Evidence for God from Science

I read the review. Don't know if Rob is going to make it on my reading list. I withold any direct comments about this specific book, except for any excerpt that is posted here. As I said above, it is easy to read something quickly and jump to a conclusion. I think Rob makes a perfectly valid point in the excerpt quoted in the OP.

Bart. A review from someone from Fuller is just as controversial as Bell himself.

Bell is a Fuller grad himself. He did his undergrad work at Wheaton.

I've finished the book and am working on my review.

This is my review.

Past the Hype and into the Content

I'm rarely intimidated approaching a book review. However, this book presents some unique challenges, many of which have very little to do with the book itself. This book has become something of a lightening rod for both opponents and proponents of a particular form of universalism that it was reported to contain, by some prominent critics of Rob Bell, based upon their viewing a promotional video and before they read the book. There's a great number of people who have drawn conclusions about this book, the author Rob Bell, and what the book is or is not saying, and a remarkable number of those people have not read the book themselves either. That's the way things are. Issues of public attention like this take on a life of their own.

So, as much as I have tried to avoid getting too deeply drawn into the conversation before actually reading the book, I have to confess that I've heard a great deal of things and it's perhaps not possible to take things and set them aside completely. To the best of my ability though, here's what I saw as I read the book and then I'll make some comments following about my observations of the controversy surrounding the book.

Often times, when evaluating a review of a book, the views of the reviewer are as important to know as a point of reference. I am a former evangelical pastor and denominational worker who left formal ministry about 6 years ago for honorable reasons. Since that time, I've also left institutional church membership and am a proponent of organic or simple church. I have a degree in Biblical Literature and am fairly broadly read in several different veins of theology. In the past, I've been closely associated with reformed theology or Calvinism and while I do not reject everything in the tradition, I am moving away from several elements of it. Not too surprisingly, the most vehement renouncings of this book and the author tend to come from a reformed theological bent.

So, my initial response to all the hype was and to some extent still is, to come to the defense of Rob Bell and advocate restraint in jumping to unwarranted conclusions. Much of the criticism to me has the whiff of smoke from torch and pitchfork carrying critics and that type of reaction tends to take on a life of its own to where people feel almost obligated to take a position in order to confirm their own identity. So because certain leaders, whether fairly or not, have made some public statements and declared Love Wins to be heretical, that settles the matter and to argue otherwise is to draw your own faith into question.

Setting that aside and now after having read the book I'd make the following general observations. Rob Bell's writing style is highly conversational and employs a Socratic technique of asking questions which are obviously designed to lead people in a particular direction, but it avoids for the most part making declarative statements. Because of that Bell has been criticized for being indirect and that quality maddens several of his critics who would much prefer that he just come out and say something as opposed to teasing. If Bell were writing a formal theology that would be a fair criticism. As it is, Bell book while certainly theological, appears to be directed to an audience for which that sort of book would not appeal. Post-modern unchurched people for the most part are more concerned about the questions and impressions they have about the nature of God and the church that are what they are, and Bell expresses the questions and guides the conversation in a manner that appears designed for them, not academics and theologians. Bell too, has been writing books and pastoring for quite some time and he's obviously well aware that people follow stories much more willingly than they follow lectures. Part of effective story telling is maintaining tension. Bell isn't about to make a clear statement that resolves that tension until the time is right. Anyone going into this book who's looking for a 3 point outline and clearly stated conclusion will be disappointed.

Bell opens his book with a preface that makes clear what he is attempting to do. He notes that Jesus has a story. Further Jesus' story is often very different than the stories told about him by others who knowingly or not, are hijacking it for some other story the source of which is decidedly not Jesus, not necessarily Biblical. In fact Bell goes further than that and states that the purpose of his book is to reclaim that story and that includes revealing some of those other stories. Many of those criticizing Bell and this book I think are completely justified in believing that Bell is rejecting many things that they believe to be important. Bell is clearly taking a stand here and that stand is to refute and dispense with several popular representations of the nature and character of God. Not surprisingly many of these are part of the reformed tradition and they're not misreading his intent, even if they're frustrated that he's not being completely direct about some of his premises.

Bell intends for his book to initiate some dialog about God, Jesus, Heaven, Hell and what a relationship with God looks like. He intends to be controversial and he clearly wants to call into question some things that are tightly held by Evangelical, Fundamentalist and Reformed traditions (to name a few.) Bell clearly intends to widen the definition of what is "Christian" and to draw to the attention of people outside of Christianity or on the fringes that the popular representations of many of these issues are not all there is to Christianity.

Bell asks provocative questions. He opens with asking if Ghandi is really in hell, as a note he examined suggests is irrefutably true. He moves things from theory to where the rubber hits the road for many people, speaking of tragedy, accidents and the death, not just of theoretical people, but real people; people we know and love and with whom we can identify. He then speaks about how people come to Christ. The sinners prayer, a relatively recent development in Christian history and it's vitality is questioned, not to exclude but to put in the context of 2000 years most of which never heard or thought of such a formula in its precise form. Bell looks at some Scripture passages and questions why some are elevated above others and some are seemingly unaddressed or ignored.

A dominant theme of Love Wins is to remove the separation of "Now" and "Then". He clearly questions the value of what is sometimes called "pie in the sky by and by" meaning the disconnection of the present from the future. He doesn't discount the future state of heaven. He questions the current view and shows from scripture and culture that this isn't the only view that has characterized the church in the past. Moving on he goes to the more controversial issue of Hell and addresses it in similar terms in essence stating that Hell is more than just a future state; we can and do create hell for ourselves by the choices we make. He doesn't deny evil and he doesn't deny hell as a future state. He does however bring questions and makes observations that are not new, and are indeed fair and must be addressed by anyone seeking to understand what the scripture has to say and the impact of those beliefs upon us today.

To answer the more direct questions that come about the book, it appears to me that Bell does believe in heaven and hell. Bell is not a universalist in the manner that he is being accused of, and he clearly affirms the uniqueness of Christ. What is evident as well is that Bell is not afraid to question traditional definitions and redefine what familiar words and concepts can mean apart from their standard issues.

More at the heart of this work I do identify something that comes through clearly and I'm frankly a little surprised that it doesn't take center stage in the discussion swirling around the book. Bell clearly rejects the "traditional" view of penal substitutionary atonement as the exclusive means of understanding the nature of God and the analogous understanding of Christ's death on the cross. He appears to pretty clearly accept a broader understanding that is usually referred to as Christus Victor. This is in keeping with the broader questions that he is asking and if anything, this should in my opinion be the target of focus of discussion by those seeking to call his views into question. Here there's clear indications in the book than the spurious charge of universalism. That said, Bell's work falls into the category of other equally controversial books and authors of recent years such as The Shack, and Greg Boyd. That said, personally I find Bell's thinking and positions appealing and I agree with him, that many of the traditional positions within the church don't really have a great appreciation of what the history of the penal substitution theory of the atonement is, when it appeared and how the church viewed things before it came along. Some study in that regard reveals a lot. Frankly what it reveals makes a lot of people angry who either don't want to face the implications of the answers or who prefer to deny them.

Love Wins is indeed a provocative book that asks hard questions and it's clear it demands careful consideration. Those who are most angry about it are those who appear to prefer that the questions not be asked in the first place.

4 stars. I'm not completely on board with everything Bell states or implies. I think the questions are worth asking and Bell asks them well.

bart breen

Maybe I should read the book.

I think the question when discussing the penal substitution theory that needs to be asked, is why was the penal subsitution theory formulated at that time in history.

Bart, I know I have my own thoughts on the matter, many of which are still being formulated, but I'm most interested to hear exactly what you mean when you say,

that many of the traditional positions within the church don't really have a great appreciation of what the history of the penal substitution theory of the atonement is, when it appeared and how the church viewed things before it came along.

Are you relating it to the satisfaction doctrine of the dark ages which immedieately proceeded the reformation, or going even earlier in the Ransom Theory of the early church, which is supposed to be the inspiration for the Christus Victor?

I'm not clear by what you mean when you say that Bell rejects this view as the exclusive means of understanding the nature of God and the analogous understanding of Christ's death on the cross. First I would ask, does Bell reject this theory in lieu of accepting Christus Victor? Or does he go that deep into theological positions?

Jlay,

He doesn't go that deep and he doesn't name the theories. I recognized them through my reading of the book and that is my insight and conclusion.

Atonement theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Bell would have to speak for himself as to whether he rejects it entirely. As is consistent with the rest of the book, he's not forthright in making a clear statement. I think however, that most of the criticism directed at him categorizing him as a universalist would be better focused on his apparent views of the atonement as that is where I believe the issues are stemming from more directly.

bart

Thanks Bart for your thoughtful review. I am just beginning the chapter on hell as I just got my copy in the mail. The main issue IMO, at this point, is more about the exclusivity views of traditional Christianity that Bell challenges. Bell emphasizes that at judgment time there will be many surprises regarding who is saved and who is not. He challenges the criteria often used for what makes a believer a true believer. I personally don't mind this challenge and think it needs some good conversation.

I think He also has a main challenge regarding the character of God that comes out of views on hell, exclusivity, etc. But I better not say more until I get through the whole book.

I think your review is quite fair with what I have read so far.

Bart, you may find this an interesting discussion as it touches on PSA - http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/03/23/ ... love-wins/

Thanks Sudsy. I was aware it was up. I haven't listened to it. It's not generous of me, but Al Mohler is not my favorite person in terms of his positions, actions and the impact he's had upon a denomination I used to be a part of a long time ago. I may listen to it when I settle down here in a bit. I've put a lot of time and attention into this book and the controversy and I'm ready to move on.

Bart I just listened to that hour and a half panel discussion that I referred to. I think it might have been more interesting if you had been there or someone to challenge further some of their beliefs.

What still bothers me, and, if I recall correctly, you perhaps took some offense to my conclusion on this, is that these guys sit and talk about a hell of unending torment and I would bet that none of these panel contributors are out 24/7 trying to warn people from such a place. Unending torment in a lake of fire. I don't think they are really coming to grips with what they say they are believing. How can anyone have any of the compassion of Christ within them and truly believe this take on hell and not been pleading for people, everyone, anyone not to go there ? This, to me, is the most outstanding example of hypocrisy that exists within Christianity. To me, this would be a natural outcome of such a heart felt belief. It is not a matter of 'should be warning' but rather a matter of 'I can't help but warn everyone'.

I really don't buy into the idea that we need to make Christianity more appealing when it conflicts with people's general sensibilities and if we think the nature/wrath/justice/love of God will require God to send some to endless torment then at least it should be preached as such to anyone and everyone. I don't agree with guys like B.W. but I do respect their willingness to stand for what they believe and I hope their lives bear this out with compassion for the lost.

To me, the question still remains that was asked on the Day of Pentecost - 'what must I do to be saved' ? Seems the answer is no longer straightforward as Peter gave it. Bell suggests it has many answers and you don't even have to know what you are being saved from. Is this where Chritsianity is heading ?

I'm not into further debates on the nature of hell but I do think it is important to maintain some basic agreement on what salvation hinges on. Perhaps this is just heading toward another attempt to define what a fundamentalist believes makes a follower of Christ, I don't know.

Sudsy wrote:I don't think they are really coming to grips with what they say they are believing.

Because they disagree with you? very presumptuous.

Sudsy wrote:How can anyone have any of the compassion of Christ within them and truly believe this take on hell and not been pleading for people, everyone, anyone not to go there ? This, to me, is the most outstanding example of hypocrisy that exists within Christianity.

That's what the great commission was for; we're all called to preach in our own ways. The ultimate hight of hypocrisy, however, is not coming to grips with the need to do the same for annihilationism.

Okay, I said my part, now back to the subject.

Sudsy wrote:Thanks Bart for your thoughtful review. I am just beginning the chapter on hell as I just got my copy in the mail. The main issue IMO, at this point, is more about the exclusivity views of traditional Christianity that Bell challenges. Bell emphasizes that at judgment time there will be many surprises regarding who is saved and who is not. He challenges the criteria often used for what makes a believer a true believer. I personally don't mind this challenge and think it needs some good conversation.

I think He also has a main challenge regarding the character of God that comes out of views on hell, exclusivity, etc. But I better not say more until I get through the whole book.

I think your review is quite fair with what I have read so far.

There's no question that Bell addresses the issue of Hell within the argument of the Character of God. He doesn't however, deny it's existence. He also notes that we as humans through our choices are capable of creating our own personal and corporate "hells on earth" and metaphorically speaking he's correct. He attempts to diminish the idea of heaven and hell as separated from this life. They're, according to what I read of him, extensions in many regards of what we create here. No less real, but more to be addressed in the context of today than separated as traditional orthodoxy can tend to do.

I don't see him however, making the leap that others accuse him of, of stating that hell will not be an eternal condition of anyone. He does seem to be indicating that it will be far fewer than the popular traditional view in western protestantism. He's not terribly clear and hence a lot of the controversy by many who are asking, and not without some justification, for him to be more clear and answer some direct questions. I think it's equally ungenerous that some asking those questions are then assuming the worst and making final judgments of Bell personally as a heretic and outside the fellowship of believers.

The Muow article earlier in this thread I think is right, that Bell is advocating a more generous soteriology as opposed to a stingy salvific stance (Muow's words.)

I have to say, I think there is a level of focus upon soteriology in reformed circles that is highly exclusive, traditional Calvinism clearly, but not just Calvinism and Reformed traditions. If you were to take the logical extension of some of the positions taken, you might be tempted to conclude that only Reformed, elect persons after the Reformation who properly understand and confirm with minute specificity are going to be saved, and even then, only if God has specifically chosen them. It may just be a matter of great surprise to us as to who is in heaven (and maybe even who is not). Angels may need to be assigned smelling salts to revive the more rigid .... There's no denying however that there are passages that give rise to these thoughts.

One thing I think Bell does well, although I'm sure he'll continue to take heat for it. is to categorically go through several passages that speak of salvation in the NT and lift their primary thought and then contrast them. At the extreme of this is a passage from Timothy where is says women will be saved through child-bearing. So ... any woman who gives birth will be saved? And is this exclusive, meaning men won't be? Of course that's a ridiculous extreme and the other passages he contrasts do indeed show our tendency to camp on particular verses and either ignore or minimize those that conflict or seemingly contradict. That's a point he's taking extreme heat upon. Those who have already reconciled in their minds these conflicts to nail down their soteriology look at Bell and scream that asking the questions and just raising doubts without then stepping in and explaining and reconciling it all, is a gross disservice to his readers. That's how they approach it. Leaders are to lead their followers and explain all these things. Bell seems to be advocation that there's a dialog to have, not just a monologue to be given. If you want to tick off some elements of evangelical and reformed tradition, that's enough of an affront right there.

Reformed theology starts with the premise that all of these conflicts are reconcilable. In order to reconcile them they however rely greatly on their logical framework and not so subtly, after a while, that logical grid itself is elevated to the equal of the scripture is seeks to interpret. I run into that all the time and it's difficult for someone in the midst of it to step back and suspend their objections enough to have a chance to see what they're doing. Many Reformed Calvinists of any brand are quick to equate Christianity as a whole of really only consisting of their narrow interpretation. Not all do this. I'm being careful I hope in my terms not to do the same in lumping them together or making similar assumptions of my own, although no doubt I fail miserably at that often.

Anyway .... I'm rambling. Hope you enjoy the rest of the book and by all means please let me know if after your done, any of my assessments seem to be off base.

Canuckster1127 wrote: One thing I think Bell does well, although I'm sure he'll continue to take heat for it. is to categorically go through several passages that speak of salvation in the NT and lift their primary thought and then contrast them. At the extreme of this is a passage from Timothy where is says women will be saved through child-bearing. So ... any woman who gives birth will be saved? And is this exclusive, meaning men won't be? Of course that's a ridiculous extreme and the other passages he contrasts do indeed show our tendency to camp on particular verses and either ignore or minimize those that conflict or seemingly contradict. That's a point he's taking extreme heat upon. Those who have already reconciled in their minds these conflicts to nail down their soteriology look at Bell and scream that asking the questions and just raising doubts without then stepping in and explaining and reconciling it all, is a gross disservice to his readers. That's how they approach it. Leaders are to lead their followers and explain all these things. Bell seems to be advocation that there's a dialog to have, not just a monologue to be given. If you want to tick off some elements of evangelical and reformed tradition, that's enough of an affront right there.

I don't think there's any problem with honest questions. I think they're good - people not thinking is something that's had the tangible effect of a curse on Christian intellectual practice for a while in many areas.

I do disagree with Rob's example though. The problem lies in the fact that we use an English translation and the word 'saved' does not always mean 'Salvation'. In fact, it usually doesn't. I wish I were capable of reading the original recordings in their original language... I'm sure it would help clear many things up for me. But Rob should know this; one of his more well-known attributes (at least around here) is that he's studied a lot of Jewish history. I would have assumed that may have extended to the original translations of Scripture. I guess to summarize- my problem is that he compares apples to oranges. You can't assume just because it says 'saved' that it refers to Salvation any more than every time the Bible says 'love' it talks about selfless love or sexual love. It's important to understand what is meant by the words as originally written - not just as translated. Baptism also often has this problem - especially since we are told by Jesus Himself in John 3 that there are at least two types of Baptisms (one of water, one of Spirit). We can't suddenly say all Baptism is of water or all Baptism is of Spirit.

Just a cautionary response of mine I guess. I've been familiar with the guy for a while, and I've found his chief merit as a writer to be getting discussion going, and his chief flaw as a writer is being so vague sometimes that a large portion of the previously mentioned discussion is spent on trying to clarify instead of actually relate to his work. Just my opinion on it.

I understand and see that. There's no question in my mind that Rob Bell purposely writes to stir things up without usually then going deeper than the questions themselves. Of course, salvation as a word in the Bible isn't always speaking narrowly about how to appropriate the salvation of Christ. We use the word metaphorically in English too, e.g. "The inserts in her shoes worn in defiance of her bunions, proved to be her salvation."

Bell I think knows the answers to some of his questions very well and yet asks them without then resolving the question with a few simple comments that wouldn't necessarily lessen the impact of his point, but would at least leave him less open to the criticism that he's stirring the pot for its own sake.

The Muow article earlier in this thread I think is right, that Bell is advocating a more generous soteriology as opposed to a stingy salvific stance (Muow's words.)

Not to proof text but, Matt. 7:14.

jlay wrote:

The Muow article earlier in this thread I think is right, that Bell is advocating a more generous soteriology as opposed to a stingy salvific stance (Muow's words.)

Not to proof text but, Matt. 7:14.

How narrow? Is it a virtue to define it as narrowly as possible based upon this verse? Do you really want to presume to know God's heart in this regard down to the individuals and categories of individuals? I'm not arguing to throw discernment and critical examination to the wind. It's fair however to ask if we've gone further than God Himself on some of these issues and step back from time to time.

I understand your point. I think it's part of why Bell is being painted with the "universalist brush." I don't think it's a fair categorization of him and I accept him at his word when he states clearly, as he has, that he is not a universalist. I think the issues he's drawing attention to have more to do with his understanding of the atonement.

I have some common ground with him. I think most of the formal models for the atonement as they are presented within the Scripture need to be recognized in part as analogies or metaphores, each appropriate to the context or point that is being taught in scripture. Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a valid view and it clearly ties into the Roman legal system in place at the time of many of the passages used to support it. Paul, in fact, was highly familiar with Roman Law and fighting for his own life within that context and it makes perfect sense to me that that would in part explain why he used the imagery and corallary points. But there are also other elements and perspectives that are scripturally based themselves and serve to highlight other elements and analogies which are relevant to the context they are used in.

I did a little searching a while back on Christus Victor and PSA and one of the links that came up was to Justin Taylor. He's the one whose blog article originally ignited this fire storm. It was his blog that John Piper tweeted, with his now famous (or infamous) quote, "Farewell Rob Bell". Not surprisingly, Taylor's position is that PSA is "the" atonement position of the Bible and all other positions including Christus Victor should be subordinated to PSA and only viewed through it lens. That was my impression. I might be reading more in. It was a book review of a book (interestingly tied to John Piper) that he was favorable toward that said pretty much that.

I suspect I'd fare little better in the eyes of Piper, Taylor and maybe even our Reformed and Calvinist friends on this board who appear as of late to have given up on us as indicated by their absence. But nevertheless, I'll continue to try to understand and work things out as best I can.