Posted by Justin Mulwee in Philosophy & Apologetics | 11 Comments
A Brief Guide to Rob Bell’s Latest Controversy
If you read Christian blogs besides this one, you know that everyone has an opinion about Rob Bell, especially lately surrounding his book Love Wins, which appears to be a vague argument for universalism. In short, universalism is the belief that everyone will eventually go to heaven.
This man never fails to polarize people. The blogosphere is already overflowing with “reviews” both positive and negative mostly from people who–I kid you not–have not actually read the book. They mostly strike me as either “Rob Bell’s a heretic” posts or gushy “can’t we all just get along?” posts aimed at the former group. Since I haven’t read the book either, I’m not reviewing it. However, I thought I’d offer a quick guide to the controversy itself.
First, Bell released this curious teaser which proved itself perhaps more controversial than the actual book.
This video is classic Rob Bell: artsy, compassionate, but with lack of clear argument. I think he asks some great questions here, but the next question should be whether his book will answer his own questions in a satisfactory way.
The most thorough review of the book to surface so far (and by someone who’s actually read it!) is by Kevin DeYoung, a Reformed writer and theologian who wrote the popular book Why We’re Not Emergent a few years back. The review is highly critical and articulate. It’s kind of long, but if you’re interested in Bell’s book or the topic in general, I suggest you overcome your internet ADD and read it.
I would like to see Bell mount a defense against DeYoung’s criticisms.
Lastly, here’s a recent interview with Bell presenting some concerns people are having about his book. Pay special attention to the way he “answers” the questions.
Pastor Claims Hell Does Not Exist
EDIT: I’m adding another great interview Dan Rubio pointed us to. The interviewer is quite shrewd. Note that the critic the interviewer quotes is DeYoung, linked to above.
I think it’s important to note that this controversy has been in a way a battle of straw men. Rob Bell is probably not the best defender of universalism, and in the above interview he claims not to be one (which again leaves his thesis a question mark). Likewise, Bell seems to gun for the easiest targets, like the person compelled to obnoxiously comment that Ghandi is burning in hell–sure, let’s agree that person was being a jerk, but it’s not as though this anonymous person is any serious defender of mainstream orthodox faith.
I think it’s safe to say that a serious philosophical discussion about universalism will never happen in the mainstream media. But it can always happen here. We’ve solicited a friend to write an actual, clear argument for universalism (yes, for, not against). Hopefully that will come through soon. In the mean time you may just have to content yourselves with following (or quietly ignoring) the Rob Bell media explosion.
Justin, gotta love a good heartfelt debate….keep them thinking, searching and seeking for the truth.
I just have a couple of comments. First, have you read Greg Boyd’s response to the controversy? I haven’t read the DeYoung article yet (I’ll get to it in a minute), but thus far Boyd’s was one of the best responses I’d read to the Bell Brouhaha. He says that Rob Bell is not actually espousing unversalism (and he actually read the book): http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/rob-bell-is-not-a-universalist-and-i-actually-read-love-wins/
Second: you don’t think the guy who made the Ghandi comment was “any serious defender of mainstream orthodox faith”? OK, maybe he wouldn’t be the guy you’d debate in a serious theological discussion, but don’t you think he represents a very common evangelical perspective? I know lots of people who would nod their heads in agreement with that comment (“Of course Ghandi’s in hell. He didn’t acknowledge Jesus as his Lord and Saviour”). So I think it’s an idea that’s worth addressing.
You’re right that Bell tends to be evasive and ambiguous, and has a way of polarizing people. I find it kind of amusing.
I hadn’t read Boyd’s response until you linked to it. Good points, though the title is a bit deceptive. As Boyd hints at, the truth is nobody really knows what Rob Bell’s actual beliefs are. In my own opinion, this is the biggest problem with Rob Bell in general: he’s a hugely popular, passionate teacher, but nobody knows what exactly he’s teaching because he’s (intentionally?) unclear, even when he writes entire books on a topic. For proof of his unclarity, one need only to watch an interview with him like the one above. He’s clearly taken lessons from politicians on how to avoid actually saying anything.
Furthermore, DeYoung’s review addresses posts like Boyd’s which say that Bell is only “masterfully raising all the right questions” and ask us to give his a break because he’s an artist and not a theologian. Some quick excerpts:
Although Bell asks a lot of questions (350 by one count), we should not write off the provocative theology as mere question-raising… As Bell himself writes, “But this isn’t a book of questions. It’s a book of responses to these questions” (19).
… This book is not a poem. This is a theological book by a pastor trying to impart a different way of looking at heaven and hell. Whether Bell is creative or a provocateur is beside the point. If Bell is inconsistent, unclear, or inaccurate, claiming the “artist” mantle is no help.
Second, I agree with you and with Bell that it’s a common perspective to say Ghandi is definitely in hell. It’s definitely worth addressing. However, I don’t think most of the young people from our postmodern generation (his main audience) would defend that position. I also think it’s problematic if he seems to be raising a serious philosophical discussion, yet guns only for the weakest non-universalists.
Again, great questions he raises. Now if only we could trouble the man who wrote 200-odd pages of opinions on a topic for his thesis so we could have an intelligent discussion about it.
The only excuse for lack of clarity is ignorance. With all due respect to artistry, one may give a proposition both artistic and analytical expression. Bell does friends of truth no favors by prevaricating,
If his view is univeralism, he should own it proudly and know that he’s in good company. If it is not, he should deny it clearly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg-qgmJ7nzA
Interview here where he denies being a universalist, although it’s not clear how. The hos tis entertaining and asks some pretty hard hitting questions.
Thanks for the video, Dan. It’s pretty fantastic and I’m editing the article to include it.
Watching these interviews, I am strongly repulsed. I love the style and approach Rob Bell uses in his videos, but when it comes down to it, I feel like the people he leads must be very watered down, and he’s not helping. The best case scenario is that a few will be tormented enough by not knowing what to believe that they will seek out answers for themselves and strengthen their faith.
The interviewer in the link Dan provided, started things up with a rather mean paradox. I think he was asking the wrong questions there, but I am curious as to how one of you might have replied to him, as we are bound to be confronted with similar ideas in the future, just as I’ve seen this come up just about every time a natural disaster occurs.
I share your sentiments, Bret. Honestly, it wouldn’t even bother me that much if Bell was just a blatant universalist. Then at least we could address a clear position. What bothers me is that Rob Bell raises hard questions but weasels out of answering them like a politician.
I think the initial “which is it?” question the interviewer asked was unfair, but the immediate answer should have been “neither”. Granted, after that direct answer it’d then be tough to explain why neither is true because you’d essentially have to tackle the problem of evil off the cuff.
The interviewer was posing the two stronger legs of a trilemma Epicurus posed his theistic opponents. The correct answer is that ‘God might have stopped it, but chose not to’ and the challenge to explain how that God can then still claim to be good. Agreed it was not a nice intro, but I appreciated the directness afterward.
Interesting, thanks for your inputs.
I agree that the directness the interviewer showed was very appreciable. I also agree that Rob Bell is very much like a politician and dodges making clear answers, which is very frustrating in a leader. I wouldn’t mind very much at all if he took a clearly defined position.
I find it interesting how the response of some Christians, particularly those more in the emergent or postmodern tradition, has been “Look, it really doesn’t matter who will be saved” (e.g., this article on Sojourners). This is the same thing one often hears when discussions of inclusivism or exclusivism come to the fore–whether everyone be saved through Christ/Christianity (this is actually a logically distinct issue from universalism, although they are frequently confused). I must say that I don’t entirely get it. Of course it’s important who will be saved. I think usually what people who say this mean is “Don’t excommunicate people who take position X, because that’s not the core of Christian doctrine,” and sure, I agree with that, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t an important issue! Just because something isn’t the core of the Christian faith doesn’t mean you close off rational discussion of it.