Language, Leaders and Love

Let me make something clear from the beginning. I have not read Rob Bell's new book. It will not be published on this side of the Atlantic until the end of March. I have not read any of Rob Bell's books and I think I might have seen one Nooma video. So why bother blogging about it?

What intrigues me is not so much the book itself but the nature of the controversy prior to its publication in the US. The internet was (and no doubt still is) full of people commenting on Bell's 'universalism' on the basis of one promotional video. Not only did Bell's opponents feel able to comment on his position without having read the book but so did his supporters. Anyone who has seen the video knows that Bell's position on anything at all was pretty unclear and hardly worth arguing about. Yet despite this the arguments started and some of it got pretty nasty (as online arguments have a way of doing).

The online atmosphere was so heated that by the time a reasoned, thought out (and admittedly overwhelmingly negative) review by someone (Kevin DeYoung) who had actually read the book came out the time for reasonable, respectful, critically engaged discussion had almost passed. And still very few people had even read the book in order to form their arguments!!

I would like to suggest some things that might improve such debates in the future:
1. How about reading the material before commenting on it?
2. How about not putting out vague and unclear promotional material which is only designed to stoke the controversy (and sell more books, of course)?
3. How about learning to listen to each other?
4. How about learning to disagree with someone's arguments without attributing sinister motives or descending to personal abuse?
5. How about saying what you mean and meaning what you say so that people can discuss substantive ideas and not just vague theories or intriguing questions?
6. How about being conscious in our discussions of the pastoral impact of both bad theology and bad behaviour from leaders when publicly discussing theology?

Let me finish by saying that IF Rob Bell is promoting a universalist theology then I strongly disagree with that position and I don't think it can be supported biblically. He has stated in an interview with Martin Bashir that he is not a universalist but doesn't seem to be clear about what he is. There are times when we need to admit mystery into our theological discussion but when it comes to 'heaven, hell and the fate of every person who ever lived' I think we owe it to people to be as clear as we can biblically be.

We must speak the truth and where we believe the truth is being compromised or distorted we must speak out. But we must speak the truth in love. It is this kind of truth-telling that Paul says will build up the body so that we grow up into Christ, our Head. What worries me is that we seem to be able to speak the truth more lovingly to our Islamic or atheistic neighbours than to people who themselves claim to be followers of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps in that way God might receive glory even in our disagreements both love and truth will win the day.

(PS Feel free to disagree with this post. I won't take it personally!!)