The Rob Bell Kerfluffle

I'm finding the debate about Rob Bell's new book, Love Wins, to be very interesting and perhaps revealing of a fundamental struggle that is going on in the evangelical church (at least in North America, where the evangelical church is struggling for survival, IMHO. It's thriving and growing in other parts of the world.)

Some interesting things about this debate are that it began to get ferocious before the book was even released and many of the same things are being said by lots of people who I don't believe have read the book. I haven't read the book, either, but I'm writing about the debate about the book, so I thought it would be good to get down my pre-reading impressions first. (I did buy it. It's on my rather large "To Read in Future" pile.)

The National Post gives an interesting overview of the debate. The whole argument of the book is summed up by Bell's account of seeing a note taped to a Gandi quote that was part of a display at his church: "Reality check: he's in hell." Bell's honest questions are where the debate begins:

Within the national post interview, an evangelical writer (who I've never heard of - Jimmy Spencer - I can't help but wonder from what he says how long he will be considered "evangelical") says this about Bell:

Five hundred years ago, Martin Luther said Christians had the right to read the Bible for themselves and define it for themselves. What you’re seeing in Rob is the use of the same motif. I don’t know if Rob Bell is a new Martin Luther, but at the time of the Reformation Martin Luther wasn’t Martin Luther.

There is an erosion that has taken place within evangelical communities today and Rob Bell strikes at the heart of that divide between whether you think God is inclusive or exclusive.

The worst thing you can be accused of in many evangelical settings today is to be called a "universalist." I've heard it a few times in the recent past as a "you don't want to go there" aside in conversations with other Christians. However, I must say that I would rather be accused of being a universalist, than be accused of being the most contemptible of religious types: "fundamentalist."

Another thing I noticed from the article was an incredibly ignorant statement by someone at Christianity Today, which makes me realize why I no longer subscribe to this magazine:

For Mark Galli, senior managing editor of Christianity Today, what concerns him about Love Wins is what he calls Rob Bell’s failure to behave like a real pastor.

He leaves readers with more questions because he hasn’t really done his job as a teacher, which is what a minister is supposed to be. Instead, he has become a provocateur.

You walk away thinking this is what Rob Bell teaches, not what the Bible teaches.

This is incredibly naive for two different reasons: Jesus did not answer all questions - he told stories. He didn't even explain what most of his parables meant and left his disciples confused more often than not. Also, a quality of a good teacher is someone who always leaves his students with more questions than answers. A very exasperated grade 3 student once blurted out to me: "Can't you ever give us a straight answer?" Well, no, I can't because I'm a teacher and I'm trying to be a good one.

Do you know what Mark Galli is describing as a good teacher? A fundamentalist. I hate that word and that way of thinking.

If anything does lead to hell, the fundamentalist way of thinking (no matter what religion) does.
Update: Here's an interesting article about the history behind the rejection of hell and universalism. Long story short: Bell's not the first to say these things and be rejected by the church.