|
BLOG
« View All
A New Kind of Liberalism [Part 1]
8.18.2011 // Trace Howard
Introduction In his new book Love Wins (HarperOne 2011), Rob Bell purports to address serious questions that people have been asking for centuries – questions like “what is heaven, hell, and the fate of every person who has ever lived?” Many will find Bell’s analysis disturbing because it runs counter to the narrative of traditional evangelical theology which asserts that God, through the death of His Son on a cross and subsequent resurrection, extends eternal life to those who repent and believe this good news (“gospel”) and yet, because He is also holy and righteous, punishes forever those who choose to remain in their sin by rejecting the gospel. This is a narrative that Bell cannot accept and much of his book is an attempt to show that such a narrative is impossible to believe if God truly is love. Bell attempts to persuade the reader that his views regarding such subjects as heaven, hell, salvation, and the cross fall within the mainstream of Christian theology and orthodoxy, views that he argues have existed from the early church to the present. His exposition, however, is anything but orthodox. At best Bell’s treatment is heterodox. At worst, some will conclude that it is heresy. The reader, however, should not be surprised by Bell’s views of heaven and hell, as well as his position on other areas of theology, since they appeared, albeit in an undeveloped way, both in The Velvet Elvis and Sex God. There are numerous problems, however, with Bell’s “developed” presentation of these issues in Love Wins, and thus, the purpose of this review is to provide a critical evaluation of, and evangelical response to, his treatment of these important questions. As the following analysis reflects, Bell appears to have left the “evangelical” reservation and has embraced a “new kind of liberalism.” General Observations Regarding Bell’s Presentation Bell’s Source for Truth. Fundamentally, I believe that Bell’s principal problem is one of “epistemology.” From his treatment of passages, it would be logical to conclude that Bell’s basis for knowing something to be true or not does not lie in the authority of Scripture but in the authority of his own philosophical predispositions. His own philosophical leanings drive his discussions of, and importantly his conclusions about God. Ultimately, these conclusions dictate his interpretation not only of biblical texts but also his treatment of biblical words, and even his handling of church history. Bell’s Narrative. Bell’s philosophical predispositions lead him to create his own metanarrative which often extends far beyond the actual narrative of passages on which he seeks to establish his interpretations. Bell’s metanarrative is the following: Because God is love and because He chose to create literally billions of human beings, all of whom have absolute freedom of choice (a concept Bell says is inherent in the notion of a “loving God”), it is inconceivable that this kind of God could choose or even permit a select group to spend eternity with Him, while choosing or allowing countless others to spend forever in punishment due to choices these individuals made during a few, finite years on this planet – accordingly, because God desires all to be saved, and because He gets what He wants, everyone eventually, whether in this life or at some point after death, will respond to God and be saved. Love wins. For this reason, a more appropriate subtitle of this book should have been: “a case for universalism.” Bell’s View of God. The foundation of Bell’s presentation is his conception of God, one which is consistent with his own philosophical “leanings.” In Bell’s mind, a loving God must behave in certain ways and if He behaves differently, such as punishing unbelievers forever, He is not worth trusting or loving. He repeatedly and correctly addresses the greatness of God’s love. Yet, he does so while virtually ignoring any meaningful discussion of God’s holiness, righteousness, and justice. This is one of the principal weaknesses of the book. Bell’s Approach to Scripture. Another significant result of Bell’s philosophical predispositions is that his presentation, while giving the appearance of being biblical, actually is untethered to Scripture. Rather than interpreting passages in their original contexts, Bell looks backward toward the text from the standpoint of the interpreter and reads the passage through a grid or prism of present realities and questions that could not possibly have been within the purview of the original writer, resulting in “readings” which are “fanciful” and that would cause even Origen of Alexandria to wince.[1] Bell’s Style of Presentation. Attempting to understand Bell is like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall. He is slippery, often confusing, frequently redundant, and difficult to follow. I often I found myself saying, “Rob did you actually say that? Did you really go there?” The book is filled with straw-man arguments, caricatures, cheap shots, ridicule, and irresponsible statements, most of which occur within his treatment of the traditional evangelical narrative. Other problems with Bell’s presentation are the extensive use of “questions,” his failure to cite any sources for the points he makes, and the fact that he never cites a specific verse of the passages he references- he simply refers to “chapter numbers.” Bell’s Influences. Throughout Love Wins, it is apparent that Bell is not without his influences. I sensed that Brian McLaren frequently was lurking in the background and much of Bell’s treatment of narrative is Kelleresque (although I doubt Keller would view this as favorable). Many of Bell’s discussions reflect the thought of nineteenth and twentieth century liberals, like Schleiermacher and Bultmann, and the twentieth century neo-orthodox writer Karl Barth. At times, I thought I had stepped back into the early 1900s and was listening to Harry Emerson Fosdick as he proclaimed his social gospel and liberal post-millennialism. At other times, I wondered if I was reading political discourse, the kind found in Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Overall, I felt like I was reading sophistry or perhaps philosophical musings from Bell’s diary or memoirs, wondering to myself, “Does he really believe this stuff?” At the end of the day, there really is “nothing new under the sun.” The views of Bell, while being provocative and presented in ways designed to reach a contemporary audience, are neither new nor do they fall within mainstream evangelicalism. They are “liberalism” in new clothes. Andy Crouch in the New York Times has said regarding Love Wins, that “Rob Bell is a central figure for his generation and for the way that evangelicals are likely to do church in the next twenty years.” As one who considers himself an evangelical, I can only hope that Mr. Crouch is wrong. The next four parts of this series will focus on Bell’s presentation of specific issues: “the scope of salvation, heaven, hell, and the cross and resurrection.” [1] Origen of Alexandria (A.D. 185-254) was known for his wild allegorizing and fanciful interpretations of Scripture. Incoming search terms:
Tags: a new kind of liberalism, acts 29 network, churches in the woodlands tx, gospel centered church, heaven, hell, love wins, rob bell, universalism, woodlands point community church
Leave a Reply
|
