I agree that Bell very, very skillfully lays out the basic presuppositions well and brings up a multiplicity of questions that many evangelicals have been afraid to ask up to this point. I feel like his follow through, his exegesis, his theological development of the topic, and his argument from tradition could have been further strengthened to really undergird the presuppositions he starts the work with and answer the questions he raises. Bell doesn’t quote any reliable sources (for the most part he doesn’t quote his sources at all) and on top of what I just mentioned this hinders his argument from coming full force to the reader. I, unlike some, have no problem with him starting at the existential level, but I felt his case otherwise was weak. And if people are only going to pick up one book on Christian universalism, it will probably be this one and even then not because of the topic necessarily but because of the saga behind it! This means that while he has raised an important issue, I feel as if those evangelicals who are not sympathetic to EU will walk away having their suspicions confirmed in relation to the exegetical, theological, and traditional basis for the doctrine.
I agree there is value is raising questions in a less nuanced way, but there should be some follow through on those questions, even to some degree in the interviews he is conducting (Bell is a clever enough communicator to get his major points across without further inhibiting himself and the case for EU with silence and dodging). And this is where I feel like Bell fails EU believers and sympathizers. By offering flimsy exegesis with no scholarly substantiation and only a brief mention of the tradition that universalism held before Augustine (again with no scholarly substantiation or footnoting), he is confirming what many have believed to start with: EU is a non-starter and seemingly has no biblical underpinning.
And yes, the majority of evangelicals are opposed to EU and I wasn’t insinuating otherwise or that they now rejected it because of Bell. What I am pointing towards is the fact that that someone of the stature of Bell needed to raise the issue to create cognitive dissonance amongst us and offer more fire than smoke. Is it helpful to raise questions and fail to offer substantive answers? Or does this harm the case for EU in the long run? Now that the issue is out there for discussion and it is being read about in Bell’s book and maybe some evangelicals are giving EU a glance, they need scriptural, theological, and traditional backing to convince them that EU is at least a possibility. And I am of the opinion that Bell does a dreadful job here.
Maybe it is simply the crowd I frequent who want deeper scriptural exegesis and thought and at the end of the day if we adhere to Scripture as foundational, this is a valid concern. Yes, I believe people came to the book with inherently negative presuppositions, but I did not come to the book that way. Maybe it is the expectations I came to the book holding. I came expecting this man with a large platform to raise questions and at least offer a little more substance than he did because this may be the only encounter some evangelicals have with EU. If, I hadn’t have read Talbott and Parry and Jan Boda and Ansell and Jersak prior to reading Bell than there is no way I’d be a hopeful universalist today.
What do I think would have alleviated the issues I have with Bell in his work?
More substantive exegesis with footnotes pointing to his sources, so we can actually investigate these ourselves
Expanded mention of tradition because I feel like this is important for evangelicals to hear and again sourcing for his information
A larger list of works at the end of the book to reference with reference to Talbott and Parry and Jersak and Ansell’s work
I don’t expect Bell to have written a scholarly work to the degree Talbott, et al. have, but to at least give us a little more substance on such a controversial topic. Increasing the book by twenty pages with footnotes and a better recommended reading section aren’t all that much to ask.
Bob, to your point about Bell being invaluable (on the other thread), I think he would have been had he offered a little more substance, not a ton, but just some more depth for people to reflect on in relation to EU. Imagine if Bell had not aimed quite so much at the heart and offered just a little more for the head? Than we’d have a book that I’d be happy to give to friends, but as is I’m keeping my copy to myself and pointing them the brief introduction Robin has written about the Seven Myths of EU. And they are actually asking questions and it is prompting discussion. I guess if we take an all things to all people approach to the issue and realize that books generally can’t fulfill that scriptural maxim, I can agree that for some Bell will be better than Parry or Talbott, and vice versa. In my position, in my context Bell is not going to convince anyone, but I am open to the fact that to some he may be just what they need, even if I still think he should have broadened his work just a bit!
I hate to hear that at Regent the issue was handled that way referencing Talbott and Parry’s works. At Gordon-Conwell, I actually heard about TEU through a class lecture that was handled with grace and care and prompting for further discussion! There was no denigration, no quick dismissal, but discussion and a call for more discussion. But the discussion was called for because the arguments in TEU were substantive and my professor believed that they were at least worth continuing to examine. I won’t share his opinion on Bell’s book…
Perhaps we should understand who Bell’s audience is. Who is he ultimately trying to reach? If he is trying to reach the hardcore theologian, then he most likely did not succeed as the backlash shows. But at the same time, if he was trying to reach these demographics;
The Atheist/Agnostic wavering, wanting, so passionately desiring to believe in the Christian God but can’t for the doctrine and the anti-discussion prevalent in the church.
The “nominal” Christian who does not so openly embrace their beloved Lord because of difficulty with same said doctrine.
The pew-man who is diminished, and withering in his faith for seeing Damnation-doctrine in his heart as “it can’t be right”.
The babe in Christ having trouble with Christ for the brick wall that comes almost immediately after jubilation in salvation; “…what about my friends?”.
The one who questions so they may grow but is afraid of repercussions that come from the mindset; “to reject doctrine is to reject scripture, to reject scripture is to reject Jesus, to reject Jesus is to go to Hell; therefore, question ye not the teachings of thy pastor, for they are holy and without error.”
These demographics, that is; those without the doctorates in Theology from 1st Whitewool Baptist Bible Seminary of Littlebigtownsvilleshire by way of Puritan street; if these are his demographic we might have better understanding in what kind of success we might see. Perhaps we should not measure him to the theologian standards, if his demographic is not meant to sound so thoroughly “theological” and hence bring about the reaction of being; “too smart for me to read”, places where Talbott (whom I unfortunately have not yet read) and others may not be so successful.
In 2004 the Lord told me not to tell anyone I was a confirmed universalist and not to get my knowledge from anywhere but the Scriptures. Rob Bell did something right by not claiming to be a universalist and deflecting it every time it is mentioned because we don’t really know if he is…but at the same time, since he doesn’t use those terms, he is able to continue his outreach. His message is more powerful because they cause us to question what we were taught.
I listened to about a few dozen of his video clips and segments and he presses on the word ‘forever’, ‘all’, and the nature and character of God. By not confirming his belief to be a universalist, he doesn’t semgent anyone and people can continue to question what he is saying and think and make up their own minds.
Thanks for your balanced and thoughtful reflections on my comments. I actually formally agree with every point. I too wish that everyone would confront a more sustantial work than Bell.
I think I’m more positive because of my differing expectations and context. I think outside the academy 99% of evangelical religious discussion lacks “substance and scholarship,” but still shapes most people’s mindsets (with almost none of it raising Bell’s kind of concerns). The kind of books you wanted Bell to present are already in print (but read viritually nowhere in the evangelical world). And I fear that if he added “20 pages of footnotes” and “substantial exegesis,” he too would be in the roster of those with almost no hearing.
I sense the “context” you’re relating to is a conservative seminary. I agree that sharing Bell there would horribly backfire!
But most of the masses I know in the vineyard who name Christ are not in that setting, tend to follow very unscholarly leadership, and would have no inclination to wade though a “substantive” book. They listen to lightweights like Bell.
In full and candid disclosure, I think a turning point for me was Gulley’s “If Grace is True,” a liberal unscholarly rant that would appall serious evangelicals more than Bell. Yet the questions it rasised to the surface allowed me to own my simmering difficulty with the coherence and morality of the paradigm that I had been taught in earning a masters and doctorate at Fuller. That is what led me to seach out Talbott, Parry, Bonda, Ansell, Jerzak, serious comentaries, word studies, etc. That trajectory may bias me toward more sympathy with less impressive approaches.
Grace be with you,
Bob
P.S. In fairness, Regent can be diverse and gracious(ECT is not even in the doctrinal statement). And two summer school profs have privately told me that universalism is compelling for them. But publically students gather that it is an unacceptable non-starter that violates the essential paradigm.
Roofus, there are so many defenses of ECT, and Peterson seems to me equivalent to most of them (and better than some of the philosophical defenses like Kvanvig and Walls, which I regard as country club hells that don’t take the Biblical material seriously). Perhaps stronger is Powys, “Hell, A Hard Look at a Hard Question,” and S. Travis, “Christ and the Judgment of God.” Of course, my own bias makes me a poor judge since I perceive that very few of them really engage the substantive questions about the genre for Jesus’ use of Gehenna, Revelation’s apocalyptic genre, preterism, literalism, contemporary understandings of judgment and its’ purpose, etc. A book that lays out a more comprehensive case against universalist conclusions is Ajith Fernando’s “A Universal Homecoming? An examination of the case for universalism.” It’s less read than popular works, and is a redo of his doctoral dissertation at Fuller Seminary, printed in 1983, with a revised version later under a different title.