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.
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. 
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. 
)
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. 
…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} 
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.!
All right, fine. Can we question Rob in return then? Or not?
If not, then when did Rob become Pope?–and why should any Protestant or Eastern Orthodox Christian (much less any Roman Catholic Christian!) accept him as such?
If so: then the answers to those questions might or might not turn out to be problematic for Rob.
That’s how fair inquiry works. And fair inquiry takes time and effort.
If the problem is that a fair inquiry might turn up problems…? Well, too bad.
BUT DON’T YOU REALIZE ROB BELL HAS HELPED A BUNCH OF PEOPLE COME TO ACCEPT CHRIST AND COME CLOSER TO CHRIST??
Yes I do, and I’m glad for that! You know who else has helped a bunch of people come to accept Christ and come closer to Christ? A bunch of non-universalists. Many of whom are concerned that Rob isn’t helping people accept Christ and come closer to Christ. Whereas Rob is concerned that those non-universalists are failing in much the same way.
Just as it isn’t fair to simply ignore Rob’s concerns in order to pay attention to other people’s concerns about Rob, it isn’t fair to simply ignore other people’s concerns about Rob in order to pay attention to Rob’s concerns about other people.
Let me put it another way. I called this a “fraternally anticipated question” list. That wasn’t only because I intended to use the “ALL CAPS” portions to (hopefully somewhat humorously) anticipate concerns and responses from a potentially hostile audience of my Christian figurative-brothers (aside from whether they would bother to acknowledge me as a brother or not–and even aside from whether they’re non-universalist or not!)
I also called it that because I am (somewhat humorously) anticipating concerns and questions from my literal brother: an intelligent, mission-minded servant of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is not only a non-universalist (as I once was), but is deeply concerned about universalists being Christian at all (as I once was) and maybe even leading people astray to damnation. My brother is concerned about me being hurt by people like Rob Bell, because he loves me. And he’s concerned about other people being hurt by people like Rob Bell (and like myself for that matter!), because he loves them. And all this because he loves God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit.
Now if my literal brother is being unfair to Rob Bell in various ways, especially while accusing him of crimes against God and against other people, am I supposed to give him a pass because he’s my brother and I love him and he’s helping people come to Christ himself?
If not my literal brother, or my Christian non-universalist brothers, then what if my Christian universalist brother is being unfair to non-universalists in various ways, especially while accusing them of crimes against God and against other people?
When non-universalists are being unfair to universalists, they’re being unfair to my friends and Christian brothers and sisters. But when universalists are being unfair to non-universalists, they aren’t only being unfair to my friends and Christian brothers and sisters, they’re being unfair to my literal family!
(Much the same way: when non-Christians are being unfair to Christians, they’re not only being unfair to my friends, they’re being unfair to my family. Whereas, when Christians are being unfair to non-Christians, there’s a good chance they’re being unfair to my most beloved under God!–and to the ones, and the one, whom she loves most!!)
If Rob Bell was only some internet commentator (like for example myself ), this wouldn’t be so much of a problem. But he was already influentially famous worldwide, and now is substantially moreso after publishing Love Wins. He had a chance to help make peace between us.
And my complaints, at bottom, are going to be–not that he failed to be technically proficient (except where this adds to the confusions and problems)–but that in various ways he has kept the cycle of hatred going, when he could have very easily acted to help stop that cycle, while still critting problems.
I’m going to say a lot of good things about what Rob does in the book. I’m going to defend him from oppositional criticism several times along the way. But I was terribly, terribly disappointed in how he proceeded on some issues–not related to his technical theology (or not primarily so), but related to his treatment of his opposition. I cannot in good faith, in good faithfulness to the righteous fair-togetherness of our Lord, let that pass. I think it’s something his supporters just aren’t willing to hear from his opponents (who are naturally sensitive to such things). Someone who supports what he’s doing (more or less) needs to say something.
People are listening to Rob Bell. And non-universalists are not listening to him on some things–maybe because it’s too inconvenient, but also partly because he makes things harder sometimes, not easier, by being evasive. And, I think it must be said, also because he cheats–and they’re rightfully upset about that.
Universalists are also not listening to him sometimes. We have to listen to the problems as well as to the things we agree with. We aren’t being faithful first to God if we don’t. We’re being faithful first to Rob Bell.
The road of justice requires us to be fair and loving to our enemies, even if we have to oppose them. That is one of the toughest lessons in the world to learn (or beyond the world either). It’s a fundamental truth, grounded in God. We deny it at our own peril: our own salvation from sin absolutely depends on that truth being applied in our favor; and our own salvation from sin absolutely depends on that truth being applied in our enemy’s favor, too.
Is Rob Bell being fair to his enemies in Love Wins?
No. By and large, and I grieve to say so, no he is not.
That is a huge problem. Not least because the hope of universal salvation is directly connected to the principle of fairness and love being fulfilled even to the enemies of God–to ‘them’ not only to ‘us’.
Fortunately, I can report that Rob is certainly somewhat aware of this–and makes good use of it, too!
Unfortunately, Rob is not yet aware of this enough. And that is causing problems and hostility in our culture as people take up arms around him, for him or against him.
And that’s why I’m writing a long review and commentary.
Was Jesus being “fair” to the Pharisees in Matthew 23?
I love theology, attended seminary (in the mid 1980’s), and write very technically about some subjects
And I read Bell and think “WOW, he’s putting into words what I already know because God has been showing me the same thing”.
I have barely cracked “Love Wins” due to my responsibilities juggling full time college (RN program), part time elected office, and taking care of the needs of the youngest four children who still live at home (8,11,13,16). But I read “Sex God” in its entirety, and some of “Velvet Elvis”
and **Rob Bell hears what the Spirit is saying to the church. **
I have been part of a small ladies Bible Study for about 7 years and four of us have been through a lot together. They knew that I had been tilting universalist due to marriage issues and they were wary of it. None of them is theologically geeky like me, though they have appreciated some of my studies. One of Chris’ friends lent her a copy of “Love Wins” and she read it. Chris is 70 and the founder of the study. Wanda had a dream (long story). Anyway, a few weeks ago at Bible Study, every single one of them came out as universalistic. The whole Bible Study converted. We all KNOW.
“Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the church.”
Yes He was. Among other things, He even acknowledged credit for what they were doing right.
Merely critiquing someone strongly is not being unfair to that person. Misrepresenting them in order to critique them, is. Contradicting one’s own principles in order to critique them, also is. And Jesus had some excessively strong things to say to the Pharisees about that, too.
Excellent! I’m not only very happy about that, I hope it was due to the good things Rob does in his book!
And not due to the less than good things.
But the less than good things have to be talked about, too. There aren’t as many of them as the good things, but they’re there.
Like I said, Jason, I haven’t read but the first two chapters of** this **Bell book.
I’ve seen several interviews and have come away very concerned for him about all the attention he’s getting and the distraction that it will be from his being able to sit at the feet of Jesus and hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches. I pray for him along those lines. Many a celebrity preacher has fallen.
Oh and BTW, my husband is reading Bell and was critical of how he handled the rich man and Lazarus account. Hermeneutically speaking, I agreed with my husband’s criticisms. One cannot take a leap like Bell did. (unfortunately he took the book with him on a business trip so I don’t have the specifics)
Anyway, though I’m sure I will disagree with some details like that, I still think Bell is very spiritually sensitive and that the whole controversy and “Times Best Seller” phenom is right from God.
there’s a good chance they’re being unfair to my most beloved under God!–and to the ones, and the one, whom she loves most!!)
Sorry for the aside and sorry if I am being dense, but, who is “she”? Just curious…
She is she who must not be named.
(I only talk about her rarely for special emphasis; don’t feel bad if you haven’t seen her mentioned before.)
Well Jason, it’s easier to read this given the insight, and humility it took to say this! 
I will say that it’s fun reading; though I doubt as much fun as you seem to be having writing it!
I do feel your energy and engagement however…
Do you think Bell is actually trying to be obscure? Really?
Hmmm — me too. 
But it’s brilliant and has obviously had the intended effect. He ain’t writin’ for us Jason.
Ask yourself this (as I surely have). Did Jesus teach via parables with the intent to obscure??
Hardly.
Yet I have little doubt that this is the effect He actually had!
As I see this, Bell is trying hard to empower people to ask and try to answer their own questions! He is trying to teach people to do the very things that those who come to a site like this one do second nature.
We forget how hard it is for many (most?) to break from tradition; from the safety of the “group”; to feel like they’re not disrespecting God for asking the hard questions that they’re tired of suppressing.
Bell’s pastoral instinct here in his book is nothing short of superb – to my way of thinking. He in effect hands the reigns to each and every mind hearing/reading and emboldens them to figure it out for themselves. To confront Almighty God alone, and begin to make personal sense of it all!
My God that is a Holy calling!
Bell’s saying, in effect, don’t come to ME for your theology and doctrine, go to the Bible, go to God for yourselves! He asks his calibrated questions with the intent to evoke a response.
He actually trusts that God can and WILL be able to carry and nurture these folks to deeper knowledge of Him.
For this I say bless him; Bless Him; BLESS HIM!
Oh, I know what you mean for sure; but I think he knows EXACTLY what he means and where he intends to lead his reader! This is the measure of his brilliance as a Pastor. He is trying, BEGGING his reader to TAKE the mantle of Christ’s priesthood and thus be empowered to go out and testify in utter confidence.
Does Bell seem coy and elusive?? Oh yes!
Perhaps he knew Carlton Pearson and is too savvy to duplicate that debacle.
Bell is not trying to be a reference book on the subject.
But fact is, I’ve had conversations by the many, about Universalism, that I never would have had otherwise were it not for this book.
Now I know you well enough I think to know that you DO bless him.
So that’s how I am reading you JRP!!
Carry on…
TotalVictory
Bobx3
Jason, thankyou! 
Now I can die a happy man!
Seriously though, I’ve actually enjoyed reading the interchange between you and the others who have responded in this thread.
I haven’t read the book yet. My wife has. A student of mine took it home last night. He is quite wary of universalism, and I suspect is only giving it a thought because I mentioned yesterday that I 100% believed it. Anyway, he brought it back this morning and said he’d started skimming it, and a number of parts “set alarm bells off in my head”, and proceeded to talk about false teachers and heresy and stuff. I smiled and said that was completely fine. He did say he still wanted to talk to me about it, but just not read the book. Would that fit with your impression of it?