I’m Offended by Rob Bell’s “Love Wins” and His Palatable Gospel

In Martin Bashir’s MSNBC interview with Rob Bell, he claims that Rob Bell is making the gospel “palpable” “palatable” (= pleasant to taste). Rob Bell defends himself from Bashir’s attacks (yes, attacks). But is Rob Bell presenting a palatable gospel so it’s easier for people to swallow? Isn’t Bell just trying not to offend people?

Then, in an interview in NYC the day before the book’s release, Bell sits down in a public forum with an female interviewer, who is admittedly Jewish. The interviewer says that as a Jewish woman she is offended (and believes her dead relatives would be too) that Rob Bell would suggest that salvation comes through Jesus.

She’s offended.

She’s not happy that Rob Bell is (as Bashir claimed) making the gospel “palatable.” The gospel for her is not palatable because she is offended that Rob Bell would even suggest that it is because of Jesus that people are saved. In this case, the gospel Rob Bell puts forth is not palatable. In fact, it is extremely offensive to this Jewish woman.

Rob Bell rejects exclusivity in the sense that if people don’t believe in Jesus in a particular way they can’t be saved and rejects inclusivity in the sense that everyone is essentially OK and all religions are OK. But then states,

And then there is exclusivity on the other side of inclusivity. This kind insists that Jesus is the way, but holds tightly to the assumption that the all-embracing, saving love of this particular Jesus the Christ will of course include all sorts of unexpected people from across the cultural spectrum…

What Jesus does is declare that he, and he alone, is saving everybody.

And then he leaves the door way, way open. Creating all sorts of possibilities. He is as narrow as himself and as wide as the universe.

He is as exclusive as himself and as inclusive as containing every single particle of creation (p. 78 on NookColor; emphasis mine).

Did you catch that? Did you catch what’s so offensive about that? Do you catch what doesn’t make it palatable? Because Rob Bell is suggesting that Jesus is the only way through which God saves people.

Tell that to your friends from other religions and see if they respond, “Well, that’s great! Thank you, Jesus!” They will more likely respond like the Jewish woman did, “I’m offended that you would suggest that.”

It’s not popular; it’s not palatable. It’s offensive to suggest that Jesus is the only way that God saves people. This is different than what evangelicals have traditionally suggested (the exclusivity that Bell rejects) and what relativists suggest (the inclusivity Bell rejects).

I think this draws us into Bell’s view of Christ’s atonement. What does Rob Bell believe about the atonement? Does he reject the doctrine of the atonement? How does this fit in with his “exclusivity on the other side of inclusivity.” But that will have to wait for another post.

For now, let me just say, we often fail to see about Rob Bell’s book is how offensive it is. Not offensive in the sense that “I’m offended that his theology is wrong,” but offensive to those who are not Christians. We, Christians, don’t see that because we assume somehow that Rob Bell’s hope is to make everyone happy that they will go to heaven when they die, that they can keep living the way they are living, and they can believe whatever they want. The problem is, we fail to see that Rob Bell’s book is completely and utterly offensive when he suggests that “Jesus is the mechanism” through which God saves people.