Over six months ago Rob Bell unleashed upon America, ney the world, a theological and spiritual tsunami the effects of which are still being felt. I mean, when was the last time you can remember the Church so engaged in docrine? Even William P. Young and his Shack didn’t trend Twitter! What’s more: when can you remember the last time our culture was so interested in the inner doctrinal dialogue of the Church? MSNCB, CNN, Good Morning America, TIME Magazine and more all courted the conversation about heaven, hell, and the fate of every person whose ever lived.
I personally engaged in the conversation, because I am pastor-theologian in Grand Rapids, at the time I was planting a Church in the area, and I was increasingly dismayed by the response—or lack thereof—from my non-Reformed peers. So a few days after the book was released I wrote my own 7500 word review that’s garnered tens of thousands of reads and hundreds of responses. (In fact on most Google combinations of “Rob Bell” “love wins” and “new book” that response makes atleast top 10.) The local ABC affiliate interviewed me as a respondent to Rob. I even hosted a decently received public forum response in down town Grand Rapids to help address the issues in the book and the broader conversation surrounding Love Wins. Given my own interest in this book and attention it’s received, I thought I would reflect on Love Wins, once again, six months removed.
This reflection isn’t so much a review of the book and it’s theology. If you want that you can read or download my original review. This is more about what I’ve learned and observed regarding this conversation over the past few months. So here are 3 of 10 reflections in the aftermath of Love Wins. The other 7 will come in 2 other posts.
Our culture has deep, existential questions that demand pastorally sensitive answers.
In a post-9/11 and post-Great Recession world; in a world where 1 billion people don’t have access to clean drinking water and 15 million children die of hunger; in a world of rampant consumption, broken families, depression, and poverty; in other words: in a world where it appears like hell is reigning on earth, there are real, deep questions about the meaning, direction, and end of life.
Hasn’t it always been like this? Haven’t most people wondered why things are so screwed up and how on earth we can fix our screwed-upness?
I think so. And people are still seeking answers to those real, deep questions about life, just not in the Church or in the Story the Church is telling.
That doesn’t mean the world over has lost interest in finding spiritual answers to their existential questions. Far from it. Polls and books on the subject consistently show a deep desire for spirituality. Just a waning interest in the Church and Her Story.
Enter: Love Wins. This book is an alternative Story to the one the Church has always been telling.
And it’s resonating. Big time. NY Times Best Seller big time. Cover of TIME Magazine big time. Twitter big time.
The first forum discussion Rob engaged the day before the book was released illustrates this resonance. I remember a moment in the message of hope Rob was sharing in NY City very well: a camera panned over to a young woman with tears streaming down her face. At the end that same camera returned to that same woman who was giving Rob a standing ovation and a bright, wide smile on her face. This woman found hope in Rob’s message, and I think I know why.
For all the problems I have with the theology of Love Wins, I think what it does well, and what the Church often fails at miserably, is offer a pastorally sensitive posture toward the stuff of life. It is honest about how screwed-up life in this world is—how screwed-up our own lives are in this screwed-up world—while trying to reassure people the “universe is on their side.” Instead of responding to the tragedies of life with the raw human response of tears and embrace and just sitting with our friends in their grief, holding them and crying with them, we are quick to respond with bible verses and Church doctrine. There’s a place for that, for sharing biblically and theologically honest answers, but not at the expense of being dishonest about the reality of peoples lives and stuff.
This book and the reaction to that book has helped expose a deep longing for answers to real, deep questions about life, and an underlying current of discontent with the Story typically told by both the Church in response to those questions.
Our culture has deep, existential questions that demand biblically and theologically honest answers.
In the face of those real, deep questions about the meaning, direction, and end of life I believe the Church is called to respond to those questions with biblically and theologically honest answers. Yes, sit with people in their grief. Let them doubt. Let them struggle and question. And, yes, let them even shake their fists at the heavens. But along side that grieving and doubting and struggling and questioning and fist-shaking we are called to give an answer for the hope we have in Jesus Christ. And that calls for being honest about what the Scriptures say and what the Church has always said about God’s Story of Rescue and it’s pieces—creation, rebellion, rescue, and re-creation.
The problem with this latest effort at answering the real, deep questions about life by Rob Bell and his book—and others like him—is that the book does not offer hopeful answers because they are not honest answers. These answers aren’t honest about our human problem…that we are busted beyond all self-repair…that every one of us is a rebel against a holy, righteous God and dead in sin. Honest about who Jesus is as the only one—true—God in all the world, through whom and for whom it was made. Honest about what happened on the very blood-soaked boards of execution that held the limp, lifeless body of Jesus…honest about the sacrificial death he suffered to pay our price…in our place. And it isn’t honest about the reality of judgment…that every single person on the planet will be judged by Jesus Christ himself “in Christ” or “outside Christ” and those outside Christ will be separated from God. Forever.
The tragedy of these versions of the Christian faith represented in Love Wins is that it has has sold the faith entrusted to God’s holy people—it has exchanged the gospel of Jesus Christ for something entirely different. This version is not real. It is fake. And it’s time the Church stands up and says so.
Responding to Love Wins isn’t about tribalism, it’s about the historic Christian faith.
This has got to be one of the lamest responses in response to people like me who have responded to Love Wins. The charge is that the bruhaha that boiled over the past 6 months has been about tribalistic factions vying for doctrinal control over the Christian faith. Bell’s editor, Mickey Maudlin, made the claim shortly after the book and controverys erupted. Here is what he said:
As a young evangelical, I was socialized to see the biggest threat to the church as theological liberalism. But now I think the biggest threat is Christian tribalism, where God’s interests are reduced to and measured by those sharing your history, tradition, and beliefs, and where one needs an “enemy” in order for you to feel “right with God.” Such is the challenge facing the church today and what the reaction to Love Wins reveals.
Apparently insisting that people are born sinners; Jesus really is God (and the only one true God at that); the cross and resurrection is much more important and profound of an experience than “when we take a bite of food;” the cross was the point at which the objective realities of evil and sin were dealt with; the resurrection of Jesus was actual, physical, and witnessed; people will die once and then will face judgment; and heaven and hell are real, experiential outcomes to the judgment of Jesus—apparently all of these beliefs are tribalistic beliefs, they are a narrowing and particularizing of God’s interest that “are reduced to and measured by those sharing your history, tradition, and beliefs,” rather than beliefs that have always been central to the historic Christian faith.
This certainly makes for great rhetoric, but has little grounding in reality.
While a bulk of the reaction to Bell has come from Calvinistic camps, the response I have seen has not been about a Reformed response to Bell, but a Christian one. And rightly so. Responding to Bell and his teachings is not about defending narrowly defined doctrinal positions, but about asserting what has always been central to the Christian faith, what has always been central to the gospel.
Rob says that since people can make choices in this life, he assumes they can make choices in the next. That’s not Christian, and we have the right to say so.
Rob reduces the glorious, awe-inspiring cross and resurrection events to taking a bite of food—they are symbols that express the elemental reality that death leads to life. That’s not Christian. In fact that’s insulting to the very Christian faith he claims, so we definitely have the right to say so!
Rob insists that in the end God’s love will melt even the hardest of heart. It may take 10,000 years to do so, but in the end love will ultimately win. That’s not Christian, and we have the right to say so.
Tribalism? Please!
What about you? What do you think? Have you noticed anything in the fallout from Love Wins 6-months later? If so, what?
I would simply like to ask why the term tribalism is considered demeaning in any way? Is it not just describing the reality of our human capacity to have a herd mentality? I would be someone who would fall in the tribe of listening to the teachings of Rob Bell and being inspired by them to actually explore the ever-expanding and awe-inspiring gospel that he preaches, that *arguably* doesn't stray at all from Christian orthodoxy, but, in doing so, I am aware of the pitfalls of listening to the teachings of one tribe only. This is why I open myself up to dialog and the teachings of people I deeply disagree with in order to learn and grow. Of course, I am not even close to perfect when I do this, but I find it to be a helpful practice for the disciplines of my faith in Christ. Blessings, brother.
I think it's pretty obvious that "tribalism" is used pejoratively. It's much easier to dismiss critique as simple narrow-minded herd mentality than actually deal with the substance of the criticism.
And regarding Rob's gospel that "*arguably* doesn't stray at all from Christian orthodoxy": in what ways is his gospel orthodox?
Yeah, I see what you mean in regards to the way Maudlin used the term, but I would ask the same question to him. I just don't think it tribalism is a culprit in any way, just simply a reality. Regarding the question on orthodoxy, I could and have spent way too much time in the recent past getting in debates about the nuts and bolts of why the gospel that Rob Bell preaches regarding the Jesus that you and I both claim to follow falls in line with orthodox Christian faith of old. I am sure you are aware of our brother Scott McNight and his rigorous and (in my opinion relatively unbiased) blogging on these topics. I will simply reference his work in the blogosphere as a great place to look at the "arguability" of these matters. Thanks, brother. I should also tell you that I appreciated your ability to draw good things from Rob's work despite your different stance you have on all things theology. I just think you are misleading people when you state that Rob "assumes (people) can make choices in the next (life)" when he clearly reiterates time and again that these matters are and will be ones of speculation only. He certainly articulates the speculation of such a reality being possible, and my own doing so does not cause me to "not care" about things of the afterlife as a result, but rather causes me to want to explore these things further. I also find it funny that you acuse Rob of using the analogy of eating a piece of food as being derogative toward the death and resurrection of Christ when Jesus himself did the same thing. Lastly, I think that we should all own up to the reality of tribalism. Keep up the conversations, though, please, brother.
I know Scot and interacted quite a bit in his series on the book.
I'm not at all misleading people in the statement above because thats a VERBATIM quote from interviews he's given on the book.
And re: the analogy: you don't quite get what Rob is arguing. As an existentialist he sees everything in symbolic terms. He says the cross and resurrection are symbols of an elemental reality, one we all experience every time we take a bite of food.” That's not what Jesus said. Reducing what happened on the cross to something similar to how eating a slaughtered cow in hamburger sustains and gives us life is insulting to the gospel…
And yes: good conversation!
Regarding your good question: What about you? What do you think? Have you noticed anything in the fallout from Love Wins 6-months later? If so, what? The fallout has been deeply influential in causing much discussion and heated debate in the way Spencer described not long ago: http://bit.ly/q7XrSP
Yeah I saw that article and think it's riddled with false dichotomies: Scripture vs Practice; Exclusive vs Inclusive. Not to mention straw men. Rachel's piece that continued his thoughts put the options as Emergent vs. Reformed, to which I thought "well where does that leave me?!" I'm neither and don't understand why i have to be either.
Anyway…
Obviously, you don't have to be captive to the labels and are wonderfully free to acuse and shame anyone you would like to. It is just not many people's cup of tea and isn't very interesting to the people I think you are interested in talking to from what I am guessing. Blessings, brother.
"you…are wonderfully free to acuse and shame anyone you would like to"
good call! thanks and I've amended my comment. probably should watch that 😉
I imagine that you have the best of intentions, though, and are deeply invested and concerned for the people you are interacting with.
Re: Rob says that since people can make choices in this life, he assumes they can make choices in the next. That’s not Christian, and we have the right to say so.
It sounds Pelagian. Pelagius was a Christian. His views were condemned (and quite possibly slandered) by Augustine. Us Wesleyan types think Prevenient Grace allows for the human choice for God (in response to the Gospel). If you mean to say that it's Pelagian, then say that.
I have a good friend who is a follower of the theology of Charles G. Finney. He is thus, at least semi-Pelagian. He is a Christian. He believes the Bible. I would never say he wasn't a Christian. But, if I said he or his teachings were "Pelagian" or "semi-Pelagian" that would be fair. It would be true.
The "assumes they can make choices in the next" part is speculation and Rob has said that it is.
I have recently become aware that other Christians have also argued for this view. According to a book review here: http://covenantoflove.net/book-reviews/what-about… apparently well known evangelical theologian Gabriel Fackre also believes something like this. However, with all due respect to Fackre I believe it is fair to say that this view is "speculative." If that's what you mean, then say that.
I'm not sure that Pelagian believed in post-mortem salvation…did he? I've read Pelagius and I didn't see that.
And by my "not Christian" statement…I didn't meant to suggest ROB himself was not a Christian. If that's the impression I left then sorry about that. What I meant is that the belief in post-mortem salvation is not Christian. It's not taught in Scripture nor has the Church ever argued that.
As far as we know Pelagius did not believe in post-morten salvation. but, I quite was surprised to learn that Gabriel Fackre apparently believes that.
What I'm trying to say is that your response to Rob Bell & Love Wins is over-the-top. Pushback is certainly appropriate and called-for, but this is something far more than that.
I continue to side with Scot McKnight, Roger E. Olsen, Eugene Peterson, Richard Mouw, etc. in feeling the book is problematic but essentially orthodox and evangelical. I feel like I'm in good company.
The book has opened up a conversation that needs to continue.
I think that Rob's book is over the top and think that much of the heart of the content needs a response.
I'm not so sure i have read from Scot a support of the content of the book. Nor have I seen an explanation from the others how this book is orthodox and evangelical. I have yet to see someone defend the teachings of this book, from Scripture and Tradition.
I'm all for conversation. But why can't I say something isn't a Christian idea without it being "over the top?"
I would also chime in quick and add that the writings I read from Scot really engaged the content of Love Wins in a cautionary and refreshingly academic way without throwing it entirely under the unorthodox bus, but maybe I missed that accusation somewhere? Does not reason and experience also count in your equation in light of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral?
Yeah I appreciated some of the way he engaged it. And I certainly appreciate LW's perspective on heaven being a place on earth. I just think there are many things aside from either the universalism issue that Bell gets wrong. And not even simply incorrect, but absolutely contrary to Scripture and the historic Christian faith.
Re: your "reason and experience" question I'm not sure what you're asking 🙂
Oh, sorry. I thought when you mentioned "Scripture" and "Tradition" you were referencing two Outler's (1964) four sources that Wesley used to come to his theological conclusions:
Scripture – the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
Tradition – the two millennia history of the Christian Church
Reason – rational thinking and sensible interpretation
Experience – a Christian's personal and communal journey in Christ
Although Scripture was given the most weight in the four, I think that the other three are very important when filtering our best attempt stabs at perceived truth.
^ Wesley, John (1964). Outler, Albert C.. ed. John Wesley. Oxford, England, U.K.: Oxford University Press. p. iv. ISBN 0-19-502810-4. Wesleyan Quadrilateral – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://bit.ly/q0r7Th
Ahh…yes. And I do appreciate these other aspects of the WQ. It seems nowadays, though—and I see it in this book, actually—that Experience and Reason now trump Tradition and Scripture, and put the order of theological interpretation in that descending order.
I do not believe we can say all four are on an equal level of importance or weight, and I don't think Wesley would either. Since the authority of Scripture is God's authority exercised through Scripture, we need to take Scripture the most seriously and be honest about what it says about a number of things, including and (probably especially) judgment. Rob is not honest about what the Scripture says about judgment.
You are dead on in your final verdict. Rob knows what the Scriptures say, but is trying to avoid and change their meaning to fit his own desires and to get a huge following so that he can sell a bunch of books and tickets. He doesn't do any work, really. Hasn't researched a thing in his life and his complete intentions are to sell merch and mislead people into false hope. He is such a liar and "should totally be ashamed of himself"… You have certainly raised your warning flag, brother, but part of me wonders why you and other bloggers similar are so threatened, still to this day. Why not focus on work that is actually (in your assessment) helping the world rather than spend time trying to chop down those who differ and yet claim to be in your same tribe of Jesus when you have full authority on who is in and who is out based on this statement, belief, or doctrine? Jesus had one litmus test for those who were connected to the vine and those who were not: Love expressing itself through "good fruit" in the world to the glory of the Father. May we join such an irresistible revolution and give up on the inevitably dead hate. Now, I know I took it to the extreme here equating your warnings to hate, when they very well could be motivated out of deep love and concern, and I refuse to make such a final judgement on you in that way, but also would like to voice my concerns in response to yours. Thanks.
Re: But why can't I say something isn't a Christian idea without it being "over the top?"
For the same reason i would not say my Pentecostal friend is not a Christian or does not have Christian ideas. I believe his ideas are wrong, and I would engage him on that.
But, saying his ideas are not Christian, just writes him off or insults him.
(Clarification: I meant my Finney-ite friend, alluded to above.)
Ok I'm not talking about ancillary issues here. I'm talking about issues central to the gospel.
To reject, for instance, the physically, bodily, witnessed resurrection of Jesus from the dead is not Christian. You cannot be a Christian and not believe God raised Jesus from the dead. Impossible. And if saying so is labeled insulting or a write-off…then I don't know what to say. My point is there have always been beliefs that are central to faith in Christ, and this book undermines and contradicts those beliefs.
I agree that the resurrection is central.
He does not reject the resurrection of Jesus. Moreover, resurrection is clearly a symbol. And for the record, symbolism has been with us since the beginning of Christianity. I suspect your over-indulgent evangelical tendencies are what make you think symbolism is a secondary issue. Those of us who believe eucharistic is central to our worship realize that symbolism is not optional. Finally, when Rob uses existentialist-like language, it is for communication purposes not necessarily for the existentialist reasons you assume.
On a related issue: I have no idea what people are getting out of the Love Wins book. I saw an appreciative comment from author Anne Rice. I know a lot of people are reading it. Since, the book is open to differing interpretations, my guess would be that different people are getting different ideas from it. But, I hang out with too many theologs. I don't know how "real people" are responding — but I'm quite curious about it.
For a non theolog like myself, it has brilliantly and artistically put words that support my continued interest in the things of Christ, despite my constant temptation to just give up on religion altogether out of human frustration.
I ran across this link earlier today: "You Lost Me – Why Youth are Running Away from the Church" http://king.typepad.com/mike_king/2011/09/you-los…
I was particularly struck by points 5 & 6: Exclusivity and rejection of those who have doubts. The LW book does seem intentionally designed to reach this crowd.
I think number 6 is something the Church can do something about…though I'd say that doubt is being trumpeted as a virtue, when Scripture seems to put doubt and unbelief in parallel.
Regarding number 5, the gospel—the proclamation that Jesus is Messiah and Lord—has always been exclusive. The invitation is open to all to repent of sin and turn to Jesus in faith. But from the beginning the apostles spoke of Jesus as the only one true God over against the false gods of the world. And to be honest I think I am concerned about LW if it's trying to address number 5 in that his recommendation of Huston Smith puts him clearly in the religious pluralism camp. To which I respond, "why?"
Are you suggesting the god of the jews is not the god of Christians?
I'd be interested to know what you believe is the central message of LW, David, if you don't mind sharing. I'm not out to tell you you're wrong and promise not to make commentary 🙂 I'd just be interested to see what you resonated with that was brilliant and that helped support your continued interest in things of Christ.
Sure, the premise of the book was a profound message of hope to me regarding the salvific power of God to save and redeem this world through his love as demonstrated in Jesus and carried on by His church. I think that love wins is a great title for it. I will keep it short and sweet just like Rob writes. 😉
And I'm sorry you've felt compelled to give up on religion…I think the Church gets a lot of things wrong in putting barriers in the way of helping people explore and find new life in Jesus.
David, I understand the "constant temptation to just give up on religion altogether out of human frustration" very well. My wife and I are at MHBC precisely because we are Church refugees, and are looking for a (relatively) safe place to worship and explore our faith.
That is great that you are at MHBC, Craig. My two years volunteering there when I lived in G.R. were a complete milestone for me holding onto the faith and returning to Jesus and getting a fire in my gut that I can actually join His good cause in the world regarding not condemning the world, but saving it. I have had a recent conversation with Mr. Hipps as well and he has been blowing my mind in recent days as well: http://bit.ly/oTAfj1
Jeremy, I had a quote come to my mind today while driving and thinking about this conversation we have been having: "Final verdicts are the water to the fire that is conversation." -me
Trying to speak the truth (as I am learning about it) in love as best as I can here on the interwebs.
Nice to see the conversation about the conversation on the book is coming up. The book itself is a great catalyst for discussion; discussing the book's influence is even more interesting, to me, than what Rob wrote. To be fair, I have not read Rob's book (I've read others and been to Mars), but I have engaged the conversation, and it's the conversation that I really love; the dialogue. Look, Rob is human, teaching perfection (God's law) through imperfection (his mouth). It's okay. We are all human…that's all who's left at this point here. From my own background (catholicism – everyone's ultimate background in the church, really), we understand and believe that we know with relative certainty which humans are now in Heaven (we call them saints), but we have never gone so far – not in over 2000 years – as to say who might be in Hell. We don't know.
But as important as all this theological wrestling is the issue of discussing these things with one another. And that's the real joy in Rob's book, from my point of view. It's keeping the discussion alive. I'm very orthodox in my belief system, but still, I don't get upset when I see other people or "churches" getting it "wrong" here and there…Most are doing their level best to transmit truth. God bless Rob for trying. God bless us for engaging the conversation, even if it is controversial. Can I read Rob's book like it's the Gospel, nope. Can I count Rob's teaching as authoritative as say Paul's or Moses', nope. He's just a guy. I'm just a guy. And we are all (even on this blog) trying to love one another as a means of loving God. Peace brothers. Jim.
Well said, brother Jim. I love the subtle elbow regarding our roots as well. Nicely done. Indeed, we all are just a bunch of guys and gals, navigating our way toward (hopefully) God.