enemies? Answer: I have no clue.
But it doesn't make me love God any less or trust him any less. That, in a nutshell, is what faith is. Trusting without necessarily understanding.
However, it does make it hard for those of us who seek to relate who this great God is to those who do not yet have that faith. Or who have A faith but not a steadfast one as yet.
The questions Rob Bell poses in the clip seem to be starting from that premise; of asking some of the difficult questions. I think one of the reasons his profile has grown in recent years is because he has not been afraid of the 'sacred cows'; he has been willing to ask some difficult questions and has done the hard work then of trying to make them accessible to your average church-goer. This is what the whole Nooma series was dealing with.
I am not prepared, not having read the book, to shoot the guy down and write him off as a heretic. The conservative wing of the church has always been too quick to do this with people who view the world from a sideways perspective, when often, if their words and teachings are thoroughly scrutinised, they are often much more orthodox and true to Scripture than some westernised, modern approaches to church and faith, practices and rituals, authority and hierarchy.
I will be interested to read the book and will, I am quite sure, have many conversations about it in the months to come.
I hope you don't think I'm being sniffy or ungracious. I just have seen too many times when people think they have to choose a position on something like this; then discover that actually there was much more to it than appeared on the surface, or in this case, a publicity video.
When we come to read anything we should read it with our minds, and more importantly, our Bibles, open.
On the specifics of the Rob Bell book, I think the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' may not be a bad one. He seems to be doing the very thing some of his critics are encouraging, i.e. accentuating the positive nature of God's Love and salvation. However, I still (!) haven't read the book so will refrain from passing personal judgement on the book. By the way, in any personal judgement I do have I will fight my personal sinful tendency to judge the individual and try to stick to an objective critique of the book. So glad the judging is for someone more qualified than me!
The first direct quote I've been able to track down from the actual book seems to completely shoot down the notion which is being virally spread that Bell rejects Hell and creates a God who is standing in heaven welcoming all and sundry:
"... In speaking of the expansive, extraordinary, infinite love of God there is always the danger of neglecting the very real consequences of God's love. Namely God's desire and intention to see things become everything they were intended to be. For this to unfold, God must say about a number of acts and to those who would continue to do them 'Not here you won't.'
Love demands freedom. We are free to resist, reject, and rebel against God's ways for us. We can have all the hell we want."
Yes, Bell is guilty. But at this stage all he is guilty of is using apparent deliberate provocativeness. I think this is an oft-used tactic in his previous books, podcasts, Noomas and tours. I don't necessarily dislike this tactic. It could even be argued Jesus himself used similar tactics when telling some of his parables. These can be the hooks to entice the fish. Knowing what I know of Bell, he rarely waffles and every word will have been carefully crafted and weighed.
As far as what makes something controversial, in the case of western church, it's usually Fox News and their followers! The republican right of America are coiled like springs to jump all over stuff like this, as it attacks (or at least they believe it does) their closely-guarded grip on all kingdom values. They are the Christian Gospel's equivalent to the Tower of London's Beefeaters, duty bound to defend her from any 'attack', especially from the pernicious emergent church.
It reminds me somewhat of the storm which arose out of Lennon's 'Beatles are bigger than Jesus' misquotes. The highly strung Right moral majority leap all over something without knowing (or seeming to care about) the facts. Why let the truth spoil a good story, right?
I think the phraseology he uses in the video clip regarding Jesus coming to save us from God is a really interesting take on how the big picture of the gospel message is perceived and should make us all examine the language and tone with which we preach. If this is the message people are equating with the Christian church, as Bell says, no wonder they are so disenfranchised.
The danger of course is not necessarily from Rob Bell himself but from the ultra-liberals for whom the opposite danger is true. That they will accept unthinkingly the notion of 'no hell' as it panders to the concept of 'it'll be all right on the night' and at the end of the day God will welcome all. The danger that this pre-book-launch controversy will be enough for them to hang their watered-down hats on. Of course, my argument would then be a step of logic. No hell...no heaven?
Incidentally, I don't just read books I agree with. I'm always more worried and suspicious about people who claim to have all the answers and who have stopped asking questions. Questions are healthy. It's what we do with the answers that's important.
Yes, I'll read the book, but I'm in no rush. I've got a stack of more interesting things to read first. However, I hope people don't 'assassinate' Rob Bell without availing themselves of facts first.
In what part of the video clip does Bell 'teach' anything? His understanding of what hell is or isn't, of what God does or doesn't do, is not there...it's simply not there.
I worry that the right-wing conservatives will do their usual and overreact without the facts, thus creating much harmful in-fighting. I mean the title is 'Love Wins'. If youread the actual quote from the book, not the publisher's blurb, there's no denial of hell or eternal punishment in that.
