http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/2011/March24/2481.html

Satan has no new material, so he just puts it in a new box for a new generation. The difference is that today, evangelicals, who should be the strongest in refuting it, are increasingly biblically illiterate after decades of circus church and man-centered thematic sermons. You can’t beat something with nothing, as the old political slogan goes. And sadly, evangelicals, doctrinally speaking, have nothing with which to address the neo-liberalism coming from emergent leaders.

(Where is a more appropriate place to email you?)

We have been down this road a few times in Christian history. Sometimes the questioner moves outside the faith altogether (atheist “deconversion stories”). But the most likely destination is something like what is already present in the liberal mainline denominations. The first generation truly believes, but pecks away at the edges; the next generation nods the head to faith but begins the large-scale unravelling; the third generation sees the tattered remnants and wonders what the fuss was about.

Mr. Bell’s program is the same one that was undertaken by the English church 50 years ago, and will, if left unchecked, inevitably leave the church in similar wreckage two generations hence. Or maybe he’s already the second generation…

I initially intended to identify with Sarah J. Flashing’s remarks on Love Wins being a hard book to read. Then, the comment took another direction.

It’s an easy book to read. It’s hard to figure out what he’s saying. Most people would say that Pannenberg is hard to read. He is. But, it’s a different thing. Pannenberg is trying hard to say something and be precise in the saying. Whereas with Rob’s book… well, two different people read it and come to completely different interpretations of what it said. And, they can defend those interpretations using quotes from the book.

Very true. While I disagree with both Bell’s…..theology?…..and Calvinism, they’re definitely not the same. I know I could have a direct conversation with a Calvinist about her beliefs, I don’t think I could say the same for Rob Bell, sadly.

Ultimately though, I felt the review was best summed up in these words:

“That God must be this way or that way is a false dilemma and, if permitted to stand, makes vulnerable a host of other doctrines. If God cannot be friend, provider, protector and judge, certainly God would also struggle to be Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Again, this flattened view of God’s nature prevents him from embracing the God who revealed himself in scripture. He is challenged to let scripture speak for itself.”

Rob Bell identifies two possible words, neither of which are the only ones that could be true. I understand Bell’s wanting to step away from a fire & brimstone world, that’s not the only way to do so.

It actually took me a while to connect with the semi-autobiographical aspect of the book. Seeing the viral clip of Martin Bashir grilling Bell put me onto it — even though Bell states the nature of his intended audience at the beginning.

In my initial read-through I thought Bell’s criticisms of the preaching of the evangelical world were over-the-top. I’d still like to believe that is true. But, many people on the Internet have responded to me that these passages ring true for them as a characterization of the Christianity in which they themselves were raised. If this is the case, the intended audience is larger than I had thought!

And, our current controversies over the book are often demonstrating what a growing segment of people already believe about evangelical Christians: intolerant, hypocritical, judgmental, authoritarian, self-righteous, afraid of questions, etc.

(I’d try to find a reason to throw out Karl Barth’s name just for the sheer pleasure of it, but there just doesn’t seem to be a good spot right now.)