I finished reading Love Wins (March 15, 2011) by Rob Bell. Until September of 2011, Rob Bell served as the pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church, a church he founded in Grandville, Michigan, just outside of Grand Rapids, which had grown to a 10,000 member church. He wrote several books before Love Wins, the first named Velvet Elvis in 2005. Time Magazine recently named him in their 2011 100 list as among the most influential persons in the world.
Though I think this book is important, and should be read, I didn't like it. For one thing,
I
don't like it
when people
write
like this.
Bell employs this device throughout this book to emphasize his points. It may seem trite, but it annoys me, and I think there are better ways to emphasize a point.
Another reason I didn't like it is throughout the book, and especially in the first chapter, he likes to pose many questions, one right after another in a series, sometimes 7 or more in a row. Now I like questions. But these are gotcha-like questions, and the author is clearly not interested in an answer (even if he could hear you), nor is he interested in carefully providing a careful consideration of the question, with possible answers, as it seems to me a writer should. Instead, the purpose seems to be to make you feel dumb for whatever position you might have held.
Many Christians are upset with the book, because they say he supports universalism (the belief that all will be saved). In an interview with Martin Bashir, Rob Bell said he doesn't, though he didn't make that clear in the book where he addresses the subject many times. It seems to me that if an author addresses a subject in a book as a major topic, and he disavows a position, he should state it clearly in that book, and not leave others guessing.
Mark Galli, the Senior Editor of Christianity Today, in his lengthy review of this book states, After reading the book, it's hard for me to believe that Bell doesn't espouse universalism, but to be fair, he never formally affirms such belief. I agree.
Bell fairly points out that universalism finds a tradition within Christianity. What he fails to state is that it is a tiny minority position - most traditions in Christianity reject it, and many have outright condemned it. It might be interesting if his book undertook a serious study of this position in church history. Instead, he doesn't seriously engage in the arguments against universalism, and glibly asserts that if all are not saved, that means God doesn't get his way, an assertion those opposed to universalism do not agree with, and have answered on numerous occasion before. However, the book raises an important issue within Christianity. At least Rob Bell is trying to discuss it in a relevant manner for our generation. I just wish Rob Bell had done a better job of addressing it, and I hope someone else will address this issue in a manner that is relevant to our generation.
4 comments:
Rudy, interesting thoughts. I wonder if the series of questions is really one question? A question with many "and what about this? conjunctions." It's like looking at the facets of a diamond, or traveling along the scenic drive along the ocean, around each twist and bend and rise and dip are new views, new perspectives.
Christianity has been very apt at analyzing the single text, a single Greek or Hebrew word, wringing out its naunences. Sometimes I wonder if we forget to look at the whole story from beginning to end. Like going to the symphony, or watching a movie. One can't compare it to watching TV, because any show is constantly broken into tiny segments.
For me, reading Bell has me stepping back to look at my theology of hell and damnation from a different perspective.
I think Bell also raises an interesting question about the purpose of a damnation theology. How have we used it? Consider how our social philosophy of punishment has changed -- in our lifetime. When I was a child, my parents used corporal punishment. that by today's standards would be consider child abuse. Culturally, we have found new methods for disclipining our children. Has Christian theology been reduced to a threat of damnation rather than a invitation to the love of God?
Jesus, the most loving person ever, spoke about hell. It seems to me that love at times will lead us to give an appropriate warning about hell.
However, Jesus did not focus on hell. Love will not either.
Besides, communicating about hell poses a special communication challenge in this generation where many do not even know what the word sin means. It won't do to use a communication method from the past when you could expect the audience generally to understand what you meant by terms like God, sin, repent, heaven, hell, salvation, etc. Today, you almost have to begin at times by communicating what you do not mean.
In the Love Wins Companion, David VanderVeen makes the observation that ""hell" is only used in the Bible when refering to God's chosen people--the elect, those who are "in". Jesus never uses hell to describe people outside Judaism."
Jesus mission was to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. So I suppose you could say all he said was meant for Israel. However, since the earliest days, church tradition treated his words as mostly equally applying to the Gentiles as well. However, it seems to me Jesus most used hell, or references to it, when describing the Pharisees - those who thought they were more righteous on their own than sinners, so that should give pause for thought.
Post a Comment