So, over the course of the past few days, a bit of a fervor has been stirred up. Â About Rob Bell, Jesus’ love, and Hell.
All three of those topics can lead to very intense responses if you feel that they are relevant to you and all three can seem silly if you don’t. Â This post would be for those who do.
Justin Taylor, wrote a blog about Bell’s new book Love Wins: A book about Heaven, Hell and the fate of every person who ever lived. In the blog he had some very strong things to say about Bell and the possibility that Bell may have embraced universalism. Â Universalism is the idea that God, based on his love for humanity will forgive everyone on the planet upon their death, and allow them to join him in heaven. Â This is regardless of their desire to be with God or to be forgiven by God. Â Here is one quote from Taylor…
So on that level, I’m glad that Rob Bell has the integrity to be lay his cards on the table about universalism. It seems that this is not just optimism about the fate of those who haven’t heard the Good News, but (as it seems from below) full-blown hell-is-empty-everyone-gets-saved universalism.
I want to be clear that I like several aspects of The Gospel Coalition and I value its focus and voice, even if I don’t share all of its views. (If you would like any clarity on that, let me know) Â My issue isn’t with that. Â It is with the apparently over-rapid response to a book that Taylor hadn’t yet read fully. Â His response seems to me to have been too quick and too strong.
At this point, I will direct you to two of my friends, JR Woodward and Eugene Cho, who have written a much more complete reflection on what has been going on. Â These are great guys, so, Jr and Eugene, take ‘er away…
Jim, I am so glad that you posted about this. My thoughts have been swirling since my friend emailed me the CT article this morning. Looking at the other two blogs you posted really helped me organize my thoughts- because I have so many. I have a bit of disdain for both Piper and Bell.
I really identified with Cho’s description of “the legions of “new-Calvinists†that see it as their core duty to defend and contend for orthodox Christianity”. Piper and Driscoll are both fascinating personalities, who seem all too prepared to jump down people’s throats rather than attack solely issues. Usually these attacks are not “seasoned with salt”. It seems like they feel the need to literally “Reform” other Christians more frequently than they feel the need to reach the lost. That’s a huge generalization obviously, and they still do reach out to the lost… but it’s not necessarily what sticks out in my mind when I think of them versus when I think of Max Lucado.
Piper seems more concerned with theology/ doing it how he thinks is right more than he cares about discipleship or breaking down the personal relationship part of our faith. Again, not always the case. However, many of his podcasts have an uncanny ability to come back to election no matter the passage.
On the flip side, Rob Bell and his camp are too afraid to attack people, but go on forever and ever about issues. Bell might be too lenient on say Ghandi (that’s who he mentions in his promo video) or others for fear of offending non-believers. But then he goes into such depth on wrestling that other issues that people who are struggling with them could end up worse and more confused or unsure than beforehand if they aren’t being discipled or don’t have someone speaking truth into their lives. I’m not sure everyone who wrestles with Bell as their guide comes out on top of their problems.
On the whole, I really liked Scot McKnight’s thoughts on the situation. It will be interesting to see if this continues after the book actually comes out and if it will even say what some are so certain that it will. Right now it all seems so stereotypical of the two camps.
It really reminds me of an article from Christianity Today that juxtaposes two conferences where Piper and NT Wright were the main speakers (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/aprilweb-only/26-42.0.html). It was really nice to see how NT Wright was able to kind of wrap up the whole justification debate with Piper. We’ll see if anything similar takes place here.
Wow, Candice. Nicely put. I don’t feel quite as strongly as you do about the individuals, but I have to say that you have a very well thought out position. Really nicely done. Also, I agree about Scot, I think he is one of the best compilers of information and seems very good at gleaning value from a variety of persectives without becoming just centrist. As this unfolds, lets keep this discussion going!
This reminds me of the childhood game “telephone†where someone says something and get gets passed around and changes into something completely different, and finally you have to ask the one who started it what they said.
That’s what I’m anticipating to happen with Rob Bell. We read a blurb and a blog and then every social media site blows up till finally we’ll have to read the book for ourselves and ask Rob Bell what his intentions were.
I like the point JR Woodward brings up about Eugene Peterson and Greg Boyd being Universalists because they endorse the book. And if they’re just an excerpt from the book are anyone and everyone associated with Rob Bell and Universalist? How far do we go off of notions and excerpts?
I don’t mind people having rational discussions with material to back it up, but when you just start throwing things out there based on little to nothing, I find that absurd. It becomes solely emotional rather than rational. People throw up their defenses and then are unable to hear what the other side has to say.
I just hope when the book releases people can read it objectively in order to evaluate whether it’s universalistic or not.
Jim,
I’m interested by this post and the many like it I’ve read. I agree we should wait for the book to get the whole context. That being said…if Bell’s advertising video that he (or his publisher, I would assume with his consent) put out, and the press releases, and even actual quotes from the passages of the book are accurate–then what?
Everybody is saying that we are being hasty, and we probably are. But none of those same people are saying what their opinion is on what he is saying!
I’m sort of left with the impression that either he is trying to be controversial to drum up sales (which I would say is not the most Godly motivation) or he really means it.
Yes, there are some who have reacted a little strongly and quickly. But there is also a danger of a popular pastor espousing universalism…especially if anyone who rises to contradict him is thought of negatively.
Where do you stand on what he has released, regardless of whether Justin Taylor and others spoke too quickly? If he is saying what his publisher says he is saying, it’s heretical, yes?
crossroads church
Crossroads, encouraging our people to understand, embrace, and grow in their practice of being “on mission” everyday. Meets in Severn MD
crossroads church
Crossroads, encouraging our people to understand, embrace, and grow in their practice of being “on mission” everyday. Meets in Severn MD
noel heikkinen
innovative thinker and pastor of riverview church in michigan
pete davis
if you need a photographer and are anywhere near charlottesville va, you want this guy
todd hiestand
Todd is a pastor in the Ecclesia Network at The Well in Feasterville, PA
Missional
nuru international
a truly innovative organization that pursues holistic, sustainable solutions to end extreme poverty, together, one community at a time
parables of a prodigal world
raffi has a lot of interesting takes on different issues, you may agree or disagree, but the questions he is asking are excellent
scot mcknight
theologian and interesting thinker…does a great job sharing not just his take on various issues but giving a good overview of competlng thoughts
the solis foundation
a holistic faith-based foundation that partners with churches in the two-thirds world to equip and empower new generations of entrepreneurs through small business, micro-loan programs and venture grants.
Organizations
ecclesia network
Ecclesia is a relational network of churches, leaders and movements that seek to equip, partner and multiply missional churches and movements.
great commission ministries churches
GCM works to fulfill the Great Commission by mobilizing missionaries to serve local churches, for the purpose of evangelism, discipleship and church planting.
network of giving
a network of churches and non-profits brought together to create a culture of generosity and allow for easy online giving
nuru international
a truly innovative organization that pursues holistic, sustainable solutions to end extreme poverty, together, one community at a time
Candice Hudson said...
1Jim, I am so glad that you posted about this. My thoughts have been swirling since my friend emailed me the CT article this morning. Looking at the other two blogs you posted really helped me organize my thoughts- because I have so many. I have a bit of disdain for both Piper and Bell.
I really identified with Cho’s description of “the legions of “new-Calvinists†that see it as their core duty to defend and contend for orthodox Christianity”. Piper and Driscoll are both fascinating personalities, who seem all too prepared to jump down people’s throats rather than attack solely issues. Usually these attacks are not “seasoned with salt”. It seems like they feel the need to literally “Reform” other Christians more frequently than they feel the need to reach the lost. That’s a huge generalization obviously, and they still do reach out to the lost… but it’s not necessarily what sticks out in my mind when I think of them versus when I think of Max Lucado.
Piper seems more concerned with theology/ doing it how he thinks is right more than he cares about discipleship or breaking down the personal relationship part of our faith. Again, not always the case. However, many of his podcasts have an uncanny ability to come back to election no matter the passage.
On the flip side, Rob Bell and his camp are too afraid to attack people, but go on forever and ever about issues. Bell might be too lenient on say Ghandi (that’s who he mentions in his promo video) or others for fear of offending non-believers. But then he goes into such depth on wrestling that other issues that people who are struggling with them could end up worse and more confused or unsure than beforehand if they aren’t being discipled or don’t have someone speaking truth into their lives. I’m not sure everyone who wrestles with Bell as their guide comes out on top of their problems.
On the whole, I really liked Scot McKnight’s thoughts on the situation. It will be interesting to see if this continues after the book actually comes out and if it will even say what some are so certain that it will. Right now it all seems so stereotypical of the two camps.
It really reminds me of an article from Christianity Today that juxtaposes two conferences where Piper and NT Wright were the main speakers (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/aprilweb-only/26-42.0.html ). It was really nice to see how NT Wright was able to kind of wrap up the whole justification debate with Piper. We’ll see if anything similar takes place here.
02/28/11 1:11 PM | Comment Link
jim said...
2Wow, Candice. Nicely put. I don’t feel quite as strongly as you do about the individuals, but I have to say that you have a very well thought out position. Really nicely done. Also, I agree about Scot, I think he is one of the best compilers of information and seems very good at gleaning value from a variety of persectives without becoming just centrist. As this unfolds, lets keep this discussion going!
02/28/11 3:17 PM | Comment Link
Josh said...
3This reminds me of the childhood game “telephone†where someone says something and get gets passed around and changes into something completely different, and finally you have to ask the one who started it what they said.
That’s what I’m anticipating to happen with Rob Bell. We read a blurb and a blog and then every social media site blows up till finally we’ll have to read the book for ourselves and ask Rob Bell what his intentions were.
I like the point JR Woodward brings up about Eugene Peterson and Greg Boyd being Universalists because they endorse the book. And if they’re just an excerpt from the book are anyone and everyone associated with Rob Bell and Universalist? How far do we go off of notions and excerpts?
I don’t mind people having rational discussions with material to back it up, but when you just start throwing things out there based on little to nothing, I find that absurd. It becomes solely emotional rather than rational. People throw up their defenses and then are unable to hear what the other side has to say.
I just hope when the book releases people can read it objectively in order to evaluate whether it’s universalistic or not.
02/28/11 11:55 PM | Comment Link
Chris said...
4Jim,
I’m interested by this post and the many like it I’ve read. I agree we should wait for the book to get the whole context. That being said…if Bell’s advertising video that he (or his publisher, I would assume with his consent) put out, and the press releases, and even actual quotes from the passages of the book are accurate–then what?
Everybody is saying that we are being hasty, and we probably are. But none of those same people are saying what their opinion is on what he is saying!
I’m sort of left with the impression that either he is trying to be controversial to drum up sales (which I would say is not the most Godly motivation) or he really means it.
Yes, there are some who have reacted a little strongly and quickly. But there is also a danger of a popular pastor espousing universalism…especially if anyone who rises to contradict him is thought of negatively.
Where do you stand on what he has released, regardless of whether Justin Taylor and others spoke too quickly? If he is saying what his publisher says he is saying, it’s heretical, yes?
03/8/11 7:19 PM | Comment Link