That the line "You rarely defend things you love" (p27) is in the book should be a punch in the face letting you know that it has serious problems. What do you defend if not the things you love? He says that if you pull a photo out of your wallet that you wouldn't argue the person in the picture's supremacy, that you wouldn't defend it. But who wouldn't defend it if the person's honor was...
more That the line "You rarely defend things you love" (p27) is in the book should be a punch in the face letting you know that it has serious problems. What do you defend if not the things you love? He says that if you pull a photo out of your wallet that you wouldn't argue the person in the picture's supremacy, that you wouldn't defend it. But who wouldn't defend it if the person's honor was threatened? Why have a faith and a God that you don't think supreme and who you aren't ready to inform people that He is the supreme God?
I think it should be a requirement that anybody wanting to make an argument or prove a point should first be forced to pass a class in basic logic. The entire first half of Bell's book thrives on false logic, on implementing equivocation (first with 'faith'(p19) and then with 'believers'(p20)), creating straw men and taking versus out of context (p42) and with false analogies (ie, that Christianity is like a painting) in order to basically trick the reader into thinking what he's saying has some validity.
I went into reading this book without a clue who Rob Bell was or what the book might be about, however by the end of the second chapter I was thoroughly disgusted with the book and had to force myself to continue reading. Bell's theology is completely man-centered and denies really any sovereignty or legitimacy on God's part. He says at one point that "Jesus is God's way of refusing to give up on his dream for the world" (p157) - as if He ever considered giving up, as if He even had a reason to consider giving up. That he's "refusing to give" up implies that something is not going according to God's plan, it implies that something is not in God's control, essentially denying many of the essential qualities of God (namely his omnipotence and omniscience). He says at another point that "The point [of Christianity] is our joy" (p35); our joy may follow out of Christianity, but its not the point, the point is God's glory. Everything exists for God and his glory, not us.
There is little actual meat in Bell's book. He has few real conclusions apart from that the Christian faith needs to be "repainted", that doctrine and theology are "servants" (p25) to men and that men need to mold doctrine and theology to suit their current needs - basically, Christ needs to conform to the current world. He'll go on to deny the authority of scripture and question the trinity (p22).
Of course, its only natural that there is little actual substance to the book. Afterall, if there was substance to it then Bell might have to defend his ideas, but that would make him too 'bricky' - but Paul compares us to bricks (Eph 2:22) being used to build something!
You don't have to really believe any certain doctrine according to Bell, you just have to be willing to live like Jesus and play on the trampoline. Of course nobody defends a trampoline as Bell would assert, but people will defend their home, they will defend a Temple - and it is a house and a Temple that God calls the church, not a trampoline. We are compared to bricks being used to build a Temple, set on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ as the cornerstone (again, Eph2:22) - the Bible describes the church just as the brickworld that Bell rallies against. Then again, I doubt it matters to Bell that we are actually said to be building something with a foundation and a cornerstone (a brick!) - that whole idea to Bell would just be another spring that he can stretch until it goes away, because that's really what the whole idea of "spring" doctrine is about, about stretching it until it conforms to you and makes you feel comfortable so that you can recreate God in your own image. Bell would place the Bible upon a chopping block and cut off anything that anybody might disagree with or that might cause argument, that might cause somebody to have to defend their views.
One final note is his statement of "Hell is full of people God loves, whom Jesus died for." (p146) I suppose typical Armenian thought might be able to agree with this, but really it is nonsense. If Jesus died for them then they are forgiven and their debt is paid. If they are forgiven and their debt paid then they will not be punished as if they weren't forgiven or held to the debt as if it weren't paid, that defeats the whole point. A person cannot say "no, you have not forgiven me", a person cannot say "no, my debt is not paid". If you erase a person from a debt to you, even if they don't accept that you forgave it, you're not going to make them pay anyway - neither is God. If you forgave a person a trespass against you, even if they don't accept it, you still forgave them and aren't going to exact vengeance and justice upon them - neither is God. God created everything, God is in control of everything.
I'd suggest that anybody considering reading this book would be much better off picking up a book with some actual meat to it. If you want to learn and grow as a Christian this isn't the book for you.
hide
Yes (0) 
No (0) 
