Over the past eight months of its inception this blog has re-examined Christianity in its many expressions, both in contemporary culture, as well as in the past eras of church history. It has been a provocative study at times that has shown many popular Christian sentiments to be mis-directional and/or inadequately expressed. Consequently, when Rob Bell's book "Love Wins" was first published there was a heated outcry from Evangelical Christianity's more conservative zealots to seek immediate retribution and retaliation for any perceived doctrinal discrepancies and errors to the(ir) faith.
However, in Roger Olson's latest post, through his student Austin Fischer, we discover (not for the first time) that Evangelicalism's near-and-dear dogmas come under fire again, especially pertaining to Calvinism's doctrinal impasse between the "Sovereignty of God" and the "Election of man in his Depravity" with the more historic positions of "Free Will Theism" and "Prevenient Grace" doctrines more commonly accepted over the past 2000 years of church history.
Consequently, evangelicalism's real reasons for bashing "Love Wins" lies in the fact that it feels threatened in the very heart of its movement's signature interpretations of key biblical doctrines, especially those related to Calvinism. In other words, evangelicalism's whole case for its existence as a modern day Christian movement rises and falls upon its interpretation of whether God needs our help or not to "save" mankind from its sins. Which gets us into the evangelical boundary markers of missions, evangelism, church outreach programs, love, sin, heaven, hell, and so forth, that are near-and-dear dogmas held close to the heart of many Christians. And any restatement of them will be provocative, perhaps contentious, and slowly surrendered, if at all.
And yet, it is the argument of this blog, and from the lips and pens of the many discerning evangelics amongst us, that these very same issues and positional statements MUST be examined, discussed, debated and critiqued lest we miss God altogether in the idols of our man-made religion of dogmas, creeds and systematic statements of confessionalism. And because this task is as much cultural as it is personal, it is not an easy task to undertake. It requires the patient, steady, moderating task of love, prayer and devotion to the people of God who would turn to follow any pretty-voiced "shepherd" calling for alarm, fear, and insurrection (a most curious word to use in light of Peter Rollins latest book of the same name, wouldn't you say?).
Despite all this it is true that we remain critical - but critical both of (i) evangelicalism's more vocal adherents as well as (ii) Rob Bell's looser contentions that he makes in "Love Wins." And yet, give Bell credit for expressing his emotional ire with evangelicalism's modernistic dogmas and more zealot proponents, for the bulk of this web blog has been built to redress those very same issues that Bell has been trying to say to anyone who would listen... something that has taken a newer generation of emergent Christians to finally say and question.... Which is to understand why our brand of Christianity hasn't been more ardently embraced by other religions of the world? Why we have made our version of God as an exclusive, condemning, withdrawn Savior? To ask why postmodernism hasn't been allowed to critique modernism's excesses and pride? And finally, why we have allowed our Christian faith and worship to slip into a wooden experience of religious construction and oversimplified folk religion?
And yet, God is a very patient God with his Church.... For it is this self-same God who raises-up prophetic, discerning, men and women to help lead his people through those difficult times of transition, and out of the dark pathways and dead ends that we have managed to loose ourselves into. Through his Spirit, God continually works to de-construct us - while at the same time re-construct us - into the beings He intends for us to be. How? Partly through the able leadership and guidance of the fellowship of our faith as we examine together the Scriptures with one another. And partly through the hard lessons of life as we turn from our mistakes and errant judgments into His more gracious light of mercy and love.
One of these hard lessons has become the comfortability of our Christian religion as we have fashioned biblical sentiments and statements around our personal beliefs and preferences advocating our preferential cultural views of God. But sometimes it is the contrarian views and seeming anti-biblical statements that we must hear again. That dissettles us. That makes us uncomfortable. That force us to change our beliefs and worship. Because sometimes these contrarian views are true. Are biblical. Are real. Something that we didn't discern earlier in our lives but now require us to significantly modify and adapt to against what we first thought was wrong and unbiblical. This has been the case for Emergent Christianity. It's new. It's unknown. It speaks and acts differently. It seems radical. And it seems unbiblical to our older doctrines of the faith. But when examined more closely, and with less heat and glare, starts to make sense, even helping us over previous faith-hurdles that had brought us confusion without any decent answers or directions.
For God desires that we look behind the curtain of who we are, and where we once were, and to grow up and re-examine again what our life values are, who we are, what we have become, and can become, as He perfects us into the image of His Son Jesus, the Lover of our Souls. So then my friends, take heed of one another. See each brother and sister whom we meet as heaven-sent and not demon-bound. Rejoice in the strength of our fellowship's diversity, its union, its solidarity with the purposes of God Almighty. For the discerning fellowship of the body of Christ has been given for our protection, our guidance, our help. Learn to listen to all its parts and not to just some its more vocal parts.
RE Slater
However, in Roger Olson's latest post, through his student Austin Fischer, we discover (not for the first time) that Evangelicalism's near-and-dear dogmas come under fire again, especially pertaining to Calvinism's doctrinal impasse between the "Sovereignty of God" and the "Election of man in his Depravity" with the more historic positions of "Free Will Theism" and "Prevenient Grace" doctrines more commonly accepted over the past 2000 years of church history.
Consequently, evangelicalism's real reasons for bashing "Love Wins" lies in the fact that it feels threatened in the very heart of its movement's signature interpretations of key biblical doctrines, especially those related to Calvinism. In other words, evangelicalism's whole case for its existence as a modern day Christian movement rises and falls upon its interpretation of whether God needs our help or not to "save" mankind from its sins. Which gets us into the evangelical boundary markers of missions, evangelism, church outreach programs, love, sin, heaven, hell, and so forth, that are near-and-dear dogmas held close to the heart of many Christians. And any restatement of them will be provocative, perhaps contentious, and slowly surrendered, if at all.
And yet, it is the argument of this blog, and from the lips and pens of the many discerning evangelics amongst us, that these very same issues and positional statements MUST be examined, discussed, debated and critiqued lest we miss God altogether in the idols of our man-made religion of dogmas, creeds and systematic statements of confessionalism. And because this task is as much cultural as it is personal, it is not an easy task to undertake. It requires the patient, steady, moderating task of love, prayer and devotion to the people of God who would turn to follow any pretty-voiced "shepherd" calling for alarm, fear, and insurrection (a most curious word to use in light of Peter Rollins latest book of the same name, wouldn't you say?).
Despite all this it is true that we remain critical - but critical both of (i) evangelicalism's more vocal adherents as well as (ii) Rob Bell's looser contentions that he makes in "Love Wins." And yet, give Bell credit for expressing his emotional ire with evangelicalism's modernistic dogmas and more zealot proponents, for the bulk of this web blog has been built to redress those very same issues that Bell has been trying to say to anyone who would listen... something that has taken a newer generation of emergent Christians to finally say and question.... Which is to understand why our brand of Christianity hasn't been more ardently embraced by other religions of the world? Why we have made our version of God as an exclusive, condemning, withdrawn Savior? To ask why postmodernism hasn't been allowed to critique modernism's excesses and pride? And finally, why we have allowed our Christian faith and worship to slip into a wooden experience of religious construction and oversimplified folk religion?
And yet, God is a very patient God with his Church.... For it is this self-same God who raises-up prophetic, discerning, men and women to help lead his people through those difficult times of transition, and out of the dark pathways and dead ends that we have managed to loose ourselves into. Through his Spirit, God continually works to de-construct us - while at the same time re-construct us - into the beings He intends for us to be. How? Partly through the able leadership and guidance of the fellowship of our faith as we examine together the Scriptures with one another. And partly through the hard lessons of life as we turn from our mistakes and errant judgments into His more gracious light of mercy and love.
One of these hard lessons has become the comfortability of our Christian religion as we have fashioned biblical sentiments and statements around our personal beliefs and preferences advocating our preferential cultural views of God. But sometimes it is the contrarian views and seeming anti-biblical statements that we must hear again. That dissettles us. That makes us uncomfortable. That force us to change our beliefs and worship. Because sometimes these contrarian views are true. Are biblical. Are real. Something that we didn't discern earlier in our lives but now require us to significantly modify and adapt to against what we first thought was wrong and unbiblical. This has been the case for Emergent Christianity. It's new. It's unknown. It speaks and acts differently. It seems radical. And it seems unbiblical to our older doctrines of the faith. But when examined more closely, and with less heat and glare, starts to make sense, even helping us over previous faith-hurdles that had brought us confusion without any decent answers or directions.
For God desires that we look behind the curtain of who we are, and where we once were, and to grow up and re-examine again what our life values are, who we are, what we have become, and can become, as He perfects us into the image of His Son Jesus, the Lover of our Souls. So then my friends, take heed of one another. See each brother and sister whom we meet as heaven-sent and not demon-bound. Rejoice in the strength of our fellowship's diversity, its union, its solidarity with the purposes of God Almighty. For the discerning fellowship of the body of Christ has been given for our protection, our guidance, our help. Learn to listen to all its parts and not to just some its more vocal parts.
RE Slater
November 2011
----------------------------------------
More response to Love Wins and the controversy surrounding it
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/10/more-response-to-love-wins-and-the-controversy-surrounding-it/
by Roger Olson
posted October 31, 2011
This is a guest post written by one of my students–Austin Fischer. As you can see, he’s particularly bright (and not just because he agrees with me about most things!) and articulate. I think he makes some very good points about the controversy surrounding Love Wins here. However, just because I post a guest essay here does not mean I agree with everything in it (the standard disclaimer!)
by Roger Olson
posted October 31, 2011
This is a guest post written by one of my students–Austin Fischer. As you can see, he’s particularly bright (and not just because he agrees with me about most things!) and articulate. I think he makes some very good points about the controversy surrounding Love Wins here. However, just because I post a guest essay here does not mean I agree with everything in it (the standard disclaimer!)
----------------------------------------
Love Wins? God Wins?
As has been duly noted at this point, Love Wins has sparked a firestorm in the evangelical world because it has exposed some deep fissures. These fissures have been around as long as evangelicals have but certainly seem to be growing. In a lecture on universalism, Scot McKnight suggested that evangelicals have reacted with such vitriol towards the book because it threatens the very heart of the evangelical ethos, which (according to McKnight) is the belief that people need to be converted. As such, Rob Bell’s flirtation with universalism has threatened the importance of conversion and thus incurred the wrath of evangelicalism.
Yet McKnight’s contention seems to make two questionable assumptions. First, it assumes there is a blanket evangelical rejection of the ideas in Love Wins. Second, it assumes that those evangelicals who are rejecting Love Wins are rejecting it for the same reasons.
Why Can’t We Agree On What Love Wins Is Saying?
The first assumption is problematic on a couple of levels. First off, it seems implausible to say there is a blanket rejection of the ideas in Love Wins because there has been little consensus as to what exactly Love Wins is saying. There is an interesting dynamic at work here, because—to speak candidly—Love WinsLove Wins is saying? How can some people think the book teaches universalism and some think it doesn’t?
The answer is exceedingly simple: we’re not good readers. And the fact that we’re not good readers has nothing to do with inadequate education or IQ. It has everything to do with a growing trend in evangelical (and perhaps wider) culture towards sectarianism and the loss of moderation. Lots could be said here, but suffice [it] to say there are fewer and fewer people trying to be in the center anymore. The center is seen as a weak place, a place lacking conviction, a place where the cowards huddle together and try not to offend anyone.
Not too long ago I was talking with a pastor about being a “moderate” Christian and he rebuked the very existence of such a thing: “When it comes down to it, I don’t think there are any moderates.” Hmm. When I asked him to substantiate the claim, his answer was telling: “Because even moderates are passionate about some things.” Apparently, a moderate is a person who isn’t passionate about anything…except everybody being happy. This moderate caricature is as pervasive as it is inaccurate. And while I don’t care to offer a full-blown definition of what it means to be a Christian moderate, I think it is helpful to say that to be moderate is to be passionately committed to meaningful conversations in pursuit of the truth. To be a moderate means you check the impulse to caricature, distort, talk over, and assume you know what someone else is saying. As such you can be a conservative moderate or a liberal moderate, a Calvinist moderate or an Open Theist moderate. Whatever.
We’re not good readers because we’re not good at being moderate. We don’t really want to listen to opposing ideas and we don’t want a real conversation. We think “we” have the truth and “they” don’t, so why have a conversation? Bluntly, if we find it difficult to have an actual conversation then it’s probably because we’re arrogant and ignorant, [and] not informed.
So why can’t we come to a consensus on what Love Wins is saying? Because we don’t want to hear what it is saying. We just want to use it as a springboard into a monologue about why we’re right.
What Is Love Wins Saying?
This said, what is Love Wins saying? Like I said, it’s simple and really not that much different from what people such as C.S. Lewis, Moltmann, and Hans Urs von Balthasar have said; namely, in the end we can’t say anything too firm about the destiny of human beings other than the fact that God will do what God wants with us. Bell speculates over what God does indeed plan to do with us (i.e. giving us all eternity to allow God to save us…a flirtation with universalism) and that speculation is certainly fair grounds for conversation and criticism. Indeed a moderate would encourage such! But the fact that so few grasp this clear, simple thesis of the book is a sad indictment of the current evangelical climate. Like I said, we’re not good readers.
The second problem with the assumption is that there simply hasn’t been a blanket evangelical rejection of Love Wins. Some evangelicals agree with most, if not all, the book. This leads us to an examination of the second assumption: Are all evangelicals rebuking Love Wins for the same reasons?
Why is Love Wins Rejected?
The second assumption—that all evangelicals are rebuking Love Wins because it questions the need for conversion—is problematic because evangelicals are so diverse. The primary example of this is seen in the variously labeled neo-Puritan/neo-Calvinist branch of evangelicalism, characterized by the theology of Jonathan Edwards (especially as articulated by John Piper), the preaching of Mark Driscoll, Matt Chandler, Francis Chan, Tim Keller, and the influence of Al Mohler and company. To state the obvious, this branch of evangelicalism holds as fundamental numerous beliefs that stand in direct antithesis to any “free-will” branch of evangelicalism. As such, it should come as no surprise that while free-will and Calvinist evangelicals might both rebuke Love Wins, they don’t do it for the same reasons.
My contention is that neo-Calvinist evangelicalism doesn’t rebuke Love Wins because it undermines conversion (I mean what could undermine conversion more than unconditional election!?), but because it doesn’t teach Calvinism. To put it another way, they are not rejecting Love Wins so much as they are rejecting anything that is not Calvinism.
This is blatantly obvious if you’ve read any of the numerous books written in response to Love Wins, many of which are written by neo-Calvinists. Now to be clear, I’m not criticizing them for writing a response. That’s the moderate way! But what they and many others fail to perceive is that most of the ideas they critique in Love Wins are not critiques of universalism but of any sort of free-will theism.
Evangelics are not criticizing universalism
but basic free-will theism.
but basic free-will theism.
God Wins: A Case Study
An excerpt from God Wins by Mark Galli[1]...
[1] I should note that I don’t know Galli’s theological presuppositions. Indeed at points he seems to affirm free-will theism (see his response metaphor on 73-74). To me he appears to be either a confused/inconsistent free-will theist or a confused/inconsistent Calvinist.
...is helpful: “What is assumed in…Love Wins is that the human will is free, autonomous, and able to choose between alternatives. [Love Wins] assumes that the will is not fallen, that it needs no salvation, that it doesn’t even need help” (71).
A number of things jump out. First, where does Love Wins assume that the human will is not fallen and does not need help? This is a massive indictment and if it were true then I would assume all free-will theists would join in the indictment. But where is it? Page number? Nope. See the above section on being bad readers.
A second thing that jumps out is the lack of an acknowledgement of a mediating position; namely, that while the human will is naturally “turned in on itself” with a propensity towards evil, the grace (prevenient) of God heals our fallen will so that we can actually choose for God or against God. This idea—that prevenient grace heals our fallen will to the point that we can indeed make a decision for or against God—is not universalism. It is classical free-will theism, the predominant Christian understanding of the relationship between human will and divine grace for two thousand years (see Against Calvinism by Dr. Roger Olson for substantiation of this claim).
Does God Give Us What We Want?
Related to this is Galli’s critique of Bell’s central assertion in Love Wins: in the end, God gives us what we want. In The Great Divorce, C.S. Lewis suggests that the doors of hell are locked from the inside. That is, those who end up in hell are there because they wanted hell and not because God was keeping them out of heaven. God has forgiven everyone (or made forgiveness possible for everyone) through the cross so that salvation, redemption, and reconciliation are possible for every last person and thing in the cosmos. In my view, all Bell does is pick up this line of thought. It’s not universalism. Lewis was clearly not a Universalist and believed many would indeed choose hell (especially the theologians!). It is, I think, a fair and plausible explanation of what Scripture tells us about God and his purposes for the world.
But according to Galli, the idea that God gives us what we want would be “very bad news” (because he mistakenly dismisses the notion of prevenient grace wherein our wills can be healed so that we can indeed want God), and on top of that it’s "unbiblical." He tries to substantiate his claim by citing all the texts that talk about how we’re slaves to sin, insinuating they prove God doesn’t give us what we want because all we would want is sin. In doing so he makes the glaring mistake of failing to acknowledge the basic free-will explanation of such passages. At the risk of monotony, free-will theism holds that we are indeed enslaved by sin but by God’s grace our will is healed so that we can indeed make a decision for God. In other words, according to free-will theism, God does indeed give us what we want, granting us the grace so that we can make a decision for or against God.
Along these lines, to say that the idea that God gives us what we want is unbiblical is, to a free-will theist, itself unbiblical. I would argue that every single time Scripture admonishes us to repent or perish, to do evil or good, to obey God or disobey, to follow or not to follow Jesus, it is telling us that God gives us what we want. And to put it mildly, there are a lot more verses in the Bible about this than there are about our will being fallen, though both are true and easily reconciled by free-will theism.
Seen in this light, I think God giving us what we want is one of the most foundational and often-revealed truths in the Bible. It doesn’t necessitate some mushy sentimentalism in which God exists to serve our every need and wouldn’t criticize Hitler for beating the Virgin Mary. Nope. It just means that our God’s peculiar way of dealing with his creation is not to give it what it deserves. Rather it is for him to take what we deserve upon himself, up to the cross and down into the grave to ensure that none of us have to get what we deserve. We can get what we deserve if we so choose, but we don’t have to. And God doesn’t do this because he has to. He does it because he wants to, which is the great mystery we call love. Love wins? Yep. God wins? Yep.
Conclusions
So what does Love Wins say? I think it says that in the end the only thing we can be sure of is that God will do whatever he wants with us, and that Jesus and the Bible teach us that what God wants to do with us is let us have what we want. In other words, God lets us choose between heaven and hell. That sounds pretty orthodox to me. Now to be sure, Bell does flirt with universalism, so fire away with criticism at that. But the problem is that lots of the “evangelical” criticism isn’t that Bell teaches universalism: it’s that he doesn’t teach Calvinism.
So if the problem with Love Wins is it teaches that God graciously gives us the chance to choose between heaven and hell, then I think evangelicals should have a problem with those who have a problem with Love Wins. In the end, God does give us what we want. I can’t think of anything more evangelical…or biblical.
- Austin Fischer
An excerpt from God Wins by Mark Galli[1]...
[1] I should note that I don’t know Galli’s theological presuppositions. Indeed at points he seems to affirm free-will theism (see his response metaphor on 73-74). To me he appears to be either a confused/inconsistent free-will theist or a confused/inconsistent Calvinist.
...is helpful: “What is assumed in…Love Wins is that the human will is free, autonomous, and able to choose between alternatives. [Love Wins] assumes that the will is not fallen, that it needs no salvation, that it doesn’t even need help” (71).
A number of things jump out. First, where does Love Wins assume that the human will is not fallen and does not need help? This is a massive indictment and if it were true then I would assume all free-will theists would join in the indictment. But where is it? Page number? Nope. See the above section on being bad readers.
A second thing that jumps out is the lack of an acknowledgement of a mediating position; namely, that while the human will is naturally “turned in on itself” with a propensity towards evil, the grace (prevenient) of God heals our fallen will so that we can actually choose for God or against God. This idea—that prevenient grace heals our fallen will to the point that we can indeed make a decision for or against God—is not universalism. It is classical free-will theism, the predominant Christian understanding of the relationship between human will and divine grace for two thousand years (see Against Calvinism by Dr. Roger Olson for substantiation of this claim).
Does God Give Us What We Want?
Related to this is Galli’s critique of Bell’s central assertion in Love Wins: in the end, God gives us what we want. In The Great Divorce, C.S. Lewis suggests that the doors of hell are locked from the inside. That is, those who end up in hell are there because they wanted hell and not because God was keeping them out of heaven. God has forgiven everyone (or made forgiveness possible for everyone) through the cross so that salvation, redemption, and reconciliation are possible for every last person and thing in the cosmos. In my view, all Bell does is pick up this line of thought. It’s not universalism. Lewis was clearly not a Universalist and believed many would indeed choose hell (especially the theologians!). It is, I think, a fair and plausible explanation of what Scripture tells us about God and his purposes for the world.
But according to Galli, the idea that God gives us what we want would be “very bad news” (because he mistakenly dismisses the notion of prevenient grace wherein our wills can be healed so that we can indeed want God), and on top of that it’s "unbiblical." He tries to substantiate his claim by citing all the texts that talk about how we’re slaves to sin, insinuating they prove God doesn’t give us what we want because all we would want is sin. In doing so he makes the glaring mistake of failing to acknowledge the basic free-will explanation of such passages. At the risk of monotony, free-will theism holds that we are indeed enslaved by sin but by God’s grace our will is healed so that we can indeed make a decision for God. In other words, according to free-will theism, God does indeed give us what we want, granting us the grace so that we can make a decision for or against God.
Along these lines, to say that the idea that God gives us what we want is unbiblical is, to a free-will theist, itself unbiblical. I would argue that every single time Scripture admonishes us to repent or perish, to do evil or good, to obey God or disobey, to follow or not to follow Jesus, it is telling us that God gives us what we want. And to put it mildly, there are a lot more verses in the Bible about this than there are about our will being fallen, though both are true and easily reconciled by free-will theism.
Seen in this light, I think God giving us what we want is one of the most foundational and often-revealed truths in the Bible. It doesn’t necessitate some mushy sentimentalism in which God exists to serve our every need and wouldn’t criticize Hitler for beating the Virgin Mary. Nope. It just means that our God’s peculiar way of dealing with his creation is not to give it what it deserves. Rather it is for him to take what we deserve upon himself, up to the cross and down into the grave to ensure that none of us have to get what we deserve. We can get what we deserve if we so choose, but we don’t have to. And God doesn’t do this because he has to. He does it because he wants to, which is the great mystery we call love. Love wins? Yep. God wins? Yep.
Conclusions
So what does Love Wins say? I think it says that in the end the only thing we can be sure of is that God will do whatever he wants with us, and that Jesus and the Bible teach us that what God wants to do with us is let us have what we want. In other words, God lets us choose between heaven and hell. That sounds pretty orthodox to me. Now to be sure, Bell does flirt with universalism, so fire away with criticism at that. But the problem is that lots of the “evangelical” criticism isn’t that Bell teaches universalism: it’s that he doesn’t teach Calvinism.
So if the problem with Love Wins is it teaches that God graciously gives us the chance to choose between heaven and hell, then I think evangelicals should have a problem with those who have a problem with Love Wins. In the end, God does give us what we want. I can’t think of anything more evangelical…or biblical.
- Austin Fischer
----------------------------------------
Comments
Scot McKnight says:
First, I’m not sure I said there was a blanket evangelical rejection of Bell’s book, but I’d be close to that. There was, then, a widespread rejection of the book. I don’t know how we can prove such things, but that is my perception. A number of letters came to me by associate pastors who told me they were being told to “declare their colors on Rob Bell.”
And of course part of what you are saying depends on what you mean by “evangelicalism,” and I tend to define it more narrowly than most rather than embracingly. For example, it makes no sense to me to say someone is an “evangelical” Catholic; I don’t think Michael Horton wants to be called “evangelical” in the popular sense; I see no reason to call Brian McLaren an evangelical; and I think Rob Bell is pushing the boundaries. (I’ll avoid discussing where I fit on that question.)
I’m willing to live with this ambiguity: what one person calls evangelical another person might not. That means where I see a widespread evangelical rejection you might not see i as widespread.
But it seems you slide into that we don’t know what Bell was saying. True in some ways, but I don’t think it is all that ambiguous what he is arguing.
Second, I haven’t read Mark Galli’s book yet … I saw some of it earlier. So I want to avoid that discussion, but the one thing I observed in the furor after the book came out — on the part of Calvinists — was the absence of what I would call distinctly Calvinist arguments. Galli does bring in the free will stuff, and the libertarian free theory at work in Bell is obvious and pervasive, but I saw none of this in the furor — and I mentioned that very point in the lectures at Truett.
Third, on your point about all disagreeing on the same point. Well, yes and no. I did lay out some responses but said I didn’t think they explained the furor. (Remember I was after why this book got so much heat.) So I don’t think everyone responded on the same grounds. But I do think [Bell's] combination of flirting with universalism and postmortem opportunity cuts the ground out from under evangelicalism’s specific identity-marker: it’s emphasis on a conversion experience in this life. Bell calls that into question, and it is my suggestion why the book drew the heat it did.
On the very last point, well I think you’re fudging: it’s not just that God gives folks what they want, which is somewhat evangelical (but not Calvinistic [re election - skinhead]), but that God continues to offer that in the postmortem condition. That’s enough to create liminality for the existence of evangelicalism.
And of course part of what you are saying depends on what you mean by “evangelicalism,” and I tend to define it more narrowly than most rather than embracingly. For example, it makes no sense to me to say someone is an “evangelical” Catholic; I don’t think Michael Horton wants to be called “evangelical” in the popular sense; I see no reason to call Brian McLaren an evangelical; and I think Rob Bell is pushing the boundaries. (I’ll avoid discussing where I fit on that question.)
I’m willing to live with this ambiguity: what one person calls evangelical another person might not. That means where I see a widespread evangelical rejection you might not see i as widespread.
But it seems you slide into that we don’t know what Bell was saying. True in some ways, but I don’t think it is all that ambiguous what he is arguing.
Second, I haven’t read Mark Galli’s book yet … I saw some of it earlier. So I want to avoid that discussion, but the one thing I observed in the furor after the book came out — on the part of Calvinists — was the absence of what I would call distinctly Calvinist arguments. Galli does bring in the free will stuff, and the libertarian free theory at work in Bell is obvious and pervasive, but I saw none of this in the furor — and I mentioned that very point in the lectures at Truett.
Third, on your point about all disagreeing on the same point. Well, yes and no. I did lay out some responses but said I didn’t think they explained the furor. (Remember I was after why this book got so much heat.) So I don’t think everyone responded on the same grounds. But I do think [Bell's] combination of flirting with universalism and postmortem opportunity cuts the ground out from under evangelicalism’s specific identity-marker: it’s emphasis on a conversion experience in this life. Bell calls that into question, and it is my suggestion why the book drew the heat it did.
On the very last point, well I think you’re fudging: it’s not just that God gives folks what they want, which is somewhat evangelical (but not Calvinistic [re election - skinhead]), but that God continues to offer that in the postmortem condition. That’s enough to create liminality for the existence of evangelicalism.
----------------------------------------
[lim-uh-nal-i-tee] noun Anthropology.
əˈnæl
the transitional period or phase of a rite of passage, during which the participant lacks social status or rank, remains anonymous, shows obedience and humility, and follows prescribed forms of conduct, dress, etc.
----------------------------------------
Additional Observations
McKnight - "That's enough to create liminality for the existence of evangelicalism"
I should like to ask Scot the further meaning of his expression. Does it support or not support evangelicalism's case... my take is that it doesn't support evangelicalism, giving its movement a limited shelf life in the Christian eras to come, even though the statement of "God giving man what he wants" is both true now and after death.
Fishcer - "... the great mystery called love."
Peter Rollins speaks to this point in his book Insurrection wherein he describes love as selfless, sacrificial, creative, ordering. Love is like the void before creation. Without love there is nothing just as without creation there is nothing. Love cannot exist on its own but only in service to others... and in this case, through the Creator-God who chooses to love man, to recreate man through his love, and to be in fellowship with man (and all things that would sustain man).
McKnight - "That's enough to create liminality for the existence of evangelicalism"
I should like to ask Scot the further meaning of his expression. Does it support or not support evangelicalism's case... my take is that it doesn't support evangelicalism, giving its movement a limited shelf life in the Christian eras to come, even though the statement of "God giving man what he wants" is both true now and after death.
----------------------------------------
Fishcer - "... the great mystery called love."
Peter Rollins speaks to this point in his book Insurrection wherein he describes love as selfless, sacrificial, creative, ordering. Love is like the void before creation. Without love there is nothing just as without creation there is nothing. Love cannot exist on its own but only in service to others... and in this case, through the Creator-God who chooses to love man, to recreate man through his love, and to be in fellowship with man (and all things that would sustain man).
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/11/peter-rollins-on-insurrection-of.html.
Here is my loose adaptation of what Peter Rollins is saying:
"The Resurrection plays a key role... because after the death of God-as-an-idol (or product) we then discover God is love. While an idol exists, is sublime, and is meaningful on its own, love is none of these things. Love does not exist in itself but brings all things into existence; love is not sublime, but points to others and calls them sublime; love is not meaningful in its own right, but renders the world meaningful."
- RE Slater
Here is my loose adaptation of what Peter Rollins is saying:
"The Resurrection plays a key role... because after the death of God-as-an-idol (or product) we then discover God is love. While an idol exists, is sublime, and is meaningful on its own, love is none of these things. Love does not exist in itself but brings all things into existence; love is not sublime, but points to others and calls them sublime; love is not meaningful in its own right, but renders the world meaningful."
- RE Slater
Austin,
Good points and a good discussion. I’ll avoid rehearsing what I like and zero in on three observations: