Thanks for the report, Tom.
Sonia
Nice. So he truly is a universalist, then! That’s awesome. At least this gets the topic out there for people to chew on. I think that universal reconciliation is really new to most people, while the concept on 173-177 isn’t so much (still don’t know exactly what to call that notion!) I like the phrase ‘differentiated truth of Jesus.’ That sounds really nice. Yes, I agree with that too. And it’s a more prominent belief especially since Lewis popularized it in The Last Battle installment of Narnia.
Maybe it could just be called God judging man’s heart? We might be misinformed as to the externals of religious trappings, but still recognize the truth in whatever form it is presented to us? James says true religion in God’s eyes is to take care of widows and orphans, and keep oneself unstained. That seems pretty basic and universally recognized. (But I have to admit my fundie roots start to have seizures if I dare think such things!) 
Sonia
I think Bell at heart is more poet/artist than engineer/scientist. (I’m trying to find the right counterpart to poet/artist!). Basically I think he naturally generates ambiguity and probably sees that as a strength and that may be because he feels driven to challenge the hubrice of those who think they have all the answers. He’s good at finding chinks in their armor. So when you try to pin him down and commit to something like UR his answer is to paint you a picture, to arouse a feeling, not place a check in the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ box. That’s too confining for him. An analytic philosopher or somebody more critical (if that’s even the right word) will be frustrated, as the blogs reveal.
One friend suggested that there are two kinds of people, those who love and thrive on asking questions and those who thrive on finding answers. Bell is the former. It’s almost as if stopping with asking the right questions IS the answer he thinks we most need.
But I gotta say, if I hear him say the word “story” one more time I’m gonna go ballistic! I get it, the whole postmodern lingo game, but it’s annoying!
Tom
I haven’t read Rob Bell’s book yet, but I’m glad he wrote it.
The hub bub about it opened up an interesting conversation with a retired Prebytarian minister who works at Right Aid.
I asked him if he thought it was heresy, and he said “No! That’s not heresy.”
And when I said that I might like to visit his church, it turned out that he goes to a Methodist Church now.
Finally, I asked him if he thought it made any difference whether I went to a Methodist or a Presbytarian Church, and he said no (and I found it a very interesting conversation for which I’m indebted to Rob Bell and his new book.)
I appreciate the review Tom. (Sounds a little like you took a bullet for the team! 
)
On the two points you “cored” from the book, I can say I agree. But it sounds like his approach is deeply post-modern fog-throwing (while still wanting to say something tough to opponents). I hate the whole concept of ‘See, if I can generate enough questions then that’s like having an answer!’ Puke.
I reaaaallllly doubt I would have the patience to work my way through the whiffle. I much prefer things like Kevin De Young’s counter-analysis (which I hope to get back to parsing through this weekend). Even where he’s wrong (and he’s wrong a lot), at least there’s something there to chew on, and he’s in there making a case on principles and data. The principles may be borked and the data may be faulty or incomplete, but someone can actually follow up on what he’s doing and agree “yes, that’s right” or “no, that’s wrong”, and have reasons for saying so. KDY put in work and effort and was trying to get things right according to the objective truth of the situation. That’s respectable and admirable. And professional.
I almost hate to ask, but how was Rob’s scriptural refs and application?
I’ve heard conservative evangelical friends describe Rob’s position as “soft annihilationism.” Not really sure what that means…
Not having read the book, my guess would be “hopeful universalist”.
I’m no expert but as far as I know hard annihilationism is when God goes zap and annihilates you. Where as soft annihilationism is where you keep refusing God’s love and walking away from Him into the outer darkness and eventually you just cease to exist. I believe C.S. Lewis described soft annihilationism in The Great Divorce.
Hey Tom, the other major message board I go to centers on a personality theory called Keirsey Temperament Theory. Basically Rob Bell would probably be an inquisitive Idealist and the “engineers/scientists” would be Rationals. Inquisitive types tend to be open-ended and ask lots of questions and love to convey information as well. Enterprising types want to close things up neatly enough to form a basis of action and move forward with things.
You can read more about it at www.keirsey.com.
Oh, right; I think N.T. Wright espouses something similar, where the person just sort of gradually ceases to be a person. Although I’m not sure he carries the end result as far as winking out of existence, but it has been awhile since I’ve read him on that.
I think that’s a good analysis of Bell. I’m Rational (INTJ) all the way, but I’ve learned to appreciate other types.
Sonia
I’m an INTP, but my P is borderline. I can go P or J depending on the context. (Ooops, that didn’t sound right–"…go p"?).
Tom
True, Stellar, true.
All theology is auto-biographical.
Tom
haha. Really now! That makes sense now that I think about it. 
I’m an ESTP (Promoter), but I’ve had an interesting history.
Actually, KTT is much different than MBTI though there’s some overlap. It’s more or less based on observable action than inner workings.
To an extent, yeah! We each see our own special aspect of God. That’s why the body of Christ is so important, so we can put all those facets together.
Looking through LOVE WINS again I’m again struck by how hard it is to pin Bell down on this question. He’s big on hell being something or some condition that is chosen by us, not assigned by God. He says on p 116 It’s not “Does God get what God wants?” but “Do we get what we want?” And then he says “the answer is a resounding, affirming, sure, and positive yes.”
And later (p 170) Bell says that “Hell is our refusal to trust God’s retelling of our story.” and “What the gospel does is confront our version of our story with God’s version of our story.” “Again, then, we create hell whenever we fail to trust God’s retelling of our story.”
On p 176 the importance of free choice: “We are free to accept or reject the invitation to new life that God extends to us. Our choice.”
So it seems clear to me that the most we can say about Bell is that he is certain that the path to salvation is open to everyone. But don’t ALL Arminians believe that?? To title a book LOVE WINS strongly implies that you believe that Loves goal of the best for everyone is actually realized. Yet Bell here also implies that this goal can be thwarted and denied. How he can believe this, yet also believe that LOVE WINS is left untouched.
To be even a hopeful Universalist it seems that one at least makes the prediction that it seems highly likely/probable that God is better at wooing and convincing the sinner to love and trust Him than the sinner is at resisting God forever. Yet Bell seems not to go there.
It seems likely then that Bell is “just” a straightforward Arminian whose main task is to remove the blame for hell from God and place it on us and thereby absolve (in his mind) God’s responsibility for hell.
I hope that doesn’t sound too unkind or unfair to Bell… 
TotalVictory
Bobx3
I still haven’t read it all yet, but Bell isn’t a classic Arminian as he leaves the door open for salvation after this life. He never closes the door of opportunity, God never says, “Too late!” That is enough, in my mind, to make him a hopeful universalist.
Sonia
Bell is simply expressing his beliefs. He doesn’t claim to know what he is sharing. He says that ECT nmight be true, but he doesn’t believe that it is. Watch the discussion that I posted, it is a quite interesting dialogue.
Well I do appreciate your optimism here Sonia, but even if he extends the time period available to experience salvation he also extends the whole “you can choose to resist God” idea as well!
Recalling the classic dilemma Talbott presents where one can only hold two of these three propositions (1: God loves all and wills salvation for all 2:God is successful in accomplishing His will and 3:the bible speaks of some being lost forever) it seems Bell holds that God’s will can be thwarted (by our choice) which should place him in the Arminian camp right?
Bell seems very strong on the idea that God desires salvation for all but much less so on the idea of hell or that God’s will can be explicitly thwarted for all time. Reading him one really needs to read between the lines to know his precise beliefs…
TotalVictory
Bobx3
roofus – would you be so kind as to redirect me to that discussion? Sorry but there’s been so many things linked to that I may have overlooked the discussion you note… 
Thanks!
TotalVictory
Bobx3