Lately I have been drawing from a whole host of people I have never done so before. Most notably: Craig Keener and Ben Witherington III. They are fast becoming influences in my life.
Witherington is in the midst of critiquing Rob Bell's Love Wins chapter by chapter; not in a condescending way, but in a way that is gracious, yet firmly set in a deeper understanding of Scripture. He raises dozens of solid points.
One of the best points BW3 has made (imo) is on the issue of Bell's use of selected Church fathers to support his universalistic (I don't even know if that's a real word ?!) theology. It is said much better on his own blog, so for the sake of clarity I'll quote it in full: 

"Again the problem is that he is citing theological speculation of this or that church father, not the settled convictions of the church as revealed in their creeds, councils, confessions. There is a difference. The creeds, councils, and confessions are the result of the body of Christ reasoning together and coming to some consencus on what orthodoxy looks like. They are not isolated shots fired in the dark by one or another church father. I hope no one holds me to every speculative thought I have put into writing at some point.
The point is - neither in the Catholic nor the various Orthodox, nor the various Evangelical traditions has there ever been a statement of faith by any such church suggested in this chapter in this book. Rob wants to suggest that the stream of Orthodoxy is broad and includes those who at some point advocated universalism. This can only be said to be true if you ignore the importance of churches collectively, and sticks with speculating individuals. It can only be said to be true if you ignore the nature of the NT canon. Where did it come from? Did it drop from the sky? No. It was assembled by various Christian groups, and then there was agreement of whole churches in the east, and in the west, and in north Africa in about 367 A.D. that 'these 27 books and no others' are our NT scriptures. This was not decided by Constantine, it was agreed upon and recognized by church synods and councils.
Why am I pointing this out? You wouldn't even have the NT to argue about were there no churches and church decisions, and you had best not ignore what the church writ large has said about the interpretation of the Bible along this way, not just cherry pick this or that church father's momentary entertainment of some idea. In short your theology and soteriology are interconnected with ecclesiology, and you cannot and should not try to decide theological or ethical issues just on the basis of your very selective reading of the Bible or church fathers." (Ben Witheringon III)

I think he makes an excellent point. We have so many today who hold to a 'personal revelation/interpretation' of the Bible who rebel against established teaching. Not to say that this is wrong in itself, but when we rebel against the majority, claiming our subjective interpretation is as valid as the Church's collective interpretation, then we are on shaky ground. Majority consensus may just have arrived at that decision for a reason.

If you want someone to read your latest article or blog, putting "Rob Bell" or "Love Wins" in your title is a good way to do it. To say that there is a lot of interest in that name right now would be understatement of the decade.
I am not a fan of his latest book, nor his theology as a whole, I do however really like some select teachings of his, such as his NOOMA video on being Rich.
We were discussing Bell, and the emerging church at our Bible Study a couple of days ago, and we were relating it all to unity in the Body. Where is the line that is crossed when we decide that we just cannot work with somebody?
Is Rob Bell a Christian? Is he 'saved'? I would say, absolutely. Salvation is about a Savior, and all of our unimpressive theology cannot negate the fact that He assuredly saves those who believe in Him. Do I agree with Bell's theology? Not at all. Would I work in Rob Bell's church? I would have to say 'No'.
And that's where the question comes in. How accommodating can we be in regards to doctrine? I think the theology presented in Love Wins is very damaging to the Body, and while I view Rob Bell as a fellow Christian, I could not in good conscience help promote and propagate that teaching. While a recent statement released by Mars Hill Church said that congregation did not necessarily need to adhere to the theology expressed in Love Wins to remain connected with the church, I still could not attend a church whose leadership advertised such a generous orthodoxy as they do.
The Bible's teachings on unity is undeniable. Rom 15:5-6; 1 Cor 1:10; 2 Cor 13:11; Eph 4:3; Php 1:27; Php 2:2; to name a few.
But when you get into a place where you are questioning foundational doctrines (ie: hell) that have been set firmly for millennia, without giving adequate answers to back up your claims........................then we may do well to question your 'generous orthodoxy'. 
I will say this though, along with a host of others, people like Bell and McLaren have done a great job of exposing things are are wrong with the Church and that need change. I thank them for this. Unlike they however, I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Anyone who has known me the last few years knows how critical of the Church I was. In Cambodia, God really worked on me and gave me such a love for His Bride, His Body, His Church. It really is amazing. And as well-intentioned as these emergents seem to be, I tend to think that rather than the model of the Church needing to be 'changed', 'we' need to be changed. I think a great start is to realize that North America is not a Christian nation, and that the adoption of the 'missional' label would set us in a vision to correspondingly act that way.
I don't have an answer to the question I proposed at the beginning of this post. I kinda hope one of you who read it has more insight than I do in this subject. I long for a Church knit together in unity, but without some sort of orthodox consensus, I don't foresee this ever happening. I guess that is a pitfall of Protestantism. Maybe closer ties to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy would be a good start. 
I am thankful for mercy and grace.

There are two things that are presently really cool to do: blogging, and bashing Rob Bell, and since I already blog.......
Love Wins has generated more anticipation and premature controversy that any Christian book I can think of. After reading it, I expect the controversy to increase; even Mars Hill Church released a statement defending themselves after just two short days! Not that I blame them.
After reading the book I am quite convinced that Rob Bell is not a Universalist, although his orthodoxy is far too generous for me. When we present a Gospel as socially appealing as Bell does, it's hard to see the desire for personal transformation. Why bother, when there will be eternity to decide? But is this being fair to Rob Bell? Is it? Truly? Is it really? Being? Fair? Is this what he's really saying? Am I asking too many questions? Too? Many? Questions? Do all these questions make what I'm trying to say more dramatic and thought-provoking? Annoying? Maybe?
Saying that, he does a great job (actually WAY TOO GOOD) of communicating just how much God loves us. It's shocking that even a topic such as this has boundaries. I remember going to a Bible College that became rightly labeled as teaching "hyper-grace". I found it almost unbelievable that someone could over-emphasize grace, which is ridiculously unfathomable, but sure enough, it happened. In my opinion, Bell does the same thing with God's love for us. Why bother taking it to such an extreme level, when it's over and above what we could imagine anyways? There is no need to transgress the boundaries of God's love. I don't even know if I'm communicating this point accurately?! I doubt it.
Rob Bell is great at asking questions, while refraining from answering them, which is a shame, since those questions aim at shaking the foundations of traditional Christianity.
In saying that, I had multiple (maybe even eternal) issues with the book. Here are a couple of them:
- He seems to present exceptions (ie: heavenly 'presence' experiences which result in salvation, missionaries who reach an unreached tribe to find out they had been worshiping an unknown Jesus all along) as the norm, while ignoring, or demeaning the norm and what it has meant for millions of people who have actually obtained assurance of eternal life in this way.
- He draws lots of attention to stereotypes (ie: the devil being a red guy with a pitchfork) and makes quips about them, seemingly in an attempt to discredit or humiliate traditional Christianity.
- He poses dozens (maybe hundreds) of important questions he doesn't have the intention or capability of answering.
- He presents the case that there will be multiple eternal opportunities for us to become 'saved' after our death.
- He says Jesus is the only way to God. "What he (Jesus) does not say is how, or when, or in what manner the mechanism functions that gets people to God through him" (pg154).
- He does indeed seem to teach a trajectory hermeneutic, as Mark Driscoll has stated. Which is not a huge negative, depending on your preference.

I'll end my little post with a quote from Ben Witherington's blog from yesterday:
"Whatever else one can say about generous orthodoxy, it should not include suggesting that polar opposite views about God are equally orthodox,  nor that contradictory views on key Scriptures  are equally plausible or possible.    Rob once defined orthodoxy as like a trampoline, with some flexibility.     Flexibility yes,  on some things, but still definable and recognizable boundaries, especially when it comes to the issue of soteriology.  Even a trampoline has boundaries and if you fall outside them you get hurt, and so do others who try and follow such an example."


To read a thorough (to say the least!) review of Love Wins by Kevin DeYoung, click -->HERE<--