Rob Bell is someone that conservative evangelicals love to hate. This book got a lot of negative press around the blogosphere, mostly by people that know they can quickly quote an edgy passage to label him something and move on. Bell's is a fascinating story of an evangelical rock star that slowly questioned the tenets of conservatism, whether biblical inerrancy (Velvet Elvis and this book), American nationalism and militarianism (God Wants to Save Christians), eternal conscious torment (Love Wins), or penal substitutionary atonement (The God's Aren't Angry DVD and in this book again). Whenever someone used to hold to such things but now just finds them unconvincing, no matter how nice they are (which one thing I deeply appreciate about Bell is his resolve to take the high road through terrible words against him), those that don't want to hear a critique of their own position or be reminded that there are those that frankly don't find conservative evangelicalism all that thoughtful, Christ-like or even, dare I say, biblical, well, they tend to get really upset and start shouting names. "Heretic" or "liberal" gets thrown around, often with little understanding of what those words historically even mean.
For instance, people have criticized Rob Bell for being a universalist, but that ignores that fact that (1) Bell pulls back from the position since he does believe strongly in free will, and (2) there is orthodox versions of universalism in church history where only one radical form was condemned as heretical. So, it is stuff like that which is being said about him. Frankly it is often deeply ignorant.
I think that is what was going on with this book: people just want to find a way to write him off.
What is this book about? It is a series of reflections about interesting biblical passages, a presentation of the grand sweep of the Bible, and particular reflections on important theological topics like the meaning of predestination or atonement or biblical inspiration.
Bell says this book is intended to get people reading the Bible again. In fact he says that if you read the Bible and find it boring, you are simply not reading the Bible well. Amen!
I think this is a commendable effort. He is trying to get a largely biblically illiterate generation interested in reading the Bible again. Second, perhaps his best points is that we should be reading the Bible not merely "literally" but "literately." That is reading the Bible thoughtfully, asking why was this written down, how what it written, and what literary clues do we see that helps us read it more deeply. In doing so, he endeavors to say that the Bible is not irrelevant or archaic, it is a book that pushes humanity forward.
Most of the book did a great book discussing biblical stories and tough passages in thoughtful and even surprisingly fun ways. Often criticized for being "too dumbed down," Bell's writing style is often so down to earth and fresh, I think it makes his critics jealous. Whether it is understanding the stories of Babel, Jonah, or Noah, Bell is always an engaging writer. Any book that takes an ancient biblical story and shows how it is relevant today is always worth a look.
Where people started to criticize I think was the last chapters of the book, which I share in. His chapters on the meaning of the cross, predestination, inspiration, and the nature of the Word of God were disappointing for me. I get what he was saying, much of which he worked out in earlier stuff, but he just did not say enough here. For instance, when he talks about the death of Christ, he makes a point that, no, God the Father did not need to kill anything, namely his own son, in order to love humanity. That is not what the cross is doing. Even those that hold to penal substitution atonement should say, "amen," to that. But, Bell closes the reflection off way too quick to explain what he meant there. Similarly, when he talks about the nature of the "Word of God," he points out that the Bible regards many things as the word from God. That is true. However, in doing so, he neglects to talk about what does it mean that the Bible is the canonical Word of God, which means the Bible has a regulative and authoritative function for Christians. That is kind of important. His treatment of inspiration was similarly too surface level.
Perhaps that is the bee in my bonnet. As a person that grew up being told the Bible was "inerrant." Then going to Bible college where I found that theology grossly inaccurate to what the Bible taught about its own nature and how Christians for 2000 years have thought about it, I was frustrated. To date, I have probably read in the ball-park of 50 books on the subject of the doctrine of Scripture, all of which I have been ultimately disappointed with. The best book I have read on the nature of Scripture is John Goldingay's, Models of Scripture, if anyone is interested. At any rate, I think I am at the point where I will write my own.
So, with those were key chapters at the end, I disagreed with about 5 chapters total. But, 38/43 chapters is not bad at all. Because of its style, jumping from topic to topic with a broad over-arching theme, each chapter stands on its own. Many of which I absolutely loved. I think anyone reading this book will enjoy how Bell takes the reader through biblical stories.
Would I recommend this book to others? I think I would. It a great converstation starter. I'd preface it by saying that I don't agree with everything, but neither should we, even with the very best of authors.