While I wouldn't necessarily argue with most of Bells comments I find the last one rather peculiar, "beware of those who will take the flesh and want to turn it back into words". Yes, "...the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..." (John 1:14) but the Word did not at anytime cease to be the Word when He became flesh, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God". The Bible in it's entirety is the 'Word of God' and not just the warm fuzzy parts we all like to read, but the really hard judgemental parts as well. Sometimes it's beneficial to remember the very first recorded Word of Jesus was "repent". Jesus was quite doctrinal during his three years of ministry. Rob seems to be pretty critical of an unnamed group of folks who question his doctrinal stances as though Biblical doctrine is meaningless. That's unfortunate.

"...the life we’ve found together, however, is far more subtle, nuanced, and complex than those simple dualisms, and i’ve seen you discover this deep well of insight as it shapes you in profound ways."

:::/sigh:::

uh-boy

"simple dualisms"?

Simple? Really?

:::/facepalm:::

I hope Mr. Bell reads this...I really do because this...this...whole section...is where I have now discovered why and how his entire theology is corrupted, and in my opinion so far off base that he needs to stop teaching and speaking all together.

G-d, Mr. Bell, is one thing, and that one thing is quite expansive as far as definition goes.

That one thing we'll call "holiness."

Holiness being that G-d is whole...no doubt, no nuance, no trickery, no subtlety, but there is one thing G-d is about...dualism.

Either for G-d, or against G-d, there is no middle ground.

What we do is either good, or it is bad.

It is either for the Holiness of G-d, or for the evil of man.

It is, simply put, right or it is wrong.

So...what you casually dismissed as "simple dualisms" is actually the centerpiece of G-d's restorative effort of the human race because we can't begin to be restored to G-d until we fully understand the enormity of our disassociation from the divine.

We have no comprehension of how truly ignorant we are, how completely and totally corrupted in our knowledge and thinking.

Nor do we fully comprehend who, what, and the why of G-d...we are a fallen creature, blinded to the truth by our own willfulness, selfishness, and our pretend knowledge which underscores our ignorance.

Our inability as a species, as created beings, as mirror images of G-d to understand the profoundness of the dualities of life...those being good and bad, holy and evil, right and wrong...is exactly what G-d is about with us.
Why?
Because we still think we're all that, and a lot more...as you have clearly demonstrated with your "simple dualisms."

You, Mr. Bell, should know this already, and that you don't, I.find.disturbing.

Perhaps, instead of a TV show, you should go and rediscover G-d again before you continue to "tickle the ears of men with empty and vain flattery."

Some cliches, some caricature of those who disagree with him, some false literariness of that one-word-per-line faux poetry he is fond of.

A shallow thinker who has the virtue of irritating some people who needed to be irritated.

OTOH, farewell addresses are often banal exercises in self-congratulation under the guise of congratulating the listeners, so this may not be an especially bad example.

Spare me the e e cummings-esque non-capitalization.

Also, please don't demean epistolary literature by calling this an epistle.

If the guy wants to leave meaningful ministry for the glitz and glamour of Hollywood, so be it. Just don't try to say its for a "broader platform" or something like that. It isn't, it's just a spiritual professional leaving one line of work for another.

Wow! Lots of criticism. Very one-sided responses here. I guess people are just cynical and suspicious. I'm sure they have their reasons.

I finally got the chance a couple months ago to check out "Love Wins" from my local library (after multiple copies were checked out for months on end) to see what all the ruckus was really about. I must confess, having done that, I feel I understand what Rob is on about, and I believe he is coming from a very solidly Christian heart. (For the record, I don't believe he is a universalist.)

Does Rob Bell seem to caricature the position(s) he criticizes? Perhaps, but I know from experience that, that caricature is a realistic picture to a lot of those with honest skepticism who live outside the Fundamentalist, Reformed and conservative Evangelical bubbles (many of those same people having been raised within that world). I may be wrong, but it seems to me even if people's objections and questions are not fully honest, we do better and obtain better spiritual fruit to try to address their questions as if they were truly honest a lot of times, than just derisively dismiss them as seems to be frequently done by critics here.

It was listening with a few of these skeptics' ears (yet without putting my Trinitarian theology and orthodox Christology up for grabs) that led me to ask a lot of the same questions and make many of the observations Rob has been asking and making this last few years. My exploration just led me into the Eastern Orthodox Church. I discovered a Church with a continuity of worship and thought with the Church of the first Millenium that actually had ancient Fathers who talked a lot more like Rob about the nature of Christian faith and salvation (once I did the translation and as far as I could tell) than a lot of modern Evangelical biblicists I knew!

Dogma has an important place, yes, and the EO Church has plenty of it very carefully articulated through the historic councils of the first Millennium A.D.. On the other hand, within Eastern Orthodoxy (and in the full biblical sense), true "knowledge" of God is indeed personal and relational and experiential, not propositional, and genuine living faith is active, not passive (nor "alone"), expressed precisely as Jesus outlines for us in Matthew 25.

For one who respects the Scriptures as the unique and God-inspired written record of God's progressive Self-revelation to His people (only Jesus Christ can be said to be the *W*ord of God), and who also understands the questions Rob is asking more from the inside looking out than the outside looking in, it looks to me as though Rob is speaking with true biblical understanding. Likely his critics would have to cut him a little more slack, perhaps take him a little less personally, and get a better grip on the context of experience from which and to which he is speaking to see that. I don't see a lot of motivation right now from that quarter though, so I won't be holding my breath.

Karen, I too liked Love Win and don't think Rob Bell is a universalist. You might like this article:
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/11/why-do-we-love-c-s-lewis-and-hate-rob-bell/
it's about why people love CS Lewis and yet hate Rob Bell even though they are quit similar.

Karen, when someone talks a lot as does Rob Bell - yet actually says little of substance - it is not surprising that the best you (or any of Rob's supporters) can say is that you 'think' you might know what the guy actually believes. "I don't think Rob Bell is a universalist" is said frequently by his supporters. Why would they say that? Why the need to defend him when he shows no interest in defending himself?

Elegance, I actually think Rob Bell is quite clear on what he believes and if you read Love Wins it's obvious he isn't a universalist.

And you can hear him defend himself here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfboAzw-XGU&feature=youtu.be

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but when Jesus refers to himself as the "Son of Man," I thought he was referencing Old Testament prophecy that describes the Messiah using the term "Son of Man."

But Bell says that Jesus is emphasizing his humanity by referring to himself as the "Son of Man," but I have heard the opposite, saying that this term is a claim to deity.

I believe Jesus was both divine and human, so I guess this isn't a major theological question. Just curious whether Bell's example is a faulty one (even though I still agree with his premise about Jesus' humanity).

I'm not making an argument here; I'm just seeking understanding (admittedly, a message board is rarely a good place for this).

Any thoughts?

Elegance, I'm not a supporter of Rob Bell per se. I'm a supporter of the truth. I believe Rob Bell is not a universalist because, frankly, I can say a lot of the same things he does, and I know I am not one.

It seems to me Rob Bell's communication philosophy just expresses a different conviction about how about how truth can best be communicated than that of his critics. Given that the truth, biblically speaking (I think you'd agree) we, Christians, believe is a Person, I think he has a point. Try to communicate that fully and effectively using propositional logic and doctrinal statements only. I guess if God couldn't do that, but had to become Incarnate in order to fully reveal Himself, we shouldn't expect to be able to do less, should we?

Some feel insecure unless they can see it in black and white "logical" verbal statements taken from Scripture that fits with their abstract derived systematic theology. Okay, but I observe that the Pharisees Jesus encountered rarely seemed to hear the doctrinal "formulae" or pronouncements from Jesus or see it reflected in His preaching and lifestyle that they expected and wanted to, but they couldn't refute his orthodoxy when it came to actual people and situations (Jesus tending to bring their challenges down to the level of the concrete through His parables). Relying too heavily on doctrinal formulae tends work only in the abstract--it's nice and neat on paper, I guess. When it comes to actual people and how they can best come into a living relationship with the true God, one has to listen through one's heart as well. Isn't this where the Holy Spirit directs our application and understanding of the Scriptures' message as a whole and aids our understanding of another's and our own real spiritual needs? In my experience, real wisdom, unlike mere Scriptural "knowledge" of the abstract sort, is more of a relational art than doctrinal science. I would not be at all surprised in actual situations with certain individuals to find Rob emphasizing the reality and capacity of our decisions and actions to take us to hell (starting even here and now, just as eternal life starts here and now). Perhaps some who have sat under his ministry and been into his office for counseling could confirm or deny that. But I also know with his background and the primary demographic of where he has been ministering, he must deal with a lot of those of us who have grown up hearing doctrinal emphases that have seriously distorted or threatened to seriously distort our image of God if left uncorrected, doing a kind of harm to our walk with God that Rob's critics seem to be pretty much blind to. Those of us who have experienced it know that it is a serious problem--definitely as serious as that of dismissing the notions of sin, hell, and God's judgment as obsolete.

It has been said by others, but I'll repeat, Love Wins (which is apparently typical of Rob's work if the comments of others here are accurate), is not written as a careful theological treatise. It is pastoral. We shouldn't ask it to be something it was never intended to be. That's just my take.

@Tyler, you are correct. "Son of Man" was an OT title for the prophesied Messiah that would have been a direct confirmation to Jesus' Jewish audience that He was proclaiming Himself as the promised Messiah.

On the other hand, the title in itself still points to the fact that the Messiah, Who was divinely promised, was also fully human, being born as a Man, hence The Son of Man is also a Son of man (or, more precisely, of a woman!).

@Jane, thank you for the comments and the links! I'll be interested to check them out.

@Tyler,
The reference is Daniel 7:13 & 14. "One like a son of man" is presented before the throne of the Ancient of Days and given an eternal kingdom. G.E. Ladd (among others) refers to him as a heavenly ruler and a divine Being, and makes the point that Jesus Christ was claiming to be divine when he used this title. Can't remember the references in Ladd, though...sorry.

Jesus wasn't put to death for claiming to be human. He didn't have any difficulty convincing anyone that he was human. Even to the point that he stopped doing miracles in his hometown because everyone had known him all his life. The significance of his humanity is only that he was tempted in every way as we are - yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:5) And he is therefore able to understand how difficult temptation is for us. That Rob Bell finds it "...mind-bendingly revolutionary [the]claim of the divine being human?" seems silly to me. And the Jews to which Jesus spoke were looking for the divine to come in human form as their Messiah. This was nothing new. What was mind bending was the fact that the Messiah came exactly as predicted in the Old Testament and that the Jews couldn't see it. They were not interested in the sinful condition of their hearts any more than the world of today is. They were looking for a political savior, just as people are today.

My problem with Rob Bell is that he doesn't like for Jesus to be a 'wedge issue'. So he softens the message of Jesus to such a degree that half the message is just missing. I know that many who read this blog have contempt for the writings of the Apostle Paul, but for those who actually believe all of the books of the Bible to be the true Word of God, I submit what Paul says in 1 Cor. 1:17- 18 "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

@elegance,

Happy New Year!

I would encourage you to really dig into the theology of the early church. The incarnation and Christ's equal humanity and divinity were of profound significance for the ways the Church Fathers understood the economy of salvation.

Jesus' full humanity was neither merely significant for his ability to demonstrate his divine perfection NOR was it only pragmatic as a carrier system to get his body on a cross.

The witness of the church throughout the ages has reflected deeply and powerfully on the significance of Incarnation and what it means about God, our salvation, what it means to be human and God's ultimate values that will brought about in fullness at the appearing of the Kingdom.

Christ's humanity is critical and that is why he is the God-Man. fully Divine AND fully human.

any theology that favors one over the other (even in emphasis) is functionally sub-orthodox.

Nathan, very true. The classic "On the Incarnation" by St. Athanasius, who practically singlehandedly defended orthodox Christology against the Arians in his era would be a good start.

Elegance, for the record, I am not a reader who has trouble with the teachings of St. Paul--certainly not as they have been applied and understood by the Orthodox Christian Church from earliest times down through the ages. It is, perhaps, pertinent though to reiterate the warning of the Apostle Peter who wrote concerning his fellow Apostle: " . . . consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, *in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.*" (2 Peter 3:15-16) It might also be well to remember that the cross and the gospel Paul preached were stumbling blocks to the Jews because Paul's gospel to them appeared not Pharisaical, but antinomian, and also because the notion that God Most High would so humble Himself as to become human and take the curse of our sin upon Himself was absolutely scandalous to the first-century Jewish mind (and not just because of their political ideas)!

That passage in Peter is often misunderstood. Peter did not mean in any way to denigrate Paul's writings. He was saying that there are a few verses that are difficult to understand, and those that are "untaught or unstable" can twist and distort the passages. One of the basic rules in hermeneutics is if a passage is difficult to understand, then one can use clearer verses about that topic in the Bible to make it clearer. In Acts 15, Peter and Paul held an important counsel in Jerusalem speaking against those who were trying to insist that new Gentile believers had to become "Jewish" first, and they made it clear that new followers of Christ did not have to follow the legalisms in the Old Testament.

Carol, I agree that Peter was not in any way denigrating Paul's writing and neither do I mean to do so. In my experience though, false teaching about what the Scripture means is not always easily corrected by "clearer verses." "Clearer" to whom one might ask, and who is to be the judge of that? The early Fathers taught that everything in Scripture was to be judged and understood in the fullness of the light of Christ Himself (therefore we don't interpret the NT in light of the OT, but rather the reverse, for example, and the Gospels are themselves the foundation for understanding the Epistles aright.) We also know (from St. Paul!) there is no real understanding of the Scripture apart from the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:6-16). We would not expect Him to say one thing in one era and a totally different thing in another (about what the Scripture means). That is why Orthodox Christians put heavy emphasis on reading the Scriptures with the Fathers and relying on the dogmatic definitions carefully articulated in the "Ecumenical Councils" of the first Millennium of Church history (which were themselves modeled after the example in Acts 15). There are some modern hermeneutic perspectives that have more to do with the historic western philosophical movements of Scholasticism, Enlightenment Humanism, Nominalism, and Scottish Common Sense Realism (check out Wikipedia if you want to understand more about those philosophical movements, and you may recognize their influence in what you have been taught about hermeneutics) than the wisdom presented in holy Scripture itself about how it is to be understood.

I think we agree Karen. But the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches are not the only churches that recognize the Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creeds.

Quite true, Carol. There are, however, many Christians today (of whatever background, including those on both conservative and liberal sides of the interpretive equation) who, through the influence of the philosophical movements I mentioned, have been encouraged to rely in their understanding of the Scriptures on a rationalistic, rather than genuinely spiritual, approach to hermeneutics. My complaint would not be that conservative Protestants don't claim many of the same credal formulae as Roman Catholics and Orthodox, but that they are less inclined (except, perhaps, on the more scholarly levels) to recognize how indebted is their interpretation of Scripture, insofar as it is fully orthodox, to the interpretive *tradition* of the Church Fathers and historic Councils of the Church, as expressed in those creeds. It seems that "tradition" remains for many Protestants a dirty word, and yet they are as dependent upon true Apostolic Christian tradition as are Roman Catholics and Orthodox if they want to remain truly orthodox in their interpretation and understanding of the Scriptures. It has been my experience at least that, on the popular conservative Evangelical level, there is less recognition that the Scriptures are not truly *self* interpreting, hence a downplaying, if not outright dismissal, of much of Church and doctrinal history and the writings of the Church Fathers. Recently, there seems to be a renewed interest in the early Fathers of the Church in Evangelical scholarly circles that will perhaps allow greater rapprochement between conservative Protestants and their Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox counterparts in the future. That would be a welcome development.

"It seems that "tradition" remains for many Protestants a dirty word,"

For me, an ex-Roman Catholic, and now Protestant, I have found both equally quilty of trumping tradition over biblical teaching.

Apparently, neither orgnization is innocent of the charge of cultural or "traditional" syncretism.

Sheer, I don't disagree with you that Roman Catholics and Protestants (and I'll include Eastern Orthodox) at times confuse human traditions with genuine Apostolic Christian tradition, but it seems to me none of that negates the points I'm making above.