Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.79 AVERAGE
3.79 AVERAGE
I have not (and probably will not) ever finished a single Rob Bell book. I find his writing atrocious. I tried this one for the simple fact that the topic interested me. I made it through the first chapter. To that end, I seem to agree with what he is saying. I, too, am one of those "sinners" who quit going to church as soon as I left my parents home. I was raised in a church where it was their way or the highway and everything was mandated by politics. Boooooo. That is not the kind of church I want to go to. That is not the kind of church I want my children to go to. Only recently did I start regularly attending a church again after 13 years away. This does not mean I did not believe in God or Jesus, nor does it mean I did not pray. It just means I wanted nothing to do with your cattiness. Yeah, good luck telling my father that. Sinner.
3.5 stars. I prefer hearing Rob Bell in auditory format: podcasts and such. His semi-poetic, too-many-line-breaks style of writing bugs me. Personal preference thing. Couldn’t get into this one much until chapter 6.
First of all, I have no idea what some of the Christian subculture was so upset about. Well, I do, but I can now say with confidence that most of those so upset didn't actually read the book. Bell stops short of actually denying the existence of hell, or stating a belief in universal salvation. His specialty seems to be raising questions, not answering them, which is why I consider him more of a philosopher than a serious theologian.
That said, it would probably be a more satisfying book if he did make some of those claims, or at least come to some conclusion--although that might just be my personality--YMMV. He seems to lead up to those "heretical" points, and then tacks on a concluding chapter that makes no conclusions.
However, I did very much enjoy a large portion of the book. Bell proof-texts like crazy, but again, he's not doing hard theology; he's simply raising questions, looking at things from a new perspective, and sometimes that can be encouraging and freeing. My favorite chapter is probably "The Good News is Better Than That", but it's best to read them all in order.
That said, it would probably be a more satisfying book if he did make some of those claims, or at least come to some conclusion--although that might just be my personality--YMMV. He seems to lead up to those "heretical" points, and then tacks on a concluding chapter that makes no conclusions.
However, I did very much enjoy a large portion of the book. Bell proof-texts like crazy, but again, he's not doing hard theology; he's simply raising questions, looking at things from a new perspective, and sometimes that can be encouraging and freeing. My favorite chapter is probably "The Good News is Better Than That", but it's best to read them all in order.
This book has been on my to-read shelf so long, I don't even remember who recommended it to me. Evidently it was someone who understands my perspective on Christianity pretty well. I wouldn't say the book is fabulously well written - for one thing, even short as it is, it could definitely be shorter. That said, I think many of the points Bell makes are solid.
Not nearly as controversial as it was made out to be. I enjoy Bell's writing style and the fact that he is OK with posing questions he doesn't have the answer to - leaving things hanging uncomfortably. Do I agree with every conclusion drawn in this book? Of course not. That's dangerous. But equally dangerous is to dismiss works simply because someone on the Internet told you it was "dangerous." I recommend reading this book: 1) As an example of how the gatekeepers of Western Christian culture can demonized a book without having read it, and 2) To ask important questions if you faith, to get you dig deeper, to doubt, to ask big questions of yourself and of God (for in that, you'll find your faith stronger, not weaker).
This was one of the first books on theology I read when I lived in the greatest swells of my Jesus-highs, and I was curious to revisit it now that my faith has mellowed. I was delighted to discover that my hunch was correct and that this book is fantastic and while it received much critical reception early on, it’s message is and remains true. It is a very quick and easy read and I would recommend to anyone who has issues with Christianity and the church as they’re presented today.
challenging
emotional
hopeful
informative
reflective
medium-paced
While Rob Bell's writing style can be annoying at times (he writes just like he talks, so it helps if you listen to it instead of read it, if that makes sense.), I devoured the book in one sitting. I find this book to be full of love and truth. I know that there has been controversy about Bell in general, and this book in particular, over the past month, but I believe that controversy to be unfounded.
For what it's worth.
For what it's worth.
I'll admit, I picked this book up mainly because of the controversy surrounding it. Like another book I read recently, [b:The Christian Agnostic|516870|The Christian Agnostic|Leslie D. Weatherhead|http://www.goodreads.com/images/nocover-60x80.jpg|504807], I'm basing my rating of Love Wins on a few different factors. I liked it overall, and I really like that it should cause people to re-examine the things they say they believe. But one of my criticisms is that I found myself too fixated on Rob Bell's writing style, specifically the way he overuses structure and punctuation to emphasize certain points:
He uses short sentences. And fragments.
And often splits phrases
across multiple lines
like he's writing a poem.
Quite often. To drive home
his point.
But maybe you're okay with that.
My other criticism is substantive, and it's that it almost feels like he's holding back. He makes some pretty good points throughout, and several times I got the sense he was opening up this box that contained something profound, but before he completely opened the box, he put it aside and moved on to the next box. And so I get the sense that he's opened these boxes on his own time, and he's only showing us what he thinks people can digest. I could be wrong about that. It's just a feeling I got.
Regarding the controversy, having grown up in fundamentalist-leaning churches, I can certainly see where those churches might find some of the questions posed by Rob Bell controversial. But the controversy, I think, is of their own making and stems from their own mistaken beliefs. Though I can't answer to the charges of historical inaccuracies, I disagree with the critique that his use of scripture is "indefensible". Then again, I would probably find these critics' use of scripture indefensible.
He uses short sentences. And fragments.
And often splits phrases
across multiple lines
like he's writing a poem.
Quite often. To drive home
his point.
But maybe you're okay with that.
My other criticism is substantive, and it's that it almost feels like he's holding back. He makes some pretty good points throughout, and several times I got the sense he was opening up this box that contained something profound, but before he completely opened the box, he put it aside and moved on to the next box. And so I get the sense that he's opened these boxes on his own time, and he's only showing us what he thinks people can digest. I could be wrong about that. It's just a feeling I got.
Regarding the controversy, having grown up in fundamentalist-leaning churches, I can certainly see where those churches might find some of the questions posed by Rob Bell controversial. But the controversy, I think, is of their own making and stems from their own mistaken beliefs. Though I can't answer to the charges of historical inaccuracies, I disagree with the critique that his use of scripture is "indefensible". Then again, I would probably find these critics' use of scripture indefensible.
Having finished this book, I have to wonder if any of the rather vociferous critics of this text have actually read it. Almost all of the damning critiques that I read about this book the few weeks prior to it's release were attacking ideas that never actually appear in the book itself. The book essentially presents the theological concepts that CS Lewis' presents in The Great Divorce using modern-day language and presentation style.
It's a good, and thought-provoking book, but it is not rattling or overturning the foundations of christendom. :)
It's a good, and thought-provoking book, but it is not rattling or overturning the foundations of christendom. :)