A Bridge Too Far, But Not Really That Far

We tend to think of other names in the Rob Bell debate, but I don’t think anyone has written as extensively on Love Wins as Mark Galli from Christianity Today. Galli has written a pre-review, a review, and now a post-review.

Though not as pointed as others, Galli’s review, “Rob Bell’s A Bridge Too Far,” was a tempered, but critical assessment. He begins his concluding paragraph with, “I happen to believe that the center will hold, that orthodoxy will show again that it has the truer and thick grasp of the Bible and life.” Anyone following Galli’s reasoning will likely conclude that Bell has followed a line and has dropped bread crumbs along the way that leads beyond the bounds of Christian orthodoxy.

So when I read Galli’s post-review, “Rob Bell Is Not a Litmus Test,” I was left a little confused. He was worried that some were using Bell as a litmus test for orthodoxy – side with Bell and you side with the heretics. Galli wants to assure his readers that wherever one falls on the Bell debate does not have relevance to one’s orthodoxy. Paul Young’s The Shack is evidence, argues Galli, that books can offer a fresh way to tell the old, old story, but we don’t begrudge authors like Young (or Bell), even though they may offer theologically troubling ideas along the way.

Mark Galli may be asking for a little too much generosity from his readers. I get the sense he’s not all-together happy with the fruit of his critical review. Suddenly he’s found himself outside of the “reasonable” middle and out of the discussion. So Galli has taken the one-person dialectical approach: give one answer and then slightly contradict yourself to further things along.

This may be less of a commentary on Bell and more a commentary on the mind of evangelicalism. For example, Scot McKnight has expressed concerns that this debate has not rightly displayed “how to listen, how to disagree and how to express dismay with one another—before the watching world.” He fears what will happen when the next controversial book comes out. He warns, “If we choose to repeat what happened with Love Wins, we will damage the Body of Christ.” Never mind the damage to the body of Christ if Rob Bell repeats Love Wins.

Somehow it has become honorable to ask the questions that “every evangelical has been whispering about for some years.” But could it be that when evangelicals have whispered these questions, people have opened their Bibles and answered them?

But something must be said about writing in the public sphere. Discussions and debate with the mentality of Want do you think? will never guide us into all truth, as Galli hopes it will. Maybe I’m reading the wrong websites, but truth is rarely found by following comment threads. Galli wants to say there are times when we should call a spade a spade, but apparently books that modify the historic understanding of the Trinity or God’s plan of salvation aren’t the occasions to do so. If these aren’t the right occasions, then I’m afraid the time will never come when we finally say, No more!

Opinion writers must labor to give reasons for their conclusions and then have the stuff to deal with the consequences. Let Krista Tippet ask questions and invite more people to the table, but as evangelical writers, let’s be distinguished by putting our elbows on our desks and our faces over our Bibles and give conclusions that are persuasive and penetrating. And if something is a bridge too far, then for the sake of your readers, stick to your guns and yell, Danger!