UPDATE: You can read my full review, HERE.

As I wrote last week, there’s been quite the scuttlebutt over Rob Bell’s new book, Love Wins. But you already knew that! Now one of its endorsers, Greg Boyd, has stepped into the fray with his definitive defense of Rob Bell’s book, one that has been flying around the internet as proof positive of Bell’s non-universalistic, thoroughly orthodox beliefs.

His blog post was titied, Rob Bell is NOT a Universalist (and I actually read “Love Wins”). Except the problem is this: Boyd never actually proves this is true. In fact, he confesses he’s not sure: “I know many readers will want my opinion on whether or not Rob is in fact a Universalist. I’m tempted to say — and probably should say —’I’m not sure; read the book for yourself and figure it out.'” But more on that below.

Boyd wants to say four brief things about the book. I include them below with some thoughts of my own along the way:

First, Rob is first and foremost a poet/artist/dramatist who has a fantastic gift for communicating in ways that inspire creativity and provoke thought.

Actually, I thought Rob Bell was first and foremost a pastor and a teacher. Though, surprisingly, being a pastor and artist is not mutually exclusive, I’d think he’d be much more concerned about the content of his teaching than it’s artistic flourish.

Rob is far more comfortable (and far better at) questioning established beliefs and creatively hinting at possible answers than he is at constructing a logically rigorous case defending a definitive conclusion.

I’m confused. I thought Rob Bell was writing a book. Books are usually intended to construct logical arguments for the purpose of arguing a specific conclusion. Are you telling me that his book is not logical or does not argue for a specific conclusion? So Rob Bell is only hinting at possible answers he’d like his readers to come to, rather than actually making arguments he wants his readers to join him in holding…regarding God, sin, human nature, the nature of salvation, the gospel, heaven, and hell?

I enthusiastically recommend Love Wins because of the way it empowers readers to question old perspectives and consider new ones.

I would think you’ve recommended it, Greg, because it’s real and actual and true, not simply because it pokes at the eyes of traditionalists with new-fangled questions and perspectives. Perhaps I’m missing the point?

Furthermore, since when has Rob Bell only hinted at answers rather than making conclusions? Even a casual listen to Bell’s teachings will reveal he gives a whole lot of answers and draws a whole lot of conclusions about a whole lot of things. I’ve already suggested Velvet Elvis and other teachings already suggests a universalistic theological trajectory.

Unless a person reads this book with a preset agenda to find whatever they can to further an anti-Rob Bell agenda (which, I guarantee you, is going to happen) readers will not put this book down unchanged. To me, this is one of the main criteria for qualifying a book as “great.”

So in other words, if I disagree with Rob Bell’s (non)logical (non)conclusions I’m dismissible. There is simply no place to disagree with the teachings of Bell without being labeled a hater and anti- agenda driver. Great…

Second, given Rob’s poetic/artistic/non-dogmatic style, Love Wins cannot be easily filed into pre-established theological categories (viz. “universalism” vs “eternal conscious suffering” vs. “annihilationism,” etc.). I am certain some readers — especially those who position themselves as the final arbiters and guardians of evangelical truth — will try to do this (obviously, they already have!). And, having read Rob’s book, I can almost guarantee you that they will find isolated quotes to justify their labels. As I interpret Rob’s work, however, it would be misguided and unfair to apply any of these labels to him (more on this below).

Thanks for denying anyone the ability to use historical categories to probe and understand Bell’s contemporary re-evaluation of them! So take the historical category of original sin, for instance. Bell has nothing to say about that? Or the historical arguments against universalism that people throughout Church history have held. Bell has nothing to say about that either? Come on!

I also take issue with the inability to evaluate Bell’s teachings using historical theological categories, that “Love Wins cannot be easily filed into pre-established theological categories.” Is this because Bell’s teachings are so innovative that they transcend the historic “pieces” historic Christian faith? As I’ve said elsewhere, theological innovation never ends well…

And to say that Bell is non-dogmatic is just loaded rhetoric designed to distract from the reality that Bell certainly has beliefs (a.k.a. dogma). About a whole lot of things. That’s why he’s a communicator. That’s why he wrote this book. He believes things, things he believes are real and true. Things he wants others to believe are real and true.

Third, Taylor’s “review” and the ensuing Twitter madness notwithstanding, Rob’s book really isn’t about the population or duration of heaven or hell. It’s mainly about the unfathomably beautiful character of God revealed in Jesus Christ and therefore about the unfathomably good nature of the Good News.

Can I ask a basic, knuckle-headed question here: why the heck is the subtitle of Rob Bell’s book: a book about heave, hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived, then? And given what I’ve read, what I’ve heard, and what’s already been said, I don’t see how this is the case.

Putting his formidable communicating skills to full use, Rob paints a New Testament-based portrait of God throughout his book that at times almost brought me to tears. In the course of painting this magnificent portrait of God, Rob brilliantly raises pointed questions about the dominant evangelical view of hell as hopeless conscious suffering as well as about common evangelical views of God’s wrath, the nature of salvation and an assortment of other topics. But these are secondary topics next to Rob’s main focus: namely, the incomprehensible and unlimited love of God expressed on Calvary as Jesus prays with his last breath, “Father, forgive them, they don’t know what they’re doing.”

Perhaps I’ll write about this in the next few weeks as I read Bell’s book and interact with his interpretive scheme, but I have experienced first-hand Bell’s uncanny ability to make the Text do and say things that it isn’t saying or doing. I’ll reveal my bias here based on a personal hermeneutical, homiletical experience: I don’t trust Bell’s painting skills. I have seen how Bell often comes to the Text with an agenda and builds a case from the Text to satisfy that agenda. I am interested to see if this happens here with this book.

Finally, despite my earlier claim that Love Wins can’t be neatly filed into any pre-established theological category, I know many readers will want my opinion on whether or not Rob is in fact a Universalist. I’m tempted to say — and probably should say —” I’m not sure; read the book for yourself and figure it out.” But far be it from me to shut up when I should, so here’s two thoughts, for what they’re worth.

I’m confused. I thought, Greg, you were writing to definitively squelch any talk of Rob Bell as a universalist or inhabiting even shades of universalism, given your title and all. Yet you’re not sure. I’m confused.

1) I strongly doubt Rob would describe himself as a “Universalist.”

I’m sure you are exactly on mark with this statement. Rob Bell doesn’t like to describe himself in a lot of ways. He’s a bit too opaque for description. I am quite confident Rob Bell would not describe himself as a universalist. On that you are correct!

But even if he did, I would recommend Love Wins just as enthusiastically as I already have. Love Wins masterfully raises all the right questions, even if one ends up disagreeing with some of Rob’s conclusions (which, as I said, are at most alluded to rather than dogmatically defended).

So if Rob Bell came out as a blatant, obvious universalist in this book, you would still recommend it? Why? Because he “masterfully raises all the right questions”? Why would you recommend a book that teaches things contrary to the historic Christian faith and Holy Scriptures?

Not only this, but questions surrounding the nature and duration of hell and the possibility that all will eventually be saved are not questions Christians should be afraid of. What does truth have to fear? (I sometimes wonder if the animosity some express toward Universalists [or toward those some assume are Universalists] is motivated by the fear that the case for Universalism might turn out to be more compelling than they can handle. For several defenses, see the Addendum to this blog).

Though I myself welcome such questions, I’m not so sure that’s the issue here. Many have reasons to suspect (based on things Bell has already said and written) that Bell is universalistic in his beliefs about the nature of salvation.

And to dismiss our deep concern over such conclusions as fear-mongering is ridiculous. Fear is not the issue, Greg Boyd. Faithfulness to the Holy Scripture is. A universal salvation hasn’t been revealed to us. There are no revelatory grounds to argue for a universal salvation. Universal salvation is not argued for in the Holy Scriptures and has never been part of the historic Christian faith. Therefore, someone like Rob Bell has no business promising or proclaiming it to anyone, even teachings with shades of universalism.

2) While its clear from Love Wins that Rob believes (as do I ) that God wants all to be saved, it’s also clear Rob believes (as do I) that humans [and, I would add, angels] have free will and that God will never coerce someone to accept his love and be “saved.” Rob doesn’t himself argue this way in his book, but it seems to me that if God will not coerce people into heaven, then hell (which, by the way, Rob does emphatically believe in) cannot have a pre-set, definitive, terminus point. That is, hell is not, at present, finite. Hence, in this sense, hell is, at present, infinite (= not finite). And this holds true even if Rob believes he has warrant to hope everyone will eventually be saved. And for this reason, I would argue that Rob cannot hold to Universalism as a doctrine: he cannot be, in the classic sense of the word, a Universalist.

I agree Rob Bell says he believes in hell. But what he means by hell seems very different than how hell has been understood. Rob seems to believe Hell is an existential symbol (much like he does the Fall and Resurrection). I will also be interested to see if Bell really does not believe there is no definite, set, terminus point to negative outcomes of final judgment (aka hell). Because Bell “believes he has warrant to hope everyone will eventually be saved,” why wouldn’t he believe hell is infinite and those “in it” are open to a post-mortem salvation? If this is true, how isn’t this universalism…if everyone, in the end, will ultimately be “in” heaven, “in Christ” ?

Addendum: As I’ve said, I don’t think it’s accurate to describe Rob’s book as a defense of Universalism, though it expresses a hope for all to be saved. If you’re looking for defenses of Universalism as a doctrine, the best I’ve found are 1) Thomas Talbot, The Inescapable Love of God; 2) Gregory MacDonald, The Evangelical Universalist; and 3) Jan Bonda, The One Purpose of God (quite academic, but insightful). Just to be fair, if you want a sound defense of Annihilationism, see Edward Fudge, The Fire That Consumes. And if you want a sound defense of the tradition view of hell as eternal conscious suffering, see R. Peterson, Hell on Trial and (with an interesting twist) C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce.

If anyone cares, I myself have read Talbott and MacDonald and do not find their universalism arguments biblically or theologically compelling. (BTW I’ve just completed an exegetical examination on the 4 Pauline passages used by Christian universalists to support a biblical universal salvation. I plan to post this soon in hopes it will help guide this conversation.) I am also conversant with the annihilationism and, while I’m not as concerned with it than a universalist or the post-mortem perspective, I also do not find it biblically or theologically compelling, though I understand why people like John Stott do.

In short, I’m not sure how this post says Rob Bell is NOT a Universalist . As I’ve written before, I’m holding out final judgment until I receive my copy shortly. While what I have written thus far has probably been too critical on something I have yet to read fully myself, that criticism is rooted in what Bell has already written and said, my experiences with him myself, and what others who have read the book have said.

I’d like to repeat what I wrote over the weekend: engaging the theology of Rob Bell in this book is extremely important. This is a conversation about the nature of salvation itself, which makes the stakes extremely high for the theological content of Bell’s book. These are extremely important ideas that have great bearing for the lives of many people, which is why I intend to continue engaging these writings as a pastor-theologian.