Warnock and Bell discuss

It's interesting that right off the bat Bell admits to not 'Googling his name', but then goes on to say that his book is a contribution to his discussion. Certainly, there's a lot of junk out there in the blogosphere, but if he really believed it was a conversation, shouldn't he be willing to at least spend some time reading what others are saying about his writing? Just strikes me as a bit odd.

There are some questions which I don't see brought up in general "Rob Bell" debates, which are important in discussing hell are those regarding:

1) God's agency and its appearance of self-limitation in His creation of free human agents

2) Original sin – that our general worth and culpability must be considered in light of the fact that we people chose to deny God (itself a thing so terrible we are very limited in our speculation regarding it); that none of us are born immediately of God, but rather of our sinful parents, as people (and our metaphors of the courts of human governments and allotted punishments are thereby impoverished and limited). "Liberally minded" persons – whether they believe in a literal Adam and Eve – can also see something of the reality of original sin in the rather unjust world humans have created, and the massive, needless suffering – which resists "correction" and tends to even buckle into chaos with our legislative and military attempts at corrections. Humans are so beautiful in potential, so filthy in actuality, and always an admixture of both of these. Our lot is: that the "innocent" suffer – this is, in a certain sense, simply what we are – we make others suffer.

3) Our current dependence on the order of natural grace, thus our inability to meaningfully speculate about an ability to "change our mind"

4) The limitation of us as human agents in meaningfully speculating about issues of divine agency and natural law – "Is it God actively punishing us, or the sin in us? Or is it some rather automatic 'just desert' which occurs by us not being united with God, when we are no longer enjoying the fruits of life and natural grace accorded by it? Or is it somehow both?"

I don't think "eternal conscious punishment" is a good formulation of hell as it pertains to human beings as we find it in Scripture. I would be much more tentative in allowing for, e.g., annihilationism, though also very critical of anyone commending this to belief in the church. Each of these words reflects an aspect of hell as we find mentions of it in scripture – but I find none that imply that, e.g., the consciousness is eternal. It would be better to simply say: Hell is in some manner eternal; it has in some way to do with punishment (though this might not be a complete descriptor of its essence or purpose); it has to do with conscious punishment (though I don't think we're certain or not whether this punishment is eternal).

One thing is clear: Hell is utterly awful. And we can not recommend that anyone forego the presence of God for eternity. Scripture did not need to tell us, in detail, that e.g. the consciousness is eternal. Just last week, I had a discussion with a young man who unfortunately had been brought up with parents who emphasized hell in a terrifying manner – a manner very unlike Jesus or the apostles. He is still very, very anxious about hell. But he is more worried about annihilationism than he is eternal torment.

Adrian Warnock did very well to point out the verse about the unpassable gulf in the parable about Lazarus and the rich man. Jesus wasn't simply a skilled story-teller; He would not have added that detail about the unpassable gulf just to scare the rich into becoming more aware of the poor. This would make him into those "fire insurance salesmen" type preachers who are so loathed. He was, rather, telling us truthfully something about our condition if we do not turn to Him. Rob Bell's answer that this is simply a kind of embroiderment upon a common first century narrative I found very sloppy. But then again, many reviews, and honest critiques of friends who have read the book have told me that it is hermeneutically very sloppy. The position that some, in hell, at some point decide, "this isn't where I want to be," I find very unlikely given Scripture.

Why is Rob Bell getting slammed?

This is one of the "background" questions – Canon Andrew brings it up – and to be honest I have thought that some in the Anglican world were going a bit too hard on Mr. Bell, though I do think that riding him a bit is quite important.

The media campaign for the book began with a promo video with Rob Bell asking a lot of questions – rather insinuating questions, some of which implied "Straw man" type descriptions of doctrine as it typically has been taught for centuries. I.e., statements which in some way were not what the church had been teaching – but rather unfortunate characterizations thereof.

It became abundantly clear from the combination of: the media campaign, the publisher's short description of the book, and the single chapter released to reviewers that this book would generate a lot of "heat" – that it would inspire itchy fingers to go typey typey type and hit the "submit" button before a lot of healthy analysis had occurred. And lo and behold, this very thing happened to John Piper with his famous "Good bye, Rob Bell" tweet.

John Dyer wrote an excellent analysis of the various conditions present before the launch of the book here.

What emerged was a situation which was far from ideal for fostering dialogue. Instead, the appearance of a "big thing" on the horizon with only sketchy information available for analysis created a situation for lots of rather empty prognostication about who would do what; people began using unhelpful descriptors like "conservative," "liberal," "evangelical" etc. etc.., speaking really more about people's feelings and reactions and sociology than about theological matters.

Yes, some were too hasty in criticizing Bell, and used words which I myself find excessive.

However: Rob Bell himself should have seen this coming. He teaches people how to motivate people with images and words; and his assistant pastor comes from a strong background in advertising; he's written a book about Marshall McLuhan's ideas of the media and their application to Christian internet behavior. So if anyone should have been able to predict this … it's the pastoral staff at Mars Hill.

I am personal friends with a few people who are personal friends of Rob Bell, one of whom is in regular contact as a well-known Christian media person. These friends were very upset at the criticisms of Bell and were definitely in "counter-attack" mode before the book was published. I made abundantly clear, multiple times, that there were many things for Rob Bell to answer here – that one simply doesn't say a lot of dippy and inaccurate things about the church universal's doctrine, inspiring people into a twitter-storm, to sell a book. It's like yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. That at the very least, for the sake of Christian unity, Rob Bell should apologize for how he conducted this media campaign – and that in doing so, he could also show the world his own wisdom and humility (in contradistinction to his critics). This at least would have cooled the atmosphere somewhat of this debate.

Rob Bell's fans had no response for these words other than "well it takes a lot to sell books these days you know" type thing; they too were caught up in the polarized situation, not getting beyond the labels and name-calling. The beautiful opportunity for reconciliation was lost. Rob Bell never admitted the very tacky ploy (even if it may not have been intended or predicted), or the inaccuracies of his leading questions in the video.

Furthermore, it seems the book is rather sloppy and hermeneutically naïve. This simply isn't how theology is debated in a healthy manner. It creates polarity, rather than the more serene atmosphere necessary for contemplation and evaluation of theological theses.

And, as Jake above has noted, one of the main premises of the purpose of this book – "to start a discussion" – is being proven by Rob's behavior as quite false. Or perhaps: "this is the type of discussion that 'liberals' like – we bait the 'conservatives,' select the reactions that sound the 'meanest' for us to quote on television, and completely ignore all substantive reflection and factual content."

Of course, above I am engaging in rather unfair characterization of "liberals" – though I would prefer if "liberals" amongst themselves would be a bit more self-critical, just as we see evangelicals at times being incredibly self-critical regarding poor means of discourse and engaging opponents.

So Rob Bell is coming off as more of a provocateur whose viewpoints aren't worth defending, even by himself. This kind, intelligent man is appearing to me increasingly like a buffoon.

This is a great pity, since Rob Bell is such an enormously talented man. And: because I think the Christian community would do well to discuss these things in a healthy, even-handed manner, without the epithets and hasty generalizations. Unfortunately we have more of a situation where we're likely to engage in this debate with words like "oh you say [some position] so that must make you a [some ideological label."