Ö÷²¥´óÐã

As someone who has actually read Bell's book, I can say that Martin Bashir's questions were rather simplistic.

It is clear that 'Love Wins' raises serious questions from the biblical text, and these are issues that are not new. I have rarely seen such issues properly dealt with in the evangelical world. Bell is accused of preaching a false gospel, and distorting the biblical text, but my experience of evangelicalism is that many of those who claim to be 'Bible people' are often nothing of the sort. There are very clear scriptures which link salvation to an active response to and a life of living in the love of God, James 2:13 being a good example concerning whether people have 'shown mercy' or not. 1 Timothy 2:4 is one of the clearest statements in the Bible concerning God's desire for all people to be saved, but that doesn't stop Calvinists ruthlessly twisting it, because it flatly contradicts what they want to see in the Bible.

Bell presents his case in the book concerning the meaning of both the Hebrew and Greek words translated 'eternal' (olam and aion(ios) respectively). Some may not agree with that interpretation, but, in my view, they can hardly accuse him of not attempting to present a legitimate case.

The response to Bell's book really reveals something deeply disturbing about some sections of the Christian Church: a deep-seated rejection of the concept of freedom of speech. It is one thing to disagree with someone, and give your reasons, but it is quite another to dismiss that person's views with the language of inquisition, excommunication, apostasy, heresy and accusations of satanic deception. The fact that there has been such a reaction - even before the book was published - suggests to me that Bell has touched a sore point in the Christian world.

This 'sore point' is well described in something he writes in the book: "...that is the secret deep in the heart of many people, especially Christians: they don't love God. They can't because the God they've been presented with and taught about can't be loved. That God is terrifying and traumatizing and unbearable." (pp. 174-175)

Sadly the 'good news' has become so distorted that it bears no relation to anything that any sane person would associate with the word 'good' - Thank God for people like Bell who are prepared to publicly question these sorts of antics.

What a fantastic interview. I have heard Bell interviewed by others, who clearly did not have the theological understanding to grasp the inconsistencies in his argument, and as such, he sounded cool and confident.

However, in this interview he more than met his match with an interviewer who tore his argument to pieces, and who left Bell, looking every bit as idiotic as the argument he was seeking to promote.

"Bashir seems ready for a fight, and Bell seems bemused by the rhetorical battering."

One has to ask the question as to why Martin Bashir seemed ready for a fight. The issues that Rob Bell has raised in 'Love Wins' cannot be reduced to the sort of simple formulas and sound-bites that are so much part of the Paxmanesque style of political discourse.

I find it troubling that the debate about this book has been reduced to a simple dichotomy: universalism or non-universalism. This is the kind of 'religious' - and almost legalistic - obsession with eschatology that Bell makes a point of cautioning against: heaven and hell are, in a sense, present realities - states of being - as well as, of course, future states.

There is far more in his book than merely eschatology. What about the fundamental nature of the love of God, and indeed, the judgment of God? What about the difficult questions concerning levels of accountability? What about the nature of free will?

Perhaps this is why Bell looked a bit bemused at the aggressiveness of Bashir's questioning. I think I would have done in the same situation. The way he was questioned was reminiscent of Jeremy Paxman grilling politicians, as if Bell had written a political manifesto and was making a pitch for office.

I think, all in all, Rob Bell handled Bashir's inappropriately blunt interview style remarkably well. He certainly didn't come away looking like an idiot, as 'robertrev' has suggested.

Its a pity that today's discussion on Sunday Sequence didn't include a credible evangelical spokesman.

I must confess I'm always suspicious of the approach which implies -'The Bible can't mean what it clearly says, it must mean something else.'

And I don't accept that Jesus was in any way unclear about this issue. (See for example Matthew 7V13 & 14) It isn't clever to complicate simplicity!

"I must confess I'm always suspicious of the approach which implies -'The Bible can't mean what it clearly says, it must mean something else.'"

In other words; where the evidence and the bible differ, the evidence is wrong?

You'd hold the literal reading of a millenia old book over solid, well tested evidence?

'In other words; where the evidence and the bible differ, the evidence is wrong?

You'd hold the literal reading of a millenia old book over solid, well tested evidence?'

*

I think this is a misreading of Pastorphilip's post.

The bible depicts the unremitting punishment for sin in hell, and it takes some amount of shifting to make it say otherwise.

This isn't to say there are no nuances. 'Literal' is thrown about as if the meaning is always apparent but it is unclear, to me at least, what a 'literal reading' of the bible would look like.

Take Christ's depiction of hell; in some places in the gospels He describes it as 'outer darkness' and then in others as 'unquenchable fire'. On a 'literal reading' these two descriptions are contradictory but they are not meant to be taken literally, it is imagery used to convey the awfulness of the literal place.

The stuff about contradictions between the bible and external evidences is a separate issue.

Andrew,

So am I to take what he wrote as literal, or only applying to the context? How can we tell?

Surely, we should assume whatever he writes is -exactly- as phrased and not deviate into any other possible meanings, even if other evidence comes to light?

Or maybe, if he wrote it a couple of thousand years ago, then had it transcripted, translated and edited multiple times since then, we could then, and only then, make the announcement it's a 100% literal meaning.

Surely you can see the irony in your post, given what PastorPhillip said.

Calm down Natman, they're only words and have exactly the same information as random strings of letters.

Hellish, isn't it.

Natman,

I don't know of anyone who argues that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally (eg Jesus said 'I am the Door...the true vine etc), but I think a good principle to follow is...
Where the LITERAL sense
makes GOOD sense
its COMMON sense
not to treat it like NON-sense!

In other words, the meaning of the words should be treated in a straightforward way, unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. (as example above)

But my observation over the years has been that people who are keen to dismiss any literal reading of the text of Scripture take that view because they don't care for what it clearly says! (ie their problem is moral, not intellectual)

'The heart of the problem is the problem of the heart.'
(See Jeremiah 17v9 and 29v13)

Natman

Don't be so obtuse.

** 'Surely, we should assume whatever he writes is -exactly- as phrased and not deviate into any other possible meanings, even if other evidence comes to light?...

Surely you can see the irony in your post, given what PastorPhillip said.' **

Not any more, irony is a non-literal literary device and as you have shown beyond all doubt this goes against that most obvious assumption that whatever is written is exactly as phrased and not to be deviated from even if other evidence comes to light.

Anyhow, I'm off to prune the true vine before bed.

Here's some good fun at Rob Bell's expense:

Andrew -

Shall I now do a parody of the parody?

I must admit that I have quite a hard time understanding why I can only be a 'committed' Christian, walking the narrow way, if I believe that someone like John Lennon is now burning in hell. I'm afraid that I just can't see how the veracity and integrity of the gospel, and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the Saviour of mankind, is dependent on any such belief.

Clearly some people see things differently.

It's funny though. It wasn't the 'John Lennons' of this world that Jesus called 'the sons of hell'! Matthew 23:15. So instead of speculating about the likes of Ghandi and John Lennon, perhaps we should be considering the fate of a rather different group of people.

Say no more...

Gandhi, of course, not Ghandi.

Sheesh.