Now that a full week has passed<\/b> since the whole Rob Bell saga began, I thought it would be helpful to take a deep breath and browse a few of the posts made about the subject. What follows are selections from some of the reactions around the web.<\/p>\n
This isn’t a comprehensive list, because I’m not Google. This is only the stuff I ended up reading.<\/p>\n
————–<\/p>\n
From author and pastor Greg Boyd,<\/b> who offered a post brilliantly titled “Rob Bell is NOT a Universalist (and I Actually Read Love Wins<\/i>)<\/a>“:<\/p>\n \nRob is first and foremost a poet\/artist\/dramatist who has a fantastic gift for communicating in ways that inspire creativity and provoke thought. Rob is far more comfortable (and far better at) questioning established beliefs and creatively hinting at possible answers than he is at constructing a logically rigorous case defending a definitive conclusion. I enthusiastically recommend Love Wins because of the way it empowers readers to question old perspectives and consider new ones. Unless a person reads this book with a preset agenda to find whatever they can to further an anti-Rob Bell agenda (which, I guarantee you, is going to happen) readers will not put this book down unchanged. To me, this is one of the main criteria for qualifying a book as “great.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In noting that he doubts Bell would even identify himself as a universalist, Boyd also made this intriguing point:<\/p>\n …questions surrounding the nature and duration of hell and the ————–<\/p>\n Mason Slater, at New Ways Forward,<\/b> compared the Bell controversy<\/a> to the past controversies involving the late theologian Clark Pinnock (whom I’ve mentioned before<\/a>):<\/p>\n \n…It didn’t matter what he affirmed, or how much he pointed to the Scriptures as the source of his theology.<\/p>\n Once his proposal threatened the security of those who were determined to decide who was in and out of evangelicalism, Pinnock was cast as a threat to orthodoxy…<\/p>\n Our fidelity to the text of the Scriptures matters of course, but we need to learn to have thoughtful and civil conversations about legitimate differences in interpretation instead of reverting to vitriolic attacks and anathemas.<\/p>\n When any theologian who disagrees with you is a heretic, the term loses any real meaning. Or in other words, when everyone is a heretic, no one is.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n ————–<\/p>\n In a guest post at Jesus Needs New PR,<\/b> pastor Adam Ellis defined orthodoxy and heresy<\/a> and made this noteworthy point:<\/p>\n \nIt…strikes me that truth is never afraid of questions, and when questions are rendered off limits, it at least creates the impression that it is not truth that is being sought, but rather a maintaining of the status-quo.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \nHe then asks several provocative questions, including these two:<\/p>\n Since when does one’s belief about the afterlife call their salvation into question? Grace covers a multitude of sins, but not misunderstanding? Such a “cognitive salvation” seems difficult to support Biblically given the accounts of Christians recorded in the New Testament.<\/p>\n What do the “orthodoxy police” do with the early church fathers, many of who, to one degree or another, advocated something other than the “traditional” exclusive view of salvation? (Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, etc.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n ————–<\/p>\n Author Brian McLaren<\/b> — who’s no stranger to being labeled a heretic for stuff he’s written — has also read the book and notes that Bell is asking deep, important questions<\/a>. He clarifies the deeper conversation he feels Bell is after:<\/p>\n \nIt’s not that he’s being given a multiple-choice test between a) traditional exclusivism and b) traditional universalism, and he’s choosing b) instead of a). Rather, it’s that Rob has come to see that the biblical story is bigger and better than a narrative about how souls get sorted out into two bins at the end of time.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n ————–<\/p>\n Albert Mohler, <\/b>the prolific blogger and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president, offered his take<\/a>, labeling Bell as a weak update to traditional Protestant liberalism. Mohler also attacked Bell’s video and his publisher’s question-rich promotion style as “the sad equivalent of a theological striptease”: <\/p>\n The publicity surrounding Bell’s new book indicates that he is ready to ————–<\/p>\n Author Ed Cyzewski<\/b> examines the whole kerfuffle by asking whether we’re more loyal to God or to our beliefs<\/a>:<\/p>\n Our greatest mistake seems to be making a disagreement over beliefs I appreciated this part about our tendency to fight about doctrine rather than seeking to restore people we think may be in error:<\/p>\n If we are loyal to our beliefs ahead of our relationship with God, we We aren’t here to defend the Gospel. <\/p>\n We’re here to let God change how we live and speak through the Gospel.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n ————–<\/p>\n Author and theologian Scot McKnight<\/b> wrote a post for Relevant addressing the controversy and outlining the various types of universalism<\/a>:<\/p>\n Friends, this is an old discussion, and there are some great studies My contention is this: the approach to this generation is not to ————–<\/p>\n San Francisco pastor Chuck DeGroat<\/b> (whose church<\/a> my sister and brother-in-law attend) frames the controversy in terms of missional living<\/a> in his city. In short, this whole thing is not something his community cares about. He believes strongly in “good theologizing” but warns that a missional theology means we should strive for unity and ecumenical connection rather than dividing ourselves over subjective intellectual debates.<\/p>\n I’m not sure what Rob Bell believes. Personally, I don’t think Rob’s ————–<\/p>\n
\npossibility that all will eventually be saved are not questions
\nChristians should be afraid of. What does truth have to fear? (I
\nsometimes wonder if the animosity some express toward Universalists [or
\ntoward those some assume<\/em> are Universalists] is motivated by the
\nfear that the case for Universalism might turn out to be more
\ncompelling than they can handle…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nanswer one of the hardest questions — the question of the exclusivity of
\nthe Gospel of Christ. With that question come the related questions of
\nheaven, hell, judgment, and the fate of the unregenerate. The Bible
\nanswers these questions clearly enough, but few issues are as hard to
\nreconcile with the modern or postmodern mind than this. Of course, it
\nwas hard to reconcile with the ancient mind as well. The singularity of
\nthe person and work of Christ and the necessity of personal faith in him
\nfor salvation run counter to the pluralistic bent of the human mind,
\nbut this is nothing less than the wisdom of God and the power of God
\nunto salvation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nwithin the faith into a heresy smack-down, with one side playing the
\npart of the inquisition, turning Lewis’ great house of Christianity into
\na studio apartment–an apartment that John Calvin has crammed with his
\nstuff in this particular case. I’ve also seen studio apartments for
\nCatholics, Baptists, Arminians, etc. We all do this from time to time.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n
\nmay view other Christian perspectives as threats. If we encounter a
\nview that borders on heresy, we risk making things worse because we’re
\nseeking to protect doctrines instead of people. <\/p>\n\n
\nout there. Rob Bell is almost certainly not adding something new, but
\nhe’s pushing the door open and saying: “Folks, this vast and massive
\nroom of universalism and what’s awaiting us when we die are things we
\nmust take much more seriously. The next generation of Christians are
\npressing upon this door and we better stop and listen and think it
\nthrough one more time.”<\/p>\n
\ndenounce their questions, which often enough are rooted in a heightened
\nsensitivity to divine justice and compassion, but to probe their
\nquestions from the inside and to probe thoughtful and biblically
\nresponsible resolutions. We need to show that their questions about
\njustice and God’s gracious love are not bad questions but good questions
\nthat deserve to be explored.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\nquestions address what post-Christian San Franciscans care about. Maybe Grand Rapids kids who’ve left the faith can return because of
\nRob’s hipper and cooler brand. I’m not sure, but I really don’t care
\neither. If Bell wants to enter the academic debate and join in with
\nBarth and Berkhouwer, with Pagitt and Piper, I’m completely uninterested
\nand I’m not buying his book, in large part, because people just aren’t
\nasking those questions. The big Baptist church where I lived in Oviedo,
\nFL tried to scare the “hell” out of people in their alternative
\nHalloween event. And many Emergents are responding to this kind of
\ncultural Christianity with a vengeance. But I’m uninterested, in part
\nbecause there is much more at stake. A small, uninteresting minority
\nAmerican Christian debate is almost pointless in the world in which we
\nlive.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n