Tuesday, 15 March 2011
-
"Everyone Wins" - Rob Bell
I was reading some reviews of "Love Wins" by Rob Bell, and there are some interesting points of views out there on this book. Some like Greg Boyd have said that it is a good book for the questions it raises, challenging orthodox views. While others are a bit more critical of Rob Bell's lack of bible exegetical finesse and the acrobatics that he tries to achieve in arguing for his case. Of the two, I do tend to align myself with the latter.In many ways, what put me off Velvet Elvis, which I did read a long time ago, was his total inadequacy in intepreting the Bible. He has many ideas, many of them along the lines of postmodern thinkers of our age and he doesn't give any objective answers but gives a multitude of rabbit holes in which we are to search for what he is to believe.
He seems to love broad statements which sound nice, but don't hold a lot of flesh theologically. I read a quote from his new book: “At the center of the Christian tradition since the first church has been the insistence that history is not tragic, hell is not forever, and love, in the end, wins.” It's a nice sounding turn of phrase, but what on earth does it mean? Who is he referring to that believed in universalism? Does love winning mean annihilationism?
Perhaps the greatest question on the internet at the moment, is whether Rob Bell is an universalist or not. Justin Taylor's blog and John Piper tweeting the simple word "Farewell" propelled Rob Bell to the frontline of evangelicalism. On this matter, the reality is I don't really care. Universalism has been around since the beginning of time, there have been many a great theologians that I respect which unfortunately hold to this doctrine. William Barclay is one among many, whose bible commentaries have been a great help to me when I was a younger Christian. From Billy Graham, the legendary altar-caller, to Karl Barth, arguably the most influential theologian of modern times (though it is somewhat a softer universalism that he believes in) to George MacDonald saying "God will get you in the end".
Universalism equal with any other perversion of what the Scriptures say, in many ways I am surprised people are suddenly so concerned about doctrine in the church. Moreover, I am equally surprised that John Piper is the one calling out Rob Bell when he keeps other wolves within his fold. My admission is I do quite admire Rob Bell the thinker, if anything. But my issue, which is insurmountably more important is as a theologian, as a Christian even, I cannot stand the thought of his theology being projected onto the masses.
On the blog of Tim Challies he includes some quotes from the book, taken from an advance reading copy of the manuscript, these perhaps give a greater light as to what doctrine Rob Bell is affirming or not:
As soon as the door is opened to Muslims. Hindus, Buddhists, and Baptists from Cleveland, many Christians become very uneasy, saying that then Jesus doesn’t matter anymore, the cross is irrelevant, it doesn’t matter what you believe, and so forth.
Not true.
Absolutely, unequivocally, unalterably not true.What Jesus does is declare that he,
and he alone,
is saving everybody.And then he leaves the door way, way open. Creating all sorts of possibilities. He is as narrow as himself and as wide as the universe.
--
People come to Jesus in all sorts of ways.
--
Sometimes people use his name;
other times they don’t.--
Some people have so much baggage with regard to the name “Jesus” that when they encounter the mystery present in all of creation—grace, peace, love, acceptance, healing, forgiveness—the last thing they are inclined to name it is “Jesus.”
--
What we see Jesus doing again and again—in the midst of constant reminders about the seriousness of following him living like him, and trusting him—is widening the scope and expanse of his saving work.
Does Rob Bell seem in these quotes seem to imply universalism? What do you like and dislike about Rob Bell?
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: llamalima@xanga
- About Me: Who am I? I am 19 year old university student, prone to stressing over about some assignment due the next day. I sometimes have time to blog mostly about Christian thoughts. In my spare time, I am also a musical connoisseur, ninja, movie junkie, and full-time hypochondriac. I may have lied about one of those, or a few.
-
True
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 163 Views: 0 144398 Comments: 0 1746 View all posts by llamalima@xanga
Comments (30)
Bell isn't arguing a case. The reader has to know that. He's proposing queries. He is building a base of questions to facilitate healthy theological conversation. He wants people to discuss. He encourages seeking so people will find and he does it by challenging popular thought (be that thought right or wrong). If Bell was claiming to be an exegetical theologian then there'd be weight to many of his critics rebukes but he doesn't make that claim and anyone who reads/hears his work knows his goal is not to be an exegetical theologian. If that is his goal then he is terrible at showing/achieving it. I don't think he's pushing for universalism. Not as far as I can tell. Maybe I'll write book review when I read it. I like those quotes. They challenge my thinking. That's what Bell wants to do. He wants me to think through what I believe. It's because of this that I think higher of Rob Bell than I do men like John Piper and Justin Taylor.
Here's the thing about Rob Bell's new book...
I haven't read it and I won't have an opinion about it till I do read it.
~Fin.
@TheGreatBout@xanga - I would understand for CS Lewis or someone who didn't hold a pastoral office. But as a pastor, would Rob Bell have a duty to promote the truth, and be faithful to the scriptures? Or at the very least, give a straight answer to most things?
@llamalima@xanga - His role as a pastor doesn't demand that any book he writes be an exegetical project. Why can't he be poetic, inspirational, and interesting in facilitating discussion through questions and challenges to popular thought? His office doesn't force him to write in a certain way. I don't think Bell promotes lies or neglects to promote truth so I don't see him being in the wrong in that sphere. I also have yet to see him be unfaithful to scripture. Do you see him being outright unfaithful to scripture? Straight answers aren't always what is needed. Jesus often didn't give straight answers.
@TheGreatBout@xanga - Should office permeate to every part of your life, as according to what giftings God has given us? I haven't thought that question quite enough yet, so please treat it as rhetorical. Again, I like Rob Bell the thinker, he is challenging. But I have issues with his theology, and his exegesis is very weird to support his points. I found this the case in Velvet Elvis.
There is a difference between Jesus and Rob Bell being cryptic -- when I read Rob Bell, I read just a barrage of various fluffy statements, which sound nice, but don't make particular sense. I would argue Jesus was giving straight answers, his audience just didn't understand.
@TheGreatBout@xanga - I really like the way you said that, and I totally agree.
.
.
.
And anyone who hasn't read the book doesn't have anything to base their opinions on. My pastor is not a big Bell fan, and yet he said it is a good book. But then, he has actually read it.
@llamalima@xanga - Gifts permeate but office doesn't IMO. I can be a pastor and write poetry. I can be an office administrator and write exegetical theology. No matter what I do my gift ought to be involved though. If I'm in tune with my gifting there is no way for it to be absent from my activity.
What elements of Bell's theology do you have issue with? I haven't read Velvet Elvis since early in my undergrad so I don't remember a lot of it. Again, I'm not persuaded that he shows exegetical work. I'm not saying he doesn't study scripture exegetically of course but I don't think he means to present exegetical work like N.T. Wright might.
I think Jesus' audience didn't understand because he was often indirect (among other reasons) ;) . I'd like to hear your position argued sometime. I have a hard time seeing story telling as a direct response to a yes or no question. Maybe we're looking at this differently.
@TheGreatBout@xanga - Oh no, yeah, John Piper writes poetry. There is nothing wrong with poetry. I was meaning more that pastoring was a gift in itself. "Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?" 1 Corinthians 12:29 (English Standard Version)
I have issue with him not believing in Sola Scriptura, which is probably the floodgate to many of the other things I disagree with. His idea of Christian mysticism (for the lack of a better term). His writing style in general grates me the wrong way as well if that's possible. =P
I don't recall if I actually finished Velvet Elvis, I read it a long time ago. =P I even notice that Rob Bell's been to Fuller and Wheaton. O.o
I'll look into writing something of that sort.
My worship leader and I were discussing Rob Bell on Sunday. Its hard for me to put into words how I feel about his work. My only exposure to him is the Nooma videos- I will not pretend that I've read any of his books. I think his approach is showing the loving side of God...but I agree that he often lacks scriptural support. I think that because I appreciate exegesis- his approach lacks something for me.
@llamalima@xanga - "There is a difference between Jesus and Rob
Bell being cryptic -- when I read Rob Bell, I read just a barrage of
various fluffy statements, which sound nice, but don't make particular
sense. I would argue Jesus was giving straight answers, his audience
just didn't understand."
Just out of curiosity, could you cite some of these statements that you don't think much sense? I read and enjoyed both Velvet Elvis and Sex God, and I never had the same impression that you did. Perhaps I'm just subconsciously blocking out the parts that didn't make sense though...lol.
@kk_grayfox@xanga - Haha, would I lose credibility if I can't get any off the top of my head? I read Velvet Elvis a long time ago...I saw this video a few days ago on one of his Nooma videos which is echoing what I have to say...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsVkeMZCkOg&feature=player_embedded#at=1652
@llamalima@xanga - Pastoring is definitely a gift but I think we often confused the western church's office of "pastor" with the gift of pastor. Paul certainly wasn't referring to the office Bell, Piper, Warren, or any other vocational pastor holds. Pastors are more counselors/guides than anything. That said, I don't know Bell's spiritual gifting. He's definitely a great public speaker and can inspire people easily.
I'd go to Wheaton in a second. :)
I've never seen Rob preach or read any of his books, but I definitely don't believe in universalism.
All you have to do is google the words Rob Bell Emergent Church... That would be why he is showing up on the news:
Rob Bell's Book Questions Existence of Hell in Afterlife
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/pastors-book-hell-read-love-wins-rob-bell/story?id=13128710
Christians who have been in the church for 30 years or more aren't falling for it because they were taught the truth.
can't everyone just calm down for a second and read his book when it comes out and judge for ourselves?
in the mean time...my professor (who believes Christocentric Univerversalism) wrote a similar book for those who my be interested...
http://www.amazon.com/Razing-Hell-Rethinking-Everything-Judgment/dp/0664236545/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1300242180&sr=8-1
@MCTCanadian@xanga - Rob Bell: what SBC leaders are saying
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=34844
"Bell redefines heaven and hell, and places love as the ultimate virtue of God. This becomes the central problem for Bell’s book: Hell is defined as what people make for themselves by rejecting the Gospel, but hell is not forever in the traditional sense of the term. The book is filled with exegetical gymnastics, historical inaccuracies, and eschatological knots that would even make John the Revelator have a headache. Bell may affirm he believes in heaven and hell, but not in the historical, orthodox senses of the term."-ibid
In other words,"Hath God said?"
I read that Justin Taylor is a critic of Rob Bell so I decided to find his blog which is here:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/
You Learned in Sunday
School Is Still True:
Love WinsA Review of
by Rob Bell
By Kevin DeYoung
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/files/2011/03/LoveWinsReview.pdf
@TheGreatBout@xanga - Mmhmm, I find a lot to agree with there. My "pastor" hates the term, he detests any type of title, and only "minister" is the only permissible name to call him.
That being said, Rob Bell is definitely a great communicator and asks some very great questions, I have really been trying to say the positive things of Bell because I do respect him a great deal to an extent.
Haha, I would pounce at any chance to go to a Christian college in USA, let alone Wheaton. =)
==
@musterion99@xanga - Just for funsies, you could watch his Nooma videos on youtube, they are very challenging and well recorded from a cinematographical perspective.
@llamalima@xanga - I might do that.
Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Therefore, not everyone wins. You can even use language "like" Rob Bell and still not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
I read the book. Rob Bell believes in 2nd chance choice at heaven after death. Then he leans towards the notion that God may draw eventually everyone after death in Christ (not forcibly) and therefore hell is not eternal (so it's like a Christian universalism. Everyone gets in through Jesus eventually after death). This is what he leans towards.
In the Mars Hill website Q and A on the book though, he does affirm this 2nd chance choice after death.
Do you think guys think people will have a choice still to receive Christ after they die even if they had rejected Christ in this life?
If so, I guess it does ease the pressure a bit about some of my friends who have heard about Christ but deny him.
@moonjp@xanga -
If you didn't have faith before which is the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1) then how are you going to have faith after seeing?
Hebrews 11:6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
My second question is if people hate the light then how are they going to then come to the light later? It says in John 3:19 that men love (agape) darkness and I know people who say they want to go to hell because they love all of their friends who will be there.
John 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the *wrath* of God abideth on him.
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Revelations 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
@moonjp@xanga - How'd you get a copy of the book? I want a copy of the book!
@llamalima@xanga - "He seems to love broad statements which sound nice, but don't hold a lot
of flesh theologically. I read a quote from his new book: “At the
center of the Christian tradition since the first church has been the
insistence that history is not tragic, hell is not forever, and love, in
the end, wins.” It's a nice sounding turn of phrase, but what on earth
does it mean? Who is he referring to that believed in universalism? Does
love winning mean annihilationism?"
I just read the chapter this quote is derived from, and he builds up to it with discussions from Scripture and early church leaders like Origen. Whether or not you would come to the same conclusion as him is another story, but he doesn't just come out and say it without any kind of support.