On Love Wins

I recently acquired my own copy of Rob Bell‘s book, Love Wins, which made quite a splash when it came out. I read it a few years ago, and it may be a while before I read it again, so this is not a book review. Consider it a few observations about the reaction to the book from certain (mostly-right-wing) circles.

Love Wins by Rob Bell

It should be obvious to everyone that a religion that is based on following what Jesus said would have no objection to love winning. As the gospels tell us, “God is Love.” So, why the uproar over this book? I have a few theories.

First, Christianity claims to be based on Jesus, but is actually based on Paul and the letters attributed to him, as well as selected portions of the Hebrew Scriptures as filtered through a variety of theological claims that are (mostly) not found anywhere in the Bible. So, while Jesus is supposed to be the Great Teacher, far too many Christians fail to understand what He said or they discount it in favor of what Paul or their preacher said. “God is Love” and the 2 Great Commandments (love God and love your neighbor, which is everyone including your enemies) get pushed aside for the pursuit of self-righteousness and money. This is nothing new, as it has been going on for centuries, but the awareness of it is why there are always books such as Bell’s that ask questions that make many Christians uncomfortable.

Second, perhaps the people who object to Bell’s book, which is mostly a series of questions, do so because they don’t have any good answers to the questions he raises. While their responses make many declarative statements, they appear to rarely directly answer the questions he poses and, from what I’ve seen, when they do, their answers are often traditional apologetics, which are much more about tradition and doctrine than they are any sort of actual answer, let alone an answer based on the words of Jesus. What I mean by this is that those who attempt to answer the questions he raises do so with statements that, while they may comfort those who already agree with them, are not going to cut it in terms of winning converts to their positions. Of course, this is true of most Christian apologetics, which is why the Emerging Church (of which Bell’s ministry is seen as one example) and other movements continue to be seen.

Third, it occurs to me that what the right wing commentators (and it is overwhelmingly the right wing that objects to Love Wins) are really offended by is that Bell reveals two of their Big Tricks in his book, namely Selection Bias and Leading Questions. It’s obvious from the questions that Bell selects to include that he has a point of view he wants to make sound reasonable and rational. It’s also obvious that the questions he asks are often phrased so as to lead the reader where he wants them to go. The right wing doesn’t like Love Wins because those are their own tricks and they think only their “side” is allowed to use them. Of course, one point made in the book is that sides are irrelevant.

I won’t even get into the issue of those who object to Bell’s book because they find it contains the “heresy” of unitarianism. Being a UU myself, I don’t consider that a heresy at all.

So, what do you think? Have you read Love Wins? Have you read the criticisms of it? If so, chime in with your thoughts in the comments below. Just please remember to be respectful when you do so.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “On Love Wins

    1. I did not phrase it that way. And I’m not really interested in teaching the history of Christianity on this blog. There ARE books written by those who aren’t trying to sell the version of events that promotes their particular group. It does take work to find real historians, but they do exist. And I’m not the first person to say that what we know as Christianity was filtered through Paul and through Constantine, who each changed the meaning of the teachings of Jesus in their own ways.

      As for your other comments, I’ve blocked them from appearing here because I am not opening this blog up to arguments about traditional apologetics or to attacks on universalism.

      I know that I invited comments, but this does not mean I will approve them for publication here when they are so adamantly opposed to the sources and teachings that inform this ministry.

      Nor am I willing to allow comments with links to sites that promote things which I oppose. To allow such links here turns this space into another means for those things to be promoted.

      I have read your comments and I thank you for reminding me why this is a moderated space.

      I suppose you missed my statement in this article that I am a UU, or you did not know that means Unitarian Universalist. While the American association of churches that bears the name of UUA makes a point of being dogma-free, it does have something of a creed which I find far superior to the absurdity called the Apostles Creed. And I’ve long been an actual Universalist and a Unitarian. Over time, I’ve become less of a Unitarian and more of a Universalist. So, your negative comments about universalism just reinforce what I was saying about those who object to Bell’s book.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s