Take a photo of a barcode or cover
horseknickers 's review for:
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.