The Evangelical Universalist Forum

"The Prodigal Gospel of Rob Bell" (aka JRP's long review)

Featured Writers Jason Pratt
#8

UH… YEAH WHATEVER, BUT NONE OF THAT EXPLAINS WHY YOU KEEP SAYING HE’S A UNIVERSALIST ANYWAY DESPITE HIS OWN DENIALS OF BEING ONE…

I know, I’m getting there. In my roundabout way I’m also trying to lead up to explaining why his opponents aren’t only being massively ignorant gnat-wits in trying to insist that Rob is being “heretical” about something, namely about being a universalist.

See, they’re picking up on something, too: that subtle but crucial technical distinction between what Rob is claiming (and not claiming) and what Lewis was claiming. Lewis would sometimes strongly affirm the persistence of God in saving sinners from sin, but he would turn around later (sometimes in the same book!) and strongly disaffirm it, too. This is why Lewis was Arminianistic and not Calvinistic, categorically–as even Calv admirers of Lewis agree–and also why Lewis was definitely Arm instead of Kath (Katholic, Christian Universalistic). It wasn’t only that Lewis explicitly affirmed hopeless damnation (whether annihilationism or eternal conscious torment, though more toward the former than the latter). It was because Lewis explicitly denied the persistence of God’s salvation (despite affirming it elsewhere.)

Rob only affirms the scope and the persistence. He’s consistent about this. He doesn’t turn around and deny one or the other later, even when trying to explain how in fact some people might continue being punished by God as impenitent sinners and maybe even punished forever! This is also the big distinction between the Big Three Bs of 20th century ‘catholic’ systematic theology (Balthasar, Barth and Bulgakov) versus Lewis on soteriology: they also all refused to turn around and definitely deny the persistence or scope of God’s salvation. (I’m admittedly a bit fuzzier about Barth on this, but I think I’m right. I’ll certainly welcome correction!)

#9

AND WHY DOES THAT MAKE A DIFFERENCE? OTHER THAN BEING AT LEAST ADMIRABLY CONSISTENT (UNLIKE LEWIS OF ALL PEOPLE!) ON THIS TOPIC?

Keep in mind, most Calv and Arm theologians are just as admirably consistent on this topic, too. Lewis had to be inconsistent because (in my estimation) he was so awesomely competent that he came to see how both sides were correct in important ways (even though against each other)–but couldn’t quite figure out how to make this jive with what he thought was hard-core evidence against universalism being true. So (logically, in its own way) he had to flatly contradict himself on a point; and being a huge proponent of rational action and real (though derivative) free will, he turned around in a way that protected free will at the expense of protecting sinners from being successfully saved by God! As a Calv might disapprovingly (and in a way quite correctly) put it, Lewis sacrificed the omnicompetent Lordship of God to the lordship of Man.

Rob refuses to do that; which is ironic since his Calv opponents (and even some Arm opponents) paint him as sacrificing God’s Lordship for Man’s, too. But because Rob refuses to sacrifice God’s Lordship to the free will of Man, Rob also refuses the softer Arminian route taken by Lewis: sinners don’t get to finally defeat God (by God’s permission or otherwise).

But also because Rob refuses to sacrifice the loving Lordship of God, affirming this Lordship instead (if on rather vague grounds, which his opponents see plenty of avenue for attacking, and rightly so in a way), Rob refuses the harder Arminian route taken by hardcore Arms: God eventually loses patience and just gives up trying. Or even stops trying for anyone after Christ (analogically speaking) opens the door of the fold, leaving it entirely up to the sheep to wander in if we care to and not if not (even if we’re out stuck on the hillside and simply have no opportunity to get to the fold of the door!)

On the other hand, and in much the same way, because Rob refuses to sacrifice the loving Lordship of God, affirming it instead, Rob refuses the Calvinistic route of claiming God acts to save some sinners but not to save all of them.

#10

And that’s the nub of the matter. Rob claims that God acts with ultimate broadness of scope to save sinners, and Rob also claims God acts with ultimate deepness of persistence to save sinners. He doesn’t put the matter in quite that fashion, but that’s what it adds up to. And he doesn’t turn around later and deny one of those positions.

Calvs think Arms are in doctrinal error (which is technical heresy even if not the sin of heresy) for insisting on the scope of God’s salvation. So logically they’re going to think Rob is heretical too for exactly the same reason. Depending on how charitable they are, Calvs might bother to mention that Rob is entirely correct about God’s persistence in salvation, but they have to call a spade a spade and coup him for heresy on the scope.

Arms think Calvs are in doctrinal error (which is technical heresy even if not the sin of heresy) for insisting on the persistence of God’s salvation. So logically they’re going to think Rob is heretical too for exactly the same reason. Depending on how charitable they are, Arms might bother to mention that Rob is entirely correct about God’s scope in salvation, but they have to call a spade a spade and coup him for heresy on the persistence.

Moreover, a lot of people (even trained professionals) are unable to see any difference between a technical error and the ethical sin of heresy. So that adds a lot of nitro to the fire.

More moreover, a lot of people (even trained professionals) believe in salvation by correct doctrinal assent (even though ironically this is the heresy of gnosticism!) So even if they might allow that Rob isn’t sinning, he’s still (if they’re right) leading people into hopeless damnation by teaching them not to believe the right doctrinal passcards to get into heaven. No one is tolerant of ebola; nor should they be!

#11

To give another relevant example: I strongly affirm and refuse to deny the scope and the persistence of God’s salvation of sinners from sin. I do so for picky technical reasons involving my assent of orthodox trinitarian theism being true, rather than for vague emotional reasons of the sort Rob talks about in his book; but we’re still at the same subsequent doctrinal result.

Now I can believe this and still believe (and even insist) that, out of love for the sinner, God will not simply treat the sinner as a puppet or brainwash the sinner into doing right with an omnipotent poof of power. Rob is exactly on board with that, too. Consequently, I could believe that some sinners might choose to keep on rebelling forever; or they might not, who knows? Once again, this is exactly where Rob ends up in the book. If God saves them, love wins. If God keeps them in existence and able to rebel but also able to repent someday (even if they themselves never choose to do so) and keeps leading them to repent forever (even if they never do), then love at least still hasn’t lost!–and love is still loving those sinners with an actively saving love.

But I would be a universalist, even if I believed that and no further. I know because that was in fact how I first came to be a universalist: I came to realize God’s salvation was both universal in scope and universal in persistence. That’s neither Calvinistic theology nor Arminianistic theology.

That’s universalism.

And that’s why Rob is also a universalist.

#12

As it happens, I also affirm in favor of the scriptures that seem to indicate God will eventually succeed in saving everyone. Rob knows and talks about at least some of those same scriptures, and he shows that he knows perfectly well what they add up to. Unlike me, Rob doesn’t interpret those over against other scriptures appearing to talk about hopeless damnation. Based on things he writes in the book, I expect this is because he thinks he is somehow preserving human free will. And he may just not see any principle clearly strong enough to serve as certain ground for interpreting one set in light of another set.

I do think I see such a principle, namely the uniquely foundational love of the Trinity which also serves as the one and only ground of morality and ethics–against which love, not coincidentally, we act when we are sinning! When all contextual exegetics are said and done, and I am left with ambiguous results in some cases, then I check to see if one or another interpretation is affirming or denying the doctrines of the Trinity (of which there are a much larger number than even most professionals keep in mind or maybe even are aware of!) If one affirms and another denies, I go with the affirmation: and I find and believe that this affirmation of the Trinity leads to universalism.

So I would say love wins, and I would mean love wins, not that love doesn’t lose.

Rob says love wins, and means love may or may not win who knows but at least love doesn’t lose (much less never ‘plays’ at all.)

A non-universalist, however, hearing someone affirm the scope and the persistence of God’s salvation who also affirms very strongly that “Love Wins” in regard to “Heaven and Hell and the FATE OF EVERY PERSON WHO HAS EVER LIVED ZOMG!!!1”, is going to think… what?

…THAT THIS PERSON REALLY BELIEVES LOVE WINS IN REGARD TO HEAVEN AND HELL AND THE FATE OF EVERY PERSON WHO HAS EVER LIVED?

Ding.

#13

BUT DESPITE THE TITLE OF ROB’S BOOK, ROB DOESN’T REALLY BELIEVE THAT? HE ONLY BELIEVES LOVE WINS IN SOME CASES AND MAY PERHAPS WIN ALTOGETHER BUT AT LEAST WILL NEVER OUTRIGHT LOSE?

Doesn’t make for quite as an attention-catching book title, hm? It’s still technically universalism, though.

MARKETING FOOFARAW?

Maybe. But I doubt it. Sometimes authors don’t get to choose their titles, but in this case based on some things he says in-text I think he at least approved the title. And maybe chose it. And maybe insisted on it.

Whether I’m right about that or not, non-universalists are correct to be hopping up and down about him claiming universalism to be true. He’s claiming universalism to be true, even if not in such words; he is not claiming “love wins” in the fashion that either Arms or Calvs might try to claim it; and he outright refuses to deny “love wins”.

And he claims that non-universalists (even though not using that term) are certainly making a terrible and even ethically horrible mistake by preaching (what amounts to one or another kind of) non-universalism.

If he walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and swims like a duck and has a bill like a duck and downy feathers like a duck and webbed feet like a duck and wings like a duck and eats the same kind of food as a duck–then he might be a baby swan who hasn’t grown up yet (and doesn’t believe he’s a swan)! But he’s still that kind of bird, and not a eagle/vulture/falcon kind of bird, nor an ostrich/moa/cassowary kind of bird. And people who think they ought to shoot ducks but not eagles or cassowaries will naturally be opening up duck season on him (even “in season and out of season” as they would believe the apostle expects against ducks!) when they hear him loudly quacking in the air overhead.

(Keeping in mind, ducks and swans can be as ill-tempered and pushy and unpleasant and even in their own ways as dangerous as the other two kinds!–I’m not borrowing nice vs. nasty bird analogies here. I think cassowaries and falcon/eagles are both excessively awesome sometimes, and at least admirably impressive even when they’re being annoying or hurtful. But they aren’t duck/swan/goose types of bird, nor vice versa.)

ENOUGH QUACKING THEN! ARE YOU GOING TO BE DONE ANYTIME SOON?

Not unless you don’t want to read a summary and commentary of the book.

… {TRYING TO PARSE OUT THE GRAMMAR OF THAT REPLY…} UH… SURE? WAIT, YOU MEAN ALL THAT WASN’T THE SUMMARY AND COMMENTARY??? OH HELL…

I’ll move along quickly. Relatively quickly. Part 3 next.

#14

I don’t think you are getting the point of Bell’s book. He wants people, just average everyday people, to be able to know Jesus and be whole. He is not making a theological treatise. Traditional theologian led Christianity has lost the gospel, It is the theologian who has made the good news into bad. He wants people to find Christ in spite of the theological mess that we have made. Look at his Nooma videos; they are about real people turning to Christ and being transformed. I have read two books by Tom Talbott and Robin Parry and they were very informative to me, but I was once a doubting Neocalvanist who went to seminary briefly and has studied systematic theology. I could not hand either book to my Buddhist teacher friend who is beginning to look at Christianity. Her biggest problem in seeking Jesus was the general concept of Hell. I could and did give her my copy of Love Wins. That is the point of his book. I could not have given her the other two no matter how sound their arguments are.

Jesus came to seek and save those of us who are lost. Be very careful not to become as damnably proud of your theological system as the Pharisees were and Calvinists and Arminians have become. The fact that Jesus spends so much time correcting the thinking of the religious people of his day must inform us, warn us. All of us need to walk in faith in Jesus. He tells the sinners he encounters to follow Him and leave the sin. In contrast He tells the religious that they must be born again. They have to start all over and be as children to have faith in him. When we walk with Him only that which is love, joy, peace patience, kindness, gentleness, etc. will survive. That which is good walks on with Him the rest falls off.

By the way, Talbott’s and Parry’s books convinced me intellectually that the Calvinist view was incorrect and were a great help to me. However, the night I finished reading Love Wins I turned to Jesus and I was born again. I could say to Him, “that’s what I want” and dove in. It touched me where I lived not just intellectually.

#15

Dave, what you wrote, well said. Particularly this:

Jason, I have read everything on this page so far (14 posts) and all I can glean from what you’ve written is that Rob Bell is a universalist but he doesn’t want to say he is. Seems like a lot of posts to say that. I would normally assume 14 posts would be enough for me to have a pretty good idea about a book being reviewed. Unless I’m missing something. **

#16

I’m deleting my post. I overreacted and am withdrawing my comments. Sorry.

#17

True! On both counts! I’ll be talking about that later. As well as about some other things. Such as…

…whether it makes any difference if he makes a theological mess himself along the way. :wink:

Which brings up, not incidentally, his charges (which are quite strong though not numerous) that theologians (by which he means other theologians, not himself) have made a horrible mess of things.

Well any hick preacher off the street could say the exact same thing about Rob Bell, without wanting or (in his opinion) needing any valid grounds and accurate data for saying so. That wouldn’t be fair to Rob, though. So why is it fair for Rob to make that accusation without providing valid grounds and accurate data for saying so?

Oh, does he provide valid grounds and accurate data for saying so? Then we ought to be able to check those over ourselves to see how well they hold up. If they don’t hold up well, though, then what is his defense going to be?–that he’s only trying to be an informal casual preacher reaching out to people at a popular level and so doesn’t need to provide accurate reasons for doing so because the common reader wouldn’t understand or appreciate it–even though they’re implicitly supposed to be trusting him to have done his homework and to know what he’s talking about?

Then we’re back to him having no evidently good reason to be slagging other teachers and preachers.

Anyway I’ll be covering things of that sort, pro and con, as I go along. This opening “Duck Season” entry was not aimed at assessing any of that.

That’s excellent advice!–and one way to keep from getting that damnably proud is to make sure one acknowledges as much real credit as possible even to one’s staunchest enemies (as, by the way, Christ did even for the Pharisees).

Does Rob do that in LW?

(I’ll be talking about that, too, along the way.)

And thank God for that!–especially being born again!

But are you not aware that the teachers and preachers Rob condemns also lead people to be born again in Jesus? And should they not be critiqued if they have sloppy theology, if their sloppiness involves being unfair to their opposition? (Not to say if the sloppiness of their theology turns out to be misleading their congregations on some matters?)

I actually agree with most of what Rob is aiming for. Heck, I actually agree more with what he is aiming for than Rob himself apparently does. :wink: But that in itself doesn’t mean I should give him a pass, just because it happens to be convenient for my own beliefs to do so.

(There could be other reasons to give him a pass. But if giving him a pass means also acquiescing in anything unfair he himself happens to be doing…? Then no: I’m not going to go along with that.)

#18

Of course it only takes one sentence to say “Rob Bell is a universalist but doesn’t want to say he is.” There, I just said it myself in one sentence. :slight_smile:

But that one sentence opens up a number of issues. Starting with: if he says he isn’t, then why am I saying he is?? My mere sayso in one sentence is not a sufficient explanation. This also leads into the question of why his opponents typically agree he is, even though he says he isn’t. Do they have any good reason at all to be saying so? And why would he say he isn’t anyway?

All that took me some time to hash out–not least because I am strongly sympathetic to the notion that a person ought to be taken seriously when he’s making claims about himself. And that was before even starting the commentary on his book per se!

Remember in Chapter 1 when Rob started with one concept, the “age of accountability”, and went on an epic run throughout most of that chapter pointing out how that question leads to ever-growing complexity in trying to suss out what it means, and how attempts at trying to “simply” answer that question were too over-simple and led to even more complexity with ever more questions needing answers? Especially once scriptural testimony starts to be factored in?

That took a while. And all he was doing (for the most part) was asking questions! Imagine how much time and effort it would have taken him to chew over even a few sets of answers to those questions!

(But this starts to get into the question of whether he is trying to make an implied argument by innuendo without really spending time addressing attempts to answer those questions. And how fair it is for him to be trying that. :wink: More on this in the next part. I will say here, though, that that was my favorite thing he did in Chapter 1. :slight_smile: Even though I’m not so fond of other things he did along the way.)

#19

Jason,

My perception of Bell’s basic assumptions and type of universalism seems very close to yours, and yes, I think it overlaps Barth and Balthasar a lot. I think it corresponds to “hopeful universalism.” Would that term encompass your take? I sense that one reason he distances from the term “universalist,” is that it is often understood as ‘dogmatic universalism,’ and he wants to most fully preserve a sense of the reality of our responses and genuine human freedom to resist God, even though I suspect Bell’s deepest intuition is that God will surely prevail. I think this puts him essentially close to Talbott and Parry’s approach, but much more effective at changing lives among those to which he can much better communicate on a popular level.

My own sense is also that he is much more familiar with some of the basic theological and exegetical debates than many commentators have suggested. So of course, especially in such a popular work for the masses, we can easily critique lack of precision and documentation, unconvincing incoherence, etc. But my impression is that most doctoral dissertations are also regularly criticized as being unconvincing for the same basic reasons. Critiques of Talbott’s book in the evangelical journals certainly consistently argued that it was shoddy, unscholarly, etc, even if some of us would recognize that it is a much more high caliber work.

#20

Let me come from a different angle. I work in a place that is an academic “lifeboat station” for at risk troubled kids, therfore from a Christian perspective I watch people being destroyed by pure evil daily. One of my greatest struggles within myself is a general inability to show them the loving God who can save them. The common gospel with hell as the center point was usless, telling shattered students that gospel is like throwing gas on the fire. I need real practical ways to share the real truth of God with these kids. The two books mentioned in the first post laid the theological posibilities out but did not help me work out the practical implications for sharing the reality of a real loving God. George MacDonald was where I first saw the possibility of sharing a truly real and loving God. I would read with tears of joy, my soul being transformed. But it was after all books of fiction, the question remained does this really work in reality. I could not give one of MacDonalds books to any one I know and expect them to understand what I am trying to tell them. So when I read Love Wins I found someone who is laying out a modern practical explenation of a loving God who is activly trying to save every one. It is practical basic and freeing in its basic presentation. I can present that gospel to an abused street kid and offer him hope. I can give my Buddhist friend the book to remove the barrier of a wrong view of Hell and explain a strait forward gospel. Basic people can understand it. It is not designed to answer the questions of the theological Christian. If you have another book, a better simple and strait forward explenation that regular people can understand tell me about it, I hunger for it.

#21

Dave, Thanks for that post. I wholeheartedly agree with all you say. “Love Wins” is a precious and useful book, far more accessible to non-specialists and non-christians than the other books currently available.

#22

Part 3: A Really Short Review (And Why It Won’t Be Short)

SO, HOW MANY CHAPTERS DOES THIS THING HAVE ANYWAY?

Nine, including the preface which for all practical purposes is its own chapter. The whole thing runs just short of 200 pages total. It’s a bit larger than I was expecting, actually.

NO, WE MEANT YOUR FAQ. BUT… EEEEK!–PLEASE TELL US YOU WEREN’T ANSWERING CONCERNING YOUR FAQ!!?

No no! This FAQ didn’t have a preface, silly.

WHEW, GOOD.

Although at the time I’m posting this Part of the FAQ, I’m only almost done with commenting on his Chapter 2. Almost. Also, now that I think of it, I did have a preface post in a way… Wow, maybe you should be going eeek. :mrgreen:

WHAT!? THAT’S RIDICULOUS!

I’m hoping (somewhat desperately by now!) I can speed things up as I get to later chapters, where (if I recall correctly) I’ll have less to complain about. Though I may still have quite a bit to defend Rob about.

(Hindsight note: there ended up being ten parts to this review! So, yes, panic. :slight_smile: )

#23

SIGH. CAN YOU REVIEW THE BOOK REALLY REALLY FAST SO WE DON’T HAVE TO READ THE REST OF THIS?!

I was impressed with some of it, and even thought some parts were brilliant. I was also vastly disappointed with other parts. Some parts were meh. I think it’s a useful book, and I’m glad we have it. I also don’t blame his opponents for trying to lynch him in regard to some things. The end. :slight_smile:

…WE’RE GOING TO BE SORRY IF WE ASK FOR MORE DETAILS THAN THAT, AREN’T WE?

{pointing to the rest of the review and commentary} :wink:

#24

YOU DO REALIZE HE WASN’T WRITING A TOME OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, RIGHT?

Yep! I’m not disappointed he isn’t doing what he wasn’t trying to do. I think I can accurately say I don’t critique him on a single technical point in the review / commentary I’ve written so far (as of when I posted this Part); and from what I recall of later chapters I don’t plan on doing so later either.

On the other hand, I do think it’s important to point out sometimes when his–

SO EXPLAIN WHY YOU WROTE NINE PAGES WORTH OF PART 2, IF THAT WASN’T A TECHNICAL COMPLAINT!! BECAUSE IT SURE LOOKED (BORINGLY) TECHNICAL!

It also wasn’t part of the review and commentary, as I joked about at the time.

And my critique of Rob there, insofar as there was a critique–

YOU CALLED HIM LOOSEY-GOOSEY AS A THEOLOGIAN COMPARED TO TECHNICALLY DETAILED ONES!

I also compared his results favorably with those same three giants in the field, each representative and well-respected in their huge branches of Christian communion. Not bad for a loosey-goosey ‘popular’ theologian, hm?

#25

BUT WHY BOTHER WITH IT AT ALL INSTEAD OF STARTING THE REVIEW?!

Because typically the first thing anyone interested in the book wants to know, pro or con, is whether Rob Bell is a universalist. That question precedes their interest in the book either way; and that question is the angle his publicists (at least) have been marketing the book on (which is why that’s the first thing anyone interested in the book wants to know, pro or con).

Yet why is there even a question on this? Why isn’t it instantly obvious and agreed on all sides, including by Rob himself, whether he is or is not a universalist?

Go ahead, guess. I’ll wait. You should need only one guess.

BECAUSE HIS THEOLOGY (AT LEAST IN THE BOOK) IS KIND OF LOOSEY-GOOSEY AND THEREFORE UNCLEAR ON THE TOPIC?

Ding.

#26

Granted, even the Big Three Bs are kind of unclear on the topic, despite their theologies being far more technically detailed than Rob’s (in rather different ways compared to each other). As it happens they have similar reasons, with Rob, for the unclarity, though not always the same underlying rationales. Bulgakov is trying to avoid taking a teaching position on a point that his communion authoritatively avoids taking a teaching position on without an official Council to debate the matter–a Council that won’t be forthcoming for important religio-political reasons related to the hope of reconciling with the Roman Catholic Church someday instead of further driving schism between them. Balthasar, as a loyal Roman Catholic, is (understandably) trying to avoid going up against papal dogma against universalism. Barth is closer to Rob’s Protestant reluctance on this: he just thinks he isn’t a universalist if he denies certainty on the success (and maybe wants to avoid having his work thrown away by association.) None of them, including Rob, even want to be categorized as “hopeful universalists” (though Bulgakov comes closest to being an exception at the end of The Bride of The Lamb). Hopeful yes. Hopeful universalist, no. Even though they are. :slight_smile:

BUT THEN BELL DECIDED TO PROMOTE THE TEASE OF THE QUESTION.

Which can’t help but look suspicious to his opponents, compared to the reticience of Barth (for example), or Moltmann for that matter (another hugely well-respected Protestant systematic theologian who’s kind-of-a-universalist but doesn’t promote himself on the tease of this. Or not to the same extent Rob has been doing.)

There has been a lot of confusion in the press and among commentators (and opponents) as to whether Rob Bell is teaching (and preaching!) universalism or not. He says not. Other people say yes or no or they don’t know. His opponents especially are saying “Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yyyyesssssssssss! {pant pant}”

Accounting for that confusion with respect to all sides, took some time; and I needed to do it first because that’s the first question people have on what’s going on. I could have written “Yes, Rob Bell is a universalist, but he’s trying not to be, the end glory hallelujah,” but my mere sayso wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) count for much. Especially since my own sympathies might lead me to say so for sake of wish fulfillment.

#27

BUT WHY BOTHER TRYING TO ANSWER ANY SUCH QUESTIONS AT ALL?? CAN’T YOU JUST GLORY IN THE VAGUE TACIT AMBIGUITY OF THE BEAUTY OF THE QUESTIONS ETC.?!

Uh, no.

But this brings me to a point I’ll be talking more about as I go along (especially in Rob’s opening chapters), but which has a bearing here on why this review and commentary is so lengthy.

Rob asks a lot of questions. A little more accurately, he throws out a lot of questions. He does try to provide answers to some of them, but on the internet this kind of behavior is also called topic spamming: the human mind naturally just gets overwhelmed into not even trying to consider the answers to all those questions, and people often use that result to try to make arguments by implied innuendo.

Setting aside (but not for long) the question (and answer!) of whether Rob is using his topic spamming for that purpose–if we take seriously any respect for the questions as more than a convenient rhetorical fog to hide behind, then we try to deal with the various answers to those questions pro or con. But it takes much, much longer to do that than to ask the questions in the first place.

I am not going to be going much into the technical issues, thus I am not in fact going to try to discuss and answer all those questions.

But in choosing to proceed this way, Rob himself is either inviting vastly much more discussion on what he’s writing about, or he’s only using a rhetorical trick to cheat his readers.

And regardless of which one (or both?) of those answers is true, the cold fact of the matter is that Rob’s defenders have often appealed to just that principle: all he’s doing is asking questions!–why are his opponents getting so angry?–he isn’t doing anything wrong!–this shows just how oppressive they are, that they’re scared of a bunch of questions! Etc.!