Oprah Puts Rob Bell on The Map

Oprah:

Pastor Rob Bell is shaking up the way we think about God and religion. I love his new book, What We Talk About When We Talk About God (HarperOne). When I first started reading it, I was highlighting my favorite passages, but then I realized—what’s the point? I’ve marked every page! It just wowed me. In the book, Bell explains that God is and always has been with us, for us, and ahead of us—and then explores how we can really absorb this knowledge into our everyday lives to become more connected to spirit.

Derek Rishmawy:

People read Oprah recommendations. They think about them and talk about them. That means a lot of people are going to be reading and thinking about Bell’s work, so we should should be ready to talk with them about it. As I wrote before:

…hopefully those who read the book and come away saying, “We will hear you again about this,” (Acts 17:32) manage to find churches who engage them just as well as Bell does, while pushing them towards even deeper, richer, more complex ways of talking about God. 

So—and this goes especially for more conservative readers—before you jump all over your friend who’s excitedly reading Bell’s book because Oprah said great things about it, slow down. Wait a minute. Ask questions. Trust that Jesus can be at work here, even if you would have preferred that he use a different book. As Paul said, “Cling to what is good, hate what is evil” (Rom. 12:9). We might paraphrase him here: “Build on what is good, gently expose what isn’t so great.” 

In other words, if you talk to your friend in a sane, open, and wise way about Bell, that person might later be ready for you to hand them something like Keller. Who knows what can happen?

…hopefully those who read the book and come away saying, “We will hear you again about this,” (Acts 17:32) manage to find churches who engage them just as well as Bell does, while pushing them towards even deeper, richer, more complex ways of talking about God.

For those of you looking for thoughtful engagement with Bell’s book, here are a few reviews:

• What Rob Bell Talks About At the Areopagus by Derek Rishmawy 
• What Rob Bell Talks About When He Talks About God by Matt Jenson 
• What We Talk About When We Talk About Rob Bell by Trevin Wax 

A Review of "What We Talk about When We Talk About God"

Dr. Michael Kruger:

In the end, my overall concern about this volume is a simple one: it is not Christian. Bell's makeover of Christianity has changed it into something entirely different. It is not Christianity at all, it is modern liberalism. It is the same liberalism that Machen fought in the 1920's and the same liberalism prevalent in far too many churches today. It is the liberalism that teaches that God exists and that Jesus is the source of our happiness and our fulfillment, but all of this comes apart from any real mention of sin, judgment, and the cross. It is the liberalism that says we can know nothing for sure, except of course, that those "fundamentalists" are wrong. It is the liberalism that appeals to the Bible from time to time, but then simply ignores large portions of it.

Bell's book, therefore, is really just spiritualism with a Christian veneer. It's a book that would fit quite well on Oprah's list of favorite books. What is Rob Bell talking about when he is talking about God? Not the God of Christianity.

Read the rest.

I'm just glad we are all clear now. Back when Velvet Elvis was all the rage (ten years ago), Rob's theology was not quite at clear as it is now. Clarity is always a good thing.  Sadly, in Rob's case, his clarity does not equate to orthodoxy.

Another clear example of this would be here.

"I came to the conclusion Rob Bell is a fundamentalist of a different sort."

T-Wax reviews Rob Bell's new book, What We Talk About When We Talk About God.

Rob Bell in The New Yorker Magazine

Russell Moore highlights a poignant section:

This week’s issue of The New Yorker magazine examines preacher Rob Bell, author of the controversial Love Wins. The article, written by Kelefa Sanneh, examines Bell’s life as “hell-raiser” and evangelical provocateur, setting his questioning of the doctrine of hell in context. Most interesting to me was the sight of this very secular magazine posing the question of why evangelical theology would want to go in this direction.

Sanneh puts Bell in historical context of Christian thought on hell, from Origen to Jonathan Edwards to D. L. Moody. He notes Bell’s crisis of faith and redirection toward questioning Christian orthodoxy on eternal judgment. But the journalist writes, as an aside, that “the doctrine of hell doesn’t necessarily hamper recruitment, despite the fears of liberals.”

“From a certain perspective the idea of a punitive Hell can seem oddly comforting,” Sanneh writes. “An affirmation that suffering is real, and that God is good enough to save you from it.”

The New Yorker recognizes Bell’s apologetic motive in this “strategic project” of Bell’s, “designed to make Christianity more inviting to people who might reject it out of repugnance for the doctrine of hell.”

But the journalist identifies a major problem here:

“When Bell talks this way, he can sound an awful lot like the theological liberals of the twentieth century: scholarly reformers, idealistic but slightly smug, who were shown up by the preachers they derided as ‘extreme fundamentalists.’”

“Given the recent history of mainline Protestants, it’s unclear that a more liberal theology would be healthy for the evangelical movement,” The New Yorker article concludes, noting the vibrancy of Pentecostalism and other forms of supernatural gospel religion. “Throughout American history, the most successful church movements have not been the ones that kept up with contemporary culture, but the ones that were confident enough to tug hard against it.”

The New Yorker and we may have different concepts of what “success” ought to look like, but that’s a perceptive observation.

Truth, Debate, Unity, and The Elephant Room

Joe Thorn has a well written piece today on his blog in reference to the above title.

Because theology is so critical to the life of God’s people, dialog and debate are very necessary components in the life of the church. Most of the debating that happens in the church today seems to be between solid Christian apologists, like James White or William Lane Craig, and those outside of the protestant faith. Good stuff. But it would be good for us to have more of it going on in-house. Debate is good among friends who disagree, and between men on totally different teams. Debate and dialog force us hold up our theology or practice up against another man’s with the aim of truth winning out. It’s not just a testing of our positions, practices, ideas and arguments, but a public testing of such things that benefits the audience.

Public discourse is hard, and we seem to prefer to talk about one another, rather than to one another. Perhaps it takes too much humility and courage to put yourself out there for debate. Or, maybe it’s just too much work. Either way, the church needs to do better at conversing with one another from different families and theologies.

This doesn’t mean we should come together to hold hands, striving for unity apart from truth. In fact, it requires that we ask hard questions, confront error, admit where we are, and where we disagree.

Read the rest and read some of his suggestions for making the event better.

One thing I completely agree with Joe on is our need to have more public face to face discussion/debates between different people from different tribes/camps.  Let's talking around each other and more talking to each other, in public.

Think of how much ground could have been covered if Rob Bell and one of his most prominent and public critics of "Love Wins" would have got in a room and talked for two hours and then had that broadcast on the web.  I know this happened a little bit in last year but everyone could benefit from it happening way more.

On a different note, Joe has written a very helpful little book called Note To Self.  If you don't have it you'll want to pick it up.

A Cross That Just Inspires?

Mike Wittmer:

When the need is great, love isn’t love unless it actually does something . . . Jesus’ death on the cross is an act of love only if it actually accomplishes something. It’s not enough to say that it inspires us to do something. (pp. 94–95)

To use Bell’s example of the courageous firefighters on 9/11, their sacrifice is a heroic act of love only because they were actually trying to rescue victims. If I race into a burning building to save a child’s life, people will praise me for my selfless love for others. But if the child is standing in a warm blanket beside me, it would be foolish for me to say, “Look how much I love you!” and run into the flames. Likewise, the cross is the greatest act of foolishness—not the greatest act of love—unless it actually rescues us. No rescue, no love. No love, no example. (p. 102)

If we think that a cross which only inspires is nevertheless an act of love, then we must not think that we need much help.

Read the rest.

(HT: Andy Naselli)

Erasing Hell - A Great Review

Trevin Wax with a very thoughtful review of Erasing Hell by Francis Chan and Preston Sprinkle.  Here is his conclusion:

Chan and Sprinkle have put forth a historically orthodox understanding of hell, demonstrating the biblical foundation for their views. But Bell challenges this understanding by seeking to appeal to a more beautiful vision of God. The tragedy of Love Wins is that the character of God as described by Bell isn’t, in the final instance, much more than a glorified vision of 21st century man.

The problem with the responses to Love Wins is that, while we are experts at critiquing Bell’s vision of God, we aren’t stepping up with a more compelling portrait of God’s magnificence. We are scribbling down our thoughts under Bell’s chalk drawing instead of taking up the paint brush and creating something that reflects the beauty of biblical truth.

We can write 50-page criticisms of The Shack. Meanwhile, men and women like William Young continue to craft great stories. We grasp the issues, but others grasp the medium.

Beyond that, we often appear pedantic in the grasping of these important issues. In the study of the communication arts, there is a part of the brain known as Brocha’s Area which acts like the gateway to whether people actually listen. Surprising or intriguing Brocha is one way to get that door to open – something that art in its many variations is capable of doing.

Erasing Hell is functional, but not beautiful. From a functional point of view, I recommend it. But I think we need to be pushed on the beautiful side of this equation as well. The gospel shouldn’t shut down our imagination, but rather fuel it and direct it toward the beauty that is inherent to the truth. We need more than analysis; we need artistry.

Read the rest.

True Love Shows Wrath

The cross is the perfect statement both of God’s wrath against sin and of the depth of his love and mercy in the recovery of the damaged creation and its damagers. God’s mercy, patience, and love must be fully preached in the church. But they are not credible unless they are presented in tension with God’s infinite power, complete and sovereign control of the universe, holiness, and righteousness. And where God’s righteousness is clearly presented, compassionate warnings of his holy anger against sin must be given, and warnings also of the certainty of divine judgment in endless alienation from God which will be unimaginably worse than the literal descriptions of hell. It is no wonder that the world and the church are not awakened when our leadership is either singing a lullaby concerning these matters or presenting them in a caricature which is so grotesque that it is unbelievable.

The tension between God’s holy righteousness and his compassionate mercy cannot be legitimately resolved by remolding his character into an image of pure benevolence as the church did in the nineteenth century. There is only one way that this contradiction can be removed: through the cross of Christ which reveals the severity of God’s anger against sin and the depth of his compassion in paying its penalty through the vicarious sacrifice of his Son. In systems which resolve this tension by softening the character of God, Christ and his work become an addendum, and spiritual darkness becomes complete because the true God has been abandoned for the worship of a magnified image of human tolerance.

- Richard Lovelace, Dynamics for Spiritual Life, 84-85

(HT:  Timmy Brister)

What We Learned from the Rob Bell Madness

Tim Challies with wise words here:

The Power of Social Media - Those of us who use social media need to understand that it gives us immense power. That does not apply only to just those of us who have popular blogs, but to all of us who use Facebook or Twitter or any other form of social media. Few of us have much power alone, but as a network we wield a great deal of influence. In this case, it was enough to create the news, enough to create a bestseller and enough to cause many people to reaffirm their commitment to a doctrine. Be aware of the power you have through something so simple as a Twitter or Facebook account!

The Power of Leaders - There are new rules and new responsibilities when it comes to leadership in a digital age—an age in which news travels with unparalleled speed. No one foresaw that John Piper’s quick tweet “Farewell Rob Bell” would prove the catalyst for a great firestorm. Christian leaders need to understand the power of social media and recommit time and again to choosing their words carefully. The books of Proverbs and James and all they have to say about the power of words remain steady guides.

The Temptations of Social Media - In an age of fast-paced news cycles, we need to be very careful that we do not neglect our responsibility to think carefully and prayerfully before we respond to controversy. The faster the pace, the greater the temptation becomes to emphasize immediacy over thoughtfulness. I look to myself as one who has too often failed in this regard. Where there are fast news cycles, instant communication and large audiences you will face constant temptation.

The Power of the Reformed - Whatever this New Calvinism is or is becoming, it has become sufficiently cohesive that it now wields a lot of influence. Our influence online and through social media is far greater than our influence in the real world I think, but since news now travels at the speed of light through social media channels, we have the ability to speak and to speak loudly. The world is watching us.

We Can Be Used - We need to be aware that publishers will try this again. Other publishers watched this situation play out and they are going to try to do the same thing. Our challenge is to find a way to respond well but to respond in such a way that we do not end up exacerbating a problem even while we seek to solve it. In the case of Love Wins we caused many people to buy and read a book even while seeking to tell them that it was unbiblical. I would like to think that there is a better way, though at this point I do not know what it could be.

Read the rest.  

Dan Kimball on "Erasing Hell"

Dan Kimball writes why he endorses Francis Chan's new book, Erasing Hell.  He writes:

• it comes from a heart that is broken about hell. The pages themselves almost weep it is so heartfelt written. I know that sounds kind of corny, but it is true. This is written from a broken heart on the topic and that makes all the difference.
• it stresses how even when you wish something wasn't in Scripture or in the words of Jesus, we have to be very careful we don't then ignore it or create something else from our own human thinking or hopes - instead of what is in Scripture. If we create theology or beliefs from our own hopes or feelings of what God is or isn't like, in many ways we then create God in our own wishful image, rather than what He revealed in Scripture. We may say we don't want to follow a God as described and revealed in Scripture, and that's a choice we make. But then whether we realize it or not, we then create and follow our own version of "God" instead of what Scripture does reveal. We certainly may not like when hell is in the Bible (who does?). But when we alter Scripture or create a God or Jesus from the parts of Scripture we like while ignoring other parts is other words is not good biblical hermeneutics in my opinion. Very often (sadly) I keep hearing people describe Jesus, but only talk about aspects of His teachings that they like while ignoring other parts of His teachings. Or entirely ignore Paul's writings or other parts of the BIble and dismiss them as being wrong or not inspired. So we can do a pick and choose Jesus and a pick and choose God using passages from the Bible that align with our often good and understandable hopes or desires. But again, this is not good biblical hermeneutics. It may align with culture easier and may then be easier to talk about God to those who don't know Him. But we then aren't faithful to the whole of Scripture and what God revealed in Scripture about Himself. Again, one may not believe in the Scripture as inspired. So they then can do that and say that Paul was wrong or focus on parts of the Bible and not others. But for those who do believe that the Scriptures are fully inspired, then we have to be so careful with creating theology to match what we may wish God is like or isn't like.
• it is not a "here is every answer on hell" book, but it leaves questions and mystery in places about hell where questions are needed to be left. But it also states what is more clear in Scripture and in the teachings of Jesus too.
• it is not a just written with a "pray a prayer so you get to heaven and avoid hell" mentality. When a reductionist form of the gospel happens and following Jesus for people is about avoiding hell, that is not what they Bible teaches. The sadness of if that develops, it then becomes easy to ignore those in need and desire to see change happen in this life and just wait for "heaven". Jesus taught on the Kingdom of God here and to come. And for those who follow Jesus, our role is to be involved in justice, compassion and caring for the needy. What I appreciate about Francis, is that he is very passionate about those in need around the world. In fact, I don't know how public he will be about this, but for those who may even think this book is written because it is a hot theological topic right now and is jumping in and will generate big book sales and money etc. - Francis is not making any money from this book. He is giving all the money to charities and to the needy that comes in from this book.
• it is from a pastor, but Francis also brought in theologians to help with this book. For one, Preston Sprinkle, the co-author of this book has a PhD in New Testament from Aberdeen University in Scotland. But it didn't end there. he also had scholars from Cambridge University, St. Andrews University, Westmont College, Grand Rapids Theological Seminary also involved in looking it over for theological credibility. So Francis has theologians (multiple ones) look over the book so it wasn't just Francis' thinking on it.

Read the rest.  

The Charity of Clarity

Mike Wittmer:

I just watched Rob Bell’s hour long dialogue with British blogger and author, Adrian Warnock. The conversation is revealing on many levels, but what stands out most is how Rob refuses to own any position on the afterlife. His performance in this interview would lead one to believe that he wrote a book on the afterlife to tell us he doesn’t know about the afterlife. But of course, few if any readers of “Love Wins” believe this is the case. Millions of readers aren’t buying a book that merely gives a puzzled shrug at what happens after they die. They think it’s telling them something important. Something they like.

I’m not sure what to make of an author who doesn’t stand by the message of his own book. As the British questioners revealed, Rob is either being disingenuous in the interview or disingenuous in his book. I suspect it’s the former, but either way he’s violating a cardinal rule of communication–respect your audience. People don’t like to feel that they’re being toyed with, especially in matters as important as their eternal destiny.

More on the #RobBell Debate with Adrian Warnock

Adrian Warnock:

In this video clip Rob Bell asked me one too many questions. If you see a builder point at your foundation and say “Is that really strong enough? Is it possible that your house may fall down if I build it here? Isn’t it more likely that the cement that was used is too sandy? Are you sure it will last for ever? Is your foundation-layer really like that?”

It is IMPOSSIBLE to conclude anything other than that the questionner does not believe in the sureness of your foundation! The very act of questioning undermines the confidence and certainty that one needs in a sure foundation! Unfortunately Bell with all his questions does the same thing with absolutely FUNDEMENTAL aspects of our faith.

So, finally pushed over the edge by Bell’s repeated questions, I turned one back on him, asking him essentially if he believed that God was the kind of God who would punish people for ever in hell, he gave a simple, one word answer “No!” In a sense that made the whole hour worthwhile. Finally, a clear confession from Rob Bell, that yes, he does not believe in hell as traditional evangelicals understand it.

As I begin to say at the end of this clip, you can call such a view part of a broad “Christian” spectrum of thought that includes liberals, catholics, orthodox, and essentially anyone that claims to be a follower of Christ, but you cannot call it evangelical. Since my personal definition of a Christian is “Someone who believes in the physical resurrection of Christ and lives their life in light of the implications of that event” (taken from Raised With Christ) I am happy to recognize that Bell is almost certainly a Christian. But he is no Evangelical and this debate taken as a whole should put an end to any nonsense that he is.

Has Rob Bell demonstrated clearly that he is not an Evangelical any more?

You can watch this full discussion or other highlights by going here.

Does God Have a Speech Impediment?

Mike Wittmer:

LZ Granderson, a member of Rob Bell’s church and a regular contributor to CNN and ESPN, wrote a column today for CNN.com which illustrates the problem that I try to correct in the first two chapters of Christ Alone. 

There is a lot that I could say about Granderson’s piece, but I’ll focus on this paragraph:
“One of the biggest problems with religion in general, and evangelical Christianity in particular, is the claim of having definitive answers about an infinite being. But true faith does not require us to have all of the answers.” 

Did you notice the leap from “having definitive answers” to having “all of the answers”? I don’t know anyone who claims to “have all of the answers” when it comes to God. I agree with Granderson’s later statement that “If we could figure God out, he wouldn’t be that impressive.” 

But why should humbly claiming that we don’t “have all of the answers” cause us to concede that we don’t have any “definitive answers about an infinite being”? If the Bible is God’s revelation, then we do possess accurate—though not comprehensive—knowledge of who God is and what he has done. To claim that we don’t is not humility but actually arrogance. 

It is arrogant to come to the Bible with our minds already made up about what a loving God must do, and then seek to dismiss or question away those biblical passages which don’t fit our preconceived notions. For all of their protests about the arrogance of conservatives, it is actually theological liberals who lead the way in cramming God into their finite boxes. Contra Granderson, it is a problem to question the existence of heaven and hell, not because we need them as “the only reason to seek [God’s] face,” but because God has told us about them in Scripture. To pretend otherwise is not exactly what God would call humility.

Read the rest.

Dave Dorr on Love Wins

He writes:

Twenty-first century Americans are asking the question, “How can a loving God send people to hell?” But the Bible doesn’t answer that question. When we become Christians we don’t just get answers to OUR questions, we get new questions. That is part of the “renewal of our minds:” as we submit to the Bible, we see things from God’s perspective, not ours. Even our questions change.

For that is the essence of understanding: to see where another is coming from — not bringing our paradigms or experience to what another person is saying. This seems to be what Bell’s friends and fans are demanding for Bell, but in fairness, Bell needs to do that with the Scriptures. For the Bible doesn’t answer the question, “How can a loving God send people to hell?” It answers the question, “How can a holy God accept sinners?” And when we understand biblical questions we get biblical answers — answers that humble us, but amaze us.

Read the rest.

Adrian Warnock Discusses His Debate with #RobBell

Many of your will be interested in this. Adrian writes:

This Saturday, Premier’s Unbelievable with Justin Brierley will feature a pretty feisty extended debate between Rob Bell and I. He is known to be pretty slippery during interviews, but I did not want to let myself get frustrated so I resolved to be firm but fair. I think being in the same room with him and discussing face to face helped me immensely to remember he is a real person with real feelings like you and I.

But, the issues here are deadly serious and I wasn’t about to let him off the hook. Like everyone else, I wanted to know, is Rob Bell really a universalist? And, I am glad to report, that on at least a couple of questions I got some straight answers out of him!

If you want to hear our debate, tune in THIS SATURDAY at 2:30pm UK time (9:30 am Eastern Time).

Wherever you are in the world you can listen to the debate live online here at Premier Christian Radio: or via thisiPhone app or in the UK on one of the frequencies listed below:




After the event, the audio and video will be posted at the Unbelievable? website and no doubt I will post it here as well in due course.

It is perhaps somewhat ironic that I ended up doing this, after posting just a few weeks back about why I had not at that time written about Love Wins.
Before the debate, I also met Rob Bell face to face for an on the record briefing with some Christian journalists. A full report of that encounter is available at Christian Today. What struck me about that encounter and the public presentation is just how much Bell stresses the love of God. He spoke at one point about how people had accused him of not telling the bad news. He accepts that accusation. My concern is that without the bad news the good news is not really good!


But, we do need to hear him when he says that many people think the God of the Christians is a hateful, angry being who doesn’t want anything to do with them. As he put it in a word association game, if you mention God, “Love is often not the first word that comes to mind.” He is of course dead right when he says that Jesus’ message is that God makes it rain on righteous and unrighteous— in other words, God is actually foryou. But why do we need to throw out the holiness, justice, and yes wrath of God in order to stress his love?


Bell also said he felt that the UK response to his book has perhaps been more appreciative than in the USA.

The crowd seemed broadly supportive of Bell at his public talk. But, when asking for a hidden show of hands,close to 100% indicated they believed in hell. Bell then spoke breifly and compellingly, and to be honest, it would be hard for his most ardent critic to find much to argue with in his talk. Then there were a number of questions, and to be honest, I found Bell’s answers rather frustrating. Having actually read the book, he seemed much clearer in what he was saying in the book than on questioning. He kept trying to imply that it was OK for people to think lots of different things without pinning down what he himself actually believes. Yet, in the book,as Keller points out, he is positively scornful of many traditional evangelical perspectives.

This then was my preparation (as well as of course reading lots of reviews from both sides of the fence and collating a detailed set of notes which is practically a book in its own right!). As you can imagine, it put me in the frame of mind to firmly but lovingly “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 1:3). This Saturday you can hear how it went.

TIME Covers the #RobBell Controversy

Al Mohler has a good summary and interaction with it.

This past week at The Gospel Coalition conference, there was a great panel discussion of the book and the issues it raises.  You can listen to that here.

Love Has ALREADY Won

Guest Post by Dan Cruver.

Well, here's to jumping into the Rob Bell discussion.

When dealing with the historic crises of his day (theological, political, etc), Dietrich Bonhoeffer argued that most theologians, politicians, and philosophers were asking the wrong questions: “What must be done to solve this or that problem?” or “How can this problem or that debate be resolved?” Dietrich was insistent that these "What" and "How" questions were the wrong questions to start with. Yes, he agreed, they are very important questions…but they are not the most important questions.

So, according to Dietrich, what is the most important question to ask when considering society's ills or evangelicalism's necessary battles? Dietrich argued that it is the “Who” question. If we answer the "Who" question, then we are in a much better position to adequately address the “What” and “How” questions. According Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the critical “Who” questions to be asked and answered are “Who is Jesus?” and “Who is the Trinity?” The answers to which contain, at least in seminal form, the answers to all the “What” and “How” questions that have historically plagued Christianity.

Think of it this way: these particular “Who” questions are eternal while the “What” questions are temporal. The "what" of all our theological debates have/had a beginning. The "Who" of the Trinity, on the other hand, does not. Our theological debates ("What") will one day come to an end. Jesus ("Who") will not. As a consequence, we will always forever be asking the “Who” questions: Who is our Jesus who is our eternal Prophet, Priest, and King? Who is the Trinity that has come to His people in grace and Who gives us grace upon grace for eternal ages? These are not only questions that we will joyfully ask for all of eternity, they are also questions that God will joyfully answer for us, forever.

But that’s not the case with the “What” questions: "What can we do to ensure that everyone in the world has access to clean water?" "What can we do to solve the global orphan crisis?" etc. There will come a day when "What" questions like these will no longer need to be asked. Those questions will evaporate into glorious nothingness in the new heavens and the new earth. "Who" questions, on the other hand, have a much longer shelf life.

Let's take this a step further. The eternal God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit has in Himself the solutions to every human crisis, for it is in God that we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:28). Since our Triune God is Himself the Solution to all problems, we will find ourselves moving toward solutions on the horizontal axis as we answer these “Who” is God questions, questions to which, by the way, Scripture has not left us without clear answers.

Keep in mind, though, that giving priority to the “Who” questions does not mean that we care less about the “What” questions. It simply means that the “What” questions should always start with, flow out of, and never move away from who God is as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

So, let me offer some “Who” questions and attempt some brief answers.

I think all of us would agree that we were made by and for the triune God. Consequently, as Cornelius Plantinga writes, all of us “long for wholeness, for fulfillment, and for the final good that believers call God,” whether we realize it or not. Due to the fall of man, the only alternatives to finding our satisfaction in the triune God are for us to seek our main sense of identity, significance, and rest either in loose living (i.e., prodigal living) or in what we do religiously (i.e., elder brother living)—that is, what we do for the poor and marginalized, for those we consider less fortunate than ourselves.

So, following Dietrich’s lead, if it is true that we were made by and for the Trinity, the question we must begin with is “Who is the Trinity?” I believe that Rob Bell would agree that our God has always been and always will be a communion of Persons. Reciprocal love has eternally flowed and will forever continue to flow between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Therefore, we already have biblical warrant to conclude that LOVE has always WON in eternity past, long before anything was ever created, long before there was man or his tragic fall.

We naturally think of beings as individual, not triune. But Scripture reveals God to be three Persons, not one. Theologians have wrestled with this concept for centuries. Richard of St. Victor, a Scottish theologian of the 12th century, wrote an important philosophical work on the Trinity titled “De Trinitate” (or On the Trinity). He combined the teaching found in two passages of Scripture to reach a compelling conclusion. 1) First John 4:8 tells us that God is love. 2) First Corinthians 13 tells us that love never turns in upon itself, but always turns out upon other persons. 3) Therefore, God could not possibly be love if he were only one person.

A god who existed in all eternity past as one person would be a god eternally turned in upon himself. Such a being could not be love because by its nature love turns outward.

Think of it this way: God was eternally a closed circle of loving communion (as in an exclusive circle), perfectly satisfied and happy in his triune Being. Even during Jesus’ days on earth as the incarnate Son of God, he clearly enjoyed a uniquely close relationship with the Father that everyone else was outside of. In this, we see something of the miraculous and gracious nature of redemption. This fact alone, as theologian Kevin Vanhoozer writes, hints at the striking reality of the gospel which “concerns the triune God’s self-communication for the purpose of enlarging the circle of communion. The gospel proclaims a new possibility, namely, that of becoming a ‘communicant’ in the life of God.”

When the Son of God became man, the loving communion of Persons that the Trinity is became earthed among us—in a single human being (Galatians 4:4-5). Never before had the communion of love that the Trinity eternally enjoyed ever existed in a man . Even Adam in his pre-fall state fell infinitely short of this degree of communion. As the God-man (fully God and fully man in one Person), Jesus suddenly made communion with God an unfathomable human reality. He embodied the Trinity’s loving communion. He earthed it on human soil. If all we did was look at Jesus, the God-man, we could say unequivocally that LOVE WON "simply" by the Son becoming man, even if he were the only man ever to participate in the Trinity's communion of love. Because of the miracle of the incarnation (which I believe is a far greater miracle than the creation of all things in the beginning), love broke into the human race, a race that had been cut-off from God because of its own sin. The Son of God became man in the midst of a human race which Scripture describes as "children of wrath" and "sons of disobedience" (Ephesians 2:1-3). Jesus earthed communion of God among those who were dead in their trespasses and sins. For that miracle alone to even happen in our fallen world is a win-win. Finally, after a long history dominated by sin and death, communion with God became a human reality on earth in the Person of Jesus. Something like that could not happen except for the “But God . . .” of Scripture.

So, because of Who Jesus is as the communion of God become man, T.F. Torrance is able to write:

"We must be quite definite about the fact that in the Lord Jesus Christ God himself has penetrated into our suffering, our hurt, our violence, our sinful alienated humanity, our guilty condition under divine judgment, and even into our dereliction. 'My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?'" (The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Persons, p 251).

Torrance speaks of the dereliction of Jesus (i.e., Jesus' experience of hell on the cross) in very terrifying terms. If hell, as Torrance describes it, is true and Jesus penetrated into its utter depths (the depths of utter God-forsakenness), then hell certainly has an eternality about it.

I searched and searched, but I could not find a single place where Rob Bell even comes close to talking about hell (or Jesus' dereliction, for that matter) in those terms. If the God-man of infinite worth and value, the perfect man, the Communion of Love earthed in a Person, descended into the hell of God forsakenness, then hell must be considered a terrifying place and experience. Whenever Bell does describe hell, he never speaks of it in those terms. He really just plays down “hell” as simply a garbage dump of sorts. For example, Bell writes: “In Matthew 23 he tells very committed religious leaders that they win converts and make them ‘twice as much a child of hell’ as they are, and then he asks them, ‘How will you escape being condemned to hell?’ Gehenna, the town garbage pile” (p 68). Never once in Bell’s entire book does he refer to, let alone explain, Jesus’ God-forsakeness on the cross (not that I could find). Never once does he tell us that the death of our representative-man, Jesus, shows us what hell and dereliction really are. Never once does he say that this God-forsakeness is something that is to be feared. Whatever Bell’s definition of hell is, he never refers to it in this stark Jesus-centered terms. I think this is Bell’s major failure in the book. There's really no Jesus on the cross in Love Wins, and that, as far as I'm concerned, is a big loss. Sure, Rob mentions Jesus and the cross, but Scripture is clear: Jesus experienced hell on the cross (Matthew 27:46); he experienced God-forsakenness in its infinite depths. However Scripture actually uses or doesn’t use the word “hell” itself, a primary concern of ours should be the hell that Jesus experienced for us and in our place.

Also, it seems to me, too, that Bell really lacks a robust understanding of the Trinity. One of my main problems with his underlying presuppositions is that he does not consider Who God is ontologically (that is, who God is in himself). In other words, he fails to give due consideration to the fact that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and as the God who IS Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, he is an eternal loving communion of Persons with no shadow of lack within himself. Forever and ever in his triune-being LOVE has ALWAYS won. Because God is love in his eternal and infinite essence, love always wins. The reciprocal love within God cannot be broken or defeated. It can’t be otherwise, in both eternal and created reality. But since God is sovereign in how and whom he chooses (redeemed human creatures) to participate in that love (Matthew 11:25-27; Luke 10:21-22), since He is fully free to extend that love to whom He so desires through faith in Jesus, love always wins whether “we think” it does or not.

I'm willing to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that Bell minimizes the necessity of faith in Jesus, and I think he does that, in part, because he does not see the reality and necessity of the vicarious faith (i.e., believing for us, in our place) of Jesus for us and in our place. Jesus wasn’t simply God become man so that he could do good deeds of mercy and justice and be our example for those deeds. Jesus became man for us that he might believe in our place (see his temptation accounts: Matthew 4; Luke 3:38 – 4:13). As the Second Adam, Jesus did for us what we cannot do for ourselves. And the better news is that Jesus’ vicarious faith actualizes faith within us, a real faith, an actively believing faith. But Bell really says nothing, at least nothing of substance, about faith in Christ. Therefore, the kind of love that Bell presents is “I don’t know how it will work out in the end, but I do know that in the end love will win…for everybody.” But there’s really no Jesus the God-Man in that. There is no Jesus who is our vicarious substitute in the totality of his life (from his conception in the virgin womb to his resurrection, ascension and beyond) in Bell's way of thinking. Therefore, there is really no one who believes for us (Jesus) and makes it possible for us to believe now and forever. “Today is the day of salvation.”

So, in Bell’s way of telling the story of redemption, God’s love is not a love that “actually” wins. It’s simply a love that outlasts our resistance. I don’t know what others think about that, but that’s not winning as far as I’m concerned. It’s like beating someone in an arm wrestling match not because you can put his arm down, but because he can’t get yours down. So your "opponent" eventually just gives up. Correct me if I’m wrong here, but underneath it all, isn’t that basically the kind of winning Rob Bell is hinting at?

[Note: Portions of the above text were adapted from my book Reclaiming Adoption: Missional Living Through the Rediscovery of Abba Father]

Randy Alcorn on Rob Bell

Randy has a post worth reading on the Love Wins controversy.  He begins with this:

Oddly, Bell insists that he’s not a universalist, yet his book indicates that he believes exactly what universalism does—that every human being will ultimately be saved, and that none will experience Hell. To teach this and yet claim you’re not a universalist (just because you disagree with some things that some universalists think) is like saying that though you cheer for the Red Sox you’re not a Red Sox fan, or though you own a dog, you are not a dog-owner. I mean, come on, go ahead and qualify the brand of universalist you are, but don’t deny you’re a universalist when your core belief is the core belief of universalism. The very fact that Bell can make such a statement and get away with it is indicative of the sort of cloudy thinking that has taken hold.

Another excerpt I found interesting:

I posted earlier a link to the chapter on Hell from my book If God is Good. Someone who read Bell’s book and then my chapter said to me that oddly, it appeared to them as if I had made an attempt at refuting every major point of Bell’s book. Obviously that wasn’t the case, since I wrote it two years before Bell’s book came out. But when I read Love Wins, at times I saw why this reader thought that. I suppose Rob Bell has successfully set forth all the modern presumptions that people bring to this issue, and that keep them from trusting the biblical teaching about Hell that has been part of historic Christianity. In addressing those presumptions, without knowing it, I was anticipating Bell’s book. This also shows that, as Bell admits, he’s not saying much that’s new. Unfortunately, he is reaching a huge audience, and his book sales have been further fueled by the controversy. But I would rather have more books sell and more people equipped to refute his teachings, then avoid the controversy—some things warrant controversy, and this is one of them, since the gospel itself is on the line—and not just before the watching world, but inside churches.   

He continues:

It grieves me how many people are reading Rob Bell’s book and books such as The Shack (where universalism is not explicit but clearly flirted with) and other writings contradicted by Scripture, whose pastors don’t consider it their job to enter into controversy. We have elevated tolerance over sound doctrine, and appearing to be nice, over being truthful. As Jesus was, we should be full of grace and truth, not choose one over the other.

We dare not act as though love demands we be quiet about the truth. In fact, Scripture calls upon us to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). I would encourage all pastors to address this issue. Consider going to your pastor and asking him to preach about the biblical doctrine of Hell in light of all the fuzzy thinking on this issue that is out there, and has been galvanized through Bell’s book. (Fifteen years apart, I spent hours in dialogue, citing passage after passage, to two different highly influential former pastors, each of whose books have sold millions of copies to evangelical Christians. Both of these men gradually became universalists, and they believe most of what Bell is now teaching; perhaps one of them influenced him, I don’t know.)

It is not loving to be silent when people are told the lie that they need not turn to Christ in this lifetime to be saved from their sins. If people believe that there is no Hell, or that they cannot end up in Hell, or that Hell is not their default and fully deserved destination, then it virtually guarantees they will end up in the Hell that Rob Bell doesn’t believe in.

Read the whole piece.  

Is Rob Being Slandered?

Denny Burk links to a recent interview with Rob Bell where he claims he is being slandered by his critics. Click over and watch the interview.  Denny writes:

In an emotional interview with Sally Quinn, Rob Bell says that he has been misunderstood and slandered. There is much that could be said in response to this accusation. I think Quinn followed-up with the most obvious response. In what way does he feel misrepresented and slandered?

Bell’s answers, however, really miss the mark in my view. First, he sort of alleges that his critics are accusing him of not being a “serious follower of Jesus.” I don’t know anyone who is saying that he is not a serious follower of his version of Jesus. Second, he suggests that his critics don’t understand that he is simply trying to present Jesus to people who need him. But this is begging the question. What Jesus is he presenting to them? Is he calling people to the Jesus of the Bible? Or to some other Jesus? That is what this conversation has been about (”the question behind the question” as he puts it). I think we will all concede that he is calling people to Jesus. The question is, “which one?” (see 2 Corinthians 11:3-4)

I think it would be helpful to know, for instance, if Bell is calling people to the Jesus of 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9, who promises to give “retribution” and “eternal destruction” to those who “do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.” Many of us don’t see the Jesus of 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 in Bell’s book. Is he saying that he does believe in this Jesus and that his critics are wrong to suggest that he doesn’t?

If he is going to say that he has been misrepresented and slandered, I would like to hear some substantive engagement with his critics. Maybe subsequent interview snippets will tell more (Why is “On Faith” releasing the interview in pieces?). We’ll see.

Why doesn't Rob just book a time to sit down with all the critics and hash it out?  That would be profoundly helpful for the Christian world to see.  We should be able to model gracious speech all the while embracing differences and seeking clarity on distinctions of belief.