Friday, March 25, 2011

The Problem with Rob Bell

The Problem with Rob Bell

Don’t get me wrong. I actually like Rob Bell and I have no intention of bashing him in this blog. He is a truly gifted storyteller that comes across as being genuinely passionate for the lost. I do not think that he has written his latest book simply to make money or to lead people astray. In fact, I would go further to say that Rob Bell has at least done modern Christianity a favor by bringing a discussion to the table that most people are afraid to speak about.

I have participated in discussions with atheists and agnostics for a good number of years now. It is often easy to dismiss the questions and objections of both of these groups without giving it some serious thought. Serious thought leads to serious questions and apparently Rob Bell has at least been listening to this group. The first chapter in his new book is really not much more than a summation of arguments of an atheist acquaintance of mine.

These are serious questions. They are questions that should be addressed. I applaud Rob for bringing them to light. However, the wording of a question can often lead one to an emotional response. Rob has phrased these questions in such a manner as to create an emotional response in the reader. As a pastor and a voice in Christianity that many listen to, Rob should make his case from scripture for whatever point he would like to argue in favor of without manipulating the reader by emotional pleas. However, this is a minor complaint. He is not the only one to use such methods for persuasive purposes.

My real problem is actually the underlying message in the book. Believe it or not I am not talking about the universalism that is throughout the book. No, there is something else at heart here that needs to be addressed and universalism is merely a symptom.

Perhaps Rob has seen too much of Fred Phelps in the news and it has caused him to question the God of the Fred Phelps of the world. Perhaps this is what led him to write Love Wins. Surely God does not hate everyone that Fred Phelps hates, right? A God like that is not just. A God like that is not love. A God like that is not merciful. You see what really irritates people about Fred Phelps is that he judges everyone and it is not his place to say who gets to heaven and who does not.

Nor is it Rob Bell’s place to judge everyone and that is really the underlying problem for both Rob Bell and Fred Phelps (and ironically everyone who rushes to condemn either of them). You don’t see the similarity? Fred sees judgment and condemns. Rob sees love and pardons. Each is sitting in a place that is not theirs. It is God’s to forgive and to condemn and not ours and sometimes in the heat of the debate we forget this. Perhaps the largest component of faith in God is trust. Both Fred and Rob have assumed the role of judge and in doing so have abandoned trust in God.

There are questions about hell that should be addressed. It should not be a topic that is avoided like the plague. Rob actually asks some of the questions in his chapter on hell. However, he has also assumed his conclusions and then chosen scripture to support this conclusion. Once again, this shows (at least in my eyes) an underlying lack of trust in God.

I trust that whatever happens to me when I die that it will be a perfect display of God’s love and justice. I think that most people who have faith in God could agree with that statement. The great temptation for all of us is to assume that the same will not be true for everyone else. We see the tremendous acts of love in a friend and we have a hard time seeing how God could condemn anything that they do. We see an awful display of sin in someone and have a hard time seeing how God could possibly love such a person. This is because we are not God.

I imagine that this book will sell a lot of copies. If you are interested in reading it, I would recommend going to Barnes and Noble for a couple hours. It really is light material for the most part and an easy read. I hope that it fosters discussion rather than acrimony but I doubt that it will.

No comments: